New York Times resident "conservative" David Brooks says it is hard to take Sarah Palin seriously, yet he relied on specious "queer" theology in an attempt to justify legal homosexual "marriage" as a supposed moral cause that conservatives should support. Turning the Bible on its head, Brooks says NOT allowing homosexuals to get married is an "abomination."

By Peter LaBarbera

New York Times columnist and TV pundit David Brooks is a liberal’s kind of conservative. The other day, Brooks made news deriding Sarah Palin as a “joke” on a Sunday talk show. Liberal Palin-haters couldn’t be more pleased, as they always are when “moderate” (read: socially liberal) Republicans deride pro-family conservative Republicans.

Said Brooks about the former Republican Governor of Alaska and GOP vice-presidential candidate:

“She’s a joke. I can’t take her seriously,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination, believe me, it will never happen. Republican primary voters are not going to elect a talk show host.”

I agree with conservative media critic Bernard Goldberg in explaining the dominant elite media’s contempt for Palin: she is a popular, pro-life, conservative, Christian woman — a mix that smug west- and east coast liberals don’t like and certainly not the kind of woman they want to see succeed, much less be President. Surely they are incredulous and envious of her popularity and power, which is far bigger than theirs will ever be (Brooks included).

But what about Brooks? His arrogant, rapid-fire put-down of Palin epitomizes the disdain that RINO (Republican In Name Only) Republicans have for the true, blue, pro-family conservatives who are the collective backbone of the GOP. Socially liberal Republicans whine about “tone” and “tenor” and the alleged harshness of the “religious right,” but I find that it is often the “moderates” who are cutthroat and even nasty in their dealings with religious conservatives in the party.

I don’t know who I will support for the GOP nomination in 2012, or even if Sarah Palin is running.  I hope she does. Palin has earned respect for her accomplishments and her generally principled, conservative positions and she should not be written off as some Republicans like Brooks are doing. Besides, anyone who has taken the hits that she has from the Left deserves a certain degree of appreciation — something the tone-deaf Brooks might have considered if only to keep from losing his truly conservative readers.

Yes, Palin certainly has all the right enemies — including snotty New York Times opinion writers who cheerlead for homosexual “marriage” as a moral — even a “sacred” — cause.

Brooks Backs Buggery

It’s funny. Just before I learned of Brooks’ rash and gratuitous slam on Palin, I stumbled upon a quotation of his that appeared in a booklet put out by the Human Rights Campaign — a powerful homosexual lobby organization — titled, “Answers to Questions about Marriage Equality.” HRC identifies Brooks as a “conservative columnist,” but no true “conservative” worth his salt gets cited favorably by a “gay” activist group that traffics in the worst kind of hateful, anti-Christian bigotry — and that spends millions of dollars every year electing mostly pro-homosexual-agenda and pro-abortion-on-demand Democrats. (HRC also backs a few socially left Republicans like Illinois’ Congresswoman Judy Biggert to create the appearance of bipartisanship.)

Here’s the Brooks’ quote cited by HRC (on page 13) from his November 22, 2003 column in the New York Times, “The Power of Marriage”:

We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

Below is the full context of that quotation from Brooks’ 2003 column; this excerpt follows the contrast that he commendably draws between the noble “culture of fidelity” and the selfish “culture of contingency,” in which men flake out of their marital pledge like some “easily canceled contract.” He writes (emphasis added):

Still, even in this time of crisis, every human being in the United States has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital fidelity — except homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution. A gay or lesbian couple may love each other as deeply as any two people, but when you meet a member of such a couple at a party, he or she then introduces you to a ”partner,” a word that reeks of contingency.

You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women who domesticate men and make marriage work.

Well, if women really domesticated men, heterosexual marriage wouldn’t be in crisis. In truth, it’s moral commitment, renewed every day through faithfulness, that ”domesticates” all people.

Some conservatives may have latched onto biological determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage. But in fact we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We’re moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: ‘‘Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried.”

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

When liberals argue for gay marriage, they make it sound like a really good employee benefits plan. Or they frame it as a civil rights issue, like extending the right to vote.

Marriage is not voting. It’s going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations, is an abomination.

Here Brooks, though ostensibly on the right, evinces the Social Lefts’ disdain for biblically-based morality — and its penchant for stealing religious terminology and using sloppy, politically driven exegesis to advance a man- (not God-) centered agenda in the name of piety.

Not bound by our gender? Is Brooks a guest-lecturer in the Women’s Studies Department at Smith College? Whatever  happened to the truth of Genesis — of man and woman as God’s distinctive and complementary creations — as echoed by Jesus Christ:

“And He answered and said to [the Pharisees], ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said,  ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and  the two shall become one flesh’? — Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)

Yes, God created two “genders” (sexes) — not five or seven or whatever the number claimed by radicals is these days.

Homosexualizing Holy Scripture?

And why did Brooks’ choose the biblical example of Ruth and Naomi for his dubious proposition, anyway?  In the biblical account, Naomi was Ruth’s mother-in-law, and the devoted Ruth (a “woman of excellence”) went on to marry Boaz — so what does this noble relationship between two women have to do with homosexual “marriage”? In fact, although Brooks lacked the guts to come right out and say so, his allusion to the Book of Ruth is a mischievous sop to activist, homosexuality-affirming theologians who twist the Bible to claim that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers [see the Human Rights Campaign's self-serving "Out in Scripture" interpretation of Ruth and Naomi's relationship HERE].

Thus Brooks joins the homosexualists in sexualizing and perverting a wonderful story about selfless love and faithfulness in a desperate attempt to legitimize sinful behavior. By including this nonsensical, “queer” theological misinterpretation of Scripture — which is rejected by the vast majority of serious Bible scholars — Brooks demonstrates his profound ignorance of theology and insensitivity toward pious Jews and Christians. He owes all Bible believers an apology, but as a mere Christian in flyover country (who doesn’t hate Sarah Palin) I’m not holding my breath.

Sacred Sodomy?

Brooks continues in his sophistic folly. He views the prohibition of homosexual “marriage” as scandalous when an intellectually honest reading of Scripture would lead us to declare it “scandalous” to attach marriage — the model of the relationship between Jesus Christ and his Church — to deviant relationships whose “love” is expressed by acts of homosexual sodomy clearly condemned as “detestable” by our loving Creator.

God created sex as the sublime expression of love, unity and commitment between husband and wife, for the purpose of procreation — that is, filling the earth with humankind. In contrast, two men attempting a sexual union produces … disease. The plain truth of the Bible is that secular liberals hate is that homosexual (erotic) love is always illegitimate — the outworking not of “sexual orientation” but the sinful orientation with which each human being struggles. The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah’s words about our deceitful hearts are relevant here. Tough love dictates that we uphold God’s truth about homosexual sin while reaching out with the love of Christ to those who struggle with this sin.

Nature clearly discriminates against homosexuality and, by extension, the oxymoronic notion of “gay marriage.” What larger purpose does anal sodomy serve — with its many health hazards? Can two women produce children without borrowing from heterosexuality? (So much for “equality” — and please, don’t even go there with the silly analogy between homosexual and normal, albeit infertile, couples: the latter do not model aberrant, immoral conduct. Rather, they only seek the blessing of children that their opposite-sex union would normally provide.)

Moving toward his dramatic conclusion, Brooks cavalierly implies that homosexual “intimacy” can be “sacred.” But such a claim begs the question: who defines sacred and what is sacredness? Who determines moral right from wrong?  Christians believe that a holy God defines moral truth and reveals it to man through his divinely inspired Word, the Bible. The Bible is the gold standard of moral authority and Truth — which is why the Homosexual Lobby, as the latest in a long line of rebels, is working so hard to undermine it and distort its teachings. (One HRC staffer, Harry Knox — who also sits on President Obama’s  “Faith Advisory Council” — defiantly declares that “being gay or lesbian is an immutable, unchangeable gift from God, one for which I am very grateful. And it would fly in the face of my respect for God to give that gift back.”)

Harry is playing with fire and needs to repent: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).

Here we must go to Noah Webster’s original 1828 “American Dictionary of the English Language” definition of “sacred,” which avoids the liberal corruption that associates the word with anything “spiritual” (including homosexualized religion):

SACRED, a …from L. sacer, sacred, holy …The sense is removed or separated from that which is common, vulgar, polluted …

1. Holy; pertaining to God or to his worship; separated from common secular uses and consecrated to God and his service.
2. Proceeding from God and containing religious precepts …;
3. Narrating or writing facts respecting God and holy things ….

Note that far from keeping the truly sacred things separate from the corruption of the world, Brooks and other fellow travelers with the “Gay” Lobby are intentionally corrupting the sacred by attempting to fuse it with sin. In their pride, they seek to create a New Morality based upon their own foolish ideas (of which “gay pride” is one). Insidiously, the most radical manifestation of “queer” activism is not the high-heeled drag queens marching down city streets every June — but the “conservative,” domesticated version of homosexual activism that redefines and dumbs down noble institutions like marriage and family — and Truth itself — to the point where words have no meaning.

Besides, even in their gut most people recognize that there’s something deeply wrong with homosexual acts: why else would we cringe at the thought inspired by this question: How do two men consummate their “same-sex marriage”?

Yuck. Behavior — not politically charged abstractions like “gay identity,” is the issue.

Sodomy is not sacred. Sodomy is sin. Homosexual behavior cannot be “sanctified” because it is directly opposed to God’s revealed will and His moral law, as confirmed by thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition. Thankfully, many men and women have found freedom from this destructive lifestyle through the healing power of Jesus Christ — but something tells me that David Brooks will not be writing a sympathetic column about happy and successful former homosexuals anytime soon. (If he did, would the Times run it?)

One last turn of the knife

But wait. It’s not over: Brooks saves his most obnoxious “gotcha” assault on biblical morality for his final sentence — proclaiming it an “abomination” for conservatives NOT to make the “moral” case for “gay marriage.”

What is it about secular, big-city elitists like Brooks that they are driven not only to redefine historic morality, but in so doing they appropriate the language of the divine to define deviancy up (to quote Charles Krauthammer)? Is it because — even though they regard ancient moral norms like keeping sex limited to marriage as quaint anachronisms –  they understand the power of traditional religion to define right and wrong authoritatively, even in this jaded modern era?

My Open Bible (Nelson: 1985; NASB) lists passages about “abominations” as “things utterly repulsive.” Is David Brooks really suggesting that it is “repulsive” to God for his followers to resist cloaking detestable behaviors like homosexual sodomy — which God condemns — in the beautiful robe He created called “marriage”?

Indeed, he is, but cheap rhetorical gimmicks make bad theology. The New Liberal “Morality” is bankrupt and has no compelling, divine authority — I’d use an Emperor-Has-No-Clothes reference but it hits too close to home. Therefore it must steal the words of holy revelation to feign legitimacy. Just as two domesticated homosexual lovers with their adopted child are playing house (to quote my ex-”gay” friend Steve Bennett), social liberals like Brooks who exploit holy words of old to promote trendy sins are playing church.

And boy do they love to “preach” their hollow, false “gospel” without boundaries to Americans, even as they ridicule our appeals to a Higher Authority for moral guidance.

So my message to Sarah Palin and all victims of Christian-bashing is this: don’t let social leftists — even those on the “Right” — get you down. Wear their derision as a badge of honor. In fact, take the fight to them and aggressively defend the old truths while tearing down their rootless, fake “morality” that preposterously elevates sin as “sacred.” You can even quote your Bible if you really want to drive the elitists nuts! Because, to paraphrase Brooks, when secularized liberals, libertarians and media pundits attempt to redefine moral Truth by manipulating and distorting the language of faith, it’s really hard to take them seriously.

Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
Let all that you do be done in love. (1 Corinthians 16:13-14; NASB)

__________________________________

Peter LaBarbera is president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality and an evangelical Christian.

Here’s the YouTube of the ABC “This Week” episode in which David Brooks attacks Sarah Palin:

Then there are the targets of more crass homosexual extremism such as Maggie Gallagher, Greg Quinlan, AFTAH, Mike Heath, and pretty much every pro-family leader who still resists the “queer” activist agenda — and even churches that stick to the Word of God on sexual morality or that dare advance the redemptive truth that men and women can overcome homosexuality through Christ.

A relatively new person on the victim list is Julea Ward,  a graduate student at Eastern Michigan University’s (EMU) School of Counseling who was expelled from the program because she said that as a counselor she could not affirm a client’s homosexual relationship due to her belief in Jesus Christ and biblical morality. Ward is being helped by Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal defense group. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org. This is an ADF video:

Pro-homosexual activist Jesse Connolly (right) — campaign manager for the Maine pro-”same-sex-’marriage’” effort “No on 1″– issued two complete fabrications about me, after I represented AFTAH at a pro-traditional-marriage press conference held Wednesday at the Maine capitol in Augusta:

These malicious comments by Connolly were reported on the homosexual blog “Pam’s House Blend”:

“And they [referring to leaders of the pro-traditional-marriage group  'Stand For Marriage'] can’t stand behind Peter LaBarbera, who has attacked Ben & Jerry’s, supported rescinding women’s right to vote and believes we should return to the Old Testament where gay people were stoned…..”

Connolly’s assertions are false and absurd. As to the “stoning” accusation, AFTAH embraces orthodox Christian teachings on this matter: we have always condemned violence and true hatred against homosexuals. For example, in this 2006 AFTAH article, “Stoning homosexuals: which is the real voice of hatred?, I noted the stark contrast between Christians — who hope for practicing homosexuals to repent of their sin, accept Christ’s forgiveness, and leave the lifestyle — and radical Muslims, who favor draconian, violent punishments against homosexuals (yes, even including stoning, which would commence only after the violator is pushed off a “high building”).

As to wanting to deny women the vote, I don’t know where Connolly got that one. Again, it is completely false. As a legislative aide and prominent Maine political operative, Connolly — who is reportedly on leave from his job as chief of staff to Maine House Speaker Hannah Pingree (D) — should exercise greater care before leveling serious accusations.

However, I will say this: I hope as many Maine women as possible vote “Yes” on Ballot Initiative 1 this Tuesday — to reject counterfeit “same-sex marriage” in the Pine Tree State.

Because of our principled position against homosexual behavior, Americans For Truth is a frequent target of the Left’s smears, lies and plain old mean-spiritedness. But pro-homosexual activists might consider that much of the misinformation and attack pieces posted against conservative groups like AFTAH does not qualify as authoritative source material.

Jesse Connolly’s reckless and baseless accusations against me — which reinforce the crudest and most uninformed secular biases against Bible-believing Christians — definitely qualify as an act of hate.

We call on Connolly to publicly retract and apologize for this malicious smear.

Obama’s Expanding Anti-Christian Agenda: Photo of President Obama appearing on the website of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the world’s most powerful homosexual lobby group. Obama was the keynote speaker at the group’s annual fundraising dinner. He echoed HRC’s talking points by claiming that homosexuality-based relationships are “just as real and admirable” as normal and natural relationships between a man and a woman.

CHICAGO, Illinois — President Obama used the bully pulpit tonight to defy the Creator, by brazenly declaring before a homosexual activist audience that homosexuality-based relationships are “just as real and admirable” as normal relationships between a man and a woman.

Here is how influential one homosexual activist — Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, whose annual fundraising dinner Obama keynoted tonight — reacted to the president’s unprecedented endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle:

“Finally, we heard something quite remarkable from the President:  ‘You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.’

“This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It’s simply unprecedented.”

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality President Peter LaBarbera issued this response:

President Obama has taken his ‘audacity’ to new levels tonight, equating sin-based ‘relationships’ to the normal and natural male-female relationship that finds its best fulfillment in God-ordained, procreative marriage.

During the presidential campaign, Obama once punted on an abortion-related query as to when life begins, saying that was above his “pay grade.” Too bad he didn’t attempt a similar evasion on  homosexuality. The president has gone way over his pay grade on this one. Homosexual practice is a moral issue, settled by the Creator and His clear design of nature since the beginning of time. Obama can no more declare with any authority that abnormal, homosexuality-based relationships are as “admirable” as normal relationships than he can proclaim that each day will now have 30 hours instead of 24 to increase American productivity.

The president could not be more wrong. Homosexual relationships are not to be admired, they are to be pitied, as immoral “unions” that can only pretend to copy real marriage. Moreover, when the government treats such aberrant relationships like marriage, it risks placing hundreds of thousands of children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design, through “gay adoption” — another misguided homosexual demand advanced by Obama.

Perhaps the president needs to meet at the White House with some “ex-gays” — former homosexuals who now live in natural, man-woman marriages — people like Steve Bennett, Yvette Schneider, and Alan Chambers — to see the error of his ways.

We have yet to analyze Obama’s entire speech, but his declaration about admiring immoral homosexual relationships alone is the latest in a series of acts of spectacular hubris that have marked his political career. But Obama has a problem: he sold himself to the American electorate as a moderate Christian who believes deeply in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Yet the more he panders and postures to his impatient homosexual allies, the more Obama’s supposed embrace of husband-and-wife marriage becomes a farce — one apparently designed to fool voters who knew next to nothing about his real, radically pro-homosexual and pro-transsexual agenda.

We don’t blame Obama’s “queer” allies for asking: if you truly believe same-sex relationships are as “real and admirable” as male-female relationships, then why NOT support “gay marriage”? Equal is equal, right? The truth, of course, is that homosexuality-based relationships are anything but equal to the real thing: they cannot produce children; they are based on destructive and changeable behavior that has been condemned by Christianity and other major religious throughout most of civilized human history; and in celebrating their particular sin and attaching it to the noble institution of marriage, they force the teaching of homosexuality and counterfeit “marriage” as normative to schoolchildren in the name of tolerance and equality.

Barack Obama is a man whose “audacity” and pride seem to know no bounds — he even distorts the Bible to justify his “gay” advocacy. In his mind, he knows better than God, or so it would seem. Yet in this respect Obama is not unlike other pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality politicians — mostly Democrats but some Republicans — who take it upon themselves to redefine right and wrong based on their subjective “feelings.” As the prophet Isaiah said long ago, they call good evil and evil good (Is. 5:20).

We hope that Obama’s cynical habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth on the homosexual issue (like other issues) will be his undoing. Now it is time for moral-minded Americans — especially those who voted for Obama  — be they Christian, Muslim or Jew; black, white or brown — to let the White House and Congress know that they will oppose all of the Obama Administration’s legislative efforts to create a bogus “civil right” out of the human wrong of homosexuality.

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, Dr. Michael Brown gave an excellent presentation at AFTAH’s monthly dinner-lecture last week. We hope to post a YouTube on Dr. Brown’s succinct and compelling response to my question on the “Big Three” hostile questions thrown at Christians who defend the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual conduct:

1. “But Jesus Christ never said anything about homosexuality”;
2. “Why should we believe the Old Testament says about homosexuality when it also bans wearing polyester and eating shellfish?”; and
3. “You Christians are so judgmental.”

Dr. Brown, a world renowned biblical scholar, hit it out of the park. He also challenged what he calls the “celebration of ambiguity”in describing neo-evangelicals’ and the “Emergent Church’s” evasive and equivocating — and unbiblical — positioning on the issue of homosexuality.

Brown specifically challenged Chicago evangelical Andrew Marin (right), founder of the Marin Foundation and author of “Love Is Not an Orientation.” Brown praised Marin for wanting to reach out to homosexuals and the portions of the book in which Marin relays personal stories of homosexuals he has encountered who have been hurt by the Church. But he was highly critical of Marin’s misuse of Scripture in interpreting verses dealing with homosexuality.

Brown said of the Emergent Church — which is much more accepting of homosexual identity, uses the controversial term ”gay Christian,” and generally scolds Christians for actively condemning homosexuality and the “gay” political/cultural agenda: “Their cure is worse than the sickness …. [they] have shown more solidarity with [homosexual] people than with God.”

“How are we helping anyone when we make the clear unclear … the unambiguous ambiguous? … How is that love?” Brown asked, calling on Christians to share the full truth of the Gospel in love. After first noting that Christians need to repent for neglecting to lovingly share God’s salvation plan with people caught up in homosexuality, Brown warned against believers falling into a “soulish sympathy” for homosexuals that overrides Biblical truth and their Christian conscience. [AFTAH will be offering a DVD of Brown's talk; write americansfortruth@comcast.net for more information.]

“There is a fundamental denial of the power of the Gospel,” Brown said, noting that a key requirement of being a disciple of Christ is to “deny yourself.”

Brown — who strongly urged Christians to humble themselves and repent for not offering the grace and love of Christ to homosexual friends and acquaintances — will be writing a review of Marin’s book for AFTAH. We will also transcribe Brown’s important critique of Emergent philosophy in a future post.

DISCLAIMER: I have not read Marin’s book yet, but have been deeply troubled by his chameleon-like approach to ministry and his watered-down Gospel as it relates to the issue of homosexuality. Marin — a self-described former “bible-bangin’ homophobe” who moved to Chicago’s homosexual “Boystown” community to reach homosexuals after three of his friends “came out” to him as “gay” – turned on me last year after we both appeared on a Moody Radio broadcast in Chicago.

After our mutual appearance on Moody’s WMBI Radio, I posted a sympathetic Moody commentary about it by WMBI’s Julie Roys. After we republished Roys’ piece, Andrew and his wife pleaded with me to take it off AFTAH’s website to accommodate their covert-like approach to ministry (an approach that has earned him criticism and distrust from both homosexual activists like Michaelangelo Signorile and biblically faithful Christians). After I rejected his appeal, Marin did an online interview on ExGayWatch, a homosexual activist website, to supposedly “clear the record” and distance himself and his work from Americans For Truth.

Marin’s turnaround came just days after he praised me enthusiastically on Moody Radio for “[taking] the bullet for all of us” in opposing the homosexual activist movement. Predictably, ExGayWatch used Marin’s interview as an opportunity to bash my alleged “shameless self-promotion.” I was appalled that Marin would use a blatantly anti-biblical website — one bitterly hostile to the truth that Jesus Christ can help homosexuals leave the lifestyle – to undermine a fellow Christian believer.

(I have worked with Andrew before: in 2006 he once almost appeared at a press conference that I organized as executive director of Illinois Family Institute — comprised of local pro-family leaders confronting the “Gay Games,” which were being held in Chicago. Marin supported IFI’s efforts — which included a Gospel outreach to Gay Games participants – but he pulled out as a speaker at the press conference, fearing that his public stance would hurt his ministry.)

Below is Marin’s startling post on the ”gay”-affirming site, ExGayWatch. I say “startling” because Marin — who regularly works with Moody Bible Institute and is promoted through sympathetic Moody Radio interviews – now seems intent on muddying up the Bible’s clear truth: that homosexual practice is sinful yet changeable through Christ. Dr. Brown noted the exact same tendency in Marin’s book, which he critiqued at AFTAH’s talk.

Needless to say, Christians like Marin who equivocate on biblical truth will be championed by the same homosexual activists who viciously (and erroneously) denounce AFTAH and groups like us as “hateful.”

The highly “ambiguous” Marin “Is Homosexuality a Sin?” piece below is actually a long comment posted on the same ExGayWatch thread that contains his self-serving online interview with homosexual activist David Roberts. To be honest, I was so disturbed by Marin’s actions that I could not bring myself to listen to his XGW interview, but now that he’s “out of the closet,” as it were, with his “Love is an orientation” approach toward homosexuality, it’s time to review his comments and correct the record ourselves. We will respond point-by-point to Marins’ take on what transpired with WMBI and his dubious exegesis of Scripture.

I do not believe — or at least I hope — that the equivocating Andrew Marin, who seems ashamed of the Gospel of Christ (at least as applied to homosexuality),  represents Moody Bible Institute’s approach towards the homosexual issue. Moody has faithfully served the Lord for decades. And I regret that despite Julie Roys’ hopeful commentary, we must now openly oppose Marin’s habit of downplaying the sin of homosexuality — forgiveness for which is part of the great transforming work of Christ!

Dr. Brown is absolutely right: there is a great need for ministry-minded Christians to lovingly share the Gospel with practicing homosexuals, but they should never resort to publicly obfuscating or denying biblical Truth to carry out that mission. Please pray for Andrew Marin – that he will return to the truth on this issue, including the parts that are politically incorrect. – Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth

_____________________________

DL Moody once preached:

That’s the trouble with the sinners in Chicago.  They’ve turned against God, broken His commandments, trampled His law under their feet, and their sins hang upon them; until they show signs of repentance their sin will remain.  But the moment they see their iniquity and come to God, forgiveness will be given them and their iniquity will be taken out of their way.  Said a person to me the other day, “It is my sin that stands between me and Christ.” “It isn’t,” I replied, “it’s your own will.” That’s what stands between the sinner and forgiveness.  Christ will take all your iniquities away if you will. Men are so proud that they won’t acknowledge and confess before God.  Don’t you see on the face of it, if your boy won’t repent you cannot forgive him, and how is God going to forgive a sinner if he don’t repent? If He was allowing an unrepentant sinner into His Kingdom, there would be war in Heaven in twenty-four hours.  You cannot live in a house with a boy who steals everything he can lay his hands on.  You would have to banish him from your house.

__________________________________

Andrew Marin’s Post on ExGayWatch

Andrew Marin’s comment posted on the homosexual activist website “ExGayWatch,” on April 24th, 2008:

Hello Everyone,

I am part of the subject of this post [referring to his online interview] and I wanted to say a few things. First, I appreciate the opportunity that I was given by David to explain what happened. I also appreciate everyone’s comments, and I want to let all of you know that I want to be as open and transparent as I can possibly be.

With that in mind I would like to address Bob’s concerns one by one because I am not trying to hide anything from anyone. I want to be honest about my life, my experiences and my organization – and so here are detailed answers for each of the concerns that were raised.

1. To explain my verbiage of “love” and “not judging” and how that influences our “educational work”:

As I said on the interview, my view of love is lived out through the following definition – love is a tangible and measurable expression of unconditional behaviors that no matter who you are, what you say or what you do I have your back 110% and will never leave or give up on your salvation/belief in God. I believe that the word love has become a trivial word coming from the Christian community to gays and lesbains because too often Christian expressions of love has become conditional. My goal is to unconditionally be apart of, and involved in people’s lives to overcome that negative perception and truth of what “love” has become. The Father is unconditional; Jesus is unconditional; and so to do I want to follow that example whether or not there is any “change” because at the end of the day only God can allow someone into heaven. So why not seek validation from the One who can bring eternal validation. Humanly opinions have no bearing on heavenly judgment, and therefore my wish is to take those humanly judgments away and focus on our Lord and let Him do as He sees fit for each of our lives. Therefore our entire educational work is based off of this premise.

2. Is homosexuality a sin?

Does anyone else ever wonder why when it comes to the most divisive topic in the church today that most questions revolve around one word, yes or no answers? I started to think about that, and I’ve come to the conclusion that both sides ask those same yes or no questions at the beginning so they can then label you and place you on their side, or the opponent’s side. This is nothing more than an expression of an “us vs. them” mindset. Building bridges cannot happen through an us vs. them mindset. Therefore, is homosexuality a sin?

I have three clear answers:

1. Romans 3:23 – we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God

2. James 2:10 – in God’s eyes, if you have committed one sin you have committed them all

3. Matthew 7:1-2 – the measure you use to judge others will also be used to judge you

Theologically I believe that sin has been propitiated to us all through the Original Sin, and we are all born sinful into a sinful world. My position is that it is time to elevate the conversation past what is always fought about and shift our mind-frames to belief and communication with the Creator. If we can focus on a tangible expression of love, belief and a humbled understanding of ourselves, and each other’s point of view as valid to their experience – in our lives and our sexuality (from both sides) –then we can advance the worship and dialogue past negative debates and onto more important eternal issues. I strongly believe that we are all on the same plain constantly learning and growing in our lives and faith trying to figure this life out. The unique juxtaposition is that we will never figure it out and have to live by that same faith to continue on another day, in what many times is a non-felt security by God. We know He’s there and yet there are times, especially during the extremes of when things are great and when things are horrible, that we don’t feel Him. Hebrews 11:1 states that faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. I feel as though it is my job to tangibly reach out to the GLBT community and apologize for what has happened in the past – and then help both sides to move forward to bring faith and spiritual reconciliation to a community evangelical Christians have traditionally only fought against.

3. Where do I stand of civil rights issues such as marriage equality?

I let the politicians handle the politics. I head a religious organization that is solely focused on religion and spirituality and to a bridge being built between time-tested opposing communities. I believe that politics does not have to enter into every conversation. I understand that many of the “religious right” have placed themselves in the middle of political debates and agendas, as well as many on the “left” have done the same. I will do neither. I have been put here for spiritual things, and that is my only focus. When our government decides either way, I will so live by those laws and not argue, disagree or fight in either direction. My world is not of this world because of what is to come.

4. “If I love gays, why do I oppose gay rights?”

I have never commented on gay rights so I am not sure where that statement is coming from – this is the first time. Just because I was connected by a third party to LaBarbera does not mean I agree or disagree. Others can continue to fight over politics, I just wish to focus on being as best of a representation I can to the one true God.

5. “In a Reader interview I flunked both tests”

The link to the Reader article is
http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/andrewmarin/

and if so inclined, please read it in its entirety. I believe that all quotes need further context, but becuase this issue was brought up here is a direct quote from that article:

The Marin Foundation takes no official position on gay marriage or gay adoption, although Marin praised one of his gay students who took in foster children from a third world country with his partner. And he says there’s no reason gays shouldn’t serve in the military. But these familiar debates are, for Marin, “nitpicking,” so mired in the realm of politics and worldly power that they detract from his broader spiritual mission. “I’m not political,” he insists. “I’m religious.”

6. There are other denominations that affirms the GLBT community so why do you need a “ministry”?

First, The Marin Foundation is not a ministry. We are an organization that is not connected to a church or denomination. We work with 9 different denominations in fact, including Episcopal and UCC churches. We are here because there are many people in the GLBT community who are frightened of church – the building, the dogma, the stigma that comes with the name. As a non-profit organization we are not a church, and therefore a safe place for people to come to talk, be validated as a child of God, listened to and not have to feel like they are being preached to or tied down to one thing or the other. Many people in the GLBT community who participate in our organization say that is the reason they go to us and not a church. Also, the Episcopal and UCC are traditionally liturgical in their approach. We have found that there are many GLBT people who were raised in evangelical homes and wish for that same environment. The Marin Foundation is one of the ways to return into spiritual things that are more comfortable for them then attending a church of any particular denomination. My denomination is the belief in God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit who love me as their child.

7. Bob [Schwartz, of the hard-left Gay Liberation Network] called me an “unabashed homophobe” and that I am a “velvet-gloved hammer of antigay bigotry and discrimination.”

I in deed was, for the first 19 years of my life a homophobe. There was no two-ways about it. But to call me that now, with so many people in the GLBT community who love and respect me and the work that I do through The Marin Foundation who has helped so many GLBT people who have been really hurt by religion, is off base. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and after I read Bob’s post I had an epiphany this morning.

“I need to release the burden of having to feel like I have to convince people who don’t like me, of the things that I know are true in my life whether they agree or not.”

This might seem like old hat to all of you reading that, but my problem is that I take way too much too personally. So when I am insulted it really hurts my soul. I’m not a hardened season veteran of this issue that insults don’t hurt. I don’t have people call me names everyday of my life, so it stings when it does happen. Maybe it’s because I’m younger than most who are already involved, maybe I am naive? I don’t know. But regardless of where it comes from the reason I felt that I needed to write all of these issues down was to clear my conscious of being saddened by what Bob said.

I believe now, that I have covered all of his major points. I am very open to peaceful discussion and I look forward to continuing this very important dialogue.

Thank you very much.

[Marin posts again in the discussion on ExGayWatch; you can also listen to his interview in which he opposes AFTAH's Peter LaBarbera; go to: http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2008/04/labarberas-shameless-self-promotion-may-damage-a-real-ministry/]

RSVP to aftahangela@gmail.com (847-722-5330) or and you can get additional information by calling 630-717-7631 or e-mailing americansfortruth@comcast.net. I hope to see some of you tomorrow evening!  — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

Here are the event details:

WHO:  Dr. Michael Brown,  director of the Charlotte, NC -based Coalition of Conscience and president of FIRE School of Ministry in Concord, North Carolina. Dr. Brown, who holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University, is the world’s foremost Messianic Jewish apologist. (Messianic Jews are Jews who believe in Jesus Christ (who was Jewish!) as their Messiah.) Brown is the author of 20 books and in 2010 will publish “A Queer Thing Happened to America,” which exposes the extremist teachings of “queer theology.”

WHAT:  AFTAH’s monthly dinner-lecture: Dr. Brown will be preaching on how faithful Christians are called to both RESIST the radical homosexual activist agenda and REACH OUT in grace and love with the Gospel of Jesus Christ to men and woman practicing homosexuality.

WHEN:  Thursday, Sept. 17, 6:00-9:00 PM.  Casual dinner begins at 6:00, followed by Dr. Brown’s talk from 7:00-9:00.  There will be a time for Q&A after a mid-talk break for refreshments.  A free will donation will be taken to cover the cost of the event. This event will be videotaped and a tape will be offered by AFTAH for purchase.

WHERE:  AFTAH’s office at 25W560 Geneva Rd., in Carol Stream, IL.  We are located on Geneva Rd., just west of Gary Rd.; (Carol Stream is next door to Wheaton in Chicago’s western suburbs.)  Look for the “Kingsland” sign out front and park in the rear.

WHY YOU SHOULD COME (and bring your PASTOR): If you struggle with or wonder about questions like these, this event is a great opportunity for you to strengthen your heart and mind on the issue of the Christian approach towards homosexuality and “gay” activism:

• If as a Christian, I want to lovingly minister to gays and lesbians, shouldn’t I avoid the anti-homosexual-agenda “culture war”?
• As a pastor, how best can I minister to active homosexuals?
• What responsibility do I as a pastor have in helping to resist the homosexual activist agenda and to proclaim biblical truth outside my church doors about homosexuality?
• How does the “GLBT” agenda threaten our religious and First Amendment freedoms?
• How are “queer” theologians undermining and distorting the Word of God? How does the gay theologians’ “Jesus” differ from the biblical Christ?
• Can I still love my “gay” friends or relatives while helping the pro-family movement resist the demands of the  homosexual activist agenda?
• How do I respond to gay activists who compare the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality to “wearing polyester” or eating shellfish? Why should I take what the Old Testament says about homosexuality seriously when it also advocates the stoning of rebellious children, etc.?
• How do I respond to people who tell me that I’m being judgmental if I don’t accept people being gay?
• Shouldn’t Christians stop condemning homosexuality as sin to show their love for the homosexual?
• Can a person be “gay” and a faithful Christian? Is the term “gay Christian” acceptable?
• Why are so many Christians AWOL in the Culture War?
• What have Christians done wrong in opposing the “gay” movement?
• Can homosexuals really change and leave their “gay” lifestyle and identity behind?
• What about the idea that churches should put a “moratorium” on preaching against homosexuality to help reach out to gays with the Gospel?
• My liberal friends tell me that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality: how do I answer that?
• If we’re against promiscuity, shouldn’t we let two people of the same sex who love each other and want to commit themselves to each other at least have their “civil unions” be recognized by the government? Shouldn’t we be FOR (same-sex) monogamy?
• If gays and lesbians didn’t choose their attractions, why is it a sin?
• Are transsexuality and cross-dressing sins in the Bible?
• I am not a Christian: give me some other reasons why I should oppose homosexuality in general, and “gay rights” laws in particular

Other AFTAH articles about Dr. Michael Brown:

• A Model Christian Response to ‘Gay’ Pride: ‘God Has a Better Way’ in Charlotte
• ‘Can You Be Gay and Christian?’ Dr. Michael Brown Invites Homosexual Clergy to Dialogue
• Should Christians Support Same-Sex Unions as a Matter of Justice? Dr. Michael Brown Responds to Jim Wallis
• LISTEN ONLINE: CWA Interviews LaBarbera and Dr. Michael Brown on ‘God Has Better Way’ Outreach
• Higgins Responds to Wayne Besen’s Screed against Dr. Michael Brown
• Dr. Mike Brown’s Debate with HRC’s Harry Knox to Air on Free Webcast May 5th

_____________________________
RSVP for the Dr. Michael Brown dinner-lecture to: aftahangela@gmail.com (847-722-5330) or and you can get additional information by calling 630-717-7631 or e-mailing americansfortruth@comcast.net. I hope to see some of you tomorrow evening!  — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

Sen. Kennedy: Hero of Homosexual Agenda: after his death, a homosexual activist reveals that Ted Kennedy used his massive influence in Massachusetts to pressure legislators to deny the state’s citizens a chance to vote on “same-sex marriage.” After the 2007 vote that blocked a traditional marriage amendment in his state, Kennedy congratulated a leading “gay” activist with these words: “What you accomplished for the people of Massachusetts is tremendous.” What about “the people’s” right to decide whether marriage should be radically redefined? At left is a cartoon published in the Boston homosexual newspaper Bay Windows.

_________________________

Dear AFTAH Readers,

Now that the eulogies are over, it’s time to tell the truth about the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s unprecedented anti-pro-life and anti-family legacy. Last week I heard FOX’s Bill O’Reilly describe the late Kennedy as a “committed Catholic.” (His guest, talk show host Laura Ingraham, a conservative Catholic, was taken aback.) Certainly, Kennedy was committed, but not to the social positions of his own church. He was a leading crusader for abortion-on-demand — after flip-flopping from being pro-life (so much for compassion and helping the “little guy”). And he used his considerable power to advance the full, radical homosexualist agenda; click HERE to read the praise he received from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, an extremist homosexual organization if there ever was one. Kennedy was one of just 14 Democrats to vote against the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA), which President Obama is now trying to undo.

Tragically, Ted Kennedy was a central figure in helping set American liberalism and the Democratic Party on their current trajectory of celebrating a culture of death and deviance in the form of state-sanctioned abortion and homosexuality.  In fact, so egregious were Kennedy’s departures from Church teachings that many Catholics, to quote Fr. Thomas Euteneuer of Human Life International, were upset that he was being extolled “with the full honors of a public Catholic funeral and all the adulation that attends such an event.” Also read the Catholic Action League press release: “Kennedy Funeral Mass a ‘Scandal,’ Says Catholic Action League of Massachusetts.”

Oddly, after his passing, we are learning that Kennedy was even more extreme than most conservatives knew. In 1983, he even secretly approached Soviet Communist dictator Yuri Andropov with a traitorous quid pro quo offer to help Andropov confront U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy; the media dutifully ignored Kennedy’s treachery when it was exposed by a British researcher in 1992. And now self-described “queer” activists are revealing the full extent of Kennedy’s efforts to advance their God-defying agenda. How strange that a Catholic would be so committed to denying the people of his own state a chance to vote on whether marriage should be redefined to accommodate homosexual relationships, which his own Catholic Church describes as sinful and disordered. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

MassResistance reports:

__________________________________________

August 28, 2009

Major homosexual activist reveals Ted Kennedy’s crucial role in defeating Marriage Amendment in Massachusetts Legislature

By Brian Camenker

Sen. Ted Kennedy was the secret critical force in the background that caused the Massachusetts Legislature to deny the people the right to vote on the Marriage Amendment, it was revealed this week.

Less than 48 hours after Kennedy’s passing, the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows published an article by Marc Solomon, who at that time ran MassEquality, the main homosexual lobby group trying to stop the amendment.

Ted Kennedy personally pressured enough conservative Democrats (and even “libertarian-leaning” Republicans) who the homosexual lobby was targeting, to change their votes on that the measure to allow a public vote would be defeated. Kennedy also worked on the overall strategy to defeat it. Without Kennedy’s involvement, it would likely not have been defeated the Legislature — and the people would have been able to vote.

Here’s what Solomon told Bay Windows:

Our cause was lining up the votes to defeat an anti-gay constitutional amendment that would strip same-sex couples of the right to marry. A final vote was scheduled for July 14, 2007. Our opponents needed the votes of only 25 percent of the legislature to advance a citizen-led amendment to the ballot. We had lined up two-thirds of the legislature through fieldwork, lobbying, media, literally everything we could think of. But getting those last 15 legislators-those conservative Democrats from working class Massachusetts communities and a few libertarian-leaning Republicans-was very tough. We needed all hands on deck to keep a Massachusetts version of Proposition 8 off the ballot. We needed Ted Kennedy.”Could you get me a list of your targets?” one of Kennedy’s key staffers finally asked me. “Don’t tell anyone I’m asking you for this,” he said. He meant it, and I didn’t.

A few days later, as I was doing my rounds in the State House, a bewildered conservative legislator stopped me. “You’ll never guess who left me a message about gay marriage,” he said. “Ted Kennedy.” And then I started to hear similar refrains again and again. We’d get word that he’d spoken to the Governor, the Speaker of the House, the Senate President, the chair of the Democratic Party, asking for updates, strategizing, figuring out exactly what he could do and how he could be most helpful.

In the end, on that July 14, we won. We won what many thought was an impossible victory, by a vote of 151 – 45, keeping our opponents just below the 25 percent threshold. We shocked our opponents. They were sure they had the votes. Just the kind of come-from-behind, unexpected victory for the little guy that Kennedy relished so much.

Later that day, after rallies, celebrations, and parties, I sat down at my desk and listened to voice messages of congratulations, one after the next. One moved me to my core.

“Marc, Ted Kennedy calling from Washington, DC. Congratulations on what you did today. What you accomplished for the people of Massachusetts is tremendous. Good work, my friend.”

Click HERE to read the entire Bay Windows article

Kept secret until now

It’s interesting — and pretty shameful — that Kennedy obviously wanted to keep this a secret. If he was so proud of his “principled” stands, why not make them public? The truth is that Ted Kennedy was much more radical than most people realized (on this and other issues). A lot of insiders knew that. But if the public found out it’s pretty clear that there would be a backlash that would be very unnerving, even for Kennedy.

Flood of praise in Boston media

In the Boston media it was a week of nonstop Kennedy adulation. Interestingly, the Boston Herald, which Kennedy once tried to shut down by passing a special federal law, out-did the Globe in gushing coverage.

Editor’s Note: we have received several letters in response to this post asking us to clarify that the “Lutherans” in question represent only the liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) — and not the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, which is the Lutheran denomination that rejects homosexual clergy and remains faithful to Scripture and the historic tenets of the Christian faith. 

By Peter LaBarbera

The recent vote by liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) — the liberal “Lutheran” denomination — to embrace homosexual clergy is yet another sign of America’s spiritual and moral confusion, and how far down the of road of social decay we have traveled. [Click HERE to read the response to ELCA by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.] The New York Times reports:

By a vote of 559 to 451, delegates to the denomination’s national assembly in Minneapolis approved a resolution declaring that the church would find a way for people in “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same-gender relationships” to serve as official ministers. (The church already allows celibate gay men and lesbians to become members of the clergy.)

If you take the Bible seriously and thus reject as unscriptural the modern, “gay” activist construct of homosexuality as a benign “sexual orientation,” then you might join me in asking: would the ELCA ever have a vote on hiring pastors addicted to pornography? Would the ELCA deliberate on whether pastors practicing adultery or incest should be welcomed into the fold? Certainly not, yet all of these, like homosexuality, are sexual sins. Once again, homosexuality gets a special indulgence from liberals who, sadly, have lost faith in the Bible as inerrant, divinely authored Truth — and Jesus Christ’s ability to help lift people out of sin.

There are some important lessons from the ELCA story:

1. The folly of putting God’s law up for a vote — especially in a morally compromised church: Alan Medinger, a former homosexual and dean of Christian ex-gay ministry (with Regeneration), once opined that there is no need to have a church dialogue on homosexuality because the Bible has already spoken clearly on the subject. Medinger is right: the ELCA vote is as preposterous as the liberal “Jesus Seminar” scholars taking votes on which portions of Scripture are legitimate (”true”) — in their quest to identify the “historical Jesus” as opposed to the Christ of the Bible. If Lutherans can vote for special treatment of this particular sin, why not others? (How about shoplifting in these economically troubled times?) That the self-styled “queer” movement and media have succeeded in changing the terms of the debate does not alter the truth that we are talking about sexual misbehavior that God calls an abomination (detestable) in the Old Testament — and a sin that is changeable through Christ in the New;
2. The role of radical feminism and shared victimology in the church’s embrace of homosexuality: note the linkage of the alleged victim status of women and homosexuals to serve the GLBT agenda. However, even if one accepts female ordination, it has nothing to do with the GLBT agenda, as the latter (sexual behavior) is changeable while the former (one’s biological sex) is not;
3. The practical, direct role of lesbian feminists and homosexuals in subverting historic Biblical teaching: Note the lesbian Bronx pastor, “Rev.” Katrina Fostor, in this AP story [see photo below]: for Foster to accept biblical truth, she would have to shed an artificial “identity” based upon her proud embrace of sinful sexual impulses. As it stands now, she is on the road to hell and I hope and pray that she repents. (Can I still say that or is it a hate crime?) There are many homosexuals in various denominations working to undermine Biblical truth. If you believe in politically-driven, “democratic” “morality,” changing creeds becomes a numbers game. And politically-driven morality is precisely what is behind the “Gay” Lobby’s recent foray into Christian theology: they know that religious people who agree with God about marriage and sexual sin are the last impediment to achieving their overall agenda. And so they set out to radically redefine Christianity itself;
4. The role of “proud” homosexuals and their desperate need for approval in destroying good organizations: so often homosexuality is presented as a personal issue — as if opposing “gay rights” means sticking your busybody’s nose in someone else’s private business. Such notions now seem quaint given the far-flung demands of the “Gay” Lobby — including giving first-graders propagandistic lessons on homosexuality — and its adherents’ willingness to trample over the First Amendment freedoms of traditionalists.  The homosexual activists’ relentless drive for approval, coupled with their deep resentment of God’s Word (or at least historic Judeo-Christian wisdom) as it applies to their pet sin, leads them to elevate their supposed “rights” over the best interests and beliefs of the targeted institution. Case in point: the Boy Scouts of America, which had no “sexual agenda” except to live by its own “morally straight” code. No matter: “gay” activist lawyers went all the way to the Supreme Court in their unsuccessful attempt to force the BSA to abandon its creed. To this day homosexual activists are maligning the poor Scouts — and punishing them financially — even if it means harming the welfare of boys. Who are the real victims here? Of course, the most compelling example of homosexual infiltration nearly destroying an institution is the homosexual-priest-predator scandal in the American Catholic Church: read author Michael Rose’s Good Bye Good Men to learn the whole sad story;
5. The pivotal role that (false) “LGBT” (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) identity plays in negating traditional norms and fueling the homosexualist “civil rights” charade: again, nomenclature and semantics are key here. (Allegedly unchangeable) “gay” “orientation” is the shaky foundation for the homosexuals activists’ bogus claim that their cause is a continuation of “civil rights.” If they are wrong and the Bible is right — and same-sex sexual behavior is but one of many changeable sin patterns — then their entire movement crashes to the ground. This is why professional homosexual zealots like Wayne Besen work so hard to demonize and deny the existence of “ex-gays”: every changed homosexual is a reminder that homosexuality is nothing like race and that “gay and lesbian” activists, too, can leave the lifestyle;
6. Lastly, if ever there was an exercise in futility, this was it: moral truth comes from a holy God, not sinful man. Make no mistake: the homosexual activists act as if they possess absolute truth — that’s what makes them so dangerous. These dedicated social revolutionaries — with their naive (albeit often well-meaning) straight allies in tow — do not flinch at dismissing Biblical Christianity as “hateful” and “discriminatory.” Seems our overly judgmental God is Himself a bigot. Go figure. In their minds and hearts, the GLBT ideologues are morally superior to us, even though their radical truth claims come up empty, resting as they do essentially on subjective feelings and sexual/gender confusion. This is indeed a “Culture War” to define Truth — yet so many Christians are AWOL. But at least they are not traitors: shame on the ELCA majority for passing this measure that does great violence to the Word of God. There are atheists with a better understanding of Christian sexual morality than these religionists with their trendy heresies. Political and cultural power — and the ability to organize a vote — does not equate with truth. It’s time for faithful Christians to come out of their church closets and get busy reinstating God’s Word as the true standard of morality in America.

______________________________

Associated Press and AFA’s One News Now report:

Evangelical Lutherans Abandon Bible teaching on homosexuality
Patrick Condon – Associated Press Writer – 8/22/2009

MINNEAPOLIS – Even though the Rev. Mark Chavez believes the leaders of his church made a decision in direct contradiction of the Bible by lifting a ban on sexually active, monogamous gays and lesbians as clergy, he said he’s staying with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA).

“I’m not leaving,” Chavez said Friday night, promising an effort to keep the church moving even further toward what he sees as an embrace of behavior condemned by Scripture.

Chavez, of Landisville, Pa., is director of Lutheran CORE, a conservative group within the ELCA that fought the homosexual clergy policy. The group will hold a convention in Indianapolis in September to review its next steps, but Chavez said he thinks some ELCA clergy, congregations and individual members will walk away from the nation’s largest Lutheran denomination.

The change to gay clergy policy passed with the support of 68 percent of about 1,000 delegates at the ELCA’s national assembly. It makes the group, with about 4.7 million members in the U.S., one of the largest U.S. Christian denominations yet to abandon the authority of God’s Word on homosexuality.

“I have seen these same-gender relationships function in the same way as heterosexual relationships — bringing joy and blessings as well as trials and hardships,” the Rev. Leslie Williamson, associate pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church in Des Plaines, Ill., said during the hours of debate. “The same-gender couples I know live in love and faithfulness and are called to proclaim the word of God as are all of us.”

But the change may be too much for some Lutherans. Conservative congregations will not be forced to hire gay clergy, but opponents nevertheless warned there could be spiritual consequences for a church that strays from Scripture.

“This will cause an ever greater loss in members and finances. I can’t believe the church I loved and served for 40 years can condone what God condemns,” said the Rev. Richard Mahan, pastor at St. Timothy Lutheran Church in Charleston, W.Va. “Nowhere in Scripture does it say homosexuality and same-sex marriage is acceptable to God. Instead, it says it is immoral and perverted.”

Mahan said he believed a majority of his congregation would want to now break away from the ELCA.

Other leaders indicated they might leave as well. The Rev. Tim Housholder, pastor of St. Luke’s Lutheran Church in Cottage Grove, Minn., described himself during the debate as a rostered ELCA pastor “at least for a few more hours.” The Rev. Marshall Hahn, pastor at St. Olaf Lutheran Parish in Dubuque, Iowa, said he’d need to talk to his bishop “to discuss what this means for my future with this church.”

Other Christian denominations in the United States have struggled to remain united in the face of such debates. In 2003, the 2 million-member Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop, a move that alienated American Episcopalians from its worldwide parent church, the Anglican Communion. The divide has led to the formation of the more conservative Anglican Church in North America, which claims 100,000 members.

But ELCA supporters of its denomination’s change said failure to ratify it ran just as great a risk of alienating large portions of the membership, particularly younger ones.

The Rev. Katrina Foster (pictured at left), pastor at Fordham Evangelical Lutheran Church in The Bronx, N.Y., said Lutherans heard similar warnings about flouting Scripture when they made past changes that are now seen as successful — chiefly, the ordination of women.

“We can learn not to define ourselves by negation,” said Foster, a lesbian. “By not only saying what we are against, which always seems to be the same — against gay people. We should be against poverty. I wish we were as zealous about that.”

Under the new policy, heterosexual clergy and professional lay workers must still abstain from sex outside marriage. The proposed change would cover those in “lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships.”

Folks, Americans give far more credit to professional institutions like the American Psychological Society (APA) than they deserve. We forget the strong liberal, anti-faith bias of academia and especially the soft sciences — and the enormous cultural subversion that PC-driven professional organizations have engaged in over the years. (Groundbreaking “sexologist” Alfred Kinsey himself was a notorious pervert.) This includes, in the APA’s case, forays into the “study” of adult-child sex (pedophilia). Remarkably, as Lifesite’s Matthew Hoffman reports below, the APA continues its affiliation with known pedophilia advocate Theo Sandfort. Regardless of what it puts out on the (in)ability of people to change their “orientation” (translation: sexual practices, thoughts and habits), the APA has no moral authority on these matters given its documented conflict-of-interest stemming from an overwhelming pro-homosexualist bias. Conservatives should resist the temptation to cite the APA as authoritative when it happens to bend a degree or two in their direction. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

_______________________________

LifeSiteNews reports:

The Psychological Profession and Homosexuality: Lunatics Running the Asylum?

Special LifesiteNews Report Commentary by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman [click HERE to sign up for LifeSiteNews e-mail updates]

WASHINGTON, August 14, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) — A man goes to a psychologist with a problem.  “Doctor,” he says, “I’m suffering terribly. I feel like a woman trapped inside the body of a man.  I want to become a woman.”

The psychologist responds: “No problem. We can discuss this idea for a couple of years, and if you’re still sure you want to be a woman, we can have a surgeon remove your penis, give you hormones for breast enlargement and make other changes to your body.  Problem solved.”

Gratified, the first patient leaves, followed by a second. “Doctor,” he says, “I feel terrible. I’m a man but I feel attracted to other men.  I want to change my sexual preference.  I want to become heterosexual.”  The psychologist responds: “Oh no, absolutely not!  That would be unethical.  Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic!”

The irony of this little tale is that, while reading like a joke, it is in reality an accurate description of the mental health professions today.  While dismissing and condemning reparative therapy for homosexual orientation, the majority of psychiatrists and psychologists in Anglophone North America have embraced the concept of “sex change,” a procedure that does nothing more than mutilate the patient to appease his confused mind.

The American Psychological Association Perpetuates the Madness

In its most recent statement on the topic, the American Psychological Association (APA) has softened its tone somewhat against psychologists who do reorientation therapy for homosexuals. However it maintains that, “Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation.”

The refusal of the organization to accept the increasingly strong evidence against its position is another reminder of how entrenched the sophistry of sexual hedonism has become among the leaders of the organization.

In recent years, a number of studies have been published in peer-reviewed psychology journals, indicating that significant numbers of patients who voluntarily participate in therapy to change their sexual orientation are successful and happy with the results. Combined with numerous individual testimonies by former homosexuals, evidence in favor of the practice is overwhelming.

However, in its new report, “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation,” the APA’s leadership declares that all of those studies can be dismissed because, in its words, “None of the recent research (1999-2007) meets methodological standards that permit conclusions regarding efficacy or safety.”

The report therefore conveniently disposes of the most recent studies on the topic — the ones that undermine the APA’s position.  The only studies that remain are ones done before the resurgence of the reparative therapy movement, in the 1970s, when the APA declared that homosexual orientation and sodomy really weren’t unhealthy after all.  New research is rejected in favor of research that is now over 30 years old, applied to therapeutic practices that may no longer be in use.

However, the authors of Essential Psychotherapy and its Treatment, a standard text in medical schools, disagree with the APA’s leadership, and say that the newer studies vindicate sexual reorientation therapy.

The newest edition (2009) notes on page 488 that, “While many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed considerable skepticism that sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted (e.g., Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Byrd et al., 2008; Shaeffer et al., 1999; Spitzer, 2003).”

The APA’s latest report, done by a task force composed of psychologists with long records of homosexualist activism, also claims as “scientific facts” that “same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality — in other words, they are not indicators of mental or developmental disorders” — and “no empirical studies or peer-reviewed research supports theories attributing same-sex sexual orientation to family dysfunction or trauma.”

These unbelievable statements fly in the face of more than a century of scientific, peer-reviewed studies and clinical observation that indicate that much homosexual behavior originates in deficient family relationships and is associated with a wide range of diseases and pathological behaviors.

Studies have shown that homosexuals disproportionately come from families in which sons or daughters lack a healthy relationship with one or both of their parents, or in situations in which the homosexual was the victim of child sex abuse by a same-sex adult.

Homosexual behavior is also statistically associated with a host of diseases, disorders, and pathological behaviors, including venereal and other diseases, promiscuity and unstable relationships, anxiety disorders, depression and suicide, alcoholism and drug abuse, domestic violence, pederasty, and early death.

Even the homosexual Gay and Lesbian Medical Association admits that homosexuals suffer disproportionate rates of disease and self-destructive behavior.

Although the homosexualist leadership at the APA tries to rationalize these relationships by claiming that they are caused by social stigma or other factors, their claims ring hollow.  Many stigmatized groups exist in society that display none of the pathological tendencies of homosexuals, and these tendencies appear even in countries that are very tolerant of homosexual behavior, such as the Netherlands.

