Pro-Life Gays and Lesbians asked to leave prolife march

[Mother_s_helper]

Greetings in the Name of Jesus! My daughter told me that at the pro life march in Wash. D.C. some folks from the group Pro- Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians after refusing to leave when asked by the organizers of this event, were forced to leave by police on
horses. My daughter said she observed this not at this year’s march
but a previous one. I was just writing to hear if anyone else knew of this event if she had the facts right and if so what was the reason they were asked to leave and what the Church might say about this group and another group called Feminists for Life.
Thank you
In His Name, Mother’s helper

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

I never heard about it.I will watch your thread because I am curious to know. If they were asked to leave it might of been because of fear of the gay and lesbian agenda overriding the pro-life message.Your humanity should be paramount to sexual inclinations.I am a heterosexual wife and mom Can you imagine the reaction of people if I introduced myself in that manner. Feminist for life are directly trying counteract the prooganda from the pro-aborts that accuse pro-lifers of being anti- feminist.God Bless

 

[Br.Dan_OCD]

Dear Mother’s helper,

When I was at the march in 2000, that group (or a similar one) was there and as I was walking by to actually start on the route, they were being held back by police. I don’t know if they were allowed to go up the avenue to the Supreme Court building or not…I would guess not but maybe they came in at the end.

I think the previous post is correct about the possible rationale. Maybe there was a bad experience of the group in years past…I don’t know.

 

[La_Chiara]

This sounds very much like the lesbians and gays who try to march in the NYC St. Patrick’s Day parade every year. They are not content to just march but insist on proclaiming their political stance. So every year there is a law suit, which they lose, and every year they have an alternative St. Patrick’s Day parade which Hillary Clinton marches in… It seems to be more about getting publicity for the gay and lesbian agenda than about being Irish or honoring St. Patrick.

 

[katherine2]

A group of gays and lesbians opposed to abortion has tried to march for several years. Nellie Gray, the head of the march has had them phyiscally removed in past year. I don’ t know that happened this year.

Some non-gay pro-lifers have stopped attending the March for this reason.

 

[4_marks]

Discrimination, pure and simple. Next thing you know they’ll be prohibiting Catholics from marching because they are you know…well…Catholics.

There are pro-life atheists and agnostics, pro-life divorcees and remarrieds, pro-life persons who use artificial birth control and cuss and drink and gamble. What is there going now to be a litmous test as to who really qualifies to represent the pro-life side?

I know gays and lesbians. I love the gays and lesbians that I know, not because they happen to be gays and lesbians, but because they happen to be lovable persons created by the Master in the image and likeness of the Master.

We need more love, understanding and compassion, and less antagonism and divisiveness. Meanwhile unborn victims suffer and Planned Parenthood gloats as we bicker amongst ourselves.

 

[rlg94086]

I agree they shouldn’t be kicked out, but there is something I don’t understand. Why in the world is a group compelled to form as a “Gay & Lesbian” Pro-Life group? Sexual preference shouldn’t be an identity, and I think this is where the problems come in. If I had homosexual tendencies and wanted to join a pro-life group, I would join based on my faith…

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[Lisa_N]

rlg94086:

I agree they shouldn’t be kicked out, but there is something I don’t understand. Why in the world is a group compelled to form as a “Gay & Lesbian” Pro-Life group? Sexual preference shouldn’t be an identity, and I think this is where the problems come in. If I had homosexual tendencies and wanted to join a pro-life group, I would join based on my faith…

God Bless,

Robert.

I would believe this is PRECISELY the issue. If someone is a lesbian or homosexual male, your sexuality is NOT RELEVANT IN A PROLIFE PARADE. I suspect that the homosexual contingent wanted to make it clear they were “homosexuals for pro life” and while the intention is probably not evil the reality is that they detract from the pro life message. Homosexuals seem to want to insert their sex lives into every facet of their public existence. On another thread I asked would we have a “Masturbater Pride Day” or a “Necropheliacs for Life” sign? Good grief. March in the parade and keep your sex life to yourself.

LIsa N

 

[1ke]

Lisa N:

I would believe this is PRECISELY the issue. If someone is a lesbian or homosexual male, your sexuality is NOT RELEVANT IN A PROLIFE PARADE. I suspect that the homosexual contingent wanted to make it clear they were “homosexuals for pro life” and while the intention is probably not evil the reality is that they detract from the pro life message. Homosexuals seem to want to insert their sex lives into every facet of their public existence. On another thread I asked would we have a “Masturbater Pride Day” or a “Necropheliacs for Life” sign? Good grief. March in the parade and keep your sex life to yourself.

LIsa N

I think it goes even further… Those who identify themselves as a “Gay” or “Lesbian” are engaged in an active homosexual lifestyle. This lifestyle is antithetical to the Culture of Life in many ways. The Culture of Life can only be promoted in the context of stable family life-- a life-long committment of husband and wife open to life. An authentic expression of sexuality can only be within marriage.

Homosexual sex is disordered and sterile. While these are people of good will who are against abortion, they cannot see that their own lifestyle is really the anti-thesis of a culture oriented towards Life. The March For Life is primarily about abortion, but it is really about more-- all aspects of attack on the Culture of Life. And, active homosexual lifestyles are an attack on the Culture of Life.

 

[_pro-life_teen]

Lisa N:

I would believe this is PRECISELY the issue. If someone is a lesbian or homosexual male, your sexuality is NOT RELEVANT IN A PROLIFE PARADE. I suspect that the homosexual contingent wanted to make it clear they were “homosexuals for pro life” and while the intention is probably not evil the reality is that they detract from the pro life message. Homosexuals seem to want to insert their sex lives into every facet of their public existence. On another thread I asked would we have a “Masturbater Pride Day” or a “Necropheliacs for Life” sign? Good grief. March in the parade and keep your sex life to yourself.

LIsa N

excellent post!

 

[Steven_Merten]

St. Josephs in Seattle used to have, possibbly still does, a gay dignity Mass. Should there be an abortionists dignity Mass, a fornicators dignity Mass, an adulterers dignity Mass? Having a homosexual dignity Mass has more to do with promoting a political agenda than sinners wanting Christ’s forgiveness, body and blood.

Having a sub group proclaiming to be Pro life Gays and Lesbians, like gay dignity Masses, is also promoting a political subcause. If they truly are pro-life then would they not just avoid the chaos and distraction their pro gay proclamation causes? One has to wonder what cause they feel is more important to them. I suspect that media on how they were rejected from the prolife cause, which harms the pro-life cause, is more important to them. The media they attain from being rejected by the pro-life movement is possibly the only reason they are there.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[katherine2]

1ke:

I think it goes even further… Those who identify themselves as a “Gay” or “Lesbian” are engaged in an active homosexual lifestyle. This lifestyle is antithetical to the Culture of Life in many ways. The Culture of Life can only be promoted in the context of stable family life-- a life-long committment of husband and wife open to life. An authentic expression of sexuality can only be within marriage.

Then there should be truth in advertizing. Nellie Gray and the other leaders should be clear that this is the philosophy of the March for Life, and that any organziation marching (and all sorts of organizations march under various signs and banners) is stating support for this philosophy. Those who have no position on this should find another activity.

We should make it clear that the pro-life march is not an event to show that people from all sorts of situations, philosophies and organizations unite around a single goal – enacting laws against abortion – but that it is a narrow group that only embraces a subset of that.

I know some of the elected officals who have been invited to speak at the March do not share the anti-gay philosophy, they should be the first who are asked to leave. Fr. Frank from Priests for Life has also been a supporter of allowing gay to march, I imagine he should be told he is unwelcome as well.

 

[Br.Dan_OCD]

Dear katherine2,

I don’t quite agree. First, the march *is * an occasion when people of all sorts come together, including those with a homosexual inclination. It is anything but a narrow group. (Nevertheless, it is mostly a Catholic group, by the way.)

At the same time, would we want to allow any group to march? I doubt it. If there was a “Pro-death penalty–Pro-life” or “Anti-War in Iraq–Pro-life” or “Pro-gay marriage–pro-life” or “Catholics are going to hell–Pro-life” group, would the march or cause for life be furthered by their presence? Are such groups there simply for the purpose of promoting life (which is what the march is for) or the cause for life and something else? If the march is supposed to show our unity, it is up to those who want to participate to be there for one reason–to support unborn life…not their other agendas, even if they are holy and good ones.

Except for the case of the lesbian/gay group, I don’t recall seeing anyone identify themselves in any way other than by occupation or age or city or parish, etc. It is the gay/lesbian group that is not uniting around the single goal of promoting life, it seems to me.

I think it is a wise desicion by the organizers to limit participation. It is the “March for Life.” Not the “March for Life and whatever other issue you want to promote.” So, that’s why Fr. Pavone would never be asked to leave. He’s there to march for life.

P.S. When i was at the march, there actually was a man in a van with loud speakers preaching against Catholics. I didn’t see/hear him in the actual march, either.

 

[katherine2]

Br. Dan:

Dear katherine2,

I don’t quite agree. First, the march *is *an occasion when people of all sorts come together, including those with a homosexual inclination. It is anything but a narrow group. (Nevertheless, it is mostly a Catholic group, by the way.)

At the same time, would we want to allow any group to march? I doubt it. If there was a “Pro-death penalty–Pro-life” or “Anti-War in Iraq–Pro-life” or “Pro-gay marriage–pro-life” or “Catholics are going to hell–Pro-life” group, would the march or cause for life be furthered by their presence?

Except their are pro-dealth penalty/pro-life groups marching under their banner. And anti-war pro-life groups under their organization’s banner, and Republicans for Life and Democrats for Life each with their signs. Hispanics for Life (Pro Vida). Surviviors of Hiroshima for Life, even Unitarians for Life. And yes, the cause is furthered by the presence of all of these groups and more.

I wasn’t there this year, but I have been in the past and seen all of these signs and saw quite a few on TV.

So, I agree with Fr. Pavone that the gays belong in the march. would never be asked to leave. He’s there to march for life.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

katherine2:

Except their are pro-dealth penalty/pro-life groups marching under their banner. And anti-war pro-life groups under their organization’s banner, and Republicans for Life and Democrats for Life each with their signs. Hispanics for Life (Pro Vida). Surviviors of Hiroshima for Life, even Unitarians for Life. And yes, the cause is furthered by the presence of all of these groups and more.

I wasn’t there this year, but I have been in the past and seen all of these signs and saw quite a few on TV.

So, I agree with Fr. Pavone that the gays belong in the march. would never be asked to leave. He’s there to march for life.

I never heard Father Pavone say that,but my take on this is maybe they are advertising their homosexuality because of recent claims of homosexual genes.I have heard concerns that if there is such a gene and it could be detected inutero that they could be targeted.God Bless
PS Katherine do you know when Father Pavone said it?Is there a transcript? It would be an interesting thread.

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

So, I agree with Fr. Pavone that the gays belong in the march. would never be asked to leave. He’s there to march for life.

So why MUST they proclaim their sex lives on the same level as the cause of protecting unborn children? I agree that all are welcome to support this cause. OTOH I totally reject the idea that someone has to identify their sex practices as part of that support. I think it detracts from the main issue and clearly is going to be a bone of contention with some groups. If someone is TRULY trying to support the unborn, their own pet cause can take a back seat for a couple of hours. Is that REALLY too much to ask? Or do you also suggest “Sado Masochists for Life” “Necropheliacs For Life” “Auto Erotic Axphixiation Advocates for Life” I watched the March on EWTN and while I saw a few signs that designated geographical origination, the vast majority of signs and posters were simply promoting an end to abortion. We can disagree on other issues but at the March for Life there should be one focus and one cause being promoted.

It just gets silly when someone insists that their sex practices are germane to the march, and frankly I think it’s just another chance for the homosexual activists to try to promote their cause instead of focusing on the more important issue.

Lisa N

 

[jdnation]

I feel it is acceptable for them to march, but only if they don’t advertise themselves. That detracts from the issue. Plus if it was organized by Christians, and they knowingly allowed gays to participate, then later on teh argument can be brought that Christians exploit gays for whatever purposes, imagine that… what a dilemna…

 

[Br.Dan_OCD]

katherine2:

Except their are pro-dealth penalty/pro-life groups marching under their banner. And anti-war pro-life groups under their organization’s banner, and Republicans for Life and Democrats for Life each with their signs. Hispanics for Life (Pro Vida). Surviviors of Hiroshima for Life, even Unitarians for Life. And yes, the cause is furthered by the presence of all of these groups and more.

I wasn’t there this year, but I have been in the past and seen all of these signs and saw quite a few on TV.

So, I agree with Fr. Pavone that the gays belong in the march. would never be asked to leave. He’s there to march for life.

Dear katherine2,
I was only at the march one time but I don’t recall any such signs. Well, there certainly wouldn’t have been any “anti-Iraq war–pro-life” signs since I was there in 2000. At any rate, the point I attempted to make is the same: not all groups would be beneficial to the march and I am sure there are some groups you (and everyone else) would not want to see there. You didn’t see the “Catholics are going to hell–pro-life” signs? For good reason. The march is a symbol of unity. Some groups, though, cause division and anger whether they want to or not.

Also, I don’t think it is a good idea to equate “Hispanics for Life” or any of the groups you mentioned and “Gay/Lesbian Alliance for Life” or whatever the name of the group happens to be. They are promoting an immoral lifestyle, it seems to me. None of the other groups mentioned are in that category.

Fr. Pavone is a good person to agree with. I might agree with him, too, but there are good reasons to disagree.

 

[Lisa_N]

Br. Dan:

Dear katherine2,
I was only at the march one time but I don’t recall any such signs.
At any rate, the point I attempted to make is the same: not all groups would be beneficial to the march and I am sure there are some groups you (and everyone else) would not want to see there. You didn’t see the “Catholics are going to hell–pro-life” signs? For good reason. The march is a symbol of unity. Some groups, though, cause division and anger whether they want to or not.

Also, I don’t think it is a good idea to equate “Hispanics for Life” or any of the groups you mentioned and “Gay/Lesbian Alliance for Life” or whatever the name of the group happens to be. They are promoting an immoral lifestyle, it seems to me. None of the other groups mentioned are in that category.

Fr. Pavone is a good person to agree with. I might agree with him, too, but there are good reasons to disagree.

I would be interested as well to hear specifically what Fr Pavone said. Again all are welcome to support the cause of the unborn but are they welcome to co-opt the cause for their own advantage? That is the issue. Would we welcome “Nazis for Life” or “Ku Klux Klan for Life” or “Drug Addicts for Life” I doubt it. That homosexuals insist that their sex practices (a PRIVATE matter thank you very much) should somehow be on parade is patently ridiculous.

Lisa N

 

[theTaxCollector]

Lisa N:

…Or do you also suggest “Sado Masochists for Life” “Necropheliacs For Life” “Auto Erotic Axphixiation Advocates for Life” …

You’re cracking me up here…