RECENT  POSTS:  » No, you really don't seem to know what tyranny is, Jerry Cox » Vatican's #Humanum event meant to paint gay families as 'evil' and 'obscene,' admits invited guest » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years  

« 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