A contribution to the debate about social recognition of marriage-like and family-like social phenomena

The paper elaborates on the relation between marriage and the family, on one hand, and marriage-like and family-like homosexual unions such as so-called homosexual marriage and same-sex union (or same-sex life partnership). With a brief theoretical introduction and a comparative overview of the manner in which this matter is regulated in other countries, certain solutions are analyzed from the Proposal Draft Law on Same-Sex Unions of Serbia (2021). It is indicated that it is no longer possible to equalize marriage and the family with the same-sex union because the content of these concepts is substantially different. The society is interested in protecting marriage and the family and to take special care of them since they perform extremely important social functions, whereas without some of them the survival of the society itself would be brought to question (the reproduction function). On the other hand, homosexual marriage and/or same-sex unions do not perform any social function, but are formed exclusively for the purpose of relatively longer-standing satisfaction of sexual needs of same-sex partners. Since the society and the state do not protect marriage only because sexuality is regulated within it, but because it legitimizes sexual relationships aimed at having children, in the event of homosexual marriage-like unions it should also be proceeded in an identical manner: solely those rights and obligations of partners deriving from a relatively longer-standing homosexual partnership should be legally regulated. Moreover, having in mind the principle that every man's right is limited by other people's rights, it is impermissible to give priority to the protection of the rights of same-sex partners for the purpose of longer-standing homosexual relationships over the protection of children's rights. Children need both a father and a mother (an ideal condition), and the family in which they will be socialized. In line with those homosexual marriage-like unions, neither adoption nor assisted insemination can be allowed.

Democracia, Direitos Humanos e Direito Natural: crítica à tese de John Finnis sobre o casamento homossexual | Democracy, Human Rights and Natural Law: critique of John Finnis' thesis on homosexual marriage

Examina-se de modo crítico a teoria da lei natural, de John Finnis, e sua defesa contra a possibilidade jurídica de reconhecimento do direito ao casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo, a partir de dois pontos de vista: a consistência interna da do referencial finnisiano e sua adequação diante do debate sobre direitos humanos. Examinam-se também as alegações associadas à defesa finnisiana, desde a proeminência de uma dita moral majoritária e da ofensa aos sentimentos públicos, até preocupações com a “promoção da homossexualidade”, suas consequências pretensamente prejudiciais aos menores e a fragilização da instituição do casamento. Apontam-se seus limites e sua incompatibilidade em face dos ideais democráticos que suplantaram os projetos nazi-fascistas no século XX, tomando como caso emblemático a decisão da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos no caso “Obergefell vs. Hodges”.

儒家會如何看待同性婚姻的合法化？

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.首先闡明儒家與基督教及古希臘文化各自對於同性戀的態度。儒家與基督教的嚴厲排斥和古希臘人的某種鼓勵皆不同，對同性戀持一種有保留的寬容態度，對於同性戀個人的評價更是以其道德行為為依據。為了理解儒耶在這個問題上分歧的深層原因，審視了西方的二元分叉和古代中國陰陽互補對生的不同思想方式。儒家因此將同性戀人群的產生歸為陰陽發生過程的可能產物，有其自然的原因，並不是一種罪惡。但是，也正是由於儒家信持這樣一個陰陽生發的結構，她不可能贊許同性婚姻的合法化，因為同性戀者的結合畢竟不是陰陽化生的原真形態，將它與異性婚姻在法律地位上等同看待會導致一些對於人類社群長久延續不利的後果。它們包括：這種合法化會從道理上打開通向群婚制的缺口；它還可能會傷害一些無辜者；它具有的某種示範效應可能會引導那些在性別取向上的徘徊者走上他們本來不一定要選擇的性道路。本文的第三部分第一節還依據中英原文，考訂了美國最高法院的甘迺迪法官所引用的孔子話語，說明它在表達形式上的不嚴格和內容上的大致可行。又闡述了此法官的基本思想與這段引文及其上下文所代表的儒家思路的衝突。First, the various attitudes towards homosexuality among Confucianism, Christianity and ancient Greek culture are considered. Distinguished from the Christian harsh repulsion and the Greek slight encouragement, Confucianism has been guardedly tolerant of homosexuality and judged homosexuals according to their personal moral behavior. To reveal the deep reasons for the distinction between Confucianism and Christianity on this issue, the paper examines the differences in thinking between the Western dichotomy and the Confucian genesis by the co-opposites of yin-yang. Confucianism explains homosexuality as one of the possible results of the yin-yang process. It is thereby a natural phenomenon, not an evil thing. However, it is due to this understanding that Confucianism cannot advocate the legalization of homosexual marriage, because a union between homosexuals does not belong to a true yin-yang means of combination and production. To treat it legitimately as being the same as a marriage between heterosexuals could lead to consequences that would be unfavorable to the longevity of human communities, which include, for instance, opening up the possibility of group marriage; hurting innocent people; and leading those who do not have a definite sexual tendency to make a homosexual decision. The third part of the paper refers to the Confucian saying cited by Anthony Kennedy, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the USA, in his statement on the ruling on same-sex marriage, and shows that his citation was inaccurate, but its content was not far from the original meaning of Confucius’ saying. Further, the conflict between Kennedy’s basic thinking and the Confucian thought demonstrated in the citation and its context is exposed.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 329 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

Perkawinan Sejenis Menurut Hak Asasi Manusia Dalam Perspektif Hukum Islam

Purpose of this study is to analyze that the homosexual marriage in accordance with human rights which is just and civilized, and to determine the homosexual marriage according to the marriage act and the perspective of Islamic law. The method used is a method normative considering that this study emphasizes that the secondary data that is studying and reviewing principles, materials and positive legal principles that of the materials libraries that exist in legislation marriage law and human rights law in Indonesia. Results from this study showed that the homosexual marriage in the name of human rights it violates human rights itself. Because the rights that should be fought is right according to the nature of natural and ordained by God, since man was created in pairs regarding marriages recognized by the state is only marriages between men and women can also be seen in Article 34 paragraph (1) of the Act Number 23 the Year 2006 concerning population administration.

Main Reasons against Unnatural Marriage and Its Wreckful Role in the Institution of Marriage and Family

<p>The role of marriage and family strengthening with regard to religious commandments and ethics is not concealed from people who follow the divine commands and basic teachings of the Holy books and prophets. However, nowadays in many western societies, the principles of natural marriage are violated. The new forms of marriage are called abnormal, unnatural, and unusual forms of marriage among individuals including the same or opposite sex. Unnatural marriage can’t be classified as a natural and legal contract. Note that both natural and unnatural forms of marriage have their own principles. Therefore, the recent research aims at analyzing the main reasons against unnatural marriage using analytical and library methods with regard to the fact that unnatural marriage has threatened standard marriage and family foundation. In this research, we rely on verses of Quran. All the data have been gathered by experts in the field of family affairs especially those who witnessed homosexual marriage and observed both personal and social difficulties of homosexual individuals. </p>