U.s. Endorses U.n. Gay Rights Statement

[Guest]

U.S. Endorses U.N. Gay Rights Statement

Declaration, Rejected By Bush Administration, Aims To Decriminalize Homosexuality

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/18/...Home;topStories

"But 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality - and in several, homosexual acts can be punished by execution. More than 50 nations, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, opposed the declaration."

What are your thoughts?

Laura

[Guest julia_d]

same as the catholic church.. horrible religion when given power

and all those drooling morons in the comments.. wow .. what an advertisement for "teh free usa"

I saw one good comment ..because I know that a UN declaration isn't worth the paper it is written on.. or we would be doing military stuff in Somalia.

"Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God.

He owes account to none other for his faith or his worship.

The legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions.

Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

? Thomas Jefferson, 1802

so now.. should Obama be expected to FORCE the legislature to also overturn the prop8 results?

[Guest Irielle]

It's about time the US did this and I hope the rest of the world will join.

I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that all the objections to homosexuality have their basis in religious beliefs. I can't think of any exceptions but perhaps someone else can?

I don't understand why we humans short-circuit our brains with superstitions and disregard the advances that have been made in science, philosophy, sociology, medicine and such when they are inconvenient to our religous belief systems.

I am confident that reason and sanity will prevail. Someday.

[Guest mia 1]

Well thank god oops thank the powers that be that the U.S. has elected a chief executive who thinks rationally and sees all people's gender/sexuality as non criminal including adultery and acts of bedroom privacy as non business of the ayatollahs, the mullahs, the Vatican,,or the chief Rabbi of Israel..notice the thread here all Abrahamic religions....

It is heart warming to see this coming from the U.S.A.'s leadership and maybe someday we will gain the respect of the allies that left us laughing at #43..and his brand of Tali ban Christianity

[Guest michelle.butterfly]

Hi Laura! (hugs)

I didn't find the actual statment to read but I think I'm for any resolutions of support for the rights of anyone to be free to be themselves without persecution or denial of civil or other liberties. This is the kind of thing I can get behind anyone on assuming it doesn't have something in it I don't know about.

I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that all the objections to homosexuality have their basis in religious beliefs. I can't think of any exceptions but perhaps someone else can?

LOL... There is the main non-religious objection that I know of...

"Ewwwww! Gross!"

Much love,

Michelle

[Guest SuperFlyGal]

so now.. should Obama be expected to FORCE the legislature to also overturn the prop8 results?

Doubted.

Although I do believe most people voted for religious reasons, the original ban and not Prop 8 wasn't a religious law even though, as far as I'm concerned, it was religiously fueled.

Prop 8 was voted on because the CA Supreme Court viewed the original ban unconstitutional, however the CA voters decided not to repeal the ban. Although I am an adamant supporter of Gay Marriage, I dislike the Supreme Court getting involved after things are put to a vote. So I'm not sure if I'd vote the same as I did if the supreme court once again called the ban unconstitutional because I view it as the supreme court, 9 people, deciding what is and what isn't right for the entire state. Though this has helped many times in the past, there have also been situations where it has hurt and as far as I'm concerned it puts to much power into the hands of 9 people. Would you honestly want this same thing happening if the CA Supreme Court was filled with Right-Wing Religious Zealots? I definitely would not.

Sorry if this seems a bit cruel and I make room for the possibility that I am wrong, but this is how I view the matter.

[Guest April63]

Prop 8 isn't a ban. It defines marriage between a man and a woman. It says nothing about who can't get married.

Gay rights? The right to be gay? What are gay rights?

By gay rights, do we mean that we are trying to change things like marriage for everyone else? Force them to accept that marriage is between anyone? Do we really have to do so? Can't we be a little more tolerant of their ideas? I don't want to be the enemy here, but do we really need marriage certificates to be happy? Do we really need to make the rest of society change its definitions for us? Can't we be grateful for what has already been done? We're not going to be stoned to death for coming out. There's really a lot of things for us, why do we need to keep asking for more?

April

[Guest Zabrak]

Prop 8 isn't a ban. It defines marriage between a man and a woman. It says nothing about who can't get married.

Gay rights? The right to be gay? What are gay rights?

By gay rights, do we mean that we are trying to change things like marriage for everyone else? Force them to accept that marriage is between anyone? Do we really have to do so? Can't we be a little more tolerant of their ideas? I don't want to be the enemy here, but do we really need marriage certificates to be happy? Do we really need to make the rest of society change its definitions for us? Can't we be grateful for what has already been done? We're not going to be stoned to death for coming out. There's really a lot of things for us, why do we need to keep asking for more?

April

Because we are human beings and all human beings no matter whats between their legs should have the right to marry? Marry and get all the privileges from the goverment that straight couples get?

Or do you think straight couples should get all the privileges and we shouldn't just because both of us have somthing that dangles between our legs? or vice versa?

I'm not attacking either, just a question for you.

[Guest April63]

But all of us do have the right to marry. The issue is the definition of marriage. Do two men make a marriage? Two women? Or only a man and a woman? Or simply any two people? Should we force this definition on everyone else?

As for privileges, why don't we just try to change that, not the definition of marriage. Now that's a thought. Perhaps expand these privileges to civil unions? That already happened in California by the way. This way you don't get on people's toes.

April

[Guest Zabrak]

But all of us do have the right to marry. The issue is the definition of marriage. Do two men make a marriage? Two women? Or only a man and a woman? Or simply any two people? Should we force this definition on everyone else?

As for privileges, why don't we just try to change that, not the definition of marriage. Now that's a thought. Perhaps expand these privileges to civil unions? That already happened in California by the way. This way you don't get on people's toes.

April

Heres a question for you: should straight couples be able to force their definition on everyone else(as in only straight are allowed to marry)? you seem to have a problem with us 'forcing' our ideas on them but if its not fair for us to force gay marriage is it fair for them to force straight marriage on us? Think more about what you're saying - maybe you'll understand what I'm getting it. I'm trying to say if we don't want to 'step on anyones toes' then both straights and gays should have the same rights so neither can force anything on anyone.

Privlieges for couples shouldn't be withheld from gays by the government just because the church doesn't like the idea of gays. No religion should have government authority. Unless we still want to live back in time? Where religion use to state having slaves was OK and so it was. We grew past that as human beings and abolished slavery, so can the U.S grow past bigotry in the goverment againts gays marrying? Or should the U.S stay in the past?

By the way, you can see that I am simply taking your own argument and turning it around to both sides. Because most of what you say can be used on both sides.

To me, it doesn't effect where I live. In Canada anyone can marry who they please, gay or not. I'm just curious of this subject.

[Guest SuperFlyGal]

Heres a question for you: should straight couples be able to force their definition on everyone else(as in only straight are allowed to marry)? you seem to have a problem with us 'forcing' our ideas on them but if its not fair for us to force gay marriage is it fair for them to force straight marriage on us? Think more about what you're saying - maybe you'll understand what I'm getting it. I'm trying to say if we don't want to 'step on anyones toes' then both straights and gays should have the same rights so neither can force anything on anyone.

Privlieges for couples shouldn't be withheld from gays by the government just because the church doesn't like the idea of gays. No religion should have government authority. Unless we still want to live back in time? Where religion use to state having slaves was OK and so it was. We grew past that as human beings and abolished slavery, so can the U.S grow past bigotry in the goverment againts gays marrying? Or should the U.S stay in the past?

By the way, you can see that I am simply taking your own argument and turning it around to both sides. Because most of what you say can be used on both sides.

To me, it doesn't effect where I live. In Canada anyone can marry who they please, gay or not. I'm just curious of this subject.

CA and other states have made great strides in rights for Gay couples at least. I think that the Feds need to issue strict laws in accordance to Gay couple's rights in the least to make sure that there are visitation rights as well as power of attorney if anything unfortunate is to happen as well as obtaining their couple's property after death.

There was a case a long time ago....4-10 years somewhere in there. A woman's girlfriend who she'd been living with for 10+ years I believe, was severely injured and died. The dead woman's relatives who had shunned her and refused to accept her then came and took all the property, wouldn't let her partner come to the funeral, and left her without a single thing of the woman. It was on Oprah I believe, I was a bit young at the time so I don't remember it much..

[Guest michelle.butterfly]

Hi all! (big hugs)

Just to interject another viewpoint, perhaps the state shouldn't be involved in defining marriage at all? (Yes I'm still libertarian. ) Let people make whatever agreements among themselves they like, defining what their rights and responsbilities to each other are and then we don't have to divide people into groups that feel they are getting their toes stepped on. Then you can call your contract to bind yourselves together a 'marriage contract' or a 'union contract' or a 'diddle contract' and no one has to feel like it's a battle.

Letting government have control over issues such as these is what *causes* there to be conflict between different groups of people.

Ok I'll shut up now.

Much love,

Michelle

P.S. Hahahahahha... ohhhh... ok sorry I hardly managed to say I would shut up with a straight face.

[Guest April63]

Oh Zabrak, let me tell you about the conservative mindset. In the conservative mind, everything is fine unless there is a good reason to change it. So the definition of marriage is seen as fine for most people. The definition is between a man and a woman. That's how it has been. So we are trying to change it to something else, not the other way around.

Giving everyone the privileges would be easier and simpler. Marriage originated in religion, which is where so much fuss comes from. Just add the privileges to civil unions and you'll get you want so much quicker.

I mostly agree with Michelle though. I don't really think the government needs to define marriage, but the problem is, there has to be order of some kind. The government has to say something.

April

[Guest Kelly Ann]

I really wonder why we don't ask the UN to move H.Q. to Brussels and let Europe support Hugo and Amadidadummy and their ilk support their racist causes...lets not forget Dafur, Somilia...ect ect, The UN...The MOUTH That ROARED...they HATE the U.S. of A. and we really haven't done anything too serious except...save the world from itself a couple of times...and now we can't help ourselves. I despair sometimes from this stuff...the USA is not and never has been a Colonial country...but there's a lot of folks that would like to impose their will on us and now when we're reeling, even China is screaming NOT to turn Socialist. Other than Radical Islam is there really any culture that abhors gender issues that has real humanity? Ok OK but the Facistists were whipped in WWII. The American Indians held this necessity for a person in high esteem, Middle-East Indians have a respectful place for us too, there's more as well in just about every humanistic culture because our lives really are precious...it's not that uncommon...now or in the past. I have a few Italian hand gestures and several words, of choice, for anyone that thinks otherwise Kelly Ann