So, Human Rights...

[consortium11]

The topic got mentioned in another thread, so, here we go.

What consitutes a "Human Right" as opposed to another type of right?

What protection should something being a human right entail? Should it ever be restricted? Can it even be restricted?

Is there a human right to sex?

[Jude]

The problem with the notion of human rights is that they may make sense in a practical way, but have no exact basis and share the same problems that the concept of morality does.

Even if you accept the notion that morality exists and is absolute, a human right is simply a derived consequence of that morality.  For example: "Thou shall not kill" to "You have the right to life."  However, further confounding things is that many of the rights we accept have no basis in any aged moral system.  Considering that most moral systems derive their authority simply by being ingrained in tradition and culture, that puts human rights in an awkward area.

I don't believe they have divine, absolute, or structural origins, but are simply another part of the social contract.  Our society picks things which we believe all humanity should be entitled to then raises those principles to the level of undeniable rights for the practical functioning of the society.  In this way, I don't view human rights are something that's immutable or undeniable, but simply as another part of the code of law stated positively, instead of negatively.  The positive statement allows for more liberal applications, allowing more nuance in the pursuit of justice.

So do we have a human right to sex?  Only if agreeing upon such would actually create a more perfect society.  I can't see how it would.

As far as rights pertaining to decriminalization of homosexuality, that seems like they should be enshrined.  Homosexuality doesn't hurt the populace anymore, in the formative years of humanity it made sense to be against it because procreation was vital for survival and homosexual unions produce no children.  Today it doesn't really matter.

[Jeramiahh]

Well, the UN has a list of 'universal human rights', which are a generally agreed upon goal for all of humanity to strive for. It says nothing for or against a 'right to sex', though Article 16, which deals with the right to marriage, says nothing about marriage needing to be between men and women.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

[Oniya]

I wonder what the wide-reaching implications of Article 23 and 25 are these days.  :P

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Honestly I don’t see the Human Rights notion as being anything of practicality.  They are obviously difficult ideals for any government to hold themselves to and impose on their believers a great many trials.  No world government, so far as I know, is able to fully accomplish all of the ideals here.  As Oniya pointed out one of the more difficult clauses for any nation to uphold in this modern era of economic warfare.  Many countries have tried and some have made great strides, but this document in no way offers a practical solution to the troubles of mankind or to the leaders of this world.  Morality and Human Rights are concepts that are not natural.  Their very notion is one that goes beyond our basic nature because they are ideals that a “higher” being should seek to obtain. 

Look at the temptations and subsequent surrender of the United States when staffing off torture.  The practical thing to do was to hurt other human beings in order to extract information to defend interests of the United States.  Under the notion of war, morality and Human Rights were abandoned to favor practicality and effectiveness.  This document was tossed aside when the need for its antithesis was called upon.  So obviously there is quite a ways to go for its full implementation.

Human Rights, so far as I view them, are ideals that we would demand of the world governments.  My personal belief is that they originate from a code of morality that we hope is universal.  An attempt to codify something that each human being feels at their core is intrinsic.  Despite nationality, sexuality, sex or any other factors of difference this is supposed to be a unifying principle.  We, as human beings, want our governments and leaders to protect these rights and uphold them as sacred to the existence of our species. 

I do not believe sex to be one of these intrinsic rights though.  Some may argue that happiness can be achieved through sex, but I do not consider someone else’s happiness to be a pinnacle of government interest.  Because if people want the government to respect these rights, they also want these rights enforced as important.  Were sex to be considered a right of each and every person, to be held on par with respect for life and the fight against persecution, then all manner of things could be done.  People having sex could not be stopped by the police even if in public.  Prisoners must be allowed sex as often as they desire because this is their right.  If your right to life is as important as my “right” to sex, then perhaps I was too busy with my boyfriend to provide CPR when you were having a heart attack next to the car we were doing things within. 

Saying sex is a right means that the act of sex is as important as the act of protecting life.  I do not consider the two equivocal. 

As for the marriage clause, notice how much more specific that clause is regarding who can marry though.  The other statements often include a sort of “etc.” statement to them such as “other status” or “other conditions.”  The marriage clause has three particulars that may not be discriminated against, none of which are sexuality.

[Drake Valentine]

Human rights?

Isn’t that the same thing of  being governed and what your government itself allows you to do or not do?  Or whatever alternative government you may be at within.

Though I do agree to the morality issue to some whom been relating to on human rights. In truth you have the right to do anything when you think about it, although any actions may be held against you depending upon what they may be and what laws you are governed by; or the laws in which you have to follow if you are in another region instead of your own. After all, different countries have different ethnics and some countries aren’t even blessed in rights for their people.

Not everyone is ruled fairly and justly and equally.

So, lets see here.

The answer to what constitutes a human right than anything else may be here, in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights That is a general idea which I agree upon in their description, also you can find info about them in various nations.

Depending on where you are, once more, the protection to a human right may last as long as the government or a move of the people states it does. Times change, so do laws and ethics.

Should it be restricted? Depends, normally the answer to this will be no, though depending on what right it is depicts if I agree upon the purpose of its restriction or not. There are plenty of deemed human rights out there that I don’t fully applaud.

Can it even be restricted? Why, absolutely! Your government rules you and they can take things away, though depending on how you are ruled and whom rules you(as in what nation) there are procedures to this. United States is more flexible and as we know, things have to go through various offices before a change can be made, though I am unsure if amendments have ever been taken away. I’m sure they(amendments) may have been corrected or went through changes over time, but I’m not entirely positive if any has been done fully away with. As far as other nations go, especially those more with a dictatorship, they can do whatever they want and you won’t have much of a say.