Michele Bachmann’s pro-life heart – and credentials
I was in Washington, DC, yesterday and attended a private function at which Minnesota Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann spoke on the record about her pro-life convictions.
Bachmann began by recounting her launch into the pro-life movement, which began when she was a junior in high school.
“I was standing by my locker, and kids came by and told me abortion had just been legalized,” Bachmann recalled. “I didn’t even know what it was; I didn’t understand the concept. Someone had to explain it to me. That’s how naive I was.”
Bachmann credited a Catholic friend with explaining the importance of upholding the sanctity of life. “When she laid out that we are made in the image and likeness of a Holy God, that turned a key in me,” said Bachmann. “I knew she was right.”
Bachmann became actively involved in the pro-life movement in college after she and her boyfriend (now husband) viewed Francis Schaeffer’s How Should We Then Live film series. “I learned that how we come down on the issue of Life will have a direct impact on how we come down on other issues,” said Bachmann.
The two began praying outside of abortion clinics, and “God broke our hearts,” she reflected
After the Bachmanns married they began helping mothers in crisis find help. “I’ve held their hands through many deliveries,” said Bachmann.
The Bachmanns were further convicted on the sanctity of human life when she miscarried their third baby. “It was devastating, a profound loss,” Bachmann reflected. “I went to bed for three days and couldn’t speak.”
Their hearts broken, the Bachmanns prayed together and told the Lord they would receive however many children He chose to give them. They had three more biological children but then couldn’t have any more.
“That’s when Lord broke our hearts for foster children,” Bachmann said. “We didn’t think we could do it but God stretched us. Over the course of time we had 23 great kids, a marvelous experience. It isn’t that we were wonderful people, we just understood He has a heart for all human beings.”
Bachmann sees her move into the political arena as an opportunity to expand her ability to help children. “Now as a public servant I can stand in the gap for the unborn,” she explained.
Bachmann says running for president of the United States isn’t just a political move for her. It’s an effort to help restore our foundational principles. “Think how profound the Declaration is,” Bachmann said, “The signers of our originating organic document risked their lives to do so, that’s how strongly they believed in the unalienable right to Life, endowed by our Creator,” said Bachmann, her voice now almost to a whisper. “This document states the government cannot take that right away.”
Bachmann says it is her honor to serve as co-chair of House adoption caucus. “As you know, there are more open hearts and homes in the U.S. than there are children,” said Bachmann.
Bachmann closed with thoughts on Obamacare.
“Repealing Obamacare is not a pollyanna dream,” said Bachmann. “It is real. It will happen. 2012 is it, our only window of opportunity. There is no waiting for 2016. Because it will have been metastasized into our states by then. If we fail to elect someone who is committed to the full scale repeal of Obama, it will be with us. Will we field a presidential candidate as committed as the Left to undo taxpayer funded abortion?”
Bachmann recounted an inside story of the day Obamacare passed. “It was a Sunday, imagine that. Pelosi forced a vote to usher in taxpayer funded abortion on a Sunday.”
Bachmann recounted that her side decided if they were forced to stay for this vote, they could hold a church service.
They asked Father Frank Pavone to give the homily.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
You spelled her name wrong-twice! Just sayin’! :)
Michele Bachmann – awesome and real. Hope she does well in the political minefield and becomes our next President.
Bachmann’s so pretty.
And I’m just sayin’ that I look forward to the day that a president attends the March For Life and gives a speech outlining what a great wrong abortion is. We need a leader to lead. She might very well be the one.
Have you read some of the things this woman has said on topics other than abortion?
You would want her as president?
Really?
Like I’ve said, I really, really hope she does become the GOP nominee.
Jane, thanks. But I only found one misspelling. Is the other still there?
Really, Bachmann’s pro-life credentials and her taking in of foster kids is about all I like about her. I don’t really think she has a chance at getting Obama out of office.
Her name is Michele with one L.
Reality- I totally agree. She has said some really messed up stuff about homosexuality and slavery, and I feel that she’d be an excellent friend to the democratic party if she was on the ticket in 2012
“You would want her as president?”
Yes, I would Unreality. She seems tough and won’t buckle under pressure like some of the others.
Not only is some of what Obama says bonkers. But what he does and doesn’t do. He thinks it’s okay for energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket”? Why, what a perfect choice to lead the economy!
A mayor/Energy Board member/Governor or a tax lawyer/businesswoman/Congresswoman is more qualifed than our our current president. Even with his 3+ years experience in mismanagement.
There is a difference between disagreeing with someone’s policies and decisions and someone’s sheer, babbling, ignorance of history and science Hans.
You ever notice how every single Republican presidential candidate since Reagan has been doing this “pro-life” song and dance, but once elected nothing substantive has ever come from it? Something to think about.
Jane,
Fixed your name. :)
Her stance must be “messed up” if you disagree with it, right Jane?
joan,
If we don’t hold onto the hope that we can get a pro-life person in the presidency who will do something for the unborn (and some of them have stopped funding foreign abortions, which is one step in the right direction), then we’ve given up and “giving up” is not something the pro-life movement is willing to do.
If we don’t hold onto the hope that we can get a pro-life person in the presidency who will do something for the unborn (and some of them have stopped funding foreign abortions, which is one step in the right direction), then we’ve given up and “giving up” is not something the pro-life movement is willing to do.
Don’t forget about the Supreme Court appointments. Roe vs Wade will be challenged in the coming years and we need at least one more vote.
DNFTT
Upstanding ”real-deal” Christian who walks her talk magnificently! I would be honored to have her as my President. LL
:) Bravo, Carla…!
And make the US the true laughing stock of the western world Laura Loo?
They’re too busy suppressing riots over austerity policies to laugh at anyone else.
On the other hand, maybe that’s just what the world needs right now — comic relief.
Re-elect Obama!
Maybe the PIGS are a bit busy right now but that leaves a multitude of countries. What about Germany, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Austria and numerous others. Or the ‘pro-western’ Asian countries?
At least the world doesn’t view obama as a fool. It’s the likes of the Tea Party which is the joke.
Bachmann was in Concord, New Hampshire and mixed it up with Concord, Massachusetts. Okay. How much Minnesota state history does anyone know?
Palin hurriedly gave a synopsis of a synopsis of Revere’s ride. She was right on all the breathless highlights: “bells were ringing” “warned the British they wouldn’t be takin’ our guns”(to his British captors after the ride). These were from the recent biography. Since all that most know is that he rode shouting: “The British are coming! The British are coming!” many just jumped to the conclusion she didn’t know what she was talking about.
And then the disgusting lie from a liberal blog that Bachmann mixed up John Wayne with John Wayne Gacy. Iowans knew Wayne was from their state. So much so that Gacy’s parents named him after him. Again, assuming the worst.
I assume Obama knows there are 50 states, not 57, or that no tornado has killed 10,000 people. Did that make the evening news?
What is it about conservative women that brings out such bile?
“What is it about conservative women that brings out such bile?
I really don’t think that Bachmann or Palin get it any worse than Obama (or Hilary when she was running).
Since 90% of the media is pro-Obama (and Hillary before the new flavor came out) I would say they do.
?? I see ad hominems against all the candidates all the time. I don’t think it is really worse against either. Part of the reason I won’t align myself with either party, the mud-slinging is ridiculous from both sides.
“Mrs. Bachmann grew up in Waterloo, and used the town as the backdrop for her campaign announcement, where she told Fox News: “Well what I want them to know is just like, John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa.” He wasn’t.
“Her claim that the nation’s Founding Fathers “worked tirelessly to end slavery.”
She also claimed that John Quincy Adams was a founding father. He was the sixth president.
The ‘bile’ doesn’t come out because they are conservative women, it comes out because they are very high profile people who are given such credence by so many yet repeatedly display epsiodes of stoopid.
“Don’t forget about the Supreme Court appointments. Roe vs Wade will be challenged in the coming years and we need at least one more vote.”
Depending on Kennedy’s (a Catholic) position, you’ve had the votes for some time. Thing is that conservative Catholics Alito and Roberts claim that Roe is “stare-decisis.” That means that they think it’s settled law. As such, it probably won’t be overturned.
Just a few of the questions surrounding Bachmann. From the Christian Science Monitor:
“A hidden-camera report on ABC’s “Nightline” on Marcus Bachmann, the candidate’s husband, that showed his Christian counseling center had engaged in the controversial practice of trying to convert gay people into becoming straight. Mr. Bachmann had said in the past that his treatment centers do not engage in that practice. Both Bachmanns have not addressed the ABC report.
A report in the Los Angeles Times that found the Bachmann counseling business had received $30,000 over five years from the state of Minnesota, money that comes partly from the federal government. Also, the report said, a family farm in Wisconsin had received $260,000 in federal farm subsidies. The congresswoman, a tea party favorite, advocates reduced federal spending.
A report by the news site MinnPost, a member of the Investigative News Network, that found six letters Bachmann had written to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood seeking federal stimulus money for projects in Minnesota. This, after Bachmann had opposed the Obama administration’s $830 billion stimulus package in 2009.”
Disagree Reality. Michele is FAR more qualified than the unqualified goof we currently have in office. Also, if you haven’t noticed, we are already laughed at and disrespected by much of the world. Putting Michele into office would be a great opportunity to show a world that doesn’t value women that they can be strong and wise enough to do the job properly and with integrity.
LL
My first preference would be to find a strong Christian man who by testimony and example is strongly pro-life, pro-family and traditional in his political, economic and social views. And one who has good all-around qualifications to be president. That said, I am glad that Michele Bachman and Sarah Palin have exemplified pro-life, pro-family values and are a much needed contrast to the very liberal/leftist women’s movement of many years past. Anyone who stands against the decadence and radicalism that pervades our politics, culture and many of our institutions is going to be severely attacked—whether they be male or female.
As a Democrat, I would LOVE to see Bachmann emerge as the candidate running in 2012. She is crazy beyond words – throw out the check of her birth certificate – I would want some clinical evaluations done on her sanity.
Jill, THANK YOU!!! Praise God!
Pro-lifers should vote for whoever the MSM/liberals hate the most. Right now thats Michelle Bachmann.
Paladin,
Why thank you, good sir!! While I do not have the sign I do have the acronym. :)
Sorry, but I read enough ugliness about Trig Palin to last me a lifetime. The Obama children? Oh, they were OFF LIMITS.
Michele will weather all of the nastiness just like Sarah. No worries.
CC: I’m curious: did Bachman’s solitications of stimulus money seek to direct funds toward things that would actually stimulate the economy? Consider that the stimulus bill as stimulus was a woeful failure. It was mostly cronyism in action, and demagogic chicanery. It even funded putting guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, with the direct effect of dozens of murders — including an American agent.
I wasn’t following Bachman’s opposition to the stimulus at the time, but much opposition was with how it was designed and implemented — opposition stated that it would not stimulate. This has proven ridiculously true; even Obama has wryly observed that there really wasn’t anything “shovel ready.”
But the funds were allocated. If, after losing that battle, Republicans sought to direct some of those funds to projects that would actually stimulate the economy, this would not be hypocrisy. If they were not against stimulus funding per se but merely against the ludicrous way it was being implemented, later efforts to direct money properly would be an attempt at wringing some value for the economy out of an otherwise total waste of money.
Generically stating that someone opposed the stimulus isn’t really adequate when judging people’s actions with regard to it. I’ve opposed some of my bosses decisions — but once made, I’ve then zealously sought to make those decisions work out for the company. Now why would I do that if I opposed the decisions? Because I have a stake in the company’s success.
Likewise, Bachman as a Minnesotan has a stake in jobs growth there, and as a Congresswoman has a stake in the responsible use of federal funds. If the stimulus generally sucked, it’s salutary that she’d seek to make the best of it.
I don’t know the details of this particular scenario well enough to say that the above IS an accurate description of things. I’m not asserting it is. I’m just pointing out how those who oppose something are not obviously hypocrites if they end up wading into it up to their chins. Often that subsequent engagement once the thing is a fait accompli, is precisely motivated by their opposition. “That sucks! [rolling up sleeves]”
Depending on Kennedy’s (a Catholic) position, you’ve had the votes for some time.
Kennedy has had the chance to vote for a reversal and has chosen not to.
Pro-lifers should vote for whoever the MSM/liberals hate the most. Right now thats Michelle Bachmann.
Exactly! And if the Obama Mania Media really believed that Michele Bachmann had no chance to win the general election then they would now be touting her as the grestest thing since sliced bread. Right now they are going easy on Romney. Tells you something, does’nt it?
As for America being a joke to the world, CC: first, folks who project their fragile egos onto their own country and worry about others’ opinion of it need to grow up. The real concern is what international markets think about the administration’s economic policies. To date, Obama continues to blame what he inherited while making things worse. Secondly, note how wrong “the world” can be (geez, the craven delusions of grandeur from you cosmopolitan aspirants — America has been and ought to be one provincial refuge in this world). Symbolically, no token of “the world’s” esteem could possibly surpass the Nobel prize — especially the peace prize. Awarded Obama as a down payment on anticipated unicorns and rainbows, the guy who promised a reduction in our overseas military operations has increased the number of countries we’re bombing. Now I submit that people are not laughing about this. It’s not a joke.
Reality, do you really think examples of public gaffes are “telling” in some way? Obama’s gaffes — especially when the TOTUS fails on occasion — have been ridiculous. Does it all boil down to arguments about whose gaffes are weirder? That’s pretty silly, don’t you think? But supposing, based on your initiative, that it’s not. Let’s look at Obama.
Personally, I think calling a Navy corpsman a “corpse-man” is beyond stupid. What say you?
Then there’s this, which would make Dan Quayle quail: “The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries.” Two things makes that Quaylesque (the only thing worse than Bushesque): that it’s a geographic reference, and the added joy of the “obviously”.
Or this wonder: “No, no. I have been practicing…I bowled a 129. It’s like — it was like Special Olympics, or something.”
Or: “Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s.” (That’s Bushesque, but the Obama “let me be absolutely clear” part gets major bonus points in this locution, where it bumps the risibility quotient off the charts)
“On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today…” (totally Quaylesque)
“I’ve now been in 57 states — I think one left to go.”
“In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” (twelve people died)
Needless to say, I could go on. Some gaffes have been not just amusing, but wince-worthy (the Jared Monti one) — gaffes none of Obama’s opponents, even, would wish on him.
Looks like “repeatedly display epsiodes of stoopid” to me. ;-) But does this really reduce to a pissing contest, Reality?
(Of course, Obama’s gaffes are not to be taken as meaningful; he gets a pass because . . . well, because he’s Obama!)
Ex-GOP, please have the insight to realize that whatever you think of the tea party, its existence is a symptom. Remember when Rick Santelli basically catalyzed it, excoriating the mortgage relief program? In hindsight he was right. In hindsight, the most significant of the tea party’s concerns have proven salutary, whereas the policies they decry have proven either futile or counterproductive. In fact, Santelli’s reaction has been the template for the tea party: decry ill-advised policy reactions by the administration to adverse economic tells. The tea party is animated by counterproductive actions by the administration. It increases in power and its effect on independent voters precisely when the current administration is making the worst calls.
Don’t like the tea party? Well then you better hope team Obama changes its policies and actually resolves our issues.
So, Ex-GOP, what are your favorite hangouts? Media Matters? Democratic Underground? Daily Kos? ;-) Just wondering which of the left’s lunatic sites you count on most for the hate.
She may be unqualified, but at least she’s not a combination of unqualified AND anti-American.
“She may be unqualified, but at least she’s not a combination of unqualified AND anti-American.”
Michele and Marcus’ Bachmann’s homophobia, directed towards at leasat 10% of our fellow Americans, is very un-American. And she’s anti-science, too:
“I support intelligent design. What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don’t think it’s a good idea for government to come down on one side of scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides.”
Neither creationism (a creation myth similar to other Middle Eastern creation stories) nor intelligent design are based on science. For more on ID see “Kitzmiller vs. Dover.” To give the Catholic Church its due, they don’t believe in either.
She and her husband believe in traditional marriage. So do I.
She and her husband believe in intelligent design. So do I.
This anti-science, un-American homophobe is in good company, CC.
“If they were not against stimulus funding per se but merely against the ludicrous way it was being implemented, later efforts to direct money properly would be an attempt at wringing some value for the economy out of an otherwise total waste of money. ”
These are people who scream bloody murder at every instance of the federal government intervening in the national economy. Their putative opposition to the stimulus is philosophical, not practical. Do you see, then, why it is hypocritical to publicly attack the stimulus in order to burnish one’s “small government, free market” credentials and then privately accept stimulus money? Not that Michele Bachmann is alone in being guilty of bald hypocrisy here. Even Mr. Ayn Rand himself, Paul “$350 bottle of wine” Ryan voted for TARP.
@Reality — I really don’t care what other countries think of us. Do Germans, French, Brits, etc., sit around worrying about how we perceive them? And yes, I have a passport and I have been to Europe. Obama is still well-thought of in Europe but his approval ratings here are in the forties. Tell me, which is more important. The last time I checked, Switzerland, Germany, etc., didn’t have any electoral votes.
If someone that snobbish gauche caviar European intellectuals disapprove of is elected to president, too bad. Despite our problems, thousands of people try to enter this country every year to try to find a better life for themselves, so we must be doing something right.
I don’t think Bachmann has much of a chance of winning. Some people are predicting that Rick Perry will not only run but will win the nomination. We’ll see.
Anyway, I was a bit younger than Bachmann when I heard about Roe v. Wade, but I really didn’t think much of it then. It’s been said that abortion has had an impact, direct or indirect, on every family in the country. It certainly has had an effect on mine.
Well Joan, since the administration’s claims of transparency with regard to the stimulus proved a ridiculous joke, and since the stimulus has been a failing joke, don’t you think it’s more important to critique the people in office who’ve failed? If you don’t like the tea party’s way of critique, the proper response isn’t to turn your guns on the tea party while behind you our Current Resident destroys the country. The good response would be to critique Obama without sounding like the tea partiers you loathe.
Of course, that won’t be possible where the tea partiers happen to be right.
Some people argue out of sheer loyalty, and end up defending the indefensible merely because they hate the opposition.
It’s weird.
As for science and schools — who cares? Seriously. Abolish the department of education and leave it to the states (block grant anything the dept. is currently doing). Shrink the stupid federal govt.
Rasqual,
Symbolically, no token of “the world’s” esteem could possibly surpass the Nobel prize — especially the peace prize. Awarded Obama as a down payment on anticipated unicorns and rainbows, the guy who promised a reduction in our overseas military operations has increased the number of countries we’re bombing.
Aptly put!
Carla, you’re not a homophobe.
“A hidden-camera report on ABC’s “Nightline” on Marcus Bachmann, the candidate’s husband, that showed his Christian counseling center had engaged in the controversial practice of trying to convert gay people into becoming straight. Mr. Bachmann had said in the past that his treatment centers do not engage in that practice. Both Bachmanns have not addressed the ABC report.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps some people might feel they do not wish to live as gays any longer and might seek out counseling for this reason?
“Carla, you’re not a homophobe.”
Exactly, there is a difference between believing homosexuality is wrong and condemning actual people who are gay. Most Christians I know dislike the practice but are still kind and loving toward gays. Everything I heard out of Bachmann’s mouth about homosexuality seems like she has no respect for gay people. If a politician talked about Christians or any other group the way she talks about gays, I don’t think they would last long.
“Has it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps some people might feel they do not wish to live as gays any longer and might seek out counseling for this reason?”
Sure, I’m sure there are many. Don’t see why he has to lie about what he does though. If he believes in this therapy, why can’t he be honest about it?
Exactly, there is a difference between believing homosexuality is wrong and condemning actual people who are gay. Most Christians I know dislike the practice but are still kind and loving toward gays.
Jack, I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen anyone actually write that here. So, thank you!
Don’t see why he has to lie about what he does though. If he believes in this therapy, why can’t he be honest about it?
Probably out of fear of backlash from people who will claim he is a bigoted homophobe, even if he’s really one of those people like you mentioned above who disagree with homosexuality but are kind and loving toward gays.
“Jack, I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen anyone actually write that here. So, thank you!”
No prob. My wife is a Christian, and is the single most loving person I know, and thinks homosexuality is wrong. She still treats my lesbian sister with the exact same respect and kindness she treats everyone else.
“Probably out of fear of backlash from people who will claim he is a bigoted homophobe, even if he’s really one of those people like you mentioned above who disagree with homosexuality but are kind and loving toward gays.”
Well, yeah, I can see that. The homophobe label is thrown around way too easily. My point is, if he wants conversion therapy to be an accepted practice, there is really no way to do that but with transparency and results. Hiding it makes it look a lot less legitimate. I have serious doubts on whether you can change someone’s orientation through therapy, but the research really isn’t there yet. It seems that he would have a golden opportunity to legitimize the practice, or at least take steps in that direction. Lying about it is counter-productive.
Hal,
I think CC would argue with you there. LOL
I fit her/his classic description.
I know what you mean though. :)
Thank you, Jack. Excellent!
There are those that would like to leave that lifestyle. They honestly pursue a way out. I am grateful for folks that are willing to reach out to them.
Just one man’s story.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/i-am-an-ex-gay-and-i-support-michele-bachmann-and-her-husband
“There are those that would like to leave that lifestyle. They honestly pursue a way out.”
This assumes that there is a “way out” of something that is an intractable part of a person’s identity. Simple homophobia is much less dangerous and objectionable than “gay conversion” quackery. When I see so-called “ex-gays”, I see poor, confused suckers who have been sold a bill of goods. Either they were never gay to begin with, or, more likely, they’re still gay but lying to themselves that they aren’t. That’s no way to live. People like Marcus Bachmann prey on the vulnerable (and gullible) and should not be allowed to practice medicine.
I get that guys point, and I think there is WAY too much disdain toward those who choose to get therapy for their homosexuality. Choose being the operative word here (real choice, not killing fetuses choice ;)). If someone is unhappy gay, and thinks that being heterosexual will help, then there is no reason to hate on them.
I disagree that “one ex-gay disproves that homosexuality is immutable”. People are gay for different reasons, I think it is a mistake to say “oh, gays are born that way” or “they choose it! Always!”. There are a lot of factors in play. Biology, genetics, environment, we don’t really know yet. My sister knew she was a lesbian from childhood, tried her best to be straight and got therapy, and eventually came to the conclusion that she is happy the way she is. On the other hand, I know a girl who was molested as a kid, and became a “lesbian” because she was terrified of men. She lives a straight lifestyle now. There isn’t one right answer, it’s a mistake to pigeonhole everyone.
“This assumes that there is a “way out” of something that is an intractable part of a person’s identity. Simple homophobia is much less dangerous and objectionable than “gay conversion” quackery. When I see so-called “ex-gays”, I see poor, confused suckers who have been sold a bill of goods. Either they were never gay to begin with, or, more likely, they’re still gay but lying to themselves that they aren’t. ”
I am glad you make other people’s decisions for them and tell them how to feel. That’s very pro-choice.
So what other physical characteristics do you think can be changed with enough therapy? How about race? If you find a therapist that specializes in “race conversion” can you go from black to white?
I am hardly surprised by your comment, Joan.
After all you treat post abortive women who regret their abortions with the same disdain.
One would think that someone who has actually “been there” knows a bit more about being gay and wanting to leave that lifestyle. I will take his word for it.
You do realize there is a difference between having a same sex attraction and acting out those feelings don’t you?
“So what other physical characteristics do you think can be changed with enough therapy? How about race? If you find a therapist that specializes in “race conversion” can you go from black to white?”
I don’t for a second believe you missed my point. Don’t try to bait me.
Would you deny a “straight” kid struggling with gay feelings therapy to help him/her decide what they need to be healthy? So why would you deny a “gay” person struggling with their sexuality help? Sexuality isn’t so simple as all that. Sure some people are definitely gay, immutably. I believe that. Others, less so. Some straight people have homosexual feelings. Vilifying people who choose a different path isn’t helping the gay rights movement any.
Just to be clear, I’m not condemning therapy for anyone. However, “therapy” that actively attempts to make someone into something they’re not is not therapy at all, but brainwashing and quackery. “Gay conversion” is not intended to help sexually insecure or unsure people learn more about themselves, it’s intended to completely change a vital element of their identity and even biology. It starts with the premise that they are gay, that this is wrong, and that with enough pseudo-science, they can become straight, which is impossible.
Right. Right. Of course. Of course.
When someone of their own free will asks for help and someone offers that help well we must yell BRAINWASHING and QUAKERY!!!! Even though they have found the help they need and are grateful for it.
“Gay conversion” is not intended to help sexually insecure or unsure people learn more about themselves, it’s intended to completely change a vital element of their identity and even biology. It starts with the premise that they are gay, that this is wrong, and that with enough pseudo-science, they can become straight, which is impossible.”
Do you have any academic resources and studies to support this position? What does the APA or other reputable organizations have to say about it?
People can choose to not express their sexuality if they believe it is wrong. That is their business, not yours. I don’t think there is anything wrong with gays, at all. But it is more complicated than “you are either gay or straight, you are born that way, that’s it”. And really, if you run around here condemning us for opposing abortion on grounds of choice, and then turn around and condemn those who do not want to live as gay, then that is very inconsistent.
I heard about the conversion therapy and thought, “Alright, they have a heart for everybody” one more reason to vote for her!!!!!
BTW: It is a good point. You can not become an ex-white person thru therapy. The fact that there exist ex-gays means it is not a biological issue, it is a decision.
“When someone of their own free will asks for help and someone offers that help well we must yell BRAINWASHING and QUAKERY!!!!”
Okay, Carla. Next week I will be starting my “height conversion therapy”; with enough therapy and prayer, I am going to will myself to become a taller person. Wish me luck!
“Do you have any academic resources and studies to support this position? What does the APA or other reputable organizations have to say about it?”
Here’s what the APA has to say about this, which you could have found by doing what I did and googling “APA homosexuality” and then clicking the first link that comes up.
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
“Is sexual orientation a choice?
No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.”
And…
“Can therapy change sexual orientation?
No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.”
“And really, if you run around here condemning us for opposing abortion on grounds of choice, and then turn around and condemn those who do not want to live as gay, then that is very inconsistent.”
I am not condemning anyone who doesn’t want to live as gay. I’m not even condemning those who seek the services of “gay conversion therapy”; they have been misled and mistreated by so-called professionals who should know better. What I am condemning is the notion that therapy can alter some vital aspect of a person’s mental and physiological identity.
” The fact that there exist ex-gays means it is not a biological issue, it is a decision.”
No, no. I respectfully disagree. There is evidence that biological issues exist. The issue is too complicated for easy sound bites.
Okay, Joan, I take your point. It still doesn’t mean that everyone who is living a gay lifestyle is really “born-that-way gay”. And would you object to a gay Christian, who already believes homosexuality is wrong, choosing conversion therapy to help them life a lifestyle more to their choosing, even if you think it is damaging? I mean, I smoke cigarettes KNOWING that they take years off my life and make me get sick easier. Even if you believe that believing that a natural orientation can be changes is damaging, isn’t it someone’s choice to do so? And don’t they deserve help to live as they want? The ex-gay ministries can serve a purpose, and people are probably not going to seek them out unless they really don’t want to live as gay.
Good luck, Joan!!
It’s naive for anyone to think that there are no gender dysfunctions that could benefit from counseling. I suspect that many who advocate stridently for the normative character of homosexuality fall into the idea that there’s no room for anything abnormal, simply because acknowledging that would seem to them a concession to folks they deem homophobes. Which would be to subordinate their politics to their compassion.
If someone seeks counseling with a wish to address what they consider a dysfunction, that’s their business.
Some folks in this thread find pro-life folk callous for wishing PP counselors didn’t exist. I’m seeing some of the same folk now wishing folks who believe they may have gender dysfunctions had fewer choices for counseling.
Interesting.
This is a sincere question, but would any of you ever marry someone that confessed to you that they were “ex-gay”?
joan, what do you think a someone who is born a man who chooses to have surgery and take hormones to become a woman or vice-versa?
This is a sincere question, but would any of you ever marry someone that confessed to you that they were “ex-gay”?
If I loved them, yes.
Prax, what would you ask of them to, I guess, “insure” that they didn’t go back to being all the way gay? I’m honestly not asking this to be rude or set anyone up… I ask because I honestly don’t think I would ever marry someone that claimed to be “ex-gay” because it’s not something I believe can be “cured”, but since many right-wing Christians really believe in this kind of therapy I’m wondering if they would enter a marriage with someone that went through that, and what the conditions would be?
Derrr, I am mostly with you. A lot of people end up deciding that they cannot live straight if they are truly gay. For bisexuals (which I suspect make up a lot of the ex-gays), it would be different. I guess it would really depend on the person. I really don’t think I could marry someone if I thought they weren’t really attracted to me, though.
From the comments I have just read here it is painfully obvious that most of you really have not spent much time living with or hanging out with gay people…
Being gay is a normal aspect of nature on this planet…
Giraffes do it, goats do it, birds and bonobos and dolphins do it. Humans beings–a lot of them anyway–like to do it too, but of all the planet’s species, they’re the only ones who are oppressed when they try.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990813,00.html#ixzz1SDLZ4ggo
Opression and discrimination are not family values…
Well then you would be wrong, Biggz.
There are gays in my family.
True story bro. Doesn’t mean that there are not people who are confused, doesn’t mean there are not those who are truly disordered. And finally, it doesn’t mean that some gay people may think it’s sinful, and not wish to live that way. It’s their business.
derrr, you can never “ensure” that someone will not go back to their former ways whether it be an ex-alcoholic, ex-drug-addict, ex-sex-addict, ex-bully, ex-thief, ex-proabort, ex-gossiper, ex-liar, etc.
All you can do is trust that they will try their best to live the life Christ called them to live and that you will do the same.
Gays in my family too Biggz and LOTS of alcoholics. And I have gay friends too. And alcoholic gay friends and. . . .
Laura Loo, the rest of the world has much more respect for obama than for Palin, Bachmann and the likes of tea partiers. They are seen as rabid loons.
Being gay is not a decision. People are born that way. So called conversion therapy is a cover up or temporary repression of peoples sexual identity.
Thus we have people who have ‘beards’, we have people who slink off to have the form of sex they are engendered too and those who eventually ‘break out’ and revert to their true sexuality.
And if you do not believe that gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals then you are a homophobe.
Carla – Oh and do you tell them they are going to hell? Do you tell them how their lives are an offence to god. Do you tell them how unnatural their happiness is? Or do you simply tell them that they are lesser American citizen than you and your husband so they will not be allowed to enjoy marriage like you get to? Do you tell them they cannot vote and are only 3/5 of a person? Having gay people in your family means nothing… your actions do.
If you as an American citizen have the right to marry the person you fell in love with than so do your gay family members as American citizens. Religion has nothing to do with it…
I don’t like the term homophobe because I don’t think may people are afraid of gays… You are bigots as you are discriminating against another group of American citizens who do you no harm.
It is not fear it is hate in all its forms.
Biggz: Careful with arguments from nature. Many animals eat their infants. In short, the arguments only “work” if you apply a categorical imperative and admit other behaviors your morality would wish to exclude. Problem is, you’re claiming to inform morality from a nature you’re then wanting to cherry-pick on account of the moral offensiveness of the nature you’re deeming normative, and the offensiveness is obviously not informed consistently by that nature or it wouldn’t be offended.
Got it? ;-)
But also, Biggz, isn’t it unnatural to limit marriage to two persons? Seriously. Whose business is it if three people in love wish to marry? If the tradition of male/female is arbitrary and unjust from a civil rights perspective, don’t you think the number 2 is as well?
Furthermore, what’s love got to do with it? Why should whether two people “love” one another compel the state to give them some special treatment? Am I not entitled to marry someone I hate? You may find that absurd, but civil rights is not about absurdity or reasonableness. I ought to have the right to marry without the state sanctioning it on grounds of whether I “love” someone or not. Or is the State now also the determiner of whether some basis for marriage in “love” applies in this or that case. “Oh, you folks aren’t in love? You’re doing this for other reasons? Sorry, no marriage for you.”
Why shouldn’t a half dozen college kids — only one of whom is working — be allowed to get married for the benefits of the one’s company plan? Why should a person’s reasons for wishing to marry others be a matter for the state to decide?
Reality: So are you defining “homophobe,” or are you implying that the set of people who don’t think gays should “have the same rights as heterosexuals” is coterminous with the set consisting of only and all homophobes? What?
Homophobe is such an inept label. It’s not descriptive — it’s a merest epithet. It has no meaning other than to impugn. People are supposed to fear being labeled with it. And yet those who hurl it as an epithet do so while conveying no actual meaning for the word.
“Oooh, ickeeee! He’s a homophobe!”
And that’s supposed to rattle anyone or concern them with the opprobrium? Please.
“Whose business is it if three people in love wish to marry?” – this is a spurious argument. Whether we are talking about heterosexual marriage or gay marriage, neither has any bearing on whether polygamy is allowed (although the bible does) – it is about two people who love each other. Polygamy has been practised and lobbied for before gay marriage.
Definition of HOMOPHOBIA
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia?show=0&t=1310772124
No. No. No. No. And no. Not that it matters to you.
According to CC, I’m a homophobe. According to you, I’m a bigot.
I do have a right to my opinions no matter how WRONG you think I am.
My lesbian cousins have the same rights that I do. The right to marry a man.
Have a great night, Biggz!! :)
Being gay is not a decision. People are born that way.
Sounds like alcoholism. There is help and choice in not having those drinks.
Rasqual – I get my news largely from CNN, Fox, The New Republic – and a few blog sites (not really news – but sites like this interest me). Only comment on this one. Don’t go to Democratic Underground – go to Media Matters roughly once a month or two.
I have no hate for Michelle Bachmann – I just think she would be a terrible, terrible choice for President. That’s all.
According to the definition you’re a homophobe Carla. Yes, that is your right.
“the same rights that I do. The right to marry a man” – so why can’t Robert have the same choice?
“There is help and choice in not having those drinks.” – alcoholism is damaging. Homosexuality isn’t.
And to show that it isn’t just ‘conservative women’ who warrant ‘bile’, here’s Rick Perry –
“Being able to own things that are your own is one of the things that makes America unique.” – that’d be news to the vast majority of the rest of the planet! Britain and Australia were leaders in creating legal structures for land and property ownership.
“And I think it’s time for us to just hand it over to God and say, “God, You’re going to have to fix this.” – what does he want? A theocracy? Or do we all just sit back and wait for god to take over the running of everything down to the last detail? Withdrawing from politics is he?
alcoholism is damaging
None of the practicing alcoholics I know think it is. It’s only when they are an ex- that they realize the full extent of the damage their choice to drink caused.
Homosexuality isn’t
Says you.
Says the facts Praxedes. Plus alcoholism can cause harm to others – drunk driving, loss of income, violence. Homosexuality doesn’t. Except of course the loss of income and violence which is perpetrated against them.
Biggz says on this thread, “Being gay is a normal aspect of nature on this planet…Giraffes do it, goats do it, birds and bonobos and dolphins do it.”
Reality says on a different thread, “Could it be Jack, that woman can make a considered, self-aware choice whereas animals can’t?”
Looks like Reality and Biggz should be debating each other.
Reality: ” Whether we are talking about heterosexual marriage or gay marriage, neither has any bearing on whether polygamy is allowed.”
You just said absolutely nothing. Do you understand that? Your remark is meaningless as an explanation for why you consider my “argument” spurious.
You’re not giving as reason. You’re merely asserting the contrary.
If marriage for gays is an issue of equal rights, then why wouldn’t it also be an issue of equal rights for more than two people.?
It’s HILARIOUS when those who advocate for gays engage in special pleading, reserving the prerogative to think polygamists are somehow exempt from equal protection under the law.
Not all discriminatory attitudes are created equal, I guess.
Carla: ‘”BRAINWASHING and QUAKERY!” Oh no! Dr. Bachmann turns people into Quakers?!! :)
I take it then that Joan disagrees with the “T” in LGBT since you can’t become something you’re not?
Oops. Didn’t go as far as Praxedes’ post. Must control the urge to comment too quickly. :)
Joan: I take it, then, that you consider people who claim to no longer be gay to be liars? They’re either lying that they were, or that they no longer are?
If the APA is right, that seems to follow.
Here’s Andrew Klavan’s take on Bachmann Derangement Syndrome:
http://pajamasmedia.com/andrewklavan/2011/07/a4/koc-michele-bachmann-makes-a-gaffe/
Hans,
I think he does!!! Let me find some links!! :)
You’re confusing apples with oranges Praxedes. Being gay is not a choice. You can only choose whether you decide to physically manifest your sexuality or try to remain celibate. That would be a considered, self-aware choice. Just like whether to have an abortion or not.
“You just said absolutely nothing” – exactly rasqual, just like those who say that if we allow gay marriage we need to allow polygamy. A hollow argument.
Reality: We don’t need to allow either. What I’m wondering is what your civil rights objection to polygamy would be. You seem to hold the number “2” in as much sacred awe as some folk hold heterosexual marriage. If “2” is merely a tradition and not a rationally arguable number, then those who defend pairs in marriage but not other traditions are being rationally inconsistent.
It’s not that gay marriage argues for polygamy. It’s that the reasons advocates of gay marriage use to argue for it, argue for polygamy as well. You’re apparently imagining that some magic number “2” is reeeally important.
How’s it feel to be less rational than yer average polygamist? ;-)
You’re confusing apples with oranges Praxedes. Being gay is not a choice. You can only choose whether you decide to physically manifest your sexuality or try to remain celibate.
How am I confusing apples and oranges? I compared homosexuality and alcoholism. Being an alcoholic is not a choice either. You can only chose whether you decide to have that drink or try to remain sober by enjoying healthier drinks.
Holy cow, a lot of moral monsters here today.
When you suggested that Biggz and I were at odds Praxedes (and I’m sure we would be on some things, no two people agree on every thing), you indicated that there was a disconnect between Biggz’s “Being gay is a normal aspect of nature on this planet…Giraffes do it, goats do it, birds and bonobos and dolphins do it.” and my “Could it be Jack, that woman can make a considered, self-aware choice whereas animals can’t?”
I pointed out that being gay is not a choice but that whether to act on it is, in a considered, self-aware manner. For people, animals don’t have that capacity. And women can make a considered, self-aware choice as to whether they have an abortion or not.
This is what my apples and oranges comment was in regard to. So there is no disconnect between what Biggz and I said.
rasqual, if you don’t agree with gay marriage, don’t have one. But there is no valid reason for preventing those who do from doing so.
Gay marriage is very simple. If one group of American citizens can legally marry and another group cannot it is discrimination… period end of story.
How would you react if a law was made that said only gay people could serve on juries?
How about a law that said only people under the age of 40 can have a driver license?
How about a law that said Christmas cannot be celebrated anywhere in the country but Ramadan and Passover are ok?
If one group of Americans can do it then all Americans can do it or it is discrimination plain and simple.
Unless you can come up with a logical way that it is not discrimination to ban gays from marring this argument is over…
Reality, if you don’t agree with 3 people marrying, don’t wed two people. But there’s no valid reason for preventing others. What right do you have to privilege serial monogamy while discriminating against its parallel alternative?
Geez, the idiocy of that logic continuing to be pressed as if it meant something.
“If you don’t _____, don’t _____ — but don’t restrict others from doing it.”
Can that please be retired among thinking people in these parts?
Rasqual – is your view that marriage should only be a man and a woman, or are you advocating to get rid of marriage as a legal distinction? Or allow anyone to marry? I missed your viewpoint on this.
Actually rasqual, if it were up to me marriage would be gone, along with a few other things :-)
But since people want to wed and it doesn’t actually cause too much harm (although that’s another argument that could be had), why stop them? Gays included. I haven’t noted any great dramas caused by honest intent polygamy either so what the heck!