Ban on Gay Marriage (2 Viewers)

[neo o]

Originally posted by 400miles
Oh by the way Neo, good work in coming back at me! Classy way of ignoring it. "We could start another thread on it".... wacko we could start another thread on every argument posted in this thread but then we'd never end up actually debating would we... why don't you just post it here son and address the issue/.

I only said if you wanted to talk about the issue, start a new thread and ill debate about it there. A debate about homosexual adoption would be off topic in this thread.

If you really wanted to talk about adoption, you would have started a new thread by now, but this is obviously just another attempt by you to make half-assed attacks on people again. If you want to make an argument, make it. Bitching will get you nowhere.

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by Rorix


The idea of a certain group being deprived is an emotional argument. We are supposed to sympathise with the poor gays who are being oppressed by the evil law. I am only referring to the deprivation argument here.

The deprivation argument is just as logical as it is emotional. And has been backed up. So, like I said, stop trying to undermine my arguments and give actual arguments yourself.

Again, you deny that GIVING SOMEBODY A RIGHT isn't actually GIVING THEM A RIGHT! Please tell me, if we give gays the right to marry each other, how are we not giving them a right? It matters not that everyone can have a gay marriage, the point is that A RIGHT HAS BEEN GIVEN, which is a critical flaw of the deprivation argument.

No, read with your eyes. It might help. I deny the existance of 'EXTRA' rights. I think we have rights. I don't think anyone has 'extra' rights because I don't believe it's an idea of comparing how many rights I have as opposed to how many rights you have. That's what I see the "critical flaw" in your argument is.

here we go again. The right to marriage states "you have the right to marry anyone you chose of the opposite sex", not "you have the right to marry the person you love" (otherwise there wouldn't be a problem). Gay people aren't being deprived the right to marriage. What you want to do is redefine the concept of marriage to correct this alleged 'deprivation'.

here we go again. I 100% agree that I want to redefine the concept of marriage. I do believe that is the whole argument (thankyou for pointing it out.) And in this new definition I want it to say "you have the right to choose who you marry regardless of gender". So yeah, I'd love to redefine marriage to correct this disastrous 'deprivation'.

You don't seem to understand that I'm not trying to debate gay marriage here. That's why I'm not responding to these sections of the post. I'm just pointing out the logical fallacy that has led you to somehow think if we GIVE TO EVERYONE then we're not actually GIVING.

That's not what I said. You don't seem to understand that the argument is there is NOTHING WRONG with giving extra rights and you haven't proven why there is. In saying that, I only present that argument because of yours and neo's constant pushing of it. I don't believe in the concept of extra rights, just rights in general. And I believe adding more rights is NOT A PROBLEM... as it is only making the world fairer

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by neo_o
If you want to make personal attacks perhaps you should ask Laz to set up a bitching forum for you?

Nah here's fine with me.

Originally posted by neo_o
I only said if you wanted to talk about the issue, start a new thread and ill debate about it there. A debate about homosexual adoption would be off topic in this thread.

Excuse me you brought up the concept of homosexual adoption and when I argued your point you go "I would only argue this in a separate thread". If you're going to bring up arguments and then not back them up then don't bother bringing them up at all.

 

[Rorix]

Originally posted by 400miles
The deprivation argument is just as logical as it is emotional. And has been backed up. So, like I said, stop trying to undermine my arguments with nothing but actual comebacks.

No, it's not. Deprivation is a purely emotional appeal. (Oh, that is, unless you have a logical argument for deprivation being something which must be corrected - and I'd love to hear it).

No, read with your eyes. It might help.

I guess when you've got nothing else to say, ad hominem is the way to go, eh?

I deny the existance of 'EXTRA' rights. I think we have rights. I don't think anyone has 'extra' rights because I don't believe it's an idea of comparing how many rights I have as opposed to how many rights you have. That's what I see the "critical flaw" in your argument is.

IF rights are some sort of intrinstic quality which can't be compared, IF one person can't have extra rights, then there's no way you can tell me heterosexuals have the extra right of marriage.

Because then we'd be comparing rights! And that's just not possible, or so you say!

QED.

here we go again. I 100% agree that I want to redefine the concept of marriage. I do believe that is the whole argument (thankyou for pointing it out.)

You want to redefine the concept of marriage...So, you are conceding that gays actually have the right to marriage, as it is defined now?

But I quote you!:

"try to portray gays as being deprived".... okay, so heteros can marry the person they love but gays can't... tell me how we are not depriving them of the right to marriage?

So, were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?

That's not what I said. You don't seem to understand that the argument is there is NOTHING WRONG with giving extra rights and you haven't proven why there is.

I'm going to go through this real slow with you, as you didn't seem to understand my one sentence explanation last time. Perhaps it might help if you read this next paragraph E X T R A S L O O O O W

I AM NOT HERE TO DISCUSS GAY MARRIAGE STOP
I AM HERE TO POINT OUT A HOLE IN YOUR ARGUMENT STOP
THAT HOLE IS THE IDEA THAT GAYS ARE BEING DEPRIVED THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE STOP
WHETHER OR NOT GRANTING EXTRA RIGHTS IS GOOD IS IRRELEVANT STOP
IT WOULD ONLY BE RELEVANT IF I WERE PASSING A JUDGEMENT ON GAY MARRIAGE STOP
HOWEVER, I AM NOT STOP
THEREFORE, IT IS NOT STOP

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by Rorix
No, it's not. Deprivation is a purely emotional appeal. (Oh, that is, unless you have a logical argument for deprivation being something which must be corrected - and I'd love to hear it).

Firstly I don't understand how you can not see deprivation as needing correction, but let me give some examples. Quite logical ones too, as all of my arguments are. Women were seen inferior as men and weren't entitled to the same quality of life and experience in life that men were, they were deprived of the opportunities life held. This was corrected because it was unjust.
Aboriginals were denied the right to vote and also be classified as people. This changed because it was unjust.
Homosexuals are denied the right of marriage. This should change as it's unjust.
Get the picture?

I guess when you've got nothing else to say, ad hominem is the way to go, eh?

No it's when you get frustrated at some people's inability to read or understand what is being said.

IF rights are some sort of intrinstic quality which can't be compared, IF one person can't have extra rights, then there's no way you can tell me heterosexuals have the extra right of marriage.

Because then we'd be comparing rights! And that's just not possible, or so you say!

QED.

I was arguing along those lines (as I said many times) because that was the argument you kept pushing. It was a 'what if you're right' argument. I dont' actually believe it exists. Again, read.. it helps.

You want to redefine the concept of marriage...So, you are conceding that gays actually have the right to marriage, as it is defined now?

But I quote you!:


So, were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?

Sigh. I want to redefine the concept of marriage BECAUSE gays DON'T have the right to marry. THAT IS why I want it redefined.

I'm going to go through this real slow with you, as you didn't seem to understand my one sentence explanation last time. Perhaps it might help if you read this next paragraph E X T R A S L O O O O W

I AM NOT HERE TO DISCUSS GAY MARRIAGE STOP
I AM HERE TO POINT OUT A HOLE IN YOUR ARGUMENT STOP
THAT HOLE IS THE IDEA THAT GAYS ARE BEING DEPRIVED THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE STOP
WHETHER OR NOT GRANTING EXTRA RIGHTS IS GOOD IS IRRELEVANT STOP
IT WOULD ONLY BE RELEVANT IF I WERE PASSING A JUDGEMENT ON GAY MARRIAGE STOP
HOWEVER, I AM NOT STOP
THEREFORE, IT IS NOT STOP

Dear Sir,
This is a thread about gay marriage.
What you're arguing is all connected to the topic and by pointing out flaws in my argument (or trying) you're pointing out flaws in an argument about gay marriage. Therefore I think it's well within reason to bring it up.

"THAT HOLE IS THE IDEA THAT GAYS ARE BEING DEPRIVED THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE"
For me to argue this I have to be arguing about gay marriage and their right to it. Think about things huh?

 

[poloktim]

Originally posted by Rorix
I AM NOT HERE TO DISCUSS GAY MARRIAGE STOP
I AM HERE TO POINT OUT A HOLE IN YOUR ARGUMENT STOP
THAT HOLE IS THE IDEA THAT GAYS ARE BEING DEPRIVED THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE STOP
WHETHER OR NOT GRANTING EXTRA RIGHTS IS GOOD IS IRRELEVANT STOP
IT WOULD ONLY BE RELEVANT IF I WERE PASSING A JUDGEMENT ON GAY MARRIAGE STOP
HOWEVER, I AM NOT STOP
THEREFORE, IT IS NOT STOP

You obviously have chosen a side.

Adjust the law to conform to the UN's declaration of human rights. Men and women have the right to marry. It doesn't say anywhere in the declaration that men have the right to marry women and women have the right to marry men.

Whether or not everyone else gained a right is irrelevant. The point is, GAYS WOULD HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN THEY DID BEFORE. ERGO, THEY GAINED RIGHTS. polotiktim, please explain how they are not actually gaining rights.

After reading this, I almost cried. I thought my eyes deceived me. I thought What a pointless and wasteful statement! So, I went to get my glasses (I was naughty and used my computer without them), and reread it. My eyes weren't deceiving me. Well, the second I get back home, I'm going for an eye test. Perhaps I don't need my glasses anymore thanks to reading your (funny) statement. Anyway, I reread it, and almost cried. I was laughing that hard. I'm not arguing that they're gaining a right, I'm arguing that they're not gaining an extra right. As you said, they would be gaining a right. But you also said that everyone else would have that right too. Nice try.

 

[Rorix]

Originally posted by 400miles
Firstly I don't understand how you can not see deprivation as needing correction, but let me give some examples. Quite logical ones too, as all of my arguments are. Women were seen inferior as men and weren't entitled to the same quality of life and experience in life that men were, they were deprived of the opportunities life held. This was corrected because it was unjust.
Aboriginals were denied the right to vote and also be classified as people. This changed because it was unjust.
Homosexuals are denied the right of marriage. This should change as it's unjust.
Get the picture?

This isn't a logical argument. It's an argument from precedence.
A logical argument is of the form:
1. True premise.
2. True premise.
3. Logical conclusion.

Your argument is
1. Women were unequal, this was corrected. (true) (because it was unjust isn't necessarily true, as this implies were it not injust, it wouldn't have been changed)
2. Aboriginals were unequal, this was corrected. (true)
3. Gays are unequal. (arguable)
4. Ergo, this should be corrected. (invalid conclusion).

This argument would only be valid if you had a premise "where there is inequality, it must be corrected". It would only be true if you could prove this. But this was your attempt to prove this! Circular logic much?

No it's when you get frustrated at some people's inability to read or understand what is being said.

If I was unable to read I wouldn't be able to respond. This is another ad hominem argument.

I was arguing along those lines (as I said many times) because that was the argument you kept pushing. It was a 'what if you're right' argument. I dont' actually believe it exists. Again, read.. it helps.

Right well, perhaps you'd like to use that reading ability that I apparently don't have and point out to idiotic me just where you stated 'even if you are right...' in the following two quotes:

I deny the existance of 'EXTRA' rights. I think we have rights. I don't think anyone has 'extra' rights because I don't believe it's an idea of comparing how many rights I have as opposed to how many rights you have. That's what I see the "critical flaw" in your argument is.

"try to portray gays as being deprived".... okay, so heteros can marry the person they love but gays can't... tell me how we are not depriving them of the right to marriage?

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

Sigh. I want to redefine the concept of marriage BECAUSE gays DON'T have the right to marry. THAT IS why I want it redefined.

You yourself said that you were trying to redefine the defintion of marriage. You haven't disputed marriage to be between two different sexes, just a desire to CHANGE THIS DEFINITION.

Well, I don't know where you live, but GAYS DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO A HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE. Thus, there is no deprivation!

Dear Sir,
This is a thread about gay marriage.
What you're arguing is all connected to the topic and by pointing out flaws in my argument (or trying) you're pointing out flaws in an argument about gay marriage. Therefore I think it's well within reason to bring it up.

Not true. I am perfectly able to critique your reason without partipating in the debate. What happened is that you were stuggling with the perfectly valid point that you actually want to give gays an extra right, so you tried to draw me off track by debating whether or not it is good to give rights. It's not going to happen.

If we applied your logic, we would end up with scenarios like this:
Person #1: 100% of all gay marriages will last forever
Person #2: I fail to see what you're basing that claim on
#1: Oh you don't think it's right for marriage to last forever?

As you can see, I'm just pointing out a flaw in your logic, and then you're trying to debate morals with me.

"THAT HOLE IS THE IDEA THAT GAYS ARE BEING DEPRIVED THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE"
For me to argue this I have to be arguing about gay marriage and their right to it. Think about things huh?

This point doesn't make any sense. I said that there was a flaw in your argument which was the claim that gays were being deprived the right to marry. You then stated you were talking about the right to gay marriage. While that is perfectly true, I fail to see what you're trying to accomplish.



To summarise (this is the bit I actually care about your response to):

You don't dispute that the definition of marriage is something like 'a bond between two persons of opposite sexes.'
However, you claim that gays are being denied the right to enter marriage, which is 'a bond between two persons of opposite sexes.'
Then you claim that we should change this defintion so that gays aren't deprived the right to enter marriage!

See, the problem is, half the time when you say marriage you mean 'a bond between two persons of opposite sexes', and half the time you mean ' a bond between you and whoever you choose'.

I accept that were the second definition accurate, then the people of Australia are being denied a right. But it's not - marriage is between a man and a woman. Until this definition is changed, a gay man is not being deprived the right to marriage, as he is free to marry a woman. Likewise, a lesbian can marry a man.

NO DEPRIVATION.

 

[Rorix]

Originally posted by poloktim
You obviously have chosen a side.

But I am not arguing for this side. I'm pointing out a flaw in logical reasoning.

Adjust the law to conform to the UN's declaration of human rights. Men and women have the right to marry. It doesn't say anywhere in the declaration that men have the right to marry women and women have the right to marry men.

This is a question of implied meaning. To me, men and women have the right to marry implies men and women have the right to marry each other. If it said "a person has the right to marry whom they choose", then I would agree with you. But it doesn't.

After reading this, I almost cried. I thought my eyes deceived me. I thought What a pointless and wasteful statement! So, I went to get my glasses (I was naughty and used my computer without them), and reread it. My eyes weren't deceiving me. Well, the second I get back home, I'm going for an eye test. Perhaps I don't need my glasses anymore thanks to reading your (funny) statement. Anyway, I reread it, and almost cried. I was laughing that hard.

This is all just insults.

I'm not arguing that they're gaining a right, I'm arguing that they're not gaining an extra right. As you said, they would be gaining a right. But you also said that everyone else would have that right too. Nice try.

Look, I want you just to actually think about what I'm writing here.
Let's say everyone in Australia had a dollar.
Then the government gives everyone another dollar.
Now everybody has an extra dollar.

What you are saying is that while everybody is getting a dollar, they're not getting an EXTRA dollar, because everybody is getting it!

And that just doesn't make sense. Which makes your longwinded (lame) insult on my intelligence quite ironic.


Perhaps you don't know what the word extra means. In this case, I'd like you to point out where "gaining something over everyone else" is in the following list of defintions, from ww.dictionary.com

adj 1: further or added; "called for additional troops"; "need extra help"; "an extra pair of shoes"; "I have no other shoes"; "there are other possibilities" [syn: other(a), additional] 2: more than is needed, desired, or required; "trying to lose excess weight"; "found some extra change lying on the dresser"; "yet another book on heraldry might be thought redundant"; "skills made redundant by technological advance"; "sleeping in the spare room"; "supernumerary ornamentation"; "it was supererogatory of her to gloat"; "delete superfluous (or unnecessary) words"; "extra ribs as well as other supernumerary internal parts"; "surplus cheese distributed to the needy" [syn: excess, redundant, spare, supererogatory, superfluous, supernumerary, surplus] 3: added to a regular schedule; "a special holiday flight"; "put on special buses for the big game" [syn: special] 4: (prefix) outside or beyond; "`extra' is a prefix in `an extrauterine pregnancy'" n 1: a minor actor in crowd scenes [syn: supernumerary, spear carrier] 2: something additional of the same kind; " he always carried extras in case of an emergency" [syn: duplicate] adv : unusually or exceptionally; "an extra fast car"

Please point out where it says "gaining something over everybody else", or concede you were wrong. You may want your glasses, as you'll have to look pretty hard.

 

[poloktim]

Originally posted by Rorix
I accept that were the second definition accurate, then the people of Australia are being denied a right. But it's not - marriage is between a man and a woman. Until this definition is changed, a gay man is not being deprived the right to marriage, as he is free to marry a woman. Likewise, a lesbian can marry a man.

We're aware of the Australian definition of marriage. What this argument is about is whether or not people agree with it.

If you're a lesbian, why on Earth would you want to marry a man? That's silly. Unless you're trying to hide the fact (and with laws like this, can you blame anyone if they decided to?), or commit some sort of fraud (such as immigration fraud), then why would you? To me, the most plausable reason why a lesbian or homosexual bloke would marry someone of the opposite sex, would be to commit immigration fraud.

Could you come up with a decent reason, one that holds the "values" of marriage? Because, by disallowing same-sex marriages, the best way to protect the sanctity of marriage would be to disallow homosexuals from getting married, period. But that would be discrimination, wouldn't it?

 

[asha_ramirez]

Originally posted by poloktim
We're aware of the Australian definition of marriage. What this argument is about is whether or not people agree with it.

If you're a lesbian, why on Earth would you want to marry a man? That's silly. Unless you're trying to hide the fact (and with laws like this, can you blame anyone if they decided to?), or commit some sort of fraud (such as immigration fraud), then why would you? To me, the most plausable reason why a lesbian or homosexual bloke would marry someone of the opposite sex, would be to commit immigration fraud.

Could you come up with a decent reason, one that holds the "values" of marriage? Because, by disallowing same-sex marriages, the best way to protect the sanctity of marriage would be to disallow homosexuals from getting married, period. But that would be discrimination, wouldn't it?

That was my point exactly, it is discrimination.

Yes Rorix a gay man can marry a woman, similarly a gay woman can marry a man. But that is not the issue. I agree with poloktim; why would a homosexual want to marry a heterosexual? The issue is that homosexuals should be allowed to marry other homosexuals. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

 

[poloktim]

Originally posted by Rorix
This is a question of implied meaning. To me, men and women have the right to marry implies men and women have the right to marry each other. If it said "a person has the right to marry whom they choose", then I would agree with you. But it doesn't.

From the UN Declaration of Human Rights
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Impling something are we?

Look, I want you just to actually think about what I'm writing here.
Let's say everyone in Australia had a dollar.
Then the government gives everyone another dollar.
Now everybody has an extra dollar.

What you are saying is that while everybody is getting a dollar, they're not getting an EXTRA dollar, because everybody is getting it! And that just doesn't make sense. Which makes your longwinded (lame) insult on my intelligence quite ironic.
...
Please point out where it says "gaining something over everybody else", or concede you were wrong. You may want your glasses, as you'll have to look pretty hard.

It doesn't. However, instead of conceding I was wrong, I'll briefly explain something that you're more than already aware of. It's a wonderful word. You can look this word up in dictionary.com if you want. But I think I'll just post the link.

This wonderword is Context
The page contains other information, you can read should you want to, such as historical context. But it's not useful.
n 1: discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation [syn: linguistic context, context of use]
Also: That which surrounds, and gives meaning to, something else.

It could be argued the context that the word extra was used in throughout this thread (that is, in the form of "homosexuals will receive an extra right"), would suggest the addition of "received without all else receiving."

English is more than just words that are simply defined. In fact, all modern spoken languages (and even some programming languages, such as those that allow overloading) use the idea of context to expand meaning in the sentence. If I were to just take definitions word for word, then I'd be defining "the" and "a" awfully often, wouldn't I?

Anyway, you're right. My glasses did help with this. I was able to read the context quite well. Hopefully, since my eyelids are so low they're touching the floor, I'm that tired, I was able to come across clearly. If I didn't now, I apologise, I'll fix it after some rest.

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

Before people get the fires started, I would now like to take the time to apologise, had I offended anyone, including, but not limited to Rorix and neo_o. This is a discussion forum, and there's no need for any of us to get unpleasant. So, take this as my apology.

No heart feelings anyone?

 

[asha_ramirez]

I won't appologise for disagreeing with statements by Rorix, because I don't agree with them. Just as I have never agreed with anything he has said in the forum posts I have of his. That is all.

 

[poloktim]

Originally posted by asha_ramirez
I won't appologise for disagreeing with statements by Rorix, because I don't agree with them. Just as I have never agreed with anything he has said in the forum posts I have of his. That is all.

I'm not apologising for disagreeing with Rorix or neo_o or anyone else. I'm apologising if I have come off as a fucktard (and I know I have) to them, not for my opinions. But if I have made sledges to them in this argument.

I won't apologise for my opinion, that's not the issue (with the argument it is). This argument is going the way of the one that GWB decided to attack eviltama in. I don't want to see that happen to anyone again. So I'm hoping that we can all stop calling each other names, and be civilised. The best way for me to do this is admit that I was wrong in calling people idiot and fucktard.

I'm sorry.

 

[AsyLum]

Originally posted by Rorix
Not the best example, as there's a general expectation (though I'm not sure it would be called a right) that animals should be treated humanely.

If you want to use an animal example, perhaps something like dogs campeigning for "animals have the right to leave their owners". This is a right they don't currently have, but even if we give it to all animals, and only dogs care, dogs are still GAINING ADDITIONAL RIGHTS.


Right now, gays cannot marry. If gays can marry, clearly they would have gained an additional right.

Whether or not everyone else gained a right is irrelevant. The point is, GAYS WOULD HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN THEY DID BEFORE. ERGO, THEY GAINED RIGHTS. polotiktim, please explain how they are not actually gaining rights.

The expectation within my example would be but that, a social expectation, not a legal one, as you have raised. More importantly i wanted to raise the notion of 'additional' rights as merely being that which is supplementary upon something, rather than a right being made to accomodate for a hole.

 

[katie_tully]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. It isn't the hardest concept to grasp;
Marriage:
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law.
Oh, holy crap, what were those two words I just read? OPPOSITE SEX?
Minority groups are the first to jump up and down about being discriminating against, and this argument has proven that.
Stop portraying the gay community as "discriminated against", as "deprived of rights". For one second can't you see the other point of the argument?
No, obviously not.
We've aknowledged that gays WANT to get married, that they want their relationship to be "legal".
It's easily reversed; It is not discrimination AGAINST gays, but discrimination FOR heterosexuals.
If we're going to talk about "rights" it's quite easy to say that "heterosexuals have the right for marriage to remain souly a union between men and women" as it always has been, and as it should be.

 

[lengstar]

oh okay, man and woman eh? i think i'll go marry my mother or something

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by katie_tully
I've said it before, I'll say it again. It isn't the hardest concept to grasp;
Marriage:
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law.
Oh, holy crap, what were those two words I just read? OPPOSITE SEX?
Minority groups are the first to jump up and down about being discriminating against, and this argument has proven that.
Stop portraying the gay community as "discriminated against", as "deprived of rights". For one second can't you see the other point of the argument?
No, obviously not.
We've aknowledged that gays WANT to get married, that they want their relationship to be "legal".
It's easily reversed; It is not discrimination AGAINST gays, but discrimination FOR heterosexuals.
If we're going to talk about "rights" it's quite easy to say that "heterosexuals have the right for marriage to remain souly a union between men and women" as it always has been, and as it should be.

Originally Posted By the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
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.

I have already been through this with neo. You point about marriage being between people of the opposite sex is complete bull. Says so right there. Gays do have the right to marry according to the universal declaration of human rights, so just because you think they don't, doesn't make it so.

 

[Generator]

But what is marriage within Australia? Is it based on the old common law system or a universal declaration of human rights?

Both arguments seem quite valid to me.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by Rorix
To summarise (this is the bit I actually care about your response to):

You don't dispute that the definition of marriage is something like 'a bond between two persons of opposite sexes.'
However, you claim that gays are being denied the right to enter marriage, which is 'a bond between two persons of opposite sexes.'
Then you claim that we should change this defintion so that gays aren't deprived the right to enter marriage!

See, the problem is, half the time when you say marriage you mean 'a bond between two persons of opposite sexes', and half the time you mean ' a bond between you and whoever you choose'.

I accept that were the second definition accurate, then the people of Australia are being denied a right. But it's not - marriage is between a man and a woman. Until this definition is changed, a gay man is not being deprived the right to marriage, as he is free to marry a woman. Likewise, a lesbian can marry a man.

NO DEPRIVATION.

this would be all fine and dandy, except you are wrong. see universal declaration of human rights above. clearly, they do not perceive marriage as exclusively between members of the opposite sex, or they would have specified that

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by Generator
But what is marriage within Australia? Is it based on the old common law system or a universal declaration of human rights?

Both arguments seem quite valid to me.

well, let's test that

Originally Posted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

now, do you believe that because slavery was 'based on the old common law' that it should still be vaild? or how about

Originally Posted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

would you still say that the old common law system is just as valid? and finally i would like to point you to

Originally Posted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
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.