Planned Parenthood's CEO Cecile Richards: Military abortion clinics "a sign of the times"?

burris gotcha.jpgI wrote a couple weeks ago that pro-abort Democrat US Sen. Roland Burris had introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would force all military medical facilities to make privately financed abortions available.

The amendment passed in the Senate Armed Services Committee along party lines (except Ben Nelson) and is now headed toward a showdown on the Senate floor.

The defense authorization bill passed without any such amendment in the House, meaning if the abortion amendment remains intact, a House/Senate conference committee will decide its fate....

mccain dadt.jpgKeep an eye on the filibuster AZ Sen. John McCain is attempting to wage on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal, also in the defense bill. The other side may attempt to compromise by dropping Burris's amendment as a bargaining chip... or not. Even if that happens, pro-lifers cannot support a defense bill containing DADT. If DADT remains, it would only be a matter of time before abortion on demand becomes a component of the military.

While the mood of the country is definitely swinging pro-life, as evidenced by recent polls and also a plethora of pro-life legislation introduced and passed on the state level, tone deaf pro-abort ideologues controlling the Congress and White House have been and will push abortion until the clock runs out on their possession of power, hopefully in November 2010. But a lot of damage can be done until then, as the military abortion amendment demonstrates.

Meanwhile the abortion industry behind the push puts on a happy false face. as this June 17 Politico article shows:

With a couple of quiet changes to long-standing rules, the military is on track to make 2010 a year in which its reproductive health policies are significantly liberalized.

In February, the military began requiring all of its hospitals to stock emergency contraceptives. And now, a Senate amendment to the defense authorization bill would authorize military hospitals to perform elective abortions.

cecile richards military abortions.jpg

"I do think it's a sign of the times," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "It's the recognition that reproductive health care for women is basic health care. The world has changed, and women play a larger role in the military. These are all very positive steps."

These shifts in military policy are particularly notable in light of the numerous anti-abortion provisions flying through state legislatures. Catalyzed by the health reform debate, anti-abortion advocates have just passed some of the most restrictive abortion laws in recent memory....

The federal government usually has little influence on reproductive health policy....

So it's rare to see much movement on abortion policy at the federal level. Anti-abortion advocates frame the shift toward more liberal reproductive rights within the military as driven by a Democratic Congress and a pro-abortion-rights administration.

"They're using the military as a wedge and a way to implement their agenda," Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, said of her opponents. "I see them being very craven in looking to use the military to put the stamp of approval of federal government on abortion."...

Current law, passed by congressional Republicans in 1995, bars any elective abortions at military hospitals....

To be sure, legislators have introduced similar amendments before, all of which have failed. But the proposal, sponsored by Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL), hits the floor in a markedly different atmosphere: It's the first to be proposed during the Obama administration and may avoid a heated debate, with most social activists focused on the "don't ask, don't tell" provision.

Abortion rights groups are confident that, this time around, the political landscape is amenable to a decision in their favor.

"In the Senate, things are good," said Richards.... "The good thing is, this amendment puts the issue squarely on the table: How can you prohibit women serving overseas from having the same rights as women in the United States?"

Anti-abortion-rights advocates like Americans United for Life have already begun laying groundwork for a campaign to keep the military abortion ban in place and lobbying legislators to vote down the amendment when it comes to the floor....

But privately, anti-abortion advocates admit they're uncertain whether they have the votes to stand in the way. "Our hope would be that the amendment is stripped on the Senate floor, but right now we don't have a majority of pro-life members," one anti-abortion advocate told Politico....

Activists on both sides of the issue expect a vote by the end of this month at the earliest and definitely before the summer recess.

[Photo of Richards via Politico]


Comments:

Abortion and health care should not be used in the same sentence. Use your vote, people!

Posted by: Courtnay at June 17, 2010 9:47 AM


Woman pleads guilty to accessing Obama's student loan records

qctimes.com/187208c6-796a-11df-9bcb-001cc4c03286.html

Mercedes Costoyas, 53, of Iowa City, is one of nine people charged with exceeding authorized computer access

She also faces deportation, according to discussion during the plea hearing, but Judge James Gritzner said “that issue is for another court on another day.”

--------------------------------------------------

Oh the irony.

Apparently an undocumented alien accessed b.o.'s student loan records. One can only speculate as to her motives.

Maybe she figured if an undocumented alien could be elected president of these United States, then she could also live and work here with impunity.

(I know this has nothing to do with abortion in the military or don't, don't tell. Unless you are an undocumented alien serving in the U.S. military. The democRATS want to extend don't ask, don't tell to police officers asking people in their custody about their imigrant status.)

Posted by: yor bro ken at June 17, 2010 9:51 AM


This man did not win his seat fair and square and snuck into D.C. in a dastardly manner. Now he is catering to the cockroaches of society in hopes that they can work their dirty deeds and keep him in office come election time.

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 17, 2010 9:53 AM


Are members of the military begging for more abortion rights?

Posted by: Janet at June 17, 2010 10:05 AM


Even if that happens, pro-lifers cannot support a defense bill containing DADT. If DADT remains, it would only be a matter of time before abortion on demand becomes a component of the military.
Huh? Why on earth would that be? Do gay people have more abortions? Seems a bit counterintuitive to me! I think that if the bill passes without abortion funding and with a repeal of DADT, that would be a great outcome. It's about time the LGBT community and pro-life movement stopped being enemies.

Posted by: Kelsey at June 17, 2010 11:01 AM


Uh, the military is likely terrified at the quality of doctors they will be able to recruit if those doctors know they will have to perform abortions. Of all highly trained professionals in the STEM fields, doctors have the highest rate of believing in a six day creation (about 60% IIRC) indicating a very high level of religiosity among doctors.

Doctors are important for saving the lives of injured soldiers. The military wants the best it can get. That is already a tall order. Adding a requirement to perform abortions would slash the size of the pool of interested quality candidates. Not that pro-aborts care about the lives of soldiers. Their baby killing religion trumps all sense of pragmatism.

Posted by: hippie at June 17, 2010 11:08 AM


I assume that you're actually talking about the DADT repeal, not DADT itself. The post is a little confusing. It is the REPEAL of DADT that is currently proposed in the defense bill.

Posted by: Kelsey at June 17, 2010 11:09 AM



Are members of the military begging for more abortion rights?

Posted by: Janet at June 17, 2010 10:05 AM

Awesome point!

Of course not!

Posted by: hippie at June 17, 2010 11:12 AM


Kelsey, the "repeal" uses stealth language, as usual, to get the liberal way.

And as I often say, homosexual advocates are the flip side of abortion advocates: They both want illicit sex without consequences. Note where one goes, the other follows.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 17, 2010 11:28 AM


I read that the last time this happened (government paying for military abortions), many doctors refused to do them.

Posted by: phillymiss at June 17, 2010 11:37 AM


"Not that pro-aborts care about the lives of soldiers."

I totally agree...not to mention the risk in the security of this once great nation.

If they don't care for the life of an innocent, precious unborn..why would anybody else's life matter to them as long as they can keep their despicable agenda.

Now who's shoving their beliefs down someone else's throat?

Posted by: RSD at June 17, 2010 11:38 AM


From Politico:

Anti-abortion-rights advocates like Americans United for Life have already begun laying groundwork for a campaign to keep the military abortion ban in place and lobbying legislators to vote down the amendment when it comes to the floor.

“It’s particularly poignant and tragic that others are making the argument that these things can help keep troops in the field,” said Yoest. “We’re very concerned about it, and it’s something we will have to rally people against.”

Kudos to Yoest and AUL for their campaign. Just wondering how "privacy", the right that abortion "rights" are based on, can possibly be afforded to military women who are undergoing the abortion procedure while ACTIVELY SERVING in the MILITARY. There is a RECOVERY period and the medical abortions can take several agonizing days to complete. Will they be given sick days? Medical leave? Will it be kept a secret from Superiors? It's a more complicated issue. Surely Roland Burris is thinking of abortion as a "quick fix" to an everyday female medical "problem", or he isn't thinking at all.


Posted by: Janet at June 17, 2010 11:42 AM


Okay, a minor correction. 59% of US doctors believe in life after death. 76% of doctors describe themselves as religious.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/zoom/html/2002345131.html

I don't remember where I saw the percent who believe in creationism.

Posted by: hippie at June 17, 2010 11:44 AM


That should be: "It's a more complicated issue than the supporting politicians realize."

Posted by: Janet at June 17, 2010 11:44 AM


Roland Burris "thinking" is an oxymoron...

Posted by: RSD at June 17, 2010 11:48 AM


Hmm, couldn't find the survey I saw last year comparing other scientists to doctors. The closest I could find was an article about doctors.

http://www.physorg.com/news6847.html


Still, discouraging doctors by making them commit abortions is a bad idea.

Posted by: hippie at June 17, 2010 11:53 AM


Jill, I respectfully disagree. Equal rights for gays is not in any way comparable to dismembering innocent children and calling it a "right." My generation is mostly pro-life AND mostly pro-LGBT. We're ready to forge a great alliance in the next 10 to 20 years-- and those currently in power will do anything to stop us.

I agree that the abortion advocates are moving now because they're worried they'll be booted out in the next election. But I also suspect that they LOVE the idea of tying their abortion goals to the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. This way, people who oppose the bill on pro-life grounds can be charged with anti-gay bigotry, and those who support the bill for gay rights reasons can be stigmatized as baby killers. Divide and conquer. These sleazeballs know exactly what they're doing, and I'm afraid you've fallen right into their trap.

Posted by: Kelsey at June 17, 2010 12:28 PM


I didn't care one way or the other about DADT UNTIL I talked to a National Guardsman who has done one tour in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. He absolutely disagrees with repeal because of barracks and troop morale.

Before you say its ridiculous to think gay men and women would think about other enlisted men/women in a sexual way think about putting men/women in co-ed heterosexual barracks. It is simple human nature to be drawn to someone you find sexually attractive, even if they dont feel the same. This puts the men/women in an uncomfortable situation that they shouldn't have to deal with. Not only that but in the name of political correctness will the military EVER prosecute a case of sexual harassment against someone who is gay? Can you just hear the outrage?

Posted by: Kristen at June 17, 2010 12:58 PM


"My generation is mostly pro-life AND mostly pro-LGBT"

Hey Kelsey, I respectfully disagree with your statement and do realize that views are more than likely different from one region to the next.

It is my feeling that the majority of young people are sympathetic but do not condone LGBT behaviors or gay marriages.

I believe the majority remain silent, myself included, for fear that they will be called haters as those who have spoken out about this have been. Disagreeing with the behavior is not the same as hating the individuals. Discrimination against anyone is wrong however disagreeing with what one believes to be sinful behavior is not hating others. I can hate what the abortionist does but not hate the abortionist.

I do however agree with you that the proaborts will try to use these differing beliefs in attempts to divide and conquer.

Prolifers need to remain tough in spite of our other differences and remain focused on the issue at hand i.e. the Unborn's Right to Life.

Peace.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 17, 2010 1:46 PM


"...and those currently in power will do anything to stop us." - Kelsey

Are you in another planet or something, Kelsey?
The Obama administration is doing all it can to repeal the DADT policy...

Posted by: RSD at June 17, 2010 1:54 PM


Kelsey, you disagree I think because you are not aware of some things. Both homosexual behavior and the contraceptive mentality hinge on the same thing: "Other humans exist to satisfy me and my sexual desires." When sex is no longer considered pro-creative but rather recreational, then the result is that pregnancy is considered a failure of the intended outcome: sexual pleasure only. What makes someone gay is obviously complicated (it may be environmental, it may also be related to hormones in drugs and food, it may be lack of parental nurturing, it may result as a reaction to childhood trauma). Gay people cannot be relied on to act as one, pro-life body. It may be true that many gay people are pro-life. However, among my own friends this is not the case. Those who are gay are also pro-abortion, to a person. I do not have any gay friends who approve of my pro-life activities. In fact, it is something that I have to downplay and be graceful in the face of their hateful and spiteful comments to me in person and on social networking websites. I have even considered breaking off my friendships with them over this issue. I have not written anti-gay rhetoric on my webpage, but my gay friends have written anti-pro-life rhetoric on theirs, and most heartbreaking is that some of them are young like you. I can only hope that they come to their senses soon. How lucky for you that you have gay friends who are pro-life. But in my neck of the woods, they're mighty scarce.

Posted by: ninek at June 17, 2010 1:55 PM


Posted by: RSD at June 17, 2010 1:54 PM
I meant they'll do anything to prevent us from forging alliances. Obviously yes, the Obama administration supports a repeal of DADT.

Posted by: Kelsey at June 17, 2010 3:01 PM


When sex is no longer considered pro-creative but rather recreational, then the result is that pregnancy is considered a failure of the intended outcome: sexual pleasure only.
I don't think procreation and pleasure are the only two options. Sex is also a deeply emotional act. People who are infertile, for example, do not necessarily regard sex in a lustful, shallow way.

Gay people cannot be relied on to act as one, pro-life body.
And sadly, neither can straight people. That doesn't mean we don't reach out and give them a chance.

How lucky for you that you have gay friends who are pro-life. But in my neck of the woods, they're mighty scarce.
I definitely am lucky. And statistically speaking, you're right: most gay people aren't pro-life. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that the fundamentalist Christian wing of the pro-life movement has long rejected them, and the pro-abortion lobby was more than happy to step up and recruit them.

I believe that change is coming. Only time will tell if I'm right.

Posted by: Kelsey at June 17, 2010 3:13 PM


It's a free country, Kelsey..nothing preventing you from forging alliances..it's one of the Bill of Rights: Freedom of assembly and to protest...

You may want to read up on it someday..

Posted by: RSD at June 17, 2010 3:16 PM


Does anyone have ANY idea how difficult it can be to sometimes get an appointment on a military base? Because the doctors who go into the military don't make the kind of money the doctors in the private sector do there is a shortage of them. Requiring certain doctors to perform abortions, when MOST won't do it, is going to hurt military medicine even worse. I pray that this doesn't pass.

I have to agree with Kel about DADT. I think it's ridiculous that everywhere else people can be out and in the military they have to keep their sexuality under wraps. It's not like the law can keep people from being gay, only being open about it.

Posted by: militarywifey at June 17, 2010 3:16 PM


"And as I often say, homosexual advocates are the flip side of abortion advocates: They both want illicit sex without consequences. Note where one goes, the other follows."

I totally disagree. Homosexuality involves romance, sexual attraction and sex that some people don't approve of, but I think we can all agree that gay relationships don't involve deliberately ending the life of a human being any more than straight relationships do.

Homosexuality is illicit in various religions, but it's not illicit under American law as long as no one's a minor and no one's having sex in public or something like that. What "consequences" do you think gay people should have, Jill?

I agree that a lot of people forget or disregard the fact that heterosexual vaginal intercourse is biologically designed for procreation, but I don't think that means people shouldn't have sex only when it has a chance of leading to procreation. If "Jim" and "Betty" have been married for fifty years and there's still a sexual aspect to their relationship, well, God bless them. If "Steve" and "Melissa" are expecting a baby in six months and have sex during the pregnancy, well, God bless them too.

As for DADT, I think it's ridiculous that gay people in the military can't even mention that they miss their boyfriend/girlfriend back home. I mean, I can just see it...

Guy 1: Hey, man, who are you e-mailing?
Guy 2: Um, somebody back home.
Guy 1: Yeah? Friend of yours?
Guy 2: ...Yeah.

Guy 1: You know what? When this tour's over, I want to introduce you to my sister. You guys would totally hit it off.
Guy 2: Yeah?
Guy 1: Yeah - and she seriously needs to stop dating all these losers she finds.
Guy 2: No offense, but I'm not interested in dating your sister.
Guy 1: Got a girlfriend already?
Guy 2: ...No.
Guy 1: Well, okay, but you have to meet her. You're totally her type.
Guy 2: I don't think so.

Et cetera, et cetera.

Posted by: Marauder at June 17, 2010 3:58 PM


Well put marauder.

In the article posted it states "If DADT remains, it would only be a matter of time before abortion on demand becomes a component of the military."

Is this stating that if DADT remains in militaries operating procedures than abortion on demand will necessarily be included? This appears to be a non-sequitor as much as saying if DADT was removed it would lead to abortion on demand.

I'm not following.

Posted by: Dave at June 17, 2010 4:41 PM


Cecile Richards says: "How can you prevent women serving overseas from having the same rights as women in the United States?"

Talk about an empty argument! People in the U.S. military have never had the same rights as civilians in the U.S. Never! We have a lot of rights in the U.S.; freedom of speach, religion, expression, assembly, certain rights when we are accused of a crime, etc. etc. etc.
But when you join the military, many of these rights are put on hold. We've all heard the talk about how the military and the people in it fight for our freedoms. That notwithstanding, when you enter the military, you give up a lot of the rights and freedoms you have as a U.S. citizen, at least for the time that you're in the military. Anyone who has a problem with that shouldn't join the military.

If Cecile Richards is so concerned about the people in uniform not having the same rights as civilians back home, she can work to increase the rights to freedom of speech, expression, and religion in the military (among other things).
If women in the military have the right to unfettered abortion (but not necessarily the right to choose life), it will lead to another situation of abortion being the only right that's really granted.
I suppose that ugly situation is just fine with the likes of Cecile Richards.

Posted by: Ceecee at June 17, 2010 5:07 PM


The link betweent the social planners who advocate child killing and homosexuality is quite simple. People who engage in homosexual acts do not reproduce biologically.

That is why social planners have worked as hard to destigmatize homosexuality as they have to make child killing a socially acceptable form of birth control.

It is all about reducing the population world wide to an arbitrary number the social planners have determined is acceptable.

These 'elitist' have no compunction about killing people outright to achieve their goals.

Humanist throughout recorded history have deliberately killed tens of millions of people whom they deemed, not just expendable, but superflous.

Posted by: yor bro ken at June 17, 2010 5:35 PM


Ceecee,

There are some HUGE problems that could be caused by abortions on military bases. Single mothers and even active duty mothers get treated not so well in the military (i.e. deployments and the like). What will happened if this is allowed? Well military commanders who want to deploy single mothers or an active duty mother can't deploy a woman while pregnant. If they get word of a woman being pregnant they could strongly encourage her to abort so that she can serve a deployment. Also other troops could also see the pregnancy of a fellow soldier as a nuisance that could be solved, since they are having to deploy. There is already negative sentiment sometimes towards fellow servicemembers who don't deploy because they are pregnant coming from their peers. How much worse will this get when a servicemember's pregnancy is viewed as only a "choice"?

Not to say this will happen all the time, but it very well could happen in certain circles. Ever since pregnancy has been viewed as nothing more than a "choice" single mothers have borne a burden. Single active duty mothers already face a lot of struggles from an exhausting job they have to deal with. I fear this will only make the climate more hostile towards them.

Posted by: militarywifey at June 17, 2010 5:44 PM


"People in the U.S. military have never had the same rights as civilians in the U.S. Never!"

Posted by: Ceecee at June 17, 2010 5:07 PM

Excuse Me? Hello? Not only do the fine members of our military have the same rights as the rest of us but foreign nationals, in our military, have a faster path to citizenship - as they should. All Americans have the same rights under the US Constitution- to say otherwise is to say that US military are discriminated against - and that it, clearly, unconsitutional. I served my country - a country that affored me the same rights as a "grunt" as I would have as a "civvie." For you to say that my country, the country I put my life on the line for (in Vietnam), gave me less rights as a soldier is not only uninformed - but offensive and un-American. And BTW, some of the best soldiers in my platoon were gay - we knew it but the brass didn't because it would have meant a dishonorable discharge. One of my best friends, a closeted gay man and a Vietnam vet, served with the honor guard for the funeral of General Omar Bradley. So if you want to talk abortion, that's one thing - but impugning the honor and service of gay soldiers, who want nothing more than to be able to be themselves without fear of discharge, is disgusting.

Thank You

Posted by: Bob, former Spec 4 Vietnam at June 17, 2010 5:45 PM


Oh, wow.

So, "they" want to destigmatize homosexuality so less people have children (This presumes that destigmatizing will lead to large amounts of people suddenly turning homosexual). Less children fits into the "plan", which includes BC, because the overall goal of unknown elitists is to keep the world population at an arbitrary number.

k

Anyone with a little less tinfoil that can answer about what appears to be a non-sequitor between DADT and "abortion on demand"?

Posted by: Dave at June 17, 2010 5:49 PM


Interesting sociological note. The 20th century seems to be the first in history where any people felt a commonality with others in their generation. The default is for people primarily to feel something in common with their family and in a general sense with their nation. The others in their generation were competition.

Posted by: hippie at June 17, 2010 6:24 PM


What are some factors that you think arecausing this, hippie? This trend predates social networking sites, perhaps media exposure coupled with increasing ways of communication?

Posted by: Dave at June 17, 2010 6:31 PM


Kelsey, you have given me food for thought; I'm encouraged by the pro-life sentiments of the younger generation, despite our differences.

I forgot to mention - Cecile's blood red suit with the gold cross on the label is DISGUSTING. I pray daily for her conversion (to pro-life) but oh how she tries my patience!!! I have to go cleanse my palate with Eduardo's story!

Posted by: ninek at June 17, 2010 7:16 PM


I don't think I will ever be able to see a connection between abortion and homosexuality.

On one hand, you have and innocent person being killed.

On the other hand you have a person who happens to be attracted to others of the same sex.

I have heard the arguments that the connection is that both stem from a lust for illicit sex (or something like that). I don't see it, and I don't think most people in my generation do. Being gay has nothing to do with wanting to have any kind of sex any way you can get it. There is nothing illicit about 2 people in love.

Posted by: jodes at June 17, 2010 7:33 PM


MilitaryWifey: I agree with you that allowing abortions on military bases will hurt women in the military more than help them. I am totally pro-life, and notice the hardships women face because of legal abortions, with or without military issues involved.
I long for the day when Roe v. Wade is reversed. It will make a much safer world for women and children.

Posted by: Ceecee at June 17, 2010 7:47 PM


Those of us who are older know why there is a connection and why homosexuality is not merely about love and romance. The reasons for people acting out homosexual relations are complicated and varied. Take for example my college friend I'll call Suzie. Suzie was raped at age 12 by a male close to the family. She had not psychologically recovered by college. She believed she was a lesbian and embarked over the years in a series of very dysfunctional sexual relationships with women. She was still a mess last I heard a few years ago. Is she really lesbian? Will politics heal her? Will she find her soulmate in another woman? Or, is she in need of healing? Is she not like a person who's broken bone was never set properly? She thinks she loves her girlfriends, but she makes mental mincemeat of them. Politics is not what she needs. Healing is what she needs. She is not alone, there are a lot of women acting out with other women who are wounded, who are hiding out in homosexual relationships. There is a deeper thing going on than "oh just let her marry her girlfriend!" Marrying her girlfriend is not the solution to her deeper problems.

Posted by: ninek at June 17, 2010 7:49 PM


ninek, while that is a sad situation, in my experience, that is not the norm.
Not a single one of my gay friends has been raped or molested either as a child or adult.

I have talked, very openly, to many of them about it. And each one of them has said roughly the same thing.
"I don't know why I am attracted to men, just like you don't know why you are. I just am."

Are these people damaged? No. Do they need healing? No.

While there are cases where the person 'wants' to be gay because of a traumatic past, I don't believe, again based on my experience, that this is a normal thing for most gay people.


You say homosexuality is not all about romance and love. I say it's not all about 'illicit' sex and promiscuity.

Posted by: jodes at June 17, 2010 7:58 PM


"While there are cases where the person 'wants' to be gay because of a traumatic past, I don't believe, again based on my experience, that this is a normal thing for most gay people."

Yeah, people have all sorts of various reactions to sexual abuse.

I've said some version of this before, but this looks like a good time and place to say it again: I'm bisexual. I have never been raped, molested, beaten, or abused in any way. My parents were married when I was born and are still married. Except for a few distant cousins, no one in my family is divorced. I've never tried drugs, I've never tried smoking, and the last time I had any alcohol was when my mom let me have a sip of beer when I was ten. (I thought it was gross.)

My mom stayed at home with me when I was a kid. She has degrees in psychology and education. I spent my childhood readings books, playing outside, and drawing pictures. I went to a private Catholic school from kindergarten through the end of high school. One of my uncles is a priest. My family goes to church every Sunday. I've been baptized and confirmed. We see our extended family frequently. All four grandparents were alive until I was nineteen. My parents didn't wish I was a boy, or believe there was anything essentially wrong with me. I have never been in an emotionally harmful romantic relationship. I graduated from both high school and college. I've never been poor, homeless, or starving. I do have depression, which runs on both sides of my family, and ADD, which runs on at least one side of the family. Both are being successfully treated.

In other words, I had almost a hyper-normal childhood, and I'm still bisexual. Like Jodes says, it just happens.

Posted by: Marauder at June 17, 2010 9:09 PM


Posted by: militarywifey at June 17, 2010 5:44 PM

I agree. I believe there are already many (heaven knows how many exactly) single, female soldiers who get abortions because they are afraid that having a child will harm their military career. Many male SMs think that female soldiers who become pregnant are doing it "on purpose" in order to shirk their duties, especially if they happen to become pregnant shortly before a deployment. I'm sure some female soldiers do that on purpose to avoid a deployment, but I don't think that is necessarily the case every time. There is such a thing as a "surprise" baby, after all. I hate that kind of assumption because it sometimes puts pressure on the female soldier to abort before her chain of command finds out about the baby.

Posted by: Marauder at June 17, 2010 9:09 PM

Marauder, I was wondering - and don't answer this if you don't want to - just out of curiosity, how is your relationship with your mother? Close, or is there unresolved resentment/anger/other baggage?

I have a friend who came out of the closet as a lesbian after we graduated HS (we went to school together). If I recall, her relationship with her mother wasn't all that great. There are some theories about how some people become gay/lesbian which has to do with one's relationship with their same-gender parent.

Posted by: army_wife at June 17, 2010 10:43 PM


Just to be clear ninek, you are not claiming that homosexuals are all so because they were abused. Right?

The language being used here is troublesome including armywife's pondering of why people "turn" gay. While it is possible for one to choose to act in a certain manner, my encounters with the homosexual community has shown love equal to the greatest of that you will find in heterosexuals.

My thoughts on homosexuality (and I'm not refering to the two drunk college kids making out) is that it is a misfiring of the emotions we bundle together and call love. This isn't to say that it's unnatural or 'illicit'. These people truly have a deep love for one another just as you and I have for our spouses. However, where these normally project towards opposite genders, instead they are directed at the same sex through a different wiring of the brain.

It's a misfiring but it's a state they were born with and is as natural for them as ours is for us. I will agree though that trauma and social pressures can change outward behavior, the extent to which they affect the mind though I don't know.

Posted by: Dave at June 18, 2010 12:39 AM


"There is nothing illicit about 2 people in love."
Posted by: jodes at June 17, 2010 7:33 PM

At the end of my marriage, my ex and his mistress told me they were "in love". When it was too late to save the marriage and the newness of his mistress wore off, the ex told me he was "in love" with me, not her. I believe he truly believed he was in love with both of us in a fairly short span of time. However, his "love" with his mistress was illicit at least in my view and hurt many people.

Interestingly, my ex was diagnosed bi-polar and most likely would have been diagnosed ADHD when he was younger. I work with special needs and I see impulse-control issues in teens with ADD/ADHD that affects all parts of their lives, including their sexuality.

I personally believe I was predisposed to alcoholism but it is my choice to have that first drink and it is work to keep myself in check in this area. I think some of us are more prone to violence and homosexuality but we still have that choice to use our fists, get that abortion or act on that sexual attraction. I believe we are all 'damaged' in one way or another and many faiths call this sin. Making a violent act like abortion legal says alot about humanity's sinfulness as a whole.

I don't believe love is a feeling, I believe it is a choice.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 18, 2010 4:25 AM


army_wife: I have a great relationship with my mother. She was a stay-at-home mom for my whole childhood and I'm an only child, so we're very close to each other. We also have a lot of the same interests - she taught me how to knit and crochet, and hopefully one of these days we'll get around to how to use the sewing machine. :D

Praxedes: I'm sorry about your ex-husband. You're right that people with ADD can have issues with impulse control, and that people are responsible for their own behavior. Personally, I've never had issues with impulsivity and sexuality; my boyfriend and I have been together for seven and a half years and have always had a monogamous relationship. We're getting married sometime in May 2012 after we finish school and have had about a year to work and get some financial stuff sorted out.

If people of any sexual orientation are promiscuous, I think that is a problem and is probably indicative of more problems. However, I don't see and have never seen the problem with people who are attracted to the same sex dating people of the same sex and eventually falling in love and having committed, monogamous relationships.

Posted by: Marauder at June 18, 2010 6:27 AM


Marauder, I'm glad your relationship with your mother is and was so good. Not all of us have that. :-) And despite theories and probabilities, people are always individuals and there will always be variations from what is expected.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 18, 2010 4:25 AM
I agree with a lot of what you said. I do have ADD and I know how it is to have certain weaknesses (for me, anger, impulsivity, emotional excitability). Although I am ultimately responsible for my own behavior, I also know how difficult it is when you have a weakness in a certain area. This is the way I view LGBT...Q. I don't think that it would be OK for me to indulge my weaknesses (i.e., vent my anger constantly or just allow myself to impulsively do whatever I felt like) any more than it would be for anyone else to do so, the LGBT community included. I honestly do say that without malice. I think all people are valuable, unique individuals that can contribute to society and deserve to be valued and appreciated, even if I disagree with some of their actions. I just don't believe in celebrating and indulging in certain weaknesses. :-)

Or, to put it shortly, I could just say the old: "hate the sin, but love the sinner."

I think the point in the OP with relating gays in the military to abortion in the military is that usually when one radically liberal standard gains a foothold, usually more follows after that. It's a disconcerting thought to those of us that hold socially conservative views.

Posted by: army_wife at June 18, 2010 6:56 AM


Kelsey and Marauder, I agree with you. And I admire your courage for coming out as bisexual, Marauder.

I don't want to get into an argument about gay rights, but I really wish that prolifers would keep the issues separate. The anti-gay rhetoric reinforces stereotypes about prolifers being intolerant and pushes people away.

Really, how are gays hurting the straight community. If you believe that their behavior is sinful, won't they eventually have to reap the consequences of their actions?

Posted by: phillymiss at June 18, 2010 9:39 AM


Ninek, Ken and Praxades I agree with you. First I want to state that I do NOT hate anyone and second that in this country adults have the freedom to use their bodies the way they want, with certain conditions, (i.e. drugs, DUI, public nudity, prostitution, etc are typically illegal and regulated by the government), so we cannot do whatever we want. You or I can misuse our bodies in private anyway you choose. God created BOUNDARIES TO BLESS AND TO BENEFIT US. God himself refuses to over ride our freewill but we will pay consequences and the entire country and even the whole world will pay consequences for our actions because "no man is an island". You and I can discount God's boundaries for our bodies and for sexual relationships (adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgender, orgies, anal-oral sex, fisting, etc.) if we want but there are consequences. "Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people". You can be angry at the Creator of life and His design for humanity all you want, that is your choice. God loves us so much it is the reason God sent his Son into the world to redeem us because we WILL perish and destroy ourselves because of our disobedience, no amount of Political Correctness or embracing of the "Homosexual Agenda" will change that. We can be angry at the messenger all we want. It is not "Hate Speech" to hear the truth. For those of you think that this is a choice without consequences please read the following:
http://www.cdc.gov/NCHHSTP/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-msm-Final508COMP.pdf

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/healthrisksSSA.pdf

The last article The Health Risks of Gay Sex by Dr. John Diggs M.D. describes the sexual behaviors, the physical, mental, and emotional consequences (with about 10 pages of documented works cited from medical journals) of homosexuality and lesbianism.

I can decide to act on any sexual attraction I want but it will not change what God created marriage and human sexuality to be, the complete uniting of 2 distinctly different sexual human beings whose bodies fit together and unite perfectly physicallly, emotionally, hormonally, physiologically, mentally, reproductively, and SPIRITUALLY. God loves homosexuals and so do I but he does not bless or condone sinful behavior from me or anyone else.

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 18, 2010 12:55 PM


Posted by: Prolifer L at June 18, 2010 12:55 PM

Great post!

Posted by: army_wife at June 18, 2010 1:11 PM


Prolifer L

While I disagree, I can completely understand your point of view. You disagree with homosexuality on a religious basis. And that's fine. And it is true that there are consequences to every action.

But, being homosexual doesn't mean you have sex. Many many homosexuals are celibate. They are attracted to the same sex, may be in relationships, but for one reason or another do not have sex.

To be a homosexual doesn't mean you are having lots of sex. It doesn't mean you are having any sex. Just like being heterosexual doesn't mean you are constantly having sex.

Also, many people, myself included, do not think homosexuality is a choice. People do not choose who they are attracted to.

Also, the risks of 'homosexual sex', which I assume means anal sex, are the exact same between 2 men having anal sex, and a man and woman having anal sex.

Any 'homosexual sex' act can be, and probably is, done by heterosexuals as well. And the emotional, spiritual and physical issues that arise in homosexual relationships also happen in heterosexual relationships.

Posted by: jodes at June 18, 2010 1:13 PM


No Jodes I don't just disagree on a religious basis. Don't discount what I say because you think I am "religious". I am a healthcare professional and I have documented medical research that shows it is NOT healthy to have homosexual, lesbian and bisexual sex. PERIOD. Like I said don't shoot the messenger. I will comment more later I have to go.

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 18, 2010 1:51 PM


Prolifer L, sorry if I offended you, but I did not dismiss what you said because of religion. In fact, I did not dismiss you or your opinion at all.

I can understand that there is research that shows 'homosexual sex' is not healthy. What I am saying, and perhaps poorly, is that heterosexual sex and homosexual sex can have the same risks.

I am also a health care worker, and can show you that heterosexual sex can be just as risky and unhealthy as homosexual sex. Heterosexual sex can include every.single.act. that homosexual sex does. And with the exact.same.risks.

The only reason that heterosexual sex is considered less risky is because (1) many people do not think that heterosexuals perform the same acts as homosexuals and (2) heterosexual sex is needed for reproduction.

Posted by: jodes at June 18, 2010 1:59 PM


Posted by: Dave at June 17, 2010 5:49 PM


"Anyone with a little less tinfoil that can answer about what appears to be a non-sequitor between DADT and "abortion on demand"?"

--------------------------------------------------

I have re-adjusted my tin foil and added some 'saran wrap' to keep the arrangement in place.

'abortion on demand' and 'don't ask, don't tell/tale/tail' are bastard children of a common father.

"Why do you misunderstand what I say? It is because you are unable to hear what I am saying. [You cannot bear to listen to My message; your ears are shut to My teaching.]"

"But now [instead] you are wanting and seeking to kill Me, a Man Who has told you the truth which I have heard from God. This is not the way Abraham acted."

"You are doing the works of your [own] father. They said to Him, We are not illegitimate children and born out of fornication; we have one Father, even God."

"You are of your father, the devil, and it is your will to practice the lusts and gratify the desires [which are characteristic] of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a falsehood, he speaks what is natural to him, for he is a liar [himself] and the father of lies and of all that is false."

When humanists set about to solve social problems they are not hindered by notions of justice, compassion or mercy. They are completely free in their own convoluted misunderstanding to do whatever suits their end.

History is quite clear about how many people the social planners have systematically eliminated. in their quest to create a perfect world.

The total is more than all the wars, crusades, famines, plagues and natural disasters combined, even if you exclude the hundreds of millions of prenatal children who have been eliminated as a result of abortion on demand.

Posted by: yor bro ken at June 18, 2010 6:04 PM


Posted by: Dave at June 17, 2010 5:49 PM


"Anyone with a little less tinfoil that can answer about what appears to be a non-sequitor between DADT and "abortion on demand"?"

--------------------------------------------------

I have re-adjusted my tin foil and added some 'saran wrap' to keep the arrangement in place.

'abortion on demand' and 'don't ask, don't tell/tale/tail' are bastard children of a common father.

"Why do you misunderstand what I say? It is because you are unable to hear what I am saying. You cannot bear to listen to My message; your ears are shut to My teaching."

"But now [instead] you are wanting and seeking to kill Me, a Man Who has told you the truth which I have heard from God. This is not the way Abraham acted."

"You are doing the works of your [own] father. They said to Him, We are not illegitimate children and born out of fornication; we have one Father, even God."

"You are of your father, the devil, and it is your will to practice the lusts and gratify the desires [which are characteristic] of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a falsehood, he speaks what is natural to him, for he is a liar [himself] and the father of lies and of all that is false."

When humanists set about to solve social problems they are not hindered by notions of justice, compassion or mercy. They are completely free in their own convoluted misunderstanding to do whatever suits their end.

History is quite clear about how many people the social planners have systematically eliminated. in their quest to create a perfect world.

The total is more than all the wars, crusades, famines, plagues and natural disasters combined, even if you exclude the hundreds of millions of prenatal children who have been eliminated as a result of abortion on demand.

Posted by: yor bro ken at June 18, 2010 6:05 PM


The discussion here has given me some insight on how embedded religion is in the discussion of prenatal development and allowed me some thought on how to go about future discussions with pro-lifers.

Posted by: Dave at June 18, 2010 6:15 PM


I am sorry if I misunderstood your post Jodes. You are correct when you say heterosexual sex acts CAN be dangerous and risky if performed with misuse of the bodies and with mutiple sexual partners, but this is not typical. The documentation from the FDA (see the FDA article above) correctly states that the reason they do NOT receive blood donations from MSM, or those who have EVER had sex with other men or bisexual men and this includes men who have had a low number of partners, practice so-called "safe sex" by using condoms consistently or are currently in monogamous relationships is because "current scientific data from the U.S. CDC indicate that as a group MSM are at a higher risk for transmitting infectious diseases or HIV than are individuals in other risk categories (even heterosexuals with multiple sexual partners)". Do not make the error of saying the risk is the same the evidence from the research does not agree. Read Dr. Diggs article as well, the physiology of homosexual sex is different not just anatomically, physiologically, hormonally but the damage done is immuniologically devastating to the body. I won't belabor the point and argue this because to those who want to push the Homosexual Agenda, it does not matter what I say, they can receive or not receive it. They are in the process of "transforming America" and redefining "marriage".

On a personal note, I will say some of the young people I have worked with over the years who were the most devastated emotionally, mentally and (yes even) spiritually were those who thought same-sex attractions were "equal", the "way to go" and would not cause them "as much pain" as heterosexual relationships, they found out the hard way that they were wrong. For those struggling with same-sex attraction I pray they will get the help they need. No hate, no homophobia just the truth that will set you and me free.

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 18, 2010 6:21 PM


I've read all these comments with interest. Any sexual sin puts you at risk emotionally and physically. I have quite a few gay friends and the girls had a few partners but were more faithful than my male gay friends who were going to bed with a new guy every night. It BOGGLED my mind that you could rack up 30 sex partners a month but it happens a lot in the gay community especially among gay men.

Look, sex is awesome. God created it as a gift for married people. He intended it for marriage because when it is misused it hurts so many people emotionally, destroys families, breeds disease etc...sexual sin is responsible for abortion, divorce, HIV and other diseases, emotional disorders etc...you can watch the domino effect in society...sexual sin breaks up a family. Broken family leads to emotional problems, emotional problems leads to crimes etc...

Any sexual sin is repulsive to God. Let us not act like God is "gonna judge those homos" and then we turn around and fornicate with our boyfriend or girlfriend. Sexual sin, as the Bible states, is a sin against our own body.

I love my gay friends. They are awesome friends and I laugh my head off every time I am in their company. But I know their lifestyle makes them miserable (they've told me of their depression and panic attacks etc...) and I long for them to find peace in Christ.

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 18, 2010 6:57 PM


I was out for a while but back & read above posts. I said in one, will repeat, that the reasons for homosexual behavior are varied, there is no single reason. I don't think that anyone should ever be discriminated against, but I do think that it isn't just 'as equal' as heterosexuality. I think the people are equal, but the behavior is not. As I said, a lot of people "hide out" in relationships with same sex partners. For those people, it isn't serving them or making them healthier to just say, oh it's all ok. We have become so politically correct that in sweeping it aside, we may be missing serious emotional problems that our friends (or relatives) are experiencing. Comparing it to alcoholism isn't quite right, but in one way it kind of reminds me of drinking: some people can drink socially and moderately, other people are using alcohol and it's hurting them and the people around them. It's a difficult subject, and I don't think we know enough about the how's and why's of homosexuality yet. Hopefully we will all grow wiser as time goes on.

Posted by: ninek at June 18, 2010 8:13 PM


Prolifer, Sydney, and ninek.

I must say that I understand where you are coming from, and I still respectfully disagree.

I do agree that having multiple partners, such as 30 partners a month (seriously??) is dangerous, no matter who is involved. This is something that I believe my generation knows, even though some seem to not care (the 'nothing will happen to me' mentality).

I am going to choose not to discuss further, in fear of this nice debate turning nasty because of misunderstandings (on your part or mine).

But, one last thing, on a personal note:
While I do think that sex can be dangerous, especially certain acts, I feel that you (general you) should not judge a whole group of people based on stories of what some of them do. Yes, some homosexuals have unsafe sexual behaviours. And so do some heterosexuals. I do not think it is my right to determine which is worse, and what people ought not to do, when it is between consentual adults. As far as I am concerned, it is not my business.
I also feel that if I, or anyone else, thinks that a person is doing harm to themselves, or someone else, they should be informed. And, in this regard, I applaud you for your efforts to warn people against actions that you feel will harm these people.

Peace :)

Posted by: jodes at June 18, 2010 8:34 PM


May God bless you Jodes, he truly loves you. I do not know you but none of my comments were meant to be judgemental and harsh but "speaking the truth in love". And "there but for the grace of God go I". My heart breaks for your generation and my children as well because we have let you guys down by selling you guys so short, making such a mess of things with our "Free-Love Sexual Revolution" (no-fault divorce crap), not letting you know how valuable, and unique each one of you are, that you were created for a divine purpose and how valuable your sex is. Sex was meant to be a sacred gift, an expression of committed love not because I say so but because that is what the Creator created it to be. I am not smart enough to have created sex, or to create families or to create babies, but I have a personal relationship with the one who did. BTW I do NOT make excuses for or give a pass to heterosexuals who misuse their bodies and their sex either. Peace to you.

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 18, 2010 9:35 PM


Well said Prolifer L

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 18, 2010 10:04 PM


Thanks Sydney. I try with God's help. I will be praying for Jodes. I believe every person (especially young person) needs to know they are valuable, special, created by God and that their heart, their body, their future and their future spouse is worth waiting for and that they can start over. This present generation can turn this nation around. Young people are starving for a message of truth, pure love (not counterfeit), hope, value and faith. Have a good night.

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 18, 2010 10:49 PM


"Sex was meant to be a sacred gift, an expression of committed love not because I say so but because that is what the Creator created it to be."

I agree - I think sex should always be an expression of committed love. Sex is definitely not something to be taken lightly, trivialized, or abused. I just don't think there's anything wrong with a gay couple having sex as an expression of their committed love.

Posted by: Marauder at June 19, 2010 3:44 PM


Posted by: Marauder at June 19, 2010 3:44 PM

"I just don't think there's anything

wrong

with a gay couple

having sex

as an expression of their committed love."

-------------------------------------------------

Marauder,

By 'wrong' do you mean a factual error, such as mistake in math?

By 'wrong' do you mean 'illegal', such as miscegenation or incest or rape.

By 'gay' do you mean happy, joyful, fullfilled?

By 'having sex' do you mean shoving sundry foreign objects as well as fingers, hands, fists, feet and/or forearms up each others anus/vagina?

(My sister interned at the county hospital in Dallas, Texas and there was an emergency room 'doctor who kept a box full of souvenirs he had removed from the colons of mostly men, but some women.

These emergency room patients were all the recipients of 'an expression of their partners committed love or perhaps their own auto erotica.')

By 'love' do you mean an abiding choice to put the other persons welfare before your own?

We americans tend to toss words around promiscuously without taking the time to fully understand their meanings.

By 'wrong' do you mean unethical, immoral or just plain 'sin'

I am fairly certain one does do not have to be religious to believe some things are inherently wrong.

Like the strong taking advantage of the weak however that is manifested in space and time.

Even a young child knows when she/he has sufferred an injustice, even if he/she is not familiar with the word.

I just want to be certain I understand you correctly.

Posted by: yor bro ken at June 19, 2010 6:14 PM


Ken, I know what you say is true about your sister's co-worker experience as an ER doctor. I have talked to docs and nurses who have had the same experience. Every person (especially Marauder and Jobes) needs to read the entire Dr. John Diggs article that I gave the link to earlier, "The Health Risk of Gay Sex" it documents with research works cited the truth about homosexuality and lesbianism. While the promotion of the "normalcy" of homosexual activity may be PC, healthcare workers that I know who work directly with AIDS patients can tell the true story regarding how HPV related cancer destroys the excretory system, the oral cavity, the throat, the upper digestive system and destroys the penis with cancer as well. The need for colostomies (fecal waste bags), iliostomies (urine waste bags), tube feedings, the constant diaper and dressing changes, dialysis (for some) and the horrific pain the patients are in are not just traumatic for the patients but for the staff taking care of them, who have to be meticulous in taking universal precautions to avoid getting infected themselves handling body fluids, blood, mucous membranes and drainage, which is the route of transmission of HIV. The HIV virus destroys the immune system so much these patients are many times more susceptible to all other STDs and many times patients are infected with syphilis, Hepatitis B and C, gonorrhea, herpes, along with Pnuemosystis pnuemonia, Karposi sarcoma and other opportunistic infections. The healthcare workers I have met working in HIV hospice units are very compassionate and skilled but it is very exhausting and demanding work, definitely not for most. The patients die from AIDS related complications and infections. NO, I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO DIE AND GOD DOES NOT WANT THEM TO DIE, HE LOVES THEM.

I am not saying these things for shock value but because it is the unvarnished truth. Any young person considering this as an "alternative lifestyle" or dealing with same-sex attraction I pray for you and plead with you to get help. Please read the article by Dr. John Diggs. God loves you and wants you to live.

The word of God says "Choose LIFE, that you and your seed may live" and that Satan comes to 'steal, kill and destroy". We must warn people especially young people that this is not just a harmless "alternative lifestyle" and a "healthy option".

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 19, 2010 11:43 PM


Ken: If fingers count among "sundry foreign objects," do you have a problem with straight married men putting their fingers in their wives' vaginas?

Putting body parts as large as hands, fists, feet or forearms into other people's body cavities is dangerous, regardless of who's doing it or why. What makes you think this is something most or all gay people do together? Some straight people beat each other with whips in a sexual context, but that's not what my mind jumps to when I think of a man and a woman having sex.

Obviously some things are wrong. I don't think two adults of the same sex consensually having sex in a committed, monogamous relationship is one of them. I also don't particularly appreciate your patronizing tone - I think you know what I mean by gay.

Prolifer L: Just to get my pet peeve out of the way first - "homosexuality and lesbianism" is redundant.

From what I can tell, your health risks are about STDs. I agree that STDs can cause some very serious health problems (obviously), but while there may be far too many gay people with STDs, getting an STD isn't something inherent in having gay sex. Straight people can get HPV and HIV too, but we don't tell them that the risk of STDs means that there's something wrong about a man and a woman having sex. If you believe there's something wrong about two men and two women having sex, okay, that's your right. But "you could get an STD!" doesn't mean that gay people can't have healthy romantic relationships and NOT get STDs.

I think everybody should wait to have sex until they're monogamously committed to someone who's monogamously committed to them, and both of them are in it for the long haul, determined to staying together for the rest of their lives and to work through any problems they might encounter as a couple. If two people have made mistakes in the past but now have met each other and want to have a monogamous, committed relationship, they should be thoroughly tested for STDs before anything sexual happens between them.

Posted by: Marauder at June 20, 2010 7:21 AM


Marauder like I said before "don't shoot the messenger". No actually it is not redundant to say the 2 words because the word "homo" means "man" or "male" and lesbianism refers to females I can use the abreviationS MSM and WSW.

I need to make a correction in my last post I used the medical term "iliostomy" incorrectly it acually refers to a bag needed higher up in the digestive track than a colostomy not for the urinary track, my point refers to the use of removal waste by unnatural means, I should have refered to urinary catheters separately.
Nothing condescending about telling the truth.
I will get off the topic because I know it touches nerves and is not PC. All life is precious and worth saving but this blog is dedicated to saving unborn innoccent babies.

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 20, 2010 10:46 AM


I didn't say you were condescending, Prolifer L, I said I thought Ken was being patronizing. And I didn't disagree that STDs are a problem facing a lot of gay people. What I said was that if you have two gay people who know for a fact that they don't have any STDs and are having a monogamous relationship, the argument "people shouldn't have gay sex because they'll get STDs" doesn't work. I didn't disagree with your data. I disagreed with the conclusion you drew from your data - that gay sex is inherently dangerous and should therefore always be avoided. Two gay virgins having their first sexual contact ever with each other aren't going to get HPV or HIV or any other sexually transmitted disease, any more than two straight virgins having their first sexual contact ever with each other would.

"Homo" in Greek is "same"; "homo" in Latin is "man." The "homo" in "homosexuality" derives from the Greek.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/homo.html

Posted by: Marauder at June 20, 2010 12:12 PM


I will make this short then stop posting on this topic and go back to PRO-LIFE. Marauder, your premise of 2 virgin gays having sex only with each other and being committed for life sounds great in theory but does NOT match the reality backed up by the research which is why you need to read the entire article by Dr. Diggs. I will paraphrase from the article "The current portrayal of MSM and WSW relationships is that they are healthy, stable and loving as heterosexual marriage...Nevertheless there are at least five major area of difference between gay and heterosexual relations

1. Level of promiscuity
2. Physical Health (profound research)
3. Mental Health (a must read, "gay" is a misnomer)
4. Life span (decreased on average by at least 20 years)
5. Defination of "monogamy" (a must read, a totally different defination than you gave).

By the way the designation I gave was to clarify that both sexual behaviors have distinctly unique consequences (read the article).

God's peace to you, we can agree to disagree and not be disagreeable and thanks for the discourse.

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 20, 2010 6:13 PM


You know something, Prolifer L? When hungry people can't eat a feast and believe it will be impossible for them to ever eat a feast, they'll settle for junk food or garbage just to get fed. If gay people don't believe they can have committed, monogamous relationships, they won't try to have committed, monogamous relationships. If they hear over and over that there's something wrong with them because of something inherent as sexuality, they'll start to believe it and won't think they're worthy of someone who will love them forever and be faithful to them. You can be hungry for a while if you believe the feast will come someday, but if you think it's garbage or nothing, you'll probably eat the garbage and try to find at least some of what was in the impossible feast.

It's like saying, "It sounds great in theory for black kids to live with a married mother and father, but that's not the reality." Are there black kids who live with a married mother and father? Yes. Are there way too many black kids who don't? Yes. Is it possible to reverse the trend? Yes. But we don't act like black kids living with married parents is some kind of impossible feat because of statistics. We don't figure that it's a lost cause, or that every time a black man and woman start dating, he's doomed to be an absent father and she's doomed to be a single mother. We also don't say, "It sounds great in theory for women to stop having abortions, but that's not the reality." Instead we keep the ideal in mind and encourage it.

Posted by: Marauder at June 20, 2010 10:38 PM


I've known alcoholics who when unable to obtain beer or wine will drink all kinds of nasty things instead like mouth wash and cough syrup. This doesn't mean that I can support their drinking if they would only stick with beer and wine.

Only God can fill that hunger and thirst.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 21, 2010 9:18 AM


Terrible analogies Marauder. Since you refuse to READ THE ARTICLES, I will ignore your lame, pathetic analogies. The FDA does NOT receive blood donations from MSM regardless of whether they are in a "monogamous relationship", practice "safe sex", have a low number of sexual partners and they even refuse blood donations if a man has EVER had sex with another man. Why is that? Because the research documents HOMOSEXUALITY AND BISEXUALITY ARE DANGEROUS AND UNHEALTHY BEHAVIORS REGARDLESS of how safe people who practice these behaviors think they are (that includes you). I assure you that the "Homosexual Agenda" activists hate this and have been trying to get this policy revoked (actually they just tried to last week and the measure was defeated because it did not pass out of the congressional committee because it is dangerous). Thank God they were not successful! It would endanger the entire U.S. blood supply like the FDA article says. I will leave you to your delusions and wishful thinking. "The truth will set you free", even when we don't want to hear it. I'm out of here.

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 21, 2010 9:00 PM