Is there a such thing as the right to marriage?

Being that the opposing side didn't define or explain what a human right is and we're well into the debate, I'll do so here.

A human right is a human body right or bodily allowance or bodily legality based on apparently the laws of human biology in sustaining itself.

We have a bodily right to eat . We a have a bodily right to survive which would include sexual reproductive rights. Which gives us the onus to parenthood thus under a family unit, allows parents to function as one unit to parent children which is all what marriage allows.

Marriage means twain as one or one unit and the autonomy is shared with no longer being individual. This is wired within human biology which explains the desire for exclusiveness, wanting the other's body to belong to the other, otherwise forming jealousy and monogamy.

Also what is evidently legalized by our biological autonomy through sexuality is pair bonding which drives the perpetual desire to mate and pair.

We pair in twos of Father and Mother so the rearing of children can be solidified . The welfare of children is secured by not venturing outside the union which is marriage not engaging in extraneous sexual pairings .

The biological allowance that breeds jealousy causes a resistance towards breaking up a parental unit , thus by bodily allowance or right grants us individuals of two to be unionized(marriage).

All to sustain ourselves as a human race with the foundation of family units as the first man and first woman begin to replicate themselves.

In a secure family unit founded in parenthood which would constitute a mother and father, the two would have to be allowed to unite for sake of sexuality and caring for offspring.

Being allowed is the right to. That's all a right is . Whether in a government system, religious system or anatomical system and configuration.

That's my introduction.

Be sure that whatever you quote from me stands out. Not making everything the same format and font makes it easier like how I do.

"Human rights are more than just biology. Plus, there's no biological right to marriage. Nothing in your DNA that says you have a right to marriage. Marriage is considered part of nature but nature does not mandate it."

I think what I said was too deep for the opposing side to grasp. When something is elaborated with multiple layers, you get lost in correlation.

We have to break things down. This is how you get understanding.

First of all, what is a human?

Does not what constitutes the living organism biological?

We have to start there and assert that from a biological foundation, that would be the standard, starting point for everything else.

"Human rights are rights so powerful that the government has no right to interfere with them. They are considered "inalienable and universal." "

So where do these "rights" come from that no organized government of any land would legislate?

"Human rights are not supposed to be based off of sex. Countries that ban same-sex marriage are allowed to do that. Churches that don't recognize same-sex pairings as marriage are also allowed to do that because there is freedom of religion, which itself is a human right.

Places also have age requirements for marriage, which can vary, even in different states. Marriage is not allowed for everyone."

This is why I ask where do human rights come from. The opposing side speaks of human rights on one end but continues to interject legal rights to conflate them.

"Eating is not the same as having sex. Pro has changed the meaning of "survive." Eating allows an individual to survive, while sex allows a species to survive. The human population naturally goes up. We leave the population up to God, not man. I'll get at more of this later."

These are both human rights my friend. By means of survival you have these rights or you're allowed them by the make up of your biology to live.

How do you live?

How do your genetics live?

You consume.

You move.

You think.

Your organs move.

These organs don't leave out your sexual reproductive organs. They have to be used with somebody.

Who is that somebody but the opposite sex?

You stay on this train, you'll begin to get what I'm talking about. Stay on track and we cross one track at a time.

"Not sure what is meant when pro says "desire for exclusiveness." Never heard of this before. Is pro unaware of how much cheating goes on in marriage? Many cultures did not even have any concept of monogamy. "

Is jealousy natural or social?

"Is pro unaware of how much cheating goes on in marriage?"

Yes.

Now back to the relevant point.

Is jealousy natural or social?

"Others had semi-monogamous rules. For example, the Hebrew Bible allowed men to have multiple wives but did not allow women to have multiple husbands. In the Roman Empire, monogamy was political by nature. It helped pass inheritance better. Even for the Romans, they engaged in plenty of extramarital affairs and homosexual relationships that were considered acceptable if they met certain requirements."

If you notice, the opposing side is running from legal rights, to culture and etc.

The topic is on humans. Get to the core of the rights we're talking about. These are not "rights" according to any civilization or culture.

It's the opposite side that has no clear grounds on what human rights really are.

This is why the opposite side ran to a dictionary.

All I did was give the definition based on the teleological grounds of being human in tandem or given in marriage to a "right".

Pun intended.

"Sure, a child can have a right to a mother and father, but the parents didn't have a right to each other. The right only exists once a marriage has happened. There are rights within marriage but marriage itself is not a right."

Yes the parents did and do have a right to one another. Otherwise, they wouldn't engage in their human right to survive themselves. A right to the other's body is marriage in essence and shared autonomy.

You have to understand and resolve where human rights come from. We're not talking legal rights.

Once you get this down, you'll begin to see what I'm talking about.

"So there is a right to marriage but no right to divorce? Is pro saying we have a right to something but don't have the right to escape it?"

First of all, what is divorce?

Isn't it a legal declaration to dissolve a legal matter?

Again, we have to decide to either argue on human rights or legal rights/legal grounds.

From this round, it is clear from the opposing side that no distinction is being made .

If human rights are just legal rights then the topic is screwed up.

There shouldn't be any facet of being human entering into this and there's no resolution to try to obtain because law abiding people already have the right to marry by law .

"Pro is hinting at Adam and Eve with the use of "first man and first woman." The command to be fruitful and multiply is no longer binding in the New Covenant. Paul the Apostle wished everyone to celibate, which would make the human race extinct. If pro is going to use religion to justify his position, he should learn to put trust in God, instead of man. Don't worry about the population. The world will end before human extinction happens."

First man first woman means exactly that. This has nothing to do with religion because it's not a religious debate. People like the opposite side have a problem with staying on subject, reading into things that aren't there.

Logically and BIOLOGICALLY speaking a man and woman are what is allowed by BIOLOGY to survive ourselves via sexual reproductive faculties, sexual reproductive means.

Apparently it would have to be allowed as it is shown to be mandated.

So the bottom line is because the opposite side missed it , from the biological ground up, us being human, according to the biological makeup has allowed us or given us right from the makeup itself, not from any where else, the makeup itself gives us the right to survive by sexual reproduction in pairs of male and female, man and woman . It is through this pairing we become unionized and bond into monogamy which in essence what makes a marriage.

********This is the bottom line of my point. Now what the opposing side ought to do...is start here by dissecting and arguing on this point as it's the center crux in pertinence to the topic.**********

"What does pro mean by being allowed? Being allowed by whom? The government? Human rights are so much more than this. They are so much more than "being allowed." "

I'll say this again. Let's go back to the first round .

A human right is a human body right or bodily allowance or bodily legality based on apparently the laws of human biology in sustaining itself.

This human right we're talking about is being allowed by the body. Do you get what I'm saying?

"They can't be not allowed. This means the government has no right to declare them allowed or not."

Get the government out this debate. Stop talking about it.

"Let's take an example. People are allowed to pick their noses. This doesn't make picking your nose a human right."

Hold it . Why wouldn't it be a human right?

See I go beyond the surface. Why does the human body have the urge to touch itself?

See this is where I'm trying to get the opposite side to dig deeper from a biological standpoint and in this case, a biological response.

"Picking your nose can have legal consequences if it causes a scandal. Companies have the right to fire you for it if it causes damage to their reputation. Picking your nose is also unhealthy, and doctors have the right to ban doing it in hospitals. Is it an inalienable right? I don't think so."

We're not talking about legal rights.

Legal rights are not human rights.

Legal rights are not human rights.

Legal rights are not human rights.

We're not talking about legal rights.

I will not be addressing this irrelevancy any further.

Do not broach it next round .

"Marriage is not a human right. It is allowed by the Church and State with certain restrictions. You also aren't allowed to break it up whenever you want either."

Marriage is a human right like eating is a human right .

Just because these human rights have to be legislated as being a part of a society, a part of a civilization, doesn't mean they're not human rights at the foundation.

This is what Malcolm X knew. He talked about human rights and that man needed to be reminded that these things in legislation didn't come into existence by civilization or by civil allowances but are initially human allowances, human entitlements.

Just to reiterate bringing us back to center on this.

********This is the bottom line of my point. Now what the opposing side ought to do...is start here by dissecting and arguing on this point as it's the center crux in pertinence to the topic.**********

Which is the following:

So the bottom line is because the opposite side missed it , from biological ground up, us being human, according to the biological makeup has allowed us or given us right from the makeup itself, not from any where else, the makeup itself gives us the right to survive by sexual reproduction in pairs of male and female, man and woman . It is through this pairing we become unionized and bond into monogamy which in essence what makes a marriage.

"Humans are more than just DNA. There are human souls. DNA doesn't tell humans they are special among species. It's their ability to reason and think."

If you can't disprove that humans are biological, then just agree that they are. We're not arguing what more are they, let alone discussing things you have no evidence for.

Word of advice. Maybe you don't bother to care for the words you use but don't make positive claims with no evidence nor necessary to make or relevant to say to the topic such as souls.

This is a natural/nature based topic. We're not dealing with any facets of the supernatural, non physical, immaterial, in-depth metaphysics .

This is based solely on human composition where we can see and evaluate to learn how the human body itself has rights. Separate from laws of the land or any regulation or governing body.

So just agree when you know something is true. Stop with the "but this" and "but that".

Straight yes or no question, are human biological? Yes.

Evading that makes your case even more poor than is.

"Human rights come from a higher power, not DNA in humans."

This is dismissed. The opposing side has presented no evidence that human rights come from anywhere else but from the human body itself.

As far as necessary, the rights coming from body itself whether it's believed the body was designed or evolved, it doesn't conflict that.

Being that the body already has functionality for sexuality for a family, why wouldn't it allow itself to mate and unionized or unite in marriage?

Like...... we're talking comon sense here.

This is not even a religious debate but I can't help but quote this ...."does not NATURE ITSELF TEACH YOU".

Do you not have the common sense even given to you by the natural things how the natural order of things work?

Again , not a religious debate but even Adam had the knowledge to say a man shall cleave unto his wife.

The opposing side wants to go into the "higher power" stuff and that is against the opposing side's own case.

"Come on. They don't "have to be used with somebody." This logic will seem to justify rape, as SatanLucy anticipated in the comments. Pro seems to be saying that because the penis fits so well into the vagina, there is somehow a right to fit them together."

Ok well here's your opportunity to demonstrate what else, what other functionality sexual reproductive organs are to be used for according to them, not according to you or your opinion but according to their structure because we're being objective here, not subjective.

Remember, SEXUAL REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS, not urinary organs.

See, according to our biology which seems to be not embraced by you, our hormones, chemical reactions and physiological workings convert between the two functionalities of organs making them different categorical organs.

So we're only talking sexual reproductive organs. What other use do sexual reproductive organs have outside of sexual reproductive activity?

"It's not about survival. It's just marital debt. This is a right within marriage itself. Marriage itself isn't a right, but it comes with rights once the marriage has been consented to. Starting the marriage is not a human right."

Well here's your issue. What is the point of human rights if it's not about survival?

A human is a LIVING organism. It cannot LIVE unless it SURVIVES. So every human right has to do with that to include uniting together for family units.

"This is exactly the point. Divorce is a legal matter, which means it isn't a human right. If starting a marriage were a human right, humans would have the right end a marriage whenever they want, but they don't. Divorce requires legal process. This means marriage cannot be a human right since it takes legal action to dissolve it."

No duh. You walked yourself right into this. The topic is marriage being a human right, not divorce. One is a human right, the other is a legal one. The human right is legislated into the law of the land. The other , man came up with to seemingly dissolve what nature has setup. The union of parenthood remains regardless.

You was easy on this. Just like setting up the opposer to position right into a checkmate.

"The end of the world will happen when it happens. Humans are only permitted to keep the population alive. In an ideal world, everyone would refrain from having sex if it weren't for sexual desire. Marriage only exists because humans can't control themselves."

Marriage exists because of the desire of naturally wanting each one's body to belong to the other in unison. I've already went over how sexuality ties into that. So in order to make this natural right lawful, it has been legislated into the law of the land so individual rights won't conflict with unions wanting shared autonomy.

It's clean and cut and dry as that.

You can't keep the population alive with abortion and no heterosexuality. You don't live , you die out.

This shouldn't even be controversial. Unless you been brainwashed blind to only seeing............rainbow colors.

Tasting Skittles..

"Masturbation is not a human right. It's also not a human right to kill oneself by "touching" oneself with violent force. Humans have no right to sexually arouse themselves or end their own lives. They are times when sex can be legal and times when killing may be legal, such as self-defense and capital punishment. They have to be legally sanctioned by the state or church. It requires permission from someone who has the authority."

I'll answer the question since you couldn't.

You're cherry picking instead of being neutral.

Why does the human body have the urge to touch itself?

The human body has urges to touch itself due to some cause directly or indirectly from none other than a biological pathway.

Such as rubbing or scratching or as you convey picking the nasal capacity to clear out any foreign particles. Soothing for pain or strain, relief, mobile exercise, etc.

See how I keep this in a wide scope of a biological framework.

So these are all biological allowances where the body gives entitlement to these elements in effort of sustaining its life in some fashion.

Which has been the meaning of human rights from the beginning. The body gives rights or allowances to SUSTAIN itself, not deteriorate itself like you're suggesting.

This is what happens when you're bias and cherry pick. You fall into a strawman moving the goalpost from what a person's position actually is in how it was demonstrated.

Got to think outside the box.

Think outside the box.

******You're boxed into what appears to be social constructs, basing your reasoning and explanations from them trying to form teleological phenomenon that cannot be constructed by social contracts ......at all .**************

"Eating keeps an individual human alive. Marriage keeps the human population alive. They are not the same."

The thing that is not the same is "individual" and "population".

We know it takes multiple live human individuals to make a live human population by eating and reproducing under the umbrella of marriage along with it legislated as the law will recognize shared autonomy of parenthood. There it is in one package.

"Not according to the definition I have last round:"

If your basis is just whatever a definition somebody wrote, you don't have a knowledge yourself to define what human rights are and the argument gets judged with having an arbitrary substance.

This is where it's inconclusive where you have not been able to conclude where these rights evidently and empirically derive to demonstrate but speaking in metaphysical, theoretical, conceptual application.

So it was a moot point of you and desperate to even attempt to counter what is agreed .

"The state should make sure human rights are not violated but not create human rights."

Sure so like the human right of marriage is legislated, so is the human right to consume is legislated in terms of going through proper industrial approval, market and consumerization.

"The human population just naturally increases. No one needs to be forced to reproduce. We should all learn to be celibate and not worry about human extinction. Nature will do its thing, and God will do His thing. Don't try to say there is some sort of requirement to reproduce. Humans are permitted to do it, but that doesn't make it a human right."

You're dancing around the point. The human population doesn't naturally increase out of magic son.

They sexually reproduce. They sexually reproduce. Just face that .

Every human right is there in tandem with sustaining the human existence. Every right the human body gives can only be for that because that's what the human body is. It's a living organism.

" Humans have freewill, but not everything they do with this freewill is a human right. Actions have consequences. Picking your nose allows people to make fun of you, and they have every right to make fun of you since picking your nose is not a human right. They can fire you from your job if it causes scandal. It's no human right."

You're still on the surface. You have to look at the "why". Why an action is done and determine is it a right from the body. You do that by tying the correlation BIOLOGICALLY.

Being that you can't embrace biology, you're struggling to get this looking at again..... social aspects and cues talking about people's reactions, societal stigmatisms and everything else.

"If you marry someone stupid for a stupid reason, people can make fun of you for the decision you made. Marriage is not a human right. Some churches forbid gay marriage. Marriage is not a human right. States have age requirements for marriage. Marriage ...."

Stop looking at society and think only about our bodies. What in our biological bodies can explain the desire and cause to pair, mate, bond and be exclusive with the opposite sex?

Don't reason from the society to the individual. Reason from the individual that causes a governing legislated society.

"Humans are more than DNA. If humans were simply DNA, they wouldn't have human rights at all. Human rights are above animal rights, but what is in human DNA that gives it rights that animals don't get? Human rights are much higher than animal rights too. Humans have a right to life, but with animals, certain ones are protected from slaughter because they are "cute" while other ones are slaughtered like crazy just because humans are "hungry." "

Let the record show that the opposing side agrees humans are biological and continues to deflect that with humans being more than whatever the red herring is.

Not the point of contention. We agree we are biological. I accept the person's concession.

As far as these other things regarding animal rights, the opposing side is again mixing up legal rights or rights established by the laws of the land in how we interact with non person animals.

Further complicating this with non person animals is unnecessary.

To bring it back to center, nice and simple, it has been established that human rights come from humans. No where else.

Keyword: HUMAN,

HUMAN RIGHTS.

NOT ANIMAL RIGHTS.

NOT LEGAL RIGHTS.

NOT OIL RIGHTS.

Not anything else but human rights that come from ......humans.

"Human rights don't exist if you limit this debate to nature."

Then you are limiting what is meant by human rights. If you believe human rights are something spiritual, that's fine.

Until you prove human rights came from any where else, it has been evident and established so far that they come with the human body.

Last I'll speak on it. Not responding to statements of repeated points already addressed.

"You are not able to explain why this is a human right and not an animal right. Marriage is a contract. It's not just the physical stuff. Animals don't make contracts. Contracts aren't in DNA. Human rights come from more than just biology."

Look if you want to have a separate discussion on non person animal rights, that's another subject.

We're talking about human rights and animals shouldn't even be in this debate. Totally irrelevant.

Marriage is a contract legislated by law because the human body gives allowance or right to marriage which I explained in former rounds.

It's like you can't wrap your head around marriage and sexuality. We have sexual desires. We desire marriage based on sexual relationships. Just the fact that we desire these things in tandem to sustain ourselves is proof alone that these are human rights because they're human desires for our sustainability.

If marriage is not a human right, nutrition consumption is not a right.

Like I say. Prove where human rights come from.

You said here human rights come from MORE THAN JUST BIOLOGY.

By saying "more than", you just agreed it comes from biology at least .Trying to again, deflect with "well others things come into play too".

You still by omission again, again , again agree that human rights are from biology.

It's like after fighting me, you eventually submit with straddling and waffling.

Think about it. Be honest.

The foundation in "human rights" is "human". The base is "human". The source so of course human rights come from the human organic being, duh.

Rose pedals. Pedals come from the roses, with the roses.

Water drops. Drops come from the water, with the water.

So what is marriage?

You say a contract.

Contract of what?

You didn't explain far enough. That's too broad.

My mobile contract isn't a marriage. My football contract isn't a marriage. My loan contract isn't a marriage.

Unless you just conflate it all as just a simple agreement.

Which the body will say what agrees or disagrees with it by acceptance or rejection in a constructive fashion .

I digress.

"Not sure what you mean by this. People have gone off the rails trying to interpret that verse. If nature just works, then there's no right. It just happens automatically."

Marriage is a contract legislated by law because the human body, A NATURAL THING , gives allowance , A NATURAL FUNCTION,or right to marriage BY NATURAL desire. That's what by nature means . That's what natural means.

It hasn't nothing to do with legality which you conflate with human rights.

"But you are unable to explain why people get addicted to masturbation with this. You say humans have an urge to form bonds and use that as evidence that marriage is a right, but then you deny that the urge to masturbate makes it a right."

I asked you what other use do sexual reproductive organs have outside of sexual reproductive activity.

Now you either tell us what other use there is based on our anatomical sexual reproductive organs by their physiological means , don't run and deflect but answer that or just say "there is no other use".

Please answer the question. Stop deflecting. Answer the question straight up.

"Voting is often called a human right, yet a human can easily survive without voting. Most people who call marriage a human right say it is a right regardless of the reproduction of the couples. Also, the "survival" you speak of is different from eating to survive. Sex keeps the population alive, while food keeps an individual alive. There is a difference you refuse to recognize."

My friend you are really this obtuse by the words you even use.

Regardless, the point of human rights is to be alive.

The differences are completely negligible. These irrelevant differences you are using as deflections from the bottom line point you know you have to concede to .

The point in human rights is for us to live period. Just face that and not deflect.

I'm not arguing about voting. I'm not arguing about animal non persons. You stay bringing up things that I don't argue for.

You have to argue against what I've argued. Not what others argue. Keep the goalpost where it is and stop deflecting with other things and admit when you can't refute my position versus deflecting.

"Also, bearing children can cause death. Making a family can kill you."

Yes like eating can kill you. We can do the "cans" all day long. By the means of our survival can be harmful.

So what do we do?

For starters, not attempt to be bias but be wholesome and neutral with regards to what I've been saying is completely true to the human right of marriage.

"Look, if you have a right to enter marriage, why don't you have a right to exit marriage?

Using pure nature, you cannot explain why humans are forced to stay in a marriage but somehow animals can leave a mate or be polygamous. Animals act by instinct, which only makes things worse for you. Nature doesn't support a perpetual vow of fidelity."

The body does allow us the right to separate. You can call it "exiting marriage" , whatever you want.

If you want to break up the union, you can't quite do that for the sake of maintaining parenthood. Once you're a family unit, you're involved, tied together until death primarily through blood ties, gene ties.

Sorry about that. We're talking about marriage, not boyfriend and girlfriend, not dating .

"Why do you deny that masturbation is a right then? Many humans have the desire to do this as well. You also can't explain why cheating happens. Why is there nature desire for another or even oneself? Why is there a desire to divorce if we're supposed to stay in the union?"

Just machine gun the questions.

Ok so all we have to do is adhere to what the human body gives us right to do.

Now what is the point of human rights?

Whether you understand it by NOW ..... sustaining ourselves. Not depleting ourselves.

We know sexual reproductive organs are not for any other use but , because the use is in the NAME OF THE ORGANS.

LIKE DUH ....DUH ....DUH .....DUH.

What is so hard that this is not understood?

You got to rethink this whole subject.

The body to sustain itself is not giving right to sustain itself by depleting its function. That's a contradiction.

So if a person desires to kill off his or her genes, would that be the right given by the body or a violation of the right?

You got to understand this very simply.

I'm going to express it slowly.

Human .....rights......are.......what ....the.........body.............allows.....us.....to ....do....to ......sustain..... itself.

Every example you go to is the opposite of that.

Just because you're the opposing side, it doesn't mean to go opposite of the truth.

Your position has to be grounded in truth to prove your position and if it can't be opposed while being in truth at the same time, guess what?

Your position fails to counter mine completely.

Human .....rights......are.......what ....the.........body.............allows.....us.....to ....do....to ......sustain..... itself.

To sustain itself, not the opposite.

Any person that does anything in the opposite or contrary by desire is in complete conflict or disorder with his or her being .

For example, homosexuality. It's incomplete conflict with the human right to sexually reproduce.

"Killing is different than refraining from sex. One is active, while the other is passive."

You live or you die out. Being killed or dying out has the same result. Look at the result , not the cause.

You're super focused on cause .

"We have found no explanation as to why homosexuality exists. Homosexuality doesn't necessarily kill the population."

End result is still the same under this sexuality. The result, the result, the result.

"Many cultures had bisexuals who raised a family in a heterosexual marriage while engaging in sodomy as a side job."

Right heterosexuality is what kept the race going. Homosexuality is not a human right because it in no way sustains us period. So that answers about same sex marriage.

Due to the character limit, I'll add my remaining responses in the comments.

I done made my point as this debate is getting in it's circular stage.

I proved my point.

Case closed.