[NB_ide]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
1. I completely understood your point, it was a crap one if I'm honest.

lol, ok - it's just that from the way you reacted to it and what you said in response, it looked a lot like you got the wrong end of the stick. But you know what I meant much better than I do, so I accept I was wrong.

2. They can marry, but women would not want to marry a gay man, it would contradict their vows, and they would not be happy not contempt. *Sigh* another moot point.

Whether they'd want to or be happy doing so is irrelevant. The option is there for anyone. Any man can marry any woman (subject to age and relatedness restrictions), and their sexuality is utterly irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. This is important because it shows the issue does not "discriminate against" gay people, but just the concept of same-sex marriage.

3. Straight people can have an exact equivalent "Civil Union". *Sigh* *Sigh* Again..

My question was, "Do you think it is a "human right" for a person's state-recognised union with a member of their own sex to be called "marriage" instead of "civil partnership". Seems like a bit of a grand term for such a trivial thing."

the part I underlined is essentially what we mean by "let da gays get married ffs", I just wrote it out in full. The question was, do you think that counts as a "human right" (your term)?

[Huskaris]

The funny thing about marriage is it seems absurd that the government is allowed to tell us who can and can't get married. But it would be even more absurd if you left it to the church haha.

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by NB_ide)
lol, ok - it's just that from the way you reacted to it and what you said in response, it looked a lot like you got the wrong end of the stick. But you know what I meant much better than I do, so I accept I was wrong.



Whether they'd want to or be happy doing so is irrelevant. The option is there for anyone. Any man can marry any woman (subject to age and relatedness restrictions), and their sexuality is utterly irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. This is important because it shows the issue does not "discriminate against" gay people, but just the concept of same-sex marriage.



My question was, "Do you think it is a "human right" for a person's state-recognised union with a member of their own sex to be called "marriage" instead of "civil partnership". Seems like a bit of a grand term for such a trivial thing."

the part I underlined is essentially what we mean by "let da gays get married ffs", I just wrote it out in full. The question was, do you think that counts as a "human right" (your term)?

Yes it is a human right. You could have worded that question in such an easier way.

[NB_ide]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
Yes it is a human right. You could have worded that question in such an easier way.

I'd rather it was precise than easy.

Where are human rights found, are they fixed and written somewhere or do they change with the times? How do we refer to them to find out what they are?

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by NB_ide)
I'd rather it was precise than easy.

Where are human rights found, are they fixed and written somewhere or do they change with the times? How do we refer to them to find out what they are?

They change with the times. We use discretion.