GAY TRUTH

NEW YORK, - On Human Rights Day , famous athletes and UN officials met at UN headquarters to condemn what they consider to be discrimination against homosexuals. Russia took the brunt of the criticism ahead of the Winter Olympics to be held in Sochi next February. It is the first of several countries that have enacted a law to protect children from information that glamorizes unhealthy sexual behaviors, homosexuality being considered one of them. US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power called Russia’s law “as outrageous as it is dangerous” at a press conference early in the day. “Sports have the power to change the world,” Czech tennis star Martina Navratilova told homosexual and transgender activists at an event at UN headquarters. Given Russia’s increasing international influence, that law is particularly problematic to homosexual activists and critics. Ambassador Power said that discriminating against homosexuals is “barbarism” and spent the morning at a strategy s

In a loss for homosexual groups at the United Nations , member states declined to establish a special UN office for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights last week. Earlier this year, UN insiders told the Friday Fax that homosexual and transgender rights would soon become mainstream at the United Nations. But their predictions failed to materialize at the current session of the Human Rights Council . Member states declined to create a special office to monitor LGBT rights globally, and proponents did not table a resolution to that effect because it would have likely failed. Norway , speaking on behalf of countries that supported such an office, told the Council on Monday that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender ( LGBT ) issues should be integrated into the UN systematically at an “appropriate time”— effectively conceding this is impossible right now. Norway was part of a small group of countries that sponsored a conference calling for  LGBT rights in April,

March 25, 2013 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) - This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two of the most critical cases of our time. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against California’s Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State’s pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife. Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law. Although both cases certainly address a multitude of legal and political issues, they also involve a number of moral and cultural considerations that, if wrongly decided, will literally shake Western civilization to the core. The stakes could not be higher. Of central concern is whether

GENEVA, March 25, 2013 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A recent United Nations   report  on torture and mistreatment in health care systems around the world singled out lack of access to abortion as a form of “torture,” classifying it as a human rights violation on par with female genital mutilation , forced sterilizations and state-sanctioned beatings.  The report also says governments should recognize the preferred sex of ‘transgender’ individuals without regard to biology, arguing that forcing such people to undergo sex-reassignment surgery in order to prove their case is equivalent to torture.  “In many countries, transgender persons are required to undergo often unwanted sterilization surgeries as a prerequisite to enjoy legal recognition of their preferred gender,” the report stated. “In Europe, 29 States require sterilization procedures to recognize the legal gender of transgender persons. … As at 2008, in the United States of America , 20 states required a transgender person to und

( Zenit.org ) – November 2012 marked the first time gender identity was included as a specific protected classification in a United Nations General Assembly anti-discrimination resolution. This wording is significant because it elevates gender identity to the same level as race, creed, religion and sexual orientation. Yet this term is ambiguous and there is no clear agreement as to what discrimination on the basis of gender identity means. Bringing such uncertainty into the language of international law opens the door for broad assertions of rights for those who claim to be “transgendered.” In its broadest, most widely agreed upon sense, discrimination means to single out a person or group for unfair or unjust treatment. The United Nations declared that no one should be subject to summary execution or extrajudicial killings on the basis of race, creed, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. Certainly, no one advocates that those with a gender identity disorder should be

GENEVA, September 21, 2012, ( C-FAM )— UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon courted controversy last week when he told nations on the Human Rights Council to place lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual rights and reproductive rights at the forefront of the United Nations human rights agenda. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Ban Ki-moon addressed UN delegations at the opening of the 21st regular session of the Human Rights Council, applauded the work of the Council in 2012, and said that “in particular, I welcome the groundbreaking, first-ever intergovernmental discussion, in March this year, on discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” The Secretary General was referring to  a highly controversial panel discussion  on LGBT rights that took place during the last regular session of the Human Rights Council. Seventeen of the 47 states that are members of the Human Rights Council staged a walk out on the panel of experts. On that occasio

Author:  John Milbank  is  Research Professor  of Politics,  Religion and Ethics  at the  University of Nottingham , Director of the  Centre of Theology and Philosophy The controversy surrounding gay marriage has now reached a fever pitch in countries like  Australia  and the  UK , as governments have begun to move past debate and towards legislative change. While such intensity can have the benefit of clarifying just what is at stake - on both sides of the  argument  - it can also obscure some of the deeper, intrinsically related issues. So, in the UK, the arguments put forward by the coalition government in favour of legalising gay marriage have been, appropriately, at once liberal and conservative. In liberal terms it is seen as a matter of equal rights; in conservative terms a matter of promoting the good of faithful, long-term relationships for homosexual as well as  heterosexual  people. Those resisting the change - mostly, but not entirely, religious people - argue that the iss