The UN has Voted to Remove Gays from Execution Protection

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
Yes well...

Technically it was not about gays, it was about "sexual orientation" and that works both ways... so, gays and heterosexuals are both off the "execution protection" based on "sexual orientation". So maybe theres a little country of gay ppl who as of now can accuse someone of being "heterosexual" and execute them based on that someone's sexual orientation..

If I care? No I don't... I just came here to state the fact that this isnt about homosexuality but about "sexual orientation".

Oh and you ppl who like to get intimate with sheep or chickens, you can now be executed for it also.

This just proves that gays really like to be different and think they deserve a "special place" in society... well thats too bad... someone call rainbow-man to the rescue of gay "rights" (or whatever gays think they're entitled to just because of their "sexual orientation")

Ok, and that's supposed to make it sound any better? If I enslave someone and say, I'm being fair and just because you ALL are being enslaved equally, does that make it right? No, it doesn't.

Democracy in an assembly like this sucks. The UN should have a set of rules that everyone has to follow no matter what, because when a the majority subscribe to one religion, it will always reflect their views even if it promotes violence and hate which is the opposite of what the UN is supposed to be about.

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
well thats too bad... someone call rainbow-man to the rescue of gay "rights" (or whatever gays think they're entitled to just because of their "sexual orientation")

How about life?

You, sir, need to stop being such a shallow little.... let's say "biggot" for politeness' sake.

Cute, but simply shallow.

Where have you ever heard of discrimination against people solely because they are heterosexual? Never. I guess you're arguing with nonexistent data... maybe you should stick to the PS3 when you want to gurgitate childish tripe like this.

I would much prefer people kill us heterosexuals for the fun of it. We seem to have nothing better to do but make up reasons to kill eachother over completely illogical nonsense in the name of "morals". MORALS. I kill people, but at least I stick my penis in a vagina when I'm horny... or I would have serious ethical problems

edit on 27-5-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)

I was counting on a answer like that when I wrote this.

Well... "Where have you ever heard of discrimination against people solely because they are heterosexual? Never."

Hmmm... lets see... there must be a reason for that. Can you think of any reason? You can use a biology book to help you on that one. Or see nature's laws... or read darwin, but I'm sure you'll come up with a pretty good explanation for that.

As for "killing"... I fail to see the difference between "we" heterosexuals and "them" homosexuals. Man you almost make it sound like two different species. Wow... yer worse than I am...

Main reason mate... I dont care if you're prosecuted in Uganda for being gay. The world faces bigger problems than this "about me me me me" attitude from gay activists always more worried about themselves than with real world issues. Now they stopped being an "issue", and that ticks them off... no spotlight, no fun.

Like I said before, my post was not because I care, its just because the vote was about "sexual preferences" and not about "homosexuals". It may not make a difference to you, but is just another step for "equality"

Couple of things,

First, yes the vast majority of UN resolutions really have no teeth, so for NOW the issue here is academic. However, it does show some of the variance in social evolution when something as benign as sexual orientation can be seen as a reason to execute a person.

For those reasoning that somehow sovereignty trumps basic human rights and dignity, just wait till your government considers you a threat for your beliefs or lifestyles. Many of you speak out against government intrusion into your personal lives and claim you will defend yourselves if your government ever goes to far. A persons sexual orientation is on a pretty personal level.I seem to remember not to long ago, there were laws against certain positions and reasons (Procreation only!) for sex. Perhaps these governments will bring these laws back and come knocking on your door when you are not doing with your personal life as they prescribe, after all, majority rules absolutely....right?
Cue in the idiots that will claim a slippery slope to bestiality, pedophilia and other forms of NON-consensual sex as the equivalent of an adult gay couple or any consenting adults exploring their sexuality.

With so many members blowing the freedom horn, an awful lot of you blowing that horn like to seek blood from those who do not believe or act the way you consider "moral" by your standards.I guess freedom only means something if it conforms to your view of the world.

One the subject of conspiracies, a long running one here is the fear or one world government. If a world government were to be formed, who do you think would be the governing body, at least at first? I place bets on the UN. Now is the perfect time to get those controversial resolutions in, after all they have no teeth for NOW.

Second, conspiracies aside, all the security council members (except China) voted against the change. Security council members have veto powers and any one could strike down the change without approval if they wanted.

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni

Main reason mate... I dont care if you're prosecuted in Uganda for being gay. The world faces bigger problems than this "about me me me me" attitude from gay activists always more worried about themselves than with real world issues. Now they stopped being an "issue", and that ticks them off... no spotlight, no fun.

This can be said for anything mate, and it's quite shallow.

"I don't care if your going homeless because of the economy. The world faces bigger problems than this 'about me me me' attitude' from poor people always more worried about themselves than with real world issues."

Sure, killing some one for their sexual orientation is equality, but in reality no one is going to be killing a straight person because they are straight so obviously this is against gay/bi people. Is this the PEACE and UNITY that the United Nations is looking for? If so then it's disgusting and if not then that was a UN fail right there.

I wish the US wasn't in the UN, then they can do what they please.

I don't like em, never liked em, and never will.

I don't understand the US - if you want to be FREE, then you can't have tons of laws over your head. So I guess most of us don't have enough, so we go above, below, and beyond. We want our laws from the UN to our HOAs.

As for me, the ones my local government are making are horrid enough.

The world is now going backwards.
it will be ok to hang the blacks next!
but for now.
they can execute gays.
and they are not braking the law.
a cop can shoot a gay.
oh! they do that any way.

and the Muslims will see this as an ok to kill gays.
oh! they do that any way.

Is this not a great world we live in.

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni

I was counting on a answer like that when I wrote this.

Well... "Where have you ever heard of discrimination against people solely because they are heterosexual? Never."

Hmmm... lets see... there must be a reason for that. Can you think of any reason? You can use a biology book to help you on that one. Or see nature's laws... or read darwin, but I'm sure you'll come up with a pretty good explanation for that.

Maybe if people could pick up a history book they would also find that biology has made every living sexual organism have a heterosexual and homosexual that has actually proven to fluxuate linearly with population density in certain species.

As for "killing"... I fail to see the difference between "we" heterosexuals and "them" homosexuals. Man you almost make it sound like two different species. Wow... yer worse than I am...

Yet you think it's okay to take to take out a clause that protects ALL members? That's your version of equality? Protecting no one instead? Which leaves ONE of them much more vulnerable than the other... which we just discussed.... you really can't get to the bottom of this on your own?

Main reason mate... I dont care if you're prosecuted in Uganda for being gay. The world faces bigger problems than this "about me me me me" attitude from gay activists always more worried about themselves than with real world issues. Now they stopped being an "issue", and that ticks them off... no spotlight, no fun.

Ever think that maybe people get angry when ANYONE dies arbitrarily? This isn't a "gay agenda" issue, it's a humanity issue. And I would appreciate it if you dropped your complacent nonsense. I could just as easily say "I don't care about 9/11, Americans are just ignorant know-it-all morons anyways". It has nothing to do whatever the victims are subscribing to, it has everything to do with the fact that people are using that to single them out and kill them in cold blood for it -- REGARDLESS of what it is.

Like I said before, my post was not because I care, its just because the vote was about "sexual preferences" and not about "homosexuals". It may not make a difference to you, but is just another step for "equality"

It seems more like advocacy for surface-thinking.

reply to post by AnteBellum


UN bahahahahah! What the hell would those pussy, gutless and weak idiots know! Complete rubbish! No one deserves to die based on sexual preference! Its that simple! Probably stupid extremist Muslims & Christians influencing the vote!

To the leaders of these countries who voted for this you are scum!

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Salam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe

With the exception of the Russian Federation & South Africa these are nothing "backward" countries!

I'm not even Gay and see it as wrong!

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni

The world faces bigger problems than this "about me me me me" attitude from gay activists always more worried about themselves than with real world issues.

Like what? Protecting basic human rights is one of the the biggest issues the world faces now. That includes fighting against laws criminalizing sexual orientations.

Now they stopped being an "issue", and that ticks them off... no spotlight, no fun.

lol, maybe in the west. Gays and other sexual minorities are still prosecuted in plenty of places all around the world.

I'm just relieved to see that the majority of Latin American nations voted against it. Although I must say I am not at all surprised at the list of countries favoring the measure.

The UN cannot enforce these policies either way you look at it. Each sovereign nation has its own laws and customs. And even though I am gay, and still think of it as wrong, regardless where it takes place, it's not like the US or the UN have the authority to interfere. Every country has to evolve on their own. The people have to stand up for their rights.

Originally posted by Maslo
lol, maybe in the west. Gays and other sexual minorities are still prosecuted in plenty of places all around the world.

edit on 27/5/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

True about the undeveloped nations, but we still have our deal of crap to deal with in the West. Gay suicides have gone through the roof as a result of the internet allowing some pretty extreme "cyber bullying" through large online social media platforms like MySpace and Facebook that are targeted at, and dominated by, the "internet generation". It can be described as a silent genocide in the softest terms and nobody seems to want to take it seriously.

reply to post by hadriana


There are no laws imposed by the UN in the USA. Not one or name it.

Any regulation by international law was accepted through treaty by the USA.
The Kyoto Protocol was never ratified by the USA and doesn't apply in the USA and the handful of countries who didn't ratify it for example.
One can be a UN member and refuse regulations or agreements he doesn't like.

There is a persistent perspective in America that it's otherwise. Why ? Does your political class constantly blaim the UN for this and that ?
Outside of the US, the UN is generally viewed as an American-led organisation. That the UN imposes things over the US is ludicrous.

reply to post by Manouche


I agree with everything but that statement that outside of the US, the UN is viewed as an American organization. The US is one of the only developed countries on the list that blatantly ignores everything that the UN advises against should it interfere with their corporate agendas (e.g. war in Iraq). The US doesn't want to listen to the UN and they haven't exactly been subtle about it.

reply to post by TheOrangeBrood


I understand your point and agree completely. It's not in contradiction with what I was saying.

reply to post by TheOrangeBrood


Yes, and I agree with you. Shallow and surface thinking... like the very subject. So my way of treating this as shallow is perfectly adequate and everyone is making a big fuss about something that already is the way it is regardless of this UN thing.

You see... before the UN, countries that voted against have their own laws that state that you cant be executed or prosecuted based in a person's sexual orientation. Those countries will behave exactly the same way as before. In the US it will still be like it was. On the other side of the coin, we have those countries who voted to remove. Now, its not because of the UN that they'll start to kill gays in a spree. This is not a "00 license to kill" gays... they will do exactly as they've been doing till now, only now they wont have to lie about it. You really think Uganda needed the UN to let them kill ppl based on their sexual orientation? They commit genocides, please... I dont think a tribe needs the UN approval for anything.

See why I dont care and why I'm shallow? Because it doesnt change anything. And everyone worried about this must be living in a fantasy world thinking the UN actually protected anything or anyone before this.

It will all remain the same and this is nothing but a distraction for the masses and to let ppl have something to talk about... just that. So I think this "resolution" is pointless... S.S.D.D (hope you know what it means cause I got a whole post removed for the "bad word" in it... oh well...)

How would people feel if the UN took a vote on removing babies from the execution prevention list? Would you consider that to be an example of "democracy working how it should" or an example of "each nation is sovereign and can do what it wants?"

People need to contemplate things a bit before they form an opinion and speak it.

Can anyone find the 17 countries that abstained from voting? Had they voted against this measure, it would have been enough to prevent it's passage. The abstaining votes are just as guilty in my opinion.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


I didn't understand it that way at all. I thought it had to do with extrajudicial killings and "group-targeted" executions. In other words, someone is gay or of a different ethnic group or a different religion, so it's not ok, as the executive or goverment employee to just off that person for those reasons.

I understood that this was taking away a "tisk-tisk" wag of the finger for that type of extrajudicial killing. I'll look into it deeper. But, as far as logic prevails, I fail to see any government that does carry out executions to say, oh, even though that guy murdered five people, we're not going to send him to the electric chair because he's gay/black/Jewish/whatever. It'd be the other way around, wouldn't it? Plus, if that is the case, are we really arguing that China and Iran are trying to be more egalitarian here?