| Home | About | Issues | Resources | Join Our Email List | Savage Hate | Donate | Contact |
The ‘Gay’ Presidential Debate Is a Sham
July 26th, 2007
MTV’s “gay” LOGO network is sponsoring the homosexual presidential debate August 9th.
By Peter LaBarbera
In trying to put into perspective the stunning yet sad news of the first-ever “gay” activist-sponsored presidential “debate” — to be held in Los Angeles on August 9, and aired over the MTV-owned homosexual network LOGO — we ask: when is the follow-up debate for those advocating sex outside marriage? (After all, people once said to be “living in sin” are now a sizeable minority in America.) How about one tailored specifically to the pro-drug legalization crowd? Is a Planned Parenthood-sponsored debate, complete with Gloria Steinem as lead questioner, around the corner?
Pardon our dismissive tone, but homosexual behavior is wrong — at least half the country still regards it as such. It is one of several sexual sins opposed by God (can I still say that without being charged with a “hate crime”?). Because same-sex acts are so unnatural, they can be highly destructive — witness the high percentage of AIDS cases — 71 percent — linked to MSM (“men who have sex with men”). Homosexuality is also changeable, as testified by the many men and women who once proudly identified as “gay” or “lesbian” but who have walked away from homosexuality and are living happy lives today.
We know that it’s not Politically Correct to say these things. Fine, but last I heard, God is not rewriting His moral code according to the dictates of the Democratic Party. Or the GOP, or even the smug scribblers on the Washington Post’s editorial pages, for that matter. For the record, He hasn’t declared unborn babies mere blobs of tissue, either — though many politicians and reporters would love to be rid of that moral irritant.
So why does the homosexual lobby get its own special presidential lovefest … er, debate? Because the Democratic Party has sold its soul on homosexuality. And we fear some in the Republican Party are rushing to catch up.
The “gay presidential debate” is so wrong on so many levels. The country is still divided on homosexuality — despite the media’s best efforts — yet all the questions presumably will come from ardently pro-“gay” advocates — that is, proud, practicing homosexuals.
One of the reported questioners is lesbian rock star Melissa Etheridge. Another is Joe Solmonese, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, the world’s biggest “gay” lobby organization and a group that regularly disparages people of faith opposed to homosexuality as haters and bigots. Yep, lots of journalistic objectivity here.
Will there be a corresponding, “gay”-positive GOP presidential debate — hosted by the Log Cabin Republicans? Where does the pandering end? Who represents the tens of millions of Americans who morally object to homosexuality, and who stand to lose their religious and First Amendment freedoms if HRC’s radical agenda is enacted? (I hereby volunteer my services as a conservative questioner if the organizers care to make a pretense of journalistic objectivity.)
Even if one could conceive of a reason to have a “homosexual presidential debate,” why would the questioners all be of the liberal-left persuasion? (I confess I don’t know much about Etheridge’s political leanings, but how about at least including a “gay” libertarian like Rick Sincere to mix things up?) Is there any doubt that HRC is sponsoring this debate to push the candidates further toward embracing its radical statist agenda, including “gay marriage,” “hate crimes” and “transgender rights”?
“We’re honored to give the presidential candidates an historic opportunity to share their views directly with the LGBT audience,” says Brian Graden, President, Entertainment, MTV Networks Music Group, and President of LOGO. “This forum continues MTV Networks’ tradition of engaging vital niche audiences with voting and the electoral process.”
Three clues as to which oversized “niche audience” is getting the shaft this presidential campaign season. (Here’s one clue: LOGO’s and HRC’s websites will be taking questions from the public for the debate, but somehow I don’t think a social conservative’s question will make it on air.)
The MTV-LOGO debate is a sham, but the sad thing is: if “mainstream” journalists were substituted for the homosexual activist questioners, the tenor of the evening likely would remain the same. Because these days it’s getting harder and harder to distinguish between the “gay”-cheerleading media and “gay” activists themselves.
Homosexual Man Wins ‘Discrimination’ Case against Church of England
July 26th, 2007
Will the Church of England be forced to hire John Reaney, a homosexual man, as a youth worker despite its beliefs about sex and marriage?
We’ll have much more on this case and other cases evincing the growing threat of homosexual legal activism to basic religious freedoms:
Bishop Loses Gay Employment Case
BBC, July 18, 2007
A gay man has won his case for unlawful discrimination after he was refused a youth official’s job by a Church of England bishop.
The employment tribunal said John Reaney, 42, was discriminated against “on grounds of sexual orientation” by the Hereford diocesan board of finance.
Mr Reaney, from Colwyn Bay, Conwy, said he was “delighted” at the decision.
The Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, said he was “naturally disappointed” and may appeal.
During the tribunal in Cardiff in April, Mr Reaney said he was questioned by Bishop Priddis on his previous gay relationship during a two-hour meeting on 19 July 2006
It came after he was told he had emerged as the outstanding candidate for the job during an eight-man interview, the hearing heard.
Mr Reaney, whose case was supported by Stonewall, also told the tribunal he was left “very embarrassed and extremely upset” following the meeting and said he felt like “a total waste of space”.
During his evidence, Bishop Priddis said he had made clear to Mr Reaney that a person in a committed sexual relationship outside of marriage, whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender, would be turned down for the post.
But the tribunal found that the bishop should only have considered the present lifestyle of Mr Reaney, who is single, and he should have not questioned his future relationships.
Delivering the judgement, the tribunal said the case would now be listed for a remedy hearing.
“The respondents discriminated against the claimant on the grounds of sexual orientation,” said the judgement.
To read the full BBC story and watch related BBC videos on the case, click HERE
Why Not the ‘Mary Stachowicz Hate Crime Act’? Killer Nicholas Gutierrez Escapes Death Penalty
July 18th, 2007TAKE ACTION: Call your Senators at 202-224-3121 or e-mail them at www.congress.urg and ask them to reject the “Hate Crimes” amendment that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) cynically added to the National Defense Authorization Act.
Mary Stachowicz: not the right kind of victim to the media
We favored the death penalty for alleged homosexual Nick Gutierrez for murdering Mary Stachowicz — and then effectively blaming her for “attacking” him (see story below) — just as we called for the death penalty for Matthew Shepard’s killers. But isn’t it interesting how the media have devoted so much coverage over the years to the heinous crime against Matthew, and so little to that against Mary? (Associated Press failed to even cover Gutierrez’s trial.)
How can reporters, producers and editors justifty their double-standard? These days it can be presumed that the Fourth Estate will lavish coverage on “gay” victims, while pious victims like Mary often get ignored. And it seems the media have even less interest in the latter when the murderer is a homosexual — imagine AP ignoring a story about a ‘christian’ who killed a lesbian and stuffing her in his crawl space? I cannot.
In a way, the media’s blatant pro-homosexual bias in covering terrible crimes shows the perils of the “hate crimes” concept in general — both affirm a politically correct hierarchy of victims that is unjust and un-American, no matter how well-intended. Surely, press bias also helps to perpetuate the lopsided prosecution of “hate crimes” against approved classes of victims (like Shepard) by mobilizing government resources through the pressure-generating power of the media spotlight.
The homosexual lobby named its “thought crimes” bill the “Matthew Shepard Act” — even though he wasn’t killed “just because he was gay,” as the liberal myth goes. But there will never be a “Mary Stachowicz Act” because in the eyes of the same liberals, she was not the right kind of victim.
Call your Senators at 202-224-3121 or e-mail them at http://www.congress.urg/ and ask them to reject the “Hate Crimes” amendment that Sen. Ted Kennedy tacked on to the Naional Defense Authorization Act. — Peter LaBarbera
____________________________
Nicholas Gutierrez, murderer of Mary Stachowicz, deserves death penalty but gets life in prison
By Allyson Smith, Americans For Truth
CHICAGO — Nicholas Gutierrez, who in November 2002 gruesomely murdered Mary Stachowicz, a devout Chicago Catholic mother of four, was sentenced July 3 to life in prison, even though his crime made him eligible for the death penalty. The sentence was handed down by Cook County Circuit Judge William Lacy following sentencing arguments made by defense and prosecution attorneys the previous week.
“I think the judge was fair, but as the daughter of the victim, knowing what he [Gutierrez] did to my mother, he absolutely, 100 percent deserved the death penalty,” Angie Ruffolo, Mrs. Stachowicz’s daughter, told the Chicago Tribune.
Last November, Gutierrez, who had worked with Mary Stachowicz at the F. J. Sikorski Funeral Home on Chicago’s Northwest side, was convicted of sexually assaulting and murdering her. Days after her murder, authorities found Stachowicz’s raped, battered, stabbed and strangled body in a crawl space beneath the floorboards of Gutierrez’s apartment above the mortuary.
Read the rest of this article »
Listen to AFA Report: LaBarbera Condemns Dems’ Presidential Debate on ‘GLBT’ Issues
July 18th, 2007From American Family Association’s OneNewsNow news. Click HERE for a link to OneNewsNow where there is an audio link to this story:
A pro-family activist says the frontrunners for the Democratic presidential nomination are “pandering to the gay lobby” by agreeing to take part in a televised debate moderated by homosexual activists.
The top three Democratic presidential candidates … plan to take part in a one-hour debate August 9 devoted solely to “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender” (GLBT) issues. The debate will be televised live from Los Angeles on the Viacom-owned homosexual television network “LOGO.”
According to Peter LaBarbera, director of Americans for Truth Action, Joe Solmonese — president of the Washington, DC-based Human Rights Campaign, one of the country’s most powerful homosexual activist groups — will be moderating the debate. HRC is coordinating the debate through a partnership with LOGO.
“The whole thing is structured to be pro-homosexual — and one wonders what candidates are doing to be sensitive to the pro-family people who still believe homosexuality is wrong,” exclaims LaBarbera.
The family advocate notes that polls that are “probably politically correct” show that half the country still believes homosexual behavior is wrong. “[The percentage is] probably much higher than that,” LaBarbera says, “but this is just astonishing that this development is happening and it’s being treated as a serious debate.”
The White House hopefuls will be asked questions by a panel that includes Solmonese and lesbian singer Melissa Etheridge. Questions will reportedly cover topics such as same-sex “marriage,” “hate crimes” legislation, and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. One news report indicates individuals will also be able to submit questions online.
LaBarbera calls the debate “one of the most extraordinary developments in our country’s history.” He laments the societal mindset from which such an event would even occur.
“A debate framed from a pro-homosexual perspective — when homosexual behavior, for centuries, [for] thousands of years, was regarded as deeply sinful by Christians and people who believe in God,” he says. “It’s just astonishing. I’m waiting for the adultery presidential debate or maybe the pro-drug use presidential debate.
“Who ever heard of framing a presidential debate around a sin?” he asks.
We Can Only Hope: Lesbian Deb Price Fears ‘Gay’ Losses in Supreme Court
July 18th, 2007We hope that openly lesbian Detroit News Columnist Deb Price is correct and that her homosexual activist comrades have much to fear in the direction of the Supreme Court. However, it is frightenng to think that so much is riding on decisions of swing Justice Anthony Kennedy — who in his opinions (e.g., Lawrence v. Texas) has often seemed more interested in pleasing the editorial writers at the New York Times than being faithful to the Constitution.– Peter LaBarbera
From Price’s column July 16:
Court threatens to burn fragile protections
In 1992, vacationing on the big island of Hawaii, I walked toward a river of blood red lava shooting over a cliff and into the sea. I recall looking for a sign, rope or “Hawaii Five-O’s” Steve McGarrett to warn me to stop.
But a giant caution sign wasn’t necessary. The instant I knew not to step a hair’s breadth farther was when I felt the soles of my tennis shoes starting to soften.
A similarly red hot warning — “Tread closer at your own peril” — poured out from the U.S. Supreme Court this term to gay Americans.
The Roberts court — whose votes in nongay cases strongly signaled that Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito can be expected to join Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in opposing almost any imaginable gay-rights plea — is moving frighteningly close to having the five votes it would need to weaken the groundbreaking rulings of 1996 and 2003 acknowledging that gay Americans are protected by the Constitution….
“This term confirmed a lot of our fears,” says Jon Davidson, legal director at Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.
What alarmed gay rights litigators? A string of 5-4 decisions against the powerless or minorities: Rulings blocking workers from suing over sex discrimination if it’s not discovered immediately; ignoring public school students’ free-speech rights, and hampering efforts to create racially diverse schools.
To read Price’s full column, click HERE
Tax Incentives for Gender-confused Self-Mutilation?
July 17th, 2007Fox News reports the following:
A 63-year-old Boston resident is suing the IRS because it is refusing to allow a $25,000 deduction — for a sex-change operation.
Rhiannon O’Donnabhain was a married father of three — when he underwent the operation at age 57. The IRS rejected the write-off — saying the tax code does not allow deductions for cosmetic surgery unless it is medically necessary. O’Donnabhain says the surgery follows a medical diagnosis of gender identity disorder, and advocates say it should be treated like other medical procedures. They say the IRS ruling is motivated by politics and prejudice.
O’Donnabhain’s case could set a precedent for the up to 2,000 people a year who undergo sex-change surgery in the U.S.
—FOX News Channel’s Martin Hill contributed to this report.
‘Gay’ Blogger on LaBarbera: ‘I Would Have Taken Them All Out with an AK-47’
July 17th, 2007Editor’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 ]
Americans For Truth Ends Support for Dr. Holsinger: “Nation’s Top Doctor Must Tell the Truth about Homosexual Health Risks”
July 14th, 2007
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.)
Read the rest of this article »
Center For Morality
2783 Martin Rd.
#327
Dublin, OH 43017
