Active Users:1147 Time:23/11/2024 01:29:22 AM
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Napoleon62 Send a noteboard - 10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM
Doesn't reference article 16 of the UDHR, but does articles 1 and 2, which does seem strange. Anyway if we are trying to prove that discrimination based on sexual orientation is against international law I think we just did.

Probably worth mention, the US doesn't appear to have signed that :P and for that matter many of the signatories don't allow gay marriage either, there's about 10 countries, starting with the netherlands in 2001 that allow it, and two who allow it in some places, the US is one and Mexico is the other, there's a roughly equal number where it carries the death penalty. and there are 192 nations in the UN, so we're not in much need to worry about violations ;)


Well it isn't techinically legally binding on an international level anyway. At the moment. But wait a few years and my point will stand. :P

Anyway the issue on 16 is "Men and Women" since everywhere else it says 'Everyone' 'all' or 'No one' and such, but regardless, the clear spirit, not too mention the standard interpretation, are that gay marriage is not banned nor granted by article 16. Of course the UDHR is so much worthless paper anyway. It tends to get pretty specific too, wasn't written on a napkin, article two has a whole laundry list of "such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status" regarding who the rights apply to. There's also the generally futility of amending it anyway, since it is a non-binding measure, and there is, in article 29. a rather nagging "meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." which is regularly cited by countries who pay the UHDR lip service. To the best of my knowledge our only violation to date is actually article 16, the marriage clause, since some states kept bans on interracial marriage for a while, and argues that the clause didn't say you had to permit interracial marriage, only that you couldn't deny someone of a given race the right to marry. There's also the article 5 torture clause but that's another issue.


Well it is arguable that the US is committing a whole series of violations, but Article 5 is the most blatent, 16 to follow it up. It never says that men and women have to be married to a member of the oppisite gender and though the choice of words may initially seem to provide fot that on further analysis it would at the very least permit homosexual marriage, at the most ensure it. I'm actually doing a campaign at my high school to get the UDHR integrated into the social studies curriculum, I think it is a major problem that so few people know or care about it.

The problem is lots of people go around declaring what something means, so courts decide, and I don't think you have made the case that the US and 181 of 192 other countries are not in violation of article 16.


Just because a vast majority of nations are committing a violation of the UDHR doesn't mean that it isn't a violation. Perhaps the ICJ needs to step and and make a judicial ruling on this, but until then I will hold that the UDHR provides for homosexual marriage.
*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 1533 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 962 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 981 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1015 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 858 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1016 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 1186 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 995 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 981 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 894 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 476 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 864 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 504 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 958 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 919 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 873 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 439 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 910 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 854 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 850 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 885 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 1002 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 923 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 858 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 958 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 839 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 983 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 999 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 878 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1014 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 824 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 827 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 694 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 863 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 989 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 1040 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 852 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 977 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1160 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context - 10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM 848 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context - 10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM 1163 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 844 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 777 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 785 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 457 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 1031 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 1006 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 1085 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 726 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 973 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 849 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 957 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 838 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 936 Views

Reply to Message