29 junio 2005


[Publicamos ahora un artículo de Eric y Jenny Bales que no es de hoy, sino del año 2003, y no se refiere a España, sino a América, en general, y a los Estados Unidos en particular. Pero todo les resultará muy familiar, muy cercano, ya lo verán; y quizá a alguno le ayude a caerse del guindo y a entender mejor lo que hay detrás de tanto victimismo homosexual y tanto aspaviento del gobierno socialista: el "proyecto" al que hace referencia el título del artículo, "Homosexual Game Plan: Redefine Marriage". ¡De rabiosa actualidad en España! ¡Lo que está en juego es el concepto de familia para este tercer milenio!

Aunque no precisaría ninguna introducción, no me ha parecido superfluo -al contrario-reproducir también aquí, antes del artículo en cuestión, algunos párrafos escritos por uno que sabe de lo que habla porque no oculta que fue homosexual hasta los 28 años y desde entonces no para de desenmascarar la agenda del lobby de gays y lesbianas.

"Day in and day out, America is getting bombarded with 'pro-gay' propaganda. It's relentless. You can't open a newspaper or magazine, listen to the radio, or turn on the television without someone, somewhere pounding the 'glories of gayness' into your brain.
The calculated, planned 'homosexualization' of America by militant 'gays' and lesbians was encouraged well over a decade ago by homosexual advocates Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's (1989, Doubleday/ Bantam). Kirk and Madsen mapped out a plan to 'turn the tables' on America and switch the bigotry aimed at homosexuals – to those who would oppose them.
The book plays out almost like a prophetic book of the Bible. The Harvard-trained social scientists in the late '80s issued a call for 'gay' activists to adopt "…carefully calculated public relations propaganda." Their plan came dressed up in marketing lingo: "Desensitize, Jam and Convert." A better word to describe their call to 'homosexualize' America: manipulation.
Listen to what the book says. You won't believe it. "Desensitization," write Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to a "continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If 'straights' can't shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet." Friend, they're not talking about advertising a product here, but advertising homosexuality.
"The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome," they say. "If you can get (straights) to think homosexuality is just another thing – meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders – then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won."
'Jamming' is smearing anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda. "Jam homo-hatred (i.e., opposition to homosexuality) by linking it to Nazi horror," urge Kirk and Madsen; associate all who oppose homosexuality with images like "Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered," "hysterical backwoods preachers," "menacing punks," and a "tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed."
Moreover, they add, "Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying (them) as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step…with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of 'Old Time Religion' one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion…Such an 'unholy' alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion…(T)hat alliance can work for gays."
The authors urged homosexuals to cast themselves as "victims." By doing so, homosexuals are able to "invite straights to be their protectors." "Conversion" means "…conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media."
Obviously, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Kirk and Madsen's devious plan has succeeded. CBS. NBC. ABC. CNN. Showtime. MTV. VH1. Even the children's network Nickelodeon. A new "gay cable channel" is in the works. Over 28 "gay" or lesbian characters or shows are currently on during so called prime time "family hour." All are following Kirk and Madsen's grand scheme – and America has bit the bait. We've been duped. Like lambs".

Si interesa su testimonio completo, haga click here.]

#184 Hogar Categoria-Matrimonio y Familia

by Eric and Jenny Bales

Marriage is under attack in America

California and Vermont have already passed legislation permitting same-sex unions. Massachusetts is not far away. California public schools are required to teach that same-sex unions are equal to married heterosexuals beginning in Kindergarten. Our children are being told that families with homosexual parents are no different than those with a mother and a father. Is it true?

Proponents of what is mistakenly being called "gay marriage" (an oxymoron), publicly say that they merely want to be recognized as equals, to share in the rights and privileges that are currently reserved exclusively for heterosexual married couples. Publicly we are told that homosexuals only want to become families like you and me. To some, granting "equal rights" to cohabiting active homosexuals doesn't seem problematic, at least at first glance.

But, we hear of a different agenda altogether when the audience is not so public. Evan Wolfson who joined the fight against the Boy Scouts in B.S.A. v. James Dale and served as co-counsel in Baehr v. Miike, the attempt to bring "gay marriage" to Hawaii, wrote: "Marriage should not be the sole criterion for benefits and support, nor the only family form worthy of respect". It is much more than marriage that is being reinvented. It is the very concept of family.

If we sit idly by, marriage, as we know it, as God intended it, will become rare. How do homosexual activists plan to redefine marriage?

Offense: Reshaping Perceptions

Besieging the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, activists were successful in having homosexuality removed as a disorder from the DSM-III and even forced out a similar diagnosis from the DSM-III-R in 1987. Lobbying numerous groups to support gay adoption, they have recently secured supportive "position statements" from political-minded bodies like the American Bar Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and American Academy of Family Physicians to support them. As of 2002, 25 states already permit some form of adoption by same-sex couples. It is the hope of the homosexual community that if they can masquerade as successful parents, as the all-American family next door, that our resistance to their also being married will weaken.

This campaign continues in homes across America every day through television programs like NBC"s Will & Grace, ABC's It's All Relative, HBO's Six Feet Under, Showtime's Queer as Folk and Bravo's Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, where a disordered lifestyle is portrayed as entertainment. Homosexual activists seek to gradually overcome our resistance to their lifestyle by driving a consistent, unyielding effort to appear harmless.

Defense: Eliminating Opposition

While the "gay marriage" activists have carefully followed a well-thought blueprint to push these perspectives on the American public, they recognize that they are the minority, only 1% of total American couples, and that should they wake the sleeping giant of traditional, family-oriented Americans they will suffer a resounding defeat. Their defense is also carefully constructed but is similarly full of misrepresentations. The leaders of such extremist groups as Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, Freedom to Marry and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force propose answers to all of our doubts. But, with careful thought and a little logic, their rhetoric disintegrates.

1. Religious v. Civil Marriage

Homosexual activists know they cannot reconcile Biblical condemnation (or the unbroken 2000 year teaching of the Christian Church and other religious traditions) with their agenda. Consequently they do not merely ignore religious considerations they jettison them altogether. They say they are only interested in civil marriage. They tell us that, "organized religion can determine its own religious marriage ceremony no matter what happens in the courts." Conveniently it is omitted that religious institutions, primarily Catholic institutions, are regularly forced to provide sterilization services and provide insurance coverage for contraception. These, like "gay marriage," are fundamentally contrary to Church teaching. But the courts have shown little care for the tenets of faith of neither individuals nor institutions.

2. Happy Families

Homosexual couples have undertaken one of the greatest deceptions of our time. They claim to raise children who are as developmentally normal as those from traditional homes. Numerous institutions continue to regurgitate studies from the early 1970s suggesting as much.

However, more recent research has shown that 76% of homosexual male couples experience infidelity within 5 years and accept it on a continuing basis while maintaining the original relationship. Only 26% of homosexuals surveyed believe commitment is a necessary component of their marriage-like relationship. Stating the obvious, homosexual researchers have said that same-sex couples are fundamentally different from their heterosexual counterparts. Those differences actually constitute an unhealthy environment in which to raise children. For example, one study showed that children of same-sex couples were 50 times more likely to suffer molestation from a homosexual parent than their counterparts in traditional homes. Additionally, "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population." These are not the conditions of a healthy home or lifestyle.

3. Tug of War

Homosexual activists are quick to paint any discussion of immorality as hate speech and those who mention it as bigots. One need not traverse this rhetorical minefield by arguing morals and values with a supporter of "gay marriage." The disordered reality of homosexual behavior is plainly evident in our anatomy.

Lacking the complementary nature of a man and a woman, same-sex couples are unable to share in a marital embrace that includes procreative ability. The types of sexual embraces in which homosexuals can engage with one another are always absent this, using the reproductive faculties contrary to their design. Unable to consummate a marriage, homosexuals ought not be allowed to start what they are physiologically incapable of completing.

To say same-sex attraction is disordered is not hate speech. It is common sense. It is important to note that those suffering from same-sex attraction are not necessarily responsible for their condition. They are, however, responsible for their choice to act on it. For us to assent to this disorder and begin to call normal what is abnormal is the furthest thing from Christian charity.

Inevitable Decline?

Homosexual activists are working to ensure "gay marriage" across the United States by 2006, a radical change with devastating effects. Like a glacier, this change would cut a canyon through the fiber of our nation that could be neither bridged nor repaired.

Is it inevitable? Will traditional marriage be something for the Smithsonian Institute by 2006? No! And here's why.

Homosexual activists recognize that this is an all-or-nothing battle in the Senate. Recently the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce wrote, "At the moment it looks like our side has the Senate votes ' 34 ' to block [the Federal Marriage Amendment]. But in the 37 states with [Defense of Marriage Acts] and in Congress in 1996, we've seen our 'friends' repeatedly run for cover when the 'M' word is trotted out." They're not even certain if they will be able to stop the FMA in the Senate. And once the FMA goes to the individual states, the article goes on to describe how impractical it will be to wage a state-by-state battle against ratification. They simply don't have the resources or the support.

The Catholic Church's most recent document on homosexuality states best our call to action: "Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself."

The Federal Marriage Amendment seeks to preserve marriage between a man and a woman. It would ensure that in America marriage could not be redefined. It would ensure that extremists could not corrupt this basic building block of every culture. Support the Federal Marriage Amendment and urge others to pledge their support. If we don't act soon, what's left of the family will be completely destroyed.


Otros enlaces:

Wolfson, Evan. "All Together Now: the Blueprint for Winning 'gay marriage' Rights." 11 Sep. 2001. The Advocate. Available http://www.freedomtomarry.org/ftm_blueprint.htm.

"Fact Sheet: Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues." American Psychiatric Association. Available http://www.psych.org/public_info/gaylesbianbisexualissues22701.pdf.

"Assembly Agenda: ABA Annual Meeting." Aug. 2003. The American Bar Association. Available http://www.abanet.org/yld/annual03/AnnualAssemblyAgenda.pdf.

"AAP Says Children of Same-Sex Couples Deserve Two Legally Recognized Parents." 7 Feb. 2002. The American Academy of Pediatrics. Available http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/febsamesex.htm.

"AAFP Advocates for Children in Adoption Policy." 16 Oct. 2002. The American Academy of Family Physicians. Available http://www.aafp.org/news/news904.html.

"Overview of State Adoption Laws." 27 Aug. 2002. Lambda Legal. Available http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=399.

"U.S. Census Data Shows Homosexual Couples Account for 1 Percent of All Couples." 13 Mar. 2003. LifeSiteNews. Available http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/mar/03031302.html.

"Marriage Myths." Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. Available http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRightProject/Marriage_Myths.pdf.

Blain, Kate. "Diocese: End Forced Contraception Coverage." 18 Sep. 2003. The Evangelist. Available http://www.evangelist.org/archive/htm4/0918cont.htm.

Associated Press. "Catholic Charities Must Cover Prescription Contraceptives, Rules California Court." 3 Jul. 2001. Freedom Forum. Available http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=14317.

Mattison, Andrew and David McWhirter. The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop. Prentice Hall, 1984

Mendola, Mary. The Mendola Report. New York: Crown Publishers, 1980.

Maher, Bridget. "Why Marriage Should be Priviliged in Public Policy." 23 Apr. 2003. Family Research Council. Available http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS03D1.

Dailey, Tim. "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk." 30 Oct. 2001. Family Research Council. Available http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3.

Cameron, K. and P. Cameron. "Homosexual Parents." Adolescence 31 (1996): 772.

Island, David and Patrick Letellier. Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence. Haworth, 1991.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. ?Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons.? 3 Jun. 2003. The Vatican. Available http://www.vatican.va.

Wolfson, Evan. "All Together Now: the Blueprint for Winning "gay marriage" Rights." 11 Sep. 2001. The Advocate. Available http://www.freedomtomarry.org/ftm_blueprint.htm.

Foreman, Matt. "Promise and Peril: Matt Foreman Speaks on the Fight For Same-Sex Marriage." 30 Jul. 2003. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Available http://www.ngltf.org/news/release.cfm?releaseID=565.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons." 3 Jun. 2003. The Vatican. Available http://www.vatican.va.

Translate to English:

Click upon the flag

Traducir del inglés a otros idiomas:

Posibles comentarios al texto:

Si desea hacer algún comentario a este texto, vaya a "Home" y haga click en "Comment" del artí­culo correspondiente.


Imprimir el texto:

Envio de este texto por e-mail a otra persona:

Puede utilizar dos sistemas:

a) Si basta enviar la referencia (URL) del texto, pulse el icono del sobre (un poco más arriba, a la derecha) y rellene los datos en el formulario que aparecerá en la pantalla.

b) Si desea enviar como mensaje el propio texto -total o parcialmente- y no sólo la referencia, puede utilizar el siguiente sistema:


Ir a la página principal:

<< regresar a "Home"