Active Users:1129 Time:23/11/2024 05:05:02 AM
You could just as easily move the emphasis... Napoleon62 Send a noteboard - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM
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.
*MySmiley*
"Men of true genius are like meteors, they consume themselves and illuminate their centuries."

-Napoleon Bonaparte
www.empire-iamhuman.webs.com
Reply to message
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
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 982 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1017 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 860 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1017 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 585 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
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 474 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 995 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
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 476 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
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 874 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 439 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 912 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
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1229 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 852 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 886 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 476 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1005 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
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 828 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 959 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 841 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 984 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1001 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 879 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1016 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 826 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 939 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 828 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 695 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
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1041 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
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 852 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 856 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 845 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 870 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
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 786 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 458 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 462 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1033 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
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 734 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1087 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 727 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

Reply to Message