Pro-Life Gays and Lesbians asked to leave prolife march

[theTaxCollector]

Lisa N:

…Would we welcome “Nazis for Life” or “Ku Klux Klan for Life” or “Drug Addicts for Life”…

And more funny stuff…
Lisa N:

… 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 - I agree with you here. A ‘gay dignity’ Mass, although maybe not in our personal tastes, can be helpful to those people that are attracted to members of the same sex. They need prayers. (It’s a different story however, if the Mass is celebratory of the gay lifestyle, of course.)

But the homosexual crowd does not need to be advertising themselves everywhere, especially in cases like the March for Life.

 

[katherine2]

Lisa N:

So why MUST they proclaim their sex lives on the same level as the cause of protecting unborn children?
Lisa N

Why MUST they? I don’t know. The question is, given the fact they have organized a group to promote pro-life from within the gay community, why MUST they be roughed up and ejected from the March?

 

[WhiteDove]

I think this is a shame. I happy to hear that there are pro-life Gays and Lesbians and think it’s shameful that they were excluded like this. They identify as a community and should be able to join with other pro-life folks for a common cause.

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

Why MUST they? I don’t know. The question is, given the fact they have organized a group to promote pro-life from within the gay community, why MUST they be roughed up and ejected from the March?

Glad to hear you were there and documented the ‘roughing up.’ Until you know what happened don’t assume anything. The original comment posted indicated that it wasn’t this year it was last year and there was no discussion of rough treatment.

Again they can promote the prolife movement all they want but they do not need to include their homosexual agenda. It is not relevant. It is a distraction. It promotes divisiveness rather than the shared concern for life. Again is there ANY valid reason that one must proclaim their private sexual practices as part of a prolife march?

Lisa N

 

[KDoerr]

Lisa N:

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

shouldn’t we consider a drug addict a person with an illness and not one out to harm someone? I don’t feel they should be categorized with nazis or KKK.

 

[WhiteDove]

KDoerr:

shouldn’t we consider a drug addict a person with an illness and not one out to harm someone? I don’t feel they should be categorized with nazis or KKK.

Yes, I agree. That is a very interperate remark. Let’s not go throwing around the word ‘Nazi’ please. That is extremely disrespectful.

Yes, we may disgree with the negative aspects of the gay and lesbian culture. They do not want to acknowledge that they are disordered sexually. But that doesn’t negate the positives that they may have as human beings. Just because someone is prone to a certain type of sexual sin doesn’t make them utterly evil.

Frankly, we all have certain sinful tendencies of one type or another. But that shouldn’t stop us from working together for a common good in other arenas of life. Also, it’s not politically smart for pro-life leaders to shun possible supporters because of disagreement in other areas.

 

[fix]

Lisa N:

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

Right. How about wife-swappers for life? Is supporting pro life an excuse to foist an immoral agenda on others? They want legitimacy for their actions.

 

[GoodKnight1443]

This is such a difficult subject and there is some really good discourse here on it. Now, although as Catholic Christians we should welcome all who are pro life to such an event, after all we don’t OWN it per se. HOWEVER! Politics makes strange bedfellows. If someone is demonstrtaing for prolife and that happens to be gay/lesbian/bi whatever, that is one issue. If the GROUP is lobbying for pro-life in a self serving way (same sex couple adoption) that is a different issue.

LisaN makes a very cogent point:

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?

“Polygamists for Life” would be tacky too. It truly is sort of self promotion for the group that detracts from the real cause.

 

[Lisa_N]

KDoerr:

shouldn’t we consider a drug addict a person with an illness and not one out to harm someone? I don’t feel they should be categorized with nazis or KKK.

Well perhaps the example was overstated but the point remains. If someone co-opts a cause to push THEIR political agenda, I think it’s an illegitimate use of that venue.

As to drug addicts being ‘ill’ no they are addicts. It is a behavior, not a virus, bacteria, or inflammation. Yes we should be compassionate because ALL addictions are very tough to fight. OTOH it is fallacious to say drug addicts are not out to harm anyone. Because they are addicts, others fall far of their radar screens in the effort to procure drugs. So while their objective might be to obtain today’s fix, the reality is that the person they rob, beat, or kill is just as robbed, beaten or dead.

Lisa N

 

[GoodKnight1443]

I am going to ditto Lisa’s posts.

Its tacky and selfish to put one cause over the other in this case. Pro life is pro life. Leave the other stuff at home.

 

[KDoerr]

Lisa N:

Well perhaps the example was overstated but the point remains. If someone co-opts a cause to push THEIR political agenda, I think it’s an illegitimate use of that venue.

As to drug addicts being ‘ill’ no they are addicts. It is a behavior, not a virus, bacteria, or inflammation. Yes we should be compassionate because ALL addictions are very tough to fight. OTOH it is fallacious to say drug addicts are not out to harm anyone. Because they are addicts, others fall far of their radar screens in the effort to procure drugs. So while their objective might be to obtain today’s fix, the reality is that the person they rob, beat, or kill is just as robbed, beaten or dead.

Lisa N

I have an elderly friend who just was released from the hospital, about 4th time in as many months. She’s addicted to pain killers, which she doesn’t need but was prescribed by a doctor and continues to be filled by a pharmacy. She hasn’t robbed anyone except herself. I would hope that someone in a Christian forum would know better than to group people and judge them.

 

[katherine2]

GoodKnight1443:

I am going to ditto Lisa’s posts.

Its tacky and selfish to put one cause over the other in this case. Pro life is pro life. Leave the other stuff at home.

Except this advice is not given to everyone else at the march.

Pro-life is pro-life and the pro-life gays should be welcome.

 

[fix]

KDoerr:

I have an elderly friend who just was released from the hospital, about 4th time in as many months. She’s addicted to pain killers, which she doesn’t need but was prescribed by a doctor and continues to be filled by a pharmacy. She hasn’t robbed anyone except herself. I would hope that someone in a Christian forum would know better than to group people and judge them.

If we can’t “judge” those who use crack, or cocaine, or sniff glue, etc as doing something gravely wrong then we have lost all sense of proportion and justice.

In every addiction there is an element of choice. Not all addicts carry the same guilt, but they all have free will.

 

[WhiteDove]

katherine2:

Except this advice is not given to everyone else at the march.

Pro-life is pro-life and the pro-life gays should be welcome.

I agree. Even if we don’t agree with gays and lesbians, we shouldn’t single them out. Would they do that if a differing religious group wanted to say ‘Mormons for life’, or ‘Muslims for life’? I doubt it.

Frankly, I think a lot of otherwise good folks here are casting stones at Gays a lot. They are an easy target, yes, just like the Catholic Church is an easy target for the secular media. But it’s not ethical to single them out.

 

[fix]

WhiteDove:

I agree. Even if we don’t agree with gays and lesbians, we shouldn’t single them out. Would they do that if a differing religious group wanted to say ‘Mormons for life’, or ‘Muslims for life’? I doubt it.

Frankly, I think a lot of otherwise good folks here are casting stones at Gays a lot. They are an easy target, yes, just like the Catholic Church is an easy target for the secular media. But it’s not ethical to single them out.

Are other religions now equivalent to homosexual acts?

 

[legeorge]

WhiteDove:

I agree. Even if we don’t agree with gays and lesbians, we shouldn’t single them out. Would they do that if a differing religious group wanted to say ‘Mormons for life’, or ‘Muslims for life’? I doubt it.

Frankly, I think a lot of otherwise good folks here are casting stones at Gays a lot. They are an easy target, yes, just like the Catholic Church is an easy target for the secular media. But it’s not ethical to single them out.

It seems to me that the whole problem is that they were trying to single themselves out. If they truly wanted to support the pro-life cause, why wouldn’t they march without posters proclaiming themselves homosexual? Why not just carry a sign that says “it’s a child, not a choice” or “abortion hurts women” or a million other slogans? Why insist on bringing their sexuality into the picture? I don’t carry a sign that says “monogamous, heterosexual, married women with more than 2 children for life”. There is no way you can tell me that they didn’t have ulterior motives. I will bet that there were gay people in the march who didn’t feel the need to identify themselves as such, and nobody knew the difference!

 

[Lisa_N]

KDoerr:

I have an elderly friend who just was released from the hospital, about 4th time in as many months. She’s addicted to pain killers, which she doesn’t need but was prescribed by a doctor and continues to be filled by a pharmacy. She hasn’t robbed anyone except herself. I would hope that someone in a Christian forum would know better than to group people and judge them.

Ummm let’s see, how does this relate to the thread? How does this relate to the issue of whether drug addiction is an illness? I cannot connect the dots here.

Further of COURSE we are all judged and we all judge. And it is JUDGEMENT that allows us to distinguish between someone like your friend who is certainly a sympathetic case and the young meth addict who just killed his father because his father wouldn’t give him money for drugs. If we did NOT judge people then we WOULD group them all as one of a kind.

However, in response to your comments, I was pointing out that proclamations of one’s aberrant behavior are not germane to a prolife march. See how easily we have lost sight of the REAL ISSUE??? We’re off calling each other bigots and hate mongers and forgetting that our energies are better directed to saving babies.

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

legeorge:

It seems to me that the whole problem is that they were trying to single themselves out. If they truly wanted to support the pro-life cause, why wouldn’t they march without posters proclaiming themselves homosexual? Why not just carry a sign that says “it’s a child, not a choice” or “abortion hurts women” or a million other slogans? Why insist on bringing their sexuality into the picture? I don’t carry a sign that says “monogamous, heterosexual, married women with more than 2 children for life”. There is no way you can tell me that they didn’t have ulterior motives. I will bet that there were gay people in the march who didn’t feel the need to identify themselves as such, and nobody knew the difference!

Exactly! Why is it so hard for some to understand that a) whether you are homosexual is not relevant or even very interesting b) insisting on being identified by your particular use of your genitalia is also not relevant or very interesting and c) why does anyone need to KNOW about your use of your genetalia UNLESS you have another agenda?

All people who support life are welcome. Their personal causes can be left behind can’t they? No one has suggested tossing out homosexuals as individuals but rather they want political activists to refrain from irrelevant political activism during the march. These are two completely different issues. Is it so hard to distinguish them?

Lisa N

 

[fix]

legeorge:

It seems to me that the whole problem is that they were trying to single themselves out. If they truly wanted to support the pro-life cause, why wouldn’t they march without posters proclaiming themselves homosexual? Why not just carry a sign that says “it’s a child, not a choice” or “abortion hurts women” or a million other slogans? Why insist on bringing their sexuality into the picture? I don’t carry a sign that says “monogamous, heterosexual, married women with more than 2 children for life”. There is no way you can tell me that they didn’t have ulterior motives. I will bet that there were gay people in the march who didn’t feel the need to identify themselves as such, and nobody knew the difference!

Yes, very good points. The “gay” crowd wants legitimacy for their deviant lifestyle. They will try many different avenues to attain what they want. Agit prop all the way.

 

[WhiteDove]

legeorge:

It seems to me that the whole problem is that they were trying to single themselves out. If they truly wanted to support the pro-life cause, why wouldn’t they march without posters proclaiming themselves homosexual? Why not just carry a sign that says “it’s a child, not a choice” or “abortion hurts women” or a million other slogans? Why insist on bringing their sexuality into the picture? I don’t carry a sign that says “monogamous, heterosexual, married women with more than 2 children for life”. There is no way you can tell me that they didn’t have ulterior motives. I will bet that there were gay people in the march who didn’t feel the need to identify themselves as such, and nobody knew the difference!

I have no idea why they like to single themselves out, but perhaps they want to show that not all Gays are utterly self centered hedonists. I imagine they hope that some people will see that gay people also can have a high regard for life.

Part of it is a group identity thing for them. Thats the community they identify with. It’s probably more than sexuality. The gay community seems to be rather close knit. Actually, they might be inviting derision from many within that community because their stance is probably out of the mainstream, just like a conservative Black person is sometimes called an ‘Uncle Tom’.