By BRIAN CLOWES
Part 2
(Editor’s Note: Brian Clowes has been director of research and training at Human Life International since 1995. For a PDF copy of this article with extensive footnotes, e-mail him at bclowes@hli.org. This is the second of a two-part article.)
+ + +
Blatant forms of coercion are even seeping into the institute that guards our freedoms, the United States armed forces. If the guardians can be deprived of their freedoms, what chance do the rest of us have?
Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk had a distinguished career in the Air Force, unblemished by even the slightest disciplinary action. In August 2012, his commanding officer, Major Elisa Valenzuela, an openly practicing lesbian, ordered him to make a statement that he supported homosexual “marriage.” He politely explained that he could not answer since it would violate his conscience. Valenzuela told him that all military personnel must now support homosexual “marriage,” and fired him. When he went to the press, the Air Force threatened him with a court-martial.
Some homophile groups go even further. In 2013, Italian homophiles attempted to sneak through an “anti-homophobia” law just before the Italian Chamber of Deputies broke for its summer recess.
This law would punish anyone who is a member of a group that lobbies against homosexual “marriage,” and features mandatory penalties of up to six years in prison. The law even specified that pro-family activists, once released from prison, be forced to work for homosexual groups!
The homophile group Movimento 5 Stelle (M5S) lobbied for the harsh penalties, which were also supported by U.S.-based Amnesty International.
Naturally, if the homosexuals are to have a tight stranglehold on society, they must also have control of the schools. We have already seen many examples of the “sensitivity” (indoctrination) classes that have been forced upon our high school and college students. Some homosexual activist groups are now demanding that all school textbooks refer to homosexuals only in favorable terms, and that they be prohibited from even mentioning the words “mother” and “father.”
In May 2006, the California Senate passed a bill demanded by homosexual groups and legislators. This bill removed sex-specific terms such as “Mom” and “Dad” from all textbooks, and requires students to learn only positive things about homosexuals and homosexuality, the only group so protected.
“Crimes Against Humanity”
These elements of the homosexual special rights agenda are certainly extreme. However, nothing approaches the fanaticism of those who vocally condemn the death penalty — except for those who oppose them. If this belief were held by only a handful of people, it would not be distressing; however, it appears to be a “mainline” belief among activist homophiles, as the following description shows.
Fifty-one-year-old mother of four Mary Stachowicz confronted homosexual Nicholas Gutierrez and asked him, “Why do you sleep with boys?” In response, Gutierrez raped and sodomized Mary, and then stabbed her so many times he bent the tip of his hunting knife. He stuffed her body in a crawl space and finally confessed two days later.
Predictably, no formal condemnations of Mrs. Stachowicz’s murder were ever issued by leading homosexual groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, or the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).
In fact, many of the thousands of homosexuals and homophiles who posted comments about the brutal murder on the web said that she deserved the death penalty for harassing Gutierrez.
Typical of the thousands of comments by the homophiles who applauded Mary’s savage murder included “The b**** had it coming to her. I’m glad he killed her” [a San Francisco man on Yahoo]; “The woman who did such great evil is dead, but unfortunately the evil and the church and the society which creates it is not” [a self-identified homosexual]; “Maybe [Stachowicz’s murder] will strike fear in the hearts of a few fundamentalists. Where do I send a check for his (Gutierrez’s) defense fund?” [the above homosexual’s “boyfriend,” Barry]; “I really don’t feel sorry for her. She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist. Too bad for her” [“Iris,” in a posting on the ACLU Online Forum]; and “The RCC [Roman Catholic Church] is responsible for continuing to put forth a silly, stupid, and factually wrong doctrine of ‘objective disorders’ and ‘intrinsic moral evil’ regarding homosexuality. For all the evil that that doctrine has done and continues to do, they have a lot to be held accountable for” [“JodyW,” on the Naked Writing Web log].
There is no question that Mary Stachowicz harassed Nicholas Gutierrez. But does the crime of harassment really merit a penalty of death by rape and torture? Apparently, some homosexuals believe so.
And many others believe that those who speak publicly against the homosexual agenda should also be put to death — or at least imprisoned for life.
In 2011, Pastor Scott Lively, a longtime pro-family activist, traveled to Uganda to warn the nation about the consequences of the homosexual lifestyle. Shortly after his visit, a leading Ugandan homosexual activist, David Kato, was murdered. Partly due to this murder, the homophile group SMUG (Sexual Minorities Uganda), assisted by the American group Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), filed a lawsuit against Pastor Lively in federal court, accusing him of “crimes against humanity,” as well as conspiracy and “violating the laws of nations.”
These groups neglected to mention that Kato was murdered by another homosexual man.
“Crimes against humanity,” as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, “are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings.”
It is important to note that most people convicted of crimes against humanity in modern times have been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Some are even sentenced to death in particularly egregious cases.
Not one homosexual activist group questioned the charges brought against Lively.
The Worldwide Agenda
The desire of homosexual activists to force society into their desired mold is certainly not limited to North America and Europe. They ardently desire to stamp out all resistance in every nation of the world at any cost. As long as there is anyone, anywhere, who disapproves of them, they will continue to attempt to eradicate opposition.
Emboldened by the Obama administration, homosexual activist groups are loudly demanding that other (primarily African) nations change their religious and social beliefs, cultures and customs to accommodate homosexuality.
If these nations do not comply, the homosexuals have no problem demanding that international disaster aid be cut off, with the result that thousands or tens of thousands will die painful and unnecessary deaths. This means that Africans must knuckle under or die, and apparently some homophiles believe that their rights are more important than the very lives of other people.
This egocentric belief is not limited to international aid. Leading homosexual groups have demanded the right to give blood for more than two decades, even though homosexual men have an extremely high rate of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, syphilis, and other diseases.
As one example, homosexual activist Joel Pinard of Quebec City admitted that he lied in order to donate blood. He said of guidelines that prevent gay men from donating blood: “It’s a stupid, archaic rule. So I made a false statement, declaring that I was heterosexual . . . to challenge Hemaquebec.”
Hemaquebec is the Quebec Province’s blood collection agency. It tried to recall the blood products derived from Pinard’s donation, but they had already been used. Pinard lied on the blood donor’s questionnaire because he claimed that it fostered the mistaken perception that AIDS is a gay disease. In other words, Pinard believes that his desire for acceptance takes precedence over other people’s lives. Once again, comments on homosexual activist blogs took Pinard’s side by a wide margin.
Pinard is not alone in his beliefs. Homosexuals are so fanatical in their pursuit of revoking the blood ban that they have organized many boycotts of blood drives among all liberals, both homosexual and heterosexual.
There is ample medical evidence supporting the ban on homosexuals giving blood. In the early 1990s, about 20,000 Canadians were infected with HIV and hepatitis due to donations by primarily homosexual men, and most of them died. Few homophiles expressed sympathy for the thousands of Canadians who died needlessly due to the selfishness of homosexual activists. An Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the ban on homosexuals giving blood in 2010, ruling that giving blood is not a constitutional right, although this has not silenced homosexual demands in the least.
By comparison, anyone who is even suspected of being exposed to malaria is automatically banned from giving blood for one year, or, if living in a nation where malaria is found, for three years. However, we don’t see people exposed to malaria griping about how they are being “stigmatized.”
Religion
The greatest enemy of the homosexual special rights agenda is true religion. Therefore, it has come under withering attack by homophile groups over the past two decades in their drive to establish their beliefs as a central element of the new world faith.
Homosexual activists stridently condemn even the most trivial limit on their activities as religiously motivated, and dismiss any concerns — even those based upon science — as paranoid Catholic or fundamentalist stupidity.
In other words, they simply point at Christian beliefs about homosexuality and allege that they are invalid and cannot be used as a basis for law. It does not occur to the homophiles that they are also forcing a religious viewpoint on the rest of us — the Unitarian view that homosexuality is harmless and acceptable, and that homosexual “marriage” must be legalized worldwide. This means that homophiles demand the right to impose their religious beliefs on the entire world.
In Europe and Canada, a number of pastors who have read what the homosexuals deem “anti-gay” passages in the Bible have been fined and imprisoned, and there are serious homophile attempts to have the Bible declared “hate literature.” To get around the problem of Scripture verses such as Romans 1, the homosexuals have even published their own version of the Bible called the “Queen James Version” (QJV), which is sanitized of all passages that might be interpreted as being critical of homosexuality.
