What is a human right?

I would not call marriage, voting, and so on priveleges. If a law marginalizes a right, the law is flawed and you have the right to contest that law and change it.

Marriage requires participation by at least two other people plus legal recognition by the State and that is what makes it a privilege granted by the State and not an unalienable right. It becomes a legal right by equitable access afforded to all which all marriage laws in all 50 USA states now provide.

Voting also is a process initiated by the State via elected representatives chosen by the people, it requires participation by many, and that also makes it a privilege. It becomes a legal right by equitable access afforded to all which federal and state laws now provide.

Marginalization applies only if some people must meet different standards than are required of other people in order to have access or protection under the law.
 
Taoman is correct, however, that if a law applies different standards to different people, the law violates the principle of unalienable rights and/or equal protection as previously defined, and by consent of the people through their elected representatives it can and should be change.
 
Marriage requires participation by at least two other people plus legal recognition by the State and that is what makes it a privilege granted by the State and not an unalienable right. It becomes a legal right by equitable access afforded to all which all marriage laws in all 50 USA states now provide.

Voting also is a process initiated by the State via elected representatives chosen by the people, it requires participation by many, and that also makes it a privilege. It becomes a legal right by equitable access afforded to all which federal and state laws now provide.

Marginalization applies only if some people must meet different standards than are required of other people in order to have access or protection under the law.
I would say that marriage is a right as it transforms beyond state and federal laws.. The recognition of the marriage is a privelege set by the state.
 
Yep. There are so many “Christian” churches with so many different translations of the Bible. Even beyond that, there are so many interpretations of those different translations. Even beyond that, there are so many different degrees of applications of different passages based on different interpretations of different translations.

Just look at these lists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denominations

Yup.

"Roots to Branches" by Ian Anderson

Words get written. Words get twisted.
Old meanings move in the drift of time.
Lift the flickering torches. See gentle shadows change
the features of the faces cut in unmoving stone.
Bad mouth on a prayer day, hope no one's listening.
Roots down in the wet clay, branches glistening.

True disciples carrying that message
to colour just a little with their personal touch.
Home-spun fancy weavers and naked half-believers --
Crusades and creeds descend like fiery flakes of snow.
Bad mouth on a prayer day, hope no one's listening.
Roots down in the wet clay, branches glistening.

In wet and windy priest-holes. Grand in vast cathedrals.
High on lofty minarets or in the temples of doom.
I hope the old man's got his face on.
He'd better be some quick change artist.
Suffer little children to make their minds up soon.
Bad mouth on a prayer day, hope no one's listening.
Roots down in the wet clay, branches glistening.
Roots To Branches
 
Dreamt up? No, much more than that. Those 'representatives' didn't dream up the concept--it predated them by at least much more than a millenia--but it arose out of a deep conviction that the right to think… should not be dicated by any human authority.

Okay. So which is it? Did they read it somewhere in something that “predated” them or did they simply believe something – think it up. So, again I ask you to prove that unalienable rights exist outside on human imagination.
 
I would say that marriage is a right as it transforms beyond state and federal laws.. The recognition of the marriage is a privelege set by the state.

The choice to pledge fidelity and share your life with another individual is indeed a right provided the other wishes to do that with you. What makes it a marriage, however, is a social contract with built in privileges and responsibilities recognized and respected by the whole. That cannot be accomplished in secret.
 
If I understand you, you are stating that the diversity of society / culture (interpretations / sensations/ judgments) means there is no single agreed upon right but what I am stating is that even this diversity would not exist without life. Or to extend that, the right of life. I'm trying to move backward establishing an intrinsic value and that value is life itself. Call life consciousness if you like. Life presupposes all that follows and without life there is nothing. It isn't the tree in the forest it is the forest. Without the right to life then all these other things remain unknown. So if no right of life exists, nothing exists, or to really write gobbledygook, if cultures are defined by themselves how do they do that if they don't exist. (I would argue they start with life / consciousness / awareness of being as the basis for everything after) If we say everything is arbitrary then life itself becomes arbitrary but that can't be because here we are and we communicate. As creatures of biology (God if you believe) we don't toss coins and make culture based on arbitrary decisions. We build our lives with some purpose and sometimes that purpose is screwed up but it is certainly not a grab bag.

Can this argument be extended to other aspects of life, for instance without family and language we would cease to have any ideas of values and rights. So could we add family and language to intrinsic values because we couldn't define human without them. Last thought, are there areas in which we cease to understand each other? Is it language that confuses the debate, do we mean the same thing.

I'm arguing that the concept of "human rights" is socially constructed. Without humans there can't be an idea of "human rights" because we invented them.

From that point I start to think about how these ideas have developed to the point where in the last century there was formalised the idea of universal human rights, that those rights identified as universal human rights, stood independent of any legislature or any regime.

On edit: I would have done well to read later posts before posting this, it would have been better informed if I'd read ahead.
 
I would say that marriage is a right as it transforms beyond state and federal laws.. The recognition of the marriage is a privelege set by the state.

It is our right to call anything anything I suppose. We can say two dogs or two parakeets are married, but that would be meaningless beyond our personal perception. It is government sanction and acknowledgement of marriage that makes it marriage no matter what the cultural circumstances. Those whose religious faith permits polygamy--monogamy is a relatively modern concept in the history of the human species--can call it marriage within their own group, but so far as the state is concerned, somebody is guilty of bigamy. A brother and sister can fall in love and declare themselves husband/wife, but in the eyes of the state they will be denied legal sanction and it will be considered an incestuous relationship.

Because the state defines what marriage is in order to be legal and dictates laws governing the circumstances by which two people can enter into a contract of marriage, marriage is as much a privilege as is driving a car or receiving a license to practice a professional discipline.

All do have the right to enter into a contract of marriage provided they meet the requirements of the law. Nobody has the right to avail themselves of lawful benefits of marriage outside of those requirements however.

A legal right to be married? Yes, all Americans can qualify for that.
An unalienable right to be married? No. Unalienable rights do not include that which requires the cooperation and/or participation of others.
 
I'm arguing that the concept of "human rights" is socially constructed. Without humans there can't be an idea of "human rights" because we invented them.

From that point I start to think about how these ideas have developed to the point where in the last century there was formalised the idea of universal human rights, that those rights identified as universal human rights, stood independent of any legislature or any regime.

On edit: I would have done well to read later posts before posting this, it would have been better informed if I'd read ahead.

If I remember the connections correctly, the idea of 'human rights' or rather, 'natural rights' came from Locke, who was responding to Hobbes', Levithan. Along with other Enlightenment writers, Locke looked at Hobbes' arguments about being without 'country' or 'government.' The problem has always been balancing the rights of individuals against those of the state, acknowledging however the necessity of the state, (or king) depending on the time. ;)
 
If I remember the connections correctly, the idea of 'human rights' or rather, 'natural rights' came from Locke, who was responding to Hobbes', Levithan. Along with other Enlightenment writers, Locke looked at Hobbes' arguments about being without 'country' or 'government.' The problem has always been balancing the rights of individuals against those of the state, acknowledging however the necessity of the state, (or king) depending on the time. ;)

A yes Kathianne, I hadn't even thought about Hobbes. Going from memory he was arguing that the King (the state) had to run the whole show to guarantee anyone a reasonable existence and that everyone was subjected to the King's authority. And Locke I think countered Hobbes with the argument that the King was responsible to protect the rights of people because, among other things, natural rights weren't bestowed on anyone by a King. But I think also Locke accepted the idea that civil society creates and bestows rights beyond the basic natural rights. I think so anyway, as always, I'll stand corrected.
 
A yes Kathianne, I hadn't even thought about Hobbes. Going from memory he was arguing that the King (the state) had to run the whole show to guarantee anyone a reasonable existence and that everyone was subjected to the King's authority. And Locke I think countered Hobbes with the argument that the King was responsible to protect the rights of people because, among other things, natural rights weren't bestowed on anyone by a King. But I think also Locke accepted the idea that civil society creates and bestows rights beyond the basic natural rights. I think so anyway, as always, I'll stand corrected.

