Ellen DeGeneres is practicing lesbian behavior and she thinks it's OK. Does that give her any moral authority?

Theological/philosophical question for the day:

Is the rightness or wrongness of homosexual behavior dependent upon cultural acceptance of that behavior?

Modern application:

Does the fact that Ellen DeGeneres — a popular comedian, talk show host, and practicing lesbian — thinks homosexuality is OK make it OK?

Corollary question:

Do the condemnations by those who approve of homosexuality of those who do not (as “bigots,” “homophobes,” “haters,” etc.) have any moral authority?

Rephrased:

By what standard and authority is opposition to homosexual behavior deemed “immoral”?

From: Theresa [------------]
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Sent: Wed. 11/25/2009  8:30 AM

Subject: What a crock of [sh*t]
_______________________________________

“I think your group is immoral and extremely intolerant for saying that homosexuals are immoral. Who are you to judge these people. They are human beings. Homosexuality is determined in the womb. I\’d say your group is immoral and intolerant and a bunch of homophobes. You make me sick.”

– Theresa, writing via the AFTAH website, November 25, 2009

America is getting to know the real Barack Obama — and he’s a lot more radical than a 2008 presidential candidate by the same name. This aggressively pro-homosexual speech by Michelle Obama to the Democratic National Committee’s Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council (June 27, 2008) had only 56,805 views on YouTube as of August 7, 2009. Most Americans have never seen this side of Michelle Obama, just as most have not seen the side of her husband that celebrated America’s biggest abortion “provider,” Planned Parenthood, in a 2007 campaign speech. (That speech had only 84,875 views on YouTube as of Aug. 7.) Social liberals and “gay” activists will cheer this speech by Michelle; everyone else won’t recognize her vis-à-vis the “apolitical” First Lady described by the national media. (A transcript follows the video; emphasis and web links added.) — Peter LaBarbera

To put it in perspective: timeless truth from that “obscure” passage in the New Testament.–Ed.:

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (Romans 1:26-27)

_______________________________________

Incomplete transcript of Michelle Obama speech to DNC’s Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council, June 27, 2008 (emphasis and web links added):

Reprinted from TransGriot website: http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2008/06/michelle-obamas-remarks-to-dncs-gay-and.html

Thank you Howard Dean [then Democratic National Committee Chairman], for all your hard work building our party. We are proud to have you as our party Chairman. I want to recognize the members of UNITE HERE Local 6 who are working this event tonight. And thank you all for inviting me to spend some time with you.

I’m honored to be with you in a week that reminds us just how far we’ve come as a country. Five years ago today, the Supreme Court delivered justice with the decision in Lawrence v. Texas that same-sex couples would never again be persecuted through use of criminal law. And on Saturday, we recognize the anniversary of the day people stood up at Stonewall and said “enough.”

These anniversaries remind us that no matter who we are, or where we come from, or what we look like, we are only here because of the brave efforts of those who came before us. That we are all only here because of those who marched and bled and died, from Selma to Stonewall, in a pursuit of that more perfect union that is the promise of this country.

Over the course of this campaign, we’ve seen a fundamental change in the level of political engagement in this country. We’ve seen a renewed sense of possibility and a hunger for change. We’ve seen people of all ages and backgrounds investing time and energy like never before; writing $20, $30, $50 checks; investing for the first time ever in a political candidate. We’ve seen people talking to their neighbors about candidates and issues; working hard to clarify misperceptions; challenging one another to think differently about the world and our place in it.

It’s precisely this type of individual engagement and investment that has been the mission of my husband’s life. Barack has always believed that there is more in this country that unites us than divides us; that our common stories and struggles and values are what make this country great; that meaningful change never happens from the top down but from the bottom up.

I’ll never forget the first time I realized there was something special about Barack. It was nearly 20 years ago this summer. Barack and I were just getting to know one another, and he thought the best way for me to get to know him better was to get a better sense of the work he cared about most — his work as a community organizer.

He took me to a small church basement on the South Side of Chicago, where a group of neighborhood residents were gathered; folks he knew from his years as a community organizer before he went to law school. They were desperate for change. They were regular Americans struggling to build a decent life for themselves and their families. Single mothers living paycheck to paycheck; grandparents raising grandkids despite an income that wouldn’t allow it; men unable to support their families because jobs had disappeared when steel mills closed. Like most Americans, they didn’t want much; they weren’t asking for much: just dignity and respect.

I watched as Barack walked into the room, took off his jacket, rolled up his sleeves, and instantly connected with each and every person in that room. He spoke eloquently of “the world as it is” and “the world as it should be.” He said the key to change is understanding that our job as citizens of this nation is to work hard each and every day to narrow the gap between those two ideas. He explained that we often settle for the world as it is even if it doesn’t reflect our personal values. But he reminded us that it is only through determination and hard work that we slowly make the world as it is and the world as it should be one in the same. His words were powerful not only because they made us believe in him – they challenged each of us to believe in ourselves.

One of the many reasons I’m proud of the way Barack has handled himself in this campaign is that he is still the same man I fell in love with in that church basement. His unyielding belief in that simple idea – closing the gap between the world as it is and the world as it should be – is precisely why he’ll be a President you can be proud of.

Barack is not new to the cause of the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] community. It has been a conviction of his career since he was first elected to public office. In his first year in the Illinois State Senate, he cosponsored a bill amending the Illinois Human Rights Act to include protections for LGBT men and women. He worked on that bill for seven years, serving as chief cosponsor and lobbying his colleagues to reject the political expedience of homophobia and make LGBT equality a priority. In 2004, his efforts paid off as that bill finally became law, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace, in housing, and in public places.

He’s led on gender-based violence with his work on the Illinois Gender Violence Act, successfully reaching across the aisle to put in place the nation’s strongest law giving the survivors of sexual assault or domestic violence legal remedy against their attackers. He joined his colleagues in fighting to include explicit protections for the LGBT community in that act. He lost that battle, but his efforts brought gender violence in the LGBT community into the political consciousness like never before.

In 2004, after hearing from gay friends and supporters about the hurtful impact of DOMA, Barack went on record during his U.S. Senate race calling for its complete repeal. And as a U.S. Senator, he voted to protect our Constitution from the stain of discrimination by voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Barack’s record is clear. There is so much at stake in this election. The direction of our country hangs in the balance. We are faced with those two clear choices: The world as it is, and the world as it should be. We have to ask ourselves: Are we willing to settle for the world as it is or are we willing to work for the world as it should be?

Despite the extraordinary challenges we face today, we have a candidate who believes that the country is moving in the right direction, despite the inequalities created over the last 8 years.

And then we have Barack Obama, who believes that we must fight for the world as it should be.

A world where together we work to reverse discriminatory laws like DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

A world where LGBT Americans get a fair shake at working hard to get ahead without workplace discrimination.

A world where our federal government fully protects all of us — including LGBT Americans — from hate crimes.

And, a world where our federal laws don’t discriminate against same-sex relationships, including equal treatment for any relationship recognized under state law.

A world that recognizes that equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights is not some abstract principle; it’s about whether millions of LGBT Americans can finally live lives marked by dignity and freedom. Barack has made crystal clear his commitment to ensuring full equality for LGBT couples. That is why he supports robust civil unions. That is why he has said that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide for themselves how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. And that is why he opposes all divisive and discriminatory constitutional amendments – whether it’s a proposed amendment to the California and Florida Constitutions or the U.S. Constitution. Because the world as it should be rejects discrimination.

But, it’s not just about the positions you take, it’s also about the leadership you provide.

Barack’s got the courage to talk to skeptical audiences; not just friendly ones. That’s why he told a crowd at a rally in Texas that gays and lesbians deserve equality. Now, the crowd got pretty quiet. But Barack said “now, I’m a Christian, and I praise Jesus every Sunday.” And the crowd started cheering. Then he said, “I hear people saying things that I don’t think are very Christian with respect to people who are gay and lesbian.” And you know what? The crowd kept cheering.

That’s why he told evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback church that we need a renewed call to action on HIV and AIDS.

That’s why he went to Ebenezer Baptist Church and said that we need to get over homophobia in the African-American community; that if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll embrace our gay brothers and sisters instead of scorning them. And that’s why he stood up at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and told all of America that we refuse to be divided anymore.

That’s the choice in this election. Between slipping backward and moving forward. Between being timid or being courageous. Between fighting for the world as it should be, or settling for the world as it is.

My husband is running for President to build an America that lives up to the ideals written into our Constitution. We have just come through a historic primary election where a woman and a black man were running to become President of the United States. It hasn’t been painless, but change never is. As I travel this country, I am certain that we have arrived at a moment in our collective history where we are ready to move forward and create the “world as it should be.”

I know which world Barack will fight for each and every day as your President. But he can’t do it alone. As he said in that church basement, change happens when ordinary people are ready to take the reins of their own destiny. He needs you by his side every step of the way. That kind of change won’t be easy. There will be powerful forces who believe that things should stay just the way they are.

That’s where you come in. Your voices of truth and hope and of possibility have to drown out the skeptics and the cynics.

If you stand with my husband; if you reach for what is possible and if you refuse to let this chance get away; we can begin building that better world in November.

Thank you.

Folks, I sent the following e-mail to FOX’s late-night “Red Eye” host Greg Gutfeld, and cc’d to guests Marc Lamont Hill and Monica Crowley:

From:  Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
To:  Greg Gutfeld, host of FOX’s “Red Eye” [redeye@foxnews.com]; (guest) Prof. Marc Lamont Hill; Monica Crowley (FOX commentator and also a guest on that segment)
Date:  March 30, 2009

Greg [Gutfeld] and FOX “Red Eye” Crew…

…. I caught the tail end of the segment on tonight’s Red Eye where Prof. Marc Lamont Hill was lecturing us about “homophobia” – comparing gay sexual content with straight sexual content. So, does the ever-expanding definition of that tendentious term now cover all those who don’t want to see two men kissing on TV, or those who recoil at two guys engaged in “gay” foreplay on the big screen? Then guess what: we’re all “homophobes” now except for a small percentage of homosexuals and straight “progressives.” (Note that use of the latter term is curiously conditional on labeling as “progress” the embrace of aberrant sex linked disproportionately to STDs, including HIV; the CDC reports that a full 71 percent of male HIV cases in 2005 were linked to MSM, or “men having sex with men”: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm.)

How condescending and pompous of Dr. Hill to peer into each of our hearts and minds and diagnose us with irrational fear (“phobia”). I didn’t see the rest of the segment — could you please post it online? — but please, please, don’t tell me that FOX is now joining the legions of pseudo-moralists who judge anyone who doesn’t celebrate homosexuality or cheerlead for “same-sex marriage” as somehow fearful, bigoted and hateful.

Enough already. Gay sex is wrong, unhealthy (especially between men), and my hunch is it’s still pretty off-putting to most FOX viewers who are honest with themselves. And that’s OK. But I’ll go further: if there is a growing acceptance of homo-sexual behavior, especially among young people, that’s not a good thing but a sign of America’s descent into decadence, and our departure from a transcendent Judeo-Christian moral code that has served this nation well.

Please note that I’m cc’ing Dr. Hill on this message, but if you reach him before I do, please tell him to go ahead and report me to the anti-Christian “defamers” over at GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) for my heartlessly homophobic and horribly heterosexist defense of … normalcy and natural sex. Thanks–pl

(I run a Chicago-based group that opposes the homosexual, bisexual and transsexual activist movements.)

Peter LaBarbera

President
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
www.aftah.org

_________________________________________

By Laurie Higgins
First published Feb. 25, 2009 by Illinois Family Institute

Wayne Besen said this visual target graphic representing homosexual activists targeting traditional marriage — in a video produced by the Family Policy Council of West Virginia — turned the video into a “violent ad.” At bottom is an excerpt of the narration of the video surrounding the portion with the “target” graphic.

Wayne Besen, former spokesman for the subversive homosexual activist Human Rights Campaign and founder of the hate organization Truth Wins Out, apparently can’t make a distinction between a domestic terrorist threat and — a metaphor.

Besen has a West Virginia marriage initiative in his sights. He sees in this utterly benign video by The Family Policy Council of West Virginia a nefarious sniper threat. Please watch the video that has so terrorized Besen and that is more like an episode of The Waltons than 24:  http://www.wvformarriage.com/ [Click on YouTube above to watch video.]

His claim is both idiotic and comical. In one frame of this video, we see the nuclear family through the sight of a gun, which is a commonplace metaphor that means that someone or something is taking aim at or opposing something.  Is Besen actually claiming that society should prohibit the use of this metaphor? Will society tolerate this kind of intrusive censorship? And is Besen claiming that he and his collaborators don’t have traditional marriage and the natural family in their crosshairs?

I can’t think of a more serious domestic threat to fundamental First Amendment rights than that which is posed by homosexualists who seek to circumscribe both speech and religious rights if the exercise of those rights impedes their unholy march toward compulsory approval of homosexual behavior.

As I’ve mentioned before and will likely mention again, Georgetown University lesbian law professor, Chai Feldblum, has stated that when same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights.

Public school libraries engage in virtual absolute censorship of all books that espouse conservative perspectives on homosexuality, all the while accumulating a horde of pro-homosexual books that would make Midas envious.

Public schools expose students to resource after resource in context after context that affirm the view that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality while never offering resources that challenge that view.

Anti-discrimination policies that include the term “sexual orientation” are being used to prohibit people of faith from acting according to their consciences. Because we, in our ignorance, apathy, and cowardice, permitted this term to be included in anti-discrimination policy, schools can’t fire administrators and teachers who have elective amputations of healthy body parts and cross-dress.

And now, homosexual activists have metaphors in their sights.

____________________________________

Here is an excerpt of the narration from the pro-traditional-marriage video by the Family Policy Council of West Virginia, in the portion surrounding the “target” graphic:

“Marriage between a man and a woman is held up as the ideal in all of civilized society because its profound stabilizing effects on our culture, as well as the important economic benefits of strong and intact families. ["Target" graphic begins here] But today that ideal is under an unrelenting attack as same-sex marriage in West Virginia is a closer reality than you may think [target graphic ends]. Thirty states have already passed constitutional amendments defining marriage but activists outside our state are aggressively targeting the remaining 20, including West Virginia — working tirelessly to redefine marriage away from God’s design to favor the desires of adults over the needs of children for the naturally balanced model of a mother and a father. The push for SSM has produced an historical crisis for the church. Today in courtrooms across the country in decisions as recent as last month, our constitutional guarantee of religious liberty is going toe to toe with an aggressive social agenda, and the Church is losing….”

Send To Phone

Who could not have been moved by FOX News commentator Juan Williams (left) tearing up as he described how he never thought he would see this day when a fellow African American would rise to the highest office in the land? President Obama is a testimony to America as a land of freedom and opportunity, but he is wrong to oppose pro-life laws restricting abortion and to equate his radical pro-homosexual agenda — already posted on the White House website — with genuine “civil rights.” 

By Peter LaBarbera

Today we get back to dealing with policy but yesterday we celebrated America. Our differences with President Barack Obama are significant [read AFTAH Board Member Matt Barber's statement on Obama's newly published, radical "LGBT" agenda HERE]– and many of the claims being made about him are ridiculous, such as when one TV commentator said yesterday that Obama “transcends the culture wars” — but in this moment we cherish what is good and great about the United States.

It is astonishing to behold — in a nation that once allowed the shipment of slaves from Africa, bound in shackles and shipped across the Atlantic like cargo, then sold in auctions like cattle — the induction of the first man of African ancestry as President of the United States. Who can doubt that this is truly a land of freedom and opportunity, where anyone who works hard can succeed and where goodness (in this case, the triumph over centuries of racism) can prevail through struggle and democratic reform?

We don’t walk in their shoes, so it is impossible for white people to understand the joy of Blacks in seeing history made yesterday. Who could not be moved by FOX News commentator Juan Williams tearing up as he described how he never thought he would see this day when a fellow African American would rise to the highest office in the land? It was a patriotic moment.

On Election Day 2008, I served as a Republican poll-watcher in Aurora, Illinois, and I will never forget the beaming faces of African Americans, especially older people voting for the first time. One woman who appeared to be in her late thirties or early forties excitedly inquired as to how to cast her ballot; she was a first-time voter and could barely contain her happiness and pride. Later, a black man stepped in front of the election judges and proclaimed: “I’m here to vote for BARACK OBAMA!” For a moment ideology went out the window and my heart was warmed by these citizens of color seeing their American dream fulfilled in a way they never thought possible.

Most of us have seen racism in action and many have also experienced it. Yes, racism is a two-way street, but whites who are occasionally treated rudely or otherwise mistreated by Blacks cannot compare that to the history of institutional oppression that Blacks have had to overcome in America. (That’s no excuse of black racism.) In college, one of my roommates, who is white, fell in love with a beautiful African-American girl. On his wedding day, his best man boycotted the ceremony because of her skin color. Today, my college buddy and his wife have a wonderful family — and they would reject the notion that somehow their interracial marriage should in any way be compared to or used to rationalize homosexual “marriage.”

Are we like past racists?

This brings me to the argument — or we should say a slander — put forth by the Social Left that opponents of homosexual agenda (i.e., the “Religious Right”) are the “racists” of today — as if pro-family advocates would be defending Jim Crow in an another era. (Occasionally in moments of weakness and doubt, some on our side buy into this nonsense.) One liberal publisher of a magazine that purports to promote corporate “diversity” even equated this writer with a 19th Century preacher who used the Bible to justify slavery. This is a calumny against people of faith, including African Americans, who favor the natural, created moral order — based upon the complementarity of the sexes.

We’ve said it many times and will keep on saying it: homosexual behavior — changeable, sinful and unhealthy — has nothing whatsoever to do with race. Racial/ethnic diversity is good; sexual “diversity” is wrong when it attempts to legitimize unnatural sex and sex outside of marriage. If the race-homosexuality (or racist-”homophobe”) analogy were correct, how does one explain my great satisfaction in that portion of Obama’s ascendancy that thrusts a spear into the heart of racism? And I am not alone; in my 20-plus years as a conservative activist, I have only rarely met a fellow conservative or Christian (or religious person) for whom race — rather than ideology or policy — is a deciding factor in assessing politicians. In fact, if anything, most pro-family friends I know are eager to support Black conservatives.

As a kid growing up in mostly white middle-class suburbs of Chicago and then Detroit, I came to hate racism — due partly to being educated on slavery, Jim Crow, and the civil rights movement but also due to a type of “liberal white guilt.” By that I mean the part of me that cheers racial progress and roots for the underdog. I became, like many educated whites, a bit of a bleeding heart on race. One of our family’s favorite movies is “Remember the Titans,” starring Denzel Washington, which uses football to teach about racial harmony. It’s embellished history, but I love it. There is a terrific scene where the two defensive stars in a forcibly integrated Virginia school — one black, one white — finally put their racist attitudes aside and gel as a defensive unit. Ultimately, they become close, lifelong friends. In another scene, Washington, playing the black coach, lectures his white assistant coach for coddling the black players but not the white ones. Thus, even this movie makes the point that true equality will come only when Blacks do not receive special treatment but are treated like everybody else.

We’re probably not even close to living in an America where race doesn’t matter. Surely race affected the liberal media’s coddling of Obama, but much of their love affair with the Obama derives from his liberal agenda. (His “coolness” helped, too.) The question in my mind is: when will the media and liberals get over their own biases and bigotry and give black Christian conservatives a fair shake? Can you imagine a Republican black conservative candidate for president getting the kid glove treatment from media that Obama received? Remember how the media savaged Clarence Thomas?

Homosexuals grab the “civil rights” mantle

The American maturation on race — e.g., the growing acceptance of interracial couples — is a good thing. So it’s no surprise that homosexual activists would seek to grab the “civil rights” mantle for themselves. But there is a key difference between their cause and the genuine civil rights movement: the latter strove against a sin: racism; the former promotes sin — i.e., the acceptance of homo-sexual behavior (which God calls “detestable”) — and radically redefining marriage and family.

But what about “gays”? Don’t they experience discrimination? The problem arises when homosexual activists falsely claim that — like skin color — their sexual desires are unchangeable and the basis for government-backed rights. The whole concept of “sexual orientation,” which seeks to take responsibility away from people for their sinful choice to embrace homosexual practice, violates Scripture, natural law, and thousands of years of Judeo-Christian history. And now we are facing a battle between “gay rights” and the rest of Americans’ freedom of religion, which includes the right to act on one’s belief that homosexual behavior is wrong.

It’s so uncool to say so in the Age of Obama, but it’s still true: a healthy society “discriminates” against homosexuality and other destructive sins; a deteriorating culture promotes sin. Thankfully, thousands of men and women have successfully abandoned the homosexual lifestyle, giving true hope to men and women struggling with this sexual sin.

Egalitarian “gay” activists demand that their (relationships be treated exactly like normal marriages. Give us “marriage equality!” they cry. Problem is, there is no “equality” between the natural family and traditional marriage — and the homosexual variety, which is missing one of the sexes. Homosexual sex, especially between men, is much riskier than normal sex — so much so that our federal government bans blood donations from men who’ve engaged in gay sodomy — and even women who have had sex with a ‘man who has had sex with a man.’ To pretend that homosexuality is equivalent to civil rights in the law only encourages men and women to embrace this destructive and immoral lifestyles. To do so in our schools only leads impressionable children into immoral and risky behaviors.

Thus, it is entirely consistent from a moral, justice and faith perspective to both oppose racial injustice and support the primacy in law and culture of the natural, mother-father family and God-ordained marriage.

It is not consistent with Christianity, however, to equate racism with “homophobia,” as the Left in its arrogance and ignorance now does as a matter of faith (in much the same way that it marches in lockstep for unrestricted killing of unborn babies abortion-on-demand). That activst term “homophobe” has become a catch-all to demonize anyone who opposes the homosexual political and cultural agenda — including African Americans, who surveys and election results show have a greater moral opposition to homosexuality and “gay marriage” than whites.

So I am happy that Barack Obama shattered the presidential color barrier and I will be praying for him. But in the spirit of true racial equality I am going to fight his no-hope campaign to repeal pro-life laws restricting abortion and his administration’s attempt to enact the homosexual lobby’s bogus “civil rights” agenda — in exactly the same way I would if Obama were a white liberal.

Political Indoctrination Replaces Education in Wisconsin English Class

1/14/2009 7:22:00 AM
By Laurie Higgins, DSA Director -Illinois Family Institute

I’m speechless. I’m also beginning to understand how a homosexuality-affirming middle school was by default approved by the Milwaukee Board of Education. Wisconsin public schools are permitting radical ideologues to use public money to promote their subversive, unproven moral conclusions and political goals about homosexuality. These propagandists, who should be teaching history or literature or writing, are instead pursuing their illegitimate goals of transforming the views of other people’s children on the contentious issue of homosexuality.

Here is the most recent manifestation of educational malpractice:

Sarah Arnold who teaches 11th grade English in the Elkhorn, Wisconsin area, generously shares with readers of Teaching Tolerance, a publication of the social justice organization Southern Poverty Law Center, her grand sexual re-education scheme. Disturbed that her students “cracked jokes about anything that defied gender stereotypes,” she embarked on a 37-day indoctrination program to transform her students’ views on homosexuality — a 37-day unit. The average school year is 180 days, and she spent 37 of them on homosexuality.

Here are some of the activities from the unit she titled, “Exposing Hidden Homophobia”:

• Students “conducted an in-depth exploration of depictions of the GLBTQ community in the mass media”
• Students “watched the film Trevor (about the struggle of a gay teen in the Bible Belt in the 1970s)”
• Students “viewed a PBS special about the anti-gay murder of Billy Jack Gaither”
• Students “did Internet research on the nature of homophobia”
• Students “selected and read a book from a short list of young adult works about gay issues” (including Rainbow Boys, Rainbow High, Rainbow Road, Getting It, A Tale of Two Summers, The Laramie Project, So Hard to Say, Geography Club, Alone in the Trenches)

ARTICLE continues at: http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34214

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.

By blasting Obama for choosing Rick Warren as an Inaugural speaker — and demonizing Warren as a “homophobe” because he supported Prop 8 — homosexual activists are showing the world just how empty their “tolerance” ideology really is. Click on photo to enlarge.

Here’s an outstanding release from Pastor Bryan Fischer with the Idaho Values Alliance, an affiliate of American Family Association. Poor Barack Obama: he’s promised the world to one of the most demanding and unreasonable special interest movements on the planet. Imagine blasting the gregarious Warren as a “homophobe” because he supported Prop 8 in California. (Note the incredibly elastic, ever-expanding definition of homophobia.) Our favorite lesbian blog-stremist Pam Spaulding chastises Warren for his “sad bigotry” HERE and hits Warren for “bigotry, small-mindedness and downright ignorance” (Pam and friends know a thing or two about small-mindedness).

We agree with Bryan about the vaguely threatening nature of this quote by the hypocritical Joe Solmonese, head of the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign:

Bizarrely, Solomonese says that Warren has “repeated the Religious Right’s big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors.” He appears blind to the obvious fact that that’s exactly what he is trying to do here – put a muzzle on one of America’s leading pastors, proving that it’s hardly a lie at all.

Ominously, Solomonese told Politico, “There is a lot of energy and there’s a lot of anger and I think people are wanting to direct it somewhere.” If that sounds like a threat to you, I won’t disagree.

Also, note that Tolerant Joe embodies the evil nexus of the abortion and homosexuality movements: “Solmonese is the former Chief Executive Officer of EMILY’s List, where he oversaw one of the nation’s prominent pro-choice [read: pro-abortion] Democratic political action committees” (Wikipedia).

People are finally waking up to the truth: that the homosexual activist lobby is to tolerance and diversity what Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is to honest government. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Below is the Idaho Values Alliance release (write them at contact@idahovaluesalliance.com):

_________________________________________

Bryan Fischer, Executive Director, Idaho Values Alliance, 12-18-09

Voices of Tolerance, Diversity, Multiculturalism Come Unglued

Prediction: for the first time in American history, a speaker at a presidential inauguration may be booed unmercifully, and his remarks completely drowned out by angry jeers from an incensed crowd. We may even see shoes tossed at the inauguration platform by the hundreds. It could be a modern day lynching, only this time the victim of a vigilante mob will be proverbially strung up not because of skin color but creed.

Liberals in general and homosexual activists in particular claim to be all about tolerance, diversity, pluralism, multiculturalism and respect for differences.

Well, their commitment to those values has just been challenged by President-elect Barack Obama, and they have failed the test miserably.

Obama’s criminal offense is that, in a move that ought be celebrated by all who claim that America’s strength is found in its embrace of diversity, he picked an evangelical pastor who supports natural marriage and the sanctity of life to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.

Rick Warren of Saddleback Church has been tabbed for the task, despite the fact he openly supported Prop. 8, which elevated protection for one-man, one-woman marriage into the California constitution.

Said Warren during the campaign for Prop. 8, “For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion – not just Christianity -has defined marriage as a contract between men and women. There is no need to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population … This is not a political issue – it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about.”

Warren also said, in a recent interview with Beliefnet, that he is opposed to those who say that abortion should be “safe and rare.”

“Don’t tell me it should be rare. That’s like saying on the Holocaust, ‘Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that’ – I’m not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended.”

A sample of what the press is calling “universally negative” outrage from the gay rights crowd:

Kathryn Kolbert of People for the American Way: Warren “doesn’t … deserve this position of honor.” She adds that someone who has “consistent mainstream American values” rather than someone so “radical” should have been picked instead.

Note to Ms. Kolbert: Prop. 8 got the same percentage of votes in California that Obama got nationwide. I guess that means natural marriage is at least as “mainstream” as Obama is, Kathryn.

Sarah Posner of the “Nation” magazine: “Now it (Democratic outreach to evangelicals) has gone too far.”

Joe Solomonese of the Human Rights Campaign to Obama: “[You] have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.” The selection, he says, is a “genuine blow to LGBT Americans,” and added, “We feel a deep level of disrespect when one of the architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination.”

Bizarrely, Solomonese says that Warren has “repeated the Religious Right’s big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors.” He appears blind to the obvious fact that that’s exactly what he is trying to do here – put a muzzle on one of America’s leading pastors, proving that it’s hardly a lie at all.

Ominously, Solomonese told Politico, “There is a lot of energy and there’s a lot of anger and I think people are wanting to direct it somewhere.” If that sounds like a threat to you, I won’t disagree.

Solomonese throws Warren’s support for the sanctity of human life into the mix as another unforgivable sin that should disqualify him from public prayer.

Gay rights activist Rick Jacobs: “It’s a huge mistake. (Warren’s) really the wrong person to lead the president into office. His presence on the inauguration stand is a slap in the faces of the millions of GLBT voters who so enthusiastically supported him. This tone-deafness to our concerns must not be tolerated. We have just endured eight years of endless assaults on our dignity and equality from a president beholden to bigoted conservative Christians. The election was supposed to have ended that era. It appears otherwise.”

Gawker.com: Warren is “yet one more in a long and historic line of American Huckster Ministers, but he’s still a right-wing crank in mainstream clothing.”

The Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper: “Obama’s first big mistake.”

Obama’s spokesman (generic use) gamely defended the choice, saying, “This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history.”

(But lest evangelicals take too much encouragement from Obama’s decision, his spokesman was quick to say that “The president-elect certainly disagrees with (Warren) on [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] issues.”)

There are several lessons here.

1. One, the tolerance crowd has tolerance only for people who agree with them. They are blindly and hypocritically intolerant to the point of tyranny toward advocates of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
2. Two, homosexual activists really are out to silence the voice of evangelical Christians. They want Warren muzzled and driven off the platform, and my guess is that they will boo him off if Obama doesn’t pull him off first. Unless cooler heads prevail, we may see the exercise of a heckler’s veto like we have never seen before. Imagine the sound of 4 million people booing in unison, and you’ve got a picture of what may happen at the inauguration ceremony…We have only seen the beginning of this saga. There is just no way left-wing activist groups are done putting pressure on Obama to repent in dust and ashes. They will be relentless until he recants, and make him pay if he doesn’t.
3. Three, this shows the utter emptiness of homosexual advocacy of pluralism and multiculturalism. If they really believed that stuff, they would be celebrating the most inclusive inaugural ceremony in American history. But they won’t because they don’t. Their circle of inclusiveness is far too narrow, tiny and small to have a place in it for conservative Christians.
4. Four, it doesn’t matter how gracious you are, if you take a stand for natural marriage you will be labeled a hatemonger and a bigot. Warren is about as gracious, compassionate, jovial and kind as you can get. Fat lot of good that has done for him with the tolerance crowd.

In the worldview of homosexual activists, “loving the sinner, hating the sin” is simply Sunday School bigotry.

This affair gives the lie to the accusation – even shared by many naïve Christians – that Christians are hated on this issue because we are condemning and hateful. Warren is neither, and look what they’re doing to him.

We as Christians certainly should continue to be gracious, open-hearted and courteous to all, including homosexual activists. I have always treated them with kindness and friendliness, and I have a fondness and affection for many of them I’ve met. But it is foolish to think this will cause them to like us in return. Disagreement is not hatred – but try telling that to them.

Liberals Outraged Over Inaugural Preacher

Obama backers slam his pick of Rick Warren

Newsmax.com – Liberals Outraged Over Rick Warren’s Obama Invocation

Obama’s Rev. Warren Inaugural Pick Sparks Gay Fury – FOXNews.com

Obama’s inaugural choice sparks outrage

Gay leaders furious with Obama – Ben Smith and Nia-Malika Henderson – Politico.com

LAist: Inauguration Team for Obama Stirs Prop 8 Fears After Choosing OC Pastor

IVA IN THE BLOGOSPHERE:

Free Speech Blazing: Proof The Planned Parenthood Is A Racist Organization

If you value the work of the IVA, please consider a donation today. Information on how to donate, including online, may be found HERE. Thank you!