Atheist bus campaign

I live for hidden posts... just another on my untouchable record....


Edited by micky - March 22 2009 at 20:06

So it lets member countries decide whether or not to follow all the articles?  That sorta defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Any governmental institution of marriage that excludes homosexuals violates article 3 pretty explicitly.

Edited by InvisibleUnicorns - March 24 2009 at 00:49

Human Rights are a great thing.
Often used by authoritarian regimes to tell others to butt out because their values don't match ours.
Or by international agencies who too often find it easier to condemn western democracies in their public pronouncements, because frankly their influence is extremely limited on nations like China, eh ...

I believe in these rights, I believe that they are rarely achieved or attained 100%. I also believe that responsibilities should be added to indicate that this utopia is a social contract, not a one way deal.

But until the majority of business dealings are affected negatively by countries that disregard even the most basic rights, NOTHING will really happen.
Yes, that's right, until money is lost by these nations, the pressure to change is non-existent.
Ask Sudan , China, Burma , Saudi Arabia ...

A governmental institution of marriage that excludes homosexuals violates the right to liberty.  The government is setting up a system where one group of people has the liberty to do something, whereas another group does not.  They are quite clearly violating the liberty of homosexuals by doing so.  It also violates article 1's claim that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."  And it violates article 7, for that matter: "All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

And if changing that meant that many countries would split, so what?  If they don't want to protect human rights, f**k them.  It seems to me that the whole point of the document you posted is to ensure that member countries will protect human rights.  So why should the writers of the document compromise it's definition of human rights for the sake of having more countries accept it?


Edited by InvisibleUnicorns - March 24 2009 at 11:31

Marriage is an unnatural institution, therefore, (by common sense, mind you--I'm not a Constitutional expert or very familiar with the Human Rights document) it doesn't seem to be an unalienable right--a right of birth--unless I misunderstand the loaded language there. However, I think it's pretty obvious that if heterosexual marriage is allowed, homosexual marriage cannot be denied without violating the liberty of homosexuals. In this matter, it doesn't matter how many countries disagree, that doesn't make disallowing heterosexual marriage right. In fact, it's bordering on uncivilized.

Speaking of uncivilized, how about that Pope's trip to Africa?

Well I just lost my entire response to Ivan's post, so here are my main points:

Article 3 of the treaty EXPLICITLY states that everyone has a right to liberty, and article 1 of the treaty EXPLICTLY states that everyone has the same rights as everyone else.

Any government institution of marriage that excludes homosexuals but not heterosexuals violates the liberty of homosexuals while promoting the liberty of heterosexuals, because the government applies to all citizens, homosexual and heterosexual alike.

As such, any such government institution of marriage violates what is EXPLICITLY written.

I am not trying to change the document at all.  On the contrary, I am arguing using only what you provided.  Everything I am saying is a logical consequence of what is written in that treaty.

Every country that ratified that treaty accepted the terms of it.  If they didn't understand the ramifications of it, tough luck.  If they have an institution of marriage that excludes homosexuals, they are in direct violation of articles 1 and 3 from what you posted.

If they want to preserve such institutions of marriage, then it seems to me that they have two options:

1) pull out from the treaty
2) start a push to redefine the treaty such that it explicitly states the homosexuals do not have the same right to liberty as heterosexuals

As for your point about the treaty being written in 1948, it's not my fault that the people of the treaty did not realize the ramifications of what they wrote.  The words they wrote give every single person the right to liberty, regardless of sexual orientation.  If they did not mean that, they should've written otherwise.


Personally, I think marriage shouldn't be a government institution at all, but merely a religious one (in which case homosexual exclusion would be perfectly legitimate, even if I disagree with it on a personal level).  However, in the US and other countries, it IS a government institution, and as such it must comply with the treaty.  So long as it excludes homosexuals, it does not comply with articles 1 and 3 of the treaty AS THEY ARE WRITTEN.


Edited by InvisibleUnicorns - March 24 2009 at 14:27

InvisibleUnicorns wrote: Well I just lost my entire response to Ivan's post, so here are my main points: Article 3 of the treaty EXPLICITLY states that everyone has a right to liberty, and article 1 of the treaty EXPLICTLY states that everyone has the same rights as everyone else. Any government institution of marriage that excludes homosexuals but not heterosexuals violates the liberty of homosexuals while promoting the liberty of heterosexuals, because the government applies to all citizens, homosexual and heterosexual alike. As such, any such government institution of marriage violates what is EXPLICITLY written. I am not trying to change the document at all.  On the contrary, I am arguing using only what you provided.  Everything I am saying is a logical consequence of what is written in that treaty. Every country that ratified that treaty accepted the terms of it.  If they didn't understand the ramifications of it, tough luck.  If they have an institution of marriage that excludes homosexuals, they are in direct violation of articles 1 and 3 from what you posted. If they want to preserve such institutions of marriage, then it seems to me that they have two options: 1) pull out from the treaty 2) start a push to redefine the treaty such that it explicitly states the homosexuals do not have the same right to liberty as heterosexuals As for your point about the treaty being written in 1948, it's not my fault that the people of the treaty did not realize the ramifications of what they wrote.  The words they wrote give every single person the right to liberty, regardless of sexual orientation.  If they did not mean that, they should've written otherwise. Personally, I think marriage shouldn't be a government institution at all, but merely a religious one (in which case homosexual exclusion would be perfectly legitimate, even if I disagree with it on a personal level).  However, in the US and other countries, it IS a government institution, and as such it must comply with the treaty.  So long as it excludes homosexuals, it does not comply with articles 1 and 3 of the treaty AS THEY ARE WRITTEN.

• I won't discuss legal terms in extense, because it would take me hours to explain principles as literal interpretation, in laws you must analize for what is written WORD BY WORD,. the homosexual issue is not mentioned, so nobody can be forced to modify their national laws.

International treaties and documets are subject of literal interpretatiion, nothing can be left to individual or unilateral analysis, imagine a treaty settiong limits,. you can't say X country is entitled to the coast, you have to say, from paralell X, Y minutes, Z seconds, to A paralell, B minutes, C seconds, and you have to place marks to make the limits clear.

In the same way, you can't say, marriage without explaining what the interpretation of marriage is, because it's different in different regions, for example some couuntries accept poligamy, but the UN doesn't recognize multiple simultaneous unions as marriage.

 

• THE DOCUMENT WAS RELEASED IN 1948,

IN 1948 NOBODY IN THE WORLD (MAYBE A FEW PIONEERS) THOUGHT IN LEGALIZING HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE SO YOU CAN'T FORCE A COUNTRY TO ACCEPT WHAT WAS NOT DECIDED WHEN SIGNED.

InvisibleUnicorns wrote: I'm not saying you're against homosexual rights.  I'm also not trying to teach you about laws. I am just looking at what a right is, what the institution of marriage does, and what the document you posted says (word for word). From that, it logically follows that any government institution that does not allow for homosexual marriage violates what is explicitly written in articles 1, 3, and 7. The articles do not need to mention homosexuality.  They say the following two things: 1) that every single person has equal rights 2) that these rights include a right to liberty I have already shown how a governmental institution of marriage that does not allow for homosexual marriage is not consistent with those two principles.

I'm going to regret jumping in here (I also love how a thread about a bus became a place to discuss gay marriage, but oh well).

I'm not saying gay marriage is good or bad- I just want to challenge what you said on a purely rhetorical level.  Ready?

Equal rights- what does that mean?

It means I have the same fundamental rights as another citizen of my country.

A homosexual has just as much right as I do to marry a person of the opposite sex.  I am a man, so I can no more marry a man any more than a homosexual can marry a person of their own gender (assuming only heterosexual marriage is legal).

So what that means is, a homosexual wishing to marry a person of their own gender is not seeking out equal rights (which they already have)- they are seeking additional rights.

Even more siimple, in laws, you have to be explicit.