[:en]
At a time when our country is Ukraine, located in the epicenter of events threaten the legal integrity, strong as a separate state,our International Congress on protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens «Shield» can not be located on the side of developing and defending its legal position with regards to the problem of legalizing gay marriage. After all, society is one big, close-knit and loving family. And the family is known — is a mirror of what’s going on with a person. What will it be, what values and ideals grow and what will seek.
Therefore, our international congress on protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens «Shield» prepared religious and legal position on this issue. When applicable, legal recognition of homosexual relationships or equating them to marriage, simultaneously with the recognition in relation to them the laws relating to the latter, it is necessary to resist the clear and distinct manner. You must refrain from any formal cooperation in the protection and the introduction of life standards so obviously unjust, and also from the action at the executive level. In this matter everyone can rely on the impulse of conscience and international law.
Understanding the reasons leading to the need to confront instances, seeking to legalize homosexual unions, ethical and requires a few specific comments.
Assignments secular standards, no doubt, are more limited than the moral right and the secular rules may not enter into conflict with the right reason (recta ratio) without loss of power thereby linking them with a conscience. Every law established by people who have the ability to exist as law in so far as it agrees with the moral law, recognized by legal reason (recta ratio), and how much he appreciates even unimportant right of every individual. Legislation relating to the favor of homosexual unions, contrary to the law of reason, ie. A. Pays legal guarantees, analogous to those enjoyed in the establishment of marriage, the relationship between two individuals of the same sex. Taking into account the values associated with it, the government can not act without violating his duties in the maintenance and protection of the public good, what is marriage.
Legislative rules are the principles that govern human life in the bosom of society for good or for evil. Life forms and specimens taken from them, not only externally shape the society, but also lead to a modification of the younger generation to understand and assess the behavior. The legalization of homosexual unions would lead to the elimination of certain fundamental values and the devaluation of marriage.
The family — it’s all for a person! Like that from what he created, and what he will make. If we say today that we do not accept this fact, we arrogantly expunged wisdom accumulated for thousands of years.
Statue 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of the General Assembly reflects this fact declaring that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. The essence of these laws reflect the prudent fruit of human experience.
Experience shows that lack of the opposite sex is building barriers to the normal development of children, allegedly included in such an alliance. They lack the experience of his father or mother. Inclusion of children in homosexual unions through adoption, in essence, means doing violence to these children, in the sense of vulnerability that is used to include them in an environment that is not conducive to their full personal development. Of course, such behavior would be immoral and would remain in clear contradiction with the principles recognized by the international Congress on the Rights of the Child, according to which the most important value to be protected in each case is the benefit of a child who is being weak and defenseless.
His existence of society should be obliged to the family, which is based on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions is the abolition of marriage, which by their legal nature becomes the main accessory to aspects related to heterosexuality, as, for example, procreation and upbringing. If a marriage between two persons of different sex would be considered only as one of the possible marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical change, with serious damage to the public good. By putting homosexual unions on the same legal level as marriage or family, the authorities are arbitralno and come into conflict with personal responsibilities. To maintain the legalization of homosexual unions can not take into account the principles of non-discrimination with respect to each individual. The distinction between persons or refusing legal recognition, or recognition of specific evidence of unacceptable public only when they are in conflict with justice. Non-recognition of social and legal status of marriage to those forms of life that are not and can not be marital is not contrasted justice, but on the contrary required it.
Homosexual relations are not implemented, even in the most far-reaching analogies, tasks, through which marriage and family deserve specific recognition and their inherent rights. At the same time there is a correct view that such unions harm the full development of human society, especially if they allow effective influence on public opinion.
With regard to homosexual unions should have the following ethical indications.
In the case where the legislature first proposed the project, spoke of favor legalization of homosexual unions, each person must clearly express their opposition and vote against the project. Giving voice for being so harmful to the common good is the nemoral action.
In the case where a particular organization or person has to deal with already established favorable law on homosexual unions, it must possible for him to make public protest — it is a worthy testimony to the truth. If you can not complete destruction of the orders of this kind, based on tips, ideas and moods dominating in his family environment, he would have acted reasonably, with its support propositions, which aim to limit the action of such a law, and thus mitigate the adverse effects on the soil and culture public morality, provided that there will be «clear and known to all» his «absolute personal resistance» against the laws of this kind, and will be avoided by the danger of temptation. This does not mean that the matter alleged in the statute more limited will be considered valid by the law, or at least acceptable; on the contrary, it is a true and binding attempt to seek at least a partial transference unjust law when its total destruction is currently not possible.
[:]