Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[Schade]

What does homosexuality have to do with politics?

 

[Malanu]

I could make the obvious joke but I'll leave it up to you and your sense of humor to figure out the answer to this question.

 

[Sadib]

I could make the obvious joke but I'll leave it up to you and your sense of humor to figure out the answer to this question.

That was the funniest joke that I have never heard.

 

[mattj]

What does homosexuality have to do with politics?

I don't know how it is in Norway, but here in the US people attempt to pass and block laws forbidding and allowing homosexual marriage, and even in some historic cases the very act of homosexuality.

 

[Grei]

Here is the thing about debate, the problem is you cannot cite a friend. How do we know what your friend collect. Do we know if he is factual. He could be making things up off the top oh his head. (As said, we have continually provided information that homosexuality is somewhere between the 3% and 10% range.) Yes, most research findings are skewed, but that does not mean they are unreliable. The 20% you just described puts that margin 10-17% off of a margin that was only two to three percent off. It is for this reason that 20% is a very far-fetched number. One cannot just make a claim and say, "Well its not that far fetched, and my friend did a study about it in college." A college student has more of a chance of misrepresenting information than the government or university professors who have made it their life work to document these phenomena. I wouldn't discredit these people based on a personal belief. This is the reason i said your information is biased*. You have not presented any data that can compete with other data presented through this entire thread, thus your information is skewed and unreliable.

Lastly, it is easy to say how research findings are unreliable because a variables, but then you are just working to discredit science as a whole. If you are willingly to say the findings of people posted earlier in unreliable, you must accept the fact that your friends research is just as unreliable, if not more so based on the fact that he is one out of XXX amount of people willing to even state that homosexuality rates are that high.

Here you are assuming things again. Let me tell you something, pal. When you're in a debate, you do not discount your opponent with your own assumptions. First, you assumed that my data is biased. Mistake one. You do not assume that the other party is wrong just because they don't agree with you or your findings. Second, you assumed that my data was collected by my friend, when in actuality, it was told to me by my college professor with a doctorate in human psychology and an emphasis on human sexuality. Nobody pulled these numbers out of their ***.

Stop assuming things. It's making you look like a cocky 19-year old.

 

[Grey Wind]

They may be becoming more popular

I am literally lost for words.

That is about what I was saying. I brought in the popularity aspect to show how people can come up with extremely biasised numbers like 20%. Not only is there no proof of this (as all official test put the estimate around the world at 2-5 percent), but it is putting up a statistic that is directly misleading.

So um, you're saying an argument is invalid... because you don't agree with it? You can't tell someone that 20% is ridiculous just because. You have no data either, so don't act like your word is final. And 20%, while in my opinion is a little high, is not "rediculous". It's perfectly plausible that there may be that high of a number, or somewhere around that, but just because you seem to think that only 2% of people are homosexual doesn't mean that the number isn't 20%.

 

[mattj]

Either one of you link to evidence that the rate is 20%, or for the sake of this discussion it is not 20%. You can't just walk into a conversation in Debate and say "This is so!" without any proof. I say its 0%. Without proof my word is just as good as yours.

 

[Grey Wind]

Either one of you link to evidence that the rate is 20%, or for the sake of this discussion it is not 20%. You can't just walk into a conversation in Debate and say "This is so!" without any proof. I say its 0%. Without proof my word is just as good as yours.

That was like, our point. miles was saying that it can't be 20%, but he has nothing to back up his claim other than personal opinion. Sorry if my post came across as otherwise.

 

[miles0624]

Here you are assuming things again. Let me tell you something, pal. When you're in a debate, you do not discount your opponent with your own assumptions. First, you assumed that my data is biased. Mistake one. You do not assume that the other party is wrong just because they don't agree with you or your findings. Second, you assumed that my data was collected by my friend, when in actuality, it was told to me by my college professor with a doctorate in human psychology and an emphasis on human sexuality. Nobody pulled these numbers out of their ***.

Stop assuming things. It's making you look like a cocky 19-year old.

Don't you love when someone tries to tell you they are right, by telling you how to debate. I love this. Let me rebuttal,

1. I basically used everything you said to my advantage. If what I said is assumptions, then you must accept that you are also making assumptions, as you have no proof.

