Evil Conservative French! (Homosexual Marriage Thread)

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor


Apart from that, it is a rights issue, on parentality, on property sharing, and on heritage. I fail to see why the homos should be deprived of any of these aspects.

Property sharing and heritage can be dealt with perfectly without mariage; these problems are as old as homosexuality.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Property sharing and heritage can be dealt with perfectly without mariage; these problems are as old as homosexuality.

And why without marriage then?

Is there a reason that would make the civil-union solution better than simply granting marriage for everyone?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

And why without marriage then?

Is there a reason that would make the civil-union solution better than simply granting marriage for everyone?

The scandal is that it will not be granted to anyone; you still cant mary your sister, your daughter, your mother, nor your brother, your son and your father. That's a lot of people !

[Spiffor]

And what about the answer to the question?

[St Leo]

Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789


Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:
Articles:

1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.

7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.

8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.

9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.

10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.

14. All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.

15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration.

16. A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.

17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.

[DanS]

So DanS, is it "better for our democracy" if the allocation of civil rights is determined by popular vote?

"Allocation"... Hmmm... Does your question have any real meaning?

It should be as it always has been. The final determination of rights is in the court's sphere, while the enumeration of those rights is in the legislators' sphere. The legislative is designed to be closest to the wishes of the people, it's where political debate takes place, and it's where a concensus and legitimacy is formed.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor
And what about the answer to the question?

That is only my opinion : I like that words have a precise non- ambiguous meaning. Mariage means, for me, the union of two humans of different sex. I would appreciate that the union of humans of same sex has a different name. In the same way, the union of a terrestrial human with an alien should wear a specific name.

[Spiffor]

Well, thank you for being honest with your opinion (although I completely disagree with it)

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


That is only my opinion : I like that words have a precise non- ambiguous meaning. Mariage means, for me, the union of two humans of different sex. I would appreciate that the union of humans of same sex has a different name. In the same way, the union of a terrestrial human with an alien should wear a specific name.

At least, the lengths you go in defending the word 'marriage', because of its connotations and sentimental value, demonstrate that homosexuals are deprived of something when they are forbidden to marry.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


At least, the lengths you go in defending the word 'marriage', because of its connotations and sentimental value, demonstrate that homosexuals are deprived of something when they are forbidden to marry.

The title President has powerful connotations of competence and abilities; I feel deprived of those connotations, and I claim that all individuals should be entitled to be named President.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


The title President has powerful connotations of competence and abilities; I feel deprived of those connotations, and I claim that all individuals should be entitled to be named President.

AFAIK, it's not forbidden to call yourself 'president'.

Besides, and you know it perfectly, titles based on a function are wholly different than titles based on a civil status. No one is specifically prevented from becoming a president, while some people are specifically prevented from marriage.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That presupposes that this issue is about civil rights at all.

I think it's a little harder to change the colour of your skin.

It's not possible (without some serious self-denial and screwing with your head) to change sexual orientation, either. You don't choose your desires, you choose to act on them.

[MrFun]

Kucnich, you have to realize that people who are willfully ignorant about sexual orientation rely on rhetoric that is not substantiated by any legitimate research and studies.

[MrFun]

I also do not think you can constitutionally deny gays equal rights even if, hypothetically, sexual orientation would be a choice.

There's this little thing called freedom of conscience, and this other little thing that our republic cannot constitutionally impose sectarian/religious morality on other people to the extent that it dehumanizes the targeted minority group.

[Fake Boris]

Tell me Ben Kenobi, do Catholic priests choose to be paedophiles, or paedophiles choose to be Catholic priests?