UN President's Anti-Gay Remarks Condemned

I'm shaking mine too! Thanks for reading, commenting, and for the recommendation, albertacowpoke!

As a Muslim, I am not in favor of it

Treki needs to read the Preamble to the United Nations Charter.  He is in breach of the precepts set forth.

"We the peoples of the United Nations determined: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, And for these ends: to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, Have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims: Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."

Rather misleading headline. Nothing "anti-gay" about what he said (at least as quoted).

It appears (to this rather slow individual), that he is in favor of each nation being able to choose their own laws in this matter. Evidently, self-determination is no longer PC.

He starts with 'very sensitive' then says he's not in favour of it, then says the majority of the world does not accept it, it just kept growing and growing. As someone from Libya he most certainly wouldn't think it's ok, but if he can't put that aside, he shouldn't have become the UN pres in my opinion.

If the Arab nations in question are not in favor of decriminalizing being gay by resolution, then they are in favor of the criminalization of a person based on sexual preference.  They are putting forth a descriminatory human rights agenda that is in direct conflict with the U.N. Charter which is to preserve human rights of all people and to live in tolerance and peace.    

The point is in though I think that gays should have human rights the fact is most Muslims in Libya feel that being gay is against Islamic teaching.

To him of course it is very sensitive but can we blame him or do we blame the real problem and that of his and his country religion. As for the democratic reference unfortunately if the issues of rights for gays was put to referendum in most Arab states the nays would have the democratic vote.  

As for him being the United Nation president concerning the UN Charter.

Muslims would in fact say that both men and women do have rights that are equal to women and equal to men as Allah has commanded.

However yes any Muslim nation within UN could be in reality in breach of the Charter, the problem being is the UN was created for every nation to have a seat and a say. There is many nations that would be considered in breach of the original charter. I would suggest the charter is a guideline to what the UN,s was created to achieve, it would be however bad politics to enforce the charter to be fully obeyed before a nation obtained a seat.

But perhaps the president of the UN should only go to a nation that agreed completely to the charter. Therefore no Muslim should hold the presidential seat.

Treki is on this issue stuck between a rock and a hard place, he does not in fact have any other option than follow a religious path on the issues of gay freedom as the representative of a Muslim nation and remembering what the obvious outcome would be to an referendum .

This then makes me question if gay rights was put to a referendum vote would such democratic event take away the right of gays?  In my opinion is the gays would lose in USA but in UK and lest religious countries of Europe they would win hands down. They certainly would have my vote. 

I feel that Treki is right to question that gay rights have not been a procees of a democratic decision its been one of lobbying.

Babel

I would not consider gay rights to be any different that considering rights for women, and this could be contentious as well.  You say, "the U.N. was created for every nation to have a seat and a say."  Arabs in question  are free to vote their individual conscience, but for Treki to use the position as president to profess his agenda is wrong, and he claims to be speaking for "the majority of the world" which is speciously presumptive and offensive.  

Additionally with an anti-gay agenda by some Arabs, the advocacy for confronting the world wide epidemic of AIDS  might be in question, which includes women and children.  The criminalization of gays can have far reaching effects than what we are discussing here.

U guys are hypocrite !!! Sometime it amazes me why we fall short in self-criticism and try to find problem with others (specially Muslims). Britain and US has the worst record of domestic violence, teen and child abuse (its a fact, read some survey from whichever source u prefer). Yet we criticize that Islam discriminates women.

U r intentionally bypassing the fact that "Vatican officials also balked at the pro-gay resolution, saying it would promote gay marriage." Vatican, that means Christian religious people also opposed to the resolution, so its not only a Islamic problem, its also a Christianity problem. However, if u r not a religious person then do not bother replying to this message.

"When asked about a UN resolution that calls for the universal decriminalization of being gay"

Is being gay the issue?

Why is the United Nations, let's say this out loud together... the United Nations, involved in sodomy laws in sovereign countries that reflect the cultures of the people that live in them?

I think that the UN is trying to stick it's known in an issue that they feel has traction in making countries that aren't in lock step with their idea of morality, to subjugate themselves or else.

I don't feel that prosecuting sodomy is a good idea, whether you're for or against it, but who is the UN to tell any country that sodomy is moral? The folks driving that train need to learn to accept that sexual behavior is not a human right. Being gay is not illegal anywhere that I am aware of, therefore the issue is sodomy and sodomy laws.