2. I am not assuming you are wrong because I disagree with you, I am saying you are wrong because your claims as baseless.

3. Can you make up your mind, was it a friend, or a college professor, because:

Unfortunately, I cannot. I've only ever heard this information from a friend who did research on it in college. I was bringing it up solely for us to consider as something else to confound the statistics regarding sexuality.

This is a person who, not only we cannot quote, but we also have to go on heresay. Also, continuing on this thought, did you not see what we told Viz on the Martin Zimmerman thread. We cannot use your views on your "professor's," we can only go on what you can prove, which, as you said earlier, you cannot.

I am literally lost for words.


So um, you're saying an argument is invalid... because you don't agree with it? You can't tell someone that 20% is ridiculous just because. You have no data either, so don't act like your word is final. And 20%, while in my opinion is a little high, is not "rediculous". It's perfectly plausible that there may be that high of a number, or somewhere around that, but just because you seem to think that only 2% of people are homosexual doesn't mean that the number isn't 20%.

Sapphire Sceptile, why are you at a loss for words? Can you honestly say that homosexuals aren't becoming more accepted. If they aren't, then I am shocked.

2. I have posted data continuously throughout this thread to support my information. (Something that you guys continuously ignore, and I have stopped reposting for the people such as yourselves who won't go back and read a few pages, but I will post it again, just for good measure.) Actually, I didn't say I think, I said statistics say ..., FYI.

MattJ, I haven't posted anything again because, like I said earlier, I would think someone would look into the debate before posting, but apparently, I was wrong (Hell, I posted the government link earlier in this thread, which these two decided to ignore.) Which Grei, this gives me the right to look like a "cocky nineteen year-old". As of the fact I can back my evidence and you can't.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/gay-population-us-estimate_n_846348.html

Here is a place from Huffington Post. Gates is demographer-in-residence at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles. So he would have the same ranking as your professor who is not named. He estimates that 1.7 million calls themselves LGBT while also saying that 8.4 people would have engaged in those acts. (We can give a two-three percent margin of error, which bring this to a max of 12% engaging in sax sex acts, way less than 20%.

Now, to help you, I also listed a gallup poll that put the percentage at 25%. NOTE: This was a poll where they asked people what they thought the percentage was. Specifically, a little more than fifty percent of people believe it is somewhere near 25%. I can't relocate the thing, but I need to find it. However, this is on what people believe (we have no clue who they interviewed, how random was the samplying, of the bases for their thoughts.)

Another one I posted somewhere in this thread was a study done by LGBT themselves, which is where they estimated the total to be around 1/10 (10%); this makes a max of thirteen percent, (which again, is so far less than 20 %. Considering they are as biased as you can get. >.>)

The CDC (Center for Disease Control) has the total at 4% . You can find this here. I think there studies would trump all, but lets continue.

The Telegraph in the Uk estimates that one in sixteen Britains are Homosexual. While still a paper, and I am in America, I have seen information from them before, and they have been a trustworthy source.

I'm sorry Saphire, but like I said, I have posted my sources in this thread while you guys did not. I have proved my opinion (which as you see is not personal, but actually factually based.) Yet, you guys keep saying what you feel, so who is actually in the wrong. (I am a little cross with you because you are accusing me of doing something, when it was actually you who are making assumptions.

I'm sorry Grei, it does seem like you pulled these numbers out of your ***, and because of this, I do have the ability to be cocky against you. (Also, it might be prudent to read a person's previous post in a thread to see if they had actually posted information before making your false "assumptions". Have a great day.)

Lastly Grei, usually, if you feel the need to correct someone's debating skill, you really need to be careful with who you call cocky. =p

 

[Sadib]

Can someone tell me what percent of people are gay and what percent is bi?

I feel somewhat responsible for derailing this thread by asking this question.

 

[Grey Wind]

Sapphire Sceptile, why are you at a loss for words? Can you honestly say that homosexuals aren't becoming more accepted. If they aren't, then I am shocked.

Saying that homosexuality is becoming more popular implies that it's becoming popular in the same sense that a video game would. It's just worded horribly.

2. I have posted data continuously throughout this thread to support my information. (Something that you guys continuously ignore, and I have stopped reposting for the people such as yourselves who won't go back and read a few pages, but I will post it again, just for good measure.) Actually, I didn't say I think, I said statistics say ..., FYI.

A quick scan over your posts in this thread shows that you've never posted data, and certainly not in regards to the current topic. You can't expect someone to read through an entire debate just to look for sources that you didn't even post. This is the first time this topic has come up here, so why would I search the thread just in case you had sources in some random post here?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/gay-population-us-estimate_n_846348.html

Here is a place from Huffington Post. Gates is demographer-in-residence at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles. So he would have the same ranking as your professor who is not named. He estimates that 1.7 million calls themselves LGBT while also saying that 8.4 people would have engaged in those acts. (We can give a two-three percent margin of error, which bring this to a max of 12% engaging in sax sex acts, way less than 20%.

You're missing the point. I never claimed that it was definitely 20%. You said that it was 2-3%, and nowhere near 20%, which was just your opinion as you had posted no numbers throughout recent posts, or the thread for that matter. Posting now just to say that it's supposedly 13% is irrelevant.

The CDC (Center for Disease Control) has the total at 4% . You can find this here. I think there studies would trump all, but lets continue.

You might want to read the link you posted. CDC estimate that 4% of men are MSM. It was an estimation. And anyway, MSM is the term to describe a man who has sex with other men, but doesn't label himself as gay. The rest of that article has to do with HIV percentages.

I'm sorry Saphire, but like I said, I have posted my sources in this thread while you guys did not

Again, the point is flying over your head. You never posted any links in this thread, and I actually went back to check. You were the one claiming that only 2% of people were homosexual, and that it couldn't possibly be anywhere near 20%, but you had never posted any sort of source for it. That is what we called you out on. We never posted any numbers, we just told you that you can't post your numbers without any back up.

Even if you had posted sources in the thread, were we really expected to read through all of the thread to find them? Did you read through all of Grei's posts to check if he posted any sources for his apparent claims?

Again, we're not claiming to know what the true percentage is. All we're saying is that you can't claim that it's 2% without any source (and the "sources" that you did post didn't prove your opinion anyway).

 

[miles0624]

Saying that homosexuality is becoming more popular implies that it's becoming popular in the same sense that a video game would. It's just worded horribly.


A quick scan over your posts in this thread shows that you've never posted data, and certainly not in regards to the current topic. You can't expect someone to read through an entire debate just to look for sources that you didn't even post. This is the first time this topic has come up here, so why would I search the thread just in case you had sources in some random post here?


You're missing the point. I never claimed that it was definitely 20%. You said that it was 2-3%, and nowhere near 20%, which was just your opinion as you had posted no numbers throughout recent posts, or the thread for that matter. Posting now just to say that it's supposedly 13% is irrelevant.


You might want to read the link you posted. CDC estimate that 4% of men are MSM. It was an estimation. And anyway, MSM is the term to describe a man who has sex with other men, but doesn't label himself as gay. The rest of that article has to do with HIV percentages.


Again, the point is flying over your head. You never posted any links in this thread, and I actually went back to check. You were the one claiming that only 2% of people were homosexual, and that it couldn't possibly be anywhere near 20%, but you had never posted any sort of source for it. That is what we called you out on. We never posted any numbers, we just told you that you can't post your numbers without any back up.

Even if you had posted sources in the thread, were we really expected to read through all of the thread to find them? Did you read through all of Grei's posts to check if he posted any sources for his apparent claims?

Again, we're not claiming to know what the true percentage is. All we're saying is that you can't claim that it's 2% without any source (and the "sources" that you did post didn't prove your opinion anyway).

Ok. To start off, I have somethings to apologize for:

First, I am sorry, apparently I didn't post my sources. I have been in alot of these debates about homosexuality in these forums, and I kind of ran them together. So sorry for stating information without posting my basis.

Second, I thought I had put the word popular in a good enough context for you to understand the change in the words diction. I didn't provide enough information to make this understandable, so once again I apologize. Please accept these. Now back to the debate.

You're missing the point. I never claimed that it was definitely 20%. You said that it was 2-3%, and nowhere near 20%, which was just your opinion as you had posted no numbers throughout recent posts, or the thread for that matter. Posting now just to say that it's supposedly 13% is irrelevant.

Actually, that is the point. You and Grei are defending the point that the actual number is somewhere near 20%. I made the statement that, it was lower, and indeed nowhere near twenty percent. To make up for my mistake, I brought in some outside resources. (Note, I said that the margin of error could lead it to 13%. The actual source is 8.2 percent, which is actually closer to my side. Actually, let me quote my original post, in response to Marioguy's question.

Actually, there are mixed numbers, so it depends on who you want to believe.

If you go to the California homosexuals, they say about ten percent.

If you go with the U.S. estimate, it is 2-3 percent of men are homosexual/bi and 2% of women. It is estimate however that nine percent of men, and five percent of women have had a homosexual experience though.

So that 8.2 percent of people have had a sexual experience is right along my first post. Question: How are you going to dictate what is relevant and irrelevant. You asked for sources, so I gave your sources. So now that you have the sources, they aren't usable? Did you even listen to what you typed?

Lastly on this point, you said that you never claimed it was twenty percent. Would you argue its higher or lower? My argument is that, in now way is the population near twenty percent (1 out of every five people you see) being homosexual. Which statistics show, it is nowhere close, based off of a person who's "friend" said it was that high, and no backing information. You are arguing the point with him, thus, arguing that it can, in fact be that high, which I am refuting, based one the argument that you cannot provide information that helps in your case.

Also, by your own words, if you were to bring in information, it would be irrelevant to this debate. Thus, because we aren't allowed to bring in new information, we are at an impass where we would have to agree to disagree. (I would be careful what you call irrelevant, for this is not the huffington posts own argument, they are quoting the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, in which they said that 1.7 percent of adults identify as homosexuals -which is close to the 2-3 percent ration- while 8.2 percent have been in homosexual actions, which where later, you will see nine percent of men, and five percent of women have been in homosexual situations.)

You might want to read the link you posted. CDC estimate that 4% of men are MSM. It was an estimation. And anyway, MSM is the term to describe a man who has sex with other men, but doesn't label himself as gay. The rest of that article has to do with HIV percentages.

CDC is the center for control and disease, so of course it will not have just the estimates. I used this source to show how it could be at eight percent. (This takes in the two percent that identify as homosexuals, the four percent mentioned in the article, and then adding a margin of error.) Again, estimates and statistics are the only things we can go on, for we can't put a camera in everyone's mind to see whether or not we constitute them as what we consider homosexual.

Again, the point is flying over your head. You never posted any links in this thread, and I actually went back to check. You were the one claiming that only 2% of people were homosexual, and that it couldn't possibly be anywhere near 20%, but you had never posted any sort of source for it. That is what we called you out on. We never posted any numbers, we just told you that you can't post your numbers without any back up.

Even if you had posted sources in the thread, were we really expected to read through all of the thread to find them? Did you read through all of Grei's posts to check if he posted any sources for his apparent claims?

Again, we're not claiming to know what the true percentage is. All we're saying is that you can't claim that it's 2% without any source (and the "sources" that you did post didn't prove your opinion anyway).

Again, I apologize. I thought, for some reason, I had posted sources in this thread.

Second, I am calling you out on where is the evidence that it can be as high as 20%. Telling me that I can't post any numbers without backup does not justify you two posting numbers without backup. We were both in the wrong.

Third, I did read through Grei's post, where he did not post any information. That is why I was saying how can he make such baseless claims that and I quote,

"I've seen sources where homosexuals are in the 20% range (which is WAY more believable, because the nation is definitely not 2% homosexual. That estimate isn't correct) and where bisexuals are in the 45% range. Of course, this is flawed in a number of ways, mostly because people have a tendency to lie to themselves, and because the samples taken could simply be a weird group.

In actuality, I was the first one called out without any evidence, and then told I was incorrect. (Which is a double standard, if I might add.) I really want to see this twenty percent estimate, and forty-five percent estimate that says the a bunch of universities, the U.s government and many others are wrong.

In conclusion, I love how you guys automatically assumed that I believe it is at 2-3 percent, when in fact, I was quoting the government. Please tell me where I actually said where my belief in the percentage is in this thread. All I said, in response to Grei's response to me, is that it is nowhere near twenty percent.


Edit: Marioguy, you did not derail the thread, you actually kept it alive by giving us a new topic to add onto. So don't be sorry, you actually caused us to have a bit more fun.

Edit 2: Just realized there is another part of this debate I am skipping.

Any politcal group except the republicans and the democrats are basicly of nonimportantce, they can't do anything because the undemocratic 2 party system.

7 Tyranitars, can't you argue though that a new political group has to emerge? The whigs fell from grace, so why can't the democrats/Republicans. All this strife could lead to an opening where the LGBT community can start a new political party.

I personally believe that they will become the next version of the NAACP. They have all the capabilities, and a reasonable following. So, I think that assumption would be justified. Don't you guys agree?

 

[Ambre]

Saying that homosexuality is becoming more popular implies that it's becoming popular in the same sense that a video game would. It's just worded horribly.


A quick scan over your posts in this thread shows that you've never posted data, and certainly not in regards to the current topic. You can't expect someone to read through an entire debate just to look for sources that you didn't even post. This is the first time this topic has come up here, so why would I search the thread just in case you had sources in some random post here?


You're missing the point. I never claimed that it was definitely 20%. You said that it was 2-3%, and nowhere near 20%, which was just your opinion as you had posted no numbers throughout recent posts, or the thread for that matter. Posting now just to say that it's supposedly 13% is irrelevant.


You might want to read the link you posted. CDC estimate that 4% of men are MSM. It was an estimation. And anyway, MSM is the term to describe a man who has sex with other men, but doesn't label himself as gay. The rest of that article has to do with HIV percentages.


Again, the point is flying over your head. You never posted any links in this thread, and I actually went back to check. You were the one claiming that only 2% of people were homosexual, and that it couldn't possibly be anywhere near 20%, but you had never posted any sort of source for it. That is what we called you out on. We never posted any numbers, we just told you that you can't post your numbers without any back up.

Even if you had posted sources in the thread, were we really expected to read through all of the thread to find them? Did you read through all of Grei's posts to check if he posted any sources for his apparent claims?

Again, we're not claiming to know what the true percentage is. All we're saying is that you can't claim that it's 2% without any source (and the "sources" that you did post didn't prove your opinion anyway).

OK, so LOL at this whole entire post. Sapphire, please say what you and Grei want. You want information, then when someone post it, you don't want it anymore. Let's look at one of Grei's earlier responses.

That said, however, statistics and research are so often incorrect that it hardly makes a difference. When collecting data from humans there are so many variables that may go into the data that research findings are very often skewed and unreliable.

So are you guys implying that Miles' sourcers are "skewed and unreliable," yet, I cannot find a source that says anything near twenty percent. (Although, the gallup poll magazine could help you, but it is most unreliable. I found thesource.

Are you guys just against presenting of evidence that is against your opinion (which generates the term biased), or are you just unwilling to accept new information.

Also, it doesn't matter you claim, you are arguing for that point. Thats like saying "Here are Atheism's main points, but I don't believe in it, therefore, I can't be held accountable for providing sources." Really. Come on, you can do better than that.

Lastly, you guys were the ones to refute Miles' claim without producing any evidence, which really makes you guys seem like cocky brats (in response to Grei's terms against Miles. Sappire, not aimed at you, just a Grei.)

Grei, this is basically what you did, (Miles, you did no better.) You came in an tried to refute a claim with your own claim. Both of you argued claims without any evidence. Miles called you biased (rightfully so might I add.), you called him cocky (both of you were.) Then you (Grei) want to be hypocritical an assumptions and evidence, while you yourself were doing the same exact thing. Miles then posted evidence, even skewing it a bit to show the max, and then you Sapphire, say it is invalid because he introduced evidence that backs up his claims? Am I missing something. Sapphire, his information is not invalid because you believe so. It is very much valid. It is now up to you to refute his claims as false with information you can provide.

