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

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

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.

No.. not supporting a resolution doesnt equate to supporing the executions of people..

Many didnt support hate crimes legislation but that doesnt mean they support the assulting of people who were gay either.

The title very clearly says Obama wants to STOP executions, reversing the Bushs position.

[Rick Roma]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

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

But....But....But....George W. Bush!


From the linked article:

08 September 2006
Women Are Agents of Change Around the World, State's Hughes Says

Who's vote would you figure Bush was pandering for in 2006?

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by pghquest

No.. not supporting a resolution doesnt equate to supporing the executions of people..

Many didnt support hate crimes legislation but that doesnt mean they support the assulting of people who were gay either.

The title very clearly says Obama wants to STOP executions, reversing the Bushs position.

I never said that. You misread quite often.

If your position is "to want to stop," then the opposite position is "to not want to stop." That's why I said:

"The Bush administration had a position of not wanting...to stop executions based upon sexual orientation"

The Obama administration reversed this position (from "not wanting to stop" to "wanting to stop"). I never claimed the Bush administration had a position of supporting executions based upon sexual orientation.

[buddy5]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

We have too much immorality in our own society. How can we presume to impose it on other societies?

Originally Posted by Backspace

I'm pretty sure we don't execute people in the US based on sexual orientation and while my memory isn't that great we didn't execute anyone under the Bush administration for sexual orientation either... I voted no because this should be left entirely up to the individual countries, we aren't and we should stop trying to be the world's police since we can't even police our own country properly.

Originally Posted by Roaddog

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.

^^^All of these^^^

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by pghquest

No.. not supporting a resolution doesnt equate to supporing the executions of people..

Many didnt support hate crimes legislation but that doesnt mean they support the assulting of people who were gay either.

The title very clearly says Obama wants to STOP executions, reversing the Bushs position.

All of the haters should be in FAVOR of this for the simple reason that Less persecuted foreign gays means Less foreign gays that wish to apply for asylum in the US b/c of persecution in their home country.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

"The Bush administration had a position of not wanting...to stop executions based upon sexual orientation"

And it was just as ridiculous when the OP said it.. But I bet you'll now claim you didnt say this either.

[Rick Roma]

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.

No he didn't. It was already dead on arrival...

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Rick Roma

No he didn't. It was already dead on arrival...

I disagree.. there was a valid discussion involving Obama wanting to put forward a policy internationally to not execute people based upon sexual orientation. This remains the practice in some nations so making a statement that its unacceptable might be a decent debate (i.e. should we be dictating policies to other nations for example, an issue the left criticized Bush of doing, but now supporting)

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by pghquest

I disagree.. there was a valid discussion involving Obama wanting to put forward a policy internationally to not execute people based upon sexual orientation. This remains the practice in some nations so making a statement that its unacceptable might be a decent debate (i.e. should we be dictating policies to other nations for example, an issue the left criticized Bush of doing, but now supporting)

Putting our semantic debate aside, what is your opinion of the Four Freedoms Doctrine (espoused by the Allies) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Are these gross abuses of power?

Is it a fundamental human right that homosexuals be allowed to live in peace?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Putting our semantic debate aside, what is your opinion of the Four Freedoms Doctrine (espoused by the Allies) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Are these gross abuses of power?

I pretty much agree with both, are they gross absues of powers, hell no..

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Is it a fundamental human right that homosexuals be allowed to live in peace?

Yep.. But I also believe people like polygamists should also be afforded such protection to live in peace. I'm fairly libertarian in regards to human rights.. I have no problem with gays, I have some that are my best friends. I dont think they should be killed either, but then I also dont believe in killing pedophiles, or even those found guilty of murder.

The question is, are we justified to push our values upon the rest of the world? Liberals objected completely to Bush pushing our standards on the middle east, and now that its Obama, and its a policy you agree with, you have no problem pushing your values on the rest of the world..

Like I said.. the thread would have made for an interesting debate before you guys started lying making claims that Bush supported executing gays..