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.

Gays are humans - so they should have human rights.

The issue is - is marriage a "human right" that needs to be controlled by the government?

But the issue is human rights, it isn't about gay marriage at all.
That angle about gay marriage is just a red herring which has bugger all to do with the speech or the conference.

Marriage is a religious union that the government decided to get involved in. The only group that should have a say in what a marriage is - is the church.

You got that backwards, marriage is a business contract which the church decided to get involved in.