Understanding the Homosexual Agenda

Tuesday, Sep. 23, 2008 Posted: 12:28:21AM HKT

Item 2, deals with the situation where homosex is legalised and the age of consent required is higher than that for heterosexual sex. The assumption seems to be that a person has to be more mature to give his consent to homosex. The strategy of homosexual activists is to accept this higher age of consent to get homosex legalised and then contend for equalization in the name of equality. In some countries like Japan, the age of consent is 13 years. Is your 13 year old son ready to make such decisions?

On item 3, anti-discrimination laws passed to promote homosexual rights have in many jurisdictions become oppressive laws which infringe the rights of others.

In the arena of education, in England, schools are participating in a 600,000-pound project designed to introduce children as young as four to same sex relationships through e.g. the “King and King” fairytale about a prince who rejects the love of 3 princesses before falling in love with and “marrying” another prince. The Muslim Council of Britain and other Christian organisations protested against this project. As the representative of the Muslim Council said to Reuters, “Why are we introducing these ideas to such young children? A lot of parents will be very concerned about the exposure of their children to such books which are contrary to their religious beliefs and values.” The representative of a Christian group “warned that the project could expose children to sexual predators by making them think that ‘two boys fiddling with each other …is perfectly normal.’” ((http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/)(http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/printerfriendly.html). Should homosexual rights trump religious rights or even parental rights?

In the United States, David Parker, a father requested the principal of the school his 6 year-old son attends that his son be taken out of the class when the teacher teaches on homosexuality. He was arrested for criminal trespass when he refused to leave the school without such an assurance from the principal. He was brought to court hand-cuffed. The court made an order restraining him from entering the school premises. In the meantime, his 6 year-old son was brought to the back of the school by a group of boys and beaten up. This seemed tied to vitriol against his father by activist parents in the school.

David Parker filed a federal civil rights claim against the school, but the judge reinforced the right of schools to teach homosexuality without parents’ consent or choice to opt out. David Parker has appealed against the decision.(http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/)

In the arena of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, a Canadian human rights tribunal ordered Stephen Boisson, a Christian pastor to renounce his faith and never again to express moral opposition to homosexuality. Stephen Boisson’s wrongdoing was in writing to the local newspaper in Alberta denouncing the advance of homosexual activism. He stated: “children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”

The complaint was brought by an activist teacher. Stephen Boisson was ordered to pay $5000 for pain and suffering caused to the complainant even though the Tribunal conceded that the complainant was not injured. What a travesty of justice.

These stories are only the tip of the iceberg but they show the danger that besets a society when political claims are made in the name of “rights” and the proponents of such political claims are silent on their agenda with its wide ramifications which could tear the fabric of our society.

Pages: 1 | 2 |

Thio Su Mien Ph.D (Law)
Christian Post Singapore Guest Columnist