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

Well, neither is straight marriage. So it's not like they are just picking on gays. Legally recognized marriage is something states can and should decide for themselves.

If the US outlawed all legally recognized marriage, would they be oppressing anyone? You can still get married in a church, right?

 

And I stated that preventing closely-related individuals from marrying does not prevent them from "doing it." To which you replied "I said marry... you said bang." However, obviously implied in your position is sexual intercourse between closely-related individuals. So are you just exercising pedantics or did you actually have a point you were trying to make regarding same-sex marriage?

 

Basic English here. It's not saying what you keep claiming it does. It is not gender specific.

 

Still touting The Law According to Rahl, eh? This reminds me of that movie, The World According to Garp.

 

Nonsense. Look at the language used in the charter.

Section I – Rights and freedoms
Article 2 – Right to life
1. Everyone's right to life …….No one shall be deprived……..
Article 3 – Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to
Article 4 – Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
1. No one shall be……...
2. No one shall be…….
Article 5 – Right to liberty and security
1. Everyone has the right…….. No one shall be deprived ……..
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be …….
3. Everyone arrested or detained …..
4. Everyone who is ……….
5. Everyone who has ………
Article 6 – Right to a fair trial
1. …….everyone is entitled …….
2. Everyone charged ……….
3. Everyone charged …….
Article 7 – No punishment without law
1. No one shall
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the………..
Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right .....
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has .....
Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association
1. Everyone has .....

NO, "Men and Women"

Article 12 – Right to marry

Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family......


Men and women IS gender specific. Otherwise they would have instead said EVERYONE "of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family".
Basic English here.

 

Aaaaaand again, no one claims that it will prevent them from "doing it". Let go of the strawman if you can. And thats why 49 states also make it a crime to do it.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes it is. In black and white.

Article 12 – Right to marry

Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family......

 

So you have difficulty with basic English too?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I get it. You can't comprehend basic English. No mention of men ONLY marrying women. It isn't gender specific. Men and women is all inclusive.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I get it. You can't comprehend basic English. No mention of men ONLY marrying women. It isn't gender specific. Men and women is all inclusive.

- - - Updated - - -

Aaaaaaaaand, not one word about men ONLY marrying women. It isn't gender specific. It's all inclusive.

 

Which part says they have to marry a different gender?

 

Men AND women as opposed to men or women. Or "EVERYONE" like in every other article of the charter. And the fact that only men and women become husbands and wives, fathers and mothers to their children. "To found a family"

 

So Men don't have a right to get married.

And women don't have a right to get married.

Only Men and women have a right to get married? Plural?

So only groups of 4 or men and women have a right to get married?

- - - Updated - - -

Men and women is age specific.

Unlike 'everyone' and no one.

I suppose they could have said 'every adult' but Men and Women says that too.

 

"of marriageable age" is age specific and it includes both adults and children.

 

Why is the "or" relevant? The text of the article is not actually saying what you are claiming it is saying. Saying men "and" women are entitled to marry is just saying that gender is nor a reason to restrict marriage.

If they really intended it the way you claim, why were they not more specific? Why did they not say "all straight people"?

That is incorrect. It is possible to father children even if you are a gay couple. Just not with each other. Gay couples can still be husbands and wives.

If a straight couple gets in-vitro fertilization from a donor, does that mean they are not "really" the parents of the offspring?

 

So men includes children- if they are of marriageable age? How very flexible of you.

And to repeat:

So Men don't have a right to get married.

And women don't have a right to get married.

Only Men and women have a right to get married? Plural?

So only groups of 4 or more men and women have a right to get married?

 

???? Because government and the law has no concern if the parties are "straight" or gay. Thats just the strawman these courts are creating. And they were more specific. 13 references to "Everyone" in the 11 articles that preceed this article 12 on marriage. They didnt say "Everyone" "of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family" and were instead very specific to state that
"Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family......".
Husbands and wives doesnt mean a husband and a husband, or a wife and a wife just as "Men and women" doesnt mean men or women.

I said they cant become fathers and mothers to their children. Involving a third person isnt the married couple doing so.
ANY two people can adopt or use artificial means to become parents. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay that could justify such preferential treatment when it comes to adopting or creating kids through artificial means.

 

Men DO have a right to marry. Women DO have a right to marry.

 

Ironic, huh? The Right who usually dismisses Europe as "left-wing socialist trash"....will grasp onto anything to help prop up their antipathy to gays...

and their hope that they can still "stem the tide" and stop gay marriage from becoming legal in the US in the next few years.

- - - Updated - - -

dixon is one of those opponents to gay marriage who say "It's not discrimination...a gay man can marry any WOMAN he wants...same as a straight man."

Which is like the old Henry Ford line "You can have the Model A in any color you want...as long as it's black."

 

Marriage in general shouldn't be a human right.

 

But, by your logic, not A man and A woman.

 

But it says "Men and Women have a right to marry"- Not that men have a right or marry- or that women have a right to marry.

You keep insisting that "Men and Women" must mean that marriage is a right only for a man and a woman to marry each other- which in turn would mean that men don't have a right to marry, and women don't have a right to marry- only "men and women" together have a right to marry- which means you don't believe that marriage is a right of the individual.

And of course you still haven't addressed

Only Men and women have a right to get married? Plural?

So only groups of 4 or more men and women have a right to get married?

 

Now you are just being silly. Tortured logic is a mainstay of the gay rights movement.

 

That would be YOUR tortured logic. Not I or the EU.

 

Gorn is using quotation marks which means he is making up the stuff between them. Its not discrimination against a "gay man" because the prohibition applies equally if he is straight. Whether he is gay or not makes no difference.

 

European convention on human rights also includes a right to equal protection. The convention only specifically names "sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status", but "other status" has been ruled to include sexual orientation. Limiting marriage to men and women simply isn't discrimination against gays.

 

No- I am just pointing out how silly your argument is.

I would say tortured logic is a mainstay of the anti-gay activists- but that tortured logic is all yours.

 

I guess, but when you say "we should look to the French for leadership" ... you know you're in trouble.





​