Excerpted from The Myth of Moral Neutrality, by Gregory Koukl, published Mar 16, 2007, by Townhall:

Gen. Peter Pace was vehemently denounced and condemned earlier this week for expressing a personal moral judgment that homosexuality is immoral. The criticisms excoriated Pace for making a value judgment, while implying that the denunciations themselves were morally neutral. In reality, Pace’s critics expressed a moral judgment, too. They declared his comments wrong, not just factually but morally – and their moral outrage was palpable.

…This reflects one of the most entrenched assumptions of moral relativism in our society today: that there is such a thing as morally neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where no judgments nor any forcing of personal views are allowed. Each of us takes a neutral posture towards the moral convictions of others. This is the essence of tolerance, or so the argument goes.

One of the alleged virtues of relativism is its emphasis on tolerance. An extremely articulate example of this point of view was written by Faye Wattleton, the former President of Planned Parenthood. The piece is called, “Self-Definition: Morality.”…

Faye Wattleton’s assessment is based on the notion of neutral ground, a place that implies no moral judgment. Wattleton is not neutral, however, as her own comments demonstrate.

In her article, Wattleton in effect argues that each of us should respect another’s point of view. She then implies, however, that any point of view other than this one is immoral, un-American, and tyrannous. If you disagree with Wattleton’s position that all points of view are equally valid, then your point of view is not valid. Her argument commits suicide; it self-destructs…

It’s important to have an informed and civil public dialogue about public policy, and homosexual rights is a delicate subject made more difficult when one side is accused of moral judgment. Both sides are making moral judgments; it’s the nature of the issue. The question we should be discussing is which moral judgment makes the best public policy? It’s not possible to be morally neutral so it would be much more productive if everyone owned up to their moral values.

Continue reading at Townhall…

By Peter LaBarbera

More homosexual activist lies: On Saturday on MSNBC, I debated Jason Cianciotto of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. Cianciotto repeated the company line that groups like Americans For Truth contribute to “harassment and violence” against homosexual youth:

Watch the MSNBC segment HERE

Cianciotto alleged that:

“…Organizations like Mr. LaBarbera’s only contribute to this harassment and violence by pitting students against each other and that’s a tragedy. It’s also gravely immoral.”

We were debating the controversy over a pro-homosexual “Freshman Advisory” class at Deerfield High School in Illinois. Deerfield’s principal has now apologized for requiring students who attended the freshman class to sign a “confidentiality agreement” stipulating that they would not discuss what transpired in the class. (Congrats to my friend, parent Lora Sue Hauser for exposing the liberal shenanigans at Deerfield High.)

On MSNBC, taken aback by Jason’s reckless accusation, I said it was a “terrible thing to say.” Homosexual activists routinely conflate disagreement over their destructive lifestyle with violence and hate against homosexuals. It’s a dirty tactic, and totally irrelevant to the Deerfield story, which is about parents having the full right to know exactly what is being taught about homosexuality in their child’s classroom.

…The statute recognizes differences between military and civilian life, and notes that in combat, bonds of personal trust and unit cohesion are essential for mission accomplishment. Such realities justify numerous restrictions on personal behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian life.

Simply stated in gender-neutral terms, the law says that in conditions “characterized by forced intimacy, with little or no privacy,” persons should not have to expose themselves to persons who might be sexually attracted to them. The same principle protects privacy between military men and women, to the greatest extent possible. It encourages good order and discipline by respecting the normal human desire for modesty in sexual matters.

From Gen. Pace and the PC Police, by Elaine Donnelly, published Mar 15, 2007, by Human Events:

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should not apologize for supporting the law excluding homosexuals from the military. That law, Section 654, Title 10, was passed with veto-proof bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress in 1993. Federal courts have declared it constitutional several times.

Nor should Gen. Pace be intimidated by name-calling gay activists who are berating the general for expressing his personal opinions on immorality. A relentless public relations campaign is promoting their cause and a controversial bill, sponsored by Rep. Marty Meehan (D.-Mass.), which would repeal the 1993 homosexual conduct law.

In our ongoing quest to Help Lesbian Blogger Pam Spaulding Find “The Gay Agenda” we give you…

From the website of Human Rights Campaign, their legislative agenda:

Lobbying Current Legislation

The Human Rights Campaign, along with tens of thousands of advocates, works around the clock to lobby members of Congress on critical legislation that would greatly affect the lives of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans.

For a quick view of all legislation HRC lobbies on in Congress and to find out where your representative and senators stand on the issues, visit this page.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)
Military Readiness Enhancement Act (MREA)
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations
Uniting American Families ACT
Appropriations for HIV/AIDS Programs
Early Treatment for HIV Act
Responsible Education About Life Act

Thank God for a man with the courage to tell the Truth. Send General Pace a word of gratitude HERE, for as you can see, he will be the target of much opposition:

“General Pace’s comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces… It is inappropriate for the Chairman to condemn those who serve our country because of his own personal bias. He should immediately apologize for his remarks.” — C. Dixon Osburn, Executive Director of the pro-homosexuality Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

Excerpted from Top General Calls Homosexuality ‘Immoral’, by Aamer Madhani, published Mar 12, 2007, by Chicago Tribune:

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he supports the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving in the military because homosexual acts “are immoral,” akin to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member.

Responding to a question about a Clinton-era policy that is coming under renewed scrutiny amid fears of future U.S. troop shortages, Pace said the Pentagon should not “condone” immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his personal “upbringing,” in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.

“As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,” Pace said.

Continue reading in Chicago Tribune…

On Monday, Mar 12, NBC’s The Today Show helped Human Rights Campaign kick off their latest campaign to promote homosexuality, the Cyndi Lauper True Colors Tour. A link to HRC is currently posted under “Viewer resources” on The Today Show’s website.

From the website of the homosexual activist group Human Rights Campaign:

True Colors Tour 2007

The Human Rights Campaign has joined forces with legendary performer Cyndi Lauper to launch a national tour in support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. The True Colors 2007 Tour will feature Cyndi and other incredible artists including Erasure, Debbie Harry, The Dresden Dolls and Margaret Cho as well as a variety of special guests, including Rufus Wainwright in certain cities. In addition, HRC will receive a portion of every ticket sold.

Cyndi Lauper has long been a supporter of the GLBT community, and particularly of HRC. Her motivation for this tour stemmed from her desire to give back to the community for the love and support they have given her throughout her career, while bringing gay and straight audiences together in support of equality…

Watch the interview HERE.

A press release dated Mar 7, 2007, from The Lawyers Christians Fellowship (UK):

GOVERNMENT PUBLISH LANDMARK INTOLERANT LEGISLATION
SETTING GROUND FOR CLASH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

After spending 9 months drafting the proposed SEXUAL ORIENTATION REGULATIONS (SORs), the Government have today published the final version of the new law without making any significant concessions to protect the rights of Christians and others with deeply held religious beliefs.

The SORs can be found by clicking HERE.

The Regulations, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation unlawful in relation to the provision of goods, services, premises, education and public functions, are due to come into force on the 30th April 2007.

Under the Regulations:

• It will be illegal for a Christian printer to refuse to print material promoting homosexual sex,
  
• It will be illegal for a Muslim website designer to refuse to build a website for homosexual dating, and
  
• It will be illegal for a Jewish conference centre to refuse to accept a booking from a Gay and Lesbian society who wish to hold a meeting promoting homosexual practices.

Thomas Cordrey, Barrister and Public Policy Analyst at the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, commented:

“This legislation is unprecedented in its complete intolerance of those who have religious beliefs. The Government did not put forward a single piece of evidence to justify the need for the Regulations, they have ignored 72% of the public[1] who opposed their approach to this law, and they have ignored the majority of the 3000 responses to their consultation. Despite this weak basis to the law, the Government is prepared to take the landmark step of making it illegal for Christians to hold to the Bible’s clear teaching that God loves everyone and wants all people to know him, but also, that extra-marital sexual conduct (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is wrong.”

“To think that the Government would prefer to shut down the widespread and compassionate voluntary services provided by Christian adoption agencies, drug rehabilitation centres, homeless shelters and community centres, rather than accept that Christians should not be forced to promote homosexual practices, is astounding.”

Andrea Williams, Public Policy Officer at the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship commented:

“Whilst Christian groups have been clear from the outset that they would not in any way wish to deny the provision of basic goods and services to homosexuals, the Government have refused all calls that the Regulations should contain a simple clause that no-one should be forced by this law to promote or actively condone any sexual practices which are contrary to their deeply held religious belief.

“Rather than balancing rights the Government have chosen to draft these Regulations so that in almost every case the right to live a homosexual lifestyle trumps the right to live a religious lifestyle.

“Every concern held by the Church of England and Catholic Church on the issue of gay adoption is magnified by the publication of these Regulations. The new morality being imposed by the Government on the British people has just taken a giant leap forward.”

[1] See the independent Communicate Research Opinion Poll See the independent Communicate Research Opinion Poll

…and 61% still oppose homosexual “marriage.”

From The Culture and Media Institute:

The National Cultural Values Survey
America: A Nation in Moral and Spiritual Confusion
March 7, 2007

The Culture and Media Institute (CMI) unveiled its first Special Report,
“The National Cultural Values Survey: America: A Nation in Moral and Spiritual Confusion,” at a press conference today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
The survey reveals that 74 percent of Americans believe the nation is in moral decline, and that a culture war is indeed occurring in America.

From page 24 of the 32 page pdf: