Congratulations to the vigilant pro-family activists over at MassResistance for stopping this proposed “hate speech” provision in an “anti-bullying” bill (see the proposed text in box at right). It is victories like this that made it easy for me to praise this gutsy organization and its founder, Brian Camenker (and MR blogger Amy Contrada) as a speaker at their recent fund-raising banquet.

For years — no, decades — homosexual activists have been telling us that their agenda (oops, I forgot…there is no “gay agenda”) does not pose a threat to freedom. Then we watched in Canada as religious critics of homosexuality were forced to defend themselves against “discrimination” suits brought through Orwellian government “human rights” tribunals — simply for expressing their beliefs against homosexuality. To label these state-sanctioned spectacles  “nuisance suits” would be to trivialize the great harm they have done to their innocent victims. Meanwhile, in Britain and Sweden, Christians also faced government oppression for opposing homosexuality. Other countries stand poised to criminalize “homophobia.”

The silence among American homosexual activists against this escalating PRO-”gay” oppression has been deafening. After all, justifying state censorship of your critics isn’t easy when you’re playing the victim card.

And now we see the first, rudimentary attempts at legislating a “hate speech” regime here in the United States. Consider the removed paragraph above in light of the common homosexualist accusation that groups like Mass Resistance and Americans For Truth “hate gays.” Self-described “queer” militants routinely equate traditional religious tenets or moral beliefs with hatred (all the while demonstrating consistent “malice” of their own with abundant lies and nasty smears against pro-family opponents).

Faithful Christians and other religious/moral foes of homosexuality will never agree with homosexuality advocates on a definition of “hate.” So imagine the folly of the government stepping in to make that determination — and then enforcing it through clumsy bureaucratic maneuvers that are destined to oppress everyday citizens whose only “crime” is to run afoul of political correctness.

Thanks to the brilliance of our Founding Fathers, who gave us the First Amendment, “hate speech” laws likely would not pass a constitutional challenge in the United States. But that won’t stop arrogant liberals from trying to pass them anyway. Thank God (and thank Mass Resistance) that at least this time around, they failed in Massachusetts. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________________________

MassResistance writes:

VICTORY: Draconian language removed from bill in Mass. Senate

Posted by MassResistance, March 14, 2010

At the last minute a Senate committee removed draconian language that would criminalize criticism of homosexuality with fines and imprisonment from a bill, just before the Massachusetts Senate voted on it on Thursday. The language had been slipped into a school “anti-bullying” bill. This is a clear victory for the pro-family movement!

This would have been very extreme. (And apparently it was intended to target MassResistance in particular, given our outspokenness at the State House and online.) Similar laws have been used in Canada and other countries to snuff out free speech and religious expression regarding the homosexual movement, and severely prosecute offenders. This has been a goal of the homosexual movement in America. They will likely attempt this again — and spread it to other states.

(The text of the new version of the bill is HERE.)

As we reported last week, the Education Committee chairmen consolidated 16 “anti-bullying” bills into one main bill, S2283. But they also had added this completely unrelated section that would apply to all Massachusetts citizens:

The section near the end of S2283 bill read:

“Whoever publishes any false material whether written, printed, electronic, televised, or broadcast with intent to maliciously promote hatred of any group of persons in the commonwealth because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, or disability shall be guilty of libel and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.”

As soon as we saw that language, MassResistance put out the word that we considered it extremely offensive and that we would fight it. (As we mentioned, the phrases “false material” and “hatred” can be very subjective. It’s an open door to harassment of free speech and religious expression.)

We made sure there was a flood of phone calls and emails by activists to the Senate leadership and other legislators. And although the Boston Globe and Boston Herald declined to write about it (no surprise!) we made sure their State House reporters knew where we stood. We were even told that at least one liberal Senator intended to introduce an amendment to take the language out!

Shortly before the Thursday vote the offensive language was removed by the Senate Ways and Means Committee, which re-wrote S2283 into a new bill, S2313.   Last year MassResistance had met personally with the Senate Ways and Means Chairman and showed him the horrific homosexual activism that taxpayer funds were being used for in the schools. Soon afterwards the funding for the homosexual programs was eliminated from the budget. Obviously, they clearly understood the value of free speech in this regard — and that it had nothing to do with “anti-bullying.”

The new version, S2313 with amendments, is HERE.

Passed unanimously. Thursday afternoon “anti-bullying” bill S2313 was debated, amended, and passed unanimously by the Senate. It now goes to the House.

Interest across the country regarding freedom of speech

MassResistance was interviewed on two national radio networks, the Washington Times, WorldNetDaily, and other media regarding the freedoms of speech and religion that this bill would affect. It’s been known for a long time that the homosexual movement wants to criminalize criticism of their activities, and Massachusetts is a likely place to start that. The question has been when and where.

WorldNetDaily article: “Jail for dissing ‘gays’ pulled after publicity–Massachusetts plan would have allowed year behind bars”

Additional victory: homosexual programs excluded from anti-bullying bill!

This was a huge victory — and a big loss for the homosexual lobby. (The MassResistance testimony at the public hearing obviously had an effect.)

All language that would require homosexual programs has been excluded from the bill. That had been the main objective of the homosexual and transgender lobby for this bill, and this was a clear defeat for them in that regard.

Using “anti-bullying” legislation as a vehicle to mandate homosexual and transgender programs in public schools has been a major goal of the homosexual movement around the country. MassResistance began tracking that earlier this year, and it became clear that Massachusetts was one of the main targets. At the public hearing for the “anti-bullying” bills held on November 17 it appeared that most of those testifying were homosexual and transgender activists.

But luckily at that same public hearing, MassResistance gave powerful testimony exposing that agenda which apparently resonated with several legislators.

Homosexual groups (and ADL) angry at outcome!

On the morning of the Senate vote, the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows essentially conceded defeat and complained bitterly that their objectives failed, despite their unending efforts to tie “bullying” and “homophobia” together. They wanted to weave this into what they call “enumerated categories” which would include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression.”

Here’s what the Bay Windows article said:

While the Anti-Bullying Bill would, if passed, work to make schools safer, several LGBT advocacy organizations are disappointed in the lack of language specifically referring to “enumerated categories”, said Arlene Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay & Lesbian Political Coalition. . .

While several groups lobbied strongly for the addition of this language, it was not included the version of the bill released from the Education Committee. “Though we are disappointed by the absence of enumerated protections, MassEquality believes this is a meaningful bill that will give all students in the Commonwealth the opportunity to learn and grow in a safe environment,” Scott Gortikov, executive director of MassEquality, said . . .

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) struggled to convince the House of Representatives to add LGBT-inclusive language in the list of “victim-specific characteristics” that could be targets for bullying to their version of the Senate bill (HB 483) . . .

While the current version of S. 2283 aims to combat all types of bullying, many activists are concerned that LGBT-motivated bullying will be overlooked by school personnel — with potentially tragic consequences.

The usual propaganda, but it didn’t quite work this time thanks to citizens fighting back….

To read the rest of the MassResistance article, click HERE.

Greg Quinlan

Folks, Herr Herrschaft over at the “Human Wrongs Campaign” is building up quite a record for himself in shutting down dissent to the homosexual activist message. His homosexual comrades might call him The Enforcer: this is the fellow whose threat of a boycott at a 2007 DiversityInc Magazine panel on “Religion in the Workplace” succeeded in getting AFTAH knocked off the panel as the sole voice representing faith-based opposition to homosexuality. Isn’t it amazing how “queer” militants continually play the victim card to the public even as they aggressively lobby to squelch opposing views in the workplace and throughout society (all in the name of “diversity”!)? Kudos to Greg Quinlan and PFOX for exposing the raw hypocrisy of the GLBT Lobby. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

__________________________________________

Ex-Gay Addresses Disney Board of Directors

Contact:  Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX); 513-435-1125; PFOX@pfox.org

San Antonio, TX — Greg Quinlan of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) addressed the corporate directors of the Walt Disney Company at its annual shareholders meeting and asked them to approve a resolution to include ex-gays in Disney’s mandatory diversity training for employees.

“Disney’s diversity training emphasizes gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders, but fails to include ex-gays,” explained Quinlan.  “Ex-gays remain closeted because they are not protected by diversity policies and are subject to open disapproval.  Employees who support the ex-gay community are also not welcome to express their views.”

In response to the resolution asking for inclusion and diversity for the ex-gay community,  Daryl Herrschaft, director of the workplace project at the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, was quoted by Daily Finance as saying that the resolution is “wrongheaded.”  The Human Rights Campaign, known as HRC, is the nation’s largest gay rights organization advocating for gay equality.

“How can HRC demand gay equality when it refuses to extend equality to others?” asked Quinlan.  “HRC demands that gays and transgenders be included in diversity policies, but belittles ex-gays who ask for the same rights that gays and transgenders currently enjoy.  HRC insists that men can change their gender to become the opposite sex, but refuses to acknowledge that men like me can change our sexual orientation from gay to straight.”

Every year the HRC Foundation issues a Corporate Equality Index which rates American companies on their equal treatment of gays, bisexuals, and transgenders.  HRC gave Disney a 100 rating, its highest score.  HRC rated Disney on its corporate nondiscrimination policy, diversity training, benefits, employee resource group and diversity council, advertising to gays, sponsorship of gay community events or organizations, and for not engaging in action that would undermine gay and transgender equality.

“Is it a conflict of interest for any corporation in this country to donate money or other form of support to HRC, which then rates those same corporations on corporate equality?” asked Quinlan in his speech to the Disney Board of Directors.

“Disney, your equality index score is -0- for ex-gays and their supporters.  You should treat former homosexuals with the same respect and benefits you give to gays and transgenders.”

“This week HRC is celebrating the first “gay marriages” in Washington D.C., our nation’s capital.  As gay couples in D.C. lined up to apply for marriage licenses, they wore HRC victory buttons.  But there is one victory in Washington D.C., that HRC did not celebrate.  And that is the judicial decision issued by the D.C. Superior Court last year, in a case brought by PFOX.  The Court ruled that ex-gays are a legally protected class under sexual orientation and therefore specifically protected from discrimination under the D.C. Human Rights Act.”

“PFOX calls on HRC to issue public statements condemning hatred and discrimination against the ex-gay community. Human rights demand no less.”

The Disney resolution needed a vote of 3% to pass for inclusion at next year’s meeting, and received approximately 2%.  Quinlan is gratified by the support he received from shareholders present at the meeting.  “Shareholders applauded, shook my hand and said it was about time this happened,” said Quinlan.

###

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) leads the nation in providing outreach, education, and public awareness in support of families and the ex-gay community. Remember to read the PFOX blog regularly for ex-gay views and news. See http://pfox-exgays.blogspot.com/

“I help people know themselves better, provide advice about mental health and illness, teach classes and let God be God.” – Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton, writing on his own blog, July 18, 2007

Warren Throckmorton

Controversial “gay”-affirming Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton is not answering my e-mail queries anymore, but if he is reading this, I would like to know if he still holds to his comparison (below) of a doctor or an insurance agent to a professing Christian therapist confronted with the possibility of confirming a client in a homosexual “identity.”  Talk about trivializing serious moral and spiritual issues!

Maybe I’m missing something, but somehow deep philosophical matters never came up when I went to the doc or bought insurance. On the other hand, in the area of Christians upholding their faith on the job, surely Throckmorton is a aware that there are many doctors, nurses and pharmacists who refuse to compromise their pro-life beliefs by supporting abortion in any way — even if it costs them professionally. How is supporting affirmative homosexuality any different? You will see Throckmorton’s dubious analogy in this response by an Americans For Truth reader to his One News Now interview yesterday. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. From a biblical perspective, if through therapy a client comes to “integrate” homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality as a part of his “valued” self-identity, has the therapist truly helped the client to know himself better? Is homosexuality (“being gay”) in reality, as homosexuals and their allies are wont to say, (part of) “who they are” — or is it what they struggle with? And how can any Christian “integrate” valued (proud) homosexuality with what the Bible teaches about this sinful behavior?

A reader writes:

___________________________________

Three points in response to the ONN interview with Warren Throckmorton:

Let us remember that the Bible not only condemns homosexual sex, but also plainly says that “the effeminate” will not inherit the kingdom of God (I Cor 6:9 KJV).  Sin extends beyond explicit, overt activity/behavior; the attitude and demeanor of homosexuality must be cast off as well as the practice itself.

According to the One News Now article, Warren Throckmorton “denies that as a therapist he would advise clients to maintain a homosexual identity.” Dr. Throckmorton contradicts what he wrote publicly on his blog in 2007:

http://wthrockmorton.com/2007/07/18/more-on-the-apa-religion-and-homosexuality/

Comment posted on WT’s blog   ~  Jul 18, 2007 at 5:34 pm:

Warren, you wrote: “…some therapists are so unable to work outside of their worldview that they should only work with clients where an informed agreement to work within a worldview exists.”

Are you able/comfortable/willing to work outside your (presumably traditionally Christian) worldview? If so, how do justify helping a person become more comfortable with sin?

Warren Throckmorton responds  ~  Jul 18, 2007 at 5:45 pm:
… Do it all the time [work outside worldview] … I suppose your physician does as well, probably your real estate and insurance agents and I suspect the operator of the movie theatre where you see movies (if you do that) does as well. I help people know themselves better, provide advice about mental health and illness, teach classes and let God be God.

So Prof. Throckmorton is parsing words when he denies (in a Christian publication) that he would advise clients to maintain a homosexual identity, yet (in his blog, which he appears to use for dialogue with practicing homosexuals and even “gay” activists) he asserts that he is comfortable advising a client outside his own worldview and does it “all the time.” He may not be advising them TO maintain a homosexual identity, but he is certainly advising some how to be happy while doing just that — what’s the difference?

Warren seems to compartmentalize “mental health/mental illness” as if it is entirely separate from the consequences of sinful attitudes, lustful thoughts, wicked behaviors — whereas a mature Christian (especially a counselor) ought to see a strong connection between the two.

Christianity isn’t just something to believe in or practice in one’s personal life, but then to set aside in one’s professional life.  Faith must be primary, all-encompassing, overarching, and fully integrated.  A counselor has far greater responsibility for the soul than a real estate agent or the guy who sells you a movie ticket.  If a counselor helps a homosexual or an adulterer or alcoholic feel more comfortable living in sin, he is actually interfering with the consequences — the Divine discipline — intended to bring that person to repentance. A professor at a Christian college ought to comprehend that.

It is inexcusable for a Christian not to properly answer the question of whether homosexuality is natural.  The Bible plainly calls it UNnatural. If a “Christian” can’t answer that question, he is either ignorant of Scripture, a coward, or a heretic.

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

________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________

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

Warren Throckmorton

Prof. Warren Throckmorton said in an interview with AFA’s One News Now published today that he supports homosexual “civil unions” and equivocated on the question of whether homosexuality is “normal, natural and healthy.” (In 2007, Throckmorton answered affirmatively to the same question when asked by radical homosexual activist Mike Signorile.) Is this what Throckmorton’s employer, Grove City College, means when it advertises itself as “authentically Christian”?

Note Throckmorton’s parsing of words in the ONN interview (below). Looking through the lens of Judeo-Christian history, to NOT discourage someone from adopting a ‘gay’ identity and practicing  homosexuality (even in a “monogamous” same-sex relationship), is effectively to promote the acceptance of homosexuality — i.e., sexual sin.

Moreover, Prof. Throckmorton seems to adhere to the notion that his Christian life and his professional “therapist” role are mutually exclusive — as if secular requirements in the current psychological paradigm supersede adherence to God’s holy and inspired Word. As AFTAH previously reported, Throckmorton’s and Regent University professor Mark Yarhouse’s “Sexual Identity Therapy” (SIT) stipulates that therapists must respect their client’s chosen “sexual identity” — whether that means rejecting a homosexual identity out of religious convictions or embracing one that “allow[s] integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity.” (p. 7)

The overriding question remains: can a faithful, Bible-believing Christian who believes it is sinful to condone immoral sexual behavior practice the SIT approach professionally — if that means NOT attempting to dissuade clients who decide they are happiest living homosexually from embracing that identity?

Perhaps the choice between faith and therapy is not as stark for Throckmorton because — despite his claim to ONN to uphold a “traditional view of homosexuality and sexual ethics” — the GCC professor affirms monogamous “gay” relationships. In 2006, the Los Angeles Times reported that Throckmorton is “uneasy that NARTH [National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality] rejects even the possibility of a fulfilling life with a same-sex partner.” Writing on his blog the day the story was reported, Throckmorton did not take issue with the L.A. Times article but in fact linked to it, noting that it had also been picked up by other news sources.

Normal,  Natural and Healthy?

I will gladly take a shot at answering the three-part question that Throckmorton answered so assuredly in his radio interview with Signorlie, but with which — in the ONN interview — he struggles, ultimately trying to split it down the middle:

“Is homosexuality natural, normal and healthy?”

• Natural? Nope. Anal sodomy and various other homosexual sex acts are unproductive perversions obviously at odds with human anatomy and God’s created design. Since two people of the same sex cannot produce a child, it is not natural (nor possible) for a child to have “two dads” or “two moms.”
• Normal? Not a chance. (Well, maybe in San Francisco, where men are allowed to walk the streets completely naked; where an “order” of male “drag queens” called “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” — with twisted names like Sister Roz Erection — are regarded as a legitimate charity; and where every Easter Sunday a city park hosts a shameful spectacle called the Hunky Jesus Contest that blasphemes the Son of God on the Christian holy day.)
• Healthy? Again, no: check out the latest CDC stats on the disproportionate disease rates for “men who have sex with men.”

It appears that in an effort to preserve his reputation, Prof. Throckmorton not only has raised more concerns about his dubious claim to to biblical fealty, but further undermined Grove City’s slogan — aimed at parents of future potential GCC students — that the evangelical college is “authentically Christian.” AFTAH will be publishing other pro-family advocates’ reactions to the ONN interview with Throckmorton.  – Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.org

One News Now reports:

___________________________________________________

Christian professor clarifies stance on ’sexual identity’

Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 3/11/2010

A professor at an evangelical Christian college in Pennsylvania says his guidelines for “sexual identity therapy” are being misunderstood by some Christian proponents of traditional marriage.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College says he has not lost faith in God’s ability to change people who are struggling with homosexuality, but believes most of those people are not likely to experience a “diminishment” in same-sex attraction.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton”To say that because it appears from the research that change is infrequent in attractions doesn’t mean I’ve lost my faith in God’s ability to change people,” he states.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality expressed concern on American Family Radio Monday that Throckmorton “downplays” the stories of former homosexuals “who have experienced profound change.” (See earlier story)

Throckmorton tells OneNewsNow that his “Practice Guidelines for Sexual Identity Therapy” are for professional therapists and not pastors. He denies that as a therapist he would advise clients to maintain a homosexual identity.

“The framework [for the guidelines] doesn’t encourage a client to do what the counselor thinks he or she ought to do,” says the professor. “The framework follows the beliefs and the values of the client. So to say that the counselor encourages clients any particular direction would be in error.”

Throckmorton says he personally holds a “traditional view of homosexuality and sexual ethics.” However, when asked whether he believes homosexuality is “normal, natural and healthy,” he said he could not answer that with a simple “yes” or “no” response. He said “in a professional therapy situation” it is accurate to say that “homosexuals can live normal, natural, and healthy lives that are free of mental illness.”

On the issue of same-sex “marriage,” Throckmorton says he takes a more “nuanced” view — and that he opposes same-sex marriage but believes the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual civil unions.

From: Margaret Hemenway [mailto: ------]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:17 PM
To: ‘rgjewell@gcc.edu‘ [Grove City College President Richard Jewell]
Subject: RE: Professor Throckmorton

Sir, as we begin to review materials mailed to us from colleges soliciting applications for admission from my bright and accomplished 16-year-old daughter, we regret that we are now leery of considering your campus, Grove City, after hearing about Professor Throckmorton’s open advocacy of homosexuality.  All three of our children are enrolled and flourishing academically in Catholic schools, and part of the reason we chose religious schooling is that we wanted them to avoid the inappropriate and misleading homosexual propaganda that our youngest experienced in first grade–in D.C. public school–when subjected to a “gay marriage” lesson plan without parental notification or approval and in contravention of our religious beliefs (and contrary to much lip service to the concept of “parental rights”).

We want our children to grow up to be healthy and happy–enjoying a wholesome college experience–not one which will undermine their years in a safe and nurturing Catholic educational environment.  It is remarkable that the College would permit this professor, given your school’s Biblical charter, to crusade on behalf of homosexuality–would you also allow your staff to advocate openly for adultery, pornography or prostitution–other sexual sins?  Where do you draw the line and how is the professor’s conduct and activity consistent with your Christian mission?  We would look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

The Hemenways
17 E. Maple St.
Alexandria, VA  22301

“I have experienced Professor Throckmorton’s forked tongue, as he has pretended to seek ‘my side’ of the story various times, then turned around and told a biased side of the same story, in a public sphere, with the intention of discrediting my testimony and shaming my stance for Gospel truth.”
– Former homosexual activist Michael Glatze

__________________________________________________

Once "gay" turned Christian Michael Glatze

Editor’s Note: in apparent anger over Americans For Truth’s campaign to expose renegade Grove City College associate professor Warren Throckmorton’s unscriptural approach toward homosexuality, Throckmorton is questioning the accuracy of a OneNewsNow story featuring comments by AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera — including LaBarbera’s assertion that Throckmorton actively seeks to discredit bold testimonies of profound change like that of ex-”gay” Christian Michael Glatze. Below, Michael explains why he no longer trusts Throckmorton and others who “pervert the truth.” Please say a prayer of thanks for this young man who God has drawn out of homosexuality, and that God will use him mightily to proclaim truth about homosexuality in the years and decades ahead. Please also pray for Throckmorton, who as a professed Christian at an evangelical institution should not be using his authority to affirm anyone in a “gay” sexual identity. You can write either man through AFTAH at americansfortruth@comcast.net:

__________________________________________________

The Truth about Warren Throckmorton

By Michael Glatze, Special to Americans For Truth

It is funny. In this world, truth seems to almost be subjective. Then, you meet Jesus. In Jesus, truth is objective. It is from this vantage point that I write this.

Those who seek to provide some kind of intellectual “nuance” to the Gospel will, inevitably, engage in the sin of Pride. The Gospel is quite clear; and, all information about it can be found within God’s Word. Furthermore, all truth — as revealed in God’s Word — will be seen to be true in human experience, as well. Homosexuality is one of those examples.

Six years ago, I began my Christian walk. At that time, I was considered a “rising star” in the “gay rights” movement, editor of a national gay magazine, and a sought-after authority on the subject of gay youth. But, as a new Christian, I began to discover that I simply could not ignore the truth of the Gospel, no matter how difficult it may have been for my habitual, sinful nature to handle those truths. It was not easy to read things that made me feel guilty, or uncomfortable. It was not easy to go before God’s throne in humble repentance. It is still not easy to do so.

However, every time I did that, I found myself blessed — and, I found that God gave me the grace I needed to move on, to grow up, and to grow out of sinful practices that had become quite ingrained in me. This, to those who are unfamiliar, is the blessed process of sanctification. I began to understand that God’s mercy is unfathomable, yet unceasing. I began to understand that I did not have a free ride from sin and temptation, once saved. I began to feel the distance from God, whenever I followed through with a sinful temptation, or acted on that sin — i.e., the spiritual death describe so aptly in the book of James, as following the fulfillment of a sinful action.

Homosexuality, like other sins, involves the temptation to do something that is — quite simply — not necessary. To disagree with God, to say that it is OK, is to sin. And, to confess your sin is to humble yourself enough to say to God, “You were right; I was wrong.” This is an ongoing process.

A great temptation among humans is to step in-between the sinner’s relationship with God, and offer a new way out. People do this in every walk of life. People step in and say, “I know God’s Word is difficult …  let me offer you an alternate way that won’t be so painful.” People do this with philosophies, with “support groups,” and with serious academic “discoveries.”

I have come across many folks, since I first came out as opposed to homosexuality, on a path through healing from homosexuality, standing on the platform of the Gospel to fight against falsehoods about homosexuality — encouraging Christians to not falter on the Gospel truth about homosexuality, and all other sins. It is not easy, nor is life — necessarily — always a walk in the park. But, we must recognize those folks who, momentarily, play Jesus, and put themselves — or, their philosophies, or the fruits of their labors — in Jesus’ place: as mediator between God and man.

Sadly, Warren Throckmorton has been one of those people. He, like so many professing Christians, peddles a false gospel about homosexual sin that includes the lie that homosexuality “might be OK for some people.” Of course this false gospel will seem preferable for many, because it requires less moral responsibility than the true gospel. But, that does not make it right.

I have experienced Professor Throckmorton’s forked tongue, as he has pretended to seek “my side” of the story various times, then turned around and told a biased side of the same story, in a public sphere, with the intention of discrediting my testimony and shaming my stance for Gospel truth. As we have all seen, throughout Christian history, it is quite easy for people to create false worlds, to skew human perception, to persecute Christian truth. Sadly, this professor at a seemingly-reputable Christian school, has engaged in these tactics, with the outcome of persecuting the very truth he supposedly is teaching, atop his perch.

I write this now, as I recognize efforts are being made to describe his indiscretions, and — undoubtedly — a war of words will ensue. All people are redeemable; I am a profound example of that truth.

As I have said in other articles, homosexual sin is a very serious trojan horse that Satan will use — and, has used — to divide and conquer. I know, through the testimony of my own life, as a gay activist and practicing homosexual, who has been delivered from the lifestyle, from the desires, and from the whole mindset, that Gospel truth WILL prevail. But, Christians must be unafraid to tell the truth, stand for the truth, and hold those accountable who pervert the truth.

God Bless You all.

Michael Glatze

LaBarbera was a guest today on Diane Gramley’s “American Family Focuses on Pennsylvania Issues” radio program, discussing Throckmorton’s de facto defection from the pro-family movement opposing GLBT activism. The pre-taped program airs tonight (Wed.) at 5:05 PM Eastern on Pennsylvania Christian radio WAWN-FM (89.5) out of Franklin, Penn., and reaches into several counties (it can be heard on the campus of Grove City). The program will then be available online at AFA of Pennsylvania’s website: www.afaofpa.org.

Today LaBarbera was also interviewed on the “Bob Dutko Show” in Detroit (WMUZ Christian radio). Dutko, like others who had once interviewed Throckmorton as a pro-family advocate defending the truth that homosexuals can experience profound change, expressed sadness that the GCC professor now believes most homosexuals cannot experience such change. (Writes Throckmorton: “I now believe durable change in basic attractions is very infrequent.”) Dutko agreed with LaBarbera that no faithful Christian should ever encourage a homosexual struggler in a positive “gay” identity, as Throckmorton’s (and Regent University Professor Mark Yarhouse’s) “Sexual Identity Therapy” does if such a self-identification brings about “client satisfaction.”

Tomorrow, LaBarbera will be interviewed by Martha Kleder for Concerned Women for America’s online radio program to discuss the GCC-Throckmorton-Biblical-faithfulness controversy, and on Monday he appears on Linda Harvey’s daily Christian radio show in Columbus, Ohio. Harvey is the founder and president of Mission: America, and her article on Throckmorton’s misapplication of the “Golden Rule” can be found HERE.

AFTAH has also learned that Throckmorton has been questioning the accuracy of the OneNewsNow story, and e-mailed ex-”gay” Michael Glatze regarding the accuracy of LaBarbera’s comments about Glatze below. We’ll have more from Glatze in an upcoming post.

OneNewsNow reports:

______________________________________________

Christian college prof encourages ‘gay identity’

Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 3/10/2010

Dr. Warren ThrockmortonA conservative activist is asking a Christian college in Pennsylvania whether it supports the “sexual identity therapy” of one of its professors who is unwilling to discourage some of his clients from remaining in the homosexual lifestyle.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College was once a spokesperson for the ex-”gay” group PFOX (Parents and Friends of Gays and Ex-Gays) and produced a documentary titled I Do Exist, which highlighted the testimonies of former homosexuals who chose to leave that lifestyle.

But now Throckmorton is encouraging some clients to maintain their “gay identity,” even though it is at odds with scripture.  In a paper he co-authored with Regent University’s Mark Yarhouse titled “Sexual Identity Therapy:  Practice Guidelines for Sexual Identity Conflicts,” Throckmorton writes that “the emergence of a gay identity for persons struggling with religious conflicts is a possibility envisioned by the recommendations.”

The professor also states his therapy “respects” that “some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity.”

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes Throckmorton has “lost his faith in God’s ability to change people.”

“Here’s the thing that troubles me the most: there are many people who have experienced profound change, and it seems sometimes Throckmorton has almost sought to downplay those individuals,” LaBarbera notes.  “I talked to Michael Glatze…a young man who was once sort of a gay activist. He was held up and featured by the homosexual side, [but] Michael Glatze has left the lifestyle.  He’s now going to Bible college, and he’s sort of got some hostile e-mails from Throckmorton along the idea of ‘it’s not smart to put out the idea that homosexuals can experience profound change.’”

The organization president adds that Grove City College, which bills itself as “authentically Christian,” needs to explain whether it sanctions what he calls Throckmorton’s “unorthodox, anti-biblical counseling approach.”

Dr. James Dobson

The following is excerpted from WorldNewsDaily.com. We’ve already noted Focus on the Family’s illogical and unprincipled position on judges and homosexuality [see pro-family veteran Gary Glenn's assessment HERE]. How ironic would it be if the ministry launched by James Dobson — which is now taking its biblical worldview “Truth Project” into hundreds of thousands of churches nationwide — were to suddenly lose its zeal for defending Truth against the Forces of Evil in the Culture War?! If the new, “kinder gentler” Focus translates into one that will present less of an obstacle to the wicked pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality movements, then Pastor Hutcherson is right about the direction of this ministry. It just seems implausible that after all its work to date, Focus will be able to retreat in any meaningful way from the Culture War.

We also suspect that Focus may be feeling the pull of George Barna’s polling research denigrating “religious right” activism (e.g., Barna Group President David Kinnaman’s and Gabe Lyon’s influential yet painfully shallow book UnChristian) and the appeasing liberal Christian “Emergents” — both of which appeal to younger generations of Christians who eschew the polarizing “culture war.”  In that regard, Focus has a choice: does it follow the worldly culture trends driven by these new generations — who, although they probably are loathe to admit it, are indoctrinated in politically correct,  “gay”-tolerant attitudes? Or does it recommit itself to educating these youth and standing boldly for timeless truths no matter where the culture is headed? (We realize there are many Christians who advocate quitting the cultural war against social evils, but they never have a good answer to this question: what about the hugely funded and powerful Homosexual, Abortion and Porn Lobbies that never quit; do we simply abandon America’s cultural/political landscape to them in a free society?)

I think Dr. Dobson would have opted for the latter, tougher course. That’s why he — like Hutcherson — is a target for hateful “queer” activists like Wayne Besen. Jim Daly may be less hated than Dobson, but that does not mean he will be more effective as a soldier in God’s Army. — Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.org

[Hutcherson column after jump…l

_____________________________________

I lost my Focus on the Family

Posted on WorldNetDaily, March 08, 2010

By Dr. Kenneth L. Hutcherson

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

I have a problem with that: I think Humpty Dumpty was pushed!

Of all the people I know, in an effort to find some semblance of reality about what really happened, I am the only one who has talked to both sides – Dr. James Dobson and Jim Daly, the new president of Focus on the Family who also represents the board.

I think that Focus does have a new focus; an image change designed to make them accepted and well-liked rather than standing for righteousness in an unrighteous society.

Dr. James Dobson is one of the most loving, committed Christian men I have ever met. I love him with all my heart, am committed to him and would take a bullet for him.

He is too gracious to ask the question, but someone has to, so I will: Why is he off the air at Focus on the Family when he and his son are starting their own radio program elsewhere so he can remain on the air?

The infusion of biblical truth into the culture over the years by Focus on the Family has been a miraculous movement of God, and all at the hands of Dr. James and Shirley Dobson.

What is this new Focus on the Family? There is a tendency after many years of success for new blood and new minds to come in with a new plan. (I’ve always thought: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!) Just because something sounds new and elegant does not guarantee it will be better.

A great example of the products currently coming out of the new Focus on the Family is the Tim Tebow ad during the Super Bowl. It said nothing. What a great opportunity that was to promote the pro-life position by revealing what abortion really is. But I guess they didn’t want to offend the world and wanted to make sure everyone loved them.

The current emphasis at Focus is on being loved and understood. I have read the entire Bible from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21 – and while it says, “The truth shall set you free,” nowhere does it say, “Sensitivity shall set you free.” What set the Focus board free to take Dr. Dobson off the air? …

I am not very happy with the new, progressive, “loving” leadership at Focus on the Family. However, it is God’s ministry, and He will do with it what He pleases….

This board will regret its decision not to honor the founder of the ministry that God ordained. I have already had many tell me where their support will go. If the board members have any guts at all, they will get this man back on the Focus radioprogram. …

We are called to be the salt of the earth, a beacon, and we are warned not to hide our light under a bushel. Focus on the Family’s light is not only under a bushel, it’s under a cloud.

The leadership had better wake up. They have made a serious mistake and they need to correct it.

Dr. Kenneth L. Hutcherson is the senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Wash. He is also a former NFL linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys and Seattle Seahawks.

I think Mr. Bier’s e-mail ought to come to the attention of Grove City College Board and executives, for three reasons:

1. They are about to graduate a young man from their so-called Christian institution without teaching him that God not only disapproves of homosexuality, but He describes it as an abomination, unnatural, dishonorable, perversion, depravity.  (What is the school’s position?  What are they allowing professors to teach?) Not only is this young man either ignorant or defiant of Biblical truth, he is actually deluded into believing that those who embrace homosexuality are moral, while those who hold to the Biblical position (“homosexuality is sin”) are immoral. Isaiah 5:20 — “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” — comes to mind;
2. Apparently, Throckmorton’s deceit has permeated the campus to some degree.  How many GCC students are under the misapprehension that God approves of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality?  (Wow, I guess only us heterosexuals are called to abstinence, sexual purity, marital fidelity?);
3. This college senior cannot write a sensible paragraph.  “Your unsolicited attack”?  I would characterize what [Americans For Truth writes] as “exposing Throckmorton’s counseling philosophy as unbiblical” — not sure how that qualifies as “an attack.”  And does Mr. Bier think that you are supposed to wait until you’re invited to comment on Throckmorton’s counseling philosophy?  In that case, his own e-mail [to AFTAH] is an “unsolicited attack,” isn’t it?

Most importantly: Please advise Mr. Bier that Jesus Christ does not “accept others as they are.”  The first recorded words of His public ministry were: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Priscilla Smith
__________________________

Priscilla Smith is a freelance writer based in Indiana. She can be reached through AFTAH at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

Editor’s Note: links have been added to the following letter sent by Steve Baldwin to Grove City College President Richard Jewell (Phone: 724-458-2500). For more contact information on GCC, go HERE.

From: “Steve Baldwin” [e-mail address withheld]
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 13:35:55 -0800
To: <rgjewell@gcc.edu>
Subject: Message from Steve Baldwin

President Jewell:

Warren Throckmorton

We’ve met before when I was the Executive Director of the Council for National Policy.  I’ve been following the controversy involving your professor, Warren Throckmorton, and I have to say, Throckmorton is doing great damage to the reputation of Grove City College.

It’s bad enough having a professor who actively declares that homosexuality is just fine if the person in question is happy with himself.  That is simply not biblical and you know it.  It like saying alcoholics are fine the way they are as long as they’re happy with themselves.

But what’s worse is that he seems to have poisoned the minds of many of your students.  The email message below is from one of your students to Peter Labarbera [of Americans For Truth] and it just made me sick to my stomach:

Your recent article on Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton is yet another of your pathetic attempts to mislead otherwise moral individuals into the belief that God disapproves of homosexuality.  Your unsolicited attack on Throckmorton isn’t surprising, but you should still know that Throckmorton has the support of the student body here.  Perhaps one day you will realize that the only thing doing “incalculable harm to many young people” is your ignorant and hate-inspired position on homosexuality.  Throckmorton’s Golden Rule Pledge simply encourages to do as Jesus did: accept others as they are, not as we want them to be.Thanks for your time,

David Bier, Grove City College Senior

This student is saying that God does NOT disapprove of homosexual behavior and he implies that the entire student body is in agreement with this heresy.  Since this has gone on for some time now, I would like to know if this is the official view of Grove City College.  I’m in contact with hundreds of conservative high school students and many often ask me for my recommendations as to what colleges to attend.  If this view of homosexuality is now the official view of the Grove City College, I need to know, as I will no longer be recommending Grove City College.

I look forward to your answer.

Steve Baldwin

__________________________________________

The writer (left) is the former Executive Director of the Council for National Policy, a former State Assemblyman in California, and a longtime conservative Republican activist. He and his wife Patti and their four sons live in Santee, California, outside of San Diego. You can write Baldwin through americansfortruth@comcast.net.

_____________________________________

From:  “Bier, David J.” [GCC e-mail address]
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:43:31 -0500
To: <americansfortruth@comcast.net>
Subject: Article on Warren Throckmorton

Dear Americans For Truth,

Your recent article on Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton is yet another of your pathetic attempts to mislead otherwise moral individuals into the belief that God disapproves of homosexuality.  Your unsolicited attack on Throckmorton isn’t surprising, but you should still know that Throckmorton has the support of the student body here.  Perhaps one day you will realize that the only thing doing “incalculable harm to many young people” is your ignorant and hate-inspired position on homosexuality.  Throckmorton’s Golden Rule Pledge simply encourages to do as Jesus did: accept others as they are, not as we want them to be.

Thanks for your time,

-David Bier, Grove City College Senior

______________________________________

Related Americans For Truth articles:

• “Is Grove City College Still ‘Authentically Christian’ if It Abides Pro-’Gay’ Professor Warren Throckmorton and his ‘Sexual Identity Therapy’?”
• “Grove City College Prof Throckmorton Misapplies the Golden Rule on the ‘Day of Silence’”

Would you want your child counseled at Grove City College? How can an evangelical Christian college like Grove City that claims to follow the Bible affirm a "gay" "sexual identity" that values "same-sex eroticism" -- especially for a person struggling in his conscience against homosexuality? The above excerpt is taken from Page 7 of GCC Professor Warren Throckmorton's (and Regent University's Mark Yarhouse's) paper, "Sexual Identity Therapy: Practice Guidelines for Sexual Identity Conflicts" (emphasis added).

TAKE ACTION: Contact Grove City College (President Richard Jewell: 724-458-2500; rgjewell@gcc.edu) and ask them if GCC professor Warren Throckmorton’s unorthodox views on homosexuality represent “authentically Christian” teachings on this issue. (GCC advertises itself as a solid, “authentically Christian” institution.) Request a written response as to whether Throckmorton’s writings on and approach toward homosexuality honor Grove City’s Christian charter “rejecting relativism and secularism.” Please share the response you receive with us at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

________________________________

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, I had to laugh the other day when heretical Grove City College Assistant Prof Warren Throckmorton accused pro-family groups advocating a walkout on the nationwide, pro-homosexual “Day of Silence” with “mischief.” You see, “Mischief” is Throckmorton’s middle name. Here’s Warren taking a cheap shot at Americans for Truth About Homosexuality in one of his many Uganda posts.  (Note how Warren sounds like … well, a “gay” activist … in cynically accusing Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa of “tak[ing] his pornography show to church”; Ssempa was using video to warn fellow Ugandan Christians about the reality of homosexuality.)

Question for Warren: is AFTAH doing a “porn show” when it exposes to the rest of America that twice a year in San Francisco, home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — third in line to be President of the United States — “tolerance” is so distorted that men are allowed to walk around publicly by the hundreds completely naked as the authorities stand idly by?

Here’s one of Throckmorton’s particularly snarky posts against Christian ex-”gay” advocate Richard Cohen (what about that Golden Rule, Warren?). The latter is a frequent target of Throckmorton’s barbs, perhaps because Cohen — unlike the Grove City professor — actually has helped many, many people experience real change and overcome homosexual desires.

There are good defectors and bad defectors in this world. Exemplifying the former are ex-”gays” like Pete Lines — whom I just interviewed for AFTAH’s new radio show — who have walked away from homosexuality toward a biblically faithful life. Warren is a bad defector. Though he works for an evangelical institution, Pennsylvania-based Grove City College, which advertises itself on faith-based websites as “authentically Christian,” Warren promotes a new, morally neutral paradigm on homosexuality that affirms people’s “Sexual Identity” according to their feelings (and comfort level with same).

As you can see above, Throckmorton’s and Regent University’s Mark Yarhouse’s “Sexual Identity Therapy” model grants the possibility that some clients may come to embrace a positive “gay identity” that “modifies” their religious beliefs in such a way as to “allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity.” Hold on…. This is wholly against Scripture: there is nothing in the Bible or the long history of Judeo-Christian tradition that even hints at ascribing a morally-neutral or worse — a “valued identity” — to sexual sin.

And Warren Throckmorton has the audacity to lecture the Ugandans about their approach toward homosexuality?

Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College

We applaud Throckmorton’s past and current work affirming homosexual strugglers’ right to live by their own religious and moral creed and seek counseling help to move away from  “gayness.” But his  “nonjudgmental” Sexual Identity Therapy approach affirming those who choose to embrace a “gay identity” wouldn’t pass the smell test if it were applied to any other sinful temptation. (“Doctor, I am so happy now that I’ve finally decided to embrace my core identity as a Sexual Swinger….”)

So we say to Grove City College and Regent University: let Throckmorton and Mark Yarhouse apply their “gay”-tolerant theories on their own — privately — but if you continue to allow them to do so under the auspices of GCC (or Regent) — then stop misleading people by promoting Grove City as “authentically Christian” (and Regent as “education from a Biblical perspective”).

And further questions remain: what is Professor Throckmorton teaching his students about homosexuality and the pro-homosexual activist movement? Does he counsel students struggling with homosexuality at GCC — and if so, does the school sanction his unorthodox, anti-Biblical counseling approach?

Larger Issue: Course of Modern Christianity

Understand this: Throckmorton –  who was once a respected part of the pro-family movement before he lost faith in people’s ability to change and leave homosexuality behind — is not the issue. (“I now believe durable change in basic attractions is very infrequent,” he writes.)  The larger issue is what is “authentically Christian” teaching on the matter of homosexuality? What is sin, how relevant is the Bible, and what is the real application of the Golden Rule? The Christian Church is at a pivotal moment regarding homosexuality: will Christians abandon Biblical orthodoxy and begin recognizing and affirming “gays,” “gay Christians,” and/or a homosexual “sexual identity” — or will they adhere to the historic Christian understanding that holds homosexual practice as sinful and which rejects the notion of a positive “identity” based on homosexual desires?

I’ll apply this high-stakes question to the most important people in my own life. If one of my sons — God forbid — came home from college one day with the revelation that he is “gay,” I wouldn’t accept that “identity” for him. Instead, I would emphatically plead with him that “being gay” is NOT “who you are” nor even a part of “who you are.” (It may be a burden with which he would have to bear with God’s help.) Of course, I would love my son as much as I’ve always loved him, but I would warn and counsel him that practicing homosexuality is a sin; that it is extremely unhealthy; that if he does not repent and turn from it, this sinful embrace could lead to his eternal separation from God; and that the Lord can help him to be an overcomer in this struggle — just as He has aided untold millions of sinners struggling with other difficult, besetting sins.

In other words, I wouldn’t be “neutral” or “nonjudgmental” — and certainly not affirming — on the matter or make the primary determinant of my counsel to my son his “feelings or stated “attractions.” Instead, I would seek to imitate as best I could — with much prayer — God’s heart on homosexuality — balancing love and truth. The Lord is merciful, forgiving and just but being holy He cannot affirm “gayness” (homosexuality) any more than He could affirm porn-use or promiscuity, etc. (e.g., a “porno identity”). We’re all born sinners, but it is a cop-out to say our “orientation” or “identity” is tied to any special sin.

And by the way, I would throw the book at anyone who ever tried to harm my son in any way or whose only response to him would be to hate and ridicule him.

Today, in post-biblical America, “Christians” who defect from the Truth are a dime a dozen. The challenge for you — committed Christian — is to hold to the Truth and love “gays and lesbians” (the quote marks are there because sin does not define personhood) enough to tell them the truth: that God loves them and He will forgive them — that is why He sent his Son to die for their sin — but that they must repent and turn from that ungodly lifestyle.

My good friend Linda Harvey is right: Warren’s namby-pamby “Golden Rule Pledge” isn’t biblical, and it isn’t truly compassionate. God has a better plan for today’s youth than to confirm or affirm them in a “sexual identity” linked to behavior that He calls an abomination. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

P.S. On behalf of Americans For Truth, I have asked Throckmorton for his views on “same-sex marriage,” “civil unions,” homosexual “special rights” (“sexual orientation”) laws, etc., but he has not answered my queries. We will be presenting these and other questions to Throckmorton publicly.

RELATED ARTICLES:

• Grove City College Prof Throckmorton Misapplies the Golden Rule on the ‘Day of Silence’
• What Qualifies the United States to Lecture Uganda on Homosexuality?
• Grove City Prof Warren Throckmorton Affirms Homosexuality as ‘Normal, Natural and Healthy’

TAKE ACTION: Contact Grove City College (President Richard Jewell: 724-458-2500; rgjewell@gcc.edu) and ask them if GCC professor Warren Throckmorton’s unorthodox views on homosexuality represent “authentically Christian” teachings on this issue. (GCC advertises itself as a solid, “authentically Christian” institution.) Request a written response as to whether Throckmorton’s writings on and approach toward homosexuality honor Grove City’s Christian charter “rejecting relativism and secularism.” Please share the response you receive with us at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

______________________________

By Linda Harvey, www.missionamerica.com

A broad coalition of pro-family groups recommends that parents keep their children home on the deceptive, pro-homosexual “Day of Silence,” to be observed this year on April 16, 2010, but one “gay”-affirming counselor started what he calls the “Golden Rule Pledge” instead.

Yet, the “Golden Rule Pledge” actually functions as a disinformation tool and a divisive wedge in schools and among Christians. It is insidiously misleading and would bring harm to kids. It grieves me to take this position, but there’s no choice, because lives are at stake.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton (pictured above), a self-labeled “christian” counselor at Grove City College [contact GCC HERE], has indicated on a radio show he does not object to homosexuality when a person feels comfort with the lifestyle. My concern is that he may be communicating this to youth and college students whom he counsels, because his “Golden Rule” project takes a stand tolerant of this destructive and sinful behavior by encouraging student “respect.”

He has expressed his preference for students remaining in school on the “Day of Silence” and hearing pro-homosexual propaganda, and learning to sympathize with those practicing these behaviors, rather than taking an unequivocal, biblical stand against these harmful practices by remaining home. Throckmorton doesn’t even like the Exodus-sponsored “Day of Truth,” which encourages kids to remain in school and have a frank conversation, in love, with friends while presenting the biblical view of homosexuality. Throckmorton calls this “offensive.”

Throckmorton’s support of the “Day of Silence” will do incalculable harm to many young people. Misleading professionals like Throckmorton in positions of influence can make our sons and daughters become comfortable with entering into, staying in, or approving of homosexuality, bisexuality and gender change.

If I were a parent who discovered my minor child had been counseled in this way, I’d bring the largest and most aggressive medical malpractice suit I could launch against this counselor at Grove City.

Golden Rule? Not on your life.

Jesus would never make a person feel more comfortable about:

• Young males having sex with males, the incidence of which rose over 12 % per year between 2001 and 2006 among males ages 13 to 24 1;
• Young “lesbians” choosing a fatherless life for any future children, since they can never conceive children with female partners;
• Hoping in such relationships for a false “marriage” in violation of Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9, where Christ told us that “from the beginning” people were created male and female, and that one man and one woman form a marriage;
• Teens and even younger children believing they should change genders. As with homosexuality, we should be doing everything possible to counsel these kids and prevent these behaviors among youth.

Throckmorton on his site (http://goldenrulepledge.com/about/) uses the language of homosexual activism. He couldn’t be more helpful to their cause if he were a consultant with GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, which sponsors the national “Day of Silence” Examples of the GRP’s sympathetic, even pro-homosexual statements:

1. The Day of Silence is to “bring awareness to bullying and harassment of transgender, gay, lesbian, and bisexually identified students.” This is odd both in the use of activist terms and that “transgender” comes first. This “gay”-crafted rhetoric gives a nod to the unsupportable “born-that-way” claim and a significant level of sympathy for those involved in what the eternally-existent Christ called an “abomination.” By any Christian standard, is this GOLDEN RULE material? NOPE.

2. Another phrase is quite revealing:

“Many straight Christian and conservative students are conflicted about this day. They do not affirm homosexual behavior but they also loathe disrespect, harassment or violence toward any one, including their GLBT peers.”

The logical fallacies here abound. If students truly don’t “affirm” homosexuality, then don’t cooperate with its promotion through the deceptive “Day of Silence.”

The second sentence is classic pro-”gay” propaganda. These are not the only choices! To stay home is to show “violence” or approval thereof? This is so unfair to tradition-minded families and students, who feel they make a very positive statement by staying home! The Gospel and its sexual standards are, after all still good news. And one does not have to approve of homosexuality to prevent bullying, violence, or uncivil behavior.

3. Here’s the actual “pledge” language:

This is what I’m doing:

I pledge to treat others the way I want to be treated.

Will you join me in this pledge?

“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31).

Hmmm. “…The way I want to be treated.” So, if a student is about to enter, or has entered, a high-risk practice that is called an abomination by our Lord, and has shared this with classmates, a “true” Christian should attend school to support a day that affirms this behavior and scorns any warnings to that student? Some friendship!

Here’s a biblically-based alternative: “Friends don’t let friends do homosexuality!”

Then, the Pledge website talks about affirming the “safety” of all, based on Christ’s teachings. This piggybacks on the language of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) and others who have used a supposed “safety” strategy to obtain affirmation of homosexuality in the schools. Homosexuality is safe and Christian teachings about it being an abomination are unsafe, is the real message. Bullying? Harassment? No one wants those things, but that’s not GLSEN’s actual concern, because schools are fully empowered now to punish incidents where such misbehavior occurs.

No, the “Day of Silence” is about propaganda. The goal is to shame and label Christians and tradition-minded students and teachers, silence their authentic witness, and even silence any public health warnings. Real safety would be to scream from the rooftops about the harm homosexuality or gender change will bring to these young lives. And since no one is born homosexual, these desires are demonstrably changeable, so no one is left without a positive alternative. Christ’s authentic path always gives hope.

This is such a travesty that if we were all ancient Israelites, we’d be rending our clothing and putting on sackcloth and ashes! What is happening to kids is corruption by uncaring and misguided adults.

Throckmorton is doing a great job of affirming propaganda meant to harm young lives and keep them away from Christ through misunderstanding. I don’t know if he means to do that, but that is going to be — guaranteed — the result.

This is completely upside down. Throckmorton doesn’t get it, or doesn’t want to get it, or loves the approval of “gay” and “transgendered” blogs and activists, or he has an as-yet-undisclosed motive. [Editor's note: Americans For Truth has asked Throckmorton for his views on "same-sex marriage," "civil unions," homosexual "special rights" ("sexual orientation") laws, etc., but he has not answered our queries.]

This is not Christian and is a heretical use of the Golden Rule.

Please join me in praying for Warren Throckmorton, for his repentance, and also for his duplicitous dealings to be revealed so no further harm is done to our precious and impressionable kids.

And please help me pray that the emotionally manipulative “Day of Silence” is revealed for what it is — adults exploiting precious kids.

Notes:

1. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5725a2.htm. See Table at end.

Linda Harvey, founder of Mission:America

________________________________

Linda Harvey is founder and president of Mission: America, based in Columbus, Ohio. Perhaps more than any other American, she has sounded the alarm about the danger of promoting/affirming “GLBT” (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) identities to young people [click the "To Christians" button HERE]. Please support Mission: America’s important work [Donate link is at the bottom of the main website page]. To order a 2-DVD set of Linda Harvey’s talk last year at Americans For Truth, send $35 postpaid to: Americans For Truth, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567, or specify “Linda Harvey 2-DVD set” with your gift of $35 or more through AFTAH’s online donor page.

The following is an anonymous testimony of ‘Tim,’ who became involved in homosexual (bisexual) behavior but then left it behind through a renewed and strengthened commitment to his Maker:

I grew up in a very stable home with two loving parents.  However, my dad and I are somewhat alike in personality, but with very different interests.  He’s an outdoorsman.  I’m a something of a “geeky nerd”.  I never felt that I could quite please him.  I love him, and he loves me.  But we have clashed many times over my life.  My two brothers are/were outdoorsmen, much like our dad.  (My elder brother is deceased now.)  I was the odd man out. 
 
That being said, I struggled with thoughts/feelings of bisexuality for many years.  I was not completely gay.  I was still attracted to women.  But there was a part of me that was curious and wanted to experience some things.  I had a couple of very brief [homosexual] experiences in college and right after college.  That scared me, and I just “knew” I was dying of AIDS or something.  So, I did not act on these feelings (except in private fantasy) for a number of years.
 
In addition to my sometimes troublesome relationship with my dad, I also felt very insecure about women, even though I was attracted to them.  I also did not want to “cheat” on my lovely wife, so I seldom entertained thoughts of doing anything with any other woman than my wife. 
 
Some years back, I had a job in sales that required some travel.  This enabled me (unfortunately) to have some freedom to initiate more experimentation.  During that time I got a computer and an internet connection.  To make a long story short, for a period of about nine years, I dabbled in male-to-male sexual contact — on again, off again. I would despise myself and would even be so sickened by these encounters that I would swear that I would never do it again.  A few weeks would pass, and I would be involved again. 

I developed a list of a few guys — some married like myself, some single gay guys — with whom I could meet for these experiences.  I sorta viewed this as mutual masturbation, and not really cheating on my wife.  Warped thinking, I know, but it’s how I rationalized/justified it.  I had ONE brief oral experience with another woman, and I felt SOOO guilty for cheating on my lovely wife that I never repeated that experience again.
 
Keep in mind that no one in my church or my family had any clue of these events. I became very adept at hiding my activities — “working late,” usually. Finally, in the early part of 2008, I was SOOOOO SICK of the whole mess that I cried out to God for help.  Another time I was kneeling in prayer, and in absolute soul-agony, I cried out to God that I was not fit to fill the positions in the church which I hold, but I did not know what to do, without destroying my family, and having a horrible impact upon my church.
 
I have diabetes, which was uncontrolled until [2008].  My blood sugar was very high, which greatly impairs one’s judgment.  One evening I was on the computer chatting online.  To make a long story short, a woman that I know took it upon herself to entrap me into a sexually explicit conversation online on this particular evening, using a fake name and profile.  She used that conversation, in which I admitted to some homosexual encounters, to contact church officials and make all sorts of accusations against me — some true, some untrue.
 
I was confronted with this information.  Needless to say, my world came crashing down.  God was kind enough to me to allow me to be warned before I was confronted (someone had overheard a conversation about it).  My wife knew nothing yet.  I have two friends that know about my past, who both strongly advised me to deny anything about past bisexual activity, for the protection of my wife and my son.  I told the pastor that there was an inappropriate conversation, but there were a lot of untrue statements in the packet (which was an accurate statement from me). 

Then I met with the local Board of Trustees (of which I am a member), and told them the same thing.  I offered to resign everything (I meant my positions in the church and my membership).  The lady who had received the packet responded almost immediately with a true Christlike spirit of love and compassion. She told me that I needed to seek God.  In other words, forget about resignations and punitive measures — just do what you need to do to get straightened out.  The rest of the Board went along with her recommendation.  I told my wife a couple of days later.  However, I have never told any of them about the bisexual activity, for the protection of my family.
 
We had a revival at our church shortly after this, and I began to earnestly seek for God to give me complete and total deliverance.  We believe in two works of grace:  justification and sanctification.  I prayed until I knew that all of my sins were forgiven.  I received a Witness of the Holy Spirit that I was forgiven and that I was restored as a child of God.  I then earnestly sought for the experience of Entire Sanctification.  In this experience, one “dies out” to the carnal nature, with which every human is born, as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. 

I prayed earnestly, night and day, for this experience.  I sobbed and cried and prayed.  I drive about an hour to work, and most of that time I’m alone.  I prayed most of the way to and from work.  I prayed myself to sleep at night.  If I woke up in the night, I prayed.  I was very worried about the consequences of telling the whole story, if God required it of me.  I “died out” to those things.  Finally, I prayed until I knew that whatever happened, it was all right.  It is in God’s hand.  I received a Witness and infilling of the Holy Spirit that I was sanctified to God’s will!!
 
The amazing thing is that I am delivered!  I am changed.  I don’t struggle with those illicit sexual desires any longer.  I had opportunities to cheat on my wife with other women, and was probably to the point that I might have done it.  Female co-workers often flirt with me, and I’m pretty sure I could have a fling with more than one of them, if I wanted.  I was considering trying it, before this all came up.  I don’t want to do that.  I have a desire to please God.  I do not look at men or women with lust in my heart.  I am satisfied to make love to my wife exclusively.  My horrible temper is gone.  I am, in short, a new creature in Christ Jesus. [2 Corinthians 5:17]
 
The sad thing is that I really was saved and sanctified when young, but in my immaturity and my failure to maintain a close walk with God, I eventually backslid, and allowed things back into my heart.  I wasted a lot of years.  My wife put up with a very hard-to-live-with husband.  My son put up with a hard-to-live-with dad.  I am resolved to continue to walk closely with God, and to never let satan ever gain glory from my life again.
 
Again, this is confidential.  Not even my wife and family know the part about the sexual activities. I am willing to tell them, when and if God requires it.  He has not done so yet.  God has become very close to me, and He guides me and talks to me.  I want to keep close to Him.  But I don’t know that it would ever be profitable to put my wife throught the pain of knowing what I did.

CBN story on Perkins being disinvited: no, it's not homosexuality that's "incompatible" with military service under Obama; now it's the expression of Christian faith -- opposing homosexuality -- in the public square.

Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Member and Director of Cultural Affairs at the Liberty Counsel, writes: “I believe those few of us remaining who are willing to take a stand on God’s natural design for human sexuality and morality will eventually be completely marginalized and persecuted by both the government and private industry. This is a chilling example of things to come.”

We agree. Christians and all those who oppose the normalization of sexual immorality through the force of law: are you going to stand by and just take it or will you defend your liberty to live out your religious and moral beliefs? This is only the latest proof that homosexual “rights” (so-called) are incompatible with America’s historic protection of religious freedom and First Amendment liberties.

I suppose there are many more craven acts to follow as our men in uniform scramble to appease their left-wing, pro-”gay” Panderer-in-Chief. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Here’s Breitbart linking to Pat Robertson’s CBN interview with Perkins:

http://www.breitbart.tv/prominent-minister-is-disinvited-from-military-prayer-luncheon-over-gays-in-service-issue/

“Every piece of evidence that can be culled from the text’s literary and historical context confirms that the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice, like its prohibition of adult incestuous unions, is absolute, rejecting all forms of homosexual practice regardless of consent and commitment.” –  Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary 

“St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts.  It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex.  So it did seem like against their nature to be doing so.” – Homosexual Episcopal Bishop V. (Vicky) Gene Robinson, interview with CNSNews.com

TAKE ACTION AND LEARN: Educate yourself about the Bible’s clear teaching against homosexual conduct and relationships. Begin by reading the article below, taken from Prof. Robert Gagnon’s paper, “What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues, and sharing it with your Christian friends, especially those bending to pro-”gay” advocacy. And please support Prof. Gagnon by ordering his excellent 2008 DVD series, “Love, the Bible and Homosexual Practice” (cost is $42 including shipping & handling). As Christians, it is our duty to respond intelligently to false ”gay” theology, which is gaining a foothold in the Church and in the culture. And for those who are not Christian, you need to understand the bogus history that activists like (Vicky) Gene Robinson are using to advance their pro-homosexuality agenda.

_______________________________________

Dear Readers,

Please watch this short video interview of homosexual activist and Episcopal Bishop V. (Vicky) Gene Robinson’s latest attempt  to discredit the biblical (Romans 1) prohibition against homosexual practice (courtesy Eyeblast TV and CNSNews.com):

You can read a transcript of Bishop Robinson’s CNS interview HERE. It is extraordinary to behold a major denominational “Christian” leader dedicate a sizable part of his professional life to undermining the clear witness of the Bible and tradition against a particular sexual sin  — which just so happens to be the one with which he identifies. Unfortunately for Robinson, his rehashed “gay” theology does not square with history, as Prof. Robert Gagnon — the world’s leading orthodox authority on the Bible and homosexuality — reveals below.

Note Robinson’s assumption that homosexuals are ”born.” Despite the existence of a small cottage industry of pro-homosexual researchers — e.g., geneticist-turned-”gay”-activist Dean Hamer — seeking to prove inborn homosexuality, they have not succeeded in doing so. (Hamer’s media-hyped 1993 male “genetic homosexuality” study in the journal Science could not be replicated in the same journal.)

Also note that despite Robinson’s claim about innate homosexuals, the peculiar and obviously dysfunctional circumstances of his own life — starting at his birth — support a “nurture” rather than “nature” model for the causation of homosexuality. Robinson’s parents, expecting him to die, gave him two female names — Vicky Imogene — because they had hoped for a daughter. Then when he survived, they allowed him to live as a boy carrying those feminine names — a parental act that was irresponsible at best and cruel at worst. (Remember the Johnny Cash song, “A Boy Named Sue”?)

Thus, the abnormal factors that undoubtedly contributed to Bishop Robinson’s deviant proclivities and homosexual self-identification as an adult undermine his current, self-serving, specious claim that modern, “monogamous” homosexuality is some kind of benign, naturally “oriented” variation on life that was not yet discovered by the Apostle Paul. [See related AFTAH article: "Researcher: Half of Gay Couples Choose to be ‘Non-Monogamous.’"]

Prof. Rob Gagnon

Moreover, if we know that thousands of men and women have left homosexuality through faith in Jesus Christ and through various methods and circumstances — why would we treat this particular sin as somehow special and unchangeable — or not sinful at all, as long as it is “domesticated”?

Professor Rob Gagnon and other scholars — including some homosexuals — who have studied the context of the New Testament Book of Romans take issue with Bishop Robinson’s claim about monogamous homosexuality not being proscribed. TAKE ACTION AND LEARN:  Please share this article with your friends and support Prof. Gagnon (www.robgagnon.net) — a rare, indefatigable foe of pro-homosexual political correctness in the academy — by ordering his 2008 DVD series, “Love, the Bible and Homosexual Practice” (cost is $42 including shipping & handling). The excerpt below is taken from Gagnon’s 2009 paper, “What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues.”

– Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

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

_________________________________________

Prof. Gagnon Responds to “Gay” Theological Arguments on the Book of Romans:

3. Romans 1:24-27 and the Erroneous “Exploitation Argument”

Claim: The Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice in Romans 1:24‐27 applies only to exploitative and hedonistic forms of homosexual practice such as sex with slaves, prostitutes, and adolescents.

What the evidence really shows: Every piece of evidence that can be culled from the text’s literary and historical context confirms that the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice, like its prohibition of adult incestuous unions, is absolute, rejecting all forms of homosexual practice regardless of consent and commitment.

Five lines of evidence make this point clear. First, Paul in Rom 1:24-27 rejects homosexual practice because it is a violation of the God’s creation of “male and female” as a sexual pair in Genesis. In Rom 1:23-27 Paul intentionally echoed Gen 1:26-27, making eight points of correspondence, in the same tripartite structure, between the two sets of texts (humans/image/likeness, birds/cattle/reptiles, male/female). Paul was rejecting homosexual practice in the first instance because it was a violation of the male-female prerequisite for sexual relations ordained by the Creator at creation, not because of how well or badly it was done in his cultural milieu.

Second, the kind of nature argument that Paul employs in Rom 1:18-27 isn’t conducive to a distinction between exploitative and nonexploitative forms of homosexual practice. For Paul contended that female-female and male-male intercourse was “contrary to nature” because it violated obvious clues given in the material structures of creation that male and female, not two males or two females, are each other’s sexual “counterpart” or “complement” (to use the language of Gen 2:18, 20) in terms of anatomy, physiology, and psychology. What Paul says regarding the vertical vice of idolatry (1:19-23) is equally true of the horizontal vice of same-sex intercourse: male-female complementarity is “clearly seen, being mentally apprehended by means of the things made” (1:19-20). Some have argued that the ancients had no comprehension of a complementarity argument. Yet as classicist Thomas K. Hubbard notes in his magisterial sourcebook of texts pertaining to Homosexuality in Greece and Rome (University of California Press, 2003): “Basic to the heterosexual position [among Greek and Roman moralists in the first few centuries A.D.] is the characteristic Stoic appeal to the providence of Nature, which has matched and fitted the sexes to each other” (p. 444). Hubbard is supportive of homosexual relationships, yet admits the point.

Third, the fact that Paul in Rom 1:27 specifically indicts male homosexual relations that involve mutual, reciprocal affections—“males, having left behind the natural use of the female, were inflamed with their yearning for one another”— precludes any supposition that Paul is thinking
only of coercive relationships.

Fourth, Paul’s indictment of lesbianism in Romans 1:26 further confirms that his indictment of homosexual practice is absolute, since female homosexuality in antiquity was not primarily known, or criticized, for the exploitative practices of sex with slaves, prostitutes, or children. And there can be little doubt that Paul was indicting female homosexuality, as evidenced by:

1. the parallelism of the language of 1:26 (“females exchanged the natural use”) and 1:27 (“likewise also the males leaving behind the natural use of the female”);
2. the fact that in antiquity lesbian intercourse was the form of female intercourse most commonly labeled “contrary to nature” and paired with male homosexual practice;
3. the fact of nearly universal male opposition to lesbianism in antiquity, even by men engaged in homosexual practice; and
4. the fact that lesbian intercourse was the dominant interpretation of Romans 1:26 in the patristic period.

Fifth, contrary to false claims that people in the Greco-Roman world had no concept of committed homosexual unions, there is plenty of evidence for the conception and existence of loving homosexual relationships, including semi-official “marriages” between men and between women. Moreover, we know of some Greco-Roman moralists who acknowledged the existence of loving homosexual relationships while rejecting even these as unnatural (indeed, we can trace this idea back to Plato’s Laws). This is also true of the Church Fathers. For example, Clement of Alexandria (late second century) referred to “women … contrary to nature … marrying women” (Paidagogos 3.3.21.3). Obviously marriage implies commitment (else there is no need to marry) yet commitment does not change the unnatural and sinful character of the relationship. And it should go without saying that Jewish writers in Paul’s day and beyond rejected all forms of homosexual activity. For example, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus stated the obvious to his Roman readers: “The law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman…. But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199).

It is hardly surprising, then, that even Louis Crompton, a homosexual scholar, acknowledges this point in his massive work, Homosexuality and Civilization (Harvard University Press, 2003; 500 pgs.):

“However well-intentioned,” the interpretation that Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships….seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian. (p. 114)

Also worth noting is the falsity of claims that the ancient world knew nothing akin to our understanding of a homosexual orientation or of congenital influences on at least some homosexual development. As classicist Thomas K. Hubbard (cited above) notes:

Homosexuality in this era [i.e., of the early Imperial Age of Rome] may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation. (p. 386)

Bernadette Brooten, a lesbian New Testament scholar who has written the most important book on lesbianism in antiquity also acknowledges this point. She states that “Paul could have believed” that some persons attracted to members of the same sex “were born that way and yet still condemn them [better: their behaviors] as unnatural and shameful…. I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God” (Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism [University of Chicago, 1996], 244).

WATCH THE LIVE WEBCAST: Friday 2-6:35 p.m. and Saturday 9 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 -5:00 p.m. See the Liberty Counsel press release on the conference HERE.

Liberty University School of Law will host a one-day conference followed by a one-day symposium addressing homosexuality and its consequences. The Friday, February 12, conference is entitled “Understanding Same-sex Attractions and Their Consequences.” On Saturday, February 13, the Liberty University Law Review will host a legal symposium entitled “Homosexual Rights and First Amendment Freedoms: Can They Truly Coexist?”

Those struggling with same-sex attractions need understanding and hope for a life without conflict, so it is imperative to understand the implications of same-sex attraction and the broader homosexual agenda.

If you cannot attend the conference and symposium on Friday afternoon and Saturday, you can watch the live webcast HERE.

See the schedule for Friday and Saturday for the extraordinary list of speakers.

Event times and locations are as follows:

Friday, Feb. 12, 10:00 a.m., convocation, Liberty University – Vines Center;
Friday, Feb. 12, 2:00 – 6:45 p.m., conference, Liberty University School of Law – Supreme Courtroom;
Saturday, Feb. 13, 9:00 a.m. – 5 p.m., symposium, Liberty University School of Law Supreme Courtroom;
Saturday, Feb. 13, 5:00 p.m. banquet, Liberty University – Grand Lobby of DeMoss Hall.

The conference and the symposium are free, but tickets are required for the Saturday evening banquet. For more information, please go to www.LC.org, contact Liberty University School of Law at 434-592-5300 or visit http://law.liberty.edu.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker

One need not rely on this disturbing item from NRO to conclude that American jurisprudence is in big trouble given the expanding number of judges who are, to use modern parlance, “openly gay” (which is to say: proudly practicing or inclined to practice perversion). If they regard their homosexuality as (part of) “who they are” and, by extension, view foes of homosexuality as akin to racists, it is difficult to imagine them being truly impartial on “gay”-related cases.

Having said that, given the ferocity with which many straight liberals promote homosexualist ideology today, there surely is plenty of left-wing judicial bias to go around without laying all or even most of the blame at the feet of America’s homosexual judges. A straight liberal who regards homosexuality as a pure “civil rights” issue is just as capable of being a reactionary, anti-religious bigot in his approach toward moral opponents of homosexuality as an openly homosexual judge.  — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Related AFTAH story: “Gary Glenn Assails Focus on the Family’s ‘Moral Retreat’ on Openly Homosexual Judges”

____________________________________

By Ed Whelan, National Review Online’s “Bench Memos”

Reprinted from NRO Online, February 07, 2010

Judge Walker’s Skewed Judgment

According to this column in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.”

In terms of his judicial performance in the anti-Proposition 8 case, the bottom-line question that matters isn’t whether Walker is straight or gay.  It’s whether he is capable of ruling impartially.  I have no reason to doubt that there are homosexuals who could preside impartially over this case, just as I have no reason to doubt that there are heterosexuals whose bias in favor of, or against, same-sex marriage would unduly skew their handling of the case.

From the outset, Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors.  Consider his series of controversial—and, in many instances, unprecedented—decisions:

Take, for example, Walker’s resort to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality in support of his fervent desire to broadcast the trial, in utter disregard of (if not affirmatively welcoming) the harassment and abuse that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would reasonably anticipate.  Walker’s decision was ultimately blocked by an extraordinary (and fully warranted) stay order by the Supreme Court in an opinion that was plainly a stinging rebuke of Walker’s lack of impartiality.

Take Walker’s failure to decide the case, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law and his concocting of supposed factual issues to be decided at trial.

Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors—a ruling overturned, in part, by an extraordinary writ of mandamus issued by a Ninth Circuit panel consisting entirely of Clinton appointees.

Take Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8.

Take Walker’s permitting a parade of anti-Prop 8 witnesses at trial who gave lengthy testimony that had no conceivable bearing on any factual or legal issues in dispute but who provided useful theater for the anti-Prop 8 cause.

And so on.

Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation:  that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.  Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now.

“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of ‘moral retreat.’  ‘It’s not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family’s moral retreat on the issue,’ Glenn argues. ‘[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a Biblical standard.’”

It's hard to imagine former longtime Focus on the Family leader James Dobson saying that pro-family groups should not consider a homosexual judge's "sexual orientation" as a factor in evaluating that judge.

The issue of openly homosexual judges is back in the news, providing us the opportunity to publish this 2009 One News Now piece and agree with our friend Gary Glenn of AFA-Michigan on a very significant “moral retreat” by Focus on the Family.  Back when there was talk of President Obama possibly nominating a lesbian judge to the Supreme Court, two Focus analysts asserted that a judge’s homosexual “sexual orientation” would not be a major consideration for Focus in evaluating such a judge. It is precisely this sort of naïveté that helps explain why aggressive homosexual lobby groups are winning major battles against their pro-family opponents.

I’ll issue the same challenge to Focus that I have made to Grove City College’s wayward, “gay”-affirming prof Warren Throckmorton: show me where you can find (benign) “sexual orientation” or (in Throckmorton’s case)  “sexual identity” in the Bible, and I’ll change my tune that you are selling out Christian, biblical principles. After all, Focus launched a “Truth Project” that teaches believers how to have a “biblical worldview” — and it’s a huge leap from “abomination” to “sexual orientation.” Surely committed Christians should understand how the latter term has been used to strip morality out of the homosexuality equation. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Related AFTAH article: “Prop 8 Trial Judge is Homosexual (‘Gay’) — and It Shows: NRO”

_________________________________

OneNewsNow reported:

ONE NEWS NOW, May 29, 2009

Should homosexuality be a ‘litmus test’ for high court?

by Jim Brown

Conservative political activists are divided over whether homosexual behavior should disqualify a judicial nominee from consideration for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Focus on the Family’s judicial analyst, Bruce Hausknecht, recently told liberal (Washington Post) blogger Greg Sargent that Focus would not oppose a Supreme Court nominee solely because of their homosexual behavior. “Our concern at the Supreme Court is judicial philosophy,” Hausknecht said. “Sexual orientation only becomes an issue if it effects their judging.”

(See original Greg Sargent report: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-party/top-religious-right-group-we-wont-oppose-gay-scotus-pick/) [Editor's note: Sargent also quotes Focus' Hausknecht as saying that a judge's sexual orientation "'should never come up...It’s not even pertinent to the equation.”]

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus, says just like a nominee’s ethnicity and life experience, homosexuality should not be a litmus test.

“Someone’s sexual orientation or their preferences, none of these things should come into consideration when we’re talking about evaluating someone who will make decisions based on precedent under the law [and who will] practice judicial restraint,” Horne explains. “Those are the things we look at for whether or not someone would make a fit justice on the Supreme Court.”

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of “moral retreat.”

“It’s not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family’s moral retreat on the issue,” Glenn argues. “[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a biblical standard.”

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council agrees with Focus on the Family that homosexuality should not be an absolute litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. He argues in blog comments that “even Supreme Court nominees deserve some zone of privacy, and…there is at least a hypothetical possibility that somewhere in the country there is a judge who has experienced same-sex attractions, but who also respects judicial restraint and the original intent of the Constitution.

“In the real world, however, the chances of finding a highly-qualified judge who fits both of those descriptions are probably about equal to the chances of a camel passing through the eye of a needle,” Sprigg concludes. “So don’t hold your breath waiting for social conservatives to ’support’ a ‘gay’ judicial nominee.”