Most socially liberal cities /metro areas (upper-class, homes, tax)

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by Metro Matt

In no particular order

New York City
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Boston
Seattle
Denver
Chicago
Houston
Austin
Dallas
Atlanta
Miami

I disagree with the bold ones. I put them more moderate. Chicago is debatable.

[Metro Matt]

Originally Posted by jluke65780

I disagree with the bold ones. I put them more moderate. Chicago is debatable.

I don't disagree with Houston being a socially liberal city. It has that anything goes type attitude. Just look at the mayor. She's the first openly lesbian mayor in US history. The fact Houston has so many strip clubs & "massage parlors" is also a tell tale sign. Theres practically a liquor store almost anywhere you go in the city.

Houston is moderately liberal politically, but not socially.



Forgot to mention Vegas & New Orleans on my list as well.

[davidals]

Originally Posted by K-Luv

Yeah, Berkeley. I am still convinced that someone dosed the drinking water with LSD.

Ahhh Bezerkley!

[Thomas R.]

Some possibilities going by statistics.

Boston-Cambridge, Massachusetts
Boulder, Colorado - Possibly more borderline.
Burlington, Vermont - Maybe not large enough.
Iowa City, Iowa
Madison, Wisconsin
Portland, Maine
Portland, Oregon
Santa Cruz, California
San Francisco, California
Seattle, Washington

[Adelle_Sharp]

Originally Posted by skytrekker

New Haven & Hartford CT- in a state that is liberal even outside the cities and larger towns.

Socially, New Haveners are extremely, socially, uptight. Very stuffy.

Don't dare do anything unruly, like go to the mail box with your dog off the leash, or you will get a stern talking to AND a poison pen letter.

It in very hard to met people there if you are not from there or you are not affiliated with one of the schools.

I have never lived in a more socially barren environment than New Haven County.

I know a woman who considers her best friend to be her maid, because her maid is nice to her (her maid doesnt even speak English).

It is true that friendliness is rare in New Haven and surrounding areas, it's almost like there's a tax on friendliness or something.

[j_cat]

Originally Posted by DC's Finest

DC is liberal to the core. DC supports gay marriage. As for jmusmc, don't feed into his racism. He brings up some assinine race related fact every other thread.

D.C.'s government supports gay marriage. You wouldn't believe some of the hateful commentary on the issue that I've heard from black Washingtonians.

Also, all things are relative: D.C. is "liberal to the core" if you're comparing it to, say, Richmond, but compared to NYC, Portland, SF? No way.

[bchris02]

Originally Posted by tvdxer

Interestingly, although gay rights supporters are traditionally more likely to be pro-choice (in my experience, and I believe statistics would confirm it), the general attitude of the U.S. is much more pro-gay than 20 or even 10 years ago, but slightly less pro-choice. My generation (Y) is overwhelmingly pro-gay, even in the more conservative states; I attribute this to:

1) Strongly positive messages about homosexuality in the media. During the 90's, popular media was relatively silent on "GLBT" (or "LGBT", or "BTGL") issues; during the '00s, TV shows, movies, musicians, etc. portraying homosexuality in a positive light exploded in number. Think of ***** Eye for the Straight Guy, The L Word, Big Love, Christina Aguilera's "Dirty" video, Madonna and Britney Spears' kiss, "I Kissed a Girl", Lady Gaga, etc.
2) A "laissez-faire" attitude towards the sexual inclinations of others, associated with a general weakening of the Christian sexual ethic. Other places this can be seen are in the increasing explicitness of popular music (shamelessly promoting lust and oral sex: Lil' Wayne's "Lollipop", Akon's "I wanna **** you", the just out Enrique Iglesias / Ludacris song "Tonight I'm ****ing You") and the open popularity of "hook-ups" as an alternative to a committed relationship.
3) A general devaluation of marriage. Same-sex marriage proponents use the examples of Britney Spear's 55-hour marriage, etc. as ammunition against opponent's claims that such unions will de-sacralize the nature of marriage by pointing out (though never in these exact words) that marriage cannot be desacralized much further.

Its kind of hypocritical in my opinion for this generation that liberalism seems to be all about tolerance of gays yet they are very intolerant of those with other differences or disabilities. What about people with autism/aspergers? Racism is still huge but doesn't get much attention. What about religious tolerance? Its all about "look how gay friendly we are" yet they are ignoring the many areas where greater tolerance is needed.

[uptown_urbanist]

People with disabilities certainly face uphill struggles, but I fail to see the connection between a belief in rights for gay people and some sort of discrimination for people with disabilities; same thing with religious tolerance. And I don't think racism is "huge," at least not in the old sense; there are still racists around, but it's no longer socially acceptable to be a racist. Just like in socially liberal cities it's not considered socially acceptable to treat gay people like they should be second-class citizens. I think the "gay friendly" test is a pretty good one for whether or not a place is socially liberal; I don't know if there are studies to back this up, but my guess is that if the residents of a city think that gay people should have rights, too, then they probably also feel similarly about the rights of people with disabilities, etc. They're also pretty tolerant about the right of others to believe in whatever religion they want, as long as they don't try to force those views on others. I guess I fail to see how this is an either/or situation. It's possible to want people of all backgrounds to have an equal shot at equality and to be able to live their lives openly and without fear of discrimination or fear.

Another thing to consider is that it IS illegal to discriminate against people based on disabilities or race. Sexual orientation is not a protected class, so understandably it's going to get more attention from those working to change the laws. Now obviously there have been a lot of stories out there about discrimination, intolerance, etc., against, say, people with autism, and while that's equally appalling, the techniques to combat it are going to be different. But in any case, I don't think there's any reason to assume that a city that is more open to the rights of gay people is going to be more intolerant of the rights of other people (other than perhaps the right of employers to discriminate against gay employees), including other groups of people who are or who have suffered from discrimination, as a result.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by bchris02

Its kind of hypocritical in my opinion for this generation that liberalism seems to be all about tolerance of gays yet they are very intolerant of those with other differences or disabilities. What about people with autism/aspergers? Racism is still huge but doesn't get much attention. What about religious tolerance? Its all about "look how gay friendly we are" yet they are ignoring the many areas where greater tolerance is needed.

Urban makes some valid points against this, but at times it does feel like being gay-friendly is almost about fashion. Liking educated American gays with high disposable income in some ways could be easy, if you are secular-oriented, as it could be in your economic self-interest to do so. Befriending a gay Iranian immigrant who's barely making the rent is less advantageous. Possibly there are towns who really are opening up to gay refugees from anti-gay regimes, but I get the sense that's not really a priority even for many "gay friendly" towns.

And even moving past the sexual orientation issue groups that live much different than you in ways besides sex I think could be difficult for many even in "socially liberal" places. I think a well-educated friendly man who happens to be a traditional Hmong who rejects surgery and sacrifices chickens would be much harder for many liberals to accept than the most flamingly gay couple. Even though lots of people eat chickens I think culturally people sacrificing them to the spirits or gods freaks people out. Even rooster-fighting is almost universally deemed appalling in our culture, roosters should instead be killed at birth through "chicken sorting" as nature intended. (In fairness I think rooster-fighting is worrisome because chickens are diseased and so it's unhealthy. However I think I could support a well-regulated and hygienic system of rooster-fighting, which shocks most people of my culture.)

[bchris02]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

Another thing to consider is that it IS illegal to discriminate against people based on disabilities or race. Sexual orientation is not a protected class, so understandably it's going to get more attention from those working to change the laws. Now obviously there have been a lot of stories out there about discrimination, intolerance, etc., against, say, people with autism, and while that's equally appalling, the techniques to combat it are going to be different. But in any case, I don't think there's any reason to assume that a city that is more open to the rights of gay people is going to be more intolerant of the rights of other people (other than perhaps the right of employers to discriminate against gay employees), including other groups of people who are or who have suffered from discrimination, as a result.

I don't agree. As a questioning guy with an extremely minor case of aspergers syndrome, I can say I have been discriminated against by many liberal people and especially by the gay community because I don't fit a certain mold. Liberalism(TM) is tolerant of those that its fashionable to be tolerant of in this culture. Right now, its the outgoing, well-groomed, upper-middle class to upper class gay male. Poor gays or those who don't meet the appearance standard are looked upon like dirt.