Article 16 (UDHR)
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.
And that interpretation is implied by the structure of the sentence and the commas. I don't think it is meant to imply that discrimination is not allowed exclusively on those fronts. The way you are emphasizing it could be used, in theory, to justify a eugenics type breeding program in which there are limitations on marriage based on physical or mental disabilities etc. which is clearly what those that drafted the UDHR were connotating.
Anyway, point is that the part of the sentence that matters is "Men and women of full age...have the right to marry and found a family." One could not point to the fact that it does not specifically state without discrimination based on sexual orientation cannot be used to imply that the UDHR does not provide for homosexual marriage. It does not say so explicitly but article 16 of the UDHR can definitely be invoked to provide that under international law homosexual marriage is legal.
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.
And that interpretation is implied by the structure of the sentence and the commas. I don't think it is meant to imply that discrimination is not allowed exclusively on those fronts. The way you are emphasizing it could be used, in theory, to justify a eugenics type breeding program in which there are limitations on marriage based on physical or mental disabilities etc. which is clearly what those that drafted the UDHR were connotating.
Anyway, point is that the part of the sentence that matters is "Men and women of full age...have the right to marry and found a family." One could not point to the fact that it does not specifically state without discrimination based on sexual orientation cannot be used to imply that the UDHR does not provide for homosexual marriage. It does not say so explicitly but article 16 of the UDHR can definitely be invoked to provide that under international law homosexual marriage is legal.
*MySmiley*
"Men of true genius are like meteors, they consume themselves and illuminate their centuries."
-Napoleon Bonaparte
www.empire-iamhuman.webs.com
"Men of true genius are like meteors, they consume themselves and illuminate their centuries."
-Napoleon Bonaparte
www.empire-iamhuman.webs.com
Let's ban all Christian Marriage.
07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM
- 1536 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me.
07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM
- 963 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people.
07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM
- 1188 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there!
07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM
- 996 Views
Who else should make those decisions?
07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM
- 946 Views
I'd totally...
08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM
- 912 Views
I'd totally...
08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM
- 1057 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering.
08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM
- 982 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged
08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM
- 896 Views
*Shakes Head*
08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM
- 866 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM*
08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM
- 505 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense.
08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM
- 960 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense.
08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM
- 920 Views
Re: *Shakes Head*
08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM
- 912 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution
08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM
- 1011 Views
No, I was referring to same-sex marriage. Real marriage hardly counts as a novelty. *NM*
11/08/2010 02:28:43 PM
- 418 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about.
08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM
- 855 Views
You cannot be that stupid.
11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM
- 1141 Views
There's a lot of ridiculous arguments here, but I'll focus on just one of them...
11/08/2010 03:38:05 PM
- 1018 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM
- 886 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad.
09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM
- 925 Views
Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM
- 876 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM
- 860 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM
- 969 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives.
11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM
- 1001 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM
- 889 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM
- 850 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM
- 944 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM
- 965 Views
It should be noted again...
09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM
- 990 Views
and how is it not a right?
09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM
- 865 Views
My definition of rights...
09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM
- 991 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right.
10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM
- 754 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example
10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM
- 853 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis...
10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM
- 978 Views
If we need a more specific resolution...
10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM
- 1162 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM
- 850 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM
- 1163 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize.
10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM
- 815 Views
The point is that marriage IS a right, one which cannot be denied based upon sexual orientation *NM*
10/08/2010 07:04:16 PM
- 679 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM
- 1040 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though.
10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM
- 852 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM
- 844 Views
Re: I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
10/08/2010 06:33:56 PM
- 776 Views
It's mentioned as a right in some SC decision quoted in that Walker opinion. *NM*
10/08/2010 06:51:13 PM
- 429 Views
To clarify for you
10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM
- 778 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body...
10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM
- 1223 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body'
10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM
- 826 Views
The fact that it is capable of authorizing the use of military force makes it an enforcement body
10/08/2010 10:33:59 PM
- 1089 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless....
10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM
- 786 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM*
11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM
- 475 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right.
10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM
- 930 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction...
10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM
- 1008 Views
Note it all you want...
10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM
- 727 Views
No, they seek to expand the terms of the partnership. Homosexuals can & do get married normally *NM*
11/08/2010 03:14:25 PM
- 481 Views
The best one yet.
10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM
- 974 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM
- 850 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM
- 958 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM
- 840 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM
- 960 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM
- 938 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM
- 926 Views