Breaking News
Its much worse than we previously thought, wrote or believed. In 1998, ten years ago and on the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of International Human Rights (UDIHR), the Office of the UN High Commissioner issued a 58 page report entitled “International guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights.” You will have to read for yourself, the brazen proposals of this commission. Under the heading Guideline 5: Anti-Discrimination and Protective Laws (pg 20 h):
“Anti-discrimination and protective laws should be enacted to reduce human rights violations against men having sex with men including in the context of HIV/AIDS in order inter alia to reduce the vunerability of men who have sex with men to infection by HIV and to the impact of HIV/AIDS. These measures should include providing penalties for vilification of people who engage in same sex relationships, giving legal recognition to same sex marriages and/or relationships and governing such relationships with consistent property, divorce and inheritance provisions. The age of consent to sex and marriage should be consistent for heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Laws and police practices relating to assaults against men who have sex with men should be reviewed to ensure that adequate legal protection is given in these situations.”
“Anti-discrimination and protective laws should be enacted to reduce human rights violations against men having sex with men including in the context of HIV/AIDS in order inter alia to reduce the vunerability of men who have sex with men to infection by HIV and to the impact of HIV/AIDS. These measures should include providing penalties for vilification of people who engage in same sex relationships, giving legal recognition to same sex marriages and/or relationships and governing such relationships with consistent property, divorce and inheritance provisions. The age of consent to sex and marriage should be consistent for heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Laws and police practices relating to assaults against men who have sex with men should be reviewed to ensure that adequate legal protection is given in these situations.”
The phrase inter alia is latin for “among other things”. There are several stunning elements to this document we must point out:
(1)It is a trojan horse introduced under HIV/AIDS guidelines. This is a stealth measure because in 1998 homosexual marriage was little more than a fantasy for much of the world, except for one nation, the Netherlands. The Netherlands issued their first gay registered partnerships January 1, 1998. Thus, this is a significant precursor to the 2008 language which is now coded as “human rights” and engineered by Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands. Knowing full well that any specific language calling for the acceptance of homosexual marriage would immediately be voted down (as it was in 1998) this wicked woman appears to have set out to reword her blasphemy and seduce “world religions” to sign onto it, thus giving it “legitimacy”. By concealing her intent for homosexual rights among other worthy issues such as human dignity, poverty, hunger, and violence, the Queen was able to pull off this grand scheme. God is showing us clearly how the enemy intends to deceive the church into false worship. See Rev 18:1-7
(2) Not only is the document calling for the legalization of homosexual marriage but is advising that nations penalize anyone who “vilifies” people in homosexual marriages and relationships. This is the foundation for what is currently called “hate speech” used very effectively by the gay rights movement to silence and intimidate opponents.
(3) Perhaps the most disgusting demand of all is the call to parity the age of consent for homo and heterosexuals. Homosexual pedophiles in the US have attempted openly since 1978 eliminate all age of consent laws. This UN document actually agrees that homosexual pedophiles should be able to have legal access to young boys without penalty. This is accomplished simply by lowering the age of consent.
Finally, this very document has been revived and is being debated for passage and implementation as we speak. United Families International who has been monitoring this document at the UN sent out an urgent request late yesterday urging US citizens to contact their representatives immediately and protest. Why? Because the Obama administration has threw its support behind this document in an effort to push one of Obama’s prime goals: “comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights”, according to Ellen Chesler a member of Obama’s US delegation.
This is the same UDIHR which has become a flashpoint of controversy within COGIC after it and the Faith in Human Rights Statement was endorsed by Bishop Charles Blake on the document’s 60th anniversary in December 2008.
Here are the successive articles written by GCM Watch:
- Bishop Charles Blake endorses gay marriage declaration
- Humanism blackens Blake speech
- Bishop Blake releases UDIHR defense
- An unholy covenant: our response to Bishop Blake’s defense document
- New UDIHR controversy developments
GCM Watch urges Bishop Blake to reconsider his endorsement and publicly denounce both these documents. In addition, he should immediately withdraw COGIC support.
Related: Supt Harvey Burnett, (Dunamis Word blog) explores the conflict of human rights vs gay rights in greater detail. Read here.
Gay Christian Movement Watch 
“This UN document actually agrees that homosexual pedophiles should be able to have legal access to young boys without penalty.”
No, it doesn’t. It merely says that the age of consent should be the same as for heterosexual consent; it does not say what that age of consent should be. Or are you trying to say that heterosexual pedophilia is okay?
GCMW: No, we’re trying to say that this UN document actually agrees that homosexual pedophiles should be able to have legal access to young boys without penalty.
Really? Where? Not in the part you quote, which merely calls for parity in the law. “Parity” doesn’t mean elimination thereof.
GCMW: Once again “UN document actually agrees that homosexual pedophiles should be able to have legal access to young boys without penalty.” access does not equal elimation.
Nat G.,
If the UN has it’s way the individual countries will be allowed to extend their current legal definition of legal consent to all including same-sex.
For example in England the age of consent was lowered to 16. Presently their are calls to lower it further to 14.
If the definition set forth by the UN is established then each respective country would allow any sexual relationship same or opposite to be equal and valid as long as it was within their age of consent.
We are descending in our morality and bringing back pedophilia.
Kyle
Pastor Foster,
As a side note we should remember that Joycelyn Elders under the Clinton Administration clearly endorsed a whole host of sexual deviancies. Later she even wrote the foreword to a book defending the very act of pedophilia. Of course that was 1993-94 and she was quickly given the boot from her position.
Trust me when I say that was done out of political expediency rather than personal conviction by Clinton.
Kyle
Yes, yes, I saw your claim. I don’t see any evidence that the UN document actually said anything of the kind, neither in citations in this post nor in the UN document itself. So it seems you’re engaging in bearing false witness there.
Nat G,
Did you purposely ignore my response regarding the ever lowering age of consent? Well, it’s common sense that once the age of consent drops it drops for EVERYONE.
By proxy then pedophilia is being re-established.
That being said what do YOU think about lowering the age of consent?
Kyle
Kyle, people like Nat are narrow minded when it comes to these matters. I wish he would have really said why he picked up on that (out of all the other points mentioned). Motive helps us to clarify why a person argues for or against something. Maybe he will say so.
“If the UN has it’s way the individual countries will be allowed to extend their current legal definition of legal consent to all including same-sex.”
Countries are already allowed to do so.
“We are descending in our morality and bringing back pedophilia.”
Pedophilia never went away. Most of it has been perpetrated quite heterosexually.
Nothing in this over-a-decade-old UN document calls for a decrease in the age of consent, merely for parity; in cases where non-parity exist, that can also be achieved by -raising- the lower figure.
GCMW: Age of consent parity for homosexuals is a good thing to you?
(“Pedophilia” also generally refers to sexual interest in pre-pubescent, and the age of consent in all countries with age-based consent laws for non-marital sex is above the typical age of the modern onset of puberty. That isn’t to say that someone beyond that age is therefor equipped to consent meaningfully, mind you, but that’s the decision lawmakers face when considering an age of consent law.)
Kyle: I had not seen your earlier message when my message was composed (and just got to see the latest go-round from you and from gcmwatch after posting my reply.)
Your repeated statements regarding the lowering of the age of consent leaves me still asking “what lowering of the age of consent?” Please give me a page and line citation of where the UN document asks for the lowering of the age of consent, because I’ve read the relevant portions and it’s not in there.
“That being said what do YOU think about lowering the age of consent?”
WHICH age of consent? In Tunisia, the age of consent for heterosexual contact is 20. If that’s the one you’re asking about, then yes, I think it should be lowered. I think that people are ready to make decisions for themselves — even if they turn out to be the wrong decisions — before they are 20. But in the parts of Mexico where the age of consent is 12, I would certainly be against lowering them.
gcmwatch: I addressed the claim which I did because I saw it, it looked unlikely to be true, and investigating it I found it to be false. Are your errors or falsehoods not to be addressed? Is offering up correct information automatically suspicious?
Okay, just for the sake of context, is that the only error you saw and wanted to point out?
That was the one. I’m not going to spend the time to verify every other claim you made — but with what I corrected, what you quoted was in obvious contrast with what you claimed it meant.
GCMW: You havent corrected anything, you simply gave your perspective on what was quoted from the document. There is nothing good about lowering the age of consent. Furthermore, there is no organized effort by “heterosexual pedophiles” to lower the age of consent. In contrast, homosexual pedophile group NAMBLA has worked openly to demolish all age of consent laws. That was cited, but you ignored it and instead raised a strawman.
Once again, God has been faithful to his Word. We all knew this was coming and an Obama administration is just what was needed to start the efforts in the United States. I pray that people of God wake up and see what is happening…or at least reread Revelations.