Gay marriage is not a 'human right': European ruling torpedoes Coalition stance

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

And restricting gay marriage is not a 'government right'.

Actually, Marriage is a legal status recognized by the corresponding government. The government has every right to define the terms and stipulations regarding that legal status.

However, the government does not have the authority to determine who you can and cannot live with as an adult (or what you do together). Nor does it have the authority to determine how friends and family regard your relationship with that person.

There is another issue posed, though, with that of adoption (another legal affair). A legally illegitimate couple could justifiably be declined adoption privileges within the legal system (so long as there are no stipulations against it).

Originally posted by GonzoSinister
Surley this isnt even somthing that should have found its way to court...

Get an non religous ceremony and get married.. i mean if your gay or straight or as we're on ATS alien and you wanna get hitched then get hitched, its totally up to you and no one else.. these constant argument about if its right or wrong or leagal are just stupid...

Black and white of it... if you love someone marry them... if people dont accept it then thats there problem...

That is exactly the point. The court of rights is hearing this case because the couple in question can get a civil partnership, but their government does not perform same sex marriage. This isn't a religous issue, they aren't complaining that a particular church won't marry them, but their state won't in a registry office, hence it's being referred to as a human rights issue as they are being deprived of the right to marry by the state.

im tired of government dictating whats best for people, its not their place. once people get their heads out of their ass they might be able to see that. if two people love each other they should be able to commit to each other and share the same benefits as any other couple. the whole idea of marriage has turned into a big joke any way, just cuz a man and a women get married doesn't mean they are completely dedicated to each other, a lot of times its for insurance coverage or some other benefit. how many times have you heard about women marrying men for money and vice versa? homo's i think demonstrate commitment and love and dedication more so the hetero's these days.

Originally posted by DIRTYDONKEY
im tired of government dictating whats best for people, its not their place. once people get their heads out of their ass they might be able to see that. if two people love each other they should be able to commit to each other and share the same benefits as any other couple. the whole idea of marriage has turned into a big joke any way, just cuz a man and a women get married doesn't mean they are completely dedicated to each other, a lot of times its for insurance coverage or some other benefit. how many times have you heard about women marrying men for money and vice versa? homo's i think demonstrate commitment and love and dedication more so the hetero's these days.

valid point; how often do you here about adultery ni marriage these days? and yet they claim to be protecting the Sanctity of marriage lol

reply to post by drgrantdiz

valid point; how often do you here about adultery ni marriage these days? and yet they claim to be protecting the Sanctity of marriage lol

It is not the "sanctity of marriage" that people are trying to protect.

It's the sanctity of society, of culture and respected traditions that whether you agree with them or not are more important to society than deviant sexual behavior.

Two homosexuals in love can have a civil union which is the legal equivalent of marriage. The attempts
to change the definition of marriage is just a gross display of selfish, disrespectful desires.

Give an inch and they want a mile.

I personally do not agree with the theory that homosexuality is mostly genetic or people are born that way. I think it may be true for some but not the majority of homosexuals.

I think it is more commonly a personal preference, personal choice that life experiences and environment in which they grew up .

People learn these behaviors by experience and experimentation. They mimic what they see when they are young. Then for what ever their reason they choose their preferences.

I'm sick of hearing gay marriage supporters say that marriage was invented for "human trafficking, sexual slavery, domination of women and all the other reasons they want to use to disrepect the "sanctity of marriage". Then in the same breath they say "we want marriage to be our way".

If you don't like what marriage represents then why are you trying so hard to make it part of your life?

Why isn't a civil union enough for you?

reply to post by SteelToe


I agree with parts of your post, but I have an issue with the following:

Originally posted by SteelToe

 

I personally do not agree with the theory that homosexuality is mostly genetic or people are born that way. I think it may be true for some but not the majority of homosexuals.

I think it is more commonly a personal preference, personal choice that life experiences and environment in which they grew up .

People learn these behaviors by experience and experimentation. They mimic what they see when they are young. Then for what ever their reason they choose their preferences.

If you are not a homosexual, or have only limited knowledge of psychology, genetics, and neurology, then your personal opinion has no value in these matters.

Sexual preference is not selected by the individual. It is influenced mainly by biological factors. Studies have shown that the brains of homosexuals resemble the brains of the opposite sex more than their own sex. So a gay male brain is similar in structure to a heterosexual female brain.

Furthermore, I can testify with my own personal experience that I had no choice in the matter of sexual attraction. I remember having a crush on a male friend in 1st grade, and prior to this I have no recollection of being exposed to any sort of homosexuality. Under pressure from society, I "chose" to attempt to be heterosexual and dated a few girls in high school, but felt no strong attraction toward them. What little attraction I did feel was more like a feeling of comfort than arousal. I gave up on dating girls since I had no real interest. No amount of choice would have changed that.

Your statement "Then for what ever their reason they choose their preferences" looks pretty weak to me. You deny the best existing theory that explains the reasons behind homosexuality (our brains are different), and then you offer no solid reasons as an alternative.

I don't see how any of this is relevent to the issue at hand. Why does nature vs. nurture have any bearing on whether we should be allowed to marry?

I'd be curious to see a list of what the European Union does think are "human rights." The list would probably fit on a 3x5 index card.

Not sure how any one is surprised. Gay unions do not benefit society. I disagree with gay unions myself. It seems the EU has more guts than the United States have.

Gay unions do not ensure the survival of a population. Marriage does.

Gay sexual desires is nothing but lusting after flesh. It has no value.

reply to post by milkyway12


Marriage does not ensure survival either. People are having kids outside of marriage, always have and will continue to do so.

Marriage provides a few perks which are nice to have, to encourage reproduction and take some financial burdens off of parents. People are going to make babies regardless. Furthermore, not all married couples want to have kids.

Gay marriage would benefit society in that we would be able to focus our attention on other, more important things rather than continue bickering over personal feelings of what one word should mean to all people.

reply to post by Glass


Oh , i am sorry. Considering Marriage between a man and a woman is pretty much in every major religion? It ensures survival.

reply to post by aaron2209


No but it does affect the whole point of marriage.

reply to post by deepankarm


I agree with this ruling. Marriage, since the dawn of civilization, has been a sacred bond between a man and a woman with specific goals. Loving another human being is not the only consideration in a marriage. Marriage also is intended to create a family, specifically through the act of a male and female making love to do so. It also serves to promote harmony and cooperation between families and communities.

I have tried so very hard to compromise with gay marriage advocates. I can offer them every single "legal" benefit of marriage, including the option to adopt children or the option to use technology to impregnate a female/female couple. There is only one area where I ask these gay marriage advocates to compromise. I ask them to not call what they want marriage. I am content with them using any form of classification they wish, excluding marriage, to describe their union.

That is unacceptable to the gay marriage advocates. They want their union to be called a marriage and they will accept nothing less. They can be offered every single benefit of a traditional marriage without using the term marriage and they will refuse. They refuse to compromise on this issue and have absolutely no respect for people like myself who believe marriage to be the sacred bond between man and woman that I described earlier.

In short -- the gay marriage advocates bring this misery onto themselves by refusing to compromise an inch and also by not giving a damn about what others believe.

I truly believe that the gay marriage advocates could get 99% of what they want if they would be willing to compromise by defining their union with a term other than marriage. A term that will give them essentially everything that they seek.

Perhaps someone can explain to me why gay marriage advocates are so fanatical about having their union described as a marriage?

(Please keep in mind that I am speaking of my experiences only. However, I have had this debate many, many times over the years and in every single case what I described about the terminology is the deal-breaker that won't be accepted)

If one thing have become quite clear from reading everyones posts, is that the majority of people seem to be quite divided in your opinions and "dug into your camps".

Can I ask this? Why are you all so animate about your respective opinions about whether its right or wrong for gay marriage to be a human right?
Why does everyone care so much that they feel they need to let others know what they believe to be right or wrong? Surely it is up to the individuals themselves, to trust their own hearts and make their own decisions in life..

Cheers

Originally posted by Garfee
Marriage isn't a human right full stop. It's just two people joining their lives together and loving eachother.

That's right. As they say, marriage is a sentence.

reply to post by TH3S33K3R


We have a right to our own opinions, no matter which side they are on.

I still feel marriage ain't what its cracked up to be.

reply to post by TH3S33K3R


That is exactly what our fore fathers feared. A populace can't make its own decision , they don't have the time or the resources to generally do so.

A Direct Democracy was very dangerous. This is why we have a representative democracy or a Democratic Republic.

There are down falls to both kinds of democracy however.

---

A Democratic Republic protects the people from themselves and protects the government from themselves. It represents both government and the people and tries to ensure the balance of both.

---

If you look at the arguments of gay unions , it is nothing but the sole benefit of the person getting married while adding several problems to the whole of a society. If you look at the right for gay unions not to exist , it is for the whole of society , and of course personal beliefs , but those personal beliefs hold real world value , common sense.

Oh, are they really abandoning human rights issues and kissing the backsides of the Brotherhood, the Nazi Islam Extremists who wish to send people back to barbaric harsh ugly things from thousands of years ago.

These people need to be let go off, without their benefits and charged for violating what should be entrenched world wide UN rights of all people!

reply to post by My_Reality

I have tried so very hard to compromise with gay marriage advocates. I can offer them every single "legal" benefit of marriage, including the option to adopt children or the option to use technology to impregnate a female/female couple. There is only one area where I ask these gay marriage advocates to compromise. I ask them to not call what they want marriage. I am content with them using any form of classification they wish, excluding marriage, to describe their union.

Well said

This has been my same experience and I agree 100% with what you have said.

IMO some of the gay marriage advocates behave like disrespectful, spoiled children with a very disturbing sense of self entitlement and lack of self control.

Click here for more information.