The Gay Agenda and the Sabotage of Human Rights The Implications of Pro-Homosexuality Language in the United Nations Documents
By Julio Severo
In 2004, Brazil was a pioneer in introducing in the United Nations the first resolution classifying homosexuality as an inalienable human right. Brazil was then under the administration of socialist President Luís Inácio “Lula” da Silva. Lula led the United Nations campaign to advance homosexuality, and I, as a conservative evangelical Brazilian, author of the first Brazilian book against the homosexual movement (“O Movimento Homossexual” [The Homosexual Movement], originally published by the Brazilian branch of Bethany House Publishers in 1998), led a pro-family campaign against Lula’s initiative. I publish again my main article against this initiative for seeing in Brazil the administration of President Jair Bolsonaro making room for gay activism. I also publish because President Donald Trump has also made room for gay activism. Conservative evangelicals in Brazil and the United States were distressed by Lula and Obama because of their homosexual activism. Bolsonaro and Trump should not try to make room for this activism. Here is my original article, just as it was published in 2004. It was the main Brazilian opposition to Lula’s resolution in the United Nations, but even being so old it has many lessons for Bolsonaro and Trump:
I. The Purpose of the International Human Rights System
The entire concept of human rights law is based on the fact that each human being has inalienable rights because of his or her intrinsic dignity. These rights exist because each human being has been created in God’s image. Human rights do not find their origin in governments nor international organizations, but from God’s law.
In reaction to the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime, the international community created a system for the protection of fundamental human rights. The cornerstone of that system is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to one of its main authors, Rene Cassin, it was founded upon the Ten Commandments of the Bible. Pointing to the importance of the Universal Declaration for all countries, Harvard law professor, Mary Ann Glendon wrote:
“Together with the Nuremberg Principles of international criminal law developed by the Allies in 1946 for the trials of German and Japanese war criminals and the 1948 Genocide Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights became a pillar of a new international system under which a nation’s treatment of its own citizens was no longer immune from outside scrutiny. The Nuremberg Principles, by sanctioning prosecutions for domestic atrocities committed in wartime, represented a determination to punish the most violent sorts of assaults on human dignity. The Genocide Convention obligated its signers to prevent and punish acts of genocide, whether committed in times of war or in peace. [However], the Universal Declaration was more ambitious. Proclaiming that ‘disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind,’ it aimed at prevention rather than punishment.”
Today, the Declaration is the single most important reference point for international discussions of how to order our future together on our increasingly conflict-ridden and interdependent world.
According to Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
* Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
* The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
According to Article 18,
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…
Unfortunately, the goals of the Universal Declaration and the fundamental rights expressed in that document are under constant attack by forces that are trying to destroy the right to family and religious freedom. These forces are promoting the acceptance of several perverted concepts, including homosexuality as an internationally-recognized human right.
Referring to the main authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Habib C. Malik, son of former Lebanese Foreign Minister Charles Malik, wrote:
“One disturbing phenomenon gaining ground today can best be described as the systemic hijacking of human rights to serve special interests and promote dubious agendas of a political and generally secular nature.”
II. Inter-American System of Human Rights
The overwhelming majority of laws in Latin America also recognize the right to family and the right to religious freedom as fundamental human rights. This is seen in the Inter-American system of human rights.
According to the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man,
“Since moral conduct constitutes the noble flowering of culture, it is the duty of every man always to hold it in high respect.” (Preamble)
“Every person has the right freely to profess a religious faith, and to manifest and practice it both in public and in private.” (Article III)
“Every person has the right to establish a family, the basic element of society, and to receive protection therefore.” (Article VI)
According to the American Convention on Human Rights,
“Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience and of religion. This right includes freedom to maintain or to change one’s religion or beliefs, and freedom to profess or disseminate one’s religion or beliefs, either individually or together with others, in public or in private.” (Article 12.1)
“The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.” (Article 17.1)
Even though in Europe family and religion have less and less protection from the hostility of pro-homosexualism activists, in Latin America family and religion (especially Christianity) have always been entitled to a protection above special interests groups. For several years, it seemed that the advancement of gay ideology in the legal system was a problem uniquely affecting only the United States, Canada and the nations of Europe, where homosexual militants have challenged laws not favoring their lifestyle. Yet, perhaps because of the pervasive cultural globalization, now the laws and culture of Latin America are also under constant attack by the same forces that have gained ground in Europe and North America. These forces are trying to impose homosexuality as a human right and corrupt the meaning of family’s protection and religious freedom.
III. The Subversion of the Meaning and Content of International Human Rights
To understand the origin of new efforts to promote homosexual behavior as a human right and destroy the meaning of the right to family and religious freedom, it is important to understand the legal worldview of those who promote homosexuality.
The natural law foundations of international human right are under incessant assault by powerful groups promoting deconstruccionism and critical legal studies. Those groups maintain juridical worldviews which reject the objective existence of international law and natural law. According to Weston:
“Starting in the early 1980’s, a provocative attempt to rethink the basis of traditional legal theory began to make itself felt in the field of international law, challenging the view of law as rational, objective, and principled by deconstructing traditional legal arguments and thereby exposing the contradictions and indeterminacies of legal doctrines, principles, and rules. An extension of the “post-modern” legal scholarship is called “critical legal studies” (CLS) or “critical jurisprudence”.
“To the CLS theorist, objectivity does not exist except within the minds and prejudices of the naïve…”
“For the CLS theorist, the claims of rational or objective rules only cloak the real forces behind all legal language and structure: politics.”
As a result of the increasing influence of the Critical Legal Studies perspective, feminist jurisprudence and the so-called “queer legal theory” are gaining increasing influence. The latter perspective views law as an instrument to promote the homosexual agenda.
As part of the increasing influence of these types of extreme subjective and anarchical approaches, there is a tendency to distort the objective meaning of human rights. These actions are direct attacks on the concept of human rights. If they succeed, they will lead to the misrepresentation of the significance and meaning of human rights, and power politics will become the only criteria to define the meaning and content of international human rights.
IV. Sexual Orientation and the UN Commission on Human Rights
In the post modern world, the meaning of words is constantly manipulated, especially in the United Nations where things are not as they seem. For the architects of the “new” language of human rights, “reproductive health” and “reproductive right” include abortion, “sexual orientation” means homosexuality, “gender” comprehends homosexualism and other sexual perversions and the concept of the “family” includes homosexual and other types of “families.”
One example of the influence of the pro-homosexualism conception of law is seen in the efforts of some members of the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) to pass a resolution to recognize “sexual orientation” (or homosexuality) as a human right.
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, homosexual marriage and affirmative action (which means that social and legal measures should be employed to favor persons solely because of their homosexual lifestyle). So the strategy to push those special rights for homosexualism was carefully shrouded by the artful use of the “sexual orientation” language.
The resolution was a surprise to the Brazilian Congress in Brasilia, which learnt about it only some time after the Brazilian delegation in the UN had already presented it. It was a surprise to Evangelical leaders, for before the 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 Brazilian government’s interests and views, has defended just these issues, under a carefully-veiled language of “reproductive rights” and “sexual orientation”.
Representative Dr. Elimar Damasceno requested directly from the Brazilian government an explanation on its resolution in the UN. He noted that it “deals about a subject where there are not approved laws in our country and where there is no consensus in our society, because of its religious and cultural consequences.The Foreign Affairs Ministry in Brasilia refuted,
…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 is explicitly favorable to the promotion and protection of the minority rights.
So according to the Brazilian government’s view, those practicing homosexuality are a minority deprived of protection. According to the draft of that 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.”
In reality, 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 may 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 type 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 the nature, and such desires and behaviors cannot be given legal 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 who could be prosecuted merely for expressing their beliefs about homosexual conduct and for quoting texts from the Bible disapproving the 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.
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…”
The UN Commission on Human Rights was not created to support the desires and abnormal sexual behaviors of special interest groups that promote homosexuality, and it should not spend its time implementing norms that go against the right to religious freedom and the rights of family of the overwhelming majority of people around the world.
