Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The day sex between men and boys is no longer offensive
Brazilian movie seeks to shatter “taboo” of incest and homosexual sex among boys by presenting both behaviors as “love”
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Rick Warren attacks anti-homosexuality bill
Meanwhile, Evangelical Alliance Ireland supports pro-homosexuality bill
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Dividing land with Palestinians or returning it to Mexicans?
Politically-correct justice of Obama wants violation of the territorial integrity of Israel, but no violation of the territorial integrity of the US
Monday, November 02, 2009
Educational slavery for four-year-old children
Trojan horse in the Brazilian Congress alters Constitution to establish compulsory institutionalization of young children
By Julio Severo
Congressional measure PEC 96A/03, which increases the education budget, was approved 28 October 2009 in the Brazilian Senate. The vote had the participation of 52 senators, who unanimously approved the budget increase — an increase that will cause more sacrifices from the pocket of the Brazilian taxpayer.
Yet, it is not just in their pockets that Brazilians will be hit. PEC (which means Proposta de Emenda à Constituição [Constitutional Amendment Proposal]) makes, according to the liberal newspaper Folha de S. Paulo, “education compulsory for children and young people, ages 4 to 17. Today, this imposed obligation comprehends the age group 6 to 14. With this PEC, two years will be added to pre-school and secondary school.”
It was very easy to approve the age reduction for compulsory education, because nobody suspected that an insipid measure on budget contained a trap for Brazilian families. The budget PEC was the government Trojan horse to catch children, snatching them away earlier from parental sphere and directly hitting parental authority.
When enacted, this PEC will make the Brazilian Constitution “to kill two birds with one stone”, by forcing Brazilian citizens to deliver more of their tax money and forcing them to deliver their children earlier to the state control masked as “free education”.
This is the second victory of Lula in education. The first victory was when his administration lowered, without opposition, the compulsory education age to 6. What this imposed obligation will do is to give four-year-old children what six-year-old children are receiving from the State.
According to the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo, “a study made by the Institute of Statistics and Educational Research (INEP), affiliated to the Brazilian Department of Education, found officially that one third of Brazilian children enrolled in the 4th grade of the basic education even do not know what they should have learnt in the end of the first year in school”.
According to the Brazilian Statistics and Geography Institute, Brazil has 2.1 millions of schoolchildren, ages 7 to 14, who are illiterate. This is, they are children attending school to learn — but they are not learning. At least, they are not learning what their parents would like them to learn: to read, write, etc.
The only kind of illiteracy the Brazilian State bans in schools is sexual and Marxist illiteracy. In these two points, Brazilian schoolchildren would achieve high scores in any national and international examination.
Besides the terrible basic education and of the predominant sexual socialization, there is the socialization of violence: a Brazilian study found 66% of schoolchildren of the basic and secondary education involved in violence.
The two main characteristics of an excellent education are quality and freedom. Apparently, families have the greatest interest that their children may receive an education with those characteristics.
However, control over people requires quality and freedom to be discarded and sacrificed on behalf of compulsory indoctrination. For a State possessed by socialism, it does not matter if schoolchildren are not learning to read and write satisfactorily. What matters is to turn away children from parental sphere, authority and values in order to indoctrinate them directly on the state interests.
This indoctrination is a proven reality throughout Brazil. In a long story on the Brazilian schools, Veja magazine (the Brazilian counterpart of Time magazine) made the following comments:
* A prevalent trend among Brazilian teachers of imposing leftism in the minds of children.
* Leftist indoctrination is predominant in private schools. It is something teachers take more seriously than classroom subjects, as CNT/Sensus poll, ordered by Veja, found.
* It is embarrassing that Marxism has stayed alive only in Cuba, North Korea and in the Brazilian classrooms.
* CNT/Sensus poll interviewed 3,000 people from 24 Brazilian states, among students and teachers in public and private schools. Its conclusion in this issue was astonishing. Parents (61%) are aware that teachers make political discourses in the classroom and they find it normal. Most teachers recognize that they really indoctrinate children and they think this is their main mission — something more important than teaching how to interpret a text or excel in math. For 78% of teachers, political discourse makes sense, considering that they ascribe to school, above all, the function of “forming citizens” — above of “teaching subjects”.
* Many Brazilian teachers are fascinated by characters that in the classroom deserve a more critical approach, as the Argentine guerilla Che Guevara, who in the poll appears with 86% of positive mentions, 14% neutral, and no negative comment.
This reality of Brazilian schools is in perfect harmony with the government policies, whose interest is not quality and freedom, but exclusively state control over children. This reality makes Brazil to look more like communist China, where four-year-old children are obliged to attend school just to receive state indoctrination. In fact, according to Folha de S. Paulo, Brazil and China just announced the “the creation of a quinquennial plan of targets, as the plans adopted by the Chinese communist government, to create a joint education model”.
If the target is to control four-year-old kids, no one better than China to help the Brazilian State.
Socialism does not tolerate a Constitution guaranteeing the rights of families to choose freely a quality education for their children. Socialist ideal requires that instead of guaranteeing the natural rights of parents, the Constitution may be altered to protect the state ideological whims. When fundamental changes are made, all things are possible for the State.
Therefore, it is no wonder the approval of PEC to impose the educational slavery of all children in Brazil age four on. And it is no wonder that the Department of Education of the Lula administration has just declared that homeschooling is unconstitutional. The way China likes — and not much different from Nazism.
In 1937, dictator Adolf Hitler, leader of the National Socialist Workers’ Party, said, “The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.”
In 1938, Hitler took from German parents their right to decide freely the education of their children, officially banning homeschooling. Hitler explained why he wanted children forcibly in schools:
When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already. . . . What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”
Who will deliver little children of Brazil from this cruel destiny?Portuguese version of this article: Escravidão educacional para crianças de 4 anos
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Brazil’s Lula, the friend of Iran’s Ahmadinejad
Adapted by Julio Severo
As any world leader knows, breaking bread with unsavory regimes is an occupational hazard. But palling around with pariahs is another matter. So when Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva slapped Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the back at the U.N. General Assembly, stoutly defended Iran's nuclear program, and invited Ahmadinejad to visit Brazil, the world took note. What is Lula’s game?
In part, it’s about his ambition to position Brazil as a “first-class nation.” Lula has visited 45 countries in the last three years alone and opened 35 embassies since 2003, most of them in Africa and the Caribbean. This all fits his “South to South” strategy, a diplomatic blitzkrieg designed to gather political capital across the developing world. As a result, Brazil is well regarded in places many other nations ignore, and its trade relations are well balanced, spread in roughly equal measure between Latin America, the Middle East and Africa, Europe, and the U.S. This helped Brazil keep its footing during the global economic crash to become one of the first to shake off recession. It also turned its president into a global star.
But Lula’s diplomacy has created some compromising alliances while his administration is touted as one of the world’s most vibrant democracies by different socialists, from the United Nations and Europe to Cuba and Venezuela. Domestically, Lula has been befriending abortion and gay groups, with harsh consequences to those not embracing this radical agenda. Not much different from Lula’s proud domestic “democracy”, his foreign policy has remarkably been befriending Muslim and communist dictators.
Recently, Brazil abstained on U.N. resolutions condemning human-rights abuses in Congo, Sri Lanka, and communist North Korea, where thousands of Christians have been tortured and killed just because they are Christian. The Lula administration also balked on Sudan, where Muslim persecution against Christians has been overwhelming, first passing on a vote to give rights inspectors a wider brief, only to reverse course in June after prominent civic groups lashed out. Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez has no better friend than Lula, even as the former has muzzled the media, bullied rivals, and smothered trade unions. “Each country establishes the democratic regime that suits its people,” Lula recently told Newsweek. “It's a sovereign decision of every nation.”
But “sovereignty” is a word used only when convenient. In the crisis involving Honduras and its sovereign and constitutional right to halt a Chavez-supported president in his illegal actions to perpetuate his presidency, the Lula administration gave him the Brazilian embassy in Honduras as a refuge and a base of operations, directly intervening in the domestic affairs of the small nation to serve the interests of Chavez. Fidel Castro’s friend lost no opportunity to delight his ideological mentor.
Yet, the bonhomie between Lula and Ahmadinejad has been glaring. During the bloody aftermath of Iran’s elections, Lula called the street protesters “losers” and compared the government crackdown to a row between fans of rival football clubs. This friendship is so strange that Lula, whose administration grants broad rights to those that commit homosexuality, has no qualm to support Ahmadinejad, whose administration murders those that commit homosexuality. In turn, Muslim Ahmadinejad also has no qualm to be with Lula, an enthusiastic advocate for homosexuality.
It is a morally antagonistic and definitely opportunistic friendship, because Ahmadinejad exterminates homosexuals in Iran, while Lula works to exterminate opposition to homosexuality in Brazil. If Ahmadinejad were a Brazilian citizen, in no way he would be able to escape prison from Lula’s socialist “democracy”, and if Lula were an Iranian citizen, in no way he would be able to escape death penalty from Ahmadinejad’s Muslim “democracy”.
Would a nation in friendship with Iran, which funds terrorist groups, have a chance to become a first-class nation? In July 2008, Chuck Pierce, who is considered a prophet in the US, told in São Paulo, Brazil, that a immense tragedy was ahead in the future of the Brazilian society and that Brazil had only a few months of opportunity to change. If in less than 12 months Lula fell down in his corrupt socialist administration and if Brazil befriended Israel, Brazil would become a great nation, even surpassing the United States. More than one year later, Lula is enjoying enormous popularity as a president and Brazil is nearer to the worst enemies of Israel.
Yet, you do not need to be a prophet to see that Brazil is on a destructive road.
Even though Ahmadinejad declared that he wants to destroy Israel, Lula has emphatically defended Iran’s right to enrich uranium on grounds that he heard “personally” that Iran didn’t want to build a bomb.
Others see Lula’s aggressive foreign-policy turn as the hubris of a rising power. “It's partly the idea that Brazil can do whatever it wants in international policy, including standing up to the world’s powerful nations,” says former foreign minister Luiz Felipe Lampreia.
Rich nations have the vice of exporting and imposing their abortion and homosexual culture on developing nations, but this is not the reason Lula condemns them. In fact, free speech, a right fully used by him to lambast petty issues of developed nations, is a right not fully guaranteed in Lula’s Workers’ Party itself, where Congressman Henrique Afonso, a Protestant minister, was found guilty of pro-life speech and in the Brazilian society, where Fr. Luiz Carlos “Lodi” da Cruz, a Catholic priest, was condemned by courts just for calling “pro-abortion” a pro-abortion individual. Even the Organization of the American States has recently acknowledged that Brazil is not guaranteeing free speech.
Lula has established a number of radical gay, abortion and racial policies in Brazil he imported from the developed world. So it is no wonder that he has never used his speech freedom to denounce the aggressive abortion and homosexual groups funded by the developed nations to destroy the culture and families in the developing countries. And Brazilians doing this have been prosecuted under his administration. Also, he has never condemned the massive human-rights abuses against Christians in Muslim and communist nations.
Touting the abortion and gay culture from the Western mighty and befriending Hugo Chávez, Ahmadinejad and other Muslim and communist mighty will surely draw world attention — but hardly the sort a first-class nation would want.
Adapted by Julio Severo from the article “Brazil’s Lula Befriends Iran’s Ahmadinejad”, by Mac Margolis in Newsweek.
To see this article in Portuguese, follow this link: http://juliosevero.blogspot.com/2009/10/lula-o-amigo-de-ahmadinejad-do-ira.html
Read also:The cost of the high popularity of Lula
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
American Life League mentions article by Julio Severo
Evangelical decries “Rivers of Blood” flowing from chemical contraceptives
Evangelical pro-life activist Julio Severo has written an analysis of chemical contraceptives and the prophesies in the book of Revelation that “rivers, seas, and fountains of water will ‘become blood as of a dead man.’ As Severo points out, through the use of hormonal contraceptives, hundreds of millions of women worldwide are causing invisible ‘micro-abortions,’ the destruction of unborn human life at the earliest stage of its development”.
American Life League: http://all.org/article.php?id=11752Rivers of Blood: A Brazilian pro-life Evangelical writes about the contraceptive culture and prophecies in Revelation
Monday, September 21, 2009
Homosexual groups ask reforms in the children’s “rights” in Brazil
Children’s rights movement joins homosexual movement to advocate “sexual autonomy” of children, the secular State and measures to confront Christian activism in society
By Julio Severo
Radical homosexual groups joined children’s “rights” government and non-government groups in Brasília, Brazil, from May 6 to 8, 2009, to discuss and pinpoint plans to promote as human rights the “sexual rights” of children and adolescents.
The major meeting, which united the homosexual movement and the children’s “rights” movement, was entitled “Human Rights and Sexual Diversity of Adolescents in the Federal District”.
In the meeting, the following leaders took part in the discussion “Human Rights and Sexual Diversity of Adolescents”:
Márcio Sanches, from the Child and Adolescent Defense Center (Cedeca DF).
Liliana Lemus, director of Associação Fomento Social Planejamento e Gestão de Projetos.
Leila Paiva, coordinator for the National Program to Confront Sexual Violence Against Children and Adolescents of the Special Human Rights Secretary of the Presidency of the Brazilian Republic (SEDH/PR), Cedeca DF.
Tony Reis, president of the Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transvestites and Transsexuals (ABGLT).
Representatives of the National Association of Child and Adolescent Defense Centers (ANCED).
Representatives of the National Council of the Children’s and Adolescents’ Rights (CONANDA).
Jimena Grignani, secretary of the National Forum for the Children’s and Adolescents’ Rights (FNDCA).
Benedito Rodrigues, executive secretary of the National Council of the Children’s and Adolescents’ Rights (CONANDA).
The discussion entitled “A LGBT-Movement Look on the Human-Rights Violations of Children and Adolescents” was attended by the following leaders:
Alessandra Guerra, coordinator of the group Freedom of Love between Women in Ceará (LAMCE).
Beto de Jesus, Latin American and Caribbean secretary of the International Association of Gays, Lesbians and Trans.
Fernanda Benvenutty, public relations for the Paraíba Transvestite Association (Astrapa).
Excepting homosexual activists, whose mission is promotion of homosexuality, the mission of the children’s “rights” advocates in Brazil is to promote the Child and Adolescent Statute (known in Brazil as ECA: Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente), a legislation notorious for the suffering and injustices it has been provoking in Brazil.
The Brazilian society groans under the weight and threat of murderers and criminals. The society groans because of the omission and lack of serious laws. The society groans because of the partial impunity through which often laws treat adult murderers and criminals. In the case of minor criminals, the impunity is total — to the despair of the population.
Even in the Brazil of impunity, if an adult who murdered 50 individuals is caught, he may be condemned to spend a lifetime in jail. Yet, if the murderer is not over 18, ECA assures total impunity: To condemn such murderer to spend a lifetime in jail is, according to the view of those advocating — and living at the expense of — the promotion of the children’s “rights”, violation of the children’s “rights”. He will stay in a state rehab institution until adulthood. Afterward, total freedom, with no criminal history.
Where did ECA come from? Where will ECA lead Brazil to?
Even though Brazil is able to create its own evils and even though ECA is praised as one of the most progressive legislations in the world when it come to the children’s “rights”, actually Brazil was forced to create ECA. Every nation ratifying UN documents enters the obligation to be submissive to them. Since the Brazilian government signed and ratified the UN Convention on the Children’s Rights (CCR) in 1990, Brazil automatically did the commitment to produce a domestic legislation to mirror the CCR’s interests and impositions.
Under the UN monitoring, which supervises and exacts the “progresses” of the compliance of each nation to CCR, the Brazilian government has been seeking to strengthen and expand, through tutelary councils and other state agencies, the implementation of ECA.
The United States is not yet under the burden of that demand from the world government, because the US government has never ratified CCR. American Christian groups had vision and a direction sense to see in advance the risks and threats of this comprehensive and imposing UN legislation on children and families.
Under the socialist Obama, the US government wants to follow the Brazilian way, ratifying the UN Convention on the Children’s Rights and producing its own “ECA”, but Christian groups, as the Parental Rights website, are alerting American parents on the following risks,
* Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
* A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
* Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
* The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.
* A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
* Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
* Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
* Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
* Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
In fact, the “progression” of CCR will lead to many other aberrations. UN has for many years been an arena where radical activists use — or even produce — opportunities and breaches to promote abortion and homosexuality. Even the women’s right to a safe motherhood has been used as a door to impose the world legalization of abortion. And reproductive and sexual rights are a UN term which, besides abortion, also comprises the promotion of sexual freedom, including homosexuality.
So what could be strange in an event in Brazil where those living on the expense of the children’s “rights” ally with the homosexual movement to “improve” ECA? It is a natural progression. The Brazilian creature of the UN — ECA — will sooner or later follow all the ways of the monster that produced it.
If UN, which is the direct responsible for the creation of ECA, has recently recognized ABGLT (the largest homosexual group in Brazil, which has launched legal actions against Julio Severo), why should the Brazilian government — which is so engaged in homosexual issues and so submissive to the UN interests — ban the participation of ABGLT in a meeting of experts who live on the expense of ECA? (See more information on ABGLT here)
As the world homosexual movement, which for years is creating close ties to the children’s “rights” movement in the so called developed nations, in Brazil these ties are beginning to get strengthened.
Caio Fabio Varela, a gay activist known as a consultant for Fátima Cleide — the senator of the leftwing PT who wants to impose the anti-“homophobia” bill PLC 122 on Brazil whatever the cost —, was one of the contributors for the infamous federal program “Brazil without Homophobia”. Varela took part in the event “Human Rights and Sexual Diversity of Adolescents in the Federal District” as a moderator in the discussion “A LGBT-Movement Look on the Human-Rights Violations of Children and Adolescents”.
With his consultancy, what “improvements” will ECA have? Now will ECA, which imposes the state intentions in the family realm, have a federal program “Families without Homophobia”? Will ECA officials monitor each home in search of attitudes, gestures and views contrary to the sanctified homosexual human right?
Message to parents: prohibited to protect children from homosexuality
Instead of dedicating itself to the basic function of punishing criminals and discouraging crimes, the State now begins a partnership with the movement that promotes homosexuality — an anti-natural sexual behavior responsible for many sex abuses against boys.
Instead of protecting boys from the homosexual threat, the State will do the wishes of the homosexual movement, working to classify as “human-rights violation” all attempt by parents to protect their small children or adolescents from homosexual influences.
Now, will children be indoctrinated and conditioned in the public schools not only to denunciate parents for physical discipline, but also for working hard to deliver their children from all kind of trend that might lead to homosexuality? Will a father or mother who does not allow a child to follow the “natural course” of homosexuality feel the weight of ECA, being classified as “violator of human rights of children and adolescents”?
The Brazilian event produced the “Carta de Brasília” (Brasília Charter), a document supported by government leaders demanding “improvements” in the child laws. Here is the complete document:
Brasília Charter: a serpent behind the children’s “rights movement
The Child and Adolescent Rights Defense Centers (ANCED-affiliated), the organizations advocating child and adolescent rights and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transvestite and transsexual organizations that attended the Human Rights and Sexual Diversity of Adolescents conference, held in Brasília, Brazil, from May 6-7, 2009, to discuss and indicate guidelines to promote, advocate and guarantee sexual rights as human rights of children and adolescents declare that:
The full affirmation of children and adolescents as individuals having rights includes the acknowledgement that the exercise of their sexuality is a fundamental right. For the affirmation of the sexual rights is essential to assure information, free speech and to respect the autonomy and responsibility of children and adolescents in the development and exercise of their sexuality, free from any kind of prejudice, shame, omission or violence.
The agencies committed to assure the sexual rights of children and adolescents should have as principles of their operations: the necessary affirmation of a secular State and measures to confront religious fundamentalisms; the rupture from stances reproducing gender hierarchies; guarantee of the children’s and adolescents’ right to the free expression of their sexual orientation and gender identity, respecting their status as developing beings.
To implement the sexual rights of children and adolescents is necessary to develop intersectorial projects, programs and policies committed to:
The effective participation of children and adolescents in the building of political-pedagogical proposals to promote, advocate and guarantee their sexual rights;
Guaranteed access to information on sex, in connection to a human-rights education, in an emancipating and inclusive perspective;
Affirmation of the guarantee of sexual rights of children and adolescents, as an effective measure to confront sex abuse and exploitation;
Acknowledgement and affirmation of the sexual diversity;
Affirmation of every kind of violence, discrimination, prejudice, shame and embarrassment because of sexual orientation and gender identity as a violation of the human rights of children and adolescents.
Aware of the necessary change in ideas and practices for the affirmation of the sexual rights as human rights of children and adolescents, we understand that it is essentially important to promote spaces for the development and discussion involving all the agencies engaged in the guarantee of the children’s and adolescents’ rights, and activists from the feminist and LBGT movements; and the inclusion of the subject of the sexual rights of children and adolescents in conferences and meetings of the children’s and adolescents’ rights movement.
Dr. Alberto Thieme questions the involvement of the homosexual movement in the “defense” of the children’s “rights”
The “Brasília Charter”, filled with subtleties and wiles, has the slyness of a venomous serpent. I had access to the papers about this event through Dr. Alberto Thieme, who worked hardly to discover this meeting where leaders from ECA and from the homosexual movement slept in the same bed covered on the children’s “rights”. Following are the relevant questions by Dr. Thieme:
1. Most homosexuals do not have the experience of having children or how to rear them. How can they give their view about guidelines on how to educate sexually children and adolescents?
2. Why did not the individuals in charge of this event invite teachers and directors of charities caring for many children (as the charity I founded and which today shelters more than 1,000 children)?
3. Why homosexuals involved in the sexual education of children? Is its purpose to decriminalize pedophiles and pederasts to increase homosexual groups? Many boys sexually abused by an adult male eventually believe that they are homosexual. Is it the supremacy of the strong ones over defenseless children and adolescents?
4. Why is the Lula administration directing its policies lately only to homosexuals, giving them huge privileges? Why do leaders of the largest gay groups have special access to the president?
5. Does President Lula want to destroy the institution of family?
6. In his ambition to stay in power and implant socialism or communism in Brazil, is President Lula weakening and destroying Brazilian institutions to exterminate resistance?
Julio Severo answers the “Brasília Charter” challenges
The “Brasília Charter” (BC) is an affront to the Brazilian family and the Christian majority in Brazil. Therefore let us see the most important points of the affront:
BC says, “Guaranteed access to information on sex, in connection to a human-rights education, in an emancipating and inclusive perspective”.
Answer from Julio Severo: Do children need “sexual emancipation”? Not mentioning that the socially-constructed term “inclusivity” has everything to do with the acceptance of anti-natural social inventions. Then will the emancipation of children be compulsory for them to be free to live such sexual inventions?
BC says, it is “necessary affirmation of a secular State”.
Answer from Julio Severo: I understand very well the intentions of this partnership. Without moral and Christian values, the homosexual movement and the children’s “rights” movement are free to control children. If the secular State is a State without God and without Christian values, certainly Hitler and Stalin — who were hostile to the natural family and controlled every decision on children — are the most important defenders and “heroes” of the secular State.
BC says, “Measures” are necessary “to confront religious fundamentalisms”.
Answer from Julio Severo: The partnership between the homosexual movement and the children’s “rights” movement wants now policies to confront religious “fundamentalisms’. Check now if you will be in the state and homosexual list of “threat” to children:
Are you against the sexual autonomy of children? So you are a religious fundamentalist bigot that should be stopped by the secular State and its allies.
Are you against homosexual “marriage”? So you are a religious fundamentalist bigot that should be stopped by the secular State and its allies.
Do you think that homosexuality is not normal? So you are a religious fundamentalist bigot that should be stopped by the secular State and its allies.
Are you against abortion? So you are a religious fundamentalist bigot that should be stopped by the secular State and its allies.
Are you against the “sexual rights” and “reproductive rights” that the UN, the secular State and homosexual groups are advocating for children? So you are a religious fundamentalist bigot that should be stopped by the secular State and its allies.
Because of the moral perversion of the modern society — where the light is darkness and darkness is light —, homosexual activists will no longer be seen as threats to children. Rather, this place will be occupied by loving fathers and mothers committing the PC crime of protecting their children against the actual threats from the children’s “rights” movement and the homosexual movement.
BC says, it is necessary “the rupture from stances reproducing gender hierarchies”.
Answer from Julio Severo: The partnership between the homosexual movement and the children’s “rights” movement asks for the extinction of the distinction between men and women. They want the extermination of the sexual differences so that the doors may be opened for the feminilization of men and the masculinization of women, building in this way new standards and eliminating the natural standard, such as children being reared by a father and a mother. The new standard will impose the acknowledgment and the legal acceptance as “family” of two lesbian women or two homosexual men “bringing up” children. This new standard may yet produce invented “families” with four or more homosexual men or lesbian women rearing children, and a dramatic increase in the acceptance of the patently pedophilic idea that children are entitled to “autonomy”. The doors are already being opened by the homosexual movement and the children’s “rights” movement.
BC says, it is necessary “the guarantee of the children’s and adolescents’ right to the free expression of their sexual orientation and gender identity, respecting their status as developing beings”.
Answer from Julio Severo: While the State is reducing the rights of natural parents to direct their own children, the partnership between the homosexual movement and the children’s “rights” movement demands for children and adolescents the right to free sexual expression. Is a child being influenced by homosexual factors? The State will prohibit parents from interfering and it will give full freedom for homosexual groups to interfere, with the complicity of those living on the expense of ECA.
The State is weakening the rights of parents over their children and strengthening groups that advocate the “rights”, the “autonomy”, the “emancipation” and the “free sexual expression” of children. In turn, those groups strongly defend the “secular” State as a way to separate the State from values damaging the expansion of the children’s “rights”.
The dark, final result will be families with small or no authority over children that, instead of close to the interests and orientations from their families, will be close to the interests and orientations from the State and homosexual groups. While families will have increasingly fewer rights to direct their children, the State and even homosexual groups allied to the State will have increasingly more rights to control the children from natural families.
What to do to avoid the “religious fundamentalist” label?
If you think it is pointless to oppose the partnership between the homosexual movement and the children’s “rights” movement and if you do not want to be put in their black list, you may choose the following positions:
You may say that the Lula administration, the Obama administration and the UN world governance have a real interest in the well-being of children and families.
You may say that every man committing homosexual acts is entitled to a homosexual “marriage”.
You may say that every child is entitled to “autonomy” and sexual and reproductive rights.
You may say that ECA is wonderful and that its advocates are wonderful.
Doing what they want, you will receive the cheers, not the condemnation, from the homosexual movement and the children’s “rights” movement.
After all, what do they want?
The final discussions of the event that produced the “Brasília Charter” were “Has the most Important Brazilian Legislation [ECA] Guaranteed the Autonomy of the Sexual Rights of Adolescents?” and “Discussion on the Subject: Sexual Rights of Children and Adolescents: How to recognize them and guarantee them?”
In the UN conception, sexual rights (or reproductive rights) involve the right to contraception, the right to a free sexual life (with or without marriage) and the right to abortion, because the largest organizations offering family-planning services to adolescents also offer abortion “services”. Those organizations advise UN.
Doubtless, it is impossible to implement policies guaranteeing “sexual rights” without firstly guaranteeing autonomy. Autonomy from whom? Autonomy from the State? Autonomy from homosexual groups? Autonomy from folks that live on expense of ECA? It would be very good if children had autonomy from them.
However, what they want is basically children independent from parents and their values. Children independent from their own families — but never independent from the State. For them, a child that, because of some influence, began to head to homosexuality or another abnormality is entitled to “autonomy”. The law will guarantee the child’s sexual rights, protecting him from the “interference” of parents! Parents will be able to do nothing to help their small and adolescent children, under the risk of suffering the weight of the laws and an ECA “improved” by homosexual activists.
While the homosexual movement is conquering more access to children through the formulation of laws strengthening a State that favors homosexuality, natural families are losing their natural rights to direct the education, discipline and now the healthy sexual course of their small and adolescent children.
Parents will lose the right to teach that there are only two sexes: male and female. And gay activists will receive the right to impose their third invented “sex”. So the power of the gay activism will be greater than the parental authority.
In this ideological climate, where homosexuality — which is simply a sexual construction of a society losing its ethical, moral and natural sense — is praised as normalcy, homosexual activists are seen as perfect partners for the formulation of policies for children.
The fall of an “advocate” for the autonomy and sexual rights of children…
The result is foreseeable. In Scotland, James Rennie, a top advisor to the Executive on homosexual issues regarding children, was caught in the act as a ringleader of a pedophile ring. Rennie, who was the chief executive of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) Youth Scotland, was found guilty in 2009 for his leadership in the pedophile ring and of molesting an infant beginning at three months old over a four-year period.
Who told that homosexuality has nothing to do with abuse? Many homosexuals also report sexual abuse in their boyhood. It has a very clear meaning: a homosexual adult raped an innocent boy.
The answer from the government? Deliver into the hands of homosexual activists the formulation of policies promoting and advocating the children’s sexual and human “rights”!
If such illogic and foolishness become a trend, the protection of henneries will be delivered to foxes and the protection of innocent sheep will be delivered to wolves.
What about to guarantee the “autonomy” of the sexual rights of your small and adolescent children? Foxes and wolves express their gratitude.
Jesus was not joking when he told: “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves”. (Matthew 10:16 NIV)
Portuguese version of this article: Grupos homossexuais querem “melhorias” no ECASource: http://www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com