Neil Patrick Harris and gay partner “expecting” twins
Well, some of the headlines are certainly unique…
According to Yahoo:
Los Angeles – Neil Patrick Harris is going to be a dad.
On Saturday afternoon, the How I Met Your Mother star confirmed via Twitter that he and partner, David Burtka, are expecting not one, but two bundles of joy.
“So, get this: David and I are expecting twins this fall,” Neil Tweeted. “We’re super excited/nervous/thrilled. Hoping the press can respect our privacy…”
Meanwhile Just Jared is apparently a bit confused on terms, as would be expected in a conception scenario such as this, and is reporting the gays will adopt the babies:
Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka recently announced that they’re adopting twins this October – and now reports have surfaced that they’ll be parents to a baby boy and a girl!
The 37-year-old actor and his longtime love, 35, have been together for about six years are are becoming parents of twins with the help of a surrogate.
Perhaps adoption is legally necessary in the case of surrogacy? Or perhaps the beaus got cute and mixed sperm so they’re not sure who the twins’ biological father is, so both are adopting? Or perhaps one baby is biologically Harris’s and one Burtka’s, so again, they both have to adopt?
The conceptual possibilities are endless these days, particularly when two men are “expecting,” although neither is a pregnant… which I guess would be possible if one of the pair were a transsexual. Oy.
[HT: Keelin and LL]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This is sick beyond words
I like Neil Patrick Harris as an actor. I think he does a good job, but I’m not real impressed with this.
I love the announcement on Twitter and the asking for privacy at the same time. Duh!
I used to be open minded about gay men raising children without mothers. One of my gay friends asked if I would be a surrogate mom for him and his partner. I actually paused to consider it! They broke up before the discussion got more serious. The partner adopted a boy by himself. The boy has been taken away from him and is now in foster care. Guess why.
I still think that kids need two parents, male and female, and I’m willing to admit I’m biased. I can’t imagine childhood without either of my parents.
I agree with all of you. :)
I don’t understand why this is news on an abortion blog. I’m going to have to start going somewhere else for my abortion news if I’m going to be bombarded with this sort of thing. I don’t understand why we have to be anti-gay to be pro-life. Neil and his partner are bringing babies into the world to love and parent. If they were killing babies, I think that would be news for this blog.
Hi Sara.
The reason it is on this blog is because it is part of the larger problem which lies at the root of why abortion exists. The bigger problem is that we have separated babies from sex and sex from babies. We have lost the sense that the sexual act is both unative and procreative by accepting that sex can be purely for pleasure or for any other reason disjoint from uniting the spouses and procreation. Thus because the sexual act has no intrinsic meaning according to modern thought, sex between two men is perfectly fine as is sex between a man and a women who do not wish to have a child. If that sexual act results in a pregnancy, you can then terminate the pregnancy. Abortion and sexual actions between those of the same sex are fruits of the same tree- viewing the sexual act as having whatever meaning one wishes to give it.
Well, just about the whole adoption thing… I have a cousin that has been a surrogate several times and she was telling us that even though the babies she carried were not biologically hers and were biologically the parents’, because she carried them in her womb and gave birth to them, they (the biological parents) had to still adopt the children. It seems really strange, but that’s just how it’s done. Not that I agree with this particular situation (two men in a romantic relationship raising children)… Just thought I’d put that info out there. :)
I love the announcement on Twitter and the asking for privacy at the same time. Duh!
LOL, Christine, that was my thought as well! :D
Could a mother placing her child for adoption stipulate that her baby go ONLY to a heterosexual couple?
Which one was orderedd by the judge to grow a uterus?
Sara,
Like Bobby said, separating sex from babies and babies from sex. Plus they’re getting a surrogate. This possibly means IVF and in IVF they abort any unwanted pre-born babies (especially if more than one or two eggs get fertilized) so it does concern the pro-life community.
Mother in Texas, I’ll agree about IVF, although nothing stated says they used IVF, and yours is the only comment here about it. The majority of the comments here aren’t about discarding embryos, it’s about how dare those dirty homos have a baby. And that’s what I disagree with.
very sick indeed.
I enjoy his acting but I feel sorry for these children. May God have mercy on these poor children. :(
”Sick beyond words”? Come on.Lots of gay couples have adopted children and those kids have done just fine. I don’t know about you,but if I were a child,I’d rather be brought up by a gay couple who loved me and were caring and responsible parents than a straight couple who neglected me and abused me physically and sexually.
And Bobby Bambino,there has never been a time when every one had sex purely for procreation. This is a totally ujnrealistic goal. But religious conservatives have this ridiculous notion that no one should ever have sex unless it’s between two people married to each other and who don’t use contraceptives. People are going to have sex whether they are married,single,divorced,separated, widowed,straight,gay,bisexual,young or old.
This is the way things have always been and always will. And people like you are so prudish and puritanical that you’re are horrified about the idea of any one having sex for anything but procreation. And what business is it of yourswhat other people do in private? Let’s face it;you’re bunch of self-righteous busibodies.
Sara, your comment “how dare those dirty…” is what’s disagreeable. Neil and his partner aren’t bringing anything into this world. Neil and his partner are paying a woman to have a baby. She and whomever the father is are the one’s doing the bringing, and we don’t know if one of the men is or isn’t the father. Of course in theory, if we had too many unadopted children, it might seem better than foster care. But the reality is that too many children die before they are born. I wish we had the problem of too many babies and not enought two-parent homes. I also wish that same-sex attraction could be rationally evaluated, not hyperpoliticized. Too many gay men are struggling with unresolved mental health issues, hence the problem with my friend’s ex-lover. That man was not father material, it would seem, he may have just wanted to control a smaller weaker male, but I’m no doctor and didn’t evaluate him. This is obviously not only a gay issue; plenty of “straight” parents have drug addictions or other problems that cause their children to be put into foster care. It’s not an easy black and white issue. Bobby put it best. When sex becomes merely recreation and not about creation, problems are inevitable.
I also meant to add that these issues are so hyperpoliticized that one can’t even rationally discuss them without being labelled a homophobe. It is possible to ask questions without being a bigot. Well, it may not seem possible in today’s culture, but it should be.
And if it’s not our business what people do in private, then why doesn’t Neil and his lover keep it private? I know of one celebrity who managed to keep her baby’s adoption private for months before it hit the news: Sandra Bullock.
Robert Berger –
Who said the choice was between being raised by two homosexuals and a neglectful/abusive hetero couple?
And who said people can’t learn to keep their pants on? My husband and I didn’t have sex before marriage, and we were in our 30’s! We are NOT animals, Robert. We CAN control ourselves. The hyperbole card always comes out when one’s debating skills are poor.
*groans* Not another gay-related post. Unless it turns out the twins were conceived through IVF and there are other embryos who were destroyed, this has nothing to do with abortion or the destruction of human life.
This discussion reinforces a comment I made on another story about the Anti-choice movement being based on religious beliefs.
My comment was replied to by a hyperlink to a secular pro-life site “to which I could have countered with over 2000 Christian Anti-choice site hyperlinks”. My comment was about the division in the anti-choice movement and this story is like a giant spotlight on my point.
In this discussion we see Anti-choice people arguing about gays and gay rights to marry and adopt. Hell you guys can’t even agree if this is an Anti-Choice issue or not. One would think that the “Pro-Life” people who are always promoting adoption would just be happy to see healthy babies being adopted. If the adopting couple were heterosexual, and the female couldn’t have kids due to a medical condition, the only question you would see on these boards about it would be “when can we see pictures of the babies”. Instead, we see “This is just sick, and gays are mentally unstable” because it’s the same religious beliefs that fostered both movements.
There may very well be atheist anti-choice people out there but they will never be completely accepted by the Christians. You will just be thrown out there as rebuttal to anyone who accuses the “Pro-Life” movement as being a religious movement.
I see great parallels in these two movements, in both cases you have one section of the American population trying to dictate how another section lives its life based on what their religion tells them is right and wrong. No regard for what the other section of the population may believe is right or wrong because of course they know what is best for everyone and who cares if god gave man free will…
Really this is a simple case of a pre-planned adoption. A loving couple set up an adoption of twins that they will raise and care for. If the word “Gay” didn’t appear in this story it wouldn’t be on this blog.
You know the newest members of the Pro-gay marriage crowd are children that were adopted by gay parents and are finally old enough now to start speaking out about growing up in an all gay household. Most of these kids are not gay, had no problems in school academically or otherwise, and love their parents very much.
Their message to you anti-gay marriage people is… “Relax! It will be ok.”
Trip trap..
Please cite some sources or studies on the children raised in gay households(most of these kids are not gay) that have had virtually no problems in school academically or otherwise.
Sara,
Echoing Bobby’s words, this gets to the root issue that gives rise to most abortions in the first place. It has to do with the misuse of human sex and sexuality, specifically outside of the context of marriage. Since you brought up the issue of how dare those “homos” have a baby…
When two gay men decide that a woman’s body is an incubator for hire, and nothing more, and when these men decide that another man is just as good (if not better) than a mother, then I would think that represents some of the most grotesque misogyny I’ve ever seen. Women are more than just breeders for gays. They are more than just sex toys for heterosexual men.
Lost in this miasma is the dignity of women, the integrated nature of sex, love, family, and the need for both a mother and a father. We cannot wink at the abomination this gay couple is engaging in and castigate Planned Parenthood for their particular brand of destroying the dignity of human sex and sexuality.
Jill is advancing the pro-life movement beyond the narrow confines of mopping up the mess of abortion and getting to where the leak is occurring. I’ve come to appreciate Jills depth of integrity, and see that integration at work in her blog posts.
I’d like to point something out – and it has to do with the language used on this issue – I believe it usually contains a fundamental error. Merely acknowledging the self-identification “homosexual” (or “gay” or “lesbian”) opens the door for the perception that there is some moral equivalence between, say civil rights of blacks, and this distorted use of sexuality, be it male or female.
The two errors that drive this controversy (beyond just plain spiritual darkness) are:
1. The confusion of identification with behaviour (in Christian circles this is referred to as sinner vs sin)
The point here is that ALL of the following phrases contain this fundamental error.
“He is a homosexual.”
“You know people are born that way, don’t you?”
“Homosexuals are people too.”
etc.
Anybody discussing this issue MUST be aware that these kind of statements contain this false assumption of identity. The truth is that the only sexual identity we are born with is male and female, and that it is one half of a function that can ONLY be realized with the other half. Homosexuality is not identity (like gender or skin colour) that people carry round 100% of the time, it is a distortion of sex that they are addicted to in their private lives. It is behaviour, not identity.
Correct phrases would be:
“He is addicted to homosexual behaviour.”
“Homosexuality is a misuse of our sexuality that we are born with. (ie. male and female)”
“He is a person, but his homosexual behaviour is potentially dangerous to his health.”
You see the difference? It upholds the identity of the person, but denies the leveraging of a sexual addiction as identity to shove into people’s faces as if to say, “You must accept what I do in private.”
I know of at least one health agency – the Blood Bank – who have no choice but to hold certain policies about potential donors on purely medical grounds. When they ask you the screening questions, there are NONE about so-called ‘orientation’ and several about what you actually have DONE sexually in the past 12 months up to 5 years. That’s identity vs behaviour right there.
2. The inversion of victim and protagonist.
As has been shown all over the world now, the REAL bigots – the real haters and intolerants are the ones pushing this agenda. The real victims are the people who value marriage and want laws that reflect biological reality, not the sexual whims of a tiny minority. People have lost their jobs, been fined, threatened, physically assaulted, jailed and demonized merely for upholding societal norms that exist for our benefit. I have copped some of it myself, so be awake to the insertion of all kinds of labels – like that completely meaningless word, ‘homophobic’ – and do not let them pass by unchallenged.
It is a perfectly normal reaction to find even the most superficial discussion of homosexual behaviour distasteful, because the human body is simply not made for it. THAT is a very normal and healthy response. What is a distortion is to think that anal sex between two men isn’t a problem. Or to shove the private sexual tastes of a minority on the majority and then complain that some people don’t like it.
So make sure you point out where the hatred and bigotry actually reside, but do it as gracefully as possible.
We must be careful to separate the behaviour from the identity of the people involved. That way you can affirm the person, but challenge what they do. No-one, no-one is born gay, it is an insidious lie easily dismissed. We are born with certain skin colour, gender, hair colour, facial features, etc. – all these things cannot be changed and indeed form our identity from birth. But to suggest that sexual behaviour, only begun after a significant number of years alive, is on a par with any of these parts of our lives, is rubbish.
It is also helpful to remember that we have 3 influences on our lives that shape our personality and character. Usually people make it a choice between genetics and our own decisions, but neglect to consider environment (eg. school we attended, teachers who taught us, area we grew up in, etc.) as a critical factor. These things can affect us deeply, but they are neither genetic nor our own decisions. The homosexual campaigners typically fail to mention environment.
Homosexuality has to do with pro-life/abortion because they are both related to the misuse of sex.
As pro-lifers, we should celebrate two loving adults giving the gift of LIFE to two innocent children. If more people could come together and welcome adoption for the sake of these children we would make major strides against a culture of death. Even if you oppose marriage equality, you can’t argue two men caring for a child is somehow worse than no parents at all, or a broken home.
(Also, I would like to point out that your choice of language at the very end of this article is unfortunate and lacks a level of due respect for those different than you.)
“I don’t understand why this is news on an abortion blog. I’m going to have to start going somewhere else for my abortion news if I’m going to be bombarded with this sort of thing. I don’t understand why we have to be anti-gay to be pro-life. Neil and his partner are bringing babies into the world to love and parent. If they were killing babies, I think that would be news for this blog.”
Seriously. They are two separate issues. And, frankly, to be pro-gay rights is to be pro-life. To be anti-gay, and completely judgmental and homophobic is not pro-life. It’s just anti-humanity.
Neil Patrick Harris is a great person. Being a New Yorker, and working with some big wigs, I can tell you that he is a phenomenal human being. He’s kind, he’s smart, he’s loving, he’s generous, and he will make a wonderful father.
And the foster care comment is ridiculous. Yeah, we don’t have any kids in foster care from STRAIGHT parents. *insert eye roll here*
I am as against abortion as anyone could possibly be. But the anti-gay sentiment here is really disconcerting and disturbing. You don’t even have to support gay marriage…..Just stop reporting it, like it’s somehow related. It’s not related. The only way you relate the two is through religious zealotry, and those arguments are not viable at all. To be sure, God probably cares less about our sexual orientation than you guys do.
Carla
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/28/gayby/index.html
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477
http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageKids.htm
http://www.ur.umich.edu/0405/Nov08_04/14.shtml
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26666.html
In a review of 21 studies of gay parenting, sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz concluded that “every relevant study to date shows that parental sexual orientation per se has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on children’s mental health or social adjustment.” The minor observed differences between children raised by gay parents and those raised by straight parents “either favor children raised by lesbigay parents, are secondary effects of social prejudice, or represent “difference’ of the sort democratic societies should respect and protect.” While more work must be done to shore up these conclusions, a strong provisional judgment can be made that the competence argument is factually baseless.
Shall I go on…
I always appreciate greatly Dr. Nadal’s great analysis!
I’m sure your readers and their self-righteousness will be much better for children than two gay men, Jill.
Biggz, sorry but you point to a pitiful handful of biased and/or flawed studies, but there are literally thousands of studies that show children do better in all major areas of life when raised by their biological parents, something impossible with same-sex relationships.
You can start here:
http://www.gendermatters.org.au
and download the pdf on the home page. Go and have a look at the references at the end of the document.
Personally, I rate what I believe as having 6 billion plus reasons going for it, and the other side at zero.
Mark Rabich
So, if being gay is a behavioral life choice and not subject to the same rights that say blacks have under the constitution wouldn’t being Christian be a behavioral life choice and should also get zero rights under the constitution?
You are talking about one person’s right to live their life and raise their children according to beliefs and the behavior that comes along with it vs. another person’s rights to do the same thing.
I whole heartedly believe that raising a child in a Christian household does far more damage than raising a child in a gay household. At least the gays will be honest with their kids and not teach them lies from the dark ages.
Any and all comments that contain references to child molesting priests will be deleted.
Biggz,
I can’t get to your links but I’ll keep trying.
“Shall I go on…”
I have no doubt that you will whether I answer that or not. On and on and on and on.
Once again Mark you are wrong. It is entirely possible for a gay couple to adopt their own biological children from a surrogate mother. Your statements and opinions of gay culture really demonstrate your ignorance and lack of regard of that culture.
However here’s a homework assignment for ya mark…
Tally up the number of serial killers, child molesters, rapists, and terrorists who were raised by gay families…
Now tally up how many were raised by good god fearing people of any religion…
I will check your work with a red pen on Tuesday… =)
Carla, why would you delete those comments? Are they untrue? Am I and every major new agency in the world lying about these priests? Why would you delete those?
“At least the gays will be honest with their kids and not teach them lies from the dark ages.”
They’ll teach them lies from the modern age instead. They’ll teach them:
Women’s bodies have no dignity. They can be purchased for use as breeders for gays. That women’s eggs have no moral worth and are up for donation and sale.
There is nothing sacred about the bond between the baby and the woman in whose womb that child came to be.
A second man is the equal to, or better than, a mother.
Motherhood is nothing more than an option, a lifestyle accessory.
A second lesbian is the equal to, or better than, a father.
That there is no such thing as sexual morality. Only preferences and legalisms surrounding children, animals, and marital contracts.
That IVF is an acceptable technology to make up for what they have eschewed in their lifestyle choice.
That Christianity, as handed down from the Apostles, is a repressive and hate-filled belief system.
And then I hear women prattle on about how sweet and harmless gay men are. They don’t seem to get the rage in these men that leads them to regard these women as having less moral worth than traditional Christianity posits in them, that these women are mere egg donors and breeders.
Brave New World. Wake up women and fight for the dignity of your bodies and of your motherhood.
“Seriously. They are two separate issues. And, frankly, to be pro-gay rights is to be pro-life. To be anti-gay, and completely judgmental and homophobic is not pro-life. It’s just anti-humanity.”
There are so many errors in that statement it’s difficult to know where to begin. But let’s deal with the big ones. First of all, no-one is ‘gay’ as an identity. It’s what some people DO, and to be sure, they have possibly done it so long it feels like who they are, but in reality, they could stop. This is completely unlike being male or female – which you cannot just stop. So, it is behaviour – it may be very powerful to control, but it is not identity and all discussions therefore must take this fact into account. Your statement clearly confuses identity with behaviour, so it starts from the wrong assumption.
Secondly, homosexual sex is unnatural. The body is simply not made for it. It doesn’t take a degree to acknowledge that male and female form two halves of the same function, so homosexual activity is simply not reasonable to condone. It is infertile by definition, unlike heterosexual sex, which might be infertile, but generally leads to reproduction. So, heterosexual sex clearly fulfills the intended functions of those body parts. Advocating homosexual sex as being on a par with heterosexual sex is a denial of straightforward biological fact, not unlike the denial that a little human is growing inside a woman from conception onwards. In other words, homosexuality, like abortion, denies a powerful truth about who we are as humans.
Finally, the word ‘homophobic’ and all of its derivatives are a sad joke. They tell us more about the people who use that term than about the people it is directed at. There is nothing remotely wrong with considering the discussion of these unhealthy sexual practices as being distasteful, again, not unlike the normal human reaction to the graphic details of abortion. In fact, I would submit that if you still find homosexuality a big problem, good for you, you’re normal AND obviously PRO-humanity.
“To be sure, God probably cares less about our sexual orientation than you guys do.”
Sexual orientation is a not recognized as valid criteria for our identities anywhere in scripture. There aren’t even ‘heterosexuals’. Otherwise quote me chapter and verse. It is totally a recent invention. The truth is that God made us male and female, and our sexual body parts work certain ways irrespective of how we may feel. So God cares what we DO with our inherent male or femaleness, not our pathetic pseudo-intellectual justifications about what goes on in our heads. That may sound harsh, but I don’t think it is useful or loving to perpetuate lies to people, no matter how hard it may be for them to hear the truth. Our sexuality is simply this – male or female. And we live in a condition where we are corrupted by sin. End of story.
If you are going to tell me what God thinks, at least make a seriously attempt to quote Him.
All this said, there needs to be a clear statement made about this website in regards to this issue, since some are obviously confused about the strong relationship between the two issues.
“So, if being gay is a behavioral life choice …”
Already you make an error.
If you read carefully what I wrote, you will see that it is NOT between genetics and our own decisions, but that environment probably plays a major part. Just like someone might be obese because their parents fed them too much as a child, someone might be confused about correct use of our sexual functions as a result of abuse.
You are confusing identity (blacks) with behaviour (addiction to unhealthy sex). Your example is invalid before you even begin. The rights of children must be respected above those of selfish adults. Adopting children to a household where that kind of relationship is considered normal will almost certainly be detrimental to those children.
“I whole heartedly believe that raising a child in a Christian household does far more damage than raising a child in a gay household. At least the gays will be honest with their kids and not teach them lies from the dark ages.”
One of the silliest statements I have ever read. I can recall a study that pastor’s kids form a disproportionally high percentage of positions of power – both political and corporate – in fact, by a factor of about 100 times their proportion in the general population. How could that be so, Biggz, if what you say is true?
btw, Biggz, my guess is that Carla deleted those comments because they were irrelevant. Stay on topic, if you can handle it. I know I can.
Hi Biggz,
You are not the first nor the last I am sure that will throw the “pedophile priests” comments out as though that has any bearing.
To those that used to post about it I would delete them. Why? Because you are attacking a group of people. Almost everyone I know and love here is Catholic.
Make your points. Defend your position.
Disagree with me? Email Jill
jillstanek@jillstanek.com
Pleased to meet you, Mark Rabich!
Littlez,
The slurs against Catholic Priests are the last line of defense for the gay apologists, and a curious one considering that 81% of those pedophilia cases were committed by gay men.
Carla,
Thanks for the defense of the many good men in our clergy. Hope you’re having a great summer!
Mark Rabich,
Eloquently said!
Dr. Nadal,
Having an amazing summer thank you!! Sending 3 to school and 1 to preschool will be amazing too!! heh
As always your posts are excellent!
And then I hear women prattle on about how sweet and harmless gay men are. They don’t seem to get the rage in these men that leads them to regard these women as having less moral worth than traditional Christianity posits in them, that these women are mere egg donors and breeders.
I’ve met gay jerks, and I’ve met straight ones. My brother in law is gay and has no rage or anything like that towards women. One of his friends referred to straight people as breeders in front of me and he asked them to leave. You are making generalizations that are untrue and can be hurtful.
I dont think gay men think of women as incubators or whatever. Straight people use surrogates, too. I have offered to be a surrogate for my brother in law if he should decide to have children. He is great with my daughter and would make a lovely father, and I dont think he should be penalized for his sexual preference.
And Mark, the idea that gay people are addicted to homosexual behavior is as silly as the idea that straight people are addicted to straight behavior. My husband and his gay brother are identical twins, neither of them was molested or whatever, just one of them is gay. We’re all Catholic, he attends mass with us regularly, and I can’t imagine that we’re praying to a God who hates him for being gay.
I believe it was Jesus who said to judge not. And your judgment of gays has turned me away from wanting to visit this site. I’m sorry I came back here to see how the conversation had progressed. I will pray that God will open your hearts and make them less full of hate.
Sara,
Yes, I’ve heard many gay men refer to straights as breeders. It’s a bit more than the occasional jerk. What it is NOT is a generalization. It’s a big part of gay subculture.
Yes, it’s true that straights use women as breeders (surrogates), but this becomes more of an imperative in homosexual couples for obvious reasons. That you have generously, though misguidedly, offered to allow yourself to be used as a breeder explains much of your defense of homosexuals who do so. That you cannot see that you become a mother in the truest sense of the word and throw that away is tragic. It’s the very loss of dignity of which I speak.
God doesn’t hate gays for being gays. He does hate the denigration of human sex and sexuality by all who are not married, and even among the married who misuse that precious gift. When Jesus said not to Judge, He was not talking about the exercise of rational discernment between right and wrong. He was talking about people condemning other people, as opposed to condemning their immoral behavior. To condemn people is to usurp that authority which God reserves to Himself. But don’t think for a moment that Jesus was telling us not to properly discern right from wrong.
Finally, you end with the very thing I just said gays will teach their children: that fidelity to the authentic moral norms that come down to us from the Apostles will be regarded as hate.
You were meant for greatness Sara, not for surrogacy and gay apologetics. You were meant for so much more. I pray that you receive that in your heart one day.
Sara,
Read what Dr. Gerard Nadal said. He explains things beautifully.
Since you said you all are all Catholic, let me share the following:
I am a practicing Devout Roman Catholic Christian, myself and the Catechism says that homosexuals are NOT to act upon their homosexual desires, but are to live chastely as are people who are not married. Summarize: Single or homosexual, no sexual activty outside of marriage.
This is not a penalization a person, this is to protect the dignity of sexual activity and the insitution of the Sacrament of Marriage.
Since you have stated you’re a Catholic, I hope you educate yourself on the Catholic Church’s stance on these issues, which furthermore state in essence: “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” In the eyes of the Church based on years and years of Holy Spirit Inspiration, et cetera, acting upon homosexual tendencies and desires is a sin.
No, nobody is perfect, however, we are to avoid sin, and love each other, but that does NOT include encouraging each other in sin. Love does not mean one has to approve or support everything the beloved does.
The male and female bodies were made in such a way to compliment each other. Homosexuality does NOT compliment each other’s bodies. (Example: Magnets. You can’t put two North pieces of Magnets together, or two south pieces of magnets together, they repel each other, however, you put the OPPOSITE pieces together and they bond…much like how when you put a husband and wife together they are capable of bonding in every way).
My dear fellow Catholic, I feel you really need to research the Catholic Teaching if you’re gonna make assertions in public of being Catholic because otherwise you misrepresent the Catholic Church.
As to “judge not lest ye be judged” you’re misunderstanding that statement, as many people often do. Judging action as right or wrong is a practice and exercise in one’s conscious. We recognize which behavior would or wouldn’t be of God through knowledge of what we know and what has been taught. What I know and what I’ve been taught as a Catholic states that homosexual orentiation isn’t the sin, but ACTING UPON it IS a sin and therefore as Catholics we cannot support homosexual behavior. (Yes, I’ve read that part in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”).
(If there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, then why is it completely impossible for it to be a fruitful union? God said “Be fruitful and multiply” but that’s impossible if the 2 sexes involved don’t compliment each other).
P.S. I’ve had homosexual and bisexual friends. They knew where I stood on this issue, but being friends was NOT about me approving or encouraging everything they did, being friends with them meant loving them because they were made in the image and likeness of God. Didn’t ever, ever mean I had to approve and/or encourage everything they did. I never forced them to be my friend, I welcomed their friendships because they were nice people and we enjoyed hanging out, but I never forced them to be my friend. In fact, I had a male homosexual friend come to me with a broken heart. He knew where I stood on homosexuality, but he knew I cared about him as a person, so I was there for him, but I didn’t have to encourage or support his homosexuality to be there for him. We’d often greet and say goodbye to each other with a hug, in fact. So, you can’t tell me you have to approve of everything a person does to be their friend or to love them.
It’s amusing to me that this conversation has mentioned gay men devaluing women, as if there’s a big issue with that in the gay community.
I work with kids who have been abused, neglected, put on the internet, burned in sexual/non-sexual areas on their body, locked in rooms for days and starved.
None of them came from gay households.
One can quote the studies that show children are “better off”, but the reality people who are against gays having children (adoption, surrogacy, whatever) are against homosexuality in general.
It’s really a damn shame that Jill posts these. I understand her reasons and the minor connection, but the comments are enough to make me pro-choice sometimes. Maybe this is something you can discuss with your friends at church, Jill.
“the idea that gay people are addicted to homosexual behavior is as silly as the idea that straight people are addicted to straight behavior”
You’re missing the point. Male and female go together. To act sexually in denial of that is to act contrary to the purpose of your body. That does not apply to what you call ‘straight behaviour’ so your comparison is invalid. But I notice much of what you wrote confused identity with behaviour. For example, your brother is not ‘gay’, he is male, and he habitually misuses his sexuality. THAT is the truth of the matter.
To act in denial of the proper function of your body is dysfunctional and overlooking this dysfunction to commit the behaviour regardless is a hurdle that has to be ‘jumped’ so to speak, in the mind of that person. So, similar to taking drugs, there has to be a level of addiction to overcome that hurdle. The ‘hit’ becomes more important to the person than the reality of what it is they do.
Now, to clarify what God loves and hates. God loves your brother-in-law, but his behaviour is detestable to God, because He did not make his body to be used like that. God would want him to stop denying who he is, a male, and therefore, stop the homosexual sex. In the letters to the churches in Revelation, Jesus talks about hating what God hates. He even speaks against some forms of tolerance! He also mentions sexual immorality, which is defined in various places in Scripture. Read the letters (Rev 2 & 3) and note how many times Jesus refers to Old Testament concepts and language. Do you have a problem with what Jesus said, Sara?
And your ideas on judgement are seriously in error. Matthew 7:1 is easily the most misquoted scripture there is. Jesus called us to judge indeed, to judge fruit, to look out for false teachers, to not throw our pearls before swine (so how are we to tell who are the ‘swine’?), etc. The oft-missing part of the lesson from Jesus on judgement is to be consistent in judgement and not hypocritical, not avoid judgement altogether, something clearly impossible. READ it. Don’t just give me the fuzzy post-modern blancmange version of Jesus, ’cause it isn’t Him.
Finally, don’t use that throwaway label of ‘hate’, please. It’s almost as bad as ‘homophobic’. It isn’t loving to allow lies to perpetuate unchecked, we just have to be wise – as MIT has alluded to – how we deliver the truth.
Nate, what is wrong with being against homosexuality? If you won’t accept God and then our purpose in Creation as a valid reason, perhaps you might consider the screening of blood donors?
And may I respectfully point you to this link and the pdf on it. Your experience is valid, but in no way possible can any individual’s be broad enough.
http://www.gendermatters.org.au/Home.html
Nate,
You’re quite correct about the abuse of children at the hands of heterosexuals, but the moral equivalence you draw is what? Nodding at the further abuse of human sex, family, women is not the answer.
When you say,
“ but the reality people who are against gays having children (adoption, surrogacy, whatever) are against homosexuality in general.”
you miss the point. People here, such as myself, who make these arguments are defending traditional Christian morality and the sacrament of marriage. The defense is both from within and without. That straights have abused family does not mean we have a free-for-all.
http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn136/natewillsheets/gurl.gif
“Homosexuality is not identity (like gender or skin colour) that people carry round 100% of the time, it is a distortion of sex that they are addicted to in their private lives. It is behaviour, not identity.”
I’m a bisexual female and I’ve never had a relationship with a woman. Explain to me how that’s an “addictive behavior” if there’s no behavior.
There are a lot of things I like about this site and most of the people who comment on it, but at the moment I’m about thisclose to leaving and finding another pro-life site to frequent. It’s extremely difficult for two sets of people to work together on one issue if one set keeps telling the other that they’re sinners and/or part of the problem. Here we have GLBT people and their allies who support the pro-life cause, and these posts and comments keep putting us in a situation where we have to either argue every single time, remain silent and feel guilty for allowing it to go unchallenged, or leave. How much time do both sides spend arguing about this? It’s obvious at this point that every single one of these posts leads to dozens of comments debating homosexuality. What else could we be doing with that time that would actually help babies threatened by abortion?
“I’m a bisexual female and I’ve never had a relationship with a woman. “
Marauder, my response to that is that you’re not ‘bisexual’, but that you’re a woman. Why would that make you feel guilty or bad if I said that about you?
Furthermore, I’ve never had sex, and I’m 42. Since you’re basing your identity on what you have not done, can I then claim virginity as a sexual ‘orientation’? It would be quite logical from your position.
But the reality is that I am a male as sexual identity since that really is something I cannot change. It’s not complicated and the relationship to the pro-life issue is, as I’ve argued earlier, a truthful view of human biology, not just what people wish it to be. I would simply urge you to consider that you may be inconsistent in what you believe about life issues.
Sexual orientation is about attraction, not behavior. Although you’ve never had sex, I would assume you know you’re attracted to women and would like to have sex with one you loved and were married to.
“I would simply urge you to consider that you may be inconsistent in what you believe about life issues.”
Thanks for proving my point. Even though I think abortion is the heinous destruction of a human being, I’m not pro-life enough for you because we disagree about something unrelated. This is such a waste of time. We should be using time to be sidewalk counselors or donate to Birthright or something that will actually save an unborn baby.
Marauder,
Sorry, but attraction seems like a very weak thing to claim as a form of identity, even weaker than behaviour in fact, since attraction can lead to… nothing of consequence at all. You’re actually undermining your own position.
“I’m not pro-life enough for you”
Please don’t put words in my mouth and play the victim card. I never said that, nor did I even think that. I hope you can see I’m trying my very best to be respectful to you and the truth.
In my situation I feel like I have a bit of a different viewpoint when it comes to sex – I’m not Catholic, but the association of sex to pregnancy is pretty strong for me, and abortion along with homosexuality clearly undermine that purpose, although in different ways. Whilst sex is a powerful part of our lives, it is not uncontrollable and it can be directed. Misuse seems to me to consistently bring damage in a myriad of different ways, and deviation from God’s principles only ever makes things worse for us and others. I’ve never come across any idea about sex at odds with God’s ways that improves things. Has anybody else?
The best way is to wait until marriage before having sex, that sex is best with one lifelong partner of the opposite sex, and that children are to be expected and rejoiced over, and are perfect gifts from God no matter what.
God has made certain parts of His plan for our lives clear from the outset by giving us principles which work, and after that then only reveals other parts – sometime specific to us (but never contradicting earlier directives) on-the-run, so to speak. And furthermore, some aspects we will not know until we enter eternity. And life is not perfect this side of heaven, even when life is good.
But whether or not we engage in homosexuality or abortion falls into the first part of the above as a basic morality principle, of that I am certain. Whilst they are two different issues, they most certainly are related, for only heterosexual sex begets children that are vulnerable to abortion. Both abortion and homosexual sex usurp the purpose of sex for children. Again, I’m asking you to consider your level of consistency here, not to attempt to deflect attention away from this point by acting hurt. I’m glad you’re against abortion, but I want you to fully consider why and how that affects other parts of your life.
Thanks.
testing testing 123
“…the comments are enough to make me pro-choice sometimes…”
Come on Nate, you’re smarter than that.
Amy 1,I didn’t say it WAS a choice between a good gay couple raising kids and a horrible straight one. I said it would be much better for children to be raised by a good gay couple than a horrible stright one. And lets face it, straight couples do sometimes horribly abuse their children.
And just because SOME people are chaste doesn’t mean it’s realistic to expect all people to.
The human sex drive is the human sex drive,and you cannot stop it.
People are going to have sex whether they are married,have never been married, divorced,widowed,separated, straight,gay,bixesual,young or olkd. You cannot escape this fact.
And in fact,animals generally have much better self control than humans because they’re designed to have sex only when instinct makes them mate.
And are you aware than in the middle ages,the Catholic church actually approved of legalized prostitution because it realized than single men needed an outlet for their sex drive?
They realized that while prostitution may be distasteful,it was necessary.
Dr.Nadal’s comments show how out of touch with reality he is,like religious conservatives in general.
Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of the human race and always will. You can no more stop it than you can stop heterosexuality. In addition,it’s known to be common in the animal world.
This isn’t to say that it’s okay to live a live of promiscuity,total self-indulgence and debauchery, but it’s still totally unrealistic to expect every one to have sex only within heterosexual marriage and only for procreation and ,and not to use contraceptives and for all children to be brought up by two heterosexual parents in a stable marriage.
Yes,it’s good for children to be brought up by two parents in a stable marriage,but this often impossible.
“And are you aware than in the middle ages,the Catholic church actually approved of legalized prostitution because it realized than single men needed an outlet for their sex drive?”
I would LOVE to see a credible source on this. Otherwise, the answer to your question is “no.”
Also Amy 1,please don’t accuse me of having”poor debating skills” just because you don’t agree with me. And I wasn’t using hyperbole,but merely stating established facts.
I know exactly what I’m talking about.
Robert,
How does the claim that “People are going to have sex whether they are married,have never been married, divorced,widowed,separated, straight,gay,bixesual,young or old. You cannot escape this fact.” justify an action? If people are going to rape and murder and you can not stop this fact, should it follow that we accept rape and murder as moral? Again, let’s go to the syllogism to try and sort out this mess.
Major: If an action will be done no matter what and you can do nothing to stop it, then it is moral.
Minor: Sexual actions between those of the same sex will be done no matter what and you can do nothing to stop it.
Therefore, sexual actions between those of the same sex is moral.
Is that correct? See, I’m guessing because you do not lay out your arguments well, Robert. Maybe I don’t have the major right, I don’t know. You make this claim about “people are going to do it anyway.” What am I to take away from that? People are going to do it anyway therefore…? And what is the principle or major premise that your conclusion is drawn from? This information would be helpful to promote further dialogue.
Robert said, “ single men needed an outlet for their sex drive?”
Because single men cannot be taught self control or that using women as “outlets” is wrong?? Men cannot be held accountable to abstain from sex right? Single men=animals? God forbid they don’t act on every single sexual impulse they have.
There is an “outlet” though, Robert. It’s called a monogamous marriage.
“ Dr.Nadal’s comments show how out of touch with reality he is,like religious conservatives in general. Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of the human race and always will. You can no more stop it than you can stop heterosexuality. ”
Robert, you are entirely too kind. So your argument seems to be that historical precedent for a behavior, and its persistence throughout history are reason to embrace said behavior on the strength of its persistence.
Why stop at homosexuality?
Why not apply the “Berger Standard” to incest, adultery, bestiality, garden variety fornication, polygamy, polyandry, transvestism, and all the rest?!
And Robert, please, please, please, stop making yourself look so foolish with these urban legends about the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages men married soon after entering puberty. Life was short and hard. Please try buttressing your contentions with facts from authoritative sources that are easily linked.
Excellent comments Bobby and Dr. Nadal. I hope for your sakes Robert Berger will actually engage in a meaningful discussion. I won’t hold my breath.
If it is Dr. Bambino, my apologies!! :)
Nah, I hate formalities, Carla. Plus that isn’t even my real name!
“Plus that isn’t even my real name!”
Which of course you know… wasn’t trying to imply otherwise… I shall shut up now…
I just wasn’t sure if you were a Dr.
I do know your real name!!
And you know mine!!
I, too, would be interested in factual information to support Robert Berger’s claims about the Catholic Church in the middle ages and prostituion, because this sounds so far off the mark for Catholicism (even back then) that it’s enough to make me slam my hand against my forehead and exclaim, “WHAT IN THE WORLD?”
Also, the idea that people can’t be taught to control themselves is exactly what the problem is. People have come to the mistaken idea that people CAN’T Control themselves. I don’t think there’s anyone who has sex 24/7; so obviously on some level people are capable of controling their sexual desires.
Dr. Bambino has a nice ring to it.
Carla,
I actually prefer Gerry. I only use Dr. in the classroom.
I’m not holding my breath either on Robert, though I would appreciate a civil, fact-based discussion.
Bobby Bambino
August 17th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
“Plus that isn’t even my real name!”
Which of course you know… wasn’t trying to imply otherwise… I shall shut up now…
Awww come on Bobby…keep going! I was just grinning :-)
Mother in Texas,
Thank you for your kind comments earlier.
Robert
These two issues need to constantly be separated in these discussions:
1. Orientation
2. Free will acting on the orientation.
God calls all of us to love chastely, married or not. Conceding the biological orientation argument for a moment (even though there is not a shred of credible evidence), we can approach the issue from the other side and say that heterosexuals also have a biologically determined orientation.
There is a far cry from having an orientation and freely choosing with whom, when, how, and how frequently we have sex. Orientation does not equal compulsion. So homosexuals are free to respond to God’s commandments, or not. The same as heterosexuals who also burn with desires.
Dr. Gerard, or rather, Gerry (since that’s what you prefer),
Not a problem. I think you’re good at explaining pro-life position and issues like this one. I think you’d be in good company (JP II, B16, Pius VI). :-)
” It’s obvious at this point that every single one of these posts leads to dozens of comments debating homosexuality. What else could we be doing with that time that would actually help babies threatened by abortion?”
Marauder, I’m with you. And Nate, and Sara.
There is absolutely no reason to include posts about the gay community on a pro-life site. They are NOT related. Homosexuality is unnatural? It isn’t. There are gay animals. And there are animals who have sex for pleasure (dolphins, all primates)…..And yes, you can say we are “above” the animals, but I don’t believe that at all. Animals are often above us. There isn’t any gay bashing in the animal world.
I stand by, and will always stand by, my statement: “To be pro-gay rights is to be pro-life.”
What you’re doing here, with these posts and with these talks, is alienating an entire population of people who would support your cause, because you cannot separate your religion from simple human rights. You don’t have to agree with me; I just don’t understand your connection, because there isn’t one. I am an educated female. I’ve met all sorts of people. I’ve lived in the greatest metropolis in the world for a long time. There are wonderful gay people, and terrible gay people. There are wonderful straight people, and terrible straight people. All of us are messed up. But we are all human beings. Homosexuality is not a choice. It is time to back off, to live and let live. LIVE AND LET LIVE should be the pro-life motto, all around. But instead, you want everyone to be pro-life on your terms. I am not asking you to believe what I believe, so stop asking the secular pro-lifers and those of us who are pro-gay marriage to be like you. It’s disrespectful, it’s childish, and it helps NOBODY, especially the babies.
Say what you will about homosexuals; they tend not to murder children in the womb.
Some have become pro-life after realizing that if there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, it could be found by prenatal testing…
Bobby Bambino and Dr.Nadal,equating homosexuality with murder,bestiality,polygamy,incest,
rape, and pedophilia etc is just plain luidcrous. How can you be so intellectually dishonest?
Silly question. Anti-choice and intellectual dishonesty go together like ham and eggs.
And it’s ludicrous the way those who oppose same sex marriage keep on claiming that allowing this will inevitably lead to the legalization of incest,pedophilia,polygamy,bestiality and all that nonsense. This is nothing but mindless fear-mongering.
“equating homosexuality with murder,bestiality,polygamy,incest,
rape, and pedophilia etc is just plain luidcrous. ”
Oh, okay! You clearly understand the argument that Dr. Nadal was putting forth and have not in any way, shape, or form grossly mischaracterized it.
Robert, your lack of understanding of the argument that Gerard put forth is so bad, I don’t even know where to begin.
The point was trying to figure out WHAT in the world YOUR argument was. For the millionth time, I can’t figure out what your arguments are. The POINT of what Dr. Nadal and I were saying is that if we take YOUR arguments (or what we are trying to decipher are your arguments) to their logical conclusions, then it follows that all those things you mentioned above are also moral. How do you not get that that is what we were trying to say? Okay, so now I”m going to do a bit of reverse role playing and try and figure out, given your statement quoted above, what you think our arguments are. I think you think we think as follows:
“Homosexual actions are evil because they are the same as murder,bestiality,polygamy,incest,
rape, and pedophilia which are evil. Since homosexual actions are the same as those things listed above which are evil, it follows by the law of transitivity that homosexual actions are also evil.”
Am I close? Am I somewhat on the mark? For the life of me I can’t figure out where you are coming from, what you are seeing when you read our comments, or what your train of thought is. You simply baffle me, Robert, with your inability to have a serious back and forth conversation.
@ MaryLee
“Homosexuality is unnatural? It isn’t. There are gay animals.”
That argument is false. The total number of species in the animal kingdom is about 3 million (it may be more). Last time I heard, some individuals of some kinds of animals occasionally dabble in what is claimed to be ‘homosexual’ behaviour. The number of those animals is about 1300, which is less than 0.05% of the animal kingdom. But remember, it is only some of that 0.05% that actually engage in it, so the number is significantly less. Since about 1 to 2% of the human population have engaged in homosexual sex, it is clear that an act of the human will is involved.
Also, since those animals usually do such behaviour out of misplaced instinct – like a dog rubbing against someone’s leg – it becomes clear it has nothing to do with love or rational basis for attraction. That makes it an even weaker argument. This ‘animals do it too’ argument is just a worthless smokescreen for avoiding the clarity of the explanation that homosexuality is not how the body is meant to be used.
“There isn’t any gay bashing in the animal world.”
Emotional claptrap. The inversion of victim and protagonist as a public perception is a known tactic on this issue. Those who have suffered the most from this are people who have simply stood up for that which reflects human biology. Jail, fines, loss of jobs, etc. You might want to look at the backlash in California that happened when Prop 8 was passed as just one example.
“There are wonderful gay people, and terrible gay people.”
This statement assumes ‘gay’ is an identity, which it isn’t. You cannot be ‘gay’. Regardless of how ‘nice’ someone might be, homosexual sex is not good for the human body, and it is not right to condone. Your statement is an attempt to make homosexual morally neutral and medically benign, and it isn’t either.
“Homosexuality is not a choice. It is time to back off, to live and let live.”
Live and let live??? Like those activists who go to court to seek to redefine marriage, even though just a few years back it was supposedly ‘just a piece of paper’? Like those who effectively open up their bedroom doors and DEMAND not just acceptance, but endorsement and celebration of such activity? No thanks. Homosexuality may be a powerful urge, but you choose what you do. You cannot choose your skin colour or gender. The reasons why someone engages in homosexual behaviour may be different from one to the next person as a combination of various factors including environment, but it is a LIE to claim it is ONLY innate and genetic.
MaryLee, part of the reason why this culture of death exists is because people have a distorted idea of sexuality. A baby getting created from sex isn’t an expected and normal outcome, it is an ‘inconvenience’ that needs to be ‘fixed.’ The idea that our sexual activity shouldn’t have consequences is a willful denial of human biology, and homosexuality is part of that culture. I’m sorry you don’t see the connection that is quite clear to many of us here.
Robert,
Cut the buffoonery pal! I never said that homosexuality was the same as all of those other issues, and I never mentioned murder.
My point was VERY clear: You are arguing that because homosexuality has been around forever, we should codify it as a normative alternate lifestyle. I pointed to every other perversion of sex, which have all been around as long as homosexuality and stated that according to the “Berger Standard” these must also be codified as normative, since persistence in society is your only articulated standard.
In addition to putting the word murder into my text for me, you also inserted the word rape. Neither of which I used. But as long as YOU want rape and homosexuality mentioned in the same breath, I’ll indulge you.
81% of the pedophilia victims in the Catholic Church were boys molested by homosexuals who infiltrated the priesthood. Additionally, the majority of gay men were initiated (raped) as teens, or younger, by older gay men.
73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age *
*Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275
Read the rest of the horrific statistics with references here:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html
So yes, rape and homosexuality fit comfortably together in the same sentence. I didn’t want to bring that up, but will not allow you to put that linkage in my mouth and then deny the truth. Come at me with FACTS Robert, and be honest enough to defend your position beyond handwaving and smokescreens.
Again, all of these perversions of human sexuality lead to the rejection of the Christian mores by society that ultimately leads to the Culture of Death.
Gerard,
I was actually the one who mentioned murder and rape to try and show that the acceptance of those two actions logically followed if we applied Robert’s criteria for the acceptance of homosexual actions, though how that translates into “equating it with homosexuality” (whatever that means) is well beyond my intellectual capabilities. Robert actually took both of our posts and smashed them together to form some bizarre, incoherent argument to respond to.
Bobby,
Oh boy! Thanks for the heads up.
Robert,
I only read your comment and not Bobby’s. Still, you attribute rape and murder to utterance by me, and did not make the appropriate distinction. I stand by my analysis and commentary.
Mark, your arguments are still based on religious and cultural perception. Yes, a person IS gay. A person doesn’t BECOME gay. Just as pro-aborts claim that the unborn “become” people, the religious pro-life community has this ridiculous and misguided perception that a gay person CHOOSES or BECOMES gay. It is how they are born, the way other people ARE straight, or allergic to peanuts, or have curly hair. Yes, some people “dabble” and some experiment, but most gay people are gay because they were born that way. If you believe in a creator, then you would have to believe He would love them. And not conditionally. He would not ask them to never have companionship or love because they were made that way. And, if you believe in God, God doesn’t make mistakes, does he?
A popular–and apt–pro-life argument is the abortion/slavery argument. As I’ve said, nobody is as against abortion as I am. We know the unborn are people. We also know that black people are people. Gay people are people as well. Leviticus says that homosexuality is a sin. Okay, but it also says not to eat pork and how to sell your daughter as a slave. Yeah, okay.
As for ideas about sex, well, I’m pro-birth control (any birth control that is not abortifacient). To say that the connection is “quite clear” to many on this board is really just to say, “We are all Christians who believe gay people are degenerates” simply because their sexual activity doesn’t result in a baby? That’s ludicrous. Even NFP “allows” couples to engage in intercourse and still prevent the conception of a child.
Abortion is not a sexual activity. It results from sexual activity, but it’s not SEX that is the problem here. It is knowledge of biology, and the inherent right to live. All human beings have a right to live, especially in the womb. It is an argument about life, not about sex.
I have no sexual hang-ups. There isn’t any connection–no valid connection–between gay rights and abortion. And as Clarice stated, many women would choose abortion for her gay child, if she would be informed that the child is gay.
MaryLee,
As a molecular biologist, I am dedicated to whatever truth the scientific evidence presents. Were the data to show convincingly that there is a genetic basis for homosexual orientation, then I would readily accept the data. As one who has read every scientific paper purporting a genetic etiology, I can tell you that they have all been fatally flawed from a methodological perspective. Simon LeVay has been the worst of the offenders. There exists no credible evidence to back the assertion claiming a biological etiology.
Actually, Homosexuality was (and remains) a sexual disorder. Read this link with article by Dr. Charles Socarides who was on the Sexual Disorders Committee of the APA. He tells of how the feminists and gays, through political machination, got Homosexuality dropped as a disorder:
http://www.narth.com/docs/annals.html
With Homosexuality no longer classified as a disorder (APA sticking its head in the sand) you will not find much research stating that it is, as editorial boards will not even consider such data.
“Yes, a person IS gay. A person doesn’t BECOME gay.”
No. Cite me some evidence. You claim my point of view is based on “religious and cultural perception”, but I would simply respond it is based on common sense about who we are naked and the cause of over 6 billion of us walking around on the planet. That’s a lot of empirical evidence for you to overlook, and NONE of it is religious or cultural. So your claim is patently false.
Your example of becoming something isn’t a sound argument since it assumes what you are defending. No-one is born performing sexual acts, and the claim that ‘gay’ is 100% genetic is demonstrably false.
God does love us, and He loved us to send His Son to die for our SIN, which He hates. This is clear at the moment when Jesus dies and He cries out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” when up until that point Jesus referred to Him as ‘Father’. But the Father turned away because He cannot look upon sin – OUR sin. Again, stop it with this mixing up of identity with behaviour.
“Gay people are people as well”
People are people, but no-one is gay as an identity. Homosexual sex is unhealthy – a point you constantly refuse to address – and would be demeaning to a person’s dignity not to point that out or silly to endorse policies which ignore that fact. Why are you OK with allowing someone you love to engage in very risky behaviour unchallenged? Stop mixing up identity with behaviour.
When I walk down the street I can spot – at least 99% of the time – who is black, or a woman, or tall, or who has certain eye colour (ignoring contacts for the sake of argument), etc. These cannot be changed, we are born that way. But the sexual activity one engages is clearly does not fall into the same kind of category, so why do you persist in building arguments on this faulty assumption? You are NOT born that way, it is what you DO with your sexuality. Someone who claims to be a ‘lesbian’ would make no sense if they were a man, so if one category of identification – by your reasoning – actually relies on another first, it CANNOT logically be as important or from the same cause. You are in error.
In regards to Leviticus, let me ask you some questions – if the temple curtain tore when Jesus died (Mt 27:51) ending the law, why did Ananias and Sapphira die? (Acts 5) And why did Jesus uphold so many Old Testament concepts in Rev 2 &3? In regards to slavery, please quote for me the name of the second book of the Bible and explain what meaning the event it describes held for the nation of Israel. Also, once you’ve done all this, please tell me where the original quote of Jesus saying ‘Love your neighbour as yourself” (the second greatest commandment) is from and how close that is to the texts you refer to about homosexuality.
I’ve barely begun on this topic – I spent all of last year studying Moses, including the Old Testament law, so although I’m no Hebrew scholar, I’m giving you fair warning that such silly remarks have no credibility. They are shallow smokescreens invented by people with no understanding or knowledge of biblical text, and it is an indictment on you that you would repeat them here.
“We are all Christians who believe gay people are degenerates”
Putting words in my mouth, please don’t do it. It’s also an attempt to use the victim card.
“…between gay rights and abortion”
You’re misrepresenting my argument for your own ends. My argument is not about ‘rights’ but about acknowledgement of the facts of human biology, which your entire post ignores. The connection I make is between bad consequences out of a misuse of sex. Yet again, you are mixing up identity with behaviour. We are male and female, end of story. You’re right about one thing though, God doesn’t make mistakes, WE do.
““There isn’t any gay bashing in the animal world.”
Emotional claptrap. The inversion of victim and protagonist as a public perception is a known tactic on this issue. Those who have suffered the most from this are people who have simply stood up for that which reflects human biology.”
At this point I think you’re just being flat-out offensive. Pointing out that some people are murdered for being gay is “emotional claptrap”? Prop 8 supporters have suffered more than some teenage kid who ends up in the emergency room because someone beat him up for being gay?
As for me supposedly undermining my own position, I don’t think you could correctly state what my position is.
I don’t claim that everyone has to agree with me about homosexuality. This is America and we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. However, it is an enormous strategic mistake to keep associating the pro-life movement with opposition to homosexuality. Gay sex doesn’t lead to conception and therefore doesn’t lead to abortions. You’re acting as though there’s only one philosophy of why the pro-life position is right, just, and moral, and there’s not.
I have no problem with this being an agree-to-disagree issue. Commenters here disagree about any number of things. But when the topic of homosexuality keeps being raised again and again, that’s not agreeing to disagree. That’s launching yet another time-waster and distracting us from what should be our work. No matter what anyone thinks about the conception of the Harris-Burtka babies, they’re not in any imminent danger of death. No one’s attempting to rip them limb from limb.
I know a lot of people on this site are Christians, but if someone mentions that they’re Jewish or an atheist in a comment, that doesn’t lead to a big derailment about how they should accept Jesus as their Savior. If you can deal with people disagreeing about the divinity of Christ without letting that throw you off-topic, you can stick to the subject of life issues without launching into a debate on homosexuality.
Thank you, Marauder, yes. Brilliant post.
And Dr. Nadal, I studied biology with a very prominent doctor in Boston. I believe you are letting your religious beliefs cloud your perception. It has been well-documented that homosexuality is chemical and physiological, not PSYCHOLOGICAL.
I think it’s time that pro-life blogs stop equating the gay community with the pro-abortion community. It makes pro-lifers look ignorant, hateful, misinformed, and petty.
Mark, your posts are histrionic. I cannot find one crumb of evidence, logic, and open-mindedness in any of your posts. Mixing up identity with behavior? Um, no. To be sure, both are linked. Homosexuality is not a choice. It is not behavioral. It IS part of one’s identity. Why otherwise intelligent people can’t see it because they are so blinded by prejudice is something that makes me very, very sad. And it’s hurting the pro-life cause severely.
Dr.Nadal,your claim that homosexuality is a sexual disorder is proof that you are a scientific fraud,and that no one should take you seriously,and that you are most likely not even deserving of your PHD.
Socarides was discredited long ago,and the American Psychiatric Association rightly removed homosexuality from its list of mental illmesses long ago.
You are obviously totally bised against homosexuals, and no intelligent person can or should take you seriously. Sorry to be brutally frank, but what I am saying is true. Not only that,your religious biases do nothing to speak in your favor.
RB,
Are you back to logically and honestly discuss or just throw out some of your own opinions which you believe to be true and run away??
Mods,
Please leave Robert Berger’s name-calling comments intact so that I may address them with substantive argument to prove a larger point. Thanks.
Marylee,
Please post the studies that comprise the documentation of which you speak. I always ask people for the source material for these “well-documented” claims, but none are ever forthcoming.
Robert Berger,
You’re not brutally frank. You’re just brutally ignorant. You make claim after claim, and I counter with link after link to the facts and all you ever do is just change the subject, call me names and move on. The corpus of Socarides’ work, and the work of the hundreds of others that comprise the literature that was dismissed by political machination has NEVER been disproven.
You sir, are the fraud. I presented quite a bit of factual material in the links on this thread, and all you do is counter with name-calling. As for being deserving of my Ph.D., my research was accepted for presentation at international microbiology conferences before my doctoral defense where a committee of Ph.D.’s accepted me as a peer. Your hand waving histrionics are hardly a referendum on my professional competence.
Did you read the Socarides paper that was peer reviewed and unchallenged? He discusses at length the political process by which homosexuality was dropped when DSM III was written. It was not based on any new data, with all extant data supporting the diagnostic label of disorder. As a scientist, I have NO respect for politics. I only respect credible data, and all of the data have been on Socarides’ side of the argument.
The truth, Robert, is that you do not understand how science is done, nor do you understand the political machinations of scientific societies. You do not understand how orthodoxies spring up in scientific societies and how dissenting scientists are routinely crushed by the establishment until finally the data overwhelm the prevailing orthodoxy. In this, you are entirely out of your depth. You WANT there to be no diagnostic label of disorder for homosexuality for whatever personal reasons. But this isn’t Alice in Wonderland.
Once the orthodoxy was adopted through political machination, editorial boards lined up behind it, making contrarian data all but impossible to get published through the peer review process. Moreover, grant funding is not given for researchers whose research design questions the orthodoxy, thus making of the Orthodoxy a self-fulfilling prophecy, and poor slobs like you its shrill, name-calling acolytes.
For more insight into scientific societies and orthodoxies, see the following.
http://gerardnadal.com/2010/06/23/science-causes-truth-or-science-causes-truth-part-i-2/
You are obviously totally bised against homosexuals, and no intelligent person can or should take you seriously. Sorry to be brutally frank, but what I am saying is true. Not only that,your religious biases do nothing to speak in your favor
Now did Dr. Nadal actually say he didn’t like homosexual people as humans? He never said he was against their HUMANITY, just against their homosexual activity. There’s a huge difference and most people I’ve come across refuse to see the difference. To be a person’s friend, or even treat them with respect does NOT mean you have to support every little thing they do or approve of it. He never said anything against homosexual people as human beings, he spoke out against their lifestyle decisions which is not the same thing.
Based on what I know of Dr. Nadal (after reading his bio on his blog and some of his blog posts and what he posts here) I can say that his religious “biases” serve him more than your blind support. Do you have any idea what you’re supporting? I invite you to read Dan Morrision’s “Beyond Gay” (I haven’t finished it, yet, but what I’ve read so far is very, very interesting).
I’ve had homosexual friends. They knew where I stood on the issue but that didn’t stop us from supporting each other as one human being to another. In fact, I’d say we defied the norms by understanding that we don’t have to approve of absolutely everything a person believes, thinks or does to be friends (or even get along) with someone.
Nowadays there’s homosexual supporters who don’t even know me or my homosexual friends and tell me I’m not a true friend. I’ve gotten curst at, yelled at (even when I don’t curse or yell) and essentially reviled for my stance. I thought homosexuals were tauted as being so accepting, but I can tell you right now, despite my explaining my position (without yelling, calling names, cursing, or degrading another) I’m still degraded and curst at and yelled at. So much for “toleranace”.
Mother in Texas,
You’re beautiful ! :-) Thanks for the support. For poor people such as Robert, there is no such thing as moral principle or ethical principle if it gets in the way of one’s preferred sexual lifestyle. Everything is collapsed into “bias”, which means that Robert, by his own standard is morally unprincipled.
For Mr. Berger there is only the fashion of what is currently legal. Were he alive 150 years ago, he would have no compunction about owning slaves, as such ownership was perfectly legal, protected by the US Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision. Surely Robert couldn’t claim any “bias” stemming from any codified belief system or Natural Law.
No, for Mr. Berger there is only the positive (manmade) law and Mr. Berger’s ego, as his posting here has amply revealed. The repudiation of scientific data, and the constrains of Natural Law and Moral Law in matters pertaining to personal gratification points to a disorder still on the books in DSM IV:
Narcissism.
@Marauder
“At this point I think you’re just being flat-out offensive. Pointing out that some people are murdered for being gay is “emotional claptrap”? Prop 8 supporters have suffered more than some teenage kid who ends up in the emergency room because someone beat him up for being gay?”
At this point I think you’re ignoring or unaware of certain facts which is probably worse. For example, lookup Ake Green, Mary Stachowicz, David Parker, Christian Horizons, Elane Photography, and Peter Vidala. After that, please watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTuqXiHzZtk
Without the police arrival, do you think they would’ve walked away? I think some of them probably would have been killed. The whistling, btw, were attempts to permanently deafen those participating in the prayer meeting. More info here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=769imWn-f30
Not only that, I have been personally threatened in my job for the heinous crime of daring to write a short letter to the local paper simply upholding marriage as it stands as a cornerstone of society.
So it is not without justification that I ask you to take the victim card elsewhere. It’s just a diversion from the main topic. Violence and threats are bad, whoever does it – my point is that it happens in both directions but you want it only to be known in one direction. But none of this says anything about the health risks or origin of homosexual behaviour.
As I have stated, people are people, and I uphold the inherent dignity of every person, which is precisely why I hold the position I do. Homosexuality is clearly NOT identity, otherwise no-one could ever have left the lifestyle, but thousands have. This is extremely powerful evidence that supports my point of view, since no-one can leave being a male, or being tall or black, etc. I’m sorry, Marauder, but your position simply doesn’t fit the facts. Homosexuality is behavioural, and you need to consider not just genetics and personal choice as influencing who we are and what we do, but environment as well.
From Dr. Walter Schumm, professor of Family Studies and Human Services at Kansas State University comes the following observations:
“My own research has shown that articles featuring ‘pro-gay’ outcomes are much more likely to be cited scientifically than those featuring ‘anti-gay’ results, even if the authors, timeframe, and journals are the same,” he said. “I have also found that sometimes, the worse the quality of the research in this area, the more likely it is to have been cited in major reviews of the literature.”
“If a journal is willing to publish adverse outcomes for GLB parenting it is at risk of being blackballed and deemed ‘unscientific’; thus, editors of journals must have tremendous courage to buck the current of political correctness and allow fair peer review of such research.”
It simply is not politically correct to publish research which might show adverse outcomes for GLB’s whether it be regarding health, marriage, or the raising of children.
As long as GBL’s refuse to be open to the truth, in the long run, the house of cards they have built will eventually come down.
No problem, Dr. Gerard :-)
P.S. Thank you for the compliment.
Dr. Nafdal,I didn’t accuse you of hating homosexuals.I merely stated a fact-namely that you are extremely biased against them. Bias is not necessarily the same thing as hate.
Being “opposed” to homosexuality makes absolutely no sense. It’s as ridiculous as being
“opposed” to left-handedness. I happen to be a southpaw. Did I choose to be one?
Of course not.That’s just the way I am.I’m also heterosexual,but have never been irresponsible or promiscuous. Saying that homosexuality is a mental or sexual illness makes no more sense than saying that left-handedness is a mental illness.
But prejudice against left handed people still exists in parts of the world,nd has existed for a long time. In many Muslim countries, left-handed people are believed to be cursed by Allah.
The late Ayatollah Khomeini claimed that since the deposed Shah’s eldest son was left-handed,it was proof that the Shah’s family was cursed by Allah.
Schoolteachers used to routinely try to make left-handed children write with their right hands.
It’s no different with homosexuality.
Mr. Berger,
God doesn’t condemn left-handedness as an affront to His wise design. Similarly, left-handedness is not written about in the psychological literature the way homosexuality is.
Left-handed people don’t have HIV infection rates like those described for homosexuals by CDC:
MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men.
Left-handed people don’t sport 73% of their population admitting to having sex with boys under the age of 19.
Left-handed people don’t acount for the appalling list of pathologies and depravities contained within this list:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html
Your willful ignorance and stubborn refusal to engage the facts are frightening. Your suggestion that the above-linked list is comparable to being left-handed is freakishly bizarre.
You seem to have had a major break with reality. All of the science, the epidemiology, morbidity and mortality supports the contention that homosexuality is a major, MAJOR psychological disorder.
As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “You are entitled to your own opinion. You’re not entitled to your own set of facts.”
Left-handed? That’s all you have to appeal to? Really? REALLY???
@MaryLee
“Mark, your posts are histrionic. I cannot find one crumb of evidence, logic, and open-mindedness in any of your posts.”
That’s just a baseless personal attack, and unworthy of you. As Dr Nadal (sorry, Gerry!) has challenged you to do, bring forth your evidence.
But earlier I linked to this site
http://www.gendermatters.org.au
and the pdf you can download off the front page of that site. Read it and try to tell me there is not “one crumb of evidence” in it.
I have a question for you – I’m a regular blood donor, and O negative, which can be safely donated to most anybody in an emergency. Given my sexual history (none), no drug use, no tattoos, etc., if you were faced with an situation where your child needed blood in a hurry and it was a choice between me and another O negative guy whose only lifestyle difference with me was that he slept with other men, who would you choose?
For a medical reference for this predicament, you can also read this link below, or you can continue with your lie that I have no evidence to support my point of view.
http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/bloodbloodproducts/questionsaboutblood/ucm108186.htm
MaryLee, when I get asked about my personal life before I donate, they don’t ask about my so-called ‘sexual orientation’ or feelings of attraction, they ask me about what I have DONE with my identity (male). That’s behaviour. Specifically, risky behaviour.
And thanks, Gerry, for the quote about opinion and facts, I was actually going to use it myself for this reply, but you beat me to it!
I would like to say that what these two men in love have decided for their family, is just the same as what a heterosexual couple decides before expanding their family. They discuss whether they are ready to expand their family. Just because a gay couple does not have the parts for sexual reproduction, does not mean they are not able to be parents. Two men, two women, or one of each gender parents does not mean the children will have higher or lower chances for growing up badly.
These men don’t deserve your harsh words attacking what you think you might know about their parenting skills based on something as irrelevant to raising children as the fact that the children will be raised by two LOVING fathers! So go pay attention to an issue that actually needs fixing, like how so many children are neglected, abused, and in need of paternal love, or since this happens to be a pro life site, focus on abortion news and stopping the murder of those who never get the chance to live!
God made each of us EXACTLY the way he intended. Love knows no gender because love is love.
Kiwi, nice idea about love, but gender matters and love does not exist where there is no truth.
http://www.gendermatters.org.au
Hi Kiwi.
“Just because a gay couple does not have the parts for sexual reproduction, does not mean they are not able to be parents.”
No, a gay couple does have the parts for sexual reproduction. They just do not have sexual parts which are designed for reproduction with each other. Their natural state of being, the way nature designed them, is to not be able to reproduce together. That is the norm. If two men can not reproduce together, we do not say something is wrong with them or that their organs are not functioning properly. Everything is perfectly in order.
“…the children will be raised by two LOVING fathers!”
Kiwi, what is love? What does it mean to love someone? This word is throw around all the time now, and it seems to be the “new” tolerance. That is, tolerance used to be the word that was constantly thrown around to justify any and all actions, and now we see the same thing happening with the word love. It seems to me that the words “tolerance” and “love” have no meaning in today’s society except as buzz words.
“So go pay attention to an issue that actually needs fixing, like how so many children are neglected, abused, and in need of paternal love, or since this happens to be a pro life site, focus on abortion news and stopping the murder of those who never get the chance to live!”
Why’s it gotta be either/or? Why can’t it be both/and? This interest in more than “just abortion” should be a welcome change for those who constantly harp that we are “single issue voters.”
“God made each of us EXACTLY the way he intended.”
First of all, this is a religious argument, one that “has no rational basis”, as a certain California judge recently said.
Second, it is simply not true that if we “are” a certain way, then we must stay that way. God “made” Ted Bundy a killer and rapists. he couldn’t help it. he was born like that and God loves him just the way he made him… right? This argument about “that’s how God made them” simply does not work because it allows any and all things that one has a proclivity towards to be accepted. Of course, it then does not follow that homosexual actions are bad either. All this means is that the argument about “that’s how God made us” is really, really bad. Now cue Robert Berger accusing me of “equating” homosexuals with rapists, whatever that means.
“Love knows no gender because love is love.”
Stop judging people for raping because love knows no boundaries because love is love.
Again, I don’t know what the above sentence means. It sounds very catchy at first, but lacks in substance.
Kiwi,
God made us perfect. Original Sin made us fallen. There are many forms of the way Original Sin rears its head. Through baptism we are able to fight it, but it doesn’t mean we don’t sin. It doesn’t mean we don’t make decisions contrary to God’s Will, it means we are infused with the grace to make decisions that are in harmony with God’s will. We we also have Free Will, which means while we have the grace and love of God, we also aren’t forced to follow Him. It’s a decision we have to make in every situation and circumstance and every day.
As someone has told me “Love is a verb, not an adjective.” Love is a decision. Warm fuzzy feelings come and go, but that doesn’t mean LOVE disappears, it means feelings come and go, but the decision–the commitment–to love is what Love is.
As I stated before, I have had homosexual and bisexual friends. Just because someone decides on a certain lifestyle doesn’t mean I have to approve or support it to be their friend. Nobody’s forcing them to agree with my stance, but it doesn’t mean they don’t care about or love me back.
I remember with one of my homosexual friends I told him exactly where I stood on the issue, but that as long as he didn’t rub my face in his lifestyle decisions, I wouldn’t lecture. We formed a steady friendship, hanging out and laughing with each other. We were there for each other when the other was down, sad or having a bad day (regardless of what we thought/believed about whatever it was) and just in general worked on building up the other person as a person. Not for our sexual orientation or preferences, but as human beings. In fact, whenever I think about this person, I think very kindly about him, but it doesn’t mean I have to agree or support any lifestyle decision he makes/made. It means I recognize him as a human being, as someone I care for, and someone who care/ed for me. It was one of the better friendships I have had, despite our differences on the subject of homosexuality.
Two homosexual fathers are not the same as a heterosexual mother and a heterosexual father. The dynamics are different based on the nature of the relationship and orientation. There’s no way the two can be exactly alike (just like no two marriages are exactly alike, either) there is absolutely no way you can say they’re the same thing because they simply aren’t.
Also, homosexuals do not have the monopoly on love. I can tell you, I have heard instances of very unloving behavior within the homosexual community itself.
“God doesn’t condemn left-handedness as an affront to His wise design.”
Nor does “God”condemn homosexuals in any way. Not once, ever. If you’re going to cite to God as your support, please provide proof of God’s view on gays (outside of the Bible please)
“If you’re going to cite to God as your support, please provide proof of God’s view on gays (outside of the Bible please)”
Hal,
You want God’s revealed word outside of God’s revealed word? Are you feeling well?
I suppose that next you’ll ask me to cite the scientific evidence, but not from scientific journals, but only by using the Bible.
“But religious conservatives have this ridiculous notion that no one should ever have sex unless it’s between two people married to each other and who don’t use contraceptives. People are going to have sex whether they are married,single,divorced,separated, widowed,straight,gay,bisexual,young or old.
This is the way things have always been and always will.”
“And just because SOME people are chaste doesn’t mean it’s realistic to expect all people to.”
Look, Berger just admitted chastity is possible! Before you know it he’ll be a Catholic.
“This isn’t to say that it’s okay to live a live of promiscuity,total self-indulgence and debauchery….
Yes,it’s good for children to be brought up by two parents in a stable marriage.”
Robert, you sound downright conservative. Are we rubbing off on you?
Marauder, please don’t leave; I would miss you.
Might I respectfully suggest you simply do not read the articles you know will infuriate you, or at least the comments? I tend to skip over the articles I find irrelevant.
I agree, Marauder, don’t leave. I think this is a good site, but I have to confess that some things here do annoy me, such as the anti-contraception stuff.
And Biggaz, my daughter was raised in a Christian home, as were many people here, and she is doing just fine. I just wonder why you (and many other atheists) seem to have so much animosity towards Christians, anger that is not directed at Muslims, Hindus, Jews, or any other religious group.
Dr. Nadal,you appear to be ignorant of the fact that most AIDS victims worldwide today are heterosexual. This is a fact.AIDS does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
You are stereotypig homosexuals and wrongly portraying them as depraved individuals who
are threats to public health and are highly promiscuous.SOME are, but by no means all of them.
All the “facts” anti-homosexual people like you cite have been proven to be absolutely false.
Reports of lower life expectation are also false,since there are far more middle-aged and eldery gay people in good helath then you are willing to admit.
Sexual promiscuity is dangerous whether people are gay,straight or bisexual.
I repeat,you are merely a shill for homophobia.
When I said that it’s good for children to be brought up in a stable marriage by two parents,it doesn’t mean I’m the kind of conservative you folks are. It’s a very good thing,but it’s just not possible for all children to be brought up this way because of difficult social and economic conditions worldwide.
I’m not really a doctrinaire left-winger at all.I’m anything but a Marxist or communist,and
am no fan of people like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill. I’m a moderate liberal.
Liberals don’t like abortion or want them to happen, but they just realize that you cannot stop them by making them illegal,and that this only worsens the problem.
The only way to deal with the terrible problem of abortion is to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible and provide much more financial help to poor pregnant women and the poor in general.But conservative anti-choicers don’t want this.They expect the government to just make abortion illegal as well as making contraceptives illegal in the mistaken belief that contraceptives cause more sexual immorality and more abortions,which is an absolute fallacy.
In fact,contraceptives have PREVENTED countless abortions.
And conservatives are also “opposed” to homosexuality,and blindly accept all manner of falsehoods about it,thinking that you can “help” people to “get out ” of this lifestyle.
Forget about it.Abortion and homosexuality are here to stay whether you like it or not,and you can never legislate them out of existence.Please learn to deal with these facts and do something constructive for a change.
Robert Berger,
Don’t read so well do you? Here is the quote from CDC:
“MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men.”
And here’s the CDC link:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
More from the CDC link:
“For complex reasons, HIV/AIDS continues to take a high toll on the MSM population. For example, the number of new HIV/AIDS cases among MSM in 2005 was 11% more than the number of cases in 2001. It is unclear whether this increase is due to more testing, which results in more diagnoses, or to an increase in the number of HIV infections. Whatever the reasons, in 2005, MSM still accounted for about 53% of all new HIV/AIDS cases and 71% of cases in male adults and adolescents.”
I don’t have the luxury of twisting people’s words and inventing reality as you do Robert. All of my data come from sources such as CDC. You and Littlez must have belonged to the same fraternity in school. You put words in people’s mouths and then beat them up for it. Perhaps you get away with that garbage elsewhere, but you’re outclassed here. We’re on to that nonsense.
Sorry if the data interfere with your magical and wishful thinking. But hard data can be a hard reality when they run up against your propaganda. A shill for homophobia?
An advocate for the dignity of men and women whose public health profile is frightening. When will you stop shilling for murdering babies and promoting the Culture of Death Robert? When?
“You want God’s revealed word outside of God’s revealed word? Are you feeling well?”
ok, just establish for me that the Bible is “God’s revealed word” using independent sources and I’ll leave it alone.
Hal,
If you want to debate the issues on the science, I’ll gladly do so.
If you want outside sources to prove the existence of God, then either you need serious help, or you’re being an obnoxious pig. I tend toward the latter.
Phillymiss,
“I just wonder why you (and many other atheists) seem to have so much animosity towards Christians, anger that is not directed at Muslims, Hindus, Jews, or any other religious group.”
Because they are gutless. They know what would happen if they blasphemed against Islam, or went on record as being anti-Semitic. They denigrate Christianity because they know they can get away with it.
I never met an atheist who had a warm, loving relationship with their father. Food for thought.
I don’t see any Muslims, Hindus, Jews, or any members of other religious groups at this site complaining about “the gays.” The Christians do that here, and it’s really, really obnoxious (to borrow a term from Dr. Nadal.)
But, for the record, all of those religions (except perhaps the Hindus, as I don’t know much about them) suffer from the same infirmities.
And, for your information, my daughters have very warm, loving relationships with their father….and they are as atheists as you can be. Just the way I raised them…. (And me and my old Dad get along pretty good too)
Robert Berger,
Sure, contraceptives might have “prevented countless abortions” but one could argue that so has people practicing chastity and abstainance.
You’ve said yourself some people are practicing chastity and abstainance. Who knows? Maybe with proper chastity and abstinance education and instruction MORE people just might. :-)
Hal, if you are truly seeking after proof that God exists, I suggest prayer. If you earnestly pray for wisdom and understanding, God will answer you. No better proof than that.
Hi Marauder. I just wanted to lend my voice to the others to say I hope you’ll stick around and keep your comments coming. I enjoy reading them and you often give me food for thought.
Why would the Muslims complain? They just kill them.