Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: US Less Than Gay Over UN Statement

  1. #1

    Default US Less Than Gay Over UN Statement

    News from The Associated Press
    America is less than fabulous with it's homophobia compared to oh let just say more "modernized" countries...

  2. #2

    Default

    This. Makes. Me. Very. Angry.

    Like, really, how many homosexuals have to be killed until we get the idea that maybe it's not a good thing to demonize them? Oh wait, I thought that was the point...*steams*

  3. #3

    Default



    According to some of the declaration's backers, U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction.


    Carolyn Vadino, a spokeswoman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., stressed that the United States - despite its unwillingness to sign - condemned any human rights violations related to sexual orientation.
    BTW, there is absolutely nothing binding about UN statements. In my opinion its just a popularity vote, and lets see who jumps on the bandwagon. Just because some countries sign this paper doesn't mean that they are going to act any differently than they do now. There are parts of our Constitution and Bill of Rights that prevent the Fed. from acting in a manner that restricts States Rights (Reserved Powers)

    Just because we didn't step into line with all the "cool" countries, doesn't indicate a lack of interest or desire to prevent human rights violations on ANY level.
    The fact is that only 1/3 of UN members DID sign the document. Not all 120 others can be the U.S, or muslim.

    It does make tantalizing, scandalous headlines for the media to fling around with great fervor, hoping to whip up a little flamefest of Anti American sentiment in order to get their ratings up a point.

    The lack of understanding of our own Constitutional process by our own representatives (evidenced by the quote from Grenell) and the apparent desire to subvert our own political standards, just to "join in" is what worries me.

  4. #4

    Default

    This was a non-binding resolution. The US constantly ignores UN resolutions that it passes.

    Sure, it is a popularity contest. But should we be concerned that we couldn't declare unequivocally that homosexual isn't illegal. It certainly as hell would means something to me that my government can't sign up to a basically, verbal announcement, that my sexual orientation is legal.

    Also, a large part of the world's nations are Muslim.

  5. #5

    Default

    I guess the point of it is that the Federal Branch of our Government hasn't been given the authority by the people it Governs, to make those kinds of blanket statements. I think I can grasp your frustration with the inability of that to happen, but this is one of the most basic tenets of our form of governance.

    Shouldn't feelings of legitimacy and peace with your orientation come from within anyway?

  6. #6

    Default



    Shouldn't feelings of legitimacy and peace with your orientation come from within anyway?
    What kind of statement is that? Sure, inner serenity is nice, but most people don't have it about non-sexual orientation activities, much less that.

    Furthermore, you seem to imply that it's just a mental thing. Every time I see a prominent figure attack homosexuals, I think of three teenagers that probably committee suicide because of the statement's effects on themselves, their community and their family.

    If human beings were just isolate beings with no relation to one another, your point would bear meaning.

    As for the ability of the federal government to sign on to declatory statements, it matters. Just because the consent of the governed has not decided it must, does not mean there is no reason to do so.

    The natural analogy, with a warning that it's not exact, is that of race-relations. If there was a UN non-binding resolution on governmental treatment of minorities, it probably wouldn't have passed muster in 1850s.

    But governments and nations must be more that just technocratic babble. There is a fierce urgency of now, of defining abilities and of standing up for those that do not have a voice. Majority consent shouldn't be a requirement for the United States government to say: "what happens in the bedroom between two people of the same gender is non of our business". Our Supreme Court has declared that governmental intervention into homosexuality is illegal. Our morals as a nation are learning that way. There is a majority opinion, but where that not enough, our governments must stand for that which is right.

    When countries where freedom of expression and liberty are some of the highest orders are proposing this, you join them. You do not bend backward to prove that you are backwards.

  7. #7
    Butterfly Mage

    Default

    Hmmm... Does the UN do anything other than posturing? This the same outfit that thought Fidel Castro was a good pick for the UN human rights committee.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Butterfly Mage View Post
    Hmmm... Does the UN do anything other than posturing?
    Din't you see the UN invade Iraq when they wouldn't let the UN inspectors in? I think it was called "Iraqi Operation Freedom".

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Izzy View Post
    What kind of statement is that? Sure, inner serenity is nice, but most people don't have it about non-sexual orientation activities, much less that.
    I guess what I'm trying to say is that you (or I ) are going to be happy (or not) about who we are, gay, straight, or other regardless of whether our government signs a UN document stating that it is "o.k. to be gay".

    Homosexuals in the US are not, by Govt. mandate, systematically hunted down, convicted of homosexuality and jailed/or executed here as they have been in other countries.

    We have laws that protect ALL of our citizens' human and civil rights. We have a very strong record of protecting human rights, even, when necessary, to the point of military action. There is not one country on this planet that has expended more energy, time ,and resources to affect change for those who live in oppression than the US.

    That's not to say that we are perfect in ANY way, but its a hell of a lot cheaper to sign a document, and posture for the cameras. (A LA UN paper) We have gone where others fear to tread/ ignore, and look what happens when we let others step to the front in protecting human rights (Darfur).

    A UN mandate is never going to be the steering mechanism for social change, and I think that is where the crux of the problem is. Societal approval (or disapproval)of homosexuality is affected at the personal or maybe community level. Foundational changes have to occur from the bottom up, not the top down, and those kinds of changes can take a generation or two to become fully realized.



    Furthermore, you seem to imply that it's just a mental thing. Every time I see a prominent figure attack homosexuals, I think of three teenagers that probably committee suicide because of the statement's effects on themselves, their community and their family.
    I'm not familiar with that situation, but I doubt that the words of the prominent figure were the sole and complete cause of their deaths. At any rate, it wasn't a government sanctioned attack.



    If human beings were just isolate beings with no relation to one another, your point would bear meaning.
    I think that my statement has a lot to do with how we deal with each other on an interpersonal level. You have to have some sort of satisfaction with yourself and knowledge of who you are (and I mean "you" in the broadest sense, everyone) in order to operate socially. Those interactions with others, and how they are perceived, are the largest movers of societal change.



    As for the ability of the federal government to sign on to declatory statements, it matters. Just because the consent of the governed has not decided it must, does not mean there is no reason to do so.
    If we, the governed, have chosen to not let the Federal Government act in a certain capacity, and it did, in defiance of that mandate(without Constitutional authority), it would initiate a constitutional crisis, and that would be, bad.




    The natural analogy, with a warning that it's not exact, is that of race-relations. If there was a UN non-binding resolution on governmental treatment of minorities, it probably wouldn't have passed muster in 1850s.
    I agree. Society was not ready. I don't have an arguement against "what happens in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom". Certainly, everyone on this site would rather not have Big Brother poking his nose around out private lives at all.



    But governments and nations must be more that just technocratic babble. There is a fierce urgency of now, of defining abilities and of standing up for those that do not have a voice. Majority consent shouldn't be a requirement for the United States government to say: "what happens in the bedroom between two people of the same gender is non of our business". Our Supreme Court has declared that governmental intervention into homosexuality is illegal. Our morals as a nation are learning that way. There is a majority opinion, but where that not enough, our governments must stand for that which is right.
    {cynic alert} Technocratic babble is EXACTLY what this UN paper is. It is bureaucratic pablum, meant to generate self righteous goodwill among those countries who do sign on, by giving their representatives the opportunity to look down their noses at the "others" for not falling in lock step with them. The paper is meaningless, the support of it is gratuitous, at best, and will not change the way 99.56754% of everyone views the issue at hand {/cynic alert}


    Since the Supreme Court declared Government intervention to be illegal, why would it make since for the Govt. to get involved now? (that was gratuitous, I know, but there it is)



    When countries where freedom of expression and liberty are some of the highest orders are proposing this, you join them. You do not bend backward to prove that you are backwards.
    I think the interpretation here is that (in my opinion) when the old world boys club wants to grandstand, and says "snap to it", we don't automatically genuflect and step into the herd. There is a very basic, foundational, constitutional reason.

    We are not "proving" that we are backwards by any means, if anything, we are proving that we have the ability to think for our selves and not have others tell us what, or how, we ultimately should run our affairs. These issues are not for the Feds to decide, as mentioned earlier, but for the states and communities where we live.

    Don't misunderstand me, I think it's none of their goddamn business how we conduct our private lives AT ALL, but when you have a self feeding media, and an overriding anti-american sentiment that continues to be stoked by stories such as this, someone HAS to stand up and have the wherewithal to resist it. I'm not mad at you, or the stance you take. You are much closer to the subject, and I don't begrudge your frustration. That being said, (and I really mean it) the technical nature of the problem presented has nothing to do with the emotions of the situation, or the perceived "rightness" or "wrongness" of the underlying issue.

    It's just the way I see it, no offense intended at all.

  10. #10
    Error404

    Default

    US < Gay
    Statement

    ...Sorry...Couldn't resist. Geek in me got the better.

Similar Threads

  1. A More True Statement Has Never Been Said.
    By Darkfinn in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-Jul-2008, 22:51

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.