[To listen to the ONN story online, click on "HEAR REPORT" button at upper right corner of the ONN story; to subscribe to ONN's "Daily News Brief," click HERE; to subscribe to ONN's Web Alerts, click HERE. ]

______________________________________________

LaBarbera: UNAIDS has ‘backwards’ thinking
By Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 3/17/2010

A United Nations Aids agency complains that homosexuals, drug users and prostitute don’t seek help because of laws that criminalize their practices.

Michel Sidibe of UNAIDS is quoted as saying it is unacceptable that 85 countries still make homosexual conduct illegal, but Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), does not accept that thinking.

“They’ve got everything backwards,” he contends. “Rather than have a campaign – for example an anti-sodomy campaign, an anti-prostitution campaign, an anti-drug abuse campaign that targets the bad behaviors themselves – instead they target countries that are trying to implement conservative policies that target homosexuality.”

In compatibility with his logic, Sidibe suggests that laws against the immoral behavior be changed.

“Mr. Sidibe is just completely confused,” LaBarbera notes. “He says that in states where there are not repressive laws, HIV is contained. Then he goes on to express shock that more than 50 percent of infections in the United States are among homosexuals. So he contradicts himself.”

Homosexual behavior is not illegal in this country, but the AFTAH president believes the answer to the issue is to launch an all-out campaign to educate people and change the behavior that results in infection. That is what reduced smoking in this country.

_____________________________________

Excerpts from the Associated Press story:

“New HIV infections increasing among homosexuals”

By EDITH M. LEDERER (AP) – March 16, 2010

NEW YORK — New HIV infections are increasing among homosexuals, drug users and prostitutes who don’t seek help because of laws that criminalize these practices, the head of the U.N. AIDS agency said Monday.

Michel Sidibe, the head of UNAIDS, said “it is unacceptable” that 85 countries still have laws criminalizing same sex relations among adults, including seven that impose the death penalty for homosexual practices.

He called a proposed Ugandan law that would impose the death penalty for some gays “very unfortunate” and expressed hope it will never be approved.

At a time when UNAIDS is scaling up its program and seeking universal access to HIV treatment, Sidibe said he was “very scared” because bad laws are being introduced by countries making it impossible for these at risk groups to have access to services.

“You have also a growing conservatism which is making me very scared,” Sidibe added….

Sidibe told a group of journalists at a luncheon hosted by the United Nations Foundation that in countries from China to Kenya and Malawi, about 33 percent of new HIV infections are in men having sex with men, a significant increase.

By contrast, he said that in the Caribbean where most countries don’t have repressive laws, only between 3 and 6 percent of HIV infections are in male homosexuals.

Even in the United States, where laws are not restrictive and the gay community was the first to tackle AIDS, Sidibe said it is “shocking” that more than 50 percent of new HIV infections last year occurred among homosexuals. And he said in the 19-25 age bracket the infection rate was even higher.

“It seems like we have come full circle” in the United States, he said. “After almost no cases a few years ago we are seeing again this new peak among people who are not having access to all the information, the protection that is needed.” …

In Nigeria, where there are 1,000 new HIV infections every day, over 30 percent are in vulnerable groups — drug users, sex workers and homosexuals, he said.

Sidibe called for “a prevention revolution” including a campaign in major cities around the world like the anti-smoking campaigns launched in recent years.

“The risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities.” — CDC

"Where the boys are": homosexual bathhouses lure young men into anonymous sodomies. The CDC and Obama Administration should shut down these perversion centers or at least hit them with a large "sin tax." Above is taken from the Steamworks bathhouse chain's website.

Dear Readers, once again the reality that Nature itself discriminates against homosexuality breaks through the bureaucracy’s official political correctness on this issue. Note how the CDC admits that anal sex is  a much higher risk activity than other sexual practices. Yet to teach the special risks of sodomy in schools would be to invite a “discrimination” lawsuit by the ACLU! Homosexual oral sex also is mentioned as a risk factor for syphilis. So why don’t the nation’s “Best and Brightest” on this issue launch an educational, pro-health campaign against “gay” sex, especially sodomy?

A less bold option might be to levy a heavy “sin tax” on homosexual bathhouses and sex clubs where dangerous, anonymous, “queer” sex proliferates, or — God forbid — actually to shut down these perversion centers as public health hazards. (Instead, “gay” bathhouses like “Steamworks” (right) are flourishing and even offering “Spring Break discounts” to lure young men.)

We understand that such ideas are anathema to the “gay”-pandering fraternity of the enlightened who run the country’s incompetent “war on AIDS” — you know, the types who truly believe their own propaganda that “homophobia” helps spread HIV. But the folly of their failed approach is revealed by press releases like that below. Common sense dictates that our government get out of the “gay” advocacy business and start aggressively targeting homosexual practices linked directly to disease — rather than trying to make those inherently unsafe practices “safe.”

If you have any other ideas on how to target destructive homosexual behaviors rather than “homophobia,” write us at americansfortruth@comcast.net. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________

CDC – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

NCHHSTP – National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention

Press Release [emphasis added]

All Findings Embargoed Until: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 4:30pm EST
Contact: NCHHSTPMediaTeam@cdc.gov [the NCHHSTP is the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention within the CDC]; (404) 639-8895

CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men

A data analysis released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.

The data, presented at CDC’s 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.

The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.

While CDC data have shown for several years that gay and bisexual men make up the majority of new HIV and new syphilis infections, CDC has estimated the rates of these diseases for the first time based on new estimates of the size of the U.S. population of MSM. Because disease rates account for differences in the size of populations being compared, rates provide a reliable method for assessing health disparities between populations.

“While the heavy toll of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men has been long recognized, this analysis shows just how stark the health disparities are between this and other populations,” said Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. “It is clear that we will not be able to stop the U.S. HIV epidemic until every affected community, along with health officials nationwide, prioritize the needs of gay and bisexual men with HIV prevention efforts.”

For the purposes of determining rates of disease for MSM, CDC researchers first estimated the size of the gay and bisexual male population in the United States – defined as the proportion of men who reported engaging in same-sex behavior within the past five years. Based on an analysis of nationally representative surveys, CDC estimated that MSM comprise 2.0 percent (range: 1.4-2.7 percent) of the overall U.S. population aged 13 and older, or 4 percent of the U.S. male population (range: 2.8-5.3 percent). Disease rates per 100,000 population were then calculated using 2007 surveillance data on HIV and primary/secondary syphilis diagnoses and U.S. Census data for the total U.S. population.

The new analysis is the first step in more fully assessing the impact of HIV among MSM and other populations significantly affected by the disease. CDC is developing more detailed estimates of infection rates among MSM by race and age, as well as among injection drug users. CDC is also in the early stages of planning for estimates among heterosexuals. Ultimately, these data can be used to better inform national and local approaches to HIV and STD prevention to ensure that efforts are reaching the populations in greatest need.

Research shows that a range of complex factors contribute to the high rates of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men. These factors include high prevalence of HIV and other STDs among MSM, which increases the risk of disease exposure, and limited access to prevention services. Other factors are complacency about HIV risk, particularly among young gay and bisexual men; difficulty of consistently maintaining safe behaviors with every sexual encounter over the course of a lifetime; and lack of awareness of syphilis symptoms and how it can be transmitted (e.g., oral sex). Additionally, factors such as homophobia and stigma can prevent MSM from seeking prevention, testing, and treatment services.

Also, the risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities, and some gay and bisexual men are relying on prevention strategies that may be less effective than consistent condom use.

“There is no single or simple solution for reducing HIV and syphilis rates among gay and bisexual men,” said Fenton. “We need intensified prevention efforts that are as diverse as the gay community itself. Solutions for young gay and bisexual men are especially critical, so that HIV does not inadvertently become a rite of passage for each new generation of gay men.”

Preventing HIV and STDs among gay and bisexual men is a top CDC priority. CDC provides funding to health departments and community-based organizations throughout the nation to implement proven behavior-change programs for MSM and will soon expand a successful HIV testing initiative to reach more gay and bisexual men. Additionally, CDC is implementing an updated National Syphilis Elimination Plan in cities where MSM have been hardest hit by the disease, and will release an updated HIV prevention strategic plan within the next year to support the President’s upcoming National HIV/AIDS Strategy. CDC officials note that the new analysis released today underscores the importance of the HIV and STD prevention efforts targeting gay and bisexual men recently announced as part of the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget proposal.

For more information on HIV or syphilis, please visit www.cdc.gov/hiv or www.cdc.gov/std.

Navy Capt. Jim Jefferis in uniform shortly before his retirement. He says the inevitable homo-sexual relationships that would occur in a homosexual-welcoming Navy would lead to preferential treatment that "can’t be hidden from other crewmembers and tends to destroy the chain of command, discipline and morale."

Folks, the following letter from Ret. Navy Captain Lawrence “Jim” Jefferis to Admiral Mike Mullen — President Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a proponent of his plan to allow open homosexuals in the military — is one of the most compelling documents I have ever read against that terribly misguided idea. In an e-mail to AFTAH, Capt. Jefferis verified his authorship of the letter, which has been making the rounds via e-mail. He said that he had sent it to a few people with no intention of it going public, but now that it has, he is willing to have it published online.

Like me, I’m sure you feel a deep sense of sorrow that men of principle and common sense like Capt. Jefferis are being replaced in America’s military leadership by a new cast of politically correct officers like Adm. Mullen, who put dubious trends and expediency above principle and morality. Please read this letter carefully and then share it with your children, all of your elected representatives, and as many people as possible. God bless you, Capt. Jefferis, and thank you for your service to our country. — Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.com

TAKE ACTION: Send a copy of this letter by regular mail or fax (or e-mail) to your Congressman and Senators; go to www.congress.org to get their information.  Or call Congress at 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 and urge them to oppose President Obama’s attempt to do an end-run around Congress to force open homosexuality on our Armed Forces. Also urge your elected representatives to OPPOSE H.R. 1283, which we’re calling the Homosexualize Our Military Act –a dangerous bill that would impose a “sexual orientation” non-discrimination order on the military.

WRITE SEN. McCAIN and ADM. MULLEN: Also please write/call Sen. John McCain (202-224-2235) to thank him for speaking out against Obama’s radical ”gay” military plan. You can write Adm. Mullen and/or Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the addresses below or by clicking HERE.

We reprint this letter as it came to us (with minor editing changes and explanations); Capt. Jefferis (Ret.) writes:

___________________________________________

February 8,  010

Admiral Mike Mullen, USN
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20318-9999

Dear Admiral Mullen:

This letter is in response to your shocking statement last week that you advocate homosexuals openly serving in the military services.  I seriously question the wisdom of your position.  As I have previously written by my Senator, Harry Reid, and my Congresswoman, Dina Titus, the position appears to be more a matter of Democratic party voter pandering than the solution to a valid military issue.  Perhaps it was your willingness to support the Democratic agenda that earned you your present position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I am a retired Navy Captain.  I enlisted in the Navy in 1948, and served as a Yeoman, Personnel man, Journalist, and Communications Technician, and, as a Petty Officer First Class, received a commission in 1955 through the Integration Program.  In my more than 31 years of active duty, I commanded two ships, served as Executive Officer on two ships, commanded Coastal Squadron ONE (Swift Boats) in Vietnam, and was Chief Staff Officer on an Amphibious Squadron.  I developed the first Human Affairs Council in a Pacific Fleet ship in 1972, and supervised human affairs activities on seven PHIBRON ships.  I am a graduate of the School of Naval Justice, the Management Course at the Navy Postgraduate School, and the Senior Officer course at the Naval War College.  After retirement I received a Juris Doctorate from the Hastings College of Law.  Like you, I encountered homosexuals throughout my Navy career and in civilian life.  Unlike you, I do not find they are more deserving than non-homosexuals or that they constitute a viable or necessary body of troops for the defense of our country.

My experience is Naval.  I can’t speak for the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps.  Those services are generally based ashore with nearby civilian communities.  In such communities, homosexuals may be able to find sexual gratification without interfering with military duties.  But the best analogy to a ship at sea is a prison.  There is no other outlet for sexual drives and I know of no prison in the United States that assigns males and females, or who intentionally assign known homosexuals, to the same cell.  That is one of the differences between your position and mine.

During my enlisted service, homosexuals seemed to be a clumsy lot.  They had a tendency to repeatedly fall headfirst down an engineroom ladder.  Some were even known to trip on deck and “fall” overboard.  The crew had a way of policing themselves to eliminate homosexual advances.  Perhaps you are correct in your assumption that military personnel are more liberal today, but I would look very closely at prevalent attitudes before I closed the book on the issue.

It has been my experience that if sexual favors are available aboard ship, some enterprising sailor, petty officer, or officer will find a way to take advantage of the offer.  There is usually a senior/junior relationship in such exchanges and the senior partner will reward the junior with preferential treatment, such as duty assignments, watches, leave, liberty, and advancement.  Such preferential treatment can’t be hidden from other crewmembers and tends to destroy the chain of command, discipline and morale.  If a Chief Petty Officer, for example, is having sexual relations with a non-rated sailor, it will have an adverse impact on those petty officers between the two in the chain of command.  Because of your current assertions, I must assume that you were either lucky and didn’t have the problem during your shipboard assignments, or that you chose to ignore them!

That sexual misconduct in the Navy exists to this day is obvious. I recall that a lesbian ring was discovered on the USS NORTON SOUND back in the late 60’s or early 70’s.  At about the same time my wife, now a retired Navy Commander, was Executive Officer at the WAVES Barracks, Great Lakes Naval Training Center.  She was aware of many cases of homosexuality involving the WAVES assigned to the Barracks.  I also recall that one of the cruisers returning from the First Gulf War reported 40% of the female crewmembers were pregnant after a six-month deployment.  Just recently I read that the Commanding Officer and Command Master Chief were relieved from an Atlantic Fleet destroyer because of fraternization between several Chief Petty Officers and female members of the crew.  Just the other day I heard news reports that a birth control pill previously reserved for use by women in combat had to be made available to all females in  the military, clearly implying that intercourse was occurring in combat units and such conduct was known to unit commanders.  Is there some reason you believe that homosexual activity would not also occur or is not occurring?

As you should be aware, the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not address homosexuality, per se.  Article 125 provides that sodomy is a felony, to be punished as a court martial may direct.  But the Article does not discriminate against homosexuals.  Oral or anal sex between persons of the same sex (homosexuals), opposite sex (heterosexuals) or with animals (bestiality) are all considered felonies.  However, when the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was established, it only applied to homosexual activities.

In all my years of service, I never encountered a Commanding Officer who “asked” a subordinate if he was a homosexual.  I never knew of a sailor who was subjected to legal sanctions for homosexual conduct without corroborating evidence. A “confession” was not enough. Credible corroborating evidence had to exist and usually took the form of testimony of a participating party.

So the “policy” of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” makes no sense at all, except to create a means of ignoring the law.  But the policy can only as effective as the individual’s discretion.  As long as the homosexual was discreet, nothing would happen to him.  He could be sanctioned only if he wanted to go public.  However, by the same token, if a heterosexual indiscreetly advised his Commanding Officer that he had committed sodomy, he would be subject to the same sanctions.

In regard to heterosexual behavior, the UCMJ also proscribes common law marriage under the heading of Unlawful Cohabitation (with or without evidence of sexual intercourse).  It sanctions adultery and prostitution (for both the prostitute and the patron).  In the case of an officer, merely “consorting with a notorious prostitute” constitutes an offense, again even without evidence of sexual intercourse.  The problem is that common law marriage is legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia.  I don’t believe that adultery is a criminal offense in any state today.  And in my home state of Nevada, even prostitution is legal.  I don’t recall you asking Congress to legalize heterosexual sodomy, adultery, prostitution, or common law marriage.  There are many punitive articles in the UCMJ that have no relationship to the satisfactory performance of military duties, yet you single out homosexuals for preferred treatment.  Again, I must ask “why?”

The argument I hear most often expounded by the homophiles [pro-homosexual advocates] is that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy deprives the military of outstanding young men and women who want nothing more than to defend their country and that they have the ability to operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun as well as a heterosexual.  That can’t be true.  It isn’t the “policy,” it is Article 125 of the UCMJ that criminalizes homosexual behavior since it would be virtually impossible to practice homosexuality without committing sodomy.  But, even if it were true, are homosexuals really worth the administrative problems they would create by their mere existence?

Adm. Mike Mullen, Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, used "gay" activist rhetoric to affirm the idea of open homosexuals in the military. But Capt. Jim Jefferis asks: why is Mullen singling out homosexuals for special consideration?

The Navy, today, does not willingly accept GED [General Equivalency Diploma] holders for enlistment.  Minor criminal records are a bar to enlistment.  Visible tattoos and piercings are not permitted.  Are these aberrations more damning than sodomy?  Personnel may be denied reenlistment if they fail to meet obesity standards.  The young men and women denied naval service because of these exclusionary conditions may also want to defend their country and might also be able to satisfactorily operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun.  But you are only advocating the acceptance of homosexuals!  Why is that, Admiral?

Is it your contention that cohabitors, adulterers, prostitutes, young men and women with tattoos, those with only GEDs, or the obese cannot serve as well as homosexuals?  If so, what is your empirical evidence to support such an argument?  If we can sanction heterosexual behavior, appearance, and alternative educations, why can’t we sanction homosexual sodomists?

If we get to pick and choose which laws we uphold, which laws are next on the line to ignore?  Carnal Knowledge?  I would think a service man or woman who has sex with a minor (Carnal Knowledge) could perform military duties as well, if not better, than a homosexual.  At least we don’t have children in combat, or in the military at large, for them to accost.  Their pedophilia would not impact on the performance of military duties.

If you are successful in your endeavors to have Congress modify the UCMJ, have you given any thought to the long-term repercussions?  When I joined the Navy, absence from duty because of venereal disease, self-inflicted wounds, even severe sun burn, was considered “Sick Misconduct.”  We were not paid for the periods we were absent from duty and our enlistments were extended on a day-for-day basis.  Since AIDS/HIV is more prevalent in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community, have you considered the consequences of a homosexual serviceman contracting AIDS or HIV?  Will the homosexual with AIDS/HIV receive treatment from military sources?  Will it be considered a service-connected disability justifying a medical discharge and retirement benefits?  Will it result in Veterans Administration disability benefits?  And have you considered the likelihood that some of the homosexuals will request sex-change procedures?  I know for a fact that a significant percentage of my Law School class was undergoing sex-change therapy or surgery.  It made using heads [restrooms] confusing for both genders.  Sex-change is an issue being considered in civilian prisons today and I’m not convinced that taxpayers, or military budgets, should be burdened with that expense.  But, if you really want homosexuals, you should accept their baggage, as well as their bodies.

Do you also advocate same-sex marriage or “partnerships”?  Will the homosexual’s partner be entitled to dependents’ benefits, including health care, BAQ [Basic Allowance for Quarters], military base access, and commissary and exchange privileges?  Will they be entitled to military housing?  Would they be entitled to sex-change procedures at government expense?

Would a homosexual openly serving on active duty in a same-sex “marriage” be prosecuted for adultery if he or she has a sexual relationship outside the “marriage”?  Would a homosexual be prosecuted for prostitution?  Perhaps, in such cases, even you would reinstate the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

I raise the last point because while serving as Executive Officer on USS CATAMOUNT (LSD-17) in 1967, one of the Radarmen was arrested by local police.  While inventorying his personal effects a photograph of the sailor performing fellatio [oral sodomy] on another male was discovered.  The police turned the photo over to the Shore Patrol, who forwarded it to me.  During an investigation it was determined that five of the ship’s Radarmen were involved in a male prostitution ring.  They declared that while in Radarman Class “A” School at Treasure Island, their instructors convinced them that they could augment their military pay by providing homosexual services to gays in San Francisco.  They took advantage of the opportunity presented and continued such activity in San Diego.  CATAMOUNT sailed absent several Radarmen and the Class “A” School lost several instructors.  Are these otherwise competent Radarmen the type of sailors you want on your ships?  I hope not!

Your advocacy of gay rights reminds me of a joke popular in the Australian Navy in the 1970’s.  An officer with nearly 20 years service transferred from the [British] Royal Navy to the Royal Australian Navy.  When asked why, he stated that when he joined the Royal Navy, homosexuality was a crime and that homosexuals received severe punishment and discharge.  After a few years he noticed that senior officers were closing their eyes to the problem.  Eventually, it was made permissible. He decided to transfer before it became compulsory.  I think you are leading us down that road to compulsion, Admiral!

I fully realize that I should not judge you or your procurement source.  I have not walked the mile in your shoes.  But, by the same token, you have not walked a mile in mine.  I hope that you recognize that we are irreconcilably opposed on this issue, but I think I have given it more thought than you.  In retrospect, I now realize that of all the officers I served with on active duty, Naval Academy graduates were the most tolerant of homosexuals.  It may only be coincidence, but was there something in the curriculum that created such tolerance?  I am aware that there have been numerous scandals regarding drug use, academic cheating, and heterosexual misconduct, but had never before given much thought to their acceptance of homosexual behavior, despite my awareness that there was a tendency toward an anal fixation.

I do hope that you conduct a thorough, in-depth evaluation of this issue, and hope you reach a realistic final determination.  Assuming that your personal bias and the power of your office will result in your victory, I will watch retention statistics with a critical eye.  Our sailors won’t have the option of transferring to the Australian Navy.

In keeping with the requirements of Navy Regulations, I submit this with all the respect your rank and position deserve.

With due respect,

Lawrence R. Jefferis
Captain, U. S. Navy (Ret.)

2016 Diamond Peak Court
Las Vegas, NV 89117

jefferis@embarqmail.com

CC:

The Hon. Robert Gates
Secretary of Defense
1400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 21201-1400

Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton -- who is on record affirming homosexuality as "natural, normal and healthy" despite the College's biblical faith charter -- has joined homosexual activists in crusading against Uganda's proposed Anti-Homosexuality law. Perhaps Throckmorton, who has lost his faith in the ability of Jesus Christ to help "homosexuals" leave the lifestyle, could learn something from the more biblically faithful Ugandans.

TAKE ACTION: contact Grove City College HERE and GCC President Richard G. Jewell (rgjewell@gcc.edu; 724-458-2500) and request a written explanation as to why they employ an activist professor who undermines the Bible’s clear teachings on homosexuality as a changeable sin (and not a natural “orientation”).

___________________________

Folks, I’ve been trying to avoid the Ugandan “Culture War” on homosexuality because I figure we’re busy enough with our own here in the USA. But that hasn’t stopped American homosexual activists and fellow travelers like Professor Warren Throckmorton of the “evangelical” Grove City College from insinuating themselves into the Ugandan situation. (Sadly, Warren has lost his faith in the ability of God to radically change homosexuals through Christ, and now busily works — even in Uganda! — to promote the faithless and disheartening message that most “gays and lesbians” cannot change their basic “orientation”; see his Uganda Independent column in which he makes that assertion HERE.)

Here’s the question I keep asking myself about the Uganda controversy: just what is it that qualifies the United States of America to lecture the Ugandans about homosexuality? Is it our public policy that enshrines immoral sexual behavior (oops: “sexual orientation”) and gender confusion (er…”gender identity and expression”) as a “civil right”? Is it our homosexual “marriage” laws that make a mockery of this divine institution (laws about which Prof. Throckmorton is curiously silent)? How about our pro-homosexuality educational propaganda in K-12 schools that corrupts young students’ minds in the name of “tolerance”? Or the 24/7 “gay bathhouses” and sex clubs that proliferate in urban centers across the United States to facilitate quick-and-easy (and anonymous) deviant sexual hook-ups? (“Come to America: where you can have all the safe sodomy you want! Discounts for students (no joke) and free condoms available for your perverted pleasure!”)

Tell me: does Uganda have something to learn from Christian “defectors” like the opportunistic Prof. Throckmorton — who is now a de facto promoter of homosexuality as normal, natural and healthy while ostensibly still claiming some sort of “Christian” mission at GCC? (Grove City College boasts in evangelical circles that it is “authentically Christian” — an advertising claim of diminishing accuracy the longer it abides likes of Throckmorton.)

[TAKE ACTION: contact Grove City College HERE and GCC President Richard G. Jewell (rgjewell@gcc.edu; 724-458-2500) and request a written explanation as to why they employ an activist professor who undermines the Bible's clear teachings on homosexuality as a changeable sin (and not a natural "orientation").]

Challenge to Accommodationists: I stand corrected if Prof. Throckmorton or any Grove City prof — indeed, any homosexual activist or pro-”gay” apologist — can show me anything resembling “sexual orientation” in the Bible as this concept is currently understood and posited in academia, the media and society.

Nope. What we’re seeing here is sheer Western activist arrogance. (Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media calls it “Homosexual Imperialism.”) I haven’t yet studied the proposed Ugandan legislation but I agree with Bob Knight’s analysis below — and AFTAH is clearly on record opposing draconian penalties for homosexuality like those imposed by jihadist Islamic radicals. But I do know this: Uganda would do well to avoid the example set by America of a cultural-elite-driven society that celebrates homosexuality (along with other sexual immoralities) — and then reaps the whirlwind that results, including the following:

• devastating (public) health crises that are prolonged by the politically correct protection of the very sexual misbehaviors that helped spread the disease in the first place;
• the proliferation of “gay” activist groups that war against Judeo-Christian values and cruelly smear people of faith who dare to defend those values;
• pro-homosexuality, politically correct indoctrination — even on the job — masquerading as “diversity” — i.e., the gradual replacement of Christian proselytization with the institutional advocacy of sin, disguised as tolerance;
• public immorality and annual “gay pride” parades that subject children to immoral displays including public nudity;
• the undermining of historic Judeo-Christian teachings on sex and marriage; “queer” theological attacks on the Bible and sacred texts due to their unambiguous teachings against homosexual acts;
• the rise of “gay”-sympathetic, anti-religious bigotry and even laws that criminalize the outworking of a biblically-informed conscience against homosexuality; legal and cultural harassment of moral-minded organizations like the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army that refuse to treat homosexuality as a civil right;
• the corruption and victimization of children — including ever younger “coming out” ages for children declaring their supposed “gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender” (“queer”) identity.
• turning the public schools into indoctrination zones for the “GLBT” ideology — all in the name of tolerance and “protecting kids”; the spread of “gay” school clubs, first to high schools, then to middle schools, and ultimately to grade schools.

As you can see, most of America’s “lessons” on homosexuality for Uganda are negative ones. Could it be that the more faith-filled and Bible-trusting African Christians have something to teach jaded Americans like Barack Obama and Warren Throckmorton about homosexuality?  – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org ; send us your thoughts at americansfortruth@comcast.net

__________________________________

The following is a column by Bob Knight in World Net Daily:

____________________________________________

All the bile that’s fit to print

Exclusive: Robert Knight hits N.Y. Times for ‘knee-jerk spasms’ targeting Christians

Posted on WND January 13, 2010

You cannot find a better example of selective outrage and character assassination than the Jan. 5 New York Times editorial, “Hate begets hate.”

This humdinger of a self-descriptive screed has it all: wild, unsubstantiated charges; villains; hysterical calls for action; and a smug, holier-than-thou tone that would put “Saturday Night Live”’s Church Lady to shame.

At issue is Uganda’s proposed law criminalizing homosexuality. But the editorial’s real focus is crucifying Christians who had given talks in Uganda and any part of Christendom that has not bowed its knee to the gay gods.

The Times notes that “three evangelical Christians, whose teachings about ‘curing’ gays and lesbians have been widely discredited in the United States, helped feed this hatred.” The editorial names Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge and Don Schmierer, who “gave a series of talks” last March that “claimed that gays and lesbians are a threat to Bible-based family values.”

I don’t know Mr. Brundidge, but I do know Mr. Lively and Mr. Schmierer. Both are honest and courageous men who, out of Christian compassion, dare to tell the truth about homosexuality. For this, the Times brands them as hatemongers.

While Mr. Lively has written perceptively and passionately about countering the homosexual activists’ political and cultural agenda, there is no evidence of “hate.” Trying to steer someone away from destructive, immoral, changeable behavior is an act of love, not hate. And it is beyond absurd to label as a bigot a man like Don Schmierer, who supports AIDS ministries and reaches out to sexually conflicted people with the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ. Casting the gentle, soft spoken Mr. Schmierer as a “hater” is like calling Mother Teresa a foul-mouthed harpy.

These men discuss sexual behavior and its consequences for individuals, families and societies, and the blessings of God-given hope. As is typical for a fully owned subsidiary of the homosexual activist movement, the Times falsely claims that the Christian leaders oppose the people themselves. The Times has bought into and promoted the media-fed fiction that people are born gay, cannot change and therefore their volitional sexual behavior is synonymous with identity. In gay parlance, it’s “who they are,” not what they do.

This is nonsense. If we are defined by our sexual behavior, then men addicted to pornography are nothing more than “pornophiles.” It is homosexual activists who have insisted on making sexual desire the be-all and end-all of personal identity. They did this to hijack the moral capital of the black civil-rights movement, equating “sexual orientation” with immutable characteristics like skin color or ethnicity. One big problem remains for them, though. Skin color and ethnicity are morally neutral. Sexual behavior is fraught with moral, social and physical consequences and has been regulated by every society since time began.

The Times ignores the Christian men’s pointed criticisms of the proposed Uganda law and says, “We don’t have much hope that they will atone for their acts.”

Well, we don’t have a whole lot of hope that the Times will atone for its many portrayals of Christians as hate-filled bigots whenever the “gay” issue surfaces. They are following the playbook of “After the Ball,” a gay strategy manual from 1989 that instructs activists to “jam” opponents into silence through threats of guilt by association, outright smears and phony “scientific” claims that go unexamined. The strategy has worked brilliantly, as even conservative voices have been frightened into silence or into steadily ceding moral ground, circling the wagons only around the word “marriage.”

The Times is not alone, of course, in its relentless pursuit of homosexual orthodoxy. On Jan. 7, the Washington Post ran an editorial about Uganda entitled, “A barbaric proposal.” The Post editors, at least, did not engage in Christian bashing, and stuck to very real problems with the proposed law. They did repeat a gay mantra, however: “Being gay is not a choice.”

Science has by no means settled the issue. None of the highly publicized studies by gay researchers in the 1990s has been replicated, and several have been discredited. Then, too, there is the inconvenient existence of many people who engage in homosexuality for years and later embrace the straight life. The “ex-gay” movement is large and growing, but the media are keeping it one of the best-kept secrets out of deference to militant gay activists in the newsrooms.

Uganda has been in the cultural elites’ hot water before by bucking the U.S.-backed condom crusade in Africa and slashing its AIDS rate with campaigns for abstinence and fidelity. The current homosexuality bill is seriously flawed. It contains such overreaches as jail terms for people who do not report homosexual activity and life imprisonment for people who engage in the behavior. But the Times and the Post go beyond criticizing the harsher aspects of the law and attack the underlying concern of Ugandans to defend marriage and family, avoid the corruption of their children and put the brakes on AIDS and other diseases.

The Times and the Post warn that Uganda will become a “pariah” nation “shunned globally” if the law is passed. That may be so. But it might behoove the press to take a closer look at some other countries in Africa whose governments, in the grip of Muslim extremism, routinely cut off people’s heads merely for changing religions. Some nations, such as Egypt, have governments that look the other way as young Christian girls are abducted, raped and forced into Muslim marriages. Do these nations qualify as “pariahs”?

The Times’ editors need to come to terms with their knee-jerk spasms against evangelical Christians and others who defend family values. They routinely depict pro-marriage Americans as motivated solely by hatred and prejudice, never by genuine, heartfelt concerns.

In their editorial’s own words: “You can’t preach hate and not accept responsibility for the way that hate is manifested.”

If this is so, the next equipment the Times should order for its newsroom is … a mirror.

____________________________

Robert Knight is senior writer and correspondent for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of “Fighting for America’s Soul” (Coral Ridge 2009) and the upcoming book “Radical Rulers.”

“Gay men have the opportunity to engage in sex with more people than do most heterosexual men, and some practices common among gays — especially rimming [oral-anal stimulation] and anal intercourse — are highly efficient ways of transmitting disease.” — Homosexual writer Jack Hart, Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men (Allyson Publications: 1998), pp 212-213.

Government: Regulate this!  The homosexual bathhouse Steamworks -- an anonymous sex club for men who have sex with men that operates in Berkeley, Chicago, Seattle, Toronto and Vancouver — offered “student discounts” during Spring Break 2009 ($5 off to 18-and-older young men who presented a student ID). Why is the government allowing the open promotion — even to youth — of behavior that is a causative factor in a number of sex diseases including HIV? “Gay” web sites are blasting AFTAH for calling for a comprehensive federal study into the health risks of homosexual sex.

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, as we could have predicted, pro-homosexual websites are blasting AFTAH’s call for a comprehensive federal investigation into the health risks of homosexual behavior — and our comparison to how the government has warned Americans about the dangers of smoking and taken direct action against it in the name of public health (bans against indoor smoking, etc.). I even got named “Creep of the Week” by the Michigan homosexual newspaper Between the Lines. (Talk about creepy: offering teenage boys “student discounts” at homosexual bathhouses, and taking innocent children to raunchy “gay pride” parades — now that’s creepy.)

Homosexual activists are petrified of taking a serious, objective look at the health risks surrounding “gay” sex — it’s almost as scary to them as the public becoming informed of the many satisfied “ex-gay” men and ex-lesbians living happy lives free of homosexuality. Their own writers occasionally acknowledge the disproportionate risks of “gay” sex (see quote above) — and the early deaths of homosexual men, especially well-known homosexuals who could afford the best health care money can buy, are an obvious indicator. This is one of the Pink Elephants in the room that policymakers must address, and we think an impartial, authoritative study is long overdue.

Here’s a People for the American Way report attacking AFTAH that says that I have called homosexual sex more dangerous than smoking, which I did not claim in our original report. In fact, I think some “gay” behaviors like sodomy are more dangerous than cigarettes — although there are many variables here that make comparisons difficult. But the point here is not what Peter LaBarbera thinks — or making a direct comparison to smoking — but to get the government or at least some academicians who are not in the tank for the “gay” lobby to objectively assess the health risks of homosexual sex (especially among MSM, men who have sex with men). The FDA’s explanations of the ban on homosexual men from donating blood are the closest thing approximating that. (And by the way, note that the “gay” “Creep of the Week” article advocates ending the sensible homosexual blood donation ban.)

Certainly, many homosexual ideologues and straight fellow travelers are in denial of the obvious link between homosexual male sex and STDs, and they have a special political interest in covering up this reality. But the rest of us have a right to know the facts, and there’s a whole nation out there that is largely ignorant on these matters. Meanwhile, public school educators, counselors and bureaucrats are promoting “GLBT” — homosexual, bisexual, and transgender — identities to impressionable youth, who certainly deserve the full truth about the health risks of these behaviors — political correctness be damned.– Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

__________________________________

AFA’s One News Now reports [click HERE and click on "Hear Report" button to listen to the report]:

Info on Homosexual Health Risks Squelched
Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 7/30/2009

Americans for Truth about Homosexuality president Peter LaBarbera tells OneNewsNow it only makes sense because the government will investigate the dangers of such habits as smoking and work to curb it. He cites information released by the Food and Drug Administration.

“[Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have] an HIV prevalence rate 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors, and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors,” LaBarbera says.

The pro-family activist also notes an increased level of STDs and hepatitis.

“The people have a right to know about the health risks of homosexual activity just like they had a right to know about the health risks of smoking,” he contends. “There was a huge effort to cover up the risks of smoking, just like there’s a massive politically correct effort today to hide the true health risks of homosexual sex — and the people have a right to know about that.”

LaBarbera especially wants to warn school children who are being taught to accept the homosexual lifestyle as normal and healthy.

He did not have to die so young: Homosexual activists and websites became irrational when AFTAH linked Russell Groff’s premature death from HIV/AIDS at age 26 to his practice of homosexual behavior. “Gay” power in society, abetted by the liberal media, must not stop the truth of the immense health risks of male homosexual sex from reaching the public.