Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst
Discussion
You are free to rewrite legislative history to suit your prejudices if you wish. None of the objections you raise carry any substance. It takes a stroke of a pen to apply to a same sex relationship the same rules as apply to a cross sex relationship.
Yout only argument is because because. There is not one rational objection to treating all adult citizens alike when it comes to legal recognition of pair bonding.
Yout only argument is because because. There is not one rational objection to treating all adult citizens alike when it comes to legal recognition of pair bonding.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 20th October 14:07
What is your fascination with adultery and consommation, Motorvator? Does thinking about what people do in bed excite you? Disgust you?
There is no threat to heterosexual relationships. They can carry on as before.
Do you suppose our laws to be as those of the Medes and Persians? You can google that.
Every post you make shows you to be an antediluvian bigot, full of fear and hatred. You are perhaps more to be pitied than scorned.
There is no threat to heterosexual relationships. They can carry on as before.
Do you suppose our laws to be as those of the Medes and Persians? You can google that.
Every post you make shows you to be an antediluvian bigot, full of fear and hatred. You are perhaps more to be pitied than scorned.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 20th October 18:18
I add that there is no reason to respect your views, Motovator, for the same reason that we do not respect the vies of those who supported apartheid. Your desire to treat people differently on grounds of sexual orientaion is indistinguishable from a wish to treat people differently on grounds of ethnic origin.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 20th October 21:24
Sticks. said:
Breadvan72 said:
.... Your desire to treat people differently on grounds of sexual orientaion is....
Is 'discrimination' just about treating people differently? As a disabled person I am treated differently, but it's only when such treatment disadvantages me that I call it discrimination.stackmonkey said:
[lots, concluding....]
If they had even a single valid argument that could be backed up in any way, they would have presented it, but they haven't.
Well said, Stackmonkey, and your final sentence is spot on. We have had pages of this, and there is another thread running about the latest B and B case, but in neither thread has a single rational argument been presented for a modern and civilised society to treat people differently on grounds of sexual orientation. If they had even a single valid argument that could be backed up in any way, they would have presented it, but they haven't.
In plain words, affording access to a legal status to one group of people but not to another group, on the ground only of sexual orientation, is discrimination. Should there be a gay electoral roll, gay driving licences, and gay passports? No, of course not, that would be absurd. It is just as absurd to have one type of marriage for heterosexual couples, and another type for homosexual couples.
I add that the Strasbourg court applied the Convention, which was drafted in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when homosexuality was still a criminal offence in the UK and many other European states. Things have moved on since then, which is why it is now proposed to remove the distinction between different types of state-recognised pair bonding. That distinction is purely historical, and has no logical basis in a developed society.
Breadvan72 said:
The courts are at present bound by the limited language of an instrument drafted seventy years ago. Parliament is free to modernise the law to reflect the happy retreat of your atavistic ideas, Motorvator. I am sorry that you find yourself a dinosaur, but evolution is harsh.
From the research I have read so far, ECtHR's preference at this time, is that individual states handle their own legislation separately as each society has distinct societal differences over the issue and that their judgements would be influenced by the applicable laws of the home state to which any claimant would be subject. That said, the ECtHR limited this to where the ECHR would be violated in other ways. IE forcing religious marriages to those religions that do not wish to conduct such ceremonies, may be in violation of Article 9, etc.
ETA
Football time....happy arguing of semantics and strawmen!
Edited by djstevec on Sunday 21st October 12:56
MOTORVATOR said:
Breadvan72 said:
The Courts are presently applying, as they must, an instrument drafted seventy years ago. Parliament may change the law to reflect modern social mores. It is free to do so. Which part of that is unclear?
So as it stands today would you have any chance of success convincing a judge that I am being discriminatory by using the term marriage as applying to a male / female only relationship?
MOTORVATOR said:
Breadvan72 said:
The Courts are presently applying, as they must, an instrument drafted seventy years ago. Parliament may change the law to reflect modern social mores. It is free to do so. Which part of that is unclear?
So as it stands today would you have any chance of success convincing a judge that I am being discriminatory by using the term marriage as applying to a male / female only relationship?Such is the current legal definition of marriage. That definition is susceptible to change. The argument that you can't have gay people getting married to one another because we don't have this at the moment is, as others have noted, circular.
There are no arguments for not making the change. This is evident from your failure, over a gazillion pages, to produce a single argument, other than "because because".
There are no arguments for not making the change. This is evident from your failure, over a gazillion pages, to produce a single argument, other than "because because".
The only difference between a committed pair bonding of two gay people and one of two straight people is that some (not all) heterosexual couples can have children together, whereas gay couples have to use surrogates or adopt, as many straight couples also do. This is not a sufficient difference to justify continuing an outmoded social and legal construct.
Extending a definition to encompass all consenting adults is no threat to established relationships, morals, or social foundations. It merely reflects a progression of ideas.
Extending a definition to encompass all consenting adults is no threat to established relationships, morals, or social foundations. It merely reflects a progression of ideas.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff