Posts Tagged ‘lesbian’

CNSNews reports that Family Research Council President Tony Perkins’ speaking invitation at a prayer luncheon at Andrews Air Force Base was canceled by the chaplain’s office after the office became aware of Mr. Perkins’ opposition to Obama’s demand to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the military.

Air Force Retracted Invitation for Conservative Leader to Speak at Prayer Luncheon After He Criticized Obama’s Position on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

Friday, February 26, 2010
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. Air Force admits that the chaplain’s office at Andrews Air Force Base retracted an invitation to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins–a former Marine officer–to speak at a prayer luncheon held at the base on Thursday after the conservative leader criticized President Obama’s efforts to end “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”–the military policy on homosexuality.

“The Chaplain’s Office retracted Mr. Perkins’ invitation after his recent public comments made many who planned to attend the event uncomfortable,” the Andrews base public affairs office said in a statement issued late Thursday.

“This was a local decision made by the Chaplain’s Office who wanted the luncheon to be inclusive for the entire base community,” the statement said. “The Chaplain’s Office respects and defends Mr. Perkins right to express his opinions, and regrets any inconvenience to him. We thank and respect him for his prior military service.”

Perkins told CNSNews.com he was invited last October by the Chaplain’s Office to speak at the prayer luncheon, which focused this year on deployed personnel, families and prayer.

“The theme was back to basics – that is exactly what I was going to talk about, the basics – as Christ talks about the two greatest commandments, to love God and to love your neighbor,” he told CNSNews.com.

But Perkins said the comments that got him in trouble were published on the FRC Web site on Jan. 27, after President Obama delivered his State of the Union address.

Obama called on Congress to lift all restrictions on service in the military by open homosexuals, and Perkins admitted he had been very vocal in opposing Obama’s policy. Perkins said he took to the FRC Web site to oppose Obama’s policy proposal, and urged Congress to retain the current law which excludes homosexuals from openly serving in the military.

“Two days after the president’s State of the Union address, I received a letter from the chaplain rescinding the invitation, based upon statements that were on our Web site that were deemed to be ‘incompatible with men and women who serve in the military at the direction of the commander-in-chief,’” Perkins said.

A letter, dated Jan. 29, was sent from the chaplain’s office at Andrews AFB.

“Dear Mr. Perkins: I wish to thank you for accepting our initial invitation to speak at our national prayer luncheon on Feb. 25,” it stated. “(H)owever, we must rescind the invitation due to statements posted on the Family Research Council Web site which are incompatible in our role as military members who serve our elected officials and our commander-in-chief.

“As a former Marine officer, I’m sure you understand the situation in which we find ourselves. As military members, we are sworn to support our commander-in-chief, and are forbidden to make or support statements which run counter to our roles in the armed forces.”

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told CNSNews.com he is “terribly disappointed” with the decision to rescind the invitation to the conservative leader–a move he condemned as “tragic” and “political correctness.”

“It is absolutely political correctness, if in the name of inclusiveness we throw out someone who is a Christian or has a view that might be a little bit different than Mr. Obama’s, then we’ve dishonored the very service that fights to uphold and defend the Constitution,” Franks said from the U.S. Capitol.

“It’s especially heartbreaking to me, knowing that the rank-and-file of the United States military is far more in line with the views of Tony Perkins than they will ever be of the views of President Barack Obama,” Franks told CNSNews.com.

Perkins, a conservative leader who is also a minister and former military officer, said he had no intention of being political, had he been allowed to speak.

“I would have never used this venue as a political venue to even mention the president, unless it was to pray for him,” Perkins told CNSNews.com. “This was to focus on the spiritual needs of the men and women in uniform.”

Congressman Franks, meanwhile, indicated he plans to further raise the issue in Congress and took aim at the Air Force’s notion of being “inclusive.”

“We can be ‘inclusive’–we could bring Al Qaeda in there and that’s ‘inclusive–but to suggest somehow that someone like Tony Perkins shouldn’t be welcome on a military base because he has some views that are antithetical to some of Barack Obama’s views, is just outrageous,” Franks said.

Perkins, meanwhile, said he’s unrepentant in opposing Obama’s pro-homosexual agenda.

“What he (the president) was essentially calling the military to do was to violate the law, without a change by Congress,” Perkins told CNSNews.com. “That change of policy would in fact affect national security and in fact affect the lives of men and women who serve in uniform. As a veteran of the Marine Corps, I know exactly the environment and what this could do to the men and women who serve. So it is very troubling.”

Dr. William Donahue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights in New York City condemned the action – and called for an investigation.

“The decision to silence Tony Perkins, an ordained minister and Marine veteran, represents political correctness at a dangerous level,” Donahue said. “There are legitimate reasons to accept and reject the current policy regarding gays in the military. No one, therefore, should be censored from speaking at any private or public forum — much less a military instillation — because of his or her views on this subject.”

Perkins, meanwhile, said the real issue isn’t that he was disinvited to an event – it’s about political correctness in the military on homosexuality.

“This is not about the chaplain, it’s not even about Andrews Air Force Base, it’s about the chilling effect that this policy would have upon Christians who operate from an understanding of what’s right and wrong according to Scripture,” Perkins told CNSNews.com.

Donahue agreed: “While the most immediate issue is the blacklisting of Perkins, the larger issue is the ‘chilling effect’ this decision will have on the free speech and religious liberty rights of all those who serve in the military, especially clergymen.”

CNSNews.com has formally requested an interview with a representative from the chaplain’s office.


Read Full Post »

The Alliance Defense Fund reports that they have been granted permission to intervene on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com to defend California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act against a lawsuit brought by two gay men claiming the acts violate the U.S. Constitution.

Court: ADF to defend Prop. 8, federal DOMA

ADF attorneys granted intervention on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com in defense of Calif. marriage amendment and federal DOMA
Friday, May 08, 2009, 8:25 AM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

SANTA ANA, Calif. — A federal court entered an order granting Alliance Defense Fund attorneys a motion to intervene Thursday on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com in a lawsuit waged by two men against the United States and the state of California to eliminate California’s state constitutional amendment protecting marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. ADF attorneys filed a motion to intervene last month to defend the intended definition of marriage in a suit alleging that the passage of both Proposition 8 and DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution.

“The people of California want marriage to remain as the union between one man and one woman; they made their voice clear last November at the polls,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. “Yet this lawsuit begs the court to nullify the voices of more than 7 million California voters, as well as put an end to the federal law on marriage. We are pleased to be able to represent ProtectMarriage.com in defense of California’s constitutional marriage amendment and the federal DOMA. ”

In December 2008, two men filed a lawsuit claiming that the California marriage amendment, which voters decisively passed as Proposition 8 in last November’s election, violates the U.S. Constitution. The suit also argues that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by former President Bill Clinton, is also unconstitutional. The men have asked the court to issue an overwhelmingly broad injunction “mandating the use of gender-neutral terms in all legislation affecting marriage.”

“ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponents and campaign committee of Proposition 8, says it is intervening in the lawsuit because otherwise California’s constitutional amendment would be left essentially undefended in light of the fact that the state attorney general has already argued that he thinks it should be invalidated,” said ADF-allied attorney Andrew Pugno of Folsom, who is directly working with ADF attorneys and allied attorney Sam Kim of Buena Park on the case.

  • Order granting motion to intervene issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, Santa Ana in Smelt v. United States of America

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.  Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

http://www.telladf.org/ http://www.domawatch.org/

Note: Facts in ADF news releases are verified prior to publication but may change over time. Members of the media are encouraged to contact ADF for the latest information on this matter.

Read Full Post »

CNSNews reports that, in 2006, the U.S. spend more than twice the amount of money funding HIV/AIDS research than on influenza despite the fact that influenza caused almost five times the deaths that HIV/AIDS caused.

66% of HIV cases are from homosexual activity or IV drug use; the 2003 report sated that 65% of all new HIV cases are from homosexual behavior.  Part of the homosexual agenda, with your tax dollars, at work.

U.S. Spent More Than Twice as Much on HIV/AIDS as on Flu in ‘06, Despite Almost Five Times More Flu Deaths

Wednesday, May 06, 2009
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – The federal government spent $6.1 billion on influenza-related programs in 2006, less than half as much as the $13.7 billion dollars it spent on HIV/AIDS programs that year, according to figures provided to CNSNews.com by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

During the same time, seasonal flu claimed 56,326 lives in the U.S., while AIDS-related deaths stood at 12,113.

According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), only $2.6 million was spent on influenza under the organization’s infectious disease division, which works to minimize illness, suffering, and death caused by the flu.

2006, which is the latest year for which statistics are available, was an anomalous year for HHS flu spending, because most of the federal allotment for influenza – $5.6 billion – came as a result of a one-time budget request, as part of then-President George W. Bush’s initiative to prepare for a national flu pandemic. According to HHS, influenza spending declined to $166 million in 2007.

Flu-related spending was focused primarily on research and purchasing vaccines, according to the HHS. The federal government buys flu vaccines and anti-viral medications as part of the CDC’s national medical stockpile.

CDC spent $60 million buying pediatric vaccines, $30 million to pay manufacturers to ramp up vaccine production and $104 million to buy vaccines for adults.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) spent $119 million researching vaccines to combat possible new strains of flu.

HHS spent another $120 million to develop a year-round surge production capacity in case of a pandemic.

More than half of government spending on HIV/AIDS – over $3 billion – was dedicated to discovering an AIDS vaccine, while another $2 billion was dedicated to providing drugs to those afflicted with HIV.

HHS spent over $10 billion providing drugs and other types of medical care to people infected with HIV.

Cases of the flu, meanwhile, are so numerous that CDC doesn’t track individual cases; it only tracks deaths caused by the flu. Officially, the CDC estimates that flu kills more than 36,000 people each year; with hundreds of thousands more requiring hospitalization. Most – 43,285 – of the flu deaths in 2006 were people over the age of 75.

Of the 12,000 people killed by HIV, more than 8,700 (8,756) were men. Most of the HIV deaths in 2006 – 8,387 – were between the ages of 35 and 54, the age when most – 52 percent – also contracted the disease in that year.

According to CDC, 66 percent of those infected with HIV contracted the disease through homosexual conduct or intravenous drug use.

Related Posts: OneNewsNow Guest Columnist: Who Are The Homophobes?

Read Full Post »

WorldNetDaily reports that a vote of 15-12 has sent the “hate crimes” bill, H.R. 1913, to the full House of Representatives to be debated.

Judiciary Committee greenlights ‘hate crimes’

Members refuse to protect Christian pastors from charges

Posted: April 23, 2009
5:07 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee today rejected an opportunity to protect Christian pastors who preach the biblical condemnation of homosexuality and approved on a 15-12 vote a “hate crimes” bill that supporters admit could be used to bring charges against religious leaders.

The bill, H.R. 1913, now will be considered by the full House of Representatives.

The committee rejected a number of amendments offered by several members seeking to protect religious liberty, to protect the unborn, to protect against violence by illegal aliens, and to clarify the bill’s meanings of “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.”

One of the rejected proposals was offered by Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, who sought to ensure ministers could not be prosecuted for abetting a “hate crime” simply because they preach from the Bible or another religious book.

When a nearly identical plan was developed in the last Congress, Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., admitted during a hearing on the bill it could be used to prosecute pastors merely for preaching under the premise that they could be “inducing” violence in someone.

The bill ultimately failed then because President Bush determined it was unnecessary – the crimes banned in the legislation already are addressed by other laws – and it probably was unconstitutional.

“The federal hate crimes bill is bad news for everyone,” said Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute, who testified in Congress against the bill two years ago.

“Instead of treating all crime victims equally, it creates a caste system where select groups, such as gays and lesbians, are given greater priority in the criminal justice system. This is not progress; it is political correctness. In other nations and states, the adoption of hate crimes legislation has been the first step toward widespread suppression of speech and ideas critical of homosexuality,” he said.

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel has spoken out against H.R. 1913, the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009,” a number of times.

“As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling ‘hate speech’ laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle,” he said.

Barber said the 14th Amendment already provides that victims of violent crimes are afforded equal protection under the law “regardless of sexual preference or proclivity.”

“If passed, H.R. 1913 will change all that. It overtly and, most likely, unconstitutionally, discriminates against millions of Americans by granting federally preferred status, time and resources to individuals who define their identity based upon aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e.,’gay’ and lesbian ‘sexual orientation’ or cross-dressing ‘gender identity’),” he said.

He also said there is “zero evidence” suggesting homosexuals do not get equal protection now.

“In fact, you need only look to the most famous ‘hate crime’ of all – Matthew Shepard – for proof. Although the evidence determined that Shepard’s murder was not a ‘hate crime’ by definition (a misconception still widely propagated by the homosexual lobby, the media and liberal lawmakers), the two thugs who committed the crime nonetheless received life in prison – and rightfully so. (Shepard’s murder turned out to be the end result of a robbery for drug money gone from bad to horrible),” he said.

Barber said likewise the murderer of Mary Stachowicz, a devout Catholic grandmother brutally killed by a homosexual for sharing the Bible with him, also was given a life sentence.

“The system worked in both cases and both victims received equal justice under the law apart from any discriminatory ‘hate crimes’ legislation,” he said.

Barber cited FBI statistics showing there were about 1.4 million violent crimes in the U.S. in 2007, but only 1,512 were presumed to be “hate crimes.” And two-thirds of those involved claims of “hateful” words, touching and shoving.

Under the specifications of the law, a Christian needn’t touch a homosexual to face charges, he noted.

“If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in ‘apprehension of bodily injury’ by the Christian’s words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony ‘hate crime,'” he said.

The committee also rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that would have withheld its special protections from pedophiles.

WND reported just a day ago that the plan was introduced by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who said, “The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way.”

Section 10 of the act states, “Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

However, critics cite United States Code Title 18, Section 2, as evidence of how the legislation could be used against people who merely speak out against homosexuality. It states: Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

Jeff King, president of International Christian Concern, warned Christians to speak up before the legislation passes. He said they are acting like the proverbial frog in a slowly heating kettle that boils to death.

“They need to wake up and take action to oppose this threat to religious liberty.”

Concerned individuals may contact representatives by calling (202) 224-3121 or by searching for their last names in the U.S. House of Representatives database.

Read Full Post »

OneNewsNow columnist Sandy Rios has an article comparing Peter’s denial of Jesus during Jesus’ trial to Rick Warren’s backpedaling to his homosexual friends and the world over Proposition 8.

Rick Warren – another Easter denial

Sandy Rios – Guest Columnist – 4/14/2009 8:35:00 AM

Sandy Rios“Even if others do, I will never deny you,” declared the Apostle Peter some 2,000 years ago just hours before he did exactly that, three times, when the heat was on. Ten others boasted the same, but when the risk was more than theoretical, all deserted Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.  Only one was seen at the cross.

A fascinating story…the “old story,” as the secularists like to call it.  Barack Obama alluded to this in his speech in France. We need a new story…a discovery of “new ways” of thinking.  We must throw off the old, and embrace a much more enlightened, intelligent point of view, he said.  By doing so, our president argued, we remove inconvenient barriers, cumbersome moral values and achieve self-determination with our new understanding of the world guiding the way.  Surely we cannot be bound in this advanced new age by the old moral codes or put plainly, by what Jesus taught — certainly not if we are to curry favor with the world in which we live.

During Holy Week, Peter’s portion of the “old story” was revisited in a very contemporary way.  The last instruction Jesus gave as He left earth was that His followers should tell His story of forgiveness and redemption not only in their communities, but to the “ends of the earth.” And as His followers told the “old story,” they should not leave out all the other things He had carefully taught them.  He wanted future generations to go beyond mere intellectual understanding and move to actually living out the principles.

One of those principles was marriage. “For this reason shall a man leave his parents and join with his wife and the two shall become one flesh,” Jesus instructed. One man…one woman…for a lifetime; no sex outside of that union.  His clear moral teaching applied to homosexuality and never entertained a discussion of same-sex “marriage,” because it would have been unthinkable.  “I have come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it,” Jesus said in regard to Old Testament moral standards.

Fast forwarding to November 2008, California voters of various religious persuasions — in a ballot measure called Proposition 8 — held to the Judeo-Christian teaching that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Pastor Rick Warren — author of the multi-million selling book The Purpose Driven Life; pastor of Saddleback, one of the largest churches in the country; deeply influential — rightly told his congregation just weeks before the election: “…if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8.  I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear.”

Until last week…Holy Week.

“Though others may turn away, I will never deny you,” promised Peter.  But then in the chill of night in a courtyard just outside the place of Jesus’ trial, as others around the fire began to probe his relationship to Jesus, he denied even knowing him.  No one was threatening his life, but the derision increased, until Peter’s denial escalated to a curse to more emphatically deny he had ever known Jesus.

Peter was worried about his reputation.  He didn’t want to be the odd man out in the courtyard over the fire…it wasn’t a Roman soldier with a sword who challenged him, it was a servant girl.

“On moral issues I come out very clear,” declared Warren when speaking in the safety of his church last October. But when confronted by homosexual friends and by CNN’s Larry King, he folded like Peter.  He told a national television audience that he had “apologized” to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of Proposition 8.  He “never once gave an endorsement” of the marriage amendment, he declared in that much larger, electronic courtyard. “I never once issued a statement.” But that was not true. He had given an impassioned plea on camera for support of Proposition 8…a plea worthy of a Christian leader…a plea to follow Jesus’ teaching on marriage.  Then in one CNN moment, he not only backed away from the hard teaching, but lied in the process.  On camera…both times…for all to see.

Seduced by the pressure of fame?  Driven by the desire to please his friends?  Afraid to be seen as bigoted to a national television audience?  Whatever the motivation, the denial is no less significant.

After Peter finished his denial, he went out and wept bitterly.  Jesus later forgave him in a personal exchange, and Peter became one of the greatest examples of Christ following of all time…crucified upside down for his faith…fearless to the end.

But he repented.  If Rick Warren does not, he has lost his moral authority as a Christian leader.  Without repentance, he joins the apostate ranks of others who declare Jesus’ teaching when it is expedient and deny it when it interferes with choice or reputation.

Another Easter denial — but we pray Warren will not let his story end there.

Related Posts: OneNewsNow Guest Columnist: Who Are The Homophobes?

Read Full Post »

OneNewsNow has an article that brings up the issue of how the mainstream media, the ones clamoring over Barack Obama and the rest of the Democrats, has treated the anti-prop 8 activists versus the TEA party protests.

Tax Day protests not media’s cup of tea

Chad Groening – OneNewsNow – 4/14/2009 7:00:00 AM

tea cupThe mainstream media provided extensive coverage of the protests surrounding California’s ban on same-sex “marriage,” but appears to be virtually ignoring the grassroots “TEA parties” that are drawing huge crowds across the country. One conservative media watchdog organization has a problem with that.

Dan Gainor is vice president for business and culture at the Culture and Media Institute (CMI). He says with Tax Day just a day away, the national news media is continuing to shirk its responsibility by refusing to cover the “Taxed Enough Already” — or TEA party — movement.

Gainor says the TEA parties drew 30,000 people to 50 events on February 27, and organizers are hoping to have hundreds of thousands of attendees at more than 1,500 events tomorrow (April 15). But the mainstream media, he argues, was more concerned about giving coverage to homosexuals protesting passage of Proposition 8 — a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in California — than they are the concerns of ordinary Americans about the massive government bailouts.

TEA party logoThe CMI spokesman says journalists should not let their support for President Obama get in the way of doing what is right.

“The mainstream media are on Obama’s side in a big way,” he observes, “so why are they going to go write about something that they clearly don’t agree with and knocks their guy — even though I think it’s pretty obvious that the TEA party protests are non-partisan.”

Gainor offers evidence of the non-partisan nature of the gatherings. “Michael Steele, the head of the Republican Party, wanted to speak at one of the protests — and he was told flat out, no,” he states “Their comment was that this is one of the times when ordinary people get to speak and politicians are supposed to listen.”

According to media observer, what little coverage the mainstream media has done has been mostly unsympathetic toward the TEA party cause.

Read Full Post »

OneNewsNow.com has a guest columnist who wrote a piece in response to Democrat Representative Barney Frank’s comments calling Justice Scalia a “homophobe”.

Who are the homophobes?

Peter Heck – Guest Columnist – 4/8/2009 10:25:00 AM

Peter HeckDemonstrating the commitment the far left has to elevating the level of civil discourse in our society, belligerent homosexual Congressman Barney Frank recently resorted to name-calling in an interview with the website 365gay.com.  Answering a question about the Supreme Court potentially overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, Frank dismissed that possibility saying, “I wouldn’t want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this current court.”  How classy.

In Frank’s warped worldview, anyone who opposes the spread of homosexuality in our culture is a homophobe.  This offensive misuse of the term is more than irresponsible.  It is ignorant and slanderous.

Homophobia is defined as a fear or hatred of homosexuals.  To pejoratively label anyone who has moral objections to the practice of homosexuality a homophobe is such a blatant overreach that it effectively strips the term of any real meaning.  There are homophobes in America today.  But who they are just might surprise you.

To illustrate this, let me first begin by asking a question.  When someone you care about picks up a loaded revolver to play a game of Russian Roulette, what is the loving response?  To pat them on the back and say, “Well, this wouldn’t be my cup of tea, but go for it…it’s who you are!”?  Or would it be to rip the gun out of their hand and tell them how dangerous, irresponsible, and deadly their behavior is?  If you’re struggling to answer this question, please stop reading and seek counseling.

Physically, the consequences of homosexuality are devastatingly apparent.  According to the Omega Journal of Death and Dying, the median age of death for homosexual men is between 40 and 43.  The median age of death for heterosexuals is between 74 and 80.  In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control noted that homosexuals accounted for nearly 65 percent of all new HIV cases (keeping in mind that they make up only 2-3 percent of the entire population), and that cases of Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis A and B, Lymphogranuloma Venereum, and virtually every other sexually transmitted disease disproportionately affected the homosexual community.

Psychologically, the effects of homosexuality on an individual are just as deplorable.  According to the well-respected Archives of General Psychiatry in 1999, “homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicid(e), major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence.”  Further, Dr. N.E. Whitehead from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals stated, “Studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals.  We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse.”  And contrary to the misconceptions advanced by the homosexual lobby, these psychological problems are rarely associated with a stigma they endure from society.

Spiritually, an unrepentant practicing homosexual is engaging in an activity that is explicitly and unquestionably condemned by both the Old and New Testaments, and is completely irreconcilable with any biblical understanding of Godly living.

In light of these realities, could someone explain to me how knowing these crippling physical, psychological, and spiritual consequences of the homosexual lifestyle — and then encouraging a person to embrace it — is loving?  Urging another human being to engage in a risky behavior that will leave them dead at nearly half the age of the general population is an odd definition of love in my book.

The truth is that the people who love homosexuals are the ones who have the courage to face the bigotry and slander from hate-peddlers like Barney Frank and stand up for moral truth.  They are the ones who face the mockery and derision of fools in an effort to take the Russian Roulette pistol from the hand of the homosexual.

So who is the homophobe, Barney?  The gay rights lobby in this country works unceasingly to advertise and glamorize a deadly lifestyle.  They celebrate behavior that tears families apart, wrecks homes, and sentences people to lifetimes of loneliness, confusion, disease, and heartache.  And politicians like Barney Frank use their positions to make it easier for them to ensnare and attract hurting, confused people in need of love and help.  Quite frankly, I can’t think of anything more homophobic than that.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »