Two men share truth about homosexuality with Chicago college students

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an  mp3 file.  Left click once on this link to play (more instructions at bottom) : 7-17-10, John McCartney & Wayne Lela, All

In this interview (Part One of two), which aired Saturday, July 17, 2010, AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera talks in studio with John McCartney and Wayne Lela — two Chicago men who have a unique “ministry” of going to local Chicago colleges and universities and educating students about homosexuality and “gay” activism. They do this from a pro-natural-family perspective that most young people rarely hear. For that they have been harassed by liberal professors — among other trials — but they persevered and have now gained entry on to all the Chicago-area public colleges, which cannot legally engage in viewpoint discrimination.

In the interview, McCartney discusses the way “brainwashing” works on this issue — censoring negative information about homosexuality while demonizing opponents of the “gay” agenda. Lela (who as an agnostic is not a member of the so-called “Religious Right”) formed a group called HOME, Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment. McCartney is a retired English teacher and committed Catholic living in Chicago who has long served both the pro-life and pro-family causes. Both men will be attending AFTAH’s upcoming Truth Academy Aug 5-7, to be held at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL.

In this (Part One) interview, the two discuss the reactions of students to their work — and how Chicagoland newspapers seem to be cutting back on printing letters-to-the-editor that are critical of homosexuality — which would be consistent with the increasingly censorious posture of Chicago’s major media, which generally are very pro-“gay.” Lela and McCartney deserve our commendation. There are millions upon millions of people who affirm the truth that homosexual behavior is wrong, destructive, unnatural and changeable. But there are precious few like these two men who actually contend for this truth in the public square — and especially with students who, as they say, are “brainwashed” by the non-stop pro-homosexual propaganda in the media and popular culture.

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an  mp3 file.  Left click once on the link below to play.  (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.) OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

7-17-10, John McCartney & Wayne Lela, All

Americans For Truth Academy

Tentative Speakers Schedule

Thursday, August 5 – Saturday, August 7, 2010

Location: Christian Liberty Academy, 502 W. Euclid Ave., Arlington Heights, IL 60004;

Cost: Adults: $149 for 3-day conference; Single day rate: $50/day; Married couples discount: $199 for full conference; Youth: $99 (scholarships available to attendees ages 14-25)

Contact info/queries/RSVP: E-mail americansfortruth@gmail.com ; phone: 630-717-7631; more background information HERE.

Truth Academy Instructors:

• Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel ; Board Member, AFTAH
• Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival; Accuracy in Media
• Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author, The Bible and Homosexual Practice
• Arthur Goldberg, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH), author, Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change
• Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute
• Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries; author, Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism, keynote presenter
• Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
• Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law
• Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX); Pro-Family Network
• Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California

_______________________________________________________

THURSDAY, AUGUST 5 (Day One)

All presentations are 45 minutes followed by 15 minutes of Q & A.  There will be a panel discussion and Q & A on Thursday and Friday, and a special evening presentation each of those evenings.

8-9:30 – Light breakfast;  Registration

9:30 – 10:00 – Opening Prayer, Calvin Lindstrom, pastor, Church of Christian Liberty;

Welcoming Remarks, Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality:

“From gay pride to gay tyranny”

10:10 – 11:10 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law:

“History of modern ‘gay’ activism and the courts”

11:20-12:20 – Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel; Board Member, AFTAH:

“Masculine Christianity: a non-defensive approach to the Culture War over homosexuality”

“Kagan did not deny that her application of Harvard’s [‘sexual orientation’ nondiscrimination] policy would have excluded the Catholic Church.” —CNSNews.com, reporting on Kagan’s confirmation hearing

By Peter LaBarbera

Solicitor General Elena Kagan has been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 13-6 vote — after hypocritically dodging and weaving her way through the farce that now masquerades as the judicial confirmation process. Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC) was the lone Republican to vote for her — despite the fact that South Carolina is conservative while Kagan is the ideological cousin of our elitist, far-left president. (Click HERE for the MassResistance report on Kagan’s pro-homosexual record at Harvard.)

Kagan’s future now rests with the Democrat-dominated Senate — where most pundits (betting on listless GOP opposition) expect her to win confirmation; the vote is expected to come in early August.

Americans now face the prospect of a radically pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality social Leftist-for-Life sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially  for 30 or more years. In just 105 days, on Election Day (Nov. 2), U.S. citizens will be able to cripple Barack Obama’s power — a day anticipated by millions of citizens outraged over his arrogant and reckless presidency. In two more years, Obama could be voted out of office a la Jimmy Carter.

Not so with Kagan. Unless Republicans summon up the guts to actually block her via filibuster (don’t bet on it), she likely will soon become Justice Kagan until she retires at an old age. There, if her past is any indication, one day she will vote to create a new “fundamental right” of “same-sex marriage” out of an “evolving” Constitution —  all the while protecting that old make-believe “constitutional right,” sacrosanct to liberals, of abortion-on-demand. (See this Omaha World-Herald story on Kagan’s manipulation of  expert testimony in the Clinton administration to fight legislative attempts to ban the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion.)

New University of Illinois President Michael Hogan

We have heard from several readers who received the form letter below from University of Illinois President Michael Hogan after writing or calling the University concerning Catholic professor Dr. Kenneth Howell being terminated after explicating Natural Moral Law opposed to homosexuality. Call him at (217)333-6400; or go HERE for more U-I contact info and action steps. Thanks to all of you who took action against this injustice — which we hope will be corrected soon. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________________________________

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: President Hogan <uipres@uillinois.edu>
To: [———]
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 11:45:16 PM
Subject: RE: Sham “Inclusivity” Policy

Dear [——–],

Let me begin by thanking you for expressing your concerns.  Academic freedom is at the core of our teaching and research missions.  It’s vital to our ability to explore new ideas, educate our students, and promote the civil and free exchange of alternative viewpoints in a democracy.

I learned of this action on the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) campus late last week and immediately asked Chancellor Robert Easter, who oversees the campus, to provide me with a briefing on the matter.  I want to assure you that the University administration shares my commitment to the principles of academic freedom.  At the same time, we do believe it’s important to fully investigate all of the details related to this situation.  As I’m sure you’re aware, it is sometimes the case that public reports may convey only part of the story.  I think it important to reserve judgment until I have all of the facts and I hope you’ll agree.

Dr. Kenneth Howell, Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, was fired after a liberal student complained about an e-mail he sent to his students explaining Natural Moral Law.

By Peter LaBarbera

The University of Illinois has fired Dr. Kenneth Howell, a Catholic adjunct religion professor who was doing his job of teaching a class on Catholicism — after a liberal student complained to the university about an e-mail Howell sent to his students explaining Natural Moral Law. (The professor’s instructive e-mail and the student’s complaint e-mail are reproduced below.)

TAKE ACTION: Contact Michael Hogan, the University of Illinois’s new president, and urge him to reinstate Prof. Howell immediately: phone: (217) 333-6400; Fax: (217) 333-5733. Tell President Hogan that Howell’s firing is a nationwide advertisement that the University of Illinois is bigoted toward and intolerant of people of faith — giving lie to U-I’s mission statement to be “inclusive” and to “treat each other with dignity and respect.” Board of Trustees: contact the U. of Illinois Bd. of Trustees at 217-333-1920 or write: UIBOT@uillinois.edu.]

The U. of Illinois’ “religion department’s website says Howell was recognized for excellent teaching in the spring and fall semesters of 2008 and 2009,” the Champaign News-Gazette reports.

Howell’s terminatioin draws attention to the emerging, cold reality of modern, politically correct America: in cosmopolitan areas and certainly in academia, you are more likely to be terminated, punished or persecuted on the job for opposing homosexuality than for “being gay.”

Here we are — on the verge, with our Democrat-controlled Congress, of creating federal employment “rights” based on homosexuality (and transgenderism), and people are being fired merely for expressing their sincere religious beliefs — which, in Howell’s case, was his job. Even as homosexual activists falsely claim that thousands of homosexuals face job losses because of “who they are,” the number of anti-Christian firings is piling up: remember the Allstate firing of Matt Barber? Crystal Dixon?

As you can see from below, Dr. Howell is a clear thinker who was doing what he was paid to do — teaching Catholic morality to his students. The complaint e-mail that got him terminated dismissses Howell’s e-mail as “absurd…It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes.”

If you want to know about the homo-fascist impulse that dominates so many institutions of “higher learning” (hah!) today, here are the key paragraphs from the News-Gazette story:

In a series of e-mail exchanges between [Robert McKim, head of the U-I religion department] and UI administrators about how to proceed regarding Howell’s teaching and his appointment as an adjunct professor, McKim states he will send a note to Howell’s students and others who were forwarded his e-mail to students, “disassociating our department, College, and university from the view expressed therein.”

In another e-mail, Ann Mester, associate dean for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, wrote that she believes “the e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us.”

Inclusivity? What about U. of Illinois’ “inclusion” of traditional Catholic students and students who adhere to historic Judeo-Christian morality? ‘Diversity” has become a code-word for punishing those who dissent from liberal, pro-homosexuality groupthink. Please read the excellent e-letter below on Natural Moral Law by Prof. Howell. And  take action to urge the University of Illinois to correct this injustice. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________________________

Dr. Kenneth Howell’s Teaching E-mail to Students:

The following is the e-mail to students that U. of Illinois religion professor Ken Howell sent to his students, as reported by the Champaign News-Gazette:

From: Kenneth J. Howell

Date: Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Subject: Utilitarianism and Sexuality (for those in 447 FYI)

Dear Students:

Since there is a question on the final exam about utilitarianism (see the review sheet), I thought I would help with an example. I realized after my lectures on moral theory that even though I talked about the substance of utilitarianism, I did not identify it as such and so you may not have been able to see it.

It turns out that our discussion of homosexuality brings up the issue of utilitarianism. In class, our discussion of the morality of homosexual acts was very incomplete because any moral issue about which people disagree ALWAYS raises a more fundamental issue about criteria. In other words, by what criteria should we judge whether a given act is right or wrong?

Before looking at the issue of criteria, however, we have to remind ourselves of the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion. The most frequent reason I hear people supporting same-sex marriage is that they know some gay couples or individuals. Empathy is a noble human quality but right or wrong does not depend on who is doing the action or on how I feel about those people, just as judging an action wrong should not depend on disliking someone. This might seem obvious to a right thinking person but I have encountered many well-educated people who do not (or cannot?) make the distinction between persons and acts when engaging moral reasoning. I encourage you to read the final essay editorial I sent earlier to reflect on this. In short, to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person. A person and his/her acts can be distinguished for the purposes of morality.

So, then, by what criterion should we judge whether sexual acts are right or wrong? This is where utilitarianism comes in. Utilitarianism in the popular sense is fundamentally a moral theory that judges right or wrong by its practical outcomes. It is somewhat akin to a cost/benefit analysis. So, when a woman is deciding whether it’s right to have an abortion, the utilitarian says it’s right or wrong based on what the best outcome is. Similarly, a man who is trying to decide whether he should cheat on his wife, if he is a utilitarian, will weigh the various consequences. If the cheating side of the ledger is better, he will conclude that it’s okay to cheat. If the faithful side is better, he will refrain from cheating.

I think it’s fair to say that many, maybe most Americans employ some type of utilitarianism in their moral decision making. But there are at least two problems. One is that to judge the best outcome can be very subjective. What may be judged good for the pregnant woman may not be good for the baby. What may be judged good for the about-to-cheat-husband may not good for his wife or his children. This problem of subjectivity is inherent in utilitarianism for a second reason. Utilitarianism counsels that moral decisions should NOT be based on the inherent meaning of acts. Acts are only good or bad relative to outcomes. The natural law theory that I expounded in class assumes that human acts have an inherent meaning (remember my fist vs. extended hand of friendship example).

One of the most common applications of utilitarianism to sexual morality is the criterion of mutual consent. It is said that any sexual act is okay if the two or more people involved agree. Now no one can (or should) deny that for a sexual act to be moral there must be consent. Certainly, this is one reason why rape is morally wrong. But the question is whether this is enough.

If two men consent to engage in sexual acts, according to utilitarianism, such an act would be morally okay. But notice too that if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old, such an act would also be moral if even it is illegal under the current law. Notice too that our concern is with morality, not law. So by the consent criterion, we would have to admit certain cases as moral which we presently would not approve of. The case of the 10 and 40 year olds might be excluded by adding a modification like “informed consent.” Then as long as both parties agree with sufficient knowledge, the act would be morally okay. A little reflection would show, I think, that “informed consent” might be more difficult to apply in practice than in theory. But another problem would be where to draw the line between moral and immoral acts using only informed consent. For example, if a dog consents to engage in a sexual act with its human master, such an act would also be moral according to the consent criterion. If this impresses you as far-fetched, the point is not whether it might occur but by what criterion we could say that it is wrong. I don’t think that it would be wrong according to the consent criterion.

But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the “woman” while the other acts as the “man.” In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.

Now recall that I mentioned in class the importance of gaining wisdom from the past. One part of wisdom we gain from such knowledge is how people today came to think of their bodies. I won’t go into details here but a survey of the last few centuries reveals that we have gradually been separating our sexual natures (reality) from our moral decisions. Thus, people tend to think that we can use our bodies sexually in whatever ways we choose without regard to their actual structure and meaning. This is also what lies behind the idea of sex change operations. We can manipulate our bodies to be whatever we want them to be.

If what I just said is true, then this disassociation of morality and sexual reality did not begin with homosexuality. It began long ago. But it took a huge leap forward in the wide spread use of artificial contraceptives. What this use allowed was for people to disassociate procreation and children from sexual activity. So, for people who have grown up only in a time when there is no inherent connection between procreation and sex –- notice not natural but manipulated by humans –- it follows “logically” that sex can mean anything we want it to mean.

Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.

I know this doesn’t answer all the questions in many of your minds. All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions. As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don’t arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.

Kenneth J. Howell Ph.D.

Director, St. John’s Institute of Catholic Thought

Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

_________________________________________________

U of I Student’s Complaint E-mail about Religion Prof Ken Howell:

The following is the e-mail complaint from student about U-I religion instructor Ken Howell, as reported by the News-Gazette:

Prof. McKim,

This past semester, a friend of mine took RLST 127: Introduction to Catholicism. Throughout the semester, he would consistently tell me how the teacher [Ken Howell], who I believe is a priest at the Newman Center, would preach (not teach) his ideology to the class. Many times, my friend (whom I wish to remain anonymous) said the instructor would say things that were inflammatory and downright insensitive to those who were not of the Catholic faith–it should be noted that my friend and I were both brought up Catholic. Anyways, my friend informed me that things got especially provocative when discussing homosexuality. He sent me the following e-mail, which I believe you will agree is downright absurd once you read it.

I am in no way a gay rights activist, but allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable. It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes. Once again, this is a public university and should thus have no religious affiliation. Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.

I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a gay student would feel if he/she were to take this course. I am a heterosexual male and I found this completely appalling. Also, my friend also told me that the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma. Once again, he is guilty of limiting the marketplace of ideas and acting out of accord with this institution’s mission and principles.

I have Cc’d Leslie Morrow, director of the LGBT Resource Center, on this e-mail as well as (name redacted), former features editor at the Daily Illini (I’m sure they’d like to hear about this), and Siobhan Somerville, a former teacher of mine and the founder of the queer studies major.

I didn’t go to Notre Dame for a reason,

(name redacted)

___________________________________________

Bio of Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D. from the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center at the U. of Illinois

Kenneth J. Howell
Director & Senior Fellow, Institute of Catholic Thought
kenneth.howell@sjcnc.org

In addition to being the Director and a Senior Fellow of the Institute of Catholic Thought, Dr. Howell is also an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Program for the Study of Religion in the University of Illinois. Dr. Howell studied theology at Westminster Theological Seminary where he concentrated in biblical languages and systematic theology.

In 1978, he was ordained a Presbyterian minister and served parishes in Florida and Indiana. After completing his Ph.D. in linguistics at Indiana University, he taught Greek, Hebrew, and Latin at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. His teaching duties involved theological research which led to his conversion to Catholicism in 1996. During this time, he obtained another Ph.D. in the history of Christianity and Science from the University of Lancaster (U.K).

Dr. Howell is the author of four books and numerous articles. God’s Two Books: Copernican Cosmology and Biblical Interpretation in Early Modern Science (University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), Mary of Nazareth: Sign and Instrument of Christian Unity (Queenship Press, 1998) is a scriptural study of Marian doctrine. Meeting Mary Our Mother in Faith (Catholic Answers Press, 2003), Questions College Students Ask…about God, Faith, and the Church (co-authored with Christine Pinheiro) (Champaign, IL: The St. John Institute of Catholic Thought, St. John’s Catholic Newman Center, 2006), The Eucharist for Beginners: Sacrament, Sacrifice, and Communion (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2006).

Homosexual icon Frank Kameny coined the slogan "Gay Is Good." Now he says bestiality -- sex with animals -- is OK ("as long as the animal doesn't mind"). Kameny, who says the God of the Bible is a "sinful , homophobic bigot" who needs to repent, has denounced AFTAH's "Truth Academy," to be held outside Chicago Aug. 5-7, 2010.

Dear AFTAH Readers,

Our upcoming Truth Academy to teach young people how to counter “gay” activist misinformation is not proving to be very popular with GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) activists. In a letter to AFTAH, Frank Kameny, the world’s oldest and most respected (by GLBTs) homosexual activist, has denounced the Truth Academy, which will be held August 5-7 at AFTAH’s office in Carol Stream, Illinois [click HERE for more info].

Kameny is the fellow who can’t recall if he spoke at a 1981 meeting held by NAMBLA (the notorious North American Man/Boy Love Association; NAMBLA reported that he had attended). Kameny also wrote AFTAH to assert that bestiality is OK “as long as the animal doesn’t mind (and the animal rarely does).”

If Kameny is correct that we non-homosexuals have to learn only from homosexuals themselves when it comes to this culture-war issue, then I would ask him: please, teach us about the ethics of declaring the God of the Bible a “sinful, homophobic bigot” and committed Christians “Christianofascists”; or addressing a group that advocates sex between men and young boys (we might understand if you came to scold NAMBLA, but apparently you did not); and teach us about the ethics of bestiality. With regard to the latter, how exactly can a human being be sure that an animal is consenting to be his or her “sex partner”? Also, teach us why we should accept your (a)moral view that “Gay is good” and “Gay is Godly” (he wrote the latter as an admitted atheist) when that flies in the face of historic, Judeo-Christian teachings on sex and marriage.

It is a sobering thought that given his celebrated status as an icon of the proud homosexualist movement, Frank Kameny could one day be lifted up to students as an American hero and role model whose life should be studied — especially if an annual “Gay History Month” becomes a reality in schools (a perverse copy of Black History Month). As with another “gay” activist, Harvey Milk, students will learn only glamorized lessons about these LBGT icons and nothing that would undermine the homosexual activist movement.

Homosexual male "couples" are notorious for tolerating outside sex in their disordered relationships. Dan Savage, a homosexual activist who adopted a baby boy (hence his book "The Kid"), recommends "nonmonogamy" as an alternative to marital fidelity. He writes that he and his "husband" twice engaged in sexual "three-ways" even after adopting the boy.

News Release

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

June 21, 2010

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631

_________________

CAROL STREAM, Illinois — Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) President Peter LaBarbera today condemned President Barack Obama for “gaying down” the noble institution of fatherhood by extolling “nurturing families” with “two fathers” in his Father’s Day proclamation yesterday.

Obama proclaimed:

Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a step father, a grandfather, or caring guardian.

“If an adult man chooses to embrace homosexuality, that’s one thing. But two men imposing their homosexual lifestyle on an innocent, impressionable child — thus intentionally denying that child a mother — is something quite different. Shame on Obama for ‘gaying down’ the noble institution of fatherhood to appease his homosexual activist supporters.”

Obama is the most pro-homosexual-agenda president in American history, and is currently working to subvert both the legal ban on open homosexuals serving in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which affirms traditional marriage in federal law.

“Who can deny the notorious promiscuity that is rampant in the gay male subculture – and which often continues even after two homosexual men adopt a child,” LaBarbera said. “Witness gay parenting’s poster-boy, Dan Savage, a sex-advice columnist and author of The Kid: What Happened When My Boyfriend And I Decided to Go Get Pregnant. Savage promotes ‘non-monogamy’ as an alternative to marital fidelity — and admits that he and his ‘husband’ twice engaged in sexual ‘three-ways’ even after they adopted a baby boy. (One wonders who babysat ‘the kid’ during their homosexual sex romp.)”

Such is the extent of tolerated outside sex in male homosexual relationships that their “negotiated” rules for “nonexclusivity” are studied by academics. “The gay community’s normative acceptance of casual sex, anonymous sex and nonmonogamy in couple relationships represents a dramatic departure from heterocentric norms and values,” wrote researchers Johnson and Keren in 1996.

Boxer-turned culture warrior assails homosexual lobby’s selfish attempt to lift blood-donation restrictions

Matt Barber's unapologetic approach toward the Culture War over homosexuality is the answer to wimpy evangelicals who seem to have forgotten that they are defending God's clearly-revealed Truth on this moral issue.

Here is Part Two of AFTAH’s June 12, 2010 interview with Matt Barber (CLICK HERE). (Listen to Part One HERE, or any other past interview HERE.) Barber is the Director of Cultural Affairs for the Liberty Counsel and an Associate Dean at Liberty University’s School of Law — where he will be teaching a course on “Sexual Behavior and the Law” this Fall. Barber and AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera discussed the upcoming Americans For Truth Academy and the hysterical opposition to it by homosexual radicals like Joe Jervis (who claims the Academy will “foster violence” against homosexuals). At the Truth Academy, to be held outside Chicago Aug 5-7, Barber will be lecturing on, among other things, a “Non-defensive approach to the issue of homosexuality.” Speaking of which, the two discuss the current malaise of evangelicals on the homosexuality issue — including Andy Marin’s preposterous call for a “moratorium” in churches on preaching against the sin of homosexuality.

Toward the end of the interview, Barber, author of the “The Right Hook: From the Ring to the Culture War,” discusses the homosexual activist movement (failed) attempt to open up blood donations to homosexual men — despite the well-documented linkage between male-on-male sex and various sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. You will want to pass this interview on to your friends!

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file.  Left click on the link below to play.  (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment to load.) OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

6-12-10, Matt Barber, All