El concepto de matrimonio y la Opinión Consultiva 24/17. Una crítica
The article explores the criticisms that have been made about the concept of marriage contained in Advisory Opinion 24/17. From a conservative position it is indicated that the marriage is limited to people of different sex. The premise that supports the “heterosexual” pro-marriage establishes the u...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Spanish |
| Published: |
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7267584 |
| Source: | FORO: Revista de Derecho, ISSN 2631-2484, Nº. 32, 2019 (Ejemplar dedicado a: He resignification of families from a diversity approach), pags. 83-101 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
|
| id |
dialnet-ar-18-ART0001366816
|
|---|---|
| record_format |
dialnet
|
| institution |
Dialnet
|
| collection |
Dialnet AR
|
| source |
FORO: Revista de Derecho, ISSN 2631-2484, Nº. 32, 2019 (Ejemplar dedicado a: He resignification of families from a diversity approach), pags. 83-101
|
| language |
Spanish
|
| topic |
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
advisory function equal marriage gender moral Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos función consultiva matrimonio igualitario género moral |
| spellingShingle |
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
advisory function equal marriage gender moral Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos función consultiva matrimonio igualitario género moral Solano Paucay, Vicente El concepto de matrimonio y la Opinión Consultiva 24/17. Una crítica |
| description |
The article explores the criticisms that have been made about the concept of marriage contained in Advisory Opinion 24/17. From a conservative position it is indicated that the marriage is limited to people of different sex. The premise that supports the “heterosexual” pro-marriage establishes the union between man and woman, for that reason only and exclusively the marriage bond could be constituted with people of different sex. The central thesis about marriage focuses on the fact that, from its origins, its concept or nature, it has been exclusive to heterosexual people. Also, this notion would be based on article 67 of the Ecuadorian Constitution. While from a more progressive position it is rejected that the concept is so reduced. Meanwhile, the egalitarian pro-marriage movement supports its reasoning on the principle of equality, but specifically, in the prohibition of discrimination found in the second clause of the same article 11 numeral 2. Therefore, I analyze and criticize the first and second position, from an interpretative and moral perspective, in order to obtain a good argumentation, from a meticulous conceptual analysis. The interpretative thesis the rule of article 67 could be seen in four possible “interpretations” - plausible rules of marriage. On the other hand, under the moral thesis I will use the naive and sophisticated moral argumentwith the aim of realizing a redefinition of moral arguments regarding marriage.
|
| format |
Article
|
| author |
Solano Paucay, Vicente
|
| author_facet |
Solano Paucay, Vicente
|
| author_sort |
Solano Paucay, Vicente
|
| title |
El concepto de matrimonio y la Opinión Consultiva 24/17. Una crítica
|
| title_short |
El concepto de matrimonio y la Opinión Consultiva 24/17. Una crítica
|
| title_full |
El concepto de matrimonio y la Opinión Consultiva 24/17. Una crítica
|
| title_fullStr |
El concepto de matrimonio y la Opinión Consultiva 24/17. Una crítica
|
| title_full_unstemmed |
El concepto de matrimonio y la Opinión Consultiva 24/17. Una crítica
|
| title_sort |
el concepto de matrimonio y la opinión consultiva 24/17. una crítica
|
| publishDate |
2019
|
| url |
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7267584
|
| _version_ |
1709751461321113600
|
| spelling |
dialnet-ar-18-ART00013668162020-03-06El concepto de matrimonio y la Opinión Consultiva 24/17. Una críticaSolano Paucay, VicenteInter-American Court of Human Rightsadvisory functionequal marriagegendermoralCorte Interamericana de Derechos Humanosfunción consultivamatrimonio igualitariogéneromoralThe article explores the criticisms that have been made about the concept of marriage contained in Advisory Opinion 24/17. From a conservative position it is indicated that the marriage is limited to people of different sex. The premise that supports the “heterosexual” pro-marriage establishes the union between man and woman, for that reason only and exclusively the marriage bond could be constituted with people of different sex. The central thesis about marriage focuses on the fact that, from its origins, its concept or nature, it has been exclusive to heterosexual people. Also, this notion would be based on article 67 of the Ecuadorian Constitution. While from a more progressive position it is rejected that the concept is so reduced. Meanwhile, the egalitarian pro-marriage movement supports its reasoning on the principle of equality, but specifically, in the prohibition of discrimination found in the second clause of the same article 11 numeral 2. Therefore, I analyze and criticize the first and second position, from an interpretative and moral perspective, in order to obtain a good argumentation, from a meticulous conceptual analysis. The interpretative thesis the rule of article 67 could be seen in four possible “interpretations” - plausible rules of marriage. On the other hand, under the moral thesis I will use the naive and sophisticated moral argumentwith the aim of realizing a redefinition of moral arguments regarding marriage.El artículo explora las críticas que se han formulado sobre el concepto de matrimonio que contiene la Opinión Consultiva 24/17. Desde una posición conservadora se señala que el matrimonio se circunscribe a personas de diferente sexo. La premisa que sostiene el pro-matrimonio “heterosexual” establece la unión entre hombre y mujer, por lo que única y exclusivamente el vínculo matrimonial se podría constituir con personas de diferente sexo. La tesis central sobre el matrimonio se concentra en que este, desde sus orígenes, su concepto o naturaleza, ha sido exclusivo de las personas heterosexuales. Y esta noción se fundamentaría en base al artículo 67 de la Constitución ecuatoriana. Mientras, desde una posición más progresista, se rechaza que el concepto sea tan reducido. El movimiento pro-matrimonio igualitario sustenta su razonamiento sobre el principio de igualdad, pero, de manera específica, en la prohibición de discriminación que se encuentra en el inciso segundo del mismo artículo 11 número 2. Por ello, analizo y critico la primera y segunda posición, desde una perspectiva interpretativa y moral, con el fin de obtener una mejor argumentación, desde un minucioso análisis conceptual. Así desde la tesis interpretativa la regla del artículo 67 podría ser vista en cuatro posibles “interpretaciones” –normas– plausibles del matrimonio. Por otro lado, bajo la tesis moral utilizaré el argumento moral ingenuo y el sofisticado con el objetivo de realizar una redefinición de los argumentos morales en cuanto al matrimonio.2019text (article)application/pdfhttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7267584(Revista) ISSN 1390-2466(Revista) ISSN 2631-2484FORO: Revista de Derecho, ISSN 2631-2484, Nº. 32, 2019 (Ejemplar dedicado a: He resignification of families from a diversity approach), pags. 83-101spaLICENCIA DE USO: Los documentos a texto completo incluidos en Dialnet son de acceso libre y propiedad de sus autores y/o editores. Por tanto, cualquier acto de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y/o transformación total o parcial requiere el consentimiento expreso y escrito de aquéllos. Cualquier enlace al texto completo de estos documentos deberá hacerse a través de la URL oficial de éstos en Dialnet. Más información: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STATEMENT: Full text documents hosted by Dialnet are protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by its authors or editors. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the licensing conditions, you are free to linking, browsing, printing and making a copy for your own personal purposes. All other acts of reproduction and communication to the public are subject to the licensing conditions expressed by editors and authors and require consent from them. Any link to this document should be made using its official URL in Dialnet. More info: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI
|