A revolutionary assault on sex and gender norms requires a revolutionary new vocabulary. The homosexualist movement stole the word “gay,” and is busy redefining “marriage” and “spouse.” Next comes the basic descriptors of the family. Mom, dad, children? How utterly heterosexist of you! The following is excerpted from Good LGBT Practice in the NHS, a joint publication from the homosexual activist organization Stonewall Scotland and Scotland’s National Health Service:

Page 2 — Scots’ tax money at work…

Page 7 — “In order to avoid this confusion…”

Partners and “next of kin”
Using the terms “husband”, “wife” and “marriage” assumes opposite sex relationships only and will automatically exclude all LGB people. Using the term “partner” and “they/them” to refer to the partner will avoid this problem. This is also inclusive of all heterosexual couples, regardless of their marital status. Many people hold a mistaken belief that “next of kin” must be a married partner or blood relation. In order to avoid this confusion it may be advisable to use “partner, close friend or close relative”. This allows the patient to identify and choose who is important to them. For example, the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 200310 defines the most important nearest relative (after spouse or civil partner) as a
cohabiting same-sex or opposite-sex partner.

Page 7 — Anthing but mom and dad…

Parenting
LGBT people can and do have children, sexual orientation or gender identity has nothing to do with good parenting or good child care. According to a Scottish wide survey (11), one fifth of LGBT people have children. Some children will have been born or adopted into heterosexual relationships before a parent had ‘come out’ and some are born into same-sex relationships or adopted by an LGB individual. Individual circumstances lead to varied family structures and parenting arrangements. It is important to be aware of this. When talking to children, consider using “parents”, “carers” or “guardians” rather than “mother” or “father”.

The booklet advocates “a zero-tolerance policy to discriminatory language” for health care workers in Scotland.

We found this post by conservative blogger Clayton Cramer most useful in explaining the “unhinged” component of homosexual militancy (emphasis added):

Why There Are No Comments On My Blog

Pam Spaulding, a lesbian blogger, posted something about Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, which is run by Peter LaBarbera. Like many blogs, Pam’s blog allows readers to add comments–which soon included Peter LaBarbera’s home address, and a suggestion that the park across the street would be a good place for a sniper.

Comments on blogs can either be moderated (which ends up taking a lot of a blogger’s time) or unmoderated (in which case, the blogger may not be aware of what’s being said in the comments). Once informed, Pam Spaulding removed these comments and emphasized that this was not acceptable behavior.

That’s why I have never turned commenting on in my blog. Who needs the aggravation of letting unhinged idiots post trash like that (and worse) in the comments?

I can’t say that I am surprised by what happened on Pam Spaulding’s blog, however. Over the roughly twenty years that I have been using the Internet to engage in political discussion, I have expressed myself strongly (sometimes even a little too strongly) about a very large number of controversial issues. There is one, and only one group of political activists that have ever made harassing phone calls to me (repeated calls at 6:00 AM with silence at the other end), made lewd phone calls to my children (who fortunately, were small enough to be confused rather than shocked), tried to get me fired from a job, or threatened my safety with threats of violence.

Guess which group that was. Not leftists. Not gun control activists. No Islamists. Not Communists. Not labor unionists. Not history professors.  Not environmentalists. Homosexual activists are the only group that has engaged in these tactics in response to my political free speech.

Obviously, not all homosexuals–or even all homosexual activists–have engaged in these tactics. But part of why I have joined the ranks of those who think that homosexuality reflects something terribly broken is because there is no other group whose activists become so unhinged in response to criticism that they engaged in these tactics. I have never felt at risk because of my political activity–until the unrelenting campaign of harassment started in the early 1990s, and I started to regularly carry a gun because of it.

Americans For Truth (and Concerned Women for America) received the following apology from South Dakota homosexual activist Barry Wick, author or the menacing “sniper” comments against AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera that were posted on lesbian activist Pam Spaulding’s website. After CWA issued a national press release Tuesday about Wick’s comments, Spaulding removed them, claiming that she did not know they were there. More than a few friends have observed that it strains credulity that a techno-savvy activist who meticulously monitors Americans For Truth’s website — in search of examples of alleged “hate” to post on her blog — was somehow unaware that a violence-encouraging post against AFTAH founder Peter LaBarbera was sitting on her own site for three weeks.

The penchant of Spaulding, a Duke University employee, for mean-spirited jabs at ex-“gays” and Christian conservatives — whom she calls “AmTaliban” for “American Taliban” — places her among the most prolific putdown artists in a leftist blogosphere that specializes in bigoted and nasty name-calling. (Click HERE for a good write-up by former Washington Times investigative reporter George Archibald.) We’ll have more on that later, as well as further developments on this story. 

Following is Mr. Wick’s apology, which we accept: 

To Mr. Peter LaBarbera c/o Concerned Women of America … February 7, 2007 RE: Perceived Threat on Pam’s House Blend Blog

 

 

Dear Mr. LaBarbera,

 

I sincerely apologize for what may have seemed like a real threat on your person that I wrote on Pam’s House Blend. There is no sincere threat and I know of no sincere threat in existence from others. I am responsible for the hyperbolic language I used in an atmosphere of verbal pinching…unfortunately, my choice of language was shameful and not intended to do any real harm nor ever to give you the impression that I or others truly wanted to harm anyone. What I thought might be verbal pinching….really was far more and I apologize.

 

My language was over the top and I can understand how concerned you and your family and friends may have been. While we share opposing viewpoints on issues that affect our American culture, I have always stood behind my words and claimed responsibility for them. I was very wrong in this case and have always obeyed the laws of our state and the nation in expressing my viewpoints. There had been some good-natured joking about a very hurtful song posted on that website…and thinking my words would also be taken as so much hyperbole…well, they were not. As a new member of Ms. Spaulding\’s blog community, I got carried away with the atmosphere. I shall not return there.

 

We live in America. A land governed by law. We have differences about what the civil law ought to provide it’s citizens….but we are in agreement….that violence in any form is not the answer. I, too, have been threatened in my activist work of past years. I knew there was no serious substance to them and did not report them. You have used your vast power to swat a fly…and as that fly I feel swatted. I apologize to your wife and family for any fears they may have had. There was never any danger and I stand apologetic and humbled by my misadventurous writing style that has made a wrong turn. Please accept this as a sincere apology on all levels and that I hope this letter will put an end to who is responsible.

 

I heard your thoughts that perhaps the person writing the words was not a real person. Sadly, I am real…the words were wrong and were not taken in a hyperbolic, humorous context. Such “manifestos” are of a period that no longer exists in American social action. Further, I apologize to CWA for having to use its airtime and resources to tell this story to its audience. Nobody in the “gay” community would ever take what I said seriously. Trust me, any friends I may have made by my writing have now deserted me. I hope CWA will report this letter and its true sincerity to the same audience. I have truly supported non-violence in the gay community and continue to do so to this day.

 

If you have an question about my sincerity, feel free to call me at my home number below…anytime to hear these words from my mouth. As a part of the actions I am taking today to assure that I shall not run afoul of my poor creative writings, I have resigned from Pam’s House Blend and apologized to her for violating her rules. I am sincerely apologizing to you and your family. And I sincere apologize to anyone who thought my words were in any way a true reflection of my past actions or future actions nor are they reflective of everyone I know in the gay community. They are not. At 55 years old, I should know better. And this incident of my own creation has taught me another life lesson. I, too, am the father of three children who are now providing me grandchildren (four). I always taught them to accept responsibility when they did something wrong. I was wrong…and what I wrote was not truly intended to frighten or reflect my deepest feelings.

 

Please accept my apologies. I can appreciate that you might think I am a radical. Perhaps more in past years. Certainly not now and certainly not what the words may have appeared to represent. I humbly ask your forgiveness.

 

In All Sincerity, Barry G. Wick [address and phone number given]

In our e-mail version of this story, I mistakenly reported that there were a “series of [pro-violence] posts” on Pam Spaulding’s, when I meant to say “comments.” I confess that I am still learning all the blogging lingo. There was only one controversial POST in question (which we saw) advocating violence; that post contained several violence-endorsing COMMENTS (by Barry Wick) in the overall thread. I apologize for the error — PL

Lesbian activist Pam Spaulding, creator of the “Pam’s House Blend” blog, sent me the following e-mail note at 11:36 CST stating that she did not know that the violence-justifying posts against me were on her blog. She has removed those posts, for which we are grateful. At Americans For Truth, we believe that although our disagreements with pro-homosexual activists are great, we can and should debate the issue of homosexuality with civility, and without resorting to name-calling. — Peter LaBarbera

Here is Spaulding’s note:

Peter,

That string of comments referred to as threats in the CWA piece [“CWA: Pro-Family Leader’s Life Threatened on ‘Gay’ Website”] clearly violates the community standards of the blog, and they have been promptly deleted once I was alerted. Those participating in that subthread have been notified as well.

     I have never advocated for threatening physical harm to anyone, as I have been on the receiving end of the same treatment, along with having my home and phone information published. We may be on the opposite sides of the fence on most matters, but on this we can agree — our families (whether you regard mine as such or not) have a right to be safe.

     I will also place a post on the blog to that effect.

The following news release was issued this morning by Concerned Women for America. Needless to say, neither I nor Americans For Truth will be intimidated by such hateful threats, but we ask you: imagine if the situation were reversed and a Christian leader allowed a web post threatening violence against a homosexual activist spokesman to remain live and active on a “pro-family” for weeks on end. In addition to facing potential “hate crimes” prosecution, he’d surely be ostracized in the pro-family and faith communities. And rightly so.

At the time of this writing, the link advocating and justifying violence against me remained live on lesbian Pam Spaulding’s site [Spaulding has removed the posts from her blog, and said in a letter to me that she was unaware that the thread of posts advocating violence were there]. Please pray for Spaulding, “Barry Wick,” and all those whose embrace of homosexuality has led them to be consumed by hatred toward Christians and others who defend natural sexuality and marriage. — Peter LaBarbera

CWA: Pro-Family Leader’s Life Threatened on “Gay” Web Site

Lesbian activist Pam Spaulding’s popular weblog Pam’s House Blend is known for its outrageous and controversial content. In addition to promoting anti-Christian bigotry, the North Carolina-based Web activist’s favorite pastime appears to be smearing pro-family leader and Americans for Truth president Peter LaBarbera with bizarre and hateful accusations and insults. However, House Blend’s typically intolerant and obscene content may have recently shifted from the absurd to the criminally violent.

In what was, at the very least, an apparent attempt to intimidate and frighten LaBarbera, who is married with children, “House Blend” published his home address in a January 13, 2007, thread titled, “Saturday this and that.” Shortly thereafter, someone identified as “Barry G. Wick” posted the following comments: “It’s across from a park in an area with cul de sacs. I’d bet it’s a residence … and across from a park. Snipers take note.” (emphasis ours)

“Wick” later seemed to suggest that shooting LaBarbera would amount to an act of self-defense: “Self-defense for gay folks isn’t PC, is it? No, we have to be sure that we’re victims all the time. … When we start standing up for ourselves, we lose all the status of an under class. I refuse to be part of an underclass. I’m equal. And I’m gonna use any language, even outrageous language, to get my point across. … I’m a citizen … equal, proud, and willing to defend my way of life with my life. …”

Later in the same thread “Wick” made his true intent clear: “If I were Azerbaijani and living in Russia right now, I’d want to advocate violence against skinheads … [LaBarbera] and others like him ought to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what future awaits them from a cadre of selected defenders willing to give up everything in order to protect the lives of gay and lesbian citizens. The greatest thing ever to happen to the [Martin Luther King] movement was the Black Panthers. Americans were shocked by an open display of firearms and Black Pride … Pushing back verbally … or with selected action isn’t dishonorable, it’s necessary.”

LaBarbera indicated that he has been in touch with both the FBI and the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office. He’s anticipating a full criminal investigation. “I’m a big boy. It’s not so much that I’m worried about myself,” said LaBarbera, “but the effect this could have on my wife and children … that has me extremely upset.”

Concerned Women for America is deeply disturbed by this apparent threat to Peter LaBarbera’s life. Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues said, “This is nothing short of cyber-terrorism. There should be a thorough criminal investigation, and if it’s determined that a crime has occurred, the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.” As of the time of this press release [Tuesday morning, Feb. 7], the thread in question was still posted on Spaulding’s website.

Feb 3/4 — Boston homosexual movement puts on “fetish fair” at local hotel!

Listen to the full show here.

Download the podcast.

This is so incredibly bizarre we can’t describe it here. You’ll just have to listen to the show. Includes an interview with Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth, on how these various “sexual orientations” tie in to the homosexual movement nationally, how it affects you, and where it’s going.

By Peter LaBarbera

TAKE ACTION — Call your U.S. Representative and Senators (202-224-3121) and politely convey your opposition to the new “Hate Crimes” bill that includes “sexual orientation” (HR 254), and ENDA, the “Employment Nondiscrimination Act.” Also, call or write President Bush (202-456-1414) and urge him to veto these two top “gay’-priority bills if they are passed by the Democratic Congress.

If enacted, HR 254 and ENDA would federalize “sexual orientation” law, creating the long-term foundation for widespread anti-religious tyranny in our nation in the name of pro-“gay” tolerance. To see two good ads featuring victims of Pennsylvania’s “hate crimes” law, click on www.stophatecrimesnow.com. Events in Great Britain should warn us about the grave dangers ahead…

Blair: ‘Gay Rights’ trump religious freedom

When homosexual activists and “gay equality” win, Christians and religious freedom lose. So do children who need a mom and a dad, as the world is witnessing again in Great Britain.

Prime Minister Tony Blair unwittingly cut to the nub of how “sexual orientation” laws inevitably destroy religious freedom when he said that Britain’s “gay”-inclusive nondiscrimination laws should not exempt Catholic adoption agencies that refuse, for reasons of faith, to place children in homosexual households:

“There is no place in our society for discrimination. That’s why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple. And that way there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering public funded services from regulations that prevent discrimination.”

Under Blair’s “compromise,” Catholic adoptions agencies will have 21 months to comply with the “sexual orientation” laws, but some say they would rather close down than violate their religious beliefs, BBC News reports.

Christians are fast becoming second-class citizens in Western nations that have bought into the ideology of homosexuality as a civil right. In Canada and France, legislators recently were fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality. In 2004, pastor Ake Green was jailed for a month for preaching –– in his small church in Borgholm, Sweden –– that homosexual behavior is an egregious yet forgivable sin. And recently, a British couple told how they were denied the chance to adopt because it was determined that their Christian faith might “prejudice” them against a homosexual child put in their care.

Britain’s “gay adoption” travesty parallels that which followed the triumph of homosexual “equality” and legal “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts. Last year, Catholic Charities of Boston ceased all adoption operations in the state after being told that under Massachusetts’ pro-“gay” nondiscrimination law, only agencies that place children in homosexual-led households would get licensed by the state.

Catholic doctrine states that it is “gravely immoral” to put children in such homes:

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these [homosexual] unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
Source: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons”

But “gay rights” tramples religion in post-Christian England, where the government has lately even set out to prosecute “homophobic” speech. It is almost inconceivable that the same country that gave us the rule of law and limited government –– and powerfully gifted Christian preachers like George Whitfield who helped shape America –– now bows down to the homosexual revolution of organized sin masquerading as “civil rights.”

Queer, indeed.

“Breeders” Still Required
Sad as it is, this is a marketing story for the ages: in a few short decades, “gay liberation” activists went from including the notorious “man-boy love” group NAMBLA in their “pride” parades and mocking married couples as “breeders” –– to passing “sexual orientation” laws worldwide that put government officially in the role of defying Nature and Nature’s God, to quote our Declaration of Independence.

But is it progress to empower a legal and cultural revolution that criminalizes the common sense idea that society should put the welfare of children first by favoring natural parenting (mom and dad) over an experimental version (dad and male lover) that models perversion to innocent children in their own home?

Let’s be clear: Nature discriminates against homosexuality. Same-sex arrangements can never be “equal” to the God-ordained institutions of marriage and family. They cannot produce children by themselves. Homosexual partners cannot acquire a child without involving heterosexual procreation in some way.

Yep, those irritating “breeders” come in handy once in a while.

From NewsCWiPP #32, published Dec 2006, by Dr. Peter Jones of Christian Witness to a Pagan Planet:

Having spent three days with 11,000 professors of religion and Bible at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) and the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) in Washington DC., I’m glad to be back in the peace of my Californian study. Every year, in the academy, orthodox biblical Christianity decreases in representation, while radical liberalism increases. The liberal SBL, founded in 1880, welcomed the fledgling AAR in 1963, but it is now being thrown out of AAR, apparently because privileging one religion in a meeting of “religion teachers” is too politically incorrect. So the cuckoo takes over the nest and the SBL must fend for itself.

While the joint arrangement persists (until 2008), I am able to observe religious history as it happens. Since 1991 I have witnessed the radical agenda stretch the liberal envelop to unimaginable extremes. I have deliberately attended the “cutting edge” seminars, since what the “cutting edge” conceives soon becomes acceptable to the liberal majority. Here is a sampling of this year’s offerings:

• In her plenary address, Diana Eck, president of AAR and professor at Harvard, introduced herself as a Montanan, a Methodist and a Massachusetts-recently-married gay — to enthusiastic applause. Her great contribution is the promotion of religious pluralism in America, but religious pluralism is often accompanied by sexual pluralism;

• In The Contemporary Pagan Studies Consultation, academic witches and warlocks conferred on the spiritual power of “fire circle drumming,” in which fire represents “hardly contained desire.” The audience heard about “Paganistan,” the thriving Wiccan community in Minnesota, and a lecture entitled “The Pagan Explosion,” documented that paganism has grown 38 fold in the USA in the last eleven years and 250-fold in Australia in the last five years;

• In The Theology and Religion Section: Jim Wallis’ God’s Politics, Wallis reduced the Christian message to a modern version of a social gospel for the Democratic party. An “evangelical feminist” railed against the genocidal foundation of America and called for the deconstruction of “normative heteropatriarchy.” One small but bright light came from a Canadian scholar who accused Wallis of nationalistic idolatry for making America, rather than the church, the source of Gospel action;

• In a review session of Christ and the Single Savior [subtitle: Gender and Sexuality in the Bible], Yale professor Dale B. Martin’s homoerotic interpretation of the New Testament teaching on sexuality began with a professor from Harvard Divinity School introducing herself by saying: “I do not know where I am in relation to Christianity.” Such confusion was hardly lifted when a Yale professor of theology asked Martin where Jesus had gay sex. Martin replied: “In the park, which is what the gospel writers meant by ‘garden.'” This trivialization and eroticization of Jesus Gethsemane suffering elicited not a single objection from the numerous theology professors in attendance;

• In The Queer Theory and LGBT Studies in Religion Consultation a paper “showed” the deep theological meaning of homosexual bathroom graffiti. With the verbal verve of a rap artist, gross sexual perversion was transformed into a noble response to “the dominant hegemonic power-structures of white, heterosexual, capitalistic society.” Another gay theologian argued that there was no genetic “binary template” (male/female) so we are all sexually becoming whatever we wish to be;