PCANews -For "gay" and lesbian activists intent on molding American culture in their own image, the Church is seen as the most stalwart opponent resisting the triumph of homosexual philosophy.
As Paul Varnell, a homosexual columnist and writer, says, "It can scarcely be doubted that the primary, and perhaps only sources of our culture's anti-gay hostility are the Christian denominations."
To counter this threat, some activists have undertaken a long-term strategy of capturing the Church from within, in order to use its longstanding moral authority as an instrument of change.
However, this approach has one glaring weakness. How could churches, which hold to beliefs that are presumably anchored in Scripture, be used by activists to condone something the Bible clearly condemns – namely, homosexuality?
The solution to that dilemma has been to allege that the Scriptures have been erroneously interpreted. Some activists claim that the mistaken assessments are the result of simple ignorance, while others, like the Rev. Troy Perry, founder of the homosexually-oriented Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), assert there are more malevolent reasons. In his book, Don't Be Afraid Anymore, Perry said, "To condemn homosexuals, many denominations have intentionally misread and misinterpreted their Bibles to please their own personal preferences."
Smoke and Mirrors on Sodom
So what does the Bible actually say? Activists have taken great pains to provide alternative interpretations of the biblical passages that seem to clearly condemn homosexuality.
Of course, the obvious place to start is Sodom and Gomorrah. The familiar tale of the duo of doomed cities, recounted in Genesis 18 and 19, has made Sodom and Gomorrah synonymous with divine judgment. But the cities have become synonymous with something else, too: homosexuality. In fact, the word sodomy, which generally refers to unnatural sex acts (especially homosexual anal intercourse), is derived from the name of the city of Sodom.
This association comes from the events of Genesis 19. When two angels, in the form of men, came to Sodom to stay with Lot, the men of the city surrounded the house and asked, "Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them" (vs. 5, KJV).
Lot pleaded with them to reconsider their request, and - shockingly - even offered them his two virgin daughters instead. The men again demanded that the two newcomers be brought out, and even threatened Lot, after which the angels pulled Lot to safety and warned the man of God to take his family and flee Sodom. Fiery judgment then engulfed the two cities.
With such a biblical event casting its shadow over the theological landscape, how could "gay" advocates sidestep the obvious implication that God considered homosexuality a despicable sin?
Some simply deny that any type of sexuality - homosexual or heterosexual - is in view in the Sodom and Gomorrah saga. For example, in his book, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, Dr. Sherwin Bailey argues that the Hebrew word translated "know" in this verse does not refer to sex at all. Instead, the request on the part of the townsmen to "know" the visitors was merely a request to become acquainted with Lot's guests, especially since they were outsiders.
A proper exegesis of this passage reveals the ludicrous nature of this argument. Lot responded to the initial request by beseeching the men, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly" (vs. 7, NAS). This is hardly a comprehensible statement if all the men wanted to do was meet Lot's guests and start up a conversation.
Furthermore, as P. Michael Ukleja argues in Bibliotheca Sacra, with such a restricted meaning for "know," Lot's offer of his daughters to the men of the city (itself a disgraceful act) would be inexplicable.
The more common approach for activists, however, has been to argue that the sin here in Genesis is not homosexuality per se, but homosexual rape. "Violence -- forcing sexual activity upon another – is the real point of this story," said lesbian English professor Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, co-author of the book Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?
Mollenkott is not completely off the mark, for the story does demonstrate that the men of Sodom, after being rebuffed by Lot, fully intended to sexually brutalize Lot's visitors.
However, Mollenkott misses the obvious: what if Lot's two visitors had been agreeable to the initial suggestion of carnal knowledge with the men of the city? There is nothing in the Genesis account to suggest that the resulting homosexual orgy would have been forced. The homosexuals wanted sex with the strangers, and they would take it any way they could get it; but they were homosexuals.
In any case, it was not one incident alone that led to the demise of Sodom and Gomorrah. As clearly seen in Genesis 18, God had already stated that the sin of the cities was "exceedingly grave" (vs. 20). Even before the two angels showed up in Sodom, the Lord had already targeted the cities for destruction. The divine intention to "sweep away" all who lived there (vs. 23) was what led Abraham to plead for mercy in that passage's memorable example of intercession.
An Inhospitable Folk?
So what were the "exceedingly grave" sins which led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? Most Christians would be surprised to hear an interpretation of these events that did not even include the issue of homosexuality – but that is precisely what many activists offer.
"Many contemporary [scholars] agree that the Old Testament story about the destruction of Sodom cannot be read as a lesson about divine punishment of same-sex copulation. If any lesson is wanted from the story, the lesson would seem to be about hospitality," said Mark D. Jordan, Emory University professor of religion.
As bizarre as that assertion might seem at first, Jordan's explanation is worth investigating. In Ezekiel 16:49-50, the prophet addresses the sins of Israel by pointing to the sins of Sodom: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it."
Ezekiel clearly links Sodom's judgment – at least in part – to the city's pride and luxurious lifestyle, and the inhabitants' refusal to help those in need.
Do we have two conflicting accounts of Sodom's guilt in Scripture? Does Genesis focus on homosexuality, while the prophet Ezekiel accuses the city's inhabitants of pride and inhospitality?
The two passages are actually in agreement, for Ezekiel does not ignore the issue of homosexuality at all. The prophet's reference to the fact that Sodom "committed abominations" before God is no doubt a reference to the inhabitants' homosexual proclivities – especially with the Genesis story in the minds of Ezekiel's hearers. After all, the Jews understood "abomination" as a common way of referring to grotesque sexual sin like homosexuality (Lev. 18:22).
Therefore, rather than being an unexpected revision of Scriptural history, Ezekiel's reference to Sodom is a clear explanation of it, adding to the Genesis account, rather than contradicting it. The "arrogant self-indulgence" of Sodom's citizens contributed to the sexual perversion.
In fact, this supposition fits more reasonably within the context of Ezekiel's denunciation of Israel – who, after all, is the real subject of the prophet's preaching. Israel's harlotries and abominations, clearly laid out in the earlier portions of Ezekiel 16, are tied to the unfaithful nation's own wealth and material blessings (vv. 10-14). Such luxury and arrogance, therefore, can lead to sexual perversion, and that would be the precise impact of Ezekiel's reference to Sodom.
However, the attempt to deflect away from homosexuality the horror of the judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah receives its fatal blow from the New Testament. In verses which even Jordan calls "problematic," the epistles of both 2 Peter and Jude link Sodom's guilt to carnality and sexual perversion.
In 2 Peter 2, the apostle said the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah should serve as an example to the wicked of every generation (vs. 6). Lot, he said, continually witnessed "the sensual conduct of unprincipled men," who, among other things, "indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires" (vv. 7, 10).
Jude 7 makes the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah even more explicit: the inhabitants "indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh," and what could be stranger than men fornicating with other men?
While the two cursed cities may have been judged for more than their homosexuality, there is no legitimate way to remove homosexuality from the list of sins that doomed them.
The Deadly Sin
Openly homosexual Rev. Peter J. Gomes, the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard University, also insists on reinterpreting the Sodom and Gomorrah story. In The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Heart and Mind, which argues for Christianity's acceptance of homosexuality, Gomes says that even Jesus "was under the impression that Sodom was destroyed because it lacked hospitality."
His proof? Gomes cites Matthew 10, in which the Lord Jesus prepared his disciples to go forth and preach the gospel among the cities of Israel. Some cities, of course, would reject the message of the kingdom, but the disciples were simply to turn away from them.
"Truly I say to you," Jesus warned ominously, "it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city" (vs. 15). In Gomes' mind, Jesus' reference to the destruction of the doomed cities is yet another warning against inhospitality.
Gomes' exegesis is inexcusably poor. Jesus did not use the judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah as an indictment against inhospitality, but as a warning against rejecting the gospel. As Brian Fitzpatrick argues in the Lambda Report, it is the severity of the Old Testament judgment that is in Jesus' view, not the reasons for it.
Ironically, in turning to Matthew 10 in an attempt to excuse Sodom and Gomorrah, Gomes has laid the groundwork for his own judgment. In rejecting the necessity of repentance (by homosexuals) for entrance into the kingdom of God, he has placed himself in the position of the very cities to which Jesus referred in Matthew 10.
Homosexual activists like Gomes, by repudiating the obvious meaning of Scripture, run the risk of committing the most deadly sin of all – unbelief.
============
Ed Vitagliano, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is news editor of AFA Journal, a publication of the American Family Association. This article appeared originally in the November/December 2003 issue.
For more articles like this go to PCANews.com.
(The above article is from: http://70030.netministry.com/articles_view.asp?articleid=31548&columnid=3801)
Showing posts with label homosexual. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexual. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
The Four Components of Homosexuality
The problem of homosexuality involves much more than simply a sexual act. Those caught up in this sin usually have entered the homosexual lifestyle to some degree. To better understand the circumstances of the homosexual person seeking help, we've divided homosexuality into four components: behavior, psychic response, identity and lifestyle.
Behavior: Often, it is assumed that all homosexual people engage in homosexual acts, but this is not always the case. Because of fears or strong religious convictions, some may refrain from sexual behavior, yet experience an intense battle with homosexual attractions. Another wrong assumption is that all people who engage in homosexual acts are homosexual. There are significant numbers of heterosexual men who engage in homosexual acts for a variety of reasons, such as being in prison or anywhere where heterosexual sex is unavailable.
Also, we do not believe that a child who is involved in homosexual acts early in life will necessarily become homosexual unless these acts fulfill needs that are not being met in other ways, such as needs for love, acceptance, security and significance. In these cases, the child's involvement in the act is viewed as a "trade-off" for the non-sexual needs he is obtaining. It is possible that the act and the fulfilled needs may become synonymous, which could lead to the development of a homosexual orientation. However, statistics have shown that most children who experience homosexual acts leave them behind, growing up to lead a normal heterosexual life.
Psychic Response: A brief definition of this term is, "sexual excitation (stimulation) caused by visual perception or fantasy speculation." Psychic response is also what people refer to as a "homosexual orientation." Though many people claim that they have experienced visual or sexual attraction for the same sex "as long as they can remember," there is a progression in a person's life that leads to a homosexual psychic response. A child may start out with a need to compare himself with others to see if he measures up to societal standards. When he feels he doesn't compare favorably with others, he develops admiration for those traits and physical characteristics he feels he does not possess. Admiration, which is normal, may turn to envy. Envy leads to the desire to possess others and finally, to consume others. This strong desire eventually becomes eroticized, normally around puberty, leading to homosexual psychic response. As psychic response begins to grip someone's life, a certain amount of scheming takes place. Sexual situations are pictured in the mind. When the first sexual encounter takes place, it may be the result of several years of planning and fantasy. However, homosexual behavior can also precede psychic response, which may then develop as a conditioned response to sexually-gratifying encounters with those of the same sex.
Identity: Some people enter into homosexuality through "identity". These are people who may not have experienced sexual attraction for the same sex or have had any homosexual encounters. However, from an early age, they have felt they were "different" from other people. They felt abnormal, like they do not fit into the heterosexual world. They reason, "If I'm not heterosexual, then I must be gay" and they accept the homosexual label into their lives. Of course, this is a misinterpretation. A person troubled with shyness, fear of the opposite sex, lack of athletic or social skills need not accept the label "homosexual." However, people do grow into labels. Once a label is accepted, the implied characteristics of that label begin to develop in a person's life. What we believe about ourselves is of extreme importance.
Lifestyle: A homosexual may insist that he bears no responsibility for his identity, his psychic response or even his first sexual encounter, which may have been forced upon him. However, every homosexual person must bear the responsibility for his or her choice to enter the homosexual lifestyle. People enter this lifestyle to varying degrees. Some live in the heterosexual world for the most part, seeking out only sporadic, impersonal sexual encounters. Others immerse themselves in the total "gay subculture," a setting in which a person works, lives and socializes in a totally gay environment. There are all the varying degrees in between these two extremes but the gay lifestyle, for many people, is the first place where they have experienced any form of acceptance on a deeper level. In spite of the acceptance that is available, however, the homosexual lifestyle often proves to be a painful and unrewarding way of life, particularly for older gays who are no longer desirable sexually.
As you can see from looking at these four components, homosexuality is a complex problem with many definitions and variations. If someone tells you "I am a homosexual," he has really told you very little about himself. It takes a deeper look to determine the degree to which homosexuality has become a part of his life.
It is true that the way out of homosexuality is not easy, yet there are thousands who have left homosexuality behind and have become "new creations in Christ." Many have married and raised families, while others remain celibate, yet lead joyful lives devoted to God's service. God gives us the desires of our heart. Satan is not pleased when someone sees through the deception of homosexuality and discovers the way out. There are many battles to be fought, but "greater is He who is in us than he who is in the world."
"Do not be afraid or discouraged...for the battle is not yours, but God's."
(II Chronicles 20:15)
The above article is from:
New Hope Ministries
© New Hope Ministries. All rights reserved.
Also see my other blog posts on homosexuality HERE
Behavior: Often, it is assumed that all homosexual people engage in homosexual acts, but this is not always the case. Because of fears or strong religious convictions, some may refrain from sexual behavior, yet experience an intense battle with homosexual attractions. Another wrong assumption is that all people who engage in homosexual acts are homosexual. There are significant numbers of heterosexual men who engage in homosexual acts for a variety of reasons, such as being in prison or anywhere where heterosexual sex is unavailable.
Also, we do not believe that a child who is involved in homosexual acts early in life will necessarily become homosexual unless these acts fulfill needs that are not being met in other ways, such as needs for love, acceptance, security and significance. In these cases, the child's involvement in the act is viewed as a "trade-off" for the non-sexual needs he is obtaining. It is possible that the act and the fulfilled needs may become synonymous, which could lead to the development of a homosexual orientation. However, statistics have shown that most children who experience homosexual acts leave them behind, growing up to lead a normal heterosexual life.
Psychic Response: A brief definition of this term is, "sexual excitation (stimulation) caused by visual perception or fantasy speculation." Psychic response is also what people refer to as a "homosexual orientation." Though many people claim that they have experienced visual or sexual attraction for the same sex "as long as they can remember," there is a progression in a person's life that leads to a homosexual psychic response. A child may start out with a need to compare himself with others to see if he measures up to societal standards. When he feels he doesn't compare favorably with others, he develops admiration for those traits and physical characteristics he feels he does not possess. Admiration, which is normal, may turn to envy. Envy leads to the desire to possess others and finally, to consume others. This strong desire eventually becomes eroticized, normally around puberty, leading to homosexual psychic response. As psychic response begins to grip someone's life, a certain amount of scheming takes place. Sexual situations are pictured in the mind. When the first sexual encounter takes place, it may be the result of several years of planning and fantasy. However, homosexual behavior can also precede psychic response, which may then develop as a conditioned response to sexually-gratifying encounters with those of the same sex.
Identity: Some people enter into homosexuality through "identity". These are people who may not have experienced sexual attraction for the same sex or have had any homosexual encounters. However, from an early age, they have felt they were "different" from other people. They felt abnormal, like they do not fit into the heterosexual world. They reason, "If I'm not heterosexual, then I must be gay" and they accept the homosexual label into their lives. Of course, this is a misinterpretation. A person troubled with shyness, fear of the opposite sex, lack of athletic or social skills need not accept the label "homosexual." However, people do grow into labels. Once a label is accepted, the implied characteristics of that label begin to develop in a person's life. What we believe about ourselves is of extreme importance.
Lifestyle: A homosexual may insist that he bears no responsibility for his identity, his psychic response or even his first sexual encounter, which may have been forced upon him. However, every homosexual person must bear the responsibility for his or her choice to enter the homosexual lifestyle. People enter this lifestyle to varying degrees. Some live in the heterosexual world for the most part, seeking out only sporadic, impersonal sexual encounters. Others immerse themselves in the total "gay subculture," a setting in which a person works, lives and socializes in a totally gay environment. There are all the varying degrees in between these two extremes but the gay lifestyle, for many people, is the first place where they have experienced any form of acceptance on a deeper level. In spite of the acceptance that is available, however, the homosexual lifestyle often proves to be a painful and unrewarding way of life, particularly for older gays who are no longer desirable sexually.
As you can see from looking at these four components, homosexuality is a complex problem with many definitions and variations. If someone tells you "I am a homosexual," he has really told you very little about himself. It takes a deeper look to determine the degree to which homosexuality has become a part of his life.
It is true that the way out of homosexuality is not easy, yet there are thousands who have left homosexuality behind and have become "new creations in Christ." Many have married and raised families, while others remain celibate, yet lead joyful lives devoted to God's service. God gives us the desires of our heart. Satan is not pleased when someone sees through the deception of homosexuality and discovers the way out. There are many battles to be fought, but "greater is He who is in us than he who is in the world."
"Do not be afraid or discouraged...for the battle is not yours, but God's."
(II Chronicles 20:15)
The above article is from:
New Hope Ministries
© New Hope Ministries. All rights reserved.
Also see my other blog posts on homosexuality HERE
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
6 out of 10 servicemen wary of Obama in charge
Survey: 'Nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief'
Posted: January 03, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
"A recent Military Times survey of active-duty service members found 6 of 10 U.S. soldiers polled said they were "pessimistic" or "uncertain" about Barack Obama serving as commander in chief of America's armed forces.
In follow-up interviews reported by the Army Times newspaper, respondents cited Obama's inexperience in leading soldiers, his plans for accelerated removal of troops from Iraq and his pledge to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexual service members as reasons for their cautious outlook.
"Being that the Marine Corps can be sent anywhere in the world with the snap of his fingers," said one lance corporal who asked not to be identified, "nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief."
"How are you going to safely pull combat troops out of Iraq?" asked Air Force 1st Lt. Rachel Kleinpeter, an intelligence officer with the 100th Operations Support Squadron. "And if you're pulling out combat troops, who are you leaving to help support what's left? What happens if Iraq falls back into chaos? Are we going to be there in five years doing the same thing over again?"
Duke political science professor and civil-military relations writer Peter Feaver, however, says concerns about a new administration's leadership are to be expected.
"What [Obama] is seeing is not military hostility, but rather military caution, and caution that is reasonable because he has never been in the position of this office," Feaver told Army Times. "It's sensible and understandable that they have doubts about him.
"They respect the office of the commander in chief," Feaver said. "As long as he wields that office responsibly, then these numbers need not morph into a problem."
The sixth annual Military Times survey asked over 30,000 subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times newspapers, "How do you feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief?"
A total of 5,181 active-duty, National Guard and reserve and retired military subscribers responded to the email invitation issued from Dec. 1 to Dec. 8.
Of the 1,947 active-duty soldiers that responded, a third answered that they are "optimistic," while 25 percent answered "pessimistic" and 35 percent admitted to being "uncertain." The "uncertain" response differs from "no opinion," which garnered 8 percent of the vote.
Other survey results found that nearly 80 percent of the respondents support the war in Afghanistan and nearly the same amount favor increasing troop strength there, though 30 percent believe it may take more than 10 years of military presence in Afghanistan to achieve American goals.
The majority of active-duty service members also oppose Obama's campaign pledge to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow homosexual soldiers to serve openly in the armed forces. 14 percent said they would consider ending their military career after serving their obligated tours of duty if the policy was repealed.
Army Capt. Steven J. Lacy, a logistician assigned to the 71st Transportation Battalion, told Military Times he's worried about the effect open homosexuality may have on military units.
"I think a lot of people are," Lacy said. "In the field environment, you're in very close proximity to one another. The fact that someone could be openly gay could exacerbate stress on teams and small units when you're already at a high stress level."
71 percent of respondents in the survey, however, said they would continue to serve even if the policy was overturned.
Army Times reported that as a voluntary response poll and not a scientific, random sampling, the survey could not calculate a statistical margin of error or guard against variances caused by the characteristics of Military Times subscribers. The responses cannot be considered representative of the opinions of the military as a whole."
from WorldNetDaily
Posted: January 03, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
"A recent Military Times survey of active-duty service members found 6 of 10 U.S. soldiers polled said they were "pessimistic" or "uncertain" about Barack Obama serving as commander in chief of America's armed forces.
In follow-up interviews reported by the Army Times newspaper, respondents cited Obama's inexperience in leading soldiers, his plans for accelerated removal of troops from Iraq and his pledge to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexual service members as reasons for their cautious outlook.
"Being that the Marine Corps can be sent anywhere in the world with the snap of his fingers," said one lance corporal who asked not to be identified, "nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief."
"How are you going to safely pull combat troops out of Iraq?" asked Air Force 1st Lt. Rachel Kleinpeter, an intelligence officer with the 100th Operations Support Squadron. "And if you're pulling out combat troops, who are you leaving to help support what's left? What happens if Iraq falls back into chaos? Are we going to be there in five years doing the same thing over again?"
Duke political science professor and civil-military relations writer Peter Feaver, however, says concerns about a new administration's leadership are to be expected.
"What [Obama] is seeing is not military hostility, but rather military caution, and caution that is reasonable because he has never been in the position of this office," Feaver told Army Times. "It's sensible and understandable that they have doubts about him.
"They respect the office of the commander in chief," Feaver said. "As long as he wields that office responsibly, then these numbers need not morph into a problem."
The sixth annual Military Times survey asked over 30,000 subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times newspapers, "How do you feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief?"
A total of 5,181 active-duty, National Guard and reserve and retired military subscribers responded to the email invitation issued from Dec. 1 to Dec. 8.
Of the 1,947 active-duty soldiers that responded, a third answered that they are "optimistic," while 25 percent answered "pessimistic" and 35 percent admitted to being "uncertain." The "uncertain" response differs from "no opinion," which garnered 8 percent of the vote.
Other survey results found that nearly 80 percent of the respondents support the war in Afghanistan and nearly the same amount favor increasing troop strength there, though 30 percent believe it may take more than 10 years of military presence in Afghanistan to achieve American goals.
The majority of active-duty service members also oppose Obama's campaign pledge to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow homosexual soldiers to serve openly in the armed forces. 14 percent said they would consider ending their military career after serving their obligated tours of duty if the policy was repealed.
Army Capt. Steven J. Lacy, a logistician assigned to the 71st Transportation Battalion, told Military Times he's worried about the effect open homosexuality may have on military units.
"I think a lot of people are," Lacy said. "In the field environment, you're in very close proximity to one another. The fact that someone could be openly gay could exacerbate stress on teams and small units when you're already at a high stress level."
71 percent of respondents in the survey, however, said they would continue to serve even if the policy was overturned.
Army Times reported that as a voluntary response poll and not a scientific, random sampling, the survey could not calculate a statistical margin of error or guard against variances caused by the characteristics of Military Times subscribers. The responses cannot be considered representative of the opinions of the military as a whole."
from WorldNetDaily
Monday, January 5, 2009
'Bride,' 'groom' can't marry in California
'We thought we couldn't go any lower. We discovered actually we can'
Posted: October 03, 2008
12:40 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A man and woman have had to go to court in California because they want to be recognized as married after officials rejected their marriage license because it listed "bride" and "groom" instead of "Party A" and "Party B."
After the state Supreme Court in May expanded the rights enumerated in the state constitution and found same-sex couples couldn't be denied marriage rights, "Many thought we couldn't go any lower," said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working on the case. "We discovered actually we can."
Gideon Codding and Rachel Bird recently were married in Placer County, near Sacramento. However, surprised by new marriage license forms created by state bureaucrats with "Party A" and "Party B," they jotted an explanatory "Groom" and "Bride' next to "party" designations.
The couple soon discovered the strength of the pro-homosexual lobby in the state: The application was returned to Pastor Doug Bird, who officiated, with a form letter stating the license "does not comply with California State registration laws."
The couple now is filing a lawsuit in Placer County asking the court to order county officials to process the license, since without the form's registration, "the Coddings are not legally married and have been prevented from accessing the many benefits available to married couples."
"Being labeled by the state as 'Party A' and 'Party B" is demeaning," said PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider. "It's shocking that we have to litigate over whether newlyweds can call themselves a bride and groom."
Said Dacus, "Already, we are seeing the negative effects of gay marriage in California, as the state is changing centuries-old traditions to accommodate homosexuals. Unless the Protect Marriage Initiative, Proposition 8, is approved in November, we expect a tidal wave of new restraints and limitations to be imposed on people of faith."
Dacus told WND the right for a one-man, one-woman couple to be married "was in no way invalidated by the state Supreme Court's ruling respecting homosexual marriage."
"This is an outright act of hostility towards the established rights of people to be married as husband and wife, bride and groom," he said.
"It's one thing for the state Supreme Court to cram homosexual marriage down the throats of people who voted for Proposition 22, it's quite another for the state of California then to go so far as to make it impossible for a man and woman to be married as husband and wife in the state of California," Dacus continued.
Bird, pastor of Abundant Life Fellowship in Roseville, said he was told by officials in the county office that "Bride" and "Groom" amounted to "unacceptable alteration" to the form.
"What's next?" Bird wrote in a Sept. 4 letter. "Will the State of California force [ministers] to use the terms "Party A" and "Party B" in the ceremony itself?"
The state Supreme Court in May, in a 4-3 decision, declared that legal definitions of marriage as a union between a man and a woman were unconstitutional. Since the ruling, the generic designations were added by bureaucrats to legal documents.
Voters several years ago under Proposition 22 approved limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But the measure was a statute, which the Supreme Court simple disregarded. The Proposition 8 proposal would establish the definition in the state constitution, putting it beyond the reach of judicial activism.
from: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76833
Posted: October 03, 2008
12:40 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A man and woman have had to go to court in California because they want to be recognized as married after officials rejected their marriage license because it listed "bride" and "groom" instead of "Party A" and "Party B."
After the state Supreme Court in May expanded the rights enumerated in the state constitution and found same-sex couples couldn't be denied marriage rights, "Many thought we couldn't go any lower," said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working on the case. "We discovered actually we can."
Gideon Codding and Rachel Bird recently were married in Placer County, near Sacramento. However, surprised by new marriage license forms created by state bureaucrats with "Party A" and "Party B," they jotted an explanatory "Groom" and "Bride' next to "party" designations.
The couple soon discovered the strength of the pro-homosexual lobby in the state: The application was returned to Pastor Doug Bird, who officiated, with a form letter stating the license "does not comply with California State registration laws."
The couple now is filing a lawsuit in Placer County asking the court to order county officials to process the license, since without the form's registration, "the Coddings are not legally married and have been prevented from accessing the many benefits available to married couples."
"Being labeled by the state as 'Party A' and 'Party B" is demeaning," said PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider. "It's shocking that we have to litigate over whether newlyweds can call themselves a bride and groom."
Said Dacus, "Already, we are seeing the negative effects of gay marriage in California, as the state is changing centuries-old traditions to accommodate homosexuals. Unless the Protect Marriage Initiative, Proposition 8, is approved in November, we expect a tidal wave of new restraints and limitations to be imposed on people of faith."
Dacus told WND the right for a one-man, one-woman couple to be married "was in no way invalidated by the state Supreme Court's ruling respecting homosexual marriage."
"This is an outright act of hostility towards the established rights of people to be married as husband and wife, bride and groom," he said.
"It's one thing for the state Supreme Court to cram homosexual marriage down the throats of people who voted for Proposition 22, it's quite another for the state of California then to go so far as to make it impossible for a man and woman to be married as husband and wife in the state of California," Dacus continued.
Bird, pastor of Abundant Life Fellowship in Roseville, said he was told by officials in the county office that "Bride" and "Groom" amounted to "unacceptable alteration" to the form.
"What's next?" Bird wrote in a Sept. 4 letter. "Will the State of California force [ministers] to use the terms "Party A" and "Party B" in the ceremony itself?"
The state Supreme Court in May, in a 4-3 decision, declared that legal definitions of marriage as a union between a man and a woman were unconstitutional. Since the ruling, the generic designations were added by bureaucrats to legal documents.
Voters several years ago under Proposition 22 approved limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But the measure was a statute, which the Supreme Court simple disregarded. The Proposition 8 proposal would establish the definition in the state constitution, putting it beyond the reach of judicial activism.
from: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76833
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Biblical message now criminalized
Penalties created for those who criticize homosexuality outside church walls
Posted: June 12, 2008
12:45 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
"A new Colorado law is helping homosexual activists achieve their goal of forcing Christians to teach biblical condemnation of homosexuality only behind the closed doors of their sanctuaries.
The as-yet untested state law promotes sexual identity "perception" to the level of skin color under state discrimination laws.
Some opponents are calling it a "bona fide censorship law," and top analysts for Focus on the Family, the Christian publishing and broadcast powerhouse, are expressing concern over the "mischief" they expect to follow the signing by Gov. Bill Ritter.
As WND reported, Ritter, a Democrat, struck gender-specific restrooms and locker rooms statewide when he signed the plan into law in May.
The law makes it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or the "perception" of gender identity.
"Who would have believed that the Colorado state legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women's restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation?" said James Dobson, founder of Focus.
"Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence," Dobson said.
But now an analyst for Focus, Bruce Hausknecht, has told WND there are other, significant, potential ramifications hidden in the fine print of the new law.
The law provides an exemption allowing religious groups to continue teaching, inside their doors, the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. But the exemption itself is ultimately harmful to the church, Hausknecht contends.
"It tends to marginalize the church," he said. "They'll say, 'It's just a church.' It will allow gay activists to continue to marginalize Christians. They'll say, 'Keep it within your four walls. That's all.'"
But there's further possible mischief that can result from a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation or "perception" when deciding "full and equal enjoyment of facilities, accommodations" and other factors, he said.
Religious publishers, he acknowledged, could be accused under the law for publishing biblical condemnation of homosexuality. Colorado Springs, where Focus in located, also is home to the huge Christian publishing operations of NavPress and the International Bible Society.
"There are those who simply by publishing Christian materials could find themselves charged with a violation of this statute," he said.
A spokesman for Ritter did not respond to a WND request for comment.
The actual impact of the new ban on people responsible for "public accommodations" expressing beliefs that do not support homosexuality is unclear at this point, largely because charges haven't been brought and challenges weighed regarding the law and its potential impact on First Amendment guarantees of freedom exercise of religion.
However, Hausknecht warned there is "danger" in those waters for any church that provides any service to its community.
It is possible the law's anti-"discrimination" demands could be triggered when outside groups come in to use a church meeting room, auditorium or recreation facility. For the safety of the churches, perhaps outsiders will have to sign a document stating agreement with the church's religious beliefs before being allowed in, he said.
The targets of complaints likely won't be churches themselves, but more likely church schools, programs that offer services to communities and the like, critics of the law said.
"The intent of the homosexual activists who put this law in [was to] marginalize the church, keep it inside the sanctuary," Hausknecht said.
Worse yet is that many small or medium-size churches will have to go out of their way, including halting programs, to avoid a potential conflict, because they don't have the resources to wage a war over their beliefs, he added.
"It's a lot easier to avoid the conflict than incur the costs of fighting," he said.
Dobson earlier had nothing but criticism for Colorado's elected officials.
"This is your government in action. It represents a payback to Tim Gill and two other billionaires who have essentially 'bought' state legislators with enormous campaign contributions. Coloradans deserve better!" Dobson said.
"And by the way, because of the way this bill is written, it is not subject to the initiative process. There is no recourse," Dobson said.
Pastor Bob Enyart, a Denver-area activist on Christian issues, agreed with Focus's concerns over what appears to be a newly minted state discrimination against Christian beliefs. But he went further.
"WND reported on Canada banning opposition to homosexuality; likewise, Colorado's SB200 has 'forbidden' much publishing of Christian teaching on homosexuality, cohabitation, etc.," he said.
"This censorship aspect of the law has been utterly ignored," he said.
"The law exempts churches, but that's not good, that's an insult. I.E., bigotry is allowed only in churches. Whereas every other place of public accommodation including bookstores, retail & wholesale businesses, etc. cannot sell or even 'give away' anything that would advocate discrimination [against] gay adoption, homosexual marriage, etc.," Enyart said.
He cited one part of the new law:
Section 8. 24-34-701. Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden. No person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation... shall publish, issue, circulate, send, distribute, give away, or display in any way, manner, or shape or by any means or method, except as provided in this section, any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book, pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature, or description THAT is intended or calculated to discriminate or actually discriminates against... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... in the matter of furnishing or neglecting or refusing to furnish to them or any one of them any lodging, housing, schooling, or tuition or any accommodation, right [marriage], privilege [adoption], advantage, or convenience... on account of... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... [which] is unwelcome or objectionable or not acceptable, desired, or solicited."
The Old Testament condemns homosexuality as an "abomination," Enyart told WND. The New Testament includes a reference in 1st Timothy calling for the use of laws against crimes such as murder and homosexuality.
"There are free speech rights to condemn cohabitation, homosexuality, state that homosexuals should not marry, should not adopt children," Enyart said. "It's now illegal in Colorado for anyone involved in a facility or business of public accommodation to give any communication that would advocate discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation."
He said many people simply choose not to believe what's happening.
"I have a hard time believing [it myself]," said Enyart.
He said he expects the law to be only "lightly" enforced until "it just becomes an entrenched part of our legal framework. They're not going to go out and arrest somebody for selling a Bible at Barnes and Noble."
But then in a few years, watch out, he said.
Enyart has printed a document he hands out that says, "This Anti-homosexual Flyer is Illegal in Colorado." It condemns the promotion of homosexuality in no uncertain terms.
"Homosexuality should be re-criminalized in Colorado," it states."
from: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66829
Posted: June 12, 2008
12:45 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
"A new Colorado law is helping homosexual activists achieve their goal of forcing Christians to teach biblical condemnation of homosexuality only behind the closed doors of their sanctuaries.
The as-yet untested state law promotes sexual identity "perception" to the level of skin color under state discrimination laws.
Some opponents are calling it a "bona fide censorship law," and top analysts for Focus on the Family, the Christian publishing and broadcast powerhouse, are expressing concern over the "mischief" they expect to follow the signing by Gov. Bill Ritter.
As WND reported, Ritter, a Democrat, struck gender-specific restrooms and locker rooms statewide when he signed the plan into law in May.
The law makes it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or the "perception" of gender identity.
"Who would have believed that the Colorado state legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women's restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation?" said James Dobson, founder of Focus.
"Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence," Dobson said.
But now an analyst for Focus, Bruce Hausknecht, has told WND there are other, significant, potential ramifications hidden in the fine print of the new law.
The law provides an exemption allowing religious groups to continue teaching, inside their doors, the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. But the exemption itself is ultimately harmful to the church, Hausknecht contends.
"It tends to marginalize the church," he said. "They'll say, 'It's just a church.' It will allow gay activists to continue to marginalize Christians. They'll say, 'Keep it within your four walls. That's all.'"
But there's further possible mischief that can result from a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation or "perception" when deciding "full and equal enjoyment of facilities, accommodations" and other factors, he said.
Religious publishers, he acknowledged, could be accused under the law for publishing biblical condemnation of homosexuality. Colorado Springs, where Focus in located, also is home to the huge Christian publishing operations of NavPress and the International Bible Society.
"There are those who simply by publishing Christian materials could find themselves charged with a violation of this statute," he said.
A spokesman for Ritter did not respond to a WND request for comment.
The actual impact of the new ban on people responsible for "public accommodations" expressing beliefs that do not support homosexuality is unclear at this point, largely because charges haven't been brought and challenges weighed regarding the law and its potential impact on First Amendment guarantees of freedom exercise of religion.
However, Hausknecht warned there is "danger" in those waters for any church that provides any service to its community.
It is possible the law's anti-"discrimination" demands could be triggered when outside groups come in to use a church meeting room, auditorium or recreation facility. For the safety of the churches, perhaps outsiders will have to sign a document stating agreement with the church's religious beliefs before being allowed in, he said.
The targets of complaints likely won't be churches themselves, but more likely church schools, programs that offer services to communities and the like, critics of the law said.
"The intent of the homosexual activists who put this law in [was to] marginalize the church, keep it inside the sanctuary," Hausknecht said.
Worse yet is that many small or medium-size churches will have to go out of their way, including halting programs, to avoid a potential conflict, because they don't have the resources to wage a war over their beliefs, he added.
"It's a lot easier to avoid the conflict than incur the costs of fighting," he said.
Dobson earlier had nothing but criticism for Colorado's elected officials.
"This is your government in action. It represents a payback to Tim Gill and two other billionaires who have essentially 'bought' state legislators with enormous campaign contributions. Coloradans deserve better!" Dobson said.
"And by the way, because of the way this bill is written, it is not subject to the initiative process. There is no recourse," Dobson said.
Pastor Bob Enyart, a Denver-area activist on Christian issues, agreed with Focus's concerns over what appears to be a newly minted state discrimination against Christian beliefs. But he went further.
"WND reported on Canada banning opposition to homosexuality; likewise, Colorado's SB200 has 'forbidden' much publishing of Christian teaching on homosexuality, cohabitation, etc.," he said.
"This censorship aspect of the law has been utterly ignored," he said.
"The law exempts churches, but that's not good, that's an insult. I.E., bigotry is allowed only in churches. Whereas every other place of public accommodation including bookstores, retail & wholesale businesses, etc. cannot sell or even 'give away' anything that would advocate discrimination [against] gay adoption, homosexual marriage, etc.," Enyart said.
He cited one part of the new law:
Section 8. 24-34-701. Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden. No person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation... shall publish, issue, circulate, send, distribute, give away, or display in any way, manner, or shape or by any means or method, except as provided in this section, any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book, pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature, or description THAT is intended or calculated to discriminate or actually discriminates against... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... in the matter of furnishing or neglecting or refusing to furnish to them or any one of them any lodging, housing, schooling, or tuition or any accommodation, right [marriage], privilege [adoption], advantage, or convenience... on account of... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... [which] is unwelcome or objectionable or not acceptable, desired, or solicited."
The Old Testament condemns homosexuality as an "abomination," Enyart told WND. The New Testament includes a reference in 1st Timothy calling for the use of laws against crimes such as murder and homosexuality.
"There are free speech rights to condemn cohabitation, homosexuality, state that homosexuals should not marry, should not adopt children," Enyart said. "It's now illegal in Colorado for anyone involved in a facility or business of public accommodation to give any communication that would advocate discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation."
He said many people simply choose not to believe what's happening.
"I have a hard time believing [it myself]," said Enyart.
He said he expects the law to be only "lightly" enforced until "it just becomes an entrenched part of our legal framework. They're not going to go out and arrest somebody for selling a Bible at Barnes and Noble."
But then in a few years, watch out, he said.
Enyart has printed a document he hands out that says, "This Anti-homosexual Flyer is Illegal in Colorado." It condemns the promotion of homosexuality in no uncertain terms.
"Homosexuality should be re-criminalized in Colorado," it states."
from: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66829
Saturday, January 3, 2009
1-2% MINORITY RULES in the United States
"While homosexuals claim they make up 10% of the population, the reality is closer to 1-2 percent A NEWLY RELEASED REPORT from the Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Health Statistics reveals that only 2.3% of the population considers themselves homosexual. The statistics come from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and are based on 12,571 interviews with men and women ages 15-44 years of age. (The findings were reported in WorldNetDaily, September 16, 2005).
According to this survey, only 2.3% of the males surveyed considered themselves to be homosexuals; 1.8% considered themselves to be bisexuals."
(from: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php )
Since this is true, then WHY do so many TV shows and movies represent homosexuals as if they made up the majority of the population?
And WHY is this now the case?:
"One of the top lawyers in the nation in the battle to protect traditional marriage, historically Christian lifestyle choices, parental rights and the key freedoms provided by the U.S. Constitution is warning that there eventually could be no lawyers left to take up those disputes.
That's because of a recommendation before the State Bar of Arizona – the organization that licenses attorneys – to require all new lawyers to swear they won't let their personal religious perspective on homosexuality affect their representation of any client."
(from: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84984 )
WHY is it that 1-2% of the population is getting laws passed giving them SPECIAL rights over 98-99% of the population? This is RIDICULOUS!!
According to this survey, only 2.3% of the males surveyed considered themselves to be homosexuals; 1.8% considered themselves to be bisexuals."
(from: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php )
Since this is true, then WHY do so many TV shows and movies represent homosexuals as if they made up the majority of the population?
And WHY is this now the case?:
"One of the top lawyers in the nation in the battle to protect traditional marriage, historically Christian lifestyle choices, parental rights and the key freedoms provided by the U.S. Constitution is warning that there eventually could be no lawyers left to take up those disputes.
That's because of a recommendation before the State Bar of Arizona – the organization that licenses attorneys – to require all new lawyers to swear they won't let their personal religious perspective on homosexuality affect their representation of any client."
(from: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84984 )
WHY is it that 1-2% of the population is getting laws passed giving them SPECIAL rights over 98-99% of the population? This is RIDICULOUS!!
Monday, December 22, 2008
Statistics on Gays, AIDS and other STDs
In one study, 70% to 78% of gays reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. However, approximately 25% of people in the United States who are infected with HIV do not know they are infected. A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com. Those who treat AIDS patients are at great risk, as are those who are housed with AIDS patients. That, combined with shared needle drug use with homosexuals who had AIDS, contribute to spreading AIDS to non-homosexuals. In addition, gays get other diseases and problems. The proportion with intestinal parasites (worms, flukes, amoeba) ranged from 25% to 39% to 59%. Dr. Max Essex, chair of the Harvard AIDS Institute, warned congress in 1992 that "AIDS has already led to other kinds of dangerous epidemics...If AIDS is not eliminated, other new lethal microbes will emerge, and neither safe sex nor drug free practices will prevent them."
(Note: MSM = gay)
In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM.
In the 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting, an estimated 19,620 MSM (18,296 MSM and 1,324 MSM who inject drugs) received a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS, accounting for 71% of male adults and adolescents and 53% of all people receiving an HIV/AIDS diagnosis that year.
The number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses among MSM (including MSM who inject drugs) increased 11% from 2001 through 2005. It is not known whether this increase is due to an increase in the testing of persons with risk factors, which results in more HIV diagnoses, or due to an increase in cases of HIV infection.
An estimated 231,893 MSM (207,810 MSM and 24,083 MSM who inject drugs) were living with HIV/AIDS.
Transmission categories of male adults and adolescents with HIV/AIDS diagnosed during 2005:
- 67% had male-to-male sexual contact
- 5% had male-to-male sexual contact plus injection drug use (for a total of 72% being gay)
- 13% was merely from drug use (and, if needles were shared, some or all of that could have originated from gays using the needles)
- 15% was from high-risk heterosexual contact
- 1% was listed as "other" (could that include beastiality??)
Note: Based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting. Because of rounding, percentages may not equal 100.
Sexual risk factors account for most HIV infections in MSM. These factors include unprotected sex and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
* STDs, which increase the risk for HIV infection, remain an important health issue for MSM. According to the Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project, the proportion of gonorrhea-positive test results among MSM increased from 4% in 1988 to 20.2% in 2004. Rates of syphilis among MSM have increased in some urban areas, including Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle. In the 9 US cities participating in the MSM Prevalence Monitoring Project, the rates of STDs and HIV positivity varied by race and ethnicity but tended to be highest among black and Hispanic MSM. In addition to increasing susceptibility to HIV, STDs are markers for high-risk sexual practices, through which HIV infection can be transmitted.
Approximately 25% of people in the United States who are infected with HIV do not know they are infected.
Through its National HIV Behavioral Surveillance system, CDC found that 25% of the MSM surveyed in 5 large US cities were infected with HIV and 48% of those infected were unaware of their infections.
HAART has enabled HIV-infected MSM to live longer. However, HAART’s success means there are more MSM living with HIV who have the potential to transmit the virus to their sex partners. This emphasizes the importance of focusing prevention efforts on those who are living with HIV.
from:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The vast majority of young gay and bisexual men in the United States who were found to have the AIDS virus in a new study were unaware of their infection, according to findings reported as the 14th International AIDS Conference opened here today.
The rates of unawareness among minority gay men ages 15 to 29 in the study were staggeringly high. Among those found to have H.I.V., the AIDS virus, 90 percent of blacks, 70 percent of Hispanics and 60 percent of whites said they did not know they were infected.
Most of these infected men perceived themselves to be at low risk of being infected, despite having engaged in frequent high-risk sex like unprotected anal intercourse, said Duncan MacKellar, an epidemiologist from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, which conducted the study.
'The study shows that the very men who are at greatest risk of H.I.V. infection are those who are least likely to think they are at risk,' Mr. Wilson said.
In presenting an overview of the AIDS epidemic in the United States at the conference, Dr. Ronald Valdiserri, an AIDS official at the disease centers, described what he said was a growing apathy about the H.I.V. epidemic in the country.
from:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E2DE1630F93BA35754C0A9649C8B63
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Among men who have sex with men, there has been a steady rise in new infections since the early 1990s.
It is thought that more than one million people are living with HIV in the USA and that more than half a million have died after developing AIDS.
American HIV surveillance data are not comprehensive so many statistics must be based on reports of AIDS diagnoses. In interpreting such AIDS statistics, it is important to remember that they do not correspond to new HIV infections. Most people live with HIV for several years before developing AIDS.
At the end of 2006, the CDC estimates that 448,871 people were living with AIDS in America. This number includes all people who have ever been diagnosed with an AIDS-defining condition and are believed to be alive, including many people who have recovered their health by taking antiretroviral therapy.
Around 77% of adults and adolescents living with AIDS are men.
An estimated 3,775 children aged under 13 were living with AIDS at the end of 2006. The vast majority of these children acquired HIV from their mothers during pregnancy, labour, delivery or breastfeeding.
At the end of 2006, the CDC estimates that there were 509,681 people living with HIV/AIDS in the 38 areas that have a history of confidential name-based HIV reporting, based on reported diagnoses and deaths2. However, the total number of people living in the USA with HIV/AIDS is thought to be around 1.1 million3. The discrepancy between these figures is due to several factors including:
* confidential name-based reporting of HIV diagnoses has not yet been implemented in all states4
* anonymous tests, including home tests, are excluded from case reports
* one in every five people living with HIV has not even had their infection diagnosed, let alone reported.5
During 2006, an estimated 36,817 new diagnoses of HIV infection were reported from the 38 areas with a history of confidential name-based reporting, a number that has remained relatively stable since 2001. Of these cases, 73% were among adult or adolescent males, 26% were among adult or adolescent females, and less than 1% were among children under 13 years of age. Recent HIV reports represent a mixture of people with recent infection and others who may have been infected in the past but are only now being diagnosed.
It is estimated that around 56,300 Americans became newly infected with HIV in 2006.6 The number of new infections peaked in 1984-85 at around 130,000 per year, fell to a low of around 49,000 in the early 1990s, peaked again at around 58,000 in the late 1990s, and then declined slightly to its current level. This overall pattern masks variation between exposure groups.
from:
http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
25% of white gays admitted to sex with boys 16 or younger as adults. In a 9-state study, 33% of the 181 male, and 22% of the 18 female teachers caught molesting students did so homosexually (though less than 3% of men and 2% of women engage in homosexuality).
Fear of AIDS may have reduced the volume of gay sex partners, but the numbers are prodigious by any standard. Morin reported that 824 gays had lowered their sex-rate from 70 different partners/yr. in 1982 to 50/yr. by 1984. McKusick reported declines from 76/yr. to 47/yr. in 1985. In Spain the average was 42/yr. in 1989.
Death and disease accompany promiscuous and unsanitary sexual activity. 70% to 78% of gays reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. The proportion with intestinal parasites (worms, flukes, amoeba) ranged from 25% to 39% to 59%. As of 1992, 83% of U.S. AIDS in whites had occurred in gays.
Those who treat AIDS patients are at great risk, not only from HIV infection, which as of 1992 involved over 100 health care workers, but also from TB and new strains of other diseases. Those who are housed with AIDS patients are also at risk. Dr. Max Essex, chair of the Harvard AIDS Institute, warned congress in 1992 that "AIDS has already led to other kinds of dangerous epidemics...If AIDS is not eliminated, other new lethal microbes will emerge, and neither safe sex nor drug free practices will prevent them."
Unfortunately, the danger of these exchanges does not merely affect homosexuals. Travelers carried so many tropical diseases to New York City that it had to institute a tropical disease center, and gays carried HIV from New York City to the rest of the world. Most of the 6,349 Americans who got AIDS from contaminated blood as of 1992, received it from homosexuals and most of the women in California who got AIDS through heterosexual activity got it from men who engaged in homosexual behavior. The rare form of airborne scarlet fever that stalked San Francisco in 1976 also started among homosexuals.
from:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet3.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After analyzing 25 earlier studies on sexual orientation and mental health, researchers, in a study published in the medical journal BMC Psychiatry, also found that the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.
These findings strongly support the results of similar studies conducted in the United States, which have unveiled the severe physical and psychological health risks associated with homosexual behavior. Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute revealed in 2007 that research shows that the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual. As a health threat, even smoking pales in comparison, as studies show smoking can shorten one's life by only 1 to 7 years on average.
While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark - the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality - both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s.
from:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614
(Note: MSM = gay)
In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM.
In the 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting, an estimated 19,620 MSM (18,296 MSM and 1,324 MSM who inject drugs) received a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS, accounting for 71% of male adults and adolescents and 53% of all people receiving an HIV/AIDS diagnosis that year.
The number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses among MSM (including MSM who inject drugs) increased 11% from 2001 through 2005. It is not known whether this increase is due to an increase in the testing of persons with risk factors, which results in more HIV diagnoses, or due to an increase in cases of HIV infection.
An estimated 231,893 MSM (207,810 MSM and 24,083 MSM who inject drugs) were living with HIV/AIDS.
Transmission categories of male adults and adolescents with HIV/AIDS diagnosed during 2005:
- 67% had male-to-male sexual contact
- 5% had male-to-male sexual contact plus injection drug use (for a total of 72% being gay)
- 13% was merely from drug use (and, if needles were shared, some or all of that could have originated from gays using the needles)
- 15% was from high-risk heterosexual contact
- 1% was listed as "other" (could that include beastiality??)
Note: Based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting. Because of rounding, percentages may not equal 100.
Sexual risk factors account for most HIV infections in MSM. These factors include unprotected sex and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
* STDs, which increase the risk for HIV infection, remain an important health issue for MSM. According to the Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project, the proportion of gonorrhea-positive test results among MSM increased from 4% in 1988 to 20.2% in 2004. Rates of syphilis among MSM have increased in some urban areas, including Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle. In the 9 US cities participating in the MSM Prevalence Monitoring Project, the rates of STDs and HIV positivity varied by race and ethnicity but tended to be highest among black and Hispanic MSM. In addition to increasing susceptibility to HIV, STDs are markers for high-risk sexual practices, through which HIV infection can be transmitted.
Approximately 25% of people in the United States who are infected with HIV do not know they are infected.
Through its National HIV Behavioral Surveillance system, CDC found that 25% of the MSM surveyed in 5 large US cities were infected with HIV and 48% of those infected were unaware of their infections.
HAART has enabled HIV-infected MSM to live longer. However, HAART’s success means there are more MSM living with HIV who have the potential to transmit the virus to their sex partners. This emphasizes the importance of focusing prevention efforts on those who are living with HIV.
from:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The vast majority of young gay and bisexual men in the United States who were found to have the AIDS virus in a new study were unaware of their infection, according to findings reported as the 14th International AIDS Conference opened here today.
The rates of unawareness among minority gay men ages 15 to 29 in the study were staggeringly high. Among those found to have H.I.V., the AIDS virus, 90 percent of blacks, 70 percent of Hispanics and 60 percent of whites said they did not know they were infected.
Most of these infected men perceived themselves to be at low risk of being infected, despite having engaged in frequent high-risk sex like unprotected anal intercourse, said Duncan MacKellar, an epidemiologist from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, which conducted the study.
'The study shows that the very men who are at greatest risk of H.I.V. infection are those who are least likely to think they are at risk,' Mr. Wilson said.
In presenting an overview of the AIDS epidemic in the United States at the conference, Dr. Ronald Valdiserri, an AIDS official at the disease centers, described what he said was a growing apathy about the H.I.V. epidemic in the country.
from:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E2DE1630F93BA35754C0A9649C8B63
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Among men who have sex with men, there has been a steady rise in new infections since the early 1990s.
It is thought that more than one million people are living with HIV in the USA and that more than half a million have died after developing AIDS.
American HIV surveillance data are not comprehensive so many statistics must be based on reports of AIDS diagnoses. In interpreting such AIDS statistics, it is important to remember that they do not correspond to new HIV infections. Most people live with HIV for several years before developing AIDS.
At the end of 2006, the CDC estimates that 448,871 people were living with AIDS in America. This number includes all people who have ever been diagnosed with an AIDS-defining condition and are believed to be alive, including many people who have recovered their health by taking antiretroviral therapy.
Around 77% of adults and adolescents living with AIDS are men.
An estimated 3,775 children aged under 13 were living with AIDS at the end of 2006. The vast majority of these children acquired HIV from their mothers during pregnancy, labour, delivery or breastfeeding.
At the end of 2006, the CDC estimates that there were 509,681 people living with HIV/AIDS in the 38 areas that have a history of confidential name-based HIV reporting, based on reported diagnoses and deaths2. However, the total number of people living in the USA with HIV/AIDS is thought to be around 1.1 million3. The discrepancy between these figures is due to several factors including:
* confidential name-based reporting of HIV diagnoses has not yet been implemented in all states4
* anonymous tests, including home tests, are excluded from case reports
* one in every five people living with HIV has not even had their infection diagnosed, let alone reported.5
During 2006, an estimated 36,817 new diagnoses of HIV infection were reported from the 38 areas with a history of confidential name-based reporting, a number that has remained relatively stable since 2001. Of these cases, 73% were among adult or adolescent males, 26% were among adult or adolescent females, and less than 1% were among children under 13 years of age. Recent HIV reports represent a mixture of people with recent infection and others who may have been infected in the past but are only now being diagnosed.
It is estimated that around 56,300 Americans became newly infected with HIV in 2006.6 The number of new infections peaked in 1984-85 at around 130,000 per year, fell to a low of around 49,000 in the early 1990s, peaked again at around 58,000 in the late 1990s, and then declined slightly to its current level. This overall pattern masks variation between exposure groups.
from:
http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
25% of white gays admitted to sex with boys 16 or younger as adults. In a 9-state study, 33% of the 181 male, and 22% of the 18 female teachers caught molesting students did so homosexually (though less than 3% of men and 2% of women engage in homosexuality).
Fear of AIDS may have reduced the volume of gay sex partners, but the numbers are prodigious by any standard. Morin reported that 824 gays had lowered their sex-rate from 70 different partners/yr. in 1982 to 50/yr. by 1984. McKusick reported declines from 76/yr. to 47/yr. in 1985. In Spain the average was 42/yr. in 1989.
Death and disease accompany promiscuous and unsanitary sexual activity. 70% to 78% of gays reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. The proportion with intestinal parasites (worms, flukes, amoeba) ranged from 25% to 39% to 59%. As of 1992, 83% of U.S. AIDS in whites had occurred in gays.
Those who treat AIDS patients are at great risk, not only from HIV infection, which as of 1992 involved over 100 health care workers, but also from TB and new strains of other diseases. Those who are housed with AIDS patients are also at risk. Dr. Max Essex, chair of the Harvard AIDS Institute, warned congress in 1992 that "AIDS has already led to other kinds of dangerous epidemics...If AIDS is not eliminated, other new lethal microbes will emerge, and neither safe sex nor drug free practices will prevent them."
Unfortunately, the danger of these exchanges does not merely affect homosexuals. Travelers carried so many tropical diseases to New York City that it had to institute a tropical disease center, and gays carried HIV from New York City to the rest of the world. Most of the 6,349 Americans who got AIDS from contaminated blood as of 1992, received it from homosexuals and most of the women in California who got AIDS through heterosexual activity got it from men who engaged in homosexual behavior. The rare form of airborne scarlet fever that stalked San Francisco in 1976 also started among homosexuals.
from:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet3.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After analyzing 25 earlier studies on sexual orientation and mental health, researchers, in a study published in the medical journal BMC Psychiatry, also found that the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.
These findings strongly support the results of similar studies conducted in the United States, which have unveiled the severe physical and psychological health risks associated with homosexual behavior. Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute revealed in 2007 that research shows that the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual. As a health threat, even smoking pales in comparison, as studies show smoking can shorten one's life by only 1 to 7 years on average.
While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark - the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality - both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s.
from:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614
Saturday, November 22, 2008
More on homosexuality
Evangelism and Two Homosexual Men
Gay activists threaten to kill Christians
CLICK THE FOLLOWING link to go to the WorldNetDaily website story:
Sparks fly as 'gay' activist mob swarms Christians
The Way of the Master: Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Gay activists threaten to kill Christians
CLICK THE FOLLOWING link to go to the WorldNetDaily website story:
Sparks fly as 'gay' activist mob swarms Christians
The Way of the Master: Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Study: Homosexual lifestyle strongly linked to depression, suicide
LONDON - A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com.
After analyzing 25 earlier studies on sexual orientation and mental health, researchers, in a study published in the medical journal BMC Psychiatry, also found that the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.
These findings strongly support the results of similar studies conducted in the United States, which have unveiled the severe physical and psychological health risks associated with homosexual behavior. Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute revealed in 2007 that research shows that the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual. As a health threat, even smoking pales in comparison, as studies show smoking can shorten one's life by only 1 to 7 years on average.
While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark - the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality - both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s.
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist and member of the Catholic Medical Association, says there is evidence that homosexuality is itself a manifestation of a psychological disorder accompanied by a host of mental health problems, including "major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships."
Fitzgibbons said the American Psychological Association, which is known for its support of homosexual "marriage," ignored the evidence he presented that homosexuality presents significant danger to psychological health.
from:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614
After analyzing 25 earlier studies on sexual orientation and mental health, researchers, in a study published in the medical journal BMC Psychiatry, also found that the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.
These findings strongly support the results of similar studies conducted in the United States, which have unveiled the severe physical and psychological health risks associated with homosexual behavior. Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute revealed in 2007 that research shows that the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual. As a health threat, even smoking pales in comparison, as studies show smoking can shorten one's life by only 1 to 7 years on average.
While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark - the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality - both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s.
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist and member of the Catholic Medical Association, says there is evidence that homosexuality is itself a manifestation of a psychological disorder accompanied by a host of mental health problems, including "major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships."
Fitzgibbons said the American Psychological Association, which is known for its support of homosexual "marriage," ignored the evidence he presented that homosexuality presents significant danger to psychological health.
from:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614
Thursday, June 12, 2008
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
There are those who like to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Various verses are cited (out of context) and the verses that people use to show that homosexuality is wrong are explained away. The world wants to change God's words and meanings into something more suitable to its sinful desires. Nevertheless, the truth stands: The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God. He created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18ff). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again.
As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same you would any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, you should show him same dignity as anyone else you come in contact with. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don't compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of godliness.
The above is from:
http://www.carm.org/questions/homosexuality.htm
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God. He created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18ff). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again.
As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same you would any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, you should show him same dignity as anyone else you come in contact with. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don't compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of godliness.
The above is from:
http://www.carm.org/questions/homosexuality.htm
Monday, June 9, 2008
Testimony of David Kyle Foster
Watch the story of a former Hollywood actor who lived a double life as a male prostitute while starring in films and television before finding Christ on a trip to Israel.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Gay Activists Risk Your Life. Tolerate It!
By Matt Barber
Friday, March 28, 2008
"Modern science sometimes serves to validate timeless Biblical truths (not that objective truth needs validating). Romans 6:23 contains two such truths. It provides flip sides to a priceless coin, offering us both a blunt warning and an enduring promise: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Far too often we toss this coin, gambling heads-or-tails with our own best interests. We all sin, but because Christ willingly paid the penalty — suffering death on the cross in our stead — we are redeemed. We need only believe in Him and the gift of eternal life is ours. We can confess our sins, repent (which includes making every effort not to repeat those sins) and move on.
Still, there are those who prefer the tarnished side of the coin to the polished, those who, with haughty hearts and sardonic “pride,” willfully choose sin over Christ; death over life.
It’s a self-evident reality which is bolstered by medical science, but Scripture additionally reminds us in both the Old and New Testaments that those who choose to engage in homosexual conduct do so at their own peril.
Consider Romans 1:26-27 (NIV), which a presidential candidate recently referred to as an “obscure passage in Romans”: “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
It’s sad when people yield to disordered sexual temptations that can literally kill them spiritually, emotionally and physically. Nobody with any compassion enjoys watching others “[receive] in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” But a corollary to free will is living (or dying) with the choices we’ve made.
That said, it’s an entirely different proposition when bad behaviors place others at risk. This should not — and must not — be “tolerated.”
Current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM) from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.
According to the FDA, MSM “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 (American Red Cross).
“[MSM] 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 [MSM] than in the general population,” according to the FDA.
A recent CDC study rocked the homosexual community in finding that although MSM comprise only one-to-two percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.
And Matt Foreman, outgoing Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, further shocked his fellow “gay” activists by admitting, “HIV is a Gay Disease.”
Although the risks extend far beyond potential HIV infection, the FDA notes, “All donated blood is tested for HIV, but the virus can go undetected until the immune system has produced a testable amount of antibodies.” This would pose a “small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if the policy were changed.”
But risking lives is apparently of little concern to radical homosexual activists such as Joe Solmonese, president of the so-called “Human Rights Campaign” (HRC), the nation’s largest and most radical homosexual pressure group.
Solmonese recently placed politics over science, falsely declaring this commonsense public health precaution to be “discriminatory.” He has called for the ban to be lifted, with the wildly irresponsible claim that, “[T]here is no medical or scientific rationale for this discriminatory policy.”
In light of the irrefutable medical data, Solmonese’s demand is not only reckless, it’s incredibly dangerous. Unfortunately, it’s a common demand among his fellow extremists.
In South Africa, militant homosexual activists have been “protesting” by deliberately and surreptitiously violating that nation’s blood ban, aiming to flood blood banks with 70,000 units. Who knows how much blood has been contaminated or how many innocent people have been infected. This isn’t a protest; it’s an act of violence.
In recent days, Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern has been viciously attacked and ruthlessly maligned, even receiving death threats, for saying publicly that “the homosexual agenda is destroying the nation.” She even went so far as to say that, in her estimation, homosexual behaviors and “gay” activism pose a greater threat than terrorism.
Reasonable people can debate that opinion, but the actions of “gay” activists in South Africa provide one example among many which would seem to illustrate her point. To intentionally and surreptitiously defy valid health and safety regulations — very likely contaminating the blood supply and infecting untold numbers of innocent people — sounds an awful lot like terrorism to me.
Sally Kern can rest her case, but Joe Solmonese still has a big hole from which to dig himself. With his blunder, he has severely damaged his own credibility and has caused a tremendous setback to the radical movement he leads (a good thing, really).
It’s unconscionable that he would place a deceptive and dangerous political agenda above the health and well-being of American men, women and children. Homosexual activists who disingenuously cry out for “equal rights” should put the “rights” of others to be safe and healthy above their own selfish political ambitions.
Critical U.S. health regulations must not be ignored — or done away with — simply to further some twisted notion of “tolerance” and “diversity” or so that a small minority of people can feel better about the aberrant lifestyle choices they’ve made.
Intravenous drug users are also prohibited from giving blood, but no one in his right mind would demand that addicts be permitted to donate. It’s not because of who they are, it’s because of what they do. The aforementioned studies, and many others like them, prove that, like intravenous drug use, male-male anal sodomy is extremely high-risk behavior.
As I’ve often said, unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. Regrettably, harmful and often deadly infectious disease can be just one of them."
Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.
(Original article is here)
Friday, March 28, 2008
"Modern science sometimes serves to validate timeless Biblical truths (not that objective truth needs validating). Romans 6:23 contains two such truths. It provides flip sides to a priceless coin, offering us both a blunt warning and an enduring promise: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Far too often we toss this coin, gambling heads-or-tails with our own best interests. We all sin, but because Christ willingly paid the penalty — suffering death on the cross in our stead — we are redeemed. We need only believe in Him and the gift of eternal life is ours. We can confess our sins, repent (which includes making every effort not to repeat those sins) and move on.
Still, there are those who prefer the tarnished side of the coin to the polished, those who, with haughty hearts and sardonic “pride,” willfully choose sin over Christ; death over life.
It’s a self-evident reality which is bolstered by medical science, but Scripture additionally reminds us in both the Old and New Testaments that those who choose to engage in homosexual conduct do so at their own peril.
Consider Romans 1:26-27 (NIV), which a presidential candidate recently referred to as an “obscure passage in Romans”: “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
It’s sad when people yield to disordered sexual temptations that can literally kill them spiritually, emotionally and physically. Nobody with any compassion enjoys watching others “[receive] in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” But a corollary to free will is living (or dying) with the choices we’ve made.
That said, it’s an entirely different proposition when bad behaviors place others at risk. This should not — and must not — be “tolerated.”
Current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM) from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.
According to the FDA, MSM “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 (American Red Cross).
“[MSM] 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 [MSM] than in the general population,” according to the FDA.
A recent CDC study rocked the homosexual community in finding that although MSM comprise only one-to-two percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.
And Matt Foreman, outgoing Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, further shocked his fellow “gay” activists by admitting, “HIV is a Gay Disease.”
Although the risks extend far beyond potential HIV infection, the FDA notes, “All donated blood is tested for HIV, but the virus can go undetected until the immune system has produced a testable amount of antibodies.” This would pose a “small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if the policy were changed.”
But risking lives is apparently of little concern to radical homosexual activists such as Joe Solmonese, president of the so-called “Human Rights Campaign” (HRC), the nation’s largest and most radical homosexual pressure group.
Solmonese recently placed politics over science, falsely declaring this commonsense public health precaution to be “discriminatory.” He has called for the ban to be lifted, with the wildly irresponsible claim that, “[T]here is no medical or scientific rationale for this discriminatory policy.”
In light of the irrefutable medical data, Solmonese’s demand is not only reckless, it’s incredibly dangerous. Unfortunately, it’s a common demand among his fellow extremists.
In South Africa, militant homosexual activists have been “protesting” by deliberately and surreptitiously violating that nation’s blood ban, aiming to flood blood banks with 70,000 units. Who knows how much blood has been contaminated or how many innocent people have been infected. This isn’t a protest; it’s an act of violence.
In recent days, Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern has been viciously attacked and ruthlessly maligned, even receiving death threats, for saying publicly that “the homosexual agenda is destroying the nation.” She even went so far as to say that, in her estimation, homosexual behaviors and “gay” activism pose a greater threat than terrorism.
Reasonable people can debate that opinion, but the actions of “gay” activists in South Africa provide one example among many which would seem to illustrate her point. To intentionally and surreptitiously defy valid health and safety regulations — very likely contaminating the blood supply and infecting untold numbers of innocent people — sounds an awful lot like terrorism to me.
Sally Kern can rest her case, but Joe Solmonese still has a big hole from which to dig himself. With his blunder, he has severely damaged his own credibility and has caused a tremendous setback to the radical movement he leads (a good thing, really).
It’s unconscionable that he would place a deceptive and dangerous political agenda above the health and well-being of American men, women and children. Homosexual activists who disingenuously cry out for “equal rights” should put the “rights” of others to be safe and healthy above their own selfish political ambitions.
Critical U.S. health regulations must not be ignored — or done away with — simply to further some twisted notion of “tolerance” and “diversity” or so that a small minority of people can feel better about the aberrant lifestyle choices they’ve made.
Intravenous drug users are also prohibited from giving blood, but no one in his right mind would demand that addicts be permitted to donate. It’s not because of who they are, it’s because of what they do. The aforementioned studies, and many others like them, prove that, like intravenous drug use, male-male anal sodomy is extremely high-risk behavior.
As I’ve often said, unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. Regrettably, harmful and often deadly infectious disease can be just one of them."
Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.
(Original article is here)
Monday, March 31, 2008
Former Gay Hairdresser to the Stars accepts Christ
This is the testimony of former homosexual Danny Velasco, who was a famous and succesful hairdresser and had a salon visted by the elite of Hollywood. Danny passed away on 10/04/2007.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Gay Pride outreach, West Hollywood
Notice that (in contrast to, for example, those of the Westboro Baptist Church who hold up signs saying "God Hates Fags") he does not condescendingly tell them, "You homosexuals are all going to Hell!" Instead, he takes them through four of the Ten Commandments, which every single one of us has broken, and shows them that every one of us is a sinner (i.e., every one of us has lied, lusted, gossiped, stolen, cheated, cursed, used God's Name in vain, committed adultery or fornication, gotten drunk, hated, etc.), and that the only hope we have of escaping Hell is through Jesus Christ, Who loved us so much that He died for our sins. If we repent (not just regret, but turn away) of our sins and surrender to Christ Jesus, we can then have eternal life in Paradise.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
