Americans for Truth
| Home | About | Issues | Resources | Join Our Email List | Become a Truth Team Member | Store | Donate | Contact |
20 Most Recent Articles
Michael Glatze: The Truth about Warren Throckmorton
March 10th, 2010Says Grove City College prof peddles false gospel that homosexuality “might be OK for some people”
“I have experienced Professor Throckmorton’s forked tongue, as he has pretended to seek ‘my side’ of the story various times, then turned around and told a biased side of the same story, in a public sphere, with the intention of discrediting my testimony and shaming my stance for Gospel truth.”
– Former homosexual activist Michael Glatze
__________________________________________________
Once "gay" turned Christian Michael Glatze
Editor’s Note: in apparent anger over Americans For Truth’s campaign to expose renegade Grove City College associate professor Warren Throckmorton’s unscriptural approach toward homosexuality, Throckmorton is questioning the accuracy of a OneNewsNow story featuring comments by AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera — including LaBarbera’s assertion that Throckmorton actively seeks to discredit bold testimonies of profound change like that of ex-”gay” Christian Michael Glatze. Below, Michael explains why he no longer trusts Throckmorton and others who “pervert the truth.” Please say a prayer of thanks for this young man who God has drawn out of homosexuality, and that God will use him mightily to proclaim truth about homosexuality in the years and decades ahead. Please also pray for Throckmorton, who as a professed Christian at an evangelical institution should not be using his authority to affirm anyone in a “gay” sexual identity. You can write either man through AFTAH at americansfortruth@comcast.net:
__________________________________________________
The Truth about Warren Throckmorton
By Michael Glatze, Special to Americans For Truth
It is funny. In this world, truth seems to almost be subjective. Then, you meet Jesus. In Jesus, truth is objective. It is from this vantage point that I write this.
Those who seek to provide some kind of intellectual “nuance” to the Gospel will, inevitably, engage in the sin of Pride. The Gospel is quite clear; and, all information about it can be found within God’s Word. Furthermore, all truth — as revealed in God’s Word — will be seen to be true in human experience, as well. Homosexuality is one of those examples.
Six years ago, I began my Christian walk. At that time, I was considered a “rising star” in the “gay rights” movement, editor of a national gay magazine, and a sought-after authority on the subject of gay youth. But, as a new Christian, I began to discover that I simply could not ignore the truth of the Gospel, no matter how difficult it may have been for my habitual, sinful nature to handle those truths. It was not easy to read things that made me feel guilty, or uncomfortable. It was not easy to go before God’s throne in humble repentance. It is still not easy to do so.
However, every time I did that, I found myself blessed — and, I found that God gave me the grace I needed to move on, to grow up, and to grow out of sinful practices that had become quite ingrained in me. This, to those who are unfamiliar, is the blessed process of sanctification. I began to understand that God’s mercy is unfathomable, yet unceasing. I began to understand that I did not have a free ride from sin and temptation, once saved. I began to feel the distance from God, whenever I followed through with a sinful temptation, or acted on that sin — i.e., the spiritual death describe so aptly in the book of James, as following the fulfillment of a sinful action.
Homosexuality, like other sins, involves the temptation to do something that is — quite simply — not necessary. To disagree with God, to say that it is OK, is to sin. And, to confess your sin is to humble yourself enough to say to God, “You were right; I was wrong.” This is an ongoing process.
A great temptation among humans is to step in-between the sinner’s relationship with God, and offer a new way out. People do this in every walk of life. People step in and say, “I know God’s Word is difficult … let me offer you an alternate way that won’t be so painful.” People do this with philosophies, with “support groups,” and with serious academic “discoveries.”
I have come across many folks, since I first came out as opposed to homosexuality, on a path through healing from homosexuality, standing on the platform of the Gospel to fight against falsehoods about homosexuality — encouraging Christians to not falter on the Gospel truth about homosexuality, and all other sins. It is not easy, nor is life — necessarily — always a walk in the park. But, we must recognize those folks who, momentarily, play Jesus, and put themselves — or, their philosophies, or the fruits of their labors — in Jesus’ place: as mediator between God and man.
Sadly, Warren Throckmorton has been one of those people. He, like so many professing Christians, peddles a false gospel about homosexual sin that includes the lie that homosexuality “might be OK for some people.” Of course this false gospel will seem preferable for many, because it requires less moral responsibility than the true gospel. But, that does not make it right.
I have experienced Professor Throckmorton’s forked tongue, as he has pretended to seek “my side” of the story various times, then turned around and told a biased side of the same story, in a public sphere, with the intention of discrediting my testimony and shaming my stance for Gospel truth. As we have all seen, throughout Christian history, it is quite easy for people to create false worlds, to skew human perception, to persecute Christian truth. Sadly, this professor at a seemingly-reputable Christian school, has engaged in these tactics, with the outcome of persecuting the very truth he supposedly is teaching, atop his perch.
I write this now, as I recognize efforts are being made to describe his indiscretions, and — undoubtedly — a war of words will ensue. All people are redeemable; I am a profound example of that truth.
As I have said in other articles, homosexual sin is a very serious trojan horse that Satan will use — and, has used — to divide and conquer. I know, through the testimony of my own life, as a gay activist and practicing homosexual, who has been delivered from the lifestyle, from the desires, and from the whole mindset, that Gospel truth WILL prevail. But, Christians must be unafraid to tell the truth, stand for the truth, and hold those accountable who pervert the truth.
God Bless You all.
Michael Glatze
AFTAH Effort to Hold Grove City College Accountable on ‘Gay’-Affirming Prof Warren Throckmorton Gains Steam
March 10th, 2010
The effort to hold self-described “authentically Christian” Grove City College and GCC associate professor Warren Throckmorton accountable on their approach toward homosexuality is gaining steam, as pro-family observers expressed disappointment in Throckmorton’s break from biblical orthodoxy on the issue. In the last few days, AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera has done several interviews with Christian-oriented media on the subject of GCC and Throckmorton, including, on Monday, American Family Association’s “One News Now” (reprinted below) and the nationally-distributed radio program “AFA Report,” hosted by Jim Brown and Ed Vitagliano.
LaBarbera was a guest today on Diane Gramley’s “American Family Focuses on Pennsylvania Issues” radio program, discussing Throckmorton’s de facto defection from the pro-family movement opposing GLBT activism. The pre-taped program airs tonight (Wed.) at 5:05 PM Eastern on Pennsylvania Christian radio WAWN-FM (89.5) out of Franklin, Penn., and reaches into several counties (it can be heard on the campus of Grove City). The program will then be available online at AFA of Pennsylvania’s website: www.afaofpa.org.
Today LaBarbera was also interviewed on the “Bob Dutko Show” in Detroit (WMUZ Christian radio). Dutko, like others who had once interviewed Throckmorton as a pro-family advocate defending the truth that homosexuals can experience profound change, expressed sadness that the GCC professor now believes most homosexuals cannot experience such change. (Writes Throckmorton: “I now believe durable change in basic attractions is very infrequent.”) Dutko agreed with LaBarbera that no faithful Christian should ever encourage a homosexual struggler in a positive “gay” identity, as Throckmorton’s (and Regent University Professor Mark Yarhouse’s) “Sexual Identity Therapy” does if such a self-identification brings about “client satisfaction.”
Tomorrow, LaBarbera will be interviewed by Martha Kleder for Concerned Women for America’s online radio program to discuss the GCC-Throckmorton-Biblical-faithfulness controversy, and on Monday he appears on Linda Harvey’s daily Christian radio show in Columbus, Ohio. Harvey is the founder and president of Mission: America, and her article on Throckmorton’s misapplication of the “Golden Rule” can be found HERE.
AFTAH has also learned that Throckmorton has been questioning the accuracy of the OneNewsNow story, and e-mailed ex-”gay” Michael Glatze regarding the accuracy of LaBarbera’s comments about Glatze below. We’ll have more from Glatze in an upcoming post.
______________________________________________
Christian college prof encourages ‘gay identity’
Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 3/10/2010
Dr. Warren ThrockmortonA conservative activist is asking a Christian college in Pennsylvania whether it supports the “sexual identity therapy” of one of its professors who is unwilling to discourage some of his clients from remaining in the homosexual lifestyle.
Dr. Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College was once a spokesperson for the ex-”gay” group PFOX (Parents and Friends of Gays and Ex-Gays) and produced a documentary titled I Do Exist, which highlighted the testimonies of former homosexuals who chose to leave that lifestyle.
But now Throckmorton is encouraging some clients to maintain their “gay identity,” even though it is at odds with scripture. In a paper he co-authored with Regent University’s Mark Yarhouse titled “Sexual Identity Therapy: Practice Guidelines for Sexual Identity Conflicts,” Throckmorton writes that “the emergence of a gay identity for persons struggling with religious conflicts is a possibility envisioned by the recommendations.”
The professor also states his therapy “respects” that “some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity.”
Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes Throckmorton has “lost his faith in God’s ability to change people.”
“Here’s the thing that troubles me the most: there are many people who have experienced profound change, and it seems sometimes Throckmorton has almost sought to downplay those individuals,” LaBarbera notes. “I talked to Michael Glatze…a young man who was once sort of a gay activist. He was held up and featured by the homosexual side, [but] Michael Glatze has left the lifestyle. He’s now going to Bible college, and he’s sort of got some hostile e-mails from Throckmorton along the idea of ‘it’s not smart to put out the idea that homosexuals can experience profound change.’”
The organization president adds that Grove City College, which bills itself as “authentically Christian,” needs to explain whether it sanctions what he calls Throckmorton’s “unorthodox, anti-biblical counseling approach.”
Ken Hutcherson: I Lost My Focus on the Family
March 10th, 2010Is Focus pulling out of the “Culture Wars”?
Dr. James Dobson
The following is excerpted from WorldNewsDaily.com. We’ve already noted Focus on the Family’s illogical and unprincipled position on judges and homosexuality [see pro-family veteran Gary Glenn's assessment HERE]. How ironic would it be if the ministry launched by James Dobson — which is now taking its biblical worldview “Truth Project” into hundreds of thousands of churches nationwide — were to suddenly lose its zeal for defending Truth against the Forces of Evil in the Culture War?! If the new, “kinder gentler” Focus translates into one that will present less of an obstacle to the wicked pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality movements, then Pastor Hutcherson is right about the direction of this ministry. It just seems implausible that after all its work to date, Focus will be able to retreat in any meaningful way from the Culture War.
We also suspect that Focus may be feeling the pull of George Barna’s polling research denigrating “religious right” activism (e.g., Barna Group President David Kinnaman’s and Gabe Lyon’s influential yet painfully shallow book UnChristian) and the appeasing liberal Christian “Emergents” — both of which appeal to younger generations of Christians who eschew the polarizing “culture war.” In that regard, Focus has a choice: does it follow the worldly culture trends driven by these new generations — who, although they probably are loathe to admit it, are indoctrinated in politically correct, “gay”-tolerant attitudes? Or does it recommit itself to educating these youth and standing boldly for timeless truths no matter where the culture is headed? (We realize there are many Christians who advocate quitting the cultural war against social evils, but they never have a good answer to this question: what about the hugely funded and powerful Homosexual, Abortion and Porn Lobbies that never quit; do we simply abandon America’s cultural/political landscape to them in a free society?)
I think Dr. Dobson would have opted for the latter, tougher course. That’s why he — like Hutcherson — is a target for hateful “queer” activists like Wayne Besen. Jim Daly may be less hated than Dobson, but that does not mean he will be more effective as a soldier in God’s Army. — Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.org
[Hutcherson column after jump…l
_____________________________________
I lost my Focus on the Family
Posted on WorldNetDaily, March 08, 2010
By Dr. Kenneth L. Hutcherson
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
I have a problem with that: I think Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
Of all the people I know, in an effort to find some semblance of reality about what really happened, I am the only one who has talked to both sides – Dr. James Dobson and Jim Daly, the new president of Focus on the Family who also represents the board.
I think that Focus does have a new focus; an image change designed to make them accepted and well-liked rather than standing for righteousness in an unrighteous society.
Dr. James Dobson is one of the most loving, committed Christian men I have ever met. I love him with all my heart, am committed to him and would take a bullet for him.
He is too gracious to ask the question, but someone has to, so I will: Why is he off the air at Focus on the Family when he and his son are starting their own radio program elsewhere so he can remain on the air?
The infusion of biblical truth into the culture over the years by Focus on the Family has been a miraculous movement of God, and all at the hands of Dr. James and Shirley Dobson.
What is this new Focus on the Family? There is a tendency after many years of success for new blood and new minds to come in with a new plan. (I’ve always thought: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!) Just because something sounds new and elegant does not guarantee it will be better.
A great example of the products currently coming out of the new Focus on the Family is the Tim Tebow ad during the Super Bowl. It said nothing. What a great opportunity that was to promote the pro-life position by revealing what abortion really is. But I guess they didn’t want to offend the world and wanted to make sure everyone loved them.
The current emphasis at Focus is on being loved and understood. I have read the entire Bible from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21 – and while it says, “The truth shall set you free,” nowhere does it say, “Sensitivity shall set you free.” What set the Focus board free to take Dr. Dobson off the air? …
I am not very happy with the new, progressive, “loving” leadership at Focus on the Family. However, it is God’s ministry, and He will do with it what He pleases….
This board will regret its decision not to honor the founder of the ministry that God ordained. I have already had many tell me where their support will go. If the board members have any guts at all, they will get this man back on the Focus radioprogram. …
We are called to be the salt of the earth, a beacon, and we are warned not to hide our light under a bushel. Focus on the Family’s light is not only under a bushel, it’s under a cloud.
The leadership had better wake up. They have made a serious mistake and they need to correct it.
Dr. Kenneth L. Hutcherson is the senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Wash. He is also a former NFL linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys and Seattle Seahawks.
Letter: Grove City Student Should Have Learned that God Disapproves of Homosexuality
March 9th, 2010Priscilla Smith writes the following concerning Grove City College student David Bier’s letter accusing AFTAH of misleading people “into the belief that God disapproves of homosexuality”:
I think Mr. Bier’s e-mail ought to come to the attention of Grove City College Board and executives, for three reasons:
- They are about to graduate a young man from their so-called Christian institution without teaching him that God not only disapproves of homosexuality, but He describes it as an abomination, unnatural, dishonorable, perversion, depravity. (What is the school’s position? What are they allowing professors to teach?) Not only is this young man either ignorant or defiant of Biblical truth, he is actually deluded into believing that those who embrace homosexuality are moral, while those who hold to the Biblical position (“homosexuality is sin”) are immoral. Isaiah 5:20 — “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” — comes to mind;
- Apparently, Throckmorton’s deceit has permeated the campus to some degree. How many GCC students are under the misapprehension that God approves of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality? (Wow, I guess only us heterosexuals are called to abstinence, sexual purity, marital fidelity?);
- This college senior cannot write a sensible paragraph. “Your unsolicited attack”? I would characterize what [Americans For Truth writes] as “exposing Throckmorton’s counseling philosophy as unbiblical” — not sure how that qualifies as “an attack.” And does Mr. Bier think that you are supposed to wait until you’re invited to comment on Throckmorton’s counseling philosophy? In that case, his own e-mail [to AFTAH] is an “unsolicited attack,” isn’t it?
Most importantly: Please advise Mr. Bier that Jesus Christ does not “accept others as they are.” The first recorded words of His public ministry were: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Priscilla Smith
__________________________
Priscilla Smith is a freelance writer based in Indiana. She can be reached through AFTAH at americansfortruth@comcast.net.
Letter: ‘Warren Throckmorton Is Doing Great Damage to Reputation of Grove City College’
March 9th, 2010Is renegade prof’s position on homosexuality the “official view of GCC”?
Editor’s Note: links have been added to the following letter sent by Steve Baldwin to Grove City College President Richard Jewell (Phone: 724-458-2500). For more contact information on GCC, go HERE.
From: “Steve Baldwin” [e-mail address withheld]
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 13:35:55 -0800
To: <rgjewell@gcc.edu>
Subject: Message from Steve Baldwin
President Jewell:
Warren Throckmorton
We’ve met before when I was the Executive Director of the Council for National Policy. I’ve been following the controversy involving your professor, Warren Throckmorton, and I have to say, Throckmorton is doing great damage to the reputation of Grove City College.
It’s bad enough having a professor who actively declares that homosexuality is just fine if the person in question is happy with himself. That is simply not biblical and you know it. It like saying alcoholics are fine the way they are as long as they’re happy with themselves.
But what’s worse is that he seems to have poisoned the minds of many of your students. The email message below is from one of your students to Peter Labarbera [of Americans For Truth] and it just made me sick to my stomach:
Your recent article on Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton is yet another of your pathetic attempts to mislead otherwise moral individuals into the belief that God disapproves of homosexuality. Your unsolicited attack on Throckmorton isn’t surprising, but you should still know that Throckmorton has the support of the student body here. Perhaps one day you will realize that the only thing doing “incalculable harm to many young people” is your ignorant and hate-inspired position on homosexuality. Throckmorton’s Golden Rule Pledge simply encourages to do as Jesus did: accept others as they are, not as we want them to be.Thanks for your time,
David Bier, Grove City College Senior
This student is saying that God does NOT disapprove of homosexual behavior and he implies that the entire student body is in agreement with this heresy. Since this has gone on for some time now, I would like to know if this is the official view of Grove City College. I’m in contact with hundreds of conservative high school students and many often ask me for my recommendations as to what colleges to attend. If this view of homosexuality is now the official view of the Grove City College, I need to know, as I will no longer be recommending Grove City College.
I look forward to your answer.
Steve Baldwin
__________________________________________
The writer (left) is the former Executive Director of the Council for National Policy, a former State Assemblyman in California, and a longtime conservative Republican activist. He and his wife Patti and their four sons live in Santee, California, outside of San Diego. You can write Baldwin through americansfortruth@comcast.net.
Grove City College Student Scolds AFTAH for ‘Misleading’ People that ‘God Disapproves of Homosexuality’
March 8th, 2010AFTAH received the following letter from a Grove City College (GCC) student via e-mail this morning. It raises serious questions about what students are being taught about homosexuality at the “evangelical” college that advertises itself as “authentically Christian.” Links to our two articles on GCC associate professor Warren Throckmorton from Friday are beneath the letter:
_____________________________________
From: “Bier, David J.” [GCC e-mail address]
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:43:31 -0500
To: <americansfortruth@comcast.net>
Subject: Article on Warren ThrockmortonDear Americans For Truth,
Your recent article on Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton is yet another of your pathetic attempts to mislead otherwise moral individuals into the belief that God disapproves of homosexuality. Your unsolicited attack on Throckmorton isn’t surprising, but you should still know that Throckmorton has the support of the student body here. Perhaps one day you will realize that the only thing doing “incalculable harm to many young people” is your ignorant and hate-inspired position on homosexuality. Throckmorton’s Golden Rule Pledge simply encourages to do as Jesus did: accept others as they are, not as we want them to be.
Thanks for your time,
-David Bier, Grove City College Senior
______________________________________
Related Americans For Truth articles:
- “Is Grove City College Still ‘Authentically Christian’ if It Abides Pro-’Gay’ Professor Warren Throckmorton and his ‘Sexual Identity Therapy’?”
- “Grove City College Prof Throckmorton Misapplies the Golden Rule on the ‘Day of Silence’”
Is Grove City College Still ‘Authentically Christian’ if It Abides Pro-’Gay’ Professor Warren Throckmorton and his ‘Sexual Identity Therapy’?
March 5th, 2010Therapeutic approach values “gay identity”
Would you want your child counseled at Grove City College? How can an evangelical Christian college like Grove City that claims to follow the Bible affirm a "gay" "sexual identity" that values "same-sex eroticism" -- especially for a person struggling in his conscience against homosexuality? The above excerpt is taken from Page 7 of GCC Professor Warren Throckmorton's (and Regent University's Mark Yarhouse's) paper, "Sexual Identity Therapy: Practice Guidelines for Sexual Identity Conflicts" (emphasis added).
TAKE ACTION: Contact Grove City College (President Richard Jewell: 724-458-2500; rgjewell@gcc.edu) and ask them if GCC professor Warren Throckmorton’s unorthodox views on homosexuality represent “authentically Christian” teachings on this issue. (GCC advertises itself as a solid, “authentically Christian” institution.) Request a written response as to whether Throckmorton’s writings on and approach toward homosexuality honor Grove City’s Christian charter “rejecting relativism and secularism.” Please share the response you receive with us at americansfortruth@comcast.net.
________________________________
By Peter LaBarbera
Folks, I had to laugh the other day when heretical Grove City College Assistant Prof Warren Throckmorton accused pro-family groups advocating a walkout on the nationwide, pro-homosexual “Day of Silence” with “mischief.” You see, “Mischief” is Throckmorton’s middle name. Here’s Warren taking a cheap shot at Americans for Truth About Homosexuality in one of his many Uganda posts. (Note how Warren sounds like … well, a “gay” activist … in cynically accusing Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa of “tak[ing] his pornography show to church”; Ssempa was using video to warn fellow Ugandan Christians about the reality of homosexuality.)
Question for Warren: is AFTAH doing a “porn show” when it exposes to the rest of America that twice a year in San Francisco, home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — third in line to be President of the United States — “tolerance” is so distorted that men are allowed to walk around publicly by the hundreds completely naked as the authorities stand idly by?
Here’s one of Throckmorton’s particularly snarky posts against Christian ex-”gay” advocate Richard Cohen (what about that Golden Rule, Warren?). The latter is a frequent target of Throckmorton’s barbs, perhaps because Cohen — unlike the Grove City professor — actually has helped many, many people experience real change and overcome homosexual desires.
There are good defectors and bad defectors in this world. Exemplifying the former are ex-”gays” like Pete Lines — whom I just interviewed for AFTAH’s new radio show — who have walked away from homosexuality toward a biblically faithful life. Warren is a bad defector. Though he works for an evangelical institution, Pennsylvania-based Grove City College, which advertises itself on faith-based websites as “authentically Christian,” Warren promotes a new, morally neutral paradigm on homosexuality that affirms people’s “Sexual Identity” according to their feelings (and comfort level with same).
As you can see above, Throckmorton’s and Regent University’s Mark Yarhouse’s “Sexual Identity Therapy” model grants the possibility that some clients may come to embrace a positive “gay identity” that “modifies” their religious beliefs in such a way as to “allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity.” Hold on…. This is wholly against Scripture: there is nothing in the Bible or the long history of Judeo-Christian tradition that even hints at ascribing a morally-neutral or worse — a “valued identity” — to sexual sin.
And Warren Throckmorton has the audacity to lecture the Ugandans about their approach toward homosexuality?
Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College
We applaud Throckmorton’s past and current work affirming homosexual strugglers’ right to live by their own religious and moral creed and seek counseling help to move away from “gayness.” But his “nonjudgmental” Sexual Identity Therapy approach affirming those who choose to embrace a “gay identity” wouldn’t pass the smell test if it were applied to any other sinful temptation. (“Doctor, I am so happy now that I’ve finally decided to embrace my core identity as a Sexual Swinger….”)
So we say to Grove City College and Regent University: let Throckmorton and Mark Yarhouse apply their “gay”-tolerant theories on their own — privately — but if you continue to allow them to do so under the auspices of GCC (or Regent) — then stop misleading people by promoting Grove City as “authentically Christian” (and Regent as “education from a Biblical perspective”).
And further questions remain: what is Professor Throckmorton teaching his students about homosexuality and the pro-homosexual activist movement? Does he counsel students struggling with homosexuality at GCC — and if so, does the school sanction his unorthodox, anti-Biblical counseling approach?
Larger Issue: Course of Modern Christianity
Understand this: Throckmorton – who was once a respected part of the pro-family movement before he lost faith in people’s ability to change and leave homosexuality behind — is not the issue. (“I now believe durable change in basic attractions is very infrequent,” he writes.) The larger issue is what is “authentically Christian” teaching on the matter of homosexuality? What is sin, how relevant is the Bible, and what is the real application of the Golden Rule? The Christian Church is at a pivotal moment regarding homosexuality: will Christians abandon Biblical orthodoxy and begin recognizing and affirming “gays,” “gay Christians,” and/or a homosexual “sexual identity” — or will they adhere to the historic Christian understanding that holds homosexual practice as sinful and which rejects the notion of a positive “identity” based on homosexual desires?
I’ll apply this high-stakes question to the most important people in my own life. If one of my sons — God forbid — came home from college one day with the revelation that he is “gay,” I wouldn’t accept that “identity” for him. Instead, I would emphatically plead with him that “being gay” is NOT “who you are” nor even a part of “who you are.” (It may be a burden with which he would have to bear with God’s help.) Of course, I would love my son as much as I’ve always loved him, but I would warn and counsel him that practicing homosexuality is a sin; that it is extremely unhealthy; that if he does not repent and turn from it, this sinful embrace could lead to his eternal separation from God; and that the Lord can help him to be an overcomer in this struggle — just as He has aided untold millions of sinners struggling with other difficult, besetting sins.
In other words, I wouldn’t be “neutral” or “nonjudgmental” — and certainly not affirming — on the matter or make the primary determinant of my counsel to my son his “feelings or stated “attractions.” Instead, I would seek to imitate as best I could — with much prayer — God’s heart on homosexuality — balancing love and truth. The Lord is merciful, forgiving and just but being holy He cannot affirm “gayness” (homosexuality) any more than He could affirm porn-use or promiscuity, etc. (e.g., a “porno identity”). We’re all born sinners, but it is a cop-out to say our “orientation” or “identity” is tied to any special sin.
And by the way, I would throw the book at anyone who ever tried to harm my son in any way or whose only response to him would be to hate and ridicule him.
Today, in post-biblical America, “Christians” who defect from the Truth are a dime a dozen. The challenge for you — committed Christian — is to hold to the Truth and love “gays and lesbians” (the quote marks are there because sin does not define personhood) enough to tell them the truth: that God loves them and He will forgive them — that is why He sent his Son to die for their sin — but that they must repent and turn from that ungodly lifestyle.
My good friend Linda Harvey is right: Warren’s namby-pamby “Golden Rule Pledge” isn’t biblical, and it isn’t truly compassionate. God has a better plan for today’s youth than to confirm or affirm them in a “sexual identity” linked to behavior that He calls an abomination. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com
P.S. On behalf of Americans For Truth, I have asked Throckmorton for his views on “same-sex marriage,” “civil unions,” homosexual “special rights” (“sexual orientation”) laws, etc., but he has not answered my queries. We will be presenting these and other questions to Throckmorton publicly.
RELATED ARTICLES:
- Grove City College Prof Throckmorton Misapplies the Golden Rule on the ‘Day of Silence’
- What Qualifies the United States to Lecture Uganda on Homosexuality?
- Grove City Prof Warren Throckmorton Affirms Homosexuality as ‘Normal, Natural and Healthy’
Grove City College Prof Throckmorton Misapplies the Golden Rule on the ‘Day of Silence’
March 5th, 2010The Gospel is still, amazingly, Good News
TAKE ACTION: Contact Grove City College (President Richard Jewell: 724-458-2500; rgjewell@gcc.edu) and ask them if GCC professor Warren Throckmorton’s unorthodox views on homosexuality represent “authentically Christian” teachings on this issue. (GCC advertises itself as a solid, “authentically Christian” institution.) Request a written response as to whether Throckmorton’s writings on and approach toward homosexuality honor Grove City’s Christian charter “rejecting relativism and secularism.” Please share the response you receive with us at americansfortruth@comcast.net.
______________________________
By Linda Harvey, www.missionamerica.com
A broad coalition of pro-family groups recommends that parents keep their children home on the deceptive, pro-homosexual “Day of Silence,” to be observed this year on April 16, 2010, but one “gay”-affirming counselor started what he calls the “Golden Rule Pledge” instead.
Yet, the “Golden Rule Pledge” actually functions as a disinformation tool and a divisive wedge in schools and among Christians. It is insidiously misleading and would bring harm to kids. It grieves me to take this position, but there’s no choice, because lives are at stake.
Dr. Warren Throckmorton (pictured above), a self-labeled “christian” counselor at Grove City College [contact GCC HERE], has indicated on a radio show he does not object to homosexuality when a person feels comfort with the lifestyle. My concern is that he may be communicating this to youth and college students whom he counsels, because his “Golden Rule” project takes a stand tolerant of this destructive and sinful behavior by encouraging student “respect.”
He has expressed his preference for students remaining in school on the “Day of Silence” and hearing pro-homosexual propaganda, and learning to sympathize with those practicing these behaviors, rather than taking an unequivocal, biblical stand against these harmful practices by remaining home. Throckmorton doesn’t even like the Exodus-sponsored “Day of Truth,” which encourages kids to remain in school and have a frank conversation, in love, with friends while presenting the biblical view of homosexuality. Throckmorton calls this “offensive.”
Throckmorton’s support of the “Day of Silence” will do incalculable harm to many young people. Misleading professionals like Throckmorton in positions of influence can make our sons and daughters become comfortable with entering into, staying in, or approving of homosexuality, bisexuality and gender change.
If I were a parent who discovered my minor child had been counseled in this way, I’d bring the largest and most aggressive medical malpractice suit I could launch against this counselor at Grove City.
Golden Rule? Not on your life.
Jesus would never make a person feel more comfortable about:
- Young males having sex with males, the incidence of which rose over 12 % per year between 2001 and 2006 among males ages 13 to 24 1;
- Young “lesbians” choosing a fatherless life for any future children, since they can never conceive children with female partners;
- Hoping in such relationships for a false “marriage” in violation of Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9, where Christ told us that “from the beginning” people were created male and female, and that one man and one woman form a marriage;
- Teens and even younger children believing they should change genders. As with homosexuality, we should be doing everything possible to counsel these kids and prevent these behaviors among youth.
Throckmorton on his site (http://goldenrulepledge.com/about/) uses the language of homosexual activism. He couldn’t be more helpful to their cause if he were a consultant with GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, which sponsors the national “Day of Silence” Examples of the GRP’s sympathetic, even pro-homosexual statements:
1. The Day of Silence is to “bring awareness to bullying and harassment of transgender, gay, lesbian, and bisexually identified students.” This is odd both in the use of activist terms and that “transgender” comes first. This “gay”-crafted rhetoric gives a nod to the unsupportable “born-that-way” claim and a significant level of sympathy for those involved in what the eternally-existent Christ called an “abomination.” By any Christian standard, is this GOLDEN RULE material? NOPE.
2. Another phrase is quite revealing:
“Many straight Christian and conservative students are conflicted about this day. They do not affirm homosexual behavior but they also loathe disrespect, harassment or violence toward any one, including their GLBT peers.”
The logical fallacies here abound. If students truly don’t “affirm” homosexuality, then don’t cooperate with its promotion through the deceptive “Day of Silence.”
The second sentence is classic pro-”gay” propaganda. These are not the only choices! To stay home is to show “violence” or approval thereof? This is so unfair to tradition-minded families and students, who feel they make a very positive statement by staying home! The Gospel and its sexual standards are, after all still good news. And one does not have to approve of homosexuality to prevent bullying, violence, or uncivil behavior.
3. Here’s the actual “pledge” language:
This is what I’m doing:
I pledge to treat others the way I want to be treated.
Will you join me in this pledge?
“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31).
Hmmm. “…The way I want to be treated.” So, if a student is about to enter, or has entered, a high-risk practice that is called an abomination by our Lord, and has shared this with classmates, a “true” Christian should attend school to support a day that affirms this behavior and scorns any warnings to that student? Some friendship!
Here’s a biblically-based alternative: “Friends don’t let friends do homosexuality!”
Then, the Pledge website talks about affirming the “safety” of all, based on Christ’s teachings. This piggybacks on the language of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) and others who have used a supposed “safety” strategy to obtain affirmation of homosexuality in the schools. Homosexuality is safe and Christian teachings about it being an abomination are unsafe, is the real message. Bullying? Harassment? No one wants those things, but that’s not GLSEN’s actual concern, because schools are fully empowered now to punish incidents where such misbehavior occurs.
No, the “Day of Silence” is about propaganda. The goal is to shame and label Christians and tradition-minded students and teachers, silence their authentic witness, and even silence any public health warnings. Real safety would be to scream from the rooftops about the harm homosexuality or gender change will bring to these young lives. And since no one is born homosexual, these desires are demonstrably changeable, so no one is left without a positive alternative. Christ’s authentic path always gives hope.
This is such a travesty that if we were all ancient Israelites, we’d be rending our clothing and putting on sackcloth and ashes! What is happening to kids is corruption by uncaring and misguided adults.
Throckmorton is doing a great job of affirming propaganda meant to harm young lives and keep them away from Christ through misunderstanding. I don’t know if he means to do that, but that is going to be — guaranteed — the result.
This is completely upside down. Throckmorton doesn’t get it, or doesn’t want to get it, or loves the approval of “gay” and “transgendered” blogs and activists, or he has an as-yet-undisclosed motive. [Editor's note: Americans For Truth has asked Throckmorton for his views on "same-sex marriage," "civil unions," homosexual "special rights" ("sexual orientation") laws, etc., but he has not answered our queries.]
This is not Christian and is a heretical use of the Golden Rule.
Please join me in praying for Warren Throckmorton, for his repentance, and also for his duplicitous dealings to be revealed so no further harm is done to our precious and impressionable kids.
And please help me pray that the emotionally manipulative “Day of Silence” is revealed for what it is — adults exploiting precious kids.
Notes:
1. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5725a2.htm. See Table at end.
Linda Harvey, founder of Mission:America
________________________________
Linda Harvey is founder and president of Mission: America, based in Columbus, Ohio. Perhaps more than any other American, she has sounded the alarm about the danger of promoting/affirming “GLBT” (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) identities to young people [click the "To Christians" button HERE]. Please support Mission: America’s important work [Donate link is at the bottom of the main website page]. To order a 2-DVD set of Linda Harvey’s talk last year at Americans For Truth, send $35 postpaid to: Americans For Truth, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567, or specify “Linda Harvey 2-DVD set” with your gift of $35 or more through AFTAH’s online donor page.
LaBarbera to Keynote MassResistance Banquet Saturday, March 6
March 5th, 2010
Mass Resistance founder Brian Camenker (left) with Mike Huckabee
Folks, I am delighted to be a speaker at the Mass Resistance banquet this Saturday evening. Mass Resistance founder Brian Camenker and MR blogger Amy Contrada are good friends who do critical work for the movement opposed to the normalization of homosexuality and gender confusion in our culture — especially among students. Both have demonstrated remarkable tenacity and dedication in pursuit of that mission. Brian is a longtime veteran of the pro-family movement who never backs down from a principled stance — a quality that, sadly, has led him to be held at arm’s length by other, more politically correct, “pro-family” groups that are quite willing to use MR’s research but can’t seem to match MR’s integrity.
The reason Brian and Amy are hated so much by the Libertine Left is that they — perhaps better than anyone in the country – chronicle the radical activities of the homosexual/transsexual movement using firsthand “gay” sources. And there is no shortage of material in Boston, where Mass Resistance is based. Camenker exposed the notorious GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) “Fistgate” scandal in 2000 — which jaded homosexual activists now love to make fun of but which shows precisely why parents must never trust their children to “gay”-affirming educators. And Amy has a wealth of information on the MR blog — including various exposés on the transsexual agenda and GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings, whose lifelong crusade has made schools across America “safe” for homosexual advocacy. (Jennings, now Obama’s “Safe Schools” chief, cynically uses student safety to advance GLSEN’s extreme agenda.)
I hope to see some of you at the MassResistance fundraising banquet Saturday, but whether you come or not, please donate to this outstanding organization. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed – Health Risks and ‘Gays’ in the Military
March 4th, 2010“Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross).” –FDA (U.S. Food & Drug Administration), “Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men - Questions and Answers”
War is bloody, yet men who have practiced homosexuality cannot give blood. Writes Barber: "If 'gays' are allowed to serve openly ... how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?"
Another informative piece by Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Member and Director of Cultural Studies at the Liberty Counsel. To read about the current FDA policy banning blood donations from MSM (“men who have had sex with men”) — and women who have had sex with MSM — go HERE. Homosexuality is not about “human rights,” but rather (changeable) human wrongs — and human wrongs often have public health consequences. — Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.org; write us at americansfortruth@comcast.net.
TAKE ACTION: Call and write your U.S. Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to oppose ALL efforts to force open homosexuality on the military. Oppose S. 3065 in the Senate and HR 1283 in the House — bills that would homosexualize our Armed Services and force our nation’s conservative military culture to become one that celebrates homosexual “pride.”
______________________________
Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed
By J. Matt Barber
The U.S. military has always discriminated. There are a host of malignant behaviors such as illicit drug use or habitual criminality that can render a person ineligible to serve. As my father-in-law learned, there are also benign maladies such as vision impairment or flat feet that can bar an otherwise eligible applicant. Any number of behaviors or conditions with varying degrees of severity can dash one’s hope of donning the uniform.
This is discrimination only insofar as “discriminating minds” with expertise in these matters have found that such restrictions are necessary to maintain excellence in our historically unparalleled fighting force.
In formal recognition of the long-established finding that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service,” federal law – Section 654, Title 10 – objectively prescribes the following:
- The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise;
- Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion;
- The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service;
- The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability; and
- There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
Indeed, federal courts have ruled over and again that a prohibition against homosexual conduct within the ranks of the military is both constitutional and justified.
So now that Barack Obama is president, what has changed? Is there something about “out and proud” homosexuality, hitherto absent or unseen, that suddenly makes it compatible with military service? Is there something about our military that has, for the first time in history, made it compatible with this particular lifestyle?
The answer to both is no.
The fact that “homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline” has not changed. Proponents of military homosexualization offer scant evidence to the contrary. In truth, the only thing that has changed is politics.
Reasons for incompatibility are manifold. They are firmly rooted in both common sense and in the “settled” anthropological, sociopolitical and medical sciences, as well as the theological arena. Taken alone, each provides ample justification for maintaining the status quo. Combined, they prove the case. For now – in the interest of brevity – we’ll focus on but one: medical science.
Consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka “gays”) from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.
According to the FDA: “['Gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.”
The FDA further warns: “['Gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in ['gay' men] than in the general population.”
A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although “gay” men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.
Do the math: If “gays” are allowed to serve openly – as to appease leftists’ euphemistic demands for “tolerance” and “diversity” – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?
All things considered (and we’ve only scratched the surface), is it any wonder that, according to a 2008 Military Times survey, almost 10 percent of currently enlisted personnel say that should “gays” be allowed to serve openly: “I would not re-enlist or extend my service.” Furthermore, 14 percent warn: “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.” The potential exodus of up to 14 percent of military personnel from our all-volunteer services would be devastating.
When we apply these uncompromising medical and administrative realities to the “gays in the military” debate, we find that, objectively, and based solely upon medical science and the imperative to maintain good order and unit cohesion, homosexual behavior and military service remain today as oil and water.
Yet, inexplicably we see reckless movement from this administration, liberals in Congress and even a handful of high-ranking military commanders toward military homosexualization. This type of San Francisco-style social experimentation within the ranks of the armed services would demonstrably weaken, not strengthen, our military, jeopardizing national security.
In a purely civilian world perhaps we can afford to grant liberal social engineers a manageable level of latitude to play fast and loose with wistful “gay rights” rhetoric. However, it’s an entirely different proposition when bad behaviors place others – particularly those who’ve already waged life and limb for country – at both an unnecessary and avoidable level of risk.
For these reasons (and many more) allowing practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle to serve openly in our armed services should not and must not be “tolerated.”
Mr. President, it’s your sworn duty to place national security above misguided ideology and extreme special interests. It’s high time you begin to take your job seriously.
_______________________________
Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net. Barber is a Board Member of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)
NCAA’s Pulling of Focus Web Ad Will only Encourage Homo-Fascism
March 2nd, 2010Capitulations to “queer” lobby only breed further intolerance of moral viewpoints
Focus on the Family web ad rejected by the NCAA.
Behold the latest pathetic capitulation to the Homosexual Lobby by a “mainstream” American institution, the NCAA. It is corporate cowardice of this nature that breeds homo-fascism, a term describing aggressively intolerant homosexual activism that will come to be understood by Americans — as larger and larger portions of the culture cave into the idea that disagreeing with or offending homosexuals (people practicing homosexuality) is beyond the pale. From a logical, historical and spiritual perspective, such an assertion is preposterous, but in the current zeitgeist, emotion, secularism and sheer intimidation trump reason, tradition, and spiritual truth.
Whoever would have thought that 1-3 percent of the population — united around the practice of deviant, unhealthy sex — could command such power? (Only in a declining society, we maintain.) Focus on the Family employs a “soft” resistance to the aggressive “queer” movement (too soft, in our view); if they can’t place an innocuous ad on the NCAA website, then no group defending traditional sexual morality can.
And the hucksters (homosexual and straight) who push the “gay” agenda do so in the name of “diversity.” What a sham. Memo to homosexual extremists: keep demanding such bans on opposing viewpoints — and cheer loudly whenever a pro-normalcy group is silenced! The more you do, the more the American people will see your true colors — which do not match a rainbow’s but rather the oppressive black of a censor’s pen. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.ogl
__________________________________________
– The following is reprinted from OneNewsNow, the news ministry of American Family Association; subscribe to ONN’s daily news briefs HERE and their e-alerts HERE.
NCAA nixes family ad, Focus ‘befuddled’
The NCAA has withdrawn Focus on the Family’s banner ad on its website, apparently because of the organization’s stance on homosexual relationships.
Associated Press reports the National Collegiate Athletic Association heard from some of its members that the banner conflicted with the organization’s policy of inclusion, regardless of sexual orientation. The ad — part of the pro-family group’s “Celebrate Family – Celebrate Life” campaign — was pulled without any notice, according to Focus on the Family’s Gary Schneeburger.
“We’re a little befuddled, I guess is the best way to say it, that an ad that clearly that was not controversial,” he responds. “It was not even political — it was simply about a father wanting the best for his son….”
The ministry spokesman suggests the banner ad was taken down “not…because the ad itself was offensive, but because the very existence of Focus on the Family apparently to some people is offensive.”
The major governing body of college sports says ads must be in agreement with NCAA principles, and its own standards allow it to exclude advertising and advertisers that it deems “do not appear to be in the best interests of higher education and student athletes.”
“What that tells us,” says Schneeburger, “is that we’re not allowed to advertise our family help services because we have biblical values on issues like marriage.” And if such material were “all of a sudden labeled hate speech,” he says “we have deeper problems in our country than we even know.”
Schneeburger points out that Focus spends 90 percent of its budget on parenting and marriage resources, and only 10 percent advocating on behalf of the unborn and for traditional marriage. The supposedly controversial Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, was part of Focus’s “Celebrate Family – Celebrate Life” campaign.
Ex-’Gay’ Testimony: ‘Bisexual’ Man Overcomes Homosexual Desires with God’s Help
February 28th, 2010“I don’t struggle with those illicit sexual desires any longer,” says changed man
The following is an anonymous testimony of ‘Tim,’ who became involved in homosexual (bisexual) behavior but then left it behind through a renewed and strengthened commitment to his Maker:
I grew up in a very stable home with two loving parents. However, my dad and I are somewhat alike in personality, but with very different interests. He’s an outdoorsman. I’m a something of a “geeky nerd”. I never felt that I could quite please him. I love him, and he loves me. But we have clashed many times over my life. My two brothers are/were outdoorsmen, much like our dad. (My elder brother is deceased now.) I was the odd man out.
That being said, I struggled with thoughts/feelings of bisexuality for many years. I was not completely gay. I was still attracted to women. But there was a part of me that was curious and wanted to experience some things. I had a couple of very brief [homosexual] experiences in college and right after college. That scared me, and I just “knew” I was dying of AIDS or something. So, I did not act on these feelings (except in private fantasy) for a number of years.
In addition to my sometimes troublesome relationship with my dad, I also felt very insecure about women, even though I was attracted to them. I also did not want to “cheat” on my lovely wife, so I seldom entertained thoughts of doing anything with any other woman than my wife.
Some years back, I had a job in sales that required some travel. This enabled me (unfortunately) to have some freedom to initiate more experimentation. During that time I got a computer and an internet connection. To make a long story short, for a period of about nine years, I dabbled in male-to-male sexual contact — on again, off again. I would despise myself and would even be so sickened by these encounters that I would swear that I would never do it again. A few weeks would pass, and I would be involved again.
I developed a list of a few guys — some married like myself, some single gay guys — with whom I could meet for these experiences. I sorta viewed this as mutual masturbation, and not really cheating on my wife. Warped thinking, I know, but it’s how I rationalized/justified it. I had ONE brief oral experience with another woman, and I felt SOOO guilty for cheating on my lovely wife that I never repeated that experience again.
Keep in mind that no one in my church or my family had any clue of these events. I became very adept at hiding my activities — “working late,” usually. Finally, in the early part of 2008, I was SOOOOO SICK of the whole mess that I cried out to God for help. Another time I was kneeling in prayer, and in absolute soul-agony, I cried out to God that I was not fit to fill the positions in the church which I hold, but I did not know what to do, without destroying my family, and having a horrible impact upon my church.
I have diabetes, which was uncontrolled until [2008]. My blood sugar was very high, which greatly impairs one’s judgment. One evening I was on the computer chatting online. To make a long story short, a woman that I know took it upon herself to entrap me into a sexually explicit conversation online on this particular evening, using a fake name and profile. She used that conversation, in which I admitted to some homosexual encounters, to contact church officials and make all sorts of accusations against me — some true, some untrue.
I was confronted with this information. Needless to say, my world came crashing down. God was kind enough to me to allow me to be warned before I was confronted (someone had overheard a conversation about it). My wife knew nothing yet. I have two friends that know about my past, who both strongly advised me to deny anything about past bisexual activity, for the protection of my wife and my son. I told the pastor that there was an inappropriate conversation, but there were a lot of untrue statements in the packet (which was an accurate statement from me).
Then I met with the local Board of Trustees (of which I am a member), and told them the same thing. I offered to resign everything (I meant my positions in the church and my membership). The lady who had received the packet responded almost immediately with a true Christlike spirit of love and compassion. She told me that I needed to seek God. In other words, forget about resignations and punitive measures — just do what you need to do to get straightened out. The rest of the Board went along with her recommendation. I told my wife a couple of days later. However, I have never told any of them about the bisexual activity, for the protection of my family.
We had a revival at our church shortly after this, and I began to earnestly seek for God to give me complete and total deliverance. We believe in two works of grace: justification and sanctification. I prayed until I knew that all of my sins were forgiven. I received a Witness of the Holy Spirit that I was forgiven and that I was restored as a child of God. I then earnestly sought for the experience of Entire Sanctification. In this experience, one “dies out” to the carnal nature, with which every human is born, as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
I prayed earnestly, night and day, for this experience. I sobbed and cried and prayed. I drive about an hour to work, and most of that time I’m alone. I prayed most of the way to and from work. I prayed myself to sleep at night. If I woke up in the night, I prayed. I was very worried about the consequences of telling the whole story, if God required it of me. I “died out” to those things. Finally, I prayed until I knew that whatever happened, it was all right. It is in God’s hand. I received a Witness and infilling of the Holy Spirit that I was sanctified to God’s will!!
The amazing thing is that I am delivered! I am changed. I don’t struggle with those illicit sexual desires any longer. I had opportunities to cheat on my wife with other women, and was probably to the point that I might have done it. Female co-workers often flirt with me, and I’m pretty sure I could have a fling with more than one of them, if I wanted. I was considering trying it, before this all came up. I don’t want to do that. I have a desire to please God. I do not look at men or women with lust in my heart. I am satisfied to make love to my wife exclusively. My horrible temper is gone. I am, in short, a new creature in Christ Jesus. [2 Corinthians 5:17]
The sad thing is that I really was saved and sanctified when young, but in my immaturity and my failure to maintain a close walk with God, I eventually backslid, and allowed things back into my heart. I wasted a lot of years. My wife put up with a very hard-to-live-with husband. My son put up with a hard-to-live-with dad. I am resolved to continue to walk closely with God, and to never let satan ever gain glory from my life again.
Again, this is confidential. Not even my wife and family know the part about the sexual activities. I am willing to tell them, when and if God requires it. He has not done so yet. God has become very close to me, and He guides me and talks to me. I want to keep close to Him. But I don’t know that it would ever be profitable to put my wife throught the pain of knowing what I did.
Military Muzzled under Obama: Air Force Chaplain Disinvites Tony Perkins to Prayer Luncheon for Opposing Homosexuals in Armed Forces
February 26th, 2010
CBN story on Perkins being disinvited: no, it's not homosexuality that's "incompatible" with military service under Obama; now it's the expression of Christian faith -- opposing homosexuality -- in the public square.
Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Member and Director of Cultural Affairs at the Liberty Counsel, writes: “I believe those few of us remaining who are willing to take a stand on God’s natural design for human sexuality and morality will eventually be completely marginalized and persecuted by both the government and private industry. This is a chilling example of things to come.”
We agree. Christians and all those who oppose the normalization of sexual immorality through the force of law: are you going to stand by and just take it or will you defend your liberty to live out your religious and moral beliefs? This is only the latest proof that homosexual “rights” (so-called) are incompatible with America’s historic protection of religious freedom and First Amendment liberties.
I suppose there are many more craven acts to follow as our men in uniform scramble to appease their left-wing, pro-”gay” Panderer-in-Chief. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
Here’s Breitbart linking to Pat Robertson’s CBN interview with Perkins:
Retired Navy Captain Jim Jefferis Writes Adm. Mullen with Common Sense on Homosexuals in the Military
February 25th, 2010
Navy Capt. Jim Jefferis in uniform shortly before his retirement. He says the inevitable homo-sexual relationships that would occur in a homosexual-welcoming Navy would lead to preferential treatment that "can’t be hidden from other crewmembers and tends to destroy the chain of command, discipline and morale."
Folks, the following letter from Ret. Navy Captain Lawrence “Jim” Jefferis to Admiral Mike Mullen — President Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a proponent of his plan to allow open homosexuals in the military — is one of the most compelling documents I have ever read against that terribly misguided idea. In an e-mail to AFTAH, Capt. Jefferis verified his authorship of the letter, which has been making the rounds via e-mail. He said that he had sent it to a few people with no intention of it going public, but now that it has, he is willing to have it published online.
Like me, I’m sure you feel a deep sense of sorrow that men of principle and common sense like Capt. Jefferis are being replaced in America’s military leadership by a new cast of politically correct officers like Adm. Mullen, who put dubious trends and expediency above principle and morality. Please read this letter carefully and then share it with your children, all of your elected representatives, and as many people as possible. God bless you, Capt. Jefferis, and thank you for your service to our country. — Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.com
TAKE ACTION: Send a copy of this letter by regular mail or fax (or e-mail) to your Congressman and Senators; go to www.congress.org to get their information. Or call Congress at 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 and urge them to oppose President Obama’s attempt to do an end-run around Congress to force open homosexuality on our Armed Forces. Also urge your elected representatives to OPPOSE H.R. 1283, which we’re calling the Homosexualize Our Military Act –a dangerous bill that would impose a “sexual orientation” non-discrimination order on the military.
WRITE SEN. McCAIN and ADM. MULLEN: Also please write/call Sen. John McCain (202-224-2235) to thank him for speaking out against Obama’s radical ”gay” military plan. You can write Adm. Mullen and/or Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the addresses below or by clicking HERE.
We reprint this letter as it came to us (with minor editing changes and explanations); Capt. Jefferis (Ret.) writes:
___________________________________________
February 8, 010
Admiral Mike Mullen, USN
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20318-9999Dear Admiral Mullen:
This letter is in response to your shocking statement last week that you advocate homosexuals openly serving in the military services. I seriously question the wisdom of your position. As I have previously written by my Senator, Harry Reid, and my Congresswoman, Dina Titus, the position appears to be more a matter of Democratic party voter pandering than the solution to a valid military issue. Perhaps it was your willingness to support the Democratic agenda that earned you your present position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I am a retired Navy Captain. I enlisted in the Navy in 1948, and served as a Yeoman, Personnel man, Journalist, and Communications Technician, and, as a Petty Officer First Class, received a commission in 1955 through the Integration Program. In my more than 31 years of active duty, I commanded two ships, served as Executive Officer on two ships, commanded Coastal Squadron ONE (Swift Boats) in Vietnam, and was Chief Staff Officer on an Amphibious Squadron. I developed the first Human Affairs Council in a Pacific Fleet ship in 1972, and supervised human affairs activities on seven PHIBRON ships. I am a graduate of the School of Naval Justice, the Management Course at the Navy Postgraduate School, and the Senior Officer course at the Naval War College. After retirement I received a Juris Doctorate from the Hastings College of Law. Like you, I encountered homosexuals throughout my Navy career and in civilian life. Unlike you, I do not find they are more deserving than non-homosexuals or that they constitute a viable or necessary body of troops for the defense of our country.
My experience is Naval. I can’t speak for the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps. Those services are generally based ashore with nearby civilian communities. In such communities, homosexuals may be able to find sexual gratification without interfering with military duties. But the best analogy to a ship at sea is a prison. There is no other outlet for sexual drives and I know of no prison in the United States that assigns males and females, or who intentionally assign known homosexuals, to the same cell. That is one of the differences between your position and mine.
During my enlisted service, homosexuals seemed to be a clumsy lot. They had a tendency to repeatedly fall headfirst down an engineroom ladder. Some were even known to trip on deck and “fall” overboard. The crew had a way of policing themselves to eliminate homosexual advances. Perhaps you are correct in your assumption that military personnel are more liberal today, but I would look very closely at prevalent attitudes before I closed the book on the issue.
It has been my experience that if sexual favors are available aboard ship, some enterprising sailor, petty officer, or officer will find a way to take advantage of the offer. There is usually a senior/junior relationship in such exchanges and the senior partner will reward the junior with preferential treatment, such as duty assignments, watches, leave, liberty, and advancement. Such preferential treatment can’t be hidden from other crewmembers and tends to destroy the chain of command, discipline and morale. If a Chief Petty Officer, for example, is having sexual relations with a non-rated sailor, it will have an adverse impact on those petty officers between the two in the chain of command. Because of your current assertions, I must assume that you were either lucky and didn’t have the problem during your shipboard assignments, or that you chose to ignore them!
That sexual misconduct in the Navy exists to this day is obvious. I recall that a lesbian ring was discovered on the USS NORTON SOUND back in the late 60’s or early 70’s. At about the same time my wife, now a retired Navy Commander, was Executive Officer at the WAVES Barracks, Great Lakes Naval Training Center. She was aware of many cases of homosexuality involving the WAVES assigned to the Barracks. I also recall that one of the cruisers returning from the First Gulf War reported 40% of the female crewmembers were pregnant after a six-month deployment. Just recently I read that the Commanding Officer and Command Master Chief were relieved from an Atlantic Fleet destroyer because of fraternization between several Chief Petty Officers and female members of the crew. Just the other day I heard news reports that a birth control pill previously reserved for use by women in combat had to be made available to all females in the military, clearly implying that intercourse was occurring in combat units and such conduct was known to unit commanders. Is there some reason you believe that homosexual activity would not also occur or is not occurring?
As you should be aware, the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not address homosexuality, per se. Article 125 provides that sodomy is a felony, to be punished as a court martial may direct. But the Article does not discriminate against homosexuals. Oral or anal sex between persons of the same sex (homosexuals), opposite sex (heterosexuals) or with animals (bestiality) are all considered felonies. However, when the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was established, it only applied to homosexual activities.
In all my years of service, I never encountered a Commanding Officer who “asked” a subordinate if he was a homosexual. I never knew of a sailor who was subjected to legal sanctions for homosexual conduct without corroborating evidence. A “confession” was not enough. Credible corroborating evidence had to exist and usually took the form of testimony of a participating party.
So the “policy” of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” makes no sense at all, except to create a means of ignoring the law. But the policy can only as effective as the individual’s discretion. As long as the homosexual was discreet, nothing would happen to him. He could be sanctioned only if he wanted to go public. However, by the same token, if a heterosexual indiscreetly advised his Commanding Officer that he had committed sodomy, he would be subject to the same sanctions.
In regard to heterosexual behavior, the UCMJ also proscribes common law marriage under the heading of Unlawful Cohabitation (with or without evidence of sexual intercourse). It sanctions adultery and prostitution (for both the prostitute and the patron). In the case of an officer, merely “consorting with a notorious prostitute” constitutes an offense, again even without evidence of sexual intercourse. The problem is that common law marriage is legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia. I don’t believe that adultery is a criminal offense in any state today. And in my home state of Nevada, even prostitution is legal. I don’t recall you asking Congress to legalize heterosexual sodomy, adultery, prostitution, or common law marriage. There are many punitive articles in the UCMJ that have no relationship to the satisfactory performance of military duties, yet you single out homosexuals for preferred treatment. Again, I must ask “why?”
The argument I hear most often expounded by the homophiles [pro-homosexual advocates] is that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy deprives the military of outstanding young men and women who want nothing more than to defend their country and that they have the ability to operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun as well as a heterosexual. That can’t be true. It isn’t the “policy,” it is Article 125 of the UCMJ that criminalizes homosexual behavior since it would be virtually impossible to practice homosexuality without committing sodomy. But, even if it were true, are homosexuals really worth the administrative problems they would create by their mere existence?
Adm. Mike Mullen, Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, used "gay" activist rhetoric to affirm the idea of open homosexuals in the military. But Capt. Jim Jefferis asks: why is Mullen singling out homosexuals for special consideration?
The Navy, today, does not willingly accept GED [General Equivalency Diploma] holders for enlistment. Minor criminal records are a bar to enlistment. Visible tattoos and piercings are not permitted. Are these aberrations more damning than sodomy? Personnel may be denied reenlistment if they fail to meet obesity standards. The young men and women denied naval service because of these exclusionary conditions may also want to defend their country and might also be able to satisfactorily operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun. But you are only advocating the acceptance of homosexuals! Why is that, Admiral?
Is it your contention that cohabitors, adulterers, prostitutes, young men and women with tattoos, those with only GEDs, or the obese cannot serve as well as homosexuals? If so, what is your empirical evidence to support such an argument? If we can sanction heterosexual behavior, appearance, and alternative educations, why can’t we sanction homosexual sodomists?
If we get to pick and choose which laws we uphold, which laws are next on the line to ignore? Carnal Knowledge? I would think a service man or woman who has sex with a minor (Carnal Knowledge) could perform military duties as well, if not better, than a homosexual. At least we don’t have children in combat, or in the military at large, for them to accost. Their pedophilia would not impact on the performance of military duties.
If you are successful in your endeavors to have Congress modify the UCMJ, have you given any thought to the long-term repercussions? When I joined the Navy, absence from duty because of venereal disease, self-inflicted wounds, even severe sun burn, was considered “Sick Misconduct.” We were not paid for the periods we were absent from duty and our enlistments were extended on a day-for-day basis. Since AIDS/HIV is more prevalent in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community, have you considered the consequences of a homosexual serviceman contracting AIDS or HIV? Will the homosexual with AIDS/HIV receive treatment from military sources? Will it be considered a service-connected disability justifying a medical discharge and retirement benefits? Will it result in Veterans Administration disability benefits? And have you considered the likelihood that some of the homosexuals will request sex-change procedures? I know for a fact that a significant percentage of my Law School class was undergoing sex-change therapy or surgery. It made using heads [restrooms] confusing for both genders. Sex-change is an issue being considered in civilian prisons today and I’m not convinced that taxpayers, or military budgets, should be burdened with that expense. But, if you really want homosexuals, you should accept their baggage, as well as their bodies.
Do you also advocate same-sex marriage or “partnerships”? Will the homosexual’s partner be entitled to dependents’ benefits, including health care, BAQ [Basic Allowance for Quarters], military base access, and commissary and exchange privileges? Will they be entitled to military housing? Would they be entitled to sex-change procedures at government expense?
Would a homosexual openly serving on active duty in a same-sex “marriage” be prosecuted for adultery if he or she has a sexual relationship outside the “marriage”? Would a homosexual be prosecuted for prostitution? Perhaps, in such cases, even you would reinstate the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
I raise the last point because while serving as Executive Officer on USS CATAMOUNT (LSD-17) in 1967, one of the Radarmen was arrested by local police. While inventorying his personal effects a photograph of the sailor performing fellatio [oral sodomy] on another male was discovered. The police turned the photo over to the Shore Patrol, who forwarded it to me. During an investigation it was determined that five of the ship’s Radarmen were involved in a male prostitution ring. They declared that while in Radarman Class “A” School at Treasure Island, their instructors convinced them that they could augment their military pay by providing homosexual services to gays in San Francisco. They took advantage of the opportunity presented and continued such activity in San Diego. CATAMOUNT sailed absent several Radarmen and the Class “A” School lost several instructors. Are these otherwise competent Radarmen the type of sailors you want on your ships? I hope not!
Your advocacy of gay rights reminds me of a joke popular in the Australian Navy in the 1970’s. An officer with nearly 20 years service transferred from the [British] Royal Navy to the Royal Australian Navy. When asked why, he stated that when he joined the Royal Navy, homosexuality was a crime and that homosexuals received severe punishment and discharge. After a few years he noticed that senior officers were closing their eyes to the problem. Eventually, it was made permissible. He decided to transfer before it became compulsory. I think you are leading us down that road to compulsion, Admiral!
I fully realize that I should not judge you or your procurement source. I have not walked the mile in your shoes. But, by the same token, you have not walked a mile in mine. I hope that you recognize that we are irreconcilably opposed on this issue, but I think I have given it more thought than you. In retrospect, I now realize that of all the officers I served with on active duty, Naval Academy graduates were the most tolerant of homosexuals. It may only be coincidence, but was there something in the curriculum that created such tolerance? I am aware that there have been numerous scandals regarding drug use, academic cheating, and heterosexual misconduct, but had never before given much thought to their acceptance of homosexual behavior, despite my awareness that there was a tendency toward an anal fixation.
I do hope that you conduct a thorough, in-depth evaluation of this issue, and hope you reach a realistic final determination. Assuming that your personal bias and the power of your office will result in your victory, I will watch retention statistics with a critical eye. Our sailors won’t have the option of transferring to the Australian Navy.
In keeping with the requirements of Navy Regulations, I submit this with all the respect your rank and position deserve.
With due respect,
Lawrence R. Jefferis
Captain, U. S. Navy (Ret.)2016 Diamond Peak Court
Las Vegas, NV 89117CC:
The Hon. Robert Gates
Secretary of Defense
1400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 21201-1400
AFTAH and Hackers: Account Suspended over Extra High Web Usage Resulting from Previous Sabotage
February 24th, 2010January hack-attack infected AFTAH’s search engine
Server notice announcing suspension of AFTAH's website Wed. morning; a previous hack-attack appears to have caused the problem.
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality’s website was suspended earlier today — due to our exceeding server usage limits, apparently as a result of a hack-attack against AFTAH back in January. The January cyber-sabotage infected our Search engine, which went haywire and which has now been disabled until we find a solution.
It appears that today’s stoppage was not directly caused by a new round of hacking, but that possibility still exists. AFTAH is opposed daily by some of the most hateful and extremist “gay” websites on the planet (all in the name of “tolerance,” mind you), so there are plenty of militants who would love to shut us down. And we believe that — God help us — if they ever got the power, many self-avowed “queer” activists would support using the Government to do so.
Having said that, there are also other homosexual bloggers and advocates who are committed to free speech and would oppose any and all attempts to hack into or censor AFTAH’s site. We similarly condemn dirty tricks against homosexual and left-wing sites with which we strongly disagree, e.g., atheist homosexual and avid AFTAH-basher Joe Jervis and his “Joe.My.God” blog.
This is a battle of ideas, not cyber-vandals.
We will keep you informed of developments on this matter, but rest assured that our long-term plan is to keep the AFTAH website up and running — and responding to “GLBT” lies and misinformation — well past 2050. That is, unless the sexual-perversion/gender-confusion movement (aka “gay/transgender pride”) withers away and dies by then, making us obsolete. Thanks for your ongoing support. – Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com
Boys in Girls’ Locker Rooms? Maine Schools Subject to Radical ‘Transgender’ Guidelines
February 23rd, 2010When it comes to the Transgender Lobby — the crazy cousin of the “gay” movement — truth is stranger than fiction. Yes, there is a price to pay when “Normal” becomes “Discriminatory.” No wonder homosexual and “transgender” activists don’t want to put such policies up for a vote (or if they do, make it be as stealthy as possible)! What about the privacy rights of the vast majority of … dare I say … normal students? And what about the rights of parents to protect their children from being subjected to this lunacy and sexual/gender confusion in school? Please support the Christian Civic League of Maine in fighting this latest folly arising from the aggressive ”GLBT” agenda. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
TAKE ACTION: Contact the Maine Human Rights Commission HERE (Commissioners’ names are at bottom). The Civic League writes:
___________________________________
Private and Public Schools Subject to Transgendered Guidelines
By Staff of the Christian Civic League of Maine
Feb 19, 2010
The Record wishes to share news of urgent importance to all Christians in Maine. The Maine Human Rights Commission is preparing educational guidelines which will apply to schools across Maine, both private and public. The guidelines will require schools to allow transgendered students access to facilities of the opposite sex, including bathrooms and locker rooms. The guidelines will be discussed at a public hearing in Augusta on Monday, March 1st.
The Maine Human Rights Commission has reassured the public that the guidelines are merely intended to give guidance to schools. But a document recently obtained by the Christian Civic League of Maine reveals that the Commission is being less than candid. The new document shows that the Commission has already promised homosexual rights advocates that the guidelines will eventually be re-issued as regulations with the force of law. In an April 1, 2009 memo to Mary Bonauto of the organization GLAD, and other homosexual rights activists, the attorney for the Commission, John P. Gause, writes,
“We will now move forward with submitting the Guidance to the Commissioners….If there is anything else you would like us to consider before that, please email or send that to me…On the regulations front Pat (Pat Ryan, Executive Director of the Commission) and I have decided to give the Guidance some time before moving in that direction. We do plan to promulgate, together with the Department of Education, further regulations in education (perhaps addressing more than just sexual orientation), but we want to give the Guidance some time before doing that. Of course, because that process is going to take some time when we do start it, it is never too early to be thinking about what the regulations will include. We would welcome your thoughts and suggestions on that at any time.”
A second memo by Gause states that the Commission is “in the beginning stages of promulgating regulations in education” similar to those regulations which cover sexual orientation in employment.
The League has also learned the startling news that the effort to introduce the new guidelines fell through in an August 2009 meeting because of resistance from the Commissioners themselves. An August 10, 2009 memo from Gause to various homosexual rights leaders shows that the Commission put off a vote on the proposed guidelines until representatives from schools and colleges could speak on the issue. The memo reveals that the March 1st meeting is the result of opposition from Commission members who wanted to hear more on the issue of requiring boys to play on girls’ sports teams.
The guidelines are based on Maine’s “Sexual Orientation Law” passed in 2005. The Christian Civic League vigorously opposed the law in a hard-fought referendum campaign. At the time, Mike Heath, the former Executive Director of the League, warned that the law would eventually require schools to grant transgendered children access to facilities of the opposite sex. Despite the best efforts of the League, the referendum was rejected, setting the stage for the eventual application of the law to public and private schools.
The Maine Human Rights Commission first applied the Sexual Orientation Law to schools in a case involving a transgendered student at Asa Adams Elementary School in Orono. The case arose when the parents of a transgendered boy demanded that their son be allowed to use the girls’ bathroom. The school offered the boy the use of the teachers’ unisex bathroom, a compromise the boy’s parents rejected. The MHRC ruled in favor of the boy’s parents, who then sued the school in Penobscot Superior Court.
In early February, the League learned information about the proposed new guidelines which up until now has not been disclosed to the public. This new information reveals that the guidelines will apply to all schools in Maine, with the exception of Christian and parochial schools, and will have the force of law. Schools which violate the guidelines will receive a summons to appear before the Commission. The procedure for bringing a charge of discrimination against a school consists of filling out a simple one-page document. If the Commission rules in favor of the Complainant, the case can be used to bring a lawsuit against the school for monetary damages.
The League has also learned that the Boston-based homosexual rights organization GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) was given a major role in writing the proposed guidelines, which are based in part on existing guidelines used by schools in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
The Maine Principals’ Association, the Maine School Management Association, and a representative of the University of Maine at Orono have already opposed the guidelines. They have expressed their concern that schools will be forced to allow boys to participate in girls’ sports, giving an unfair advantage to teams with transgendered players. The League has also learned that GLAD is still vigorously advocating sending transgendered boys to girls’ teams, saying that to fail to do so is discriminatory.
The public hearing will be held at the Senator Inn in Augusta on Monday March 1st. The League urges all concerned citizens to attend the meeting to express their opposition to the proposed guidelines. If you are not able to attend the meeting, we urge you to write the Commissioners and submit your written testimony in advance. The names of the Commissioners and the contact information for the Commission is listed below. The mailing address of the Commission is 51 State House Station – Augusta, Maine 04333-0051.
Commission Members
Patricia Ryan, Executive Director
Paul K. Vestal, Jr.
Sallie Chandler
Joseph Perry
Kenneth Fredette
A. Mavourneen Thompson
Contact the Maine Human Rights Commission by clicking HERE.
Young Conservative Ryan Sorba Condemns CPAC for Welcoming Homosexual Activist Group GOProud as Sponsor
February 20th, 2010I am so proud of this young man, Ryan Sorba of California Young Americans For Freedom, for having the guts to hold CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, accountable for allowing a homosexual activist group, GOProud, to sponsor its conference. Organized homosexuality has no part in a truly “conservative” movement. We need a few dozen more Ryan Sorbas in our pro-family movement to put the “queer” activists on their heels for a change – instead of constantly being put on the defensive by a perversion lobby that equates sexual misbehavior and gender confusion with “civil rights.” More on the CPAC controversy HERE. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com
P.S. It says a lot about the left-wing ninnies over at Media Matters that they thought this video would embarrass the Right; we used their Youtube because the quality was better than the others:
Higgins: No Wonder Younger Generations Are More Supportive of Homosexuals in the Military
February 18th, 2010
Kathleen Parker
Folks, when even self-styled “conservatives” like Kathleen Parker (left) boast about how they teach their children to be accepting of homosexuality (she would use the PC parlance “gays and lesbians”), you know that those of us who believe in timeless moral standards have our work cut out for us. I don’t know what led to Parker sellout out, but I’ve had it up to here with “conservatives” who no longer see the need (or have the guts) to conserve Judeo-Christian moral values. Funny how the likes of Parker talk a good game about not being “judgmental” but they have little problem judging the “Christian Right.” — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
P.S. Would it have killed Chris Matthews to include an actual opponent of homosexuals in the military in his MSNBC talkfest — or was the psuedo-conservative Parker his idea of “diversity”?
TAKE ACTION: Contact your Congressman and both Senators (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them NOT to allow open homosexuality in our military. Urge them to OPPOSE H.R. 1283, the Homosexualize Our Military Act (aka the ”Military Readiness Enhancement Act” ), which would establish a pro-homosexual “non-discrimination” code in the military — thus turning the conservative culture of our Armed Forces into a de facto “gay pride” zone where homosexuality — destructive, immoral and changeable conduct — is affirmed as a “civil right.” If H.R. 1283 becomes law, tradition-minded servicemembers would be “re-educated” to adhere to the new, twisted definition of ”tolerance.”
__________________________________________
Homosexuals in the Military
By Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute, Feb. 17, 2010
The issue of homosexuals serving openly in the military is so complex that writing about it seems overwhelming.
First, there is the problem of reconciling both Article 125 of the Military Code of Justice and U.S. Code – Section 654 that strictly prohibit those who engage in homosexual acts or those who state that they are homosexual from serving in the military with the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that serves as a defacto law superseding actual law.
“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” implicitly says homosexuals can serve as long as they don’t openly acknowledge that they are homosexual. That’s like saying that company policy strictly bans the use of company computers to view porn, but employees can view porn as long as they don’t tell anyone. Either it’s permitted or it’s not.
Despite what some advocates of homosexuals serving openly in the military claim, military prohibitions against homosexuals serving in the military no more encourage deceit, than do laws prohibiting stealing encourage deceit. To claim that laws that prohibit certain behaviors encourage deceit is another way of saying people are always going to break laws. In this twisted logic, all laws encourage deceit because those who don’t want to abide by them willfully engage in deceit in order to do what they want without incurring the consequences.
We can’t always prevent lawbreakers from breaking the law, but that unfortunate reality should not compel society to repeal laws. In other words, society ought not repeal laws in order that those who refuse to obey them are freed from the consequences of lawbreaking. The fact that throughout history there have been homosexuals who enlisted in the military in violation of military law that prohibits them from serving should not compel the military to rescind the law.
Removing the prohibition against allowing openly homosexuals from serving in the military will result in a whole host of other problems, among which are the following:
- It will result in discomfort among some soldiers with engaging in private activities like showering with men who admit to being sexually attracted to other men. Yes, throughout history homosexual men have served in the military, but heterosexual men are unlikely to be uncomfortable showering with homosexual men when they don’t know they’re homosexual.
- If military law is changed to allow openly homosexual men and women to serve, there will undoubtedly be an increase in homosexual activity in the military. To argue otherwise is either disingenuous or naïve.
- Coercion between openly homosexual military officers and their subordinates will likely increase.
- Some men may choose not to enlist or re-enlist if they will be compelled to serve with openly homosexual men.
- Romantic affiliations will develop which will likely affect combat decisions.
- The military will eventually have to provide military housing for same-sex couples.
(For more on the potential impact of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military, click HERE to read an editorial by Richard H. Black, retired chief of the Army’s Criminal Law Division, who as a marine pilot flew 269 combat missions in Vietnam.)
Political commentator Chris Matthews made yet another silly statement on his Sunday morning program on Feb. 7 when he said that anyone who wants to serve in the military should be allowed to do so. Apparently, neither the mission of the military nor its needs must be allowed to supersede the almighty desires of any particular individual. His statement reflects the troubling thinking of so many Americans who now believe that any good or desirable thing constitutes the object of a right. If they see something they want or something they want to do, many people believe they have a Constitutional right to have it or do it.
Homosexual couples want to participate in the heterosexual institution of marriage, so same sex “marriage” is now their “right.” Homosexual couples who are designed to be sterile want babies, so having babies is now their “right.” Men who are sexually attracted to other men want to serve in the military, so now serving in the military is their “right.”
Homosexuals, and increasingly “transgenders,” are compelling society through erroneous and unproven ontological assumptions to radically redefine foundational societal institutions. All of their efforts are based on acceptance of the deceit that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to skin color or other immutable conditions that have no behavioral moral implications open to moral assessment.
Homosexuality is not by nature equivalent to skin color, nor is it morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Conservatives especially need to recognize how much they have appropriated the absurd proposition that homosexuality is akin to race, and they need to stop treating it as if it were.
After reading about a recent poll that reveals that the opinions of both civilians and younger military personnel are shifting in favor of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military, I found myself wondering why the views are changing so dramatically. Chris Matthews posed that question to his guests MSNBC correspondent Norah O’Donnell, New York Times writer Andrew Sorkin, Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, and Time Magazine assistant editor Michael Duffy, and received surprisingly insubstantial, question-begging answers.
In response to Matthews’ question, “Why have attitudes (on homosexuals serving in the military) changed since Bill Clinton confronted that issue back in ‘93?” O’Donnell said “I think there’s greater acceptance.”
Sorkin said, “The world’s changed, but I’m going to say it’s about social networking, it’s about the Internet. I think so many people are so much more open in a whole new way than they’ve ever been, and therefore people who were unaccepting before now see it in a whole different way.”
Kathleen Parker said, “we parents have raised our kids to not be judgmental and to be accepting of gays. We all know more gay people than we used to, or think we didn’t know before.”
Duffy said, “the reason is that our teenagers are just 100 times more tolerant than their parents about everything.”
What these responses brought to mind was one of Jack Handey’s Deep Thoughts: “One day one of my little nephews came up to me and asked if the equator was a real line that went around the Earth, or just an imaginary one. I had to laugh. Laugh and laugh. Because I didn’t know, and I thought that maybe by laughing he would forget what he asked me.”
Parker responded by saying that children have been raised to be less judgmental, which really means that many have switched their judgment from homosexual acts are immoral to the judgment that homosexual acts are moral. Does Parker really want people to stop judging between right and wrong, or does she want people to make moral judgments with which she agrees. Does she want people to be non-judgmental when it comes to racist behavior, or adult consensual incest, or corporate malfeasance?
What none of Matthews guests did was to offer an account of the reasons why society’s judgments are changing, which is the crux of the matter. Has it happened through careful study of the best thinkers writing on the subject of morality, sexuality, the needs of the military, or the place of institutional disapproval in maintaining a healthy society?
Or have other factors and forces altered the judgments of society:
- Have judgments shifted through the relentless spate of images and ideas promulgated through music, films, novels, plays, essays, the news media, advertising, and public education that implicitly and explicitly affirm unproven assumptions about homosexuality?
- Have judgments shifted as a result of the absolute censorship in public schools of the writing of scholars who offer thoughtful, erudite expositions of conservative perspectives on the nature and morality of homosexuality?
- Have public judgments shifted as a result of relentless ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to say publicly that volitional homosexual acts are immoral?
- Have public judgments shifted as theologically orthodox churches cowardly retreated from engaging in this public debate and from equipping their members to engage in it?
The tragic reality is that the affirmation of openly homosexual men and women serving in the military reflects not only society’s acceptance of the fallacious claim that homosexuality is analogous to skin color/race, but also of society’s rejection of any standards regarding sexual morality:
- Marriage has been severed from sex, and from procreation, and from childrearing, and increasingly from “gender.”
- Sex has been severed from marriage, procreation, childrearing, and “gender.” Polyamory-or as polyamorists like to call it, “ethical non-monogamy”-is increasingly visible and likely increasingly practiced.
- Fornication and co-habitation are not merely accepted; they’re expected.
- Homosexuality is everywhere promoted as normal and good.
- Exhibitionism is common on reality shows, primetime comedies and dramas, films, music videos, and college campuses.
- And paraphilias, also known as fetishes, are played for laughs on sitcoms.
- Even lighthearted references to and depictions of incest have appeared in television programs and films.
Why wouldn’t a generation weaned on positive images of sexual perversion and immorality support openly homosexual men and women serving in the military?
What society needs to think seriously about is whether some forms of institutionalized disapproval of sexual immorality through laws or policy serve a good and necessary social function.
Video: Gagnon Paper Debunks Homosexual Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson’s Claim that New Testament Book of Romans Does Not Apply to ‘Gay Monogamy’
February 15th, 2010Robinson claims homosexuals are “born” that way despite lack of evidence and his own abnormal upbringing
“Every piece of evidence that can be culled from the text’s literary and historical context confirms that the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice, like its prohibition of adult incestuous unions, is absolute, rejecting all forms of homosexual practice regardless of consent and commitment.” – Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
“St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts. It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex. So it did seem like against their nature to be doing so.” – Homosexual Episcopal Bishop V. (Vicky) Gene Robinson, interview with CNSNews.com
TAKE ACTION AND LEARN: Educate yourself about the Bible’s clear teaching against homosexual conduct and relationships. Begin by reading the article below, taken from Prof. Robert Gagnon’s paper, “What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues, and sharing it with your Christian friends, especially those bending to pro-”gay” advocacy. And please support Prof. Gagnon by ordering his excellent 2008 DVD series, “Love, the Bible and Homosexual Practice” (cost is $42 including shipping & handling). As Christians, it is our duty to respond intelligently to false ”gay” theology, which is gaining a foothold in the Church and in the culture. And for those who are not Christian, you need to understand the bogus history that activists like (Vicky) Gene Robinson are using to advance their pro-homosexuality agenda.
_______________________________________
Dear Readers,
Please watch this short video interview of homosexual activist and Episcopal Bishop V. (Vicky) Gene Robinson’s latest attempt to discredit the biblical (Romans 1) prohibition against homosexual practice (courtesy Eyeblast TV and CNSNews.com):
You can read a transcript of Bishop Robinson’s CNS interview HERE. It is extraordinary to behold a major denominational “Christian” leader dedicate a sizable part of his professional life to undermining the clear witness of the Bible and tradition against a particular sexual sin — which just so happens to be the one with which he identifies. Unfortunately for Robinson, his rehashed “gay” theology does not square with history, as Prof. Robert Gagnon — the world’s leading orthodox authority on the Bible and homosexuality — reveals below.
Note Robinson’s assumption that homosexuals are ”born.” Despite the existence of a small cottage industry of pro-homosexual researchers — e.g., geneticist-turned-”gay”-activist Dean Hamer — seeking to prove inborn homosexuality, they have not succeeded in doing so. (Hamer’s media-hyped 1993 male “genetic homosexuality” study in the journal Science could not be replicated in the same journal.)
Also note that despite Robinson’s claim about innate homosexuals, the peculiar and obviously dysfunctional circumstances of his own life — starting at his birth — support a “nurture” rather than “nature” model for the causation of homosexuality. Robinson’s parents, expecting him to die, gave him two female names — Vicky Imogene — because they had hoped for a daughter. Then when he survived, they allowed him to live as a boy carrying those feminine names — a parental act that was irresponsible at best and cruel at worst. (Remember the Johnny Cash song, “A Boy Named Sue”?)
Thus, the abnormal factors that undoubtedly contributed to Bishop Robinson’s deviant proclivities and homosexual self-identification as an adult undermine his current, self-serving, specious claim that modern, “monogamous” homosexuality is some kind of benign, naturally “oriented” variation on life that was not yet discovered by the Apostle Paul. [See related AFTAH article: "Researcher: Half of Gay Couples Choose to be ‘Non-Monogamous.’"]
Prof. Rob Gagnon
Moreover, if we know that thousands of men and women have left homosexuality through faith in Jesus Christ and through various methods and circumstances — why would we treat this particular sin as somehow special and unchangeable — or not sinful at all, as long as it is “domesticated”?
Professor Rob Gagnon and other scholars — including some homosexuals — who have studied the context of the New Testament Book of Romans take issue with Bishop Robinson’s claim about monogamous homosexuality not being proscribed. TAKE ACTION AND LEARN: Please share this article with your friends and support Prof. Gagnon (www.robgagnon.net) — a rare, indefatigable foe of pro-homosexual political correctness in the academy — by ordering his 2008 DVD series, “Love, the Bible and Homosexual Practice” (cost is $42 including shipping & handling). The excerpt below is taken from Gagnon’s 2009 paper, “What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues.”
– Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
“Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.” (I Corinthians 16: 13-14)
_________________________________________
Prof. Gagnon Responds to “Gay” Theological Arguments on the Book of Romans:
3. Romans 1:24-27 and the Erroneous “Exploitation Argument”
Claim: The Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice in Romans 1:24‐27 applies only to exploitative and hedonistic forms of homosexual practice such as sex with slaves, prostitutes, and adolescents.
What the evidence really shows: Every piece of evidence that can be culled from the text’s literary and historical context confirms that the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice, like its prohibition of adult incestuous unions, is absolute, rejecting all forms of homosexual practice regardless of consent and commitment.
Five lines of evidence make this point clear. First, Paul in Rom 1:24-27 rejects homosexual practice because it is a violation of the God’s creation of “male and female” as a sexual pair in Genesis. In Rom 1:23-27 Paul intentionally echoed Gen 1:26-27, making eight points of correspondence, in the same tripartite structure, between the two sets of texts (humans/image/likeness, birds/cattle/reptiles, male/female). Paul was rejecting homosexual practice in the first instance because it was a violation of the male-female prerequisite for sexual relations ordained by the Creator at creation, not because of how well or badly it was done in his cultural milieu.
Second, the kind of nature argument that Paul employs in Rom 1:18-27 isn’t conducive to a distinction between exploitative and nonexploitative forms of homosexual practice. For Paul contended that female-female and male-male intercourse was “contrary to nature” because it violated obvious clues given in the material structures of creation that male and female, not two males or two females, are each other’s sexual “counterpart” or “complement” (to use the language of Gen 2:18, 20) in terms of anatomy, physiology, and psychology. What Paul says regarding the vertical vice of idolatry (1:19-23) is equally true of the horizontal vice of same-sex intercourse: male-female complementarity is “clearly seen, being mentally apprehended by means of the things made” (1:19-20). Some have argued that the ancients had no comprehension of a complementarity argument. Yet as classicist Thomas K. Hubbard notes in his magisterial sourcebook of texts pertaining to Homosexuality in Greece and Rome (University of California Press, 2003): “Basic to the heterosexual position [among Greek and Roman moralists in the first few centuries A.D.] is the characteristic Stoic appeal to the providence of Nature, which has matched and fitted the sexes to each other” (p. 444). Hubbard is supportive of homosexual relationships, yet admits the point.
Third, the fact that Paul in Rom 1:27 specifically indicts male homosexual relations that involve mutual, reciprocal affections—“males, having left behind the natural use of the female, were inflamed with their yearning for one another”— precludes any supposition that Paul is thinking
only of coercive relationships.
Fourth, Paul’s indictment of lesbianism in Romans 1:26 further confirms that his indictment of homosexual practice is absolute, since female homosexuality in antiquity was not primarily known, or criticized, for the exploitative practices of sex with slaves, prostitutes, or children. And there can be little doubt that Paul was indicting female homosexuality, as evidenced by:
- the parallelism of the language of 1:26 (“females exchanged the natural use”) and 1:27 (“likewise also the males leaving behind the natural use of the female”);
- the fact that in antiquity lesbian intercourse was the form of female intercourse most commonly labeled “contrary to nature” and paired with male homosexual practice;
- the fact of nearly universal male opposition to lesbianism in antiquity, even by men engaged in homosexual practice; and
- the fact that lesbian intercourse was the dominant interpretation of Romans 1:26 in the patristic period.
Fifth, contrary to false claims that people in the Greco-Roman world had no concept of committed homosexual unions, there is plenty of evidence for the conception and existence of loving homosexual relationships, including semi-official “marriages” between men and between women. Moreover, we know of some Greco-Roman moralists who acknowledged the existence of loving homosexual relationships while rejecting even these as unnatural (indeed, we can trace this idea back to Plato’s Laws). This is also true of the Church Fathers. For example, Clement of Alexandria (late second century) referred to “women … contrary to nature … marrying women” (Paidagogos 3.3.21.3). Obviously marriage implies commitment (else there is no need to marry) yet commitment does not change the unnatural and sinful character of the relationship. And it should go without saying that Jewish writers in Paul’s day and beyond rejected all forms of homosexual activity. For example, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus stated the obvious to his Roman readers: “The law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman…. But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199).
It is hardly surprising, then, that even Louis Crompton, a homosexual scholar, acknowledges this point in his massive work, Homosexuality and Civilization (Harvard University Press, 2003; 500 pgs.):
“However well-intentioned,” the interpretation that Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships….seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian. (p. 114)
Also worth noting is the falsity of claims that the ancient world knew nothing akin to our understanding of a homosexual orientation or of congenital influences on at least some homosexual development. As classicist Thomas K. Hubbard (cited above) notes:
Homosexuality in this era [i.e., of the early Imperial Age of Rome] may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation. (p. 386)
Bernadette Brooten, a lesbian New Testament scholar who has written the most important book on lesbianism in antiquity also acknowledges this point. She states that “Paul could have believed” that some persons attracted to members of the same sex “were born that way and yet still condemn them [better: their behaviors] as unnatural and shameful…. I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God” (Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism [University of Chicago, 1996], 244).
Watch Liberty University’s Live Webcast on Homosexuality and the Consequences of ‘Gay’ Activism
February 12th, 2010Click HERE for link to the webcast of Liberty University’s “Conference on the Consequences of Same-Gender Attraction” -- February 12-13, 2010
WATCH THE LIVE WEBCAST: Friday 2-6:35 p.m. and Saturday 9 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 -5:00 p.m. See the Liberty Counsel press release on the conference HERE.
Liberty University School of Law will host a one-day conference followed by a one-day symposium addressing homosexuality and its consequences. The Friday, February 12, conference is entitled “Understanding Same-sex Attractions and Their Consequences.” On Saturday, February 13, the Liberty University Law Review will host a legal symposium entitled “Homosexual Rights and First Amendment Freedoms: Can They Truly Coexist?”
Those struggling with same-sex attractions need understanding and hope for a life without conflict, so it is imperative to understand the implications of same-sex attraction and the broader homosexual agenda.
If you cannot attend the conference and symposium on Friday afternoon and Saturday, you can watch the live webcast HERE.
See the schedule for Friday and Saturday for the extraordinary list of speakers.
Event times and locations are as follows:
Friday, Feb. 12, 10:00 a.m., convocation, Liberty University – Vines Center;
Friday, Feb. 12, 2:00 – 6:45 p.m., conference, Liberty University School of Law – Supreme Courtroom;
Saturday, Feb. 13, 9:00 a.m. – 5 p.m., symposium, Liberty University School of Law Supreme Courtroom;
Saturday, Feb. 13, 5:00 p.m. banquet, Liberty University – Grand Lobby of DeMoss Hall.
The conference and the symposium are free, but tickets are required for the Saturday evening banquet. For more information, please go to www.LC.org, contact Liberty University School of Law at 434-592-5300 or visit http://law.liberty.edu.
Want to See Every New AFTAH Article?
If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
