RECENT  POSTS:  » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama  

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

08/10/2011

Why does NY's anti-equality lobby demand unsafe gay sex?

by Jeremy Hooper

The New Yorker's Family Research Foundation -- the big anti-equality lobby in the state and the National Organization For Marriage's big ally -- posted this to the ol' Facebook wall:

Screen Shot 2011-08-10 At 6.41.14 Pm
[SOURCE]

So my question for NYFRF: Why are they so unconcerned with the health of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals? I mean if this is really how the organization's leaders feel, that sex is only safe if it is within the confines of a monogamous marriage, then why are they so forcefully putting LGB people at risk? Isn't this pretty negligent, at best; cruel-hearted, at worst?

Now, of course NYFRF leaders would say that homosexuality is innately unhealthy and they could never support any part of it. But that's just social conservative fantasy talk. LGBT people have existed, do exist, and will always exist as long as there is a spinning orb that we call Earth (and perhaps on planets elsewhere). So if there is to be a natural world, fallen or not, wherein mortal humans live and love and schtoop, wouldn't it be in these social conservatives' consistent interest to at least help steward LGB people into the kinds of committed partnerships that they claim as the only one, true safe haven? Wouldn't that be their most logical demand, even?

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails