U.N. council passes gay rights resolution

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
This is ridiculous, they are worried about gay rights than the people in Africa starving or the people in Palestine being killed by the terrorist zionst/nazis or the civilians being killed by NATO in Libya. Seriously gays will be punished by god and the world has its priorities messed up and will also be punished.


What? Gays are being discriminated against in many places in the world, even being killed for their orientation. It was about time that UN has condemned this. They are being punished by humans, not by your nonexistent god.

Also, your argument does not make any sense, one wrong does not make another wrong right.





posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Jocko Flocko
 


Bless!

But I have tried it, lol. When I was younger I did rather a lot of experimenting. I was on the receiving end, lol!!!

In my case, I just came to those conclusions. I can't speak for every one else, but I just decided that I liked women better.

I did tell you I was a sinner. I aint perfect, not by a long shot.

I honestly am not judging anyone, because I don't hate gay people. I have had lots of gay and lesbian friends in my life - my ex wife was bisexual.

I found this thread very interesting in terms of learning a few things.

I think that the rights the U.N is giving is perhaps because there is much animosity in the world about this.

After consideration I guess it is to try and protect people from the more barbaric practices of those who have hounded gay people. Like I said I would rather die than hurt anyone else.

I just decided the way for me was through Christianity and heterosexuality. But I am not shoving that on anyone else.

Wish you good times, my friend.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by theUNKNOWNawaits
 


This thread has been a learning experience for me.

Blahhhh! You know, to each his or her own. I aint no dictator and I aint got all the answers.

Go have your rights. There is a lot of hatred in the world and we all need protection and rights for who we are.

I just could not condemn anyone else, aint in my soul.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Because "gay rights" and "human rights" are, for all intents and purposes, interchangable phrases; there's no functional difference. Unfortunately, for a long time, they were legally different - in that sexuality and gender identity were not mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human rights.

While it seems like just a "common sense" thing that since gay people are human, all human rights should apply to them equally, the legalese mumbo-jumbo allowed for, eh, "alternative" interpretations. Basically this resolution affirms and puts into writing what was really there all along, just unwritten and loopholed.


They are interchangeable, and if a country would enforce "human rights", including the U.S., we wouldn't have to have a group exercising rights that other groups aren't recognized to have. My problem with "gay rights", or even "women's rights", "black rights", "age rights", or what have you, is that other humans with the exact same rights are exclusive of those rights by definition. If I'm straight, I don't have gay rights. If I'm white, I don't have black rights. It's like "hate crimes". WTF is a hate crime? Is there a love crime? It's singling out certain groups and presuming to give them rights that they already have as human beings.


should it matter who takes the lead?


My question leads (haha...er...nm) to my question of enforcement.


Same way all human rights are enforced... which brings us to the unfortunate fact that the UN has a hard time actually making any serious move on human rights violations, since many nations in the UN have a vested interest in continuing some human rights violations while also having an interest in stopping others. For instance, the US has an interest in protecting its own human rights violations in the Middle East, as well as covering Israel's ass for its Human Rights violations. However the Us is an outspoken critic of Iran's human rights violations - unlike china, which covers Iran's ass for economic reasons.

It'd be nice if the UN had more teeth to enforce human rights. But the UN doesn't really work that way. However it can lean moralistic pressure on certain nations that are aiding and abetting; for instance Uganda's current drive to eradicate its gay people is being fueled and funded by American Christians; with this resolution, perhaps the US will make moves to cut off American support for that travesty.


The U.S. uses "human rights violations" as a pretense for the opportunity to invade a sovereign nation for their resources. Nation-building is big business, and this is a coup for the U.S. to get the U.N. to agree to back us when we invade more countries for oil...oops...I meant to say human rights violations.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
A relationship = 1 man and 1 woman. Simple.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thwax
A relationship = 1 man and 1 woman. Simple.


How compassionate and humanitarian of you.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


This isn't about compassion or humanitarianism, it is about nature.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thwax
reply to post by The Old American
 


This isn't about compassion or humanitarianism, it is about nature.


Homosexuality does occur in nature. Also, the resolution is not about nature, it is about discrimination and abuse of homosexuals. Even people that consider homosexuality unnatural or a sin cannot agree with that, can they?
edit on 18/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


If by discrimination you mean the full re-criminalisation of homosexuality, then yes, I do agree with that.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thwax
reply to post by The Old American
 


This isn't about compassion or humanitarianism, it is about nature.


The irony in that statement is almost palpable. Nature should be fortunate to have you representing her.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
They are interchangeable, and if a country would enforce "human rights", including the U.S., we wouldn't have to have a group exercising rights that other groups aren't recognized to have. My problem with "gay rights", or even "women's rights", "black rights", "age rights", or what have you, is that other humans with the exact same rights are exclusive of those rights by definition. If I'm straight, I don't have gay rights. If I'm white, I don't have black rights. It's like "hate crimes". WTF is a hate crime? Is there a love crime? It's singling out certain groups and presuming to give them rights that they already have as human beings.


I hope I'm not being too presumptuous; are you a straight white male? Presumably American, probably some flavor of Christian? I ask because, well, that tends to be the standard template for people who profess an inability to "get it." Not that you're dumb because of any of those traits, but rather because these particular issues just don't cross your path unless you choose to read or hear about them.

First off, a hate crime is a crime motivated by hatred of a particular group of people. It's really quite simple. If I beat a guy up because I personally dislike that guy, then the problem is between he and I. However, if I beat him up because he's black and I dislike black people... then any other black person could easily be a victim of my assault. The prejudices driving my criminal behavior make me a clear risk for ALL people who fall under that prejudice. My motive is to cause harm and fear among a particular group of people.

Now, for the subject of "category" rights... well, the fact is like I said, while it would seem plain common sense that these rights fall under universal "human rights" the sad fact of reality is that this fact has often been completely ignored by ruling majorities, so there's a need to pull out the spotlights, and enumerate, make clear to all looking, that yes, THOSE people have human rights, too.

Bear in mind that there are still plenty of nations and cultures where certain groups of human aren't actually considered human, too; Children and women are often relegated to subhuman status, for instance, so there's a need to point out that yes, there are rights that even women and children in particular have as human beings.

It's not that other groups lack these rights. It's simply drawing highlights on an as-needed basis.



My question leads (haha...er...nm) to my question of enforcement.

The U.S. uses "human rights violations" as a pretense for the opportunity to invade a sovereign nation for their resources. Nation-building is big business, and this is a coup for the U.S. to get the U.N. to agree to back us when we invade more countries for oil...oops...I meant to say human rights violations.

/TOA


Actually it's never invaded a country on the basis of human rights. Certain American politicians try to sell the invasion to the American public with the "human rights" angle, but the annoying fact is, our politicians don't need to sell us on a war, they just do it anyway. Now, we have given support to other efforts in the name of human rights (Bosnia and Kosovo, now Libya) but those weren't actually invasions.
edit on 18/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Thwax
 


Sigh. People and their constant efforts to divorce humanity from nature.

If gay people exist, then by definition, homosexuality is natural. Do gay people exist? Naturally. Ergo...?

We don't need gay penguins to justify gay humans; gay humans are justification enough!
edit on 18/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


It's a great pity that you feel it necessary to use personal insults against me. The debate could have gone well, alas, you chose to degrade it. A great shame on your part. I have reported your post, should it be removed, I hope it will encourage you to debate like an adult in the future.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Thwax because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Thwax
 


Maslo was certainly not the one who degraded it, Thwax. I'm afraid the onus for that lies with you, and your statement of support for the criminalization of homosexuality.
edit on 18/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I expressed my opinion respectfully. I didn't use insults, or degrading labels. I am entitled to express my opinion, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it. Or does my right to free speech not count?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thwax
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I expressed my opinion respectfully. I didn't use insults, or degrading labels. I am entitled to express my opinion, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it. Or does my right to free speech not count?


In plenty of countries, advocating limiting basic rights and freedoms of other people is a crime punishable by quite a few years in prison. Free speech has its limits, incinting violence and criminal activity is one of them.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I'm afraid I've had to report you again. Such a shame, as you seem like the sort of person capable of holding a debate but you let yourself down with personal attacks.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I wasn't aware that I advocated violence in any of my posts. If you feel that I have, I would like to know what posts they were.





top topics
 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join