I think the only problem for “gays” is that they identify as such, because this draws them off into a sort of special world that is not necessarily a nice one. Since we’re talking about men, appearance is all, and when men decide that another man has gotten too old or too uncute or whatever, the latter man is dumped.
I think that’s one of the things behind the “gay marriage” stuff, because gay men want to know that somebody at least theoretically has to stay with them. On paper, if nothing else.
When I lived in SF, most of my best friends were gay men because they were artistic, fun, may have been very leftwing but really didn’t care (unlike my liberal female friends, with whom you could not maintain a friendship unless you were a pro-abortion liberal nutcase), and were also very loyal and kind friends.
So I think we have to distinguish simply between the homosexual guy who lives down the block ... and the Obama oriented political activist. The problem, to me, is the term “gay,” because it’s like “black,” it doesn’t describe a reality but a politically manipulated position.
Well now, livius, the homosexual guy who lives down my block wears a skirt to the supermarket...and he's ugly as sin. He'd never get away with looking so bagged out in San Francisco. Is he an Obama activist too? Not an effective one.