Matt Barber on MSNBC!

Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues, recently appeared on MSNBC Live debating Harry Knox from Human Rights Campaign on comments made by Rev. Al Mohler that there is a biological basis for homosexuality. Click HERE to watch!

From Ex-“Gays” Say Science Can’t Change Morality, by Michael Foust, published Mar 20, 2007, by Baptist Press:

The leaders of two ex-gay ministries say that even if scientists someday find a biological basis for homosexuality, such behavior will nonetheless be immoral and the Bible’s condemnation of it will still stand.

Tim Wilkins (pictured left) of Cross Ministry and Alan Chambers (pictured right) of Exodus International were responding to comments by Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr., whose online article about a possible biological basis for homosexuality caused a small media storm.

Both Wilkins and Chambers say they agree with Mohler’s main point — that a biological basis would do nothing to change the discussion over homosexuality’s immorality. Wilkins and Chambers formerly were homosexual. The two men e-mailed their responses to Baptist Press.

“Many people, including evangelicals, mistakenly believe that if a ‘gay gene’ or a hormonal factor is discovered, such news would mean homosexuality is natural and thus acceptable,” said Wilkins, who is married and has three daughters. “But … natural is not normal.”

Chambers, who is married and has a son and a daughter, agreed.

“Science will never trump the word of God,” the president of Exodus International said. “We already know that we are physically, biologically and spiritually fallen creatures, so in a sense finding a biological link to homosexuality wouldn’t be a huge surprise. However, susceptibility isn’t the same as inevitability. Our genetics aren’t a tyranny over us.

“Just because something is genetic doesn’t make it moral, optimal or healthy,” Chambers added. “Research has suggested that there is a biological link to alcoholism and kleptomania, but as a society we aren’t advocating for the rights of alcoholics or those with a compulsion to steal. For that matter, neither are those who are battling those addictive behaviors.”

Excerpted from Brazilian Priests Could Face Jail-time for Saying that Homosexuality is A Sin, by Meg Jalsevac, published Mar 19, 2007, by LifeSite News:

Brazil’s Senate is currently engaged in a debate over proposed legislation that would criminalize anything deemed a condemnation of homosexuality.  The new legislation, labeled the ‘homophobia law’ would demand jail time for violations of the law and would not provide for any religious exception.

…According to ZENIT, priests who preached against homosexuality could face 3 to 5 years in jail and seminaries would not be permitted to reject applicants based on their sexual orientation.

…Exodus Brazil, the Brazilian branch of the international ex-homosexual ministry, has expressed grave concern about the law saying, “It will extinguish ex-gay ministry in Brazil for all practical purposes.”

Brazil has been a recent leader in pushing for gay rights and trumping traditional family values.  In 2005, Brazil legalized homosexual adoption.  As previously reported by LifeSiteNews.com, Brazilian ambassadors have been the driving force behind a 2006 proposal to the Organization of American States to designate sexual orientation an “inalienable right” with full human-rights protection.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Excerpted from Outlawing Conscience, by Chuck Colson, published Mar 20, 2007, by Breakpoint:

…The persecution against the Church has taken a decisive turn in the cradle of civil liberty—the United Kingdom (UK). And it will happen in America, also, if we do not wake up to the danger.

In London last month, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended regulations that would make it illegal for private, religious schools to teach that homosexual conduct is immoral…

And we know about this. Last summer, the British government closed down our IFI unit because we teach that sex should be limited to heterosexual marriage. And if these regulations violate the rights of Christians—what does the government say? “Too bad.”

Luke Gormally, a fellow at London’s Linacre Centre, a Christian bioethics institute, put it this way:

“The Committee could not be clearer in saying that they believe the freedom to live a practicing homosexual lifestyle trumps the freedom to live a religious lifestyle.”

…Last Thursday, a House of Commons committee met to decide on the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Many MPs protested the Blair government’s refusal to allow a full debate in the House of Commons. And despite repeated appeals for a postponement, the chairperson insisted on taking an immediate vote: The regulations were upheld.

Now, the Blair government is attempting to rush the law through both houses of Parliament before opponents have time to organize. The vote will take place on Wednesday.

On that day, many Christians will be found at a prayer vigil in Old Palace Yard near the entrance to the House of Lords. [TAKE ACTION –] We need to be praying with them, because it is going to take a miracle to keep this law from passing.

Continue reading at Breakpoint…

Will it go this far in America before we wake up?

From Quebec Readies All out Fight Against “Homophobia” with Pro-Gay Gov’t Ministry, Ads, Education, by John-Henry Westen, published Mar 16, 2007, by LifeSite News:

A report issued at the behest of the provincial government of Quebec directs the government to fight homopshobia and heterosexism in every sphere of public life and especially in schools.  Quebec’s Justice minister asked the Quebec Human Rights Commission to create a task force in 2005, and that group has published its report called “From legal equality to social equality: toward a national strategy to fight against homophobia.”

The report ascribes to homophobia negative consequences of what many acknowledge as problems associated with disordered sexuality.  The report says that homosexual, bisexual and transsexual persons are “a population at risk,” noting that they experience higher rates of psychological distress, depression, illegal drug use, alcoholism, and suicidal tendencies.  The report claims that these afflictions are the result of heterosexist “social stigmatization” and “homophobia.”

While psychologists who assist people to overcome disordered sexuality see many of the afflictions mentioned as symptoms of the homosexual disorder, the report uses the plight of the many people who find themselves in such heart-rending situations to urge for political action which will threaten freedom of religion and freedom of speech regarding the immorality and dangers of the homosexual lifestyle.  “The despair felt by too many young people of sexual minorities at the very significant stage of their coming out is alone enough to demand urgent action,” said Marc-Andre Dowd, vice-president of the Commission, in a press conference on the release of the document.

The report defines homophobia as “feelings of fear and aversion which certain people have toward homosexuality and people of homosexual orientation, or toward any person whose appearance or behavior does not conform to the stereotypes of the masculinity or of femininity.”

The report defines heterosexism as “the assertion that heterosexuality is the social norm or superior to other sexual orientations.”

The report calls for an all out assault on homophobia and herterosexism, going so far as to demand a separate government ministry be established to oversee the fight against homophobia.  It recommends that the new administration to fight homophobia be granted adequate resources to ensure development and implementation, and that the government engage in media campaigns to promote positive attitudes towards homosexuality and lesbianism.

By Peter LaBarbera

Flee from sexual immorality.
Every other sin a person commits is outside the body,
but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
— I Corinthians 6:18

Warning: Honest yet offensive descriptions of supposedly “moral” homosexual sex acts follow.

I am fascinated by the media debate launched by Gen. Pace’s simple and true statement that homosexual acts are immoral. Post-modern (read: post-Christian) liberals — who think they’re smarter than the rest of us — are apoplectic, but my heart is lifted. Isn’t moral clarity wonderful? The alternative to Pace’s honest agreement with God’s morality (no polls here) is Sen. John Warner’s and other pandering politicians’ — and the media’s — moral confusion.

If homosexual acts are not immoral, then are they moral? I know it’s disgusting, but think for a moment about what homosexual sodomy is: Dr. John Diggs says it’s almost as if anal sex “was created to spread disease.” “Gay” writer Jack Hart states that “some practices common among gays — especially rimming [“orally stimulating the anus,” according to another “gay” enthusiast] and anal intercourse — are highly efficient ways of transmitting disease.”

Highly efficient at transmitting disease… makes sense. What is immoral and unnatural is also often very dangerous. Turns out that deviant sex and normal sex are not “equal.”

Yet our schools are telling kids that “being gay” is fine — come join our “Gay/Straight Alliance” school club! Now that’s immoral.

We should demand answers from the equivocating politicians and agnostic media: is it moral for men to engage in anal sodomy with one another? Is it moral for a man to stick his sex organ in the anus or mouth of another man? What about licking another man’s anus, as an act of pleasure? (Again, “rimming” … yuck…. no wonder “gay” advocates call this the “ick factor” and avoid publicly discussing actual homosexual behaviors like the plague.)

Is “sex” between women — sadly, a popular feature in straight male pornography — moral? Is it moral when lesbians use “sex toys” to mimic normal sex or anal sex?

Are you starting to see why the other side would rather be talking in euphemisms — equality, discrimination, “sexual orientation,” “same-sex love” and “gay” — rather than the morality of homosexual acts?

And do you see why they are desperate to block messages about healthy and happy ex-“gays,” like my friend Stephen Bennett or ex-lesbian Charlene Cothran, from reaching the public?

Of course, typical of situational ethics, the same “gay” activists who scold us for “inequality” and “discrimination” have no problem — at least for now — discriminating against the “polyamory” activists who yearn for multiple-partner marriages.

Upon what authority?

Another question for the “gays” and their allies: on what basis do you declare sex acts between persons of the same sex moral (not immoral)? Please tell us so we can instruct our children and appropriately re-configure our Bibles — like “gay” actor Ian McKellen, who rips out the parts of the Bible condemning homosexuality from the Gideon Bible when he stays at hotels.

“The body is not meant for sexual immorality,
but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.”
— I Corinthians 6:13

The liberals’ and libertarians’ folly is that they pretend to have greater authority than God to decide these issues. (Sadly, a large chunk of America has also lost its fear of God: a new Culture & Media Institute survey found that only 52 percent of U.S. respondents “say they believe the Bible is God’s authoritative word” on how to live.) But the secularists have nothing to substitute for Biblical truth but lies and ideologies that hurt people. (Another “gay” activist, Bob Hattoy, who made a famous anti-Reagan, anti-Bush speak at the Democrats’ ’92 convention, died prematurely of AIDS — at 56 — last week.)

We spend so much time crafting palatable “public policy” positions that we almost forget that homosexuality is first and foremost a moral issue. Clear messages like Gen. Pace’s, backed by reason, will turn idealistic young people’s minds back toward the truth. Let’s make our policy arguments, to be sure, but shed our defensiveness and be clearly moral, yet humble, like Gen. Pace.

Moral-minded people owe the good general a debt of gratitude for having the courage in this cowardly and confused age to speak the Truth and publicly agree with God about immoral homosexual acts.

From Was It Something I Said?, by Dr. Albert Mohler, published Mar 16, 2007:

Well, never doubt the power of the media. My recent article on homosexuality ignited a firestorm in the public square. Why? We may never know — but the controversy represents both a challenge and an opportunity.Several thoughts:

I must admit much frustration about the way many in the media have handled the issue. Headlines proclaimed “Seminary President Says Babies Born Gay” — something I neither believe nor said. Other articles and reports claimed that I suggested that homosexuality may be genetic in origin and that genetic therapies should be used to create customized and corrected babies. I never even mentioned genetic therapies or germ-line experiments, and I am adamantly opposed to genetic therapies of such a sort — real or hypothetical. Reading these reports and headlines was a painful and exasperating experience. If I believed those things attributed to me, I would not agree with myself and would condemn myself…

God’s condemnation of sin is not determined by science, but by God’s Word. The Bible could not be more clear — all forms of homosexual behavior are expressly condemned as sin. In so doing the Bible uses its strongest vocabulary and places this condemnation in the larger context of the Creator’s rightful expectation of our stewardship of the sexual gift. All manifestations of homosexuality are thus representations of human sinfulness and rebellion against God’s express will. Nothing can alter this fact, and no discovery in science or any other human endeavor can change God’s verdict…

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 the Apostle Paul condemns an entire list of sins, including explicit references to homosexuality. Then he reminds the church, “such were some of you.” The complete text reads: “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” [1 Corinthians 6:11]. God brings glory to himself through the salvation of sinners — and Paul includes homosexuality in that list…

Continue reading at Dr. Mohler’s Blog…

From The View from the Bottom, by Robert Knight, published Mar 16, 2007, by WorldNet Daily:

The girls on “The View” are unanimous: Homosexuality is not only morally right but probably ought to be encouraged if we want to keep our military strong.OK, maybe mandating homosexuality in the military won’t fly just yet. For now, the ABC morning show’s talkers will have to be content fighting amongst themselves as to who is more outraged by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace, who told the Chicago Tribune that homosexuality, like adultery, is immoral.

The gals were in good media company. Not one of Tuesday’s morning or evening news shows on ABC, NBC or CBS featured a single person defending the general’s remarks. The tone was overtly hostile, with stories moving smartly through a laundry list of talking points found on homosexual activist groups’ websites. The Washington Post managed a March 13 trifecta: an editorial, “The Right to Serve,” an op-ed by Republican homosexuality booster and former Wyoming Sen. Alan K. Simpson, “Bigotry That Hurts Our Military,” and a news article by Ann Scott Tyson, “Sharp Drop in Gays Discharged From Military Tied to War Need.”

It’s not as if the American people are clamoring for the military to welcome open homosexuality. Despite some profoundly distorted polls like the recent Zogby survey of military personnel, a large segment of the American people believe, as Gen. Pace does, that homosexual behavior is immoral. According to the Cultural and Media Institute’s National Cultural Values Survey released on March 7, which polled 2,000 demographically representative Americans, 49 percent say flatly that homosexuality is “wrong.” Only 14 percent of Americans say homosexuality is “right.” The stampede to end the ban isn’t coming from the public, but from the media and some liberal politicians backed by the homosexual lobby.

On “The View,” the ladies opened the March 13 program by trashing the general, who wasn’t there to defend his honor.

Nor was anyone else inclined to do so, even designated “conservative” Elizabeth Hasselbeck. She openly wondered whether Pace harbors vices of his own that drove him to say what he did. This is a standard homosexual propaganda technique: Attribute dark motives to anyone who won’t salute the rainbow flag. You can look it up in their strategy manual, a book entitled “After the Ball.”

Rosie O’Donnell, a famous out lesbian, predictably came unglued. Over the past few years, she has defined herself primarily by her sexual behavior, and then claimed that people with moral qualms about homosexuality are bigots who are assailing her identity.

Here are portions of the five-minute discussion:

Joely Fisher: “We need to open General Pace’s closet and see what’s in there.”

Joy Behar: “Do you think people who are homophobic are gay closeted cases themselves?”

Fisher: “Or sexually repressed or uncomfortable with their own sexuality in any way?”

O’Donnell: “So if you are a gay person you are immoral. You are innately bad. You are less than, because you are gay. It’s like saying all lefties are witches.”

Hasselbeck: “He likened it to adultery, an adulterous person in the armed services would face some sort of punishment or some sort of slap on the wrist. …”

Fisher: “But it’s OK to kill people.”

Behar: “If you’re saying it’s immoral the way adultery is, then let gay people get married. Then it won’t be immoral.”

O’Donnell: “Can you be a straight person who is a horrible person, who is adulterous and has no morals?”

Fisher: “And have a leg up”

O’Donnell: “But it’s impossible for a gay person ever to be treated equal, which is the premise of this country, that all men and women are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, all people, even the gay ones. (Bares her teeth, shouts) General Pace, wake up! It’s 2007. There’s a war on! Leave the gays alone!” (applause)

After Rosie’s outburst, Hasselbeck explained why everyone doesn’t just go ahead and cheerfully accept homosexuality as moral:

“What happens is there’s this group of, you know, religious believers, be it Christian or whoever, who believe certain sins are worse than others. They do believe homosexuality is a sin, because they are not guilty, guilty of it, then they say, ‘It’s not my sin so I will focus on that,’ then pretty much hide the fact that I’m guilty of some other things as well.”

Later, she opined that, “We should not judge one another. I feel that’s the root of Christianity. You shall not judge.”

Does that mean we’re not to judge adultery? Promiscuous sex? Polygamy? Prostitution?

Inquiring Viewers want to know.