RECENT  POSTS:  » Report: US District judge won't deny justice to gay Coloradans; might delay it, though » AFA to POTUS: End your 'love affair with homosexuality,' give anti-gay Christians entitlement instead » Congressional right wing's right-side-of-history whip count: 8–271 » NOM, Manhattan Declaration turn Unitarian's anti-slavery, anti-war into pro-discrimination anthem » Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera tease America's coming anti-gay street revolts » FRC writer: We're not all the same, 'gay agenda' is 'dangerous for the wellbeing of this nation' » NBC analyst Tony Dungy says he wouldn't have drafted Michael Sam » NOM becomes even more of a generalized anti-LGBT animus organization » Sure, NOM—I'll play your game!! » Bryan Fischer: POTUS 'stood on the graves' of Malaysia Air victims 'to promote the legitimacy of sexual deviancy'  

« 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