Yes, it’s true that the vast majority of same-sex couples who intend on marrying are doing so for the sentimental aspect of equality. However, there is a dark side behind the push for the legalisation of same-sex marriage that is driven by senior LGBTQI activists and their Leftist allies — that for the most part — has been hidden from public view.
The information presented here is not some ‘elaborate conspiracy’, but rather a very clear agenda laid out in the open, that can be confirmed by anyone who makes the effort to do their homework.
- IS IT REALLY ABOUT ‘EQUALITY’ OR A PLATFORM FOR POWER?
- LGBT ACTIVISTS ADMIT THERE’S MORE TO IT THAN JUST MARRIAGE
- MARXISM AND THE LGBT AGENDA
- THE TROJAN HORSE OF SAFE SCHOOLS AND RADICAL LGBT SEX EDUCATION
- PREVIOUS SAFE SCHOOLS DIRECTOR DEFENDS “SEXUAL RIGHTS” OF CHILDREN
- IS THERE A LINK BETWEEN GAY MARRIAGE AND SAFE SCHOOLS?
Many of us would be forgiven for thinking that once the LGBTQI community finally got “marriage equality” that they would put their placards and banners away and go home happy that the long fight is finally over. Not necessarily. There is a much larger and much more sinister plan for the tiny minority of radical activists to wield disproportionate power and influence over Australian society.
The Australian Greens are one of many leftwing organisations that are upfront about their longterm objectives after gay marriage is legalised. In an article entitled “Beyond Marriage Equality” that appeared on the Greens website two years ago, it makes the very revealing claim of what their intentions are.
They themselves admit, that their agenda is to “build power to continue to achieve [additional] victories“. To give “queer organisers a stronger platform to create further change.” Is this something that Australians should be voting YES for?
It’s not just the Australian Greens who have a greater agenda in mind. As we will demonstrate, there are numerous LGBT activists, politicians and academics who see legalising same-sex marriage as just a stepping stone toward a much larger sex/gender revolution.
Deconstructing traditional values, socialist/Marxist agenda, radical LGBT sex education (Safe Schools), severely curtailing free speech are all the things that are lurking behind legalising same-sex marriage. If you think this is far fetched, then listen to what the activists say in their own words and look what has happened in other countries since same-sex marriage has been legalised.
Safe Schools co-founder Roz Ward recently said, “The government funds Safe Schools Coalition and then doesn’t legislate for marriage equality. That seems contradictory.” While overseas, Justine Greening, the UK minister for women and equalities, called the move to give more rights to transgender people the third great “step forward” after equality for women and the legalisation of same-sex marriage in 2013.
World leading gay activist Masha Gessen, a prolific contributor on LGBT issues to The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Slate and Vanity Fair, candidly admitted to an audience that the entire push for the legalisation of same-sex marriage was built on lies and then argues that the institution of marriage shouldn’t exist (see video).
Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change and it should change, and again I don’t think it should exist.
High-profile LGBTQI activist Michelangelo Signorile, who is an American journalist, author, talk radio host and the Queer Voices Editor-at-Large at the Huffington Post made a very revealing comment in regard to the push for gay marriage. He said,
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry, not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk the myth and radically alter an archaic institution. It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”
Signorile makes it absolutely clear that LGBTQI activists have no interest in simply “joining” marriage. No, they see it as a springboard to completely transforming culture and society. They want to be the tiny minority of people who wield disproportionate power and influence over the vast majority of society. They want to take marriage and remake it their own radical image.
Paula Ettelbrick (1955-2011), was one of the original pioneers of the LGBT movement for ‘marriage equality’. She was also the former director of Lambda Legal Fund Legal Defense and Education and the former executive director of the International Human Rights of Gays and Lesbians. She had this to say on the agenda behind the legalisation of same-sex marriage.
“Being gay is much more that just making a cozy home, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking government approval to have these rights . . . Being queer means modifying the parameters of sex, sexuality and family and, in the process, transforming the very fabric of society . . . We must keep our eyes on the goal . . . to radically reorder the way society sees reality.”
Again, Ettelbrick confirms that same-sex marriage is just a stepping stone toward a much larger sex/gender revolution with the agenda to completely re-engineer reality as we know it.
There is a very big reason why the same-sex marriage agenda is being pushed by the so-called ‘progressive’ or Left side of politics.
Many of the leading activists pushing for same-sex marriage are Marxists. The reason why Marxists favour same-sex marriage so much is because it enables the transfer of centralised power to the state to enforce equality throughout all aspects of society (as we have seen happen overseas) and it confronts the very two institutions that are holding back socialist policies — the family and the church. Whether deliberately or ignorantly, socialist polices undermine the biological family, faith communities and pre-political civil associations since their cohesion and self-sustainability lessen the need and opportunity for governmental intervention.
Identity politics is merely a facade for the neo-Marxist agenda. It’s all about shifting blame from personal responsibility to collective guilt. Create victims, empower their victimhood, then lobby the government to give them “rights” and the government expands in the process to enforce those rights. In traditional Marxism you had class warfare between the bourgeoisie (ruling class) and the proletariat (working class). Neo-Marxist theory (also known as Cultural Marxism) substitutes class warfare for minority group warfare.
See this excellent video presentation (left) explaining cultural marxism and its impact on Western society.
This deviation from traditional Marxist theory was the brainchild of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci, further developed by Hungarian Communist György Lukács and then weaponised and exported to America’s leading universities via Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno and other academics from the Frankfurt School. The central work to come out of the Frankfurt School, was Critical Theory, a theory of criticism of social norms to bring about wholesale societal change. Herbert Marcuse built on top of that theory with his book Eros and Civilisation, in which he regarded the realisation of man’s erotic nature as the true liberation of humanity. Then in 1965, he wrote his acclaimed essay “Repressive Tolerance” in which he posited to give preference of tolerance to minority groups using the dialectics of conflict (e.g. the oppressed vs the oppressor), advising the Left to restrain the liberty of the Right and to continually give preference to marginalised minority groups, who then become the oppressor in the fight for complete social equality. The tall poppies of Western society are to be torn down and the minority groups are to be championed and lifted up. The class warfare of traditional Marxism (proletariat vs bourgeoisie) has evolved to a cultural conflict between minority groups and established norms of Western society to achieve the same Marxist goal of a socialist revolution.
The proletariat (working class) has been replaced by the minority groups (LGBT, feminists, BLM, Islam, etc.) and the bourgeoisie (ruling class) has been replaced by the established social norms of Western society (heteronormativity, cisgenderism, the patriarchal nuclear family, the white race, Christianity, etc). It’s the oppressed vs the oppressor.
- White people are deemed as “oppressive”, therefore the answer is “racial diversity”
- Western culture is deemed as “oppressive”, therefore the answer is multiculturalism
- Heterosexuality is deemed as “oppressive”, therefore the answer is other diverse forms of sexuality
- Cisgender people are deemed as “oppressive”, therefore the answer is transgenderism
Marxists want massive centralised state power (in other words, BIG government) in order to force equality to all aspects of society. They can get government to expand via two ways. Firstly, they achieve it by creating victims which look to a leftist government; and secondly, they achieve it by creating chaos in society by breaking down the family and the government expands by default to clean up the mess.
Let’s look firstly at their strategy in creating victims.
Marxist “equality” is a loaded term that is a wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing. On the surface it appears to offer “fairness” and “social justice”, but in reality is nefarious ploy to get people to lobby the government to grant them “rights” and “special privileges” (rights and privileges that are usually invented out of thin air) and hence government expands in the process. Marxists understand that the only way possible for “equality” to be implemented onto a society is if government is empowered to do it.
They know full well, that if they can create victims, rub the sore red by aggravating the so-called “injustice” of their victimhood, and then preach that only they can provide the solution to their injustice, the victims will always look to them for giving them the so-called “rights” they crave, will be a devout Leftist (whether they realise it or not) and vote LEFT for life.
When the majority of people in a society all look to the government for “rights” and “privileges”, the individual freedom ebbs away and society inevitably heads toward enslavement. Consequently, as Reagan said, “As government expands, freedom contracts.” and hence freedom is sacrificed on the altar of “equality”. It’s tragic seeing Australians place so much emphasis on ‘equality’, rather than freedom. Why? Because inevitably, as Paul Kersey puts it, “When equality is considered the greatest goal of a nation state, it won’t be a nation state for long.”
Secondly, they achieve their strategy by creating chaos in society and then government must expand as a solution to the chaos—and what no better chaos than by exacerbating the breakdown of the family unit.
Breaking down the family unit was a primary goal in Marxist strategy. Marriage was “private prostitution”, wrote Marx. Engels called for the abolition of the family, and the collective rearing of children, describing a wife as “a slave of (her husband’s) lust and a mere instrument for the production of children”.
This anti-family ideology was adopted with gusto by the post-revolutionary Soviets who passed decrees in 1917 which made divorce easy, recognised only civil marriages, abolished shared family property and banned adoption. In 1918 courts took over parental rights. “True liberation of women, true Communism comes about only when the masses rise up … against … small-scale households,” wrote Lenin in 1919.
You will find these ideas in every feminism and gender studies course in universities today. But you probably won’t find their real-life consequences, which were catastrophic for Russian society.
By 1920, divorces increased 100 fold, the birthrate plummeted, abortions skyrocketed, and 75 per cent of marriages lasted less than six months. Nearly seven million homeless children “roamed the streets, starving, dying of disease, and forming criminal gangs,” wrote Geoffrey Hosking in A History Of The Soviet Union.
Former FBI agent W. Cleon Skousken had spent his entire career documenting the activity of Communist agents operating within the United States throughout the 1940’s and 1950’s. In 1958, he published his book “The Naked Communist” which documents the clear agenda the communists had set in place back then. He cites 45 goals (straight from the horse’s mouth) in which the Communists/Marxists have sought – and are still actively seeking – to undermine traditional Judeo-Christian values in society. The LGBTI agenda is merely one of many vehicles to drive Marxist propaganda into the mainstream – be that in schools, government or in the news media. Here are some of the most relevant points:
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV. [Note: This is the Gramscian agenda of the “long march through the institutions” spelled out explicitly: gradual takeover of the “means of communication” and then using those vehicles to debauch the culture and weaken the will of the individual to resist.]
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural and healthy.”
And what better way to destroy the family unit than by indoctrinating impressionable young people into the LGBT lifestyle. Safe Schools is sold on the lie of being an anti-bullying program, yet the true goal is to indoctrinate them into the LGBT lifestyle, destroy the bond between the child and his/her parents and ultimately breakdown the patriarchal family unit, which they utterly despise. Of course, government has to expand in its powers to pick up the pieces of destroyed families and socially dysfunctional individuals. They create the chaos, then they step in as a solution to the chaos.
An embedded tweet of Roz Ward’s speech at the 2013 Marxism Conference.
U.S. educational psychologist Prof. Benjamin Bloom, who was heavily influenced by Frankfurt School Marxists Adorno and Fromm said, “The purpose of education is to change the thoughts, actions and feelings of students.” and “Good teaching is challenging the students fixed beliefs.”
Education is one of the most critically important vehicles for the Marxists to bring about social change. Enter the radical LGBT sex education program—Safe Schools.
Roz Ward, the co-founder of Safe Schools at the 2015 Marxism Conference in Melbourne made her intentions absolutely clear when she said the following:
“Marxism offers both the hope and the strategy needed to create a world where human sexuality, gender and how we relate to our bodies can blossom in extraordinarily new and amazing ways that we can only try to imagine today, because Marxism has a theory of social change.”
“LGBTI oppression and heteronormativity are woven into the fabric of capitalism…there’s no denying that some areas of life have improved for LGBTI people and programs like Safe Schools Coalition are making some difference, but we’re still an extremely long way from liberation…only Marxism provides both the theory and the practice of genuine human liberation.”
Back in May last year, Roz Ward once again revealed her true colours. On her Facebook page, under a photo of the rainbow flag fluttering above Victoria’s Parliament to mark Premier Daniel Andrews’ apology to the gay community, she wrote: “Now we just need to get rid of the racist Australian flag on top of state Parliament and get a red one up there and my work is done.” Ward’s frankness on her Facebook post leaves no doubts about the anti-family, Marxist sexual agenda underpinning the so-called anti-bullying program.
Marxism can be devastating when embraced by a large number of people who are uninformed of its devastating consequences. Vladimir Lenin had a word for people who championed his cause, yet were clueless in regard to his true agenda. He called them “useful idiots”.
The leading Marxists and LGBT activists understand full well that their plan is to radically transform society to the point where sex, gender and reality itself are completely redefined. However, there are thousands more who are simply shouting the slogans and waving the rainbow flag with absolutely no idea what the end game is.
Want to help put a stop to all this? Vote NO for the postal plebiscite.
The Safe Schools program was set up in 2010 by La Trobe University’s Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS). The naming of the program was carefully planned and deliberately contrived. Spectator magazine states that:
“…Safe Schools Coalition has manipulated language to give ‘safe’ a whole new meaning…It’s a clever marketing strategy devised by activist Kevin Jennings in Massachusetts in the 1990s: tapping into values that everyone has in common, a desire for ‘safety’ is universal, and particularly when it comes to children.”
The Safe Schools program was promoted heavily as an anti-bullying program, but in a leaked video, Roz Ward, the co-founder of the program revealed it’s true purpose,
“That Safe Schools Coalition is about supporting gender and sexual diversity. Not about celebrating diversity. Not about stopping bullying. It’s about gender and sexual diversity. About same-sex attraction. About being transgender. About being lesbian, gay, bisexual – say the words – transgender, intersex. Not just “Be nice to everyone. Everyone’s great.”
Some of the deplorable things taught by the program include:
- It teaches “gender theory”, that gender is not based on biology, but rather “feelings” and there are 13 different genders.
- It teaches “queer theory” which encourages pansexualism, gender fluidity and discourages heteronormativity.
- It partners with an organisation called Minus 18 which had links to sex shops, pornographic websites and adult sex clubs (many of which were removed due to media exposure).
- The Minus 18 website linked to a sex toy website called “The Tool Shed”. The link to the Tool Shed website was removed, but can be seen on an archived backup of the website here.
- It gets students to role play and imagine being romantically involved with someone of the same-sex.
- It encourages students that they can wear school uniforms of the opposite sex.
- The program has taught children how to create male and female genitals out of plasticine
- In a topic called “Safer Options”, year 8 students are shown dildos and strap-ons and taught how to use them.
- The program teaches students how to masturbate, via their affiliate website Scarleteen. See also here.
- It teaches children that anal sex is just as normal and natural as heterosexual sex.
- The high school version of the program encourages children to evade parental knowledge of internet searches for sexual related material, even pornographic material (the Minus 18 website featured an article called “Cover Your Tracks“).
- The program has previously taught penis tucking for boys who identify as girls and chest binding for girls who identify as boys. Both practises are considered to be health risks.
The Safe Schools program was banned in NSW after some alarming figures of children being brainwashed into transgender ideology. Here are some chilling examples:
- One consequence has been an epidemic in “transgender” children presenting to medical clinics since the advent of Safe Schools in June 2014.
- Referrals for gender services to The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, have tripled. Melbourne Royal Children’s Hospital had 250 children last year presenting with “gender dysphoria”, distress experienced because you feel you were born the wrong sex.
- The NSW Education Department reports a “spike” in transgender students, including a four-year old in kindergarten this year “who has identified as transgender”.
So much for an “anti-bullying” program. Furthermore, in November last year, Safe Schools co-founder Roz Ward was photographed harassing a Trump supporter at a rally in Melbourne. Ms Ward, who is carrying several copies of the Marxist newspaper Red Flag, is seen smirking while the man tries to pull away and shield himself from her. Not a good look for someone who is supposed to be an anti-bullying campaigner.
The longtime Deputy Director of ARCSHS is Prof. Gary Dowsett, and he has been Acting Director on two occasions, for a significant period of time. The first was in 2000, from January to August; and the second was in 2010, from July to December. Hence, the “Safe Schools” program (launched in October 2010) was launched during a period when Dowsett was Acting Director. [Source: ARCSHS Annual Report 2010]
In 1982, he authored an article for the journal ‘Gay Information‘ [issue no. 11, pp. 34-38], which was published by a Sydney-based organisation called ‘Gay Information Service’. The article was titled ‘Boiled Lollies and Bandaids: Gay Men and Kids‘ (click here to view the original). Here are some excerpts:
“First, we have three legal/social questions to win: custody rights for gay men and lesbians; the legal right of paedophiles and their young loves; and finally, the sexual rights of children as a whole.”
“And I also have a friend, a paedophile, who is working very hard on making sense out of his relations with boys. Those relations consist of, among other things, a large amount of nurture and support for these boys, a real caring for their welfare…”
“How different then is that gentle, tentative sexuality between parent and child from the love of a paedophile and his/her lover? From all their accounts and from many academic studies (some worse than others), that kind of love, warmth, support and nurture is an important part of the paedophilic relationship.”
“The current paedophilia debate then is crucial to the political processes of the gay movement: paedophiles need our support, and we need to construct the child/adult sex issue on our terms.”
Dowsett has previously placed this article on his résumé which was, until recently, available on the official La Trobe University website at the following URL: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/staff-profiles/data/docs/gwdowsett.pdf
The résumé is still available via the Internet Archive’s ‘Wayback Machine’, here.
In 1996 Dowsett, then a sociology lecturer at Macquarie University, was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper on a matter concerning two University of Newcastle sociology lecturers who were caught teaching students about “inter-generational sex”. Newcastle Police’s Child Protection Investigation Unit obtained the relevant lecture materials and submitted them to the Wood Royal Commission, saying they could have an insidious influence on young students.
Dowsett was quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald [26th May, 1996; pg. 9] saying:
“Ever since Margaret Mead, we have known well that human sexuality takes different forms in different cultures. If we start restricting the capacity of academics to inquire and research – and it’s very easy to start with pedophiles – where does it end?”
In March last year, LNP MP for the Queensland seat of Dawson, George Christensen exposed the links between paedophilia, Prof. Gary Dowsett, La Trobe University and the Safe Schools program, prompting a furious response from La Trobe University in defence of Prof. Dowsett, confirming his involvement (see quotes).
“We are appalled that a respected academic has been attacked using parliamentary privilege.” – Statement of La Trobe University, cited in the Daily Mail Australia (16 March 2016)
“We stand by the important work of Professor Dowsett and his team.” – Statement of La Trobe University, cited in the ABC online (16 March 2016)
When the first TV ad for the NO side went to air, same-sex marriage proponents said it was a red herring to suggest there was a link between Safe Schools and same-sex marriage, but is it true? There are two ways to establish if this is the case. Firstly, by what the LGBT activists themselves are actually saying; and secondly, by looking at what has happened overseas since same-sex marriage has been legalised.
High-profile LGBT activist and Fairfax journalist, Benjamin Law says in Quarterly Essay: Moral Panic 101: “It might be stating the obvious but same-sex marriage is far from the final frontier in the battle against homophobia.” The struggle will continue — in schools and in institutions. Law says the two biggest LGBTI issues are Safe Schools and same-sex marriage.
He says Safe Schools is “supposed to discomfort people” by up-ending how we see gender and sexuality. He talks about exploding accepted norms with queer theory, inviting “people to reconsider why anyone should be obliged to identify as female or male at all”. The aim is to introduce Safe Schools across the country and make it compulsory.
Law concludes his essay by saying: “Victorian Labor MPs are right: Safe Schools should be implemented in every school.” and “Here’s the uncomfortable reality: parents don’t always know best.”
Roz Ward, the co-founder of Safe Schools, said a few years back:
It is a total contradiction to say we want (the) Safe Schools Coalition but you can’t get married to the person that you love. (Teachers) have to work in this context where we have this state-sponsored homophobia in this discriminatory law and still fight against homophobia. The question of equal marriage is important in every single school that I go to, because I talk to teachers and they say to me: ‘How can we continue to fight against homophobia when the students will say to us that same-sex couples or transgender people cannot get married to the people they love? The law says it’s not equal and then we need to turn around as teachers and say: well it should be but it’s not’.
In a speech to a Marxist conference in 2016, Roz Ward the architect of the Safe Schools program, couldn’t have made the connection anymore clearer:
The government funds the Safe Schools Coalition then doesn’t legislate marriage equality, that seems contradictory.
Coalition for Marriage spokesman Dr David van Gend said, “This is what we’ve seen happen in other countries where same-sex marriage has been legalised.” He says, “These programs come into the schools, and then the judgment of those administering the program – backed by the State – overrides the parent’s wishes.”
“It’s time for these same-sex marriage and Safe Schools activists to be transparent about their real intentions; which is to use same-sex marriage as a precursor to radical LGBTIQ sex and gender education in schools, and to deny parents the right to have a say in what’s best for their kids.
“Australian parents deserve to know what they are voting for,” he concluded.
This short 10min video exposes the global effort to enforce highly sexualised LGBT sex education onto children in schools all over the West. To watch the long version (35min), go here.
As we have seen overseas, once same-sex marriage has been legalised, radical sex education quickly follows suit.
Robb & Robin Wirthlin, parents of primary school children, found out the hard way after Massachusetts legalised gay marriage in 2004.
“After Massachusetts legalised gay marriage, our son came home and told us the school taught him that boys can marry other boys. He’s in second grade! We tried to stop public schools teaching them about gay marriage, but the courts said we had no right to object or pull them out of class.”