Because this would make it clear that the rest of the world won't stand for it. As pathetically weak and unauthoritative as the UN is, it's still one of the largest international organizations in existance. And now they've made it clear, to everyone, that they'll take no action if you keep your backwards beliefs and have homosexuals killed by law. The only potential good that could come of this is to give decent countries yet another reason to leave the UN.
Well, the idea here is that, numerically, most of the rest of the world doesn't have a problem with standing for it. In terms of one-for-one represented governments anyway. And I can guarantee you that not a single country is going to boycott or leave the U.N. over this, because while it may have no power in itself, boycotting the U.N. tends to come off as worse than, say, voting to stop hand-wringing over executing gays. It's the quiescent honor of democracy, to stand by a vote even when you don't like the outcome. Campaign for the future yes, but not throw a pout over the present. I ain't no diplomat though.
When you take the economy in a direction that the opposition doesn't like, that's a time to stand by democracy.
When you limit the consumption of specific drugs because you see it to be wrong when the oppositon argues for them to be free, that's a time to stand by democracy.
When you feel that your electorates are simply not doing
enough, that's a time to stand by democracy.
When an international organization votes to do somthing that can obviously be interpreted as "Kill all the gays you want, we won't do anything!", that is not a time to stand by democracy, not in the UN at least. I know even the opposite decision wouldn't do much, but it would be
somthing.I don't think that decent nations should leave the UN because of this alone, by the way, just another addition to the list.
Author
Topic: Gay shenanigans at the UN (Read 10521 times)