Jack Fonseca

,

Gay teens will die, but who is to blame?

Jack Fonseca
By Jack Fonseca
Image

Oct. 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Over the past year, Ontarians have been inundated with media allegations about an “epidemic” of gay teens being bullied in school and this is the reason why every high school, including Catholic ones, must have Gay-Straight Alliances.

However, hard data did not support this claim, and in fact, legitimate studies show that the #1 cause of bullying in schools is body size/shape.  For example, in a 2006 study done by a consultancy firm for the Toronto District School Board, sexual orientation was not even mentioned in the top 6 reasons it found for why kids are bullied in school.

Media Alleges Schoolyard ‘Homophobia’ is the Source of Gay Suicide “Epidemic”

The media also claimed, without any hard data whatsoever to back it, that there is an epidemic of same-sex attracted youth taking their lives as a result of the “homophobic bullying” supposedly rampant in schools.  If one reads between the lines, those ultimately responsible for this gay suicide ‘epidemic’ are - wait for it – Christians, of course.  Here’s the twisted logic: the belief that God designed sex as proper to a man and woman within the marriage covenant for the purpose of babies and bonding, somehow creates a “climate of hatred and violence” towards people who experience same-sex attraction.

I don’t buy the theory that magic “pixie dust” emanating from Christians is killing gay youth.  You see, Christianity teaches that we must love our neighbor (including those who identify as ‘gay’) and that hating anybody will land us in hell. So the ingredients for the pixie dust ‘hate cloud’ simply aren’t present. Of course, I condemn all forms of bullying, including for reasons of a perceived same-sex attraction. But common sense tells us that if a kid is bullying a kid with same-sex attraction, it’s because he’s being a mean kid, not because Christianity compels him.

However, the media is half right - people who identify as ‘gay’ are indeed dying at a staggering rate in comparison to the general population, most strikingly, the males.  And someone is to blame for their deaths, but the culprit is neither school bullying, Christianity nor ‘homophobia’.

Stunning Stats on HIV

I recently discovered a shocking epidemiological study on the prevalence of HIV amongst men who have sex with men (MSM) in Ontario. This infection rate is shocking.  The study was done in collaboration with the Ontario Ministry of Health & Long-Term Care. Yes, that does mean the McGuinty government!

The report is based on 2008 data from Ontario’s Public Health Units, the most current data year.

It shows that almost 1 in 4 MSM in Toronto are living with HIV. That’s a real epidemic! Not one fabricated to advance a political agenda.

Please - let that fact sink in for a couple of seconds… We’re talking about a government admission that almost one in four actively homosexual men who live in Toronto, have HIV.

These guys have a uniformly fatal disease that will eventually kill them.  That is heart-breaking, but it gets worse.

Extrapolating the current growth rate for infection tells us that by the time 2012 public health data becomes available, almost 1 out of every 3 actively gay men in Toronto will have HIV. 

Outside the big city, the situation is a little less severe, but still an epidemic.  The average HIV prevalence rate amongst MSM for all of Ontario is 1 out of every 6.

Government Epidemiologist Admits the Health Risk

During the course of subsequent research, I was directed to an article by the Christian Heritage Party which referenced an earlier version of the same study.  The CHP apparently contacted the lead epidemiologist and asked why active homosexual men had a rate of HIV infection that was radically higher than the rate amongst heterosexual men.  His response to them was:

“The higher HIV infection rates among MSM are likely due to the greater efficiency of HIV transmission through anal intercourse compared to vaginal intercourse and the higher number of sexual partners among MSM compared to heterosexuals.” (emphasis added)

The reason for this is structural.  It’s because the rectum is significantly different from the vagina. The vagina was designed for friction. It has lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles that allows it to endure friction without damage. In comparison, the anus is the ‘exit only’ end of the digestive system and was not designed for friction. It is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that can be easily damaged and give infections access to the bloodstream. Furthermore semen has immunosuppressive chemicals which trick the body’s immune-defense system into letting foreign organisms pass, including the HIV virus.