*Sides with Miles because he has actually did some research, and stopped going on heresay.*

Wow, just looked at the last sentence. By your own definition of claim, Miles hasn't claimed two percent either. Actually

That is about what I was saying. I brought in the popularity aspect to show how people can come up with extremely biasised numbers like 20%. Not only is there no proof of this (as all official test put the estimate around the world at 2-5 percent), but it is putting up a statistic that is directly misleading.

In response to Tyranitars 5-10 percent stastic.

Now, if you were debating about regions, I could accept your twenty (or near) percentage. As of you haven't showed anything yet, this is not flying with me. Just my two cents. I may actually join in this debate.

Question, if I were to bring in information, but I already posted, does that make my information "irrelevant." (Do you not see the utter failure in this statement.) Ok guys, remember this is a debate forum, lets not try to make this too personal (looks at Grei.)

Edit: As for the other part, wouldn't that make the LGBT a joke.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Yeah, basically what happened was that both sides that were assuming something started yelling at each other to provide proof that neither of them really promised. This could be avoided with a little more humility and less attacks on someone's debating style and their history of providing links, which are really just ad hominem, attempt to discredit the person instead of the argument. And if you want to cite someone you know, you've got to provide a link to a study or a ISBN for their book, or something, or else it doesn't exist to us. Just common sense. : /

And no marioguy, this isn't your fault, you brought up a pretty good conversation. And are we sure LGBT doesn't have a political party already?

I think 100% of the population is gay. (Except for aesexuals, I guess.) Comedian Ron White makes this point quite well.

 

[miles0624]

Yeah, basically what happened was that both sides that were assuming something started yelling at each other to provide proof that neither of them really promised. This could be avoided with a little more humility and less attacks on someone's debating style and their history of providing links, which are really just ad hominem, attempt to discredit the person instead of the argument. And if you want to cite someone you know, you've got to provide a link to a study or a ISBN for their book, or something, or else it doesn't exist to us. Just common sense. : /

And no marioguy, this isn't your fault, you brought up a pretty good conversation. And are we sure LGBT doesn't have a political party already?

I think 100% of the population is gay. (Except for aesexuals, I guess.) Comedian Ron White makes this point quite well.

But I posted links, that were discredited on the fact that I posted links. =p

Also Marioguy, you shouldn't feel bad. Sorry if we made you feel this way.

Further, that video made me rofl.

Lastly, I think they define themselves as an entity. I haven't seen anything to suggest that they're a party.

 

[xDWarrior]

What does homosexuality have to do with politics?

Ideally nothing.

 

[atypicalorca]

This is a topic that I don't really have a lot to say about, because in my own mind, it's really simple.

Other people's sexuality has nothing to do with anyone but the people involved. So I think it's pointless to be angry/upset at someone for their sexuality, be it for being gay, having rape fantasies, or being sexually attracted to toasters. It has nothing to do with me, so I don't worry about it.
With this mindset, whether or not being gay is "natural" is irrelevant, too.

Some might say that seeing gay affection in public would bother them, and it therefore has something to do with them. Well...straight couples engage in PDA all the time. Either we all get to have PDA, or none of us get to have it. That's the only way it's going to be fair.
Related to that, there's also the "I don't care if you're gay, just don't shove it in my face" thing. Well, what's stopping gay couples from saying "I don't care if you're straight, just don't shove it in my face"? Nothing.

As far as the churches go, I think it would be fair to respect the feelings of churches who do not want to marry gay couples. If it makes them uncomfortable, then it makes them uncomfortable. *shrug* Nothing anyone can do about that.

I guess my view mostly deals with being equal politically (everyone gets to get married) and respectful emotionally (no yelling at people with different views than you). *another shrug*

 

[Sadib]

Obama said he supported gay marriage today. I don't see how this would help with his reelection. Most people who are pro-gay were already on Obama's side.

 

[Silver Soul]

Well, Obama certainly made history as the very first president to officially support gay marriage. As Shep Smith of Fox News say, Obama is now in the 21st Century and the GOP would be on "the wrong side of history" if they campaign against same-sex marriage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/shep-smith-obama-21st-century-gay-marriage_n_1503849.html

 

[1rkhachatryan]

Gotta give some love to Obama man, I'm happy we got a president who will finally admit that gays deserve the same rights .

Thanks Obama, we appreciate it!!!