• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is SSM a Human Right?

Is SSM a Human Right?


  • Total voters
    50

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,042
Reaction score
38,591
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Yes- Why
No- Why
Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows | Science | The Guardian

A study of gay men in the US has found fresh evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by genes. Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight.
A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men's sexual behaviour – though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.
 
The question should be, "Should two consenting adults be allowed to marry each other if they wish?" Because it's becoming more and more obvious that yes, sexual orientation IS influenced by genes, meaning that YES, LGBT's ARE born that way.

Tried to keep it simple- If it is a human right, then marriage is accepted and legal
And I cannot chanhe the poll.
 
Anything the government has to recognize or provide to you is not a right, but a privilege. I believe it's a human right for two consenting adults to have sex, but it's not a right to have the government recognize any relationship or institute marriage (same for straights, in my opinion).
 
Anything the government has to recognize or provide to you is not a right, but a privilege. I believe it's a human right for two consenting adults to have sex, but it's not a right to have the government recognize any relationship or institute marriage (same for straights, in my opinion).

You have the right to be free from discrimination, how is that a privilege?
To vote, how is that a privilege?
 
>


My view is that Civil Marriage isn't a right because it's dependent on outside factors - you can't get married unless you find another competent adult to consent.


However, as embodied in the 14th Amendment Equal Treatment under the law is a right. Whether you believe Civil Marriage is a right or a privilege, if the state (i.e. government) chooses to offer such a legal relationship under secular law, to deny equal treatment the government carries the burden of demonstrating a compelling government interest when treating like situated individuals differently.

In this case it would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adult couples in a different-sex relationship who are allowed to civilly marry (in all 50 states) while law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adult couples in a same-sex relationship are not allowed to civilly marry (in some of those states).



>>>>
 
You have the right to be free from discrimination, how is that a privilege?
You have no such right. What you are doing is blurring the lines between natural rights, what we call civil rights and privileges bestowed by the state. I have the natural right to choose with whom I associate. Therefore, I am free to discriminate (by not associating with those I choose not to) not to be free from discrimination. Think of it in terms of speech. Do you have a right to be free from speech you don't like? Of course not. Same is true with discrimination. If I don't like you, I don't have to associate with you. What we have in the US are laws that ban discrimination, but that doesn't mean it is now a 'right.'
 
You have no such right. What you are doing is blurring the lines between natural rights, what we call civil rights and privileges bestowed by the state. I have the natural right to choose with whom I associate. Therefore, I am free to discriminate (by not associating with those I choose not to) not to be free from discrimination. Think of it in terms of speech. Do you have a right to be free from speech you don't like? Of course not. Same is true with discrimination. If I don't like you, I don't have to associate with you. What we have in the US are laws that ban discrimination, but that doesn't mean it is now a 'right.'

You are free to discriminate, but not in ways that deprive the legal rights of other people.
 
is marriage a natural right.......no.... marriage in the context of what is going on in the court is a legal right/civil right...........privilege ....under constitutional law.

a person has a natural right to be with another person by them both creating their own contract.

a right requires the government only stand back and not hinder a rights exercise, while a privilege requires a government action for the privilege to be exercised.

in the case of being married by legal definition requires a government action... licensing/ and a third party to perform legal wording over the marriage.
 

Yes, but only because our society has a manipulative and controlling way of dealing with families.

Legal marriage is in no way necessary to anyone. It didn't even exist in America until about 150 years ago... when the government decided it needed some way to deny black people the right to marry.

And here we get to the problem.

Attached to legal marriage are a host of basic things, including the ability to see your own partner, your ability to raise your children, and your ability to assign your own property and rights as you wish.

Because all of these fundamental things are attached to legal marriage, legal marriage becomes a rights issue.

