Gay Marriage

[Value Collector]

So marriage is a human right,

Yes, according to the united nations charter of human rights,

what about my human right not to pay taxes to supports causes I do not support? Sending army in ME or other cause where I would actually be in line with some of the leftist sides?

I couldn't find that in the charter.

Human right?
human right is freedomn of thoughts, equality of opportunities regardless of age, sex, colour or even sexual preference (Gay would fit there and i would fight for them )

Yep those are in the charter too.

but marriage is not a human right ..The more we use these key values in an over the top way, the more we devalue them

Yes, its right there in the charter of universal human rights.

equality of opportunities regardless of age, sex, colour or even sexual preference (Gay would fit there and i would fight for them )

Yet you are willing to restrict their opportunity to marry based on sexual preference.

If you feel it shouldn't be a universal human right to marry, then maybe you should take it up with the United Nations, or the Australian Government that have ratified it.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yes, according to the united nations charter of human rights,

All you have said is that rights are what humans say they are.

If the UN excluded gays from marriage, would you accept that ?

 

[Value Collector]

If the UN excluded gays from marriage, would you accept that ?

I would ask why gays should be excluded, and then see if they have a valid reason.

The freedoms and rights of people should always be maximised, and the only reason to reduce a persons freedoms or rights is where you need to reduce them to protect another individual from harm.

eg. I have the right to swing my arm, but I can't swing it in such a way that it hits you. Yes my personal freedom to swing my arm is limited, but only in such a way to prevent harm to you, I am still allowed to swing my arm in general.

No one can show any reason why allowing gays to marry would cause harm, so its an immoral limit on personal freedom caused by discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

[noco]

From this link it appears the Labor Party have conducted their own polling on same sex marriage....Now don't they want us to know the results.

Pretty simple.......The Labor Party conducted poll indicated a majority were against changes to the law.....They certainly don't want a plebiscite so they have resorted to alternative tactics.

http://www.acl.org.au/here_s_why_sa...0dec&utm_source=CreateSend&utm_term=Read more

Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Lyle Shelton said news today that the Australian Labor Party was using polling which showed a lack of public support for changing the Marriage Act to undermine the plebiscite was extraordinary.

 

[qldfrog]

Yes, according to the united nations charter of human rights,
and then

Yes, its right there in the charter of universal human rights.

For your enlightment:
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi1ivKRgerOAhVBppQKHY-YCuIQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ohchr.org%2FEN%2FUDHR%2FDocuments%2FUDHR_Translations%2Feng.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGU4gJef0eHw9MBIIIYp7o7FdFD9g&sig2=XMBUuxoLSDyGhIlBoNjVbA&cad=rja
There is even a chapter on marriage:
I 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.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the
intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is
entitled to protection by society and the State."
you can note that 16.1 does not say due to "race, nationality
or religion, or sex"

Gay marriage is maybe a wish, something to aspire to, whatever but it is NOT a human right defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

[Tink]

These identity politics are becoming divisive.
Ladies and Gentlemen now gets shouted down as not politically correct?

I am standing up for Marriage.
The true meaning where all is equal for all.
Man and woman = their children.
Marriage and FAMILY.

We all have our opinions and therefore we should be free to think and express as we choose.

I am also against this 'unsafe' school.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=25851&page=6&p=903407&viewfull=1#post903407

We are not blobs, we are human beings, female and male.
Toddlers are not sexual beings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2008, their civil union was changed so that same sex couples and heterosexual couples now share the exact same, so I see this as not true that they do not have the same.

-- the only difference is the word, Marriage, nothing connected to it as they have the same anyway.

They want the word, plus changes to be made across the spectrum of how we need to think, and raise our families.

A step too far, in my view.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the plebiscite, that needs to stay and be put to the people, imv.

 

[Ves]

There is even a chapter on marriage:
I 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.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the
intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is
entitled to protection by society and the State."
you can note that 16.1 does not say due to "race, nationality
or religion, or sex"

Gay marriage is maybe a wish, something to aspire to, whatever but it is NOT a human right defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I think you'll find that there are varying interpretations of what is actually meant/intended in this section.

Is the reference to "men and women" intended to promote equality between the genders? (ie. both men and women should be allowed to marry without discrimination without different rules for each gender)

Or is it (as I assume you are reading it) intended to say that a man shall be allowed marry a women?

Fair bit of academic and politic debate about this very section.

 

[Tisme]

Life was much easier when the major political parties were strong on the clear intent of marriage and family. Yet another casualty of the nineties that had us soaking up the political correctness pouring out of the London Central square mile.

 

[qldfrog]

These identity politics are becoming divisive.
Ladies and Gentlemen now gets shouted down as not politically correct?

I am standing up for Marriage.
The true meaning where all is equal for all.
Man and woman = their children.
Marriage and FAMILY.

We all have our opinions and therefore we should be free to think and express as we choose.

I am also against this 'unsafe' school.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=25851&page=6&p=903407&viewfull=1#post903407

We are not blobs, we are human beings, female and male.
Toddlers are not sexual beings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2008, their civil union was changed so that same sex couples and heterosexual couples now share the exact same, so I see this as not true that they do not have the same.

-- the only difference is the word, Marriage, nothing connected to it as they have the same anyway.

They want the word, plus changes to be made across the spectrum of how we need to think, and raise our families.

A step too far, in my view.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the plebiscite, that needs to stay and be put to the people, imv.

more or less my view, anywaypeople need empty fights and feel good acts to share via FB and instagrams joining what are de facto mob behaviours while "obviously" labelling their self righteous views as truth or even basic human rights...
As a results, not to infringe on the human rights or addicted and drunk parents, a whole generation of australian kids is destroyed in the NT, islam is raging a full scale war on the western society, and our economies are collapsing;
people have the audacity of complaining of the 160M cost of the plebiscite while my taxes are used to pay nearly a billion a month in interest only on debt which was not even there 10 years ago....
There is more urgent need than trying to redine the meaning of the word "marriage" imho, believe me marriage is not as great as what it is supposed to be , see the divorce rates

 

[SirRumpole]

I think you'll find that there are varying interpretations of what is actually meant/intended in this section.

Is the reference to "men and women" intended to promote equality between the genders? (ie. both men and women should be allowed to marry without discrimination without different rules for each gender)

Or is it (as I assume you are reading it) intended to say that a man shall be allowed marry a women?

Fair bit of academic and politic debate about this very section.

The interpretation that I make is that both men and women have the freedom to marry (or not), and should not be coerced; ie it is a barrier against forced marriages. I don't think it implied any same sex marriage rights.

And if our current laws breached the UN Charter, surely they would have been challenged in International Courts, and to my knowledge they have not.

 

[qldfrog]

I think you'll find that there are varying interpretations of what is actually meant/intended in this section.

Is the reference to "men and women" intended to promote equality between the genders? (ie. both men and women should be allowed to marry without discrimination without different rules for each gender)

Or is it (as I assume you are reading it) intended to say that a man shall be allowed marry a women?

Fair bit of academic and politic debate about this very section.

true, but words were carefully chosen and in 1948, the idea was probably not even around, the writers were focussing on the spirit and key rights which would carry on irrespective of time, IMHO marriage (and using this term as opposed to another legal scheme allowing the SAME rights(which we have already)) was not in, anyway, let the "good people feel good" easier to bandwagon on this one and have rallies etc than tackling real issues

 

[qldfrog]

The interpretation that I make is that both men and women have the freedom to marry (or not), and should not be coerced; ie it is a barrier against forced marriages. I don't think it implied any same sex marriage rights.

And if our current laws breached the UN Charter, surely they would have been challenged in International Courts, and to my knowledge they have not.

Indeed and the reading any common sense people would have but common sense is not part of the debate

 

[Ves]

The interpretation that I make is that both men and women have the freedom to marry (or not), and should not be coerced; ie it is a barrier against forced marriages. I don't think it implied any same sex marriage rights.

And if our current laws breached the UN Charter, surely they would have been challenged in International Courts, and to my knowledge they have not.

It depends if you're reading it along with Articles 2 and 7 (and probably others).

Re the International Courts: I remember that there was a bit of discussion in media/political circles with reference to possible breaches of the UN Charter in regards to the Manus detention centre. Not sure what the court process is for this kind of thing?

 

[SirRumpole]

It depends if you're reading it along with Articles 2 and 7 (and probably others).

Re the International Courts: I remember that there was a bit of discussion in media/political circles with reference to possible breaches of the UN Charter in regards to the Manus detention centre.

I was referring specifically to our Marriage laws which to my knowledge have not been challenged in International Courts.

Refugee matters are another issue entirely.

 

[Ves]

I was referring specifically to our Marriage laws which to my knowledge have not been challenged in International Courts.

Refugee matters are another issue entirely.

Yep, they are different.

But if the UN is saying Australia is breaching its legal requirements re detention of refugees, and it isn't using the International Court process for that (correct me if I'm wrong), what makes you think them not using it re Same Sex marriage rights is proof of no breach in that case?

 

[SirRumpole]

Yep, they are different.

But if the UN is saying Australia is breaching its legal requirements re detention of refugees, and it isn't using the International Court process for that (correct me if I'm wrong), what makes you think them not using it re Same Sex marriage rights is proof of no breach in that case?

May not be "proof" of no breach, but people who think that they are could obviously challenge our laws in the International Courts.

Maybe the process is to expensive, or maybe the challengers would think they would lose, I don't know, but the SSM lobby is pretty well resourced around the world, and lots of other countries have the same laws as we do so you would think that a challenge would have been raised by someone by now.

 

[Ves]

May not be "proof" of no breach, but people who think that they are could obviously challenge our laws in the International Courts.

Maybe the process is to expensive, or maybe the challengers would think they would lose, I don't know, but the SSM lobby is pretty well resourced around the world, and lots of other countries have the same laws as we do so you would think that a challenge would have been raised by someone by now.

I must admit I haven't followed this debate closely from a legal perspective, but weren't there several court cases in the USA where it was ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban same-sex couples from marrying?

I have a feeling the precedent from one of those major court cases resulted in its legalisation across all US states.

The US is tricky though, there's the whole interaction between State and Federal laws.

 

[pixel]

From this link it appears the Labor Party have conducted their own polling on same sex marriage....Now don't they want us to know the results.

Pretty simple.......The Labor Party conducted poll indicated a majority were against changes to the law.....They certainly don't want a plebiscite so they have resorted to alternative tactics.

http://www.acl.org.au/here_s_why_sa...0dec&utm_source=CreateSend&utm_term=Read more

Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Lyle Shelton said news today that the Australian Labor Party was using polling which showed a lack of public support for changing the Marriage Act to undermine the plebiscite was extraordinary.

Looks like some people are clutching at straws.
I have no problem with interested groups having their say, but I draw the line at deliberate misinformation. That is IMHO un-Christian. (It's also un-Australian, although standards have been slipping since Howard's "Children Overboard" and "Never-Ever-GST" lies.)

 

[Tisme]

We no longer abide by our covenants with the UN, so they don't count in our affairs.

 

[Value Collector]

]

Gay marriage is maybe a wish, something to aspire to, whatever but it is NOT a human right defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Charter clearly says Marriage is a Human right. Which you and rumpole originally questioned, stating saying marriage is not a right, So I pointed to the charter where it clearly states marriage is a right.

So in charter we establish that marriage is a right for both men and woman (it doesn't say between a man and a woman)

Other articles in the charter also clearly lay out that it is a human right to live free of discrimination based on your gender.

Put those two together and we have it.

Article 2, UN charter

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status

It clearly states sex is not a determining factor on whether you have rights.

Marriage is a right that should not be denied, and we shouldn't discriminate based on gender.

______________________________________________

But More importantly than the charter, is the concept that we should all agree our rights and freedoms should be maximised, and the only reason to deny or restrict freedoms is where is can be shown that such an action would be damaging in a way that out weighs the benefits of allowing that action.

So far no one has been able to show how recognising the marriage of to people of the same sex is damaging to society in a way that justifies it's banning.