Gay Marriage

[SirRumpole]

What the hell are you talking about crazy person? Inalienable human rights. Those are rights you're born with, that nobody can take away. Inalienable. You cannot be alienated from them.

And we only have these Rights because our legal and judicial system says we do.

You quoted the US Constitution.

That's where the Rights of US citizens are laid down. We don't have the same Rights here. Some people are trying the change the "presumption of innocence" in some cases. This is an example of Rights being changed by legislation, so no rights are "inalienable".

Is the Right to Free Speech inalienable ? They don't have that in North Korea.

Do you understand what I'm saying ?

 

[sinner]

Fraid not.

If Rights are not legally enforceable then they are without substance.

Horse****. Using this logic, the right of slaves to liberty was completely without substance until the legal abolition of slavery?

That is some serious stupid thinking right there. Are you wearing some kind of hat which cuts off the supply of oxygen to your brain? My suggestion would be to remove it before more damage occurs.

It's the legal and judicial system that enable us to enjoy our freedoms and rights and that's what people have to change if they want their rights recognised.

Uh, so now you're saying the rights do exist and are in fact inalienable, and that the legal system is merely a mechanism for recognition of those rights?

Agreed.

 

[sinner]

Is the Right to Free Speech inalienable ? They don't have that in North Korea.

Do you understand what I'm saying ?

YES. I totally understand what you are saying, since these are discussions I had many years ago when I was younger and even in high school most people around me understood the basics of modern humanity. Congratulations, you can converse at the level of a 15 year old student.

That poor North Korean peasants are being denied their inalienable human rights does not remotely imply that those rights do not exist, that they do not deserve them, nor any other stupid idiocy you can spout. All it implies is that it is possible for horrible human beings to deny other human beings their inalienable human rights through violence and subversion.

Big whoop.

 

[McLovin]

Are we really at the point of having to explain that denying someone a right doesn't make the right cease to exist? If it does then you've just justified every tinpot dictator on Earth.

 

[sinner]

Are we really at the point of having to explain that denying someone a right doesn't make the right cease to exist? If it does then you've just justified every tinpot dictator on Earth.

I'm telling you dude, these people would be right at home under the thumb of a Putin or Mubarak or Baghdadi, everything just how they like it.

 

[SirRumpole]

Are we really at the point of having to explain that denying someone a right doesn't make the right cease to exist? If it does then you've just justified every tinpot dictator on Earth.

No I'm saying that you have to change legislation and to do that you need either the Parliament to do it or the public.

How much of your "Rights" to talk to whoever you like without being spied on by government have been denied by metadata legislation ?

What "inalienable" rights to privacy do you think you have ?

 

[SirRumpole]

I'm telling you dude, these people would be right at home under the thumb of a Putin or Mubarak or Baghdadi, everything just how they like it.

The point is you silly twit, SOMEONE HAD TO DECIDE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

WHO WAS IT ?

 

[McLovin]

No I'm saying that you have to change legislation and to do that you need either the Parliament to do it or the public.

No you don't. Australian Capital Television v The Commonwealth. The right to political speech existed even though it had never been enumerated in legislation or the Constitution.

 

[sinner]

The point is you silly twit, SOMEONE HAD TO DECIDE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

WHO WAS IT ?

The enslaved want for liberty.

The silenced want for speech.

The homosexuals want the choice to marry.

 

[SirRumpole]

No you don't. Australian Capital Television v The Commonwealth. The right to political speech existed even though it had never been enumerated in legislation or the Constitution.

Well that's fine.

So why hasn't the gay marriage debate been decided in the Courts ?

And you will note that it took a court to say that the right to political speech existed.

 

[Atari rose]

The point is you silly twit, SOMEONE HAD TO DECIDE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

WHO WAS IT ?

Well it sure wasn't the SSM people, or any special interest group for that matter.

"The threat of violence is nothing in comparison to the threat we face from this law. This is just the beginning of a programme of legislation to impose the socialist ideology of one gender and to destroy the foundations of the family."


France found out the hard way.

 

[McLovin]

Well that's fine.

So why hasn't the gay marriage debate been decided in the Courts ?

Because the Constitution is pretty clear that the power to legislate for marriage rests with the Parliament. And around in circles we go...That does not mean the Parliament should use its power deny a group their rights. The Parliament could tomorrow prevent blacks and whites from marrying, would that not be a denial of their civil rights?

The notion that a government must enumerate a right for it to have affect is totally wrong.

As an aside, I'd be interested in the historical perspective of why the power to legislate for marriage was even given to the Commonwealth, considering in the US it is a state issue.

 

[SirRumpole]

The notion that a government must enumerate a right for it to have affect is totally wrong.

You may say that it's morally wrong, and I may agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that a law must be changed.

You can whinge about it all you like but it won't make any difference. Someone has to vote on the issue and I don't see why it can't be the public as the Parliament has so far not been able to.

 

[McLovin]

You may say that it's morally wrong, and I may agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that a law must be changed.

I didn't say it was morally wrong.

You can whinge about it all you like but it won't make any difference.

Trust me pal, if I wanted it to make a difference I wouldn't be wasting my time on here.

 

[SirRumpole]

I didn't say it was morally wrong.

So you don't think that preventing gay marriage is morally wrong ?

 

[Value Collector]

You may say that it's morally wrong, and I may agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that a law must be changed.

You can whinge about it all you like but it won't make any difference. Someone has to vote on the issue and I don't see why it can't be the public as the Parliament has so far not been able to.

Yes a law must be changed, and parliament could change it tomorrow, and they should, they don't need a plebiscite.

The whole point we are trying to get across to you, is that even if we had a plebiscite and the majority voted down the concept of SSM, denying SSM rights would still be immoral. 51% of the public voting to deny rights to 1%, does not make it moral, simple as that, you asked me if I would dump the issue it the will of the public was against it, and I said no, because I would see it in the same light as the public voting to maintain slavery.

 

[Value Collector]

to destroy the foundations of the family.

How would allowing a lesbian couple on the other side of town get married affect your family?

 

[McLovin]

So you don't think that preventing gay marriage is morally wrong ?

It depends. If it's nothing more than the half-baked moral subjectivism in this thread then it's hard to call it anything else. Like I said, I'm all ears to hearing why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

And that's my last post on this thread. I've well and truly overstayed!

 

[SirRumpole]

It depends. If it's nothing more than the half-baked moral subjectivism in this thread then it's hard to call it anything else. Like I said, I'm all ears to hearing why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I'll give you one. Acceptance of gay marriage could lead to acceptance of gay parenting, and I've argued very long that gay parenting is using children as guinea pigs in a social experiment.

 

[SirRumpole]

The whole point we are trying to get across to you, is that even if we had a plebiscite and the majority voted down the concept of SSM, denying SSM rights would still be immoral.

And as I have been trying to explain to you, you have no more God given right to decide what is moral than I do, but between 15 million of us we just might be able to get it right. If it doesn't turn out to your satisfaction then you have the rest of your life to try again.