PDA

View Full Version : UN wants to decriminalize homosexuality...but no US


IceColdLaraCroft
20-12-08, 00:14
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7791063.stm

Sixty-six countries at the United Nations have called for homosexuality to be decriminalised.

The countries signed a declaration sponsored by France and the Netherlands demanding an end to legal punishment based on sexual orientation.

Sixty other countries of the UN's 192 member states, including a number of Arab and African states, rejected the non-binding declaration.

They said laws on homosexuality should be left to individual countries.

Gay men, lesbians and transsexuals worldwide face daily violations of their human rights.

Homosexuality is a criminal offence in more than 80 countries, while in at least seven nations, including Saudi Arabia, sex between men can be punished with the death penalty.

Considerable opposition

This month marks the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the French and Dutch governments are using this to highlight discrimination against homosexuals.

Their statement calls for an end to the execution, arrest and detention of homosexuals and transexuals.

The Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen said it was a significant declaration.

Yet there is considerable opposition to this at the UN. Socially conservative countries in the Arab world and in Africa did not want anything to do with it.

Syria spoke on behalf of 60 countries, arguing that domestic laws should be respected, and claiming the declaration could legitimise deplorable acts including paedophilia.

The US was the only major Western nation not to sign the declaration.

Even though the US Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot make homosexuality a crime, diplomats claimed the declaration was not compatible with the division between between state and federal law.

France and the Netherlands hope more countries will sign up to the declaration in the future.

Punaxe
20-12-08, 01:08
UN, non-binding... Well, it's a start.

How many of the signers actually decriminalized homosexuality because of this declaration? I mean in the Netherlands homosexuality obviously isn't a crime, so its representive signature doesn't mean all that much, except of course symbolically and to encourage. I suppose those countries where the issue is worst simply didn't sign.

Encore
20-12-08, 01:19
I wouldn't call UN declarations useless so quick. Legally they are, that's true. But they do a great deal when it comes to mentality changing. Like it or not, there is a certain downgrade in respectability of a country who blatantly violates something stated by the UN. It's a great weapon of "credibility wars". :D

Paddy
20-12-08, 02:16
Dont know why its a crime anyway.
Sure some people are against it and frankly got no idea why, its peoples choice and should be respected.

rowanlim
20-12-08, 05:13
While I like that this would help knock down barriers for homosexual individuals, I can't say much coz it sounds like a lot of legal jargon blocking the way & I'm useless at stuff like that :o

amiro1989
20-12-08, 05:19
Dont know why its a crime anyway.
Sure some people are against it and frankly got no idea why, its peoples choice and should be respected.

See, that's the problem...

It's not a choice. :ton:

Ikas90
20-12-08, 05:20
It should be legalised. We have free will, after all.

I hate homosexuality being regarded as a crime. I also hate how it's regarded as unnatural.

It's completely natural. Nothing man-made about homosexuality, is there? :confused:

IceColdLaraCroft
20-12-08, 05:23
It's a bit like the Kyoto protocols.

Even if you have no intention of following the agreement doesn't mean you can't sign it in good faith that you believe in it.

The US not signing this agreement is barbaric.

Paddy
20-12-08, 05:42
See, that's the problem...

It's not a choice. :ton:

haha true actually.
Even more of a reason to never have it criminalised.

Mad Tony
20-12-08, 12:00
The US not signing this agreement is barbaric.Err, no. Homosexuality still isn't a crime in the United States. However, there are some countries out there that are barbaric when it comes to homosexuality since it's not only a crime there, it's punishable by the death penalty.

Punaxe asked a very good question. How many of the countries who signed this declaration actually decriminalized homosexuality because of this?

ShadyCroft
20-12-08, 12:15
However, there are some countries out there that are barbaric when it comes to homosexuality since it's not only a crime there, it's punishable by the death penalty.

I agree here, think Afghanistan, Iran, etc

and I don't think Homosexuality is considered a crime in the US. Most people there may not agree with same-sex marriage or homosexuality, but I don't consider this as thinking of it as a crime.

Goose
20-12-08, 12:25
Why is the UN focusing on decriminalizing homosexuality around the world, when it should focus on those countries that punish it by death first, then work on from there.

Ward Dragon
20-12-08, 12:32
It's a bit like the Kyoto protocols.

Even if you have no intention of following the agreement doesn't mean you can't sign it in good faith that you believe in it.

If you sign an agreement knowing full well that you won't follow through, then that is not good faith -- that's being dishonest.

The US not signing this agreement is barbaric.

What purpose does this agreement serve? There's absolutely nothing to enforce it and it's only being signed by countries who do not persecute homosexuals anyway. Signing it does nothing to help homosexuals in countries where they are being executed, but it does anger those countries without even gaining anything in return.

Goose
20-12-08, 12:34
but it does anger those countries without even gaining anything in return.

Exactly, were already infidels, they must really hate us now.

Ward Dragon
20-12-08, 12:38
Why is the UN focusing on decriminalizing homosexuality around the world, when it should focus on those countries that punish it by death first, then work on from there.

Agreed. If it's a human rights issue, then the UN has every right to step in just like the US Federal government would step in if a state was depriving citizens of their Constitutional rights. I'm sure if the UN had specific countries in mind and wanted to stop specific atrocities, then the US would be on board.

Exactly, were already infidels, they must really hate us now.

I don't even want to get into that debate. I'm not about to let people get murdered just so those countries don't hate us. However, I see no point in taunting them without getting something worthwhile out of it.

Goose
20-12-08, 12:42
I don't even want to get into that debate. I'm not about to let people get murdered just so those countries don't hate us. However, I see no point in taunting them without getting something worthwhile out of it.

Diplomacy is about bringing people over to a shared way of thinking. When religion is mixed with government, diplomacy goes out the window, we cant offer and they wont give.

ShadyCroft
20-12-08, 12:45
When religion is mixed with government, diplomacy goes out the window, we cant offer and they wont give.

Do be careful here, Goose. There's been a lot of controversial issues and threads here, and statement like these in them always turned them into a flaming war.

Just be careful ! :)

Ward Dragon
20-12-08, 12:45
Diplomacy is about bringing people over to a shared way of thinking. When religion is mixed with government, diplomacy goes out the window, we cant offer and they wont give.

Exactly. That's why I'm a firm believer that the government should not try to legislate morality and should only focus on making sure society runs smoothly (pretty much guaranteeing individuals certain rights, enforcing that, and nothing more). But of course not everyone feels that way, and it would be nearly impossible to peacefully implement that idea in a country where the majority of the people prefer to have a theocratic government.

Goose
20-12-08, 12:49
Do be careful here, Goose. There's been a lot of controversial issues and threads here, and statement like these in them always turned them into a flaming war.

Just be careful ! :)

sorry if i offended, but it is a trend in religious based governments to kill homosexuals.... although some are almost perfect mixes when viewed with there economic position in the world.

Ward Dragon
20-12-08, 12:53
Do be careful here, Goose. There's been a lot of controversial issues and threads here, and statement like these in them always turned them into a flaming war.

Just be careful ! :)

I think he just meant that it's harder to convince someone to come over to your side when religion is involved. If it's a matter of economics, for example, you can show them that your side is more profitable. However, if their position is based upon their religion then you can't really argue with that.

Goose
20-12-08, 12:55
I think he just meant that it's harder to convince someone to come over to your side when religion is involved. If it's a matter of economics, for example, you can show them that your side is more profitable. However, if their position is based upon their religion then you can't really argue with that.

When a religious text clearly states a position on a subject, there is nothing on earth a country heavily involved and related to a different religion can offer to change your mind.

If Iran attempted to convince us to kill homosexuals, would we? That's how they feel i suppose.

deamonguardian
20-12-08, 12:55
somepeople:mad: i live and canada were its okay to be gay luckily. i feel so bad for all the other countries in the world how don't . its in you dna. and wow punshible by death!!!:(

Spong
20-12-08, 12:59
I have nothing more than my own opinion and I have no problem with homosexuality. I might personally think it's a bit off to discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation, but I have no right to impose that view on another country, the same way I feel the UN has no right to do it either. If a country should change its stance on such a topic, then it should be done from within by its own people, not by outsiders.

ShadyCroft
20-12-08, 13:01
No, no, I didn't mean you offended me, and I do understand what he means, Ward Dragon. ;) I just wanted to put him on his guard.

Goose
20-12-08, 13:04
I have nothing more than my own opinion and I have no problem with homosexuality. I might personally think it's a bit off to discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation, but I have no right to impose that view on another country, the same way I feel the UN has no right to do it either. If a country should change its stance on such a topic, then it should be done from within by its own people, not by outsiders.

So people should be persecuted because they were born in the wrong country?

Someone needs to step out and defend them, if there own government is trying to kill them off like a disease.

rowanlim
20-12-08, 13:06
Reading the article made me think again. I think the UN won't be able to convince the countries that didn't sign the declaration to, well, sign. Homophobia is so deeply entrenched in many of these countries, it's unlikely they would give in to that declaration. Only change in mindset can persuade them to think beyond the grasp of religion, that change has to come from the people in that nation & I doubt a declaration can do that.

I do wish we can just step in & force these countries to accept homosexuality but it's not feasible & that's a shame.

Spong
20-12-08, 13:14
So people should be persecuted because they were born in the wrong country?

What do you mean "born in the wrong country"? That's a subjective view isn't it?

But to reiterate what I said, I don't think it's right to persecute people for their sexuality, but the countries in question have to arrive at that decision themselves, it's not for anyone outside to decide what's right or wrong.

rowanlim
20-12-08, 13:20
What do you mean "born in the wrong country"? That's a subjective view isn't it?

I think he refers to the gays who were born in countries where homosexuality is a crime & they face persecution.

Homosexuality is illegal in my country, & I feel sorry for people I know who are affected by the regulation.

Goose
20-12-08, 13:20
What do you mean "born in the wrong country"? That's a subjective view isn't it?

But to reiterate what I said, I don't think it's right to persecute people for their sexuality, but the countries in question have to arrive at that decision themselves, it's not for anyone outside to decide what's right or wrong.

Like rowan said.

I mean sexuality is natural, your born with it, so these homosexuals born in Iran or elsewhere are being killed by there government. If we ignore it, then no-one will help them.

deamonguardian
20-12-08, 13:33
Like rowan said.

I mean sexuality is natural, your born with it, so these homosexuals born in Iran or elsewhere are being killed by there government. If we ignore it, then no-one will help them.


save the homos:hug:

Goose
20-12-08, 13:40
save the homos:hug:

well i hate myself for this, but my perfect world would not have homosexuality, but i will fight for peoples right to be homosexuals, even if it means literally doing so.

Quasimodo
20-12-08, 13:42
well i hate myself for this, but my perfect world would not have homosexuality, but i will fight for peoples right to be homosexuals, even if it means literally doing so.

Why?

Goose
20-12-08, 13:47
Why?

I love women, i think men should, i was bought up to believe that, but i have friends who are homosexuals, i don't hold it against them or even consider it a flaw, i even have to shower with them at work without cubicles, i will serve in Afghanistan with them, and they may save my life or i will endeavor to save theirs if it comes down to that. I just believe that women are something amazing, and men are not. I cant comprehend how men are sexually attracted to other men.

Nannonxyay
20-12-08, 13:47
EDIT: Goose, OK, you like women. Your point? Just because you like women, doesn't mean all men should like women. Just because you're straight doesn't mean that you have to worry about men who like men. Live and let live.

I want to know your view on people who find both genders attractive or women who find women attractive.

Goose
20-12-08, 13:49
EDIT: Ok, you like women. Your point? Just because you like women, doesn't mean all men should like women.

Like i said above, i believe women are beautiful, and in my perfect world all would feel the same. But in my perfect world it would rain chocolate, and i would be payed for playing video games.....

People who find both genders attractive is something else i don't understand. Science would say they have an imbalance, but i think its probably psychological, i mean i find Brad Pitt attractive, but i wouldn't want to have sex with him, but if i lacked a father figure from a very young age maybe i would for one reason or another, as i wouldn't grasp my attraction to him. I lost my father when i was 14 and looked for others as i was growing, when your a teen you need a solid father figure, but also as a teen i understood that i was looking for a father and nothing else. Obviously as i got older i look back on my real dad and see he was perfect for me. But if i was younger when he died maybe i wouldnt know why i was in a way attracted to men i respected.

Nannonxyay
20-12-08, 13:51
Like i said above, i believe women are beautiful, and in my perfect world all would feel the same. But in my perfect world it would rain chocolate, and i would be payed for playing video games.....

I see what you're saying, that because you find women attractive you'd like it if all men found women attractive and vise versa. Hm. But that's not really reality, is it? I find both genders attractive, my perfect world would contain people accepting others for who they are. Then again, that's not very reality like is it?

Goose
20-12-08, 13:57
I see what you're saying, that because you find women attractive you'd like it if all men found women attractive and vise versa. Hm. But that's not really reality, is it? I find both genders attractive, my perfect world would contain people accepting others for who they are. Then again, that's not very reality like is it?

I do accept people for who they are, but its not what i would like. Just like you don't like how i feel, i am afraid that's who i am, it wouldn't effect a conversation i had with you on sport or music, only who you would bang!

Quasimodo
20-12-08, 14:00
I do accept people for who they are, but its not what i would like. Just like you don't like how i feel, i am afraid that's who i am, it wouldn't effect a conversation i had with you on sport or music, only who you would bang!

When I asked 'why?', I had a hunch that part of it might be about avoiding conflict. Like the whole John Lennon 'imagine if there was no religion' kind of thing.

rowanlim
20-12-08, 14:01
Why are we questioning Goose's sexual preferences? :rolleyes:

Quasimodo
20-12-08, 14:02
Why are we questioning Goose's sexual preferences? :rolleyes:

Just for ****s and giggles.

Goose
20-12-08, 14:06
hmm, well when people think of a perfect world, they think of there own perfect world, not someone else s, imagine the popes! Very different from mine.

I don't believe in a world order or world wide shared ideals to stop conflict, conflict is healthy in some respects, its actually led to technical advances that wouldn't have occurred within our generations. I, as a straight bloke, don't want to have sex with a man, and i don't understand why others do. But i will fight for others right to do so.

John Lennon's song was about him and not me, it wasn't a song for all people, it just has parts people can relate to.

Neteru
20-12-08, 14:14
It's remarkable that Goose has said so much in defense of homosexuals, but as soon as he expresses a desire for there not to be any homosexuality, he is jumped on. Give the guy a break for god's sake.

Goose, homosexuality isn't just about men being attracted to men.

Goose
20-12-08, 14:15
It's remarkable that Goose has said so much in defense of homosexuals, but as soon as he expresses a desire for there not to be any homosexuality, he is jumped on. Give the guy a break for god's sake.

Goose, homosexuality isn't just about men being attracted to men.

I'm sorry, i fully know my opinion isn't even valid, its just one i hold.

siouxsiecrux
20-12-08, 14:18
Homosexuality, and HETEROSEXUALITY! are process' developed by Evolution, Natural selection, Sexual selection etc...

It is always going to exist, as a good control on population.

Neteru
20-12-08, 14:21
I'm sorry, i fully know my opinion isn't even valid, its just one i hold.Listen, you don't have to justify yourself to anybody here. You've posted reasonably enough. So you may have a view that isn't quite logical, or whatever, but you are evidently not a hater, on the contrary, you are a defender.

Goose
20-12-08, 14:26
Thanks, its good to know its understood.

I'm certainly not a hater! And i hope my opinion didn't offend! May have driven off topic abit i suppose.

rowanlim
20-12-08, 14:26
Is there a link showing which countries rejected the declaration? I'm curious.

Endow
20-12-08, 14:38
I thought Saudi Arabia was supposed to be one of the most forward-thinking arabic countries. I was surprised to read that there's a penalty of death still.

hmm, well when people think of a perfect world, they think of there own perfect world, not someone else s, imagine the popes! Very different from mine.

In my perfect world every man aside from me would be gay. Oh and I would be the ugliest man alive. I'd be the most desired partner on earth for women and the lest desired partner on earth for man.

trtrailerman
20-12-08, 14:40
In my perfect world every man aside from me would be gay. Oh I would be the ugliest man alive. I'd be the most desired partner on earth for women and the lest desired partner on earth for man.

XD now thats a gd reason :D and it gives me more action too yay :p

rowanlim
20-12-08, 14:41
In my perfect world every man aside from me would be gay. Oh I would be the ugliest man alive. I'd be the most desired partner on earth for women and the lest desired partner on earth for man.

Hahahah now that's a nice one :p

Goose
20-12-08, 14:43
I thought Saudi Arabia was supposed to be one of the most forward-thinking arabic countries. I was surprised to read that there's a penalty of death still.



In my perfect world every man aside from me would be gay. Oh and I would be the ugliest man alive. I'd be the most desired partner on earth for women and the lest desired partner on earth for man.

My god, in that case, there would only be one generation! And your kids would have to commit incest! Well unless there not attracted to women either, then its the end of the human race!

trtrailerman
20-12-08, 14:47
My god, in that case, there would only be one generation! And your kids would have to commit incest! Well unless there not attracted to women either, then its the end of the human race!

The thing about this is, he's not being all that serious

Goose
20-12-08, 14:48
The thing about this is, he's not being all that serious

Lol, i thought he was being deadly serious, and was in the process of hatching a plan to turn all straight men homosexual.

trtrailerman
20-12-08, 14:49
Lol, i thought he was being deadly serious, and was in the process of hatching a plan to turn all straight men homosexual.

yes im sure he was, and when he invents the deadly homo-ray let me know I could do with one

siouxsiecrux
20-12-08, 14:50
Soon, the way science is going. Gender will not be needed, and sexuality will not be either.

Artificial Sperm, artificial wombs etc...

Endow
20-12-08, 14:51
My god, in that case, there would only be one generation! And your kids would have to commit incest! Well unless there not attracted to women either, then its the end of the human race!

My mind can't conceive of a better "1999 party". It would be the second big bag! Angry horny mothers-to-be.

I'd have to read Sting's autobiography beforehand, though, so I would learn how to hone my tantric sex skills.


I could also ask gay man to rush to the sperm banks in order to ensure the survival of the human species, but it would be less fun that way.

Goose
20-12-08, 14:51
Soon, the way science is going. Gender will not be needed, and sexuality will not be either.

Artificial Sperm, artificial wombs etc...

Yea, your right, im just waiting for the right women to.....er hit the shelves: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=i2wYWAlg8Do

siouxsiecrux
20-12-08, 14:53
Yea, your right, im just waiting for the right women to.....er hit the shelves: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=i2wYWAlg8Do

Hahahahaha

Mr.Burns
20-12-08, 15:06
More fuel for the fire it seems. :rolleyes: I'm disgusted by this, that these people are so narrowminded that they are willing to cause grief and aggravation towards hundreds of couples just to preserve their idea of the sanctity of marriage.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html
Prop 8 proponents seek to nullify same-sex marriages


(CNN) -- Sponsors of the California ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage are seeking to nullify thousands of marriages between gay and lesbian couples performed after the state Supreme Court ruled them constitutional.
The passge of Proposition 8 left the future of thousands of marriages between same-sex couples unclear.

The passge of Proposition 8 left the future of thousands of marriages between same-sex couples unclear.

The sponsors Friday filed responses to three anti-Proposition 8 lawsuits with the state Supreme Court. The briefs also defend Proposition 8 against opponents' legal challenges, including an argument that the amendment needed a constitutional convention to be added to the state's constitution.

"We are confident that the will of the voters and Proposition 8 will ultimately be upheld," said Andrew Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund.

California Attorney General Edmund "Jerry" Brown called on the court to reject the initiative.

"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification," Brown said in a written statement.

Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of the anti-Proposition 8 Courage Campaign, said he was "appalled" that the initiative's supporters wanted to nullify the same-sex marriages that are already on the books.

