US Votes Against UN Resolution condemning The Death Penalty For Gay Sex

Submitted by: kalron27 2 weeks ago in News & Politics


It appears that the vote passed, meaning this was a symbolic stance taken by the Trump administration to vote against the condemnation of what from a humanitarian perspective is flat out murder of the oppressed and those who cannot defend themselves.  So what do we have to gain by voting against such atrocities?  Does this show that our current governing figure heads would condone such a penalty of death?  What does that mean for gay rights here in the US moving forward?

Excerpt from The Guardian: "The US...became one of just 13 countries, including China, to refuse to condemn the "imposition of the death penalty as a sanction for specific forms of conduct, such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations."

That resolution passed by a vote of 27 in favor, 13 voted against it and 7 abstentions.

The UN ruling also condemned the use of the death penalty on people with "mental or intellectual disabilities, persons below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, and pregnant women."
There are 82 comments:
Male 5,027
Hearing about this yesterday made me upset, and when news gets me upset I question it, because news is boring. News isn't supposed to strike at your emotions. That is why I did not comment yesterday. I knew there had to be more to the story. Once you give up partisan media you can really start to recognize the bullshit on both sides.
0
Reply
Male 684
From NBC 

"The resolution, titled "The Question of the Death Penalty," passed the U.N. Human Rights Council with 27 nations voting in favor, 13 voting against and seven abstentions. The multi-page resolution condemned the imposition of the death penalty when "applied arbitrarily or in a discriminatory manner" and specifically condemned "the imposition of the death penalty as a sanction for specific forms of conduct, such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations."

In a press briefing on Tuesday, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert explained why the U.S. voted against the resolution.

"We voted against that resolution because of broader concerns with the resolution’s approach in condemning the death penalty in all circumstances," Nauert said. "The United States unequivocally condemns the application of the death penalty for conduct such as homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, and apostasy. We do not consider such conduct appropriate for criminalization.”

Tweet Id not present

Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., also responded to the backlash following the death penalty vote. In a tweet, Haley said there was "NO vote by USUN that supported the death penalty for gay people," adding, "We have always fought for justice for the LGBT community."

In a separate tweet, Haley also noted that the U.S. voted "no" to the resolution under the Obama administration, though the specific mention of "same-sex relations' was not included in previous death penalty resolution"

So US voted against a ban on death penalty which was grouped with specific examples.  US had to vote against all or nothing. The specifics only highlighted by guardian are just bias in the reporting. 
1
Reply
Male 40,772
jayme21 Thanks for that perspective Jayme! I thought that was their reasoning.

It is interesting to note the Obama Administration ALSO voted against it, and international headlines didn't scream blue murder did they? (Although the gay part wasn't in it yet, the rest was)
0
Reply
451
jayme21 

You say 'bias in reporting'. Here are the two paragraphs that are the actual condemnation

Condemning in particular the use of the death penalty against persons with mental or intellectual disabilities, persons below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, and pregnant women, 

Condemning the imposition of the death penalty as a sanction for specific forms of conduct, such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations, and expressing serious concern that the application of the death penalty for adultery is disproportionately imposed on women, 


and the action items are:
1) comply with legal obligations and treat people equally
2) consider ratifying an earlier protocol
3) calls on those who haven't abolished the death penalty, to at least treat people equally
4) calls on accused people to be given access to legal representation (AKA the US 6th Amendment)
5) don't kill the retarded, minors, or pregnant women
6) the "don't kill same-sex" provision - along with "don't kill" for apostasy, blasphemy, and adultery
7) allow foreign citizens access to their consulate for legal assistance
8) try to get rid of discrimination in legal system based on race
9) provide information on the demographics of executees
10) asks for some research focus on the death penalty and human rights in 2019
11) asks for a meeting to put discussion of human rights violation on the agenda
12) asks for more discussion
13) asks for a summary report
14) statement to continue to be vigilant

That is what the US voted against. The spirit of the decision is not the fault of "journalistic bias".  The resolution doesn't even condemn the death penalty "in all circumstances" - the harshest it gets is ASKING states to CONSIDER getting rid of it, and if not, to at least treat people fairly.

You're fucking insane if you're giving the US gummint a pass on not ratifying this.











0
Reply
Male 684
barry9a 2 actual wording 

Calls upon States that have not yet acceded to or ratified the Second Optional Protocol 
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death 
penalty to consider doing so;


Earlier on 


Acknowledging the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human 
Rights on the high-level panel discussion on the question of the death penalty, during which
it was concluded that a significant number of States hold that the death penalty is a form of 
torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

Its the general tone as was stated. You state death penalty is cruel inhuman and degrading punishment (where have we heard that before?) and then call yourself to consider removing it. 

Im against the death penalty. But i can see why the USA would vote against a document agrees in varying degree that death penalty is cruel and  unusual punishment and then ask itself to consider removing it.

Leaving out the wider context i think is a journalistic bias. 
1
Reply
451
jayme21 what you've quoted is still not a ban on the death penalty. You're showing more bias than the journalist.

0
Reply
Male 684
barry9a it creates pursuasive authority in the US legal order. That can be brought into a Supreme Court case for one. 
If you flip it , US wanted to removd the broader condemnation bits. Alling for a ban. If they make no difference on the countries themselves why did other nations not aceed? Create more pressure on countries that do execute for homisexuality , aposty adultery etc. as US and Russia would have signed. 

Not giving the wider context and legal implications in common law of this i think is poor. 
0
Reply
Male 40,772
barry9a You want the UN dictating American Laws? To over-rule the US Constitution?

The article is biased as all hell, unless The Guardian also condemned Obama's administration for voting No on the same bill...
1
Reply
Male 684
5cats its not UN dictating US law as US need to agree and incorporate it. Which it didnt. And it would have created inertia. 
0
Reply
451
5cats Since when is the US constitution perfect? I seem to recall that they've made a number of amendments to it. And despite that, "consider changing your laws" is not "dictating laws".

And if Obama directed a vote against this bill as well, fuck him too.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
barry9a The US Constitution is FAR FAR FAR better than that cesspool of graft and corruption. 
If you think it's a bad resolution, vote No! Tough tittes if there are good 'parts' in it, overall it is terrible, like almost everything the UN does... almost! There is still hope!
0
Reply
451
5cats Neither you nor I can cast an actual vote in the US, so that's a silly thing to say.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
barry9a Why? Am I 'not allowed' to hold an opinion on the USA or UN now? 
Why not?
0
Reply
451
5cats You can't hold a straight thought in your head, can you? You told me to "Vote No", and neither of us can vote in the US. I said nothing about your right to hold an opinion.
1
Reply
Male 3,496
Am i missing something here?

There was a motion to condemn (ie, say it is bad) to kill gay people just because they are gay.  The United States refused to go along with the motion.

Is that right?  Am i misunderstanding this?  That can't be right.
1
Reply
Male 684
daegog it was an all or nothing resolution. So either vote to ban death penalty which US has or vote against an absolute ban which included specifics homosexuality religion etc. You couldn't vote for the latter and not the latter. 
0
Reply
451
jayme21 By "absolute ban", do you mean the sentence from the document that reads:

"Calls upon States that have not yet acceded to or ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death penalty to consider doing so;"

Calling upon someone to CONSIDER an action is not "an absolute ban"
1
Reply
Male 40,772
barry9a It then lists a pile of things that would (or should) be banned, things which would be harmful to the US justice system.

And Obama voted no too...
0
Reply
451
5cats I put an easily-digestible list of action items up above, which you can cross-reference with the actual document to check for accuracy. 

The things that you call 'harmful to the US justice system' are things like "treat people equally", "give people access to legal advice", and "publish open information about it". Which of those things are 'harmful to the US justice system'? They're supposed to be the bedrock of the US justice system!

And again, so what if Obama voted no. If he did, then he was wrong too. Fuck tribalism in politics.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
barry9a Oh I don't doubt your list, and I thank you sincerely for your effort! :heart:

It is just another 'poison pill' or a 'Trojan Horse' from the UN intentionally designed to fuck America over. You think the UN likes America? HA! 
There's plenty of good in it, but more than enough poison (or Trojans!) to destroy and cause so much harm that it outweighs any benefits.
0
Reply
Male 3,410
daegog we're going backwards
0
Reply
Male 6,158
 In 1994 Witchcraft was finally removed from the capital crimes list in all 50 states even though it was a legal religion for decades before - Barbaric laws are barbaric
1
Reply
Male 40,772
There has to be something more to this, or I'll be very disappointed :p
0
Reply
Male 2,637
5cats 
My thoughts, exactly.
0
Reply
Male 1,687
Its not like we (the U.S.) are killing under 18 year olds left and right in some 350 years we have killed on average of one a year, That's average, in more recent years its been illegal in all states  to kill some one under the age of 16 and now (sense 2005)not if your crime was committed under 18. I don't have the exact stats on the ages but I would be willing to bet that most of these children were over 15 or 16 and you could argue till the cows come home  about whether some one 15 to 17 year old is really competent to knowingly commit a crime and understand the consequences. All in all this is probable a good thing as it will keep those that are not competent from slipping threw the cracks.
0
Reply
451
casaledana The US is not executing people under 18, because it takes about 20 years for a death penalty case to actual get to the execution.

Anyway, though the death penalty for minors in the US was abolished in 2005 (that late!!),  the year before, 71 people were on death row for crimes committed as minors

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/juvenile-offenders-who-were-death-row
0
Reply
Male 1,687
barry9a    First off the average time on death row is something like 12 years so of that 71 people on death row how many had been on for years already. And when the law passed it gave a pass to any one convicted before there 18th birthday. How many were 16 or 17 years old when they killed some one as I said in my first post how many of them were quite able to tell right from wrong when they again KILLED some one. And why 18 why not 20 or 21? Science  has said that the human brain does not reach complete maturity until some thing like 25 or even 30 so when do you call a limit on some one committing a crime. I can hear it now "But judge I'm only 23 years old my brain has not reached maturity you have to let me off easy".
0
Reply
Male 9,769
We can't vote for that, we execute people under 18.
1
Reply
Male 1,687
holygod Some states have there own laws on the books about executing some one under 18 when the crime was committed. In the United States sense 2005 its been against the law to execute some one if the crime was committed when they were under 18. So I guess your wrong about that.
1
Reply
Male 9,769
casaledana Good. I was not aware of that. Thanks for the correction.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
They should condemn the death penalty of innocent unborn children, who are faced with death without a single trial or for doing nothing wrong, especially when it's done for the sake of 'convenience'.
-1
Reply
Male 3,410
monkwarrior im glad you will never have children
2
Reply
Male 5,475
rumham Most monks don't.
0
Reply
Male 6,158
monkwarrior Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.  Psalm 137 7-9
4
Reply
Male 5,475
thezigrat How is killing loving one another?  You know Jesus commanded that more recently, right?
1
Reply
Male 1,739
monkwarrior Jesus? Seriously? Now I know you're delusional
0
Reply
Male 5,475
oobaka judge all you like, but killing is still killing.
0
Reply
Male 1,739
monkwarrior Said the guy who will never have to worry about conceiving, carrying and giving birth to a baby due to being raped. 
4
Reply
Male 5,475
oobaka killing is still killing even if it's done for 'convenience'.
0
Reply
Male 1,739
monkwarrior It's lovely that the long reply I typed out completely disappeared. 
Fuck this. Arguing with an idiot only brings me down to your level.
Go pray to your fuckstick of a god for my soul.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
oobaka even still, killing for the sake of convenience is still wrong.
0
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior You cannot kill what is not alive
0
Reply
Male 5,475
punko how can what is not alive grow?
0
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior Is a cancerous tumour alive?  It grows in exactly the same way.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
punko so it grows to a living being that can live on its own and reproduce and have its own cancer offspring? what a fantastic fantasy world you live in.
0
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior I answered your direct and specific question directly and with proven fact.

To address your second point, no I didn't say a cancerous growth grows into a human being.  I said that a cancerous growth grows in exactly the same was a a very early embryo.  Growth alone does not equal life.

Until the fetus has developed sufficiently, it is simply an extension of her body - over which a woman legally has complete control.

At some point between conception and birth, the fetus is alive.

legally (in most countries), when its born
many religions say at point of conception, other religions say at birth, others at first heartbeat
philosophically, its a Continuum Fallacy
0
Reply
Male 5,475
punko so are you saying cancerous tumors grows to a living being that can live on its own and reproduce and have its own cancerous tumor offspring? 
0
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior No. Reread my response to the first time you suggested this.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
punko Good, at least you understand a growing human is not the same as a growing cancerous tumor.
0
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior Yes, a growing human is not the same as a growing cancerous tumor.  But a simple collection of cells is not a human.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
punko Yet a growing human isn't a collection of cells, it's a growing life.
0
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior it is a potential human.  Potentially alive.  Growing, yes, but not alive.  It will grow into a human.  Will become a human, but not yet a human.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
punko so it's a human, thanks
0
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior No.  It will become a human (if all goes well).  The fact that it starts out not a human and ends up a human is established.

As I stated waaaay above, various groups have positions as to where along the development curve it becomes alive.  They are equally valid.  I will not tell you or anyone else what to believe.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
punko and as i stated way above, killing is still killing, even if it's for the sake of convenience.
0
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior And if it is not alive, it is not killing.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
punko oh it's alive and growing, even if you feel you need to say its not for the sake of a convenience-killing.
0
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior Did I say anywhere in this thread that I am in favour of "convenience-killing" ?  I am defending the current legal protection of a woman's right over her own body.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
punko I'm defending the human whom the people that want to convenience-kill, whom people want to kill out of convenience and pretend it's still not killing, when it is.
0
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior Your position is not supported by current law or current science.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
punko current law is in a sinful world that rejects holiness and allows for sin, so is now twisted in favor of sin (since the world rejects righteousness and God).  Science supports this too, but those who support convenience-killings of innocent humans need to make the emotional plea that their twisted science supports them.  The reality is they just need to justify their convenience-killing, and will do any thing to get that.
0
Reply
Male 1,739
monkwarrior So a man's sperm and a woman's "egg" are also potential humans. Should a man be accused of millions of murders for all the sperm that doesn't fertilize an egg? For the millions he might lose during wet dreams? For the millions he loses when jerking off? 
Should a woman be accused of murder for being on various forms of birth control? She is preventing the creation of human beings, after all.

It's great how someone who will never have to worry about giving birth to a rape baby can feel they have the right to tell someone who can that they have no right to decide for themselves.

You know what happens when abortions become illegal?
Women start having illegal abortions and take a huge risk of dying themselves.

Men have no fucking right whatsoever in this.
Imagine a panel of women deciding if men should be allowed to have penile implants or viagra.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
oobaka No.
A sperm or an egg does NOT have the entire human DNA. Thus they are NOT humans.
The foetus will "borrow" DNA from the mother for the first 4 cell divisions, then after the 5th? It has its own UNIQUE DNA entirely separate from the mother.
So for the first few hours it can be argued that a foetus is not human, maybe.
But after the 5th division? It has 100% human DNA. Not "20 weeks" it is just a few hours.
0
Reply
Male 860
5cats That argument is also false.  My arm is 100% human DNA, and it is not alive, nor a human being.
1
Reply
Male 40,772
punko Cut it off and report back to me.
And then define what makes YOU a human. If not your DNA then what? BE SPECIFIC.

Did you not just read what I wrote? If you cannot deny the facts then you MUST accept them: stop being a cunt.
0
Reply
Male 860
5cats 

SPECIFIC  My mind.  I have consciousness, my arm doesn't.

2) Keep your insults to yourself, please, they have no place here. 
0
Reply
Male 40,772
punko Sorry, I was in a very bad mood that night :-< I apologize.

Your arm isn't separate from you, it is part of you. If it gets cut off it won't be alive any longer, so kind of moot if it qualifies as human or not. 
And yes I suppose 'consciousness' is required to be considered alive, but lots of living things aren't humans, what separates us from them? (DNA of course)
0
Reply
Male 5,475
oobaka oh, so one can grow into a human without the other?
0
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior So you've just said that the combined cell grows into a human being.  So confirming that its not a human being at that point.

Sin is defined by rules made by people.  Some rules were made several thousand years ago, when slavery was fine and women were property.  These rules are also different for various religions and often differ if not outright contradict each other.  Some religions have managed to redefine themselves recognizing the limitations of the original written words as being products of their times, while some cling out outdated notions of what is right and wrong and others outright reject concepts like gender equality or alternative beliefs for the sake of maintaining power over women or over other peoples.

Many, if not all, religions ignore their own texts when it comes to those that it does not consider believers.  This, above all other failings of religions, makes them offensive to me.  "love thy neighbor" is immediately followed by "put non-believers to the sword".  The hypocricy of the reality of religious practice undermines the very faith it is founded upon.

I have no issues with matters of faith, it is the failure of religion to meet its own ideals that offends.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
punko a human is growing at conception, it's not hard to understand, although i understand propaganda and sinful natures of this world can confuse the situation  in a lot of peoples' minds, and lead them to think that killing a growing human for convenience is a right.  But that simply goes to show the delusions of this world and its sinful nature.
0
Reply
Male 860
Apparently, the US does not believe that the right to life is a human right, based on the reported attempted amendments that the US attempted to get approved (along with Russia).

Having said that, I'm a little worried that I've only seen this reported by the Guardian.  I'd like to see this from another source.
3
Reply
Male 22
punko Did some research in to this, Apparently the US voted no because this would condemn the death penalty for gay people "for any reason". So if they were to commit a crime that the US would ordinarily sentence the death penalty for, the US would be unable to act just because they were gay.

This is also the same vote that the US had during Obama's administration. The left wing media took this to the absolute extreme though, probably a vain attempt at vilifying Trump.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
punko The 1,000,000 dead babies every year agree: America doesn't have a right to life.
0
Reply
Male 860
Right to life applies to people.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
punko Define people? Define human?
Remember: the 'Jews' 'Negros' 'women' and others were LEGALLY NOT HUMANS in the past ok?

I define it as DNA. You have 100% human DNA? You are human. 99.9%? Not human, or maybe? Allowing for mutations.

After the 5th cell division? A foetus has its own, unique, DNA entirely separate from the mother. This is a fact. Not "20 weeks" it is a few hours...
0
Reply
Male 860
5cats As above:  Consciousness.  

DNA only says you are biologically human. 

I do not disagree that the embro/fetus has its own unique DNA.

Oh, and before you ask the other question - Yes, if a machine achieves consciousness then I would consider it alive; and if intelligent on par with human beings, should be granted 'personhood' under the law.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
punko Just for argument's sake (not accusing you of thinking this or anything eh?) is a person in a coma a human?

I knew of a child who went to school, he was literally a vegetable, no measurable IQ, had to be force-fed and all that stuff. Was he human? He certainly had no real consciousness...

A scientific definition shouldn't require opinions, it should be fact-based and uniformly consistent eh?
0
Reply
Male 860
5cats 1) Once a human is consciously alive, always a human being.  The deplorable state you refer to as a coma occupies a horrible place.  

2) Sadly, we have no single 100% test for consciousness.  It would be made worse in this case, as the subject may never have been able to communicate.  However, you and I both have looked into the eyes of a dog and could tell instantly it was alive and conscious.

3) Agreed completely.  However, as we cannot exactly determine where in the brain consciousness exist or exactly how it works, its a little difficult to have a pass/fail test - particularly when the subject is unable to communicate.  However, we do know that certain features form the basic requirements and we find all these minimum requirements are found in developed brains.

As stated waaaaay up above the various religious, legal, and scientific determinations are all different and often contradictory.  It is up to the legal system to set a line (and to adjust the line over time, as necessary to suit new information). The line location and its modification over time should be determined though continuous discussion with all of the groups mentioned at the start of this paragraph.  I have intentionally included religions positions - these are important points to consider.  Similarly, philosophical and ethical examinations as well as legal and scientific information need to be reviewed.

We should all remember, that individual societies (countries, et al) may develop their own laws.  This is their duty.  And just as important is the recognition that these kind of laws must change as new information comes to light, and to suit developments in ethics, philosophy, science, law, or even changes in religious dogma.

Consider the other issues concerning the concepts of euthanasia, mental health, dying with dignity, forced sterilization, genocide, residential schools, medically assisted suicide, gender reassignment, Alzheimer's, slavery, monogamy, strong AI, etc.

Humans will be struggling to define our own humanity (sentience, personhood, legal status, etc.) for as long as we can see the sun and stars.   There are no perfect answers yet and their may never be.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
punko K then, that is an interesting position and not far from my own :-) It is indeed a bumpy road to travel down.

Sorry again that I was rude before, I was having a really bad day :/
0
Reply
Male 287
punko The right to life doesn't exist. If it did we would judge murderers much harsher.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Fojos I totally missed that :/ Until you mentioned it.
You should comment more often, eh? The sane voices here are few and far between these days... cjeff is one also!
0
Reply
Male 941
Fojos By killing them?
0
Reply