However, I find it abominable that we have allowed the government to have this degree of control over our love lives. I believe that legal marriage needs to be either completely abandoned (returning marriage to its social/community roots), or it is needs to have all legal contingencies stripped away from it and be purely a title designation for official purposes. There is no reason other non-contingent legal arrangements cannot be used to decide court cases, as they are in other family relationships, and in common-law married cases (i.e., not married, but living as a family unit for a long time). Alternatively, there is no reason people can't assign their own legal rights as they please.

The government implemented legal marriage with the sole intention of being able to destroy the families of oppressed people. And it is still doing it to this day. It has no right to exist.
 
Last edited:
You have no such right. What you are doing is blurring the lines between natural rights, what we call civil rights and privileges bestowed by the state. I have the natural right to choose with whom I associate. Therefore, I am free to discriminate (by not associating with those I choose not to) not to be free from discrimination. Think of it in terms of speech. Do you have a right to be free from speech you don't like? Of course not. Same is true with discrimination. If I don't like you, I don't have to associate with you. What we have in the US are laws that ban discrimination, but that doesn't mean it is now a 'right.'


In the US the right to vote is not in your constitution?
In Canada before the Charter there was no explicit right to vote- after the Charter it was guaranteed.
Section Three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section that constitutionally guarantees all Canadian citizens the democratic right to vote in a general federal or provincial election and the right to be eligible for membership in the House of Commons or of a provincial legislative assembly.
Section 3 is one of the provisions in the Charter that cannot be overridden by Parliament or a legislative assembly under Section 33 of the Charter, the notwithstanding clause. Section 3's exemption from Section 33 provides extra legal protection to the right to vote and it may prevent Parliament or the provincial governments from disenfranchising any Canadian citizen for ideological or political purposes, among others. Nevertheless, the right to vote and to run in an election is subject to other reasonable limits prescribed by law under Section 1 of the Charter.
 
You have the right to be free from discrimination, how is that a privilege?
To vote, how is that a privilege?

free from discrimination?....you have equality under law...meaning government must treat everyone equal.......not a person treat another person equal, because that would be equality BY law.

voting in constitutional law was placed in the hands of the states, and a person must meet the qualifications the state sets.

however when a state grants privileges [vote] it must grant them to all the people equally.....but this as not always been so.
 
Equality under the law is a human right, so indirectly, yes.
 
Equality under the law is a human right, so indirectly, yes.

Since traditional marriage and ssm are not comparable sociological instruments with totally different consequences, equity is not an issue.
 
If the govenment sanctions two adults being 'married' with all the benefits it entails, they have no right to determine what the gender of those two people are, in my opinion.
 
If the govenment sanctions two adults being 'married' with all the benefits it entails, they have no right to determine what the gender of those two people are, in my opinion.

well you would think that, however states have tried to make the case that its in their interest not to grant the privilege of marriage to SS, and they use democracy a vote of the people also.......which is why democracy is not always a good thing.
 
well you would think that, however states have tried to make the case that its in their interest not to grant the privilege of marriage to SS, and they use democracy a vote of the people also.......which is why democracy is not always a good thing.

Nothing is always a good thing but democracy is always the best method. A diversity of perspectives is the best way to examine a problem and arrive at a robust solution. It takes time, which is not necessarily a bad thing as you claim.

Are you a fascism apologist?


ps. SSM is a civil right, though one could claim equality under the law is a human right, as everyone would naturally want to be treated equally under the law (given that non-SSM already exists). So, in a void it's a civil right but given the context of others' already having marriage it could be construed as a human right via equality.
 
Last edited:
Government sanctioned marriage isn't a human right because government isn't a human right.
 
Government sanctioned marriage isn't a human right because government isn't a human right.

What about from the context of government sanctioned marriage already existing and some people being denied. Being denied equal treatment under the law is a human rights issue.

Sure, if there were not others already allowed to marry, then it would clearly be a civil right. The fact that it already exists for some muddies the water.
 
There are no "human rights". Rights are manufactured, envisioned by humans.
 
Back
Top Bottom