European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right?...

[Silhouette]

Yes, you are always so concerned that we do exactly as the Europeans do? Oh wait, you almost always say fuck them. In this case, fuck them. It will be nice to be ahead on an issue for a change.

Dream on bro. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say just some deviant sexual practices come with "civil rights"...

However, in Windsor last year the Supreme Court did say that states' discreet communities have the "unquestioned authority" to consensus on the question of gay marriage "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended"...since the founding of the country no less. For the slow of wit that means that Prop 8 in California is and was always legal.

 

[Silhouette]

From the article in the OP:

Heli Hämäläinen of Finland had a sex change operation in 2009 to appear anatomically as a woman, despite having fathered a child with his wife of over 10 years in 2002. Before the operation, he tried to change his legal identity from male to female without success.

He sued before the European court when he was told that it would not be possible so long as he remained married, because Finland does not allow persons of the same sex to marry each other. Hämäläinen and his spouse insist that their religious beliefs prevent them from seeking a divorce and that civil unions do not give them the same benefits as marriage in Finnish law.

The European court was unequivocal. It not only said that European human rights law does not contemplate same-sex marriage, it said that civil unions are good enough for same-sex couples.

I'm sure this isn't devastating to the child of that marriage either. I actually knew a kid whose dad had a sex change operation when we were teens. It blew his mind away. That kid was never the same and he turned to drugs and hard living after that. Up until that time he was an easy going guy, great student, just relaxed and fun-loving. It ruined him psychologically. His father's act of self mutilation couldn't have been more selfish. The doctors that assisted him belong in prison. That includes the "psychologists" who cleared him for the AMA to suspend the hippocratic oath and help this man amputate his healthy organs; leaving him multilated and handicapped and no more a woman than a billy goat who has only been castrated and lipstick applied.

 

[Silhouette]

And this at the end of the OP link:

The ruling is a particularly hard blow to gay rights in Finland, where a parliamentary committee rejected same-sex marriage before it could be brought to a vote last month for the second time since 2012. Finland is the only Scandinavian country that does not allow same-sex marriage.

Around the world gay activists have been told that same-sex marriage is not a human right.

The Italian Constitutional Court was faced with almost identical facts only last month. That court also said that civil unions would be adequate to protect the interests of the same-sex couple in that case.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to say that marriage between persons of the same sex is a right under the U.S. Constitution or international law last year. In a case involving a law that prohibited the U.S. federal government from recognizing marriages between persons of the same sex, the Court ruled that individual states may decide whether or not to allow individuals of the same sex to marry each other

So I'm NOT the only one who read Windsor! I was beginning to think I was... So why are California officials gutting Prop 8 without the permission of voters if it is valid law?

 

[G.T.]

And this at the end of the OP link:

The ruling is a particularly hard blow to gay rights in Finland, where a parliamentary committee rejected same-sex marriage before it could be brought to a vote last month for the second time since 2012. Finland is the only Scandinavian country that does not allow same-sex marriage.

Around the world gay activists have been told that same-sex marriage is not a human right.

The Italian Constitutional Court was faced with almost identical facts only last month. That court also said that civil unions would be adequate to protect the interests of the same-sex couple in that case.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to say that marriage between persons of the same sex is a right under the U.S. Constitution or international law last year. In a case involving a law that prohibited the U.S. federal government from recognizing marriages between persons of the same sex, the Court ruled that individual states may decide whether or not to allow individuals of the same sex to marry each other

So I'm NOT the only one who read Windsor! I was beginning to think I was... So why are California officials gutting Prop 8 without the permission of voters if it is valid law?

yea, but can you TIE a Windsor, is the question.

Well?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"The marriage of heterosexual union."

Marriage is a union.


Putting that terrible misuse of the English language aside, I'm not sure how a human made concept could be a natural right.

Shit, to even start with that I'd have to have the long discussion on whether Natural Rights even exist and, if so, what they are.

But it's 2:30 on a Thursday (Friday for me this week, I have tomorrow off).

Putting aside your baloney about grammar, given the fact that the matter is actually one of linguistics, in this instance the logical concerns of syntax, as the indispensable qualifying adjective heterosexual goes to the fact that nature's marital arrangement is not synonymous with the other forms of "marriage" dreamt up by mindless pagan yahoos . . . what's your problem with the facts of biology, Einstein?

Biological "survival" depends on reproduction, not marriage.

Marriage is not reproduction, reproduction is not marriage. Marriage is not fundamental to survival, reproduction is. Biologically. Einstein.

Let that simmer for a bit before a knee jerk again.

Look. I'm busy on this end with other things, so stop wasting my time with bullshit. First you confound the concerns of grammar with those of linguistics concerning a perfectly grammatical sentence; now you pretend that the term marriage and the phrase the marriage of heterosexual union are synonymous.

I never said marriage as such is reproduction or that marriage as such is fundamental to survival. That's obviously stupid, Mr. Straw Man. The thrust of my original statement pertains to a fundamental right bottomed on the facts of biological reproduction.

Now you implied that you had the goods to overthrow the reality of natural law. Let's have it, professor.

 

[G.T.]

Putting aside your baloney about grammar, given the fact that the matter is actually one of linguistics, in this instance the logical concerns of syntax, as the indispensable qualifying adjective heterosexual goes to the fact that nature's marital arrangement is not synonymous with the other forms of "marriage" dreamt up by mindless pagan yahoos . . . what's your problem with the facts of biology, Einstein?

Biological "survival" depends on reproduction, not marriage.

Marriage is not reproduction, reproduction is not marriage. Marriage is not fundamental to survival, reproduction is. Biologically. Einstein.

Let that simmer for a bit before a knee jerk again.

Look. I'm busy on this end with other things, so stop wasting my time with bullshit. First you confound the concerns of grammar with those of linguistics with regard to a perfectly grammatical sentence; now you pretend that the term marriage and the common idiom the marriage of heterosexual union are synonymous.

I never said marriage as such is reproduction or that marriage as such is fundamental to survival. That's obviously stupid, Mr. Straw Man. The thrust of my original statement pertains to a fundamental right bottomed on the facts of biological reproduction.

Now you implied that you had the goods to overthrow the reality of natural law. Let's have it, professor.

Then you're in the wrong conversation, snot nose.

Because my buddy mal and I were discussing the SCOTUS's ruling in which they called marriage fundamental to survival.

Talk about wasting people's time.


Now, when you fuck off, don't get preggers.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Biological "survival" depends on reproduction, not marriage.

Marriage is not reproduction, reproduction is not marriage. Marriage is not fundamental to survival, reproduction is. Biologically. Einstein.

Let that simmer for a bit before a knee jerk again.

Look. I'm busy on this end with other things, so stop wasting my time with bullshit. First you confound the concerns of grammar with those of linguistics with regard to a perfectly grammatical sentence; now you pretend that the term marriage and the common idiom the marriage of heterosexual union are synonymous.

I never said marriage as such is reproduction or that marriage as such is fundamental to survival. That's obviously stupid, Mr. Straw Man. The thrust of my original statement pertains to a fundamental right bottomed on the facts of biological reproduction.

Now you implied that you had the goods to overthrow the reality of natural law. Let's have it, professor.

Then you're in the wrong conversation, snot nose.

Because my buddy mal and I were discussing the SCOTUS's ruling in which they called marriage fundamental to survival.

Talk about wasting people's time.


Now, when you fuck off, don't get preggers.

Look, you're the one who claimed that no marriage of any kind is a right. Moreover, you insinuated that this was the ontological foundation of the European Court's decision.

G.T.: No marriage "really" is a fundamental right so I'd say they're observing reality quite astutely.

I directly addressed your claim on the very same terms, i.e., human rights, which is precisely what the OP is about.

You're the one who went off on some friggin' tangent about grammar, stupidly confounded with the concerns of linguistics, and then you further confounded the matter in a lame attempt to cover up your stupidity.

Now, you want to throw a fit with blown up text and blatantly lie as if no one will notice.



You ain't foolin' nobody. Now, that sentence would be an intentional abuse of proper grammar. See the difference?

Now, are you going to substantiate your original claims or not?

If not, shut the hell up.

 

[G.T.]

I cant translate pussy ^ sorry, someone will have to read me this.

[MENTION=42946]Howey[/MENTION] ?

 

[LiberalMedia]

You're the one who went off on some friggin' tangent about grammar,

Not true. You are either lying to us on purpose, or lying because you're too stupid to even pay attention to your own conversations. Which is it?

Relax. I know you're a blithering moron who can't be expected to scroll up a few posts to see that you're wrong, and a liar, so I'll quote the relevant posts here.

First, you made a fucktarded statement, to which G.T. replied:

Putting that terrible misuse of the English language aside,

Then, you responded with:

Putting aside your baloney about grammar,

YOU brought up grammar. YOU have attempted to derail this thread with petty squabbling over an argument you imagined.

YOU are lying, either on purpose, or due to your own inattentiveness in the very conversations YOU choose to involve yourself in. Now which of those two is it? Are you a deliberate liar, or just a complete idiot?

And because I'm not a petty, self-centric, thread-derailing twit like you, I'll comment on the actual subject of the thread. Because I am, however, inherently a good pyrsyn, I will teach you how to make good posts so you don't run around shitting up pyrfyctly good threads in the future. See my next post for related instructions.

 

[LiberalMedia]

LiberalMedia's Guide to Good Posting

Step One: Draw a quotation from the OP. Since the focus of the thread is an article in the OP, I will take my quotation from the OP's link rather than the text of the USMB post itself.

The court confirmed that the protection of the traditional institution of marriage is a valid state interest—implicitly endorsing the view that relations between persons of the same sex are not identical to marriage between a man and a woman, and may be treated differently in law.

Step Two: Make a comment on the section you quoted. Use your own opinion.
Wow, OP, that's really horrible.

Step Three A: If you are a lybyryl, channel your social justice outrage.
The very idea that the highest humyn ryghts court in the EU has stated that discriminating against homosexuals is "a valid state interest" is frankly disturbing. Someone has to do something about this bigotry before it takes hold over all of Europe.

Step Three B: If you are a conservatard, say something bigoted.
Yeah, serves them homos right! They took our jobs! Send 'em back home, they don't belong here! Jesus would approve of this, it says so in the Bible!

Step Four: Check your post for references to off-topic posts, inter-user forum drama, and other garbage that looks like it doesn't belong in the OP's thread.
(As there were no such instances in this sample post, we will not have to edit this post any further and can click "Submit Reply".)

And just like that, you're well on your way to not being a shitposter. Isn't being a quality contributor easy and fun?

 

[Unkotare]

Marriage is not fundamental to survival, ...

I understand you are talking about biology, but...

It may well prove to be fundamental to the survival of society as we know it.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Marriage is not fundamental to survival, ...

I understand you are talking about biology, but...

It may well prove to be fundamental to the survival of society as we know it.

Of course. Marriage is a social (inter-personal) contract fyrst and foremost, and lays the basis for families, which in turn lay the basis for a society.

However, do you agree or disagree with the court's ruling in the OP's article?

 

[G.T.]

Marriage is not fundamental to survival, ...

I understand you are talking about biology, but...

It may well prove to be fundamental to the survival of society as we know it.

That's speculative and un-provable, also laced with a not-too minor point of subjectivity ("as we know it"), and so it doesn't really advance the conversation but I can understand that you could be correct. I don't think so, but you could be.

 

[Unkotare]

Marriage is not fundamental to survival, ...

I understand you are talking about biology, but...

It may well prove to be fundamental to the survival of society as we know it.

Of course. Marriage is a social (inter-personal) contract fyrst [sic] and foremost, and lays the basis for families, which in turn lay the basis for a society.

Do you suffer from some peculiar disorder or is there a reason you keep spelling words like that? Just being an asshole, maybe?

 

[G.T.]

I understand you are talking about biology, but...

It may well prove to be fundamental to the survival of society as we know it.

Of course. Marriage is a social (inter-personal) contract fyrst [sic] and foremost, and lays the basis for families, which in turn lay the basis for a society.

