TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why banning of homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed
Pages (5): [1] 2 3 4 5 »

Why banning of homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

quote:

Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Banning homosexual marriage would be a contridiction to Article 16 part 1, as you see. Therefor, President Bush, as President of the United States, which is a member of the United Nations, has no rights to ban marriage of homosexuals, as Article 16 part 1 rules that men and women of full age have the right to marry. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be found at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Do married couples get some kind of financial benefits in the US, or is this commotion due to principles only?

Yea married couples get like 1000+ or so federal benefits.

Like the ability to give unlimited gifts to each other.

Or rights to see each other in a hospital.

other stuff i do not remember off the top of my head.

It will be a ballot issue down here in Georgia this November.
If it passes we're going to outlaw it in our Constitution...


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Just according to the above, that wouldnt hold in a court of law for the simple reason that is interpretable as follows:

It does not explicitly say without any limitation to sexual orientation. Thus, this article can be interpreted as NOT giving positive rights of marriage to people on grounds of sexual orientation, and used to discriminate against them.

I mention that it COULD be interpreted in that fasion, rather than being interpreted as all men and women of full age, and with a good lawyer, the article wouldnt hold up.

Note that I am NOT against gay marriages...simply pointing out that referring to article 16 of the UN charter won't take you very far in convincing people who are opposed to it.

quote:

Originally posted by icyhandofcrap Yea married couples get like 1000+ or so federal benefits. Like the ability to give unlimited gifts to each other. Or rights to see each other in a hospital. other stuff i do not remember off the top of my head.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm has a fairly complete list.

Whilst I do support gay marriage, I don't think that referring to the UN charter is going to help much, considering the fact that the US is basically controlled by conservatives, and that US conservatives seem to harbour a lot of dislike for the UN at the moment.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm has a fairly complete list.

ah there we go

yea.. I'm sure thats exactly what the founders of the 1948 universal decleration of rights meant... afterall gay marriage was a very big issue in 1948 as we all remember

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus yea.. I'm sure thats exactly what the founders of the 1948 universal decleration of rights meant... afterall gay marriage was a very big issue in 1948 as we all remember

Even if Article 16 included sexual orientation, Bush would just ignore it, since after all the U.S. is so much more powerful and cooler than the U.N.

This topic has been brought up repeatedly these past few months, I simply don't have the energy for another one. Have fun...

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade I simply don't have the energy for another one. Have fun...

I do. Bring it on Heinz.

And yes, I will get to the death penalty thread in due course. I still think I am teh right.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic I do. Bring it on Heinz. And yes, I will get to the death penalty thread in due course. I still think I am teh right.

Whenever you're ready Granted, if the discussion's only between the two of us (which it seems to be) it might be more appropriate to PM or MSN the conversation.

im all for CIVIL UNIONs, but dont call it Marriage. Marriage is a completly diffrent institution.

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate Even if Article 16 included sexual orientation, Bush would just ignore it, since after all the U.S. is so much more powerful and cooler than the U.N.

The real way the US is violating the UN charter in this whole gay marriage issue was with the point I pointed out a week or so ago.

Apparently an Oregon county has banned ALL marriages (in order to promote "equality" for all different sexual orrientations) but this act is cealry the violation of Article 16, as man and women no longer have a right to marriage.

The article states clearly "to found a family"...which easiliy implies that this is for child bearing purposes which is done between a man and a woman. In 1948, marriage was between men and women...and last time I checked a guy porking another guy...doesn't create kids...and thus, not a family.

What's full age? Double digits? 10...11,...16? 18? 21? I mean you can interperet text from any era so many different ways, it can be spun to benefit any orientation...such as this text, of 1948, or the Constitution of 1787

If the issue is over government benefits then civil unions should get those same benefits as "married" couples. Marriage is a religious privilege...one in which my beliefs are for a man and a woman to participate in.

Re: Why banning of homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed

quote:

Originally posted by Kamikaze Badger From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Banning homosexual marriage would be a contridiction to Article 16 part 1, as you see. Therefor, President Bush, as President of the United States, which is a member of the United Nations, has no rights to ban marriage of homosexuals, as Article 16 part 1 rules that men and women of full age have the right to marry. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be found at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Are you gay?

Also, the banning of polygamous marriage shouldn't be allowed.

quote:

Originally posted by PhloTron The article states clearly "to found a family"...which easiliy implies that this is for child bearing purposes which is done between a man and a woman. In 1948, marriage was between men and women...and last time I checked a guy porking another guy...doesn't create kids...and thus, not a family.

A family doesn't necessarily need to include kids. Besides, what about heterosexual couples that can't have kids and don't adopt? Those are considered families, despite the fact it consists of only two people.

quote:

Originally posted by PhloTron The article states clearly "to found a family"...which easiliy implies that this is for child bearing purposes which is done between a man and a woman. In 1948, marriage was between men and women...and last time I checked a guy porking another guy...doesn't create kids...and thus, not a family.

Not all families consist of children, nor do they have both a man and woman. A family can be a man or woman who has an adopted child. Also, what about couples that can't for some reason reproduce, and decide not to adopt? That's a family as well, although it isn't the traditional type of family that we all know of.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Also, the banning of polygamous marriage shouldn't be allowed.

Don't forget incestuous, and bestial. They have rights too you know.

Re: Re: Why banning of homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Are you gay?

How could you forget his legendary "Rate my gf" thread?

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate Not all families consist of children, nor do they have both a man and woman. A family can be a man or woman who has an adopted child. Also, what about couples that can't for some reason reproduce, and decide not to adopt? That's a family as well, although it isn't the traditional type of family that we all know of.

Look at it this way...if you see a friend who is married, no kids (yet)...you say "How's your wife? (husband)". If he has kids as well you say "How is your family?"...You don't say...How's the family to someone that only has a spouse...family is a plural.

I'm not saying that all married people have to have children...or adopt or anything (I have a couple aunts/uncles) with no kids... but what the article from 1948 was stating was for rights for all people to have the ability to start families...makum-baby. Like I previously stated, such vague statements are open to several forms of interpretation...especially 50+ years later Not saying my interpretation is right or wrong...but it is one of several possible outlooks based on the baby boomers coming out of WWII. Remember...this was written and un-edited article since 1948...a VERY different time.

Re: Re: Re: Why banning of homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant How could you forget his legendary "Rate my gf" thread?

He could be bi.

In reality I'm just stirring shit.

The instituion of marriage originated in Heaven, not in the goverment. But,Government only recongnizes it, Therefore the government can't change the definition.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 The instituion of marriage originated in Heaven, not in the goverment. But,Government only recongnizes it, Therefore the government can't change the definition.

standby!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.