The Left Loses Ground...

[007]

The 2000 Census asked what question about gays? Oh, right...it didn't ask any. The 2010 asked about gay couples, not singles. The census does not ask if you are gay or straight.

Until everyone wakes up with a purple dot on their forehead indicating they've ever had a same sex wet dream, attraction or actual experience, you're never going to know.

Best guesses has it around 3.5-4% in the US. (More than Jews and Koreans)

How Many People are LGBT?

So....what's your quibble?

Clearly it isn't the 10%, or the 20% that many are pushing....

What does that have to do with the principle of forcing folks to participate in events that they find objectionable?

Links to anyone claiming 10-20%?

About 4% of people admit to being gay or lesbian in the US. Those numbers would be higher in a more tolerant and accepting society (expect that to happen in the next 20 years).

What does the number of individual in the minority group have to do with whether or not that minority is entitled to equal rights? Jews make up less than 2% of the US population and yet it would be against the same laws to refuse to bake them a cake (which, by the way, is not participating in any event. By that logic, the guys that sells a gun participates in the murder)

Sure.


"Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent.

Such a misunderstanding of the basic demographics of sexual behavior and identity in America has potentially profound implications for the acceptance of the gay-rights agenda.

One in ten. It's the name of the group that puts on the Reel Affirmations gay and lesbian film festival in Washington, D.C., each year. It's the percent popularized by the Kinsey Report as the size of the gay male population. And it's among the most common figures pointed to in popular culture as an estimate of how many people are gay or lesbian."
Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are - The Atlantic


"...entitled to equal rights?"

Nonsense.

You're simply too weak to stand up for what you believe.
You bullies won't be satisfied unless everyone pats you on the back for being gay.

I've said I don't care one way or another.
If it comes to a vote, I vote against gay marriage as an intellectual endeavor. See, I've never found that any major religion endorses, supports same....and none of the philosophers I've studied came out in favor of homosexuality- most did come out against things like slavery.

So...it makes no difference to me. If you expect me to engage in same, I'd decline...but do what you wish in private.

Just stop telling me to advocate it.

Nobody here is making the 10-20% claim. Few people today are making the 10-20% claim. That 10% number was assigned to anyone who had a wet dream...taking us back to my original assertion that sexuality is a scale and you're simply never going to know how many gay people or straight people there are.

And we're still back to the numbers don't matter when it comes to minority rights.

There's absolutely no statistical bases for an claim that homosexuals make up more than 2% of the population, so why do queers keep claiming higher numbers?

Could be that everything seems bigger to them while they have their butt buddy's cock rammed up their ass.

Or they just like to lie, like most Godless progs with a perverted agenda.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The 2000 census sheds even more light on the subject. The overall statistics from the 2000 Census Bureau revealed:

· The total population of the U.S.is 285,230,516.

· The total number of households in the U.S. is 106,741,426.

· The total number of unmarried same-sex households is 601,209.

Thus, out of a population of 106,741,426 households, homosexuals represent 0.42% of those households. That is less than one half of one percent!
Science vs. the Gay Gene


If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

The 2000 Census asked what question about gays? Oh, right...it didn't ask any. The 2010 asked about gay couples, not singles. The census does not ask if you are gay or straight.

Until everyone wakes up with a purple dot on their forehead indicating they've ever had a same sex wet dream, attraction or actual experience, you're never going to know.

Best guesses has it around 3.5-4% in the US. (More than Jews and Koreans)

How Many People are LGBT?

So....what's your quibble?

Clearly it isn't the 10%, or the 20% that many are pushing....

What does that have to do with the principle of forcing folks to participate in events that they find objectionable?

Links to anyone claiming 10-20%?

About 4% of people admit to being gay or lesbian in the US. Those numbers would be higher in a more tolerant and accepting society (expect that to happen in the next 20 years).

What does the number of individual in the minority group have to do with whether or not that minority is entitled to equal rights? Jews make up less than 2% of the US population and yet it would be against the same laws to refuse to bake them a cake (which, by the way, is not participating in any event. By that logic, the guys that sells a gun participates in the murder)

Sure.


"Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent.

Such a misunderstanding of the basic demographics of sexual behavior and identity in America has potentially profound implications for the acceptance of the gay-rights agenda.

One in ten. It's the name of the group that puts on the Reel Affirmations gay and lesbian film festival in Washington, D.C., each year. It's the percent popularized by the Kinsey Report as the size of the gay male population. And it's among the most common figures pointed to in popular culture as an estimate of how many people are gay or lesbian."
Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are - The Atlantic


"...entitled to equal rights?"

Nonsense.

You're simply too weak to stand up for what you believe.
You bullies won't be satisfied unless everyone pats you on the back for being gay.

I've said I don't care one way or another.
If it comes to a vote, I vote against gay marriage as an intellectual endeavor. See, I've never found that any major religion endorses, supports same....and none of the philosophers I've studied came out in favor of homosexuality- most did come out against things like slavery.

So...it makes no difference to me. If you expect me to engage in same, I'd decline...but do what you wish in private.

Just stop telling me to advocate it.

Nobody here is making the 10-20% claim. Few people today are making the 10-20% claim. That 10% number was assigned to anyone who had a wet dream...taking us back to my original assertion that sexuality is a scale and you're simply never going to know how many gay people or straight people there are.

And we're still back to the numbers don't matter when it comes to minority rights.

You asked for a link and I provided it.

Say thank you.

"The Etiquette Book: A Complete Guide to Modern Manners,"
by Jodi R. R. Smith

 

[PoliticalChic]

The 2000 Census asked what question about gays? Oh, right...it didn't ask any. The 2010 asked about gay couples, not singles. The census does not ask if you are gay or straight.

Until everyone wakes up with a purple dot on their forehead indicating they've ever had a same sex wet dream, attraction or actual experience, you're never going to know.

Best guesses has it around 3.5-4% in the US. (More than Jews and Koreans)

How Many People are LGBT?

So....what's your quibble?

Clearly it isn't the 10%, or the 20% that many are pushing....

What does that have to do with the principle of forcing folks to participate in events that they find objectionable?

Links to anyone claiming 10-20%?

About 4% of people admit to being gay or lesbian in the US. Those numbers would be higher in a more tolerant and accepting society (expect that to happen in the next 20 years).

What does the number of individual in the minority group have to do with whether or not that minority is entitled to equal rights? Jews make up less than 2% of the US population and yet it would be against the same laws to refuse to bake them a cake (which, by the way, is not participating in any event. By that logic, the guys that sells a gun participates in the murder)

Sure.


"Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent.

Such a misunderstanding of the basic demographics of sexual behavior and identity in America has potentially profound implications for the acceptance of the gay-rights agenda.

One in ten. It's the name of the group that puts on the Reel Affirmations gay and lesbian film festival in Washington, D.C., each year. It's the percent popularized by the Kinsey Report as the size of the gay male population. And it's among the most common figures pointed to in popular culture as an estimate of how many people are gay or lesbian."
Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are - The Atlantic


"...entitled to equal rights?"

Nonsense.

You're simply too weak to stand up for what you believe.
You bullies won't be satisfied unless everyone pats you on the back for being gay.

I've said I don't care one way or another.
If it comes to a vote, I vote against gay marriage as an intellectual endeavor. See, I've never found that any major religion endorses, supports same....and none of the philosophers I've studied came out in favor of homosexuality- most did come out against things like slavery.

So...it makes no difference to me. If you expect me to engage in same, I'd decline...but do what you wish in private.

Just stop telling me to advocate it.

Nobody here is making the 10-20% claim. Few people today are making the 10-20% claim. That 10% number was assigned to anyone who had a wet dream...taking us back to my original assertion that sexuality is a scale and you're simply never going to know how many gay people or straight people there are.

And we're still back to the numbers don't matter when it comes to minority rights.

There's absolutely no statistical bases for an claim that homosexuals make up more than 2% of the population, so why do queers keep claiming higher numbers?

Support for a weak position?

 

[Seawytch]

The 2000 Census asked what question about gays? Oh, right...it didn't ask any. The 2010 asked about gay couples, not singles. The census does not ask if you are gay or straight.

Until everyone wakes up with a purple dot on their forehead indicating they've ever had a same sex wet dream, attraction or actual experience, you're never going to know.

Best guesses has it around 3.5-4% in the US. (More than Jews and Koreans)

How Many People are LGBT?

So....what's your quibble?

Clearly it isn't the 10%, or the 20% that many are pushing....

What does that have to do with the principle of forcing folks to participate in events that they find objectionable?

Links to anyone claiming 10-20%?

About 4% of people admit to being gay or lesbian in the US. Those numbers would be higher in a more tolerant and accepting society (expect that to happen in the next 20 years).

What does the number of individual in the minority group have to do with whether or not that minority is entitled to equal rights? Jews make up less than 2% of the US population and yet it would be against the same laws to refuse to bake them a cake (which, by the way, is not participating in any event. By that logic, the guys that sells a gun participates in the murder)

Sure.


"Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent.

Such a misunderstanding of the basic demographics of sexual behavior and identity in America has potentially profound implications for the acceptance of the gay-rights agenda.

One in ten. It's the name of the group that puts on the Reel Affirmations gay and lesbian film festival in Washington, D.C., each year. It's the percent popularized by the Kinsey Report as the size of the gay male population. And it's among the most common figures pointed to in popular culture as an estimate of how many people are gay or lesbian."
Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are - The Atlantic


"...entitled to equal rights?"

Nonsense.

You're simply too weak to stand up for what you believe.
You bullies won't be satisfied unless everyone pats you on the back for being gay.

I've said I don't care one way or another.
If it comes to a vote, I vote against gay marriage as an intellectual endeavor. See, I've never found that any major religion endorses, supports same....and none of the philosophers I've studied came out in favor of homosexuality- most did come out against things like slavery.

So...it makes no difference to me. If you expect me to engage in same, I'd decline...but do what you wish in private.

Just stop telling me to advocate it.

Nobody here is making the 10-20% claim. Few people today are making the 10-20% claim. That 10% number was assigned to anyone who had a wet dream...taking us back to my original assertion that sexuality is a scale and you're simply never going to know how many gay people or straight people there are.

And we're still back to the numbers don't matter when it comes to minority rights.

You asked for a link and I provided it.

Say thank you.

"The Etiquette Book: A Complete Guide to Modern Manners,"
by Jodi R. R. Smith

That's it...dismiss everything else posted and focus on one small irrelevant detail. Transparent deflection.

The numbers don't matter. 2%, 4%, 6% or even the 10% claim made by Kinsey a gazillion years ago. It's irrelevant as to whether or not a minority is deserving of equal rights. Jews make up less than 2% of the US population...try applying all the anti gay laws marriage laws or the "religious freedom" laws to Jews.

 

[Bfgrn]

So....what's your quibble?

Clearly it isn't the 10%, or the 20% that many are pushing....

What does that have to do with the principle of forcing folks to participate in events that they find objectionable?

Links to anyone claiming 10-20%?

About 4% of people admit to being gay or lesbian in the US. Those numbers would be higher in a more tolerant and accepting society (expect that to happen in the next 20 years).

What does the number of individual in the minority group have to do with whether or not that minority is entitled to equal rights? Jews make up less than 2% of the US population and yet it would be against the same laws to refuse to bake them a cake (which, by the way, is not participating in any event. By that logic, the guys that sells a gun participates in the murder)

PC is pushing mob rule...

If I were, you'd be tarred and feathered!

Probably improve your looks.

Of course PC...it is your authoritarian upbringing

Nah....it's the fact that you're a dope and don't understand the Marxist indoctrination that informs your words.

1. “Under Horkheimer’s leadership the Frankfurt School attracted some brilliant scholars and intellectuals such as Theodor Adorno, Eric Fromm, Wilhelm Reich, Walter Benjamin, Leo Lowenthal and Herbert Marcuse. Like Trotsky, Luxemburg, Lukacs, Bela Kun and other notable European Marxists in the early 1900s, many of the Frankfurt scholars were secular Jews, a fact that the Nazis successfully exploited in their propaganda regarding a “Jewish conspiracy” of Communist intellectuals who were perverting German society.”
. [William S. Lind, “Further Readings in the Frankfurt School,” in Political Correctness: A Short History of an ideology.
www.freecongress.org.]


