U.N. council passes gay rights resolution

reply to post by buster2010


This is a interesting side of this u.n resolution.Now i don't know much about this but the definition of a pedophile is

English - Definition of pedophile n. pedophile, person who suffers from pedophilia, person with an abnormal sexual attraction to young children

So it sounds like a sexual orientation towards children soo would they now be "protected"?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Nosred

 

If you formulate it as having the right to have union with those who you are sexually attracted to recognized by the state, then they are not equal.

Then the same thing would apply to pedophiles and incestuous relationships.

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Nosred

 

If you formulate it as having the right to have union with those who you are sexually attracted to recognized by the state, then they are not equal.

Then the same thing would apply to pedophiles and incestuous relationships.

OK, change it to union with those capable of informed consent, then. As for incestuous relationships, it is looked down upon because of increased chance of genetic defects of the offspring, so this procreation is what needs to be banned, not the incestuous marriage itself.

I will admit that I'm ignorant of the subject of 'Gay Rights' and I don't know anyone who is gay so my question is what rights are gays denied that is granted to the rest of society?

What I see is that 'Gay' people have jobs, homes, driving privileges, shop in the same stores as heterosexuals, vote, hold elected positions etc.

Is this about all about marriage? I never knew marriage was a right. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that marriage is a right.

I'm really ignorant on the issue of "Gay Rights' because I do have much more important things to do than to learn about a behavior what I consider 'abstract'.

There are serious issues in this world and since they are too 'difficult'(or just plain ignored) to resolve, the UN takes a stance on an issue that requires very little effort if any at all.

WHO CARES

Originally posted by The Old American
/sigh

I know what a hate crime is defined as. Please don't be condescending. I'm attempting to hold an intelligent debate with you. If you have an "inability to get it", then admit to it.

Hate crimes legislation is a tool for special interest groups to right the perceived wrongs against them. The U.S. "justice system" has a long-standing tradition of ignoring the basic rights of all citizens due to some of them being a different color, living a different lifestyle, being the wrong sex, or age. So the term "hate crime" was created in order to prosecute those violations.

But with the creation of these new laws if I, a white, straight, mid-40s male, gets beaten up by a group of Asian, homosexual, 20s females, they get an assault and battery charge. The likelihood that they will be charged under hate crime legislation is slim.

Are they attacking you because you are white? because you are male? because you are straight? Then that is a hate crime and they can have that added to their assault and battery charges.

Speaking only to the U.S., "gay rights" are rights a straight person doesn't have. "Women's rights" are rights men don't have, and so on. Had the U.S. enforced its laws equally those rights only afforded to certain groups wouldn't be needed. Now they are extant, and exclusive in practice.

I'm curious. What rights, exactly, do gay people, or women, or whoever, have that you do not?

I think Operation Restore Hope would like to disagree with you on that point.

/TOA

Nope, because like Kosovo, the UN was going in with hte rest of the UN. The goal was not to force Somalia to adhere to human rights, but to create a safe environment for UN relief workers.

Originally posted by Thwax
Why should I have to walk away? Why should I have to change my plans to avoid these people? Walking away is what cowards do. I deal with the situation head on and tell them to pack it in.

You don't have to walk away. You could choose to ignore them. See, the principle here is that they have the right to kiss the hell out of each other wherever they like. As YOU are the person with the problem, it falls on you to overcome your own issues, either by avoiding the situation or ignoring it. After all, it doesn't hurt you.

You have no more right to tell them to knock it off, than you have to tell a woman you find unattractive to leave the room.

reply to post by Jocko Flocko


Thanks, it took me a little while to realize, but I definitely agree that he is not worth the effort.
I still can not believe there are people out there that would support people being killed.
Were all supposed to live here peacefully as one on this world.
I guess it just shows the long road ahead to reaching what this world was supposed to be like.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Exactly!


reply to post by Thwax


Your free speech does count it is just sad to see you support the deaths of people, just because they are different then what you were brought up to believe in.
I highly doubt your family is exposed to what they do, unless someone in your family is that way.
There not criminals there people like straight people and keep their acts like you in their house.
How are they forcing their lifestyles on people? They are just trying to get the same rights we do.
People like you make me sad to live in this world.

reply to post by Garfee


"Because gay men have nothing better to do than track you down and kiss in front of you. For goodness sake..."

This made me lmao. Thank you.

reply to post by jonnywhite


Perhaps it will lead to that. But how can people let people kill each other for their orientation. We are all one and need to realize this.

reply to post by Bixxi3


Perhaps most of the time all they do is talk. But at least talk is a step in the right direction here.

reply to post by Intelearthling


If you had read the whole thread you would have read about some of the things happening around the world to gays, like them being killed and abused and having no rights at all in certain countries. It is not always just about the US. Yes, in the US the only thing they do not have is marriage, but this is about bigger things happening to them in other countries.

reply to post by ILLUMINATIOPRESS3


Apparently not you, and that is sad that you would not care for your fellow humans.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Thank you. It is nice to see people who care for humanity and are fellow humans, more than some beliefs that were ingrained in them when they were young. Blinding them from seeing that we are all one and need to treat each other this way.
We should all be able to live peacefully and have the same rights, no matter our interests, features, sexual orientations, etc.
The beautiful thing about the world is we are all different, yet we are all one (the same).
The more people can realize this the more peaceful, better, and beautiful our world will be.

reply to post by dolphinfan

Originally posted by dolphinfan
Were Obama willing to do that and risk the political capital and confrontation with Congress he would go a long way to solving this issue.

He'd go a long way toward shoring up votes for the election, too. I don't know if it's a lack of stones, or a firm commitment to compromise, but whatever it is, it's not working for his base... The coming year will be an interesting one.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
... so my question is what rights are gays denied that is granted to the rest of society?

The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice.

Nowhere in the constitution does it state that marriage is a right.

Are you under the impression that the Constitution is a grocery list of our rights that the government grants us?

Are you aware that the 9th Amendment states that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."? That means that just because some rights are explicitly listed, it doesn't mean that those NOT listed (like marriage) are not rights. Marriage does not have to appear in the Constitution to be a right. We don't get our rights from the Constitution. It's there to PROTECT our rights, not issue them.

I'm really ignorant on the issue of "Gay Rights' because I do have much more important things to do than to learn about a behavior what I consider 'abstract'.

If you have more important things to do, feel free to go do them.

We possess infinite unalieable rights, and the Constitution lists areas where they attempt to limit or put conditions on the infinite freedom and rights we already possess.

Marriage is something that we already possess, not them, and we don't need their ceremonies or church to bestow our own lawful unions. Corporate law is slavery.

For the constitution and UN is actually limiting rights illegally I might add, for it makes us, Stand Under, someone, as a child, owned, slave. Which we dont, "No Officer, I do not Stand Under you, I am a peaceful, real flesh and blood woman/person, with unalieable rights!"

Two adults may marry themselves however they see fit, they don't permission from Church or State to do it, nor pay fees, obtain liscences. If the Government which is managing illegal revenues (oh money is also slavery and criminal), nonetheless limits pensions to spouses, its not up to them to depict what a spouse is.

Thats the indivinduals rights.

Any other way of seeing it is slavery and illegal.

Corporate/Navy Law is intrinsically slavery and illegal.

The Constitution and UN is actually limiting or capping certain araes of rights you already own in abudance, to Infinity and Beyond, and I wouldnt be so happy to allow them this privilege.

The real movement is to get rid of them and the banks, and restore freedom, with cooperation, tackling everything as a Free Man/Woman with basic common law, do not harm, steal or extort. However their massive grey areas, I do not Stand Under them giving them the right to decide for me what this is and what it means.

And even Common Law, definitions of harm, steal, exhort, this isnt written in stone. Its not the rule of Law, people come first. So this is a part of counsels of citizens rather than pyramid leadership, where we collectively, wth a light footstep on limits, simply deal with this, in a way that is universal and equalizing.

So even common law isnt in their hands to define, for I Will Not and Do Not Stand Under Them!

Gays are NOT pedophiles are NOT Gays!
I am so sick of this ridiculous, neanderthalic and baseless correlation!
Seriously? What is this? The 50s still?

For those postulating on what this will do, for example using it as a pretext for "regime changes" or "resource stealing", UNHRC resolutions are not binding, unlike resolutions passed by the UNSC,. In fact, anything the UN says or does is not binding UNLESS passed by the UNSC.

Also, the UNHRC and the way it is constituted is a joke and needs reform, much like the UNSC actually. Members are elected to the council by a vote from the General Assembly and bloc voting occurs where members with appalling HR records can be elected and backed up by other members with the same records.

As for the nonsense posts about God and gays, leave it out. Just as you guys have as much right to believe in a bunch of childish stopries written thousands of years ago by illterate goat-herding nomads, so do other people on who they can love and have sex with. Bottom line is, if God is real then he'll deal with it, not you. If he isn't real, then they have done nothing wrong and you have wasted your life being an arsehole. Either way, it matters not in the long run, so keep your bigoted views to yourselves.

reply to post by stumason


Well I don't Stand Under anyone or body's bidings, I am not bound by them.

There is no ownership issues. Unless they are on par with my dream/vision, which is to me the only version that is both responsible to others, stands on the progression and collective abilities of people to accomplish goals such as global health care/dentistry, CLEAN technology, and equal distribution, but also equally respects the intrinsic freedom and unaleiable rights and empowerment of all, and their own choices as well, that their versions are CRIMES to me, and I cannot be forced to commit CRIMES with them.

So now we have a problem, no one OWNS another, their house of cards of laws are fascism and I don't endorse them, in the least, not historically or now.

Order out of Chaos, rule by LAW. NOT ON MY WATCH!

If there were different GRADES of understanding, then the most you could do is have regions where various Tribes of Thought existed, FREELY, with protection from harm individually. In other words, the only appropriate use of the UN is to safeguard individual rights, to the following:

1. To move where they wish and join other areas freely, without a need for money as MONEY is slavery, irregardless of health, income, sex, race, spiritual beliefs, etc.

2. To not be killed, murdered, harmed, raped, tortured, abused, even by use of chemtrails, chemicals, drugs, vaccinations, any form of assault of another's body and intrinsic right to govern and decide for themselves, on all things such as Religion, etc etc. Thus, non warring, police action, that means, for no expectation of reward or expectation of a pay off, (no they dont get to stay around and build bases and abuse/sexually enslave the women and run MKultra programs on the children), none, but rescue missions with Intelligent, Serve And Protect True Heros would occur.

3. To Uphold the intrinsic rights of people. Not to define them.

So, if there was no NWO or Order out of Chaos, but individual tribes, there should still be intrinsic protection and the right to say, "Hey this region I'm living in sucks, its not caring or collective enough, I am so out of here!"

Naturally I think eutopian states would gradually be the norm, highly progressed, clean energy, level 1 civilizations would have the most going for them and people would unite and upgrade on their own, realizing, WOW, you didn't need pyramids, WOW money sucked, there is abundance over here, WOW, no forcing employment, just volunteering and helping those who are not healhty, too old, or caring for young children, or anyone in general, yet providing constant options from advanced transparent schooling (not subject to gatekeepers hording the real knowledge), and constant guilds with crafts and tools, to learn everything, that MOST PEOPLE WANT TO CONTRIBUTE.

Wow, we're going over there, and so the other areas would naturally shift over themselves.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice.

An amendment declaring marriage to be between man and woman would void same sex marriage. Roe vs. Wade was based on the 9th Amendment stating that a woman had the right to kill a defenseless and unborn child. It had nothing to do with the womans body.

Are you under the impression that the Constitution is a grocery list of our rights that the government grants us?

Are you aware that the 9th Amendment states that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."? That means that just because some rights are explicitly listed, it doesn't mean that those NOT listed (like marriage) are not rights. Marriage does not have to appear in the Constitution to be a right. We don't get our rights from the Constitution. It's there to PROTECT our rights, not issue them.

Marriage has never, since the beginning of time, ever been a right...nowhere in any society including the United States. Same-sex marriage in contrary to what marriage initially meant to be. When you leave out the religious aspects of marriage, marriage is still between a man and a woman. Modern humans have perverted the meaning of marriage solely for the gain of benefits(monetary gains) which goes back to the old saying, "The love of money is the root of all evil."

If you have more important things to do, feel free to go do them.

What I was stating in my last quote was that there is no great imporatnce in the issue and certainly doesn't have anything to do with the national security and/or economic growth. It's just something I can't understand why people are in such an uproar about when there are other issues that should take precedence over this one. I'd like to also add that the United States doesn't bow to the United Nations. Just because the UN says it's 'right' doesn't make it so.

No one is saying that someone can't be gay. The gay community wants their marriage to recognized by people who don't believe in it. There was a couple who own a Bed and Breakfast and due to their religious beliefs, forbade a gay couple from occupying a room at their inn. The 1st amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This means the owners of the inn are clearly within their rights to deny the gay couple a room solely based on their beliefs. The gay couple wanted to make an issue out of it instead of accepting the fact that not everyone accepts them and their belief. What they're wanting to do is force their beliefs on the owners when they can easily go somewhere else and practice their immoral behavior where its accepted.

Give the gays the 'right' to same-sex marriage today. What kind of right will they want tomorrow? Come ianto your house and have access to your childrens minds? I can't force my beliefs on anyone else so why should I sit by and allow someone else to force their beliefs on me? Clue: Not going to happen.

reply to post by dethduck


If it is a man that is attracted little boys, then yes, a gay is also a pedophile. If it is a woman is attracted to little girls, then yes, a gay is also a pedophile. For a long time, pedophiles and gay people, were both classified in the psychologist handbook, the same exact way.

Another intrinsic freedom that the UN needs to uphold in order to have a world that is upholds intrinsic rights of citizens, is to ensure that individual freedoms no matter what tribe you were in, was free and clear from Theocracy, and Fascism, that no form of Totalitarnism or Sharia Courts or Any form of forcing people to uphold those values, when they have the unaliable right to decide for themselves, already would be allowed.

Those would be dismantled.

All people FREE.

And Children Free from one religious programming, with, as they got older only the best most positive and loving, peaceful spiritual beliefs demonstrated. Because that takes away their free will.

They should not be indoctrinated in cultural or sexual repression, no little girls buried alive for talking to their friends or married off at 9, or religious indoctrination.


Sarah Brightman-Free

Lyrics:


And then in the evening light when the bars/Birds of freedom fall
I watch the two of you in the shadows on the wall
And when the darkness steals some of the choices from my hand
Then I begin to understand

Originally posted by Bixxi3
reply to post by buster2010

 

This is a interesting side of this u.n resolution.Now i don't know much about this but the definition of a pedophile is

English - Definition of pedophile n. pedophile, person who suffers from pedophilia, person with an abnormal sexual attraction to young children

So it sounds like a sexual orientation towards children soo would they now be "protected"?

edit on 18-6-2011 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)

No a mental illness is not a sexual orientation.

Pedophilia is a type of paraphilia—a category of recognized mental disorders defined by unusual fantasies, urges, or behaviours that are recurrent and sexually arousing. In order for pedophilia to be diagnosed clinically these thoughts or behaviours must be present for at least six months and must cause distress to the affected individual or impairment of the individual’s ability to function socially or occupationally. A clinical diagnosis of pedophilia also requires that the affected individual be at least 16 years of age and at least 5 years older than the child (or children) at the centre of the individual’s sexual fantasies. Pedophilia is distinguished from hebephilia and ephebophilia, which involve sexual obsessions of postpubescent children or late-stage adolescents, respectively. In many countries an individual who is convicted in a court of law for child sexual abuse, which involves sexual abuse of a prepubescent or postpubescent individual up to age 18, is known as a sex offender; some of these individuals also are later clinically diagnosed with pedophilia.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
An amendment declaring marriage to be between man and woman would void same sex marriage.

Yes. What is your point? Are you advocating this amendment?

Roe vs. Wade was based on the 9th Amendment stating that a woman had the right to kill a defenseless and unborn child. It had nothing to do with the womans body.

And Roe v Wade has WHAT to do with this subject?

Marriage has never, since the beginning of time, ever been a right...nowhere in any society including the United States.

Oh, no, you are incorrect.

The Right to Marry

The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.
...
The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scrutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.
...
The supreme courts of three states (Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut) have, as of 2009, found bans on gay marriage to violate state constitutional provisions.

What I was stating in my last quote was that there is no great imporatnce in the issue and certainly doesn't have anything to do with the national security and/or economic growth.

From your viewpoint, it is not important. I get that. From other people's viewpoints (other people who are NOT you, who have their own brains, personalities and interests that are NOT yours)... from their point of view, it IS important.

I can't understand why people are in such an uproar about when there are other issues that should take precedence over this one.

If you think everyone should have the exact same priorities in their life as you do, that is your problem. Most of us understand that we are different from each other and have different interests, priorities and values. But like it or not, not all people think equal rights is not important.

No one is saying that someone can't be gay.

How generous.

Give the gays the 'right' to same-sex marriage today. What kind of right will they want tomorrow?

"GIVE" them their rights? Son, you don't even know what a right is. See, here is the biggest issue with people who have your "viewpoint"... You think you "give" gays their rights. You wonder what kind of rights they're going to be begging you for tomorrow. As if you're some kind of righteous judge who gets to decide who gets rights and who doesn't. That is sickening and willfully ignorant. You, and people who think like you, have some misguided idea that you have some kind of power to DENY a group of citizens something that is already theirs.

I honestly cannot wait till gay people can marry AND adopt just like the rest of us in every state in the US.