“I help people know themselves better, provide advice about mental health and illness, teach classes and let God be God.” – Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton, writing on his own blog, July 18, 2007

Warren Throckmorton

Controversial “gay”-affirming Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton is not answering my e-mail queries anymore, but if he is reading this, I would like to know if he still holds to his comparison (below) of a doctor or an insurance agent to a professing Christian therapist confronted with the possibility of confirming a client in a homosexual “identity.”  Talk about trivializing serious moral and spiritual issues!

Maybe I’m missing something, but somehow deep philosophical matters never came up when I went to the doc or bought insurance. On the other hand, in the area of Christians upholding their faith on the job, surely Throckmorton is a aware that there are many doctors, nurses and pharmacists who refuse to compromise their pro-life beliefs by supporting abortion in any way — even if it costs them professionally. How is supporting affirmative homosexuality any different? You will see Throckmorton’s dubious analogy in this response by an Americans For Truth reader to his One News Now interview yesterday. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. From a biblical perspective, if through therapy a client comes to “integrate” homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality as a part of his “valued” self-identity, has the therapist truly helped the client to know himself better? Is homosexuality (“being gay”) in reality, as homosexuals and their allies are wont to say, (part of) “who they are” — or is it what they struggle with? And how can any Christian “integrate” valued (proud) homosexuality with what the Bible teaches about this sinful behavior?

A reader writes:

___________________________________

Three points in response to the ONN interview with Warren Throckmorton:

Let us remember that the Bible not only condemns homosexual sex, but also plainly says that “the effeminate” will not inherit the kingdom of God (I Cor 6:9 KJV).  Sin extends beyond explicit, overt activity/behavior; the attitude and demeanor of homosexuality must be cast off as well as the practice itself.

According to the One News Now article, Warren Throckmorton “denies that as a therapist he would advise clients to maintain a homosexual identity.” Dr. Throckmorton contradicts what he wrote publicly on his blog in 2007:

http://wthrockmorton.com/2007/07/18/more-on-the-apa-religion-and-homosexuality/

Comment posted on WT’s blog   ~  Jul 18, 2007 at 5:34 pm:

Warren, you wrote: “…some therapists are so unable to work outside of their worldview that they should only work with clients where an informed agreement to work within a worldview exists.”

Are you able/comfortable/willing to work outside your (presumably traditionally Christian) worldview? If so, how do justify helping a person become more comfortable with sin?

Warren Throckmorton responds  ~  Jul 18, 2007 at 5:45 pm:
… Do it all the time [work outside worldview] … I suppose your physician does as well, probably your real estate and insurance agents and I suspect the operator of the movie theatre where you see movies (if you do that) does as well. I help people know themselves better, provide advice about mental health and illness, teach classes and let God be God.

So Prof. Throckmorton is parsing words when he denies (in a Christian publication) that he would advise clients to maintain a homosexual identity, yet (in his blog, which he appears to use for dialogue with practicing homosexuals and even “gay” activists) he asserts that he is comfortable advising a client outside his own worldview and does it “all the time.” He may not be advising them TO maintain a homosexual identity, but he is certainly advising some how to be happy while doing just that — what’s the difference?

Warren seems to compartmentalize “mental health/mental illness” as if it is entirely separate from the consequences of sinful attitudes, lustful thoughts, wicked behaviors — whereas a mature Christian (especially a counselor) ought to see a strong connection between the two.

Christianity isn’t just something to believe in or practice in one’s personal life, but then to set aside in one’s professional life.  Faith must be primary, all-encompassing, overarching, and fully integrated.  A counselor has far greater responsibility for the soul than a real estate agent or the guy who sells you a movie ticket.  If a counselor helps a homosexual or an adulterer or alcoholic feel more comfortable living in sin, he is actually interfering with the consequences — the Divine discipline — intended to bring that person to repentance. A professor at a Christian college ought to comprehend that.

It is inexcusable for a Christian not to properly answer the question of whether homosexuality is natural.  The Bible plainly calls it UNnatural. If a “Christian” can’t answer that question, he is either ignorant of Scripture, a coward, or a heretic.

Correction: in initially posting this piece, we mistakenly cited the American Psychological Association, instead of the American Psychiatric Association, regarding the changed DSM on homosexuality as a mental disorders. We apologize for the error. — AFTAH, www.aftah.org

________________________________________

“Nuance” — yet another manifestation of rhetoric serving the cause of sin. Where oh where is C.S. Lewis when we need him to poke holes in the fancy façade of sophistication that we sinners don to conceal our acquiescence to a fallen world?

Grove City College Professor Warren Throckmorton’s feet have been put to the fire recently regarding the Sexual Identity Therapy guidelines that he and Mark Yarhouse of Regent University have developed. Their guidelines state the following:

The emergence of a gay identity for persons struggling with religious conflicts is a possibility envisioned by the recommendations….some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity. We seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect these options.

How can a serious follower of Christ “envision” a homosexual identity, that is to say, an identity defined by disordered desire and objectively immoral behavior? Substitute another sin for homosexuality and imagine such a statement:

“The emergence of a polyamorous or promiscuous identity with religious conflicts is a possibility envisioned by the recommendations. Some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of polyamorous eroticism or promiscuity within their valued identity. We seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect these options.”

Throckmorton and Yarhouse’s statement could be made only by those whose allegiance to a secular worldview takes precedence over their allegiance to Christ. Unfortunately, Throckmorton and Yarhouse are not alone in their subordination of faith and truth to the demands of secular professional guidelines or requirements.

In an interview with One News Now [see ONN site HERE; AFTAH analysis and ONN story HERE], Throckmorton stated that “in a professional therapy situation” it is accurate to say that “homosexuals can live normal, natural, and healthy lives that are free of mental illness.” Throckmorton and Yarhouse quote APA guidelines which state that “Psychologists understand that homosexuality and bisexuality are not indicative of mental illness.” In the words of the infamous Gollum, this is tricksy rhetoric that calls for some careful parsing.

What constitutes “mental illness” is determined by the notoriously liberal American Psychiatric Association, which removed “homosexuality” from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973 because of the political machinations of a group of homosexuals who stormed and disrupted an APA meeting and subsequently applied political pressure to any pockets of resistance.

But whether the APA considers homosexuality a mental illness or not should be irrelevant to a Christian mental health professional. Christian counselors ought not ignore serious moral issues when deciding how or whether to counsel a client. Neither polyamory nor adult consensual incest is considered a mental illness either. Does that mean that Throckmorton and Yarhouse would be complicit in helping a brother and sister who were involved in an incestuous relationship to work out their relationship conflicts?

Throckmorton asserts that “homosexuals can live normal, natural and healthy lives,” which raises the critical question of how he, as a Christian first, defines normal, natural and healthy. He quite obviously is not applying biblical understandings of normality, naturalness or health. I can’t imagine even what secular standards he is using to define these terms. [Editor's note: in a 2007 radio interview with homosexual activist Mike Signorile, Throckmorton was asked this question: "So you think it is normal, natural and healthy for people who come out and accept that being homosexual — accept being gay — and completely have no issues with their religious faith — you believe — would you describe the words as 'normal, natural and healthy' – that that is fine?" He responded:  "Yes. Yes, I have been very clear about that in my public statements, that the efforts to demonize people who accept their homosexuality and come out as gay have been futile."]

Since homosexuals constitute somewhere between 2-4 percent of the population, homosexuality can’t be considered normal. And since the predominant sex act between homosexual men is profoundly unhealthy and structurally damaging, and homosexual sex is inherently sterile, it’s hard to see how anyone would define homosexuality as natural or healthy.

But most important, as a Christian first, how is Throckmorton defining that which God calls abominable as normal, natural and healthy?

In his interview with One News Now, Throckmorton also said that “he takes a more ‘nuanced’ view” on the topic of same-sex marriage. He said “that he opposes same-sex marriage but believes the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual civil unions.” Tricksy rhetoric again. He cleverly avoids saying he supports homosexual unions, instead saying that the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual unions.

First, if the Equal Protection Act actually required homosexual unions, it seems it would require same-sex “marriages” also.

Second, the question Throckmorton needs to answer directly is, does he, who claims to hold orthodox Christian views on homosexuality, believe that “civil unions” — which are really same-sex “marriages” in all but name — should be legalized? Some are interested not in what he thinks the Equal Protection Clause permits, but what he personally thinks should exist.

What seems clear is that many Christian mental health professionals are subordinating their faith to the professional standards established by a world largely hostile to faith. No serious Christian — no one who understands that Christ expects full submission of every aspect of the lives of those who accept the gift of eternal life that came at the cost of His life — would affirm to others either implicitly or explicitly profoundly sinful behavior, behavior that orthodox Christian doctrine teaches will lead to eternal damnation.

Increasingly, Christians from all walks of life are going to have to choose between their work and their faith, between friendships and faith, and perhaps even between family and faith. We shouldn’t be surprised: Jesus told us that,

Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matt. 10:32-39)

_____________________

Laurie Higgins is a writer and analyst with Illinois Family Institute. She can be reached through AFTAH at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

Warren Throckmorton

Prof. Warren Throckmorton said in an interview with AFA’s One News Now published today that he supports homosexual “civil unions” and equivocated on the question of whether homosexuality is “normal, natural and healthy.” (In 2007, Throckmorton answered affirmatively to the same question when asked by radical homosexual activist Mike Signorile.) Is this what Throckmorton’s employer, Grove City College, means when it advertises itself as “authentically Christian”?

Note Throckmorton’s parsing of words in the ONN interview (below). Looking through the lens of Judeo-Christian history, to NOT discourage someone from adopting a ‘gay’ identity and practicing  homosexuality (even in a “monogamous” same-sex relationship), is effectively to promote the acceptance of homosexuality — i.e., sexual sin.

Moreover, Prof. Throckmorton seems to adhere to the notion that his Christian life and his professional “therapist” role are mutually exclusive — as if secular requirements in the current psychological paradigm supersede adherence to God’s holy and inspired Word. As AFTAH previously reported, Throckmorton’s and Regent University professor Mark Yarhouse’s “Sexual Identity Therapy” (SIT) stipulates that therapists must respect their client’s chosen “sexual identity” — whether that means rejecting a homosexual identity out of religious convictions or embracing one that “allow[s] integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity.” (p. 7)

The overriding question remains: can a faithful, Bible-believing Christian who believes it is sinful to condone immoral sexual behavior practice the SIT approach professionally — if that means NOT attempting to dissuade clients who decide they are happiest living homosexually from embracing that identity?

Perhaps the choice between faith and therapy is not as stark for Throckmorton because — despite his claim to ONN to uphold a “traditional view of homosexuality and sexual ethics” — the GCC professor affirms monogamous “gay” relationships. In 2006, the Los Angeles Times reported that Throckmorton is “uneasy that NARTH [National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality] rejects even the possibility of a fulfilling life with a same-sex partner.” Writing on his blog the day the story was reported, Throckmorton did not take issue with the L.A. Times article but in fact linked to it, noting that it had also been picked up by other news sources.

Normal,  Natural and Healthy?

I will gladly take a shot at answering the three-part question that Throckmorton answered so assuredly in his radio interview with Signorlie, but with which — in the ONN interview — he struggles, ultimately trying to split it down the middle:

“Is homosexuality natural, normal and healthy?”

• Natural? Nope. Anal sodomy and various other homosexual sex acts are unproductive perversions obviously at odds with human anatomy and God’s created design. Since two people of the same sex cannot produce a child, it is not natural (nor possible) for a child to have “two dads” or “two moms.”
• Normal? Not a chance. (Well, maybe in San Francisco, where men are allowed to walk the streets completely naked; where an “order” of male “drag queens” called “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” — with twisted names like Sister Roz Erection — are regarded as a legitimate charity; and where every Easter Sunday a city park hosts a shameful spectacle called the Hunky Jesus Contest that blasphemes the Son of God on the Christian holy day.)
• Healthy? Again, no: check out the latest CDC stats on the disproportionate disease rates for “men who have sex with men.”

It appears that in an effort to preserve his reputation, Prof. Throckmorton not only has raised more concerns about his dubious claim to to biblical fealty, but further undermined Grove City’s slogan — aimed at parents of future potential GCC students — that the evangelical college is “authentically Christian.” AFTAH will be publishing other pro-family advocates’ reactions to the ONN interview with Throckmorton.  – Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.org

One News Now reports:

___________________________________________________

Christian professor clarifies stance on ’sexual identity’

Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 3/11/2010

A professor at an evangelical Christian college in Pennsylvania says his guidelines for “sexual identity therapy” are being misunderstood by some Christian proponents of traditional marriage.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College says he has not lost faith in God’s ability to change people who are struggling with homosexuality, but believes most of those people are not likely to experience a “diminishment” in same-sex attraction.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton”To say that because it appears from the research that change is infrequent in attractions doesn’t mean I’ve lost my faith in God’s ability to change people,” he states.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality expressed concern on American Family Radio Monday that Throckmorton “downplays” the stories of former homosexuals “who have experienced profound change.” (See earlier story)

Throckmorton tells OneNewsNow that his “Practice Guidelines for Sexual Identity Therapy” are for professional therapists and not pastors. He denies that as a therapist he would advise clients to maintain a homosexual identity.

“The framework [for the guidelines] doesn’t encourage a client to do what the counselor thinks he or she ought to do,” says the professor. “The framework follows the beliefs and the values of the client. So to say that the counselor encourages clients any particular direction would be in error.”

Throckmorton says he personally holds a “traditional view of homosexuality and sexual ethics.” However, when asked whether he believes homosexuality is “normal, natural and healthy,” he said he could not answer that with a simple “yes” or “no” response. He said “in a professional therapy situation” it is accurate to say that “homosexuals can live normal, natural, and healthy lives that are free of mental illness.”

On the issue of same-sex “marriage,” Throckmorton says he takes a more “nuanced” view — and that he opposes same-sex marriage but believes the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual civil unions.

From: Margaret Hemenway [mailto: ------]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:17 PM
To: ‘rgjewell@gcc.edu‘ [Grove City College President Richard Jewell]
Subject: RE: Professor Throckmorton

Sir, as we begin to review materials mailed to us from colleges soliciting applications for admission from my bright and accomplished 16-year-old daughter, we regret that we are now leery of considering your campus, Grove City, after hearing about Professor Throckmorton’s open advocacy of homosexuality.  All three of our children are enrolled and flourishing academically in Catholic schools, and part of the reason we chose religious schooling is that we wanted them to avoid the inappropriate and misleading homosexual propaganda that our youngest experienced in first grade–in D.C. public school–when subjected to a “gay marriage” lesson plan without parental notification or approval and in contravention of our religious beliefs (and contrary to much lip service to the concept of “parental rights”).

We want our children to grow up to be healthy and happy–enjoying a wholesome college experience–not one which will undermine their years in a safe and nurturing Catholic educational environment.  It is remarkable that the College would permit this professor, given your school’s Biblical charter, to crusade on behalf of homosexuality–would you also allow your staff to advocate openly for adultery, pornography or prostitution–other sexual sins?  Where do you draw the line and how is the professor’s conduct and activity consistent with your Christian mission?  We would look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

The Hemenways
17 E. Maple St.
Alexandria, VA  22301

“I have experienced Professor Throckmorton’s forked tongue, as he has pretended to seek ‘my side’ of the story various times, then turned around and told a biased side of the same story, in a public sphere, with the intention of discrediting my testimony and shaming my stance for Gospel truth.”
– Former homosexual activist Michael Glatze

__________________________________________________

Once "gay" turned Christian Michael Glatze

Editor’s Note: in apparent anger over Americans For Truth’s campaign to expose renegade Grove City College associate professor Warren Throckmorton’s unscriptural approach toward homosexuality, Throckmorton is questioning the accuracy of a OneNewsNow story featuring comments by AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera — including LaBarbera’s assertion that Throckmorton actively seeks to discredit bold testimonies of profound change like that of ex-”gay” Christian Michael Glatze. Below, Michael explains why he no longer trusts Throckmorton and others who “pervert the truth.” Please say a prayer of thanks for this young man who God has drawn out of homosexuality, and that God will use him mightily to proclaim truth about homosexuality in the years and decades ahead. Please also pray for Throckmorton, who as a professed Christian at an evangelical institution should not be using his authority to affirm anyone in a “gay” sexual identity. You can write either man through AFTAH at americansfortruth@comcast.net:

__________________________________________________

The Truth about Warren Throckmorton

By Michael Glatze, Special to Americans For Truth

It is funny. In this world, truth seems to almost be subjective. Then, you meet Jesus. In Jesus, truth is objective. It is from this vantage point that I write this.

Those who seek to provide some kind of intellectual “nuance” to the Gospel will, inevitably, engage in the sin of Pride. The Gospel is quite clear; and, all information about it can be found within God’s Word. Furthermore, all truth — as revealed in God’s Word — will be seen to be true in human experience, as well. Homosexuality is one of those examples.

Six years ago, I began my Christian walk. At that time, I was considered a “rising star” in the “gay rights” movement, editor of a national gay magazine, and a sought-after authority on the subject of gay youth. But, as a new Christian, I began to discover that I simply could not ignore the truth of the Gospel, no matter how difficult it may have been for my habitual, sinful nature to handle those truths. It was not easy to read things that made me feel guilty, or uncomfortable. It was not easy to go before God’s throne in humble repentance. It is still not easy to do so.

However, every time I did that, I found myself blessed — and, I found that God gave me the grace I needed to move on, to grow up, and to grow out of sinful practices that had become quite ingrained in me. This, to those who are unfamiliar, is the blessed process of sanctification. I began to understand that God’s mercy is unfathomable, yet unceasing. I began to understand that I did not have a free ride from sin and temptation, once saved. I began to feel the distance from God, whenever I followed through with a sinful temptation, or acted on that sin — i.e., the spiritual death describe so aptly in the book of James, as following the fulfillment of a sinful action.

Homosexuality, like other sins, involves the temptation to do something that is — quite simply — not necessary. To disagree with God, to say that it is OK, is to sin. And, to confess your sin is to humble yourself enough to say to God, “You were right; I was wrong.” This is an ongoing process.

A great temptation among humans is to step in-between the sinner’s relationship with God, and offer a new way out. People do this in every walk of life. People step in and say, “I know God’s Word is difficult …  let me offer you an alternate way that won’t be so painful.” People do this with philosophies, with “support groups,” and with serious academic “discoveries.”

I have come across many folks, since I first came out as opposed to homosexuality, on a path through healing from homosexuality, standing on the platform of the Gospel to fight against falsehoods about homosexuality — encouraging Christians to not falter on the Gospel truth about homosexuality, and all other sins. It is not easy, nor is life — necessarily — always a walk in the park. But, we must recognize those folks who, momentarily, play Jesus, and put themselves — or, their philosophies, or the fruits of their labors — in Jesus’ place: as mediator between God and man.

Sadly, Warren Throckmorton has been one of those people. He, like so many professing Christians, peddles a false gospel about homosexual sin that includes the lie that homosexuality “might be OK for some people.” Of course this false gospel will seem preferable for many, because it requires less moral responsibility than the true gospel. But, that does not make it right.

I have experienced Professor Throckmorton’s forked tongue, as he has pretended to seek “my side” of the story various times, then turned around and told a biased side of the same story, in a public sphere, with the intention of discrediting my testimony and shaming my stance for Gospel truth. As we have all seen, throughout Christian history, it is quite easy for people to create false worlds, to skew human perception, to persecute Christian truth. Sadly, this professor at a seemingly-reputable Christian school, has engaged in these tactics, with the outcome of persecuting the very truth he supposedly is teaching, atop his perch.

I write this now, as I recognize efforts are being made to describe his indiscretions, and — undoubtedly — a war of words will ensue. All people are redeemable; I am a profound example of that truth.

As I have said in other articles, homosexual sin is a very serious trojan horse that Satan will use — and, has used — to divide and conquer. I know, through the testimony of my own life, as a gay activist and practicing homosexual, who has been delivered from the lifestyle, from the desires, and from the whole mindset, that Gospel truth WILL prevail. But, Christians must be unafraid to tell the truth, stand for the truth, and hold those accountable who pervert the truth.

God Bless You all.

Michael Glatze

LaBarbera was a guest today on Diane Gramley’s “American Family Focuses on Pennsylvania Issues” radio program, discussing Throckmorton’s de facto defection from the pro-family movement opposing GLBT activism. The pre-taped program airs tonight (Wed.) at 5:05 PM Eastern on Pennsylvania Christian radio WAWN-FM (89.5) out of Franklin, Penn., and reaches into several counties (it can be heard on the campus of Grove City). The program will then be available online at AFA of Pennsylvania’s website: www.afaofpa.org.

Today LaBarbera was also interviewed on the “Bob Dutko Show” in Detroit (WMUZ Christian radio). Dutko, like others who had once interviewed Throckmorton as a pro-family advocate defending the truth that homosexuals can experience profound change, expressed sadness that the GCC professor now believes most homosexuals cannot experience such change. (Writes Throckmorton: “I now believe durable change in basic attractions is very infrequent.”) Dutko agreed with LaBarbera that no faithful Christian should ever encourage a homosexual struggler in a positive “gay” identity, as Throckmorton’s (and Regent University Professor Mark Yarhouse’s) “Sexual Identity Therapy” does if such a self-identification brings about “client satisfaction.”

Tomorrow, LaBarbera will be interviewed by Martha Kleder for Concerned Women for America’s online radio program to discuss the GCC-Throckmorton-Biblical-faithfulness controversy, and on Monday he appears on Linda Harvey’s daily Christian radio show in Columbus, Ohio. Harvey is the founder and president of Mission: America, and her article on Throckmorton’s misapplication of the “Golden Rule” can be found HERE.

AFTAH has also learned that Throckmorton has been questioning the accuracy of the OneNewsNow story, and e-mailed ex-”gay” Michael Glatze regarding the accuracy of LaBarbera’s comments about Glatze below. We’ll have more from Glatze in an upcoming post.

OneNewsNow reports:

______________________________________________

Christian college prof encourages ‘gay identity’

Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 3/10/2010

Dr. Warren ThrockmortonA conservative activist is asking a Christian college in Pennsylvania whether it supports the “sexual identity therapy” of one of its professors who is unwilling to discourage some of his clients from remaining in the homosexual lifestyle.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College was once a spokesperson for the ex-”gay” group PFOX (Parents and Friends of Gays and Ex-Gays) and produced a documentary titled I Do Exist, which highlighted the testimonies of former homosexuals who chose to leave that lifestyle.

But now Throckmorton is encouraging some clients to maintain their “gay identity,” even though it is at odds with scripture.  In a paper he co-authored with Regent University’s Mark Yarhouse titled “Sexual Identity Therapy:  Practice Guidelines for Sexual Identity Conflicts,” Throckmorton writes that “the emergence of a gay identity for persons struggling with religious conflicts is a possibility envisioned by the recommendations.”

The professor also states his therapy “respects” that “some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity.”

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes Throckmorton has “lost his faith in God’s ability to change people.”

“Here’s the thing that troubles me the most: there are many people who have experienced profound change, and it seems sometimes Throckmorton has almost sought to downplay those individuals,” LaBarbera notes.  “I talked to Michael Glatze…a young man who was once sort of a gay activist. He was held up and featured by the homosexual side, [but] Michael Glatze has left the lifestyle.  He’s now going to Bible college, and he’s sort of got some hostile e-mails from Throckmorton along the idea of ‘it’s not smart to put out the idea that homosexuals can experience profound change.’”

The organization president adds that Grove City College, which bills itself as “authentically Christian,” needs to explain whether it sanctions what he calls Throckmorton’s “unorthodox, anti-biblical counseling approach.”

Dr. James Dobson

The following is excerpted from WorldNewsDaily.com. We’ve already noted Focus on the Family’s illogical and unprincipled position on judges and homosexuality [see pro-family veteran Gary Glenn's assessment HERE]. How ironic would it be if the ministry launched by James Dobson — which is now taking its biblical worldview “Truth Project” into hundreds of thousands of churches nationwide — were to suddenly lose its zeal for defending Truth against the Forces of Evil in the Culture War?! If the new, “kinder gentler” Focus translates into one that will present less of an obstacle to the wicked pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality movements, then Pastor Hutcherson is right about the direction of this ministry. It just seems implausible that after all its work to date, Focus will be able to retreat in any meaningful way from the Culture War.

We also suspect that Focus may be feeling the pull of George Barna’s polling research denigrating “religious right” activism (e.g., Barna Group President David Kinnaman’s and Gabe Lyon’s influential yet painfully shallow book UnChristian) and the appeasing liberal Christian “Emergents” — both of which appeal to younger generations of Christians who eschew the polarizing “culture war.”  In that regard, Focus has a choice: does it follow the worldly culture trends driven by these new generations — who, although they probably are loathe to admit it, are indoctrinated in politically correct,  “gay”-tolerant attitudes? Or does it recommit itself to educating these youth and standing boldly for timeless truths no matter where the culture is headed? (We realize there are many Christians who advocate quitting the cultural war against social evils, but they never have a good answer to this question: what about the hugely funded and powerful Homosexual, Abortion and Porn Lobbies that never quit; do we simply abandon America’s cultural/political landscape to them in a free society?)

I think Dr. Dobson would have opted for the latter, tougher course. That’s why he — like Hutcherson — is a target for hateful “queer” activists like Wayne Besen. Jim Daly may be less hated than Dobson, but that does not mean he will be more effective as a soldier in God’s Army. — Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.org

[Hutcherson column after jump…l

_____________________________________

I lost my Focus on the Family

Posted on WorldNetDaily, March 08, 2010

By Dr. Kenneth L. Hutcherson

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

I have a problem with that: I think Humpty Dumpty was pushed!

Of all the people I know, in an effort to find some semblance of reality about what really happened, I am the only one who has talked to both sides – Dr. James Dobson and Jim Daly, the new president of Focus on the Family who also represents the board.

I think that Focus does have a new focus; an image change designed to make them accepted and well-liked rather than standing for righteousness in an unrighteous society.

Dr. James Dobson is one of the most loving, committed Christian men I have ever met. I love him with all my heart, am committed to him and would take a bullet for him.

He is too gracious to ask the question, but someone has to, so I will: Why is he off the air at Focus on the Family when he and his son are starting their own radio program elsewhere so he can remain on the air?

The infusion of biblical truth into the culture over the years by Focus on the Family has been a miraculous movement of God, and all at the hands of Dr. James and Shirley Dobson.

What is this new Focus on the Family? There is a tendency after many years of success for new blood and new minds to come in with a new plan. (I’ve always thought: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!) Just because something sounds new and elegant does not guarantee it will be better.

A great example of the products currently coming out of the new Focus on the Family is the Tim Tebow ad during the Super Bowl. It said nothing. What a great opportunity that was to promote the pro-life position by revealing what abortion really is. But I guess they didn’t want to offend the world and wanted to make sure everyone loved them.

The current emphasis at Focus is on being loved and understood. I have read the entire Bible from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21 – and while it says, “The truth shall set you free,” nowhere does it say, “Sensitivity shall set you free.” What set the Focus board free to take Dr. Dobson off the air? …

I am not very happy with the new, progressive, “loving” leadership at Focus on the Family. However, it is God’s ministry, and He will do with it what He pleases….

This board will regret its decision not to honor the founder of the ministry that God ordained. I have already had many tell me where their support will go. If the board members have any guts at all, they will get this man back on the Focus radioprogram. …

We are called to be the salt of the earth, a beacon, and we are warned not to hide our light under a bushel. Focus on the Family’s light is not only under a bushel, it’s under a cloud.

The leadership had better wake up. They have made a serious mistake and they need to correct it.

Dr. Kenneth L. Hutcherson is the senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Wash. He is also a former NFL linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys and Seattle Seahawks.

I think Mr. Bier’s e-mail ought to come to the attention of Grove City College Board and executives, for three reasons:

1. They are about to graduate a young man from their so-called Christian institution without teaching him that God not only disapproves of homosexuality, but He describes it as an abomination, unnatural, dishonorable, perversion, depravity.  (What is the school’s position?  What are they allowing professors to teach?) Not only is this young man either ignorant or defiant of Biblical truth, he is actually deluded into believing that those who embrace homosexuality are moral, while those who hold to the Biblical position (“homosexuality is sin”) are immoral. Isaiah 5:20 — “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” — comes to mind;
2. Apparently, Throckmorton’s deceit has permeated the campus to some degree.  How many GCC students are under the misapprehension that God approves of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality?  (Wow, I guess only us heterosexuals are called to abstinence, sexual purity, marital fidelity?);
3. This college senior cannot write a sensible paragraph.  “Your unsolicited attack”?  I would characterize what [Americans For Truth writes] as “exposing Throckmorton’s counseling philosophy as unbiblical” — not sure how that qualifies as “an attack.”  And does Mr. Bier think that you are supposed to wait until you’re invited to comment on Throckmorton’s counseling philosophy?  In that case, his own e-mail [to AFTAH] is an “unsolicited attack,” isn’t it?

Most importantly: Please advise Mr. Bier that Jesus Christ does not “accept others as they are.”  The first recorded words of His public ministry were: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Priscilla Smith
__________________________

Priscilla Smith is a freelance writer based in Indiana. She can be reached through AFTAH at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

Editor’s Note: links have been added to the following letter sent by Steve Baldwin to Grove City College President Richard Jewell (Phone: 724-458-2500). For more contact information on GCC, go HERE.

From: “Steve Baldwin” [e-mail address withheld]
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 13:35:55 -0800
To: <rgjewell@gcc.edu>
Subject: Message from Steve Baldwin

President Jewell:

Warren Throckmorton

We’ve met before when I was the Executive Director of the Council for National Policy.  I’ve been following the controversy involving your professor, Warren Throckmorton, and I have to say, Throckmorton is doing great damage to the reputation of Grove City College.

It’s bad enough having a professor who actively declares that homosexuality is just fine if the person in question is happy with himself.  That is simply not biblical and you know it.  It like saying alcoholics are fine the way they are as long as they’re happy with themselves.

But what’s worse is that he seems to have poisoned the minds of many of your students.  The email message below is from one of your students to Peter Labarbera [of Americans For Truth] and it just made me sick to my stomach:

Your recent article on Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton is yet another of your pathetic attempts to mislead otherwise moral individuals into the belief that God disapproves of homosexuality.  Your unsolicited attack on Throckmorton isn’t surprising, but you should still know that Throckmorton has the support of the student body here.  Perhaps one day you will realize that the only thing doing “incalculable harm to many young people” is your ignorant and hate-inspired position on homosexuality.  Throckmorton’s Golden Rule Pledge simply encourages to do as Jesus did: accept others as they are, not as we want them to be.Thanks for your time,

David Bier, Grove City College Senior

This student is saying that God does NOT disapprove of homosexual behavior and he implies that the entire student body is in agreement with this heresy.  Since this has gone on for some time now, I would like to know if this is the official view of Grove City College.  I’m in contact with hundreds of conservative high school students and many often ask me for my recommendations as to what colleges to attend.  If this view of homosexuality is now the official view of the Grove City College, I need to know, as I will no longer be recommending Grove City College.

I look forward to your answer.

Steve Baldwin

__________________________________________

The writer (left) is the former Executive Director of the Council for National Policy, a former State Assemblyman in California, and a longtime conservative Republican activist. He and his wife Patti and their four sons live in Santee, California, outside of San Diego. You can write Baldwin through americansfortruth@comcast.net.

_____________________________________

From:  “Bier, David J.” [GCC e-mail address]
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:43:31 -0500
To: <americansfortruth@comcast.net>
Subject: Article on Warren Throckmorton

Dear Americans For Truth,

Your recent article on Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton is yet another of your pathetic attempts to mislead otherwise moral individuals into the belief that God disapproves of homosexuality.  Your unsolicited attack on Throckmorton isn’t surprising, but you should still know that Throckmorton has the support of the student body here.  Perhaps one day you will realize that the only thing doing “incalculable harm to many young people” is your ignorant and hate-inspired position on homosexuality.  Throckmorton’s Golden Rule Pledge simply encourages to do as Jesus did: accept others as they are, not as we want them to be.

Thanks for your time,

-David Bier, Grove City College Senior

______________________________________

Related Americans For Truth articles:

• “Is Grove City College Still ‘Authentically Christian’ if It Abides Pro-’Gay’ Professor Warren Throckmorton and his ‘Sexual Identity Therapy’?”
• “Grove City College Prof Throckmorton Misapplies the Golden Rule on the ‘Day of Silence’”

TAKE ACTION: Contact Grove City College (President Richard Jewell: 724-458-2500; rgjewell@gcc.edu) and ask them if GCC professor Warren Throckmorton’s unorthodox views on homosexuality represent “authentically Christian” teachings on this issue. (GCC advertises itself as a solid, “authentically Christian” institution.) Request a written response as to whether Throckmorton’s writings on and approach toward homosexuality honor Grove City’s Christian charter “rejecting relativism and secularism.” Please share the response you receive with us at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

______________________________

By Linda Harvey, www.missionamerica.com

A broad coalition of pro-family groups recommends that parents keep their children home on the deceptive, pro-homosexual “Day of Silence,” to be observed this year on April 16, 2010, but one “gay”-affirming counselor started what he calls the “Golden Rule Pledge” instead.

Yet, the “Golden Rule Pledge” actually functions as a disinformation tool and a divisive wedge in schools and among Christians. It is insidiously misleading and would bring harm to kids. It grieves me to take this position, but there’s no choice, because lives are at stake.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton (pictured above), a self-labeled “christian” counselor at Grove City College [contact GCC HERE], has indicated on a radio show he does not object to homosexuality when a person feels comfort with the lifestyle. My concern is that he may be communicating this to youth and college students whom he counsels, because his “Golden Rule” project takes a stand tolerant of this destructive and sinful behavior by encouraging student “respect.”

He has expressed his preference for students remaining in school on the “Day of Silence” and hearing pro-homosexual propaganda, and learning to sympathize with those practicing these behaviors, rather than taking an unequivocal, biblical stand against these harmful practices by remaining home. Throckmorton doesn’t even like the Exodus-sponsored “Day of Truth,” which encourages kids to remain in school and have a frank conversation, in love, with friends while presenting the biblical view of homosexuality. Throckmorton calls this “offensive.”

Throckmorton’s support of the “Day of Silence” will do incalculable harm to many young people. Misleading professionals like Throckmorton in positions of influence can make our sons and daughters become comfortable with entering into, staying in, or approving of homosexuality, bisexuality and gender change.

If I were a parent who discovered my minor child had been counseled in this way, I’d bring the largest and most aggressive medical malpractice suit I could launch against this counselor at Grove City.

Golden Rule? Not on your life.

Jesus would never make a person feel more comfortable about:

• Young males having sex with males, the incidence of which rose over 12 % per year between 2001 and 2006 among males ages 13 to 24 1;
• Young “lesbians” choosing a fatherless life for any future children, since they can never conceive children with female partners;
• Hoping in such relationships for a false “marriage” in violation of Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9, where Christ told us that “from the beginning” people were created male and female, and that one man and one woman form a marriage;
• Teens and even younger children believing they should change genders. As with homosexuality, we should be doing everything possible to counsel these kids and prevent these behaviors among youth.

Throckmorton on his site (http://goldenrulepledge.com/about/) uses the language of homosexual activism. He couldn’t be more helpful to their cause if he were a consultant with GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, which sponsors the national “Day of Silence” Examples of the GRP’s sympathetic, even pro-homosexual statements:

1. The Day of Silence is to “bring awareness to bullying and harassment of transgender, gay, lesbian, and bisexually identified students.” This is odd both in the use of activist terms and that “transgender” comes first. This “gay”-crafted rhetoric gives a nod to the unsupportable “born-that-way” claim and a significant level of sympathy for those involved in what the eternally-existent Christ called an “abomination.” By any Christian standard, is this GOLDEN RULE material? NOPE.

2. Another phrase is quite revealing:

“Many straight Christian and conservative students are conflicted about this day. They do not affirm homosexual behavior but they also loathe disrespect, harassment or violence toward any one, including their GLBT peers.”

The logical fallacies here abound. If students truly don’t “affirm” homosexuality, then don’t cooperate with its promotion through the deceptive “Day of Silence.”

The second sentence is classic pro-”gay” propaganda. These are not the only choices! To stay home is to show “violence” or approval thereof? This is so unfair to tradition-minded families and students, who feel they make a very positive statement by staying home! The Gospel and its sexual standards are, after all still good news. And one does not have to approve of homosexuality to prevent bullying, violence, or uncivil behavior.

3. Here’s the actual “pledge” language:

This is what I’m doing:

I pledge to treat others the way I want to be treated.

Will you join me in this pledge?

“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31).

Hmmm. “…The way I want to be treated.” So, if a student is about to enter, or has entered, a high-risk practice that is called an abomination by our Lord, and has shared this with classmates, a “true” Christian should attend school to support a day that affirms this behavior and scorns any warnings to that student? Some friendship!

Here’s a biblically-based alternative: “Friends don’t let friends do homosexuality!”

Then, the Pledge website talks about affirming the “safety” of all, based on Christ’s teachings. This piggybacks on the language of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) and others who have used a supposed “safety” strategy to obtain affirmation of homosexuality in the schools. Homosexuality is safe and Christian teachings about it being an abomination are unsafe, is the real message. Bullying? Harassment? No one wants those things, but that’s not GLSEN’s actual concern, because schools are fully empowered now to punish incidents where such misbehavior occurs.

No, the “Day of Silence” is about propaganda. The goal is to shame and label Christians and tradition-minded students and teachers, silence their authentic witness, and even silence any public health warnings. Real safety would be to scream from the rooftops about the harm homosexuality or gender change will bring to these young lives. And since no one is born homosexual, these desires are demonstrably changeable, so no one is left without a positive alternative. Christ’s authentic path always gives hope.

This is such a travesty that if we were all ancient Israelites, we’d be rending our clothing and putting on sackcloth and ashes! What is happening to kids is corruption by uncaring and misguided adults.

Throckmorton is doing a great job of affirming propaganda meant to harm young lives and keep them away from Christ through misunderstanding. I don’t know if he means to do that, but that is going to be — guaranteed — the result.

This is completely upside down. Throckmorton doesn’t get it, or doesn’t want to get it, or loves the approval of “gay” and “transgendered” blogs and activists, or he has an as-yet-undisclosed motive. [Editor's note: Americans For Truth has asked Throckmorton for his views on "same-sex marriage," "civil unions," homosexual "special rights" ("sexual orientation") laws, etc., but he has not answered our queries.]

This is not Christian and is a heretical use of the Golden Rule.

Please join me in praying for Warren Throckmorton, for his repentance, and also for his duplicitous dealings to be revealed so no further harm is done to our precious and impressionable kids.

And please help me pray that the emotionally manipulative “Day of Silence” is revealed for what it is — adults exploiting precious kids.

Notes:

1. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5725a2.htm. See Table at end.

Linda Harvey, founder of Mission:America

________________________________

Linda Harvey is founder and president of Mission: America, based in Columbus, Ohio. Perhaps more than any other American, she has sounded the alarm about the danger of promoting/affirming “GLBT” (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) identities to young people [click the "To Christians" button HERE]. Please support Mission: America’s important work [Donate link is at the bottom of the main website page]. To order a 2-DVD set of Linda Harvey’s talk last year at Americans For Truth, send $35 postpaid to: Americans For Truth, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567, or specify “Linda Harvey 2-DVD set” with your gift of $35 or more through AFTAH’s online donor page.

Focus on the Family web ad rejected by the NCAA.

Behold the latest pathetic capitulation to the Homosexual Lobby by a “mainstream” American institution, the NCAA. It is corporate cowardice of this nature that breeds homo-fascism, a term describing aggressively intolerant homosexual activism that will come to be understood by Americans — as larger and larger portions of the culture cave into the idea that disagreeing with or offending homosexuals (people practicing homosexuality) is beyond the pale. From a logical, historical and spiritual perspective, such an assertion is preposterous, but in the current zeitgeist, emotion, secularism and sheer intimidation trump reason, tradition, and spiritual truth.

Whoever would have thought that 1-3 percent of the population — united around the practice of deviant, unhealthy sex — could command such power? (Only in a declining society, we maintain.) Focus on the Family employs a “soft” resistance to the aggressive “queer” movement (too soft, in our view); if they can’t place an innocuous ad on the NCAA website, then no group defending traditional sexual morality can.

And the hucksters (homosexual and straight) who push the “gay” agenda do so in the name of “diversity.” What a sham. Memo to homosexual extremists: keep demanding such bans on opposing viewpoints — and cheer loudly whenever a pro-normalcy group is silenced! The more you do, the more the American people will see your true colors — which do not match a rainbow’s but rather the oppressive black of a censor’s pen. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.ogl

__________________________________________

– The following is reprinted from OneNewsNow, the news ministry of American Family Association; subscribe to ONN’s daily news briefs HERE and their e-alerts HERE.

NCAA nixes family ad, Focus ‘befuddled’

The NCAA has withdrawn Focus on the Family’s banner ad on its website, apparently because of the organization’s stance on homosexual relationships.

Associated Press reports the National Collegiate Athletic Association heard from some of its members that the banner conflicted with the organization’s policy of inclusion, regardless of sexual orientation. The ad — part of the pro-family group’s “Celebrate Family – Celebrate Life” campaign — was pulled without any notice, according to Focus on the Family’s Gary Schneeburger.

“We’re a little befuddled, I guess is the best way to say it, that an ad that clearly that was not controversial,” he responds. “It was not even political — it was simply about a father wanting the best for his son….”

The ministry spokesman suggests the banner ad was taken down “not…because the ad itself was offensive, but because the very existence of Focus on the Family apparently to some people is offensive.”

The major governing body of college sports says ads must be in agreement with NCAA principles, and its own standards allow it to exclude advertising and advertisers that it deems “do not appear to be in the best interests of higher education and student athletes.”

“What that tells us,” says Schneeburger, “is that we’re not allowed to advertise our family help services because we have biblical values on issues like marriage.” And if such material were “all of a sudden labeled hate speech,” he says “we have deeper problems in our country than we even know.”

Schneeburger points out that Focus spends 90 percent of its budget on parenting and marriage resources, and only 10 percent advocating on behalf of the unborn and for traditional marriage. The supposedly controversial Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, was part of Focus’s “Celebrate Family – Celebrate Life” campaign.

Kathleen Parker

Folks, when even self-styled “conservatives” like Kathleen Parker (left) boast about how they teach their children to be accepting of homosexuality (she would use the PC parlance “gays and lesbians”), you know that those of us who believe in timeless moral standards have our work cut out for us.  I don’t know what led to Parker sellout out, but I’ve had it up to here with “conservatives” who no longer see the need (or have the guts) to conserve Judeo-Christian moral values. Funny how the likes of Parker talk a good game about not being “judgmental” but they have little problem judging the “Christian Right.” — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. Would it have killed Chris Matthews to include an actual opponent of homosexuals in the military in his MSNBC talkfest — or was the psuedo-conservative Parker his idea of “diversity”?

TAKE ACTION: Contact your Congressman and both Senators (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them NOT to allow open homosexuality in our military. Urge them to OPPOSE H.R. 1283, the Homosexualize Our Military Act (aka the ”Military Readiness Enhancement Act” ), which would establish a pro-homosexual “non-discrimination” code in the military — thus turning the conservative culture of our Armed Forces into a de facto “gay pride” zone where homosexuality — destructive, immoral and changeable conduct — is affirmed as a “civil right.” If H.R. 1283 becomes law, tradition-minded servicemembers would be “re-educated” to adhere to the new, twisted definition of ”tolerance.”

__________________________________________

Homosexuals in the Military 

By Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute, Feb. 17, 2010

The issue of homosexuals serving openly in the military is so complex that writing about it seems overwhelming.

First, there is the problem of reconciling both Article 125 of the Military Code of Justice and U.S. Code – Section 654 that strictly prohibit those who engage in homosexual acts or those who state that they are homosexual from serving in the military with the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that serves as a defacto law superseding actual law.

“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” implicitly says homosexuals can serve as long as they don’t openly acknowledge that they are homosexual. That’s like saying that company policy strictly bans the use of company computers to view porn, but employees can view porn as long as they don’t tell anyone. Either it’s permitted or it’s not.

Despite what some advocates of homosexuals serving openly in the military claim, military prohibitions against homosexuals serving in the military no more encourage deceit, than do laws prohibiting stealing encourage deceit. To claim that laws that prohibit certain behaviors encourage deceit is another way of saying people are always going to break laws. In this twisted logic, all laws encourage deceit because those who don’t want to abide by them willfully engage in deceit in order to do what they want without incurring the consequences.

We can’t always prevent lawbreakers from breaking the law, but that unfortunate reality should not compel society to repeal laws. In other words, society ought not repeal laws in order that those who refuse to obey them are freed from the consequences of lawbreaking. The fact that throughout history there have been homosexuals who enlisted in the military in violation of military law that prohibits them from serving should not compel the military to rescind the law.

Removing the prohibition against allowing openly homosexuals from serving in the military will result in a whole host of other problems, among which are the following:

• It will result in discomfort among some soldiers with engaging in private activities like showering with men who admit to being sexually attracted to other men. Yes, throughout history homosexual men have served in the military, but heterosexual men are unlikely to be uncomfortable showering with homosexual men when they don’t know they’re homosexual.
• If military law is changed to allow openly homosexual men and women to serve, there will undoubtedly be an increase in homosexual activity in the military. To argue otherwise is either disingenuous or naïve.
• Coercion between openly homosexual military officers and their subordinates will likely increase.
• Some men may choose not to enlist or re-enlist if they will be compelled to serve with openly homosexual men.
• Romantic affiliations will develop which will likely affect combat decisions.
• The military will eventually have to provide military housing for same-sex couples.

(For more on the potential impact of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military, click HERE to read an editorial by Richard H. Black, retired chief of the Army’s Criminal Law Division, who as a marine pilot flew 269 combat missions in Vietnam.)

Political commentator Chris Matthews made yet another silly statement on his Sunday morning program on Feb. 7 when he said that anyone who wants to serve in the military should be allowed to do so. Apparently, neither the mission of the military nor its needs must be allowed to supersede the almighty desires of any particular individual. His statement reflects the troubling thinking of so many Americans who now believe that any good or desirable thing constitutes the object of a right. If they see something they want or something they want to do, many people believe they have a Constitutional right to have it or do it.

Homosexual couples want to participate in the heterosexual institution of marriage, so same sex “marriage” is now their “right.” Homosexual couples who are designed to be sterile want babies, so having babies is now their “right.” Men who are sexually attracted to other men want to serve in the military, so now serving in the military is their “right.”

Homosexuals, and increasingly “transgenders,” are compelling society through erroneous and unproven ontological assumptions to radically redefine foundational societal institutions. All of their efforts are based on acceptance of the deceit that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to skin color or other immutable conditions that have no behavioral moral implications open to moral assessment.

Homosexuality is not by nature equivalent to skin color, nor is it morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Conservatives especially need to recognize how much they have appropriated the absurd proposition that homosexuality is akin to race, and they need to stop treating it as if it were.

After reading about a recent poll that reveals that the opinions of both civilians and younger military personnel are shifting in favor of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military, I found myself wondering why the views are changing so dramatically. Chris Matthews posed that question to his guests MSNBC correspondent Norah O’Donnell, New York Times writer Andrew Sorkin, Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, and Time Magazine assistant editor Michael Duffy, and received surprisingly insubstantial, question-begging answers.

In response to Matthews’ question, “Why have attitudes (on homosexuals serving in the military) changed since Bill Clinton confronted that issue back in ‘93?” O’Donnell said “I think there’s greater acceptance.”

Sorkin said, “The world’s changed, but I’m going to say it’s about social networking, it’s about the Internet. I think so many people are so much more open in a whole new way than they’ve ever been, and therefore people who were unaccepting before now see it in a whole different way.”

Kathleen Parker said, “we parents have raised our kids to not be judgmental and to be accepting of gays. We all know more gay people than we used to, or think we didn’t know before.”

Duffy said, “the reason is that our teenagers are just 100 times more tolerant than their parents about everything.”

What these responses brought to mind was one of Jack Handey’s Deep Thoughts: “One day one of my little nephews came up to me and asked if the equator was a real line that went around the Earth, or just an imaginary one. I had to laugh. Laugh and laugh. Because I didn’t know, and I thought that maybe by laughing he would forget what he asked me.”

Parker responded by saying that children have been raised to be less judgmental, which really means that many have switched their judgment from homosexual acts are immoral to the judgment that homosexual acts are moral. Does Parker really want people to stop judging between right and wrong, or does she want people to make moral judgments with which she agrees. Does she want people to be non-judgmental when it comes to racist behavior, or adult consensual incest, or corporate malfeasance?

What none of Matthews guests did was to offer an account of the reasons why society’s judgments are changing, which is the crux of the matter. Has it happened through careful study of the best thinkers writing on the subject of morality, sexuality, the needs of the military, or the place of institutional disapproval in maintaining a healthy society?

Or have other factors and forces altered the judgments of society:

• Have judgments shifted through the relentless spate of images and ideas promulgated through music, films, novels, plays, essays, the news media, advertising, and public education that implicitly and explicitly affirm unproven assumptions about homosexuality?
• Have judgments shifted as a result of the absolute censorship in public schools of the writing of scholars who offer thoughtful, erudite expositions of conservative perspectives on the nature and morality of homosexuality?
• Have public judgments shifted as a result of relentless ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to say publicly that volitional homosexual acts are immoral?
• Have public judgments shifted as theologically orthodox churches cowardly retreated from engaging in this public debate and from equipping their members to engage in it?

The tragic reality is that the affirmation of openly homosexual men and women serving in the military reflects not only society’s acceptance of the fallacious claim that homosexuality is analogous to skin color/race, but also of society’s rejection of any standards regarding sexual morality:

• Marriage has been severed from sex, and from procreation, and from childrearing, and increasingly from “gender.”
• Sex has been severed from marriage, procreation, childrearing, and “gender.” Polyamory-or as polyamorists like to call it, “ethical non-monogamy”-is increasingly visible and likely increasingly practiced.
• Fornication and co-habitation are not merely accepted; they’re expected.
• Homosexuality is everywhere promoted as normal and good.
• Exhibitionism is common on reality shows, primetime comedies and dramas, films, music videos, and college campuses.
• And paraphilias, also known as fetishes, are played for laughs on sitcoms.
• Even lighthearted references to and depictions of incest have appeared in television programs and films.

Why wouldn’t a generation weaned on positive images of sexual perversion and immorality support openly homosexual men and women serving in the military?

What society needs to think seriously about is whether some forms of institutionalized disapproval of sexual immorality through laws or policy serve a good and necessary social function.

“Every piece of evidence that can be culled from the text’s literary and historical context confirms that the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice, like its prohibition of adult incestuous unions, is absolute, rejecting all forms of homosexual practice regardless of consent and commitment.” –  Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary 

“St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts.  It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex.  So it did seem like against their nature to be doing so.” – Homosexual Episcopal Bishop V. (Vicky) Gene Robinson, interview with CNSNews.com

TAKE ACTION AND LEARN: Educate yourself about the Bible’s clear teaching against homosexual conduct and relationships. Begin by reading the article below, taken from Prof. Robert Gagnon’s paper, “What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues, and sharing it with your Christian friends, especially those bending to pro-”gay” advocacy. And please support Prof. Gagnon by ordering his excellent 2008 DVD series, “Love, the Bible and Homosexual Practice” (cost is $42 including shipping & handling). As Christians, it is our duty to respond intelligently to false ”gay” theology, which is gaining a foothold in the Church and in the culture. And for those who are not Christian, you need to understand the bogus history that activists like (Vicky) Gene Robinson are using to advance their pro-homosexuality agenda.

_______________________________________

Dear Readers,

Please watch this short video interview of homosexual activist and Episcopal Bishop V. (Vicky) Gene Robinson’s latest attempt  to discredit the biblical (Romans 1) prohibition against homosexual practice (courtesy Eyeblast TV and CNSNews.com):

You can read a transcript of Bishop Robinson’s CNS interview HERE. It is extraordinary to behold a major denominational “Christian” leader dedicate a sizable part of his professional life to undermining the clear witness of the Bible and tradition against a particular sexual sin  — which just so happens to be the one with which he identifies. Unfortunately for Robinson, his rehashed “gay” theology does not square with history, as Prof. Robert Gagnon — the world’s leading orthodox authority on the Bible and homosexuality — reveals below.

Note Robinson’s assumption that homosexuals are ”born.” Despite the existence of a small cottage industry of pro-homosexual researchers — e.g., geneticist-turned-”gay”-activist Dean Hamer — seeking to prove inborn homosexuality, they have not succeeded in doing so. (Hamer’s media-hyped 1993 male “genetic homosexuality” study in the journal Science could not be replicated in the same journal.)

Also note that despite Robinson’s claim about innate homosexuals, the peculiar and obviously dysfunctional circumstances of his own life — starting at his birth — support a “nurture” rather than “nature” model for the causation of homosexuality. Robinson’s parents, expecting him to die, gave him two female names — Vicky Imogene — because they had hoped for a daughter. Then when he survived, they allowed him to live as a boy carrying those feminine names — a parental act that was irresponsible at best and cruel at worst. (Remember the Johnny Cash song, “A Boy Named Sue”?)

Thus, the abnormal factors that undoubtedly contributed to Bishop Robinson’s deviant proclivities and homosexual self-identification as an adult undermine his current, self-serving, specious claim that modern, “monogamous” homosexuality is some kind of benign, naturally “oriented” variation on life that was not yet discovered by the Apostle Paul. [See related AFTAH article: "Researcher: Half of Gay Couples Choose to be ‘Non-Monogamous.’"]

Prof. Rob Gagnon

Moreover, if we know that thousands of men and women have left homosexuality through faith in Jesus Christ and through various methods and circumstances — why would we treat this particular sin as somehow special and unchangeable — or not sinful at all, as long as it is “domesticated”?

Professor Rob Gagnon and other scholars — including some homosexuals — who have studied the context of the New Testament Book of Romans take issue with Bishop Robinson’s claim about monogamous homosexuality not being proscribed. TAKE ACTION AND LEARN:  Please share this article with your friends and support Prof. Gagnon (www.robgagnon.net) — a rare, indefatigable foe of pro-homosexual political correctness in the academy — by ordering his 2008 DVD series, “Love, the Bible and Homosexual Practice” (cost is $42 including shipping & handling). The excerpt below is taken from Gagnon’s 2009 paper, “What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues.”

– Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

“Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.” (I Corinthians 16: 13-14)

_________________________________________

Prof. Gagnon Responds to “Gay” Theological Arguments on the Book of Romans:

3. Romans 1:24-27 and the Erroneous “Exploitation Argument”

Claim: The Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice in Romans 1:24‐27 applies only to exploitative and hedonistic forms of homosexual practice such as sex with slaves, prostitutes, and adolescents.

What the evidence really shows: Every piece of evidence that can be culled from the text’s literary and historical context confirms that the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice, like its prohibition of adult incestuous unions, is absolute, rejecting all forms of homosexual practice regardless of consent and commitment.

Five lines of evidence make this point clear. First, Paul in Rom 1:24-27 rejects homosexual practice because it is a violation of the God’s creation of “male and female” as a sexual pair in Genesis. In Rom 1:23-27 Paul intentionally echoed Gen 1:26-27, making eight points of correspondence, in the same tripartite structure, between the two sets of texts (humans/image/likeness, birds/cattle/reptiles, male/female). Paul was rejecting homosexual practice in the first instance because it was a violation of the male-female prerequisite for sexual relations ordained by the Creator at creation, not because of how well or badly it was done in his cultural milieu.

Second, the kind of nature argument that Paul employs in Rom 1:18-27 isn’t conducive to a distinction between exploitative and nonexploitative forms of homosexual practice. For Paul contended that female-female and male-male intercourse was “contrary to nature” because it violated obvious clues given in the material structures of creation that male and female, not two males or two females, are each other’s sexual “counterpart” or “complement” (to use the language of Gen 2:18, 20) in terms of anatomy, physiology, and psychology. What Paul says regarding the vertical vice of idolatry (1:19-23) is equally true of the horizontal vice of same-sex intercourse: male-female complementarity is “clearly seen, being mentally apprehended by means of the things made” (1:19-20). Some have argued that the ancients had no comprehension of a complementarity argument. Yet as classicist Thomas K. Hubbard notes in his magisterial sourcebook of texts pertaining to Homosexuality in Greece and Rome (University of California Press, 2003): “Basic to the heterosexual position [among Greek and Roman moralists in the first few centuries A.D.] is the characteristic Stoic appeal to the providence of Nature, which has matched and fitted the sexes to each other” (p. 444). Hubbard is supportive of homosexual relationships, yet admits the point.

Third, the fact that Paul in Rom 1:27 specifically indicts male homosexual relations that involve mutual, reciprocal affections—“males, having left behind the natural use of the female, were inflamed with their yearning for one another”— precludes any supposition that Paul is thinking
only of coercive relationships.

Fourth, Paul’s indictment of lesbianism in Romans 1:26 further confirms that his indictment of homosexual practice is absolute, since female homosexuality in antiquity was not primarily known, or criticized, for the exploitative practices of sex with slaves, prostitutes, or children. And there can be little doubt that Paul was indicting female homosexuality, as evidenced by:

1. the parallelism of the language of 1:26 (“females exchanged the natural use”) and 1:27 (“likewise also the males leaving behind the natural use of the female”);
2. the fact that in antiquity lesbian intercourse was the form of female intercourse most commonly labeled “contrary to nature” and paired with male homosexual practice;
3. the fact of nearly universal male opposition to lesbianism in antiquity, even by men engaged in homosexual practice; and
4. the fact that lesbian intercourse was the dominant interpretation of Romans 1:26 in the patristic period.

Fifth, contrary to false claims that people in the Greco-Roman world had no concept of committed homosexual unions, there is plenty of evidence for the conception and existence of loving homosexual relationships, including semi-official “marriages” between men and between women. Moreover, we know of some Greco-Roman moralists who acknowledged the existence of loving homosexual relationships while rejecting even these as unnatural (indeed, we can trace this idea back to Plato’s Laws). This is also true of the Church Fathers. For example, Clement of Alexandria (late second century) referred to “women … contrary to nature … marrying women” (Paidagogos 3.3.21.3). Obviously marriage implies commitment (else there is no need to marry) yet commitment does not change the unnatural and sinful character of the relationship. And it should go without saying that Jewish writers in Paul’s day and beyond rejected all forms of homosexual activity. For example, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus stated the obvious to his Roman readers: “The law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman…. But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199).

It is hardly surprising, then, that even Louis Crompton, a homosexual scholar, acknowledges this point in his massive work, Homosexuality and Civilization (Harvard University Press, 2003; 500 pgs.):

“However well-intentioned,” the interpretation that Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships….seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian. (p. 114)

Also worth noting is the falsity of claims that the ancient world knew nothing akin to our understanding of a homosexual orientation or of congenital influences on at least some homosexual development. As classicist Thomas K. Hubbard (cited above) notes:

Homosexuality in this era [i.e., of the early Imperial Age of Rome] may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation. (p. 386)

Bernadette Brooten, a lesbian New Testament scholar who has written the most important book on lesbianism in antiquity also acknowledges this point. She states that “Paul could have believed” that some persons attracted to members of the same sex “were born that way and yet still condemn them [better: their behaviors] as unnatural and shameful…. I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God” (Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism [University of Chicago, 1996], 244).

WATCH THE LIVE WEBCAST: Friday 2-6:35 p.m. and Saturday 9 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 -5:00 p.m. See the Liberty Counsel press release on the conference HERE.

Liberty University School of Law will host a one-day conference followed by a one-day symposium addressing homosexuality and its consequences. The Friday, February 12, conference is entitled “Understanding Same-sex Attractions and Their Consequences.” On Saturday, February 13, the Liberty University Law Review will host a legal symposium entitled “Homosexual Rights and First Amendment Freedoms: Can They Truly Coexist?”

Those struggling with same-sex attractions need understanding and hope for a life without conflict, so it is imperative to understand the implications of same-sex attraction and the broader homosexual agenda.

If you cannot attend the conference and symposium on Friday afternoon and Saturday, you can watch the live webcast HERE.

See the schedule for Friday and Saturday for the extraordinary list of speakers.

Event times and locations are as follows:

Friday, Feb. 12, 10:00 a.m., convocation, Liberty University – Vines Center;
Friday, Feb. 12, 2:00 – 6:45 p.m., conference, Liberty University School of Law – Supreme Courtroom;
Saturday, Feb. 13, 9:00 a.m. – 5 p.m., symposium, Liberty University School of Law Supreme Courtroom;
Saturday, Feb. 13, 5:00 p.m. banquet, Liberty University – Grand Lobby of DeMoss Hall.

The conference and the symposium are free, but tickets are required for the Saturday evening banquet. For more information, please go to www.LC.org, contact Liberty University School of Law at 434-592-5300 or visit http://law.liberty.edu.

“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of ‘moral retreat.’  ‘It’s not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family’s moral retreat on the issue,’ Glenn argues. ‘[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a Biblical standard.’”

It's hard to imagine former longtime Focus on the Family leader James Dobson saying that pro-family groups should not consider a homosexual judge's "sexual orientation" as a factor in evaluating that judge.

The issue of openly homosexual judges is back in the news, providing us the opportunity to publish this 2009 One News Now piece and agree with our friend Gary Glenn of AFA-Michigan on a very significant “moral retreat” by Focus on the Family.  Back when there was talk of President Obama possibly nominating a lesbian judge to the Supreme Court, two Focus analysts asserted that a judge’s homosexual “sexual orientation” would not be a major consideration for Focus in evaluating such a judge. It is precisely this sort of naïveté that helps explain why aggressive homosexual lobby groups are winning major battles against their pro-family opponents.

I’ll issue the same challenge to Focus that I have made to Grove City College’s wayward, “gay”-affirming prof Warren Throckmorton: show me where you can find (benign) “sexual orientation” or (in Throckmorton’s case)  “sexual identity” in the Bible, and I’ll change my tune that you are selling out Christian, biblical principles. After all, Focus launched a “Truth Project” that teaches believers how to have a “biblical worldview” — and it’s a huge leap from “abomination” to “sexual orientation.” Surely committed Christians should understand how the latter term has been used to strip morality out of the homosexuality equation. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Related AFTAH article: “Prop 8 Trial Judge is Homosexual (‘Gay’) — and It Shows: NRO”

_________________________________

OneNewsNow reported:

ONE NEWS NOW, May 29, 2009

Should homosexuality be a ‘litmus test’ for high court?

by Jim Brown

Conservative political activists are divided over whether homosexual behavior should disqualify a judicial nominee from consideration for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Focus on the Family’s judicial analyst, Bruce Hausknecht, recently told liberal (Washington Post) blogger Greg Sargent that Focus would not oppose a Supreme Court nominee solely because of their homosexual behavior. “Our concern at the Supreme Court is judicial philosophy,” Hausknecht said. “Sexual orientation only becomes an issue if it effects their judging.”

(See original Greg Sargent report: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-party/top-religious-right-group-we-wont-oppose-gay-scotus-pick/) [Editor's note: Sargent also quotes Focus' Hausknecht as saying that a judge's sexual orientation "'should never come up...It’s not even pertinent to the equation.”]

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus, says just like a nominee’s ethnicity and life experience, homosexuality should not be a litmus test.

“Someone’s sexual orientation or their preferences, none of these things should come into consideration when we’re talking about evaluating someone who will make decisions based on precedent under the law [and who will] practice judicial restraint,” Horne explains. “Those are the things we look at for whether or not someone would make a fit justice on the Supreme Court.”

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of “moral retreat.”

“It’s not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family’s moral retreat on the issue,” Glenn argues. “[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a biblical standard.”

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council agrees with Focus on the Family that homosexuality should not be an absolute litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. He argues in blog comments that “even Supreme Court nominees deserve some zone of privacy, and…there is at least a hypothetical possibility that somewhere in the country there is a judge who has experienced same-sex attractions, but who also respects judicial restraint and the original intent of the Constitution.

“In the real world, however, the chances of finding a highly-qualified judge who fits both of those descriptions are probably about equal to the chances of a camel passing through the eye of a needle,” Sprigg concludes. “So don’t hold your breath waiting for social conservatives to ’support’ a ‘gay’ judicial nominee.”

“Most of the studies of gay men [couples] report about 50% are monogamous—they have been Bay Area studies and studies that were done all over the US and Australia and Western Europe.” –San Francisco State University researcher Colleen Hoff in e-mail to lesbian couples therapist Michele O’Mara of Bilerico.com. See the comments following O’Mara’s Bilerico column.

_________________________

Lesbian couples therapist Michele O'Mara

Dear Readers, note the distinct nonjudgmentalism of lesbian writer Michele O’Mara regarding the not-so-shocking report (if you are familiar with “gay” male promiscuity) that half of homosexual male “couples” choose to be “non-monogamous.” That is, they agree to or allow their male partner to have “outside sex” with other men.

O’Mara asks, “I also wonder, does the open option work better for men than for women? Is this really an issue that is rooted in sexual orientation, or one rooted in gender?” Let me answer: the “open option” is rooted in the anything-goes mores of the Sexual Revolution, which served as a catalyst for the modern “GLBT” movement. Homosexual behavior is immoral and perverse: why would anyone expect monogamy — of the sort that imitates a faithful marriage — from a promiscuous sin movement? And men are simply more promiscuous than women. (Note that the fact that O’Mara professes to practice monogamy with her lesbian partner confers no legitimacy on her sinful relationship, nor does it negate the damage that her intentionally fatherless parenting will do to the boys they are raising.)

The implications for the “same-sex marriage” (SSM) debate are obvious: we hear a lot about homosexual men being domesticated by homosexual “marriage” — supposedly a noble public policy goal. A more compelling question is: how will legalized SSM and/or “civil unions” help bleed rampant homosexual non-monogamy into the straight married world? (This is not to say that modern-day “heterosexuality” needs help from the Homosexual Lobby to sink into ever deeper levels of corruption: witness the creation of mainly heterosexual websites devoted exclusively to helping married men and women hook up with adulterous sex partners.)

AFTAH has already reported on how “gay” sex columnist Dan (“Three-Way”) Savage [his blog is HERE]– whom O’Mara cites below — espouses “non-monogamy” for straight couples, but I doubt that the vast majority of everyday Americans would agree with Savage on the practical benefit of what is essentially organized cheating. Neither would they be comfortable with O’Mara’s studied neutrality on the issue. After all, isn’t faithfulness between husband and wife at the core of real marriage? — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

O’Mara writes in the homosexual website Bilerico.com (emphasis hers):

____________________________________________

Monogamy: Gender vs. Sexual Orientation

Filed by: Michele O’Mara
February 4, 2010 7:00 PM

After studying 566 gay male couples over a three year period, Colleen Hoff of San Francisco State University discovered that roughly fifty percent of gay male couples choose to be non-monogamous. Blake Spears and Lanz Lowen are a great example of how this works. Spears and Lowen started dating in their mid-twenties with the agreement that they will keep their relationship open. Thirty-four years later the couple is still going strong. In fact, this duo credits their relationship success in part to their decision to keep their relationship open.

Lowen and Spears have taken their interest in non-monogomy a step further by studying 86 non-monogamous, long-term (8+ years) gay male couples. Their research reveals that forty percent of the 86 couples started out with agreements to be open and have maintained this status, while the remaining sixty percent of the couples took an average of 6.5 years to open their relationship. The average length of relationship for the 86 couples in this study is 16.2 years.

While I’m not interested in promoting or discouraging open relationships, I do find it fascinating to consider what makes this arrangement work for so many gay men. Of the 86 couples in the Spears/Lowen research, only one couple is raising young children. This does not surprise me. Raising children is a time and energy consuming experience that will unlikely leave much room for extra play. In an email exchange with Hoff, she explained to me that while they did collect data on parenthood for the couples in their study, they did not separate that data out to examine the relationship between monogamy and parenthood.

I also wonder, does the open option work better for men than for women? Is this really an issue that is rooted in sexual orientation, or one rooted in gender? Traditionally men are thought to be better at separating sex from emotion, which is helpful in an open arrangement. As Spears and Lowen point out on their website:

We found many couples had a somewhat compartmentalized perspective and approach to outside sex. “It’s just sex” – a release without meaning, quite separate from the relationship.

The statistics on fidelity among men and women suggests that monogamy is a struggle for heterosexuals too. According to Peggy Vaughan, author of The Monogamy Myth, “Conservative estimates are that 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair.” That’s a whole lot of cheating. To clarify, infidelity is deceptive non-monogamy, but an open relationship is non-monogamy that occurs with the consent and knowledge of both partners.

Dan Savage, chimed in on the topic recently during a guest appearance on The Joy Behar show, saying:

I believe men can be monogamous. But I believe that it’s a difficult struggle. You know, when you’re in love with someone and you make a monogamous commitment, it’s not that you don’t want to sleep with other people; it’s that you refrain from sleeping with other people.

The culture says if there is love there is no desire for others and that makes people–essentially puts them at war with their own instincts and leads to lies and deceit because you’re lying and deceiving yourself.

In my own practice, having worked with more than 1,000 lesbians over the last decade, I would be very surprised to discover that lesbians choose non-monogomy at a rate of fifty-percent. While my sample of gay male couples is much smaller, it is large enough to support the notion that fifty percent of gay male couples open their relationship to outside “play” or sexual activity.

Some advocates of gay marriage are discouraged by findings such as Hoff’s and Lowen/Spears’s. I anticipate that norm-seeking gays and lesbians will post about this topic adamantly defending the fifty percent of us who choose monogamy. The inference is that monogamy is better. Seems to me that most people have their hands full just trying to figure out their own relationships. Maybe if we all focused a little more on how to make our own relationships work, and less about how others are going about it, we would all end up with more meaningful and satisfying relationships.

As a partnered lesbian, in a long-term (10+), monogamous relationship I enjoy the simplicity, comfort, and predictability of our relationship. As co-parents, it is also important to us to prioritize time with our sons and time as a family. By the time I’ve gone to work, tended to our homestead, done homework with my sons, spent time with them, prepared dinner, taken a family walk, caught up with my partner and how her day has gone, read to and tucked the boys into bed, I can’t imagine fitting in to my life an outside liaison or two. This is what works for us. That doesn’t mean it will work for or be fulfilling for everyone. That doesn’t mean that our way is the best way. Our way is simply the best way we’ve discovered for us.

What works best for you? At the end of the day that’s all that matters.

The following is excerpted from WorldNetDaily.com:

________________________________________

Dakota Fanning in steamy, lesbian sex flick

15-year-old starlet popular with kids plays cocaine-snorting rocker

Dakota Fanning, 15, (left) plays singer Cherrie Currie. Kristen Stewart, 19, (right) plays guitarist Joan Jett in "The Runaways." (photo: IMDB.com)

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily, posted Feb. 2, 2010

[Warning: This story contains graphic content that may offend some readers.]

Fifteen-year-old child star Dakota Fanning is starring in yet another provocative movie role – snorting cocaine in bathrooms and participating in a steamy lesbian kiss and heavily implied sex scene with her female co-star.

Her latest movie, “The Runaways,” is rated “R” and will release March 19. It premiered at this year’s Sundance film festival.

Fanning plays the role of Cherie Currie, lead vocalist of The Runaways, an all-girl hard-rock band popular in the 1970s. Former “The Twilight Saga” star Kristen Stewart, 19, plays openly lesbian rocker Joan Jett, the band’s guitarist.

According to an early version of the script, the opening scene includes a splotch of menstrual blood hitting the sidewalk. Fanning’s character is seen with blood dripping down her leg as she begins her first menstrual cycle.

Jett is a rebellious teenager who curses, shoplifts leather pants, urinates on electric guitars, smokes, pops pills, takes part in several sexually charged scenes and smashes objects. Jett teaches another band member, Sandy, how to masturbate to Farrah Fawcett.

Fanning’s character cusses often, acts out, appears scantily clad in bed with “twenty-something surfer dudes,” drinks, uses cocaine and pops prescription pills. At age 15 she is abandoned by her mother, who moves to Indonesia with her boyfriend, and her father is an alcoholic.

Actor Michael Shannon plays band manager and bad guy Kim Fowley. According to one version of the script, when he meets the girl band, he declares, “Lemme guess, you sing in a band. And it’s the greatest f—ing band in the world. And I’m the luckiest dogf—er in the world because I get to hear it first.”

Get the inside information, in “What Hollywood Believes: An Intimate Look at the Faith of the Famous”

Fowley wears female clothing, constantly cusses and talks about sex and warns the band, “Rock n’ roll is tough music played in tough venues. Men don’t like to see women anywhere but in their kitchens or on their knees – let alone on-stage with guitars.”

Fowley has countless outbursts filled with expletives and pelvic thrusts as he teaches the girls to express rage in their music.

“They start jamming with Fowley listening, who is seemingly coked to the gills with a bent towards pedophilia,” a Cinematical review states. “He decides the band needs, as he so eloquently illustrates with his finger pointed at a woman’s crotch, more sex.”

Fanning’s character participates in a sex scene with her fellow female rocker. One version of the script describes the scene:

Precarious … a hand pushes a top up to expose a breast …
Unsteady … a bible on the night stand …
Tottering … white sheets unravel around a leg …
Weak … Toes curl up … roller-skate wheels spin …
Agitation … streaks of light …
A quiver … Cherie’s mouth opens …

The scene is followed by, “Whatever clothes they were wearing the night before are scattered all over the floor.”

Donna Miller special projects coordinator for Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, expressed concern that Fanning’s young fans might glamorize the starlet’s shocking behavior.

“That behavior includes a lesbian affair, sexually explicit song lyrics, risqué clothing and a pathetic character in a drugged-out existence,” Miller told WND. “In her interviews at Sundance, nowhere have I seen her denounce any of that behavior as destructive or immoral. In fact, she romanticizes her Cherie Currie character. Fanning indicates the lesbian sex scene is just a natural progression of the relationship.”

Kirk Honeycutt of the Hollywood Reporter echoed Miller’s concern about the movie’s portrayal of the band’s dysfunctional behavior: “While the film makes it clear its personalities suffered tremendously for their addictions, it all looks so glam.”

Fowley forces the girls to endure a rock-and-roll boot camp. He allows teen boys to throw bottles, bricks and garbage at them so they learn to cope with hecklers.

As WND reported, another controversial Fanning movie, “Hounddog,” sexualized a 9-year-old little girl. At the time, Fanning was only 12 years old when she played the child character who was violently raped. The movie earned a stunningly low $12,500 on its first weekend of release in theaters.

Miller said Fanning’s mother and campaign manager, Joy, is to blame for selecting sexualized roles for her daughter. ….[Story continued at WND.com]

Read the rest of the WND.com story here: “Dakota Fanning in Steamy, Lesbian Sex Flick”

TAKE ACTION: Call your U.S. Representative and Senators [House: 202-225-3121; Senate: 202-224-3121; www.congress.org] and urge them NOT to allow President Obama or Defense Secretary Gates to unilaterally stop enforcing the existing law banning homosexuals in the military. Urge your Congressman and Senators to OPPOSE HR 1283, a bill that would implement a pro-homosexual “nondiscrimination” policy in our Armed Forces, thus eviscerating the current law banning homosexuals. For the best information on the dangers of homosexualizing the U.S. military, go to the Center for Military Readiness.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates

_______________________________________

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Dear Readers,

At a time of recession and a potentially long-lasting jobs crisis, a two-front war and an ongoing national security threat from Islamic radicals who would just love to see a planeload of Americans be bombed into smithereens, I doubt that a top priority in the minds of most Americans is to promote open homosexuality in our military. And yet that is the course that President Barack Obama — and apparently some of his sycophantic military advisers — have chosen. With Defense Secretary Robert Gates‘ pledge today to draw up plans to implement President Obama’s goal of homosexualizing our military — and to remove a key means of identifying violating homosexual servicemembers — America now faces the spectacle of another grinding (and unnecessary) Left-driven policy debate.

The problem for Obama — and Gates — and every liberal that celebrates the prospect of sexual perversion gaining a stronger foothold in the Armed Forces of the greatest nation on earth– is that the American people have a say in stopping this latest “gay” capitulation. Make no mistake: the downsides of effectively putting a “Welcome” sign up for open homosexuals at every military recruitment center have hardly been contemplated. Allowing/encouraging homosexuals in the military would:

• devastate morale in our Armed Forces;
• lead to a drop in enlistment and retention of good soldiers;
• discourage moral-minded and religious men and women of high character from seeking military service;
• violate the privacy concerns of sexually normal servicemembers: will new “Gays-Only” showers be constructed at U.S. bases the world over — or will there just be special showering hours for men-who-are-sexually-attracted-to-other-men and lesbian-practicing women? And what about the bisexuals? (“Transgenders” have been left off the list for now — as even giddy pro-homosexual activists realize that is going too far at this time.);
• subject hundreds of thousands of small-town, traditionally-minded recruits to Orwellian, government-run brainwashing “diversity” propaganda training, as the military becomes officially part of modern man’s effort to erase God’s law and wisdom on this issue. Such pro-homosexuality “diversity” training dulls the mind and corrupts the spirit — two results that surely will not find their way onto retooled U.S. military recruitment brochures;
• further alienate the United States of America from the Muslim world; believe it or not, Mr. Obama, but the celebration of homosexuality that is all too common between our shores is nothing to brag about.

This radical, anti-military, left-wing policy adventure must be stopped in its tracks by the American people standing up and shouting a collective “NO!” to the Democratic/Obama plan to homosexualize the military.

If Secretary Gates (who also served as President George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense) were truly a man of courage and principle, he would offer to resign rather than consent to be the designer and manager of a sexual experimentation plan that will damage our troops’ effectiveness, cohesion and morale. Instead, he adopts “gay rights” euphemisms (see below) and becomes complicit in the escalating degradation of the homosexual exclusion law under his new boss Obama.

To add insult to injury, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his announced support for the homosexualization of the Armed Forces in the name of “integrity.” No, Admiral Mullen, there is no integrity — and no honor — in advancing immorality and destructive sexual agendas in our Armed Forces. The Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force exist to defend our nation and win wars — not to propel politically correctness agendas like the obnoxious crusade to turn homosexuality (changeable, immoral and unhealthy misbehavior) into a “civil right.”

TAKE ACTION: Call your U.S. Representative and Senators [House: 202-225-3121; Senate: 202-224-3121; www.congress.org] and urge them NOT to allow President Obama or Defense Secretary Gates to unilaterally stop enforcing the existing law banning homosexuals in the military. Oppose HR 1283 — the “Homosexualize Our Military” bill otherwise called the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act.”

_________________________________________

FoxNews.com reports today:

Gates Backs Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that he supports President Obama’s decision to seek the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy prohibiting gays from serving openly in the military and has appointed a “high-level working group” to figure out how to do it.

Gates, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, announced that Gen. Carter Ham, who leads U.S. Army forces in Europe, and Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson will lead the review. The defense chief called for an “implementation plan” by the end of the year.

“I fully support the president’s decision,” Gates said. “The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we … best prepare for it. We have received our orders from the commander in chief and we are moving out accordingly.”

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed Gates’ remarks and added that, in his “personal view,” changing the policy is the “right thing to do.”

“I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” Mullen said. “For me, personally, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”

Mullen said he believes, but does not know for a fact, that military personnel will “accommodate” a change in the policy.

Obama said during the State of the Union address last week that he will work with Congress “this year” to repeal the controversial policy, renewing a campaign pledge that fell by the wayside last year as the president devoted his energy to health care reform.

But Gates cautioned Tuesday that no matter how much the Pentagon studies the issue, the “ultimate decision” rests with Congress.

A senior Pentagon official earlier told Fox News it does not appear the votes are there in Congress to actually change the law, but said it is not the Pentagon’s role to get involved in that aspect.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said Tuesday he was “deeply disappointed” by Gates’ remarks and reminded him that the plan requires the support of Congress. He said that the administration should not repeal the policy, which he called “imperfect but effective,” at a time when the nation is engaged in two wars.

“Has this policy been ideal? No, it has not. But it has been effective,” McCain said.

Mullen and Gates acknowledged that the Pentagon is embarking on the change in policy in war-time but argued that the military could do so thoughtfully and objectively, with minimal disruptions.

Gates said the review, among other things, would examine how a repeal would affect policies on base housing, benefits and other issues.

Here’s how Illinois liberal political blogger Rich Miller (Capitol Fax Blog) tries to slam my RFFV story:

One of Peter LaBarbera’s websites is currently attempting to out a suburban county candidate for having adulterous affairs. No link [read: Miller refuses to link to the story]. Try to avoid the Google. It’s really disgusting. LaBarbera has stooped to a new low.

Ouch, Rich. You wouldn’t want your readers to actually READ the piece you are criticizing, would you? Bottom line: Miller is an intolerant leftie who hates social-issues conservatives. Why is it a “new low” to investigate and expose serious moral compromise in the life a very public Republican “Christian pro-family” leader? (Of course, when Miller exposes hypocrites, it’s OK.)

Well, for the same reason that liberals like Miller despise those who oppose the pro-homosexuality movement. The secular Left’s “non-judgmentalism” is applied liberally when it comes to NOT criticizing those who transgress historic Judeo-Christian values. But as you can see, their nasty judgments overflow when it comes to bashing people and groups who stand up for traditional morality.

America is waking up to the reality that the Secular Left is a mean-spirited and highly intolerant political force that is bad for America. “Consensuality,” “choice,” “my truth” (versus absolute truth), “tolerance,” “diversity”: these are some of the Left’s self-satisfied buzzwords. But watch out if you uphold a divinely-ordered morality that pays no heed to their worldly, politically correct — and, yes, selfish — trends. Then you are anathema.

In other words, today’s liberals are fundamentalists of different stripe. And remember: don’t read that piece! — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org