Gay Marriage

[SirRumpole]

I doubt they will care what the law says either way, but it has been shown that abstinence only education doesn't work, and increases the rate of teenage pregnancy.

So why have an age of consent law at all if it does no good ? You would be in favour of abolishing it completely ?

 

[SirRumpole]

Maybe in little rumpoles world its not, but according to the united nations universal charter of human rights, which Australia assisted in writing, it is a basic human right.

So you can deny it all you want, but its right there in the charter which Australia is a signatory to.

Stuff the UN, they have really improved the life of the world's citizens haven't they ?

Nuclear weapons, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, they are the most useless organisation in the world.

They can say what they like about human rights, lets see them go into Saudi Arabia and throw out the Wahhabis if they want to improve the lives of gays.

 

[noco]

I know a few of you will laugh, but it is a part of the Fabian Society tactic to lower the morals of our youth and it has been going on since the 60's...This Safe Schools program in Victoria will become compulsory in all schools shortly but it has a hidden agenda as many of you now realize or are about to find out.....Daniel Andrews is behind it all and I am told it is a dangerous piece of legislation which will have a dramatic affect on all school kids from a very young age.

Through from the 50's and 60's Communism has set out to destroy the economy of Western Countries and to lower the morals of youth by exposing them to pornography as much as possible at an early age

I once posted under, "COMMUNISM IS NOT DEAD AND BURIED", How to skin a country, I will see if I can reproduce it for you.

To check out how the Fabian Society works lowering the morals of our youth, check out post 148 under ;-Re: Communism: It is not dead and buried .....there are lots of other referrals on this thread.

 

[Hodgie]

So why have an age of consent law at all if it does no good ? You would be in favour of abolishing it completely ?

The age of consent laws protect children from older people preying on them.

 

[McLovin]

The age of consent laws protect adults from preying on children.

Pretty much. Two teenagers who are close in age or both underage are unlikely to face any prosecution (some states actually have a legislated closeness of age defense).

 

[SirRumpole]

The age of consent laws protect children from older people preying on them.

So it should , so should we legalise all under age sex ? What age should be the cutoff point ? Two years, 5 years ? Is sex between a 15 year old and a 13 year old ok ?

 

[Hodgie]

So it should , so should we legalise all under age sex ? What age should be the cutoff point ? Two years, 5 years ? Is sex between a 15 year old and a 13 year old ok ?

Tough question and I'm not the person to make that call, I think Mclovin's response above pretty much covers the issue as I see it though.

All we can do is really teach them about safe sex, prevention is difficult to say the least and I don't think the age of consent laws really deter teens.

I recall when I was 13 and my older brother 15, we were at my dad's house (parents had just split up) and my dad gave my brother condoms because he had a girlfriend at the time. He didn't know if they were having sex but wanted to be safe in case they were.

Some may say bad parenting or whatever but my brother didn't knock any girls up at least.

 

[McLovin]

I recall when I was 13 and my older brother 15, we were at my dad's house (parents had just split up) and my dad gave my brother condoms because he had a girlfriend at the time. He didn't know if they were having sex but wanted to be safe in case they were.

That's what my Dad did. Gave me a pack of condoms and said if I wanted to be an adult then I had to take responsibility as an adult. Awkward conversation. Sort of like this...

 

[Value Collector]

So why have an age of consent law at all if it does no good ? You would be in favour of abolishing it completely ?

No, age of consent laws give us more power to punish adults that take advantage of girls and boys that are underage.

The fact that people flaunt laws isn't a reason to abolish them.

 

[Value Collector]

Stuff the UN, they have really improved the life of the world's citizens haven't they ?

Nuclear weapons, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, they are the most useless organisation in the world.

They can say what they like about human rights, lets see them go into Saudi Arabia and throw out the Wahhabis if they want to improve the lives of gays.

So you see no value in the charter of human rights? Or is it just that on item in particular?

 

[Value Collector]

So it should , so should we legalise all under age sex ? What age should be the cutoff point ? Two years, 5 years ? Is sex between a 15 year old and a 13 year old ok ?

Every person is different when it comes to when they are mature enough, but we need to draw a line in the sand some where.

 

[SirRumpole]

So you see no value in the charter of human rights? Or is it just that on item in particular?

I think the UN charter is vague regarding Same sex marriage. The intent seems to be more on preventing forced marriages rather than explicitly endorsing SSM. SSM is certainly not mentioned directly.

