Hold it a minute....

[Kaiser Kronos]

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.
In all, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration - which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution.

Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. There was broad opposition from Muslim nations, and the United States refused to sign, indicating that some parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.
"It's disappointing," said Rama Yade, France's human rights minister, of the U.S. position - which she described as in contradiction with America's long tradition as a defender of human rights.

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. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.
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.
Gay rights activists nonetheless were angered by the U.S. position.
"It's an appalling stance - to not join with other countries that are standing up and calling for decriminalization of homosexuality," said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.

She expressed hope that the U.S. position might change after President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January.
Also denouncing the U.S. stance was Richard Grenell, who until two months ago had been the chief spokesman for the U.S. mission to the U.N.
"It is ridiculous to suggest that there are legal reasons why we can't support this resolution - common sense says we should be the leader in making sure other governments are granting more freedoms for their people, not less," said Grenell, who described himself as a gay Republican. "The U.S. lack of support on this issue only dims our once bright beacon of hope and freedom for those who are persecuted and oppressed."
More than 50 countries opposed to the declaration, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, issued a joint statement Thursday criticizing the initiative as an unwarranted attempt to give special prominence to gays and lesbians. The statement suggested that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest.

The declaration also has been opposed by the Vatican, a stance which prompted a protest in Rome earlier this month.
A Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the Roman Catholic Church opposed the death penalty and other harsh repression of gays and lesbians, but he expressed concern that the declaration would be used as pressure against those who believe marriage rights should not be extended to gays.

A new Vatican statement, issued Thursday, endorsed the call to end criminal penalties against gays, but said that overall the declaration "gives rise to uncertainty in the law and challenges existing human norms."
The European nations backing the declaration waged their campaign in conjunction with the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Dutch foreign affairs minister, Maxime Verhagen, said countries that endorsed that 1948 document had no right to carve out exceptions based on religion or culture that allowed discrimination against gays.
"Human rights apply to all people in all places at all times," he said. "I will not accept any excuse."
He acknowledged that the new declaration had only symbolic import, but said it marked the first time such a large number of nations had raised the cause of gay rights in the context of General Assembly proceedings.
"This statement aims to make debate commonplace," he said. "It is not meant to be a source of division, but to eliminate the taboo that surrounds the issue."
Although the declaration's backers were pleased that nations on six continents had signed it, there were only two from Asia and four from Africa.

_____________________

Organization of the Islamic Conference includes guys like...Saudi Arabia?
The Islamic Republic of Iran?!!! Afghanistan?!

I thought Iran was the bad guy, and 19 of those damned hijackers were from Saudi Arabia! What the Hell is the US doing allying with the Ayatollah and the evil *******s in Riyadh?



I'm sorry, but the thought that we stand on a social issue with SAUDI ******* ARABIA or MOTHER****ING IRAN is rather a way to piss me off.

My expressions on this can be summed up in this following line of emoticons:


:curs ing:

This has been your daily Kaiser Kronos rant, courtesy of the Self-Appointed Moral Guardian of Foreign Affairs department.

[Gorjirus]

Wouldn't having to have a treaty about "decriminilization" mean that homosexuals would have to be categorized as criminals? Which, to my knowledge, they aren't nowadays?

It just means we won't sign a treaty.

Also, we aren't allying with them, since we don't agree with them and aren't teaming up about anything. We both aren't signing, but that doesn't mean we are together.


If two people decide to not swim in a pool, one because the water is cold and the other because he doesn't know how to swim, does that mean they are allied against swimming?



PS~ When I saw a non-descript thread title and "Last posted in by KK", I actually grew excited because I haven't gotten to read one of these in a while.

[EternalMothra]

...I'd sure...hate being a criminal if that was the case....O_o

[Mindfreak]

This one of those stupid moments in life that just piss me off so much, that I fantasize about turning into King Ghidorah, and just destroying things.







...What?

[Goji Son]

Originally Posted by Gorjirus

Wouldn't having to have a treaty about "decriminilization" mean that homosexuals would have to be categorized as criminals? Which, to my knowledge, they aren't nowadays?

It just means we won't sign a treaty.

Also, we aren't allying with them, since we don't agree with them and aren't teaming up about anything. We both aren't signing, but that doesn't mean we are together.


If two people decide to not swim in a pool, one because the water is cold and the other because he doesn't know how to swim, does that mean they are allied against swimming?



PS~ When I saw a non-descript thread title and "Last posted in by KK", I actually grew excited because I haven't gotten to read one of these in a while.

The declaration is trying to abolish criminalization of homosexuality all over the world. In some countries it is against the law to be gay and homosexuality is punishable by death. Basically, the US UN ambassadors are basically giving countries their rights to keep homosexuality a crime. I don't think the US shares their views with the OIC but the fact that they deny this declaration it is very disheartening. Especially since homosexuality is accepted in the majority of first world countries and with the US supposedly in the forefront of all of them still won't even make a gesture to at least make homosexuality not a global crime is sad.

Also, the notion that to accept homosexuality is the same as accepting pedophilia and incest is absolutely stupid. There is no relationship between these widely socially unacceptable acts and homosexuality and there are more heterosexual pedophiles and incestuous couples than homosexual.

[Burkion]

Actually, there is *ONE* reason why we can't sign that just yet.


States Rights.

The Government can't just go "OK Yall, Do This This And This Now."

The states have to agree to it before anything can be signed.

Sadly, it's not about the WHOLE of the US.

It's about the Parts.

Let's face it; some parts of the US really, really suck eggs.

[godofPH]

Originally Posted by Burkion

Actually, there is *ONE* reason why we can't sign that just yet.


States Rights.

Ah yes....States' rights, cause of the Civil War, made segregation last much longer than it should have, and now, going to be the last roadblock for gay rights.

Summed up, anyone who trumpets States' rights is basically screaming for their right to be regressive.

[Burkion]

Did I trumpet it?

Nah, but I stated the truth.

[Goji Son]

Originally Posted by Burkion

Actually, there is *ONE* reason why we can't sign that just yet.


States Rights.

The Government can't just go "OK Yall, Do This This And This Now."

The states have to agree to it before anything can be signed.

Sadly, it's not about the WHOLE of the US.

It's about the Parts.

Let's face it; some parts of the US really, really suck eggs.

In no state (at least to my knowledge) is homosexuality considered a punishable crime. There are laws that restrict them that are enforced but you can not be arrested for being gay. This declaration is trying to abolish the criminalization of homosexuality.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by godofPH

Summed up, anyone who trumpets States' rights is basically screaming for their right to be regressive.

Not necessarily. Although this is presented as a "basic need", there are simpler devices out there, I can't see many of our seniors text messaging, etc. Hey, they can call 2-1-1 to get all kinds of info and assistance!

BOT: If you don't like how one state does something, there are 49 others to move to. "Thank god for Mississippi!" used to be several states' quick way of trying to save face when it comes to "progress".

[Gorjirus]

Originally Posted by Goji Son

The declaration is trying to abolish criminalization of homosexuality all over the world. In some countries it is against the law to be gay and homosexuality is punishable by death. Basically, the US UN ambassadors are basically giving countries their rights to keep homosexuality a crime. I don't think the US shares their views with the OIC but the fact that they deny this declaration it is very disheartening. Especially since homosexuality is accepted in the majority of first world countries and with the US supposedly in the forefront of all of them still won't even make a gesture to at least make homosexuality not a global crime is sad.

Okay, I get that part, but I think the other reason is that the declaration is more than "being gay isn't a crime", and probably has other stipulations (would be my guess). Why else would they mention state rights and all that jazz if we already agree with "being gay isn't a crime"?

[Burkion]

Wait, isn't the act of Sodomy illegal in a few states?

Or oral sex? ...that I'm less sure about though.

If sodomy is illegal, then techincally those states are kind of saying "Being gay is illegal"

Problem....well, actually *NOT* a problem thinking about it...is that such laws aren't enforced.

[Morgoth]

It should be boycotted just on grounds that it was drafted by the French. If you find yourself siding with the French, you need to seriously look at yourself in the mirror and do some soul-searching, as in to make sure you still have one. Last time we let the French have their own way it resulted in WWII.

[Burkion]

....the really funny thing here is that he's right.

Edit: Wait a minute, Clint, you don't *HAVE* a soul.

Doesn't that mean you'd side with the French on principle?

[Hybrid Gojira]

Originally Posted by Morgoth

It should be boycotted just on grounds that it was drafted by the French. If you find yourself siding with the French, you need to seriously look at yourself in the mirror and do some soul-searching, as in to make sure you still have one. Last time we let the French have their own way it resulted in WWII.

Actually, the new French Prez is not that bad.....



From my uber conservative christian standpoint, I can tell you I have no interest in punishing gay people and I can't imagine the thoughts of those who do. In fact, I find it odd that any practicing christian would feel that way since according to scripture we're all sinners and equally guilty.

So in essence, what punishment is for one is for all, and I don't see them lining up to be lynched or jailed at this point. I think the term epic fail fits the bill.


As for the US not signing, how can that surprise anyone? Our leaders are fundamentally stupid and insane. Look at the recent bailout crap, the fact that California will be bankrupt in 2 months (roldcopterz), the idea and notion that the Illinois Governor is actually trying to defend himself from his self-imploding own words, or anything else. We are run by idiots who spent tax dollars on a case listening to Roger Clemens destroy his career for baseball and our congressmen actually bothered to show up and participate.

So...why should this surprise anyone?

[Zigra]

Originally Posted by Hybrid Gojira

In fact, I find it odd that any practicing christian would feel that way since according to scripture we're all sinners and equally guilty.

Speak for yourself. I'm perfect

[Hybrid Gojira]

Originally Posted by Zigra

Speak for yourself. I'm perfect

Ziggy, we all know you're the in disguise.

[Kaiser Kronos]

Originally Posted by Burkion

Wait, isn't the act of Sodomy illegal in a few states?

Or oral sex? ...that I'm less sure about though.

If sodomy is illegal, then techincally those states are kind of saying "Being gay is illegal"

Problem....well, actually *NOT* a problem thinking about it...is that such laws aren't enforced.

Under the Sodomy laws, whacking off was illegal, much less oral sex or what was considered gay sex (not that straights themselves don't seem to go for it, if you know what I mean). Lawrence v. Texas, a Supreme Court decision from a few years ago struck down all such laws at one go.

Originally Posted by Hybrid Gojira

Actually, the new French Prez is not that bad.....



From my uber conservative christian standpoint, I can tell you I have no interest in punishing gay people and I can't imagine the thoughts of those who do. In fact, I find it odd that any practicing christian would feel that way since according to scripture we're all sinners and equally guilty.

So in essence, what punishment is for one is for all, and I don't see them lining up to be lynched or jailed at this point. I think the term epic fail fits the bill.


As for the US not signing, how can that surprise anyone? Our leaders are fundamentally stupid and insane. Look at the recent bailout crap, the fact that California will be bankrupt in 2 months (roldcopterz), the idea and notion that the Illinois Governor is actually trying to defend himself from his self-imploding own words, or anything else. We are run by idiots who spent tax dollars on a case listening to Roger Clemens destroy his career for baseball and our congressmen actually bothered to show up and participate.

So...why should this surprise anyone?

Just one question, Hybrid: God didn't burn Sodom for Homosexuality (according to the Prophet Ezekiel at any rate, he didn't), but if he had then riddle me this: why burn Sodom for homosexuality and then let Lot cousin of Abraham off without so much as a hair singed for getting his daughters pregnant by him?

The rest of that post is a much more polite version of what I think about the current governmental hierachy, so no disagreement there.

[Burkion]

See, but that kind of defeats the question.

God didn't burn Sodom for...well, what his name inspired.

If he did, and THAT had been the thing to piss him off about Sodom, then I think the human race would have burned up a lot quicker then we are now.


But, going by the question; I don't think God minds incest. Let's go ask Lot, the drunken old idiot!

Because, techincally, EVERYTHING is incest as far as humans getting it on in His eyes go. We're all his Children.

That girl you took home and screwed?

She's your cousin somewhere down the line.

[Gorjirus]

Originally Posted by Burkion

Wait, isn't the act of Sodomy illegal in a few states?

Or oral sex? ...that I'm less sure about though.

If sodomy is illegal, then techincally those states are kind of saying "Being gay is illegal"

Problem....well, actually *NOT* a problem thinking about it...is that such laws aren't enforced.

If sodomy is illegal, it isn't being gay is illegal, it means that anal sex is illegal.

And I don't think oral sex was illegal. Or at least not that I have heard of.

[Goji Son]

Originally Posted by Gorjirus

If sodomy is illegal, it isn't being gay is illegal, it means that anal sex is illegal.

And I don't think oral sex was illegal. Or at least not that I have heard of.

Actually, some states had sodomy rules that discriminated against only homosexuals. Texas did before Lawerance v. Texas and some sodomy laws extended to any sexual act that doesn't help procreation.

[Gorjirus]

The more you know.

[Mecha74]

Originally Posted by Gorjirus

The more you know.

The more terrified you are?

Well, atleast me anyway.

[Hybrid Gojira]

Originally Posted by Kaiser Kronos

Just one question, Hybrid: God didn't burn Sodom for Homosexuality (according to the Prophet Ezekiel at any rate, he didn't)

but if he had then riddle me this: why burn Sodom for homosexuality and then let Lot cousin of Abraham off without so much as a hair singed for getting his daughters pregnant by him?

Kind of a loaded question, eh KK? I split the post in half purposely. In response to part 1, the cities were destroyed because of their exceedingly wicked behavior overall, and I thought that was pretty clear from the narrative. So in my opinion, homosexuality was not really the issue - it was the total depravity which already existed, and if you remember right, not even 10 people in the city were of good character. It wasn't like God exacted judgment on one sin - it was the totality of everything that had been going on, backed up by the scripture you referenced.

The second portion needn't a response since it's not accurate to answer a hypothetical supposition of which I do not adhere to.

[Kaiser Kronos]

Originally Posted by Hybrid Gojira

Kind of a loaded question, eh KK? I split the post in half purposely. In response to part 1, the cities were destroyed because of their exceedingly wicked behavior overall, and I thought that was pretty clear from the narrative. So in my opinion, homosexuality was not really the issue - it was the total depravity which already existed, and if you remember right, not even 10 people in the city were of good character. It wasn't like God exacted judgment on one sin - it was the totality of everything that had been going on, backed up by the scripture you referenced.

The second portion needn't a response since it's not accurate to answer a hypothetical supposition of which I do not adhere to.

Well...since you don't adhere to it, that earns you points in my book, mainly because it appears you've read your Old Testament beyond the prohibition on homosexuality bits of Leviticus.

As to the total destruction of Sodom itself, God had already annihilated nearly all life on the planet a few chapters (in terms of narration, not necessarily Biblical chronology) earlier, so evidently destroying Sodom and Gomorrah alone was more merciful. Now that has me wondering why God didn't simply hit all the Palestinian peoples at once like that and the Israelites would then have simply been able to start anew....