No, I am still not making any of this up.
Among religious opponents of the homosexual special rights agenda, the Catholic Church stands alone. Therefore, it is no surprise that it is subjected to the most consistent and vicious attacks.
The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual activity is “intrinsically disordered.” Homosexuals have demanded that the Church change this teaching to suit their doctored public opinion polls. The Church teaches that communicants must avoid committing blasphemy against our Lord, and approach the Communion rail in a state of grace. Homosexual activists demand that this teaching must also be discarded (see the Rainbow Sash Movement in the United States and Australia, for example).
Priests in other nations have been targeted as well. For example, homosexuals living very public “gay” lifestyles in defiance of Church teachings hit several Spanish priests with lawsuits for refusing them Communion.
Homosexuals are the only group of individuals who believe that they have a natural right to be ordained as Catholic priests. In Colombia, homosexual groups sued Archbishop Fabio Betancourt Tirado of Manizales after he dismissed a seminarian for extensive public homosexual activity and for robbery. The former seminarian then accused the archbishop of discrimination against him and filed a lawsuit.
A homosexual-friendly judge ordered the archbishop jailed, but stayed his order at the last minute. The seminarian was supported by Colombian homophile groups throughout the conduct of the lawsuit.
The Catholic Church is not the only denomination that has to deal with such ridiculous homophile demands. A (naturally) anonymous homosexual in an open sexual relationship with his male “partner” brought a Human Rights Tribunal complaint against the Anglican bishop of Auckland, New Zealand, Rev. Ross Bay, for not allowing him to become a priest. Bishop Bay did not permit him to enter a seminary simply because no man in a sexual relationship outside of marriage should become an Anglican priest, not because he was a homosexual.
No other group of people of any philosophy thinks that it has the right to dictate the teachings of a church.
Homosexuals have mocked and ridiculed the Catholic faith for decades, often parodying its most cherished beliefs, such as the Holy Mass, through blasphemous plays and “street theater” (see the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” if you have a cast iron stomach, at www.thesisters.org and www.theabbey.org).
Homosexuals, meanwhile, stridently demand that their lifestyle be protected from parody and mockery. This is probably the most vivid example of a special right demanded by homosexuals when dealing with religion.
Predictably, when a law is passed protecting religion from mockery (identical to the ones the homosexuals demand for themselves), they shriek with outrage. For example, homosexuals are in an uproar about a Russian law that prohibits “public actions expressing open disrespect for society and committed in an effort to offend the religious feelings of [religious] believers.”
Conclusion
The most dangerous special right demanded by radical homosexuals is their monopoly of the discussion. Whenever anyone voices even the mildest objection to any element of the special rights agenda, they are immediately shouted down with a chorus of obnoxious voices chanting “Homophobe!” While homophiles demand the right to relentlessly and ruthlessly stereotype anyone who opposes any element of their agenda for any reason whatsoever as “homophobes,” “haters,” and “bigots,” they claim that anyone who dares stereotype gays in any manner must be charged with a felony hate crime.
Unfortunately, this attitude is not unique to homosexual activists. The Culture of Death says that, if you oppose widespread voter fraud or unrestrained immigration, you are obviously a racist. If you are against gruesome third-trimester abortions of viable babies for convenience purposes, then you must be a foot soldier in the “war against women.” And if you oppose any element of the special rights agenda, then you are, by definition, a bigot and a hater.
It is one thing to refuse to debate because you think your viewpoint is so superior you have nothing to gain. It is another thing entirely to state as a fact that members of your opposition have no right to express their opinions. This is why the homophiles do not listen to their opponents, do not reply to them, and do not even give them the respect of consideration or analysis. They instead just reflexively condemn them as “bigots,” “haters,” and “homophobes.”
Radical homosexuals have become accustomed to winning. They are used to people caving in and giving them everything they want. They have intimidated most people into inaction with their aggressive attacks, and they appear to care little about anyone other than themselves.
The homosexual “special rights” agenda is real, as this article has shown. No amount of professional homophile distraction, ridicule, or censorship will cover it up if Christians and others of goodwill stand up against it. If we do not stop the “special right” agenda while we still can, we will soon be living under a regime bereft of freedom or democracy.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress