It is evident that the exposure category of “Men who have sex with men” is by far the group at the highest risk of developing AIDS. 

           The health risk for male homosexual behaviour is not limited to the development of AIDS.  The Washington Times  website
[http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20021101-63191947.htm]  reported on November 1, 2002: “The U.S. syphilis rate rose last year for the first time in a decade, primarily because of  outbreaks among homosexual and bisexual male populations, the federal government says in a report released today.” 

           Here is another significant quote [from a family Research Council website at  http://www.frc.org/get/is01b1.cfm]:

“A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy:

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty 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 twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth 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 1871.⁷⁸ ”  [Footnote 78:  “Robert S. Hogg et al., ‘Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,’ International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.”]

School boards should not allow pro-homosexuality propaganda in the public schools.  It is wrong to present as benign a behaviour that has many deadly consequences.

  A related reason for refusing to approve or allow the use of such material is the danger of litigation against school boards.  School boards might find informative the paper entitled The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Public Schools, published by “Citizens for  Community Values” and available online from the Citizens for Community Values website [at http://www.ccv.org/Legal_Liability_of_Homosexuality_Education.htm].  Some of the general principles enunciated should be applicable in Canada,  but some of what is contained in this paper will only be true for the United States.  Since the recent movement to promote pro-homosexuality education in the schools apparently originated in the United States, the opposition to that movement has produced many more resources there than we are likely to find in Canada.

We foresee the time may come when students, exposed in schools to the physical and mental health risks fostered by a cavalier attitude to homosexual behaviour, will take legal action against those institutions which allowed them to be propagandized.  This backlash against the public school system may result in massive penalties being levied against those who allowed such propagandizing to be carried out in the schools.

Finally, school boards need to refuse to approve or allow the use of the schools for social engineering by pro-homosexuality activists because to approve or allow it would be a betrayal of the rights of parents as those responsible for their children’s education to determine the most basic nature of that education.  In “Per Gonthier and Bastarache JJ” —a statement in Chamberlain v Surrey . . . of  the opinions of the Supreme Court of Canada judges who dissented from the majority in the Chamberlain v. Surrey School District Number 36 case—we read the following:
“This Court has reiterated the paramount parental role by construing the nature of the authority schools and teachers have over children as a delegated authority. The notion of a school's authority being delegated, if it allows parents to remove their children from the public school system, must also guarantee to parents the role of having input with regard to the values which their children will receive in school.”   
This is surely a very important statement, and to fail to defend this principle is to fail in the first duty of a school trustee:  to represent the legitimate interests of parents in the welfare of their children.

This Board is known for defending the legitimate rights of parents and students.  There has no doubt been a cost involved.  There have no doubt been vicious verbal attacks and misstatements of the Board’s intent.  But we would urge this Board to hold fast and not to yield to pressure, but to stand once more and defend the rights of parents and the welfare of students in this School District, and in so doing make a stand for the rights and welfare of parents and students across the length and breadth of our land.  n

Stories

[Note:  Internet URLs given were checked June 2, 2003, to ensure they were accurate for the information given.]

Address to Christian Coalition Information Session at TWU April 9, 2005

By Ron Gray, National Leader, Christian Heritage Party of Canada

It’s good to be back on campus of best university in Canada!

. . . .

The reason I call TWU the best university in Canada: it teaches the various disciplines from a coherent world-view. J.I. Packer said on this campus, almost 20 years ago, that Canada’s secular universities had already been captured by what he called “a kind of goofy anti-intellectualism”—he was referring to the philosophy of postmodernism.

Postmodernism has now captured almost all our Universities. There are a few other exceptions: The King’s College in Edmonton, Redeemer College at Ancaster, ON; St. Stephen’s University in New Brunswick. But the collapse of the intellectual core of Canada’s universities has had disastrous results: it has plunged Canada into a virtual civil war…

Postmodernism was originally an understandable reaction against the hubris of modernism which, after two centuries of the falsely so-called ‘Enlightenment’, produced the 20th century—the bloodiest era in human history.

People often warn against mixing religion and politics; but the 20th century gave us Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tsedong, Pol Pot, Nikolai Ceaucescu and Erik Honneker—who, in the name of atheism and paganism, killed more people than all the religious wars in history.

No, it’s the mixture of IRreligion and politics that’s truly dangerous

Alas, postmodernism, in fleeing from modernism, didn’t run into the arms of the Judeo-Christian Biblical wisdom upon which Western Civilization had been carefully built; instead, it fled into irrationalism, abjuring every trace of the canon of Western Civilization—all the way back to Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction: as J.I. Packer said, postmodernism tries to embrace mutually contradictory ideas simultaneously. That why postmodernism is actually anti-reason.

And that’s why it has produced, in Canada and elsewhere, a virtual civil war. The postmodernism that corrupted our universities more than a quarter-century ago has also affected the graduates of those universities, who became our journalists and our lawyers… and, as Gwen Landolt has lucidly pointed out, the definition of a judge, in Canada, is “a lawyer with good political connections.” 

And so we now have postmodernists on the benches in Canada—including the Supreme Court—and in most of the newsrooms of the nation.

And that’s what has produced our virtual civil war.

Being a Canadian conflict, it’s been polite and bloodless so far—unless you count nearly three million babies cruelly dismembered in their mothers’ wombs; that’s been one tragic result of this not-so-civil war.

The heart of the conflict is actually about Canada’s constitution. And to explain that, I have to take you back to about 1980, when the late Pierre Trudeau conceived his project of patriating our Constitution. He first asked the Supreme Court of that day—not yet populated by postmodernists—to define Canada’s constitution; they told him that it consists of two equally-important parts: the written document itself, and a body of tradition that goes all the way back to Magna Carta.

There are two very important principles at the heart of that tradition:

• One established that there is a higher law, which even the Crown must obey—and that it’s found in the Bible.

• The other is the separation of powers of the government: the legislature makes the laws, the Cabinet and civil service administer the laws, and the courts settle disputes according the law, as they find it written.

And that’s where the conflict comes in; because after Pierre Trudeau switched Canada from its Common Law tradition to Europe’s Charter Law tradition, and entrenched the Charter of Rights in our new Constitution, the judiciary suddenly felt it had the scope to usurp the law-making authority that had previously belonged only to the elected legislature.

And that is exactly what has produced today’s conflicts.

Today—this very day, April 9—you can see the conflict in the streets: tens of thousands of Canadians are right now gathering in front of the Supreme Court and Parliament, and thousands more in front of MPs offices across the country, to demand the preservation of the traditional definition of ‘marriage’.

I have to tell you about these gatherings because there’s a very good chance that our postmodern media will censor the reports of these rallies—or much of the relevant information about them—right out of tonight’s news.

The postmodern press isn’t any more reliable than the postmodern judiciary, I’m afraid. And I say that as a former journalist who cares, passionately, about the free press—a free and responsible press.

The usurpation of legislative powers by the judiciary is a kind of civil war… and it threatens the end of constitutional democracy in Canada.

How did this happen?

To answer that, we have to look at the development of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It should have been a Charter of Rights and Responsibilities, and it should have included the right to private property; but the Marxist bent of those pushing it onto the nation did not want either responsibilities or private property included.

But by the grace of God, however, the Preamble to the Charter still includes the unequivocal statement that

“Canada was founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”

Unfortunately, the activist judiciary that has ascended the throne of the High Court has, according to Ian Hunter, Professor Emeritus in the faculty of law at the University of Western Ontario, abrogated both of those principles.

When Parliament was drafting the Charter, and when the legislators came to Section 15—the ‘Equality Rights’ section —it was suggested that ”sexual orientation” might be added to the list of protected categories. It was pointed out by a lawyer-MP that the term ”sexual orientation” is so ill-defined that “it doesn’t belong in any legislation!”

They debated that one point for two days, and finally voted 22-2 to leave ”sexual orientation” out.

That was the form in which the Charter went back to Parliament; that was the form in which it was passed, and entrenched in the Constitution; that was the form in which it was sent to the provincial legislatures to be ratified; and that was the form in which it became the highest law in the land.

Without “sexual orientation”.

It wasn’t as though Parliament absent-mindedly forgot to include the phrase; they very deliberately decided that it didn’t belong.

But 13 years later, when the Nesbitt & Egan case came to the Supreme Court, the postmodernists on the bench blithely violated the Constitution and the traditional separation of powers by ordering that the phrase “sexual orientation” must henceforth be “read into” Section 15.

That was why the provincial courts in BC, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick had to rule that the Marriage Act was “unconstitutional” for excluding same-sex couples: they had been ordered to interpret Section 15 that way, by the Supreme Court of Canada.

In making that rule, the Supreme Court was, in effect, amending the Constitution.

But the Constitution has an amending formula built into it; and that formula requires, for even a minor change, the agreement of the federal Parliament and seven of the ten provincial legislatures, representing at least 50 per cent of the population of Canada. That’s for a minor amendment.

A major change—and I submit that this was without question a major change—requires the unanimous agreement of all 11 legislatures.

This change, however, was made arbitrarily by five of the nine judges. Unconstitutionally.

Our Constitution, in the Charter, also guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of religion; you’ll learn later from Chris Kempling just how valuable those guarantees are in Canada today.

Remember, the Constitution of the Soviet Union also guaranteed freedom of religion. But such guarantees are worthless unless they’re defended.

That’s why it’s urgent that someone now stand up and defend Canada’s Constitution from judicial activism. 

A few years ago, I attended a conference about judicial activism on Parliament Hill, where one of the speakers was the admirable Senator Ann Cools. She said—and I quote—“The problem is not just judicial activism. It is also cowardice in the House of Commons.”

Cowardice. A harsh word. But in a civil war, when the defence of constitutional democracy is at stake, defectors from the fight deserve harsh criticism—if only to awaken them to their duty!

Martin Luther famously said:

“If I profess, with the loudest voice and clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ...

“Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

As Senator Cools has noted, no one—that is, no party now sitting in the House—has shown the courage to confront the Supreme Court, draw a line in the sand, and say, “You’ve gone too far. Get back where you have legitimate authority, and come out no further than that!”

Until and unless Parliament is willing to do this, you and I no longer live in a constitutional democracy; we live in a judicial oligarchy. It’s a ‘krytocracy’—a dictatorship of judges.

Why, do you suppose, are these good men and women—many of them our brothers and sisters in the Lord—why are they unwilling to defend the Constitution and the truth?

I submit that it is because of their fear of man—specifically, the fear that the media may say something unkind about them.

And may I point out, with regard to public policy on marriage, that

(a) we must not submit the question to a referendum; for that would establish the principle that a vote of 50%+1 has the authority to turn ‘evil’ into ‘good’… which is nonsense.

No, the definition of ‘marriage’ was ordained long before the institution of civil government; and no court, parliament or referendum has the right to change it.

(b) recognizing homosexual ‘civil unions’ is just as bad as legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’; it still gives official approval to immoral behaviour. If Parliament approves immoral, unnatural and unhealthy behaviour, many young people—thinking, “It must be OK if the government says so”—will be tempted to experiment. Some of those who experiment will become addicted, and those who consent to public approval of immorality will share the responsibility for sentencing those children to a miserable life and a premature death.

Of course the media will call them names if they defend virtue! Because on the most controversial issue of the day, the courts and the media have already decreed that there is to be no debate. They have decided that “gay is good”, and no other opinion is to be allowed.

It is one of the clearest examples of “My mind’s made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.”

I’ve been encountering this personally; I’ve submitted several factual, peer-reviewed articles documenting the dangers of promoting the homosexual agenda in the schools, in the media, by perversity parades in the streets, and by legislation.

The editor’s response? He refuses even to read it! As far as the Abbotsford TIMES is concerned, the issue is settled. There will be no debate… no other opinion. He says that what consenting adults do in private is nobody’s business.

But when private behavior impacts the rest of society— whether financially, through the increased drain on the health-care system; or socially, through the impact on our children; or morally, through the degradation of public morals in the streets and in the news and entertainment media—it is our business.

What is desperately needed is someone with the intestinal fortitude to declare that it is our business—and a medium to carry that declaration to the people.

That’s why I’m grateful to the Christian Coalition for this informational meeting: it’s an opportunity for the people on the other side of this issue to become our own media.

It is not enough to stand aside and be neutral. In moral matters, there is no neutral ground; there is no fence to sit upon.

Dante Alighieri wrote, in his Inferno, that

“The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”

And if we’re willing to look to the classics of philosophy for guidance, Thomas Hobbes—arguably the first modern philosopher—wrote in Leviathan:

“… the foundation of all true ratiocination  [by which he means ‘reason’] is the constant signification of words, which… dependeth not (as in  natural science)  on the will of the writer, nor (as in common conversation) on vulgar use, but on the sense it carries in  the Scripture.

That’s something for our parliamentarians to reflect on, while they contemplate re-defining the word ‘marriage’. What Hobbes is saying is that reason—thinking—depends upon retaining the meaning of words… and not just their historic meaning, Hobbes says: he means the meaning each word is given in the Bible.

Even Hobbes, a modernist, recognized the unique authority of the Bible; for it is the very foundation of Western Civilization.

It is also, as Canada’s Constitution clearly declares and as history clearly shows, the very foundation of this nation.

Those who seek to revise that foundation are in danger of destroying what gives them the freedom to speak, and think, and act. We must warn them that they will come to regret their o’er-hasty and juvenile defiance of all authority.

The slogan of postmodernism—if it could clarify its thinking long enough to adopt one—would be:

“No one’s gonna tell ME what to do!”

It’s adolescent rebellion made into public policy. And it can only lead to social and moral disaster if Parliament continues to allow it free rein.

When my own children were adolescents, I used to tell them, “You must at some point come to terms with the fact of authority in your life. You can choose to recognize it in any of the successive spheres of authority that surround you.

“Closest to you, and the most gentle and loving, is the authority in your family.  Your family loves you, and wants what’s best for you.

“If you choose to reject the authority of your family, you will encounter the authority of the State. The State will also, to some extent take care of you; but it cannot love you.

“If you defy the authority of the State, you become an outlaw; but you will still be under authority—the authority of the natural world, which is hard, implacable and unyielding.

“And if you step outside that authority, you’ve had the biscuit. You are dead. You will then come face to face with the authority of your Creator.

“But at some point, you must come to terms with the ineluctable fact of authority over your life.”

That’s true, too, for all the people clamoring to change our laws and morality to suit their own hedonistic willfulness.

About a year ago, the Prime Minister said, “The Constitution exists to protect minorities.”

I wrote to him and said, “No, Mr. Prime Minister, you are wrong: the Constitution exists to protect principles; if minorities adhere to them, those principles will protect the minorities; but if we allow anyone to abrogate the principles of the Constitution, nothing remains to protect any of us.”

We have to carry that message to Parliament. And if Parliament will not listen—and act—to protect the Constitution, then we must change Parliament.

At the beginning of this session, I introduced Arne Bryan of Prayer Canada. Arne has organized more prayer for the leaders of this nation than anyone I know. Sometimes, his prayer for them is, “Lord, either straighten out their thinking, or remove them.”

Let that be our prayer, and our purpose, as well.

No party and no politician… and I include my own party and myself in this… no party and no politician is worth the space they take up if they will not preserve the very foundation of our freedom—the Constitution and its recognition of ‘the supremacy of God’.

Thank you.

Kasserian Ingera—Standing Up For Our Children

Trinity Western University, April 9, 2005

Dr.  Chris Kempling Psy. D. R.C.C.

Different cultures have different ways of greeting one another when they meet.  The form of that greeting is a reflection of what is important to that culture.  In English, we say “Hello, how are you?”  In New York, I discovered on my trip there last month that “Hello” is not necessary.  All you need is “How you doin’?”  The emphasis is on inquiring after the other person’s well being.  Nothing wrong with that—it’s considered the polite thing to do.  When Sikhs meet they say “Sut siri akal” which means “True Great Lord”.  Their greeting reflects their common faith and puts the emphasis on giving honour to God as the first order of business when greeting one another.  The Masai tribe of Kenya have a different approach.  When they meet one another they say “Kasserian Ingera”, which means “How are the children?”  The first order of business when Masai meet is to inquire after the children, and not just the individual’s children, but all the children in the village.   The tribe’s survival is inextricably linked to the well-being of all the children.

But isn’t that true for every tribe and nation in the world?  The well-being of our children needs to be everyone’s concern.  The well-being of children has been my passion for the past 25 years.  It’s why I am Big Brother volunteer.  It’s why I have been a member of the Quesnel Child and Youth Support Society since 1981.  It’s why I am an elementary school counselor and family therapist.  And it’s why I have refused to keep silent when activists from the homosexual community have been trying to impose their self-serving agenda on the public school system.  They have been very successful in convincing those is authority that their actions are in the best interests of children, especially those who are confused about their sexual identities.  But are they really committed to the best interests of children?  Let’s look at the evidence.

The McCreary Centre Society conducts research on school aged children in British Columbia.  In 1999 they specifically examined the well-being of children of non-heterosexual orientation.  They found that homosexual youth were four times more likely than heterosexual youth to have had four or more sexual partners in the past three months.  In that same survey, the study authors found that gay and lesbian youth were three times more likely than heterosexual youth to have ever had a sexually transmitted disease.  So-called homophobia is not the cause of this behaviour.

A study of homosexual young men in Vancouver found that over 40% of them were engaging in the practice of “bare-backing”, a euphemism for unprotected receptive anal intercourse.  According to Health Canada, over 70% of all the new HIV infections between 1994 and 2002 are young homosexual and bi-sexual men, even though the last census found that only 1% identify themselves as homosexual, with an additional 0.8% stating that they were bi-sexual.  A 1993 McCreary Centre Society study found that less than 1% of young people identify themselves as gay or lesbian.  Another Vancouver based study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 1997 found that the life expectancy for gay men is 8-20 years shorter than heterosexual men, and that half of current 20 year old gay men would not reach their 65^th birthday.  In the US, Dr.  Patrick Cameron studied the obituaries of 18 homosexual publications and found that that average age of death for those infected with AIDS was 39.  If they didn’t die of AIDS, the average age of death was 42.  You might recall the case of William Bennest, the Burnaby elementary school principal who was discovered to have pasted the face of a former student onto a naked boy’s body.  That former student was lured into homosexual activity by Mr.  Bennest, and was passed around at sex parties with other gay men.  He died of AIDS at the age of 22.

The main causes of premature death in the Cameron study were AIDS, drug and alcohol abuse and domestic violence.  Speaking of domestic violence, a 1992 study by Patterson and Kim found that 37% of gay men reported that they had been raped by men they knew, which is almost double the rate for heterosexual women.  Lesbian women have the highest rate for domestic violence of any social group, with some studies reporting 50% relationship violence.

In Cameron’s study, the average age of death for lesbian women, as reported by the obituaries in their own publications, was 44.

This may be hard to believe, but some homosexual men actively seek to become infected with HIV.  An article by Makebra Anderson, national correspondent for the National Newspapers Publishing Association, dated July 12, 2004, stated that some gay men identified themselves as “bug chasers”--in other words, they are seeking someone to infect them with the HIV virus.  Those who offer to help them with that goal are called “gift-givers”.  Bug chasers search for “gift givers” on the Internet using such phrases as “breed me”, “welcome me to the brotherhood” and “convert me”.  “Conversion” parties are held in most major US cities, and arranged over the Internet.  As bizarre as this sounds, “bug chasers” consider it a sign of true intimacy to allow someone to infect them.  They also see it as a kind of excitement to live life on the edge, or a “why not get it over with, I’m going to get it some time anyway” attitude.  The drug cost for treating someone with AIDS is $1500 per month, not including all the time and expertise of  thinly stretched health care professionals.  This is truly a tragic situation.

Such behaviour seems evidence of a serious mental disorder.  Research done in New Zealand, the US, Britain and the Netherlands have demonstrated that homosexual young people are at high risk for a host of mental disorders. The New Zealand study, published in a 1999 edition of the Archives of General Psychiatry, found that gay, lesbian and bisexual young people had a fourfold risk of major depression and were six times more likely to have attempted suicide.  Is this due to so-called homophobia?  In the Netherlands, which is probably the most gay friendly country on the planet, a 2001 study by Sandfort and his colleagues found that the rate of mental illness among homosexuals in that country, including depression, anxiety disorders, obsessive compulsion disorders, eating disorders, and drug addictions, was up to nine times that of the general population.  If homophobia was the cause of this, one would expect the rates of mental illness to be higher in the United States, which has more negative social attitudes towards homosexual behaviour.  But the rates of mental illness and suicide attempts are similar in both countries.  The problem is not homophobia.  The problem is high levels of relationship instability, exploitative promiscuous sexual practice, sexual transmitted diseases, and drug abuse which are endemic in the homosexual community.  One potential source of these emotional disorders is the high rate of child abuse reported by those who identify as homosexual.  One study of over 1000 men seeking treatment at an STD clinic in Pittsburgh (Doll et al, Child Abuse & Neglect, 1992) showed that 37% reported that they had been sexually abused.  The average age of their abuse was 11 years old, 94% by older gay men.  This is three times of abuse rate reported by heterosexual men.  We know that being sexually abused can lead to a host of emotional and behavioural problems later in life.  I think the evidence clearly shows that homosexuals are at high risk, not because of so-called homophobia, but due in part to being victimized by homosexual pedophiles.  One study by Abel and his colleagues at Emory University in Georgia (1987, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) showed that the average number of victims of non-incarcerated homosexual pedophiles was 150.2.  Astounding!  The average number of victims of heterosexual pedophiles was 19.8.  One of the things many homosexual men have in common is being introduced to sexual activity by an older boy or man.  These older men seek out those who are most vulnerable, as William Bennest did, those hungry for adult male attention.  Most gay men will say that their primary purpose in accepting attention from adult gay men when they were younger was intimacy, not sexual activity, but they got caught up in the sexually promiscuity as a misguided means to attain intimacy.

Why do homosexual activists want access to the public school system?  They will tell you it is because they want to educate students and teachers about how to understand the particular needs of gay youth, and to reduce their harassment.   I’m not saying that is not a valid goal at face value.  It’s very persuasive, because who can oppose reducing harassment or improving understanding?  But there is another goal that is not so laudable.  I was reading the background rationale for a 1997 AGM resolution of the BC Teachers Federation, whose goal was reducing homophobia and heterosexism. The writer stated that they wanted to create an environment where “bi-curious” youth could feel free to experiment with same sex behaviour.  Given the data I’ve just given you, such experimentation could be a death sentence.  One US Senator recently got into trouble with the media for stating that the gay lifestyle was more of a “deathstyle”.  But given the evidence, I think he was not too far off the mark.

A revealing article was penned by Capilano College philosophy instructor Stan Persky in Xtra West gay newspaper, June 29, 2000.  He admits that one of the goals of the homosexual lobby is to recruit heterosexual young people into the gay lifestyle.  Here are his own words:  “I was a sympathizer with …the idea about homos ‘recruiting’.  Especially since the Good Grey Gay Establishment stood up, to a man, and solemnly, but hypocritically, assured one and all that good homosexuals would never do anything so sneaky and underhanded as to persuade someone to be gay or engage in homosexual acts.  The official gay leadership insisted that gays were born gay, and that no one who wasn’t gay could be turned into a homo, not even for 10 minutes.  Of course they were lying through their teeth…And even worst of all, they persuade other people—often young people who aren’t necessarily gay—to give it a go.  And guess what?  Some of those who give it a go keep on going.”  Persky goes on to state that since he is “one of those people who thinks that the main battleground of the homo movement is not the wedding aisle of a nice church, but the nasty schoolyard, I think that being up-front is a better strategy than any other.” I had a personal email interchange with Mr.  Persky after this.  He stated that since there was nothing morally wrong with homosexuality, he didn’t see what the problem was in trying to convince young people to try it out.  In June 1997, a meeting of traditionalist parents in Vancouver was disrupted by a mob of homosexual radicals who chanted, “Ten percent is not enough. Recruit! Recruit! Recruit!”  Dr.  K-John Cheung, president of the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values, who was chairing the meeting, told reporters that “They can’t procreate, so they have to recruit”.  And what better way to recruit than Gay Straight Alliance Clubs, currently set up in over two dozen lower mainland high schools, as well as the tax funded gay youth drop-in centres.  The gay newspaper Xtra West, is distributed free to all gay youth centres. It is filled with pornographic classified ads of those seeking casual sex partners, as well as ads for bathhouses which are notorious for being venues for orgies, drug abuse and perverse sexual behaviours involving human waste. 

In August 1996, when I attended a workshop for teachers and counsellors sponsored by the Ministry of Education, called Youth at Risk, we were all handed a copy of Xtra West and urged to leave it laying around in our counselling office waiting rooms.  I was appalled, but later confirmed with an employee of Xtra West that several Vancouver area high schools have it available to their students.

After writing to the Minister of Education, to my union, and to others I thought might be concerned about the distribution of pornography to students, I learned that no one in authority really thought this was a problem.  That’s when I started writing publicly about my concerns, alerting parents as to what was being proposed for their children.  That is why I have been censured by the BC College of Teachers, and disciplined by my own school board.  I am being persecuted because I refuse to stand idly by, while homosexual activists attempt to desensitize and delude everyone with the message that engaging in homosexual behaviour is normal, moral and safe.  It is nothing of the sort.

In the state of Massachusetts, where homosexual activists are allowed free access to the school system, children as young as 12 years old were invited to a workshop at Tufts University in March, 2000, delivered by department of education employees.  They were given graphic descriptions of how to engage in homosexual behaviour, including the disgusting and dangerous practice of fisting, the insertion of the entire hand inside someone’s rectum.  One of the students asked, “why would anyone want to do that?”  Out of the mouths of babes…A parent who secretly taped the session and blew the whistle was sued by the workshop presenters for “invading their privacy”, and is facing $100,000 in legal expenses.

The Gay and Lesbian Educators of BC have a web site that is listed as an approved resource site for teachers to access, on the Ministry of Education’s Personal Planning curriculum guide web site.  Here’s what I found on GALE-BC’s web site as some of the goals of their organization:  Mandatory queer friendly resources; comprehensive view of queer issues in religious discussions, insert queers into history, literature, art and film; non-optional queer sensitive sex education; break down the myth that there are only two sexes; remove male or female boxes from school forms, challenge binary; cross dressing and gender bending a common occurrence; and student field trips to queer community events [such as they did in San Francisco in June, 2003 where children were bused in to march in a gay pride event where men and women were parading down the street naked].  I saw on the news recently that organizers of the Gay Pride parade here in Vancouver have had to ask for an extended parade route to allow for all the crowds that want to watch bare breasted lesbians and promoters of sado-masochism parade by.  People bring young children to watch this.  What is the matter with these parents?  The prophet Isaiah said, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.”  Jesus said, “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come.  It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.”  There will be a price to pay at the judgment day for those who lead little ones astray.  Unfortunately, some of those little ones end up paying for being misled, with their own lives, as I’ve already shown.

Currently, Mr.  Murray Corren, a homosexual teacher from Coquitlam has a case before the BC Human Rights Tribunal that will be heard this summer.  The purpose of the case is to force the BC Ministry of Education to change the entire curriculum to insert “queer issues” [his words, not mine] into the curriculum of every course and every grade.  The goals are posted on the GALE-BC web site as I just read to you.  If he is successful with this goal, then every private school who accepts ministry of education funding will have to show that they are teaching the curriculum in order to continue to receive funding.  It is a very smart strategy.  My question is to you is, are you going to allow this to happen?

Abraham Kuyper, the founder of the Dutch Christian Democratic Party said this, “When the principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then the battle is your calling, and peace has become sin.  You must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy with all the fire of your faith.”  Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “The ultimate measure of a man (and I would add woman as well) is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”  There is no doubt that this is a time of challenge and controversy.  Where do you stand?  Will you stand up to defend our children?  Will you speak up?  Will you speak out?  The fate of all our children are in your hands.

So what can you do?  Let me make it clear that I believe that Christian young people should go out of their way to offer friendship to their peers who are struggling with this issue.  They should intervene and defend anyone they see being ridiculed, harassed or name-called because of their orientation.  Let it never be said of Christian children that they participated in the harassment or name-calling of those with this problem.  Henri Nouwen, one of the most beloved Christian writers of the past century, struggled with this issue his entire life.  “You who are without sin cast the first stone.“

I believe that every Christian university such as this one should be offering training in their pastoral counselling programs for those who are called to ministry to homosexual people, because the secular universities don’t believe in it.  We must be prepared to demonstrate Christ’s love to these people as he did toward the woman caught in the act of adultery.  He did not condemn her.  First he protected her from abuse.  Then he called her to repentance and to change her ways.  Likewise, we must not condemn, but offer the hand of friendship and protection, and, as appropriate, the cousnelling and therapeutic resources to help them to overcome their undesirable same sex attractions. 

I share with you now a word of prophecy given to me on January 8, 2003 at 8:30 in the evening, while I was sitting in my living room reading Brennan Manning’s The Relenteless Tenderness of Jesus.  It is a message for all homosexual people.  “Hear the Word of the Lord, the Most High God:  ‘I know what you do in secret.  I did not make you for this purpose.  Yet I do not condemn you, but will forgive you.  Repent, turn from your ways, and I will heal you and give you rest from all of your burdens,’ declares the Lord God.”  Jesus Christ expects repentance, but offers forgiveness and healing.  And some of you listening to this message are being called right now to be God’s servant in this area of ministry.

I will close with one more quote.&nbs