| Home | About | Issues | Resources | Join Our Email List | Savage Hate | Donate | Contact |
Quote: Lying “Gay” Guy Tells Sex Partners He’s HIV-Negative
March 7th, 2007“(A friend of mine recently told me about a guy he knew that was [HIV] positive
but would tell guys [potential sex partners] he was negative …
That guy was always surprised at how many people actually just took his word for it). Argh!”
— Homosexual writer Ramon Johnson, advice columnist for “About Gay Life,”
an online feature of www.About.com, which is part of The New York Times Company
posted March 6, 2007
Matt Barber: Did Ann Coulter Say “Bag It”?
March 7th, 2007From Did Ann Coulter say “Bag it”?, by Matt Barber, published Mar 6, 2007, by Townhall:
Lefty word-watchdogs and their allies in the mainstream media have hurt feelings … again. As per usual, liberals are frothing at the mouth in a fit of very selective, self-righteous indignation over provocative comments made by Ann Coulter and are hunting the conservative firebrand with pitchforks, torches and rope in hand.
While addressing an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last Friday, Coulter joked in her trademark fashion that, “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I – so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”
And the proverbial fan was thusly and most directly hit.
Admittedly, Coulter employed unusually abrasive and bombastic language – even for her – to make a point; but ironically, the reaction she’s getting from the left (and from some on the right) would seem to quite precisely demonstrate the apparent thrust of her prickly comments. Perhaps that was part of her intention.
Never mind that those in the “gay community” throw the word “faggot” around as a term of endearment for one another … in much the same manner as black “gangsta-rappers” break out the “N-word.” And never mind that the left constantly redefines that which is or is not a “permissible” moniker for those engaged in the homosexual lifestyle (one day “queer” is bad, and the next day “queer” is good. In fact, the latest from the PC police is that it’s now “hateful” to call a homosexual a “homosexual” – go-figure. They prefer that innocuous, cutsie and happy-go-fluffy little term “gay” if you please.)
It’s the left defining the terms, mind you. And it’s the left that further identifies who has permission to use those terms. Therefore, it’s only reasonable for them to apply that famous “progressive” double standard to Coulter. After all, she is a “hateful” conservative.
Now, don’t misunderstand: Coulter’s comments lacked civility to be sure and were entirely inappropriate. Some compare her use of the word “faggot” to use of the “N-word.”
Read the rest of this article »
What’s Going on in Freshman Advisory at Deerfield High School in Illinois?
March 7th, 2007Thanks to the courage of local parents at Deerfield High School in Illinois, this ad recently ran in the community newspaper, the Deerfield Review.
D H S
WHAT’S GOING ON IN FRESHMAN ADVISORY?
FOR MANY YEARS, HOMOSEXUAL STUDENTS HAVE BEEN
SPEAKING ON A PANEL TO ALL FRESHMAN ADVISORY CLASSES.
IT IS SCHEDULED AGAIN FOR THIS YEAR ON MARCH 6 – 9.
WE BELIEVE THESE STUDENTS ARE BEING USED TO FURTHER
THE CAUSES OF GAY ACTIVISTS IN THE HIGH SCHOOL.
-
What teachers are preparing these students to speak? What personal information are they discussing with these students? Is it appropriate to have teachers discussing personal sexual behavior and choices with students?
-
Why do they target freshman classes? Aren’t most of the students who are speaking upper classmen? Isn’t this a form of “bullying” younger students into thinking a certain way about the moral issue of homosexuality?
-
Where are your panels of “socially awkward kids,” “fat kids”, “kids with speech problems” or “handicapped kids?”
-
Since homosexuality is a high risk behavior, isn’t it irresponsible as educators to promote the “I’m okay, you’re okay” message to your students? Would you have a panel of students who are engaging in and promoting drug use, having oral sex, or underage drinking?
-
What if a freshman is uncomfortable with an “up close and personal” encounter with gay students’ stories? What are they supposed to do? Don’t you think if these students walk out, or opt out, it will cause embarrassment to them? Won’t they be labeled homophobic or heterosexist? Wouldn’t this be hate speech?
-
What about those students who have deeply held religious beliefs that homosexuality is morally wrong? Where is their panel? Do you think it’s your prerogative to teach a one-sided view to these students, undermining the teachings of their church, synagogue, or family?
-
Why have you refused, in writing, to allow a parent of a freshman to observe this class? Why did two school board members, and our superintendent, cancel a meeting to discuss this issue with parents and taxpayers, in August of 2006, and subsequently refuse to meet?
-
Last year, the gay activists in your building brought in an adult gay speaker/author who promoted his sexually graphic books and his web site that links to 43 gay bars and clubs, fetish groups, and worse. Is this a responsible action by educators? www.alexsanchez.com
-
By encouraging gay students to come even further “out,” aren’t you creating the exact situation you’re supposedly trying to prevent – making them look and feel different? Is high school a time when kids naturally want to stand out or blend in? Some of your gay students are troubled and confused. Do you think it helps when you put them on display?
-
Why is there no parental notification being given to offer an opt-out for these gay panel presentations? What else is going on in Freshman Advisory that parents don’t know about?
TO PROMOTE THEIR PERSONAL VIEWS!
If these issues concern you, please contact your District 113 School Board:
Ken Fishbain
Jeffrey Annenberg
Harvey Cohen
Joel Hurwitz
Marjie Sandlow
Bonnie Shlensky
George Fornero
NORTH SHORE STUDENT ADVOCACY
“Freedom to Marry” Mockery Held at California High School
March 7th, 2007TAKE ACTION — Send an e-mail Principal Kathy Fundukian and let her know that you object to public high school leadership allowing teenagers to mock the institution of marriage and that a public school is irresponsible to promote a lifestyle that is physically, emotionally, and spiritually destructive.
Excerpted from Gay Student ‘Weddings’ Anger California Parents, published Feb 27, 2007, by CitizenLink:
Some self-identified gay students at Glendale High School in California recently gathered in the cafeteria for fake wedding ceremonies — a school-sponsored event…
The “Freedom to Marry” event provided the couples with mock marriage certificates and included a petition drive calling on the government to allow same-sex marriage.
George Taylorson, a Glendale resident, said he’s appalled the school would allow the event.
“To encourage this type of lifestyle with kids that are 13, 14, on up, it just totally angers me and just disturbs me,” he told Family News in Focus. “The schools have a big-enough problem as it is just educating the kids without getting involved in such a highly sensitive area.”
…The goal of the ceremonies, backed by an openly gay teacher and the school’s Gay-Straight Alliance student club, was to “mock marriage.”
David Powlison on Biological Tendencies, Homosexual and Beyond
March 7th, 2007This beautifully written piece by Christian blogger Justin Taylor is well worth reading in its entirety at the website linked below…
Excerpted from Powlison on Biological Tendencies, Homosexual and Beyond, published Mar 5, 2007, by Justin Taylor on his “Between Two Worlds” blog:
In light of recent postings about the genetic causes of homosexuality, I received a helpful note from David Powlison. In the book, Psychology and Christianity: Four Views (IVP, 2000), one of the contributors to that volume, David Myers (professor of psychology at Hope College), advocates a genetic basis for homosexuality. Powlison addresses that issue in the course of his response to Myers’s essay…
The point is that our various “tendencies” are part of a complex picture of the way in which all of us — not just homosexuals — work.
Here’s the relevant section from Powlison’s essay:
…It is no surprise that people being redeemed out of homosexual lust still battle with temptations – and that some fall back. This is true of every pattern of sexual lust, not only homosexuality: a woman whose romantic-erotic fantasies are energized by reading romance novels and watching Tom Cruise in Top Gun; a man whose eyes rove for a voyeuristic glimpse down a blouse; a woman aroused by sadomasochistic activities and implements; a man obsessed with young girls. In each of these cases, lust has been patterned around a characteristic object; love will learn a different pattern in Christ’s lifelong school for reorienting the disoriented.
…I’m not familiar with the studies of female homosexuality, but let me offer an “unscientific” observation arising from pastoral experience. I’ve known many lesbians driven more by “intimacy lusts” than by the unvarnished eroticism of many heterosexual or homosexual males. In fact, most of them had once been actively heterosexual, unsuccessfully looking for love from a man or men. They eventually found that other women were similarly wired to intimacy and companionship as the context for erotic feelings. An emotional closeness initially developed that was progressively sexualized during the process of redefining oneself as a lesbian. Such a process makes lucid sense on the Faith’s analysis of the outworking and inworking of sin. And I’ve seen the fiercely tender grace of God break in, progressively rewiring some of these women. Statistics might give definition to words such as “most,” “many,” and “some.” But statistics could neither confirm nor disconfirm the point of view whose plausibility is established theologically, anecdotally, and pastorally.
…Sin is an unsearchable morass of disposition, drift, willful choice, unwitting impulse, obsession, compulsion, seeming happenstance, the devil’s appetite for souls, the world’s shaping influence, and God’s hardening of hard hearts. Of course biological factors are at work: we are embodied sinners and saints. That some people may be more prone to homosexuality is no more significant that that some may be more prone to worry.
Grace is similarly personalized. Some of God’s children find Phillipians 4:4-9 breathes particular comfort amid their besetting temptation to anxiety. Others find the Spirit pacifying their fierce temper and writing James 3:1-4:12 on their hearts. Still others find Proverbs 23:29-35 clobbers them about the madness of their heavy drinking, and that they grow wiser as they quit hanging out with old drinking buddies and spend time with new, wiser companions (Proverbs 13:20). Still others experience a keen-edged joy in earning a pay check, paying for things they once stole, and sharing money with people in need (Ephesians 4:28). Others find that Christ’s comprehensive vision for rearranging everyone’s sexuality – in the whole Bible, not just “a half dozen verses” – reaches into their particular form of disorientation, teaching them to love people, not lust after them. One and all, former neurotics, rageaholics, drunks, thieves, and gays find that truth rings true and rings with hope.
Each of us deals with what Richard Lovelace termed “characteristic flesh” (Dynamics of Spiritual Life, p. 110). Repeat temptations and instances of recidivism do not change the rules. Strugglers with indwelling sin genuinely grow in grace, but often the generic issue remains on stage in some manner throughout a person’s lifetime. Abiding struggles are no reason to throw over the Christian life which is defined as growth amid struggle unto a future perfection (1 John 3:1-3). Those being redeemed out of homosexualized lust are examples of the rule, not exceptions granted license to give up the fight and rationalize their sin.
Sex Worker “Art” Show Hosted by College of William and Mary
March 6th, 2007Recall AFTAH’s exclusive special report on the Homosexual Sex Worker Panel at “Creating Change”…
On Feb 12, 2007, at the historic College of William and Mary in Virginia, here’s what one sex worker “artist” presented to an audience of over 400:
…Jo Weldon shared her story of how a stripper job helped pay her way through college and graduate school.
Why would any institution of higher learning encourage students to imagine sex work — ie, prostitution — as a possibility for their lives? This is not “controversial” — it’s corrupting.
TAKE ACTION — For a complete listing of other universities which have or plan to host this travesty, click HERE. If you are a current student or tuition-paying parent, an alumnus or a donor, please make your objections known to the university president. Complain to your elected officials about the misuse of your hard-earned tax dollars to pay for this presentation at public universities.
——————————
Excerpted from College of William and Mary Hosts Sex Worker Show on Campus, published Feb 23, 2007, by FOX News:
The same college that recently removed a traditional cross from the campus chapel allowed a controversial sex workers’ show to come give students an event complete with stripteases, feather boas and sex toys.
The College of William and Mary in Virginia last week hosted a Sex Workers’ Art Show for a crowd of more than 400 in an auditorium in the University Center, reported The Virginia Gazette. Another 300 people were turned away.
…Money to host the event came out of student activity fees…
“I think it’s a totally inappropriate use of student funds,” Ken Petzinger, a physics professor, told the Gazette. “It’s in conflict with other values the college has.”
President Gene Nichol issued a statement saying: “I don’t like this kind of show and I don’t like having it here … But it’s not the practice and province of universities to censor or cancel performances because they are controversial.”
UK Religious Schools Must Not Teach that Homosexuality Is Sinful or Morally Wrong
March 6th, 2007Proof that homosexual “rights” will take precedence over freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech…
Excerpted from UK: Religious Schools May Not Teach Christian Sexual Morals “As if They Were Objectively True”, by Hilary White, published Mar 5, 2007 by LifeSite News:
…The Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of members from Parliament and the House of Lords, has issued a report on the implementation [in April] of the [Sexual Orientation Regulations] recommending that religious schools be required to modify their religious instruction to comply with the government-approved doctrine of “non-discrimination”.
Although religious schools will be allowed to remain open and may continue to give instruction in various religious beliefs, instruction must be modified “so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of the religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong.”
The report says the Regulations will not “prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful,” but they may not teach “a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true”.
Published February 26, the report says, “We do not consider that the right to freedom of conscience and religion requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of the sexual orientation regulations.”
…The homosexual political doctrine, accepted by the British as well as other governments, requires that no distinction be made between the person, the act and the condition or “orientation”, making any criticism of the movement’s political goals an offence against persons.
Deerfield High School Uses GLSEN’s “Lunchbox” Series — What’s in the Box?
March 6th, 2007Reminder:
Culture Campaign hosts God, Sex, and the Culture War
featuring Peter LaBarbera, Lora Sue Hauser, and Laurie Higgins
The Gay Agenda: No Child Left Behind…
Sunday, Mar 11, at 7:15 pm
at College Church in Wheaton, IL
In our post entitled Deerfield High School: Required Class for Freshmen Advocates Pro-”Gay” and Pro-”Trans” Propaganda, Lora Sue Hauser is quoted speaking of a card game with sexually deviant terms (Genderqueer, Intersexual, MSM, Transgender, Transsexual, Sex Reassignment Surgery, Transphobia, Down-Low, Cross Dressers, etc.).
That “game” is part of GLSEN’s “Lunchbox 2” which GLSEN advertises as: “A Comprehensive Training Program for Ending Anti-LGBT Bias in Schools.” Their political agenda for your children is clear — from their website:
…The GLSEN Lunchbox 2 is a way for us to begin to nourish the spirits of those who have lived with bigotry and rejection their entire lives. By offering educators a regimen of tools for breaking the silence and stereotypes around lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues, The GLSEN Lunchbox 2 brings us one step closer to a balanced and healthy school environment for all…
The GLSEN Lunchbox 2 is a comprehensive training program aimed at providing educators and community members with the background knowledge, skills, and tools necessary to make schools safer and more affirming places for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students.
This material is not intended only for high school student (which would be objectionable enough):
There are activities that will be particularly helpful for anyone who works in elementary school communities, others that will be helpful for members of middle school communities, and still other activities most appropriate for high schools.
TAKE ACTION — Is this material being used in your school? You have a right to know and to exclude your child from exposure to it. Ask nicely, and if you don’t receive an open and complete response, file a Freedom of Information request asking for copies of any GLSEN materials used in the school. And let us know what you find…
Center For Morality
2783 Martin Rd.
#327
Dublin, OH 43017
