Now that the radicals have wrapped up one agenda item, they can easily and quickly move on to the next items. With the homosexual agenda basically well and truly realised throughout the Western world, the social revolutionaries can now turn their attention to other important sexual reforms.
And given how logically and naturally they flow from one to the other, we can be assured that the other items on the activists’ checklist will soon be checked off as well. As I document in my new book, homosexual militants are delighted at how quickly and easily they have been able to implement their agenda.
They have been surprised to see how little resistance was offered to their plans to radically restructure society in their image. So now other areas of sexual liberation can be actively worked on. And given how the very same arguments used to implement the homosexual agenda can be used for these other agendas, they should have a pretty easy go of it.
Two especially come to mind, although there would be plenty more. The first of course is polyamory, or group love. The homosexual activists have so beautifully made their case for them. Every single inane jingo, cliché and bit of rhetoric they have used over the years can of course be so very nicely used by the group-love crowd. Indeed, who can find fault with the claims of the poly perverts?:
-We are a poor persecuted minority group.
-This is a human rights issue.
-We love each other (and other, and other, and other) and we demand the right to express that love.
-We demand a right to equal love.
-Equal rights for polys.
-End the unjust discrimination against poly love.
-We were born this way and we have no choice in the matter.
-We all know that there is a poly gene which makes us this way.
-How can you forbid people in love from expressing their love and getting government recognition of it?
-Discrimination against polys must be wiped out.
-Governments have no business in our bedrooms.
-Only bigoted and archaic religious groups oppose true love equality, no matter what form it may take.
-Just as they prevented interracial marriages in the past, now they oppose group marriage today.
-Only a polyphobe would oppose such love.
-It is certainly time to smash polyphobia.
-We’re poly, we’re jolly, so get used to it!
Yep, it all sounds pretty good to me, Indeed, we have heard these claims for forty years now, so we have all gotten pretty much used to them. I guess those polys have a pretty sound case to make.
But let’s not stop there. There are of course many other cases of obvious sexual injustice. What about those who were born with a sexual attraction to children? They can no more help their feelings than anyone else. And we must get away from prejudicial terms like paedophilia. It is time to call them what they really are: “minor-attracted persons”.
Now lest all of this sound a bit far out, it is not just the outworkings of my over-imaginative mind. Both causes have been and are being actively lobbied for. And as mentioned, both groups are quite happy to utilise the very same arguments which the homosexual activists have so successfully used.
So let me allow a few thoughts from other experts who have been assessing all this. As to polyamory, an important article appeared this month by G. Tracy Mehan. He especially draws upon the work of US family expert, Patrick Fagan. Fagan rightly reminds us that “In all of human history, the culture of monogamy has never encountered the type of competition it faces now. We must engage.”
Says Fagan, “The culture of the traditional family is now in intense competition with a very different culture. The defining difference between the two is the sexual ideal each embraces. The traditional family of Western civilization is based on lifelong monogamy. The competing culture is ‘polyamorous,’ normally a serial polygamy, but also increasingly polymorphous in its different sexual expressions.”
Mehan notes the motto of the World Polyamory Association: “More Loves Make More Love”. And he offers us their Vision Statement: “You have relationship options-monogamy, celibacy, open marriage, pair-bonded inclusive relating, triads (man-woman-woman, woman-man-woman, man-man-man, woman-woman-woman) polyfidelity [sic], loving networks, group marriage, multi-generational line marriage, and more. You have heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual alternatives within each. You have many spiritual practices and value systems to chose [sic]-to mix and match with your relationship options, styles and sexual orientation. What is most important is that you are the chooser and that you come from choice.”
Fagan again: “In the culture of monogamy, men are anchored in their families and tied to their children and wives, through the free and deliberate focus of their sexuality. In the culture of polyamory, which treasures sexual freedom or license, such sexual constraint by men (or women) is not expected, nor, in fact, is any attempt to foster such constraint acceptable, for that would be the antithesis of the main project of the culture of polyamory, women are anchors, while men can drift (or be cast adrift) as desired, and they do so in very large numbers.”
And this has an impact on the state as well. Writes Mehan: “Monogamy seeks objective truth and norms. Polyamory is relativist in its moral orientation. The one promotes a limited constitutional state because it assumes self-imposed restraint and self-discipline. The other relies on social welfare programs ‘to rescue its adherents from the effects of its form of sexuality’.”
But what about other forms of sexual liberation? The push for adult sexual “rights” with children is moving from strength to strength as well. Consider the words of Matt Barber who attended a pro-paedophilia conference in Baltimore last week.
In an article by Jeremy Kryn we get to hear from Barber and what he experienced: “As a former law enforcement officer I’ve dealt with situations involving suicide, homicide and other violence. That said, I’ve never felt the level of spiritual oppression and evil that I felt in that room.”
He continues, “These mental health ‘professionals,’ and self-described pedophile and ‘gay’ activists were inexplicably able to cavalierly discuss, in an almost dismissive way, the idea of child rape. They used flowery, euphemistic psychobabble to give quasi-scientific cover to a discussion about the worst kind of perversion.”
Kryn describes the conference: “The organization B4U-ACT sponsored the event in Baltimore last week, which was attended by pro-pedophile activists and mental health professionals. The conference examined the ways in which ‘minor-attracted persons’ could be involved in a revision of the American Psychological Association (APA) classification of pedophilia.
“Conference panelists included Fred Berlin of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Renee Sorentino of Harvard Medical School, John Sadler of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, and John Breslow of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
“Speakers addressed the around 50 individuals in attendance on themes ranging from the notion that pedophiles are ‘unfairly stigmatized and demonized’ by society to the idea that ‘children are not inherently unable to consent’ to sex with an adult. Also discussed were arguments that an adult’s desire to have sex with children is ‘normative’ and that the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) ignores the fact that pedophiles ‘have feelings of love and romance for children’ in the same way adult heterosexuals and homosexuals have romantic feelings for one another.”
Just as homosexual activists successfully bullied and intimidated the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 to pull homosexuality off its list, so too the kiddie sex perverts are seeking to do the same thing. And it is likely that they will succeed. After all, they can use all the handy arguments already used so successfully by the homosexual activists.
Kryn cites Law Professor Judith Reisman: “I go into detail on this in my last book, ‘Sexual Sabotage’. Following Alfred Kinsey ‘sexologists’ began to occupy our schools, so that educated professionals have largely been trained to be a form of sexual anarchists.
“Although the stupidity of advocating harmless amoral sexuality overwhelms us daily, our arrogant ‘educated’ populations say morality has no place in our sexual lives. Just as AIDS is a natural outgrowth of amoral sexual education and media, so too is child sexual abuse. We are breeding a new human character and child sexual abuse is increasingly part of that character.”
But thanks to the homosexual activists, we know things will not stop there. Soon every conceivable “sexual orientation” imaginable will be argued for and publically championed. You see, there is still so much sexual inequality and injustice which needs to be dealt with. Welcome to the brave new world, or should I say, the big bad ugly world of sexual insanity.