U.S. Refuses to Join U.N. Call to End Anti-Homosexuality Laws

reply to post by Mikey84


I couldn't agree more!

I've asked a bunch of my christian friends about why they are against gay marriage. It turned out most of them disliked it, because under anti-discrimination laws, churches would be forced to marry gays. I looked into this further, and found that this is because churches register as charities. If they registered as a business they could legally not marry gays.

So it seems to me that churches are putting money before their morals, I don't remember that lesson from bible class.

reply to post by Christian Voice

A 17 year old girl or boy, and even 14, or 15 years old can honestly give consent about what they wish to have done to their bodies, don't tell me they cannot.

I'm guessing that you are unaware that most people found guilty of statutary rape have had relationships of a heterosexual nature,not homosexual,with a teenager.This simple fact is usually ignored by people who share your opinion.No one likes truth getting in the way do they.

Oh, and let's not be so dang dramatic about things. How often do you really believe that people are executed because they are homosexual? Rarely. Even in third world nations and Islamic nations.

You mean that if enough are killed you may change your opinion?
How many executions would it take for you to be disgusted that people face such treatment because of their sexuality?




[edit on 23-12-2008 by DantesLost]

reply to post by ConservativeJack


very well said......

Originally posted by DantesLost
reply to post by ChronMan

 

It doesn't matter if you agree with or not.What matters is the injustice and violence homosexuals experience in other countries.

Would you like to be put to death for having consensual sex with another adult?

Have you ever shown anger when you've heard about a woman being stoned to death,ever said it was wrong and an outrage?

If so,why?
And would you say the same if the woman was a lesbian?

To be honest, I could care less what the cultural practices are for people of cultures far removed from mine, especially if those practices work to uphold some sort of societal stability.

I don't actively question the politics of another country when their own people condone whats taking place. I don't know if you realized, but gov't -typically- represent the majority; if the majority believe homosexuality to be unacceptable in their culture, it'd behoove homosexuals to expatriate themselves from the culture rather than remain there and disrespect values that have existed before them, esle there will be consequences.

If the culture prohibits same sex sexuintercourse or relationships, don't engage yourself with the same sex, its that simple.

Here in America, people aren't being put to death.

If you'd like to judge other cultures based on the values you've been enculturated with as an American or "Westerner", that would make you an ethnocentrist.

I would not like to be put to death for doing something I enjoy, but I understand that there has to be some degree of cultural respect. I'd like to smoke weed in public places without being harassed by authorities, but this is against the law; conversely, same sex relations are against the law -which was defined by the citizens- and these activities must be avoided.

It might be oblivious some here in America, but many countries in the world actually take their religious convictions seriously. If you're a homosexual, you'd do well to adapt to your enviornmental context.

Again, I don't have much reservations concerning the cultural practices of other countries.

Do I think stoned deaths are brutal? Yes. Do I think think the punishment was more than likely disproportional to the crime? Yes. Do I understand that my perceptions are such because I wasn't enculturated with respect to said culture, therefore should avoid judging cultures based on the values of mine? Yes.

I shouldn't have to suspend my values to uphold those of another for the sole purpose of appealing to "Acceptance", its ridiculous, especially when the exchange isn't reciprocated. Homosexuals aren't actively suspending their values in order to uphold those of others.

reply to post by ChronMan


While I understand the idea of staying out of another sovereign country's business one must draw the line at some point.

Not to be cliche - but are you saying If Hitler and Nazi Germany were currently slaughtering the Jews, as they did, you would stand by and do nothing...?

I'm not saying the situation is in any way equal to the holocaust I am simply commenting on your pacifist attitude towards human rights.

~Peace

[edit on 23-12-2008 by archetype_one]

reply to post by archetype_one


There is only one way to interpret most things in the Bible there skippy. When the Bible says that a man lying with a man as with a woman is an abomination, that's exactly what it means.

reply to post by Christian Voice


And do you know what abomination means?

Modern Christian interpretations are that it is an act which is offensive or disgusting.

But ancient and modern Hebrew/Jewish interpretations tell you it means something which is ritually unclean.i.e.something that should not be performed as part of worship or a religious ceremony.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
Gays want a Christian marriage...

No they don't. They want a state marriage. Marriage CAN be religious, but it's a LEGAL union. This isn't about religion. It's about equal marriage rights and equal protection under the LAW.

[edit on 22-12-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Ohhhh that brings up a VERY interesting side question -

Would you be in favor of granting gays the right to marry AS LONG AS the marriage ceremony or whatever was necessary to be performed was required to remove ALL references to God and religion?

What if the Supreme Court made this the pivot point on the gay marriage issue - gays can have their right to marry but the documentation, the ceremony in the witness of a Justice of the Peace MUST NOT mention God. In other words, the JOP cannot say "By the power of God AND the State of blahblah, I now pronouce ..." - they must only say "By the power vested in me by the state of blah". Also no mention of God or church on the marriage licence or on any of the documentation.

If gays could not have God and the State in a "marriage", only a state, would you go for it and do you think the gay community would go for it?

[edit on 23-12-2008 by sos37]

reply to post by ConservativeJack


My parents had a very interesting marriage.

My fathers side was Catholic, my mothers Christian.
As a result they were married up on Snoqualmie Pass, by a Judge.
Yes it is a legitimate marriage, it is both spiritually and legally recognized.
This is actually very common, especially on the west coast, but not so much in the mid-west/east coast.

p.s. And I'm Buddhist.

[edit on 23-12-2008 by Tenzin]

Originally posted by archetype_one
reply to post by ChronMan

 

While I understand the idea of staying out of another sovereign country's business one must draw the line at some point.

Not to be cliche - but are you saying If Hitler and Nazi Germany were currently slaughtering the Jews, as they did, you would stand by and do nothing...?

I'm not saying the situation is in any way equal to the holocaust I am simply commenting on your pacifist attitude towards human rights.

~Peace

[edit on 23-12-2008 by archetype_one]

Oh noes, the platitudinous NAZI/Hitler bit...

Homos can always -as I've said- expatriate themselves from their country of oppression. The laws ask that citizens refrain from engaging in sexual relations with the same sex, respect it.

These laws have been well-defined and they don't violate human rights, as human rights are essentially defined by said culture.

I'll allow you to educate yourself with the concept of ethnocentrism. We can maybe then rectify the debate, as I don't find it entertaining to waste time debating with impulsive internet personalities who rely on platitudes to illustrate their points.

Originally posted by Christian Voice
reply to post by archetype_one

 

There is only one way to interpret most things in the Bible there skippy. When the Bible says that a man lying with a man as with a woman is an abomination, that's exactly what it means.

As I stated in another thread - None of the words in the original Hebrew or Greek texts (new or old) accurately translate to our modern word for, or concept of, homosexuality.

Levitical law was designed for the Israelites (more specifically the priests) under the old covenant. Any part of the Bible that says anything about man laying with another man being an abomination does not apply to Jews or Gentiles, post Christ, living under the new priesthood and NEW covenant.

Leviticus was written as an instruction to the Jews and the tribe of Levi on how to perform temple offerings and keep the israelites cleansed in the eyes of God in accordance with the OLD covenant.

It would have been ritualistically unclean for the priests to engage in homosexual acts as it pertained to their "priestly" duties, just as it was ritualistically unclean to touch a woman during her menstrual cycle and a horde of other laws that make no sense to us today - Christ fulfilled the old covenant and abolished the law.

How can you call yourself a Christian and not have a basic understanding of Christian theology? Read the below link for Biblical references on how Christ fulfilled and thus abolished the old testament law.

thywordistruth.wordpress.com...

When you come at a homosexual citing Old Testament laws as a reason why he should not be accepted and treated equally it is like listening to some one try to explain physics through the use of cave paintings!

To say the Bible is to be taken literally and is not open to interpretation is just one interpretation of what scripture says about itself - You and your oxymorons!

If so little of the Bible is open to interpretation how did we end up with an English translation of the Bible and not only one but many, many versions! Were the translators not, by default, forced to interpret the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew texts in order to put it in an English framework? - Take the words chosen for Homosexuality for instance - Again, oxymoron! It's all an interpretation and translation of the original texts.

~Peace

Originally posted by ChronMan

Originally posted by archetype_one
reply to post by ChronMan

 

While I understand the idea of staying out of another sovereign country's business one must draw the line at some point.

Not to be cliche - but are you saying If Hitler and Nazi Germany were currently slaughtering the Jews, as they did, you would stand by and do nothing...?

I'm not saying the situation is in any way equal to the holocaust I am simply commenting on your pacifist attitude towards human rights.

~Peace

[edit on 23-12-2008 by archetype_one]

Oh noes, the platitudinous NAZI/Hitler bit...

Homos can always -as I've said- expatriate themselves from their country of oppression. The laws ask that citizens refrain from engaging in sexual relations with the same sex, respect it.

These laws have been well-defined and they don't violate human rights, as human rights are essentially defined by said culture.

I'll allow you to educate yourself with the concept of ethnocentrism. We can maybe then rectify the debate, as I don't find it entertaining to waste time debating with impulsive internet personalities who rely on platitudes to illustrate their points.

Wow - The last of the Holocaust victims have not yet even passed and their experience is already considered a platitude, that's sad.

My comments do not constitute ethnocentrism - the OP pertained to a proposition put forth under the UN General Assembly and it applied to ALL nations! Human rights applies to ALL nations otherwise it would be American Rights, or Chinese Rights - we are all human!

human right
noun (usu. human rights)
a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person : a flagrant disregard for basic human rights | communication is a fundamental human right.

I did not drag my views onto the global stage in this thread the OP started off on that premise!

Hm, I guess when we don't like a law we should do nothing...Just like the blacks did nothing to gain equality and women did nothing to gain the right vote - oops! There I go again, with those darn platitudes!


[edit on 23-12-2008 by archetype_one]

We need the UN to help unify the world, no one else seems to care. Until we do, we are going to keep fighting and killing each other. World Government.... Has anyone thought about what it would be like if world government were truly in the hands of the people; the people of humanity?

We should stop looking at other people's problems, as "their problems," and think of them as "our problems." If we work together to solve problems we will find resolutions much quicker than on our own.

Also those of you who say that it isn't "your" culture and you shouldn't have to care about it, makes you akin to those who do torture and kill such people. Indifference kills more people than murders do. Turning a blind eye, that is.

[edit on 23-12-2008 by Tenzin]

reply to post by archetype_one


Why debate when theres no trade-off, zero-sum games are a waste of time don't you think?

If you don't intend to acquire a new perspective, why even debate?

I made my input and you found it necessary to address it; upon further expounding, you see it fit to facilitate this tit-for-tat nature of the discussion.

Originally posted by ChronMan
reply to post by archetype_one

 

Why debate when theres no trade-off, zero-sum games are a waste of time don't you think?

If you don't intend to acquire a new perspective, why even debate?

I made my input and you found it necessary to address it; upon further expounding, you see it fit to facilitate this tit-for-tat nature of the discussion.

I see, you insult me by calling me an "impulsive internet personality" then trivialize my position by referring to the holocaust as a platitude and you want concessions from me?

Okay, I concede, you have convinced me that I should change my perspective. I should, in fact, be just fine with my government refusing to sign a measure that would give additional protection to gays throughout the world, I should support them turning a blind-eye to human rights.

We were wrong, as a nation, to join WWII to stop a genocidal dictator, we were wrong in the Gulf War for the same reasons, blacks were wrong to stand up for their rights, so were women.

Homosexuals around the world should be fine with being labeled criminals, sub-human, degenerates, sinners, vile and worthy of execution!

This is NOT a zero-sum game, these are my rights and my lifestyle we are talking about - human rights - do not trivialize that.

[edit on 24-12-2008 by archetype_one]

reply to post by MacDonagh


The ceremony of marriage should not be limited to the purview of the Roman Catholic Church, or under any other organized religion for that matter. The state has the ultimate ability and the right to redefine civil union under law. It really should just get to it already. It's not just about certain individuals having particular sexual organs, or having been born with different chromosomes. It's about the natural liberty of an adequately sentient species.

Our future is going to become increasingly more complex as our biological systems become increasingly more redundant. Our bodies will merely be vestigial structures of a primordial past. The emergence of civilization has given us a great opportunity to expand intellectually, and to forgo the trivialities of our ancient bodies and social structures. As long as civilization itself isn't on the brink of collapse we shouldn't concern ourselves with having to appropriately fill the existing social hierarchies.

We are becoming increasingly less dependent on these primitive social arrangements, such as heterosexual coupling and religion, and therefore, as individuals, we must fight to pursue our lives as well as we wish. All we must keep in mind is that the liberty of our neighbors can not be negatively affected.

Existing social institutions must be restructured as individualism in this next century takes a greater hold.

[edit on 24-12-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by archetype_one


"These laws have been well-defined and they don't violate human rights, as human rights are essentially defined by said culture."

I doubt you've ever picked up a serious treatise on law or philosophy. Human rights are gifted by God, the creator, but not God as he is portrayed through the Bible. That would be ridiculous. God is simply an extended metaphor for universal existence. So we must agree that there are some certainly unalienable rights, which can not be violated, regardless of cultural upbringing, society, or religious dogma. These have been defined by over thousands of years of philosophical literature, which you have so obviously and blatantly not bothered to concern yourself with. If human rights were derived from cultural experience, we would have a tragedy of the commons, run to the ground by the ignorant, self-interested masses, yourself included. That is why this community is working so hard to crush out your thoughts, because they have no real place in civil society. It's natural selection at work.

[edit on 24-12-2008 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by cognoscente
reply to post by archetype_one

 

"These laws have been well-defined and they don't violate human rights, as human rights are essentially defined by said culture."

I doubt you've ever picked up a serious treatise on law or philosophy. Human rights are gifted by God, the creator, but not God as he is portrayed through the Bible. That would be ridiculous. God is simply an extended metaphor for universal existence. So we must agree that there are some certainly unalienable rights, which can not be violated, regardless of cultural upbringing, society, or religious dogma. These have been defined by over thousands of years of philosophical literature, which you have so obviously and blatantly not bothered to concern yourself with. If human rights were derived from cultural experience, we would have a tragedy of the commons, run to the ground by the ignorant, self-interested masses, yourself included. That is why this community is working so hard to crush out your thoughts, because they have no real place in civil society. It's natural selection at work.

[edit on 24-12-2008 by cognoscente]

Just to clarify - The quote:

"These laws have been well-defined and they don't violate human rights, as human rights are essentially defined by said culture."

was posted by ChronMan, not archetype_one. I believe your response should be directed at ChronMan.

[edit on 24-12-2008 by archetype_one]

Originally posted by ConservativeJack

Originally posted by DantesLost
reply to post by ConservativeJack

 

Gays, quite frankly, start your OWN religion and make marriage between homosexuals and lesbians the OFFICIAL version of your marriage.

Many homosexuals who are tortured and/or executed are not of the same religion.In countries were state and religion are one,your own faith counts for nothing,it is not the law of the land.

Homosexuals should not have to start their own religion in order to stop themselves from being persecuted.Women have not done that,black people have not done that,asians have not done that so why should homosexuals?

Torturing and executing what? You lost me.

Homosexuals should not have to hijack the sacred marriage philosophy between one man and one woman.

Women, African Americans, Asians....explain the connection between the homosexual movement? I don't see it, it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Gays want a Christian marriage...

but please, take some more time, thoroughly thinking out your next post I have a hard time reading your thoughts.

And what of Hindus?
The crown prince is gay and had to leave the country because homosexuality is punishable.