The Gay Agenda and the Sabotage of Human Rights
The Implications of Pro-Homosexuality Language in the United Nations Documents
By Julio Severo
In 2004, Brazil was a pioneer in introducing
in the United Nations the first resolution classifying homosexuality as an
inalienable human right. Brazil was then under the administration of socialist President
Luís Inácio “Lula” da Silva. Lula led the United Nations campaign to advance
homosexuality, and I, as a conservative evangelical Brazilian, author of the
first Brazilian book against the homosexual movement (“O Movimento Homossexual”
[The Homosexual Movement], originally published by the Brazilian branch of
Bethany House Publishers in 1998), led a pro-family campaign against Lula’s
initiative. I publish again my main article against this initiative for seeing in
Brazil the administration of President Jair Bolsonaro making room for gay
activism. I also publish because President
Donald Trump has also made room for gay activism. Conservative evangelicals
in Brazil and the United States were distressed by Lula and Obama because of their
homosexual activism. Bolsonaro and Trump should not try to make room for this
activism. Here is my original article, just as it was published in 2004. It was
the main Brazilian opposition to Lula’s resolution in the United Nations, but even
being so old it has many lessons for Bolsonaro and Trump:
I. The Purpose of the International Human Rights System
The entire concept of human rights law is
based on the fact that each human being has inalienable rights because of his
or her intrinsic dignity. These rights exist because each human being has been
created in God’s image. Human rights do
not find their origin in governments nor international organizations, but from
God’s law.
In reaction to the atrocities committed by
the Nazi regime, the international community created a system for the
protection of fundamental human rights. The cornerstone of that system is the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to one of its main authors,
Rene Cassin, it was founded upon the Ten Commandments of the Bible. Pointing to
the importance of the Universal Declaration for all countries, Harvard law
professor, Mary Ann Glendon wrote:
“Together with the Nuremberg Principles of
international criminal law developed by the Allies in 1946 for the trials of German and
Japanese war criminals and the 1948
Genocide Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights became a pillar
of a new international system under which a nation’s treatment of its own
citizens was no longer immune from outside scrutiny. The Nuremberg Principles,
by sanctioning prosecutions for domestic atrocities committed in wartime,
represented a determination to punish the most violent sorts of assaults on
human dignity. The Genocide Convention obligated its signers to prevent and punish
acts of genocide, whether committed in times of war or in peace. [However], the
Universal Declaration was more ambitious. Proclaiming that ‘disregard and
contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged
the conscience of mankind,’ it aimed at prevention rather than punishment.”
Today, the Declaration is the single most
important reference point for international discussions of how to order our
future together on our increasingly conflict-ridden and interdependent world.
According to Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights,
* Men and women of full age, without any
limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to
found a family.
* The family is the natural and
fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and
the State.
According to Article 18,
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion…
Unfortunately, the goals of the Universal
Declaration and the fundamental rights expressed in that document are under
constant attack by forces that are trying to destroy the right to family and
religious freedom. These forces are promoting the acceptance of several
perverted concepts, including homosexuality as an internationally-recognized human
right.
Referring to the main authors of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Habib C. Malik, son of former Lebanese
Foreign Minister Charles Malik, wrote:
“One disturbing phenomenon gaining ground
today can best be described as the systemic hijacking of human rights to serve
special interests and promote dubious agendas of a political and generally
secular nature.”
II. Inter-American System of Human Rights
The overwhelming majority of laws in Latin
America also recognize the right to family and the right to religious freedom
as fundamental human rights. This is seen in the Inter-American system of human
rights.
According to the American Declaration of
the Rights and Duties of Man,
“Since moral conduct constitutes the noble
flowering of culture, it is the duty of every man always to hold it in high
respect.” (Preamble)
“Every person has the right freely to
profess a religious faith, and to manifest and practice it both in public and
in private.” (Article III)
“Every person has the right to establish a
family, the basic element of society, and to receive protection therefore.”
(Article VI)
According to the American Convention on
Human Rights,
“Everyone has the right to freedom of
conscience and of religion. This right includes freedom to maintain or to
change one’s religion or beliefs, and freedom to profess or disseminate one’s
religion or beliefs, either individually or together with others, in public or
in private.” (Article 12.1)
“The family is the natural and fundamental
group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.”
(Article 17.1)
Even though in Europe family and religion have
less and less protection from the hostility of pro-homosexualism activists, in
Latin America family and religion (especially Christianity) have always been entitled
to a protection above special interests groups. For several years, it seemed that
the advancement of gay ideology in the legal system was a problem uniquely affecting
only the United States, Canada and the nations of Europe, where homosexual militants
have challenged laws not favoring their lifestyle. Yet, perhaps because of the
pervasive cultural globalization, now the laws and culture of Latin America are
also under constant attack by the same forces that have gained ground in Europe
and North America. These forces are trying to impose homosexuality as a human
right and corrupt the meaning of family’s protection and religious freedom.
III. The Subversion of the Meaning and Content of International Human Rights
To understand the origin of new efforts to
promote homosexual behavior as a human right and destroy the meaning of the
right to family and religious freedom, it is important to understand the legal
worldview of those who promote homosexuality.
The natural law foundations of international
human right are under incessant assault by powerful groups promoting
deconstruccionism and critical legal studies. Those groups maintain juridical
worldviews which reject the objective existence of international law and
natural law. According to Weston:
“Starting in the early 1980’s, a provocative attempt to
rethink the basis of traditional legal theory began to make itself felt in the
field of international law, challenging the view of law as rational, objective,
and principled by deconstructing traditional legal arguments and thereby
exposing the contradictions and indeterminacies of legal doctrines, principles,
and rules. An extension of the “post-modern” legal scholarship is called “critical legal studies” (CLS) or “critical
jurisprudence”.
“To the CLS theorist, objectivity does not
exist except within the minds and prejudices of the naïve…”
“For the CLS theorist, the claims of
rational or objective rules only cloak the real forces behind all legal
language and structure: politics.”
As a result of the increasing influence of
the Critical Legal Studies perspective, feminist jurisprudence and the
so-called “queer legal theory” are gaining increasing influence. The latter
perspective views law as an instrument to promote the homosexual agenda.
As part of the increasing influence of
these types of extreme subjective and anarchical approaches, there is a
tendency to distort the objective meaning of human rights. These actions are
direct attacks on the concept of human rights. If they succeed, they will lead
to the misrepresentation of the significance and meaning of human rights, and
power politics will become the only criteria to define the meaning and content
of international human rights.
IV. Sexual Orientation and the UN Commission on Human Rights
In the post modern world, the meaning of
words is constantly manipulated, especially in the United Nations where things
are not as they seem. For the architects of the “new” language of human rights,
“reproductive health” and “reproductive right” include abortion, “sexual
orientation” means homosexuality, “gender” comprehends homosexualism and other
sexual perversions and the concept of the “family” includes homosexual and
other types of “families.”
One example of the influence of the
pro-homosexualism conception of law is seen in the efforts of some members of
the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) to pass a resolution to recognize
“sexual orientation” (or homosexuality) as a human right.
During the April 2003 meeting of the UNCHR, the Brazilian
government (supported by Canada and the European Union) introduced its
Resolution on “Human Rights and Sexual Orientation.” This resolution recognizes
homosexual conduct as a human right. Obviously, Brazil, Canada and the European
Union knew that the great majority of international public opinion was against the
attitude of giving special rights for individuals practicing homosexuality,
homosexual marriage and affirmative action (which means that social and legal measures
should be employed to favor persons solely because of their homosexual lifestyle).
So the strategy to push those special rights for homosexualism was carefully
shrouded by the artful use of the “sexual orientation” language.
The resolution was a surprise to the
Brazilian Congress in Brasilia, which learnt about it only some time after the
Brazilian delegation in the UN had already presented it. It was a surprise to
Evangelical leaders, for before the presidential elections Lula had made the
commitment, in a meeting with important ministers and bishops, not to let his
government promote issues favoring abortion and homosexuality. Yet, the
Brazilian delegation in the UN, which represents Brazilian government’s
interests and views, has defended just these issues, under a carefully-veiled
language of “reproductive rights” and “sexual orientation”.[1]
Representative Dr. Elimar Damasceno
requested directly from the Brazilian government an explanation on its
resolution in the UN. He noted that it “deals about a subject where there are
not approved laws in our country and where there is no consensus in our
society, because of its religious and cultural consequences.[2]
The Foreign Affairs Ministry in Brasilia refuted,
…in response to your last question on “who
has authorized the [Brazilian] representatives [in the UN] to present the
mentioned Proposal of Resolution”, it is proper to point that… the politics of
Brazil in the human rights issues is explicitly favorable to the promotion and
protection of the minority rights.[3]
So according to the Brazilian government’s
view, those practicing homosexuality are a minority deprived of protection. According
to the draft of that resolution:
“…human rights and fundamental freedoms are
the birthright of all human beings, that the universal nature of these rights
and freedoms is beyond question and that the enjoyment of such rights and
freedoms should not be hindered in any way on the grounds of sexual
orientation.”
In reality, the recognition of sexual
orientation as a human right will demolish the universal nature of human rights.
If sexual orientation (homosexuality) is recognized as a human right, laws that
protect family in every country will suffer grave assault and will be changed
so that individuals practicing homosexuality may have the right to marriage, to
adopt children, affirmative action and service in the military, among many
other privileges. If the gay lifestyle receives protection as a human rights
issue, then the universal meaning of the family will disappear. Such acceptance
of homosexuality will violate the rights of family and the legal meaning of marriage
of the overwhelming majority of people around the world. If human rights are
recognized based on the sexual behavior of persons practicing homosexual acts,
then what about the “rights” of pedophiles and other perverts? This type of
approach, extremely subjective, knocks down the universal essence of human
rights. Homosexuality is not a human right, nor even a human need, but only a
desire to live sexually against the nature, and such desires and behaviors cannot
be given legal protection and privileges.
The draft resolution of the Brazilian government
also says: “Call upon all States to promote and protect the human rights of all
persons regardless of their sexual orientation.” This action will be a serious
menace to the right to religious freedom, a universally recognized fundamental
human right. Christianity and other important world religions consider
homosexual behavior to be a violation of God’s laws, and if the resolution is
approved, it will endanger the right to religious freedom of millions of
Christians around the world who could be prosecuted merely for expressing their
beliefs about homosexual conduct and for quoting texts from the Bible disapproving
the same-sex acts. Even without the approval of this resolution, it is
impossible to address the problem of propagation of homosexual behavior without
suffering, especially from the liberal press, accusations of homophobia (a new
word coined to discourage those wanting to discuss the problem seriously), intolerance
and religious extremism. Yet, the promotion of homosexual behavior, especially
among males, spreads atrocious diseases.[4]
The resolution also notes “the attention
given to human rights violations on the grounds of sexual orientation by the
special procedures in their reports to the UNCHR, as well as by the treaty
monitoring bodies, and encourages all special procedures of the UNCHR, within
their mandates, to give due attention to the subject…”
The UN Commission on Human Rights was not
created to support the desires and abnormal sexual behaviors of special
interest groups that promote homosexuality, and it should not spend its time
implementing norms that go against the right to religious freedom and the rights
of family of the overwhelming majority of people around the world.
V. Brazil, Canada and the European Union: the Main Promoters of the Homosexual Issue in the UNHRC
It is not a surprise that among the
members of the Commission that sponsored the resolution were Germany, Austria,
Belgium, Canada, France, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Great Britain and Sweden. The
other non-member commission countries that sponsored the resolution were Denmark,
Finland, Greece, Italy, Luxemburg, Norway, Netherlands, Portugal and the Czech
Republic. In contrast, no Latin American nation sponsored it. In fact, those
countries in Latin America which had chosen not to vote changed their position
and promised to vote against it when they perceived what it really implies. The
most outspoken sponsor of the Brazilian resolution was the Canadian government,
which has adopted a very radical position favoring homosexuality in its own
country. In 2003
the Canadian
courts decided to recognize homosexual marriages.
Canada and the European countries have
been systematically advancing agendas that are contrary to the legal,
historical and moral values of Latin America. The promotion of abortion and
special rights for individuals practicing homosexuality is part of these agendas.
What is really surprising is the position of the Brazilian government, the main
proponent of homosexual “rights” at the UN Commission on Human Rights. The new Socialist
government of Brazil is imitating the European pro-homosexualism radicalism and
such radicalism is contrary to the laws and culture of Latin America.
What a paradox that a large country such
as Brazil, with its huge Catholic and Evangelical populations, is spearheading the
invention of special rights for individuals practicing homosexuality as a
priority of its foreign policy. Even though the pro-homosexuality position of the
Brazilian government could be seen by other Latin America nations as a totally
novel way to address human rights issues, this position is not new. Besides, it
was not originally born in Latin America. For several years morally decadent Western
nations have, under the pressure of pro-homosexualism activists, pushed such
ideas and they have always sought to influence less developed countries. The
current Brazilian government has demonstrated its willingness to follow and conform
to those influences.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio “Lula” da
Silva likes to portray his administration as a Socialist government favoring
interests of less developed nations and not accepting American and European
influences. Nevertheless, he has imitated the latter. His administration has
proposed the sexual-orientation resolution in the UN and, domestically, his
Workers’ Party has employed actions no past government of Brazil did: it has
facilitated the introduction of pro-homosexuality laws and it has been a strong
advocate for affirmative action based on racial preferences for minority
groups. So for the first time Brazilian society sees a President acting in a
totally new political way. Yet, his actions are not new and they are not original
from Brazil. American and European societies have, under the pressure of
special-interests groups, known such political experiences for a number of
years. Interestingly, in the racial issue, advocates of affirmative action in
Europe and in the USA are swift to point and condemn the slavery of blacks by
whites in the past and exploit such situation to their extreme political
advantage, but they are equally swift to neglect, excuse or hide the past and
current violent slavery of blacks by blacks in African nations countries, including
modern-day Sudan. So the notion of affirmative action, as originally employed
in the developed nations by special-interests groups and as is copied by
countries like Brazil, is a form of ideological oppression that will eventually
lead to other forms of oppression, including from the gay-ideology activists.
The Brazilian government itself, which uses
to see those practicing homosexuality as a minority deprived of protection,
confesses that if a minority receives special rights, all other minorities are
entitled to these rights too. In his defense of the pro-homosexualism
resolution of the Brazilian government in the UN, Minister Samuel Guimarães,
from the Foreign Affairs Ministry, affirmed, “So the main aim of the
[resolution] is to guarantee the principle of non-discrimination — the
cornerstone of the building of promotion and protection of human rights since
its beginning in the United Nations system — regarding to groups discriminated
against around the world because of their sexual orientation. This position is
based on the notion that advancement in the subject of human rights benefiting
a discriminated minority represents gain to other groups suffering
discrimination…[5]
By defending human right status for homosexual
conduct, Brazil is stimulating the re-definition of the concept of family,
marriage and religious freedom. The sexual-orientation language the Brazilian
government is proposing in the UN will be the ideal tool for the gay-ideology
activists to be able internationally to push homosexual marriage and a relative
concept of family which includes homosexual, transgender, and bi-sexual persons
forming unions and adopting children. If the homosexual behavior is favored
with such protection, the natural family will be made more vulnerable and less
protected against the action of the special-interests groups, including the
pro-homosexualism activists. All of them want to bring about the weakening and ruin
of the natural family. So the Brazilian position is a direct attack on the
Evangelical and Catholic Churches and their right to freedom of religion.
According to these faiths, homosexual conduct is a sin and marriage is only between
a man and a woman.
The Latin American consensus is pro-family
and pro-religious freedom. The consensus of the most of the Brazilian people,
which is Catholic and Evangelical, is against rights and privileges for the gay
behavior and any other wicked behavior. Therefore the Brazilian government should
respect such consensus and stop from defending distorted European values. It
should also withdraw its pro-homosexualism resolution, for it is contrary to
the laws and culture of Latin America. It is time to stand up for Latin
American values and resist following the neo-cultural, pro-homosexualism,
imperialistic policies of Western Europe. A small group of gay-ideology advocates
should not be allowed to succeed in recreating the concept of “family” and
“religious freedom” in its distorted image of reality.
VI. The Influence of UN Resolutions in the Domestic Laws of Nations
If the UN Commission on Human Rights approves
the Brazilian proposal, then the United Nations and countries around the world
will have to regard homosexual behavior to be a fundamental human right.
Such change will let advocates of the
worldwide gay agenda free to defend homosexual conduct as a human right and,
therefore, to promote gay marriage and affirmative action. So individuals practicing
same-sex acts will be protected as an oppressed group, and the protection to
the gay behavior will be recognized as part of customary international law. If
this occurs, then pro-homosexualism activists will be able to argue that there
is an emerging norm of customary international law that recognizes homosexual
conduct as a human right.
In light of the fact that international
norms are recognized by the Constitutions of nations of the world (including
Latin America) as having the same authority as domestic law, then it is easy to
imagine that homosexual behavior, homosexual marriage and affirmative action will
also eventually be recognized as part of the domestic laws of Latin American
countries, Brazil and the rest of the world. Nations will be obligated to
recognize the force of international customary law and accept, as part of their
domestic laws, homosexual conduct, homosexual marriage and affirmative action.
A. Can treaties negotiated between States eventually be imposed as international legal obligations?
There is a common assumption that declarations
issuing from the United Nations are irrelevant because they are not binding
international treaties. This assumption is false. International declarations
can become evidence of the existence of norms of customary law. According to
Thomas Buergenthal, a leading international law scholar and a Judge on the International
Court of Justice in The Hague:
“In recent decades, resolutions and
similar acts of intergovernmental international organizations have acquired a
very significant status both as sources and as evidence of international law… Some
of these resolutions (declarations, recommendations, etc.) can and do become
authoritative evidence of international law.”
B. How do acts other than treaties become evidence of the existence of international law?
According to Professor Buergenthal:
“To understand how acts of international
organizations acquire this status, it is important to recall that customary
international law evolves through state practice to which states conform out of
a sense of legal obligation. How states vote and what they say in international
organizations is a form of state practice. Its significance in the law-making
process depends upon the extent to which this state practice is consistent with
the contemporaneous conduct and pronouncements of states in other contexts.”
The concept of “state practice,” mentioned
above, shows the importance of the public positions that Latin American
delegations will take at the UN Commission on Human Rights regarding the Brazilian
resolution on sexual orientation.
According to Buergenthal:
“Because of the consensual character of
customary and conventional international law, and because of the absence of a
centralized legislative or judicial system, states play a dual role in the
law-making process: they act both as legislators and as advocates or lobbyists.
. . . They are legislators or lawmakers in the sense that the practice of
states and the treaties which states conclude create international law. States
also assert certain claims on the international plane in their diplomatic
correspondence, in international courts, in international organizations, etc.,
through which they seek to obtain new rules of international law or to modify
existing ones. Their individual assertions about what is or is not law,
particularly customary law, is a form of lobbying or advocacy; it becomes
law-making when these claims find the broad-based support that is required to
transform them into law. Claims by governments about what is or is not law must
take the law-making consequences of their actions into account.”
The pro-homosexualism resolution of the
Brazilian government is certain to come up again at the next session of the UN
Commission on Human Rights in March and April, 2004. If Latin American diplomats at the
United Nations support the current Brazilian government in its promotion of language
such as “sexual orientation” in the UN documents, then their actions may
contribute to making the “right” to homosexual conduct a norm of customary
international law, which can, in turn, be applied in (and against) Latin America.
Thomas Jacobson, the U.N. policy analyst at Focus on the Family, said not only
would the resolution help grant worldwide acceptance of homosexuality, but
passage also would put millions of children at risk. "That would lead to
pedophilia becoming promoted worldwide,” he said. “Because in U.N.
international documents there are no age, gender or marriage restrictions on
sexual rights.”
VII. The Latino Experience in the United States
Family values are an essential part of the
Latino culture. Unfortunately, the family is under constant attack by the
forces that want to deconstruct the institutions of marriage and family. These forces seek to promote homosexual
marriage, and if they successfully implement their agenda, the meaning of
marriage and family will be destroyed.
According to the "National Survey on
Latinos in America," 73
percent of Latinos consider homosexual relations to be wrong. In the United
States, the Latino community expressed their will against efforts to promote
homosexual marriage by supporting Proposition 22 in
California, a declaration defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.
According to a CNN poll, 70
percent of U.S. Hispanics voted for that proposition. The rejection of the gay
agenda by the U.S. Hispanic community was also seen in the mobilizations
against assembly bill 1338 in
California, which pretended to give all the benefits of marriage to homosexual
civil unions.
VIII. A Reasonable Response
The great majority of international public
opinion, especially in Latin America, the US, Middle East, Africa and Asia, indorses
the position that the homosexual conduct must not be privileged through a human
right status. The pro-homosexualism individuals need to be reminded that
according to natural law and the laws of the majority of nations, marriage is
the union between a man and a woman, and that homosexual conduct is a human abnormal
desire and behavior instead of a human normal need or right. That desire and
behavior lead many into a life of loneliness, depression and ruins the
essential qualities of human sexual relations.
A small group of radical individuals
should not be allowed to remake the entire world and its laws in their image.
People around the world should respond to the needs of individuals oppressed
and enslaved by homosexual desires and practices in a compassionate manner, to
help them succeed against their sexual addictions. We should also respond in a
firm manner to the extremist groups which want to impose the gay agenda on society,
for to protect fundamental human rights of family, marriage and religious
freedom is infinitely more important than protecting a sexual conduct that is against
nature and a serious menace to the well-being of the natural family. Family is
worth to fight for; sexual orientation is not.
According to Philosopher Richard Neuhaus,
“Having failed in the arena of politics
where we democratically deliberate how we ought to order our life together, the
homosexual movement has no choice but to vest its hopes in courts, government regulations,
professional organizations, and the bureaucracies of the public school system.
In these arenas their victories have been substantial, and they aspire to much
more. In all these arenas, the movement must be challenged at every
step--fearlessly, calmly, reasonably, relentlessly. The good of innumerable
individuals . . . and the common good, depend on it.”
Homosexuality is a human desire and
behavior, not a human need or right. Therefore, the promotion of the gender and
transgender perspectives is contrary to the defense of true human rights. To
equate the desires and practices of gay groups with minority rights is to damage
irreparably the essence of human rights that promote, among others benefits,
the principles of equality and dignity of human beings, not the abnormal sexual
desires and practices of certain groups.
Pro-homosexualism activists are making
significant efforts to alter the language of human rights and exploit the civil
rights of minority groups to fit their agenda. They will try to introduce laws
to favor their lifestyle based on the concepts of tolerance, antidiscrimination
and affirmative action used to favor minority groups. To combat such ideas and
actions, it is important to remind that homosexual behavior cannot be equated
with unchangeable racial characteristics and ethnic identity. Also, unlike,
many ethnic minorities, gay persons are generally wealthier and have a
disproportionate access to political power. According to Dan Garcia, former
policy analyst of the Family Research Council:
“Though different research and marketing
firms use different homosexual population numbers, ranging from the actual one
percent to an inflated 10
percent or more, research shows that homosexuals fare at least as well or
better than the rest of the country… Homosexuals display political power far
beyond their numbers, despite constituting only about 1 percent of the population.”
Those who believe in objective justice
have a moral obligation to defend the concepts of human rights from the forces
that are trying to deconstruct the meaning of family, marriage, rights, and
gender. According to Richard Neuhaus:
“It must be unmistakably clear that ours
is a concern for justice. Justice for people, especially young people caught in
sexual perplexity and assailed from within and without by pressures to consign
themselves to a way of life that is marked by compulsion, loneliness,
depression, and disease. Justice also for the integrity of our public life,
which requires that truth be spoken with candor and disagreements be engaged
with civility. Justice, finally, for millions of [people]--mothers, fathers,
and children--who need all the support they can get to sustain in the present
and transmit to the future the 'little platoon' of love and fidelity that the
family is meant to be.”
The gay agenda aims to obliterate the natural,
God-given essence of family and marriage. The struggle for justice against the
imposition of this agenda through the introduction of pro-homosexualism
language in national and international documents is not based on prejudice, but
on the concept of Christian love and compassion. It is also based on the
responsibility to protect the natural family and the rights of religious people
throughout the world against all kinds of assaults, including from the forces
which want to promote special rights for the homosexual conduct through a Trojan
horse entitled “sexual orientation”.
This article was based on the original
paper original Why ''Sexual Orientation'' is Not a Human Right, written by Yuri
Mantilla, whom I am thankful for the special permission to use his precious
research. Copyright 2004
Julio Severo. Mr. Severo is the author of the book O
Movimento Homossexual (The Homosexual Movement), published in Brazil by Editora
Betânia. E-mail: juliosevero@hotmail.com
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
You
can send emails and faxes to the Brazilian president and UN ambassadors. Let
them know, in a polite and clear way, that you would like the Brazilian
government to defend in the UN the rights and interests of family, not those of
the pro-homosexualism activists. Below I give an example of message, in
Portuguese and English, you can use:
Prezado
Sr. Presidente Lula (ou Prezado Sr. Embaixador)
Estou
triste com o fato de que o governo brasileiro tenha apresentado na Comissão de
Direitos Humanos da ONU a Resolução sobre Direitos Humanos e Orientação Sexual,
defendendo a questão controvertida de “orientação sexual”. O consenso da maioria
da população do Brasil, que é católica e evangélica, é a favor da família em
sua essência, porém os ativistas gays demonstram forte agressão e oposição ao
sentido natural do casamento, que só é legítimo entre um homem e uma mulher.
Eles também lutam para que possam, como se fossem uma família normal, adotar
crianças, pondo-as assim piscologica, física e espiritualmente em risco.
Amo
as pessoas que praticam os atos homossexuais, mas não amo seus atos, não amo
nenhuma violência contra elas e também não desejo apoiar nenhuma política do
nosso governo para favorecer o homossexualismo.
Por
favor, peço-lhe considerar o consenso do nosso país, que é contra direitos
especiais baseados exclusivamente na conduta homossexual de um indivíduo.
Peço-lhe renunciar à sua resolução na ONU e votar contra toda e qualquer
resolução semelhante defendendo “orientação sexual”.
Que
Deus, em suas misericórdias, o esclareça.
[Coloque
aqui o seu nome.]
Dear
Mr. President (or Dear Mr. Ambassador)
I
am disappointed that the government of Brazil has introduced in the United
Nations Humans Rights Commission the Resolution on Human Rights and Sexual
Orientation, defending the controversial issue “sexual orientation”. The
consensus of the most of population in Brazil, that is Christian, is for
family, but the gay activists demonstrate strong aggression and opposition
against the natural meaning of marriage, which legitimate and rightful only
between a man and a woman. They also fight for special rights, so that they
may, as they were a normal family, adopt children, endangering them
psychologically, physically and spiritually.
I
love people who practice the homosexual acts, but I do not love their acts, I
do not love any violence against those people and I do not also wish any
political action from my government to favor homosexualism.
I
ask you please to consider the consensus of my country, which is against
special rights based exclusively on the homosexual behavior of a person. I ask
you not to support the Brazilian resolution in the session of the UN Human
Rights Commission next March and April and vote against every and any similar
resolution defending “sexual orientation”.
[Your
name should be put here.]
Where
you should send your messages to:
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
Office of the President
Republica Federativa do Brasil
Palácio do Planalto
Praça dos 3 Poderes 70150-900 Brasilia DF Brasil
E-mail: pr@planalto.gov.br,
protocolo@planalto.gov.br
Fax: 011-55-61-411-2222
Website: https://www.presidencia.gov.br/
Min. of Foreign Affairs or Sec. of State
Minister of Foreign Relations Celso Amorim
Ministério das Relações Exteriores
Palácio Itamaraty - Esplanada dos
Ministérios - Bloco H CEP: 70170-900
Brasilia DF Brasil
E-mail: celsoamorim@mre.gov.br
Telephone: (61) 411-6350
/ 6351 / 6352 / 6353
Fax: (61) 322-6275, 55 61 411 6993
Website: http://www.mre.gov.br/
UN Geneva Mission Permanent Rep
Permanent Representative to the UN,
Ambassadeur SE Luiz Felipe de
SEIXAS CORRÊA
Delegação Permanente em Genebra
Delegation du bresil
Case postale 165
Avenue Louis Casaï 71 1216 Cointrin SUISSE
E-mail: mission.brazil@itu.ch,
mission.brazil@ties.itu.int
Telephone: (4122) 929 09 00
Fax: (4122) 788-2505/2506
Website: http://missions.itu.int/~brazil/
UN NY Mission Permanent Rep
Permanent Representative to the UN HE
Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg
Brazil Permanent Mission to the UN, NY
747
3rd AVE 9TH FLOOR 10017-2803 New York NY USA
E-mail: braun@delbrasonu.org,
brazil@un.int
Telephone: (001212) 372-2600 / 832-6868
Fax: (1212) 963-4879, (1212) 371-5716/758-9242
Website: http://www.un.int/brazil
[1] LifeSite Daily News, July 3, 2003. See also: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/wom1404.doc.htm
[2] Requerimento de Informações nº 408, de 2003,
do Dep. Elimar Máximo Damasceno, Câmara dos Deputados, Brasília.
[3] Ofício nº 34,
do Ministério das Relações Exteriores, Brasília, datado de 11 de julho de 2003.
[5] Ofício nº 34,
do Ministério das Relações Exteriores, Brasília, datado de 11 de julho de 2003.
Posts
No comments :
Post a Comment