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

What about NAMBLA, isn't that gay pedophelia.

Anyway, The UN can't dictate US law, nor can we dictate law in other countries. The UN is for mutual defence not passing stupid international laws.

Originally posted by cognoscente

"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]

There are a basic set of human rights, and these rights -in their respective culture- extend to homosexuals who do not violate the cultural laws regarding sex. That is, if homosexuals don't engage in homosexual conduct, they're fine.

Regarding the fact that human rights are essentially culturally-defined, I'll present a few examples...

The Yanomamo Indians of the Amazon actually don't regard outsiders as "real" humans; in fact, the only "real" humans are individuals who're enculturated in their tribe. This also means that there are certain rights of the Yanomamo Indians which won't extend onto you as an outsider.

The old caste system in India is another great example. Individuals from the Shudras aren't afforded the same human rights as the Brahmins. These two groups are considered to be on two different planes of existence.

In Japan, the samurais could kill peasants without much uproar.

In mostly every culture, especially religious ones, there have been well-defined laws/restrictions regarding sex. This is one of the Cultural Universals that you more than likely aren't familiar with, as you seem to be uneducated on the issue. If there is an infraction, punishment is carried out accordingly.

Laws regarding conduct -such as homosexuality- are less bound by basic human rights because they concern set and defined behaviors/conduct. Homosexuals are afforded the same opportunities, until they decide to violate the laws. What may happen as a result of announcing homosexuality and NOT engaging in homosexual conduct is they will face ostracization, but it won't be punishable by law for simply being "in the condition of being homosexual", the problems arise when they go beyond just being homosexual and engage in homosexual conduct. In fact, hoomos would be defended by the law if they were attacked without provokation, I.E. Not ever engaging in homosexual activity but being attacked.

There aren't any defined laws which state that homosexuals will be punished simply for being homosexuals; if you'd like to prove me wrong, do so. These laws are instead oriented towards homosexual conduct/behavior, once the lines is crossed, homos have broken the law. One can be a homosexual without engaging in homosexual

When your behavior/conduct confounds the laws, expect to be punished.

Laws regarding behavior/conduct are extremely culturally defined, more so than laws regarding human existence.

Its an interesting occurence when the uneducated refer to others as uneducated.

[edit on 25-12-2008 by ChronMan]

ChronMan

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.

Must be good to live in your own little bubble and not care about the rest of the world.

Homosexuals aren't actively suspending their values in order to uphold those of others.

Are a homosexuals values different than a heterosexuals values?

Laws regarding behavior/conduct are extremely culturally defined, more so than laws regarding human existence.

Which can still be brought into question and changed.Female circumcision is a cultural thing,but because of the long term effects it has on women,political groups such as the UN have been trying for years to get it banned for good.
en.wikipedia.org...



sos37

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?

Thats a very interesting question with,sadly,a predictable answer.
Many Christians do not care about such things,its against their religion and therefore should not be allowed.




archetype_one

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!

You'll find that many Americans think that their Constitution over-rides International Law.If it was that way (for every country,not just America) then there would be no point to the existence of the UN,they would be powerless to do anything.




LordBaskettIV

What about NAMBLA, isn't that gay pedophelia.

No.It is male-male pedophilia.

From a link in the OP.

Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator.Unfortunately,people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

To avoid this confusion,it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation.Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

[edit on 25-12-2008 by DantesLost]

Must be good to live in your own little bubble and not care about the rest of the world.

Illiteracy isn't a virtue.

Are a homosexuals values different than a heterosexuals values?

Once more, illiteracy isn't a virtue.

Homosexuals who so desperately desire for everyone to accept them aren't typically willing to reciprocate acceptance; i.e. accepting that many don't accept them.

Which can still be brought into question and changed.Female circumcision is a cultural thing,but because of the long term effects it has on women,political groups such as the UN have been trying for years to get it banned for good.
en.wikipedia.org...

Because females unwilling to be circumcized and haven't violated any laws is the same thing as homosexuals who are actively breaking laws right?

One should always attempt to properly classify w/e comparisons are being made before making a post.

reply to post by ChronMan

Homosexuals who so desperately desire for everyone to accept them aren't typically willing to reciprocate acceptance; i.e. accepting that many don't accept them.

I think you'll find that most do accept this.What they don't accept are the things that come along with that,abuse and a battling for equal/human rights,for example.I know many people who do not accept homosexuality,but they treat us as they would want to be treated,with respect and kindness.

Because females unwilling to be circumcized and haven't violated any laws is the same thing as homosexuals who are actively breaking laws right?

Its seen as mandatory because it is part of religious law.In the case of Muslims who practice it,they believe it is part of Sharia Law.

reply to post by ChronMan


Sorry if I wasn't clear. You have totally mistaken my post. I was arguing that modern law is in favor of homosexuality. And nothing makes my blood boil more than when others jump to wrong conclusions based on first impressions, lack of patience and a deficiency in reading comprehension.

Anyway, the legal implications of cultural laws or "mores" are totally outmoded in modern civilization. Society might not have a very special place for transgressors, but the law should in most cases protect them.

Ever since the Age of Enlightenment in the 1700's, philosophical literature, mostly rationalism, has been the concomitant factor in the establishment of law. In modern Western civilization, all your points on behaviorism are moot.

Then you go on to mention inappropriate sexual conduct. When did I ever say, implicit or otherwise, that sexually explicit conduct was ever appropriate in public? I'm fairly certain the legal consequences for both homo and heterosexuals are exactly the same. I sure as hell don't want to see people giving fellatio in the middle of the street. Laws encouraging civil decency make sense. When did I ever say otherwise?

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but were you to suggest that if two men were to share an intimate kiss (though not in any sense a passionate one) in public that they should be punished more than a male and female couple? I just can't agree with you there. No amount of cultural more can justify the creation of a law, which prohibits such freedom of mobility and action. Otherwise, such a law is simply trapped in the Dark Ages, as is your entire democratic perspective.

[edit on 25-12-2008 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by DantesLost

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

www.christianpost.com

UNITED NATIONS – Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

In all, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution.

(visit the link for the full news article)

---

Sorry I kinda screwed up just trying to respond on this post, posted above as header. So I have to respond through edit command, i.e.:

What I wanted to say and ask is where is the actual call by the USA's Ambassador to the United Nations saying the USA Refuses to join the UN ?

[edit on 26-12-2008 by Decoy]

reply to post by Decoy


Well,they refused to sign the agreement.They've come out and admitted this.

According to some of the declaration's backers, U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

Carolyn Vadino, a spokeswoman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., stressed that the United States - despite its unwillingness to sign - condemned any human rights violations related to sexual orientation.

Again - The context of the OP is that of an international accord set forth by the UN. The notion that we should have no influence on other nations and their definitions of human rights runs contrary to the very topic of this thread.

The purpose of the UN is to facilitate a global community. A community that shares, not only laws pertaining to human rights, but also economics, faith, science, information, education and a plethora of other philosophies and world views - While we, as a nation, may have the moral high ground on certain subjects, we could very well find ourselves in need of guidance from other nations in other areas of development.

It is simply my contention that the original Universal Declaration of Human Rights Adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly in 1948 was a step in the right direction. It can only bring about good to amend this document to include the outlawing of discrimination against homosexuals and their right to exercise the natural expression of their orientation.

If you don't read the entire document here:

www.un.org...

At least read this portion:

Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

[edit on 29-12-2008 by archetype_one]