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.
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?
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.
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.
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!”
When conservatives speak of the “special rights” agenda, they refer to the habit of pro-LGBT activists to demand privileges that no other group, minority or otherwise, has claim to. Our next article will explore proof from real-life examples that the homosexual rights agenda is indeed a special rights agenda.
 Homosexual activist Frank Brown, quoted in Dirk Johnson. “Colorado Homosexuals Feel Betrayed.” The New York Times, November 8, 1992.
 Jason Smathers. “Jeff Miner Discusses the ‘Gay Agenda.’” October 18, 2011, at http://www.witnessesuntome.com/2011/10/jeff-miner-discusses-the-gay-agenda/. It is easy to find many other such examples of ridicule; just search for “gay agenda” under Google images.
 Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation (GLAAD). “Media Reference Guide: Offensive Terminology to Avoid.”
 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).
 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.
 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).
 “The Week.” National Review, April 11, 1986, page 16.
 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.
 David A. Neobel. The Homosexual Revolution [Tulsa: American Christian College Press], 1977, page 103.
 “International Gay Association Demands That UN Censor Media.” LifeSite Daily News, June 15, 2001.
 “Canadian Homosexual Activists on EGALE List‑Serve Discuss How to Shut Down LifeSite.” LifeSite Daily News, May 11, 2004.
 Chuck Colson. “Bert and Ernie: Best Buddies in an Over-Sexualized Culture.” BreakPoint, August 29, 2011.
 “International Day of Protest against Avatar.” 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.