US voted against UN motion condemning gay death penalty

[Ron Mexico]

This news story seems to be grabbing attention and seems a little crazy.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-admin...against-un-motion-condemning-gay-death-677412

There are plenty of links if you prefer a different source.

The US department clarified that they voted no because "We voted against that resolution because of broader concerns with the resolution’s approach in condemning the death penalty in all circumstances, and it called for the abolition of the death penalty altogether,"

The wording that they were opposed to was this: "The U.N. resolution in fact calls for states which have not abolished the death penalty to consider doing so."

That does not seem like a big enough reason to not vote to condemn death penalty for gay people. I think the US should consider abolishing the death penalty. Whether or not we do so is another debate but we should be looking into its effectiveness. How many people get wrongly convicted. How much money it costs vs keeping people in prison for life and other details.

Regardless it is sad we voted this way in the UN. The US department did claim the we voted the same way when Obama was in office and if the motion was the same that is awful as well.

 

[LogGrad98]

So having admittedly not read the article, it is trying to pass a resolution that, depending on your sexual orientation you would receive preferential treatment regarding sentencing in capital crimes? I would be against that. I am also in favor of the death penalty and think it needs to be improved actually.

 

[Gameface]

I read something about it and was somewhat confused. Seemed like it was mostly an anti-death penalty at all motion and pretty much all the countries that have a death penalty opposed it.

I am opposed to the death penalty regardless of circumstance.

 

[fishonjazz]

I'm for the death penalty and wish it was used more.

Btw, if I had the choice to be sentenced to life in prison or the death penalty, I would choose death penalty for myself.

 

[Stoked]

Yeah, not a good article. Wasn't very clear. I also openly laughed at the shots at this Admin from former Ambdr. Rice when her admin abstained lol.

I think the bar for the death penalty should be extremely high, more crimes should have that as a possible penalty and if passed it should be carried out quickly. No 30 years and a last meal junk.

 

[Ron Mexico]

So having admittedly not read the article, it is trying to pass a resolution that, depending on your sexual orientation you would receive preferential treatment regarding sentencing in capital crimes? I would be against that. I am also in favor of the death penalty and think it needs to be improved actually.

It is a motion that passed in the UN that condemned sentencing someone to death for being gay. The USA UN voted against. Mostly the countries that voted against it are in the Middle East and Africa.

The reason the USA claimed they voted against it is because they felt it condemned all death penalties.

The wording that concerned them is what I quoted basically saying all countries with death penalties should consider ending them.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Yeah, not a good article. Wasn't very clear. I also openly laughed at the shots at this Admin from former Ambdr. Rice when her admin abstained lol.

I think the bar for the death penalty should be extremely high, more crimes should have that as a possible penalty and if passed it should be carried out quickly. No 30 years and a last meal junk.

Yeah, it wasnt the best article but it is the only one I found that provided both what happened, the US response and the wording for what the US claimed to be bothered by.

There are better articles about it though.

To me it's silly to vote against it because it says countries should consider ending death penalties. Countries should consider it. There definitely should be a conversation about it even if we keep it.

It's a shame that being gay is still something countries consider a crime and even worse a crime you should be sentenced to death for.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I read something about it and was somewhat confused. Seemed like it was mostly an anti-death penalty at all motion and pretty much all the countries that have a death penalty opposed it.

I am opposed to the death penalty regardless of circumstance.

I put the wording from the motion in quotes above. It just asks countries to consider ending the death penalty. Most of the motion was around condemning countries for putting gay people to death for being gay. Which is obviously terrible. Most of the countries that voted against are ones that criminalize people for being gay.

This is sad:

Homosexuality is illegal in more than 70 nations

There are currently six countries where the death penalty is used for people in same-sex relationships: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Nigeria and Somalia. It rises to eight if the Isis-occupied territories of Iraq and Syria are included.


There are another five countries where it is technically allowed, but not actually used in reality.

 

[Stoked]

Yeah, it wasnt the best article but it is the only one I found that provided both what happened, the US response and the wording for what the US claimed to be bothered by.

There are better articles about it though.

To me it's silly to vote against it because it says countries should consider ending death penalties. Countries should consider it. There definitely should be a conversation about it even if we keep it.

It's a shame that being gay is still something countries consider a crime and even worse a crime you should be sentenced to death for.

To me it is more than a shame. It is vile and horrific. And some of these countries are allies.

 

[DutchJazzer]

LOL! ron mexico falling for fake news.


drumming up controversy while obummer and all other administration do the same!

this is not about gay. it is about death penalty us cannot vote for it as long as they have death penalty!


they fake news doing anything to make trump look bad. playing identity politics! trying to get the gays to hate on him!

 

[Boris]

Yeah, it wasnt the best article but it is the only one I found that provided both what happened, the US response and the wording for what the US claimed to be bothered by.

There are better articles about it though.

To me it's silly to vote against it because it says countries should consider ending death penalties. Countries should consider it. There definitely should be a conversation about it even if we keep it.

It's a shame that being gay is still something countries consider a crime and even worse a crime you should be sentenced to death for.

Daggum kid ain't you got no common sense? This is what typically happens with these lawyered up laws. At first th y are interpreted conservatively with "original intent". Than the language gits interpreted differntly over time until it is stretched to the boundaries in the wording.

We also bin under pressure by them ta git rid of are death penalty. We are a SOVEREIGN NATION. You know what that means? It means that ain't none of there damn concern. If we vote to kill heinous humans writes violators that that is are choice an are right!

Hell stead of gettin all worked up why dint ya call up Trump an ask him to state that the USA is OBVIOUSLY against death penalty for sexual orientation alone. Simple language, simple response. Ain't nobody sides a small group of whackos that wouldn't agree ta that. Hell NOBODY CARES if yer gay or not we care that ya keep shovin it in are faces. Why doncha just shut up about it arready? Ya got yer marriage passed BRAVO! CASE CLOSED!

 

[Ron Mexico]

LOL! ron mexico falling for fake news.


drumming up controversy while obummer and all other administration do the same!

this is not about gay. it is about death penalty us cannot vote for it as long as they have death penalty!


they fake news doing anything to make trump look bad. playing identity politics! trying to get the gays to hate on him!

Apparently you cant read. Its not fake news, or I guess I forgot that you dont understand what that is. I dont really understand this one but you keep proving it over and over. It is a pretty simple concept but yet you dont understand what fake news means. Sad, so sad.

I already pointed out that the Obama admin voted the same. Although looking into it more they abstained from voting.

I also already pointed out the reason that US voted the way they did because of death penalty wording which I put in the information above.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Daggum kid ain't you got no common sense? This is what typically happens with these lawyered up laws. At first th y are interpreted conservatively with "original intent". Than the language gits interpreted differntly over time until it is stretched to the boundaries in the wording.

We also bin under pressure by them ta git rid of are death penalty. We are a SOVEREIGN NATION. You know what that means? It means that ain't none of there damn concern. If we vote to kill heinous humans writes violators that that is are choice an are right!

Hell stead of gettin all worked up why dint ya call up Trump an ask him to state that the USA is OBVIOUSLY against death penalty for sexual orientation alone. Simple language, simple response. Ain't nobody sides a small group of whackos that wouldn't agree ta that. Hell NOBODY CARES if yer gay or not we care that ya keep shovin it in are faces. Why doncha just shut up about it arready? Ya got yer marriage passed BRAVO! CASE CLOSED!

Can you go back to writing normal again please. Sometimes I like to read your posts but these ones are impossible to get through. Or just post with your main account.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Apparently you cant read. Its not fake news, or I guess I forgot that you dont understand what that is. I dont really understand this one but you keep proving it over and over. It is a pretty simple concept but yet you dont understand what fake news means. Sad, so sad.

I already pointed out that the Obama admin voted the same. Although looking into it more they abstained from voting.

I also already pointed out the reason that US voted the way they did because of death penalty wording which I put in the information above.

ok, it is not a motion against GAYS!

it is imply a motion against death penalty for all reasons you can imagine.

USA has the death penalty, so abstaining or voting doesnt matter. it is not a motion against gaty.

thi sis just the media spining something to gin up controversy and using identity politics on trump. i got a youtube video explaining it and going into details but it has been demonitized because it is labeled as this mythical thing called hatespeech. so i cannot put it here for you!

 

[DutchJazzer]

go read the resolution

http://ilga.org/downloads/HRC36_resolution_question_death_penalty.pdf

 

[franklin]

go read the resolution

http://ilga.org/downloads/HRC36_resolution_question_death_penalty.pdf

Thanks for the link Dutch.

Strongly deploring the fact that the use of the death penalty leads to violations of the human
rights of the persons facing the death penalty and of other affected persons,

The resolution expresses strong disapproval of using anti-death penalty sentiment as a reason to protest those proven guilty and worthy of death.

I read nothing in there except a few things that could be considered a slippery slope, kind of like what Log pointed out with the squeaky gender preference stuff. It's a pretty generic resolution with the exception of some foot in the door language (it's probably already there somewhere in the past anyway) about forcing governments to report to a world body.

 

[Ron Mexico]

ok, it is not a motion against GAYS!

it is imply a motion against death penalty for all reasons you can imagine.

USA has the death penalty, so abstaining or voting doesnt matter. it is not a motion against gaty.

thi sis just the media spining something to gin up controversy and using identity politics on trump. i got a youtube video explaining it and going into details but it has been demonitized because it is labeled as this mythical thing called hatespeech. so i cannot put it here for you!

Nope, most the articles I have read pointed to the reason they voted No, including the one I linked, is that it is against the death penalty. So no not all news is spinning this most are reporting on what happened like the article linked. We didnt abstain from voting we voted no.

I still think the death penalty should be looked into more. But the language of this is one that I would support especially condemning the death penalty for silly things like being gay. At the very least we should have abstained and not voted against it.

Personally I support this motion and wished we had voted for it.

As a libertarian I assume you do as well. Since almost all libertarians and by standard libertarian principles are opposed to the Death Penalty. Or are you not a libertarian?

 

[DutchJazzer]

Nope, most the articles I have read pointed to the reason they voted No, including the one I linked, is that it is against the death penalty. So no not all news is spinning this most are reporting on what happened like the article linked. We didnt abstain from voting we voted no.

I still think the death penalty should be looked into more. But the language of this is one that I would support especially condemning the death penalty for silly things like being gay. At the very least we should have abstained and not voted against it.

Personally I support this motion and wished we had voted for it.

As a libertarian I assume you do as well. Since almost all libertarians and by standard libertarian principles are opposed to the Death Penalty. Or are you not a libertarian?

yes i am a libertarian. but not a pacifist!
i am against initiation of force, but depending on what force someone initiates against an other. i am for responding appropriately. and sometimes it is to terminate with extreme prejudice!

libertarian does not mean pacifist. you can be a libertarian and a pacifist or a libertarian willing to answer the initiation force with the appropriate amount of force.

ofcourse no gays should be put to death!

pedofiles on the other hand if their is irrefutable proof they forced themselves on kids. need to be castrated or exterminated with extreme prejudice. including huma abedines husband. that scumbag got a light sentence

 

[Ron Mexico]

yes i am a libertarian. but not a pacifist!
i am against initiation of force, but depending on what force someone initiates against an other. i am for responding appropriately. and sometimes it is to terminate with extreme prejudice!

libertarian does not mean pacifist. you can be a libertarian and a pacifist or a libertarian willing to answer the initiation force with the appropriate amount of force.

ofcourse no gays should be put to death!

pedofiles on the other hand if their is irrefutable proof they forced themselves on kids. need to be castrated or exterminated with extreme prejudice. including huma abedines husband. that scumbag got a light sentence

So not a real libertarian, gotcha. Capital punishment does not go well with libertarianism. As someone who is more libertarian than anything else I am opposed to it.

I personally don't trust the government to make life or death decisions. Our judicial system has to many problems to be given that type of power.

 

[DutchJazzer]

So not a real libertarian, gotcha. Capital punishment does not go well with libertarianism. As someone who is more libertarian than anything else I am opposed to it.

I personally don't trust the government to make life or death decisions. Our judicial system has to many problems to be given that type of power.

lol the not real llibertarian fallacy!

listen buster their are different kind of libertariansim. some support government roads others do not!
other are for open borders others are not!
other support the military others do not!

but i gues only your version is real liburtarianism!



so only your version of libertarianism is the true version? gothca! you sound like a totalitarian


i am a fake libertarian then!