"The newly-installed president of the United Nations General Assembly, Ali Abdussalam Treki, has said that homosexuality is "not really acceptable"
"As a Muslim, I am not in favour of it . . . it is not accepted by the majority of countries. My opinion is not in favour of this matter at all. I think it's not really acceptable by our religion, our tradition.
Yes, they are also equally intolerant of Western Society, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, all other religious groups and even atheists. Oh, I also forgot about their perspective on the treatment of women.
I am not one who is enamored with homosexuality. However, regardless of how repugnant I might personally find it I do not advocate mistreatment or denial of fair consideration or special status to Homosexuals.
And muslims don't accept women's rights, either, and would kill anyone who disagrees with their version of religion - how did this bigot become the president of the UN. Anyone who advocate killing others because they don't agree with them does not belong in the UN.
Unfortunately, the muslims are being supported by the right wing nuts in our county who, due to their blind hatred of homosexuality, are just playing into their hands.
and would kill anyone who disagrees with their version of religion
Just like that ? then they have a big task to kill 5 billion who have different faiths on this planet
Is this seed about muslems?? or it is the delicious issue of bashing the muslems in every opportunity?
Yes, they are also equally intolerant of Western Society, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, all other religious groups and even atheists. Oh, I also forgot about their perspective on the treatment of women.
I am not one who is enamored with homosexuality. However, regardless of how repugnant I might personally find it I do not advocate mistreatment or denial of fair consideration or special status to Homosexuals.
Well, there are many diverse groups in the world-- diverse re "race", religion, political view, sexuality, etc. But no matter how much one disagrees with their values and lifestyles-- IMO as long as they don't attempt to harm others, they have a right to their way of life. Unfortuantely, however, in many countries-- including many places in the Arab world-- the society appears to be marked by an extreme lack of intolerance.
Is this seed about muslems?? or it is the delicious issue of bashing the muslems in every opportunity?
You appear to be quite confused. I would suggest you read the title ("New United Nations General Assembly President calls homosexuality 'unnacceptable'") and maybe even get a bit daring-- and read the actual article! before commenting again :-)
There are some who find criticism of human right abusesappropriate- but for some strange reason make an exception when the perps are Muslim. The notion that somehow Islam is sacrosanct-- and should be about criticism. I disagree.
Is this seed about muslems?? or it is the delicious issue of bashing the muslems in every opportunity?
It is about one person-- who is a bigot.Its not delicious-- I would preder than bigotry and intolerance vanish from the planet (unlikely IMO)> But as lonmmg as these bigots keep on spreading their hate-- and especially in those stories that aren't covered in the mainstream media-- or downplayed) I will continue to seed articles about them.
Of course, if you want me to stop, the best approach would be to educate these ignorant bigots-- and whn they change, myself and others will no longger bash them...capiche?
Tthe Libyan secretary is speaking for himself if not for UN , Lybia is not known as an Islamic country , may be a tribal culture who holds ancient traditions , ancient traditions in all cultures and religions didn,t advocate homosexualty
In the modern time there are a lot of -so called civilized people'' from every country and from every religion who in fact are harbouring dislike of homsexuality and they pretend to be otherwise not to be called 'uncivilized' ...it happened that muslems don,t hide their heart , this makes then easy target for criticism
Instead of bashing muslems ''which will not fix the problem of intolerance' I,d like to see all cultures understad that they can like or dislike particular practice and sex orientation , but they don,t have the right to insult or dehumanize any individual for his sexual choice
Lybia is not known as an Islamic country ,
Bull@!$%#! It most certainly is. (What's next-- a claim that the Saudis aren't really Moslems? :-) Do you really think you can get away with that sort of taqiyya here?
may be a tribal culture who holds ancient traditions , ancient traditions in all cultures and religions didn,t advocate homosexualty
More bull@!$%#.Do you know anything about, say, ancient Greece?
Do you really think you can get away with these sorts fo falsehoods and deceptions here?
Btw, Fada-- since you obviously consider yourself to be so well-informed on homosexuality-- let's get rigjht to the heart fo ther matter: Do you think its a choice-- or just that some people are born as gay and others as straight?
Something wong let replies disappear
Something wong let replies disappear
There have been some occasional problems lately on NV with comments-- either they don't appear, or sometimes the same comment appears twice.
May be it,s better like that let the last reply go :) , I was upset over your use of words like Bull@!$%! , it brings out of me the worst retorts especially when you past it with silly propaganda tools like taqiyya that most of muslems do not know
Now you ask me about homosexuality? funny... but I will answer because part of my researching for in 'Growth and development in Pediatrics'' was about sex orientation'' Just try for once not to direct my words to bash muslems
In brief as possible , very small percentage of cases of homosexual tendency can be attributed to true physical or genital problem or disfiguration or hormonal error . Even some of them could be identified wrongly in birth as boys while they are girls and vise versa. The famious example is any boy born with 'undescended gonads'' and his parents raised him wrongly as a girl . Also there is weak unproved theory about genetic factor
What matters is the majority of gay cases , I mean those who have healthy physical and sexual growth and their functionng bodies are true normal male or female but they refuse their physical and hormonal reality and they feel strongly attracted by the same sex . Those cases can be attributed to the impact of psychological and enviromental and social reasons epecially in early childhoos . Some are victims of recurrent rape and abuse , some are raised by gay parent or single mother or mingled with gay friends. Some are spoiled or abandoned in childhood, some are are lonely boy raised among big number of sisters , or he/she admired the other sex and wanted to emulate . Some are born in a family who didn,t want him/her...In the modern times some people change their sex orientation without any reason, just bored and wanted to practice something new
n brief as possible , very small percentage of cases of homosexual tendency can be attributed to true physical or genital problem or disfiguration or hormonal error . Even some of them could be identified wrongly in birth as boys while they are girls and vise versa. The famious example is any boy born with 'undescended gonads'' and his parents raised him wrongly as a girl . Also there is weak unproved theory about genetic factor What matters is the majority of gay cases , I mean those who have healthy physical and sexual growth and their functionng bodies are true normal male or female but they refuse their physical and hormonal reality and they feel strongly attracted by the same sex .
So, if I understand you correctly then, you feel that homosexuality is abnormal?
bodies are true normal male or female but they refuse their physical and hormonal reality
What,s your suggestion for the definition of ''abnormal''?
In science there are reasons and no judgements. Physical , psychological , inviromental , social. Any change in any usual pattern must have reasons
It is not my concern if it is normal or abnormal , my concern is 'the right of having free choice by everybofy'' . In some cases it,s not a free choice 'like in kid traffickation'' and like using poor boys for intrtainment in some States 'I will not mention'' because this is the only issue that turns me to be a basher of particular culture
Amazing! Even though that is the UN General's Assembly's president's opinion, he IS acting as a representative for many.
The predominant religion in Libya is Sunni Islam; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya
It is wrong to demand as well unfair and unrealistic not be bashed nor expect backlash when you giving the prejudice and backlash; respect and tolerance is a two way street. Not one way and not an excuse either used by religious extremists or/and cultural ones that use these as an alibis to justify denying others their humanity.
Gay folks are people too and are human beings whether any extremists of any religion/culture/tribal etc. choose recognize it or not.
Fada, in reference to #1.3:
"Abnormality" in this issue is not a judgment call, it is statistical. The homosexual "community" claims that homosexuality is as common as being left-handed, approximately 8% of the human population. If one were to chart sexual preference/orientation as a graph with woman/woman prefs on the right, man/woman prefs in the center, and man/man prefs to the left one finds that the homosexual preferences fall well outside of two standard deviations from the center or "normal", said normal comprising the vast majority of our species. That fits the statistical definition of abnormal.
"Abnormality" in this issue is not a judgment call, it is statistical. The homosexual "community" claims that homosexuality is as common as being left-handed, approximately 8% of the human population. If one were to chart sexual preference/orientation as a graph with woman/woman prefs on the right, man/woman prefs in the center, and man/man prefs to the left one finds that the homosexual preferences fall well outside of two standard deviations from the center or "normal", said normal comprising the vast majority of our species. That fits the statistical definition of abnormal.
Good point. "Normal" or "Abnormal" are statistical concepts re how frequently a trait occurs in any given population. However, many people make a judgement about it, and say that a particular trait is bad or wrong.
For example, being extremely tall (say over 6'3"-- how about people who are 6"5"?) is not the norm-- it "abnormal". But does this mean that most basketball players a re bad -- or that there is something wrong with them?
In the case of physiological differentiation, those individuals of "abnormal" stature(assuming "normal" sexuality and viable gametes) are still capable of reproduction. Homosexuals of either type cannot without either medical intervention or engaging in non-homo sexual activity. IMO, if one makes a choice to, or conciously embraces a genetic predisposition (depending on which gays you ask) which precludes reproduction, then one should not raise children or educate children under the age of majority(by which time gender-identities are well established).
Yah, I always thought it would be a cold day in hell before I ever agreed with a Libyan politician, but here it is: sunny and 81 degrees on the beach. Go figure.
IMO, if one makes a choice to, or conciously embraces a genetic predisposition (depending on which gays you ask)
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, even the "experts" are not sure as to whether or not there's a strong (or even significant) genetic pre-disposition to homosexuality.
"experts" are not sure as to whether or not there's a strong (or even significant) genetic pre-disposition to homosexuality
Exactly , and I mentioned this point in msg##1.11
For the concept of normality and abnormality ''in this case particularily '' I agree that it,s statistical , just being different from the usual pattern
Fada, that's the same bigoted argument they used to use in the west when homosexuality was classified as mental disorder in the DSMV.
As for your arguments, lesse, I was abused and raped by others, raised by a divorced parent and I am very heterosexual and my only brother has two kids, was raised among two sisters is very heterosexual; both of my siblings were not wanted by our father but are very heterosexual and none of us have any physical disorders that you speak of. That debunks your thesis with me since I know I am not the only one.
That implication is that if one is either physically abnormal in some or has suffered psychological trauma, then that's why they must be gay and that just isn't true.
You do have one point, some people do try out other forms of their sexuality because they are bored, but there's no way to know for sure if they had latent and/or repressed bisexuality and/or homosexuality prior to their expression of it, and not just plain curiosity as so many might believe.
Light
First I am convinced that it is not about abnormality and certainly it,s not about any mental disorder and the genetic theory has no standing yet
I suppose you don,t mean that there is no reason or reasons - known or unknown yet for any deviation from the ordinary pattern chosen by the Nature to sustain the existence and continuation of mankind race and animal kingdom. Notice that the unsofisticated animals don,t incline to homosexuality which refutes genetic theory and enlightens the impact of external enviroment at the intelligent human .
Science put a wide range of possible reasons , it shouldn,t be all true for all cases because indiiduals differ widely in their response to inviromental and social and rasing circumstance . In the examples you offered I suppose that the reason is just unknown the others and as I said there are a lot of social and emotional; and
I didn,t mean that all reasons are harsh circumstance like 'rape' . Beside boring in adulthood, there are a lot of ordinary reasons we may not notice while raising a kid . There is a girl in my family who was fat and lazy in childhood and she was looking at beautiful girls as unfalliable idols and she shunned boys because they were joking at her. Now she worked out and became a remarkable beautiful teen girl but her love to girls grew to be homosexuality
Sorry Lilith41 ,I didn,t notice that your name is not another viner named Light
He defended his statement by referencing his conservative Muslim roots. In that respect his views are identical to conservative Christian beliefs. It might pay to remember the Arabian proverb, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Fada, I'm not named light ( that's all right), and as for genetics, no one knows yet, but I do know this, homosexuality is no longer classified as a mental disorder by the DSMV.
As for animals and nature, that assumption is inaccurate. There are plenty of animals that exhibit behavior that could be called gay.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
As for the girl you mention, there is no way to know if she was always a homosexual because we can't read her mind to find out and we don't know if there is a genetic component with the current technology we have.
Lilith41 , alright I may take the sporadic cases of animal 'defferent behaviour, as having a genetic predisposition , humans have more sophisticated brains and ability to make a choice and change ...
In the future if genetic theory has got corroporation for some cases , this will not refute that many of other cases have been subdued to inviromental and social factors. I believe that the aetiology is multifactorial...The girl I,ve mentioned has nothing to do with genetic factor because she has an identical twin who is not gay-the same offspring and genes- . The only difference between them is that the second was raised in a different media in her aunt,s house
Fada, that's interesting..... the old nature VS nurture argument and that identical girl brings that to light. A lot of studies ongoing on that topic.
Fada, that's interesting..... the old nature VS nurture argument and that identical girl brings that to light. A lot of studies ongoing on that topic.
As far as I know-- that question has not yet been resolved to anyones satisfaction...
Lilith41 , Nature'genetic'' and nurture''inviromental and teaching'' are no more in conflicting arguements , they work together on producing the final shape of human characters, some books of genetics say :they work 50%-50% but the accurate persentage may be the point of arguement
Lilith41 , Nature'genetic'' and nurture''inviromental and teaching'' are no more in conflicting arguements , they work together on producing the final shape of human characters, some books of genetics say :they work 50%-50% but the accurate persentage may be the point of arguement
In terms of the "nature-nurture' debate-- where the subject is better known, the percentage attributable to each different for different traits. But for homosexuality, its still fairly unclear I believe.
For some traits, those with one political agenda or another will often claim the trait is 100% attributable to either "nature" (genes) or nurture (environment).
For some traits, those with one political agenda or another will often claim the trait is.......
Scientists are working on what is likely the truth , agendists used to say extravagant thhings..no one is listening ''though I don't get why would anyone with politial agenda wants homosexuality to be 100% born or acquired ''
To be fair and honest, no one really knows what part has how much influence with each individual. It might vary and the exact conclusions are not out yet even after decades of study....
Exactly , studies began few decades ago and it is still running
'But people are going to do it, whether we like it or not. So we better just deal with it.'
Well, that's what he should have said anyway. -cough-
'But people are going to do it, whether we like it or not. So we better just deal with it.'
Some places don't want to deal with it..
Well, I guess I should have said 'wished', eh?
Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you or anything, if my comment came off as ignorant. :/
Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you or anything,
???
I wasn't upset at all- sorry if I wan't clear.
What do you mean by "wished"?
'Well, that's what I wished he could've said.'
oo; Sorry, I guess text doesn't give emotion too well. :) I misunderstood.
Kinda puts Barry on the spot, don't it? He can't please both Muslims and the GLBT community. Yet he's promised to do both.
Muslims and others will never accept it, ever....it is against their religion. That means that 98% of Africa and SE Asia, and ALL Middle Eastern countries, with the exception of Israel, of course, are simply not going to "deal with it"...except with executions and persecution. And, their populations are growing, especially in American prisons, by leaps and bounds.
JMHO....PS
Muslims and others will never accept it, ever....it is against their religion. That means that 98% of Africa and SE Asia, and ALL Middle Eastern countries, with the exception of Israel, of course, are simply not going to "deal with it"...except with executions and persecution. And, their populations are growing, especially in American prisons, by leaps and bounds.
That's true in many Muslim countries-- although there are some exceptions. A few are more moderate. Turkey. for example, used to be a bit better-- but there is a struggle between islamists and moderates-- its far from over but the extremists are slowly gaining power..and its manifesting in various ways, including decreased freedom for gays: Turkey blocks access to gay websites
We had better wake up - the muslims are not just in the prisons here, but in the universities, local and state government, businesses, hospitals, driving cabs in major cities, running water departments in large cities, etc. THey are here and poised for a massive revolution - jihad and we are busy fighting over health care, sending more troops overseas to die for nothing, and worrying about who sleeps with who - get real!
We had better wake up - the muslims are not just in the prisons here, but in the universities, local and state government, businesses, hospitals, driving cabs in major cities, running water departments in large cities, etc. THey are here and poised for a massive revolution - jihad
I would agree that the very real danger of violent jihad is often downplayed by much of the mainstream media.
However, in terms of:
THey are here and poised for a massive revolution - jihad...
IMO that's inaccvurate and misleading to a large degree-- its definitely not all Muslims. In fact, its only a tiny minority of extremists-- its wrong to tar all Muslims with the same brush!
However, the fact that's its only a small percentage in no way negates the very real danger of the threat.
Hheck, there were only 19 hijackers who caused the 3000 deaths on 911-- only a teeny-weenie percentage of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims-- many of whom disagreed with that act. And the number responsible for the first attack on the WTC (see: A Bit of History: "Lessons of first WTC bombing") was even smaller.
Obama will probably give the gays a way to be in the military....and freely admit to being gay...then the gays will be killed first in battle. They will be resented and abused,ridiculed and treated like abominations. I feel it is foolish to bring sexual matters to this level. I personally do not approve of gay behavior ..to me it is a perversion because I am not a part of that community so it is foriegn and ugly to me. I know people get upset and dont like the truth about this. They want to hear all of the politically correct things, and all pretend to have no problems with it , but then my rights are violated ...and even by my own self for having to be false. It is not right to make people have to make decisions based on sexual preferences.
I don't go to anyone and expect renters, military, judges and ministers, to make special laws for me ...or marry me to anyone. I dont have to. What I am has been established to be the norm. All other sexual deviation is considered to be freakish.Perhaps the way it should be dealt with is those of you who are gay should be registered and live in special areas, the neighbors warned as with child sex offenders, and all other molesters or people with unusual sexual preferences. I am sorry but if you are gay, you truly are viewed that way by many many people all over the world. Usually now is where the person will lie to you and say...(.but not me.)...but I wont do that ....I will say yes by me too. I confess I am prejudiced , and I dont care if people dont want me to say that or not...I have a right to my feelings and opinions, and you or no one will take that from me.I will not ask you and I don't care to be told so much about you. I am sick of hearing about these matters and issues. However if I am expected to shower and sleep in the same areas as you ...you damn well better let me know, and I will choose to be away from you. I do not shower or sleep with men I dont know or choose to be near and I surely do not want you females who see me as a man would in my areas of privacy. It is the only reason you have for wanting to be there to invade my privacy, and I resent that about you. Too much like putting a child molester among children. Like throwing a woman into a cell with men who have not been near a woman in years....a terrible thing to do. We sure as hell are not fighting to join you in the military. The less we are aware of you the better. You coming out of a closet is no more thrilling to us than if all child preditors admitted to being that...and we said oh how cool....now come and live among us...lets all sleep with and shower with the kids. Nuts to that. It would be unjust to delet me for being honest. But it has happened to me before.
And it is discrimination.
"The norm" as you put it is decided by the social standards of the community - in some cultures homosexuality is the norm.
to me it is a perversion because I am not a part of that community so it is foriegn and ugly to me.
Perhaps the fact that you do not personally interact with any gay people is part of the problem. You seem to think they are very different from straight people. I happen to be straight, but since high school I have had lots of friends who were gay or bi-sexual. They really aren't any different from anyone else. They want the same things from life and are contributing members of our society.
I do not shower or sleep with men I dont know or choose to be near and I surely do not want you females who see me as a man would in my areas of privacy.
Interesting. This never even occurred to me. I never though about the possible sexuality of women in the locker room in school. I never even though about the fact that every time I used the ladies room at the Gay bar I used to frequent (with my gay male best friend) that almost every other woman in there was gay. I also know for a fact that a "woman" I work with was born male, but I don't wory about sharing a bathroom with her.
Basically you seem to think that a gay woman is some kind of sexual predator. If you think about how YOU behave toward men. You are sexually attracted to men right? But not ALL men. You don't molest or attack random men in public do you?? You don't fling yourself at them with uncontrolled lust right? You don't proposition every man you see? Of course not. And just because a woman is gay doesn't mean she is attracted to YOU.
This is one of the problems with anything that is not the "norm", people have irrational fear of it, simply because it ISN'T the norm.
I confess I am prejudiced , and I dont care if people dont want me to say that or not...I have a right to my feelings and opinions
Of course you have a right to your feeling and opinions. It is also laudible that you recognize that you are prejudiced, most people don't have enough insight to recognize their own prejudices. I support your right to your opinion, but I don't think people's personal opinions should override equal rights. We don't have to like everyone, but it should be illegal to discriminate against them.
Obama will probably give the gays a way to be in the military....and freely admit to being gay...then the gays will be killed first in battle.
What makes you think that they will be killed first? People from suicide bombers to those firing RPG's down stop to question a person about their sexual preferences before attacking!
"The norm" as you put it is decided by the social standards of the community - in some cultures homosexuality is the norm.
Good point. And, it has always struck me that in some cultures (at least the U.S., which ios the one I know best)-- the "norms" change. There is still anti-black bigotry in the U.S.-- but the fsact is, we democratically elected a balck president. Could this have happened a decade ot two ago? Of course not.
I never even though about the fact that every time I used the ladies room at the Gay bar I used to frequent (with my gay male best friend) that almost every other woman in there was gay. I also know for a fact that a "woman" I work with was born male, but I don't wory about sharing a bathroom with her.
I grew up (and still live) in the U.S.-- where there are sepapate bathrooms for the sexes. But I had heard that in Europe in the past there were many places that had only one bathroom-- for use by both sexes? Was that true? Is it still true?
Basically you seem to think that a gay woman is some kind of sexual predator. If you think about how YOU behave toward men. You are sexually attracted to men right? But not ALL men. You don't molest or attack random men in public do you?? You don't fling yourself at them with uncontrolled lust right? You don't proposition every man you see? Of course not. And just because a woman is gay doesn't mean she is attracted to YOU.
That's a really good point. Just as, for example, all straight men are not sexually attracted to all females (well, I have known a few rare exceptions :-) ... all gay men are not attracted to all males. Why should they be?
but gays are not going to judges etc to get special laws enacted for them, they are trying to get the special laws for anti gays that prohibit them from marrying, serving etc repealed
In SF at the Cost plus...I have had my butt grabbed...I have had phone telling me ...my dog came home smelling of exquisite perfume and I knew you had touched it....this is Kim ...your neighbor.....I had no clue.....pissed me off royal....I hate that sort of garbage.I wish my husband had answered the phone ...I was married then...and damn it made him furious. They come out of the wood work at you...even this way...hairdresser ..... Jeff..Ohh I wish I wore your size I would love to meet my men in that dress tonight... HUH???????
As for the comment about me attacking men...ahh not yet ...I havent had to....but if I wanted a particular man I would let him know in some way........
Do I like men...oihhhhhh yes!! Yes I do! Gods greatest creation in my book.....for sex sure...but men are fun...amusing ..smart..talented..and all men have a trade of some sort...they bafffle my mind with the things they know...I am fascinated by the lovely creatrures!!!!!!!!! i love to jus twatch tem ...and wonder what they are thinking...and when eyes turn to me....I what honey.......never a doubt in my mind..... I look about 59..60 tops...but I am much older ....still not ready to stop admiring wonderful men.....For me they make the world go around.....
Leo Katz...Do I know you??? Have you said nasty things to me...Do you dislike me intensely???? wassup Leo???? You do not ring any bells...I pay no attention to what people say about me...or my comments....so sorry....no bells........
I am spoiled , selfish, into myself , dont need anything from any one.....unless you are very handsome,old enough to know your stuff, can keep me occupied and amused, and want to know a woman who will whip your a$$ around the block a few times...leave you lying for dead in a heart beat.....treat you like a king one minute and throw you in the street the next....and make you grin from ear to ear.....and come right back....and are....very ...very.....interested do not bother me....
Ummm....well....uh......*backs quietly out of the room*
you never get bored with a psycho chick
krishna-167929..they would be killed first...because they would be sent first....it is a thing only the straight angry men know about....I have heard this said..many times....some bullets might be ours....they make people very angry...and there is a lot of hatred. Also if anyone experimented and learned it was not for them...they do not want evidence left behind...gays know all of this ...it is no surprise. Gays are pushy...one female I know of ...says ...I look for marital problems ...the I offer sympathy......You see I have my Phd and a business ...I do counseling...I hear stories you can not believe.....33 years of working with people ...I am not a rookie...I have done some gay relationship counseling as well...so I hear the things on both sides.
I didn't feel Treki's remarks expressed hate as Ros Lehtinen stated; intolerance - yes. He simply said the subject is " sensitive, very touchy .. I am not in favor of it. " However, as Leo Katz's very well stated post said, "they" are also very intolerant of ... and many other groups", and we've seen where that leads - hatred. Again, like Leo, I am not thrilled with the idea of homosexuality and do question the 'health' of the lifestyle; yet, "I would not advocate mistreatment or denial of fair consideration or special status to homosexuals."
I am not thrilled with the idea of homosexuality and do question the 'health' of the lifestyle; yet, "I would not advocate mistreatment or denial of fair consideration or special status to homosexuals."
Had Treki said this, CL1, much of this kerfuffle could have been avoided. I do think that the UN should focus on getting equal tretment of women around the world and should bemoan those inequalities as much as they do the inequality of gays around the world.
KC, so very true.
I do think that the UN should focus on getting equal tretment of women around the world
See comment #11.4.
The US -- and all the other 190+ signatories -- should abandon the UN and get busy fixing up their own countries before they lose them to rampant globalism.
I won't try to debate that the UN is perfect (Treki is a clear example of that), I would argue that with globalization running as an unstoppable juggernaut, do we not need some intranational body. As CL1 mentions below, trade especially is important and intellectual property is more and more important as well. China, for example has very few lawsuits regarding the stealing of intellectual property as their culture promotes the idea of imitation being the sincerest form of flattery. America is quite the opposite - how do we mediate these two legal viewpoints? To bring it back on topic, views on homosexuality are likewise very different so how do we mediate that?
Keep Cool:
You raise some excellent points.
I'm not sure I'm up to giving you satisfactory responses to all of them, but, for what it's worth, here's my opinion.
with globalization running as an unstoppable juggernaut, do we not need some intranational body.
The Rockefeller-driven UN is one of the major propellants of globalisation, so, for me, the notion that we need the UN to deal with globalisation begs the real question, whihc is: "Are we benefitting from globalisation?
My sense is that we most definitely are not.
Globalization has flattened out income and institutionalised worker abuse internationally to the benefit of a tiny cohort of folk.
trade especially is important
This is like saying eating is important. B
oth statements are true, but, just as eating poison is a bad idea, trading in ways that undermine sovereignty and diminish the local benfits of trade is a bad idea.
All international trade can occur very easily in a bilateral or multilateral fashion among sovereign nations. Why do we need the UN, the WTO etc?
I would argue for fewer international trade groups, such as the illegal WTO.
These illegal groups, aloing with all of the *AFTAs, have almost erradicated sovereign nations' participating in world trade on behalf of their citizens; these days, corporations are the major players in the world market, and nations trade on corporations' behalf.
This leaves the average citizen of the average country without a say in his or her own economic fate.
intellectual property is more and more important as well
I'm not sure how the UN would be relevant to intellectual property laws in the way you present China's situation.
How would the UN prevent China from continuing to treat intellectual property any differently than it does right now?
China is already a Berne Convention signatory and a signatory to several other treaties and international agreements per international copyright protection, so, if they are violating those agreements, as you suggest, why wouldn't they simply violate any UN agreements they might make?
To bring it back on topic, views on homosexuality are likewise very different so how do we mediate that?
I think we need to be less atuned to changing views on civil rights issues and more attuned to ensuring that our laws support civil rights advancement.
I agree, upswing, their powerful manipulation in government policies around the world is frightening. At first glance perusing their site, their involvement doesn't appear as intrusive, so much, but as "making a difference". It's almost a mind-control in convincing us that all of these changes in policies need to be made; some of the agricultural policies may even be beneficial, but many are not. Some of the science initiatives [environmental issues] are simply about making certain people wealthy, and nothing more.
If this was off-topic, Krishna, I'm sorry. In many ways it might be on-topic relating to Treki - he is part of the dominant corruption and destruction of freedom and devaluing the dollar.
upswing, in your 9.2,
I think you know (?) that I support the notion of ending the UN for the most part. However, wasn't the UN originally formed as group to provide International Laws that would support peace and security as its prime function? Now it appears to have its hand in everything. Don't you think it's a good idea to have a group to enforce International laws?
Not long ago I was reading an article that suggested the UN get involved (again) between Israel and Palestine to mandate a vote for the Palestinians without Hamas breathing down their necks or any others to pressure the votes. It seems to me that things of that nature, as well as issuing sanctions are the reasons why we should have a UN type of entity. Maybe it isn't possible to have a group as such without getting too big, powerful and corrupt?
Krishna - sorry all three of us are off-topic (homosexual prejudice by Treki).
Not long ago I was reading an article that suggested the UN get involved (again) between Israel and Palestine to mandate a vote for the Palestinians without Hamas breathing down their necks or any others to pressure the votes.
Many elections in middle eastern countries are not fair elections. But, ironically, the election that Hamas won was considered fair (there were some international observers). Apparently many voted for Hamas not because they supported their extremist ideology, but rather because many people were just fed up with the corruption of Fatah. It would also seem that Hamas' popularity has plummeted, due to the misery they've caused the Palestinians in Gaza-- so in the next election they may suffer a big defeat. I don't think UN involvement would help in any way-- in fact, they tend to haver "The Reverse Midas touch" (Remember the U.S. "Peacekeepers" in Rwanda...?).
Krishna, I like reading your perspectives. I was agreeing with WC in his Plebiscite article and his opinion of the UN acting as liason/enforcer for the Palestinians (also allowing Hamas to vote) to have a fair vote. So, you don't think that would work? You would have a more insightful opinion than I do.
I was agreeing with WC in his Plebiscite article and his opinion of the UN acting as liason/enforcer for the Palestinians
I'm not sure what article you're referring to. But I wouldn't trust the UN to enforce anything.(Don't think for one moment that their "peace forces" are any less biased than the rest of the corrupt organization-- the main role they serve at this point is to defend dictartorships and human rights abuses from criticism)
to defend dictartorships and human rights abuses from criticism)
Heres' but one example-- in theis case its their efforts to restrict free speech:
A U.N. resolution seeks to criminalize opinions that differ with the Islamic faith.
Though it is written tongue-in-cheek in the language of human rights and of opposition to discrimination, the nonbinding U.N. Resolution 62/154, on "Combating defamation of religions," actually seeks to extend protection not to humans but to opinions and to ideas, granting only the latter immunity from being "offended."
Another article-- from MediaWatch (UK):
On December 18 last year the UN General Assembly adopted a raft of resolutions recommended by its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural). While many of them were progressive – one called for a moratorium on the death penalty – there was also one long campaigned for by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference: “combating defamation of religions”.
This was adopted with 108 in favour and 51 against.
The only religion actually mentioned in the document (PDF download) is Islam, of course.
They've got the votes..so they can even pass a resolution that specifically favours Islam...(and, of course-- they've also got most of the world's oil-- that's been helpful to giving them influence..in centers of power.
Thank you for that.
Keep.Cool. -- If the UN and globalism is allowed to move forward at its current rate, issues like homosexuality or any other lifestyle preference may not be allowed as a 'choice'. That may sound extreme; yet, look at China(CC) and how many 'personal' freedoms are taken away from them(not sexual preference, yet.). As Jack Huang pointed out, the country went from third-world to superpower in as little as 15 years. How did that happen so fast? My point, if we don't keep a close-eye on the UN, could it become a superpower in a short time and keep on removing more of our freedoms?
My point, if we don't keep a close-eye on the UN, could it become a superpower in a short time and keep on removing more of our freedoms?
China is an interestng example but the UN is an entirely different beast. The UN is only as powerful as its member states want it to be. America, being the most powerful nation right now, wants to remain more powerful than the UN so it has blocked its power and (under Bush) acted unilaterally without any apologies. China knows that a more powerful UN would go after it for its human rights abuses so it has blocked its power. You could go down the list of the Security Council and point out why the UN's power has, in my opinion, probably plateaued.
I agree with what you say, yet do wonder now that Bush is gone and we have a different President, if we can say the same about acting unilaterally anymore {Obama as Chairman of Security Council?}.
yet do wonder now that Bush is gone and we have a different President, if we can say the same about acting unilaterally anymore
Obama seems to be posturing himself very well to not have to act unilaterally in any endeavor upon which he should hope to embark. In short, I hope you are right.
- If the UN and globalism is allowed to move forward at its current rate, issues like homosexuality or any other lifestyle preference may not be allowed as a 'choice'.
IThere are sonme 20+ Arab countries in the world-- soem 50 or so Muslim countries. I would imagine all or at least most are U.N. members-- a powerful bloc.
That's a very good point, Krishna, "50 or so Muslim countries" is a very powerful block!
