EU: Courageous NGO exposes hypocrisy of LGBT agenda
Posted on | June 13, 2012 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D. |
As the followers of this blog will know, I have already at various occasions informed about the fake “non-governmental” organisation ILGA Europe and its very special links to the European Commission, which funds 70% of the controversial pressure group’s operational budget with taxpayers’ money.
The close relationship between ILGA Europe and the European Commission does not end there. In May 2011, the Commission sponsored and hosted at its seat, the Berlaymont building in Brussels, a photo exhibition entitled “Different Families, Same Love”, which was organized by ILGA Europe. While normally the lobby of the Berlaymont is used to host art exhibitions, this time it became the stage for a highly controversial political propaganda, which, it must be supposed, provoked among visitors and Commission staff reactions ranging from astonishment to disgust.
The fact that the Commission not only hosted and co-financed the project, but that Commission Vice President Viviane Reding even bestowed her personal patronage upon it, created the impression that ILGA Europe’s agenda and that of the EU executive are one and the same.
But is the European Commission allowed to take a position on issues such as “same-sex marriage”, adoption rights for homosexuals, or similar? Does it fall within the remit of the European Commission’s competences to lend patronage and financial support to propaganda that, with regard to such matters, praises the policy of certain Member States and condemns those of others? Is it an appropriate use of the EU budget to finance such propaganda?
The answer to these questions obviously is that issues related to marriage and the family remain in the exclusive competence of Member States, and that therefore the Commission has neither the right to take any political position on those issues, nor the right to spend public money on them. Thus, the Commission’s hosting and providing patronage to the ILGA exhibition represents a misuse of power and money. Moreover, with regard to the Commission’s own staff (many of which obviously do not accept ILGA’s rather peculiar interpretation of “fundamental rights”), the support provided to the disgusting propaganda might even be seen as a form of harassment at the workplace.
Unfortunately, the scandal never became the object of an official enquiry (except for a number of written questions by the European Parliament, to which the Commission gave some rather evasive answers). It is all the more useful that the Brussels-based NGO “European Dignity Watch” is now publishing on its website a “mini series” in which it analyses the content of the ILGA posters, thereby systematically exposing the hypocrisy and fallacy in the rhetoric used by the homosexualist lobby. As those who read the series will not fail to see, the LGBT lobby uses human rights vocabulary to fight against human rights, notably those of the children who, as victims of gay adoption, are turned into some kind of commodity for gays and lesbians wishing to play “family”.
Given that the strategy (posturing as “victims of discrimination”, whining for “equality”) and the rhetoric (i.e. using uncontroversial and widely accepted concepts such as “human rights”, “family”, etc., and subjecting them to a radical re-interpretation) of the homosexualist lobby always remains the same, the mini series is highly recommendable reading, even for those who have never met, or will never meet, the ILGA posters. Indeed, one can read it as a crash course in understanding and debunking LGBT propaganda.
The first part of the series analyses the motto of the exhibition “Different Families, Same Love”:
The classic concept of justice is that like things must be treated alike, different things must be treated differently, and everything must be treated according to its inherent value and merit. The attempt to advocate for legal recognition and equal treatment of so-called “LGBT families” in a photo exhibition under the slogan “Different families, same love“ is thus self-defeating: If, as it explicitly acknowledges, “LGBT families” are different from “normal” families, why then should they both be treated equally? In fact, as is apparent from the exhibition’s slogan, the “equal recognition, rights, and respect” called for by this photo exhibition would be equal treatment of what is, in actual fact, very unequal.
In order to resolve this apparent paradox, the slogan suggests that, despite outward differences, the same “love” exists in each type of “family”. It is the existence of this “same love” that seems to be the main justification for equal treatment.
But this raises more questions than it answers.
Firstly, how do the exhibition organizers know that the “same love” is found in different families? How is love measured? How is it defined? And, perhaps more importantly, are the “recognition, rights, and respect” that families are to enjoy simply compensation or a reward for exemplifying mutual love?
Even if we choose to believe that the organizers of the exhibition are not using “love” simply as a synonym for “sexual activity”, we must remember that “love” can have very different meanings.
How are these different types of “love” commensurate? If the “love” they supposedly embody has not been — cannot be — measured, then how can anyone pretend to reward such relationships with “equal recognition, rights, and respect”?
These questions are all side-stepped by the photo exhibition’s slogan, “Different families, same love”, whose strength (and impact) is found precisely in the fact that it is purely emotional and has no verifiable basis: It cannot be proved nor disproved. It must then be taken as an article of faith (and whoever dares to question it is a heretic).
Obviously the main purpose of this photo exhibition is to promote a new concept of “family” and, with it, a new concept of “marriage”. It aims to extend the concept of the family to “LGBT families” and to widen the concept of marriage to include “marriages” between two persons of the same sex.
This process of redefinition requires an unbundling of marriage from procreation and descent: If two persons of the same sex can marry, then the begetting and rearing of children is obviously no longer a distinct characteristic of marriage. Spouses can thus define the purpose of marriage for themselves.
The concept of the family is thus no longer determined by the natural criteria of marriage and descent. The novel concept of the “family” is not based on natural bonds but rather on choice: As a first step, each person chooses his or her “sexual orientation”; as a second step, two “partners” choose each other; and as a third step, they choose whether or not to have children. If they are of the same sex and cannot have children, they can then choose whether to have children through adoption, artificial insemination, or by using the services of a surrogate mother.
It is unclear, though, how much choice this new concept of the family leaves to the children involved.
This is thus the fundamental difference between the natural and novel concepts of “family”: The former is based on nature, while the latter is based on arbitrary choice. While two persons of different sex are by nature capable of founding a family through procreation and descent, two persons of the same sex are not. The novel concept of “same-sex families” is thus a legal artifice in which the natural bond between parents and children is substituted by legal acts (such as adoption) or technical manipulations (such as the artificial insemination of a lesbian woman with a donor’s semen). This difference is what lies at the heart of the debate around the novel concept of “families”.
The second part deals with the issue of “same-sex marriage”:
Given that there is no common European position on whether or not same-sex couples should be given any legal status (or whether or not homosexual couples should be considered “families”), it is awkward for the European Commission to take any position on this issue. It is also inappropriate for the Commission to publicly praise some Member States while criticizing others.
“Rule of law” concerns should have instead compelled the Commission to call attention to those Member States which, by allowing same-sex couples to enter into registered partnerships or marriage, have unilaterally and without consultation breached the pre-existing universal consensus on marriage and family. It is precisely those Member States who are most responsible for the legal fragmentation and inconsistencies that are deplored on this poster.
I will keep readers informed of the following parts of the mini series in due course.
