FRC: Obama shouldn’t devote resources to ‘homosexual’ senior citizens because they barely exist.
FRC: Obama shouldn’t devote resources to ‘homosexual’ senior citizens because they barely exist.
Yesterday, the Family Research Council (FRC) put out a statement objecting to the Obama administration’s pledge to “establish the nation’s first national resource center” to assist communities providing services to elderly LGBT communities. The statement from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius noted that there are now “as many as 1.5 to 4 million LGBT individuals are age 60 and older.” Nevertheless, FRC is arguing that there aren’t many LGBT senior citizens because “homosexual conduct” makes them die early:
In reality, HHS has no idea how many LGBT seniors exist. No one does! The movement is only a few decades old, and people who are 80- or 90-years-old didn’t grow up in a culture where it was acceptable to identify with this lifestyle.
Of course, the real tragedy here–apart from the unnecessary spending–is that, given the risks of homosexual conduct, few of these people are likely to live long enough to become senior citizens! Yet once again, the Obama administration is rushing to reward a lifestyle that poses one of the greatest public health risks in America. If this is how HHS prioritizes, imagine what it could do with a trillion dollar health care overhaul!
A 2008 Newsweek article noted that over the next 25 years, LGBT individuals “will comprise 7 to 10 percent of that senior population.” Pam Spaulding adds, “It doesn’t matter whether or not the specific number of elderly lgbts are known. The point is finding out who they are and taking care of their needs, i.e. a perfect reason for the creation of this national resource center.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Translation: You’re old and gay, die even faster!
October 27th, 2009 at 12:42 pmYou know, I see this headline, and all I can think is:
What the hell is wrong with this country?
October 27th, 2009 at 12:44 pmDo people really believe the pablum that all these whackos spew?
Are rational, thinking people truly in the minority?
I’m flabbergasted that there’s actually a target audience for this garbage.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:44 pmgiven the risks of homosexual conduct, few of these people are likely to live long enough to become senior citizens
Another example of that famous compassionate conservatism.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:45 pmis the Obama administration wishing to give some sort of preferential treatment or extra services to the LGBT senior communities? If so, I would oppose that, but they should be eligable for the same services as other seniors.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:47 pmDid I read the press release at the link right?
The Administration on Aging will award a single Resource Center grant at approximately $250,000 per year, pending availability of funds.
Sounds like the FRC is freaking out about a relatively small amount of money.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:47 pmI can play this game, too.
Conservatives, if you want to treat one marginalized group as legitimate, you must treat them all as legitimate.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:48 pmWhat “lovely” thoughts from the so-called Christians…
Thanks for reminding me once again why I have left religion behind in the dust.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:48 pmDid not know that Karl Rove was a senior citizen yet…learn something new everyday.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:48 pmThe movement is only a few decades old!
Yes! Homosexuals literally DID NOT EXIST until 1980!
Oscar who? Never heard of him.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:49 pmRich H says:
What the hell is wrong with this country?
The Republican Party.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:50 pmDave N says:
Do people really believe the pablum that all these whackos spew?
___________
Dave,
it’s not so much as that some people believe, so much as that they WANT to believe. The amount of grownups in this country whose behaviour is tantamount to sticking their finger in their ears and going “lalala” to information that disturbs them or conflicts with their sense of propriety is saddening and maddening.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:50 pmThis is hate crime according to new laws.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:53 pmThese Christianist groups keep getting classier and classier, don’t they?
Does not the Bible call for compassion? (rhetorical question, Biblical inerrancy only calls for parts of the Bible that these jackals like)
And, yes. They have a wide audience. And probably won’t be happy until homosexuality is re-criminalized and all gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people are sent off to camps to be “fixed”
October 27th, 2009 at 12:53 pmHi El Bruce,
Where’ve you been? I know it’s off topic, but I sent that project some time ago – I figured it got into your spam bin – and deleted.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:53 pmI think all LGBT people should just not pay their taxes this year and show the country how much of an affect they have. If the law treats them as second-class citizens then they shouldn’t be expected to pay their first class taxes!
October 27th, 2009 at 12:54 pmThese ugly bigots make me want to puke. Their make-believe god and their make-believe rules allow them to justify their hatred for anyone not straight, white, christian and anti-abortion.
P.S. Thanks for helping me re-affirm my atheism.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:54 pmAnother objective for the Family Research Councils attempt to marginalize elder LGTB citizens:
This demographic is often well educated, creative, politically active, and affluent.
They also tend to be progressively motivated.
Worthy adversaries indeed for the narrow minded nuclear X-tian extremists.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:55 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
These people are charlatans. What kind of religious group would come out strongly against providing health care to Americans.
They must be Satan worshipers or something. Freaks.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:56 pmFRC is arguing that there aren’t many LGBT senior citizens because “homosexual conduct” makes them die early:
Sounds like just plain old hatefilled, wishful thinking on the part of the Families Rejecting Christ inc.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:57 pmChyron HR, I was gonna say the same thing. No homosexuals before a few decades ago. I thought those ancient Greeks were very homosexual/bisexual. And I saw the movie Quest For Fire, which was 80,000 years ago, and there was a gay couple in that. I’m sure it was factual.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:57 pmOne thing I noticed in so many of the pictures of gay marriages in the media was how many of those getting married were older ladies and gentlemen.
Between having been together for decades and approaching the age where they wanted to make sure that their partners were going to be able to have a say in hospital rooms, etc., my guess is that they thought that the time was right to make it legal.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:57 pmEnnuiDivine says:
And, yes. They have a wide audience.
And a wide stance :)~
October 27th, 2009 at 12:58 pmShorter FRC:
DIE! You hucking fomos!
October 27th, 2009 at 12:58 pmcd says:
“7 to 10 percent?
That’s 2-3 times higher than any stat I’ve ever seen on this topic.”
It’s still a very large, crowded closet.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:58 pmDarkKnight,
I totally agree, if you government doesn’t treat you with equal rights, what is your obligation to said government?
I’m pretty sure a few years ago Ellen withheld her taxes (or at least publicly advocated it), in a show of solidarity of those with no voice in order to bring up the subject of inequality.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:59 pmThese Christofascist fundamentalists are the reason the rest of the world looks at us like we’re idiots. And they’re right.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:59 pm#18 – cd says:
——————————————————–
“7 to 10 percent?
That’s 2-3 times higher than any stat I’ve ever seen on this topic.”
October 27th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
That’s because to the anti-gay crowd, anyone who is bisexual is a “fag”, and to be grouped with the 100% gay people. The other problem is that there are very few bisexuals who openly admit that they have same-sex attraction.
There’s also still a large group of gay people who are afraid to admit their sexuality to anyone. These people are still gay, no matter how much they hide.
Until the stigma is removed from being gay, there will be no realistic or accurate way of determining the actual percentage of the gay population.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:00 pmKeith says:
“And I saw the movie Quest For Fire, which was 80,000 years ago, and there was a gay couple in that.”
No there wasn’t.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:00 pmThese phu(kers just can’t stand to miss an opportunity to spread hate.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:01 pmThese Christofascist fundamentalists are the reason the rest of the world looks at us like we’re idiots. And they’re right.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:02 pmSadly I have to agree. I thought we had laws to protect against hate-speech, which this clearly is. What good are laws if we don’t enforce them for fear of offending someone?! I mean it’s obvious that the people ranting like that don’t care who they offend.
noseeum,
Yes, there was.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:03 pmIt`s just amazing our they try and SUGAR COAT the HATE!!!!!!!
October 27th, 2009 at 1:03 pmThere are varying estimates, and 10-12% seems about the high water mark for responsible figures. Of course those who seek to marginalize that segment of the population will embrace the lowest numbers they can find, but since all of the studies that I’m aware of rely on self-identification and, as the FRC itself points out, many “didn’t grow up in a culture where it was acceptable to identify with this lifestyle”, it’s really difficult to establish a reliable estimate either way.
What is undeniable is that the size of a population has no bearing on whether its members deserve equal rights, or whether they deserve the same government services as the rest of us.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:04 pmMaybe Keith is thinking about the Ringo Starr comedy Caveman. Definitely a hand-holding gay couple in that movie. Came out about the same time.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:04 pmgiven the risks of homosexual conduct
As opposed to hetero conduct, what the fcuk is the difference in risks? Health related risks of sexual conduct are not confined to one group.
Oh right, these are hateful, stupid, homophobic a$$hats we’re dealing with.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:06 pmhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22quest+for+fire%22+gay+couple&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Maybe Keith knows what he is talking about, Slappy.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:07 pmAh ha– so it’s the Family Research Council that is the true death panel, pushing to keep resources from elderly people so they will die. And it’s the FRC that wants to “pull the plug”. Hateful, hateful people, that Family Research Council.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:07 pmYou have to be 80 to be a senior? Sizzler says 55.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:09 pmdasm, you’re right. They are deciding who dies.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:10 pmKeith says:
noseeum,
Think carefully if you want to discuss this movie with me.
Learn how to start a fire with two sticks and get back to me.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:10 pmI’m truly shocked by the depths of hatred professed by these alleged “Christians.”
How incredibly sad – for all of us – that these people hate their fellow man so much that they just want them dead or suffering in poverty and illness; they would spit on Jesus if they thought He might be gay.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:11 pmI wonder how the Log Cabin Republicans feel when a large percentage of their party wants to lock them in that log cabin and burn it town around them?
October 27th, 2009 at 1:13 pmI think someone out there is selling Christianity thusly: “Here’s the sweet deal. You can do or say anything you want. You just relate it to the Bible somehow or ask God’s forgiveness after the fact, and you’re home free!”
Sickening.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:14 pmThe FRC credo: “If you aren’t (1) a fetus;
October 27th, 2009 at 1:14 pm(2) in an irreversible coma; or
(3) someone who thinks like us,
God hates you and wants you to die.”
does stupidity have a parade or is this it?
October 27th, 2009 at 1:15 pmer if the old ones know what the agenda is…
October 27th, 2009 at 1:15 pmKeith says:
“Maybe Keith knows what he is talking about, Slappy.”
There’s some real quality entertainment there, Keith.
sarc/
Geez, is that where you get your phucked up factoids?
Going to do a virus scan after clicking that link…
October 27th, 2009 at 1:15 pmI’ve got news for these idiots. Kids in high school are openly gay and accepted by their peers. The only people who don’t know they’re gay are their parents in many cases. This form of hate will have to be continued by the small minded rubes who are home schooled because their parents are afraid of the real world.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:16 pmI wond
October 27th, 2009 at 1:16 pmIn reality, HHS has no idea how many LGBT seniors exist. No one does! The movement is only a few decades old, and people who are 80- or 90-years-old didn’t grow up in a culture where it was acceptable to identify with this lifestyle.
You’d die sooner too if you had to live all of your life in a closet. FRC should get real. These elderly probably have had more stress in their lives just due to the fear of “being found out” and then discriminated against. And what “movement” ? Just because people didn’t identify with what FRC calls a “movement” doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:16 pmWTF? Oh, sorry, the FRC has some solid actuarial data to support that claim, don’t they? They don’t know what they’re talking about? But, I thought the Rev. Dobson had a real good acoustic handset modem and a 300 baud dialup straight to Gawd.
I thought that people were kind of stuck with the stupid they came with, that it formed kind of a floor beneath which they couldn’t sink. These people have shaken my faith in that notion; their stupid is obviously a ceiling function, rather than a floor function.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:21 pm50+ comments, and still no bitblather or Darlyy. We are truly Blessed.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:21 pmVirtual Pebble says:
I thought the Rev. Dobson had a real good acoustic handset modem and a 300 baud dialup straight to Gawd.
That would be a tinfoil helmet and a finger in the 110 volt outlet for his Dietic Connect.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:22 pm@ 52. a minor addendum. One of our local newspapers has had a few interviews in the last couple of years with people from the LBGT community who are in their 70s and 80s.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:23 pmI agree that the senior population will be comprised of upwards of 10 percent LGBT (if it isn’t already). I also agree the idea that LGBT people don’t reach old age is ridiculous.
What I don’t understand, is what difference in needs do LGBT seniors have that necessitate a distinction from other seniors.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:23 pmRUCerious says:
“We are truly Blessed.”
Their apparatus must be down.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:23 pmAs a standard in Medical Ethics, it is not up to you to dictate your preferences to the patient.
Are there medical results to the homosexual lifestyle – of course. So you have a population in need of medical support, it is a medical ethics imperative to approach that need.
That being said, when it comes to homosexual rights, I am probably one of the more conservative folks on this list.
But fair is fair.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:24 pm“In reality, HHS has no idea how many LGBT seniors exist. No one does!”
– Granted, surveys can never deliver an exact number, no matter what methodology is used. However, there are ways to come up with a far more accurate number than using the FRC method, which apparently goes along the line of “my grandmother’s straight — therefore all elderly people must be straight.”
“The movement is only a few decades old…”
– Yet gay people existed before Stonewall. They’ve existed as long as people have.
“…and people who are 80- or 90-years-old didn’t grow up in a culture where it was acceptable to identify with this lifestyle.”
– Which is why most of them lived their lives in the closet. But that didn’t make them any less gay, and it didn’t prevent them from having life partners — even if they referred to their partners as “friends” or “roommates”. Some of these twits need to look back at their family tree and reconsider that “maiden aunt” or that “confirmed bachelor”. Many people (including narrow-minded hateful people) have gays in their group of loved ones and may not even realize it.
“Of course, the real tragedy here–apart from the unnecessary spending–is that, given the risks of homosexual conduct, few of these people are likely to live long enough to become senior citizens!”
– Of course, the “risk” we’re talking about here is HIV exposure (well, that and hate-motivated violence). And that risk (as well as for any STD) is heightened by promiscuity, not homosexuality. Monogamous homosexual couples are at the same risk for getting HIV as monogamous heterosexual couples. Furthermore, lesbians are at the lowest risk for STDs of any kind, so according to the logic here, they must live forever.
“Yet once again, the Obama administration is rushing to reward a lifestyle that poses one of the greatest public health risks in America.”
– Well, we’ve seen how effective punishing this lifestyle has been. Has that made “teh gay” go away?
“If this is how HHS prioritizes, imagine what it could do with a trillion dollar health care overhaul!”
– Yes, it tells me that the HHS is going to help all Americans, even the ones who normally get ignored. Gay Americans (especially elderly ones) are less likely to have children to help them in their declining years. Gay couples are less likely to have their relationship recognized by government and society, making it more difficult for a gay person to make decisions regarding his/her partner with Alzheimer’s or other debilitating condition. These are real problems that haven’t been recognized or addressed.
This is something that will be of help to people, and it’s not going to be all that expensive. And the funny thing is that if we called it a resource for single and childless elderly people, nobody would have a problem with it.
Of course, using “LGBT” allows groups like the FRC to scare their minions into writing checks. They should be thankful.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:24 pmKeith,
The Gay couple was in Caveman.
Sorry.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:25 pmbackup says:
“What I don’t understand, is what difference in needs do LGBT seniors have that necessitate a distinction from other seniors.”
No distinction.
That’s the point.
backup, have you ever heard of Neurolinguistics?
The concept is that what you say reinforces your behavior and cognition.
I only brought this up because one of your most common phrases is “What I don’t understand is…”
October 27th, 2009 at 1:29 pmSpeaking of our trolls, whatever happened to Murphis? Too dumb to be a paraody troll…even to be a parody of a parody troll.
He gone.
Murphis gone.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:29 pmWhen I was growing up a couple of ladies who happened to be nurses owned the house next door. It was well known, but never discussed openly, that they were gay. They’d be in their late 70’s by now. They were as stable a couple as any you’d ever meet.
They’d invite me and my sisters over for Wink soda (no kidding) and guess what? It didn’t ‘turn’ any of us gay FRC.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:29 pmKeith says:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22quest+for+fire%22+gay+couple&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Maybe Keith knows what he is talking about, Slappy.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:07 pm Add Karma Vote Up | Subtract Karma Vote Down | (0) | Report Abuse
You might, Keith, but I’m not sure what you expect me to find in that link of yours. Would you be so kind and specifically point out the link you’d like me to click? Because in your google search, the first link is to a website comparing Quest For Fire to Caveman, where it points out (like I did) that there is a gay couple in Caveman. I didn’t see any mention of a gay couple in QFF. Which only kinda sorta confirms my suspicion that you got the two movies confused.
This is the first link in your link: http://www.pluckyoutoo.com/2008/05/quest-for-fire-vs-caveman.html
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying, if you are wrong, maybe here’s where you got confused.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:32 pmMaybe that’s what they should call it.
If we are addressing the needs of single seniors that don’t have kids to help support them, why are we confusing the issue with LGBT (even if most of the people in question are LGBT).
If a senior needs more help because they don’t have a spouse or children to care for them, why does it matter if they are gay or not?
October 27th, 2009 at 1:32 pm“10-12% seems about the high water mark for responsible figures.”
That would explain why the numbers seem high.
Thanks Ralph.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:36 pmKeith, if it appeared I pounced on you, my apologies… there’s been a lack of trolls this morning, and I may be a little jumpy.
There is a very brief gay scene in the movie that only alludes to homosexual behavior.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:36 pmThey weren’t a gay couple.
The FRC has got to be one of the cruelest backward thinking groups on this planet. For eight years Bush had these neanderthal so called christians on speed dial….not only are they throwing hissy fits over their loss of access to the White House, but they continue to cause major rifts in our society. This is a dangerous group…….mean mean mean people
October 27th, 2009 at 1:38 pmDo you contribute to the United Way? If so, and you do not designate specific beneficiary organizations, a portion of your donation might go to the Family Research Council and other similar “fronts” for Conservative political activism.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:38 pmWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW.
That’s really all I can say.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:38 pmshayne,
That’s a nice high school (wherever it is). Here in CA things are still behind the times. Not long ago a transgendered student was murdered in the bay area and just a year ago a gay student was murdered by a fellow classmate in SC (though it may have been 2 years ago).
It seems no matter how far we progress as a whole, kids still learn from their parents.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:40 pmbackup says:
What I don’t understand, is what difference in needs do LGBT seniors have that necessitate a distinction from other seniors.
Posting your “expertise” on a topic you know nothing about again? How typical of you b-crappy…
October 27th, 2009 at 1:43 pmbackup says:
Maybe that’s what they should call it.
So the elderly should “stay in the closet” because their health care workers are homophobes?
Thanks for proving what an issue this is, and why bigots like you are unamerican POS fools…
October 27th, 2009 at 1:44 pmI can’t believe how closed-minded and ignorant many people are, even here in CA. I believe in the the “golden rule” yet am affiliated with NO organized religion. The “right wing” (‘wrong’ wing???) continues to spread lies and misinformation among their masses…
October 27th, 2009 at 1:45 pmThese people at frc are just ugly and despicable. No worthwhile value to mankind.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:47 pmadolf better make room.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:48 pmRE: Murdered boy in So. CA. (comment #71)
October 27th, 2009 at 1:48 pmThat boy, Lawrence King, was murdered at E.O. Green JUNIOR HIGH school in Oxnard, CA. What a sad situation for all involved. I live in Orange County but the rest of my family lives in the Oxnard/Ventura area and it was big news…
Rich H
I grew up in a town of 3,000 in Northeastern Kentucky. At least 4 students in my high school were openly gay while they were in high school. There was no bullying. I don’t think it’s as much regional as it is generational, of course region does have something to do with it, as the generations seem to move by a little more slowly here in the country.
My ultimate point is that if a teenager can feel comfortable being out in a town like this one, they can feel comfortable being out just about anywhere. But then again, I noticed that where I lived in Tampa was more heavily Republican than this little town…so maybe I’m completely wrong about that.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:49 pmbackup says:
And the funny thing is that if we called it a resource for single and childless elderly people, nobody would have a problem with it.
Maybe that’s what they should call it.
If we are addressing the needs of single seniors that don’t have kids to help support them, why are we confusing the issue with LGBT (even if most of the people in question are LGBT).
If a senior needs more help because they don’t have a spouse or children to care for them, why does it matter if they are gay or not?
You don’t think that, in most states, gay people have different resource needs than straight people? Really? Like, oh, legal help?
October 27th, 2009 at 1:51 pmOh. My. God.
This is exactly the argument these cretins used in arguing that African Americans should be FOR privatizing Social Security:
They’re all dead before they can collect the benefits.
They are SICK. SICK. SICK.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:58 pmOkay. Back after research and unrelated business. The link showed nothing, I see. And my reading showed that the two guys sleeping together (Gaw and Nam) in the beginning were brothers and not a couple like I thought. But Amoukar (Ron Perlman) definitely makes a sexual advance on Gaw and gets rejected. I mean why else do they call them Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens?
October 27th, 2009 at 2:01 pmLordy, Lordy, sakes alive, I’m so glad that the Family Research Council told me that I’m dead. Up until this very moment, I’ve been paying taxes, and breathing air just like I was really alive. I wonder if I can apply for a tax refund for all those years since 60?
Just another example of the evangelical nutwingers practicing their own gospel of Christian hate. Only worry about the child before birth. Now, if you’re gay, you don’t even count as a senior.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:08 pmbackup says
October 27th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
If a senior needs more help because they don’t have a spouse or children to care for them, why does it matter if they are gay or not?
_____________________________________________________________
Because a gay elderly person who has a living partner isn’t exactly like a straight single person. That gay person DOES have someone — it’s just that that someone often isn’t legally recognized, which creates a number of flaming hoops that have to be jumped through.
I admit that when I made my “if we called it” remark, it was mostly to force the point that it was the term “LGBT” that was like waving a red cape in front of a bull with these dolts. I didn’t mean to imply that a gay partnered person had exactly the same needs as a straight unpartnered person.
But you’re right about one thing. Seniors (or anyone else, for that matter) who need help should be able to get it no matter what their sexual orientation is. It would be nice if existing senior resources were set up to meet ALL of the wide variety of needs our senior citizens have. This would be all manner of legal advice, medical advice, end-of-life decisions, wills, power-of-attorney, estate planning, home retrofitting for the mobility impaired, etc.
Our senior citizens are a diverse group, and everyone needs something different — sexual orientation is but one factor. It could be that the reason we need a “special” resource for LGBT senior citizens is that other resources for seniors tend to ignore this factor.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:11 pmcontinuum says:
Just another example of the evangelical nutwingers practicing their own gospel of Christian hate. Only worry about the child before birth. Now, if you’re gay, you don’t even count as a senior.
They have to make this claim, because otherwise their claim that this “lifestyle” is deadly makes no sense. Not, of course, that it does make sense, and not that the “Christians” would look at the claim objectively but still . . . no, I’m wrong. They’re just idiots.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pmgummitch. I’m no expert obviously. And my question is sincere: What needs do LGBT seniors have that differentiate them from other seniors?
I may be naive, but I consider a gay senior the same as a straight senior. I could be wrong, but I find it hard to believe that gay seniors are being discriminated against. And to be honest, I don’t understand why gay seniors need more legal help.
I also assume that because I see gay and straight seniors as equals, they would have the same needs.
I do see missmolly’s point that many LGBT seniors probably don’t have kids to take care of them, but that would also be true of many straight seniors.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:16 pmShayne,
There’s no doubt that attitudes in high school are moving forward – along with the general populace. I was just pointing out how kids will pick up their parents prejudices – and used two unfortunate incidents for illustration.
Way back when I was in H.S. there was an openly gay student – and no one gave him a hard time. Later, I learned one of my best friends (a jock) was gay. Not really a surprise though, just an observation on how your immediate family makes you feel about yourself, and how they can make you feel towards others.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:16 pm“FRC: Obama shouldn’t devote resources to ‘homosexual’ senior citizens because they barely exist.”
And how long until we can apply that statement to the republican party?
October 27th, 2009 at 2:21 pmmissmolly. I see your point about the life partner issue. That’s valid.
That should be addressed for all LGBT people, not just seniors.
I support gay marriage. Maybe if we recognized the rights of gays to marry and enjoy equal status with straight people, there will no longer be a need to differentiate between gay and straight seniors.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:25 pmRich
(I think you were replying to me, so I’m going to keep the convo up).
Of course, there are unfortunate and tragic circumstances that can lead to violence, not just among LGBT kids, but also young women and children of color, and I’m certainly not saying that the problem is gone and we should let it drop.
No, I think what I’m trying to say is that those that feel the desire to oppress LGBT citizens will go the way of racists eventually – they’ll still be around, but stigmatized. That comes with time. One of the best things they could have done for race relations was integrating the schools, because it gave kids the chance to see that their racist parents were being irrational – that there was nothing wrong with these kids in their class, and the only thing that actually made them different was their skin color, which isn’t enough of a difference to mean you can’t play with their GI Joes. (Truth through the eyes of a child :) ) The same will occur as it becomes more accepted to come out and be who you are, and it will therefore happen earlier and earlier. As children are exposed to their gay classmates more and more, they will realize how irrational this oppression is. From where I’m standing, it’s already happening.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:29 pm@backup
“Maybe if we recognized the rights of gays to marry and enjoy equal status with straight people, there will no longer be a need to differentiate between gay and straight seniors.”
I think that’s precisely the point being made here. If there were actual legal equality, then there wouldn’t need to be legal exceptions for those who are deemed unworthy of the same rights the rest of us have.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:31 pmsmidget,
There’s no disagreement among us. I totally agree. As usual I wish things would happen sooner than later.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:32 pmFRC is arguing that there aren’t many LGBT senior citizens because “homosexual conduct” makes them die early:
Actually, in a way they are right. The good christians are bent on killing Gays and Lesbians, so if organizations like the FRC has their way, Gays and Lesbians will have shorter life spans. Matthew Shepard anyone?
October 27th, 2009 at 2:34 pm“As usual I wish things would happen sooner than later.”
Oh, totally. If I had my way, LGBT could marry, weed would be legal, and we’d have single payer health insurance.
Alas, we’re going to have to wait a while for those things, it seems. All in good time. I just hope I live long enough to see it happen.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:49 pmI’d just like to take this opportunity to point out that, while there are a couple of verses in the Bible against male homosexuality, there is absolutely nothing about Lesbianism, tribadism, or any form of female homosexuality. Not one word.
Yet these ‘literal interpretationists’ hate them. Why?
(and there’s as much in the Bible about transsexuals as there is about Jazzercise.)
October 27th, 2009 at 2:54 pmpbeeg
There is actually some theological contention regarding whether the Bible actually does condemn homosexuality, or whether what it is condemning is any action that is culturally similar to those that the Hebrew people were to distance themselves from. Many of the restrictions placed on the chosen people in the Bible have nothing to do with what is right, wrong, or indifferent, but are clearly intended to simply create a distinction between this group of people and that group of people. Something to think about, and it explains why lesbianism is not called out directly – if it were homosexuality that were the problem, and not simply being a Gentile, then all supposedly sinful actions would be outlined, not just those that are obvious in culture and society, such as male homosexual relationships (women were just as much property back then as they are in some places now and were thus not given the same level of sexual freedom that men were).
October 27th, 2009 at 2:59 pmsure hope they keep devoting my HIV meds another 20, 30, 40 years….
October 27th, 2009 at 3:27 pmPatrick in Madison,
You are trying to sell us:
Fetish Wear
Dungeon Gear
????????????
October 27th, 2009 at 3:31 pmThey sure seem to spend a lot of time researching homosexuality.
Hmmm…
October 27th, 2009 at 4:26 pmI’m not a Christian, but if I was, I would sure be embarrassed by how many so-called “Christian” people and groups are so filled with intense hatred, bigotry, prejudice, and just general ickiness. They sure don’t reflect well on their supposed beliefs.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:32 pmEmTee says
October 27th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I’m not a Christian, but if I was, I would sure be embarrassed…
_____________________________________________________________
I AM a Christian, and I AM embarrassed. The God I worship bears no resemblance to the golden calf manufactured by these pompous, self-righteous, modern-day Pharisees. They have so corrupted the message of Jesus Christ that their theology cannot be considered “Christianity” by any stretch of the imagination.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:39 pmThe FRC may want to read about the 55 year partnership of Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin. Ms Martin died at the age of 89 years.
They are icons in the community and were able to marry, that is, before the ‘christians’ took that away, with Proposition 8.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:39 pmAccording to Dr. Tracey Hansen at
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_sexpref.html
the percentage is 2%.
Perhaps Newsweek is still using the Kinsey numbers – 10% of the population, which note that the percentage of homosexuals with more than 500 partners is 29%. The high degree of promiscuity among homosexuals is the reason for their early deaths.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:03 pmEmTee says:
——————————————————————————–
I’m not a Christian, but if I was, I would sure be embarrassed by how many so-called “Christian” people and groups are so filled with intense hatred, bigotry, prejudice, and just general ickiness. They sure don’t reflect well on their supposed beliefs.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Do consider the people who made the cigarette manufacturers put warning on the cigarette packs to be haters? Some people would still smoke if the packs said, “Smoke this and die!”
You can draw the analogy to the Christians’ warnings about the results of homosexual behavior.
Among male homosexuals monogamy exists mainly in the imaginations of straight people.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:09 pmbitblt says:
Do consider the people who made the cigarette manufacturers put warning on the cigarette packs to be haters? Some people would still smoke if the packs said, “Smoke this and die!”
You mean because smoking is a poison?
bitblt says:
You can draw the analogy to the Christians’ warnings about the results of homosexual behavior.
You could, but it would be dishonest, bigoted and homophobic.
bitblt says:
Among male homosexuals monogamy exists mainly in the imaginations of straight people.
Substituting your “opinion” for facts again? Is that just because you couldn’t find a “man” that would cheat on your fat gross *ss that you believe this? LOL!
October 27th, 2009 at 9:06 pmbitblt says:
According to Dr. Tracey Hansen at
She’s a known liar, as you’ve been informed already.
bitblt says:
Perhaps Newsweek is still using the Kinsey numbers – 10% of the population, which note that the percentage of homosexuals with more than 500 partners is 29%. The high degree of promiscuity among homosexuals is the reason for their early deaths.
Kinsey numbers are much higher.
The high degree of an incurable diseases had nothing to do with it? LOL! What a d*chebag you are!
Just because your idiot closet lesbians hates gay men even more than she hates hetero men, don’t confuse your own lack of ability to have a stable relationship with another man as the problem with everyone else buttblight. Your closet self loathing is even more pathetic than your “christian” excuse for being a bigoted lying d*uchebag.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:09 pmbitblt says:
Among male homosexuals monogamy exists mainly in the imaginations of straight people.
So then 2/3rds of straight men who “admit” to cheating on their spouses mean nothing to you? LOL!
You “christian” fundies sure a stupid lot!
October 27th, 2009 at 9:12 pmjust the bleepn facts says:
——————————————————————————–
bitblt says:
According to Dr. Tracey Hansen at
She’s a known liar, as you’ve been informed already.
.
.
.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Would it not be more useful to offer a more credible number from a credible source rather than calling an author, who references a source, a liar?
Or do you mean to say that
Lauman E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Are also liars?
Oh, that’s right. Ridicule is all the liberal have these days.
Simply reference a source, other than Newsweek, with a credible number.
But why should a liberal do that? There’s more control when the actually number of people involved stays nebulous, isn’t there?
Homosexual behavior has consequences, very often negative consequences among male homosexuals. That is, promiscuous homosexual sex has negative health consequences, that’s because it’s “un-natural.”
Thrashing the one who makes this observation doesn’t change the observation.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:21 pmbitblt says:
just the bleepn facts says:
——————————————————————————–
bitblt says:
According to Dr. Tracey Hansen at
She’s a known liar, as you’ve been informed already.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Would it not be more useful to offer a more credible number from a credible source rather than calling an author, who references a source, a liar?
Or do you mean to say that
Lauman E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Are also liars?
A 15 year old citation? LOL! Grow up you sicko closet case!
bitblt says:
Oh, that’s right. Ridicule is all the liberal have these days.
Simply reference a source, other than Newsweek, with a credible number.
Says the bigot that ridicules gays. Ridicule is all the conservative christian fundie teabagistan terrorist have these days.
Reference what source? The APA maybe that says that you “homophobes” are the ones with a mental illness?
bitblt says:
But why should a liberal do that? There’s more control when the actually number of people involved stays nebulous, isn’t there?
Why should a conservative do that? There’s more control when the conservatives fling their echo chamber pseudo science to spew evil hatred at their fellow man in the name of “morality”. You are filth, just filth!
bitblt says:
Homosexual behavior has consequences, very often negative consequences among male homosexuals. That is, promiscuous homosexual sex has negative health consequences, that’s because it’s “un-natural.”
Yawn… Just because you can’t stop yourself from imagining some guy skewering you, doesn’t mean you have to turn into a self loathing freak! Your “paranoia” and fear just proves you’re a lunatic psycho – nothing more!
bitblt says:
Thrashing the one who makes this observation doesn’t change the observation.
Trashing a bigot is exactly what you deserve. Remember your “lecture” on actions have consequences? Well man up you little bigoted twit! Your bigotry has consequences! You are a homophobic self loathing closet case! “anyone” can see you from a million miles away… ZZzzz…
October 27th, 2009 at 9:31 pmLauman E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
This is a sample of only 3432 people nationally that chose to participate that’s almost 20 years old….
You’re an ignorant d*chebag buttblight.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:35 pmLeading experts such as the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers all say that denial of marriage rights can negatively impact the health and well-being of gay men and lesbians.
“We should get the same right as everyone else to have the problems or whatever else that comes with marriage,” said Joel Ginsberg, the executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. “It’s the inequality that’s associated with the stress.”
It’s you that’s “wrong” buttblight. And Tracey Hansen’s organization of “psychologists” say she’s wrong.
Won’t stop you from posting crap from the quack though will it buttblight?
October 27th, 2009 at 9:39 pmSo tell us buttblight, why are you upset at “gays” when they are honest about being “swingers”. You prefer the “heterosexual” dishonesty which causes 2/3 of men to cheat but lie about it? LOL!
Is that what you do in the airport mens room buttblight? Afraid if the “gays” can get married, they might not show up in the mens room for “your” pleasure? LOL!
You are one sick little conservative self loathing closet case there Senator! ;0
October 27th, 2009 at 9:43 pmButtblight is here to say that black women that get HIV from their church going “husbands” are sinners who deserve to die and have consequences for their actions as well..ZZzz…
More of those “conservative” victorian neathandral crap about how “disease” is punishment. What a crock of sh*t.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:55 pmjust the bleepn facts says:
——————————————————————————–
Lauman E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
This is a sample of only 3432 people nationally that chose to participate that’s almost 20 years old….
You’re an ignorant d*chebag buttblight.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Unless the number of homosexuals in the population is increasing, a 15 year old references should be good enough.
Cite a better reference if you have it.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:31 pmbitblt says:
——————————————————————————–
just the bleepn facts says:
——————————————————————————–
Lauman E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
This is a sample of only 3432 people nationally that chose to participate that’s almost 20 years old….
You’re an ignorant d*chebag buttblight.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Believe you should also cite a reference that shows the number of homosexuals who are actually interested in so-called same-same gender marriage, SSGM. bit previous calculations with MA and CA numbers shows only about 0.1% of the homosexuals being interested in SSGM.
It seems apparent that the percentage of the homosexuals interested in SSGM is exceedingly small compared to the number of heterosexuals who are interested in marriage.
Could you cite a credible number?
October 27th, 2009 at 10:34 pmhttp://www.narth.com
October 27th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Believe you should also cite a reference that shows the number of homosexuals who are actually interested in so-called same-same gender marriage, SSGM. bit’s previous calculations with MA and CA numbers shows only about 0.1% of the homosexuals being interested in SSGM.
You might want to remember that these calculations were made with the number 2% of the population being homosexual.
If the actual percentage is larger then 2%, then the number interested in SSGM is much, much smaller that 0.1%.
Understand that, don’t you?
October 27th, 2009 at 10:40 pmbitblt says:
Unless the number of homosexuals in the population is increasing, a 15 year old references should be good enough.
Unless you believe that the methodology could find gay people who are willing to discuss their private lives in 1992 – you got nothing.
bitblt says:
Cite a better reference if you have it.
Already did, APA you illiterate d*uchebag.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:45 pmbitblt says:
http://www.narth.com
NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care, and the right of professionals to offer that care.
The APA has discredited these organizations and in fact stated they are “harmful” because the further persecute people that have nothing wrong with them other than bigoted friends like you.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:46 pmbitblt says:
Believe you should also cite a reference that shows the number of homosexuals who are actually interested in so-called same-same gender marriage, SSGM. bit’s previous calculations with MA and CA numbers shows only about 0.1% of the homosexuals being interested in SSGM.
You’re an expert on gay folks now? LOL!
Lets see, the marriage doesn’t get federal benefits and a whole host of other reasons to discount it including people like you that make the lives of gays unholy hell and you think what people are willing to “do” is the same as what they are “interested in”?
I’m glad to know you only believe in “majority” rights – you bigoted d*uchebag.
bitblt says:
You might want to remember that these calculations were made with the number 2% of the population being homosexual.
Yawn…
bitblt says:
If the actual percentage is larger then 2%, then the number interested in SSGM is much, much smaller that 0.1%.
Yawn…
bitblt says:
Understand that, don’t you?
LOL! Says the d*uchebag that thinks “disease” is god’s punishment for “bad behavior”. Understand that you’re a bigoted hateful d*chebag, don’t you?
October 27th, 2009 at 10:49 pmbuttblight the self loathing f@g says:
bit’s previous calculations with MA and CA numbers shows only about 0.1% of the homosexuals being interested in SSGM.
In 2009, 1,900 Gay Marriages in MA out of a total of 36,000 marriages. What percent of marriages was that? 5%
Shall we include domestic partners just for fun to see what the total “coupling” is?
You really are as dumb as you are homophobic you piece of trailer trash filth.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:54 pmbitblt says:
http://www.narth.com
NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care, and the right of professionals to offer that care.
Do you “work” for narth buttblight? Because they are a crackpot organization, and you are a trail trash bigoted right wing extremist fool!
Jack Drescher is a New York psychiatrist and chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association’s committee on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues. He has treated about a dozen men who have undergone conversion therapy. Drescher said: “Reparative therapy is the laetrile of mental health.” Laetrile was the quack cancer cure banned in the United States in the 1970s. He compares it with creationism and intelligent design. In an interview with the Washington Post, he said:
“Many people who try this treatment tend to be desperate, very unhappy and don’t know other gay people. I see people who’ve been very hurt by this. They spend years trying to change and are told they aren’t trying hard enough.”
Dr. Nicolosi, a conservative Roman Catholic, is a founder of NARTH. He coined the term “reparative therapy.” He said that this form of therapy: “…can only be damaging if the agenda of the therapist supersedes that of the patient.” He claims that:
bullet One third of the patients at the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic, of which he is founding director, experience “significant improvement — they understand their homosexuality and have some sense of control.” However, they may engage in same-sex sexual behavior. He seems to be saying that this group of clients remain with a homosexual orientation.
bullet Another third are “cured;” they refrain from same-sex behavior and the strength and frequency of their same-sex desires is diminished, although not necessarily gone. This appears to refer to their homosexual patients who either become asexual or decide to remain celibate.
bullet The other third fail to change. They remain with a homosexual or bisexual orientation.
It would seem that he is admitting that reparative therapy has an almost 100% failure rate in terms of converting persons with a homosexual or bisexual orientation to heterosexual. He commented: “We say to patients, ‘Your true self is heterosexual’.” He tells male patients: “Look at your body: It was designed to fit a woman, not a man.”
Another dishonest Conservative bigot exploiting desperate people that are desperate in the first place by conservative bigotry! What a crock of sh!t!
October 27th, 2009 at 11:02 pmIf bigots like you would stop being homophobic d*chebags buttblight, narth wouldn’t need to exist. Problem solved! ;)
October 27th, 2009 at 11:04 pmThe American Psychological Association has finally confirmed what MySpace Zach and his supporters knew back in 2005 – gay reparative therapies don’t work.
In an update to a 1997 resolution “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation,” the APA now advises that mental health professionals should avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments.
“Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation,” said Judith M. Glassgold, PsyD, chair of the task force which examined the efficacy of so-called reparative therapy.”
APA appointed the six-member Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation in 2007 to review and update APA’s 1997 resolution, “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation,” and to generate a report. APA was concerned about ongoing efforts to promote the notion that sexual orientation can be changed through psychotherapy or approaches that mischaracterize homosexuality as a mental disorder.
The task force examined the peer-reviewed journal articles in English from 1960 to 2007, which included 83 studies. Most of the studies were conducted before 1978, and only a few had been conducted in the last 10 years. The group also reviewed the recent literature on the psychology of sexual orientation.
“Unfortunately, much of the research in the area of sexual orientation change contains serious design flaws,” Glassgold said. “Few studies could be considered methodologically sound and none systematically evaluated potential harms.”
You just advised people to do something “unscientific” and “harmful” d*chebag! You’re right, choices do have consequences! Your choice is to send people to be harmed – you hateful piece of right wing sh!t!
October 27th, 2009 at 11:07 pmThe APA urged therapists to consider multiple options – that could range from celibacy to switching churches – for helping clients live spiritually rewarding lives in instances where their sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.
You should follow the APA’s advice and “switch churches” buttblight. Then just “come out of the closet” girlfriend and maybe you won’t be such an “insufferable” b1tch when you’re gettin’ some in someplace other than your church’s mensroom! LOL! ;)
October 27th, 2009 at 11:10 pmPsychologists at Alliant International University in San Francisco and their colleagues compared survey responses from two large groups of couples, self-categorized as gay men, heterosexual men, lesbians or heterosexual women. About 12,000 people answered the relevant questions in 1975; close to 1,000 participated in 2000. The average length of the relationship at the time of the survey varied between groups, from about four and a half years for lesbians, almost seven years for gay men and about 14 years for heterosexual couples in 1974 to nearly 11 years for lesbians, 13.5 years for gay men and almost 20 years together for straight couples in the 2000 survey.
The overall result was unambiguous—monogamy rates have skyrocketed. But the groups still show dramatic differences in how often they cheat or have sex outside of their primary relationship. Around 82 percent of gay men reported extra-partnership sex in 1975, whereas 59 percent did in 2000—a significant decrease, but still that later rate is more than four times higher than comparable rates found among straight men (14.7), straight women (13.5) and lesbians (8.2). Those groups’ rates are down from percentages in the mid-twenties in 1975.
It’s worth pointing out, however, that 43.7 percent of those gay men said they “discussed sex outside the relationship and decided that under some circumstances it is all right.” Only 5 percent of lesbians and about 3.5 percent of straight couples had a similar agreement. Again, all groups report many fewer of these open relationships than they did in 1975, when about 20 percent of straight couples, 34 percent of lesbians and nearly 68 percent of gay men agreed to forgo monogamy.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:20 pmDid you read that buttb1tch?
The overall result was unambiguous—monogamy rates have skyrocketed.
Almost half of gay male couples were monogamous as of 2000, and the rates have heavily trended up over the last 30 years.
Oops… Buttb!tch claimed male monogamy didn’t exist. Looks like buttb!tch is now a “proven” liar! LOL! ;)
October 27th, 2009 at 11:22 pmAnd the percentage of couples who are decidedly closed to sex outside the relationship—they discussed extra-partnership sex and decided that “under no circumstances is it alright”—just about doubled in every group (from around 43 percent in 1975 to around 80 percent in 2000) except in gay men, among whom it more than tripled (13 to 44 percent). “It was surprising to us that in all groups, the trend is toward monogamy,” said Gabrielle Gotta, lead author of the study.
Ready to admit you lied – d*chebag buttb1tch?
October 27th, 2009 at 11:29 pmnoseeum says:
Geez, is that where you get your phucked up factoids?
Care to name some of my other “phucked up factoids”?
October 28th, 2009 at 3:11 amWhat a loon.
Tell me what sexual act homosexuals preform that straights can’t.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:14 amFRC is back in the dark ages. They still believe that masturbation causes furry palms.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:18 amFRC is sitting around discussing and fantasying the sexual habits of strangers. They don’t know what people do behind closed doors.
A bunch of pervs.
As I said before they don’t own people’s sexual organs, so they need to STFU.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:23 amgiven the risks of homosexual conduct, few of these people are likely to live long enough to become senior citizens.
Like what risks? Does lynching them count?
October 28th, 2009 at 9:19 amjust the bleepn facts says:
________________________________________
buttblight the self loathing f@g says:
bit’s previous calculations with MA and CA numbers shows only about 0.1% of the homosexuals being interested in SSGM.
In 2009, 1,900 Gay Marriages in MA out of a total of 36,000 marriages. What percent of marriages was that? 5%
.
.
.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Bit has two numbers, both larger than your number of 1,900 SSGM couples, but let’s uses your numbers anyway.
If the number of SSGM couples is 1,900, then 3,800 people are involved in SSGM.
If there are 6,497,967 people in MA (census.gov), then only 0.06% percent of the population is interested in SSGM, based on the number of SSGM licenses issued.
If there are 6,497,967 people in MA and 2% of these people practice homosexuality- based on bit’s previous reference, then only 2.92% of the homosexuals are interested in SSGM, based on the number of SSGM licenses issued.
One of the numbers bit has is a number that was reported at the time CA was issuing SSGM licenses and MA had a residency requirement. When CA starting issuing SSGM licenses, MA removed the residency requirement. (Why not share in the revenue stream generated by promoting perversion?) At that time, it was reported that MA had issued 3,000 SSGM over a five year period.
If the number of SSGM couples is 3,000 in MA, then 6,000 people are involved in SSGM.
If this number is accurate, then only 0.09% percent of the population is interested in SSGM, based on the number of SSGM licenses issued.
Further, if this number is accurate, then only 4.62% of the homosexuals are interested in SSGM, based on the number of SSGM licenses issued.
If the Newsweek number is correct, and fully 10% of the population are homosexuals, then the last numbers – 4.62% of the homosexuals in MA are interested in SSGM – becomes 0.92% of the homosexuals in MA are interested in SSGM. A smaller number of homosexuals makes the number interested in SSGM much more impressive.
Promoting, endorsing, and encouraging homosexuality makes the nation much less worth preserving.
Who would put the nation at risk for the perverted desires of 0.09% of the population?
October 28th, 2009 at 12:17 pmIt’s worth pointing out, however, that 43.7 percent of those gay men said they “discussed sex outside the relationship and decided that under some circumstances it is all right.”
This is not the definition of a monogamous relationship.
bit has previously read of same-same sex relationship, termed monogamous – that’s self termed, in which one of the partners had had six other partners in the previous year. That relationship was not monogamous either, regardless of what the same-same sex partners termed it.
Changing the definition of what a monogamous relationship is (echoes of – is ‘is’) doesn’t change what a relationship is. OTOH, this “homosexual” description of a monogamous relationship does taint a real monogamous relationship. This is one of the items on the “homosexual agenda,” taint everything.
Taint everything. Debase everything and everyone.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:39 pmbit you are a hateful ignorant bigot. No one here cares what you think. You are stupid and brainwashed and only spew ignorance.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:56 pmbitblt says:
Promoting, endorsing, and encouraging homosexuality makes the nation much less worth preserving.
Bigots like you are the only “values” not worth preserving – you hateful bigoted d*chebag!
bitblt says:
Who would put the nation at risk for the perverted desires of 0.09% of the population?
Minorities don’t get access to “equal” rights because of “your” bigotry? f**k off you religious closet case d*uchebag!
October 28th, 2009 at 9:30 pmbitblt says:
It’s worth pointing out, however, that 43.7 percent of those gay men said they “discussed sex outside the relationship and decided that under some circumstances it is all right.”
This is not the definition of a monogamous relationship.
No sh!t moron! This was the numbers of “all” people. You missed the part where basically half of gay “men” did believe in a “monogamous” relationship. This was the “other” half.
bitblt says:
bit has previously read of same-same sex relationship, termed monogamous – that’s self termed, in which one of the partners had had six other partners in the previous year. That relationship was not monogamous either, regardless of what the same-same sex partners termed it.
When “people” refer to themselves in the 3rd person, it’s a clear symptom of a severe mental illness. One of “many” you exhibit – you hateful d*uchebag!
I already debunked this stupid claim. You’re just repeating a debunked lie.
bitblt says:
Changing the definition of what a monogamous relationship is (echoes of – is ‘is’) doesn’t change what a relationship is. OTOH, this “homosexual” description of a monogamous relationship does taint a real monogamous relationship. This is one of the items on the “homosexual agenda,” taint everything.
That’s debunked propaganda from NARTH, you POS LIAR!
bitblt says:
Taint everything. Debase everything and everyone.
Says the freak that “taints” religion with bigotry, hate, persecution and evil. You are the “definition” of the kind of “evil” that debases “everything” and “everyone” with your ignorance and your vile excuse for “humanity”.
“bit” is sick, sick, sick, sick!
October 28th, 2009 at 9:34 pmI tell you what buttb!tch, when the “federal” government gives gay people equal rights, lets see how many marriages there are in a generation. How about that you hateful religious piece of sh!t inbred closet case?
“the facts” show bit is in the closet and is so self loathing she has turned into a lunatic.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:36 pm