Um Gay Pode Ser Contra o Aborto? Os "Conservadores" Americanos e Europeus

Eu acho muito estúpido no Reino Unido chamarem o ex-primeiro ministro David Cameron e a atual primeira-ministra Theresa May de conservadores. Ambos apoiam e promovem "com orgulho" o casamento gay e o aborto.

Na Europa o chamado "conservador" muitas vezes é um esquerdista. O verdadeiro conservador é chamado por lá de radical ou fundamentalista.

Sobraram os Estados Unidos, em que um candidato republicano ainda tem pelo menos de apoiar a luta contra o aborto, deve ser pró-vida.

Mas na última convenção republicana que indicou Donald Trump não se falou na luta contra o aborto, apesar de Trump se declarar pró-vida. Falou-se muito no entanto sobre defender a "comunidade LGBT". Inclusive, um famoso discurso da convenção foi de Peter Thiel (foto acima), fundador da Paypal. Ele declarou ter orgulho de ser gay e de ser republicano.

Thiel não disse que ele também lutaria contra o aborto. Então, não se sabe.

Então, ao a que parece o Partido Republicano vai deixando de ser conservador.

É ainda muito melhor que o Partido Democrata de Obama e de Hillary Clinto, é claro. Os Democratas apoiam o aborto até quando a criança nasce viva das tentativas do aborto, odeiam cristianismo, aprovam eutanásia, aprovam casamento gay, aprovam banheiros sem identificação de sexo, etc. Sem falar nos inúmeros casos de corrupção. No caso de Hillary Clinton, ela talvez seja o candidato a presidente dos EUA mais corrupto e mentiroso da história dos Estados Unidos. Se Lula ganhou dinheiro corrupto fazendo palestras, a Hillary vale mais de 10 Lulas sobre isso. Se Lula fez conluio com poderosos banqueiros, Hillary tem muito maior experiência sobre isso. Se Lula se juntou com ditadores e assassinos pelo mundo, a Hillary é financiada por muitos deles. Pena que a imprensa do Brasil não divulgue nada disso. A imprensa do Brasil e do mundo só odeia o Donald Trump.

Bom, mas voltando ao que importa: "os conservadores", será que um gay pode ser também defensor da vida, pode ser contra o aborto.

Em geral, não há nada que impeça. afinal um pecado que possuímos não nos impede de ser contra os outros pecados. Mas a ideia de ser gay carrega em si uma imoralidade condenável que, como disse São Pedro Damião no seu livro Book of Gomorrah, contamina toda a pessoa e essa pessoa contamina os outros. Em suma, existem pecados e pecados, uns são piores do que outros. No Catecismo da Igreja o ato homossexual é um "pecado que clama aos céus por vingança".

Timothy Wlliams escreveu sobre se um gay pode ser pró-vida.

É um texto excelente, Ele conta, por exemplo, sua experiência de jovem ativista pela vida, quando os gays eram os que mais odiavam os defensores da vida, Williams não entendia o porquê pois os gays não iam ter, nem querem ter filhos.

Posteriormente, Williams descobriu que os gays detestavam que defende a vida, pois a defesa da vida vem junto da defesa da castidade e do casamento.Vem junto do cristianismo.

Williams até fala que existe uma organização gay em favor da vida, mas que não funciona há anos e muitas vezes o que essa organização quer é o fim dos movimentos a favor da vida como movimentos cristãos.

Em suma, o movimento gay é intrinsecamente contrário à defesa da vida. Pois o gayzismo prega um liberalismo sexual contrário à vida, separa a procriação do casamento.

Vejam abaixo parte do texto de Timothy Williams publicado na Crisis Magazine.

Is “Pro-life and Gay” Possible?

TIMOTHY J. WILLIAMS

Can someone who promotes the LGBT agenda ever truly be considered an ally of the pro-life movement? The question may be of considerable importance for Catholic voters in the upcoming elections. The Republican Party has just adopted what has been called the “most pro-life platform ever.” However, if you watched the RNC Convention, you would have noticed two conspicuous “firsts” for the self-proclaimed “party of life.” For the first time since 1984, a Republican nominee for president said not a word in his acceptance speech about protecting the unborn, but he did mention that he would protect the rights of LGBT citizens. Earlier in the convention, Peter Thiel, the founder of PayPal, gave a mostly pro-business and foreign policy speech, but he received the loudest applause when he gratuitously proffered: “I am proud to be gay.” He also appeared to trivialize the current debate about who belongs in a men’s or women’s restroom. One could only conclude that for many at the convention, the protection of the unborn and the promotion of the LGBT agenda must be unrelated issues. But I would argue that they are not.

The question seems to come up every year now at the annual March for Life in the nation’s capital. I recall a few years ago, a heated controversy erupted when a group of women calling themselves “Lesbians for Life” was refused permission to march with their banners. I was surprised at the outrage of many pro-life college students who were sympathetic to the group’s participation. At least among the young, the general feeling seemed to be that the group should be welcomed, since the pro-life movement ought to cultivate alliances wherever they can be found. One adjunct instructor at my institution even posted a blistering critique on her Facebook page about the “narrow-mindedness” of pro-life marchers.

There was a time, long ago, when I shared the views of my young students. But personal experiences quickly made me rethink the position. In graduate school, as a recent “revert” to the Catholic Church, I was somewhat active in the pro-life movement at the University of Kansas. Along with a few other like-minded students, we would set up a table in an area with a lot of pedestrian traffic, display a subdued pro-life sign, and hand out informational brochures to anyone who was receptive. The majority of students were polite, if unresponsive. Some would stop to argue with us, but without excessive antagonism. A few were friendly and thanked us for our efforts. Faculty members were invariably dismissive, and either smirked, frowned, or looked away.

But the homosexual students—both men and women—were a different story altogether. (Yes, it was easy to recognize who they were, even when they did not openly broadcast it, which was seldom.) The gays and lesbians were universally hostile, and since the city of Lawrence prides itself on being a sort of “Midwestern San Francisco,” this population was large, loud, and militant. They would accept brochures from us only to throw them in our faces, curse us in vile and explicit language, and sometimes spit on us, or just pelt us with whatever garbage was handy.

At first, I had been quite perplexed by the hostility coming from the homosexual community. Why, I wondered, was the pro-life cause so intensely repugnant to them? After all, they surely did not have to worry about “unplanned pregnancies,” no matter how “unrestrained” their weekends might have been. Why did they care if we encouraged heterosexual students to think about the consequences of their actions? Above all, why such hostility to the protection of the unborn? If their own belief about the inborn nature of homosexuality was true, didn’t abortion also strike at the heart of the gay community?

Of course, with maturity and growth in the Faith, I realized that I had been asking the wrong questions. Homosexuality, completely divorced from the natural ends of human sexuality, is all about self-gratification, using sex for sterile pleasure, emotional release, ephemeral affective bonding. And here we were, tying to convince heterosexual students that it is wrong for them to use their bodies for just such purposes, and that abortion is a violent, egotistical act. But this carries an implicit judgment against homosexuals behaving the same way, even if they do not have to worry about pregnancy. In short, those engaged in unashamed homosexual activity usually harbor a very natural antipathy for the sacredness of unborn life, that reminder of why we have sexuality in the first place. The very last thing most homosexuals care about is the welfare of the next generation, even the next generation of potential “gays.” If you doubt this hostility, take a good look at any pro-abortion rally. The rainbow flags of the LGBT movement almost always flutter there in abundance. This makes the existence of pro-life homosexual groups all the more puzzling.

Almost two years ago, LifeNews.com addressed the issue, conducting interviews with pro-life members of the LGBT community. This resulted in some very thoughtful and beautiful reflections about the need to protect the unborn. I don’t wish to question the sincerity of these particular individuals, nor most of those who are involved in PLAGAL, the national Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians. The editorials and postings on thewebsite and Facebook page of PLAGAL are generally well thought-out and convincingly make the point that life begins at conception.

However, some of the documents on the PLAGAL website seethe with anger, their authors demanding to be taken as normal, ordinary members of the pro-life movement. It is impossible to avoid the impression that some gay and lesbian writers are merely using the pro-life issue to lobby for acceptance of their lifestyle. Some of the material posted is profoundly hostile to virtue and Christianity. For example, one of PLAGAL’s brochures strongly criticizes those who (it is claimed) want the pro-life movement to remain “Christian, homophobic, reactionary, anti-pagan, [and] pro-chastity.” Why wouldn’t any pro-life person be alarmed at a resurgence of paganism? When was abortion ever a problem in pagan cultures? Since the earliest days of the Church, Christians were known for their “extreme” views on the sanctity of the unborn. And can anyone seriously believe that a pro-life ethic can thrive in a promiscuous society? If chastity is not the aspirational norm, but is regarded as a hateful imposition of “reactionaries,” we will never have enough abortion clinics to eliminate the unintended consequences of recreational sex.

Still, I am willing to accept that most of the pro-life homosexuals are sincere when they express their rejection of our abortion culture. Through the grace of God, our favorite sin does not necessarily blind us to the evil of other sins, even our own. However, it certainly doesn’t help. So the question is, just how widespread is a pro-life ethic among homosexuals in general? There is strong reason to believe that such sentiments are not shared by any sizeable part of this population.

... The advancement of the LBGT agenda can only weaken families, erode a Christian ethic, and further break the link between sexuality and procreation, the foundation of all respect for life in the womb.