UN Institutes Same-Sex Benefit Plan: Entitlement based on Laws in Country of Origin NEW YORK, October 8, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The United Nations instituted its same-sex benefit package last Friday. Partners of employees in same-sex arrangements are now eligible for pension and health benefits if their country of origin also recognizes their cohabitation as either a civil union or a "marriage."

A number of Islamic and African nations spoke vehemently against the measure noting that their nations objected to funding such measures. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, a 57-country-strong lobby, said it was "seriously concerned about extending the scope of the family," according to an AP report.

"A legally recognized domestic partnership contracted by a staff member under the law of the country of his or her nationality will also qualify that staff member to receive the entitlements provided for eligible family members," the new UN directive states.

During debate over same-sex benefits in March, Sandra Haji-Ahmed, Officer-in-Charge of the Office of United Nations Human Resources Management, argued in defence of same-sex benefits, comparing it to polygamous marriages, where benefits are granted to all spouses. She told Committee members, "Polygamous marriages are not questioned by the Organization when they were valid under the national laws of Member States. The Organization makes no value judgement on that type of marriage -- it accepted it as a fact." She explained that UN staff who were polygamous could have all their spouses receive benefits.

Read related LifeSiteNews.com reports: Homosexual Activism Pits Third World and Vatican against UN Secretariat, Canada and EU http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/040 31603.html UN: Don't Worry About our Support for Gay 'Marriage'; We Support Polygamy Too http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/040 32301.html

-- - (David@excite.com), October 16, 2004

Answers

...

-- .... (.@....), October 16, 2004.

Yet another reason to pull out of the UN....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 16, 2004.

You guys seem to have missed the point about the UN. The UN was never supposed to be a means of subverting every other country to the USA. It's a UNION of all the nations of the world and it's bound to respect the laws of each member nation except when they conflict with basic human rights.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 17, 2004.

Wrong. The UN was set up to prevent war and genocide. Which the UN has failed to do since it's enseption. The liberals in the UN have taken the focus off of preventing war and genocide and put it on abortion and same-sex unions. The UN no longer performs its basic function. If the UN did its job properly we wouldn't have problems with Korea, India & Pakistan, Darfor, or the Balkans.

It was a nice dream, but it just doesn't work when liberals go at try to promote a agenda of sex.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), October 17, 2004.

“Wrong. The UN was set up to prevent war and genocide.”

Absolutely. That certainly does not make what I said “wrong”. In fact, respecting the laws of its member countries is one of the chief ways the UN has achieved its aims. The UN has prevented a lot of war, and most notably held off World War III for 59 years, but sometimes when a superpower is determined on war and snubs its nose at the UN, the UN can’t stop it. That’s hardly the UN’s fault.

“If the UN did its job properly we wouldn't have problems with Korea” If it wasn’t for the UN, the whole of Korea would be ruled by the Stalinist tyrant Kim.

The UN has spent maybe 0.1% of its time, money and effort on promoting abortion and 0.01% on promoting same-sex unions. That doesn’t cancel out the good work it does with the other 99.89%.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 18, 2004.

while ya'll argue away about how the UN is still useless now as much as any time in the last ten years, how about this:

A number of Islamic and African nations spoke vehemently against the measure

why are the christian nations not speaking up as well? where are we that the muslims and the africans are the ones defending basic human morality while we sit idly by?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 19, 2004.

Paul, I think you’ll find that many of those African nations who objected are predominantly Christian. In this and many other ways they are showing the lead to the countries which have been Christian for centuries. The sad fact is that Christianity has virtually no influence on most western countries.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 19, 2004.

The UN has prevented a lot of war, and most notably held off World War III for 59 years

Steve, is it your position that the UN "held off" war between the US and USSR during the Cold War period?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 20, 2004.

If it wasn’t for the UN, the whole of Korea would be ruled by the Stalinist tyrant Kim.

So the UN has been the only thing keeping Kim from invading the South? I guess its either that or the 37,000 American troops stationed in S. Korea since the 50's.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 20, 2004.

Yes that’s my “position” Brian. I may have missed reading the papers a few days, but I’m sure I would have heard about it if the USSR had attacked the USA. They didn’t, that’s why we called it a COLD war.

Actually the North Koreans invaded the South twice while the US had thousands of troops there. What stopped them and their USSR and Red Chinese backers from doing it again was the fact that to do so would mean attacking the UN. That was the difference between Korea and Vietnam. The North Vietnamese and their USSR backers attacked the South with no international consequences for themselves, even though there were thousands of US troops in South Vietnam, because they were not UN troops.

What keeps North Korea from invading the south now since its former backers have withdrawn their support, is the fact that, in contrast to the 1950s, the South has now grown far stronger than the North and any attack by the North would be national suicide.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 20, 2004.

Steve,

I thought after your illegal alien posts that nothing you could say would shock me. Shame on me. For you to say that the UN kept the USA and USSR from attacking each other is....I'm at a loss for words. Mind-boggling doesn't cut it.

As far as Korea goes, if you want to attribute 50+ years of "peace" since then to the UN, go ahead. I'm not surprised. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the American troops there. I do agree that the South is stronger now. That's why the US is pulling their troops out next year. Its time for the South to take the training wheels off.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 20, 2004.

Gee Brian I had no idea you were so easily shocked and mind-boggled. Have you got some alternative explanation why the N Vietnamese invaded S Vietnam despite the US troops there, while N Korea did not invade S Korea?

I’m not saying the existence of the UN was the ONLY thing preventing the superpowers from making direct war on each other, but it certainly helped. And seeing that, as Scott mentioned above, the primary stated purpose of the UN's founders was to save succeeding generations from the catastrophic world wars which had brought untold misery to the world twice in their generation, they have to be given some credit. But for some reason you and a couple of others here have developed a strange mindset where you are able to see the UN, and all its works, only as instruments of Satan.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 20, 2004.