Stephen Green, national director of [British group] Christian Voice, said, “It seems that Christians are gradually being squeezed out of the adoption process. It’s exactly what we said would happen. In the name of equality, it’s discriminating against Christians.” 

 British couple Owen and Eunice Johns are being denied as foster parents because they agree with their Creator about homosexuality.

By Peter LaBarbera

Commenting on LifesiteNews story by Hillary White:  http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022705.html

For more information, see the British Christian Legal Centre’s site at: http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=253

The once-great nation of Britain is being reduced to a bastion of politically correct silliness. Is America next? So now British couples aren’t qualified to raise children unless they can recite pro-“gay” shibboleths?

Why no, Johnny, you don’t have to have a man and a woman to get married — in fact, two daddies are often better at raising children than a mommy and a daddy. When you are old enough, we will tell you all you need to know so we can support you if you have a gay or transgender orientation. Did you know that being gay is a one of God’s gifts for special people?”

You chuckle, but it is surreal to behold the deterioration of Western civilization before our very eyes — one sad story like this at a time. Meanwhile, smug, agnostic pundits and religious leftists like Jim Wallis castigate the “Religious Right,” which is made up of people who are merely trying their best to hold back the march of evil (masquerading as progress). Which reminds me: when is the last time you heard the media use the phrase “Religious Left,” anyway?

Destructive and radical ideologies (e.g., Marxism) often are imposed from above by force, relying on disinformation — or stealth strategies — because an informed, moral (and generally conservative-leaning) citizenry would never approve such nonsense on their own. Hence the homosexual activists’ drive for power culminates in state punishment and repression of their opponents — mainly Christians and other religious adherents. Invariably, as we are seeing abroad and now here in the USA, “gay rights” comes at the expense of religious freedom.

Liberals and “gay” activists alike ask: “But how does granting equal rights for gays and lesbians affect you?” It’s the wrong question (it’s not all about ME), and one that radically redefines civil and human rights, but here’s part of the answer: state-enforced, pro-homosexuality ideology ultimately criminalizes Judeo-Christian ethics, ideas and even compassion (per the U.K.) — and that destroys societies and hurts children. “Gay” ideology is at war with common sense and “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” — as our Declaration of Independence from Britain states — giving rise to misguided social policies like that below. 

 Canadian writer Dawn Stefanowicz poignantly tells of her painful and bizarre upbringing caused by her father’s homosexuality.

Folks, this is a beautifully written book that testifies to the lunacy of encouraging homosexual parenting in public policy. It can be ordered through Dawn’s website

A Christian woman from Canada has written a new book that details the trauma she suffered during her childhood as a result of her father’s homosexual behavior. In “Out from Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting,” Dawn Stefanowicz (www.dawnstefanowicz.com) recounts her story of growing up in a homosexual home in Toronto, Canada, during the 1960s.

Stefanowicz said she was prompted to write the book in 2004 after testifying before a Canadian senate committee against hate crime legislation and expressing public opposition to the sexual diversity curricula used in her country’s schools.

The author and speaker said writing down her memories about being raised by a father who welcomed numerous male sex partners into the family’s home on a regular basis was a painful process. Stefanowicz said her father’s destructive homosexual behavior created confusion about sexuality in her own life. In the book she chronicles how, as a young girl, she often wished she were a boy.

“It’s a very difficult thing to describe,” she said. “You doubt your own sexuality because you’re looking at your parent’s example. And for me, when I looked at my father I did not feel affirmed as a young girl growing up, nor as a woman. My own femininity was denied in that kind of situation. Women were not valued.”

However, Stefanowicz also said writing about her childhood helped her to heal, and that she hoped the book would aid other children in homosexual homes to “find truth and their own healing.”

“Children are impacted long-term in homosexual environments — not just while they’re growing up, but throughout their adulthood,” said the author. “Children [of homosexuals] who have been in touch with me, even into their fifties and sixties, still describe certain difficulties that they are facing long-term.”

Stefanowicz said it was her faith in Jesus Christ that enabled her to face her traumatic past and forgive her father, who died of AIDS in 1991.

 Homosexual “conservative” pundit Andrew Sullivan wrote sympathetically aboug “gay” male couples’ ‘understanding of the need for extramarital [sexual] outlets” and suggested such “honesty” and “flexibility” could “undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”

____________________________

Emphasis in bold is added to all quotations below: 

‘Extramarital Outlets’ and Homosexual ‘Monogamy’

“The mutual nurturing and sexual expressiveness of many lesbian relationships, the solidity and space of many adult gay male relationships, are qualities sometimes lacking in more rote, heterosexual couplings.”
–Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality, p. 202, (1995)

“Some of this is unavailable to the male-female union: there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman; and again, the lack of children gives gay couples greater freedom. Their failures entail fewer consequences for others. But something of the gay’s relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”
–Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-03.

Radically Alter an ‘Archaic Institution’

“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”
–Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” OUT magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161.

Ending Marriage’s ‘Sexist Trappings’

“[E]nlarging the [marital] concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new….Extending the right to marry to gay people — that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage — can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past.”
–the late homosexual activist Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, “Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco’s Families,” The Final Report of the Mayor’s Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.

Transform the Definition of Family 

“[Legalizing “same-sex marriage”] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
–Michelangelo Signorile, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,” OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.

‘Being Queer Means Transforming the Very Fabric of Society’ 

“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.”
–Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?” in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.

New Gay Model: Monogamy Not Essential for Marriage

“Gay life, like black culture, might even provide models and materials for rethinking family life and improving family law. I will now chart some ways in which this might be so — in particular drawing on the distinctive experience and ideals of gay male couples.

“Take sex. Traditionally, a commitment to monogamy — to the extent that it was not simply an adjunct of property law, a vehicle for guaranteeing property rights and succession — was the chief mode of sacrifice imposed upon or adopted by married couples as a means of showing their sacred valuing of their relation. But gay men have realized that while couples may choose to restrict sexual activity in order to show their love for each other, it is not necessary for this purpose; there are many other ways to manifest and ritualize commitment. And so monogamy (it appears) is not an essential component of love and marriage. The authors of “The Male Couple” found that:

[T]he majority of [gay male] couples, and all of the couples together for longer than five years, were not continuously sexually exclusive with each other. Although many had long periods of sexual exclusivity, it was not the ongoing expectation for most. We found that gay men expect mutual emotional dependability with their partners [but also believe] that relationship fidelity transcends concerns about sexuality and exclusivity.

Both because marital sacrifices must be voluntary to be meaningful and because sexual exclusivity is not essential to marital commitment, the law should not impose monogamy on married couples. And indeed, half the states have decriminalized adultery.
–Homosexual academic Richard D. Mohr, The Case for Gay Marriage, 9 NOTRE DAME J.L. ETHICS & PUB. POLICY 215, 233 (1995)

Churches: Homophobic, Antiquated Backwaters

“We can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings in psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional religion, one must set up the mightier draw of science and public opinion…. Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion.”
–Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, “The Overhauling of Straight America,” homosexual magazine The Guide, November 1987.

Make Anti-Gays Look Nasty

“We intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to disassociate themselves from such types.”
–Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, “The Overhauling of Straight America,” The Guide (homosexual) magazine, November 1987.

Americans For Truth Speaker (Friday, Oct. 5) David Parker of Lexington, Massachusetts, in hand-cuffs after being arrested in 2005 at his son’s elementary school — after refusing to budge in his demand for parental rights. At right is the last page of “King & King,” a “children’s” picture book that was read to first-graders at the school. Those are the two princes kissing, the culmination of a story line in which the prince rejects princesses in favor of another man as his true love. The two princes get “married” and the caption for the “same-sex marriage” page reads: “The wedding was very special. The queen even shed a tear or two.” The principal at Esterbrook Elementary School in Lexington defended the “King & King” lesson and denied parents the right to be informed about it and to opt their kids out.

Dear Americans For Truth Reader,

There is a battle to preserve right and wrong in this country — and a campaign to teach children that “human wrongs” are actually “human rights.” David Parker, who comes to the Chicago area in a week (Friday, October 5) for Americans For Truth’s first annual banquet, is on the front lines of that battle.

David and his wife Tonia are concerned Massachusetts parents who simply didn’t want their son to be brainwashed by a politically correct education establishment that has lost its way.

We are honored and delighted to have David as one of two dynamic speakers at our Americans For Truth banquet next week — Friday, October 5 in Lombard (registration is extended until Monday; click HERE for information). If you live in the Midwest, and can drive (or even fly) in, I’d strongly encourage you to come see this man who is a hero for truth and represents all that is great about this nation.

Here’s my guarantee: your “freedom fighting” batteries will be charged for years to come by this exciting evening.

Our other featured speaker, Charlene Cothran, a former lesbian-activist-turned-Christian and founder of VENUS Magazine, is equally compelling. You won’t want to miss her God-honoring testimony of being delivered from homosexuality; click HERE to sign up by Monday using your VISA or MasterCard.

Get off the sidelines

Let’s face it: most people sit on the sidelines in this ongoing societal “war” over which values will be ascendant in our culture. David and Tonia Parker got off the sidelines. When faced with a school bureaucracy in Lexington, Mass., that asserted it had the right and duty in the nation’s only homosexual-“marriage” state to teach the acceptance of homosexuality to young elementary school children without even informing parents, they fought back. In 2005, the Parker’s five-year-old son Jacob came home with a “Diversity Book Bag,” which contained the book Who’s in a Family promoting the acceptance of “same-sex” families.

The rest is history, as David Parker was famously arrested at Jacob’s school, Esterbrook Elementary, for demanding his parental right to be informed before teachings that violate his and Tonia’s religious beliefs were foisted on their impressionable son.

The controversy grew in 2006 when the Joseph and Robin Wirthlin learned that their seven-year-old son Joey’s first-grade teacher at Esterbrook Elementary had read King & King, a homosexual romance kids book (who would think we’d ever be using those words together?), shown above, aloud to her young students without even notifying their parents.

  Anti-Christian bigotry prevails: Human Rights Campaign’s Daryl Herrschaft threatened to boycott a DiversityInc Magazine forum on “Religion in the Workplace” if Americans For Truth were allowed to participate. The magazine caved in.

By Peter LaBarbera 

“How do you balance the need to create an open and equal workplace for LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] employees with the religious beliefs of those who oppose same-sex relationships?” 
— proposed discussion question for DiversityInc “Religion in the Workplace” roundtable that includes an atheist and a homosexual activist but dropped Americans For Truth after being lobbied by pro-“gay” panelists

Today I was scheduled to fly to Newark, N.J., to participate in a “Religion in the Workplace Roundtable” discussion sponsored by DiversityInc Magazine. But I won’t be going to Newark – because three of the panelists decided that true diversity was something they simply could not tolerate.

On Friday, I received an awkward call from Barbara Frankel, DiversityInc’s Executive Editor, who had originally invited me to take part in the roundtable — along with Daryl Herrschaft, Director of the Workplace Project at Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual activist group, and several other panelists including the president of American Atheists.

An embarrassed Ms. Frankel said she was forced to disinvite me, less than a week before the event, because Herrschaft and two other panelists (she wouldn’t say whom) had threatened not to come if I were allowed to participate. (I had already bought my airline ticket and received planning materials for the discussion.) Ironically, one of the proposed questions for the roundtable was: “How do you balance the need to create an open and equal workplace for LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] employees with the religious beliefs of those who oppose same-sex relationships?”

Frankel apologized and said that she was very upset about this development, but that her hands were tied. Of course, she could have stuck with the original plan and told Herrschaft and his two allies to take a hike, or at least a refresher course on genuine diversity.

Frankel’s decision to cave in to HRC’s demands represents a triumph of the new, Intolerant “Tolerance” over real tolerance. In originally inviting me and Americans For Truth to participate, Frankel – representing the very pro-“gay” DiversityInc — was, to her credit, practicing old-fashioned tolerance: people with divergent worldviews listening and talking respectfully to one another about each other’s viewpoint, in a spirit of civility.

The New Tolerance – epitomized by Herrschaft’s arrogant threat – is “tolerant” in name only. It is driven by ideology and power. Here’s the formula: certain viewpoints that the Left finds intolerable – e.g., that homosexuality is wrong and changeable behavior – must be denied public expression, or at least be marginalized. All to build a “hate-free” society, you see. (Conservative college students know well this counterfeit brand of “tolerance and diversity.”)

 Author David Blankenhorn

By Peter LaBarbera 

David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values — who has done tremendous work in defending the institution of marriage and in making the case against “same-sex marriage” — has now proclaimed the “equal dignity of homosexual love.” This has earned him high praise from a leading homosexual “same-sex marriage” advocate, Jonathan Rauch. Watch their 3-minute video debate segment on “Bloggingheads.tv,” “Does opposing gay marriage make you a homophobe?” online here: http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=386&cid=2311.

How utterly tragic is this pronouncement by one of the world’s leading marriage advocates — who should know better than to go out on limb on the homosexual issue, apparently in solidarity with his homosexual friends and associates. (Click HERE to read Princeton professor Robbie George’s review of Blankenhorn’s latest book, The Future of Marriage, in National Review.)

On what basis and authority does Blankenhorn make this astounding claim about homosexuality? He is part of a growing trend of prominent “conservatives” (a label which Blankenhorn rejects) and self-professed Christians who have decided that they disagree with what the Bible says about homosexuality.

At least Blankenhorn is honest enough to state openly that he disagrees with the Word of God — most people at his level are not, preferring to play a double-game of proclaiming their fealty to Biblical truth, reason and tradition while actually undermining them all. On page 210 of The Future of Marriage, Blankenhorn writes:

“I am a Christian, I take the Bible seriously, and I know what the Bible says about homosexuality. I disagree with the Bible on this point. Or if you’ll permit me, I believe that Jesus’ teachings are inconsistent with the idea that today in the United States we should judge people as blameworthy just for being gay or lesbian.”

That puts Blankenhorn’s latest statements on homosexual “love” in perspective. Let’s hope and pray that he returns to truth on this issue, and that his friend Jonathan Rausch leaves homosexuality behind.

From Focus on the Family’s Citizenlink: 

County Judge Robert Hanson decided Thursday that he will make the laws for Iowa. He struck down the state’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional and ordered Polk County to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant county attorney, argued the issue is not for a judge to decide. The county, home to state capital Des Moines, is expected to appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court.

Dr. James C. Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family Action, called it another example of a judge legislating from the bench.

“Once again, we see an activist judge handing liberal activists what they have not been able to achieve legislatively or at the ballot box: government sanctioning of same-sex marriage,” he said. “This purely political ruling proves yet again that nothing short of a federal marriage-protection amendment is sufficient to preserve one-man, one-woman marriage in our nation.

“By striking down Iowa’s DOMA, Judge Robert Hanson has shown he believes the desires of adults should trump what’s best for children. His ruling represents social engineering at its worst.”

Click HERE to read the whole Citizenlink article

Kevin McCullough is one of the few talk radio hosts who is not afraid to take on the homosexual activist movement. 

As one who has been on the receiving end of too many online “gay” lies to count, I can sympathize with Kevin McCullough — one of the few radio conservatives nationwide who doesn’t downplay the homosexual issue. (And there are some pretty big names in conservative radio who do by going ‘PC’ on this issue with their silence … so support Kevin.)

McCullough’s basic point is one that cannot be repeated enough: people have a choice over their sexual (mis)behavior — which is why homosexual activists stress the expedient ideological construct of (supposedly innate) “sexual orientation.”

Racial minorities have no such choice. Unlike homosexuals, they cannot leave their minority group, as every ex-gay or ex-lesbian does when he or she abandons that destructive lifestyle choice. Thus the biggest “gay” lie of all is that “being gay” — i.e., naturally predisposed toward homosexuality — is “who you are.” — Peter LaBarbera

_________________________

Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Why do angry gay bloggers always lie?
Posted by: Kevin McCullough at 8:17 AM

NGBlog [WARNING: NGBlog has a hard time making his point without cussing–Ed.] and OutsideTheTent have had me in their sights for sometime.

And when the towering intellects that they both are come up short against an actual point of substance the best they can do is call me stupid, or poopy pants, or whatever brilliant turn of phrase pops into their skull.

They are so desperate to make me appear stupid they slow down the video of me discussing the Mary Cheney pregnancy on CNN to the one frame where in the middle of speaking I appear half-inebriated.  [See an AFTAH post on the Mary Cheney baby story HERE.]

Classy…