EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT

Judgment of the Human Rights Court of Strasbourg -France

Unanimously, the World Court of Human Rights has established, verbatim, that "there is no right to homosexual marriage." The 47 judges of the 47 countries of the Council of Europe, which are members of the full Court of Strasbourg (the world's most important human rights court), issued a statement of great relevance that has been surprisingly silenced by information progressivism and its area of ​​influence. In fact, unanimously, the 47 judges approved the ruling that "there is no right to homosexual marriage."

The sentence was based on a myriad of philosophical and anthropological considerations based on natural order, common sense, scientific reports and, of course, positive law.Within the latter, in particular, the judgment was based on Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is equivalent to the articles of human rights treaties, as in the case of 17 of the Pact of San José and nº 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In this historic but not disclosed, Resolution, the Court decided that the concept of family not only contemplates "the traditional concept of marriage, that is, the union of a man and a woman", but also that they should not be imposed on governments to "obligation to open marriage to persons of the same sex". As for the principle of non-discrimination, the Court also added that there is no discrimination, since "States are free to reserve marriage only to heterosexual couples."




Source: http://g1.globo.com/mundo/noticia/2010/06/convencao-europeia-dos-nero-rights-included-casing-gay.htmlhttp://www.anajure.org.br/secrets/index.htm

Thank you
Uk should take note

Better!
Homosexual marriage should be considered as an 'inhumane rights' because it is against the natural order of humanity.
Even in animal kingdom it is unacceptable and unthinkable.

Aufbauh:
Better! Homosexual marriage should be considered as an 'animal rights'.

Lol.
I still don't understand this homosexual thing. It sounds so crayyyy to me.

This is a rational and express negation of those boorish aberration of nature who don't fail to brandish their execrable sexual barbarity as human right, which begs the question of their thinking prudence. Anyway, they ain't worth my hoot, so, I'd leave them to their concupiscent crave that'd sure spell their Waterloo, even if not here but hereafter.

Chron1cle:
This is a rational and express negation of those boorish aberration of nature who don't fail to brandish their execrable sexual barbarity as human right, which begs the question of their thinking prudence. Anyway, they ain't worth my hoot, so, I'd leave them to their concupiscent crave that'd sure spell their Waterloo, even if not here but after life.

Thank God they don't worth your hoot, otherwise....

This sentence captures it perfectly "The sentence was based on a myriad of philosophical and anthropological considerations based on natural order, common sense, scientific reports and, of course, positive law"

I don't understand how anyone can rationalize putting a deek in another guy's poohole. If that's the last option on earth, I'd rather become an eunuch.

Aufbauh:
Better!
Homosexual marriage should be considered as an 'inhumane rights' because it is against the natural order of humanity.
Even in animal kingdom it is unacceptable and unthinkable.

Do animals get married? See reasoning. If not, then it is also unnatural for humans to do so according to your pseudo-logic.