“Should the military require, as a matter of policy, forced cohabitation between heterosexuals and homosexuals in all military units, including the infantry, Special Operations Forces, and submarines?”
— Elaine Donnelly positing the common-sense poll question that liberal media polls refuse to ask.

_________________________________

Open homosexuality will undermine military morale. Straight soldiers should not be forced to cohabitate with people who define themselves as sexually attracted to the same-sex. 

More Media for Gays in the Military

National Review’s Online Military Blog, “the tank”

Sunday, July 20, 2008

By Elaine Donnelly

The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, released on July 19, 2008, is typical of recent polls of civilians on this issue. Surveys such as this both reflect and help shape public opinion, as part of a relentless perception management campaign that has been going on for years.

The Washington Post/ABC News poll is less than persuasive because it includes two questions that demonstrate how misinformation and diversionary questions can affect the results of polls. Question #33 reads:

“[D]o you think homosexuals who do NOT publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?” (Responses: Yes, 78%, No, 18% No Opinion, 5%)

Question #34:

“[D]o you think homosexuals who DO publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?” (Responses: Yes, 75%, No, 22%, No Opinion 3%)

These two inquiries do not frame the real issue: Should the military require, as a matter of policy, forced cohabitation between heterosexuals and homosexuals in all military units, including the infantry, Special Operations Forces, and submarines? Instead, the questions use confusing double negatives, which end with the phrase “or not?” It is difficult to find a clear statement in the poll on which to state an opinion.

The questions suggest that the main issue is being “undisclosed” or “disclosed” as a homosexual in the military. On the contrary, the true key issue is eligibility to serve, not disclosure of homosexuality. Inquiries also use the permissive word “allowed,” not the more accurate term, “required,” as in “Should members of the military be required . . . ?” Instead, the poll focuses only on the desires of homosexuals who want to serve in the military. The issues of military discipline, morale, and readiness are not mentioned at all.

Click here to read the rest of Donnelly’s NRO article: “More Media for Gays in the Military”

MILITARY MEN AS HOMOSEXUAL SEX OBJECTS? Above is an ad for one of the many “gay” military-oriented porn websites: American male soldiers do not bunk and shower with women; should they be forced to shower and bunk with men who identify themselves as sexually attracted to other men? TAKE ACTION: call 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 or contact your U.S. Representative and Senators online to voice your opposition to opening up the military to homosexuality. Read below about how homosexual men with their same-sex attractions compromised the Catholic practice of priestly celibacy.

Allyson Smith of AFTAH sends along this compelling essay with obvious parallels to putting homosexual men in the military. Rev. James Haley’s logic presumably would extend to (public) restrooms — not just for the “transgendered” but for all suffering from what some are calling “same-sex attraction disorder.” Rev. Haley of The Roman Catholic Faithful writes in “The Real Story about Celibacy”:

Excerpted from the article by Rev. Haley:

The Real Story about Celibacy

…By assigning religious men to live only with men, and religious women to live only with women, the bishop or abbot is apparently also following the tradition and moral prudence, or one can more properly say, the moral necessity, of keeping religious men and women separated from one another – a very prudent practice because, in the words of an honest speaker concerning human nature and Christian love: “There is nothing more naturally attractive for a Christian man in love with God, than a Christian woman in love with God.”

But that same-sex living assignment quickly and clearly runs seriously afoul when the sexual orientations and desires are reversed from their norm and, even more so, when those sexual orientations remain hidden from the outside world – that leads to the very improper, imprudent and secret situation that the Church was trying to prevent. In other words: There is nothing more “naturally” attractive for a homosexual man in love with God, than another homosexual man in love with God.

So ironically, tragically, inexplicably, it is the Church itself, the model and guide to moral life, that is encouraging, advocating and requiring the perpetual near occasion of sin for homosexual priests, and, in turn, creating an extremely uncomfortable situation for the heterosexual priests who are not interested in forming one of those personal, lifelong, secret, exclusive, intimate and emotionally fulfilling relationships with other men. And this non-interest from the heterosexual priest is a frequent cause of alienation, resentment and bitterness from the homosexual priests who would prefer to live with, and associate with, other homosexual priests, especially when so many other homosexual priests are afforded that “secret” privilege. In simple terms: the straight priest is neither wanted nor welcome among the homosexual priests….

Click HERE to read the full article, “The Real Story about Celibacy”

TAKE ACTION: Call your U.S. Congressman and Senators (House: 202-225-3121; Senate: 202-224-3121) or e-mail them and voice your opposition to opening up the armed forces to open homosexuality — a misguided proposition anytime but especially during a time of war. From the Center for Military Readiness:

July 22, 2008

C-SPAN television network will televise tomorrow’s hearing on gays in the military before the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee.

CMR President Elaine Donnelly and Brian Jones, a former Army Sergeant Major, Ranger and Delta Force soldier will testify tomorrow in support of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. The Center will provide new information about the consequences of repealing the 1993 law, which is frequently mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and will address the implications of taking the so-called “civil rights” argument to its logical conclusions. CMR also will refute all of the usual arguments raised by homosexual activists who want to impose their agenda on the military. All Washington area Friends of CMR, their families and other supporters are strongly encouraged to attend.

WHO: Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness
Sergeant Major Brian Jones, USA (Ret.), Former Army Special Operations

WHAT: Testimony before the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommitte on the
law stating that homosexuals are ineligible for military service

WHEN: Wednesday, July 23, 2 PM

WHERE: Room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Fast-food chain echoes homosexual activists’ smear

Why does McDonald’s equate defenders of marriage and Judeo-Christian morality with “hate”? TAKE ACTION: Call McDonald’s to let them know about your decision to boycott at 1-800-244-6227 (or 630-623-3000; fax: 630-623-5004). For more information about AFTAH’s Wednesday press conference at McDonald’s world headquarters, write americansfortruth@comcast.

Dear Readers,

Americans For Truth has called a press conference outside of McDonald’s world headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois, this Wednesday, July 16, in support of American Family Association’s (AFA) boycott of the fast-food giant. Joining AFTAH and AFA will be representatives of Liberty Counsel, Illinois Family Institute, AFA of Pennsylvania, Culture Campaign and other pro-family advocates — including some moms who will explain why they won’t be taking their children to McDonald’s until the corporation stops promoting homosexuality and “gay” activism.

Note McDonald’s unfortunate choice below of the word “hate” as applied to critics of the company’s pro-homosexual policies. When we’ve reached the point where belief in the Bible and traditional morality is routinely equated with hatred, America has become hostile territory for people of faith. Sadly, pro-homosexual “diversity” is becoming a code-word for anti-Christian bigotry, as we at AFTAH have experienced before. (See our story about the founder of DiversityInc magazine, Luke Visconti, outrageously equating this writer (and Americans For Truth) with racist pro-slavery advocates of the past. Click HERE for African American ex-lesbian Charlene Cothran’s response to Visconti’s ugly and, yes, hateful analogy.)

McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner; write Skinner and McDonald’s through the corporation’s Contact Page, or contact them by phone, fax, or snail mail here:

Phone: 800-244-6227; or: 630-623-3000
Fax: 630-623-5004

McDonald’s Plaza
Oak Brook, IL 60523

AFTAH has endorsed AFA’s McDonald’s boycott. McDonald’s has an 85% ranking on a radical homosexual group’s corporate scorecard. Laurie Higgins of Deerfield, Illinois, wrote the following open letter to McDonald’s:

By Laurie Higgins

In a recent letter, “Global Chief Diversity Officer,” Pat Harris, wrote that, “McDonald’s is associated with countless local and national affinity groups here in the United States. We have a well-established and proud heritage of associating with individuals and organizations that share in the belief that every person has the right to live and work in their community free of discrimination.” What precisely does GCDO Harris mean by claiming that homosexuals have a right to live and work “free from discrimination”? Does he mean that they should be able to live and work without being harassed? If so, we’re in complete agreement. No one should be harassed anywhere anytime.

Or, is he asserting that they have some sort of right to community approval of their sexual practices? If so, from where does that right derive? And is every group that is defined by anomalous sexual desires and practices owed that same right? Will McDonald’s stand in unity with all these “affinity groups”? Will McDonald’s cheerfully associate with the national affinity group NAMBLA [North American Man/Boy Love Association]?

HRC uses 11 criteria to rank corporations — including shunning pro-family groups

By Peter LaBarbera

McDonald’s Corporation scored an 85 percent ranking on the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) “Corporate Equality Index.” HRC, the nation’s leading homosexual lobby group, publishes the corporate survey every year. The following are the 11 criteria used by HRC to evaluate whether a major company is sufficiently pro-homosexual and pro-transsexual; note that McDonald’s passed all but one test (a gender-identity ‘nondiscrimination’ policy– criterion 2a). (AFTAH has endorsed a nationwide boycott of McDonald’s.) See important explanatory notes at bottom:

2008 Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index Ratings and Breakdown:

• Criterion 1a: [McDonald’s: YES] Prohibits Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation (15 points)
• Criterion 1b: [McDonald’s: YES] Provides Diversity Training Covering Sexual Orientation (5 points)
• Criterion 2a: [McDonald’s: NO] Prohibits Discrimination Based on Gender Identity and/or Expression (15 points)
• Criterion 2b: [McDonald’s: YES] Provides Diversity Training Covering Gender Identity OR Has Supportive Gender Transition Guidelines (5 points)
• Criterion 2c: [McDonald’s: YES] Offers at Least One Transgender Wellness Benefit (5 points) +
• Criterion 3a: [McDonald’s: YES] Offers Domestic Partner Health Insurance (15 points)
• Criterion 3b: [McDonald’s: YES] Offers Domestic Partners Dental, Vision, COBRA and Dependent Coverage Benefits (5 points)
• Criterion 3c ++: [McDonald’s: YES] Offers at Least Three Other ‘Soft’ Benefits for Domestic Partners ++ (5 points)
• Criterion 4: [McDonald’s: YES] Has Employer-Supported Employee Resource Group OR Firm-Wide Diversity Council (15 points)
• Criterion 5: [McDonald’s: YES] Engages in Appropriate and Respectful Advertising, Marketing or Philanthropy (15 points)
• Criterion 6: [McDonald’s: YES] Exhibits Responsible Behavior Toward the GLBT Community; Does Not Engage in Action That Would Undermine GLBT Equality. Employers Found Engaging in Such Activities Will — Have 15 Points Removed From Their Scores. (—) +++

Homosexualists seek to use repressive powers of state to silence all expressions of opposition

The following is Laurie Higgins’ response to British pro-homosexual activist Peter Bradley’s e-mail to AFTAH stating, “You are very lucky that you live in the United States as we have laws in the United Kingdom about inciting hatred based on sexual orientation… here you would be imprisoned; and justly so.” Other responses to Bradley’s letter are HERE by Ron Loree and HERE by fellow Brit David Burdett.

__________________________

By Laurie Higgins

After reading Mr. Bradley’s troubling email to AFTAH, I am even more deeply thankful for our proper understanding here in the United States that liberty depends on the freedom to speak and practice one’s religion. If, as Mr. Bradley claims, I would be imprisoned in the United Kingdom for what I’m about to say, I’m sure glad I live here.

I must respectfully disagree with an implied contention in Mr. Bradley’s polemic: making claims about the immorality of certain kinds of conduct does not constitute incitement to hatred. If it did then Mr. Bradley’s implicit claims that Mr. LaBarbera’s actions are immoral would constitute inciting hatred toward people of faith who hold that homosexual conduct is wrong.

“In fact, the most hate-filled people we have ever met are the homosexual activists who are forcing their world view on others.”—David Burdett, UK

Dear AFTAH supporters,

David Burdett’s excellent letter responding to a fellow Brit, Peter Bradley, who says Americans For Truth would be “imprisoned” in the UK, reminds us that the battle for Truth on this issue is worldwide in its scope. We who reject the immoral, anti-Christian homosexualist agenda and the homo-fascism that it naturally spawns must work together to preserve freedom and the time-tested Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. — Peter LaBarbera

Read Bradley’s censorious message HERE, and write us with your response defending American freedom and Judeo-Christian norms at americansfortruth@comcast.net. Mr. Burdett writes June 25 through AFTAH’s website:

Dear Mr. Bradley,

My wife and I are Christians and from England, we believe that the homosexual lifestyle in sinful and we have should have the right to be able to express our religious beliefs without fear of being branded as hate-inciting criminals. In fact, the most hate-filled people we have ever met are the homosexual activists who are forcing their worldview on others. We all have free will to live as we choose and I accept that. However, we object in the strongest possible terms to the ‘gay’ agenda being forced onto us via the schools (teaching four-year-olds about same sex relationships); via the TV (the Heinz advert [in the UK showing a homosexual male couple kissing; Heinz pulled the ad after British protests]; two priests getting “married” in a church last week; and the pro-gay government and their biased laws.

You seem to think the UK is some kind of great place to live. I guess you haven’t seen the statistics about England’s huge drug problem amongst the young, the rise in teenage pregnancy and spread of sexually transmitted diseases. All of this is due to being a Godless society — thank God we have people like Peter LaBarbera who are not afraid to speak the truth!

Thanks,

David Burdett
London, England