The day began with an overview of the current research on bisexual health. Research shows that bisexual people — who make up about half of those who identify as GLB [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual] — face huge health disparities. …

['Bisexual health researcher' Cheryl] Dobinson and others said that stigma and biphobia certainly play a large role in why this population is impacted by certain health disparities at even higher rates than gays and lesbians.

While more research is needed, particularly of bisexual men, the findings thus far indicate that much work needs to be done to address the disparities. Many present said that considering that bisexuals make up a relatively large percentage of the GLB population, it’s time to take action, especially if one’s goal is to improve the health of the overall GLBT community.

“Bisexual people make up a much larger percentage of the sexual minority population than one might expect,” Dobinson said. According to a 2002 study by the National Center for Health Statistics, about 1.8 percent of men ages 18-44 and 2.8 percent of women ages 18-44 consider themselves to be bisexual.

More coming on this story. Click HERE for the Free Press story and HERE for the Bi Health Summit website.

By Brian Fitzpatrick

Culture & Media Institute, June 10, 2008

Thank God for the alternative media.

Unlike the big newspapers and TV networks, small conservative online news sites are reporting the growing threat posed to religious liberty by the burgeoning homosexual rights movement.

Two indispensable Web sites, Canada’s LifeSite News and [American Family Association’s] One News Now, have carried a stunning series of articles in the past few days about critics of homosexuality being attacked by the governments of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Belgium and Canada.

• Britain’s Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor Will Defy Law Forcing Homosexual Adoption
• Northern Ireland MP Investigated for “Homophobic” Remarks
• Belgian Bishop Cleared of Charges for Church Teaching on Homosexuality

No country is harder on religious believers than Canada, where a modern-day star chamber called the Canadian Human Rights Commission is cracking down on Christian preachers who dare to repeat what the Bible says about homosexuality.

• Alberta Pastor Fined $7,000 and Ordered to Publicly Apologize and Remain Silent on Homosexuality
• Canadian Catholic Priest Accused of Hate Crime

The homosexual rights movement is not really an effort to win civil rights for a supposedly oppressed minority. It’s a war against Western civilization’s Judeo-Christian moral order, joined now by many non-homosexuals who support rewriting society’s moral code. The goals are to win social acceptance of alternative sexual “lifestyles,” especially homosexuality, and to make room for a revolutionary new sexual code that glorifies self-indulgence and embraces promiscuity.

Hedonism and homosexuality cannot be legitimized without displacing the Bible’s restrictions on sex and God’s design for the family. The revolutionaries are going about it the obvious way, in our litigious society—through the courts. By redefining traditional sexual morality as bigotry, the sexual revolutionaries are using the law to assail the rights of speech, association and religion of anyone who disagrees with them. Using “sexual orientation” statutes and hate crimes laws, they are attempting to silence anybody who believes that homosexuality is a sin, not an acceptable alternative “lifestyle.”

A Canadian Catholic magazine editor, Father Alphonse de Valk, warns in his editorial, “Fascism Has Come to Canada”:

So we move from [former Canadian Prime Minister] Trudeau’s 1967 slogan “there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation” –– falsely used to destroy traditional morality – to the new slogan that the state will determine people’s moral thinking.

Why aren’t the liberal newspapers and broadcasters reporting these stories? As politically savvy secular institutions that back homosexual rights, they may be reluctant to publicize religious victims of the movement. They appear to be following in the footsteps of Walter Duranty, the New York Times foreign correspondent who won the Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of Stalin’s Soviet Union.

In the 1930s, Duranty downplayed the realities of the Soviet gulag, where 10 million or more people died. He lied about Stalin’s deliberate starvation of millions of people in the Ukraine. Even though his deliberate misreporting has been thoroughly documented, the Times has never removed Duranty from its list of staff who have won Pulitzers. Nor has the Pulitzer committee withdrawn the award.

For Duranty, loyalty to political ideals trumped journalistic ethics. Rather than expose Stalin, Duranty defended him: “You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.”

The current journalistic cover-up of the homosexual activist movement’s assaults on freedom is not the same in degree as covering up the Gulag, but it’s the same in kind. It is an abdication of responsibility and a professional disgrace. And it is one more reason that alternative media that report honestly are rapidly growing.

Brian Fitzpatrick is Senior Editor at the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.

By WorldNetDaily.com, August 6, 2007

Motivated by Christian beliefs, a Canadian mayor refused to fly a rainbow “gay pride” flag at his town hall.

The decision by Bill Mills was backed by the town council of Truro, Nova Scotia, with a 6-1 vote Friday, reported the Canadian television network CTV.

“There are writings in the book of Romans chapter one, to name a few – basically I have to go with that conviction, and I know it’s not a popular one,” said Mills, who leads a town of about 12,000 people.

Mills contended he had a right to his opinion, but a local homosexual activist group called the decision a sign of homophobia in a government that should be secular.

Click HERE to read the rest of the article in WorldNetDaily

TAKE ACTION:  Read the C-FAM alert below and contact the White House using their comment page or call the White House comment line today (202-456-1111).  (You also can e-mail a comment to the U.S. State Department HERE or call their comment line at: 202-647-6575.) Respectfully urge the President to stop using the authority and goodwill of the United States of America to promote the normalization of homosexuality abroad. Tell the Administration that you oppose the USA voting to approve coveted United Nations consulting status for organizations whose mission is to push a pro-homosexuality agenda — including radically redefining marriage and promoting dangerous GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual) “identities” to vulnerable youth — on unsuspecting nations.

 

HATE CRIMES/ENDA ALERT:  While you’re at it, e-mail or call your U.S. Senators (202-224-3121) and urge them to oppose the “hate crimes” bill and the pro-homosexual/transsexual employment ENDA bill — which we’re calling the “Transgender Bathrooms for Businesses Bill” – which threaten to federalize “sexual orientation” law, thus curtailing your “freedom to be moral.”  Call 202-224-3121 or visit http://www.congress.org/.

Certainly, we as a nation can and should support true human rights without crusading for the acceptance of immoral lifestyles. Genuine human rights — and civil rights — are not based on sex, especially deviant sex. Countries should have the right to regulate homosexual sodomy — as we did in America from our inception until 2003, when the Supreme Court reversed a 17-year-old precedent in the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy law case. We should be careful as the world’s most powerful nation not to push the American Secular Left’s decadent values — abortion, homosexuality, condom “sex ed” – on poor countries. Radicals used to call that cultural “imperialism.”

Having America become a leading promoter of immoral-sex-based rights masquerading as “human rights” is a far cry from President Reagan’s vision for this nation being a “shining city on a hill.” Write or call President Bush today: 202-456-1111.– Peter LaBarbera

________________________

Friday Fax, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM)

July 26, 2007 | Volume 10, Number 32
Dear Colleague,

Radical homosexual groups are flooding the UN accreditation process for non-governmental organizations and they seem poised to cause serious problems for traditionally minded countries.

Spread the word.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse
President, C-FAM
 
Controversial UN Procedures Lead to UN Status for Homosexual Groups

By Samantha Singson

(NEW YORK — C-FAM) Overturning a prior decision by the NGO accrediting committee, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) voted to grant official consultative status to the Coalition Gaie et Lesbienne du Quebec (CGLQ) and the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights (RFSL) in Geneva last week.

The voting process was mired in confusion over unclear language. Several delegate requests for clarification interrupted the roll-call vote and led Pakistan to call for a point of order and ask for a re-vote. No re-vote was taken. The motion to grant ECOSOC status passed with 22 countries voting in favor, 13 against, 13 abstaining and 6 absent.

An attorney for one NGO at the Geneva meeting told the Friday Fax, “Increasingly in the past several months, at meetings such as the CSW [Commission on the Status of Women], the Human Rights Council and now the ECOSOC council, there have been serious issues regarding transparency in the voting process.  After witnessing several of these types of incidents, one has to wonder whether voting at the UN really matters or if the result is preordained.”

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and ARC International launched intense lobbying campaigns preceding the ECOSOC vote to ensure that both groups’ applications would be approved. 

In January, the 19-member NGO accrediting committee, a subcommittee of the ECOSOC, rejected CGLQ’s application and deferred RFSL’s request. Despite the fact that there had been a thorough examination of the evidence, the representative of the United Kingdom charged that the rejection of the homosexual rights groups was “straightforward discrimination.”

Debates within the NGO accrediting committee meetings over applications from homosexual rights groups have become increasingly heated in the last few years. While the ECOSOC council almost always accepts subcommittee recommendations, it has made exceptions twice in the last year in order to accredit radical homosexual groups.

The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), an NGO that was stripped of its ECOSOC status because of ties to pedophilia and whose repeated attempts to regain ECOSOC status have been denied, launched an international campaign in 2006 to encourage all of its 550 affiliate organizations to submit NGO applications for UN consultative status. Many have applied and been accepted.

ECOSOC members voting in favor of granting status to CGQL and RFSL included  the United States, the United Kingdom, Albania, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Iceland, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal and Romania.

Voting against were Algeria, Belarus, Benin, China, Guinea, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Sudan.

Speaking to the press after the ECOSOC vote, CGLQ’s executive director and ILGA North America representative, Yvan Lapointe, said that his group now plans to use the UN as a platform for spreading “homosexual rights” to many of the same countries that voted against it.

For more news visit us at http://www.c-fam.org/; copyright 2007 – C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute). Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Homosexual “Marriages” in Massachusetts  

2004                        2005                      2006                     2007 (through April)  

6,121                      2,060                     1,427                              87 

__________________________________________________________________________________

By J. Matt Barber 

Getting married isn’t even on the radar screen for the vast majority of homosexuals. 

The homosexual lobby has fine-tuned its rhetoric in recent years. Through the hyperbolic and repetitive use of such concocted expressions as “marriage equality” and “gay rights,” the left has dishonestly but effectively framed the debate over homosexual behaviors.

By co-opting and misapplying the language of the genuine civil rights movement, homosexual activists — along with kindred leftists in the media, government and elsewhere — are making considerable strides toward reshaping our culture. They’ve enjoyed much success in attaining official government recognition of a disordered and empty, though demonstrably mutable, sexual lifestyle.

They yearn for a society created in their own secular humanist image wherein all are compelled to not only accept, but to celebrate high-risk, unnatural and fruitless homosexual behaviors as both normal and equal to natural expressions of human sexuality. Their ideal is a society in which inherent gender distinctions are eliminated and God’s express design for human sexuality is replaced by morally relative and surreal notions of sexual androgyny.

Nowhere are the dumbing-down of sexual morality and the blurring of gender lines more evident than in the left’s effort to radically redefine marriage. Massachusetts is the only state that currently allows “same-sex marriage.” Nine other states permit some form of “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships,” which, in truth, are simply “gay marriages” by another name. (Those states are Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine, California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii.)

But despite the feigned and fevered cries of liberals for “marriage equality,” it’s becoming abundantly clear that the arguments conservatives have been making against “gay marriage” are spot-on. The vast majority of homosexuals don’t desire “marriage;” rather, militant homosexual activists desire to use “same-sex marriage” as both a tool to normalize homosexual behaviors and as a weapon to tear down the institution of legitimate marriage.

First of all, the term “marriage equality” is illusory. All men and women in the United States have equal access to marriage. But under the very definition of marriage (one man-one woman) no person has the right to marry more than one person at a time or to marry a minor child, a close relative, an animal or a person of the same sex. Generally speaking, any man can marry any woman. Just because one may choose not to do so, does not mean that he cannot do so. And just because one defines his identity based upon his choice to mimic sexual intercourse with persons of the same sex, it does not preclude him from marrying within equally applied parameters. He has equal access to marriage and by definition enjoys “marriage equality.”

But getting married isn’t even on the radar screen for the vast majority of homosexuals who choose to engage in a lifestyle which is largely delineated by short-lived and unstable relationships at best — and more often by casual and promiscuous sexual encounters.

Consider that according to the latest Massachusetts Department of Public Health statistics there have been only 9,695 total “gay marriages” in Massachusetts since 2004 when [Massachusetts then-Governor] began issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals. Of those 9,000 plus, some 6,121 took place in just over the first six months while the “gay marriage” novelty toy still had its sheen.

In 2005, only 2,060 same-sex couples took the “gay-pride” plunge; and in 2006 only 1,427 tied that queer little knot. By the end of April of this year, a mere 87 “gay” couples had “married” in Massachusetts.

Even more telling — though not particularly surprising — are statistics coming out of Canada where “gay marriage” is now legal nationwide. For instance, in the city of Toronto — which boasts of having one of the world’s largest homosexual populations — only one Canadian “gay” couple has “married” so far this year, according to a report by Reuters.

While recently addressing the rapidly downward spiral in homosexual “marriages” in Massachusetts and elsewhere, Tammy Mosher, Massachusetts State Director of Concerned Women for America, observed, “The thrill of their ‘victory’ is gone. It’s not about their ‘right’ to marry and it never has been. It’s about condoning their lifestyle and removing the sacredness of traditional marriage.”

And Mrs. Mosher is absolutely right. As the numbers on this whacky “gay marriage” social experiment continue to plummet, it’s becoming obvious that homosexual activists don’t care one iota about “marriage.” Their true agenda is not really “marriage equality” and the right to enter into monogamous “marriages,” but rather, their intention is to water down traditional marriage so that the institution — which is so very important to healthy child rearing and a healthy society — no longer has a unique and respected place in society. Everything that marriage stands for (i.e., monogamy, fidelity, the nuclear family and those “oppressive” gender stereotypes associated with the need for a “mom” and a “dad”) must be done away with in order to foster acceptance of sin.

But it goes far beyond simply undermining marriage. In order to legitimize disordered sexual behaviors, which have traditionally been considered immoral and are scientifically and objectively proven to be destructive, it’s necessary to dissolve the notion that traditional marriage and the nuclear family are normative and represent the gold standard. According to some, that’s a sexually repressive Judeo-Christian concept, you see. And in order for secular humanism to properly take root, we need a society which embraces the idea that all forms of sexual behavior — no matter how perverse or destructive — are equally valid.

The good news is that Americans are catching on to the disingenuous motives behind the homosexual activist push for “same-sex marriage.” A recent survey by the Pew Center indicates that opposition to “same-sex marriage” is currently at 57 percent (up from 51 percent in just March of last year).

As fewer and fewer homosexuals avail themselves of the opportunity to “marry” in those areas where it’s allowed, it’s likely that the obvious disconnect between the clamor for “marriage equality” and “gay marriages” actually performed will continue to both expose and alert Americans to the illegitimate motives behind this illegitimate concept.

Matt Barber is one of the “like-minded men” with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA’s policy director for cultural issues.

By Peter LaBarbera 

Today, when Americans celebrate their freedom and independence, a man living in Canada is cherishing a more profound liberty — from spiritual bondage to homosexual sin. Michael Glatze, a former rising star in the “gay” movement — and co-founder of “Young Gay America” magazine — publicly “came out” of homosexuality on the web pages of WorldNetDaily yesterday. Click HERE for WND’s breaking news story about Glatze.

Concerned Women for America has a wonderful online interview with Michael Glatze, which you can listen to by clicking HERE. (The set-up page for the CWA interview is HERE. Glatze can be reached at michaelglatze@gmail.com.)

In his WorldNetDaily column, “How a Gay Rights Leader Became Straight,” Glatze writes:

Part of the homosexual agenda is getting people to stop considering that conversion is even a viable question to be asked, let alone whether or not it works.

 

In my experience, “coming out” from under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing thing I’ve ever experienced in my entire life….

 

I believe that all people, intrinsically, know the truth. I believe that is why Christianity scares people so much. It reminds them of their conscience, which we all possess….

 

As a leader in the “gay rights” movement, I was given the opportunity to address the public many times. If I could take back some of the things I said, I would. Now I know that homosexuality is lust and pornography wrapped into one. I’ll never let anybody try to convince me otherwise, no matter how slick their tongues or how sad their story. I have seen it. I know the truth.

I suspect that most people — Christian and non-Christian alike – would cheer Glatze’s transformation, if the dominant media would dare report it fairly. But the pro-homosexuality crew at ExGayWatch is all in a tizzy. For them and all homosexuality advocates, Michael’s rejection of their lifestyle poses a problem, as it undermines the central “gay” lie (myth) of our age: that “being gay” is intrinsically ”who a person is,” and that homosexuality is morally neutral. (Most argue that it is innate, and now the homosexual “christian” movement mischievously asserts that this “orientation” is a gift from God.) 

Glatze’s story is more evidence that homosexuality is what a person does, and how he lives, and that lifestyle/behavior can be changed. If God through Jesus Christ can rescue sinners from drug, alcohol and pornography addictions, how can we deny His power to rescue homosexuals?

I and others have warned Glatze of the hateful, not-so-”gay” attacks that will be coming his way, now that he’s defected from the “gay” lobby’s team, as it were, to God’s. Sure enough, in one of the posts about Glatze on Warren Throckmorton’s blog, ExGayWatch’s Timothy Kincaid uses Glatze’s Christian transformation to recollect the 1978 Jonestown, Guyana mass murder (think Kool-aid and crazed cultist Jim Jones). Thanks for that helpful insight, Tim. 

Michael Glatze told CWA that he left an outgoing message on his computer at “Young Gay America” (the magazine’s website, www.ygamag.com, was down at press time): ”Homosexuality equals death. I choose life.” He made the right choice, but God, it seems, was also doing the choosing. Pray for this young man as we thank God for His gracious work in one repentant sinner’s life — a testimony of what He can do in this nation if we as a people humble ourselves, reject worldly agendas, and return to following Him.

TAKE ACTION –
Send Councillor John DeCicco
a word of encouragement.

What Would YOU Do if America Started Censoring Moral Speech like Canada?

In America, we bristle at the idea of speech –– even unpopular speech –– being censored or officially condemned by the government. But in Canada, it’s happening, and the shocking thing is that speech defending age-old, Judeo-Christian morality is the target. Unlike Canada, the United States has a First Amendment, so it will be much more difficult for the Gay Thought Police to prosecute moral and pro-normalcy speech here than there. But they will try. (Click HERE to read the ex-“gay” group Exodus International’s press release opposing new attempts to pass a “Hate Crimes” law that includes “sexual orientation.”)

Already in America, Christian speech against homosexuality has been censored and restricted by the government. (Click HERE to read about the “Philly 11” losing their civil rights case against the City of Philadelphia.) With respect to the story below about a Canadian city councilman who was fined $1,000 for saying, in accordance with his Catholic beliefs, that homosexuality is not normal or natural, I pose these questions to our readers:

I. To the conservative American legislator or Bible-believing pastor — If we ever reached the point where laws were passed banning and fining “anti-gay” speech (it would be termed “homophobic”), would you: A) comply and stop discussing the issue or B) go on voicing and defending your beliefs in public? If you lived in Canada and faced Mr. DeCicco’s predicament, would you pay the fine? Would you apologize to homosexuals to avoid facing a “human rights” tribunal, even if you knew you said nothing wrong?

II. To what extent in American are we buying into the Left’s definition of “hate speech” in the face of relentless pro-homosexual organizing and political correctness? That is, do many of us who oppose homosexual practice as destructive or sinful opt for silence rather than defend our beliefs, because we fear being called a name? Why do we so easily allow defenders of falsehood and historically wrong behavior to dominate the debate? Are we ashamed of or confused about our moral heritage on this issue? Why?

Pro-lifers are bolder in defending life than pro-family advocates are in defending the principled position that homosexual conduct is always wrong, yet changeable. Why? What can each of us who agree with God do to change public discourse so that we who defend natural (biblical) sexuality (in marriage) are as bold as the defenders of perversion?

P.S. To the homosexual activists who read this email – Would you renounce all pro-“gay” “hate speech” prosecutions (like that against DeCicco)?

To all: be honest in your answers and we’ll publish some of them. Write us using our web contact form. God bless freedom. -– Peter LaBarbera

——————————

Excerpted from Canadian City Councillor Fined $1000 for Saying Homosexuality “not Normal or Natural”, by John-Henry Westen and Gudrun Schultz, published Jan 19, 2007, by LifeSite News:

A Catholic city councillor [John DeCicco, pictured left] in Kamloops, British Columbia, who was himself the victim of the crime of vandalism due to his faith, has been forced to apologize and pay a homosexual activist couple $1000…

Strangely, it was councillor who was shown true discrimination worthy of a human rights complaint. In June, the councillor opposed a homosexual pride proclamation, after which his barber shop was vandalized with “Homophobia Die” scrawled on the door of his business…

In August, homosexual activist couple John Olynick and Greg Koll filed a complaint against DeCicco with the human rights commission over remarks he made at the council meeting and repeated in media interviews. In line with Catholic teaching on the matter, he described homosexual acts as “not normal and not natural.”

In the June interview with LifeSiteNews.com he explained, “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.” He also said that people can do what they like in the privacy of their own homes, but, he said in reference to gay pride parades, they shouldn’t “go out and flaunt it, in front of people who don’t necessarily agree.”

While DeCicco already apologized for the incident once back in October, that apology was not considered part of the settlement. In addition to paying $1,000 to Olynick and Koll, DeCicco will provide a statement saying his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” The settlement will allow the councillor to avoid a Human Rights Tribunal hearing…

DeCicco has said the settlement will not change his opposition to gay pride week. “I’m not going to change my view of my stand,” he said. “My public comments have to be a little more refined.”

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Excerpted from Toronto Maple Leafs Hockey Sponsors Gay Movie Featuring Homosexual 11 Year-Old, by Hilary White, published Nov 24, 2006, by Lifesite News:

The Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team announced today that they have lent the team’s name and logo to a film depicting a homosexual Leafs player. The film portrays a Leafs player who wants to “come out” as a public homosexual, his live-in partnership with the team’s lawyer and their adopted “son,” described as “a budding queen of an 11-year-old boy.”

The film is based on the book of the same title about an 11 year-old boy who is described in an Amazon.com book review as “mincing” and “swishy,” and who has to be prevented from wearing pantyhose, eyeliner and perfume to school.

“Breakfast with Scott”, now being shot on location in Toronto and Hamilton, will go ahead with the willing cooperation of the team’s management. The Toronto Star reports that actor Tom Cavanaugh who depicts the fictional player, Eric McNally, was “shocked” that the Leafs management agreed to allow the team to be depicted in a homosexual propaganda film.

Cavanaugh remarked to the Star on the significance of using the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team, one of the icons of Canadian culture as the background for a story about open homosexuals and endorsing child homosexuality. “There’s something instant to the viewer when you put on a Leafs jersey or any Original Six jersey.”

Olympic swim champion Mark Tewksbury, a board member of the Gay and Lesbian Athletics Foundation, said, “I think it’s really great that (the team management) are supporting it. I know it’s an iconic team, but I think it makes sense this is happening in Canada because we’ve been far ahead on these issues.”

As a work of homosexual propaganda, the film is clearly meant to target the last vestiges of resistance to normalized homosexuality among Canadians. In the book, the homosexual couple live in Cambridge, Massachusetts and are a chiropractor and magazine editor; hockey does not figure at all.

Publishers Weekly praises the book’s value as a pro-homosexual propaganda tool calling it a “heartwarming” and “noble” depiction of a “new configuration of contemporary American family values.”

Publisher’s Weekly review said, “Scot’s flamboyant, androgynous flair makes for some school yard and neighborhood crises, but the boy’s innate sweetness and open-mindedness endear him to several youngsters and most adults.”

The homosexualist ideology asserts that the condition is natural and unchangeable and therefore that children can be born with it and have it be part of their normal sexual development. The depiction of an eleven year-old boy as a homosexual might be more than audiences are willing to accept.

Leafs management, however, seemed sanguine. General manager John Ferguson told the Star, “On our end, we’re certainly not trying to make a statement. … We agreed to host them and we’re comfortable with it.”

…DevaStation and DynaMight, a pair of drag queens who wore go-go boots, shiny miniskirts and headdresses about a half-metre tall, said the day is just about having a good time.

“We’ve been here for the last six years and people almost expect us to go crazy now,” said DevaStation. “We just like to have fun — strut ourselves down the road and make everybody take notice.”

Scott Brison, an openly gay MP who is also a candidate for the federal Liberal leadership, shook hands with people lining the streets as he walked in the parade.

“This is not just a celebration of rights for gays and lesbians and bisexual and transgendered Canadians, it’s a celebration of Canadian rights and our Charter (of Rights and Freedoms),” Brison told CTV News.

Continue reading at CTV…

The following is excerpted from Students Role-play Sadomasochism in Toronto University’s Sexual Diversity Program, by Gudrun Schultz, published Oct 26, 2006, by LifeSite News:

University of Toronto students in the Sexual Diversity Studies Program explore sadomasochism, bondage and domination as part of an “academic” approach to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues, Reuters reported October 20.

Described as “edgy,” the Sexual Diversity Studies program is one of the largest of its kind in North America. Students and teachers defend the program as a serious approach to sexual issues.

“It’s not sexy sex sex, where we’re talking about whips and chains, but we will talk about whips and chains,” graduating student Robbie Morgan told Reuters. “We’ll talk about whips and chains in a political, social, cultural, religious context of sexuality and how that sexuality affects those institutions.”

Program director David Rayside told Reuters the content emphasis is often misunderstood.

“It’s a very serious analytical exercise and it isn’t what a lot of people think it is.”

Program courses include an arts and literature course called “Queerly Canadian,” and a drama class called “Sexual Performance: Case Studies in S/M (sadomasochism).”

“Visiting lecturers will address technical aspects of flogging, restraint, and role-play,” the University’s website course description explains. “Students will ‘research’ questions (e.g. what constitutes coercion? Consent? Control? Submission? Can sexual practices transform our understanding of power?) by the optional performance of selected scenes.”

“Queerly Canadian” asks students to look at how a “queer” perspective of identity could contribute to an “alternative national politics.”

Other courses include “Theories of Sexuality” and “Sexual Diversity Politics.” Created in 1998, the program offers both Major and Minor disciplines and is hoping to establish a Masters program within the next few years.

Sexual “diversity” has become an increasingly central emphasis of the University of Toronto’s social policy over the past decade. In 2003, then-president Robert Birgeneau wrote in the Toronto Star that the University had made “great progress” in ensuring the comfort level of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered or queer” students.

“If anything is needed now, it is to move beyond the institutional level of acceptance to broad awareness and to celebrate sexual diversity on our campuses,” Birgeneau wrote, “in much the same way that we celebrate our remarkable ethnic and cultural diversity.”

The Sexual Diversity program received a $1 million ($900,000) donation last week from Canadian winemaker Mark Bonham to expand the curriculum, Reuters reported.

High school girls in Manitoba may soon be reading detailed instructions on lesbian sex acts as part of their normal sex education curriculum, after the Ministry of Education accepted a manual emphasizing homosexuality as an optional resource for high school educators.

The Little Black Book [for Girlz]–A Book on Healthy Sexuality …claims to be a youth-friendly guide to teenage sexuality, offering girls advice and information.

In reality it reads like a guide to lesbian pornography, with section titles such as “My First Time F***ing a Girl” and “How to Use a Dental Dam” (a “safe sex” device for oral/anal sex).

…“This is one of the most irresponsible and obscene school documents that we have ever seen,” said Joseph Ben-Ami, executive director for the Institute for Canadian Values, in a press release. “Using this as a guide to healthy sexuality for teenage girls would be one of the most potentially harmful decisions that any school could make.”

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT THIS BOOK?
The Institute for Family Values will send whatever evidence they have of the offending material to those who send an email with their contact information to: noblackbook@canadianvalues.ca

The Institute is urging those concerned to contact Manitoba Premier Gary Doer and Minister of Education Peter Bjornson:

Hon. Gary Doer
Premier
204 Legislative Building
450 Broadway,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
R3C 0V8
Phone 204-945-3714 or 204-945-3715
Fax 204-949-1484
email: premier@leg.gov.mb.ca

Hon. Peter Bjornson
Minister of Education
168 Legislative Building
450 Broadway,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
R3C 0V8
Phone 204-945-3720 or 204-945-0418
Fax 204-945-1291
email: minedu@leg.gov.mb.ca

…[T]he Conservative Government [of Canada]…funded the 2006 Vancouver Queer Film Festival, which ran from August 17-27.

The festival’s sponsorship page lists the Department of Canadian Heritage as the offending federal government branch. (See the sponsorship page here.)

Dominique Collin, spokesperson for Canadian Heritage Minister Beverley Oda, told LifeSiteNews.com the Vancouver regional branch of the Heritage department conducted the funding allocation which consisted of $23,000 (Canadian).

Ginette Montreuil, regional manager with the Vancouver office, confirmed that the Conservative Government approved the Arts Presentation Canada funding for the 2006 Festival on March 27, 2006.

The festival line-up included films with titles such as Deconstructing Crack Ho, Dyke After Dyke, I cum I, Lesbians On Ecstasy, Post-Porn & New Technologies Of Pleasure, and Toilet Sex In Canadian Cinema.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Notes from AFT:

Actually, SIX Canadian government offices are listed on the sponsor page linked above.

Corporate sponsors include: Vancity, Showcase, Ramada Hotels, Quality Hotels, Opus Hotels, Visa, and many others.

Of particular note: the “youth-rated” queer films, about which the website suggests: “School is out, but you can queerify your summer.” Three companies are listed as sponsors specifically for this “Out in Schools” portion of the festival: Vancity, BC Hydro, and Vancouver Foundation.

(Additional background on this story is posted at 900 Protest in Vancouver Over Homosexual Activist Control of Gay Curriculum in Schools.)

Excerpted from BC Parents Will Have to Lie to Keep Kids out of Gay Advocacy Curriculum, by Hilary White, published Sept 13, 2006, by LifeSite News:

…As a result of a Human Rights Commission case brought by two homosexual men, a “married” gay couple called Murray and Peter Corren, the two men have been granted an extraordinary say in all school curricula from kindergarten to grade 12 in British Columbia schools.

…The Education Ministry has ordered schools to comply with the Alternative Delivery Policy that outlines the reasons parents may withdraw children from school lessons. The restriction of those reasons to exclude any homosexual advocacy was part of the deal worked out between the government and the two men.

Stillwell is warning government that the requirements will put parents into an untenable conflict over their duty to protect their children.

“A strict application would say the teacher can’t (allow children to opt out), and we know that’s not right,” Stilwell said…

Murray Corren called for the new K-12 curriculum to include, “Queer history and historical figures, the presence of positive queer role models — past and present — the contributions made by queers to various epochs, societies and civilizations and legal issues relating to (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) people, same-sex marriage and adoption.”

The development imposes yet another extraordinary exception from normal rules because it has been insisted upon by gay activists. Homosexual activists have won special exceptions from laws regarding public nudity, sexual solicitation, public sex acts, group sex in their so-called “bath houses”, normal medical safeguards to contain the transmission of dangerous communicable diseases, the posting of sexually explicit billboards and much more. B.C. children are certain to be gradually desensitized by the across the board school curricula changes to become accepting of these practices and other aspects of the highly sexualized gay culture.

Corren objected that allowing parents to remove their children from the classes will defeat the whole object of the exercise.

“There’s no point in us making the curriculum more queer-positive if people can take their kids out,” Peter Corren told the Province yesterday. “This is the public education system. The School Act is quite clear … religion does not play a role in what is taught. We just want the policy to be followed.”

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

The Toronto District School Board is introducing a survey asking high school students to self-identify their sexual orientation, the Canadian Press reported last week.

Ontario students will be asked to provide voluntary information on a variety of questions—for students in grades nine to twelve, those questions will include whether they identify as straight, gay, “lesbian, transgendered, bisexual, queer or two-spirited (an aboriginal term).”

Experts in the field of children’s mental health have suggested the trend in schools toward determining child sexual orientation is dangerously misplaced. George A. Rekers, Ph. D., research director for child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, stated that children are particularly vulnerable to confusion in the development of their sexual identity.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

The Times of India reports that a lesbian in the Indian city of Ahmadabad has received permanent residency in Canada in less than six months. “Sexual preference helped a 29-year-old woman from the city secure a permanent resident (PR) visa to Canada,” says the report. “At a time when most wannabe immigrants are condemned to waiting endlessly for the coveted visa, the girl considers herself lucky to get the visa in less than six months.” The swiftness is all the more surprising since the woman’s purported lesbian lover only immigrated to Canada from the same city in India last year.

That news came as a shock to the Baklinski family who live in the Ottawa Valley in Ontario. Three brothers from the family married women from the United States after attending US colleges. However attaining permanent resident status for their wives has been a prolonged nightmare compared to the relative ease with which the lesbian from India immigrated.

Samantha Baklinski, originally from near Dallas in Texas, told LifeSiteNews.com that she first applied for permanent residence status in April 2004, a few months after marrying Joseph Baklinski, a Canadian citizen by birth. After several months she was informed that there were missing parts of her application but after careful review she and her husband found that it was in fact complete. They nevertheless applied again in February of this year but have still not heard back from Immigration Canada.

Over the course of the two years Samantha gave birth to a son and since she did not have her papers she was not covered under provincial medical insurance and the couple was forced to pay for the medical expenses out of pocket.

A similar situation took place with Veronica Baklinski, originally from Seattle Washington. Her husband Andrew Baklinski – a Canadian by birth – applied to be her sponsor for immigration in May 2001. However, Veronica did not receive a permanent residency till July 2003, just two weeks prior to her giving birth to her first child. The reason her application was problematic was due to the pregnancy since immigration required an x-ray which, given her pregnancy, was not possible.

Another Baklinski wife, Jenny Baklinski who hails originally from Butte, Montana filed for permanent residency this February. Given the problems her sisters-in-law experienced, Jenny filed her application through the office of her local politician so as to have the process expedited. However, Mrs. Baklinski informed LifeSiteNews.com that she and her husband Tim were informed that the immigration offices are currently processing applications from last November, and her delay in receiving her status would be affected accordingly.

Gwen Landolt, Vice President of Real Women Canada told LifeSiteNews.com that the situation was suspicious. “It seems lesbians and gays are getting priority,” said Landolt.

“Canada is becoming a repository for people in homosexual relationships,” she said, since we have an open door policy when it comes to immigration on these terms. Moreover, said Landolt, the system is wide open to abuse.

A former legal counsel for Immigration Canada, Landolt explained that homosexual activists fought a policy which required that common law couples had to be residing together for three years prior to their being considered spousal relations and thus allowed to apply for permanent residency in Canada on a spousal application. With that requirement out of the way, there is an easy loophole for fraudulent appeals for immigration.

To express concerns to Immigration Canada contact:
Immigration Minister Monte Solberg:
Minister@cic.gc.ca