Newsbusters On The Cdc Study

[rockpond]

 . . . 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.

 

I stand corrected.  I noted the italics but had never heard of the newsbusters website so I didn't go there.  I did a search but my results did not return that article so I assumed that you were editorializing based on the results of the study.  My apologies for missing that and thank you for the clarification.

[USU78]

I stand corrected.  I noted the italics but had never heard of the newsbusters website so I didn't go there.  I did a search but my results did not return that article so I assumed that you were editorializing based on the results of the study.  My apologies for missing that and thank you for the clarification.

 

No prob . . . you were a bit quick on the trigger and I had trouble figuring out why, since we hadn't really interacted before much.

 

And as for the format:  when I first posted it there was something in the part I cut/pasted from the online article that fouled up this board's quote function.  I edited so there wouldn't be orphan "

" markers in the text, then italicized the quoted language.

 

And smart phones really aren't very smart.

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

Without getting into the specifics of this particular study. Practicality comes in here. We're not going to interview 7+ billion people(Even assuming they all tell the truth). . We do what is known as a Representative Sample. So there is always a range of +/- so many percent. It is known as the bias for people to give the answer that they think the question is looking for.

[rockpond]

No prob . . . you were a bit quick on the trigger and I had trouble figuring out why, since we hadn't really interacted before much.

 

And as for the format:  when I first posted it there was something in the part I cut/pasted from the online article that fouled up this board's quote function.  I edited so there wouldn't be orphan "

 

" markers in the text, then italicized the quoted language.

 

And smart phones really aren't very smart.

 

I was actually really surprised by the 30% figure.  That's why I did a quick search and didn't see the article.  Then Cal provided the data supporting 30%.  Shocking to me ...and I even lived/worked in the Northern California's Bay Area for quite some time where I knew plenty of openly gay people.  But never would I have suspected that there were people thinking a quarter to a third of the population is homosexual.  I don't even see that high of a percentage being reflected by Hollywood.

 

And in the future, I'll probably do some reading on that Newbusters site.  Very interesting.  Despite my position on this subject, I am a fairly politically conservative person and do get frustrated with the liberal media bias that I see.

[thesometimesaint]

Be careful of any news site. Always seek original research. As to NewsBusters itself http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NewsBusters

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Be careful of any news site. Always seek original research. As to NewsBusters itself http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NewsBusters

Yawn. More myopic views? Yup.

 

Your mantra of "if it doesn't agree with my line of thinking, then it is not trust worthy" is getting a little old Saint.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Robert F. Smith]

The more interesting statistic will be what percentage of the country will self-identfy as homosexual or bisexual a few decades from now. If our sexuality is entirely inborn as some claim, then these percentages should not change. If our sexuality is strongly influenced by our culture as I believe then the percentages should substantially increase.

The 30% number may become a self fulfilling prophecy.

-guerreiro9

That's an interesting thought.  But I think that if it were totally a matter of genetics, decreasing the stigma of homosexuality.combined with gay marriage may in that case result in homosexuality naturally dying out, or nearly so.  If individuals who are genetically gay are encouraged by culture to realize their orientation at an age before they have a chance to reproduce, then fewer and fewer persons with the "gay gene", for lack of a better term, would be born.  Eventually the gene (or gene complex) might become very rare, or perhaps die out.

 

However, in that case, culture might eventually lose its tolerance of gayness, and suppressing the expression of that gene would be driven underground again, resulting in its creeping back into the population.

 

But if it is not genetic, or at least not purely genetic, you may be right that the percentage never declines. 

 

But 30% is completely out of the question.

You might want to rethink that in light of actual history:  In Classical Greece it became entirely normal and expected that all males would be introduced to and practice homosexuality -- in addition to marriage.  It could indeed become a cultural norm for Western society sometime in the future, far beyond 30%.

 

In addition, I have seen no studies which suggest the heritability of homosexuality.  We do have cases in which only one twin has homosexual tendencies, and others in which conditions in utero (environmental) may have contributed to later homosexual tendencies.  The scale of gender self-identification is a spectrum rather than one simple datum.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[thesometimesaint]

Yawn. More myopic views? Yup.

 

Your mantra of "if it doesn't agree with my line of thinking, then it is not trust worthy" is getting a little old Saint.

 

What I said was to be careful of any news site. I don't trust any of them.That would include everything from the New York Times(Judith Miller) to NewsBusters(Brent Bozell). I also said go to the original research.  Your myopia is very old, and tiring Mola Ram Suda Ram.

[MormonFreeThinker]

That would include everything from the New York Times(Judith Miller) to NewsBusters(Brent Bozell).

 

Both are political think-tanks, this should get closed. 

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

A wide variety of studies over the decades have steadily held that only about 4% of the U.S. population is homosexual, which breaks down to 2% male, and 2% female.  Even among Roman Catholic priests (who self-select for a higher than average level of homosexuality), about 4% of them overall have been accused of child sexual abuse, while fully 10% of those graduating from seminary in 1970 were accused of child sexual abuse.  This demonstrates that seminaries had been taken over by “a homoerotic culture,” which led to a tidal wave of child molestation. --Los Angeles Times, Feb 28, 2004, A1,17 (W.  Lobdell & L.  Stammer, “Mahony Criticized by National Review Panel”); and Feb 27, 2004, A1,28 (Lobdell & Stammer, “4% of U.S. Priests Since 1950 May Have Abused”).

 

In addition the famous lesbian leader Tammy Bruce has frankly pointed out that

 

A majority of gays, I believe, have their first sexual experience as a minor with a gay adult, and almost every gay and lesbian knows that’s true.  We need to be willing to address that. --Los Angeles Times Magazine, June 2, 2002, p. 18 (this is backed up by the research of Masters & Johnson, Human Sexual Inadequacy [1970]).

 

This is the way in which homosexuality was introduced to youth in Classical Greece.  So it can also become a learned (habituated) behavior, as it is in our prisons.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[thesometimesaint]

Both are political think-tanks, this should get closed. 

 

I don't have any objections to the discussion continuing. However neither are think-tanks as little actual thinking goes on.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I don't have any objections to the discussion continuing. However neither are think-tanks as little actual thinking goes on.

 

Me neither, but my  nonpolitical topics shouldn't get locked.  

Edited July 17, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

Me neither, but my  nonpolitical topics shouldn't get locked.  

 

I start very few threads. So I can't claim any as mine being locked.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Well, O.K. then,

Would you object to some group promoting polygyny in America?  It will soon become legal, along with other forms of non-traditional marriage.  At that point, would it be alright for Muslims in America to promote multiple wifery?  Would it be O.K. to promote polyandry (a practice attested in the Vedas)?  Should such marriage practices have the same tax benefits as traditional forms of marriage?

[Brian 2.0]

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?

Not far out of sync at all

LGBT is 2.3% of population according to OP study

LGBT percentage of prime time characters on TV is 3.3%

Nothing wrong happening here.

http://www.tvguide.com/news/glaad-lgbt-characters-1071960.aspx

[Storm Rider]

Not far out of sync at all

LGBT is 2.3% of population according to OP study

LGBT percentage of prime time characters on TV is 3.3%

Nothing wrong happening here.

http://www.tvguide.com/news/glaad-lgbt-characters-1071960.aspx

 

 

I don't know what you read, but here is the quote:

 

"In the Network Responsibility Index, which looks back at the 2012-2013 TV season, Fox lead the way for being LGBT inclusive with 42 percent of primetime programming hours having included LGBT characters, followed by ABC with 33 percent. Fox was also lauded for including the first transgender series regular with Unique (Alex Newell) on Glee.

On cable, ABC Family topped with 50 percent, followed by FX with 40 percent. The History Channel received a failing grade with no LGBT images on any of its shows last season.

"Last season was a stellar one when it comes to the sheer number of gay, lesbian and bisexual representations on television, though diversity within those storylines showed room for improvement," GLAAD's Wilson Cruz said in a statement. "Though the number of LGBT characters dropped this season, shows like The Fosters, with an interracial female couple raising a family, and characters like Unique on Glee have not only moved the conversation about LGBT people forward, but are also a hit with audiences."

 

Those have nothing to do even remotely with those percentages.  I see no evil, I hear no evil, and I speak no evil...makes one a blind monkey by choice.  The imbalance is wrong whether you see it or not...even in your own references.  

Edited July 17, 2014 by Storm Rider

[guerreiro9]

Well, O.K. then,

Would you object to some group promoting polygyny in America? It will soon become legal, along with other forms of non-traditional marriage. At that point, would it be alright for Muslims in America to promote multiple wifery? Would it be O.K. to promote polyandry (a practice attested in the Vedas)? Should such marriage practices have the same tax benefits as traditional forms of marriage?

I think all of those marital forms should be legal, but not promoted.

The only marital form I support granting tax benefits and favored status to is a single male, single female union.

In fact I think the governmental benefits for this type of union should be substantially increased.

-guerreiro9

Edited July 17, 2014 by guerreiro9

[rockpond]

The only marital form I support granting tax benefits and favored status is a single male, single female union.

In fact I think the governmental benefits for this type of union should be substantially increased.

-guerreiro9

 

Why?

[toon]

I don't know what you read, but here is the quote:

 

"In the Network Responsibility Index, which looks back at the 2012-2013 TV season, Fox lead the way for being LGBT inclusive with 42 percent of primetime programming hours having included LGBT characters, followed by ABC with 33 percent. Fox was also lauded for including the first transgender series regular with Unique (Alex Newell) on Glee.

On cable, ABC Family topped with 50 percent, followed by FX with 40 percent. The History Channel received a failing grade with no LGBT images on any of its shows last season.

"Last season was a stellar one when it comes to the sheer number of gay, lesbian and bisexual representations on television, though diversity within those storylines showed room for improvement," GLAAD's Wilson Cruz said in a statement. "Though the number of LGBT characters dropped this season, shows like The Fosters, with an interracial female couple raising a family, and characters like Unique on Glee have not only moved the conversation about LGBT people forward, but are also a hit with audiences."

 

Those have nothing to do even remotely with those percentages.  I see no evil, I hear no evil, and I speak no evil...makes one a blind monkey by choice.  The imbalance is wrong whether you see it or not...even in your own references.  

 

43% of primetime programming hours is not inconsistent with a significantly smaller percentage primetime characters.  After all, 100% of my time spent in the office involves working with someone who is gay, despite the fact that the percentage of openly gay co-workers is around 2.9%.

 

Not that I reaolly care that much, but I believe a more accurate comparison would be between the percentage of characters as opposed to programming hours.

[thesometimesaint]

Well, O.K. then,

Would you object to some group promoting polygyny in America?  It will soon become legal, along with other forms of non-traditional marriage.  At that point, would it be alright for Muslims in America to promote multiple wifery?  Would it be O.K. to promote polyandry (a practice attested in the Vedas)?  Should such marriage practices have the same tax benefits as traditional forms of marriage?

 

As long as it is between is consenting adults, and a separation of church and state, that's fine.

[Brian 2.0]

I don't know what you read, but here is the quote:

"In the Network Responsibility Index, which looks back at the 2012-2013 TV season, Fox lead the way for being LGBT inclusive with 42 percent of primetime programming hours having included LGBT characters, followed by ABC with 33 percent. Fox was also lauded for including the first transgender series regular with Unique (Alex Newell) on Glee.

On cable, ABC Family topped with 50 percent, followed by FX with 40 percent. The History Channel received a failing grade with no LGBT images on any of its shows last season.

"Last season was a stellar one when it comes to the sheer number of gay, lesbian and bisexual representations on television, though diversity within those storylines showed room for improvement," GLAAD's Wilson Cruz said in a statement. "Though the number of LGBT characters dropped this season, shows like The Fosters, with an interracial female couple raising a family, and characters like Unique on Glee have not only moved the conversation about LGBT people forward, but are also a hit with audiences."

Those have nothing to do even remotely with those percentages. I see no evil, I hear no evil, and I speak no evil...makes one a blind monkey by choice. The imbalance is wrong whether you see it or not...even in your own references.

This is what I read in the article I linked to.

"LGBT characters make up 3.3 percent of regulars on scripted series this season on the five broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and The CW)"

Programming hours is a different thing. See toons reply.

[USU78]

Not far out of sync at all

LGBT is 2.3% of population according to OP study

LGBT percentage of prime time characters on TV is 3.3%

Nothing wrong happening here.

http://www.tvguide.com/news/glaad-lgbt-characters-1071960.aspx

 

Where is the reporting or artistically depicting of syphilis rising in the US being largely a homosexual male issue (~ 75% of all new cases)?

 

http://www.cdc.gov/std/Syphilis/STDFact-MSM-Syphilis.htm

 

Where is the reporting or artistically depicting HIV rising in the US being largely a homosexual male issue (~ 56% of all cases)?

 

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html

 

The propaganda arises in misrepresenting the astonishingly dangerous effects of the syndrome.  It's not all happiness and wit and clever quips:  it's incurring and managing at horrendous costs in treasure and fear diseases, many of which will never wash off.

[rockpond]

 

Where is the reporting or artistically depicting of syphilis rising in the US being largely a homosexual male issue (~ 75% of all new cases)?

 

http://www.cdc.gov/std/Syphilis/STDFact-MSM-Syphilis.htm

 

Where is the reporting or artistically depicting HIV rising in the US being largely a homosexual male issue (~ 56% of all cases)?

 

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html

 

The propaganda arises in misrepresenting the astonishingly dangerous effects of the syndrome.  It's not all happiness and wit and clever quips:  it's incurring and managing at horrendous costs in treasure and fear diseases, many of which will never wash off.

 

If you are looking for an accurate portrayal of the real consequences of our actions, you might not want to look for it on primetime network television.

 

But that's just a guess.  With the exception of the occasional "reality talent show" we leave the TV off at my house during primetime.

[USU78]

If you are looking for an accurate portrayal of the real consequences of our actions, you might not want to look for it on primetime network television.

 

But that's just a guess.  With the exception of the occasional "reality talent show" we leave the TV off at my house during primetime.

 

So . . . you don't believe there is propagandizing going on . . . or you don't care because you don't participate in the popular culture?

 

The 25-30% figure comes from acculturation and propagandization, IMNSHO.  The numbers don't get that high without homosexual literature being forced into school libraries and openly homosexual characters and story lines being foisted on prime-time viewers.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Where is the reporting or artistically depicting of syphilis rising in the US being largely a homosexual male issue (~ 75% of all new cases)?

 

http://www.cdc.gov/std/Syphilis/STDFact-MSM-Syphilis.htm

 

Where is the reporting or artistically depicting HIV rising in the US being largely a homosexual male issue (~ 56% of all cases)?

 

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html

 

The propaganda arises in misrepresenting the astonishingly dangerous effects of the syndrome.  It's not all happiness and wit and clever quips:  it's incurring and managing at horrendous costs in treasure and fear diseases, many of which will never wash off.

You can't trust those sources, they are not trustworthy.