A press release from Biblical Family Advocates, published Jan 7, 2007:

The Christian fish symbol is an ancient and sacred symbol for the persecuted Christians in the 1st century, as well as contemporary believers in Christ. But that symbol which showed that Christians identified with each other in their obedience to follow Christ is taking on a whole new meaning. The Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, as one of their ministries, ‘Ministry with Lesbians and Gay Catholics’ decided to make the sacred fish symbol into a rainbow fish symbol pin.

“The Ministry With Lesbian and Gay Catholics (MLGC) recognizes that
all persons with a homosexual orientation are capable
of living a full Catholic life in union with all the members of the Church.”

“See in the fish pin a sign of recognition of
our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers.”

As most people know, the homosexual community has long used the rainbow as a symbol of their solidarity with the movement to legitimize homosexuality in their communities. From the Diocese’ own website, it states “See in the fish pin a sign of recognition of our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers. The pin signals solidarity with all people of faith who promote justice and inclusivity for every person in their faith communities.”

Phil Magnan, the Director of Biblical Family Advocates, a Christian ministry to promote biblical morality had this to say in response, “I was somewhat stunned that such a large Catholic Diocese which represents millions of Catholics would ignore the mandates of their own faith, which says “The Catholic Church thus teaches: ‘Basing itself on sacred Scripture, homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’”

“To actually put the rainbow colors on such a sacred symbol for the Christian is an affront to the faith of not only the early church believers, but those of us who know that homosexuality and its colors have no place representing historical Christianity that upholds holiness and morality, very highly.”

“What if I was to start a group to accept adulterers, would I have them put some kind of symbol to show our acceptance of adultery? All sexual relationships outside of a heterosexual marriage are acting outside of God’s natural order for the family. There are so many reasons why same sex relationships hurt both the participant as well as society. And even worse, it is a grave sin before God.”

Magnan continued, “The Holy Scriptures clearly teach against homosexual relationships and that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. When you look at this Catholic ministry to gays it seems more of a call for people to accept their immoral orientation rather than a ministry to rescue them out of their depravity. Christ’ love for our neighbor is calling them out of the darkness of sin, calling them to repentance. Acceptance or tolerance of homosexuality or any other sin puts us at enmity with God Himself. The Catholic Archdiocese in Los Angeles should be clearly reaching out in compassion to the homosexual community, but it should also clearly denounce that such lifestyles are sinful and destructive. The gospel of Jesus Christ was not only meant to offer forgiveness of sin, but freedom from it.”

Excerpted from Sex, Meth and Internet Spark New AIDS Fears, by Matthew Verrinder, published Jan 17, 2007, by Reuters:

An hour after speaking at a Crystal Meth Anonymous meeting about the benefits of sobriety to dozens of other recovering addicts, Charlie was alone in his Chelsea apartment, logged onto the Web site Adam4Adam.com.

He cruised the site’s profiles of muscular gay men who want to meet for sex while high on methamphetamine…

In New York, thousands of gay men use the Web sites Adam4Adam.com, Manhunt.net and Craigslist.org as an easy way to meet for sex marathons at underground orgies while high on the addictive stimulant.

Similar sites exists in other cities. The phenomenon — while affecting only a small part of the gay community — underscores the spread of meth from the U.S. rural areas where it gained an early foothold.

Health officials worry that the ease in using the Web to find meth — which erases inhibitions and judgment and creates a voracious sexual appetite — and people to do it will fuel a resurgence among gays in infections of HIV, the virus which causes AIDS.

About half of new patients diagnosed with HIV by counselors at Callen-Lorde Community Health Center, New York’s largest private clinic for gay men, said that meth or alcohol was a factor, said Gal Mayer, the center’s medical director.

Men who are high on meth are four times more likely to have unprotected sex than those who aren’t, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Continue reading at Reuters…

Excerpted from Wide Berth Allowed on Teaching About Homosexuality, by Daniel de Vise, published Jan 16, 2007, by Washington Post:

Montgomery County’s overhaul of its sex education curriculum, which has inspired a lawsuit, petition drives, national news coverage and the formation of fiercely polarized community groups, was itself inspired by two words buried deep within the regulatory code of Maryland, which advises school systems to teach “sexual variations.”

The county school system invoked those regulations in defense of disputed new lessons that introduce students to sexual orientation and transgenderism in grades eight and 10…

“Everyone’s watching Montgomery right now, in no uncertain terms,” to see whether the new curriculum survives an expected legal challenge, said Jean-Marie Navetta, spokeswoman for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, a national nonprofit organization. If the lessons emerge intact, they could be replicated…

The structure of state regulations about sex education speaks to the delicate balance between providing lessons to children about sexuality, discrimination and public health and respecting the religious and moral values of parents…

The Montgomery Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development — the panel required by state law — recommended five years ago that sexual orientation be introduced to the health curriculum…

The resulting lessons, which discussed sexual orientation in the context of tolerance and diversity, satisfied the citizens committee and school system staff and placed the liberal-leaning county at the forefront of such teachings. But the curriculum met fierce resistance from some parents. A group collected 3,700 signatures on a petition opposing the lessons…

Montgomery’s new curriculum will focus on the subject in two 45-minute class periods in grade eight and two in grade 10. Anne Arundel devotes about half as much time at a single grade level, either nine or 10. Instructional materials tell teachers to “examine gender identity, gender roles and gender stereotyping” and to “describe sexual orientation and the impact on self and others.”…

UPDATE — Also see Newsday story published Feb 25, 2007.

Excerpted from Millions At Stake In Gay Adult Adoption Case, published Jan 15, 2007, by the pro-homosexuality 365Gay:

…In 1991 Olive F. Watson used [a Maine adult adoption] law to adopt her partner of 14 years, Patricia A. Spado. Even though the couple lived in Connecticut Watson owned a summer home in Maine.

Watson was the daughter of former IBM executive Thomas J. Watson Jr., who was the CEO of the company from 1956 to 1971…

When Watson adopted Spado there were no same-sex partnership agreements in the country and Watson believed it would provide Spado with security if anything happened to her.

But a year later the couple broke up.

When Thomas Watson’s widow died in 2004 his fortune went into a trust and her 18 grandchildren became eligible to receive income from two trusts until they turned 35, at which time they would receive the principal outright.

Several months later a lawyer representing Spado notified the trust that there was a 19th grandchild, Spado, and that she also was entitled to a share of the trust.

Continue reading at 365Gay…

Excerpted from European Transgender Groups Unite, published Jan 16, 2007, by the pro-homosexuality 247Gay:

A new coalition of European Transgender and Transsexual Groups, TransGender Europe, has received recognition by the Austrian authorities this week.

Hear Americans For Truth president Peter LaBarbera on Janet Folger’s “Faith2Action” radio show over the WVCY network. After Faith2Action founder Folger, author of “Criminalizing Christianity,” asks LaBarbera what he would say to Christians who want to drop out of the Culture Wars, he answers that in reality, many Christians want to “cop out” of the fight against the radical “gay” agenda, often employing bogus theological excuses. He urged listeners to “grow up” and defend their American freedom — including the freedom to disagree with the intolerant homosexual agenda — even if “it’s hard.”

Click HERE to listen to the program online. LaBarbera’s segment is in the second half of the hour-long program.

What the NEA (National Education Association) refuses to admit as it (again, below) recommends pro-homosexual “anti-harassment training” is that such training invariably undermines the firmly-held beliefs of Christian and other students who believe homosexual behavior is wrong. “Anti-bias” and “gay”-inclusive “bullying” programs rely on the very jaundiced work of groups like GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network), which have a long track record of assailing and distorting Christian and conservative teachings on homosexuality.

Why can’t schools simply ban all “bullying” or abuse of ANY students without getting into the homosexuality promotion business? — Peter LaBarbera

——————————

From NEA’s website:

Rights Watch

Teaching Tolerance or Attacking Religion?

How far can schools go in teaching tolerance for gays and lesbians? Two federal courts tackle this thorny question.

It’s the latest battleground in the culture wars. In the wake of several high-profile cases holding school districts liable for failing to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (GLBT) students from peer harassment, many schools have adopted training programs intended to reduce harassment and promote acceptance of GLBT students.

Some parents find these programs objectionable because they conflict with their deeply held religious belief that homosexuality is sinful, and they don’t want the schools to undermine their parental authority by teaching a contrary lesson.

Federal courts in Maryland and Kentucky recently struggled to resolve this conflict, with differing results.

In a dispute that is still ongoing, the Montgomery County (Maryland) Board of Education last year adopted a health education curriculum designed to teach tolerance of gays and lesbians. Among other things, course materials described as a “myth” the belief that “homosexuality is a sin” and characterized certain Christian religions as “intolerant and Biblically misguided” because they are “opposed to homosexuality.”

In a lawsuit filed in May 2005 by two groups of parents and citizens, a federal district court issued an injunction prohibiting the Maryland school district from implementing the curriculum. The court found that the course materials violate the Constitution by attacking the views of certain religions, while promoting the views of other religions that “are more friendly towards the homosexual lifestyle.”

The school district has agreed to revise the controversial curriculum. That process is still underway.

In the Kentucky case decided in February, a federal district court ruled that parents don’t have the right to have their children opt out of mandatory “student diversity training” designed to stop the harassment of GLBT students.

The program adopted by the Board of Education of Boyd County, Kentucky, consists of a one-hour video, followed by comments from an instructor and questions from students. Students who refuse to attend receive an unexcused absence.

Excerpted from The Intolerance of Tolerance, by Greg Koukl, published Dec 14, 2006, by Townhall:

Probably no concept has more currency in our politically-correct culture than the notion of tolerance. Unfortunately, one of America’s noblest virtues has been so distorted it’s become a vice.

There’s one word that can stop you in your tracks. That word is “intolerant.”

…The modern notion of tolerance is seriously misguided.

The Tolerance Trick
As it turns out, by the modern definition of tolerance no one is tolerant, or ever can be. It’s what my friend Francis Beckwith calls the “passive-aggressive tolerance trick.” Returning to the classic understanding of tolerance is the only way to restore any useful meaning to the word. Let me give you a real life example.

Earlier this year I spoke to a class of seniors at a Christian high school in Des Moines, Iowa. I wanted to alert them to this “tolerance trick,” but I also wanted to learn how much they had already been taken in by it. I began by writing two sentences on the board. The first expressed the current understanding of tolerance:

“All views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another.”

All heads nodded in agreement. Nothing controversial here. Then I wrote the second sentence:

“Jesus is the Messiah and Judaism is wrong for rejecting Him.”

Immediately hands flew up. “You can’t say that,” a coed challenged, clearly annoyed. “That’s disrespectful. How would you like it if someone said you were wrong?”

“In fact, that happens to me all the time,” I pointed out, “including right now with you. But why should it bother me that someone thinks I’m wrong?”

“It’s intolerant,” she said, noting that the second statement violated the first statement. What she didn’t see was that the first statement also violated itself.

I pointed to the first statement and asked, “Is this a view, the idea that all views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another?” They all agreed.

Then I pointed to the second statement—the “intolerant” one—and asked the same question: “Is this a view?” They studied the sentence for a moment. Slowly my point began to dawn on them. They’d been taken in by the tolerance trick.

If all views have equal merit, then the view that Christians have a better view on Jesus than the Jews have is just as true as the idea that Jews have a better view on Jesus than the Christians do. But this is hopelessly contradictory. If the first statement is what tolerance amounts to, then no one can be tolerant because “tolerance” turns out to be gibberish.