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

[G.T.]

Necessity =/= pleasurable entity.

Thanks, come again.

 

[G.T.]

Its never been tried without is a logical proof that it is needed........ in rabbi logic.

 

[The Rabbi]

Necessity =/= pleasurable entity.

Thanks, come again.

It must be a necessity. How do we know? There's never been an example of where it didnt occur, in all of human history.
Of course ifyou could provide one example then it would refute my argument. But you can't. Because you confuse individual existence with societal existence.

 

[G.T.]

Theres a synapse misfiring in your brain if you think thats how logic works.

Heres a fun exercise you cant win: name a component of marriage that is necessary for holding society together that is also not practiced outside of marriage.

That you cannot respond to that challenge means? It means you lose.

Owned, now move along amateur.

 

[The Rabbi]

Theres a synapse misfiring in your brain if you think thats how logic works.

Heres a fun exercise you cant win: name a component of marriage that is necessary for holding society together that is also not practices outside of marriage.

That you cannot respond to that challenge means? It means you lose.

Owned, now move along amateur.

Recognition of the relationship by society as special and privileged from other relationships
You lose.

Next.

 

[G.T.]

Ahahahabababababhahahaha

Thats it?

That??????


I think you should stick to arguing which socks to wear with which shoes each day. Wow

 

[The Rabbi]

Ahahahabababababhahahaha

Thats it?

That??????


I think you should stick to arguing which socks to wear with which shoes each day. Wow

Translation: Man, that Rabbi guy just pwned me.
Yes, yes I did you ignorant odious little troll.

 

[G.T.]

Not to mention....you were asked for a component of marriage, itself ...with which you responded with : a way marriage is recognized.

How dumb are you really behind all of that hot air? Your comment speaks for itself. God damn youre an imbecile.

 

[G.T.]

Anyone else can try where rabbi fails: which component of marriage (itself, genius, not 'how its recognized') serves to hold society together that is not practiced outside of marriage?

Gluck.

 

[Silhouette]

Anyone else can try where rabbi fails: which component of marriage (itself, genius, not 'how its recognized') serves to hold society together that is not practiced outside of marriage?

Gluck.

That's not the point. The point is what environment for childrearing should a government incentivize with the perks of marriage? Answer: mother/father. There will be exceptions but the exceptions do not qualify for the perks. You understand how incentives work don't you?

 

[G.T.]

Anyone else can try where rabbi fails: which component of marriage (itself, genius, not 'how its recognized') serves to hold society together that is not practiced outside of marriage?

Gluck.

That's not the point. The point is what environment for childrearing should a government incentivize with the perks of marriage? Answer: mother/father. There will be exceptions but the exceptions do not qualify for the perks. You understand how incentives work don't you?

I understand marriage is not necessary for our "survival," is what I understand.

 

[Silhouette]

Anyone else can try where rabbi fails: which component of marriage (itself, genius, not 'how its recognized') serves to hold society together that is not practiced outside of marriage?

Gluck.

That's not the point. The point is what environment for childrearing should a government incentivize with the perks of marriage? Answer: mother/father. There will be exceptions but the exceptions do not qualify for the perks. You understand how incentives work don't you?

I understand marriage is not necessary for our "survival," is what I understand.

It is if you consider that children raised in a degrading environment that marriage is otherwise the incentivized remedy for, will grow each successive generation into further depravity, then you understand how marriage is necessary for survival.

Survival of the world as we know it anyway. Marriage is the foundation upon which we build that world whether you or anyone else wants to admit it or not. Dissolve the word "marriage" and then check in with the United States of America in about 60 years. That is if it is even remotely recognizable at that point.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That's not the point. The point is what environment for childrearing should a government incentivize with the perks of marriage? Answer: mother/father. There will be exceptions but the exceptions do not qualify for the perks. You understand how incentives work don't you?

I understand marriage is not necessary for our "survival," is what I understand.

It is if you consider that children raised in a degrading environment that marriage is otherwise the incentivized remedy for, will grow each successive generation into further depravity, then you understand how marriage is necessary for survival.

Survival of the world as we know it anyway. Marriage is the foundation upon which we build that world whether you or anyone else wants to admit it or not. Dissolve the word "marriage" and then check in with the United States of America in about 60 years. That is if it is even remotely recognizable at that point.

