Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The government never told anyone they can't get married...the voter's did,by law's their rights.If you want to talk about civil rights being violated,keep letting the appeals court throw out the american voter's vote.
The process is working as it's supposed to work. The voters often do not have the final word on civil rights issues (and for good reason).
The government never told anyone they can't get married...the voter's did,by law's their rights.If you want to talk about civil rights being violated,keep letting the appeals court throw out the american voter's vote.
Since when do the people GET to vote for civil rights? Oh that's right... they don't, because we all know what would have happened with the civil rights movement in the South had those decisions been put up for a vote.
So says you, the arbiter of all rights endowed to all peoples?
Is freedom from slavery also not a human right, but a civil one? The right not to be dismembered or tortured? The right of freedom of religion? If a woman is raped, is the only an infringement on her "civil" right and not her human right to personal autonomy?
I'm sorry, but if you don't consider those basic human rights, I'm not sure I consider you basically human.
Hmmmm.... borderline personal attack.
But I'll bite:
POLITICAL ISSUES are not human rights, they are civil rights debates.
Human rights have been constant throughout history. Civil rights have evolved and changed in different societies through different times.
Freedom of religion is a civil right, not a human right. Different societies have vastly different opinions on that issue.
And if you don't consider me human because of that, I don't really care what your opinion of me is.
POLITICAL ISSUES are not human rights, they are civil rights debates.
Human rights have been constant throughout history. Civil rights have evolved and changed in different societies through different times.
Freedom of religion is a civil right, not a human right. Different societies have vastly different opinions on that issue.
And if you don't consider me human because of that, I don't really care what your opinion of me is.
You're right, it was a borderline personal attack. I apologize. I edited it out.
But seriously it's unbelievable to me to declare that only the right to life is a human right. Different societies have in the past had vastly different opinions on slavery, but that doesn't mean slavery isn't an infringement on human rights.
I see marriage very much as a human right. Our most basic instinct is to find loving companionship, and when that's deprived, people are made less human.
Civil rights are rights that come with citizenship, like voting. Human rights are granted to everyone -- from felons in jail to prisoners of war. By law even a penitentiary must allow a prisoner to get married.
I think your view of what constitutes a human right is skewed.
You're right, it was a borderline personal attack. I apologize. I edited it out.
But seriously it's unbelievable to me to declare that only the right to life is a human right. Different societies have in the past had vastly different opinions on slavery, but that doesn't mean slavery isn't an infringement on human rights.
I see marriage very much as a human right. Our most basic instinct is to find loving companionship, and when that's deprived, people are made less human.
Civil rights are rights that come with citizenship, like voting. Human rights are granted to everyone -- from felons in jail to prisoners of war. By law even a penitentiary must allow a prisoner to get married.
I think your view of what constitutes a human right is skewed.
First, thank you for the edit.
I take a rather strict interpretation of the term "human rights". To me, that means universal rights that are afforded to all humans everywhere. The only one that is truly universal is life.
Everything else is either civil or personal.
I see sexual relations as a personal right.
Marriage is an institution defined by religion and governement. It incurs priveleges and responsibilities from both. Therefore, the government has the right to define marriage and the conditions therof, and marriage is a civil right.
To call marriage a human right would be to not deny it to anyone under any conditions.
As a civil right, it is up to the governement to determine what is and is not marriage. Which is exactly what happens.
I understand your viewpoint. Many Americans share your opinion of a broad defintion of human rights (as do Euro's and others).
I simply prefer the more strict interpretation of human rights as universal across the board, while civil rights vary from society to society.
The people passed it, get over it! You can't marry, it's a good thing it passed. Marriage is only supposed to be between a man and a woman, it even says so in the Bible! Now that this has passed, kids won't be forced to learn about homosexual relationships, which is something little kids don't need to know about and most people are still trying to keep marriage in the traditional way, which is goo.
I don't agree with Prop 8 because I think its not the State, the Feds, or the Society's business to pry into someone's private life unless there is a good reason and no reason is found here... Even though I don't agree with it, I don't think protesting is the way.... because it doesn't "do" much... and neither do lawsuits... the best way to end it is to make another vote to ban Prop 8... if it can't be banned, then I suggest moving to another community... unless you want to live with haters.... if you live with them, then that's life... they hold the majority and the rest must convert... just like the election... Obama won, so now everybody must accept it (they don't have to like it)... and they are free to criticize his failures as rightfully his supporters can cheer his failures...
I take a rather strict interpretation of the term "human rights". To me, that means universal rights that are afforded to all humans everywhere. The only one that is truly universal is life.
Everything else is either civil or personal.
I see sexual relations as a personal right.
Marriage is an institution defined by religion and governement. It incurs priveleges and responsibilities from both. Therefore, the government has the right to define marriage and the conditions therof, and marriage is a civil right.
To call marriage a human right would be to not deny it to anyone under any conditions.
As a civil right, it is up to the governement to determine what is and is not marriage. Which is exactly what happens.
I understand your viewpoint. Many Americans share your opinion of a broad defintion of human rights (as do Euro's and others).
I simply prefer the more strict interpretation of human rights as universal across the board, while civil rights vary from society to society.
Well, the creation of a "personal rights" as a third category is something else. At any rate, we generally do guarantee the right to marry to anyone, under any conditions, provided those conditions don't violate someone else's rights; for example, we deny marriage rights when the potential children of the marriage could suffer from birth defects or when a party is unable to consent.
Regardless of whether you break part of what I call "human rights" into another category of personal or civil rights, I don't see why it should be the basis denying same-sex marriage.
Well, the creation of a "personal rights" as a third category is something else. At any rate, we generally do guarantee the right to marry to anyone, under any conditions, provided those conditions don't violate someone else's rights; for example, we deny marriage rights when the potential children of the marriage could suffer from birth defects or when a party is unable to consent.
Regardless of whether you break part of what I call "human rights" into another category of personal or civil rights, I don't see why it should be the basis denying same-sex marriage.
lol, I never was trying to use this as a justification for denying same-sex marriage. This only started when I responded to someone who had posted that they didn't believe marriage was a civil right.
To me same-sex marriage, like any other political issue, is to be determined by the gov't and ultimatley, the people. This debate will rage on for a long time to come.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
