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

Now you're moving the goalposts. Your right to run your business in a manner you see fit is no one's business either and is irrelevant to the question I posed.

Again, you're moving the goalposts to duck my question. But you've already agreed that the private lives of your fellow citizens is none of your business -- yet I sense that you still wish to preserve the legal conception of "traditional marriage" through the organs of the state. Curious contradiction?

Again off-topic but NB: I have made no claims of bigotry in this thread.

 

I went to the 1964 World's fair in Flushing Meadows NY. In the Science and Space exhibit we were told we'd all have flying cars by the year 2000 too! Don't believe everything you hear.

 

Gay marriage is an oxymoron.

 

Neither can I. As the Europeans are developing some sanity, the US is getting loopier.

 

this argument is stupid. please stop posting it you just look foolish.

Unless you are a religion you have to follow anti-discrimination laws so........it is your choice.
The Iman has the right to decide who to bless.

i am sorry the government isn't going to support your bigotry anymore and that makes you cry

 

Ha ha, that's certainly true.

 

We signed ratified TREATIES declaring marriage a right.

Gay Marriage is a right if a nation grants it to citizens however Britain did, many UK sovereign members under that didn't. In our nations case it will come down to what the Courts say if the Supreme Court says marriage is a right on grounds it finds its then a right, States have done so to some degree or at the State Court levels thereby making it a civil right. The Federal government IRS and military wisely and so forth are neutral going by State law to determine if they are marriages with benefits as it should be.

But the USA isn't Europe.

 

They call it Khitan.





​

 

I didn't move any goal posts or duck any questions, you thought you painted me into a corner and you didn't. Here I'll post it for you again.

You asked.......

As you can see I answered your question. I said it's not, then offered further explanation for clarity of my position. If you have further questions then ask them, just don't make them up after the fact and say I'm dodging them. I believe your question above was quite specific and unedited.

 

the entire point is that marriage is more than a contract. it is a union that is the basis of our entire civilization and the state has turned it into something of no more importance than a business deal. if society actually did want to alter the terms of this union, then that would be one thing. what we see far too often is the will of the people, that marriage remain a heterosexual union, overturned by the operatives of the state and a run-away campaign instituted by a government backed vocal minority. it has been mandated by the state that we normalize an aberrant behavior and incorporate it into every facet of our society.

now i'm no big fan of marriage and have been known to engage in more than a few forms of aberrant behavior, but even i can see that the use of the violent force of government to redefine normal behavior in favor of any group is wrong and runs contrary to the good of society.

 

No rebuttal and name calling is what looks foolish.

But, by all means post a link to a Muslim Business or Mosque being sued for not providing services to the public or contraception to employees that are Gay. There are approximately 5 million Muslims in the US, surely some must own businesses or have Mosques. Please post a link.

 

but why should any self-respecting moose have to deal with criminals and commit acts of fraud in order to live a normal american life. this is something that should be the right of every creature in the known universe.

 

My bad, it's probably too hot in Los Angeles for most Moose.

 

It's when the citizens in question cease to be law-abiding that it becomes an issue.

And answering this is not equivalent to answering the question of why you think it's anybody else's business what consenting adults do in their private lives? Gay marriage doesn't represent a deadly threat to other people the way loaded guns do.

 

It depends on whether the person is too crazy or stupid to have them, like nine year old girls running around with Uzis, which serves a reverse effect for the intention of the second amendment. It then would no longer serve the purpose for my protection. That is why it is my business.

 

Just another hate the gays thread again.

 

Not in the hands of law abiding citizens, which is the same context as....why you think it's anybody else's business what consenting adults do in their private lives?, only when they come to my business and try to force their beliefs on me, then it becomes my business. As far as the danger aspect, you are far, far more likely to die from a bad piece of under cooked chicken than a gun.

Deaths per 100,000 population:

Accidents (unintentional injuries) 38.4
Salmonella infections 26
Nontransport accidents 25.7
Whooping cough 15
Drug-induced deaths 12.8
Intentional self-harm (suicide) 12.0
Motor Vehicle Accidents 11.8
Alcohol-induced deaths 8.0
Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms 6.1
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms 3.7

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

You are 7 times more likely to die of Salmonella from a bad piece of undercooked chicken than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 6.9 times more likely to die of an untentional accident like slip and fall than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 4 times more likely to die of Whooping Cough than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 3.5 times more likely to die of using drugs than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 3.2 times more likely to die of a Car Accident than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 2.2 times more likely to die of a drinking too much Alcohol than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 1.6 times more likely to die of killing YOURSELF intentionally with a gun than being killed by someone else with a gun.

Motor Vehicle Deaths per 100,000: 10.5

 

that sounds suspiciously speciesist. (that's the latest bias i just made up, so the liberal establishment doesn't have to use up its limited brain power coming up with a new tool.)

 

The premise of your OP is that it is the appropriate role of government to be in the marriage business. When I asked you why you believed this you tried to change the course of the discussion by introducing firearms, not only veering far off-topic, but also appearing to duck my simple question. You then answered it but then went on to essentially contradict yourself by placing numerous unrelated conditions on your position as regards the ability of government to compel a private business to serve a client it wishes to not serve.

So, since you have now stated three times that you do not believe it's anybody's business how consenting adults arrange their personal lives, do you a) believe it is the proper role of government to regulate marriage between consenting adults; and b) believe it is proper for government to stipulate gender as a qualification of said regulation.

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds like you've just made a good argument to get government out of the marriage business.

 

of course government should never have been involved in marriage, but that ship has sailed. the statists needed to assert the power of government and the necessity of a "marriage licence" was the result. the entire thing is the perfect example of how governmental interference is nearly impossible to undo, but it is a cautionary tale that few bother to heed. most would rather believe that such meddling and social engineering is for the good of society, not merely a means of enhancing the power of the ruling elite. instead of learning the obvious lessons, we will continue to choose to be led by the nose by power hungry political animals. we will only realize our folly once all hope of liberty and self-determination is lost. the individual must eventually be lost to the collective before the slow climb out of hell can begin.

 

i may be interfering in your discussion, but i feel it necessary to note that these are merely different faces of the same argument. it is all about improper governmental interference, whether it concerns our natural right to self-protection of the evolution of societal norms. the role of government in a free society is to allow the individual and society in general to perform and evolve at their own chosen pace. it is not to use its violent force (the only force available to government is that of violence) to demand change.

 

Please don't presume to make up the premises of my original post, ask and I'll tell you, but don't make stuff up and attribute it to me. I answered your simple question everything else is made up by you and is of little consequence.

 

You though I was serious?...that's adorable

 

Fair enough. But it is poor form in debate to answer a question with another question. I believe PP was likely trying to make the point you just made -- but I'd rather let him speak for himself.

 

The eyeroll after "50 states trying as fast as they can (sic)" implied your position. If I misstated your position or misattributed, then I am happy to be corrected by you.

So: Is it anyone's business how consenting adults arrange their personal lives in our presumably free country? Why or why no, please. And the follow-up: Is it the proper role of government to involve itself in marriage in our presumable free country? Why or why not?