Is It a Sin To Promote Gay Rights Abroad?
Gay rights are America's values, according to America's people.
Back when Ronald Reagan was president, conservatives relished skewering liberals who, in approaching international affairs, "always blame America first." A generation later, with Barack Obama in the White House, they are proving they can indict the U.S.A. with the best of them.
Earlier this month, the administration announced a new effort to "end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons" around the world. President Obama issued an executive memo outlining the campaign, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a speech on International Human Rights Day arguing that "gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights."
This didn't get much attention, if only because the commitment is mostly rhetorical. It doesn't mean the United States will invade a country that denies equal treatment to gays, or impose economic sanctions, or cut off aid, or refuse to work together on other matters.
It just means our diplomats will occasionally raise the issue, deliver a lecture once in a while and note such abuses in the State Department's annual report on human rights in the world. Not a big deal, really.
Except, that is, to religious conservatives who regard any charitable words about gays as the death knell of Western civilization.
Rick Perry said the decision proved Obama is "out of touch with America's values." Rick Santorum said Obama was promoting "gay lifestyles." The conservative Liberty Counsel Action said Obama was exporting our "immorality to other nations that are trying to adhere to traditional principles relative to human sexuality."
As it happens, they're mistaken. Gay rights are America's values, according to America's people.
More Americans now support legalizing same-sex marriage than oppose it. A poll this year found that 73 percent favor a ban on job discrimination against gays. A similar majority supports letting gays serve openly in the military.
But the administration is not demanding that other countries legalize gay marriage, induct gay soldiers or give out awards for the most outrageous float in the Gay Pride parade. The chief goals are less ambitious: ending violence against people because of their sexual orientation and repealing laws that make homosexuality a crime.
It may be hard to believe, but some 76 countries outlaw gay sexual relations. At least five -- Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen -- make it punishable by death. In September, an Iranian human rights group reported that three men had been hanged for homosexual sodomy.
In many places, abuse is the norm. Gays across Africa "have been denied access to health care, detained, tortured and even killed," reports The Washington Post. The Gambian president promised to "cut off the head" of any homosexual. These nations, we are told, are just trying to uphold traditional morality.
It's one thing to say, as most Republicans do, that gays and lesbians should not be entitled to marry or enjoy protection against private discrimination. It's another to say they deserve to be harassed, imprisoned or executed for being gay.
But some conservatives say it's wrong for the U.S. government to protest such policies. They seem to think governments have a moral obligation to make homosexuality as miserable as possible.
This is a minority view. There was no groundswell of public anger in 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down ruled laws against gay sodomy. Nor has the GOP pushed a constitutional amendment to overturn that decision.
Americans may disagree on gay marriage. But they really don't favor locking gays up -- or harshly mistreating them -- over private, consensual sex.
So what's the problem if the State Department encourages foreign governments to stop punishing gays? You might say, as Santorum does, that we should "give out humanitarian aid based on humanitarian need, not based on whether people are promoting their particular agenda." But has he ever objected to the U.S. habit of criticizing countries that persecute Christians?
You might also say that in a dangerous world, the U.S. can't afford to base its foreign policy on human rights considerations. That's true, but there is no evidence that Obama intends to sacrifice national interests in the pursuit of gay equality.
All he and Clinton are really doing is shining a spotlight on governments that treat homosexuals as criminals, subhumans or second-class citizens and urging them to stop. That stance puts them at odds with many governments over a matter of individual freedom.
You could fault Iran and Saudi Arabia and others for the disagreement. But some people would rather blame America first.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The very mention of Santorum promotes gay lifestyles. That is the irony of being names Santorum.
Greek homosexual joke in the Bible:
It is as none other than Paul?an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus? that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus*, who became my son while I was in chains. 11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become USEFUL both to you and to me.
Philemon 1:9,10
* Onesimus means useful.
Now you know the hidden mysteries of why Catholic priests act as they do. Christianity, for the first 100 years or so, was a Greek cult about sacred pederasty.
Isn't that the plot to the last Dan Brown novel?
