The late British neo-Nazi skinhead Nicky Crane was just one of many fascists in Europe who lead a secret double life as a practicing homosexual. Click to enlarge.

By Peter LaBarbera

Warning: offensive language

To nobody’s surprise, homosexual activist Evan Hurst of ‘Truth’ Wins Out supported fellow “gay” blogger Joe Jervis’ sophomoric hit-piece against AFTAH – which draws a crude link between this writer and the KKK.

Jervis was just “stating fact,” protests Hurst, in writing that since the Klan opposed discrimination against a Christian student at Augusta State, and AFTAH also opposes this injustice, then the KKK and I are ”on the same side.” (Juvenile, I know….). [Click HERE to read AFTAH's story on Jennifer Keeton, a victim of homosexualist anti-Christian discrimination.]

OK, Evan, here’s another fact: Jervis, Lambda Legal, you and practically the entire “gay” activist movement are on the same side as NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, with regard to the Boy Scouts of America’s ban on homosexual scoutmasters. (NAMBLA opposes the ban — for obvious reasons.) To paraphrase Hurst:

Eh, again, Evan, all I said was that you, Joe Jervis and NAMBLA (which advocates legalizing man-boy sex) are on the same hateful and child-endangering side.  This is true.

Perhaps this would be a good time for you and Joe, writers for two homosexual hate websites, to reflect on why you find yourselves in such strong agreement with the most notorious pedophile group in American history.

Obviously, such argumentation says nothing about Jervis’ and Hurst’s real attitudes toward NAMBLA (I’m assuming they both oppose the vile outfit), so pointing out that Evan, Joe and NAMBLA are on the same side on the Boy Scouts would be a cheap shot. But since these two homosexual writers attempted to make a connection between AFTAH and odious racists, perhaps they can help us understand why so many homosexuals actually have found their home in the fascist movement. British homosexual writer Johann Hari’s 2008 piece, “The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay Fascists” in the liberal Huffington Post is quite an eye-opener in that regard.

As Hari writes (emphasis added):

This is a taboo topic for a gay left-wing man like me to touch, but there has always been a weird, disproportionate overlap between homosexuality and fascism….

[T]he idea of a gay fascist seems ridiculous. Yet when the British National Party – our own home-grown Holocaust-denying bigots – announced it was fielding an openly gay candidate in the European elections this June, dedicated followers of fascism didn’t blink. The twisted truth is that gay men have been at the heart of every major fascist movement that ever was — including the gay-gassing, homo-cidal Third Reich. With the exception of Jean-Marie Le Pen, all the most high-profile fascists in Europe in the past thirty years have been gay. It’s time to admit something. Fascism isn’t something that happens out there, a nasty habit acquired by the straight boys. It is — in part, at least — a gay thing, and it’s time for non-fascist gay people to wake up and face the marching music.

Just look at our own continent over the past decade. Dutch fascist Pim Fortuyn ran on blatantly racist anti-immigrant platform, describing Islam as “a cancer” and “the biggest threat to Western civilisation today.” Yet with two little fluffy dogs and a Mamma complex, he was openly, flamboyantly gay. When accused by a political opponent of hating Arabs, he replied, “How can I hate Arabs? I sucked one off last night.” …

Flagrant homosexual Ernst Rohm discovered Adolf Hitler.

Hari doesn’t ask but we must: what kind of politician engages in such vulgar and perverse speech? Answer: a sexually deviant one contemptuous of societal norms; yet Fortuyn, who was assassinated in 2002, considered himself a Catholic.

Hari cannot avoid the case of the notorious homosexual Nazi Ernst Rohm, a flagrant homosexual and head of the Nazi storm-troopers who actually “discovered” Hitler (years later, after gaining power, Hitler would have Rohm assassinated). I doubt many American schoolchildren will learn this in their World War II lessons (emphasis and link added):

Along with Adolf Hitler, Rohm was the founding father of Nazism. Born to conservative Bavarian civil servants in 1887, Ernst Rohm’s life began – in his view – in the “heroic” trenches of the First World War. Like so many of the generation who formed the Nazi Party, he was nurtured by and obsessed with the homoerotic myth of the trenches – heroic, beautiful boys prepared to die for their brothers and their country….

It was Rohm who first spotted the potential of a soap-box ranter called Adolf Hitler. He saw him as the demagogue he needed to mobilize support for his plan to overthrow democracy and establish a “soldier’s state” where the army ruled untrammelled. He introduced the young fascist to local politicians and military leaders; they knew him for many years as “Rohm’s boy.” Gay historian Frank Rector notes, “Hitler was, to a substantial extent, Rohm’s protégé.” Rohm integrated Hitler into his underground movement to overthrow the Weimar Republic.

Rohm’s blatant, out homosexuality seems bizarre now, given the gay genocide that was to follow. He talked openly about his fondness for gay bars and Turkish baths, and was known for his virility. He believed that gay people were superior to straights, and saw homosexuality as a key principle of his proposed Brave New Fascist Order. As historian Louis Snyder explains, Rohm “projected a social order in which homosexuality would be regarded as a human behaviour pattern of high repute… He flaunted his homosexuality in public and insisted his cronies do the same. He believed straight people weren’t as adept at bullying and aggression as homosexuals, so homosexuality was given a high premium in the SA [Sturmabteilung (Nazi Stormtroopers)]“ They promoted an aggressive, hypermasculine form of homosexuality, condemning “hysterical women of both sexes,” in reference to feminine gay men.

This belief in the superiority of homosexuality had a strong German tradition that grew up at the turn of the twentieth century around Adolf Brand, publisher of the country’s first gay magazine. You could call it ‘Queer as Volk’: they preached that gay men were the foundation of all nation-states and represented an elite, warrior caste that should rule. They venerated the ancient warrior cults of Sparta, Thebes and Athens.

Rohm often referred to the ancient Greek tradition of sending gay solider couples into battle, because they were believed to be the most ferocious fighters. The famous pass of Thermopylae, for example was held by 300 soldiers – who consisted of 150 gay couples. In its early years, the SA - Hitler and Rohm’s underground army – was seen as predominantly gay. Rohm assigned prominent posts to his lovers, making Edmund Heines his deputy and Karl Ernst the SA commander in Berlin. The organisation would sometimes meet in gay bars. The gay art historian Christian Isermayer said in an interview, “I got to know people in the SA. They used to throw riotous parties even in 1933… I once attended one. It was quite well-behaved but thoroughly gay. But then, in those days, the SA was ultra-gay.”

Gay Nazis Missing from ‘Gay History Month’?

This is not new information. Long before Christian pro-family advocate Scott Lively wrote about it in his book The Pink Swastika, the late historian and former war correspondent William Shirer, in his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, documented that “sexual perverts” flocked to the National Socialist Party. Hitler himself was potentially a sexual deviant (see Shirer, p. 132, and Lothar Machten’s book Hidden Hitler) – but you won’t see der Führer (or Ernst Rohm) listed in the annual Gay History Month listings of famous homosexuals. Nevertheless, the same outfit that publishes this dubious homosexual list lays claim to others like Cary Grant and George Washington Carver (a committed Christian) — asserting rumor as fact without offering definitive proof that they were practicing homosexuals.

(Grant was married five times and denied the homosexual rumors, which rehash the standard “gay” conflation of male friendship with homoeroticism; former wife Dyan Cannon condemns the gay rumors HERE, saying, “I can tell you there isn’t an iota of truth to those ugly rumors…They would never have written that drivel when Cary was alive. He’d have sued the pants off those cowards…Cary can’t defend himself from the grave but I will go to mine insisting he was every ounce a straight man.” Moral of the story: don’t trust pro-homosexual historians with an agenda.)

One thing I’ve noticed about British homosexual activists: they are more willing to write honestly about homosexuality, including its downsides, than their American counterparts. Hari even alludes to the fascist roots of the pseudo-masculine, homosexual sadomasochistic (“leather”) subculture (the same subculture that rears its hideous head in major cities across the country):

So it’s fairly easy to establish that gay people are not inoculated from fascism. They have often been at its heart. This begs the bigger question: why? How did gay people — so often victims of oppression and hate — become integral to the most hateful and evil political movement of all? …

Gay pornographer and film-maker Bruce LaBruce has one explanation. He claims that “all gay porn today is implicitly fascist. Fascism is in our bones, because it’s all about glorifying white male supremacy and fetishizing domination, cruelty, power and monstrous authority figures.”

Hari takes an obligatory shot at Lively as a “homophobe” — but Lively merely has sought to educate Americans on this same Nazi-homosexuality factor that remains buried in Politically Correct history. It also should be noted that there are plenty of attempts to blame the Nazi-homosexual link — and some male homosexuals’ distorted and exaggerated attempts to act “masculine” — on their repressed, “internalized homophobia.” The implicit, and sometimes explicit, message: like every other “gay” problem, it’s OUR fault.

Extremism and ‘gay’ politics go hand-in-hand

Homosexual radicals’ deranged attempts to link pro-family conservatives to racist fringe groups are part of their larger goal of demonizing and marginalizing “homophobic” Christians and social conservatives. This begs the question: where does extremism find its natural home? In America, sexual extremism and its accompanying intolerance of moral dissent is found mainly on the Left — not the Right — especially in urban, homosexual bastions like San Francisco, and on college campuses, where “hate speech codes” proliferate.

(Moreover, on the racial front, African-American pro-family Christians like Pastor Ken Hutcherson have been the target of racist epithets by (white) homosexual activists — and there has been much discussion of racism within the LGBT movement and efforts to eradicate it. Of course, racism also exists in all other sectors of U.S. society.)

There is something profoundly “queer” about a social movement rooted in an ancient vice attempting to paint defenders of Judeo-Christian civilization and normalcy – marriage, the natural family, and religion — as extreme and hateful. Or even worse, as causing violence against homosexuals, and “gay” suicides. Yet this is the modus operandi of homosexual activists and powerful “gay” lobby groups — who have gone so far as to equate pro-family Christian organizations with the Klan, slavery advocates and the Taliban. The LGBT lobby’s ambitious smear campaign painting Christians and historic Bible passages proscribing same-sex behavior as extreme comes at a cost: it exposes homosexualists’ out-of-the-closet hatred for religious expression.

Meanwhile, there is the factor of the “gay” movement’s tolerance and promotion of an ever-expanding array of perversions and a “sexual freedom” agenda that borders on sexual anarchy. (The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom — an ally of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force — “aims to advance the rights of, and advocate for consenting adults in the BDSM-Leather-Fetish, Swing, and Polyamory Communities.”) If the media were even close to being impartial on this issue, Americans would have a much clearer picture of the radicalism of homosexual and transsexual activists working to use laws to legitimize their lifestyles and oppress religious critics.

Tolerating homosexual pedophilia advocacy?

Perhaps most observers will agree that it doesn’t get more extreme than pedophile advocacy — yet even ideologues in favor of adult-child sex find a voice on the “gay”-affirming Left. Witness the book review in the Marxist publication Monthly Review by David Thorstad, founding member of NAMBLA and former president of the Gay Activist Alliance in New York. In his review of Sexual and Socialism: History, Politics and Theory of LGBT Liberation, by Sherry Wolf, Thorstad complains that Wolf is too tough on adult-child sex:

But by inserting “seduction” into her novel definition of pederasty (a sexual relationship between a man and an adolescent youth), [Wolf] repeats the foolish notion that a boy under the magical age of consent (whatever it happens to be) is by definition incapable of consenting to sex with a man.

How instructive that despite the best efforts of LGBT activists to shed their past tolerance for pedophilia (NAMBLA used to march in “gay pride” parades), pro-pederasty and truly extreme sexual activists and professors — like radical pro-abortion zealots — continue to have intellectual sway with the Left. The same cannot be said of the KKK and neo-Nazis (or sexual perversion activists) vis-a-vis religious conservatives.

Radical Gay ‘Founding Fathers’

Then there are those extremist ”gay” ”founding fathers,” among them:

• Harry Hay, one-time Communist and then “Radical Faerie,” who defended NAMBLA until his dying day (see Thorstad: “Harry Hay on Man/Boy Love”);
• Frank Kameny, a professed atheist who nevertheless claims “gay is godly,” evidently spoke at a NAMBLA meeting (but can’t remember what he said), rails against “Christianofascists” and opines that bestiality is OK “as long as the animal doesn’t mind”; and
• Larry Kramer, founder of the militant protest group ACT UP, who labeled the U.S. Government’s response to AIDS a “Holocaust,” called Ronald Reagan “a monster” who “was responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler,” and says he has the proof that Abraham Lincoln was a “totally gay man.”

Reading “gay” iconic history is like reading a (pre-Political Correctness) psychological textbook on the outworking of dysfunction — mixed with a peculiar form of hatred derived from rebelling against God and the Church. Throw in a nearly pathological quest to justify the unjustifiable (embracing deviance and sin as the basis for one’s identity) and what emerges is a powerful personal motive to both hate religious opponents of homosexuality and (for those who do not reject the Creator altogether) to posit that God created and accepts homosexuals as “gays.”

(The resentment toward God and religion theme is pervasive in homosexual writings: see Page 2 of Peter Sprigg’s Family Research Council paper on homosexual activist and Obama Education Department appointee Kevin Jennings, who is “viciously hostile to religion,” writes Sprigg. He quotes Jennings, writing in his autobiography Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son, recollecting his thoughts as a younger man: “God . . . had done nothing but cause me pain and anguish through His inaction and malevolence throughout my childhood… What had he done for me, other than make me feel shame and guilt?” Jennings told God: “Screw you, buddy.”)

Pity the poor schoolchildren who one day could be forced to study sanitized versions of these men’s lives during school-sanctioned ”Gay History Month,” if current trends continue. (Note regarding American icons who practiced or struggled with homosexuality: there is a big difference between recognizing them for their accomplishments and contributions to American culture — and politicizing their contribution by making it part of an official celebration of homosexuality. We can appreciate Martina Navratilova’s skill on the tennis court without celebrating her lesbian lifestyle choice.)

Deviance begets deviance

The Sexual Left continues to push the envelope in the name of aberrant “rights” and “sexual freedom” — demonstrating precisely where “gay” tolerance leads. Just last week the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force sponsored a “Poly Pride” conference in New York City. (“Polyamory” is defined by Urban Dictionary as: “The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved.”) A “Queer Sexual Liberation” workshop at the conference was set to “explore many aspects of sexual liberation including: BDSM [bondage & discisplne, dominance & submission, sadism & masochism], Leather, Polyamory, Non-monogomy, sex work [prostitution], and more.”

The Task Force, founded in 1973, is hardly a “fringe” homosexual group but the “oldest national LGBT rights organization in the United States,” according to Wikipedia. It is involved in politics and legislative lobbying across the country. The same dominant media that monitored the Christian Coalition has little interest in the actual record of LGBT groups like the Task Force.

"Fisting Parties" were part of recent "Leather Week" celebrations in San Franciso. Extreme and dangerous practices are not just tolerated under the LGBT umbrella, they are celebrated. Deviance finds its home in Left-dominated urban enclaves.

Deviance begets deviance. Just as the sadistic Nazi Party was a magnet for sexual perverts – wherever government-protected homosexuality flourishes, political and culural radicalism follows. That includes: forcing businesses to subsidize homosexual unions; radicalizing schools to promote “gay” ideology and gender confusion; making ever-increasingly extreme political demands such as taxpayer- and corporate-funded transsexual “sex change” operations; “tolerance” of public nudity (San Francisco) and ”multi-partner unions”; allowing anonymous sex clubs and gay bathhouses catering to the hyper-promiscuous; and government promotion of homosexuality as normal to youth. And let’s not forget the growth of official anti-Christian intolerance — criminalizing Christianity as applied to the issue of homosexuality. Each finds its place under the LGBT umbrella, because revolutionaries bent on destroying and redefining social norms hard a hard time saying no to the latest “progressive” social experiment.

Perhaps the extremism that comes naturally to homosexual militants explains their presence on both the hard, Marxist left and fascist right of the political spectrum. Where they come together is in their abiding contempt for biblical morality and America’s God-fearing, Judeo-Christian heritage — which laid the foundation for our liberties.

To be sure, liberterians of all stripes, sexualities and ideologies often cheer on the ”gays” in supporting a live-and-let-live attitude toward sex, and marriage- and family structures. Libertarians abhor the use of government and laws to uphold “traditional moral values.” However, it is strident pro-homosexual organizations and activists — not libertarians — who are in the vanguard of mobilizing toward a new secular ideology that grants superior legal rights, as it were, to homosexuals. The homosexual legal agenda criminalizes the expression of biblical morality – e.g., a Christian professional photographer’s right not to take pictures at a lesbian commitment ceremony – as merely another form of “anti-gay discrimination” that must be eradicated. Few in the secular media have seriously examined this very real, zero-sum conflict between homosexual activism and religious freedom — and the trampling of Christians’ freedom of conscience and Americans’ civil rights in the name of ‘Gay Tolerance.’

Homo-fascism through the law?

Could the American State become a national, homo-fascist agent? America is not Europe. Due to our much larger population of committed Christians and religious people — and our stronger, First Amendment commitment to individual religious freedom — it is hard to see America going down the road of Canada or Great Britain. These are emerging pro-homosexual, quasi-”police states” where Christians can be arrested (Britain) or sued in rigged state ”human rights tribunals” (Canada) merely for speaking against homosexuality.

Nevertheless, factoring in today’s secular environment and the escalating and extraordinary attacks by U.S. “gay” militants against churches, historic biblical morality and people of faith – including the vilification of Christians [see comments on Jervis' über-hate site HERE] — and it becomes clearer each day that fanatical homosexual militants are serious about creating a government tyranny that enforces their egalitarian agenda of treating homosexuality like normalcy in all spheres of life.  (Legalized homosexual “marriage” accomplishes much of this agenda: e.g., in a “gay marriage” state like Massachusetts, privately-owned businesses and institutions are not allowed to treat homosexual “marrieds” any differently than normal marrieds. This forced Catholic Charities out of the adoption business because church officials could not countenance placing children in homosexual-led households.)

Much as they talk a good game about “respecting” religion, homosexual activists are working towards a government and legal paradigm that crushes religious and moral dissent – all in the name of tolerance, equality, and anti-discrimination. (All oppressive agendas use soft, innocuous-sounding euphemisms.) Their task will become much easier if acceptance of homosexuality becomes widespread in society — even among self-professed biblical Christians — leaving a smaller number of principled, counter-cultural ”holdouts” to target for persecution.

Where will pursuit of this homosexual activist vision lead? Will the courts codify a “soft tyranny” (isn’t that an oxymoron?) in which rights based on homosexuality (“sexual orientation”) — with some religious exemptions – negate Americans’ freedom to live out their faith in their everday lives? Who can know? But we do know that few Germans in the 20′s and 30′s could have envisioned the oppression and evil that was to come only a few years later. We must remain true to the Bible — and vigilant to preserve our genuine God-given freedoms at all costs.

For more on the European homosexual-fascism link, go to Hari’s piece, “The Strange Story of the Gay Fascists.”

Homosexual male "couples" are notorious for tolerating outside sex in their disordered relationships. Dan Savage, a homosexual activist who adopted a baby boy (hence his book "The Kid"), recommends "nonmonogamy" as an alternative to marital fidelity. He writes that he and his "husband" twice engaged in sexual "three-ways" even after adopting the boy.

News Release

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

June 21, 2010

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631

_________________

CAROL STREAM, Illinois — Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) President Peter LaBarbera today condemned President Barack Obama for “gaying down” the noble institution of fatherhood by extolling “nurturing families” with “two fathers” in his Father’s Day proclamation yesterday.

Obama proclaimed:

Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a step father, a grandfather, or caring guardian.

“If an adult man chooses to embrace homosexuality, that’s one thing. But two men imposing their homosexual lifestyle on an innocent, impressionable child — thus intentionally denying that child a mother — is something quite different. Shame on Obama for ‘gaying down’ the noble institution of fatherhood to appease his homosexual activist supporters.”

Obama is the most pro-homosexual-agenda president in American history, and is currently working to subvert both the legal ban on open homosexuals serving in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which affirms traditional marriage in federal law.

“Who can deny the notorious promiscuity that is rampant in the gay male subculture – and which often continues even after two homosexual men adopt a child,” LaBarbera said. “Witness gay parenting’s poster-boy, Dan Savage, a sex-advice columnist and author of The Kid: What Happened When My Boyfriend And I Decided to Go Get Pregnant. Savage promotes ‘non-monogamy’ as an alternative to marital fidelity — and admits that he and his ‘husband’ twice engaged in sexual ‘three-ways’ even after they adopted a baby boy. (One wonders who babysat ‘the kid’ during their homosexual sex romp.)”

Such is the extent of tolerated outside sex in male homosexual relationships that their “negotiated” rules for “nonexclusivity” are studied by academics. “The gay community’s normative acceptance of casual sex, anonymous sex and nonmonogamy in couple relationships represents a dramatic departure from heterocentric norms and values,” wrote researchers Johnson and Keren in 1996.

“As a gay therapist who has seen hundreds of male couples in a vast range of unconventional, loving, and sustaining relationship configurations — including monogamy, nonmonogamy, three-partner relationships and more — I have grown to respect the fluidity and customized relationship forms that can work well for gay men (and potentially for all people),” wrote homosexual therapist Michael Shernoff in 2006.

But even if two homosexual men keep their disordered relationship “faithful,” homosexual parenting would not be worthy of celebration, LaBarbera said: “It is wrong to force children into a situation where they have two men modeling immoral behavior — condemned by God and all major religions — as the most important role models in their lives.”

“Gay parenting is a selfish social experiment whose long-term effect on children has not yet been determined — biased homosexual-authored studies notwithstanding,” he said. “We know that dad-and-mom-led homes are the best for children. That is the timeless brand of fatherhood that Obama should be promoting,”

________________________________________________________________________

The following is President Obama’s official 2010 White House Father’s Day proclamation (emphasis added in red):

FATHER’S DAY, 2010

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

From the first moments of life, the bond forged between a father and a child is sacred.  Whether patching scraped knees or helping with homework, dads bring joy, instill values, and introduce wonders into the lives of their children.  Father’s Day is a special time to honor the men who raised us, and to thank them for their selfless dedication and love.

Fathers are our first teachers and coaches, mentors and role models.  They push us to succeed, encourage us when we are struggling, and offer unconditional care and support.  Children and adults alike look up to them and learn from their example and perspective.  The journey of fatherhood is both exhilarating and humbling    it is an opportunity to model who we want our sons and daughters to become, and to build the foundation upon which they can achieve their dreams.

Fatherhood also carries enormous responsibilities.  An active, committed father makes a lasting difference in the life of a child.  When fathers are not present, their children and families cope with an absence government cannot fill.  Across America, foster and adoptive fathers respond to this need, providing safe and loving homes for children facing hardships.  Men are also making compassionate commitments outside the home by serving as mentors, tutors, or big brothers to young people in their community.  Together, we can support the guiding presence of male role models in the lives of countless young people who stand to gain from it.

Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a step father, a grandfather, or caring guardian.  We owe a special debt of gratitude for those parents serving in the United States Armed Forces and their families, whose sacrifices protect the lives and liberties of all American children.  For the character they build, the doors they open, and the love they provide over our lifetimes, all our fathers deserve our unending appreciation and admiration.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in accordance with a joint resolution of the Congress approved April 24, 1972, as amended (36 U.S.C. 109), do hereby proclaim June 20, 2010, as Father’s Day.  I direct the appropriate officials of the Government to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on this day, and I call upon all citizens to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.  Let us honor our fathers, living and deceased, with all the love and gratitude they deserve.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

BARACK OBAMA

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamation-fathers-day

By Peter LaBarbera

"Young and Poly" workshop description for 2010 "Creating Change," the annual conference for LGBT activists put on by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

The above is taken from the program guide (p. 73) of the 2010 National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s “Creating Change” conference, held in Dallas, Texas, February 3-7, 2010.  Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines “Polyamory” as “the state or practice of having more than one open romantic relationship at a time.” Urban Dictionary’s top definition of “Polyamory” states:

‘The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved.’

Here is one youth-oriented “Poly” activist website: Young Metro Poly. Here is adult “poly” activist Jenny Block’s speech at a “Poly Pride” rally in New York City in 2008 (“Before writing Open, I went to my daughter’s soccer practice with my husband and our then girlfriend, Lisbeth….”). And here is an AFTAH article, “Poly Pride Follows Gay Pride.”

The presenter’s organization, BAGLY, is the Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Youth, a pro-homosexual youth organization that lays claim to sponsoring “the worlds first and largest LGBT youth prom,” in Boston. (BAGLY is headed by a male-to-female transgender activist, Grace Sterling Stowell.) Presenter Daunasia Yansey is also an activist with the Boston Sex Workers Outreach Project (SWOP), affiliated with SWOP-USA, which advocates for the decriminalization of prostitution.

“Sexual Freedom” is a track at the Creating Change conference denoting the latest stage in the Sexual Revolution: rights and recognition for various “alternative lifestyles” beyond homosexuality-bisexuality-transgenderism, including sadomasochism, “swingers,” and polyamory and fetish “communities.”

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) was founded in 1973 and is the oldest national homosexual “rights” organization in the United States.

_____________________________

Text of “Young and Poly” Task Force “Creating Change” 2010 workshop description:

Young and Poly
Sexual Freedom

Polyamory being one of the more marginalized identities of our community, young people need a safe space to be validated within their truths. Being young and poly even in the “queer” community is impacted by a hetero-normative model of family and relationships. This caucus is not designed as a poly 101 but is designed for young people that identify on the poly spectrum to voice shared experiences and learn from one another.

Presenters: Daunasia Yansey, BAGLY [Boston Alliance for Gay and Lesbian Youth], MA

______________________________

Other AFTAH articles on the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:

• “Creating Change,” Corrupting Children: the ‘Gay’ Task Force’s Evil Agenda
• National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Talks of ‘Moral Leadership’ while Honoring Homosexual S&M Pornographer
• ‘Consensual Slavery’ Advocate Accepts Task Force ‘Leather’ Award
• Democrat Party Helps Gay Task Force Honor Sadomasochistic Slavery Advocate Guy Baldwin
• ‘Transgender Etiquette’ at Creating Change 2009 in Detroit – ‘Each of Us Can Decide for Ourselves in which Bathroom We Belong’
• Look Who’s Talking Morality Now … Observations on Rea Carey’s ‘Creating Change’ Speech
• AFA-Michigan, AFTAH Welcome Gay Task Force Admission: ‘HIV Is a Gay Disease’
• Another Fake “Gay” Hate Crime? Gary Glenn Asks Task Force to Apologize for Blaming Him for Death of Anthony Anthos
• ‘Gay’ Agenda … What ‘Gay’ Agenda?

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

________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________

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

WARNING: Offensive Descriptions, Web Links

Dan Savage, anti-Christian activist, deviant sex advice columnist, prolific hatemonger -- and 'Gay Grinch 2009' candidate. See his "gay marriage" YouTube video below.

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, we have heard from a few readers who suggested that prolific homosexual writer and sex advice columnist Dan Savage be added to our “Gay Grinch of the Year” 2009 contest, and so he is. Only a perversion activist as twisted as Savage could stage a contest with his readers to come up with a sickening definition to associate with “santorum” — because he was upset that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) made comments critical of homosexuality (in 2003). (And how appropriate that the winner of Savage’s little nastiness competition was a disgusting by-product of the crime against nature itself, anal sodomy; see his “santorum” definition HERE in the Urban Dictionary.)

Savage is also the lovely fellow who engaged in “Germ Terrorism” against GOP presidential candidate Gary Bauer in 2000, by, as Wikipedia reports, “volunteer[ing] for the Bauer campaign with the intent to infect the candidate with his flu.” Picture the pathetic and sniffling Savage  walking around Bauer’s empty Iowa campaign office licking doorknobs; later he presented Bauer with a saliva-soaked pen to autograph a picture of his adopted son, posing as a pro-life fan of Bauer. (Don’t you just love modern liberalism?)

Who would have thunk that our “Gay Grinch” award would end up sullying the reputation of the “real” TV Grinch by comparison to such Major League deviants and hatemongers as Savage?

But enough about Savage’s past extremism. Recently the Seattle-based sex columnist made a very “queer” plea for homosexual “marriage” (watch YouTube below) — not seeming to comprehend the radical difference between evolving reforms within marriage and the revolutionary homosexualization of “marriage” that essentially redefines the institution to mean anything. (If two men can get “married” on the basis of “love,” how are we going to stop a man and two women from doing so on the same basis? In fact, polygamists feel they have a greater claim to legal marriage than homosexuals because at least they have opposite genders and can produce children on their own.)

You will note that toward the end of the video Savage shamelessly appeals to the fact that he has a child (which he adopted with homosexual partner Terry), thus seemingly satisfying one his critics’ criteria for real marriage. But here Savage has the chutzpah of ten Gay Grinches — plus two: as we reported, he thinks “monogamy is optional” for marriage and admits to having sexual three-ways with Terry and another man — one with an ex-boyfriend of Savage, “a Microsoft millionaire who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars building a ‘playroom’ in his basement — a kind of sex toy wonderland.” Yuck. (Keep in mind these are “gay parents” of a young boy.) Savage claims that allowing heterosexual spouses a “few tightly controlled” affairs would help lower the divorce rate.

To protect his overactive behind, Savage then oddly asserts in his column recommending non-monogamous “marriages”: “”We’ve never done anything, nor would we ever do anything, that would put our child at risk.” Earth to Savage: it’s way too late for that! But I suppose that from the poor boy’s perspective, if you’re being raised by two homosexual men — one of whom writes a perverted, weekly sex column and shills for “nonmonogamous marriage”– finding out one day that they engaged in a sadomasochistic threesome with another guy could hardly be construed as shocking news.

Nevertheless, I have a question for Dan and his domestic homosexual lover Terry: who watches the kid when you guys are having one of your “tightly controlled” three-way sex romps? — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org.

Press Release – For Immediate Release

Protest Against President Obama and EEOC Nominee Chai Feldblum

Rabbi David Eidensohn issued the following statement (web links added by AFTAH):

“I protest President Obama’s claim that his support for EEOC nominee Chai Feldblum is because “if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support.” This is a gross distortion of the honest opinion of people who oppose his nominee, not for what she is, but for what she believes.

“At one time Ms. Feldblum belonged to a NSDP “non-sexual domestic partnership” with three other women. She demanded for them government support and recognition similar to married mixed-sex couples. And why stop at relationships between caring people? Why not declare support for sadists and masochists who marry their mothers and fathers? And what of those people in the closet because they sleep with their pet dogs? Surely polygamy and prostitution should not be a problem.

“In 2007, 40 percent of mothers who gave birth were unmarried, and they were mostly mature women who had simply rejected marriage. What will happen when the President of the United States nominates and supports people like Ms. Feldblum? What will happen when the President of the United States supports those who don’t discriminate in defining marriage against those who do discriminate in defining marriage as something based on family values?

“I believe Mr. Obama when he says that he will do anything to oppose discrimination. One thing he is doing is to twist the argument against twisted marriages into an attack on family people. This must stop.”

Homo-Supremacist at the EEOC? Obama EEOC Commissioner appointee Chai Feldblum says there is a "zero sum" game, legally-speaking, between "gay rights" and religious freedom (people who oppose homosexuality as morally wrong) -- and that homosexual "rights" usually should win. Feldblum is now backpedaling from her more radical statements and affiliations.

Take action: call your U.S. Senators (202-224-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to: 1) Put a hold on the nomination of radical homosexual activist Chai Feldblum as Commissioner of the EEOC; and 2) oppose S. 1584, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Also call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121 and urge him or her to oppose the House version of ENDA, HR 3017.

Note: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) has signed on to a pro-family coalition letter to the Senate HELP Committee expressing concern over EEOC nominee Chai Feldblum’s extreme record. Thanks to Traditional Values Coalition for taking the lead on the letter.

___________________________________

The Discriminatory ‘Non-Discrimination Act’
By Matt Barber

Today’s Democratic leadership is a predictable lot. They’ve cornered the market on mass manipulation through semantic tinkering. It’s a relatively easy code to crack. To decipher what Democrats mean versus what they say one need merely apply the “forked-tongue test.”

If Dems say “Fairness Doctrine,” expect unfairness in spades. When Harry Reid tags Obamacare the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” we know that the patient gets hosed, and the “care” breaks the bank. Indeed, if the 111th Congress were to pass the “No Kicking Fuzzy Puppies Act,” bet your Obama tax hike that Nancy Pelosi would be first in line to punt Poochie across the Capitol Rotunda.

And so it goes with the characteristically mislabeled “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” or ENDA (S. 1584 in the Senate and H.R. 3017 in the House). According to its leftist proponents, ENDA – which is under consideration in both houses of Congress – would merely insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual conduct (sexual orientation) or those who suffer from gender confusion (gender identity) against employment discrimination.  But in truth, this legislation would effectively codify the very thing it purports to combat: workplace discrimination.

ENDA would force –– under penalty of law –– Christian, Jewish, or Muslim business owners to hire people who unrepentantly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors, despite the fact that those volitional behaviors are in direct conflict with every major world religion, thousands of years of history, and uncompromising human biology.

This is no different than compelling a deeply religious business owner to hire and accommodate an “out and proud” adulterous “swinger.” It’s a direct assault on the inalienable rights of people of faith. It pits the government directly against the free exercise of religion and is, therefore, unconstitutional on its face.

During his second term, President Bush issued a Statement of Administration Policy on ENDA, pointing out its clearly unconstitutional nature. “[ENDA] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),” noted the statement. “The Act prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive manner possible. [ENDA] does not meet this standard.”

The fact that our current president both supports ENDA and prefers our sacred Constitution as potty paper for the aforementioned Poochie makes ENDA no less unconstitutional.

Chai Feldblum (pronounced “high” as in “stoned”) is a lesbian activist and sexual anarchist attorney who supports legalized polygamy and bisexual polyamory. She has been nominated by President Obama to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This is like having Michael Moore guard the donuts. In the past, Feldblum –– ENDA’s chief framer and, if confirmed, one of five commissioners charged with its enforcement –– has candidly summed-up the mindset behind the bill.

Feldblum believes that the battle between religious freedom and unfettered sexual license (aka, “gay rights”) is a “zero sum game,” meaning that the two cannot possibly coexist in harmony. One must triumph over the other. (Guess who wins in her twisted analysis?)

When asked about the Christian business owner or religious organization that morally objects to hiring people openly engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, Feldblum snapped: “Gays win; Christians lose.” And where Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed right to religious liberty comes into conflict with the postmodern concept of “gay rights,” Feldblum has admitted having “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” Of course Feldblum’s analysis is entirely arbitrary and completely unsupported by any reasonable constitutional interpretation or federal precedent.

In fact ENDA would –– for the first time since the Constitutional Convention –– extend special, federally preferred government status to individuals based upon a changeable and objectively aberrant sexual lifestyle, rather than requiring that such status be delineated by immutable, non-behavioral characteristics such as skin color or gender.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell put it well when he said, “Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

But Ken Hutcherson, a prominent, well-respected African-American pastor from the Seattle area, summed it up even better, stating rather incisively: “Don’t compare your sin to my skin.”

Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law, and author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War.” He serves as director of cultural affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action.

Poly Boston is a big, informal group that hosts events for the polyamory community, and the poly-curious, in the Greater Boston area. We hold discussions, dinner, and socials. To get connected, sign up for our announcements and chat lists and say hi!

What is polyamory?

Polyamory (or “poly”) means having, or being able to have, honest, ethical, respectful romantic relationships with more than one person at a time, with the full knowledge and approval of all concerned. Somewhat similar terms are “open relationships” and “responsible non-monogamy.” …

Poly versus Swinging

Polyamory is sometimes confused with swinging. In fact the two cultures are different. In general, people who self-identify as “poly” are strongly focused on relationships and are willing to take on serious emotional processing. People in the swing world (“the Lifestyle”) typically focus on recreational sex — often as couples attending organized swing parties while maintaining emotional monogamy. there are, of course, exceptions on both sides, as well as people who plant themselves various placed in between.

Here’s a shocker: the media has been positive toward the “Poly” movement. Again, from the Poly Boston flier:

Polyamory in the News. The last few years have seen an upswing in mainstream coverage, often surprisingly positive. It’s all collected at polyinthemedia.blogspot.com. In particular, see the big article in the Washington Post about Loving More’s Poly Living Convention (in the site’s Feb. 2008 archive). By the way, in the whole collection of about 300 articles, the very dumbest one was in, wouldn’t you know, the Boston Herald.

Read Goldberg’s thoughts on “gay marriage” below:

________________________________________

Gay ‘Marriage’: Bad Science, Bad Politics

[Note: we have taken the liberty of putting quotation marks around "marriage" when used in a homosexual or "group marriage" context. We also added a web link for "polyamory." --Ed.]

By Arthur Goldberg and Michelle Cretella
SPECIAL TO THE JEWISH STATE
June 19, 2009

Legislation is presently pending in the New Jersey state legislature to approve same-sex “marriage.” There is a strong effort by gay activists and their allies to push such a bill through the legislature rather than asking the citizens of the state to vote for its approval. Because informed public policy decisions should be based on rational judgment grounded in fact rather than fiction, it is helpful to review a few of the key considerations relevant to this debate.

Nearly every argument favoring same-sex “marriage” is based on the belief that homosexual orientation is inborn and immutable. Thus, the argument often is made that just as interracial marriage gained approval so, too, should gay “marriage.”

But sexual orientation is not like skin color; it is not genetic. An avowed lesbian, Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling, professor of developmental biology and gender studies at Brown University, admits “[Although the claim that homosexuality is genetic] provides a legal argument that is, at the moment, actually having some sway in court, [f]or me, it’s a very shaky place. It’s bad science and bad politics.”

No genetic earmark distinguishing homosexuals from heterosexuals has ever been identified. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are genetically indistinguishable. As stated in a British medical journal, “From an evolutionary perspective, genetically determined homosexuality would have become extinct long ago because of reduced reproduction.”

Indeed, taking the question further, more than 100 scientific studies indicate that change of sexual orientation is possible for many motivated individuals. The father of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (the Bible of psychiatry), Dr. Robert Spitzer, changed his own lifetime view. He published a study in 2003 confirming that many dissatisfied homosexuals are able to make substantial long-term changes in orientation.

Another premise of the same-sex “marriage” debate claims homosexual coupling involves stable, long-term relationships equivalent to heterosexual marriages. Drs. David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, both openly homosexual, studied 156 male couples who had lived together for 20 years or more. To their dismay, they found that the longest period of sexual monogamy for those couples was five years; the average was under two years.

Within the gay subculture, the concept of monogamy is simply not synonymous with sexual exclusivity. Gay activist Andrew Sullivan writes: “homosexuals have a need for extramarital outlets.” Lesbian writer Camille Paglia notes how gay magazines glamorize “the bigger bang of sex with strangers” and advocate “monogamy without fidelity” in same-sex couplings.

The instability of same-sex relationships and prevalence of polyamory cannot be attributed to social discrimination or “homophobia.” During the 1990s many gay-affirming countries legalized same-sex “marriage.” The instability of homosexual relationships, however, remained unchanged. For example, a 2003 Dutch study found the average male homosexual partnership lasted only 1.5 years (Compare that figure to a CDC U.S. study of heterosexual marriages showing 50 percent of heterosexual marriages lasting 15 years or more.) Similarly, a 2004 Swedish study found that homosexual unions had a 50-percent higher divorce rate than heterosexual unions.

Inherent health risks of the gay lifestyle present another issue. Life expectancy for men who have sex with men, according to a 1997 International Journal of Epidemiology study is eight to 20 years less than that of heterosexual men. There is also a higher rate of intimate partner violence between same-sex couples.

Higher parent mortality and promiscuity increased rates of domestic violence and greater rates of divorce are not healthy for children. Consequently, acceptance of gay “marriage” requires a disregard for the best interests of children. It follows logically that if marriage is defined merely by “who we love” regardless of what is in the best interest of children, then the government has no right to discriminate against those with other sexual orientations including orientations toward children or animals. This is why advocates of pedophilia, group “marriage,” bestiality and incest cite gay “marriage” victories as their own. It is also no coincidence that within 10 years of legalizing same-sex “marriage” every Scandinavian country legalized polygamy.

Clearly, New Jersey has an interest in promoting and protecting traditional marriage. Decades of research demonstrate that children fare best physically, emotionally, and academically when nurtured by a married mother and father. Fatherless families, in particular, are associated with higher rates of violence, poverty, delinquency, substance abuse, sexual promiscuity, and teen pregnancy, all of which cause an increase in tax dollars required to fund remedial social programs. Clearly, if Americans want to improve the economic health of our nation and maximize the well-being of our children, traditional marriage must be strengthened.

The European experience, however, demonstrates that same-sex “marriage” weakens the institution overall. Every Scandinavian nation legalizing same-sex “marriage,” for example, has seen an unremitting decline in traditional marriage rates, and a surge in cohabitation and out of wedlock births. Predictably, the cost of social programs in those countries has risen sharply.

To summarize, homosexuality is not genetic like skin color. Interracial marriage never changed the definition of marriage; marriage remained the exclusive and faithful union of one man and one woman. Defending traditional marriage is not bigotry. Defending traditional marriage protects the greater common good for everyone — including those with homosexual attractions.

Arthur Goldberg, J.D., C.R.S., is the author of “Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change.” Michelle Cretella, M.D., is chair of the Sexuality Committee, American College of Pediatricians. Here’s a description of the book, available at Amazon.com:

Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change by Arthur Goldberg Can homosexuals transform their sexuality? Torah, Talmud and time-tested advances in gender psychology answer YES! The Co-Director of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality) tells how. This groundbreaking book explodes the “gay gene” mystique, offering hope, compassion, direction and vitally needed information to gay strugglers, their families, friends, and surrounding community.