Obama administration wants to stop executions based on sexual orientation - reversing the Bush administration's position (enemy, activist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Obama administration will introduce its first statement calling for the United Nations' top human rights body to combat discrimination against gays and lesbians around the world, completing a U.S. reversal from years of ambiguity on the subject during the presidency of George W. Bush.
The U.S. declaration will be made Tuesday at the Geneva-based Human Rights Council and has the support of more than 80 countries.
US demanding gay rights support at UN body - Politics - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42203514/ns/politics/ - broken link)
Good for them. People should not be arrested or executed because of their sexual orientation - no matter where they live.
In December Obama's initial response, to the call for a resolution condemning the criminalization of homosexuality abroad, was reluctance. I'm not exactly certain of the reason. In 2010, there were about 5 or 6 countries within which homosexuals could be executed, with about 70 others simply criminalizing homosexual acts, some being prosecuted for having AIDS. For about the past 10 years the U.N. had included the term 'sexual orientation' in its previous documents describing reasons for which a citizen might be targeted. The term was removed through an amendment.
The problem, understandably, seems to be that not everyone, in other countries, wants homosexuality to be recognized as an additional type of sexual orientation, (sound familiar)? The decision to remove the reference to 'sexual orientation', was approved by a vote of 79 to 70. As one who ‘didn't drink the kool aid' served by the American Psychiatric Association in the U.S., when Homosexuality was declassified as a disorder in 1973, I can appreciate the U.N.’s disorientation over the issue. The increasingly uncomfortable American Psychiatric Assoc. simply saw the handwriting on the wall, as homosexual activists began to turn the tide of public opinion and so they simply decided to bale out by declassifying the sexual disorder.
To have maintained the belief that homosexuality is not a natural variation of human sexual orientation, would have been, to stand in front of the large 'P. C.' wrecking ball which was gaining momentum in the late 60's to early 70's. The APA was not about to allow itself to become the dastardly enemy of civil rights, public opinion, political correctness, and of course, those constituent pleasing politicians, and so they made sure they were all singing the same song as they retreated like little school girls with arachnophobia, from the big bad spiders. Now, with the powerful, yet questionable, opinion of the APA in their corner, all that mattered to all of the so-called progressive thinkers, were the tests and behavioral studies which 'supported' homosexuality. Anything in opposition, from that time on, was simply considered outdated, unpopular, or the product of those pesky right wing conservatives, (so unfashionable).
For the record, I condemn, wholeheartedly, the categorization of any private, or public sexual behavior, as requiring execution, (referring of course to non-homicidal and victimless actions). The thought that a government would attempt to legislate the private choices of its citizens by threat of death, is reprehensible. As a Christian, I believe that homosexual behavior is both wrong, and abnormal, deserving of no special Federal or State approved rights, however, as a Christian I also believe that, since the time of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, we have been in a time of Grace. People are no longer stoned for adultery, homosexuality, or for any other sexual sins involving consenting adults. There is forgiveness.
In these few countries, these penalties are unimaginable to the average U.S. citizen, but wait, therein lies the problem, they’re not U.S. citizens. We must keep in mind that the countries making up the U.N. delegation, did not partake of the generous cups of 'American Psychiatric Assoc. kool aid, and are now they are where the U.S. was years ago, with regard to their culture’s familiarity, opinions/perspectives, and religious views, related to homosexuality, and so they are faced with a serious dilemma. How does the U.N. stop the brutalization of practicing homosexuals, without introducing rhetoric and resolution content, such as 'sexual orientation', without setting a precedent seemingly legitimizing homosexuality at the governmental level.
I've noticed that our illustrious leader exhibits very interesting, contrasting principles. In the Libyan conflict, he feigns a supporting role, while gladly choosing to be ‘on point’ for the suffering homosexuals of other nations. All this time I thought puppets were only born outside of the U.S. Say, did they ever find that birth certificate??
Last edited by Pennsylvanian1; 03-22-2011 at 03:38 AM..
I'm sure they will listen to the all mighty USA trying to tell them what they can or can not do in their country. They will probably round up a few hundred for an execution to show us how much power we have over them.
I say leave other countries alone, if the people want change let them change their country, we are not the world police.
Shouldn't Government executions for sexually prohibited acts be carried out DURING the sexually prohibited acts? I mean, so as to let God know that his will is . . . like . . . being carried out?
And also, after-the-fact executions are subject to the potential abuse of false allegations.
The executions of the defendants should be conducted at trial, in front of the judge and jury, with a Government employee acting as recipient, or provider, of said prohibited act upon said, or beneath said, deviant defendant.
Elsewise, it's all just a big farce.
Thy will be done, on earth . . . et cetera, et cetera.
I'm sure they will listen to the all mighty USA trying to tell them what they can or can not do in their country. They will probably round up a few hundred for an execution to show us how much power we have over them.
I say leave other countries alone, if the people want change let them change their country, we are not the world police.
I wonder how would they enforce such a thing.
The resolution does not include provisions for enforcement.
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.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
