• 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
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."

The 9th Amendment is a legal truism. It does not empower the Supreme Court to just make up rights.
 
I do not believe the government has the right to determine if my sexual preference is acceptable. I do not need the government to approve of who I live my life with or if we decide to part ways. While most people need the governments blessing or control over their life I do not. The governments involvement in marriage is nothing more than way to control people. I still believe government serves the people not controls or dictates who they chose to live their life with.
 
The 9th Amendment is a legal truism. It does not empower the Supreme Court to just make up rights.

The 9th amendment (and other parts of the constitution) is why a "compelling governmental interest" must be provided to take away or limit people's equality, rights and/or freedom.
 
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.
not the topic of this thread
 
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
read much?
 
I think it depends on how you define marriage, specifically whether you think marriage must be a government recognized institution in order to exists. I don't think government validation of any type is a human right. A social agenda maybe.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 16.
•(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. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
•(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
•(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
 
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.

democracy as a FORM OF government will always fail in the end.

what is a human right, is it a natural right to you?...because the constitution only speaks of natural rights and privileges..ie. civil rights/legal rights

since marriage is a civil right it means government is granting it, but if government grants a privilege it must grant them to everyone, meaning equality under the law,...unless the state can show in court its in their interest not to grant the privilege.
 
Last edited:
I mean it is a legal right created by government unlike human rights

again that is correct, in america a "privilege" in the constitution is a ...civil /legal right.

however the constitution of america does not say human rights, ours are natural rights.
 
again that is correct, in america a "privilege" in the constitution is a ...civil /legal right.

however the constitution of america does not say human rights, ours are natural rights.
This is America
 
I think it should be, but then rights are usually defined as such having been ratified by whichever authority. In that sense, then no, it's not a right (yet). Natural Law's probably moot, since marriage isn't covered by either necessity or emergency. Morality's arguable, of course. I'm not sure 'right' is the correct term to use until it's been legalised.
 
The 9th Amendment is a legal truism. It does not empower the Supreme Court to just make up rights.

rights are recognized by the USSC , and they are to be based on natural law since it is a founding principle.

when people say human right, what does that mean?..does it mean because i am human,...... i must have food water and roof over my head?

food/ water/ shelter is not a natural rights because they place a cost of burden on another person.....we should rid ourselves of calling our natural rights, ...human rights.
 
That is irrelevant. Fertility is not a requirement for marriage, so there is no difference in consequences. Human rights and equality are relevant.

Admittedly the instrument is archaic and should therefore be reworked. But to say that government sponsored marriage is a human right is rather silly. Possibly it would make sense to forbid government control of the way families want to organize for reason of human rights. But that is practically the opposite of the ssm craving crowd's demand, who want government subsidies oe interference.
 
No type of marriage is a "human right" in my mind. They're entirely societal rights as it's entirely a societal construct.
 
No type of marriage is a "human right" in my mind. They're entirely societal rights as it's entirely a societal construct.

I support SSM but I agree with this.

The more important question for me is why SHOULDN'T we sanction SSM? Most of th arguments against it fall on religious grounds, states right's, and a couple silly arguments that make no sense to me. The religious arguments are easy to win in court for the pro-gay lobby. States rights is a good direction for anti-gay marriage advocates, which means pro-SSM have to make a compelling argument as to why the right of gays to marry should trump public opinion in states that ban it. I think so far they have done a good job in this regard, which is why I think SSM will win in June.

The other arguments don't make any sense to me. Procreation? "What-if's" regarding polygamy, animal marriage, toasters? Definitely not compelling arguments in court.

So ultimately, the anti-SSM has a good strategy with states rights arguments. I think that's what this will come down to. But I just don't see Kennedy backtracking on all the progress done the last five years. If they are to rule this way, many states will backtrack on their marriage rulings and I can't see him wanting to be responsible for that.
 
Any consensual adult relationaship is a human right...
 
I don't even know why the government is involved in marriage - why not leave it up to the religions, where it all started?
 
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.

OK, somebody has to do this.

 
Is SSM (Same-Sex Marriage) a human right?

No.

Recognition by private enterprise and government of the romantic committed domestic partnership civil union between two qualifying adults of the same-sex is a right.

But, not, obviously, under the term "marriage".

A new word must be coined.

I've suggested "homarriage", like woman is to man; can't use the same word to describe both or the key differences are lost.

So from the valid foundational perspective of words and their meaning, since marriage means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", the term "marriage" simply cannot apply to a same-sex couple.

Applying the word "marriage" to a same-sex couple is like letting cat-owners enter their cats in a dog show. Absolutely nonsensically ludicrous!

As to the genetic nature of homosexuality, more accurately the condition is epigenetic in etiology: http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/160480-homosexuality-birth-defect.html#post1061800678.

This has been known for some time now.

Those who still think homosexuality, any gender preference, is a ''conscious choice" are still in the dark ages.
 
Only as much as marriage for straight people.

Not sure that I agree that it is but if it is for one group, then it is for the other.
 
Is SSM (Same-Sex Marriage) a human right?

No.

Recognition by private enterprise and government of the romantic committed domestic partnership civil union between two qualifying adults of the same-sex is a right.

But, not, obviously, under the term "marriage".

A new word must be coined.

I've suggested "homarriage", like woman is to man; can't use the same word to describe both or the key differences are lost.

So from the valid foundational perspective of words and their meaning, since marriage means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", the term "marriage" simply cannot apply to a same-sex couple.

Applying the word "marriage" to a same-sex couple is like letting cat-owners enter their cats in a dog show. Absolutely nonsensically ludicrous!

As to the genetic nature of homosexuality, more accurately the condition is epigenetic in etiology: http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/160480-homosexuality-birth-defect.html#post1061800678.

This has been known for some time now.

Those who still think homosexuality, any gender preference, is a ''conscious choice" are still in the dark ages.

Cherry picking a study and from 2006.
 
No. Rights are negative in nature, not positive.
 
No. Rights are negative in nature, not positive.
many rights which can be called negative were positively used during authoritarian kingdoms
 
You have the right to be free from discrimination, how is that a privilege?
To vote, how is that a privilege?

Why are you flying straight off topic, can't you control yourself? Voting is NOT NOT NOT NOT a human right. You're talking human rights here.
 
Back
Top Bottom