66 of 192 UN nations have called to decriminalize homosexuality, and...

[slumber]

The US was the only major Western nation not to sign the declaration.

What. The. Fuck.

I mean-- okay, I hate going political and I know this will just open a whole new can of worms and that, you know, this is a debatable issue, well-- here's where I stand, basically:

• I am glad that this declaration was sponsored at all...
  
• But I personally don't know where I stand in the whole, you know, imposing one's concept of right and wrong onto wholly different cultures and I understand why some countries would opt not to sign it
  
• But on the basis of what the declaration says... I would like to think that the US is past that. Maybe the reason the US did not choose to sign is so it could retain diplomatic relations with the states that chose not to sign as well, but. Really? Really? You don't want to sign a non-binding declaration that arguably upholds human rights?

Urgh.

PS. It has been a while since I kept myself abreast of world issues, and I haven't really been involved in debate in a while. I know there is another side to this story. If you know what it is, if you understand more than I do right now, please do let me know? Educate me. I'm hesitant to jump to too many conclusions, so if I'm missing something from this story, I would be really glad if you could tell me what it is. Thank you.

Comments

[mokusan.livejournal.com]

Bah.

Just... BAH.

Basically, people are stupid. =/

No offense meant, really, but if someone is willing to deny someone their rights, then... well, I guess stupid is a rather polite way to put it.

[slumber.livejournal.com]

It isn't even a matter of awarding them rights-- this declaration, as far as I can tell, was simply a step toward decriminalization. Those 66 countries that signed just wanted to say "Hey, you know what? Maybe nobody should get arrested (and in some cases, tried and given the death penalty) on the basis of their gender." I fully understand there are arguments to be made coming from the conservative countries' perspectives, but the US? Meh. :\

[longleggedgit.livejournal.com]

Sigh.

Sigh.

[slumber.livejournal.com]

I really have no appropriate icon for this mood (this is the closest :|) but. Yeah.

[longleggedgit.livejournal.com]

This would probably be my most appropriate.

[postingwhore.livejournal.com]

"But I personally don't know where I stand in the whole, you know, imposing one's concept of right and wrong onto wholly different cultures and I understand why some countries would opt not to sign it"

While cultural relativism is a good thing, this is like saying "Well, I don't want to impose the basic dignity of equal human rights unto countries where honour killings of women are accepted, etc."

Because as much as we need to move away from ethnocentrism, etc., that doesn't mean supporting equal rights for all people is cultural imperialism.

[slumber.livejournal.com]

I meant mostly that I can see how other countries (like Saudi Arabia and some African countries) would not want to sign the document, simply because they do have conservative views within their cultures that would still sort of make it difficult for them to accept homosexuality-- and I do also see how there is a need to be diplomatic in handling this situation (eg, that the declaration is non-binding, if my understanding of what non-binding entails is correct) simply because while supporting equal rights isn't cultural imperialism, that's still a matter of perspective.

I am not sure how the Bill of Human Rights-- or is it Declaration?-- fits into the whole picture, and what the UN's stance on drawing the line between a nation's sovereignty and the UN's need for intervention is, though I'd probably like to check that out.

[postingwhore.livejournal.com]

While it's still a matter of perspective, not all perspectives are right.

Not that any of it really matters, since the UN really has no power.