Is there such a thing as a “Gay Agenda”? Or has it just been made up by people who love conspiracy theories?
The answer to this question is straightforward. Of course there is a Gay Agenda. There are many lobby groups seeking to promote lesbians and gays as a social minority deserving of, on the one hand, “equality” and, on the other hand, special legal protections. These groups are well funded (mainly with government money); they have a long-term strategic vision and a precise list of short-term and mid-term policy objectives.
The first step is the legalization of sodomy. Once this is achieved, the next step is to present sodomy as an act of “equal” value and dignity as the conjugal act. This pretended “equality” is then the basis for demands for legislation that recognizes same-sex “marriages” and provides gays and lesbians (individually or as a couple) with the possibility to fabricate “families”, either through the adoption of children, or through the use of medically assisted procreation techniques. For lesbian women, this involves access to homologous assisted procreation, involving the sperm of “donors”. For male homosexuals, it involves not only the use of “donated” egg cells, but also access to the services of as “surrogate mom”. The Gay Agenda is therefore joining forces with the reproductive industry to push for the elimination of all laws restricting the use of these ethically controversial techniques.
It goes by itself that the Gay Agenda requires the radical and conprehensive re-education of society. This is partly achieved by well-funded propaganda, but it also requires some coercion. Therefore, the Gay Agenda seeks to become part of the education system, beginning with compulsory sex education classes in nursery schools and ending with courses on “gender studies” in the curricula of Universities. At the same time, parents must be forced to accept this education for their children, and critics must be silenced. The Gay Agenda therefore pushes for legislation that frames its opponents as “hate-speakers” and threatens them with sanctions.
With regard to social policy, the Gay Agenda pleads for the “equal treatment” of gay couples with married spouses in view of tax laws and social benefits. But such equal treatment would in fact be very unequal, given that tax and social benefits are provided to married couples inconsideration of the contribution they make to the common good by founding families and raising children. Gay couples do not make a similar contribution; the Gay Agenda’s demand for “equal treatment” is therefore actually a demand for special privileges.
How is the “Gay Rights” Agenda being promoted?
While rational arguments are not available to the Gay Lobby, propaganda is.
A valuable source of information in this regard is the ground-breaking study “After The Ball- How America will conquer is fear & hatred of Gays in the ’90s” by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, which as early as 1989 laid out the agenda that has allowed the Gay Lobby to radically change the way in which sodomy is represented in American and European public discourse. Although this book displays an incredible amount of self-delusion with regard to the authors’ self-perception, it nevertheless provides very valuable insights into their strategy.
The first and foremost insight is that the Gay Lobby are well aware of their need to avoid rational debate, and have made a very conscious choice. Their strategy is not information, but manipulation:
“The campaign we outline in this book … depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”
This program can be summarized as follows:
- Overstating their numbers: in order to assert its “normality”, the gay and lesbian lobby systematically and grossly overstate the prevalence of “homosexuality” in humans. The key message is that “10% of all human beings are homosexual”, whereas the actual number of persons regularly and consistently engaging in homosexual conduct is between 1 and 2%. The 10% go back to the estimates published by Alfred Kinsey in the late 1950s, which however have already long ago been shown to be an ideologically motivated fabrication. Despite this apparent lack of scientific basis, it remains one of the greatest strategic achievements of the gay lobby that “when straights are asked by pollsters for a formal estimate, the figure played back most often is the ‘10% gay’ statistic which our propagandists have been drilling into their heads for years”.
- Asserting the “normality” of the un-normal. The “normality” of sodomy is itself another important, if not the most important, communicative objectives of the gay lobby. The purpose is to make sodomites look “like everyone else”. Public exhibitions of sexual licence and extravagancy (such as in so-called “Pride Events”) do not square well with this key strategy, which is why Kirk/Madsen cautioned against it. Instead, they wanted to give sodomites a (low, but) sympathetic profile, showing them as caring “family people”, loving “parents”, etc. This imagery is created to win sympathy, but it has nothing to do with the (well-documented) reality of the homosexual lifestyle. A film like “Broadback Mountain” has as much to do with the reality of sodomy, as the films of L. Riefenstahl and S. Eisenstein had with Nazism and communism.
- Keeping the facts out of the debate: one of the most important parts of the strategy is therefore to avoid anything that might make people realize what the debate really is about. The gay lobby does not want the public to be aware what gays actually do when they “have sex”. Even less does it want to discuss the health risks associated with homosexual behaviour. As Kirk/ Madsen wrote, “the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent–only later his unsightly derriere!”
- Posturing as (a class of) “victims”. Another key feature in the Kirk/Madsen strategy is to consistently represent sodomites as “victims”, and those opposing their agenda as “aggressors”. Every single bit of communication is designed to suit this narrative: gays/lesbians must “look good”, their opponents must “look bad”. This is done to “give potential protectors a good cause”. (Those “potential protectors”, as we must suppose, are the mass media, politicians, public servants, etc.). At the same time, opponents of the homosexual agenda should be made feel ashamed of themselves.
- Holding “society” responsible for everything: if sodomites are “victims” they cannot themselves be responsible for the moral or physical evil that befalls them. Rather than they, it is either their “oppressors” or “society” who are to blame. If homosexuals are the primary victims of AIDS, that must in no way be associated with their own sexual behaviour; instead, it must be the result of some form of “discrimination”. It is therefore not those “victims”, but society who should foot the bill for the ensuing healthcare needs. Likewise, if homosexuals have a particularly high incidence of suicide, the reason for this must not lie within themselves, but in the moral opprobrium against them.
- Appealing to “ambivalent skeptics”: An important aspect of the Kirk/Madsen strategy is that the gay/lesbian lobby should never communicate with the sole purpose of expressing or affirming themselves. Instead, they should always communicate in a way that might appeal to “ambivalent skeptics”, i.e. to people whom they might convert to their cause. Communication should “desensitize”, i.e. hide rather than emphasize the particularities of the homosexual lifestyles and sexual practices. “Shocking” expressions of gay lifestyle should be avoided. (The exhibition of homosexuality, such as in “Gay Pride” events, is therefore not considered helpful!)
Intimidation and Physical violence: bullying opponents into submission
Despite the seemingly peaceful and unspectacular character of the propaganda techniques developed by Kirk/Madsen, the use of intimidation and outright physical violence continues playing an important role in the promotion of the gay agenda. Although they are rarely reported by the mass media, incidents involving violence and harassing by gays against non-gays are in fact frequent and appear to be part of a larger strategy.
Violence is intrinsic in the agenda promoted by the post-1968 Cultural Revolution: abortion, i.e. the killing of defenceless and innocent children, is the very quintessence of violence. The same applies also not only to all other acts related to “assisted procreation”, to euthanasia, but also to sodomy (which does violence to the human body as well as to human dignity). It seems normal that where violence is the ultimate objective, violence must also be a “legitimate” means to achieve it.
The Gay Lobby is aware of the intrinsic injustice and irrationality of their agenda. In seeking to “rationalize” (i.e., to “normalize”) sodomy they want society to become collusive in their attempt to delude themselves: the whole comedy will function only when everyone takes part in it. As we know from H.C. Andersen’s famous tale, it suffices that one little child cries out loud that “the Emperor has no clothes”, and the illusion breaks down. This is why they cannot accept the existence of any opposition, however weak and small it may be.
But, unfortunately for them, opposition to their agenda will never cease to exist. There will always be some people who stay rational, and who will neither be corrupted, nor swayed by propaganda. Where persuasion fails and continued dissent cannot be accepted, intimidation and violence are the only available tools. They are, so to say, the plan B where propaganda fails to produce its effect.
How to respond to the “Gay Rights” Agenda
Should homosexual couples have the right to marry?
Given that marriage has a procreative purpose (i.e. to create a stable basis for a man and a woman to raise children), it is an absurdity to adopt laws that allow “marriages” between persons of the same sex. Such same-sex “marriages” have nothing to do with the true meaning and purpose of marriage. Instead, they turn this institution into a mockery and distort its meaning: where marriage includes same-sex “marriage”, it is reduced to a two-person partnership with an unclear purpose, and thus no more marriage in the true sense of the word.
It is therefore wrong to say that the legal recognition of same-sex “marriages” has no negative impact on the existing concept of marriage between a man and a woman. If the concept of marriage is diluted, it becomes impossible to adopt targeted policies to favour and protect it. The introduction of same-sex “marriage” deprives, in a certain sense, all non-homosexuals of the right to contract an authentic marriage, and thus arguably constitutes a violation of human rights provisions such as Art. 16 UDHR or Art. 12 ECHR. Where such laws exist, they should be repealed.
Should there be any legal recognition (other than marriage) for homosexual relationships?
Several countries have not gone as far astray as to recognize “marriages” between persons of the same sex, but they nevertheless have adopted laws that provide for a legal status for durable homosexual relationships. In some countries, this was just a step towards the introduction of same-sex “marriages”, whereas in other countries the introduction of specific same-sex “civil partnerships” means that the uniqueness of marriage as a union between a man and a woman has at least theoretically been preserved.
It is certainly true that compared to full-fledged same-sex “marriages” the introduction of a legal partnership that has similar legal effects, but is different in name, must be regarded a “lesser evil”. But such a “lesser evil” still is an evil. The formal recognition of same-sex relationships, and their association with legal or fiscal benefits, implies that such relationships are intrinsically good, and hence deserving of recognition and protection. But this is not the case. In actual fact, the act of sodomy is under no circumstances good, and therefore does not deserve any legal recognition, whatever may be its name.
This does not, of course, prevent a legislator from adopting laws that provide for the legal recognition of whatever form of association seem citizens may wish to enter into, as long as those laws may be availed of by all sitizens (i.e., not only by same-sex couples) and do not create the impression of placing a reward on disordered sexual behaviours.
Article 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) stipulates that: “State Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.”
It is clear from this provision that it creates no obligation for States to recognize and/or permit adoptions. It follows therefrom that there is in international law no “right to adoption” for any person, be it single or married, be it heterosexual, lesbian or gay. The purpose of adoption is not to procure children to would-be parents, but to find the best possible solution for children who have lost their parents. The only criterion that should guide decisions with regard to adoption is thus the best interest of the child as set out in Art. 21 CRC.
By contrast, the ECtHR in E.B. v. France has decided that if and where a State allows single persons to adopt children, a deviant sexual orientation should not serve as a criterion to prevent them from doing so. This decision, which deals with “anti-discrimination” rules than with a right to adoption appears ill-founded, given that it seems to misunderstand the applicable French laws, interpreting them as if they conferred a subjective “right to adoption” to single persons, which in actual fact is not the case. But even this mistaken decision does not, in and by itself, create a “right to adoption” for anyone.
A more recent ECtHR decision, X. and Others v. Austria, has, however, set yet another disturbing precedent by affirming that a woman should be given the “right” to adopt her lesbian “partner”’s child in order to replace the child’s biological father and construct the fiction of same-sex “parents”. Even this decision, however, stops short of affirming a “right to adoption”; instead, it is based upon a grotesquely misguided concept of “discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation”, arguing that if a country allows the possibility of “stepchild adoption” in unmarried heterosexual couples, it must provide the same possibility for same-sex couples.
If it is the “best interest of the child” that must be the only criterion in decisions regarding adoption, then it is clear that homosexuals not only have no “right to adoption”, but that they should indeed be excluded by law from adopting any children, lest they might draw them into their self-destructive lifestyle. For if nature foresees for children that they should grow up with a father and a mother then the purpose of adoption should be to find the best possible substitutes for those roles. Scientific research has demonstrated that children need both a male and a female role model to develop their own sexual identity. The absence of either a father or a mother poses considerable risks for the child’s development, and even if such risks do not in all cases result in lasting damages, it is nonetheless clear that they should not be artificially created (e.g. by allowing a same-sex couple to adopt children).
As we explain elsewhere on this website, medically assisted reproduction technologies (IVF and other) are in and by themselves immoral. Nobody, irrespective of his or her sexual orientation, should make any use of them.
In the case of lesbian women, the circumstances further aggravate the matter:
- The procedure will always be homologous, i.e. involve sperm cell donation. The child is thus intentionally deprived of its biological father;
- A lesbian woman, be she single or living together with another woman, does not provide an appropriate environment in which children should be raised. Such situations should at least not be created deliberately. A child needs, and has the right, to be raised by a mother and a father.
It follows that lesbian women should even less than anybody else have access to medically assisted reproduction.
While married couples typically have children and, in doing so, provide an important contribution to the common good, homosexual couples typically do not make such a contribution, given that by nature they do not have children. They neither bear the expenses nor the loss of income possibilities that is normally associated with rearing children; instead, they normally have two salaries and less expenses. Their pensions are paid by the work of children other persons have raised.
It is therefore self-evident that society must compensate married couples that raise children for the specific contribution they make to the common good, e.g. by providing them specific tax cuts, social benefits, or extra pension rights. At the same time, it would be absurd and completely inappropriate to provide similar “compensations” to homosexual couples. A legislation that treats marriage and homosexual relationships on a par with regard to social and fiscal benefits is therefore deeply unjust and immoral. Where such laws exit, they should be repealed.
Should homosexuality be considered a ground for being granted asylum?
Given that more than 80 countries have laws that place sodomy under criminal sanctions, and 7 among them even foresee the death penalty, should homosexuals be entitled to be granted asylum in the EU?
The question merits a differentiated answer.
- In the first place, it should be noted that anti-sodomy laws are directed against sodomy, i.e. against homosexual behaviour. There is no country in the world with laws that provide sanctions for “being homosexual”, i.e. for feeling sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. It is actions, not feelings or inclinations, that are threatened with sanctions.
- Secondly, heterosexuals also face the threat of criminal sanctions when they engage in inappropriate sexual behaviour. This includes sanctions against rape, child molestation, etc.
Granting asylum to a homosexual person because in its country of origin there are anti-sodomy laws would be not different from granting asylum to a person with paedophile proclivities because in his countries there are anti-paedophilia laws.
In addition, it must be noted that the self-ascribed “sexual orientation” of a person claiming to be homosexual is difficult to verify or falsify. The EU Fundamental Rights Agency has severely criticized the Czech Republic for (seemingly rather pseudo-scientific) attempts to test whether asylum seekers who demanded to be granted asylum on the grounds of their homosexuality were indeed gay – but failed to explain how such claims should be verified. It appears that in the Agency’s view the mere claim to be homosexual would suffice to create an entitlement to asylum.
If asylum must be granted when grounds for obtaining it are asserted but not verified, this would mean to irresponsibly open the door for de facto uncontrolled immigration.
On the other hand, it is an important principle that sanctions must be proportionate to the offence. If in a country provides for the death penalty as sanction for sodomy, a homosexual from that country may indeed be entitled to asylum, provided that there is evidence that he indeed faces criminal persecution.
Should “reparative therapies” to overcome a person’s homosexual orientation be banned?
While the WHO and various national instances have – mostly for political rather than scientific reasons – removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders, there are many who continue considering homosexuality a mental illness. This includes not only many psychologists and psychotherapists, but also many gay people who suffer under their condition and wish to overcome it.
There are many therapists who offer “reparative therapies” to overcome homosexual proclivities, and there are many homosexuals who consult them. The effectiveness of such therapies is for obvious reasons a matter of controversy. In many instances therapists claim to have been successful in healing people from their homosexualities, and homosexuals claim to have been healed. In other cases, healing successes may have been only transient. The “gay rights” movement, on the the other hand, vigorously opposes the idea that a person could overcome its homosexuality, and wants all attempts at therapy to be legally prohibited.
Very understandably, this opposition against the suggestion of “therapy” is indeed one of the corner stones of the homosexualist ideology. If homosexuality can be healed, then it can no longer considered to be an unalterable sort that must be accepted; instead, every homosexual could be asked why he makes no effort to overcome his problem. The availability of therapy, in other words, would completely de-legitimize the entire “gay rights” movement.
The gay lobby’s opposition against reparative therapy is, however, manifestly ill-founded:
- One single case of a successful therapy would suffice to disprove the claim that “homosexuality cannot be healed” or that “sexual orientations cannot be changed”. There are, however, many former homosexuals who say they have been healed.
- Even if there were so far no evidence of successful therapy, it would not follow that no such therapy could exist in the future, or that scientists should not be allowed to search for such therapies. Indeed, it is normally considered that, where no therapy is known for a given disease or disorder, such a therapy should be looked for. For example, the fact that so far no method is available to heal people from HIV/AIDS is a reason to search for such a therapy, not a reason to abstain from searching.
Banning (the search for) reparative therapy would mean to belittle and deny the choices and fundamental freedoms of those (quite numerous) homosexuals who want to be healed and, at the same time, undermine the freedom of research of those who are seeking to develop therapies.
Should sodomy be prohibited?
From the dawn of civilization until very recently sodomy (i.e. homosexual behaviour between male persons) has been prohibited in all countries of the world, including all European countries. Laws have traditionally been less strict with regard to female homosexual behaviour.
Legal bans have gradually been relaxed in European countries in the course of the last fem decades, culminating in the Dudgeon v. the UK judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. In the United States, the Supreme Court judgment that decided that State laws prohibiting sodomy were unconstitutional was Lawrence v. Texas.
Both judgments have been criticized for their decidedly activist approach, through which the European Convention on Human Rights and the US Constitutions were inerpreted in a way that was clearly at odds with the intentions of those who had drafted these foundational documents. Be that as it may, these decisions have effect only in the jurisdictions of the two law courts that made them. The fact that there are still 80 countries with anti-sodomy laws, including 7 that even foresee the death penalty, is a clear indicator that currently there is no internationally accepted human rights standard that would prevent a country from adopting or maintaining laws that prohibit sodomy. (It should however be noted in this context that, contrary to claims falsely but routinely made by “gay rights” propaganda, those laws only subject to sanctions the homosexual act, but not the homosexual inclination. Thus, in no country there is any sanction for “being” homosexual.)
While we do not hesitate to affirm that sanctions must always remain proportionate to the offence, we also note that there are indeed valid reasons for a country to adopt such anti-sodomy laws. One is that sodomy is an unhealthy practice; a ban against sodomy may help in preventing HIV/AIDS and many other diseases from spreading. Another reason is that young people, before being attracted by the other sex, first pass through a phase in which they must accept and affirm their own sexuality; during that phase they are particularly vulnerable to homosexual seductions, which is why it seems appropriate to protect them. Thirdly, the experience of the last twenty years show that the existence of anti-sodomy laws, even if they are not enforced with great rigour, is an effective shield that protects society against the rest of the gay agenda. The abrogation of these laws meant that society ceased to adequately express its opprobrium against an objectively unhealthy and misguided sexual behaviour; this immediately triggered requests that this behaviour should be legally recognized as a “right”, or even as worthy of equal protection as the marriage between a man and a woman. Further agenda points such as homosexual adoption, the access of gay couples to assisted procreation, or the inclusion of homosexual propaganda into school curricula are the seemingly inevitable consequence.
It is therefore important that society give in some form unambiguous expression to its awareness that sodomy is not a good of equal rank and standing as the fertile love between a man and a woman. The criminal code is the best place for such a statement. It is not important that such a law is enforced rigorously or that the sanctions are particularly heavy – but it is important that the statement is made.
The homosexual lobby is well aware of this. As M. Kirk and H. Madsen wrote in their seminal book, “the survival of sodomy laws, even if unenforced, sends a message … that homosexuality is intrinsically wrong…. And that, really, is the underlying purpose of such laws: to stand bolt-upright on the social plain as monuments, visible symbols of society’s condemnation of gays. Thus, sodomy laws function less as statutes than as parliamentary resolutions: through them, straights have passed a resolution against homosexuality.”
For the reasons stated above, a law that mildly but clearly expresses society’s disapproval against sodomy (but not against persons struggling with homosexual inclinations) seems the most suitable solution.
 Kirk/Madsen, After the Ball, p.xxviii
 Kirk/Madsen, After the Ball, p.15
 Kirk/Madsen, After the Ball, p. 68