[JohnHuang2]

Thursday, October 23, 2003

Quote of the Day by RightWingAtheist

[narses]

Your tax money at work. The City of the Angels indeed!

[sourcery]

Exacting taxes from Peter to subsidize Paul's retirment is morally wrong. It's theft. Paul's sexual orientation has nothing to do with it--nor does Peter's.

[ambrose]

'gay' retirement home

Are you listening, Hollyweird? This seems like an excellent premise for a sitcom.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"said younger homosexuals don't always pay enough attention to the fate of older people in their community, "

Narcissists usually don't.

[Az Joe]

Gay retirement home? Hmm, I want to have a gay street and a gay utility company too.

[FITZ]

In a way it's a good idea ---- the regular subsidized housing will be a lot safer for kids if the gays are segregated into their own place.

[Caipirabob]

So when you've reached those "Golden Sunset Years" of 37-40, come on down to "Old Poof Plaza"...

[David Isaac]

"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."


Supporters of the gay agenda, are some of the same people who believe that smokers can choose to not smoke. It is, after all, a matter of choice. For them smokers are responsible for the damage they do to themselves and those around them.

BUT, homosexuals are not to be held resposnsible for the choices they make. When they choose not to have a family, then society must make sure that they are not left alone.

The brazen hypocracy of these people is truly breathtaking.

[NYer]

Los Angeles is set to become the first U.S. city to subsidize housing for homosexual seniors.

Let's see that makes NY the state for the up and coming homosexuals, with that brand smacking new high school for gays ... AND ... CA the state where they can retire when the reach 35?.

[finnman69]

KY-Jelly, Prune juice and Ben Gay...what a pleasant combination.

[John O]

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.

Well duh. Cut yourself off from all that is good, deny yourself the joys of responsible parenthood, practice sexual perversion in a lifestyle that worships youth and grows on molestation of new recruits, and you wonder why you're alone.

It must be awfully lonely being an old sodomite. The young ones want nothing to do with you, most of the ones your age are already dead and you have no family that will claim you. And of course your long term monogomous partner (whom you first met 18 months ago) has moved on to his next long term monogomous relationship.

It almost seems just.

[Jorge]

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.

[DeFault User]

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?

[heleny]

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.)

[PBRSTREETGANG]

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

[Cronos]

Yuck, old fags, creepy......