Newsbusters On The Cdc Study

[Rob Osborn]

I can totally see where the 1% gay being the right statistic is correct when I account for all the people I know. But thenyou turn on prime tine television and you see n over abundace of actors portraying gay people. If Hollywood wants to improve their ratings they need to go back to making shows like Little House On The Prarie. They are so far removed from what we really want to see. They sure do their job of lies and deception pkaying devils advocate and pushing his agenda to destroy the family.

[california boy]

Interesting question, but it does put a little bit of focus on the matter of what a tiny proportion of the population is forcing changes in society all out of proportion to their density.  

 

And in using the word "force" I do NOT mean the pejorative use of it, but in the same sense used in climatology, where factors such as carbon dioxide and solar luminance are "forcing" factors involved in climate change.

 

Interesting take.  We often see things only from our perspective.  My first reaction is wow a whole lot of saber rattling and millions spent by members of the church on this HUGE moral issue that affects 1% of the population.  And of that 1% only 10% of them decide to marry.  Just how big of moral issue is gay marriage?  That was the reason gay marriage was attacked by the church wasn't it?  While divorce, prostitution, abandoning children, premarital sex is ramped within society, let's go after the gays in a huge public way.  Not a huge public campaign against any of those other moral issues.  While the church is against all the other moral issues, they don't go door to door campaigning against those moral issues do they.  They keep it within the confines of preaching and teaching their own members.  

 

And I have yet to see anyone being forced to enter into a gay marriage.  If this whole thing would have been treated like the civil rights issue it is, gay marriage would be completely under the radar.  Who cared for example when the Supreme Court ruled on Lawrence vs Texas?  Probably the vast majority of Americans don't even know that that case was about. 

 

In the end, it is the christian right that has made gay marriage the headline grabbing, regular news cycle issue that is constantly in our faces.  Passing Prop 8 did more to move ssm forward than any single event about this whole issue.  I can't even think of another event that has so brought gay marriage into the limelight,  Perhaps you can now understand why the majority of Americans support gay marriage.  It is just not that big of moral issue.  It effects less than 1% of the public.  It doesn't redefine your marriage.  It doesn't change your relationship with your spouse.  In fact it has no effect on your life at all.  The only effect has been the constant badgering about this issue in the news media all caused by denying gays the right to marry.  Soon that will go away as well when this issue finally gets settled by the Supreme Court.  A lot of yelling and screaming over such an unimportant insignificant moral issue.

[Stargazer]

Interesting take.  We often see things only from our perspective.  My first reaction is wow a whole lot of saber rattling and millions spent by members of the church on this HUGE moral issue that affects 1% of the population.  And of that 1% only 10% of them decide to marry.  Just how big of moral issue is gay marriage?  That was the reason gay marriage was attacked by the church wasn't it?  While divorce, prostitution, abandoning children, premarital sex is ramped within society, let's go after the gays in a huge public way.  Not a huge public campaign against any of those other moral issues.  While the church is against all the other moral issues, they don't go door to door campaigning against those moral issues do they.  They keep it within the confines of preaching and teaching their own members.  

 

And I have yet to see anyone being forced to enter into a gay marriage.  If this whole thing would have been treated like the civil rights issue it is, gay marriage would be completely under the radar.  Who cared for example when the Supreme Court ruled on Lawrence vs Texas?  Probably the vast majority of Americans don't even know that that case was about. 

 

In the end, it is the christian right that has made gay marriage the headline grabbing, regular news cycle issue that is constantly in our faces.  Passing Prop 8 did more to move ssm forward than any single event about this whole issue.  I can't even think of another event that has so brought gay marriage into the limelight,  Perhaps you can now understand why the majority of Americans support gay marriage.  It is just not that big of moral issue.  It effects less than 1% of the public.  It doesn't redefine your marriage.  It doesn't change your relationship with your spouse.  In fact it has no effect on your life at all.  The only effect has been the constant badgering about this issue in the news media all caused by denying gays the right to marry.  Soon that will go away as well when this issue finally gets settled by the Supreme Court.  A lot of yelling and screaming over such an unimportant insignificant moral issue.

 

Well.... no.

 

You think that it is the christian right's fault that gay marriage is such a big issue?  Because the christian right opposes it?  The christian right opposes theft, too, and do you think that that is the only reason why there would be a big issue making theft legal just because the christian right opposed it?

 

There has never been anything like gay marriage in any significant or for that matter insignificant culture anywhere in the world, and you think that it's only the christian right that opposes it?  Heck even in the officially atheist Soviet Union homosexual behavior (let alone gay marriage) was illegal.  The christian right was no where to be found on that issue, in that place.  I'll bet that behavior is on the official list of proscribed behavior in the People's Republic of China, too,. It's just that Christianity has a religious reason for opposing it.  I don't know what the USSRs' excuse for it was. 

 

You're right that the existence of gay marriage does not change my relationship with my wife.  So what?  You and I have crossed swords amicably over this in the past, and nothing has changed from my point of view regarding this matter.  To me, gay marriage is an oxymoron, that's all there is to it.  

[california boy]

Well.... no.

 

You think that it is the christian right's fault that gay marriage is such a big issue?  Because the christian right opposes it?  The christian right opposes theft, too, and do you think that that is the only reason why there would be a big issue making theft legal just because the christian right opposed it?

 

There has never been anything like gay marriage in any significant or for that matter insignificant culture anywhere in the world, and you think that it's only the christian right that opposes it?  Heck even in the officially atheist Soviet Union homosexual behavior (let alone gay marriage) was illegal.  The christian right was no where to be found on that issue, in that place.  I'll bet that behavior is on the official list of proscribed behavior in the People's Republic of China, too,. It's just that Christianity has a religious reason for opposing it.  I don't know what the USSRs' excuse for it was. 

 

You're right that the existence of gay marriage does not change my relationship with my wife.  So what?  You and I have crossed swords amicably over this in the past, and nothing has changed from my point of view regarding this matter.  To me, gay marriage is an oxymoron, that's all there is to it.  

 

Like I said.  We all see things from our own perspective.  Just how much do you know about Lawrence vs Texas?  Just how much do you hear about it on a daily basis in the news media?  Just how "in your face" is that court ruling?  Yet it is the case that legalized gay sex.  Shouldn't that have been the "big moral issue".  Yet I would guess that a very small percentage of the American population could tell you a thing about it.  The difference????  My take is that there were no christian rights group putting measures on the ballots trying to take away that civil right.  If they had, I can bet that everyone would know what that case was about.  You tell me what your take is.  What is the difference between the two issues.  Why does everyone know about Prop 8 and so few have even heard of Lawrence vs Texas?  And what of the two issue is really the more serious moral issue?  If you can explain this, it would give me a much better understanding of your position. 

 

Stealing is not a civil right.  It is an illegal activity that would effect your family if it was made legal.  There is demonstrating reasons why it harms society.  Think of another one.

 

And actually there has been a very similar cultural issue to denying gays their equal rights.  It was when another group of "christians" tried to keep blacks from their civil rights.  It was the "christians" that prevented interracial couples from marrying.  Their reason?  It was how they interrupted the Bible.  "God doesn't want mixed races to marry.  It will be the end of marriage.  It will be the end of civilized society" were all used in their campaign to define marriage the way THEY wanted it as if christians have some monopoly on that institution.

 

Sorry but it is the Greek Orthodox church that has stirred up all of the national publicity against gays in Russia.  Who even thought there was a significant gay community in Russia before the Greek Orthodox church started putting pressure on politicians to take away free speech from the gay community.  Was gays in Russia in the news before that?  Just what started this latest news cycle?  The gays?  Or when the Greek Orthodox church started leaning on politicians?

 

There is actually some indications that China may very well allow gay marriage partly as a way to deal with their overpopulation.  Why force gays to marry and have a child when the last thing China needs is more children.  We will see what happens there.  My prediction is that it will become legal and largely because there is no christian base trying to keep it illegal.  

 

I do like hearing your opinions.  They are often completely different than mine.  

 

Are we derailing this thread?  Perhaps if you would like to discuss this issue further you should open a new thread on this.  I would do it, but I am in "time out" for some reason and can't start threads.  

Edited July 17, 2014 by california boy

[USU78]

I believe the 30% figure is coming from USU78.

aren't you feeling a little silly about now?

[USU78]

I believe the 30% figure is coming from USU78.

aren't you feeling a little silly about now?

[guerreiro9]

Why does everyone know about Prop 8 and so few have even heard of Lawrence vs Texas? And what of the two issue is really the more serious moral issue? If you can explain this, it would give me a much better understanding of your position.

You did not ask this of me, but this dichotomy perfectly describes my views on homosexual behaviors. I do not think they should be illegal, but I also do not think they should be promoted.

People of the same-sex can legally marry now in every state of the union. In many states their marriages are recognized and given the accompanying benefits, in others they are not, but in all cases they are legal.

What you and others who support same-sex marriage are hoping for will force me to financially support something to which I have a moral objection.

People often ask why "Mormons" don't try to illegalize alcohol since we abstain from its use. The same reasoning holds. I don't think alcohol consumption should be illegal, but I don't think it should be promoted. If a movement starts to try to attach tax benefits to alcohol consumption I will fight like hell against it.

-guerreiro9

[CV75]

What difference does it make if the number is low? 1%, 2%, 30%... What changes?

Since argumentum ad populum yields assent in discourse where spin and deception are more fine-tuned than conscience and inspiration, the pressure to assent increases.

[rockpond]

You're talking about some esoteric thing called "orientation" which from our previous discussions you do not think is tied to behavior or culture. I don't have a clue what you mean by this.

I am talking about "sexuality" in which case if someone engages in homosexual behaviors and self identifies as "gay" they would have answered in the affirmative to the survey.

I believe the number of people engaging in homosexual behaviors and self identifying as "gay" will increase the more it is promoted within a society.

It seemed like we were in agreement. There was no need to counter my own argument.

-guerreiro9

Ah, yes, I remember now. You believe orientation to be "some esoteric thing". But you are correct in that I believe one's orientation is independent of culture and orientation influences behavior rather than the opposite.

To help clarify: Elder Holland has stated that no one is to blame when an individual experiences same gender attraction (another term for orientation). Elder Oaks has stated that we don't have a position on the causes of same gender attraction. Obviously we have a position on the causes of the behavior but not with respect to the attraction.

[rockpond]

aren't you feeling a little silly about now?

Not at all. You did not provide a quote nor a source so that "30%" sentence in your OP appeared and still appears to be your words. Were they not? And if not, please give credit to those you quote.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I believe the 30% figure is coming from USU78.

More wishful thinking?

[california boy]

You did not ask this of me, but this dichotomy perfectly describes my views on homosexual behaviors. I do not think they should be illegal, but I also do not think they should be promoted.

People of the same-sex can legally marry now in every state of the union. In many states their marriages are recognized and given the accompanying benefits, in others they are not, but in all cases they are legal.

What you and others who support same-sex marriage are hoping for will force me to financially support something to which I have a moral objection.

People often ask why "Mormons" don't try to illegalize alcohol since we abstain from its use. The same reasoning holds. I don't think alcohol consumption should be illegal, but I don't think it should be promoted. If a movement starts to try to attach tax benefits to alcohol consumption I will fight like hell against it.

-guerreiro9

 

I think that most people would agree that there are many many things the government does that they don't want to support with their tax dollars.  I could cut government spending in half simply by eliminating things I don't want the government involved in.   As far as I can tell the government spends very little on gay marriage.  In fact most states project increased tax revenue When gay marriage is legalized.  This seems like just a very bad reason to object to gay marriage.  Perhaps you could point to a line item in the budget devoted to throwing huge gay weddings?  Heck Utah is spending 4 million fighting gay marriage.  Can you show me anything that shows the state of Utah spends more than that on gay weddings???  And remember this whole thread is about how insignificant the number of gay people in this country is.  Just how big of financial burden do you think you are shouldering???  If this is truly your reason for being against gay marriage, you got nothing.

 

I am trying to see what your point is. And how does that have any bearing on my post you were responding to???

[Storm Rider]

Interesting question, but it does put a little bit of focus on the matter of what a tiny proportion of the population is forcing changes in society all out of proportion to their density.  

 

And in using the word "force" I do NOT mean the pejorative use of it, but in the same sense used in climatology, where factors such as carbon dioxide and solar luminance are "forcing" factors involved in climate change.

 

With such a small percentage of the population why does Hollywood and television make it appear as if everyone and the brother and sister are gay?  What would motivate such a decision?  How far out of sync are these two entities?  

[Sleeper Cell]

What difference does it make if the number is low? 1%, 2%, 30%... What changes?

The difference it makes is that the 10% figure touted by gay rights activists was a lie.  And that lie was uncritically generally accepted for years as if it were a scientific fact.  It is difficult enough to have a rational discussion between supporters of traditional marriage and ssm advocates, without resorting  to manufactured “facts” and Orwellian manipulations of the very definitions of words. 

[guerreiro9]

I am trying to see what your point is. And how does that have any bearing on my post you were responding to???

I was responding to your question of why I respond differently to Lawrence vs. Texas than I do to Proposition 8.

One is about legalization, the other is about tax benefits and favored status.

I agree with the one and disagree with the other.

It's not about the overall amount of money. If someone took 1 penny a year from you to fund something you found morally objectionable wouldn't you still vote to discontinue its funding if it came to a vote?

-guerreiro9

[guerreiro9]

Even though this thread is tangentially related to same-sex marriage I don't want to get banned from this thread. If you want to discuss why I agree with Lawrence vs Texas and also agreed with Proposition 8 please start a new thread.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Very funny.  I happen to know lots of parents, and NONE of them that I know of, smoke pot.  Ever.

 

Spielberg must have a very unusual circle of friends.

 

And yet they're in a position to hold mirrors up to themselves and then tell us -- rather convincingly -- that we're seeing our own reflections.

[rockpond]

The difference it makes is that the 10% figure touted by gay rights activists was a lie.  

 

To be clear, we still don't know the actual percentage of the population who are homosexual and bisexual.  This study reflects those who have self-reported as such.

[rockpond]

But it would still have to be self identified wouldn't it, you couldn't count the number of gay people by asking people "who around you is gay".

 

Agreed... I don't know of a better way to assess the population breakdown of sexual orientation other than self-reporting.  But it's important to understand that self-reported orientation is not necessarily the same as actual orientation as long as there are societal, cultural, and religious reasons encouraging people one way or the other.

[rockpond]

More wishful thinking?

 

Not wishful thinking -- the quote came from USU78, did it not?

 

See my response to USU in post #35.  If the 30% quote was not USU's words, then s/he should identify a source and give credit.

[USU78]

Not at all. You did not provide a quote nor a source so that "30%" sentence in your OP appeared and still appears to be your words. Were they not? And if not, please give credit to those you quote.

 

 . . . because you failed to see the reference in the thread's title [Newsbusters] or note that I italicized the quoted language?  [hint:  it was the first item google came up with on my search terms "CDC + percentages"]

 

Didn't seem to give anybody else any difficulties.  Indeed, some went straight to the CDC and referenced the table, based upon which the Newsbusters writer produced his/her article.

[USU78]

Even though this thread is tangentially related to same-sex marriage I don't want to get banned from this thread. If you want to discuss why I agree with Lawrence vs Texas and also agreed with Proposition 8 please start a new thread.

 

Yes, it is a bit of a threadjack; no, you weren't the one who started the threadjack, but rather "Johnny One Note" from the Golden State; no, I don't object to the threadjack, in that it is reasonably related to the OP:  we need to explore what the numbers mean and why the false impressions.

[USU78]

Agreed... I don't know of a better way to assess the population breakdown of sexual orientation other than self-reporting.  But it's important to understand that self-reported orientation is not necessarily the same as actual orientation as long as there are societal, cultural, and religious reasons encouraging people one way or the other.

 

I would tend to agree, especially where, as here, the reporters have a specific, political, self-aggrandizing agenda.

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed... I don't know of a better way to assess the population breakdown of sexual orientation other than self-reporting.  But it's important to understand that self-reported orientation is not necessarily the same as actual orientation as long as there are societal, cultural, and religious reasons encouraging people one way or the other.

 

True, but sociologists have known for a long time about the inherent problems of self reporting bias and how to factor it in.

[USU78]

True, but sociologists have known for a long time about the inherent problems of self reporting bias and how to factor it in.

 

I was with you until the words after "bias"  . . .  just how does one double-blind for lies and manipulations?