NationStates Jolt Archive

Wow. This is surprising and bad, even for US standards. Can Americans at least drop "Land of Free" and those kinda stuff or at least amend them so it's like "Land of Free except for gays" or maybe something more catchy "US: The Heterosexual Dream" with big tits with American flag?
I mean, even if US changes policy after Obama, almost half of the electorate still voted for Republicans.


By DAVID CRARY – 2 hours ago

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.

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 which 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.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h1rNjQnbi3UUwYn7JGfk4pLIO6DgD955DD7O1


Edit:

Green: Support
Orange: Neutral
Red: Against (Islamic Countries)

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1298/unsogrsupporters2vt6.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/unsogrsupporters2vt6.png/1/w898.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img525/unsogrsupporters2vt6.png/1/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_declaration_on_LGBT_rights

"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.

Bwahaha. What reality is she living in? The USA has no such tradition - on the contrary, the USA has a well-established history as a notorious human rights abuser. Who would be surprised by this?

Religion is and always has been the enemy of freedom.

Who's surprised? The UN delegation is still a relic of Bush. Bush has been very clear on his official positions regarding homosexuality; why would be be shocked to learn that his representatives would vote along those positions?

I know the planet doesn't revolve around Washington DC, but it seems like it would have been prudent to wait until Obama had his delegation in the UN before holding this vote if the US vote was of concern. Unless the intention was specifically to display American intolerance. In that case, perfect timing.

Unless the intention was specifically to display American intolerance. In that case, perfect timing.

One doesn't need timing for that.

it seems like it would have been prudent to wait until Obama had his delegation in the UN before holding this vote if the US vote was of concern.
Do you think that would make a difference?

Who's surprised? The UN delegation is still a relic of Bush. Bush has been very clear on his official positions regarding homosexuality; why would be be shocked to learn that his representatives would vote along those positions?

I know the planet doesn't revolve around Washington DC, but it seems like it would have been prudent to wait until Obama had his delegation in the UN before holding this vote if the US vote was of concern. Unless the intention was specifically to display American intolerance. In that case, perfect timing.

I mean like I know they are against homosexual marriage and stuff but being a Western nation in the 21st century against decriminalization of homesexuality?

Well, I am honestly surprised, not being sarcastic or anything. Even countries like Poland and Latin American countries signed and they are very religious.

Wow. This is surprising and bad, even for US standards. Can Americans at least drop "Land of Free" and those kinda stuff or at least amend them so it's like "Land of Free except for gays" or maybe something more catchy "US: The Heterosexual Dream" with big tits with American flag?
I mean, even if US changes policy after Obama, almost half of the electorate still voted for Republicans.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h1rNjQnbi3UUwYn7JGfk4pLIO6DgD955DD7O1

It's not a 'heterosexual dream' to discriminate. Some do, some don't.

It's not a 'heterosexual dream' to discriminate. Some do, some don't.

That wasnt what I meant.

Go team America! [/sarcasm]

Surprised no, upset, yes.

It's not a 'heterosexual dream' to discriminate. Some do, some don't.

What he meant was its a nation for the heterosexual white male, by the heterosexual white male.

What he meant was its a nation for the heterosexual white male, by the heterosexual white male.

Well, theres a black president now.

I'm not entirely surprised, although I am disappointed.

Well, theres a black president now.

His skin might be black, but face it. He is as white as Oprah.

What he meant was its a nation for the heterosexual white male, by the heterosexual white male.

...

His skin might be black, but face it. He is as white as Oprah.

Right. Or you know, he is black, and the fact that he's president kind of ruins your nonsense "heterosexual white male" accusation, and you'd kindly like everyone to forget that and go along with your delusional non-logic.

Right. Or you know, he is black, and the fact that he's president kind of ruins your nonsense "heterosexual white male" accusation, and you'd kindly like everyone to forget that and go along with your delusional non-logic.

And you need to grow a sense of humor.

And you need to grow a sense of humor.

I have one and it works just fine. I can't help it if your "joke" here looks suspiciously like irrational cheek.

I have one and it works just fine. I can't help it if your "joke" here looks suspiciously like irrational cheek.

The joke is that he is black, and so is Oprah. However according to many people they are nothing like black people, they never lived the black experience; or some such nonsense. I am using sarcasm.

We can not piss of the oil barons in the desert now can we.

This is your friendly neighbourhood fire department remind you that you can prevent fires. Just keep it in line guys. I know you like to debate, but someone will cross the line and all heck will break loose.

She expressed hope that the U.S. position might change after President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January.Well, it says it right there in the article. Bush has made his position clear on homosexuality. It's not surprising at all that his delegation would vote against this.

Well, it says it right there in the article. Bush has made his position clear on homosexuality. It's not surprising at all that his delegation would vote against this.

Is his position to criminalize homosexuality?

Wow. This is surprising and bad, even for US standards. Can Americans at least drop "Land of Free" and those kinda stuff or at least amend them so it's like "Land of Free except for gays" or maybe something more catchy "US: The Heterosexual Dream" with big tits with American flag?
I mean, even if US changes policy after Obama, almost half of the electorate still voted for Republicans.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h1rNjQnbi3UUwYn7JGfk4pLIO6DgD955DD7O1

Although the Bush Administration continually surprises me with how low it is willing to go, I am still shocked, dismayed, and upset.

I have every confidence this policy will change under President Obama.

Is his position to criminalize homosexuality?

Didn't Bush whine about activist judges after Texas was forced to drop laws banning homosexual sex or was is just after gay marriage in MA?

I am outstandingly surprised, also shocked by this.

I wish that guy that threw a shoe at Bush had hit him.

And that I was that guy.

I don't give a flying fuck.

Being gay isn't a crime in the US. There is no reason to sign a pointless nonbinding resolution.

"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......particularly in Vietnam and Guantanamo Bay.

...particularly in Vietnam and Guantanamo Bay.We're never going to live Vietnam down, ever.
...Now taking all bets on how long people are going to continue to bring up Vietnam as an example of 'teh true American ebilz'. :D
The minimum amount of time is one hundred years. ;)

I don't give a flying fuck.

Being gay isn't a crime in the US. There is no reason to sign a pointless nonbinding resolution.

Umm actually...many states still do out-law sodomy. Why, I have no clue, but it's there.

Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#State_laws_at_time_of_2003_Supreme_Court_decision)

As for me, I'm not surprised, just disappointed.

Umm actually...many states still do out-law sodomy. Why, I have no clue, but it's there.
Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#State_laws_at_time_of_2003_Supreme_Court_decision)
They don't, the laws have been invalidated by that very decision.


Prior to that, anal sex was a felony in Virginia (among others). Not that I ever engaged or plan to ever engage in it anyway. But I prefer it to be my choice of not sticking the little friend into a pile of crap, rather than law obedience.

They don't, the laws have been invalidated by that very decision.


Prior to that, anal sex was a felony in Virginia (among others). Not that I ever engaged or plan to ever engage in it anyway. But I prefer it to be my choice of not sticking the little friend into a pile of crap, rather than law obedience.

to my knowledge most of the anal sex laws were not enforced before Lawrence V Texas anyways.
the only reason it went to court in Texas was the police were responding to a likely staged 911 weapons disturbance call. and found the couple engaged in the act, and they wouldn't stop to converse with police.

I wish that guy that threw a shoe at Bush had hit him.

And that I was that guy.

And it had been one of Rosa Klebb's stiletto heels you were throwing.

I don't give a flying fuck.

Being gay isn't a crime in the US. There is no reason to sign a pointless nonbinding resolution.

You mean the USA never uses its influence or might to influence foreign governments? Wow.

You mean the USA never uses its influence or might to influence foreign governments? Wow.

in a positive way ??? No.

to my knowledge most of the anal sex laws were not enforced before Lawrence V Texas anyways.
Well, obviously. Try catching that. We still don't have cameras at home, at least.

I have every confidence this policy will change under President Obama.
Why?

No surprise here with a fundamentalist Christian yahoo in the White House. :(

What a backward country.

Well, obviously. Try catching that. We still don't have cameras at home, at least.

That is great consolation to those of us in states where you cannot marry, cannot obtain a civil partnership, cannot adopt a child whether single or in a relationship, and cannot be given any rights whatsoever that are reserved by the state for marriage.

So yes. While the government wiretaps my phone line, prevents me from seeing the person I love in the hospital, withholds from me next-of-kin status, denies me spousal privilege and so on, at least there's not a telescreen in my room.

I don't give a flying fuck.

Being gay isn't a crime in the US. There is no reason to sign a pointless nonbinding resolution.
No, but it is a crime in many other countries and that's what the point of that resolution is. One would expect the country that apparently is to freedom what China is to happy meals to stand up for human rights abroad.

No, but it is a crime in many other countries and that's what the point of that resolution is. One would expect the country that apparently is to freedom what China is to happy meals to stand up for human rights abroad.

Its a pointless nonbinding resolution that nobody besides a tiny minority give a rat's ass about.

I've to admit, anything that criminalises Fassitude is at least worth considering, not condemning.

I've to admit, anything that criminalises Fassitude is at least worth considering, not condemning.

Warned. Do not deliberately go out of your way to provoke others; flamebaiting does just that.

Its a pointless nonbinding resolution that nobody besides a tiny minority give a rat's ass about.

Why do you feel that it is pointless? If you do feel that it's pointless does that mean you accept that it's okay to criminalise the life of a person because of their sexual orientation?

Its a pointless nonbinding resolution that nobody besides a tiny minority give a rat's ass about.

Actually it is a statement, which can be rephrased as "killing, torturing or imprisoning two hot girls* for kissing eachother is wrong in our eyes".

And considering the significant attention it has received, including (negative) from the largest religious group on this planet (the Roman Catholic Church) I daresay that calling it a "tiny minority" that "gives a rats ass" is a tad bit silly. Or even: wrong.

*Or guys. But girls are so much more fun ;)

They can just give it to me and I'll sign it.


Since it has no legal power, my sig is as good as the president's.

We're never going to live Vietnam down, ever.
...Now taking all bets on how long people are going to continue to bring up Vietnam as an example of 'teh true American ebilz'. :D
The minimum amount of time is one hundred years. ;)

We killed a shit ton of innocent people in SE Asia. So no, we're never going to live it down.

Of course we wouldn't sign, imagine all the whining from the moron section of the populace if we did.

Cerean;14318125']We killed a shit ton of innocent people in SE Asia. So no, we're never going to live it down.

Of course we wouldn't sign, imagine all the whining from the moron section of this populace if we did.

However, this may even improve US relations with the Muslim countries. After all, 66 countries -including all western ones save the USA - signed this resolution while almost as many, predominantly moslim ones, signed the Syrian one that equates homosexuality to pedophilia.

Be proud USA. You are becoming more and more as the ones you have been calling "enemy" and "backwards". Rejoice !

This doesn't surprise me in the least. I don't see how they expect the US' UN Ambassador to sign a resolution decriminalizing gay rights when there are still US States that criminalize homosexuality. However, it is very disappointing.

Though it makes you wonder about the state of the world when one of the reasons for the Islamic Conference's refusal to sign the resolution is that it could lead to the legalization of acts, "such as pedophilia and incest." I wasn't aware that homosexuality was on the same level as pedophilia and incest.

Though it makes you wonder about the state of the world when one of the reasons for the Islamic Conference's refusal to sign the resolution is that it could lead to the legalization of acts, "such as pedophilia and incest." I wasn't aware that homosexuality was on the same level as pedophilia and incest.

As well as since when "incest" has been a crime in muslim countries. A huge number of muslim immigrants in Europe is marriaged to a first cousin or niece.

And of course there is the whole debate on the relation between the prophet Mohammed and Aisha. It is never stated that the girl was truly pubescent when he consummated the marriage after all.

Hmm. So what the Islamic Conference actually said was that homosexuality is fine :o

Its a pointless nonbinding resolution that nobody besides a tiny minority give a rat's ass about.

Would it make any difference if that tiny minority were "The jews" or "the handicapped" or you?

If yes, why?

... Hmm. So what the Islamic Conference actually said was that homosexuality is fine :o

Aha! So in actuality Muslim's are closet homosexuals. I knew it! I pronounce Aadil and his cousin Riyad husband & husband.

In seriousness though, that is rather ironic.

Its a pointless nonbinding resolution that nobody besides a tiny minority give a rat's ass about.

Well, it's not pointless - because the US exerts a certain amount of pressure, as do some other nations. A nation that is looking to please, diplomatically, may well consider such issues as a consideration.

'Non-binding' is irrelevent. Whether or not there is a capacity for punitive action is only one consideration.

As for the idea that it's a 'tiny minority'... I'm trying to work out how that would be important, even if true.


I can understand why the US wouldn't want to sign to something... they might be looked at with a certain amount of expectation of getting their own shit in order. The idea that we can just ignore this kind of thing, and no one will expect us to be civilised, on the other hand, is frankly laughable. It's an example of just how clueless and backwards American foreign policy is.

They can just give it to me and I'll sign it.

Since it has no legal power, my sig is as good as the president's.

Except that you aren't authorised to sign on anyone's behalf...

Wait, what?
AGH.
Can't people just get past the "gays are icky" thing?

Wait, what?
AGH.
Can't people just get past the "gays are icky" thing?

They don't have to to sign this - unless of course one truly believes that everything icky must be thrown in jail or killed.

I don't give a flying fuck.

Being gay isn't a crime in the US. There is no reason to sign a pointless nonbinding resolution.
Then why not sign it, if it's pointless and nonbinding? It might actually make sense if signing it required the US to change some of its laws, but it doesn't.

They don't have to to sign this - unless of course one truly believes that everything icky must be thrown in jail or killed.

Ah, now I get it. Didn't catch all of this thing at first. But still... pretty disheartening.

Ah, now I get it. Didn't catch all of this thing at first. But still... pretty disheartening.

More so I would say. All one has to believe to sign this is that being gay should not be a crime. You can think it is filthy, pathetic, a reason you will end up in hell and so on - just not that it deserves legal punishment, especially not torture and death.

And even that was too much for the good old US of A.

This doesn't surprise me in the least. I don't see how they expect the US' UN Ambassador to sign a resolution decriminalizing gay rights when there are still US States that criminalize homosexuality.

It's illegal in Illinois to bath in winter. That doesn't mean the law is actually enforced. The criminalization of homosexuality, in any case, was struck down by the Supreme Court. So both by practice and law homosexuality is completely legal.

I wonder how long it will be before Hotwife sees this thread and starts posting about how this is a good thing and we should put gays in concentration camps while we're at it?

Wait, what?
AGH.
Can't people just get past the "gays are icky" thing?

The people who believe this have been indoctrinated to believe this, and it's a hard cycle to break. The easiest way to break the cycle is through legal reform. Even if the first generation doesn't agree, the following will come to accept it as normal. Two good examples are giving women the right to vote; as you can imagine, there were obviously a few people up in arms over this, and let's not forget the miscegenation laws; laws which banned interracial marriage. These two example, along with others faced massive opposition in their infancy.

It was legal reform that helped to change the way a lot of people think. Of course, it didn't change how everyone thought. There are still racists, sexists, etc who frown upon these kinds of legal rights. They're becoming a dying breed. Legal reform could do the same for homosexuals.

Religion is and always has been the enemy of freedom.

If the world had no religion it would fall apart; people need mythology.

I wonder how long it will be before Hotwife sees this thread and starts posting about how this is a good thing and we should put gays in concentration camps while we're at it?

Refrain from baiting. As long as Hotwife posts nothing that breaks the rules, he's entitled to his opinion, no matter how unpopular it is.

If the world had no religion it would fall apart; people need mythology.

Interesting. What's your basis for this? I know I don't need mythology, so tell us, why do people need mythology?

Or we could just respect individual religious beliefs by not referring to them as mythology? No? My apologies.

Or we could just respect individual religious beliefs by not referring to them as mythology? No? My apologies.


:rolleyes:

Why should anyone support it anyways? Its flipping non-binding. So no matter if you support it or not, it doesn't change the fact that if a country does persecute homosexuals, nothing will be done.

so its clear that the US is in the closet! (tbh it was all the stars that did it for me)

Why should anyone support it anyways? Its flipping non-binding. So no matter if you support it or not, it doesn't change the fact that if a country does persecute homosexuals, nothing will be done.

peer pressure and such I guess and the whole solidarity thing

Or we could just respect individual religious beliefs by not referring to them as mythology? No? My apologies.

How is that insulting? My religious beliefs are mythology. Mythology =/= false.

Or we could just respect individual religious beliefs by not referring to them as mythology? No? My apologies.

It is a commandment in my religious belief to refer to all other religions as "mythology", "fairy tales" or "sily nonsense".

No offence intended of course. It is just my freedom of religion talking.

Except that you aren't authorised to sign on anyone's behalf...
Oh come on - the document is meaningless anyway. I'll sign on the behalf of the peoples of my nation. It will be just as good.

I had to stop after a while and just come straight here because the amount of Ad Hominem and Non Sequiter remarks was absolutly astounding.

Sorry that America still cares about her sovereignty. The person in the article said it wasn't about not de-criminalizing homosexuality, but that certain wording made it tricky as, according to the powers that be, to possibly step over states-rights. That is what all of you seem to be getting all bent outta shape over. Or, perhaps, y'all are just looking for a reason to express your outrage and/or hatred over the US and this was just another tool to do so?

Japan, it said, signed that agreement. Last time I checked, the US had a better record at giving homosexuals a fair shake than Japan did. If you want a real, male-oriented society, there you go.

Now, everyone who has read this non-binding UN article please step forward. I'll go ahead and save some time here and say, yeah I didn't think anyone had. Therefore, I'm going to have to side with 'said' person in that it had the possibility to trump the rights of our states via our 10th Amendment. And since the UN is not made up of our Congress and according to our Consitution, ignoring the fact it's non-binding, no one can make US law, or set policy, but Congress/the President respectively.

And yes, I'm well aware the UN has set US policy in the past, as well as forcing many of it's resolutions down our throats.

Why should anyone support it anyways? Its flipping non-binding. So no matter if you support it or not, it doesn't change the fact that if a country does persecute homosexuals, nothing will be done.

Ah well. I guess you won't ever contact your senator or your congressman in an attempt to persuade him to vote a certain way on something, since anything he promises you is non-binding. No petitions ever made a difference. No letter from Amnesty International ever put pressure on a government. Nor would you vote in a general election, because it doesn't bind the politician you vote for to actually do what he's promising to do...


This thing matters, even if it is non-binding, as it becomes a small part of international law. So it should be signed. Because it does matter.

Because it sends a message.

Because with it comes a whole load of diplomatic pressure on the countries that do persecute homosexuals.

Because it is an important signal.

Because it's a step in the right direction.

Because all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

It is a commandment in my religious belief to refer to all other religions as "mythology", "fairy tales" or "sily nonsense".

No offence intended of course. It is just my freedom of religion talking.

Of course, you have a right to insult other people's beliefs, even under the false pretense of it being part of your "religion." That's not in question.

Religion is and always has been the enemy of freedom.

No more than any other institution or prevailing moral code. Within occidental modernity, religion is by increments being demonstrated as specious nonsense, but there will ever be a prevailing moral code or institution to fetter and constrain human behaviour.

Such constraints are not necessarily to our detriment either.

No more than any other institution or prevailing moral code. Within occidental modernity, religion is by increments being demonstrated as specious nonsense, but there will ever be a prevailing moral code or institution to fetter and constrain human behaviour.

Such constraints are not necessarily to our detriment either.
Is there something offensive about the use of the word 'Western'?

I had to stop after a while and just come straight here because the amount of Ad Hominem and Non Sequiter remarks was absolutly astounding.

Sorry that America still cares about her sovereignty. The person in the article said it wasn't about not de-criminalizing homosexuality, but that certain wording made it tricky as, according to the powers that be, to possibly step over states-rights. That is what all of you seem to be getting all bent outta shape over. Or, perhaps, y'all are just looking for a reason to express your outrage and/or hatred over the US and this was just another tool to do so?

Japan, it said, signed that agreement. Last time I checked, the US had a better record at giving homosexuals a fair shake than Japan did. If you want a real, male-oriented society, there you go.

Now, everyone who has read this non-binding UN article please step forward. I'll go ahead and save some time here and say, yeah I didn't think anyone had. Therefore, I'm going to have to side with 'said' person in that it had the possibility to trump the rights of our states via our 10th Amendment. And since the UN is not made up of our Congress and according to our Consitution, ignoring the fact it's non-binding, no one can make US law, or set policy, but Congress/the President respectively.

And yes, I'm well aware the UN has set US policy in the past, as well as forcing many of it's resolutions down our throats.

Go and look at what UN resolutions are, noting the various places the words 'non-binding' and 'recommendatory' come up. Then note that the only time they can be is when they go through the SC where the USA has veto power. The idea that the UN is forcing anything on the US is laughable.

Is there something offensive about the use of the word 'Western'?
Sounding like you haven't got a BA?

Of course, you have a right to insult other people's beliefs, even under the false pretense of it being part of your "religion."

Does it matter if it is false pretense or not* ? Plenty of real religions do exactly the same; does the word "heathen" ring a bell ?
Some even take it a step further and.. well.. what do you know.. imprison and or kill people that think differently.

Which brings us nicely back on topic, no ?

* Besides - it is extremely insulting to call my religion false, even if I did just make it up. Christianity and ISlam and so on after all started the same way.

Is there something offensive about the use of the word 'Western'?

Yes. Firstly, I don't like it. Secondly, "western" is a geographical expression contingent, when used accurately, upon one's location, and would thus omit Australia, New Zealand and others, whereas Occidental does not.

Yes. Firstly, I don't like it. Secondly, "western" is a geographical expression contingent, when used accurately, upon one's location, and would thus omit Australia, New Zealand and others, whereas Occidental does not.
Wow, you really fail pretty hard at life. 'Western' and 'occidental' are cognates.

Does it matter if it is false pretense or not* ? Plenty of real religions do exactly the same; does the word "heathen" ring a bell ?
Some even take it a step further and.. well.. what do you know.. imprison and or kill people that think differently.

Which brings us nicely back on topic, no ?

* Besides - it is extremely insulting to call my religion false, even if I did just make it up. Christianity and ISlam and so on after all started the same way.

So because some people do bad things it's okay to insult groups they are affiliated with? I'm not seeing the connection.

So because some people do bad things it's okay to insult groups they are affiliated with? I'm not seeing the connection.

The connection is the double standard. I am not allowed to refer to your religion as mythology, fairy tales or any other term that to *me* is an accurate description of your beliefs.
Believers however can freely use words like heathen with far less frowned eyebrows, even though that term is FAR more insulting. It is aimed at me personally, while a term like mythology or fairytale is aimed at the stories. Religion for some mysterious reason can get away with far more than nonreligion.

But I admit this is a sidestep. Let us return to people prosecuting and killing gays because their religion demands it, and the USA supporting that.

Wow. This is surprising and bad, even for US standards. Can Americans at least drop "Land of Free" and those kinda stuff or at least amend them so it's like "Land of Free except for gays" or maybe something more catchy "US: The Heterosexual Dream" with big tits with American flag?
I mean, even if US changes policy after Obama, almost half of the electorate still voted for Republicans.

What is it with Euros and America-bashing? i hope you realize that many of us (and I was an Obama voter, and I'm included in this) see you as whiny, spineless idiots who have nothing better to do than complain and act pacifistic. Not to imply anything, but appeasement helped lead to WWII...

Yes, I realize that this could make me unpopular. I have enough pride and confidence in my side not to be swept up in political correctness and not to care.

But I admit this is a sidestep. Let us return to people prosecuting and killing gays because their religion demands it, and the USA supporting that.

This sucks, but I'm afraid it's national sovereignty (which still exists, contrary to what the EU may think.) Ahmadinejad is a bastard, but he does have the legal right in Iran to do this.

BTW the Catholic church is all for the avoidance of killing people. Our abortion stance wasn't something we just put up to piss off women, contrary to what the more self-centered abortion supporters may think.

Sorry that America still cares about her sovereignty

If that is a good or bad thing would be a nice debate.

And since the UN is not made up of our Congress and according to our Consitution, ignoring the fact it's non-binding, no one can make US law, or set policy, but Congress/the President respectively.

Why would we ignore the fact that makes the entire reasoning bullshit ?
It is non-binding. Therefor there are no problems with the seperate states.

The connection is the double standard. I am not allowed to refer to your religion as mythology, fairy tales or any other term that to *me* is an accurate description of your beliefs.
Believers however can freely use words like heathen with far less frowned eyebrows, even though that term is FAR more insulting. It is aimed at me personally, while a term like mythology or fairytale is aimed at the stories. Religion for some mysterious reason can get away with far more than nonreligion.

But I admit this is a sidestep. Let us return to people prosecuting and killing gays because their religion demands it, and the USA supporting that.

I wasn't aware I had referred to you as a heathen. I hate to say it, but it seems a little childish to lash out at entire belief systems because you think particular members were somehow mean to you. And what is more insulting to you, may not be more insulting to others.

I am happy to join you in opposition to the stance of the United States. I merely hoped you would see the irony of your particular version of intolerance.

Now, everyone who has read this non-binding UN article please step forward. I'll go ahead and save some time here and say, yeah I didn't think anyone had.

*Steps forward*

* We reaffirm the principle of universality of human rights, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose 60th anniversary is celebrated this year, Article 1 of which proclaims that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights";

* We reaffirm that everyone is entitled to the enjoyment of human rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, as set out in Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 2 of the International Covenants on Civil and Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as in article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

* We reaffirm the principle of non-discrimination which requires that human rights apply equally to every human being regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity;

* We are deeply concerned by violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms based on sexual orientation or gender identity;

* We are also disturbed that violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatisation and prejudice are directed against persons in all countries in the world because of sexual orientation or gender identity, and that these practices undermine the integrity and dignity of those subjected to these abuses;

* We condemn the human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity wherever they occur, in particular the use of the death penalty on this ground, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the practice of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary arrest or detention and deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to health;

* We recall the statement in 2006 before the Human Rights Council by fifty four countries requesting the President of the Council to provide an opportunity, at an appropriate future session of the Council, for discussing these violations;

* We commend the attention paid to these issues by special procedures of the Human Rights Council and treaty bodies and encourage them to continue to integrate consideration of human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity within their relevant mandates;

* We welcome the adoption of Resolution AG/RES. 2435 (XXXVIII-O/08) on "Human Rights, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity" by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States during its 38th session in 3 June 2008;

* We call upon all States and relevant international human rights mechanisms to commit to promote and protect human rights of all persons, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity;

* We urge States to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.

* We urge States to ensure that human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity are investigated and perpetrators held accountable and brought to justice;

* We urge States to ensure adequate protection of human rights defenders, and remove obstacles which prevent them from carrying out their work on issues of human rights and sexual orientation and gender identity.

Wiki-link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_declaration_on_LGBT_rights)

And since you asked:

General Assembly of the Organization of American States

AG/RES. 2435 (XXXVIII-O/08)

HUMAN RIGHTS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND GENDER IDENTITY

(Adopted at the fourth plenary session, held on June 3, 2008)


THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

REAFFIRMING:

That the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in that Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status;

That the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man establishes that every human being has the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person;

CONSIDERING that the OAS Charter proclaims that the historic mission of America is to offer to man a land of liberty and a favorable environment for the development of his personality and the realization of his just aspirations;

REAFFIRMING the principles of universality, indivisibility, and interdependence of human rights; and

TAKING NOTE with concern acts of violence and related human rights violations perpetrated against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity,

RESOLVES:

1. To express concern about acts of violence and related human rights violations committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

2. To request that the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs (CAJP) include on its agenda, before the thirty-ninth regular session of the General Assembly, the topic of “Human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

3. To request the Permanent Council to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth regular session on the implementation of this resolution, the execution of which shall be subject to the resources allocated in the program-budget of the Organization and other resources.

Link (http://www.oas.org/dil/general_assembly_resolutions_38_regular_session_colombia_june_2008.htm)


And yes, I'm well aware the UN has set US policy in the past, as well as forcing many of it's resolutions down our throats.
Like? Do list examples.

What is it with Euros and America-bashing?

humour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour)

your not really supposed to get your knickers in a twist

I have enough pride and confidence in my side not to be swept up in political correctness and not to care.

so your okay with killing someone for being homosexual in the name of being anti-PC? I'm confused what your feather are ruffled for

Sorry that America still cares about her sovereignty. The person in the article said it wasn't about not de-criminalizing homosexuality, but that certain wording made it tricky as, according to the powers that be, to possibly step over states-rights.

(a) States don't have rights. They have certain authorities, but not rights. Only individuals have rights.

(b) States do not have the authority to deny equal protection under the law to homosexuals. The fact that they do it is a problem that should be taken care of.

And yes, I'm well aware the UN has set US policy in the past, as well as forcing many of it's resolutions down our throats.

You've got that rather backwards, I'm afraid.

(a) States don't have rights. They have certain authorities, but not rights. Only individuals have rights.
This is debatable.

One could argue that a state has the right to self-defence, the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory, and the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other State, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

(Yes, I stole the last bit :p)

But that's neither here nor there, just throwing it out there :wink:

Oh come on - the document is meaningless anyway. I'll sign on the behalf of the peoples of my nation. It will be just as good.

Clearly your grasp of the word 'meaningless' is a little lax. Regardless, you're not elected to a position that allows you to speak for the majority, and I certainly wouldn't want you speaking for me.

I had to stop after a while and just come straight here because the amount of Ad Hominem and Non Sequiter remarks was absolutly astounding.

Sorry that America still cares about her sovereignty. The person in the article said it wasn't about not de-criminalizing homosexuality, but that certain wording made it tricky as, according to the powers that be, to possibly step over states-rights. That is what all of you seem to be getting all bent outta shape over. Or, perhaps, y'all are just looking for a reason to express your outrage and/or hatred over the US and this was just another tool to do so?

Japan, it said, signed that agreement. Last time I checked, the US had a better record at giving homosexuals a fair shake than Japan did. If you want a real, male-oriented society, there you go.

Now, everyone who has read this non-binding UN article please step forward. I'll go ahead and save some time here and say, yeah I didn't think anyone had. Therefore, I'm going to have to side with 'said' person in that it had the possibility to trump the rights of our states via our 10th Amendment. And since the UN is not made up of our Congress and according to our Consitution, ignoring the fact it's non-binding, no one can make US law, or set policy, but Congress/the President respectively.

And yes, I'm well aware the UN has set US policy in the past, as well as forcing many of it's resolutions down our throats.

I'd be interested to see how a non-binding resolution trumps the Constitution, actually...

I wasn't aware I had referred to you as a heathen. I hate to say it, but it seems a little childish to lash out at entire belief systems because you think particular members were somehow mean to you. And what is more insulting to you, may not be more insulting to others.

I am happy to join you in opposition to the stance of the United States. I merely hoped you would see the irony of your particular version of intolerance.

I was watching Fox the other night, and Bill O'Reilly was complaining bout Atheists being allowed to erect a sign in Washington state that said that there was no god.

O'Reilly claimed that it wasn't their freedom of expression that he disagreed with, it was the fact that the sign 'attacked' religious people, by saying that religion hardened hearts and imprisoned minds.

While he was saying this, the camera cut to a set of people marching up and down in opposition to the right for the Atheists to place the sign. One of the marchers was carrying a sign with a Biblical verse on it about 'a fool hath said in his heart there is no god'.

The whole Bible attacks people of different belief. Christianity is inherently intolerant of other religion (or even LACK of religion), and to claim innocence in THIS circumstance is either naivety on an immense scale, or deliberate deception.

If you want to pretend you are being victimised here, disavow your holy books before we start, and you might have some space to argue.

This is debatable.

One could argue that a state has the right to self-defence, the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory, and the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other State, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

(Yes, I stole the last bit :p)

But that's neither here nor there, just throwing it out there :wink:

I would argue that the state has the authority to do those things, not "rights". It may seem like a semantic argument, but I see them as different things.

That said, the poster in question was using "state" in reference to US states. The US Constitution does reserve the word "right" for usage with those things reserved to the people, while the authority of both the federal and state governments are referred to with words like "powers".

<3

I wasn't aware that homosexuality was on the same level as pedophilia and incest.
It's a widely accepted belief in the United States as well. One of its most prominent advocates will be opening the inaugural ceremony for Obama.

I would argue that the state has the authority to do those things, not "rights". It may seem like a semantic argument, but I see them as different things.
I agree with that last bit.

That said, the poster in question was using "state" in reference to US states. The US Constitution does reserve the word "right" for usage with those things reserved to the people, while the authority of both the federal and state governments are referred to with words like "powers".
I missed that, and stand corrected. :wink:

<3
:fluffle:

I agree with that last bit.

The part where it's a semantic argument? Or the part where they are different things. hehe

I missed that, and stand corrected. :wink:

:p

This is debatable.

One could argue that a state has the right to self-defence, the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory, and the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other State, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

(Yes, I stole the last bit :p)

But that's neither here nor there, just throwing it out there :wink:
but is still relevant. after all, had the US signed it, even tho it's non binding, it is taking into their hands something the Federal Gov left to each state to decide.

I'd be interested to see how a non-binding resolution trumps the Constitution, actually...the same way a sentence in a personal letter from the President to a Baptist minister got included into the constitution. ;)

I had a completely random thought when I read that some of the main opposition to this thing were Islamic countries. Going to go ahead and warn you it is more of a joke thing than anything. Anyway, there is a way this can be twisted to be an advantage, as presented in this following conversation.

Person A: "Well, just heard the US refused to sign a UN resolution condemning the criminalization of homosexuality."
Person B: "Thank God for that. *insert anti-gay rant here*"
Person A: "Amen to that. And you know what, we even got some other countries that agree with us."
Person B: "Whew, good thing there are a few countries out there with some sense."
Person A: "Yep, it's good to be in agreement with Syria, Iran, you know, those terrorists countries.*"
Person B: "..."

*I use terrorist only as a 'shock' term to take advantage of people's prejudice against Islamic countries. Yes, it's mean. Effective? Well, what do people fear more; 'gays' or 'terrorists'?

Now then, onto my serious opinion:

This doesn't surprise me one bit sadly. And that whole 'state's rights' thing that they say is the main reason it is not being signed really gets me. State's rights are all fine and dandy, but I don't give a care when human rights are being violated. Human Rights trump State's Rights every time in my opinion (main reason I didn't like Ron Paul as he seemed to have it backwards). It's one of the same arguments used by segregationists in the Civil Rights era, and it's still a bunch of bull crap today.

Wonder if I can find that one quote I read in government class about that sort of thing?

but is still relevant. after all, had the US signed it, even tho it's non binding, it is taking into their hands something the Federal Gov left to each state to decide.

In what way?

In what way?
I believe the status of Same Sex Marriage has been left up to the States to decide.

Cal recently passed Prop 8 which bans Gay marriage.

that and other states that also banned Same Sex Marriage

can you honestly say that had the US signed it, people wouldn't use that to try to force States to allow same sex marriages, even if the UN resolution is 'non-binding'?

I believe the status of Same Sex Marriage has been left up to the States to decide.

It's good to know that, in your world, equal protection under the law is not protected by the US Constitution.

Meanwhile, it is important to note that the resolution in question didn't mention same sex marriage.

can you honestly say that had the US signed it, people wouldn't use that to try to force States to allow same sex marriages, even if the UN resolution is 'non-binding'?

I don't think a UN resolution is necessary. The 14th Amendment is quite enough.

That said, if you don't, this resolution shouldn't bother you either. Either you have to admit that homosexuals are already being denied their rights, or you have to admit that the resolution, even if binding, wouldn't have any affect on laws regarding same-sex marriage. You can't have it both ways.

Though it makes you wonder about the state of the world when one of the reasons for the Islamic Conference's refusal to sign the resolution is that it could lead to the legalization of acts, "such as pedophilia and incest." I wasn't aware that homosexuality was on the same level as pedophilia and incest.
I fully agree that pedophilia is clearly a crime, but how is incest worse than homosexuality?

I fully agree that pedophilia is clearly a crime, but how is incest worse than homosexuality?

Just to be pedantic, pedophilia is not a crime. Child molestation is.

Just like it's not a crime for me to want to strangle someone. Just to do it.

It's good to know that, in your world, equal protection under the law is not protected by the US Constitution. interesting.

Meanwhile, it is important to note that the resolution in question didn't mention same sex marriage. except it mentions Discrimination. you have the US decrying one yet it's allowing each state to tailor it's smaller government towards those living in each state. you can note your first part. there are rules and LAWS on how the Federal Government can interact with State Governments. to bypass those rules, laws and procedures would be illegal.

I don't think a UN resolution is necessary. The 14th Amendment is quite enough.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause) of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

if the Federal Government left Same Sex Marriage to the States, then it can be argued that they gave up their Jurisdiction on that issue.

now whether or not Marriage falls under Civil Rights and the Privileges and Iminities can be debated (but let's not since that would be a major thread jack) but frankly, if it was 'cut and dry' then it wouldn't be debated and the SCotUS would've stepped in years ago.

me, I'm neither for nor against Same Sex marriage. so I'm just being devil's advocate here.

I believe the status of Same Sex Marriage has been left up to the States to decide.

Cal recently passed Prop 8 which bans Gay marriage.

that and other states that also banned Same Sex Marriage

can you honestly say that had the US signed it, people wouldn't use that to try to force States to allow same sex marriages, even if the UN resolution is 'non-binding'?

Now now. That passed because many people were stupid and bought into the "information" that was being disseminated by the Mormans. Ads were run that it was going to be mandatory to teach kids about gay marriage at the primary grades.

Many people bought it. Which shows you Barnum was right.....

*sighs*

but is still relevant. after all, had the US signed it, even tho it's non binding, it is taking into their hands something the Federal Gov left to each state to decide.

Um. It is not up to individual states whether or not to criminalize homosexuality or homosexual behavior. Rather, such laws violate the U.S. Constitution as it applies to all the states. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-102.html), 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (holding that Texas "Homosexual Conduct" laws violate vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment); Romer v. Evans (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=u10179), 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (holding that Amendment 2 of Colorado's State Constitution, forbidding the extension of official protections to those who suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation, violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause).

the same way a sentence in a personal letter from the President to a Baptist minister got included into the constitution. ;)

Which isn't close to what has happened. To the contrary, SCOTUS has simply used the phrase "separation of Church and State" (which was a common phrase used by more than just Jefferson) as a convenient shorthand for the Establishment Clause. Nothing more, nothing less.

I believe the status of Same Sex Marriage has been left up to the States to decide.

Cal recently passed Prop 8 which bans Gay marriage.

that and other states that also banned Same Sex Marriage

By default the matter has been left to the states in the absence of a SCOTUS decision properly enforcing the 14th Amendment.

can you honestly say that had the US signed it, people wouldn't use that to try to force States to allow same sex marriages, even if the UN resolution is 'non-binding'?

Um. Yes. Or at least I can honestly say that such an effort would be unsuccessful. Setting aside the fact the resolution is non-binding, what language in it would require recognition of same-sex marriages?

(And, heaven forbid, if it actually did have that effect:eek:... GOOD!)

interesting.

except it mentions Discrimination. you have the US decrying one yet it's allowing each state to tailor it's smaller government towards those living in each state. you can note your first part. there are rules and LAWS on how the Federal Government can interact with State Governments. to bypass those rules, laws and procedures would be illegal.

What exactly in the U.S. Constitution leaves same-sex marriage up to the states? How would a U.N. resolution violate this?

Regardless, the 14th Amendment already applies to the states and overrides any "states' rights" argument.

if the Federal Government left Same Sex Marriage to the States, then it can be argued that they gave up their Jurisdiction on that issue.

now whether or not Marriage falls under Civil Rights and the Privileges and Iminities can be debated (but let's not since that would be a major thread jack) but frankly, if it was 'cut and dry' then it wouldn't be debated and the SCotUS would've stepped in years ago.

These statements are based on utter ignorance of what the 14th Amendment says. "No person" can be denied either Due Process or Equal Protection under the law -- and those are the relevant provisions of the 14th Amendment.

SCOTUS happens to be currently loaded with arch-conservatives who have/would put their social agenda ahead of the "cut and dry" case that bans on same-sex marriage violate fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause (see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967)) and discriminates on the bases of gender and sexual orientation in violation of the Equal Protection Clause (see, e.g., Loving, supra; Romer v. Evans, supra).

if the Federal Government left Same Sex Marriage to the States, then it can be argued that they gave up their Jurisdiction on that issue.

That's um...not how it works.

Um. It is not up to individual states whether or not to criminalize homosexuality or homosexual behavior. Rather, such laws violate the U.S. Constitution as it applies to all the states. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-102.html), 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (holding that Texas "Homosexual Conduct" laws violate vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment); Romer v. Evans (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=u10179), 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (holding that Amendment 2 of Colorado's State Constitution, forbidding the extension of official protections to those who suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation, violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause).
except the UN Resolution was more about the Discrimination (from what I read and understood.) not necessarily the criminalizing of homosexuality and homosexual behavior.

Which isn't close to what has happened. To the contrary, SCOTUS has simply used the phrase "separation of Church and State" (which was a common phrase used by more than just Jefferson) as a convenient shorthand for the Establishment Clause. Nothing more, nothing less. ah, but how many lawyers and pundants argue "Separation of Church and State" when dealing with religion symbolism on gov property. the Establishment clause means the Government cannot say "no, you cannot put up a statue of the Koran statue next to the 10 commandments Statue" it has to treat all Religions equally not avoid any Religion.

By default the matter has been left to the states in the absence of a SCOTUS decision properly enforcing the 14th Amendment. ok, that's news to me. I thought SCOTUS left it to the States, saying it was a "States issue" and not because they didn't come to a decision.

and wouldn't a failure to come to a decision mean that it's not that 'simple' as some might argue?

Um. Yes. Or at least I can honestly say that such an effort would be unsuccessful. Setting aside the fact the resolution is non-binding, what language in it would require recognition of same-sex marriages? well, TBH, there are alot of things people thought wouldn't succeed but did. some good, and some bad. so who's to say really...

(And, heaven forbid, if it actually did have that effect:eek:... GOOD!) for that issue yes. but should something come up that would follow that same parameters but be something you don't like?

Say a repeal of the Sexual Offender's listing or any listing that tracks the movment of criminals who did "their time" because it violates their right to privacy?

or a UN Resolution to support private Gun Ownership to support the right to defend one's self?

Yeah, extreme and silly... but this is just off the top of my head. :p

What is it with Euros and America-bashing? i hope you realize that many of us (and I was an Obama voter, and I'm included in this) see you as whiny, spineless idiots who have nothing better to do than complain and act pacifistic. Not to imply anything, but appeasement helped lead to WWII...

Yes, I realize that this could make me unpopular. I have enough pride and confidence in my side not to be swept up in political correctness and not to care.

Well, first of all, whining and rambling and actually protesting is less spineless than just accepting and conforming.

Second of all, if you wanna call people idiot euros, check their location first, duh! So feel free to stick your pride and confidence up your ass.

I fully agree that pedophilia is clearly a crime, but how is incest worse than homosexuality?

I do hope noone dignifies this w/ a proper answer.

SCOTUS happens to be currently loaded with arch-conservatives who have/would put their social agenda ahead of the "cut and dry" case that bans on same-sex marriage violate fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause (see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967)) and discriminates on the bases of gender and sexual orientation in violation of the Equal Protection Clause (see, e.g., Loving, supra; Romer v. Evans, supra).
if it's loaded with Arch conservatives, why didn't SCOTUS rule Same Sex Marriage in favor of their social Agenda?

after all, Same Sex is not the same as the Loving v. Virginia case where it was Racial and not Sexual orientation. (tho I can see where it can be 'expanded' to include Sexual Orientation.)

That's um...not how it works.

So I'm slowly learning. :tongue:

except the UN Resolution was more about the Discrimination (from what I read and understood.) not necessarily the criminalizing of homosexuality and homosexual behavior.

Only to the extent that the Resolution "reaffirm[s] the principle of non-discrimination which requires that human rights apply equally to every human being regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity" as exist already under international law.

The relevant "action" statements are (emphasis added):


We call upon all States and relevant international human rights mechanisms to commit to promote and protect human rights of all persons, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity;

We urge States to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.

We urge States to ensure that human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity are investigated and perpetrators held accountable and brought to justice;

We urge States to ensure adequate protection of human rights defenders, and remove obstacles which prevent them from carrying out their work on issues of human rights and sexual orientation and gender identity.


ah, but how many lawyers and pundants argue "Separation of Church and State" when dealing with religion symbolism on gov property. the Establishment clause means the Government cannot say "no, you cannot put up a statue of the Koran statue next to the 10 commandments Statue" it has to treat all Religions equally not avoid any Religion.

*sigh*

1. You misunderstand. As I tried to explain, the phrase as been adopted by the US Supreme Court as a metaphor for the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses (for at least 125 years). In Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145#164), 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878), Chief Justice Waite for the unanimous Court characterized Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.''

As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

2. As I also tried to explain, although the particular phrase from Jefferson's letter of a "wall of separation of Church and State" is commonly cited by SCOTUS and others, the concept and the language of separation of Church and State was commonly used by other Founding Fathers. James Madison, in particularly, repeatedly referred to and advocated a "perfect separation" of Church and State. Here are just a few examples (emphasis added):

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

ok, that's news to me. I thought SCOTUS left it to the States, saying it was a "States issue" and not because they didn't come to a decision.

Nope, you were wrong. There is no directly relevant decision from SCOTUS--let alone one "leaving it to the states."

and wouldn't a failure to come to a decision mean that it's not that 'simple' as some might argue?

Or simply judicial politics. Regardless, the Court hasn't actually been presented with the issue to decide yet.

for that issue yes. but should something come up that would follow that same parameters but be something you don't like?

Say a repeal of the Sexual Offender's listing or any listing that tracks the movment of criminals who did "their time" because it violates their right to privacy?

or a UN Resolution to support private Gun Ownership to support the right to defend one's self?

Yeah, extreme and silly... but this is just off the top of my head. :p

I'm glad you recognize these hypotheticals are "extreme and silly," particularly because there is nothing in the current non-binding resolution that would create a precedent for any of the resolutions you suggest -- binding or not.

if it's loaded with Arch conservatives, why didn't SCOTUS rule Same Sex Marriage in favor of their social Agenda?

SCOTUS hasn't decided the issue one way or the other. SCOTUS has yet to take up a case on the subject -- let alone rule on it.

after all, Same Sex is not the same as the Loving v. Virginia case where it was Racial and not Sexual orientation. (tho I can see where it can be 'expanded' to include Sexual Orientation.)

You are confusing the Equal Protection violation regarding race with the violation of fundamental rights under the Due Process Clause. Loving addressed both.

Regardless, even setting side sexual orientation, gender and race are very similarly suspect classifications and bans on same-sex marriage discriminate on the basis of gender.

if it's loaded with Arch conservatives, why didn't SCOTUS rule Same Sex Marriage in favor of their social Agenda?

SCOTUS has never heard a same sex marriage case, ever.


after all, Same Sex is not the same as the Loving v. Virginia case where it was Racial and not Sexual orientation. (tho I can see where it can be 'expanded' to include Sexual Orientation.)

If we want to be really pedantic, technically it's not a "sexual orientation" issue at all, it's a gender issue. This is of course only relevant to an equal protection argument, and ignores the due process problem.

More so I would say. All one has to believe to sign this is that being gay should not be a crime. You can think it is filthy, pathetic, a reason you will end up in hell and so on - just not that it deserves legal punishment, especially not torture and death.

And even that was too much for the good old US of A.
Aw, that was not good enough for the current asshole in office. Don't think it means we all agree with it.

We East Coast Liberals have been demonized for our permissiveness in figuring that what you do with your own body is your own business... while the Conservatives are obsessed with where people's genitals are going and what they're doing with their uteri.

His skin might be black, but face it. He is as white as Oprah.

Where white = successful, obviously. Because no true black person could become successful.

Where white = successful, obviously. Because no true black person could become successful.
Oh oh! Is this the "no true Hawaiian" fallacy? ;)

His skin might be black, but face it. He is as white as Oprah.

Quite true.

Oh oh! Is this the "no true Hawaiian" fallacy? ;)

Those coconuts don't fool me for a minute!

Oh my god, I need so much sleep.

Where white = successful, obviously. Because no true black person could become successful.

Right...can't help but feel you, true to the form of every ill-informed Obama zealot, have simply imposed the charge of racism upon a perfectly valid observation.

Grow up, refine your intellect.

let me address both of you to prevent both of you hammering me on the same point. :p
SCOTUS hasn't decided the issue one way or the other. SCOTUS has yet to take up a case on the subject -- let alone rule on it.

SCOTUS has never heard a same sex marriage case, ever.

point taken and hammered into thick skull. :p

you can stop now. the head lumps have sufficently grown, thank you very much.

Quite true.

What are you saying? You have to be "gangsta" to be black? :rolleyes:

I mean this is acutally racist, can we move on from Obama and Oprah's race?

Right...can't help but feel you, true to the form of every ill-informed Obama zealot, have simply imposed the charge of racism upon a perfectly valid observation.

Grow up, refine your intellect.

'Cuz SaintB's post had nothing whatsoever to do with race?

His skin might be black, but face it. He is as white as Oprah.

:rolleyes::headbang:

Quite true.

False. Obama is half-white. Oprah is not.

False. Obama is half-white. Oprah is not.

would it have been better for him to say...
"His skin might be black, but face it. He is as white as Micheal Jackson." ?

:p

False. Obama is half-white. Oprah is not.

Zing!

What are you saying? You have to be "gangsta" to be black? :rolleyes:

I mean this is acutally racist, can we move on from Obama and Oprah's race?

Acutely or actually?

In any case, from a British perspective, Obama does present a caricture of the sensibilities, diction and politics of the Guardian reading, metropolitan middle class, who, by and large, are indeed white. Painfully, guiltily white in fact, seeking forever to atone for a vicarious, inherited guilt for the sins of their nation. I did have a little giggle at his assertion that he would only have a refuge dog.

I apologise if the identities and values in the above do not translate across the Atlantic, but from a British perspective, Obama does embody the fullest and most painfully entertaining of white metropolitan stereotypes.

What are you saying? You have to be "gangsta" to be black? :rolleyes:

I mean this is acutally racist, can we move on from Obama and Oprah's race?

No, you have to remain poor and downtrodden your whole life to be black. Oprah and Obama both grew up poor, but that didn't stop them from ultimately becoming white through... you know, being ambitious and good at stuff and getting paid for it.

No, you have to remain poor and downtrodden your whole life to be black. Oprah and Obama both grew up poor, but that didn't stop them from ultimately becoming white through... you know, being ambitious and good at stuff and getting paid for it.

Add a smiley or something so people would not doubt that you were being sarcastic. I mean, apparently and surprisingly, there are actually people who think like that and ask you to grow up and refine your intellect.

Acutely or actually?

In any case, from a British perspective, Obama does present a caricture of the sensibilities, diction and politics of the Guardian reading, metropolitan middle class, who, by and large, are indeed white. Painfully, guiltily white in fact, seeking forever to atone for a vicarious, inherited guilt for the sins of their nation. I did have a little giggle at his assertion that he would only have a refuge dog.

I apologise if the identities and values in the above do not translate across the Atlantic, but from a British perspective, Obama does embody the fullest and most painfully entertaining of white metropolitan stereotypes.

So because Obama doesn't fit a black stereotype, he isn't black?

Your "identities and values" are showing and they aren't pretty, but we knew that already.

Acutely or actually?

In any case, from a British perspective, Obama does present a caricture of the sensibilities, diction and politics of the Guardian reading, metropolitan middle class, who, by and large, are indeed white. Painfully, guiltily white in fact, seeking forever to atone for a vicarious, inherited guilt for the sins of their nation. I did have a little giggle at his assertion that he would only have a refuge dog.

I apologise if the identities and values in the above do not translate across the Atlantic, but from a British perspective, Obama does embody the fullest and most painfully entertaining of white metropolitan stereotypes.

If Obama was the British PM, then... no, wait, it would still be stupid and racist.

If a black man is elegant, educated and successful, he's not an elegant, educated, successful black man--he's a caricature of a genuine white man. Fascinating, to someone, I'm sure.

Acutely or actually?

In any case, from a British perspective, Obama does present a caricture of the sensibilities, diction and politics of the Guardian reading, metropolitan middle class, who, by and large, are indeed white. Painfully, guiltily white in fact, seeking forever to atone for a vicarious, inherited guilt for the sins of their nation. I did have a little giggle at his assertion that he would only have a refuge dog.

I apologise if the identities and values in the above do not translate across the Atlantic, but from a British perspective, Obama does embody the fullest and most painfully entertaining of white metropolitan stereotypes.

So you are actually entertained by this? Ok then.

So because Obama doesn't fit a black stereotype, he isn't black?

Your "identities and values" are showing and they aren't pretty, but we knew that already.

Not to the extent requisite to the panegyric and fanfare his election has generated, no.

Personally, I see no reason to celebrate his election on grounds of race or class, to so evaluate politics is to subvert the importance of policy and conduct, but since you're all so enamoured with your "black" president, I'd just like to question what you've elected? A pastiche of the metroplitan middle-class intelligensia with different coloured skin?

So you are actually entertained by this? Ok then.

Of course I am. I get to watch the hopes of a new electorate demographic, raised ludicrously high by the excitement elicited by a pseudo-celebrity, dashed over a four yeat tenure in office, and enjoy it massively.

Not to the extent requisite to the panegyric and fanfare his election has generated, no.

Personally, I see no reason to celebrate his election on grounds of race or class, to so evaluate politics is to subvert the importance of policy and conduct, but since you're all so enamoured with your "black" president, I'd just like to question what you've elected? A pastiche of the metroplitan middle-class intelligensia with different coloured skin?

Are you trying to get an award just for the number of fallacies you can fit in three sentences? Or do you think you should get bonus points for vocabulary?

In a nation with a history of discriminating against people based on nothing more than their skin color, the first election of a black President is of some historical and social significance, regardless of how that may offend your delicate sensibilities.

If Obama was the British PM, then... no, wait, it would still be stupid and racist.

If a black man is elegant, educated and successful, he's not an elegant, educated, successful black man--he's a caricature of a genuine white man. Fascinating, to someone, I'm sure.

I stated he was a caricture of a Guardian reader, not a caricture of an "elegant, educated, successful white man". Hardly the same.

In any case, historically, successful figures from a minority iiably adopt the identity and mores of the dominant social strata. Why should this not apply to modernity?

Of course I am. I get to watch the hopes of a new electorate demographic, raised ludicrously high by the excitement elicited by a pseudo-celebrity, dashed over a four yeat tenure in office, and enjoy it massively.

Dude, it's Saturday, 1:40 am there ("friday night") and you are entertained by that? Come on, dont waste your time...

Personally, I see no reason to celebrate his election on grounds of race or class, to so evaluate politics is to subvert the importance of policy and conduct, but since you're all so enamoured with your "black" president, I'd just like to question what you've elected? A pastiche of the metroplitan middle-class intelligensia with different coloured skin?

I think you'll find that most of his supporters *aren't* celebrating his election on grounds of race. But you'd have to be able to listen and process information for that.

Oh no, not the middle-class intelligentsia! They're bad at everything. Quick, let's find another idiot!

Are you trying to get an award just for the number of fallacies you can fit in three sentences? Or do you think you should get bonus points for vocabulary?

In a nation with a history of discriminating against people based on nothing more than their skin color, the first election of a black President is of some historical and social significance, regardless of how that may offend your delicate sensibilities.

I disagree. His policies may represent something novel, but frankly, all he is a latter day Blair.

I stated he was a caricture of a Guardian reader, not a caricture of an "elegant, educated, successful white man". Hardly the same.

And here we thought you were making a comment on President-elect Obama's race, not his reading habits. Hardly the same.

In any case, historically, successful figures from a minority iiably adopt the identity and mores of the dominant social strata. Why should this not apply to modernity?

Race =/= "identity and mores of the dominant social strata"

Dude, it's Saturday, 1:40 am there ("friday night") and you are entertained by that? Come on, dont waste your time...

Indeed, and I can't go out, since my knee's currently firmly ensconsed within a knee brace, as it has been for 3 weeks, in preparation for arthroscopic surgery on Tuesday, and I've got an essay to do which is frankly too formulaic and perfunctory to interest me.

I disagree. His policies may represent something novel, but frankly, all he is a latter day Blair.

Because Blair came from an identifiable minority both historically and recently discriminated against by his country, including not just de jure discrimination and segregation, but slavery .... :rolleyes:

Regardless, you agreed with a comment about President-elect Obama's race, not his policies.

I stated he was a caricture of a Guardian reader, not a caricture of an "elegant, educated, successful white man". Hardly the same.

In any case, historically, successful figures from a minority iiably adopt the identity and mores of the dominant social strata. Why should this not apply to modernity?

Why should race have anything to do with the content of one's character? Furthermore, why do you assume that whatever "mores" he's supposedly adopting is inherent to the white middle class? Everyone adjusts their identity and behavior throughout their lives (I'll grant you might be an exception).

I think you'll find that most of his supporters *aren't* celebrating his election on grounds of race. But you'd have to be able to listen and process information for that.

Oh no, not the middle-class intelligentsia! They're bad at everything. Quick, let's find another idiot!

don't mind TBC, he just gets panicky and starts breaking out in hives when he sees a black man.

Obviously the last few months have been utter hell for him.

Indeed, and I can't go out, since my knee's currently firmly ensconsed within a knee brace, as it has been for 3 weeks, in preparation for arthroscopic surgery on Tuesday, and I've got an essay to do which is frankly too formulaic and perfunctory to interest me.

Good luck with your surgery then.

And yes, here in North America, things you said would be considered offensive and racist. Altho, going back to the topic, I'm beginning to think grouping Canada and US together as a cultural blockish thingie is becomming more and more unwarrented.

So, yea, in Canada, things you said would be considered offensive and racist.

Good luck with your surgery then.

And yes, here in North America, things you said would be considered offensive and racist. Altho, going back to the topic, I'm beginning to think grouping Canada and US together as a cultural blockish thingie is becomming more and more unwarrented.

So, yea, in Canada, things you said would be considered offensive and racist.

Mexico also objects to the grouping, apparently. *sigh*

Mexico also objects to the grouping, apparently. *sigh*

I meant this 1:

"In English, North America is often used to refer to the United States and Canada exclusively.[22]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America

Its geographically wrong anyway.

I fully agree that pedophilia is clearly a crime, but how is incest worse than homosexuality?
No it.....
Just to be pedantic, pedophilia is not a crime. Child molestation is.

Just like it's not a crime for me to want to strangle someone. Just to do it.
Oh, ninja'd.
In any case, historically, successful figures from a minority iiably adopt the identity and mores of the dominant social strata. Why should this not apply to modernity?

Because no amount of adopting the identity and mores of any social group will change one's race. Obama could devote every waking moment of his life to acting white, and his still would still be pretty much the same colour, day in, day out.

except it mentions Discrimination.

....which is already covered by the 14th Amendment.

there are rules and LAWS on how the Federal Government can interact with State Governments. to bypass those rules, laws and procedures would be illegal.

None of those rules and procedures keep the federal government from enforcing the US Constitution.

if the Federal Government left Same Sex Marriage to the States, then it can be argued that they gave up their Jurisdiction on that issue.

(a) The Federal government did not "leave same sex marriage to the states". It wasn't a power given to the federal government in the Constitution, therefore it falls to the states by default.

(b) It has nothing to do with jurisdiction. All parts and levels of government in the US are required, by the 14th Amendment, to provide equal protection under the law. This includes state governments. Thus, if they are going to provide any protections for marriage, they must do so equally.

This leaves only the argument that the current law is not unequal. And, if you're going to make that argument, you're already arguing that homosexuals are not being discriminated against. And, in that case, there would be no problem with this resolution.

Once again, it's one way or the other. Either one is admitting that the rights of homosexuals are being infringed upon in this country, or one has no cause for concern from the UN resolution.

now whether or not Marriage falls under Civil Rights and the Privileges and Iminities can be debated (but let's not since that would be a major thread jack) but frankly, if it was 'cut and dry' then it wouldn't be debated and the SCotUS would've stepped in years ago.

It was pretty damn obvious that equal protection was supposed to be afforded to black people after the civil war, and it took about 100 years for the courts to step in on that issue.

I don't think "The courts haven't ruled on it yet, so it must not be clear" is a very good argument.

I fully agree that pedophilia is clearly a crime, but how is incest worse than homosexuality?

You're really asking that question?

You fail to see how two men in an emotionally romantic or sexual relationship isn't comparable to a man and his sister in an emotionally romantic or sexual relationship?

Seriously?

You're really asking that question?

You fail to see how two men in an emotionally romantic or sexual relationship isn't comparable to a man and his sister in an emotionally romantic or sexual relationship?

Seriously?

To be fair, while there indeed is a difference I am not convinced that incest between adults should be a crime either...

The US system is complicated. The feds are trying to avoid harming the rights of property owners which are given a good deal of weight in the US system of government.
As for the concern about the states' rights. There are very few states that still have laws that make homosexuality illegal. In fact, such laws are already nullified due to several US Supreme Court rulings such that the decisions of the nation's highest court have already nullified the American's argument.
Further, the argument about the military is just plain ludricrous. The no gays policy of the military is likely to change in the future. It almost changed in the 90's. It all depends on who the President is. One might let them in and another might prohibit them. The President has a great deal of discretion on such matters.

Where white = successful, obviously. Because no true black person could become successful.
'Cuz SaintB's post had nothing whatsoever to do with race?

:rolleyes::headbang:

*Sigh* It was sarcasm, I was not trying to be a bigot. He acts nothing like the stereotypical black man that so many people seem to think every male person of African descent is like; which means he must just be a dark complected White Boy in disguise.
It was (admittedly poor) humor, in reference to the whole Not living the Black Experience thing that some African Americans tried to use as a reason not to support him during the Democratic Primary, you do remember that farce right?

*Sigh* It was sarcasm, I was not trying to be a bigot. He acts nothing like the stereotypical black man that so many people seem to think every male person of African descent is like; which means he must just be a dark complected White Boy in disguise.
It was (admittedly poor) humor, in reference to the whole Not living the Black Experience thing that some African Americans tried to use as a reason not to support him during the Democratic Primary, you do remember that farce right?

I understood your comment and its humorous intent. My beef was with TBC's contention that it was not a joke (and had nothing to do with race), but rather a deeply insightful commentary. OK? :)

I understood your comment and its humorous intent. My beef was with TBC's contention that it was not a joke (and had nothing to do with race), but rather a deeply insightful commentary. OK? :)

Arighty, I wasn't sure.

surprise surprise, america still has its head up its ass, so what else is new?

surprise surprise, america still has its head up its ass, so what else is new?Hancock? :D

And who would have guessed..
Some nice pressure groups in California are now trying to annull the same-sex marriages that were performed during the brief time they were legally possible in that state.

How friendly and compassionate they are during these festive days.

SCOTUS hasn't decided the issue one way or the other. SCOTUS has yet to take up a case on the subject -- let alone rule on it.

SCOTUS has never heard a same sex marriage case, ever.

Didn't Baker v Nelson go before SCotUS and was dismissed because of "For want of a substantial federal question."

One thing I'd like to say:

While I am, personally, against gay marriage (Although if it were allowed in the U.S., I really wouldn't give a shit. It's not a big issue, I'm much more interested in bigger things: the economy, foreign policy, the enviroment (I'm actually pro-enviromentalism, provided it actually improves life), and abortion (Pro-life, except in extreme circumstances)) and I don't really approve of homosexuality (Yes, I'm Catholic), I don't see why we should support the continued discrimination of homosexuals by not signing a resolution declaring laws that punish homosexuals to be wrong.

I don't agree with the lifestyle, but I don't want it punished. Any nation that punishes homosexuals is a backwards nation.

I don't agree with the lifestyle, but I don't want it punished. Any nation that punishes homosexuals is a backwards nation.

*bows*
Thank you, sensible and intelligent Christian.

*bows*
Thank you, sensible and intelligent Christian.

Yeah, it surprised me when the Vatican also said it wouldn't support the resolution, saying that it just cannot support any law that makes homosexuality more accepted.

While I would understand if they didn't sign on to a law allowing gay marriage, I don't get their choice here. Homosexuals are getting killed for their lifestyle, which is disgusting. Hate the sin, love the sinner. No one deserves to be killed for their sexual orientation. The Church is supposed to be pro-life, this resolution seems pretty pro-life, so why didn't they sign on?

I am a proud to be Catholic and am very devout. However, this is a case where the Church didn't really pay attention to Christ's teaching "Let he who hath never sinned cast the first stone."

I agree gay marriage is wrong, but I don't agree the criminalization of homosexuality is right. Merely decriminalizing homosexuality doesn't mean gay marriage is going to be allowed, everyone is going to become gay, and we're all going to have one huge gay orgy. The Church isn't directly arguing that, but I know they are. It's the fallacy of slippery slopes. Just because A happens doesn't mean B will happen as a result and then C.

Yeah, it surprised me when the Vatican also said it wouldn't support the resolution, saying that it just cannot support any law that makes homosexuality more accepted.

While I would understand if they didn't sign on to a law allowing gay marriage, I don't get their choice here. Homosexuals are getting killed for their lifestyle, which is disgusting. Hate the sin, love the sinner. No one deserves to be killed for their sexual orientation. The Church is supposed to be pro-life, this resolution seems pretty pro-life, so why didn't they sign on?

I am a proud to be Catholic and am very devout. However, this is a case where the Church didn't really pay attention to Christ's teaching "Let he who hath never sinned cast the first stone."

I agree gay marriage is wrong, but I don't agree the criminalization of homosexuality is right. Merely decriminalizing homosexuality doesn't mean gay marriage is going to be allowed, everyone is going to become gay, and we're all going to have one huge gay orgy. The Church isn't directly arguing that, but I know they are. It's the fallacy of slippery slopes. Just because A happens doesn't mean B will happen as a result and then C.

Meh, Vatican didnt surprise me, given that they justified toruture and muder (inquisition), wars (crusades), slavery and all that shit based on their bible. I mean they even held a trial for Galileo, accusing him of heresy (based on their bible) for supporting heliocentric model, and we now know how ridiculous that is.

What surprised me was USA's reaction.

humour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour)

your not really supposed to get your knickers in a twist



so your okay with killing someone for being homosexual in the name of being anti-PC? I'm confused what your feather are ruffled for

Right, so all of us run around killing people? The general vilification of peaceful traditionalists is socially-endorsed slander, and may lead to forms of general intimidation that can squelch free speech and democracy (look at California intimidation tactics after the passage of proposition 8. I firmly believe that murderers should be in jail, but I have problems with all of us being considered this. (Note: I call myself a traditionalists very loosely.)

To Nova Magna Germania: The Vatican has changed itself rather dramatically in the past century as it disentangled itself from politics (e.g. a little something called Vatican II). If you were to open your eyes and pay attention rather than blindly condemning you might realize that all of this stuff has been acknowledge and apologized for, and that the church is now one of the biggest charitable and humanitarian organizations in the world.

Well, first of all, whining and rambling and actually protesting is less spineless than just accepting and conforming.

Second of all, if you wanna call people idiot euros, check their location first, duh! So feel free to stick your pride and confidence up your ass.

I've kind of noticed the large amount of Brits on these forums, you know. That's in Europe. I may have erred on the specific quote, but I was making a reference to the general population.

Right, so all of us run around killing people? The general vilification of peaceful traditionalists is socially-endorsed slander, and may lead to forms of general intimidation that can squelch free speech and democracy (look at California intimidation tactics after the passage of proposition 8. I firmly believe that murderers should be in jail, but I have problems with all of us being considered this. (Note: I call myself a traditionalists very loosely.)

To Nova Magna Germania: The Vatican has changed itself rather dramatically in the past century as it disentangled itself from politics (e.g. a little something called Vatican II). If you were to open your eyes and pay attention rather than blindly condemning you might realize that all of this stuff has been acknowledge and apologized for, and that the church is now one of the biggest charitable and humanitarian organizations in the world.

The point is that they justified SO MANY disgusting shit based on their bible, thinking they were totally justified.

And I reject that Vatican is one of the biggest humanitarian organizations in the world. Besides their obvious homophobia, they are also sexist (no female priests). So they go on at least with some of their usual shit.

Oh and you said "in the past century". They were trying to cover up their sexual abuses as late as 1960s.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection

"They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials." Disgusting how they treated the victims...

I've kind of noticed the large amount of Brits on these forums, you know. That's in Europe. I may have erred on the specific quote, but I was making a reference to the general population.

Next time when you are making a reference to the general population while you are quoting my post, make that clear then. People will obviously assume you are addressing them when you quote their posts.

look at California intimidation tactics after the passage of proposition 8.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Meh, Vatican didnt surprise me, given that they justified toruture and muder (inquisition), wars (crusades), slavery and all that shit based on their bible. I mean they even held a trial for Galileo, accusing him of heresy (based on their bible) for supporting heliocentric model, and we now know how ridiculous that is.

What surprised me was USA's reaction.

Name a religion that hasn't committed atrocities using their holy texts.

Vatican II has changed the Catholic Church.

Name a religion that hasn't committed atrocities using their holy texts.


I dunno. Do you consider Deism as a religion? But yea, all abrahamic religions committed so many atrocities, they have no right to claim to be any sort of moral guide.


Vatican II has changed the Catholic Church.

LOL. Was it Vatican I or II which ordered the cover up of their sexual abuses in 1962?

What on Earth are you talking about?

Picketing outside the homes and businesses of people who voted for prop 8 or donated money to the cause. They called in riot police one time, the protesting was so bad. The people involved in the play Avenue Q almost put in a song targeting one specific man, equivalent to public targeting and shaming for exercising their Constitutional rights and their right to vote as they choose. This is a form of intimidation- what if i did this type of thing to people who supported gay marriage, or to the lesbian who lives 2 doors from me? (FYI we are kind of friends, so I don't want any homophobia llegations later).

I love how people talk about reforming human behavior and society and increasing forgiveness and tolerance, then act like Nova Magna Germania. (No, i don not have a specific quote in mind.)

Picketing outside the homes and businesses of people who voted for prop 8 or donated money to the cause. They called in riot police one time, the protesting was so bad. The people involved in the play Avenue Q almost put in a song targeting one specific man, equivalent to public targeting and shaming for exercising their Constitutional rights and their right to vote as they choose. This is a form of intimidation- what if i did this type of thing to people who supported gay marriage, or to the lesbian who lives 2 doors from me? (FYI we are kind of friends, so I don't want any homophobia llegations later).

I love how people talk about reforming human behavior and society and increasing forgiveness and tolerance, then act like Nova Magna Germania. (No, i don not have a specific quote in mind.)

I've heard the picketing outside of businesess and churches and such, but not private residences (I thought doing so was illegal.) can you source this?

I'm afraid I don't have the source on hand at the moment (it was a document). hopefully, I'll remember to do so later.

if you picket a synangogue you're antimsemitic. If you picket a gay-run business you're homophobic. if you picket a church you're morally justified. What is this?

Picketing outside the homes and businesses of people who voted for prop 8 or donated money to the cause. They called in riot police one time, the protesting was so bad. The people involved in the play Avenue Q almost put in a song targeting one specific man, equivalent to public targeting and shaming for exercising their Constitutional rights and their right to vote as they choose. This is a form of intimidation- what if i did this type of thing to people who supported gay marriage, or to the lesbian who lives 2 doors from me? (FYI we are kind of friends, so I don't want any homophobia llegations later).

I love how people talk about reforming human behavior and society and increasing forgiveness and tolerance, then act like Nova Magna Germania. (No, i don not have a specific quote in mind.)

Oh I do tolerate Christianity. I criticize Vatican but of course christianity shouldnt be illegal or anything unlike Vatican which refused to sign this document and also lobbied other countries not to sign.

Name a religion that hasn't committed atrocities using their holy texts.

Discordianism and Pastafarianism.

I'm afraid I don't have the source on hand at the moment (it was a document). hopefully, I'll remember to do so later.

if you picket a synangogue you're antimsemitic. If you picket a gay-run business you're homophobic. if you picket a church you're morally justified. What is this?

The same double standard bullcrap people accuse Christianity of commonly practicing... :p

if you picket a church you're morally justified.

Who said that?

What on Earth are you talking about?

They held protests! And--and candlelight vigils! How are Christians supposed to feel safe expressing their views about who is and is not evil when they might be met by a mob of candle-holders? Those candles could fall and start a fire, you know.

Discordianism and Pastafarianism.

Discordiansim is baised off of Roman/Greek Mythology. their primary matron Diety is Eris (Greek) or Discordia (Roman).

and how many Pastafarians proclaim that they were 'touched by his noodly appendage.' sounds like sexual assault to me. :p

They held protests! And--and candlelight vigils! How are Christians supposed to feel safe expressing their views about who is and is not evil when they might be met by a mob of candle-holders? Those candles could fall and start a fire, you know.

and don't forget all the sign wavers standing along side the road. how dare they risk getting hit and messing up a poor Christan's car. :p

I'm afraid I don't have the source on hand at the moment (it was a document). hopefully, I'll remember to do so later.

if you picket a synangogue you're antimsemitic. If you picket a gay-run business you're homophobic. if you picket a church you're morally justified. What is this?

Oh and here's the file from Guardian:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/documents/2003/08/16/Criminales.pdf

"The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection

They held protests! And--and candlelight vigils! How are Christians supposed to feel safe expressing their views about who is and is not evil when they might be met by a mob of candle-holders? Those candles could fall and start a fire, you know.

they find specific donors and actively target them. This goes beyond championing a cause, this a personal attack. the most liberal man I know, who himself participated in a gay rights rally and held unofficial weddings for gays and lesbians, admitted that this could have drastic effects on free speech.

To Nova: many people here have essentially implied it by their blind criticism of Christianity without looking at all the information. ("They had crusades centuries ago! They're evil! And I'm going to ignore their apologies and current human rights and peace activism!")

(Note: I call myself a traditionalists very loosely.)

Comedic gold.

Picketing outside the homes and businesses of people who voted for prop 8 or donated money to the cause.

Freedom of speech and assembly are guaranteed by the constitution. Discrimination is not.

The people involved in the play Avenue Q almost put in a song targeting one specific man, equivalent to public targeting and shaming for exercising their Constitutional rights and their right to vote as they choose.

Someone almost put a song in a play that targeted a particular person? I've never heard of such a travesty. What if SNL did that kind of thing?

This is a form of intimidation- what if i did this type of thing to people who supported gay marriage, or to the lesbian who lives 2 doors from me? (FYI we are kind of friends, so I don't want any homophobia llegations later).

Picketing is not a form of intimidation, it's a form of free speech. But I do like the "I don't hate the lesbians down the street even though they're immoral, so I can't be a bigot" argument.

Discordiansim is baised off of Roman/Greek Mythology. their primary matron Diety is Eris (Greek) or Discordia (Roman).
And each member has the authority to completely re-invent the religion, so what it's based on is about as relevant as the stuff the monkeys with typewriters that don't manage Shakespeare write.

and how many Pastafarians proclaim that they were 'touched by his noodly appendage.' sounds like sexual assault to me. :p

It's all totally consentual. *nods*





>.>
<.<

they find specific donors and actively target them. This goes beyond championing a cause, this a personal attack. the most liberal man I know, who himself participated in a gay rights rally and held unofficial weddings for gays and lesbians, admitted that this could have drastic effects on free speech.

As opposed to the individuals who are specified and denied civil rights based on their gender.

I don't really care what "the most liberal man you know" thinks. If it is constitutional and non-violent it should not be curbed. I detest Fred Phelps, but he has the right to stand across the street from a cemetery and curse gays to hell. That is is his constitutional right.

You don't protect free speech by curtailing free speech.

Freedom of speech and assembly are guaranteed by the constitution. Discrimination is not. so are property rights. which is why I find picketing private residences without their consent rather iffy.

Picketing is not a form of intimidation, It is a form of intimidation. it's purpose is to force people to cross your picket line. why do you think when people picket a store or business, they walk across the entrance.

doesn't make it illegal tho. and the picketters cannot physically restrain anyone to keep them from crossing.

Comedic gold.
Trust me, you don't know me. Aside from gay marriage, abortion, and guns, I'm pretty much a liberal.



Freedom of speech and assembly are guaranteed by the constitution. Discrimination is not.
How is it discrimination? they have the same rights of other citizens, therefore the 14th amendment does not apply. No one has the right to marry whomever they want. Even straight people have to deal with age and relation restrictions. The right to marry a person who is of a legal age, is not related to you, and is of the opposite sex applies to everyone.



Someone almost put a song in a play that targeted a particular person? I've never heard of such a travesty. What if SNL did that kind of thing?

This guy isn't any kind of politician or anyone ho actively seeks to maneuver himself into the limelight, nor did he commit a crime. This is different. he has a right to his opinion and his privacy without being harassed.



Picketing is not a form of intimidation, it's a form of free speech. But I do like the "I don't hate the lesbians down the street even though they're immoral, so I can't be a bigot" argument.

I never said they were immoral. i don't like what they do, but I have nothing against homosexuals in general. Not all of us are bias machines, we just have standards we want to protect.

And each member has the authority to completely re-invent the religion, so what it's based on is about as relevant as the stuff the monkeys with typewriters that don't manage Shakespeare write. so Baptists and Protestants have nothing to do with the Crusades and the inquisition?

if all of Christianity is going to be held accountable for the Crusades and other past mis-deeds, then as long as they follow Eris or Discordia... ;)

It's all totally consentual. *nods* Pastasexual! :eek: :D

You don't protect free speech by curtailing free speech.

yes, but you do try to prevent mob rule and intimidation. i don't like the KKK, but I believe int heir right to say demeaning things about people like me. This, however, is going too far.

And who's being denied rights based on their gender? The PC crowd's greatest failure is their inability to think things through.

yes, but you do try to prevent mob rule and intimidation. i don't like the KKK, but I believe int heir right to say demeaning things about people like me. This, however, is going too far.


Are you African American?

so are property rights. which is why I find picketing private residences without their consent rather iffy.I don't have to be on your property to picket it ;)
so Baptists and Protestants have nothing to do with the Crusades and the inquisition?

if all of Christianity is going to be held accountable for the Crusades and other past mis-deeds, then as long as they follow Eris or Discordia... ;)
The difference between Baptists and Protestants is one thing. Discordians make an effort to all be distinct from one another. Well, except the ones who are different by not being different. It gets confusing sometimes.

Pastasexual! :eek: :D

:wink:

Are you African American?

No, Indian-American- an even more parodied group, and one regarded as being more "outsider" than the rest. even still, i respect people's right to vote as they will without being harassed. i would protest at a KKK rally, but not at their homes, businesses, churches...

Religion is and always has been the enemy of freedom.

Let me guess. You've never cracked a history book, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#Stalin

Stalin was an atheist. One of the few who officially took power over an entire nation. And, you know, as far as I can tell, most of the atheists who have been in charge of an entire country have wound up being hardliners. Isn't that something? As with love, the deserving of human rights is not something that can be proven by science, and without science to back them up, atheists have no foundation for arguing that human beings deserve any rights. In the end it boils down to personal feeling. And that's a valid idea, but is hardly going to weigh effectively against someone else arguing that God said to do this or that--how do you outrank God, whether or not you believe in Him?

Nevertheless there is a strong liberation theology streak in most, if not all, major religions, and the tribal religions didn't have much of a problem with gays in the first place. So try again. Try not to be so religiophobic next time you open your mouth. If I didn't know better I'd swear atheists wanted to kill religious people off--and I consider myself agnostic at this point.

I don't have to be on your property to picket it ;) well, here in the States, if you're not on someone's property (even a neighbors) you're on the State's property (the public street)

The difference between Baptists and Protestants is one thing. Discordians make an effort to all be distinct from one another. Well, except the ones who are different by not being different. It gets confusing sometimes. the point tho is they're still following Eris/Discordia. who is well grounded in both Greek and Roman religions.

:wink: so... was it good for you?

Let me guess. You've never cracked a history book, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#Stalin

Stalin was an atheist. One of the few who officially took power over an entire nation. And, you know, as far as I can tell, most of the atheists who have been in charge of an entire country have wound up being hardliners. Isn't that something? As with love, the deserving of human rights is not something that can be proven by science, and without science to back them up, atheists have no foundation for arguing that human beings deserve any rights. In the end it boils down to personal feeling. And that's a valid idea, but is hardly going to weigh effectively against someone else arguing that God said to do this or that--how do you outrank God, whether or not you believe in Him?

Nevertheless there is a strong liberation theology streak in most, if not all, major religions, and the tribal religions didn't have much of a problem with gays in the first place. So try again. Try not to be so religiophobic next time you open your mouth. If I didn't know better I'd swear atheists wanted to kill religious people off--and I consider myself agnostic at this point.

THANK YOU FOR THINKING. :) That kind fo thing seems to be rare around here.

well, here in the States, if you're not on someone's property (even a neighbors) you're on the State's property (the public street)
And thus your right to freedom of expression comes into play.

so... was it good for you?

Oh yes.

so proud to be an American after reading this... though i suppose i shouldnt be surprised given the results of gay marriage bans in November.

land of the free, what a load of crap

And thus your right to freedom of expression comes into play.

and proper protocal.

if the neighbor allows you to use their lawn, then ok.
if you have a permit to effectivly block the street then ok.
If you have a permit... ok.

however, dependant on a few things... the person being picketted can probably get the police to break up the gathering.

1) Disturbing the peace.
2) invasion (either home or privacy)

but I believe there's a whole mess of things that could interrupt a picket at a private residence which I find it rather hard to believe. notice that no source was yet provided about this picketting of private residences...

Trust me, you don't know me. Aside from gay marriage, abortion, and guns, I'm pretty much a liberal.

Aside from drowning puppies, skinning elephants and throwing rocks at lions, I'm an animal-rights activist.

The right to marry a person who is of a legal age, is not related to you, and is of the opposite sex applies to everyone.

So if we went back to the standard that you have a right to marry a person who is not related to you, is of the opposite sex and is of the same race, you'd be fine with that, huh? It applies to everyone, after all.

[/quote]I never said they were immoral. i don't like what they do, but I have nothing against homosexuals in general. Not all of us are bias machines, we just have standards we want to protect.[/QUOTE]

If your objection isn't moral, then what "standards" are you "protecting" by deciding which consenting adults can and cannot marry? Are these scientific standards? Aesthetic standards? What's in peril that you're rushing to save?

yes, but you do try to prevent mob rule and intimidation. i don't like the KKK, but I believe int heir right to say demeaning things about people like me. This, however, is going too far.

And who's being denied rights based on their gender? The PC crowd's greatest failure is their inability to think things through.

Mob rule is millions of straight people who don't even live in California pouring money into a campaign to make rules about gay people.

And rights ARE being denied based on gender. I have been denied the right to marry a woman PURELY based on my gender. Drill a hole in your thick skull and stuff that in it.

Let me guess. You've never cracked a history book, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#Stalin

Stalin was an atheist. One of the few who officially took power over an entire nation. And, you know, as far as I can tell, most of the atheists who have been in charge of an entire country have wound up being hardliners. Isn't that something? As with love, the deserving of human rights is not something that can be proven by science, and without science to back them up, atheists have no foundation for arguing that human beings deserve any rights. In the end it boils down to personal feeling. And that's a valid idea, but is hardly going to weigh effectively against someone else arguing that God said to do this or that--how do you outrank God, whether or not you believe in Him?

Nevertheless there is a strong liberation theology streak in most, if not all, major religions, and the tribal religions didn't have much of a problem with gays in the first place. So try again. Try not to be so religiophobic next time you open your mouth. If I didn't know better I'd swear atheists wanted to kill religious people off--and I consider myself agnostic at this point.

Do you have brown eyes? Know anyone with brown eyes? Because you know, Hitler had brown eyes, and he murdered people. Brown eyes make you a Nazi.

And we are trying to kill you off, but we've got to make you gay first. It's a minor snag.

The right to marry a person who is of a legal age, is not related to you, and is of the opposite sex applies to everyone.
In how many places, aside from California is this actually the case? What I mean is, of all the places that have a right to marriage legally guaranteed, in how many is it explicitly marriage between one man and one woman? Keep in mind that Prop 8 only came about because California's state constitution did not specify this and thus it was ruled that gays had the right to marry.

Mob rule is millions of straight people who don't even live in California pouring money into a campaign to make rules about gay people. so what is it called when gay couples from all over the nation rush into California to get married so they can then force their states to accept it?

Do you have brown eyes? Know anyone with brown eyes? Because you know, Hitler had brown eyes, and he murdered people. Brown eyes make you a Nazi.

And we are trying to kill you off, but we've got to make you gay first. It's a minor snag.err... you're trying to kill of agnostics?

so what is it called when gay couples from all over the nation rush into California to get married so they can then force their states to accept it?

ummm......

Let me guess. You've never cracked a history book, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#Stalin

Stalin was an atheist. One of the few who officially took power over an entire nation. And, you know, as far as I can tell, most of the atheists who have been in charge of an entire country have wound up being hardliners. Isn't that something?

You clearly never cracked open a logic textbook. He made a claim that religion was the enemy of freedom, you made a point about atheism (which I'd challenge also) that in no way actually contradicted his point. Try again.

I'd argue that most religions encourage dogmatism (what with their 'one true book' and all) and that dogmatism is the real problem. Be it religious dogmatism or the dogmatism found in places like Stalin's Russia. When people believe what they're told without questioning it, bad things happen.

so what is it called when gay couples from all over the nation rush into California to get married so they can then force their states to accept it?


The 69ers?:p

ummm......

not really expecting an answer for that one, Neo. :p

not really expecting an answer for that one, Neo. :p

But I put so much work into that bad pun :(

But I put so much work into that bad pun :(

and had I read it a second earlier, my monitor would've been covered in soda. :D

not really expecting an answer for that one, Neo. :p

lemme put it this way. Massachusetts has had gay marriage for four years. Can you point out where this supposed flocking to the state in order to force their states to recognize it has occurred?

How is it discrimination? they have the same rights of other citizens, therefore the 14th amendment does not apply. No one has the right to marry whomever they want. Even straight people have to deal with age and relation restrictions. The right to marry a person who is of a legal age, is not related to you, and is of the opposite sex applies to everyone.

It saddens me that you even have to ask.

The age- and relation restrictions are (arguably) reasonable restrictions. The former ensures an individual is mature enough to make the decision, while the latter ensures the health and well-being of the family unit.

What's reasonable with restricting marriage to only be between people of opposite genders?

It's so charming when my country goes out of its way to make sure I really can't feel proud of it.

lemme put it this way. Massachusetts has had gay marriage for four years. Can you point out where this supposed flocking to the state in order to force their states to recognize it has occurred?

from Wiki.
March 30, 2006: The Supreme Judicial Court upheld a 1913 Massachusetts law that prohibits non-residents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would be void in their home state. It ruled that same-sex couples domiciled in other states that expressly prohibit same-sex marriage cannot legally marry in Massachusetts, and remanded cases from New York and Rhode Island to the Superior Court to determine whether same-sex marriage is prohibited in those states.[24]
...
July 15, 2008: The Massachusetts Senate voted to repeal the 1913 law that prohibits non-residents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would be void in their home state. [27]
July 29, 2008: The Massachusetts House voted to repeal the 1913 law that prohibits non-residents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would be void in their home state. [28]
July 31, 2008: An act repealing the 1913 law that prohibits non-residents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would be void in their home state took effect upon being signed by Governor Deval Patrick.[29][30]
so perhaps that's why there was no out of state rush to Mass. ;)

as for Cali...
According to figures released March 18 by San Francisco County Assessor Mabel Teng, although 91.4 percent of the licenses were granted to couples living in California, other couples came from every state in the United States except for Maine, Mississippi, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Of the other states, the top five states represented included 32 couples each from Washington and Oregon, 24 from Nevada, 20 from New York and 16 from Florida. International same-sex couples, 17 in all, came from Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Thailand and the United Kingdom.


Now this part is probably the key point as to why Mass didn't go through the same problems as Cal.
September 14, 2005: The second convention to amend the Commonwealth's Constitution to disallow same-sex marriage (but permit civil unions) was held, which would allow the issue to go to a popular vote in 2006. This time, the amendment was defeated soundly, 157-39, and thus was not put before the voters.[23]
December 7, 2005: VoteOnMarriage.Org submitted 170,000 signatures for the referendum, with 65,825 required. The amendment can now appear on the ballot if 50 legislators approve it in conventions during the current and next legislative sessions. The first convention is scheduled for July 12, 2006.[11]
and it was soundly defeated before being put to the voters.
January 2, 2007: The proposed amendment received a vote on the last day of the 2006 legislative session. While 132 legislators opposed the amendment, 61 supported it, enough to advance the measure to the next legislative session.
June 14, 2007: The proposed amendment was defeated when it failed to receive enough votes. 151 legislators opposed the amendment and 45 supported it, falling short of the 50 votes required to advance the measure to the November 2008 ballot. 4 legislators were absent or abstained from the vote.[6]

So it was never put before the general public. and with the focus on Cal... it quietly passed without panfare.

Will anti-Same Sex Marriage proponents fight at the next Constitutional Convention in Mass? dunno, but I think not.

So if we went back to the standard that you have a right to marry a person who is not related to you, is of the opposite sex and is of the same race, you'd be fine with that, huh? It applies to everyone, after all.

Mob rule is millions of straight people who don't even live in California pouring money into a campaign to make rules about gay people.


Mob rule is the constitution being changed every four years by some gorup or other.

and race isn't a scientific concept.

Mob rule is the constitution being changed every four years by some gorup or other.

and race isn't a scientific concept.

So you're against Prop 8 then, because it changes CA's constitution?

I don't know what the second statement is supposed to refer to.

gotta love all the armchair lawyers, doncha?

from Wiki.

so perhaps that's why there was no out of state rush to Mass. ;)

as for Cali...



Now this part is probably the key point as to why Mass didn't go through the same problems as Cal.

and it was soundly defeated before being put to the voters.


So it was never put before the general public. and with the focus on Cal... it quietly passed without panfare.

Will anti-Same Sex Marriage proponents fight at the next Constitutional Convention in Mass? dunno, but I think not.

none of this has anything to do with people trying to force THEIR HOME STATE into recognizing out of state marriages. The fact that people came to cali to get married doesn't mean there were any serious legal attempts to force recognition in other states.

gotta love all the armchair lawyers, doncha?

What I love the most is that when they are confronted by real lawyers they generally continue to use the same lame arguments as before, they just shout them more frantically.

I firmly believe that murderers should be in jail, but I have problems with all of us being considered this. (Note: I call myself a traditionalists very loosely.)

so you don't feel that actively opposing any effort to stop the discrimination of homosexuality (which goes above and beyond killing people) makes you in any way responsible?

to be honest if you going about stomping on peoples human rights don't get pissy when they start stomping on yours

What I love the most is that when they are confronted by real lawyers they generally continue to use the same lame arguments as before, they just shout them more frantically.

but...but, nobody ever said marriage was a right!

It's so charming when my country goes out of its way to make sure I really can't feel proud of it.

Isn't it though? They have been trying so hard to make us all want to naturalize to another country.

gotta love all the armchair lawyers, doncha?

I know I do.

Honestly though; The difference between them and bad lawyers isn't always that big...

none of this has anything to do with people trying to force THEIR HOME STATE into recognizing out of state marriages. The fact that people came to cali to get married doesn't mean there were any serious legal attempts to force recognition in other states.

so why go to Cali to get married unless it's not something that could've been gotten at their home state?

Did I say Legal attempts? or did I just say to force their states to accept it? if the state had no law to refuse certain marriages from other states (like say commonlaw and Same sex) but wouldn't grant the licence, getting married in Cali will force the state to accept their union. the Legal attempt would be if the state doesn't reconize it and that's a different topic.

The fact that Mass had a law in there means that at some point in time it was put there for a reason in 1913.

so why go to Cali to get married unless it's not something that could've been gotten at their home state?

Did I say Legal attempts? or did I just say to force their states to accept it? if the state had no law to refuse certain marriages from other states (like say commonlaw and Same sex) but wouldn't grant the licence, getting married in Cali will force the state to accept their union. the Legal attempt would be if the state doesn't reconize it and that's a different topic.

The fact that Mass had a law in there means that at some point in time it was put there for a reason in 1913.

The problem is, that's inherently an oxymoron. EVERY state has laws that define marriage, every single one. If they didn't, then they, by definition, would have gay marriage, because there'd be nothing in the law to prevent it.

every single state has laws that define marriage. In every one of those states, except Massachusetts, and possibly california, that marriage is defined as one man one woman. No state would have to accept a gay marriage which runs contrary to their own definition of marriage.

Simply put, they wouldn't be marriages under that state's laws. What you quoted about massachusetts is, in fact, discussing the exact opposite. It wasn't whether other states would have to recognize MA licenses, it was about whether MA would issue marriage licenses to couples from states where that license wouldn't be valid.

Nothing about the 1913 law said that Rhode Island had to accept MA same sex marriage licenses, it was whether or not MASSACHUSETTS would issue a marriage license to a Rhode Island same sex couple, even if they couldn't get married in their home state. It has no bearing on what you're discussing, so I'm unsure why you even bothered discussing it.

Again, the law in MA was not about whether a MA marriage license would be honored in a state where that couple couldn't get married. It was about whether MA would marry a couple even if they couldn't get married in their home state. Nothing about that what so ever said anything about having any other state honor MA licenses, it was about whether MA would honor other states requirements when it came to marrying residents of those states.

The problem is, that's inherently an oxymoron. EVERY state has laws that define marriage, every single one. If they didn't, then they, by definition, would have gay marriage, because there'd be nothing in the law to prevent it.

every single state has laws that define marriage. In every one of those states, except Massachusetts, and possibly california, that marriage is defined as one man one woman. No state would have to accept a gay marriage which runs contrary to their own definition of marriage. actually most use DOMA. If DOMA was repealed (that is a federal ruling... correct?) would those using DOMA still have it defined, or will it be revoked? (this is a serious question BTW.)

Simply put, they wouldn't be marriages under that state's laws. What you quoted about massachusetts is, in fact, discussing the exact opposite. It wasn't whether other states would have to recognize MA licenses, it was about whether MA would issue marriage licenses to couples from states where that license wouldn't be valid.

Nothing about the 1913 law said that Rhode Island had to accept MA same sex marriage licenses, it was whether or not MASSACHUSETTS would issue a marriage license to a Rhode Island same sex couple, even if they couldn't get married in their home state. It has no bearing on what you're discussing, so I'm unsure why you even bothered discussing it.
and according to that law (which was revoked) they wouldn't if Rhode Island (or any other state) would not reconize the union.

and considering what my orignial discussion on this topic (what do you call people rushing to california to get married...) was more of a joke than anything. *shrugs*

actually most use DOMA. If DOMA was repealed (that is a federal ruling... correct?) would those using DOMA still have it defined, or will it be revoked? (this is a serious question BTW.)

Oy, DOMA. OK, here's the thing about DOMA. DOMA says, basically, two things:

First, it defines the word "marriage" in all federal law, regulation, administrative guidelines, and basically anything official ever made by the federal government as one man one woman. It essentially states "when the federal government uses the word marriage, it means this, and only this, and never ever means anything other than this, so when we mean marriage, we mean one man, one woman, ALWAYS". Which, fine, is ok, it's just a pre-emptive definition. That's no problem.

The SECOND part of DOMA is where it gets a bit weird. It basically says that no state is obligated to honor any marriage license from any other state if that license is issued to a same sex couple. It doesn't say the states CAN NOT honor that license, it merely declares that no state has to honor a marriage license issued to a same sex couple, if said marriage license would be invalid in that state.

Which, well, here's the problem, there are two arguments about this. The first one is that of course this is true, the 10th amendment already allows for this. States are already free to define marriage however they want (subject to the constitutional restrictions enumerated upon in, inter alia, Loving v. Virginia). If that's true, than that second part of DOMA adds nothing new. It's already true that the states, under the 10th amendment, can choose to honor whatever out of state marriage license they wish.

The other argument is that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires states to recognize legally issued marriage licenses from other states, even if that couple could not legally get married in that state (its a poor argument, and I think an incorrect one, but it exists). If THAT is true, then DOMA is void, because it tells the states they don't have to do what the Constitution says they must.

So the problem is, either the Constitution requires states to recognize valid marriage licenses from other states (in which case DOMA is null and void as being unconstitutional) or the Constitution DOES NOT require states to recognize valid marriage licenses from other states (constitutional requirements not withstanding) in which case, DOMA merely states a truism and brings nothing new to the table.

It's hard to imagine a situation in which that part of DOMA actually does...anything.

Oy, DOMA. OK, here's the thing about DOMA. DOMA says, basically, two things:

First, it defines the word "marriage" in all federal law, regulation, administrative guidelines, and basically anything official ever made by the federal government as one man one woman. It essentially states "when the federal government uses the word marriage, it means this, and only this, and never ever means anything other than this, so when we mean marriage, we mean one man, one woman, ALWAYS". Which, fine, is ok, it's just a pre-emptive definition. That's no problem.

The SECOND part of DOMA is where it gets a bit weird. It basically says that no state is obligated to honor any marriage license from any other state if that license is issued to a same sex couple. It doesn't say the states CAN NOT honor that license, it merely declares that no state has to honor a marriage license issued to a same sex couple, if said marriage license would be invalid in that state.

Which, well, here's the problem, there are two arguments about this. The first one is that of course this is true, the 10th amendment already allows for this. States are already free to define marriage however they want (subject to the constitutional restrictions enumerated upon in, inter alia, Loving v. Virginia). If that's true, than that second part of DOMA adds nothing new. It's already true that the states, under the 10th amendment, can choose to honor whatever out of state marriage license they wish.

The other argument is that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires states to recognize legally issued marriage licenses from other states, even if that couple could not legally get married in that state (its a poor argument, and I think an incorrect one, but it exists). If THAT is true, then DOMA is void, because it tells the states they don't have to do what the Constitution says they must.

So the problem is, either the Constitution requires states to recognize valid marriage licenses from other states (in which case DOMA is null and void as being unconstitutional) or the Constitution DOES NOT require states to recognize valid marriage licenses from other states (constitutional requirements not withstanding) in which case, DOMA merely states a truism and brings nothing new to the table.

It's hard to imagine a situation in which that part of DOMA actually does...anything.

hmm. interesting.

I can see that pre-DOMA it was more of a silent rule of thumb to allow out of state marriages. after all, the concept of Same Sex Marriage probably wasn't even a fantasy or nightmare for our founding fathers. Mass probably ran into something that caused the 1913 law to be created. we can only imagine what... but I can see that the view of marriage, pre-DOMA, was traditional.

yet what is traditional is not a law. so it could be that DOMA was worded to allow states an 'out' if they didn't want to accept a certain form of Non-Traditional marriage. (this would include any other changes to Marriages. commonlaw, as well as any other form that we can't imagine.)

Found this site (http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/samesexcomp.htm).

and most of the states has this following it. Has law (DOMA) banning same-sex marriages.

which I can see with the first part, the definition of marriage according to the Federal Governemnt. so if DOMA is repealed, then would those states that are hiding behind DOMA lose that... er... coverage (for lack of a better term)?

hmm. interesting.

I can see that pre-DOMA it was more of a silent rule of thumb to allow out of state marriages. after all, the concept of Same Sex Marriage probably wasn't even a fantasy or nightmare for our founding fathers. Mass probably ran into something that caused the 1913 law to be created. we can only imagine what... but I can see that the view of marriage, pre-DOMA, was traditional.

yet what is traditional is not a law. so it could be that DOMA was worded to allow states an 'out' if they didn't want to accept a certain form of Non-Traditional marriage. (this would include any other changes to Marriages. commonlaw, as well as any other form that we can't imagine.)

Found this site (http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/samesexcomp.htm).

and most of the states has this following it.

which I can see with the first part, the definition of marriage according to the Federal Governemnt. so if DOMA is repealed, then would those states that are hiding behind DOMA lose that... er... coverage (for lack of a better term)?

again, not really, that's the problem. The federal government can not take away a state's power, nor define that power beyond the way the constitution defines it. States have the power to do ANYTHING that:

1) does not violate the constitution

or

2) infringes upon the plenary power of the Federal government.

(and if you want to get technical, #2 is just a subset of #1)

For example, a state can not deny equal protection (that violates the 14th amendment) or regulate immigration (that's a plenary power of the Federal government). But other than that, they can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want. The federal government can't just give them a power they don't have. The government can't allow them to violate the constitution, and they can't allow them to invade the plenary power of the Federal government. But other than those two things, the government can't "allow" them to do something, because they could do it anyway.

The federal government can't just go "ok states, you can do this now!" because the constitution has two, and only two answers to that, either "no, they can not" or "they already could". The Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to expand or contract the power of the states. States can do whatever they want, unless the Constitution says otherwise. If it does say otherwise, then they can't do it, no matter what the federal government says. If they can do so, than any approval (or disapproval) by the federal government is irrelevant.

I'm being a bit opaque here so let me explain briefly. States do not derive their power from the federal government, they derive their power from the Constitution. If the constitution prevents the state from doing something, then it can not, whether or not the federal government says it can. If the constitution does NOT prevent the state from doing something, then it can, whether or not the federal government says it can not.

Therefore whenever the federal government says a state can (or can not) do something (UNLESS it relates to the plenary powers of the federal government) it's entirely irrelevant. The federal government can neither grant, nor take away, powers from a state.

The fact that Mass had a law in there means that at some point in time it was put there for a reason in 1913.
Because interracial couples from out of state were coming to Massachusetts to get married (it was legal there) and would then sue their home states to make them recognize the marriage.

No one has the right to marry whomever they want. Even straight people have to deal with age and relation restrictions.
Marrying the person of your choice is a "fundamental liberty", which can only be infringed "to further a compelling state interest" (this is the terminology used by the Supreme Court of the United States). It CAN be infringed, that is to say, it is not an absolute "right": however, the state has to show a "rationale" for its infringement, and since the liberty is "fundamental", the rationale had better be "compelling" ("we've always done it this way" is not a compelling argument).

Marrying the person of your choice is a "fundamental liberty", which can only be infringed "to further a compelling state interest" (this is the terminology used by the Supreme Court of the United States). It CAN be infringed, that is to say, it is not an absolute "right": however, the state has to show a "rationale" for its infringement, and since the liberty is "fundamental", the rationale had better be "compelling" ("we've always done it this way" is not a compelling argument).

somebody's been paying attention in Con Law class :p

somebody's been paying attention in Con Law class :p

I aced every class in Law School. It was the real-world practice of law that I was a 100% failure at.

I love threads like this. Really, it was self rightous anti-American wankery from the outset. I cant decide if people are really upset America didnt sign it, or if theyre secretly giddy that the US didnt, because it gives them another excuse to toot their own horn and pretend that the plot of dirt you happened to be born on somehow makes you superior or inferior.

I love threads like this. Really, it was self rightous anti-American wankery from the outset. I cant decide if people are really upset America didnt sign it, or if theyre secretly giddy that the US didnt, because it gives them another excuse to toot their own horn and pretend that the plot of dirt you happened to be born on somehow makes you superior or inferior.

Please KOL we all know you think your superior because of the plot of dirt you were born on. :p

But in all seriousness KOL this would have less to do with country's if as a collective in which they are apart of and choose to be apart of it aren't outraged and because their government (which many would have chosen) have different vies if they think they are superior because your government was against something than so be it. Nothing to do with plots of land or anything but rather their beliefs and their associations are different to the US.

I was a bit surprised that Australia voted for it considering the Australian government is against same-sex marriage.

[me] Is glad he stayed out of this one.

I love threads like this. Really, it was self rightous anti-American wankery from the outset. I cant decide if people are really upset America didnt sign it, or if theyre secretly giddy that the US didnt, because it gives them another excuse to toot their own horn and pretend that the plot of dirt you happened to be born on somehow makes you superior or inferior.

Umm. Ok then, you look at the map below and tell me if criticism of US is unwarranted:

Green: Support
Orange: Neutral
Red: Against (Islamic Countries)

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1298/unsogrsupporters2vt6.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/unsogrsupporters2vt6.png/1/w898.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img525/unsogrsupporters2vt6.png/1/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_declaration_on_LGBT_rights

Poland is catholic and very religious and they adore Vatican because last pope was Polish. But they still signed it. Serbia, which we know what they were doing just 10ish years ago, signed it. Even friggin Hugo Chavez's Venezuella signed it and that guys a joke.

And of course, then, there's the huge hypocrisy of US. Freedom this, freedom that (one of the official reasons of Iraq war was to spread "freedom), shared values this and shared values that and then it lectures countries like Russia and China on human rights (in this case, US is in the same category with those).

I mean, sure, Obama's administration is prolly gonna sign it. But that wont change the face that this administration didnt. Almost half of American electorate votes Republican. Canada has a conservative government, they signed it. Australia has an anti-gay marriage government, they signed it. Many governments in Europe are conservative, they signed it. Sarkozy's party in France is conservative, yet France was the one who brought this decleration to UN along with Netherlands.

It seems that there is always this certain element in US.

Umm. Ok then, you look at the map below and tell me if criticism of US is unwarranted:

Green: Support
Orange: Neutral
Red: Against (Islamic Countries)

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1298/unsogrsupporters2vt6.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/unsogrsupporters2vt6.png/1/w898.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img525/unsogrsupporters2vt6.png/1/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_declaration_on_LGBT_rights

Poland is catholic and very religious and they adore Vatican because last pope was Polish. But they still signed it. Serbia, which we know what they were doing just 10ish years ago, signed it. Even friggin Hugo Chavez's Venezuella signed it and that guys a joke.

And of course, then, there's the huge hypocrisy of US. Freedom this, freedom that (one of the official reasons of Iraq war was to spread "freedom), shared values this and shared values that and then it lectures countries like Russia and China on human rights (in this case, US is in the same category with those).

I mean, sure, Obama's administration is prolly gonna sign it. But that wont change the face that this administration didnt. Almost half of American electorate votes Republican. Canada has a conservative government, they signed it. Australia has an anti-gay marriage government, they signed it. Many governments in Europe are conservative, they signed it. Sarkozy's party in France is conservative, yet France was the one who brought this decleration to UN along with Netherlands.

It seems that there is always this certain element in US.

Guyana and Suriname are Islamic? I didn't know that... :eek:

Guyana and Suriname are Islamic? I didn't know that... :eek:

Just another reason to invade Canada. To stop the spread of Islamism. If not, other countries will fall randomly all over the world, like... like... things that fall. Not dominos! Like mahjong! I think we need to call it the Mahjong theory.

...


*Flees*

Just another reason to invade Canada. To stop the spread of Islamism. If not, other countries will fall randomly all over the world, like... like... things that fall. Not dominos! Like mahjong! I think we need to call it the Mahjong theory.

...


*Flees*

What?


Talking about Islamic countries:


The opposing statement read in the General Assembly, supported by nearly 60 nations, rejected the idea that sexual orientation was a matter of genetic coding. The statement, led by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the effort threatened to undermine the international framework of human rights by trying to normalize pedophilia, among other acts.
...
The Organization of the Islamic Conference also failed in a last-minute attempt to alter a formal resolution that Sweden sponsored condemning summary executions. It sought to have the words “sexual orientation” deleted as one of the central reasons for such killings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/world/19nations.html?ref=world

:rolleyes:

Typical from the Muslim coutries, that didnt surprise me. Even EU candidate "secular" Turkey went Islamic:

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/10617078.asp?gid=244

Umm. Ok then, you look at the map below and tell me if criticism of US is unwarranted:

Green: Support
Orange: Neutral
Red: Against (Islamic Countries)

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1298/unsogrsupporters2vt6.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/unsogrsupporters2vt6.png/1/w898.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img525/unsogrsupporters2vt6.png/1/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_declaration_on_LGBT_rights

Poland is catholic and very religious and they adore Vatican because last pope was Polish. But they still signed it. Serbia, which we know what they were doing just 10ish years ago, signed it. Even friggin Hugo Chavez's Venezuella signed it and that guys a joke.

And of course, then, there's the huge hypocrisy of US. Freedom this, freedom that (one of the official reasons of Iraq war was to spread "freedom), shared values this and shared values that and then it lectures countries like Russia and China on human rights (in this case, US is in the same category with those).

I mean, sure, Obama's administration is prolly gonna sign it. But that wont change the face that this administration didnt. Almost half of American electorate votes Republican. Canada has a conservative government, they signed it. Australia has an anti-gay marriage government, they signed it. Many governments in Europe are conservative, they signed it. Sarkozy's party in France is conservative, yet France was the one who brought this decleration to UN along with Netherlands.

It seems that there is always this certain element in US.


Whether its justified or not doesnt invalidate my comment. The usual suspects all came in here, proclaiming their own rightousness and making these idiotic blanket statements. They were also almost universally from the same region.

Its just predicatable thats all. I really do believe a good number of people on this forum are actually happy the US didnt sign it. Otherwise, what would they have to shriek about?

so are property rights. which is why I find picketing private residences without their consent rather iffy.

If you're actually on someone's property and they ask you to leave, you are trespassing.

Not so sure about picketing someone's home from the sidewalk, though. That's public space.


How is it discrimination? they have the same rights of other citizens, therefore the 14th amendment does not apply. No one has the right to marry whomever they want. Even straight people have to deal with age and relation restrictions. The right to marry a person who is of a legal age, is not related to you, and is of the opposite sex applies to everyone.

Just like how, under anti-miscegenation laws, everyone equally had the right to marry someone of the same ethnicity. And that wasn't viewed as discrimination.....

Oh, wait, Loving v. Virginia. Hmmm, I guess it was...

This guy isn't any kind of politician or anyone ho actively seeks to maneuver himself into the limelight, nor did he commit a crime. This is different. he has a right to his opinion and his privacy without being harassed.

What guy?

If he injected himself heavily into politics, he did actively put himself in the public eye. And while he has the right to do so unhindered, it doesn't free him of the consequences of his actions.

so perhaps that's why there was no out of state rush to Mass. ;)

Ah, yes. The anti-miscegenation holdover.

Isn't it good to know that the people trying to black same-sex marriage not only use the same arguments, but also the same tools as those who tried to block interracial marriage?

Otherwise, what would they have to shriek about?"The US is being hypocritical, again, even though the current administration opposes legalizing gay marriage, which isn't really hypocritical at all! Internet forum whining powers, activate!"
...:rolleyes:

Notice the sarcasm, please.*

* Because some people tend to blindly rush in and take me completely seriously.

Its just predicatable thats all. I really do believe a good number of people on this forum are actually happy the US didnt sign it. Otherwise, what would they have to shriek about?

Indeed - the fact that real human beings are being hurt by all this is of course totally unimportant. It is all about the joy I derive from US-bashing. Has to be.

Indeed - the fact that real human beings are being hurt by all this is of course totally unimportant. It is all about the joy I derive from US-bashing. Has to be.

I dont recall I ever singled you out, so youre little snipe was wasted.

I dont recall I ever singled you out, so youre little snipe was wasted.

*shrugs*. I like to assume my fellow posters also have a shred of decency and actually care about other people. Naive of course, but hey - it is Christmas. The time to be that.


Unless you are mr Starr of course.