Posted on 02/04/2017 3:07:49 PM PST by ebb tide
The new UN expert on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues outlined a strategy for his three-year term before dozens of supportive UN bureaucrats, delegates, and activists in a meeting last week.
Vitit Muntarbhorn, the newly appointed UN Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity, spoke of the Sustainable Development Goals and the work of UN agencies to further the goals as a “good entry point for us.”
The Thai law professor and homosexual activist also described health, education, and religion as “soft entry points” and cautioned that “sexual orientation and gender identity” are not closed categories, promising to ensure no group is overlooked.
Only supportive states attended the consultation. Others who opposed the creation of the post did not want to legitimize his work by attending the event.
Supportive UN agencies huddled in a tightly packed UN meeting room to describe their ongoing efforts to promote LGBT rights. Even though the UN post barely survived General Assembly scrutiny in December, the feeling of triumph was palpable. Even UN Habitat, which has held out against the LGBT agenda thus far, asked guidance on how to integrate LGBT rights in urban development.
Muntarbhorn explained that UN agencies would be exponentially more influential because of their resources.
He described education as an entry point for children to be “born and bred from a young age” with the right attitudes. Specifically he mentioned anti-bullying campaigns. Additionally on the health front, he suggested that the medical community be enlisted to condemn any form of therapy designed to help individuals cope with or change unwanted same-sex attraction.
A representative of the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) called for states to “provide LGBT couples and children with legal recognition of their family entity.” Muntarbhorn sounded a cautious note without excluding this entirely.
“I am not jumping into the right to marry as a first issue for this mandate even though it is an important issue,” he said. “The first issue is we are anti-crime, anti-killing, anti-torture,” he said, stressing a more limited reading of what constitutes “discrimination.” He also admitted to holding an open definition of family.
When confronted about the clash between LGBT rights and religious freedom by Henk Jan van Schothorst of the Transatlantic Christian Council, Muntarbhorn’s answers were categorical.
“There are some absolute rights,” he said, “but there are some that are not absolute.” He went on to explain that “freedom of expression and expression of religion” are not absolute rights and that they could be curtailed if necessary.
While calling for compromise, respect, and dialogue, he appeared irritated.
“We can agree or disagree on whether the family should be big or smaller, which is not totally settled” he said—perhaps a nod to population control—but emphasized that “whatever the differences, you can’t kill people. I’m sorry about that.”
Muntarbhorn described a desire to engage with the “heart of religion without the mythology overriding the heart of the religion.” He cited examples of traditions that welcomed homosexuality and transgenderism and denounced sodomy laws as a colonial imposition.
I would like to “open the door to a humane understanding and interpretation (of religion), conversant and complimentary with human rights,” he said, welcoming the invitation of the UN Population Fund to attend events with religious groups that support abortion and LGBT rights.
This guy is fool
Get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN
So, it’s OK to ban Muslims? And Islam?
Well, they might have an argument there, but unless they are advocating for Islam, the most destructive religion on the planet, to be curtailed first, then they are hypocrites and fools.
The UN can be curtailed also.
Get to it, please President Trump.
Raze that fugly late 40s UN building and put something there with more attractiveness. (Perhaps a statue of the Hillabeast getting a pie in the face, or Dorkbama with a golf club up his......)
10”Many will be purged, purified and refined, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand. 11”From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.… Daniel
You all do realize Islam is the abomination, right?
is the UN going to curtail the muslim homophobia?
Didn’t think so.
One of many.
Note Mr. Muntarbhorn is fond of speaking of “entry points”, too. He certainly is not subtle as to hinting at his appetites.
I was born over fifty years ago; American by birth, Irish/Catholic by the grace of God. Born in the greatest country that ever existed - by any measure. A most glorious nation founded upon the principle that all men were created equal. The Founding Fathers understood themselves to be creatures, each one infinitely blessed by their Creator.
Sadly, that deontological tenet has increasingly been usurped by the social doctrines of our times; and this more than any other single factor has caused the incremental destruction we witness daily in our beloved ‘Nation under God’.
Liberty and justice for all cannot possibly be achieved by man. The Founders knew that man is utterly incapable of governing his fellow man justly, without adhering to God’s law. They all understood that the foundations for governmental justice and liberty must stem from the ultimate source of all justice and liberties, id est, Almighty God.
A quote from James Madison expressed their beliefs succinctly, “Any country not ruled by the Ten Commandments will be ruled by tyrants.”
June 25, 1962 Engle v. Vitale – The Supreme Court of The United States; led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, officially decided, “Prayer in school breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State.” How I wish we still had patriotic men like James Madison in our Nation’s Capital to bitchslap imbeciles like Justice Warren when necessary! Church and State were to coexist in a nation ruled by Judeo-Christian principles. The erroneous phrasing of ‘separation between Church and State’ altogether subverts the Founders declared purpose - Church was to be separated and exempted from governmental authority, as the Founders simply wanted to prohibit the government from imposing any religion on its citizens.
They clearly intended a separation between Church FROM State, and not strictly Church AND State.
The Founders envisioned a free republic, and they understood the arbitrary nature and travesty of King James establishing himself by law as de facto caliph in A.D. 1611. The Anglican Church was founded as a State Institution and as such, all subordinates of the King in all his territories were then members of the Church of England, not by choice; but by royal ordinance.
Being visionaries, the Founders recognized the need to guarantee our freedom to worship our Creator independently, and they were also men who publicly invoked God’s help every time they assembled. They did not foresee, nor would they have allowed, the formation of a society that might possibly enact laws forbidding Bibles and prayer.
BINGO...GET OUT OF THE UNITED NATIONS.
Thank God we got our constitution when we did!
America should stop worrying about things like this. As long as other Nations are not threatening or invading their neighbors, interfering with international commerce, or supporting terrorist organizations that operate internationally - who cares?
American tax dollars should not be spent to force other (perhaps well functioning) countries to adopt rules that some oddball group of busybody Thai transvestites desire.
It seems to me that one religion trying to take over another is what the Crusades were all about. The UN has never won a war yet so they are quite mouthy considering they are losers.
“soft entry points”? Vitit must be an expert on that.
Just the next stage in the plan for the LGBTQNSDAP. Now bake the cake.
“Ve are de Geystapo und ve haff veys to mek you sashay!”
Religious freedom is not an absolute. Thugs cannot physically attack others based on religion. However, religious freedom is an absolute protection against government compulsion. No free person can be compelled to act in violation of religious beliefs.
Peyote & polygamy come to mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.