• 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
Medusa said:
I mean it is a legal right created by government unlike human rights
Click to expand...

One can argue that being treated equally is a natural desire of all people and thereby falls under human rights. You're looking at this in a contextual void. It's not just about government recognition, it's about equality because some can already marry.

I see it as such:

"Recognize my marriage" is a civil rights issue.

"Recognize me the same as others" is a human rights issue.
 
ecofarm said:
One can argue that being treated equally is a natural desire of all people and thereby falls under human rights. You're looking at this in a contextual void. It's not just about government recognition, it's about equality because some can already marry.

I see it as such:

"Recognize my marriage" is a civil rights issue.

"Recognize me the same as others" is a human rights issue.
Click to expand...

Not much of an argument. The "natural desire" of most people is to be special, NOT to be equal.
 
clownboy said:
There are no "human rights". Rights are manufactured, envisioned by humans.
Click to expand...

Human rights are like natural rights, they are derived by any group naturally and thereby are not dependent on authority or government. These rights can be violated but they always exist. It's a simple sociological concept, I'm surprised some are unable to grasp it.
 
clownboy said:
Not much of an argument. The "natural desire" of most people is to be special, NOT to be equal.
Click to expand...

You're not looking at it sociologically. One must presume, in the generation of a natural abstract object, that one must agree to the rule instituted and that it is for everyone. One such rule, generated naturally in all groups, is equal treatment under the law.
 
ecofarm said:
Human rights are like natural rights, they are derived by any group naturally and thereby are not dependent on authority or government. These rights can be violated but they always exist. It's a simple sociological concept, I'm surprised some are unable to grasp it.
Click to expand...

I thought you to be intelligent and am surprised to see you fall for that nonsense. None of that is true. There have been plenty of large population groups who never think of certain elements as a right. There is no "right" to life in the older Oriental cultures. In fact with Eastern and Oriental cultures a caste system is the natural process.
 
clownboy said:
I thought you to be intelligent and am surprised to see you fall for that nonsense. None of that is true.
Click to expand...

At least I'm intelligent enough to understand what the Founders meant.

There have been plenty of large population groups who never think of certain elements as a right.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how anyone "thinks of something". Certain sociological rules are generated naturally in every group (given members of equal power, of course).

There is no "right" to life in the older Oriental cultures. In fact with Eastern and Oriental cultures a caste system is the natural process.
Click to expand...

Idiocy. As I noted earlier, natural rights can -and are- violated but they always exist as a natural abstract object understood via sociology.

The caste system was not a natural sociological process, it was a system of tyranny created by those in power in order to violate the rights of others for profit.

I don't believe you have an understanding of what is sociologically natural. I'll give you a hint: it's not just "whatever happens" as your ridiculous claim above.
 
ecofarm said:
One can argue that being treated equally is a natural desire of all people and thereby falls under human rights. You're looking at this in a contextual void. It's not just about government recognition, it's about equality because some can already marry.
Click to expand...

as defined in 'The Universal Declaration of Human Rights' ,marriage occcurs between man and woman and it is a legal contract as we all see.now tell me how it is not a legal right whether it is SSM or traditional marriage
 
ecofarm said:
At least I'm intelligent enough to understand what the Founders meant.
Click to expand...

You have yet to demonstrate that here. :mrgreen:

ecofarm said:
It doesn't matter how anyone "thinks of something". Certain sociological rules are generated naturally in every group (given members of equal power, of course).
Click to expand...

Except, no. Reality and history tell a different story. You've got a wonderful Western perspective there.

ecofarm said:
Idiocy. As I noted earlier, natural rights can -and are- violated but they always exist as a natural abstract object understood via sociology.
Click to expand...

Except in the many societies throughout history where that has not been the case.

ecofarm said:
The caste system was not a natural sociological process, it was a system of tyranny created by those in power in order to violate the rights of others for profit.
Click to expand...

It certainly is, especially if you buy in to the theory of evolution. You think all the pack are alphas?

ecofarm said:
I don't believe you have an understanding of what is sociologically natural .
Click to expand...

Ditto and one of us used to write sociology papers for money.
 
Medusa said:
as defined in 'The Universal Declaration of Human Rights' ,marriage occcurs between man and woman
Click to expand...

Citation needed. I'm pretty sure the UDHR doesn't define marriage.

and it is a legal contract as we all see.now tell me how it is not a legal right whether it is SSM or traditional marriage
Click to expand...

Of course it's a legal contract, but having a legal contract is not really the issue. SSM is not about someone getting access to a legal contract as much as it is about someone getting access to the same treatment under the law. Being treated the same under the law is the bigger issue that causes me to consider that SSM in some way falls under human rights.
 
clownboy said:
Ditto and one of us used to write sociology papers for money.
Click to expand...

I'm far more educated (tertiary) regarding sociology than you, so spare me that crap. You believe the Founders were lying or stupid when they spoke of natural rights - that's pathetic idiocy.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm far more educated (tertiary) regarding sociology than you, so spare me that crap. You believe the Founders were lying or stupid when they spoke of natural rights - that's pathetic idiocy.
Click to expand...

No, what's pathetic idiocy is confusing flowery political speech made to inspire, with actual conditions. Are you telling us now that all of a sudden you believe we are endowed those rights by the Creator? Your story has changed from your past postings.
 
clownboy said:
No, what's pathetic idiocy is confusing flowery political speech made to inspire, with actual conditions.
Click to expand...

Like I said. You believe the Founders were lying. Pathetic idiocy.
 
Is source-specific multicast a right?

Ummm...I guess so.


;)
 
I responded no to the poll.

I'm supportive of SSM simply because if the government is going to be in the marriage business, they shouldn't be discriminating against the free choice of citizens. I'd prefer they get out of the marriage business entirely.

That said, it's hard to claim a human right for something that is not a requirement of life. I'd argue food is more a human right, yet the government will never provide everyone with sufficient food to survive and prosper. Water would be another necessity of life. I'd more argue that decent healthcare is more a human right than marriage is. You can have a mate and a family without a government piece of paper.

The modern day need of some to declare every desire a basic right is just idiotic, in my view.
 
ecofarm said:
Citation needed. I'm pretty sure the UDHR doesn't define marriage.



Of course it's a legal contract, but having a legal contract is not really the issue. SSM is not about someone getting access to a legal contract as much as it is about someone getting access to the same treatment under the law. Being treated the same under the law is the bigger issue that causes me to consider that SSM in some way falls under human rights.
Click to expand...

does it count ?

Article 16.
'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. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.'
 
joG said:
Since traditional marriage and ssm are not comparable sociological instruments with totally different consequences, equity is not an issue.
Click to expand...

That is irrelevant. Fertility is not a requirement for marriage, so there is no difference in consequences. Human rights and equality are relevant.
 
Marriage / civil unions are ultimately contracts of joint property and other such terms.

I believe freedom of contract is part of our natural human right to liberty.

That said, it is not mentioned as a right in any part of the U.S. Constitution in any way, so overriding the will of the people of the several states by judicial fiat is absolutely inappropriate.
 
JayDubya said:
Marriage / civil unions are ultimately contracts of joint property and other such terms.

I believe freedom of contract is part of our natural human right to liberty.

That said, it is not mentioned as a right in any part of the U.S. Constitution in any way, so overriding the will of the people of the several states by judicial fiat is absolutely inappropriate.
Click to expand...


Must be enumerated in the Constitution for it to be held by the people?



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
Must be enumerated in the Constitution for it to be held by the people?



>>>>
Click to expand...

It must be enumerated in the U.S. Constitution for it to be a constitutional right. If it is not enumerated, then the Supreme Court has no business making a ruling about it.

The only legitimate way for that to change would be through the amendment process. These days, instead of an amendment process, we have a court that just makes **** up.
 
ecofarm said:
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.
Click to expand...

democracy is how we got the SSM bans in the first place remember. Time is indeed a bad thing for the couples who have been screwed for 20+ years since the fed and voters started launching their campaign of hate

diversity of opinion is ideal, but the uneducated mob should not be the ultimate arbiter of which opinion is to be valued and enforced, especially when it comes to civil rights of minorities.
 
mpg said:
Government sanctioned marriage isn't a human right because government isn't a human right.
Click to expand...

Even though pretty much every government in history sanctioned marriage in some way...

I think we can therefore take it for granted that marriage is a human right
 
Being able to be with the person you love is a human right. Being able to marry that person, gay or straight, is a civil right, IMO.
 
JayDubya said:
It must be enumerated in the U.S. Constitution for it to be a constitutional right. If it is not enumerated, then the Supreme Court has no business making a ruling about it.

The only legitimate way for that to change would be through the amendment process. These days, instead of an amendment process, we have a court that just makes **** up.
Click to expand...


Your wrong, and the Constitution says you are wrong in the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


>>>>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom