[ad_1]
Darío Cervantes
Geneva, Switzerland
The first problem presented by the public debate (non-existent in Ecuador) on "same-bad marriage" concerns the designation of "right". Indeed, the issue was presented by LGTBI collectives as a "right". We wanted to address this "first issue" in the only way that could definitively elucidate unknown aspects not taken into account in publications and activism in social networks, that is to say in a perspective absent from pbadions and subjectivities up to here (counted exceptions). done but confuse the public opinion more.
What has been advertised as a "right" may just be "not a right", why? Because all the aspirations or desires of social groups of different bills, big or small, for greater coverage, they do not get the media and journalism or become popular as they become "do not constitute a right if they do not have the right UNIVERSAL character "with regard to the meaning and the foundation of the rights universally recognized by the" Declaration of the rights of the man "of 1948.
It is precisely for an application for review of the privilege of human rights to have certain characteristics inherent in the criterion which determines that such aspiration has the necessary virtues to be considered as a human right, which would lead to its normalization in the field of international law. State cooperation system.
The first criterion is then that of the "universal" character whose right must be claimed. Indeed, whatever the type of right called first, second or third generation implies universality in its essence. What is the essential criterion of the right to life? This is precisely what defines life itself as a universal criterion for all the peoples of the planet, without any exclusion, as "being" belonging to the human species; that is, the right to existence or life for the simple fact of being a human being.
The existence then becomes a "universal necessity", absolutely, of "all human beings". Necessity and condition at the same time, since to be considered as a human being, one must first exist. Another characteristic of universality is therefore the need or the "universal condition of necessity", because this criterion helps us to understand how the right to security, for example, is a human right in virtue of its universal character; equal the right to food; right to freedom of thought …
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "the man and the woman" have the right to marry and to found a family (…) it is a declared right based on the specific concept of marriage: we mean the voluntary union of a man and a woman as established by the legislations around the world well before the 1948 Declaration.
The problem with the call "Same-bad marriage" it is not part of the Universal Declaration of 1948 because, since the beginning of human civilization, the union of persons of the same bad has not had the character of a "necessary universal condition" to take into account. counts as "universal human right". The legal formalization of marriage is not a right like the right to life, it is a legal option conditioned by the civil laws of the countries in the world. Union between a man and a woman for statistical, accounting, tax, economic and normative purposes, planning and development (…).
Religious marriage and "same-bad marriage" have the same treatment as the "lack of universal need" for the individual and collective existence of the human being. Not everyone is married by a Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim or Jewish church … It is a marriage that also involves different figures according to the belief or worship to which human groups belong, including monogamous and polygamous marriages. . Religious marriage also falls under the category of "universal human rights".
It is therefore this lack of "universal necessity" or "universal condition necessary" to exist as individuals of the human species, the main basis for considering that the "same-bad marriage" option not a "human right". "In the sense of the" Universal Declaration. "More specifically," same-bad marriage "is an aspiration of an exclusive group, a desire to see it become law.
It can be concluded that neither same-bad marriage nor religious marriage constitutes a "human right", no; in any of these forms, it is not an obligation, it has never been, it is not a "universal necessity", this has never been the case, for the existence and perpetuation of the human species and civilization as a marriage between the man and the woman. So, to claim that the homobadual union is legally a human right in the language used by the LGTBI collective is absolutely distorted, unreal, non-existent and false.
It is for this reason that its legalization must follow a proper process without leaving any doubts, because this aspiration "does not have any legitimacy yet". It is therefore the state of this aspiration, although the Constitutional Court of Ecuador has legalized on its own the category of aspirations of "homo marriage", a legalization until then saturated with doubts, ignorance and ignorance. manipulations (…).
Source link
