RECENT  POSTS:  » What to even say about Josh Duggar? » GOP prez candidates lining up for NOM-sponsored event in Iowa » Video: Ted Cruz tells viciously anti-gay Family Research Council he's got their back on anti-gay discrimination » Scouts prez seeks long overdue end to offensive stigma » FRC prays against Dan Savage 'spewing upon our nation'; I'll let Dan make that joke himself » Sen. (and prez candidate) Cruz to join extreme anti-LGBT activists at Family Research Council event (#WOTW15) » 'Out' magazine's editor-in-chief makes case against gay 'bullies'; it's shortsighted and here's why » Voodoo, snake oil, 'changing' gays: CA congressman to introduce national ban on dangerous anti-science » Because the internet exists, listen to former 'Love Connection' host Chuck Woolery rant about marriage equality » Today in least-you-can-do-ness: Billy Graham's son tweeting anti-equality prayers to SCOTUS justices  

« 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