UN Votes To Allow Gays To Be Executed Without Caus

UN general assembly votes to allow gays to be executed without cause

Thoughts? Opinions?

Edit:
Including alternative sources for this story as they crop up in the thread. The more points of view you have on a subject the better.

I concur!

The UN just made itself even more laughable than it already was.

Sadly, this just goes to prove that the majority of the world prefers to remain in the Dark Ages ... I guess because it's more comfortable.

*headdesk*

This is bad....real bad...Michael Jackson
Sigh....humanity losts its humanity with the creation of orginized religion. Looks like the majority of votes came from countries with strong religious views on the matter. I have heard and seen some of the dumbest things in my life, and this is up there. How can an organization claim to be humane, but allow this to go down. In a sense, it practically puts a "free to screw with us" sticker on the LGBT community as far as intolerant *** are concerned.

/sigh

Can't wait til 2012 when everything starts from scratch again.

I'm sure this has been played to death but...

Every night, I look up at the stars and wonder what those little green men really think of this planet. If they wanna kill us.....can you blame them?

I read the article and need some clarification:

1) Does it say you can kill someone for being homosexual?

2) Or does it say that killing a homosexual is no worse than killing a heterosexual?


Confused.

I'm not too fond of Futurama, but I couldn't agree more with this old coot.

http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2010/11/arab-african-nations-block-un-resolution-on-anti-gay-violence--1.html

not all the UN just some, IE Arab and, African Nations...

It's 2010, quickly approaching 2011, and people are STILL this stupid?! I... I'm appalled by this. Killing (or allowing the killing of) someone because they are different than you... this sounds... familiar...I guess history will repeat itself yet again.

They just went...
<puts on his dark sun glasses>
... full retard!

Basically I think it's horrible reporting. While I don't think its a good thing to exclude anyone from "human rights," the UN is not declaring hunting season on the LGBT community. The UN basically said that the death(from any un-natural reason) will not be considered a hate crime.

I absolutely disagree with the UN's decision, but it is not as harsh as the obviously bias reporter is making it out to be. The UN just refuses to see the LGBT community as a separate entity, such as race or religion.

To answer your question Helixx, you are correct with your #2 statement.

from what ive gathered the reason they stripped LGBT from the resolution was more forward thinking. they are trying to put the message across that the LGBT community is part of "everyone".

just to be more precise.

Now my brain hurts. What's going on >_>

Republicans hate *** and they're trying to legally commit sexual genocide in America.

well, as far as i can see the whole thing was about freedom from execution, its not a matter of precision when the counter article has basically said "oh they havent specifically mentioned the LGBT community, that means they condone unlawful execution". i dont see why anyone deserves a specific mention within a basic human right. thats like saying "everyone has a right to free speech. LGBT people also have a right to free speech". its only an issue if you believe that the LGBT community needs a seperate bill of rights because the ones set out for humans are not adequate.

If you look past the horrible reporting and read between the lines (if you read the article at all) you would see the UN isn't saying anything like that at all. Not to mention that being Republican has nothing to do with that decision, lol.

Not quite either, but much closer to #2.
Basically the UN houses international regulations, which include prohibiting the irrational state-orchestrated execution of people for arbitrary non-criminal "reasons".
For example, execution of someone for "being a woman" or "being black" or "being Muslim" is a violation of UN regulations, and therefore grounds for international UN-sanctioned penalties.
Up until the vote described in the OP's article, "being gay" or "being a transsexual" were included on the list of examples I described in the previous paragraph. Now, one's sexual orientation no longer precludes one from being executed for no other reason.

So, yes, while the article's bias is obvious (and justified), the point is valid. Maybe the UN did not vote to condone hate-crimes towards gays, but, in essence, by default, they did just that (probably). By removing oversight protection from gays, they've essentially declared it to be "open season" for gay-bashing. While this isn't a huge deal for the majority of civilized nations (who already have their own laws against hate crimes), this is potentially a HUGE deal in less-civilized nations.

The world should be ashamed.

^ This

Its basically being redundant. Now... if there was a problem with the mass murder of the LGBT community, similar to the past mass murdering based on race and religion, THEN I would say put something separate in there.

Edit: But I don't see that happening any time soon due to the fact that the LGBT community is too spread out for any type of organized faction to physically segregate them.

Ty for explaining the news item properly. If the UN refuses to see the LGBT community as a seperate entity I don't see what the uproar is about, they want to be accepted as normal do they not, if so they don't need to be treated differently. As for murders etc not being declared as hate crimes on the LGBT community, that is shocking.

so basically without the LGBT part of the resolution its now legal to execute white men for being gay? cant see that happening tbh... maybe im too optimistic tho

also, isnt all murder a hate crime? never thought you could murder someone because your really happy and content.

There have been executions in the world because a person was homosexual. In fact many countries have laws specifically stating execute a homosexual. Uganda has a proposal for one which will allow execution and Nigeria seeks harsher laws towards homosexuals.

While this article is skewed towards LGBT support this does not negate the fact that the UN basically said "Yes, when you kill those homosexuals for being homosexual in your country, that is ok".

Wrong.

It actually means you just won't be charged for a hate crime if you murder a homosexual.

No, it's not legal. Laws (and therefore, legality) are created by nations (and lesser entities within nations, e.g. states, provinces, counties, parishes, cities, etc.)

What people are probably overlooking here is that the UN does not produce laws. Among other things, it's basically a glorified voluntary agreement between nations to uphold certain standards internationally, with a representative pseudo-democracy to encourage international debate and resolution without violence/war.
If a member of the UN fails to comply with UN standards, penalties can be enforced, including trade sanctions/embargoes, up to and including, expulsion from the UN.
So, the UN isn't "legalizing" state-sponsored execution of gays. Rather, the UN has decided, by vote, to no longer offer its protection to gays at the international level. In other words, a nation, if it chooses, may execute people solely for "being gay", and NOT (no longer) face any repercussions from the UN.

Too complicated? Try this:
The UN doesn't make anything illegal. Think of it as the "big boys club". While it's in a nation's best interest to be "in the club", it is strictly voluntary to "join the club". Once a nation is "in the club", it has to follow the club's rules, or it can be kicked out of the club. However, each member of the club does get a vote in deciding the club's rules (some members get "heavier" votes than others). But, ultimately, that's the worst thing that can happen for breaking the club's rules ... getting kicked out of the club, based on violating the moral/ethical standards created by the club's members. Legality/Illegality has nothing to do with the UN.

>_> That's really pathetic. However, the UN doesn't actually approve of the arbitrary killing of gays. The UN just isn't using it as a protected status. It's simliar to "hate crimes" in the US, which are generally unconstitutional.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AG0BB20101117

article from a source that isn't overtly biased

removing the article specifically referring to gays isn't a good thing by any means

but the amendment is nowhere as extreme as OPs link makes it out to be

as others have said, it essentially removes "hate crime" status from the killing of LBGT


EDIT:

honestly, "discriminatory reasons on any basis," works just as well for me. still covers LBGT.

much ado about nothing, etc.

We gonna die!
*Hides his glitter*

(ps I know that it will not directly affect me so on and what now blargh blargh)