RECENT  POSTS:  » Focus on the Family creates itemized price list for 'saving' marriage » Fox News pays this person for his opinions » Pat Buchanan doubles down on 1983 column claiming AIDS is nature's punishment » Is NOM really going to push for a constitutional convention on marriage? » Video: Great piece from 'CBS Sunday Morning' highlights sweet success » Yes, the American marriage equality fight is over—the rest is just bluster » Goodnight from the White House to your house » AL Chief Justice Roy Moore calls marriage equality worse than segregation decision » And by opposition 'from all sides,' FRC means exclusively from the (R) side » Video: What it looked like when that thing happened today  

« 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