Os Abortófilos

Excelente argumentário que desfaz as raízes da pretensão do casamento entre pessoas homossexuais

2010-01-01T07:07:00.000-08:00

Gay "Marriage"?

by Anton N. Marco

Anton N. Marco is founder of Colorado for Family Values and America for Family Values. He was the author of Colorado's Amendment 2 campaign against "protected class" status for gays, and, with his wife, Joyce, runs DoveTail Ministries, a ministry to gays.

In mid-December, 1990, three homosexual couples simultaneously applied for marriage licenses in the State of Hawaii. Their action was not unprecedented (gay couples elsewhere have made the same request), but the outcome was.

While all other previous same-sex couples have had to settle for blunt State refusals of such requests, or in gay-friendly cities like San Francisco, for so-called "domestic partnership" registration, the Hawaii Six have been able to leap several legal hurdles. They may, after an autumn 1996 trial, become the first same-sex couples in the United States to be joined in legal civil marriage.

According to the courts and a legislature-created Commission on Sexual Orientation (which refused to hear any "religious" or "health"-oriented arguments against gays or homosexual behavior[1]), despite legislative action defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman (and in the face of 74% poll-tallied public opposition to same-sex "marriage"), the State's refusal of the Hawaii Six violates Hawaii's Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and the Six's right to equal protection, unjustly denying these (and all) same-sex couples marriage benefits in health care, insurance, joint child custody and support, tax-filing status and other critical life areas.

Some Americans might not wish to begrudge Hawaii the privilege of sanctioning same-sex marriages. But others not so "accepting" are distressed that the effects of Hawaii's decision could extend far beyond that State's borders:

"Gay rights" activists are hoping that the U.S. Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit" clause, under whose authority States ordinarily must recognize legal licenses of other States, will mandate endorsement and "transferability" of Hawaiian same-sex marriage to every State in the Union.

Gay activists' wished-for scenario: Gay couples by the thousands will flock from around the nation to Hawaii, be married there, then return to their home states. There, they will demand marriage recognition and broad ranges of benefits. If or when denied recognition and/or benefits, gay couples will launch litigation salvos, based, as in Hawaii, on State ERAs or denial of Constitutional "equal protection." In the aftermath of these salvos, homosexuality will at last achieve equal standing with heterosexuality throughout America, culturally as well as legally.

As Mike Gabbard, who has led opposition to same-sex "marriage" in Hawaii, has reported:

Homosexual activists are serious about legalizing same-sex "marriage." So far, seven lobby groups have been formed to convince mainstream America that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. These groups are: The Forum On the Right to Marriage (FORM), Hawaii Equal Rights Marriage Project (HERMP), Inter-National Spouses Network (INS), Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (LLDEF), Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples, Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Coalition (SSMAC), and Freedom to Marry Coalition (FMC).

The FMC is urgently attempting a massive national effort of (1) "state-by-state political organizing (i.e., coming together at a local level now) to start approaching non-gay and gay groups for support on marriage, building a coalition while also in a concentrated fashion developing defensive legislative strategies and (2) public education (engaging the non-gay as well as gay worlds) in understanding real-life gay and lesbian families and how we are harmed by being denied the Freedom to Marry."

Efforts are being made to identify and enlist "key contacts" in every state to "spearhead the work in each state/community." Also organizations and individuals are being asked to sign The Marriage Resolution, which reads: "Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage." Most groups who have signed the resolution are homosexual activist organizations, but there are others as well, including ACLU, Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism, Japanese-American Citizens League, National Association for Women in education, and the National Organization for Women (NOW).[2]

Both gay and non-homosexual public policy observers expect a decision in favor of the Hawaii Six to produce nothing short of seismic cultural, spiritual and economic shifts in the terrain of our national life.

Gay Activists Perceive Numerous Advantages in Securing Marriage Recognition

That legitimization of gay relationships by marriage is a prime goal of gay activists is clear from numerous sources. Gay activists perceive well the advantages of such recognition. One writer in a Denver gay tabloid wrote:

The most obvious advantage [of same-sex "marriages"] is the hope that society, including but not limited to, our families, schools, and churches, will not only accept our relationships, but our homosexuality as normal...In addition to societal and religious beliefs, we will have all of the tax, insurance, and legal benefits available to "straight" married people. The marital and spousal deductions and diminished inheritance and estate taxes alone would save us millions and maybe even billions.[3]

To Have and to Hold, official same-sex marriage organizing guide of the activist National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), points out that...

If legally married, gay, lesbian and bisexual couples would have a greater ability to care for and protect their families, including the option to:
file joint tax returns
have access to joint insurance policies for home, auto and health
inherit automatically in the absence of a will, including jointly owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship
secure workplace and other benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, Medicare
obtain veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans
enter jointly into leases and other contracts, such as apartment and car rental agreements, and maintain renewal rights
raise children together including: joint adoption, joint foster care, custody, and visitation including non-biological parents
secure wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children
take bereavement leave when a partner or child dies
handle post-mortum decisions involving deceased partners, including where to be buried and how
receive crime victims' recovery benefits
secure domestic violence protection orders in states where this is currently prohibited
obtain divorce protections such as community property and child support
establish status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent[4]

Never before now has there been so much financial advantage to marriage itself, at least in terms of societal benefits and government-bestowed tax breaks, insurance, etc. Marriage now offers substantial benefits to people who might otherwise wish to remain single. One can understand why homosexual activists regard the issue of "lifestyle affirmation," achievable through domestic partnership or marriage recognition, as crucial to achieving "equal rights" in American society.

At the same time, activists recognize that the legitimization of same- sex "marriage" is not an idea with high approval ratings among the American public. In Hawaii, opposition to gay "marriages" has risen steadily since the Hawaii Six launched litigation to secure it.

Gay Activists' Main Arguments in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage

Basing their conclusions largely on the unquestioned acceptance of three key unspoken presuppositions, gay activists employ the following public arguments in their attempt to promote the idea of legal recognition for same-sex "marriages":

1) Gays, lesbians and bisexuals are being "discriminated against" when their unions are denied marriage recognition.

This is not the first instance of government interference in a couple's choice to marry. Less than thirty years ago interracial couples were prohibited from legally marrying. Today, very similar discriminatory arguments are being used to prohibit same-gender couples from marrying.[5]

Of course, this argument presumes a virtual legal equivalency between skin color or race and "sexual orientation."

2) Marriage is a "basic human right" and choice of marriage partners should in no way be regulated by government; therefore same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry.

Marriage is an important personal choice and a basic human right. The decision to get married should belong to the couple in love, not the state.[6]

Here, the operative presumption seems to be that every "sexual orientation" is fundamentally like every other, and relationships involving any and all "sexual orientations" should be freely chosen by the individuals in relationships and then recognized without question by the state.

3) Civil and religious marriage will remain separate institutions if same-sex marriages are legalized.

Legally, religious and civil marriage are two separate institutions. Though many faiths do perform same-gender marriages now, they have no legal recognition as civil marriages. The state should not dictate which marriages any religion performs or recognizes, just as religions should not dictate who gets a civil marriage license from the state.[7]

These statements seem to presume that recognition of same-gender marriages will have little social impact, in either religious, civil or economic spheres.

4) Same-gender couples cannot legally marry in any state, despite how much they may feel a "need" to (emotionally), or how much their "families" need civil marriage's protections, benefits and responsibilities.[8]

In Virtually Normal, Andrew Sullivan's book-length apologia for same-sex marriage, the author asserts that...

The introduction of gay marriage would not be some sort of leap in the dark, a massive societal risk. Homosexual marriages have always existed, in a variety of forms; they have just been euphemized. Increasingly they exist in every sense but the legal one. As it has become more acceptable for homosexuals to acknowledge their loves and commitments publicly, more and more have committed themselves to one another for life in full view of their families and friends. A law institutionalizing gay marriage would merely reinforce a healthy trend.[9]

Elsewhere, Sullivan explains further:

In the contemporary West, marriage has become a way in which the state recognizes an emotional commitment by two people to each other for life. And within that definition, there is no public way, if one believes in equal rights under the law, in which it should legally be denied homosexuals.[10]

So long as conservatives recognize, as they do, that homosexuals exist and that they have equivalent emotional needs and temptations as heterosexuals, then there is no conservative reason to oppose homosexual marriage and many conservative reasons to support it.[11]

As mentioned, there are several unspoken presuppositions which are the foundation of these arguments.

Three Presuppositions for Gay "Marriage"

Three presumptions are critically important for gay activists taking their case for same-sex "marriage" to the public-the most crucial of which is the presumption that gays constitute some kind of immutable "minority." Possession of "minority" status is the key that will enable gay militancy to achieve all of its aims most easily and quickly, including gay "marriage." Consider how achieving even the appearance of "minority" status has already helped advance the various goals of the 1972/1993 Gay Rights/March on Washington Platforms...

1972 Federal Demand #1:
"Minority" Status For Gays

Several cities with "gay rights" legislation in force (San Francisco and Denver to name two) have already instituted affirmative action goals for gays in city employment.

1972 Federal Demand #6:
Support for Gay/Lesbian-Taught Sex Education Of "Gayness" As Healthy, Normal

From 1993-1995, nearly $38 million worth of Federal grant money has been given to promote gay-related "health studies" in America's public schools.[12]

1972 Federal Demand #8:
Aid for Gay Organizations To Combat Effects Of "Oppressive" Society

By 1982, an exhaustive study revealed that the Federal government provided 58% of funding all American homosexual advocacy organizations.[13] It is commonly known that per-case Federal spending on AIDS research (which here in the U.S. largely benefits gay males) far exceeds spending on research for other diseases producing comparable or much larger mortality rates.

1972 State Demand #4:
"Non-Discrimination" Against Gays In Insurance, Bonding, Etc.

"Gay rights" lobbyists were largely responsible for AIDS being declared a "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (1991). Thus, AIDS has become the world's first 100% fatal disease to be protected by "minority rights," thus making "non-discrimination" against AIDS sufferers mandatory for employers, insurers, etc.

1972 State Demand #5:
No Denial Of Child Custody, Adoption, Visitation, Foster Parenting Rights To Gays

In November, 1995, "the New York Supreme Court- noting 'fundamental changes' in the American family-ruled (4-3) that neither heterosexual nor homosexual couples have to be 'married' to adopt a child together. And, in July of last year, the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that homosexual unmarried couples in 'committed relationships' are permitted to adopt children under District law."[14]

1972 State Demand #8,
1993 Platform Demand #C-29: Legalize Same-Sex Marriages

As public policy analyst Whitney Galbraith has observed, "[t]he key to the [Hawaii Supreme Court's] decision [regarding same-sex "marriage"] was the court's declaring same-sex couples to be part of a 'suspect class.'"[15] If gays are indeed part of a suspect class, they should not be denied such privileges as marriage either, the argument goes.

There are two other presuppositions key to gay "marriage" recognition. In addition to believing gays are a "minority," the public must presume that homosexuality is "normal and healthy" (and probably innate)-that homosexuals are "just like anyone else (in emotional needs and behavioral proclivities), except for their choice of sexual partners." If this is so, there should be little reason to deny gay unions marriage recognition.

The third presumption follows from the second: If gays are "just like everyone else," then gay activists desire the same kinds of marriages as "everyone else." Thus, placing the marriage imprimatur on gay unions will have merely negligible effects on society at large.

Gay activists arguing for same-sex "marriage" recognition now treat these presuppositions as "givens," trying as much as possible to avoid making analysis of the three a part of the debate.

Examining Presupposition One

If achieving "minority"/suspect status looms as the "fulcrum" gay activists need most to leverage the rest of their "gay rights" platforms into place, the presupposition that gays do constitute an "oppressed minority" is the first to examine. Securing suspect status in one form or another would allow gay activists, through taxpayer-funded lawsuits, to silence or punish their critics and coerce businesses and society at large to grant benefits to their "spouses" or domestic partners.

Shortly after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the U.S. Supreme Court began to issue (and reaffirm) a series of Civil Rights decisions which soon added limitations (to counterbalance the incentives) to the process of seeking suspect class status. In essence, the High Court put a "fence" around suspect status, in the interest of ensuring that the status remain open only to disadvantaged, politically powerless classes that truly needed government protection. The High Court did so by establishing three criteria[16] by which prospective suspect classes might be evaluated, and by which some failing to meet the qualifications might be fenced out if necessary:

Criterion #1: Prospective suspect classes should have experienced a history of severe societal oppression, evidenced by an entire "class-averaged" lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate education, or cultural opportunity.

Criterion #2: Prospective suspect classes should, "averaged" as entire classes, clearly demonstrate political powerlessness.

Criterion #3: Prospective suspect classes should exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics, like race, color, gender or national origin, that define them as discrete groups.

Examining Criterion #1:
Low Income, Inadequate Education, Lack of Opportunity For decades homosexual activists have fostered the impression that gays are economically, educationally and culturally disadvantaged. Yet recent marketing studies, done by gay-run marketing agencies and boasting scientific accuracy above 99%, roundly refute those claims.[17]

Homosexuals have an average annual individual income of $36,800- $41,000, depending on which study one cites (an estimated 55% of gay individuals earn more than $50,000 per year), versus $12,287 for the general population and $3,041 for disadvantaged African Americans. Thus, gay individuals' average income is at least 300% higher than average Americans' and more than 1,200% higher than that of disadvantaged African Americans.
More than three times as many gays as average Americans are college graduates (59.6% v. 18%)-a percentage dwarfing that of truly disadvantaged African Americans and Hispanics.
65.8 % of homosexuals are overseas travelers-more than four times the percentage (14%) of average Americans. More than thirteen times as many homosexuals as average Americans (26.5% vs. 1.9%) are frequent fliers.
7% of gays live in households with annual income of over $100,000. Gay households are four times as likely as average Americans to be earning in excess of $100,000 annually.
56.2% of cohabiting lesbian/gay couples' household incomes top $50,000 a year. Almost 30% of lesbian households earn over $50,000 annually.
While, in 1989, 32.8% of African Americans lived below the poverty line ($8,343 annually for two-person households under age 65[18]), 62% of gay households earned more than the average American household, and more than 95% of gay households lived above the poverty line.[19]

Also, according to Michael's (et al) landmark survey Sex In America, self-identified gays and lesbians tend to be far better educated than the general population. Twice as many college men identify themselves as gay as do non-college men, and with lesbians, there is an even greater contrast. Women with college educations are eight times more likely than high school- educated women to identify themselves as lesbians.[20]

Also contradicting the "severe oppression" complaints of gay activists, avowedly gay writer Ed Mickens, employment and business commentator for The Advocate, has admitted that gay people do not suffer greatly in the workplace: "Today, it's rare that anyone gets fired just for being gay."[21] Gay activist/journalist Andrew Sullivan commented:

Unlike blacks three decades ago, gay men and lesbians suffer no discernible communal economic deprivation and already operate at the highest levels of society: in boardrooms, governments, the media, the military, the law and industry. They may have advanced so far because they have not disclosed their sexuality, but their sexuality as such has not been an immediate cause for their discharge. In many cases, their sexuality is known, but it is disclosed at such a carefully calibrated level that it never actually works against them.[22]

Syndicated columnist Mike Royko, generally regarded as liberal in political philosophy, agrees that gays scarcely seem "oppressed":

[Gays'] difficulties look pretty meager compared to those of the poor, the uneducated and the unemployed. It may be a politically incorrect risk to disagree with those hundreds of thousands of homosexual demonstrators who gathered in Washington, but, no, this decade will not be "The Gay '90s." That's because there are so many people in this country who have far worse problems than do homosexual men and lesbians.[23]

Overwhelmed by the weight of such evidence, self-identified gay activists and journalists like Jonathan Rauch have as much as conceded that, by virtue of their failure to meet Criterion #1 alone, gay activists should abandon their "minority" claim:

The standard political model sees homosexuals as an oppressed minority who must fight for their liberation through political action. But that model's usefulness is drawing to a close. It is ceasing to serve the interests of ordinary gay people, who ought to begin disengaging from it, even drop it. Otherwise, they will misread their position and lose their way, as too many minority groups have done already....[24]

Examining Criterion #2:
Political Powerlessness Far from being politically powerless, allegedly gay activists have in recent years demonstrated enormous political clout relative to their numbers. Combining economic and educational advantage with high-pressure lobbying tactics, gay activists have ridden waves of tolerance emanating from the sexual revolution, plus the presumption that gays are some kind of "minority," to a position of almost irresistible influence in today's America. They have:

Won passage of legislation granting homosexuals suspect-equivalent status in eight states, more than 135 cities across America, plus our nation's capitol.
Secured political office both in the U.S. Congress and on numerous major U.S. city councils.
Pressured the medical community to discard well-established public health measures and treat AIDS as history's first "politically protected" 100% fatal plague.
Received benefits for "domestic partners" identical to those of married couples, and other kinds of preferential treatment in numerous major U.S. corporations.
Implemented gay activist-created curricula representing homosexual sex as a "valid, healthy alternative" to heterosexuality.
Gained ordination in mainline church denominations. Case in point: On April 1, 1991, a prominent Marin County, Calif., lesbian minister became a co-pastor of the Downtown United Presbyterian Church of Rochester, N.Y.
Won National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) grants for "works of art" that graphically portray homosexual sex and savagely ridicule traditional "family" and religious values.

As recently as 1987, a report issued by the Federal Elections Commission stated that "The Human Rights Campaign Fund" [HRCF], the national gay activist political action committee (PAC), was at that time the "16th largest independent political action committee (PAC) in the nation" and "the 39th largest PAC overall." Considering that more than 4,500 PACs had registered with the FEC at the time, this represents enormous political power.

During the 1986 elections, HRCF raised more than $1.4 million. This put it in the top 1% of PACs nationwide. HRCF funded candidates in 112 political races-"an incredible political achievement," according to political experts.

By fiscal year 1991-1992, the HRCF's budget had grown to nearly $4 million and announced a 1992-1993 projected budget of over $5 million.[25] Gay activists have now established a Washington, D.C.-based "Victory Fund" to empower local, openly homosexual candidates, with a current operating budget of between $650,000 and $1 million.

Giving to the top 12 "gay rights"-promoting PACs now ranges in the top tenth of one percent of all PAC giving in the United States.

Examining Criterion #3:
Immutable Characteristics Attempting to satisfy this criterion, gay militants claim that "gayness" is genetically determined. Gay activist protestations aside, there is simply no credible scientific evidence to support their assertions.

"The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today... Despite the interest in possible hormone mechanisms in the origin of homosexuality, no serious scientist today suggests that a simple cause-effect relationship applies" according to Human Sexuality, a 1984 textbook written by Masters, Johnson and Kolodny.

How sexual orientation evolves is a debatable question, but that it can (and does) change is a well-observed fact. A recent study by the gay- friendly Kinsey Institute found that 84% of homosexuals and 29% of heterosexuals shifted or changed their "sexual orientation" at least once in a lifetime; 32% of homosexuals and 4% of "straights" reported a second shift; and 13% of homosexuals and 1% of heterosexuals claimed at least five changes in sexual orientation during their lifetimes.[26]

Scientific literature is filled with evidence of permanent change from initial homosexual orientation to exclusive heterosexual orientation:

Sexual behavior may or may not correlate with sexual orientation. Furthermore, an individual's sexual behavior and orientation may vary over time.

The scientific literature indicates that homosexual feelings are more frequent than homosexual behavior and that same-sex behavior is more frequent than lasting homosexual identification.[27]

Approximately thirty percent of male homosexuals who come to psychotherapy for any reason (not just for help with their sexual preference) can be converted to the heterosexual adaptation.[28]

Five years after publishing our study, a follow- up of patients showed that the one-third whose adaptation had shifted to heterosexuality remained so. And we have personally followed some patients for as long as 20 years who remained exclusively heterosexual.[29]

Treatment using dynamic individual psychotherapy, group therapy, aversion therapy, or psychotherapy with an integration of Christian principles will produce object-choice reorientation and successful heterosexual relationships in a high percentage of persons....Homosexuals can change their orientation.[30]

Dr. Judd Marmor, past president of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, has said:

The myth that homosexuality is untreatable still has wide currency among the public at large and among homosexuals themselves....

There is little doubt that a genuine shift in preferential sex object choice can and does take place in somewhere between 20 and 50 per cent of patients with homosexual behavior who seek psychotherapy with this end in mind. The single most important prerequisite to reversibility is a powerful motivation to achieve such a change.

Although some gay liberationists argue that it would be preferable to help these persons accept their homosexuality, this writer is of the opinion that, if they wish to change, they deserve the opportunity to try, with all the help that psychiatry can give them....[31]

Dr. Reuben Fine, director of the New York Center for Psychoanalytic Training, has written:

I have recently had occasion to review the result of psychotherapy with homosexuals, and been surprised by the findings. It is paradoxical that even though politically active homosexual groups deny the possibility of change, all studies from Schrenk-Notzing on have found positive effects, virtually regardless of the kind of treatment used...a considerable percentage of homosexuals became heterosexual....

If the patients were motivated, whatever procedure is adopted, a large percentage will give up their homosexuality. In this connection, public information is of the greatest importance. The misinformation spread by certain circles that "homosexuality is untreatable by psychotherapy" does incalculable harm to thousands of men and women.[32]

Nevertheless, gay activists insist publicly that homosexuality is innate and immutable-and cite "scholarship" to "prove" their contention. One highly-publicized study by an avowed homosexual, reported in a cover article in the Feb. 24, 1992 edition of Newsweek, claimed to discover "homosexual brains."[33] However, on closer examination the study does not hold up. Simon LeVay's study of the brains of 19 homosexual male corpses (who died of AIDS complications) noted a difference in size of a specific neuron group, INAH3, compared with that of a group comprised of 16 presumably heterosexual male and six female corpses.

One problem with LeVay's study is that the researcher presumed that the control group of 16 corpses had been heterosexual. Avowedly homosexual reporter Michael Botkin wrote, shortly after the study's publication:

It turns out that LeVay doesn't know anything about the sexual orientation of his control group, the 16 corpses "presumed heterosexual." A sloppy control like this is...enough by itself to invalidate the study. LeVay's defense? He knows his controls are het[erosexual] because their brains are different from the HIVer corpses. Sorry, doctor; this is circular logic. You can use the sample to prove the theory or vice versa, but not both at the same time.[34]

Similarly, a much-publicized "gay twin" study (by avowedly gay researchers Bailey and Pillard) suggested genetic origins for "gayness." The study, however, did not examine twins raised in different environments. Thus, the study cannot prove any genetic connection. Developmental biologist Anne Fausto Stirling put it simply:

In order for such a study to be meaningful, you'd have to look at twins raised apart. It's such badly interpreted genetics.[35]

Though another "genetic origins of homosexuality" study, by Dean Hamer, has also been widely (and uncritically) reported in the media, minuscule coverage has been given to the fact that the study, done under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute, is, according to syndicated columnist Cal Thomas, "under investigation for alleged fraud by the federal Office of Research Integrity and that a colleague of Mr. Hamer has charged that Mr. Hamer selectively reported data in ways that enhanced the study's thesis...."[36]

Also of note, though several studies have been undertaken, none has ever been published advancing an even nearly credible claim that lesbianism is genetically determined.

More astounding is the enormous weight of evidence available from gay and lesbian activist sources that the issue of gay "innateness and immutability" is in serious doubt among gay activists themselves. According to "Queer Nation" pioneer Jonathan Ned Katz:

Contrary to today's bio-belief, the heterosexual/homosexual binary is not in nature, but is socially constructed, therefore deconstructable.

In other words, human beings make their own different arrangements of reproduction and production, of sex differences and eroticism, their own history of pleasure and happiness.[37]

In an Afterword to Katz' book, lesbian activist Lisa Duggan frankly explores the reasons why some activists make so-called "innateness" arguments: They are politically expedient...

...Katz will...be challenged by lesbian and gay "essentialists" who believe that sexual identity is fixed, perhaps inborn. Understandably, these advocates of equality believe that their kind of argument works better against the conservatives who would banish them from the earth. If lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are born, not made, then the wish to ban or punish them is itself against nature and thus wrong as well as mean.

But such arguments are short-sighted as well as a-historical. All they can win is tolerance for a supposedly fixed minority called "lesbian" and "gay." What they can't do is change the notion that "heterosexuality" is "normal" for the vast majority of people, and shift social, cultural, and political practices based on that assumption. Nor can they destabilize the rigid notions of gender that underlie sexual identity categories.[38]

Lesbian activists Sue O'Sullivan and Pratibha Parmar comment on the raging debate among lesbians about who is a "real lesbian":

That a woman can spend half her adult life seeing herself as a heterosexual, marrying and bearing children, and then, in mid-life, become a lesbian puzzles most observers and quite often the woman herself. Yet from rural Idaho to Metropolitan New York, women are redefining their sexuality and becoming lesbians in mid- life.

What are the social dynamics involved in this process of change? We will discuss this question in light of a survey of over 30 American women who had recently changed their sexual identity. Their experiences challenge the common assumption that sexuality is "set" at an early stage of the life cycle. They also illuminate the social context which was supportive to the redefinition of the lesbian stereotype and their own sexuality.

From the same article: "Several women followed what we might call a 'feminist path' to lesbianism, a pattern for 'coming out' that has been known since the early days of the women's movement. For these women, becoming a lesbian was a direct and conscious outgrowth of their commitment to feminism. For them, lesbianism was a deliberate choice, the logical last step in the process of political analysis."[39]

A recently published survey also calls the "innateness" of lesbianism into question:

There's a big controversy now: Is lesbianism hereditary? People are trying to find a genetic predisposition to being gay. I think part of this is positive in that researchers are trying to tell the establishment, "Don't try to cure homosexuality. They were born this way. A certain percent of the population is going to be this way, no matter what you do."

But even if they're right, what about those for whom it's not hereditary? Many women say it's a choice. They have chosen lesbianism because of positive experiences with women...Why are we so afraid to say we chose it? It's so scary to take that chance and say, "I am choosing it. It's really what I want to do. It's not because my DNA is making me. DNA be d[-]ed, I think I'll be a lesbian."[40]

Lesbian activist Donna Minkowitz would also seem to affirm a "non- innateness" perspective, in an article entitled "Recruit, recruit, recruit!":

Remember that most of the line about homosex[uality] being one's nature, not a choice, was articulated as a response to brutal repression. "It's not our fault!" gay activists began to declaim a century ago, when queers first began to organize in Germany and England. "We didn't choose this, so don't punish us for it!" One hundred years later, it's time for us to abandon this defensive posture and walk upright on the earth. Maybe you didn't choose to be gay-that's fine. But I did.[41]

Public policy author and American University professor Jerry Z. Muller observes, of gay activist "sexual politics":

In political arguments toward the non-homosexual public, the homosexual movement has tended toward a deterministic portrait of homosexuality as grounded in irrevocable biological or social-psychological circumstance. Yet among homosexual theorists in the academy, the propensity is toward the defense of homosexuality as a voluntarily affirmed "self-fashioning."

The confluence of feminism and homosexual ideology has now led to a new stage, in which the politics of stable but multicultural and multisexual identities is being challenged by those who regard all permanent and fixed identity as a coercive restriction of autonomy, which is thought to include self-definition and redefinition.[42]

Lastly, a number of prominent gay activists have recently attempted to disparage LeVay, Hamer and their "findings," holding that homosexuality is indeed non-innate and mutable, for a curious reason: They fear that if "gayness" can be proved to be genetically determined, it will therefore be "surgically correctable, or alterable by genetic engineering." They fear "fascists" and/or "homophobes" may try to round up gays and "correct" their sexual orientation "under the knife" or "in the test tube"-even kill infants determined genetically to be homosexual.

In any event, it must be observed that if gay activists themselves, strongest advocates of the "innateness and immutability" of homosexuality, cannot agree on this question, and if what "science" there is supporting their thesis is faulty if not fraudulent, it would be foolhardy to make sweeping public policy decisions based on the dubious presumption that gays are "born that way" and cannot change their sexual orientation.

Examining Presupposition Two

For arguments in favor of same-sex "marriage" to be valid, the presupposition that gays are "just like everyone else, except for their desire for same-sex partners" must be proved valid. Does such a presupposition have a basis in truth? Has the "homosexualization of America" (Americans, in general, becoming more promiscuous and more favorable toward casual and anyonymous sex) proceeded so far that there are indeed no essential remaining differences between the ways "gays and straights" conduct their lives and loves?

To address these questions one can examine the scientific literature and gays' and lesbians' own self-admissions with regard to dominant lifestyle patterns within gay and lesbian populations. Then, one can compare these findings with evidence regarding lifestyle behaviors in the general population.

Promiscuity and Relational Instability:
Dominant Features of Gay, Lesbian Lifestyles Gay apologists attempt to make the prospect of same-sex "marriage" seem as harmless and appealing as possible. For instance, Andrew Sullivan asserts that "many" gay relationships are "virtual textbooks of monogamy." However, the available research on gay lifestyles does not back up that assertion. Psycho-sociological studies and gay/lesbian self-admissions reveal that if any two factors most accurately characterize gay and lesbian lifestyles, they are: sexual promiscuity and relational instability.

AIDS research released in 1982 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that the typical gay man interviewed claimed to have had more than 500 different sexual partners in a 20-year span. Gay people with AIDS studied averaged more than 1,100 "lifetime" partners. Some reported as many as 20,000. (A psychologist we interviewed personally told of counseling a gay clergyman who admitted to having had more than 900 sexual partners to date.)

From perhaps the most comprehensive study of gay lifestyles ever undertaken before 1980, we learn that:

43% of white male homosexuals estimated they'd had sex with 500 or more different partners
75% had had 100 or more sexual partners; 28% (the largest subcategory) reported more than 1,000 partners
79% said more than half their partners were strangers
70% said more than half their sexual partners were men with whom they had sex only once[43]

A study of San Francisco gay men published in Psychology Today (Feb. 1981) also reported that 28% of gay men surveyed had engaged in sex with more than 1,000 partners.

In a 1986-published gay tabloid, Dr. Will Handy, former co-chair of Wisconsin's Governor's Council on Lesbian and Gay Issues and an avowed homosexual, detailed his objections to "contact tracing" of HIV-positive people as follows:

Contact tracing has not proved very effective among gay men, even for those diseases (syphilis and gonorrhea) which are, in a sense, "designed" for it. In the three weeks incubation period for syphilis, the average gay man will have three sexual partners to report. Wisconsin's HTLV-III contact tracing proposal calls for the tracing of partners back to 1980: that suggests quite a large pool of people to contact for each positive test given to a gay/bisexual man. But the reality is that many of those contacts would have been anonymous or so casual that memories of names, addresses, and dates would be long lost. The Division of Health can't trace my partners if I can't recall who they were.[44]

In one of medical literature's only studies reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," the number of annual sexual partners was nearly 100.[45]

Studies reported by Bell and Weinberg (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3% of gay men they surveyed had had fewer than 10 "lifetime" sexual partners. Only about 2% could be classified as either "monogamous" or even "semi-monogamous." Even "monogamy" seems to lack traditional meaning in gay male circles. Studies have indicated that "monogamy" for gay men tends to last from between 9 and 60 months.[46]

A study by McKusick, et al, of 655 San Francisco gay men[47] recommended that homosexuals limit their sexual expression to committed monogamy. McKusick reported responses to this suggestion he received from avowedly gay men:

...[T]he recommendation that gay men limit themselves to committed monogamy was discussed [among survey participants] and found to lack creativity...and to reflect the simple insensitivity of an outsider approaching the gay world. Although most of our subjects have expressed a desire for more primary partnering in response to AIDS, there has been no significant increase in these bonds during the [three year] period of our investigation.[48]

Weinberg and Williams (op. cit.) reported that two-thirds of 1,117 gay males they had surveyed answered "no" when asked whether they or their present sexual partner were currently "limiting your sexual relationships primarily to each other." Only a third of gay males surveyed claimed they had "ever" been involved in such a mutually exclusive relationship.

Gay activist marketing experts Kirk and Madsen admit in After the Ball (op. cit., p. 330), "...[T]he cheating ratio of 'married' gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%...Many gay lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to an 'open relationship,' for which there are as many sets of ground rules as there are couples."

"Reparative therapist" Joseph Nicolosi writes:

The fact is, a committed, monogamous gay relationship is very rare. Sometimes good friends make a commitment to share a home and care for and support each other, but as gay literature itself tells us, these relationships characteristically include an understanding that there will be outside sexual relationships.

In The Male Couple, by David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, the authors-a gay couple themselves- could find no gay relationship in which fidelity was maintained more than five years. In fact, the authors tell us, "the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together."[49]

A 1984 study by the American Psychological Association's Ethics Committee, reported in USA Today (November 21, 1984), indicated that fear of AIDS had lowered gay men's promiscuity rate from 70 different partners in 1982 to 50 partners per year by 1984. (Even at this "safer sex" rate, a gay male would still total over 600 sexual partners between ages 18-30.)

A University of Chicago study[50] concluded that the estimated number of lifetime sexual partners since age 18 for the U.S. population as a whole is 7.15 (only 8.67 for those who never marry).

In American Couples (1983)-"A major enlightening report on how Americans live their private lives," according to the Philadelphia Inquirer-authors Philip Blumstein, Ph.D. and Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D. state:

If a gay man is monogamous, he is such a rare phenomenon, he may have difficulty making himself believed.

[and]

Gay men can make non-monogamy part of everyday life. They have no trouble incorporating casual sex into their relationships. Since their partner is male, they are not called on to honor the female preference for monogamy...

Gay authors David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D. (The Male Couple) confirm homosexual promiscuity:

Only seven couples [out of the 156 interviewed] have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men have all been together less than 5 years. Stated in another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than 5 years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships. That translates into 5 percent monogamous, 95 percent non- monogamous.[51]

Isolated studies of interviews conducted since 1987 suggest that gay men may have lowered the number of their sexual contacts to around 10 per year. Even a reduction of this magnitude would mean gay males, on average, have more sexual partners in one year than the average American male (and this estimate is probably raised somewhat by factoring in the partnering of promiscuous gay men) has in a lifetime.

Evidence also exists in the literature and in gay self-admissions that lesbians exhibit high levels of promiscuity relative to the general female population. Jay and Young's Gay Report[52] revealed that 38% of lesbians surveyed claimed to have had between 11 and more than 300 sexual partners lifetime. In Homosexualities (op. cit.), Bell and Weinberg reported that 41% of Caucasian lesbians admitted to having had between 10 and 500 sexual partners lifetime.

There is also much evidence of lesbian relational instability. An article entitled, "Maintaining Our Equilibrium in Couples-Or Not," by Clare Coss, quotes a writer named Alison as saying:

I met somebody the other day and she's been in and out of relationships as I have. She said, "You know, I'm so jaded now I think if I ever got into a relationship it would be about six weeks." I said, "That long?"[53]

Also, from the book Lesbian Passion...

Everyone wants to know: How come lesbian relationships don't last long? They forget that these days, no relationships last long. We're in a fast-paced, fast- moving world. Things change all the time...

Today, everybody's moving all the time. Who even knows her neighbors? Relationships of all persuasions aren't lasting very long. Some lesbians have unreal expectations that because we're lesbians, our relationships are going to be better. They're going to be different. They're going to be stronger. They're going to last longer. All the while, somewhere inside of us, we don't believe that for an instant. We need only look at the relationships of our friends to see how flimsy that belief is.[54]

The authors of Lesbian Passion spend considerable time writing about the instability and transitory nature of many lesbian relationships. According to their survey, many lesbians (69%) who'd been couples had been couples for fewer than three years. Only 7% had been couples for nine or more years.[55]

When thinking about [sexual] satisfaction it's important to remember that most of the lesbians in this survey had been in their current situations (single, casually involved, coupled) for fewer than three years... No matter how many questionnaires were analyzed, the statistics did not change significantly, so it seems likely that lesbians generally do not stay in their situations for long.[56]

Lifestyle Behaviors in the General Population Attempting to shore up their claim to be "just like everyone else," homosexual activists argue that (1) wildly promiscuous heterosexuals also exist, and (2) the scope of "normality" is vast. Do these claims have substance?

Sex In America, conducted by Michael, Gagnon, Laumann and Kolata, published in 1994, and claiming to be the most comprehensive report ever conducted of American sexual life and habits[57], calls these claims and the entire "homosexualization of America" concept into serious question. According to Michael, et al:

America has a message about sex, and that message is none too subtle. Anyone who watches a movie, reads a magazine, or turns on the television has seen it. It says that almost everyone but you is having endless, fascinating, varied sex.

But, we have found, the public image of sex in America bears virtually no relationship to the truth. The public image consists of myths, and they are not harmless, for they elicit at best unrealistic and at worst dangerous misconceptions of what people do sexually. The resulting false expectations can badly affect self-esteem, marriages, relationships, even physical health.[58]

Our study, called the National Health and Social Life Survey, or NHSLS, has findings that often directly contradict what has become the conventional wisdom about sex. They are counterrevolutionary findings, showing a country with very diverse sexual practices but one that, on the whole, is much less sexually active than we have come to believe.[59]

For instance, the survey revealed that 67.6% of men and 75.5% of women surveyed had had only one sex partner in the past year. The survey found that only 2.6% of men and only 1.2% of women had only same-sex partner(s) during the past year.[60]

The survey also revealed that Americans tend to establish long-term relationships in marriage with people much like themselves, i.e., people largely choose marriage partners and "significant others" from the same socioeconomic and educational strata they themselves "fall into." And people tend to have little sex while establishing those relationships. Obviously, for most Americans, other factors than sheer sexual attraction play a major role in the making of long-term, committed relationships.

Contrary to some expectations, the survey found very little incidence of adultery in traditional marriage. And, according the survey, in 1992, more than half of men and women in America between the ages of 18-26 had had just one sex partner in the past year, and another 11% had none. The same kinds of results are reported in British and European sex surveys. Michael, et al, find that...

...nearly all Americans have a very modest number of partners, whether we ask them to enumerate their partners over their adult lifetime or in the past year. The number of partners varies little with education, race, or religion. Instead, it is determined by marital status or by whether a couple is living together. Once married, people tend to have one and only one partner, and those who are unmarried and living together are almost as likely to be faithful.[61]

The survey's findings...

... give no support to the idea of a promiscuous society or of a dramatic Sexual Revolution reflected in huge numbers of people with multiple casual sex partners. The finding on which our data give quite strong and amazing evidence is not that most people do, in fact, form a partnership, or that most people do, in fact, ultimately get married. That fact was also well documented in many previous studies. Nor is it news that more recent marriages are much less stable than marriages that began 30 years ago. That fact, too, was reported by others before us. But we add a new fact, one that is not only important but is striking.

Our study shows clearly that no matter how sexually active people are before or between marriages, no matter whether they lived with their sexual partners before marriage or whether they were virgins on their wedding day, marriage is such a powerful social institution that, essentially married people are nearly all alike-they are faithful to their partners as long as the marriage is intact....Once married, the vast majority have no other sexual partners; their past is essentially erased. Marriage remains the great leveler.[62]

The old standards of sexual behavior are not so much gone as made more fuzzy, more diffuse, in the time before and between marriages. But there are definitely standards of behavior. And if society's goal is to get people safely married and procreating and faithful to their spouses, the standards have been a roaring success.[63]

The survey revealed that overall, married people are those most physically pleased and emotionally satisfied with the sex they are having. The lowest rates of satisfaction are among the unmarried or those who are not living with someone. Interestingly, satisfaction declines when people have more than one sex partner. The least satisfied are the unmarried or non-cohabiting who have two or more sex partners at any one time. More interestingly, the survey revealed that conservative, Protestant married women claimed the highest rate of orgasms during sexual relations. The sexually-active unmarried and the non-religious, non-cohabiting, reported the lowest incidence of orgasms.

Not surprisingly, most people in the survey who identify themselves as faithful partners or mates also have faithful partners or mates. It also showed that only 4.1% of men and 1.6% of women had five or more sexual partners during the last 12 months. And only 15.1% of men and 2.7% of women had 5 or more partners lifetime.[64] Very few Americans had five or more sex partners in the past year of the survey, and these were mostly young, mostly male, and we may be safe in assuming, mostly gay.

When the survey inquired about the kinds of sex practices engaged in by Americans, heterosexuals showed very little interest in "kinky" or unusual sexual behaviors, like sado-masochism. Heterosexuals report very little drug or alcohol use before sex, and, except for religious liberals and libertarians, Americans overwhelmingly think same-gender sex is always wrong.

Significantly, the National Health and Social Life survey did not find gays numbering anywhere near the 10% of the general population figure usually cited by gay activists. In fact, researchers found very small percentages of both men and women who have had exclusively gay sex and lesbian relationships and even a much smaller percentage of people who have been involved in bisexual relationships. Only 1.4% of women and 2.8% of men identified themselves as homo- or bisexual:

No matter how we define homosexuality, we come up with small percentages of people who are currently gay or lesbian. These numbers, in fact, may sound astonishingly low, especially to residents of cities like New York or San Francisco, where there are large lesbian and gay communities. But, we found, gays and lesbians are not evenly distributed across the country. They tend to live in large cities and to avoid or leave small towns and rural areas...[65]

Certainly, Sex In America's sexual and relational portrait of the married and cohabiting general American population presents a striking contrast, in sexual/relational fidelity, to the "open" nature of gay relationships, even those characterized as "monogamous." Gay lifestyles appear to be much more promiscuous than "straights'." There appears to be a marked transitoriness in both gay and lesbian relational patterns, and a great deal more sheer sexual preoccupation.

Avowedly gay activist leaders themselves admit the deficiencies of gay life. Kirk and Madsen say: "In short, the gay lifestyle-if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle-just doesn't work: it doesn't serve the two functions for which all social frameworks evolve: to constrain people's natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs."[66]

Examining Presupposition Three

If gays are not "just like everyone else," then gay activists' third major unspoken presupposition-that gay activists will desire the same kinds of marriages as "everyone else," and that the legalization of same-sex "marriage" will have minimal effects on society at large-must be examined carefully before America proceeds to make public policy decisions we may deeply regret. Granting same-sex unions legal recognition may have much greater "ripple effects" than gay activists would have us believe.

Andrew Sullivan is the most prominent avowedly gay spokesman who says the effects of same-sex "marriage" recognition will not be serious. In his Virtually Normal,[67] Sullivan assures us that:

(1) Same-sex "marriage" would certainly not be "a massive societal leap in the dark."

(2) Same-sex "marriage" would not radically alter the nature of marriage as society has known it; instead, marriage would bring "stability" to gays, "domesticate them" and bring them closer to society's mainstream.

(3) Churches, synagogues and other religious organizations would not be forced to enact or recognize same-sex civil "marriages."

(4) Granting same-sex "marriage" recognition would not exacerbate the tumultuous struggle over "gay rights"; it would actually defuse the conflict.

Sullivan's assertions demand responses. Sullivan's Assertion 1:
Same-sex "marriage" would be no "leap in the dark" for society. From all the evidence we have reviewed so far, it should be clear that same-sex "marriage" surely would be "a massive societal leap in the dark." Social critics recognize same-sex "marriage's" potential, just for starters...

... to have enormous impact on the broad range of rights and benefits associated with marriage. These range from income tax and estate tax law, communal property ownership, inheritance and probate law, divorce and child custody regulations, and insurance benefits.[68]

... to unleash avalanches of gay activist lawsuits, against employers, landlords, school authorities, insurance companies, churches, governmental authorities and more which refuse to recognize same-sex "marriages."

... to force the rewriting of business employment policies, insurance actuarial tables and government regulations at every level of society. "Mega"- businesses may be able to afford to subsidize and create benefit structures for same-sex "marriages" and "domestic partnerships" (some large companies are already providing employee benefits for partners of gay employees[69]), but small businesses will not likely be able to survive with these kinds of added burdens.

... to coerce public and private schools to rewrite curricula to include materials showing gay and lesbian lifestyles in a favorable light. As Mike Gabbard, who has led statewide opposition to same-sex "marriage" recognition in Hawaii, points out: "Compulsory education forces all children-a truly captive audience-to [be educated]. If same-sex 'marriages' become legal, children would be taught in health ed, sex education, and marriage/family courses that so-called homosexual 'marriage' is the equivalent of heterosexual marriage."[70]

... to, as numerous gay activists have predicted, begin "blowing the doors" off traditional marriage and family definitions and boundaries, to accommodate the vagaries of gay and lesbian lifestyles.

California Attorney General Dan Lundgren observes:

If you have the legal determination that there cannot be a preferred status for heterosexual marriage, you open yourself up to all sorts of other [legal] attacks... We go all the way to the question of bigamy, we go to the question of marrying between cousins and so forth and so on once you eliminate this preferred status.[71]

In raising such issues, have opponents, as columnist Stephen Chapman says in an article supporting same-sex "marriage," "passed into outright hallucination"[72]? One wonders how much "gay theory" about marriage and relationships Chapman has read. Activist Paula Ettelbrick, currently policy director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, formerly legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (formerly the Lambda Legal Defense Fund), is tactically "for" same-sex "marriage," but shares these caveats:

Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so....Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society....

As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women....In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly....We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality.[73]

Both the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund are considered, not "fringe," but "mainstream" gay activist groups. Former Lambda Legal Defense Fund president Thomas Stoddard also expresses lukewarm support for same-sex "marriages":

I must confess at the outset that I am no fan of the "institution" of marriage as currently constructed and practiced....Why give it such prominence? Why devote resources to such a distant goal? Because marriage is, I believe, the political issue that most fully tests the dedication of people who are not gay to full equality for gay people, and also the issue most likely to lead ultimately to a world free of discrimination against lesbians and gay men.[74]

The New American has reported:

In his 1990 book An End to Shame: Shaping Our Next Sexual Revolution...sociologist Ira Reiss describes..."a true sexual democracy [in which] all of us can achieve a much higher level of well-being-an ability to satisfy one's sexual interests without guilt or anxiety...."

Reiss points out that extending the social privileges associated with marriage to homosexuals and unmarried couples would be a major step toward the establishment of that "sexual democracy":

We should develop some kind of religious and civic ceremony that will sanctify and recognize a non- marital love relationship between two gays, two lesbians, or two straights. The registration of domestic partners so they may claim legal rights of inheritance and health benefits is a step in this direction which some cities have taken. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation must join the list of forbidden discrimination like race, religion, and creed.

Unlike some...Reiss is refreshingly candid about the totalitarian nature of the reforms he recommends: "To build [sexual] pluralism we must firmly root out the narrow thinking about sex that exists in all of our basic institutions-family, political, economic, religious and educational. We need to change our whole basic social institutional structure...."[75]

Activist Donna Minkowitz says:

We [gay and lesbian activists] have been on the defensive too long. It's time to affirm that the Right is correct in some of its pronouncements about our movement. Pat Buchanan said there was a "cultural war" going on "for the soul of America" and that gay and lesbian rights were the principal battleground. He was right. Similarly, [homo]'phobes like Pat Robertson are right when they say that we threaten the family, male domination, and the Calvinist ethic of work and grimness that has paralyzed most Americans' search for pleasure.

Indeed, instead of proclaiming our innocuousness, we ought to advertise our potential to change straight society in radical, beneficial ways. Het[erosexual]s have much to learn from us: first and foremost, the fact that pleasure is possible (and desirable) beyond the sanction of the state. Another fact gleaned from gay experience-that gender is for all intents and purposes a fiction-also has the potential to revolutionize straight lives.[76]

Writing in Out magazine, regular contributor Michelangelo Signorile (quoted supra) has described a strategy in which homosexuals "fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely...to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution....The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely."[77] Sullivan's Assertion 2:
Same-sex "marriage" would not radically alter the nature of marriage as society has known it; rather, marriage would bring "stability" to gays, "domesticate them" and bring them closer to society's mainstream. Do gay activists truly want gays and lesbians to benefit from "the stability of marriage"-or do they want to destabilize the very foundation of marriage in order to accommodate their own oft- demonstrated relational instability?

As we have seen, not only married couples, but also cohabiting singles in the general population overwhelmingly practice fidelity during their committed relationships. Gays enjoy the same opportunity to be "domesticated" as general-population singles, yet they do not seem to be "domesticating"-and do not, for the most part, seem to desire "domestication." In fact, gay promiscuity and its consequences are generally highest in cities that are most "gay friendly."[78]

Even "conservative" same-sex "marriage" apologist Andrew Sullivan "fudges" when it comes to the idea of pinning gays down to the same marriage relationship standards by which the general population abides. Early in Virtually Normal, Sullivan says conservatives should welcome same-sex "marriage," because it would "harness one minority [?] group-homosexuals-and enlist them in a conservative [social] structure." But, by his book's end, Sullivan coyly hints heterosexuals might learn a lot from gay open-style "marriages":

At times among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds. Some of this is unavailable to the male-female union: there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman...

...I believe strongly that marriage should be made available to everyone, in a politics of strict public neutrality. But within this model, there is plenty of scope for cultural difference. There is something baleful about the attempt of some gay conservatives to educate homosexuals and lesbians to an uncritical acceptance of a stifling model of heterosexual normality. The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.

This need not mean, as some have historically claimed, that homosexuals have no stake in the sustenance of a society, but that their role is somewhat different...they may be able to press the limits of the culture or the business infrastructure, or the boundaries of intellectual life, in a way that heterosexuals by dint of a different type of calling, cannot.[79]

To date, no such "essential and exhilarating" allowances have been made for heterosexual marriages.

On the one hand, Sullivan and other gay activists imply that gays are promiscuous because they cannot marry. On the other hand, they say, "Change the basis of marriage to suit the way we are. It's heterosexual society that needs changing, not us!" They say, "We can't develop stable relationships because we can't marry." But to other audiences they say, "We don't want to form stable relationships, so change the definition of marriage so we don't have to live in sexually faithful relationships."

Sullivan says gays should not be pressed into the "stifling mold of heterosexual normality" (though the "straight" world has also experimented with "open marriages"-with less-than-happy results). But if gays and their relationships aren't "entirely normal," why should either gays or their relationships be recognized as legal "minorities" or equals of heterosexual marriages?

In effect, Sullivan has just pulled the rug out from under his own argument: Do gay activists want to stretch marriage barriers to include all kinds of relationships and combinations of same that would not now be accepted under that "tent"? Evidently, the "ripple effects" of same- sex "marriage" will by no means be as gentle as Sullivan is purringly trying to make them seem!

If gay activists are not trying to effect a radical demolition and re- establishment of the basic foundations of marriage, just to accommodate themselves, why do they seem so unwilling to accept the same standards of sexual fidelity as heterosexuals? Do gay activists want new marriage definitions, not just so marriage can include them, but also so marriage can include the vagaries of their lifestyles?

Ironically, Sullivan finds himself willing to apply the very kind of practical, lifestyle-pattern analysis considerations we have applied to gay unions to disqualify incest and near-kin sexual attraction as bases for marriage. Would he be willing to accept our analysis of homosexual lifestyles in evaluating "gayness" as a basis for marriage? Somehow, we doubt it.

Sullivan himself also admits that no two gay men or lesbians can be parents in the way heterosexual men and women can, so in what way would same-sex "marriage" and parenthoods be comparable to heterosexuals'?

Sullivan's Assertion 3:
Churches, synagogues and other religious organizations would not be forced to recognize same-sex civil "marriages." Sullivan nimbly dodges the question of whether religious organizations will have to recognize or perform same-sex "marriages." Since all gay activists are asking for, Sullivan says, is the privilege of enjoying civil marriage, religious organizations would not be forced to recognize or perform same-sex "marriages." One senses Sullivan knows better. As public policy analyst Robert K. Knight explains:

Although the [Hawaii Commission on Sexual Orientation] majority report recommends that religious institutions not be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies, it offers no defense for the conscientious Christian, Jew or Muslim (or Hindu or atheist, for that matter) who will not legally recognize same-sex "marriage." Law carries the potential use of force against those who will not abide by it....

All institutions except specifically religious ones would be subjected to state enforcement [according to the Commission]. That would include [religious] bookstores, radio and TV stations, and other nondenominational businesses owned by religious people.[80]

In fact, shortly after the State of Hawaii passed S.B. No. 1181, its comprehensive "gay rights" legislation, Hawaii Attorney General Warren Price answered by letter an inquiry regarding the bill's effects on religious organizations' hiring practices as follows:

Non-sectarian employees of the church, church- sponsored activities or programs are not exempt. This would include janitors, gardeners, teachers, etc.[81]

At present, Hawaii requires clergy to obtain a State license in order to perform marriages. The legal "machinery" is already in place to compel Hawaiian clergy to recognize and perform same-sex "marriages" or forfeit licensure.[82]

Gay activists have been known in the past to renege on promises not to disturb religious organizations. When Wisconsin's former governor, Lee Sherman Dreyfus, signed that State's "gay rights" bill into law, he was assured by gay activists that the bill would have no effect on religious institutions.

Shortly after Dreyfus left office, two allegedly gay men appeared at the 40-year-old Rawhide Boys' Ranch, a Christian home for troubled youths, demanding to be hired as counselors. When refused, the gay men took legal action. Evidence later surfaced indicating that not only was this action deliberate, it was planned by the Wisconsin Governor's Council on Lesbian and Gay Issues. A copy of minutes (obtained by this writer) of the October 19, 1985, meeting of the Council, under the heading "RAWHIDE" contains the following words:

Jim Thideman [one of eight Council members present] has asked some people to apply for a job [at Rawhide] and pursue filing a discrimination report with ERD [Equal Rights Division] upon refusal of employment, assuming it will be that clear cut. Kathleen Nichols [another Council member] reported that Char McLaughlan is acquainted with a lesbian with a son at Rawhide who has been refused family counseling sessions if accompanied by her lover. Follow-up is necessary to see if this woman would be willing to file a complaint.

According to sources at the Rawhide Ranch, heading off these conspiratorial actions has cost the home in excess of $30,000. Former governor Dreyfus later wrote the "gay rights" bill's promoters, expressing his sense of betrayal at "gay rights" activists' flagrant breach of promise. Relief for Rawhide came only through passage of additional legislation that "exempted" religious institutions like it. But, for significant reasons, "religious exemptions" in "gay rights" or same-sex "marriage" legislation may only bring temporary relief from enforcement of such measures.

It is difficult to believe that Andrew Sullivan does not perceive the potential for coercion religious organizations will face in these kinds of dilemmas. Same-sex civil "marriage" recognition might well predicate these dilemmas and others. Yet while Sullivan decries as "anti-liberal" the potential coercion of "gay rights" legislation, he insists same-sex "marriage" recognition will not have the same effects.

Whether Sullivan believes so or not, same-sex "marriage" recognition would indeed "legislate private tolerance" by religious organizations, just as the acceptance of openly gay persons into America's military forces would "legislate tolerance" in that environment. Both of these eventualities would have the effect of saying to all touched by them, "Either accept gay 'marriages' or else!"

Sullivan's Assertion 4:
Granting same-sex "marriage" recognition would not exacerbate the tumultuous struggle over "gay rights"; it would actually DEFUSE the conflict. Since same-sex "marriage" recognition would render "gay rights" legislation unnecessary, moves allowing gays to marry would also defuse the rancorous national "gay rights" debate, Sullivan insists. Sullivan here writes disingenuously, if anywhere in his book. Surely he knows that many States recognize "marital status" as a "protected" (though not suspect) classification. Protected classes also possess the ability to claim discrimination-which is precisely the ability gay activists have been seeking to acquire through gaining suspect class recognition!

So long as gay activists can "claim discrimination" on some grounds, they can still use government and taxpayers' dollars to sue others and advance gay activist interests. "Marital status" will serve as well as suspect status in many states for that purpose. Furthermore, if the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling that gender is a suspect class holds up, "married" gay activists will be able to claim discrimination on "gender" grounds wherever marital status is not a protected class.

In any event, same-sex "marriage" recognition will simply "grandfather" gay activists into a position where they can use government to sue resistors and opponents and advance their political and social interests, just as well as they might by wielding "gay rights" legislation. Thus the "gay rights" struggle will continue, though in a slightly different guise, every bit as fervently and rancorously as before.

If the three gay activist presuppositions we have examined cannot stand scrutiny, the rest of gay activists' apologia will not likely persuade, either. We conclude that gays do not constitute a true suspect minority; gays are not "just like everyone else" in terms of relational lifestyle stability; and gay activists do not desire the same kinds of "marriages" as "everyone else"; therefore, the changes in marriage brought about by same-sex "marriage" recognition would have cataclysmic effects for society at large. Same- sex "marriage" recognition:

would be a "massive societal leap" into a "darkness" of radical social experimentation, endless litigation and drastic business, economic and public policy reorganization
would radically alter the institution of marriage as we have known it
would be highly unlikely to change gay/lesbian lifestyle patterns
would force churches, synagogues and other religious institutions to either recognize and perform same-sex "marriage" rites or be attacked by gay activists
would perpetuate, and probably intensify, the "gay rights" controversy, on national and local levels

In addition, gay activists themselves are sharply divided on some of the most crucial issues surrounding same-sex "marriage": Whether homosexuality is innate and immutable; whether gays are truly an "oppressed class"; whether marriage would be an advantage or a threat to gay and lesbian relationships; and much more. If gay activists themselves cannot make up their minds on these issues, they have scarcely laid a solid foundation for implementation of the major public policy decisions they are asking society-at-large to make-strictly for their benefit.

Re-Examining the Four Major Arguments

With all this in mind, we will now briefly re-examine gay activists' four primary arguments in favor of same-sex "marriage recognition."

1) Gays, lesbians and bisexuals are being "discriminated against" when their unions are denied marriage recognition.

In essence, to make a claim of discrimination, one must be a member of a protected or suspect class. In saying they are being "discriminated against," gay activists are already claiming to be a protected or suspect class, in most cases without having first earned the status that allows the claim.

Since gay activists cannot make a valid claim to be recognized as a suspect class, they cannot properly make "claims of discrimination." Also, not being able to make "claims of discrimination" does not prove that one is being "discriminated against." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other state and local Civil Rights statutes simply do not provide extraordinary protection for every conceivable group that might at some time or other be looked down upon by some person or other group. Laws designed to specially protect the truly disadvantaged and politically powerless must be based on criteria of some sort. "Sexual orientation" simply does not meet the established criteria. It is not a racial, color or even religious category. It is not even, as gay activists define it, a behavioral category.

If gay activists are not part of a suspect class, they have no "right to claim discrimination," nor, in Civil Rights terms, can they be "discriminated against." Therefore, they do not have to be treated as if they were a suspect class-or anything other than people who claim to experience a certain sexual proclivity to an intense degree.

Are gays being denied benefits available to the married? An understanding of "minority" Civil Rights law should be sufficient to close the "discrimination" issue, but gay activists press further by insisting they are being denied benefits heterosexual married couples now enjoy. (They fail to mention that most of the benefits they feel they are lacking are also equally unavailable to unmarried heterosexual couples.) Is gay activists' claim in this regard true? For one thing, the argument itself smacks of circular reasoning: It presumes a priori that gays, lesbians and bisexuals deserve these benefits and are being willfully and unjustly denied them.

We also learn from numerous avowedly gay/lesbian sources that gay activists are aware of their ability to avail themselves of a host of substitutes for traditional marriage "benefits" now available through tort law. Gay activist Eric Marcus discusses several under the heading, "Legal Options for Formalizing Your Relationship."[83] Activist Paula L. Ettelbrick also reports, in a Lesbians at Midlife article entitled, "Legal Protections for Lesbians," that lesbians and gays have many legal options that can almost fully compensate for the lack of a marriage privilege. One of Colorado's chief avowedly gay same-sex "marriage" advocates, a Boulder activist named Rick Cendo, feels that he already has, in effect, "a working same-sex marriage."[84]

In the final analysis, to claim that opponents of "gay rights" or same- sex marriage recognition are "discriminating against gays and lesbians" is begging the question: assuming gays already possess universally accepted suspect status, which, as we have seen, is not the case. Criticism of, or legal action contrary to, the whims of affluent special interest groups which do not possess or qualify for suspect status does not constitute "discrimination." Saying that wealthy Caucasian corporation presidents as a class do not qualify for suspect status does not "discriminate" against the white and well-heeled. It simply states a fact. No amount of non-actionable verbal "millionaire-bashing" will compel government to declare Caucasian plutocrats a suspect class. They simply do not qualify for that status, nor do gay activists or other wealthy, powerful special interest groups. Gay activists have ample resources to secure virtually all the benefits they might desire-without tapping the public till or using government as a billy club to punish their opponents.

Refusing to grant special status (suspect or marital) to gay activists does not deny gay people a single fundamental Constitutional right. Suspect and marital status bestow privileges additional to the U.S. Constitution's fundamental protections. Again, Caucasian males under age 40 with no disabilities or firm ethnic identities are not beneficiaries of suspect status; nevertheless, it cannot be said that they do not possess all fundamental Constitutional rights because they do not enjoy special status.

In fact, it is gay activists who seem most eager to practice reverse discrimination against other Americans, by using suspect or marital status leverage to force society to subsidize and advance gay lifestyles and to institutionalize their own political goals, using government to advance their interests. Opposing gay activist special interests is not "discriminating against gays;" it is preserving rational and just Civil Rights policies; it is simply saying, "no special status and benefits" to a powerful special interest group which already shares the fundamental rights of American citizenship and enjoys far more advantages than most American citizens.

2) Marriage is a "basic human right" and choice of marriage partners should in no way be regulated by government; therefore same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry.

One will search the Constitution of the United States in vain for a "fundamental right to marry," or even for a mention of marriage. It is true that numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions have referred to the extraordinary significance of marriage; the High Court has called marriage "one of the basic civil rights of man" (see Skinner vs. Oklahoma, 1942; Zablocki vs. Redhail, etc.). But perhaps David Shapiro, managing editor of The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, has answered this argument as pointedly as is necessary:

There's no civil right to marry whomever you wish. Gay and lesbian couples aren't the only ones who can't get marriage licenses. You can't get a license to marry your brother or sister. You can't get a license to marry more than one person at a time. You can't get a license to marry a 9-year-old child or your horse.

Every man and woman in Hawaii has the exact same right to get married. It just has to be to an individual of the opposite sex who is of age, is not a close relative and is human.

If men and women are treated the same, there's no sex discrimination unless you hold that gay men and lesbian women are the third and fourth genders. There's a lot of legal ground to plow between here and there.[85]

Far less likely will one be to discover in the Constitution any "right" to marry whomever one wishes based on particular self-alleged varieties of sexuality alone.

Republican Presidential candidate Alan Keyes has said, "...[I]f we allow people to redefine marriage as an institution in such a way as to make it consistent with life sensuousness instead of responsibility, then I think we will have destroyed not only this important institution, but all the things in society that depend on it."[86]

To oppose the aims of affluent gay activist special interests may violate their wishes and deprive them of undeserved status and benefits, including marital; it does not, however, violate their fundamental rights.

3) Civil and religious marriage will remain separate institutions if same-sex marriages are legalized.

If gay activists gain suspect status and sufficient political leverage, America can count on it: Gay activists will show up at religious organizations' doors with lawyers in tow, followed by process servers with subpoenas to "equal protection" lawsuits against organizations that refuse to recognize and enact same-sex "marriages."

Like gay activists' second argument, this one also presumes that it is perfectly right and just for gay activists to demand marriage recognition for same-sex unions. We think we have shown that this demand is neither right nor just, and is no more appropriate than for consensual sado-masochists, or hair, foot or underwear fetishists to make, based solely on their self-alleged sexual fantasy proclivities.

Gay Activists' Unspoken "Fifth Argument"

Stripped of all their pseudo-merit, gay activists' arguments in support of same-sex "marriage" boil down to one unspoken "fifth argument," which happens to be a classic non-sequitur known as argumentum ad misericordiam, or the "argument to pity." Applied to "gay rights" issues, it goes something like this:

Gay people have suffered emotional torment because society does not smile on their "sexual orientation." Gay activists complain loudly about this "oppression." Therefore, society "owes" gays suspect status, marital status and all accompanying benefits, to redress injuries done to gays and to make them feel better.

Or, as one observer has put gay activists' position more colloquially, "We feel bad, we shout loud, give us 'perks'!"

Of course, injured feelings per se offer no compelling reason to bestow favors on anyone. If they did, every child's tantrum would be rewarded. Doubtless many imprisoned criminals feel bad because they are behind bars. This fact alone does not entitle them to automatic release. Nor do gay activists' hurt feelings alone entitle them to get away with perpetrating massive Civil Rights fraud.

Endnotes

[1] According to avowed gay activist attorney Evan Wolfson, arguments rooted in "morality" or "religion" should not be recognized in public debate on this issue. Wolfson has said, "For government to interfere with the freedom of an individual-whether religious or personal-there must be valid secular reasons."

[2] "Homosexual Activists Start 'Marriage' Lobby Groups," SPHA Bulletin, December 1995, p. 6.

[3] "Gay and Lesbian Marriages: To Be Or Not To Be," Quest, February 1992, p. 20.

[4] "To Have and to Hold," (Washington, D.C.: The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1995), p. 6.

[5] Ibid. p. 15.

[6] Ibid. p. 15.

[7] Ibid. p. 15.

[8] Cf. "To Have and to Hold," p. 15.

[9] Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995), p. 183.

[10] Ibid. p. 112.

[11] Ibid. p. 185.

[12] Cf. "A healthy dose of homosexuality?" The Washington Times, National Weekly Edition, May 26, 1996, p. 33.

[13] Cf. Enrique Rueda, The Homosexual Network: Private Lives and Public Policy (Washington: Devin Adair Co., 1982).

[14] "The Family Defined," Chalcedon Report, June 1996, p. 9.

[15] Cf. "Matrimony in Hawaii: Marriage On the Rocks?" Rights in America newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 5, p. 1.

[16] Cf. San Antonio Independent School District vs. Rodriguez, 1973; Massachusetts Board of Retirement vs. Murgia, 1976; Plyler vs. Doe, 1982; City of Cleburne vs. Cleburne Living Center, 1985; reaffirmed in Jantz vs. Muci, 1991, denied cert., U.S. S.Ct.; cf. also Frontiero vs. Richardson, 1973.

[17] See the following articles, among many: "Overcoming a Deep Rooted Reluctance, More Firms Advertise to Gay Community," The Wall Street Journal, July 18, 1991; "The Gay Nineties," The Marketer, September 1990 (reporting findings by the Simmons Market Research Bureau and the U.S. Census Bureau). Other market research, produced by Overlooked Opinions, a Chicago firm (boasting 99%+ accuracy), are reported in: "Gay Market a Potential Gold Mine," The San Francisco Chronicle, August 27, 1991; "For Gays, Ship Charters Are a Boon, Say Two Travel Companies," Travel Weekly, August 5, 1991; and "Where the Money Is: Travel Industry Eying Gay/Lesbian Tourism," The Bay Area Reporter (a gay/lesbian newspaper), September 19, 1991.

[18] Source: The Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1990.

[19] Op. cit., Overlooked Opinions survey.

[20] Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann and Gina Kolata, Sex In America (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1994), cf. p. 182.

[21] "Can I come out at work and be secure?" The Advocate, March 22, 1994, p. 20.

[22] "Beyond Oppression," The New Republic, May 10, 1993, pp. 34-35.

[23] "Gays' problems not all that bad," Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, April 30, 1993.

[24] "Beyond Oppression," pp. 18ff.

[25] "Activists from around the country descend on the Hill," The Washington Blade, May 8, 1992.

[26] Bell and Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversities Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978); Hammersmith, S.K., Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).

[27] "Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the United States," JAMA, May 1, 1996, Vol. 275, No. 17, p. 1354.

[28] Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, Homosexuality: A Symbolic Confusion (New York: The Seabury Press, 1977), p. 97.

[29] Tom Morey, Committee to Study Homosexuality of the United Methodist Church, General Conference of Ministries, Chicago Meeting on the Sciences, August 1990, p. 19.

[30] Charles W. Keysor, ed., What You Should Know About Homosexuality (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), p. 167.

[31] "Homosexuality and Sexual Orientation Disturbances," in Alfred M. Freedman, Harold I. Kaplan and Benjamin J. Saddock, eds., Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry II, second edition (Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co., 1975), p. 1519.

[32] Fine, Psychoanalytic Theory, Male and Female Homosexuality: Psychological Approaches (pamphlet), pp. 84-86.

[33] See LeVay, Science, 253 (1991): 1034.

[34] "Salk and Pepper," The Bay Area Reporter, September 5, 1991, pp. 21, 24.

[35] See Newsweek, Feb. 24, 1992, p. 48.

[36] Cf. "Not-so-straight news: "Reporting" on genetic research tells only half the story," World magazine, November 11, 1995.

[37] Op. cit. Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality, p. 190.

[38] Ibid. p. 195, emphasis Duggan's.

[39] Op. cit., Lesbians at Midlife, "Redefining Sexuality: Women Becoming Lesbians in Mid-Life," Charbonneau and Lander, p. 35.

[40] Op. cit. Lesbian Passion, p. 35.

[41] Cf. The Advocate, December 29, 1992.

[42] "Coming Out Ahead: The Homosexual Movement in the Academy," First Things, August-September 1993, p. 20, emphasis added.

[43] Cf. op. cit., Bell and Weinberg, Homosexualities, a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), p. 308-309.

[44] Source: In Step, May 28, 1986.

[45] Corey, L. and Holmes, K.K., "Sexual transmission of hepatitis A in homosexual men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, 302, pp. 435-438.

[46] Gebhard, P.H. and Johnson, A.B., The Kinsey Data (Sanders, 1979); Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference, op. cit.

[47] "AIDS amd sexial behavior reported by gay men in San Francisco," American Journal of Public Health, December 1985, 75, pp. 493- 496.

[48] Letters to the Editor, American Journal of Public Health, December 1985, 75, pp. 1449, 1450.

[49] Joseph Nicolosi, "Let's Be Straight: A Cure Is Possible," Insight, December 6, 1993, p. 24.

[50] Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency and Risk, presented February 1990 to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, published 1990 by NORC, University of Chicago.

[51] Eric Marcus, The Male Couple's Guide to Living Together (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 26-27.

[52] Summit Books, 1979, a survey by avowedly gay researchers.

[53] Op. cit., Sang, Warshow and Smith, Lesbians at Midlife: The Creative Transition, p. 134.

[54] Op. cit., Loulan/Nelson, Lesbian Passion, p. 35.

[55] Ibid. ref. p. 194.

[56] Ibid. pp. 202,203.

[57] Cf. Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O Laumann, Gina Kolata, Sex In America (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1994).

[58] Ibid. p. 1.

[59] Ibid. p. 25.

[60] Ibid. p. 35, Table 1.

[61] Ibid. p. 101, emphasis added.

[62] Ibid. p. 105.

[63] Ibid. p. 110.

[64] Ibid. ref. p. 109.

[65] Ibid. p. 177.

[66] Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball (New York: Doubleday, 1989), p. 363.

[67] Op. cit.

[68] Whitney Galbraith, "Merits of amendment prohibiting gay marriage debated," Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, January 1, 1996, p. B-5.

[69] Walt Disney, for example.

[70] As quoted in "Same-Sex Marriage," The New American, April 1, 1996, p. 5.

[71] "Congress considers bill to ban same-sex marriages," Colorado Christian News, June 1996, p. 7.

[72] "Why shouldn't gay couples be able to marry?" Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, January 28, 1996, p. B-7.

[73] "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation," essay in William B. Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405, emphasis added.

[74] Ibid. essay entitled "Why Gay People Should Seek the Right to Marry," pp. 398, 400, emphasis added.

[75] Op. cit., The New American, pp. 6, 7.

[76] Op. cit., Donna Minkowitz, "Recruit, Recruit, Recruit!"

[77] Quoted in "What's wrong with this picture," Citizen magazine, Vol. 10, No. 4, April 22, 1996, p. 3.

[78] Cf. The San Francisco Examiner, April 23, 1979; "CDC Hepatitis A among homosexual men-United States, Canada and Australia," MMWR, 1992: 41: 155-164, 12.

[79] Op. cit., Sullivan, pp. 203, 204, emphasis added.

[80] "Homosexual 'Marriage,'" AFA Journal, April 1996, p. 15.

[81] A copy of this correspondence has come into the possession of this writer.

[82] Cf. Biblical Baptist Press, March-April 1996, p. 5.

[83] Op. cit., The Male Couple's Guide to Living Together, p. 161 ff.

[84] "Same-sex couples register commitment," Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, July 2, 1996, p. B-2.

[85] Editorial, December 16, 1995, enmphasis added.

[86] Statement to press, January 27, 1996, quoted in SPHA Bulletin, January/February 1996, p. 6.

Homossexualidade

2009-11-15T11:25:00.000-08:00

Atenção: Este texto, que contém aliás muitas citações de meios de comunicação social dos próprios homossexuais, tem em muitos pontos uma linguagem chocante. Não deve ser lido por menores de idade nem por pessoas sensíveis ou perturbadas.

As práticas de muitos homossexuais são medonhas e convém saber o que se passa. Contudo, deve ficar claro antes de mais que uma coisa é ser outra é fazer. Por muito repugnante que seja aquilo que os homossexuais fazem nem por isso deixam de ser pessoas e portanto têm de ser tratados como tal. Além disso, em inglês faz-se uma distinção que (ainda) não se faz em Portugal. Há o “gay” que se pode resumir como “homosexual and proud” e que é o grande promotor das aberrações referidas acima, activista militante e homossexual praticante; e há o “homossexual” que é uma pessoa atraída sexualmente por pessoas do mesmo sexo mas cujos sentimentos relativamente a essa tendência são confusos e contraditórios e não está nada satisfeita com a sua condição. Este capítulo incide sobretudo no papel, objectivos e práticas dos gay, os activistas homossexuais e orgulhosos. Embora em Portugal existam cerca de 100 mil homossexuais, os gays são meia dúzia, mas que se aproveitam do facto dos restantes não se assumirem para se arvorarem em representantes de todos, sem que nada sugira que têm mandato para isso. Os últimos números que tenho são do seguinte tipo: opus gay não se lhe conhece mais de um membro; Grupo de trabalho homossexual do PSR parece estar desactivado, mas a última vez que deram um número apontaram para 14 ou 15 membros; ILGA-Portugal, da última vez que deram números falaram em 200 associados; Lilás: têm uma revista com 800 exemplares (que naturalmente, segundo a própria chefe, não é lida só por homossexuais).

O seu objectivo é algo, aparentemente, muito simples: ser vistos como pessoas que têm uma orientação sexual diferente da maioria, mas que têm igual direito a organizar a sua vida: a casar, ter casa, ter emprego, etc.

Genes

Uma das primeiras alegações é a de que as tendências homossexuais têm origem genética. Um slogan famoso é I was born like that.

"The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today. Despite the interest in possible hormone mechanisms in the origin of homosexuality, no serious scientist today suggests that a simple cause-effect relationship applies."

-- William Masters and Virginia Johnson. Human Sexuality. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1984, page 319.

"No one has ever found a single replicable genetic hormonal or chemical difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals."

-- Dr. Judd Marmor, head of the American Psychological Association. Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Reappraisal. New York: Basic Books, 1982.

"There is little evidence of the existence of such a thing as innate perversity. There is an abundance of evidence that most human sexual activities would become comprehensible to most individuals if they could know the background of each individual’s behavior. I have myself come to the conclusion that homosexuality is largely a matter of conditioning."

-- Alfred Kinsey, quoted in Wardell B. Pomeroy. Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research. New York: Harper & Row, 1972, pages 247 and 273.

"Were born man, woman, and sexual beings. We learn our sexual preferences and orientations."

-- William Masters and Virginia Johnson, interview with United Press International, April 23, 1979.

"The only thing most experts agree on is that homosexuality is not a result of any kinky genes."

-- Time Magazine editorial, October 31, 1969, page 64.

"With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither genetic nor the result of some glandular disturbance. Homosexuals are made, not "born that way." From my 25 years” experience as a clinical psychologist, I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early experiences and that it can be unlearned."

-- Dr. R. Kronemeyer, in an interview with the New York Tribune, May 6, 1983.

"Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgiastic satisfaction, is not innate. Such an object choice is learned, acquired behavior; (…) Establishing the psychosexual institution of homosexuality alongside the sexual institution of heterosexuality could well produce a massive social disruption without parallel in medical and social history."

-- Dr. C.W. Socarides, professor of psychiatry, State University of New York, International Journal of Psychiatry, December 1972.

"We may tentatively conclude that the main source for gender and sexual behavior deviance is found in social learning and psychological development variables."

-- Dr. G.A. Rekers, North American Social Science Network, Arlington, Virginia, February 27, 1987.

"Neither present-day endocrinological tests nor microscopic or clinical examinations have revealed any physiological differences between a heterosexual and a homosexual individual."

-- Dr. James McCary, Sexual Myths and Fallacies. Also quoted in Fidelity Magazine, March 1987, page 7.

A pretensão de que a homossexualidade é uma questão genética baseia-se, fundamentalmente, em dois estudos:

1. Simon LaVey. "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men." Science Magazine, 258, 1991, pages 1,034 to 1,037.

2. Bailey and R.C. Pillard. "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation." Archives of General Psychiatry, 48:1991, pages 1,089 to 1,096.

No primeiro artigo estudaram-se os cérebros de 35 cadáveres (19 eram homossexuais confessos). O autor descobriu que uma certa parte do cérebro, nas 16 pessoas restantes, tinha o dobro do tamanho. O segundo estudo analisou pares de gémeos verdadeiros e falsos descobrindo que em 52% dos gémeos verdadeiros, se um fosse homossexual, o outro também era; enquanto que nos gémeos falsos só 20% verificam esta propriedade.

O problema destes dois estudos é que contêm erros técnicos graves:

1. Estudo LaVey:

a) O autor não verificou se as tais 16 pessoas eram efectivamente heterossexuais. Essa verificação era tanto mais necessária quanto é certo que desses 16, seis morreram de SIDA.

b) Três dos cérebros de pessoas normais tinham a referida parte do cérebro menor que a média dos homossexuais; três dos cérebros homossexuais tinham um tamanho acima da média dos heterossexuais.

c) A amostra é muito pequena. Não se podem extrapolar resultados para milhões de pessoas a partir de uma amostra de 35.

d) O estudo não explica o que causou o quê: foi a prática sexual que causou a diminuição de tamanho ou esta que causou a prática homossexual.

e) Finalmente, nem sequer é necessário que o tamanho do cérebro cause homossexualidade nem que a homossexualidade diminua o tamanho do cérebro. Podemos estar perante duas variáveis com um correlação irrelevante para o que se pretendia provar. Tudo isto foi deixado em claro pelo estudo.

2. Estudo Bailey e Pillard:

a) Se em 48% dos casos um homossexual tinha um irmão gémeo verdadeiro que não era homossexual, como pode a homossexualidade ser genética?

b) Poderia haver outros factores comuns na vida dos gémeos. Por exemplo, há estudos que mostram uma grande correlação entre homossexualidade e relações incestuosas na infância. O estudo considera que isso não tem importância, pelo que não compara o número de gémeos homossexuais que foram vítimas de abusos na infância com o número dos que não foram.

c) Para o estudo fazer algum sentido era necessário que tivessem sido estudados pares de gémeos criados separadamente. Como está, o estudo não permite saber se a homossexualidade resultou de um gene comum ou de uma educação igual.

Convém ainda saber que de 1975 a 1992 foram feitos mais de 3400 (três mil e quatrocentos) estudos que procuravam identificar uma causa de ordem genética, biológica, hormonal ou neurológica para a homossexualidade. Só os dois acima referidos pretenderam ter atingido o objectivo…

Além disso, nem os próprios homossexuais consideram ter nascido com a tendência. Segundo um relatório Kinsey de 1970 (foram entrevistados 979 homossexuais) as razões dadas para a homossexualidade foram as seguintes:

"Early homosexual experience with adults or peers" 22%

"Around homosexuals a lot, have a lot of homosexual friends" 16%

"Poor relationship with mother" 15%

"Poor relationship with father" 14%

"Unusual development (labeled sissy, tomboy, etc)." 15%

"Heterosexual partners unavailable" 12%

"Social ineptitude" 9%

"I was born that way" 9%

-- A.P. Bell. "Homosexualities: Their Range and Character." Paper in Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. J.K. Cole and R. Dienstbier (editors). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1973. (2) Paul Cameron. What Causes Homosexuality? Lincoln, Nebraska: Institute for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (ISIS), 1984.

Recentemente, foram apresentados dois estudos que negam uma vez mais fundamento à “teoria” da origem genética da homossexualidade.[1]

Finalmente, ainda que a homossexualidade fosse de origem genética isso não implicaria a aceitabilidade da prática. Ao que parece, existe uma predisposição genética para o alcoolismo e nem por isso existe quem pretenda que os alcoólicos devam ser vistos como pessoas de “orientação” diferente e que as suas práticas (conduzir embriagado, etc) devem ser toleradas.

Para além da genética, os homossexuais costumam também alegar que 10% das pessoas são homossexuais. Este número tem origem no relatório Kinsey, que por sua vez tem vários erros (por exemplo, uma grande parte do estudo foi feito em prisões, sem garantir que a percentagem de presos homossexuais é igual á percentagem de homossexuais em liberdade).

Nos seguintes estudos prova-se que, em média, só 3,7% dos homens e 3,2% das mulheres tiveram alguma vez uma relação com uma pessoa do mesmo sexo.

[1] J.M. Sundet, et.al. "Prevalence of Risk-Prone Sexual Behaviour in the General Population of Norway." Described in Georg Liss, Global Impact of AIDS, 1988, pages 53 to 60.

[2] K.W. Schmidt, et.al. "Occurrence of Sexual Behaviour Related to the Risk of HIV-Infection." Danish Medical Bulletin 1989:36; pages 84 to 88.

[3] M. Melbye and R.J. Biggar. American Journal of Epidemiology 1992, 135 pages 593 to 602.

[4] G.M. Breakwell and C. Fife-Shaw. "Sexual Activities and Preferences in a United Kingdom Sample of 16 to 20-Year Olds." Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1992:21, pages 271 to 293. Also see D. Forman and C. Chilvers. "Sexual Behaviour of Young and Middle- Aged Men in England and Wales." British Medical Journal, 298, 1989, pages 1,137 to 1,142.

[5] G. Ramafedi, et.al. "Demography of Sexual Orientation in Adolescents." Pediatrics, 1992:89, pages 714 to 721.

[6] S. Roberts and C. Turner. "Male-Male Sexual Contact in the USA: Findings From Five Sample Surveys, 1970-1990." Journal of Sexual Research 1991:28, 491-519.

[7] Deborah Dawson. "AIDS Knowledge and Attitudes for January-March, 1990, Provisional Data From the National Health Interview Survey;" Joseph E. Fitti and Marcie Cynamon, op. cit. for April-June, 1990; Pamela F. Adams and Ann M. Hardy, op. cit. for July-September, 1990. All in Advance Data, numbers 193, 195, and 198, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control, Public Health Service, United States Department of Health and Human Services. Page 11 in all three documents.

[8] Study ending in June of 1992, performed by Alfred Spira of the Bicetre Hospital of Paris. described in Peter Aldhous. "Sexual Behavior: French Venture Where U.S. Fears to Tread." Science Magazine, July 3, 1992, page 25.

[9] Results of a November 1992 election exit poll, described in Murray Edelman. "The Gay Issues." The New York Times, November 5, 1992, pages B8 and B9.

[10] Alan Guttmacher Institute. Family Planning Perspectives. April 15, 1993. Study quoted in Kim Painter. "Only 1% of Men Say They Are Gay." USA Today, April 15, 1993, pages 1A and 8D.

Estes estudos incluem aqueles indivíduos que só tiveram mesmo uma relação. A percentagem dos homossexuais vitalícios ou exclusivos é muito menor. Por exemplo, num estudo de 1992, mostrou-se que no máximo 1.1% dos homens eram homossexuais e 0.3% das mulheres o eram[2].

Esperança de Vida

Um estudo que analisou todas as causas de morte listadas no obituário de um dos maiores jornais de homossexuais dos EUA, o Washington Blade, concluiu o seguinte:

· Cerca de metade dos homossexuais tinham morrido de SIDA.

· A idade média dos que morreram com SIDA era 39 anos; a idade média dos restantes (i.e., dos que não morreram de SIDA) era 43 anos.

· O homossexual mais velho tinha 78 anos; só 1% tinha mais de 65 anos (enquanto, em geral, 73% dos heterossexuais passa os 65 anos).

· A idade média dos que morreram enquanto viviam num “casamento” homossexual era 37 anos.

· A esperança média de vida das lésbicas era de 45 anos enquanto que a esperança de vida das mulheres normais é 75 anos.

Deaths in the Washington Blade - from March 21, 1986 to April 19, 1991.

Um estudo semelhante foi feito mais tarde, numa amostra de 5,246 obituários tirados dos 16 maiores jornais de homossexuais dos EUA, tendo encontrado uma esperança de vida ligeiramente inferior (39 anos).

Paul Cameron, William I. Playfair, and Stephen Wellum. "The Homosexual Lifespan." Family Research Institute, Washington, D.C., 1992.

Convém observar que fumar dois maços de cigarros por dia tira 9 anos à esperança de vida; o alcoolismo tira cerca de 11 anos à esperança de vida; o consumo de drogas duras tira cerca de 14 anos à esperança de vida. Tudo isto tem levado a mil e uma medidas anti-tabagismo, anti-alcoolismo e anti-droga…

Práticas Ligadas com Frequência à Homossexualidade

Existe um pacto surdo que permite que poucas pessoas conheçam em pormenor as actividades dos homossexuais: fora dos círculos das suas relações elas não são denunciadas porque a ninguém agrada falar de coisas tão repelentes e aberrantes; os homossexuais, por seu turno, não as revelam por razões estratégicas:

"In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by any premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible."

-- Charles Kirk and Erasmus Pill. "Overhauling Straight America." Guide Magazine, November 1987.

Mas o ponto crucial da campanha gay é este: Como se pode respeitabilizar a homossexualidade sem respeitabilizar as práticas associadas? Numa primeira fase (a fase em que está Portugal), a ideia é reduzir a questão a um tema social, abstracto, de tolerância. Contudo, por muito que se concedam direitos e excepções aos homossexuais, eles serão vistos como uns infelizes se as suas práticas (sodomia, sexo oral, etc) forem vistas como práticas duns infelizes, ordinárias, coisas de porcos. Enquanto as práticas dos homossexuais forem motivo de gozo, escárnio, chalaça, chiste, ironia, etc, será impossível respeitabilizar a homossexualidade. Portanto, o objectivo fundamental da campanha gay é respeitabilizar as práticas dos gays. Para os gays é fundamental, crucial, essencial, respeitabilizar, normalizar, vulgarizar as suas práticas. Isto será feito calmamente: primeiro a sodomia e o sexo oral. Para as vulgarizar, é preciso falar muito delas, torná-las familiares, introduzir cenas destas nos filmes mais populares, fazer artigos em revistas populares, publicar estatísticas revelando que uma grande percentagem dos casais heterossexuais pratica tudo isso. Depois o leque das práticas vai alargando, sempre com a mesma tática: filmes sobre pedofilia, relações sado-masoquistas, etc. Tudo muito cor-de-rosa, à Hollywood, com actores de primeiro plano, com algum escândalo, etc. Lentamente as práticas dos homossexuais vão-se normalizando, limpando, purificando, sublimando. E aí chegados, quem poderá impedir o casal heterossexual de praticar o que afinal é normal?

Em suma, a luta dos gays, apresentada como uma luta pela tolerância, pelo respeito, pelo direito à diferença, pelo direito à vida –a um certo estilo de vida-, depende necessariamente da respeitabilização das práticas gay. Só que a respeitabilização da perversidade, da ordinarice, da violência, levará a degradação, a putrefacção, a humilhação, a perversidade e a violência a muitos casais heterossexuais. Uma luta –a dos gays- que alegadamente só pretendia garantir espaço para um certo estilo de vida, acabará por ser profundamente invasiva de outro estilo de vida.[3] E no final os homossexuais continuarão infelizes como sempre foram... só que já não estarão sozinhos.

No que segue expõem-se as práticas dos homossexuais, as tais práticas que eles, na fase inicial, querem esconder das pessoas.

Para além de meterem tudo que se possa imaginar (desde partes do corpo de outrém até objectos como cenouras, lâmpadas, etc) em todos os orifícios possíveis, e de se entregarem a todo o tipo de excitações sozinhos ou em grupo, os homossexuais entregam-se também às seguintes práticas:

1. Scat Games (defecar uns sobre os outros, comer fezes, etc);

2. Water Games (urinar em cima de outros, beber urina, etc; aquele em cima do qual se urina chama-se, na gíria deles, golden queen);

3. Bestialidade (referida como amor inter-espécies; para além dos exemplos óbvios, existe o gerbiling que consiste em tirar os dentes e as unhas a um hamster e introduzi-lo no recto com um fio atado à cauda de forma a poder tirá-lo mais tarde[4] );

4. Infantilismo. O catálogo de uma organização infantilista diz o seguinte: "[Member’s] interests are varied, but primarily in diapers, plastic or rubber pants, wet pants, bedwetting, infantilism, little boy and little girl fantasies, humiliation, spanking, discipline, domination, enemas, W/S [water sports - playing in urine], cross-dressing [transvestitism], S/M [sado-masochism], and catheters."[5] Segundo um relatório “(…) members or supporters of the National and International Diaper Pail Foundation, (…) are infantilists who enjoy wearing diapers, defecating in the diapers, and smearing the defecation on the body. They are also interested in the defecation of small children”.[6]

5. Relações sado/masoquistas. “Attractive white male, 28, seeks extreme masochist under 35, any race, who seriously wants violent, brutal pounding, no holds barred. Should be reasonably well put together & able to take excruciating pain on all parts of the body. Heavy scenes only”.[7] Este anúncio não é um exemplo extremo: 15% dos anúncios colocados por homossexuais em jornais pretendem tortura e brutalidade.[8]

6. Actuar como chiken hawak (violar/comprar menores de 16 anos; a chiken é a criança). 11% dos anúncios colocados pelos homossexuais nos jornais são sobre sexo entre adulto/criança.[9]

Nenhuma destas práticas é um fenómeno marginal dentro da prática homossexual:

· 88% introduzem no ânus objectos, dedos, língua, etc, e comem fezes;

· 46% bebem urina;

· 58% praticam a introdução do punho no ânus.[10]

· 100% praticam sexo oral;

· 100% praticam sodomia;

· 37% têm encontros anónimos com diversos parceiros;

· 37% praticam formas extremas de sado-masoquismo.

· Metade das violações de crianças são da autoria de homossexuais.[11]

Tudo isto é putrefacção, degradação e horror, mas interessa conhecer este sub-mundo para saber o que os legisladores, os media e a sociedade se preparam para respeitabilizar.

Os Locais

Normalmente estas coisas são praticadas em locais públicos. Os dez lugares mais comuns para as práticas homossexuais são:

Results of a Survey on the Most Popular Places That Homosexuals Have Sex

1. public rest rooms, where "glory holes" are cut out of stall partitions so that men may anonymously commit sodomy and fellatio on each other;

2. pornographic movie houses and bookstores and peep shows;

3. bus stations;

4. service stations;

5. public libraries;

6. highway rest stops;

7. public parks;

8. public baths or "health clubs," where men congregate and watch other men sodomize each other;

9. "gay bars" and night clubs; and

10. certain street corners where homosexuals "cruise" for anonymous partners

-- K. Jay and A. Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, page 500. See also Rechy, The Sexual Outlaw. Grove Press, 1977, and the Gayellow Pages, which are compiled by homosexuals for each large city and show exactly where homosexuals congregate, and for what purposes.

A ideia de que os homossexuais desenvolvem as suas actividades onde não incomodam ninguém está bem longe da realidade: o quarto não figura entre os dez locais mais usados para relações homossexuais.

No Canadá ocorreu um episódio muito instrutivo. Em Junho de 1999 a polícia prendeu 18 homosssexuais por terem relações sexuais em público (num clube chamado The Bijou). Em 9 de Setembro de 1999, depois de uma forte campanha conduzida por alguns movimentos gay, o procurador Paul Culver deixou cair a acusação alegando que eles “were lulled into a false sense of security, an ignorance brought on by the lack of police action for a number of years”. Este episódio é instrutivo por duas razões: a)Como um exemplo da preferência que os homossexuais têm por locais públicos -repare-se que, segundo o procurador, durante anos eles se dedicaram a isto impunemente!-; b)Diversos grupos gay fizeram pressão para que os homossexuais não fossem processados, quando, em corencia, o que eles deveriam pedir era… um tratamento igual! Se os heteossexuais não podem entregar-se a práticas sexuais nos cafés, os homossexuais também não deveriam poder; e mais: se para ninguém a ignorancia pode justificar a violação da lei, porque podem os homossexuais? (tanto mais que não havia ignorancia relativamente à lei mas só relativamente à intervenção da polícia…).

Pedofilia

A ligação entre homossexualidade e o abuso de crianças é muito grande (uma grande percentagem dos homossexuais atribui a sua orientação a uma violação enquanto criança pelo que a forma de se multiplicarem é violar crianças -embora a primeira razão para abusar de crianças seja o prazer próprio); por outro lado, “Almost every one of the early openly homossexual writers was a pederast. Pederasty was a constant theme of early gay literature, art and pornography. The Stonewall riots were precipitated by an incident ivolving an underage drag queen, yet that detail was not viewed as significant. (…) Many of the leaders of the early gay liberation and the founders of the major gay groups in the USA were boy-lovers”.[12]

Seguem-se algumas citações:

"The love between man and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality. For the gay community to imply that boy-love is not homosexual love is ridiculous."

-- Point of View. "No Place for Homo-Homophobia." San Francisco Sentinel [homosexual newspaper], March 26, 1992.

"There is no age at which a person becomes capable of consenting to sex. The age of sexual consent is just one of many ways in which adults impose their system of control on children ... Amazing as it may seem in this child-hating and homophobic society, boy lovers [pederasts] find boys attractive and like their spontaneity and openness."

-- Shirley J. O'Brien. "The Child Molester: Porn Plays a Major Role in Life." National Federation for Decency Journal, May/June 1987, pages 9 to 11.

"We believe children should begin sex at birth. It causes a lot of problems not to practice incest."[13]

Recentemente homossexuais ingleses protestaram violentamente depois da Câmara dos Lords ter frustrado o seu desejo de ver a idade do consentimento reduzida de 18 para 16 anos. A descida da idade do consentimento, por forma a equipará-la à idade do consentimento em relações heterossexuais, é uma exigência dos movimentos gay. Os portugueses não fogem à regra.

Mas, tal como no aborto em que os prazos são meramente estratégicos, também aqui o objectivo final está muito abaixo dos 16 anos:

Extract From the NAMBLA Resolution Calling for the Repeal of All Age of Consent Laws

"Whereas it is impossible to say at what age a person is capable of consenting to sex because every individual and every case is different; and therefore any attempt to set an age is capricious, arbitrary, and unfair; and

"Whereas any attempt to set an age would weaken NAMBLA’s identity as a sexual freedom organization, and limit it to advocating the point of view of only a segment of its membership and youth; and

"Whereas the state has no business intervening in any mutually consensual relationship, and NAMBLA has correctly refrained from asking it to do so;

"Be it resolved that NAMBLA reaffirms its position of abolition of all age of consent laws and other laws that violate the freedom of young people to control their own lives."

-- "Motion Approved By the 7th NAMBLA General Membership Conference, Boston, December 3-4, 1983." Presented by David Thorstad. NAMBLA Bulletin, January-February 1984, page 8.

National Organization for Women (NOW) Guidelines for Schools Sanction of Homosexuality and Lesbianism

· "School counselors should be required to take courses in human sexuality in which a comprehensive and positive view of lesbianism is presented. Lesbians as well as heterosexual counselors should be represented on the guidance staff.

· The names and phone numbers of gay counseling services should be made available to all students and school psychologists.

· Courses in sex education should be taught by persons who have taken the [pro-homosexual] human sexuality courses already mentioned. Students will thus be encouraged to explore alternate life styles, including lesbianism.

· Textbooks which do not mention lesbianism or which refer to it as a mental disorder should not be used in sex education courses.

· Lesbian Studies: Schools should set up lesbian studies programs in connection with women’s studies programs to foster pride in the adolescent lesbian and to show heterosexual students that lesbians have made significant contributions to society. Learning about these contributions would foster positive feelings on the part of all students.

· Libraries: School libraries should be supplied with bibliographies of lesbian literature and urged to purchase novels, stories, poetry, and nonfiction books that portray the joy of women loving women. The use of these books should be encouraged in literature and history classes.

· Lesbian Clubs: Lesbian clubs should be established in the schools. Such organizations would help lesbians to develop pride in their life styles, and to help overcome the prejudice of heterosexual students and faculty."

-- Jean O'Leary and Ginny Vida. "Lesbians and the Schools." This article appeared in the New York National Organization for Women (NOW) Newsletter under the title "Struggle to End Sex Bias -- Report on Sex Bias in the Public Schools."

Por cada denúncia de uma violação de um aluno por um professor não homossexual há 13 denúncias de violação de alunos por professores homossexuais.[14]

"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of you shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us."

-- Michael Swift. Gay Community News, February 15, 1987. Reprinted in the Congressional Record, February 15-21, 1987.

"If I were to see the case of a boy aged 10 or 11 who’s intensely attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way ... When the gay rights activists began being politically active, there wasn’t a sufficient body of scientific information for them to base their gay rights activism on. You don’t have to have a basic body of scientific information in order to decide to work actively for a particular ideology, as long as you’re prepared to be put in jail. Isn’t that how social change has always taken place, really?"

-- John Money, Ph.D., retired professor of medical psychology and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University and Hospital. Quoted in "Interview: John Money." Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, The Netherlands, 2(7), pages 5 to 9.

"One thing is certain, in any cases of sexual contact between a child and an adult where there has been no force or violence, the greater the fuss and uproar the greater the possible damage to the minor."

"The major effects of such incidents are caused not by the event itself but by the outraged, angry, fearful, and shocked reactions of the adults who learn of it, whether they be parents, relatives, or police. It is these immoderate reactions which may cause whatever psychological damage occurs."

-- Mary S. Calderone, M.D., and Eric Johnson. The Family Book About Sexuality (New York: Harper and Row, 1981), page 178.

"I guess it shows how far we’ve traveled from reality that people don’t realize that an intergenerational sexual relationship could be and should be character building. [I am] not sure that a 7-year-old can give informed consent. That doesn’t mean that one should necessarily exclude sexual relations with them."

-- Wayne Dynes, Ph.D., quoted in Michael Ebert. "Pedophilia Steps Into the Daylight." Focus on the Family Citizen, November 16, 1992, pages 6 to 8.

"People seem to think that any [sexual] contact between children and adults has a bad effect on the child. I say that this can be a loving and thoughtful, responsible sexual activity."

-- Wardell Pomeroy, quoted in Michael Ebert. "Pedophilia Steps Into the Daylight." Focus on the Family Citizen, November 16, 1992, pages 6 to 8.

"I think that pederasty should be given the stamp of approval. I think it’s true that boy-lovers [pederasts] are much better for children than the parents are ... "

-- Convicted pedophile and NAMBLA member David Thorstad. Quoted in Joseph Sobran. "The Moderate Radical." Human Life Review, Summer 1983, pages 59 and 60.

Seguem-se algumas propostas de revisão das leis penais propostas por uma organização de homossexuais. Como quase tudo em torno deste tema, lê-se e não se acredita.

California Penal Code Revision Sought by the Rene Guyon Society

HOMOSEXUALITY (Anal Copulation, PC 286).

We Suggest: At age 4, and sometimes sooner, both male and female children want, can easily hold after massage, and will be allowed to have a teenager or older male’s condom-covered penis in their anus. Tiny children will be required to wear a small "finger stall" or "finger cot" (obtainable from a drug store) condom from age 4 or any earlier age that they start penetrating male and female anuses. 99% of the day there is no fecal matter in the anus. No enema is required.

Reasons: Makes child aware of anal venereal disease and its prevention. [Anal copulation is] part of the natural progress of development to heterosexuality.

ORAL COPULATION (PC 288a).

We Suggest: At age 4, and sometimes sooner, both male and female children want, can easily hold, and will be allowed to have a tiny child, teenager, or older male’s penis in their mouth. This will bring an end to thumbsucking. The child will at last get valuable hormones that appear in the mature male’s ejaculate that have been denied children in the past. Very young, teenage and adult females will be allowed to provide sexual satisfaction with their mouths and tongues to the penis and clitoris of young children.

Reasons: Trains for heterosexuality. No data exists showing that any harm is done. [Oral copulation is] part of the natural progress of development to heterosexuality.

HETEROSEXUALITY (Penis-Vagina Copulation (PC 261.1)).

We Suggest: At age 10, 11, or 12, females want, can easily hold, and will be allowed to have a teenager or older male’s condom-covered penis in their vagina. From the earliest age of desire, a very young female will be allowed to have a tiny male’s penis in her vagina if the penis is covered with a "finger stall" or "finger cot" (obtainable from a drug store). At all ages prior to age 18 for the female, the female is required to have vaginal foam inserted before penetration of the covered penis.

Reasons: Prevents venereal disease and pregnancy. Older person passes on tender, loving mannerisms. Lack of premarital sex leads to divorce, crime, and suicide.

MASTURBATION OF CHILD (PC 288 & PC 288.1).

We Suggest: No restrictions will be on the masturbation of a child so that such enjoyment will be provided by family, friends, or neighbors so that the child will no longer seek out strangers for this satisfaction. Self-masturbation, from crib age on, not to be discouraged.

Reasons: Parents and nonparents help a child toward good mental health by masturbating it or encouraging it to masturbate. Lack of premarital sex leads to divorce, crime, and suicide.

NUDITY ALONE WITH NO SEXUAL ACTIONS.

We Suggest: No restrictions; thus freeing Law Enforcement to tackle disease-spreading and unwanted- pregnancy activity and photos. Almost all American children have seen an erect male penis and an adult spread-eagle vagina or pictures thereof".

-- Rene Guyon Society promotional/information package distributed in Beverly Hills, California, on March 20, 1981. Also reprinted in Father Enrique T. Rueda. The Homosexual Network: Private Lives & Public Policy. 1982: Old Greenwich, Connecticut; Devin Adair Publishers. Pages 178 and 179.

Outra organização que convém conhecer mais de perto é a NAMBLA:

Official Philosophy and Goals of the North American Man-Boy Love Association

"The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is an organization founded in response to the extreme oppression of men and boys involved in consensual sexual and other relationships with each other. Its membership is open to all individuals sympathetic to man/boy love in particular and sexual freedom in general. NAMBLA is strongly opposed to age of consent laws and other restrictions which deny adults and youth the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their lives. NAMBLA’s goal is to end the long-standing oppression of men and boys involved in any mutually consensual relationship by; building a support network for such men and boys; educating the public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love; aligning [sic] with the lesbian, gay, and other movements for sexual liberation; and, supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression."

Social Action Agenda of NAMBLA’s "Task Force on Child-Adult Relationships"

General Objective: "To improve the social status and public image of pedophiles, to eliminate the legal sanctions against pedophile behavior, and to increase public awareness of children’s emotional and sexual needs by:

1. Seeking to improve the public image of pedophiles through;

A. Oversight of sex-education and psychology curricula in public schools, colleges and universities, seeking to eliminate old stereotypes and falsehoods regarding pedophilia and children’s sexuality.

B. Consultation with authorities on mental health and human sexual behavior to encourage a humane attitude toward pedophilia.

C. Legislative lobbying to reduce legal sanctions against pedophile behavior in particular and all consensual sexual behavior in general, and to increase children’s rights to self-determination.

D. Liaison with feminist and other groups to establish the principle that the goals of all liberation groups are essentially the same: the elimination of sexist, authoritarian regimentation of human lives; and that the liberation of children is the sine qua non [essential essence] of all human liberation.

2. Publication and dissemination of literature supporting the goals of pedophile liberation.

3. Publication and dissemination of literature to increase public awareness of children’s sexual and emotional needs, especially in the light of research on cognitive development.[15]

Homossexualidade e Crime

Como se viu as práticas dos homossexuais supõe um grosseiro desrespeito pela dignidade das pessoas (que estima por si própria pode ter uma pessoa em quem urinam, come fezes, sujeita-se a torturas, orgias, mil e uma doenças, abusa de crianças e embarca num estilo de vida que lhe rouba 30 anos de vida?). As práticas são também de tal forma cruéis (quer entre homossexuais quer quando envolvem abuso de crianças) que não seria de espantar que os essas pessoas tivessem especial predisposição para crimes violentos. E de facto, a verdade é esta: oito dos dez maiores serial killers (rapto e assassínio de uma ou duas pessoas de cada vez, muitas vezes antecedido ou sucedido por violações e canibalismo) eram homossexuais; Mais de metade (68%) de todos os mass murders dos EUA eram homossexuais.[16] Some-se a isto o facto dos homossexuais serem (por agora) uma pequena minoria.

Segue-se uma comparação entre a probabilidade de um homossexual cometer um crime, relativamente à probabilidade de outra pessoa cometer o mesmo crime:

General Lifestyle of All Homosexuals

Description of Lifestyle Indicator Homosexual Men Homosexual Women

Committed serial killings 196 times more Unknown

Molested children 90 times more 9 times more

Committed mass murder 34 times more Unknown

Ever committed a sex-related crime 5 times more 23 times more

Ever arrested for a sex-related crime 5 times more 11 times more

Ever had sex with animals 6 times more 11 times more

Ever hired a prostitute 5 times more 11 times more

Ever had group sex 3 times more 8 times more

Ever had sex to deliberately infect others

with an STD 7 times more 3 times more

Ever had sex in public 3 times more 6 times more

Ever been raped 4 times more 3 times more

Ever cheated in marriage 3 times more 3 times more

Ever made obscene phone calls 2 times more 4 times more

Ever attempted suicide 4 times more 2 times more

Use illegal drugs regularly 3 times more 2 times more

Physical fight in last year No difference 3 times more

Uma história curiosa e ilustrativa é a de Ahmed Sid Rezala. Nascido na Argélia, emigrou com os seus pais para França de forma a fugir à violência da guerra. Na França tornou-se homossexual e a sua primeira condenação foi por violar um rapaz. Foi condenado por agressão com arma branca (a um funcionário dos caminhos de ferro) e na cadeia violou o colega de cela. Vivia como prostituto nos bares gay e em 13 de Outubro de 1999 matou uma inglesa, Isabel Peake, atirando-a de um comboio em andamento. Dois meses depois, a 13 de Dezembro, matou Corine Caillaux à punhalada nas casas de banho de um comboio. E matou ainda uma jovem estudante de sociologia. Rezala tornou-se no assassino mais procurado de França e fugiu para Portugal, movendo-se e ocultando-se nos meios homossexuais de Lisboa. Foi capturado na Baixa da Banheira, na casa que o seu “amante” espanhol lhe tinha arranjado. O homossexual espanhol arranjou-lhe casa, onde ele se poderia esconder da policia, um dia depois de conhecer Rezala. Foi crime á primeira vista.[17] Rezala suicidou-se na cadeia, em Junho de 2000, enquanto decorria o processo de extradição para França.

Abandono da Homossexualidade

A homossexualidade pode ser abandonada. O tratamento tem uma altíssima taxa de sucesso e os que o conseguem experimentam a máxima repugnância pelas suas aventuras passadas.

61 percent of homosexuals agree that they could be `converted” to exclusive heterosexuality and 58% agreed that "People are homosexual only if they want to be."[18]
Masters and Johnson reported that 79.1 percent of their clients who attempted to discontinue homosexual behavior were successful immediately, and 71.6 percent remained successful after an elapsed period of five years.[19]
About a quarter of all homosexuals believe that their condition is a disorder and 37% believe that they themselves are "psychologically disturbed" because of their sexual orientation.[20]
When asked the question "If a teenager who was just starting [homosexual activities] came to you and asked your advice, what would you tell them?," 80 percent of all homosexuals recommended cessation over continuation.[21]

Como em boa medida a homossexualidade é semelhante à dependência de droga, existem várias instituições que ajudam homossexuais a libertarem-se e a reintegrarem-se na sociedade (como por exemplo, Homossexuais anónimos, Courage, Exodus International, etc).

O psiquiatra californiano Joseph Nicolosi, actuando na resolução do conflito entre o homossexual e o pai, conseguiu fazer com que cerca de 200 homossexuais abandonassem as suas práticas. O seu sucesso foi tão retumbante que organizações de homossexuais fizeram aprovar na Califórnia uma lei que proíbe os médicos de tentarem curar homossexuais. Esta lei é, evidentemente, iníqua e até paradoxal: se o médico só cura aqueles que o procuram para isso, porque não o pode fazer?[22] A verdade é que cada uma destas curas é um desastre para a causa homossexual já que a sua propaganda diz que eles não escolheram ser como são. Mas o que se sabe é que eles podiam escolher não fazer o que fazem (como provam os convertidos), e não o querem.

Dois Aspectos Mais

Seguem-se alguns comentários sobre dois aspectos da propaganda homossexual:

a) O facto de ter sido tirada da lista de perturbações psiquiátricas; e

b) A pretensão de que os homossexuais podem ter um casamento estável.

a) Perturbações psiquiátricas.

É verdade que em 1973 a American Psychiatric Association retirou a homossexualidade da lista das desordens psiquiátricas. Contudo, isto não aconteceu na sequência de uma ou mais descobertas científicas mas a partir de uma votação sobre uma carta que, citando Kinsey, pretendia que completa heterossexualidade e completa homossexualidade eram dois casos extremos de sexualidade: a maioria das pessoas, alegadamente, seriam bissexuais. Três quartos dos psiquiatras da Associação não votaram.[23] Nunca, antes ou depois, uma questão técnica foi decidida por voto e a reboque duma agenda política. Mas, mais importante, alguns estudos posteriores mostraram que 2/3 dos psiquiatras consideram a homossexualidade como um comportamento anormal.[24] Em 1977 a revista Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality fez um inquérito a 2,500 psiquiatras para apurar como viam eles a homossexualidade. 69% disseram que “Homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation”.[25] Naturalmente, nunca mais se fez outra votação para apurar se os psiquiatras queriam inverter a decisão de 1973…

Além disso, convém dizer que a retirada da homossexualidade, da lista de desordens, começou a ser preparada, em 1968, pelos grupos de homossexuais. Estes pressionaram a American Psychiatric Association para que criasse um grupo de trabalho sobre o assunto, que trabalhou durante três anos em colaboração com grupos pró-homossexualidade como Gay Activist’s Alliance, Mattachine Society, Daughters of Bilitis, etc. A pressão por eles exercida impediu que fosse nomeado para o grupo de trabalho (ao longo dos três anos que ele funcionou) qualquer médico para quem a homossexualidade fosse uma desordem. Mais, esses activistas atacaram, até fisicamente, qualquer psiquiatra que em algum ponto do país, numa conferência, num fórum, etc, apresentasse comunicações ou dados que permitissem defender a inclusão da homossexualidade na lista das desordens mentais. Tudo isto era vital para eles uma vez que nunca poderiam ser levados a sério se fossem considerados desequilibrados.[26]

Para mais a caracterização psiquiátrica da homossexualidade não depende da opinião dos psiquiatras mas dos factos. Por exemplo, o homossexual praticante apesenta todas as notas de dependência apresentadas pelos toxicodependentes, pelo que não interessa tanto saber qual a classificação que os psiquiatras dão à homossexualidade mas antes saber quais os efeitos que ela tem sobre a personalidade:

Characteristics of the Homosexual Addiction

1. Reoriented Priorities. The homosexual addict’s life centers around his “habit”. His job, his wife and family (if any), and his possessions mean nothing. All that matters is that he be guaranteed a steady supply of mostly-anonymous “partners” in sodomy.

2. Obsessiveness. The homosexual addict is obsessive. He constantly craves sodomy and other perverted sex acts. In fact, these thoughts occupy most of his thoughts; all that matters is the next sexual encounter.

3. Compulsiveness. The homosexual addict is compulsive. He is completely out of control in many instances. He may make occasional half-hearted attempts at limiting or controlling his behavior, but such attempts generally fail.

4. Reclusiveness. The homosexual addict withdraws from his former (normal) activities and friends. The homosexual lifestyle is so extraordinarily perverse that it is incomprehensible to the mainstream public. So he “hangs out” with his new “friends,” because they “understand” him and help him get more and more deeply into the homosexual deathstyle.

5. Personality Changes, The homosexual addict undergoes severe personality changes. He becomes secretive, furtive, obsessive and compulsive. These changes are brought on by feelings of persecution, victimization, isolation, and, above all, acute guilt.

6. Withdrawal. The homosexual addict experiences withdrawal symptoms to varying degrees if he is placed in an environment where sodomy and other perverted sexual acts are considered unacceptable or are unavailable.

7. Escapism. The homosexual addict is an escapist. He avoids responsibility for his actions and blames everyone else for anything in his life that is not to his liking. This aspect of homosexual addiction has assumed extreme proportions in the so-called “gay rights” movement.

8. Privacy Obsession. The homosexual addict is extremely concerned about privacy. He knows that privacy is essential to continuing his socially unacceptable behavior.

9. Cross-addiction. Finally, the homosexual addict is usually cross-addicted. This means that he does not limit himself to the standard” perversions, but becomes involved in pedophilia, transvestitism, sadomasochism (S&M), bestiality, hard-core pornography, and other horrors. He is very frequently alcoholic and/or addicted to various illegal drugs, as well. For example, studies show that 25% to 35% of homosexual men and women are alcoholics [Robert J. Kus. "Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay American Men." Journal of Homosexuality, Volume 14, Number 2 (1987), page 254].

E já antes tínhamos visto como 80% dos homossexuais aconselham os adolescentes, que estão a iniciar-se nas relações homossexuais, a abandonar a prática imediatamente: exactamente o mesmo conselho que os viciados em droga dão.

Há ainda um grande número de autores que, para além das razões apontadas acima, atribui também a homossexualidade a um mau relacionamento entre pais e filhos. Em geral, segundo estes autores, a partir dos dois anos e meio o rapaz precisa de começar a identificar-se com o pai: querer ser como o pai, gostar do que gosta o pai, partilhar as suas ideias e experiências, fazer o que o pai faz, etc. Paralelamente, vai-se dissociando da psicologia da sua mãe. Contudo, se ele se sentir rejeitado pelo pai (que pode ser demasiado severo ou frio ou distante ou exigente), ou se o pai for efeminado (e portanto não oferecer um modelo masculino claro), e se a sua mãe for possessiva, poderá acontecer ao rapaz voltar para os (ou não chegar a sair dos) braços protectores da mãe. Assim ele tenderá a adquirir a psicologia da mãe e, em última análise, a sua atracção sexual.[27] Agindo neste pressuposto, tem sido possível resolver a homossexualidade de diversas pessoas.

Finalmente, para se ver como o argumento em exame é fraco, convém saber que a Associação de Psicólogos Americanos publicou um estudo onde se defende que a pedofilia não deve ser considerada uma doença, desde que a prática sexual decorra com o consentimento da criança.[28]

b) O “Casamento” entre pessoas do mesmo sexo.

Sobre o “casamento” de homossexuais diga-se que em média dura dois anos e meio e, mesmo sendo tão curto, metade dos “cônjuges” é infiel…[29]

A ideia do casal de homossexuais vivendo feliz para sempre é só uma ficção publicitária sem correspondência na realidade. 43% dos homossexuais têm mais de 500 parceiros, 28% mais de 1000. 70% só têm relações impessoais, de uma noite, e 71% afirmou não sentir absolutamente nada pelos seus parceiros.[30] Somente 2% dos homossexuais têm menos de 10 parceiros durante a vida.[31]

A Lei

Um dos pontos da agenda dos homossexuais é proibir qualquer obrigação de um HIV+ revelar a sua condição. Um candidato à função pública tem de fazer teste da tuberculose, prova de robusticidade, etc. Contudo, se os homossexuais levarem a sua avante, ninguém pode ser obrigado a fazer o teste da SIDA, seja qual for o emprego a que se candidata. Em Portugal já se deu o primeiro episódio da luta por este ponto, a propósito de um caso ocorrido no Hospital de Santa Maria. Paralelamente, num folheto da Comissão Nacional da Luta Contra a SIDA diz-se que há quatro direitos e três responsabilidades na prevenção da SIDA. Os direitos são:

“Direito à Informação,

Direito à Educação,

Direito à Saúde,

Direito à reserva sobre a intimidade da vida privada, que devem ser assegurados se queremos impedir o avanço da epidemia.”

A Sociedade tem três responsabilidades:

“não discriminar;

ter um papel activo na prevenção;

respeitar o segredo de cada um.

Aos seropositivos e doentes da SIDA pede-se também a responsabilidade de não infectarem outras pessoas.”[32]

Outro ponto da sua agenda é fazer passar tantas leis anti-discriminação que se torna muito difícil ou até impossível agir contra um homossexual. Senhorios, condomínios, donos de bares, etc, que em dada altura quiseram de alguma forma afastar um ou mais homossexuais pelo mau ambiente ou problemas causados[33], acabaram até por ser condenados como litigantes de má fé ao abrigo das aludidas leis anti-discriminação promovidas pelos homossexuais…

Em New Jersey todas as Igrejas estão obrigadas por lei a dar todos os sacramentos aos homossexuais, incluindo o sacerdócio e o casamento. A lei proíbe os pastores e padres de fazer homilias contra a homossexualidade e proíbe os cidadãos de fazer boicotes a empresas que promovam a homossexualidade. Depois de várias batalhas jurídicas, os tribunais aceitaram que as igrejas, mas as igrejas somente, ficam –for now—dispensadas de cumprir esta lei…

A Diocese de Mineapolis expulsou o grupo Dignity, um grupo pró-homossexualidade que se diz católico, do seu Campus Ministry Newman Center. Por causa disso, e com base numa lei que proíbe a discriminação dos homossexuais, a Diocese foi condenada a pagar seis mil contos de indemnização, ao grupo e à cidade.

Na Suécia um pastor fez uma homilia sobre Sodoma e Gomorra e o resultado foi um mês de cadeia por, alegadamente, ter praticado “violência verbal” contra os homossexuais.

No Hawai é proibido perguntar qual a orientação sexual de alguém que se pretende contratar. Esta proíbição aplica-se a jardins infantis, escolas ou igrejas, os quais ficam impedidos de despedir o homossexual, ainda que ele comece a abusar das crianças. Mas se houver crime, a creche, a escola ou a Igreja é que são responsabilizados pelos actos dos seus funcionários…

E depois acontecem coisas do tipo: no Minnesota um padre católico foi condenado a um ano de cadeia por ter recusado contratar como professor de crianças um homossexual com um longo cadastro de abuso de menores.

Os escuteiros dos EUA expulsaram um membro por (descobriram pelos jornais) ele ser líder de uma associação de homossexuais. O caso está neste momento (Abril de 2000) no Supremo Tribunal dos EUA para ser julgado. Os homossexuais pretendem obrigar os escuteiros a alterar o seu regulamento interno e o seu código de conduta. A seu favor têm as leis anti-discriminação de homossexuais.[34]

Um bispo anglicano da Califórnia foi afastado da sua diocese por ter pregado contra a homossexualidade.

Qualquer estação de televisão do Canadá que permita afirmações anti-gay leva uma multa de 40 mil contos. Esta punição não admite recurso e cabe a homossexuais dizer se alguma estação prevaricou.[35]

Para que se veja até que ponto o lobby homossexual manobra eficazmente, convém saber que até no Tratado de Amsterdão conseguiram fazer inserir uma referência à proibição de discriminar pessoas em razão da sua orientação sexual.[36]

Muitas mais coisas se poderiam dizer sobre a homossexualidade mas o que se disse permitirá ajuizar um pouco sobre o assunto… e sobre os seus perigos.

Dois Testemunhos

Transcrevem-se de seguida excertos de dois artigos. O primeiro foi publicado pelo editor (homossexual) de uma das maiores revistas da especialidade do Canadá. O segundo foi publicado na Nova Zelandia por um homossexual que abandonou a prática.

"Why is it that some of us continue to bend and twist and otherwise play loose with (often out-dated) so-called facts. Why, for example, do we continue to insist that 10% of the overall population is gay or lesbian? Think about it; that would mean that three people in your Grade 9 class were queer. Our personal experience strongly suggests that this figure, despite its omnipresence, just isn’t accurate."

"Or how about the argument, admittedly more common in the U.S. than here, that we are all “born this way”? This sounds like a plea that we are handicapped and deserve pity for our sad misfortune. More to the point, it’s painting sexuality with a broad sweep of the brush. Personally, after a number of relationships with women I chose to be gay ... "

"How about the tendency of some groups to exaggerate the turnout at gay events? Were there really 150,000 people at this year’s Vancouver parade? That count was an estimate by an off-duty police officer and not based on aerial photographs of the crowd ... In 1996 the Toronto pride organizers claimed 800,000 people turned out for the parade and festivities. But an analysis using a grid system concluded that the proper figure was closer to 150,000."

"This tendency to exaggerate may go all the way back to our spiritual forefather, Alfred C Kinsey. A powerful new biography by James Jones offers strong evidence that Kinsey rigged his social experiments that produced results that are quoted to this day. You know the figures; 10 percent of men are gay, 85 percent had premarital sex, 70 percent had bought sex from a prostitute, 37 percent had at least one same-sex contact to the point of orgasm, and 17 percent had sexual contact with animals. (…) Kinsey, it turns out, was a closet gay and a profound masochist. He also had sex with his students... Kinsey biased his samples."

-- Gareth Kirkby, No Need to Lie, Xtra West, August 20, 1998.

“(...) Fui homosexual activo durante veintiún años (…) En todo el mundo son miles, muchas en Nueva Zelanda, las personas que han cambiado, igual que yo.

Es falso que se haya probado la existencia de un gene que determine la homosexualidad. (...) Si los genes fueran determinantes, cuando uno de dos gemelos fuera homosexual, también el otro tendría que serlo; pero en casi la mitad de los casos no ocurre así. Además, si la orientación sexual estuviera genéticamente determinada, no habría posibilidad de cambiar; pero conocidos expertos en sexología, sin vinculación religiosa, como D. J. West, M. Nichols o L. J. Hatterer, han descrito muchos casos de homosexuales que se convierten en heterosexuales de modo completamente espontáneo, sin presiones ni ayuda de ninguna clase.

(...) Mi experiencia es que la homosexualidad no es una condición estable ni satisfactoria, que no es una bendición. No es libertad: es una adicción emocional.

Por supuesto, no se debe rechazar ni reprimir a los homosexuales. Estoy firmemente convencido de que la homosexualidad surge de una alienación y de sentirse rechazado desde la infancia por parte de las personas del mismo sexo.

New Zealandia, June 1994, citado em Aceprensa, 20/7/94.

Outros Testemunhos

DEMANDS OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR GAY CIVIL RIGHTS

“THIS IS OUR CREED”

1. We believe every adult and child has the right to decide for themselves their own sexual orientation.

2. We believe every individual or group which condemns homosexuality as wrong or sinful is guilty of bigotry.

3. We believe every child is entitled to non-discriminatory sex educational courses without parental interference… and to fulfill their destinies according to their sexual orientations.

4. We define sexual orientation as any and every inclination or impulse which nature bestows upon a person.

5. We reject the notion that any private act or behavior between consenting adults or children is unnatural or disordered.

6. We demand the recognition of homosexuality as a legitimate alternative lifestyle equal in all respects to traditional lifestyles.

7. We demand judicial, legislative, and executive action to protect our sexual orientations and preferences.

8. We condemn all groups --religious or otherwise-- who preach sexual bigotry and discrimination.

9. We condemn those misguided parents who impose their homophobic prejudices upon their children.

10. We assert there is nothing higher than man himself to decide moral and ethical values and that god made man supreme.

11. We defend the rights of atheists, anarchists, and agnostics to live by their values and beliefs according to their consciences. In this we are united.

12. We condemn all those who presume to pass judgement on others.

13. We believe in equal rights for all and equal pay for equal work and assert that no corporation, government agency, or religious or educational group has the right to restrict or discourage private homosexual activity.

14. We believe our human rights will be realized in a social and political order where truth and justice prevail.

15. This we believe. This is our creed.[37]

Sobre o aproveitamento dos media é útil ter presente o seguinte:

“The first order of business is the desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion ... At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing else ... You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won ... Gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome, and contrary... A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America.

“Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible. The principle behind this advice is simple: Almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters ... As long as Joe Sixpack feels little pressure to perform likewise, he soon gets used to it and life goes on ... Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion Is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment even practices homosexuality.

“And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by Premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced. to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose Inside the tent - and only later his unsightly derrierel

“Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are” plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed.., So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon In the battle to desensitize the mainstream”[38]

Para terminar um ensaio visionário (?) e instrutivo que um homossexual publicou numa revista de homossexuais:

“We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of you shallow dreams and vulgar We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our m~nions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too and only man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand with depth and feeling the mind and body of another man.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically, and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be.

We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.”[39]

Os Nazis e a Homossexualidade

Recentemente, os homossexuais passaram a querer aparecer ao lado dos judeus como vítimas no Holocausto. Dizem os homossexuais que muitas pessoas falam dos judeus mortos por serem judeus, mas poucos falam dos homossexuais mortos, nas câmaras de gás, por serem homossexuais.

Um grupo de homossexuais americanos foi ao ponto de organizar em Maio de 1994 uma “peregrinação” ao memorial do Holocausto, Yad Vashem, em Jerusalém. Não obstante, ao seu encontro foi um grupo de judeus sobreviventes, em tal fúria, que quase se chegou à confrontação física. E um dos judeus gritou bem alto: My grandfather was killed for refusing to have sexual relations with the camp commandant. You are desecrating this place”.[40]

Outras citações aparetemente estranhas:

“The head of our tent was a German. An assassin’s face, fleshy lips, hands like wolf’s paws. He was so fat he could hardly move. Like the leader of the camp he loved children…(Actually this was not a desinteressed affection: there was a considerable traffic in young children among homossexuals here, I learned later)”.[41]

“Max Bielas had a harem of little Jewish boys. He liked them young, no older than seventeen…Bielas sought in Treblinka only the satisfaction of his homossexual instincts”.[42]

Mesmo Plant, um dos promotores do “holocausto homossexual”, reconhece que “alguns” SS eram homossexuais e fizeram de alguns dos rapazes presos os seus “dolly boys”.[43]

Apesar dos homossexuais serem uma das mais pequenas minorias nos campos de concentração[44], era a maioria dos Kapos (prisioneiros/guardas): “it is well known that the capos in Hitler’s concentration camps were only too frequently recruited from the ranks of homossexual criminals”.[45]

Raul Hillberg, membro da President’s Commission on the Holocaust, afirmou que “homossexuals were high valued prisioners, and that many kapos -inmates who admnistered the barracks and dispensed instant discipline (beatings and killings were common) were gay”.[46]

Esta pequena amostra de citações torna claro qual a questão fundamental: afinal os homossexuais foram vítimas ou carrascos? A resposta a esta pergunta permite uma viagem aos meandros no nazismo e é isso que faremos de seguida.

Introdução

No caso do nazismo, os historiadores e politicos tentam encontrar explicações materiais para uma realidade moral. O nazismo foi uma abominação (e não foi a única), mas uma abominação a nível moral, e por isso é aqui que se tem de procurar explicações e respostas. Os historiadores que se recusam a perceber isto andam há anos a discutir se o Partido Nacional Socialista dos Trabalhadores Alemães era um partido de esquerda ou de direita, sem chegar a conclusão alguma (ou concluindo o que não queriam!), passando ao lado de questão de fundo.

Sobre a questão particular do nazismo e a homossexualidade aquilo que se pode dizer rapidamente é isto: os activistas homossexuais costumam chantagear os homossexuais detentores de cargos públicos ameaçando denunciar as suas tendências. No caso do partido nazi havia muitas pessoas a quem chantagear (!) e houve denúncias no jornal do SPD, o maior partido da oposição. Para mais na Alemanha havia uma luta entre dois grupos de homossexuais que pretendiam a “legalização” ou “respeitabilização”da homossexualidade em moldes diferentes. O pomo da discórdia estava sobretudo nas crianças e no sadomasochismo: os homossexuais nazis pretendiam chegar à pedofilia e ao sadomasochismo enquanto o grupo oposto não queria isso. O grupo vencedor mandou o outro grupo para os campos de concentração. Mesmo assim, estes homossexuais eram dos presos mais bem tratados nos campos.

Para mais, a punição da homosexualidade (que era um crime antes, durante e depois de Hitler) foi usada como forma de perseguição politica. Hitler e os nazis livravam-se dos inimigos processando-os sob a acusação de homossexualidade: “Hitler employed the charge of homossexuality primarliy as a means to eliminate political opponents, both inside his party and out”.[47]

“The law [Artigo 175a) contra os homossexuais] was so loosely formulated that it could be, and was, applied against heterossexuals that the Nazi wanted to eliminate…the law was also used repeatedly against Catholic clergymen”.[48]

“The Gestapo readily had recourse to the charge of homossexuality if it was unable to find any pretext for precceding against Catholic priests or irksome critics”.[49]

Segundo Oosterhius e Kennedy, a lei da homossexualidade foi usada de forma muito selectiva e contra os femmes (ver a seguir). Os mesmos autores afirmam que havia verdadeiros regimes de excepção relativamente à homossexualidade. Um outro autor concorda neste ponto: “The most famous example is that of the actor Gustaf Grundgens…Despite the fact that his homossexual affairs were as notorious as those of Rohm’s, Goering appointed him director of the State Theater…and on October 29, 1937… Himmler advised that actors and other artists could be arrested for offenses against paragraph 175 only with his personal consent, unless the police caught them in flagrante”.[50]

Butchers e Femmes

Na terminologia dos homossexuais existem dois grupos (que nem por sombras são os únicos): os homossexuais efeminados (femmes), que são um dos rostos visíveis da homossexualidade pelo seu comportamento bizarro; os homossexuais butchers, homossexuais machões, normalmente ultra-violentos e pedófilos. O seu ideal é Esparta, com o seu exército de homossexuais brutais que satisfaziam os seus apetites por crianças nas fornadas de novos recrutas do exército (para onde se entrava aos 12 anos).

A maioria das pessoas nem sabe que há vários grupos de homossexuais pelo que muito menos saberá como uns encaram os outros:

1. Os homossexuais deploram “effeminate behavior” e muitos consideram “repulsive” os homossexuais efeminados.[51]

2. A reacção contra os “femmes”, na comunidade homossexual em geral, é muitas vezes violenta. Os “femmes” são muitas vezes chamados “flaming faggot” ou “degenerate fag”.[52]

3. No Gay Report aparecem depoimentos de homossexuais como por exemplo:“Femme behaviour can be vicious and destructive, demeaning to women and gay men” ou “To me someone who is a femme is a self-indulgent…petty, scheming, gossipy gay being whose self-image has been warped and shaped by unfortunate family situations”.[53]

4. Os homossexuais “femmes” são 5-15% da população homossexual.[54]

Alemanha e Homossexualidade

A homossexualidade era conhecida nos anos vinte como The German Vice. As cidades equivalentes a New York e S. Francisco dos nosso dias, eram Munique e Berlim.

It remains characteristic of the Germans, that they, outwardly the most brutally masculine of all European peoples, are the most homossexual nation on earth.[55]

Junte-se isto ao que escreveu Platão no Banquete: “Se fosse possível formar um Estado ou um exército exclusivamente de homossexuais, estes homens haveriam de entrar em guerra com tal espírito que conquistariam o mundo, mesmo que o seu número fosse pequeno”. Como se verá seguidamente esta frase é (quase) profética.

A homossexualidade, nos anos 30, era conhecida na Rússia como “a perversão fascista” e Máximo Gorky disse certa vez que “There is already a slogan in Germany, ‘Erradicate the homossexual and fascism will disappear’”.[56]

Ernst Rhom

Rhom era um soldado profissional, desde 1906, e após a primeira grande guerra passou a colaborar numa sociedade socialista de terroristas chamada Punho de Ferro. Hitler também pertenceu a esta sociedade.[57]

Rhom era um homossexual, pedófilo, que tinha uma visão muito própria do futuro: “Rhom projected a social order in which homossexuality would be regarded as a human behavior pattern of high repute…he flaunted his homossexuality in public and insisted that his cronies do the same. What was needed, Rhom believed, was a proud and arrogant lot who could brawl, carouse, smash windows, kill and slaughter for the hell of it. Straights, in his eyes, were not as adept in such behavior as practicing homossexuals”.[58]

Rhom foi o comandante das SA cuja função era bater em quem discordava dos nazis. Segundo Hitler, esta tarefa seria melhor cumprida por homossexuais.[59]

“Rhom, as the head of 2.500.000 Storm Troops had surrounded himself with a staff of preverts. His chiefs, men of rank of Gruppenfuhrer or Obergruppenfuherer, commanding units of several hundred thousand Storm Troopers, were almost without exception homossexuals. Indeed, unless a Strom Troop officer were homossexual he had no chance of advancement”.[60]

“Rhom used the SA for ends other than the purely political. SA contact men kept their Chief of Staff supplied with suitable partners, and at the first sign of infedility on the part of a Rhom favorite, he would be bludgeoned down by one of the SA mobile squads. The head pimp was a shop assistant named Peter Granninger, who had been one of Rhom’s partners…and was now given cover in the SA Intelligence Section. For a monthly salary of 200 marks he kept Rhom supplied with new friends, his main hunting ground being Geisela High School Munich; from this school he recruited no fewer than eleven boys, whom he first tried out and then took to Rhom”.[61]

Gerhard Rossbach

Os Freikorps eram grupos inactivos de veteranos da primeira guerra. Um destes Freikorps eram os Rossbachbund que mais tarde passou a chamar-se SA (Sturmabteilung) e formaram o braço armado do partido nazi. Rossbach era homossexual e o seu Rossbachbund era um corpo de homossexuais dentro dos Freikorps. Rossbach fundou um grupo para jovens, associado ao seu Rossbachbund, chamado Schilljugend cujo dirigente era Edmund Heines, um assassino pedófilo. [62]

Partido nazi

O partido nazi começou por se chamar Partido dos Trabalhadores. As primeiras reuniões deste partido eram no Bratwurstglockl, um bar “gay” frequentado pelos fundadores do partido. Mais tarde, o partido passou a chamar-se Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (Partido Nacional Socialista dos Trabalhadores Alemães).

Juventude Hitelariana

Em 1901 um professor homossexual chamado Karl Fischer fundou uma organização, parecida com os escuteiros, chamada Wandervogel. Um dos cumprimentos rituais desta organização era o braço estendido e a saudação Sieg Heil, e Fischer chamava-se a si mesmo Der Fuehrer.[63]

Em 1912, um dos primeiros membros da Wandervogel, Hans Blueher, escreveu um livro chamado The German Wandervogel Movement as an Erotic Phenomenon, no qual descrevia como o movimento servia para introduzir os jovens na homossexualidade. O próprio Blueher era bissexual.[64]

Depois dos nazis subirem ao poder, em 1933, o Wandervogel transformou-se na Juventude Hitelariana, e era conhecida entre a população como Juventude Homo, pelo facto da homossexualdiade ser endémica dentro do grupo.[65]

Segundo os ficheiros da RJF, a polícia interna da Juventude Hitelariana (JH), só no primeiro semestre de 1940 houve 10.985 crimes cometidos pelos membros da JH. O mais comum foi o roubo logo seguido da homossexualidade (901 casos).[66] O mesmo autor diz que em Setembro de 1940 um membro da JH (que já tinha cadastro por pequenos roubos) foi apanhado em pleno dia, no passeio de uma rua, numa orgia homossexual com funcionários de uma prisão. A punição -alegadamente, pena capital- foi a… expulsão da Juventude Hitelariana. Himmler tratava os abusos dos SS sobre os jovens da JH com a máxima discrição possível, e em 1940 alterou o artigo 175 por forma que só fossem presos os homossexuais condenados quatro vezes.

Jorg Lanz Von Liebenfels

Ex-monge, expulso por ser homossexual[67], foi um dos homens que mais influência teve sobre Hitler.[68] Jorg Lanz, depois de expulso, fundou a Ordo Novi Templi, uma seita que misturava ideias new age com anti-semitismo. O seu símbolo era a suástica, e, no dia de Natal de 1907, Lanz e outro membros da ONT hastearam uma suástica no castelo que Lanz comprou para instalar a ordem.[69] Lanz escolheu a suástica porque, segundo ele, era o que os pagãos usavam para simbolizar Wotan, o deus das tempestades (reorde-se que os SA eram as “tropas da tempestade”).

Lanz odiava as mulheres, escrevendo que “a alma das mulheres tem algo de pré-humano, algo demoníaco, algo enigmático”. E a impureza da raça ariana derivava de mulheres promíscuas que copulavam com raças inferiores.[70]

Lanz chamava às suas filosofias exotéricas Arisofia (Teosofia Ariana).

Nazismo e Neo-Paganismo

Para além de tudo o que já foi dito acima, os nazis desenvolveram uma religião baseada o culto de Wotan e um culto da natureza centrado no Sol.

Os nazis levaram a cabo uma política clara de destruição dos sinais judeo-cristãos. O ataque aos judeus é conhecido. A Igreja Católica sofreu a destruição das organizações católicas na Alemaha, o encerramento dos seminários, dos conventos e dos mosteiros, a expropriação dos seus bens, a destruição da imprensa católica, o encerrameto das escolas católicas e da Universidade Católica de Lublin, e foram assassinados diversos dirgentes leigos de organizações católicas. Milhares de padres e religiosos foram deportados para Dachau, conforme se lê no vol.4, p.65, do Processo de Nuremberga. As freiras tiveram direito a um campo de concentração especial: Bojanowo (ibid p.513). Foram assassinados 700 padres polacos e deportados para Dachau mais de 3000 (ibid pp. 64 e 519). Em Março de 1935 a Gestapo prendeu na Prússia várias centenas de pastores protestantes por terem condenado publicamente o neo-paganismo; em Wurttemberg outros seguiram igual caminho por nas suas homilias “violarem os instintos morais dos alemães” ao fazer referência a Abraão, José a David.[71]

Os nazis lançaram também uma campanha que visava afastar os cristãos da sua Igreja. Esta campanha foi especialmente eficaz nos funcionários públicos.[72] Logo que os nazis chegaram ao poder, substituiram festas cristãs por festas pagãs: a celebração dos solistícios, o Domingo da Maternidade, etc. As cerimónias de casamento invocavam a Mãe Terra e o Pai Céu.[73] Os crucifixos foram retirados das escolas e dos hospitais.[74]

Os membros da Juventude Hitelariana tinham uma música cujo refrão dizia “nenhum padre nos impedirá de sentir que somos filhos de Hitler” e “Nós não seguimos Cristo mas Horst Wessel. Fora com o incenso e a água benta… a suástica é que trás a salvação ao mundo”. O refrão cantado pelas SA era “Camaradas SA, enforquem os Judeus e ponham os padres contra a parede”. [75]

Himmler considerava o Cristianismo a maior praga da história e como tal deveria ser tratada.[76] Na página 117, vol.2, do Julgamento de Nuremberga, diz que em dada altura os nazis ponderaram a hipótese de, depois da Guerra, o Fuherer passar a ser o chefe das igrejas protestantes, à semelhança do que se passa na Igreja Anglicana. A proposta foi rejeitada porque “the nazism was to supress the Christian Church completely after the war”.

Magnus Hirschfeld

Hirschfeld era o Kinsey alemão (ou melhor, Kinsey era o Hirschfeld americano!). Era um judeu homossexual “efeminado”, que dirigia o Instituto para Investigação em Sexologia. No seu Instituto havia mais de 40 mil fichas com “histórias” sobre os homossexuais alemães, recolhidas por Hirschfeld, à semelhança do que fez Kinsey na América. Entre essas “histórias” havia muitas de dirigentes do partido nazi que tinham recorrido ao Instituto anos antes. Em 6 de Maio de 1933 os SA entraram no seu instituto e queimaram tudo. Esta queima de livros foi registada num filme que todas as pessoas conhecem: os nazis a queimar livros. O que poucas pessoas sabem é que essa queima visava destruir ficheiros comprometedores para os nazis…

Ludwig Lenz trabalhou no instituto e descreveu o ataque nos seguintes termos: “Why was then, since we were completely non-party, that our purely scientific Institute was the first victim which fell to the new regime? The answer to this is simple… We knew too much. It would be against medical principles to provide a list of the Nazi leaders and their preversions but (…) not ten percent of the men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were seually normal… Our knoweledge of such intimate secrets regarding members of the Nazi Party and other documentary material -we possessed about fourty thousand confessions and biographical letters- was the cause of the complete utter destruction of the Institute of Sexology”.[77]

Apesar de ser “against medical principles” revelar as perversões dos líderes nazis, o certo é que Hirschfeld e outros homossexuais “femme” iam soltando para a imprensa “histórias” sobre os nazis, que eram publicadas no orgão oficial do SPD.[78] Este partido, diga-se de passagem, era o favorito dos “femmes”. O maior êxito desta guerra entre “femmes” e “butchers” foi a publicação nos jornais Sociais Democratas, em 1925, de algumas cartas de Rohm onde este exprimia os seu agrado por rapazinhos. Em nome do partido, Rohm foi afastado até 1929 (esteve no exército da Bolívia), altura em que Hitler o mandou chamar de novo.

“Hitler attempted to bury all his earlier influences and his origins, and he spent a great deal of energy hiding them…[Com este objectivo] Hitler oredered the murder of Reinhold Hanish, a friend who shared his down and out days in Vienna”.[79]

Magnus Hirschefeld era também o director de uma organização pró-gay que tinha por principal objectivo conseguir a revogação do artigo que criminalizava a homossexualidade (Artigo 175 do Código Penal). Esta organização chamava-se Scientific-Humanitarian Committee (SHC) e opunha-se também à pedofilia e ao sadomasoquismo. Um dos inspiradores de Hirschfeld foi Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895), o grande pioneiro dos “direitos dos homossexuais” na Alemanha, que tinha condenado explicitamente o “Amor Grego” (pedofilia) advogado por muitos outros homossexuais alemães (e não só, como já vimos).

Segundo o investigador (homossexual) Hubert Kennedy “Happily, some boy-lovers were already speaking out in opposition to Hirschfeld in Berlin at the beginning of this century (…) mostly bisexual and/or boy-lovers (…). Seeing the “love of friends” as a masculine virtue, they urged a rebirth of the greek ideal”.[80]

Adolf Brand

Adolf Brand era um pederasta defensor do “Amor Grego”, publicava pornografia infantil e era profundamente anti-semita. Era o editor do, aparentemente, primeiro periódico gay do mundo. Em 1902 fundou a Gemeinschaft der Eigenen (“Comunidade dos Especiais”). Esta “comunidade” promoveu a formação em 1920 da Liga da Amizade Alemã, que em 1923 passou a chamar-se Bund fur Menschenrecht (“Sociedade dos Direitos Humanos”). Esta era a maior organização gay da Alemanha e era dirigida por Hans Kahnert (já referido acima). Todo este grupo era abertamente adverso a Hirschfeld e à sua SHC. O ataque ao instituto de Hirschfeld foi feito pelas SA sob o comando de Rhom, um membro da Sociedade dos Direitos Humanos.

Adolf Hitler

Existem vários indícios das tendências homossexuais de Hitler:

1. Hitler era coprofilo (sexualmente estimulado por excrementos humanos), uma característica de homossexualidade.[81]

2. Hitler viveu como prostituto em Viena de 1907 a 1912 e da mesma forma viveu em Munique de 1912 a 1914.[82]

3. “Hitler chose to live in a Vienna flophouse known to be inhabited by many homossexuals”.[83]

4. Hitler foi acusado pela família Wagner de ter violado Wieland Wagner, neto do compositor, quando Wieland tinha menos de dez anos.[84] (Hitler era amigo pessoal da mãe de Wieland).

5. Magnus Hirschfeld fez o seguinte depoimento: “About three years before the Nazis came to power we had a patient at the Institute who had a liason with Rhom. We were on good terms with him, and he told us a good deal of what happened in his circle…He also referred to Adolf Hitler in the oddest possible manner. ‘Afi is the most perverted of us all. He is very much like a soft woman, but now he makes great propaganda in the heroic morale’”.[85]

6. O próprio Mussolini referiu-se a Hitler como “that horrible sexual degenerate”, e ficou muito mal impressionado com o “monte” de homossexuais que acompanhou Hitler na sua primeira visita a Itália.[86]

7. Nos ficheiros da polícia de Viena, Hitler consta como homossexual.[87]

8. Hitler viveu sempre rodeado de homossexuais: Rhom, Hess (as duas pessoas mais próximas de Hitler), Baldur von Schirach (chefe da Juventude Hitelariana), Reinhard Heydrich (o monstro que montou e organizou os campos, senhor da vida e da morte de todos -salvo Hitler- no Terceiro Reich), Hans Frank (advogado de Hitler), Wilhelm Bruckner (assessor de Hitler), Walther Funk (Ministro da economia), Emile Maurice (chauffeur de Hitler), Albert Speer (terá inclusive tido uma aventura com Hitler[88]), Julius Streicher (preso por pedofilia e nomeado por Hitler Gauleiter de Nuremberga), Goebbels (acusado por Rhom de ser pedófilo), Himmler (pederasta filmado em plena acção[89]), Albert Foerster (nomeado por Hitler Governador de Danzig e alegadamente amante de Hitler[90]), para mais, todos os seus (de Hitler) guarda-costas eram homossexuais[91]. Alguns dos homens referidos acima eram bissexuais, alguns eram mesmo casados e tinham vários filhos.

9. Embora sem a importância do que está acima, podem-se acrescentar mais dados: a)uma das fotografias oficiais da visita de Mussolini a à Alemanha, em 1937, mostra Hitler e Mussolini em frente a uma estátua de dois alemães musculosos, nús, de mãos dadas. b)Hitler era um grande admirador de Frederico o Grande, um homossexual confesso. c)Finalmente, um dos objectos que Hitler mais estimava era o original de uma carta de amor que o Rei Ludwig II enviara a um seu criado.

10. São conhecidas quatro mulheres com as quais Hitler teve relações sexuais, embora perversas. Todas estas mulheres se tentaram suicidar, e duas conseguiram. Uma das mulheres de Hitler foi Gely, a sua sobrinha. Otto Strasser descreve um encontro que teve com ela pouco depois desta se ter encontrado com o tio. Otto Strasser conhecia já um relato das perversidades a que Hitler se entregava, feito pela filha de um fotógrafo, Fraulein Hofmann, uma das vítimas. Na altura pensou que o relato não era credível. Contudo, escreve ele, “Gely, who was completely ignorant of this other affair of her uncle’s, confirmed point by point a story scarcely credible to a healthy-minded man”. Uma das coisas que Gely disse foi que Hitler a “atava”.[92] Segundo Heiden, Hitler escreveu uma carta à sua sobrinha revelando-lhe as suas inclinações para relações masoquistas e envolvendo fezes.[93]

Até aqui descrevemos as personangens como um dramaturgo o faz no início das peças. Se o leitor quiser conhecer a tragédia interpretada por este bando de pervertidos e adeptos de seitas exotéricas, poderá ler qualquer história da segunda guerra mundial. Por agora interessa deixar claro três pontos: a) Muitos dos alegados “homossexuais” mortos pelos nazis eram pessoas normais, inimigos do nazismo, e acusadas de homossexualiade à falta de melhor acusação; b) Muitos dos realmente homossexuais foram perseguidos e mortos porque, entre outras coisas, expuseram publicamente a homossexualidade de altos quadros nazis, quando estes desejavam esconder as suas tendências; c) Desde o topo de hierarquia nazi até ao mais insignificante guarda SA, a homossexualidade imperava.

[1] Allan Sanders, American Psychiatric Association’s annual conference, Toronto, June 1, 1998.

George Rice, Science, April 22, 1999.

[2] "Sexual Behavior: French Venture Where U.S. Fears to Tread." Science Magazine, July 3, 1992, page 25.

[3] O leitor tome algum tempo para pensar nisto: se a sodomia for respeitabilizada, em mil filmes que o seu genro viu, em mil artigos de jornais, revistas, peças de televisão, etc, o que protegerá a sua filha? Não quererá o seu genro experimentar aquilo que afinal é normal, bom, gratificante e feito por todos??

[4] "A male news anchor on KWY-TV in Philadelphia had to have a live gerbil surgically removed from his rectum. Among macho gay men in the city of brotherly love, the latest way of getting off is to take a gerbil - gender male, we assume - remove his teeth and nails, shave him, grease him and shove him up, up and away. Apparently the turn-on is all in the wiggle. As a precaution, a string is attached to the gerbil’s tail. In our newscaster’s case, the string broke, necessitating his visit to a hospital. It would seem that what we have here is a clear conflict of competing interests between gay rights and animal rights." The Realist, Jan-Feb 1991. Há inclusivamente T-shirts de homossexuais que dizem “SO MANY GERBILS, SO LLITTE TIME”.

[5] Doug Oakley. "Diaperful of Love: The Shocking True Story of Sausalito’s Adult Diaper Fraternity." Nose Magazine ("the seventh one"), pages 28 to 31

[6] "Just a Coincidence?" Focus on the Family Citizen, February 1990, page 5.

[7] Outweek Magazine, April 10, 1991.

[8] The Institute for Media Education. A Content Analysis of Two Decades of The Advocate (July 5, 1972 - July 2, 1991) and The 1991 Gayellow Pages. June 1991.

[9] The Institute for Media Education. A Content Analysis of Two Decades of The Advocate (July 5, 1972 - July 2, 1991) and The 1991 Gayellow Pages. June 1991.

[10]O que rapidamente provoca incontinência: as lojas da especialidade têm o necessário para remediar o problema…

[11] (1) New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, 302; American Journal of Public Health 1985; Nebraska Medical Journal 1985, 70.

(2) The First National Gay and Lesbian Sex Survey, as described in the Summer 1989 Family Research Newsletter.

(3) Father Enrique T. Rueda. The Homosexual Network: Private Lives & Public Policy. 1982: Old Greenwich, Connecticut; Devin Adair Publishers.

(4) Paul Cameron, Ph.D. "Homosexual Molestation of Children/Sexual Interaction of Teacher and Pupil." Psychological Reports, 1985, 57, pages 1,227 to 1,236.

(5) United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States [Annual Series]. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. 1990 Edition, Table 296, Table 297.

[12] T. Reeves, Varieties of Man/Boy Love, Wallace Hamilton Press, 1992. Tom Reeves é um pederasta.

[13] Valida Davila of San Diego’s Childhood Sensuality Circle, quoted in John Leo. "Cradle-to-Grave Intimacy." Time Magazine, September 7, 1981, page 69.

[14] Institute for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. "Homosexuality: Everybody’s Problem." Lincoln, Nebraska, 1984.

[15] [A] "Introducing the North American Man-Boy Love Association." Undated basic promotional brochure of NAMBLA National Headquarters in New York City. Reproduced in Father Enrique T. Rueda’s The Homosexual Network: Private Lives & Public Policy. 1982: Old Greenwich, Connecticut; Devin Adair Publishers. Page 177.

[B] Richard C. Bishop. "A Proposal for Pedophile Groups." NAMBLA Journal, New York, New York, July 1, 1979, page 5. Reproduced in Rueda, pages 214 and 215.

[16] B. Clowes, Deating the “Gay Rights” Issue, Oregon Citizen Alliance, 1993.

[17] Veja-se, por exemplo, Expresso, 15 de Janeiro 2000.

[18] C.J. Williams and M.S. Weinberg. Homosexuals and the Military. New York: Harper & Row, 1971.

[19] Mark F. Schwartz and William H. Masters. "The Masters and Johnson Treatment Program for Dissatisfied Homosexual Men." American Journal of Psychiatry, February 1984, pages 173 to 181.

[20] A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.

[21] P.H Gebhard and A.B. Johnson. The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulation of the 1938-1963 Interviews Conducted By the Institute for Sex Research. New York: Saunders Publishing, 1979.

[22] Tanto mais que o psiquiatra em causa assume que a homossexualidade tem uma causa anormal e leva os seus pacientes a superar a homossexualidade actuando sobre a causa.

[23] A convocação deste referendo obedeceu a pressões e manobras grupos homossexuais. Coube-lhes um papel activo na preparação de todo o processo, fazendo com que para os comités de estudo da questão fossem nomeados psiquiatras open minded, fazendo com que outros fossem excluídos, etc.

[24] Charles Socarides, M.D. "The Sexual Deviations and the Diagnostic Manual." American Journal of Psychotherapy, July 1978. Também, Arno Karlen. "Homosexuality: The Scene and Its Students." The Sociology of Sex. James Henson and Edward Sagarin (editors). New York: Schocken Publishers, 1978.

[25] Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, November 1977.

[26] Para mais detalhes sobre esta pressão veja-se Charles Socarides, M.D. The Sexual Deviations and the Diagnostic Manual." American Journal of Psychotherapy, July 1978. Também Arno Karlen. "Homosexuality The Scene and its Students." The Sociology of Sex. James Henson and Edward Sagarin (editors). New York: Schocken Publishers, 1978.

[27] O mecanismo sumariamente descrito tem muitas outras modalidades e é por vezes muito complexo e intrincado (passando por tios, ou outras figuras e modelos). O leitor interessado poderá consultar as seguintes obras:

Elisabeth Moberly, Psychogenesis: The Early Devlopment of Gender Identity(1983).

Joseph Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy of Male Homossexuality, A New Clinical Approach (1991).

[28] Psychological Bulletin, June 1998. A retirada da homossexualidade da lista de perturbações psíquicas corresponde ao esforço de credibilização dos homossexuais. A retirada da pedofilia corresponde à estratégia dos homossexuais de abolição da idade do consentimento. Portanto, não estamos perante descobertas novas mas facetas novas de uma luta de fundo. A título de curiosidade refira-se que presentemente é Juíz do Supremo Tribunal dos EUA uma defensora dos direitos dos homossexuais que enquanto advogada de um desses grupos (o American Civil Liberties Union) pretendeu baixar a idade do consentimento para 12 anos. Trata-se de Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (Cf. Washington Watch, April 1999).

[29] A.P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg, and S.K. Hammersmith. Sexual Preference: Statistical Appendix. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1981.

[30] L. McKusick, et.al. "AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported By Gay Men in San Francisco." American Journal of Public Health, 1985, 75, pages 493 to 496. Also see P.H. Gebhard and A.B. Johnson. The Kinsey Data. Saunders Publishers, 1979.

[31] A.P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg, and S.K. Hammersmith. Sexual Preference. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1981. Pages 308 and 309.

[32] Os sublinhados foram acrescentados, embora o direito e a responsabilidade assinalados estejam tão claramente deslocados que o realce é redundante. Nos EUA, ninguém pode obrigar um violador a fazer o teste da SIDA para que a vítima saiba o estado do seu agressor. Mais: um médico pode pedir a um doente que faça testes de qualquer doença menos da SIDA. Porquê? E que objectivos terá “a reserva da intimidade” e o “respeito do segredo”?

[33] Os homossexuais editam as listas de bares gay, que é fundamental para os seus encontros pois, segundo alguns deles, o seu maior pesadelo é ir para um cidade onde não há locais gay. O problema de tudo isto é que por vezes as listas incluem bares normalíssimos que, quando a lista se torna pública, perdem clientes por isso.

[34] Cf. João Carlos Espada, Expresso, 6.5.2000.

[35] Estes são alguns exemplos, entre muitos outros, que permitem ver até que ponto o desejo de igualdade dos homossexuais é falacioso.

[36] Foi com base nesta alínea do Tratado de Amesterdão que homossexuais protestaram no episódio do Hospital de Santa Maria.

[37] This is Our Creed, National Committee for Gay Civil Rights, Church Annex Building, Washington D.C:, 1984. Repare-se como vários dos pontos são de ataque à família e visam separar os pais dos filhos. Note-se como o ponto (4) abre as portas a tudo (bestialidade, pedofilia, etc). Note-se como o ponto (5) é explictamente pró-pedofilia. Note-se como os pontos (2), (8) e (9) explicitamente condenam grupos e pessoas. Note-se como isto contradiz o ponto (12)… que se contradiz a si próprio! Note-se que os autores do catálogo consideram que existe deus, mas que o ser supremo é o homem… logo o homem é deus…

[38] Kirk and Pill, Waging Peace, Christopher Street, Dec 1984.

[39] Michael Swift, Gay Community News, Feb 15, 1987.

[40] The Jerusalem Post, May 30, 1994.

[41] E. Wiesel, Night, Avon Books, 1969.

[42] J. Steiner, Treblinka, Simon and Schuster, 1979.

[43] R. Plant, The pink triangle, Henry Holt and Company, 1986, p. 166.

[44] R. Plant, The pink triangle, Henry Holt and Company, 1986, p. 153.

[45] E. Bergler, Homossexuality: disease or way of life, McMillan Company, 1956.

[46] Village Voice, December 10, 1979.

[47] H. Oosterhius, H. Kennedy, Homossexuality and Male Bonding in Pre-Nazi Germany, Harrington Park Press, 1991.

[48] J. Steakley, The homossexual emancipation movement in Germany, Arno Press, 1975.

[49] E. Kogon, The theory and practice of hell, Berkley Publishing Company, 1950.

[50] R. Plant, The pink triangle, Henry Holt and Company, 1986.

[51] G. Westwood, A minority: a report on the life of the male homossexual in Great Britain, Longman’s Green and Co., 1960.

[52] H.K. Jones, Toward a christian understanding of the homossexual, NY Association Press, 1966.

[53] K. Jay, A. Young, The gay report, Summit. 1979.

[54] D. Cory, J. LeRoy, The homossexual and his society: a view from within, Citadel Press, 1963.

[55] H. R. Knickerbocker, Is Tomorrow Hitler’s, New York, Reynal and Hitchcock, 1941.

[56] J. Lauritsen, D. Thorstad, The early homossexual rights movement 1864-1935, Times Change Press, 1974.

[57] K. Heiden, Der Fuherer: Hitler’s rise to power, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1944

[58] L. Snyder, Encyclopedia of the third reich, Paragon House, 1989.

[59] T. Fuchs, The Hitler fact book, Fountain Books, 1990.

[60] H. R. Knickerbocker, Is Tomorrow Hitler’s, New York, Reynal and Hitchcock, 1941.

[61] H. Hohne, The order of the death’s head, Ballantine Books, 1971.

[62] R. Waite, Vanguard of the nazism: The free corps movement in postwar Germany 1918-1923, W.W. Norton and Co., 1969.

[63] W. H. Koch, The Hitler Youth, Stein and Day, 1976.

[64] F. Rector, The nazi extermination of homossexuals, Stein and Day, 1981.

[65] F. Rector, The nazi extermination of homossexuals, Stein and Day, 1981.

[66] R. Koehl, The black corps, University of Wisconsin Press, 1983.

[67] D. Sklar, Tha nazis and the occult, Dorset Press, 1989.

[68] W. Daim, Der Mann der Hitler die Ideen gab, Wienn, 1958.

[69] N. Goodrick-Clark, The occults roots of nazism, NY University Press, 1992.

[70] J. Rhodes, The Hitler Movement: A modern millenarian revolution, Hoover Institution Press, 1980.

[71] R. Grunberger, The 12-year Reich: a social history of nazi Germany1933-1945, Ballantine Books, 1971.

[72] R. Grunberger, The 12-year Reich: a social history of nazi Germany1933-1945, Ballantine Books, 1971, p. 491.

[73] R. Grunberger, The 12-year Reich: a social history of nazi Germany1933-1945, Ballantine Books, 1971, p. 80.

[74] R. Grunberger, The 12-year Reich: a social history of nazi Germany1933-1945, Ballantine Books, 1971, p. 494.

[75] R. Grunberger, The 12-year Reich: a social history of nazi Germany1933-1945, Ballantine Books, 1971, p. 489.

[76] H. Ziegler, Nazi Germany’s new aristocracy, Princeton University Press, 1989.

[77] I. Haeberle, Swastika, the pink triangle, and yellow star: The Elite Rights Committee, 1992.

[78] J. Steakley, The homossexual emancipation movement in Germany, Arno Press, 1975, p. 64. Note-se, de passagem, que periodicamente aparecem homossexuais a “ameaçar” denunciar as pessoas “famosas” e “influentes” que são homossexuais. Como se vê, na Alemanha eles não se ficaram pelas ameaças. Mas seria curioso investigar qual a ideia dos homossexuais assumidos? Será chantagem? Pressão?

[79] D. Sklar, The nazis and the occult, Dorset Press, 1989.

[80] H. Kennedy, Man/boy love in writings of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, Wallace Hamilton Press, 1992.

[81] Esta caractrística de Hitler é descrita por dois investigadores: R. Waite, The psychopathic Adolf Hitler, Signet Books, 1977; W. Langer, The mind of Adolf Hitler, Signet 1972. É também referida por K. Heiden, Der Fuherer: Hitler’s rise to power, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1944, p.385.

[82] S. Igra, Germany’s National Vice, London, Quality Press, 1945.

[83] W. Langer, The mind of Adolf Hitler, Signet 1972.

[84] Time, August 15, 1995.

[85] C. Wolff, Magnus Hirschfeld, NY, Quartet Books, 1990.

[86] D. Seward, Napoleon and Hitler, NY, Simon & Schuster.

[87] D. Seward, Napoleon and Hitler, NY, Simon & Schuster.

[88] Newsweek, October 30, 1995.

[89] Washington City Paper, April 4, 1995.

[90] W. Langer, The mind of Adolf Hitler, Signet 1972.

[91] W. Langer, The mind of Adolf Hitler, Signet 1972.

[92] O. Strasser, Hitler and I, Boston Houghton Mifflin Company, 1940.

[93] K. Heiden, Der Fuherer: Hitler’s rise to power, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1944, p. 385.

Os Abortófilos

2009-01-11T07:08:00.001-08:00

Nota Bene: O autor deste artigo foi processado e condenado por difamação em 1ª instância. Tendo recorrido para o Tribunal da Relação foi inocentado. A sentença transitou em julgado, pelo que a Justiça reconheceu que a acusação sobre o carácter difamatório do artigo é infundada.

Anda por aí, à solta, um género de gente extremamente perigosa que tem, positivamente, um horror aos bebés nascituros e um fascínio obsessivo pela sua morte. De há uns anos a esta parte tem andado num sobressalto, numa agitação, num desassossego, uivando palavras homicidas, estabelecendo estratégias mortíferas, elaborando leis assassinas, engendrando julgamentos mediáticos para alcançar os seus objectivos tenebrosos, reivindicando estudos manipuladores sobre a realidade do aborto a fim de conseguir a sua liberalização, levando a cabo, nas escolas, uma deseducação sexual estruturalmente pornográfica e, consequentemente, irresponsável, impondo uma mentalidade contraceptiva/abortiva, etc., etc..

Esta gente, que constantemente incita ao crime, goza de grande publicidade na comunicação social e de muita ascendência na política. Nomes sonantes vêm agora, à centena, propor a criação de uma conta bancária “para ajudar mulheres sem meios económicos a interromper a gravidez no estrangeiro de forma legal e segura [?]” (Público, 15. 05. 2002). Repare-se bem que não se trata de ajudar a mãe, com dificuldades económicas, a criar o seu filho; pelo contrário, o dinheiro ser-lhe-á dado sob condição de o matar. Para isso, e só para isso, haverá auxílio. Tal é a veemência da “paixão” desta gente pelo aborto! Porque se há algo que fica claro com esta proposta é que o seu propósito não é de modo nenhum acabar com o homicídio/aborto mas sim acabar com a clandestinidade, facilitando-o. Porém, numa tentativa de esconder, perante si mesmos e os outros, o óbvio adiantam com uma hipocrisia maquiavélica ou com uma cegueira cínica: “ Com esta proposta ... não pretendemos promover o aborto, mas ajudar as pessoas”!! (Idem). De modo que, para esta gente, cumpliciar-se na matança da pessoa do filho, destroçando, desse modo, a vida da pessoa da mãe, é uma grande ajuda, uma obra de solidariedade! Surrealismo semelhante só, mesmo, em Sade (“o radicalismo abortista é filho do sadismo” - cf. V. Possenti, Filosofia e Societá – studi sui progetti ético-politici contemporanei, Massimo-Milano, 1983).

Neste mesmo dia 15 de Maio, demonstrando uma coordenação notável, o Diário de Notícias e o Público entrevistam Angela Gomez, presidente da Federação Internacional de Planeamento Familiar (IPPF, iniciais em inglês), que por “coincidência” se encontrava em Portugal. A IPPF, uma organização serial killer, é a segunda ONG maior do mundo, sendo que a primeira é a Cruz Vermelha, e é a instituição que mais promove o homicídio/aborto a nível mundial. O seu ramo em Portugal é a APF – esta “sucursal”, generosamente subsidiada e patrocinada por sucessivos governos, ao longo de décadas, dá formação aos nossos políticos, esteve implicada, como motor principal, em todas as investidas abortistas em Portugal, foi condecorada, em 1998, pelo Presidente Jorge Sampaio e viola impunemente a lei quando lhe convém.

Nestas elucidativas entrevistas Angela Gomez esclarece: “estamos presentes em 182 países e todas as nossas associações trabalham de forma igual no mundo ... O plano estratégico é o mesmo e os padrões que tentamos alcançar também, mas há obviamente diferenças entre os países e para cada um procuramos, dentro do nosso plano estratégico, um nicho onde o governo local não esteja a actuar e onde possamos promover a nossa causa ... devemos oferecer um aborto seguro porque é um direito da mulher ... A IPPF lida com os grupos parlamentares de vários países - incluindo Portugal, onde o contacto é feito através da APF -, no sentido de promover as mesmas ideias no mundo, sendo esta, afirma Angela Gómez, a «nossa forma de influenciar as leis». (DN, 15. 05. 2002). Segundo ela “do ponto de vista legislativo ... Portugal continua «atrasado» ... uma questão que foi aflorada durante a reunião com os três deputados (do PS, PSD e CDS/PP) que colaboram com a APF na cooperação internacional. Para além de abordar a problemática dos direitos sexuais e reprodutivos [esterilização, contracepção e aborto], ... aproveitou para sensibilizar os parlamentares para o apoio que Portugal pode prestar nesta matéria às populações das antigas colónias ... ” (cf. Público, 15. 05. 2002). Angela Gomez disse ainda da sua surpresa “com a «elevada prevalência» do uso de métodos anticoncepcionais pela população, actualmente da ordem dos 80 por cento ... «É uma das percentagens mais altas que tenho visto», confessou ...” (Idem).

Esta agradável surpresa, este contentamento, pela eficácia do trabalho da sua organização em Portugal (a APF), a ser verdade, deveria constituir para a Igreja e para todos os pró-vida um motivo de grande tristeza e de rigoroso exame de consciência. De facto, mal se entende que num país onde a Igreja tem tanto peso, os seus membros, em especial, – embora não só estes, uma vez que esta questão é de lei natural e não meramente confessional -, não estejam devidamente formados e/ou catequizados em matéria de tanta importância quer para a virtude da castidade, quer para a estabilidade familiar, quer para a saúde das mulheres, quer para a defesa da vida, quer para a própria salvação. A censura sistemática da encíclica Humanae Vitae e mesmo o dissentimento obstinado da sua doutrina (que, importa recordar, é definitiva e imutável – cf. Conselho Pontifício da Família, Vademecum para os confessores sobre alguns temas de moral conjugal, 12.II. 1997, n. II.4) feito ensino nalguns sectores da UCP e aconselhamento nas pregações, e em outras circunstâncias, devem contar-se entre os principais responsáveis por esta situação catastrófica.

Recorde-se, a propósito, que Malcolm Potts, ex-director médico da IPPF, afirmou: “A prática do aborto e da contracepção estão intrinsecamente relacionadas entre si” (Malcolm Potts, Peter Diggory y John Peel, Abortion, Cambridge University Press, London, 1970), “à medida que as pessoas se virarem para a contracepção, dar-se-á uma subida, não uma descida, na percentagem de abortos” (Report, Cambrige Evening News, 7 February 1973. Cit. in Valerie Riches - Foreword by Professor Sir Bryan Thwaites, MA, PhD, Sex and Social Engineering, Family and Youth Concern (The Responsible Society), 1986).

Também Judith Bury, médica abortófila e investigadora dos Brook Advisory Centres, confirma-o: “Há uma evidência esmagadora que, contrariamente ao que se podia esperar, a disponibilidade da contracepção leva a um aumento da percentagem de abortos” (Judith Bury, Sex Education for Bureaucrats, The Scotsman, 29 June 1981).

Declarações deste tipo são frequentes entre os membros desta organização e entre os seus cúmplices. Pelo que se torna evidente que quando incitam ao uso da contracepção eles sabem que estão a promover o aborto: Pierre Simon (médico obstreta, co-fundador e vice-presidente do Movimento francês para o planeamento familiar, colaborador de Simon Veil no Ministério da saúde, por duas vezes Grão-Mestre da Grande Loja - maçónica - de França) que esteve na dianteira do combate pela legalização da contracepção e do aborto, recordando a sua luta, escreveu: «Atacar a lei [que proibia a contracepção] na sua totalidade significava liberalizar o aborto. ... [A] opinião [pública], no entanto, não estava preparada para tal. Por isso, tivemos como nosso primeiro objectivo separar esta amálgama. Uma vez conseguido que a contracepção se tornasse normal e aceite pela lei, logo o aborto seria aceite. O futuro provou que tínhamos razão. A luta pela contracepção duraria mais e seria mais difícil do que a luta pelo aborto. Mudando o famoso provérbio: Nós tínhamos ganho a guerra [legalizando e promovendo a contracepção], só faltava travar a última batalha [legalizar o aborto]» (Pierre Simon, De la vie avant toutes choses, Ed. Mazarine 1979). De facto, em Dezembro de 1967, 9 meses antes da encíclica Humanae Vitae, do Papa Paulo VI, foi aprovada a lei que autorizava a venda e a publicidade dos contraceptivos e, logo, em 1975 a lei Veil legalizou o aborto. Em 1983 o aborto passou a ser pago pela Segurança Social, isto é, por todos os cidadãos que pagam impostos. Ninguém escapa, pois, à participação no aborto, uma vez que todos o financiam.

Consciente da gravidade da situação Mons. Philippe Barbarin, Bispo de Moulins, declarou recentemente (31. 10. 2001): “ ... alguns Bispos de França ... interroga[mo-nos] sobre a nossa atitude por volta de 1975, quando foi discutida e aprovada na França a lei que liberalizou o aborto. Pode ser que cheguemos a fazer uma confissão pública, pedindo perdão publicamente pela nossa pusilanimidade, pela nossa cobardia, no momento da discussão desta lei criminosa” (Michel Schooyans, Terrorismo e Globalização, 29. 01. 2002).

Será ainda preciso recordar que grande número dos contraceptivos actuais têm ou podem ter um efeito abortivo precoce (desde a pílula normal ao DIU e à pílula do dia seguinte, eufemisticamente chamada contracepção de emergência) e que a grande maioria dos homicídios/abortos não são cirúrgicos mas são causados química e precocemente?

Verificamos mais uma vez, com amargura, que os católicos em Portugal (e demais pessoas de boa-vontade), geralmente falando, ainda não tomaram consciência da gravidade da situação e das medidas excepcionais de organização e de combate que a circunstância merece. Mesmo dentro da Igreja, entendida como conjunto dos fiéis, há um número significativo de pessoas, em lugares de alguma responsabilidade, seriamente contaminadas pela mentalidade contraceptiva e abortiva.

Esfregar-se ou abusar de crianças, adolescentes e jovens é um crime repugnante, detestável e muito grave, mas ainda mais grave, abominável e tenebroso é esquartejar ou matar crianças no seio materno. Se a sociedade e o Estado se levantam unânimes e justamente indignados para combater o primeiro crime, porque é que se organizam para realizar o segundo? (Para as ligações da IPPF à defesa da pedofilia e do incesto ver Robert G. Marshall and Charles A. Donovan, Blessed Are The Barren –The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 1991 e Brian Clowes, Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia, Stafford, Virginia: American Life League, Inc., 1993).

Nuno Serras Pereira
16. 05. 2002