From ‘Gay’ Group Sponsors Breast-Removal Workshop, published Feb 16, 2002, by WorldNet Daily:

The nation’s largest homosexual lobby group is sponsoring a conference this weekend for “female-to-male” “transgenders” that will include sessions on “chest surgery” for young women who want to have their breasts removed in their quest to become “transmen.”

The Human Rights Campaign has signed on as an official sponsor of the “True Spirit Conference,” which is scheduled to be held at a hotel in the nation’s capital Feb. 15-18. In a TV talk show debate Wednesday, HRC spokesman Wayne Besen said he was “proud” of his group sponsoring the event and defended the “chest surgery” sessions for women seeking to remove their breasts.

Besen made his comments on the Fox News Channel’s debate show “Hannity & Colmes” after being challenged about HRC’s role in the transsexual event by Peter LaBarbera, senior policy analyst for the Culture & Family Institute of Concerned Women for America, who was also a guest on the show.

On the Fox program, LaBarbera asked Besen, “There’s actually a doctor coming from New York who is talking about ‘breast reconstruction’ – chopping off the breasts of these girls because they want to become men. We think that’s dangerous. How can you justify teaching that as normal in the schools?”

Besen replied, “First of all, we’re very proud of supporting this type of conference. As Peter said, there are doctors and medical professionals there to deal with this particular issue. He ought to get educated on it.”

Sadistic sex, polygamy workshops

The True Spirit conference also includes a panel on “How to Do SM [sadomasochism]” and one devoted to “Polyamory,” an activist term for multiple-partner sexual unions (“Polyamory can work, if you do it right, we promise!” says the True Spirit website.) In addition, the program contains sessions devoted to sexual tips for “transgenders.”

Watch this clip (posted at MLive/Jackson City Patriot) of John Nemecek and his wife explaining his experience with “Gender Identity Disorder” — and then read Gary Glenn’s Biblical response below.

From John to Julie
Spring Arbor University prof John Nemecek decides
to be true to his inner woman.

——————————

From Good and Noble Intolerance, by Gary Glenn of AFA Michigan, submitted Mar 7, 2007, to Jackson City Patriot:

In Sunday’s editorial regarding Spring Arbor’s praiseworthy refusal to legitimize and enable the obvious mental and emotional illness of a male college professor who thinks he’s a woman, the Citizen-Patriot commented,

“Individual reactions may incline toward the good and noble, or the critical and intolerant.”

If your first concern is protecting the welfare of teenage college students, the only good and noble reaction is to be firmly critical of the bizarre political agenda embodied by Mr. Nemecek’s demands and immovably intolerant of the threat that harmful agenda poses to young people.

Mr. Nemecek’s DNA is that of a male. Hormone treatment or even surgical self-mutilation will not change that immutable biological fact.

One obviously disturbed individual’s delusions to the contrary, and their effects on him and his family, may warrant our sympathy and prayers, but certainly not our complicity in socially or legally enabling and legitimizing such delusions. If homosexual and transgender political activists have their way, it certainly will not end with Mr. Nemecek’s demand to wear a dress and makeup on campus.

Openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., explained why he initially refused, until being attacked by transgender activists himself, to include in his federal “gay rights” legislation the creation of a new federally protected class based on so-called “gender identity”:

“There are workplace situations — communal showers, for example — when the demands of the transgender community fly in the face of conventional norms and therefore would not pass in any Congress,” Frank said. “I’ve talked with transgender activists, and what they want, and what we will be forced to defend, is for people with penises who identify as women to be able to shower with other women.” (Paragraph 102, page 25)

By Peter LaBarbera

Ann Coulter has been roundly denounced for using the “F-word” (six letters) — see this article by Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America and this article by Albert Mohler). I’m a Coulter fan, but she crossed the line on this one.

There are larger issues at stake here for American freedom: today it’s the F-word, which has been banished as the sexual equivalent of the N-word. Tomorrow it could be certain applications of the G-word: G-A-Y. Many students use “That’s so gay” to connote something that they think is stupid or weird: should they be forced to undergo sensitivity re-education — or perhaps attend a “Gay Pride” parade?

Where will the PC “hate speech” enforcement stop? AP recently reported:

“When a few classmates razzed Rebekah Rice about her Mormon upbringing with questions such as, “Do you have 10 moms?” she shot back: “That’s so gay.”

       “Those three words landed the high school freshman in the principal’s office and resulted in a lawsuit that raises this question: When do playground insults used every day all over America cross the line into hate speech that must be stamped out?”

The AP story points to the threat that official speech codes pose to Americans’ most fundamental freedoms. Homosexual activists routinely and outrageously blame Christian pro-family groups for violence against homosexuals, and there are many on the Left who will go to extraordinary lengths to turn any derogatory use of ‘gay” into an opportunity to spread their pro-homosexual ideology. 

Coulter was joking. These activists are dead serious. Students and parents, take note.

As a rule we do not, like Fred Phelps, use the term “fag.” Coulter’s stunt was childish and, despite her protestations, she was clearly calling family man John Edwards a “faggot” — even as she also poked fun at the Left’s quirky “hate” formula by which they vilify their foes, then jump up and down when their own PC speech taboos are violated. (Example: saying George Bush is like Hitler — NOT HATE; saying we should love people practicing homosexual behavior but hate their sexual sin — HATE.)  Coulter’s reference point was Grey’s Anatomy star Isaiah Washington, who, after publicity grew about his calling a homosexual co-star a “faggot,” apologized and checked himself into rehab for a “psychological assessment.”

People involved in homosexuality should not be the object of taunts or hatred, and Christians, especially, are called to apply the Biblical command to speak the truth in love. We are called even to love our enemies so name-calling simply is not an option. (I confess that I once called homosexual blogger Joe Brummer, who is obsessed with AFTAH, a “twit,” but you might too if you read the tripe that he puts out on an almost daily basis. (A recent Brummer blog entry accuses Sonja Dalton and me of being “extremely responsible [sic] for the climate of violence that plagues gays and lesbians.”)

“That’s So Gay” 

The reality we face is that many on the pro-homosexual side, even as they recklessly smear committed Christians as bigots and haters (and murderers for what we believe!), want to define any negative use of the word “gay” as evidence of “hate speech” requiring punitive and corrective action. The AP story continues:

Testifying last week about the 2002 incident, Rice, now 18, said that when she uttered those words, she was not referring to anyone’s sexual orientation. She said the phrase meant: “That’s so stupid, that’s so silly, that’s so dumb.”

 

But school officials say they took a strict stand against the putdown after two boys were paid to beat up a gay student the year before.

 

“The district has a statutory duty to protect gay students from harassment,” the district’s lawyers argued in a legal brief. “In furtherance of this goal, prohibition of the phrase ‘That’s so gay’ … was a reasonable regulation.”

Excerpted from School Accused of Promoting Homosexuality, by Lisa Black, published Mar 7, 2007, by Chicago Tribune:

Some parents have accused Deerfield High School of promoting a homosexual agenda by allowing gay students to speak before freshman classes about their personal experiences, cite research and invite questions.

Taking place in classrooms this week, the panel sessions are scheduled during a class called freshman advisory, which seeks to help students adjust to high school. The class is mandatory, but parents can choose to remove their child on days the lessons concern them, school officials said.

But Deerfield resident and parent Lora Sue Hauser, who heads a group called North Shore Student Advocacy, wants to see the panel discontinued, saying it delves into complex issues of sexuality that are better addressed by parents and trained counselors. She said the panel is one of several ways that Deerfield High and other schools treat homosexuality as morally acceptable without presenting the viewpoints of those who disagree.

“The school makes heterosexuality and homosexuality equivalent, and our country is deeply divided on that,” said Hauser, who said dozens of parents belong to the advocacy group but fear they will be labeled as haters or religious fanatics if they speak out.

“You can’t dump that on a 14-year-old,” Hauser said. “These are really difficult waters to navigate.”

Continue reading at Chicago Tribune…

Excerpted from Pornographer’s NGO Loses Battle for US AIDS Funding in US Appeals Court, by Gudrun Schultz, published Mar 1, 2007, by LifeSite News:

The U.S. government is free to withhold funding from nonprofit AIDS groups that refuse to sign a pledge against prostitution and sex trafficking, a federal appeals court ruled Feb 29.

DKT International Inc., which promotes population control policies in developing nations, took the U.S. Agency for International Development to court in 2005 over the agency’s decision to withhold funds from the organization.

DKT was founded by US porn king Philip D. Harvey, who also launched one of the world’s largest mail-order pornography and sex merchandise businesses.  The organization distributes condoms to prostitutes in Vietnam and opposes efforts to end the “sex trade,” claiming it is an established part of human society. DKT refused to sign an anti-prostitution pledge required under a 2003 law, which specified that groups must explicitly oppose prostitution and sex trafficking in order to qualify for funding under a $15 billion AIDS program.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Excerpted from While Critics Blame Catholic Church for AIDS Deaths Stats Show Just the Opposite, by Hilary White, published Mar 5, 2007, by LifeSite News:

…The available statistics show that countries with a large Catholic percentage population, show significantly lower rates of HIV/AIDS infections than countries with mostly non-Catholic populations.

2003 statistics from the World Factbook of the US Central Intelligence Agency, shows Burundi at 62% Catholic with 6% AIDS infection rate. Angola’s population is 38% Roman Catholic and has 3.9% AIDS rate. Ghana is 63% Christian, with in some regions as much as 33% Catholic and has 3.1% AIDS rate. Nigeria, divided almost evenly between the strongly Muslim north and Christian and “animist” south, has 5.4% AIDS rate.

Strongly Christian Uganda continues to frustrate condom-pushing NGO’s by maintaining its abstinence and fidelity AIDS prevention programs and one of the lowest rates of AIDS in Africa, at 4.1%. Uganda’s population is listed by the CIA Factbook as 33% Roman Catholic and 33% Protestant.

Of African countries with low Catholic populations, Botswana is typical with 37.3% AIDS, one of the highest in Africa, and 5% of the total population Catholic. In 2003, Swaziland was shown to have a 38.8% AIDS infection rate and only 20% Catholic population.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

“(A friend of mine recently told me about a guy he knew that was [HIV] positive
but would tell guys [potential sex partners] he was negative …
That guy was always surprised at how many people actually just took his word for it). Argh!”

From Did Ann Coulter say “Bag it”?, by Matt Barber, published Mar 6, 2007, by Townhall:

Lefty word-watchdogs and their allies in the mainstream media have hurt feelings … again. As per usual, liberals are frothing at the mouth in a fit of very selective, self-righteous indignation over provocative comments made by Ann Coulter and are hunting the conservative firebrand with pitchforks, torches and rope in hand.

While addressing an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last Friday, Coulter joked in her trademark fashion that, “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I – so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”

And the proverbial fan was thusly and most directly hit.

Admittedly, Coulter employed unusually abrasive and bombastic language – even for her – to make a point; but ironically, the reaction she’s getting from the left (and from some on the right) would seem to quite precisely demonstrate the apparent thrust of her prickly comments. Perhaps that was part of her intention.

Never mind that those in the “gay community” throw the word “faggot” around as a term of endearment for one another …  in much the same manner as black “gangsta-rappers” break out the “N-word.” And never mind that the left constantly redefines that which is or is not a “permissible” moniker for those engaged in the homosexual lifestyle (one day “queer” is bad, and the next day “queer” is good. In fact, the latest from the PC police is that it’s now “hateful” to call a homosexual a “homosexual” – go-figure. They prefer that innocuous, cutsie and happy-go-fluffy little term “gay” if you please.)

It’s the left defining the terms, mind you. And it’s the left that further identifies who has permission to use those terms. Therefore, it’s only reasonable for them to apply that famous “progressive” double standard to Coulter. After all, she is a “hateful” conservative.

Now, don’t misunderstand: Coulter’s comments lacked civility to be sure and were entirely inappropriate. Some compare her use of the word “faggot” to use of the “N-word.”