Romney to pick Paul Ryan for VP

Prince Of Dorkness

PJ_Soul wrote:

It does kind of seem to turn gayness into a verb, doesn't it.

And one that rhymes with "anus."



As I've said many times... "gay" is not something that I do.

"Gay" is something that I AM.

I don't like the word, but it's better than fairy and easier to say than "the kind of guy who had Barbie's dream house but had Ken and GI Joe living in it."

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

The idea that allowing me to be my husband's legal next of kin will "cost money" is stupid.

Really? :fp:

hedonist

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

The idea that allowing me to be my husband's legal next of kin will "cost money" is stupid. It's wrong and incorrect and it's the latest in a long line of dumb-ass excuses that anti-gay people make to keep my family legally beneath theirs.

Being gay isn't a "lifestyle" and when you hear someone call it that it tells us more about their own insecurities than anything else.

And as I've said many times before...

http://aggravatedjasun.tumblr.com/post/29968706745

Yeah, I don't get the money issue associated with this.

However, I asked this on another thread but perhaps you missed it - I'd sincerely like to know how this works, if you can tell me.

hedonist wrote:

And Prince, I'm curious (and somewhat uninformed in this area) - but why can't you get power of attorney? Or have wills, etc. drawn up? Is it a citizenship issue?

DS1119

I think the last number I found was that that only about 4% (at the highest of estimations)of the US population is gay or lesbian in spite of the general public "believing" the number is over 25%. Sounds like a pretty powerful propaganda machine/group to me. Just wonder why the Democrats make this such a "hot button" issue? Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the issues they have shortcomings in? :corn:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/0 ... 46348.html


http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/257753/

callen

DS1119 wrote:

I think the last number I found was that that only about 4% (at the highest of estimations)of the US population is gay or lesbian in spite of the general public "believing" the number is over 25%. Sounds like a pretty powerful propaganda machine/group to me. Just wonder why the Democrats make this such a "hot button" issue? Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the issues they have shortcomings in? :corn:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/0 ... 46348.html


http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/257753/

Once all the homosexual consertatives come out of the closet the number will be closer to 35%.

Enlightened humans realize it matters not to whom one is attracted. Its just flesh, has no more meaning than that. Having rights for one group and not the other is simple discrimination. In 20 years we will see this issue as we see racial discrimination today

cincybearcat

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

It does kind of seem to turn gayness into a verb, doesn't it.

And one that rhymes with "anus."



As I've said many times... "gay" is not something that I do.

"Gay" is something that I AM.

I don't like the word, but it's better than fairy and easier to say than "the kind of guy who had Barbie's dream house but had Ken and GI Joe living in it."

So, then a Gay is somethng that you do?

DS1119

callen wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

I think the last number I found was that that only about 4% (at the highest of estimations)of the US population is gay or lesbian in spite of the general public "believing" the number is over 25%. Sounds like a pretty powerful propaganda machine/group to me. Just wonder why the Democrats make this such a "hot button" issue? Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the issues they have shortcomings in? :corn:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/0 ... 46348.html


http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/257753/

Once all the homosexual consertatives come out of the closet the number will be closer to 35%.

Enlightened humans realize it matters not to whom one is attracted. Its just flesh, has no more meaning than that. Having rights for one group and not the other is simple discrimination. In 20 years we will see this issue as we see racial discrimination today

We concentrate all of this time and energy for at a highest estimation 4% of the population? Makes perfect sense.

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

I think the last number I found was that that only about 4% (at the highest of estimations)of the US population is gay or lesbian in spite of the general public "believing" the number is over 25%. Sounds like a pretty powerful propaganda machine/group to me. Just wonder why the Democrats make this such a "hot button" issue? Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the issues they have shortcomings in? :corn:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/0 ... 46348.html


http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/257753/

Hm. I've never heard a number over 10% before. I think it's very obvious that a quarter of the population isn't LBGT. 10% I can see, assuming it estimates an inclusion of those who aren't out about it. Either way, I don't see why it matters. I wouldn't feel any different if it were 1%.

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

callen wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

I think the last number I found was that that only about 4% (at the highest of estimations)of the US population is gay or lesbian in spite of the general public "believing" the number is over 25%. Sounds like a pretty powerful propaganda machine/group to me. Just wonder why the Democrats make this such a "hot button" issue? Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the issues they have shortcomings in? :corn:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/0 ... 46348.html


http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/257753/

Once all the homosexual consertatives come out of the closet the number will be closer to 35%.

Enlightened humans realize it matters not to whom one is attracted. Its just flesh, has no more meaning than that. Having rights for one group and not the other is simple discrimination. In 20 years we will see this issue as we see racial discrimination today

We concentrate all of this time and energy for at a highest estimation 4% of the population? Makes perfect sense.

Time and energy spent on human and civil rights is always valuable. I didn't know that human worth and the right to equality was based on numbers.

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

I think the last number I found was that that only about 4% (at the highest of estimations)of the US population is gay or lesbian in spite of the general public "believing" the number is over 25%. Sounds like a pretty powerful propaganda machine/group to me. Just wonder why the Democrats make this such a "hot button" issue? Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the issues they have shortcomings in? :corn:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/0 ... 46348.html


http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/257753/

Hm. I've never heard a number over 10% before. I think it's very obvious that a quarter of the population isn't LBGT. 10% I can see, assuming it estimates an inclusion of those who aren't out about it. Either way, I don't see why it matters. I wouldn't feel any different if it were 1%.

I said the US population "believes" it's over 25%. Read the article. The press does a great job making the AMerican public believe this is a bigger issue than it really is and affects more people than it really does.

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

Time and energy spent on human and civil rights is always valuable. I didn't know that human worth and the right to equality was based on numbers.

You're right. But if the US public doesn't want it...they don't want it. That's why we vote and that's why we have people representing us in government.

callen

DS1119 wrote:

callen wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

I think the last number I found was that that only about 4% (at the highest of estimations)of the US population is gay or lesbian in spite of the general public "believing" the number is over 25%. Sounds like a pretty powerful propaganda machine/group to me. Just wonder why the Democrats make this such a "hot button" issue? Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the issues they have shortcomings in? :corn:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/0 ... 46348.html


http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/257753/

Once all the homosexual consertatives come out of the closet the number will be closer to 35%.

Enlightened humans realize it matters not to whom one is attracted. Its just flesh, has no more meaning than that. Having rights for one group and not the other is simple discrimination. In 20 years we will see this issue as we see racial discrimination today

We concentrate all of this time and energy for at a highest estimation 4% of the population? Makes perfect sense.

Though I don't feel like looking for sources now, I doubt your % but thats not the point. Its about fairness, equality and the democratic party is courting those that value equality. The Dems are also courting those that want to move forward as a society versus those that use the religious ignorant to pursue $$$'s and move backwards. As such repugs bring this up as much as dems to court the ignorant.

callen

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Time and energy spent on human and civil rights is always valuable. I didn't know that human worth and the right to equality was based on numbers.

You're right. But if the US public doesn't want it...they don't want it. That's why we vote and that's why we have people representing us in government.

Wrong....we as a society need to protect the minority. Having a majority means squat. Hell W was re-elected

As we evolve we will see equality and will look back and scratch our heads why anyone cares who fks who. Just as we now do for equal rights for women.

Do you really care who fks who?

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

I think the last number I found was that that only about 4% (at the highest of estimations)of the US population is gay or lesbian in spite of the general public "believing" the number is over 25%. Sounds like a pretty powerful propaganda machine/group to me. Just wonder why the Democrats make this such a "hot button" issue? Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the issues they have shortcomings in? :corn:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/0 ... 46348.html


http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/257753/

Hm. I've never heard a number over 10% before. I think it's very obvious that a quarter of the population isn't LBGT. 10% I can see, assuming it estimates an inclusion of those who aren't out about it. Either way, I don't see why it matters. I wouldn't feel any different if it were 1%.

I said the US population "believes" it's over 25%. Read the article. The press does a great job making the AMerican public believe this is a bigger issue than it really is and affects more people than it really does.

Yeah, fair enough. Just saying that I have never heard of any number of 10%... so the hype couldn't be that effective. It's ridiculous for any to say or think 25%... I'd say that any American who "believes" that 25% of the population is gay, then they probably have a real problem with gay people. It is not anyone's problem that a bunch of people are eager to believe any old thing they hear or read. In any case, even if they do think it's 25% and there is some group of people making a point of it seeming this way, so what??? Are you suggesting there is some kind of threat here? I'm not following you on these points, in that I don't see how they matter to the topic at hand.

PJ_Soul

callen wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Time and energy spent on human and civil rights is always valuable. I didn't know that human worth and the right to equality was based on numbers.

You're right. But if the US public doesn't want it...they don't want it. That's why we vote and that's why we have people representing us in government.

Wrong....we as a society need to protect the minority. Having a majority means squat. Hell W was re-elected

As we evolve we will see equality and will look back and scratch our heads why anyone cares who fks who. Just as we now do for equal rights for women.

Do you really care who fks who?

Exactly. DS, you really think that if, say, a population is largely super racist towards a group of people, then that's the thinking that should be applied when creating law???

Johnny Abruzzo

Why is it more right or wrong to discriminate against 4% of the population or 25% or 12% or 51%? In any case it's just wrong.

PJ_Soul

callen wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Time and energy spent on human and civil rights is always valuable. I didn't know that human worth and the right to equality was based on numbers.

You're right. But if the US public doesn't want it...they don't want it. That's why we vote and that's why we have people representing us in government.

Wrong....we as a society need to protect the minority. Having a majority means squat. Hell W was re-elected

As we evolve we will see equality and will look back and scratch our heads why anyone cares who fks who. Just as we now do for equal rights for women.

Do you really care who fks who?

I don't think this is about who fucks who....

Prince Of Dorkness

If nobody cares who's fucking whom, why do some straight couples insist on publishing their wedding announcements in the paper?

Frankly... We're seeing the desperate straw-grabbing that people do when every argument they have falls apart. It doesn't matter what percentage of us there are... There is a very low percentage of deaf people but all TVs have the ability to display closed captions. If you don't need them, you don't display them and nobody seems to complain about it. They certainly don't vote on them saying "I don't need them and find them annoying so I'll keep you from having access to them."

We've seen a lot of silly arguments against allowing my husband and I have the same legal rights as Kim Kardashian and whomever she's married to this month... None of them can withstand a single-sentence rebuttal.

And in the end, just like interracial couples didn't beg people to vote for them, glbt couples are going to the courts where public opinion isn't supposed to matter.

Prince Of Dorkness

And if I have to explain that a marriage isn't about who you're "fucking."

A marriage is about sharing your life and building a home together.

Do you refer to your mother as "that woman my dad has sex with?" Do you call your brother-in-law "the guy who fucks my sister?"

Of course not.

DS1119

callen wrote:

Though I don't feel like looking for sources now, I doubt your % but thats not the point. Its about fairness, equality and the democratic party is courting those that value equality. The Dems are also courting those that want to move forward as a society versus those that use the religious ignorant to pursue $$$'s and move backwards. As such repugs bring this up as much as dems to court the ignorant.

I already quoted the top 3 that came up on google. I'm sure there are many more. Would you like me to post them all? :corn: