For Michael Rajner, tolerance is a one-way street. 

By Peter LaBarbera 

If an honest historian ever writes an objective history of homosexual activism in America, he or she will have to document many incidents of the sort witnessed (and enabled) by reporters in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida on Tuesday.

At the press conference in support of Mayor Jim Naugle’s opposition to male-on-male “public sex,” HIV-infected Michael Rajner of the “Campaign to End AIDS” (or was that the “Coalition to End Others’ Free Speech Rights”?) decided he didn’t like what pro-family advocate Janet Folger of Faith2Action was saying in support of Naugle.

So Rajner did what radical homosexual activists have done for years (think way back to Anita Bryant getting a pie in the face …): he began shouting over Folger, who was speaking at the microphone, drowning out her message and disrupting the Mayor’s press conference. (He even accused Folger of “demonizing AIDS!”) The media didn’t seem to protest.

You can watch it all on this Sun-Sentinel website — just click on the third video on the right, the one innocuously titled, “Mayor Naugle’s latest press conference turns heated.” (The video could have been titled, “Homosexual activists shouts down speaker at press conference.”)

Memo to Michael Rajner: next time just call your own press conference. 

If Rajner’s self-important outburst wasn’t bad enough, the Sun-Sentinel then proceeded to reward him for for it. The liberal newspaper gave its camera to Rajner for a one-on-one web-video “reaction” to the Naugle press conference. You can view Rajner’s cliche-ridden rant against Naugle and his supporters on the same Sun-Sentinel website (the second video down on the right), “Reaction to Mayor Naugle’s press conference.”

Nothing like creating an incentive for intolerance. Now try to imagine the Sun-Sentinel or any liberal media being similarly solicitous of a conservative activist who shouted down a “gay” speaker. Right. It’s time for the media to return to some semblance of objectivity, and to stop coddling spoiled “gay” activists who do not understand, or simply refuse to abide by, the rules of fair play and civil discourse.

“The sins which he proceeds to specify are the most indelicate, vile, and degrading which can be charged on man….Perhaps there is no sin which so deeply shows the depravity of man as this; none which would so much induce one ‘to hang his head, and blush to think himself a man.'”— Nineteenth-Century Christian Commentator Albert Barnes describing the “shameful sin of Sodom,” as condemned by the Apostle Paul in the Book of Romans. 

Below we look at the writings of Albert Barnes (1798-1870), a popular Presbyterian minister and Bible commentator who crusaded against slavery and lived to see it outlawed in the United States. Over a million volumes of Barnes’ commentaries on New Testament books were sold by 1870.

Note Barnes’s clear explication of the Biblical text against homosexual behavior (the modern notion of an innocuous homosexual “sexual orientation” hadn’t been invented yet).

Also, note Barnes’ discussion of the ancient phenomenon of homosexual pederasty in Greece and Rome.  Gee, it looks like NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association), which marched in the early “gay pride” parades — a right which  “gay” American “founding father” and icon Harry Hay fought to defend — isn’t such an historical aberration after all? 

Ask yourself: what is the justification for discarding the historic Christian view laid out by Barnes against what the King James Bible calls the “vile affection” of sodomy? If there is none — i.e., no serious indictment to be made against Biblical truth in this area, as the leading Bible-and-homosexuality scholar Rob Gagnon asserts — then we need to get back to the basics on homosexuality. 

Thanks to the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, you can view Barnes’ entire commentary on Romans 1 online HERE, but below are some excerpts from Romans 1:26-28. Here are some passages from Albert Barnes’ commentary on Romans 1: 

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;  (Romans 1:26-28)

There are many practical, secular-oriented arguments against creating legal rights based on aberrant sex and gender-confused “identity.”  I encourage you to read my friend John Biver’s excellent series, “Bad News for the Gay Rights Movement,” on the Family Taxpayers Network (FTN) website.  John (info@familytaxpayers.net) is FTN’s president, and a very smart guy who is not religious but would risk going to jail to defend my religious freedom to oppose homosexuality.  I’d do the same for him.

We who are religious should understand that you do not have to be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew, to see the absurdity of revolutionizing civil rights law to accommodate historically taboo and destructive sexual behaviors that can be changed.  Please share these articles with your friends. — Peter LaBarbera 

Click on the individual links below for each article:

Bad News for the “Gay Rights” Movement

 

Get over your Moralityphobia

 

Right and Wrong isn’t Dead Yet

 

Privacy v. Revolution

 

Successes, Parades, and Leaven

 

The Broken Window Theory

 

Psychology and Morality

 

The Plight of the TriSexual  (A Parody)

 

Gender Identity Disorder

 

Friends, Family, and Children

 

Health Realities

 

Resetting the Proper Context

 

Morality and the “Gay Rights” Debate

 

Liberty Counsel

NEWS RELEASE; Contact: PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT – 800-671-1776

August 3, 2007

Judge Forces Idaho To Fund Estrogen Treatment for Man Who Thinks He Is A Woman 

Boise, ID – Federal district Judge Mikel Williams ruled on Friday that the Idaho Department of Correction must provide an inmate with estrogen therapy. The judge will consider continuing treatment when the issue goes to trial. The inmate believes that he is a woman trapped in a man’s body. The man, who castrated himself using a disposable razor blade while in prison, demanded female hormone therapy. He also changed his name from Randall Gammett to Jenniffer Spencer. The man is serving a 10-year sentence for escape and possession of a stolen car.

After prison officials refused estrogen therapy, but instead offered testosterone therapy to replace the hormones lost to castration, the inmate sued, alleging he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and other constitutional violations.

State officials said the inmate was in prison for several years before demanding treatment. In 2004, he survived an attempted suicide. Two months later he tried to castrate himself, failing in the first attempt but later succeeding. He was diagnosed with an unspecified sexual disorder and bipolar disorder.

Liberty Counsel is a nationwide legal organization with experience in litigation of transsexual legal issues. In June 2004, Liberty Counsel won a case on behalf of a Florida woman against the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which represented a woman who, after watching an MTV program and so-called “sex reassignment surgery,” changed her name from Margo to Michael, began testosterone treatment, and then had a total mastectomy and hysterectomy. This person then wanted to be considered “male” for purposes of Florida’s marriage laws. Although a trial court judge wrote an 809-page opinion claiming that gender is primarily a “state of mind,” Liberty Counsel got the ruling overturned on appeal. The appeals court ruled that “the common meaning of male and female . . . [refers] to immutable traits determined at birth.”

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “Hormones and plastic surgery do not change a person’s sex, which is an immutable trait fixed at birth. Plastic surgery and hormone treatment to alter a person’s sexual appearance is no more warranted than is liposuction for an anorexic. The state should not be compelled to fund so-called sex reassignment surgery, especially when such treatment is not widely accepted, is experimental, and has not been shown to resolve the disturbed mental behavior.”

Ft. Lauderdale Mayor Defends Law; Opposes Public Restroom Encounters

Concerned Women for America writes:  

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Mayor Jim Naugle is under attack from militant homosexuals because of his effort to stop homosexual liaisons in the city’s public restrooms. Mayor Naugle has simply said he would enforce the law, and has considered installing robotic toilets, like those in use in San Francisco, which would hinder such activity in the restrooms of the city’s parks and beaches — areas frequented by families. Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues, speaks with Peter LaBarbera, President and founder of Americans for Truth, who says this problem is a national one. [Warning: content not suitable for children.]

Click HERE to listen directly to the broacast, or HERE for the link to the CWA page containing the online radio interview.

To send a message of support to Mayor Naugle, you may contact him at mayorjames@aol.com. For more information on this story visit: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-724naugleapology,0,5688916.story?coll=sfla-homespot-headlines.

Related AFTAH Stories:

Homosexual Male ‘Cruising’ Site Lists 13 Pages of Anonymous Sex ‘Hook-up’ Locations in Ft. Lauderdale Area Alone

 

Ft. Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle Refuses to Back Down to Perversion Lobby for Taking on Public ‘Bathroom Sex’

Editor’s Note: Lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding has removed this menacing AK-47 comment from her site: see our update HERE. 

Original story, posted July 15, 2007 

Homosexual activists are upset that we used the case of Russell Groff — a Tennessee boy who entered the homosexual lifestyle as a teenager and died of AIDS at 26 — as an example of the extreme health risks of (male) homosexual behavior. More on that later: we’re on vacation, and there is considerable “gay” misinformation to counter — including homosexual “fact checking” blogger Jim Burroway’s specious claim — relying on a Maryland homosexual activist group’s website — that Russell died of a “staph infection following gall bladder surgery.” (Russell’s mother Carolyn Groff sent us his Maryland death certificate showing HIV/AIDS as a cause of death.)

The following comment was posted July 15 on lesbian activist Pam Spaulding’s blog, which seems to have a problem with violence-prone contributors. (In February, a South Dakota man published our address on Spaulding’s blog with the words, “Sniper’s, take note”; he received a formal police warning for the threat and Spaulding, who said she was unaware of the comment, banned him from her blog.)

For the full thread including “underbear1’s” menacing comment below (emphasis added), click HERE:

Having survived a lover who died of AIDS

 

 

If I’d have faced a Baptist Fred Phelps-type protest, and a f*cktard like Petey using someone else’s memorial to twist to his hateful message, I would have snapped, and taken them all out with an AK-47, and not given a sh*t if it cost me my life, because at that point, (I was considering suicide anyways.)

 

Petey be glad you still are breathing, you picked on someone much more forgiving than I am.

 

——————————————————————————–
by: underbear1 @ Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 16:16:57 PM CDT 
[ Reply ] 

 Russell Groff, 1978-2004

Russell died at age 26 of HIV/AIDS after living in a homosexual relationship. How many future men will die young if the politically correct silence on homosexual health risks is not broken? Groff’s mother wants to use his life to warn other parents and children about the perils of embracing a “gay” lifestyle.

By Peter LaBarbera

We live in a cowardly and confused age, so perhaps it was too much to expect that Dr. James Holsinger, President Bush’s nominee for U.S. Surgeon General, would defend his own writings outlining the immense health risks of (male) homosexual behavior.

Unfortunately, on Thursday at his Senate confirmation hearing, Dr. Holsinger succumbed to the Bush Administration’s spin-doctors, Sen. Ted Kennedy’s bluster — and, evidently, his own lack of conviction — and said not one word in defense of his 1991 paper, “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality,” which was written to shore up the faithful against forces in the Methodist Church seeking to undermine the church’s historic Biblical teachings on sexual sin.

Here is an account of the telling exchange between Sen. Kennedy and Dr. Holsinger, from the homosexual Washington Blade newspaper (emphasis added):

Holsinger’s critics have questioned the credibility of the studies he cites in his paper, saying most experts in public health agree that gays and straights are equally susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. Critics have said the determining factors for transmission of sexually transmitted diseases are unprotected sex and the frequency of unprotected sexual encounters, regardless of whether such encounters are between same-sex or opposite-sex couples.

Kennedy said he received a letter from nine doctors with knowledge in human sexuality who denounced Holsinger’s paper as “wholly unscientific, biased and incredibly poor scholarship.”

“Dr. Holsinger’s paper cherry picks and misuses data to support his thesis that homosexuality is unhealthy and unnatural,” Kennedy said at the hearing…

…Holsinger said his paper was an unpublished review of the medical literature on health-related issues pertaining to male homosexuality nearly 20 years ago.

“I did not attempt to write a definitive scientific paper,” he said.

He said he now believes the paper is outdated.

“First of all, the paper does not represent where I am today,” he said. “It does not represent who I am today.”

So what are Dr. Holsinger’s views on whether homosexual acts are unnatural and unhealthy? We don’t know.

It seems that between 1991 and 2007, Dr. Holsinger went from defending truth to evading it, with some help in recent weeks from Bush Administration bureaucrats. (From the moment his nomination became national news, Holsinger’s White House handlers were pushing the idea that he’d moved on from his 1991 views: in the words of Health & Human Services spokeswoman Holly Babin, “Over the last 20 years, a clearer understanding of these issues has been achieved.”)

Meanwhile, homosexual activists threw everything but the kitchen sink at the doctor’s 1991 paper, but the nub of their opposition came down not to medical points — after all, the “gay” movement has made HIV/AIDS the most politically protected disease in American history — but to variations on this argument from homosexual activist Jim Burroway, critiquing the 1991 paper:

…Holsinger made the fatal error of ignoring the bonds of affection and devotion that arise in gay and lesbian couples. He reduced the rich complexity of their relationships to pipe fittings and how they interlock with each other.

In other words, Dr. Holsinger’s “fatal error” 16 years ago was that he agreed with God, not “gays,” about homosexual behavior. (Memo to God: consult with Jim Burroway ASAP re: your condemnation of same-sex practice; study up on the “rich complexity” of modern homosexuality and re-write your moral law and the Bible accordingly.)

Homosexual activists love bashing the “religious right,” but they are hyper-fundamentalists when it comes to defending their core ideological myth: that homosexuality and “same-sex relationships” are a “normal variation of human sexuality” — i.e., that they are NOT morally wrong (changeable sin) in the historic Judeo-Christian tradition.

So desperate are pro-“gay” advocates to force their Bible-rejecting myth on the culture that they downplay even serious health risks that result from embracing behaviors that a loving God proscribes. The result is that children in schools across the country are NOT being taught that there are special dangers, including HIV/AIDS, associated with homosexual behaviors. (See Dr. John Diggs’ paper, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” for more information.)

Neurosyphilis in gay men: Review of 170 possible cases sheds new light on risks

Published in the San Diego Gay and Lesbian Times, Thursday, July 12, 2007

By Bob Roehr 

The increase in syphilis cases among gay men, particularly among those who are HIV positive, has been a concern for years. Most troubling is the occurrence of early neurosyphilis, when the infection spreads to the central nervous system and the brain.

Now a review of 170 possible neurosyphilis cases in four cities – Los Angeles (74), New York (47), Chicago (32) and San Diego (17) – has shed new light on the risks for HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM). The review was published in the June 28 issue of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) “Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.”

The report looked at cases over a 30-month period, January 2002 to June 2004, and narrowed them to 99 patients who had evidence of syphilis in their blood and physical symptoms compatible with neurosyphilis. Of the total, 57 self-identified as MSM, while 49 were HIV positive.

About 75 percent of the patients reported visual disturbances or new onset of headaches, while 12 percent had symptoms of acute meningitis. About half had no other clinical symptoms of the infection, while almost a quarter did not know they were infected with HIV.

The findings come as no surprise to Christopher Hall, chief of clinical affairs for the California Sexually Transmitted Disease Control Branch of the Department of Public Health. He sees them as an indictment of medical providers for not routinely screening gay men for syphilis. That practice would catch syphilis soon after infection, before it could develop more serious manifestations in the brain.

“Gay men who are sexually active with more than one partner should be screened for syphilis at least every six months, and those who are more active should be screened as frequently as every three months,” he says, citing guidelines issued by the CDC…

…About half of the cases of syphilis in California are among persons who are HIV positive. Hall sees three major reasons for this. First is serosorting: Persons who are HIV positive seek out sexual partners of the same status and decide not to use condoms. This facilitates the transmission of all sexually transmitted diseases, including syphilis.

This feeds on itself, creating a higher prevalence of the infection within a relatively closed pool of people having sex with each other. Finally, there is the likelihood that these persons have more sex with different people and hence increase their risk of exposure.
Gonorrhea is a localized infection but syphilis is a systemic one that can affect all parts of the body. Hall says syphilis can be found in the central nervous system and brain of about 30 percent of recently infected persons, regardless of their HIV status.

Oral sex is a route of infection that many people often do not consider. A 2004 study from Chicago attributed 13.7 percent of syphilis infections to oral sex, as the participants claimed to only engage in that practice. Most persons have a wider sexual repertoire, and so the true number of transmissions through oral sex is likely to be higher.

Click HERE to read the full article in the San Diego Gay & Lesbian Times