For a long time I’ve been in the “keep government out of the bedroom” camp, but homosexuality has been overtly politicized lately — so much so that it seems to be the #1 social cause of the Obama administration. As the gay revolution becomes socially dominant, I’m losing my patience with it. It’s an issue that concerns at most maybe 3% of the population, but it takes precedence over matters that affect far more people’s lives. Lately, I’ve been thinking of it as a boutique cause that elites can support with no inconvenience to themselves. On reflection, I’m pretty sure that’s why it’s so popular amongst the nomenklatura. If you’re obscenely rich because of an unfair economic and social system that is stacked against the common man, supporting homosexuality is a way to make yourself seem righteous and progressive while doing nothing to improve the lives of the majority of people, and even while making things worse for them.
So I just thought I’d point out one blatantly hypocritical aspect of it that nobody seems to mention.
Why is it that when a man gets a woman pregnant because he had unprotected straight sex he is a rogue who must pay, while a gay man who has anal sex with some anonymous guy in a bathhouse and gets AIDS is a victim to be pitied, and by extension paid for by the rest of us?
If children are a blessing, then shouldn’t that soften our attitude toward the man who knocks some girl up? AIDS has no social benefit whatsoever, but the guy who gets it isn’t blamed. No, instead he becomes some sort of special victim, all because he couldn’t keep his pecker in his pants. And isn’t that the argument for forcing straight men to pay for unwanted pregnancies; that they didn’t have to screw the girl?
So, as it stands today, unwanted results of straight sex are bad and punished, while unwanted results of gay sex make the unlucky dude a victim?
Can someone explain how that makes sense?