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.

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

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.

Shalom.

By comparing gays and lesbians (a group, you will admit that society is conflicted over) to Klansmen, (a group you will admit that society universally abhors), you are injecting your own prejudices into your premise.

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.

Shalom.

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

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.

Shalom.

I thought you were a big Constitutionalist. If a law was in place before a president was sworn into office, the president can NOT summarily break laws by not enforcing existing laws, even if he and/or the head of the Justice Department don't agree with those laws.

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."

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.

A homosexual could go through his or her entire life without engaging in any sexual activity of any kind. 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.

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.

Oops.

A person who deliberately removes an obstacle that is causing the commission of a crime, makes himself an accomplice to the crime.

should be:

A person who deliberately removes an obstacle that is preventing the commission of a crime, makes himself an accomplice to the crime.

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.

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.

Shalom.

"A logical conclusion, I guess..."

Since when did logical conclusions have anything to do with liberals?

You sure you ate your Wheaties this morning?

I'm now reminded of a FR-posted spoof news story about PEtA decrying the shaving of the beards of the prisoners in camp X-Ray as destroying the natural habitat of the lice that lived there.

Some people actually took the story seriously. I knew that it was satire from the moment I read the first sentence because while I know that PEtA is nuts, they're not that nuts.

Same principle applies here. All too often people turn the gross exaggerations of groups they don't like -- liberals, conservatives, pro-lifers, pro-choicers, feminists, homosexuals, Christians, etc -- and suddenly they actually believe that the exaggeration is reality. I ascribe such to the venom I see directed at homosexuals on FR, and the portrayal of pro-lifers as women-hating religious nuts on other forums.

Homosexual behavior is inconsistent with this morality and human nature.

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?

(Personally I think that irresponsible attitudes and actions toward sex -- which homosexuals do in greater percentages than heterosexuals -- is the reason for the spread of STDs)

Miss Nellie Gray the March for Life Leader and holder of the permit

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.

A homosexual could go through his or her entire life without engaging in any sexual activity of any kind.

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?

Shalom.

Same principle applies here.

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.

Shalom.

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.

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?

"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?

Believe it or not, I've met homosexuals who would never march in a rally of any kind just to identify as a homosexual. To them, their sexual orientation is just a small part of who they are and it's nothing over which to make a big deal -- it's only an issue that is made known when it comes to romantic pairings

Same principle applies here.

So, you're saying that because some people take it seriously we should ban sarcastic humor?

Er, no, that's not my point at all. I'd be at the forefront of any battle against censoring sarcasm and "being a smart-arse", though I'd have a hard time since I'd surely be one of the first jailed.

My point is that sometimes the extremist stereotypes don't even exist at all. PEtA isn't going to launch a campaign to "save the beard lice!" because even though PEtA is extremist and their views are illogical even at a cursory glance, they're not that extreme. It doesn't matter, though, because people have already made up their minds and the article suddenly isn't funny because it's a satirical exaggeration of PEtA's normal activities but because "I could believe them really doing this, too!".

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?

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:

Since man is integrally connected with creation, the twisting of man lead to a twisting of creation. G-d had to undo that twisting. G-d had to make a way to redeem (purchase back) creation from the iniquity man introduced.
Teach man how to live as man was intended to live before he became twisted. G-d gives us His wisdom so we will know what we no longer know naturally, what it means to be fully human.

Now, to your question. We are born with original sin, that is, twisted. That does not change the definition of what it means to be a man. That just makes it a little harder for us to live like men.

Note, in the above, man/men are generic terms for male and female. There is no intention to elevate nor denegrate women.

Shalom.

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.