Breton Thief Oriana Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 The former is what I meant, too bad I didn't say so. People should have all rights as long as they don't conflict with the rights of others. That is what we learned that the constitution is for in Civics class. Loved that class, even though I got an F on semester grades, whcih means I'll have to repeat it <_< . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Part of any problem in debates of this nature is our use of the word RIGHTS. There are no RIGHTS. What we have are permissions, opportunities, scope. I could claim to have a right to smoke whenever and wherever I wanted. In some countries I would be able to because there is no rule. (In other words I am permitted to do it.) In another country I could not because their is no permission. Now you could say I still have the RIGHT to smoke wherever I please and suffer the consequences. But I would disagree. I have the ability to do so but how can I claim it as a RIGHT? At the end of the day RIGHTs are what a particular society considers acceptable. Most woman in Western Europe and the US believe that the more restrictive regimes of the middle east impact on the RIGHTS of women. And yet there is nothing to stop Western society completely changing its views over the next 100 years proving that these were never RIGHTS, merely as I said before, permissions. It would make debates less polemical, IMO, if we scrapped all this nonsense about RIGHTS and made softer statements. Do we feel that any members of society should have restrictions placed upon them and if so why? The question in this thread then moves to what restrictions should society put on homosexual freedoms and specifically in this case the ability to have a formal legal union. The constant reference to children is a separate matter and could be part of a wider issue "should society place restrictions of acceptable parental role models". As far as this debate is concerned I would call it off topic. (There are many heterosexual parents that are far worse role models those whose sexuality is different.) However another very relevant issue is 'to what extent should any group of people be entitled to restrict the freedoms other groups because their views differ'? Yet another thread perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 To clear this matter of RIGHTS: Here are the official human rights of the UNO on which is one of the basis of western nations. This means, those rights are included in the laws of western nations. This means, those human rights are the law in western nations. Now the question is: Does forbidding homosexuals to become married violate their human rights (which are law in the western nations)? On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."PREAMBLEWhereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. Article 1.All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2.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. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3.Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4.No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5.No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6.Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7.All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Article 8.Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Article 9.No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 10.Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Article 11.(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. Article 12.No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Article 13.(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Article 14.(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 15.(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. 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. Article 17.(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Article 18.Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article 19.Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 20.(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association. Article 21.(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. Article 22.Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. Article 23.(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Article 24.Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Article 25.(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. Article 26.(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. Article 27.(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. Article 28.Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. Article 29.(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 30.Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Darnoc, they are legal permissions that may be overturned at any stage by any society that wishes to do so. The US has often treatened to pull out of the UN because it very occasionally tries to bite them. You cannot assume because something is written it is unchangeable. Only that which is immutable can be regarded as a right. That is why there are none. Look at the treatment of the prisoners taken by he US during the war in Iraq if you want an example of a government ignoring a RIGHT. It proves that it is not a right but a guideline or permission only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Thief Oriana Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 That and he counted the ammendments as articles. Our civics teacher said not to do that. And he didn't put them in the right order. *Nit-Picking* :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 @Malchik: This maybe true, but still the USA accepted the Human Rights and they are also one of the basics of justice in the USA (as far as I recall). I know that they are in most nations of the EU and Switzerland. A country may violate its own law but this doesn't mean that the law ceases to exist. Law is law. If someone breaks the law, he has to be suffer the consequences. And sadly (especially in the USA) the law isn't used properly but violated all the time. I don't want to discuss the horrible status of the justice system in the USA. Thank god I am living in Switzerland! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Malchik is right. A right is somthing that can not be taken away, at least by the one who claims you have the rights. All the rights a person has in america are up to change when need be. That makes it a privledge by nature. I think people should have the right to marry anyone or anything they want as long as no partys involved object and that all partys have ample opprotunity to object. Though my beliefs are the sole reason I think that. Because marrage means nothing in the end so why does it matter? But anyways: Gay marrages should be a right in america because anything else would be so obvisly hipocritical to our constitution. <_< Though it's not like that's not true all ready... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 @Malchik: This maybe true, but still the USA accepted the Human Rights and they are also one of the basics of justice in the USA (as far as I recall). I know that they are in most nations of the EU and Switzerland. A country may violate its own law but this doesn't mean that the law ceases to exist. Law is law. If someone breaks the law, he has to be suffer the consequences. And sadly (especially in the USA) the law isn't used properly but violated all the time. I don't want to discuss the horrible status of the justice system in the USA. Thank god I am living in Switzerland! Yes it may be a law. And the law uses the word 'right'. But in reality it is a group of aspirations or objectives that were considered appropriate at the time they were written by the people who drafted the document. At some point they may be re-written or scrapped altogether by those who feel time has moved on. They are therefore CURRENT permissions, nothing more. The US Patriot act is about to run roughshod over many of these 'rights' and they do not apply them in any case. The US government is saying that the definition of rights is out of date and not applicable in today's world (by their actions if not their words). People used to fear a knock on the door in the USSR in the time of Stalin. The USA seems to be going in exactly the same way. (Sorry, that is off topic.) But to bring the debate back to the professed topic. I cannot see any argument to suggest any two people should not be able to make a legal declaration linking themselves as a 'union' provided they are both over the age of consent. It is no business of anyone else to be even interested let alone bothered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akrid Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 I'm back, again... Ok I think gay marraiges should be replaced with "civil unions" like what many europen nations do. Hey somone said they where gay and everyone didn't explode with "oh my god!" and "why are you diffrent?!" good job everybody, I knew we could hold a intellegent adult discussion, even without me here to monitor them :P Well the U.S. congress just changed the freedoms we had banning gay marraiges, and the fat lady tied the knot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thanateros Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 The Bill of Rights went out the window when Bush passed the Homeland Security Act. Americans no longer enjoy the 'rights' that we used to, especially post 9-11. Does forbidding homosexuals to become married violate their human rights (which are law in the western nations)? If the argument for or against homosexual marriages is based on unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness (in the US) then homosexual marriage, as a persuit of happiness by two consentual adults, is a valid practice of those rights. Of course there are more compounding issues at hand, but in the most basic deffinition of human rights these are the three by which this (again the US) was founded upon. Should an amendment pass defining marriage as by one man and one woman, not only would they be denying unalienable rights to homosexuals, but also the Mormons who openly practice polygamy (this also contradicts the seperation of church and state doctrine). Personally, I have no problem with homosexual marriage. I also think that this fear of homosexual relationships is strikingly biased towards male homosexuality as opposed to female homosexuality which most people do not find as offensive. Why is that the case? You might think of it as some new plague of humanity but the history of the world proves homosexual relationships are present in almost all eras of documented history. Greeks and Romans both revered the relationship between two men, moreso even than the relationship between a man and a woman (if you think I'm lying, go check out Plato's Symposium; the philosophy of that era is documented quite well on this particular subject). During the Victorian era it was common practice for a woman to invite a female counterpart over to her estate, by which the husband would sleep in a seperate room and the two women slept in the same bed. And finally to the religious zealots out there who believe in the Bible I'll leave you pondering this. Since we all live in an immoral world filled with the influences of the devil and his manifestations then wouldn't that warrant another apocolyptic flood to wipe out the human race and start anew? Cause honestly that's what keeps me from believing in God, I mean I'm standing outside in my rain suit with a life preserver wondering when the torrential downpour is about to begin. All I have to say, for the religious argument, is that we as humans desperately could use a flood right about now. And why bring God into the conversation anyways? It has no place; you, personally have no f****** clue what its viewpoints are. I haven't seen it on CNN stating, "this is my personal view of homosexual marriage". I thought that God, in the christian sense, is Love...then what does your lack of it for your fellow human beings say about how justified your religion is? What are people so affraid of? If you find someone, regardless of their sex, you can share a deep, emotionally and physically deep affection for shouldn't you be allowed to be together? To the extent that you have the same legal protection, benefits and rights as anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.