Gay rights statement divides UN

[Robert_in_SD]

Homosexuality however is between two concious, consenting adults and is nothing abominable about it except in the deluded minds of homophobes.

But see the CCC at 2357, et seq.:

**Chastity and homosexuality **
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

One does not have to have fear or hatred of persons with same sex attraction to come to the conclusion that homosexual acts are disordered and contrary to natural law. Indeed, as christians we are called to love one another despite the fact that we are all sinners in some respect. The Church does not call for the persecution of persons with same sex attraction, but understanding. Such persons are to be given the same respect as any other child of God.

As for the topic of the OP, I would like to see the text of the original resolution. My guess is that there is some language that proposes not merely the condemnation of the persecution of homosexuals, but also some sort of support for expanding the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex partnerships. This, of course, neither the US nor the Vatican could support in good conscience. From a spiritual perspective, it would be supporting a lie and encouraging persons to live in a state of mortal sin. The Church cannot speak otherwise on the issue, and its voice should remain clear on this topic to avoid even an appearance that such conduct can be considered consistent with moral and natural law.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[notself]

Here is the text.

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEXT OF THE UNITED NATIONS STATEMENT ON HUMAN RIGHTS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION and GENDER IDENTIT
We have the honour to make this statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity on behalf of .]

1 - We reaffirm the principle of universality of human rights, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose 60th anniversary is celebrated this year, Article 1 of which proclaims that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”;

2 - We reaffirm that everyone is entitled to the enjoyment of human rights 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, as set out in Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 2 of the International Covenants on Civil and Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as in article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

3 - We reaffirm the principle of non-discrimination which requires that human rights apply equally to every human being regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity;

4 - We are deeply concerned by violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms based on sexual orientation or gender identity;

5 - We are also disturbed that violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatisation and prejudice are directed against persons in all countries in the world because of sexual orientation or gender identity, and that these practices undermine the integrity and dignity of those subjected to these abuses;

6 - We condemn the human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity wherever they occur, in particular the use of the death penalty on this ground, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the practice of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary arrest or detention and deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to health;

7 - We recall the statement in 2006 before the Human Rights Council by fifty four countries requesting the President of the Council to provide an opportunity, at an appropriate future session of the Council, for discussing these violations;

8 - We commend the attention paid to these issues by special procedures of the Human Rights Council and treaty bodies and encourage them to continue to integrate consideration of human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity within their relevant mandates;

9 - We welcome the adoption of Resolution AG/RES. 2435 (XXXVIII-O/08) on “Human Rights, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity” by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States during its 38th session in 3 June 2008;

10 - We call upon all States and relevant international human rights mechanisms to commit to promote and protect human rights of all persons, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity;

11 - We urge States to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.

12 - We urge States to ensure that human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity are investigated and perpetrators held accountable and brought to justice;

13 - We urge States to ensure adequate protection of human rights defenders, and remove obstacles which prevent them from carrying out their work on issues of human rights and sexual orientation and gender identity.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Here is the text.

Thank you for posting the text of the statement.

Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (cited in paragraph 2) states:

Article 26

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

This is the very same sort of “equal protection” language that spurred the court challenge to the traditional definition of marriage in the California courts.

Similarly, paragraph 6 of the proposed statement provides in pertinent part:

6 - “We condemn the human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity wherever they occur, in particular… deprivation of … cultural rights;”

Just what “cultural rights” are being referenced here? It’s not exactly clear. However, the language of the proposed statement does clearly present a basis for challenging the laws of a signatory country if they support a traditional definition of marriage.

Anyone who suggests that the proposed statement is something less than this is incredibly naive at best, imho.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[notself]

It should be pointed out that the resolution is non-binding. I have no idea what that means.

 

[notself]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is binding on member nations. It was supported by the Vatican and signed by the USA. It appears that many countries, including the United States picks and chooses which articles it actually implements. Here is a link to the text.

un.org/Overview/rights.html

I have put several listed several sections that readers may find interesting

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

It should be pointed out that the resolution is non-binding. I have no idea what that means.

Normally, member-countries who adopt the resolution agree to be bound by its terms. A resolution that is non-binding would, I presume, not have the effect of binding the signatory country. However, it would create a policy statement that would be difficult for an adjudicatory body to ignore.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[cathopologist]

A resolution that is non-binding would, I presume, not have the effect of binding the signatory country. However, it would create a policy statement that would be difficult for an adjudicatory body to ignore.

Sounds more like a legal trap than anything else.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is binding on member nations. It was supported by the Vatican and signed by the USA. It appears that many countries, including the United States picks and chooses which articles it actually implements. Here is a link to the text.

un.org/Overview/rights.html

I have put several listed several sections that readers may find interesting

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here, vis a vis the status of persons with same sex attraction in the United States. How exactly is it they are discriminated against, in your opinion?

For example, in California, registered domestic partners (regardless of sexual orientation) are by law accordeed all of the rights and privileges of any married couple. The only distinction is a real one - two same-sex persons cannot form a marriage just as a male cannot declare himself to be a mother. The term marriage itself is - and always has been - exclusive to a male-female relationship, and to change the term to be “inclusive” is to fundamentally alter the nature of the term, so that it no longer means what it once meant. So, is it your point that one is discriminating against same sex couples by telling them that they cannot alter the definition of a word in such a way that it fundamentally destroys the character of the thing it defines? Or do you mean something else?

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Sounds more like a legal trap than anything else.

I would characterize it as a legal “toehold” for the homosexual agenda. And the US and Vatican representatives are correct to proceed with caution in this matter, imo.

Peace,
-Robert

P.S. - both the US and the Vatican have made it clear that they do not condone persecution of persons based on SSA. That’s not the real issue. If it were, then the resolution would only state as much. However, we can now see that the resolution is implicitly advancing an argument for recognizing same-sex marriage as an accommodation to “equal protection” under the law.

 

[notself]

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here, vis a vis the status of persons with same sex attraction in the United States. How exactly is it they are discriminated against, in your opinion?

For example, in California, registered domestic partners (regardless of sexual orientation) are by law accordeed all of the rights and privileges of any married couple. The only distinction is a real one - two same-sex persons cannot form a marriage just as a male cannot declare himself to be a mother. The term marriage itself is - and always has been - exclusive to a male-female relationship, and to change the term to be “inclusive” is to fundamentally alter the nature of the term, so that it no longer means what it once meant. So, is it your point that one is discriminating against same sex couples by telling them that they cannot alter the definition of a word in such a way that it fundamentally destroys the character of the thing it defines? Or do you mean something else?

Peace,
-Robert

I just thought the items interesting. These are the some of the reasons Arab nations wouldn’t sign.

There are three political documents that everyone should read in their entirety at least once.

The Constitution of the United States
The Federalist Papers
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Apologies for going Off Topic.