DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: hnumpah on June 16, 2008, 09:15:15 AM
-
Lesbian couple of 55 years ready to say 'I do'
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO - Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin fell in love at a time when lesbians risked being arrested, fired from their jobs and sent to electroshock treatment.
On Monday, more than a half-century after they became a couple, Lyon and Martin plan to become one of the first same-sex couples to legally exchange marriage vows in California.
"It was something you wanted to know, 'Is it really going to happen?' And now it's happened, and maybe it can continue to happen," Lyon says.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom plans to officiate at the private ceremony in his City Hall office before 50 invited guests. He picked Martin, 87, and Lyon, 84, for the front of the line in recognition of their long relationship and their status as pioneers of the gay rights movement.
Along with six other women, they founded a San Francisco social club for lesbians in 1955 called the Daughters of Bilitis. Under their leadership, it evolved into the nation's first lesbian advocacy organization. They have the FBI files to prove it.
Their ceremony Monday will, in fact, be a marriage do-over.
In February 2004, San Francisco's new mayor decided to challenge California's marriage laws by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. His advisers and gay rights activists knew right away which couple would put the most compelling human face on the issue: Martin and Lyon.
Back then, the couple planned to celebrate their 51st anniversary as live-in lovers on Valentine's Day. Because of their work with the Daughters, they also were icons in the gay community.
"Four years ago, when they agreed to be married, it was in equal parts to support the mayor and to support the idea that lesbians and gay people formed committed relationships and should have those relationships respected," says Kate Kendell, a close friend and executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
Lyon and Martin vividly recall the excitement of being secretly swept into the clerk's office, saying "I do" in front of a tiny group of city staff members and friends, and then being rushed out of the building. There were no corsages, no bottles of champagne. Afterward they went to lunch, just the two of them, at a restaurant run as a job training program for participants in a substance abuse program.
"Of course, nobody down there knew, so we were left to be by ourselves like we wanted to be," said Martin, the less gregarious of the two. "Then we came home."
"And watched TV," adds Lyon.
The privacy was short-lived. Their wedding portrait, showing the couple cradling each other in pastel-colored pantsuits with their foreheads tenderly touching, drew worldwide attention.
Same-sex marriage would become legal in Massachusetts in another three months, but San Francisco's calculated act of civil disobedience drove the debate.
In the month that followed, more than 4,000 other couples followed Martin and Lyon down the aisle before a judge acting on petitions brought by gay marriage opponents halted the city's spree.
The state Supreme Court ultimately voided the unions, but the women were among the two dozen couples who served as plaintiffs in the lawsuits that led the same court last month to overturn California's ban on gay marriage.
They were having their morning coffee when Lyon heard the news on the radio. She rushed across the house to embrace Martin. Not long after, Newsom called to offer congratulations and to ask if they would be willing to be at the forefront yet again.
"Sure," was the answer they gave.
The couple, who live in the same San Francisco house they bought in 1956, do not get out much now. Martin needs a wheelchair to get around. Although they plan to briefly greet well-wishers at City Hall after the ceremony, they are having a private reception for friends and family.
"It's so endearing because they do seem excited and a little bit nervous," Kendell says. "It's like the classic feelings anyone has as their wedding day approaches."
Because a few other clerk's offices agreed to stay open until the court's decision becomes final at 8 p.m. EDT, other couples planning late afternoon weddings may already have tied the knot before the mayor pronounces Lyon and Martin "spouses for life."
They don't mind. They know they already are.
"We get along well," Lyon said. "And we love each other."
"I love you, too," Martin said.
-
There's going to be an amendment to the California Constition banning homosexual marriage on the ballot in the fall.
It'll pass.
-
"..... but San Francisco's calculated act of civil disobedience drove the debate."
I suspect Republican agent provocateurs.
It is so well timed to come up in the path of the election.
-
>>It is so well timed to come up in the path of the election.<<
Exactly. I'm surprised the communist left isn't screaming foul at California.
I'll be the first: THANK YOU CALIFORNIA!
:D
-
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. I mean we do have a list somewhere where they list everything that is natural too... if we could find that list we'll broadcast it on CNN!!!
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
-
I don't believe all that. Some of it, but homosexuals aren't necessarily bad people. Some of them are pretty twisted. A fair amount in fact. To be fair, I don't believe a marriage performed by a judge is valid anyway. So unless and until the state tries to form Churches to perform these types of "marriages," I don't really give a damn. Call yourself married if it makes you feel better.
-
Evidently you missed the sarcasm that was the basis for the list.
-
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0B621214-5565-41F9-AC21-1C1FDB5437D2.htm
International laws
Holland was the first country to allow gay marriages in April 2001, followed by Belgium in June 2003, Canada and Spain in July 2005.
South Africa was the first African country to legalise same-sex marriage after it passed the Civil Union Act in 2006.
But many other countries reject any kind of union between homosexuals, usually on religious grounds.
The Australian government passed legislation in 2004 that defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others".
In India, homosexuality is an offence punishable by a life sentence in prison, and same-sex marriages are also prohibited in China and Russia.
-
Sarcasm?
Ridiculous maybe. Those are the talking points used by homosexuals when attacking anyone who disagrees with homosexual marriage. Aren't they?
-
I don't believe a marriage performed by a judge is valid anyway
how about non-christian marraiges?
do you think children of couples married by a judge are illegitimate?
I really like to know
the reason is for years I`ve brought up the subject that catholics used to think the only valid marraige was done by a catholic priest and somehow people just didn`t know this.
despite so many movies and tv shows stated this.
-
To be fair, I don't believe a marriage performed by a judge is valid anyway.
You may not believe they are valid, but they are legal. In fact, my wife and I were married by a notary public, which is legal in Florida.
-
There's going to be an amendment to the California Constition banning homosexual marriage on the ballot in the fall.
It'll pass.
So you and hatemongering Mike Savage keep saying but the Constitution keeps disagreeing with your hate and xenophobia.
-
>>So you and hatemongering Mike Savage keep saying but the Constitution keeps disagreeing with your hate and xenophobia.<<
I'd just like to point out that once again I'm being called names by someone and I didn't say a word to them.
Anyway ... I don't live in California you asshole. We amended the Ohio Constitution to prohibit such nonsense. So the Constitution says you're wrong and I'm right.
But that goes without saying.
-
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0B621214-5565-41F9-AC21-1C1FDB5437D2.htm
International laws
Holland was the first country to allow gay marriages in April 2001, followed by Belgium in June 2003, Canada and Spain in July 2005.
South Africa was the first African country to legalise same-sex marriage after it passed the Civil Union Act in 2006.
But many other countries reject any kind of union between homosexuals, usually on religious grounds.
The Australian government passed legislation in 2004 that defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others".
In India, homosexuality is an offence punishable by a life sentence in prison, and same-sex marriages are also prohibited in China and Russia.
So let me get this straight. International opinion has no bearing when we as a nation decide to go to war. It has no bearing when it comes to our incarceration rate. It has no bearing when it comes to our use of the death penalty. It has no bearing when it comes to coming to a consensus for global warming. Am I right so far?
But it most certainly does have bearing when it comes to same sex marriage? Which is it?
And the irony of your use of an Al-Jazeera article to make your point didn't escape me.
-
>>You may not believe they are valid, but they are legal. In fact, my wife and I were married by a notary public, which is legal in Florida.<<
I thought I was clear on this. Of course they're legal. I have no power nor would I want to make them illegal. On the other hand, the Catholic Church doesn't recognize them. That's all I'm saying. So for me, a marriage must be done by a Catholic priest, a rabbi, or a Protestant pastor to mean anything.
-
Sarcasm?
Ridiculous maybe. Those are the talking points used by homosexuals when attacking anyone who disagrees with homosexual marriage. Aren't they?
I don't see homosexuals attacking anyone. They may disagree with someone strongly, but I don't see gangs of homosexuals running around beating up straight people. I mean, it was gay people who strung up a straight kid on a fence in Wyoming and left him to die, right? It was gay kids who shot two of their classmates recently for being straight, isn't that so. Oh wait, I've got that all wrong. It was STRAIGHT people who tied Matthew Shepard to a fence, and it was STRAIGHT kids who shot their gay classmates for being gay, and it's groups of STRAIGHT people who like to drop by the gay districts of large cities to engage in that ever popular sport, gay bashing.
So to complain that somehow gays are attacking straight people is a bit disingenuous. After all, wasn't it gays who were partly to blame for 9/11? Isn't it gays that are referred to as degenerates? Didn't you yourself call a fair amount of gays "twisted"? Isn't it you that likes to give me little nicknames like "queenie" and the oh-so-original "faggot"?
Frankly, I don't care if you like gays. I don't care if you find it disgusting. I don't care if you are against gay marriage. I do expect the respect and courtesy that is extended to other people though.
Gay marriage is inevitable Rich, it's coming down the pike. It might be 5 years, it might be 50. It might have a different name. But make no mistake, it's coming.
As for talking points, I haven't seen any effort made to rebut them. Isn't that what you usually do with talking points, or do you simply talk around the issues?
-
>>I don't see homosexuals attacking anyone. They may disagree with someone strongly, but I don't see gangs of homosexuals running around beating up straight people.<<
Are physical assaults all you consider attacks? I was referring to verbal attacks against those who disagree. You can?t say you haven?t seen angry homosexuals attack people using items from the list you posted can you? Apparently they are just sarcasm and not actual arguments.
>>I mean, it was gay people who strung up a straight kid on a fence in Wyoming and left him to die, right? [snip]<<
Yeah, it?s terrible. But what do a few knuckle dragging morons have to do with a fundamental difference of opinion on marriage? Nothing. Tossing in isolated incidents of violence don?t make your case. In fact, to me they weaken it.
>>After all, wasn't it gays who were partly to blame for 9/11?<<
I remember Falwell blaming homosexuals for Katrina, but not 9/11. What are you referring to?
>>Isn't it gays that are referred to as degenerates? Didn't you yourself call a fair amount of gays "twisted"? Isn't it you that likes to give me little nicknames like "queenie" and the oh-so-original "faggot"?<<
Personally I think homosexuals are degenerates, yup. I think it?s a mental health issue and still would be if leftists hadn?t forced it to be changed. I wouldn?t wish that lifestyle on anybody. As for you?re complaints about name calling, maybe you should get some advice from Jill before you go any further. Or are you just baiting again?
>>Frankly, I don't care if you like gays. I don't care if you find it disgusting. I don't care if you are against gay marriage. I do expect the respect and courtesy that is extended to other people though.<<
I?m glad you don?t care. Because I couldn?t care less. I don?t ?dislike? homosexuals. I don?t really know many. When I meet them I usually find them very interesting people. I have a cousin in Detroit who?s as queer as a three dollar bill and I love him. He?s a great human being. Not to mention funny as hell. At his father?s funeral (my uncle) he played the organ at the service. One of my other cousins said it must be tough for him to play at his fathers funeral and he replied, ? He paid for the lessons.? Hilarious. I?m not sure what you mean by courtesy though. I?m not rude to homosexuals so I don?t know what you mean. They?re human beings and as such deserve respect, but if marriage is what you mean, sorry, I disagree.
>>Gay marriage is inevitable Rich, it's coming down the pike. It might be 5 years, it might be 50. It might have a different name. But make no mistake, it's coming.<<
I doubt that it?s illegal here in Ohio and will be in California. Just about everywhere it?s tried it?s been stopped by citizens. I?m not against people certain rights that married people have, just don?t call it a marriage.
Why do you need the States sanction anyway?
-
[And the irony of your use of an Al-Jazeera article to make your point didn't escape me.
Cool. I thought it wouldn't.
International opinion makes some diffrence , but it should always be less diffrence than US Citizen opinion.
This is one of the libertine things that the puritan part of the world will use to hate us with , this is a minor point.
-
Are physical assaults all you consider attacks?
Nope. But I don't see gays calling straight people degenerates, or saying that they'll burn in hell either. It seems to me that most of the attacks come from the right, but that may just be my bias. In either case, it's hypocritical to bitch about someone "attacking" your position when you feel free to do so yourself (and I mean that broadly, not personally).
But what do a few knuckle dragging morons have to do with a fundamental difference of opinion on marriage? Nothing. Tossing in isolated incidents of violence don?t make your case.
Well, we're at war with Al-Qaeda over an "isolated incident of violence". OK City was an "isolated incident of violence". I'm sure that a lot of lynchings by the Klan were "isolated incidents of violence". It relates to my opinion on marriage (and in case you didn't know, I'm playing devil's advocate here, I'm generally receptive to civil unions) is that it shows how those "isolated incidences of violence" are the face of the problem, they are the logical extensions of certain lines of thought.
In fact, to me they weaken it
That's your opinion that you're entitled to.
I remember Falwell blaming homosexuals for Katrina, but not 9/11. What are you referring to?
God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says
By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 14, 2001; Page C03
Television evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, two of the most prominent voices of the religious right, said liberal civil liberties groups, feminists, homosexuals and abortion rights supporters bear partial responsibility for Tuesday's terrorist attacks because their actions have turned God's anger against America.
Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28620-2001Sep14)
Personally I think homosexuals are degenerates, yup.
That's another opinon.
I think it?s a mental health issue and still would be if leftists hadn?t forced it to be changed
The American Psychiatric Association removed it from the list of mental health disorders in the 1970's. I'll take the opinion of people who have made their lives and careers in the field of mental health over yours any day of the week. What is your evidence that this is a mental disease?
As for you?re complaints about name calling, maybe you should get some advice from Jill before you go any further.
As I recall, and if you want I can drag up the posts to prove it, that was going on long before she entered the conversation.
I?m glad you don?t care. Because I couldn?t care less. I don?t ?dislike? homosexuals. I don?t really know many. When I meet them I usually find them very interesting people. I have a cousin in Detroit who?s as queer as a three dollar bill and I love him. He?s a great human being. Not to mention funny as hell. At his father?s funeral (my uncle) he played the organ at the service. One of my other cousins said it must be tough for him to play at his fathers funeral and he replied, ? He paid for the lessons.? Hilarious.
I've never stated that you dislike homosexuals. That said, this story about your cousin is irrelevant, though I am sorry for the loss of your uncle.
I?m not sure what you mean by courtesy though. I?m not rude to homosexuals so I don?t know what you mean. They?re human beings and as such deserve respect,
By courtesy, I'd just as soon not be associated with blame for 9/11, Katrina, or whatever other natural disaster comes down the pike. This wasn't directed at you personally, and I should have clarified that, but at a larger audience. I'd like to be able to be able to go out to a club and not have to worry about some dumb ignorant SOB trying to cause a problem. Those are what I mean by courtesy.
but if marriage is what you mean, sorry, I disagree
Feel free to disagree. It's like saying, "Why, I don't mind colored people at all, I just don't want them drinking from my water fountain, after all, they have their own".
I doubt that it?s illegal here in Ohio and will be in California. Just about everywhere it?s tried it?s been stopped by citizens.
How many years was interracial marriage illegal in OH and CA? I think that it's pretty damn great that the CA Supremes based their decision on the precedent of interracial marriage. I think that more people will finally "get" this idea, that gay marriage vs. straight marriage is the modern version of separate but equal. And when that happens, well, the rest'll be history. As I said, it might be 50 years yet, but it's coming.
In 1948, California became the first state in the U.S. to allow interracial couples to marry. Another 19 years passed before the U.S. Supreme Court changed the definition of marriage in 1967 and made interracial marriage available to loving, committed couples across the entire country.
Link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr_menu.htm)
Why do you need the States sanction anyway?
What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?
Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.
Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:
Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.
Immigration:
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.
Taxes:
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.
Benefits:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
But can?t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?
No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.
1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.
2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.
3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone?s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you?re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.
Even with lesbian and gay marriages being performed and recognized in some states, the Federal Defense of Marriage Law prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay and lesbian relationships. This puts gay and lesbian couples who are married in a legal limbo. How do they file their tax returns? Do they have to pay the tax on their partner?s health insurance? How do they fill out legal and other forms, single or married?
Creating Civil Unions creates a separate and unequal status for some of America?s citizens. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court ruled that creating a separate class for gay and lesbian citizens is not permissible and that is why they have voted that only marriage equals marriage.
The precedent was set with Brown v. The Board of Education regarding segregation in public education. Ironically, Massachusetts marriage law went into effect on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education.
The United States Constitution guarantees equality for all. As you can see, marriage and civil unions are not the same. Creating equal access to marriage is the only fair way to ensure equality for gay and straight couples alike.
Link (http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage_2.htm)
It needs State sanction because it is separate but not equal.
-
I'm on record as conceding to state sanctioned civil unions. I'm afraid to say, don't expect any more concessions on this one, from this Christian.
-
Well, I know what your position is sirs, and generally I respect that. Once you give gay civil unions ALL of the benefits of marriages, then I'll be happy, regardless of the name.
We're just beating another dead horse here.
-
Agreed on the benefits & the horse. I mean that is the name of this place, right? ;)
-
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. I mean we do have a list somewhere where they list everything that is natural too... if we could find that list we'll broadcast it on CNN!!!
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
;D
Well said.
-
>>How many years was interracial marriage illegal in OH and CA?<<
Lame. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
-
Lame. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
That's not what the Supreme Courts of California Massachusetts think. Care to explain your reasoning as to why the two aren't related?
-
The Spreme Court of California? You mean the guys with all the porn on their computers?
:D
Nobody is stopping you from getting married to a White woman, or a Black woman. Apples and oranges.
-
The Spreme Court of California? You mean the guys with all the porn on their computers?
Actually, Kozinsky (the judge with the porn) was never a member of the California Supreme Court. He was appointed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by Reagan, and considered for US Supreme Court vacancies by Bush HW. Nor do I see what having porn on your computer or your website has much to do with anything, so long as it isn't illegal.
Nobody is stopping you from getting married to a White woman, or a Black woman. Apples and oranges.
60 years ago I couldn't marry a black woman. Most of the people who oppose gay marriage today (religious conservatives) were the same ones blocking interracial marriage then. So I think that there are some relevancies.
-
It wouldn't have been from this Christian
-
Let me roll that back a little, because that's a heck of a broad brush I just got done wielding. I didn't mean to imply that religious conservatives here are racists, we live in a different time today and who knows which way they would have gone 60 years ago? But I do stand by my original thrust, that the people who opposed that change also oppose this one.
And I don't mean people who are moderate or open to compromise like you sirs, I mean the die hards that don't want any form of civil union and would like to see homosexuality illegal still.
-
Don't worry Fat, I knew you weren't broadbrusing conservative minded Christians as racists. Tee would, possibly Xo & Lanya as well, but definately Tee. But I digress, there are plenty of folks who take their "Christianity" to the AlQueada-like extreme, and would go against God's commands of Do not Kill, and do unto others as you would have do unto you. And instead of being tolerant, will actively seek out to gravely injure, if not kill those they deem dirty or sinful. Then there are those who are simply violently homophobic. Both categories are largely condemned by the same group of conservative minded Christians, and thankfully are a small minority
-
I think it has too many paralels
the military are some point denied either group.
jobs are denied to them
ex. it was brought up here several years ago the federal government can deny work to homosexuals due to the fact they are not legally catagories as any known group and get not protections for it.
but I must admit as a group ,they should be the most desireable people to have around.
my city had the most diverse demographics around.
but the cleanest trendiest place is in the castro.
good food and shopping
can`t say that about most places
and the funny part is gangs won`t go there
so crime is quite minimul.
I have no idea if theft is high or not
-
In 2004 the researchers studied about 200 Italian families and found that the mothers, maternal aunts and maternal grandmothers of gay men are more fecund, or fruitful, than average. Recently, they tried to explain their findings with a number of genetic models, and found one that fit the bill.
"This is the first time that a model fits all our empirical data," said Andrea Camperio-Ciani, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Padova in Italy who led the study. "These genes work in a sexually antagonistic way ? that means that when they're represented in a female, they increase fecundity , and when they're represented in a male, they decrease fecundity. It's a trait that benefits one sex at the cost of the other."
http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html
I think it is BS ,but it is interesting BS.