By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is marriage the right of each and every citizen?

 

Is marriage a right to all citizens?

Yes, screw the Constituti... 29 46.03%
 
No, I side with the Const... 18 28.57%
 
In my country marriage ac... 4 6.35%
 
I'm not touching this wi... 12 19.05%
 
Total:63
MrBubbles on 05 August 2011
Joelcool7 said:
MrBubbles said:

universal declaration of human rights

 

 

what do i win...?


Nothing because even the Universal Declaration of rights does not say Marriage is a right for all citizens. It specifically says in Article 16.

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.

Their you have it, yet again nowhere in the world do I know of a declration of human rights etc...etc.. that says marriage is a right of all citizens. Infact since most of the world signed the Universal Declaration of Rights I would say this just proves it. Though I guess this shows that marriage is the right of every man and women to one another.

Good try Mr.Bubbles

Do people suggest that we need to alter the Universal Declaration of human rights as well as all of our individual countries bills and laws so that we may force change on the definition of marriage on a global scale? If so that is sort of scary our countries all made these agreements and signed these things into law and respect each others religious institutions.

Also note that the declaration specifically says "and to found a family" a gay couple cannot found a family biologically neither can a beast couple or an object couple. Clearly this right only applies to males and females it says so specifically!


umm...what?  our country worked hard on creating this piece of work and then voted for it.    it may not be a legally binding piece of work, but by our actions it is morally binding on us.  it clearly says "have the right to marry", and no, it does not indicate "to one another"  just that both men and women can do that, since our species only has 2 sexes.   

 

on top of that homosexuals can in fact have babies.  a couple could foster children, they could adopt children, they could have a child carried for them, they could have children from a previously relationship...so yes they can found a family.

if you want to talk biologically then you will also have to revoke peoples marriages licences when it turns out they cant have children(once they are too old for example)...



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Around the Network
ctalkeb on 05 August 2011
Joelcool7 said:

Ummm firstly I do understand what a Constitution is, its the founding principles and laws in which a country is to be governed. The Constitution is made to ensure that everything in it remains law protecting and preserving that countries principles. All future laws and actions of that countries government must respect and adhere to that constitution. Its a written record that dictates and governs how a country should be run. I could now quote the dictionary definition "A body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed"

How don't I understand how dictionaries work, they are books in which the legal definitions of words are contained. Fact is the Canadian Government had to change the legal definition of the word marriage so that gay couples could be married. That has nothing to do with dictionaries, which means you probably don't understand how a dictionary works. Dictionary companies don't decide what a word means they simply give the definition. Please don't accuse me of not understanding something you clearly don't.

As for pastors and such, umm I'm not saying they will be forced and making some kind of prediction. I'm stating they are being forced and I would know as I am Canadian where gay marriage has already been passed. You live in Norway and are commenting, but you see you have no clue what goes on in the rest of the world. If the US were to legalize marriage yah they might force pastors, they might not I don't know. All I can say for sure is that the Government was going to revoke my pastors marriage liscense for refusing to marry a gay couple. Infact due to anti-discrimination laws and the fact that the definition of marriage has been changed in Norway as of 2009 I wouldn't doubt your country is forcing pastors and civil servents to marry gay couples as well.

As for argueing with me, save your breath I don't argue. I debate maturely and respectully with all members of VGChartz but once something turns juvinile and the debators start to take things out of control, then I leave. Their is a major difference between arguing and debating!

 


First of all, it is not mature and especially not respectful to compare homosexuality to zoophilia, pedophilia and whatever being attracted to inanimate objects may be called.

Second, you may be able to find a definition of what a constitution is, but what have you argued that proves you understand it? Nothing as far as I can see. In your argumentation  you seem to think that a right not explicitly mentioned in a law means that it is not possible for it to be one.

Fourth, you used the phrase "change the definition of a word", which lead me to assume you meant in the sense of a dictionary (which, by the way, only records how a word is used, they are not "legal definitions"). I don't know what the previous legal (as in: written in a text of law) definition of "marriage" was in canadian law, but perhaps you can tell me? Preferably by quoting the previous and current text.

Fifth, reading through some  current Canadian marriage laws there is (obviously) no indication of forcing a priest, pastor or indeed  anyone to marry anyone if they do not wish to do so. In fact, they explicitly use phrasing to say that religious leaders may solemnize a marriage. Same as in Norway, then. A priest, pastor, rabbi, iman or whatever (including civil servants, yes - same as in Canada) can refuse to solemnize a marriage for any  reason.

Someone has brought up two facts you should take to heart:

1: The UN declarations of human rights (which, again, already mentioned) do not specify that men and women necessarily shoud marry each other.

2: That denying a pastor, priest, rabbi, iman or whatever the right to marry a same-sex couple can very easily be construed as a form of religious discrimination.

PS: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arguing