[yongin]

i would like to see if any homos marched in san fran right to life. the gay gestapo would be upset.

[ReformationFan]

I wouldn’t be surprised if some did. And if some did, that’s fine as long as they didn’t act out sexually on the street in front of children or anyone else for that matter. However, they are just not consistently pro-life as the archbishop stated.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I know that there are homosexuals and lesbians who are anti-abortion. I receive mailings and e-mails from PLAGAL (Pro Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians -- you can google that for more information, everybody) and I honor them inasmuch as they do defend the childrens' right to be born.

PLAGAL pretty regularly attends March for Life on both coasts:

http://www.plagal.org/pictures.html

I would even accept the statement that pro-life and pro-gay go together, **IF** (big if) by "pro-gay" we meant "pro-identifying people by their humanity, rather than by their misguided conduct."

But pro-gay generally means, in today's political parlance, "it's-OK-to-engage in disordered sexual conduct "it's OK to choose a disordered same-sex marriage," and "pro-same-sex adoption." And that is failing to defend children's right to be raised by a father and a mother. So it is not really pro-childrens' rights.

Any child raised in a MSM or WSW household is being intentionally deprived of either a father or of a mother. They are, by intent, forced to be either fatherless or motherless.

This does not really address the natural conditions under which children develop a confident organic sense of who they are. It would be immoral to accept such an arrangement, which is so often demanded in terms of adults' wants rather than children's needs.