Barber is the keynote speaker at Americans For Truth About Homosexuality’s fund-raising banquet outside Chicago on Saturday, Oct 24.  An AFTAH Board Member and former professional heavyweight boxer, Barber is currently Director for Cultural Studies at Liberty Counsel. Sign up to hear Matt at the AFTAH banquet by using the “Online Banquet Sign-up” link at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/ (discount rates for students and pastors).

_________________________________________

‘Intolerance’ Will Not Be Tolerated

Reprinted from: http://across.co.nz/IntoleranceNotTolerated.html

By J. Matt Barber

We were in elementary school — morning recess by the jungle gym.  My buddy Kyle presided over the ceremony.  I was the groom and Karen Smith was the blushing bride.  The mock wedding lasted about three minutes.  The mock marriage lasted about half-a-day.  Oh, I was faithful — until Christina McCarroll caught my wandering eye during Math class.  Of course we weren’t really married — we were fourth graders – but we sure had fun pretending.

Flash forward about twenty-five years — San Francisco, CA — An activist Mayor, Gavin Newsom, taunts the State’s voters and defies both the rule of law and the sanctity of marriage as he cons thousands of “same-sex couples,” including the corpulent Queen of crass herself, Rosie O’Donnell, into taking part in a number of mock weddings held in San Francisco’s City Hall.  Of course they weren’t really married — but they sure seemed to have fun pretending.

Webster defines marriage as: “The legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife” – a definition consistent with humanity’s own since the very beginning of recorded time.  Marriage between one man and one woman, and the nuclear family have forever been cornerstones of civilized society.  Regrettably, there are at present, many within the militant homosexual lobby who wish to take a sledge hammer to those cornerstones — many who hope to undermine both the historical and contemporary reality of marriage and family – many who, through judicial fiat, aim to circumvent the Constitution, the legislative process, and the overwhelming will of the people in an effort to redefine marriage. Accordingly, the unsolicited, oxymoronic and spurious expression “same-sex marriage” has been forced into popular lexicon.

As more and more Americans begin to unite against the radical concept of “same-sex marriage” we learn that our northerly Canadian neighbors are once again on the cutting edge of societal de-evolution.  The Canadian Parliament is considering passage of legislation, which would legalize “same-sex marriage” nation-wide [and has now done so].  To Canada, we offer this sincere admonition:  If you pass it, they will come — that is, along with all the Blue-State fringe lefties despondent over our recent Presidential election, expect to see droves of American “same-sex couples” crossing the border in search of their own little slice of “progressive” utopia. But we digress.

As the “same-sex marriage” battle wages on within the larger culture war here in our own Country, it’s important to accurately define the terms. Aside from the obvious, what is homosexuality?  Is it a status – a state of being — a word that typifies one’s membership in a suspect, minority class no different than Black or Female?  Let’s consider.  To be Black or Female, one need only be Black or Female.  Membership in either class is contingent upon nothing.  It’s a state of being, which represents entirely neutral qualities (i.e., skin color and/or gender).  On the other hand, homosexuality is contingent upon something: behavior — a person’s actions — choices made — their “sexual preference.”  It’s the end result of choosing to define one’s identity based upon with whom, and how one elects to have sex.

There are those who hold to the theory that people who engage in homosexual behavior are “born that way” — that they’re merely acting upon intrinsic characteristics of their own, unique genetic make-up.  They desperately cling to, and repeatedly cite various “studies” which seem to support the “born that way” theory.  They entirely disregard the fact that to date, there has been no credible, empirical evidence to support the theory, nor has the “respectable” scientific community embraced even one study.  In fact, the vast majority of studies have been debunked outright, and the associated “scientists” have been exposed as homosexual activists attempting to further an extremist agenda.  Additionally, the theory’s proponents have been wholly unable to reconcile its central theme with the so-called “bi-sexual” condition, which on its face would seem to eliminate any illusion of merit.

By the same token, there’s a growing movement among adulterous heterosexual men with estranged wives, who likewise embrace the theory that they were “born that way” — that their genetic makeup precludes the monogamy option, and requires that they have multiple sex partners. Charming, no?

At the risk of being arrested, charged with a “hate-crime” and dragged away to a “progressive” re-education camp, I’ll put aside for a moment the flawed, emotion based, irrational silliness that is “Political Correctness” (in the event I’ve been overly PC thus far).  Rather than approaching our analysis of homosexual behavior from the traditional, liberal, PC perspective, let’s look at it from the rarely visited “Biologically Correct” (BC) vantage point.  For one to believe that homosexual behavior, the act of sodomy in particular, follows the biological order of things, one must ignore the fact that sodomy violates natural law – you know, wrong plumbing, square hole/round peg.  The whole thing really is a testament to man’s creativity.  Give us something good, and we’ll bend over backwards to twist it into something else.

Without delving into the overly descriptive mechanics, suffice it to say that, scientifically speaking, the sexual act was designed for procreation — nothing more, nothing less. I know, not very romantic, but we’re talking science here.  Further, the design behind the human digestive system was solely and entirely intended for digestion, not for makeshift sexual activity — there’s not a sex organ in the mix.  The notion that the act of sodomy is a natural, biological event simply does not square with biological reality.  It may be PC but it sure ain’t BC.

Still, perhaps the most troubling aspect of the homosexual lifestyle in general, is its destructive nature. Destructive not only in terms of the emotional harm it may cause, but destructive also in terms of the health related issues that will almost certainly arise as its consequence.

You may have noticed that you’re barraged on a daily basis by the left’s self-righteous indignation, as they wax eloquent about the harm caused by tobacco, pollution, drugs, alcohol — fatty foods — name your poison. Countless lawsuits have been filed under the pretext of recovering damages to cover health care costs relative to these vices. And they are vices, no doubt.  But, these vices are fair game; they don’t fall within a PC protected class.  Consider this:  When was the last time you heard about the dreadful and preventable health related pitfalls, which stem from the homosexual lifestyle?  You don’t — you won’t — you can’t — you shan’t — Don’ t confuse the Left with the facts. That’s “insensitive!”

As a result of the concerted effort by liberals to mask the devastating effects of the gay lifestyle, many people are shocked to learn that the average life expectancy of a homosexual male is only about 45 years old – 30 years younger than that of a heterosexual male.

One study determined that homosexual males have from between 20 to 106 sexual partners per year.  It’s no wonder that homosexual men account for over 50% of all hepatitis cases, and still account for over 50% of all AIDS cases despite the fact that they only make up 1-3% of the population. Homosexual men and women share a markedly increased risk of contracting nearly all forms of STD.  The men frequently suffer from other sodomy related injuries, and are far more likely to be murdered (likely by another homosexual) than their heterosexual counterparts; this, due to the typically raucous and oft anonymous nature of the gay lifestyle.

All of these things considered, and given that the cost to treat an AIDS patient averages nearly $350,000, the homosexual lifestyle shares responsibility, by no small measure, for this country’s skyrocketing health care costs.

Fortunately, for those who wish to escape the homosexual lifestyle, there is support.  A number of homosexual recovery organizations such as Exodus International and NARTH have helped thousands of people who have been addicted to homosexual behaviors, successfully leave the lifestyle.  Many have gone on to have happy and fulfilled heterosexual marriages, to include the greatest of all blessings. children.

But the militants don’t want to hear it.  In fact, they don’t want you to hear it, and have proposed legislation to ban such recovery organizations claiming that any mention of homosexual recovery is “hate-speech.”  But it’s predictable — any time anyone dare expose the aforementioned truths about the homosexual lifestyle, or criticize the homosexual lobby for its radical anti-marriage, anti-family agenda, there’s an enormous backlash.  It’s an age-old tactic geared toward silencing one’s critics.  It consists primarily of the ad hominem attack — Homophobe! Hate-Monger! Bigot! Gay Basher! Neanderthal! — And on and on it goes.  It grows old. It wears thin, but it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Many homosexuals choose not to recognize that the majority of their detractors really do care for them as individuals, hold no animus toward them, and would not presume to dictate what sexual anomalies they entertain behind closed doors, whether self-destructive or not.  However, when militant homosexual activists attempt to quell all criticism of their behavior, force society to accept that behavior, and further attempt to alter the fabric of society by changing it to correspond with their own morally relative, androgynous notion of marriage, then those same activists shouldn’t be at all surprised to discover that they’ve angered those who value the sanctity of marriage — they shouldn’t be taken aback to find that they have one h*ll of fight on their hands – to expect anything less would be queer indeed.

___________________________

[NOTE: This was the attribution provided for the piece on this website in 2004:]

Copyright © 2004 by J. Matt Barber  (Used with permission)

J. jmattbarber@comcast.netMatt Barber is a non-practicing attorney, an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer (Matt “Bam Bam” Barber), and a jazz drummer in Chicago, IL.  In addition to his Law Degree, Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University.  Matt is a Contributing Editor for TheConservativeVoice.com, and a Contributor to the Washington Times “Insight Magazine,” as well as a number of other top conservative publications. E-mail your comments to Matt, at

PRESS RELEASE by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)
August 6, 2009

Contact: David Pruden, Phone: (888) 364-4744

NARTH’s Press Release on APA Gay and Lesbian Task Force Report

As a scientific and professional organization the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) welcomes all responsible discussion and investigation into the important psychological factors surrounding homosexuality. The gay and lesbian task force report just released at the American Psychological Association (APA) convention in Toronto suggests no change in the clearly established APA policy that client self-determination is the crowning principle of all ethical mental health treatment. Respect for religious diversity demands that psychologists and mental health professionals give as much weight to belief as they do to sexual identity.

NARTH appreciates that the APA stressed the importance of faith and religious diversity. Unfortunately, however, the report reflects a very strong confirmation bias; that is, the task force reflected virtually no ideological diversity. No APA member who offers reorientation therapy was allowed to join the task force. In fact, one can make the case that every member of the task force can be classified as an activist. They selected and interpreted studies that fit within their innate and immutable view. For example, they omitted the Jones and Yarhouse study, the Karten study, and only gave cursory attention to the Spitzer study. Had the task force been more neutral in their approach, they could have arrived at only one conclusion: homosexuality is not invariable fixed in all people, and some people can and do change, not just in terms of behavior and identity but in core features of sexual orientation such as fantasy and attractions.

With regard to possible negative effects of therapy, as in all provisions of psychological care, the possibility exists that the client may not be happy with the outcome. We believe the report indirectly supports the findings published in the current Journal of Human Sexuality that reveal no significant ill-effects of therapy. Further, if some clients are dissatisfied with the therapeutic outcome, as in therapy for other issues, the possibility for dissatisfaction appears to be outweighed by the potential gains. The possibility of dissatisfaction also seems insignificant when compared to the substantial medical, emotional, and physical risks associated with homosexual behavior.

NARTH would suggest that these medical and emotional risks, along with the incongruity of homosexual behavior with the personal and religious values of many people will continue to be the motivation for some individuals to seek assistance for their unwanted homosexual attraction.

###

NARTH is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, it disseminates educational information, conducts and collects scientific research, promotes effective therapeutic treatment, and provides referrals to those who seek assistance. NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care.

I sent a version of the following letter to Jeff, who wrote Americans For Truth in February urging us to respect the “civil rights” of homosexuals (who he believes are born that way). Jeff’s letter is beneath mine at bottom. — Peter LaBarbera:

Peter LaBarbera’s Letter to Jeff:

…Jeff, I doubt the accuracy of your numbers (I believe 1-3 percent of the population is homosexual), but did you know that there are many men and women who once identified as “gay” or “lesbian” who left that lifestyle and are now living happy lives free of homosexuality?  I respect them and their choices; do you? Have you ever met a former homosexual or read one of their testimonies?  If not, here’s a website for you to visit: www.exodus.to.  (Keep in mind that homosexual activists like Wayne Besen (www.truthwinsout.org) relentlessly demean, ridicule and even harass former homosexuals and the whole idea of “ex-gays” — strange conduct from a group that demands tolerance and respect from others.)

We disagree on the morality of homosexual practice, it’s that simple. I don’t ask you to “respect” all my decisions and behaviors — or my arguments — but I do ask you to respect my freedom to live according to my conscience, in a nation founded on religious freedom. And though as a Christian I respect the dignity of all human beings (who are made in the image of God), I will never respect the choice to embrace homosexual/bi/trans behavior — any more so than I would respect people self-identifying by any other sexual sin. (Of course, there are no Adultery Pride Parades.)

That said, speaking as a sinner myself, I have no use for people who hate homosexuals — who need the hope and grace of the Gospel like everyone else.  Rather, I would ask people practicing homosexuality to consider the possibility that they are wrong about this behavior (and their “gay” self-identity), and to be open to the possibility of leaving it through a relationship with Jesus Christ. (Of course, people can leave homosexuality and other sinful patterns without God, but I have found that the most satisfied ex-gays are those who have embraced Christ; see http://www.redeemedlives.org/index.asp, a ministry led by another ex-gay, Mario Bergner.)

So the gist of this debate is: do I and others like me have the right not to approve or subsidize behavior we consider immoral and changeable — or will that right be stripped from us in the name of “LGBT rights”?  Should a small businessman, say an Orthodox Jew with 25 employees, be required by the state to subsidize the homosexual relationships of his employees against his will?  You see, this is far different from traditional civil rights — based on unchangeable skin color — which perhaps explains why African Americans are the strongest sub-group in opposition to “same-sex marriage.”

Besides, the science isn’t in on the supposed “gay gene” so why do you assume it’s fact? (Check out the American Psychological Association’s recent retreat on the alleged innateness of homosexuality: http://www.washblade.com/2009/7-10/news/national/14849.cfm.)

Since you “care about freedom,” will you stand up strongly for the liberty of all Americans to live by their moral and religious beliefs, even if you don’t agree with or understand them?  I hope so.

Thanks for taking the time to write, and sorry for the late reply. We get thousands of emails a month and many are not as respectful as yours.

Sincerely,

Peter LaBarbera
President
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
www.aftah.org

July 17, 2009

——————————————————————————–

Jeff’s Letter to AFTAH:

From: Jeff H. [mailto:--------]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 12:59 PM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: introduction

Hi,

I am a straight man, married for 30 years. As an entrepreneur and capitalist I have created thousands of jobs. I am no “left wing” radical.

About 5% of the people of the world are gay or lesbian, one out of twenty people. Just as you and I didn’t pick our sexuality, they didn’t pick theirs. Their “agenda” is the agenda of civil rights. It is also my agenda and the agenda of everyone who cares about freedom.

It would be great if you were to respect all humans regardless of what their genes are, and fight for human rights for everyone.

Thank you for your time.

- Jeff

_________________________________

WorldNetDaily.com reports today:

‘Gay’ gene claim suddenly vanishes

American Psychological Association revises statement on homosexuality

——————————————————————————–

Posted: May 12, 2009    9:30 pm Eastern    By Bob Unruh    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no “gay” gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH).

A. Dean Byrd, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years.

Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

However, in the update: a brochure now called, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” the APA’s position changed.

The new statement says:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. …”

“Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to ‘prove’ that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed,” Byrd wrote. “The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality.”

Byrd said the APA’s documents both new and old “have strong activist overtones,” but the newer document “is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care.”

“On the question of whether or not therapy can change sexual orientation, the former document offered a resounding ‘no,’” Byrd wrote. “However, the current document is much more nuanced and contains the following statement: ‘To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.’”

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE WND STORY:  “‘Gay’ Gene Claim Suddenly Vanishes”

The graphic below is a question (one of 70) from the “National Survey on Transgender Experiences of Discrimination in the U.S.,” sponsored by the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Sort of makes you yearn for the good old days when people were either “male” or “female.” Come to think of it, they still are. You would practically need a PhD., to keep up with the ever-expanding array of gender identities that fall under the “T” umbrella in the “GLBT” (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) equation. Check out this mind-numbing Wikipedia entry attempting to define “Genderqueer.”

Note that the choices offered below do not comprise a comprehensive list of identities associated with GLBT movement, leading to an expansion of that acronym to “GLBTQQ” (the “QQ” stands for “Queer” and “Questioning”) and even longer combinations of letters. (Check out this Unitarian Universalists document, which on its front page also encourages sadomasochistic, prostitution and “non-monogamous” identities for young “queers.” Pure evil.) Here is the NCTE survey question:

The report states, “The results of the survey will be part of an important report on discrimination against transgender people by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to help create better opportunities for transgender and gender non-conforming people. We are grateful to Penn State University’s Center for the Study of Higher Education for hosting the survey and maintaining the integrity of our data.”

The survey will be used to support pro-”transgender” legislative goals, including “hate crimes” legislation and “working to include transgender provisions in a federal bill to protect lesbian, gay and bisexual workers from discrimination in employment.” The latter refers to including “gender identity” provisions in the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) bill, which would federalize “sexual orientation” law for businesses and organizations.

The Chicago Tribune ran this photo of Kari Rothkopf (left) and Victoria “Tori” Kirk, Illinois residents who had horrific, emasculating “sex change” operations in Thailand and are now suing the State of Illinois to switch the gender on their birth certificates from male to female. Not one to miss out on a politically correct opportunity to promote gender confusion and the GLBT agenda, the Tribune refers to these men with a female pronoun and calls them “women.” Pray for these terribly confused men, who have already successfully changed the sex identifier on their driver’s licenses, passports and Social Security cards. (Click to enlarge photo, by Tribune photographer Kuni Takahashi)

By Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute, first published 1/29/2009

In the Jan. 28, 2009 edition of the Chicago Tribune, there is a story about the two sexual amputees who are suing the state over the refusal of the state to change the “gender” designation on their birth certificates from “male” to “female.” Several important points must be made. First, it’s utterly reprehensible that anyone in the medical community would be complicit in facilitating a psychological disorder by amputating healthy body parts. There is a condition known as either apotemnophilia or Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) that is characterized by the desire to amputate a healthy limb. It is useful for comparison in that it is thought by many to be closely related to Gender Identity Disorder (i.e., transsexualism), which society is increasingly accepting as a valid identity that emerges from biological influences and whose behavioral manifestations are morally legitimate. Apotemnophiles, as they are referred to in some circles, identify with amputees and seek to align their bodies with their psychological identities through amputation of healthy body parts. Dr. Anne Lawrence explains the condition:

Desire for amputation of a healthy limb has usually been regarded as a paraphilia (apotemnophilia), but some researchers propose that it may be a disorder of identity, similar to Gender Identity Disorder (GID) or transsexualism. Similarities between the desire for limb amputation and nonhomosexual male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism include profound dissatisfaction with embodiment.

She further explores the similarities between Male-to-Female (MtF) transsexuals and those who seek limb amputation:

Persons who want to undergo limb amputation typically experience an intense desire or overwhelming compulsion to change their bodies to match their idealized images of themselves as amputees. . . . They usually describe their feelings as developing early in life, often before puberty. . . . most emphasize that they are primarily seeking a sense of wholeness or completeness or are attempting to correct a mismatch between their bodies and their identities.

There is debate about whether BIID should be included in the next edition of the DSM as a mental disease or disorder. There is also considerable debate surrounding causation and treatment with some theorizing that this condition “may in fact have a neurological basis.” American psychoanalyst Greg Furth, who suffers from apotemnophilia himself, and Scottish surgeon Dr. Robert Smith are both “committed to the position that surgery should be regarded as a viable therapeutic option for at least some individuals who suffer from apotemnophilia.” Dr. Smith, in fact, performed two elective amputations of limbs in order to align the bodies of people who experience B.I.I.D. with their psychological identities as amputees. Most people, rightly in my view, recoil in horror at this decision. But it is difficult to see how amputating a healthy arm or leg is substantively different from amputating a healthy penis or breasts.

Second, these two men remain men even without their penises, even with hormone-induced or prosthetic breasts, and even with hormone-induced female-ish voices. As I’ve written before, my mother was no less a woman following her mastectomy, hysterectomy, and oophorectmy than she was before her surgeries. The disordered desire of these two men does not change objective reality.

Finally, these two men are not merely asking the government to become complicit in their disordered delusion; and they are not merely asking the government and all of society to accept their delusion as reality; they are also asking the state to commit fraud. They are asking the state to affirm in a legal document a falsehood. Even these two men acknowledge that they were born male. If they hadn’t been born male, they couldn’t have had a “sex-change” operation.

What almost gets lost in this disturbing article is that these voluntary sexual amputees could have had their birth certificates changed if their surgeries had been performed in the United States rather than Thailand. Already the government has been complicit in this monumental deceit and delusion by allowing them to change their “gender” designation “on their driver’s licenses, passports and Social Security Card.” Just as the medical profession acts unethically when amputating healthy body parts in the service of a delusion, so does the government act unethically when changing legal documents to affirm a falsehood in the service of a delusion.

A just and merciful society treats all with respect and compassion. But respect and compassion do not entail complicity in deceit. Integral to real justice, real mercy, real respect and real compassion is truth.

Laurie Higgins is the Director of School Advocacy at the Illinois Family Institute, which first published this essay. Republished with the permission of IFI.

This book is a must for any social conservative’s library. (Order it HERE.) I’ve known Dale for over a decade, and few in the pro-family movement have demonstrated the diligence, courage, dedication and intelligence that she has in answering the various propaganda myths and lies emanating from the radical feminists and their homosexual and gender-confused (”transgender”) allies. Here is a typically sensible quote from One Man, One Woman (p. 217):

It’s true that human beings can be weak, selfish, and sinful, and not every married couple will be good parents. But a male/female married couple nonetheless has built into it all the things children need for healthy development: a mother and a father to fulfill parenting roles and to model gender identity; a vowed bond of permanent commitment between two persons with sexual complementarity; and freedom from the stigma and distractions that accompany “experimental” family forms.

As you can see from the book’s outline below, there are several chapters on the cause and development of “SSA” — Same-Sex Attraction (Disorder), as some call it. I doubt I will agree with everything presented in those chapters, but I’ve always known Dale to make her case thoughtfully, so it will be engaging. You can order Dale’s book HERE. It’s a few dollars cheaper on Amazon. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth

This outline is taken from the Sophia Institute Press website, where there is also an essay from Dale titled, “Why I Spent Ten Years Writing This Book, and Why You Need to Read It.”

Contents

Introduction: Clarion Call at Cairo

Part I: The Politics of Sex and Marriage

1. The Political Struggle Over the Definition of Marriage
2. The Ideology of the Sexual Left
3. The Debate Over Same-Sex Attraction

Part II: Understanding Same-Sex Attraction

4. How Sexual Attraction Develops
5. Same-Sex Attraction in Men
6. Same-Sex Attraction in Women
7. SSA Treatment and Change

Part III: Marriage and Intimate Relationships

8. The Definition and Purpose of Marriage
9. Why Redefining Marriage Will Harm Persons with SSA
10. Why Redefining Marriage Will Harm Society

Part IV: The Effects on Children

11. Same-Sex Parenting Places Children at Risk
12. Dangerous Lies: The Politicization of Research

Part V: Beyond Same-Sex Marriage

13. Same-Sex Marriage and the Slippery Slope
14. The Threat to Religious Freedom
15. The Threat to Public Schools

Conclusion: What Must Be Done?
Biographical Note: Dale O’Leary

How Many More eHarmony “gay” sellouts under ENDA? Neil Clark Warren, founder of eHarmony.com, lost his courage and settled rather than fight a homosexual lawsuit filed under New Jersey’s “sexual orientation” law. So now Warren and eHarmony.com are facilitating immoral homosexual unions. If a federal ENDA bill becomes law, it will greatly enhance the power of homosexual activists to force businessmen and employers to accommodate and subsidize homosexual relationships against their will. The very freedom of Christians, Muslims and other moral-minded citizens to disagree with homosexuality hangs in the balance. 

TAKE ACTION: Answer the pro-homosexual lobby campaign! Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and have them connect you to your Representative (based on your zip code). Tell them: “I am a constituent and I would like you to please tell Representative _______ that I strongly OPPOSE the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) — which threatens Americans’ basic freedom to live out their faith and disagree with homosexual behavior. I also oppose expanding federal “hate crimes” law to add “sexual orientation” and opening up our Armed Forces to open homosexuality — especially during a time of war. Then, call back and leave messages with your two Senators too! Contact their local offices, which you can find through www.house.gov and www.senate.gov. 

__________________________________

By Peter LaBarbera

OK, everyone, vacation is over. Americans For Truth is back on the beat, fresh from being denounced and mocked by various pro-sodomy “queer” blogs at the end of 2008 (what an honor — more on that later). Below, please read an appeal for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) from a major homosexual activist group — and then DO THE OPPOSITE by calling your U.S. Congressman and Senators and urge them to vote AGAINST the ENDA bill.

We’re calling ENDA — a top priority for the Homosexual and Transsexual Lobbies — the “ENDA’ Our Freedom” Bill because it poses a severe threat to Americans’ First Amendment freedom to disagree with homosexuality. ENDA would be used to force small- and medium-sized businesses to subsidize immoral homosexual unions — and that’s un-American!

Here’s a paper I wrote for AFTAH on ENDA, but if you’re too busy or too lazy to read that, here’s how to think of ENDA:

Remember the recent outrage over eHarmony.com’s sellout to homosexual activism — when evangelical Christian founder Neil Clark Warren agreed to create a “gay” dating website under the auspices of eHarmony? Well, that sellout, unnecessary and misguided as it was, came at the point of a gun. And the “gun” was New Jersey’s state version of ENDA: a pro-homosexual “nondiscrimination” law. That very same New Jersey “sexual orientation” law was used to launch the legal assault against the Boy Scouts of America’s fundamental right to live by its own creed and NOT allow homosexual (or atheist) Scoutmasters.

Thankfully, the Boy Scouts (unlike eHarmony.com) did not capitulate and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately preserved their freedom of association in a 5-4 decision that surely would have gone the other way if just one more liberal justice of the sort favored by President-elect Obama (and many other powerful Democrats) were seated on the Court.

Like the Boy Scouts’, our freedom to disagree with sexual immorality hangs in the balance. We must work hard against ENDA and the entire “queer” legislative agenda in Washington, D.C. The other side sees this as their moment and is engaged heavily in the fight to make homosexuality and gender confusion a “civil right.” And they have a new, pro-homosexual president, the liberal media and increased Democratic strength in Congress on their side. But never forget what they lack: the truth.

Let’s be blunt: the effort to mainstream homosexuality in American law and culture is evil, destructive to faith, marriage and the natural family and — like abortion-on-demand — part of an anti-God agenda. President-elect Obama is a deeply conflicted man on the homosexual issue — or at least he should be if he’s not. Obama professes Christianity but he has distorted Scripture (or minimized its importance) on the sin of homosexuality. However, he was elected with the overwhelming support of religious African Americans and many others who profoundly disagree with the homosexual “civil-rights” paradigm. (In California, Blacks carried both Obama and Prop 8 to victory.) Always remember: there are zero “former” African-Americans or “ex-Hispanics”; there are lots of happy ex-”gays” and former “lesbians” — evidence that homosexuality is about changeable behavior, not some inborn identity. (See former lesbian Charlene Cothran’s heartwarming testimony HERE.)

I was a poll-watcher on Election Day and I saw the tremendous pride of Blacks voting for the man who would become the first African-American president to lead these United States. One Black woman in her late-thirties was beaming as she voted for the first time. A tall African-American man came in and pronounced to the whole room (standing in front of the befuddled election officials): “I’m here to vote for BARACK OBAMA!” I did not vote for Obama due to his liberal agenda (I’d vote for a Black conservative in a heartbeat) but applauded in my heart the symbolic shattering of the idea — stoked by the Left — that America is a racist nation. We are not.

But racism and homosexual conduct do have something in common: they are both destructive sins, yet changeable through God’s grace.

Now we at AFTAH call on all Obama supporters — especially people of faith — who disagree with the notion that homosexuals’ supposed “right” to be affirmed supersedes the liberty of the rest of America to live by their our own moral and religious beliefs — please make your voices heard! Let President Obama know that the oppressive homosexual activist and “gay marriage” is not part of the “change” you wanted.

The clear reality is this: the homosexual agenda is more about AFFIRMING HOMOSEXUALITY and UNDERMINING JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUES than correcting injustice. There is no epidemic of homosexuals being fired; in fact, they are increasingly being courted by major corporations –  while it is faith-based employees like Matt Barber (an AFTAH Board Member, fired by Allstate in 2005) who face reprisals for opposing homosexuality and who are forced to endure faith-assaulting, pro-homosexuality/pro-transsexual “diversity” propaganda on the job.

_____________________________

TAKE ACTION: PLEASE DO THE OPPOSITE OF THIS “GAY” ACTIVIST ALERT FROM THE RADICAL LEFTIST “NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE”:

Congress Swears In Today! Let them know you care about ENDA!
Filed by: Guest Blogger
January 6, 2009 12:00 PM

Editors’ Note: Guest blogger Rea Carey is Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund.

Today, January 6, Members of Congress raise their right hand and swear to uphold the Constitution as they begin the new legislative session.

Let’s make sure the first thing they hear about is the importance of an Employment Non-Discrimination Act that protects all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

In DC, make their phone ring! Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and have them connect you to your Representative (based on your zip code). Tell them: “I am a constituent and I would like you to please tell Representative _______ that I strongly support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that would ban discrimination against all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”

Then, call back and leave messages with your two Senators too!

At home, set up a visit!
Request an in-person meeting for you and other community members with your two Senators and your Representative (or their staffs) in their home district offices. You can call the district offices to request these meetings but they often want you to fax a meeting request. To find contact info for district offices, go to www.senate.gov and www.house.gov.

Sample meeting request letters, and other talking points and resources for your meetings, are available in the following toolkits [Note: the following are pro-homosexual resources]:

The Task Force ENDA Grassroots Toolkit [pdf]
National Center for Transgender Equality’s Making Your Voice Heard [pdf]
PFLAG’s Bringing the Message Home

Let us know!

Let us know how your meeting went. Go to unitedenda.org and fill out the Lobby Report Form to tell us whether your Representative and Senators expressed support.

Come to think of it, isn’t the current homosexual legal effort to overturn Prop 8 — the California marriage amendment that passed Nov. 4– decidedly Democracy-Phobic? I wish those spoiled-brat Voter-Phobes would stop using liberal judges to cheat the citizens.

Essays like this lift my soul: I believe there is still a vast, silent majority of Americans who would agree with Rev. Perryman’s common-sense and clear-headed thinking. — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com

__________________________________

Am I Homo Phobic?

By Rev. Wayne Perryman
The dictionary defines homosexuality as: “Having a desire for someone of the same sex [gender] or the act of having sex with someone of the same sex [gender].  In other words it is a sexual behavior carried out with someone of the same gender.  It did not define it as two people of the same gender who happens to love one another.  Simply put, both homosexuality and heterosexuality are about sex.  One sexual expression is perfectly in line with how nature has designed our bodies for reproductive purposes (it called heterosexuality) and the other is not (this one is called homosexuality). Neither sexual expression has anything to do with love.  Both are sexual behaviors expressed through physical contact between two or more people.

Sexual activity may be an expression of love, but sex itself is not love.  All mature adults know that sex and love are two different things. Pure love most often is not expressed in a sexual manner. Loving parents who love their children will give their life for their child, but they never have sex with that child.  Soldiers have been known to give their lives for a fellow soldier (of the same gender), the ultimate expression of love according to the Bible (St. John 15:13), but they never have sex with that individual. Brothers and sisters have sacrificed their lives for their siblings by donating their organs to save the life of the other, while others have left their entire estate to their siblings, but in both cases these expressions of love never included sex. The act of sex is merely a physical behavior that is most often expressed in the privacy of ones home and therefore should not be protected under Civil Rights Laws. Its proper place of protection should be covered by privacy laws, not Civil Rights Laws. Our laws should be designed to discourage criminal behavior, not endorse private sexual behavior.  When gays said they were born this way and compared themselves with African Americans, one black child wrote:

My sexual act did not make me black
This is something the gays cannot say.
For it is a fact that their sexual act,
Is why they call themselves gay.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality is a sexual behavior expressed, it is not a physical status like black or white skin.

Having said that, Am I Homo-Phobic if I do not like, accept or feel comfortable with the gays’ sexual expression (behavior)? Homo-Phobic meaning:  fearing or hating the gay person or the homosexual individual who engages in such behavior? Before answering this question, please let me share with you other behaviors that I am uncomfortable with.

• I do not like (or I am uncomfortable with) heterosexuals who affectionately make out in public when they can do it in the privacy of their homes – Am I Hetero-Phobic and hate heterosexuals?
• I do not like (or I am uncomfortable with) individuals who cheat on their spouse – This means I must have a Spousal Cheater-Phobic and hate or fear spouses that cheat.
• I do not like it (and I feel uncomfortable) when my sons sag their pants like gang members – Perhaps I hate or fear my sons .  Shall we call this Sons-Phobic?
• I do not like it (and I am uncomfortable) when drivers cut other drivers off on the freeway – Am I Driver-Phobic and hate or fear drivers?
• I do not like it when my African American brothers and sisters use the “N” word. This must mean I am Afro-Phobic and fear and hate my African American brothers and sisters?
• I do not like and I am uncomfortable with a lot of my own bad habits – Am I Self –Phobic and hate and fear myself?

I guess you get my point.  Just because I do not like certain behaviors or that I am uncomfortable with certain behaviors, does not mean that I fear or hate the person who engage in such behavior.

We must not allow others to label us or put a guilt trip on those of us who do not like, accept or feel comfortable with the gay lifestyle. I’m sure that even within the gay community there are certain behaviors that they do not like among their own group, but does that mean they fear or hate the person demonstrating such behavior? Do I hate or fear gays? Absolutely not! If I ever saw anyone attempting to physically harm a gay person, as a Christian, like the “Good Samaritan in the Bible, I would be one of the first to come to their rescue, not because they are gay, but because they, like myself are loved by God (St John 3:16).

Final thoughts:  As stated before, gays often compare their experience with the African American experience, but African Americans have never had the option of putting their black skin in the closet to escape or avoid persecution – and we were never hated because of our behavior, we were hated simply because we were black.

___________________________

About the Author

Rev. Wayne Perryman (e-mail: doublebro@aol.com; website: www.wayneperryman.com) is a former newspaper publisher, radio talk-show host, and corporate employment relations consultant, and the author of several books including his latest, Unfounded Loyalty, in which he reveals the startling history — unknown to many Blacks (and probably most Americans) — that the Democratic Party was the party of Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan. See a good review of Unfounded Loyalty HERE. In the book, Perryman writes, “On the issue of slavery, the Democrats literally gave their lives to expand it; the Republicans gave their lives to ban it. … In my research, which covers the period from 1832 to 2002, I found two familiar strains running through the cultural development of the American Black: the positive and powerful role of Christianity and the little known and debilitating role of the Democrats — from slavery through the Clinton Administration. There is also a critical analysis of our current black leadership.”

Rev. Perryman devotes much of his time serving his community. In addition to serving as Minister in Charge of Church Administration for Mt. Calvary Christian Center Church of God in Christ, in Mercer Island, Washington, Rev. Perryman heads up his own consulting firm. His company specializes in conducting fact-finding investigations on behalf of inner-city discrimination plaintiffs who are unsuccessful in obtaining representation through law firms and community agencies. For his ongoing work as a community activist, Rev. Perryman has received commendations from members of the United States Congress, former Washington State governor Booth Gardner, and former Seattle mayor Charles Royer. In addition to this recognition, Perryman’s work with children, professional athletes, gang members, and major corporations has resulted in local, national and international media coverage.

According to his website, in 1993, Rev. Perryman challenged major Christian publishers with his research book entitled, The 1993 Trial On The Curse of Ham. In his book, he proved that the publishers were wrong when they stated that, according to the Bible, the Black race was cursed. The curse theory was used to justify slavery, establish Jim Crow Laws, and promote racial discrimination. Perryman’s book forced two major Christian publishers and the Encyclopedia Britannica to remove this false theology from their publications – a theory that had existed for over three hundred years.

After my last column, I got an e-mail from retired FBI agent Bob Hamer.  Bob’s the author of a riveting new book that takes you undercover with him into the world of drug bosses, hit men, and his last assignment, the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).   After I sent him a copy of my new book on same-sex marriage, he wrote back:

“Thanks so much for sharing your book. It was powerful and I need to re-read it because it said so much. It actually brought back memories of the NAMBLA conferences I attended. I listened to men justify oral sex on 18 month olds. How often I listened to men claim their pedophilia was an inborn trait; it was natural, ‘this is the way God made me.’”

This “born that way” argument is fueling the case for same-sex marriage in California.  Is it a good argument?

I know this is a difficult and emotional issue for many people, but I think the reasonable answer is no. Not only is the evidence for being “born that way” questionable, even if it were true, it should have no impact on our marriage laws.
First, after many years of intense research, a genetic component to homosexual desires has not been discovered. Twin studies show that identical twins do not consistently have the same sexual orientation. In fact, genetics probably explains very little about homosexual desires. How would a homosexual “gene” be passed on? Homosexuals don’t pass on anything because they don’t reproduce.

Click HERE to read the rest of Turek’s column on Townhall.com

Ray Boltz back when he was not publicly defying God’s Word. The Christian artist and father of four now says being homosexual “is the way God made me.” 

By Peter LaBarbera

Last week, I was at the Family Research Council’s “Values Voter Summit” in Washington, D.C., where I was struck by how many former homosexuals I encountered in the space of a three day visit. I had breakfast with my good friend Jim, who is happily married and has left homosexuality so far behind that he told me he can barely believe that was how he once lived.

Then there was Anthony Falzarano, a veteran former homosexual who is out with a new book about his life, And Such Were Some of You. (Anthony — who has attended the funerals of many homosexual friends from his old life — was accompanied by his beautiful daughter Mary Victoria, who is alive today because he stopped living the “gay” lie.)

And I met Anthony Glover, an African American man whose road to overcoming homosexuality was solidified by a scary experience of almost committing sodomy with a homosexual man who was HIV-positive. (Yes, some homosexual men intentionally try to infect others with HIV.)

Also stopping at our Americans For Truth booth at the FRC summit was Grace Harley, a former (female-to-male) “transgender” who is now a Christian advocating for healthy change in Maryland.

Amidst all this, I picked up a copy of The Washington Blade, D.C.’s main homosexual newspaper, only to find a long story on former Christian Gospel singer Ray Boltz, who has sold out Jesus by embracing a false “gay” identity after living a life as a married family man. (Self-styled “queer” activists will say that Boltz was living a lie, but his four children do not owe their existence to a “gay” lifestyle.) I read the entire Blade story, but all you really need to know is in the final paragraph:

“This is what it really comes down to,” [Boltz] says. “If this is the way God made me , then this is the way I’m going to live. It’s not like God made me this way and he’ll send me to hell if I am who he created me to be … I really feel closer to God because I no longer hate myself.”

Wow, talk about presumption! This talented man is lost and he needs our prayers. Boltz may “feel” closer to God, but if you believe the Scriptures, he’s farther than ever from Him. We understand that the radical “gay” movement exalts its collective “feelings” over the Bible’s clear teaching — and certainly they are not alone in that regard — but each of us must choose between the truth and lies every day, and homosexual behavior is egregiously sinful, according to God’s Word. (See www.robgagnon.net if you are tempted to rationalize away the Bible’s clear condemnation of homosexual practice.) You just can’t sugarcoat that verdict, although these days even many Christians try.

The good news is that for every Ray Boltz, there is a man or woman who went the other way — toward Truth –and, with the help of a loving God, is overcoming strong homosexual temptations in their life. The logical fallacy of homosexual ideologues like Wayne Besen or the self-serving activists at ExGayWatch — and all who are in the business of “disproving” or discrediting former homosexuals — is that they put forth “failures” like Boltz as the “truth” standard for all who feel the homosexual pull.

In a world of “my truth” as opposed to Absolute Truth (right vs. wrong, good vs. evil), it’s an effective tactic to celebrate those who “feel” that “being gay” is “who I am.” But take a moment to think about the implications of that approach for other besetting sins. Would society ever hold up the men and women who tried to overcome addictions but then failed and returned to their destructive habit as the norm and role models for others? (Yes, homosexual practice is a destructive habit, as attested by the drastically shortened lifespans and high incidence of disease among men who practice same-sex sin.)

Moreover, homosexual activists and fellow travelers are using their insider roles in our public schools to guide sexually confused youth into following Boltz’s model by giving in to powerful yet destructive homosexual urges. Remember that “GLBT” identities remain an ideological concept:  What does it mean to assert that homosexuality (”gay” or “lesbian” identity) defines “who a person is” when the very outworking of that identity — same-sex sexual behavior — has caused so much suffering over the last three decades? Only a society in moral decline would countenance confirming impressionable young people into sinful and unhealthy identities/lifestyles.

Truth is timeless

If we are to accept Boltz’s story, how can we reject my friend Jim’s, or Yvette Schneider’s, or Anthony Falzarano’s? Truth is not decided by sinful man’s “feelings” but is revealed by God, through His Holy Word. And even if you don’t believe the Bible, Nature itself reveals the wrongness of homosexual behavior. Yes, Nature discriminates against men having sex with men, as reflected by the through-the-roof sexually-transmitted disease quotient among MSM (men who have sex with men) and other salient factors like the indisputable fact that homosexual relationships cannot produce children without the assistance of normalcy (heterosexuality).

I do not believe there is a single “cause” of homosexuality, but the reporter in me wants to know more about how Boltz grew up — was there sin (of others), predatory behavior, or dysfunction in his early life that helped set him on this path? My hunch is there is a story there, but regardless, we must pray for this wandering soul to return to Christ while combating the lie he now espouses that a holy God who hates sin “makes people gay.”

The arrogance of the pro-homosexuality-in-the- military forces has escalated to unbelievable levels — a product in part of the huge political mobilization by anti-Don’t-Ask/Don’t-Tell forces compared to their pro-family opponents. Once again we see the play for sympathy based on the false and unproven idea that people are “born gay.” Get out your violins: the homosexual victims are coming … to Capitol Hill to demand more “rights” based on their aberrant sexual inclinations. Straight soldiers’ rights? Forget it! And no need to hire a PR agency for the “gay” side: the liberal media is taking care of that (more on Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank’s hit-piece against Donnelly later).–Peter LaBarbera

____________________________

Tony Perkins of Family Research Council writes in his July 24 “Washington Update”:

Rude Congressmen Tell and Don’t Ask at Hearing

For the first time since Congress beat back Bill Clinton’s effort to bring homosexuals into the military in 1993, there was a hearing on the topic yesterday on Capitol Hill, which FRC’s Vice President for Policy Peter Sprigg and several Witherspoon Fellows attended. The Democrats in Congress are laying the groundwork for action next year, when they hope [a Democrat will be] president … to overturn the law which codified the military’s longstanding policy excluding homosexuals. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, and Sgt. Major Brian Jones, a veteran of the Army’s elite Delta Force, ably defended the law in the face of shockingly disrespectful and even abusive questioning by members of the House Military Personnel subcommittee. Particularly egregious was the behavior of Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.), who said that Donnelly’s concern about the impact of HIV-positive soldiers was “dumb” and that her testimony about behaviors common among homosexuals was “bonkers.” Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) used the silly line, “When did you decide to be heterosexual?” The false assumptions that people are “born gay” and can never change, and that homosexuality is equivalent to race, permeated the questioning. Yet no one explained how it would benefit the military to recruit service members who plan to commit acts which are criminal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Additional Resources
AP: Vigorous debate held on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’

Grove City College prof Warren Throckmorton and Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern: is Throckmorton violating the Golden Rule by joining homosexual activists in unfairly attacking Kern and her motives? See this great testimony regarding Kern’s character: “The Untold Story about Sally Kern.”

Folks, we expect homosexual activists like Jeremy “Good As You” Hooper to take cheap shots at pro-family leaders like Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern (R) — but we don’t expect the same from someone affiliated with a leading evangelical Christian College. Sadly, Grove City College psychology associate professor Warren Throckmorton is becoming a “gay”-affirming activist of sorts in his dubious quest for neutrality (as a Christian) on this divisive moral issue.

Warren has done some good work, e.g., debunking various “born gay” claims, but we’re taken aback by his hostile postings against Christian conservatives like Sally who are more principled and outspoken than he in their opposition to homosexual activism. Later we’ll examine a far more serious question: Throckmorton’s “neutral” counseling approach toward homosexuals, which also has raised eyebrows at NARTH and among Christian pro-family observers.

Below is my response to Throckmorton’s latest blog post about Sally Kern; also see THIS LINK for another Throckmorton blog post targeting Kern questioning her Christian love. –Peter LaBarbera

I wrote today:

Warren, I must say from your various blog posts on Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern that it looks like you’re going out of your way to (publicly) pick on this fine woman (and fellow Christian) — who has been targeted for vilification by radical homosexual activists. Your comments are petty and mimic those of gay activists, who only wish her the worst. I ask you on behalf of [various pro-family advocates]: why?
— Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org; here’s a wonderful testimony from ex-gay Chris Morrison that testifies to Sally’s loving heart for people caught up in homosexuality: “The Untold Story about Sally Kern.”

PS. I just spoke with Sally. What happened is that as she was coming to a meeting at the Capitol, she accidentally forgot to leave her concealed-carry pistol in the car as she entered the building. The alarm went off and she explained the mistake and then quickly put the gun back in her car. (Other Oklahoma lawmakers have made this same mistake.) Even though only two Capitol police actually saw this incident, somebody leaked it to the press to embarrass Sally. (But in Oklahoma it may only make her more popular — she could probably run for governor [and win] after the way over-the-top “gay” campaign against her.) This is a non-story that has been used by liberals to bash her. Note this AP story cited by Warren T. with its curious and skewed lead paragraph (see red part):

Kern stopped from bringing gun to Capitol
Associated Press – July 23, 2008 6:55 PM ET
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) – An Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper prevents a state representative known for an anti-gay rant from entering the Capitol today after a loaded hangun was found in her purse.

——————————————————————————–

Warren Throckmorton’s latest blog post:

Kern packs a hot lunch

Posted: 23 Jul 2008 05:39 PM CDT

Why would you need a gun in your legislative office? [AP story]

Oh, now I get it… [Tulsa World story]

OKLAHOMA CITY – Outspoken state Rep. Sally Kern was turned back by security Wednesday morning when she arrived at the Capitol carrying a pistol in her purse.

Kern, R-Oklahoma City, was nearly as surprised as security when a camera spotted the small handgun when her purse rolled through the camera-equipped conveyer.

The lawmaker, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, said she routinely removes it before entering the Capitol, but just forgot this time.

Kern said she asked security if she “could put the gun up.” She returned to her vehicle, left the weapon there, and returned to the Capitol for a meeting.

The lawmaker was not arrested.

Department of Public Safety spokesman Chris West said, “We tell security to use their heads,” and assess this kind of situation before taking action.

We’re just getting back from a trip that offers more evidence why homosexuality is wrong and harmful to children. Meanwhile, take a read of Phil Magnan’s report, “15 Reasons Why Homosexuality is Wrong and Hurts Society.” Phil is the founder of Biblical Family Advocates, based in San Diego. I just met him in person for the first time and came away impressed by his love for people, including those practicing homosexuality, and his love for God’s truth and His heart on this issue. Check out BFA’s report. — Peter LaBarbera

Dr. Norman Spack: profiting off of gender confusion, endangering kids’ health.

“Spack injects children with hormone-blocking drugs to prevent them from developing secondary sexual characteristics, like breasts or facial hair. The idea is to give them a few more years to make up their minds if they want to be male—or female.”

We highly commend Breakpoint’s website, which is loaded with useful information and commentaries like this defending a Christian, pro-truth worldview. Note the excellent additional resources offered following this article.

We also recommend a terrific expose on the “transgender” agenda by Amy Contrada of MassResistance: see her 125-page report, “The Coming Nightmare of a Transgender Hate Crimes Bill.” Don’t read it unless you are serious about understanding this bizarre, aggressive movement and the threat it poses to children and society. Emphasis added in the Church Colson’s Breakpoint commentary below:

____________________________

It’s a Sick, Sick World
By Chuck Colson
Breakpoint Commentary, July 8, 2008

Prepping Kids for Sex Change

He has been called “demonic,” “barbaric,” and has been compared to Nazi doctors. And when you read about his work, it is easy to see why Americans are so outraged. Dr. Norman Spack is a pediatric endocrinologist at Boston Children’s Hospital. Not long ago, he opened a clinic for what he terms “transgendered” children. Incredibly, he is giving kids as young as seven drugs that delay the onset of puberty—the first step in sex-change surgery when they are older.

Spack injects children with hormone-blocking drugs to prevent them from developing secondary sexual characteristics, like breasts or facial hair. The idea is to give them a few more years to make up their minds if they want to be male—or female.

When these kids hit their teen years, they are given the option of taking cross-hormones for a few years—which will allow them to develop the characteristics of the opposite sex. Tragically, the treatment will condemn these teenagers to lifelong infertility.

Spack appears to think that that is a reasonable trade-off for teens who feel they are trapped in the body of the opposite sex: After all, the cross-hormone treatments will make it easier for them to “pass” as the opposite sex. For instance, men will not grow as tall as they normally would, nor will they develop beards or Adam’s apples.

In a fawning article about Spack, the Boston Globe referred to his treatment of gender-confused children as “modern medical care.” Medical care, my eye! This is medical mayhem. It is unconscionable.

Dr. Paul McHugh, a distinguished professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, agrees: He says that treating these children with hormones “does considerable harm, and it compounds their confusion. Trying to delay puberty or change someone’s gender,” he added, “is a rejection of the lawfulness of nature.”

Dr. McHugh knows what he is talking about. He and psychiatrist Jon Myer studied men who received sex-change operations at Johns Hopkins. His conclusion? “That Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness.” Better, McHugh thought, to concentrate on fixing their minds instead of taking the more drastic step of changing their sex.

Thanks to the research of Myer and others, this practice was stopped at Johns Hopkins. And it became possible to begin to make sense of the mental disorders that were driving the request for the surgeries.

So why are doctors like Spack altering young bodies instead of treating confused minds?

The answer is that many doctors have embraced the modern teaching that sexual identity, rather than being biologically determined, is a preference or a choice. According to this, people should be allowed to choose whatever sex they want to be.

But both science and the Bible teach otherwise: God created us male and female in His image. Shots and surgeries and politically correct teachings cannot alter this fundamental truth.

Tragically, some parents are now buying into this false teaching—and allowing their children to undergo destructive treatments.

You and I need to be spreading the word that legitimate treatment is available for people suffering from gender confusion—and it is a treatment that does not sacrifice the well-being of children to the political agendas of adults.

____________________________

Today’s BreakPoint Offer

Learn more about Breakpoint’s Wide Angle worldview video series with Chuck Colson and Rick Warren—perfect for small-group Bible studies!

____________________________

For Further Reading and Information

Pagan Kennedy, “Q&A with Norman Spack,” Boston Globe, 30 March 2008.

“Critics Slam Boston Doctor Who Offers Sex Change Treatment to Kids,” FOX News, 19 May 2008.

Ashley Smith, “Mom Accepts Transgender Manchester Tween,” Nashua Telegraph, 22 June 2008.

Paul McHugh, “Surgical Sex,” First Things, November 2004 (reprinted by GodSpy).

Stephen Reed, “Sex Change Operations . . . for Kids,” The Point, 19 May 2008.

Gina Dalfonzo, “Who Will Watch the Watchers?” The Point, 27 May 2008.

BreakPoint Commentary No. 050615, “The Wisdom to Know the Difference: Is Sexual Identity Malleable?”

BreakPoint Commentary No. 040209, “Gender Blender: Adolescent Girls and ‘Heteroflexiblity’.”

BreakPoint Commentary No. 061121, “Pick Your Nose, Not Your Gender: Postmodern Mischief.”

BreakPoint Commentary No. 070423, “Coming to a School near You: Normalizing Homosexuality.”

UPDATE: We learned June 26 from a Catholic, pro-family advocate who contacted the Chicago Archdiocese that AGLO has now been denied permission to march officially in this year’s homosexual “pride parade.” Stay tuned for more on this story.

[Click on photo to enlarge.] Topless transsexual bares his (presumably hormone-induced) breasts at last year’s (2007) Chicago “gay pride” parade. The “man” rode exposed like this for blocks along the parade route, as the crowd lining the streets cheered him on. Faithful Catholics in Chicagoland are outraged that a church-affiliated group called AGLO (Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach) may march in this year’s homosexuality-celebrating parade. (AGLO is listed as #114 in the parade line-up.) Photo: AFTAH. Click HERE to contact the Archdiocese of Chicago regarding AGLO.

Folks, I cannot help but commend this brilliant response from my friend Gary Morella to the news that Chicago Cardinal George is allowing (at least for now) a so-called “gay Catholic”-oriented group called AGLO (Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach) to march in this Sunday’s “Chicago Gay Pride” parade. (AGLO is listed as #114 in the parade line-up.) Morella is a Catholic pro-family, pro-life activist and research mathematician at Penn State, who catches enormous flack for his stubborn insistence on proclaiming truth at that academic den of iniquity.

Gary as a Catholic and I as an evangelical disagree on some points of theology, but we are completely in accord on the need to combat all worldly attempts to transform the sinful yet changeable behavior of homosexuality into some kind of inherent and innocuous “identity.” — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. I learned from my friend Susan Jordan, a Chicagoland Catholic, that AGLO has marched in other Chicago “gay pride” parades.

___________________________

Gary Morella (left) writes:

In regard to the report of a Chicago “AGLO” group marching in a “Gay Pride” parade, some seminal Catholic truths apply in regard to the “bottom line,” not the least of which is the following. The Chicago Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach is misnamed. There is nothing “gay” about being inclined to unnatural acts that are so revolting as to cause extreme revulsion when accurately described! We are talking about sexual perversion that has not evolved to sexual deviance to sexual preference to sexual orientation, which is the politically correct lie of those practicing same in order to anesthetize society that they must accept the vices of a radical fringe under force of law – to heck with the common good! Rather, we’re talking about aberrant behavior that remains sexual perversion, regardless of the devil’s packaging! Accordingly, there is nothing Catholic about celebrating such perverse behavior that is condemned by traditional Catholic teaching rooted in Sacred Scripture, PERIOD! This truth should be obvious to anyone who is Catholic in more than name only in the recognition that the common good leads ultimately to a supernatural good in accord with God’s Divine Plan for His Creation. To thwart the common good is to do the work of the devil!

This begs the obvious question, why are Catholic frauds repeatedly allowed to cause public scandal to the faith with impunity? AGLO does not deserve to exist because, as an organization, it shamelessly promotes the commission of Mortal Sin which is anathema to Catholicism. Why can’t Cardinal George see that seminal truth? Just how much more scandal must be tolerated, putting souls at extreme risk of eternal perdition, before the plug is pulled on the AGLO liars? The Catholic goal should be the encouragement to leave, not live, homosexual lifestyles!

What is frustrating is that this decline in the Church could be thwarted by some very simple courageous actions on the part of bishops, in particular, Cardinal Archbishops as metropolitans for their Episcopal brethren, by taking the bull by the horns and saying, e.g., to the Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach (AGLO) in Chicago, “You can no longer exist because your premise is counter to Church teaching in that you believe that one can live homosexual lifestyles and still be Catholic, which is a lie.” Are you listening, Cardinal George?

The traditional Church teaching on sins against nature is very clear using Sacred Scripture and Tradition in the form of statements from the Popes, Councils, Saints, and Apologists combined with the tradition of civil legislation to show the moral chasm that has resulted when the language of “pseudo charity” replaces the language of “tough love” for salvation’s sake. The result being that the necessary feelings of revulsion toward those proudly trumpeting their sodomite tendencies are no longer there opening the door for a misplaced compassion that such individuals do not deserve. They are differences between an ontological dignity to which all are entitled by virtue of being made in the image and likeness of God, and a moral dignity as a function of being endowed with an intellect and will whereby good can be accepted and evil rejected. Moral dignity does not exist for sodomites, a distinction that AGLO never makes using language that would have us erroneously believe that there exists something called the homosexual person, a concept which turns Catholic anthropology on its head making God, Who is Perfect Good, out to be a liar in creating man with a built-in one way ticket to hell in complete ignorance of the effect of the concupiscence due to Original Sin.

The clear consistent condemnation of homosexuality in Catholic teaching does not have to be needlessly qualified, which is something that Saints Peter, Jude, Pius V, Basil of Cesarea, Augustine, Aquinas, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, Peter Damian, Albert the Great, Bonaventure, Catherine of Sienna, Bernardine of Sienna, Peter Canisius, and the councils of Ancyra, Toledo, Nablus, and Third Lateran did not suffer.

Is it possible to be Catholic and be inclined to homosexual acts? The answer is yes as there is no guarantee that Catholics are not tempted to sin. It is better to ask, “Is it possible to remain a Catholic and live a lifestyle that equates sexual perversion with normality?” The answer is an unequivocal no. For to do so makes a mockery of Sacred Scripture which states emphatically that Jesus condemns the sin out of concern for the sinner’s eternal end. The same “good and gentle” Jesus who is readily quoted out of context by the contemporary disciples of “dignity” and “self esteem” also is the “just” Jesus who talked more about the consequences of grave sin than any other New Testament figure. He was especially discriminatory in this regard as while some ceremonial aspects of the old law were rescinded, the moral requirements were not.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen, I say unto you, till Heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. For I say to you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and of the Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20)

But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but, nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. And if thy hand of thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to enter into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee with one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. (Matthew 18:6-9)

It is an oxymoronic contention that you can be a practicing homosexual and be Catholic. This is a violation of a fundamental philosophical principle in that “Something cannot ‘be’ and ‘not be’ at the same time in the same respect.” The Church’s clear teaching is that there is nothing “gay” about being inclined to proven self-destructive physically, psychologically, and especially spiritually, unnatural behavior that has also been proven to be changeable, i.e., there is no such thing as a homosexual orientation in an innate final sense. Such inclinations are to acts which the Church considers intrinsic moral evils, the inclination itself being objectively disordered because of the unnatural tendencies involved. To say otherwise is absurd!

This is not a question of exclusion but rather one of unconditional love for man’s salvific eternal end that demands telling the Truth, Who is a Someone, not a something, per the beginning of the Gospel of John.

Catholics, above all clerics, ought to realize that by lying to people who need the full truth does nothing to help them. And it is a lie to have someone believe that they can be Catholic and have no problems with being inclined to acts, which if performed, lead to final spiritual ruin. That is playing with fire. The Church calls those inclined to homosexuality to leave, not live, their lifestyles. In order to do that the Church cannot lie about such inclinations being benign naturally, and especially spiritually, given the eternal truth of the Natural Law of God which is a participation in His Eternal Law.

Would so-called “Catholic” apologists for the homosexual lifestyle have us believe that Matthew 5:21-31 excuses any responsibility for living it because homosexuality is not explicitly referred to?

“You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire….You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart…It is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.”

It most certainly is. In particular, see Genesis 18:20-21, Romans 1:24-28, and the Epistle of Jude. Moreover, Jesus took the old law one step further and made the actions leading to the act as severe as the act itself. Are we to believe as Catholics that somehow homosexuality fell through the cracks in Sacred Scripture? Thus, from the Catholic standpoint, to imply that Jesus never said anything about being inclined to unnatural acts is Bible eisegesis with the consequences of Matthew 18:6.

To give a message to those inclined to homosexual acts that “they are OK as they are” is un-Catholic in the extreme given the above observations. It makes no more sense than to tell an alcoholic that you may continue drinking to get over alcoholism. Moreover, it is akin to giving a serial killer more bullets.

The Magdalenes of the Gospel were most certainly forgiven, but the words of Jesus following His forgiveness are conveniently forgotten. “Go and sin no more.” That is what it means to be Catholic. To make the attempt to live a Faith which will be mocked by the world. To imply that the homosexual lifestyle somehow has a Catholic blessing is tragic. It is tragic because souls are at stake — those living the lie and, especially, those telling it. For Catholics, that’s NOT love but REAL hate for their fellow man.

Lest we forget, Jesus Christ exists eternally as Second Person of the Blessed Trinity of the One True Triune God, i.e., as God Jesus destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, which is the first thing that should be remembered when the heinous lie that “Jesus never had anything to say about homosexuality” rears its ugly heads via the disciples of the devil! We are talking about a proven changeable lifestyle with the Grace of God that is physically, psychologically, socially, economically, and most especially spiritually ruinous!
As Ralph McInerny in Catholic Dossier has pointed out, obfuscation has reached the college campuses and campaigns are waged against something called “homophobia,” the net effect of which is to suggest that it is the judgment that homosexual acts are sinful that is sinful, not the acts themselves. In this effort, Scripture and magisterial documents are invoked as if they favored homosexuality as erroneously implied in many college editorials. One has a Catholic duty, it seems, not to state the Catholic message on the matter. During campus campaigns to give recognition to homosexual organizations, no mention is ever made of the serious health dangers that follow homosexual activity. And this on “smoke-free” campuses. Now it is the consequences of the vice that dare not speak their name.

Lenience toward homosexuality is only an aspect of the Dionysian frenzy that characterizes talk of human sexuality. Human persons need the sane and saving doctrine of the Catholic witness on homosexuality today more than ever. To give a stone where bread is asked for is unkind. The Church’s mission is not to conform to the world, but to stand in contradiction to it in order to save it. Given this seminal Catholic truth, AGLO is not saving anyone, and as such, deserves to be summarily condemned by Holy Mother Church. — Gary L. Morella, Catholic Activist

CAUTION: VERY DISTURBING. This is a woman who had her (healthy) breasts removed to appear like the transgender “man” she wants to be. “Transgender” is the “T” to which homosexual activists refer when they promote “GLBT youth.” The pro-family organization MassResistance took this photo during a recent June 7 “transgender pride” parade in Northampton, Massachusetts. Click HERE for the full MassResistance report on this perverse parade.

The shocking photo-story by our good friends at MassResistance is one of the most tragic things I have ever seen. Once before at a transgender conference in Washington, D.C., I witnessed the pitiful spectacle of “transgender men” — that is, women who want to become “men” — showing off their flattened chests after their healthy breasts were removed in accordance with their perceived “gender identity.”

My heart aches for this poor woman — yes, woman — who is so deceived that she has permanently mutilated her own body to pursue a false “gender identity.” This is what happens when (wo)man’s “feelings” and confusion — and ideology — are elevated above nature itself, not to mention God.

Just remember this photo when you read or hear about homosexual activists (or Oprah, for that matter) benignly advancing the idea of “transgender” youth. Is this healthy change? Is this progress? Is this something to be proud of? Should “transgendered” behavior become the basis for legal rights? Parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents: what would you say to a young woman in your extended family if she were to tell you that she does not consider herself female and she wants to pursue a male “identity”? Weren’t we better off in the old days when young people didn’t have so many choices? — Peter LaBarbera

P.S. The doctor who performed this “consensual” mutilation is guilty of exploiting and profiting off of gender confusion. Click here to read Amy Contrada’s in-depth report for MassResistance on “transgender rights”: “The Coming Nightmare of a ‘Transsexual Rights and Hate Crimes’ Law in Massachusetts: Why Bill H1722 Must Be Defeated”

______________________________

MassResistance writes June 18:

“Gay Pride Week” in Boston
Transgender parade: Public celebration by very disturbed people. Gruesome display of body mutilations.

Women with breasts cut off march shirtless in defiance of “homophobic” society. This is what your politicians, corporations, and schools are supporting

…

Gruesome public display of body mutilations:

This is where the transgender movement wants to take us. These women have purposefully had their breasts surgically cut off because they want to become men. Obviously, this surgery cannot be reversed. As a further act of defiance and expression of their anger at “transphobic” society, they remove their shirts and parade their scars in public. They also take huge amounts of male hormones. These people have very, very serious psychological issues.

Click HERE for the full MassResistance report with more photos.

This is a Point/Counterpoint on the question of whether Willow Creek Community Church (in South Barrington, Illinois) and other mega-churches should have met with the pro-homosexual activist group Soulforce, which aims to “cut off homophobia at its source – religious bigotry.” Below is a commentary by my good friend Sonja Dalton, who argues AGAINST such meetings. Click HERE to read an opposing column by Dr. Michael Brown, who says they can be used — with proper discernment — for Christian outreach.

We will allow each writer to respond to the other’s arguments, and welcome input from our readers, too; write us at americansfortruth@comcast.net. (Sorry, but we’re not interested in publishing pro-homosexuality pieces — there are plenty of “gay” websites for that.) Footnotes are at bottom:

_______________________________

Willow Creek Church Should Not Have Met with Soulforce

Point/Counterpoint [to read Michael Brown's opposing column, click HERE]

By Sonja Dalton

A fundamental question has been lost amid the sensation over the recent meeting between Willow Creek leadership and pro-homosexuality activists affiliated with the group Soulforce:

Did Pastor Bill Hybels have Biblical authority to welcome, meet with, and dine with Jay Bakker and Soulforce?

First, let’s examine who these Willow Creek “guests” [1] were…

Jay Bakker (right) is the cigarette-puffing, tattooed, punk-rocker son of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker; he’s the star of the Sundance Channel series “One Punk Under God” and “pastor” of the “gay”-affirming Revolution NYC [2]. He is quoted as having said:

“…I felt like God spoke to my heart and said ‘[homosexuality] is not a sin.’” [3]

(You might want to pencil that into your Bible, somewhere near Leviticus 18:22 or I Corinthians 6:9-11. Or not.)

On Sunday, June 8th, Bakker served as the “clergy leader” for “The American Family Outing” — a group of homosexual, bisexual, and transgender “families” who imposed themselves upon Bill Hybels and Willow Creek Community Church. These counterfeit “families” are, in fact, “queer” and allied activists associated with Soulforce [4], whose website states:

“The mission of Soulforce is to cut off homophobia at its source – religious bigotry…” [5]

The founder of Soulforce is Mel White, who left family and church to engage in homosexuality and who unabashedly preaches:

“I am gay. I am proud. And God loves me without reservation.” [6]

(The question is, Mel, do you love God? For Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep my commandments.” John the Baptist taught: “Whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”)

Jeff Lutes, Executive Director of Soulforce, plainly articulated the objective of their intrusion in a June 2nd press release (no longer posted online):

Soulforce wants pastors like Hybels to “exercise a new kind of leadership by speaking out for the safety and inclusion of our families.”

So, to review, we’re not talking about hurting, questioning, seeking, sinful unbelievers, but rather about:

• Jay Bakker, who claims to have a new revelation from God that homosexuality really isn’t sin after all,
• And Soulforce activists, who explicitly (and blasphemously) claim to be both “Christian” and proudly, defiantly, unrepentantly “gay” (and bi, and trans, and more?).

These folks weren’t coming to Willow Creek sorrowfully asking, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (as in Acts 2). Their stated mission was to coerce the church to embrace sexual sin.

What does the Bible have to say about such people?

The Apostle Paul instructed the church at Corinth:

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. — I Corinthians 5:9-11 (NIV)

And John the Elder instructed the churches:

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God… If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work. — II John 1:9-11 NIV

It doesn’t get much plainer. There is no Biblical authority for greeting or conversing with these people.

When Christian leaders justify welcoming, meeting with, or eating with Soulforce, they arrogantly substitute their own wisdom for that of inspired apostolic teaching. (“I will show compassion rather than judgment; I will convince them with my gentle speech.”) Let us humble ourselves: If the Holy Spirit hasn’t convicted a man’s heart, can Bill Hybels persuade him? No; the principle in II Thessalonians 3:14-15 teaches us to have nothing to do with rebellious brothers in order that, through exclusion from fellowship, they might feel shame and repent.

Jesus warned The Twelve to “be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” –– a warning that Willow Creek leadership would have been prudent to heed. As my cherished friend Abigail Ruth put it [7], in sitting down for a meal and dialogue with Soulforce, Hybels not only violated Scripture, but “[gave] the impression that the acceptance of homosexual behavior in the church is something worth discussing. Not to waste a good PR opportunity, Soulforce is predictably spinning the event for all it’s worth.”

I’d say. Read John (“Julie Marie”) Nemecek’s account HERE [8]. (Recognize that name? John was a married father of three sons, an ordained Baptist minister, an associate dean at Spring Arbor University… but now John takes hormones and dresses as a woman [9, 10, 11].) He reports that Willow Creek shared this understanding (punctuation errors as they appeared on his blog):

“(1) Sexual orientation is unchangeable. and (2) Sexual orientation should not keep someone from being received into their church. They acknowledged that 6 of the 7 verses used to condemn homosexuality are irrelevant; really referring to other things. Unfortunately, they still felt that one Genesis text supported their position that gay and lesbian members must commit to celibacy to become members.” [8]

(Mr. Nemecek, if Hybels loved your soul, he would have implored you to repent, for the Word teaches: “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.” – Deuteronomy 22:5.)

Paige Schilt, Soulfource’s media director, is quoted as saying:

“[Lutes asked Hybels if he] would take up the challenge of speaking more clearly on behalf of our community when he can — certainly as someone who believes that reparative ["ex-gay"] therapy doesn’t work and that sexual orientation of itself is not sinful. Even though there’s still distance between that position and our totally gay-affirming position, there’s still a lot he could do in terms of leadership on things that would create a lot more safety and protection for our community. And he responded really positively to Jeff’s offering that challenge to him.” [12]

From the same article:

According to Lutes, Hybels “has no trouble with people being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, and he does not believe it’s a choice.” [12]

Another Soulforce participant (mis-) characterized the weekend as “a testament to the power of the Holy Spirit to move people of good will in a common direction. We found important common ground with the church leadership and look forward to continuing our dialogue in the future.” [13]

Does Bill Hybels believe homosexuals are “born that way”? Does he ascribe to the concept of “sexual orientation”? Has he dispensed with six Bible passages? Since Willow Creek has yet to issue any statement on the meeting, I have no idea whether Hybels actually conveyed those beliefs or not. (I certainly hope not!) But at minimum, these reports testify to terribly poor discernment.

It is my prayer that other men in leadership would contemplate this instruction:

Be watchful, stand firm in the faith,
act like men, be strong.
– I Corinthians 16:13

And yes, as verse 14 continues: “Let all that you do be done in love.” Love that protects families and little children. Love that instructs confounded young people who have imbibed too many deceitful, erroneous messages from this wicked culture. Love that pleads with unbelievers whose hearts are yet tender toward God and, when confronted with Truth, might be snatched from the fire. And even love that grieves for these defiant souls, who must remain in Satan’s realm until the flesh submits to its Creator (I Corinthians 5:3-5).

Sonja Dalton writes, teaches Bible classes and workshops for women and children, and volunteers for Americans For Truth, Culture Campaign and several pro-life/pro-family organizations.

Source Materials:
1. www.soulforce.org/article/1340
2. www.revolutionnyc.com
3. www.radaronline.com/features/2006/12/empire_of_the_son_part_iii.php
4. www.soulforce.org
5. www.soulforce.org/article/7
6. www.soulforce.org/article/11
7. http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2008/06/homosexual-activists-heading-for-willow.html
8. http://julienemecek.blogspot.com/2008/06/soulforce-willow-creek-and-me_17.html
9. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/27/america/NA-GEN-US-Transgender-Professor.php
10. http://americansfortruth.com/news/john-becomes-julie-complains-over-firing-by-christian-school.html
11. http://julienemecek.com/
12. http://www.edgechicago.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=features&sc3=glbt&id=75795
13. http://www.queermessages.com/2008/06/08/soulforce-goes-to-willow-creek

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631.

TAKE ACTION: Contact WTTW online or through their main switchboard at 773-583-5000; ask for WTTW CEO/President is Dan Schmidt and/or Programming Director Dan Soles. Or you can call WTTW’s “Member Services” phone number at 773-509-1111, ext. 6 (between 9-5:00 Central); hit “6″ and you will get a live person; kindly communicate your opposition to WTTW’s pro-homosexual programming and the blatant anti-Christian bigotry that is part of it. Click HERE to find the PBS TV station in your area to check if they are engaged in the same “Gay Pride Month” biased programming and let us know what you find: americansfortruth@comcast.net.

__________________________________

AFTAH Condemns WTTW, PBS for Airing Anti-Christian Programming Celebrating Homosexuality During ‘Gay Pride Month’

NAPERVILLE, Illinois — Americans For Truth President Peter LaBarbera today accused the Chicago public TV station WTTW, and by extension the Public Broadcasting System, of using taxpayer monies to celebrate homosexuality and worse, air programs that displays flagrant anti-religious bigotry during “Gay Pride Month.”

“It is unconscionable that WTTW would show such blatant disregard for its faith- and tradition-minded viewers that it would use anti-Christian programs celebrating homosexuality for its fund-raising telethons,” LaBarbera said. “Public television must be impartial on controversial moral issues. We call on WTTW and PBS to balance their pro-homosexual programming with faith-based educational material from the other side, or stop it altogether.”

Last night (and apparently on June 1), WTTW used the documentary, “The Power of Harmony,” featuring the Dallas-based Turtle Creek Chorale, as a fund-raiser. It included:

• The homosexual men’s choir singing the song, “I Ain’t Afraid,” which contains the following refrain denigrating faithful Christians, Jews and Muslims: “I ain’t afraid of your Yahweh, I ain’t afraid of your Allah, I ain’t afraid of your Jesus, I’m afraid of what you do in the name of your God”;
• Repeated assertions that God made homosexuals that way and that portray Christians who disagree as hateful, ignorant or prejudiced. Said one homosexual man’s mother: “God created homosexuality. It’s just part of a person.” Historic Christian teaching holds that homosexual acts are sinful but that this behavior pattern – like other sinful lifestyles – can be overcome through faith in Christ;
• Testimonies by bitter “gay” men who despise and attack the religion of their upbringing because it does not sanction their lifestyle;
• A homosexual male couple adopting a Guatemalan baby.

WTTW’s 2007 Annual Report, shows that the Chicago station received $3,030,000 in Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants in Fiscal Year 2007 and a State of Illinois grant of $1,679,000.

WTTW’s airing of the anti-Christian “The Power of Harmony” comes during June, when homosexuals celebrate “Gay Pride Month.” This month, WTTW also repeatedly has aired another pro-homosexual documentary, “Out & Proud in Chicago,” as a telethon fund-raiser.

“WTTW talks a good game about diversity, but it shows profound disrespect for people of faith and real diversity with its bigoted, one-sided programming on homosexuality,” LaBarbera said. “We expect PBS and WTTW officials to fix this bias problem.”

Check out this fascinating nugget from a near-three-decades-old Time Magazine article on (pro-”gay”) sex researchers William Howell Masters and Virginia Johnson. Note the high success rate of homosexuals seeking change. This begs the question: why isn’t the potential for change for homosexuals studied in the academy today, or the environmental factors common in the development of homosexual identity? Instead, all we hear about are studies — many funded through taxpayer dollars — seeking to prove that homosexuality is genetic.

We already have ample proof that “gays” can change, despite the heated denials of fanatical (and very vocal) homosexual ideologues like Wayne Besen. Yet a stifling pro-homosexual political correctness hinders all inquiry into this part of the equation, which is sad, because many men and women with unwanted homosexual attractions could be helped through such research. Also, we know that homo-sexual behavior is very unhealthy (especially for men) — another subject worthy of government-subsidized research.

There are absolutely no logical or common-sense reasons why “changing-homosexuality” research and the environmental factors common in homosexual development should not be studied in the academy. It’s all about “gay” power and “gay” politics. AFTAH’s challenge to “queer” activists and their allies: what are you afraid will be discovered through such research? For the leading secular organization pursuing the reality of healthy change for homosexual men and women, see NARTH’s (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) website at www.narth.com. — Peter LaBarbera

From Time’s article, “Masters and Johnson on Homosexuality,” April 23, 1979 (emphasis added):

One of the book’s most unexpected findings did not come out of the homosexual research project, but from sex therapy provided for gays–itself something of a pioneering venture. Between 1968 and 1977 the researchers treated, for various sexual problems, 151 homosexuals, including 54 men and 13 women who wanted to convert or revert to heterosexuality. M & J do not list a success rate for such conversions, only a known failure rate. That failure rate is now at 35%, and is not expected to exceed 45% when all the five-year follow-ups are completed. For professional therapists, many of whom believe that such conversions are rare or impossible, this is likely to be the book’s most surprising statistic. It would mean that a permanent, or at least longterm, switch to heterosexuality is possible more than half the time among gays who are highly motivated to change.