Homosexualism on the Defensive

The very existence of the report, however, is evidence that the homosexualist establishment currently in power at the APA is on the defensive, and seeking to preserve its ideology of sexual permissiveness as a paradigm in the psychology profession.

After surrendering itself to a hedonistic ethos in the 1970s and 80s, the American psychological practice has been transformed into a vehicle for patients to rationalize and reconcile themselves with self-destructive, irrational, and narcissistic behavior, paying an “expert” to soothe their consciences by assuring them that “science” is on their side.

However, an increasing number of mental health professionals whose institutions were stolen from them by political activists in the 1970s are now rising up to take back their profession in the name of true science, and patient health.

Former APA President Dr. Robert Perloff has publicly endorsed the National Organization for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH), the largest American organization devoted the treatment of unwanted homosexual attractions, and has denounced the APA’s campaign against such treatment.

“The ideology of those who oppose efforts to try to facilitate transfers from SSA, that is, Same Sex Attraction, to heterosexual attraction, must not, must not stand in the way of those homosexual persons who desire to live their lives heterosexually, a choice which is unarguably theirs to make,” he said in a videotaped statement played at NARTH’s 2008 annual meeting.

Dr. Robert Spitzer, who has been been called the “architect” of the American Psychiatric Association’s normalization of homosexuality in the 1970s, provoked outrage from the homosexualist establishment when he admitted in 2001 that his own investigations had convinced him that sexual reorientation therapy can work.

His study, published in the peer-reviewed Archives of Mental Health in 2003, found that a majority of his sample of 247 people had developed heterosexual urges or had ceased to be predominantly homosexual after only one year of therapy.  None of the subjects said that they had been harmed in the process.

After presenting his paper before the American Psychiatric Association in 2001, Spitzer said: “I’m convinced from people I have interviewed…many of them…have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual. I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained.”

Other prominent figures in psychiatry and psychology have also raised their voices in protest, including Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist and physicist who has testified before Congress in favor of reparative therapy, and has denounced the hijacking of the mental health professions by homosexualist ideologues in his book, the “Trojan Couch.”

“Some of my psychiatric and psychological colleagues have woven for themselves their own set of illusory robes of authority, and for the past 35 years have been proclaiming doctrines in the public square that depend upon the authority that derives from the public’s belief that these robes exist,” Satinover said in a recent interview .

“The diagnostic change that in 1973 removed homosexuality as a formal disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a change that many now accept as simply indisputable in spite of the fact that it was based wholly on fiction,” he added.

“The question isn’t just homosexuality, said Satinover, “but rather, freedom from all sexual constraint. This has been an issue for civilization for thousands of years…We now have so little of a moral compass that we’re really completely at sea. We’re awash in the tide of unconstrained instinctive behaviors which are all being labeled ‘okay’ because nobody really has a sense, any more, as to what’s right and what’s wrong.”

Whither Psychology?

The debate over reparative therapy for homosexuality runs deeper than the issue itself.  It is arguably a debate over the future of the psychological professions as a whole.

Although there are signs that an increasing number of mental health experts are taking an honest look at the facts regarding homosexual behavior and sexual orientation therapy, there are other signs that portend an even darker future for the profession.

In 1998, the APA released a study by three psychological researchers from Temple University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Michigan, claiming that the “negative potential” of adult sex with children was “overstated” and that “the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from their child sexual abuse experiences.”  It even claimed that large numbers of the victims reported that their experiences were “positive,” and suggested that the phrase “child sex abuse” be replaced with “adult-child sex.”

The APA not only passed the paper through its peer review process where it was approved by multiple psychologists associated with the organization, but actually published it in one of its journals, Psychological Bulletin.  Moreover, when objections were raised by radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger and various pro-family groups, the organization defended the article for an entire year.  It was also defended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which chillingly stated that it “saw no clear evidence of improper application of methodology or other questionable practices on the part of the article’s authors.”

Although the sheer insanity and destructiveness of the content should have prevented the APA from publishing the article in the first place, the sexual libertines in charge of the organization only issued a muted retraction after the U.S. Congress joined the fray, passing an unprecedented resolution condemning the study.

The publication of the paper was only one example of such lunacy by mental health professionals in peer-reviewed journals.  One of the three authors of the study, Robert Bauserman, has a history of publishing pedophilia-advocacy “studies,” including one for the now-defunct journal Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, whose editors admitted to being pedophiles.

Since the 1998 article, Bauserman and fellow author Bruce Rind have gone on to write more articles defending child sex abuse [adult-child sex], which have appeared in such mainstream journals as the Archives of Sexual Behavior (2001) and Clinical Psychology (2003).  Apparently, the psychology profession is comfortable with Bauserman and Rind’s work, and intends to continue publishing it.

Another apologist for child sex abuse who has received acceptance, affirmation, and recognition from the mental health professions is Dr. Theo Sandfort, who is currently an Associate Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences (in Psychiatry) at Colombia University.  Sandfort published a study in 1981 that claimed that boys as young as 10 years old had “positive” experiences in their “sexual relationships” with adults.

While he was co-director of the research program of the Department of Gay and Lesbian Studies at the University of Utrecht, Netherlands, Sandfort interviewed 25 boys from between the ages of 10 and 16 who were in such “sexual relationships” — that is, they were being sexually abused by adults.  In fact, the abusers themselves took Sandfort to their victims so he could interview them.  When the victims gave Sandfort their “positive” responses, he duly recorded them.

“For virtually all the boys … the sexual contact itself was experienced positively,” Sandfort wrote, without a hint of irony.

The fact that Sandfort was promoting the sexual abuse of minors with the help of their victimizers didn’t seem to faze him.  Nor did it faze his then-employers at the University of Utrecht.  Nor did it faze the prestigious University of Colombia, which later gave him a professorship, even after he went on to write articles such as “Pedophile relationships in the Netherlands: Alternative Lifestyles for Children?” and books such as “Childhood Sexuality: Normal Sexual Behavior and Development” (2000).

It hasn’t fazed the APA either, which has named Sandfort a “fellow” of the organization since 2002.

The defense and even the promotion of mental health experts who defend child sex abuse is a terrifying, but not unexpected movement down the slippery slope of sexual hedonism embraced by the powers that be at the APA.  It not only threatens homosexuals, who are deceived by the seductive argument that their orientation is nothing to worry about, but psychology and psychiatry themselves.

The outcome of the current battle over the science of homosexuality may well determine the future of the mental health professions as a whole. Will they turn back from the brink, or plunge into the abyss? And what will become of the societies that heed their counsel?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

The following news release is by PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays):

August 10, 2009

News Advisory:  August 10, 2009

Contact:  Regina Griggs, Executive Director, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), 804-453-4737, PFOX@pfox.org

American Library Association Asked to Condemn Banning of Ex-Gay Books

West Bend, WI — Despite public opposition, the West Bend Community Memorial Library continues to stock gay books for children and teens while neglecting books by ex-gay authors.

Many of the gay books promote homosexual behavior to youth and are the subject of protests by concerned parents, whose request to have the books moved to the adult section were denied.

“Our requests that the Library balance some of its homosexual material for children with material written by ex-gays or with a heterosexual slant have been ignored,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX).

“Apparently, the West Bend Community Memorial Library is not interested in diversity,” said Griggs.  “We urge Michael Tyree, the library’s director, to be inclusive of the ex-gay community and accept our donation of ex-gay books.  According to its own policy, the Library has a ‘professional responsibility to be inclusive, not exclusive, in developing collections.’”

“For a library to provide children’s books which promote homosexuality while denying ex-gay books smacks of censorship and indoctrination of youth with a one-sided ideology,” said Griggs.

“It is also contrary to the American Library Association’s policy against book banning and censorship in any form,” said Griggs.  “We call upon Deborah Caldwell-Stone, acting director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, to publicly condemn the censoring of ex-gay books in any community.  Public libraries should be for everyone.”

###

Visit http://pfox.org/about_us.html for information about the ex-gay community.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) promotes an inclusive environment for the ex-gay community, and educates youth with factual information about same-sex attractions.

A copy of this press release is available online at http://pfox-exgays.blogspot.com/2009/08/american-library-association-asked-to.html

More on this story is available at the CNN web site at http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/22/wisconsin.book.row/index.html

PS. Don’t forget also to save Saturday, Oct. 24th for AFTAH’s fund-raising banquet featuring dynamic culture-warrior Matt Barber as our keynote speaker.

Concerned Women for America writes [click HERE to listen online]:

Homosexual “pride” events and street fairs are growing in number and size. A number of them are also becoming increasingly risqué despite their public nature; except in Charlotte, North Carolina. There, Dr. Michael Brown and the Coalition for Conscience have been taking a stand for truth while actively and civilly reaching out to those attending the “gay” pride gathering. Just this month, 500 Christians came to Charlotte to pray, worship and share the Gospel with those at the event, and proclaim that God Has a Better Way. Dr. Brown joins Peter LaBarbera from Americans for Truth in comparing the events in San Francisco and Chicago with those in Charlotte. Listen | Download

Related AFTAH links:

• No Nudity Crackdown in San Francisco – Police Again Allow Rampant Public Nudity, Sex Acts at Deviant ‘Up Your Alley’ Street Fair
• A Model Christian Response to ‘Gay’ Pride: ‘God Has a Better Way’ in Charlotte

“Gay men have the opportunity to engage in sex with more people than do most heterosexual men, and some practices common among gays — especially rimming [oral-anal stimulation] and anal intercourse — are highly efficient ways of transmitting disease.” — Homosexual writer Jack Hart, Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men (Allyson Publications: 1998), pp 212-213.

Government: Regulate this!  The homosexual bathhouse Steamworks -- an anonymous sex club for men who have sex with men that operates in Berkeley, Chicago, Seattle, Toronto and Vancouver — offered “student discounts” during Spring Break 2009 ($5 off to 18-and-older young men who presented a student ID). Why is the government allowing the open promotion — even to youth — of behavior that is a causative factor in a number of sex diseases including HIV? “Gay” web sites are blasting AFTAH for calling for a comprehensive federal study into the health risks of homosexual sex.

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, as we could have predicted, pro-homosexual websites are blasting AFTAH’s call for a comprehensive federal investigation into the health risks of homosexual behavior — and our comparison to how the government has warned Americans about the dangers of smoking and taken direct action against it in the name of public health (bans against indoor smoking, etc.). I even got named “Creep of the Week” by the Michigan homosexual newspaper Between the Lines. (Talk about creepy: offering teenage boys “student discounts” at homosexual bathhouses, and taking innocent children to raunchy “gay pride” parades — now that’s creepy.)

Homosexual activists are petrified of taking a serious, objective look at the health risks surrounding “gay” sex — it’s almost as scary to them as the public becoming informed of the many satisfied “ex-gay” men and ex-lesbians living happy lives free of homosexuality. Their own writers occasionally acknowledge the disproportionate risks of “gay” sex (see quote above) — and the early deaths of homosexual men, especially well-known homosexuals who could afford the best health care money can buy, are an obvious indicator. This is one of the Pink Elephants in the room that policymakers must address, and we think an impartial, authoritative study is long overdue.

Here’s a People for the American Way report attacking AFTAH that says that I have called homosexual sex more dangerous than smoking, which I did not claim in our original report. In fact, I think some “gay” behaviors like sodomy are more dangerous than cigarettes — although there are many variables here that make comparisons difficult. But the point here is not what Peter LaBarbera thinks — or making a direct comparison to smoking — but to get the government or at least some academicians who are not in the tank for the “gay” lobby to objectively assess the health risks of homosexual sex (especially among MSM, men who have sex with men). The FDA’s explanations of the ban on homosexual men from donating blood are the closest thing approximating that. (And by the way, note that the “gay” “Creep of the Week” article advocates ending the sensible homosexual blood donation ban.)

Certainly, many homosexual ideologues and straight fellow travelers are in denial of the obvious link between homosexual male sex and STDs, and they have a special political interest in covering up this reality. But the rest of us have a right to know the facts, and there’s a whole nation out there that is largely ignorant on these matters. Meanwhile, public school educators, counselors and bureaucrats are promoting “GLBT” — homosexual, bisexual, and transgender — identities to impressionable youth, who certainly deserve the full truth about the health risks of these behaviors — political correctness be damned.– Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

__________________________________

AFA’s One News Now reports [click HERE and click on "Hear Report" button to listen to the report]:

Info on Homosexual Health Risks Squelched
Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 7/30/2009

Americans for Truth about Homosexuality president Peter LaBarbera tells OneNewsNow it only makes sense because the government will investigate the dangers of such habits as smoking and work to curb it. He cites information released by the Food and Drug Administration.

“[Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have] an HIV prevalence rate 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors, and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors,” LaBarbera says.

The pro-family activist also notes an increased level of STDs and hepatitis.

“The people have a right to know about the health risks of homosexual activity just like they had a right to know about the health risks of smoking,” he contends. “There was a huge effort to cover up the risks of smoking, just like there’s a massive politically correct effort today to hide the true health risks of homosexual sex — and the people have a right to know about that.”

LaBarbera especially wants to warn school children who are being taught to accept the homosexual lifestyle as normal and healthy.

He did not have to die so young: Homosexual activists and websites became irrational when AFTAH linked Russell Groff’s premature death from HIV/AIDS at age 26 to his practice of homosexual behavior. “Gay” power in society, abetted by the liberal media, must not stop the truth of the immense health risks of male homosexual sex from reaching the public.

“Coalition of Conscience” crowd of more than 500 prepares to offer Gospel witness at homosexual “pride” event in Charlotte, N.C.  Their message: “God has a better way.” See www.godhasabetterway.com.

Dear Readers,

I commend to you my friend Dr. Michael Brown’s and the Coalition of Conscience’s response to the “gay pride” movement in Charlotte, N.C. In a speech last week to Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ, I said that the appropriate Christian response to homosexual/”trans” activism and homosexual strugglers is a tightrope walk — balancing a witness for truth on the one side and the gracious love of Christ for sinners on the other. I too often fall off that tightrope, but Michael hangs on it as well as any pro-family leader I have observed in the last 20 years. (My only cautionary note is Brown’s use of the term “homophobia” [see this excellent NARTH analysis] — an artificial construct that is now so elastically defined that almost any rejection of homosexualist goals (including same-sex “marriage”) can be and is deemed “homophobic” by “gay” activists and the liberal media. That said, his point it correct: it is wrong to fear and hate men and women trapped in homosexuality — people who need God’s love and grace.)

How I wish that decades ago Christian leaders in Chicago had taken Dr. Brown’s “God has a better way” approach of a mobilized witness against “proud” homosexuality and the dangerous agenda that goes with it. Perhaps if they had, we wouldn’t be seeing the annual, raucous, debauched homosexuality “pride” celebrations on Chicago streets with attendees (”gay” and straight) numbering in the hundreds of thousands. The Church of Jesus Christ in America has largely abdicated its role as a bold witness for truth and Biblical morality in the culture. (And who says proclaiming the Gospel and confronting sexual sin agendas must be mutually exclusive?) I challenged Oklahoma Christians to be as aggressive in defending God’s truth about homosexuality as self-described “queer” activists are in advancing their lies (enumerated below). Such is the spirit that Michael Brown and the Coalition of Conscience have displayed in Charlotte; believers across the nation would do well to learn from and imitate them. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH, www.americansfortruth.org

P.S. As if to prove my theory that no matter how loving biblically faithful Christians are, they will always be cast as hateful, “homophobic” bigots by radical “queer” activists, click HERE to read homosexual militant Wayne Besen’s response to Michael Brown’s “God has a better way” campaign. It is vicious, even by Besen’s low standard.

_________________________________________________

Dr. Michael Brown

STATEMENT TO THE MEDIA, JULY 25, 2009
GOD HAS A BETTER WAY RALLY, CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

DR. MICHAEL BROWN, DIRECTOR, THE COALITION OF CONSCIENCE [links added by AFTAH]
www.coalitionofconscience.org; www.godhasabetterway.com

We are here today to reach out and resist –– to reach out to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community with compassion, as neighbors and friends and fellow-workers, and to declare God’s great love for GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] people. And we are here to resist the gay activist agenda and to send a message to the nation.

As followers of Jesus, we first confess our own sins –– our lack of ardent love for homosexual men and women, our lack of compassion for their struggles, our adding to their sense of rejection through insensitive words and deeds.

We acknowledge the fact that homophobia is alive and well in some churches, and we renounce and repudiate that hateful and destructive attitude.

Our love also compels us to speak the truth, and we do not believe that all sexual orientations should be celebrated.

We do not celebrate the fact that some people believe they are women trapped in men’s bodies;

We do not celebrate the fact that two men or two women cannot reproduce their own unique offspring and that same-sex families guarantee that a child will never have either a mother or a father;

We do not celebrate the fact that some people choose to surgically mutilate their God-given organs and must take hormones for the rest of their lives just to be at peace with themselves;

We do not celebrate the sexual confusion that exists in many young people today, to the point that they can only identify themselves “as genderqueer”;

We do not celebrate the pain and brokenness that exists in the lives of many of those attending Pride Charlotte today –– completely apart from societal rejection –– and we proclaim to our GLBT friends that God has a better way, that there is a place of wholeness and transformation to be found in Jesus. And we are here for the long-term to help them on that journey.

And because of our sense of justice and rightness, we take strong exception to the gay activist agenda. We watch its trajectory, we see where it has gone and where it is going, and we say, “It stops here in Charlotte.”

Since gay pride events have been rallying points for GLBT activism, we take our stand here today and declare:

We don’t believe that elementary school children should be taught to find their “inner-trannie” (meaning their inner transgender identity) as advocated in GLSEN’s training materials.

We don’t believe that it is in the best interest of our society to seek to eradicate gender or to multiply it exponentially.

We completely reject the Los Angeles Unified School District Reference Guide when it states that Gender identity “refers to one’s understanding, interests, outlook, and feelings about whether one is female or male, or both, or neither, regardless of one’s biological sex.”

We don’t believe it is good or right for four-year-old children to have their preschool teachers read them books like One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads or to be lined up by sneaker color rather than gender so they don’t feel “boxed in.”

We don’t believe in “Queering Elementary Education,” to use the title of a well-known book.

We believe it is outrageous when an African American woman is fired from her university position of vice-president of human resources because she writes an editorial objecting to the concept that sexual orientation is equivalent to skin color.

We believe it is outrageous for the media to cover up the gay identity of a sexual predator who repeatedly raped his adopted, five-year-old African American son and offered him for sex through the internet – for fear of making homosexual couples look bad.

We believe it is outrageous for the mayor of San Francisco to welcome warmly a public fair featuring nude, sado-masochistic displays, and to do so in the name of “diversity.”

And what does it say of our country today when our president, in the White House, could say “We are very proud of you” to a man who leads an organization devoted to making harder core pornography more readily available and who says that bestiality is fine as long as the animal doesn’t mind?

We don’t believe in fining a Christian photographer in New Mexico for politely declining to shoot a lesbian commitment ceremony, or punishing an Anglican bishop in England for choosing not to hire an openly gay youth worker, or for putting a lifetime ban on Christian leaders in Canada, forbidding them from expressing the biblical teaching on homosexual practice and threatening them with imprisonment.

We don’t believe in laws that could jail the owner of a Christian bookstore for choosing not to hire a cross-dresser as a receptionist.

We don’t believe in a Hate Crimes bill that is so flawed that even the ACLU is concerned that it could restrict freedom of speech.

We don’t believe it is right for major Charlotte-based companies like Bank of America and Wachovia and Duke Energy to pour tens of thousands of dollars into a radical organization like the Human Rights Campaign, an organization that has stated that supporters of male-female marriage are “right wing extremists” and that mandates that businesses must have special bathroom accommodations for employees undergoing sex-change surgery.

We are saddened by the fact that some of those who came out of the closet forty years now are now trying to put conservative Christians in the closet.

We don’t believe in tampering with the foundations of human society –– male-female marriage and family –– and creating a new institution previously unknown in human history.

We utterly reject the new theologies that advocate “Queering Christ” and writing “Queer Commentaries” on the Bible, and we say to Charlotte and the nation, “By God’s grace, it stops here.”

So, we say “Enough is enough” to the destructive goals of gay activism, and we say to the GLBT community, “Jesus loves you and God has a better way!”

Who defines “hate,” Richard? By classifying the outworking of Christianity and other major religions’ teachings against homosexuality as “hate,” you and fellow pro-homosexual activists become haters of a different sort, though you are blind to your hypocrisy. You despise (hate) the wisdom of Judeo-Christian tradition (on your pet issue) and you abhor (hate) the Bible’s clear teachings against homosexual practice. And then revisionist “gay theologians” cynically attempt to redefine the Word of God by whitewashing the sin of homosexual behavior.

All this leads you to vilify as “haters” those who simply disagree with you — i.e., well-meaning men and women who love God’s teachings on sex and marriage and try their best to follow them.

Your side especially excels at demonizing groups like Americans For Truth and people who counter the well-heeled “Gay” Lobby by defending historic morality in the public square. You regularly smear us as “haters” and homo-”phobes” when we have no hatred or irrational fear in our hearts. That is a mean (and hateful) thing to do to people of faith — even though I understand it as a utilitarian political tactic designed to advance your pro-homosexual agenda.  Many pro-family and pro-traditional-marriage advocates across the country have felt the sting of “gay” activist hate.

As to public policy on homosexuality and transsexuality, it is completely irrational to base “civil rights” on changeable, destructive and unnatural sexual/gender misbehavior — as opposed to unchangeable skin color. (There are zero “ex-Blacks” but thousands of ex-”gays.”) Homosexuality-based “rights” invariably war against religious freedom, as the (hateful) homosexual activist campaigns against the Boy Scouts of America, Prop 8 in California, and other religious organizations and individuals demonstrate. Your intolerant sexual agenda undermines true liberty by using the government to circumscribe Americans’ freedom to adhere to their moral beliefs; this is the un-American end result of “sexual orientation” laws.  Unfortunately for you, religious freedom is sacrosanct in this nation; we hope it will remain so and that the courts will uphold citizens’ constitutional right not to affirm and subsidize behavior they consider immoral.

Do you want to see the face of hate, Richard? Look in the mirror. Let me leave you with this plea: repent of your sins and follow God. He will wipe your slate clean. Jesus Christ loves sinners, but He does “hate” sin, and died in our place so that we could spend eternity with God, and not face the judgment we surely deserve as sinners who constantly fall short of His righteous and holy standard. I will ask AFTAH readers to pray for you.

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

——————————————————————————–
Richard’s letter to Americans For Truth:

From: Richard S.
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 1:29 AM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: [AFT Web Site] Freedom to Disagree

The following message was sent from the Americans for Truth Web site:

——————————————————————————–
Yes Peter, AFTAH and all other hate groups in America have complete freedom to publish, preach, and teach all the hate they choose to publish, preach, and teach. The Constitution holds for all. What hates [sic] groups such as AFTAH can not do is discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender expression, sex, race, or religion in public accomodations [sic], employment, and other areas of public life. It is really rather simple: in public act civilized, in private hate anyone you wish as hatefully as you wish. I note you never publish nor reply to my rational and truthful letters. Odd, that is.

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.

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

Peter LaBarbera’s Letter to Jeff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

July 17, 2009

——————————————————————————–

Jeff’s Letter to AFTAH:

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

Hi,

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

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

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

Thank you for your time.

- Jeff

Opinion piece by J. Matt Barber [Note: Barber will be keynoting Americans For Truth's fund-raising banquet on Sat., Oct. 24 in suburban Chicago]

The highly contentious “nature vs. nurture” debate over whether “gay” penguins choose the homosexual lifestyle or are hatched that way has reached a hard boil.

San Francisco’s Fox affiliate KTUV reports: “The San Francisco Zoo’s popular same-sex penguin couple has broken up.

“Male Magellan penguins Harry and Pepper have been together since 2003. The pair nested together and even incubated an egg laid by another penguin in 2008, but their relationship hit the rocks earlier this year when a female penguin, Linda, befriended Harry after her long-time companion died.

“Zookeepers say Harry and Linda are happy and were able to successfully nest this year,” reported KTUV.

But not everyone is celebrating Harry and Linda’s newfound love. Some believe there can be no such a thing as an “ex-gay” penguin. Upon news of Harry’s decision to fly the same-sex-coop, outspoken pro-homosexual activist and anti-ex-gay crusader Wayne Besen cried fowl:

“Attempts to change sexual orientation are patently offensive, discriminatory by definition, theologically shaky, uniformly unsuccessful and medically unsound!” exclaimed a visibly angry Besen. “There is no ‘ex-gay’ sexual orientation. Harry is simply in denial. He’s living what I call the ‘big lie.’”

When asked if heterosexual penguins can become gay, Besen replied, “Well, um, sure. It happens all the time. But in that case it’s just the penguin embracing who he really is. Penguin pride is quite a courageous thing to witness, what with all the mean-spiritedness and homophobia among Penguo-Americans and everything. Once gay, always gay! You know; birds of a feather and all that.

“See,” continued Besen, “medical science has conclusively determined that, while still eggs, many of the more effeminate penguins sometimes get a bit scrambled, so to speak, due to what’s called ‘Homospheniscus Magellanicus Inheritus’ or, as it’s commonly referred: ‘The Gay Penguin Gene’ (GPG).

“No, seriously. It’s science,” insisted Besen. “Harry’s as gay today as he’s ever been. Mark my words. It’s just a matter of time until he ends up slinking around some back alley gay bar in the Castro District, strung out on meth.”

As is customary, Besen – along with a lathered-up handful of equally irate anti-ex-gay blowhards – intends to raucously picket Harry’s Zoo holding area – megaphones in hand – to protest what Besen called, “the tremendous political setback an ever-increasing number of ex-gays pose to our furiously ambitious political agenda. I really, really wish they’d just go away.”

Meanwhile, Pepper has also had difficulty accepting Harry’s decision to embrace natural sexuality. According to KTUV, Harry’s relationship with Linda “did not go over well with Pepper, who became violent.” Zookeeper Jennifer Katz lamented that “Pepper is by himself now.”

Still, it appears that Pepper has yet to hit rock bottom. In recent days he has reportedly been spotted waddling around the zoo’s public men’s room, skulking in stalls and inexplicably tapping his flipper. There’s even speculation that, as things continue to spiral, he may consider a run for political office.

___________________________

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)  Barber will be the keynote speaker at AFTAH’s fund-raising banquet on Saturday, October 24 at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, Illinois, northwest of Chicago (see below).

Matt Barber to Keynote AFTAH Fund-raising Banquet on October 24th

NOTE: The date of our banquet has been changed to Saturday, Oct. 24th:

SAVE THE DATE, Saturday Oct 24: Please save the evening of Saturday, October 24 to attend Americans For Truth’s banquet. Our featured speaker is Matt Barber, culture warrior for Liberty Counsel and author of the column below. Matt is quite a guy, to say the least. He’s gone from being a professional heavyweight boxer, to being fired by Allstate Insurance Company in 2005 because he wrote an online article – on his own time — critical of organized homosexuality, to his current position as one of America’s leading defenders of natural marriage and family. AFTAH got rave reviews for its last banquet; you won’t want to miss this one! The event will be held outside Chicago, in Arlington Heights, IL. Write us for more information at aftahangela@gmail.com or americansfortruth@comcast.net. We hope to see you there!

– Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.com

“I, wisdom, dwell with prudence,
And I find knowledge and discretion.
“The fear of the LORD is to hate evil;
Pride and arrogance and the evil way
And the perverted mouth, I hate.
“Counsel is mine and sound wisdom;
I am understanding, power is mine.

1 Corinthians 6: 9-11:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

_____________________________________________

Jude 1:5-10:

Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.

And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,

just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.

But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed.

_____________________________________________

Romans 1: 18-32:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing to be wise, they became fools,

and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,

slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Homosexual blogger Jeremy Hooper as featured in the homosexual magazine The Advocate in 2005.

Apparently AFTAH critic and New York City homosexual, “Good As You” blogger Jeremy Hooper is incapable of distinguishing between a hate letter and a heartfelt personal note. AFTAH sometimes publishes the letters we receive from very nasty homosexual activists, to highlight the true nature of a movement that routinely fails to live up to the now-obsolete definition of their chosen descriptor: “gay.” We tell people on our site: “Note: All correspondence sent to Americans for Truth becomes property of Americans For Truth.” Can you blame us for exposing the abject hatred and reverse bigotry of sexual activists who regularly accuse everyone else of being haters and bigots? (There’s something surreal about getting a tolerance lecture from some irate pro-gay fellow who spews vulgarities as he brings the message that I am Satan’s brother, a covert homosexual (of course), and I am going to burn in hell because I oppose homosexuality.)

Now contrast that with a quick note I sent to Jeremy, responding to an e-mail he sent to me requesting a comment about one of his blog posts. I had not read the post, presuming it to be one of the usual straw-man set-ups in which homosexual activist demand answers from the pro-family community using queries that are specifically crafted to make us look unreasonable. (I was right: Hooper’s piece is about the evangelical “endgame,” and concludes — repeating the subject line of his e-mail — in bold letters: Do You Want Us Gone?) Here is Jeremy’s original e-note to me and my response (in bold):

On May 27, 2009, at 5:34 PM, Peter LaBarbera wrote:

Jeremy, this is not for publication, just my heart:  Without having read your post, I can tell you this, Jeremy: I sincerely want you to leave the gay lifestyle, which is sinful. I think God has a better plan for your life. Best–pl
————————-

[Jeremy Hooper wrote:]

From: Good As You [contact@goodasyou.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 7:55 AM
To: Pro-family list 1 [including Peter LaBarbera]
Subject: Do you want us gone?

Your frank response is appreciated.

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/05/audio-support-traditional-marriage-or-get-out-of-the-way.html

- Jeremy

Jeremy Hooper
Good As You
www.goodasyou.org

Please note that I asked Jeremy for non-publication more out of concern for him than me. You see, I really do care for this young man’s soul, and I wanted to communicate that even amidst our public back-and-forth on “gay” issues. Yes, his snarky website upsets me and, no, I don’t pray for him nearly as often as I ought to (Christians should be praying that men like Jeremy would repent and come to Christ) — but in my response I specifically hoped that this would not escalate into another web war. Jeremy and I have had e-mail discussions before in which I told him to go ahead and publish what I wrote. (And today it is generally true: anything you write on e-mail could end up on a website somewhere.)

Anyway, no chance. Here is Jeremy’s post using my sincere message to bash me for being a “hypocrite” — note how he self-righteously purports to “honor” my privacy request [see the actual "Good As You" post HERE]. Jeremy writes:

Hypocrisy, thy name is LaBarbera

On Wednesday, in response to this writer’s request for an on-the-record statement regarding what he and his allies see as their anti-gay endgame, Americans For Truth’s Peter LaBarbera wrote back with this:

There’s nothing explosive under the black bars — but as always, I have and will continue to honor his “not for publication” request.

But now let’s look over at Pete’s AFT site. In a new, rambly, sadly desperate plea for money wherein he attempts to paint the gay activist community as evil, Peter puts forth the following:

AFTAH Asks: Why Are ‘Conservative’ Leaders Selling Out on ‘Civil Unions’? [AFT]

Yes that’s right: He’s using a private email that he’s received as a way of drumming up cash. So apparently, even though he’s against anyone citing his own emails in the public sphere, Peter considers all of the emails he receives not only publishable, but also identifiable by [the] writer’s name. On his end, he wants to be able to operate one way in private email correspondence, and another way on his site. But when it comes to others’ private messages, any usage is fair.

Except, of course, when the emails sent his way, at his own request, turn out to be [kind], gentle, and thoroughly pro-gay. Then he just ignores them.

Stay transparent, Pete!

God loves the sinner but hates the sin

I guess one of the lessons here is that there is so much distrust in this “culture war” — on both sides — that it’s hard to have even a “non-political” exchange between opponents.  I don’t fault Jeremy and his allies for strongly opposing AFTAH — we are against everything they stand for when it comes to homosexuality (morality, public policy, etc.). But I reiterate here that I do care for his soul, and so does God. And Jeremy may not know that I’ve had plenty of extended, civil discussions with homosexual advocates who write through AFTAH’s site.

So the answer is: No, Jeremy, I don’t want you “gone.” I want you to you repent and believe in the Risen Savior, Jesus Christ, who humbled Himself, came to earth, and died for your sins and mine, so that we might live eternally with Him. In other words, I want you and all homosexuals to “come into the light” and be reconciled to God. I want your changed life as a reborn Christian to be a trophy for God’s redemptive grace and power — as it is with Charlene Cothran, Stephen Black and countless other men and women who once identified as “gay” — rather than your (current) homosexuality-celebrating life to be a monument to man’s stubborn and prideful heart.

The Bible teaches that men are dead in their sins — which is why they need a whole “new life” in Christ. Jesus was not just a good teacher; He is the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) for our sins (1 John 4:10). Understanding that many or even most homosexuals may not humble themselves and repent, the pro-family movement aims to resist the larger “gay” agenda of homosexuality- (sin-)based “rights,” and its use of government power to force the acceptance of GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) lifestyles on American citizens (including schoolchildren) — even if it means trampling on people’s freedom of conscience and parental rights.

Homosexuality is a different kind of sin in the eyes of most people — there’s a reason it came to be called “queer” — and so they make exceptions in how they treat it that they would never make with other sins. (Even other sexual sins: if the Old Testament is our guide, incest is the closest comparable sin to the “detestable” act of homosexual sodomy; Leviticus 18:22.) But I am more convinced than ever that no matter what set of circumstances and choices resulted in a person’s embrace of a homosexual identity — and many GLBT’s have had tough and tragic upbringings and experiences — “gays and lesbians,” like all sinners, need to step back from their “feelings” and view their life from the Creator’s holy perspective, as revealed by the Bible.

God does have a wonderful plan for Jeremy’s life and for each of us, but the proud embrace of sin — any sin — cannot be part of that plan. This New Testament passage says it all:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God. (John 3:16-21)

Christians: please join me in praying for Jeremy to come into the light of Christ!