Also a sad story of how the church failed the society and became marginalized. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 13, 2018, at 07:41, Billy Rojas <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com> 
> wrote:
> "The Religion & Society Report"          Online Edition    [SwanSearch]
> Our Publications:    The Family in America  |  New Research  |  The Religion 
> & Society Report  |  Family Update, Online!
> Volume 23  Number 05
> July / August 2006
> The Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society
> Behind The Homosexual Tsunami in Brazil
> By Julio Severo*
> *Julio Severo is the author of the book O Movimento Homossexual (The 
> Homosexual Movement), published by the Brazilian branch of Bethany House 
> Publishers. In November 2004, he gave, in the Chamber of Deputies in 
> Brasília, the introductory speech in the First Evangelical Parliamentary 
> Front Meeting. The first magazine of the Front also published an article by 
> Mr. Severo on homosexuality. His book has been the first writing in 
> Portuguese to expose the homosexual movement and it has been a reference for 
> Christian parliamentarians in Brazil.
> Until 1994, gay rights and parades were virtually unheard of and non-existent 
> in Brazil. Yet, from 1995 on, after the first ILGA conference in Rio de 
> Janeiro, homosexual activism became increasingly powerful in visibility, 
> until the arrival of the Lula government, when their highest intentions and 
> values became a threat and reality predominant in the Brazilian society.
> The social and moral structure of Brazil in the decades of 1950 and 1960 was 
> basically strong, largely because of the predominant Catholicism in more than 
> 90 percent of the population. In many places, evangelicals were threatened 
> with lynching if they tried to evangelize, especially in small towns. 
> Homosexual activity was a shameful and secret behavior, despised by the 
> society.  A girl pregnant out of wedlock ran the risk of being expelled from 
> her house. The Brazilian people were socially conservative, although the 
> Carnival and public prostitution were tolerated.
> The largest threat to the society came from radical leftist movements. 
> Communists almost took control in Brazil in 1964, but the military took over 
> the government and was able to stop a communist coup.
> The Catholic Church was a driving force against the communist threat, but 
> after Vatican II many Catholic leaders began surrendering to the Theology of 
> Liberation. In the decades of 1970 and 1980, traditional Protestant churches 
> embraced Protestant versions of Liberation Theology. In the late 1990s and 
> early 2000, some Pentecostal and charismatic churches also subscribed. These 
> leftist Christians are today known as progressistas. The Brazilian term 
> progressista (progressive), according to the noted Aurélio Dictionary of 
> Portuguese Language, means “someone who, though not being a member of a 
> socialist or communist party, accepts and/or supports socialist or Marxist 
> principles.”  So evangélicos progressistas are evangelicals committed to 
> supporting and promoting the socialist agenda.
> Liberation Theology can boast an important victory in Brazil, for having a 
> 73.6 percent Catholic population; Brazil is the largest Catholic country in 
> the world. Protestants are 15.4 percent.  “Progressive” Christians are a 
> growing presence and influence among both of these Christian religions.
> After the military left the government in 1985, leftist politicians, 
> supported by the Comunidades Eclesiais de Base (Base Ecclesiastical 
> Communities [BECs], where progressive Catholic leadership encouraged poor 
> Catholic communities to get involved in political action according to 
> Liberation Theology  tenets), began to heavily affect the political and 
> social system, leading Brazil gradually leftward. BECs were the most 
> important support behind the main popular leftist party in Brazil, Partido 
> dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party), better known by its acronym PT.
> With such leftism, abortion and homosexuality began to be promoted as rights 
> in the decade of 1990. (In the decade of 1980, there were leftists advocating 
> abortion and homosexuality, but while abortion advocates had limited 
> visibility and no legal influence, the rare gay advocates had none at all — 
> except in a very few isolated examples, especially in universities.) Even 
> though there are no anti-sodomy laws in Brazilian society, its religious 
> heritage had always been an important social factor discouraging such 
> behavior.
> In Brazil, abortion is presently legal only in cases of rape and when the 
> life of a mother is at risk. Because of religious influence, the fight to 
> expand legal abortion has faced considerable obstacles to achieve the success 
> that feminists achieved in the U.S. in 1973.
> However, that religious influence, both Catholic and evangelical, is 
> increasingly less conservative and more liberal, even though most of the 
> population does not understand the gradual change.
> Nevertheless, the best way to popular appeal in Brazil is to have a 
> conservative image. To draw votes, political candidates in Brazil are 
> supposed to present the image of being conservative Christians on moral 
> issues. Even radical Socialists (who are clearly pro-abortion and 
> pro-homosexuality in their political actions out of election times) make this 
> kind of appeal. On the other hand, “conservative” candidates have to 
> demonstrate their sympathy for the welfare state. Yet these “conservatives” 
> are not solid in their moral stand on abortion and especially on 
> homosexuality, and eventually make moral compromises after their election. 
> Presently, Brazil knows no major political figure solid in practical actions 
> against abortion and homosexuality. The few Catholics and evangelicals 
> vocally opposed to abortion are not politicians. 
> Evangelicals are only a minority, but their votes are eagerly coveted. In 
> 2002, presidential candidate Lula was promoted among many evangelical leaders 
> by a moral and religious appeal. In the past, these same “conservative” 
> leaders (traditional, Pentecostal, and charismatic) had always disliked Lula 
> and his party as a communist threat. Yet, with the assistance of an American 
> minister — the Rev. Jesse Jackson — they changed their minds.  Jackson, who 
> was brought to Brazil by PT especially for that mission, was able to convince 
> them that Lula was not such a threat.  According to the Internet newspaper 
> Folha Online, Rev. Jackson has been a friend of many years standing with 
> PT.[1]  In the PT official website there is even an entire page flattering 
> “comrade Jackson.”[2]
> So persuaded, these leaders became signers of the public document Manifesto 
> de Evangélicos (Evangelical Manifesto), proclaiming to the evangelical 
> population their stand for Lula. Among the great number of signatories were 
> Rev. Nilson Fanni, former president of the World Baptist Alliance, and Rev. 
> Gilherminho Cunha, a high-ranking Presbyterian minister and president of the 
> Bible Society of Brazil. In the paper which was amply distributed by PT, all 
> of those leaders state:
> We support Lula for President because we recognize that several proposals of 
> his Government Program are similar to the prophetic calling of the Church of 
> Jesus Christ.
> We express our public support to Lula’s candidacy in order to oppose the 
> wicked and insignificant rumors leading some to an understanding that his 
> election to the Presidency of Republic will obstruct the walk of the 
> Evangelical Churches.
> This public document was prepared with the assistance of MEP (Movimento 
> Evangélico Progressista, or Progressive Evangelical Movement). Individual 
> denominations also expressed their support, especially mainline liberal 
> Protestant churches.  For the first time Pentecostal and charismatic churches 
> copied their example. Comunidade Evangélica Sara Nossa Terra (Heal Our Land 
> Evangelical Community), a large national denomination, said on its website in 
> 2002:
> Evangelical Manifesto in Support of Lula’s Candidacy for President of Brazil 
> [excerpts]:
> We manifest our support for the Lula candidacy because of an established 
> commitment between an eventual Lula government and the evangelicals here 
> represented.
> We support Lula because:
> •  He has been demonstrating that he believes in a balanced and democratic 
> Socialism, respecting the highest tenets of democracy;
> •  He has been affirming his [belief] in the highest values of the Holy 
> Scriptures: God, family, morality, ethics, religious freedom, and democracy;
> •  He has made a commitment to develop our society, having the Church as a 
> partner with his government;
> • He understands and believes in the existence and in the historical role of 
> the Church as an instrument for the formation of fundamental values for human 
> life, both in individual and social aspects;
> •  His greatest motivation for his government project is to help the poor and 
> less favored people, according to the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and 
> the Holy Scriptures.
> Why we suport Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva as President of the Republic.
> •  Lula deserves a vote of trust from our society... Lula today is one of the 
> most trusted leaders of our nation.
> • Lula has made a partnership commitment with the evangelical churches for 
> social construction, removing the stigma that evangelicals are only sought in 
> election times. He has also been declaring that he believes in the highest 
> values of the Holy Scriptures, as “God, Family, Morality, Ethics, Religious 
> Freedom, Democracy, and the Option for the Poor.”
> Thus, we see that the rumors saying that Lula and PT are noxious to the 
> Gospel are now refuted, demonstrating that radical attitudes that were taken 
> by other PT local administrations were isolated initiatives.
> For all of those reasons the Sara Nossa Terra Bishop Council is confident to 
> vote for and support the Lula candidacy for president of Brazil.
> Robson Rodovalho
> Bishop President
> on behalf of the Sara Nossa Terra Bishop Council
> Comunidade Sara Nossa Terra was, until late 1990s, an anti-Marxist church. 
> After many years of an anticommunist stand, it was a surprise to watch 
> evangelicals and their leaders turning left. The moralistic appeal of Lula 
> among evangelicals was also a surprise: he promised to evangelical leaders 
> that his future administration would not promote abortion and homosexuality. 
> The result? After victory in the election, Lula and his party kept working on 
> the same agenda that they had in the past. PT was again the main abortion and 
> homosexuality supporter in Brazil.
> Even though most of the Christian denominations supporting Lula and PT do not 
> approve of homosexuality and abortion, their shift to the role of evangélicos 
> progressistas has left them in a strange and paradoxical position politically.
> No official statistics are gathered in Brazil to determine the number of 
> homosexuals. According to the Lula government data, they are over 10 percent 
> of the population. Such data come from NGOs that have contacts with American 
> NGOs. Their basic source is the Kinsey Report. Almost all the other official 
> data on homosexuals in Brazil has direct or indirect influence from 
> information common in the U.S. and not from Brazilian studies.  In fact, in 
> spite of the predominant, leftist anti-Americanism in Brazil, there is an 
> almost perfect leftist cloning of the American homosexual reality.
> There may be a religious factor in Brazilian homosexuality. A minority of the 
> Brazilian population adheres to Candomblé and other Afro-Brazilian religions 
> (similar to Santeria), where homosexuality is common. For a comparison, there 
> are some 19,000 recognized Catholic parishes in Brazil.  Informal Candomblé 
> temples are supposed to number some 12,000 in Rio de Janeiro alone.[3]  In 
> Candomblé, many priests and priestesses are homosexual.
> Luiz Mott, the leader of the homosexual movement in Brazil, is a firm 
> adherent of Candomblé.
> Many famous Brazilians turn to Afro-Brazilian religions in search of miracles 
> to solve personal or family problems. Even former President Fernando Henrique 
> Cardoso, though a Marxist and an atheist, had sympathy for and sometimes 
> visited Candomblé rituals.
> Homosexuals were always a very small group in the society, and the current 
> impressive homosexual growth in Brazil is due to the seductive propaganda 
> directed to the public. Soap operas, very popular TV shows in Brazil, give 
> the public positive images of homosexual characters. On the other hand, 
> conservative Catholics and evangelicals are represented as strange, 
> intolerant, suspicious, fanatical, and unfriendly characters.
> Thus, surrounded by the artillery of the homosexual favoritism on the media, 
> an increasingly large number of curious youths demonstrate interest in 
> homosexuality.
> Capitulation to the homosexual movement on TV has been practically total, 
> where many shows use strategies that distort reality, presenting to the 
> public a false world where gays and lesbians are glad, happy, fulfilled, and, 
> usually, more intelligent and sensitive individuals than normal men and 
> women. The “dark side is properly hidden, so that nobody will see that their 
> behavior is linked to an indisputable reality of suffering, where gays live, 
> oppressed by serious mental, emotional, and social dysfunctions.
> There is an immense effort to show that those natural consequences don’t have 
> any connection with the abnormality of their sexual acts. That effort also 
> tries, with the assistance of fraudulent research and studies, to prove 
> “scientifically” that the abnormal is as normal as what is really normal. In 
> fact, the document Brazil without Homophobia says: “In the same way that 
> heterosexuality (attraction for a person of the opposite sex) does not have 
> any explanation, so homosexuality does not too. It depends on each person’s 
> sexual orientation.” This document was published by the Lula administration 
> to support its nationwide Brasil sem Homofobia (Brazil Without Homophobia) 
> campaign, which was launched on May 2005. This federal initiative — described 
> as a “National Program for Combating Violence and Discrimin-ation against 
> Gays, Lesbians, Transgender People, and Bisexuals, and for the Promotion of 
> the Citizenship of Homosexuals” — is virtually unique in the world. It aims 
> to strengthen both public and non-governmental institutions that promote gay 
> rights. It does this through education on human rights, both of the general 
> public and within GLBT communities and by encouraging GLBT people to complain 
> to public institutions about violations of their supposed rights.
> This federal effort is producing fruits. In São Paulo, the largest city in 
> Brazil, there is now the Group for Repression and Analysis of Intolerance 
> Crimes and the Racial and Intolerance Crimes Police Station. “The Racial and 
> Intolerance Crimes Police Station shall, above all, take into consideration 
> cases where society segregates a person for his sexual orientation... 
> Margarette Barreto Gracia, police chief of the new station, pointed out that 
> victims of intolerance crimes should seek out the police station and denounce 
> their aggressor.”[4]
> Homophobia, according to the Lula administration, can be obvious or veiled, 
> involving discrimination in selection for employment, rental of housing, 
> entry into the armed forces, medical school, dental school, a theological 
> college, a Christian school...Whatever its manifestation, the Brazilian 
> government believes that so called homophobia inevitably involves injustice 
> and social exclusion.
> It wants to eliminate such “homophobia” throughout Brazilian society. To 
> achieve such a wide goal, the Brazil Without Homophobia campaign involves 
> twenty ministries and special secretariats: the Ministries of Foreign 
> Relations, Justice, Education, Health, Labor, and Culture, and the Special 
> Secretariat on Policies for Women, the Special Secretariat on Policies for 
> the Promotion of Racial Equality, the Special Secretariat on Human Rights, 
> and the National Secretariat on Public Safety. It also involves a series of 
> other governmental organizations, such as the National Council on Combating 
> Discrimination, State and Municipal Councils on Human Rights, State and 
> Municipal Secretariats on Public Safety, universities, the Office of the 
> Federal Prosecutor for Citizens’ Rights, the Public Ministry of Labor, in 
> addition to the Brazilian Parliament itself.
> This massive effort leaves no part of society untouched. The coming 
> generations are also of special government concern. So the Brazilian 
> government for the first time in its history, on April 2006, initiated a 
> partnership with a gay group. With the assistance of the NGO Arco-Íris 
> (Rainbow), the Ministry of Education began training public and private school 
> teachers to address homosexual issues and teach children to fight 
> homophobia.[5] The Lula administration views such partnerships as a necessary 
> strategy, for it has been informed by UNESCO that 60 percent of Brazilian 
> teachers think that homosexual sex is unacceptable.
> In the official curriculum of the Ministry of Education, there is the demand 
> that every school fight prejudice against differences. The partnership with 
> Arco-Íris is seen as a way to effectively train teachers to implement the 
> official curriculum itself and to handle issues as human rights (for 
> homosexuals, not Christians), homophobia, gender identity, sexual orientation 
> and diversity. Arco-Íris has received a government grant to accomplish such 
> goals.
> Through such a partnership and other efforts from the Brazil Without 
> Homophobia program, children are being indoctrinated systematically in the 
> “Gospel of Sodomy.”[6] There are even textbooks to encourage homosexuality. 
> “In Brazil, there are, at the time being, few titles, but publishers have 
> already shown their interest in this market. Educators too:  one of the first 
> books to address the subject is Menino Ama Menino (Boy Loves Boy, publisher: 
> Armazém das Idéias), by Marilene Godinho, which tells of a boy who found that 
> he was in love with another boy.  This book is part of the literature package 
> distributed by the Ministry of Education in the public schools.”[7]
> Brazilian President Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva likes to portray his 
> administration as a Socialist government favoring interests of less developed 
> nations and not accepting American and European influences. Nevertheless, he 
> has imitated their worst examples. His Workers’ Party has employed actions no 
> past government of Brazil did: it has facilitated the introduction of 
> pro-homosexuality laws, and it has been a strong advocate for affirmative 
> action based on racial preferences for minority groups. So for the first 
> time, Brazilian society sees a president acting in a totally new political 
> way.
> His actions are not original to Brazil. American and European societies have, 
> under the pressure of special interest groups, known such political 
> experiences for a number of years. Interestingly, in the racial issue, 
> advocates of affirmative action in Europe and in the U.S. are swift to point 
> to and condemn the slavery of blacks by whites in the past and exploit such 
> situations to their extreme political advantage, but they are equally swift 
> to neglect, excuse, or hide the past and current violent slavery of blacks by 
> blacks in some African countries, including modern-day Sudan. So the notion 
> of affirmative action, as originally employed in the developed nations by 
> special interest groups and as copied by countries like Brazil, is a form of 
> ideological oppression that will eventually lead to other forms of 
> oppression, including from the gay-ideology activists.
> There should be no doubt that the current Brazilian president has a gay 
> agenda.  Twice, Lula expressed his support of the homosexual movement. In 
> June 2005, he sent a letter to the gay parade of Brasilia, saying, “any way 
> of loving is worthwhile.” In June 2006, he reaffirmed such support, by 
> sending to the gay parade of São Paulo the following message:
> Fellows,
> It is with satisfaction that I answer the kind invitation to address the 
> participants of the 10th GLBT Pride Parade, in São Paulo. I want to greet the 
> organizers of this event and transmit — to all who battle to promote the 
> dignity and the defense of the rights of gays, lesbians, and transgender 
> people — words of encouragement, faith and trust in the results of the 
> efforts that, in partnership, we have been developing, since the beginning of 
> our administration, with the goal to change the reality that we had received.
> Our government was established with the firm purpose of combating the threats 
> to the people’s rights based on any kind of prejudice: of origin, race, 
> ethnicity, age, religious belief, political conviction, or sexual orientation.
> With that purpose, we have strengthened the Special Secretariat for the Human 
> Rights, which instituted, during our administration, Brazil Without 
> Homophobia, a program to combat violence and prejudice against GLBT and to 
> promote homosexual citizenship. That program has been necessary because all 
> people should be made conscious of human rights, which include the free 
> expression of sexual orientation. People may only be made conscious through 
> publicly integrated politics that include affirmative actions, especially in 
> the educational area.
> Human rights education encourages people in a formal and informal way to 
> contribute for the citizenship construction, for the knowledge of those 
> rights, and for the consequent respect to plurality and diversity, not only 
> sexual, but ethnic, racial, cultural, sporting, and religious.
> However, schools should not be the only source promoting those ideas: the 
> media should also get involved in this effort, for they have an enormous 
> power for penetrating the society. The media and information outlets, through 
> their programs and images, assume a fundamental role in the human rights 
> education as they are committed to the propagation of ethical and citizenship 
> values.
> Because of their role as public opinion shapers, the press, radio, and TV 
> professionals should be a source of production and broadcasting of contents 
> related to tolerance and acceptance of multiple differences, and ultimately, 
> the respect to the human person with a view to establish a culture of peace 
> and love toward the neighbor and build a fairer, kinder, and more solid 
> society.
> Our government is firmly determined to defend those values and it wants to 
> continue, especially counting on the cooperative action from the 
> organizations that bring together gays, lesbians, and transgender people to 
> achieve that objective, and it will remain open to welcome other 
> contributions, as in the area of STD prevention.
> I want all to know that we remain at your side in this fight. A few days ago, 
> in the Third High Authorities Human Rights Meeting of Mercosur, in Buenos 
> Aires, Brazil suggested the introduction of two items for consideration: the 
> theme of torture and cruel and degrading treatment and the fight against 
> prejudices for sexual orientation. Another initiative came from the Special 
> Secretariat for the Human Rights, launched on June 9, in the State 
> Legislature of São Paulo, the Brazil Without Homophobia program, during 
> solemn session where the legislative authorities from São Paulo celebrated 
> the GLBT Pride Day on the solicitation of State Deputy Ítalo Cardoso [from 
> PT].
> I want this parade to result, as has been happening with other similar 
> events, in peace and happiness, with a view to being an important sign of the 
> increasing visibility of the homosexual movement and a sign of consequent 
> gathering of forces in the fight against resistance and prejudice.”
> Receive my fraternal hug.
> President Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva[8]
> Of course, the Lula support is not limited to words only. The Brazil Without 
> Homophobia program counts on a federal budget of 125 million Real (about 60 
> million dollars) for 2006. For a nation that has experienced great economic 
> hardship, such an amount is not insignificant. Gay parades, seen by the 
> government as cultural events, also receive grants in the millions.
> Such support has produced striking results. In 2005, Brazil was the world 
> champion in gay parades. In 2006, the São Paulo gay parade was the largest in 
> the whole world.
> However, the Lula administration has not been aggressive only in its 
> pro-homosexuality domestic push. It also has an international agenda, and it 
> has shown its domestic policies to other nations.  Before the United Nations 
> General Assembly, Brazilian Ambassador Frederico Duque Estrada Meyer said 
> Brazil had the program entitled Brazil Without Homophobia, which outlined 
> actions to strengthen public and non-governmental institutions for combating 
> homophobia; capacity-building for professionals involved in promoting the 
> rights of homosexuals; disseminating information of rights and promoting 
> homosexual self-esteem; and stimulating complaints on violations of 
> rights.”[9]
> In the Organization of the American States, Brazil introduced a resolution 
> for the establishment of a future Inter-American Convention against Racism 
> and All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance.  The resolution was approved 
> in 2005.  Its most important ambition was its leading role in a world 
> campaign, in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), to 
> characterize any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation as 
> violence against human rights.
> During the April 2003 meeting of the UNCHR, the Brazilian government 
> (supported by Canada and the European Union) introduced its Resolution on 
> “Human Rights and Sexual Orientation.” This resolution recognizes homosexual 
> conduct as a human right. Obviously, Brazil, Canada and the European Union 
> knew that the great majority of international public opinion was against the 
> attitude of giving special rights for individuals practicing homosexuality.
> The resolution was a surprise to the Brazilian Congress in Brasilia, which 
> learned about it only some time after the Brazilian delegation in the UN had 
> already presented it. It was a surprise also to the evangelical leaders, for 
> before the 2002 presidential elections, Lula had made the commitment in a 
> meeting with important ministers and bishops not to let his government 
> promote issues favoring abortion and homosexuality. Yet, the Brazilian 
> delegation in the UN, which represents the Brazilian government’s interests 
> and views, has defended just these issues, under a carefully veiled language 
> of “reproductive rights” and “sexual orientation.”[10]
> Representative Dr. Elimar Damasceno requested directly from the Brazilian 
> government an explanation for its resolution in the UN. He noted that it 
> “deals with a subject where there are no approved laws in our country and 
> where there is no consensus in our society, because of its religious and 
> cultural consequences.”[11] The Foreign Affairs Ministry in Brasilia 
> officially refuted Rep. Damasceno,
> ...in response to your last question on “who has authorized the [Brazilian] 
> representatives [in the UN] to present the mentioned Proposal of Resolution,” 
> it is proper to point that... the politics of Brazil in the human rights 
> issues are explicitly favorable to the promotion and protection of the 
> minority rights.[12]
> So according to the Brazilian government’s view, those practicing 
> homosexuality are a minority deprived of protection. According to the draft 
> of the resolution:
> …human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human 
> beings, that the universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond 
> question and that the enjoyment of such rights and freedoms should not be 
> hindered in any way on the grounds of sexual orientation.
> Brazilian Minister Samuel Guimarães, from the Foreign Affairs Ministry, 
> affirmed, “So the main aim of the [resolution] is to guarantee the principle 
> of non-discrimination — the cornerstone of the building of promotion and 
> protection of human rights since its beginning in the United Nations system — 
> regarding groups discriminated against around the world because of their 
> sexual orientation. This position is based on the notion that advancement in 
> the subject of human rights benefiting a discriminated minority represents 
> gain to other groups suffering discrimination….”[13]
> Fortunately, the Lula resolution was not successful in 2003. UN Brazilian 
> ambassadors made new endeavors in 2004, and were faced with Muslim 
> opposition. In 2005, the Lula administration gave its resolution up 
> prematurely out of respect to Muslim leaders taking part in the Summit of 
> South American-Arab Countries in Brasilia.  Out of respect to them, the Lula 
> administration also cut Israel from the map used by the Foreign Affairs 
> Ministry at the Summit.
> In the Lula’s strategic socialistic agenda, homosexuality may be sacrificed 
> for Muslim interests, but not for the Bible or moral interests. It sacrifices 
> Israel much more easily than it sacrifices homosexuality.
> The main pushes from the homosexual movement are its efforts for visibility, 
> especially through gay parades and public kisses, where gay couples kiss one 
> another challenging social mores. Through such actions, gay militants 
> publicize themselves and their cause. When challenging laws restricting or 
> prohibiting their public kisses, their maneuvers appeal for laws for their 
> protection and against prejudice. So a mere kiss in a busy shopping mall may 
> seem to them a significant legal achievement.
> Their major visibility strategy is parades.  In 2005, 75 parades throughout 
> Brazil were recorded.  In 2006, Brazil saw some 102 parades. The 2006 gay 
> parade in São Paulo drew 2.4 million.
> According to the Associated Press:
> The 10th annual Sao Paulo Gay Pride Parade saw go-go boys and drag queens 
> dancing on the roofs of sound trucks blasting music as they rolled down the 
> skyscraper-lined Avenida Paulista — the financial heart of Brazil’s biggest 
> city.
> The march came two days after police said about 3 million people joined an 
> evangelical Protestant rally on the same Sao Paulo avenue, demonstrating 
> their growing influence in the world’s largest Roman Catholic country.
> “The traditional church doesn’t want us,” said Pastor Justino Luis, 42, who 
> started a church serving 200 mostly gay and lesbian parishioners.
> Waving a banner with the words, “I’m Happy, Gay and Christian,” Luis said, “I 
> know (God) loves me the way I am, and I know when he made me he planned for 
> me to be the way I am.”[14]
> This visibility strategy is very effective, for two days before the gay 
> parade, evangelicals had their March for Jesus, yet the great media outlets 
> focused their attention on the gay rally.  The March for Jesus was largely 
> ignored, except for a few gays participating and trying to show that they 
> were also evangelical.
> The political actions are very intense too. Through the assistance of gay 
> lobby groups and leftist politicians, a Parliamentary Front for Free Sexual 
> Expression was founded, consisting of many members of the Chamber of the 
> Deputies. It seeks to introduce bills favoring the interests of the gay lobby.
> As for the gay lobby, it seeks:  1) Implementation and monitoring of the 
> Brazil Without Homophobia Program;  2) Decentralization of resources and 
> actions in STD and AIDS with gays and others;  3) Approval of two federal 
> laws by the National Congress (prohibiting discrimination due to sexual 
> orientation and registry of civil partnerships;  4) the Brazilian Resolution 
> in the UN’s Commission on Human Rights against discrimination due to sexual 
> orientation;  5) the defense of a secular State that is against religious 
> intolerance towards GLTB;  6) the National Day Against Homophobia and Gay 
> Pride Day.
> Gay and PT activist Beto de Jesus, who traveled to the U.S. some years ago to 
> be trained by his American counterparts and who has participated in the 
> Brazilian delegation to the UN, said: “We have a Parliamentary Front for the 
> Free Sexual Expression comprising almost 80 representatives and senators, but 
> we cannot pass federal laws due to the intolerance of religious 
> representatives (Catholics and evangelicals). Our Civil Partnership Bill has 
> been stuck in Congress since 1996, in spite of the efforts of Brazilian GLBT 
> groups — over 200 in the country.”[15]  This partnership bill was introduced 
> by former PT Representative Marta Suplicy, considered the Queen of Gays in 
> Brazil since the first conference of ILGA in Latin America in Rio in 1995.
> Even though the National Congress has not given its approval to the same-sex 
> civil partnership bill, gay activists are successfully conquering the 
> sympathy of activist judges. In Rio Grande do Sul State, in South of Brazil, 
> such judges are opening ways to gay marriage by giving to gay couples 
> significant victories. Judge Roberto Arriada Lorea told, “In no place is it 
> said that homosexuals are not allowed to marry and are not allowed to adopt a 
> child.” Since 2004, register offices in Rio Grande do Sul are bound to accept 
> the register of stable union for homosexuals, who are also entitled to 
> adopt.[16]
> Liberal mainline denominations in Brazil have embraced a psychological, 
> secularist stand on homosexuality. For example, the Evangelical Church of the 
> Lutheran Confession, a largely ethnic German denomination, officially 
> declared on homosexuality in 2001:
> There is among specialists, no absolute consensus nor in the science in 
> regard to the nature of homosexuality, nor in the biblical interpretation of 
> those passages referring to homosexuality. Neither there is such a consensus 
> in the Evangelical Church of Lutheran Confession.[17]
> The Roman Catholic Church has an official Vatican paper on homosexuality, but 
> their progressive bishops in Brazil have a hard time divulging it publicly.  
> Many Protestant churches have basically the same stand as the Vatican paper, 
> but most of them do not proclaim their views publicly.  In mainline liberal 
> Protestant churches, the stand is public, but there is an effort to avoid 
> Biblical condemnation to homosexuality. And while most of the conservative 
> churches keep silent on the issue, Brazil has seen the growth of gay 
> evangelical churches as the Metropolitan Community Church, a gay denomination 
> from the U.S.  Apart from the religious people, moral disapproval to 
> homosexuality has been rare, because of the social pressures condemning 
> prejudice and homophobia.
> However, many Brazilians, especially the poor and the less intellectual, are 
> protected from the electronic media, and they represent a serious hindrance 
> to the establishment of amoral liberalism, where homosexuality is just an 
> item of a larger, sinister agenda.
> Among evangelicals, there are some campaigns to reach out to men and women in 
> homosexuality. Movimento pela Sexualidade Sadia (Movement for a Healthy 
> Sexuality), an evangelical group headed by an ex-homosexual, leads efforts to 
> evangelize in gay parades, talking about Jesus to participants and delivering 
> leaflets featuring the testimonials of ex-gays and lesbians.
> Catholic and evangelical politicians have also been trying to counter the gay 
> tsunami through the introduction of bills. Among them are: Bill 2279/03 
> (Federal) authored by Representative Elimar Damasceno that makes illegal the 
> act of kissing between persons of the same sex in public; Bill 2177/03 
> (Federal) authored by Representative Neucimar Fraga that creates an aid and 
> assistance program for sexual reorientation of persons who voluntarily opt 
> for changing their sexual orientation from homosexuality to heterosexuality.
> State representative Edino Fonseca, an Assembly of God minister, introduced a 
> bill in the Rio de Janeiro State Legislature to establish social services to 
> support men and women wanting to leave homosexuality. He has also introduced 
> a bill to protect evangelical groups offering assistance to such men and 
> women from discrimination and harassment. His former bill was defeated by the 
> powerful gay lobby. The latter bill is facing severe opposition.  It says: 
> “No divulging of information on the possibility of support and/or the 
> possibility of sexual reorientation of homosexuals is to be considered 
> prejudice.”
> With the kind support of Focus on the Family and Dr. James Dobson, in 2004, I 
> was able to publish on several Brazilian websites, the document “The Gay 
> Agenda and the Sabotage of Human Rights,” written by Dr. Yuri Mantilla and 
> translated and adapted by me, exposing the Brazilian sexual orientation in 
> the UN. The following excerpts are from the document:
> The recognition of sexual orientation as a human right will demolish the 
> universal nature of human rights. If sexual orientation (homosexuality) is 
> recognized as a human right, laws that protect family in every country will 
> suffer grave assault and will be changed so that individuals practicing 
> homosexuality will have the right to marriage, to adopt children, affirmative 
> action and service in the military, among many other privileges. If the gay 
> lifestyle receives protection as a human rights issue, then the universal 
> meaning of the family will disappear. Such acceptance of homosexuality will 
> violate the rights of family and the legal meaning of marriage of the 
> overwhelming majority of people around the world. If human rights are 
> recognized based on the sexual behavior of persons practicing homosexual 
> acts, then what about the “rights” of pedophiles and other perverts? This 
> kind of approach, extremely subjective, knocks down the universal essence of 
> human rights. Homosexuality is not a human right, nor even a human need, but 
> only a desire to live sexually against nature, and such desires and behaviors 
> cannot be given protection and privileges.
> The draft resolution of the Brazilian government also says: “Call upon all 
> States to promote and protect the human rights of all persons regardless of 
> their sexual orientation.” This action will be a serious menace to the right 
> to religious freedom, a universally recognized fundamental human right. 
> Christianity and other important world religions consider homosexual behavior 
> to be a violation of God’s laws, and if the resolution is approved, it will 
> endanger the right to religious freedom of millions of Christians around the 
> world.  They could be prosecuted merely for expressing their beliefs about 
> homosexual conduct and for quoting texts from the Bible disapproving of 
> same-sex acts. Even without the approval of this resolution, it is impossible 
> to address the problem of propagation of homosexual behavior without 
> suffering, especially from the liberal press, accusations of homophobia (a 
> new word coined to discourage those wanting to discuss the problem 
> seriously), intolerance and religious extremism. Yet, the promotion of 
> homosexual behavior, especially among males, spreads atrocious diseases.[18]
> The resolution also notes “the attention given to human rights violations on 
> the grounds of sexual orientation by the special procedures in their reports 
> to the UNCHR, as well as by the treaty monitoring bodies, and encourages all 
> special procedures of the UNCHR, within their mandates, to give due attention 
> to the subject...”
> It is a strange paradox that a large country such as Brazil, with its huge 
> Catholic and Evangelical populations, is spearheading the invention of 
> special rights for individuals practicing homosexuality as a priority of its 
> foreign policy. Even though the pro-homosexuality position of the Brazilian 
> government could be seen by other Latin American nations as a totally novel 
> way to address human rights issues, this position is not new.  It was not 
> born in Latin America. For several years morally decadent Western nations 
> have, under the pressure of pro-homosexuality activists, pushed such ideas, 
> and they have always sought to influence less developed countries. The 
> current Brazilian government has demonstrated its willingness to follow and 
> conform to those influences.
> Canada and the European countries have been systematically advancing agendas 
> that are contrary to the legal, historical, and moral values of Latin 
> America. The promotion of abortion and special rights for individuals 
> practicing homosexuality is part of these agendas. What is really surprising 
> is the position of the Brazilian government, the main proponent of homosexual 
> “rights” at the UN Commission on Human Rights. The Socialist government of 
> Brazil is imitating the European pro-homosexual radicalism, and such 
> radicalism is contrary to the laws and culture of Brazil and Latin 
> America.[19]
> In the document, I introduced all the names, addresses, email and phone 
> contacts from the Brazilian ambassadors to the UN. This alert helped mobilize 
> some Catholic and evangelical leaders. Later, international gay groups 
> complained about the successful Brazilian grass-roots efforts to press the 
> Lula administration to abandonits sexual orientation resolution in the UN.
> Usually, medical literature in Brazil does not refer to homosexuality as an 
> abnormal behavior, for many fear the politically correct police. Yet, a 
> courageous evangelical psychologist Dr. Rozangela Justino, has founded 
> Abraceh, the Association for Support to the Human Being and Family, an NGO to 
> help men and women who want to leave homosexuality voluntarily.
> For her attitude of showing compassion to homosexuals in need, Dr. Justino 
> has been suffering threats and intimidations even from the Federal Council of 
> Psychology in Brazil.
> According to Dr. Justino, “Most of the psychoanalysts consider homosexuality 
> to be a perversion and in a general way psychologists understand 
> homosexuality as immaturity in the psychosexual development. The World Health 
> Organization classifies several behaviors linked to homosexuality as 
> disturbances and directs people to seek treatment for change. From a 
> spiritual perspective, it is a sin. Nevertheless, the Federal Council of 
> Psychology (FCP) issued the resolution below. Because FCP issued this 
> resolution, pro-homosexuality activists press the Rio de Janeiro FCP chapter 
> to punish me. I have been threatened by administrative lawsuits from the FCP 
> chapter, but they know that the Federal Constitution and the Declaration of 
> Human Rights favor me, for we still have scientific, expression, and 
> religious freedom in Brazil.”
> Below are excerpts from the Federal Council of Psychology Resolution
> 23 March 1999
> “It establishes norms of conduct for psychologists in regard to the subject 
> of Sexual Orientation.”
> WHEREAS, homosexuality is not a disease, disturbance or perversion;
> WHEREAS, Psychology can and should contribute through its knowledge to 
> clarify the subjects of sexuality, helping to overcome pre-judices and 
> discriminations;
> It determines
> Article 2: Psychologists should contribute, through their knowledge, to a 
> reflection on pre-judice and to the extinction of discrimination and 
> stigmatizations against those demonstrating homoerotic behaviors or practices.
> Article 3: Psychologists shall not use any action for making homoerotic 
> behaviors or practices pathological, nor shall they use coercion to direct 
> homosexuals to unsolicited treatments.
> Sole paragraph: Psychologists shall not collaborate with events and services 
> proposing treatment and cures of homosexualities.
> Article 4: Psychologists shall not offer their opinions, nor will they 
> participate in public pronouncements, in the media, with a view to 
> reinforcing existing social prejudices in regard to homosexuals as sufferers 
> of psychic disorders.
> The homosexual expansion has been extraordinary in Brazil, because gay 
> activists and their allies are completely focused on their goal. Likewise, 
> evangelical churches should focus on their responsibility to bring homosexual 
> men and women into a relationship with Christ.
> Both Catholics and evangelicals need to be delivered from Liberation Theology 
> and its Protestant versions, which keep them focused on many irrelevant and 
> diverting issues. In order to face the social, political, and legal 
> challenges from the gay activism, Christians in Brazil should have a social 
> and political involvement free from “progressive chains.”
> Even though many evangelicals disagree with the abortion and homosexual 
> position of the Lula administration, they are urged by “progressive” 
> propaganda to divert their attention to many other issues: health, education, 
> and job assistance to the poor, etc. Homosexuality and abortion are just 
> minor items on a long list of leftist interests on the agenda of evangélicos 
> progressistas. Sadly, evangelicals in Brazil are misled into believing that 
> Christian social action preached by the progressistas is the gospel.
> Therefore, to counter these evangelical misconceptions about social action, 
> there is a need to launch efforts to educate the evangelical public that 
> there is real social action other than the progressive approach. Thus they 
> would be better prepared to face adequately major challenges, such as 
> abortion and homosexuality. Of course the other issues would also be 
> addressed, but not from a leftist perspective.
> Brazilian people will choose their new president in 2006. Again, the 
> candidates promise social and political miracles and everything else 
> appealing to the hearts of the voters. The great tragedy is that, according 
> to polls, most evangelicals will vote for him who has during all of his 
> administration promoted just the values that the Bible condemns.
> -- 
> -- 
> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
> <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com>
> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to