What Should Marriage Be?

[numinus]

What are you, a Commie, an Imperialist or a Nazi? The only time in the history of the modern world when it was the "duty" of the people to produce children for the State have been in totalitarian societies like Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Communist Russia and China!

Perpetuation of the specie doesn't necessarily mean eugenics, now, does it?

Isn't that supposed to be a natural imperative as seen in natural selection? It has nothing to do with politics.

Such a "requirement" exists NOWHERE in ANY law in the United States.

Of course it isn't. Just because it isn't in ANY law in the us doesn't mean the imperative to pro-create doesn't exist, now, does it?

 

[numinus]

This source seems to agree with your philosophy. Have you read it?

No, I haven't.

For clarity -- the imperative to perpetuate the specie DOES NOT end in the act of giving birth as often as a couple can. Surely, such a thing cannot be construed as logical since overpopulation would cause the demise of ANY specie.

Bacteria cannot multiply beyond what its environment can sustain. So too, with other higher forms of animals. In humans, no restriction exists, except what his reasoning faculty can discern.

 

[numinus]

Still can't bring yourself to provide a link to your "evidence"? HERE it is, in case anyone is interested in reading what it REALLY says.

Now, let's analyze the specific verbiage of the Article shall we?

Analyze away, einstein!

You can start with this -- in all other articles, the udhr uses the words 'everyone' or 'no one'. Curiously enough, only in this particular article does it speak of 'men and women'. Does it not follow the spirit of your nonsense argument to have phrased this article with 'everyone'?

Here we have a specification that "MEN AND WOMEN..." (which precludes dogs, cats, and farm animals, and acknowledges the RIGHT of men and women, even HOMOSEXUAL men and women, or men and women who may not be able to procreate) "...of full age..." (and since it doesn't specify what that age is, it is left to each country to decide for themselves), "...without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to FOUND A FAMILY..." (which is a UNION OF TWO PEOPLE)...

The clause did not say 'without any limitation to gender', now, did it?

Take note, you are talking about a UNIVERSAL DECLARATION. One cannot logically reconcile something UNIVERSAL with a homosexual tendency.

Next, the right to 'marry' and to 'found a family' are concepts that are intimately related to each other and are INDEPENDENT OF POSITIVE LAW.

So, any law on same-sex unions promulgated by any country DOES NOT destroy its meaning. They are simply two entirely different things -- same sex unions from positive law, marriage from an INALIENABLE AND NATURAL RIGHT.

Again, nothing in this Article demands that children result from the union, ergo even those who are incapable of reproducing are fully protected under the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You are piling nonsense one after another.

Does you right to religion necessitate you to join any religion?

Does your right to free speech necessitate you to speak?

Does your choice to exercise your rights or not have anything to do with the PURPOSE for which these rights exist in the first place?

And finally, does your right to the pursuit of human ass, hence your own private bliss, have anything to do with your government protecting the fundamental group unit of society?

Which is the union of two people, but it in no way REQUIRES that they even ATTEMPT to procreate.

No. The family being contemplated in the udhr is not merely a union between consenting adults. Nothing in that particular article suggest a homosexual union. Nothing in that particular article obligates the signatory states to afford protection for homosexual unions.

It says nothing of the sort. You're applying YOUR bigoted interpretations rather than acknowledging the fact that even though the word "family" is mentioned 6 times in the UDHR, it never PRECLUDES a homosexual family.

Let me see -- no limitation regarding race, nationality or religion. Did it mention gender? I mean, feel free to point it out to me if it mentioned gender.

Therefore, a homosexual union IS NOT A UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHT. Not only is it NOT A UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHT, it is IMPOSSIBLE to found a family within a homosexual union.

Duh?

 

[top gun]

An obligation to produce and raise the next generation?

Is it the couple's duty to the state to reproduce?

If not, just how is it an obligation to have children?

Now it's happened to you it looks as if I made this quote below when I didn't... it was a total Dr. Who quote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by top gun

Marriage is an obligation not a way to get service. An obligation to produce and raise the next generation. And it is only because of the obligation that any priveleges at all are rendered to married persons. At least that is what the state says. I would prefer that the state stay out of it.

I know what you're saying though. Dr. Who is trying to make points that are nonexistent. There's NO, ZERO, NOTTA single place outside of varying religious beliefs that say anything whatsoever about marriage being an obligation to do any of the things he has posted.

Marriage could just as easily be described as two people that want each other taken off the dating market because they love each other and want two enjoy hot totally monogamous sex. Having children is not in any way a mandate issue of marriage. It's a silly argument in my opinion just looking at the millions of heterosexual marriages over the years that were totally childless.

Trying to look for any merit in Dr. Who's belief I'd say it's pretty clear.

A) Marriage whatever it is, an obligation or a service or both, has no rational reason to be dissected only for the purposes of homophobic discrimination.

B) Dr. Who would prefer the state to recognize heterosexual marriage and not gay marriage and call that "staying out of it"! Of course that obviously doesn't wash or pass any reasonable smell test at all. It's a complete contradiction in terms.


This is one of those... I can't argue any real reason except for my own personal religious beliefs but I know that won't wash across the board so I'll make up some nonexistent legal, constitutional or governmental claims and hope people just buy into it.

Homophobia run amuck I guess...

 

[top gun]

Dr.Who;50796]

Marriage is an obligation not a way to get service. An obligation to produce and raise the next generation. And it is only because of the obligation that any priveleges at all are rendered to married persons. At least that is what the state says. I would prefer that the state stay out of it.

Whatever you cast it as it doesn't hysterically morph into something different because of sex of the parties involved. And you must admit that the truth is that "the state staying out of it" means... both are legal or both are illegal.

And at least one of the items on that list does harm other people. Family health insureance is a greater value than single health insurance. The single people are carrying the load of the married people. The single people are subsidizing the production of chldren. If a gay couple gets married and produces no children then nothing is being subsidized except gay marriage.

Come on my friend you are an intelligent person. Just read what you posted and see that is not logic. The fact that gay people cannot produce children means there are many LESS bills for the Family plan to cover keeping their rates low. If you have a legitimate gripe (which I just don't see) it would be those damn heterosexual people having all those kids raising single people's rates.

Personally I see no gripe either way. Gay marriage is not going to cost the rest of us more.

I agree. And since divorce is so harmful to children it should be sanctioned greatly.

One seriously needs to live in a real world scenario here. It has been proven beyond a shadow of any doubt that children forced to live in dysfunctional sometimes even neglectful, abusive heterosexual homes and calling that "better" than allowing a divorce destroyed children's lives. That's exact why no-fault divorce became legal.

As far as raising children goes many scientific studies have been made and in comparison to all the many scenarios children are raised in, parental gender issues have shown to be no bad influence in a loving family unit. And that's a custody issue anyway... not a "marriage" issue. Family Court covers all juvenile protection matters and they are perfectly capably of doing that job.

yet many people say the reverse.

yet all of these people passed custody requirements first so it is hardly a representative sample. You say that there is no difference. But one would expect that a group of gay people who all passed a test to have custody would do much better than a bunch of straight people who got married and had kids with no such test. If they are in fact the same then it must mean that the best of the gays are only doing as well as a random group of non gays.

Some "people" may say the reverse... but the actual studies show that gay marriage does not hurt children. Except on some personal religious grounds there's very, very, very little real argument here.

As far as the... You would expect to see gay people do "better" than straight people that's about as skewed as an angle can get. We are all human beings... straight or gay not all situations work out as perfectly. Why not witch hunt single parent homes? Maybe take their children away because a mother/father situation is more ideal.... Because it's stupid right?

It is not about individuals. It is about sociological groups. What are the consequences of changing the definition of marriage we have had for thousands of years? A few case studies tells us very little.

Because we learn and we evolve. You could make the same claim that slavery was the "norm" for centuries all over the world. Or Women really shouldn't vote because that's really better left up to the men in society.

Maybe think about it. Sometimes we get so entrenched in a view that we lose true perspective when we really should probably just lighten up a little.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Sovereign power resides in the organ that makes laws, controls the armed forces, and administers justice. Clearly, that is the government.

What you meant to say, perhaps, is that the right to govern comes from the consent of the governed.

There is a clear distinction, fyi.

Numnuts, you must love contradicting yourself. If the sovereignty of the US lies with the organ that makes the laws, and those who make those laws are the representatives of The People, which means that they work for us as our employees, then it is We The People who retain sovereign power just as an employer retains HIS authority over HIS employees.

