How Special are “Gay Rights”?

When pro-family people claim that homophile groups are pushing a “special rights” agenda, they are roundly condemned and ridiculed by homosexual leaders, the media, and the glitterati. “Gay rights” organizations assert that they are not asking for special rights, but only for the same rights that everyone else enjoys.

For example, activist Frank Brown said “I want to go to my job. I want to have a home. I want to save my money. And I want to go on vacation. What kind of ‘hidden agenda’ are they talking about?”1 And rallies supporting homosexual “marriage” usually have several people holding professionally printed signs reading something like “The Gay Agenda: Spend Time with My Family/Be Treated Equally/Buy Milk.”

This language is carefully designed to be soothing and nonthreatening, distracting attention from the real special rights agenda as it rolls ahead almost unimpeded.

In his notorious essay on the homosexual revolution, Michael Swift mentions “wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.” Homosexuals frequently employ these tools, endlessly ridiculing the idea that there is a “gay agenda” at all. This, of course, allows those who are pushing the agenda to avoid discussion and simply mock those who allege its existence.

For example, Jeff Miner, the homosexual senior pastor of Life Journey Church, describes “The Gay Agenda”:

6:00a — Gym

8:00a — Breakfast (oatmeal & egg whites)

9:00a — Hair appointment

10:00a — Shopping

Noon — Lunch

2:00p — Take over government/Recruit youngsters/Replace school counselors/Destroy marriage/Bulldoze houses of worship/Secure control of Internet.2

Despite denials and mockery, the “gay agenda” is distressingly real, and it has specific and well-defined goals. But its ultimate objective can be stated in one sentence: the complete crushing of all opposition to whatever the homosexual leadership wants.

We must emphasize that the great majority of homosexual people do not believe in this program. All they want is to live their lives without interference. Unfortunately, it is not the average homosexual who defines the special rights agenda; it is the most extreme and vocal activists.

human rights


The Confusion about Special Rights

The culture of death thrives on confusion because it knows that confusion leads to uncertainty, and uncertainty leads to paralysis. Every one of the dozen or so leading homophile groups is actively involved in laying down a thick screen of deceptive and distracting language, thereby hoping to divert attention away from what they are actually trying to accomplish. This tactic goes so far as an attempt to do away with the term “special rights” itself.

For example, in its “Media Reference Guide,” the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation (GLAAD) describes the term “special rights” as a “rhetorical invention of anti-gay extremists seeking to create a climate of fear by portraying the pursuit of civil rights for LGBT people as sinister,” and specifies the following:

Offensive: “special rights”
Preferred: “equal rights” or “equal protection.”
Anti-gay extremists frequently characterize civil rights and equal protection of the law for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans as “special rights” in an attempt to energize opposition to anti-discrimination and equal opportunity laws.3

GLAAD is obviously attempting to confuse and distort the definition of “special rights.” No pro-family group has ever lobbied against “equal protection of the law” for homosexuals. We simply object to people who think that they are so special that they are entitled to rights that nobody else enjoys.

Dishonest activists, regardless of their cause, embrace imprecise language and terms that they can use to manipulate the law and public opinion. More importantly, if the language is flexible and ill-defined, they can get away with practically anything in a debate, discussion or political race.

In other words, they love confusion, because flexible terms mean that none of the central points will ever be settled. And this, of course, is exactly their intent, because it means they have unlimited freedom of action.

Whenever a precisely-defined term such as “special rights” surfaces in the debate, the homophiles loudly denounce it because they know that it has the potential to be damaging to their agenda. They try their best to bury it as deeply as possible or to just ignore it and hope it goes away, which is typical behavior for people who are frightened of discussion and debate.


What Are Special Rights?

question marks

In order to make our case, we must begin by defining exactly what a “special right” actually is:

A “special right” is a right demanded by a group of people who deny the same right to others, particularly their ideological opponents.4

To clarify the concept, let us consider a typical “gay pride” parade. During these events, homosexuals frequently are naked, simulate sex, and even perform sexual acts in full view of the public, including small children. Homosexual activists and their supporters have attempted to enact laws that specify that only homosexuals have the right to be naked and perform sex acts in public.5

Additionally, the very concept of a “gay pride” parade itself is an excellent example of a special right demanded by homosexuals. They demand the right to celebrate their lifestyles in public, but have viciously condemned those few people brave enough to propose “straight pride” parades, labeling them “homophobic.”6 The primary point here is that homosexuals demand the right to have “gay pride” parades while denying their ideological opponents the right to hold a similar event celebrating their lifestyle. Homosexuals inevitably trot out a long and impressive list of justifications as to why “straight pride” parades should be banned, mostly based on a long history of usually fabricated victimization, but their rationalizations are irrelevant. The stark fact is that they are denying others a right that they claim for themselves.

This is the heart and soul of a homosexual “special right.”


The Endless Homophile Demands

The typical homophile activist is always diligently searching for evidence of hypocrisy in everyone but himself. He will inevitably claim that pro-family activists claim certain “special rights” for themselves that they deny to homosexuals, the primary example being marriage. But this is incorrect. Nobody has ever said that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Pro-family people say that homosexuals have exactly the same marriage rights that everyone else does; they just have to marry a person of the opposite sex.

wedding bands gold rings

Homosexual activists are mercilessly goaded by guilt and anger and can never be satisfied. As one of them said, “When the [gay rights] bill passes, there will be something else. There will always be something else.”7

According to former homosexual activist Luke Montgomery:

You have to understand that the motivation of the gay community is validation. They want to be approved. They want people to say, “It’s okay that you’re gay” … and if you disagree with one tiny, insignificant little point of their wide, broad, sweeping agenda, you’re all of a sudden a homophobe and a hatemonger. You’re a villain. A bad guy. And this is ludicrous.8

Far from hiding their special rights agenda, homophile groups have provided us a detailed description of it. They have published dozens of manifestos featuring detailed lists of elements that all begin with the words “We demand,” “We insist,” “We expect” or “We want.” This article describes these demands, shows how they are being implemented in the real world, and concludes by showing that, as a body, they represent a real and growing threat to life and liberty.

If any of these demands appear reasonable at first, just imagine the public outcry that would result if the Catholic Church or “straights” made them instead of homosexuals.


Special Rights in Media and Entertainment

We are all aware that the mainstream media is heavily biased even to the point of corruption regarding the social issues. The result is a crippled and entirely one-sided view of homosexuality.

newspapers media

Homosexual infiltration and intimidation of the media began in the early 1970s. Even then, television producer James Komack complained, “Do you know the most powerful lobby in the entertainment business? Bigger than blacks or women’s lib or any nationalist or racist group. It’s the gays. If you don’t have the approval of the Gay Media Task Force, you don’t go on the air.9

In other words, the media shows us bad guys all the time, but never any bad gays.

The ILGA (International Lesbian and Gay Association) has demanded that nations eradicate the broadcasting of all content it deems discriminatory or unfavorable towards homosexuals. This has already occurred in Canada, where the Canadian Radio, Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTTC) has forbidden licensed stations to broadcast any programs portraying homosexuals or homosexuality in a negative light for any reason whatsoever. The CRTTC has directed the “Dr. Laura Show,” Jerry Falwell’s “Old Time Gospel Hour,” and Focus on the Family, among others, not to include any material at all dealing with homosexuality in their programming.10

No other racial, ethnic, religious or other type of group enjoys such absolute protection.

The result of this campaign of intimidation is that television shows and movies invariably portray all homosexuals as people of the highest possible moral caliber, and any faults that they do possess are endearing, humorous and inconsequential. Compare this to the hideous treatment of Christians in general and Catholics in particular, who the media often portray as hypocritical and contemptible ogres and sexual perverts.

Some homosexual groups have even demanded that the Internet be purged of all criticism of homosexuality. For example, the Canadian homosexual group EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) has e-mailed threatening notes to pro-family websites and has openly discussed the tactic of filing an avalanche of harassment lawsuits against them.11

Various homophile groups have demanded that all movies and television shows include homosexual and transgender characters, all of which must be portrayed in a strictly positive light. One group supporting homosexual “marriage” even demanded that Bert and Ernie, two male Muppets from the children’s television show “Sesame Street,” get married — to each other! 12

The silliness knows no boundaries. When the blockbuster movie “Avatar” was released in December 2009, homosexual activist groups staged a boycott because it contained no transsexual characters. This action, which failed dismally, was called the “International Day of Protest against Avatar.” Its website boasts the slogan “The Future is Transgender, Not Straight!”13

As comedian Dave Barry says, “I swear I am not making this up!”

human rights with four hands


Special Rights Activism in Public Policy

In order to enact the “special rights” agenda, homophile activists must completely eradicate opposing viewpoints from every aspect of the public arena. They want to make certain that the ugly features of the homosexual lifestyle and the terroristic history of the “gay rights” movement are not only completely hidden from view, but entirely forgotten by the public. Believe it or not, homosexuals are beginning to demand that those who oppose their agenda simply be erased from history, following the example of Lenin.14

Leading homosexual activists have sought to censor all speeches given by political candidates. As one example, the $40 million-a-year homophile group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) demanded that the Republican Party suppress any speeches or performances at the 2004 GOP convention by anyone they deemed “homophobic.” The HRC even drew up a long list of entertainers and speakers that they wanted banned from all public speaking engagements because they had at some time in the past opposed some aspect of the homosexual agenda.15 The majority of those submitting comments to various homosexual-oriented blogs applauded the HRC demands; very few were courageous enough to mention the obvious dangers they posed to free speech.

To illustrate how absurd this situation really is, try to imagine the howls of protest that would arise from the left if pro-family activists demanded that the Democrats prohibit speech by anyone who had expressed anti-Christian views in their past.

Unfortunately, homophiles are not satisfied with silencing political candidates. They believe that all public figures must be forced to toe the line.

For example, actress Jada Pinkett Smith received an award from the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations in 2005. During her acceptance speech, she told women in the audience that “You can have it all ― a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career.…” Hours later, Harvard’s Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance condemned her statement, calling it “heteronormative,” and demanded that future speakers be allowed to speak of man-woman families only if they also approved of homosexual “marriage.”

The homophiles not only believe that those who publicly oppose their agenda should be muzzled; they often demand that they should be severely punished as well. Homosexual activist groups have demanded that those who oppose gay “marriage” be forbidden to run for public office, be banned from working for government in any capacity, be barred from attending law school or from practicing law, and be fired from their jobs without recourse.

In September 2013, the Democrat-controlled city council of San Antonio, Texas passed a sweeping ordinance stating:

No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or disability.

The ordinance does not contain a religious exemption, meaning that those who are members of pro-family faiths or who have, say, expressed their disapproval of same-sex “marriage” in a letter to their local newspaper will be permanently banned from seeking public office.16

marriage roses bouquet and rings on pillow

Meanwhile, to our north, influential Canadian homophile groups have demanded that anyone who believes that marriage should be a union between one man and one woman must be forbidden from attending law school or from practicing law.


The Pro-LGBT Agenda in the Department of Justice

The Canadians are getting more and more aggressive at trampling the rights of those who oppose the homosexual special rights agenda, but the United States is not far behind.

In 2013, the United States Department of Justice published an internal memorandum entitled “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” It says “DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

This is a threat, and not even a subtle one. The memorandum uses KGB-style language to intimidate: “DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.” The document even compels support by directing, “DO display a symbol in your office (DOJ Pride sticker, copy of this brochure, etc.) indicating that it is a ‘safe space.’”

In other words, if you work for the Department of Justice, you must display some visible symbol of your support of the homophile movement, even if you in good conscience disagree with it.

Among several other truly ridiculous directives, the memo commands DOJ employees “DO use inclusive words like ‘partner,’ ‘significant other’ or ‘spouse’ rather than gender-specific terms like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ (for example, in invitations to office parties or when asking a new employee about his/her home life).”

In other words, play along with the corporate delusion or you will be punished.

Not one homosexual activist group questioned the breathtaking arrogance of this directive; in fact, most supported it.

Once again, imagine the outrage that the elitist left would display if the DOJ had instead commanded all of its employees to display crucifixes or images of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in their offices.


Even More Examples…

This blatant form of coercion is even seeping into the institute that guards our freedoms, the United States armed forces. If the guardians can be deprived of their freedoms, what chance do the rest of us have?

Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk had a distinguished career in the Air Force, unblemished by even the slightest disciplinary action. In August 2012, his commanding officer, Major Elisa Valenzeula, an openly practicing lesbian, ordered him to make a statement that he supported homosexual “marriage.” He politely explained that he could not answer since it would violate his conscience. Valenzuela told him that all military personnel must now support homosexual “marriage,” and fired him. When he went to the press, the Air Force threatened him with a court martial.17

Some homophile groups go even further. In 2013, Italian homophiles attempted to sneak through a so-called “anti-homophobia” law just before the Italian Chamber of Deputies broke for its summer recess. This law would punish anyone who is a member of a group that lobbies against homosexual “marriage,” and features mandatory penalties of up to six years in prison. The law even specified that pro-family activists, once released from prison, be forced to work for homosexual groups! The homophile group Movimento 5 Stelle (M5S) lobbied for the harsh penalties, which were also supported by U.S.-based Amnesty International.18

Naturally, if the homosexuals are to have a tight stranglehold on society, they must also have control of the schools. We have already seen many examples of the “sensitivity” (indoctrination) classes that have been forced upon our high school and college students. Some homosexual activist groups are now demanding that all school textbooks refer to homosexuals only in favorable terms, and that they be prohibited from even mentioning the words “mother” and “father.” In May 2006, the California Senate passed a bill demanded by homosexual groups and legislators. This bill removed sex-specific terms such as “Mom” and “Dad” from all textbooks, and requires students to learn only positive things about homosexuals and homosexuality, the only group so protected.19

books stack textbooks education research

The demand for such a privileged position is at the heart of the special rights movement. Only those who belong under the “LGBT” banner are allowed the right to no opposition, so that alternate viewpoints cannot even be heard.


Special Rights Activists: “Death to Our Opponents!”

These elements of the homosexual special rights agenda are certainly extreme. However, nothing approaches the fanaticism of those who vocally condemn the death penalty — except for those who oppose them. If this belief were held by only a handful of people, it would not be distressing; however, it appears to be a “mainline” belief among activist homophiles, as the following description shows.


The Rape and Murder of Mary Stachowicz

At age fifty-one, mother of four Mary Stachowicz confronted homosexual Nicholas Gutierrez and asked him, “Why do you sleep with boys?” In response, Gutierrez raped, tortured and sodomized Mary, and then stabbed her so many times he bent the tip of his hunting knife. He stuffed her body in a crawl space and finally confessed two days later.

Predictably, no formal condemnations of Mrs. Stachowicz’s murder were ever issued by leading homosexual groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, or the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation (GLAAD). In fact, many of the thousands of homosexuals and homophiles who posted comments about the brutal murder on the web said that she deserved the death penalty for harassing Gutierrez.

Typical of the thousands of comments by the homophiles who applauded Mary’s savage murder included:

  • “The b**** had it coming to her. I’m glad he killed her” (a San Francisco man on Yahoo).
  • “The woman who did such great evil is dead, but unfortunately the evil and the church and the society which creates it is not” (self-identified homosexual James Wagner).
  • “Maybe [Stachowicz’s murder] will strike fear in the hearts of a few fundamentalists. Where do I send a check for his (Gutierrez’s) defense fund?” (James Wagner’s “boyfriend,” Barry).
  • “I really don’t feel sorry for her. She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist. Too bad for her” (“Iris,” in a posting on the ACLU Online Forum).
  • “The RCC [Roman Catholic Church] is responsible for continuing to put forth a silly, stupid and factually wrong doctrine of ‘objective disorders’ and ‘intrinsic moral evil’ regarding homosexuality. For all the evil that that doctrine has done and continues to do, they have a lot to be held accountable for” (“JodyW,” on the Naked Writing web log).20

There is no question that Mary Stachowicz harassed Nicholas Gutierrez. But does the crime of harassment really merit a penalty of death by rape and torture? Apparently, many homosexuals believe so.


The Lawsuit of Scott Lively

And many others believe that those who speak publicly against the homosexual agenda should also be put to death — or at least imprisoned for life.

In 2011, Pastor Scott Lively, a longtime pro-family activist, traveled to Uganda to warn the nation about the consequences of the homosexual lifestyle. Shortly after his visit, a leading Ugandan homosexual activist, David Kato, was murdered. Partly due to this murder, the homophile group SMUG (Sexual Minorities Uganda), assisted by the American group Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), filed a lawsuit against Pastor Lively in Federal court, accusing him of “crimes against humanity,” as well as conspiracy and “violating the laws of nations.”

These groups neglected to mention that Kato was murdered by another homosexual man.

“Crimes against humanity,” as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, “are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings.”

It is important to note that most people convicted of crimes against humanity in modern times have been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Some are even sentenced to death in particularly egregious cases.


Not one homosexual activist group questioned the charges brought against Lively.

Since when does the presentation of an alternate opinion deserve the death penalty?


The Special Rights Movement Worldwide

The desire of homosexual activists to force society into their desired mold is certainly not limited to North America and Europe. They ardently desire to stamp out all resistance in every nation of the world at any cost. As long as there is anyone, anywhere, who disapproves of them, they will continue to attempt to eradicate opposition.

Emboldened by the Obama administration, homosexual activist groups are loudly demanding that other (primarily African) nations change their religious and social beliefs, cultures and customs to accommodate homosexuality. If these nations do not comply, the homosexuals have no problem demanding that international disaster aid be cut off, with the result that thousands or tens of thousands will die painful and unnecessary deaths. This means that Africans must knuckle under or die, and apparently some homophiles believe that their rights are more important than the very lives of other people.21


Blood Donation in Quebec

This egocentric belief is not limited to international aid. Leading homosexual groups have demanded the right to give blood for more than two decades, even though homosexual men have an extremely high rate of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, syphilis and other diseases. As one example, homosexual activist Joel Pinard of Quebec City admitted that he lied in order to donate blood. He said of guidelines that prevent gay men from donating blood, “It’s a stupid, archaic rule. So I made a false statement, declaring that I was heterosexual … to challenge Hemaquebec.”

Hemaquebec is the Quebec Province’s blood collection agency. It tried to recall the blood products derived from Pinard’s donation, but they had already been used. Pinard lied on the blood donor’s questionnaire because he claimed that it fostered the mistaken perception that AIDS is a gay disease. In other words, Pinard believes that his desire for acceptance takes precedence over other people’s lives.22 Once again, comments on homosexual activist blogs took Pinard’s side by a wide margin.

Pinard is not alone in his beliefs. Homosexuals are so fanatical in their pursuit of revoking the blood ban that they have organized many boycotts of blood drives among all liberals, both homosexual and heterosexual.23

There is ample medical evidence supporting the ban on homosexuals giving blood. In the early 1990s, about 20,000 Canadians were infected with HIV and hepatitis due to donations by primarily homosexual men, and most of them died.24 Few homophiles expressed sympathy for the thousands of Canadians who died needlessly due to the selfishness of homosexual activists. An Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the ban on homosexuals giving blood in 2010, ruling that giving blood is not a constitutional right, although this has not silenced homosexual demands in the least.25

By comparison, anyone who is even suspected of being exposed to malaria is automatically banned from giving blood for one year, or, if living in a nation where malaria is found, for three years.26 However, we don’t see people exposed to malaria griping about how they are being “stigmatized.”


Special Rights in Religion and Science

The greatest enemy of the homosexual special rights agenda is true religion. Therefore, it has come under withering attack by homophile groups over the past two decades in their drive to establish their beliefs as a central element of the new world faith.

Homosexual activists stridently condemn even the most trivial limit on their activities as religiously motivated, and dismiss any concerns — even those based upon science — as paranoid Catholic or fundamentalist stupidity. In other words, they simply point at Christian beliefs about homosexuality and allege that they are invalid and cannot be used as a basis for law. It does not occur to the homophiles that they are also forcing a religious viewpoint on the rest of us ― the Unitarian view that homosexuality is harmless and acceptable, and that homosexual “marriage” must be legalized worldwide. This means that homophiles demand the right to impose their religious beliefs on the entire world.

In Europe and Canada, a number of pastors who have read what the homosexuals deem “anti-gay” passages in the Bible have been fined and imprisoned, and there are serious homophile attempts to have the Bible declared “hate literature.”27 To get around the problem of Scripture verses such as Romans 1, the homosexuals have even published their own version of the Bible called the “Queen James Version” (QJV), which is sanitized of all passages that might be interpreted as being critical of homosexuality.

No, I am still not making any of this up.


Hatred of the Catholic Church

Among religious opponents of the homosexual special rights agenda, the Catholic Church stands alone. Therefore, it is no surprise that it is subjected to the most consistent and vicious attacks.


The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual activity is “intrinsically disordered.” Homosexuals have demanded that the Church change this teaching to suit their doctored public opinion polls.28 The Church teaches that communicants must avoid committing blasphemy against Our Lord, and approach the communion rail in a state of grace. Homosexual activists demand that this teaching must also be discarded (see the Rainbow Sash Movement in the United States and Australia, for example).

Priests in other nations have been targeted as well. For example, homosexuals living very public “gay” lifestyles in defiance of Church teachings hit several Spanish priests with lawsuits for refusing them Communion.29

Homosexuals are the only group of individuals who believe that they have a natural right to be ordained as Catholic priests. In Colombia, homosexual groups sued Archbishop Fabio Betancourt Tirado of Manizales after he dismissed a seminarian for extensive public homosexual activity and for robbery. The former seminarian then accused the Archbishop of discrimination against him and filed a lawsuit. A homosexual-friendly judge ordered the Archbishop jailed, but stayed his order at the last minute. The seminarian was supported by Colombian homophile groups throughout the conduct of the lawsuit.30

The Catholic Church is not the only denomination that has to deal with such ridiculous homophile demands. A [naturally] anonymous homosexual in an open sexual relationship with his male “partner” brought a Human Rights Tribunal complaint against the Anglican Bishop of Auckland, New Zealand, Reverend Ross Bay, for not allowing him to become a priest. Bishop Bay did not permit him to enter a seminary simply because no man in a sexual relationship should become a priest, not because he was a homosexual.31

No other group of people of any philosophy thinks that it has the right to dictate the teachings of a church.

Homosexuals have mocked and ridiculed the Catholic faith for decades, often parodying its most cherished beliefs, such as the Holy Mass, through blasphemous plays and “street theater” (see the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” if you have a cast iron stomach, at and Homosexuals, meanwhile, stridently demand that their lifestyle be protected from parody and mockery. This is probably the most vivid example of a special right demanded by homosexuals when dealing with religion.

Predictably, when a law is passed protecting religion from mockery (identical to the ones the homosexuals demand for themselves), they shriek with outrage. For example, homosexuals were in an uproar about a Russian law prohibiting “public actions expressing open disrespect for society and committed in an effort to offend the religious feelings of believers.”32


LGBT Denial of Science

Not even provable scientific facts are safe from homophile demands.

As just one example, Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) volunteer John Dillinger was at Grand Valley State University when he told a transgendered person that sex is determined at conception, a simple fact that is described in every medical school embryology and fetology textbook. The transgender person complained to police, saying that his statement “offended” him. Campus police escorted Dillinger off the campus and a bias report was filed against him. If he had been a student at the University, he would have most likely been severely punished or even dismissed.33

Neither religion nor science is allowed to stand in the way of the special rights that so many homosexuals believe they must have.



The most dangerous special right demanded by radical homosexuals is their monopoly of the discussion. Whenever anyone voices even the mildest objection to any element of the special rights agenda, they are immediately shouted down with a chorus of obnoxious voices chanting “HOMOPHOBE!” While homophiles demand the right to relentlessly and ruthlessly stereotype anyone who opposes any element of their agenda for any reason whatsoever as “homophobes,” “haters” and “bigots,” they claim that anyone who dares stereotype gays in any manner must be charged with a felony hate crime.

Unfortunately, this attitude is not unique to homosexual activists. The Culture of Death says that if you oppose widespread voter fraud or unrestrained immigration, you are obviously a racist.34 If you are against gruesome third-trimester abortions of viable babies for convenience purposes, then you must be a foot soldier in the “war against women.” And if you oppose any element of the special rights agenda, then you are, by definition, a bigot and a hater.

It is one thing to refuse to debate because you think your viewpoint is so superior you have nothing to gain. It is another thing entirely to state as a fact that your opposition has no right to express their opinions. This is why the homophiles do not listen to their opponents, do not reply to them, and do not even give them the respect of consideration or analysis. They instead just reflexively condemn them as “bigots,” “haters” and “homophobes.”

Radical homosexuals have become accustomed to winning. They are used to people caving in and giving them everything they want. They have intimidated most people into inaction with their aggressive attacks, and they appear to care little about anyone other than themselves.

The homosexual “special rights” agenda is real, as this article has shown. No amount of professional homophile distraction, ridicule or censorship will cover it up if Christians and others of good will stand up against it. If we do not stop the “special rights” agenda while we still can, we will soon be living under a regime bereft of freedom or democracy.

+ Endnotes

[1] Homosexual activist Frank Brown, quoted in Dirk Johnson. “Colorado Homosexuals Feel Betrayed.” The New York Times, November 8, 1992.

[2] Jason Smathers. “Jeff Miner Discusses the ‘Gay Agenda.’” October 18, 2011, at It is easy to find many other such examples of ridicule; just search for “gay agenda” under Google images.

[3] Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation (GLAAD). “Media Reference Guide: Offensive Terminology to Avoid” at

[4] The libertarian definition of “special rights” is “laws granting rights to one or more groups which are not extended to other groups” (Ronald Hamowy. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. SAGE, 2008, page 245).

[5] Ben Johnson. “San Francisco Set to Vote on Ban on Public Nudity, Except at ‘Gay Pride’ Events.” LifeSite Daily News, November 19, 2012.

Even pro-homosexual Vancouver Sun columnist Shelley Fralic criticized the 2011 San Francisco Gay Pride Parade as an “X-rated public peep show” run by officials according to a “double standard.” She asked:

When, exactly, did nudity become the new normal? And why is it okay for all of the above to take place in public, where such behavior more commonly lands one in front of a judge? How is it that a man can expose himself in a public park and, quite rightly, get his ass hauled off to jail, but a coterie of rainbow-bright lads and lassies with dangling participles bumping and grinding on Denman Street is considered family fun? Keep your pants on, people. Yes, all you people prancing about in public with perplexing impunity from legal or etiquette censure, gyrating on floats in your manties with your dangling bits flopping about, or spreading your fleshy naked derrières on bicycle seats, or threatening to crowd the courthouse steps with your foreskins flopping about as if desperately seeking a safe haven…. If one can’t saunter nude through the Metrotown food court ― and good Lord, please don’t ― without security taking exception, why are naked parade participants now routinely given civic license to conduct X-rated public peep shows?”

Peter Baklinski. “Vancouver Police, Officials would not Uphold Laws against Public Nudity at Pride Parade.” LifeSite Daily News, August 12, 2013.

[6] Homosexuals and their sympathizers also condemn all other “straight pride” events, including “heterosexual awareness month,” and attempt to prevent individuals (especially students) from expressing any opposition to the gay rights agenda, including punishing high schoolers who wear “straight pride” T-shirts (see the Wikipedia entry on “Straight Pride” for many examples).

[7] “The Week.” National Review, April 11, 1986, page 16.

[8] Luke Montgomery, once known as “Luke Sissyfag,” quoted in Mark Olsen’s book Refuge and in “On Record.” American Family Association Journal, March 1997, page 11.

[9] David A. Neobel. The Homosexual Revolution [Tulsa: American Christian College Press], 1977, page 103.

[10] “International Gay Association Demands That UN Censor Media.” LifeSite Daily News, June 15, 2001.

[11] “Canadian Homosexual Activists on EGALE List-Serve Discuss How to Shut Down LifeSite.” LifeSite Daily News, May 11, 2004.

[12] Chuck Colson. “Bert and Ernie: Best Buddies in an Over-Sexualized Culture.” BreakPoint, August 29, 2011.

[13] “International Day of Protest against Avatar,” at The objectives of the campaign were, believe it or not:

(1) To make all people aware that heterosexual arrogance, assumptions or exclusions of alternative sexualities in movies is no longer acceptable. Diversity and tolerance are human rights; (2) To speak out for all gay, bi-sexual, genderless and transgender people who are not represented by any character in Avatar; (3) To educate people about Evolution and humanity’s transition to transgenderism.

[14] One example of this is the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, who opposes bogus homosexual “marriage.” He is one of the famous alumni of King’s College in London. Homosexual groups are demanding that the College remove his portrait from its main building for this reason, thus erasing him from its memory. (Thaddeus Baklinski. “UK College Considers Taking Down Photo of Famous Alumnus Because He Opposes Gay ‘Marriage.’” LifeSite Daily News, February 27, 2015.)

[15] Robert Knight. “If All Else Fails, Silence Them!”, September 1, 2004.

[16] Kirsten Andersen. “Christians May be Barred from Office, City Employment, or Contracts under New San Antonio LGBT Law.” LifeSite Daily News, September 6, 2013.

[17] Kirsten Anderson. “Air Force Sergeant Claims He was Fired for Refusing to Endorse Gay ‘Marriage’: Faces Court Martial.” LifeSite Daily News, September 10, 2013.

[18] Hilary White. “‘You Do Not Want a Real Debate in This Country’: Fmr. Deputy Calls Anti-Homophobia Law Stifling.'” LifeSite Daily News, August 6, 2013.

[19] “Bill Barring ‘Mom,’ ‘Dad’ from Texts Passes.” WorldNetDaily, May 11, 2006.

[20] “Man Raped and Murdered Woman Because She Vocally Opposed Gay Lifestyle, Says Defense Lawyer.” LifeSiteNews Daily News, November 2, 2006.

Web postings by people supporting and applauding the brutal murder of 51-year-old Mary Stachowicz by homosexual Nicholas Gutierrez, quoted in Allyson Smith, “‘Gay’ Reaction to Mrs. Stachowicz’s Murder: Silence to Applause.” Concerned Women for America website at, December 4, 2002.

[21] Hilary White. “Stop Foreign Aid to Nigeria for Banning Gay “Marriage:” European Union’s Homosexual Rights Group.” LifeSite Daily News, January 21, 2009.

See also Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D. “European Parliament Votes to Impose Heavy Sanctions against Pro-Family African Nations.” LifeSite News, March 14, 2014.

[22] Francine Dube. “Gay Blood Donor Lies in Protest of Policy.” National Post, June 11, 1999.

[23] See the Wikipedia entry “Gay Male Blood Donor Controversy.”

[24] Nimisha Sachdev. “Improper Blood Donation Led to Disaster in Canada.” French Journal, Mary 18, 2013. See also “Canada’s Tainted Blood Disaster,” the Krever Report.

[25] Peter Baklinski. “Canada Poised to Partially Lift Ban on Gay Men giving Blood.” LifeSite Daily News, November 28, 2012.

[26] See also “Activists Hold First Gay, Bisexual Blood Drive to Get FDA to Change Rules.” CBS News, July 12, 2013.

[27] Anne Kyle. “High Court Reserves Ruling on Biblical Scriptures.” Regina [Saskatchewan] Leader-Post, September 16, 2005.

“Respect is a Two-Way Street ― Christians Suffer for Opposing Homosexuality.” Zenit, May 31, 2009.

Stephen Beale. “Gay Persecution of Christians: The Latest Evidence.” Crisis Magazine, October 10, 2013.

[28] See the Dignity USA website for extensive literature on this theme. Also see the several websites of the Rainbow Sash Movement.

[29] “Lawsuit Filed against Priest for Denying Communion to Gay Activist.” Catholic News Agency, February 17, 2005.

[30] Gudrun Schultz. “Arrest Suspended for Colombian Catholic Archbishop over Dismissal of Homosexual Seminarian.” LifeSite Daily News, April 27, 2007.

[31] Peter Saunders. “Gay Man Who Wants to Become Priest Takes Bishop to Human Rights Tribunal for ‘Discrimination.'” LifeSite Daily News, May 6, 2013.

[32] Vera Kichanova. “Russia’s Other New Oppressive Law: In Russia, It’s Essentially against the Law to Hurt Religious People’s Feelings.” The Advocate, October 18, 2013.

[33] “Police Enforce Science Denial at Grand Valley State University.” Standing in the GAP [ProLife on Campus], September 2015.

[34] As one example of this stupid charge, Joe Biden said at a Black History Month event on February 25, 2014, “These guys [who support voter ID laws] never go away. Hatred never, never goes away. The zealotry of those who wish to limit the franchise cannot be smothered by reason” (Leah Barkoukis. “Biden: There’s ‘Hatred’ Behind Voter ID Laws.” TownHall, February 26, 2014).

Brian Clowes, PhD

Dr. Brian Clowes has been HLI’s director of research since 1995 and is one of the most accomplished and respected intellectuals in the international pro-life movement. Best known as author of the most exhaustive pro-life informational resource volume The Facts of Life, and for his Pro-Life Basic Training Course, Brian is the author of nine books and over 500 scholarly and popular articles, and has traveled to 70 countries on six continents as a pro-life speaker, educator and trainer.


  1. ROBERT BOTTON on September 27, 2021 at 9:32 AM

    Regarding “gay rights”: We have equal rights for all in the US, we do not need a new law for homosexuals or transgenders. If a law exists that denies equal rights to anyone it is unconstitutional and must be repealed, a new law only confuses the issue while simultaneously deny rights to straight and religious people.

    Regarding “abortion”: We have two amendments that specifically provide the “right to life”. The Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade confirmed this by inventing an alleged time during pregnancy when life begins and protecting that life except in the case of risking the mother’s life. They stated that if the federal legislature ever declares that life begins earlier, that will be the law. In keeping with the SCOTUS ruling and current scientific findings regarding heart beat and DNA, Life Begins a Conception. Such law and/or amendment is in the process now and will one day succeed in ending abortion on demand and the interpretation that a women’s right to privacy supersedes the unborn babes right to life. This practice will soon end once it is determined that abortion is an act of taking a life without due process or killing a person (some would say murder).

Leave a Comment