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

[Silhouette]

duplicate

 

[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.

The "French civil partners" were two normal hetero people married I believe where one of them decided they didn't want to be male anymore and hacked off his genitals to play-act being female. So then the two decided they are "lesbians" [the mutilated male and his wife].

No mental illness there, right? And what they were asking for were rights to adopt kids by the loophole of marriage. The European Court said "NO". That's not a fundamental human right to subject young humans to that level of starkly-obvious mental illness in a household...

 

[Silhouette]

One of the main objectors was the Church of England. And poll numbers from this thread: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 120 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum suggest that a vast majority of people support the Church's concerns.

 

[boilermaker55]

So your religious convictions tell you to denigrate others! I got it.
Quote me the number of "hetero" couples that give children a safe and wonderful living environment and then quote me the statistics compared to same sex marriages.
Thanks!

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]

So your religious convictions tell you to denigrate others! I got it.
Quote me the number of "hetero" couples that give children a safe and wonderful living environment and then quote me the statistics compared to same sex marriages.
Thanks!

No, the religious convictions of 49 countries in Europe made them decide that a man and a woman [one of which had his genitals hacked off to resemble a woman] calling themselves now "lesbians" did not have a "human right" to force children into that situation by using the loophole of marriage. The 49 European countries felt that in addition to having that "situation" forced on churches that it also shouldn't be forced on children.

Perfectly logical reasoning. Children cannot vote and Courts like this one are their only hope at having their civil rights protected. In this case the right to not be forced to be raised by the clearly and evidently mentally ill...

 

[boilermaker55]

Tell me who is the mentally ill you are talking about.

So your religious convictions tell you to denigrate others! I got it.
Quote me the number of "hetero" couples that give children a safe and wonderful living environment and then quote me the statistics compared to same sex marriages.
Thanks!

No, the religious convictions of 49 countries in Europe made them decide that a man and a woman [one of which had his genitals hacked off to resemble a woman] calling themselves now "lesbians" did not have a "human right" to force children into that situation by using the loophole of marriage. The 49 European countries felt that in addition to having that "situation" forced on churches that it also shouldn't be forced on children.

Perfectly logical reasoning. Children cannot vote and Courts like this one are their only hope at having their civil rights protected. In this case the right to not be forced to be raised by the clearly and evidently mentally ill...

 

[Silhouette]

Tell me who is the mentally ill you are talking about.

So your religious convictions tell you to denigrate others! I got it.
Quote me the number of "hetero" couples that give children a safe and wonderful living environment and then quote me the statistics compared to same sex marriages.
Thanks!

No, the religious convictions of 49 countries in Europe made them decide that a man and a woman [one of which had his genitals hacked off to resemble a woman] calling themselves now "lesbians" did not have a "human right" to force children into that situation by using the loophole of marriage. The 49 European countries felt that in addition to having that "situation" forced on churches that it also shouldn't be forced on children.

Perfectly logical reasoning. Children cannot vote and Courts like this one are their only hope at having their civil rights protected. In this case the right to not be forced to be raised by the clearly and evidently mentally ill...

That would be the guy who whacked off his dick and testicles to play-act at being a woman and the actual woman who is his wife who is playing along with his delusions so the guy doesn't go off the deep end any further. And the both of them calling themselves "lesbians". If I have to spell out how this is mental illness, you will, I fear, never get the perspective part of it.

This man and woman calling themselves lesbians were suing in France to have the "human right" to adopt children. The European High Court said "NO". That gay marriage is not a human right. Bound legally in 49 countries in Europe. Any country can allow gay marriage but no country can be sued to make it happen.

 

[boilermaker55]

So now you have this element of being able to psychoanalyze others. Interesting. Somehow telling others how to live their lives is a concern of yours. You still didn't show any statistics concerning the welfare of children in either situation. Did you? Or are facts not something you dabble in. Only psychoanalysis?
Give us some real research based facts to coincide with your theory.

Tell me who is the mentally ill you are talking about.

So your religious convictions tell you to denigrate others! I got it.
Quote me the number of "hetero" couples that give children a safe and wonderful living environment and then quote me the statistics compared to same sex marriages.
Thanks!

No, the religious convictions of 49 countries in Europe made them decide that a man and a woman [one of which had his genitals hacked off to resemble a woman] calling themselves now "lesbians" did not have a "human right" to force children into that situation by using the loophole of marriage. The 49 European countries felt that in addition to having that "situation" forced on churches that it also shouldn't be forced on children.

Perfectly logical reasoning. Children cannot vote and Courts like this one are their only hope at having their civil rights protected. In this case the right to not be forced to be raised by the clearly and evidently mentally ill...

That would be the guy who whacked off his dick and testicles to play-act at being a woman and the actual woman who is his wife who is playing along with his delusions so the guy doesn't go off the deep end any further. And the both of them calling themselves "lesbians". If I have to spell out how this is mental illness, you will, I fear, never get the perspective part of it.

