Yes, marriage is a right!
OK I found the following which proves I was wrong:
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.
2- Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3- The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.-
So now all that has to be done is to change those rights to include same sex, animals and whatever else someone wants to marry. The above does not appear to exclude marrying more than one person at a time or being married to more than one person at a time. IOW the polygamy laws are illegal.
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.
2- Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3- The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.-
So now all that has to be done is to change those rights to include same sex, animals and whatever else someone wants to marry. The above does not appear to exclude marrying more than one person at a time or being married to more than one person at a time. IOW the polygamy laws are illegal.
posted by Joe G @ 9:28 AM
28 Comments:
At 8:15 PM,
Unknown said…
The Human Rights Declaration is not an American law, therefore polygamy laws are not, as you say, illegal. Ever study Eskimo (Innuit) family systems? They share wives for warmth! Should they freeze so you won't be affected by their sharing (as if you would be)?
And when same-sex marriage is made legal in America, your life, your marriage, won't be affected, in any way.
So what are you actually worried about? People screwing sheep? They do! People screwing other people, maybe 2 or 3 at a time? They do! How much of the "deviant" behavior that exists already has harmed you? None of it? Or are you being pressured to become gay and/or screw sheep, or marry a few people?
Dude, it won't matter to you! Let people be happy! My screwing 6 sheep and a Spaniard tonight really won't affect you! Really!
At 7:36 AM,
Joe G said…
The Human Rights Declaration is not an American law,-
I never said it was.
therefore polygamy laws are not, as you say, illegal.-
Those rights apply all humans on this planet.
Are the people in the USA included in the people on this planet?
And when same-sex marriage is made legal in America, your life, your marriage, won't be affected, in any way.-
What affects me is when minorities get to redefine words to suit their needs.
If we bow to one minority we have to bow to ALL minorities.
And if we do that "marriage" will be meaningless.
So what are you actually worried about?-
I have already told you- minority rule worries me and it should worry everyone.
But anyway it appears as if you are too stupid to understand what I am saying even though I have spelled it out for you at least twice.
At 3:53 PM,
Unknown said…
How, tangibly, are you affected by others' thoughts, or by bowing to, or should we say, acquiescing, to an others' desire when that desire has no impact on you?
At 4:51 PM,
Joe G said…
So you are too stupid to understand what I am saying.
Why don't you just say so?
At 10:40 PM,
Unknown said…
If we bow to one minority we have to bow to ALL minorities.
And if we do that "marriage" will be meaningless.No, you don't have to bow to minorities. After all, it seems to be elected representatives who are making it legal, meaning it is being done by vote, and majorities tend to win votes.
Marriage IS meaningless, unless it means something to the married, and they don't affect me. Does my non-marriage affect you too?
At 7:34 AM,
Joe G said…
No, you don't have to bow to minorities.-
Gay men and lesbians are a minority and we are redefining the word "marriage" to suit that minority.
After all, it seems to be elected representatives who are making it legal, meaning it is being done by vote, and majorities tend to win votes.-
What State has allowed a popular vote on the issue?
In Massachusetts neither the people nor their reps made the decision.
And marriage is meaningless if anyone can do it.
It is like a membership to a club- why have a membership if everyone can join?
At 11:42 AM,
Unknown said…
It is like a membership to a club- why have a membership if everyone can join?And there, Joe, is your truth. You just want to be exclusive, for no reason. Keep those you fear out of your club, just because.
And when a legislature votes, supposedly they are applying the will of the people who elected them, making it representative of the people (they are called representitives for this very reason).
At 2:39 PM,
Joe G said…
tft,
Marriage has always been exclusive. Always.
Single people cannot claim "married" status.
People cannot marry anything they want.
Also my point, which you keep ignoring because you are ignorant, is why restrict marriage to what YOU think is OK?
At what point does a minority opinion NOT matter?
Polygamy will have to be allowed. Incest too- as long as there is consent.
You cannot slam the door shut and exclude those you arbitrarily choose.
Also in Massachusetts it was their Supreme Court that said the barring of same sex marriage was unconstitutional.
And stop projecting your homophobia onto me.
Open up the marriage club so that marriage becomes a useless thing.
At 9:13 AM,
Joe G said…
This is too funny.
blipey keeps writing sayong that the Universal Dec. of Human Rights does not ban same-sex marriages.
It is funny because the stupid clown doesn't understand English-
"Men AND women..." AND is the qualifier.
Now if the declaration said "Men OR women..." clownie would havbe a point.
Will clownie understand that?
Not a chance as it still thinks that a patrilineage is a paternal family tree.
At 9:11 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey,
Seeing that you are reading this-
I have told you what you have to do in order for your comments to be posted.
You keep refusing to do it.
That means you are an asshole and you are being dealt with in that light.
Ya see clownie your first posts on my blog you tried to accuse me of a sentence splice.
Once I proved the splice was all in your little-bitty head you disappeared only to come back to make another series of unsupported claims and false accusations.
Now in this case you can't even understand the basics of the English language.
There isn't any dealing with people like you.
Not on blogs anyway.
So please inform me of when you are back in this area, when and where you will be performing.
We can finish all of this "discussion" then.
At 2:19 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"free and full consent of the intending spouses." Rules out kids and animals due to their limited mental faculties.
At 2:21 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Why is "discussion" in quotes?
At 7:57 PM,
Joe G said…
Why is "discussion" in quotes?-
Because clownie's use of the word doesn't correspond with the way it was meant to be used.
At 8:02 PM,
Joe G said…
"free and full consent of the intending spouses." Rules out kids and animals due to their limited mental faculties.-
Umm people are animals. Tasty too.
And if that "smarter than a fifth grader" show is any indication your premise about kids is also wrong.
At 10:26 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
There's a reason we don't give children voting rights and full autonomy, even if some are smarter than me ;-)
If your tying to threaten Blipey:
1) Its poor form
2) I doubt he's scared
3) You should be more explicit, rather than hide behind innuendo.
If, you're not, forgive me for reading something into it that wasn't there.
At 7:39 AM,
Joe G said…
There's a reason we don't give children voting rights and full autonomy, even if some are smarter than me-
Perhaps, but that does not mean it is a valid reason and also we aren't talking about voting, are we?
As for clownie I am finished trying to have a discussion with it.
So if it has something to say to me it can do so face to face.
We can then run a simple test of natural selection.
At 12:28 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
I wouldn't advise it Joe. I'd hate for you to get at ass kicking.
At 7:39 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL!!!!!
In the realm of "anything is possible" that might happen.
But the odds of that happening is sooooo low that the Baltimore Orioles have a much better chance of winning their division this year.
The Sacramento Kings have a better chance at the NBA title THIS year (they are already out).
But anyway thanks for the laugh...
At 10:37 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Aren't you a retiree, Joe?
You should be taking it easy, enjoying yourself, telling kids to get off your lawn..
At 7:32 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich I am coming out of retirement to open a bakery I will call "Cakeboy's"...
At 3:37 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
LOL. Excellent! Put me down for several slices, or a whole pie, in the face if you must!
At 8:34 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey keeps writing saying that the Universal Dec. of Human Rights does not ban same-sex marriages.
It is funny because the stupid clown doesn't understand English-
"Men AND women..." AND is the qualifier.
Now if the declaration said "Men OR women..." clownie would have a point.
Will clownie understand that?
Not a chance as it still thinks that a patrilineage is a paternal family tree.
Then there is the definition of the word "marry" that also has to be considered.
And at the time the declaration was written same-sex was NOT in the standard and accepted definitions.
Will clownie understand that?
Not a chance.
At 7:37 AM,
Joe G said…
As I said clownie will not understand that point.
Thank you for staying stupid clownie.
And when two men or two women can found a family please get back to me.
(clownie doesn't understand what that means either)
So if man and man or a woman and woman could found a family clownie would have a point.
If the declaration also said "men and men and women and women also have the right" clownie would have a point.
If the word "marry" was defined as a union between a man and woman, man and man and woman and women, when the declaration was written, clownoe would have a point.
Yet in reality not any of those are true.
Again will clownie understand any of that?
Not a chance.
Even in the very liberal California same sex marriage was voted down.
If it was to be put on a National ballot same sex matrriage would not make it.
At 7:49 AM,
Joe G said…
As I said clownie just doesn't understand English.
1. "Men AND women"
That means BOTH.
2. "Marry"- defined as a union between a man and woman.
That should settle the same-sex nonsense.
3. Two men canNOT "found" a family.
4. Two women canNOT found a family.
IOW clownie with a same-sex marriage the married couples canNOT found a family.
But seeing that you don't understand biology I don't expect you to understand those simple facts.
At 12:44 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey,
Seeing that you are reading this you don't have an argument because you don't understand the language.
And the evidence that you don't understand the language has been presented since you started polluting my blog.
It started with your mistaken accusation of a sentence splice and ended (with respect to your posting privilege) with your unwillingness to acknowledge that you do not understand the difference between a paternal family tree and a patrilineage.
So now you seem content with filling up my comment cue with more nonsense that proves you cannot follow along.
The issue now is the definition of marriage- do we change it because of the whim of some minority?
And if we do, why stop with that minority?
But again you are obviously too stupid to understand anything I have posted.
Stick with juggling. You have to be better at that than you are at debating.
At 12:51 PM,
Joe G said…
And BTW, I have NEVER claimed that the declaration was anti-gay marriage.
I have never even thought that was the case.
IOW that you have been pressing that "issue" proves that you are a clue-less fuck.
Ya see fuck-head you make up "issues" and then try to make them into something.
And that is because you are too stupid to understand what is being posted.
I have put up with you because as an entertainer I have found your ignorant-laiden comments to be mildly entertaining.
But I already have children to deal with so please go seek help and by all means get an education.
At 5:47 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey,
Seeing that you are reading this you don't have an argument because you don't understand the language.
Ya see the words "marry" and "marriage", as used in the declaration pertains to the union between a man and a woman.
Therefor there isn't any "marriage" between two or more people of the same sex.
IOW there isn't anything to prohibit.
What a minority of people want to do is change the definition of marriage to suit their needs.
Not that I expect you to understand any of that as you have never shown an understanding of anything.
At 7:23 AM,
Joe G said…
Yup, just as predicted blipey does not understand what I have posted.
clownie not only are you a waste of time but you are also a waste of skin.
BTW "tradition" has NOTHING to do with it unless by "tradition" you mean the standard and accepted definitions of commonly used words.
<< Home