Considering that the vast majority of humans to ever walk the earth came about simply because men and women fucked, not got married, I'm not too worried about the end of civilization if gays can get hitched.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Anyone else can try where rabbi fails: which component of marriage (itself, genius, not 'how its recognized') serves to hold society together that is not practiced outside of marriage?

Gluck.

That's not the point. The point is what environment for childrearing should a government incentivize with the perks of marriage? Answer: mother/father. There will be exceptions but the exceptions do not qualify for the perks. You understand how incentives work don't you?

I understand marriage is not necessary for our "survival,"...

Not in the slightest actually. I'm pretty sure if no one could get married there would still be babies around. That just seems to happen, marriage or not...

 

[Charles_Main]

Why should we give a flying fuck what a European Courts says about anything?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Why should we give a flying fuck what a European Courts says about anything?

Funny. Was thinking the same thing about this post.

 

[boilermaker55]

Yes they did. And that chord is the one of total and utter hypocrisy from the crowd on the right. The religious ones also sometimes fit quite well into the category.
When the idea from the other industrialized parts of the world fit neatly into your thinking use it, when it doesn't; then it is total trash.
Get it?

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.

 

[Silhouette]

Why should we give a flying fuck what a European Courts says about anything?

Because they feel very strongly about the matter. Nothing could evoke a deeper visceral commitment than the nuclear family's structure. Would we be well served to ignore what our allies feel strongly about? Will their loyalties be strained to the breaking point when American money there starts to dwindle even more?

 

[Silhouette]

Yes they did. And that chord is the one of total and utter hypocrisy from the crowd on the right. The religious ones also sometimes fit quite well into the category.
When the idea from the other industrialized parts of the world fit neatly into your thinking use it, when it doesn't; then it is total trash.
Get it?

I'm a democrat and millions of democrats are against gay marriage for the same reasons the 49 countries in Europe are: we think marriage is about kids first and gay relationships are not the place to raise kids.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's more on the reasoning behind the European Court's binding decision on 49 countries:

Same-sex marriages are not a human right, European judges have ruled.
Their decision shreds the claim by ministers that gay marriage is a universal human right and that same-sex couples have a right to marry because their mutual commitment is just as strong as that of husbands and wives.
The ruling was made by judges of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg following a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained the French courts would not allow them to adopt a child as a couple...

....the Strasbourg judges ruled that because the French couple were civil partners, they did not have the rights of married people, who in France have the sole right to adopt a child as a couple.

They declared: ‘The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.’
The judges added that couples who are not married do not enjoy the same status as those who are.
‘With regard to married couples, the court considers that in view of the social, personal, and legal consequences of marriage, the applicants’ legal situation could not be said to be comparable to that of married couples.’
The French civil partners, Valerie Gas and Nathalie Dubois, tried to secure marriage rights under clauses that prevent discrimination and protect privacy and family life.
But the Strasbourg judges said there had been no discrimination against them because they were lesbians...

But Church of England lawyers have already warned that if same-sex marriage goes ahead, then equality law is likely to force churches to fall into line and perform the wedding ceremonies.
The Strasbourg ruling won praise from campaigners against same-sex marriage.
Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said: ‘For too long campaigners have been using the language of rights in an attempt to add moral force to what are nothing more than personal desires.
‘In many cases they have bypassed the democratic process and succeeded in imposing their views on the rest of the population by force of law.
‘We are seeing the same principle at work in the Government’s sham of a consultation on same-sex marriage.’
He added: ‘The ruling from the ECHR will embolden those whose concerns about same-sex marriage and adoption are not inspired by personal hatred and animosity, but by a genuine concern for the well-being of children and the welfare of society.
‘Instead of rushing to legislate without seriously considering the views of the electorate, the Government should be encouraging a measured public debate on the nature and meaning of marriage.’ Gay marriage is not a 'human right': European ruling torpedoes Coalition stance | Mail Online

Expand the quote above to see the part in bold. This is what the US Supreme Court said in Windsor anyway. They said they wanted a wide-swath of the public to weigh in on gay marriage and that gay marriage was a new and odd concept. The issue of who has first rights to the term of "marriage", adults or children, will be the deciding factor in the end when it comes to civil rights. A child has a civil right to a real set of parents to be incentivized by states more than gays have "civil rights" to play-act [unsuccessfully] at "mother and father" to the detriment of the child.