Stone the Philthy Phornicators.

[rayboyusmc]

Wow! This enlightened position puts us in bed with Iran, Saudi Arabia and other world leaders in human freedom. If some Americans had their way, it would be a crime punishable by stoning or at least being sentenced to watch Fox News for a whole week.

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.

Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. There was broad opposition from Muslim nations, and the United States refused to sign, indicating that some parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

"It's disappointing," said Rama Yade, France's human rights minister, of the U.S. position — which she described as in contradiction with America's long tradition as a defender of human rights.

 

[Diuretic]

It's temporary '

One the arsehole Bush has gone normal service wil be resumed.

 

[CSM]

I'm glad the US didn't sign it. I sure as hell don't want the UN making law for US citizens. That's the job of our elected Congress (they may be doing it poorly right now but nonetheless).

 

[Gunny]

Wow! This enlightened position puts us in bed with Iran, Saudi Arabia and other world leaders in human freedom. If some Americans had their way, it would be a crime punishable by stoning or at least being sentenced to watch Fox News for a whole week.

Right. We've seen some Eurpoean nation's ideas of dealing more forthrightly with anti- anything descrimination. What they mean is they are trying to remove a barrier on the path to criminalizing non-PC thought just as they have done with the Holocaust and Islam.

Fear not. We're only a few decades behind Europe. We'll get there where you can have thought and speech legislated.

As far as the law itself, criminalizing homoseuxality is stupid. That makes the intent of these useless bureaucrats no less obvious.

Have they ever heard of Darfur? Sorry, but they have no credibility with me when what they do there amounts to tossing teacups of water on a forest fire yet.

 

[Gunny]

I'm glad the US didn't sign it. I sure as hell don't want the UN making law for US citizens. That's the job of our elected Congress (they may be doing it poorly right now but nonetheless).

That too.

 

[rayboyusmc]

We are already subject to some international laws.

All this did was to make it no a crime. It isn't a crime right now in the US, so besides catering to some religious groups, what's the big deal?

Sorry, but it's sometimes hard to realize what century we are living in after the last 8 years of rule fromt he right.

 

[CSM]

We are already subject to some international laws.

All this did was to make it no a crime. It isn't a crime right now in the US, so besides catering to some religious groups, what's the big deal?

Sorry, but it's sometimes hard to realize what century we are living in after the last 8 years of rule fromt he right.

Some international laws are blatant attempts to subvert national soveriegnty. I suppose those who envision the "one world order" stuff like the idea of a nation's laws being made by an international body like the UN.

For myself, I would rather have my nation's laws enacted by elected representatives from THIS country. I sure as heck don't want some Somalli warlord telling US citizens what laws they need to follow.

 

[Red Dawn]

I'm glad the US didn't sign it. I sure as hell don't want the UN making law for US citizens. That's the job of our elected Congress (they may be doing it poorly right now but nonetheless).

It's not a "law".

Its a non-binding declaration stating that homosexuals shouldn't be treated as criminals.

That should be a no-brainer for any sane person.

We don't, and never will criminalize homosexuality (unless an extremist rightwing Congress is ever elected).

We joined Syria, Iran, and muslim extremists in oppossing this declaration. That says it all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's not a "law".

Its a non-binding declaration stating that homosexuals shouldn't be treated as criminals.

That should be a no-brainer for any sane person.

We don't, and never will criminalize homosexuality (unless an extremist rightwing Congress is ever elected).

We joined Syria, Iran, and muslim extremists in oppossing this declaration. That says it all.

Boo Hoo Hoo. Only 66 countries approved it out of how many? As for the "it only does" statement , bullshit. The US was clear it does more and we are not prepared to sign away our right as a Nation to enact our own laws.

 

[CSM]

It's not a "law".

Its a non-binding declaration stating that homosexuals shouldn't be treated as criminals.

That should be a no-brainer for any sane person.

We don't, and never will criminalize homosexuality (unless an extremist rightwing Congress is ever elected).

We joined Syria, Iran, and muslim extremists in oppossing this declaration. That says it all.

Alrighty then...I suppose if the 70+ other nations got together and propose a "nonbinding" declaration stating that homosexuality is a criminal act and practitioners thereof should be treated as such, then it wouldn't bother you at all as it is (from their perspective, at least) a no brainer.

The coincidental opposition to this "nonbinding" resolution hardly constitutes an all embracing agreement on all issues with Syria, Iran and muslim extremists. That you would try to portray it as such says it all.

 

[jillian]

I'm glad the US didn't sign it. I sure as hell don't want the UN making law for US citizens. That's the job of our elected Congress (they may be doing it poorly right now but nonetheless).

Decriminalizing homosexuality? That bothers you?

Don't worry... as Dee said, it's temporary.

 

[Red Dawn]

Boo Hoo Hoo. Only 66 countries approved it out of how many? As for the "it only does" statement , bullshit. The US was clear it does more and we are not prepared to sign away our right as a Nation to enact our own laws.

Please put down the Rush Limbaugh kool aid.

This declaration doesn't sign away anyone's rights. Its a statement of principle, its not a binding law.

So you are in favor of homosexuals being treated like criminals in parts of this world? I guess I'm not surprised that you would side with Iran.

This nation is supposed to stand for human rights, and basic human dignity.


I'm not surprised that rightwingers showed their true colors here.

 

[CSM]

Decriminalizing homosexuality? That bothers you?

Don't worry... as Dee said, it's temporary.

No, it doesn't. First, I was not aware that homosexuality was a crime here in the US. Second, I have already stated the reason for my opposition and it has a lot less to do with homosexuality than it does about the UN making laws (or precedent for law) for sovereign nations.

 

[jillian]

No, it doesn't. First, I was not aware that homosexuality was a crime here in the US. Second, I have already stated the reason for my opposition and it has a lot less to do with homosexuality than it does about the UN making laws (or precedent for law) for sovereign nations.

It's not a crime here. But signing on allows us to place OUR imprimatur on it and assert our moral authority, which is something we haven't done in a while.

The UN is a conduit to lead if its properly used. That is why we have veto power. It's something we should use more often in the face of absurd hateful positions.

 

[CSM]

Please put down the Rush Limbaugh kool aid.

This declaration doesn't sign away anyone's rights. Its a statement of principle, its not a binding law.

So you are in favor of homosexuals being treated like criminals in parts of this world? I guess I'm not surprised that you would side with Iran.

This nation is supposed to stand for human rights, and basic human dignity.


I'm not surprised that rightwingers showed their true colors here.

And I'm not surprised that the liberals show theirs...it's the nature of the beast.

Be careful with that big broad brush of yours. You might get some indellible hue spattered on you and miss some very important fine details. Broad brushes tend to do that.

 

[WillowTree]

Hey! Did Iran sign it?

 

[Red Dawn]

No, it doesn't. First, I was not aware that homosexuality was a crime here in the US. Second, I have already stated the reason for my opposition and it has a lot less to do with homosexuality than it does about the UN making laws (or precedent for law) for sovereign nations.

Your either on the wrong thread, or you don't understand what happened.

This wasn't a law, it wasn't about infringing on the right of the United States.

It was a simple declaration of principle. You're shadow boxing against phantom threats that have nothing to do with this thread.

Its a simple question. Do you think homosexuals should be treated as criminals anywhere in the world?

 

[Sunni Man]

So you are in favor of homosexuals being treated like criminals in parts of this world?

Yes!!

 

[CSM]

It's not a crime here. But signing on allows us to place OUR imprimatur on it and assert our moral authority, which is something we haven't done in a while.

The UN is a conduit to lead if its properly used. That is why we have veto power. It's something we should use more often in the face of absurd hateful positions.

Since when does our government have any "moral" authority? In fact, I have gotten the impression that the government and moral authority was the heart of the debate on abortion.

Also, I think our veto power only applies to the Security Council and not the General Assembly.

And finally, I bet that some of the opposing nations (like Iran and Syria) find the proposal absurd, hateful, insulting and perhaps even immoral.

 

[jillian]

Since when does our government have any "moral" authority? In fact, I have gotten the impression that the government and moral authority was the heart of the debate on abortion.

Also, I think our veto power only applies to the Security Council and not the General Assembly.

And finally, I bet that some of the opposing nations (like Iran and Syria) find the proposal absurd, hateful, insulting and perhaps even immoral.

I didn't say RELIGIOUS authority. I said moral authority. To me, not discriminating against people for what they're born is moral.

I think you're right insofar as the Security Council is concerned. I was thinking of some of the stupidity that has come out of the UN.

But we should be signing on to this one.