Do you suffer from some peculiar disorder or is there a reason you keep spelling words like that? Just being an asshole, maybe?

Let's examine.

If he/she is playing a game in which he/she creates said spelling errors in order to evoke a response, he or she has succeeded in that you've provided said response.

If he/she doesn't truly know the correct spelling of said words, a nice gesture (albeit correct grammar is only preferable but not mandatory) would be to advise how the spell check works.

I'm just bored now. Oh darn it.

 

[Howey]

I cant translate pussy ^ sorry, someone will have to read me this.

[MENTION=42946]Howey[/MENTION] ?

Why the fuck would you drag me into yet another [MENTION=18755]mal[/MENTION] homosexual mastubatory thread based on an OP that's horribly skewered with piecemeal quotes from a decision that only affects one marriage in Finland?

A source, "Life" Site News, that actually applauds murder of homosexuals in Uganda is supposed to present a clear, unbiased story?

If you think so you're more of a moron than [MENTION=18755]mal[/MENTION] is, and I didn't think that possible.

What this case does, or did, is instruct the transgendered person to end her marriage in order to legally change gender. In no way, shape or form did the decision have anythiing to do with gay marriage itself.

Seeing as how gay marriage is legal in many European countries, perhaps you should direct your inane outrage at the horrific levels of heterosexual divorce in this country.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right?...

The United States isn't in Europe, apparently most conservatives are as ignorant of geography as they are the law.

But you and others on the right are welcome to move there where you'll feel free to practice your ignorance and hate.

 

[Silhouette]

Why the fuck would you drag me into yet another [MENTION=18755]mal[/MENTION] homosexual mastubatory thread based on an OP that's horribly skewered with piecemeal quotes from a decision that only affects one marriage in Finland?

Let's see if the decision of the Court only affects "one marriage in Finland".. From the OP link:

The highest human rights court in Europe shattered hopes that it would judicially impose same-sex marriage when it told a male to female transsexual and his wife that a civil union should be good enough for them.

European human rights law does not require countries to “grant access to marriage to same-sex couples,” according to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case that tests the remote boundaries of possibility in law and fact...

From the European Court on Human Rights:

The Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
better known as the “European Convention
on Human Rights”, was opened for signature
in Rome on 4 November 1950; it entered
into force on 3 September 1953.
The Convention gave effect to certain of the
rights stated in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and established an
international judicial organ with jurisdiction
to find against States that do not fulfil their
undertakings...

...The Convention is applicable at national
level. It has been incorporated into the
legislation of the States Parties, which have
undertaken to protect the rights defined in
the Convention. Domestic courts therefore
have to apply the Convention. Otherwise,
the European Court of Human Rights would find against the State in the event of
complaints by individuals about failure to
protect their rights.... http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/50Questions_ENG.pdf

From what I gather it's the last appeal for human rights issues. Sort of like the Supreme Court of Europe on human rights.

Its jurisdiction covers 49 countries or country-like "states" in Europe. What the decision means from the description of the jurisdiction and its enforcement means that in 49 countries/states of Europe, nobody can appeal the denial of gay marriage based on a violation of human rights. Because that large section of the world all agreed that it is not a basic human right to become gay married. The Equivalent would be SCOTUS Finding that gay marriage is not a civil right here. Which they all but did in Windsor 2013 and will finalize by the time the Utah appeal is Heard there...barring some great turn of legal events....like them overturning their own Findings in Windsor about states sovereignty on the question...

 

[Gadawg73]

All the wasted time and resources on banning gay marriage and they claim they are conservatives.
Same kooky claims made about gays being allowed to serve openly in the military.
Be honest, how many of you that oppose gay marriage also opposed gays serving in the military?

 

[Silhouette]

All the wasted time and resources on banning gay marriage and they claim they are conservatives.
Same kooky claims made about gays being allowed to serve openly in the military.
Be honest, how many of you that oppose gay marriage also opposed gays serving in the military?

You think it isn't conservative to oppose gay marriage? This really does sound like the Ministry of Truth of erstwhile science fiction. Where abject lies are spun to "truth" for the dull and hypnotized..

This isn't called a "waste of time". It's called "foreshadowing.."..