NationStates Jolt Archive

I have heard on a variety of occasions during gay marriage debates that marriage is a right. Now, even when dealing with rights (which are meant to be absolute), one must realize that different parts of the world accord different rights to their peoples. So in considering whether marriage is in fact a right, I decided to consult the International Bill of Human Rights. Here is the excerpt on marriage:




Article 16

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.

Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Now, there are technically two ways to interpret that.

You can say they only intended to infer heterosexual marriage with the phrase "Men and women of full age"; that only a man and a woman of full age may be married.

Or, one can interpret that be you a man or a woman of full age, you can marry another man or woman (of full age).

So what say ye? Does the IBoHR support gay marriage, or no? [sips tea]

course they are.

but this qoutes of yours is basically defining marriage as between man and woman.

It does not matter if the IBHR allows gay marriage, because there is no one to enforce the IBHR, therefore in reality it is not law.

It does not matter if the IBHR allows gay marriage, because there is no one to enforce the IBHR, therefore in reality it is not law.

I didn't ask how it affected the law. I asked whether the Bill of Rights covered gay marriages, or only heterosexual marriages. That depends on how you interpret the wording of the document.


course they are.

but this qoutes of yours is basically defining marriage as between man and woman.

To my knowledge, that is the only article that addresses marriage. I may be wrong. And I quoted the full article, so if the Bill of Rights does support gay marriage, but the quote doesn't... I don't follow you?

Yes because it lacks anything saying that marriage can only happen when the conditional of a man and a woman. As it is in black and white men and women of age.

no one cares about the ibhr

Yes because it lacks anything saying that marriage can only happen when the conditional of a man and a woman. As it is in black and white men and women of age.

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry

Now I'm not suggesting that's what they meant to say. However, the wording is open enough that one can read it either way.

Since "men and women" is pluralized, it has to be talking about all men and women having the same rights to marriage. In that sense, it seems to be for gay marriage.

Unfortunately, it also goes on to list what limitations are not allowed and since neither sexual orientation nor gender are there, it implies it's against gay marriage. Or at least it wasn't an issue when it was created/amended.

The IBHR does not carry any weight, so as far as the world is concerned, it means nothing. The IBHR could say anything it wants to say, but the reality of it is there is nothing to enforce it, so it is meaningless.

The IBHR does not carry any weight, so as far as the world is concerned, it means nothing. The IBHR could say anything it wants to say, but the reality of it is there is nothing to enforce it, so it is meaningless.

If you don't care about the Bill of Rights, then go to another topic. I didn't ask, nor do I care, what anyone thinks of it. This topic is not a debate about the validity, power, or reach of the Bill of Rights.

This is a debate of with what intent it was written, not what impact it has on the world.

To explain more carefully, as people seem to be missing the dual nature of "and":

Harry and Sally and Joe went to the park.

Could mean:

Harry, Sally and Joe went to the park together.

Or it could mean:

Harry and Sally and Joe went to the park separately.

"And" can be used to combine things, or to add things in list form.

Another simple example: "Jello is gelatin powder and water". Is gelatin powder Jello? No. Is water Jello? No. Only gelatin powder and water when used in conjuction are Jello.

"Sally and Joe are 21". Is Sally 21? Yes. Is Joe 21? Yes. If you take them apart, are they both still 21? Yes.

Do you understand now what I was pointing out? The use of "and" can insinuate that men and women (added as a list) can marry, or men and women (combined) can marry.

If you don't care about the Bill of Rights, then go to another topic. I didn't ask, nor do I care, what anyone thinks of it. This topic is not a debate about the validity, power, or reach of the Bill of Rights.

This is a debate of with what intent it was written, not what impact it has on the world.

I care about the Bill of Rights, I am subject to its laws. I do not care about the IBHR because I do not fall under its jurisdiction.

I can write all the little liberal tree-hugging ideas that pop into my head and give it a name that would give the appearance that it means something (like the International Laws of Human Liberties) and it would have just as much power as the IBHR.

I think it's safe to say that when the IBHR was written, Gay Marriage was not even a consideration. Being Gay was taboo back then and if people found out you were homosexual, it was attributed to a mental disease, or you were thought to be just a sicko pervert (*ahem*). People from wealthy families who were "found out" would be sent to asylums for "treatment". Everyone, including the author(s) of the IBHR, would have taken gay marriage into account, in specifics, if their intention was to allow for it back then.

So, no, I personally don't think the IBHR includes right to gay marriage, as written.

I care about the Bill of Rights, I am subject to its laws. I do not care about the IBHR because I do not fall under its jurisdiction.

I can write all the little liberal tree-hugging ideas that pop into my head and give it a name that would give the appearance that it means something (like the International Laws of Human Liberties) and it would have just as much power as the IBHR.

Wonderful. Funny thing is, that's irrelevant to the topic. Last time I'm going to say this, and I'll make it stand out:

This is not a debate over whether the International Bill of Human Rights is valid, good, if it affects you, if it will ever affect you, or anything other than the intent with which it was written.

The IBoHR is very clear, leaving almost no room for questions on pretty much every issue. This one has a rather obvious vagueness that I found rather out of place. I am curious to how the IBoHR was made to be interpreted - is it's vagueness meant to support gay marriage, or to hinder it?

That's all, nothing more. Please keep your responses on topic.

I care about the Bill of Rights, I am subject to its laws. I do not care about the IBHR because I do not fall under its jurisdiction.

I can write all the little liberal tree-hugging ideas that pop into my head and give it a name that would give the appearance that it means something (like the International Laws of Human Liberties) and it would have just as much power as the IBHR.

Hence, why the RL UN is a worthless bureaucracy that does nothing but muddy the waters and CONTRIBUTE to hate & discontent.

I am curious to how the IBoHR was made to be interpreted - is it's vagueness meant to support gay marriage, or to hinder it?

That's all, nothing more. Please keep your responses on topic.

It does niether. See my earlier post.

It does niether. See my earlier post.

It would hardly be unheard of to ammend it. And given how much attention gay marriage has received recently, if it was ever going to be ammended to support gay marriages, it would have been done already. It seems rather odd to me, they don't pull any punches anywhere else in the document. It clearly lists every right you have, in detail. Leaving out something as prominent as same-sex marriages, in an issue about marriage, in a time when gay marriage as a right is hotly debated, seems amiss to me.

It would hardly be unheard of to ammend it. And given how much attention gay marriage has received recently, if it was ever going to be ammended to support gay marriages, it would have been done already. It seems rather odd to me, they don't pull any punches anywhere else in the document. It clearly lists every right you have, in detail. Leaving out something as prominent as same-sex marriages, in an issue about marriage, in a time when gay marriage as a right is hotly debated, seems amiss to me.

Well, I would agree that amendments do occur rather frequently because the world and it's nations are in a constant state of flux. However, they are very touchy about which articles they fiddle with once they set them in stone. The IBHR was written before mine and yours time (although, I don't know your age, but you know what I mean). If it's a society related controversial subject, they keep their distance until a preponderance of the societies swing the way the UN is thinking if they are mulling over an amendment to an article. There's no point in making a motion to amend an article if it has no chance of passing in the current climate, and they frown heavily on the same subjects being brought up over, and over, and over again until it passes, unless it is of the utmost importance, such as genocide and the like. And even then, they hesitate to act. Just ask the people of the African and South American continents who are being slaughtered right now :rolleyes:

Many of the UN countries have no "gay rights" at all, none. Many of the same countries find homosexuality repulsive and nothing more than a decadance, a perversion, a matter of sexual gratification, not of heart and spirit. So, it stands to reason they won't touch that subject of Gay Marriage for now. And to be honest, it's really just a sore issue in the United States, not worldwide, except as a topic of conversation. While a couple of European countries and Canada have enacted Gay Marriage laws, it's not even being considered by the hundreds of other member countries as far as I know.

Homosexuals just want to get married like everyone else; is that too much to ask for?