RECENT  POSTS:  » Matt Barber's ever-classy site suggests gay people are literally crushing fellow humans » Bryan Fischer is on to our comic book villain–in-chief » Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's Al Mohler 'can't give' us acceptance; good thing we're not asking » NOM fails to trip up Oregon marriage case » Audio: Tony Perkins equates opposing equality with opposing Nazis » 'WaPo' conservative columnist: 'Strident' marriage equality opponents have lost » If you feel like you hear about another marriage case every day, here's why » If John Eastman's allowed to intervene in Oregon, I submit his endorsement of this very anti-gay book » I apparently can fly; cool, I've always wanted to! » Starving selves to stop others' happiness: Virginia edition  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

02/13/2009

There's no hetero story to which Tony can't attach gay blame

by Jeremy Hooper

Who's to "blame" for Nadya Suleman's octo-birth? Lesbians, natch:

From Tony Perkins/FRC

Picture 8-126

Ya know, because an unmarried, food stamps-claiming mother seeking a multi-birth via IVF is EXACTLY the same scenario as a stable lesbian couple seeking to conceive a sole kid. Non-discrimination vs. medial ethics = tomato vs. tomahto.

::eye roll, forehead slap::

Be sure to keep an eye out for further TP comparisons, wherein he hear he'll blame Suleyan's decision to sit down with A. Curry on a gay man who sued an Indian restaurant after he was denied the same.

Mother Doesn't Always Know Best [FRC]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I am with the majority opinion in that I have little empathy when it comes to Suleman. I just can't come up with any reasoning that would suggest that it's okay to purposefully have a litter of kids any time that you want to. Especially when the care of those children is going to rest so squarely on the shoulders of others.

But, that said, the idiots like Perkins would be the first to lambaste the usage of those embryos for stem cell research. And would do the same if they were destroyed. In their rhetoric, each of those embryos is the equivalent of a new born baby, and deserving of life. So, for them to focus their ire on her for doing exactly what they suggest that she should have done with that petri dish goo is a bit disingenuous at best, and more like blatant hypocrisy.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 13, 2009 1:33:19 PM

Yea, I'm actually a little surprised TOny went here, Dick. Suleman made it pretty clear that she hold "pro-life" views, saying that she would have never considered destroying the embryos. I actually thought they might rally behind her.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 13, 2009 1:51:07 PM

I honestly didn't predict them trying to blame this on us. Can't say I'm too surprised though. That they didn't rally around her in spite of her obviouse pro-life positions, is yet more proof of their hypocrisy.

Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Feb 13, 2009 2:04:04 PM

It's much more suggestive of the insidious nature of the radical right's supposed morality. The notion that this woman is a "welfare queen out to sponge as much money from the public coffers as possible," resounds much better with their hordes than the fact that she dutifully brought each (and everyone) of those bounding baby embryos to term. The first is fund-raising worthy, the latter is not.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 13, 2009 2:10:44 PM

I would prohibit IVF from being done if the parents can not afford to raise the children, if a doctor ends up doing an IVF illegally then the doctor would have to pay to raise the children.

Posted by: Matt Munson | Feb 13, 2009 4:45:03 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails