UN General Assembly: Summary execution of queers okay

dreadgeek · 11-23-2010, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

Did the USA actually vote for it?

Look at the things the US has done to many of the nations who voted against it. For 100's of years. Why should they respect our opinions?

We need to lead by example and make sure our allies are there for voting!

Actually, since the United States practices executions for criminals our delegation tends to abstain from votes regarding death penalty. (since typically these votes are in favor of executing people that the USA has no appetite for killing).

What do our actions have to do with this vote? Can you explain to me the causal chain that gets us from "In this year the United States did this action and so in 2010 the UN delegation from this nation voted in favor of executing queers"? I ask because I cannot get there. I do not see the path from, say, our overthrowing the government of Mosadech (sp) in Iran in the mid-50's to them executing queers. Let's say that we had spent the last 234 years safely ensconced in our borders--not intervening even in a case where American intervention was so obviously needed like, say, WW I and WW II. How do you think that the 79 nations that voted in favor of executing queers would have voted? Additionally, why do you think their votes would have been different?

Jess · 11-23-2010, 08:35 AM

My personal and political views on this are closely tied. It would make a stronger political and moral statement to the rest of the UN nations, if country's like the US would grant full equal human rights rather than issue any type of condemnation.

I agree with dreadgeek, in that I think the cultural beliefs and dogma of those nations are so deeply ingrained that with or without any Western presence in their country those notions of anti- homosexuality would still be intact.

Were we to step up to the plate, so to speak, and show that we not only don't agree with the right to execute based on sexual orientation, but that we further, view homosexuals as equal human beings with FULL rights, perhaps we could change their view without putting them on the defense.

Global politics are no different really than our personal politics. Just more people involved. The whole theory behind thinking globally and acting locally can be felt here.

What right does the US have to see these actions as barbaric ( which is how I see it, not from any statement made in the press), when we disallow the same group of citizens equal rights under and protected by the laws of our own country?

11-23-2010, 08:35 AM	#2
Jess Timed Out - Permanent How Do You Identify?: decidedly indifferent Preferred Pronoun?: other Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Patrick Springs, VA Posts: 2,812 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 9,247 Thanked 5,700 Times in 1,682 Posts Rep Power: 0	My personal and political views on this are closely tied. It would make a stronger political and moral statement to the rest of the UN nations, if country's like the US would grant full equal human rights rather than issue any type of condemnation. I agree with dreadgeek, in that I think the cultural beliefs and dogma of those nations are so deeply ingrained that with or without any Western presence in their country those notions of anti- homosexuality would still be intact. Were we to step up to the plate, so to speak, and show that we not only don't agree with the right to execute based on sexual orientation, but that we further, view homosexuals as equal human beings with FULL rights, perhaps we could change their view without putting them on the defense. Global politics are no different really than our personal politics. Just more people involved. The whole theory behind thinking globally and acting locally can be felt here. What right does the US have to see these actions as barbaric ( which is how I see it, not from any statement made in the press), when we disallow the same group of citizens equal rights under and protected by the laws of our own country?