Gabrielle Kuby argues in her wide-ranging book on The Global Sexual Revolution that the goal of the sexual revolution is to introduce a new anthropology that will serve as the basis of family law, social norms, and human self-identity: “Modern and post-modern man have emancipated themselves – from God, from nature, from the family, from tradition – woman from man, children from parents, and individuals from themselves sa man and woman. They stand naked, restrained by nothing and defined by nothing other than their own wishes, desires, and drives. They think they are free to self-actualize, and do not notice that, in their vulnerability and lack of inhibitions, they are more malleable than ever before: the strong can use the weak for their own purposes without the uprooted, manipulated person noticing it in time” (174).
She quotes Michaelangelo Signorile, a homosexual activist, who says that “the goal of the homosexual movement is: to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once this is achieved, to completely redefine the institution of marriage, not to demand the right to marriage as a way to bind ourselves to society’s morals, but to debunk a myth and to turn an age-old institution on its head. . . . The subversive act that gays and lesbians are undertaking . . . is the idea of completely changing the family” (174-5).
This revolution is being enforced by the beast of state power. A 2013 resolution from the European Parliament spells out that any nations hoping to enter the EU will have to “fight against gender stereotypes and all forms of discrimination,” “implement gender equality measures and especially gender mainstreaming policies concerning non-discrimination as regards sexual orientation and gender identity,” “to address lingering homophobia and transphobia in law, policy, and practice, by legislating on hate crimes, police training, and anti-discrimination legislation,” and “to adopt legislation and policies that ensure universal access to reproductive health services and promote reproductive rights” (93).
When Lithuania passed an amendment to a youth protection act that opposed “promotion of homosexual relationships” on the grounds that “homosexual, bisexual and polygamous relationships damage the physical and mental health of youth.” The European Youth Forum, funded with millions of euros from the EU, sent a letter to the EU President to protest and call on the EU to take steps “to eliminate discrimination for any reason, including sexual orientation and age.” In response, the European Parliament passed resolutions to overturn the democratic decision of Lithuania (86-7). Similar cases have appeared in the states, with legal scholars aghast that the people of California would presume to overturn basic standards of dignity and equality by voting to define marriage in traditional terms.
What is happening in Europe is a microcosm of a global movement to mainstream the Western sexual revolution, promoted by the UN and its agencies, by NGOs, a large and well-funded network of governmental and non-governmental agencies. Kuby writes, “The United Nations’ treaty-monitoring bodies play a special role in putting through the LGBTI agenda. . . . the members are not elected democratically, but delegated by the member states, and are not accountable to the governments of their countries of origin. They carry the authority of the UN and demand that the governments of sovereign states be accountable for implementing human rights as the delegates interpret them and ‘further develop’ them. . . . influence is exerted on the legislation of individual states, even to the point of demanding changes to their constitutions” (74).
Criminologist Michael Bock was reprimanded by the University of Mainz for writing critically about gender mainstreaming. He wrote, “Gender mainstreaming differs from traditional feminist politics in that the gender aspect is to penetrate all policies in all individual actions. . . . The claim to put a society ‘on track’ in this way through a comprehensive, uniform formal principle of politics is known to us from the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. It involves bringing not only the entire apparatus of state, but also associations, organizations and other social groups effectively on board with the policy of renewal. The total will to subordinate the entire social reality to a uniform principle or to penetrate it with this principle is the reason these regimes are called ‘totalitarian.’ It indicates the extreme opposite of a liberal concept of the state, according to which people can unfold freely in their social existence up to the limits by which the state guarantees the freedom fo other individuals” (quoted 101).
“Totalitarian” is not alarmist, but precisely descriptive.