Who could have guess that the holy ghost was really just a little boy's cumfart all along...
Speaking of pederasty, do we know any nations where pederasts are routinely harassed, denied employment, subjected to violence, imprisoned, and even killed with impunity on account of their sexual orientation, even if they have not engaged in any actual sexual acts?
Other than the United States, of course.
---"do we know any nations where pederasts are routinely harassed, denied employment, subjected to violence, imprisoned, and even killed with impunity on account of their sexual orientation"---
I would suppose if you were a pederast but didn't prey on victims too young to give informed consent (in other words, rape), that you wouldn't have the above problems. I don't see how raping children is an orientation.
All he and Clinton are really doing is shining a spotlight on governments that treat homosexuals as criminals, subhumans or second-class citizens and urging them to stop.
No, Obama and Clinton are pandering to the gay community for votes.
^^THIS^^
The gay community, by and large, feels betrayed by Obama. He did, after all, sue to keep DADT in place after it was declared unconstitutional via a law suit filed by Log Cabin Republicans. Obama is no friend of gay rights.
This is simply a way at trying to slime back in to favor of the gay community without actually intending to do anything at all besides citing platitudes.
B-b-but Obama and Clinton are principled politicians who are in favor of hope and ch-ch-change!
Unfortunately, it'll probably work.
You'd say that about any effort to promote gay rights. They literally can't win with you on this and probably any other issue. Does thinking it's a cynical move make you feel better about yourself for not supporting gay rights?
At least you're not a one-issue type, Tony. I'll give you that much.
You're still annoying, though.
You say politicians pander for votes? I'm gobsmacked.
Next thing you will tell me is that the Repubs that criticized this action were pandering for votes too.
NNNOOOOOO
Rather than going abroad and wagging fingers at governments which persecute gays and Christians, just give political asylum to the victims. Maybe they'll feel some gratitude to the USA, and their payroll taxes will help pay the government's enormous expenses.
"More Americans now support legalizing same-sex marriage than oppose it. A poll this year found that 73 percent favor a ban on job discrimination against gays."
Now that a majority of the population support gay marriage, we can safely put the issue on state ballots, so that SSM can be legalized by these pro-gay majorities.
And what position does the magazine and its Foundation take on telling private employers whom they can discriminate against?
And by referring to "legalizing gay marriage," does this suggest that gay marriage isn't legal now? Because that would put a dent in the SSM litigation claiming that there's already a constitutional right to SSM.
I hate the phrase "legalizing gay marriage" and much prefer the more honest phrase "redefining marriage".
So "legalizing medicinal marijuana" should be called "redefining smokable objects"?
no
So "legalizing medicinal marijuana" should be called "redefining smokable objects"?
idjit
Frankly the goverment shouldn't be in the business of marriage.
Being gay is a sin because some guy that read a bunch of John's shit that became some bigshot in Rome said John said "Yo, Jesus.. he like lived under the Law of Moses.. and buttsecks was whack and like Jesus.. he like didnt' complain about it or anything.. therefore Jesus hated guys.." so Paul said "God Hates Faggots and Jesus agrees with me".
Why the Bible should never be treated as philosophy right there..
Context, people.. CONTEXT...
Aaaaaaaand where in that context does it say Jesus hated gays? O thats right it doesnt....context people context. Jesus Loves all people but hates their sin and yes I'll say it homosexuality is a sin. BUT the government has no right promoting or discouraging it. Its not their business.
According to some, anyone who supports the man/woman definition of marriage hates gays.
I know some gay people who do not support redefining marriage.
Does that mean that they hate gays?
Or are they like a black person who votes for the white guy when there's a black person available to support?
Traitors.
I'm not one of those, but some churches already sanctify gay marriages. So, the framing of the question by the marriage=1penis/1vagina crowd, the definition has already been changed. So, are they willing to destroy the first amendment, or do they want the government to go after religious figures that sanctify them?
actually it goes beyond 1penis/1vag; it also entails two people who are not related, essentially creating a three-legged stool. If the leg regarding plumbing is no longer applicable, someone will challenge the validity of the other two.
