lgbt?

[Abbey Marie]

Just saw a newspaper article (can't link to it, sorry, but it was in Delaware's daily paper), that said:


A new Gallup survey, touted as the largest of its kind, estimates that 3.4 percent of American adults identify themsleves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. The findings were based on interviews with more than 121,000 people. ... Overall, a third of those identifying as LGBT are nonwhite...

This seems like an awfully small percentage of people, compared to the amount of attention paid to the issue by TV dramas and sitcoms, magazines, news programs, and... schools.
Even if we don't discount the percentage attributable to Bisexuals, who are really just being greedy more than anything else. :laugh:

[Noir]

Just saw a newspaper article (can't link to it, sorry, but it was in Delaware's daily paper), that said:



This seems like an awfully small percentage of people, compared to the amount of attention paid to the issue by TV dramas and sitcoms, magazines, news programs, and... schools.
Even if we don't discount the percentage attributable to Bisexuals, who are really just being greedy more than anything else. :laugh:

That number seems wayyy off the mark.
Especially when it comes to bisexual women.

Link to the study and more metastats
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx

Interesting that 4.4% refused to answer, greatly outnumbering those that answered as relating to LGBT

[Dilloduck]

They're very loud and have a lot of people who feel sorry for them.

[cadet]

I actually think this number sounds about right. at my school there are three lesbians. (It's an engineering school... like we don't already have a hard enough time getting girls...)
And this is out of... 1500? Around that number.
Now, grant it, it's a small Midwestern college, with a high percentage of Christians, and non-city folk. (Sorry, but city's have the most nukin futs people)

[Kathianne]

Just saw a newspaper article (can't link to it, sorry, but it was in Delaware's daily paper), that said:



This seems like an awfully small percentage of people, compared to the amount of attention paid to the issue by TV dramas and sitcoms, magazines, news programs, and... schools.
Even if we don't discount the percentage attributable to Bisexuals, who are really just being greedy more than anything else. :laugh:

I think that the actual percentage is likely smaller than the 3+%.

[mundame]

Just saw a newspaper article (can't link to it, sorry, but it was in Delaware's daily paper), that said:

3.4%

This seems like an awfully small percentage of people, compared to the amount of attention paid to the issue by TV dramas and sitcoms, magazines, news programs, and... schools.
Even if we don't discount the percentage attributable to Bisexuals, who are really just being greedy more than anything else. :laugh:

I think that's probably right. I remember reading that the 10% people were quoting for a long time during the hoorah days of the homosexual uprising was wildly overstated for propaganda purposes. That it's much fewer overall, and of course there are far more homosexual men than women even among the few turned this way, but they always trot out the women for the public face of every new move for normalization, because the public isn't as scandalized if it's women.

[jimnyc]

And how many are HS and College girls trying to be part of the new "cool crowd". I can't tell you how many girls/women I have seen that claim to be "bisexual" because they think it's cool and that guys think it's sexy.

[Noir]

And how many are HS and College girls trying to be part of the new "cool crowd". I can't tell you how many girls/women I have seen that claim to be "bisexual" because they think it's cool and that guys think it's sexy.

This is where you draw the line between the bisexuals and biromantics.

[jimnyc]

This is where you draw the line between the bisexuals and biromantics.

Yeppers. I don't understand the fascination myself. Either be happy to be a lesbian, be happy to be bi or be happy to be straight. But acting like one for attention is retarded and childish, at least to me.

[aboutime]

And how many are HS and College girls trying to be part of the new "cool crowd". I can't tell you how many girls/women I have seen that claim to be "bisexual" because they think it's cool and that guys think it's sexy.



jimnyc: And how many of those HS and College girls who think being different is cool.
Will all of us end up paying for their Forgotten Birth Control Protection, or their Pregnancies,
and babies as Unwed mothers with no jobs, and dependent on Govt. in Poverty
for the rest of their lives as well????

[Anton Chigurh]

Another of the loud and shrill, but tiny, minorities. Even if you give them 5 percent. Ten even.

[jafar00]

Lobby groups who lobby (bribery, corruption) the government enough and with enough money generally get more attention. Jews are just 1.7% of the USA population, yet most Americans jump up and down when Israel is criticised. The MEK, a terrorist group managed to get themselves off the terrorist list by lobbying the US govt. Money = Power

[Anton Chigurh]

Lobby groups who lobby (bribery, corruption) the government enough and with enough money generally get more attention. Jews are just 1.7% of the USA population, yet most Americans jump up and down when Israel is criticised. That actually has nothing to do with the percentage of jews in America, or with any lobbying. To shoot down yet another off topic, strawman argument.

We say "Gay," You yell JOOOOOO! We say "John Wayne," You yell JOOOOOO!"

Idiot.

[jafar00]

That actually has nothing to do with the percentage of jews in America, or with any lobbying. To shoot down yet another off topic, strawman argument.

We say "Gay," You yell JOOOOOO! We say "John Wayne," You yell JOOOOOO!"

Idiot.

It has everything to do with lobbying. If the LGBT movement wasn't doing it, homosexuality would still be considered to be a deviation from normal.

[Anton Chigurh]

It has everything to do with lobbying. If the LGBT movement wasn't doing it, homosexuality would still be considered to be a deviation from normal.No stupid, it's not about lobbying or money. It's about a thing you wouldn't understand, called liberty.

[Abbey Marie]

It has everything to do with lobbying. If the LGBT movement wasn't doing it, homosexuality would still be considered to be a deviation from normal.

I would say the changes are happening because of Hollywood and the media championing the LGBT cause.

[Anton Chigurh]

I would say the changes are happening because of Hollywood and the media championing the LGBT cause.To him, that is "lobbying."

Because he is a imbecile.

[jafar00]

I would say the changes are happening because of Hollywood and the media championing the LGBT cause.

Which would mean that hollywood has been approached by the lobby.

[gabosaurus]

I think that the actual percentage is likely smaller than the 3+%.

I think it is much larger. There are a lot of people who refuse to publicly admit that they are a part of any of those group. Primarily because of the hate and prejudice shown toward anyone who does not fit into societal norms.

[Noir]

I think it is much larger. There are a lot of people who refuse to publicly admit that they are a part of any of those group. Primarily because of the hate and prejudice shown toward anyone who does not fit into societal norms.

Exactly, the fact that a *larger* percentage of people refused to answer the question than those who identified as lgbt, must in itself raise questions.

[Abbey Marie]

I think it is much larger. There are a lot of people who refuse to publicly admit that they are a part of any of those group. Primarily because of the hate and prejudice shown toward anyone who does not fit into societal norms.

Polls are not public admissions.

[darin]

I think it is much larger. There are a lot of people who refuse to publicly admit that they are a part of any of those group. Primarily because of the hate and prejudice shown toward anyone who does not fit into societal norms.


Exactly, the fact that a *larger* percentage of people refused to answer the question than those who identified as lgbt, must in itself raise questions.


^^

Translation: We do not have unbiased data to support what we hope is true, so we'll make shit up.

[007]

Point to note, all should have equal rights, that is indeed the law if the land, that equality extends to LBGT people too, weather they are LGBT by birth or by choice, they are still people.
should they, or any other minority group get extra rights, or extra funding?
No.
equal is equal.

Thats all.

[fj1200]

Point to note, all should have equal rights, that is indeed the law if the land, that equality extends to LBGT people too, weather they are LGBT by birth or by choice, they are still people.
should they, or any other minority group get extra rights, or extra funding?
No.
equal is equal.

Thats all.

Damn straight, only breeders should get those extra rights and funding.

/sarcasm

[Noir]

^^

Translation: We do not have unbiased data to support what we hope is true, so we'll make shit up.

Do you not think its interesting that many more people would rather not answer a question about their sexuality than would say they're lgbt?

[007]

Damn straight, only breeders should get those extra rights and funding.

/sarcasm
Was anything of the sort in my post?

equal is equal.
same for everyone.
Three weeks ago, my wife's oldest friends partner gave birth to a daughter.
is that lesbian couple now considered to be Breeders?
The Enemy of radical political LGBT movements.
in P Town violent assaults have been reported by heterosexual couples attacked by violent gays who dislike Breeders buying up property in 'their' areas!
same thing a decade ago when vile and disgusting breeders started buying up properties in the South End of Boston.
That kind of radical separatism kills equality.

[Noir]

Point to note, all should have equal rights, that is indeed the law if the land, that equality extends to LBGT people too, weather they are LGBT by birth or by choice, they are still people.
should they, or any other minority group get extra rights, or extra funding?
No.
equal is equal.

Thats all.

So gays should have equal rights to marriage? Military service, baby adoption etc?
Surprisingly liberal of you (:

[007]

So gays should have equal rights to marriage? Military service, baby adoption etc?
Surprisingly liberal of you (:
Yes they should, so long as they pay out of their own purse.

That's not liberal, that's Equality.
liberals don't want equality, they want turmoil and will exploit anything and everything to create that turmoil.
from that turmoil they can build their oppressive totalitarian state.

Race, gender, sexuality, marital status, abortion, gun laws, religion and wealth the lot!

All issues exploited by liberals to whip up divisions across society, create fracture, encourage violence, twist everything to fit into any or all of the above categories.
That is Liberalism, it's a pre totalitarian scheme.

[Noir]

Yes they should, so long as they pay out of their own purse.

That's not liberal, that's Equality.
liberals don't want equality, they want turmoil and will exploit anything and everything to create that turmoil.
from that turmoil they can build their oppressive totalitarian state.

Race, gender, sexuality, marital status, abortion, gun laws, religion and wealth the lot!

All issues exploited by liberals to whip up divisions across society, create fracture, encourage violence, twist everything to fit into any or all of the above categories.
That is Liberalism, it's a pre totalitarian scheme.

...and what about the conservatism that is denying those equal rights? (Or trying to were they can)

[fj1200]

Was anything of the sort in my post?

equal is equal.
same for everyone.
Three weeks ago, my wife's oldest friends partner gave birth to a daughter.
is that lesbian couple now considered to be Breeders?
The Enemy of radical political LGBT movements.
in P Town violent assaults have been reported by heterosexual couples attacked by violent gays who dislike Breeders buying up property in 'their' areas!
same thing a decade ago when vile and disgusting breeders started buying up properties in the South End of Boston.
That kind of radical separatism kills equality.

You missed the sarcasm but yes, that was in your post. Heterosexual couples have benefits that gay couples do not. It seems that you would be against the State favoring certain relationships over others.


Yes they should, so long as they pay out of their own purse.

[cadet]

Damn straight, only breeders should get those extra rights and funding.

/sarcasm

i'm going to ignore the "/sarcasm", and agree with the rest.
No kids? why the hell should you get bennies? you're not taking care of someone who has no ability at all to bring in the dough.

You know what would fix all these issues? cutting taxes by a shitload, and realizing that marriage is a religious term. (and before you bash Christianity for it, you should bash all the other religions too)

Oh, and send me what rights married couples get, besides being automatically on the will of everything.

[007]

You missed the sarcasm but yes, that was in your post. Heterosexual couples have benefits that gay couples do not. It seems that you would be against the State favoring certain relationships over others.
What fiscal benefits do BREEDERS get, note that whilst the term BREEDER is a form of hate speech used by militant homosexuals to describe heterosexuals, it also refers to those gay and lesbian couples that have children, they too are Breeders.
the term used was breeder, that refers to those who breed.

now do tell what fiscal benefits are available ONLY TO HETEROSEXUALS in the USA?

[fj1200]

i'm going to ignore the "/sarcasm", and agree with the rest.
No kids? why the hell should you get bennies? you're not taking care of someone who has no ability at all to bring in the dough.

Gays have kids, do you agree that they should be treated equally then? Also, couples without kids also get the marriage benefits.


You know what would fix all these issues? cutting taxes by a shitload, and realizing that marriage is a religious term. (and before you bash Christianity for it, you should bash all the other religions too)

I completely agree, the State should have no interest in marriage in this day and age. Why would I bash Christianity.


Oh, and send me what rights married couples get, besides being automatically on the will of everything.

See below.


What fiscal benefits do BREEDERS get, note that whilst the term BREEDER is a form of hate speech used by militant homosexuals to describe heterosexuals, it also refers to those gay and lesbian couples that have children, they too are Breeders.
the term used was breeder, that refers to those who breed.

now do tell what fiscal benefits are available ONLY TO HETEROSEXUALS in the USA?

Marriage benefits from Social Security, Medicare, inheritance asset transfers, etc. I am glad that you recognize that gays have kids as well.

[007]

Gays have kids, do you agree that they should be treated equally then? Also, couples without kids also get the marriage benefits.



I completely agree, the State should have no interest in marriage in this day and age. Why would I bash Christianity.



See below.



Marriage benefits from Social Security, Medicare, inheritance asset transfers, etc. I am glad that you recognize that gays have kids as well.
So because I am married I will get more money from social security when I become eligible?
and I will recieve better healthcare bennies if I become sick at a later age?
Inheritance assets are NOT government benefits, they are private, personal assets that the government have no reason getting involved in.
do marriage benefits remain after the death of one party to the marriage?
Your point is baloney, the benefits you mention are simply titles that mean nothing!
how much federal government money is wasted on pc programmes such as lesbian tap dancing lessons or eased recruitment into fed and state jobs?
affimative action is expensive, divisive and prejudices those best qualified to do a job.

Fanatical Liberal Totalitarians love these bullshit PC schemes.

[fj1200]

So because I am married I will get more money from social security when I become eligible?
and I will recieve better healthcare bennies if I become sick at a later age?
Inheritance assets are NOT government benefits, they are private, personal assets that the government have no reason getting involved in.
do marriage benefits remain after the death of one party to the marriage?
Your point is baloney, the benefits you mention are simply titles that mean nothing!
how much federal government money is wasted on pc programmes such as lesbian tap dancing lessons or eased recruitment into fed and state jobs?
affimative action is expensive, divisive and prejudices those best qualified to do a job.

Fanatical Liberal Totalitarians love these bullshit PC schemes.

Your spouse may get more SS.
Your spouse may get better access to Medicare.
Asset transfers exempt from the estate tax is beneficial.
What does it matter when one dies? Except your spouse may get survivor benefits.

You apparently ignore points which don't support your POV. The only thing baloney is your points on lesbian tap dancing and affirmative action/quota claims; they have no relevance to what's being discussed.

[007]

Your spouse may get more SS.
Your spouse may get better access to Medicare.
Asset transfers exempt from the estate tax is beneficial.
What does it matter when one dies? Except your spouse may get survivor benefits.

You apparently ignore points which don't support your POV. The only thing baloney is your points on lesbian tap dancing and affirmative action/quota claims; they have no relevance to what's being discussed.
Extra rights for not being white, heterosexual or male, completely relevant.

Fanatical liberal totalitarians convince minority groups that they will ' help ' them.
minority groups like, gays, lesbians, transgender, bisexuals, blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, native Americans, illegal immigrants, Asians, drug addicts, drunks, unionised public employees and all the rest!
Money is spent on stupid programmes to benefit these groups to consolidate their loyalty to the Totalitarians.
each group gets a little something exept one, the white heterosexual male( the majority according to the totalitarians.
so using the totalitarians own figures, add up all the people who belong to minority groups receiving privallage and compare that with the number of white heterosexual males.
white Hetro make up less than a Quarter of the population.

who is the real minority?

[fj1200]

Extra rights for not being white, heterosexual or male, completely relevant.

Fanatical liberal totalitarians convince minority groups that they will ' help ' them.
minority groups like, gays, lesbians, transgender, bisexuals, blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, native Americans, illegal immigrants, Asians, drug addicts, drunks, unionised public employees and all the rest!
Money is spent on stupid programmes to benefit these groups to consolidate their loyalty to the Totalitarians.
each group gets a little something exept one, the white heterosexual male( the majority according to the totalitarians.
so using the totalitarians own figures, add up all the people who belong to minority groups receiving privallage and compare that with the number of white heterosexual males.
white Hetro make up less than a Quarter of the population.

who is the real minority?

The only real thing that I got out of that ranting was your justification for "getting yours" from the government just like everyone else.

[jimnyc]

Do you not think its interesting that many more people would rather not answer a question about their sexuality than would say they're lgbt?

Do you have proof that many more people would rather not answer? I believe if you DID, then they did answer. You are "assuming" some or many would rather not answer, just as many assume that MANY answered when they don't fit the definition.

[jimnyc]

...and what about the conservatism that is denying those equal rights? (Or trying to were they can)

I wouldn't say conservatism - when THIRTY TWO states have had the opportunity to vote on this issue - and the voting is 32-0 against. Is every state now conservative? If so, I guess Romney won the election already!

[Noir]

Do you have proof that many more people would rather not answer? I believe if you DID, then they did answer. You are "assuming" some or many would rather not answer, just as many assume that MANY answered when they don't fit the definition.

Yes.
The source says that 4.4% of those who answered either 'didn't know' or 'didn't want to answer' if they were lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
Do you think over 5000 people of those who were asked, don't know if they are lgbt or not?

[jimnyc]

Yes.
The source says that 4.4% of those who answered either 'didn't know' or 'didn't want to answer' if they were lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
Do you think over 5000 people of those who were asked, don't know if they are lgbt or not?

That's still NOT proof that they are gay or lesbian, only proof that people don't want to be bothered with the crap. If they call my house I'd hang up on them, which I would assume would fall under didn't want to answer. The ONLY definitive answer is when they answer.

[Noir]

That's still NOT proof that they are gay or lesbian, only proof that people don't want to be bothered with the crap. If they call my house I'd hang up on them, which I would assume would fall under didn't want to answer. The ONLY definitive answer is when they answer.

I'm not saying its proof that they are, i'm saying its an interesting stat and something that brings more questions than answers. Going by the poll, more people don't know if they are lgbt than do!

[jimnyc]

I'm not saying its proof that they are, i'm saying its an interesting stat and something that brings more questions than answers. Going by the poll, more people don't know if they are lgbt than do!

Ok, I can agree with that. But ultimately it will fall upon the states, which as of now have voted 32-0 against things, unless the SCOTUS intervenes and overturns things, kind of like the 9th circuit likes to do.

IMO, the government should be out of the marriage business 100%. Problem solved. Let whichever places that want to "marry" them, and those that don't want to don't have to. Our government shouldn't be determining such things anyway and people should probably be taking care of themselves. If something is urgent, like leaving a will to a partner or giving them rights for end of life things, have it being contractual and legal for anyone to do so.

[Abbey Marie]

Do you not think its interesting that many more people would rather not answer a question about their sexuality than would say they're lgbt?

I refuse to answer polls at times. All it means is that I am not in the mood to answer a poll. I'm not denying or hiding anything.

[Robert A Whit]

The homosexual crowd could get more support by me if they supported all forms and manner of marriage.

But they don't.

Tell you this though.

When CA put it on the ballot for homosexuals to have civil unions, I voted in favor. But when CA put it on the ballot that marriage is one man to one woman, I voted for that.

Marriage has nothing to do with homsexuals.

That they desire things easily in a contract, sure, why not?

[Noir]

The homosexual crowd could get more support by me if they supported all forms and manner of marriage.

But they don't.




What 'forms of marriage' do gays oppose?

[Noir]

I refuse to answer polls at times. All it means is that I am not in the mood to answer a poll. I'm not denying or hiding anything.

Before or after you've heard the question?

[007]

The only real thing that I got out of that ranting was your justification for "getting yours" from the government just like everyone else.
I get nothing from the government, never will, but they take 50% of my income every year.

[jimnyc]

Before or after you've heard the question?

If me, I would tell them to buzz off ahead of time - but if I was caught by surprise and they asked me before I had a chance, I would politely tell them no answer as well. Just as the government shouldn't be deciding such things, I don't care to share such things with anonymous pollsters either!

[Abbey Marie]

Before or after you've heard the question?

Could be either. I may not want to answer a poll at all, or I may not want to get into a particular field. Again, it doesn't mean I am in denial or hiding something. I don't think that is at all unusual. Some people have a very strong sense of privacy, and just don't feel those types of questions are worthy of their answer.

[KarlMarx]

I once read that the reason why gays claim that 10 percent of the population is gay is that a study was once done of prison inmates and that figure came out to be 10 percent. I believe that the actual percentage is closer to 3 or 4 percent.

Also, sexual orientation is something over which we have some control, after all we all have free will, we are not salmon who are compelled to spawn in the stream where we were born. I believe that when homosexuality is acceptable, more people will practice it whether they are gay or not is irrelevant.

After all, almost every Roman emperor was either gay or bisexual... and homosexuality was accepted in elite Roman society... doesn't that seem like a strange coincidence? No, it isn't a coincidence.

If killing and eating your children were to become acceptable in this society, suddenly a lot of child eaters would be coming out of the closet and scientists will claim that they were born that way and shame on the rest of us for not allowing them the right to have children served on the menus of all the major restaurants and fast food places...

Yes, you think my example is extreme, but in ancient Middle Eastern society that's exactly what happened.. which is why God forbid the Israelites from having anything to do with the Gentiles... Google "Molech" and see what I mean

[fj1200]

What 'forms of marriage' do gays oppose?

I think he meant that they want more than civil unions.


The homosexual crowd could get more support by me if they supported all forms and manner of marriage.

But they don't.

Tell you this though.

When CA put it on the ballot for homosexuals to have civil unions, I voted in favor. But when CA put it on the ballot that marriage is one man to one woman, I voted for that.

Marriage has nothing to do with homsexuals.

That they desire things easily in a contract, sure, why not?

The State's definition of marriage is far deeper than that of a civil union.

[fj1200]

If killing and eating your children were to become acceptable in this society, suddenly a lot of child eaters would be coming out of the closet and scientists will claim that they were born that way and shame on the rest of us for not allowing them the right to have children served on the menus of all the major restaurants and fast food places...

Yes, you think my example is extreme, but in ancient Middle Eastern society that's exactly what happened.. which is why God forbid the Israelites from having anything to do with the Gentiles... Google "Molech" and see what I mean

Do you really have that little faith in American society and our rule of law?

[fj1200]

I get nothing from the government, never will, but they take 50% of my income every year.

So you won't be taking Social Security and Medicare when you're eligible? I suppose you don't drive on roads, enjoy defense from our enemies, or fly in airspace controlled by the FAA err, never mind.

[KarlMarx]

Do you really have that little faith in American society and our rule of law?

It's human nature. I remember watching a movie named "Future Shock" back in the 1970s and they showed something that was unthinkable back then.. two men getting married.. now we have it. In the 1960s, the words "hell" and "damn" could not be uttered on television or radio.. now words that are more vulgar than those are regularly uttered on television and radio... out of wedlock births were once stigmatized now they're encouraged...

I think that, over time, these things could become commonplace if we let them

[fj1200]

It's human nature. I remember watching a movie named "Future Shock" back in the 1970s and they showed something that was unthinkable back then.. two men getting married.. now we have it. In the 1960s, the words "hell" and "damn" could not be uttered on television or radio.. now words that are more vulgar than those are regularly uttered on television and radio... out of wedlock births were once stigmatized now they're encouraged...

I think that, over time, these things could become commonplace if we let them

"Killing and eating your children"? :rolleyes: Two individuals acting freely does not lead to infanticide.