This man and woman calling themselves lesbians were suing in France to have the "human right" to adopt children. The European High Court said "NO". That gay marriage is not a human right. Bound legally in 49 countries in Europe. Any country can allow gay marriage but no country can be sued to make it happen.

 

[Silhouette]

So now you have this element of being able to psychoanalyze others. Interesting. Somehow telling others how to live their lives is a concern of yours. You still didn't show any statistics concerning the welfare of children in either situation. Did you? Or are facts not something you dabble in. Only psychoanalysis?
Give us some real research based facts to coincide with your theory.

Oh goodness no. Nobody needs a degree in psychology to understand that if a man amputates his own genitals, then begins calling himself "a woman" and convinces his wife to "become a lesbian with him" that that man [or his wife for that matter] is patently insane.

In fact if you are a practicing psychologist you are told by the APA that you will lose your license to practice if you consider the foregoing "insane". That's what happens when you allow a gay cabal to take over the APA like they did in the late 1970s and 80s and have maintained their stronghold since then. How else could they influence the AMA to violate the hippocratic oath and assist patients in amputating healthy organs in order to leave them incontinent, numb sexually and mutilated freaks?

 

[boilermaker55]

But you sure seem justified in passing a judgement onto someone. Seems quite natural for you. Where do you get the information that solidifies your statements and your conclusions?
Sitting in the seat of judgement must be quite satisfying to you.

So now you have this element of being able to psychoanalyze others. Interesting. Somehow telling others how to live their lives is a concern of yours. You still didn't show any statistics concerning the welfare of children in either situation. Did you? Or are facts not something you dabble in. Only psychoanalysis?
Give us some real research based facts to coincide with your theory.

Oh goodness no. Nobody needs a degree in psychology to understand that if a man amputates his own genitals, then begins calling himself "a woman" and convinces his wife to "become a lesbian with him" that that man [or his wife for that matter] is patently insane.

In fact if you are a practicing psychologist you are told by the APA that you will lose your license to practice if you consider the foregoing "insane". That's what happens when you allow a gay cabal to take over the APA like they did in the late 1970s and 80s and have maintained their stronghold since then. How else could they influence the AMA to violate the hippocratic oath and assist patients in amputating healthy organs in order to leave them incontinent, numb sexually and mutilated freaks?

 

[Silhouette]

But you sure seem justified in passing a judgement onto someone. Seems quite natural for you. Where do you get the information that solidifies your statements and your conclusions?
Sitting in the seat of judgement must be quite satisfying to you.

So now you have this element of being able to psychoanalyze others. Interesting. Somehow telling others how to live their lives is a concern of yours. You still didn't show any statistics concerning the welfare of children in either situation. Did you? Or are facts not something you dabble in. Only psychoanalysis?
Give us some real research based facts to coincide with your theory.

Oh goodness no. Nobody needs a degree in psychology to understand that if a man amputates his own genitals, then begins calling himself "a woman" and convinces his wife to "become a lesbian with him" that that man [or his wife for that matter] is patently insane.

In fact if you are a practicing psychologist you are told by the APA that you will lose your license to practice if you consider the foregoing "insane". That's what happens when you allow a gay cabal to take over the APA like they did in the late 1970s and 80s and have maintained their stronghold since then. How else could they influence the AMA to violate the hippocratic oath and assist patients in amputating healthy organs in order to leave them incontinent, numb sexually and mutilated freaks?

Judgment is different from observation. With the "lesbian" couple in this lawsuit, simple objective observation says that a man incapable of realizing he is a man is insane by definition. Denial of obvious reality is insanity. Or do you have another defintition for insanity than the standard?

 

[Silhouette]

So now you have this element of being able to psychoanalyze others. Interesting. Somehow telling others how to live their lives is a concern of yours. You still didn't show any statistics concerning the welfare of children in either situation. Did you? Or are facts not something you dabble in. Only psychoanalysis?
Give us some real research based facts to coincide with your theory.

Apparently the european court had enough facts. Don't you suppose?

 

[boilermaker55]

You are talking about a completely different culture and society. Spend some time in one of the countries you are so quick to side with, on this issue only. Then come to a more reasonable conclusion.




in·san·i·ty
: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
Seems a bit more rational than your substitute for insanity.

But you sure seem justified in passing a judgement onto someone. Seems quite natural for you. Where do you get the information that solidifies your statements and your conclusions?
Sitting in the seat of judgement must be quite satisfying to you.

So now you have this element of being able to psychoanalyze others. Interesting. Somehow telling others how to live their lives is a concern of yours. You still didn't show any statistics concerning the welfare of children in either situation. Did you? Or are facts not something you dabble in. Only psychoanalysis?
Give us some real research based facts to coincide with your theory.

Oh goodness no. Nobody needs a degree in psychology to understand that if a man amputates his own genitals, then begins calling himself "a woman" and convinces his wife to "become a lesbian with him" that that man [or his wife for that matter] is patently insane.

In fact if you are a practicing psychologist you are told by the APA that you will lose your license to practice if you consider the foregoing "insane". That's what happens when you allow a gay cabal to take over the APA like they did in the late 1970s and 80s and have maintained their stronghold since then. How else could they influence the AMA to violate the hippocratic oath and assist patients in amputating healthy organs in order to leave them incontinent, numb sexually and mutilated freaks?

Judgment is different from observation. With the "lesbian" couple in this lawsuit, simple objective observation says that a man incapable of realizing he is a man is insane by definition. Denial of obvious reality is insanity. Or do you have another defintition for insanity than the standard?

So now you have this element of being able to psychoanalyze others. Interesting. Somehow telling others how to live their lives is a concern of yours. You still didn't show any statistics concerning the welfare of children in either situation. Did you? Or are facts not something you dabble in. Only psychoanalysis?
Give us some real research based facts to coincide with your theory.

Apparently the european court had enough facts. Don't you suppose?

 

[Silhouette]

You are talking about a completely different culture and society. Spend some time in one of the countries you are so quick to side with, on this issue only. Then come to a more reasonable conclusion.

Actually technically that would be 49 "completely different [from each other even] cultures and societies". The European Court that turned down gay marriage as a "human right" has jurisdiction that extends to 49 separate countries and country-states all throughout Europe, including France, Germany and England.

 

[boilermaker55]

So you are saying they are they, the Europeans, are the guru's of knowledge. Or it is just in this instance that happens to coincide with your thoughts. Other situations and laws they have don't really fit into what you believe so that is no concern.
Again, go spend some time there.
Check it out.

You are talking about a completely different culture and society. Spend some time in one of the countries you are so quick to side with, on this issue only. Then come to a more reasonable conclusion.

Actually technically that would be 49 "completely different [from each other even] cultures and societies". The European Court that turned down gay marriage as a "human right" has jurisdiction that extends to 49 separate countries and country-states all throughout Europe, including France, Germany and England.

 

[Silhouette]

So you are saying they are they, the Europeans, are the guru's of knowledge. Or it is just in this instance that happens to coincide with your thoughts. Other situations and laws they have don't really fit into what you believe so that is no concern.
Again, go spend some time there.
Check it out.

You are talking about a completely different culture and society. Spend some time in one of the countries you are so quick to side with, on this issue only. Then come to a more reasonable conclusion.

Actually technically that would be 49 "completely different [from each other even] cultures and societies". The European Court that turned down gay marriage as a "human right" has jurisdiction that extends to 49 separate countries and country-states all throughout Europe, including France, Germany and England.

The European Court heard evidence and testimony and then convened to render the decision that is binding on the 49 countries it oversees.

 

[g5000]

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

I don't know what the various European constitutions may say about it, but OUR Constitution says we all have a right to equal protection of the laws.

We also have legal precedents which have established that those protections cannot be denied any group without a rational reason.

Since our state and federal laws bestow all kinds of cash and prizes on marriage and no one has ever been able to provide a rational reason for withholding those protections from homosexual marriages, then in America they have that right to marriage.

 

[boilermaker55]

Well, hell if that suits you fine, jump on the next airliner or ocean liner and live there. Bye!

So you are saying they are they, the Europeans, are the guru's of knowledge. Or it is just in this instance that happens to coincide with your thoughts. Other situations and laws they have don't really fit into what you believe so that is no concern.
Again, go spend some time there.
Check it out.

You are talking about a completely different culture and society. Spend some time in one of the countries you are so quick to side with, on this issue only. Then come to a more reasonable conclusion.

Actually technically that would be 49 "completely different [from each other even] cultures and societies". The European Court that turned down gay marriage as a "human right" has jurisdiction that extends to 49 separate countries and country-states all throughout Europe, including France, Germany and England.

The European Court heard evidence and testimony and then convened to render the decision that is binding on the 49 countries it oversees.

 

[g5000]

You should see the horrible things European courts have to say about speech! Just try waving a Nazi flag around in Germany.

So I wouldn't get all hard in your pants over European courts and their legal opinions, and I would start counting your lucky stars you live in America.

But if you hate fags that much, go ahead and move to the European paradise. Go ahead!

 

[mal]

Our SCOTUS has been clear repeatedly on Marriage... It is "Fundamental to our Very Existence and Survival" and Homosexuals do NOT Reflect that Natural Reality about what we are as a Species.

We are Designed by Nature and Equipped to be Man/Woman. Every other Deviation is Unequal to that Factually and EVERY single Human on Earth is a Product of Man/Woman.

If you Hate our Court and Nature so much why don't you Suck Cocks in a Country that wants to Molest the Language and our "Very Existence" you Fuckity ****.



peace...