Video: Why won’t Ban Ki-Moon talk about gay people?

posted at 2:04 pm on July 27, 2007 by Allahpundit

A surprisingly uneventful report from zombie given the cast and the location but the clip at the beginning is gold. Why won’t he talk about gay people? What does he have against talking about gay people?

If the head of the UN won’t talk about gay people, who will? Click the image to watch.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Stuck On Stupid

Comments

I like how they have that sign up calling Ban Ki-Moon “Your Excellency.”

Uh, no.

Mindcrime on July 27, 2007 at 2:12 PM

Et tu HA? “Gay” people? A MSM creation.

Some people have homosexual sex for psychological reasons. There are no gay people.

A banning offense?

JiangxiDad on July 27, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Why won’t Ban Ki-Moon talk about gay people?

Why wont Lindsay talk about drug use?

“…..what the meaning of IS, is.”

shooter on July 27, 2007 at 2:18 PM

Ban Ki-Moon is perhaps culturally not inclined to but they forgot to hand him the U.N. pc talking points to study. He’d better get with it or the world will ban him as unworthy of his function. What is the charter of the U.N.?

Entelechy on July 27, 2007 at 2:36 PM

Man I just new when they elected a new UN guy he would not talk about gay people. Tragic world!
Rush, Michelle, Dennis Miller just don’t talk about gay people enough.
What is up with that? Every time I come to this blog I have noticed a dearth of gay people threads.

I have not heard one peep about gay people from ~~Obama~~ Osama Bin Ladin.
Gandhi and Mother Teresa were loath to talk about gay people.

Now the UN won’t talk about gay people.

Our hopes are dashed.

TheSitRep on July 27, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Some people have homosexual sex for psychological reasons. There are no gay people.

The alternate view is that homosexuality is determined genetically. I am by no means a geneticist, but if the gay agenda were to be fully implemented, then wouldn’t that tend to eliminate homosexuality from the gene pool over time as the McGreevey’s of the world feel no need to hide in the closet posing as breeders? Gay marriage, gay adoption and general acceptance of homosexuality, with the exception of the use of non traditional means of fertilization to transmit genetic material, would all lead to a reduction in the reproduction of homosexuals. So wouldn’t the left’s gay agenda actually be a call for genocide?

rw on July 27, 2007 at 3:01 PM

I recommed we change all policies regarding gay people to SUNOGAF.

Shut Up, No One Gives A ****.

Under SUNOGAF, anyone crying out about how “open” or “oit of the closet” they are in the military will be sent home. You’re in a war zone. Shut Up, No One Gives A ****.

So You slept with 3 prostitutes last night? Under SUNOGAF, anyone bragging about potentially exposing themslevs to STD’s will be sent home. You’re in a war zone. Shut Up, No One Gives A ****.

You’re on the Supreme Court and you’re about to make a decision when a bunch of Rainbow Hippies enters and starts protesting. Under SUNOGAF, such displays to annoy others needlessly are strictly banned and their participants warded off with tazers. You’re agenda-driven hacks. Shut Up, No One Gives a ****.

You’re on the school board in Massachusetts and someone is trying to force kids to read idiotic fables about homosexual love. Under SUNOGAF, any book that promotes material not suitable for children (eg depicts luving arrangements other than one mother and one father as equally valid) will be expressly banned and whoever brings up the idea will be removed from the post. You’re post demands you protect children, not expose them to vice. Shut Up, No One Gives A ****.

BKennedy on July 27, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Not that there’s anything wrong with that……

ericire12 on July 27, 2007 at 3:13 PM

I recommed we change all policies regarding gay people to SUNOGAF

F’in A.

JiangxiDad on July 27, 2007 at 3:20 PM

This guy say gay people have no voice???

He’s apparently unfamiliar with the word, irony. I’ve never had a gay friend who was that irritating, and believe me, I’ve had some irritating friends.

Brian the sailor on July 27, 2007 at 3:34 PM

luving arrangements and SUNOGAF

2 Money quotes in the same post!

kiakjones on July 27, 2007 at 3:39 PM

The alternate view is that homosexuality is determined genetically.

rw on July 27, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Right. Here’s how it started: a pair of early human males, both carrying the homsexual gene, mated. Their offspring…no, wait, that doesn’t work. OK, try it again: an early human male and female, both carrying the homsexual gene, mated. Their offspring…no, that won’t work either.

What was that psychological theory?

stonemeister on July 27, 2007 at 3:42 PM

~~genocide~~

gay-nocide?

urbancenturion on July 27, 2007 at 3:46 PM

shooter on July 27, 2007 at 2:18 PM

No, “What is meatball?”

- The Cat

P.S. Looks around and walks away.

MirCat on July 27, 2007 at 3:47 PM

Seems to me that the self-extermination theory flies in the face of thousands of years of homosexual conduct.

As for the term “gay,” I refuse to use it. Semantics are the tool of self-deception, and of the normalization of that which is, otherwise, abnormal.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 27, 2007 at 4:14 PM

I recently read an article in Psychology Today called “Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature.” While it did not talk about homosexuality, its discussion of “Humans are naturally polygamous” (Politically Incorrect Truth #2) may provide support for a sound, evolution-theory-compatible explanation for homosexuality.

The article states that not only is polygamy natural in human societies (and extant in some current societies) but that, genetically, polygyny (the more common form of polygamy) is bad for men because polygyny leaves many men without a chance to mate at all. This causes increased competition among males in such societies and some unmarried males resort to violence to gain access to mates.

If, however (and what follows is my own thought, not the article’s), strong, powerful, attractive males in polygynous societies that, then, have many mates produce some male offspring that accept other males or even prefer other males as mates, violence would be lessened and the mating children of such a male would have a better chance to survive (due to less local violence) than the offspring of males that produce heterosexual only children in a polygynous society.

So, in a polygynous society, homosexuality still is not a survival trait for the individual, but the ability to produce both heterosexual and homosexual children may be a survival trait, giving the heterosexual children a greater chance to reproduce a second generation due to a decrease in violent competition for multiple female mates.

I guess my point is that evolution may be able to rationally explain the existence of homosexuality.

Jens on July 27, 2007 at 4:30 PM

Why do homosexual woman usually act like loud mouthed men, and homosexual men often sound like loud mouthed women?

The U.N. should drop him off somewhere in Iran to get some perspective of homosexual’s rights before they hang him from a crane.

I think that guy is cranky since he’s having a bad body day.

Hening on July 27, 2007 at 4:36 PM

I’ll do the job Ban Ki-Moon won’t do. He doesn’t want to talk about gays, so I will…

I find it ridiculous that anyone believes the connection between sex and reproduction is just a coincidence, as you would have to to accept that “homosexuality” is a real/natural thing (as opposed to a conscious choice). Sex, and the uniquely designed (or evolved if that’s your thing) body parts used in it are created (or evolved if that’s your thing) for reproduction. They serve that purpose, and for anyone to accept gays, is to not think critically because you’re treating the sex/reproduction connection as just a mere coincidence, by trying to say that male/male and female/female sex and attraction makes any natural sense (unless of course you have evidence of natural pregnancies occurring in these situations.

RightWinged on July 27, 2007 at 4:42 PM

Why won’t Banky Moon talk about Ron Paul people?

km on July 27, 2007 at 4:47 PM

These SF dudes make a good point. Ki-Moon should be talking about homosexuality. If we are to avoid the war with Islam–which I’m 99% certain will happen–our only hope is create our own fifth columns within mulsim societies. Gay groups are a natural opposition group to muslim fundamentalists. Ki-Moon and the president of the United States should be proudly pointing out the relative decent treatment of gays in the West and prosperous East to help gin up the internal opposition to Islamic fundamentalist regimes.

We must help encourage the “moral decay” of Islamic societies. Actually, gay rights has been the one moral advance of the past thirty years in the age of overall moral decline.

thuja on July 27, 2007 at 5:15 PM

Kanye West doesn’t care about gay people.

saint kansas on July 27, 2007 at 5:50 PM

Looks like someone ran out of View clips.

Timber Wolf on July 27, 2007 at 6:40 PM

What does he have against talking about gay people?

No, no, you got it all wrong Allahpundit. It’s the RIGHTS that he won’t talk about — the gay RIGHTS.

Hmmm. Maybe is it’s because he’s MORE concerned about the RIGHTS of South Koreans who are trying to stay alive while providing medical services and humanitarian aid to Muslims in Afghanistan.

CyberCipher on July 27, 2007 at 6:55 PM

Why won’t Ban Ki-Moon talk about gay people?

–

cuz he’s busy talking about Global Warming like the Gubinator?

normsrevenge on July 27, 2007 at 7:43 PM

Who is impressed by these kinds of outbursts? Every time I see this crap I have less and less empathy for their concerns.

It’s like…shut up and live your life, and until you are publicly flogged, I don’t want to hear about it.

csdeven on July 27, 2007 at 7:43 PM