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

Originally posted by DantesLost

if they simply wanted "state" (government) rights, they could get a civil union, which provides the same legal benefits, correct or not?

Incorrect.
In America married couples receive over 1,400 rights and protections,those in a civil union,whether gay or straight,do not.

Fair enough, it's disappointing to me to hear this. I think it fair to give gays every single right as marriage provides. Can you tell me what some of the most important rights gays don't receive under civil union?

Homosexual's are not tortured and killed in civilized, modern, society. What occurs in the jungle is the jungle's business.

So these so called 'civilized' countries should ignore what happens in the 'jungle?' The whole point of the UN is to protect peoples human rights,no matter where they are from.

I just don't think we have the resources or the money (We are going bankrupt) to send Power Rangers to kill off War Leaders because they are killing gays.

Say African next time.

Why? Are Africans the only black people in the world?

Blacks is not a term used to describe African people. Blacks is a term used in America.

Care to offer some evidence, where this is occurring most.

Follow the link.
www.afrol.com...

What do you suppose we do about it?

Joining the UN's call to end anti-homosexuality laws would be a step in the right direction.

You don't seem to grasp the major problem which is that these people are where we were in the 1600s. They are largely still caveman. They are not capable of tolerance because they know nothing of philosophy, human rights, technology, and the arts. They know religion, they know tyranny.

Now, you want the United Nations to write a law that on a piece of paper.

It's just a piece of paper to them.

They know very little about what you know.

[edit on 22-12-2008 by DantesLost]

Originally posted by ConservativeJack


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

There is no reason to piggy-bank off Christians and try to break down their religion.

It's absurd, offensive, and reckless. And it also shows a lack of respect for others.

You should just create your own religion. There is no reason to try and hijack Christian philosophy of marriage.

I hate to come off as rude, but this logic is moronic. Gay people don't want to "piggy-back" your religion. If the conservative reason for not wanting gays to marry is because they are degrading Christianity, than you're all dolts. Marriage has been around way longer than most of the organized religions still around today. You are trying to equate your view of the "Christian Marriage" with marriage in general. Do Jews who celebrate Hanukkah degrade Christmas for you? Should other religious practices be outlawed, to make your Christian experience that much nicer? What ever happened to "live and let live"?

You have the attitude of the tyrants that the original settlers of this land sought refuge from. The conservatives have truly lost the American way.

Originally posted by drwizardphd
I hate to come off as rude, but this logic is moronic. Gay people don't want to "piggy-back" your religion. If the conservative reason for not wanting gays to marry is because they are degrading Christianity, than you're all dolts. Marriage has been around way longer than most of the organized religions still around today. You are trying to equate your view of the "Christian Marriage" with marriage in general. Do Jews who celebrate Hanukkah degrade Christmas for you? Should other religious practices be outlawed, to make your Christian experience that much nicer? What ever happened to "live and let live"?

You have the attitude of the tyrants that the original settlers of this land sought refuge from. The conservatives have truly lost the American way.

Last time I checked, I got married in a church and so did your parents.

You lost your damn mind.

Originally posted by ConservativeJack


Last time I checked, I got married in a church and so did your parents.

You lost your damn mind.

Umm, you can get married in lots of places besides churches. I think my parents got married in a wedding tent. I don't know for sure, I wasn't around back then. Going on vague memories of photo albums here.

And I applaud your hostility. Very Christian of you.

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by ConservativeJack


Last time I checked, I got married in a church and so did your parents.

You lost your damn mind.

Umm, you can get married in lots of places besides churches. I think my parents got married in a wedding tent. I don't know for sure, I wasn't around back then. Going on vague memories of photo albums here.

And I applaud your hostility. Very Christian of you.

Your parents got married in a tent?

Name me other places than a church where you would honestly, think, for one second, your wife (or in some cases, your husband) deserved to get married at ?




[edit on 22-12-2008 by ConservativeJack]

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
This is not a civil rights issue.

This is a moral issue.

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

There is no reason to piggy-bank off Christians and try to break down their religion.

It's absurd, offensive, and reckless. And it also shows a lack of respect for others.

You should just create your own religion. There is no reason to try and hijack Christian philosophy of marriage.

Create your own, new philosophy of marriage which is between 2 males or 2 females.

Jack this is an ignorant thing to say.

First of all a person's orientation is not dependant on his religion. Open your eyes, you will find many gay Christians.

But beside that, the issue isn't trying to change the Christian definition of marraige, but the o ne that the GOvernment recognizes, which happens to have been adopted from Christianity.

Even if the GLBT community made their own religion with its definition of marraige, they would still have to petition the government to have the right to get married.

Originally posted by asmeone2

Jack this is an ignorant thing to say.

First of all a person's orientation is not dependant on his religion. Open your eyes, you will find many gay Christians.

But beside that, the issue isn't trying to change the Christian definition of marraige, but the o ne that the GOvernment recognizes, which happens to have been adopted from Christianity.

Even if the GLBT community made their own religion with its definition of marraige, they would still have to petition the government to have the right to get married.

So if you are gay, you can STILL live a loving, religious, holy life. When you become sexually involved with another man, you are not living a holy life.
I know gays that do not act on it because God loves them the most and for their struggle he makes them stronger.

Christians had their version first. The government adopted from us. Which is because the Country was formed with our Christian principles.

If the "GLBT" community did do that, made their our religion, I would not object and many of my Christian friends wouldn't object and the Government might allow them their marriage right.

So if you are gay, you can STILL live a loving, religious, holy life. When you become sexually involved with another man, you are not living a holy life.
I know gays that do not act on it because God loves them the most and for their struggle he makes them stronger.

Christians had their version first. The government adopted from us. Which is because the Country was formed with our Christian principles.

If the "GLBT" community did do that, made their our religion, I would not object and many of my Christian friends wouldn't object and the Government might allow them their marriage right.

No, the Christian version of marraige goes back approximately 2000 years.... 6000 at the most if you include the preceeding Jewish heritage.

Outside of the West, and in other times, there have been many other definitions of marraige.

For example, many Native American cultures recognized more that 2 genders; a person's gender did not always coincide with what was between his legs. So sometimes there were in fact what we would thinkg of homosexual marraiges... and these cultures far predate Christianity. Of course, at the time that element of their culture was used as an excuse to view these people as subhuman.

I am going to fight you on this:

So if you are gay, you can STILL live a loving, religious, holy life. When you become sexually involved with another man, you are not living a holy life.
I know gays that do not act on it because God loves them the most and for their struggle he makes them stronger.

If you think a person can be gay but not act upon his desires, you must beleive to some degree that a person is born gay... why would God make people gay but forbid them to act on it?

Why do people have to create a new religion to challenge a rather young definition of marraige? What's the difference between that and attempting to move the government away from one specific religion's definition?

Just want to say,this thread is not about gay marriage,neither is it about whether America was founded on Christian principles or not,nor is it about where marriage originated from.

Can we please keep on track.Thanks.

Ok sorry.

I just think we should be moving to separate religon from government period...I can't understand the notion that one group has to make up their own religion as a prere quiasite to petitioning the government.

reply to post by asmeone2


Its ok.

I just think we should be moving to separate religon from government period...I can't understand the notion that one group has to make up their own religion as a prere quiasite to petitioning the government.

I agree,and asked ConservativeJack the same question.Twice.Still not been answered.

And,as i also asked,would that stop the persecution of homosexuals?
Faith isn't protecting the Christians in India at the moment.

Originally posted by Double Eights
I am glad we didn't sign it.

We are our own sovereign nation, we should have ZERO say in what other countries do, unless their actions directly affect our country. The UN as a premise is absolutely preposterous in terms of American sovereignty and our Constitution.

With that said, it's deplorable that we, as a nation, haven't outlawed these types of anit-homosexual laws for our own country.

Sorry, but the day of the nation state is quickly waning. It was a fairly popular sentiment, but was mostly just a caustic reaction, fueled out of resentment for the incompetent monarchical establishments of the time. That type of outmoded rhetoric concerning sovereignty is really not welcome in an increasingly supranational, and interconnected world. I really hope we learned more than just "fighting is bad" from the rather recent, excessively pervasive global military conflicts of the twentieth century.

[edit on 22-12-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by DantesLost


No that was my point, I honestly thought it was pertinant to your op--even if they made their own religion they would have to face just as much # as now trying to get equal rights.

Originally posted by ConservativeJack


Your parents got married in a tent?

Name me other places than a church where you would honestly, think, for one second, your wife (or in some cases, your husband) deserved to get married at ?


[edit on 22-12-2008 by ConservativeJack]

Hmmm, I would love to "name you" some.

Seriously though, they did. On an island somewhere. Again I'm not too sure of the specifics as they didn't video tape it (or at least I never watched it) and I wouldn't be born for another 7 years or so.

I've heard of people getting married in temples, arenas, mosques, convention halls, barns, castles. Hell some people even get married outside under the open sun. If you can be creative, you can think of tons of places much more romantic than a church to get married. I don't have a wife but if I ever settle down I might like to get married in the mountains somewhere, maybe by a scenic waterfall or something.

Originally posted by asmeone2
No, the Christian version of marraige goes back approximately 2000 years.... 6000 at the most if you include the preceeding Jewish heritage.

Outside of the West, and in other times, there have been many other definitions of marraige.

For example, many Native American cultures recognized more that 2 genders; a person's gender did not always coincide with what was between his legs. So sometimes there were in fact what we would thinkg of homosexual marraiges... and these cultures far predate Christianity. Of course, at the time that element of their culture was used as an excuse to view these people as subhuman.

f you think a person can be gay but not act upon his desires, you must beleive to some degree that a person is born gay... why would God make people gay but forbid them to act on it?

Why do people have to create a new religion to challenge a rather young definition of marraige? What's the difference between that and attempting to move the government away from one specific religion's definition?

Nice, I love the history lesson.

But, we live in America. So, all that other stuff is cool but in America we were founded by Christians.

Separation of Church and State. Look it up pal.

You can't easily change America it was designed that way.

What your beef with America is, lord knows.

Gays should get every right I have said it countless times.

Originally posted by ConservativeJack

But, we live in America. So, all that other stuff is cool but in America we were founded by Christians.

Separation of Church and State. Look it up pal.

You can't easily change America it was designed that way.

What your beef with America is, lord knows.

My God, do you even know what separation of church and state means?

I'll give you a hint, it means the exact opposite of what you think it means. I'm guessing here.. you didn't graduate high school? Come to think of it, they made that one pretty clear in 7th grade US Government.

You should go do some reading.

Originally posted by ConservativeJack

You can't easily change America it was designed that way.

What your beef with America is, lord knows.

Gays should get every right I have said it countless times.

Crack open the history books pal.

America was designed to change.

It was only 45 years ago or so. that interracial marraige was legalized in some states.

I know that is not technically the same as homosexual marraige, but the point is, in this case, the definition of marraige was officially changed.

But the bigger question here, is on who's level do we want to be? On the level of the rest of our "Wester-World Allies," or on the level of the "Islamic Terrorist REgimes?"

As I do with all UN posts.... "The Devil Is in the details"


Do any of you have a copy of exactly this would bind the U.S. to do? We had a post yesterday about the US "no" vote on the right to food. Of course the usual UN "treaty" binds us to pay, loose sovereignty, or try to place us under some international court system so I wouldn't just freek just yet.



[edit on 22-12-2008 by infolurker]

Originally posted by asmeone2

Originally posted by ConservativeJack

]

But the bigger question here, is on who's level do we want to be? On the level of the rest of our "Wester-World Allies," or on the level of the "Islamic Terrorist REgimes?"

I would prefer to be on either level... The UN is one of the most corrupt self-serving organizations in the world.

reply to post by ConservativeJack


I've never seen such utter stupidity. So you don't want gays to get married but would like for them to set up their own religion so they can finally marry?