Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

L.A. to subsidize 'gay' retirement home
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Thursday, October 23, 2003

Posted on 10/22/2003 11:10:48 PM PDT by JohnHuang2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-27 last
To: JohnHuang2
A survey conducted by Bottini's group two years ago found 72 percent of elderly 'gay' men and 37 percent of elderly lesbians said they had no one to care for them, according to GFN.

This is sad for anybody.

21 posted on 10/23/2003 9:11:19 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
Ugh! That is grotesque.
22 posted on 10/23/2003 9:12:18 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Isn't a separate retirement home for gays discriminatory? How can it be legal if funded by the taxpayers? Are all those sexual discrimination laws in California written only in favor of homosexuals?
23 posted on 10/23/2003 9:25:03 PM PDT by DeFault User
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Do the seniors need to prove their sexual orientation to live there? What if the administrators are flooded with heterosexual applicants who don't mention that they're not homosexual?

This reminds me of the "domestic partnership" questions asked of Bill Simon in the 2002 CA gubernatorial campaign. His answers were usually too complex for the fast-paced, soundbyte-oriented media, and he probably shouldn't have gone into such detail.

I think he supported "domestic partnership" benefits if those partnerships were broadened to include other types of relationships, such as between family members. He implied nonsexual relationships, but the homosexual agenda clearly is pushing for special rights only for homosexuals. I think that instead of stopping domestic partnerships, Simon would have diluted the meaning of them so that they couldn't possibly be equated with marriage and companies/society wouldn't support many special benefits for domestic partnerships.

If an old widower who qualified for senior housing could live with his younger widower brother, their companionship could bring joy to both of them. But, if they aren't a homosexual domestic partnership, the 2nd brother might not be allowed to live there until he also qualified for the senior housing. Why should the sexually deviant have more privileges/benefits than any other pair of normal friends?
(Or, the government could stop subsidizing these programs.)

24 posted on 10/24/2003 2:48:18 AM PDT by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
"WELCOME TO BIG GAY AL'S BIG GAY RETIREMENT HOME.
IT'S JUST THUPER TO THEE YOU!!"


25 posted on 10/24/2003 3:18:15 AM PDT by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Yuck, old fags, creepy......
26 posted on 10/24/2003 3:20:56 AM PDT by Cronos (W2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses
I dont get your tag line
27 posted on 10/24/2003 3:22:13 AM PDT by Cronos (W2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-27 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson