What’s Behind the War against Religion
Even before Obamacare passed and was signed into law, there were fears that the sweeping powers given to the Secretary of Health and Human Services would lead to abuses. The mandate issued by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that all women must be covered – without a co-pay—for contraceptive services, sterilization, and the morning after pill confirmed these fears. The refusal of the Catholic Bishops to go along with a mandate which would force religious employers to violate their convictions by funding insurance coverage for services deemed immoral has precipitated a battle over freedom of religion. The accommodation offered by the administration did nothing to satisfy those who see the entire mandate as an unconstitutional assault on first amendment guarantees.
In the discussion of the mandate, there has been little or no focus on why the administration would risk so much to push mandatory ‘free’ (that is fully covered by insurance, without a co-pay) ‘preventive services,’ which it knows are unacceptable to Catholic institutions. This mandate is not an isolated incident. The war on religion has been going on for years. It is waged by a loose coalition of sexual right advocates, radical feminists, environmentalists for population control, and GLBTQ (gay lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and queer) activists — the Sexual Left. The coalition includes the Sex Information and Education Council of the US (SIECUS), Planned Parenthood, ACLU, GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network,) Human Rights Campaign, NOW, Population Council, Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) and numerous other NGOs
While each group has its own particular agenda, they are united in their ultimate goal: absolute sexual freedom – more sex and fewer babies. They want to encourage everyone to seek sexual pleasure any way they desire, alone or with others, regardless of the sex, number, age, relationship, or favored behaviors, including prostitution, along with absolute freedom for sexually oriented businesses, so long as consent of the participants is obtained, and all this without fear, shame, or public disapproval. Since absolute sexual freedom spreads sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and leads to the conception of unplanned pregnancies and out-of-wedlock births, condoms, contraception, abortion, and effective treatment for STDs are necessities and should be universally available for free or at little cost. The mandate furthers this agenda.
In order to effect the changes in attitude necessary to secure their objectives and hide the negative consequences of their agenda, the Sexual Left insists that all children, starting from their first year in school, receive Comprehensive Sexuality Education, which promotes sexual experimentation, masturbation, and the GLBTQ agenda. Comprehensive Sexuality Education teaches children how to avail themselves of condoms, contraceptives, the morning after pill, and abortion. They want parents prohibited from removing their children from these programs, or even from receiving prior notification about the content of the materials or presentations. The full scope of what the Sexual Left has in mind for children, can be found in the SIECUS Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education.[1] Explicit examples of this type of education can be found on a video produce by the American Life League, entitled “Hooking Kids on Sex.”[2]
It should be pointed out that Comprehensive Sexuality Education is, not comprehensive since it misrepresents or ignores the benefits of chastity before marriage and fidelity in marriage, the evidence that same-sex attraction and gender identity disorder are preventable and treatable and change of sexual orientation is possible, the real risks of disease and sterility, and the psychological, emotional, and social consequences of promiscuity and abortion.
The Sexual Left knows that religious institutions object to this agenda and therefore they are committed to doing everything possible to thwart religious influences and turn people of faith into second class citizens..
The Sexual Left demands that all laws which impede absolute sexual freedom be repealed or declared a violation of newly invented ‘sexual and reproductive rights.’ To achieve these ends, the Sexual Revolutionaries they have recruited the media, professional organizations, the United Nations bureaucracy, and various political leaders, who may or may not be aware of their ultimate objectives.
Philosophical Roots
It is important to understand that the hardcore Sexual Leftists are not Liberals; they reject the traditional liberal commitment to tolerance. Their ideological roots are firmly planted in the works of Karl Marx. In order to understand their tactics it helps to go back to the original assertion by Marx that all history is the history of class struggle, an eternal conflict between the oppressed and the oppressor. The goal of the Marxist revolution is overthrow the oppressors and assumption of absolute power by the oppressed. On the way to this goal, the oppressed must first identify themselves as victims of oppression. According to the Marxist world view, oppressors no rights; all rights belong to the oppressed. There is no tolerance for those labeled oppressors and that includes all people of faith who reject the agenda of the Sexual Left. Marxist radicals talk about diversity and multiculturalism, but this is a ploy. The only diversity they respect is variety within their own coalition. To hide their own intolerance, they engage in incessant name calling, labeling their opposition as bigots, racist, sexists, homophobes, and the latest insult — transphobes.
Radical feminism should not be confused with regular non-radical feminism which pushed for removal of restrictions on women rights and professional aspirations. Radical feminism applies a Marxist view of class struggle to the relationship between men and women. According to Radical Feminist theory, the first class struggle was between men and women. Men used the fact that only women could become pregnant to oppress women. Therefore, only when men and women can engage in sex without fear of pregnancy, will women be liberated. Motherhood is the enemy of liberation and contraception and abortion essential for the revolution.[3] Since men are the class enemy, lesbianism is a statement of political solidarity.[4]
Marxists have never been deterred by the pain their revolutions cause to the ‘victims’ they claim to be liberating. Radical feminists know the suffering their revolution has caused — the psychological damage done by abortion and promiscuity, the plague of STDs and infertility, the burden of single motherhood — they just use that pain to claim victimhood and further their agenda.
The GLBTQ activists also use Marxist theory to claim the status of sexual minorities (and therefore victims) and demand special protection. To understand the extent of the GLBTQ demands, one has only to reference the Yogyakarta Principles.[5] In 2006 representatives from NGOs, self-styled experts in sexual rights, met inYogyakarta,Indonesia in 2006 to call for elimination of all restrictions based on ‘sexual orientation or gender identity.’ Gender identity is defined as:
“… each persons deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance of function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms…”
According to these ‘principles,’ governments and individuals would have to pretend that a man dressed up like a woman (whether or not he was surgically altered) was a woman.
Those pushing this agenda talk about the problem of violence, but their real goal is to stigmatize anyone who says anything negative about GLBTQ persons or behavior, to redefine marriage, to fund so-called sex change operations, to marginalize people of faith, and to win over the next generation. They demand that governments at every level to:
“Ensure that education methods, curricula and resources serve to enhance understanding of and respect for, inter alia, diverse sexual orientations and gender identities.”[6]
In other words, all schools would be forced to promote the GLBTQ agenda at all levels. The Yogyakarta Principles also call on states to:
“Ensure that the exercise of freedom of opinion and expression does not violate the rights and freedoms of persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities.”[7]
One of the rights of GLBTQ persons are claiming is the right not to have their feelings hurt, thus any speech (particularly the statement of religious doctrines) which makes them feel bad would be outlawed as hate speech.
To understand the commitment of the Obama administration to the Sexual Left’s agenda, consider the appointment of Chai Feldblum, an openly lesbian woman, as a Commissioner Of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In a 2006 article entitled “Moral Conflict andLiberty: Gay Rights and Religion,” she wrote:
”Protecting one groups’ identity liberty may at times, require that we burden others’ belief liberty…But in dealing with this conflict, I believe it is essential that we not privilege moral beliefs that are religiously based over other sincerely held core, moral beliefs. Laws passed pursuant to public policies may burden the belief liberty of those who adhere to either religious or secular beliefs.”[8]
In the article she acknowledges that the demands of GLBTQ persons will necessarily impinge on freedom of religion, but it is clear from the examples she presents that, except in very narrow areas, she believes that in a conflict between gay rights and freedom of religion, freedom of religion should lose. This kind of thinking clearly undergirds the Obama administration’s “accommodation” on the health care mandate. Freedom of religion is to be restricted in order to promote a woman’s supposed right to free sterilization, abortifacients, and contraception. Such a right is not found in the Constitution nor was it explicitly stated in the Obamacare legislation. There is no right to free health care, let alone free contraceptive services.
Furthermore, the first amendment makes it clear that religious beliefs shall be privileged. The First Amendment does not call for balance, and the preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it clear that the founders feared the kind of abuse of power we see from the current administration:
“The conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added… Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech…”
The agenda of the Sexual Left is sweeping and comprehensive. For too long the defenders of freedom have been fighting a brush fire here and an incursion there and have not organized together to go after the entire agenda. The Obama mandate has brought the issue to the fore. It is long past time that the agenda of Sexual Left be exposed and targeted directly. Freedom of religion is not something to be “balanced” or accommodated; we need a comprehensive legislative initiative which will make this clear.
[1] Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwche/Sex%20ed%20class/guidelines.pdf.
[2] American Life League, “Hooking Kids on Sex.’ http://www.youtube.com/v/nZix2Nm0fKw.
[3] Nancy Julia Chodorow, The Reproduction of Motherhood: Univerity of CA Press, Los Angles CA, 1978); Shulamith Firestone The Dialectic of Sex, (Farrar Straus Giroux, NY, 1970.
[4] Charlotte Bunch, “Lesbians in revolt.” The Furies: Lesbian/Feminist Monthly, (1972, January). Retrieved July 9, 2009 from http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/furies/.
[5] Yogyakarta Principles: Principles on the application of international human rights law
in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity: (2006) http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/principles_en.pdf.
[6]Yogyakarta Principle, 16 d.
[7]Yogyakarta Principle, 19 e.
[8] Chai R. Feldblum, “Moral Conflict andLiberty: Gay Rights and Religion,”GeorgetownUniversityLawCenter, (2006) http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/80
The Cost of Obama’s Global Initiative Fund
The Obama administration is setting up a Global Initiative Fund is to put pressure on religious groups and developing countries to change their views on homosexuality. The teachings of the great religions on homosexual acts are not based on fear or ignorance, but on a clear understanding of the truth about the human person, human development, health, and marriage. These teachings cannot be changed and the Obama administration surely knows this. So what is their goal? Simple: to marginalize people of faith.
If opposition to the GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered] agenda is considered the equivalent of racism and a manifestation of ‘homophobia,’ bigotry and hatred, then even if members of religions which reject the GLBT agenda are allowed to continue to hold such beliefs, they would become second class citizens in their own country, unable to participate as equals in political debate or public action. This is the true goal of Obama’s Global Initiative Fund.
In her Dec. 6 speech on human rights announcing the Fund, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argued that “as long as LGBT people are kept in the shadows, there cannot be an effective public health program to tackle HIV and AIDS.” The facts do not support this statement. In the U.S., LGBT people are no longer in the shadows, but thirty years into the AIDS epidemic, there is still no effective public health program in place to prevent new infections. When the Obama administration pushes developing countries to embrace total tolerance of GLBT behavior, they do not mention the cost of tolerance of the ‘gay’ behavior, a cost that a rich country may be able to pay, but one developing countries may not want to shoulder. Each year in the U.S.approximately 30,000 men who have sex with men (MSM) are infected with HIV by other MSM, and 6,000 die. Currently, it is estimated that in the U.S. 500,000 MSM are HIV positive. Drug therapy can prolong the life of those infected for an average of 24 extra years at an estimated total cost of $618,900 per person.[1]
In the court of public opinion it is important that developing countries be equipped to defend their public policy regarding certain types of behavior with scientific evidence. The following information may help in this effort.
Understanding the Behavior of MSM
In order to formulate effective public policy and just laws, it is necessary to understand the behavior in question, even though for many, discussion of such behavior is distasteful. Over the centuries, MSM have engaged in four different kinds of behavior.
MM -Manual Masturbation, which can be either one man doing it to another or it is mutual.
IC – Intercrural that is intercourse between the thighs
G/O – genital/oral
G/A – genital/anal
It should be noted that the ancient Greeks, who are often referred to as a model for gay culture, restricted “their sexual activity to a single mode of copulation: ‘intercrural’ or intercourse between the thighs.”[2]
Before WWII, the most common male to male genital activity was G/O, not between two men who self-identified as gay, fairies or queer, but between such men and men who were straight (had no same sex attraction). George Chauncy, author of Gay New York and a self-identified gay man, writes about the situation during this period:
“Many fairies and queers socialized into prewar homosexual culture considered the ideal sexual partner to be ‘trade,’ a ‘real man,’ that is, ideally a sailor, or soldier, or some other embodiment of the aggressive masculine ideal, who was neither homosexually interested nor effeminately gendered himself but who would accept sexual advances of a queer. The centrality of effeminacy to the definition of the fairy in the dominant cultural enabled trade to have sex with both the queers and fairies without risking being labeled queer themselves as so long as they maintained a masculine demeanor and sexual role.” [3]
”For many ‘fairies and ‘queers of this era, having sex with (ideally) straight partners was so much what being queer was about that they were turned off at the very thought of having sex with each other.”[4]
“… among young, working-class straights there appears to have been little or no stigma attached to such activity, as long as you remained sexually disinterested in your ‘fairy’ partner and were never penetrated.”[5]
The risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease by participating in MM or IC is virtually nil and while G/O does pose a risk for certain STDs, the rate of infection among the participants in the straight/fairy encounters was low.
However, after WWII, there was a major change from the division of men into ‘fairies’ and ‘normal men’ to a division of men into ‘homosexuals’ and ’heterosexuals,’ based on the sex of their sexual partners. This represented a sea change in the public perception of homosexuality.[6] According to Foucault, author of The History of Sexuality who died of AIDS in 1984, “The sodomite has been a temporary aberration: the homosexual was now a species.”[7]
Gabriel Rotello, a self-identified gay men, who traced the history of this change in his book Sexual Ecology, writes that today, it is commonly believed that “any man who desires sex with another man is inherently ‘homosexual’ no matter what role he plays during sex and regardless of his gender identity or outward mannerism.”[8] Thus starting in the 1950’s MSM restricted their sexual activity almost entirely to other MSM. They also switched their preferred activity from G/O to G/A. Although some STDs, such as gonorrhea, can be spread by G/O, it is a relatively inefficient way to spread HIV. G/A on the other hand is an open door for scores of STDs, including HIV.
In the 1970s in major cities like New York City and San Francisco a gay subculture was established, centered around bathhouses where men could have G/A with a number of different men during the same visit. Promiscuity – that is multiple concurrent parents – became the norm among this population. Because an individual man often was both an inserter and recipient, infections spread rapidly, Once the Human Immunodeficiency Virus entered a bathhouse, a massive epidemic was inevitable.
While MM and IC may be frowned upon and prohibited by religious or cultural norms whether these activities are engaged in by men who self-identify as ‘straight’ or ‘gay,’ G/O and to an even greater extent G/A are a proven threat to health. Developed countries have the resources to deal with the health care needs of MSM who have contracted one or often more than one STDs, developing countries have limited healthcare resources and therefore have every reason to stigmatize and even outlaw behaviors proven to spread chronic and incurable diseases.
Those who argue that the epidemic of STDs, including HIV/AIDS, among MSM has been exacerbated by intolerance and the lack of acceptance are ignoring the massive evidence to the contrary. In major urban areas such asSan FranciscoCAandNew York City, where tolerance and acceptance are highest, where education is pervasive and condoms easily available, the epidemic continues unabated.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, a MSM is 44 to 86 times more likely to become HIV positive than a man who does not.
Rotello tried unsuccessful to warn his community about the risks involved in their promiscuous behavior. He encouraged gay men to enter faithful relationships and to switch from G/A to G/O, but his advice was summarily rejected. If anything in the thirty years since the beginning of the epidemic, the gay activists have become even more strident in the defense of their high risk behavior.
In 1997 Rotello looked to the future and wrote:
“Who wants to encourage their kids to engage in a life that exposes them to a 50 percent chance of HIV infection? Who even wants to be neutral about such a possibility? If the rationale behind the social tolerance of homosexuality is that it allows gay kids an equal shot at the pursuit of happiness, that rationale is hopelessly undermined by an endless epidemic that negates happiness.”[9]
Unfortunately, the current US administration not only wants to encourage their own children to engage in such a life, but insists on pressuring other countries to do the same.
The history of the HIV epidemic and failure of current prevention strategies is carefully documented in a paper entitled The Syndemic of STDs among MSM, which is available on request. The paper recommends prevention and treatment of same-sex attraction in men as the best way to deal with the problem. Developing countries need to consider the cost in lives and treasure of ‘tolerating’ disease spreading-behaviors before succumbing to pressure to change long-established laws and customs.
[1] ____ “Got HIV? Lifetime Cost $618,900” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/02/health/webmd/main2146542.shtml
[2] Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology, (Dutton: NY, 1997) p. 224.
[3] George Chauncy, Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture and the Making of the Gay Male World 1890 -1940 (Basic Books: :NY, 1994) p. 16
[4] Chauncy, p. 21-22.
[5] Rotello, p.41.
[6] Rotello, p.51.
[7] Michel Foucault History of sexuality Vol. 1 An Introduction, (Vintage 1990, p’ 43.
[8] Rotello, p. 51.
[9] Rotello, p. 286.
Hack Attack
Dear Friends,
Someone has been trying to hack my email account and my blog. Such attempts make me feel vulnerable especially when I consider how much I depend on email.
So if I don’t reply promptly to an email or blog response, it may be because I am being blocked. If you see something on my blog that doesn’t sound like me, it probably isn’t. If you get an email saying that I am stranded aboard and have lost my passport and need you to send me $6,000, DON’T RESPOND. If a Nigerian widow offers you a million dollars to help with a money transfer and uses my name, DON’T BELIVE IT.
It is sad, but to be expected, each new technology is accompanied by new forms of crime.
May heaven protect us all.
Artificial ‘GLBT Rights’
On Dec. 6, 2011 Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton have a speech in which she presented to Obama administration Global Equality Fund, a new initiative designed to push the GLBT agenda in other countries. It is true that all human beings are entitled to human rights. All self-identified GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered) persons are human beings; therefore, all self-identified GLBT persons have those human rights with which we are endowed by our creator. The problem is that self-identified GLBT persons are demanding legal recognition of things which are not a human right, but a perversion of the concept.
In her speech Sec. Clinton referenced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document certainly provides a foundation for any discussion of human rights. All but three of its articles specifically refer to the rights which are proper to “everyone.” However there are three articles were the designation is more specific:
Article 16: Men and women … have the right to marry and found a family… The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.
Article 24 Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care
Article 25:…Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children…
In UDHR, the family is defined as the “natural and fundamental unit of society.” What is meant by “natural” in this context? Surely, it is a unit consisting of a man and woman united in marriage and their children.
The opposite of natural is artificial. Two persons of the same sex cannot naturally form a family and conceive children. If they want to conceive a child, they must resort to artificial mean and the child is biologically be the offspring of only one of them. There is no universal human “right” to that which is by its nature artificial. It is important to note that some of those conceived by artificial insemination donor are coming of age and protesting the procedures by which they were conceived. Elizabeth Marquart in her report “My Daddy’s Name is Donor,” has studied the effects on the children conceived by artificial means and found that many of them feel cheated by the process. One them asked a ”What right have you to do this?” These children now adults want to know who their fathers are. There is no gay right to create permanently and purposefully fatherless or motherless children. Yet when “GLBT rights’ laws have been passed those who refused to provide reproductive technology services or adoption to same-sex couples were accused of discrimination and driven out of business. The right of the children to know and be raised by their biological father and mother should prevail. When this is not possible because of death, divorce or desertion, it is a tragedy. There is no ‘right’ to make a tragedy.
Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. There is no ‘right’ to change the definition of marriage from its natural form, to cover the relationship between two persons of the same-sex. The simple fact is that the relationship between two persons of the same-sex is not equal to that of a man and a woman. Two persons of the same sex cannot consummate the relationship, they cannot through the marital act conceive a child. Pope Benedict XVI recently supported this understanding of family, when he said “pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself.”
Parents’ right to choose the education of their children supersedes the right of the state or the right of GLBT activists to force their agenda on students required to attend publically funded educational institutions, but this is what has happened inMassachusettsandCalifornia. Children starting in the earliest years against the specific will of their parents and in contravention of the parents moral and religious convictions are being subjected to GLBT indoctrination.
Human rights are based on the truth about the human person. No one has the ‘right’ to change their sex, because you can’t have a right to something which is impossible. Although a person may through radical surgery, hormone treatments, cosmetic procedures, hair styles and clothing choices appear as other than the sex he or she was born, that person has not “changed” sex. No government, organization or individual should be forced to pretend that persons who have undergone various alterations have actually changed their sex. Governments should not be forced to change identification documents. Where this pretend ‘right’ to change sex’ has been established in a jurisdiction, deeply troubled children with gender identity disorder, rather than being given the counseling they need, are encouraged to begin the process of transition before entering puberty – a process that if continued involves a life-time of hormone treatments, irreversible physical changes, a loss of the ability to have children, mutilating surgeries, and hiding the reality of their true sexual identity. Their schools and classmates are forced to go along with the charade.
Those pushing “GLBT rights” talk about equality, but laws which restrict marriage to male/female couples treat everyone equally. Each person has the right to marry a person of the other sex. A man who has been surgically altered and given hormones, may want to believe he is a woman, but he is not equal to a natural woman. He cannot conceive and bear a child, he has never experienced a monthly cycle. It is interesting to note it is not just conservatives who don’t believe in sex changes. Radical feminists, like Janice Raymond, author of The Transsexual Empire, are also offended by men who want to pass as women.
Anne Lawrence, a man who underwent surgical transformation, admits that the process doesn’t always have the desired results. According to him, “…transsexuals may also find it harder to fully identify with women after transition than before, because the difference they inevitably observe between themselves and natal women become harder to rationalize after transition. Before transition, these differences can be attributed to the necessity of temporarily maintaining a socially acceptable masculine persona: after transition, when this excuse evaporates… transsexuals often seem to expect that, with enough effort, they will be able to pass undetected as natal women after transition; but because their appearance and behavior are rarely naturally feminine, this expectation usually proves unrealistic. [1]
Those pushing “GLBT rights” imply that their cause is the same as the struggle of women and blacks, but women and racial minorities were lobbying for recognition of their inalienable human rights, they were not trying to create new artificia rights. Self-identified GLBT persons have the same rights as other human persons, nothing more.
Those pushing for artificial, invented ‘gay rights’ accuse their opposition of being ‘homophobic’, ‘transphobic” “bigots’ engaging in ‘discrimination’, motivated by fear and ‘hatred’, whose opinions should be treated as the equivalent of racism. But this is an unjustified slander, those who oppose artificial “GLBT rights’ care about each person. They are defending the truth about the human person and real human rights. It is the freedom of those defending that truth which is really under attack.
Self-identified GLBT persons feel oppressed because the truth about who they really are is continually rising up within them and challenging the ideology they have bought into. Even if they were given everything they are demanded, it would do not good. Only the truth can set people free.
[1] Anne Lawrence (2008) “Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37: 457-461
The Truth about Human Rights
Hillary Clinton in a speech on Dec. 6 insisted that “gay rights are human rights.” It may be a good slogan, but it is a flawed concept. Those pushing so-called ‘gay rights’ calculated that they could win acceptance of their demand for radical social change if they presented their agenda as ‘rights’ and likened their struggle to that of women or blacks. They reasoned that using the word ‘rights’ would intimidate their opposition. They should not be allowed to succeed in this ruse.
It is true that persons who self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered (GLBT) are human beings. They are, therefore, entitled to those rights with which we are all endowed by our creator. However, human rights are based on the truth about the human person. No one has a human right to do that which is impossible, to change the truth about the human person, to lie or deceive others. The so-called ‘gay rights’ being promoted by GLBT activists are not based on the truth about the human person.
1) Every human person is either male or female. A person cannot change their sex. Therefore, no person, whether they have been surgically altered or not, has the right to demand that the government change their legal documents. No man has the right to force others to address him with female titles or pronouns. No woman has the right to be a man.
2) Every human person has a biological father and mother. Separation from one’s biological father and/or mother is perceived by the child as a loss. Purposefully conceiving a permanently fatherless or motherless child is an act of violence against the child. No one has a right to commit this kind of violence. No one has a ‘right’ to a child. The rights belong to the child.
3) Marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Two essential elements make a marriage: consent and consummation. Two persons of the same sex may consent all they like, but they cannot consummate. Consummation occurs only through the one act which makes a man and a woman one flesh, the act which has the potential to create a child. Other intimate acts do not consummate a marriage. No one has a right to redefine marriage to be something other than the union between one man and one woman or to force others to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages.
4) Parents have a duty to oversee the education of their children. No one has the right to subject other people’s children to educational materials promoting the GLBT agenda, if such materials violate the parents’ religious beliefs. No one has the right to deceive children by presenting false and misleading information about same-sex attraction and gender identity disorder.
Speaking the truth about same-sex attraction and gender identity disorder, particularly when that truth is drawn from well-designed studies and a firm understanding of the truth about the human person, is not homophobia, transphobia, bigotry, or hate speech, even if self-identified GLBT persons feel offended. No one has the right to never be offended. No one should be punished, fired, or denied professional accreditation for expressing views contrary to the GLBT agenda.
Opposition to so-called ‘gay rights’ has been linked to cultural norms, traditional ways of thinking, and religious teachings. The advocates of ‘gay rights’ argue that the objections are old fashioned and should be cast aside just as we cast aside slavery and other abuses of human rights. We are urged by Sec. Clinton to “Be on the right side of history.” But the cultural norms, traditional ways of thinking and religious teachings, which stand in opposition to the GLBT agenda, spring from a collective and time tested wisdom. If anything recent studies provide a deeper understanding of the origins and nature of human psycho-sexual development, same-sex attraction and gender identity disorder and reinforce traditional beliefs.
Opposition to ‘gay rights’ is rooted in a deep understanding of the truth about the human person, and cannot therefore be cast aside without undermining the very concept of human rights. The promotion of fake ‘rights’ will necessarily undermine support for real human rights. The credibility of agencies and organizations fighting for real human rights will be damaged. And for what? Lies never liberate.
Violence and GLBT Identified Persons
The Obama administration is attempting to use violence against GLBT (Gay, Lesbian Bisexual, Transgendered) identified persons to pressure other nations to change their laws and attitudes regarding sexuality and marriage. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “Remarks in Recognition of International Human Rights Day”[1] are clearly the first salvo in a war against religion and traditional morality.
Ambassador to El Salvador Mari Carmen Aponte, a recess appointee who is currently facing confirmation by the U.S. Senate, has come under severe criticism for writing a letter published in papers inEl Salvadorwhich echoed the sentiments made by Sec. Clinton. Concerned citizens ofEl Salvador, outraged by the insult to their culture, are askingU.S.citizens to pressure their Senators to, by refusing to confirm Ambassador Aponte, send a message to the Obama administration that this kind of disrespectful behavior is not acceptable.
As to the substance of the speech, it is true that GLBT persons are more likely to be victims of violence, but this is because they are more likely to engage in high risk behavior and much of the violence they experience originates in their own communities. GLBT identified persons are: more likely than others to abuse alcohol or drugs; more likely to socialize at establishments, venues, or events where overindulgence in alcohol and drugs is common and where illegal drugs are sold or distributed; more likely to have sex with strangers; more likely to have sex in public places; more likely to solicit sex on the internet; more likely to engage in prostitution; more likely to have become sexually active at a younger age; more likely to have been raped or sexually abused. All of the above make a person (regardless of sexual orientation) more likely to be a victim of violence.
In addition, GLBT identified persons are more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, including depression and suicidal ideation. Such conditions along with substance abuse make it more difficult for GLBT identified persons to maintain long term relationships. Infidelity (the norm among gay identified men) and the desire for control (common among lesbian identified women) lead to relationship problems and may account for the high rate of domestic violence among same-sex couples.
The most common act of violence within the GLBT community occurs when a man who knows or has reason to believe that he is HIV positive or carrying another sexually transmitted disease (STD) has sex with an uninfected person. In the USAafter 30 years of education and warnings, the AIDS epidemic continues unabated among MSM (men who have sex with men). Since 1981, 300,000 MSM have died of AIDS, and 6,000 are expected to die this year and every year for the foreseeable future. In 2008, 17,940 MSM were diagnosed with HIV infections, an increase of 17% from 2005. MSM accounted for 53% of all new infections. MSM are 44 to 86 times more likely to be diagnosed HIV positive than men who don’t.[2] Other STDS, some incurable, some linked to cancer, are epidemic among MSM.
A few members of the GLBT have tried to convince the others to, at least, moderate their behavior, but their warnings have been rejected. The GLBT community continues to insist that the excesses are the essence of what it means to be ‘gay’.
The problems listed above are more prevalent in parts of theUSAwhere there is the most tolerance of the GLBT behavior and therefore there is no reason to believe that a change in culture inEl Salvadoror other countries would protect GLBT identified persons.
The only real solution to the self-destructive and high risk behaviors common in the GLBT community is the prevention and treatment of same-sex attraction and gender identity disorder. The GLBT community, however, has done everything in its power to discourage prevention and treatment and vilify those who offer it. They have perpetuated the myth – in spite of massive evidence to the contrary — that GLBT persons are ‘born that way,’ can’t change, and trying is dangerous.
Ambassador Aponte suggested that the people ofEl Salvadorlearn “about what it means to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.” If they learn the truth — and not the distortions and lies spread by gay activists — they will discover that they are on the right side of this issue.
___________________________________________________________
For the references which support the statements made above check out the following at http://daleoleary.wordpress.com
The Syndemic of HIV/AIDS among MSM
The Band Plays On
Do Gay straight Alliances Cause Cancer?
The “Born that Way” Myth
The “Can’t Change” Myth
The “Just as Healthy” Myth
Blame Homophobia
A 49 page article entitled “The Syndemic of STDS among Gay Men” is available by email from dalemoleary@yahoo.com.
Diversity
We are currently in the midst of a culture war. On one side we have the Sexual Left – Radical Feminists, Sexual Revolutionaries, followers of Alfred Kinsey and Margaret Sanger, and members of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered and Queer coalition (sometimes labeled as sexual minorities). On the other side we have Social Conservatives — those who belong to faith traditions which hold that life begins at conception and sexual activity belongs in marriage and that marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman. Those who hold this view believe that the evidence supports their contention that society is best served when life is protected and marriage affirmed.
Because these two views are so divergent and because they involve such intimate aspects of a person’s life, it is important that the freedom of the individual seeking psychological counseling or medical care be protected. It is also important that the rights of medical professionals and hospitals to not provide services they feel are immoral or contrary to the best interests of patients be protected.
Currently women are able to choose to abort their unborn children and medical professionals are free to provide that service. However, the right of other medical professionals or hospitals not to provide that service must be protected. Likewise, employers should not be forced to fund health insurance which pays for procedures which the employers believe are immoral. This should include not only religious institutions, but all employers. This should include but not be limited to: abortion, sterilization, contraception, various reproductive technologies, and so-called “sex change” operations.
Those who strongly disapprove of the agenda of the Sexual Left have a right to have access to medical and mental health professionals and facilities which support their views. A pro-life woman wants an obstetrician who will support her decision to carry her baby to term even in difficult circumstances. She doesn’t want to be harassed into considering abortion or pressured to have tests that’s only purpose to target an unborn child for abortion.
In the same way a person with same-sex attractions has the right to seek counseling which is congruent with his or her personal beliefs and desires.
In order to protect the diversity of opinion within the population it is important that those educational institutions and accrediting associations encourage diversity among their students. Currently certain educational institutions and accrediting associations are so strongly aligned with the agenda of the Sexual Left that they routinely discriminate against Social Conservatives, thus creating a situation where Socially Conservative students must hide their beliefs or worse forced to undergo pro-Sexual Left indoctrination. The result of this kind of unjust discrimination is that Social Conservative clients looking for counseling will increasingly find it difficult to receive help which respects their beliefs and values. This is a clear violation of the principle of respect for diversity, which these same institutions claim to be promoting.
Unfortunately, the ideology of the Sexual Left is so powerful within certain universities and certain professional association that active discrimination against Social Conservatives is considered a virtue. The goal of the Sexual Left is in fact to impose their views on the entire society and to marginalize anyone who openly opposes their agenda.
The first step in reversing this injustice is to create and publicize a list of universities, institutions, and professional associations which have a record of discrimination against Social Conservatives.
Step two; put forward legislation which would prohibit publically funded universities and institutions from discriminating against Social Conservatives.
Step three, currently various professional associations are recognized as accrediting bodies for those seeking to work in various fields. If any of these associations is found to have discriminated against social conservatives, their accrediting function should be removed and a non-biased body set up to assure that accreditation is fairly administered.
Those interesting in seeing evidence how the rights of Social Conservatives are currently being abused can find documentation in the books Unprotected: A campus psychiatrist reveals how political correctness in her profession endangers every student by Miriam Grossman and Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm, by Rogers Wright and Nicholas Cummings. Or they may follow the daily reports of discrimination against Social Conservatives posted on LifeSiteNews.com.
Discrimination
To be discriminating used to be a good thing. A discriminating person was a person who was able to distinguish between and therefore preferred things of greater intrinsic value over things of lesser or no value – a trait we should all aspire to.
The meaning has changed. Today, “discrimination” means the denial of rights or benefits to a person based on characteristics over which the person has no control, such as race or sex. This kind of unjust discrimination certainly exists, and given the history of such unjust discrimination against Blacks and women, laws forbidding unjust discrimination have been adopted. Since freedom of religion is a fundamental human right, discrimination against person based on their religion or lack of religion is also unjust and should be prohibited.
The Sexual Left (Radical Feminists and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer coalition) have come up with a new definition of discrimination. They insist that anything that makes a person who self-identifies as a member of a sexual minority (LGBTQ) feel bad about themselves is unjust discrimination. They want to make any form of disapproval illegal. Even stating a religious belief that certain behaviors are sinful would under this definition be punishable as unjust discrimination. While having others disapprove of your behavior or choices is certainly unpleasant, no one has a right to approval.
Not only that the Sexual Left is intent on silencing all those who present evidence that certain sexual preferences are not innate, but the result of a complex interaction of factors and therefore can be prevented or changed or that the very least suppressed. Furthermore, the Sexual Left wants evidence of the negative psychological, social, and physical effects of certain sexual behaviors suppressed. They would have those who speak out on such matters charged with discrimination.
The Sexual Left wants any disapproval of the LGBTQ community categorized as the equivalent of racism and treated accordingly.
There is no right to feel good about yourself or to silence those who disapprove of your behavior or believe for example that gay is not good.
Those who because of religious conviction or who have looked at the evidence and found it compelling have a right to their convictions, a right to speak up both privately and publically, and to raise their children accordingly. To deny these rights constitutes unjust discrimination.
For example, those who decry discrimination against ‘transgendered’ persons, insist that persons, who claim to be a sex other than the one they were born (whether or not they have been surgically altered), have a right to legally change their documents, use facilities designated for the other sex, and even marry a person of their birth sex. They also claim the right to force others to go along with the fantasy of ‘sex change’ and be addressed with pronouns of their choice – in other words they have the right to force those who believe that “sex-changes” are impossible to lie or be charged with discrimination. Such a demand violates the most fundamental right of freedom of conscience and right to speak the truth.
The LGBTQ coalition is pushing legislation deceptively called the “Student Non-Discrimination Act” (HR 998). This legislation would force every public school to introduce LGBTQ indoctrination at every level.
How can this bill be stopped since many Congressmen are afraid of being seen as opposing anything labeled “non-discrimination”?
By adding the following to the bill, thus broadening the definition of discrimination:
1) No student, teacher, or school employee shall be discriminated against for their religious beliefs on life, sexuality, or marriage or for expressing such beliefs in public or private. In the classroom setting, if one side of a controversial issue involving sexuality is introduced the other side should be presented fairly. In particular, religious beliefs shall not be vilified.
2) Parents shall be allowed to remove their child from classes or school programs, which violate their religious beliefs. Parents have the right to be informed before the fact when such programs are introduced.
3) No student, teacher, or school employee shall be discriminated against, charged with discrimination or forced to undergo ‘sensitive training’ for expressing views about same-sex attraction, same-sex behavior, so-called same-sex ‘marriage,’ gender identity, or gender expression.
4) No degree granting program or accrediting body shall discriminate against a student or applicant on the basis of their beliefs or convictions concerning marriage, life issues, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, nor shall they make agreement with the LGBTQ agenda a condition of graduation or accreditation.
5) Because students who self-identify as LGBTQ are more likely than other students to have been victims of sexual and/or other abuse, more likely to be involved with drugs, and more likely to engage in sexual activity at an earlier age and thereby more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease, such as HIV/AIDS, and since many abused children who self-identify as LGBTQ later change their identification, the school should be cognizant of this and refrain from pushing students into the LGBTQ lifestyle by telling them they were born that way and can’t change – a claim for which there is no replicated scientific evidence. To push students confused about their sexual identity and attraction into LGBTQ identification is in itself a form of discrimination.
The Right to Prophesy
According to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18. “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
Freedom of religion is an inalienable right, not granted by states and therefore must not be restricted. People of faith have the same right to participate in the political process as all other citizens. They have the right to organize, to propose legislation, and to support candidates whom they feel best represent their concerns.
Those, who oppose policies generally supported by conservative religiously motivated citizens, routinely decry the participation of people of faith in the political process in hopes of disenfranchising their opposition. They whine about the “religious right” and claim violations of “separation of church and state” because they know they are losing. People of faith around the world are recognizing their duty to participate and taking advantage of the freedom to do so.
