Below is an excellent column by Joel Belz, founder of WORLD magazine, answering some of the current Christian gibberish critical of believers who fight for Truth in the public square. (Click HERE for the full column in WORLD.) While we’re at it, here are 20 more good reasons why Christians (or anyone) should never feel guilty about a single-minded focus in countering the homosexual/transsexual activist and pro-abortion lobbies:

1. Human Rights Campaign (largest pro-homosexual PAC);
2. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force;
3. Lambda Legal;
4. NARAL Pro-Choice American (formerly National Abortion Rights Action League, which cruelly defends even later-term abortions).
5. GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation;
6. GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network);
7. NOW (they manage to promote both lesbianism and abortion-on-demand);
8. MTV (obnoxious in its one-sided promotion of homosexuality, bisexuality, etc.);
9. Soulforce and other Bible-twisting, “queer theology”-promoting groups;
10. Radical, reason-challenged, pro-homosexual websites like young Jeremy Hooper’s Good As You blog, Wayne (“Anything But Straight”) Besen’s ‘ex-gay’-hating Truth Wins Out, and lesbian Pam (“Jeebus”) Spaulding’s Pam’s House Blend;
11. National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association;
12. EMILY’s List (a pro-abortion PAC)
13. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (working to open up the military to homosexuals);
14. ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project;
15. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
16. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
17. Tim Gill (homosexual money-man)
18. Pro-homosexual activist groups like Equality Illinois fighting in all 50 states for radical legislation that undermines marriage;
19. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
20. PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians & Gays), a radical pro-homosexual group.

_______________________________

Belz writes for WORLD:

Stop Apologizing!
It’s not always wrong to be a “single-issue” advocate

It’s become an increasingly frequent reminder to us evangelical Christians not to let our cultural identity be framed by “single issues.”

It was a reminder implicitly included in the “Evangelical Manifesto,” a document whose basic content we at WORLD have applauded but whose political direction I questioned in our last issue. Why are the Manifesto’s backers so ready to join the cultural left in suggesting a guilt trip for those evangelicals who have been preoccupied with the evils of abortion and same-sex marriage?

And if some argue that the rising generation of younger evangelicals is a bit embarrassed by what they think is an out-of-balance focus by their elders, and thinks it’s time to get equally exercised over issues like racism, economic justice, and the environment—well, if that’s the case with our twentysomethings and our teenagers, then maybe we need to go to work and do a better job of explaining to them why we’ve put the emphasis where we have for the last generation and why we believe that it’s time not to lower our voices.

Evangelicals shouldn’t be embarrassed to say boldly and clearly: Abortion and same-sex marriage are uniquely heinous sins. They rattle the foundations of a civilized society. They take a culture in a dreadful direction. We haven’t been wrong to say so. We aren’t fanatics.

Click HERE to read Belz’ entire column in WORLD

Savage is not a Christian — I once heard a fascinating interview he did with the late Jerry Falwell in which he respectfully disagreed with the Gospel — but in many respects he puts Christians to shame with his frank truth-telling about our American culture, which is on life-support, morally and religiously speaking. In a country where even self-professed evangelical Christian leaders and Catholic bishops are now joining the “gay-positive” bandwagon (see this item on evangelicals Tony and Peggy Campolo, and this one ), sometimes it takes an outsider to tell the hard truths. One of those truths is that pro-homosexual activists have indeed invade the schools and youth culture (MTV is now a “gaycame in and indoctrinated a nation of children in a couple of generations, while mom and dad were at work saving up for their plasma TVs.

You can contact Savage here:

Michael Savage Is Right — Children’s Minds Are Being Raped by the Homosexual Mafia

Savage: “The children’s minds are being raped by the homosexual mafia”

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806180005

Responding to a caller who said, “I had to explain to my young son why these two men were holding hands the other day,” radio host Michael Savage stated, during the June 16 broadcast of The Savage Nation, “You’ve got to explain to the children … why God told people this was wrong.” He went on to say, “You have to explain this to them in this time of mental rape that’s going on. The children’s minds are being raped by the homosexual mafia, that’s my position. They’re raping our children’s minds.”

During a discussion about gay marriage with a previous caller, Savage said: “It’s not a joke when you pervert an institution like marriage, which is in trouble enough. It’s not a joke.” He added, “Our children are being destroyed by this.” He went on to say of gay marriage, “It’s a very important story. The children don’t know what to make of it. Children nine, 10 are saying, ‘I’m gay.’ They don’t know what it even means.” He added: “It’s a giant propaganda machine trying to pervert children.”

Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage’s show, claims that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. The Savage Nation reaches at least 8.25 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.

From the June 16 edition of Talk Radio Network’s The Savage Nation:

SAVAGE: San Francisco, Tina, welcome to The Savage Nation.

CALLER: Well, you make a really good point, Michael, and you have a great show, but I still think that you’re not wise in being so adamant about these gay marriages. What difference does it make what they do? You’re going to work yourself to a big heart attack like Tim Russert and –

SAVAGE: No, I won’t work myself into a big heart attack. I’ll tell you why: because the truth will set me free. It always has.

CALLER: But –

SAVAGE: Aren’t you tired of the propaganda that every newspaper you pick up today shows old, ugly women getting married?

CALLER: Well, as a matter of fact, yes, I think that should be a private thing. But I also think –

SAVAGE: Well, why do you suppose every newspaper in America is showing this story?

CALLER: They have an agenda, of course, but still –

SAVAGE: Well, I have an obligation as a social commentator to say enough is enough, I’ve had enough of it. Just as I had enough of the Tim Russert worship on Friday. I had enough of it. I had enough of Obama a year ago — he looks like Alfred E. Neuman to me.

CALLER: It’s a joke, whether you’re gay or straight, it’s mostly a joke, but the thing is we don’t want you to get all –

SAVAGE: It’s not a joke when you steal an institution as fragile as marriage and you pervert it with a mockery. It’s not a joke. It’s not a joke when you pervert an institution like marriage, which is in trouble enough. It’s not a joke. Our children are being destroyed by this.

CALLER: Well –

SAVAGE: I disagree with you totally. It’s a very important story. The children don’t know what to make of it. Children nine, 10 are saying, “I’m gay.” They don’t know what it even means. It’s a giant propaganda machine trying to pervert children. That’s my opinion.

Monterrey, California. Tom, what’s you’re opinion?

CALLER: Yes, I’m calling from the People’s Republic of Monterrey, and I had to explain to my young son why these two men were holding hands the other day and he said, “Dad, didn’t they say that that’s wrong in the Bible?” And I said, “Yes, they did, and yes it’s wrong” and yes to everything that he had to say about it. And I told him, I said, “That’s the wrongest thing you’ve ever seen besides the rest of the politicians and the media and CNBC.” Because –

SAVAGE: You’ve got to try to explain to the children why the — why God told people this was wrong. You’ve got to explain to them, to the children, how it twists everything. Just take them down to a duck pond and show them a boy duck and a girl duck and then show the ducklings and say to them, “There must be a boy duck and a girl duck for there to be babies.” It’s the same with a dog, puppies come from a mother duck — a mother pup, a mother dog. There needs to be a boy dog and a girl dog. You have to explain this to them in this time of mental rape that’s going on. The children’s minds are being raped by the homosexual mafia, that’s my position. They’re raping our children’s minds.

CALLER: I’m not buying into it, which is — I found was pretty neat, but, hey I enjoy your show, keep –

SAVAGE: Well, good, unless somebody else does. Well, OK, you don’t care about it. To me it matters. To me it matters. It’s just that the media is afraid of them or owned by them, and everyone’s catering to them. It’s like catering to Al Sharpton. You see the story that came out on him? You haven’t seen the story all over the media? Can’t report it, why? Because he’s not a white man? So suddenly he’s allowed to do things to companies like Jesse Jackson did for years — without producing a product or a service? Just by threatening a boycott, they give him money? Well there was a name for it when Al Capone was around. I guess that’s gone, gone with the wind, everyone’s afraid in the corporate world, plus it’s not their money anyway. They’re not playing with their money, they’re playing with your money. So the CEOs who run the companies do whatever they want to do with the money including buying off potential boycotts.

Nobody ever charged MTV — which has relentlessly promoted “alternate” sexual lifestyles — with caring about Biblical morality. But how tragic that a top video youth network would stoop to using bisexuality to titillate its audience in the quest for viewers.

Advice to parents:  if you have cable, don’t allow a TV in your kids’ rooms; better yet, find a way to kick MTV out of your house altogether. – Peter LaBarbera

AP reports today from Los Angeles: 

MTV to air bisexual dating show
‘A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila’ airs Oct. 9

A bisexual dating show featuring a woman who gained fame on MySpace is in the works for MTV.

“A Shot at Love With Tila Tequila,” in which 16 men and 16 women will compete for Tequila’s affections, is set to debut Oct. 9 on the cable channel, Television Week reported Thursday.

“Tila Tequila made a name for herself by doing things her way, captivating legions of fans online, both men and women,” said MTV executive Tony DiSanto. “Now she is taking that attitude and sex appeal to her own TV series where she is looking for a mate … by again, captivating a group of both men and women.”

Tequila’s MySpace page includes racy photos, her music and a Time magazine description of the singer-model-actress-blogger (born Tila Nguyen) as an Internet sensation and “the Madonna of MySpace.”

The following is Allyson Smith’s first installment on the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) conference in San Diego — which she attended representing Americans For Truth. Note the casual mixing of homosexual media with “mainstream” media – all sharing and strategizing around a pro-gay perspective — and the complete lack of opposing voices present at the NLGJA panels. (Allyson tells me that at one panel on “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell,” the moderator said that opponents of homosexuals in the military were invited to speak but declined to attend.)

All this begs the question of whether homosexual reporters working in establishment media can truly be objective — i.e., fair and balanced –  especially when they are assigned to cover homosexual-related issues. Also, note that for ease of reading, we have not put quote marks around the word “gay” as we would normally do. – Peter LaBarbera

By Allyson Smith

Gay Activists & Journalists Mingle and Strategize Together at National Gay Journalists Conference: Day 1 at the NLGJA

On Thursday, August 30, I attended the first of three days of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association convention, held at the Westin Horton Plaza Hotel in downtown San Diego. Although I have been to many homosexual conferences and events since the dawn of the millennium, at times using my real name and at other times an assumed name, this would be my first time to attend such a convention as a totally “out” Christian conservative reporter under the auspices of an organization many homosexual activists hate: Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), headed by longtime pro-family activist Peter LaBarbera.

“What will all these homosexuals do,” I wondered, “once they find out someone from Americans For Truth is here? Will they kick me out? Will they try to embarrass me? Will they call me names? Will they just ignore me?”

Having “prayed up” before arriving at the NLGJA convention, I felt that deep peace which passes all understanding as I opened the Westin’s door. After checking in at the registration desk – so far, so good – I headed to the first session, titled The Right Approach: Covering LGBT Conservatives.

Wayne Besen ’Outs’ Me
Entering the conference room, I encountered session moderator Wayne Besen. Besen is the executive director of Truth Wins Out, described on its website as “a non-profit think tank and educational organization that counters right-wing disinformation campaigns, debunks the ex-gay myth, and provides accurate information about the lives of GLBT people.” Besen is also author of the books Anything But Straight: Debunking the Scandals and Lies behind the Ex-Gay Myth and, most recently, Bashing Back: Wayne Besen on GLBT People, Politics and Culture.

[Editor's Note: for more on Wayne Besen, see AFTAH's posts: Wayne Besen Has Been Taking his Hate Pill again; ‘Gay’ Militant Seeks to ‘Shut Down’ Americans For Truth and Files False Complaint to Illinois AG; CWA Interviews LaBarbera Regarding Deceptive Wayne Besen Complaint.]

It wasn’t the first time I’d encountered Besen that day. Earlier in the morning, while I was still at home getting ready to go to the convention, his name had appeared in my inbox as the result of his copying me on an e-mail discussion he was having with pro-family advocate Guy Adams of ValuesUSA, over the cause of Idaho Senator Larry Craig’s recent bathroom bust. According to Besen, such episodes occur because “fundamentalists” “drive people deep into the closet (or ex-gay ministries, a fancy closet).” Adams and other conservatives, on the other hand, had attempted to point out that homosexual behavior is actually the cause.

Thus, this e-mail conversation was fresh on my mind as I met Besen in the conference room doorway. He glanced at my name badge, noting that I was with AFTAH. I shook his hand, introduced myself, and told him that Peter LaBarbera had sent me. Using the epithet he coined and by which a few of the more nasty homosexuals activists refer to Mr. LaBarbera, Besen in turn told me to say hello to “Porno Pete.” (Ironically, the conference would later feature a session about how to cover stories involving name-calling against homosexuals.)

“Now, just wait,” I thought, “he’ll announce me to the whole room.”

Besen opened the session by introducing the other three “LGBT conservative” panelists:  Dan Blatt, a Los Angeles-based writer who blogs on the GayPatriot.net website and founded the Log Cabin Republican Club of Northern Virginia; Scott Olin Schmidt of West Hollywood, an elected member of the 42nd District Republican Central Committee who also serves on the executive committee of the Los Angeles County Republican Party; and James Vaughn, director of Log Cabin Republicans of California, who said it’s his job to tell Republicans why they’re wrong.

That Larry Craig was on many conference-goers’ minds was evident when Besen fired off his first question to the panelists, asking them for their take on the scandal.

Blatt responded that there had been “terrible saturation” coverage by the media and that Craig had exercised “terrible judgment.” Schmidt said, “This isn’t a gay issue; this is an issue of people who pursue anonymous sex.” Vaughn asserted that Craig’s behavior “shows how dangerous the closet is.” Most of the scandals, he said, came from people living in the closet, not those who live as open homosexuals.

About 20 minutes into the discussion, Besen announced, “We have a friend of ours here, Allyson, from Americans For Truth Against [sic] Homosexuality.”

Waving my hand, I said light-heartedly, “I’m from the right wing. I’m the opposition researcher.” Many people in the room laughed. “I’m friendly; I don’t bite,” I assured them, and the discussion continued.

GOP Drifting ‘Gay’-ward?
Besen asked what it’s like for a gay Republican to walk into a party convention. “Is it better or worse than when you walk into a gay bar?” Here he was joking about his expose a few years back exposing that John Paulk – then an ex-gay spokesman with Focus on the Family – had visited a homosexual bar while on a business trip to D.C.)

The gay Republican, Vaughn, drew laughter as he answered, “Absolutely. It is much easier . . . to walk into a Republican convention and say you’re gay than it is to walk into a gay bar and say you’re a Republican.” Vaughn said he’d been having a lot of meetings recently with elected officials — and that most of them or their staffers said, “We’re with you,” and that homosexuality is not an issue for them.

Vaughn said that conservative groups like Lou Sheldon’s Traditional Values Coalition can’t hold a meeting that would fill a small conference room these days, when in the past they used to fill convention centers, “because they’re just not relevant anymore. They’re fading; they’re going away. People are getting over the gay issue.”

“What we lack in the Republican Party is not support. What we lack is leadership,” he said, confirming that elected officials have told him privately they support same-sex “marriage” but don’t dare say so publicly for fear of their constituents’ reactions.

Blatt, the Los Angeles writer, confirmed a similar experience, saying he finds it easier to be gay in Republican circles than to be Republican in gay circles. Libertarian in many of his views, Blatt said he does not support hate crimes legislation or the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), because he favors less government.

Schmidt asserted that there is a big divide between activist Republicans and the rank-and-file. “Most Republicans are moving toward the center.”

Blatt said, “The party knows it can’t win by being anti-gay.” Vaughn added that if enough GOP leaders “come out” in favor of homosexual issues, it will help to change the party’s rhetoric.

As I was leaving this session, a young woman approached and asked if she could interview me. She turned out to be a Georgia State University student who was attending the conference, along with several other college students from throughout the United States, to report on the NLGJA conference proceedings. According to the NLGJA conference booklet, this is the 10th year that student journalists have come to the convention. We made arrangements to conduct the interview later in the day.

‘Gay Games’/Clear Channel Media Marketing
The next session I attended was Mainstream Media and the LGBT Press: Co-opting or Cooperation? Moderated by Court Passant, executive producer of CBS News on Logo, the panel included Cynthia Laird of the homosexual newspaper Bay Area Reporter, San Diego Union-Tribune writer Pat Sherman, Jared Cohen of Clear Channel Communications, and Kevin Boyer, director of public relations and marketing for All Terrain in Chicago.

Cohen described his experience being interviewed by Clear Channel. Cohen told the interviewer that, if hired, “I would develop a gay and lesbian wing for Clear Channel,” adding that he explained a model and a method for a national development that could be tailored to local markets. “Two years later, we’re in 19 markets . . .”

Boyer discussed some of the strategies and methods he used to publicize the 2006 “Gay Games,” held in Chicago. He said that he had to do a mainstream public relations effort because he wanted the mainstream media to report on the Gay Games the way the LGBT press would, through sports stories, business stories, and the like. [The event was covered that way by the local, Chicago-area media – especially the Chicago Sun-Times, which also sponsored the “Gay Games” -- as if an event for homosexual athletes was something of daily interest to the media-consuming public. – Editor]

Boyer said he employed one strategy for the mainstream press and another for the homosexual press. Key themes were “inclusion,” “everybody enjoys sports,” “personal best,” and “straight people are always welcome at the Gay Games.” With the mainstream media, he helped educate reporters on homosexual issues; did athlete profiles, making sure to include men, women, elders, youth, and heterosexuals; and promulgated the message “This is a human interest story, not just a gay story.”

Cynthia Laird talked about some of the areas of cooperation and dissension between the mainstream media and the homosexual press. For example, she said there was a lot of support in the mainstream media for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” after General Peter Pace commented that homosexuality is immoral. On the other hand, she said, mainstream papers fail to give credit to GLBT papers. 

Citing Bill Gates’ recent $26.2 million investment in PlanetOut, Pat Sherman said the gay press is not in danger of being usurped by the mainstream media. “People will always want to go to the gay press” because it can provide history that the mainstream press cannot.

Sherman later added that there is room for both types of media, but the gay press may have to adapt and move toward niche publications, since it lacks the money or resources of the mainstream media.

During the question and answer period, discussion ensued regarding whether homosexual newspapers should report the names of men arrested for public sex. David Webb, a staff reporter for the Dallas Voice, noted that the Dallas police department has begun publicizing names and wondered how such stories should be reported if they involve prominent gays. One respondent said both the good and the bad must be reported.

After this session, I gave an interview to the college student.

Hillary Goes to ‘The Advocate’
Sponsored by the Gill Action Fund and Gill Foundation, organizations founded by Denver software entrepreneur Tim Gill to advocate and finance homosexual causes, the luncheon plenary was themed 40 Years of The Advocate: A Conversation with Anne Stockwell. The Advocate is a national homosexual magazine and website.

However, editor-in-chief Stockwell was unable to participate, so the magazine sent publisher Michael Phelps and deputy editor Rachel Dowd in her place. During the plenary, which was moderated by homosexual blogger and news reporter Rex Wockner, Phelps and Dowd discussed how The Advocate, whose parent corporation is PlanetOut, has evolved and stays relevant, as well as upcoming style and editorial changes planned for the magazine.

Dowd said “The Advocate used to be the only place to hear gay news, and now that’s just not the case . . . We’re not only covering same-sex issues, but we’re also covering things the New York Times is covering.”

When Wockner asked what the magazine will do to make gay people want to pick it up, Phelps answered, “We do a lot of exclusive interviews that you can’t find anywhere else.” An upcoming issue, he said, would feature an exclusive interview with [a major Democratic presidential candidate]. “She decided to do an interview with gay media, and of course sees The Advocate as the one and only place so far. And for a presidential candidate to come and seek you, a gay publication, this far in advance, really is groundbreaking.”

Larry Craig, Covering ‘Public Sex,’ and ‘Emotional Entrapment’
Wockner brought up the Larry Craig scandal and noted that there are some questions he hasn’t seen answered yet: “Why is it illegal to tap your foot in a bathroom? How is that breaking the law? To what extent was he [Larry Craig] entrapped into this?”

“How are you going to cover this story?” Wockner asked the panelists.

The Advocate’s Dowd said she had been involved in an editorial meeting about that topic just the previous day. “When did the bathroom become a beat? It’s kind of an odd question. So that was one angle we were actually looking at.” Another angle, said Dowd, is “perspective.” “We reached out to [former New Jersey governor] Jim McGreevey to write a piece for us on what happened to Larry . . . and it’s from his perspective. We look at it as a Republican phenomenon, what’s going on of living a double life, but that Jim understands perhaps emotional entrapment as being in Congress, and how political personas and political life creates a natural closet.”

Not all was sweetness and light, however, in the open question and answer period that followed. One audience member said, “I don’t feel The Advocate has much relevance to me and my life as I get older” because he isn’t familiar with a lot of the pop culture personalities it features. Another complained that the magazine used to address police entrapment issues, but not anymore, and wondered how many readers had canceled subscriptions as a result.

Gays in Charge of Gay Images
The final session I attended was Gay Panic: LGBT Media Merger Mania, where participants discussed mergers within the homosexual media and whether “gay” media will ever merge with “straight” media.

Moderated by Libby Post, a nationally syndicated commentator on homosexual issues for Q Syndicate and WAMC/Northeast Public Radio, the panel included Stephen Macias, a senior vice president at here! Networks; Sue O’Connell, publisher of Bay Windows, New England’s largest homosexual newspaper; Fred Kuhr, editor of Press Pass Q; editor Kevin Naff of the Washington Blade, “the nation’s oldest and largest LGBT newspaper;” and Joanne Jacobson, vice president of business development and operations at Logo, MTV Network’s homosexual cable channel, whose parent company is Viacom.

Post asked Macias how media mergers impact the way the gay community sees itself. He answered that one benefit is “you have gays and lesbians in charge of gay and lesbian images, whether it’s a media company that is as enormous as Viacom or an independent company like our company predominantly being run by gays and lesbians.”

O’Connell talked how homosexual community newspapers lose local flavor when they are owned by large conglomerates, harkening back to the early days of the homosexual press: “We were all picking up the mimeographed bar rags, and we were not looking at them to see where our rights were coming from. We were looking at them to see where drag night was going to be held.”

Kuhr lamented the fact that there are often identical stories on homosexual websites such as Gay.com and Advocate.com because they are owned by the same parent company.

In response to a questioner who said he still picks up the Washington Blade every Friday but no longer reads it because it lacks “local voices,” editor Naff responded in part, “I always tell people, ‘Write something.’” O’Connell agreed, citing the difficulty getting and keeping good writers due to the fact that they can now write for the mainstream press or blogs, as well as the poor pay.

As she said this, I nodded my head, remembering some of my own experiences as a freelance writer trying to collect payment. Fred Kuhr noticed and said, “Even she’s nodding.”

“We have the same issues in the conservative press,” I said.

One audience member asked Jacobson why there was no one from the gay press, yet there were non-journalists like lesbian rock musician Melissa Etheridge, on the panel during the recent presidential forum on homosexual issues, which was broadcast by the MTV offshoot Logo.

Jacobson replied that she had been at Logo from the beginning, and that she was one of the people who “pitched” Logo to Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone. “Is everything we do perfect? No. But were we able to do a national forum where these guys were seen in 28 million homes about issues that are important to us? Yes. Would I have picked Melissa Etheridge personally? I’m not answering that question (laughter). . . Afterwards, the quotes that were picked up [were hers], and everyone said that she really had the voice of the community.”

After this session, I left the conference for the day, missing the LGBT Media Summit Closing Reception, the Chapter Meet & Greet, the NLGJA Newcomers’ Reception, the Welcoming Reception with remarks by NLGJA national president Eric Hegedus (whose column equating pro-family critics of homosexuality to racists can be seen HERE on the NLJGA site) and executive director David Barre, and a screening of the documentary film Tell – a film critical of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on homosexuals.

Look for the Next Installment on the 2007 NLGJA Conference

Chicago’s CBS affiliate joins other local media by fielding a float in the city’s annual “gay pride” parade.  It’s up to us to tell the truth about homosexuality as a sin that can be overcome — since the media and political liberals have decided to celebrate it, casting aside God’s Word. 

“Perhaps there is no sin which so deeply shows the depravity of man as this; none which would so much induce one ‘to hang his head, and blush to think himself a man.’” – Nineteenth-Century Christian Commentator Albert Barnes describing the “shameful sin of Sodom,” as condemned by the Apostle Paul in the Book of Romans.

By Peter LaBarbera 

Tonight, America witnesses the sad spectacle of the major Democratic presidential candidates gathering for a “debate” built around the acceptance of homosexuality. The “debate” is being sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the world’s leading homosexual pressure group, and HRC’s President, Joe Solmonese, will serve as one of the questioners. Needless to say, there will be no open critics of the homosexual activist agenda asking questions to balance Solmonese’s pro-”gay” queries.

The mere occurrence of this “debate”/panderfest has significance well beyond the realm of politics. The “pride” and arrogance of homosexual activists is swelling in direct proportion to their growing power in American culture. Who could have imagined this scenario in U.S. politics even a decade ago? Just remember: God is never mocked.

Fact is, a large swath of the American nation is fleeing God, Who, if you believe the Bible, is quite clear in His condemnation of all homosexual behavior as sin. (That hasn’t stopped liberal Lutherans affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Having already won the ordination of “gay”-identified clergy, the ELCA’s pro-”gay” wing pushed this week to build upon that heresy by fighting for the “right” of said clergy to be involved in “committed same-sex relationships.”) 

Memo to Christians tempted to backpeddle on moral issues: the ELCA’s treacherous debacle is further proof that the liberal, activist wing of ’christianity’ cannot be appeased. It is man-centered, sin-tolerant, Bible-denying and always on the offensive; if you concede one point to this errant movement, it will only demand further concessions. Ditto for the aggressive homosexual lobby’s modus operandi in all aspects of culture. So it’s best not to give in one inch.

Man knows best? 

The sum and substance of the modern liberal, “gay”-affirming argument on homosexuality is that man thinks he knows better than God. Nothing new there – haughtiness and disobedience toward God fills the Bible’s pages.  But let’s not kid ourselves that America’s trendy embrace (tolerance) of homosexuality and, lately, gender confusion, is not a serious sign of our moral and spiritual decline as a nation.

We sing “God Bless America,” but why should He when we spurn His moral laws?

Our Christian forefathers didn’t struggle over homosexuality

Albert Barnes (1798-1870) was a popular Presbyterian minister and Bible commentator who crusaded against slavery and lived to see it outlawed. Wikipedia (I know, they’re biased…) reports that over a million volumes of Barnes’ commentaries on New Testament books were sold by 1870.

Thanks to the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, you can view Barnes’ entire commentary on Romans 1 online HERE, but below are some excerpts from Romans 1:26-28. We’ve largely lost the Biblical notion of homosexual acts as desperately wicked, but that’s hardly the only sin that “live and let live” America has decided is OK. After all, affirming that sex should be reserved for marriage and that young people should remain virgins until their wedding day is about as radical these days as saying that homosexuality is a sin. (I take some comfort in that: I suppose there exists a lot of abstinence-phobia among liberal, “safer sex” types that has to be dealt with.) And when was the last time you heard the word “fornication”?

Yet think of the sexual diseases, heartache and abortions that would be avoided if more young men and women would cast aside the pop culture’s cynicism and return to that simple truth!

Are homosexual acts now right before God?

So ask yourself: what is the justification for discarding the historic Christian view laid out by Barnes against what the King James Bible calls the “vile affection” of sodomy? If there is none — i.e., no serious indictment to be made against Biblical truth in this area, as the leading Bible-and-homosexuality scholar Rob Gagnon asserts – then we need to get back to the basics on homosexuality. 

Sure, compromised politicians and media groveling before a sin-based movement will evade, distort, water down, and outright lie about homosexuality, but does it really matter what they say?  The same politicians and media have for decades cast the abortion debate as one about “choice” – as if man, not God, has authority over life and death, and has some “right” to consign innocent babies to a horrifying execution in the womb.

Reform begins in our churches, with more pastors preaching — and speaking out boldly in the public square — from a fear of God, not man. And each of us, too, must commit ourselves to “agreeing with God” on this issue — and speaking and fighting for truth — no matter what the culture, your favorite politician, or a politically correct friend, says.  

Let’s commit to honor God, stop fearing men (that includes the media), and reach out with Gospel love to men and women struggling with homosexual temptation.  Go for it!

___________________________

Here are some passages from Albert Barnes’ commentary on Romans 1: 

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

 

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;  (Romans 1:26-28)

Barnes’ commentary (emphasis added in bold):

[Verse 26] Vile affections. Disgraceful passions or desires. … The sins which he proceeds to specify are the most indelicate, vile, and degrading which can be charged on man. But this is not the fault of the apostle. If they existed, it was necessary for him to charge them on the pagan world. His argument would not be complete without it. The shame is not in specifying them, but in their existence; not in the apostle, but in those who practised them, and imposed on him the necessity of accusing them of these enormous offences…There is still abundant proof on record, in the writings of the heathen themselves, that these crimes were known and extensively practised.

For even their women, etc. Evidence of the shameful and disgraceful fact here charged on the women is abundant in the Greek and Roman writers…

Verse 27. And likewise the men, etc. The sin which is here specified is that which was the shameful sin of Sodom, and which from that has been called sodomy. It would scarcely be credible that man had been guilty of a crime so base and so degrading, unless there was ample and full testimony to it. Perhaps there is no sin which so deeply shows the depravity of man as this; none which would so much induce one “to hang his head, and blush to think himself a man.” And yet the evidence that the apostle did not bring a railing accusation against the heathen world, that he did not advance a charge which was unfounded, is too painfully clear. It has been indeed a matter of controversy whether paederasty, or the love of boys, among the ancients, was not a pure and harmless love, but the evidence is against it. See this discussed in Dr. Leland’s “Advantage and Necessity of Revelation,” vol. i. 49—56. The crime with which the apostle charges the Gentiles here was by no means confined to the lower classes of the people. It doubtless pervaded all classes, and we have distinct specifications of its existence in a great number of cases. Even Virgil speaks of the attachment of Corydon to Alexis, without seeming to feel the necessity of a blush for it. Maximus Tyrius (Diss. 10) says, that in the time of Socrates this vice was common among the Greeks; and is at pains to vindicate Socrates from it as almost a solitary exception. Cicero (Tuscul. Ques. iv. 84) says, that “Dicearchus had accused Plato of it, and probably not unjustly.” He also says, (Tuscul. Q. iv. 33,) that the practice was common among the Greeks, and that their poets and great men, and even their learned men and philosophers, not only practised, but gloried in it. And he adds, that it was the custom, not of particular cities only, but of Greece in general. (Tuscul. Ques. v. 20.) Xenophon says, that “the unnatural love of boys is so common, that in many places it is established by the public laws.”…

Among the Romans, to whom Paul was writing, this vice was no less common. Cicero introduces, without any mark of disapprobation, Cotta, a man of the first rank and genius, freely and familiarly owning to other Romans of the same quality, that this worse than beastly vice was practised by himself, and quoting the authority of ancient philosophers in vindication of it. (De Natura Decrum, b. i. eh. 28.) It appears from what Seneca says, (epis. 95,) that in his time it was practised openly at Rome, and without shame. He speaks of flocks and troops of boys, distinguished by their colours and nations; and says that great care was taken to train them up for this detestable employment. Those who may wish to see a further account of the morality in the pagan world may find it detailed in Tholick’s “Nature and Moral Influence of Heathenism,” in the Biblical Repository, vol. ii., and in Leland’s Advantage and Necessity of the Christian Revelation. There is not the least evidence that this abominable vice was confined to Greece and Rome. If so common there—if it had the sanction even of their philosophers—it may be presumed that it was practised elsewhere, and that the sin against nature was a common crime throughout the heathen world. Navaratte, in his account of the empire of China, (book ii. ch. 6,) says that it is extremely common among the Chinese. And there is every reason to believe that, both in the old world and the new, this abominable crime is still practised…

That which is unseemly. That which is shameful, or disgraceful.

And receiving in themselves, etc. The meaning of this doubtless is, that the effect of such base and unnatural passions was to enfeeble the body, to produce premature old age, disease, decay, and an early death. That this is the effect of the indulgence of licentious passions, is amply proved by the history of man. The despots who practise polygamy, and keep harems in the east, are commonly superannuated at forty years of age; and it is well known, even in Christian countries, that the effect of licentious indulgence is to break down and destroy the constitution. How much more might this be expected to follow the practice of the vice specified in the verse under examination! God has marked the indulgence of licentious passions with his frown. Since the time of the Romans and the Greeks, as if there had not been sufficient restraints before, he has originated a new disease [Editor's note: assuming this is syphillis], which is one of the most loathsome and distressing which has ever afflicted man, and which has swept off millions of victims. But the effect on the body was not all. It tended to debase the mind; to sink man below the level of the brute; to destroy the sensibility; and to “sear the conscience as with a hot iron.” The last remnant of reason and conscience, it would seem, must be extinguished in those who would indulge in this unnatural and degrading vice. See Suetonius’ Life of Nero, 28.

Verse 28. And even as they did not like, etc. This was the true source of their crimes. They did not choose to acknowledge God. It was not because they could not, but because they were displeased with God, and chose to forsake him, and follow their own passions and lusts.

To retain God, etc. To think of him, or to serve and adore him. This was the first step in their sin. It was not that God compelled them; or that he did not give them knowledge; nor even is it said that he arbitrarily abandoned them as the first step; but they forsook him, and as a consequence he gave them up to a reprobate mind.

To a reprobate mind. A mind destitute of judgment. In the Greek the same word is used here which, in another form, occurs in the previous part of the verse, and which is translated “like.” The apostle meant, doubtless, to retain a reference to that in this place. “As they did not approve, edokimasan or choose to retain God, etc., he gave them up to a mind disapproved, rejected, reprobate,” adokimon; and he means, that the state of their minds was such that God could not approve it. It does not mean that they were reprobate by any arbitrary decree; but that, as a consequence of their headstrong passions, their determination to forget him, he left them to a state of mind which was evil, and which he could not approve.

Which are not convenient. Which are not fit or proper; which are disgraceful and shameful; to wit, those things which he proceeds to state in the remainder of the chapter.

Click HERE to read more of Albert Barnes’ commentary on Romans. 
 

By Peter LaBarbera 

In trying to put into perspective the stunning yet sad news of the first-ever ”gay” activist-sponsored presidential “debate” – to be held in Los Angeles on August 9, and aired over the MTV-owned homosexual network LOGO — we ask: when is the follow-up debate for those advocating sex outside marriage? (After all, people once said to be “living in sin” are now a sizeable minority in America.) How about one tailored specifically to the pro-drug legalization crowd? Is a Planned Parenthood-sponsored debate, complete with Gloria Steinem as lead questioner, around the corner?

Pardon our dismissive tone, but homosexual behavior is wrong — at least half the country still regards it as such.  It is one of several sexual sins opposed by God (can I still say that without being charged with a “hate crime”?).  Because same-sex acts are so unnatural, they can be highly destructive — witness the high percentage of AIDS cases — 71 percent — linked to MSM (“men who have sex with men”).  Homosexuality is also changeable, as testified by the many men and women who once proudly identified as ”gay” or “lesbian” but who have walked away from homosexuality and are living happy lives today.

We know that it’s not Politically Correct to say these things.  Fine, but last I heard, God is not rewriting His moral code according to the dictates of the Democratic Party. Or the GOP, or even the smug scribblers on the Washington Post’s editorial pages, for that matter. For the record, He hasn’t declared unborn babies mere blobs of tissue, either — though many politicians and reporters would love to be rid of that moral irritant.

So why does the homosexual lobby get its own special presidential lovefest … er, debate? Because the Democratic Party has sold its soul on homosexuality. And we fear some in the Republican Party are rushing to catch up.

The “gay presidential debate” is so wrong on so many levels. The country is still divided on homosexuality — despite the media’s best efforts – yet all the questions presumably will come from ardently pro-”gay” advocates — that is, proud, practicing homosexuals.

One of the reported questioners is lesbian rock star Melissa Etheridge.  Another is Joe Solmonese, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, the world’s biggest “gay” lobby organization and a group that regularly disparages people of faith opposed to homosexuality as haters and bigots. Yep, lots of journalistic objectivity here.

Will there be a corresponding, “gay”-positive GOP presidential debate — hosted by the Log Cabin Republicans?  Where does the pandering end?  Who represents the tens of millions of Americans who morally object to homosexuality, and who stand to lose their religious and First Amendment freedoms if HRC’s radical agenda is enacted? (I hereby volunteer my services as a conservative questioner if the organizers care to make a pretense of journalistic objectivity.)

Even if one could conceive of a reason to have a “homosexual presidential debate,” why would the questioners all be of the liberal-left persuasion? (I confess I don’t know much about Etheridge’s political leanings, but how about at least including a “gay” libertarian like Rick Sincere to mix things up?) Is there any doubt that HRC is sponsoring this debate to push the candidates further toward embracing its radical statist agenda, including “gay marriage,” “hate crimes” and “transgender rights”?

“We’re honored to give the presidential candidates an historic opportunity to share their views directly with the LGBT audience,” says Brian Graden, President, Entertainment, MTV Networks Music Group, and President of LOGO. “This forum continues MTV Networks’ tradition of engaging vital niche audiences with voting and the electoral process.”

Three clues as to which oversized ”niche audience” is getting the shaft this presidential campaign season. (Here’s one clue: LOGO’s and HRC’s websites will be taking questions from the public for the debate, but somehow I don’t think a social conservative’s question will make it on air.)

The MTV-LOGO debate is a sham, but the sad thing is: if “mainstream” journalists were substituted for the homosexual activist questioners, the tenor of the evening likely would remain the same. Because these days it’s getting harder and harder to distinguish between the “gay”-cheerleading media and “gay” activists themselves.

A pro-family activist says the frontrunners for the Democratic presidential nomination are “pandering to the gay lobby” by agreeing to take part in a televised debate moderated by homosexual activists.

The top three Democratic presidential candidates … plan to take part in a one-hour debate August 9 devoted solely to “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender” (GLBT) issues. The debate will be televised live from Los Angeles on the Viacom-owned homosexual television network “LOGO.”

According to Peter LaBarbera, director of Americans for Truth Action, Joe Solmonese — president of the Washington, DC-based Human Rights Campaign, one of the country’s most powerful homosexual activist groups — will be moderating the debate. HRC is coordinating the debate through a partnership with LOGO.

“The whole thing is structured to be pro-homosexual — and one wonders what candidates are doing to be sensitive to the pro-family people who still believe homosexuality is wrong,” exclaims LaBarbera.

The family advocate notes that polls that are “probably politically correct” show that half the country still believes homosexual behavior is wrong. “[The percentage is] probably much higher than that,” LaBarbera says, “but this is just astonishing that this development is happening and it’s being treated as a serious debate.”

The White House hopefuls will be asked questions by a panel that includes Solmonese and lesbian singer Melissa Etheridge. Questions will reportedly cover topics such as same-sex “marriage,” “hate crimes” legislation, and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. One news report indicates individuals will also be able to submit questions online.

LaBarbera calls the debate “one of the most extraordinary developments in our country’s history.” He laments the societal mindset from which such an event would even occur.

“A debate framed from a pro-homosexual perspective — when homosexual behavior, for centuries, [for] thousands of years, was regarded as deeply sinful by Christians and people who believe in God,” he says. “It’s just astonishing. I’m waiting for the adultery presidential debate or maybe the pro-drug use presidential debate.

“Who ever heard of framing a presidential debate around a sin?” he asks.

O’Brien Cellars, a brand of O’Brien Family Vineyard, said Tuesday it’s started a “progressive” philanthropic program to donate 20 percent of revenues from its online Equality Wine Store to a civil rights group that supports an end to California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

The family-owned Napa vineyard and winery said it will automatically donate those funds to Equality California, a San Francisco-based lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization. Winery owners Bart and Barb O’Brien said their goal is to help wine lovers support equal opportunity…

“We hope to raise over $100,000 for EQCA in 2007.”

…Other business-related supporters of Equality California, listed on the advocacy group’s web site, include Contempo Homes, the Evelyn & Walter Haas Jr. Foundation, Proteus Fund Inc., Olivia Cruises and Resorts, Atlantis Events, Century Crowell Communities LLP, MTV Networks/Logo, Shadowrock Development Corp., AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Edison International, Foley & Lardner LLP, Gap Inc., Latham & Watkins and Wells Fargo.

Kors said the California State Automobile Association and Comcast have also signed up recently as sponsors of Equality California.

Continue reading in San Francisco Business Times…