The comparison and contrast can be seen in two threads from the respectable Republican forum, Free Republic, and the recent discussion here was occasioned by the death of the female astronaut Sally Ride,
who has been 'outed' as a lesbian. Attitudes have certainly changed since this thread was posted at FR in 2005.
FReepers (of 2012) express skepticism that lesbians even have a shorter life expectancy, as has been suggested, asking rhetorically ''why would they?"
This link gives some reasons why.
There are those who argue that' harassment' of homosexuals causes their health problems. I've even seen 'talking heads' on TV shows years ago arguing that the disease known as AIDS is not caused by anything physiological but is caused mostly by 'victimization' and the attendant stress.
I have often heard that lesbian couples are more prone to domestic violence. Most of the sources found online deny this, and this is expected, because most sources that appear on the usual google searches seem to be gay advocacy-oriented, not objective. The Men's News Daily article does indicate that male gay couples have less domestic violence than lesbian couples.
This article points out another factor which may help account for shorter life expectancy: the prevalence of substance abuse. Although, of course, the article implies that if only the 'LGBT community' were more accepted, they would not abuse drugs and alcohol. Yes, the victimization card.
I don't know what sort of 'lifestyle' Sally Ride had; perhaps she led a very ''conventional'' life in most respects. I never read much about her, and I am not going to imply that she as an individual was a substance user or abuser. I think her private life (including her sexual proclivities) should be left private, especially now that she has passed on.
I am somewhat disturbed that the FReepers, who are -- to me -- sort of typical mainstream Republicans, are veering ever closer toward social liberalism in the popular assertion that homosexuality is just a personal choice which we should not criticize. Most FReepers, whether they are registered Republicans or 'conservatives' are actually social liberals on a par with their Democrat brethren, or they are libertarians, who think that everyone has a natural right to untrammeled 'sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll.' Many male FReepers seem like middle-aged Beavises and Buttheads or aging frat boys, with the same sensibilities they had back in their youth in the 70s and 80s, when libertinism became ascendant in this country. Oddly they criticize 'hippies' and today's rebellious youth while they enshrine the very practices and attitudes that the sixties counterculture pioneered: the 'do your own thing', 'judge not', mentality.
There seem to be few social conservatives who actually believe in the traditional morals and mores that go with a Christian-based society. Just about everyone, Republican, Democrat, or Other, seems to be just fine with our polluted society today, in the name of 'individualism' and 'choice.' Those kinds of principles would make it impossible to have a cohesive, much less civilized society, as everybody would be a law unto himself. Rugged individualism and 'free choice as long as it doesn't hurt anyone' leads to an atomized and chaotic society, in which nobody cares for the greater good. Much like the society we have now.
It looks to me as if the social conservatives, wherever they are, aren't doing much conserving of traditional mores.