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

www.PLAGAL.org ^ | Jan 22, 2002 | PLAGAL

[ArGee]

I don't have trouble with you believing 1 or 3 -- that's your decision. I don't agree with 1 or 3 however. In either case, I don't have a problem with 2 -- you are free to share you beliefs with others if you choose.

So, why do you always jump in? Is it just your pedantic nature?

Just curious. Not meaning to imply anything.

Shalom.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Ahhh... but not so fast!!! Liberals will abort all children who are NOT gay. They will have to do the politically correct thing and kill the normal babies.

Also, did you know that there is a genetic link between crime and race? Does this excuse someone of his/her crimes? People are capable of making their own decisions whether they are "genetically predisposed" to doing something or not.

[ArGee]

OK, the gauntlet is thrown down. The first three addressees refuse to answer one question:

Should "Klansmen for Life" be permitted? How about "Rapists for Life?" Maybe "Islamic Suicide Bombers for Life?"

There are people I don't want to be associated with. Not every enemy of my enemy is my friend. If I organize a rally it is not incumbent upon me to welcome everyone who claims they want to support my view.

Arthur, helmsman, hills, can you say that Nellie should welcome "Klansmen for Life" if they ask?

Shalom.

[Dimensio]

"I don't have trouble with you believing 1 or 3 -- that's your decision. I don't agree with 1 or 3 however. In either case, I don't have a problem with 2 -- you are free to share you beliefs with others if you choose."

So, why do you always jump in? Is it just your pedantic nature?

Just curious. Not meaning to imply anything.

Pedantism usually, and I try to point out that stereotypes don't hold (not every homosexual is a self-obsessed sociopath with AIDS, as some FReepers insist). I do try to get at the root of people's beliefs and sometimes it involves pointing out that their beliefs are based on logical fallacies or untrue generalizations.

In this thread it's amusing to see how many are quick to assert that a group of homosexual pro-lifers must have an alterior motive because it's just impossible for homosexuals to care about anything but themselves and their sex lives. It also bothers me a bit, because I would hope that pro-lifers were so simply because they believed that human life should be protected and that human life begins in the womb -- not because it's just one of the many rules that they, as Christians, are supposed to follow and as such only other "Christians" are allowed to be in their little club.

[Dimensio]

Ahhh... but not so fast!!! Liberals will abort all children who are NOT gay. They will have to do the politically correct thing and kill the normal babies.

This is one of those stupid generalizations to which I referred earlier.

[ArGee]

In this thread it's amusing to see how many are quick to assert that a group of homosexual pro-lifers must have an alterior motive because it's just impossible for homosexuals to care about anything but themselves and their sex lives.

Actually, I believe it is an ulterior motive because I would expect them to put their signs away if they thought their signs were offensive.

But the sign was, evidently, the important part, not saving the lives of the unborn.

Shalom.

[NC_Libertarian]

These people take their hatred of homosexuals to absurd levels. There's no comparing homosexuality and abortion. We could use all the pro-life people we can get.

[Stone Mountain]

I've seen (and heard) a singing fish.:)

Well, I've seen a horse fly and I've seen a rubber band, but never a singing fish... : )

[Dimensio]

Actually, I believe it is an ulterior motive because I would expect them to put their signs away if they thought their signs were offensive.

But the sign was, evidently, the important part, not saving the lives of the unborn.

I'm not referring to this specific event. I'm referring to the attitude of some in this thread (not many) of implying that homosexuals uniting for or against any issue isn't really about that issue but is about their sexuality and forcing it down everyone's throat.

Believe it or not, not every homosexual's life revolves around their sexual orientation, even if they do make something of a point of it.

[EODGUY]

As I stated in previous posts, ArGee, if the members of Plagal were focused on showing their support for and belief in the Pro-Life movement, why would they make these "sincerest beliefs" secondary to being able to identify themselves by their sexual orientation?

Although other posters may not see this as a blatant "agenda based" decision, what else could it be?

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

This is one of those stupid generalizations to which I referred earlier.

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...

[patent]

Your source is suspect!

Because they're gay? Is that the only reason they are automatically suspect?

Because the same group that (1) knew she didn’t 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.

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.

patent  +AMDG

[Khepera]

"Khepera for life" can I come?

How about Serial Killers for life?
Their motto is "If they ain't borned then I can't do my job"

[FR_addict]

can you say that Nellie should welcome "Klansmen for Life" if they ask?

Good question.

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.

[Alex Murphy]

Anybody who wants to know why the pro-life movement is held in such deep suspicion by most mainstream Americans--including many who oppose abortion--should read this thread. It's all here: the parochialism, the paranoia, and the hatred of those who are different.

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 :)

[Dimensio]

In order to help Oh Great Judge Of Stupidity (Dimensio) I obviously should have posted what I was responding to. Here ya go:

Ah, yes, and because some believe that there is a genetic component to homosexuality, when it is discovered liberals will advocating aborting any non-homosexual or "normal" fetus. A logical conclusion, I guess...

[helmsman]

OK, the gauntlet is thrown down. The first three addressees refuse to answer one question: Should "Klansmen for Life" be permitted? How about "Rapists for Life?" Maybe "Islamic Suicide Bombers for Life?"

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.

[ArGee]

Believe it or not, not every homosexual's life revolves around their sexual orientation, even if they do make something of a point of it.

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.

Shalom.

[Arthur McGowan]

And here is a perfect case where the Christian can associate with the sinner without its being an occasion of sin, since most people are not tempted to commit the sins the gay groups are promoting.