Gay marriage is not a human right, according to European ruling

The concept of marriage at that time was not the same concept today. It was slavery. A woman was considered property and had no rights.

 

i guess you're just not going to let this go, no matter how far afield your comments are. no one is proposing we turn back the clock or even attempt to freeze time, so get your head back here into the twenty-first century. in the here and now we find ourselves at the mercy of those who would force social engineering on our society through the use of governmental violence. a simple look back through history gives us enough experience to see that such things are detrimental to the continuity of a society, but still there are those who refuse to learn these lessons and insist on using the power of the state to force radical change. are you really comfortable with such things? would you be comfortable with it if the change were not one of your liking? once such precedents are set and the state is given too firm a grasp on the life of the individual, the damage is done and nearly irreversible.

 

Your entire premise is based on the fact that marriage existed in the past, but the definition of marriage has changed several times. Your entire premise is based on the idea that marriage can never be changed to include gays and others who can't procreate.

 

I would think part of why gay marriage isn't seen as a right by the European Court is that many member states are very Catholic/Orthodox and very conservative.

Eastern Europe compares with many of the more conservative American states on several social views.

When people talk about how liberal Europe is, they usually mean Western or Northern Europe. Southern and Eastern Europe can be more conservative.

 

no, my entire premise is that marriage does indeed change, but at a rate moderated by the changes in our society. as i have said many times already - it is not the change that matters, but the machine that impels that change. the current alteration in the definition of "normality" is driven not simply by societal change, but by the violent force of governmental mandate. this is social engineering foisted off on the public at large by the whims of the few, yet another example of the decimation of the power of the individual by the power of the state.

 

Yeah, you do realize that over 50% of the American people support gay marriage right? I would say that our society is ready to accept gays.

 

to begin with, i have always been leery of stilted polls and skewed questionnaires, but that is neither here nor there. what i have noticed is that, after decades of propaganda and governmental mandates to introduce aberrant behavior as the new normal, even supposedly liberal regions have tried to stave off this forced change. their attempts to moderate this change have been met on every occasion with activist judges denying the right of the citizenry to determine their society's course. what this points to is the ability of the state to invent new rights for the protected minorities of their choosing and determines that the state is the creator of our rights, not merely their protector.

it just occurred to me that i went through all this several pages ago. perhaps it would be best if you leafed back through this thread to find the pertinent posts, as i am growing tired of repeating myself.

 

Closer to 60%.

 

I will always agree that certain psycho sexual disorders can be harmful. But the APA only considers sexual deviance to be a disorder if it causes harm to the participants. Obvi that involving minors is bad, and I can't imagine any real effort getting any traction to legalize that. The point where that slippery slope breaks down is the fact that marriage/sex between animals and minors puts them into an obvious inferior state

 

we exist in a society that continues to sexualize our children to a greater and greater extent, while retarding their maturation by demanding less and less of them. is it really such a stretch to imagine a time in the not too distant future when we decide that they are capable of acting on those impulses, though they are unequipped to deal with the responsibility of those actions?

as for the animals, that's a fight between the likes of peta and anything goes crowd. as we continue to redefine normality by the whims of "protected minorities", the idea of mainstreamed bestiality doesn't seem so far fetched.

 

The issue of marriage being discussed is legal marriage- i.e. marriage as defined and controlled by the state. There is no 'violent force of governmental mandate' to eliminate governmental mandates which prevent gay couples from legally marrying.- it is a change from one governmental mandate to another.

No violent force involved.

 

Apparently to you.

To me- the issue is very clear. Children are presumed by law to be unable to provide consent for sexual activity- one of the reasons for that law is because children are usually are more vulnerable to undue influence by adults. I happen to agree with that.

Animals cannot provide consent at all.

- - - Updated - - -

 

confiscation, imprisonment and execution, all forms of violence, are the forces used most often used by the state. incentive, a non-violent force, is used sparingly and almost exclusively when the state acts as a financial agent. no violent force, eh? some people are so naive.

 

And again- no violent force involved when it comes to changing the law to no longer discriminate against gay couples.

 

Nitroglycerine -- the key ingredient in dynamite -- is also used as heart medication.

 

and again - this was never a matter of discrimination. it is and always was a matter of a tiny group demanding their aberrant behavior be included into an institution in which it had no part and using the force of the state, the violent force of the state, to achieve their goals. we can go round and round on this and never come to any conclusion. you will continue to define everything in the terms of the statist, the collectivist, and i will continue to deny the validity of the statist argument, because that viewpoint leads to the degradation of the individual.

while the society is a collective entity, its health and grasp on liberty are dependent upon the individual. it is a constant battle between the two and the balance is held by the moderating influence of a natural progression. when the force of the state is used to instigate change, that balance is upset and the continuity of the society is endangered. change is not the enemy, forced radical change is.

 

Constitutional rights in the United States ARE violated by not having it... not to put too fine a point on it.

- - - Updated - - -

What's foolish about ensuring the security of our constitutional rights?

 

Then don't stick your penis into an infected person's bodily orifice. Is that your responsibility or the government's?

(Assuming you have a penis... if you are a woman, just turn it around, ahem.)

 

Children can also not form legally-binding contracts. Again, for the same good reasons you illustrated upthread. Viewed in the abstract, we can remove the sexual component altogether and view government marriage strictly as a legal proceeding. Viewed in that context and through the lens of the Constitution, it is absurd that we would allow our government to place an arbitrary stipulation such as gender on a voluntary contractual agreement between consenting adults.

 

Of course it is. Most- if not all- state laws that define marriage as between a man and a women were a direct result of the possibility of Hawaii legalizing gay marriage, and were passed to ensure that homosexuals could not be legally married in those states- it was done to specifically discriminate against homosexuals.

It is and was a matter of the majority using their majority power to discriminate against a minority- which the majority declared the minority could not be part of.

See also Jim Crow laws.

Using the force of the state- which currently denies homosexuals marriage- to end discrimination- in a non-violent matter.

The state is not arresting people, or threatening to arrest people or beating people or whatever else you imagine, in order to change the law to include gay couples in legal marriage.

Oh I am certain we will never agree.

As long as the State is involved in marriage- and legally defines marriage- the State can change who is included in marriage. The Constitution says that Americans are entitled to equal treatment under the law, and to Due Process- and that is specifically to address the potential abuse of the majority to minorities.

 

You'll need to show me where the US Constitution addresses gay marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

How does one identify an infected person prior to the act?

 

This is the 21st century. You dont need a marriage license to do anything in your private life.

 

I would just have a social revolution from the bottom and push for people to not marry favoring a personal civil union contract set-up with the parties involved, and kill marriage but not having people bother and in time the laws will change and court precedents form for various commitment groupings. If say a woman wants three men and four women in her household do a contract to cover that it might end up complex but the government would have no say in this it would be polygamy since no one would marry.

That's what killed Prohibition people just largely ignored it so it made that Constitutional Amendment utterly pointless so repeal was natural.

 

??? Yes it is

Article 12 – Right to marry
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

or the UNs version

Article 16.
•(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
•(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
•(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Only a heterosexual couple can found a family. Anyone can adopt somebody elses family or create one through artificial means.

 

From BC Roman law when homosexual behavior was celebrated

"Mater semper certa est" ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")...

Not because only women could be slaves but because only women became mothers and only men caused them to do so.

Even in ancient Mesopotamia when wives were purchased and were slaves, the cost was refundable if she didnt produce any children. Even if she made an ideal slave.