The Three Lies of the Same Luck (3)

When homosexual groups make their demands for same-sex marriage, they often use two points as the support for their demands: 1. Same-sex marriage is a human right; 2. Love is the greatest. The second point cannot be used as a reason for the implementation of same-sex marriage. This point is completely appealing to emotions, hoping to get the support of mainstream groups under the infection of emotions. Therefore, this article does not make any analysis or evaluation of the second point, but only focuses on distinguishing the true and false of the first point.

Same-sex marriage is a human right for a very strong reason. Human rights should be guaranteed. Same-sex marriage is a human right. Same-sex marriage should be guaranteed. There is nothing wrong with the reasoning of this syllogism, the point is that its premises are not necessarily true. Should human rights be guaranteed? The answer to this question depends on what the "human rights" in the question are. If the human rights in question refer to human rights with consensus and authority, then such human rights should indeed be guaranteed. But what if the human rights mentioned in the text are another? Are there less consensus, or even human rights that only a few people recognize?

Human rights are considered to be innate and the most important thing. But today we have to pay attention to such a trend that the content of human rights is constantly expanding. "The demand for rights is spreading at an unprecedented rate, which indicates that we are less and less able to distinguish between real rights and fake rights." This is because because of the natural correctness of human rights, advocates of claims often maintain that their claims are Basic human rights are expected to be supported by the majority. In this case, even the basic human rights are blurred, and the debate on the concept of human rights has become more and more fierce. Identifying what human rights are or arguing about what human rights are is a considerable topic that goes well beyond the scope of this article. The focus of this article is to refute the homosexual community's "gay marriage is a human right" rather than to explain it. Therefore, this article will skip this point and directly analyze the specific case. Of course, if you have friends who are interested in this, you can also put forward your views in the comment area.

For the gay community, they tend to view same-sex marriage as the most fundamental and authoritative human right. It is precisely because of this that their syllogisms are quite powerful. However, when the opposition asks them for the basis for this judgment, the homosexual group often does not elaborate or throws out the "freedom of marriage" in the Universal Convention on Human Rights as evidence. But does the article on marriage in the Universal Convention on Human Rights really support this claim?

Article 16 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

(1) Adult men and women shall have the right to marry and establish a family without any restriction of race, nationality or religion. They shall have equal rights with regard to marriage, during the marriage and upon its dissolution.

(2) Marriage is only possible with the free and complete consent of both the man and the woman.

(3) The family is the natural and basic social unit and should be protected by society and the state.

It is clear that the marriage mentioned in Article 16 refers to the traditional marriage, the marriage of one man and one woman. The "both men and women" in the second paragraph is a strong proof. For if there were no restrictions on entering into a marriage union, such a statement would be entirely superfluous. Also let's go back to the historical situation. The Universal Convention on Human Rights was a 1948 resolution when homosexuality was still considered a mental illness. It is extremely absurd to say that there was a consensus on same-sex marriage in all countries of the world at that time.

A lesbian couple in New Zealand has appealed to the United Nations Human Rights Commission because the law does not allow same-sex unions into marriage. But the Human Rights Commission interpreted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2002, arguing that marriage in the Covenant refers to the voluntary union of a man and a woman, and dismissed their appeals. Joslin v. New Zealand, Communication No 902/1999

In 2004, the Doha Declaration was issued in Doha to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family (UN Archives A/59/592) and was signed by 149 countries. The Doha Declaration reaffirms Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "The family (singular) is the natural and fundamental unit of society and shall be protected by society and the state". And reiterate in Article 4 "We stress that marriage can only be done with the full and free consent of those who will become husband and wife, the right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and establish a family should be recognized, and husbands and wives should be equal partners;" Marriage means one man and one woman. combine. and affirms in Articles 5 and 16 that the family is made up of parents. The Doha Declaration is not international law, but 78% of countries sign it enough to prove that it is the mainstream opinion of UN members. From the Universal Convention on Human Rights to the Doha Declaration, the mainstream views of UN members are very clear and unquestionable. This also indirectly suggests that "same marriage is a human right" is either a deliberate inducement or an outright lie.