Personally, so long as no one's rights are violated and my tax $$ are not involved, I don't care who marries whom. The bigger question lies within the premise of the story: it is not a "sin", but it IS a huge waste of money for the US to be promoting any aspect of human behavior abroad.
"Personally, so long as no one's rights are violated and my tax $$ are not involved, I don't care who marries whom."
Absolutely.
What Sy and wareagle said.
homosexuality is a sin because YOU say so, or because some historical figure that was antithetical to Jesus said so?
No, but it is a sin to take my tax dollars and waste it on propaganda in foreign countries.
I also think that its a sin to waste money on foreign aid overall and to waste even more money on defense spending on foreign countries. Overall I am against giving or spending any tax money on foreign countries.
The conservative Liberty Counsel Action said Obama was exporting our "immorality to other nations that are trying to adhere to traditional principles relative to human sexuality."
Many libertarians try to reconcile liberty with "traditional" morality by employing choice. Let people who want to choose lifestyles built around traditional morality choose them, and let people who don't want them not choose them.
The problem with this reconciliation is that "traditionally moral" lifestyles don't really employ the individual as their basic unit. They employ the family as their basic unit. And so they can't really be maintained (not to the satisfaction of their advocates, in any case) without the ability to stop dissenters from opting out.
If your gay son can just say, "Fuck you, I'm moving to San Francisco," you can't have a "traditionally moral" family. You need some mechanism to stop him, or you just have one more "cultural relativist" or "humanist" family.
If your daughter can say, "Fuck you, I'm getting an abortion whether you like it or not," the same rule applies.
If you want a "traditionally moral" family unit but your spouse wants a divorce, they can get one whether you like it or not and you are shit out of luck.
In practice, all liberty-based systems will produce outcomes that look like humanist systems.
Unfortunately they can't say "Fuck you, I don't want the government taking my tax dollars and spending it on propaganda in foreign countries" because a bunch of armed government thugs will show up and throw them in prison and steal their property.
I don't see where that follows necessarily at all. Your gay son wants to move to San Francisco and be fabulous. Okay. Fabulous on whose dime? You daughter wants to go out and get an abortion. She better have the money to pay for that abortion. Traditional lifestyles became the tradition because they are very well adapted to reality. A lot of variations from traditional lifestyles are only tenable when they're subsidized.
If the option(s) exist and they are adopted even only by affluent outliers, the traditional structures are undermined just the same.
Because those outliers would be visible.
I am sure that if we undid the welfare state, people would revert strongly to traditional extended-family structures for economic security.
But that only really applies for low or near-low incomes.
I don't require the welfare state to be completely independent of my extended family.
So if near-high or high earners can make all these opt-outs, that's still a shitload of people. And if we're out there, visibly doing our thing, you'd still have "traditional moralist" panic because the example we'd be setting would potentially undermine everything they were trying to do.
Fluffy this was the point of the church. The church was to be the voice of social morals and individual restraint. The government has no business legislating morality but it is the churches job to preach it to all who will listen. and it is the individuals choice whether they will listen or not.
The church was to be the voice of social morals and individual restraint.
Yes, it "was". But now, denominations differ quite widely on "morals" and "restraint"
The problem now is that fewer are listening. So, like any good crony capitalists, the church needs the government to step in and keep the business going
There is some truth here.
On the one hand, religious leaders and adherents demand laws that punish vice that can really hurt a person if caught under those laws. Then at the same time they sell themselves as the andtidote to vice. Does anyone see a conflict of interest here?
IOW, religion has an interest in making the consequences of vice/sin worse than it really is, in the hope that people will seek out religion to avoid the vice or come to them to seek absolution from their "misdeeds" if they've been involved in vice. Very clever.
A lot of variations from traditional lifestyles are only tenable when they're subsidized.
Exactly. You don't see married couples getting tax breaks or anything. Oh, wait..
Maybe.
Or perhaps traditional lifestyles became traditional because to flaunt tradition could get you disowned or banished or imprisoned or.... you get the idea. When you live in culture that believed that someone else's sin will invite God's wrath and be the doom of the group, you get a lot of forced "tradition" in order to stay God's wrath. No telling how our mores would have developed if this idea hadn't taken hold in the Abrahamic relitions.
That interpretation would mean that traditional social structures never existed on the Italian peninsula. You always had the option of moving to Rome, or certain quarters of other cities such as Venice. If there is anything Anne Rice taught me, it was that.
Well, the first question is, should we be in the business of "promoting American values" abroad? And if so, why tolerance for gay rights, a perfectly legitimate value, and not other perfectly legitimate values (respect for the traditional nuclear family, middle-class propriety, etc.)?
It strikes me that we're bordering on broke. And if our diplomatic corps has the time and energy to spend hectoring the locals about mores and traditions that have no bearing on our security or well-being, perhaps our diplomatic corps is overstaffed.
Two words: Population control.
Though I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't be in the business of promoting American values in any way other than demonstrating them in practice, I would argue that we aren't promoting the "nuclear family" because people aren't jailed, ridiculed, or killed because they have a traditional family.
When people are killed under the force of law because they decided to marry and have a family, then perhaps there might be a point to promoting the value of such things.
In reality, there in no reason to promote what is the norm.
I disagree. There is a reason to promote the norm.
Look, for example, at what victim feminism has done to the United States. We know that at least a plurality of women liked the traditional family structure - they like the idea of a mommy and a daddy happily married and working together to raise a family. They know that sometimes life isn't perfect, but it is in their nature to try to work things out.
What happens? The victim feminists go around blaming men for everything, use any excuse at hand to remove children from families that have even minor problems, write laws that require there be an arrest in every case of "domestic abuse" no matter how minor - and write the law in such a way that effectively the husband will always be arrested even if the wife committed the violence (which may be as little as a slap), their children are required to attend failing state schools, and societal pressure demands that the wife get a full-time job to pay for child-care by someone else while she's at work - and in a multitude of ways the State and society attempt to interfere in this traditional family structure.
Damn straight someone needs to speak up for the norm - because if no one speaks up for the norm, the norm may eventually disappear - not because there is no one who desires the norm, but because there are a host of pressures opposing it and none pushing back.
In effect, victim feminism has made it increasingly difficult for anyone to practice the traditionally "feminine" virtues of patience, nurturing, and healing emotional wounds. Traveling overseas, it is remarkable that in cultures that we are told are incredibly "macho", even the men are far more openly compassionate than I ever see in North America.
If no one promotes the norm, then eventually one significant option - and an option that many people would like to choose - will be lost.
Agreed, but the problem is the government doing the "promoting". Reduce the likelihood that your disenfranchised victim-du-jour can implement these shitty policies, and I think you wouldn't need to protect the norm
By "victim feminists" do you mean women who might make choices about their private lives you don't like?
The law very heavily still encourages "traditional" family structures. People just increasingly don't see it as relevant as it used to be. Get rid of benefits that support "traditional" family structures and see that tradition decline even more... and it won't be the fault of meddling feminists.
Get rid of benefits that support "traditional" family structures
You're almost there, Tony... oh so close. All you left out is the part about getting rid of marriage as a governmental handout.
And quickly, before the gays get to it, right?
Marriage has been a civil institution since the invention of civil society. I'm not a big supporter of marriage, but whatever the laws they should be applied equally to people. That it's so hard for you to take that position, considering the reality that marriage laws will not disappear anytime soon, is curious.
Actually, no. Civil marriage only dates back to the late 18th century. Unless you're trying to argue that civil society only dates back to then, you're wrong.
I think that in the aggregate the law does a lot more harm to traditional families than it does good.
Love that term, Dave.
"Big-government feminism" is another good term.
State Dept. staff and budget increased 400% under Reagan
It's ironic how gay-bashers in the Religious Right are so pro-Israel when at the same time Israel is one of the most gay-friendly countries in the world to the point that we over could learn a thing or from them. Gays have openly served in the Israeli Defense Forces since the early '90s and even the most hawish Likud Party politicians condemn anti-gay violence.
It's also ironic that the hard lefties support the Muslim countries in the region for the exact opposite reasons.
But then again, these contradictions are nothing new, are they?
Two good posts in a row.
Is it a sin to be a partisan hack? No but I'd prefer it if Chapman weren't published on Reason.
Well, some polls in America notwithstanding, the zenith of "gay rights" seems to have passed:
http://in-other-news.com/2011/.....omosexuals
This makes perfect sense when you realize that the U.N. is an comprised in large part of repressive thugocracies and the U.S. does the concept of freedom a disservice by continuing to lend it legitimacy by remaining a member. If I were President, the first thing I'd do would be to recall our U.N. Rep., defund the position, and stop writing the U.N. checks. I'd pursue a new organization made up of our real allies -- UK, Canada, Britain, Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, Germany, for starters, considering membership for other pro-western countries who are committed to the values and security of the Anglo-sphere.
I have a hard time reconciling these poll results with the fact that in almost every instance where gay marriage has been a ballot issue, it has been handily defeated, even in some very liberal states.
Gay marriage's victories have almost all come in the judicial and legislative arenas. Very rarely when direct public opinion is involved.
The shift in polling numbers has only come in the last couple years, whereas the last vote was before that.
I'm looking forward to 2012 in California. We're putting an initiative on the ballot to restore marriage equality for all, because the numbers have changed.
I'm also looking forward to a time when anti-gay bigots will no longer have the majoritarian argument to support them. Then they will have to "come out" as bigots and reactionaries.
If we're lucky, this is nothing but an empty gesture meant to mollify disgruntled gay Obamatrons.
If we're not lucky, State will actually start putting serious pressure on foreign countries regarding their sexual cultures. A sure recipe for pissing people off.
You either promote basic human rights or you acquiesce to horrific abuses of them.
If it were the basic rights of people like you being threatened all over the world I'm sure you'd say we should ignore it in favor of not pissing people off.
What about straight couples who don't want to get married?
Not group rights?
"Traditional Family" means like the one you grew up in.
To the "redefining marriage" crowd who long for the good ole days of Judeo-Christian values, please recall that it has not always been "one man and one woman", ex: Abraham 1 man plus 3 wives, Moses 1 man plus 2 wives, David 1 man plus 8 wives (and about a half dozen official concubines). As I recall, the converse (polyandry) was common in some African groups.
So, which tradition are you planning to cite?
I'll drop back to the general libertarian viewpoint, if it doesn't effect you, and doesn't cost you anything, why do you care?
So, which tradition are you planning to cite?
I know which one they're not going to cite.
They won't cite, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
They won't cite, "If you've done so unto the least of these, you've done so unto me".
Sad, but true.
Polyandry was only really common in Tibet, though it may have been occasionally practiced elsewhere.
Polygyny was common almost everywhere except Romanized Europe.
Polandry was never really the norm. What you cite would be an exception to the rule, not a rule in and of itself. Moses, whether or not the biblical stories are accurate, was the leader of a group of people. Leaders are often granted 'privilages' that others aren't. Think about it this way. For a civilized society to become established you had to have monogamy. In a pologamous society only the most powerful males would have the opportunity to marry and mate. Try to get an establsihed society when only 20% of the males have that option, it won't happen. When futurama made that joke involving those sexbots, you know how everything civilization created was all just attempts by men to get laid, they really did hit the mark.
I've always been partial to the idea that one of the big differences between authoritarians and totalitarians is that while authoritarians try to control what people do, totalitarians try to control what people think and who they are.
The idea that governments should discriminate against people because of who they are really is essentially totalitarian.
If we can't stick up for the right of people to be who they are in that regard--and be treated the same as everyone else by the government--then how do we stick up for rights that aren't necessarily so integral to who people are?
You don't have a right to be who you are without being discriminated against by the government, but my right to own a gun is sacred?
Does not compute.
Agreed. The United States is a totalitarian nation, not merely an authoritarian one.
Our country isn't free just because it's the United States of America.
To whatever extent our government doesn't try to control what people think and who they are?
That's the extent to which our government isn't totalitarian.
The price of freedom really is eternal vigilance. If I see people trying to use the government to control what people think and who they are? I'm certainly not gonna shut up about their totalitarianism just because we're the United States of America.
Do you always have to be such a wanker?
Don't you ever have anything interesting to say?
Crap! Let the fags do their own bidding on the world stage. What is this? ...a new era of Manifest Destiny for GLBT rights? This is laughable at best, and an embarassing sideshow.
Paul was not a pervert. Christianity is opposes homosexuality, adultery, incest and bestiality because of their detriment to moral, physical and spiritual health. If you don't like or agree with that then don't become a Christian.
A lot of people believe that Paul's "thorn in his side" was a homosexual orientation.
Jesus's "beloved disciple" was the apostle John, when he was a boy.
The Lord God Himself managed to get an "underaged" girl pregnant.
By modern American standards, they were all perverts.
The whole Paul being a closet homosexual is new to me and I was raised a catholic for 20 years. I think you have people projecting what they want to believe there. Not that it really matters.
As a former catholic, I'd say the last institution in the fucking world that should be proclaiming homosexuality is a sin is the Catholic Church.
Let the Catholics address their pederast priests before they go after us men who are attracted to other men.
Jesus's "beloved disciple" was the apostle John, when he was a boy.
That's susceptible only to people who make no distinction between eros & agape.
susceptible -> suspicious
Yes, because being a Christian means you have to listen to the ramblings of an authoritarian asshole that believed the best way to be a Christian was to do all those things that Christ said not to do.
Fuck off and go learn something, dipshit.
Christianity is opposes homosexuality, adultery, incest and bestiality because of their detriment to moral, physical and spiritual health. If you don't like or agree with that then don't become a Christian.
Jesus repeatedly repudiated using the government to enforce his message--told his disciples over and over again that God's kingdom government was a heavenly government.
and he said:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Should the government discriminate against heterosexual men who commit adultery?
He said:
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone
He said:
Love ye your enemies...and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned"
Anybody who says otherwise shouldn't call himself a Christian.
Amen! Can I get a witness!
He also said "Go forth and sin no more", not "indulge every whim". That Christ considered a judgemental attitude sinful in itself did not mean He considered nothing else sinful. What He was saying is that judgement of sin ultimately belonged to God.
This particular issue aside...
How is it our government's business what other countries' governments do within their own country?
When making it our business make the President look good.
That's when.
When we're writing checks to support the government in question.
When US pastors were the driving force behind the 'death penalty for homosexuality' legislation in Uganda.
"Is It a Sin To Promote Gay Rights Abroad?"
It's not a sin....it's just none of our business.
Plus one for Realist.
Now there is a guy tthat knows what he is talking about. Wow.
http://www.total-anon.tk
Speaking as a gay person, I'm not sure the administration should be pushing this agenda. I appreciate the sentiment, but the administration ought to keep to itself and let the American people be the do-gooders.
...effort to "end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons" around the world.
The problem with this is not gay values. The problem is that it's not the U.S.'s business to impose our values or spread them "around the world." I object to this notion as strongly as I object to the idea that the U.S. should be involved in nation-building.
If the US intervened only when other countries committed human rights abuses it would be a utopian situation compared to the standard practice of intervening when oil interests are at stake.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with strong world powers using that power to promote human rights. It's in our own best interests for other countries to shed barbaric customs. Tolerant societies make war less.
Which just reenforces the point that Progressives don't object to the use of the force--here or abroad--to achieve their goals. They're just quibbling about goals.
I am not endorsing military intervention to promote human rights, which is pretty much a contradiction.
But as far as using nonmilitary means to "promote" small-L liberal values, I don't see why that's so bad. We're all the same species, the Prime Directive doesn't apply.
That the State is using taxpayer dollars to promote it, is the problem most people have.
Why would it be so bad to only have voluntary contributions?
What extra tax dollars?
FTA:
"[T]he commitment is mostly rhetorical. ... It just means our diplomats will occasionally raise the issue, deliver a lecture once in a while and note such abuses in the State Department's annual report on human rights in the world."
I didn't assume there was, or that there was "extra".
I'm assuming that's where most people would draw the line, if they were in disagreement.
Tony gets so worked up on this topic, Sy. You know how he is.
Sounds like an effective program [/sarc off]
IKR. Who wants to let people opt out of funding programs they find objectionable?
/statist
"We're all the same species, the Prime Directive doesn't apply."
You actually think Roddenberry put the idea of non-interference into Star Trek because he was making suggestions for future extraterrestrial diplomacy? Really?
Good point, but I see nothing in Roddenberryism that endorses letting ignorant, dangerous religious bigots live their lives in dangerous ignorance out of a relativistic tolerance. It seems to clearly endorse secular liberalism for all humans.
Do we have to use military force? Could'nt we just starve em' into submission?
"The problem is that it's not the U.S.'s business to impose our values or spread them "around the world."
There's something to the suggestion that if foreign nations are gonna cash our checks, they should have to listen to what our diplomats say every once in a while.
For a succinct summary of conservative values, check this out by Charlie Allen, singing "Grandpa's Recipe" http://www.charlieallenmusic.com/index.htm
Meet Tasha - a top model from Russia posing nude for the first time ever!
With her long red hair, white porcelain skin and perfectly defined body it is easy to see why Tasha is a success in the world of fashion. She works primarily out of Milan, and has modeled for some of the big names ? including the prestigious Chanel shows.
Tasha keeps her toned body in perfect shape by swimming, she tells us that this is one of her favorite ways to relax.
It is incredibly rare to see high-end international models like Tasha doing full nudes ? she is exclusive to Hegre-Art!
With her ethereal beauty and stunning body Tasha definitely has the 'wow' factor!
I'm for this, but only if it costs zero tax dollars, leaves out ALL religion, and includes pro-capitalist messagery.
And promotes individual rights instead of group rights.
The rights to life, liberty, and property belong to people on an individual basis, but are denied on the basis of governmental and social classification. It's not a "group right" to not be murdered or gay bashed. It's an individual right.
Clinton's speech pointed out that people were killed by governments, or with government consent, after they had their individual rights denied on the basis of homosexuality.
If there are any "special rights" here, they are those arrogated to themselves by heterosexuals and religious fanatics.
Um,religion, believe it or not, has special rights not "arrogated to themselves" but specified in certain legal documents. Can you guess which ones? And I would venture to say that exponentially more "religious fanatics" have been murdered by opressive governments than have gays. Hell, more intellectuals have. They used to kill people in China for wearing glasses(then eat em').
I just can't get behind a 'gay crusades'. Think of the 'blowback'.
Yes, individual Americans have a legal right not to be forced to support the establishment of any religion, and the right to freely exercise religion. That isn't a special right or a group right. It is certainly not meant to confer the privileged place in society that evangelical Christians occupy.
When religious conservatives try to force everyone's children to pray in school, or adhere to their version of marriage ,or prevent children from learning evolution, they are seeking "special rights" to have their views imposed on everyone else.
And . . . you're brilliant with puns. Just brilliant. I'm sure you've thought quite a bit about the blowback.
The UK decided this year to stop giving foreign aid to countries that oppressed LGBT individuals.
Frankly, I think this is the route we should be going, as well. I'm all for any excuse not to dole out foreign aid to other countries. But unless we've got some investment, it just doesn't seem to be our business to be telling other countries how they should be doing business, no matter how benign the telling.
We're not the world's (morality) police. At least we shouldn't be.
The only use for taxes are to bribe or blackmail taxpayers. Better we use our taxes to bribe/coerce other countries citizens than our own, right?
Oh,I forgot, they can't vote in our elections, so lets just kill em'.
Interesting how some "hardcore" libertarians on here object to preventing murder, rape, and persecution of LGBT people abroad object ONLY because tax dollars are involved.
Would you all SUPPORT Clinton/Obama's speech if it stated all foreign aid to countries oppressing LGBT people would no longer receive foreign aid? That would lead to a measurable decrease in federal expenditures.
Did it occur to you that this development could actually lead to a decrease in expenditures?
Is there really something else involved? A reptilian repugnance toward homosexuality?
Not very libertarian at all.
That would mean being in favor of MORE expenditures for promoting group rights. I'm not even in favor of expenditures for promoting individual rights. They promote themselves! Uh, it's just a jobs program for the Dept of State.
Shut the fuck up, Justin. You're assuming animosity towards gays, from people who harbor no such ill will.
Go back to DU or whatever Team Blue harbor you call home.
"Shut the fuck up" in the same sentence as "assuming animosity." Thanks for proving my point.
A point so off the mark it doesn't even qualify as stupid. How is a decrease in foreign aid expenditures "MORE expenditures"?
Orwellian.
It must be that touch we gays have. Emitting spores and spreading HIV and all. Must have contaminated your thinking.
"Would you all SUPPORT Clinton/Obama's speech if it stated all foreign aid to countries oppressing LGBT people would no longer receive foreign aid? That would lead to a measurable decrease in federal expenditures."-Assuming the policy was a failure. Don't use my taxes as a carrot for other countries' policies, no matter what they are! Use my trade! Maybe then we can eliminate one more corrupt use of my money!
Justin, you sound pretty angry. What are you afraid of?
If you are a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim it is a sin to promote gay rights anywhere. Christians and Jews are told to shun them, Muslims execute them. That is what the scriptures of the different religions indicate. So, if you are a believer in the three major world wide religions, it is a sin. Me, I think it is none of our business.
If you are a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim it is a sin to promote gay rights anywhere. Christians and Jews are told to shun them, Muslims execute them. That is what the scriptures of the different religions indicate. So, if you are a believer in the three major world wide religions, it is a sin. Me, I think it is none of our business.
If you are a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim it is a sin to promote gay rights anywhere. Christians and Jews are told to shun them, Muslims execute them. That is what the scriptures of the different religions indicate. So, if you are a believer in the three major world wide religions, it is a sin. Me, I think it is none of our business.
Three times as poignant. Thanks. Was that one posting for each of the Abrahamic religions?
The title of this article bothers me in that "sin" usually refers to a morality crime, that is, against God. While a lot of people seem to think America is a "Christian" nation, the forefathers were brilliant in not establishing a national religion, Christian or otherwise, regardless of what the makeup of the people might be. How can the government commit a sin against a God they don't formally recognize (regardless of what the money says)?
Of course, that doesn't make this particular action right, or wrong for that matter. Granted, I'm all for withholding business, aid, etc., from countries that are committing atrocities that we find reprehensible as a nation. Doesn't have to be a list dictated by the U.N., either, we can come up with our own list, and I'm cool with crimes against gay people being on that list. Provided it's an otherwise quite lengthy list, since in my mind there are worse crimes.
Though I do think a lot of this is smoke an mirrors, since I'm doubtful there are many countries out there where the *only* moral crime they're committing is abuse of gays. Yeah, Iran executes people for homosexual sodomy - but Iran is on the naughty list already for any number of moral atrocities as it is, all we're really doing is just beefing up the list. Is there really a point, then, to all this rhetoric, other than getting people like Chapman spun up and possibly earning Obama a few votes next November?
Yes homosexual behavior is a sin and always will be. But the U.S. is not Christendom and can do what it wants. What I as a Christian don't want is for my tax dollars to go funding something I consider a sin and wrong against God.
As far as the comment about persecuting Christians and how our government takes countries to task for that? Where is our government while millions of Christians have been killed int he Middle East, Egypt, Sudan, and any where else that is predominantly Muslim.
Christians are the only ones that are ok to persecute, kill etc... So Gay Rights are human rights, where are Christian Rights? Why must my money be spent on something I think is wrong, especially when as the writer notes. None of this will have any effect other than to make the libs feel better about themselves.