I found this story on the FoxNews website. Although I'm not suprised its in San Francisco. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54803,00.html SAN FRANCISCO — With its panoramic views of San Francisco and subsidized rent, the proposed Rainbow Adult Housing complex sounds like a place any senior citizen would want to live. However, only certain seniors are welcome. "It's (for) bisexuals and transgendered, who by the way can be heterosexual people, but queer identified. It's gay and lesbian, and it's our friends and family that are accepting of us," said Jim Mitulski, executive director of the Rainbow community. "That is discrimination and we are subsidizing discrimination," said Republican state Sen. Ray Haynes, who added that gay politicians in Sacramento are finding ways to funnel public dollars into projects that discriminate against straight people. "If you want to run a business that caters to specific folks, I don't have a problem with that," Haynes said. "But don't come ask the taxpayers to pay for it." Proudly displaying a copy of the state's check for $250,000, Mitulski said it's perfectly appropriate for taxpayer money to fund what he said would be the nation's first subsidized housing project for gay and lesbian seniors. "The government has made it possible for distinct communities to preserve their culture and to serve the unique needs of their seniors," Mitulski said. "It's not, to our minds, discrimination. It's us taking responsibility for our own community." Organizers hope to build the project here in this largely gay neighborhood in the next five years. They're still figuring out how applicants would be screened, but the primary requirement, aside from old age, is apparently support for gay lifestyles. It's a difficult standard to measure, and one some critics contend is against the law. "We fine land owners for saying they don't want to rent to homosexuals. Now, we're saying to homosexuals, 'we're not only not going to fine you for engaging in this kind of discrimination, we're going to subsidize you,'" Haynes said.
It's discrimination. If they made a senior house for just straights, just whites, just latinos or just jews everyone would be disgusted. Fuck them. They don't get special privelages above discrimination. If they want to build an old-age home in a gay community go right ahead. But not allowing straight people in it is discrimination through and through.
Bollocks. There are homes that prefer people of a particular ethnicity or a particular religion. It's because different people have different lifestyles, and the entire point of a senior's home is to make things as pleasant as possible while people are living through their (arguably) most unpleasant part of their lives. It only makes sense to try and create environments that closely match people's lifestyles. Sexuality is but one dimension of a person's lifestyle. Also, please try to avoid using the negative politicized meaning of the word 'discrimination'. Discrimination means the act of distinguishing or differentiating. Given this meaning and insofar as humans are different (are we?), 'discrimination' is necessary and is the only way to achieve an optimal solution to any problem.
Ok, I agree with you that is makes sense to try and make their years as comfy as possible. But the part that bothers me is this is being payed with public money, my hard earned tax dollars. If someone wanted to start a seniors home that catered exclusivly to heterosexual senior citizens, the gay and lesbian community would scream and throw fits about how it was anti gay. But its perfectly ok for a group of gays and lesbians to do this and exclude everyone but themselves. I would like to see my tax dollars being spent on something worthwhile like newer schools, extra teachers or something to that effect.
"Bollocks. There are homes that prefer people of a particular ethnicity or a particular religion. It's because different people have different lifestyles, and the entire point of a senior's home is to make things as pleasant as possible while people are living through their (arguably) most unpleasant part of their lives. It only makes sense to try and create environments that closely match people's lifestyles. Sexuality is but one dimension of a person's lifestyle." Preference is certainly different than not allowing straight people into it. Like I said, if they wanted to make a senior home in a largely gay area I'd be fine with it. But to say that straight people are NOT ALLOWED??? That is discrimination in it's lowest form. "Also, please try to avoid using the negative politicized meaning of the word 'discrimination'. Discrimination means the act of distinguishing or differentiating. Given this meaning and insofar as humans are different (are we?), 'discrimination' is necessary and is the only way to achieve an optimal solution to any problem." My bad. I didn't intend to do that and will try not to in future use.
That's probably true, but it's hypocritical of them. But, at the same time, that doesn't change the argument in any way, nor does it grant you permission to be equally illogical. That's why you vote (you do vote, don't you?). I'd like you to elaborate further on why it is not "worthwhile" to spend money on services for gays and lesbians, who are tax-paying members of the public just like you. ...and wait a minute, it's actually not your tax dollars. You're not Californian. I'll leave my comments about the idiocy of the American manufactu... I mean education system for another time.
There is something of a double standard here. I for one, dislike it. The mandated bussing policies that tried to ensure that that all got an equal education did nothing for anybody except make a mess of things. So has reapportioning voting districts to represent a certain class of voters. It even went as far as removing the support of certain politicians voter bases, ensuring that they would not get reelected. Quite a coup for those behind the scenes adversaries. But what of the good that some of the politicans actually did? That went out the window with the dishwater. Mandating from on high that we will cater to a certain creed, lifestyle, race, religion, ect. will always ensure that there is a barrier. This is hardly equality. It is forced compliance that we as people will always resist. It has been remarked before how emmigrants will go to a certain area and try and reestablish what they left behind. The language, culture, and ways that are familiar. It is because people are a product of their enviroment. Or maybe I should say that their enviroment affects the way they see things. If I go through there and draw a line on the map and say, "Ok, from now on you can only go to this retirement house because you live on this side of the line. What have I done? I have created a barrier that everyone resents. This in turn affects how the govenrment bodies that made these rules are viewed by the public. Is it any wonder that the public distrusts government? To fund a retirement home with public monies, from our taxes, means that we should have access to it. Not restricted access, but to become residents, if we so desire. You can not discrimanate because of sexual preference. This is one of the precepts that gays drove home to be accepted and yes it is discrimination...
Not at all. Preference and exclusivity are elements on the same continuum, separated by some statistical parameter. Consider them analogous to 'likely' and 'certain' where 'certain' is equivalent to 'very likely' with some allowance for error. I can make this claim since this is a social situation, not a rigorous logical setting. Sexuality, being a social feature, cannot be classified according to some boolean (black or white) function, as there are as many classifications as there are people on the planet. In logical terms, your predicates are all probabilistic, and so your conclusion must have some uncertainty. And so when you say something is 'exclusive to gays and lesbians', you are making an ambiguous statement that has no meaning since the set of people who are 'gay and lesbian' is not defined. The statement only makes sense when interpreted through some human arbiter whose social sensibilities may vary statistically quite far from any societal mean.
Equality is a word that is held in far too high esteem. People are not equal, except on the most trivial levels. People should not be treated equally when they are, in fact, not equal. This is your 'forced compliance' from the other side. Senior's homes are exclusive institutions to begin with, as they are inhabited by a subset of society that does not reflect the overall makeup of society. Exclusive institutions are absolutely integral to modern civilization. Government, religion, schools, organizations, subcultures, etc. are all exclusive institutions with varying selection parameters and stringency. The reason for this is complex and quite theoretical. But, simply, exclusive institutions exist because they are efficient. Rather than anarchy, we have rigid government. Rather than have people fumble about rationalizing the universe, we have structured religion. Rather than have old people dying at random on the streets, we clump them together to care for them. In this case, we seek to more efficiently generate happiness and contentment. We do this by clumping like-minded people together, as is already done along the lines of religion and ethnicity. Yes, communities do emerge on their own. But since it occurs by a random process, it cannot possibly be as efficient as one directed by some rational process.
Duh ... According to the following portion of the article, I would be eligible I imagine in that I have close friends and a distant relation that are gay and I have supported a number of gay causes over the years. ""It's (for) bisexuals and transgendered, who by the way can be heterosexual people, but queer identified. It's gay and lesbian, and it's our friends and family that are accepting of us," said Jim Mitulski, executive director of the Rainbow community. NOTE: bold added for emphasis. So what's the big bitch? Is it any different from having to be a Methodist to be accepted at the Methodist Home for the Aged which receives public support in Buffalo? Take care Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What I do not like about it is the same thing I have not liked for years. I have worked many jobs over the years. In the job hunting process, what aways got to me was even though I might be better qualified, reverse discrimination was alive and active. My tax dollars at work that prevented me from getting that job. In otherwords the playing field was not level. For as long as possible we will not see an end to such actions. Why? Because as long as the cow can be bled for more, why quit? No one jumped up and said, "Here, lets us help you out, we have this or that program to assist you." At least not for free. This is the same mentality that sets up programs that will exclude you and leave you out in the cold because you do not qualify for what ever requirements are deemed desireable. I have no quibble with the gay community. I have known quite a few. Never have I had any continue to hit on me once I made known my preferences. Most of the time it was not necessary to make it known as it was obvious. Other than their sexual preference they are no different than anyone else. They have the same fears and hates. They don't grow extra arms or anything else to set them aside from anyone esle. In spite of how it may sound, neither do I have anything against any other race, creed, religion, or sex. I have a problem with those who would get a free ride at the expense of those who pay the bills. The bill payers get hit twice, once in taxes and again in exclusion. A double whammy. That is what I have a problem with and do not like...
I dont think this one is fair either. I agree - a person should be able to live out their years as comfortable as possible but this is a form of discrimination, regardless of how you look at it. Saying a person cannot live there because of his/her sexual preference is distinguishing or differentiating against them. But I guess if a person wanted to, he could stoop to a lower level and lie about his sexual preference, just to get into this complex. Maybe certain people who or not gay, would prefer to live in this complex. It may very well be nicer than other complexes in the area that are available to them. But they cant live there, because their straight? That doesnt make much sense to me. Why dont we make all-gay schools or colleges or work places for that matter. How about all-gay restauraunts? Its not too far fetched, is it?
I find it strange that for all these years homosexuals have been clamering for acceptance and have been saying they are just like everyone else, but yet they want to be seperate from everyone else who is different from them. Its nothing more then fence sitting. They want to be treated and looked at as equals, but yet they want special laws to protect them and they want special places where they can all live together and be seperated from non-homosexuals
Azrael ... Just take your statement: "I find it strange that for all these years homosexuals have been clamering for acceptance and have been saying they are just like everyone else, but yet they want to be seperate from everyone else who is different from them." And substitute 'females' for 'homosexuals'. Not too different, is it? Take care Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
