One would expect the world’s most famous “gay” Mecca to be perverse, and it surely is. Photos: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality.

Folks, it’s street scenes like this one — in the heart of San Francisco’s “gay” Castro district — that led the city’s suffering citizens to push successfully last year for a qualified ban on public nudity. But as the saying goes, old habits die hard.

I shot these photos on Easter Sunday, March 31, 2013, near the corner of Market and Noe streets. (I ventured to the “gay” Mecca to cover the homosexual drag queen group Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence’s uber-blasphemous “Hunky Jesus” contest, which was cancelled and later rescheduled due to rain.) San Francisco’s prohibition of public nudity — which exempts baudy street festivals like the city’s annual “Folsom Street Fair” — went into effect Feb. 1 and is being challenged in court by nudists.

The ban doesn’t seem to be tightly enforced, as these bare-bottomed man-bunnies were ‘hanging around’ for quite awhile in plain view — on Easter Sunday, no less. They were standing outside a venue hosting a “Zombie Christ” dance party/”haunted house” timed to mock Christ and bash Christianity on the most important Christian holiday of the year. AFTAH will have more on that in another post. (Permission granted to use photos provided credit given to “Americans For Truth.org”) — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

More photos after jump…

“Gay” activists have been promoting the acceptance of homosexual relationships — even to young children — for decades. (This is a page from the 1991 “children’s” book, “Daddy’s Roommate.”) For conservatives to now claim that the debate over “same-sex marriage” is NOT about homosexuality is disingenuous and actually helps normalize the sin of homosexual behavior. Sentence at bottom of page reads, “Being gay is just one more kind of love.” (Click to enlarge.)

“Moral judgment undergirds the entire structure of laws and is necessary for the rational structure of any significant statute. The idea that our laws can stand independent of moral foundation is senseless. We do not think that driving under the influence of alcohol is simply risky, in terms of statistics. We believe that it is wrong, in terms of explicit moral judgment.” –Al Mohler

This is an important piece by Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and we applaud him for writing it. To say that the struggle to preserve marriage from being homosexualized requires “no judgment about the morality of homosexuality” is pure folly and a recipe for defeat. It is a negation of common sense, like telling pro-lifers not to make the case for the humanity of the unborn in arguing against pro-abortion laws.

By pretending that the homosexual “marriage” debate is not really about homosexuality, well-intended people are actually advancing the godless crusade to normalize immoral same-sex behavior and relationships in society. (A neutral response to sin — or a reluctance to confront it — by religious people who know better actually propels sin forward.) We need to rebuild the moral consensus against homosexual behavior, but you cannot do that by running away from the issue.

Substitute another (less politically correct) sexual misbehavior and this formula make no sense: Imagine if conservatives were to carefully avoid discussing, say, the morality of adultery (or worse, talk about respecting the “needs” of adulterous “couples”); would that not be cheered by sexual anarchists and the “open marriage” crowd?

In other words, to fight one evil (homosexual “marriage”), some of our Best and Brightest are effectively lending aid to another, by undermining the moral/spiritual/practical case against homosexuality — a perversion that just a few decades ago was so widely deplored that it was barely mentioned in polite society. We conservatives and people of faith need to talk more about the immorality and tragic realities of homosexuality, not less. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

Reprinted with permission from http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/04/01/bracketing-morality-the-marginalization-of-moral-argument-in-the-same-sex-marriage-debate/:

_____________________________________

Bracketing Morality — The Marginalization of Moral Argument in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

By Albert Mohler

Monday, April 1, 2013

“Somewhere along the way, standing up for gay marriage went from nervy to trendy.” This was the assessment offered by Frank Bruni, an influential openly-gay columnist for The New York Times. Bruni’s column, published just as the Supreme Court was poised to hear oral arguments in the two same-sex marriage cases now before it, is a celebration of the fact that, as he sees it, same-sex marriage is soon to be the law of the land, whatever the Court may decide. “The trajectory is undeniable. The trend line is clear. And the choice before the justices is whether to be handmaidens of history, or whether to sit it out.”

Bruni may well be right, given the trajectory and the trend-line he has described. Of course, Bruni, along with his fellow columnists, editors, and reporters for The New York Times will, along with their friends in the larger world of elite media, bear much of the responsibility for this. They are certain that their work is the mission of human liberation from irrational prejudice.

In the most important section of Bruni’s column, he writes: “In an astonishingly brief period of time, this country has experienced a seismic shift in opinion — a profound social and political revolution — when it comes to gay and lesbian people.”

That is a powerful summary of what has happened. Bruni is undoubtedly right, and he has helped to make it so. But there is something missing from Bruni’s analysis, and this is something that he has helped to cause as well. The “seismic shift” on the issue of homosexuality is a profound moral revolution as well.

And yet, what makes this moral revolution so vast in consequences and importance is this: the moral dimension has virtually disappeared from the cultural conversation. This is true, we must note, even among the defenders of heterosexual marriage.

AFTAH in the news….

TIME magazine covers, blocked for decency’s sake by AFTAH. TIME managing editor Richard Stengel says the homosexual kisses are “beautiful and symbolized the love that is at the heart of the idea of marriage.” Click on graphic to enlarge.

From OneNewsNow, the online publication of the American Family Assoction [click HERE to view article on their website]:

Media, Republicans Fueling the Left

Posted by Charlie Butts and Chad Groening (American Family News) – April 04, 2013

A pro-family leader asserts that while “nothing’s inevitable,” the media and now members of the Republican Party are helping promote the homosexual agenda.

The April 8 issue of TIME has two different covers with the same theme. One features two women kissing, and the other shows two men doing the same. “Gay Marriage Already Won. The Supreme Court Hasn’t Made Up Its Mind – but America Has” is printed in yellow across the two black and white covers.

But Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is “upset” by how the magazine is jumping the gun.

“This is shocking that TIME magazine would do this — basically publishing indecent photos, promoting perversion on the cover of their magazine, where on racks across the country children can see this,” he laments. “This is an in-your-face promotion of homosexual immorality, and I’m very upset that they would go to this length.”

And LaBarbera is especially dismayed that the order to print the photos came from the top.

“The managing editor of TIME, Richard Stengel, said the images published by TIME were — quote — ‘beautiful and symbolized the love that is at the heart of the idea of marriage’ — unquote,” the AFTAH president reports. “How can you be more confused? Two people of the same sex kissing symbolizes the love of marriage?”

Marriage has historically been between a man and a woman, and he asserts that media moguls cannot change that.

LaBarbera adds that the media and the far left are confused, and he submits that the article and cover photos are a sellout to the homosexual lobby, as corporate America supports TIME through its advertising dollars.

Sen. Kirk and “gay marriage”

Meanwhile, the pro-family activist who works to expose the truth about homosexuality is not surprised that Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk has come out in favor of same-sex “marriage.”

Massive Reuters poll finds only 41 percent support ‘gay marriage’

Pro-family citizens march in Washington, D.C., to uphold marriage as one-man, one-woman. If the Republican Party wants to gain minority voters, perhaps it should strengthen, not weaken, it’s pro-natural-marriage advocacy and speak out against the “gay” activist proposition that compares rights based on homosexuality to real civil rights.

The following is excepted from Accuracy in Media; click HERE for the full story:

More Dishonest Coverage from the Pro-Homosexual Media

By Cliff Kincaid, March 29, 2013

A big news story came out of Tuesday’s March for Marriage demonstration in Washington, D.C. But it didn’t make “news” in the major media. As one who covered the event, it was significant that there were so many members of minority groups. This was not a mostly white crowd. In addition to the presence of black, Hispanic and Asian supporters of traditional marriage, there were some notable Democrats, such as New York State Senator Ruben Díaz, and he let people know he was several minorities in one.

“I’m Puerto Rican,” he said. “I’m black, with kinky hair. I am a Democrat and I am a senator. I’m against abortion. I’m against same-sex marriage, and I won the last election with 89 percent of the vote.”

J.C. Derrick of World magazine has a good analysis of how the major media, led by The Washington Post, virtually ignored the March for Marriage. But unless you actually see what happened on the ground, as the thousands of traditional marriage supporters held their demonstration, you would miss the true significance of how dishonest the media’s coverage of this issue has become.

The March for Marriage went by the Supreme Court before returning to the National Mall location where the rally was held. The group has posted a video of excerpts of the major speeches.

Ken McIntyre of the Heritage Foundation wrote a dispatch, with pictures: “Marching for Marriage—and Children.” John Burger of the Catholic World Report estimated the crowd at 10,000. Based on attendance at several rallies in the nation’s capital, I put the crowd size at about 5,000.

Díaz, the New York state senator, led an all-night vigil for the rally of 32 buses filled with Pentecostal ministers and members of the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization.

He was the only Democratic state senator in 2011 to cast a “No” vote on the homosexual marriage bill in New York State and he was the only lawmaker to rise to speak against it. “God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage, a long time ago,” Díaz said.