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.
I wonder how many people that answered no would have answered yes if the question was, "People should not be executed based on religious belief no matter where they live."
Don't try to equate religion with sexual preference as if they're equal. Religion is something you're born with - homosexuality is a choice.
Fine, I don't agree with you...but thanks for answering.
ok, then we disagree
but let me clarify..see if I am reading you correctly.......YOU believe we should TELL (ie order) what other countries do....is that correct??? if so what happens when some other country orders us around and the shoe is on the other foot..then what...then how do you feel???
how would you feel if a country (let's jsu say Turkey) was to order us to abide by thier beliefs that if you are caught stealing...you get you hand cut off...then how would you feel that another country is FORCING you to abide by their morals and ethics.....
what make you think we should tell anyother country what to do???????
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.
Very true.Women's rights was listed as high priority during the Bush Administration, however, apart from the former president's faults, he understood the value of delegating. He recognized that the office of the presidency was not a liason or embassador position. The following is a direct quote from a speech given by Bush in 2001, addressing the U.N. The speech dealt primarily with Terrorism, Afghanistan, the Taliban, and Resolution 1373. Bush also used this opportunity to remind his U.N. audience of each nation's responsibility to aid in defeating terrorism. After having reviewed the speech, pretty much in its entirety, if there were any other comments regarding women's rights abroad, other than the following direct quote, they were greatly obscured.
"Together, they promote terror abroad and impose a reign of terror on the Afghan people. Women are executed in Kabul's soccer stadium. They can be beaten for wearing socks that are too thin. Men are jailed for missing prayer meetings".
Did this mean that women's right's were not genuinely a priority during the Bush administration, not at all. He simply wasn't the self appointed savior Obama pretends to be. The U.S. Dept. of State has an office dedicated to international women's issues. (Gee I wonder what they do?) My guess is, they are authorized by the president to act on key international women's issues without the president having to ride in to the U.N. on a white horse to stop the brutalization of women abroad.
In addition his administration created the Middle East Partnership Initiative designed to help foreign societies to help themselves.
This is the opposite of the pandering to the homosexual demographic seen with the Obama Administration. This 'act first', 'think second', game plan of Obama's (or whoever is pulling his strings), is catching up with him. This is also evident in his failure to receive correct authorization for military action in the Libyan conflict. Meeting with lawmakers is not the same as receiving required authorization, but I digress. Anyway, he's already beginning to lose some of his liberal supporters. He will undoubtedly go down in history as being just another empty suit. Certainly not the transparent presidency he promised his supporters.
Last edited by Pennsylvanian1; 03-22-2011 at 10:02 PM..
Very true.Women's rights was listed as high priority during the Bush Administration, however, apart from the former president's faults, he understood the value of delegating. He recognized that the office of the presidency was not a liason or embassador position. The following is a dirrect quote from a speech given by Bush in 2001, addressing the U.N. The speech dealt primarily with terrorism, Afghanastan, the Taliban, and Resolution 1373. Bush also used this opportunity to remind his U.N. audience of each nation's responsibility to aid in defeating terrorism. After reviewing the speech, pretty much in its entirety, if there were any other comments regarding women's rights abroad, other than the following direct quote it was greatly obscured.
"Together, they promote terror abroad and impose a reign of terror on the Afghan people. Women are executed in Kabul's soccer stadium. They can be beaten for wearing socks that are too thin. Men are jailed for missing prayer meetings".
Did this mean that women's right's were not genuinely a priority during the Bush administration, not at all. He simply wasn't the self appointed savior Obama pretends to be. The U.S. Dept. of State has an office dedicated to international women's issues. (Gee I wonder what they do?) My guess is, they are authorized by the president to act on key issues, without the president riding in to the U.N. on a white horse to stop the brutalization of women abroad.
In addition his administration created the Middle East Partnership Initiative designed to help foreign societies to help themselves.
This is the opposite of the pandering to the homosexual demographic seen with the Obama Administration.
Your posts crack me up........since when is stopping persecution and murder referred to as pandering to a demographic group.......oh I forget only to homophobes. .
Well said. The president's foremost job is to appease a majority of other nations. If anything, the US should re-institute the death penalty as punishment for homosexuality.
There was never a time in the history of the United States of America when homosexuality was punishable by the death penalty.
who the f.. are we to tell any other country how to run themselves???
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.
There was never a time in the history of the United States of America when homosexuality was punishable by the death penalty.
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.
Last edited by hammertime33; 03-22-2011 at 10:44 PM..
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??
ouch.
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.
.