"The motivation behind this mean-spirited and heart-breaking action should not be allowed to be buried in legal brief," he said. "If Proposition 8's sponsors plan to destroy lives, they should at least have the courage to admit it publicly."
Don't Miss

* iReport.com: Your thoughts on same-sex marriage
* Map: How California voted
* In Depth: Same-sex marriage

Opponents filed suit quickly after the November 4 election in which Proposition 8 passed 52 percent to 48 percent, effectively reversing a California Supreme Court decision that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The vote also prompted a series of protests, some aimed at supporters of the proposition.

The proposition, which added an amendment to the state constitution, defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Opponents argue that the amendment cannot be applied retroactively, but proponents say the amendment is clear on that issue.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity," one of the briefs read. "There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions, or exclusions: 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'

" ... Its plain language encompasses both pre-existing and later-created same-sex (and polygamous) marriages, whether performed in California or elsewhere. With crystal clarity, it declares that they are not valid or recognized in California."

Opponents are also seeking to have the amendment nullified, arguing that it alters the state's constitution -- meaning the state Supreme Court's May ruling -- and therefore, according to state law, is a revision that requires a constitutional convention. Proponents of the amendment disagree.

"Petitioners' challenge depends on characterizing Proposition 8 as a radical departure from the fundamental principles of the California Constitution," their briefs said. " ... But that portrayal is wildly wrong. Proposition 8 is limited in nature and effect. It does nothing more than restore the definition of marriage to what it was and always had been under California law before June 16, 2008 -- and to what the people had repeatedly willed that it be throughout California's history."

California voters passed a ballot initiative in 2000 that changed the state's Family Code to formally define marriage in the state between a man and a woman. After San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom performed same-sex marriages in 2004, which were promptly annulled, Newsom and others sought to have the ballot initiative struck down.

The California Supreme Court did so in May, and same-sex marriages were performed legally in California a month later.

The court's ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights "so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process."

But opponents had already been at work on Proposition 8, seeking to enshrine the marriage definition in the constitution, and the initiative was approved for the November 4 vote.

Proposition 8 supporters also announced the addition of Kenneth Starr to their legal team. Starr will serve as lead counsel and argue their case to the Supreme Court.

Starr, the dean of Pepperdine Law School, investigated the suicide of Clinton deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater affair. The $70 million investigation turned up evidence of President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky and led to Clinton's impeachment by the House of Representatives. He was acquitted by the Senate.

MattTR
20-12-08, 15:13
Man, can it get any worse? This is horrible, why just why can't everyone be treated like normal? I mean people have a CHOICE, we're HUMAN, we have FREE WILL.

Why are people so cruel? I hate the world sometimes, I really do. It makes me cry.

Goose
20-12-08, 15:17
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][SIZE=3][COLOR=SlateGray][I]More fuel for the fire it seems. :rolleyes: I'm disgusted by this, that these people are so narrowminded that they are willing to cause grief and aggravation towards hundreds of couples just to preserve their idea of the sanctity of marriage........

Its upsetting, but at least there not being forced to remain where they are yet act against there will at the same time, they can still live in the USA and be a gay married couple.

Like people and myself have said, there are bigger fish for the UN to fry first.

Mr.Burns
20-12-08, 15:20
Not in California, assuming these pro Prop 8 folks have their way.

ShadyCroft
20-12-08, 15:28
It's remarkable that Goose has said so much in defense of homosexuals, but as soon as he expresses a desire for there not to be any homosexuality, he is jumped on. Give the guy a break for god's sake.

Maybe some understood his opinions in a wrong way, different that what he intended really. But after elaboration, I do respect his opinion. He did say some valid points, like the one where he says someones perfect world is a world they see perfect in their eyes and according to their desire, so it definitely differs from one person to another.

I'm sorry, i fully know my opinion isn't even valid, its just one i hold.

No need at all for apology, or as Net said, justify yourself. I do respect your opinion and I thank you for this part here...
But i will fight for others right to do so. :hug:

If only other people were like you.

homosexuality isn't just about men being attracted to men.

True. But see here, seeing as 2 woman together appeal to lesbians and straight folks, who do you think is more likely approved (by a TINY difference I mean...I don;t mean totally approved) ? Who do you think the majority is ?

Mad Tony
20-12-08, 15:30
True. But see here, seeing as 2 woman together appeal to lesbians and straight folks, who do you think is more likely approved (by a TINY difference I mean...I don;t mean totally approved) ? Who do you think the majority is ?Don't two guys together appeal to straight women and gays? Isn't it exactly the same but just reversed?

Punaxe
20-12-08, 15:31
Not in California, assuming these pro Prop 8 folks have their way.

They already got their way, as far as I know. Or is it being challenged?

Mr.Burns
20-12-08, 15:32
They already got their way, as far as I know. Or is it being challenged?

Oh yea, they got prop 8 passed. However they want to nullify the marriages that were legalized prior to the passage of prop 8.

ShadyCroft
20-12-08, 15:33
Don't two guys together appeal to straight women and gays? Isn't it exactly the same but just reversed?

hmmm, you do have a point there.

But why is it every time some one says the word "Homosexuality" its all about 2 guys, not 2 girls ?!

Neteru
20-12-08, 15:34
True. But see here, seeing as 2 woman together appeal to lesbians and straight folks, who do you think is more likely approved (by a TINY difference I mean...I don;t mean totally approved) ? Who do you think the majority is ?Why are you asking me?

ShadyCroft
20-12-08, 15:35
I wasn't asking you as in "You"...more like the reader of the post. :)

Punaxe
20-12-08, 15:42
Oh yea, they got prop 8 passed. However they want to nullify the marriages that were legalized prior to the passage of prop 8.

Oh, I thought that was an automatic result of Prop 8.

raiderfun
20-12-08, 15:42
It should be legalised. We have free will, after all.

I hate homosexuality being regarded as a crime. I also hate how it's regarded as unnatural.

It's completely natural. Nothing man-made about homosexuality, is there? :confused:

Agreed :tmb:

Mad Tony
20-12-08, 16:06
hmmm, you do have a point there.

But why is it every time some one says the word "Homosexuality" its all about 2 guys, not 2 girls ?!Is it?

siouxsiecrux
20-12-08, 16:08
Who ever said it meant just two people?

I do agree about people usually only thinking about the male side of homosexuality. It does tend to be that way.

ajrich17901
20-12-08, 16:09
Is it?

Yup its is

rowanlim
20-12-08, 16:24
@Mr. Burns: WTF. They want to nullify the marriages prior to Prop 8? That stinks.

@Mad Tony: Well it's true that most people do think about gay men before gay women, I do not know why, probably the same reason why men kissing men seems to be more gross than 2 women making out.

@Goose: :vlol: Creepy robot woman :p

siouxsiecrux
20-12-08, 16:30
@Mad Tony: Well it's true that most people do think about gay men before gay women, I do not know why, probably the same reason why men kissing men seems to be more gross than 2 women making out.


I know this is to mad tony, but the reason I think the two women making out ordeal is due to it exciting heterosexual men. So initially some heterosexual men are hypocrites.

deamonguardian
20-12-08, 16:32
when i think gay i acually thi nk of to girls idk maybe because at are school there are two girls who are bi but not anyguys

siouxsiecrux
20-12-08, 16:33
when i think gay i acually thi nk of to girls idk maybe because at are school there are two girls who are bi but not anyguys

You mean no males that are openly out about their homosexuality and go around shouting "I am gay" hehe.

Betal
20-12-08, 16:33
I know this is to mad tony, but the reason I think the two women making out ordeal is due to it exciting heterosexual men. So initially some heterosexual men are hypocrites.

It's not only men.

Like everyone who claims to hate homosexuals. They are just afraid to gay men.
Like godhatesfags.com ... They only say fags cause they just hate homosexual men.

siouxsiecrux
20-12-08, 16:38
It's not only men.

Like everyone who claims to hate homosexuals. They are just afraid to gay men.
Like godhatesfags.com ... They only say fags cause they just hate homosexual men.

www.godhatesfags.com I believe is a religious website (and organization). I believe if it was not for scripture then some of those people would most probably get on fine with homosexuals and it would not bother them.

It's very ridiculous in my opinion, and all-in-all these people must be very low in their thinking capacities that they have to rely on biblical scripture to form their opinions.

Geck-o-Lizard
20-12-08, 16:43
I find it amusing how Prop 8 style religious nutters are so disgusted by homosexuality that they can't stay away from the subject. If they didn't constantly bring it up and lock horns with it, it wouldn't be an issue.

TRfan23
20-12-08, 16:51
It's not only men.

Like everyone who claims to hate homosexuals. They are just afraid to gay men.
Like godhatesfags.com ... They only say fags cause they just hate homosexual men.

Yeh where did the word faggot come out? What does it actually mean exactly, I know it's to descibe us gays but in a nasty way. But how? When people call me it, all of a sudden I get angry and annoyed but that's only because I've been told it's an offense to gays. But really I dont actually know why it's offensive?

www.godhatesfags.com I believe is a religious website (and organization). I believe if it was not for scripture then some of those people would most probably get on fine with homosexuals and it would not bother them.

It's very ridiculous in my opinion, and all-in-all these people must be very low in their thinking capacities that they have to rely on biblical scripture to form their opinions.

I looked online and found a bible quote from the new testament, about homosexuals. But when I checked it in my bible the exact same location, homosexuals wasn't even mentioned there!!! Something like Corithans I... Though in the Old Testament it's there! Levictious or however you spell it...

siouxsiecrux
20-12-08, 16:53
Yeh where did the word faggot come out? What does it actually mean exactly, I know it's to descibe us gays but in a nasty way. But how? When people call me it, all of a sudden I get angry and annoyed but that's only because I've been told it's an offense to gays. But really I dont actually know why it's offensive?

To me the only reason why it is offensive is because it sounds awful.

Punaxe
20-12-08, 16:54
Yeh where did the word faggot come out? What does it actually mean exactly, I know it's to descibe us gays but in a nasty way. But how? When people call me it, all of a sudden I get angry and annoyed but that's only because I've been told it's an offense to gays. But really I dont actually know why it's offensive?
EtymOnline (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=faggot&searchmode=none) - seems it has always been a derogatory term.

siouxsiecrux
20-12-08, 16:56
Yeh where did the word faggot come out? What does it actually mean exactly, I know it's to descibe us gays but in a nasty way. But how? When people call me it, all of a sudden I get angry and annoyed but that's only because I've been told it's an offense to gays. But really I dont actually know why it's offensive?



I looked online and found a bible quote from the new testament, about homosexuals. But when I checked it in my bible the exact same location, homosexuals wasn't even mentioned there!!! Something like Corithans I... Though in the Old Testament it's there! Levictious or however you spell it...

You may have a different version of the bible, which version is it that you have?

Sorry if you are a christian, or a catholic. My previous comment was not suppose to be taken as offense if it seemed that way. (For other christians or catholics etc...)

TRfan23
20-12-08, 17:00
You may have a different version of the bible, which version is it that you have?

The Oxford Gift Bible

Authorised King James Version


Why couldn't they have stuck copyright on the bloody bible! Great now they actually have versions, is this like version 5.6? :(

I want Version 1 :(

siouxsiecrux
20-12-08, 17:05
The Oxford Gift Bible

Authorised King James Version


Why couldn't they have stuck copyright on the bloody bible! Great now they actually have versions, is this like version 5.6? :(

I want Version 1 :(

:ton: You have the Authorized King James Version which is the most accepted version of the bible. Its mainly due to debates over translations.

This website has a list of most versions of the bible:

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/scriptures/

TRfan23
20-12-08, 17:13
:ton: You have the Authorized King James Version which is the most accepted version of the bible. Its mainly due to debates over translations.

This website has a list of most versions of the bible:

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/scriptures/

Which one's the main version which was written from scratch?
In fact when the bible was written where was it actually kept?

I seem to be going :off: sorry :(

siouxsiecrux
20-12-08, 17:17
Which one's the main version which was written from scratch?
In fact when the bible was written where was it actually kept?

I seem to be going :off: sorry :(

Yes, there is no official translation and the original bible is non-existent minus artifacts such as the dead sea scrolls.
:)

TRfan23
20-12-08, 17:39
Yes, there is no official translation and the original bible is non-existent minus artifacts such as the dead sea scrolls.
:)

Oh I see, right so it seems as if it was all chinese wispers...?
But psycologically comes true upon your beliefs - well that part's my belief anyway :)

Neteru
20-12-08, 17:42
Erm, the Torah. At least where the old testament is concerned. So the language is Hebrew.

TRfan23
20-12-08, 17:53
Erm, the Torah. At least where the old testament is concerned. So the language is Hebrew.

Doesn't governments in countries like Iran etc.. Refer to the Old Testament style? As opposed to the New Testament? If they call them that in the Qur'an?

Neteru
20-12-08, 17:57
I don't know what the books of the koran are called, if indeed it contains books like the bible does. In any event, some islamic countries' laws are sharia, but some aren't. But that's not to say that even those that aren't sharia, aren't based upon islamic views.

Tombreaper
20-12-08, 18:28
Issues like homosexuality always make clear which countries are developed and which aren't.

takamotosan
20-12-08, 18:57
it's those damn anti-sodomy laws in Texas...

:p

that's why the US didn't sign it.

anywho, i think it's great that the UN is pressuring countries to show their true colors :)

(LOL no pun intended :p)

Quasimodo
20-12-08, 20:39
it's those damn anti-sodomy laws in Texas...

:p

that's why the US didn't sign it.

anywho, i think it's great that the UN is pressuring countries to show their true colors :)

(LOL no pun intended :p)

I thought those were repealed after a Supreme Court decision in 2003 :confused:

Neteru
20-12-08, 20:43
Post removed. Let's keep spamming vulgarity out of the thread please. Thanks.

takamotosan
20-12-08, 21:07
I thought those were repealed after a Supreme Court decision in 2003 :confused:

not that i know of...

Quasimodo
20-12-08, 21:19
not that i know of...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Yup, in 2003 they struck down Texas sodomy laws.

Tombcool
20-12-08, 21:39
Wait wait, how does the government know if one has sodomized?

Sounds like a silly question, but really, HOW?! :p:hea:

takamotosan
20-12-08, 21:44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Yup, in 2003 they struck down Texas sodomy laws.

oh, ok.

Wait wait, how does the government know if one has sodomized?

Sounds like a silly question, but really, HOW?! :p:hea:

the only way they could know is if the person admits it outright, or if either someone catches in the act and reports them, or the police catch them in the act.

IceColdLaraCroft
20-12-08, 22:07
Sodomy isn't always defined as anal sex. In some states it was inclusive with rape.

The idea is that in some countries it is against the law and punishable to be homosexual. Regardless IF you have sex or not, but simply loving someone of the same sex.

It is a human right to be with the one you love it shouldn't be a crime or even be punishable.

60 years ago the idea of Human Rights was just as debated as the rights of homosexuals are today. While the UN would not invade a country that incriminated homosexuals or even killed them they would put sanctions on the country as they would any oppressed person's rights.

TRfan23
20-12-08, 22:13
Sodomy isn't always defined as anal sex. In some states it was inclusive with rape.

The idea is that in some countries it is against the law and punishable to be homosexual. Regardless IF you have sex or not, but simply loving someone of the same sex.

It is a human right to be with the one you love it shouldn't be a crime or even be punishable.

60 years ago the idea of Human Rights was just as debated as the rights of homosexuals are today. While the UN would not invade a country that incriminated homosexuals or even killed them they would put sanctions on the country as they would any oppressed person's rights.

Come to think about it the way those death penalty countries work with it. Seems like Love's a sin in a way!

rowanlim
21-12-08, 03:30
Issues like homosexuality always make clear which countries are developed and which aren't.

Not necessarily. US is a developed country. I guess it shows the mentality of the people on homosexuality. We're still a long way from being completely open on this issue.

petujaymz
21-12-08, 03:35
This debate's kinda dead for me.

It's like... yeah.

Gay, lezzer... whatever.

I had the internal debates with myself back in 1994/1995.

I can't believe people are debating the stuff I resolved over ten years ago.

Incase you were wondering, yes, I am the be all and end all.

:wve:

ivannnnn
21-12-08, 09:38
Homosexuality is a criminal offence in more than 80 countries, while in at least seven nations, including Saudi Arabia, sex between men can be punished with the death penalty.

I agree with this, If I did homosexuality in Saudi Arabia. ;)


I don't really care if they hate homosexuality. What I must do is just defend myself if they attack me. I just keep on doing good things.

Geck-o-Lizard
21-12-08, 11:19
US votes (ALONE) against Right to Food (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gashc3941.doc.htm) :(

They also voted against the Right to Development, described as:
The Preamble of the Declaration on the Right to Development states "development is a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process, which aims at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom."

Ward Dragon
21-12-08, 11:29
US votes (ALONE) against Right to Food (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gashc3941.doc.htm) :(

They also voted against the Right to Development, described as:

After the vote, the representative of the United States said he was unable to support the text because he believed the attainment of the right to adequate food was a goal that should be realized progressively. In his view, the draft contained inaccurate textual descriptions of underlying rights.

Sounds reasonable to me. I wouldn't want to vote for something which wasn't clearly and correctly explained either. As for the "Right to Development" thing, I don't really know what that's saying. It sounds like it could be interpreted a thousand different ways, and as such I also wouldn't vote for that. I want everything to be crisp, clear, and not open to interpretation.

Geck-o-Lizard
21-12-08, 11:57
They aren't loosely defined, nebulous suggestions. And everything is open to interpretation if you disagree with it.

Right to Food (http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/385c2add1632f4a8c12565a9004dc311/3d02758c707031d58025677f003b73b9?OpenDocument)
Right to Development (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gashc3941.doc.htm)

Ward Dragon
21-12-08, 12:05
They aren't loosely defined, nebulous suggestions. And everything is open to interpretation if you disagree with it.

Right to Food (http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/385c2add1632f4a8c12565a9004dc311/3d02758c707031d58025677f003b73b9?OpenDocument)

Basically it says everyone has a right to food, but how much food, how to give them the food, how to monitor that everyone has food, etc. is all based on individual circumstances so no clear definition can be provided. It's nebulous.

Right to Development (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gashc3941.doc.htm)

This is the same document you posted earlier. It still sounds like noble words without any actual substance to me.

Edit: My point is that there are a lot of problems in the world and I think the UN would do much better to pick individual situations and provide clear-cut specific solutions one at a time. That way I think they'd actually make progress. I don't think making broad-sweeping general statements with lofty ideals will solve any problems. Just pick the worst situation, figure out how to solve it, and go from there.

IceColdLaraCroft
21-12-08, 14:54
What's stupid is that the US is and has been seen as the leader of the civilized world, but it's actions in the UN show that it is among the most BACKWARD and least forward thinking countries in the world.

Coupled with the recent economic crisis (entirely to blame on the US) the world should be looking elsewhere for guidance.

Mad Tony
21-12-08, 18:29
What's stupid is that the US is and has been seen as the leader of the civilized world, but it's actions in the UN show that it is among the most BACKWARD and least forward thinking countries in the world.

Coupled with the recent economic crisis (entirely to blame on the US) the world should be looking elsewhere for guidance.If you honestly think that the US is one of the most backward countries in the world then I'd definitely advise that you do some research into other countries around the world.

Same goes for the credit crisis. Seriously, do some more research instead of just blaming it entirely on one country. I'm not denying that the US isn't to blame at all. However, we live in a global economy, therefore there are many contributing factors to the credit crisis and not just one as you so incorrectly stated.

AODdigger
21-12-08, 18:39
Hmm...EU :o? Seriously, come on, we live in the 21st Century, my dad's 34, he isn't old, but he still thinks homosexuals should be treated worse than animals. The world is sick (I mean, immature, I respect homosexuals) and cannot take responsability on this matter. There's a crisis, things for 'our' world aren't bright. Why should we just make our lives harder? :/