S.E. Cupp Confronts Martin Bashir for Attacking Michele Bachmann's Faith
Appearing on Martin Bashir's eponymous 3 p.m. program, conservative columnist S.E. Cupp took the MSNBC anchor to task for his and his network's most recent attacks on Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) regarding her husband's views on homosexual orientation being a choice that one can change through therapy, not a deterministically-imposed genetic trait.
When Cupp agreed that it was "valid to call it junk science" that one's sexuality can be changed by counseling and therapy, Bashir seized on Cupp's statement to insist that Michele Bachmann was held captive by junk science, thus calling into question her judgment.
Cupp protested that Michele Bachmann herself may not share her husband's views and that the media's fixation on the matter is part and parcel of an attack on religious Americans:
S.E. CUPP: I think this makes for a really perfectly-timed story. When everyone else is talking about the economy and it's really hard to make her look dumb, let's make her look scary. So then the media starts to look for these kooky, quirky, religious social issues stories.
MARTIN BASHIR: No, no, no, no. S.E., that's not fair.
CUPP: Because they can't talk about her positions on the economy because they're better than Obama's would be.
Bashir might not think Cupp's diagnosis is fair, but Bashir's own evolving take on Bachmann is right in line with Cupp's analysis, given how Bashir praised Bachmann a month ago by snidely tagging her as "the thinking person's Sarah Palin." To Bashir, Bachmann is no dummy, but her views are wrong-headed or scary.
Bashir tried to get back to his agenda, namely opening a rift between religious Bachmann fans and the conservative but atheistic S.E. Cupp. The conservative columnist turned the tables by pointing out the absurdity of Bashir's line of attack (emphasis mine):
BASHIR: You said this is junk science.
CUPP: I think it's a valid argument to say that praying away the gay is junk science.
BASHIR: It's not just you saying that, it's the Association of American Psychologists who are saying this.
CUPP: I think it's a valid argument, that it's junk science. But I don't think you can implicate 80 percent of the population which is Christian, who believe that homosexuality is a sin as crazy and kooky and extreme.
BASHIR: I'm not going there. I'm not suggesting that at all. What I'm asking you is, does Michele Bachmann therefore embrace junk science.
CUPP: I can't tell you what motivates Michele Bachmann's belief that homosexuality is a sin. I have a feeling it's the Bible.
BASHIR: No, no. She says it's slavery. She says it's a bondage.
CUPP: These were metaphors, Martin, and you and I use metaphors all the time. To create a bigger story out of the idea that a conservative Christian candidate is against gay marriage, thinks homosexuality isn't a sin, really isn't all that controversial.
BASHIR: Is a potential Republican candidate for the presidency embracing junk science?
CUPP: If you don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, if you don't believe that you can pray away the gay, if you don't [sic] believe that gays should be married than you would disagree with Michele Bachmann and you would say that she is embracing junk science.
If you are a Christian who believes like she does, that homosexuality is a sin, creationism is the story of how we all got here, then I don't think you would call it junk science, I think you would call that, you know, Scripture, Christianity.
Of course, as an attendee of an evangelical church in Manhattan, Martin Bashir should understand Cupp's point. Unfortunately it seems he's been worshiping at the altar of MSNBC's left-wing message machine of late.
# # #
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Depends....
Submitted by KornKing on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 5:56pm.
How many people have left the lifestyle????????
Indeed
Submitted by Dave81 on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 6:45pm.
And how many have embraced it later in life?
gay gene
Submitted by TruthMatters on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:56pm.
further, if there is a gay gene, then that means it's probably a mutation or defected since nature's "plumbing" of humans obviously doesn't support the "norm". If it's mutated or defected gene, then that means we can abort gay babies or seek cures...right?
Hormone therapy
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:59pm.
Well, if there is a "gay gene," then they is already a cure: hormone therapy. I mean, they already use that in "gender reassignment" procedures, do they not? Well, if it works one way....
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I know one that has personally
Submitted by Funbowhunter on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 9:45pm.
and many others have that I have read about. But, you already have your pat answer, "Well, they really weren't homosexual then!" But look at any dictionary, it is defined as one having sex with someone of the same sex. The problem is you cannot accept that someone would choose to leave it. I know it is not the meme today, but, it is still a deviant deathstyle in which people are trapped and hate themselves for they know in their hearts what they are doing is wrong.
I'll tell you something that
Submitted by jdhawk on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 5:57pm.
I'll tell you something that is scary. Wait for it . . . O'bozo is against gay marriage, too! But, you will never ever ever hear a liberal a**wipe like Bashir imply or state that there is anything "scary" about O'bozo.
I think he is a "dick," too!
In fact, some MSM pundits have stated that 'they know' . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 6:02pm.
. . . Obama supports same-sex marriage, but he just can't say so publicly for political purposes.
Obama IS in a same-sex marriage.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 6:04pm.
He's the wife.
Well maybe with M0000000000chle......
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 6:21pm.
But as far as the media and the dems in the house and senate......... barry is the "man" and they are all his "prison wives"
S. E. Cupp is another bulldog on these MSM shows
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 6:00pm.
She's smart, quick, and aggressive, and she makes most of the MSM hosts look ridiculous.
I believe that Cupp has described herself as an atheist, but she is very quick on the draw to defend freedom of religion and fend off attacks on religious beliefs.
I'd like to see her visit Maher's show; she's more than up to the task.
Her dad is a Pastor/Minister
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 7:17pm.
Her dad is a Pastor/Minister - I can't remember which, so she gets the worldview. I agree she's smart and unafraid. Refreshing, isn't it?
Ronald Reagan
Her Dad
Submitted by kiwikit on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 5:12am.
is a minister? I thought she was reared as a Catholic.
So her dad's a what, a
Submitted by amyshulk on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 7:35am.
So her dad's a what, a Deacon? I don't track this stuff.
I've posted before I bought into the "religion is eeeeeevil" meme for decades, and just recently figured out how it's really hand in hand with conservatism. Not as you HAVE to have to be religious but th basic tenets {from my observations} seem to be the same.
Ronald Reagan
@GAL
Submitted by Samshile on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 7:48pm.
SHE IS AN ATHESIST. however she has manners. She has been on Billy Goat mahers show. She told him What do you know about GOD? That person there (other guest) knows GOD but you dont, so dont try and speak about something you nothing about. IT was great!!! Paraphrased
Thanks for the info, Sam
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:09pm.
I don't get HBO, so I never see Maher even if has a tough conservative on. Let's hope she keeps firing away.
MSDNC shills
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 6:16pm.
It should be fairly obvious that all MSDNC shills have the opinion that any and all conservative women are idiots.
Bashir is as thick as two posts!
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 6:41pm.
He simply doesn't understand metaphors. They're obviously above his pay grade.
Christians talk about slavery as in being slaves to and enslaved by sin. How on earth does he attend an evangelical church and still be ignorant of that phrase?
I simply cannot believe this man is allowed to host a show and attempt to carry on intelligent conversations.
I don't know where MSNBC dug him up, but he ought to be re-interred.
THAT'S A METAPHOR, MARTIN!!!
Exactly. Plenty of verses
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 10:59am.
Exactly. Plenty of verses about bondage and slavery to sin:
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. --John 8:34
"Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,[a] you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed" -- Romans 6:16-17
"For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." --Romans 6:14
Same verse as translated in the literal New American Standard Bible (NASB):
"For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. "
She missed her chance
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 6:42pm.
to bring up AGW.
Why aren't the lib crusaders...
Submitted by USMC8411 on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 7:01pm.
Attacking o'bama following this left wingnut policy at the Federal level?...
http://www.fox10tv.com/dpps/news/national/same-sex-couples-stipend-to-of...
If he were really a homosexual marriage (so called marriage) supporter he would say damn the federal income, equal tax rates for all married folks.
So far, he has not sued Massachusetts for a state right issue, like he has Arizona.
Bachmann's husband's gay
Submitted by goldwater89 on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 7:46pm.
Bachmann's husband's gay therapy clinic will prevent her from holding any national office.
Nice hook!
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:17pm.
Nice hook with the subject line! Too bad that the clinic isn't really a "gay therapy clinic" as you claimed. It's a Christian Counseling Clinic (Clinics, actually, as there's two of them: one in Burnsville and another in Lake Elmo). And I don't see how that's going to preclude her for holding a national office. After all, she's already a member of the US House of Representatives.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Her husband believes he can
Submitted by goldwater89 on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 10:21am.
Her husband believes he can turn gay people straight. That's delusional.
She's a U.S. Rep because the majority of people in her district are Republicans. She could never become Governor, or Senator from Minnesota, let alone President.
Ohh she believes it
Submitted by as promised on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 3:00pm.
Or, she attempted to use her office to protect THEIR business, which is certainly unethical. You choose. Nutty or unethical.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/07/12/266506/bachmann-law-ex-gay-ther...
as promised*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 3:52pm.
Nutty or unethical? How about Dianne Feinstein? Dont get me started on this, I can give you links and amounts of money funneled to family and friends by Pelosi, Dodd, Barney Frank, Rangel, the Kennedys, Long time politicians like Pelosi, Dodd, and John Kerry, after years in congress are all now filthy rich. So are some republicans. Cherry picking one piece of state legislation that seems fair, it a typical lib distortion of the truth.
Christian counseling for gays cant be any more questionable than paying Herbalist and other non conventional methods of treatment for illnesses. This kind of legislation and unorthodox views is what led to medical marijuana clinics opening up all over the country. You cannot accuse the Bachmann's of doing something that the wacky libs have been doing for decades.
Here is a list of diseases that have clinics, drugs, and medical providers of alternative medicine and medical practice.
So tell me why shouldnt there be a counseling center for dysfunctional gays who voluntarily "seek" treatment?
Your biased hypocritical agenda is a sign of a warped liberal.
And another 2-week wonder
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 4:16pm.
And another 2-week wonder comes in with Liberal talking points and Uber-Liberal links.
This surge of Trolls must mean Obama is going to have another major FAIL
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Nice
Submitted by Rukus on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:11pm.
I agree with Cobra: Nice hook (too obvious). Fail!
It is not a "gay therapy clinic". Nice try but, Fail! 2.0.
Finally, since when isn't a U.S. Congresswoman not a national office? Strike 3 Fail!
Ah, I do believe you are
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:33pm.
Ah, I do believe you are referring to the mindless drones who voted for "hope'n'change" buying into the framing {hit} job the msm does/will do to ANY conservative. Too bad Obama-lite is off the grid, then we just *might* have gotten those votes, huh?
Ronald Reagan
Schooling Bashir is futile.
Submitted by Boil It Down on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:33pm.
Hopefully some of the viewers were bright enough to comprehend what S.E. Cupp had to say. To me Bashir is only intelligent enough to be an MSNBC attack dog on the end of his progressive leash. Their learning skills seem to be severely stunted after they've been indoctrinated. S.E.'s attempt to teach him something is most likely pointless. -bidn-
i could care less about gay marriage and abortion
Submitted by scarletandgold on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:54pm.
if your a consevative ,,why are these even issues,,,no state has ever voted in favor of gay marriage when its on the ballot..its only legal because of progressive judges and state politicians...the people simply dont want it..i could never vote for a dem for anything because of thier politically correct retardations,,,,as far as abortion...im a christian and against it...but hey , if progressives want to muder thier children well so be it..just teach your kids that its murder and irresponsible behavior has consequences...if michelle bachman wins the nomination she will win by a landslide...this election will not be about gays,,or abortion or the debt it will be about the sick and demented progressive agenda,,,and obama and alot of democrats will be rejected..these people are failures and the economy reflects it...and bashir is supposed to be a christian ?? he,s just another msnbc tormented soul...all haters ad liars...
Can you be an atheist and still be a conservative?
Submitted by Rush Fan on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 9:04pm.
I like S. E. Cupp, and she is an excellent spokesperson for our side on many issues. But I ask the question again. Can S.E. Cupp or anyone who does not believe in the existence of God be called a conservative?
Why not?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 9:14pm.
Why can't atheists be Conservatives? Conservatives believe, amongst several things, the freedom to practice one's own religious beliefs. That means that you're also free to not practice any religion at all, if that is what you really believe. You see, Conservatives don't judge people by what they believe, but on how they act on those beliefs.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The real question everyone should ask themselves.
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 9:21pm.
Who gives you your Unalienable Rights, a Higher power, or man? As far as I am concerned, weather you be of Faith or not, this Country was founded and flourished when we had Unalienable Rights.
There's no rule that you have
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 10:09pm.
There's no rule that you have to subscribe to a belief in a higher power to agree with John Locke's argument about natural rights, which is what Thomas Jefferson referenced in the Declaration of Independence. Locke is pretty persuasive and you don't need to necessarily agree with the references to a 'Creator'.
The thing that annoys me about SE's position on religion -- and I don't dislike her at all personally -- is that it reflects feeling of "embarrassment" by younger people at the idea of believing in God. There's a dichotomy that exists that to believe in God is hokey mysticism that requires you to suspend your disbelief, while being an atheist is about being nuts-and-bolts and sticking to reality.
SE in the interview in line with this puts people who 'get their beliefs from the Bible, believe in creationism, and think you can pray the gay away' in one camp, and puts everyone else in the other camp.
"that they are endowed"
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 10:41pm.
By who then? Our Constitution says "by their Creator" with Creator as a noun. Weather this jives with Atheist or not isnt my point. If they are "endowed" by man, it wont end well.
What was the relevance of 'by
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 11:07pm.
What was the relevance of 'by their Creator' to Thomas Jefferson ? He just meant that man was born with rights.
"God" or "Creator" for deists (as well as non-deists) was just a way to say that the world isn't some random accident, there's a moral order to the universe, and a reason why we're alive though we can't exactly comprehend it. God was a name to that principle.
You can believe in the same thing without believing in giving the principle a name and calling it "God".
Which is also exactly my annoyance with SE's position. A lot of fuss over using a perfectly good word.
Very good
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 7:51am.
Thanks
Let me add another question: Charles Krauthammer is called
Submitted by Rush Fan on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 10:21pm.
a conservative. Yet Krauthammer, who I admire, supports legalized abortion and embryonic stem cell research, among other liberal issues. With these beliefs, can Charles Krauthammer truly be described as a conservative?
I hope so.
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 2:48am.
I hope so. As I've said before, if one has to follow someone else's litmus tests for "true conservatism" down to every last issue or else be ostracized, then there won't be enough "conservatives" left to fill a meeting room at the Anderson, SC Holiday Inn. Just who should be in charge of designing these litmus tests anyway? I'm sorry, but these calls for political "purity" are getting troublesome. In this climate would Ronald Reagan be regarded as a "true conservative"? William F. Buckley?
Yes. I don't understand the
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 7:47am.
Yes. I don't understand the logic there..
I presume Adam Smith was a Christian (most people were at that time in Scotland), but what if it suddenly came out the father of free enterprise was secretly, oh... not a Christian.
So, forget the economics, but his religious beliefs suddenly make him NOT a conservative.
That would be a bit silly, correct?
One shouldn't play the liberal/leftist game of wild generalizations and constant stereotyping.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Of course they can
Submitted by as promised on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 2:49pm.
Since when did "Christianity" become compulsory for Repbulicans (or Conservatives, for that matter).
That makes no sense. That is a very recent development and one that is isolating the GOP.
Are we not discussing politics here?
If you are responding to my post, I didn't mention any
Submitted by Rush Fan on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 1:45am.
particular religion. I was just questioning whether someone could be a non-believer, an atheist, and still be described as a 'conservative"?
Twanging the Line
Submitted by Coldsnap on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 3:43am.
I could care less what her religious beliefs are. I'm not voting for her to be the leader of my church group, I'm voting on someone who can run the bleeding country. You know the libmedia will point to this. Her correct action here is to affirm that she's a person of faith but assure the country she's holding her beliefs just as all presidents have before her, but that the will of the people is her primary focus.
She grabs the microphone too many times and goes thumping, the media's going to eat her lunch. Thus will end another promising person who might have been able to turn the tanker around.
A little bit of Christmas magic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS4G2f2Xy3w
What is the intent
Submitted by as promised on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 2:24pm.
I normally do not care a single whit about any politician's religion (or lack of). It is problem when it is not of the mainstream and is obviously affecting one's intentions and interfering with policies and decisions. At this point Bachmann and Perry, even Santorum, are tending to put their versions of religion and morality over and above anything that is actually political or governmental in nature.
*THAT* is a problem. They will not be running for "Grand Pastor", they are intending to be President of a diverse country that is a leader in an even more diverse world.
It is not the faith or belief that is in question, it is the priorities and intent.
Can we PLEASE set the record straight on this??
Submitted by stage9 on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 11:41am.
The whole concept of "praying the gay away", as usual, is NOT a term coined by Christians but by liberal radicals, nor is it a concept that has ANY basis in Christian Reparative Therapy!
Let's just look at the facts for a moment. The largest organization dealing in Homosexual Reparative Therapy is Exodus International who hosts the often controversial "Love Won Out" Seminars. They continue to claim, and for the life of me I don't understand how any respectable journalist can argue against the point, that their ministry does NOT "CURE" PEOPLE:
"As complex human beings, sexual attractions develop for many known and unknown reasons and no one chooses those, but as sexual beings, we all make decisions about how to express ourselves. For those who consider the Bible to be life-giving truth, homosexual attractions and the desire to act on them are at odds with the desire to live a life that reflects the Christian faith and often results in moral tension.
Exodus acknowledges that pursuing a relationship with God over these attractions won’t always make the feelings go away. They may stay the same, lessen or possibly shift towards the opposite sex. That’s not the point. The point is to pursue a life beyond attractions, feelings and societal labels that is guided and defined by Jesus Christ and the truth of Scripture. And for the record, living with conflicted desires is not the same as living a life dominated by them. Exodus doesn’t believe there is a “cure” for homosexuality, adultery, arrogance, gossip or any other sin. There is, however, Jesus who paid the price for it all when He died on the cross. Then there is the daily, sometimes moment-by-moment, decision to live a life congruent with His teaching." (http://exodusinternational.org/2011/03/debunking-the-myths-about-exodus-...)
What Does Exodus Believe About Sexual Orientation & Change?
Find Out:
http://exodusinternational.org/2009/12/sexual-orientation-and-change/
Does this therapy work or is it "hateful" and "destructive" as the radicals continue to claim?
You decide:
http://exodusinternational.org/resources/real-stories/
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
So the bible
Submitted by as promised on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 3:14pm.
is your reference-book on homosexuality?
Do you actually KNOW any gay people? Without exception each one that *I* am acquainted with knew at a very young age - usually by elementary school - what their genetic destiny was. It is not a choice.
Anyway, back to politics, Bachmann is attempting to run for President of the United States. She is choosing to let her religious agenda pre-empt any valid political agenda. The POTUS is not elected based on religious agenda. The USA is bigger than that.
→ Hear! Hear!
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 3:18pm.
He was elected based on his race and gender, else Hillary Clinton would be president.
Liberals are nothing if not idiots.
Whoa!
Submitted by dliston on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 11:49am.
Whoa! I am a little confused here. SE Cupp agrees it's junk science? Maybe I am missing something. When did they prove homosexuality was genetic? Have they proved therapy doesn't change one's sexual orientation? What about the former homosexuals who says it did? Are they lying? For the record and history go get a good book on the history of homosexuality and psychology and the how, when and why they changed the definition from illness to just another lifestyle choice. Just a hint....it was not science that changed it.
Very good point...
Submitted by stage9 on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 11:56am.
H o m o s e x u a l s have claimed that H o m o s e x u a l i t y has been repeatedly demonstrated to be, and is in fact, an innate, genetically-determined condition.
Dean Hamer of the National Institutes of Health performed and published the research most widely cited as pointing to a "g a y gene." Dr. Hamer testified in the Colorado Proposition 2 court case that he was "99.5% certain that h o m o s e x u a l i t y is genetic." He later came to the following conclusions:
"The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which h o m o s e x ua l i t y was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed..."
Hamer's study was duplicated by Rice et al with research that was more robust. In this replication the genetic markers found by Hamer turned out to be of no statistical significance:
"It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer's original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer's et al, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing s e x u a l orientation..."
Simon LeVay, a neuroanatomist at The Salk Institute in San Diego, founded the Institute for G a y and L e s b i a n Education in San Francisco after researching and publishing the study of hypothalamic structures in men most widely-cited as confirming innate brain differences between h o m o s e x u a l s and h e t e r o s e x u a l s, as he himself initially argued. He later acknowledged:
"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that h o m o s e x u a l i t y is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being g a y. I didn't show that g a y men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a g a y center in the brain."
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
If homosexuality is genetic,
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 12:03pm.
If homosexuality is genetic, I suppose those who believe in a woman's right to choose to abort her baby, can have no objection if a woman wants to abort her "gay baby son."
I presume a test can be invented (like the test for Downs Syndrome) to give the woman pleanty of time in order to abort her gay baby son.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Consensus junk science.OK Show us the gay baby gene, hurry.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 4:10pm.
Here it is and it's rainbow colored, who knew!
As soon as that happens NAMBLA Shall have court orders to save er restrain gestating gbs
You Didn't Build That.
Sin is
Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 12:25pm.
bondage and slavery. Scripture is very plain on that.