The text below will be posted in French and Spanish later.
I. Unfortunately, the democratic process in Western nations and the judicial system of the United States have failed, for over twenty years, to deal in good faith with the bioethical and social-justice problems posed by the following aims of the LGBT movement:
1. The desire to equate sexual orientation with race, which has progressed from falsely characterizing the centuries-long struggle of Africans against slavery to now, using the power of state law, individual school policy, and the federal judicial system to:
- legislate sexual identity to individuals too young to understand what is being forced on them
- track the identity imposed on them by social pressure and fix it through invasive data-tracking measures that ask youth to disclose their sexual preferences as if this were the same as race
- humiliate people who transition from same-sex activity toward heterosexual activity
- abet advocacy groups and lobbying organizations that purposefully invade the privacy of individuals who may have homosexual inclinations or histories but who do not want to reveal this publicly
- resurrect defunct and discredited anti-miscegenation jurisprudence, by claiming simultaneously that gays are a race and that there is supposed deficiency in "mixed-orientation marriages" between gay and non-gay spouses. This point is particularly troubling given the United States' racial history, because LGBT advocates demanding marriage rights through the US judicial system cite anti-miscegenation laws as a way to liken themselves to blacks, while instituting a new layer of anti-miscegenation jurisprudence by devaluing and pathologizing mixed-orientation marriages
- suppress and discredit honest researchers who find data doubting the claim that sexual orientation is biological, and
- gag professionals such as counselors and clergy who would and should be in the position to help youth who feel they have been bullied into homosexual identity hastily and improperly.
2. The desire to secure proprietary rights over children, often under the guise of marriage equality, under arrangements that will:
- violate the dignity of a biological father or biological mother, at the very least
- impose lifelong undue stress on a child without compensation or reparation
- undermine the child's opportunity to prosper under conditions just and equal relative to other children
- interfere unnecessarily with the child's capacity to participate in the cultural and social traditions of its society, and
- reduce the worth of children to the status of human chattel. These impacts violate the convention of Unicef on the rights of children (see below).
3. The insistence of disseminating misinformation about:
- the impact on gay communities of directing so much validation and advocacy resources onto a small class of privileged members who will find themselves in lifelong couples
- the true urgencies facing LGBT individuals in the areas of mental health, epidemiology, and social justice, as exemplified by crisis rates of suicide, depression, eating disorders, addictions, sexually transmitted in infections including HIV, and experience of bullying from both gays and non-gays for the very same traits (poverty, awkwardness, non-gender conformity, obesity, etc.) that will likely cause the most visible victims of such bullying to find themselves uncoupled for much of adult life or coupled in relationships with greater risk for domestic violence
- the demonstrable harm to the dignity of dispossessed biological mothers and fathers, powerless children placed into same-sex couple homes, poor nations and communities targeted for exploitative baby farming as well as human trafficking and biological theft.
4. The reliance on the stellar history of LGBT people who, similar to other minorities, struggled against a century of cruel repression and combated homophobia, in order to deflect attention from and suppress debate about:
- the complicity of LGBT organizations and their allies in a global crisis of human rights violations, which will only proliferate and expand unchecked as increasing numbers of same-sex couples seek to equate their households to male-female households
- serious bioethical qualms about marriage equality due to the intractable gap between same-sex and heterosexual couples in the area of procreation, child-rearing, and conferring lineage to their charges consistent with the social, cultural, linguistic, and religious context in which said charges will mature, pass through adulthood, and eventually pass on an inheritance to another generation in turn.
II. I state the following without a party affiliation, since I cannot in this case agree with the right wing's usual resistance to international intervention, nor can I endorse the left wing's ideology of gay equality, which currently presages a large-scale global human-rights crisis in order to meet the affective demands of gay couples for rights to ownership of children.
III. Because I have spent forty years immersed in gay life, raised since the age of two by a lesbian involved in a life-long partnership with a woman, and out as bisexual for twenty-four years since then, having survived multiple assaults and hate crimes both for being bisexual and for being the son of a sexual minority, I must express:
- my whole-hearted support for civil unions or other legal protections of same-sex couples so that they are guaranteed hospital visitation rights and protection from impacts of prejudice and discrimination,
- my whole-hearted support for cooperative foster care and community development projects that allow LGBT people to express love for children by giving them temporary refuge from turmoil in their biological parents' home, organizing community activities that focus on children's needs for recreation, education, and cultural celebrations, among other needs,
- my total categorical opposition to homophobia, violence against gays, employment discrimination against gays and
- my denunciation of aggressive hate toward same-sex couples who currently are raising children. For whatever reason, tens of thousands of children are now being raised in same-sex couples and their situation, for better or worse, is fixed. We must support these children to the best of our ability without encouraging the number of such situations to expand.
IV. As the example of France has demonstrated to us, LGBT people are not a monolithic population and there is palpable resistance among LGBT people to the affronts to human rights perpetrated by LGBT organizations; in fact, LGBT people in France and elsewhere have led the way to stop the proliferating human-rights abuses currently hidden by propaganda about equality and in particular efforts to overcome homophobia through forcing states to confer "marriage" on same-sex couples inclusive of protection for reproductive arrangements that infringe on the dignity of others.
V. The same care for the dignity of LGBT people, which leads me to stand against anti-gay violence, leads me to call for international pressure on LGBT activist groups to halt their complicity with multiple violations of human rights.
VI. The legal system, academia, the fourth estate, the judicial system, and the political process in the United States have proven themselves inadequate in some cases, grossly negligent in others, totally powerless in some instances, but consistently failing in correcting the human-rights crisis precipitated by the modern LGBT movement and its systematic violation of the rights of children, not only in the United States but also overseas, its continued assault on the dignity of human fatherhood and motherhood, and its increasing complicity with human trafficking, its fraudulent propaganda, its bioethical improprieties, class exploitation, contempt for the democratic process, and violations of the basic principles of free speech, free exercise of religion, and academic freedom.
VII. The time for intervention is now because:
1. With the increase in the number of people entering adulthood identifying as gay (see recent Gallup polling), and encouraged by popular culture to acquire children to express their equality, the human rights crisis will worsen. The sheer volume of same-sex couples who view children as an entitlement and who see their need for equality as overriding the rights of others will aggravate the problem.
2. The usual institutions that would normally identify an oncoming human rights crisis and thwart it are malfunctioning in the United States:
- Academic institutions routinely fire or blacklist professionals who undertake research questioning the claims of LGBT organizations, particularly claims regarding marriage, and research into same-sex families is being conducted under severe duress that constitutes suppression of basic academic freedom.
- The press is staffed almost exclusively, on both right-leaning and left-leaning venues, by media professionals who see gay parenting as a way to attain sexual equality and who view their reportage of the issue as an obligation to support LGBT organizations who demand marriage equality.
- The democratic process is ineffective at addressing this problem in the United States because voters are largely exposed to only two extreme interest groups: on the one hand, agitators who express animus toward homosexuals because of sexual prejudice, and on the other hand, LGBT propagandists who direct all discussion to their need for validation rather and away from the impact of their validation on other parties.
- The legal system in the United States is largely failing to protect the weakest members of society, hence those most vulnerable to the human rights problems posed by the LGBT lobby, because the jurisprudence depends upon academia, the fourth estate, and the democratic process, all of which have been compromised.
VIII. Below is the declaration of the rights of children by UNICEF. I have bolded the pertinent parts here.
UNICEF’s mission is to advocate for the protection of children’s rights, to help meet their basic needs and to expand their opportunities to reach their full potential.
UNICEF is guided in doing this by the provisions and principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
- While homosexuals and bisexuals are perfectly capable of showing love and responsible guardianship to children, children's opportunities are seriously impinged if they do not have a mother and father, if they must defend themselves against controversy surrounding their home life, and if they are geographically limited to neighborhoods that are forward-thinking about sexual orientation. Gay parents can best act as guardians of children if they form bonds with the opposite sex and give their children the same constellation of mother and father that most children are entitled to. The stress of being a gay couple is difficult and undeniable, and children will absorb this stress in the home. It is a unique kind of stress because it coincides with a child's inevitable desire to know of the missing father or mother who have been replaced by a same-sex partner not biologically related to the child. While adoptees always face this issue, there is a problem of degree. So many layers of stress and disadvantage hinder children of same-sex couples that it is unjust to place them in such environments when it is not necessarily, primarily to meet the desires of gay parents to have children. Such a psychological arrangement forces the child into being the emotional nurturer of parents, asked to heal the parents' insecurities and resentments. Hence in such arrangements, it is likely that the gay parents who have placed children in the situation and premeditated the arrangement will react with anger and hurt if the child feels the effects of stress. This is scarring and traumatic, beyond virtually any other domestic child-rearing arrangement other than ones in which there is direct abuse.
UNICEF is guided in doing this by the provisions and principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
- Virtually all cultures in the world, whether they are matrilineal or patrilineal, celebrate ties between children and both their branches of ancestry. Fatherless, abandoned, and orphaned children are specified as individuals that community must rally to nurture, in most religions, because cultures acknowledge the primal trauma felt by a child who cannot participate in cultural traditions based on both fatherly and motherly lineage. It is not right to place a child in this compromised and isolated position knowingly, which is what we do if we place an infant or toddler in the long-term, exclusive custodial rights of a same-sex couple.
These basic standards—also called human rights—set minimum entitlements and freedoms that should be respected by governments. They are founded on respect for the dignity and worth of each individual,
- There is a fundamental disregard for the dignity and worth of each individual, if fathers are reduced to sperm donors, mothers are reduced to incubators, and children -- particularly orphans -- are deemed available objects for purchase by couples that wish to acquire a baby. Heterosexual couples have engaged in such exploitative practices and must not be excused if their actions cross the line into indignity. However, the scope of the problem is potentially far greater if same-sex couples, who may comprise as many as 5% of adult couples in Western countries, all seek to create a market for biomaterials and infants.
regardless of race, colour, gender, language, religion, opinions, origins, wealth, birth status or ability and therefore apply to every human being everywhere.
- International adoptions by same-sex couples have relied, disproportionately, on access to Third World surrogacy contracts or orphanages. Parents who place babies in orphanages do so, largely, because they face insuperable barriers, but they deserve respect for their wishes. It is racist and condescending to assume that because a baby is in an orphanage, a same-sex couple ought to have a right to it. The baby and its biological parents deserve the respect owed to them, in the form of all due diligence to find a home with a mother and father.
With these rights comes the obligation on both governments and individuals not to infringe on the parallel rights of others. These standards are both interdependent and indivisible; we cannot ensure some rights without—or at the expense of—other rights.
- As explained above in detail, the rights of same-sex couples to equality would impinge on the parallel rights of others.
A legally binding instrument
The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rights—civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.
- The full range of human rights signifies that economic indicators, which have often been cited to rationalize same-sex parenting, are not the only metrics to measure fidelity to human rights of children. Children who are placed against their will at an early age in a life situation that will alienate them from civil society, their culture, the political system, or social relationships have had their rights violated, even if same-sex parents can provide financial stability, a clean home, and love.
In 1989, world leaders decided that children needed a special convention just for them because people under 18 years old often need special care and protection that adults do not. The leaders also wanted to make sure that the world recognized that children have human rights too.
The Convention sets out these rights in 54 articles and two Optional Protocols. It spells out the basic human rights that children everywhere have: the right to survival; to develop to the fullest; to protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation; and to participate fully in family, cultural and social life. The four core principles of the Convention are non-discrimination; devotion to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development; and respect for the views of the child. Every right spelled out in the Convention is inherent to the human dignity and harmonious development of every child. The Convention protects children's rights by setting standards in health care; education; and legal, civil and social services.
By agreeing to undertake the obligations of the Convention (by ratifying or acceding to it), national governments have committed themselves to protecting and ensuring children's rights and they have agreed to hold themselves accountable for this commitment before the international community. States parties to the Convention are obliged to develop and undertake all actions and policies in the light of the best interests of the child.