|
On July 08 2012 23:42 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:39 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 22:48 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 22:33 Pisky wrote: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 want the right to own property; so such laws are 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.
Do it all I say. Some people are resistant to positive change.
|
On July 08 2012 23:44 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:42 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 23:39 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 22:48 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 22:33 Pisky wrote: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 want the right to own property; so such laws are 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. Do it all I say. Some people are resistant to positive change.
And by positive you mean "equal civil rights"  just so people don't pick you apart based on semantics
|
On July 08 2012 23:22 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:18 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 22:35 Nyarly wrote:On July 08 2012 22:33 Pisky wrote: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.
I just do not see the discrimination in allowing everyone to marry the opposite sex.
|
On July 08 2012 23:35 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:30 Legate wrote:On July 08 2012 23:24 Djzapz wrote:On July 08 2012 23:21 Legate wrote:On July 08 2012 23:15 Djzapz wrote:On July 08 2012 23:12 Legate wrote: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!". I posted it, I'll post it again. http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/legislation_policies/submission_marriage-eng.aspxYou 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
Doesn't change the decision that "Same-sex marriages are not a human right"
|
On July 08 2012 23:46 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:22 Djzapz wrote:On July 08 2012 23:18 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 22:35 Nyarly wrote:On July 08 2012 22:33 Pisky wrote: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. I just do not see the discrimination in allowing everyone to marry the opposite sex.
The status of marriage is accompanied by special civil rights. These civil rights are then kept from a portion of the population because the law does not apply to them the way it is written. That is discrimination based on sexual orientation.
|
On July 08 2012 23:46 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:44 Djzapz wrote:On July 08 2012 23:42 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 23:39 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 22:48 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 22:33 Pisky wrote: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 want the right to own property; so such laws are 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. Do it all I say. Some people are resistant to positive change. And by positive you mean "equal civil rights" just so people don't pick you apart based on semantics
People can dick around in the semantics if they're out of arguments, it amuses me. Equality is a human rights, and by extension so is gay marriage. At least as far as I'm concerned. I'd argue that the CHRC came to the same conclusion.
|
On July 08 2012 23:47 Legate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:35 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 23:30 Legate wrote:On July 08 2012 23:24 Djzapz wrote:On July 08 2012 23:21 Legate wrote:On July 08 2012 23:15 Djzapz wrote:On July 08 2012 23:12 Legate wrote: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!". I posted it, I'll post it again. http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/legislation_policies/submission_marriage-eng.aspxYou 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 Doesn't change the decision that "Same-sex marriages are not a human right"
The decision you speak of was the court upholding french law, in that french law distinguishes between "civil unions" and "marriage"; and gays cannot partake in marriage, only civil unions. Therefore the court ruled that any legal benefits that come from "marriage" but not from "civil union" are not granted to gays: Gay marriage is not a right in france" is what they ruled. I can quote myself to explain better. For instance, in Norway, gay marriage is a human/civil right. The court only works within the law; it doesn't work to change law. The courts decision was therefore entirely based upon the current law that is in place, regardless of how they feel towards it.
Here:
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.
Until law is changed so that gay marriage is legal (and not Just 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 (and gay marriage will be a human right like it is in norway). This is the job of the court... Nothing more.
|
Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against?
|
On July 08 2012 23:42 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:39 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 22:48 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 22:33 Pisky wrote: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.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
|
So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world.
|
Don't like AT ALL that Google is taking a stance on things outside their domain. Whether you're pro or against doesn't matter, you're a software developer. Next thing you know, they'll also have a favorite politician.
|
|
|
Then: If we take away the religious stuff, marriage was a pact between men and women.
We should differentiate marriages between royal and simple people. Between royal people it was obviously for keeping the wealth in the family. Between simple people, ie: peasants, simple workers it was different.
Women didn't have nearly any social status back then, thus they didn't have much assets either. The simple biological fact is that most women would go for the upper few percent male if it would be possible for them. That obviously wouldn't work because no man would want to raise other man's kids and simple men wouldn't be able to reproduce. Marriage was a pact between a man and a woman, to ensure that most men would get to reproduce even it he's a peasant but with this, providing a background for the woman (who had no assets) to raise their child.
Love basically had nothing to do with the whole thing, because often the parents decided the whole thing.
Was it good? I don't know, but we are here today, and it's safe to say that even people from the lowest classes were able to reproduce.
Now: Since it's easy to divorce nowadays and women are pretty much equal to men so they can provide necessary assets to live alone, marriage as in it's old form, pretty much lost it's meaning. Now it's all about love, which we all know diminish sooner or later so there are tons of divorces. Marriage nowadays are either for getting taxation privileges or people just want to declare their (temporary) love for each other to the whole world.
So yeah, I support this thing, but it has no meaning besides the benefits.
|
On July 08 2012 23:54 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:42 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 23:39 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 22:48 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 22:33 Pisky wrote: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. I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
|
On July 08 2012 23:57 zeru wrote:
I honestly didnt expect anyone on TL to be against something like legalization of gay marriage. I'm pretty shocked. Are we 300 years in the past where ignorance dictates over logic and reason? It's just one of those things. In a few decades we'll look back on this the same way we look back on slavery, women voting rights, racism, etc.
|
On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote:
So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world.
How did we get on the race topic now?
|
|
|
On July 08 2012 23:59 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:57 zeru wrote:
I honestly didnt expect anyone on TL to be against something like legalization of gay marriage. I'm pretty shocked. Are we 300 years in the past where ignorance dictates over logic and reason? It's just one of those things. In a few decades we'll look back on this the same way we look back on slavery, women voting rights, racism, etc.
lol why would you have to bring racims and slavery here?
|
On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote:
Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against?
No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me.
|
On July 09 2012 00:01 Legate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote:
So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world. How did we get on the race topic now?
Racial discrimination is just another way of discrimination, what has always been the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
