|
RagnarokAngel posted:Yeah, "there arent that many gay people" isn't really an attack in an of itself. The attack is that being justification for not giving them rights. Isn't this a self-defeating attack against anyone with the slightest bit of education regarding the nature of democracy and/or liberty? Its an argument that's so bad that it flags the one making it as lacking in any credibility whatsoever
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
To a Breitbart reader, the smaller a minority you are, the fewer rights you deserve. Unless it's a minority status related to The Right People with The Right Opinions, like homeschooling or growing luxuriant beards in accordance with Leviticus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
This is pretty awesome https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWb96RKii1k St. Louis Rams' Michael Sam was honored at the 2014 ESPY Awards with the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. It starts off with a short documentary about his life and then comes an incredible acceptance speech.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
tsa posted:Do you have some reason in particular to doubt the study? A whole lot. Do you honestly believe only 1% of people in America are LGBT? That's 3 million out of 300 million. Hell you might even get more LGBT people than 3 million by just combining metro NYC, LA & Chicago's total gay population alone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
I always thought the rate of homosexuality in the general population was estimated at around 12%. Then again, I think I heard that 10 years ago and haven't been checking the research because it doesn't actually matter
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
Back when I was in school there was a group called something like "The 10% society", and that's the number I've most commonly seen floated around since the first time I heard about LGBT issues many many years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Isn't this a self-defeating attack against anyone with the slightest bit of education regarding the nature of democracy and/or liberty? Its an argument that's so bad that it flags the one making it as lacking in any credibility whatsoever No, remember their common refrain is that they are the Silent Majority, that rights are a zero-sum game where more rights for minorities means fewer rights for white Christians, and therefore only members of a minority would support rights for that minority (and only because the real reason is hatred of white Christians and a desire to take their rights). Thus if we can prove gays are a fringe group of 1% of the population then they are obviously extremists who turn to unelected judges to impose their will after being rejected by the American People, or use mafia tactics to bully the people into voting their way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Thus if we can prove gays are a fringe group of 1% of the population then they are obviously extremists who turn to unelected judges to impose their will after being rejected by the American People, or use mafia tactics to bully the people into voting their way. Interestingly enough, we protect the rights of Jews, who are 1.7-2.6% of the population. And you can go down to even lower numbers for lots of smaller ethnic groups. But I'd honestly bet the people making a stink about this wouldn't mind sweeping those groups under the table either. The larger point is that rights aren't proprtional to the size of your group, at least not in decent liberal democracies. Also, has anyone looked at the methodology of the survey? Just the way the questions are asked can make a huge difference for groups that a) can easily make themselves less visible, and b) are strongly persecuted in some areas. If people think it would make a difference for gun owners (I personally doubt it, but I'd at least entertain looking at it closely) than it would follow that self-identification rates could be depressed by having the poller appear more hostile towards LGBT people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
No no, this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values so Jews are part of the Silent Majority. Not those fringe Jews who support abortion rights or social justice or other liberal causes mind you, only the Real Jews who agree with conservatives on everything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
What abortion rights? Jews are for mandatory abortions if the mother's health is at risk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
In my new attempt to be more positive (the news is helping too) it looks like Obama is putting up an EDNA lite for contractors with no religious exemption. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/obama-gay-rights_n_5600100.html I'll 100% eat crow on this, because I figured he'd fold like a cheap suit in the name of bipartisanship. I'm not happy that there's a carve out at all for religious charities, but it does affect around a fifth of the jobs out there in the overall economy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
quote:“[Religiously affiliated contractors] can use religion to only hire people who share your religion, but you can’t discriminate against someone who is of your faith who happens to be LGBT, unless they fall within the ministerial exception,” Apparently Chris Geidner was blackballed. Because if there's one way to stop a reporter from publishing leaks, it's locking him out of on-the-record conference calls.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:This isn't the worst thing. Wonder if it'll be cool to boot gay people and then ban them on religious grounds? As in, are you the religion you say you are or what other people say you are? It's yet another reason why the government shouldn't be funding this kind of stuff. Don't know enough about the guy to say if it's cool one way or another. Can someone fill me in on this guy? Buzzfeed is Koch poo poo usually, but I don't bother to follow their individual reporters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Citizen Link is scared about Gordon University and it is beautiful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_scqRIlGzs
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Citizen Link is scared about Gordon University and it is beautiful So the same thing that was done with stem cell research a decade ago? I guess what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:A whole lot. Do you honestly believe only 1% of people in America are LGBT? That's 3 million out of 300 million. Hell you might even get more LGBT people than 3 million by just combining metro NYC, LA & Chicago's total gay population alone. The study put it at 2.3 % w/ 1.1 % answering "don't know", as far as I know there's only one study that puts it much higher (around 7% in the IU study). The study had a pretty large sample size, so it's pretty unlikely it was off by much unless they made some huge mistakes somewhere, CDC is usually pretty good though. The full study is here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf e: rkajdi posted:Interestingly enough, we protect the rights of Jews, who are 1.7-2.6% of the population. And you can go down to even lower numbers for lots of smaller ethnic groups. But I'd honestly bet the people making a stink about this wouldn't mind sweeping those groups under the table either. The larger point is that rights aren't proprtional to the size of your group, at least not in decent liberal democracies. It was face to face so that may have had some impact, though it was with trained interviewers through the census bureau. The question in particular was ‘‘Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself?’’ With answers of quote:Gay, (lesbian or gay for women) tsa fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jul 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
tsa posted:The study put it at 2.3 % w/ 1.1 % answering "don't know", as far as I know there's only one study that puts it much higher (around 7% in the IU study). The study had a pretty large sample size, so it's pretty unlikely it was off by much unless they made some huge mistakes somewhere, CDC is usually pretty good though. So exactly the kind of thing that would intimidate someone-- the info is linked to your address and we've disregarded the anonymity of the census in the past to put people into camps. The UK uses 6% for public services numbers, and have surveys that show gay/lesbian + bi + other + "don't know/no answer" at 5%. Unless we think that LGBT population actually varies by nationality (and why would it?), I think the numbers have to be screwed up somewhere. Mostly likely due to people not wanting to be honest on the surveys, but who could really blame them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Don't know enough about the guy to say if it's cool one way or another. Can someone fill me in on this guy? Buzzfeed is Koch poo poo usually, but I don't bother to follow their individual reporters. Even if they lock him out of on-the-record meetings he's still the guy people leak stories to, including the email where the White House scolded LGBT orgs for leaking information to him. The White House looks dumb and petty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Geidner is the best reporter on LGBT legal news. He was one of the few people asking the Department of Labor what it was doing about the EEOC ruling on trans workers for the last two years. This led to another Buzzfeed reporter being excluded from a DOL press conference because they suspected he wasn't going to ask an on topic question. It's because they are dumb and petty. This is the same bullshit that blew up in their faces during the DADT circus and blackballing reporters just increases the chances that it will be picked up outside of LGBT media this time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Geidner is the best reporter on LGBT legal news. He was one of the few people asking the Department of Labor what it was doing about the EEOC ruling on trans workers for the last two years. This led to another Buzzfeed reporter being excluded from a DOL press conference because they suspected he wasn't going to ask an on topic question. Hunh. I wouldn't have guessed something two degrees removed from the Tea Party would have decent LGBT reporting. Is Obama doing this just out of politics, leaks, or what?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
Masterpiece Cake tears from Tony Perkins "If you think Colorado’s Masterpiece Cakes will give in to homosexual bullies, then you don’t know Jack. Jack Phillips, the owner of another Christian bakery under attack, is refusing to cave to the state’s ridiculous demands after he turned down an order for a same-sex 'wedding' cake. With help from our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom, the baker and his family are fighting Colorado’s order that he check his religious beliefs at the door of his business and participate in the same-sex 'marriages' Christianity rejects. "'Americans should not be forced by the government -- or by another citizen -- to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,' said attorney Nicholle Martin. 'This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.' "For now, the case heads to the Colorado Court of Appeals where Jack and ADF will battle for the religious freedoms the Supreme Court just upheld for companies like Hobby Lobby. 'If a couple were to come in and ask me to do an erotic cake for a wedding, I would refuse to do that as well. These are my personal standards taken from Jesus Christ and the Bible.' Good for Jack. He’s a living example of what the apostle Paul calls Christians to do in the face of persecution: stand. You can’t win if you don’t fight, and thank goodness ADF and the Phillips are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
With regard to self reporting, any look at a cross section of Grindr profiles will show that the amount of guys who claim to be straight but have sex with men, ie msm, is pretty high. I could easily believe that only 2% or whatever of people identify as LGB. Whether that would hold in a different cultural setting would be the bigger question. Identification isn't the same thing as same sex attraction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Yea 'identify' is different than 'yea I'll suck a dick' apparently because my grindr is constantly full of totally straight dudes who just wanna gently caress/get hosed by a dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yea 'identify' is different than 'yea I'll suck a dick' apparently because my grindr is constantly full of totally straight dudes who just wanna gently caress/get hosed by a dude. I think it demonstrates the degree to which there's still a stigma to being gay. It's not as bad as it was but people are still very reticent to accept being outside what's considered normal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:I think it demonstrates the degree to which there's still a stigma to being gay. It's not as bad as it was but people are still very reticent to accept being outside what's considered normal. Yea for sure there's still a heavy cloud of 'woah I don't want people to think I'm GAY' around it and that needs to be fought. These '% of people identify as...' topics for the LGBT community are always really thrown off by that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Also there are plenty of reasons why someone would lie about being straight and it's a really well known phenomenon. In the other direction apart from some bizarre hypothetical situations there's no reason a straight person would lie about being gay or bi. Or rather if there is and it's big enough to sway a study's results, we would have noticed it by now. So given two studies with different percentages, the one with the higher percentage likely has fewer problems with underreporting rather than the one with the higher percentages being driven by overreporting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
The whole concept of straightness is an interesting topic in and of itself. It's more than just same sex attraction, so many things not directly related to liking dudes go into being a straight guy. It's a whole big package of stereotypical masculinity that disciplines behavior. To not be straight is to be deviant. I would assume there's a similar situation w/r/t being a straight woman.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:With regard to self reporting, any look at a cross section of Grindr profiles will show that the amount of guys who claim to be straight but have sex with men, ie msm, is pretty high. I could easily believe that only 2% or whatever of people identify as LGB. Whether that would hold in a different cultural setting would be the bigger question. Identification isn't the same thing as same sex attraction. This reminds me of that study where people were shown a hypothetical plan for universal healthcare or something like that, and the exact same text got radically different percentages of the sample saying "yeah I'd vote for this" depending on whether it was labeled "Healthcare Reform", "Proposed Policy", or "Universal Healthcare." Turns out people can be weird about labels. Who knew? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yea 'identify' is different than 'yea I'll suck a dick' apparently because my grindr is constantly full of totally straight dudes who just wanna gently caress/get hosed by a dude. Not surprising. You also get shifts in identification for race too. Asking the question as more "Have you had or do you want to have sex with men?" would give you the MSM rate (and something similar for WSW), which seems a little more objective than the identity questions asked. Of course, that allows for the whole "ex-homosexual" garbage, but it would allow you to separate the act from the identity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Well, I've always thought that the extreme determinist narrative of sexuality was at least partially adopted for political reasons. It acted as a pretty good counter to claims of perversion or moral degeneracy. Hard to hate someone for something they are born being. But it might be that adopting that narrative keeps some people who have some same sex attraction from ever expressing that openly for fear of being labelled gay. I know Kinsey's methodology had problems, but I think there's probably some truth to the idea that same sex attraction probably happens in different levels for different people. Maybe more people would be willing to openly pursue same sex relationships, or identify as gay or bi, if there wasn't such a harsh divide in people's minds between gay and straight. E: Watch out Christians, once gay marriage is legal and accepted everywhere all your good heterosexual manly men are gonna find some stud to shack up with. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Jul 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:Well, I've always thought that the extreme determinist narrative of sexuality was at least partially adopted for political reasons. It acted as a pretty good counter to claims of perversion or moral degeneracy. Hard to hate someone for something they are born being. But it might be that adopting that narrative keeps some people who have some same sex attraction from ever expressing that openly for fear of being labelled gay. I know Kinsey's methodology had problems, but I think there's probably some truth to the idea that same sex attraction probably happens in different levels for different people. Maybe more people would be willing to openly pursue same sex relationships, or identify as gay or bi, if there wasn't such a harsh divide in people's minds between gay and straight. Yeah, I get the "born this way" thing as a powerful affirmation of identity and part of not fighting yourself but that and the whole 'have you tried not being straight' thing as a little... ceding the field. Like 'well I can't help being lactose intolerant or something so get off my back.' There's nothing inherently wrong with gay sex so why should it loving matter if it were a choice. IDK, I guess I'm coming at it from this weird place 'cause I'm big into history and the very casual nature of some of the Greek attitudes toward all this. Like, it's all sorts of hosed in other ways (particularly gender) but a dude loving a dude is kinda like... sure. Like there's this whole section in the Hellenika where the Spartan king's son is in this head over heels teen love thing with 'an especially handsome youth' but his lover's father is in some legal trouble. So the lover goes to the prince and the prince goes to the king and dad lets the guy off lightly and this causes some problems. And the moral of the story is 'if you're a king sometimes you should put the interests of the country ahead of your family.' Nothing to do with homosexual sex. Probably would have been weirder if it had been a heterosexual thing because a woman talking about that poo poo would have been really weird. Meanwhile there's no real word for gay. Sure everyone gets married and has kids, but that's family obligation barely related to sex and love, except that woman have to be faithful to men, again less due to 'morality' than the whole kids thing. Where was this going? Oh yeah, it's weird to be reading about a society mostly okay with lots of homosexual sex but no (recorded) equivalent to 'sexuality' as an identity marker outside of 'want' and 'do not want.'
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
And it is completequote:WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Monday signed an executive order banning workplace discrimination against millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees of federal contractors and the federal government. Some hilarious freak out quotes from Redstate quote:After today, a man can simply say “I am a Southern Baptist”, wearing a dress, high heels, and lipstick, while applying to work at Southern Baptist Convention Disaster Relief. If he is not hired, he can file a complaint, leading to cancellation of all federal funding for SBC. quote:It means that non-profit, religious groups, such as church-based daycare centers, adoption services, and soup kitchens will, in order to receive federal money, be forced to hire transgender and cross-dressing men and women, who don’t agree with the organization’s own values. In fact, they’ll be forced to hire people who work against the organization’s values and conscience. http://www.redstate.com/diary/lifeofgrace/2014/07/21/obama-non-profits-celebrate-lgbt-else/ Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Just imagine, we now live in a world where an innocent bathhouse owner must now hire a bunch of bible thumpers to mop up the santorum from the floors EVEN THOUGH THEY DONT AGREE WITH OUR VALUES because of our Dick-taker in Chief. Thanks, Obama
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Some hilarious freak out quotes from Redstate quote:I am finding it increasingly difficult to love my enemies and keep real hate out of my heart. It's hard to pray for that man and his minions and mean it. quote:I'm having the same problem. The only way I can look at this thing is that "bad examples" help us to changer our perception. America needs to wake up...and if there is anyone that points the people in an opposite direction...IT'S OBAMA. So...he does serve a purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:And it is complete Did the orders include the religious exemptions? The Advocate says no but AlJazeera says yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Did the orders include the religious exemptions? The Advocate says no but AlJazeera says yes. It's no. There's a thing that basically says, for example, a catholic group can favor other catholics for poo poo and that's a kinda sorta backdoor 'ok we agree on some poo poo right' thing but there is no way to claim religious exemption from the orders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Let us see how the hate groups are reacting: First is Tony Perkins of FRC quote:"This action is wrong on the merits, because it accepts the premise that distinctions based on actual conduct -- such as homosexual behavior and cross-dressing -- should be treated the same way as distinctions based on immutable and innocuous characteristics like race. This order gives activists a license to challenge their employers and, expose those contracted employers to threats of costly legal proceedings and the potential of jeopardizing future contracts. The order further burdens contractors by stripping away their right to set dress and grooming standards. All this amounts to viewpoint blackmail and bullies into silence those contractors and subcontractors who have moral objections to homosexual behavior. This morning President Obama told the assembled group of activists, 'We're on the right side of history.' Mr. President, being on the wrong side of the natural law is never being on the right side of history. The President is placing at risk not only faith-driven employers but religious groups such as relief organizations which sometimes put government dollars to work in uniquely effective ways. The President's refusal to completely exempt religious businesses from this executive order betrays his true agenda -- forcing his own conformist views upon everyone else, and making America less free in the process." Next is Brian Brown of National Organization Marriage quote:"The fact is that non-discrimination rules like the order issued by President Obama can become a weapon used to punish and harass individuals and groups who support marriage as the union of one man and one woman. As with the flawed ENDA legislation that was rejected by Congress, President Obama's order has the great potential of putting employers in the position of standing up for their faith values or violating the new order. This will unnecessarily subject people of faith to harassing complaints and lawsuits. All manner of frivolous lawsuits could result from an action like this, and that's a dangerous thing when the courts have already shown such a lack of restraint when it comes to the question of the definition of marriage. This is nothing more than an agenda to create a cultural narrative wherein the belief in marriage as the union of one man and one woman becomes the legal and social equivalent of bigotry or hate speech. It is the next step on a path we've already seen this administration proudly pursuing, a path toward a new thought-policing state where those who hold traditional values about marriage and family are to be marginalized." Next is Kristen Waggoner from Alliance Defending Freedom quote:“President Obama’s overreaching executive order is the latest example illustrating that the very government that the Constitution charges with protecting religious freedom is now the primary threat to religious freedom. The administration has brazenly bypassed Congress and declared that the only religious non-profit organizations it will do business with are those willing to line up with the administration’s doctrine and theology on sexual behavior. That’s the kind of government entanglement with religion that the Founders sought to prevent and that the First Amendment prohibits.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
I get that Tony Perkins is a grifter who runs a hate group, but it's not difficult to present the argument so regular people don't immediately dismiss it. There is plenty of room to complain about personal religious freedom and he keeps mentioning contracts before diving off a cliff into moral objection and natural law. These are supposed to be sincere, personal convictions based on the religious tradition of millions of Americans. Luntz that poo poo, you idiot! The NOM reaction hits nearly every bullet point while framing the order as persecution without admitting they believe LGBT people are a class like smokers. Nice work. The ADF response is adequate, but calling the Administration's viewpoint theology is a weird choice. It is not a great synonym for dogma.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:I get that Tony Perkins is a grifter who runs a hate group, but it's not difficult to present the argument so regular people don't immediately dismiss it. There is plenty of room to complain about personal religious freedom and he keeps mentioning contracts before diving off a cliff into moral objection and natural law. These are supposed to be sincere, personal convictions based on the religious tradition of millions of Americans. Luntz that poo poo, you idiot! Except arguments about marriage are really loving disingenuous since the order was about not being able to fire people for being LGBT. If they want to feel persecuted so badly, maybe we should start dragging evangelicals behind trucks for being Christian. Really give them something to feel persecuted about. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:Except arguments about marriage are really loving disingenuous since the order was about not being able to fire people for being LGBT. Throw them to the mountain lions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 04:03
|
|