Why would this be a dilemma for someone who isn't prejudiced against homosexuals?

Just curious, what's your opinion? Would you terminate if it was proven to be gay?

If you read the articles, this is a dilemma for liberals, too. The most obvious is that since they advocate unrestricted abortions, would they fight legislation aimed to protect their own from the worst sort of hate crime - abortion of homosexuals?

And no, I most certainly would not advocate aborting babies predisposed to homosexuality if the theoretical gay gene were ever found. I would support legislation banning such prejudice.

Was this Hitler's idea?

I thought the most interesting piece of the issue is that Mohler supports pre-natal intervention to prevent homosexuality, such as hormone therapy if that were ever shown to work.

I guess it's okay for people like Mohler to play God with the unborn as long as it prevents a gay child from coming into this world.

That's ridiculous. If a person is pro-choice (and might I add that you cannot say that liberals support unrestricted abortions, because the ideology of all liberals is not exactly alike), then they support the freedom of a pregnant to have an abortion if she so desires. Homosexuality has nothing to do with it. That is being severely twisted around to try and make pro-choicers sound like they're committing a hate-crime. Clever, Jill, but it's nonsense.

Better luck next time!

Pro-choice=pro murder,so it IS a hate crime!

You're repeating yourself and I'm getting tired of correcting you.
Pro-Choice: We support a woman's right to choose, whether she decides to abort or to have a baby.
The keyword here is CHOICE.

Do we really have to drag this out again? Go back to the same old abortion arguments? Fine, fine.

#1: There is no way to scientifically prove when life begins. Yes, even as a few cells, the cells are living. But cells die every day. You cough, you kill brain cells. When life as we know it begins is a matter of opinion.

#2: "But it's a HUMAN!" yes, yes. I know. No one is debating that point. No one is saying that we are growing potatoes inside of us. But what anti-choicers seem to think is that it's a fully-formed tiny human that just grows and grows. No. It is not. And that IS scientifically proven. Not to mention common sense.

#3: (grace of otterbein.edu) Hate crime: crime of aggravated assault, arson, burglary, criminal homicide, motor vehicle theft, robbery, sex offenses, and/or crime involving bodily injury in which the victim was intentionally selected because of the victims' actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability.

No one is going around supporting abortions because they hate fetuses. Thus, saying that abortion is a hate crime is incorrect, whether you believe abortion is a murder or not.

Ciao.

Oh Pulease get over it.

I have freedom of speech in this country. I am allowed to word things however I so chose. Even if that means it is offensive to you. You're choice of wording is not correct to me.If I want to believe that abortion is baby killing then I will call it just that. I will not apologize either.

PS. AND if I want to call it a hate crime- I shall.

Wow, if it's true that homosexuality is caused by a gene, then why would any of you ever condemn homosexuals for being "immoral"? How dare you...if it's proven that it's not a "choice"? Homosexuals don't have a CHOICE on whether or not they're gay. If God REALLY didn't want homosexuals in His perfect world, why would he allow such a gene sequence to exist? Your reasoning that it would be permissible to "fix" these "potentially gay fetuses" in utero is reprehensible. It's not a disorder, it's not wrong. It's obviously YOUR God's will that these people be born this way.

I guess it's ok to put hormones into a pregnant woman that your God hasn't already seen fit to put there when there's a chance a fetus might be born gay. It just seems to be hypocritical of anyone to say that women can't put evil birth control hormones into themselves (OH MY GOODNESS, THEY'RE HORMONES A WOMAN ALREADY NATURALLY HAS IN HER BODY!!!)to prevent pregnancy. You're saying you're allowed to change the destiny of a fetus, right? Well, abortion is also changing the destiny of a fetus. So go ahead and bombard a woman with unnatural hormones because it's "right" when she's already pregnant and submissive to your God, because it would be her "sin" to allow her fetus to be gay. But your God forbid that she put any other hormones prior to pregnancy to prevent any "sinful" humans to be born. You people are ridiculous.

Sweetie, you're the one acting all offended. I'm not offended whatsoever. I come here for laughs.

Of course, my dear, you have the right to free speech. That does not mean that you have the ability to change the dictionary definition of a word.

I do wish you would post some viable arguments instead of things like "oh puhlease" so we could have a real discussion. You know, be constructive.

Leah is sarcastic.

Alyssa,You're so upset. Hey,Are you the one on the imnotsorry web site? Just wondering.

Leah,I would never find abortion to be a laughing matter.

See, now we're getting somewhere! Now you tell me your reasons *why* you don't think abortions are a laughing matter. Then I'll say "You're right. I never said they were. But these are MY reasons that I believe abortions should stay legal."

That would be a good discussion, don't you agree?

I am upset that you're too uneducated and childish to respond to the post I made before. Tell me, do you think homosexuality is a sin, too? Or are you too much of a religious bigot who's deluded to think your only purpose is that of a baby factory, oh proud mom of 3? Psh. I'mnotsorry I said that. And no, I've never had an abortion, but I've seen that site and those women made the best choices for themselves at the time. Is there a woman named Alyssa on there, too?

I realize that what I said is out of line...I'm just angry at all the people that call my gay friends "immoral" because they couldn't change who they were. I apologize, mom of 3, I let my emotions blind me and make me lash out when I didn't need to.

We see this pattern with other groups that are marginalized or not valued/supported in society -- for example, aborting due to a disability, or the sex-selection abortions we have witnessed most profoundly in countries such as China. Pro-choicers respect each woman's right to make the best decision for herself. But society's values sometimes constrain a woman's choice. Most pro choicers believe a woman has the right to abort an embryo/fetus for whatever reason she has, including due to a disability or due to sex. But if she's making that choice because she's afraid of the stigma of raising a disabled child, or because there is no support financial or otherwise in society for a disabled child, or there is extreme social pressure to only have male children when she would have otherwise preferred to continue the pregnancy, then well, it's really not as free a choice anymore. There is an implicit social coercion. Therefore, liberals often seek to elevate the status/appreciation of women in countries with overwhelming sex-selection abortion rates to combat this. Unfortunately I haven't heard all that much (from liberals or conservatives) seeking to improve appreciation of the disabled.

Therefore Mohler's statement don't surprise me at all. Gay people are marginalized in this society and all too often, are feared or maligned. If sexual orientation screening actually ever came to fruition, pro-choicers and liberals would respond by seeking to improve public acceptance of the gay community.

"I have freedom of speech in this country. I am allowed to word things however I so chose. Even if that means it is offensive to you. You're choice of wording is not correct to me.If I want to believe that abortion is baby killing then I will call it just that. I will not apologize either. PS. AND if I want to call it a hate crime- I shall."

And I can call a chicken a dog. Doesn't mean I'm correct.

Just one question: Why should the sexual orientation of a fetus change my feelings?

Ingrid! What are you doing at my favorite blogsite? Haha ...

Anyhow, I second Ingrid's question. If the sexual orientation of a fetus changes someone's mind about having a baby ... they need counceling. And may I point out that it would be more likely the conservatives, not the liberals, whose minds would be changed.

Unfortunately, this society has many problems. I doubt I'll live to see the day when they are all fixed, but I hope my children do.

That's right, I support the right of a woman to abort and I want kids. That shocks some people for some odd reason.

I thought I should point out that the term pro-abort is incorrect. That would imply that pro-choicers are going around encouraging abortions, and this has never been, is not, and will never be the case. We simply want the *choice* to have one. Thus: pro-choice. Voilà. Funny how that works, huh?

Leah,

You very well may be pro-choice and not pro-abortion. I believe you when you say this. But...

Many, many, many people are actually pro-abortion. I have met them. At rallies, on websites, outside of abortion clinics...They exist.

I remember one time outside of a clinic, we had stopped a couple, gave them information, talked to them for awhile and they decided to go in anyway.
We immediately began to pray for them, but across the parking lot, the volunteer "escort" for the clinic jumped and down and high fived her co-worker. They were acting like they had scored a touchdown. It broke my heart. We were devastated because we knew that a life was going to be lost, and that the couple going in would be changed forever. They were celebrating. If they truly were for choice, they would have been happy either way. But to them it was a game, where each side is keeping score. I cannot imagine feeling joy over someone elses tragedy. And it is a tragedy. Over and over you guys tell us that these decisions are not made lightly and that you take them very seriously.

This was not an isolated incident. I have seen it time and time again. This has become a game to many on the pro-choice side, and unfortunately even the winners are losers.

I try to always use the term pro-choice, mainly because to call the other side pro-aborts does more to shut down conversation than it does to change hearts and minds.

The real argument people have with using pro-choice instead of pro-abortion, is that the man who coined the term "choice", a Bernard Nathanson, has since come over to the pro-life side and admitted that they chose that particular phrase because they knew that good people like you would focus on the choice and not on what was being chosen. He also admitted to completely making up the numbers for how many abortions had taken place before roe v wade. I can get you a link if you want and you can read it in his own words.

MK

"You very well may be pro-choice and not pro-abortion. I believe you when you say this. But...

Many, many, many people are actually pro-abortion. I have met them. At rallies, on websites, outside of abortion clinics...They exist."

And many people I've met are white. Doesn't make them racist.
You can't judge us by people you met somewhere else. We're all different, with differing views on differing subjects.

This particular post is a very difficult one for me.
While I do believe that homosexual acts are sinful, I do not believe that homosexuals are inherently evil.

80% of children with down syndrome are aborted. 80%.
If we found a way to undo down's syndrome in utero, I'm not sure I would think that was a good idea either. Doing something to prevent this particular gene anamoly to take place before the child was conceived might be something I would consider.

My point is that, a down syndrome child, is fully human and deserves the same respect as any other human being. They are not lesser human beings simply because they have obvious disabilities. God created them that way and they should be cherished
because of who they are, not in spite of who they are. But they are going to have to do things differently than the general population. They are called to carry a different cross than I am.

By the same token, someone born a homosexual, has differences that can and should be celebrated. Sensitivity, Creativity, Gentleness and wicked senses of humor are just some of the gifts that I have observed. However, just like a person with down syndrome, I believe they would have to do some things differently than the average person. They too, have been called to carry a different cross than I have. And I'm not sure homosexuality should be treated like a disease, and I know that homosexuals themselves should not be treated like pariahs.

They should be loved and cherished because of who they are and not in spite of who they are. We all should. But we all have things in this life that we have to overcome, whether it's drug addiction, mental illness, infertility, hyperfertility, poverty, buck teeth...whatever.

I have five sons, and I believe it is a sin to sleep with their girlfriends before marriage. (they don't listen of course.) This does not change my love for them. The same rule applies to homosexuals. Being homosexual is not the issue. Having sexual relations outside of marriage is.

So do we fix them? I think no, because I don't think they are broken. But we can guide them to a happier and healthier lifestyle. And if they still choose to live where they are acting on their tendencies...well, that would be their decision. I would continue to pray for them, and talk to them about these choices, but I would never condemn them.

Heck, If I was only willing to go to a church where everyone was perfect they wouldn't let me. And I wouldn't be able to find one anyway. All of us are doing things that we shouldn't be doing. All of us should remember that ultimately we are all on the same side. Each others. What else do we have?

MK

My, my, what will the conservatives come up with next? A test to determine if a fetus is predisposed to homosexuality...and therapy to alter its partner gender preference. THAT fits the true definition of "hate crime" that is so callously thrown around.

Thank you, MK. It's just tough to see it from the perspective of a person born homosexual. You are absolutely right about them being wonderful, loving, caring people. They can't help who they are attracted to and fall in love with, no more than any heterosexual. Homosexuals are all just searching for the same thing that heterosexuals do (love, happiness, and comfort), but they do it within the confines of their own genders, because they cannot feel the physical connection to the opposite gender. They didn't choose to be that way, so why should they deny who they truly are? They look for the same qualities as you or I would in a partner for compatibility, they just can't force themselves to be attracted to a group of people they have no proclivity toward, no more than a heterosexual can force him or herself to love someone of the same gender. We're all just looking for the one wonderfully beautiful person that changes our lives for the better. I'm sure it's no different for you, MK. I'm thoroughly convinced and under the awesome impression that your husband finds you to be the most beautiful woman in the world, because he is inherently attracted to your qualities (I can tell you are a person with so much to offer to any relationship, whether it be as a friend, spouse, or mother). He fell in love with you for your admirable qualities, but it must be taken into account that he has to be attracted to you physically as well. I am not attracted to women, even if a woman displayed all the qualities I desire in a mate. I could not fall in love with her, because it is against who I am and my attractions. It would not be true to myself.

I just don't understand how they can be deemed immoral if they are denied the right to marry...
God can't have wanted people to act against the very people they are, would he? He would not have made us all unique in the ways that we are because I cannot believe that he would WANT us to suffer for our differences, especially the ones over which we have no control.

I know exactly what you're saying.

In my faith (and I get a lot of grief for always bringing up my faith), there are books and books and books written about the relationships between men and women and men and men and...well you get the picture.

I realize that if you don't believe and belong to my faith that you will see this whole thing differently.

I cannot however,tell you that therefore, you are right and it would be okay to live in sin, but I will not tell you that you can't either. I can only offer an alternative and hope that you might see the reasons why this might not be the best lifestyle choice.

Ultimately, in the end, it is between you and God, and He, not I, is the one that gave you the choice to live as you choose. He did not give me the right to take it away.

But this does not mean it is right or moral. We all have a vocation in life. We are called to something. I knew I wanted to be a mother when I was 5. I played with dolls til I was fourteen. This is not my job. It is my vocation.
Something I was called upon by God to do. I could have ignored the call, and maybe my life would have been very fulfilling. It would not, however have been the first choice that God would have made for me. Some men and woman are called to be priests or nuns. Truly called. Not that they want to be necessarily, but that they feel compelled or called to be. With this call comes the call to celibacy. They freely give up their right to have sex. No one makes them. It is just part of the call. I (we, the church) believe that homosexuals are also called to celibacy. We believe that they are asked by God, to freely give up the right to sex. If they can, great. If they can't, well, then in the end they will pay the price. What that price is, I can't say, but if they understand the gravity of the error and still choose to continue, they have a mortal sin (a sin which permanently separates them from God until they make a sincere confession with the intent to stop the behavior) on their soul.

They are not punished by God. They are separated from him by their own choice. God asked them to do something, they chose not to, and therefore rejected God. I know this is hard to grasp. It's like asking you to understand some complicated science in one sitting. It's been being written about, discussed and debated for centuries. I barely grasp it myself.

Why would God ask them to abstain from something that He created in them? Well, that is another topic. I'll be glad to discuss that with you too, but this is so long already.

Keep in mind tho, that the homosexual lifestyle above all, harms the homosexual. God wants what is best for all of us and asking a homosexual not to give in to his yearnings is actually for his own good.

I can't cite it off the top of my head, but I read recently that the average age of death for a homosexual is 40 years. Between HIV, drug abuse,alcholism, depression and suicide (all things that seem to go hand in hand with the lifestyle) most of them die very young. They also have a large (on average - i forgot the actual number but in San Francisco one survey showed 500) number of sexual partners in their lifetime. Often (Not Always), they have more than one partner even when in a serious relationship. This leads you to think that it is an addiction rather than a lifestyle. I'm not sure if the statistics are the same for lesbians.

But you see, often the lifestyle harms the individual and you start to see the wisdom in claiming that it is inherently evil.

I would say the same thing about heterosexuals who live a similar lifestyle.

I'm not asking you to agree with me, just wanted to let you know that there are reasons behind what we believe. We're not just heartless hypocrites who hate homosexuals.

See?

MK

Ingrid,

I understand this. That's why I have opted to use the term pro-choice. I was just hoping to help you understand why some of us opt to use pro-abortion.

We believe that you have been manipulated by the origing abortion proponents. Mr. Nathanson says exactly that. We chose the word "choice" to manipulate them into focusing on their right to choose and to take the focus off of what they were choosing.

I'm not asking you to agree with me, just hoping to shed a little light on why we use certain terminology.

MK

Ingrid,

"I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimises my credentials
to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the
National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968.
A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against
permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court
to issue the decision which legalised abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced
virtual abortion on demand up to birth. How did we do this? It is important to understand
the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world
with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law.

"We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened,
sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated,
we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we
had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is
the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused
enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of
illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but
the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often
enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around
200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false
figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to
crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that
legalising abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then
be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of
birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since
legalisation.

"We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its "socially backward ideas" and
picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was
played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as "we all know that opposition to abortion
comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics" and "Polls prove time and again
that most Catholics want abortion law reform". And the media drum-fired all this into the
American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under
the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favour of abortion are
enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-
Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian
religions were {and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly
suppressed, along with pro-life atheists' opinions."

"I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist
to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New
York City and had to set up a prenatal research unit, just at the start of a great new
technology which we now use every day to study the foetus in the womb. A favourite pro-
abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that
the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific
one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires
all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. Why, you may well ask, do some
American doctors who are privy to the findings of foetology, discredit themselves by
carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic at $300 a time, 1.55 million abortions means an
industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the
physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful
destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly
violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma,
but to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast
resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic
utilitarian answer to social problems."

"AS A SCIENTIST I KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, KNOW THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION"

Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a
divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this
infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity."

[Dr. Nathanson has since converted to Catholicism, being baptised in 1996.]

The "pro-choice movement's" emotionally compelling slogans -- fierce rallying cries of the most successful political marketing campaign in modern history, which made abortion-on-demand legal in the U.S. -- have been powerful rhetorical weapons for fighting off efforts to reverse Roe v. Wade, coming up on its 30th anniversary next month.

"I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," recalls Bernard Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of pro-abortion group NARAL, reminiscing about the early days of the pro-abortion movement in the late '60s and early '70s.

"We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical.

We sat down and plotted out the organization now known as NARAL. With Betty Friedan, we set up this organization and began working on the strategy."

We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one," recalls the movement's co-founder.

http://www.pregnancycenters.org
click on "abortion", then click on abortionists.

Source: Pro-Life Infonet, #2598, 24 Dec 2002, citing Worldnet Daily, 20 Dec 2002.

" A leading figure in the pro-abortion movement has publicly admitted that he lied when he said that partial-birth abortions are extremely rare and are performed only to save a woman's life or prevent damage to her reproductive organs when her baby is severely deformed.

Partial-birth abortion is also called "Intact Dilation and Evacuation" or "Dilation and Extraction" by supporters, and "Brain Suction Abortion" by opponents.

Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, now admits that in fact the procedure is performed routinely on healthy women with healthy babies.

Fitzsimmons says that he lied because he felt it was necessary to protect the cause of "abortion rights". After an appearance on ABC's "Nightline" in which, he says, "I lied through my teeth", he began to grow increasingly uneasy. "It made me physically ill," he said, "I told my wife the next day, 'I can't do this again.'"

While he still defends abortion, he now believes that the debate should be based on truth."

A leading figure in the pro-abortion movement has publicly admitted that he lied when he said that partial-birth abortions are extremely rare and are performed only to save a woman's life or prevent damage to her reproductive organs when her baby is severely deformed.

Partial-birth abortion is also called "Intact Dilation and Evacuation" or "Dilation and Extraction" by supporters, and "Brain Suction Abortion" by opponents.

Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, now admits that in fact the procedure is performed routinely on healthy women with healthy babies.

Fitzsimmons says that he lied because he felt it was necessary to protect the cause of "abortion rights". After an appearance on ABC's "Nightline" in which, he says, "I lied through my teeth", he began to grow increasingly uneasy. "It made me physically ill," he said, "I told my wife the next day, 'I can't do this again.'"

While he still defends aborion he now believes that the debate should be based on truth.

1997 by Jay Johansen
www.pregnancycenters.org
click on "abortion", then click on "Pro abort leader admits he lied"

MK, I think you have been arguing with yourself for the past 4 hours.

The only thing I have never understood is the only argument a pro-lifer has never commented on. I asked my sister and mother point blank, because you can easily avoid questions on the internet. They didn't have an answer either.

IF a fetus is completely human and deserves all the rights that everyone has, and
IF we have laws detailing that even if it would save your "right to life", you could not demand the internal organs/fluid of anyone else
THEN why do we elevate the status of a fetus for the short time it is in the womb, and then take that extra right away once it is born?

If a fetus has rights to a uterus, then I have rights to your bone marrow. Both have the "right to life" question in mind, but we only give the fetus this right but not the infant, child, teenager, or adult? Why?

JK,

"MK, I think you have been arguing with yourself for the past 4 hours.

Yes, but I think I'm winning...
Wait til you hear my rebuttal!

MK

Jen,

I think in part because this is a totally unique situation. In more than 99% of the cases, you are responsible for the baby being in your uterus.

She/he wouldn't be there if you hadn't had sexual relations. Whether you want her/him there or not is irrelevant. Once you have sex, you should be responsible for the consequences of your actions.

The problem is we want to have our cake and eat it too. But it just doesn't work that way.

This was debated to some length on a page that is no longer up. I likened it to eating 5 entire chocolate cakes every day for a month and then complaining because you gained weight.

And an innocent, unborn baby cannot defend itself.

We do have laws that require parents to do certain things even after the child is born. If your teenager commits a crime, you could get fined.
Your kids must be vaccinated against communicable diseases. They must go to school. Child abuse and child neglect are not tolerated in this country. You can't leave your child unattended in a car...

All things, that one could could resond to by saying " you can't tell me what to do with my child. I have rights!" At this point the child not only has the right to life, it has the right to a certain kind of life. Otherwise society would take your children away from you.

No we couldn't force you to give your child your bone marrow, but if it was a good match, you better beleive that society would look at you differently if you refused. What mother in her right mind wouldn't give her bone marrow to save her childs life?

So, we are responsible for our children, because they are the result of our own actions. In the womb and out of it.

MK

Jen,

"What does the scientific evidence show about homosexuality?

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of diagnostic disorders. In retrospect, this decision appears to have been inspired by political pressure rather than medical evidence.

Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals47 and 3� times more likely to commit suicide successfully.48 Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals.49 Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight.50 Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five.51

Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).52 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.53 Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.54

Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.56 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.

Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners.57 A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals' propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.58

The more radical homosexual activists flaunt their promiscuity, using it as a weapon against what they call "bourgeois respectability."60 But even more conservative advocates of gay marriage such as New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan admit that for them, "fidelity" does not mean complete monogamy, but just somewhat restrained promiscuity.61 In other words, they admit that exclusiveness will not happen. And without exclusiveness, their "marriages" will have little meaning."

# C. Bagley and P. Tremblay, "Suicidal Behaviors in Homosexual and Bisexual Males," Crisis 18 (1997): 24-34.
# R. A. Garofalo et al., "The Associations Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-Based Sample of Adolescents," Pediatrics 101 (1998): 895-902.

http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

# R. Herrell et al., Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-74; D. M. Fergusson, J. Horwood, A. L. Beautrais, "Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?" Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 876-80; M. J. Bailey, "Homosexuality and Mental Illness," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 883-4.
# P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 757-76.
# Ibid.
# Laura Dean et al., "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health: Findings and Concerns," Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association 4, no. 3 (2000): 101-51.
# Ibid.
# Ibid.
# A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978).
# Ibid.
# Ibid.
# J. B. Lehmann, C. U. Lehmann, and P. J. Kelly, "Development and Health Care Needs of Lesbians," Journal of Women's Health 7 (1998) 379-88.
# S. Sarantakos, "Same-Sex Couples: Problems and Prospects," Journal of Family Studies 2 (1996): 147-63; P. Tjaden, N. Thoennes, and C. J. Allison, "Comparing Violence Over the Life Span in Samples of Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Cohabitants," Violence and Victims 14 (1999): 413-25.
# Stanley Kurtz, "What Is Wrong with Gay Marriage," Commentary, September 2000, 35-41.
# Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1995).

This is where I got my info.

http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

"Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals47 and 3� times more likely to commit suicide successfully.48 Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973."

And this has, of course, nothing to do with the fact that Homosexuals are still discriminated in everyday life.
Have a look at the situation in the military. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is nothing but discriminating. If you're in a gay relationship and happy with your partner, you have no way of showing it in public or you will face the consequences. Not being able to show your feelings or only very restricted often results in depression and suicide.

Don't talk about equality while discrimination is still an issue.

"Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners."

The average number of sexual partners that a heterosexul woman will have is eleven.

"Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals)"

You know that HPV virus? That causes anal cancer in men the way it causes cervical cancer in women. And duh, heterosexuals arent getting it introduced to their anuses.

"In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of diagnostic disorders. In retrospect, this decision appears to have been inspired by political pressure rather than medical evidence."

So it may be psychiatric, and it may be genetic, and you dont have a clue either way. But it has to be something, and it has to be cured. Hmmmm...

Did you actually read these sources, or did you copy and paste from the article and then cite the sources at the bottom? Because the sample size of those studies is pretty relevant, given that they dont make intuitive sense to a homosexual.

Samantha,

You catch more flies with honey, than you do with vinegar...

You know that HPV virus? That causes anal cancer in men the way it causes cervical cancer in women. And duh, heterosexuals arent getting it introduced to their anuses.

This only proves that having more than one sexual partner, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is unhealthy.

So it may be psychiatric, and it may be genetic, and you dont have a clue either way. But it has to be something, and it has to be cured. Hmmmm...

You would know if you had read my posts how I feel about "curing" homosexuality.

And not once was I inflammatory or sarcastic so why are you so defensive?

Guilt sometimes does that...
MK

Ingrid,

If discrimination were the cause, then you would expect to see at least some lessening of depression and suicide. While discrimination may still exist, it is to a lesser degree than it was 20 years ago, but the rate of suicide, drug abuse, and depression among gays is not going down...

Blacks are discriminated against. I don't know for sure, but I would be willing to make a small bet that they aren't killing themselves because they are black at a 47% increase over the gen. pop.

mk

Samantha,

The average number of sexual partners that a heterosexul woman will have is eleven.

you may not like where I got my statistics, or how they were achieved, but at least I cited my claim.

MK

MK,

That statistic may be found at www.wikipedia.com.

So it may be psychiatric, and it may be genetic, and you dont have a clue either way. But it has to be something, and it has to be cured.

Not directed at you--and neither was the rest of the post--it was directed at the people in general who support these views and studies. However, my assertion comes from two obviously pro-life sources: 1) your post that says that the dismissal of the diagnosis of homosexuality may have been premature and 2) Jill Stanek's column citing a Southern Baptist minister who believes that homosexuality is genetically determined and may be corrected in the womb. Also, I would like to point out that people who suffer with anything are more likely to commit suicide; for example, bipolar and schizophrenic people are more likely to commit suicide than people who are not affected with mental disorders, as terminal cancer patients are more likely to commit suicide than people with positive prognoses (www.cdc.gov).

Jill... well all of you...

This supposed and foolish dilemma Jill's proposing can easily go both ways. Would the radically religious be so compelled to suddenly embrace abortion upon finding the fetus is gay! There's no doubt in mind that people like Fred Phelps would condone if not encourage such a thing.

Also, The Rev. advocating therapy to correct the condition of the fetus really calls into question what "sanctity of life" means to these people.

Finally, asking when an abortion is justified or not is NOT the legitimate question or concern for which prolife is concerned. This is an emotionally loaded distraction. The genuine question is when should a woman be forced to do something with her body against her will, and there is a clear and obvious precedence. In no society on earth does someone have a right to life so long as another persons body or parts of it required to facilitate that life. That body, or parts of it, must be volunteered willingly.

If prolife ever wants to win a court case, they need to stop wasting their time and effort pretending this is something that is not, just so they can get people excited. Even the most pious conservative Judge is going to rule against such a ruse. Wake up people!

Best,
Cameron

Samantha,

Also, I would like to point out that people who suffer with anything are more likely to commit suicide; for example, bipolar and schizophrenic people are more likely to commit suicide than people who are not affected with mental disorders, as terminal cancer patients are more likely to commit suicide than people with positive prognoses

I'm confused Samantha. Your upset because it was claimed that perhaps the diagnosis of a mental disorder should never have been there in the first place, but then you say that homosexuals are depressed because they are suffering the same as anyone with a mental disorder (schizophrenia, bipolar)...I don't get it.

MK

Cameron,

Jill didn't propose this dilemma. Albert Mohler did. Jill never said how she felt one way or the other.

The article is supposed to start a conversation about the slippery slope that abortion affords the public.
As I have stated before, 80% of children with down syndrome are aborted for no other reason than they have down syndrome.

What's to stop people (I would not be one of them, and tho I can't speak for Jill my guess would be that since she is opposed to aborting anyone, neither would she) from aborting any pre-born child because of his sexual orientation, mental abilities or eye color.

Finally, asking when an abortion is justified or not is NOT the legitimate question or concern for which pro-life is concerned.

Nobody in the prolife movement would ever have to ask when an abortion is justified because the answer is written on the heart of every prolifer in the movement. It is never justified. Never.

MK

Homosexuality differs from the societal norm, and people in such conditions are categorically more likely to commit suicide in almost any instance. A few differing qualities, such as immense wealth or fame, may not make one more suicidal, although even these instances are questionable. However, taking any group that is marginally different from society's percieved norm and studying their suicidal tendencies will show that they are more likely to kill themselves. If you dont believe me, look up a disorder.

And MK, the international abortion rate due to Down Syndrome is not 80% according to my reading. Of course, this reflects pregnancies in which the prenatal testing was available for the disorder. In 2002, 91-93% of pregnancies of an individual affected with Trisomy 21 were terminated.

(Caroline Mansfield, Suellen Hopfer, Theresa M. Marteau (1999). "Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review". Prenatal Diagnosis 19 (9): 808-812. PMID 10521836 This is similar to 90% results found by David W. Britt, Samantha T. Risinger, Virginia Miller, Mary K. Mans, Eric L. Krivchenia, Mark I. Evans (1999). "Determinants of parental decisions after the prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: Bringing in context". American Journal of Medical Genetics 93 (5): 410 - 416. PMID 10951466).

Samantha,
I wasn't speaking of international abortions...I was referring to abortions in our country.

I said 80%, you say 93%. Sorry Samantha, that doesn't bode well for your side. I shudder at the thought of 80%, I want to throw-up at the thought of 93%.

However, taking any group that is marginally different from society's percieved norm and studying their suicidal tendencies will show that they are more likely to kill themselves. If you dont believe me, look up a disorder.

I would love to look up the "disorder" of homosexuality, but it doesn't exist...remember?

It's not a disorder. There is nothing morally wrong with. There is nothing wrong with it at all. It is simply another option. There is nothing wrong with homosexuals. They are perfectly normal.
The only reason they are committing suicide is because they have a disorder...

Oh, I see now.

Which reminds me, you failed to address the fact that black people have been discriminated against for as long as they have existed, and their suicide rate isn't above the norm.

mk

I did not say that homosexuality is a disorder. I said that if you look up a disorder you will see that people effected by it are more likely to commit suicide. I chose the word "disorder" because problems that fit into this category are most easily distinguished as deviants from the societal norm.

I dont see what this has to do with gay babies, but ok. From 1980-1995, 65% of all suicides among 15-24 year olds and 58% of all suicides among 25-34 year olds were accounted for by African Americans who took their own lives using a firearm. This statistic does not reflect African Americans who committed suicide by another means.
(http://www.211bigbend.com/hotlines/suicide/AfricanAmericanFactSheet.pdf)
I personally would never abort a pregnancy just because the child was found to have Down Syndrome. However, I have never raised a Down Syndrome child and have never been closely related with anyone who has. Have you?
I have read your posts on homosexuality. You say that you believe that the act is the sin, and yet Jesus never once spoke against homosexuality. Marriage is never defined in the Bible as a relationship that must occur between a man and a woman, and monogamy is not a predominant theme in the OT. Adam and Eve were not married when they conceived Cain and Abel. A gay friend said to me that, technically, if two men chose to marry and have a loving relationship with all aspects of marriage except sex, the marriage would be within the confines of Christianity.

Hisman,

Where are you when I need you? Could use a little help with scripture here...

MK

Samantha,

for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22
While claiming to be wise, they became fools 23
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. 24
Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts 15 for the mutual degradation of their bodies. 25
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27
and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. 28
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. 29
They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips 30
and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. 31
They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Romans 1:21-31

This is from the new testament and I hate to say it but it sounds an awful lot like a lot of people today...(minus the homosexual part) If you notice, it is only when the people turn their back on God, that He then leaves them to their own devices and up springs...well, you read it. Depravity of all sorts. Including homosexuality.

I'm not saying this is proof of anything, just showing that it is indeed in scripture and was believed by Paul to be part of the teachings of Jesus. I don't think he just made it up.

MK

Samantha,

I dont see what this has to do with gay babies, but ok

The point is that today it is down syndrome babies, and tomorrow it could be gay babies. Any babies that are considered undesirable. Cross eyed babies, babies who like music, babies who don't, babies with big feet...

65% of all suicides among 15-24 year olds and 58% of all suicides among 25-34 year olds were accounted for by African Americans who took their own lives using a firearm.

But you must show me why they took their lives...

And then you must show me that as tolerance towards blacks increased, suicides among blacks remained the same. See?

MK

Samantha,

Historically, African Americans have had much lower rates of suicides compared to white Americans. However, beginning in the 1980s, the rates for African American male youth began to rise at a much faster rate than their white counterparts.

This is from the same site you were on I believe.

It says suicide rates were lower than average prior to 1980, when discrimination was higher. So something else must be causing these suicides. Not discrimination.
MK

MK,

Right, it says that homosexual acts are bad, and Paul wrote it. And as far as I know, Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. So as I said, Jesus didnt speak against homosexuality. He spoke against adultery and divorce and judgment. I personally feel that it is a bit of a double standard that Jacob can sleep with Rachel, Leah, and two concubines and still get a nation named after him, but women dont even get the dignity of being redeemed after having been raped.

MK,

Are you black? Because if you are not, I doubt that you are qualified to speak on the current level of discrimination. Before Civil Rights blacks were openly discriminated against; since then, they have failed to greatly improve their overall socioeconomic status as evidenced by the average income of a black person of working age, the number of black vs. white legislators, and the number of scholarships given to caucasians as opposed to blacks. This under-the-table policy of discrimination is much the same as that facing homosexuals today. Discrimination is less socially acceptable, so rather than becoming less frequent, it just becomes less obvious.

I hear what you're saying...

But...there's always a but, isn't there?

Okay, 150 years ago blacks were slaves. Then they were emancipated but treated as inhuman. Then the civil rights movement allowed them to drink from the white mans water fountain. Now Barak Obabma has a good chance of running for president and Condie Rice...well you get the picture.

It is tough for everybody, everywhere, and we all have to put up with some form of discrimination. Some more than others, true. But the black men and women are a gazillion times better off than they were even 20 years ago. Now, all of a sudden, black teenagers are killing themselves. In japan they fence in their balconies because the teen suicide rate is so high. I think it's the pressures caused by uncertainty and immorality that are causing this trend and not discrimination.

The point of this whole argument before we digressed was that while the suicide among gays has not dropped, discrimination against them has. Both groups and many others besides still suffer from discrimination, but these two groups suffer less of it now than in the past. And yet the gay groups suicide rate remains "stable"...You see? And the suicide rate has gotten higher among blacks, but only among male teens.(the very group that are living the same sort of lifestyle as the gay men, only they are living it with women).

And my point of all of those statistics was not to point out that gays are suicidal but to point out that on the whole they don't lead long, or apparently very fulfilling lives. Not all of them, but enough to deduce that the "lifestyle", not the men and women themselves is less than laudable.

MK

Samantha,

AS for the scripture argument...
If you don't accept scripture a viable learning tool, then you can hardly complain about one part or another.

You either have to accept scripture or reject it but you can't pick and choose which scripture you'll accept.

Paul was a representative of Jesus,(God spoke to him directly, remember) and so we trust what he says.

What the apostles bound on earth, was bound in heaven.

You can throw the whole thing out if you want, but you can't only accept what Jesus said because neither one of us heard him speak. We can only go by what the people who did hear him speak claim that he said and then passed this information onto others which is how it came to Paul.

Peter spoke to Jesus, Peter spoke to Paul and all of the biblical scholars in the world agree that Paul was worthy of being included in the "word of God".
MK

Cameron, 2:25p: As MK said, it is not I who proposed this dilemma. It is actually the homosexual movement who started this by saying they are not gay by choice but are born with a gay gene.

If this gay gene is found, the question will be what to do about it? Certainly no pro-lifer would abort a baby with a propensity to be gay. The pro-lifer would be left with two choices: attempt to make a physical change en utero or change the behavior environmentally.

The suggestion that it is anti-life to consider manipulating a theoretical gay gene is ridiculous. If it is considered a gene defect, attempting to correct it would be no different than correcting spina bifida en utero.

Contrary to their name, gays are not happy people. Many, like Rosie O'Donnell say they would not choose this lifestyle and wouldn't want their children to be gay:

"I don't think you choose whether or not you are gay. Who would choose it? It's a very difficult life. You get socially ostracized. You worry all the time if you are in physical danger if you show your affection to your partner. You worry that you're an outcast with your friends and society in general."

"I think life is easier if you're straight," she said. "I hope that they [her kids] are genuinely happy, whatever they are. But if I could pick, would I rather have my children have to go through the struggles of being gay in America or being heterosexual? I would say heterosexual."

You may say homosexuals are unhappy because we make them unhappy. I disagree, of course. I believe their unhappiness is internal, not externally imposed.

Nevertheless, it seems like the humane thing to do is fix the gay gene.

"Nevertheless, it seems like the humane thing to do is fix the gay gene."

I thought that the whole premise for avoiding abortion to start with was that each of these individuals was created by God in His image. How do you justify to yourself that you are improving His creation?

"You either have to accept scripture or reject it but you can't pick and choose which scripture you'll accept."

I dont accept scripture as a viable learning tool for non-Christians, because it is not something that they can (or will) relate to in my experience. These arguments which I posed to you previously were all asked of me by people who support gay marriage, and the answers you gave are about the equivalent of what I could provide. However, I do think that a common misconception is that "good Christians" accept the whole Bible, when this is not true, at least not of any I know. For example, I pointed out the verse in Deuteronomy about rape, in context. Also, we do not follow other rules such as not wearing polyester and not eating pork. A lot of the OT is ignored on the assumption that Jesus nullified "the law" (the first five books) when He actually said that He came to fulfill it. So you see how to outsiders this generates confusion.

Jesus Christ warned all of us not to hurt the least of these.

Go ahead, make His day.

"Nevertheless, it seems like the humane thing to do is fix the gay gene."

Okay, now you're going too far.

You promoted domestic violence (and still haven't told me where it starts in your opinion), you accused liberals of being paedophile and possessing child porn and now you're saying gays are "broken" or sick in some way and need to be "fixed".

How can you call yourself pro-life, Ms. Stanek? I though the idea of your movement was to protect all life, regardless of religion, heritage or sexual orientation. And yet you say gay genes need to be fixed.

You know, with people like you on the pro-life side, we could stop the pro-choice fight; you're doing enough to damage your image.

Samantha, 3/17, 10:18p said, "How do you justify to yourself that you are improving His creation?"

Samantha, isn't that what modern medicine is all about?

Ingrid, 8/18, 7:30a, appears flabbergasted that I think gays are "'broken' or sick in some way and need to be 'fixed'."

Homosexuality is a behavior I believe is aberrant, Ingrid. How is being pro-life incongruent with wanting to correct that? In fact, any other position could be viewed as anti-life. Pro-lifers promote replication of the species. Most homosexuals do not replicate.

Oh, my bad. I thought "pro-life" meant you were really pro-life and not "pro-life, as long as the life is American, unborn, heterosexual and not Muslim". Sorry.

Ingrid, your attempted wedge issue makes no sense. No pro-lifer on this board - or anywhere I daresay - condones aborting children with a theoretical gay gene. There is nothing anti-life about wanting to fix human defects or handicaps.

Ingrid, Ingrid, Ingrid,

Don't you get exhausted spending all that energy on being negative? Open a window, the birds are singing, trees are budding and spring is coming...

Take a walk, breathe the air, eat a peach...

But for heaven's sake, lose the attitude.

Imagine how much further the dialogue would get if every one was civil...listening is a much a part of dialogue as talking. Negativity breeds negativity.

You're bringin' me down, girl. And I want to enjoy the robins...
mk

Hey Ingrid,

I've got an idea. It's Sunday. Why don't you meet me and we'll go to mass together? I'll buy you breakfast!

MK

I was wondering, His Man, about those scripture passages justifying the rape of virgin women...How do we follow those teachings today? It makes me think that it's justifiable subjugation according to the Bible, and I have a hard time believing that God or Jesus would have ever wanted women to be told that their feelings and rights were less than that of men. I don't think Jesus would have condoned rape. I'm asking this in all seriousness and respect. I would like to know if there are any scripture passages that make rape to be a truly awful and heinous crime, and that men who perpetrate this crime are accountable for the violation of another human being (even though she's female...I have never known the Bible to be very pro-woman?). Until the Bible has a sound passage condemning a man for rape outside of a slap on the wrist (paying a fine) and a built-in gift (being able to marry the raped woman), I have a hard time believing that all of it can be true and worthy of being followed. I don't deny that much of it is extraordinarily respectable. I just ask, that with your broader knowledge of the Bible, that you might be able to come up with an answer to the question that I and others have posed. I do not mean to disrespect you or religion in general. Thank you.

*Lyss*

Lyss,

I know you directed your question to someone else, but I have some answers for you, too. In Deuteronomy 22, the same chapter that says that a man who rapes a virgin who is not betrothed has to pay her father for her and marry her, there are other passages about rape. For example, if a man rapes a virgin who is engaged, and no one is around to rescue her, he is to be put to death. However, if the rape occurs in a populated area, they are both to be put to death because she didnt scream loud enough. This is very indicative of the OT mindset that women are simply property.

In the NT, Jesus does a lot to raise the status of women. For example, He speaks to the woman at the well who is both and adulteress and a Gentile. That was about the equivalent of having coffee with a Nazi. And the first person He appeared to after the resurrection was a woman, not a man. Additionally, Paul and Peter both in their letters say that husbands are to respect their wives, which was revolutionary in a day when husbands were considered perfectly within their rights to beat and rape their wives.

Hope that helps some.

Wow you two,k

Who are you and what have you done with the two argumentative girls that were here a couple of weeks ago.

I like you.

Forget Ingrid. She lives in Germany anyway. Do you guys want to go to breakfast?

MK

"Samantha, 3/17, 10:18p said, "How do you justify to yourself that you are improving His creation?"

Samantha, isn't that what modern medicine is all about?"

No, it isnt. Modern medicine is about improving the quality of life and maintaining it as long as possible. It is not about altering a personality trait because conservative Christians feel that it is unacceptable.

"Homosexuality is a behavior I believe is aberrant, Ingrid."

Conservatism is a political position that I find aberrant. Does that mean we need to seek therapy to correct this in the womb? You cannot alter a person's natural state because you disagree with it. This condition has been researched for years and there as yet is no proof that it is either a psychological or genetic condition. Ridding society of homosexuals because you think that heterosexuality is a superior sexual orientation is like trying to rid society of redheads because Arians are superior.

This whole post brings to mind the quandary of deciding which sex organs to keep on children born with both sets.

On the one hand, as christians, we believe that homosexual behavior is a grave sin and should be avoided at all costs (albeit, if you're not christian, you won't see it this way). On the other hand non-christians are not expected to live by our moral code and therefore could easily choose to embrace their homosexual orientation and have sexual relations. Then we would be interfering with their free will. (to choose sin, or to avoid it)

Wouldn't it be ideal if we could change the gene that makes you homosexual in adulthood (or not) according to the wishes of the person with the gene.

Unfortunately, like the child born with both sets of genetalia, waiting till the child is old enough to decide for himself presents a whole new set of psychological problems (ie growing up with two sets of organs and not identifying or being accepted by either sexes.)

Also, what if the person born with homosexual tendencies is being given the opportunity by God to choose a very special path and cooperate fully with God's intended purpose for himself. (ie celibacy). Would we be morally right in removing the very thing (test? we are all tested, all called to something) that this person was given by God to do?

This is why I compared it to Down Syndrome children. Would we change them? Or is this their journey.

This whole question is a tough one. I don't think I am wise enough to make a judgement call on it.

Which is one of the reasons why I love my church. They'll explore it, discuss it, and with the grace of the Holy Spirit make a declaration one way or the other. And I will happily abide by their finding. Besides, that way if their wrong, they get to take the blame not me. I'm just called to obedience. :)

MK

"where's Aquina when you need him?"

Whoa folks,

there's a huge problem here and both pro-lifers and pro-choicers make the same mistakes. There are a least two other beings closely attached to the abortion decision that have not been heard from.

these two are God and the infant .......... how do I propose we listen to silence? perhaps a wee reflection about what is happening throughout pregnancy might help ....

a little food-for-thought:

Jesus makes the claim in John to be the Truth .... note that He does not say that 'He speaks the truth'. So, the truth is not a 'what' (like scientific even medical terminology/truth) but a 'who'. One instance before Pilate is particularly telling here. Jesus had just said that he had come 'to bear witness to the truth'. Pilate then said, 'truth - what is that?' Because Pilate asked the wrong question, he would not be able to see that Truth was a who and not a what .... certainly not the badly beaten and bleeding person before him. We-humans crucified truth that day ... yeppers, and we still kill truth every day!

Jesus also said "whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me!" Abortion is killing the 'least of these'. The fact that people are not Christian or even atheists doesn't matter in the least because who God is does not depend on my-personal belief.

another morsel ... God created everything in the universe as 'unique' - from snowflakes; to planets to the smallest parcels of space; to every grain of sand; each atom; each electron; each electron trajectory; each quark; to every galaxy; to each human ... do we not have an obligation to live our uniqueness?

we adult humans have created the world of comparisons via the process called abstraction .... one of its premium tenants is the concept ::: equal .... it is very secondary to uniqueness.

we all seek intimacy and/or presence. It is a learned-behavior based on our relationship we had with our Mom as we developed (not speaking but learning what presence means) in her womb. As adults, do we not deride this sense of intimacy(innocence) as childish?

We stop the most intimate reality of human existence and claim it has no merit ... we'd best reconsider.

Both the tendency toward suicide and homosexuality are strongly linked to zinc-deficits.

Okay *takes a deep breath* I went too far and I apologize. I know most of us are here for a discussion, like adults and I'm sorry for throwing insults.

But the idea of "fixing" gay genes, as if they were something that's broken - it just freaked me out. Gays are normal people like you and me. Nothing's wrong with them, so there's no need to fix anything. Therefore saying it would be "humane" to do so sounded unbelievable to me.

And this has, of course, nothing to do with the fact that Homosexuals are still discriminated in everyday life.

Ingrid, then why does the increased incidence of homosexual suicide also apply to bastions of homosexual tolerance like San Francisco?

Ingrid,

Thank you, it takes a lot of guts to admit you made a mistake. I applaud you. You may now join Alyssa and Samantha in the "worth respect and hearing out" category.

The baby grass is coming up. I love baby grass. It is so little and sweet and full of hope...Sorry, I digress.

As I said this is a tough topic. When I suggested it, I knew I would be opening up a can of worms. (those robins will be happy anyway), but I think it's important to talk about stuff like this. It makes us better people. All that contemplatin'.

If a child has a club foot, we would'nt hesitate to "fix" it because it is something the person "has".
But being created homosexual is something a person "is" and I don't know...like you, I feel uncomfortable going there. I'm not saying I wouldn't, but it gives me great pause.

I wish we had some open minded (you know, the kind who would "discuss" and not attack or defend) homosexuals that would talk about this issue here on the website. (Any takers?) I don't know what it is like to be gay. I only know one gay man very well, and I love him, but I gotta tell you, he is messed up. He is bi-polar, addicted to drugs, gambling and alcohol. He suffers from depression, and has a hard time holding down a job. He is a delightful human being, funny and warm, artistic and kind...I don't know if his issues stem from his homosexuality or if he would have all these problems independent of his sexual orientation.

I don't know if he would want his homosexuality "fixed" or not. I mean, to take away his homosexuality might be to take away what makes him, him.

The whole thing reminds me of cloning. Messing with stuff you shouldn't be messing with. How do we know what changing this particular gene would do to the rest of him. What if more than one gene is involved. Like diabetes, where you need a specific combo of genes. What would messing with that many genes do to the genetic makeup on the whole?

It feels sort of like human experimentation to me.

But on the other hand...

My head hurts...
mk

Ingrid,

If you're ever in Chicago that offer for breakfast is still open...

(I better get a job...all those breakfasts...)
MK

MK,
Im not sure if you realized this when you were typing this post, but you have actually touched on a very interesting subject here. Theoretically, if the "gay" gene coded solely for the mechanism by which homosexuality manifests itself (someone mentioned earlier that this may be related to zinc) then altering it would not affect any other part of the genome. However, if this gene is part of several genes in a pathway, altering it could lead to a snowball of detrimental effects.

Samantha,

It was intentional. That's why I'm so uncomfortable with messing around with it. A lot of if's if you know what I mean.
MK

MK,
"A lot of ifs if you know what I mean."

HAHAHAHA! :)

Alyssa,

I am not familiar with the Bible's promotion of the rape of virgin women. If you find the story I will research it for you. I know God's Word can be misread, however, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I will get back with you if you give me that info.

The Bible is the most pro-woman book ever written. Jesus allowed his feet to be bathed in perfume with the hair of a prostitue (Mary Magdelene) at the objection of His deciples. He then went on to say that she would be remembered forever, which is what happened as her story was included in the Gospel. I mean, the God of Eternity was broguht into the world by a woman....no man involved. When confonted with the morality of a prostitue by a mob that wanted to stone her He said He who was without sin cast the first stone. In balance, and for her own good, He also told her to go and sin no more, and this out of love for her soul and eternal future.

Read the stories about Hannah, Rebecca, Ruth, Esther, Mary, Mary Magdalene, etc., etc., etc. It's ludicrous to think that God thinks any less of women. In fact the Bible says all are equal.

Please don't believe the lies, read and investigate the Bible for yourself.

The most important thing is that God wants you to be with Him forever. That's why Jesus died for you, because of His love for you. Think about that, really, really think about that. The God of the Universe loving you so much to die for you.

He also wants women to trust Him when confronted with an abortion. It's not a choice. It's a human being. To kill an innocent human being in your womb tells God that you don't trust Him to be able to work it out. He will if you let Him. Trust Him. Trust Him. Trust Him for He is trustworthy and not a man that He could lie.

His Man,

Why did you ignore my posts on this subject and address Alyssa's? I gave you the verse: Dt. 22: 23-29. Specifically, "28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

"It's ludicrous to think that God thinks any less of women. In fact the Bible says all are equal."

"Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands...Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker vessel..."
1Peter 3: 1-7
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
1 Timothy 2:11-12

Alyssa, definitely read the Bible for yourself rather than relying on others' interpretations.

Haha, thanks, Samantha. I know all about those passages that tell me to be silent and never teach a man, and let a man be the leader of a household...all that crap. I almost walked out of church when the priest justified how women are supposed to be subordinate. That made me angry, especially when I know myself to be much more intelligent than most men I know ("suffer not a woman to teach". I find that overwhelmingly insulting,and I'm not trying to be arrogant...I'm sure many women I know would agree that they are also more qualified than many men to speak on certain subjects). I refuse to submit to ANY man just because he IS a man. Even my husband. A marriage is supposed to be 50/50, with give and take. But I'm not going to obey my husband's orders just because I am the wife. That is justified sexism and subjugation. This is why I don't believe that everything in the Bible is worthy of being taken at face value.

Like Dr. Phil says:

If mama ain't happy, ain't NOBODY happy.

Me be subordinate to a man? Like HELL. The leadership of a household is to be shared, not put into the hands of a man solely.

"Will liberal moms who love their hairdressers be as tolerant when faced with the prospect of raising a little stylist of their own?"

Wow, Jill, nice stereotype. Because all gays grow up to be stylist/fashion experts. *rolls eyes* Grow up.

posted this before:

any marriage relationship that is 50/50 is bound to fail big-time ..............
because a marriage is not an addition 50 + 50 but is more of a multiplication. so, .5 X .5 = .25 or 1/4 a marriage. A spouse here spends so much effort judging whether what comes in that 50 the marriage trust is shot! Only when there is total (100%) commitment does it work. So, 1.0 X 1.0 = 1 marriage.

Corollary: 1.0 X 1.0 X 1.0 (child) = 1 family

..................
the thing about the zinc is far-out: I could easily list not hundreds but thousands of diseases (and ailments) that derive from such a deficit ... and as one who likely suffers from one of its extensive DNA-affiliation, it sure is not pleasant! Just one example cystic fibrosis (not mine) but it gives you the picture. The researchers thought that sufficient zinc and vitamin B6 would eliminate 90% of genetic abnormalities.

John, thank you for your view on marriage. My BIG point, however, was that I wouldn't "obey" my husband because the church says I should. I wouldn't do something I was uncomfortable with even if he is my husband. If I enter into a marriage, I don't want to be considered the "lesser" of the two partners. Love, yes...honor, yes...but obey? That's just insulting to ever suggest. I am not subordinate to ANY man because of my gender, I sure as hell shouldn't be subordinate to the man I love.

Danielle, 5:03p: That quote was cut and pasted directly from the gay magazine Radar.

Alyssa,Hi I apologize to you as well. I was gone for a few.I realize that the abortion debate can get heated,and it almost always does.

Alyssa--
Have you ever thought about becoming Methodist?

Know what's funny, Samantha? My mom is Methodist, my father is Catholic. It's funny you should mention that...I've been raised knowing both, but I was confirmed Catholic (I know that will incite gasps from both sides of the debate, tee hee). My dad is actually a Knight of Columbus. (DOUBLE GASP)

Oooohhhhh Alyssa,

There is hope yet.
He can come to breakfast too.
What the heck, bring mom. We'll straighten her out to while we're at it. :)

MK

Haha, do you really wanna know WHERE I get my attitude? Invite my mom at your own risk (giggle...she's awesome).

Well we'll just pick a restaurant with an alley...that way mom and I can duke it out without disturbing the rest of the diners. That would be less embarrassing than dad wearing the feathered hat!

Just kidding on both counts. But if mom gets too fiesty, she'll have to pay for her own breakfast.

Just kidding about that too.
mk

No feistier than I. She's terribly funny. As is my dad...they have a great sense of humor. My dad is more outwardly funny though. You should see the laugh crinkles he has at the corners of his eyes. (I am most definitely a daddy's girl...the first thing out of his mouth when I was born was "Oh God...dating").

Alyssa,

A very wise man, feathered hat and all.
He knew even back then the struggles he and you would have to go through in learning the in's and out's of the opposite sex. You should talk to him sometime about his views on the church, sex, marriage...he might surprise you. And you him...tee hee.

mk

your all sick people you carnt have gay babies