There are two main sides to this war over human sexuality. Sexual rights activists are on one side and pro-family advocates on the other. The pro-family side generally believes that:
Some come to this pro-family view because of a religious belief, and others, because of the overwhelming social science data showing that any sexual relations outside of marriage, whether heterosexual, homosexual, extramarital or premarital—any sexual relations outside of marriage—generally bring negative outcomes to the individuals who engage in them. Numerous studies also show that these negative outcomes create enormous economic and social costs that governments have to deal with.
On the opposing side of this battle are sexual rights activists who are aggressively seeking to force their worldview on countries around the world and by manipulating entities within the United Nations system to also push their worldview. Sexual rights activists generally believe:
In fact, many sexual rights activists believe there are more than two genders, including male, female, homosexual male, homosexual female, transgender and a number of variations of these genders.
Some even believe that labeling children as either male or female based on their genitals constitutes child abuse and that people have a right to government-provided hormone therapy and sex change operations. They also believe that laws, policies and education that do not only affirm but also promote their worldview on human sexuality are a violation of human rights. They believe in total sexual freedom.
Again, both sides of this battle are trying to get their worldview protected in laws and policies, and promoted in schools, but the sexual rights activists’ side is much more aggressive. Their top goal is to get sexual preferences and behaviors established as internationally recognized human rights under the banner of “sexual rights.”
Sexual Rights Defined
So what exactly are “sexual rights?” “Sexual rights” is an elastic term that can be used to promote almost anything relating to human sexuality and reproduction. In 2002 the World Health Organization issued a reportthat confirmed that there is no international consensus on the definition of “sexual rights,” yet in the same report, the WHO presented its own radical definition of “sexual rights,” which has been used by sexual rights activists and which includes the following:
According to a highly controversial report issued in 2004 by then UN Special Rapporteur, Paul Hunt, sexual rights also include “the right of all persons to express their sexual orientation, with due regard for the well-being and rights of others, without fear of persecution, denial of liberty or social interference. . .”
A working definition for sexual rights for our purposes could be any alleged rights connected to issues surrounding human sexuality and reproduction. The following is a list of issues that have all become major battlegrounds in the sexual rights revolution:
contraception, abortion, sexual expression (cross dressing, nudity), pornography (sale and use of), sexual relations, age of consent, sexual orientation, gender identity (identity papers, hormone therapy, sex reassignment surgery, etc.), sodomy, employment, housing, adultery, prostitution (sex work), use of public facilities, civil unions/domestic partnerships, same-sex marriage and adoption, fertility services, wedding services, and sexual education.
The Yogyakarta Principles The document titled the Yogyakarta Principles could be called the Magna Charta of the sexual rights movement. It was created by a team of self-proclaimed experts in international law, including nine UN Special Rapporteurs. The document purports to summarize international rights relating to sexual orientation and gender identity.
Although there are many serious problems with the Yogyakarta Principles, Principle 21 is especially problematic. This is because it basically states that sexual rights trump religious liberty and free speech rights. Principle 21 calls upon nations to “ensure that the expression, practice and promotion of different opinions, convictions and beliefs with regard to issues of sexual orientation or gender identity is not undertaken in a manner incompatible with human rights.”
In other words, Principle 21 tells governments they are supposed to regulate not only their citizens’ speech or expression, but also their opinions, convictions and beliefs regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. And this is to be done in a manner compatible with the sexual rights activists’ view of human rights.
To help you understand just how far sexual rights activists tend to take the Yogyakarta Principles, below are a few pages from Yogyakarta Principles Comic, a publication created by sexual rights activists to teach children about their sexual rights as enumerated in the Yogyakarta Principles. Yogyakarta Principles Comic was featured at a UN event sponsored by International Planned Parenthood and has also been distributed to youth at several other events at the United Nations.
Notice the tear in the eye of Gina, the 12-year-old girl in the drawing on the left. She is sad because her female teacher is moving away. She has strong feelings for her teacher that are never resolved until four years later when she meets a lesbian named Ai, who she eventually falls in love with as well.
Ai protects Gina from being bullied by other students and becomes Gina’s friend. Ai tells Gina she is pretty, gives her a book on lesbianism, and they enter into a lesbian relationship.
Then Gina’s father finds out about her lesbian relationship. Of course the father is pictured as violent and controlling and slaps Gina when he discovers what she is doing. The comic book then quotes from Yogyakarta Principles 10 and 19 citing a “right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment” stating that no one should be treated this way because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. And although many would agree that the father should not have reacted with physical violence, the comic goes on to claim that Gina’s father has also violated her alleged “right to freedom of opinion, and expression.”
In other words, according to the Yogyakarta Principles, the alleged sexual rights of children trump their parent’s rights, even when parents are operating in their child’s best interest.
Once Gina moves out of her home, she joins with Ai and they live happily ever after.
The Origins of the Sexual Rights Movement
If you have read the “Targeting Children” section of this website, you may be wondering how anyone could push this kind of sexual material for children. What can they possibly be thinking? The answer to this question may be quite shocking. Much of the information below is based on the research of Dr. Judith Reisman who has written numerous books and articles documenting the origins and history of the sexual rights movement.
Some have called Dr. Alfred Kinsey the father of the sexual rights movement. Born in 1894, Kinsey was an avowed atheist and eugenist. Kinsey believed that children are sexual from birth, that most people have highly promiscuous, secret lifestyles, that pornography is harmless, and that adultery can enhance a marriage.
According to Dr. Reisman, although Kinsey tried to maintain a public reputation as an average American professor, in reality he was a sex addict who exposed himself in public, produced sex films with his students and his wife as actors, and had sadomasochistic sexual tendencies. Many believe that these dangerous tendencies were the ultimate cause of his early death in 1956.
Needless to say, Kinsey was a sick man. Yet regardless of this fact, Kinsey is revered and honored by sexual rights activists as a hero and the founder of their movement. Much of today’s sexuality education programs that promote sexual pleasure and sexual promiscuity as a right are rooted in Kinsey’s sex research, which, in part, was based on the documented sexual abuse of children by pedophiles.
Dr. Reisman has devoted decades to exposing Dr. Kinsey in order to protect children from the dangerous sexual ideologies and sexuality education curricula that have emanated from his sex research, which she deems fraudulent and sexually abusive. How did Kinsey have such a tremendous impact on the development of the sexual revolution and the world?
Kinsey, a Harvard graduate, received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and Playboy magazine to conduct sex research at the University of Indiana. The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction is still active today, promoting Kinsey’s fraudulent research.
The main tool Kinsey used in his research was a questionnaire with 350 probing questions designed to uncover the most intimate details of the sexual activities and proclivities of thousands of people he questioned. The volunteers he enlisted to answer these questions included prisoners, prostitutes and even pedophiles. Yet Kinsey claims the people he interviewed represented mainstream America. Of course, his idea of “mainstream” or “normal” was quite distorted.
Kinsey published his findings in two books, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, which he said were based on the data he gathered from his questionnaire. Kinsey claimed his data proved that the majority of Americans were hiding secrets regarding their highly promiscuous lifestyles. His books, which were touted widely in the media as revolutionary, convinced many Americans that most everyone they knew was secretly sexually promiscuous. He even claimed that the only difference between sex offenders and many Americans is that the sex offenders got caught. Kinsey has also been widely credited with originating the myth that 10 percent of the American male population is homosexual. However, while the exact number isn’t known, numerous studies and surveys have shown that a more accurate percentage is somewhere between two and four percent.
But it gets worse. To support his claim that children are sexual from birth, Kinsey used data from pedophiles who documented their sexual abuse of children to prove that even infants can be sexually aroused. The tables these pedophiles used to document the sexual arousal rates of young children are published in Kinsey’s books, which are still available today. In addition, Kinsey’s colleague, Wardell Pomeroy, admitted using data they received from the infamous Rex King who “raped at least 800 infants, children, kin, and strangers.” (Kinsey called Rex King his “hero” and considered him a “scientific treasure.”) 
The Impact of Kinsey’s Sexual Revolution
Kinsey had a major impact on the U.S. Model Penal Code issued in 1955 and has been credited with influencing the Code to reduce penalties for 52 major sex crimes. At one time, Westlaw, a prominent legal database used by legal researchers throughout the United States had roughly 650 citations to Kinsey.
According to Dr. Reisman, after the ideas and programs that Alfred Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute founded became widely accepted, the number of sexually transmitted diseases and the number of rapes in the United States skyrocketed.
To understand the impact of Kinsey’s work on sex education worldwide, we must first understand the origins of sex education in the United States. Next to Planned Parenthood, one of the largest producers of sex education curricula in the United States is the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). Founded in 1964 by Dr. Mary S. Calderone, SIECUS was launched with support from the Kinsey Institute and seed money from Hugh Hefner, the founder of Playboy magazine. According to the SIECUS website, prior to founding SIECUS, Mary Calderone served as the Medical Director for the Planned Parenthood Federation.
SIECUS is heavily involved in policy battles over sexual rights in the United States and at the United Nations. The SIECUS website states, “The 1990s were a time of great advances for SIECUS. We expanded our outreach to policymakers and communities by opening a public policy office in DC, developing a community advocacy project to help fight attacks on sexuality related issues . . . we even took our mission global, establishing an international program. . . . Of course, along with SIECUS’s increased visibility came increased attacks from organizations such as ‘Focus on the Family’ and ‘Concerned Women for America.’ Still we persevered.”
A SIECUS employee was the main author of the UN “International Guidelines on Sexuality Education” excerpted in the “Targeting Children” section on this website. Thus we see the influence Kinsey’s twisted and fraudulent research has had via SIECUS, not just on sex education in the United States, but throughout the world.
An article defending the work of Alfred Kinsey on the SIECUS website quotes a spokeswoman for the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University. It states, “It is true that Kinsey interviewed prostitutes and prisoners but that he also interviewed a wide range of other people including ‘women’s garden clubs and parent-teacher organizations, church groups, nurses’ groups, the Salvation army staff and travelers on trains.’ James H. Jones, a Kinsey biographer, wrote that though the numbers were not a random sample (which is hard to accomplish in sexual research) ‘that doesn’t mean the data are of limited value or useless.’” Planned Parenthood and SIECUS employees regularly attend UN conferences, where they promote dangerous sexual ideologies to be included in provisions in UN documents.
Dr. Miriam Grossman, author of You’re Teaching My Child What?, gave a powerful presentation at the United Nations on the origins of sexuality education. As part of her presentation, she explained that a co-founder of SIECUS and co-author of the original Kinsey reports on males and females, Wardell Pomeroy, once claimed that religious taboos were highly restrictive, that our whole belief system needed to be reconsidered. She explained that a number of the individuals who were the founders and officials within SIECUS during its early history were so radical that they argued publicly for relaxing the taboos against adult/child sexuality and even incest.
This was documented in a Time magazine article in 1980 called “Attacking the Last Taboo,” in which Pomeroy, Vice President of SIECUS’s Board of Directors stated, “It is time to admit that incest need not be a perversion or a symptom of mental illness.” Pomeroy continued, “Incest between . . . children and adults . . . can sometimes be beneficial.” John Money, also a SIECUS board member said, “Childhood sexual experience such as being the partner of a relative or of an older person need not necessarily affect the child adversely.” Time magazine called these people the pro-incest lobby.
While we have no evidence that indicates SIECUS currently promotes pedophilia or incest, there is plenty of evidence showing that they promote graphic sexuality education for children, which includes the right to sexual pleasure and instruction in high-risk sexual practices.
Dr. Grossman asks, “Who came up with the notion that it’s necessary to teach the world’s children about high-risk sex acts their parents never heard of? Planned Parenthood and SIECUS. These groups portray themselves as guardians of our children’s health and claim to provide students with all the information and skills they need to make smart choices.”
The Sexual Rights Continuum
There is a continuum of sexual rights, and once a state or country starts down the path of implementing claimed sexual rights in laws and policies, it is very difficult not to slide down the entire continuum.
A key strategy of sexual rights activists is to subdivide their agenda and get it passed piecemeal, one step at a time, before anyone realizes what has happened. To use a well-known metaphor, the proverbial frog (our society) is being boiled one degree at a time. Because the increase in heat is incremental and may even feel good at first, the frog doesn’t try to jump out of the pot until it’s too late. The legislative history of the sexual agenda in California is a prime example of this strategy. Policymakers take note—monumental successes were accomplished by sexual rights activists in California by the following small, incremental steps.
Click here to see a case study of the incremental strategy used in California, beginning with the legalization of sodomy in 1975 and the successive laws and policies that were passed in subsequent years, ending with the bill passed in 2012 making it illegal for minors to receive therapy for unwanted same-sex attraction.
Fighting to Stop the Sexual Rights Movement
If you are disturbed by the information presented in this section, we would invite you to join the Stand for Families Worldwide coalition and help us raise awareness regarding the sexual rights movement. You can do this by signing the petition and encouraging as many people as you can to sign the petition as well. Once you sign the petition, you will receive more information regarding what you can do to help us protect the health and innocence of children and to protect families worldwide.
 The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) reported that2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4 percent of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
 Reisman, J. (2003). Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences. Crestwood, Kentucky: The Institute for Media Education, Inc.
 Lifesite News, available: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2009/mar/09031010
 SIECUS, History, available: http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageId=493&parentID=472
 SIECUS, The Far-Right’s Fight Against Kinsey, available: http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=1182&varuniqueuserid=97185199564
 Sexes: Attacking the Last Taboo. Time, (1980, April 14) available: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923966,00.html
Stand for Families Worldwide © 2012 | Cultural Imperialism: The Sexual Rights Agenda © 2012
Protecting Against Cultural Imperialism