Why Gays Can Not Be 'Pro-Choice'

Posted: Nov 26, 2006 12:00 AM
Why Gays Can Not Be 'Pro-Choice'

There is a big "no-no" in America today - under no circumstances is a person who engages in homosexuality allowed to be 'pro-choice.' It is of the utmost threat to the elite radicals that are guiding the homosexual agenda, and it is the fundamental issue on which the rest of the entire house of cards is built. One person engaging in homosexuality suddenly making a decision to choose - and the total lie is unwrapped - warts and all.

It is this fundamental view of homosexual activity that the activists must keep alive in order to stake the rest of their claims as to the need for "rights, fairness, and non-discrimination."

For this reason, Rosie O'Donnell must take it upon herself, to behave in a way that in a sense serves as partisan whip for the radical elite. Rosie has gotten so sensitive about the issue of choice, that she actually is now going on rampage's spouting rants and tirades against people for being homophobic - when no evidence of homophobia even exists, and in one case Rosie even attempted to "out" someone who has never indicated any public demonstration of homosexuality. But that didn't stop the mafia queen from going ugly on national television.

In Rosie's mind she is in fact a slave - without choice. She is facing an increasingly depressive scene in which what she sees to be true all around her - somehow does not apply for her. In the realization of such a world's existence it becomes necessary for her to defend her condition, her compulsion; her believed "state of being." And that is the truly sinister part...

In order for homosexual activists to make the case for special rights to be made for them as some sort of minority legal protection status, they must first convince the world that when it comes to their actions of engaging in homosexual behavior - they are compelled to do so. This is also a common belief amongst liberals when it comes to sexual behavior in general. There is no such thing as brake with liberals when it comes to sex, only a gas pedal.

Sadly, this is why Barack Obama will take this message of slavery to the teaming masses at Saddleback Church this Friday, and from Rick Warren's pulpit sing the praises for condom distribution as the solution to eradicate HIV/AIDS.


Because, he will argue, that it is not possible for people to make choices when it comes to their sexual natures. Incidentally that is the exact same argument Rosie makes concerning her friends who engage in homosexual behavior.

But what if Rosie and Obama are wrong? What if each of us does get to choose?

What if we actually aren't animals with any say in what we eat, drink, do for a living, and of course sleep with? What if we are actually more than the raging hormones that at time scream in us to give in to them - when we know with our minds that to do so is not only unwise, but under certain circumstances brings death?

Has the instinct to achieve an orgasm somehow now trumped the instinct to stay alive?

If Rosie is right about being enslaved to her own homosexual behavior then she is also right in arguing for special rights, special ideas of fairness, and preferential treatment. If Obama is right - and in his view - the uneducated natives of the African continent can not in anyway control their sexual compulsions then condoms would have to be considered the gold standard in fighting AIDS.

The problem for Rosie is - she's wrong. There is no DNA component that forces her to engage in sexual activity with anyone - much less someone of her same gender. Every time she has engaged in sexual activity it has been because of one specific idea - she wanted to. Whether its underage teenagers fooling around in the back of a car, an elicit meeting between married persons who are not married to each other, a man cruising the adult bookstore for "reading" material, or a foolish one night stand initiated at a local pub - ALL sexual activity is based on a series of choices. Persons who engage in homosexual behavior are no different. None.

And that's the one thread that undoes the entire fabric...

The truth is, society as a whole is in desperate need of many more voices to actually point out to young people, married persons, men, and women the danger of foolish choices. Such choices often do cut one's young life short, destroy one or more families, or develop permanent issues of mistrust, lack of transparency, or commitment. More voices speaking the truth about the impact of our choices would impact minds as to the reality that they are not slaves of their passions. In fact if anything life is best lived when our passions are subject to truth.

Instead of insisting that Barack Obama come to his church to preach the gospel of irresponsible sexual behavior and condoms, imagine if Rick Warren would devote the same monies he is spending to put on the affair to create positive initiatives in Africa? He could model them after the Ugandan program which has dramatically cut the AIDS numbers in recent years - specifically through the emphasis of "choice" and "abstinence."

No this could never be allowed. Homosexuals, and truly anyone who chooses to live the "if it feels good do it" mentality to its fullest could never allow such a truth to become known.

We humans have the ability to choose, and to do so wisely just might save our lives. That is if we don't allow such a gift to become subject to the tyranny of the pleasurable.