2. Based on their influence on the New Left from the ‘60’s, these neo-Marxists have largely succeeded in terms of secularizing American culture and undermining traditional values and institutions, and much of its ideology, inspiration and tactics were gleaned from the Frankfurt School’s Institute of Social Research.

a. A key component of Critical Theory was its integration of Marxism with Darwinism and Freudianism, which, based on the idea of sexual repression, could be used against Judeo-Christian morality. Wilhelm Reich combined Darwin and Freud, and propounded the idea that humans are no different than any other animals in terms of sex, and therefore, there need be no sexual restrictions, and the blame should be placed on the authoritarian structure of the traditional family.

3. The Frankfurters attacked middle class values from every angle. They attacked the foundations of the Western educational system: reason became a symptom of “oppression,” what was “logical” was whatever supported the Frankfurter's politics. Science was only useful if it could be twisted into propaganda. The Classics became unfashionable.

In reality, the Frankfurters were agitating for an education system that would dumb down the populace and make them less able to identify their own interests.

The Frankfurters adopted de Sade's social destabilization techniques. Sexual perversion became “freedom”. Loving your race, family and culture became “authoritarian”— unless of course you were non-white. Mentally healthy people were those who rejected their family and looked with eager eyes toward the “return of the repressed.”
The Difficult Class Four Winds 10 - Truth Winds

WOW PC...did this information come from humans, or CREATOR GOD ATON/HATONN?

Or from aliens?

 

[Jroc]

So....what's your quibble?

Clearly it isn't the 10%, or the 20% that many are pushing....

What does that have to do with the principle of forcing folks to participate in events that they find objectionable?

Links to anyone claiming 10-20%?

About 4% of people admit to being gay or lesbian in the US. Those numbers would be higher in a more tolerant and accepting society (expect that to happen in the next 20 years).

What does the number of individual in the minority group have to do with whether or not that minority is entitled to equal rights? Jews make up less than 2% of the US population and yet it would be against the same laws to refuse to bake them a cake (which, by the way, is not participating in any event. By that logic, the guys that sells a gun participates in the murder)

Sure.


"Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent.

Such a misunderstanding of the basic demographics of sexual behavior and identity in America has potentially profound implications for the acceptance of the gay-rights agenda.

One in ten. It's the name of the group that puts on the Reel Affirmations gay and lesbian film festival in Washington, D.C., each year. It's the percent popularized by the Kinsey Report as the size of the gay male population. And it's among the most common figures pointed to in popular culture as an estimate of how many people are gay or lesbian."
Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are - The Atlantic


"...entitled to equal rights?"

Nonsense.

You're simply too weak to stand up for what you believe.
You bullies won't be satisfied unless everyone pats you on the back for being gay.

I've said I don't care one way or another.
If it comes to a vote, I vote against gay marriage as an intellectual endeavor. See, I've never found that any major religion endorses, supports same....and none of the philosophers I've studied came out in favor of homosexuality- most did come out against things like slavery.

So...it makes no difference to me. If you expect me to engage in same, I'd decline...but do what you wish in private.

Just stop telling me to advocate it.

Nobody here is making the 10-20% claim. Few people today are making the 10-20% claim. That 10% number was assigned to anyone who had a wet dream...taking us back to my original assertion that sexuality is a scale and you're simply never going to know how many gay people or straight people there are.

And we're still back to the numbers don't matter when it comes to minority rights.

You asked for a link and I provided it.

Say thank you.

"The Etiquette Book: A Complete Guide to Modern Manners,"
by Jodi R. R. Smith

That's it...dismiss everything else posted and focus on one small irrelevant detail. Transparent deflection.

The numbers don't matter. 2%, 4%, 6% or even the 10% claim made by Kinsey a gazillion years ago. It's irrelevant as to whether or not a minority is deserving of equal rights. Jews make up less than 2% of the US population...try applying all the anti gay laws marriage laws or the "religious freedom" laws to Jews.

it's not even only about Gay "marriage" it's about thought control with you people. Nothing is absolute anymore.are boys, boys? are girls, girls? should we remove those crazy men, women signs from public restrooms

 

[Bfgrn]

Links to anyone claiming 10-20%?

About 4% of people admit to being gay or lesbian in the US. Those numbers would be higher in a more tolerant and accepting society (expect that to happen in the next 20 years).

What does the number of individual in the minority group have to do with whether or not that minority is entitled to equal rights? Jews make up less than 2% of the US population and yet it would be against the same laws to refuse to bake them a cake (which, by the way, is not participating in any event. By that logic, the guys that sells a gun participates in the murder)

Sure.


"Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent.

Such a misunderstanding of the basic demographics of sexual behavior and identity in America has potentially profound implications for the acceptance of the gay-rights agenda.

One in ten. It's the name of the group that puts on the Reel Affirmations gay and lesbian film festival in Washington, D.C., each year. It's the percent popularized by the Kinsey Report as the size of the gay male population. And it's among the most common figures pointed to in popular culture as an estimate of how many people are gay or lesbian."
Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are - The Atlantic


"...entitled to equal rights?"

Nonsense.

You're simply too weak to stand up for what you believe.
You bullies won't be satisfied unless everyone pats you on the back for being gay.

I've said I don't care one way or another.
If it comes to a vote, I vote against gay marriage as an intellectual endeavor. See, I've never found that any major religion endorses, supports same....and none of the philosophers I've studied came out in favor of homosexuality- most did come out against things like slavery.

So...it makes no difference to me. If you expect me to engage in same, I'd decline...but do what you wish in private.

Just stop telling me to advocate it.

Nobody here is making the 10-20% claim. Few people today are making the 10-20% claim. That 10% number was assigned to anyone who had a wet dream...taking us back to my original assertion that sexuality is a scale and you're simply never going to know how many gay people or straight people there are.

And we're still back to the numbers don't matter when it comes to minority rights.

You asked for a link and I provided it.

Say thank you.

"The Etiquette Book: A Complete Guide to Modern Manners,"
by Jodi R. R. Smith

That's it...dismiss everything else posted and focus on one small irrelevant detail. Transparent deflection.

The numbers don't matter. 2%, 4%, 6% or even the 10% claim made by Kinsey a gazillion years ago. It's irrelevant as to whether or not a minority is deserving of equal rights. Jews make up less than 2% of the US population...try applying all the anti gay laws marriage laws or the "religious freedom" laws to Jews.

it's not even only about Gay "marriage" it's about thought control with you people. Nothing is absolute anymore.are boys, boys? are girls, girls? should we remove those crazy men, women signs from public restrooms

No, it is about equal rights. "YOU PEOPLE" are just ignorant fucks.

Protections Denied to Same-sex Couples and Their Kids
From Why Marriage Matters: Appendix B

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are at least 1,138 tangible benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that marriage brings couples and their kids—and that's just at the federal level. Add in state and local law, and the policies of businesses, employers, universities, and other institutions, and it is clear that the denial of marriage to couples and their kids makes a substantial impact on every area of life, from raising kids, building a life together, and caring for one another, to retirement, death, and inheritance. Most of these cannot be secured by private agreement or through lawyers.

Here are just some of the ways in which government's denying the freedom to marry punishes couples and families by depriving them of critical tangible as well as intangible protections and responsibilities in virtually every area of life:

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.

Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.

Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.

Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.

Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.

Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.

Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.

Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.

Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.

Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.

Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.

Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.

Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.

Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.

 

[Stephanie]

Sure.


"Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent.

Such a misunderstanding of the basic demographics of sexual behavior and identity in America has potentially profound implications for the acceptance of the gay-rights agenda.

One in ten. It's the name of the group that puts on the Reel Affirmations gay and lesbian film festival in Washington, D.C., each year. It's the percent popularized by the Kinsey Report as the size of the gay male population. And it's among the most common figures pointed to in popular culture as an estimate of how many people are gay or lesbian."
Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are - The Atlantic


"...entitled to equal rights?"

Nonsense.

You're simply too weak to stand up for what you believe.
You bullies won't be satisfied unless everyone pats you on the back for being gay.

I've said I don't care one way or another.
If it comes to a vote, I vote against gay marriage as an intellectual endeavor. See, I've never found that any major religion endorses, supports same....and none of the philosophers I've studied came out in favor of homosexuality- most did come out against things like slavery.

So...it makes no difference to me. If you expect me to engage in same, I'd decline...but do what you wish in private.

Just stop telling me to advocate it.

Nobody here is making the 10-20% claim. Few people today are making the 10-20% claim. That 10% number was assigned to anyone who had a wet dream...taking us back to my original assertion that sexuality is a scale and you're simply never going to know how many gay people or straight people there are.

And we're still back to the numbers don't matter when it comes to minority rights.

You asked for a link and I provided it.

Say thank you.

"The Etiquette Book: A Complete Guide to Modern Manners,"
by Jodi R. R. Smith

That's it...dismiss everything else posted and focus on one small irrelevant detail. Transparent deflection.

The numbers don't matter. 2%, 4%, 6% or even the 10% claim made by Kinsey a gazillion years ago. It's irrelevant as to whether or not a minority is deserving of equal rights. Jews make up less than 2% of the US population...try applying all the anti gay laws marriage laws or the "religious freedom" laws to Jews.

it's not even only about Gay "marriage" it's about thought control with you people. Nothing is absolute anymore.are boys, boys? are girls, girls? should we remove those crazy men, women signs from public restrooms

No, it is about equal rights. "YOU PEOPLE" are just ignorant fucks.

Protections Denied to Same-sex Couples and Their Kids
From Why Marriage Matters: Appendix B

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are at least 1,138 tangible benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that marriage brings couples and their kids—and that's just at the federal level. Add in state and local law, and the policies of businesses, employers, universities, and other institutions, and it is clear that the denial of marriage to couples and their kids makes a substantial impact on every area of life, from raising kids, building a life together, and caring for one another, to retirement, death, and inheritance. Most of these cannot be secured by private agreement or through lawyers.

Here are just some of the ways in which government's denying the freedom to marry punishes couples and families by depriving them of critical tangible as well as intangible protections and responsibilities in virtually every area of life:

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.

Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.

Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.

Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.

Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.

Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.

Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.

Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.

Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.

Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.

Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.

Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.

Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.

Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.

oh waaaa, over 50% of marriages end up in divorce in this day and age. And who know what the statistics of people JUST LIVING together are...they SEEM TO manage just fine.....so really. give us a break

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Could be that everything seems bigger to them while they have their butt buddy's cock rammed up their ass.

.

It does? How old were you when you found that out?

 

[Bfgrn]

Nobody here is making the 10-20% claim. Few people today are making the 10-20% claim. That 10% number was assigned to anyone who had a wet dream...taking us back to my original assertion that sexuality is a scale and you're simply never going to know how many gay people or straight people there are.

And we're still back to the numbers don't matter when it comes to minority rights.

You asked for a link and I provided it.

Say thank you.

"The Etiquette Book: A Complete Guide to Modern Manners,"
by Jodi R. R. Smith

That's it...dismiss everything else posted and focus on one small irrelevant detail. Transparent deflection.

The numbers don't matter. 2%, 4%, 6% or even the 10% claim made by Kinsey a gazillion years ago. It's irrelevant as to whether or not a minority is deserving of equal rights. Jews make up less than 2% of the US population...try applying all the anti gay laws marriage laws or the "religious freedom" laws to Jews.

it's not even only about Gay "marriage" it's about thought control with you people. Nothing is absolute anymore.are boys, boys? are girls, girls? should we remove those crazy men, women signs from public restrooms

No, it is about equal rights. "YOU PEOPLE" are just ignorant fucks.

Protections Denied to Same-sex Couples and Their Kids
From Why Marriage Matters: Appendix B

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are at least 1,138 tangible benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that marriage brings couples and their kids—and that's just at the federal level. Add in state and local law, and the policies of businesses, employers, universities, and other institutions, and it is clear that the denial of marriage to couples and their kids makes a substantial impact on every area of life, from raising kids, building a life together, and caring for one another, to retirement, death, and inheritance. Most of these cannot be secured by private agreement or through lawyers.

Here are just some of the ways in which government's denying the freedom to marry punishes couples and families by depriving them of critical tangible as well as intangible protections and responsibilities in virtually every area of life:

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.

Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.

Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.

Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.

Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.

Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.

Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.

Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.

Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.

Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.

Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.

Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.

Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.

Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.

oh waaaa, over 50% of marriages end up in divorce in this day and age. And who know what the statistics of people JUST LIVING together are...they SEEM TO manage just fine.....so really. give us a break

Totally irrelevant. EVERY individual should be able to decide for themselves.

So much for the right standing up for individual liberty...

 

[TemplarKormac]

You asked for a link and I provided it.

Say thank you.

"The Etiquette Book: A Complete Guide to Modern Manners,"
by Jodi R. R. Smith

That's it...dismiss everything else posted and focus on one small irrelevant detail. Transparent deflection.

The numbers don't matter. 2%, 4%, 6% or even the 10% claim made by Kinsey a gazillion years ago. It's irrelevant as to whether or not a minority is deserving of equal rights. Jews make up less than 2% of the US population...try applying all the anti gay laws marriage laws or the "religious freedom" laws to Jews.

it's not even only about Gay "marriage" it's about thought control with you people. Nothing is absolute anymore.are boys, boys? are girls, girls? should we remove those crazy men, women signs from public restrooms

No, it is about equal rights. "YOU PEOPLE" are just ignorant fucks.

Protections Denied to Same-sex Couples and Their Kids
From Why Marriage Matters: Appendix B

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are at least 1,138 tangible benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that marriage brings couples and their kids—and that's just at the federal level. Add in state and local law, and the policies of businesses, employers, universities, and other institutions, and it is clear that the denial of marriage to couples and their kids makes a substantial impact on every area of life, from raising kids, building a life together, and caring for one another, to retirement, death, and inheritance. Most of these cannot be secured by private agreement or through lawyers.

Here are just some of the ways in which government's denying the freedom to marry punishes couples and families by depriving them of critical tangible as well as intangible protections and responsibilities in virtually every area of life:

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.

Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.

Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.

Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.

Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.

Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.

Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.

Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.

Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.

Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.

Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.

Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.

Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.

Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.

oh waaaa, over 50% of marriages end up in divorce in this day and age. And who know what the statistics of people JUST LIVING together are...they SEEM TO manage just fine.....so really. give us a break

Totally irrelevant. EVERY individual should be able to decide for themselves.

So much for the right standing up for individual liberty...

How ironic, a pro gay rights liberal preaching about "individual liberty" yet somehow thinks it only applies to gays. What about Christians who find it objectionable? Are they allowed to decide for themselves?

 

[Bfgrn]

That's it...dismiss everything else posted and focus on one small irrelevant detail. Transparent deflection.

The numbers don't matter. 2%, 4%, 6% or even the 10% claim made by Kinsey a gazillion years ago. It's irrelevant as to whether or not a minority is deserving of equal rights. Jews make up less than 2% of the US population...try applying all the anti gay laws marriage laws or the "religious freedom" laws to Jews.

it's not even only about Gay "marriage" it's about thought control with you people. Nothing is absolute anymore.are boys, boys? are girls, girls? should we remove those crazy men, women signs from public restrooms

No, it is about equal rights. "YOU PEOPLE" are just ignorant fucks.

Protections Denied to Same-sex Couples and Their Kids
From Why Marriage Matters: Appendix B

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are at least 1,138 tangible benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that marriage brings couples and their kids—and that's just at the federal level. Add in state and local law, and the policies of businesses, employers, universities, and other institutions, and it is clear that the denial of marriage to couples and their kids makes a substantial impact on every area of life, from raising kids, building a life together, and caring for one another, to retirement, death, and inheritance. Most of these cannot be secured by private agreement or through lawyers.

Here are just some of the ways in which government's denying the freedom to marry punishes couples and families by depriving them of critical tangible as well as intangible protections and responsibilities in virtually every area of life:

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.

Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.

Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.

Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.

Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.

Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.

Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.

Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.

Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.

Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.

Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.

Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.

Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.

Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.

oh waaaa, over 50% of marriages end up in divorce in this day and age. And who know what the statistics of people JUST LIVING together are...they SEEM TO manage just fine.....so really. give us a break

Totally irrelevant. EVERY individual should be able to decide for themselves.

So much for the right standing up for individual liberty...

How ironic, a pro gay rights liberal preaching about "individual liberty" yet somehow thinks it only applies to gays. What about Christians who find it objectionable? Are they allowed to decide for themselves?

Sure, they have a right to their opinion. And they can refuse to invite gays into their home. But they don't have a right to discriminate against them in an establishment that is open to the public.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But they don't have a right to discriminate against them in an establishment that is open to the public.

Ahh yes, so a person must dispense with their religious beliefs when they open up an establishment. Sure. That's not a fair trade off.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But they don't have a right to discriminate against them in an establishment that is open to the public.

Ahh yes, so a person must dispense with their religious beliefs when they open up an establishment. Sure. That's not a fair trade off.

Yes, they must. Muslim cab drivers lost their case to refuse fares carrying alcohol.

Religion is not a trump card. If it were, polygamy would be a legal form of marriage and human sacrifice could not be prosecuted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's it...dismiss everything else posted and focus on one small irrelevant detail. Transparent deflection.

The numbers don't matter. 2%, 4%, 6% or even the 10% claim made by Kinsey a gazillion years ago. It's irrelevant as to whether or not a minority is deserving of equal rights. Jews make up less than 2% of the US population...try applying all the anti gay laws marriage laws or the "religious freedom" laws to Jews.

it's not even only about Gay "marriage" it's about thought control with you people. Nothing is absolute anymore.are boys, boys? are girls, girls? should we remove those crazy men, women signs from public restrooms

No, it is about equal rights. "YOU PEOPLE" are just ignorant fucks.

Protections Denied to Same-sex Couples and Their Kids
From Why Marriage Matters: Appendix B

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are at least 1,138 tangible benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that marriage brings couples and their kids—and that's just at the federal level. Add in state and local law, and the policies of businesses, employers, universities, and other institutions, and it is clear that the denial of marriage to couples and their kids makes a substantial impact on every area of life, from raising kids, building a life together, and caring for one another, to retirement, death, and inheritance. Most of these cannot be secured by private agreement or through lawyers.

Here are just some of the ways in which government's denying the freedom to marry punishes couples and families by depriving them of critical tangible as well as intangible protections and responsibilities in virtually every area of life:

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.

Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.

Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.

Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.

Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.

Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.

Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.

Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.

Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.

Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.

Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.

Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.

Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.

Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.

oh waaaa, over 50% of marriages end up in divorce in this day and age. And who know what the statistics of people JUST LIVING together are...they SEEM TO manage just fine.....so really. give us a break

Totally irrelevant. EVERY individual should be able to decide for themselves.

So much for the right standing up for individual liberty...

How ironic, a pro gay rights liberal preaching about "individual liberty" yet somehow thinks it only applies to gays. What about Christians who find it objectionable? Are they allowed to decide for themselves?

People find interracial marriage objectionable. Who should win that constitutional debate?

 

[Bfgrn]

But they don't have a right to discriminate against them in an establishment that is open to the public.

Ahh yes, so a person must dispense with their religious beliefs when they open up an establishment. Sure. That's not a fair trade off.

What about a heterosexual man who is cheating on his wife...should a "religious" store owner refuse to serve him? Isn't he a "sinner" too...a "FORNICATOR"

 

[TemplarKormac]

What about a heterosexual man who is cheating on his wife...should a "religious" store owner refuse to serve him?

That's moving the goalposts. You know better than that. Besides, how could the owner possibly know that?

 

[Bfgrn]

What about a heterosexual man who is cheating on his wife...should a "religious" store owner refuse to serve him?

That's moving the goalposts. You know better than that. Besides, how could the owner possibly know that?

It is not moving the goal posts...you right wing turds want to decide which "sins" you accept and which ones you reject. Which CLEARLY tells me it has NOTHING to do with "religion"...it has to do with prejudice, bias, discrimination and ignorance...a right wing trait.

HOW would a store owner know a person is gay?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What about a heterosexual man who is cheating on his wife...should a "religious" store owner refuse to serve him?

That's moving the goalposts. You know better than that. Besides, how could the owner possibly know that?

So no case of infidelity has ever become public...

Are you sure you want to stick with that proclamation?

 

[NYcarbineer]

But they don't have a right to discriminate against them in an establishment that is open to the public.

Ahh yes, so a person must dispense with their religious beliefs when they open up an establishment. Sure. That's not a fair trade off.

Which religion has identifiable text in their teachings that demand one not serve a gay person who desires to patronize the business of a follower of that religion?