US to promote gay rights abroad

[Insaanah]

Not only does the US try to force it's system of leadership on other countries, but now it is also going to ration/withold aid to other countries according to how well the said countries promote and support gay rights. Perhaps that's the first step before bombing them as well for not conforming with "their" values. "Liberty" but only as long as you follow our way...

7 December 2011 Last updated at 10:53

Hillary Clinton declares 'gay rights are human rights'

The US has publicly declared it will fight discrimination against gays and lesbians abroad by using foreign aid and diplomacy to encourage reform.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience of diplomats in Geneva: "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.

In October, UK Prime Minister David Cameron's suggestion that aid could be cut to countries that did not recognise gay rights was condemned by several African countries where homosexual acts are banned, including Ghana, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

Last week Nigeria became the latest African country attempting to tighten homosexuality laws, with the Senate passing a bill banning same-sex marriages. Before it becomes law, it must be passed by the lower chamber and then signed by the president.

'Human reality'

The announcement, described by the White House as the "first US government strategy to combat human rights abuses against gays and lesbians abroad", is also being seen as part of the Obama administration's outreach to gays and lesbians ahead of the 2012 election.

The official memorandum does not outline consequences for countries with poor records on gay rights. But it allows US agencies working abroad to consult with international organisations on discrimination.

"Gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world," Mrs Clinton said in Geneva. "Being gay is not a Western invention. It is a human reality."

Correspondents say the new policy could pose awkward questions for US officials formulating policy towards some regular allies and regional powers.

In 2011, the state department's annual human rights report cited abuses against gay people in Saudi Arabia, an ally of the US that bans homosexuality outright.

Afghanistan also prohibits homosexual activity, and the same report found that authorities "sporadically" enforced the prohibition.

In the US, Republican presidential candidates criticised the administration's decision, with Texas Governor Rick Perry saying in a statement that "promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America's interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers' money".

Mrs Clinton acknowledged the US had its own mixed record on gay rights. As late as 2003, some states had laws that made gay sex a crime.

Earlier this year President Barack Obama signed into law a bill repealing the "don't ask don't tell" law and allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the US military.

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

 

[Abz2000]

Re: US to enforce gay rights abroad

now i really do believe she decorated the white house christmas tree with [edited]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/812710/posts?page=1

'tis of the "lord"

 

[جوري]

This so-called 'aid' is never seen by the people who actually need it rather goes directly into the pockets of despots. The same despots either put is in Swiss banks, use it for lawyers who justify their orders to kill their own people and when they die or are exiled those same banks freeze their assets and reclaims their money. It just counts as beggary with which the big pawn of Satan uses to enforce its satanic tenets far and wide.
It is time to say no to this aid at the price of the very mortal souls of these people. Those who wish to humiliate themselves and transgress the laws of God by practicing buggery can do so in the privacy of their home, we don't go advertising our heterosexuality and by the same token I wish they'd shut the bloody hell up about their lewd preferences.

 

[crimsontide06]

gay rights? whats next? Killers have rights and go free?? (little bird whispers into my ear **O.J Simpson...Casey Anthony**) oh wait....nvm >.>

 

[Aprender]

I saw this in the morning and I thought what a waste of money. They can declare homosexuality a human right if they want to but I should also have a human right not to have to listen to people complain about how they are treated for letting the world know about what they do in the privacy of their own homes. Especially when there are children starving to death or being senselessly murdered abroad. Or how about in the US where people aren't employed, the price of education continues to skyrocket, and even homosexuals in the U.S. don't have this full so-called human right to broadcast their homosexuality to the world and force everyone else to accept it? What is this?

Seems the priorities are way out of place on this one.

 

[Abz2000]

that would make a good article:

while the 99 % protest outside wall street for bread and circuses, the u.s government borrows more money from banks in the 99%'s name - with the noble aim of promoting sodomy across the world......................

i thought they were fighting aids, why are they now promoting it?
talk about "helping africa"

 

[Ramadhan]

This so-called 'aid' is never seen by the people who actually need it rather goes directly into the pockets of despots. The same despots either put is in Swiss banks, use it for lawyers who justify their orders to kill their own people and when they die or are exiled those same banks freeze their assets and reclaims their money. It just counts as beggary with which the big pawn of Satan uses to enforce its satanic tenets far and wide.
It is time to say no to this aid at the price of the very mortal souls of these people. Those who wish to humiliate themselves and transgress the laws of God by practicing buggery can do so in the privacy of their home, we don't go advertising our heterosexuality and by the same token I wish they'd shut the bloody hell up about their lewd preferences.

Also, don't forget that much of the so called "foreign grants" or "foreign aid" actually goes back to the US through management fees, contracting costs, consultant costs, etc.
Only few percentages of the money actually spent on the programs.

The impact of aid money is very miniscule on beneficiaries countries' economy. especially if such countries are large ones, such as Indonesia, Pakistan, etc.

So it is just not worth it to bend your principles just to get the aid money. Well, unless you are corrupt government officials who take opportunities for kickbacks or other means.
And unfortunately, we still do have many of those and there are also many liberal sell-outs

 

[Pygoscelis]

I'm with Skye on this (Why DO you keep changing your name? lol)

This "aid" has nothing to do with spreading freedom or liberty. It has to do with spreading US influence and control. I agree that people may want to consider declining it and standing on their own.

That said, it IS the US's money, so I see no reason why they shouldn't only offer it to those they please.

And I'm curious what is meant by "gay rights" here. That term is so wide that it could include everything from demanding people not murder people for being attracted to their own gender on the one extreme (which I hope all of you would agree?), and demanding mosques marry homosexual couples on the other (which I as a liberal atheist who is fine with homosexuality wouldn't agree).

 

[Ramadhan]

I'm with Skye on this (Why DO you keep changing your name? lol)

This "aid" has nothing to do with spreading freedom or liberty. It has to do with spreading US influence and control. I agree that people may want to consider declining it and standing on their own.

That said, it IS the US's money, so I see no reason why they shouldn't only offer it to those they please.

And I'm curious what is meant by "gay rights" here. That term is so wide that it could include everything from demanding people not murder people for being attracted to their own gender on the one extreme (which I hope all of you would agree?), and demanding mosques marry homosexual couples on the other (which I as a liberal atheist who is fine with homosexuality wouldn't agree).

A while ago I was involved in a debate with an atheist in this forum, I can't remember who.
In the debate, I explained that western governments had been trying to promote gay lifestyles and gay rights etc to developing countries, through direct and indirect aid.
That atheist mocked me, although I gave him links to evidence.

And now we have Clinton herself and David Cameron clearly stated that their government foreign aid is tied to the gay rights in would be beneficiaries countries.

This is like how missionaries work in developing countries: we give you rice and instant noodles if you change your belief and believe in what we believe in.

 

[Aprender]

And I'm curious what is meant by "gay rights" here. That term is so wide that it could include everything from demanding people not murder people for being attracted to their own gender on the one extreme (which I hope all of you would agree?)

Of course. I think anyone who sincerely practices the deen would agree. Why would I condone the killing of a group of people based on their intimate preferences? That's just wicked. I might not agree with it but it doesn't mean I support genocide against homosexuals simply for existing. A'udhu billah! Are you referring to the Political Christian policies in Nigeria? It was disheartening to see legislation wasted on something like that when there are so many other real issues in that nation that need to be addressed.

Either way, in Islam we have a verse in the Quran that says "to you be your way and to me mine." If someone wants to live a life with someone of the same gender, then OK. That's what they'll do. If they want to reject the religion and love the life of this world more. Then OK. That's what they'll do. Not everyone sees it all the same way. But the issue that I have with it is I don't want to feel forced that I have to accept that as normal. As if something is wrong with me because I disagree with it. And not all or only religious people feel this way either. I know some people who follow no faith at all who don't like it but what happened to having an opinion? I personally don't care what people do in their privacy. That is their own business. But please don't broadcast it to me whether in a heterosexual relationship or not.

I see a similarity to this the same way people in America and other Western countries don't want to accept Islam as a normal religion. They would be upset if some legislation were passed and Islam was somehow taught in school to their children as a part of a "diversity" component and it had to accepted as "normal" or a valid religion. Or if instead of "I'm a Mormon" commercials plastered all over the TV and Internet there were "I'm a Muslim" commercials. They would just as soon face backlash and people would want them off the air.
I would be equally in disagreement with this choice if it was 'US to give aid to promote Muslim rights abroad' :skeleton: How hypocritical would that be once again?

 

[Pygoscelis]

I agree with that wholeheartedly. And that says somthing, given that we come from opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue (both religion and homosexuallity being normal). I would never want to see you or anybody else be forced to accept homosexuality as normal or positive anymore than I would not want to be forced to accept religion as rational and positive. And I would not want to see you harassed or force fed "homosexuality is ok" literature any more than I'd want to be force fed the Quran.

And conversely I do not want to see muslims persecuted or attacked for being muslim just as I do not want to see (and from you wrote assume you wouldn't want to see) homosexuals persecuted or attacked for being homosexual.

Glad we see eye to eye on this one

 

[جوري]

(both religion and homosexuallity being normal).

Not sure how you figure theology and sexual deviance in the same category? I find them in completely different sections at Barnes & Noble.. don't you?
Although there's no compulsion in religion, and you're certainly free to practice the religion or non-religion of your choice in the Islamic part of the world, the Quran isn't a mere book of guidance to be reached to on a Friday or a Sunday akin to its failed counterparts. It is the book upon which jurisprudence and the law are established. So NO it will not be something that will be considered abnormal or kept to self. Wherever you go you have to follow the law of the land. Homosexuality isn't the law, it isn't a normal variant of everyday life. It is a futile cycle that has no room in theology or nature if you're a strict naturalist and buggery is a crime if done in an open lewd fashion as is the case with any sexual act that isn't taking place within the confines that it is created for. Much as atheists and their supporters hammer in that we're animals, we're not, I dare you to show up to work naked or hump your significant other in an open fashion if you believe otherwise. There's no contrast whatsoever between buggery & theology and where you see parallels is a conundrum to me!

best,

 

[GuestFellow]

It should never be a crime to be gay," Mrs Clinton.

I agree. Sexual attraction is not a sin. It only becomes a sin when you act upon those urges outside of marriage, which can only occur between married men and women, according to Islam.

I have heard of cases where violence is committed against gay people or people that are perceived to be gay. This is not acceptable.

Of course, very unlikely US government wants to promote gay rights. It probably has another agenda.

 

[جوري]

Sexual attraction is not a sin

If it were kept at an attraction then the rest of us wouldn't be so cognizant of it no?
rather the intent is to make this a normal part of our societies!

 

[User29123]

Well this will not be coming to the Muslim countries cause we have our own rights. If someone wants to be gay and they live in the M.E they should go to the West. I hope the Iran war does not start cause of gay rights!

 

[User29123]

oh to add to this if they allow gay rights then allow polygamy in your country to!

That is our rights to then

 

[Pygoscelis]

f cases where violence is committed against gay people or people that are perceived to be gay. This is not acceptable.

Of course, very unlikely US government wants to promote gay rights. It probably has another agenda.

I agree with that. I think they do things like this because they think they will score points for "human rights" with liberal voters like myself (not that I'm American). Only it won't work because it is transparent.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Well this will not be coming to the Muslim countries cause we have our own rights. If someone wants to be gay and they live in the M.E they should go to the West. I hope the Iran war does not start cause of gay rights!

I think you're pretty safe on that one. It may happen. It won't happen because of Gay rights. If it happens it'll happen becasue of American imperialism and the military industrial complex, or because of Israel's influence.

 

[Pygoscelis]

oh to add to this if they allow gay rights then allow polygamy in your country to!

That is our rights to then

I really don't see why not allow poligamy. The only sensible argument against allowing it I know of is the issue of non-consent that keeps coming up in conjunction with it. But if 1 man and 3 women all of them of sound mind want to consent to entering a 4 way marriage, I see no reason why I should stand in their way. Same for 3 men and 1 woman. It may get more complicated if they have children involved, but even then I'd take a more liberal approach and I think many others would.

Poligamy, homosexuality, nudism, wearing a burka, I have no real issue with any of these things if they are done with consent. But I may be too liberal for others here to agree.

 

[User29123]

I really don't see why not allow poligamy. The only sensible argument against allowing it I know of is the issue of non-consent that keeps coming up in conjunction with it. But if 1 man and 3 women all of them of sound mind want to consent to entering a 4 way marriage, I see no reason why I should stand in their way. Same for 3 men and 1 woman. It may get more complicated if they have children involved, but even then I'd take a more liberal approach and I think many others would.

Poligamy, homosexuality, nudism, wearing a burka, I have no real issue with any of these things if they are done with consent. But I may be too liberal for others here to agree.

The three men and 1 women probably won't work, some men get me aggressive

Plus I am sure men get ill much quicker, wouldn't it spread disease and such?