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

WOW! I can't believe what I'm reading. The progressive Europeans say it's up to member states whether same-sex couples have access to marriage. It's NOT a human right. Zoikes, where did that come from? I wonder how this will affect court decisions in the U.S. regarding same-sex couples access to marriage here in the long run? The Europeans have always been looked at as being enlightened with regards to progressive culture. We'll just need to wait and see how this affects progressive judges here and the decisions they make. Look at the date of the article. Maybe this is the reason there has been the rush to legitimize same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

 

I'm just curious as to why you think it's anybody else's business what consenting adults do in their private lives?

 

One first has to remember that most European nations do not have constitutions comparable to the US. European Nation have constitutions with rights protected...but with huge caveats allowing to deny those rights.

If a member nation does not secure the right of marriage, then securing SSM is not going to happen.

Any European convention and EU ruling on Human Rights is only as good as the laws of their member nations.

 

Why would we give a fig what progressive Europeans say?






​

 

It's arguable whether or not anyone has the "right" to marry.

What is a right is equal protection under law, which is why same-sex marriage is lawful in the US.

 

What business is it of anybody else's what guns or high capacity magazines law abiding citizens own?

 

Well this should make American Conservatives rush to support gay marriage.

After all- don't all of you assume that anything Europe does is bad?

 

The difference between shooting one round at the target or shooting 10 rounds into your instructor's face.

 

How about getting aids from a promiscuous partner?

 

You realize we are in a thread about same sex MARRIAGE right?

So your argument against same sex marriage is that being promiscuous can lead to STI's. . .amazing.

 

I hear all the time how far behind we are with the rest of the world on same sex marriage. They must mean Europe as in many African, Muslim and middle eastern nations being homo sexual will get a person hung or their head chopped off.

 

i'm not sure how many times this has to be said, but gay marriage never was about what consenting adults do in their private lives. it is about the redefining of an ages old institution to suit the aberrant behavior of an infinitesimally small minority and whether any group, large or small, has the right to force that societal change upon the society at large. there are very few who would want to see homosexuality outlawed, though many might see it as distasteful and some may even consider it grounds for eternal damnation (whatever that may entail).

 

Gays can pretend to be married in their private lives all they want Just like I can pretend to be a doctor in my personal private life also just cant be one in public
I don't get to change the definition and qualifications for being a doctor so to call my self and receive the benefits of one

 

I'm surprised because I've read the EU Charter and it seemed to clearly specify protection for the rights of "alternative lifestyles" or something like that. Since there was a separate section for religion, many assumed that this was meant to refer to homosexuals. The EU is clearly cognizant of its own overreaches though and will not try to force gay marriage upon nations that don't want it at this time.

 

What does this have to do with the thread or his post?

 

Since when has entering into any legal contract ever been regarded as a "human right"?

 

It's not. So I ask again, what business is it of yours how consenting adults arrange their personal lives?

 

If your state removes the gender stipulation in its marriage laws, you will not be forced to marry a person of the same gender. Do you understand this? Nothing is forced on you. What IS being forced, however, is a moral position that happens to enjoy popularity.

I have the ideal solution: Get government out of marriage altogether and return the social, cultural, and spiritual institution to the people. What do you think about that?

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you for the analogy but next time please try to compare apples to apples. The reason we don't allow you to practice medicine without a license is because you could harm or kill somebody. Please illustrate the harm that could come from Gary and Fred down the street enjoying legal parity with me and my wife...

 

I had the same suggestion as was chastised thoroughly for it................Something about all those federal perks and how it would destroy families as we know them ..........

That is not what they seek.............

- - - Updated - - -

As long as entering same said contract has been a "civil right"

 

If you have a license to practice medicine you are a doctor.
If you have a marriage license you are married.

And both apply whether you are gay or straight.

 

Big FD

 

Marrying the person one chooses is a RIGHT, marriage may not be a "human" right for ANYONE (including heterosexual marriages), but it is a RIGHT that is protected by the EQUAL RIGHT clause in the Constitution.


By the way, Europe may not recognize it as a "human right," but it is certainly true that MOST European countries have made the decision that gay union (which is the ONLY THING that matters in the European law) is legal.

In fact, ONLY the Soviet block limits marriage or civil unions to opposite sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Europe

Maybe you should move to Russia and kiss Putin's feet? DUH!

 

It is most certainly a constitutional right.

 

That's a good point. I didn't realize that it was only the bigotry of others that prevented me the right to be a doctor. I'm being denied equal protection.

 

Something that the "get the government out of marriage" crowd doesn't understand is that if we take away benefits for married couples, socially liberal bureaucrats will come up with incredibly subtle and convoluted ways to attack the institution of marriage now that it's no longer scheduled to receive benefits. This is in line with the federal push to kill off rural and suburban areas and concentrate people into cities, the EPA's war against wood burning stoves that I discussed in another thread or, on a more mundane but no less sinister level, the movement to get rid of raw nuts in the name of fighting animal-based bacteria so that small farmers can be run out of business and to generally attack people's good health and nutrition.

Retreat on these issues is not an option for social conservatives because people like that one MSNBC host, those who believe that children are community property, will not stop just because you "took government out of marriage" by ending benefits.