 

[Value Collector]

I think the UN charter is vague regarding Same sex marriage. The intent seems to be more on preventing forced marriages rather than explicitly endorsing SSM. SSM is certainly not mentioned directly.

It doesn't define marriage as being between 1 man and 1 women either.

Not just preventing forced marriages, it clears says it is a persons right to marry, other parts of the charter also say it's a human right to not be descriminated against because of your gender or sexuality.

Interracial marriage is not mentioned directly either, but given that descrimination based on race is against human rights, you can easily see interracial marriages shouldn't be banned, the same logic follows that Ssm shouldn't be banned, because freedom from descrimination based on sex/gender is a human right.

Eg. Allowing Emma to marry Tom because she is female, but banning Peter from marrying Tom because he is male, is descrimination based on sex, and would be a violation of the charter.

 

[SirRumpole]

It doesn't define marriage as being between 1 man and 1 women either.

Not just preventing forced marriages, it clears says it is a persons right to marry, other parts of the charter also say it's a human right to not be descriminated against because of your gender or sexuality.

Interracial marriage is not mentioned directly either, but given that descrimination based on race is against human rights, you can easily see interracial marriages shouldn't be banned, the same logic follows that Ssm shouldn't be banned, because freedom from descrimination based on sex/gender is a human right.

Eg. Allowing Emma to marry Tom because she is female, but banning Peter from marrying Tom because he is male, is descrimination based on sex, and would be a violation of the charter.

Obviously if our marriage laws violated "human rights" they would have been challenged in the Hague. Have they been ?

As I said before, various relationships are not "banned"; ie people don't get thrown into gaol (any more) for being gay, but society has a right to recognise relationships that it wants to or not if it sees that society would benefit by that recognition; eg giving children legal recognition, but even that is catered for in de-facto relationships.

eg it's not a breach of human rights if a child of Pauline Hanson married a Muslim and she didn't go to the wedding because she doesn't like Muslims. It's her right not to go.

 

[McLovin]

It doesn't define marriage as being between 1 man and 1 women either.

No, but it limits the scope of that right.

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.

No laws regarding marriage that are due to race, religion or nationality. Everything else is fair game. Considering when that document was written, you could reasonably infer that it didn't intend creating a human right for gays to be able to marry.

Aside from that, the UN DHR is a declaration not a treaty. No country is bound by it.

 

[explod]

Plebesite will not get through and Turnbull indicating that he's prepared to consider action within Parliament.

Groundswell of public concern is getting through.

 

[Value Collector]

No, but it limits the scope of that right.



No laws regarding marriage that are due to race, religion or nationality. Everything else is fair game.

A preceding article of the charter states this.

"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. "

So to me that says putting gender limitations on marriage rights would be a breach of that article.

 

[Tisme]

Fabricated versus natural families and marriages:

ICCPR Article 23 states:

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.
No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/right-marry-and-found-family

http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/videos/marriage-and-family.html

 

[Tisme]

Humpty Dumpty .... nice.

To control the definition of a thing is to control the thing itself. This was the great insight of Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's fantasy, Alice in Wonderland. Recall the dialogue: After he defines “glory” as “a nice knock-down argument,” Humpty-Dumpty explains the point to a doubting Alice: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean ”” neither more nor less.” When Alice responds that the real issue is whether you can change the meaning of a word to make it mean what you want it to mean, Humpty Dumpty demurs: “The question is which is to be master — that's a

Won't have any effect on those X gens who have been victims of the great social experiment gone wrong, but a good article and interesting narrative none the less.

https://www.pop.org/content/whats-wrong-united-nations-definition-family

 

[SirRumpole]

Humpty Dumpty .... nice.



Won't have any effect on those X gens who have been victims of the great social experiment gone wrong, but a good article and interesting narrative none the less.

https://www.pop.org/content/whats-wrong-united-nations-definition-family

The people who care most about children, all else being equal, are their biological parents. Trying to degrade this relationship into some sort of wider sociological caring system is attacking the traditional family system and basically going against nature.

Certainly there is a wider society responsibility to care for all children, but it involves giving parents the resources to care for their children and not attempting turn them into homogenous blobs in the mass of society.

The nuclear family should be encouraged, not undermined as some of the rainbow agenda people want to do.