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

THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Being a civil right does not, of itself, make marriage a human right. A state that does not license any civil marriages would not be violating anyone's human rights.

Of course, being treated equally under law is a human right.

 

It's not.........unless they come into my business establishment and try to force me to go against my beliefs, then they are making it my business. I'll accept the notion of forcing me to go against my beliefs in the course of my business when the proponents of same sex marriage publicly force Imam's in Mosques to perform same sex marriages, Muslim owned businesses to host the festivities or supply cakes, flowers and such for same sex marriages as often as the do with Christians. Please post a link to any Mosque or Muslim owned business being sued for discrimination against gay couples. Till then Gays are just discriminating against Christians as the claim Christians discriminate against them, making them absolutely no less a bigots than they claim Christians are.

p.s. Thanks PF Member for the idea, I just borrowed the notion.

 

Go back and re-read the OP. "The The European Court of Human Rights reached the decision in the case of a lesbian couple in a civil partnership in France, who complained they would not be allowed to adopt a child as a couple, according to the Daily Mail.

But the judges in Strasbourg said: "The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage."

The Court on Human Rights reached a decision.

 

Unless "they" are the KKK, I doubt it.





​

 

I guess it would if the soft-headed liberal judges seek to emulate the "progressiveness" of their European mentors.

- - - Updated - - -

"The The European Court of Human Rights reached the decision in the case of a lesbian couple in a civil partnership in France, who complained they would not be allowed to adopt a child as a couple, according to the Daily Mail.

But the judges in Strasbourg said: "The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage."

Are they KKK?

 

So marrying a Moose a right under the equal protection clause? It must be as you are painting it with a VERY broad brush.

 

If someone really wants to marry a Moose, why would we want to stop it.

Mooses don't get any tax breaks from being married because they don't work. They also have no constitutional protections because they're not citizens.

HEY!!!! Wait!!!!.......I just stumbled onto the iron clad analogy buster for the marrying a horse argument.

Marrying animals would never be legalized because they don't have social security numbers!

 

If someone advocated a law where "being homo sexual will get a person hung or their head chopped off," I'd check them for a membership card.




​

 

Yes, I'm aware of that decision. I still expect the widespread progress that has already been achieved to be reflected in future decisions that recognize equality as espoused in the declaration. It's just a matter of time.

 

You have to have a social security number to get married?

 

Europe also doesn't see freedom of speech as a human right, you can actually go to jail for expressing certain opinions

 

No, but when you get married, be you a permanent resident, or non resident, you then must be given a social security number.....and you can't give a Moose a social security number, because they have no birth certificate.

 

At the impressive rate that first-world nations with a strong Christian heritage have been recognizing gender-equality in marriage contracts, it's reasonable to expect that eventually, only Islamic nations under sharia law will continue to discriminate.

 

your solution merely highlights the problem. government is in the marriage business and there is no way the two can be extricated from each other. in fact, it is government that turned marriage into a business. it took the bond between two people, the basis of the family unit, and turned that into nothing more than a legal contract. the dissolution of that bond, of that family, has become the mere cancelling of a contract. the responsibility and the gravity of the union have disappeared into the red tape of the state. with that disappearance, the death knell of the family, the basic unit upon which all of society is built, was tolled. now we have the state deciding it has the right to drastically redefine that which it has already done its best to regulate unto destruction.

so now we have the state creating another right. after building this nation on the basis of the state as the protector of the inalienable rights of the people, we have entered the realm of the state as the creator of our rights and "what the state giveth, the state may taketh away". another grand precedent, this certainly isn't the first, for the state as the ultimate arbiter in the life and death of the citizenry. we come closer to that point every day. we give special privileges to protected classes and call them rights. we alter the fabric of our society in order to assuage the hurt feelings of protected classes and we call it honoring the rights of those protected classes. we subdue the rights of some and enhance those of others and we call it equality, the right of every man. we do all this not through societal consensus or the natural altering of the society's consciousness, but through the violent force of the state. as i said before, the precedent is being set. maybe it already has been, i don't know. sooner or later we will come to the inescapable conclusion that our rights do not belong to us, they are the property of the state and merely loaned to us out of political expedience. when we become too much of a nuisance they can be taken away and rolled up in our master's back pocket for later use.

 

So the social security number actually had nothing to do with marriage. That's what I figured. Otherwise, not only are you discriminating against Moose (Meese?) but every non American in the world who doesn't have a social security number. That's some bigotry right there!

 

we've got to do something about this right away. how is a law abiding moose supposed to get work, raise a family and create a better life for himself without the proper identification?

 

Whaddareya?....some kind of PETA activist?

- - - Updated - - -

I know!...right!

Meese are people too!

 

give the democrats long enough and they will be.

 

I still don't see why that's so bad. How does a man or woman marrying a Moose hurt anyone?...except maybe the Moose, who lacks the capacity to benefit from the marriage. The human may benefit emotionally from the marriage if he/she is in love with the Moose, and wants to spend the rest of his/her life with it.

My take on this whole thing is.....(uhh boy, here it comes)

Marriage between ANY two consenting adults should be permitted unless the marriage puts one of the participants into an inferior state.


Plural marriage puts the "inferior"(for lack of a better description) participants into dissproportianate access to the financial and emotional benefits of the marriage.

Marriage of children, animals, and developmentally dissabled participants puts them in an inferior state because their reduced capacity to benefit from the marriage on the same level.

Gay marriage does not put either participants in an inferior state.

 

Since when is a moose a person? And since when is an animal (any animal) able to consent to an union?

Come on. . .many of your arguments are stupid. . .but this time, your argument is ridiculous!

 

The Constitution guarantees the right of freedom of contract. We have allowed the government to co-opt the institution of marriage and turn it into a special kind of contract. There is no reason for this except government paternalism and nanny-statism. Let's get the government out of it and return the institution of marriage to the people.

- - - Updated - - -

When proponents of nanny-statism and government paternalism play the moose card, they've already lost the debate.

- - - Updated - - -

A contract can only be made between consenting adults. Let's steer the discussion back to the realm of reality, shall we?

 

Send 'em to MacAurthr Park in Los Angeles, they can buy what ever phony documents the moose might need.

 

There are 50 countries in Russia and only 11 allow Gay Marriage. I don't know why Americans have this sense of Europe being lefty winger progressive. Majority of the countries have been conservative for a while

 

Chopping heads off is a Muslim thing.

 

so you don't have an argument and you slip right into bigotry....good for you.