Obama administration wants to stop executions based on sexual orientation - reversing the Bush administration's position (crimes, abuse)

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by hothulamaui
there should be a standard on the basic human rights.
a standard to uphold when it comes to atrocities inflicted on man kind. killing/executing people based on sexual preference is an atrocity.
we need a standard even if some won't abide.

There is a standard which you and many others reject in God's Word, The Bible.

[AuDiBelle]

Originally Posted by th3vault

I find it perfectly acceptable. The real question is enforcment.

Deny trade, cut off relations, economic sanctions because x country condones something abhorrent to American values? Sure, I'm all for it.

It's not imposing our values on x country, it's dicating our association with a country with values drastically different than our own.

However, enforcment by force is a different matter and I do not think we should be doing that.

Okay, but back in the real world where we have global trading that would never work. Are you going to agree to not import oil from muslim countries that don't support gay rights? What about China? Should we stop doing trade with China based on its human rights abuses?

We are not an island. We need global trade partners, some of which we may disagree with on many issues. You cannot cut off relations with the rest of the world because you don't agree with their policies on _____ (fill in the blank). Would you be okay with muslim countries denying us oil because our country supports gay rights?

[Rick Roma]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

The Bush administration spoke out for woman's rights around the world. Were they also just pandering to a certain demographic? I think not. Some of us have principles we believe in strongly.

BUT.....George W. Bush!!!!

Congratulations on breaking new ground there. This is clearly a rebuttal that's never used when Obama is the topic.

BTW: Are you talking aout the Violence Against Women Act that Bush signed in November of 2005? Who's vote would you figure he was pandering for then? Those principles that you strongly believe in seem to include blind support of a POTUS with a (D) after his name even though it's been proven that he's a complete disaster.

[Clark Park]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

While my post was sarcastic, homosexuality certainly was punishable by death in the US in the past. The original 13 states all prescribed the death penalty as punishment for sodomy. Pennsylvania was the first state to abolish the death penalty for homosexuality, reducing the punishment to 10 years imprisonment and forfeiture of all property in 1786. This was a reaction to the execution of Joseph Ross the year before on a sodomy conviction. Thomas Jefferson even proposed a Bill in 1779 that would show mercy for homosexuals - he proposed reducing the punishment for male-male sodomy from death to merely castration.

The last know execution in the US for homosexuality was Jose Antonio BullBoxer31 in California in 1801, although several states still had laws on the books allowing for the death penalty into the 1870s. Homosexuals were castrated, lobotomized, and committed to mental institutions into the 1950's. As late as 1971, a homosexual in California could be committed to a mental institution for life after a sodomy conviction.

Permit me to clarify my assertion ... I am very much aware of the fact that men have been executed for "sodomy" in Colonial America, something well documented in Jonathan Ned Katz' book Gay American History (1976).

You have referenced Thomas Jefferson, who had also noted that the death penalty for sodomy dated back to the reign of King Henry VIII in England; and it was Jefferson who famously noted that the laws of men need to be revised after time due to the changes of society, scientific discovery and "the progress of the human mind."

I am not aware of any executions of men for homosexual conduct after the ratification of the US Constitution after Sept. 17, 1787. As far as the case in California in 1801 I am wondering that since California was not a state admitted into the United States at that time, if the US Constitution and US laws were enforced.

That gay people have suffered oppression, persecution, and discrimination is very true until very recent times. The iniquities and gross injustices of the past must not be forgotten nor dismissed.

[Roaddog]

Originally Posted by Clark Park

By your warped logic we had no business in going to war with Nazi Germany, nor prosecuting Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg Trials for killing Jews and others in the concentration camps.

But on the other hand are we to push our standards on every other country? Do we tell others not to oppress their women? Do we stand up tp stop child labor? We are not the world police and have no right to force our beliefs on other countries.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by Rick Roma

BUT.....George W. Bush!!!!

Congratulations on breaking new ground there. This is clearly a rebuttal that's never used when Obama is the topic.

BTW: Are you talking aout the Violence Against Women Act that Bush signed in November of 2005? Who's vote would you figure he was pandering for then?

The Bush Administration reached out to women in the Middle East and spoke openly about giving them more rights. If the argument is that Obama is pandering to homosexuals, then you must also think that Bush was pandering to women.

Women Are Agents of Change Around the World, State's Hughes Says

[pghquest]

OP, you discredited what might have been a decent thread by claiming Obama was reversing Bush policy of executed people based upon sexual orientation.. Bush never did that, and you killed your own thread.

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by pghquest

OP, you discredited what might have been a decent thread by claiming Obama was reversing Bush policy of executed people based upon sexual orientation.. Bush never did that, and you killed your own thread.

You need to put on your reading glasses. The OP never claimed what you claim he claimed.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

You need to put on your reading glasses. The OP never claimed what you claim he claimed.

Clearly its you who need to put on your glasses.. The title of the thread is
"Obama administration wants to stop executions based upon sexual orientation - reversing the Bush administration's position"

In order for this to be true, the Bush administration would need to have a position to execute people based upon sexual orientation.. You cant reverse something that didnt exist..

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Clearly its you who need to put on your glasses.. The title of the thread is
"Obama administration wants to stop executions based upon sexual orientation - reversing the Bush administration's position"

In order for this to be true, the Bush administration would need to have a position to execute people based upon sexual orientation.. You cant reverse something that didnt exist..

Um, no.

The Obama administration is supporting a resolution calling for the abolition of executions based upon sexual orientation. Hence the Obama administration wants to stop, and is acting to stop, executions based upon sexual orientation.

The Bush administration chose not to support a resolution calling for the abolition of executions based upon sexual orientation. Hence the Bush administration had a position of not wanting, and not acting, to stop executions based upon sexual orientation.

Just because you don't execute homosexuals yourself, doesn't mean you're leading an effort to stop the execution of homosexuals.