That's a very good point, Krishna, "50 or so Muslim countries" is a very powerful block!
The UN general Assembly consistantly passes resolutions condemning Israel-- but never condemns Palestinian terrorism.
Guess why?
11.4 clued me in, didn't it!!
I agree completely with the UN, homosexuality is not only unacceptable but immoral, ethically wrong and against nature.
Well, I guess I must be immoral, ethically wrong, against nature and not accepted.
Never knew I'd be viewed like that.
Not against nature. See comment # 1.21 with link.
As for moral, morality is both personal and subjective.
Lilith, the animal behaviors referred to in your link are thought by most reputable biologists to be attempts to establish dominance, or an exercise of existing dominance. These are not the only behaviors so used, however.
True, Decurion, but my point is that homosexual style behaviors do exist in nature. Only humans have the ability to use sex for romantic and/or love relationships and animals do not. There are invertebrates that exchange sperm with each other to reproduce, but whether anyone call that gay or not is subject to discussion. For animals, sex is just instinct, not so for humans. We use also sex for expressing love and emotions and as far as I know, we are only the species who does use sex for that. The power and control are present throughout the animal kingdom.
That was my point.
Not to argue with you really, but there are some species that have one mate for life (unlike humans) and I would imagine a type of "love" would be involved for them to stay with one for their entire life, wouldn't you? Actually, I think animals are 'smarter' than we are so I shouldn't have entered your discussion. Sorry!!!
Not at all, CL. Maybe some animals do feel love for each other as mates, but I doubt it is like human love, but they might be on to something those that do mate for life!
What I am getting at is that sex is an expression of human love and not just to dominate or reproduction which is what all other animals use sex for. As far as I know, only humans use sex to express love and emotion besides it's other uses....
Thanks, Lilith. Yes, I knew that was what you were getting at. I was trying to point out that the species that do mate for life quite possibly do express love and emotion, not just reproduction. Observation only, and I have been known to be wrong a couple of times in my life!!!
Right CL. I meant the using of sex to express that love. I don't know if animals can actually use sex to express love, but it is dubious even with those who mate for life and express other actions that we call love.
Ahhh, everyone has been wrong more than twice in their life; I have and I admit it. You have to be very, very, young to only be wrong just twice.
See, homosexuals do use sex for that expression with their partners, not just libido or drive. I'm trying to get back to the thread here..... Homosexuals are human beings that feel love too...
They are human beings too......
Yes, respecting the right to choose.
CL1, I don't know if homosexuals "choose" to be homosexuals but if any do, that be pretty dumb on their part. Why would anyone choose to be discriminated against, abused, hated, and even killed? I wouldn't and that makes no logical sense. Is that what you meant by choose?
Gays are people too......
Well, I've been told that for some anti-establishment types (especially females), that they think being gay is cool. Some are bi-sexual for the same reason - just looking for anything to be different - there are people like that in every generation. Sometimes it might just be as a rebellion against their parents.
Please don't think that I think there aren't legitimate gays and lesbians. There have been for centuries!
I do believe, however, for those trying to be "different", it is their choice whether I like it or not.
CL1, I don't know if homosexuals "choose" to be homosexuals
I don't think its a choice-- anymore than being 'straight'.
Peopole are just born that way ("gay")-- just as some (most, actually) people are born "straight".
They don't sit down when reaching puberty and think about which sex they will decide to be attracted to-- it just happens!
Krishna (have you been drinking again?!! --just teasing!!), did you see my comment in that post " Please don't think that I think there aren't legitimate gays and lesbians. There have been for centuries! " Is that a clue that I agree that real life gays exist??!!
I still think there are some (18 - 25) that are doing it to be 'cool'. (So I have been told)
Krishna (have you been drinking again?!!
Well-- not as much as I should be :-)
Good 'ole Wheel-- Peace Be Upon Him!
1) Deja Vue; 2) esp 3) logical conclusion - or all three! Now I know why you are so silly!
I'm glad you enjoy your life even if it's with lots of help!! ( .. so long as 'happy hour' starts at 5:00 pm - not 8:00 am!!) --just teasing!
Krishna - Were you drinking tea last night? If so, that's some powerful tea! I've never been that 'happy' drinking tea! Did you add anything to it [lol]? Is the brand of tea called "Frisky"?! I just wondered because .. well, look at happy dogs and cats get!
Krishna - Were you drinking tea last night? If so, that's some powerful tea! I've never been that 'happy' drinking tea! Did you add anything to it [lol]? Is the brand of tea called "Frisky"?! I just wondered because .. well, look at happy dogs and cats get!
Actually, I do add some stuff-- both Ginger and tumeric. And-- soymilk! The Tumeric in combination with white soymilk turns it yellow-- I call it my special"yellow Emperor's Tea" (which of course its not). In cooler weather I also add a sprinkle of Cinnamon. (Anti-oxidants-- plus Tunmeric and Ginger are natural anti-inflammatories).
Krishna - Were you drinking tea last night? If so, that's some powerful tea! I've never been that 'happy' drinking tea! Did you add anything to it [lol]? Is the brand of tea called "Frisky"?! I just wondered because .. well, look at happy dogs and cats get!
Actually, I do add some stuff-- both Ginger and Tumeric. And-- soymilk!
The Turmeric in combination with white soymilk turns it yellow-- I call it my special "Y ellow Emperor's Tea" (which of course its not).
In cooler weather I also add a sprinkle of Cinnamon. (Anti-oxidants-- plus Tumeric and Ginger are natural anti-inflammatories as well).
Ah, no, CL1, no worries. I just see the gays as humans and not those who just want to get "a thrill." I see your point about that. There are people who do anything to thrill seek but I wasn't referring to those.
I never thought being gay is cool; it's a tough road of a lot of suffering and that's would be ridiculous to choose that. I wouldn't and I'm not gay but I've known many wonderful gay people that have shown me great kindness in my worst time of need and I'll stick up for them.
I agree.
11.4 clued me in, didn't it!!
Heh :-)
But, many peopel aren't aware of that-- they think that if UN resolutions are overwhelming anti-Israel, than the only reason for it must be that Israel is always wrong..(because, you see, the resolutions are always unbalanced...)
12.16 was just teasing you, I hope you know.
I do know about the potential benefits of tumeric and ginger as inflammatories and maybe digestive aids(?). Despite having read about the benefits of certain herbs and spices, I don't always follow through with it. Do you have much knowledge of the Ayurvedic health principles? I only read one article about it several years ago, so may not remember correctly, but it stated which foods and spices that are right for our body types. I don't care what they say! Lol ... I'm going to eat the foods and spices I enjoy - even if they aren't right!
I'm assuming off-topic must be OK, since we both are. You don't seem to get bent out of shape over it as many do?! Flexible is good, imo!! It only takes one post to bring it back.
12.16 was just teasing you, I hope you know.
Yes, I was aware of that :-)
I do know about the potential benefits of tumeric and ginger as inflammatories and maybe digestive aids(?). Despite having read about the benefits of certain herbs and spices, I don't always follow through with it. Do you have much knowledge of the Ayurvedic health principles?
Yes-- I am not an expert by any means, but I do know a fair amount about it.
I only read one article about it several years ago, so may not remember correctly, but it stated which foods and spices that are right for our body types. I don't care what they say! Lol ... I'm going to eat the foods and spices I enjoy - even if they aren't right!
I'm assuming off-topic must be OK, since we both are. You don't seem to get bent out of shape over it as many do?! Flexible is good, imo!! It only takes one post to bring it back.
Well, there's also of the issue of people discussing things they are interested in-- especially when other people interact (and therefor show interest)-- as opposed to what are obvious and transparent attemts to derail the conversation as a way of avoiding the topic.
So, IMO the discussions we are having here that aren't 'on topic" are not intentional attempts to divert the discussion-- but rather interesting conversations that have arisen spontaneously. Often some very interesting and/or helpful things arise in "side discussions" such as this.
Another factor-- after a time-- on occasion-- most everyone has gotten to the point where they've said most or all of what they want to say about the topic-- so bringing up something else is often a plus.
And, as you mentioned-- if anyone feels the need to bring the discussion back to the original topic-- its easy to do so.
Finally-- I am fairly easy going about moderation-- I feel people should have an opportunity to express their views. However, if someone appears who is obviously merely trying to stir up fights-- I delete their comments fairly quickly. (A few of Newsvien resident trolls who used to come to my columns to harass people no longer show up here because of that :-)
I agree with your moderating style. You seem to know who to get tough with and when to take action. I've been here for a year now and have studied the various styles and personalities. The right mix of personality, style, and knowing when to get involved in the discussion and when 'not' to, is the difference for making this an enjoyable experience. I don't have a desire to moderate at this time and am pleased that there are a few moderators available to read that follow a style and content that interest me.
I agree with your moderating style. You seem to know who to get tough with and when to take action.I've been here for a year now and have studied the various styles and personalities. The right mix of personality, style, and knowing when to get involved in the discussion and when 'not' to, is the difference for making this an enjoyable experience.
I think there are some general priciples.
However, there's also a range of acceptable styles of moderating.
I think mainly this involves the degree tio which moderators try to stay strictly on topic-- or the degree to which they allow some interersting, but not strictly on topic, discussions.
Also, some moderators are a bit harsh-- some more tactful. I myself use humour a lot-- which sometimes gets me in trouble.
This range of acceptable but different styles is actually a good thing-- most people will eventually learn whose style they like, and naturally gravitate towards those peoples' columns.
I don't have a desire to moderate at this time
Wel-- its a dirty job-- but someone has got to do it -)
and am pleased that there are a few moderators available to read that follow a style and content that interest me.
"Well, - it's a dirty job --but someone has got to do it" ---- and 'ain't' that the truth!
Just think of how dumb, unskilled in fighting and arguing, and how much fun we woudn't be having if it weren't for all of the moderators here, certainly including YOU! Thank you. (:
Erk. Mr. Treki has put himself in an awkward position now. How can you have someone of such power being intolerant? Well, to the contrary what he seems to have been saying wasn't that he disagrees with homosexuality but that decriminilization of it in majority-Muslim countries would not be appropriate. I cannot, therefore, comment on whether Mr. Treki is personally intolerant. But, I do not agree that it is not the UN's place to decriminalize homosexuality. I'm rather sure that Mr. Treki has an understanding of the human rights charter that the UN themselves wrote. An extract ; 'Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, 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' Criminilization of homosexuality contradicts this freedom that we are born with, and it is the UN's duty to de-criminilize it - it was the UN who promised these freedoms.
Very well stated. My original sentiments and interpretations were similar to yours, and yes, " But, I do not agree that it is not the UN's place to decriminalize homosexuality." ... " -it was the UN who promised these freedoms."
Thank you. It is just my view that the UN wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an absolute statement, part of it being that intolerance to homosexuals is totally unacceptable. Therefore, any argument that de-criminalizing homosexuality breaks 'traditions' is absurd, and negates the point of writing a 'Universal' Declaration.
Just another example of how absurd the UN has become.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