V. Brazil, Canada and the European Union: the Main Promoters of the Homosexual Issue in the UNHRC
It is not a surprise that among the members of the Commission that sponsored the resolution were Germany, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Great Britain and Sweden. The other non-member commission countries that sponsored the resolution were Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Luxemburg, Norway, Netherlands, Portugal and the Czech Republic. In contrast, no Latin American nation sponsored it. In fact, those countries in Latin America which had chosen not to vote changed their position and promised to vote against it when they perceived what it really implies. The most outspoken sponsor of the Brazilian resolution was the Canadian government, which has adopted a very radical position favoring homosexuality in its own country. In 2003 the Canadian courts decided to recognize homosexual marriages.
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 new Socialist government of Brazil is imitating the European pro-homosexualism radicalism and such radicalism is contrary to the laws and culture of Latin America.
What a 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 America nations as a totally novel way to address human rights issues, this position is not new. Besides, it was not originally born in Latin America. For several years morally decadent Western nations have, under the pressure of pro-homosexualism 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.
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 the latter. His administration has proposed the sexual-orientation resolution in the UN and, domestically, 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. Yet, his actions are not new and they are not original from Brazil. American and European societies have, under the pressure of special-interests groups, known such political experiences for a number of years. Interestingly, in the racial issue, advocates of affirmative action in Europe and in the USA are swift to point and condemn the slavery of blacks by whites in the past and exploit such situation 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 African nations countries, including modern-day Sudan. So the notion of affirmative action, as originally employed in the developed nations by special-interests groups and as is 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.
The Brazilian government itself, which uses to see those practicing homosexuality as a minority deprived of protection, confesses that if a minority receives special rights, all other minorities are entitled to these rights too. In his defense of the pro-homosexualism resolution of the Brazilian government in the UN, 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 to 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…
By defending human right status for homosexual conduct, Brazil is stimulating the re-definition of the concept of family, marriage and religious freedom. The sexual-orientation language the Brazilian government is proposing in the UN will be the ideal tool for the gay-ideology activists to be able internationally to push homosexual marriage and a relative concept of family which includes homosexual, transgender, and bi-sexual persons forming unions and adopting children. If the homosexual behavior is favored with such protection, the natural family will be made more vulnerable and less protected against the action of the special-interests groups, including the pro-homosexualism activists. All of them want to bring about the weakening and ruin of the natural family. So the Brazilian position is a direct attack on the Evangelical and Catholic Churches and their right to freedom of religion. According to these faiths, homosexual conduct is a sin and marriage is only between a man and a woman.
The Latin American consensus is pro-family and pro-religious freedom. The consensus of the most of the Brazilian people, which is Catholic and Evangelical, is against rights and privileges for the gay behavior and any other wicked behavior. Therefore the Brazilian government should respect such consensus and stop from defending distorted European values. It should also withdraw its pro-homosexualism resolution, for it is contrary to the laws and culture of Latin America. It is time to stand up for Latin American values and resist following the neo-cultural, pro-homosexualism, imperialistic policies of Western Europe. A small group of gay-ideology advocates should not be allowed to succeed in recreating the concept of “family” and “religious freedom” in its distorted image of reality.
VI. The Influence of UN Resolutions in the Domestic Laws of Nations
If the UN Commission on Human Rights approves the Brazilian proposal, then the United Nations and countries around the world will have to regard homosexual behavior to be a fundamental human right.
Such change will let advocates of the worldwide gay agenda free to defend homosexual conduct as a human right and, therefore, to promote gay marriage and affirmative action. So individuals practicing same-sex acts will be protected as an oppressed group, and the protection to the gay behavior will be recognized as part of customary international law. If this occurs, then pro-homosexualism activists will be able to argue that there is an emerging norm of customary international law that recognizes homosexual conduct as a human right.
In light of the fact that international norms are recognized by the Constitutions of nations of the world (including Latin America) as having the same authority as domestic law, then it is easy to imagine that homosexual behavior, homosexual marriage and affirmative action will also eventually be recognized as part of the domestic laws of Latin American countries, Brazil and the rest of the world. Nations will be obligated to recognize the force of international customary law and accept, as part of their domestic laws, homosexual conduct, homosexual marriage and affirmative action.
A. Can treaties negotiated between States eventually be imposed as international legal obligations?
There is a common assumption that declarations issuing from the United Nations are irrelevant because they are not binding international treaties. This assumption is false. International declarations can become evidence of the existence of norms of customary law. According to Thomas Buergenthal, a leading international law scholar and a Judge on the International Court of Justice in The Hague:
“In recent decades, resolutions and similar acts of intergovernmental international organizations have acquired a very significant status both as sources and as evidence of international law… Some of these resolutions (declarations, recommendations, etc.) can and do become authoritative evidence of international law.”
B. How do acts other than treaties become evidence of the existence of international law?
According to Professor Buergenthal:
“To understand how acts of international organizations acquire this status, it is important to recall that customary international law evolves through state practice to which states conform out of a sense of legal obligation. How states vote and what they say in international organizations is a form of state practice. Its significance in the law-making process depends upon the extent to which this state practice is consistent with the contemporaneous conduct and pronouncements of states in other contexts.”
The concept of “state practice,” mentioned above, shows the importance of the public positions that Latin American delegations will take at the UN Commission on Human Rights regarding the Brazilian resolution on sexual orientation.
According to Buergenthal:
“Because of the consensual character of customary and conventional international law, and because of the absence of a centralized legislative or judicial system, states play a dual role in the law-making process: they act both as legislators and as advocates or lobbyists. . . . They are legislators or lawmakers in the sense that the practice of states and the treaties which states conclude create international law. States also assert certain claims on the international plane in their diplomatic correspondence, in international courts, in international organizations, etc., through which they seek to obtain new rules of international law or to modify existing ones. Their individual assertions about what is or is not law, particularly customary law, is a form of lobbying or advocacy; it becomes law-making when these claims find the broad-based support that is required to transform them into law. Claims by governments about what is or is not law must take the law-making consequences of their actions into account.”
The pro-homosexualism resolution of the Brazilian government is certain to come up again at the next session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in March and April, 2004. If Latin American diplomats at the United Nations support the current Brazilian government in its promotion of language such as “sexual orientation” in the UN documents, then their actions may contribute to making the “right” to homosexual conduct a norm of customary international law, which can, in turn, be applied in (and against) Latin America. Thomas Jacobson, the U.N. policy analyst at Focus on the Family, said not only would the resolution help grant worldwide acceptance of homosexuality, but passage also would put millions of children at risk. “That would lead to pedophilia becoming promoted worldwide,” he said. “Because in U.N. international documents there are no age, gender or marriage restrictions on sexual rights.”
VII. The Latino Experience in the United States
Family values are an essential part of the Latino culture. Unfortunately, the family is under constant attack by the forces that want to deconstruct the institutions of marriage and family. These forces seek to promote homosexual marriage, and if they successfully implement their agenda, the meaning of marriage and family will be destroyed.
According to the “National Survey on Latinos in America,” 73 percent of Latinos consider homosexual relations to be wrong. In the United States, the Latino community expressed their will against efforts to promote homosexual marriage by supporting Proposition 22 in California, a declaration defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. According to a CNN poll, 70 percent of U.S. Hispanics voted for that proposition. The rejection of the gay agenda by the U.S. Hispanic community was also seen in the mobilizations against assembly bill 1338 in California, which pretended to give all the benefits of marriage to homosexual civil unions.
VIII. A Reasonable Response
The great majority of international public opinion, especially in Latin America, the US, Middle East, Africa and Asia, indorses the position that the homosexual conduct must not be privileged through a human right status. The pro-homosexualism individuals need to be reminded that according to natural law and the laws of the majority of nations, marriage is the union between a man and a woman, and that homosexual conduct is a human abnormal desire and behavior instead of a human normal need or right. That desire and behavior lead many into a life of loneliness, depression and ruins the essential qualities of human sexual relations.
A small group of radical individuals should not be allowed to remake the entire world and its laws in their image. People around the world should respond to the needs of individuals oppressed and enslaved by homosexual desires and practices in a compassionate manner, to help them succeed against their sexual addictions. We should also respond in a firm manner to the extremist groups which want to impose the gay agenda on society, for to protect fundamental human rights of family, marriage and religious freedom is infinitely more important than protecting a sexual conduct that is against nature and a serious menace to the well-being of the natural family. Family is worth to fight for; sexual orientation is not.
According to Philosopher Richard Neuhaus,
“Having failed in the arena of politics where we democratically deliberate how we ought to order our life together, the homosexual movement has no choice but to vest its hopes in courts, government regulations, professional organizations, and the bureaucracies of the public school system. In these arenas their victories have been substantial, and they aspire to much more. In all these arenas, the movement must be challenged at every step–fearlessly, calmly, reasonably, relentlessly. The good of innumerable individuals . . . and the common good, depend on it.”
Homosexuality is a human desire and behavior, not a human need or right. Therefore, the promotion of the gender and transgender perspectives is contrary to the defense of true human rights. To equate the desires and practices of gay groups with minority rights is to damage irreparably the essence of human rights that promote, among others benefits, the principles of equality and dignity of human beings, not the abnormal sexual desires and practices of certain groups.
Pro-homosexualism activists are making significant efforts to alter the language of human rights and exploit the civil rights of minority groups to fit their agenda. They will try to introduce laws to favor their lifestyle based on the concepts of tolerance, antidiscrimination and affirmative action used to favor minority groups. To combat such ideas and actions, it is important to remind that homosexual behavior cannot be equated with unchangeable racial characteristics and ethnic identity. Also, unlike, many ethnic minorities, gay persons are generally wealthier and have a disproportionate access to political power. According to Dan Garcia, former policy analyst of the Family Research Council:
“Though different research and marketing firms use different homosexual population numbers, ranging from the actual one percent to an inflated 10 percent or more, research shows that homosexuals fare at least as well or better than the rest of the country… Homosexuals display political power far beyond their numbers, despite constituting only about 1 percent of the population.”
Those who believe in objective justice have a moral obligation to defend the concepts of human rights from the forces that are trying to deconstruct the meaning of family, marriage, rights, and gender. According to Richard Neuhaus:
“It must be unmistakably clear that ours is a concern for justice. Justice for people, especially young people caught in sexual perplexity and assailed from within and without by pressures to consign themselves to a way of life that is marked by compulsion, loneliness, depression, and disease. Justice also for the integrity of our public life, which requires that truth be spoken with candor and disagreements be engaged with civility. Justice, finally, for millions of [people]–mothers, fathers, and children–who need all the support they can get to sustain in the present and transmit to the future the ‘little platoon’ of love and fidelity that the family is meant to be.”
The gay agenda aims to obliterate the natural, God-given essence of family and marriage. The struggle for justice against the imposition of this agenda through the introduction of pro-homosexualism language in national and international documents is not based on prejudice, but on the concept of Christian love and compassion. It is also based on the responsibility to protect the natural family and the rights of religious people throughout the world against all kinds of assaults, including from the forces which want to promote special rights for the homosexual conduct through a Trojan horse entitled “sexual orientation”.
This article was based on the original paper original Why ”Sexual Orientation” is Not a Human Right, written by Yuri Mantilla, whom I am thankful for the special permission to use his precious research. Copyright 2004 Julio Severo. Mr. Severo is the author of the book O Movimento Homossexual (The Homosexual Movement), published in Brazil by Editora Betânia. E-mail: [email protected]
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
You can send emails and faxes to the Brazilian president and UN ambassadors. Let them know, in a polite and clear way, that you would like the Brazilian government to defend in the UN the rights and interests of family, not those of the pro-homosexualism activists. Below I give an example of message, in Portuguese and English, you can use:
Prezado Sr. Presidente Lula (ou Prezado Sr. Embaixador)
Estou triste com o fato de que o governo brasileiro tenha apresentado na Comissão de Direitos Humanos da ONU a Resolução sobre Direitos Humanos e Orientação Sexual, defendendo a questão controvertida de “orientação sexual”. O consenso da maioria da população do Brasil, que é católica e evangélica, é a favor da família em sua essência, porém os ativistas gays demonstram forte agressão e oposição ao sentido natural do casamento, que só é legítimo entre um homem e uma mulher. Eles também lutam para que possam, como se fossem uma família normal, adotar crianças, pondo-as assim piscologica, física e espiritualmente em risco.
Amo as pessoas que praticam os atos homossexuais, mas não amo seus atos, não amo nenhuma violência contra elas e também não desejo apoiar nenhuma política do nosso governo para favorecer o homossexualismo.
Por favor, peço-lhe considerar o consenso do nosso país, que é contra direitos especiais baseados exclusivamente na conduta homossexual de um indivíduo. Peço-lhe renunciar à sua resolução na ONU e votar contra toda e qualquer resolução semelhante defendendo “orientação sexual”.
Que Deus, em suas misericórdias, o esclareça.
[Coloque aqui o seu nome.]
Dear Mr. President (or Dear Mr. Ambassador)
I am disappointed that the government of Brazil has introduced in the United Nations Humans Rights Commission the Resolution on Human Rights and Sexual Orientation, defending the controversial issue “sexual orientation”. The consensus of the most of population in Brazil, that is Christian, is for family, but the gay activists demonstrate strong aggression and opposition against the natural meaning of marriage, which legitimate and rightful only between a man and a woman. They also fight for special rights, so that they may, as they were a normal family, adopt children, endangering them psychologically, physically and spiritually.
I love people who practice the homosexual acts, but I do not love their acts, I do not love any violence against those people and I do not also wish any political action from my government to favor homosexualism.
I ask you please to consider the consensus of my country, which is against special rights based exclusively on the homosexual behavior of a person. I ask you not to support the Brazilian resolution in the session of the UN Human Rights Commission next March and April and vote against every and any similar resolution defending “sexual orientation”.
[Your name should be put here.]
Where you should send your messages to:
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
Office of the President
Republica Federativa do Brasil
Palácio do Planalto
Praça dos 3 Poderes 70150-900 Brasilia DF Brasil
Min. of Foreign Affairs or Sec. of State
Minister of Foreign Relations Celso Amorim
Ministério das Relações Exteriores
Palácio Itamaraty – Esplanada dos Ministérios – Bloco H CEP: 70170-900
Brasilia DF Brasil
Telephone: (61) 411-6350 / 6351 / 6352 / 6353
Fax: (61) 322-6275, 55 61 411 6993
UN Geneva Mission Permanent Rep
Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassadeur SE Luiz Felipe de
Delegação Permanente em Genebra
Delegation du bresil
Case postale 165
Avenue Louis Casaï 71 1216 Cointrin SUISSE
Telephone: (4122) 929 09 00
Fax: (4122) 788-2505/2506
UN NY Mission Permanent Rep
Permanent Representative to the UN HE Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg
Brazil Permanent Mission to the UN, NY
747 3rd AVE 9TH FLOOR 10017-2803 New York NY USA
Telephone: (001212) 372-2600 / 832-6868
Fax: (1212) 963-4879, (1212) 371-5716/758-9242
 Requerimento de Informações nº 408, de 2003, do Dep. Elimar Máximo Damasceno, Câmara dos Deputados, Brasília.
 Ofício nº 34, do Ministério das Relações Exteriores, Brasília, datado de 11 de julho de 2003.
 The Religion & Society Report, November 2003, p. 6.
 Ofício nº 34, do Ministério das Relações Exteriores, Brasília, datado de 11 de julho de 2003.
To follow Julio Severo in Twitter and Facebook: Twitter: http://twitter.com/julioseverous Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Blog-Julio-Severo/185623904807430