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

© Scoop Media

Gordon Campbell: On the Sony cyber attack

Given the layers of meta-irony involved, the saga of the Sony cyber attack seemed at the outset more like a snarky European art film than a popcorn entry at the multiplex.

Yet now with (a) President Barack Obama weighing in on the side of artistic freedom and calling for the US to make a ‘proportionate response’quickly followed by (b) North Korea’s entire Internet service going down, and with both these events being followed by (c) Sony deciding to backtrack and release The Interview film that had made it a target for the dastardly North Koreans in the first place, then ay caramba…the whole world will now be watching how this affair pans out. More>>