There is one area, however, where a number of governments which claim to support freedom of religion routinely restrict that freedom and this needs to be remedied. There are laws on the books in theUnited Statesand elsewhere which restrict the right of religious leaders to exercise the office of prophet by threatening to remove the tax exempt status of any religious group whose leaders speak prophetically on political issues.
Prophesy is not fortune telling, but calling people to repentance. A prophet is a person called by God to speak directly to the people about moral issues. Prophets have issued specific warnings to political leaders in their own and other countries, to their own congregations and to non-believers.
For Christians, prophesy is an essential part of religious practice. According toSt. Paul”God has set in Church first apostles, second prophets.” It is, therefore, clearly a violation of the fundamental freedom of religion, as well as freedom of speech, to restrict the right of clergy to speak prophetically on political issues. Governments have no more right to restrict the prophetic function that they have demanding that a church get a restaurant license in order to distribute communion.
Prophets have often had problems with the establishment. St. Peter told the Sanhedrin that he must obey God not men. He was whipped for his words.St. Johnthe Baptist lost his head for prophesying against King Herod. The prophet Jeremiah was cruelly mistreated for prophesying defeat in a war. While loss of tax exempt status may not be as physically painful, it is clearly designed to silence the prophets and therefore a violation of freedom of religion.
The right to tax is the right to destroy; therefore laws which allow governments to threaten the tax exempt status of churches violate freedom of religion. Such violation of fundamental human right must not be tolerated. All restrictions on the right to speak prophetically on political issues including the right to name names and warn citizens about the spiritual consequences of their political actions must be removed.
Some may worry that increased involvement in politics by churches may turn some people against religion. It may, but I can’t find a single place in scripture where God told a prophet he could take a poll before he spoke to see how his words would be received. Indeed many prophets knew the kind of reception they were going to get and would have preferred to have kept silent. True prophesy is rarely popular, particularly with the establishment. It is, therefore, all the more important for the right to prophesy be protected.
What about false prophets? Of course there will be false prophets, but not to worry, they will have to answer to higher authority than the IRS.
Why has this unconstitutional restriction on freedom of religion not been challenged before? I fear it may be because too many pastors saw the restrictions as letting them off the hook. They could avoid speaking prophetically by claiming they would loose their tax exempt status and thus not have to face angry parishioners. However, just as the politicians have no right to be protected from the prophets, the clergy have no justification in hiding behind the law.
Affirming the unfettered right to prophesy as essential to the inalienable right to freedom of religion in no way violates the boundary between Church and state, indeed it makes it clear that the state may not say one religious practice is acceptable and another is not.
Originally published in The Providence Journal
____________________________________
Freedom of Religion Act
Freedom of religion is more than just the right to assembly for worship. True faith requires an all encompassing commitment to God’s law. In the past people of faith have suffered cruel torture and death rather than eat a mouthful of pork or toss a handful of incense on the altar of the emperor, because they believed such actions violated God’s law. Today, individuals and organizations are being persecuted, sued, and denied rights for refusing to surrender to the demands of pro-abortion and pro-GLBTQ lobby. Freedom of religion is essential to a free society; therefore, no person, business, or non-profit organization should be forced violate their religious beliefs in order to conform to a government imposed secular ideologies.
As governments surrender to pressure from GLBTQ activists, religious groups have been forced out of the adoption and foster care business. Small businesses have been forced to provide services for same-sex wedding celebrations. Children are forced into programs designed to attack their families religious beliefs about sexuality, Person who speak negatively about same-sex attraction have been forced to undergo sensitive training. Indeed any negative attitude toward same-sex attraction is labeled as bigotry and equated with racism.
As attacks on people of faith mount, a law is needed to protect their rights. Therefore, I urge the Congress to pass a Freedom of Religion Act.
1) No persons, businesses, or non-profit organization should be discriminated against for their religious beliefs on life, sexuality, or marriage or forced to violate these beliefs.
2) Adoption agencies, foster care agencies, orphanages, those providing reproductive technologies, and other businesses or non-profit organizations or persons that provide similar services have the right to restrict their services to persons who abide by their stated standards of belief and behavior. This would protect the organizations, the children, the adoptive parents, and right of the parents of the children being placed to choose the religion in which their child is raised.
3) Parents shall be allowed to remove their child from classes or school programs, which violate their religious beliefs.
4) Religious organization, other non-profit organizations, businesses, and individuals, who provide wedding or pseudo wedding services, including justices of the peace, shall not be forced to provide such services to same-sex couples.
5) No person or organization shall be discriminated against, charged with discrimination or forced to undergo ‘sensitive training’ for expressing views about same-sex attraction, same-sex behavior, same-sex ‘marriage,’ gender identity, or gender expression.
6) Persons with same-sex attraction who desire therapy that respects their religious beliefs and therapists who provide such therapy shall not be discriminated against.
7) Prophesy is an essential element of religious practice. Prophets speak truth to power, including naming names, and calling leaders and people to repentance. Therefore, the right of persons associated with religious organizations to speak prophetically shall not be infringed. The tax exempt status of the institutions to which prophets belong shall not be threatened.
Persons with SSA and gender identity disorders want to silence people of faith, force them to change their beliefs, or accept second class status on the false premise that people have a right to be protected from having their feelings hurt. The exercise of freedom of speech and freedom of religion will necessarily make some people feel judged, offended, excluded, or discriminated against. However, no one has a constitutional right to have their feelings protected at the expense of other people’s fundamental freedom.
