So will John Boehner block the vote on ENDA?

it won't pass in the House because many people agree with me.

gays, lesbians, and bi-sexuals, deserve workplace protection.

transgenders and transvestites? nope.

as a businessman, I have a right to say what my employees should and should not wear while working for me.

as a businessman, I have a right to set a dress code for my customers.

transegender and transvestites have the right to dress how ever they like..........on their own time.

 

Right there in black and white.

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.

 

How does this contradict anything he said? No limitation in that statement

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody is talking about sex

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. No limitation to opposite sex couples

 

the minute you bring "homosexual" into the discussion it absolutely brings the sexual act into the discussion. Being homosexual makes you no different than anyone else other than how you have sex. A little honesty would be nice and to come out and state that yes, a protected status is desired for those who choose to have homosexual sex.

 

Nope. Nobody is talking about sex.

 

You know it is possible to be homosexual and heterosexual and not have sex, right? As tiny a fraction as they are now, some couples still wait until marriage to have sex. But that doesn't mean they don't identify as heterosexual or homosexual.

 

???What he said was "False", in response to my assertion that
"Only marriage between men and women is a human right".
The fact that "Only marriage between "men and women" is a human right", does not impose a "limitation" upon marriage to men and women. I saw a guy marry his horse once, but there is no human right of men and horses to marry, only marriage for "men and women" is a human right because only "men and women" joining together to provide and care for their children is "the natural and fundamental group unit of society"

 

But the charter you listed does not say opposite sex marriage. It makes no mention on who can marry who. So of course his statement was not false, your post didn't contradict a thing he said

 

What about the fat people? Or the ugly? The short? The non assertive? Those with freckles? The promiscuous? The adulterous? What is it about ones sexual attraction that warrants this preferential treatment?

 

Neither did my statement. It only states that marriage for "men and women" IS A HUMAN RIGHT. Doesn't say a man cant marry his horse either.

 

For now. And your views do not define or restrict the future.

People and this world (in general) change, even a lot at times. That is reality.

 

how about one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for ALL

 

Sure it does. It says men and women. No mention of animals. So your post in no way contradicts his

 

That's because marriage to animans isn't a human right. Only "men and women" have a human right to marriage.

 

Right. Same sex marriage is covered.

 

Now that... is just plain STUPID to say. (So unreasonable.)

It's not the sex ACT which determines one's sexual-orientation. If that were true, I'd be "straight". But I'm pretty sure that when a beautiful woman can make all those "moves" that work on virtually any heterosexual guy to get them aroused, but you remain limp as 'cooked' spaghetti when it's tried on yourself... that's "homosexual". And that would be me.

I have gone very LONG periods of time without sex, but knew what I WANTED without even thinking about it. I know when a woman is 'beautiful'... but I know that sex with them isn't what interests me. That's because I'm a "homosexual" (go figure).

 

[/quote]
1. I do not believe the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be the most accurate description of what human rights actually are.
2. Article 16 does not restrict marriage to men and women. The UDHR was never intended to grant rights to groups or pairs.

On this basis one can only arrive at a valid argument that “men and women” simply means men can marry and women can marry. Or, to be more precise, an individual has the right to enter into marriage. The Declaration makes no stipulation on this being with the opposite member of sex.
3. The declaration is simply a law, and can be changed. Human rights are above the law, so even if Article 16 limited marriage to a man and a woman, marriage between members of the same sex would still be a human right. Article 16 would simply violate it.

 

We signed and the Congress approved the UN declaration of Human rights, making them our own.

It isn't written to exclude anybody and instead merely limits the status of Human right to marriage between "men and women"

What nonsense. Words have meaning.

 

Sounds like performance anxiety.

 

It's not our fault if the words incorrectly express the purported intention.

If it meant to say that only men have the right to marry women and vice-versa, it should be stated clearly. If we're getting technical with language it simply states that men and woman both have to the right to marry.

 

Read it again.
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.

In contrast to

Article 1.
•All human beings ....

Article 2.
•Everyone is entitled.....

Article 3.
•Everyone has the right ....

Article 4.
•No one shall be....

Article 5.
•No one shall be.....

Article 6.
• Everyone has the right....

Article 7.
• All are equal before the law....

Article 8.
• Everyone has the right .....

Article 9.
• No one shall....

Article 10.
• Everyone is entitled ....

Article 11.
• (1) Everyone charged....
• (2) No one shall be .....

Article 12.
• No one shall be....

Article 13.
• (1) Everyone has .....
• (2) Everyone has ....

Article 14.
• (1) Everyone has ....

Article 15.
• (1) Everyone has.....
• (2) No one shall .......

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....

No, the human right of marriage is limited to "MEN AND WOMEN" like it says.

 

You'd be wrong about that (as you so often are anyway).

Even so, it is interesting to note that some people don't realize that homosexual people are... well... "homosexual". We aren't humans on-hold, waiting to 'blossom' into straight people.

And that's the only reason I went there in the first place.

 

It doesn't however say that "men and woman have the right to marry ONE ANOTHER/EACHOTHER", it simply says that anyone who is male or female can marry. No matter how you spin it no definition of marriage is anywhere to be found.

Indeed there is a contrast to the previous articles, and I'm not stupid - I know the intention is as you say, I'm just saying that the language is ambiguous as written.

 

Revealing the mental gymnastics you perform to make sense of your perception of the world.

 

No. It was approved as a declaration, not a treaty. We are in no way bound by it, hence why so many of its declarations of rights (such as the minimum standard of living requirements which include free healthcare) are not the law in the United States. EVEN IF it were the law, my point (3) still applies (is that why you explicitly ignored it?)
"3. The declaration is simply a law, and can be changed. Human rights are above the law, so even if Article 16 limited marriage to a man and a woman, marriage between members of the same sex would still be a human right. Article 16 would simply violate it."

That is an inference you are making. Nowhere does it say men and women must marry the opposite sex. It says they have "a right to marry." That means it is ambiguous, and can only be interpreted within the context of the rest of the document--which nowhere suggests an exclusion of rights to only certain people.

Exactly. The words that would suggest the UDHR is limited to heterosexual marriage do not exist within it.