Gay Rights in Ireland

quote:

---

The one question I have on issues like this is whether or not human rights should be determined by public opinion.

---

How else are human rights determined? And once they are determined, how does one enact them into legislation?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

So, are you saying that what is and is not a human right should be decided by legislative fiat by whoever happens to control the legislature at the time?I think that a particular minority in the US is right now very concerned about the rights of fetuses, and is trying to do that very thing right now. You don't have any problems with this? Or is there some subtleties that I am missing here?Let me ask the questions again, since this is also related to some other recent threads.What are human rights? How are human rights determined? And by what methods should human rights be protected?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Sorry. I was commenting on your criticism of Ireland's procedures for determining what constitutes human rights.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

IMHO most movement to define human rights will come from a very small group, often an individual.

---

Well, yes, most ideas, big and small, good and bad, always start with one person who comes up with that idea first, and then proceeds through small groups, to large groups, and then the (nearly) entire population as the idea spreads and is accepted by most people.The concept that ideas should be imposed on the majority by a small self-designated vanguard implementing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is repugnant to me, even when I like the ideas being implemented.-

quote:

---

They (the newly defined rights) should lead to an increase in individual freedom.

---

That is a nice opinion, and certainly one that I share, but not necessarily shared by others, and not necessarily shared by the majority of others. If we are going to impose the ideals of a minority on the majority, should we choose your ideals, my ideals, Lenin's, Pol Pot's?-To bring this back to topic:

quote:

---

The big job is how to best market those rights?

---

The Irish are doing just that in the only sensible manner that is consistent with a functioning democratic society. They are discussing these matters in open debate, making their collective decision known through the ballot, and, even after this election is over, will continue to discuss and take action on this matter. I honesty don't know of any better way to do this.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

It's a different situation than what exists in the US.

---

The US, indeed, is a very different position. It is not a democracy, and, in fact, the National Government was designed to be not very democratic. What democracy that did traditionally exist was at the state and/or local level, and these have been eroded as federal power has encroached into the states' affairs, and the central state governments into local affairs. What is more, the American people's basic instincts are not very democratic to begin with. It is, indeed, informative to compare how the US has handled these sorts of human rights issues with the present Irish referendum.-

quote:

---

All I was doing was...stating that popularity of a postition should not be the basis for determining what rights a human has.

---

I agree, if by "popularity" you mean whoever holds the current bare majority. Such a determination can only be legitimately made on the basis of consensus, but elections are an important part of what constitutes a consensus. It appears to me that the Irish are in the process of determining what the consensus actually is.Just as the Americans are currently in the process of forming a consensus that gays should be welcomed as equal members of society, the activities of the religious right notwithstanding. But, as in almost all examples of increasing democracy and rights, this consensus will not happen overnight -- it is going to take more time to get to the point that gay marriages are legalized. That is the way these things work -- those that support this issue have a lot more work to do.Unfortunately, unlike the Irish, Americans do not have a very effective way to make the consensus known and to have it implemented into legislation.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I must be misreading the OP. It seems to me that the topic is about the current political debate in Ireland about whether the state should recognize same-sex marriages. The quoted article, by my interpretation, is saying that there are several parties, who presumably represent a certain portion of the Irish public, is not in favor of such recognition in the Irish constitution, and is refusing to send the issue to the public in a referendum. There are several parties, presumably representing another portion of the Irish population, who are in favor of such constitutional recognition, and who have pledged to continue their efforts to bring this issue before the public as a referendum.I interpreted your initial remarks (and I now have doubts that I have interpreted them correctly) to imply that you do not feel that these are the proper procedures to handle this issue.I am responding that, in my view, this is the only way that such an issue can be handled in a society that claims to be democratic.I don't see how our exchanges could be any more on topic.At any rate, I don't believe I have anything more to say on this matter, and I certainly don't think I have an entire thread's worth of discussion on this, so I don't think a new thread would be in order. Especially since no one else has indicated much interest in this.Added by edit:Oops. I see that Funkaloyd has just responded, so there may be some interest after all. Since his last sentence is completely and utterly wrong, for reasons involving fundamental political and philosophical reasons (and possibly due to a complete misunderstanding of the history and real-life workings of the US system), a new thread might be in order. I'll leave it to your judgement. But I will say no more in this thread, since, as I now see your point, this will veer in general political philosophy instead of the OP topic.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 27-Jan-2006 12:14 AM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Maybe I spoke too loudly, too quickly....

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt