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

[mal]

European court: Gay marriage is not a human right | News | LifeSite

"The judgment says that European human rights law recognizes the “fundamental right of a man and woman to marry and to found a family” and “enshrines the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman.” It explains how no European consensus on same-sex marriages exists, as only 10 of the 47 countries bound by the treaty allow such designations."

Observing Reality?... I didn't think modern Courts were Capable.



peace...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

 

[mal]

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.

peace...

 

[G.T.]

No marriage "really" is a fundamental right so I'd say they're observing reality quite astutely.

 

[Rambunctious]

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.

Oh oooooooo someone struck a cord.

 

[mal]

No marriage "really" is a fundamental right so I'd say they're observing reality quite astutely.

According to our Court it is a Right that is "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival"...

Which is simply an Observation of what is Naturally.



peace...

 

[G.T.]

Our court has no logical merit to back up that assertion. Fundamental to survival would imply we need it, which we do not. Very easily logically refuted.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

European court: Gay marriage is not a human right | News | LifeSite

"The judgment says that European human rights law recognizes the “fundamental right of a man and woman to marry and to found a family” and “enshrines the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman.” It explains how no European consensus on same-sex marriages exists, as only 10 of the 47 countries bound by the treaty allow such designations."

Observing Reality?... I didn't think modern Courts were Capable.



peace...

Lifesite's an evangelical Christian...Well 'news' site for lack of a better word. Not surprisingly, they misrepresented the actual decision.

"Married trans people living in countries without same-sex marriage must divorce if they want their true gender recognized, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
...
The court in Strasbourg ruled it couldn’t force countries to legalize same-sex marriage, especially if they already have civil unions like with Finland.
...
However, the court argued forcing the couple to end their happy marriage and enter into a registered partnership that provides ‘almost identical…legal protection’ and implies only ‘minor differences’ should not be a problem."
Married trans people must divorce, rules European Court of Human Rights | Gay Star News

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Oh oooooooo someone struck a cord.

Just a chord of hypocrisy. You guys don't give a damn what Europe does, and never have.

 

[mal]

Our court has no logical merit to back up that assertion. Fundamental to survival would imply we need it, which we do not. Very easily logically refuted.

Ultimately we do... You will never Understand this Reality and I'm not going to waste my time dancing with you about today.



peace...

 

[mal]

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.

Oh oooooooo someone struck a cord.

Just a chord of hypocrisy. You guys don't give a damn what Europe does, and never have.

^Ironic.



peace...

 

[G.T.]

Our court has no logical merit to back up that assertion. Fundamental to survival would imply we need it, which we do not. Very easily logically refuted.

Ultimately we do... You will never Understand this Reality and I'm not going to waste my time dancing with you about today.



peace...

We ultimately need marriage to survive is your assertion, and it's MERELY an assertion but not a conclusion since you refuse to back it up with a logical argument.

And I'd argue that you can't, since it doesn't follow that "because marriage, we survive."

Because of sexual intercourse we do(survive), not because of marriage; thus, it is sexual intercourse that is fundamental to survival and not marriage. That's how logic works.

 

[mal]

Our court has no logical merit to back up that assertion. Fundamental to survival would imply we need it, which we do not. Very easily logically refuted.

Ultimately we do... You will never Understand this Reality and I'm not going to waste my time dancing with you about today.



peace...

We ultimately need marriage to survive is your assertion, and it's MERELY an assertion but not a conclusion since you refuse to back it up with a logical argument.

And I'd argue that you can't, since it doesn't follow that "because marriage, we survive."

Because of sexual intercourse we do(survive), not because of marriage; thus, it is sexual intercourse that is fundamental to survival and not marriage. That's how logic works.

You don't get it... The SCOTUS has on more than one Occasion.

But you're smarter than them, Correct?...

Marriage exists without the Ceremony... Without the Law...

When it comes to "Rights" as Recognized in Law, it is one... Inherent to us Naturally as a Species and Incapable of being Denied to us.

That's what the Court as Ruled.

Man and Woman = Life = Marriage.



peace...

 

[G.T.]

Marriage is a legal term in the SCOTUS decision.

And you have failed to logically explain how it is fundamental to survival, in that sense. You begged the question and also used circular reasoning in referring BACK to the court for your justification. That is a logical fallacy. Two, in fact.

 

[G.T.]

Actually 3 logical fallacies.

3rd: appeal to authority.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No marriage "really" is a fundamental right so I'd say they're observing reality quite astutely.

Whaaaaaa?

The marriage of heterosexual union and reproduction is the most fundamental natural right of all.

 

[G.T.]

No marriage "really" is a fundamental right so I'd say they're observing reality quite astutely.

Whaaaaaa?

The marriage of heterosexual union and reproduction is the most fundamental natural right of all.

"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).

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No marriage "really" is a fundamental right so I'd say they're observing reality quite astutely.

Whaaaaaa?

The marriage of heterosexual union and reproduction is the most fundamental natural right of all.

"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 regarding 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?

 

[Gadawg73]

"Europe does things better than the US does"
The cry of the liberal.
How long I been telling you Mal that you are a CLOSET LIBERAL?

 

[G.T.]

Whaaaaaa?

The marriage of heterosexual union and reproduction is the most fundamental natural right of all.

"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.