UN passes unprecedented pro-family resolution, outraging radicals

[chrysostom]

There is no one single definition of what constitutes a "family." Which is why this resolution was opposed by a good chunk of the civilized world.

every child has a mother and a father

that is a family

Are you trolling, dim, or just nuts?

which part of my post don't you understand?

every child does have a mother and a father
and
that is considered a family

how could you not agree?

 

[aikido7]

Interesting development, indeed..... :think:



UN passes ‘unprecedented’ pro-family resolution, outraging sexual radicals

A pro-family resolution has been passed by the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva of “unprecedented” force and reach, thanks to a coalition of African and other developing countries, China and Russia and a support group of socially conservative NGOs.

“This is unprecedented, a tremendous victory for the family,” Sharon Slater, the head of Family Watch International, told LifeSiteNews. “It is the first time ever in the history of the United Nations that a comprehensive resolution has been passed calling for the protection of the family as a fundamental unit of society, recognizing the prior right of parents to educate their children, and calling on all nations to create family-sensitive policies and recognize their binding obligations under treaty to protect the family.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/u...o-family-resolution-outraging-sexual-radicals

I think the push-back on this important legislation comes from the alarm and fear many have about the reach of government.

Perhaps they feel threatened that their own private family life will be shown as illegal.

 

[kmoney]

Interesting development, indeed..... :think:



UN passes ‘unprecedented’ pro-family resolution, outraging sexual radicals

A pro-family resolution has been passed by the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva of “unprecedented” force and reach, thanks to a coalition of African and other developing countries, China and Russia and a support group of socially conservative NGOs.

“This is unprecedented, a tremendous victory for the family,” Sharon Slater, the head of Family Watch International, told LifeSiteNews. “It is the first time ever in the history of the United Nations that a comprehensive resolution has been passed calling for the protection of the family as a fundamental unit of society, recognizing the prior right of parents to educate their children, and calling on all nations to create family-sensitive policies and recognize their binding obligations under treaty to protect the family.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/u...o-family-resolution-outraging-sexual-radicals

I don't disagree with the resolution but what practical effects will this have? :idunno: I think most would agree that the family is a fundamental unit of society, but may disagree on what a 'family' is.

Is 'family-sensitive policies' code for no abortion and gay marriage? Something else?

 

[GFR7]

I think the push-back on this important legislation comes from the alarm and fear many have about the reach of government.

Perhaps they feel threatened that their own private family life will be shown as illegal.

You mean the progresives? I don't know, they would appear to be laughing the whole thing off. :idunno:

I don't disagree with the resolution but what practical effects will this have? I think most would agree that the family is a fundamental unit of society, but may disagree on what a 'family' is.

Is 'family-sensitive policies' code for no abortion and gay marriage? Something else?

I am sure it hints at these yes; also no third-party reproduction (surrogacy, sperm and egg donors).

 

[GFR7]

Didn't actually read about this before you started the OP did you?


it passed the human rights council committee without the inclusive amendment.

meaning that the Commissioner for Human Rights will draft a report on the status of the family and create a panel discussion on the topic for the September session of the Human Rights Council.

That's it.

Eric Metaxus (I became a huge fan of his in 2012)
in his Breakpoint commentary, "Which side of History is the US on?",
tells us:

. . . [L]ast week the UN Human Rights Council passed The Protection of the Family resolution.

Not surprisingly, the mainstream U. S. media ignored the story.

The resolution, approved by a vote of 27 to 14, urges member states to adopt laws and policies that support the family—yes, the family—definite article. It calls the family, “the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children.”

It goes on to insist that while governments have a place in protecting the human rights of all, “the family has primary responsibility for the nurturing and protection of children.”

While our country was splashing rainbows on government buildings to celebrate our un-defining of marriage and family, the global community was reaffirming God's created definition. It's an important moment that shows why, in the long run, federal judges cannot change the truth.

 

[TracerBullet]

Eric Metaxus (I became a huge fan of his in 2012)
in his Breakpoint commentary, "Which side of History is the US on?",
tells us:

. . . [L]ast week the UN Human Rights Council passed The Protection of the Family resolution.

Not surprisingly, the mainstream U. S. media ignored the story.

The resolution, approved by a vote of 27 to 14, urges member states to adopt laws and policies that support the family—yes, the family—definite article. It calls the family, “the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children.”

It goes on to insist that while governments have a place in protecting the human rights of all, “the family has primary responsibility for the nurturing and protection of children.”

While our country was splashing rainbows on government buildings to celebrate our un-defining of marriage and family, the global community was reaffirming God's created definition. It's an important moment that shows why, in the long run, federal judges cannot change the truth.

again all this does is compel the Commissioner for Human Rights to draft a report on the status of the family and create a panel discussion on the topic for the September session of the Human Rights Council.

Using the bold function doesn't change that

those countries voting against this wanted to include language recognizing that there are many forms of families. Those countries with horrific human rights records opposed that inclusion. (no surprise that you are applauding those countries)

 

[chrysostom]

there are many forms of families.

each child has a mother and father

that is a family

what can we do to keep them together?

 

[kmoney]

While our country was splashing rainbows on government buildings to celebrate our un-defining of marriage and family, the global community was reaffirming God's created definition. It's an important moment that shows why, in the long run, federal judges cannot change the truth.

When you think of the 'global community' is this the list of countries you'd come up with?

Yes (26): Algeria Benin Botswana Burkina Faso China Congo Cote d'Ivoire Ethiopia Gabon India Indonesia Kazakhstan Kenya Kuwait Maldives Morocco Namibia Pakistan Philippines Russian Federation Saudi Arabia Sierra Leone South Africa United Arab Emirates Venezuela Vietnam

 

[GFR7]

When you think of the 'global community' is this the list of countries you'd come up with?

Yes (26): Algeria Benin Botswana Burkina Faso China Congo Cote d'Ivoire Ethiopia Gabon India Indonesia Kazakhstan Kenya Kuwait Maldives Morocco Namibia Pakistan Philippines Russian Federation Saudi Arabia Sierra Leone South Africa United Arab Emirates Venezuela Vietnam

Ironic, isn't it? For the time-being, they're all we've got....

 

[GFR7]

each child has a mother and father

that is a family

what can we do to keep them together?

No, now that we've redefined family, some children have a sperm-donor for a Dad, or a surrogate paid womb for a mother, or two Moms, or two Dads, or several parents. It's ruined now.

 

[Granite]

I don't disagree with the resolution but what practical effects will this have? :idunno: I think most would agree that the family is a fundamental unit of society, but may disagree on what a 'family' is.

Is 'family-sensitive policies' code for no abortion and gay marriage? Something else?

Like virtually everything the UN does it'll have no practical effect whatsoever.

 

[Granite]

No, now that we've redefined family, some children have a sperm-donor for a Dad, or a surrogate paid womb for a mother, or two Moms, or two Dads, or several parents. It's ruined now.

By chrys's definition a child who doesn't know his father whose mother puts him up for adoption is still somehow part of a "family" unit based simply on birth.:yawn:

 

[Sancocho]

again all this does is compel the Commissioner for Human Rights to draft a report on the status of the family and create a panel discussion on the topic for the September session of the Human Rights Council.

Using the bold function doesn't change that

those countries voting against this wanted to include language recognizing that there are many forms of families. Those countries with horrific human rights records opposed that inclusion. (no surprise that you are applauding those countries)

With all due respect the US is among the worst Humans Rights abusers on the planets because of our homicide rate, which is that of a war.

 

[TracerBullet]

each child has a mother and father

that is a family

and it's certainly not the only form

 

[chrysostom]

each child has a mother and father

that is a family

what can we do to keep them together?

and it's certainly not the only form

what other form do you need?
if
each child has a mother and father
and
that is a family

why shouldn't we do what we can to keep them together?

 

[GFR7]

With all due respect the US is among the worst Humans Rights abusers on the planets because of our homicide rate, which is that of a war.

In many ways the US has violated human rights, at home, and abroad (did not used to be so true of us, but in recent decades, yes.)

 

[kmoney]

what other form do you need?
if
each child has a mother and father
and
that is a family

why shouldn't we do what we can to keep them together?

Is anyone saying we shouldn't?

Do you think gay marriage breaks them apart?

 

[GFR7]

Is anyone saying we shouldn't?

Do you think gay marriage breaks them apart?

Absolutely- there have been many, many articles and essays written, about how it will absolutely encourage the trend of divorce and cohabitation (not by preaching these, certainly, but by example : 2 men are avant garde and encourage further such trends - don't believe it? Too bad; it's true.)

 

[Rusha]

Absolutely- there have been many, many articles and essays written, about how it will absolutely encourage the trend of divorce and cohabitation (not by preaching these, certainly, but by example : 2 men are avant garde and encourage further such trends - don't believe it? Too bad; it's true.)

That's ridiculous ... divorce and cohabitation have been around for years. It wasn't the homosexuals who were divorcing ... or did you conveniently forget that?

 

[kmoney]

Absolutely- there have been many, many articles and essays written, about how it will absolutely encourage the trend of divorce and cohabitation (not by preaching these, certainly, but by example : 2 men are avant garde and encourage further such trends - don't believe it? Too bad; it's true.)

What is one of these articles?