EPTGoogle Announces Campaign to Legalize Gay Marriage - Page 14
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
| ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 08 2012 22:57 ahappystar wrote: I understand where you are coming from at the end of the day both sides are talking to brick walls, isn't there another way to go about this instead of the same threads over and over again? Wouldn't it be a bit more productive? Yes. The reason this type of discussion surfaces over and over again, is because some seem to think that being gay is a disease (or similar) and therefore spark discussions that go way above and beyond any sensibility. Welcome to TL (and the internet...-.-) | ||
|
Legate
46 Posts
Is neither a slippery slope argument nor an opinion. Its a fact. If you dont agree with them, or if you think they dont know anything about human rights(which would be pretty odd despite their name) then blame them not me. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
All your sentence implies is that, by law, gays can't get married; only partake in civil union: Therefore gay marriage is not a right in that country; only the civil union. This is where the terms "human rights" and "civil rights" may cause confusion. This is what the court ruled. On July 08 2012 23:01 Legate wrote: "The european court of human rights says that gay marriage is not a human right" Is neither a slippery slope argument nor an opinion. Its a fact. If you dont agree with them, or if you think they dont know anything about human rights(which would be pretty odd despite their name) then blame them not me. Until law is changed so that gay marriage is legal (and not civil unions with certain restrictions to adoption and what not), gay marriage will not be a "human/civil right". Once law is changed, subsequent rulings must follow the new law. This is the job of the court... Nothing more. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 08 2012 23:01 Legate wrote: "The european court of human rights says that gay marriage is not a human right" Is neither a slippery slope argument nor an opinion. Its a fact. And why would that in any way change anything? Does something suddenly become the truth after an European Court ruling? Because I think they fucked up. On July 08 2012 23:01 Legate wrote: If you dont agree with them, or if you think they dont know anything about human rights(which would be pretty odd despite their name) then blame them not me. Do you often say that an organization must be right because of their name? | ||
|
munchmunch
Canada789 Posts
On July 08 2012 22:52 ahappystar wrote: The fact that you continue to think that this discussion is all about you and your emotions, honestly says all we need to know about you. This is such a non-issue, how do I explain this... A little girl asks me for a lollypop. Instead of think about how much money this lollypop costs or if it is bad for her I say 'fuck it, here's your lollypop' because it's just a lollypop, no need to make an issue about a lollypop. I am, but then again no need to shove the problems of my country down everybody's throats and make stupid threads on teamliquid now is there?^^ Ohhh I see what you did there, you think when I was talking about self-centered know-it-alls quasi-intelectuals I was talking about you? Well thank you for saying you will stop, even if it was a bit sarcastic, thats the first step ^^ | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On July 08 2012 18:42 hypercube wrote: It's a little sad that the most effective way to fight for human right is through multinational corporations. I don't like what that says about the state of democracy in the World. Private enterprises create more wealth and general wellbeing than governments, its a step in a right direction when they start protecting our rights aswell :p (instead of fighting against them, which they do a lot too). Plus, who do you think is most trustable, the boards of google or microsoft or the US parliament? (not to mention stuff like the greek parlament :p) The notion that people in the government work in the interest of common wealth is false. Goverments are a bunch of people working on their self interest (like private enterprises), but forced by rules to produce outcomes that satisfy well being of people. That doesn't usually work though, they are always looking for loops and ways to change rules. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On July 08 2012 23:01 Legate wrote: "The european court of human rights says that gay marriage is not a human right" Is neither a slippery slope argument nor an opinion. Its a fact. If you dont agree with them, or if you think they dont know anything about human rights(which would be pretty odd despite their name) then blame them not me. Civil right, not a human right. It's more similar to voting. It has to do with people's relationship to their government, rather than themselves as individuals, like Life, Liberty, and Property. So yes, marriage is a civil right. It makes it a civil rights issue. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 08 2012 22:30 ahappystar wrote: why aren't you spending more time on the economic problems of your country. I am, but then again no need to shove the problems of my country down everybody's throats and make stupid threads on teamliquid now is there?^^ Great, I am too. Just like me, you can't imply that because there's one issue, there can't be any other issue on my mind. That was my point. As for economics getting TL attention or not; they do. Alot. Maybe not Serbian economics... But I wouldn't mind reading about some serbian economical issues every now and then. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 08 2012 23:07 DoubleReed wrote: Civil right, not a human right. It's more similar to voting. It has to do with people's relationship to their government, rather than themselves as individuals, like Life, Liberty, and Property. So yes, marriage is a civil right. It makes it a civil rights issue. Depends. http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/legislation_policies/submission_marriage-eng.aspx They can't be wrong because they're the Canadian human rights commission. =) | ||
|
peacenl
550 Posts
On July 08 2012 23:01 Legate wrote: "The european court of human rights says that gay marriage is not a human right" Is neither a slippery slope argument nor an opinion. Its a fact. If you dont agree with them, or if you think they dont know anything about human rights(which would be pretty odd despite their name) then blame them not me. European churches and their official members can reject to perform gay marriages (this is what your statement encompasses, you are talking about human rights in the context of civil rights), meaning that it's voluntary, this is also a form of libertarianism. However, that being said, it's not that hard to find a willing member of church to wed same sex people. And of course then there are always those that don't care about the church and just wed for the law, and this is allowed in many European countries. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45197 Posts
On July 08 2012 22:57 ahappystar wrote: I understand where you are coming from at the end of the day both sides are talking to brick walls, isn't there another way to go about this instead of the same threads over and over again? Wouldn't it be a bit more productive? Well, not everyone can do what Google is doing  Some of us can give money; most of us can at least bring up the topic of importance. | ||
|
Legate
46 Posts
On July 08 2012 23:05 Djzapz wrote: Do you often say that an organization must be right because of their name? Your'e right, maybe they are just a troll organisation. Btw, where did i say they must be right? Maybe instead of bringing in offical decisions, i should just claim things like other people in this thread. | ||
|
mdb
Bulgaria4059 Posts
| ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 08 2012 23:09 Djzapz wrote: Depends. http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/legislation_policies/submission_marriage-eng.aspx They can't be wrong because they're the Canadian human rights commission. =) "Parliament, when it adopted the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Charter, recognized that Canadians believe that all people are entitled to equal treatment under the law." Then they chose to give the church power over marriage (which is separate from law?), while adopting civil rights for the state, which is accessible for all? So gays have equal civil rights in canada then? | ||
|
Marti
552 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 08 2012 23:12 Legate wrote: Your'e right, maybe they are just a troll organisation. Btw, where did i say they must be right? You didn't, but you strongly implied that their name gave them credibility in that rejecting their ruling on homosexuality was essentially foolish (I paraphrase). I'm not saying that they're a "troll organisation" and I can't understand how you'd get to the conclusion about what I said. But it's one organisation on human rights, and there ARE other organisations on human rights that have different rulings on this issue. As I pointed out, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has ruled what's essentially the opposite of what the ECHR came up with. So what's that BS about "trolling", be serious. We're not children here presumably. | ||
|
peacenl
550 Posts
On July 08 2012 23:14 mdb wrote: I`m opposed to gay marriage, because the main purpose of the marriage is to create a stable atmoshpere and conditions to raise children. I dont believe that a child can grow up normally when both of his parents are of the same gender. So you just decided to ignore the fact that normal marriages don't hold 8 years on average nowadays, to provide a stable environment for their children? I would rather have two fathers or mothers, than to live with one parent, but that might be me. | ||
KwarK
United States43404 Posts
On July 08 2012 23:14 mdb wrote: I`m opposed to gay marriage, because the main purpose of the marriage is to create a stable atmoshpere and conditions to raise children. I dont believe that a child can grow up normally when both of his parents are of the same gender. You can believe what you like but the evidence in this case disagrees with you. What you believe is wrong. | ||
|
Pisky
29 Posts
On July 08 2012 22:35 Nyarly wrote: Everyone with blonde hairs will receive a free icecream. Would you think you're being treated like everyone else if you're a ginger ? Why would you not be allowed to receive this succulent icecream just because your hairs looks different ? Sorry but in my case EVERYONE is allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex, but in your case JUST BLONDE hairs will recieve an icecream. This is just failed attempt to make an analogy and in fact you made the exact opposite analogy :-D | ||
| ||
