Homosexuality is an anomaly

[Leafless]

You have not shown how homosexuals getting married are destroying the right of heterosexual marriage. I can assure you that heterosexuals still have the right to marry, despite SSM. Nothing related to SSM is preventing heterosexuals from getting married.

You ask that I have not shown how homosexuals getting married are destroying the right of heterosexual marriage?

The question itself is proof.

Homosexuals are infringing on the MORALISTIC trademark known to a multitude of religions around the globe that marriage is 'between a man and a women'.

Is this not DESTROYING the ESSENTIAL MORALISTIC VALUE of heterosexual marriage by allowing homosexuals to also use the word, relating to SSM?

[Leafless]

Article 2.

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. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Here you go , Article #2 just for you.

Please show me where Gays are excluded.

This should be fun.

Key words for assisting you.....".Everyone....without distinction of any kind...or other status."

And remember , it says "such as race ...." meaning it is not exclusive to just those.

Waiting anxiously. Lets hope you dont ignore this one.

It does not say it specifically.

But if you say or think homosexuals are included in the declaration, why then is SSM not internationally recognized and accepted as such by ALL countries of the world? And why not include brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers or anyone of legal age and interested in simply marrying anyone or one another, if there is NO exact definition pertaining to the word 'everyone', in reference to the declaration.

A similar analogy to yours is a theater ticket where it says 'admit one'.

You could simply argue to theater management (when they stop you at the door) that since the ticket does not define what is exactly meant by 'admit one' that it is perfectly logical that you should be allowed to bring along your pet boa constrictor, since you also bought it an 'admit one' ticket.

[DarkAngel_]

this is getting complicated,

well let me interrupt and say; that my friends want to get laid, because their guys, but i think they want to get laid because 'they' (ones who they lay) are girls, if you get my point, that in fact the attraction of sex is often mirrored in fantasy of the opposite sex...

just a thought

[Leafless]

this is getting complicated,

well let me interrupt and say; that my friends want to get laid, because their guys, but i think they want to get laid because 'they' (ones who they lay) are girls, if you get my point, that in fact the attraction of sex is often mirrored in fantasy of the opposite sex...

just a thought

Who is talking about sexual preferences that could even include animals.

We are talking concerning who is legally included and viewed as a general universal consensus concerning the word "everyone" pertaining to the 'Declaration of Human Rights'.

[guyser]

Article 2.

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. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Here you go , Article #2 just for you.

Please show me where Gays are excluded.

This should be fun.

Key words for assisting you.....".Everyone....without distinction of any kind...or other status."

And remember , it says "such as race ...." meaning it is not exclusive to just those.

Waiting anxiously. Lets hope you dont ignore this one.

It does not say it specifically.

But if you say or think homosexuals are included in the declaration, why then is SSM not internationally recognized and accepted as such by ALL countries of the world? And why not include brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers or anyone of legal age and interested in simply marrying anyone or one another, if there is NO exact definition pertaining to the word 'everyone', in reference to the declaration.

A similar analogy to yours is a theater ticket where it says 'admit one'.

You could simply argue to theater management (when they stop you at the door) that since the ticket does not define what is exactly meant by 'admit one' that it is perfectly logical that you should be allowed to bring along your pet boa constrictor, since you also bought it an 'admit one' ticket.

Reading comprehension 101 sir.....if I have a ticket that says admit one, then why would I bring a boa? That would require an admit 2 ticket..... wow are you serious?

Dude...once again, if it is not specifically excluded then it MUST be included. Not for you nor I to decide.

[Leafless]

A similar analogy to yours is a theater ticket where it says 'admit one'.

You could simply argue to theater management (when they stop you at the door) that since the ticket does not define what is exactly meant by 'admit one' that it is perfectly logical that you should be allowed to bring along your pet boa constrictor, since you also bought it an 'admit one' ticket.

Reading comprehension 101 sir.....if I have a ticket that says admit one, then why would I bring a boa? That would require an admit 2 ticket..... wow are you serious?

Dude...once again, if it is not specifically excluded then it MUST be included. Not for you nor I to decide.

You incorrectly read the part : "since you also bought it an 'admit one' ticket."

The snake also had an 'admit one ticket'.

But the issue is one with legal implications with the theater utilizing common logic that the 'admit one ticket' is applicable only to human patrons and NOT snakes since there are a variety of laws governing animals in public places.

The same logic is utilized in the 'Declaration of Human Rights' relating to article #16, that to be eligible for marriage, you must be heterosexual.

This is verified by the fact that most countries around the world DO NOT universally accept homosexuals as candidates for marriage and have their own LAWS within their countries PREVENTING this from happening. These laws generally reflecting a combination of common sense and morals that form the framework for that law to recognize between what is 'good or bad' for society.

[guyser]

You incorrectly read the part : "since you also bought it an 'admit one' ticket."

The snake also had an 'admit one ticket'.

But the issue is one with legal implications with the theater utilizing common logic that the 'admit one ticket' is applicable only to human patrons and NOT snakes since there are a variety of laws governing animals in public places.

The same logic is utilized in the 'Declaration of Human Rights' relating to article #16, that to be eligible for marriage, you must be heterosexual.

This is verified by the fact that most countries around the world DO NOT universally accept homosexuals as candidates for marriage and have their own LAWS within their countries PREVENTING this from happening. These laws generally reflecting a combination of common sense and morals that form the framework for that law to recognize between what is 'good or bad' for society.

And I do owe you an apology, you did in fact buy two tickets. For that I am wrong and again sorry.

Now, Article 16 does not say you must be heterosexual. Nowhere does it use that terminlogy.

It says men and women, says nothing about marrying each other, just that men and women can get married.

Once again, if it does not specifically exclude something, then it is included, and that mean men marrying men and vice versa.

It would not however surprise me that they intended to mean men and women only since it was written in 1948. that does not however change anything.

[Leafless]

It would not however surprise me that they intended to mean men and women only since it was written in 1948. that does not however change anything.

Then maybe you can explain why, homosexual lobbyist want certain changes officially made to the 'declaration' to accommodate homosexual lifestyles including SSM, but to date have FAILED, due to lack of international support.

So, you are making a statement that 'homosexuals are already included in the declaration' when that does not appear to be the case at all.

Please supply some sort of proof, to establish as fact, to verify what you are saying is indeed factual and true?

If you cannot support your claim, then there is no sense carrying on this debate any further.

[guyser]

Please supply some sort of proof, to establish as fact, to verify what you are saying is indeed factual and true?

If you cannot support your claim, then there is no sense carrying on this debate any further.

I will tell you what. I did not make the assertion, you did when you said that they are "excluded" .

My counter is that if not specifically excluded they must be included.

So , over to you to validate your point .

[Melanie_]

Then maybe you can explain why, homosexual lobbyist want certain changes officially made to the 'declaration' to accommodate homosexual lifestyles including SSM, but to date have FAILED, due to lack of international support.

There are plenty of human rights that do not have international support - I'm not even going to start. If we make international support the criteria for extending human rights, we may as well let the entire concept of human rights die right now.

[Leafless]

Then maybe you can explain why, homosexual lobbyist want certain changes officially made to the 'declaration' to accommodate homosexual lifestyles including SSM, but to date have FAILED, due to lack of international support.

There are plenty of human rights that do not have international support - I'm not even going to start. If we make international support the criteria for extending human rights, we may as well let the entire concept of human rights die right now.

If you refuse to acknowledge that the international community at large NOT be allowed to set PRINCIPLES or STANDARDS pertaining to 'Declaration of Human Rights', then who exactly would you suggest be qualified to set these standards?

The only being left would be classed a 'superhuman, and that would be God or God's teachings relating to morals that would be qualified to establish proper 'principles or standards'.

[Black Dog]

Homosexuals are infringing on the MORALISTIC trademark known to a multitude of religions around the globe that marriage is 'between a man and a women'.

Is this not DESTROYING the ESSENTIAL MORALISTIC VALUE of heterosexual marriage by allowing homosexuals to also use the word, relating to SSM?

No.

As I said in one of the other bazillion threads on this subject, the term marriage in the context of this debate is a legal term for state-sanctioned civil unions. Now the terminology may be based on the religious term, but it is not the same thing. Civil marriage has nothing to do with the religious institution that shares its name and thus any change in the legal definition of marriage has no bearing and no effect on the religious version.

Q.E.D. Thread over.

[guyser]

There are plenty of human rights that do not have international support - I'm not even going to start. If we make international support the criteria for extending human rights, we may as well let the entire concept of human rights die right now.

If you refuse to acknowledge that the international community at large NOT be allowed to set PRINCIPLES or STANDARDS pertaining to 'Declaration of Human Rights', then who exactly would you suggest be qualified to set these standards?

The only being left would be classed a 'superhuman, and that would be God or God's teachings relating to morals that would be qualified to establish proper 'principles or standards'.

What Melanie is saying is that one cannot leave it up to the International community to decide what is or isn't a human right. You would have to know the Saudi's and many others would not think certain things are human rights so there you go.

God can't decide Human Rights.....she does not exist. And any rep of her cannot come close to being my idea of an arbitor of human rights . Maybe the Catholic church, once they drag themselves kicking and screaming from the 1500's to this millenia.

[Leafless]

What Melanie is saying is that one cannot leave it up to the International community to decide what is or isn't a human right. You would have to know the Saudi's and many others would not think certain things are human rights so there you go.

God can't decide Human Rights.....she does not exist. And any rep of her cannot come close to being my idea of an arbitor of human rights . Maybe the Catholic church, once they drag themselves kicking and screaming from the 1500's to this millenia.

The international community also includes every country in the world.

If you discount the 'human race' to QUALIFY STANDARDS pertaining to the 'Declaration of Human Rights' then I would say you are not 'human' and must come from some unknown planet.

Who can argue AGAINST a consensus for the 'good of world' being established on this planet by MANKIND?

[Leafless]

Homosexuals are infringing on the MORALISTIC trademark known to a multitude of religions around the globe that marriage is 'between a man and a women'.

Is this not DESTROYING the ESSENTIAL MORALISTIC VALUE of heterosexual marriage by allowing homosexuals to also use the word, relating to SSM?

No.

As I said in one of the other bazillion threads on this subject, the term marriage in the context of this debate is a legal term for state-sanctioned civil unions. Now the terminology may be based on the religious term, but it is not the same thing. Civil marriage has nothing to do with the religious institution that shares its name and thus any change in the legal definition of marriage has no bearing and no effect on the religious version.

You know as well as I do the Canadian legal community could have chosen a word that legally describes the union of two people of the same sex, other than marriage.

But they did not, simply because homosexuals OBJECTED to be included in a separate class than heterosexuals pertaining to the word 'marriage'

It is true no one OWNS the legal definition to the word marriage, but then again this word marriage has been traditionally used by the churches of the world to describe the union of a man and a woman otherwise known as a 'heterosexual couple'.

What the law did was not illegal but STOLE the sexual identity of either a man, or a woman to be used in an entirely IMPROPER WAY or INAPPROPIATE WAY to describe the 'union of a man with a man' or a 'woman with a women'.

There is no other way to describe this legal manoeuvre relating to the word 'marriage ' applied to SSM other than FRAUDULENT and CHEAP.

In Canada this can clearly be seen as part of the culture of ENTITLEMENT, part of a Liberal tradition.

[Renegade]

You know as well as I do the Canadian legal community could have chosen a word that legally describes the union of two people of the same sex, other than marriage.

First, it is not the Canadian legal community who chose the word, it is the government who wrote the word marriage into legislation.

Second, yes they could have used a designation, such as "civil union" which applies to any union regardless of the gender of the two parties. From a legal and legslative perspective, there is no reason to distinguish between the gender of the parties so logically it makes no sense to have different words for different permutations of genders. It is unfortunate the word "marriage" was chosen as it seems to raise the hackles of the religiously intolerant minority, but it was a written into legislation at time before its implications were forseen.

[Leafless]

You know as well as I do the Canadian legal community could have chosen a word that legally describes the union of two people of the same sex, other than marriage.

First, it is not the Canadian legal community who chose the word, it is the government who wrote the word marriage into legislation.

Second, yes they could have used a designation, such as "civil union" which applies to any union regardless of the gender of the two parties. From a legal and legslative perspective, there is no reason to distinguish between the gender of the parties so logically it makes no sense to have different words for different permutations of genders. It is unfortunate the word "marriage" was chosen as it seems to raise the hackles of the religiously intolerant minority, but it was a written into legislation at time before its implications were forseen.

"From a legal and legislative perspective, there is no reason to distinguish between the gender of the parties so logically it makes no sense to have different words for different permutations of genders."

Of course it makes sense to have different words for different permutations of gender, since certain paired genders are incapable of performing certain very important biological functions relating to those genders that 'marriage' is traditionally suited for as pertaining to 'male and female'.

"From a legal and legislative perspective"

It is gratifying to know that you do recognize that the Canadian legal community did have a significant part in determining that the federal government, legally could write the word 'marriage' into legislation.

[Renegade]

Of course it makes sense to have different words for different permutations of gender, since certain paired genders are incapable of performing certain very important biological functions relating to those genders that 'marriage' is traditionally suited for as pertaining to 'male and female'.

There is no legal significance to the biological functions of the couples. If you think there is, maybe you can explain what the legal distincition is between one couple who has the capacity to bear children and another which doesn't.

It is gratifying to know that you do recognize that the Canadian legal community did have a significant part in determining that the federal government, legally could write the word 'marriage' into legislation.

And what part is that? Judges and lawyers (ie the legal community) do not write laws. They simply interpret them. While the government who writes laws, is part of the "legal system", they are not who I commonly think of when I refer to the "legal community".

[Leafless]

Of course it makes sense to have different words for different permutations of gender, since certain paired genders are incapable of performing certain very important biological functions relating to those genders that 'marriage' is traditionally suited for as pertaining to 'male and female'.

There is no legal significance to the biological functions of the couples. If you think there is, maybe you can explain what the legal distincition is between one couple who has the capacity to bear children and another which doesn't.

It is gratifying to know that you do recognize that the Canadian legal community did have a significant part in determining that the federal government, legally could write the word 'marriage' into legislation.

And what part is that? Judges and lawyers (ie the legal community) do not write laws. They simply interpret them. While the government who writes laws, is part of the "legal system", they are not who I commonly think of when I refer to the "legal community".

The legal difference is relating to the biological difference

Without the ability to function biologically, there would be virtually no society, no country and especially no legal system.

The legal system has no business initially ruling in this area after this all important biological factor has been established by heterosexuals and government should be very aware of this factor.

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

Relating to governments writing laws:

Governments by nature are of prime importance as a legal body and are the larger part of the legal community. It is commonly understood that governments do in fact utilize courts to arrive at a legal conclusion pertaining to certain issue's prior to a government writing this legal conclusion into law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

[kimmy]

"Biological function" is "all-important"?

So, sterile men, infertile women, couples who can't have kids, and couples who choose not to have kids, they should all just step off, because it's all about the rug-rats?

-k

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

"Biological function" is "all-important"?

So, sterile men, infertile women, couples who can't have kids, and couples who choose not to have kids, they should all just step off, because it's all about the rug-rats?

Don't forget the use of condoms. Sounds like Leafless wishes to make sex for pleasure, and not for pro-creation, legally evil. Aren't most of your examples equal to homosexual sex?

[Renegade]

The legal difference is relating to the biological difference

Leafless, you fail to answer the question I put to you. You simply restate your position that there is a "legal difference is relating to the biological difference". Here is what I am asking: What is that legal difference? IOW, how is a couple with opposite genders, treated differently than one with common genders? Are there legal privleges or diffrentiations allowed one couple which is not allowed another?

Without the ability to function biologically, there would be virtually no society, no country and especially no legal system.

Irrelevant to the issue.

The legal system has no business initially ruling in this area after this all important biological factor has been established by heterosexuals and government should be very aware of this factor.

rant. Try addressing the question instead of devoting your energy to ranting. By now we are all quite aware of your pet peeves.

Relating to governments writing laws:

Governments by nature are of prime importance as a legal body and are the larger part of the legal community. It is commonly understood that governments do in fact utilize courts to arrive at a legal conclusion pertaining to certain issue's prior to a government writing this legal conclusion into law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

As I already said, if you are considering government part of the "legal community" you refer to, then you are correct that they bear responsibility for the legal framework of SSM. The rest of the "legal community" ie the lawyers and judges are simply operating within that legal framework and interpret it.

[Black Dog]

You know as well as I do the Canadian legal community could have chosen a word that legally describes the union of two people of the same sex, other than marriage.

Why should they have? It's the same thing.

But they did not, simply because homosexuals OBJECTED to be included in a separate class than heterosexuals pertaining to the word 'marriage'

No because the relevant legislation uses the word "marriage".

It is true no one OWNS the legal definition to the word marriage, but then again this word marriage has been traditionally used by the churches of the world to describe the union of a man and a woman otherwise known as a 'heterosexual couple'.

It has also been used for quite some time by the state to describe legally sanctioned unions of a man and a woman,, though that definition has since been adjusted. Why weren't you copmplaining about the state "stealing" marriage before SSM came up as an issue?

What the law did was not illegal but STOLE the sexual identity of either a man, or a woman to be used in an entirely IMPROPER WAY or INAPPROPIATE WAY to describe the 'union of a man with a man' or a 'woman with a women'.

huh?

[Leafless]

You know as well as I do the Canadian legal community could have chosen a word that legally describes the union of two people of the same sex, other than marriage.

Why should they have? It's the same thing.

Its the same by definition only. Would you apply that definition to a dog and a cat?

But they did not, simply because homosexuals OBJECTED to be included in a separate class than heterosexuals pertaining to the word 'marriage'

No because the relevant legislation uses the word "marriage".

Correct, and well before SSM was ever on the agenda.

It is true no one OWNS the legal definition to the word marriage, but then again this word marriage has been traditionally used by the churches of the world to describe the union of a man and a woman otherwise known as a 'heterosexual couple'

It has also been used for quite some time by the state to describe legally sanctioned unions of a man and a woman,, though that definition has since been adjusted. Why weren't you complaining about the state "stealing" marriage before SSM came up as an issue?

The state didn't steal it, they used it correctly. The word still applied to the union of a 'man and a women'.

What the law did was not illegal but STOLE the sexual identity of either a man, or a woman to be used in an entirely IMPROPER WAY or INAPPROPIATE WAY to describe the 'union of a man with a man' or a 'woman with a women'.

huh?

Yup. You read right!

[Renegade]

Its the same by definition only. Would you apply that definition to a dog and a cat?

When there is no legal need to distinguish between "dog" and "cat" then the law uses a word which applies to both. For example, if the government passes a law forbidding cruelty to animals, should they distinguish between cruelty to dogs vs cruelty to cats? Obviously not.

I'm still waiting for a response to my challenge to you to demonstrate the legal difference between OSM and SSM. I suspect you have no adequate response and so you choose to ignore the challenge.

The state didn't steal it, they used it correctly. The word still applied to the union of a 'man and a women'.

If you are going to let the state define the term for legal purposes, they you are at their whim when they choose to redefine it according to societal norms.