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 gay couples can't marry just because you believe that is it's main purpose?
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.
Can you linke me please to some source on this. I doubt that there is enough samples to make reliable statistics or "evidence" as you call it.
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?
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.
Yes there are diffrent views by diffrent organisations(btw i couldnt find what you said about the canadian one, maybe you have a link?), but at least i brought one in instead of just blatantly claim something like "gay marriage is a human right!".
So what's that BS about "trolling", be serious. We're not children here presumably.
Well
On July 08 2012 23:05 Djzapz wrote: you often say that an organization must be right because of their name?
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 are wrong. Everything we know goes against what you just said.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
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
The whole point is that by forcing everyone to be only allowed to marry people of the other sex, you discriminate against people who are not interested in doing that. You can pretend all you want that they have the same right, but the reality of it is you're forcing one way onto people.
To pretend like that's anything resembling equality is a cheap argument.
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?
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.
Yes there are diffrent views by diffrent organisations(btw i couldnt find what you said about the canadian one, maybe you have a link?), but at least i brought one in instead of just blatantly claim something like "gay marriage is a human right!".
You didn't provide a link (not that I need one). I provided a link which you forced me to post again, and you accused me of "blatantly claiming something". Come on. Anyway, essentially they rules that gay marriage is a human right based on the equality provisions of the charter of rights.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
Of course it treats people differently, because the statement isn't even relevant to people who aren't attracted to those of the opposite sex. It's like giving everyone permission to wear bikinis... what guys are going to actually implement that rule? Maybe a few, once in a while, but the main purpose is clearly served for women, in the same way that allowing only opposite sex marriages is truly served for heterosexuals. The point is the application and practicality of the law.
As an educator, you learn to treat kids "fairly", and that doesn't necessarily mean treating everyone "equally". Different people have different needs. It's important to understand what each kid (or each person, in general) requires, and to make sure each person is being assisted in the way that is fair for them. That includes accounting for handicaps, cultural needs, sexual orientation, and anything else about a person's identity.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
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
Allright sorry, let me rephrase that, "Everyone will be able to eat a free icecream with milk". You're allergic to milk but you love icecream without milk. Would you think you're being treated like everyone else ?
Why would you not be allowed to eat a succulent icecream just because you're allergic to milk ?
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.
Can you linke me please to some source on this. I doubt that there is enough samples to make reliable statistics or "evidence" as you call it.
All he needs evidence of, is that one single kid has grown up normally with 2 same sex parents and he would have proved you wrong.
Even more, there are studies which could not find discrepancies in the parential skills of such parents. The number one "issue" is that many feel kids should have one female and one male rolemodel (which happens rarely enough in even "normal" families"), failing to realize that a child is raised by the entire "village" so to say.
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?
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.
Yes there are diffrent views by diffrent organisations(btw i couldnt find what you said about the canadian one, maybe you have a link?), but at least i brought one in instead of just blatantly claim something like "gay marriage is a human right!".
You didn't provide a link (not that I need one). I provided a link which you forced me to post again, and you accused me of "blatantly claiming something". Come on. Anyway, essentially they rules that gay marriage is a human right based on the equality provisions of the charter of rights.
The one i found was first on google when searching for human right and gay marriage, thats why i used it. I couldn't find yours, thats why i asked.
You didn't say it directly, you said "It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political" with that you are assuming that gay marriage is a human right.
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?
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.
Yes there are diffrent views by diffrent organisations(btw i couldnt find what you said about the canadian one, maybe you have a link?), but at least i brought one in instead of just blatantly claim something like "gay marriage is a human right!".
You didn't provide a link (not that I need one). I provided a link which you forced me to post again, and you accused me of "blatantly claiming something". Come on. Anyway, essentially they rules that gay marriage is a human right based on the equality provisions of the charter of rights.
The one i found was first on google when searching for human right and gay marriage, thats why i used it. I couldn't find yours, thats why i asked.
I actually read that article, and it says something completely different from what you are instagating.. :p
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?
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.
Yes there are diffrent views by diffrent organisations(btw i couldnt find what you said about the canadian one, maybe you have a link?), but at least i brought one in instead of just blatantly claim something like "gay marriage is a human right!".
You didn't provide a link (not that I need one). I provided a link which you forced me to post again, and you accused me of "blatantly claiming something". Come on. Anyway, essentially they rules that gay marriage is a human right based on the equality provisions of the charter of rights.
The one i found was first on google when searching for human right and gay marriage, thats why i used it. I couldn't find yours, thats why i asked.
I actually read that article, and it says something completely different from what you are instagating.. :p
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?
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.
Yes there are diffrent views by diffrent organisations(btw i couldnt find what you said about the canadian one, maybe you have a link?), but at least i brought one in instead of just blatantly claim something like "gay marriage is a human right!".
You didn't provide a link (not that I need one). I provided a link which you forced me to post again, and you accused me of "blatantly claiming something". Come on. Anyway, essentially they rules that gay marriage is a human right based on the equality provisions of the charter of rights.
The one i found was first on google when searching for human right and gay marriage, thats why i used it. I couldn't find yours, thats why i asked.
I actually read that article, and it says something completely different from what you are instagating.. :p
Which article exactly?
That pops out when you google "it", that had the title saying something like european court rules gay marriage is not a human right. I already explained..
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Second paragraph: Not marrying each other does not prevent you from loving each other. Yes,I agree marriage should be based also on love. But even if, I think that ultimately my statement does not treat people differently.
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.
Are you against heterosexual couples marrying when both are completely against having children and do not wish to?
If not, how is this scenario any different, when that is your only justification for why homosexuals should not marry?
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
EPT
