The problem with "domestic partnership"Follow

.

Edited, May 20th 2009 9:20pm by BoondockSaint

So if gays are allowed to marry, they'll have even more unprotected sex and get more AIDS? Not being allowed to marry is keeping a lot of them celibate?

But if homosexuals only make up 3% of the population, what difference does it make in terms of expense? We support the wealthiest 3% of the population already.

.

Edited, May 20th 2009 9:19pm by BoondockSaint

I was making fun of allegory. I might have done it wrong.

Jefferson would be horrified if were alive today to see how the homosexual community has subverted the intent of the 14th amendment.

This is a big concern to me: What the opinion of a man who raped his 15 year old slave repeatedly thought of the gay rights movement.

Yes. it really is comparing the two. It's the freaking title of his work.



True, my bad, I misread that part. That means that, of the voting public in those years, about 4.5% of major party voters engaged in homosexual activity. Assuming that previous figures in this thread are correct about homosexual behavior and 47% of gay men do not engage in **** sex, that means that 4.5% is only 53% of the gay population. I suppose you could filter it further by saying (27%?) didn't do anything, but still that would bring the proportion to around 6.5-7%.



How so?

If only it had, I would have said something clever about Jefferson raping a slave. What a stroke of luck then!

.

Edited, May 20th 2009 9:19pm by BoondockSaint

So....Republicans are less likely to admit to being uphill gardeners??

Hows the okra doing varus?

Yes. But that's *not* the survey that generated the 9% rate. You quoted a statistic, then said that it was from Joeseph Fried's survey. I said "No. It's not".



No. It means that of the population of people who took part in the survey, that was the approximate percentage of men overall who reported having had sex with another man in the previous 12 months. Um... Which is less than half the percentage you claimed originally. Hence, my response.



Er? The question asked (which is included in a nifty little chart on the page I linked) was: "(Asked of Men) Have your sex partners in the last 12 months been men?". There was no mention of **** sex, so I'm not sure what you're blathering on about unless you want to produce an actual cite and source to quote from.

I don't see how you can assume that "having sex" means "having **** sex". Lots of gay men don't have **** sex (53% apparently), but I'm quite sure every single one of them, if asked that question would have responded "yes". A "sex partner" doesn't just mean "someone you have **** sex with".



Do you know what an outlier is? They're survey results which are noticeably higher or lower than the results of most similar surveys. When 90% of surveys place homosexuality rates in the 3-4% range, you can pretty safely label the small number of 1% ad 9% results as "outliers". They "lie outside" the common range for that subject. Hence the word "outlier".


When discussing a topic, it's misleading to quote just an outlier result. Yes. It's true that "a survey showed that 9% of men were gay", but that's not a fair assessment of the issue at hand. Most surveys don't show that result. They place the rate at 3-4%.


Oh. And for the sake of completeness. If we assume a 3-4% rate, then (scarily enough), Varus' earlier "60x" statement is actually mathematically correct. Miracles do happen...

It's perspective. For starters, we don't think of our positions as a "cause".