GAY PRO-LIFE LEADERS ARRESTED AT NATIONAL PRO-LIFE MARCH

Washington, D.C. January 22, 2002. Leaders of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL) were arrested today at the 29th annual March for Life. The arrests were conducted by the United States Park Police by direct orders of Miss Nellie Gray the March for Life Leader and holder of the permit, according to the Park Police.

PLAGAL President Cecilia Brown and Vice-President Eric Jurek were at the March for Life for the sole purpose protesting the 1973 Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion-on-demand. They were simply carrying the PLAGAL Banner -- which states the organization's name and "Human Rights Start When Human Life Begins." Brown, Jurek, and the rest of the PLAGAL delegation were approached by the officers and ordered to remove the offending sign. Consistent with their deeply held pro-life convictions, they refused. Police back-up arrived at the scene. At that time, though not resisting arrest, Brown and Jurek were wrestled to the ground and dragged to an area away from the crowds were they were handcuffed and taken away.

"How can Miss Gray claim to stand for the dignity of all human life while at the same time denying gays and lesbians our dignity in openly defending the rights of all human beings to life?" asked PLAGAL Vice-President, Ms. B.A. Keener. She then went on to comment, "Most every group that attends the March for Life openly identifies itself with signs and banners -- be they Feminists, Democrats, Catholics, etc. It seems that PLAGAL has been targeted by the leadership of the March for Life simply because of their sexual orientation. PLAGAL and its leaders have a long and solid history in pro-life activism."

"Nellie Gray, in a meeting a few years ago, stated PLAGAL may participate in the March for Life so long as we do not identify ourselves as lesbians and gays," stated Moses Remedios, VP for Media Relations. "That's as offensive as telling an African American, 'you can ride on the bus, but just sit in the back.'"

Prior to the arrest Brown stated, "PLAGAL participates in the March because we believe in positive, life-affirming alternatives to the tragedy of abortion. To say that we have no place for open participation in the pro-life movement is not only counter-productive, but it simply wrong." She then went on to say, "We urge Miss Gray to set aside her personal biases, and "FREE THE MARCH" for Life, by allowing all peaceful, pro-life groups to stand in solidarity with women and the unborn."

We are appalled that Miss Gray is incapable of setting aside her personal sentiments against gays and lesbians, thus prohibiting, with the use of police force, our open participation in the pro-life movement," stated Ms. Keener who went on to say, "By this malevolent act and to her detriment, Miss Gray has moved the focus of the March for Life away from the protection of the unborn -- where it belongs -- to the participation of lesbians and gays."

All those wishing to express their disgust with the March for Life for this malicious and divisive act of exclusion are encouraged to contact the March for Life at info@marchforlife.org. For pictures and the latest information on this developing story please visit our website at http://www.plagal.org.

I know that I'm asking for it here, but I thought that most Christians believed that human nature was to sin...wouldn't that make homosexuality perfectly consistent with human nature?

It is not human nature to sin. The tendency to sin is the result of the absence of grace at conception, and the consequent damage to human nature brought about by the absence of grace. "Human nature" considered as "what is usual" or "what is common" obviously includes the tendency to sin. But "human nature" considered as a source of values, is what God has created, properly developed and properly ordered to the proper ends of the human person and his many faculties. Since homosexual desire is the desire to do something that is destructive, it is obviously contrary to the good of human nature.

You articulated your point well before.

There are many conservatives who don't find anything depraved about someone's innate sexuality, be it straight or gay.

It wasn't your call or mine or any other FReeper's. It was Nellie's. I say she had the right and you have no right to judge her for it.

Shalom.

Why are we to respect your opinion and not hers?

First, I don't think I ever said that I don't respect the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, or even that Nellie Gray shouldn't have been allowed to kick PLAGAL out of what apparently is her March. But those of us who are pro-life know that what is a legal right, isn't always right. I contend it was wrong for Nellie to do what she did, even though she may have had the right to do it. But if she wants to do it, and the law allows her, then I say go right ahead. But I will publicly condemn her for it. And I will continue to insist that this brand of exclusionism is not good for the movement I desperately want to see succeed.

Second, homosexual behavior certainly has hurt us all and will continue to do so. We all pay for the spread of AIDS, which would have gone nowhere if it had not been for the behaviors of the homosexual community.

In the United States, it is true that homosexual behavior is the primary activity that spreads AIDS. But in the rest of the world, it is heterosexual intercourse that is the chief cause. Does that make heterosexuality as immoral to you as homosexuality?

So is a man who, throughout his entire life, is sexually attracted exclusively to persons of the same gender but never engages in sexual activity with anyone of either gender a heterosexual or something else?

He's celibate, and I wouldn't expect him to be carrying a sign about it. But you won't find such a man who hasn't already been twisted by some event in his life.

Believe it or not, I've met homosexuals who would never march in a rally of any kind just to identify as a homosexual.

Would they insist on carrying signs? If not, then I would have politely asked Nellie to let them march with her.

I have known many homosexuals who don't make a big deal out of their sexuality. They know I have a problem with their sexuality. I know they have a problem with my religious beliefs. We stick to subjects and venues that will not cause those issues to come to the surface and we get along fine. But I pray for their healing.

Shalom.

Are you saying that virgins have no sexuality then? Or that a virgin can neither be heterosexual or homosexual?

How can you have sexuality without having sex?

Shalom.

because even though PEtA is extremist and their views are illogical even at a cursory glance, they're not that extreme.

Yes they are.

Moderation is a disease that can be cured. Take a stand for truth against falsehood and it will begin to fall away.

Shalom.

Aren't homosexuals and lesbians just plain men and women? So why do they not simply identify themselves as "Men & Women for Life?" Why, for the life of me, do they always want to be seen as SPECIAL? I'm sure every one of them have other identifying traits than just being homosexuals (i.e, sons, daughters, singles, people from a particular geographical location, home owners or not, educational attainment, etc.) but it's always this GAYNESS that they choose to push into people's faces. How pathetic.

I contend it was wrong for Nellie to do what she did,

And I contend that it was absolutely right. The pro-life cause must be, at its root, a moral cause. It can not succeed if we mix the holy with the profane, as it were.

As to the other, if I agree with you that heterosexual activity is the cause of the spread of AIDS in the rest of the world (citation?) then I would say the heterosexual activity that lead to its spread was indeed immoral and harmful. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if the rest of the world would keep their sexuality within the context of a monagomous heterosexual marriage, there would be no AIDS epidemic.

Shalom.

Actually ArGee, I've got a heckofa cold, so do you think I was using ill logic?

There are a couple of points that you need to keep in mind here.

Everything I post is a lie.
I am lying.

mSASU. Does that make the 'm' look more silent?

Shalom.

Are you saying that virgins have no sexuality then? Or that a virgin can neither be heterosexual or homosexual?

How can you have sexuality without having sex?

So I take it your answer is that virgins have no sexuality? What if a male virgin just likes to kiss girls. Or kiss guys? Does that have nothing to do with sexuality? I once dated a virgin that would only give me a good night kiss - are you saying that she had no sexuality?

The answer to your question is that AFAIAC, sexuality has to do with how you feel and who you are attracted to. It has much less to do with how one acts on those attractions.

Do you still believe that virgins have no sexuality?

The answer to your question is that AFAIAC, sexuality has to do with how you feel and who you are attracted to. It has much less to do with how one acts on those attractions.

So, you're saying that kissing is not acting on attractions?

Kissing may not be sex, per se, but it is sexual behavior. If you like, I will modify my position accordingly. I would not have thought it necessary, but I won't object.

Shalom.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if the rest of the world would keep their sexuality within the context of a monagomous heterosexual marriage, there would be no AIDS epidemic.

I'm going to go at an even greater limb and suggest that if everyone kept their sexuality in the context of a monagamous relationship -- whether an opposite-sex pairing or same-sex pairing -- there would be no AIDS epidemice.

Some will dispute that, though, insisting that homosexuality actually "causes" AIDS in itself.

As to the other, if I agree with you that heterosexual activity is the cause of the spread of AIDS in the rest of the world (citation? [World Health Organization - just about any study they've ever released on the matter]) then I would say the heterosexual activity that lead to its spread was indeed immoral and harmful.

I can accept that. Indeed, if human beings could restrict their sexual behavior to monogamous relationships then we would certainly be a healthier society. But that applies as much to homosexuality as it does to heterosexuality.

Kissing may not be sex, per se, but it is sexual behavior. If you like, I will modify my position accordingly. I would not have thought it necessary, but I won't object.

Ok... so kissing counts. What if that same person, instead of kissing other people, just looked at them and thought about kissing them. Does that count as sexual behavior?

Actually, it just makes it look shorter. If only shorter meant silent, I think I could even stomach Little Tommy Daschle.

Your stomach would be stronger than mine.

How 'bout (m)SASU?

Shalom.

I'm going to go at an even greater limb and suggest that if everyone kept their sexuality in the context of a monagamous relationship -- whether an opposite-sex pairing or same-sex pairing -- there would be no AIDS epidemice.

I will not challenge that. However, as homosexual attraction is (IMO) a disorder, I don't think your condition could have been satisfied.

But I will agree with you, I have no reason to think that homosexual behavior, per se, created the HIV.

Shalom.

Ok... so kissing counts. What if that same person, instead of kissing other people, just looked at them and thought about kissing them. Does that count as sexual behavior?

I think I already addressed that one. No, it does not.

Shalom.

Great!!

Now the conservative movement is balkanizing itself. Frankly, I'd rather agree with conservative gays than Clintonista scum.

The libero-Nazis must be laughing their collective butts off. Then again, if there was a disruptive element that was arrested, they could be fascisti plants.

prambo

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.