Ban on Gay Marriage (2 Viewers)

[Generator]

Common law may be challenged, yes? (edit: as it has with each of the points that you raised).

The issue boils down to how marriage is defined (my point, if you did not realise). Clearly each side (if only two sides exist) holds a different view as to what a marriage truly is.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by Generator
Common law may be challenged, yes?

The issue boils down to how marriage is defined (my point, if you did not realise). Clearly each side (if only two sides exist) holds a different view as to what a marriage truly is.

so do you, or don't you believe common law to be as valid as the universal declaration of human rights?

 

[Generator]

I see both as being valid (if I am not mistaken, the act of agreeing to one means that the other must be challenged and changed as a result). Note that I did not take a side.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by Generator
I see both as being valid (if I am not mistaken, the act of agreeing to one means that the other must be challenged and changed as a result). Note that I did not take a side.

so you believe that slavery is a valid choice for a legal system? or that it is a valid political system that does not allow the participation of everyone (article 21)? you believe that these are valid choices 'because they are part of the common law system'?

 

[Generator]

I thought that the common law system had outlawed slavery? Is that not what my challenge and change point was about?

Edit: Maybe I should not have said 'based on the old common law system' but rather 'based within our current common law system'. Whether that would have had any bearing on what we just discussed, I do not know.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by Generator
I thought that the common law system had outlawed slavery? Is that not what my challenge and change point was about?

so you agree that current law should be challenged and changed to get in line with the universal declaration of human rights?

 

[katie_tully]

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 see race, I see nationality and I see religion. I do not see it specifically saying homosexual couples have the right to marry and found a family. It isn't half obvious that this refers to heterosexuals. The word family proves that. Homosexual couples can not procreate or "have a family". Heterosexual couples can.

 

[Generator]

Re. crazyhomo's last post.

Yes. Is that not what is occurring right now? Does that not mean that both sides (those challenging and those seeking to maintain the status quo) may be considered as having valid arguments, even if the other side does not agree?

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by katie_tully
I see race, I see nationality and I see religion. I do not see it specifically saying homosexual couples have the right to marry and found a family. It isn't half obvious that this refers to heterosexuals. The word family proves that. Homosexual couples can not procreate or "have a family". Heterosexual couples can.

so, because they mention that you are entitled to start a family, that means the statement 'men and women of full age' must be referring to heterosexuals? by your logic that mean that infertile couples are not entitled marriage, because, as you said, they cannot procreate or "have a family".

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by Generator
Re. crazyhomo's last post.

Yes. Is that not what is occurring right now? Does that not mean that both sides (those challenging and those seeking to maintain the status quo) may be considered as having valid arguments, even if the other side does not agree?

gotcha

 

[katie_tully]

Both sides have a valid argument, but the only thing that goes on in here is;
If you disagree that gays should be allowed to marry you're wrong, immoral and stupid.
They keep posting all these articles from the human rights act to try and prove a point, but nothing has specifically stated that it is legal for gays to marry.
If the legislation on the matter had a flaw, it could be challenged. But there isn't a flaw. It simply states "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." because that covers their own ass. They've covered every base, except for homosexuality, because homosexuals are a minority group, unlike ethnic and religious groups. It doesn't discriminate and say gays cant get married, but it doesn't say they can either. It's how you read the act, and of course if you're all for gays getting married, you're going to see it as saying "Of course you can marry"

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by katie_tully
I see race, I see nationality and I see religion. I do not see it specifically saying homosexual couples have the right to marry and found a family. It isn't half obvious that this refers to heterosexuals. The word family proves that. Homosexual couples can not procreate or "have a family". Heterosexual couples can.

the fact is that the article was not specific as to whether it was intended for homosexuals or heterosexuals, therefore homosexual marriage, just like heterosexual marriage, is part of the universal declaration of human rights

the people who drafted this document were deliberate in the wording they chose. if they had intended marriage to be between members of the opposite sex, and no one else, then they would have specified that in the article. since they did not, you can only conclude that homosexual marriage is protected by the universal declaration of human rights

 

[katie_tully]

"the people who drafted this document were deliberate in the wording they chose. if they had intended marriage to be between members of the opposite sex, and no one else, then they would have specified that in the article."

The reason they didn't specify against gays is because before John Howard passed the law, it would have been easy to challenge in court as discrimination. It is worded so there are no loop holes. Gays could take this to court and say "heter and homo couples have the same rights to get married", but it would be hard to prove that the act is infact stating both can get married.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by katie_tully
They keep posting all these articles from the human rights act to try and prove a point, but nothing has specifically stated that it is legal for gays to marry.
If the legislation on the matter had a flaw, it could be challenged. But there isn't a flaw. It simply states "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." because that covers their own ass. They've covered every base, except for homosexuality, because homosexuals are a minority group, unlike ethnic and religious groups. It doesn't discriminate and say gays cant get married, but it doesn't say they can either. It's how you read the act, and of course if you're all for gays getting married, you're going to see it as saying "Of course you can marry"

where does it specify heterosexuals under that article? please, explain to me the part that says 'marriage may occur between members of the opposite sex'. cause i must have missed it, but obviously if you can see it, then it must be there

otherwise i could conclude that heterosexual marriage is not a right given by the universal declaration of human rights, but wouldn't that be kinda stupid?

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by katie_tully
"the people who drafted this document were deliberate in the wording they chose. if they had intended marriage to be between members of the opposite sex, and no one else, then they would have specified that in the article."

The reason they didn't specify against gays is because before John Howard passed the law, it would have been easy to challenge in court as discrimination. It is worded so there are no loop holes. Gays could take this to court and say "heter and homo couples have the same rights to get married", but it would be hard to prove that the act is infact stating both can get married.

you are really quite dull. firstly, this document is the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. john howard has nothing to do with it

secondly, you first admit that this does, in fact, allow gays to marry, but then, in the very next sentence, you say that it doesn't? make up your mind

edit:'The reason they didn't specify against gays is because it would have been easy to challenge in court as discrimination.'

so are you agreeing that to not allow homosexual marriage is discrimination? because that is the only way i can interpret that in a way that makes sense

 

[katie_tully]

HAHAHA, far out, you people are so ignorant and set in your view that you can't possibly be reasoned with.
You can interpret and twist what I say to suit you if you like.

I never admitted to anything, I don't remember stating "this document specifies homosexuals are allowed to marry" I said it doesn't state they can, so how do you get homosexuals are allowed to marry out of "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.
You can't, unless thats what you want it to say. Stop trying to get things to suit your view when it does not specifically back up your argument, and stop acting like a dick when people do challenge your view.

 

[poloktim]

Originally posted by katie_tully
Stop trying to get things to suit your view when it does not specifically back up your argument, and stop acting like a dick when people do challenge your view.

No offence, but maybe you should take your own advice.

 

[katie_tully]

My whole point is that acts and laws keep cropping up on this thread that supposedly say homosexuals are allowed to marry, but the only thing any of them say is that people cannot be discriminated against due to colour, race or religion.
Sexual preference does not come under any guildline as a way to discriminate against a person when it comes to marriage.
You can then argue that because it doesn't specifically say "homosexuals CANT marry" that then they infact can. It can also then be argued because these acts do not specifically say "homosexuals CAN marry", then they can't.

 

[katie_tully]

I'd take my own advice when it's called for, I'm arguing against somebody elses view in a half civilised manor. I don't twist what people say to make them sound stupid.
Everybody here has valid points, but apparently if you don't agree with certain people, then you're wrong.

 

[poloktim]

In the laws, unless stated, if something is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Just imagine how much bigger the Crimes Act would be if it explicitly told us what we're allowed to do.

You're right that the UN Universal declaration of human rights does not say people can marry others of the same sex, however it doesn't state otherwise. Generally, this means that until this is changed, men and women of the correct age, consenting, etc. can marry, regardless of a man marrying a man, and a woman marrying a woman, or a man marrying a woman.

edit: However, until the marriage act is changed, this is not possible in Australia.