Newsbusters On The Cdc Study

[ERayR]

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.

 

So let me get this straight.  If only 2% of the population self report to being homosexual then there must be another 8% to 20% who are afraid to self report because somehow you just know it has to because to 25%. 

[Walden]

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?  

 

Maybe because Hollywood is not reality? Hollywood is fictional....how else does one account for the plethora of overweight, quirky, unattractive TV dads with hot wives (see King of Queens, According to Jim, the Flintstones, Modern Family, etc.)

 

Why do people even expect television entertainment to reflect reality....the majority of people watching TV are doing so to escape reality on some level.

 

And don't tell me you think that television news is a fair representation of reality. The ridiculously disproportionate amount of news stories related to crime, violence, death, etc. would lead one to think that society is becoming more crime-ridden and violent, when in fact, crime rates and rates of violence rates have dramatically declined since the 1980s.

[rockpond]

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.

 

If primetime TV is showing 3.3% homosexual characters, I don't know how you blame them for a general population thinking that the reality is 10x that.  Seems to be more a reflection of the general public's lack of math skills.

 

I have four children in public schools and they have not been exposed to any homosexual literature.

[rockpond]

So let me get this straight.  If only 2% of the population self report to being homosexual then there must be another 8% to 20% who are afraid to self report because somehow you just know it has to because to 25%. 

 

Nope.  I wouldn't expect it to be anywhere close to those numbers.  But I do think it's likely higher than the 2% self-reported number.

[Walden]

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.

 

Of course there is propagandizing going on in the media.....media is, in it's essence and at it's core, just that, propaganda.

 

The definition of propaganda is "a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position." Media is the vehicle for corporations to influence your attitude toward their product and/or your purchasing habits. Media is the vehicle for organizations (including religions) to influence your political/social/moral views in order to gain some advantage.

 

We are surrounded by propaganda whether it be delivered via the internet, the television, the newspaper or by two well-dressed, young gentlemen at your door with a message that they'd like to deliver.

[Rock_N_Roll]

 

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.

 

Do you not believe that these percentages would decrease if gays were allowed (or even encouraged) to marry? Inferring at least some expectation of monogamy? 

[cinepro]

I was actually really surprised by the 30% figure.

I can't believe any sane person would believe that almost 1 in 3 adults are "homosexual". I don't doubt the survey data, but I doubt that the respondents were actually giving their answers any thought.

[cinepro]

Maybe because Hollywood is not reality? Hollywood is fictional....how else does one account for the plethora of overweight, quirky, unattractive TV dads with hot wives (see King of Queens, According to Jim, the Flintstones, Modern Family, etc.)

I'm sad (but also glad) to say that this characterization might not be too far off the mark for some real-life marriages.

[cinepro]

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.

I totally hate that about "Hollywood".

You know what else bugs me? I hate when I get a movie at Deseret Book and everyone in it is Mormon. I just want to yell at the film makers "Hey, when you made "The Singles Ward", did you realize that Mormons aren't 99% of the population?" And why were there no main characters in "17 Miracles" that were black when black people are like 15% of the population?

My point is that film makers of every stripe have been totally negligent in their responsibility to craft realistic, statistically sound character diversities in their shows, and we should not rest until every show represents the world population in gender, race, religion and sexual orientation.

[USU78]

Do you not believe that these percentages would decrease if gays were allowed (or even encouraged) to marry? Inferring at least some expectation of monogamy? 

 

No.

[EllenMaksoud]

This is making the media wonks' heads explode today:

 

 

A new comprehensive study by the CDC with over 33,000 participants has confirmed earlier estimates; less than 3 percent of the U.S. population self-identifies as gay, lesbian or bisexual. Earlier, much smaller-scale surveys have put that number at 4 percent.

The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), published July 15 by the CDC, was the first large-scale study of it’s kind. Data was collected from the Census Bureau, as The Washington Post reported, and 33,557 adults between the ages of 18 and 64 participated in the study, which included in-person interviews as well as follow-up phone questions.

The NHIS study found that, while 96.6 percent of adults identified as “straight”, 1.6 percent identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent called themselves bisexual. 1.1 percent responded “I don’t know” or said they were “something else” not listed.

That sure doesn’t sound like society according to Hollywood, or the news media, which have young Americans convinced 30 percent of the population is gay.

We've known for years that the 10% figure touted for so very long was, at best, wishful thinking.  Prior studies that at least pretended to scientific rigor put the number at anywhere from 1-3%.  1.6% seems about right, and I've yet to see any serious challenge to the CDC numbers.

 

What I have seen is headlines inflating the homosexuality numbers up to 2.3% . . . once again the media fudges by including those who self-identify as bisexual among homosexuals because it suits their purposes to have a much larger number than is justified by the data.

 

The most interesting and troubling aspect of this is the propaganda-induced delusion endemic in, especially, youth, that the 30% figure is somehow justified.

I had heard that homosexuality was around 10%, and considering our hedonistic culture, perhaps those who experiment and move on could total up to 30%. I seriously doubt the 1.6% figure is doubtful. I am not sure why we would give the CDC number more credence than other organizations.

[USU78]

The retired head of the CDC was a neighbor of mine when I lived in Farmington until a couple of years ago.  He had been a mission president in Africa and a 2nd Quorum Seventy.  He brought me up to speed on the organization.

 

The Centers for Disease Control [ http://www.cdc.gov/ ], by and large, should be considered at 8-10 on a reliability scale of 1-10.

[guerreiro9]

Why?

About which statement are you asking for more information?

-guerreiro9

[thesometimesaint]

 

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.

 

The US is hardly a representative sample of the world. World wide HIV is a heterosexual disease

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS

The most frequent mode of transmission of HIV is through sexual contact with an infected person.^[2] The majority of all transmissions worldwide occur through heterosexual contacts (i.e. sexual contacts between people of the opposite sex);^[2] however, the pattern of transmission varies significantly among countries. In the United States, as of 2009, most sexual transmission occurred in men who had sex with men,^[2] with this population accounting for 64% of all new cases.^[35]

[Stargazer]

Like I said.  We all see things from our own perspective.

Truth.

 

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.

Lawrence v. Texas didn't really make a big difference to me because I've always believed that laws against homosexual behavior were absurd, just as I feel now that "gay marriage" is absurd.. We used to have laws making male/female adultery a felonious offense for crying out loud, and even laws forbidding certain forms of sexual expression within marriage. When we started ignoring or repealing such laws, it became a foregone conclusion that eventually we would have to do away with the laws forbidding homosexual behavior as well. Nothing changes for me with regard to the violations of morality inherent in male/female adultery and fornication, nor that inherent in homosexual activity. It is all equivalent, and a violation of God's laws. But I have never felt that there was a good justification for secular law to forbid either kind of behavior.

My Uncle Art lived in a long-term gay relationship with his Uncle Bud, and though the rest of the family pretended they were just room-mates, it was clear to me at a young age what was up (this was back in the 70's - 80's). I suppose their relationship was illegal in two respects, the homosexual activity itself and the incestuousness, yet to me, they were consenting adults, and I just accepted it. Attaching the term "marriage" to their relationship would have changed nothing.

Marriage is a special relationship between a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of begetting and raising children. Regardless of exceptions where the couple is infertile, it is still the rule that men and women CAN produce children, but single sex couples CAN NOT. Not without involving a third party. And because the generation and rearing of children is essential to our species survival, it becometh the secular State, as a proxy for society at large, to regulate it for the good of society. Thus, proclaiming anything other than a heterosexual couple as married is absurd on its face. You can bring forward all the edge cases you like, but they do not disprove the rule, any more than any other exception to a general rule can.

As to why Prop 8 made a bigger splash than Lawrence v. Texas, I don't know. I personally believe that Lawrence did not make the splash because nearly everyone saw the justice in it, and were relieved that that particular absurdity was finally done away with. But Prop 8 involved the promulgation of what was generally seen as an absurdity, and that was the reason that made a bigger splash.

 

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.

Yes, I know it's a bad example. That's why I tried to suggest you put aside the legality of it. As if, for example, we were living in the Spartan state, where young boys were punished for getting caught stealing, and not for the act itself. Nevermind. I couldn't come up with a better analogy then, nor can I now.

 

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.

They shouldn't have been "interrupting" the Bible - I agree with you, there.

It is a fact that God commanded the Israelites to not intermarry with the pagan nations. No private interpretation was necessary.

But your claim that they said it would be the end of marriage, or the end of civilized society -- well, I'd CFR you on that, if I thought there was any point to it. Whoever said it would end marriage? Or society? Sounds like you're putting words in people's mouth.

The thing is, society has been regulating marriage for millenia. Both the secular and the spiritual segments of society have been regulating it, and for good reason. Just because you think that some particular segment of society (those darned "christians" with the scare-quotes) have no right to an opinion that differs from yours, doesn't make a darn bit of difference. If you don't care for the "christians" attempting to regulate marriage, would you prefer the Buddhists, or the Hindus, or the Pagans? None of these other religious traditions had or have any use for gay marriage -- I find it peculiar that you have a particular animus for "christian" opinions when even atheists have forbidden gay relationships, and still do not sanction gay marriage.

 

Sorry but it is the Greek Orthodox church that has stirred up all of the national publicity against gays in Russia.

I was talking about the communist state, when the Church had no voice and was suppressed.

 

There is actually some indications that China may very well allow gay marriage partly as a way to deal with their overpopulation.

I don't see how this helps. Gays don't have children anyway, whether one calls a relationship "marriage" or "friendship".

 

Why force gays to marry and have a child when the last thing China needs is more children.

At first I thought this was a ridiculous question, but then I reconsidered. The problem China is going to face is a shortage of fertile women (due to traditional pressures to have sons in the face of the One Child Policy), and this may lead to the authorities forcing gay women, at least, to marry men. With an overstock of men, however, the reverse won't be true -- given that almost all men will want a woman and not another man, and that there won't be enough women to go around. But if it is true that only 1% of Chinese women are gay, I don't think that any such problem will become apparent.

 

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.

Male homosexuality was illegal in the People's Republic of China from soon after Mao's takeover; it wasn't legalized until 1997, and wasn't taken off the list of mental illnesses until 2001.  It wasn't illegal for 70 years because of the Christian base, because there wasn't one.  Your suggestion that all this is because there's no Christian base to try to keep it illegal has about the same validity as claiming that the absence of elephants in my house has to do with the elephant repellent I've scattered about the place. 

 

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.

I don't think we are derailing the thread. We're not trying to discuss Joseph Smith's polygamy or something entirely off-topic, are we? Nope, we're discussing aspects of the OP, so it can't be a derail.  IMHO.

[rockpond]

About which statement are you asking for more information?

-guerreiro9

 

The two that I quoted.  I'll paste them here since we're on a new page now:

 

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.

 

And my question... Why?  Why only male/female?  (Which I think I probably know the answer to but am curious as to your personal reason.)  Why SINGLE male, SINGLE female?  And why should governmental benefits be substantially increased?

[california boy]

Truth.

 

Lawrence v. Texas didn't really make a big difference to me because I've always believed that laws against homosexual behavior were absurd, just as I feel now that "gay marriage" is absurd.. We used to have laws making male/female adultery a felonious offense for crying out loud, and even laws forbidding certain forms of sexual expression within marriage. When we started ignoring or repealing such laws, it became a foregone conclusion that eventually we would have to do away with the laws forbidding homosexual behavior as well. Nothing changes for me with regard to the violations of morality inherent in male/female adultery and fornication, nor that inherent in homosexual activity. It is all equivalent, and a violation of God's laws. But I have never felt that there was a good justification for secular law to forbid either kind of behavior.

My Uncle Art lived in a long-term gay relationship with his Uncle Bud, and though the rest of the family pretended they were just room-mates, it was clear to me at a young age what was up (this was back in the 70's - 80's). I suppose their relationship was illegal in two respects, the homosexual activity itself and the incestuousness, yet to me, they were consenting adults, and I just accepted it. Attaching the term "marriage" to their relationship would have changed nothing.

Marriage is a special relationship between a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of begetting and raising children. Regardless of exceptions where the couple is infertile, it is still the rule that men and women CAN produce children, but single sex couples CAN NOT. Not without involving a third party. And because the generation and rearing of children is essential to our species survival, it becometh the secular State, as a proxy for society at large, to regulate it for the good of society. Thus, proclaiming anything other than a heterosexual couple as married is absurd on its face. You can bring forward all the edge cases you like, but they do not disprove the rule, any more than any other exception to a general rule can.

As to why Prop 8 made a bigger splash than Lawrence v. Texas, I don't know. I personally believe that Lawrence did not make the splash because nearly everyone saw the justice in it, and were relieved that that particular absurdity was finally done away with. But Prop 8 involved the promulgation of what was generally seen as an absurdity, and that was the reason that made a bigger splash.

 

Yes, I know it's a bad example. That's why I tried to suggest you put aside the legality of it. As if, for example, we were living in the Spartan state, where young boys were punished for getting caught stealing, and not for the act itself. Nevermind. I couldn't come up with a better analogy then, nor can I now.

 

They shouldn't have been "interrupting" the Bible - I agree with you, there.

It is a fact that God commanded the Israelites to not intermarry with the pagan nations. No private interpretation was necessary.

But your claim that they said it would be the end of marriage, or the end of civilized society -- well, I'd CFR you on that, if I thought there was any point to it. Whoever said it would end marriage? Or society? Sounds like you're putting words in people's mouth.

The thing is, society has been regulating marriage for millenia. Both the secular and the spiritual segments of society have been regulating it, and for good reason. Just because you think that some particular segment of society (those darned "christians" with the scare-quotes) have no right to an opinion that differs from yours, doesn't make a darn bit of difference. If you don't care for the "christians" attempting to regulate marriage, would you prefer the Buddhists, or the Hindus, or the Pagans? None of these other religious traditions had or have any use for gay marriage -- I find it peculiar that you have a particular animus for "christian" opinions when even atheists have forbidden gay relationships, and still do not sanction gay marriage.

 

I was talking about the communist state, when the Church had no voice and was suppressed.

 

I don't see how this helps. Gays don't have children anyway, whether one calls a relationship "marriage" or "friendship".

 

At first I thought this was a ridiculous question, but then I reconsidered. The problem China is going to face is a shortage of fertile women (due to traditional pressures to have sons in the face of the One Child Policy), and this may lead to the authorities forcing gay women, at least, to marry men. With an overstock of men, however, the reverse won't be true -- given that almost all men will want a woman and not another man, and that there won't be enough women to go around. But if it is true that only 1% of Chinese women are gay, I don't think that any such problem will become apparent.

 

Male homosexuality was illegal in the People's Republic of China from soon after Mao's takeover; it wasn't legalized until 1997, and wasn't taken off the list of mental illnesses until 2001.  It wasn't illegal for 70 years because of the Christian base, because there wasn't one.  Your suggestion that all this is because there's no Christian base to try to keep it illegal has about the same validity as claiming that the absence of elephants in my house has to do with the elephant repellent I've scattered about the place. 

 

I don't think we are derailing the thread. We're not trying to discuss Joseph Smith's polygamy or something entirely off-topic, are we? Nope, we're discussing aspects of the OP, so it can't be a derail.  IMHO.

 

Thanks for your answer.  It was very thoughtfully written.  You did a good job in explaining the differences you have between Prop 8 and Lawrence vs Texas.  Certainly an interesting viewpoint.  And I realize you are only giving your opinion.  I am sure that you also realize that case, after case, after case on gay marriage have completely and fully rejected the whole idea that government should only legalize marriages that having children are a possibility.  It simply is not a criteria government uses in issuing marriage licenses.  It is not like increasing the population of the United States is a government goal.  It seems to happen quite naturally.

 

I think Christians should regulate marriage.  So should Buddhists, Hindus, and Pagans.  Heck lets throw in Quakers, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and any other religious group, as long as it is within their own congregations.  I don't think that anyone disagrees with that concept.  But  Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and every other group does not own the copyright on the word marriage nor has anyone given them authority in dictating to other groups how and who they should marry.  Certainly you would not want Muslins dictating to Mormons how and who they should include in their temple marriages.  Yet for some bazaar reason, there are some Christians that do indeed think they have the right to dictate the definition of marriage in America.  The courts have made it PERFECTLY clear they have no such right.  I don't think there is much to disagree about on this point.  Perhaps others have a different point of view, but that point of view does not line up with the laws of the land.

 

I am not implying that it is ONLY Christians that are trying to control the definition of marriage.  They are just the most active group in this country.

 

I just finished reading a 900 page book on Mao by Jung Chand and Jon Halliday.  Believe me, gays were way down the list of the over 13 million people Mao is responsible for killing.  A lot of groups were in his crosshairs.  There was no targeting of gays by Mao, at least in a concerted effort according to this very intense biography.  What does that mean?  Probably nothing.  But suppression of gays during Mao's reign has very little credence.  And certainly was not a political cause Mao took up.  And like I said, modern Comunist China is currently thinking about legalizing gay marriage.  

 

Acceptance of gay marriage is growing in China as well.  Over 30% of people in Bejing now support gay marriage.  The trend there is the same as in the United States, increasing support.  Like most countries, China has a history of at one time or another being much more accepting of homosexuals and even gay marriage.  China's antigay attitudes is a relative recent attitude, growing out of western and specifically Christian influence in the 1800's.  Before that time homosexuality was a fluid part of their sexual beliefs and practices.  There have even been times in China's past where they had SSM.  

[USU78]

I can't believe any sane person would believe that almost 1 in 3 adults are "homosexual". I don't doubt the survey data, but I doubt that the respondents were actually giving their answers any thought.

 

Such is the effect of propaganda.

[rockpond]

Such is the effect of propaganda.

 

Except that we haven't identified any propaganda that would make people think 30% of the population is gay.  So it could just as easily be math illiteracy.

[Brian 2.0]

Such is the effect of propaganda.

I ask again... What's the point? This is to both sides. What social, moral, or legal considerations would there be if the percentages were different?

[Stargazer]

Thanks for your answer.  It was very thoughtfully written.

I appreciate your insights on this, too, and am glad we can have a reasonable discussion on the subject.

You did a good job in explaining the differences you have between Prop 8 and Lawrence vs Texas.  Certainly an interesting viewpoint.  And I realize you are only giving your opinion.  I am sure that you also realize that case, after case, after case on gay marriage have completely and fully rejected the whole idea that government should only legalize marriages that having children are a possibility.  It simply is not a criteria government uses in issuing marriage licenses.  It is not like increasing the population of the United States is a government goal.  It seems to happen quite naturally.

Well, having not dug into the language of any of the decisions where this was raised as an argument, I don't know if you're correct about it being "completely and fully" rejected. But if we assume that this is the case, then I am completely and fully confused about the whole point of marriage. Why bother getting married if having children is not the purpose? You can still have sex and companionship without the necessity of that kind of committment. As was said to me by one of my sons, "We don't need a piece of paper from the government!"

Indeed! From the worldly male's point of view, sex without committment is the acme of relationship types.

So, why is it so important for gays? Is it simply a matter of compensation for having been treated as second-class persons for so long?

Historically, women have sought marriage because sex invariably resulted in children, and having children without a firm committment from a man to provide and protect meant that both mother and especially the children were in serious physical danger, unless they had an alternative support system. This is also why women are jealous if their husbands pay inordinate (or even any) attention to another woman. Men are jealous too, but for different reasons. Marriage, and especially marriage as enforced by society and the State, was woman's survival mechanism. And therefore, it was the survival system of the human race.

This is a fact quite apart from any judge's opinion. I would have said it is inarguable, except that since we in today's society we can now technologically turn off a woman's fertility, and the State may now provide critical support for fatherless children, the purpose of marriage has come into question. It has come so far into question that when the State starts saying that it can call homosexual relationships "marriage", then there quite simply is no purpose to it. It has become a string of glittering generalities, to quote an old opinion on an entirely different subject.

So, if is it true that the argument for marriage based on childbearing and -rearing has been found to be specious, marriage is nothing. Why bother?

This is why I believe that gay marriage is wrong. Aside from the absurdity of declaring a relationship that by its very nature cannot procreate a "marriage", when that is the institution's entire purpose.

I think Christians should regulate marriage.  So should Buddhists, Hindus, and Pagans.  Heck lets throw in Quakers, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and any other religious group, as long as it is within their own congregations.  I don't think that anyone disagrees with that concept.  But  Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and every other group does not own the copyright on the word marriage nor has anyone given them authority in dictating to other groups how and who they should marry.  Certainly you would not want Muslins dictating to Mormons how and who they should include in their temple marriages.  Yet for some bazaar reason, there are some Christians that do indeed think they have the right to dictate the definition of marriage in America.  The courts have made it PERFECTLY clear they have no such right.  I don't think there is much to disagree about on this point.  Perhaps others have a different point of view, but that point of view does not line up with the laws of the land.

When we first moved into the neighborhood we now live in, my wife encountered a young neighborhood drugee who seemed to think it was completely normal that everyone got high. He was amazed that were those who did not. You seem to have fallen into a similar trap, in that you cannot imagine that anyone can possibly dictate what marriage is. Have you perhaps forgotten that the effort to add gay relationships to the definition of marriage is, in itself, an attempt to dictate the definition of marriage? You're also falling for the trap that a few courts deciding for gay marriage means that courts everywhere have so decided, and therefore are led to the conclusion that there's nothing more to discuss: "...that point of view does not line up with the laws of the land." The fact that the vast majority of the states still do not recognize gay marriage as a right seems to have eluded you.

I'm not saying that it is impossible that gay marriage to become a fact from "sea to shining sea." I'm just saying that you have declared victory somewhat prematurely.

I am not implying that it is ONLY Christians that are trying to control the definition of marriage.  They are just the most active group in this country.

You could say, in fact, that the Christians are the only ones standing for Right.

 

I just finished reading a 900 page book on Mao by Jung Chand and Jon Halliday.  Believe me, gays were way down the list of the over 13 million people Mao is responsible for killing.

Not surprising, given that gays are only 1 - 2% of the population. If he had killed them all, it still would have been a comparatively small number compared to the rest. And those who were killed were at least perceived to be a danger to the State, whereas homosexuality in fact poses no such danger, per se.

A lot of groups were in his crosshairs.  There was no targeting of gays by Mao, at least in a concerted effort according to this very intense biography.  What does that mean?  Probably nothing.  But suppression of gays during Mao's reign has very little credence.  And certainly was not a political cause Mao took up.  And like I said, modern Comunist China is currently thinking about legalizing gay marriage.

Yet, homosexual behavior was illegal. I am sure that gays in Red China were just as conscious of the need to stay in the closet in Red China as they were in any other country where homosexuality was illegal. This isn't rocket science.

Acceptance of gay marriage is growing in China as well.  Over 30% of people in Bejing now support gay marriage.  The trend there is the same as in the United States, increasing support.  Like most countries, China has a history of at one time or another being much more accepting of homosexuals and even gay marriage.  China's antigay attitudes is a relative recent attitude, growing out of western and specifically Christian influence in the 1800's.  Before that time homosexuality was a fluid part of their sexual beliefs and practices.  There have even been times in China's past where they had SSM.

They may very well endorse gay marriage in China. I'm not saying they won't.

And yes, I had already read the article you cite. It's where I got some of the information I posted earlier.

[Stargazer]

I ask again... What's the point? This is to both sides. What social, moral, or legal considerations would there be if the percentages were different?

The point of bringing up that only 1-2% of the population is gay? Correcting misperceptions, perhaps?

If the majority thought the world were flat, then there might be a point to demonstrating that it isn't really flat.

Setting the record straight on a salient point, well, I think there IS a point to it.

[slamarwi]

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.

Depending upon how the information was gathered, self-reporting can be one of the most truthful and accurate methods of data collection.

[california boy]

I appreciate your insights on this, too, and am glad we can have a reasonable discussion on the subject.

Well, having not dug into the language of any of the decisions where this was raised as an argument, I don't know if you're correct about it being "completely and fully" rejected. But if we assume that this is the case, then I am completely and fully confused about the whole point of marriage. Why bother getting married if having children is not the purpose? You can still have sex and companionship without the necessity of that kind of committment. As was said to me by one of my sons, "We don't need a piece of paper from the government!"

Indeed! From the worldly male's point of view, sex without committment is the acme of relationship types.

So, why is it so important for gays? Is it simply a matter of compensation for having been treated as second-class persons for so long?

Historically, women have sought marriage because sex invariably resulted in children, and having children without a firm committment from a man to provide and protect meant that both mother and especially the children were in serious physical danger, unless they had an alternative support system. This is also why women are jealous if their husbands pay inordinate (or even any) attention to another woman. Men are jealous too, but for different reasons. Marriage, and especially marriage as enforced by society and the State, was woman's survival mechanism. And therefore, it was the survival system of the human race.

This is a fact quite apart from any judge's opinion. I would have said it is inarguable, except that since we in today's society we can now technologically turn off a woman's fertility, and the State may now provide critical support for fatherless children, the purpose of marriage has come into question. It has come so far into question that when the State starts saying that it can call homosexual relationships "marriage", then there quite simply is no purpose to it. It has become a string of glittering generalities, to quote an old opinion on an entirely different subject.

So, if is it true that the argument for marriage based on childbearing and -rearing has been found to be specious, marriage is nothing. Why bother?

This is why I believe that gay marriage is wrong. Aside from the absurdity of declaring a relationship that by its very nature cannot procreate a "marriage", when that is the institution's entire purpose.

When we first moved into the neighborhood we now live in, my wife encountered a young neighborhood drugee who seemed to think it was completely normal that everyone got high. He was amazed that were those who did not. You seem to have fallen into a similar trap, in that you cannot imagine that anyone can possibly dictate what marriage is. Have you perhaps forgotten that the effort to add gay relationships to the definition of marriage is, in itself, an attempt to dictate the definition of marriage? You're also falling for the trap that a few courts deciding for gay marriage means that courts everywhere have so decided, and therefore are led to the conclusion that there's nothing more to discuss: "...that point of view does not line up with the laws of the land." The fact that the vast majority of the states still do not recognize gay marriage as a right seems to have eluded you.

I'm not saying that it is impossible that gay marriage to become a fact from "sea to shining sea." I'm just saying that you have declared victory somewhat prematurely.

You could say, in fact, that the Christians are the only ones standing for Right.

 

Not surprising, given that gays are only 1 - 2% of the population. If he had killed them all, it still would have been a comparatively small number compared to the rest. And those who were killed were at least perceived to be a danger to the State, whereas homosexuality in fact poses no such danger, per se.

Yet, homosexual behavior was illegal. I am sure that gays in Red China were just as conscious of the need to stay in the closet in Red China as they were in any other country where homosexuality was illegal. This isn't rocket science.

They may very well endorse gay marriage in China. I'm not saying they won't.

And yes, I had already read the article you cite. It's where I got some of the information I posted earlier.

I guess I am a little surprised that you don't know anyone who has gotten married and is not interested in having children.  You must live in a very non-diverse area of the country.  Do you  realize that according to the U.S. census, only 25% of Americans live in a household consisting of a father, mother and children???  Your marriage and your view of life is a minority group in this country.  How could you possibly think the only reason people marry is to have children?  Are you as a member of the church really suggesting that couples either gay or straight should not bother with marriage unless they plan to have children??  I seem as baffled by your answer as you are by mine.  

 

You mention that you can still have sex and companionship without marriage.  That is true.  But what is also true is that you can still have children and even raise a family without getting married.  So why do people want to get married in your world when they decide to have children?  I think when you can answer that, you will understand why anyone, gay or straight want to get married even if they are not planning to have children.  Wanting to get married even if you don't want children is not a gay thing, it is a human thing.  With only 1% of the population being gay, there are a vastly bigger number of straight people marrying even if they don't want to have children.  Remember the 25% number.  

 

There must be more of a reason humans want to marry than JUST to have children.  If you and your spouse were unable to have children would you stay married?  If you found out before you were married that you or your spouse were not able and not even a hope to have children, would you have married anyway?  Heck, if you found out that your spouse was unable to ever have sex with you, would you have still married?  Or would have chosen to be celibate and single for the rest of your life.

 

You're also falling for the trap that a few courts deciding for gay marriage means that courts everywhere have so decided, and therefore are led to the conclusion that there's nothing more to discuss: "

 

 

 

 

At this point it is hardly a few courts.  It is EVERY court since Prop 8 passed 6 years ago.  In the last year alone,  U.S. district courts in Utah,^[8] Oklahoma,^[9] Virginia,^[10] Texas,^[11] Michigan,^[12]Idaho,^[13] Oregon,^[14] Pennsylvania,^[15] Wisconsin,^[16] Indiana,^[17] and Kentucky;^[18] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit;^[19][20] and state courts in Arkansas,^[21] Texas,^[22] Colorado,^[23] and Florida^[24] have found state constitutional amendments or statutes banning same-sex marriage to violate theConstitution of the United States. 

 

 

Actually I would suggest you at least looking at some of the rulings to understand why all of the courts are ruling the way they are.    In many of these cases, the defendants tried to make the argument that marriage was "about the children"  Not a single court accepted that viewpoint.  I don't think I will be able to sway you away from your opinions but perhaps at least from a civil point of view, these court cases will.  Just a suggestion.  Both liberal judges and conservative judges are not divided on this issue.  You gotta wonder why.

Edited July 20, 2014 by california boy

[USU78]

Depending upon how the information was gathered, self-reporting can be one of the most truthful and accurate methods of data collection.

 

When it comes to accounting for human motivations for saying things untrue in order to achieve personal ends, I cannot imagine a more untrue statement.