Hillary Clinton declares 'gay rights are human rights'

[Gerald]

The US has publicly declared it will fight discrimination against gays and lesbians abroad by using foreign aid and diplomacy to encourage reform.US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience of diplomats in Geneva that "gay rights are human rights".A memo from the Obama administration directs US government agencies to consider gay rights when making aid and asylum decisions.Similar policies already exist for gender equality and ethnic violence."It should never be a crime to be gay" Mrs Clinton said at the United Nations in Geneva, adding that a country's cultural or religious traditions was no excuse for discrimination. Her audience included representatives from countries where homosexuality is a criminal offence.Many ambassadors rushed out of the room as soon as Mrs Clinton finished speaking, the Associated Press news agency reported.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16062937


Note: 7 December 2011 Last updated at 02:49 GMT

[Seth8530]

Ironic when a large portion of our country does not allow gay marriage

Ironic when a large portion of our country does not allow gay marriage

But are there parts of your country where being gay is still illegal?

[Skybird]

All gays are humans. But not all humans are gays. Minorities do not define or represent "the norm".

Somebody should explain that difference to some people, occasionally.

[1480]

Originally Posted by Skybird

All gays are humans. But not all humans are gays. Minorities do not define or represent "the norm".

Somebody should explain that difference to some people, occasionally.

The problem is that since they are not the majority, they have to be "protected".

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by 1480

The problem is that since they are not the majority, they have to be "protected".

Since I had this recently, one of several possible quotes from that text in reply to you. We are obsessed with minorities being declared equal to majorties and norms, and we systemtically declare unvalid any difference being made between them. Total indifference is the result, making our social communities dissolving, unsubstantial, unpayable for, dysfunctional. You cannot accept the other, if you do not accept your own identity in all its difference to him.

Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world. I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested, — "But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he. I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions. Every decent and well-spoken individual affects and sways me more than is right. I ought to go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways. If malice and vanity wear the coat of philanthropy, shall that pass? If an angry bigot assumes this bountiful cause of Abolition, and comes to me with his last news from Barbadoes, why should I not say to him, 'Go love thy infant; love thy wood-chopper: be good-natured and modest: have that grace; and never varnish your hard, uncharitable ambition with this incredible tenderness for black folk a thousand miles off. Thy love afar is spite at home.' Rough and graceless would be such greeting, but truth is handsomer than the affectation of love. Your goodness must have some edge to it, — else it is none. The doctrine of hatred must be preached as the counteraction of the doctrine of love when that pules and whines. I shun father and mother and wife and brother, when my genius calls me. I would write on the lintels of the door-post, Whim. I hope it is somewhat better than whim at last, but we cannot spend the day in explanation. Expect me not to show cause why I seek or why I exclude company. Then, again, do not tell me, as a good man did to-day, of my obligation to put all poor men in good situations. Are they my poor? I tell thee, thou foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent, I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong. There is a class of persons to whom by all spiritual affinity I am bought and sold; for them I will go to prison, if need be; but your miscellaneous popular charities; the education at college of fools; the building of meeting-houses to the vain end to which many now stand; alms to sots; and the thousandfold Relief Societies; — though I confess with shame I sometimes succumb and give the dollar, it is a wicked dollar which by and by I shall have the manhood to withhold.

(R.W. Emerson: Self-Reliance)

Takeda said this complete essay is one of his favourite pieces by Emerson. Same goes for me. It also shows me how much I have distanced myself from contemporary European Zeitgeist. And when reading it, I heared a faint echo of another book that I had read a very long time ago: "Citadelle" (The Wisdom of the Sands) by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. The opening 3 or 4 pages cloud be given in reply in this thread, too.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Since I had this recently, one of several possible quotes from that text in reply to you. We are obsessed with minorities being declared equal to majorties and norms, and we systemtically declare unvalid any difference being made between them. Total indifference is the result, making our social communities dissolving, unsubstantial, unpayable for, dysfunctional. You cannot accept the other, if you do not accept your own identity in all its difference to him.

Denying someone the same rights as everyone else because of what goes on in their bedroom is disgusting and it's deserving of all the shame, scorn and ridicule that can be heaped upon it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Denying someone the same rights as everyone else because of what goes on in their bedroom is disgusting and it's deserving of all the shame, scorn and ridicule that can be heaped upon it.

I have said that many times before and so I cut it short.

Marriage and tax reliefs (that at least are intended for families creating and then raising children), is about the vital and important interest of the whole community: that couples form up that have babies together - which the future tax-payers and supporters of the society when the current generation of active workers and parents has become old. This interest is to be protected, and that even gets explicitly said in the constitution of some countries for example Germany. This intrerst poverrules onconditionally any interest formulated by subordinate groupos or minorities, because it touches upon the survivability of the whole community as a functional social and cultural entity.

As a single man, I accept this "discrimination" of myself, because I a.) see the need, and b.) do not feel discriminated at all.

What makes me feel discrminated are homosexual lobby groups demandign the same priviliges for themselves like for heterosexual couples, which would pout them above me, but without said homosexual couples being of the same benefit and value to society. Society or state must care for heterosexual couples forming up in sufficient numbers and having a sufficient number of babies. Gay or lesbian people in this regard are of zero interest for state or society, they have no social function that must be of concern for the state or society, and they do not fulfill any function for the community by their form of living together: they are as irrelevant as is me being befriended with somebody I know and having a beer with him/her. Single people like me, also must not be of special interest for community or state. Gays are free to live together if they want. Let them, I accept them the same freedom I claim for myself. Singlse like me are also free to stay alone if they want. Families given special priviliged protection do not discriminate myself. But gays demanding more for themselves than what I get, but not serving any further function going beyond that of singles like myself - these are discriminating people like me.

I want families being given special recognition, protection and all that. If non-families now get the same privileges, than these privileges get relativised until they are no privileges anymore.

As a former psychologist beign very critical to psychology and sociology, I am critical of certain trends in attempts of "gender mainstreaming" and rejecion of difference sbertween people in the name of mandatory collective excercises in uniformity and infantility. The claimed total arbitrariness of education models of children, I object to. Models that claim that children are better served by taking them away from intact fam ilies and putting them into Kindergarden already at the age of 1 year (goal in Germany) I call a deliberate crime again st the children and - sorry, Steve - a damn disgrace. I also deny the right for lesbian or gay couples to adopt foreign children, like singles like me also shouild not adopt froeign children. Children need both a father and a mother, because both persons fulfill different social role models and psychological functions. When someone dies, the partner may end up with raising the child al alone. But this is the result from accident - it is not to be declared as desirable, just to open the door for homosexual adoptation. I do not buy these social engineer's "studies" claiming that it does not make a difference wheter kids have two men or two women as parents, or a mixed couple or a single person. It makes differences.

Psychology, my own branch that is, is massively guilty of kneeling to the Zeitgeist and political demands in order to be given further reputation, influence and power py politics and said Zeitgeist. It needs that alliance, because in principle by itself psychology and sociology have much less substantial truth to offer than they claim for themselves in order to shine. I did not quit that field for no reasons, although there were a couple of more. But this was one of the primary reasons.

Intact families and babies are important for us. Gays, Lesbians couples, singles like me are not that important - not regarding the social issues and complex cultural implications touched upon by these things. After all, nature has dresigned human sdpecies to be a species reproducing by mixing up the genepool due to TWO sexes existing. And no matter what you try: homo sapiens primarily is a dual-sex design, and procreates and ensures the specie'S design by sex between a male and a female. That is the norm, that is how it is meant , and that is why we still exist today and did not go amiss several tens of thousands of years ago. And that is what makes a heterosexcual arriage forever more adorable and desirable, than a homosexual marriage. The first is "normal". The latter is an exeption that serves no communal function in securing the communities future and ongoing existence by making babies (that needs to be protected due to their weakness).

Me and cutting it short. Yeah, I know I know...

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Skybird

but witho9ut being of the same benefit and vlaue to society.

You measure how deserving someone is of their human rights by their perceived worth to society, determined by how likely they are to bring more children into an already overpopulated world. Interesting.

And the idea is completely laughable. If marriages were all about babies, then the elderly and the sterile would be discriminated against in your world. And to postulate the fact that you should meet some "criteria" to be worthy of human rights is ridiculous on its face as it ignores the very concept of what human rights are.

But I've read your diatribes against this before, so it's be like banging my head into a wall to rehash all the problems with that idea, so I won't.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Denying someone the same rights as everyone else because of what goes on in their bedroom is disgusting and it's deserving of all the shame, scorn and ridicule that can be heaped upon it.

Ugh. I don't know why people don't understand this. Nobody is being "denied any rights" by not allowing gays "marriage". Everyone and anyone is allowed to get married if they choose to do so. Just play by the rules and get married to someone from the opposite sex. Nobody has ever been able to prove to me that there is any form of discrimination going on with California's Prop 8 and such. There simply is none.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Just play by the rules and get married to someone from the opposite sex.

That's an absolutely absurd argument. "Just quit being gay and get married to someone of the opposite sex, and there's no problem, hurr hurr!" It ignores what marriage is about, it ignores what human love and attraction is about. That is the very essence of denying someone their human rights.

How is allowing heterosexuals to marry each other, but not allowing homosexuals to marry each other not discrimination again?

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Nobody has ever been able to prove to me...

Nobody will ever prove your politics wrong because you'll never open your mind enough to allow it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

You measure how deserving someone is of their human rights by their perceived worth to society, determined by how likely they are to bring more children into an already overpopulated world. Interesting.

And the idea is completely laughable. If marriages were all about babies, then the elderly and the sterile would be discriminated against in your world. And to postulate the fact that you should meet some "criteria" to be worthy of human rights is ridiculous on its face as it ignores the very concept of what human rights are.

But I've read your diatribes against this before, so it's be like banging my head into a wall to rehash all the problems with that idea, so I won't.

The privilige of marriage is being given on basis of the most often scenario to be seen over centuies and millenias: that where boy and girl come together, there is often a baby - or more - sooner or later. There may not even be love involved. But since a long time, this is what happens most of the times you look at events: boy meets girl: baby. Natuzre wanmted it that way. And it happens more often this way, than any other scenario. Yes. Old peopole occasioanlly marry, too. Yes, there are sterile couples (best candidates for adoptations I say). Yes, babies become b ig and strong and leave the house. And still: this is the scenario that happens most of the time and is of the only real importance for the community: boy meets girls, having babies. No babies, no next generation. No next generation, civilisation dies. That simple.

Yes, I think that in some ways communal interestz overrule individual interest. Not always, but as a general rule of thumb and on several imporetant, vital issues, I indeed agree with Mr. Spock's famous quote. And occasionally I agree with Kirk'S not less famous reply as well.

BTW, I am absolutely serious when saying gays discriminate signles like me when claiming for themselves rights like heterosexual couples with singles like me being exlcuded from said rights. It is a injustice and a blatant violation of the human dignity of single people that they should enjoy less social respectability and benfits and protection than gays, lesbians and hetero couples. Do we do any damage top society just becasue we do not have babies or refuse to live in a homosexual relation? Or are we indirectly put under pressure to turn ourselves into homosexuals - and then getting access to said priviliges for - well, for what? For being gay? Or for having no babies?

Maybe we think it wrong from all beginning. Mybe we should sanctionise hetero couples raising children, and should but getting babies under a social ban, and penalty taxes. It cannot be tolerated that the social function of families is seen as more vital than that of social relations of gays and lesbians and singles.

I should ask the EU bureau for social engineering over this. The ideology of gender mainstreaming - the systematic denial of any differences between men and women and the declaration of the ultimate arbitrariness of sexual role models independant from biological sex: there is a whole pseudo-academical literature about it already - is not for nothing integral part of EU policies since the treaty of I think Amsterdam it was.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

That's an absolutely absurd argument. "Just quit being gay and get married to someone of the opposite sex, and there's no problem, hurr hurr!"

That's where you go wrong. Nobody's telling anybody to stop being gay. People are just saying that marriage is defined as it's always been. Everyone and anyone can participate......but you have to play by the rules. As a man, I am subject to the same rules. Can't marry another man, a goat, a car, or a stopwatch.

Nobody will ever prove your politics wrong because you'll never open your mind enough to allow it.

I suggest you look in the mirror on this one.

If any "out and proud" gay person goes to get a marriage certificate with someone from the opposite sex and is denied....then I'll be convinced of your discrimination charges. Until then...it's just pure emotion coming from those insisting gay "marriage" MUST happen at all costs.

[MH]

So besides discrimination of single men/bible say no no and so on....what you people thing will be the effect of all this on society in the future?

I should ask the EU bureau for social engineering over this. The ideology of gender mainstreaming - the systematic denial of any differences between men and women and the declaration of the ultimate arbitrariness of sexual role models independant from biological sex: there is a whole pseudo-academical literature about it already - is not for nothing integral part of EU policies since the treaty of I think Amsterdam it was.

I'm against this "mainstreaming" as well but what is the big deal about gays?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

I'm against this "mainstreaming" as well but what is the big deal about gays?

I don't knopw. I do not make a big deal of gays. They make.