Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 06:12 PM
NOYB
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Why discommode 97% of the population to the benefit of
3%?


The rights of the 87% (number closer to reality)


Wow! It used to be 90%. I guess the homos are winning more converts with
the agenda they've been pushing.




  #22   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 06:19 PM
John Gaquin
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment


"Gould 0738" wrote in message

The rights of the 87% (number closer to reality)


I've never heard an homosexual population figure as high as 13%. I presume
that includes some fringe members in order to swell the ranks, as it were.
The 10% figure bandied about for years and touted by the "gay rights"
industry is based predominantly on Kinsey's 1948 work, which has years ago
found to be deeply flawed. Current estimates range from 2% to 6%.


  #23   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 06:23 PM
John Gaquin
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment


"NOYB" wrote in message news:YkyJc.11133

Statistics have shown that homosexuals make up about 10% of our

population.

Not so. Old figures. Debunked.


  #24   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 07:11 PM
Harry Krause
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

So? Are you saying the drop in marriage results from allowing gay
marriage?

Not specifically. I think (no data) it results from the perceived

general
devaluation of marriage as a solid, stable societal institution.


About 50% of the marriages in this country end in divorce, and I

suspect

The "whatever" attitude that results in a 50% divorce rate is, imo, part

of
the same cultural ambivalence. I wonder how many couples actually read

and
think about the marriage vows they speak.



I don't see it as redefinition as much as inclusion.

It's a redefinition to effect an inclusion, and the question is "Why?"

The
central nut of public policy management is to provide the greatest good

for
the greatest number. Why discommode 97% of the population to the

benefit of
3%?



It does no harm. The fact that marriage ain't what it used to be isn't
the result of homosexuality or gay marriage.


It's the result of moral decay in our society. It's the result of Americans
changing the social "norm" to suit their desires, rather than allowing their
desires to be guided by social norms.




Social norms have been evolving ever since two people discovered each
other climbing out of the primordial "zoup."
  #25   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 08:02 PM
Gould 0738
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment

Wow! It used to be 90%. I guess the homos are winning more converts with
the agenda they've been pushing.



My number may be high. Remember, my frame of reference is Seattle. :-)

Here's a chart breaking out US Demographics:

http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html

I'm not too sure I completely trust the methods of the compilers. (Almost half
the population claims to be "born again" Christians?).......

But, even so:
If these numbers are right-

There are more homosexuals than:

Jews
Assembly of God members
Native Americans
Episcopalians
people in prison
Mennonites
Unitarians
Seventh Day Adventists
Nazarenes
Members of the Libertarian Party

Should people who oppose the customs or beliefs of those groups even smaller
than homosexuals be able to prevent them from entering into civil contracts
simply because they're outnumbered?







  #26   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 08:11 PM
Gould 0738
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment

I've never heard an homosexual population figure as high as 13%. I presume
that includes some fringe members in order to swell the ranks, as it were.


It's somewhere near that in the Seattle area. We have districts where it's
probably
35-40%. Much of the rest of the country is probably not as high.

Current estimates range from 2% to 6%.


One of the statistical problems is defining homosexual. There are one heck of a
lot of
bi-sexuals out there, particularly females.
Are these people homo because they sneak out to get kissy with a girlfriend, or
straight because they also make babies with hubby? Tough to categorize.

The number of men who have had a homosexual experience is probably much higher
than the number of men who are
exclusively homosexual as well.

And finally, in the current climate, a lot of folks are going to be reluctant
to mark off "homosexual" on a survey form.


  #27   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 08:19 PM
Harry Krause
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment

Gould 0738 wrote:
I've never heard an homosexual population figure as high as 13%. I presume
that includes some fringe members in order to swell the ranks, as it were.


It's somewhere near that in the Seattle area. We have districts where it's
probably
35-40%. Much of the rest of the country is probably not as high.

Current estimates range from 2% to 6%.


One of the statistical problems is defining homosexual. There are one heck of a
lot of
bi-sexuals out there, particularly females.
Are these people homo because they sneak out to get kissy with a girlfriend, or
straight because they also make babies with hubby? Tough to categorize.

The number of men who have had a homosexual experience is probably much higher
than the number of men who are
exclusively homosexual as well.

And finally, in the current climate, a lot of folks are going to be reluctant
to mark off "homosexual" on a survey form.



As opposed to most of the righties here, who apparently are homophobic.

Rmember when bi-racial couples were subject to derision, legal penalties
and worse? Gosharoonie, why it was just *not Christian* to date a member
of a different race and to marry one, why your life was at risk.

Well, society adjusted. Mixed couples and their multi-flavored children
are everywhere, at least everywhere I care to go, and the "difference"
barely registers among decent folk who know that skin color is not what
makes a decent person or a good relationship.

Though there are right-wingers out there who still engage in race hatred
and race crime. Didn't some rightie in this newsgroup refer to Arabs as
sand niXXers?
  #28   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 08:40 PM
John Gaquin
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment


"Gould 0738" wrote in message

One of the statistical problems is defining homosexual. There are one heck

of a
lot of bi-sexuals out there, particularly females.


I suspect a lot of the people gathered in this net are not truly sexually
anomolous, but are those who will experiment in anything, with anyone or
anything, for any reason or no reason at all.

Your cited reference addresses this difficulty to some degree. Disregarding
the apparently high number of self-professed bisexuals, the total homosexual
and/or bisexual population is still only about 2.5%. The figure appears to
dip to 1% to 1.5% when adjusted to include only those who have been
exclusively homosexual since age 18.

Using your supposed Seattle figure to represent the entire country is
unusual. I don't know anyone from Seattle who will admit that Seattle is
typical of the country in any way at all. :-)


  #29   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 08:51 PM
Gould 0738
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment

Using your supposed Seattle figure to represent the entire country is
unusual. I don't know anyone from Seattle who will admit that Seattle is
typical of the country in any way at all. :-)


A fact for which we are probably *both* grateful. :-)

Our gay and lesbian populations are higher
in the more progressive cities on the W Coast because our greater tolerance for
diversity inspires many of them to move out here. There are probably some towns
in the midwest and the south where there are no (surviving) homosexuals. (OK,
it's probably not really as bad as that sentence suggested)
  #30   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 08:54 PM
Doug Kanter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment


"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bush 'disappointed' by gay marriage ban's defeat
Foes of Senate amendment decry 'political tool'

Thursday, July 15, 2004 Posted: 5:24 AM EDT (0924 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush says he is "disappointed" that a move
to effectively ban same-sex marriage was "temporarily blocked" in the
Senate, and he is urging the House to take up the matter.

"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are
not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of
America, and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in
their efforts," Bush said in a statement.
------------------------------------------------

Awwwwwwwww....hopefully, Bush will have a really big disappointment in
November.

I still cannot figure out why the Fundie Repugs believe "same-sex
marriage" is a threat to heterosexual marriage


It's a threat to the well-being of kids growing up in such a screwed up
environment. It's the moral decay of a society which is dominated by
homosexuality. You think it's not a problem? Look at the history of
civilizations in which homosexuality flourished.



Bull****.

Household "A": Single parent - kids go to day care after school.
Household "B": One of the two gay parents is always home after school.
Household "C" "Straight" family, kid supervision, if lucky falls into
category "B".

"B" and "C" win. "A" is a maybe.

By the way, you have no information to indicate that children from gay
couples have more problems than other kids.




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017