For an excellent article on the Barilla affair, see this one (in Spanish):

Pasta Barilla y la nueva Inquisición civil by CARLOS ESTEBAN

He says: “The gay ‘lobby’ does not want gay tolerance and respect: it demands submission and loves the auto-da-fé of the heretic.”

An auto-da-fé, if you will recall, was the ritual of public penance of condemned heretics and apostates that took place when the Spanish Inquisition or the Portuguese Inquisition had decided their punishment, followed by the execution by the civil authorities of the sentences imposed. The term means “act of faith.”

This is so on target. This whole spectacle smacks of the tactics used by the Inquisition when it used public humiliation to control not only individuals, but most importantly, society. Heresy must be punished at all costs. And we can just see the glee that homosexual agenda proponents take in their rabid humiliation and submission of anyone who questions their agenda. It is palpable.

El ‘lobby’ gay no quiere tolerancia y respeto: exige sumisión y adora los autos de fe del hereje.

“Los intereses económicos de una clase dominante nunca van desnudos. Se encuentran envueltos en la bandera, fortificados por la ley, protegidos por la policía, nutridos por los medios, enseñados mediante las escuelas y bendecidos por la Iglesia”.

Amén a esta frase de Michael Parenti, intelectual del único reducto donde aún abundan los comunistas de corte soviético, Estados Unidos. El hombre ya no cumple ochenta años, con lo que habrá que perdonarle no advertir que su tajante dictum se aplica con extraordinaria fidelidad a lo contrario que pretende. Lea despacio, sustituyendo “Iglesia” por lo que ahora hace las veces de fuente del dogma secular, y verán lo que quiero decirles: ¿qué conceptos están envueltos en la bandera, fortificados por la ley y, sobre todo, nutridos por los medios? O, dicho de otro modo: si quiere saber quién manda de verdad, pregúntese qué no puede decirse en público.

Read the whole thing.

Y, ahora, parémonos un instante a considerar lo que significa todo esto. ¿En qué momento pasó a ser obligatorio para las empresas sacar parejas homosexuales en sus anuncios? El matrimonio gay, que hasta ayer era un concepto que no se le ocurría a nadie, ¿es ya un dogma ante el cual dudar conlleva pena de infamia pública?

My reply:

Dear Carlos,
Yours was by far the best article I saw in the media so far regarding the Barilla affair. Excellent analysis and writing. You did your profession proud.

The priority goal of the homosexual agenda is to destroy anyone who says that homosexuality is dysfunctional. The major type of destruction used for this means is first, symbolic, the public tarring and feathering of any such person, conceptualizing them as bad, evil, backwards, unscientific, or ignorant, followed by their marginalization in all spheres of society: schools, government, workplace, research, and last but certainly not least, spiritual.

Once a person starts using such vocabulary as “gay,” and thinking that “gay” is normal and “just like heterosexuality,” it doesn’t matter anymore whether the debate about homosexuality regards marriage or sex outside marriage, sex with one person or multiple partners, etc. They have already misunderstood the very problem with homosexuality: Homosexuality is dysfunctional and disordered. Society can make rules and laws to pretend that it only accepts a version of homosexuality that is more bourgeois (like their farcical marriage), but it is already, in the air, tumbling in a pit of incoherence.

Modern society hates to confront the degree to which it is dysfunctional and perverted regarding sexuality. Our society wants to be free of accountability, standards, and all culpability in order to do as much harm in the sphere of sexuality and relationships as it wants – with total impunity and with a semblance of legitimacy. The normalization of homosexuality is nothing more the destruction of the mechanisms of accountability and ethics related to sexuality. And it is the destruction of the idea that we should demand that people take responsibility for their sexual problems and resolve them. Instead of solving their problems, society wants to pretend that everything is normal.

Upon reflection, I also came to realize something else. Esteban tells us of something he did, which was a big mistake: he says when he first read in Infovaticana that the homosexual lobby was harassing Barilla, his first impulse was to apply the “Francis Protocol” (his own term, and great coinage, by the way), and “ignore the matter.” This was not a question of simply sticking his head in the sand in the most simplistic way, as he explains, but still he decided to shrug his shoulders precisely because this was yet another recent case among countless others involving ideological pressure from the gay lobby and corporate cowardice on the other side, and so he looked asunder:

Quiero decir, el papel de un lobby es protestar y hacer un mundo de una pequeñez, nada nuevo aquí, y Barilla es una empresa fabricante de fideos, no una iglesia o un Estado. Así que leí en diagonal, me alcé de hombros ante el enésimo caso de presión ideológica y cobardía empresarial y lo consigné al desván de la memoria.

Pero si el Papa nos ha advertido contra el impulso de obsesionarnos por estos asuntos, se ve que el consejo no se lo aplican quienes más lo han celebrado y aplaudido, porque encuentro en SModa de El País un artículo, “Del pollo homófobo al macarrón antigay”, dedicado al asunto. Se ve que obsesionarse por esta cuestión solo es malo cuando no se le hace la ola al lobby.

However, it is precisely because many conservatives shy away from confronting head-on the attacks made to social conservatives in the culture wars that we have come to have such culturally barbaric auto-da-fés. Moreover, such public humiliation events will only increase the more conservatives like Esteban adopt what he labeled as the “Francis Protocol.” (Independently if his interpretation of Francis’ recent public statements is correct or not, I would agree this is the interpretation that has stuck with the larger public: you’re out of line if you don’t hush and look the other way). While Esteban made some great points, he is certainly in no position to criticize Mr. Barilla for “corporate cowardice,” because he was all too willing to adopt an even more cowardly position himself, keeping silent and passive, and very content in shrugging his shoulders in face of yet another liberal auto-da-fé spectacle.

First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist and I was too gleeful telling myself I was following the good instructions from the Pope…

Lastly, led by Esteban’s mention of Michael Parenti, I went to look him up on wikipedia, and then wound up on the entry for “cultural hegemony.” It is always good to highlight that what we are witnessing in the culture wars is a fight for cultural hegemony:

Cultural Hegemony describes the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class, who manipulates the culture of the society — the beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, and mores — so that their ruling-class Weltanschauung becomes the worldview that is imposed and accepted as the cultural norm; as the universally valid dominant ideology that justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural and inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for everyone, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class.”

What happens with sexuality, however, is in one respect different. This is because there is more than one axis of domination and it is not merely a domination of the ruling class.

Concerning the interests of the ruling class (in its liberal inception), it certainly has powerful economic interests in this dominance, such as when it props up Madonna, Lady Gaga, or Miley Cyrus, along with their messages, because of the enormous profits this will bring. Secondly, the liberal ruling class simply wants to impose its sexuality Weltanschauung for the same reason it wants to impose all of its ideology; it is, evidently, what they believe in.

However, with sexuality, similar to gender, we then have this “cultural hegemony” played out in mini-structures in the interpersonal spheres throughout society, so we can no longer talk about a domination of the ruling class only, such as an elite. This other, much larger “ruling class” is simply everyone in society who adopts the dominant liberal Weltansschauung and uses it to do harm to others in the limited sphere of their personal lives or to endorse harm against others beyond their own sphere of experience. The result is a dual form of domination (and harm) that encompasses both the liberal portion of the ruling class and their willing followers throughout society.