Ban on Gay Marriage (2 Viewers)

[neo o]

Originally posted by crazyhomo
ummm...what about her comments on the the article? what about how she pointed out the article actually supports a gays right to marriage?

I've got better things to do with my time then reply to every comment eh?

How about you reply to each of my posts in full. Thanks!

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by neo_o
I've got better things to do with my time then reply to every comment eh?

How about you reply to each of my posts in full. Thanks!

so, basically, you just ignore the parts that prove you wrong?

 

[asha_ramirez]

Originally posted by neo_o
I've got better things to do with my time then reply to every comment eh?

How about you reply to each of my posts in full. Thanks!

Maybe you should not bother at all? Considering your replys are void of information anyway.

It's not a personal attack, but if you have been proved wrong, why continue to post irrelivent crap?

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by neo_o
If you can't understand that by GIVING HOMOSEXUALS THE ABILITY TO MARRY we are GIVING homosexuals an additional right "I say you discontinue your participation in this discussion."

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

according to the UN declaration of human rights, homosexuals have the right to marriage. seems in australia they have less rights

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by crazyhomo
according to the UN declaration of human rights, homosexuals have the right to marriage. seems in australia they have less rights

How'd you read that?

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by neo_o
How'd you read that?

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

which part of that specifies that marriage can only be heterosexual? obviously, it was left intentionally vague so as to include homosexual marriage

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by neo_o
If you can't understand that by GIVING HOMOSEXUALS THE ABILITY TO MARRY we are GIVING homosexuals an additional right "I say you discontinue your participation in this discussion."

I love this, priceless crap... You've said this a number of times... It's as though giving homosexuals this 'extra' right would be a bad thing? What reason is there not to give them this 'extra' right? And how is it an 'extra' right given to homosexuals if this 'extra right' would apply to everyone?

I do not understand why giving anyone another human right (or everyone, as this would end up being - if we follow your argument) is a bad thing?
Explain.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by crazyhomo
which part of that specifies that marriage can only be heterosexual? obviously, it was left intentionally vague so as to include homosexual marriage

It doesn't specify sexual orientation at all and therefore doesn't allow or disallow homosexual marriage.

 

[asha_ramirez]

Originally posted by neo_o
If you can't understand that by GIVING HOMOSEXUALS THE ABILITY TO MARRY we are GIVING homosexuals an additional right "I say you discontinue your participation in this discussion."

No by giving homosexuals the 'option' to marry we are giving them the same right that heterosexuals have.

That is the point!

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by 400miles
I love this, priceless crap... You've said this a number of times... It's as though giving homosexuals this 'extra' right would be a bad thing? What reason is there not to give them this 'extra' right? And how is it an 'extra' right given to homosexuals if this 'extra right' would apply to everyone?

I do not understand why giving anyone another human right (or everyone, as this would end up being - if we follow your argument) is a bad thing?
Explain.

I've also said why it would be bad to give homosexuals this additional right plenty of times.

refer to this article, its quicker : http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9533603^32522,00.html

It's an extra right given to homosexuals, a minority group because only they want it. well, duh. It's just like allowing people to marry their siblings, they may want to, it doesn't mean its something society finds tasteful and/or proper. Additionally, if the right is granted to people who have sex with their sister to marry, it doesnt mean everyone will go out and marry their sister.

Additionally, by allowing homosexuals to marry it also makes it easier for homosexuals to adopt - which is another contentious issue.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by asha_ramirez
No by giving homosexuals the 'option' to marry we are giving them the same right that heterosexuals have.

That is the point!

FFS THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHT AS HETEROSEXUALS TO MARRY BECAUSE THEY CAN MARRY JUST LIKE HETEROSEXUALS.

I no longer feel the need to repeat this same thing over and over again, so I will no longer respond to posts about this.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by neo_o
It doesn't specify sexual orientation at all and therefore doesn't allow or disallow homosexual marriage.

no, you're half right. it doesn't disallow homosexual marriage. therefore, homosexual marriage is a right given by the UN. and before you say 'you can't say that because something isn't disallowed that it must be a right', let me point out that by using your logic we could also conclude that it 'doesn't allow or disallow heterosexual marriage', thereby giving gay marriage the exact same amount of weight as straight marriage

 

[asha_ramirez]

Originally posted by neo_o
FFS THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHT AS HETEROSEXUALS TO MARRY BECAUSE THEY CAN MARRY JUST LIKE HETEROSEXUALS.

I no longer feel the need to repeat this same thing over and over again, so I will no longer respond to posts about this.

Ehh, you don't get the point, which is fine. Banging your head against the wall by trying to prove a false statement would be annoying, I agree.

The issue was sexuality and its impact on the marriage law, or rather the impact of the latter on the first. And if you can't see that it is not giving an additional right, rather just giving a RIGHT then that is fine.

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by neo_o
I've also said why it would be bad to give homosexuals this additional right plenty of times.

refer to this article, its quicker : http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9533603^32522,00.html

It's an extra right given to homosexuals, a minority group because only they want it. well, duh. It's just like allowing people to marry their siblings, they may want to, it doesn't mean its something society finds tasteful and/or proper. Additionally, if the right is granted to people who have sex with their sister to marry, it doesnt mean everyone will go out and marry their sister.

Additionally, by allowing homosexuals to marry it also makes it easier for homosexuals to adopt - which is another contentious issue.

Whoa, whoa, whoa neo, hold the phone. I think you're getting mixed up, son. By your argument, allowing gays to marry would be giving them an extra right as they'd have the right not only to marry of the opposite sex but of the same sex as well.
Now feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but if this law was passed then EVERYONE would have the right to marry of the opposite or same sex, whether they choose to or not is another matter.
So, therefore, EVERYONE would receive this right..
Therefore it is NOT a minority group gaining the right.

And I don't agree that marriage of gays makes it easier for them to argue for adoption. That's like saying allowing homosexuals to date at all is making it easier for them to get married. Not true.
And anyway, why shouldn't they be allowed to adopt? Similar argument, like you said. So that's a pretty invalid point.

 

[400miles]

As for not responding to posts about what I just wrote, I'd like to see how you argue it because I think your argument is invalid... so don't run away son, back up what you say.

 

[400miles]

Looks like he's run away for the night, Ladies and Gents.
I'm off to bed, I'll check this some other time and I do hope neo sheds light on this little dilemma. God knows how he will. Looks like we'll just have to wait it out and see what else he pulls out of his ass. We've had examples of necrophelia and incest and comparing them to homosexuals.... sigh.... WHAT NEXT NEO?

 

[asha_ramirez]

Lol yes I think he's done... such a shame.

 

[Rorix]

This isn't a hard point to understand.

Men can marry women.
Women can marry men.
Men can't marry men.
Women can't marry women.

However, some men want to marry men, some women want to marry women, and they have been campeigning for the right to do so.

What these homosexuals want is for additional rights to be granted to everybody for the use by a certain minority.

Now, perhaps you posters can explain how trying to get additional rights for the population, for the use by a minority, isn't granting extra rights.

Because, it seems to me, that when you GIVE EXTRA RIGHTS, you GIVE EXTRA RIGHTS.

But you guys seem to think that as long as you GIVE IT TO EVERYBODY, then you're not actually GIVING. Well, pray tell, what is it then?

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by crazyhomo
if we are going by individual states, then the age of consent for nsw, nt and qld is higher for gays than for heteros

It was amended last year in NSW

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/06/1051987705006.html?oneclick=true

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by crazyhomo
no, you're half right. it doesn't disallow homosexual marriage. therefore, homosexual marriage is a right given by the UN. and before you say 'you can't say that because something isn't disallowed that it must be a right', let me point out that by using your logic we could also conclude that it 'doesn't allow or disallow heterosexual marriage', thereby giving gay marriage the exact same amount of weight as straight marriage

Agreed, but it's basically so open ended that it leaves it up to the states discretion what to specify.

Basically this entire debate rests upon

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

What is the definition of a family? That is what the Howard Government is trying to redefine, and it seems perfectly above board according to this.

"natural" is also an interesting word, but you can think of that what you will.