Hobbes was writing at the end of Dark Ages, when a government seemed very desirable and the stronger the better, the idea appealed to someone caught in a short, brutal life.

Locke wrote later, acknowledging the need for protection from the brutish, stupid, brilliant, and strong. At the same time, Locke had experience with government and was for limiting its powers, to protect what he discussed as 'natural rights.'
 
Once again JUST for you, I am a conservative and I believe EVERYONE has the same rights or no one has any. Further it is a belief my branch of Conservatives believe. It is what mainstream Conservatives believe in my opinion ( in this Country).

***

Go ahead explain to that charging bear that you have a "right" to live. Explain to a mass murderer you have a "right" not to be murdered. Explain to a despot you have the "right" to vote.

You can call yourself superman just don't race a speeding bullet. I'm not sure you understand or are aware of the basic tenets of conservatism. I suggest Kirk or others who spell it out.

http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

In a real sense what you describe is the basis of liberalism, so really you are a liberal but hate them because you are supposed to.

Having a right and being able to exercise it are different things. But it does not cease to be a right. We are discussing rights philosophically, pragmatism comes later.


"A philosophical problem has the form: I don't know my way about." Ludwig Wittgenstein
 
You can call yourself superman just don't race a speeding bullet. I'm not sure you understand or are aware of the basic tenets of conservatism. I suggest Kirk or others who spell it out.

http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

In a real sense what you describe is the basis of liberalism, so really you are a liberal but hate them because you are supposed to.

Having a right and being able to exercise it are different things. But it does not cease to be a right. We are discussing rights philosophically, pragmatism comes later.


"A philosophical problem has the form: I don't know my way about." Ludwig Wittgenstein

I don't have to live your ignorance. Your so locked in there that you can not see beyond your prejudices.

US Liberals do not believe in individual rights EXCEPT as they apply to the enlightened. All the rest of us are mere children that need to be taken care of. We only deserve what ever leavings the enlightened feel we can handle. Our property and our money and our labor are simply commodities that the enlightened will know where best to use. They need 2 basic classes of people, the weak and helpless so that they can "help" them to get their vote and the working/rich so that they can take their money to do those "good deeds".

And once the enlightened get strong enough to run things without having to pander to the weak, they will be cast aside and will be treated in the manner of the children that the enlightened believe them to be.

Same with laws. Laws do not apply to the enlightened. Laws are simply the means to an end the enlightened use to gain that power. Liberals would outlaw universal vote in a heart beat if they could. And that is exactly what they are working towards.
 
US Liberals do not believe in individual rights EXCEPT as they apply to the enlightened. All the rest of us are mere children that need to be taken care of. We only deserve what ever leavings the enlightened feel we can handle. Our property and our money and our labor are simply commodities that the enlightened will know where best to use. They need 2 basic classes of people, the weak and helpless so that they can "help" them to get their vote and the working/rich so that they can take their money to do those "good deeds".

I guess you don't realize it but that sounds pathetic. You are a victim of ideas? Jeez, I can't even reply as it is too silly, you're not 12 are you and pretending to be RGS? Tell mommy to take away daddy's' password.
 
RGS is quite right. Liberals look to government and the public teat to protect, provide for, regulate, and order the people. As a result, liberalism puts large barriers to and infringement on almost all human rights. In promoting special rights for various groups, they would deny others the right to their cultural traditions, taboos, customs, and unalienable rights.

Conservatives look to government to empower the people to provide for themselves and encourage the people to dream, hope, aspire, try, pick themselves up after they fail and try again, succeed, excel, and open new possiibilities. Conservatives do not divide people up into special groups as they believe this encourages marginalization, racism, and many of the other ugly 'isms that are the bedrock of liberal policies.
 
Curious but last I checked it was conservatives that wanted to invade the privacy of our personal life, who want to create an amendment on who we can marry, who want to prevent me from the morning after pill, who want to bring their religion into the public sphere, who want to eavesdrop on private citizens, who want to renege on social security....Freedom is a curious word for any conservative to use.
 
Curious but last I checked it was conservatives that wanted to invade the privacy of our personal life, who want to create an amendment on who we can marry, who want to prevent me from the morning after pill, who want to bring their religion into the public sphere, who want to eavesdrop on private citizens, who want to renege on social security....Freedom is a curious word for any conservative to use.

Conservatives did not want to dictate who can marry who. Conservatives sought--and still seek--to conserve a time honored tradition and institution of marriage defined as one woman and one man necessary to establish and identify family groups, for the most effective rearing of children, and necessary identification of genetic traits. Other than laws regulating certain requirements for age, biological relationships, and certain communicable diseases, conservatives leave the decision and criteria for marriage up to individual choices and leave the law applying 100% equitably to every man and woman.

Liberals would change that definition and make marriage into something that it was never designed to be. You cannot change the definition of something without making it into something different than what it was.

Prolife Conservatives do not deny the morning after pill to you; they deny it as a means of intentionally destroying what they perceive to be a human life. For the same reason you cannot legally purchase lead based paint for your child's crib nor knowingly administer toxic substances to the child or otherwise deliberately destroy a human life.

Some liberals however would destroy that unborn child while denying the people the means of protecting their own lives from those who would harm them; who would protect the life of a convicted criminal due to some sense of immorality in taking it; and would deny causing even emotional discomfort to a terrorist determined to destroy every man, woman, and child that he can.

Conservatives don't propose bringing religion in the public sphere. Religion has always been in the public sphere coexisting in all of public and private life quite nicely for 200 years without any hint of a theocracy developing. It has been an enormous factor in all of our social, political, and legal culture and remains a huge part of our national heritage. Conservatives do try to keep some liberals from completely dismantling the First Amendment that, in both the area of free speech and the free exercise of religion, has been under liberal assault for some time.

Freedom is a word Conservatives do not take lightly nor define for political expediency. And who is attacking whose freedoms is obviously in the eye of the beholder as illustrated in your arguments versus my arguments.
 
Curious but last I checked it was conservatives that wanted to invade the privacy of our personal life, who want to create an amendment on who we can marry, who want to prevent me from the morning after pill, who want to bring their religion into the public sphere, who want to eavesdrop on private citizens, who want to renege on social security....Freedom is a curious word for any conservative to use.

Don’t forget other topics. Which side (liberals or conservatives) are more supportive of keeping marijuana consumption illegal? Which side more readily opposes legalizing prostitution in more places? Which side opposes legalizing gamboling in more states?

I don’t see it so much as which side supports freedom and which side opposes freedom. Both side supports restrictions in one area or another.
 
Conservatives did not want to dictate who can marry who. Conservatives sought--and still seek--to conserve a time honored tradition and institution of marriage defined as one woman and one man necessary to establish and identify family groups, for the most effective rearing of children, and necessary identification of genetic traits. Other than laws regulating certain requirements for age, biological relationships, and certain communicable diseases, conservatives leave the decision and criteria for marriage up to individual choices and leave the law applying 100% equitably to every man and woman.


Oh I love tearing such paragraphs apart piece by piece. Here we go. Conservatives support the continued restriction of marriage from homosexual couples – limiting it to heterosexual couples. Just because something has a tradition does not make it right. America has a tradition of slavery. There was a tradition of keeping women from voting. Should return to those traditions? No. The marriage of one woman to one man is not necessary for the identification of a family. There are single-parent families. There are blended families. There are all sorts of families. I question your claim that for the most effective rearing of children, it is necessary that there be a heterosexual couple.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349#SEC6

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

Homosexual families do not prevent science for determining genetic traits any more than does adoption of children to heterosexual couples. Don’t be so vague. What biological relationships do laws regulate – sodomy? If so, is it illegal (or should it be illegal) for heterosexuals to commit sodomy? What laws regulate communicable disease? Again, plese be specific.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top