« S. Dakota Passes Law Requiring Counseling and 3-Day Waiting Period Before Getting Abortion
City in Missouri Cracks Down on Girl Scouts Selling Cookies in Front of Their Home »

Obama Calls on U.N. to Support Sexual Perversions

Obama Calls on UN to Support Gay Rights
By Lawrence D. Jones | The Christian Post

The Obama administration on Tuesday called on the United Nations Human Rights Council to fight discrimination against gays and lesbians around the world.

The declaration, supported by 84 other countries, marks the first time the United States has pushed for U.N. action on gay rights.

“Human rights are the inalienable right of every person, no matter who they are or who they love. The U.S. government is firmly committed to supporting the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals to lead productive and dignified lives, free from fear and violence,” said Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, U.S. Ambassador to the Human Rights Council in Geneva, in a statement.

Okay, let’s play that game:  A pedophile loves a little kid.  The little kid loves him.  According to what U.S. Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe has just espoused, a pedophile has an INALIENABLE RIGHT to have sex with a child and, therefore,  should be free to lead a productive and dignified life, free from fear and violence.

What?  A pedophile a little too drastic for you?  Okay, let’s tame it down a bit;  A 45-year-old man is in love with a 24-year-old woman and she is in love with him.  They regularly engage in sex.  The problem is, she is his daughter.  According to Ambassador Donahoe, they have an INALIENABLE RIGHT to their incestuous  relationship.

What about those odd folks who love and have sex with animals?  Do they also have an INALIENABLE RIGHT to continue in their perverse ways, too?

Are you beginning to grasp the insanity inherent in her statement?

The move by Obama on Tuesday was seen as a clear departure from George W. Bush’s administration, which never pressed for gay and lesbian rights. Unlike his predecessor, Obama has aggressively advocated gay rights during his presidency.

The president in February instructed the Justice Department not to defend the constitutionality of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), the federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and has encouraged Congress to repeal the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

Last week, Obama announced in a joint statement with the Brazilian president the creation of a special investigator position to monitor respect for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender individuals in the Western Hemisphere.

Oh, great!  MORE Dark Overlord, Orwellian type crap!  I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they decided to call it “The Ministry of Morals and Decency.”

The representative of Colombia on Tuesday delivered the full text of the declaration entitled, “Ending Acts of Violence and Related Human Rights Violations Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity,” before the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The document calls on governments to “take steps to end acts of violence, criminal sanctions and related human rights violations committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Signers also affirmed a 2008 joint statement by a group of states representing all five U.N. regions that called for an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In the statement to the U.N., they also commend attention paid to human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity by international human rights mechanisms and within the context of the Universal Periodic Review.

Acknowledging that “these may be sensitive issues for many,” the document encouraged the search for “common ground” and asked the Council to “be guided by the principles of universality and non-discrimination” in dealing with these sensitive issues.

Meanwhile, the Vatican contended before the Human Rights Council Tuesday that people who speak against same-sex relationships based on religious or moral beliefs are being attacked and vilified.

“People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behavior between people of the same sex,” Roman Catholic Archbishop Silvano Tomasi told the HRC session, according to Reuters.

“When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature … they are stigmatized, and worse – they are vilified, and prosecuted.

“These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances,” Tomasi said.

Yeah, but according to Liberals and Leftists, the government-given INALIENABLE rights of a bunch of butt-humping queers trump your God-given UNALIENABLE rights to free speech and religion.

You see, the left loves granting you inalienable rights, because those rights are subject to man’s control, whereas unalienable rights are subject only to God’s authority.

Yeah, I know, the progressive commies have spent generations blurring the lines between the two.  If you need further help understanding the difference between inalienable and unalienable rights, CLICK HERE.  As the author of that linked post says, “The difference between “inalienable” and “unalienable” is similar to the difference between a bean blower and a 50 caliber rifle.”

Explore posts in the same categories: politics

This entry was posted on 23 March, 2011 at 12:52 pm and is filed under politics. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

26 Comments on “Obama Calls on U.N. to Support Sexual Perversions”

  1. tgusa Says:

    23 March, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Homosexual imperialists, LOL. When you see a couple of US Generals kissing each other, pay no attention.

    Reply
  2. tgusa Says:

    23 March, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    Every man has a right to have sex with a dog or horse too. Hey they were born that way.

    Reply
  3. Phyllis Says:

    23 March, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    Well, our country will never knowingly support anything which is abusive to children. Sex is the inalienable right of adults who are able to consent, knowing what they are consenting to. The victims of Pedophiles are coerced–either physically or emotionally–to have sex with them. It is TOTALLY not the same as the GLBT community. So your argument falls flat. And brother–I am a conservative heterosexual.

    Reply
    • Leatherneck Says:

      23 March, 2011 at 4:12 pm

      Our country’s government is supporting New Age, and UN crap all the time. See Libya NFZ.

      It is not the people of this country that is the problem. It is the CFR controled government.

      A Jewish lady wrote when man made it legeal to marry animals G-d sent the flood of Noah. So, I guess we can’t be far off from the fire slated for mankind in the end times.

      Don’t drop the soap folks!

      Reply
    • doctorbulldog Says:

      23 March, 2011 at 4:12 pm

      Phyllis,

      No, the comparison doesn’t fall flat. You just have your liberal blinders on.

      First of all, you appear to still be confused as to what an “inalienable” right is and just exactly what an “unalienable” right is. An unalienable right is an immutable right given to you by God, not man. Marriage between a man and a woman along with the consummation of said marriage are unalienable rights given by God to man: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” – Genesis 2:24.

      The “inalienable” human rights spoken of by U.S. Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe are rights granted to citizens by man; namely, rights granted by a governing body. As such, those rights are mutable and subject to change on a whim. What happens if NAMBLA is successful in covertly placing its members into Congress, the Supreme Court, the office of the President, and the U.N.? Sure, it’s a long shot, but as we have seen, the queer community and their supporters have been surprisingly successful in infiltrating ALL levels of government in a relatively short span of about 30 years.

      Think about it. 30 years ago, you and I wouldn’t even consider the possibility that queers would be able to marry, let alone become a privileged class of citizenry with rights and protections granted to them above and beyond those of heterosexuals like you and I—all just because of their sexually perverse preferences and proclivities, nothing more. Now, the Overton Window has been moved, and here you are seemingly defending them in a round-about way. Congratulations, you have been brainwashed by a bunch of queers with an agenda.

      Look, I don’t hate queers. They can do what they want in the privacy of their own homes. I’ve had many friends in the past who chose a gay lifestyle. After all, I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for about 15 years. You don’t live there that long without making at least a few gay friends along the way. I’m sure I probably had a few pedophile friends, too. Probably a few zoophilers in there, also. I don’t know. They tend to be secretive about those types of things. After all, these are sexual perversion we are talking about here, and it’s not exactly considered to be acceptable social etiquette to introduce yourself as a proud pedophile or zoophiler, or whatever your sexual perversion happens to be. Anyway, like I was saying, I don’t hate queers. What I do hate is when a bunch of sexually perverse deviants get together and make it their goal in life to change laws and language in an effort to teach my children that homosexuality is not a sin in the eyes of God and saying otherwise is a criminal offense. Homosexuality IS a sin, just as infidelity is a sin. I certainly don’t want anyone to teaching my children that infidelity is natural and beautiful, or whatever, just as I don’t want homosexuals trying to teach my kids that butt-humping is somehow normal and sacred in the eyes of God.

      Homosexuality is an unnatural sexual perversion just as is pedophilia and zoophilia. If it can’t propagating the natural species, it is an unnatural act. In other words, at their very core, homosexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc., are all unnatural sex acts which go against the natural propagation of the species. Ergo, comparisons between all of these unnaturally deviant sexual lifestyle choices are justified—TOTALLY.

      Continuing onward:

      Just because something is not acceptable in today’s society does make it unacceptable in the future—or the past.

      Case in point, Muhammad married a 6-year-old child and had sex with her when she was 9-years old.

      Apparently, no one in Arabia had a problem with that.

      In fact, many Islamic countries still allow marriage between female children and male adults, citing Muhammad’s actions as justification.

      According to many modern Islamic scholars, marriage between a child and an adult is considered to be from Allah, and therefore would fall under the category of an unalienable right in Islamic culture.

      It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (which I am), to rightly conclude that if Islamists have their unfettered way in the U.N., a resolution protecting the “sanctity” of child brides would eventually find its way into the offing.

      If we continue to defer to the U.N.’s authority, placing it above America’s Constitutional authority—like Obama, the Leftists in Congress, and the activist judges on the bench routinely do—then Americans would find themselves having to comply with international law defending the “inalienable” rights of Muslim pedophiles to marry child brides. It’s a slippery slope, at best.

      Now, I noticed that you didn’t take exception to the incest scenario, or even the zoophilia scenario. Why is that? Are they not equally sexually perverse? And, if their future social acceptance is entertained as a possibility in your mind, then why do you have such a problem entertaining the future possibility of child brides becoming socially acceptable via the U.N. and their Humanist cockroaches?

      You know as well as I that, like I said, if the Islamists could have their way, you would have no choice but to shut your mouth and bow down to the practice of Muslims marrying little girls to dirty old men. Correct me if I am wrong, but how can that be considered anything else but pedophilia? So, if one is to grant acceptance of child brides via Islamic traditions augmented by some stupid U.N. Human Rights Council resolution, then who can honestly keep NAMBLA from pushing their own pedophile agenda through the U.N.?

      And, no. the “victims of pedophiles” are NOT “always coerced—either physically or emotionally—to have sex” with pedophiles.

      There are numerous instances where the child was the one who initiated sexual encounters with an adult. Sure, the adult should have had enough common sense to get the heck away from there, but oftentimes, adults are not very adult-like in their actions.

      Now, if we are to acquiesce, accept, and adopt Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe’s distorted view in which she believes, “human rights are the inalienable right of every person, no matter who they are or who they love,” then we also must accept that sexual encounters between a child and an adult, when initiated by the child (no victim scenario here) are protected inalienable rights and you have absolutely no right to speak out against it.

      Please note, Ambassador Donahoe NEVER said this was just between adults, as you have quantified in your definition of what you feel is acceptable, sex-wise. She said, “…of EVERY person, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE…”

      That, my friend, is how the Libtarded mind works and thinks. Eventually, it digresses into, “If it feels good, do it.” I should know. I was once a Libtard.

      Cheers

      Reply
      • tgusa Says:

        23 March, 2011 at 5:20 pm

        No homosexual walking the Earth was produced through homosexuality. To equate gay relationships with hetreos is ridiculous, insulting and really, makes one question the motives of those who have mandated(pun intended) it that lurk behind the homo curtain. Social norms cut both ways, if a society wants to allow consenting adults to eat each others boogers they can, I suppose, but don’t look for the world to accept it, promote it or elevate it. If a society has the right to impose gay social norms another society has the right to say, kill em! There are many heterosexuals who resent that their children are being co-opted and forced to accept another people social norms, nevertheless the guvmint has no business in any of it. If they do it would be on the creationist/hetreo side as they are the future, social norms be damned.

        Reply
  4. islams not for me Says:

    23 March, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    Here is why there is arguments about the vality of “GLBT community” and rights.

    ““Human rights are the inalienable right of every person, no matter who they are or who they love. The U.S. government is firmly committed to supporting the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals to lead productive and dignified lives, free from fear and violence,” said Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, U.S. Ambassador to the Human Rights Council in Geneva, in a statement.”

    Suddenly we are giving ‘rights’ to a group of people who want valdation for thier sodomy sexuality, lesbian sexuality, Bisexuality and Transexuality.

    How are these lifestyle choices normal? After all we CHOOSE to sodomize, lesbianize, sexualy enjoy men or women or dress like guys and gals.

    In other words we are giving protective ‘rights’ to a group of people who have done nothing to earn ‘protective rights’.

    In fact the G/L/Bi/Trany/Pedo/Beasty users are taking away our rights because we dont beleive in thier claims.

    Reply
  5. tgusa Says:

    23 March, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    What happens if the gay Marines ( I’d say Air Force but everybody already knows they’re all gay- just kidding Doc 🙂 ) all get wiped out? Who are the replacements, where do they get them?

    Reply
  6. islams not for me Says:

    23 March, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    Hmmm good question tg…

    I would suspect any gaybar going from Bellingham, WA to Baja CA. After all where do you think they got the term… “Hollywood Marine from”… Special thanks to *MCRD San Diego…

    (*Marine Corp recruit depo)

    (Not related -AS FAR AS I KNOW- to Home-depo…)

    Reply
    • tgusa Says:

      23 March, 2011 at 6:57 pm

      Hollywood? I thought the term was Baby Blue. 🙂

      Reply
      • islams not for me Says:

        23 March, 2011 at 7:09 pm

        Ouch!

        Reply
        • tgusa Says:

          23 March, 2011 at 7:30 pm

          Yeah, where I grew up every other person was a Marine. I once had a Marine Sargent call me a pussy cause he thought my hair was a bit too long. I grew up around Marines I have shared domiciles with Marines (purely monogamous) and I don’t take that crap off of anyone. I was just a sprout, he prolly just got back from Vietnam and he was right up in my face. He was lucky his men were there to restrain him, /s LOL. Was I a bit scared, gosh dang right I was. I used to share a place and hang with a guy people had nicknamed Big Red and while I have never been called small he was big and could be a real d*** when he had too much to drink. 🙂

          Reply
          • tgusa Says:

            24 March, 2011 at 10:14 am

            Purely Monogamous, wrong word. Mistakes like that and people might think I’m gay. It was a hetero guy hetero guy relationship, no kissing and stuff.

    • tgusa Says:

      23 March, 2011 at 8:00 pm

      MCRD is not too far away from here, closer than the AFEES station in LA, but they still make you go to LA.

      Reply
  7. islams not for me Says:

    23 March, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    Hmmmm…

    Nope no ‘baby blue’ here:

    http://www.usmcblues.com/blues.html

    Must be a new formation…

    Reply

Leave a comment