On Sunday, June 27th, one of the largest “Gay” Pride Parades in the country took place in the city of Chicago. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, supposedly 450,000 people lined the streets in the city’s Lakeview neighborhood for the 41st annual parade. The Chicago Tribune in its hard news section wrote, “While maintaining its reputation as a lively, often flashy event, the parade has also come to reflect broader acceptance of gays and lesbians. Marching politicians were followed by dancers from gay nightclubs and floats filled with employees of major corporations.” See complete article HERE.

The Tribune comments were more appropriate as commentary because the failing newspaper suggests the homosexual lifestyle is receiving “broader acceptance” from the general public. In reality, homosexuality and the alternative lifestyle represented by those who participated in and supported the parade is not a demonstration of wider support by the American people.

The truth of the matter is, if the establishment media, including the Chicago Tribune, related all the facts concerning homosexuality’s impact on our culture, the public would look at this behavior from a perspective other than something seen through rose-colored glasses.

For example, one of the major issues facing Illinois in 2010 concerns the $13 billion budget shortfall. Homosexuality is a very unhealthy lifestyle which costs taxpayers literally hundreds of millions of dollars in added health care costs. Yet you would be hard-pressed to find a story in the mainstream media in any major metropolitan area and especially Chicago which provides information on how homosexuality is taxing our economic system in a time of deep recession.

Would such a story be appropriate in a discussion of the unhealthy alternative lifestyles represented in the “Gay” Pride Parades held across the nation? In contrast, the establishment press goes out of its way to give the impression those who practice homosexuality live a carefree life, filled with boundless joy and “gaiety”.

To illustrate my point, the homosexual characters in nearly every television series are portrayed as happy, well-adjusted individuals who have a true grasp of the meaning of life. In reality, the homosexual lifestyle is very painful for those who are caught up in it. Studies conducted by the Center for Disease Control say male same-sex partners often die early. Rampant infidelity among those who practice this type of decadence leads to a hollow existence, compounded by the moral judgments this group applies to themselves.

Both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times say the police estimate 450,000 people lined the parade route in support of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals. However, many of those who looked upon the parade were there for prurient interest. Often the event features what a majority of Illinois residents would refer to as obscene behavior which is in clear violation of the city of Chicago’s obscenity and decency laws. The Chicago Police look the other way while parade participants and on-lookers perform simulated and actual sex acts in public and flaunt their nudity, all in the attempt to either titillate those along the parade route or draw the ire of innocent members of the public who are subjected to an x-rated display of the most vile and perverse behavior. And it is behavior. If every human being on the planet Earth suddenly became a homosexual, the human race would die out within a generation. In addition, there is evidence, as with any addictive behavior, individuals can and do overcome the curse of homosexuality, contrary to claims by gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals who assert they are “born that way”.

Holy Scripture tells us we are to love the sinner, but hate the sin and we are all sinners in God’s eyes. But if not for the precious gift of Christ’s salvation because of the blood He shed on the cross for the remission of sins, all of us, homosexual or not, would be without hope.

Many homosexuals claim their existence and purpose for living is more than simply a choice concerning how they have sex. Yet the image presented to the public by the establishment media and those who supported and participated in “Gay” Pride Parades–not only in Chicago, but across the country–sent a very different message. So, if it is not about the sex, what was the purpose for the parades? The clear message is that homosexuality is all about the sex. And it has to be. After all, it’s the “Gay” Pride Parade.

A blogger, called Red Blooded American, put it most succinctly when replying to a Chicago Sun-Times article by writing:

They certainly hurt themselves every time they dress up in @$$less chaps and a Speedo and scream to the top of their lungs “I’m no different from you”. If you want your lifestyle to be accepted as normal, then act normal. Until then, you will struggle with acceptance.

An excellent column was written by David Smith, Executive Director, Illinois Family Institute, prior to the parade. For complete article, click HERE.

Smith lists which politicians, corporations and media organizations supported the “Gay” Pride Parade by either marching or having a float in the parade or simply financially supporting the day’s activities. Those who support the pro-family agenda should take special note of this list. Are these politicians and groups representing all of us? Or do they have a politically correct agenda which is in stark contrast to the Judeo-Christian ethic which a vast majority of Americans still embrace?

The media is supposed to be a neutral observer, reporting on the facts. However, in recent decades, commentary has blended its way into the hard news sections of news entities which cross the lines of journalistic integrity. The media’s coverage of Chicago’s “Gay” Pride Parade, by some members of the press, was a perfect illustration of tainted journalism. Sadly, when this occurs, we are all losers.

Rex Huppke, who purports to be a reporter for the Chicago Tribune, but is, in reality, a mouthpiece for homosexual activism, has written yet another propaganda piece about homosexuality. Huppke wrote an article — not an opinion piece — but an article that doesn’t even attempt a pretense of objectivity.

In language dripping with bias, Huppke wrote about the plight of Americans who define their identity by their homosexual desires and behavior and who have non-American sexual partners. Huppke wrote a thinly disguised endorsement of U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez‘ disastrous immigration reform proposal which would allow “foreign-born partners of gay and lesbian Americans the same path to citizenship as heterosexual spouses.” It was an endorsement so thinly disguised it could be mistaken for a bare-naked, Hollywood-produced public service announcement.

Congressman Gutierrez — and evidently his PR accomplice Huppke — seeks to write into law the unproven, a-historical assumption that relationships defined by unnatural homosexual desire and immoral homosexual acts are morally equivalent to heterosexual relationships.

In a 747-word article, Huppke allotted a whopping 21 words to an acknowledgment that opposing views exist. This is the entirety of his commitment to presenting both sides:

Invariably the addition of language to benefit same-sex couples will rile some who oppose extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

Here are some additional telling stats from the impartial, unbiased reporter Rex Huppke:

• Number of quotes from Gutierrez: 4
• Number of quotes from supervising attorney for the National Asylum Partnership on Sexual Minorities at the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago (yes, apparently, such a center exists): 2
• Number of quotes from homosexuals who have foreign-born partners: 3
• Number of quotes from opponents of Gutierrez’ proposal: 0

It’s not merely the inclusion of quotes from only supporters of the proposal that is problematic; it’s also the soap opera-esque content that is troubling.

Huppke quoted Gutierrez who said that “The underlying part of any comprehensive immigration bill is family unity.” This language manipulates Americans’ deep respect for family and family unity while ignoring the disturbing embedded assumption that two homosexual men constitute a “family” that per se deserves respect.

Huppke then quoted a homosexual Episcopal priest who frets about the possibility of his homosexual paramour being deported:

You can’t imagine the stress we live under daily…To wake up every morning and think this could be the day that we no longer have the resources or support to be together.

And then Huppke delivered his coup de grace in a concluding tear-jerking anecdote. Have your hankies at the ready:

For Josh Lampinen, a 30-year-old Chicago Web designer, a change in the law couldn’t come soon enough. His fiance, Jerome Lienard, lives in France, and the couple are struggling to find a way to be together.

…

Lampinen said the distance between them is always a strain, particularly in times of crisis. A year and a half ago, Lampinen’s grandmother died, and Lienard couldn’t be by his side.

“That’s when you want your partner there,” Lampinen said. “And he wasn’t. It just wasn’t possible. It’s instances like that that just make it evident how unfair this situation is.”

Unfortunately, in an increasingly non-rational, non-thinking culture, appeals to such tales of woe carry persuasive power. It is these kinds of “narratives” that are shaping the views of even conservative Christians, particularly younger Christians who are not being taught to think critically. As Thomas Sowell, African American Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, writes:

The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.

Huppke reported that Gutierrez met with “LGBT community leaders at noon on Monday at the [homosexual] Center on Halsted” where he was joined in his confab by U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) and openly homosexual Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO).

Some concluding and random thoughts:

• Appeals to emotion are not reasons.
• The presence of sad feelings tells us precisely nothing about the morality of homosexuality — or any other moral issue.
• The presence of emotional and sexual feelings and sexual interactions between two (or more) people does not render their relationship a family structure worthy of affirmation or legal status.
• Rex Huppke is not reporting; he is cheerleading and proselytizing.

Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn asserts that the “stench of history” lingers in the air following the cancellation of a high school prom in Mississippi. It isn’t the “stench of history” but rather the stench of Zorn’s ignorance that hangs over his diatribe and pollutes both thought and discourse.

By suggesting that the virulent racism of the South in the 1960’s is morally equivalent to societal disapproval of homosexuality, Zorn perpetuates the ludicrous and offensive assumption that race is ontologically (i.e., by nature) equivalent to homosexuality. Zorn conveniently omits any discussion of this unproven assumption upon which his analogy depends. By omitting any such discussion, he frees himself from the burden of providing evidence or justification for the proposition that homosexuality is by nature analogous to race or for the proposition that disapproval of homosexuality is analogous to racism.

The only thing racism shares in common with the belief that volitional homosexual acts are immoral is that Zorn hates both. If that’s all that’s required for Zorn to see equivalence, then I guess in Zorn’s strange moral universe, disapproval of polyamory, adult consensual incest, or paraphilias is equivalent to racism, which in turn would make polyamory, adult consensual incest, and paraphilias ontologically equivalent to race. In reality, race or skin color is ontologically equivalent to biological sex–not to homosexuality.

The racist belief that African Americans were inferior and ought not to have interacted socially with whites was a malignant falsehood that needed to be exposed and eradicated. In contrast, the belief that boys ought not to have sex with boys or girls with girls is true and should be both publicly expressed and affirmed. This moral belief has nothing whatsoever to do with ignorance, bigotry, or hatred.

There are, broadly speaking, two categories of conditions: immutable conditions with no behavioral or moral implications, like race and sex; and conditions that are centrally defined by behaviors that are legitimate objects of moral assessment even if biological factors influence impulses. Such conditions would include polyamory, promiscuity, selfishness, drug use, aggression, pedophilia, Body Integrity Identity Disorder, Gender Identity Disorder, and homosexuality. From the behavioral/moral category, Zorn has plucked out homosexuality and decided to treat it like conditions from the immutable, non-behavioral category with no justification for doing so.

Implying an analogy between traditional beliefs on homosexuality and racism is specious in that the latter reflects negative judgments based on 100% heritable, immutable conditions that carry no behavioral implications. In contrast, it is widely debated, even within the homosexual community, whether homosexuality is immutable. Indeed, “queer theory” holds that sexuality is a fluid social construction. In addition, there is no research proving that homosexual attraction is biologically determined. Finally, homosexuality inherently involves acts that can be justifiably deemed immoral. Such moral conclusions do not constitute hatred of persons or bigotry.

Zorn errs not merely in assuming without proof that homosexuality is ontologically analogous to race, but in suggesting that the racist act of secretly relocating a prom in Birmingham, Alabama in 1965 in order to exclude an African American girl is analogous to openly canceling a prom because one student sought to violate morally legitimate policy regarding homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors.

Zorn concludes his commentary by deeming school policy that prohibits homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors as hatred of persons. Even identifying people as “homosexual” reveals ontological and moral assumptions. For those who share Zorn’s unproven assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality, identifying someone as homosexual means not only that same-sex desire and homosexual acts are experienced, but that they are central to and affirmed in his or her life.

In contrast, for those who hold conservative assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality, stating that someone is homosexual would mean only that someone experiences same-sex attraction and perhaps engages in homosexual acts. Traditional ontological and moral assumptions about homosexuality would not, however, suggest that those attractions are central to identity or worthy of affirmation.

Most people believe that polyamorous attractions, though unchosen and likely shaped by biology, should not be considered either central to identity or worthy of affirmation. And just as it would not constitute hatred of persons to prohibit polyamorous behavior at a school dance, it does not constitute hatred to prohibit homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors at a school dance.

In a recent article, Chicago Sun-Times’ columnist Neil Steinberg criticizes the Illinois Family Institute’s website for not “addressing what an individual could do to improve his own family.”

While Mr. Steinberg would love to see our organization relegated to self-improvement, family entertainment and leisure activities, IFI is a public policy organization that addresses policy issues that are substantial and consequential to the families of Illinois. If Steinberg bothered to look past the home page of our website to the “About Us” section, he may have understood our mission and purpose.

The Illinois Family Institute is a nonprofit research and education organization committed to protecting and defending the family by influencing policy and promoting timeless values consistent with Judeo-Christian teachings and traditions.

Disagreeing with our mission and our positions on these issues is fair. Mr. Steinberg obviously disagrees with our position on homosexual behavior and specifically our statement that “volitional homosexual acts are immoral,” calling them “superficial, silly, ad hominem non-arguments.” He is right: that statement is not an argument. It is a moral claim for which there are both religious and secular justifications. Similarly, the view that homosexual acts are moral is not an argument. It is a moral claim that requires justifications.

Unfortunately, Mr. Steinberg offers nothing to substantiate his criticisms other than name-calling. While he waxes poetic about tolerance, Mr. Steinberg describes opposition to so-called same-sex marriages and civil unions as “sick,” “twisted sexual” obsessions, “creepy, fixated” fundamentalism, “religious prejudice,” “intolerant,” and “inhuman.”

He compares opposition to the radical, subversive, a-historical effort to jettison the central defining feature of marriage — sexual complementarity — to teeth flossing and clean underwear checks.

In his anti-IFI article, Mr. Steinberg points out that he doesn’t want to impose his values on other people or “write an amendment into the Illinois constitution” to impose his beliefs. Since he feels so strongly about the immorality of imposing values on others, will Mr. Steinberg write a column critical of the efforts of homosexuality-affirming organizations to impose through public education and legislation their unproven ontological claim that homosexuality is equivalent to race and their unproven moral claim that gender is irrelevant to marriage?

And in his self-righteous advocacy of absolute moral neutrality in the public square, will he defend polyamorists’ right to marry?

Mr. Steinberg ends his tirade with an emotional appeal saying that our country “is a vast, varied place where people from all sorts of races, religions, creeds and, yes, differing sexuality, dwell together in harmony…” I guess this sentiment applies to everyone except religious conservatives.

During the Roman Empires secularist era those who acknowledged the deity of Christ were frequently fed to the lions to entertain for lack of a better word the progressive elites of the day. Theres little doubt that if many of todays secular-progressives (more accurately: moonbat liberals) had their way, Caesar Obama would call out the lions once again.

Nothing makes the left lose its collective noodle like an open proclamation of Christian faith. You don’t see it when Muslims proselytize in government schools; the ACLU doesn’t sue when Wiccans share their witchy ways; militant gay activists don’t picket Buddhist temples with bullhorns while inhabitants grasp at Zen. No, theres something about Christianity that just drives em nuts. Always has. Always will.

Case in point: Recently, on two separate occasions, Fox News veteran Brit Hume both publicly pronounced his own faith in Jesus Christ and boldly suggested that Tiger Woods might find forgiveness and redemption for his serial philandering should he turn to the Christian faith.

Hume first offered Tiger the advice on Fox News Sunday and then reiterated his sage, though decidedly non-PC council on The OReilly Factor the following night. When asked by host Bill O’Reilly what kind of response he’d received for his comments, Hume replied, in part: Its always been a puzzling thing to me. The Bible even speaks of it. You speak the name Jesus Christ and all hell breaks loose.

Yes indeed.

After Hume made his comments, and as if on cue (Lord forgive them for not knowing what they do or why they do it) liberals went apoplectic. Heres a small sampling:

As reported by CNSNews.com: Tom Shales, media critic for the Washington Post, in a Tuesday column, demanded that Hume apologize and called his Christian remarks even only a few days into January, as one of the most ridiculous of the year.

MSNBCs reliably raspy Keith Olbermann accused Hume of attempting to threaten Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity and demanded that his Fox News ratings superior keep religious advocacy out of public life (back in the closet, Brit old boy).

Olblubberman then compared Hume to a terrorist, suggesting that the worst example of this kind of proselytizing are jihadists. Finally, he betrayed the lefts typical anti-Christian bigotry, suggesting that Jesus may have been a homosexual and wondering aloud: WWJDIHS: What would Jesus do if hes straight?

While the mainstream media’s rage was clumsily managed (or masked), unbridled hate boiled over in the left-wing blogosphere.

On the sexual anarchist site, JoeMyGod, poster QScribe suggested that Brit Humes deceased son had been gay and viciously accused Hume of being responsible for the young mans suicide: Brit Hume still hasn’t repented for trashing his gay son and driving him to suicide. When I want moral guidance from a pig like that, I’ll be sure to ask. Until then, he really ought to STFU. (Hume has publicly shared that his sons heartbreaking suicide played a large role in his acceptance of Christ.)

The next commenter went so far as to cruelly imply that Hume had sexually molested his own child and further mocked the tragic suicide, writing: Dead victims don’t tell on their molesters.

Commenting on the Huffington Post, Kandaher bypassed Hume altogether and aimed his vitriol directly at his Creator: anyone (sic) watched The passion of Christ? I thoruhgly (sic) enjoyed it. Nothing like watching this bloke getting beaten up! He deserved what he got and more!

You get the idea.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I very much enjoy watching liberals go goofy when the light of truth pierces that shadowy void called moral relativism. When the lefts religion of choice secular-humanism is challenged through exposure to the gospel message, they almost universally and instinctively react with such visceral, knee-jerk spasms. You can set your clock to it.

But believe it or not, there’s actually something rather delightful about such hateful lashing about. These poor souls to be pitied and prayed for fail to realize that, manifest within their own unwittingly bizarre behavior, is certain affirmation of the very words of Christ on the subject.

Jesus addressed this peculiar and deeply spiritual phenomenon on more than one occasion over two thousand years ago. In John 15:18-20 (NIV), for instance, He reminds His followers: If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

Now, I’m real sorry that most progressives and other non-believers feel that Christianity is deficiently tolerant or inclusive of various man-made religions and lifestyle choices. But it’s just not our call. Christ Himself reveals over and again that the pathway to heaven is a very narrow one, requiring membership in a rather exclusive club– a club wherein belief in Him and repentance from sin are the only membership requirements.

Christ said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) Note that, rather conspicuously, He did not say: “No one comes to the Father except through me, the Buddha, Muhammad, Ganesh, and on Tuesdays L. Ron Hubbard.”

But lest you have any doubt, consider John 3:36, which warns every man, woman and child on earth past, present and future: “Whoever believes in the Son [Jesus] has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for Gods wrath remains on him.”

So, Brit Hume had it right, didn’t he? I mean, it is kind of an all or nothing proposition, isn’t it?

As my favorite author and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis famously pointed out in his blockbuster book Mere Christianity, Christ could only have been one of three things: A lunatic, a liar, or, as Jesus oft claimed and as billions have believed, the sovereign Lord and Creator of the universe.

Noted Lewis:

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. –C.S. Lewis

So, what does this all mean? Well, and please take this in the spirit (little ‘s’ intended): Brit Hume’s woolly, wily, wandering critics really ought to just un-knot their knickers; mudra, mantra or something; and seriously reflect upon the man’s words and heart.

Perhaps they should (being all tolerant, diverse and whatnot) consider, if only for a moment, the very Spirit (big ‘S’) from which came those words and were formed that heart.

In the meantime, to Mr. Hume: Well done, good and faithful servant.

IFI Voter Guides Help Voters Make Informed Decisions At The Poll

There are those who believe America is at its zenith as a nation. They claim “tolerance”–which was a result of the cultural revolution of the 1960’s and 70’s–has made the United States a better place to live. I strongly disagree with this assessment–which mostly comes from liberals who feel the sexual revolution has liberated men and women and that diversity has created a more “just” nation. They see the Judeo-Christian ethic as a mechanism which binds the true expression of self–both on the individual and societal level. I could not disagree more with this myopic view of our country.

I still believe in the vision our Founding Fathers had when they created a nation that was radically different from anything the world had ever seen before. But there are forces which are bringing America to its ruin.

The mainstream media has played a significant role by misinforming the public regarding issues that truly matter. The dominant press, in many ways, has abandoned the true tenets of journalism. This is reflected in recent polling which indicates more than 70% of the American public no longer trusts the dominant media. Some claim the Internet is responsible for the fact so many print publications are going out of business. Also, some assert the falling viewership of television news, including that of the three major networks, is a result of cable TV’s 24 hour news cycle. However, these are simply excuses which hold no merit. Americans believe, and rightfully so, the press has an agenda which advances a liberal worldview contrary to their own.

The reason why many newspapers and network news divisions across the country are in dire financial straits is because these journalistic entities have lost touch with the American people. The facts are: Polling indicates 50% of the American public considers themselves conservative. In contrast, over 90% of the journalistic community is radically liberal. Therefore, this has created a disconnect between the public and the dominant press. Conservative cable news networks like the FOX News Channel are flourishing, while other cable networks including CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC are losing propositions financially. Their ratings continue to plummet while FOX News’ ratings soar.

However, the dominant press still has a tremendous influence on the public. Because most Americans work hard every day and have little time to research issues like health care reform and its impact on their lives, they turn to the major networks for information even though they look at the information with a jaundiced eye. Clearly, our nation is at a turning point like never before in our history. Subsequently, the decisions that are made during the next few voting cycles may determine whether our country will remain that “Shining city on a hill.” I believe the choices that will be made in the voting booth in the near future, be they Democrat or Republican, should result from the public obtaining as much information as they can regarding who they send to Springfield and who they elect to represent them in Washington , D.C.

But where and who can the public trust to provide them with the facts needed to make informed decisions in the voting booth?

The Illinois Family Institute (IFI) Voter Guides, which are currently available, is one way to learn about political candidates in order to make an educated decision regarding the future of America. The Voter Guides are non-partisan. Voters can see where a candidate stands on issues they care about. The IFI Voter Guides can be distributed at churches because they are non-partisan and completely legal under IRS guidelines for distribution in churches.

The IFI Voter Guides can be obtained by downloading them from the web site or by calling the Illinois Family Institute at (708) 781-9328.

The IFI has a Voter Guide for each of Illinois’ 19 Congressional Districts. You can look up your Congressional District HERE or call IFI. The full version of the IFI 2010 Primary Election Voter Guide is available for download HERE. Bulk Voter Guides can be obtained by contacting IFI.

The Illinois Family Institute Voter Guides are a good first step to find candidates who share your values. At this important time in America’s history, we need to do all we can to make informed decisions which will impact our lives, the lives of our children and their children as well.

Americans are wise people. It is no accident that we live in a nation that is truly blessed. Millions have paid the price with their blood for our freedoms. We owe it to the generations before us to do as much as we can to preserve the liberty and the inalienable rights given to us by God. These rights do not come from governments, but government can surely take them away.

The February 2nd Republican and Democratic primaries and the general election in November will have an impact on the road America will take. Standing on the sidelines simply won’t do. Letting someone else make the decisions for us will not do either. Ignorance may be the greatest foe of liberty.