" The Voice of the silent majority "

Home   Menu

New material constantly being added - please revisit

A free email news service distributing authentic information from a variety of reliable source

The international Gay Rights agenda explains the unrelenting demand for legalising same-sex marriage
James Campbell
Over at least four thousand years of recorded history, the natural and enduring union of a man and a woman in marriage has been viewed by every civilisation as demanding recognition and protection because it has been viewed as the best means of providing social stability, maintaining population, and providing for the socialisation and emotional development of children as they grow to adults. It took the Dutch in 2001 to cast aside as worthless the accumulated wisdom of 4,000 years and invent same-sex marriage. The Dutch homosexual politician Boris Dittrich, also known as “the father of gay marriage”, has admitted publicly that legalised same-sex marriage will lead to a complete remaking of marriage to satisfy the Gay Rights agenda. 
Promoted heavily on the utterly false claim of “equality”, Australians are now facing the state-sanctioned misappropriation of the description of this fundamental institution called marriage and the totally inappropriate application of that description to relationships of 2 per cent of the population who identify as homosexual. That 2 per cent already have the right to register state-sanctioned civil unions and also the full complement of legal rights and benefits of heterosexual married couples.
To comprehend fully where the present demand for legalising same-sex marriage in Australia is taking us, we need to weigh this controversial demand in the context of the international Gay Rights agenda that stemmed from the so-called Stonewall Riots in 1969. Those who have followed the progress and implementation of the Gay Rights agenda since 1969 have no doubt that the objective being pursued is compelling acceptance that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality, and indoctrinating children with this lie in their schools. Gay rights activists across the world have made no secret of this objective, and any politician who denies this is gullible, culpably ignorant, dishonest, or does not care what happens to Australian children.
The international Gay Rights Agenda
International homosexual militancy and the Gay Rights movement originated in the Stonewall Inn “riots” in New York’s Greenwich Village in 1969. Police had raided the popular mafia-owned Stonewall Inn gay bar that sold alcoholic liquor despite lacking a licence to do so. The usual tip-off to the bar failed on this occasion, and when alcoholic liquor was found, police made arrests of the gay clientele. Over following days, homosexuals in Greenwich staged noisy street demonstrations. The so-called “Stonewall Riots” led to the production and publication of the first international Gay Rights agenda. The list of demands included removal of homosexuality from the categories of psychiatric disorders; legalisation of consensual sodomy (anal sex) and other homosexual practices; full acceptance from society that homosexuals were no less normal than heterosexuals; the right for homosexuals to serve in the military and police; prohibition of any discrimination against homosexuals in employment, government benefits, housing and rental accommodation; treating homosexuals in relationships as "spouses" with legal rights and benefits comparable to those of married couples; redefining the concept of “family” to include homosexual relationships; the right for homosexuals to marry, adopt children, and participate in IVF programs; the teaching of children in schools that homosexuality is a normal and healthy lifestyle; and reducing the age of consent to allow man-boy sexual activity.
In achieving their agenda, gay rights activists have relied heavily on the removal of homosexuality in the United States from the categories of psychiatric disorders in 1973. Homosexuality had been included in the authoritative American “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (abbreviated to DSM) as a behavioural disorder until gay rights activists declared war on the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and demanded removal of homosexuality from the categories of mental disorders.
After gay rights activists violently wrecked the APA’s 1970 and 1971 national conferences, the APA surrendered to this intimidation and removed homosexuality from the categories of mental disorders in the 1973 edition of the DSM. Medical evidence played no part in removal of homosexuality from the DSM, but the APA attempted to justify this removal by claiming that it had been persuaded not by intimidation but by compassion and the human sexuality research of the late and very controversial Dr Alfred Kinsey. Kinsey had published research claiming that 10 per cent of Western populations were likely to be homosexual.* The 10 per cent figure matched the incidence of being left-handed and purported to bring homosexuality within the range of natural variation; but the 10 per cent figure has been exposed as fraudulent. After his death, investigators discovered that, although married, Kinsey was himself a practising homosexual and voyeur who manipulated his research samplings to produce the 10 per cent figure, and to persuade Americans that the sexual behaviour that he enjoyed, including sodomy, was also practised widely in the heterosexual population. Had he lived longer, exposure of Kinsey’s sexual experiments practised on very young children, including toddlers, would almost certainly have resulted in criminal prosecutions. 
* Kinsey published the “Kinsey Reports” on human sexuality and died in 1956.
Extensive and independent random surveys in England, France, Norway, Canada, the United States and Australia* have indicated that the incidence of homosexuality in any given Western society is likely to be about two per cent. The Kinsey Institute in the United States, named after Dr Kinsey, has accepted since 1989 that Kinsey heavily exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality, and that a 2 per cent figure is more likely to be correct. Despite these independent findings that contradict Kinsey’s 10 per cent figure, the homosexual lobby still pushes the 10 per cent figure, and some politicians and the media appear willing to accept uncritically the heavily exaggerated Kinsey figure.
* The LaTrobe study “Sex in Australia” (2003) covered almost 20,000 people and produced a finding that 97.4 of men identified as heterosexual and 97.7 of women identified as heterosexual.
Legalisation of homosexual behaviour between consenting adults began in Australia in the mid 1970s and is now law across Australia. New York legalised all homosexual acts between consenting adults in 1980. Legalisation was piecemeal in the United States until 2003 when the US Supreme Court invalidated sodomy laws in 14 States that had retained them. 
Access to police and military service has been achieved in most Western countries, and police and military in Australia now march in their uniforms in Gay Pride parades despite the overt display of political messages supporting gay rights, mocking of the Christian religion, bizarre costuming and behaviour, and some lewd aspects of these parades that have included a float with a representation of the Pope mounted on a gigantic penis and tossing condoms to onlookers. See images above from Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in 2013. A sympathetic media now tend to refrain from publishing bizarre and lewd aspects of Gay Pride parades. 
Although described by supporters of legalised same-sex marriage as haters, bigots, and homophobes, it appears perfectly rational for those who view marriage as a sacrament, or sacred, to be deeply concerned by the proposed redefining of marriage to include those who mock religion, and engage in bizarre and lewd performances in Gay Pride parades. The Australian Defence Force has extended its support for Gay Rights to the stage where members who are viewed as not supporting Gay Rights, even privately, risk dismissal.* Senior politicians often lead Gay Pride parades, and one has to wonder whether they are led by gullible acceptance of the fraudulent 10 percent figure for homosexuality to fear losing votes if they do not participate. * for example, former ADF Reserve Major Bernard Gaynor.
A demand for prohibition of any discrimination against homosexuals in employment, government benefits, housing and rental accommodation, and commercial services has been largely successful in the United States and Australia, but subject to exemptions for religion. Exemptions for religion and commercial services are rapidly disappearing in countries that have legalised same-sex marriage, for example, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Canada. After initially promising protection for religion after same-sex marriage was legalised in Britain, Equality Minister Justine Greening has warned churches that they face compulsion to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. In Australia, the Commonwealth is denied by section 116 the power to make any law protecting the free exercise of religion, and that leaves the Commonwealth and the States free to silence any comment that offends homosexuals, and to remove any protections for freedom of religion, including manifesting that freedom in worship, observance, practice. or teaching.
In Australia, homosexuals in relationships comparable to de facto relationships can register those relationships as civil unions or partnerships and are entitled to all of the legal rights and benefits that can be claimed by married couples. 
The international Gay Rights agenda requires that any public denial that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality be viewed as “hate speech” and punished by law. All schools are to be required to teach children that homosexuality is normal and healthy, and that children should experiment with homosexuality. New South Wales was an early adopter of the Gay Rights program to educate children that homosexuality is normal, healthy and enjoyable. In 1994, the NSW Education Department’s Homophobia Studies program “Violence against Homosexual men and Women” was teaching schoolchildren that homosexuality is a normal expression of sexuality, and that one in seven children could be homosexual. This teaching about the incidence of homosexuality is a blatant lie. There is no credible statistical evidence to support this gross exaggeration of the incidence of homosexuality, and it could cause dangerous confusion in the minds of children. Victorian government schools using the so-called "Safe Schools" program are encouraging children to view gender as a matter of personal choice, and encourage experimentation by pupils with homosexuality. 
Not being satisfied with full equality with married couples in the area of legal rights and benefits, the international Gay Rights agenda also demands for homosexuals the right to marry; and when homosexual "marriage" has been achieved, it must be treated as being as normal as heterosexual marriage, and schoolchildren must be taught that homosexual marriage is as normal as heterosexual marriage. Any denial of that “normality” would be punished by law as “hate speech”. References in schools by a child to his or her “Mum and Dad” would be prohibited. 
Homosexual rights activists have been very open about their plans for marriage after they have changed the definition of marriage to legalise same-sex marriage. Once the four thousand year-old mould is broken, the next steps will be removal of any limitation on the number of partners in a marriage, removal of any undertaking of faithfulness to a partner, and placing no limit on the duration of marriage. Is this remaking of marriage fanciful? The Dutch were the first to break the four thousand year-old mould in 2001 when they invented and legalised same-sex marriage. Boris Dittrich, a former Dutch MP known as “the father of gay marriage” in Holland has admitted in a video interview with the French Yagg Magazine that the next step following legalised same-sex marriage will be remaking marriage in line with the Stonewall Gay Rights agenda. 
So we know where marriage is headed if same-sex marriage is legalised.
Another demand of the Stonewall Gay Rights agenda is allowing all homosexual couples to adopt children in order to overcome limitations imposed on homosexuals by natural human biology. It appeared unlikely to be fulfilled because it treated children as commodities by placing fulfilment of homosexual adult needs before the emotional needs of children. Although sometimes frustrated by unkind fate, basic psychology informs us that boys learn to relate to women as they grow to adults through a loving relationship with their mother. Equally, girls learn to relate to men as they grow to adults through a loving relationship with their father. These basic needs and rights of children have been simply ignored in Australia where the biological limitations on homosexual unions have been removed by allowing homosexuals to adopt children. Perhaps one explanation for denial of these needs and rights of small children is their lack of voting rights.
In this rush to provide homosexual adoption rights, no one appears to have wanted to know that homosexual males are massively overrepresented in sexual abuse of under-age boys. Surveys in Australia have put the incidence of homosexual paedophilia as high as 80 per cent.  In 2010, our ABC celebrated the joys of gay parenting under the heading “Two dads are better than one” and told us that gay couple Peter Truong and Mark Newton had acquired a beautiful baby son by arrangement with a surrogate mother in Russia for $8,000. Unfortunately, the lovely story soured when we learned that the gay couple had exploited the boy for paedophilic purposes. The newly born baby was handed to the delighted gay dads, and Mark enthused,”We had become a family just like any other family”. What viewers were not told was that these “wonderful gay dads” put their adopted little boy on the world market for paedophiles like them to abuse sexually. This pair of degenerates allowed at least eight men in different countries, including Australia, the US, Germany and France, to sexually abuse the boy between his ages of two and six. The men recorded videos of their own sexual assaults on the little boy and distributed them across a global paedophile web-source, known as “”. The pair were arrested in Los Angeles in 2011. Newton was sentenced to 40 years, and Truong received a lesser sentence of 24 years because of his cooperation with American prosecutors. It may be viewed as politically incorrect but there is compelling public interest in asking what Australian Federal and State governments are doing to address this very serious issue of adoption by homosexual paedophiles.
 Other demands in the Gay Rights agenda included removal of age limitations on “man-boy” sex. This demand achieved only limited fulfillment in Australia when age of consent laws applicable to heterosexuals were applied to homosexuals in 1997. Reducing the homosexual age of consent below 16 for consenting boys cannot be ruled out in the current climate of libertarianism in Western civilisation.
After careful consideration of the international Gay Rights agenda, and the extent that it has been fulfilled by many libertarian governments around the world with no consideration of the needs and rights of children, I believe that many Australians will be able to see where traditional institutions such as marriage and family are headed under “progressive”, i.e. leftist Coalition and Labor/Green governments. Our hopes are with the defenders of traditional marriage among the Liberals,  the outspoken MPs and Senators among the Nationals, and that Senator Cory Bernardi's Australian Conservative Party will win enough seats to shake the Coalition and Labor trees.
See also: The Overhauling of Straight America

The six ways homosexual activists manipulate public opinion

Endeavour Forum Inc. does not send unsolicited emails. If you wish to be removed from the email list, please reply with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. If you find it difficult to cope with daily email and would like to join the Weekly List, please reply with WEEKLY LIST in the subject line.
You are encouraged to forward these emails to your own contact lists. Please use the BCC field to hide personal email addresses, and delete any personal address that may appear in an email.
If you change your email address, please let us know.

 If you would like to receive by mail the quarterly issue of the Endeavour Forum Inc. Newsletter, please email
Donations to Endeavour Forum Inc. may be made to the Commonwealth Bank  BSB  063 144 Account No. 1012 1106.
Readers can also donate via a cheque sent to The Editor, Endeavour Forum Inc., 79 Church St., Beaumaris, Vic. 3193.
Please fill in the payee slip so we can thank you!