The Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation of Europe (OSCE), the world’s largest regional security organization, rejected, almost unanimously, the Yogyakarta Principles. These principles, which are a comprehensive declaration of special new rights for individuals who identify as lesbian, homosexual, bisexual or transgender, sought to give special rights to homosexuals by their (re) interpretation of international laws. The OSCE did not agree by a vote of 27-3. Among the reasons given were:
1. It was not an accurate interpretation of international human rights laws…
2. …which would “diminish” the authority of OSCE
2. It contradicted religious beliefs and principles of other countries
The Philippines was a signatory to this paper. Incidentally, the U.N. also rejected making LGBT rights a recognized human right despite Hillary Clinton’s lobbying, since it also did not fall within the definition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 2 of the UN declaration states:
- Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
In the Philippines the LGBT movement has been trying to feverishly assert their influence in politics. After finally getting COMELEC approval as a congressional party list, they ran and lost dismally in the 2013 elections garnering a mere 0.37% of the required 2% to get a seat in congress.
It is estimated that about 1-3% of the population considers themselves as LGBT in one way or another. Fewer still consider themselves marginalized in a society that has been very tolerant and accepting of them.
Among the primary issues raised by these groups is the need for special protection of homosexuals against bullying but I argue that a general anti-bullying law should be able take care of that. Why should LGBT’s get special “anti-bullying” treatment? Pretty soon they’ll clamor for 20% off in services, like what we have for senior citizens. Imagine a senior citizen who is LGBT… hmmm thats 40% off!
At any rate, many of the crimes committed against LGBT’s are themselves perpetrated within their own social circle. I have been told by some gay activists that sometimes, police won’t investigate a criminal act done against a homosexual just because they are homosexual. Well the fact is many crimes perpetrated in our country are not given full attention, not out of gender identity bias, but out of either lack of resources, complacency or negligence.
A homosexual activist once told me that when gays hold hands in public, they don’t appreciate the stares or bird-calls they get. I said that those stares and bird-calls are bad behavior and regrettable but they hardly constitute a crime. I then asked, “do you want that criminalized?”, to which he replied. “maybe”. Isn’t it true that people innately stare at things that are unusual or unnatural. If you saw a flying saucer through your window the normal reaction would be (at least momentarily) to stare (then maybe freak out). It would be more abnormal to simply go about your business ignoring it. Now flying saucers are not gays holding hands but I’m sure you get my point.
My impression is that most of the arguments of the LGBT community, with regard to their “rights”, are based on an appeal to the emotion. This “martyr” or “pity” argument is a tired old method that seeks to instill some kind of guilt-complex on those who do not agree with their chosen lifestyle because that is what acting-out one’s gender identity-confusion is, a sexual habit, a lifestyle. I have gay friends whom I do not “preach” to but neither do I consent nor support what they do sexually and I feel no less guilty for not approving of their gay lifestyle any more than my disapproving of married friends who engage in extramarital affairs.
As a Christian, I think that we have failed miserably to impart the real dichotomy between the sin and the person. Being a homosexual is a very big cross on its own. The desire to marry and raise a family is not a possibility for those who want to live an authentic Christian life. Though there are forms of therapy that may work or organizations that help homosexuals with their struggles, not many have access to them or are conditioned to think that they won’t work. Our Catechism of the Church praises those who struggle and try to live a celibate life, she says…
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Few homosexuals understand what this teaching means and what it asks of them and the Church still lacks the resources to properly minister to those who want to change and live their Catholic lives fully. While we always have to stand for the truth, Christ asks that we also have to do it with compassion and charity as He did.
TheStrugglingDad 
“Few homosexuals understand what this teaching means”. No. It is very simple to understand. It is homophobic, and unnatural- it goes against the natural purpose of sexual intercourse, which is to unite two people into one, a gay couple or a straight couple. If you don’t believe that is the primary purpose of sexual intercourse, consider for a moment the proportion of copulations which lead to a live birth.
Thank you for your comment: Clare:”If you don’t believe that is the primary purpose of sexual intercourse, consider for a moment the proportion of copulations which lead to a live birth.”
That’s fallacious reasoning. Consider then that not one case of homosexual intercourse/sodomy will result in a pregnancy. Which means that while the common factor is that sex is pleasurable, it is there precisely for procreation. You are mixing-up the side-effect (pleasure), for its purpose, its end (procreation). If sex were there for mere gratification then why is it a natural phenomenon that men produce sperm and women ovulate? Sex is pleasurable because it is what drives man to propagate his species and survive (in animals it is driven by instinct). Man needs this drive because if you think about what it takes to have children, (the sleepless nights, the expense of raising them, having to form their characters), a person may decide “who needs this trouble”. It is there because sex between married couples is a unitive process, a commitment and there is nothing more committing than to bring a child into this world.
Let me give you a simpler analogy: Food is necessary for survival right? But you don’t just eat anything without properly preparing it to be palatable to you. Why? Because the pleasure of eating is in some ways necessary to make one ingest the food and survive. We never say that food is there because it gives us pleasure to eat, that’s the side-effect of having to prepare food to be ingestible to survive.
why is it rare or next to impossible for a gay and a lesbian to really love each other, marry and have a family ? I DO NOT GET THAT ! If you say, ‘ they have to be of the same sex,’ well I would answer, ‘ they are !’ Think about it !
Very well written. Being of Filipino descent, I pray for the future of the Philippines but I fear that your country is going the way of so many other countries, including mine, Canada.