Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 

The Dishonest Homosexual Agenda

8 December 20004

The Dishonest Homosexual Agenda

First politicians were told that all homosexuals wanted were that we celebrate diversity: sexual diversity – “GAY” SEX. So to appease them they passed the Homosexual Law Reform Act decriminalising homosexual acts (sodomy) between men. Such acts, clandestinely carried out regularly by some male homosexuals in public toilets and discrete locations in parks, were decriminalised, despite the exploitative and predatorial aspect of such aberrant behaviour. Homosexuals triumphed in their success.

Politicians celebrated with them and paraded their “open-mindedness” towards such immoral and dysfunctional behaviour by attending “Gay Pride” and “Hero Parade” public celebrations, where lesbians, homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexual persons openly flaunted their “gay sexuality”. Leading politicians, the Prime Minister included, jockeyed for front row seats at these city council-funded events where they could be recorded by the media on camera presenting their “gay” friendly faces.

The word “gay” was highjacked by a tiny minority whose promiscuous lifestyles have been found to have had a huge impact on the rapid spread of the AIDS/HIV pandemic that has been sweeping the world with “apocalyptic fervour” (to quote a recent news report, Dominion Post 1st Dec.). The “gay” community that was and still is tragically impacted by the disease saw it as an opportunity to gain more political power. “AIDS awareness” became a “group-consciousness raising exercise”, but not one designed to question the moral rights or wrongs of the homosexual lifestyle.


The enormous outpourings of genuine public sympathy for AIDS victims softened the general public to the message the “gay” ‘rights’ activists proclaimed: we are a minority, a very special “class of persons”, and we demand our “civil rights”!

These “rights” were not those demanded by true minority groups based on race, skin colour, etc. that gave birth to the genuine Civil Rights Movement: the rights to education, public places, accommodation, employment etc. “Gay” rights are a special category: “SPECIAL rights”. They demand special rights based exclusively on a sexual lifestyle choice: same-sex relationships: the rights to have such relationships recognised in law and the rights and privileges that the state affords to those (heterosexual) couples who have entered into a formal committed marriage. They want the lot including the right to adopt children.

Unfortunately, their spurious claims gain some traction because certain gullible politicians have fallen for their dishonest claims that: (1) “gays” constitute a genuine “minority” under the Human Rights Act 1993, and (2) “gays” have been discriminated against because they cannot marry. Openly homosexual and transsexual politicians see no problem in using their influence to propagate these spurious claims and proselytise for “gay rights”.

In response. First, there is no proof that homosexuals are born that way and that it is an immutable biological (inherited) condition. Second marriage involves justifiable discrimination in law because by definition it involves one man and one woman. It is an institution supported by the state that recognises the fundamental differences between males and females and the fact that only from the union of opposite-sex partners can children be born into a committed loving relationship where their rights to have a father and a mother are met. A wealth of social science research shows that they develop best within a stable, loving marriage.

Politicians having bought into the “gay” propaganda seek to appease them to secure the “pink” vote and avoid being stigmatised as “homophobic” – a term of abuse used regularly by “gays”, including “gay” politicians, against all those who oppose their agenda.

Cameron Law, spokesperson for Campaign for Civil Unions, presented one aspect of the “gay”agenda clearly:

“Government is pursuing Civil Unions to deal with the fact that marriage will remain only available to different-sex couples. To end discrimination against same-sex couples arising from this, civil unions have to be similar to marriage in the rights, obligations and criteria they require.” (Scoop Press Release, 7 Dec.)

Having gained the right to be different, “gays” now want to be the same! They want to acquire marriage rights or at least the closest thing to it, civil unions, as a step towards “marriage” under a revised “gay” friendly Marriage Act. It is this 180-degree turn-around in their agenda that has so infuriated politicians like the Hon. Maurice Williamson, who is voting against the Civil Union Bill. He like others of his colleagues who witnessed the passage of the highly controversial Homosexual Law Reform Bill into law, has seen how he was duped by the “gay’ agenda (he supported the HLRB). He has now seen through the Civil Union Bill. He has woken up to the true nature of this parasitic pantomime that is being paraded with pomp and “gay” abandon as a solution to ‘discrimination’ against “gays”. It is nothing more than “gay marriage” in drag.

A civil union mimics marriage in almost every feature including: a form of ‘solemnisation procedure’ (the terms “husband” and “wife” are replaced with “civil union partner”), the requirement of a state-sanctioned celebrant and witnesses and dissolution procedures etc. And yet the Bill’s supporters claim its intention is to cast aside the cultural baggage associated with marriage! This is utterly dishonest.

A civil union is clearly designed as “marriage for same-sex couples”. It is an unnatural parasite that draws its sustenance entirely from the virtues that undergird committed marriage (sexual fidelity, faithfulness etc.). Society is under no legal obligation to provide sanction to any form of sexual intimacy outside marriage! It has a moral duty to uphold and strengthen marriage and not endorse parasitic mimics that in law have no real meaning. MPs must vote down the Civil Union Bill.

Garnet Milne Spokesman Campaign Against Civil Union Bill & Relationship Bill

ENDS


© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Davos World Economic Forum: Ardern Upbeat Despite Absences

The prime minister will soon wrap up her first day at the World Economic Forum in Davos, which is notable for who is there as much as who isn't.

Domestic political crises have kept a number of world leaders at home including US President Donald Trump, British Prime Minister Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron. More>>

 

Gordon Campbell: On Why Shipping Is NZ’s New Trade Problem

So Jacinda Ardern and Theresa May have signed a piece of paper promising peace in our time when it comes to our trade with Britain... Brexit is not the only concern. More>>

ALSO:

Reshuffle: National Announces Spokesperson For Drug Reform

National Leader Simon Bridges has appointed Paula Bennett to the new position of Spokesperson for Drug Reform as the Government pushes ahead with its agenda of drug decriminalisation, to signal National’s commitment to holding them to account. More>>

ALSO:

KiwiBailed: KiwiBuild Head Officially Resigns

The head of Kiwibuild, Stephen Barclay has officially resigned from the role. In a statement issued on his behalf, it was announced that he would step down from today [Friday]. More>>

ALSO:

Welfare Stats: Rise In Hardship Numbers Shows Income Inadequacy

The latest Ministry of Social Development quarterly report show that a record number of people have received hardship assistance from work and income, with an additional 40,000 hardship payments made between September and December 2018, compared to the previous quarter of the same year... More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On MBIE’s Social Media Scam

Given the ambit of MBIE’s work, almost any form of social activity could qualify as being part of MBIE’s brief, so the privacy threats posed by this training programme are extensive. The current oversight safeguards seem threadbare to non-existent. More>>

ALSO:

JusTrade: New Campaign For A 21th Century Trade Agenda

‘Critique is no longer enough. If anything is to really change, we need to step away from the existing framework and take a first-principles approach to rethinking what will work for the 21st century.’ More>>

Earlier:

Gordon Campbell: Thompson + Clark Are The Tip Of The Iceberg

How can we tell where and how any lines are being drawn? Oversight is not exactly robust. If it were, Thompson + Clark would have been out of contention for state security work ten years ago. More>>

 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

InfoPages News Channels