Sexuality, happiness and human rights, cristian carter

Cristian Carter http://cristcarter4.spaces.live.com

4. SEXUALITY, HAPPINESS
AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Of Cristian Carter
http://cristcarter4.spaces.live.com

Straight? Gay? Bisexual? It’s such a complex topic, which depends on how you know
yourself and what you know about the others...you know it, definitely; beyond the
answer you can give according to your surrounding sociocultural group: Victorian or
conservative, or liberal and democratic. If you choose to hide or you are able to respect
your own dignity and be consistent with it; or you choose to be as your family advises:
religion, social group, or even get married to someone you don’t love. Your options are:
to be happy or a person in disguise, the other’s slave.

Everything is just an edge of this interesting and complex topic, full of prejudices
produced by cultural and historical factors which are important for the people’s lives,
mark and depict them as they are, which make them happy, integral, healthy or
disturbed, full of repression, traumas and frustrations that can culminate in other more
serious problems, including psychopathologies, which threaten the person and his/her
environment’s good life quality.

BOOKS, AND UNIVERSAL MENTALITY, ON www.scribd.com/cristcarter


It’s true; it can be hard, as several aspects of life. You must have clear values and be
brave on them, your self-consciousness and your value clarity towards superior goals
secure your actions, and through a prudent intelligent way based on the respect and love
for him/herself and the others you can achieve any goal, despite of your negative
surrounding environment – people can change and transform their thoughts and
negative actions into positive – and every action in accordance with principles such as
love and truth results in futures which consolidate the true happiness.
Otherwise, as the experience has already said, it will be beard for some years, until
nature, conscious and internal sanity arises carrying more problems and when youth was
left behind.

Although despite this, the honest well-intended actions always give more mental
sanity and better final results. Fear is an emotional factor, and like anger, distorts
thoughts. The value in values, in superior principles, gives sense to everything, and
without them, everything is worth nothing. Even money is worth nothing when living a
fake life. The inside peace, the sincere relationship, respectable to yourself and the
others is the one which gives the true, stable and transcendental happiness. Reflected in
a mirror, happiness doesn’t know anything about masks, lies and deceptions, but when
they exist, especially in this topic, happiness doesn’t exist, it’s just apparent.

When that honesty and clarity exist with yourself and the others, you are able to stand
everything – clarifying that the one who refuses is in a low intellectual, value,
psychological and sociocultural situation (psychopathic) which is expressed in an
opposite attitude to human rights (we are and act as people), something that doesn’t
occur in the sociocultural elite, I mean, the best ones, the smartest, the more altruists,
the more educated, the wisest. In that intellectual, sociocultural and value elite doesn’t
matter everything I’m writing in this book. This topic is not new, but has been
overcome in accordance to studies and reflection.

Money is left behind, because although the wealthiest can have access to academic,
intellectual and artistic groups, it doesn’t always happen, so the economical capability
on the concepts of virtue, sociocultural or intellectual elite, or any other connotation of
nobility are excluded. For instance: known criminals, drug-traffickers, murderers,
psychopaths, gangsters, left-wing and right-wing dictators, terrorists, etc. have made
large sums of money; although those people are far of the ideals of the concepts of



excellence of the biggest “bonis homes” in the History of Humanity, such as Socrates,
Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Saladin, Jesus Christ, – beyond regarding him as
God or Son of God, which is not a topic which deserves further discussion, although I
think that anyone of his philosophical level deserves to be addressed as Son of God –
Mohammed, Buddha, the Master Usui in Reiki, José Manuel Balmaceda, James Carter,
John F. Kennedy, Mahatma Gandhi, and many others.

That’s why the history has never considered academics and intellectuals inside this line,
without detriment of considering them as murderers, bad men – who had entered
privileged groups by pressure, since the access can hardly be denied, and, even though,
they would never be part of it – or “poor men”.

Continuing, I must say that sexuality is a part of our essence as a person, and if
lived healthily is good to our minds and bodies. Science guarantees this – just take the
opinion of any specialist in the topic, such as Kinsey, Freud, par excellence; or
European sexologists, such as Dr. Costler and Willy; or recent ones, such as Michel
Focault or Eduardo Pino, all impartial, no sectarian intervention – and praxis and logics
confirm it. The happiness and sanity of a person with an active sexual life according to
his/her wishes is evident: his/her good mood, his/her skin colour, his/her behaviour is

more relaxed, less uptight, is lovelier and happier, etc. Everything previously exposed
is understood in the free spontaneous sex, not involved in vices such as force or abuses,
and without falling into paraphilias (v.gr. paedophilia, gerontophilia, necrophilia,
zoophilia, etc.), or excesses, because any pleasure can be harmful.

Also related with the point of intelligence, it’s known from psychiatric, psychological,
advertising and marketing studies that most of the people don’t think, and get carried
away for form, appearance rather than the content of the things. That’s why the whole
society tends to be manipulated by politicians and advertisements. The 80% of the
people don’t understand the messages, and rather assume those messages based on the
form the topic is expressed; from this, politicians and religion have had taken advantage
of this, carrying on consequences that only the History knows, verbi gratia: millions of
deaths in the hands of the Nazis, with precepts based on racial issues, claiming
superiority of one’s over others; or deaths caused by the Holy Inquisition, and deaths
because of religious or political doctrines, or sexual condition; abominations that still
occur until today keep on happening, although, thanks to God, less than ever, since the



conscious about human rights is strengthening.

This illiteracy – intellectual, spiritual, educational and of superior values and social
and emotional intelligence -, in sexuality, is expressed in that negative position
produced by several factors, such as historical (Adam and Eve, “sex is bad”, “dirty”,
“perverse” if it’s not used to procreate, so you must be guilty for pleasure, stories that
many people accept without thinking), political and economical, interest of the State to
manipulate people’s behaviour (v.gr. in the 19th Century, to secure the population or the
existence of needed labour force to secure to enrichment); and before this, the
hypocritical Victorian point of view (Focault), in rewind with natural manners (17th
Century), which emphasizes negative connotation of sex, silence, secrecy, and public
refusal, sex just for reproductive purposes. Everything previously exposed was later
expressed in the 19th Century in the sacrosanct law (positivism), the only guiding ideal
of our lives, which compulsorily expresses prejudices and institutionalized ignorance,
making the will of the king, governor, or “democratic” multiple groups easier. This
follows the same classical tyrant monarchical patterns which prescribe, forbid, censor or
declare something as licit or illicit through norms – “judicial power over sex” –
depriving or limiting freedom and pleasures, everything to keep the power under
control, without existing any objective, logical, scientific or of transcendental value

fundament, only prejudices in recognition to what was exposed above and anyone’s
will, manipulating the majority’s ignorance about sex. And without detriment of the
famous but empty phrases such as “for morality and good manners, concept overcame
by ethics based on consciousness, science and transcendental values and human rights,
which in a modern socioculturally developed democratic state are rejected, because of
its subjectivity and scientific rational poverty in human values.

As a remark, in Greece there were no forbids, nor sanctions, nor codification for sexual
behaviour, since it wasn’t relevant for society; without detriment of the existence of a
moral which tends an aesthetical point of view of sexual behaviour –dietetic, economic
and erotic – especially in the marriage and the relationship between teacher and student,
where homosexuality was perfectly appropriated and beneficial. This kind of ethics,
created by philosophers and politicians, in order to protect their sexual power, was not
in accordance with the values exposed in this note; indeed, a relationship between two
men of the same age was regarded as inadequate, and also, in the poorest groups and
women were excluded of this prerogatives (Artemidorus). In other words, inequality



was reigning and it attempted against dignity and freedom that every human being has
naturally, in order to be with the person he/she loves or cherish.

It’s necessary to go into great detail about the “moralist” (since there’s nothing about
moral, because it attempts against people’s dignity and freedom, human rights) or
Victorian position about the reproductive function of sex, to secure the human species,
as if we were slaves to the State system (of the “Matrix”, enslaving power of the
tyrannical entity), not involved into fundamental rights; a thought that is perverse by
itself and has generated atrocities in pursuit of the blood throughout the History and the
power in the hands of mentally ill psychopathic people (such as Hitler and several other
dictators). This demonstrates the vulnerability and simplicity of the relativism of
thinking with Machiavellian purposes (power, money, etc.) and that the “animal”
human being, still endowed with a better level of neuronal complexity, generally
doesn’t use for good purposes, but may be able to justify all kinds of perversity and
discrimination, not respecting the human rights and universal values, in order to reach
different purposes for mentally disabled persons – from the obscure triad in psychology,
away from love and empathy, for oneself and the others; this triad is composed by:
egocentrism, narcissism and Machiavellanism, among others; in where the subject
doesn’t bother to affect the basic rights of people, animals and environment, in order to

pursue his/her evil desires. Otherwise, a mentally healthy person will always take into
account the effects of his acts on the others’ rights.

That’s why those kind of people who use arguments which necessarily become sophistic
or false in pursuit of any goal, CANNOT hold any public or private authority charge,
because from this, the unfair damage to others raise, from lack of criteria, respect for
other people, low levels of emotional, social and spiritual intelligence, and mental and
psychological sanity which must have to take decisions over people’s lives; in where
universal superior human rights and values doesn’t matter , such as to be conscious
about people’s freedom to develop in every personal, cultural, social, professional and
familiar aspect, without limits, except if these freedoms attempt against those same
values, principles and rights; and, furthermore, cannot be discriminated or arbitrarily
differentiated, I mean, without valuably acceptable reasons based on those same
behavioural scientific principles and arguments accepted in human rights and respective
sciences; and that all person must be respected on the fact of being person, except if it
objectively damages to others physical or psychologically (here, the state preventive



measures, prison, detention, etc which also respect the precedent rights and the adequate
process are applied).

We can say that goodness, based on love and universal values previously exposed
throughout this text, is the smartest wisest act in a long term, more polite and adequate,
which attracts good and keeps away the negative consequences of psychopathologic
behaviour, common in damage situations.

We must notice that this point of view (sexual relations / reproduction), that in some
countries in where full freedoms have been accepted, developed countries in society and
cultures, still babies are getting born and families are formed, the ones in where living is
more pacific and full of dignity. Humans keep on procreating and death is more near for
other reasons, as the sad direct deaths or caused by illnesses, war situations and
pollution (everything scientifically proved and studied).

Even though, actually the thesis of “negative sex”, repression of sexuality and
pleasure, of sex as blame, “dirty”, “wrong”, came to aggravate insanely the interest
for sex (monetarism of sex, private, sex-pleasure in hidden places, sentiment of guilt,
cynicism and institutionalized hypocrisy; sexual dysfunctions such as impotence,
frigidity, premature ejaculation, etc; and also, frustration and unhappiness, leading to
psychopathologies, suicides, or insane ways to face the sexual desire or homosexuality,

etc.) and creates the need of express the sexual desire through literature and the
narrative genre in the darkest secret (for instance, the writings of the Marquees of
Sade, or the anonymous author of “My secret life”, or the confession before the priest,
and worrying about the sexual life of other people to create controversy), because
according to that psychopathologic point of view about sex, it is “ugly”, “wrong”,
“dirty”, “homosexuality is abnormal and anti-natural”. These thoughts are derisory,
since sexologists, psychiatrists and psychologists –such as Freud, Costler, Willy,
Kinsey, Pino, Focault, etc. – have already prove it, and also the flowing nature (the wise
nature that flows healthy and spontaneously) proves that sex is positive, healthy and
natural if it’s lived freely, in accordance with the actual sexual condition and without
excesses.

This psychopathological point of view about sex, which is unhealthy and opposite to the
self-flowing nature, has transcended until nowadays, but less than ever, depending on



the sociocultural level or the trend of the analyzed group; people with a great deal of
mental stiffness and deeply rooted prejudices, people who prefers to emphasize the
protection of the State interests, as if we were to disposal of it; or others most respectful
about people and their freedom to develop in all the aspects of their lives, who are to
disposal of the person, in order to reach their happiness, avoiding all kinds of
discrimination and unworthy treatment. It’s evident that the moralist position that
commands under their idea of sexuality as a means to procreation, attempts against the
basic principles of democracy and human rights.

For good, product of the sociocultural development because of the highest flow of
information provided by the technology (Internet) and the conscious about people’s
dignity (Democracy and Human Rights), we can testify than young people, the new
generations, take the sexuality in a lax and natural way, and the free management in
accordance with the real sexual condition; again, coming back to a positive state and
connotation, what is a healthy and adequate behaviour in every aspect; talking in
physical, psychological, social and value terms, related to truth and universal values; of
course, with limits for abuse, perversions and excesses, typical of each and every
pleasure.

It’s something curious and anecdotic that the celibacy – a completely irrational and
anti-natural institution – was founded by a compulsory disposition of a sex-dependent
such as St. Augustine, (read his biography and his book “Confessions”) who, when he
converted into Catholicism, “apparently” left sex behind – thing that I doubt about -,
and meanwhile, forbid it for the rest of poor priests in the future, that must “apparently”
leave their natural sexuality to meet a requirement, in order to have a spiritual
connection (which is honestly ridiculous, because God, the Almighty Creator, gives
sexuality to people, or nature, or the Universal energy, as you want to understand it).

The opinion of the most of priests I have known (I has been educated in a Catholic
school and University, and also was raised in a Christian family) think that is
unnecessary. I know that some priest still have an active sexual life, that doesn’t seem
immoral or reprehensible to me; far from it, it is obvious to any sensible person and
with honour on universal values, because of the important on sex in the human species,
which must be care, furthermore of its spiritual relations, other aspects, or as said in
Reiki, other “chakras”, or important points in life.



The “chakras” are seven: nature, sexuality, self-esteem or ego, love for others, social
intelligence, intuition or intellectual capacity, and spirituality; in where every person
that searches for happiness and integral growth must have them developed and in
harmony. As we can see, psychology, psychiatry, healthy behaviour, big philosophies
and universal values are intimately related and have the same basis: ethics, health, and
respect for human rights, love and happiness, among many other points.

Sexuality and its relationship with nature are “chakras” or important points in life,
which we must develop in harmony with the other aspects in life, and we, as animals,
need to express; where repression breaks the subject mentally, making him/her to take
other psychopathology behaviours, such as bitterness, depression, or even, sexual
paraphilias (all the behavioural sciences of the all-important authors are replies and
authorized in that same sense, review and study the cited authors; in fact, the ones that
make opposite affirmations are rapidly discredited for their all-important colleagues,
because are based on specially religious prejudices, and a false way to understand the
divine issues and because they attempt against basic human rights, such as freedom).
Without being great professionals or illustrated we can come to the same conclusions.
We must only observe and analyze the world, the human behaviour and nature, with
love and clarity on universal values.

A time ago, based on the “invocation of God”, a Muslim country based on religion
sentenced to death to 2 young men because they were caught and later, accepted their
homosexuality, situation that motivated sanctions from the UN. It’s clear that, related to
a universal objective ethics, those countries are in a very deplorable cultural
development level, and we must be clear that by accepting the religious and cultural
diversity can’t justify that absurd situations, because the persons’ essential rights go
beyond the place he/she is into, and beyond the culture he/she belongs to, and any
thought and policy must also have the human rights as limits.

It’s true that the position of the most of the Christians doesn’t reach those extremes;
the base for discrimination and prejudices is the same. There’s no difference in the
position of the Muslims (but the latter can apply the discrimination to the extent of
regard to the “sinner unfaith gay” as a criminal, and therefore, they establish penalties
and physical punishments, which is clearly an attempt against mankind and the UN has



the duty of act in pursuit of the defence of the human rights in an effective way). The
lack of respect to people’s freedom and dignity is the same, and as I said before, it has
no reason and is apparently psychopathological (beyond the supposed prestige and
power of an institution, which doesn’t imply that all the things said there are true and in
accordance with superior universal values), and we can say that the interpretations that
lead to a part of the Christians to regard homosexuality as wrong, is opposite to the
transcendental taught of Jesus Christ, and any other great philosophy and any other
great master, because from them we can, unmistakable and inevitably, extract a message
of love and freedom, and respect of every being, with clear limits, the consideration of
others in objective terms (responsible freedom).

Have these absurdities and interpretations equivocal to the true messages and superior
values given by God, or an illuminated prophet (as you want to understand it) – which
humans have also transferred them, after hundreds of years and in several languages,
born and written in a different historical context – made Nietzche crazy, which that
made him rebel against drivel and creates his thesis about The Antichrist?
And we say that there is no reason to it because it is already proved, it is an objective
scientific fact, that homosexuality is not an illness, nor disorder, and sexuality, the
sexual condition, and sex, is prevented by the UN, since it is in accordance with the
value of dignity of all people, freedom, and right to protection of their lives and physical
and psychological integrity (everything is linked). Although we aren’t specialists, we
can discern the complexity, reality and normality of the topic and its actual
impossibility of further treatment (beyond some people’s point of view, who internally
keep on being); treatment that doesn’t exist because that’s not an illness, it’s a reality, a
condition, which recently has been discovered that is caused by genetic factors based on
the genes mainly contributed by the father. But that affirmation is not such important,
because the most important issue is to respect the dignity in its homosexual condition (a
trend mainly found in men, ¾ according to studies, Kinsey, so it’s such a prejudice to
talk about minorities based on ignorance about reality), and has the human right of
integrally develop itself, in each and every aspect of his/her personal, professional,
family and social aspect; and, also he/she has the same duties that any other person has,
such as to respect the other’s rights, dignity and freedom.

Then, from the human nature, the respect for people beyond their sexuality (in which
sexual condition is included), race, religion, political ideas (while democratic), their



shape, the existence of physical or psychological disabilities, etc, is extracted. They
continue to be persons and that’s why they deserve respect, dignity and freedom;
especially when objective physical or psychological damage to others or him/her
doesn’t exist. In this sense, it’s evident that the refusal or the social sanctions are the
inappropriate behaviour that, as said before, is based on prejudice and ignorance.

I’m absolutely sure that God, who I firmly believe in, doesn’t discriminate His beings,
the one who He created: blacks, whites, gays, lesbians, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics,
Jews, etc.; and from Him and the given reasoning, the respect to al living being comes.
If anyone says that God doesn’t want that, and that He guarantees these discriminations,
it means that he/she has understood or thought nothing, and I can assure that is not God
or a good way of understand and interpret him, and there’s no reason for worrying,
because God is good and He is in the bases and principles of every great philosophy and
in all good actions we make as a human being, as fraternity, non-discrimination,
solidarity, protection of the weakest, respect for the other, etc. If God judges, according
to those thoughts and actions, it will be the base you will be judged on, if you want to
understand it that way, or if you want, pursued your transcendental consciousness, your
super-ego, or that superior being you believe in.

About this point, those exegetical – literal – interpretations of created passages and
written by men in the Holy Texts, who conform the religions (without detriment of the
divine invocation and the importance of these institutions in pursuit of the internal
international social peace and other praiseworthy aims), is a real cause of hate, deaths,
discrimination, sufferings, that don’t belong to God, - who’s good - and I understand
them, because it’s something that the History has proved, as true actions and perverse
positions that make humanity sick, normally managed by supposed prophets or God
dignitaries, or high priest, who make profits or power through managing people’s
ignorance and low capacity of reflection.

In any case, this can be justified, beyond the respect of cultural differences, any
arbitrary differentiation and bad treatment, based on sexuality; the human rights are
superior to any other consideration and the States and Universal organizations must
respect and protect. Beyond the subscription of treaties, they must prevail in the
Universal order. The reasoning, the superior values and God (the universal energy, the
nature, or as you want to see it) require this.



It would be good to include among the constitutional rights a express norm that forbids
any kind of discrimination, – although I think that it’s not strictly necessary, because is
already protected by the First Article of our Constitution, and in the same sense, by the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Historia de la Constitución, by Francisco
Cumplido Ph.D.) – and also a compulsory norm of the rights and duties of the sexual
education, psychology – about notions of emotional intelligence - , and about
constitutional basis and human rights worldwide, which would bring long-term benefits
in our society.

I also believe that, for a harmony between the First Article of our Constitution and
Human Rights, related to the principle of equality and dignity, it would be good to
eliminate the crime of sodomy, and in the crime of minor’s rape to insert the figure of
the older man who has sexual relations with another one youngest, under 18, in order to
have the same treatment and the same sanction as in the case of man-woman relations,
and in both cases, as now, to punish the power abuse or the minor’s mental disabilities.
I must remark that the State is not serving to a specific group (such as Muslims,
Christians, etc) in order to satisfy senseless absolutisms (universal values). The
Democratic State serves to all the people, immerse in the reason and scientific basis.
The State must act in pursuit of the Human Rights universally recognized by the “ius
cogens”, the body of law, and the universal doctrine (...the best, the wisest), in all event,
without exceptions.

If we go into greater detail, the complexity of this topic is more than demonstrated.
In fact, Kinsey, Freud (and the following generation of sexologists, psychologists
and psychiatrists) have demonstrated that sexuality is a hard to classify and
categorize topic. In comparison: is a person good or bad just for one action? Can a

person be classified as gay just for a homosexual experience in a ship, in a boarding
school, in a jail, in a depression or for a homosexual thought? Can a gay become
straight just for having sex with a woman?

Kinsey has demonstrated in a study made with hundreds of thousand people that
homosexuality is the normal general rule, so to talk about sexual minorities is wrong
and a kind of prejudice and ignorance. In fact, Kinsey demonstrated that 5/6 of men
has a homosexual inclination, practised or not, in a top, bottom or versatile role. That



situation is indifferent, because the most important thing is what happens in someone’s
head, what his/her real desires are, beyond being living with or dating a woman.
Kinsey made a scale from 1 to 6, in which thousands of people were identified. 1 is for
completely straight (only 1/6 was identified in that way, although it was made in the
1920s) and 6 is for completely gay.

Anyway, it is important to remark that the sexuality and the homosexual inclination has
been the same throughout the history, the same indexes and percentages, but it has been
shown in certain historical époques of cultural significance and freedoms (the Greek
and Florentine époques, 3rd Century BC and 15th Century AD), and the same occurs in
the actual societies, for instance, the Netherlands and other European countries, Canada,
Australia, etc.; and, the greatest sociocultural/intellectual in the group, the most
acceptable it is, because this persons and groups respond to the reason and
comprehension of sexuality and normality in nature and everything that was told above.
In an interview made to psychology students, among them, Vicky Chelech, of the
Universidad Mayor, I thus respond this topic:

Straight, gay, bisexual, are illusory concepts. Following Freud’s complexity, what
was recognized by the Greek masters and analyzed in my personal experience and my
experience with others, I think that sexuality is ambivalent, unstable, because it’s related
to many factors; not only giving preponderance to Eros – sex itself, the animal part - ,
but also with psychological factors, virtues, integrity, interests, the charm of the other,
giving now preponderance to the Philia – love -; thus, it’s clearly explained by Socrates,
Xenophon, and other great philosophers of this time. Furthermore, other factors exist,
such as loneliness, desire of pleasure, boredom, depression; external factors that make
us lose our inhibitions; for instance: drugs, alcohol, etc. So, the sexual interest in
another person can be found in a great many of causes. The important thing is to
recognize what’s happening and that’s natural, is not bad, except for the edges said
above, which go together with excesses and psychopathologies.

That’s why the homophobes are people who hide their homosexuality in a strict and
concrete position in order to avoid falling into it; furthermore, it’s aggravated by
traumas in their sexual education or personal experience, violence and repressions since
childhood, that distort their point of view about sexuality. Why they must offend anyone
else who’s made no damage on him/her? The heterosexual – straight - , with a healthy



clear mentality, is tolerant and has a position of tranquillity and confidence about
his/her sexuality. If it is reasonable, it also can’t be acceptable to hate anyone else
without an acceptable reason, such as physical and psychological aggression in
objective terms. The only presence of other diverse is not a justified reason to damage
him/her, and evocates something that internally happens, of psychopathological nature.
Let’s add that the indexes of infidelity and sexual transmission diseases are similar in
men, women, gays and straights.

Healthy people, exempt from traumas, are tolerant. Let’s remember something quite
punctual about double speeches: more than one thousand priests have been accused in
Brazil for abusing of children (something that, unfortunately, happens around the
world), and created a manual to abuse of them.

Overthrowing prejudices of ignorance, always based on the studies about this matter,
it’s clear that paedophilia (sexual relations with children under 14 years) is a perversion,
completely different to homosexuality, so most of the paedophiles are heterosexual
(85%). They don’t enjoy in the fact of being a man or a woman; they do enjoy and take
pleasure in the power they have over the defenceless children.

Considering the human rights and universal values, leaving behind all kinds of
discrimination and arbitrary differences, and the ignorance of prejudice, the
authentically democratic and civilized states must accept the homosexual marriage,
because there’s no sustainable reason in values and scientific reasons to deny it:

1. In the scope of the human rights and basic norms in our Constitution, as dignity,
respect for people, equality in the eyes of the law and their freedom, the gays have the
right to get married and the State mustn’t prevent it, because the State must respect and
promote the respect for people. The freedom of a person to choose to get married,
beyond his/her sexual condition, is a human right, and a democratic state respect people
and serves everyone by equal, without discrimination by sex, race and belief, so it must
create conditions for their integral development in the material, psychological and
spiritual aspects.

2. In the scope of scientific behaviour, it is proved that the indemnity of children, or
their free growing and raising free of vices, especially sexual, is not affected by the



parents’ sexual orientation, anything different to what happens when different kinds of
abuse exist in the family unit, such as physical, psychological and sexual, for action or
negligence, affective shortages, desertion, which can create serious psychological
disorders affecting the person’s whole life, if the adequate treatment is not available;
matters that can happen, no matter if the family is straight or gay.
As we said before, it’s proved that the most of the paedophiles are heterosexual, so, can
we forbid gay marriages because of it? Or do we must forbid the straight marriage
because the most of gay children have had straight parents? To come to those
conclusions would be absurd.

The family is constituted by people who are united by blood, legal or affective links.
Normally, families are constituted in base of marriage, but it’s not a general rule. The
democratic states recognize unmarried families as well and protect that forms of family.
Related with it, the marriage isn’t always made to conceive, have children. For example:
In the retirement years, the marriage is in chapter of death, or both are impotent; but the
marriage and the family still exist. Also, the families who adopt children in a posterior
stage or add own children of one of the spouses to the new family still exist as family.
So, can we deny the right to get married and form a family inside the marriage to them?
To deny that right to get married is a lack of respect for dignity of all the persons,
because if they want to get married, the State can’t deny that life option to them.
Furthermore, everyone knows (it’s something that behavioural sciences have proved),
that in the countries in where the gay marriage is accepted, families have an elevated
cultural and emotional wealth. It also elevates that country in terms of culture,
democracy and tolerance, which is our main objective, to grow in every aspect.

And now, if a young child is affected by the attitude of others who discriminates
him/her, what’s the right attitude of a truly democratic state: to take away the children
to these loving parents, because of the fact of being gay? So, do we must to forbid
marriages of native people to prevent their children from further discrimination? It
would be absurd and opposite of these parents’ human rights to be with their children.
The right attitude of the State, in accordance with the human rights and the dignity of
people from the State organisms – according to the constitutional order of promotion
and respect for human rights - , is to protect the children in case of discrimination or
crimes, and to apply the pertinent sanctions to the responsible ones of that kind of
discrimination, and in any case to deny the right of paternity or maternity. The children



must always stay with the right and most capable parent, that’s the point, with the best,
the one who gives him/her the most of love and emotional wealth, education and better
life conditions. Here, in these points, is the truth protection of the children’s superior
interest.

It’s not reasonable to protect an interest avoiding the basic values in human rights,
which are protected to a constitutional and international level; the person’s dignity is
over any consideration. It’s the maximum value to be protected, the summit of all the
rights. The true respect for a person thus begins, and leads to a better society.
From all the issues exposed and understood in this important and interesting topic of
people’s lives and happiness, the conscious generates great personal and social effects,
comprehending them in positive and natural terms.

In all this process – even of the moralist judicial political relationship, based on the
speech of the censor power, freedoms repressor, which at least deserves a temporal
liberation - , the accentuated opposition is generated, and it will always rise before
censorship and hypocrisy (not only in sex, but also in any analyzable topic), con more
force and basis; and then, when the knowledge exists, the consciousness and the speech
in pursuit of superior values rises, which, in democracy and as well as the
communication media and the sociocultural advances, grows in an exponential way
around the world, ensuring the continuous advance in human rights in pursuit of a better
world, welfare, freedom and respect to all human being and their right to integral
development, especially in an all-important topic for the happiness of everyone, as
sexuality.


Sexuality, happiness and human rights, cristian carter

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (14)

Destacado

Destacado (8)

Similar a Sexuality, happiness and human rights, cristian carter

Similar a Sexuality, happiness and human rights, cristian carter (20)

Más de CRIST CARTER

Más de CRIST CARTER (15)

Último

Último (20)

Sexuality, happiness and human rights, cristian carter