Why should the law bind two people so? To enhance their visibility and respect in the community? Not likely. Rather than enhance the status of the couple, marriage seems rather to place them in a position of lifelong subservience, both to one another and to the state.Well, that's getting to The Punch... (emphasis mine)
As they say, you get less for murder.
No, the only conceivable reason for binding two people in a lifelong union is because marriage anticipates procreation.
Activists deny this. But why else would Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights affirm a compound right “to marry and to found a family”? Why not have two separate rights, if marriage is not about procreation?
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights unequivocally supports the conflation of marriage and procreation. In its General Comment (no. 19) on Article 23, the Commission states: “The right to found a family implies, in principle, the possibility to procreate and live together” (at par 5). All of this is bound up in the one right, under Article 23, “to marry and to found a family”.
Defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity. Encompassing the marriage related topics of gendered biology, kin anthropology, family law and policy.
Comment Policy
Disputes of fact and of opinion are why we are here. We may disagree with you, just as we hope you share your disagreements with us. Being friendly will usually invite friendly replies. We can and will delete otherwise great posts for unseemly profanity.
Comments anywhere on the site -- no matter how old the post -- will show up on the front page as a recent comment and in the comment RSS feeds.
Comments anywhere on the site -- no matter how old the post -- will show up on the front page as a recent comment and in the comment RSS feeds.
Friday, February 17, 2012
The Right to Marry
Posted by
On Lawn
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments,:
Post a Comment