LGBT Figures From Left-Leaning Group

[Johnny Tremain]

Unfortunately it seems to me that this validation aspect came about from those who wished to assume a leadership position of what had, up till then, had not been a "group" with the sole intention of obtaining government benefits.

Curiously enough the timing more or less coincided with the rise of AIDs and the related medical costs it brings with it.

Like so many before them its somebody else going to the government with their hands out.

Trouble with this group is that it brought with it ass-less chaps on parade.

It was a marvel to see all that on parade down Market Street in San Francisco. Like 500,000 people at times.
I was never sure what it was all about--other than--I'll say it once more--Exhibitionism.
Once--I got off the B.A.R.T. at Hallidie Plaza--Powell Street--and a parade was underway by lesbians--into Celibate Passion.
I was lectured to by some about the promise of a life without any sex.
Oh well.

 

[Dr.Who]

the other 4% most likely said pi** off and hung up.

the dems play to that group not because of their numbers (unless those numbers have dollar signs in the front) but because they have worked hard to make it a cause for he left in general. its a feel good non issue that requires little in the way of action.

no doubt some of the other 4 percent did not want to participate in the poll. But there are also people who don not fit into neat little boxes. For example there are some people who have no sexual orientation at all and prefer not to have sex with anyone.

3.4 sounds about right.

And no the lgbt does not control the dems but they do hold an influence greater than their numbers would imply. thats what happens when a group is much more politically motivated than many other people. More straight people get distracted by raising families while more gay people are dinks and can get involved.

 

[Dr.Who]

I'm not sure how this fully makes sense. I agree that it should be a non-issue and we have much bigger things to tackle, but the people making this an issue are those on the right. Everyone else is just saying "seriously, who cares? Leave them alone" and the right-wingers are the ones who bring religion into the argument and stir things up. I mean, sure, the Democrats as a party probably see this as an opportunity to stand out from the backwards republican politicians who insist on fighting this cause, and it's a nice clean thing to fight for while they avoid fixing the economy, but it's only an issue because the right wing has made it one. And if you happen to be a same-sex couple who has been together for 30 years and yet your partner can't get health insurance coverage because of a stupid outdated law that republicans don't want to change, you aren't calling this a "non-issue". The minute the right-wing stops using this as a focal point for their hatred, the minute this issue will disappear.

it is not only a matter of right wingers making it an issue. Plenty of others make it an issue too.

If we truly left them alone then there would be no gay marriage since marriage by definition is when the state intrudes into the person life of people's relationships. Gay people spedifically do not want to be left alone. They want to be forced to have to get a licence so they can get the recognition and the benefits of marriage.

 

[Dr.Who]

For the record--I think marriage is between a man and a woman.

You might have an "exalted friendship with humping" between two of the same sex. Ok with me.
It's just that a concept as old as the planet should not be diddled with by people who are mostly moved by promiscuity.
No one prevents two men or women from living together--however they wish.
They just foam at the mouth if EVERYONE is not FORCED to say--
"Yes. You are right. You are just like we are. Your way is better."
It's just a fact--not a judgment.

If gay people want to live together and call it marriage then let them. If the want the state to force them to get permission and then force them to get permission when they stop living together then what they would have would be state sanctioned marriage with the limits and benefits. The only reason the state should be allowed to coerce people like this is if there is a compelling reason - a reason like they might create babies. There is a legitimate reason for the state to control the lives of men and women who create babies whether they are married or not but there is little reason for the state to control the lives of same sex couples. Even if they go the in vitro route the process still involves one man and one woman and those are the two who should be the subject of laws.

 

[Dr.Who]

But please take into consideration that there are animals that have homosexual behaviour or parenting (e.g. penguins).

When animals human or otherwise choose to engage in same sex behavior I don;t really think it is a matter for the state to get involved in at all.

When to humans chose to raise children no matter if it is a mother and a grandmother, two sisters, two brothers, or two unrelated people of any gender then the state might have reason to get involved. It hardly needs to fall under the umbrella of marriage laws.

 

[Dr.Who]

I fully support it in the world of Penguins.
It's fine what anyone does--but the psychotic obsession with being "accepted" as "married" is a problem solved with civil unions--but--Nooo--that was not enough.

The whole thing is a stunt in exhibitionism--which is the central core of gay life in the USA.
I lived in San Francisco a few years. Seen it all, the social exhibitionism--up close and personal. Because it was thrown in your face 24/7 at every turn.

Nah, its about the money too. Insurance benefits.

So if an insurance company chooses to let an insured person name any dependent at all then let that company do so. And if one company does not but another company does then guess who gets more customers? But I am willing to bet that insurance companies are not permitted by regulation from letting peopl choose any dependent except children and spouses of the other gender. What meddling politician decided to make that regulation?

 

[Dr.Who]

. And no one has answered the fact that if you truly believe in freedom in this country, then you should be the first to tell others it's none of our business how two people define "marriage". .

The issue is not at all about how two people define marriage but about how the state defines it and then makes a whole slew of laws regarding that - laws that in each instance restrict rights. People should be concerned about that.

 

[Dr.Who]

I will never understand how people become sexually attracted to someone of their own sex.. I don't care how much they cry and moan, or how many laws they pass, there will always be a good portion of people who will never believe that behavior to be mainstream or normal.

I really don't care if it mainstream or normal. I do care about rights and laws.

 

[Cruella]

I really don't care if it mainstream or normal. I do care about rights and laws.

Really? And what comes next? Will you care then?

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Nah, its about the money too. Insurance benefits.

So if an insurance company chooses to let an insured person name any dependent at all then let that company do so. And if one company does not but another company does then guess who gets more customers? But I am willing to bet that insurance companies are not permitted by regulation from letting peopl choose any dependent except children and spouses of the other gender. What meddling politician decided to make that regulation?

Hits the Nail on the Head.
People in the group would be well-advised to not abuse the openness that has been shown them by many who find them too different to be comfortably tolerated.
There is danger in the attempts to force others to accept.
Great big danger.
It is the birthplace of terrible side-effects.

 

[Cruella]

If a state recognizes gay marriage or domestic partners the isurance company is supposed to also include them as dependents, as the states are the ones to regulate their insurance companie's benefits. This is another reason why a one size fits all insurance program won't work for everyone.

 

[Dr.Who]

Really? And what comes next? Will you care then?

People will do all sorts of things and as always they are free to do them those behaviors being between them and their God. When it enters the domain of rights and laws then it concerns me and you all know what I think about that.

 

[Cruella]

When it enters the domain of rights and laws then it concerns me and you all know what I think about that.

Are you going to be okay with bigamy? Child & adult marriages?

 

[Johnny Tremain]

I think the main reason for marriage is how to deal with any possible children.

This is obviously not a gay issue, so why would it be needed--in the same way as in heterosexual unions.

Now--gay "marriages" want to adopt children--which is another issue entirely and if you have ever seen what two lesbians do to a male child--you know the meaning of the word "abomination".

Some are good and great--it is true--but make it a RIGHT--and I can assure you it will be devastating to many defenseless children.
We should never subsidize and promulgate people who want to vent their hatreds and frustrations and mental illnesses upon a child as their way to "get back" at the world that they perceive "wronged" them.

Decent "orphanages" of some sort should be within our reach to deal with the massive amount of children who get no guidance or care from their horrible parents. Drug addicts, drunks, crack-heads, perpetual felons--you name it.

Remove their children--or you doom them to the exact same lifestyle and swell the criminal population even more.

 

[Cruella]

There isn't enough information on the gay adoption thing yet. Although one story I read by someone who was raised that way, paints the outlook for straight kids brought up by gay parents to look very promising for the kids development.