• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN body votes for protection of gay rights

Viktyr Korimir said:
But the words are so pretty!
Click to expand...

I'm sure their beauty will melt away years of homophobia.

I also wonder what it means to be "cautiously worded." I'm also curious to see if there were any nations on the panel that actively discriminate against homosexuals.
 
digsbe said:
I also wonder what it means to be "cautiously worded." I'm also curious to see if there were any nations on the panel that actively discriminate against homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Weren't we on that panel? Marriage aside, there's a push in several states to reinstate sodomy laws.
 
The UN :lamo:lamo. What are the going to protect? The UN couldn't protect a picnic from ants!!!
 
Is the UN still putting out press releases? I thought they disbanded. :)


Tim-
 
crebigsol said:
In 1950’s, the population of this country is 88% Caucasian/white; in 2012, the most recent census reveals that Caucasian/white babies occupy less than one half of the new born population. The disappearance rate of 38% for a race in 70 years in a given territory is a result that only genocide can produce in any historical event. Gay right has contributed heavily to this disappearance of Caucasian/white. But Caucasians/white is celebrating all over their “human right”, which has led to this disastrous genocide consequence. Among their gala hailing, I also hear the hailing from all the socialists:

Long live the UN!
Click to expand...


At least we now know what's really bothering you. Sieg Heil!
 
rocket88 said:
At least we now know what's really bothering you. Sieg Heil!
Click to expand...
Hehehe, tell me you are not bothered when the same population disappearing rate shows up with black, Indians, Hispanics, Latinos, Asains, polynesians...
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
We're not insects.
Click to expand...
Biologically, you are not. However, politically, you feel so fanatical to fall into the trap of someone else’s insect control plot.
roguenuke said:
A homosexual can still have sex with a member of the other sex.
Click to expand...
A refuge that homosexual thinks impeccable to fend off their criticizer is “Homosexual is not about sex, it is about love”. Why are you so happy to point out their betrayal nature? A homosexual having sex with other sex can only be conducted under the betrayal mentality.
roguenuke said:
And if everyone were gay, it would be very likely that the only time opposite sex matings would occur (assuming no one is actually bisexual) would be for the absolute purpose of procreating. So no "oops" pregnancies. No abortions of unwanted children because all children being made would be wanted. Children would be planned for in advance.
Click to expand...
Be honest and brave to face the reality: one of the reasons that someone takes a homosexual life is to escape baby rearing. True, some of you create the “right” to rob someone else’s baby for adoption in order to cover up their barren nature, but this is based on that some other group of people have created the babies. What has been barren stays barren.
 
crebigsol said:
Biologically, you are not. However, politically, you feel so fanatical to fall into the trap of someone else’s insect control plot.
Click to expand...

Wow, what an imagination you have. You are comparing things that have nothing to do with each other. And you fail to actually address the points being made at all.

crebigsol said:
A refuge that homosexual thinks impeccable to fend off their criticizer is “Homosexual is not about sex, it is about love”. Why are you so happy to point out their betrayal nature? A homosexual having sex with other sex can only be conducted under the betrayal mentality.
Click to expand...

First of all, you are the one insisting that homosexuality is about sex. That makes you somewhat obsessive about other people's sex life. Are you going to argue that same sex couples cannot love each other? Are you going to try to argue that they do none of the same things that opposite sex couples do? Are you going to argue that the only time they spend together has to involve sexual activity of some kind?

Second, nature isn't being subverted or ignored at all here. Sex has a natural purpose in primates of socialization. Ignoring this discounts almost all the sexual activity that humans are ever involved in as being unnatural, whether it takes place between opposite sex pairs or same sex pairs, since 99% of sexual activity is for personal pleasure not reproduction.

crebigsol said:
Be honest and brave to face the reality: one of the reasons that someone takes a homosexual life is to escape baby rearing. True, some of you create the “right” to rob someone else’s baby for adoption in order to cover up their barren nature, but this is based on that some other group of people have created the babies. What has been barren stays barren.
Click to expand...

I know what reality is. We have the technology to make babies when natural sexual relations fail to do so. Plus, we have many children, in this country alone who need loving homes with parents willing and able to raise them, including same sex parents. There is nothing that says that only opposite sex couples should be allowed to adopt children.

Plus, being barren would apply to many opposite sex couples, particularly those using adoption, surrogacy, sperm/egg donations, or IVF to get children to raise the same as it does same sex couples.

And yet again you fail to address the argument from the standpoint you made. You said that if everyone was homosexual, the humans, or at least those races that went completely homosexual, would die out. You were proven wrong and then came up with some crap about how they shouldn't be allowed to do that. Well, it doesn't matter if you believe they shouldn't be allowed to do it. They are. And if everyone were homosexual, they certainly would still be able to make babies, whether you think it is wrong or not.
 
crebigsol said:
Be honest and brave to face the reality: one of the reasons that someone takes a homosexual life is to escape baby rearing. True, some of you create the “right” to rob someone else’s baby for adoption in order to cover up their barren nature, but this is based on that some other group of people have created the babies. What has been barren stays barren.
Click to expand...

So are you attacking adoptive parents? You really are a piece of ****.

(I know I'll get dinged on it, but it's worth it. To the mods: I've made it well known my being an adoptive parent. This piece of **** attacks adoption, I take it personal. ANYBODY attacks adoptive parents...I can't even express my rage...)
 
crebigsol said:
Biologically, you are not. However, politically, you feel so fanatical to fall into the trap of someone else’s insect control plot.
Click to expand...

Sounds like anarchist drivel to me.

crebigsol said:
A refuge that homosexual thinks impeccable to fend off their criticizer is “Homosexual is not about sex, it is about love”. Why are you so happy to point out their betrayal nature? A homosexual having sex with other sex can only be conducted under the betrayal mentality.
Click to expand...

If all sides consent then there is no betrayal. Or do I need to post the definition of "betrayal" in order for you to see this?

crebigsol said:
Be honest and brave to face the reality: one of the reasons that someone takes a homosexual life is to escape baby rearing. True, some of you create the “right” to rob someone else’s baby for adoption in order to cover up their barren nature, but this is based on that some other group of people have created the babies. What has been barren stays barren.
Click to expand...

There is so much wrong with this its pathetic.

1st: I won't deny that there are some homosexuals choose to be homosexuals. But considering all the things that we don't know about DNA I certainly am not ruling out that it is also genetic. IE naturally occuring. Especially when you have so many species of animals (2500+) that exhibit homosexual behavior. Not to mention that I as a heterosexual never chose to be a heterosexual.

2nd: To state that the only reason a person "takes" a homosexual life is to avoid child rearing is idiotic in and of itself. One does not have to be homosexual to avoid child rearing. There are many avenues to avoid it. Not have sex at all, get sterilized, adoption, abortion, abandonment and if they really wanted to be extreme just kill the child. Though admittedly they could very well end up in prison for that.

3rd: No one has "created the right to rob someone else of their baby". That is BEYOND idiotic to say. Lots of people give their child up for adoption willingly. Especially teenagers. There is certainly no right to rob someone of their child. In fact that is against the law. Its called kidnapping and the kidnapping of a child is an automatic FBI involvement and a federal felony with around 10 years inprisonment iirc.

4th: Whatever the hell it is that you're smoking....keep it the hell away from me.
 
roguenuke said:
First of all, you are the one insisting that homosexuality is about sex. That makes you somewhat obsessive about other people's sex life. Are you going to argue that same sex couples cannot love each other? Are you going to try to argue that they do none of the same things that opposite sex couples do? Are you going to argue that the only time they spend together has to involve sexual activity of some kind?
Click to expand...
You have been indulged in the life style that makes you lose the subtlety of detecting the point of argument. If you have a homosexual lover, don’t you need first betray your homosexual lover to have sex with the opposite sex as you claim? Or don’t you have to betray your husband (assuming you are a woman) first before you have a woman lover? You can argue that “whatever I do I have agreement from my lover first” then you betray the commonly accepted family value in the contemporary HUMAN society to start your bisexual polygamy circle. I only know of bonobo having this kind of love ring.

roguenuke said:
Sex has a natural purpose in primates of socialization. Ignoring this discounts almost all the sexual activity that humans are ever involved in as being unnatural, whether it takes place between opposite sex pairs or same sex pairs, since 99% of sexual activity is for personal pleasure not reproduction.
Click to expand...
Every personal pleasure, even every pleasure for any living being, has a cost factor behind. Who picks the tab for the cost of your pleasure? Who have been putting up the cost for the protection of a society in which you take your life style for granted? Just imagine that the society you live in has crumbled but Islam can conquer this land. How would the Islam take your activity? Please check your neck every morning when you wake up when they conquer this land. Their strength is increasing everyday worldwide; so is seen in America, too.

roguenuke said:
Plus, being barren would apply to many opposite sex couples, particularly those using adoption, surrogacy, sperm/egg donations, or IVF to get children to raise the same as it does same sex couples.
Click to expand...
Homosexual couple being barren is by nature; opposite sex couple being barren is by statistics with extremely low probability. By nature, men are physically stronger than women; by statistic, some few women are stronger than some few men. No nation can afford to have a military force of 100% women only because the low probability that some few women are physically stronger than some few men.
roguenuke said:
And yet again you fail to address the argument from the standpoint you made. You said that if everyone was homosexual, the humans, or at least those races that went completely homosexual, would die out. You were proven wrong and then came up with some crap about how they shouldn't be allowed to do that. Well, it doesn't matter if you believe they shouldn't be allowed to do it. They are. And if everyone were homosexual, they certainly would still be able to make babies, whether you think it is wrong or not.
Click to expand...
At least yourself, I am sure, is not a product of homosexual couple. No war that has America involved shows that those heroes sacrificed for the country have been products of homosexual couple. I do not even bother waste my breath for this of your crap.
 
Kal'Stang said:
If all sides consent then there is no betrayal. Or do I need to post the definition of "betrayal" in order for you to see this?
Click to expand...
I have had an argument on this point in answering roguenuke, which is posted 10:54am.
Kal'Stang said:
1st: I won't deny that there are some homosexuals choose to be homosexuals. But considering all the things that we don't know about DNA I certainly am not ruling out that it is also genetic. IE naturally occuring. Especially when you have so many species of animals (2500+) that exhibit homosexual behavior. Not to mention that I as a heterosexual never chose to be a heterosexual.
Click to expand...
Well, make your pick: ask the human society to guarantee you animal right or human right.
Kal'Stang said:
2nd: To state that the only reason a person "takes" a homosexual life is to avoid child rearing is idiotic in and of itself. One does not have to be homosexual to avoid child rearing. There are many avenues to avoid it. Not have sex at all, get sterilized, adoption, abortion, abandonment and if they really wanted to be extreme just kill the child. Though admittedly they could very well end up in prison for that.
Click to expand...
No more idiotic is found than reading “one of the reasons” as “the only reason”.
Kal'Stang said:
3rd: No one has "created the right to rob someone else of their baby". That is BEYOND idiotic to say. Lots of people give their child up for adoption willingly. Especially teenagers. There is certainly no right to rob someone of their child. In fact that is against the law. Its called kidnapping and the kidnapping of a child is an automatic FBI involvement and a federal felony with around 10 years inprisonment iirc.
Click to expand...
If you do not create the “right”, you have no ground to sue those who reject the adoption offered by homo couples. If the homo couple must have right to adopt, in addition to the betrayal behavior you legitimate in love affairs with your argument “If all sides consent then there is no betrayal”, you just reinforce the betrayal mentality to the next generation. No wonder the behavior of irresponsibility to family has been more and more widespread in America: irresponsible people look for every way to sham this mentality to our next generation.

Kal'Stang said:
4th: Whatever the hell it is that you're smoking....keep it the hell away from me.
Click to expand...
Can I ask you to do the samething: "Whatever the hell it is that you're smoking....keep it the hell away from me?" All liberals declare that they, and only they, are genuine lover of freedom of speech.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
So are you attacking adoptive parents? You really are a piece of ****.

(I know I'll get dinged on it, but it's worth it. To the mods: I've made it well known my being an adoptive parent. This piece of **** attacks adoption, I take it personal. ANYBODY attacks adoptive parents...I can't even express my rage...)
Click to expand...

Oh, hero of justice! Don't you think you have onset attack long before?
 
crebigsol said:
Hehehe, tell me you are not bothered when the same population disappearing rate shows up with black, Indians, Hispanics, Latinos, Asains, polynesians...
Click to expand...

Well we are a melting pot.
 
Just got to ask, how is this for the UN to decide? They are NOT the world's government, nor is it for them to be deciding such things. In fact, I want a rebate on all the UN dues that have been spent in spinning their wheels on this and other nonsense that is none of their business.
 
crebigsol said:
I have had an argument on this point in answering roguenuke, which is posted 10:54am.
Click to expand...

Don't really care. Still sounds like anarchist drivel to me.

crebigsol said:
Well, make your pick: ask the human society to guarantee you animal right or human right.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't have to "ask" to enjoy a Right period. That is the nature of rights.

crebigsol said:
No more idiotic is found than reading “one of the reasons” as “the only reason”.
Click to expand...

If you don't follow definitions then yeah I suppose you could read it as "the only reason". But I prefer to follow the definitions of words and not apply fallacies.

crebigsol said:
If you do not create the “right”, you have no ground to sue those who reject the adoption offered by homo couples. If the homo couple must have right to adopt, in addition to the betrayal behavior you legitimate in love affairs with your argument “If all sides consent then there is no betrayal”, you just reinforce the betrayal mentality to the next generation. No wonder the behavior of irresponsibility to family has been more and more widespread in America: irresponsible people look for every way to sham this mentality to our next generation.
Click to expand...

See this is where you keep messing up....there is no right being "created". People are only suing to have a right applied equally. You can't create a right which already exists. But you can sue for an existing right to be applied equally.

And one more time...there is no betrayal going on. Next time I'll provide the definition for you since you seem to be incapable of applying it correctly or apparently even looking it up.


crebigsol said:
Can I ask you to do the samething: "Whatever the hell it is that you're smoking....keep it the hell away from me?" All liberals declare that they, and only they, are genuine lover of freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Sorry but 1: I'm not a liberal. I'm Independent. ;) 2: Show me where I have tried to deny ANYONE the right to free speech.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
Just got to ask, how is this for the UN to decide? They are NOT the world's government, nor is it for them to be deciding such things. In fact, I want a rebate on all the UN dues that have been spent in spinning their wheels on this and other nonsense that is none of their business.
Click to expand...

The UN was created in part to protect peoples rights. So yes they can decide it.

Of course actually ENFORCING it is a whole nother thing entirely. ;)
 
Kal'Stang said:
The UN was created in part to protect peoples rights. So yes they can decide it.

Of course actually ENFORCING it is a whole nother thing entirely. ;)
Click to expand...

No, it really wasn't AFAIK. The UN was created to prevent future war by providing a central forum for all countries to have discussion, and a framework for the Security Council nations to enforce decisions made by the membership to prevent future war and/or the conduct of nations at war.

The HRC, the WHO, and the like - all addons that have nothing to do with the original purpose of the UN.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
No, it really wasn't AFAIK. The UN was created to prevent future war by providing a central forum for all countries to have discussion, and a framework for the Security Council nations to enforce decisions made by the membership to prevent future war and/or the conduct of nations at war.

The HRC, the WHO, and the like - all addons that have nothing to do with the original purpose of the UN.
Click to expand...

The idea behind the UN being created was to keep one country from invading and keeping another countries land. That was how it was suppose to help prevent war. But as it grew human rights were added to it. Hence why there is a "UN Human Rights Council"

United Nations Human Rights Council
 
Kal'Stang said:
See this is where you keep messing up....there is no right being "created". People are only suing to have a right applied equally. You can't create a right which already exists.
But you can sue for an existing right to be applied equally.
Click to expand...
Exactly, “ this is where you keep messing up”. There is no right that can exist by nature for any living being unless it is created and defended by force. A lion has right to eat a zebra, but a zebra has not right to eat a lion. A lion has right to kill a hyena, but a hyena has no right to kill a lion. Whatever the so-called human right that is enjoyed by you is not a right for any common citizen in N Korea, but may be a right for Kim’s family member. A man has a right to marry 4 women in the Islamic world will not have such right in a Buddhism world unless someone has power to abuse.
Kal'Stang said:
Sorry but 1: I'm not a liberal. I'm Independent. 2: Show me where I have tried to deny ANYONE the right to free speech.
Click to expand...
It is not how you declare how you are; it is how you portray how you are. Many homos, for example, declare they are not women while no more obviously they possess a woman’s body in others’ eyes. Yes, you did not literarily “deny ANYONE the right to free speech”, you just tell people “Whatever the hell it is that you're smoking....keep it the hell away from me”.
 
crebigsol said:
Many homos, for example, declare they are not women while no more obviously they possess a woman’s body in others’ eyes.
Click to expand...

Usually when a "homo" declares that they are not a woman, it's because they have a penis. For some reason, you seem to have not learned the basic preschool lesson about the difference between girls and boys.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The idea behind the UN being created was to keep one country from invading and keeping another countries land. That was how it was suppose to help prevent war. But as it grew human rights were added to it. Hence why there is a "UN Human Rights Council"

United Nations Human Rights Council
Click to expand...

Actually, it was created to replace the League of Nations (which was only to prevent war and agree upon terms of war). Several new thrusts were added (largely without public input). Here are the stated purpose(s) listed in the UN Charter:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1.To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2.To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3.To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4.To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Click to expand...

So, yes, under section three, they do have the auspices to make such a determination. Of course there are no enforcement mechanisms as the verbiage was restricted to "encouraging and promoting".

So I withdraw my question regarding how this is there business. However, it also restores my belief that the creation of the UN was the first step towards the eventual creation by fiat of a world government. Something Americans then, as well as now, are opposed to.
 
crebigsol said:
Exactly, “ this is where you keep messing up”. There is no right that can exist by nature for any living being unless it is created and defended by force. A lion has right to eat a zebra, but a zebra has not right to eat a lion. A lion has right to kill a hyena, but a hyena has no right to kill a lion. Whatever the so-called human right that is enjoyed by you is not a right for any common citizen in N Korea, but may be a right for Kim’s family member. A man has a right to marry 4 women in the Islamic world will not have such right in a Buddhism world unless someone has power to abuse.
Click to expand...

Rights are inherant. IE they are there whether people use them or not. Believe it or not things can exist outside of humans.

crebigsol said:
It is not how you declare how you are; it is how you portray how you are. Many homos, for example, declare they are not women while no more obviously they possess a woman’s body in others’ eyes. Yes, you did not literarily “deny ANYONE the right to free speech”, you just tell people “Whatever the hell it is that you're smoking....keep it the hell away from me”.
Click to expand...

And I portray myself in many ways. Some would call me liberal in one subject while in another they would call me a conservative. Hence why I am "independent". I base my decisions on my own thoughts, ideas, and the facts of the situation. Not because some ideological group mentality thinking. Believe me or not. I don't really care. I just corrected you in order to prevent you from being wrong in everything. If you wish to continue to be wrong that is now upon you and only you. You've been informed.

And telling someone "Whatever the hell it is that you're smoking....keep it the hell away from me" is a nice way of telling them that they are acting like idiots. Its a reference to wacky tobacky. It has nothing what-so-ever to do with speech.
 
clownboy said:
However, it also restores my belief that the creation of the UN was the first step towards the eventual creation by fiat of a world government. Something Americans then, as well as now, are opposed to.
Click to expand...

How can you be sure that President Obama is opposed to a world government?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom