Islamic world urged to stand against Western-style human rights
Tehran, May 15, IRNA
Iran-Larijani-Human Rights
Secretary of the Human Rights Headquarters of Iran's Judiciary Mohammad-Javad Larijani called on all Islamic states on Thursday to stand against the Western-style human rights.
Addressing a local gathering of judiciary officials, Larijani criticized the West's interpretation from the human rights.
He stated that after the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, the country committed to fulfill international undertakings on human rights.
Iran has decided to fulfill those international commitments in accordance to its interest as an Islamic country, stressed the official.
He explained, \"Tehran's strategy is to conform international commitments on human rights to the Islamic concepts and then enforce\" them nationwide.
According to Larijani, only 20 percent of the international documents signed by Iran on human rights, were different, in words, from Islamic concepts.
\"80 percent of international documents signed by Iran on the human rights issue are not literally different from Islamic principles,\" Larijani said.
It would be interesting to know what the difference is between Human Rights and \"Islamic\" human rights are. What's the 20% difference? Ahmedinejad's non-existant homosexuals?
'No homosexuals in Iran': Ahmadinejad
Sep 24, 2007
NEW YORK (AFP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad skirted a question about the treatment of homosexuals in Iran on Monday, saying in a speech at a top US university that there were no gays in Iran.
\"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country,\" Ahmadinejad said to howls and boos among the Columbia University audience.
\"In Iran we do not have this phenomenon, I don't know who has told you that we have it,\" he said.
Ahmadinejad was challenged during his appearance on Amnesty International figures that suggested that 200 people had been executed in Iran so far this year, among them homosexuals.
\"Don't you have capital punishment in the United States? You do too. In Iran there is capital punishment,\" he said.
I'd... say this is somewhat accurate. Well, a very small number homosexuals anyway. Because homosexuality is punishable by death:
1: If homosexuality isn't genetic, then nobody wants to be homosexual. (IMO, anyone that's stupid enough to become gay and be open about it when it's punishable by death deserves to die anyway)
2: If homosexuality is genetic, the the gene would've died out via executions.
Not that I'm arguing homosexuality is genetic. Just that that's a bad argument that it isn't. Natural selection hasn't managed to eliminate a disease which is already rare and which, without fail, kills you by age 5. Not even with a lot of intelligent selection (screening) helping out. We shouldn't be too bold in our assumptions about how it would be expected to cope with a much more benign condition.
Spidey wrote:If it is genetic I think it would have to be carried by hetrosexuals, because gays are still pretty much non reproductive.
Or homosexuals forced into trying to be hetrosexuals because society doesn't want them to be gay. Which explains why even homophobic people who believe homosexuality is genetic would vote yes on gay marriage: it stops them from reproducing!
I still say it isn't genetic, or at least not genetic enough to be a major factor anyway.
are you trying to get us to go 'kill all the muslims' or what? have you got some sort of agenda against islam?
No i ain't defending islam so get that friggin thought out of your head right now.
but really dude.. there has got to be a reason that's more than just 'stop the radicals' here. I'm thinking it's gotta be some kind of deep-seated issue.
Then according to the argument that any homosexuals in Iran would keep it to themselves would mean that many would take wives and have children to complete the facade. This would mean that if homosexuality is a trait passed down by genetics, that there would be just as many homosexuals if not more in Iran or any country that strongly opposed it.
In fact, the stronger the attitude against, the more pressing the need to convince those around you of your heterosexuality, therefore the greater number of children.
SuperSheep wrote:Then according to the argument that any homosexuals in Iran would keep it to themselves would mean that many would take wives and have children to complete the facade. This would mean that if homosexuality is a trait passed down by genetics, that there would be just as many homosexuals if not more in Iran or any country that strongly opposed it.
By definition, being homosexual means that you're not all that interested in the opposite sex. The majority of these people don't end up marrying one and having children with them. As in, they'd prefer to just be alone than to do that. Bisexual, however, is a different agenda.
Just because they are homosexual, does not mean they want people perceiving them as such. In this country, there is a more tolerant attitude and hence homosexuality is more \"acceptable\" but you go back a few decades in our countries history, you would find many homosexuals that had wives and children and led the \"Brady Bunch\" lifestyle (props to who gets the relationship.)
In countries where homosexuality is not accepted or even punished, you'll find more of the attitude of having the happy hetero family while secretly leading a double life as a homosexual.
Perhaps you think that anyone who has a wife and children can not be homosexual but homosexuality and sexuality in general is not just about who you sleep with. It's what defines you as an individual. Many homosexuals do not like \"gays\" or the \"gay lifestyle\" and actually prefer the nuclear family. They also prefer having sex with the same sex.
You need to broaden your view of homosexuality and sexuality in general to understand that being \"gay\" does not equate to living a homosexual life.
... I wish we had the strikeout feature back.
