Skip to comments.GAY PRO-LIFE LEADERS ARRESTED AT NATIONAL PRO-LIFE MARCH
Posted on 01/23/2002 6:22:00 AM PST by helmsman
click here to read article
In order to help Oh Great Judge Of Stupidity (Dimensio) I obviously should have posted what I was responding to. Here ya go:
"Gay proponents claim that being gay is genetic, sooner or later some scientist is going to "prove" the gene exists. There lies the trap. What is going to prevent parents aborting fetuses after a genetic screening showing it may be "gay"?? Aborting fetuses because it is "gay" will not sit well..."
I apologize if things were made to difficult for you to understand by my lack of full content. I'll try to help you out more in the future...
Because the same group that (1) knew she didnt want them to march under their own banner, and who (2) did march under it anyway, (3) knowing that in the past she has asked to have them removed when it happens, have now (4) written an inflammatory press release about events they clearly incited.Your source is suspect!Because they're gay? Is that the only reason they are automatically suspect?
One does not often assign a great deal of credibility to an advocacy group's report on a conflict they went out and intentionally incited.
How about Serial Killers for life?
Their motto is "If they ain't borned then I can't do my job"
No one is stopping the Pro-life Gays from having their own rallies. Why don't they? If they really believe in the pro-life movement. And if they do, how come they aren't critcizing the press for not covering the rallies? I've never heard of the group before.
Which is the exact antithesis of the NARAL crowd, I can assure you [insert whoopie cushion noise here]. I was actually thrown out of a NARAL fund raising event in the 80s, solely because NARAL didn't approve of my employer being a religious radio station. I was part of the news team, I was carrying press credentials at the time, and had spoken with the local NARAL chapter president to obtain permission to attend/cover the event well in advance. That night, I was met at the door by her, and one of her thugs, and was told (by the chapter president) that I was not permitted inside without an escort (the thug). Said thug then refused to allow me past the lobby, and not-so-gently advised me that I had all the coverage I needed, and had stayed long enough. All the local network affiliates, newspapers, and and major media outlets were there for the duration of the event (which went on another two hours). I was the only member of the press thrown out - and after less than five minutes. Who was being paranoid that night?
Since I couldn't report on the event itself, I changed the focus of my coverage, using the "eviction" angle of the story. It got the attention of one of the international news wires, who published my version of the entire event later that week :). I still have the audio feed from the national coverage on tape somewhere, as well as the printout from the national newswire.
Besides, why shouldn't we of the moral high ground be paranoid? After all, our opponents are only mild-mannered advocates of a culture of death :)
Alright, Sir ArGee, I will pick up your gauntlet. Gay people harm no one by behaving in a homosexual manner and are, therefore, not on a par with rapists or people from the Koo Koo Klan. Even for many religious Jews and Christians, the sin of homosexuality does not begin to compare with sexual violation or outward racism. If homosexuality is a sin, it is a sin of weak flesh, not of hate or violence.
Of course it does. Otherwise they would not identify themselves by the kind of sex they like to have. If somebody is constantly telling you, "I'm a fisherman" then you can bute that fishing is very important to the man - his life revolves around it to the point where he defines himself by his fishing ability. And he's headed for trouble if he ever finds himself unable to fish.
In the same way, when somebody tells you "I'm a homosexual" he's defining his life by his sexual preferences. That means his life revolves around them.
See, now you're using logic. But others on this post will tell you that you can only be using logic if you are pro-homosexual.
You miss my point.
Every FReeper who is reading this will find some level of depravity to which they will not descend. It may be adultery. It may be homosexuality. It may be eugenics. It may be bestiality. It may be pedophelia. It may be necrophilia. But it is down there somewhere.
Each FReeper will demand the right not to be associated with such depraved people, even if the people supported a neutral cause that the FReeper also supports.
Nellie simply wanted that same right.
You may not agree that homosexuality is as depraved as eugenic bigotry. I happen to think it is. Regardless, grant Nellie the same right that you would ask for yourself, the right of association.
Not every enemy of my enemy is my friend. Ask Winston Churchill.
What would the abortionists do? They are serial killers, no?
Khepera for life? I'll have to think long and hard about that one. I hear Khepera is one BRAAD dude.
He also sings with the fishies.
What are you talking about? When a "law" was enacted has nothing to do with anything.
What is relevant is this: A person who deliberately removes an obstacle that is causing the commission of a crime, makes himself an accomplice to the crime. When Bush/Ashcroft make it their policy to see to it that no one is able to keep an abortionist from killing a baby, Bush/Ashcroft make themselves accomplices in the killing of that baby. It does not matter how fervently Bush/Ashcroft hope that someday abortion will be illegal. What they are doing NOW is facilitating the killing of particular babies. That's a crime. It can never be undone. Those babies are dead, and Bush/Ashcroft are consciously, deliberately seeing to it that babies die. Anyone who cooperates in seeing to it that the Rescue Movement remains suppressed is personally cooperating in the killing of babies.
Any "law" that authorizes the killing of babies is null. Any "law" that authorizes actions which suppress life-saving interventions is null. Anyone who enforces those laws or obeys orders pursuant to those laws is an accomplice to homicides. Those homicides are present actions. They can never be undone by any future change in the "law."
Since when did logical conclusions have anything to do with liberals?
You sure you ate your Wheaties this morning?
A person who deliberately removes an obstacle that is causing the commission of a crime, makes himself an accomplice to the crime.
A person who deliberately removes an obstacle that is preventing the commission of a crime, makes himself an accomplice to the crime.
First, it doesn't matter whether they harm anyone or not. Nellie doesn't want to associate with them. You want to judge her for that. I say it's her right. You think homosexuality is not on a par with the Klan. Nellie says it is. Why are we to respect your opinion and not hers?
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. We bear a financial burden and a health care burden for what they do "in the privacy of their own homes." And those are only specific tangible costs.
You have bought into a lie that it is only their business. The fabric of our society depends upon a common morality which is based on a clear understanding of human nature. Homosexual behavior is inconsistent with this morality and human nature. We do not need to accept it, any more than we need to accept bigotry.
I haven't read the entire thread, but it seems to me that this is all we need to know. Her right to choose who is in her event have been upheld in the courts here in New York in regard to the St. Patrick's Day parade. It's known as freedom of association. The argument that public funds are used to police and clean up after the parade does not hold water, as public funds are used for many things that do not have unanimous approval. It is not a public event. We can argue about whether Miss Gray is right or wrong in a moral sense, but she is right in a legal sense.
In that case, (s)he would not be a homosexual.
That doesn't mean that their life is automatically "unfulfilled" or boring or is of no substance. A homosexual is defined by sexual attraction to persons of the same gender, not by any specific sexual activity.
That is part of the lie they want you to believe, but it is simply not true. A man having a fleeting sexual attraction to another man doesn't make him a homosexual any more than a man having a fleeting desire to take a car out of the showroom without paying for it makes him a thief.
But they will tell you that the desire makes you queer so they can then convince you to attempt to fulfill the desire. That's one of the recruitment methods.
I'm long-haired and nearsighted. Those traits define part of who I am, but not the sum total or even a majority of it.
Why were you not carrying a sign "Long-haired nearsighted people for life" at the rally? Is it possibly because your life does not revolve around it?
So, you're saying that because some people take it seriously we should ban sarcastic humor?
Did I see you at one of those rallys burning Harry Potter books?
Oh, and the only reason that PETA hadn't complained about the beard-lice thing is they didn't think of it first.
The Hebrew word for 'iniquity' is 'avon' (not pronounced like the makeup, but ah VONE). It means to twist or to bend.
The iniquity in man means that he is a bit twisted in his makeup. The interaction between G-d and man has a twofold purpose:
Note, in the above, man/men are generic terms for male and female. There is no intention to elevate nor denegrate women.
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.
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.
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?
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.
How can you have sexuality without having sex?
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.
MSASU (remember the M is silent, especially in print:)
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.
There are a couple of points that you need to keep in mind here.
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.
Actually, it just makes it look shorter. If only shorter meant silent, I think I could even stomach Little Tommy Daschle.
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.
Your stomach would be stronger than mine.
How 'bout (m)SASU?
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.
I think I already addressed that one. No, it does not.
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.