| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"har har" |
| Date: |
12 Jul 2004 08:11:24 AM |
| Object: |
Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
Whether we're pro or con, the often heard argument that a ban of
same-sex marriages constitutes discrimination of gay couples needs
rectification:
Two heterosexuals of the same sex are also not allowed to marry.
;-)
.
|
|
| User: "kevin" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
11 Aug 2004 04:41:06 PM |
|
|
Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote in message news:<40F5C07C.89980DC8@osu.edu>...
lensman1955 wrote:
nph@mailinator.com (har har) wrote in message
news:<5e7c4a9f.0407120511.300c2350@posting.google.com>...
Whether we're pro or con, the often heard argument that a ban
of same-sex marriages constitutes discrimination of gay couples
needs rectification:
Two heterosexuals of the same sex are also not allowed to marry.
;-)
Why would two hetrosexuals of the same sex want to get married?
"The law is truly just. It forbids the rich and the poor from
sleeping under the bridge."
Damn! I was too slow.
<nit pick/> A web search turned up this version, and its author:
The law, in its infinite majesty, prohibits rich and poor alike from
stealing bread and sleeping under bridges. - Anatole France
-- Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
11 Aug 2004 07:37:49 PM |
|
|
"kevin" <kevinjb04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1b19b390.0408111341.6ebe9362@posting.google.com...
Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:<40F5C07C.89980DC8@osu.edu>...
lensman1955 wrote:
nph@mailinator.com (har har) wrote in message
news:<5e7c4a9f.0407120511.300c2350@posting.google.com>...
Whether we're pro or con, the often heard argument that a ban
of same-sex marriages constitutes discrimination of gay couples
needs rectification:
Two heterosexuals of the same sex are also not allowed to marry.
;-)
Why would two hetrosexuals of the same sex want to get married?
Maybe for the same reasons that two homosexuals of the opposite sex get
married now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "lensman1955" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
12 Aug 2004 12:51:16 PM |
|
|
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message news:<2nvsosF56j5pU1@uni-berlin.de>...
"kevin" <kevinjb04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1b19b390.0408111341.6ebe9362@posting.google.com...
Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:<40F5C07C.89980DC8@osu.edu>...
lensman1955 wrote:
nph@mailinator.com (har har) wrote in message
news:<5e7c4a9f.0407120511.300c2350@posting.google.com>...
Whether we're pro or con, the often heard argument that a ban
of same-sex marriages constitutes discrimination of gay couples
needs rectification:
Two heterosexuals of the same sex are also not allowed to marry.
;-)
Why would two hetrosexuals of the same sex want to get married?
Maybe for the same reasons that two homosexuals of the opposite sex get
married now.
Except there'd be no protection from a homophobic society in two
heteros of the same sex getting married.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubya Woolard" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
13 Aug 2004 02:20:18 PM |
|
|
(lensman1955) wrote in message news:<633b063b.0408120951.5b2428f0@posting.google.com>...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message news:<2nvsosF56j5pU1@uni-berlin.de>...
"kevin" <kevinjb04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1b19b390.0408111341.6ebe9362@posting.google.com...
Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:<40F5C07C.89980DC8@osu.edu>...
lensman1955 wrote:
nph@mailinator.com (har har) wrote in message
news:<5e7c4a9f.0407120511.300c2350@posting.google.com>...
Whether we're pro or con, the often heard argument that a ban
of same-sex marriages constitutes discrimination of gay couples
needs rectification:
Two heterosexuals of the same sex are also not allowed to marry.
;-)
Why would two hetrosexuals of the same sex want to get married?
Maybe for the same reasons that two homosexuals of the opposite sex get
married now.
Except there'd be no protection from a homophobic society in two
heteros of the same sex getting married.
Still 'digging up bones' lensman? hahahahaha...... specter from your past....
Dubya (not to be confused with GW) Woolard
.
|
|
|
| User: "lensman1955" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
14 Aug 2004 05:20:06 AM |
|
|
(Dubya Woolard) wrote in message news:<eb683a8b.0408131120.659f5e2b@posting.google.com>...
lensman1955@hotmail.com (lensman1955) wrote in message news:<633b063b.0408120951.5b2428f0@posting.google.com>...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message news:<2nvsosF56j5pU1@uni-berlin.de>...
"kevin" <kevinjb04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1b19b390.0408111341.6ebe9362@posting.google.com...
Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:<40F5C07C.89980DC8@osu.edu>...
lensman1955 wrote:
nph@mailinator.com (har har) wrote in message
news:<5e7c4a9f.0407120511.300c2350@posting.google.com>...
Whether we're pro or con, the often heard argument that a ban
of same-sex marriages constitutes discrimination of gay couples
needs rectification:
Two heterosexuals of the same sex are also not allowed to marry.
;-)
Why would two hetrosexuals of the same sex want to get married?
Maybe for the same reasons that two homosexuals of the opposite sex get
married now.
Except there'd be no protection from a homophobic society in two
heteros of the same sex getting married.
Still 'digging up bones' lensman? hahahahaha...... specter from your past....
....y'know what? I meant "Ed Conrad" of course. Ed Nobel was an old
friend from years ago!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "lensman1955" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
14 Aug 2004 04:56:09 AM |
|
|
(Dubya Woolard) wrote in message news:<eb683a8b.0408131120.659f5e2b@posting.google.com>...
lensman1955@hotmail.com (lensman1955) wrote in message news:<633b063b.0408120951.5b2428f0@posting.google.com>...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message news:<2nvsosF56j5pU1@uni-berlin.de>...
"kevin" <kevinjb04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1b19b390.0408111341.6ebe9362@posting.google.com...
Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:<40F5C07C.89980DC8@osu.edu>...
lensman1955 wrote:
nph@mailinator.com (har har) wrote in message
news:<5e7c4a9f.0407120511.300c2350@posting.google.com>...
Whether we're pro or con, the often heard argument that a ban
of same-sex marriages constitutes discrimination of gay couples
needs rectification:
Two heterosexuals of the same sex are also not allowed to marry.
;-)
Why would two hetrosexuals of the same sex want to get married?
Maybe for the same reasons that two homosexuals of the opposite sex get
married now.
Except there'd be no protection from a homophobic society in two
heteros of the same sex getting married.
Still 'digging up bones' lensman? hahahahaha...... specter from your past....
I'm not following you. Ed Nobel digs up bones, I just ask questions
about them and never get any straight answers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "curtsybear" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
11 Aug 2004 04:53:54 PM |
|
|
On 11 Aug 2004 14:41:06 -0700, kevin <kevinjb04@yahoo.com> wrote:
nph@mailinator.com (har har) wrote in message
news:<5e7c4a9f.0407120511.300c2350@posting.google.com>...
Two heterosexuals of the same sex are also not allowed to marry.
Why would two hetrosexuals of the same sex want to get married?
Might it be the same reason a homosexual might marry someone of
the opposite sex?
Answer: because we have a government who has hidden over 1000 rights
and responsibilities under the word "marriage" for the expressed
purpose of denying certain couples the ability to achieve those
rights and responsibilities. Anyone who can see this and still
assume there exists "equality for all" is a master in self-deception.
--
"Remember you're dealing with a confused woman that ain't never learnt
what her ovary's is for." -- Lurlean Tucker's gynecologist expressed
surprise at finding orange zest and tea bags.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
12 Aug 2004 05:14:43 AM |
|
|
kevin wrote:
Why would two hetrosexuals of the same sex want to get married?
It's not all that difficult to picture two men, widowers, who have been
friends for years, and don't want some stranger from the state making
medical or estate decisions for them. Not too difficult at all.
--
The danger for what the press derisively calls the 'Religious Right' is that they are making the same mistakes the religious left made. To solve the moral problems of the nation they are looking to government rather than the Creator of their faith and His strategies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tpearl" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
12 Aug 2004 12:20:19 PM |
|
|
Dionisio <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote in message news:<nqHSc.162733$fv.138482@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
kevin wrote:
Why would two hetrosexuals of the same sex want to get married?
It's not all that difficult to picture two men, widowers, who have been
friends for years, and don't want some stranger from the state making
medical or estate decisions for them. Not too difficult at all.
Yes. That is VERY difficult to picture.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George B." |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
18 Jul 2004 02:28:15 PM |
|
|
(har har) wrote in message news:<5e7c4a9f.0407120511.300c2350@posting.google.com>...
Whether we're pro or con, the often heard argument that a ban of
same-sex marriages constitutes discrimination of gay couples needs
rectification:
Two heterosexuals of the same sex are also not allowed to marry.
;-)
Well, opposing same sex marriages is discrimination. And I think its
good discrimination, too!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Swift" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
19 Jul 2004 08:39:22 AM |
|
|
Following up some posts below:
I know I brought up the fact about animals, I didn't realize that
there were animals that committed homosexual acts, but than after
looking into it, I discarded the revalence of animals partaking in
homosexual activities. I was wrong.
I had a friend who committed homosexual acts, I was actually friends
with him and his "partner." They did their thing for about a year and
1/2 to about 2 years they broke up and both came to realize their
mistakes, this was about 5 years ago. The one has had many
girlfriends, the other married with a child. Both I have talked to
immensely about their decisions, they both pretty much said they got
caught up in a fake emotion. They were kind of experimenting and
thought that they had love for each other. They realized they didn't,
that they just had love as friends, and that they weren't homosexual.
They had just participated in homosexual acts and feelings. Now they
never had anal sex, but they were pretty much your case of a boyfriend
and girlfriend. Now I trust both of these people as I have known them
for many of years and I know they wouldn't lie to me. I know they have
never gone back to homosexuality.
I also have another friend who would get under the influence of drugs
or alcohol and partake in homosexual acts, he is kind of on and off on
the situation, I guess you could call him straight with some bisexual
tendencies, however he too has told me that he doesn't know why he
does it but he knows that it isn't right, he told me that he doesn't
find guys attractive, I think he just does it for some unknown reason
maybe because he is insecure or needs attention.
So I must say that these cases do exist, I have seen other people on
TV, magazines, and on the radio before with the same stories. Look
around the web I am sure there is a site that deals with people
turning away from homosexuality just as there are probably many
turning people to homosexuality
Also I understand where many of you are coming from, as long as it
doesn't hurt anyone else why shouldn't you be able to do it. This is
why you would discard murder etc. That is a fair assessment but what
are your feelings on drugs, should people be able to use marijuana,
cocaine, crack, pcp, lsd, opium, angel dust, ecstasy? This doesn't
affect anyone else's health, just their own.
There was also a comment about making sacrifices to god and not
shaving your beard, some people/denominations take things more
literally than others, the bible also says that you should take care
of your body and appearance, and follow the laws of your
government/leadership. I personally don't believe in sacrificing
animals in the name of god, there are stories of this in the bible
that show, you should give to God before you give to yourself. I am
not sure which example you are talking about. And I am sure not many
of you care.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Swift" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
19 Jul 2004 12:43:25 PM |
|
|
A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and
female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals
had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having
1,000 or more sex partners.
Sex driven?
I think so, these are just unhealthy livestyles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
19 Jul 2004 02:36:41 PM |
|
|
"Jonathan Swift" <swift_83@yahoo.com> wrote
A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male
and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white
male homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more
partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.
1) The study is not "peer reviewed." Instead is was published
in book form (two books), "Homosexualities: a study of diversity
among men & women" (1978) and "Sexual Preference" (1981).
2) "partners" and "sexual contact" can & was defined as almost
anything. It was not limited to oral & anal sex or mutual
masturbation -- what is generally regarded as "Sex."
3) Date: 1978, piblished in 1979 & 1981. This was years prior
to the discovery of AIDS.
4) More than 40% of those "recruited" for the study came from
bars, bathhouses and cruise sites. If you have no idea how
significant this is then try to imagine a study of heterosexual
women where 40% of the subjects frequent straight "singles bars."
Next, stroll into the nearest "Christian" church and denouce all
heterosexual women using the findings of the study.
Your response would be similar to what you already receive from
gay men.
In short: You are dishonest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Googly Moogly" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
19 Jul 2004 09:35:39 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:36:41 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
2) "partners" and "sexual contact" can & was defined as almost
anything. It was not limited to oral & anal sex or mutual
masturbation -- what is generally regarded as "Sex."
Does that include "dry humping"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
20 Jul 2004 03:03:14 AM |
|
|
"The Great Googly Moogly" <Gordo@networld.com> wrote
2) "partners" and "sexual contact" can & was defined as almost
anything. It was not limited to oral & anal sex or mutual
masturbation -- what is generally regarded as "Sex."
Does that include "dry humping"?
It includes virtually anything.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Letao" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
19 Jul 2004 05:09:58 PM |
|
|
In article <1675067a.0407190943.34116a6e@posting.google.com>,
(Jonathan Swift) wrote:
A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and
female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals
had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having
1,000 or more sex partners.
Sex driven?
I think so, these are just unhealthy livestyles.
Bell and Weinberg also explicitly stated in their introduction that
their study was of a particular population and COULD NOT BE GENERALIZED
TO THE LARGER POPULATION.
You'll grasp at any straw to support your antigay bias, won't you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
19 Jul 2004 03:18:35 PM |
|
|
In our last thrilling episode, (Jonathan Swift) was
pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism on 19 Jul 2004 10:43:25 -0700 by
Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and
female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals
had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having
1,000 or more sex partners.
Sex driven?
I think so, these are just unhealthy livestyles.
Magic Johnson.
Anyway, the study was made in 1981, at the end of the sexual
revolution. You might recall that *everbody* was screwing like mad.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
19 Jul 2004 06:44:41 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:43:25 -0700 in episode
<1675067a.0407190943.34116a6e@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
swift_83@yahoo.com (Jonathan Swift):
A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female
homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex
with five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more
sex partners.
And I just did a classic study that proves you're an idiot.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Swift" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
20 Jul 2004 07:44:28 AM |
|
|
Damn, I can't find the other two reports I was looking at, they were
recent with about 3800 people stuided. They included oral, vaginal,
and annal (one study was both male and female, one was just males)
They found that (of males) 37% had sex with more than 100 partners,
28% had sex with more than 500 Partners, and I think it was 14-16% had
sex with 1000 partners. I'll try to find the reports, they were
studies that were referenced in a gay parent adoption article. I'll
look for them. It was soemthing I read a while ago and stumbled across
again yesterday.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
20 Jul 2004 08:49:33 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 05:44:28 -0700 in episode
<1675067a.0407200444.2fb4eee8@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
swift_83@yahoo.com (Jonathan Swift):
Damn, I can't find the other two reports I was looking at, they were
recent with about 3800 people stuided. They included oral, vaginal, and
annal (one study was both male and female, one was just males) They
found that (of males) 37% had sex with more than 100 partners, 28% had
sex with more than 500 Partners, and I think it was 14-16% had sex with
1000 partners. I'll try to find the reports, they were studies that were
referenced in a gay parent adoption article. I'll look for them. It was
soemthing I read a while ago and stumbled across again yesterday.
I'm sure you can find peer reviewed studies with tight controls that don't
rely on *self *reporting.
Explain to me how you can do a proper study of the gay population. First
you'd have to know--whether people *tell you or not--who is and is not
gay. How do you do that?
Where do you find people for the study? Do you go to gay bars? How many
people don't go to gay bars? How do you know?
When I guy says he's had sex with 500 people, how do you check? Or do you
accept what he tells you because men *never brag about how much sex they
get? What about sports stars that claim to have had 2,000 women? Did they
keep a record? Do they have a stack of sworn affidavits to prove they had
sex with that many? You don't think they'd *brag do you? Men don't do
that!
What about all the people who won't tell you anything? How do you include
them in the study?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
20 Jul 2004 03:35:38 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.07.20.13.49.32.780889@org.webmaster>...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 05:44:28 -0700 in episode
<1675067a.0407200444.2fb4eee8@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
swift_83@yahoo.com (Jonathan Swift):
Damn, I can't find the other two reports I was looking at, they were
recent with about 3800 people stuided. They included oral, vaginal, and
annal (one study was both male and female, one was just males) They
found that (of males) 37% had sex with more than 100 partners, 28% had
sex with more than 500 Partners, and I think it was 14-16% had sex with
1000 partners. I'll try to find the reports, they were studies that were
referenced in a gay parent adoption article. I'll look for them. It was
soemthing I read a while ago and stumbled across again yesterday.
I'm sure you can find peer reviewed studies with tight controls that don't
rely on *self *reporting.
Explain to me how you can do a proper study of the gay population. First
you'd have to know--whether people *tell you or not--who is and is not
gay. How do you do that?
Where do you find people for the study? Do you go to gay bars? How many
people don't go to gay bars? How do you know?
When I guy says he's had sex with 500 people, how do you check? Or do you
accept what he tells you because men *never brag about how much sex they
get? What about sports stars that claim to have had 2,000 women? Did they
keep a record? Do they have a stack of sworn affidavits to prove they had
sex with that many? You don't think they'd *brag do you? Men don't do
that!
What about all the people who won't tell you anything? How do you include
them in the study?
He forgot to mention the 50% degree of error
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Swift" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
20 Jul 2004 04:26:53 PM |
|
|
All stuides say how they polled people, they describe who they polled
etc.
A quick fact: The US government (Census Buerau) comes up with stats
based on what people say, you mark yes im white/black/indian etc. They
dont research your family tree, most likely the polls were from people
admiding they were gay. I will find the research.
I would admit it would be a hard thing to poll.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
20 Jul 2004 07:02:42 PM |
|
|
In our last thrilling episode, (Jonathan Swift) was
pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism on 20 Jul 2004 14:26:53 -0700 by
Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
All stuides say how they polled people, they describe who they polled
etc.
A quick fact: The US government (Census Buerau) comes up with stats
based on what people say, you mark yes im white/black/indian etc. They
dont research your family tree, most likely the polls were from people
admiding they were gay. I will find the research.
The Census Bureau also goes out and dies interviews where the
interviewer makes judgements. I can write down that I'm actually
Chinese, but a Census worker will see that is wrong.
Oh, that study you cited.. know where they got their respondants from?
A STD clinic. They were polling people with VD about their sex
habits.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
20 Jul 2004 04:45:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:26:53 -0700 in episode
<1675067a.0407201326.7463f148@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
swift_83@yahoo.com (Jonathan Swift):
All stuides say how they polled people, they describe who they polled etc.
All studies that rely on self reporting are suspect...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
20 Jul 2004 11:30:52 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
All studies that rely on self reporting are suspect...
All studies are flawed, studies centered on homosexuality
abuse the privilege.
On one end of the spectrum we have examples such as the
now famous study of one Dr. Spitzer. This study was so
flawed that *No* honest conclusion could be drawn from
it, apart from how to not conduct a study.
On the other end of the spectrum we have the well intentioned
studies of more limited scope, almost all of which lend
themselves to misinterpretation & misrepresentation from
dishonest right-wingers. Studies looking at gay men in VD
clinics, for example, are routinely misrepresented as studies
of gay men in general. Could you imagine if someone only
studied heterosexuals found in VD clinics, and them claimed
that it was a statistical sampling of ALL heterosexuals in
general?
Please.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "a poor misguided soul" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
20 Jul 2004 10:21:12 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 05:44:28 -0700 in episode
<1675067a.0407200444.2fb4eee8@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
swift_83@yahoo.com (Jonathan Swift):
Damn, I can't find the other two reports I was looking at, they were
recent with about 3800 people stuided. They included oral, vaginal, and
annal (one study was both male and female, one was just males) They
found that (of males) 37% had sex with more than 100 partners, 28% had
sex with more than 500 Partners, and I think it was 14-16% had sex with
1000 partners. I'll try to find the reports, they were studies that were
referenced in a gay parent adoption article. I'll look for them. It was
soemthing I read a while ago and stumbled across again yesterday.
I'm sure you can find peer reviewed studies with tight controls that don't
rely on *self *reporting.
Explain to me how you can do a proper study of the gay population. First
you'd have to know--whether people *tell you or not--who is and is not
gay. How do you do that?
You ask.
Where do you find people for the study?
Gay pride rallies, San Fransisco, all over the place.
Do you go to gay bars? How many
people don't go to gay bars? How do you know?
When I guy says he's had sex with 500 people, how do you check? Or do you
accept what he tells you because men *never brag about how much sex they
get? What about sports stars that claim to have had 2,000 women? Did they
keep a record? Do they have a stack of sworn affidavits to prove they had
sex with that many? You don't think they'd *brag do you? Men don't do
that!
What about all the people who won't tell you anything? How do you include
them in the study?
You gather and process statistical data. From that you calculate
educated guesses.
--
----
Do you need help? Then visit my free JavaScript Psycho-babble Therapist.
Only at www.patism.co.nr
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
20 Jul 2004 12:53:14 PM |
|
|
In our last thrilling episode, a poor misguided soul
<miscconcepts@netscape.net> was pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism
on Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:21:12 GMT by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he
fell, he screamed:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
I'm sure you can find peer reviewed studies with tight controls that don't
rely on *self *reporting.
Explain to me how you can do a proper study of the gay population. First
you'd have to know--whether people *tell you or not--who is and is not
gay. How do you do that?
You ask.
People lie.
Where do you find people for the study?
Gay pride rallies, San Fransisco, all over the place.
Which will give you skewed results. Pride rallies, the Castro, West
Hollywood and the like are not typical of most gay people in America.
It's be like going to Miami Beach and using that as the basis for a
study on all Americans.
Do you go to gay bars? How many
people don't go to gay bars? How do you know?
When I guy says he's had sex with 500 people, how do you check? Or do you
accept what he tells you because men *never brag about how much sex they
get? What about sports stars that claim to have had 2,000 women? Did they
keep a record? Do they have a stack of sworn affidavits to prove they had
sex with that many? You don't think they'd *brag do you? Men don't do
that!
What about all the people who won't tell you anything? How do you include
them in the study?
You gather and process statistical data. From that you calculate
educated guesses.
Except there's no way to accurately confirm the data.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Real Diddy Pop" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
20 Jul 2004 07:16:56 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message > >Gay pride rallies, San Fransisco, all over the place.
Which will give you skewed results. Pride rallies, the Castro, West
Hollywood and the like are not typical of most gay people in America.
It's be like going to Miami Beach and using that as the basis for a
study on all Americans.
Look, I'm all for gay marriage, I don't care, let 'em have their fun.
.. . .but those gay rallies are all that a lot of people see of a
gathering of gay people. It doesn't do the gay comm. any good to
portray themselves so negatively. Gotta be where the term "flamer"
came from.
If you are trying to advance a cause, it won't help anything to show
only your most negative stereotypes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
20 Jul 2004 08:25:50 PM |
|
|
In article <95cdfe04.0407201616.1ee7517e@posting.google.com>, cjp44
@msn.com says...
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message > >Gay pride rallies, San Fransisco, all over the place.
Which will give you skewed results. Pride rallies, the Castro, West
Hollywood and the like are not typical of most gay people in America.
It's be like going to Miami Beach and using that as the basis for a
study on all Americans.
Look, I'm all for gay marriage, I don't care, let 'em have their fun.
. . .but those gay rallies are all that a lot of people see of a
gathering of gay people. It doesn't do the gay comm. any good to
portray themselves so negatively. Gotta be where the term "flamer"
came from.
If you are trying to advance a cause, it won't help anything to show
only your most negative stereotypes.
What makes a bunch of dykes on Harleys negative? What makes a bunch of
queer guys in strapless gowns negative? How is them strutting their
sexuality any different than high school cheerleaders bouncing their
tits on the sidelines or the Miss America pageant?
Nothing makes these any difference except that they don't offend YOUR
narrow bigoted view of what's proper.
I once took my wife up to see Les Mis in San Francisco after I'd seen in
on Broadway. We flew into Oakland and took the BART under the bay to
the nearest station to our hotel, the Civic Center station, I believe.
As we rode up that long escalator, we could see and hear thousands of
people, music, cheering, fun filled chaos. Yes, it was the finale' of
the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade! Strange people indeed, but polite,
fun, happy.
You ought to visit next year. You might feel all your fears of gay
people melt away when you see them when YOU are in the minority. You
would find them to much more tolerant of your bigotry than you've ever
been of their faggotry.
--
"Go forth, and be excellent to each other"
- Bill & Ted
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban on same-sex marriages isn't discrimination of gays |
21 Jul 2004 12:11:13 PM |
|
|
In our last thrilling episode, (The Real Diddy Pop) was
pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism on 20 Jul 2004 17:16:56 -0700 by
Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message > >Gay pride rallies, San Fransisco, all over the place.
Which will give you skewed results. Pride rallies, the Castro, West
Hollywood and the like are not typical of most gay people in America.
It's be like going to Miami Beach and using that as the basis for a
study on all Americans.
Look, I'm all for gay marriage, I don't care, let 'em have their fun.
. . .but those gay rallies are all that a lot of people see of a
gathering of gay people. It doesn't do the gay comm. any good to
portray themselves so negatively. Gotta be where the term "flamer"
came from.
If you are trying to advance a cause, it won't help anything to show
only your most negative stereotypes.
Ever been to one? The largest contingent at the SF Pride Parade this
year was, wait for it, Gay, Lesbian, Bi, and Transgendered SF
Municipal Employess. Horrors. I marched with the Alexander Hamilton
Post of the American Legion; 350 GLBT veterans of America's Wars,
including several WWII vets.
The party boys and drag queens make it on TV because that's what
people like to see.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
