From Pro-Family Groups Find Ways to Combat Homosexual Agenda in Public Schools, by Ed Vitagliano, published Dec 6, 2006, by Agape Press:

The influence of homosexual activists within the nation’s educational system continues to grow, altering the attitudes of children and teens toward the acceptance of a destructive and depraved lifestyle.

Often without parental knowledge, local schools are instituting policy changes that not only promote respect for homosexuality, but often even celebrate it. From teacher lesson plans to books in the school libraries to special speakers addressing children in school assemblies, activists are touting the “naturalness” of homosexuality.

‘Risk Audit’ can reveal shenanigans
With so much politically-correct pro-homosexual indoctrination going on, how do parents assess the extent of homosexual activism in their own local schools?

Linda Harvey, founder of the Ohio-based pro-family group Mission America, has developed one common-sense tool. Harvey’s “Risk Audit Project” is a comprehensive survey which measures the promotion of homosexuality in a given public school district. (The survey can be downloaded for free at the organization’s website.)

The Risk Audit Project measures the extent to which public school districts are collaborating with homosexual activists by determining, among other things, whether schools have adopted pro-homosexual policies or curricula, and whether the school district is sponsoring pro-homosexual clubs, events, or activities.

AN Americans For Truth SPECIAL REPORT

How Does a Teenager Get Started in Homosexual “Sex Work”? Just ask the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force…

It’s about time that Christian Americans learn to distinguish between the man or woman struggling with homosexual temptations–to whom we should extend a loving hand and God’s grace to help them overcome–and a “gay” activist movement bent on destroying all sexual and gender norms in the culture.

Last month, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force held its 2006 Creating Change conference at the Westin Crown Hotel in Kansas City, Missouri. Americans For Truth sent reporters to the Nov. 10-12 event–and they witnessed the farthest thing from heartland values that you can imagine. Our representatives were forced to go undercover because the Task Force bans conservative critics from its conferences. (Years ago, I was kicked out of a Task Force conference while attending a workshop on “public sex,” led by a panelist who runs a pornographic “cruising” site for men looking for anonymous sex with other men. No joke.)

Is it any wonder that Task Force leaders are not “proud” of their radical agenda but seek instead to hide it from the public? And yet they have the audacity to compare their movement to Martin Luther King’s.

As the leftist arm of the homosexual movement, the Task Force’s annual “Creating Change” conference — now in its 19th year — tells us where they want to take America. “Sex work” for teenagers? Don’t judge it as wrong. Prostitution? Legalize it but don’t tax it. Partnering with sexual sadists, pornographers and “fetishists”? Hey, they have their “rights,” too.

The new rallying cry for the “gay” Left is “Sexual Freedom.” This is to the sloganeering homosexual militant what “people’s democracy” was (is) to the Communist cadre: Orwellian Newspeak for an extreme agenda that threatens children, undermines natural families, and ultimately helps destroy societies.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s crusade for sexual anarchy — which we will lay out in future articles — is the logical result of a movement that is constantly discovering new rights based on sexual and gender aberrations. Of course, the Task Force cannot say “No” to the sadomasochists and the prostitution advocates, etc.: if rights can be based on homosexual behavior — a sin so grievous that it was an unspoken taboo not too long ago — why stop at these other sex/gender “orientations”?

Meanwhile, the Task Force’s director, Matt Foreman, regularly blasts pro-family Christians and groups like American For Truth as “extremists” and “homophobes.” Reality check: there is nothing more extreme than the Gay Task Force’s agenda of casting aside all laws proscribing immoral and unhealthy sexual conduct.

While many homosexuals take issue with this or that aspect of the Task Force’s “loony left” agenda, Americans need to recognize that, collectively, the organized homosexual activist movement — those pushing to change our laws and make homosexuality and transsexuality easy for youth to embrace — constitutes one of the greatest evils facing our culture today.

Now, I hear some of you objecting that the Task Force conference does not represent the “gay mainstream.” True, but the NGLTF’s other agenda of domesticated, “monogamous” homosexuality is nearly as extreme as what’s described below because it presents a “good” side to perversion — that is, sin — for young people to emulate.

Regularizing sin (deviance) or repackaging it to appear more like normal heterosexual relationships does not make it right.

For those tempted to embrace homosexual monogamy as an acceptable compromise, ask yourself: how do two men consummate their “gay marriage”?

The likelihood that you don’t even want to think about answering that question bespeaks the evilness of organized homosexuality and the illicit nature of all “gay” sex. Supporting “civil unions” as a compromise is merely a capitulation to an agenda that seeks to enshrine wrong and sometimes deadly behavior as a “good” for society.

Tear off the veneer of “gay” propaganda and underneath you will see that this issue has little to do with “equality” or “civil rights” and everything to do with a revolutionary assault on nature and a time-tested Judeo-Christian morality that has served Western civilization well.

So why are we losing to this extreme movement? One reason is that the Task Force’s agenda is so perverse that most Americans cannot fathom it, while others simply don’t want to face the truth that committed activists are actually mobilizing around such deviance. Still others, their minds softened by the outreach of “gay” friends and family, have taken a “live and let live” approach even though in their gut they recognize the danger of normalizing things like “gay adoption,” “gay marriage” and “GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered] youth.”

So the “gays” — organized, wealthy and single-minded — win incrementally because “good people do nothing.”

So what should we do? In my view there are three options:

1) LIBERAL OPTION: embrace the lie, throw away common sense and centuries of Judeo-Christian tradition, and support homosexuality and gender confusion as civil rights. Watch and cheer as Americans’ First Amendment rights to live out their faith and disagree with homosexuality get superseded by “gays” demanding “sexual freedom” in its various manifestations;

2) “FEEL GOOD” COMPROMISE: support the “middle ground” of civil unions/domestic partnership. (We won’t call it “marriage,” but the media will.) This actually rewards homosexual activism by legitimizing “gay” relationships — thus creating a faulty paradigm of “acceptable, responsible” homosexuality. This option will confuse youth and help all homosexuals rationalize their immoral relationships. It also will embolden “gay” advocates in their struggle to legalize “same-sex marriage”;

3) STAND ON PRINICIPLE: recognize that homosexual behavior and homosexual relationships are always wrong and must not be rewarded by our government or by our laws. Resist all attempts to confirm youth in counterfeit homosexual, bisexual or “transgender” identities. Extend the hope of the life-changing Gospel to homosexual strugglers while fighting the “gay” political/cultural agenda with everything you’ve got.

We at Americans For Truth hope that you will join us in pursuing Option Three. God bless. — Peter LaBarbera

——————————

Creating Change, Corrupting Children: The ‘Gay’ Task Force’s Evil Agenda

By Americans For Truth staffers

At the Creating Change conference (Nov 8-12, 2006), organized by the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, at least three teenagers (some still in high school) listened from the front row while a panel discussed “sex work” — prostitution, stripping, and pornography films — and sex worker “rights.”

According the NLGTF’s website, Creating Change is the largest GLBT organizing conference. Over 2,000 homosexual activists were reportedly in attendance in Kansas City.

The Task Force scheduled a panel discussion for Saturday (Nov 11) entitled “What’s $ Got to Do With It?: Sex Work, Economics, and Class.” The description of this session in the conference program states:

“We all know that transgender, gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals (as well as those in our communities who don’t identify with those terms) are involved in exchanging sexual services for money, or other necessities, also known as sex work.

“Whether as street-based workers, exotic dancers, pro-dommes, pornography actresses and actors, or in any other aspect, you’ll find gender and sexual minorities.”

To be clear, the primary topic under consideration was prostitution. The program continues:

“…The stigma connected to sex outside of heterosexual, monogamous, inside-marriage-only norms affects the lives of both queers and sex workers. …And sex workers across the US, often time with LGBT sex worker activists at the forefront, are demanding respect for their rights.

“This workshop will explore the diversity and contradictions of the sex industry involving issues of sexuality, gender, race, class and more, with an emphasis on encouraging participants to support sex workers’ fight for their rights. Panelists will discuss alternatives to criminalization, the maximization of health and safety for sex workers, and how feminist, queer theory, and sexuality discussions engage the issue of sex work.”

There were 77 seats available in the meeting room, very few empty, with an additional 8 or 10 people standing. In the front row, directly in front of the panel, sat teenage students from Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth (“BAGLY” — “a youth-led, adult-supported social support organization”).

Four adults formed the panel: Darby Hickey, Carol Queen, Gennifer Hirano, and Tyrone Hanley.

Darby Hickey is a male-to-female transvestite (pictured left), with red hair, and was wearing sunglasses, a tight t-shirt and a short plaid pleated skirt. He (God made him male) serves as program coordinator for Different Avenues, a non-profit that offers classes on “communication and negotiating” and counseling on “safer” sex and HIV. In his “Friendster” profile, Darby describes himself as “Christian” and “just a poor girl caught up in the life of glamour and luxury due to my moral corruption and participation in illegal and fraudulent activities.”

Carol Queen is a world-renowned pervert (and proud of it), board member of Woodhull Foundation and creator of “Masturbate-a-thon.” You can read her review of Creating Change on her blog, “Chronicles of Sex Positive Culture” — including her summary of Thursday’s all day “Sexual Freedom Institute.”

Gennifer Hirano is also known as “AsianPrincess” — “an Asian cowgirl in pink braids, bikini top, and thong who often sings ‘Coal Miner’s Daughter’ while giving an Asian man a lap dance” according to an article by Karen Eng. She is affiliated with SWOP (Sex Workers Outreach Project), and describes herself as a “Queer Bitch Whore Revolutionary.” An interview published in Asian Week reveals that Ms. Hirano performed at Crazy Horse, a full nude club in San Francisco’s SOMA district — while she was a grade school teacher in San Mateo (she resigned June 30, 2006).

Tyrone Hanley of HIPS (Helping Individual Prostitutes Survive) also serves as president of Youth Alliance DC.

So what did these four GLBT role models have to say to the audience — and more importantly, to teenagers — about “sex work”?

NGLTF’s emerging policy position on prostitution
The Task Force panel advocates “decriminalization” of all sex work — as opposed to “legalization” which would subject prostitution income to taxation and allow for “government control of women’s bodies.”

Gennifer Hirano (pictured right) expressed frustration that she was constrained as a grade school teacher from being “out” as a sex worker.

Darby Hickey said that “sex exchange is a right” and “a tool for survival.”

Tyrone Hanley said that in DC, about 40% of sex workers are women, 40% are trans, and 20% are men. Of the trans prostitutes, nearly all are black or “of color” men who “lack access to the resources to achieve their transition goals” and who are excluded from legitimate employment, even among homosexual professionals and business owners who occupy “a position of power” in DC.

“How do you get started?”
One of the teenage boys on the front row raised his hand and asked: “How do you get started?” He explained: “We suspect that one of the youth in our group is leaning toward sex work. What should we do?”

The panelists did not suggest deterring the youth from pursuing sex work or encouraging the youth to think about a college education. They suggested listening, remaining non-judgmental, and perhaps discussing safety, “but not to the extent that he feels stigmatized.”

“Jesus and all that horrible stuff”
An audience member made reference to a ministry in Kansas City that provides services to prostitutes, homosexual and heterosexual, but “tells them about Jesus and all that horrible stuff.” She asked, “How do we organize against it?”

Carol Queen agreed that to offer services to prostitutes or the homeless while requiring Bible study or prayer is “coercive.” She suggested “creating alternative space without the Christian thing.”

“White supremacy”
Gennifer Hirano closed the session saying that “the police are not my friend.” She suggested that if sex workers, strippers, and porn stars could “overcome sexism” they would “form an alliance to f*ck the police.” As a “Queer Bitch Whore Revolutionary” (with a masters degree) she said “I am a sex worker because of white supremacy” and that “every sex act with a client is an act of revolution.”

Indeed.

The New York Times article linked below details arrangements made between 10 homosexual men and various sets of lesbian women to produce children without regard for God’s design for marriage and family: “People are in many cases redesigning ‘family.'” The writer aptly calls it “a kind of fatherhood that would seem to curtail both its joys and responsibilities.” The unrelenting focus on self-self-self is striking.

“R.” is a white homosexual man who, with the help of a turkey baster, created a daughter with “M.” “M.” is a black lesbian woman who was in a relationship with a white woman and desired a biracial child.

“Having a child of his own, he thought, would mean creating a relationship more intense and involved than what he had with his siblings’ children. …[H]e had no ambition to be a primary parent and …was happy to renounce his parental rights.”

In other words, little consideration was given to the needs of a child, but only to what was in it for him.

The white woman was later impregnated by a homosexual black man to produce biracial twins. When the women split up, they were awarded joint custody. The black woman has a new lesbian partner and the white woman is now living with a man and has born a fourth child. “R.” is building a relationship with his daughter but admits that “She probably didn’t know exactly who I was.”

When asked if there was any downside to fathering in this way, another homosexual sperm donor, Guy, answered “yes, missing the kids.” Revealing, isn’t it, that he thought only of the downside for himself?

Mark, a homosexual man, fathered two children with Jean and Candi, a lesbian couple.

“Each birthday and Christmas, he deposits a $1,000 bond for their education. Like any good father, he said, ‘I want to see them do well.'”

Is that all it takes to be “like any good father”? I don’t think so…

David, a homosexual man, is honest enough to admit “I’m far too selfish a person.” He has fathered two children (the old fashioned way) with Vicky, who is in a lesbian relationship with P.J. Despite a close relationship with the women and children, when the elder child was diagnosed with neuroblastoma, a deadly cancer, and endured difficult surgery, grueling stem cell transplant, and radiation, well, “cancer was not something the family had planned on.” David remained focused on himself:

“‘…I’m pulling myself back, because I’m not — I didn’t sign on for —.’ He stalled. He still had his bills to pay, his house to pay off and all his other affairs. Most significant, he said, ‘this wasn’t a responsibility that I necessarily took on. You know? This was where the untraditional part of the family arrangement came into question or got defined or whatever. Because that’s not what my role is here.’ “

Can you even imagine???

And what dreams does David have for his sons?

“For David, the admittedly vain actor, one of the supreme joys of fatherhood is the idea that one day his sons might see him on television. He imagines them turning on the TV and pointing him out to their friends: ‘There’s my dad!'”

Perhaps Alan Keyes characterized the proud “gay” movement well as “selfish hedonism,” despite all the flack he took from the liberal media. This is narcissism, appalling selfish disregard for the children involved, and a focus only on the unmet desires of the homosexual adults. Please read this article and remember it when you hear how homosexuals want to have families just like yours. — Sonja Dalton

——————————

The following is excerpted from Gay Donor or Gay Dad?, by John Bowe, published Nov 19, 2006, by The New York Times:

R. described himself as “a man in his 40s, voluntarily employed in the arts,” a situation made possible, he explained, by a private family income. His six-foot frame is fit and slim; his eyes, blue and bright. He dresses in a cultured but casual way, an aesthetic captured in his speech, in which phatic blips like “kind of” or “sort of” are interspersed with terms like “Richter-esque.” As in Gerhard, the German painter.

In an effort to become a parent of a sort, R., who is gay, agreed, 11 years ago, to donate sperm to a lesbian couple aspiring to pregnancy. A few years before, R. became friendly with a woman — white and upper class like himself — through the gay activist world. They weren’t good friends, he said, “just friendly.” The woman had a partner, a middle-class black woman, whom R. knew less well but who seemed solid.

The couple decided that the black partner would become impregnated with a white man’s sperm so that the baby would be biracial, reflecting the appearance of both mothers. They approached R. about being the donor. (Like all the subjects I spoke to for this article, R. asked that I not use his full name — R. is his middle initial.) It seemed like a good fit, R. said. “My life and my family background and my socioeconomic position kind of matched the profile of the nonbiological partner.” R. and the white woman even looked somewhat alike.

R. had always loved being around kids, particularly his niece and nephew, whom he saw often. But like many gay men, R. never thought of himself as a likely candidate for fatherhood. He always felt that parents opting to raise a child alone were choosing a rocky road, and at the time, R. himself had no long-term partner. He did, however, have an ex-boyfriend who had started a donor relationship with two lesbians; it seemed to be going well. He quickly became taken with the idea. Having a child of his own, he thought, would mean creating a relationship more intense and involved than what he had with his siblings’ children. “I guess I felt that maybe I wanted to have some kind of more lasting relationships in my life,” he said. “I said I was interested.”

Continue reading in The New York Times…

For background, see New York on the Cutting Edge of Gender Confusion.

Excerpted from NY Rejects Transgender Birth Certificate Law, by Daniel Trotta, published Dec 5, 2006, by Reuters:

New York City’s health department on Tuesday rejected a proposal that would have allowed transgender people to switch the gender on their birth certificates without a sex-change operation.

…The health department cited “broader societal ramifications” for killing the proposal, noting that hospitals, schools and jails still must classify people by gender.”For example, how can you send a person with a penis to a women’s prison?” said one health department official who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the department.

Continue reading at Reuters…

Excerpted from Napa Winery to Donate Funds to Support Gay Marriage, by Chris Rauber, published Dec 5, 2006, by San Francisco Business Times:

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading in San Francisco Business Times…

Excerpted from ‘ACLU Solstice Barn’ Substitutes for Nativity, published Dec 6, 2006, by WorldNet Daily:

In tongue-in-cheek deference to the American Civil Liberties Union, students at the University of Texas displayed an “ACLU Solstice Barn” on campus, featuring politically correct figures.

“We’ve got Gary and Joseph instead of Mary and Joseph in order to symbolize ACLU support for ‘homosexual marriage,’ and of course there isn’t a Jesus in the manger,” said Tony McDonald, chairman of the Young Conservatives of Texas branch on the Austin campus.

Continue reading at WorldNet Daily…

Obviously, we’re saddened at the spectacle of the Vice President’s daughter, Mary Cheney, living in an open lesbian relationship, and now bringing a child into a home that is fatherless by design. In our view, this is another case of the “gay” movement putting its wants (in this case, having a child) above what’s best for children. “Two mommies” or “two daddies” will never substitute for a home with a married mom and a dad, and it is sad when men or women model immoral homosexual behavior before innocent children in a home setting.–Peter LaBarbera

The following is excerpted from Mary Cheney and Partner Are About to Be Moms, by Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts, published Dec 6, 2006, by Washington Post:

Mary Cheney, the vice president’s openly gay daughter, is pregnant. She and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, are “ecstatic” about the baby, due in late spring, said a source close to the couple.

…Cheney, 37, was a key aide to her father during the 2004 reelection campaign and now is vice president for consumer advocacy at AOL. Poe, 45, a former park ranger, is renovating their Great Falls home. [Photo HERE.]

…In November, Virginia voters passed a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions; state law is unclear on whether Poe could have full legal rights as a parent of Cheney’s child. The circumstances of the pregnancy will remain private, said the source close to the couple. This is the first child for both.

Continue reading in Washington Post…

Excerpted from Gay demands shift from equality to special endorsement, by Michael Medved, published Dec 6, 2006, by Townhall:

[Discussing the homosexual adultery of Ted Haggard, Jim McGreevey, and Eugene Robinson…]

In high profile cases, in other words, we seem far more willing to forgive and forget faithless behavior if that infidelity involves a homosexual connection. This amounts to the granting of a special dispensation, a privileged position, to same-sex attraction—giving more latitude to gay relationships than we’d ever grant to straight romances. The justification for this attitude involves the notion that gay men who leave or destroy their families for the sake of homosexual affairs are simply discovering, at long last, their true identities after years of repression– coming to terms with “who they really are.”

But what about those aging heterosexuals who may also suddenly discover– at age sixty, say—that they’ve been repressing their true identities? Couldn’t they also argue that it seemed suddenly inauthentic to remain trapped with a sagging partner of similar age, when a powerful, undeniable inner voice and the evolutionary imperative demanded they connect with nubile twenty-somethings eager for experienced and wealthy companionship?

In fact, every study of human sexuality would suggest that far more men feel tempted to heed their deep-seated, undeniable authentic desires to cheat with other (particularly younger) women than feel drawn into relationships with other men. Does this greater incidence of heterosexual temptation make it more – or less– “natural” and worthy of respect than homosexual impulses? The tendency to forgive, or even endorse, same-sex attractions while condemning the vastly more common opposite gender desires, amounts to the granting of a preferential position to homosexuality.

One of the most common arguments for gay marriage also carries with it the implicit assumption that gay relationships count as inherently superior, more durable and more meaningful than their straight counterparts…

The idea of special recognition for gays and lesbians also applies to the efforts to grant homosexuals “protected status” as part of our civil rights and hate crimes legislation. No one would ever advance the idea that other common sexual behaviors based on deep-seated urges – such as chronic womanizing, or nymphomania, or obsessive addiction to pornography, or masochism – deserved governmental defense against discrimination or expressions of disapproval.

As the national argument continues to rage regarding the proper social and governmental response to homosexuality, some of the advocates for radical change have unobtrusively but unmistakably shifted their campaign from a request for equal treatment to an assertion of innate superiority. They demand for gay impulses not the same treatment accorded to heterosexual desires, but far greater latitude and acceptance, along with uniquely privileged social sanction and legal endorsement.

Continue reading at Townhall…