This is utter nonsense.

Marriage and family laws are chiefly within the province of the INDIVIDUAL STATES. So, you need to look into STATUTORY LAW, NOT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, to see exactly where the right to regulate comes from.

Oh, and the tenth ammendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Do you need me to explain that as well?

And exactly how do you propose to explain something that you obviously don't comprehend? Statutory law derives IT'S authority from the Constitution, so if it's not authorized in the Constitution, the statutes are UN-Constitutional ON THEIR FACE. You're also obviously too dense to comprehend that the separation mentioned in the 10th gives the States those powers, not specifically prohibited to them, but since the 14th Amendment, that part of the 10th is as moot as the 18th Amendment, or the first part of the 3rd Clause of Article 1 Section 2, the latter part of the 1st Clause of Article 1 Section 3, the entirety of Clause 2 of Article 1 Section 3, the date specified in Clause 2 of Article 1 Section 4, Clause 4 of Article 1 Section 9, Clauses 3 and 6 of Article 2 Section 1, part of Clause 1 of Article 3 Section 2, and the entirety of Clause 3 of Article 4 Section 2, all of which have been changed by subsequent Amendment.

Nobody is prohibiting a homosexual from 'being with someone of their own sex'.

Its just NOT A MARRIAGE.

Duh?

Your assertion was that the purpose of marriage was the founding of a "natural family", and given that a family is the union of 2 persons, and given that for homosexuals, being with someone of their own sex IS natural, therefore a homosexual relationship IS a "natural family", and therefore perfectly legitimate for the purpose of marriage. Now, do I need to draw you a simple flow chart so that you can follow this?

The purpose of the ammendments is to check the powers of the federal government. It doesn't mean the states cannot make their own laws.

I never said that States couldn't make their own laws, only that because of the 14th Amendment, the States MUST comport themselves in compliance with Federal law, and since Federal Law derives it's legitimacy from the specific article of the Constitution GRANTING it the LIMITED authority on which to legislate (Article 1 Section 8), the States must likewise comport themselves to the same limitations.

He withdrew from kuwait, did he not? Have you even read the un resolutions you just mentioned?

Each and every one of them, plus several I didn't mention, but that has nothing to do with the TERMS OF SURRENDER, which Saddam violated time and time again, therefore it was within our purview to restart hostilities against him AT OUR LEISURE.

Correct. The us may do so IN SELF-DEFENSE. Which begs the question -- when has an armed attack by iraq against the us occured, hmmm?

In Saddams FUNDING AND/OR TRAINING of Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us, including, but not limited to, those involved in the USS Cole attack, the attacks on our Embassies, and more importantly, the 9-11 hijackers themselves.

And what exactly have I lied about, hmmm?

You lied by intentionally misrepresenting the truth.

Eh????

Commonwealth is a 'GENERAL TERM', as the wiki definition said. How is a 'general term' flawed for being 'entirely too general', eh???

The FACT remains -- what you pay your government IS NO LONGER YOUR MONEY, IT IS THE COMMONWEALTH'S.

I am growing quite tired of your stupidity.

MY stupidity? You're the one that's relying on Wiki for your knowledge base!

And I suppose you can demonstrate self-defense in the recent war with iraq, eh?

All I have to do is show that he violated the terms of his surrender, which should be obvious to everyone.

As for the rest of your inane blathering, you've been PWNED, admit it and walk away while you still have some shred of credibility left.

Oh, and if you're tired of reading my posts, feel free to simply put me on your ignore list, and you won't have to. It would please me no end to not have to read your mindless prattling attempts at rebuttal.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Perpetuation of the specie doesn't necessarily mean eugenics, now, does it?

Who said anything about eugenics? You're getting more and more desperate in every post!

Isn't that supposed to be a natural imperative as seen in natural selection? It has nothing to do with politics.

Well, fortunately for us, and unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, we can CHOOSE whether we want to procreate or not, and it's YOU who is attempting to insert politics into a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to marry whomever one chooses to marry.

Of course it isn't. Just because it isn't in ANY law in the us doesn't mean the imperative to pro-create doesn't exist, now, does it?

Firstly , it's an "imperative" to TRY to procreate, whether or not it is successful is another subject altogether, An "imperative" to ATTEMPT to procreate has nothing to do with homosexuality, as many homosexuals manage to procreate through artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and/or through surrogates, so again, your assertions fall flat on their face in the light of FACTS AND EVIDENCE.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Analyze away, einstein!

You can start with this -- in all other articles, the udhr uses the words 'everyone' or 'no one'. Curiously enough, only in this particular article does it speak of 'men and women'. Does it not follow the spirit of your nonsense argument to have phrased this article with 'everyone'?

I could have, but then you'd have come back with the same kind of non-sense you use here saying that I should have used "men and women". You really are getting desperate!

The clause did not say 'without any limitation to gender', now, did it?

Nor does it place any limitations on gender, so in deference to BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS we must err on the side of individual liberty.

Take note, you are talking about a UNIVERSAL DECLARATION. One cannot logically reconcile something UNIVERSAL with a homosexual tendency.

Is it your contention that a Universal Declaration would preclude homosexuals? That's not very "universal" then is it?

Next, the right to 'marry' and to 'found a family' are concepts that are intimately related to each other and are INDEPENDENT OF POSITIVE LAW.

So, any law on same-sex unions promulgated by any country DOES NOT destroy its meaning. They are simply two entirely different things -- same sex unions from positive law, marriage from an INALIENABLE AND NATURAL RIGHT.

Is it your assertion that an inalienable and natural right can be limited by positive law? Now you're sounding downright Soviet!

You are piling nonsense one after another.

Does you right to religion necessitate you to join any religion?

Does your right to free speech necessitate you to speak?

Does your choice to exercise your rights or not have anything to do with the PURPOSE for which these rights exist in the first place?

And finally, does your right to the pursuit of human ass, hence your own private bliss, have anything to do with your government protecting the fundamental group unit of society?

Thank you for proving my point! So we agree that the NATURAL RIGHT to marry DOES NOT necessitate the production of any offspring. I was beginning if you were ever going to grasp the concept. To use your own argument, someones choice to exercise their right to marry does not have anything to do with the purpose for which the right to marry exists in the first place, so the right to marry, and your alleged necessity to procreate as a result of that marriage are two entirely different concepts, independent of each other.

No. The family being contemplated in the udhr is not merely a union between consenting adults. Nothing in that particular article suggest a homosexual union. Nothing in that particular article obligates the signatory states to afford protection for homosexual unions.

And nothing in that particular article EXCLUDES a homosexual union, so again, as an American, you must defer to the BASIC HUMAN RIGHT OF MARRIAGE by default.

Let me see -- no limitation regarding race, nationality or religion. Did it mention gender? I mean, feel free to point it out to me if it mentioned gender.

At the very beginning of Section 1 of Article 16 where it says MEN AND WOMEN, you know, right before it mentions race, nationality, or religion. Perhaps you're aware of another gender?

Therefore, a homosexual union IS NOT A UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHT. Not only is it NOT A UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHT, it is IMPOSSIBLE to found a family within a homosexual union.

OK, it's obvious now that you have not the first clue WHAT the term "human right" even means. Human Rights are those rights that ALL humans share, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, national origin, political affiliation, or sexual orientation. Once you strip away ALL societal prejudices and get down to the basic human being, there are certain rights that we ALL share, and one of them is the RIGHT to marry whomever we choose to marry.

Duh?

 

[PLC1]

No, I haven't.

I didn't think so. It is one of the most important pieces of literature in the English language. You should read it.

For clarity -- the imperative to perpetuate the specie DOES NOT end in the act of giving birth as often as a couple can. Surely, such a thing cannot be construed as logical since overpopulation would cause the demise of ANY specie.

Bacteria cannot multiply beyond what its environment can sustain. So too, with other higher forms of animals. In humans, no restriction exists, except what his reasoning faculty can discern.

Clearly, once a child is born, the parents have an obligation to that child that surpasses any other obligation or desire that they might have.

Clearly, the couple does not have a duty to produce a child in the first place, unless they are living in the kind of society described in the work I cited above.

Clearly, I have no desire to live in such a society, do you?

 

[Federal Farmer]

No, I haven't.

That explains a lot. A primary example of the dumbing down of America.

I suppose you haven't read your Shakespeare either? Lewis Carrol? Sir Francis Bacon? Charles Dickins? Aristophanes? Plato?

 

[Dr.Who]

You mean to say the federal government cannot make statutes??? I'm sorry but you are talking apples and oranges.

Don't be silly. They can make whatever statutes laws ordinances whatever that they want to make as long as it is within their proscribed lowers.

It is constitutional until its constitutionality is challenged.

That is crazy thinking. If the congress tomorrow decided to make all women sex slaves we wold not have to wait until it was challenged to know that it was unconstitutional. It would be unconstitutional the moment they did it. It would just be unchallenged until it was challenged.

 

[Dr.Who]

I know what you're saying though. Dr. Who is trying to make points that are nonexistent. There's NO, ZERO, NOTTA single place outside of varying religious beliefs that say anything whatsoever about marriage being an obligation to do any of the things he has posted.

The courts have rules for a long time that the interest of the state is that provisions for the continuation of the species is in the state interest.

Here are a few cases in which that was argued and the courts agreed.

"Before the state began to regulate marriage, it was an entirely religious institution. It was not until 1836 that England established a formal system of registering marriages, births, and deaths (as opposed to having this events recorded in church records and family bibles). The need to keep such records flowed directly from the state's desire to impose support obligations on responsible individuals so that the support of dependent women and children did not fall on the state."

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/lgbtlaw/2007/10/conaway-v-deane.html

Another function of marrige is to encourage couples to unite for the sake of the children. Historically couples who wanted divorce were not granted it if the state did not agree - it has always been about the states needs. the state cannot have a bunch of fatherless children running around - it must force men to take responsibility for the children they make. It must force men to give up the product of their labor not only for intentionally created children ( they usually want to do that) but also for accidentally created children. And this is the big difference between same sex couples and opposite sex couples. Opposite sex couples never create accidental births so the state has no reason to force them to take care of the product of these unions. The state has no interst in forcing same sex couples to marry.

This argument was accepted by the Cal courts:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58068

Here is a more in depth discussion:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0063.html

Marriage could just as easily be described as two people that want each other taken off the dating market because they love each other and want two enjoy hot totally monogamous sex. Having children is not in any way a mandate issue of marriage. It's a silly argument in my opinion just looking at the millions of heterosexual marriages over the years that were totally childless.

It could be described as that but the state doesn't care about that. When two people get married the state doesn't care that they think it is about love. The state cares that it doesn't get saddled with taking care of children, widows, abandoned spouses, etc. In the case of same sex couples this is just not much of a concern.

B) Dr. Who would prefer the state to recognize heterosexual marriage and not gay marriage and call that "staying out of it"! Of course that obviously doesn't wash or pass any reasonable smell test at all. It's a complete contradiction in terms.

I would prefer the state to stay out of both. But if it is going to get involved it should not be to experiment with social norms. The state must demonstrate that it has in interest in being involved.

This is one of those... I can't argue any real reason except for my own personal religious beliefs but I know that won't wash across the board so I'll make up some nonexistent legal, constitutional or governmental claims and hope people just buy into it.

Well I posted at least one court case above in which it was not nonexistent. Could it be that I first heard that in reference to a court case? A: yes. I used to be more in favor of same sex marriages until I heard about the reason that the state is involved at all. 1. to make couples take care of the children they intentionally or accidentally create, 2. to encourage property rights that helps children and women, 3. to recognize the obligation to the next generation and to a system of natural creation that is stable.

I don't care what people do in their bedrooms.
I don't care if they get some gay religious marriage.
I don't care if the state approves of gay unions.

I do care if the state regulates marrage to coerce men and women to stay together for the sake of children but then applies that ruling to a situation in which no coercion is needed because 1. there will be and can be no accidental children.

In the situaton where people purposively join in order to have children the states case is much weaker and perhaps it should stay out of it - until those people with children want to separate. That is the purpose of common law marriage after all. And this applies to same sex couples that adopt or use artificial means.

 

[numinus]

Numnuts, you must love contradicting yourself. If the sovereignty of the US lies with the organ that makes the laws, and those who make those laws are the representatives of The People, which means that they work for us as our employees, then it is We The People who retain sovereign power just as an employer retains HIS authority over HIS employees.

Nonsense.

There is NO way the people can DIRECTLY exercise sovereignty EXCEPT through their elected government. It is all there in political theory -- the people, as a perfect union of the body politic, both SHARES in the sovereign power and are, individually and collectively, SUBJECT to it.

And exactly how do you propose to explain something that you obviously don't comprehend? Statutory law derives IT'S authority from the Constitution, so if it's not authorized in the Constitution, the statutes are UN-Constitutional ON THEIR FACE.

What sort of silly are you trying to peddle here, exactly?

Are you suggesting that the only laws congress and state legislature can make are those directly related to powers enumerated in article 1 section 8 of the constitution?

Let me see -- regulations on the practice of profession? Unconstitutional in its face?

A host of federal statutes not related to article 1 section 8? Unconstitutional in its face?

Zoning, building, fire and health, etc. ordinances? Unconstitutional in its face?

Are you really this dumb?

You're also obviously too dense to comprehend that the separation mentioned in the 10th gives the States those powers, not specifically prohibited to them, but since the 14th Amendment, that part of the 10th is as moot as the 18th Amendment, or the first part of the 3rd Clause of Article 1 Section 2, the latter part of the 1st Clause of Article 1 Section 3, the entirety of Clause 2 of Article 1 Section 3, the date specified in Clause 2 of Article 1 Section 4, Clause 4 of Article 1 Section 9, Clauses 3 and 6 of Article 2 Section 1, part of Clause 1 of Article 3 Section 2, and the entirety of Clause 3 of Article 4 Section 2, all of which have been changed by subsequent Amendment.

And how, may I ask, does the 14th ammendment prohibit state legislature to define marriage as it is defined, eh? Does the marital institution prohibit you from pursuing your happiness in another man's anal passage?

Nope, I don't think so.

Your assertion was that the purpose of marriage was the founding of a "natural family",

Correct. Marriage and family laws are ways in which the state protects this fundamental group unit of society.

and given that a family is the union of 2 persons,

No. A union of two consenting homosexuals is not a family since NO FAMILY RELATIONS can come of it. The relationship of the intending parties is their own affair.

and given that for homosexuals, being with someone of their own sex IS natural,

What a homosexual feels to be natural for himself is NOT NECESSARILY A NATURAL FAMILY. Nor such a thing may be construed as a 'natural family' in the strict legal meaning of the term.

therefore a homosexual relationship IS a "natural family", and therefore perfectly legitimate for the purpose of marriage. Now, do I need to draw you a simple flow chart so that you can follow this?

You mean you can put your nonsense logic in flowchart form??? By all means -- be my guest.

I never said that States couldn't make their own laws, only that because of the 14th Amendment, the States MUST comport themselves in compliance with Federal law, and since Federal Law derives it's legitimacy from the specific article of the Constitution GRANTING it the LIMITED authority on which to legislate (Article 1 Section 8), the States must likewise comport themselves to the same limitations.

Do you need me to post all federal statutes not related to the powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8? Such patent nonsense!

Each and every one of them, plus several I didn't mention, but that has nothing to do with the TERMS OF SURRENDER, which Saddam violated time and time again, therefore it was within our purview to restart hostilities against him AT OUR LEISURE.

What term of surrender might that be, eh?

A blanket authority to 'restart hostilities at YOUR LEISURE' contradicts the principles stated in the un charter. Remember -- all other treaties are subservient to it.

In Saddams FUNDING AND/OR TRAINING of Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us, including, but not limited to, those involved in the USS Cole attack, the attacks on our Embassies, and more importantly, the 9-11 hijackers themselves.

These are not PROVEN FACTS.

Truth be known, israel has more right to pound iraq into oblivion, by the principle of self-defense alone. And yet, they were made to defer to us military action.

You lied by intentionally misrepresenting the truth.

I'm the one misrepresenting the truth????

You have twisted the meaning of the udhr to a pretzel and you have the temerity to accuse me of this???

Tell me -- why do you suppose all articles in the udhr use the word 'everyone' or 'no one' except in the article I mentioned, hmmm? The udhr speaks of the right to motherhood as well. Are we to construe that it is a right inherent in the male gender as well?

What an utter bonehead!

MY stupidity? You're the one that's relying on Wiki for your knowledge base!

Then I invite you to provide another source that says otherwise. As you said -- put up or shut up.

All I have to do is show that he violated the terms of his surrender, which should be obvious to everyone.

You need to show that in a court of INTERNATIONAL LAW. What you, or anyone else of your ilk think is simply irrelevant. Unless, of course, you cannot be bothered to subscribe to the rule of law.

As for the rest of your inane blathering, you've been PWNED, admit it and walk away while you still have some shred of credibility left.

I do not subscribe to the meandering logic, nor the opinions, of morons.

Oh, and if you're tired of reading my posts, feel free to simply put me on your ignore list, and you won't have to. It would please me no end to not have to read your mindless prattling attempts at rebuttal.

Why should I get tired? I am thoroughly enjoying exposing your ignorant opinions wherever you deign post them.

 

[numinus]

Who said anything about eugenics? You're getting more and more desperate in every post!

The only way the imperative to perpetuate the species is discriminatory is when it is carried out by eugenics.

Duh?

Well, fortunately for us, and unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, we can CHOOSE whether we want to procreate or not, and it's YOU who is attempting to insert politics into a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to marry whomever one chooses to marry.

Correct. And marriage is instituted for the purpose of procreation. Nothing in your choice changes this.

Firstly , it's an "imperative" to TRY to procreate, whether or not it is successful is another subject altogether, An "imperative" to ATTEMPT to procreate has nothing to do with homosexuality, as many homosexuals manage to procreate through artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and/or through surrogates, so again, your assertions fall flat on their face in the light of FACTS AND EVIDENCE.

It is an imperative on human society AS A WHOLE, not the individual. And it is fortunate indeed, that the rest of society does not suffer your ignorance.

 

[numinus]

I could have, but then you'd have come back with the same kind of non-sense you use here saying that I should have used "men and women". You really are getting desperate!

The truth is, there is no concieveable reason to say 'men and women' in lieu of 'everyone' if the article wasn't gender-sensitive. And there really isn't any reason to talk of the natural family without taking into consideration the functions of HUMAN FECUNDITY inherent in genders.

Nor does it place any limitations on gender, so in deference to BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS we must err on the side of individual liberty.

You err. Plain and simple.

Oh, and you cannot interchange the concept of human rights with individual liberty.

Is it your contention that a Universal Declaration would preclude homosexuals? That's not very "universal" then is it?

No. Homosexuals may marry anyone from the opposite gender. Duh?

Is it your assertion that an inalienable and natural right can be limited by positive law? Now you're sounding downright Soviet!

What a moron you are. I said 'independent of positive law', did I not?

Thank you for proving my point! So we agree that the NATURAL RIGHT to marry DOES NOT necessitate the production of any offspring. I was beginning if you were ever going to grasp the concept.

Good so far. Having the license to practice engineering does not necessitate that you practice engineering. Same logic.

To use your own argument, someones choice to exercise their right to marry does not have anything to do with the purpose for which the right to marry exists in the first place,

LMAO.

Is the operation of logic so ambiguous to you?

The marital institution is there for the purpose of protecting the natural family and the relations that accrue from it. You exercise the right for that purpose. If your purpose is not to have a natural family, then why the hell do you want to marry?

And more importantly, why do you want to change the definition of marriage to begin with? Take note that family law pertains to the issues that arise from family relations. Why subject homosexual relations to family law when there is no family?

Duh?

so the right to marry, and your alleged necessity to procreate as a result of that marriage are two entirely different concepts, independent of each other.

The procreative aspect of the family IS the reason that marriage and family laws are there in the first place.

Duh?

And nothing in that particular article EXCLUDES a homosexual union, so again, as an American, you must defer to the BASIC HUMAN RIGHT OF MARRIAGE by default.

You think by default?

How convenient for you.

At the very beginning of Section 1 of Article 16 where it says MEN AND WOMEN, you know, right before it mentions race, nationality, or religion. Perhaps you're aware of another gender?

As opposed to EVERYONE and NO ONE, the words CONSISTENTLY USED in all other articles. Only a moron would misconstrue the intended meaning.

OK, it's obvious now that you have not the first clue WHAT the term "human right" even means. Human Rights are those rights that ALL humans share, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, national origin, political affiliation, or sexual orientation. Once you strip away ALL societal prejudices and get down to the basic human being, there are certain rights that we ALL share, and one of them is the RIGHT to marry whomever we choose to marry.

Duh?

The right to motherhood?

Duh?