Gay Marriage

[McLovin]

A preceding article of the charter states this.

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. "

So to me that says putting gender limitations on marriage rights would be a breach of that article.

Article 2, which you quoted, states that the rights contained in the Declaration extend to everyone. That's fine, I don't disagree with that. However, Article 16 does not extend a blanket right of marriage to men and women, you need to read it in toto per my previous post.

I'm pretty sure Article 16 was a direct response to the Nuremberg laws.

 

[Value Collector]

Article 2, which you quoted, states that the rights contained in the Declaration extend to everyone. That's fine, I don't disagree with that. However, Article 16 does not extend a blanket right of marriage to men and women, you need to read it in toto per my previous post.

I'm pretty sure Article 16 was a direct response to the Nuremberg laws.

Article 2 states that the rights extend to everyone regardless of gender, and that gender isn't a determining factor.

So how then can gender be used as a test to see if a marriage is valid?

------------------------

Its a bit like the USA declaration of independence states

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Now, they had slavery at the time, and the statement might not have been written with the intent of freeing the slaves, however once you accept that statement, you must understand that it automatically follows that slavery is wrong.

Its the same with the statement of human rights, article 2 says gender isn't a valid test, yet we currently will deny marriages based on gender.

 

[Value Collector]

The people who care most about children, all else being equal, are their biological parents.

Docs removes many children from their biological parents, and there are many adoptions that result is happier healthier homes.

But either way, that's nothing to do with SSM.

 

[McLovin]

Article 2 states that the rights extend to everyone regardless of gender, and that gender isn't a determining factor.

So how then can gender be used as a test to see if a marriage is valid?

Article 16 explicitly says it applies to both men and women, so I have no idea where you're trying to go with the gender argument. Article 2 creates a single right; that the rights included in the Declaration extend to everyone, but Article 16 does not recognise a carte blanche right to marry, it is a right to marry without restrictions based on race, nationality or religion. As I said, you need to read that sentence in its entirety. If the intention was to recognise an unrestricted right for men and women to marry, then the sentence would have simply been 'Men and women, of full age, have the right to marry".

Its a bit like the USA declaration of independence states

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Now, they had slavery at the time, and the statement might not have been written with the intent of freeing the slaves, however once you accept that statement, you must understand that it automatically follows that slavery is wrong.

Its the same with the statement of human rights, article 2 says gender isn't a valid test, yet we currently will deny marriages based on gender.

It's not at all the same.

 

[SirRumpole]

Its the same with the statement of human rights, article 2 says gender isn't a valid test, yet we currently will deny marriages based on gender.

Maybe you would like to take your interpretation to the Hague and get a ruling ?

 

[noco]

This thread has certainly taken a pounding this week with nothing really gained or lost.

At least it has given us all a break from that fake Climate Change Hysteria.

 

[Value Collector]

Article 16 explicitly says it applies to both men and women, so I have no idea where you're trying to go with the gender argument..

Jane marries paul - valid

Tom marries paul - invalid

Tom can not marry paul because he is male, jane is allowed because she is female.

Paul is being restricted because of his gender, he should be entitled to marry tom just as jane can, restricting his rights to marry tom because of his gender goes against Article two.

. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status

 

[Value Collector]

Maybe you would like to take your interpretation to the Hague and get a ruling ?

Well the only reason I brought up the charter of human rights was because you said marriage wasn't a right.

But either way its up to the Nay sayers to show that SSM would cause harm, so far no one has been able to do that.

So there is no reason to ban it.

 

[McLovin]

Jane marries paul - valid

Tom marries paul - invalid

Tom can not marry paul because he is male, jane is allowed because she is female.

Paul is being restricted because of his gender, he should be entitled to marry tom just as jane can, restricting his rights to marry tom because of his gender goes against Article two.

Article 2 states that the rights in the Declaration apply to everyone. There is no right to marry, there is only the right to marry without restrictions based on race, religion or nationality. Using your logic a polygamous or incestuous marriage would also be a human right.

 

[Value Collector]

There is no right to marry, there is only the right to marry without restrictions based on race, religion or nationality. Using your logic a polygamous or incestuous marriage would also be a human right.

Read it slowly, especially the part after the third comma.

(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

It clearly says a right to marry exists, and it doesn't say anything about only marrying the opposite sex.

-------------------

No I don't have a problem with polygamous marriages either provided they are entered into knowingly and with consent. Incest has a certain ick factor, but i guess it like anything if the participants were consenting that's up to them as long as it does no harm to others, I could see the need for restrictions on child conception etc though.

 

[SirRumpole]

Read it slowly, especially the part after the third comma.


It clearly says a right to marry exists, and it doesn't say anything about only marrying the opposite sex.

The Declaration was signed in 1948. SSM was unknown then and homosexuality was still frowned on by many countries at the time, so it can hardly be said that the intention of this Declaration was to provide a basis for SSM.

I think you are reading too much into this document. It pretty clearly states support for men and women marrying the opposite sex and founding a family by natural means. You may like to think it supports your case for SSM, but that was not the intention imo.

 

[Value Collector]

The Declaration was signed in 1948. SSM was unknown then and homosexuality was still frowned on by many countries at the time, so it can hardly be said that the intention of this Declaration was to provide a basis for SSM.

I think you are reading too much into this document. It pretty clearly states support for men and women marrying the opposite sex and founding a family by natural means. You may like to think it supports your case for SSM, but that was not the intention imo.

It doesn't have to mention SSm specifically it just has to identify marriage in general as a human right, and also that human rights can not be denied based on gender.

Whether the original authors thought about ssm is irrelevant. Because they laid out the important parts and we can use logic to see that it follows from that that it is wrong to deny ssm.

Either way through you still have to prove harm to justify denying personal freedoms, and in all the posts here, not one. Amid point has ever been made against ssm.

 

[Tisme]

Read it slowly, especially the part after the third comma.


It clearly says a right to marry exists, and it doesn't say anything about only marrying the opposite sex.

-------------------

You're not much for sentence old skool structure are you?

 

[McLovin]

Read it slowly, especially the part after the third comma.

Do you really not understand sentence construction? Read the whole sentence.

It clearly says a right to marry exists, and it doesn't say anything about only marrying the opposite sex.

I'm not arguing a right to marry doesn't exist.

 

[McLovin]

One final observation, Article 16 begins with "men and women", every other article begins with "everyone". Quite a telling contrast.

 

[bellenuit]

One final observation, Article 16 begins with "men and women", every other article begins with "everyone". Quite a telling contrast.

Maybe because they didn't want to extend it to children, legitimising child marriage? It did commence "men and women of full age...."

 

[McLovin]

Maybe because they didn't want to extend it to children, legitimising child marriage? It did commence "men and women of full age...."

"Everyone of full age" would have sufficed if that was the intention. The distinction says a lot.

 

[McLovin]

And from the UN Human Rights Committee...

Given the existence of a specific provision in the Covenant on the right to marriage, any claim that this right has been violated must be considered in the light of this provision. Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is the only substantive provision in the Covenant which defines a right by using the term "men and women", rather than "every human being", "everyone" and "all persons". Use of the term "men and women", rather than the general terms used elsewhere in Part III of the Covenant, has been consistently and uniformly understood as indicating that the treaty obligation of States parties stemming from article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is to recognize as marriage only the union between a man and a woman wishing to marry each other.

 

[explod]

Clearly then it is "men AND women" which can be interpreted in the singular or the plural

If it was intended to exclude gay or lesbian unions it would have been worded " man and woman"

The fact that it was not indicates that the legislators intention was to be inclusive for all possible combinations.

 

[McLovin]

Clearly then it is "men AND women" which can be interpreted in the singular or the plural

If it was intended to exclude gay or lesbian unions it would have been worded " man and woman"

The fact that it was not indicates that the legislators intention was to be inclusive for all possible combinations.

Sure that's possible. It's possible the phrase "men and women" was supposed to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. It's also possible it's nothing more than a drafting error. However, as it stands the UN Human Rights Committee concludes that that wording only recognises the right for a man and a woman to marry.