Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[BigRob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Legal_effect

While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states. For this reason, the Universal Declaration is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations. Many international lawyers, in addition, believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law and is a powerful tool in applying diplomatic and moral pressure to governments that violate any of its articles. The 1968 United Nations International Conference on Human Rights advised that it "constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community" to all persons. The declaration has served as the foundation for two binding UN human rights covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the principles of the Declaration are elaborated in international treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and many more. The Declaration continues to be widely cited by governments, academics, advocates and constitutional courts and individual human beings who appeal to its principles for the protection of their recognised human rights.

Is there any more doubt as to the binding nature of the udhr?

Uh, yes, since the UNDR is NOT part of the binding Charter. It is a non-binding GA Resolution. Now if you want to argue treaties that came later are binding, then that is more reasonable, but the UNDR itself has no authority to govern state actions.

 

[john26]

are people born gay?

 

[Dr.Who]

Are the lines blurred? Condemning someone in God's name, taking rights from them that you accept for your own, and discriminating against others because you have the numerical superiority to do so with impugnity, and doing all of this on the basis of something written in a book FOR WHICH YOU CANNOT PROVE THE VALIDITY is bigotry. Seems pretty clear, doesn't it?

Yes the lines are blurred.

No doubt you can find examples of true bigotry. I also have no doubt that you yourself have called people bigots merely because they disagree with you and not because they have demonstrated that they are intolerant.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Of course it doesn't have legal force in the us. There can only be one sovereign within a political association. And the un charter recognizes this fundamental principle.

Are you saying that the us, being a signatory to the udhr, isn't obliged to adhere to its principles???? That the us isn't bound by its EXPLICIT consent????

Your arguments are descending into absurdity.

I think that Rob answers your questions very well in his post #1186.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

are people born gay?

The preponderance of scientific evidence suggests a genetic basis for sexual orientation.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yes the lines are blurred.

No doubt you can find examples of true bigotry. I also have no doubt that you yourself have called people bigots merely because they disagree with you and not because they have demonstrated that they are intolerant.

Can one's writing denote one's intolerance and demonstrate their bigotry?

 

[numinus]

Uh, yes, since the UNDR is NOT part of the binding Charter. It is a non-binding GA Resolution. Now if you want to argue treaties that came later are binding, then that is more reasonable, but the UNDR itself has no authority to govern state actions.

What part of 'constitutive document of the united nations' or 'forms part of customary international law' or 'foundation of two BINDING un human rights covenant' don't you understand, hmmm?

More to the point, what sort of sovereign nation affixes its consent on the udhr, uses the principles therein to apply diplomatic pressure on other nations and yet REFUSES TO APPLY IT WITHIN ITS OWN DOMAIN????

The udhr is the guideline by which states and governments are OBLIGED to comport themselves. And sovereign nations comport themselves through law. It represents the culmination of the logical principles of political philosophy started in ancient greece.

What can be more powerful than logic stated as a UNIVERSAL LAW, hmmm?

 

[numinus]

I think that Rob answers your questions very well in his post #1186.

Nothing he said answered anything. What's more disturbing -- nothing you said in this thread gives logical support to your assertions.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nothing he said answered anything. What's more disturbing -- nothing you said in this thread gives logical support to your assertions.

Poor ol' Nums, your UDHR argument is totally played out, nothing about gay marriage will have any impact on anyone's inalienable right to motherhood, brotherhood, or being in the 'hood. As the legislatures in Maine and New Hampshire just proved.

Dinosaurs like you will die of old age still clinging to your hatred just like the old Klan guys did, but the new generation won't be so ethically challenged as their forebears.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

More to the point, what sort of sovereign nation affixes its consent on the udhr, uses the principles therein to apply diplomatic pressure on other nations and yet REFUSES TO APPLY IT WITHIN ITS OWN DOMAIN????

A very ordinary nation, they'll use it as a weapon against others but dodge its provisions for themselves. Jeez, don't you know ANYTHING about politics?

The udhr is the guideline by which states and governments are OBLIGED to comport themselves. And sovereign nations comport themselves through law. It represents the culmination of the logical principles of political philosophy started in ancient greece.

What can be more powerful than logic stated as a UNIVERSAL LAW, hmmm?

It's not a universal law in any way, shape, or form, it has no legally binding force on any nation whether they signed it or not. It's completely impotent just like your trumped up arguments based on it. Shoot, Nums, you don't even obey the laws that are codified here in the US, you advocate the abrogation of the US Constitution every time you post on this thread. You also spit on the teachings of Jesus, so why should you--of all people--be surprised that others don't obey the UDHR?

 

[Dr.Who]

The preponderance of scientific evidence suggests a genetic basis for sexual orientation.

Not according to:

The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences".[82] The American Psychological Association has stated that "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people". It stated that, for most people, sexual orientation is determined at an early age.[83] The American Psychiatric Association has stated that, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse".[64]

 

[Dr.Who]

Can one's writing denote one's intolerance and demonstrate their bigotry?

The actual words can but what you read into them cannot.

 

[Dr.Who]

Poor ol' Nums, your UDHR argument is totally played out, nothing about gay marriage will have any impact on anyone's inalienable right to motherhood, brotherhood, or being in the 'hood. As the legislatures in Maine and New Hampshire just proved.

then you have still missed the point.

It is not that gay marriage will deprive mothers or children of protection.

It is that straight marriage is legislated to provide the institutions of motherhood and childhood with protection. The state is allowed to restrict the rights of individuals to marry and divorce freely because marriage and heterosexual activity so often creates mothers and children.

Gay marriage does not create mothers and children. The state has no legal basis to stand on if they want to force gays who have cohabitated for five years to be married according to common law, no authority to keep them together for the sake of the children, no authority to force one parent to pay child support to the other, no authority to make one offer inheritance to the other, no authority to provide the one's SS benefits to the other, no authority to provide any benefits to them that would support the institutions of motherhood or childhood.

Now if the state does give anything to married couples not available to singles or gays for reasons other than the benefit of motherhood or childhood then they are again standing on weak ground.

Adoption laws should be used to offer benefits to anyone who adopts so as to support the institution of childhood.

 

[Dr.Who]

If I understand what you say about the way you interpret the Christian faith, Dr Who, Christians would be expected to fail the test of compassion, since they are only flawed human beings, but nonetheless, they should be making every effort to pass the test of compassion. Perhaps the heat of the discussion, along with the complexity of all apects of the issue, has caused all parties in the discussion to lose their awareness of the obligation to be as compassionate as possible.

You have probably stated it better than I could have.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

then you have still missed the point.

It is not that gay marriage will deprive mothers or children of protection.

It is that straight marriage is legislated to provide the institutions of motherhood and childhood with protection. The state is allowed to restrict the rights of individuals to marry and divorce freely because marriage and heterosexual activity so often creates mothers and children.

Gay marriage does not create mothers and children. The state has no legal basis to stand on if they want to force gays who have cohabitated for five years to be married according to common law, no authority to keep them together for the sake of the children, no authority to force one parent to pay child support to the other, no authority to make one offer inheritance to the other, no authority to provide the one's SS benefits to the other, no authority to provide any benefits to them that would support the institutions of motherhood or childhood.

Now if the state does give anything to married couples not available to singles or gays for reasons other than the benefit of motherhood or childhood then they are again standing on weak ground.

Adoption laws should be used to offer benefits to anyone who adopts so as to support the institution of childhood.

What crap! Lots of gays have children, there is no reason to treat them any differently than one treats any other couple. A growing number of hetero couples are not having children and no one is arguing that they should be denied legal marriage. Equal protection under the law means EQUAL PROTECTION, gays pay the same taxes as straight people, they commit no more crimes, they have no more child molestors in their ranks per 100,000 than heteros, they don't contribute to the number of abortions, and they don't rape women.

You are usually a fairly intelligent poster, but how you got onto the "gays don't produce children" bandwagon I don't know. Get a grip, gays are raising a lot of children in the US and around the world. If the real issue is children, then I am willing to support laws that only allow people with children to marry, but of course that's not what you have in mind, is it? On the live birth of a couple's first child (or legal adoption of a first child) they are granted a marriage license retroactive for one year to help with the expenses of the gestation process or the adoption. No one else gets to marry or have the rights and privileges granted to legally married people by US Law.

That will work for me because I'm not looking to get rights for myself that I would deny to others, you on the other hand are doing just that. Not very Christ-like, but totally Christian.