The truth is that anal sex is the most efficient method of transmitting HIV, bar none.  Gay-activists try to distract from this reality by saying that we just need more condoms and more “safe sex” education.  But we’ve had “safe sex education” for decades, and it hasn’t helped. These so-called solutions try to mask the real problem. In fact, they have exacerbated the spread of AIDS.  Condoms are not very effective in stopping the transmission of HIV.  What we know is that condoms are perhaps 60 to 80% effective in stopping the transmission of HIV.  When you’re talking about catching a fatal disease, 60 to 80% protection is nowhere close to being “safe”.  Even the term “safe sex” lulls people into the false belief that the behavior they’re engaged in is “safe” when in fact, it is extremely dangerous.

Male on male sexual activity is a public health crisis that is killing men in their prime of life. Shouldn’t genuine compassion involve warning people against behaviours that could cause their death?  So, why is nobody warning MSM about the high risks of this behavior in the stark terms necessary?

Connection to GSA School Mandate

Let’s bring this back to Premier McGuinty’s imposition of homosexual clubs in schools, as mandated by Bill 13.

GSAs, which are already popping up as early as grade six, will encourage same-sex attracted youth to embrace a “gay” identity. The clubs will send kids the message that the gay lifestyle is just as normal, natural and healthy as heterosexuality. This lesson will also be reinforced by the pro-gay curriculum changes inherent in Bill 13.  What we know is that if a child embraces a gay identity, it is inevitable they will eventually enter the gay lifestyle and seek same-sex ‘love’.  For the male students, that means one day they’ll be engaging in the risky practice of anal sex.

Essentially, the government is encouraging same-sex attracted male youths to embrace a lifestyle that it has already proven will cause one in six of them to contract a fatal disease.

What business does the government (or a school board) have to push kids into a lifestyle that carries a real risk of causing their early deaths? If an obligation rests anywhere with the State, it is to warn children against behaviours that will cause high rates of suffering and death.

Years from now, this is going to blow up in the faces of school boards and the Ontario government, in the same way that pushing cigarettes onto kids eventually blew up in the face of Big Tobacco. I predict that infected men will sue the school boards and the Ontario government for pushing them into a deadly lifestyle ... and for not advertising the truth about the risks of anal sex.

Who Is To Blame For Gay Teen Deaths?

This is a bit of a trick question. They likely won’t die as teens (although they could contract the virus at this time), but rather as adults.  Signs of HIV infection take 7 to 10 years to develop, and with the advent of anti-retroviral drugs, full-blown AIDS can be forestalled for many years.  But there is no cure for AIDS and we don’t know if there ever will be. Eventually, the disease will prematurely end their lives. For some, it will be in the prime of life.  Even for those on anti-retroviral drugs, it is not a pleasant existence. They have to take $10,000 to $15,000 worth of drugs each year. It is not without multiple infections and multiple hospitalizations.

Who is to blame? First, the government is to blame for casting overboard its obligation to defend the common good, just so it curries favour with the powerful gay lobby and its allies in the mainstream media.  Secondly, school boards for going along with this social engineering experiment.  Third, the militant gay-activist organizations who don’t really care whether people with same-sex attraction live or die, so long as their sexual revolution is successful.  These radical activists are using people with same-sex attraction as pawns in their war against the Judeo-Christian world view.  They actively deny that AIDS is a gay disease when almost 70% of new AIDS cases come from less than 2% of the population – that is, gay males.  The mounting body count does not seem to matter at all to these sex-activists. Only the goal of sexual revolution.

Higher Standard for Catholic Bishops and Trustees

As for Catholic trustees and Bishops, they have a higher moral obligation given their religious character. In my view,  for these Catholic leaders to permit GSAs and the resulting high rates of disease and death amongst a portion of its students, represents material cooperation with evil.

For this reason alone, never mind the spiritual harm, Ontario’s Catholic Bishops need to reject McGuinty’s GSA mandate and Bill 13 altogether.  They have the constitutional power to do so under Section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867 and they should not delay in using it. Children’s lives are at stake.

Now, let’s stop talking about the imaginary epidemic of gay suicides caused by ‘homophobic bullying’.  Let’s start talking instead about the real epidemic of HIV infecting men who have sex with men and whether it’s appropriate for schools to encourage children into that lifestyle.

Jack Fonseca is the project manager for Campaign Life Coalition. This piece is republished with permission.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

Gov report: 1,036 ObamaCare plans illegally fund abortions

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

Co-written by Ben Johnson

An internal government watchdog agency has found that – despite promises from President Obama and legal language in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – some 1,036 ObamaCare insurance plans are illegally paying for elective abortions.

The Affordable Care Act requires that insurance companies take up a separate, $1 surcharge to cover abortion. However, the majority of the issuers examined by GAO violate the payment structure, and use federal health care subsidies to cover elective abortions.

“Every ObamaCare taxpayer subsidized health insurance plan in New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island and Hawaii pays for abortion-on-demand,” said the office of Congressman Chris Smith, R-NJ, the co-chairman of the Bipartisan Congressional Pro-Life Caucus.

On Monday, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that out of 18 insurance issuers it sampled for the report, 15 "indicated that the benefit [of abortion] is not subject to any restrictions, limitations, or exclusions." The issuers provide "nearly one-quarter of [qualified health plans] covering non-excepted abortion services" in 28 states that do not restrict abortion coverage via health insurance plans more than the ACA.

The pro-life movement expressed outrage at the violation of the law.

Mary Harned, staff counsel for Americans United for Life (AUL), said that the ACA's language "is unambiguous – 'separate payments' are required. Yet insurance issuers are not collecting separate payments. In fact, the Obama administration is telling issuers that they do not need to collect two checks. When issuers seek guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), they are told that they can merely itemize the amount of a premium that will be used to pay for abortions."

The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) responded to the GAO's revelation by saying it will try to offer clearer explanations of the rules.

But Harned said the government is deliberately allowing states to skirt the law. "GAO uncovered evidence that at least one state department of insurance was unaware that issuers needed to file their plans for segregating the abortion premium from taxpayer funds with the state. At least two issuers indicated that they had not filed segregation plans, and at least one was not aware of any direction by the state to file such a plan.”

Americans should not have to finance abortion unwittingly through their insurance premiums, pro-life leaders said – a fact already codified into law.

“The American people should not be forced to purchase an Obamacare health care plan before they are able to find out what is in it,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “Americans should not be forced to play a game of moral Russian roulette when they select a health care plan.”

Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser said that “ObamaCare breaks from the long tradition of the Hyde Amendment, which has prevented taxpayer funding of abortion with broad public support, and was not included in the law.”

She added that the disclosure proves that several vulnerable Democratic senators "voted for taxpayer funding of abortion in ObamaCare."

National Right to Life Committee Legislative Director Douglas Johnson agreed, “Those really responsible for this scandal are the lawmakers, such as Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Mark Udall of Colorado, who voted against the pro-life amendment that would have prevented this massive federal funding of abortion-covering plans, as well as those who voted to enact the bill after the amendment was rejected, such as Mark Pryor of Arkansas.”

Dannenfelser, Perkins, and others says that Congress should correct this situation by passing the "No Taxpayer Founding of Abortion Act," introduced by Congressman Smith.

In a series of statements, Republican House leaders condemned the government funding of abortion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

House Speaker John Boehner said that the Obama administration “repeatedly denied congressional requests for its public release.”

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana said, "Many of us argued at the time ObamaCare passed that it would funnel taxpayer dollars to elective abortions, despite President Obama’s repeated broken promises to the contrary. This independent report validates our claims and proves that yet another ObamaCare promise has been broken.”

He called the news "the most recent in a string of ObamaCare broken promises to the American people."

The Obama administration has side-stepped the issue of which ObamaCare plans fund abortion since the passage of the ACA. Last October, and again in December, then-HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was grilled by pro-life Congressmen about whether Americans would be able to determine if their insurance plan funds abortion.

“I don’t know," Sebelius answered. "I know exactly the issue you’re talking about. I will check and make sure that is clearly identifiable.”

Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, said, “For a president who claims to pursue the most transparent administration, he continues to reject calls to shed light on what exactly is in plans on the health care exchange.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Lisa Bourne

Catholic Relief Services: We’re ‘proud’ that we don’t discuss faith

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

While some pro-life activists are criticizing Catholic Relief Services (CRS) after a high-ranking executive said last month that the agency is “proud” they do not discuss faith with the people they serve, CRS itself is defending the statement, saying it was misinterpreted. 

The controversy began when Bill O’Keefe, CRS’ vice-president for government relations and advocacy, told CNN’s Belief Blog, “We assist people of all backgrounds and religions and we do not attempt to engage in discussions of faith."

“We’re proud of that. We like to say that we assist everybody because we’re Catholic, we don’t assist people to become Catholic,” he added in the August 9 piece.

“We assist people of all backgrounds and religions and we do not attempt to engage in discussions of faith."

The statement drew criticism from Catholic pro-life and pro-family groups, who said the comments are another sign that the U.S. Bishops’ foreign relief agency has shed its Catholic identity and effectively operates as a secular NGO.

“How great is it that Catholic Relief Services is serving the poor and marginalized in dangerous areas of the world,” Father Shenan Boquet, president of Human Life International, told LifeSiteNews. “Yet how sad that CRS spokespeople again boast that they do not preach the Gospel love of Jesus Christ, as a matter of policy.”

“This is so radically out of line with what Pope Francis has repeatedly said,” Father Boquet added, “and is something that Pope Benedict warned against in both Deus Caritas est and Caritas in Veritate.”

“For CRS to be ‘proud’ of the fact that it doesn't evangelize may help it to get grants from the federal government," said Steven Mosher, president of Population Research Institute. "After all, such activities are specifically forbidden to federal grantees. But it is an abdication of their responsibility as Catholics - really everyone's responsibility as Catholics - to spread the Gospel."

Michael Hichborn, director of American Life League’s Defend the Faith project, agreed.

“The bottom line is that there can be no division between charity and the work of evangelism,” he said.  “But CRS just stated that it is ‘proudly’ doing just that.”

Hichborn told LifeSiteNews he believes the statement highlights the fact that for CRS social works supersede evangelization.  

But in reality, he argued, charitable works “are the loving tools by which we evangelize. Any act to divorce evangelization from works of charity neuters the Church and relegates charity to mere philanthropy. Catholic Relief Services, by their own admission, is content to feed bodies and starve souls."

CRS responds to criticisms

Paul Eagle, CRS’ communications director, suggested that O'Keefe's statement was misunderstood, telling LifeSiteNews that their work is a clear example of not proselytizing, but preaching the Gospel through works.

“We are indeed proud that we witness the Church’s mission and the call of the Gospel to care for those in need, regardless of who they are or what they believe, through the work that CRS does every day,” he said. “This is a central part of the Church’s evangelizing mission, but it does not include proselytizing or requiring that people become Catholic to receive our assistance.”

Eagle told LifeSiteNews that CRS follows St. Francis of Assisi, who has been reflected in the leadership of Pope Francis. He pointed to a famous quotation that is often attributed to St. Francis, which goes, "Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary, use words."

“Our work is a clear example of not proselytizing, but preaching the Gospel through what we do,” Eagle said.

Eagle directed LifeSiteNews to a CRS web page which states that CRS “rejoices in” the encyclical Caritas in Veritate, and has grown in a deeper understanding of its mission through study and reflection on Benedict’s earlier encyclicals Deus Caritas Est and Spe Salvi

Eagle also pointed to the CRS initiative, “Impact Investing,” saying it contains a response to Pope Francis’ Evangelii Gaudium.

Pro-life critics cite papal support

But Father Boquet said a policy banning discussions of faith or preaching the Gospel is clearly opposed to Catholic teaching on charity.

“This is a radical departure from how the Church has always understood her essential charitable and missionary work,” he said.

He quoted Pope Francis in his first homily as pope: “We can walk as much as we want, we can build many things, but if we do not profess Jesus Christ, things go wrong. We may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of the Lord,” the pope said.

Pope Francis has repeated this theme several times, most recently in June of this year, said Father Boquet. At that time, “he said that the Church cannot just be a ‘well organized NGO,’ or just some institution with people who are ‘fans’ of being Catholic.”

Boquet and the other pro-life critics pointed out that several recent popes have written at length on the need for evangelization to remain at the heart of its charitable work.

“This is a radical departure from how the Church has always understood her essential charitable and missionary work."

In Evangelii Nuntiandi Pope Paul VI wrote that generous Christians are often tempted to reduce the Church’s mission to the realm of the temporal, downgrading it to be man-centered. The Holy Father said in that document that this reduction to a focus on material well-being would mean the Church would lose her fundamental meaning.

Pope Benedict XVI echoed this teaching in Deus Caritas Est, stating, "The entire activity of the Church is an expression of a love that seeks the integral good of man: it seeks his evangelization through Word and Sacrament."

In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict cited Pope Paul VI, writing that Christian charity is “part and parcel of evangelization,” because, “Jesus Christ, who loves us, is concerned with the whole person.”

Many CRS employees not Catholic

Mosher also highlighted Pope Benedict’s motu proprio titled ‘On the Service of Charity,’ which he said “is quite clear in that the work of Catholic charities should be grounded in the Mass and the Sacraments, which implies evangelization.”

The CNN Belief Blog article also reported that CRS “doesn't even like” to be labeled missionary because of the word's association with evangelizing, stating:

Though Catholic Relief Services says it is motivated by the Gospel to embody Catholic social and moral teaching, it does not preach to the people it helps.

In fact, you don't even have to be Catholic to work for Catholic Relief Services. Among its 4,500 workers are many Muslims, Hindus and members of other religions, said Bill O’Keefe, the organization’s vice president of advocacy.

Eagle told LifeSiteNews CRS is proud as a Catholic agency that it works collaboratively with all people regardless of faith, which is especially important in communities where the majority of people are not Catholic.

He added that CRS takes steps to ensure Catholic identity in preparing employees for work with CRS, referencing a tutorial, "Protecting Life,” which was reviewed by the USCCB.

At the same time, experience has shown that what CRS cannot account for is the personal opinions of its non-Catholic employees, which, according to Mosher, inevitably affect the way they perform their jobs. A May 2014 LifeSiteNews article reported on public campaign records showing that since 1990 CRS employees have donated tens of thousands of dollars, 98.1 percent of their political donations, to elect pro-abortion politicians to office.

LifeSiteNews has also reported on the fact that numerous CRS employees in key policy positions have in previous jobs advocated for activities that violate Church teaching.

For example, Daphyne Williams, who has worked for CRS since 2008 and helped to develop a controversial policy whereby CRS would provide “complete and accurate” information on condoms, was hired after working at a series of pro-abortion organizations. One, which she listed on her LinkedIn page until LifeSiteNews reported on it in 2012, was called Pro-Choice Resources.

In another more dramatic case, a CRS employee was charged and convicted after deliberately ramming her car into a crowd of pro-life activists at the March for Life.

“As far as the claim that they somehow ‘evangelize’ by not preaching the Gospel, by not hiring Catholics … this simply makes no sense,” Mosher told LifeSiteNews.

“They say that ‘they help people because they're Catholic.’ But CRS employees, including very senior employees, are often - as the organization itself proudly admits - not Catholic at all,” said Mosher. “So it is hard to take this defense seriously.” 

Mosher said that statements indicating CRS is proud that is does not evangelize raise the question of whether CRS's donors are being defrauded by an organization that claims to be "Catholic," but distances itself from the Church in its actual programs and practices.

“If Catholic Relief Services is not going to hire practicing Catholics, work through the local Catholic Church around the world, and preferentially serve Catholic populations,” Mosher said, “then it has no business calling itself ‘Catholic.’ For it is not. It is just another humanitarian NGO which can make no special claim on Catholics.”

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent

,

Protecting marriage isn’t enough – we must oppose gay ‘civil unions’ too

Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

Philippe Ariño, one of the original initiators of the French “Manif pour tous” rallies against the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in November 2012, is suggesting that opposition to the law and its probable developments needs to be coherent and complete if it hopes to be efficient. In a recent and widely-circulated article published on his blog, he writes that the objective must be to put an end to legalized “civil unions” as well.

Ariño, a non-practicing homosexual, left the “Manif pour tous” by March 2013, criticizing the movement’s figurehead, Frigide Barjot, for her stands on “homosexual love” and her insistence that civil unions were not only acceptable, but should benefit from a more favorable legal framework. Barjot herself was to be ousted from the organization for the same reason, but the “Manif pour tous” still takes care not to antagonize and avoids clear-cut condemnation of certain “homosexual rights” so as not to appear radical.

At the “Manif pour tous” summer university this weekend, leader Ludovine de La Rochère underscored the fact that the socialist government would certainly not reverse the same-sex “marriage” law, adding that it would be useless to demand its abrogation as long as Hollande and his government is in power.

"‘Marriage for all’ and [civil unions] form a whole, and the glue which holds them together is the belief in and the justification of homosexual identity and love."

Not so, argues Ariño. His warning in view of the group’s upcoming rally against “familyphobia,” gender ideology, surrogate motherhood, and artificial procreation for homosexuals on October 5 in Paris pleads for consistency. He gave permission to LifeSite to translate his text and publish its most significant passages.

“Why should we not limit ourselves to demanding the abrogation of the ‘same-sex marriage’ law – the few of us, that is, who are beginning to realize that we should demand it! – and why must we demand what is most necessary: the abrogation of the ‘PACS’?” he writes.

The PACS, or French “civil solidarity pact” is a civil union open to all, including homosexuals. It is slowly replacing normal marriage as it includes less obligations and can be dissolved unilaterally at any time through a bailiff’s letter.

Ariño calls it “totally illogical, unrealistic and useless, when opposing gender ideology, surrogate motherhood and even ‘marriage for all’ to do so without demanding the abrogation of the PACS, even if many will argue that “when asking too much you get nothing at all.”

“I would say on the contrary that it is because we did not make this minimal demand that we will find that everything will be imposed upon us one small step at a time! I’m telling them that it is they who are exaggerating and that they have not taken the full measure of the gravity of the PACS, and the 180° turn it is imposing on the whole world,” he answers.

Opposing civil unions mentally and in private is not enough, says Ariño, and remains a form of “cant”: “They have simply not understood the PACS and its symbolic impact; deep down they have justified it because they have found its ‘excrescence’ – same-sex ‘marriage’ – a ‘great deal worse’. ‘Marriage for all’ and PACS form a whole, and the glue which holds them together is the belief in and the justification of homosexual identity and love.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

Ariño goes on to criticize the principle of public recognition of homosexual couples: “Civil union is the first-ever law in the world to have been based on people’s sexual orientation, it is the first homophobic law which reduces men and women to their so-called homosexual identity or practice, the first law to have established homosexuality as a society’s operating model. That is why it is extremely serious, perhaps even more serious than ‘marriage for all’, despite appearances and the invisibility of its ramifications (concerning parentage and marriage). It does no less harm than ‘marriage for all’ as its aim is symbolically identical: recognition/social justification of homosexual as a universal model of love, equal to any other.”

The “Manif pour tous” is often too “lukewarm,” he adds, more intent on defending a political standpoint than fully assuming its opposition to “marriage for all” in a non-partisan manner, and failing to understand the “symbolic and ideological relationship between civil union and ‘marriage for all,’”, or even the link between legalized same-sex “marriage” and surrogate motherhood.  For fear of being taxed with political extremism or homophobia, “these militants refuse visibly to appear as Catholics” and try to find “scapegoats” on their right or on their left. Ariño accuses them of fooling themselves into believing that politicians (like Nicolas Sarkozy) who are in favor of civil union will one day abrogate same-sex “marriage” or even oppose surrogate motherhood.

The figureheads of the “Manif pour tous,” whatever their “courage” and “goodwill,” and their “hopes of changing things gradually, from the inside,” do not understand the “gravity of civil unions,” thus abstaining from clear demands in the name of “realism, patience, political strategy, Hope, humility.” “It is better to make progress little by little than to ask for the impossible, they say – but who apart from them and their gay-friendly opponents is saying something is impossible?”

“Their method of ‘advancing step by step’ is not good in itself; besides, it is precisely the technique of our adversaries, showing that we are imitating them and losing sight of the realities of civil union, ‘marriage for all’ and homosexuality”, writes Ariño, accusing proponents of the method of a “lack of courage” and of “playing into their adversaries’ hands by artificially dissociating marriage from fertility, laws from those laws’ intentions, laws from their consequences.” “The PACS is but a piece of paper, a rubber check signed less than 15 years ago. But the majority of opponents to ‘marriage for all’ tremble like fledglings at the idea of being too radical – while it is precisely their lack of radicalism that doesn’t pay,” he concludes.

Philippe Ariño is a non-practising homosexual. As a Catholic, he advocates chastity, denouncing both homosexualist activism and the modern concept of “heterosexuality,” insofar as sexual union should only take place between a man and a woman in accordance with God’s plan for life-long marriage.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook