After we come to Christ as Saviour, we need to carefully check our former friends and associates. Where there have been wrong activities, a confession of actions, thoughts, desires and attitudes as sins is necessary, claiming forgiveness and cleansing (1 John 1:9). Many, if not all, of these friendships and alliances will have to be renounced.

Inordinate affections include close friendships outside of the Lord Jesus Christ, involving affections, heterosexual or homosexual contacts and fellowship in other sinful practices.

All former friendships and ties were after the flesh (2 Corinthians 5:16) and the fleshly or carnal mind is enmity with God; not subject to, nor can it ever be, subject to God (Romans 8:7). Remember if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature, old things are passed away, and all things are become new (2 Corinthians 5:17).

To break ungodly connections with the past, this prayer will be helpful:

“Satan, in the name of Jesus I come against the demon authorities who controlled and motivated my relationship with {name friends} and break your power and authority over my life and affection, especially as related to him/her, by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, I remove myself from any authority you ever exercised over me. I renounce all such ties of affection and ask that the Lord Jesus help me to love him/her only with His agape love, in the bowels (affections) of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:8). I give my affections (desires) completely to the Lord Jesus Christ for His use. Amen”. 

Note here that the true agape love for a former friend may at this point include staying away from him/her long enough for you to stabilize spiritually. Unsaved former friends will not understand your desire to follow the Lord and may even resent it and attempt to pull away, enticing you to follow them into former habits of sin.

Remember who your first love is. His command is plain: “Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing…” (2 Corinthians 6:17). When in doubt consult with your pastor, parents or others in spiritual authority about the advisability of continuing a former relationship.

If you invite a former friend to come to a church meeting or to fellowship with you where other Christians gather and he/she refuses, then part company with them. Be friendly, but firm, for your Christian growth may well be at stake. If you do not become strong you will never be able to help them. Continue to pray for them as the Lord reminds you of their need of Christ.

You can claim that God will bring him/her back across your path when you are stronger spiritually and when he/she is more interested in seriously seeking the Lord. Know that in the meantime, they will be watching your life to see if your life equals your profession. This is the most important testimony you will be able to give, for if your life does not bear witness, then your words will have little effect in turning them to Christ. You must renounce all pacts, covenants, promises and other binding allegiances to former friends in the world and break all curses which may have been incurred by such relationships or agreements. Try this prayer:

Having confessed my former relationship with {name} as sin because sinful practices were involved, I now break any curses which have come to me as a result of this association. Jesus became a curse for me on the cross (Galatians 3:13) and blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which were against us (Colossians 2:14).

In the name of Jesus, I take authority over every demon who has inhabited my mind, will, emotions, body or spirit because of any friendship outside of Jesus Christ. I have confessed these relationships (with their activities, thoughts, desires and attitudes) as sin.
I have given my affections (desires) and body to the Lord Jesus Christ and all curses are broken. By the authority of Jesus Christ (Luke 10:19, Mark 16:17) and by the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8), I command you all to leave now, in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Bathe your emotions and mind in scripture, praise, spiritual songs and pure and wholesome thoughts (Ephesians 5:19,26; Ps 34:1; Philippians 4:8). Think about and walk in fellowship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (I Thessalonians 5:17). Pray with the understanding and in the Spirit (Jude 20, 1 Corinthians 14:4), especially when desires for former relationships press.

Resist the evil spirits by using scripture as often as they suggest wrong desires or attitudes for former or new friends (James 4:7; see how Jesus handled this in Matthew 4). Memorizing and meditating on scripture can be an invaluable aid (1 John 2:14).

Fill your days with good hard work (1 Thessalonians 4:11), serve in the church and seek out Christian companions. Find those who have matured in the Lord and cultivate them to learn how to develop a Christ-like character. Renounce and destroy all rock, melancholy and sensual music. Especially shun music which brings remembrance of former sinful pastimes and friends. We are highly susceptible to music and its associations are powerful means of recall. Fill your life with music which promotes and deepens your growth and fellowship with the Lord.

The following is an excerpt from “Warfare Prayers, Booklet #4? by Pastor Win Worley. Copyright © 1983 by Win Worley, Revised © 1991, WRW Publications 2004. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including storage and retrieval system, without securing permission in writing from the publisher, WRW Publications, PO Box 852626, Mesquite, TX 75185.

If you’d like to obtain your own copy of not only this, but other materials authored by Win Worley, please contact WRW Publications at www.wrwpublications.com

The festivities included what might be expected under the circumstances: the giddy revelry of those who had just won
–– without a doubt –– the most significant legal victory for sexual libertinism in U.S. history.

According to pro-family witnesses, however, the celebration also contained much more than most ordinary Americans
would expect to see at a parade. Displays of public nudity, men clad only with a sex toy and, peppered throughout the
vast throngs of homosexuals in attendance, signs declaring such lurid sentiments as, ““We had sodomy for breakfast,””
and ““Sodomize me –– It’’s legal.””

Sexual Rebellion
The well-guarded secret of the homosexual movement is that, regardless of how one understands the causes of
homosexuality, the nature of it is, at its core, sexual rebellion. ““Gays”” and lesbians are driven to challenge and
destroy every conception of what is considered to be sexual normalcy.

This is the essence of ““queer theory,”” the underlying sexual ethic of the homosexual movement. Conservative writer
and culture critic Roger Kimball said, ““Maintaining a sufficiently ‘‘trangressive’’ attitude toward everything the
‘‘dominant society’’ considers normal is central to the purpose of queer theory.””

Without such a deconstruction of normalcy –– and regardless of what political victories are won –– homosexuals
““won’’t be free until we can be queer in the streets, not just in the sheets,”” said Richard Goldstein, a columnist for
the homosexual magazine The Advocate and author of The Attack Queers.

““Gays”” and lesbians reject not only the biology which underlies human sexuality, but also the traditional male-female
model of relationships. Goldstein said that within the homosexual is ““the impulse to shatter the strictures of male or
female identity.””

However, if concepts of natural sexuality are undermined, and then the male-female construction of relationships is
crushed, what remains? For homosexuals, it is merely a sexual ethic that excludes norms. It is open defiance of social
conventions regarding sex. It is sexual anarchy.

Pat Califia, a well-known lesbian author who underwent the transition to becoming a ““man,”” said that American culture
has not sufficiently normalized homosexuality because it refuses to recognize the totality of human sexual
experimentation, such as sadomasochism, transgenderism, public sex and even ““cross-generational”” sex –– meaning
adult-child copulation.

She insists that ““the general public is still deeply ignorant about and afraid of the complete range of human sexual
experience,”” adding that homosexuals ““haven’’t done the grassroots sex education that would get at the seeds of
homophobia: fear and loathing of minority sexuality.””

Califia, who boasts that she is a sadomasochist, sees the real movement for ““gay”” equality as being tethered to the
fight to normalize all sexual tastes. ““Until it’’s safe to be different [sexually], we will have no real freedom –– no
genuine equality,”” she said.

Sexual Obsession
This rebellion against normal sexuality is the defining characteristic of the homosexual community. Its members have
no common language, religion, music or other typical unifying norm. What homosexuals have in common is the one thing
that makes them different from the rest of the culture –– their sexual preference.
Some homosexuals insist, however, that they are not what they do in bed. Homosexual columnist Dan Savage disagrees.
““We are sex. That fact makes some gay men and lesbians uncomfortable,”” he said.““Sex is what makes us not straight
people, after all.””

Homosexual writer Gabriel Rotello, author of Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, stated that sex ““is
the very thing that to many of us defines us as gay men, drives our politics and our erotics, gives us our modern
identity, provides the mortar of much of our philosophy and community, animates much of our lives.””

However, a ““gay”” self-identity that is determined by sexuality has produced another, not unexpected, result: an
obsession with that same sexual impulse. ““Gay liberation means sexual freedom. And sexual freedom means more sex,
better sex, sex in the bushes, in the toilets, in the baths, sex without love, sex without harassment, sex at home and
sex in the streets,”” said one activist.

Homosexual activist Larry Kramer admits that ““gay”” culture is ““confined and centered so tragically on our obsession
with our penises and what we do with them.””

This obsession tends to produce a promiscuous lifestyle that is a feature of the homosexual community. One of the
most comprehensive studies of male homosexual practices was conducted by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, and
published in 1978 by the Kinsey Institute under the title, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and
Women. Incredibly, the study found that 28% of homosexual males had had 1,000 or more sexual partners, while 43%
of white male homosexuals estimated they had had sex with 500 or more partners.

In a recent survey of sexually active homosexual men, published in the June issue of the American Journal of Public
Health, study participants said they had averaged seven sex partners in just the previous six months –– and 25% said
they had had 18 or more sex partners. Similarly, the Associated Press reported on the results of a separate study of
““gay”” men in Los Angeles County: 50% of the men said they’’d had sex with an average of 28 partners –– in a public
place –– over the preceding six months.

Even among so-called ““monogamous”” homosexual couples, a relatively promiscuous lifestyle is typical. A study of
Dutch homosexual men, published in the May issue of the journal AIDS, revealed that ““gays”” coupled in long-term
relationships still had an average of eight additional sex partners a year outside the ““monogamous”” union.

However, many ““gay”” leaders openly praise and promote unbridled sexuality as part of what the homosexual
movement is all about. Even in light of the AIDS crisis, ““gay”” anthropologist Ralph Bolton has argued that calling for
homosexual men to abandon promiscuity is doomed to fail.

““Resistance to limiting the number of partners was sure to arise because the sexual liberation for which gay men had
fought so hard included the right to be promiscuous. Promiscuity was a key feature of gay culture as it evolved, and
attempts to extirpate promiscuity should be interpreted as an attack on gay culture and gay liberation,”” he said,
adding that ““[c]alling for a reduction in the number of sexual partners implied a radical restructuring of all of gay
social life.””

To be fair, such promiscuity disturbs some leaders within the homosexual community. Lesbian author and feminist
Camille Paglia insists that ““[homosexual] activists must stop their systematic lying about the actual facts of the run-
of-the-mill gay male recreation, which is constantly going on in public toilets, parks, alleyways and all-night clubs
throughout the Western world. The dimensions and intensity of that orgiasticism would stagger the minds of many
well-meaning liberals, I believe, were they to see it with their own eyes.””

Sexual Destruction
It is no wonder then, that, at least publicly, most savvy homosexual activists talk about abstract concepts such as
tolerance, equality, civil rights –– anything except sex.

However, the homosexual community is forced to discuss sex because of one very inconvenient fact: gluttonous sexual
appetites lead to terrifying repercussions. As Kramer admits, ““Nature always extracts a price for sexual  promiscuity.””

Rotello, one of the few homosexual activists to honestly admit this fact, said, ““The appearance of a multitude of
epidemic diseases almost immediately after gay men had carved out zones of sexual freedom has opened up the grim,
almost unthinkable possibility that for gay men, sexual freedom leads inexorably to disease.””

The prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among ““gays”” has become a painful reality. According to the
Institute of Medicine, ““Men who have sex with men are at greater risk for many life-threatening STDs, including HIV
infection, hepatitis B virus infection, and anal cancer compared to heterosexual men. Other STDs of concern among
men who have sex with men include anal syphilis, urethritis, and a range of oral and gastrointestinal infections.””

The susceptibility of the gay community to these diseases lies in the fact that homosexual practices are unique in their
rebellion against nature and, quite frankly, their debauchery. Even some ““gay”” leaders have admitted this  truth.

Homosexual Jack Hart, author of Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men, said, ““Many sexually transmitted
diseases …… occur more often among gay men than in the general population. Several factors contribute to this
difference: Gay men have the opportunity to engage in sex with more people than do most heterosexual men, and some
practices common in the gay community –– especially rimming [placing the tongue in the anus for the purpose of sexual
stimulation] and anal intercourse –– are highly efficient ways of transmitting disease …….””

AIDS, of course, is one of those diseases that afflicts the homosexual community. Homosexual writer Michelangelo
Signorile has pointed to the obvious ““epidemiological reality”” for homosexuals living under the shadow of HIV:
““[t]hat a culture of unbridled, multipartner anal sex directly contributes to the ongoing [AIDS] epidemic, which, far
from abating, is threatening more –– and younger –– gay men.””

As expected, promiscuity –– already rooted in a lack of sexual restraint –– tends to produce risky sexual activities that
seem to openly defy the warnings of the health community and government agencies.

For example, a report two years ago from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed that
46% of homosexual men had participated in unprotected anal sex in the six months prior to the study. And a new study
released in July found that 78% of homosexual males said that they did not always practice safe sex, and almost 50%
admitted that they had recently participated in receptive anal intercourse without using condoms.

A growing number of homosexuals are also using the Internet to find anonymous sex partners. One study, released at
the 2003 National HIV Prevention Conference in July, found that 39% of ““gay”” and bisexual men admitted that they
had met partners over the Internet and engaged in unprotected sex, according to USA Today.

Some homosexuals are engaging in risky sex because they believe newer drugs will make it easier to deal with having
AIDS if they become infected. Others claim that concerns about using condoms interfere with their enjoyment of sex.

Still others refuse to worry about getting AIDS altogether, and actively pursue HIV infection in order to ““get it over
with.”” Called ““bug-chasers,”” a recent article in Rolling Stone cited Dr. Bob Cabaj, director of behavioral-health
services for San Francisco County, who estimated that 25% of all newly-infected ““gay”” men had purposely gotten the
virus. Cabaj also contended that AIDS groups and homosexual public health officials are covering up the phenomenon.

Perhaps most ominous for the homosexual community was what some men failed to do after contracting HIV. A study
conducted in Los Angeles revealed that more than 54% of HIV-positive homosexual men had not revealed their
infection status to the men with whom they’’d had sex.

A Grim Future?
Promiscuity, anonymous sex, anal sex, sex without condoms, chasing the HIV ““bug,”” hiding HIV-positive status from
sex partners –– all these destructive practices on the part of homosexuals may explain the disturbing signs of an
increase of AIDS cases among homosexuals. The CDC recently said that new cases of HIV infection among ““gay”” and
bisexual men has risen nearly 18% over the last three years.

Staggering numbers of young homosexuals can expect to become infected. A seven-city study conducted by the CDC
and released in 1999 showed that, among young homosexual males age 15-22, a full 7% were already infected with HIV
–– and another 3% become infected each year.

Similarly, the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes reported in June that 15% of homosexual males ages
18-29 in South Beach, Florida, were already infected with HIV.

The future is grim. More than a decade ago, using data collected from homosexual men in Baltimore, Chicago, Los
Angeles, and Pittsburgh, researcher Donald R. Hoover and his associates constructed a model to predict the spread of
AIDS among homosexual men. Reporting in the American Journal of Epidemiology, Hoover said that a 20-year-old
homosexual man, by the time he reaches age 55, has a 50% chance of becoming infected with HIV.

Hoover’’s estimates, however, were based on the premise that homosexual men would not increase their participation in
unsafe sex and would dampen their promiscuity. Neither of those assumptions appears to apply today.

According to a study that appeared in the International Journal of Epidemiology, homosexual behavior risks cutting
years off the lives of ““gay”” men. Examining the homosexual community in Vancouver, Canada, the study said: ““In a
major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.
If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently
aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this
urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.””

Sexual rebellion indeed has its consequences. But with ““gay”” activists and straight politicians spouting glib rhetoric
rather than confronting the grim reality of homosexual conduct, the looming disaster of AIDS will only come that
much more swiftly.

By Ed Vitagliano | AFA Journal News Editor

FRIDAY, Nov. 30 (HealthDay News) — In the 26 years since scientists first spotted AIDS in America, millions of dollars have been poured into outreach efforts aimed at keeping young people clear of HIV, the virus that causes the disease.

But on the eve of World AIDS Day, a disturbing statistical fact has emerged in this country: The number of newly infected teens and young adults is suddenly on the rise.

And the question is, why?

According to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2001 to 2005 (the latest years available), the number of new cases of HIV infection diagnosed among 15-to-19-year-olds in the United States rose from 1,010 in 2001, held steady for the next three years, then jumped 20 percent in 2005, to 1,213 cases.

For young people aged 20 to 24, cases of new infection have climbed steadily, from 3,184 in 2001 to 3,876 in 2005.

Experts say a number of factors may be at play, including the fact that many HIV-infected patients are now being kept healthy with powerful drugs — making AIDS seem like less of a threat to young people than it did in the past.

“Certainly the ’scare factor’ isn’t there anymore,” said Rowena Johnston, vice president of research at the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) in New York City.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, the ravages of AIDS were apparent to most Americans — either on their TV screens as high-profile celebrities succumbed to the disease, or as individuals lost friends or family members to HIV.

“To see people looking gaunt, skinny and skeletal, and to know that they were going to be dead soon,” Johnston said. “It had a sobering effect.”

The advent of antiretroviral drugs in the mid-1990s changed all that, however. “These days, for the most part, you can look at a person and not know that they even have AIDS,” Johnston said.

That’s making HIV seem like less of a threat to young people, said Martha Chono-Helsley. She’s executive director of REACH LA, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit that helps disadvantaged youth understand and defend against threats like poverty, drug abuse and HIV.

“They’re in this age group that feels they are invincible — that it’s never going to happen to them,” she said. “Yes, they’re getting all these messages from public schools on HIV and AIDS, but they’ve never actually seen what HIV has done, up close and personal.”

Chris Blades, one of REACH LA’s young, black “peer educators,” said he’s seen a kind of nonchalance towards HIV among the gay or bisexual men of color that he counsels.

“On a daily basis, they don’t see their friends suffering from it, so it’s not a major threat to them,” said Blades, 21. “They’re in that whole mindset of ‘Oh, it can’t happen to me, it will never happen to me.’”

But there has been a recent, troubling spike in new infections among gay men, young and old alike. According to the CDC, the rate of new cases of HIV infection linked to male-male sex held steady at around 16,000 cases between 2001-2004, then suddenly jumped to 18,296 in 2005.

Johnston and Chono-Helsley both point to advertisements for HIV-suppressing medicines as one possible contributing factor.

“In gay magazines, you now see [ads with] buff, handsome men climbing mountains, with some kind of quote about how ‘I’m not letting HIV get in my way,’” Johnston said. “It sends the message that you, too, can be hot, buff and handsome, even with HIV.”

Chono-Helsley agreed. “It’s always these bright, healthy vibrant young men in these ads,” she said. That could spur young gay men to relax their guard and take more risks, thinking that if they do contract HIV, “I only have to take a pill,” she said.

The reality of living with HIV in America is much different, however, even when medication is working. According to Johnston, the side effects of powerful HIV-suppressing drug cocktails include fat redistribution (including unsightly “humps”), insulin resistance, higher cholesterol, increased risks for heart disease, and dangerous liver toxicities.

There’s also the fear that, someday, HIV will develop mutations that render these drugs useless, triggering the re-emergence of AIDS, she said.

HIV continues to cut a wide swath through young men and women in the black community, too. According to the CDC, the number of new infections actually dipped slightly for black Americans between 2001 (20,868 cases) and 2005 (18,121 cases). However, black men are still six times more likely than white men to contract HIV, and black women are 20 times more likely to acquire the virus compared to white women.

The answers to that disparity lie mainly in economics, experts say.

“The young men that we work with are predominantly African-American, and HIV is not their No. 1 priority,” said Chono-Helsley. “Often survival is their main priority — where they are going to sleep tonight. They’re kicked out of the house; they have substance abuse issues, they’re in recovery.”

Young black women can easily get caught up in similar problems, or are coerced into unsafe sex by their partners, she added.

Another trend — soaring rates of methamphetamine use over the past five years — may also be fueling HIV infection rates for both blacks and young gay men, the experts noted.

Too often, marginalized young people develop “a ‘whatever’ attitude — whatever happens, happens,” Chono-Helsey said.

Outreach aimed at HIV prevention remains important, of course. But one expert believes too much state and federal money is being funneled away from community outreach programs and toward “HIV Stops With Me” campaigns that focus on individuals already living with the virus.

“The message there is that, if I don’t have HIV right now, then all I have got to do is avoid those people who have got it,” said Carrie Davis, director of adult services at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Community Center in New York City.

She believes those types of messages allow uninfected people to shift the burden of responsibility from themselves to the HIV-positive, or to people they deem at high risk, such as gay men or drug abusers.

“I think it affects straight people, too, in that they absorb this ‘magical thinking’ — that this is someone else’s problem,” Davis said.

So what doeswork to change attitudes and behaviors? That’s a tough question, Chono-Helsley said, and the answer usually depends on particular contexts and communities.

“You really have to evaluate what methods you’re using and think about the person as a whole, not just the infection,” she said. “Because they’ve all heard ‘use a condom, use a condom.’”

The right approach is key, Blades added. “If you deliver the message to them in a way that’s not preachy or looking down on them, I think that’s more effective,” he said. “That’s what we try to do – deliver HIV information in a way that will click in with them, so that they’ll take home something that they didn’t know the night before.”

“One thing is for sure, we can’t just shake our finger at young people and say, ‘You’re bad,’” Chono-Helsley said. “We have to be supportive. They’re young, we’ve all been there, remember. You can save some, but you can’t save them all.”

“Mom and Dad” as well as “husband and wife” have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.

“We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California,” said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

“With this decision, Gov. Schwarzenegger has told parents that their values are irrelevant. Many parents will have no choice but to pull their children out of the public schools that have now become sexualized indoctrination centers.”

“Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered young children into the hands of those who will introduce them to alternative sexual lifestyles,” said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which worked to defeat the plans. “This means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms.

“Shame on Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians for ensuring that every California school becomes a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center,” he said.

(Story continues below)

Analysts have warned that schools across the nation will be impacted by the decision, since textbook publishers must cater to their largest purchaser, which often is California, and they will be unlikely to go to the expense of having a separate edition for other states.

The bills signed by Schwarzenegger include SB777, which bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.

There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however.

“SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values,” said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. “These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger’s unbelievable decision. The terms ‘mom and dad’ or ‘husband and wife’ could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.

“Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation,” she said.

Also signed was AB394, which targets parents and teachers for such indoctrination through “anti-harassment” training, CCF said.

Schwarzenegger had vetoed almost identical provisions a year ago, saying existing state law already provided for penalties for discrimination.

“We had hoped that the governor would once again veto this outrageous legislation but he obviously decided to side with the out-of-touch extremists that control the legislature. This law does not reflect the true values of the average Californian,” said England. “True leadership means standing up for what is true and right.”

Thomasson said SB777 prohibits any “instruction” or school-sponsored “activity” that “promotes a discriminatory bias” against “gender” – the bill’s definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes – as well as “sexual orientation.”

“Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school,” CCF noted.

Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

CCF noted that now on a banned list will be any text, reference or teaching aid that portrays marriage as only between a man and woman, materials that say people are born male or female (and not in between), sources that fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures, and sex education materials that fail to offer the option of sex changes.

Further, homecoming kings now can be either male or female – as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.

AB394 promotes the same issues through state-funded publications, postings, curricula and handouts to students, parents and teachers.

It also creates the circumstances where a parent who says marriage is only for a man and a woman in the presence of a lesbian teacher could be convicted of “harassment,” and a student who believes people are born either male or female could be reported as a “harasser” by a male teacher who wears women’s clothes, CCF said.

Thomasson said Schwarzenegger also signed AB14, which prohibits state funding for any program that does not support a range of alternative sexual practices, including state-funded social services run by churches.

Affected will be day cares, preschool or after-school programs, food and housing programs, senior services, anti-gang efforts, jobs programs and others.

Thomasson said it also forces every hospital in California – even private, religious hospitals – to adopt policies in support of transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality and opens up nonprofit organizations to lawsuits if they exclude members that engage in homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual conduct.

“It’s the height of intolerance to punish individuals, organizations, businesses, and churches that have moral standards on sexual conduct and sexual lifestyles,” said Thomasson, in response to the signing of AB14. “This is another insensitive law that violates people’s moral boundaries.”

The vitriol over the issue rose to new levels in its latest campaign.

As WND reported, a board member for the homosexual advocacy group Equality California verbally attacked and threatened CRI for its opposition to the bill earlier.

The board member sent an e-mail and video to CRI threatening the group would be buried if it continued efforts opposing the homosexual advocacy.

“The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance,” said England. “Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools.”

She also cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center that already is lobbying for special treatment in the school system.

“If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so,” it advises. “Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible.”

Further, the groups advise, “If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you.” The advocacy group also warns schools against bringing parents into any such discussion with students.

WND has documented a number of earlier cases in which educators, including leaders in California, have taken it upon themselves to promote a homosexual lifestyle to children under their charge.

WND reported California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, under whose supervision hundreds of thousands of children are being educated, has used his state position and taxpayer-funded stationery to praise a “gay” pride event used in the past to expose children to sexually explicit activities.

That drew vehement objections from several educators, including Priscilla Schreiber, the president of the Grossmont Unified High School District governing board.

“I am outraged that a person in this high-ranking elected position would advocate an event where diversity is not just being celebrated but where pornography and indecent exposure is being perpetrated on the young and innocent children of our communities,” she said.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

A board member for Equality California has come out swinging at the Bible-based Capitol Resource Institute, which works on behalf of family and biblical values in California, especially among its lawmakers.

“If you continue your efforts, we will BURY you,” said an e-mail from Ben Patrick Johnson, to his “colleagues” at the CRI, according to a statement from the Christian organization.

“For a group that purports to expand tolerance and civil rights, Equality California is not practicing what it preaches,” CRI said.

“This type of language evokes images of Communist leader Nikita Khrushchev pounding his shoe on the podium of the United Nations when he declared that Communism would bury America,” said CRI. “The irony is not lost on us – Communists squelch all opposing speech, just as the modern ‘intolerance’ movement seeks to silence all opposing viewpoints.

“Johnson then threatens ‘we have every intention of yours [group] going down, as have others who oppose decency and human rights.’ It is shameful that a group that represents itself as promoting tolerance and civil rights would stoop to the very tactics it accuses CRI of using. Not once has CRI personally attacked opponents in such a degrading and vicious manner,” said the organization.

“In a video diatribe against CRI posted on his website, Johnson declares that CRI and its supporters are ‘hate peddlers’ and ‘conservative, religious prejudice peddlers.’ He further declares that we are ’smirky, self-righteous folks’ who have ‘launched an aggressive campaign against legislation to protect gay youth in California’s and ultimately America’s schools.’ This statement reveals not only the vitriolic language this supposed ‘tolerance’ group uses, but also the true agenda behind such legislation as SB 777. The radical homosexual agenda intends on sweeping the nation. California is merely the first step in the campaign to stifle free speech and stamp out opposition to ‘alternative lifestyles,’” CRI said.

As WND has reported, SB 777 is a plan that would require all public schools in California to eliminate anything that could reflect “adversely” on the homosexual lifestyle choice.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
It could mean the words “mom” and “dad” would be banned. It’s a plan the California Assembly approved a year ago, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

CRI said Johnson’s attack included the e-mail and his webcast.

“After showing graphic images of a young man being beaten in Jamaica, purportedly for being a homosexual, Johnson ends his invective by proclaiming that it ‘disgusts’ him that ‘the people behind CRI are so stuck in their fear and bigotry’ that they would allow homosexual youth to be assaulted in such a manner,” CRI said.

Officials at the organization attributed the invective to an appearance by CRI officials on Fox News Channel, when the biblical perspective on homosexuality was presented.

“As you can see, CRI is up against radical, aggressive individuals. To be spewing such hateful, inflammatory rhetoric indicates that they are fearful of the truth CRI communicates to the people of California and the rest of America. We should be crystal clear in response to the outrageous accusation that we want homosexual youth to be ‘abused and degraded.’ CRI believes that all children should be protected from violence in their schools. That is why it is essential to restore discipline and order in our classrooms. Pushing radical social experimentation will not stop intolerance or violence.”

The e-mail from Johnson, according to CRI, said:

“Dear colleagues at the Capitol Resource Institute,

“I am a firm supporter of freedom of speech, and therefore I support yours, even if it in direct contrast with my own. However, we all use the media and the internet to spread our message: and with no hubris intended, I advise you — if you continue your efforts, we will BURY you … with public opinion, with media, and ultimately with legislation. EQCA passed NINE bills last year to protect basic dignities and we have every intention of yours going down, as have others who oppose decency and human rights.

“Today, over 150,000 Californians will receive the following message via email blast, MySpace, YouTube, and iTunes — in other words, we’re everywhere. I invite you to subscribe to my daily webcast, not because you agree with what I/we have to say, but for your own information … so you can see what thousands of Californians are hearing and seeing about you.”

An earlier description of SB 777 from CRI noted that it “forcibly thrusts young school children into dealing with sexual issues, requiring that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality be taught in a favorable light.”

“Pushing this radical homosexual agenda in California schools will stifle the truth in favor of political correctness and will inevitably conflict with the religious and moral convictions of both students and parents,” said CRI Executive Director Karen England. “The full ramifications of this sweeping legislation could affect the entire nation as most textbook companies tailor their material to their number one purchaser: California.”

 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55558

Result of Human Rights settlement by the government with homosexual activists

Starting [the week of September 10], British Columbia introduced its grade 12 “Social Justice” elective course that will see homosexuality promoted in BC schools as an “alternate lifestyle” equivalent to natural marriage. The course is only the first part of a larger K-12 curriculum resulting from a Human Rights complaint settlement by the government with a pair of homosexual activists.

The British Columbia Human Rights Commission ordered that Murray Corren and his homosexual partner Peter Corren be allowed to force the BC Education Ministry to accept their curriculum and that parents will not be allowed to remove their children. Murray Corren wanted the K-12 curriculum to include, “Queer history and historical figures, the presence of positive queer role models — past and present — the contributions made by queers to various epochs, societies and civilizations and legal issues relating to (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) people, same-sex marriage and adoption.”

It was revealed in 2006 that the provincial government had signed the settlement contract with the two men giving them unprecedented control over the content of the curriculum. The contract stipulated that the education ministry would meet with the men every six months until September 1, 2007 to allow them to oversee the development process.

The Vancouver Sun reports that among the “key learning concepts” in the new course are “ableism, ageism, anthropocentrism, consumerism, cultural imperialism, extremism, feminism, fundamentalism, heterosexism, humanism, racism, sexism and speciesism.”

Heterosexism is defined as a “prejudice against homosexuals on the assumption that heterosexuality is the norm”.

Glen Hansman, president of the Vancouver Elementary School Teachers’ Association admitted in the Sun that the curriculum will require students to examine injustices to homosexuals because of the assumption that heterosexuality is normal and to “take a stand against these injustices.”

With the inclusion in the list of “speciesism”, the course will also introduce the concept of animal rights, a key issue in the world of secularist utilitarian bioethics that proposes human beings are no more important than animals. The term was coined by Peter Singer, the Princeton bioethicist who promotes infanticide and euthanasia on utilitarian grounds. Singer is generally considered the “father” of the modern extremist animal rights movement.

The pair particularly objected that the law allowed an opt-out provision in which teachers are under an obligation to advise parents when a subject deemed to be “sensitive” is raised in the classroom. The complaint demanded that homosexuality be removed from the list of issues considered officially “sensitive.”

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/sep/07090407.html [1]

Source URL: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/5999
 

The outreach coordinator of Milwaukee’s homosexual “PrideFest” is now facing a felony charge after police say he sought to meet a 14-year-old boy via the Internet for a sexual rendezvous.

According to authorities, David W. Bodoh, 42, of Wauwatosa, Wis., apparently made contact with a boy from Oconomowoc, and eventually set up a meeting with an undercover state agent who posed online as the child.

The boy’s foster mother is said to have discovered explicit e-mails between her son and Bodoh in January, and contacted police.

Last month, the state agent acting as the boy made contact with Bodoh on a website geared toward homosexual connections.

According to the criminal complaint, Bodoh set up a meeting with “the boy” at Brookfield Square Mall on July 12, where the suspect promised to give the boy the “ride of his life.”

When Bodoh arrived on his motorcycle, he was arrested by officers from several agencies, but told them he was merely planning on taking the boy out for a meal.

He was charged with using a computer to facilitate a sex crime, and, if convicted, faces up to 25 years in prison and $100,000 in fines.

Though Bodoh’s name has been removed from the PrideFest website, an archived version indicates he was part of the production team for the 2007 event, listed as “Community Outreach.”

According to its website, “The mission of PrideFest is to advocate, celebrate and educate the general community and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community with regard to all aspects of LGBT culture. To accomplish this, PrideFest produces an annual Pride celebration. Educational events include, but are not limited to, exhibits, lectures, art and community outreach which fully display the diversity of LGBT culture.”

www.worldnetdaily.com

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Gay Activists Try to Stop TV Report on Lesbian Gang Attacks
from staff reports

High school students are the victims.

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has apparently threatened to sue a Tennessee TV station for airing a report on lesbian gangs attacking students.

Jack Peck, general manager of WPTY in Memphis, said the station agreed to make some rewrites before the story aired in February, but that wasn’t enough to satisfy GLAAD.

The story featured an interview with Shelby County Gang Unit specialist Beverly Cobb, who said girls are being attacked in high school bathrooms and stairwells by members of a gang called GTO or “Gays Taking Over.”

“They are forcing themselves on our young girls in all our schools,” Cobb said in the televised report.

The station gave GLAAD an advance viewing of the story. The group declared it “sensationalistic and homophobic.”

Peter LaBarbera, with Americans for Truth, said the station manager told him the group definitely did not want the story to air.

“A senior staffer told him several times, ‘We’re going to take you to court if you air this report,’ ” he said.

Similar gang activity is reported in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C. Linda Jernigan, a former homosexual, said that’s why GLAAD is making such an issue of the Memphis story.

“They don’t want this type of information to get out,” she told Family News in Focus, “because then they know people’s eyes will be opened, they’ll begin to see this whole situation for what it really is.”

San Diego, CA (PRWEB) February 14, 2007 — This is a new version of the Holy Bible that includes the New Testament, along with a new book entitled God’s New Law, which was introduced in the year 2000. This book contains testimony of prophecy fulfilled, prophecy to be, and the decommissioning of traditional religion so that God may dwell with all those who believe. God’s New Law is meant to be the last book of the Bible and to herald the birth of God’s religion without doctrine.

Starting with the witnessing of Christ, the author, Tim Fleming, claims that, in the year 2000, God tested one of his begotten and realized the value of forgiving those who are willing to forgive, and He has therefore offered salvation to the homosexual community for the sacrifices they have made through mental anguish.

Fleming acknowledges that no man is to add to the book of life but the Father, but that God heard the cry for help from the submissive, and sent another son and prophet to lead the gay community to freedom. Fleming contends this new Bible contains scripture that has been prescribed by God, and that, while the Bible has been validated through the generations, only now does man have the chaperone of the Father in Heaven to add new testimony to its pages.

The first book of God’s New Law, “The Journal,” is a description of the re-creation of man beyond Revelations that attempts to illustrate what the enlightened students of God’s kingdoms prescribe. The second book, “The Victory,” describes how an act of vengeance by the Father’s left hand delivers poetic justice to those who did not heed his warning to forgive thy neighbor. The third book, “Peace through Suffering,” is a testament purportedly written by the Father in Heaven and one of his adopted. Leaving the last book entitled the “The Journey” offering to lead mankind away from serving doctrine into living in the spirit with God and his kingdom.

Pro 14:12  There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.