| Home | About | Issues | Resources | Join Our Email List | Savage Hate | Donate | Contact |
Biased Media Polls Promote Homosexuals in the Military
July 23rd, 2008“Should the military require, as a matter of policy, forced cohabitation between heterosexuals and homosexuals in all military units, including the infantry, Special Operations Forces, and submarines?”
— Elaine Donnelly positing the common-sense poll question that liberal media polls refuse to ask.
_________________________________
Open homosexuality will undermine military morale. Straight soldiers should not be forced to cohabitate with people who define themselves as sexually attracted to the same-sex.
More Media for Gays in the Military
National Review’s Online Military Blog, “the tank”
Sunday, July 20, 2008
By Elaine Donnelly
The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, released on July 19, 2008, is typical of recent polls of civilians on this issue. Surveys such as this both reflect and help shape public opinion, as part of a relentless perception management campaign that has been going on for years.
The Washington Post/ABC News poll is less than persuasive because it includes two questions that demonstrate how misinformation and diversionary questions can affect the results of polls. Question #33 reads:
“[D]o you think homosexuals who do NOT publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?” (Responses: Yes, 78%, No, 18% No Opinion, 5%)
Question #34:
“[D]o you think homosexuals who DO publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?” (Responses: Yes, 75%, No, 22%, No Opinion 3%)
These two inquiries do not frame the real issue: Should the military require, as a matter of policy, forced cohabitation between heterosexuals and homosexuals in all military units, including the infantry, Special Operations Forces, and submarines? Instead, the questions use confusing double negatives, which end with the phrase “or not?” It is difficult to find a clear statement in the poll on which to state an opinion.
The questions suggest that the main issue is being “undisclosed” or “disclosed” as a homosexual in the military. On the contrary, the true key issue is eligibility to serve, not disclosure of homosexuality. Inquiries also use the permissive word “allowed,” not the more accurate term, “required,” as in “Should members of the military be required . . . ?” Instead, the poll focuses only on the desires of homosexuals who want to serve in the military. The issues of military discipline, morale, and readiness are not mentioned at all.
Click here to read the rest of Donnelly’s NRO article: “More Media for Gays in the Military”
Catholic Priest Describes Crisis Caused by ‘Same-Sex Celibacy’
July 23rd, 2008
MILITARY MEN AS HOMOSEXUAL SEX OBJECTS? Above is an ad for one of the many “gay” military-oriented porn websites: American male soldiers do not bunk and shower with women; should they be forced to shower and bunk with men who identify themselves as sexually attracted to other men? TAKE ACTION: call 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 or contact your U.S. Representative and Senators online to voice your opposition to opening up the military to homosexuality. Read below about how homosexual men with their same-sex attractions compromised the Catholic practice of priestly celibacy.
Allyson Smith of AFTAH sends along this compelling essay with obvious parallels to putting homosexual men in the military. Rev. James Haley’s logic presumably would extend to (public) restrooms — not just for the “transgendered” but for all suffering from what some are calling “same-sex attraction disorder.” Rev. Haley of The Roman Catholic Faithful writes in “The Real Story about Celibacy”:
Excerpted from the article by Rev. Haley:
The Real Story about Celibacy
…By assigning religious men to live only with men, and religious women to live only with women, the bishop or abbot is apparently also following the tradition and moral prudence, or one can more properly say, the moral necessity, of keeping religious men and women separated from one another – a very prudent practice because, in the words of an honest speaker concerning human nature and Christian love: “There is nothing more naturally attractive for a Christian man in love with God, than a Christian woman in love with God.”
But that same-sex living assignment quickly and clearly runs seriously afoul when the sexual orientations and desires are reversed from their norm and, even more so, when those sexual orientations remain hidden from the outside world – that leads to the very improper, imprudent and secret situation that the Church was trying to prevent. In other words: There is nothing more “naturally” attractive for a homosexual man in love with God, than another homosexual man in love with God.
So ironically, tragically, inexplicably, it is the Church itself, the model and guide to moral life, that is encouraging, advocating and requiring the perpetual near occasion of sin for homosexual priests, and, in turn, creating an extremely uncomfortable situation for the heterosexual priests who are not interested in forming one of those personal, lifelong, secret, exclusive, intimate and emotionally fulfilling relationships with other men. And this non-interest from the heterosexual priest is a frequent cause of alienation, resentment and bitterness from the homosexual priests who would prefer to live with, and associate with, other homosexual priests, especially when so many other homosexual priests are afforded that “secret” privilege. In simple terms: the straight priest is neither wanted nor welcome among the homosexual priests….
Click HERE to read the full article, “The Real Story about Celibacy”
What Would George Washington Think of Homosexuals in the Military?
July 23rd, 2008Building public acceptance of homosexuality is coincident with a general moral unraveling of our society, with all its destructive consequences
Star Parker makes a great point here: the undeniable reality that momentum is on the side of the homosexual activists does not make their agenda a good thing for America. Historically, societies in which sexual immorality flourishes are unhealthy, declining societies, so don’t buy the Left’s definition of “progress.” — Peter LaBarbera
______________
By Star Parker, founder and president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), July 23, 2008
For the first time since the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law was enacted in 1993 by President Clinton, the House Armed Services Committee has scheduled hearings to review it. The law disqualifies gays from serving in the military.
Individuals are deemed gay, according to this ruling, if they publicly state so. However, the military is prohibited from asking. Thus, “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Activists are now pushing for change to allow gays to serve openly.
We can anticipate a technical discussion. Does the presence of openly gay soldiers undermine cohesiveness of units, morale, and discipline? How would retention rates of troops or enlistments be affected?
We can be sure, though, that a discussion about the general moral implications of such a policy will not take place.
Read the rest of this article »
C-SPAN to Televise Donnelly’s Testimony on Gays in the Military
July 22nd, 2008
TAKE ACTION: Call your U.S. Congressman and Senators (House: 202-225-3121; Senate: 202-224-3121) or e-mail them and voice your opposition to opening up the armed forces to open homosexuality — a misguided proposition anytime but especially during a time of war. From the Center for Military Readiness:
July 22, 2008
C-SPAN television network will televise tomorrow’s hearing on gays in the military before the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee.
CMR President Elaine Donnelly and Brian Jones, a former Army Sergeant Major, Ranger and Delta Force soldier will testify tomorrow in support of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. The Center will provide new information about the consequences of repealing the 1993 law, which is frequently mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and will address the implications of taking the so-called “civil rights” argument to its logical conclusions. CMR also will refute all of the usual arguments raised by homosexual activists who want to impose their agenda on the military. All Washington area Friends of CMR, their families and other supporters are strongly encouraged to attend.
WHO: Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness
Sergeant Major Brian Jones, USA (Ret.), Former Army Special Operations
WHAT: Testimony before the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommitte on the
law stating that homosexuals are ineligible for military service
WHEN: Wednesday, July 23, 2 PM
WHERE: Room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Read Phil Magnan’s “15 Reasons Why Homosexuality Is Wrong and Hurts Society”
July 21st, 2008
Phil Magnan of Biblical Family Advocates.
We’re just getting back from a trip that offers more evidence why homosexuality is wrong and harmful to children. Meanwhile, take a read of Phil Magnan’s report, “15 Reasons Why Homosexuality is Wrong and Hurts Society.” Phil is the founder of Biblical Family Advocates, based in San Diego. I just met him in person for the first time and came away impressed by his love for people, including those practicing homosexuality, and his love for God’s truth and His heart on this issue. Check out BFA’s report. — Peter LaBarbera
Buy Exxon Gas — this Corporation Doesn’t Pander to the Homosexual Lobby
July 18th, 2008H/T to Jeremy Hooper of the pro-homosexuality website “Good As You” for calling to our attention this excellent video by Coral Ridge Ministries — commending Exxon-Mobil for standing strong in NOT capitulating to homosexual activist lobby. Just as Jeremy thanked us for highlighting 100-percent pro-homosexual Fortune 1000 corporations (according to the “gay” Human Rights Campaign) — so he and his “GLBT” readers could reward these companies with their spending — we thank Jeremy for reminding us why pro-family Americans should patronize Exxon-Mobil gas stations.
Buying gas is painful these days — and there’s much resentment against the Big Oil companies, Exxon included. But if you’re going to pay ridiculous prices at the pump anyway, why not reward a company that refuses to buckle to the aggressive and intolerant Homosexual Lobby? While you’re at it, follow the video’s advice (or go to Exxon’s Contact Page HERE) and commend Exxon Mobil’s executive team, while politely urging them not to give in to the homosexual activists.
Chicago Media Black Out McDonald’s Boycott Press Conference
July 17th, 2008Nearly 200,000 have signed AFA’s “BoycottMcDonalds.com” petition
CLICK ON PHOTO TO ENLARGE. Chicago’s CBS TV affiliate fields a float every year at the city’s bawdy homosexual “pride” parade, but CBS and other major Chicago secular media were no-shows at AFTAH’s pro-family coalition press conference yesterday highlighting a huge and growing pro-family boycott of McDonald’ s (based outside Chicago). McDonald’s was given a high 85% rating by a homosexual lobby group for its pro-homosexuality and pro-transsexuality policies. Photo courtesy Illinois Family Institute.
Dave Diersen, an Illinois Republican activist, has provided a summary of the coverage of our press conference in front of McDonald’s’ world headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois. Predictably, I suppose, we were completely blacked out by Chicago’s and Illinois’ major media — which had no excuse since they were inundated with press releases about the event by four pro-family organizations taking part: Americans For Truth, American Family Association, Illinois Family Institute and Liberty Counsel. It appears that the Fox News item below came from AP.
So once again the major media are doing the work of the homosexual lobby. Many in the media have decided that the “gay” issue is settled, and the homosexual activists have won. (Remember when Big Media thought the abortion issue was pretty much over?) Yesterday’s non-coverage was appalling journalism, even by corrupt Chicago standards. Clearly, the boycott story is compelling — even from a pure business perspective: already, nearly 200,000 people have signed AFA’s boycott petition (www.boycottmcdonalds.com).
The people involved in this boycott of McDonald’s are good family people — not vegans, America-hating leftists, or some other fringe group. And the idea really seems to be catching on. As I said yesterday, millions and millions of Americans have had it with the elite media’s and pop culture’s promotion of homosexuality, but they don’t know what to do about it. Boycotting McDonald’s, an easy target but admittedly not the worst corporate offender — PepsiCo Foundation recently gave $500,000 to the homosexual group Human Rights Campaign Foundation, compared to McDonald’s $20,000 to the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce — is something simple to do to stand up for marriage and the natural family.
More coming on this story. — Peter LaBarbera
P.S. Most major Chicago media either field floats or participate in the annual Chicago “Gay Pride” parade, and the local ABC affiliate televises it (see photo above). Now there’s some “news” with wide appeal in Chicagoland!
______________________________
Read the rest of this article »
California Homosexual Activists Lose in Bid to Deny Voters a Say on Counterfeit ‘Marriage’
July 16th, 2008Apparently California’s homosexual activists are afraid of a vote in November on an amendment that would ban same-sex “marriage” in the state. Hopefully, that’s a good indication that they will lose that crucial vote. The “gay” attempt to deny democracy is nothing new: for years, homosexual militants have attempted to deny popular votes on homosexual issues in various states, at times resorting to dirty tactics like harassing pro-family petition-gatherers for state ballot initiatives. To them, the end justifies the means. — Peter LaBarbera
The San Francisco Chronicle reports today:
State high court refuses to remove same-sex marriage ban from ballot
The state Supreme Court refused today to remove a proposed ban on same-sex marriage from the November ballot.
The initiative, Proposition 8, is a state constitutional amendment that would overturn the court’s May 15 ruling allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry in California.
Gay-rights advocates sued June 19 to block a vote on Prop. 8, arguing that the measure would destroy fundamental rights that can’t legally be abolished by an initiative.
Noting that the Supreme Court’s ruling relied on the constitutional rights of privacy and equal protection, they argued that a repeal would amount to a revision of the Constitution – something that requires approval of two-thirds of the state Legislature before going to the voters.
Sponsors of Prop. 8 replied in court papers that their opponents were trying to deprive Californians of their right to change their own Constitution.
The court dismissed the case today in a unanimous order, without comment.
Center For Morality
2783 Martin Rd.
#327
Dublin, OH 43017
