where is the asshole alert
now how in the heck would a doctor know before birth that a child was gay?
some people think up the stupidist things to base an even stupider argument on
how did these people get their degrees?
Wow. Just, wow.
By rejecting God as the perfect creator and his admonition that homosexual behavior is an abomination, allows them to practice their lifestyle of choice without guilt.
That Sarah chose to give birth to Trig was just too much for these vile haters of God.
If Trig were homosexual we would love and support him unconditionally the way normal families do. We would also always remind him that homosexuality is a sin to God that he will have to be responsible for.
As usual, the libs are missing the point. I was born with or developed quite a few urges, not all of which match God’s word. For example, during my several decades of marriage, I have many times seen a woman other than my wife, noticed that she was beautiful, felt certain urges, and . . . done nothing about it. The nice thing about being a Christian with free will is that I can choose my own actions. The nice thing about putting my trust in God is that I know He has made better decisions for me than I would make for myself without His guidance, so I continue to choose to follow His word. Whether the negative urges we are born with lead in the direction of homosexuality/bisexuality, or in the direction of adultery, gluttony, avarice, or anything else that is incompatible with God’s word, we can choose. Unlike liberals, good Christians know that we are free to choose their own actions and paths through life. We may make occasional mistakes, but we learn from them rather than wallowing in and celebrating them. I don’t think that Sarah would have any trouble at all raising a child who was born with a tendency in the direction named by the author, even if you assume that a baby can be gay. [And, no, I don’t think Sarah would abort a baby over that flaw either - she would instead guide the child as he grew.]
I find this writer despicable who is accusing Sarah Palin of hypocrisy by contrasting her attitudes towards her handicapped son with her attitudes towards homosexuality.
It is disgusting and despicable.
There is an excellent guide to debating this subject at: http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/9707137.pdf (Defending the Family website, DEFEATING “GAY” ARGUMENTS WITH SIMPLE LOGIC, written by Scott Lively) This particular segment bears directly on this argument by advocates for normalizing homosexuality that it is innate behavior and since it cannot be altered (like Down syndrome) it cannot be condemned.
************************************
DEFEATING “GAY” ARGUMENTS WITH SIMPLE LOGIC
by Scott Lively
This is the secret to understanding why the “gay” movement now denies that homosexuality is behavior- based and instead insists that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. It is not science. It is a legal and political strategy.
The problem is that they can’t prove it.
There exists no truly objective means of determining whether a person is innately homosexual. One cannot take a blood test or DNA test to prove that he or she is “gay.” We must depend entirely upon a person’s claim that his or her homosexuality is innate. The taint of political self-interest alone makes such evidence wholly untrustworthy. Self-declared homosexuals can’t even prove that they really believe that their homosexuality is innate. Instead, they argue that homosexuality must be innate because no one would choose to be “gay” and incur the resulting social stigma. This argument is invalid, since many people choose lifestyles that others condemn. Moreover, there are many homosexuals who freely admit that their lifestyle is a voluntary preference.
2On the question of choice, it must be noted that all sex but rape is voluntary and thus every sexual act involves a conscious choice. A person’s inclination toward a form of sexual conduct may not, for any number of reasons, be consciously chosen, but the mere existence of desire does not justify the act. To accept otherwise would be to validate adultery and pedophilia. Society has the right to require people to suppress harmful desires, even if it is difficult for them to do so.
In reality, the “gay” movement does not want a biological cause to be found. If science were to identify a biological cause of homosexuality, that day would begin the “race for the cure.” (And a great many purportedly happy homosexual men and women would secretly join that race.)
Since the “gay” movement can’t prove it, the assertion that homosexuals are “born that way” remains nothing but a hypothesis: one which provides no justification for abandoning long-standing, experience- tested social policies. Remember, society doesn’t have to prove that homosexuality is not innate. “Gay” activists are the ones attempting to change things and the burden of proof is theirs.
Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is not innate. There is a very considerable body of testimony from tens of thousands of men and women who once lived as homosexuals. These ex- “gays” have renounced their former lifestyles and many have become heterosexual in self-identification and desire, while others have stopped at the point of comfort with their own gender and freedom from same-sex desires. The “gay” movement’s challenge to former homosexuals to, in essence, prove they aren’t still innately“gay”is the height of absurdity since homosexual immutability was never proven in the first place.
Why is the question of immutability so important? Because if homosexuality is not innate, it must be acquired. And if it can be acquired, we dare not allow homosexuality to be legitimized to our children. If there remains any shadow of doubt as to the cause of homosexuality, we must err on the side of protecting our children. Indeed we must actively discourage them from viewing homosexuality as safe and normal, when in fact it is demonstrably neither safe nor normal. It bears noting here that normalcy is functioning according to nature or design. Normalcy is not based on popular opinion.
In summary, the true definition of homosexuality is same-gender sexual conduct. A homosexual is a person who defines himself or herself by the participation in or desire to participate in such conduct. This definition is both logical and intuitively sound.
For the sake of our children and the health of our society, we must not accept the redefinition of these terms. We must force the advocates of the “born that way” argument to admit that they can’t prove it, and that since they can’t prove it, they must admit the possibility that homosexuality may be acquired. We must never allow a discussion to proceed forward if the immutability of homosexuality is assumed as a premise. We must challenge the premise and force the logical concessions, without allowing the subject to be changed.f
Yeah. Right. Your idea of "Higher Power" is the rule of your own personal urges (no matter how corrupt, like writing this article) and if it isn't that, it is worshiping Gaia, or the "Goddess" BS, or most likely, just Satan.
I think I need to write a hit piece on Sarah Palin. I’m an insignificant little nobody twit and I want to make myself relevant.
Palin has actually spoken with understanding and compassion about a lesbian friend of hers, as I recall. She has her own Christian values, but I’ve never heard her be hateful in the least.
When Christy Diane Farr wrote I wonder how the letter would have read if doctors had instead informed her that her son was gay.
she did it on a wrong assumption.
Homosexuals aren't born homosexual.
Read your Bible, if you want to know. Let us gain wisdom.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
satan pens another attack... DEY GOT NUTT’N
LLS
Trig did not choose to be born with Downs Syndrome.
If he chose to become a homosexual you might love your child but hate his choice.......
The article’s writer is equating homosexuality with a birth defect, which should go over real well with her intended audience.
Dope.
testing,testing...1,2,3...is this thing on?
so being gay is having a medical condition ?
There is a magic queer gene, that makes them special and not sinful.
Shoving a broomstick, cuke, or carrot up my same sex lover's orifice is natural and not abnormal and I want to belong to your church to prove that I'm not different.
That's a rhetorical question, right?
The fact is that there is no doctor or scientist who can predict the future sexual thoughts or behavior of any new born child. There is no scientific or medical test for homosexuality because it is a behavior and not an innate trait such as race or a known born medical condition.
If liberals such as this writer are not hypocrites themselves, then by the standards they accuse others of, I guess they will love and support all people based upon their behaviors; pedophiles, rapists, murderers, thieves, etc….. ???
And before anyone answers I already know that to some extent they already do, they support murder (abortion) and they have been known to support murderers like Stanley ‘Tookie’ Williams, they also support thieves in the name of wealth redistribution, the list goes on.