Omaha Mall Shooting

Pages

AuthorTopic: Omaha Mall Shooting
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #281
Apparently, Stillness is stating that marriage is a moral issue. Why is that even true? Who decided that people deciding how and with whom to form partnerships in life is a moral issue? I don't see where Stillness is deriving his moral opinion apart from the fact the Jehovah is quoted as having made some comments on the issue here and there. Just stating that it is moral which people choose to partner and form long-term bonds together implicitly implies discrimination.

I once again state that marriage is a completely arbitrary construct of social tradition, shaped and confined for millennia largely by religious forces. The government should not be involved in the morality of marriage. To do so is to take a religious stance. Only a religious position could require you to take a moral stance on who is approved to love and form partnership in life. There is no other compelling reason to favor some and not others, and I'm still not sure what Stillness' stance is based upon. Actually, I am, but he won't admit he has no other useful reason to discriminate against homosexual marriage except for what is contained in the Bible.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator N:R Items The Lonely Celt A5 Items A5 Map
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #282
quote:
Originally written by Fernication:

According to that reasoning, Stillness, then any opposite sex-pairing incapable of doing those two things should not get government marriage benefits. Because then they would not be any more "naturally different" than a non-opposite sex-pairing. Right?
Fernication, Do you think I’m arguing for or against recognition of same-sex marriage? I’m not.

My argument is that any marriage that’s not an opposite-sex pairing is different from an opposite sex pairing, which is legal, recognized, and perceived (by some) to be a good thing for society. Since any other kind of “marriage” is not the same, 'Heterosexual marriage is recognized, therefore any other kind of marriage should be too' is not a logical argument. For this argument to fly you need sameness.

If you feel that a woman should be able to marry a pride of lions, you’ll find no argument here. If you equate this or anything else that’s not heterosexual pairing to heterosexual marriage, I’ll call you illogical.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Kel, the point is that same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex unions.
I ask again what that has to do with marriage. If they differ, but do not differ in any way related to marriage, then they should be treated the same way with respect to marriage…In the same way, same-sex partnership is not identical to opposite-sex partnership, but in what way is the difference significant?

Discrimination (in the broad sense) based on irrelevant factors, such as race, is wrong. How is the sex of the two partners relevant to marriage?

From World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia 2003 Edition
“Most couples decide to marry because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. A man and woman who marry usually hope to share a special sexual relationship and a permanent romantic attraction. But each hopes the other will always be a close friend as well. Each also expects the other to help with many problems and to share certain responsibilities. These responsibilities include earning a living, budgeting money, paying bills, preparing meals, and taking care of a home.

Most couples who marry plan to have children and to raise them together. A husband and wife are required by law to protect and care for their children. Marriage thus serves as the basis of family life (see FAMILY).”
[emphasis mine]

Now, I freely admit that this encyclopedia is not winning any awards for anything, but it seems you are a bit off about sex and children. But even if a couple don’t have sex or children, the government still recognizes them as married for whatever reasons. If you are making an argument for a different type of union to be recognized, make it a logical one. If you say they love each other just like heterosexuals and that’s good enough, then let that be your argument.

And no person is identical to any other person, even if they're twins. “Black” and “white” are arbitrary ways of distinguishing, just like “short” and “tall.”

-----

quote:
Originally written by Dikiyoba:

May I suggest reading the Wikipedia article on intersexuality?
Yes you may. Very interesting.

-----

Drew, You and Alec made claims on the first amendment. I replied:

The government can’t interfere, but is it obligated to recognize religious status. I’m not an expert on the Constitution, but if I made a religion that had the rank “Chief of Police” would the government recognize me as the Chief secularly? I think they’d say, “Call yourself whatever you want, but we ain’t buyin’ it.” If my religion is polygamous I can have all the “wives” I want, but if I try to legalize the marriages I get locked up right?

If I’m wrong, enlighten me, but it doesn’t seem that the government recognizes anything that they don’t see as beneficial to society.


and

I don’t think the government’s treatment of marriage makes for inequality or takes away liberty. You can have a union with 2 men and 2 women so that each bisexual will have a way to fully express themselves, have a ceremony, a reception, live in a house together or whatever you want. The government not recognizing you doesn’t stop any of that. Does the Constitution say the government has to recognize every decision that a person makes?

-----

quote:
Originally written by Airborne Stages:

Biology has shown genetic and epigenetic factors that contribute to a homosexual phenotype.
In humans? Can you refer me to this information, in particular the genetic. Last I heard, they were looking for the “gay-genes” in humans and coming up empty or inconclusive.

Alo, Why do you keep saying that sex and marriage is not about sex or children? Those are the very reasons people get married. Throw in some love and you have the trifecta. I doubt very many people would get married to someone they didn’t love, want to have sex with, or have children with for some tax breaks. What do you think marriage is about?

quote:
same-sex marriages are different because men and women are different. Discrimination based on sex or gender is illegal, however. How is marriage different?
Individuals have genders. Marriages do not, so you can’t discriminate between marriages based on the gender of the marriage.

I’m glad you asked this question, because it illustrates what I was saying about equating things that are not equal.

quote:
You are being asked to justify putting the cutoff where you think it should be (or where evangelicals think it should be).
I don’t have an opinion on what should be decided by the states. And unlike Thuryl, I’m not playing Devil’s advocate (by the way Thuryl, what are you trying to imply?) because I’m not familiar with all of the arguments that evangelicals use.

I don’t think this is going to satisfy you. I think you need a conservative evangelical to really sink your teeth into. Sorry I can’t be that for you. :( You could attack my religious belief that anything besides an opposite sex marriage is not a real marriage! :)
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #283
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

From World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia 2003 Edition
“Most couples decide to marry because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. A man and woman who marry usually hope to share a special sexual relationship and a permanent romantic attraction. But each hopes the other will always be a close friend as well. Each also expects the other to help with many problems and to share certain responsibilities. These responsibilities include earning a living, budgeting money, paying bills, preparing meals, and taking care of a home.
It is possible for same-sex couples to have sex and (obviously) a permanent romantic attraction. The exact anatomical nature of the intercourse is not significant to marriage, any more than the position in which opposite-sex partners conduct their relations.

quote:
[i]Most couples who marry plan to have children and to raise them together. A husband and wife are required by law to protect and care for their children. Marriage thus serves as the basis of family life (see FAMILY).”[/i] [emphasis mine]
Same-sex couples can certainly adopt, and many opposite-sex couples also adopt instead of having children with each other. This is a some-of-the-time difference, not an all-of-the-time difference (just as a statistical correlation between educational level and race might be; it would still be prejudiced to think that a black person that you meet is less educated than a white person, because it's a general trend, not a universal law).

quote:
Now, I freely admit that this encyclopedia is not winning any awards for anything, but it seems you are a bit off about sex and children.
You'll note that it doesn't actually say that the purpose of marriage is to have sex or children. It is possible to have them outside the context of marriage, and it possible to have marriage without them. Therefore, they are not an integral part of marriage.

quote:
But even if a couple don’t have sex or children, the government still recognizes them as married for whatever reasons.
Hey, wait, which side are you on? If you recognize that marriage doesn't require sex or children (and they don't require marriage), then how can you possibly argue that that's what marriage is for? Or more importantly, that that's what the government thinks marriage is for?

quote:
If you are making an argument for a different type of union to be recognized, make it a logical one. If you say they love each other just like heterosexuals and that’s good enough, then let that be your argument.
I've said, time and time again, that same-sex relationships do not differ from opposite-sex relationships in any ways that are significant for marriage. That's why they should be treated equally for marriage purposes, and to do otherwise is prejudicial.

[ Friday, December 14, 2007 21:30: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #284
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I’m not playing Devil’s advocate (by the way Thuryl, what are you trying to imply?)
Wow, this is as bad as that one time Motrax took offence at the term "conservative estimate". Can you please come back once you get your paranoia treated, and preferably develop a working knowledge of the English language while you're at it? I mean, I know you think you can communicate telepathically with God and so you don't need language, but we humans use words to express our ideas, and it's important to know what those words mean before throwing hissy fits over them.

Failing that, please name one characteristic that is shared by all opposite-sex partnerships and no same-sex partnerships. No such characteristic exists, and therefore there is no justification for blanket laws preventing all same-sex partnerships from becoming marriages.

[ Friday, December 14, 2007 21:46: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #285
Biology and sexual orientation according to Wikipedia! No, there's no gay gene. Yes, a large number of both genetic and environmental factors seem to play a role. I'm not sure what good this does for any argument, though, because natural does not mean good and good does not mean natural.

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

not an opposite-sex pairing is different from an opposite sex pairing, which is legal, recognized, and perceived (by some) to be a good thing for society. Since any other kind of “marriage” is not the same, 'Heterosexual marriage is recognized, therefore any other kind of marriage should be too' is not a logical argument. For this argument to fly you need sameness.
The two are obviously different enough that one can distinguish between them legally, as we do. One can also distinguish between, say, blacks and whites. Laws cannot apply to one and no the other. Why? Because we have societally and, more importantly, legally determined that to do so is to discriminate in a way that does not do more good than harm to individuals or to society as a whole.

Likewise, there is no need to show that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage. We are attempting to show that any legal recognition of the difference is discrimination. Honestly, I can't understand how this point is not getting through. Discrimination is always about differences.

quote:
Alo, Why do you keep saying that sex and marriage is not about sex or children? Those are the very reasons people get married. Throw in some love and you have the trifecta. I doubt very many people would get married to someone they didn’t love, want to have sex with, or have children with for some tax breaks. What do you think marriage is about?
The laws about marriage do not require, encourage, or in any other way discuss children except for rights and responsibilities pertaining to any children that may exist. The laws about marriage apparently still do address sex, but I think that's rather antiquated. The point is that if we want marriage to be about something other than a legal contract between two individuals for whatever reason they want, it could be legislated in those terms. It's not. Legally, marriage isn't about anything.

quote:
quote:
same-sex marriages are different because men and women are different. Discrimination based on sex or gender is illegal, however. How is marriage different?
Individuals have genders. Marriages do not, so you can’t discriminate between marriages based on the gender of the marriage.

You're splitting hairs. The discrimination here is based on the sexes of the married individuals, not the sex of the marriage. It's still sex-based discrimination.

—Alorael, who doesn't think you can have it both ways legally. Either men and women are fundamentally different and sex discrimination should be legal or they are not and should not be legally different and therefore the differences have no bearing on marriage.

[ Friday, December 14, 2007 21:44: Message edited by: Sunbroken ]
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #286
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Fernication, Do you think I’m arguing for or against recognition of same-sex marriage? I’m not.
You're not arguing against it, and I never said you were. You're saying you don't think there's a need to recognize it, and you're arguing that it's legitimate to recognize only opposite-sex marriage. The others here are arguing that there IS a need to recognize both kinds of marriage, and that it's NOT legitimate to recognize only opposite-sex marriage.

Now that we've gotten that cleared up, allow me to rephrase my question slightly for clarity (rephrase in bold). I'd appreciate your thoughts on this question:

According to that reasoning, Stillness, then any opposite sex-pairing incapable of doing those two things does not need to be included in government marriage benefits. Because then they would not be any more "naturally different" than a non-opposite sex-pairing. Right?

quote:
Now, I freely admit that this encyclopedia is not winning any awards for anything, but it seems you are a bit off about sex and children.
Translation: "I'm quoting a crappy source, but I'm going to use it as evidence anyway."

quote:
But even if a couple don’t have sex or children, the government still recognizes them as married for whatever reasons. If you are making an argument for a different type of union to be recognized, make it a logical one.
How exactly is "for whatever reasons" a logical argument? I'd like to know what exactly those reasons are and why they only apply to abstinent, childless couples who happen to be opposite-sex.

So far you haven't addressed this direction. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be implying, based on your statements about positive discrimination and such, an argument that "it doesn't matter whether or not the abstinent, childless opposite-sex couples get those benefits too. It's okay if they do and it would be okay if they don't." Am I hearing your argument correctly? If not, can you please correct me? Thank you.

quote:
Individuals have genders. Marriages do not, so you can’t discriminate between marriages based on the gender of the marriage.
Let me draw an analogy using this justification.

Individuals have races. School districts do not, so you can't discriminate between school districts based on the race of the school district. Therefore, it would be perfectly reasonable to pass a law giving millions of dollars in educational spending only to school districts that are predominantly white.

Do you agree with that statement as well?

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #287
quote:
Originally written by Fernication:

Individuals have races. School districts do not, so you can't discriminate between school districts based on the race of the school district. Therefore, it would be perfectly reasonable to pass a law giving millions of dollars in educational spending only to school districts that are predominantly white.
That legislation already exists. It's called paying for schools with local property taxes. :P

[ Friday, December 14, 2007 23:05: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6934
Profile #288
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

My uncle married my wife and me in his basement with a few close friends and relatives on hand. Weeks later my father-in-law had a very large bar-b-que in his backyard with all of our family and friends.
So this is why you keep bringing this polygamous thing up. Which father-in-law?

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

If my religion is polygamous I can have all the “wives” I want, but if I try to legalize the marriages I get locked up right?
Is your uncle fine with being called your wife? Were you locked up? Who legalized your trinity?
I feel that you shouldn't be locked up if your 'wives' are consenting adults. Then again, my opinion doesn't count much around your neck of the woods.

[ Saturday, December 15, 2007 03:06: Message edited by: Locmaar ]

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #289
I'm not entirely convinced that Stillness would even be capable of recognizing a parallel between gay discrimination and Jim Crow discrimination. His arguments are too repetitive.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 7298
Profile #290
I always considered homosexuality to be something entertained by the rich. Judging from high schools few poor high schools have gay people. You might be able to find one or two but it be difficult. However knew friends from the wealthy high schools who often complained about. Even your examples out of history come from times when that particular civilization was prosperous. Wealthy people can afford to indulge in habits that aren't natural. Gay marrage is simply a tool used by those in ivory towers to gain political clout. The only ones who seem to care are those who have alot of money. A poor person is less concerned who visits them in the hospital and more concern that the hospital treats them, less concerned who inherit their wealth and more concern who inherits their bills. That and other left wing issues aren't affordable by poor people. Environmentally friendly cars, to expensive. It angers me that liberals claim to have the poor mans best interest in yet they are more concerned with idiot nitpicking laws then the real issues.

--------------------
A rock has weight whether you admit it or not
Posts: 479 | Registered: Wednesday, July 12 2006 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #291
quote:
Originally written by Safey:

I always considered homosexuality to be something entertained by the rich. Judging from high schools few poor high schools have gay people. You might be able to find one or two but it be difficult. However knew friends from the wealthy high schools who often complained about. Even your examples out of history come from times when that particular civilization was prosperous. Wealthy people can afford to indulge in habits that aren't natural. Gay marrage is simply a tool used by those in ivory towers to gain political clout. The only ones who seem to care are those who have alot of money. A poor person is less concerned who visits them in the hospital and more concern that the hospital treats them, less concerned who inherit their wealth and more concern who inherits their bills. That and other left wing issues aren't affordable by poor people. Environmentally friendly cars, to expensive. It angers me that liberals claim to have the poor mans best interest in yet they are more concerned with idiot nitpicking laws then the real issues.
You are a living black hole of ignorance.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #292
quote:
Originally written by Safey:

I always considered homosexuality to be something entertained by the rich. Judging from high schools few poor high schools have gay people.
High schools are not the best sample to use because many gay people have not come out yet in high school. High schools that you're familiar with do not constitute a representative sample of anything, so they can't be used to extrapolate anything.

quote:
Even your examples out of history come from times when that particular civilization was prosperous.
History comes from prosperous civilizations. We don't have records from anybody else.

quote:
Gay marrage is simply a tool used by those in ivory towers to gain political clout.
Yes, because Gavin Newsom helped his chances for election to a higher office so much by supporting gay marriage in San Francisco. (It could be argued that he basically guaranteed himself a second term as mayor, but he also killed his previously decent chances at governor or higher.)

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #293
Why would a poor person be less concerned about who visits them? I hope that money doesn't make you feel closer to your relatives...

As for eco-cars, of course they are going to be expensive. New technology is always expensive. The point is to introduce them so that they become less expensive in time through further development. Home computer's used to cost thousands of dollars, now children in third world countries can get laptops that cost $200...

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Warrior
Member # 6934
Profile #294
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by Safey:

I always considered homosexuality to be something entertained by the rich. Judging from high schools few poor high schools have gay people. You might be able to find one or two but it be difficult. However knew friends from the wealthy high schools who often complained about. Even your examples out of history come from times when that particular civilization was prosperous. Wealthy people can afford to indulge in habits that aren't natural. Gay marrage is simply a tool used by those in ivory towers to gain political clout. The only ones who seem to care are those who have alot of money. A poor person is less concerned who visits them in the hospital and more concern that the hospital treats them, less concerned who inherit their wealth and more concern who inherits their bills. That and other left wing issues aren't affordable by poor people. Environmentally friendly cars, to expensive. It angers me that liberals claim to have the poor mans best interest in yet they are more concerned with idiot nitpicking laws then the real issues.
You are a living black hole of ignorance.

You... you mean it's... it's (shudder)... alive?

It's living proof that most problems we are facing in the world today stem from lack of proper education (being able to learn by yourself, critical thinking, getting yourself interested in complex matters and dealing with them, heck, even reading).

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #295
quote:
Originally written by Safey:

I always considered homosexuality to be something entertained by the rich.
Honestly, Safey, this is kind of ridiculous. A quick google search provides this claim:

"Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GBLT) people make up an estimated 20 to 40 percent of the national homeless population while composing between three and five percent of the general population, according to a report released Tuesday, Jan. 30 by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the National Coalition for the Homeless."
- http://cityonahillpress.com/article.php?id=401

40 percent sounds like a lot to me, too. But queer people are definitely over-, not underrepresented in our lowest classes. Ask anyone who's worked with the homeless...

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 7298
Profile #296
quote:
Originally written by Fernication:

quote:
Originally written by Safey:

I always considered homosexuality to be something entertained by the rich.
Honestly, Safey, this is kind of ridiculous. A quick google search provides this claim:

"Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GBLT) people make up an estimated 20 to 40 percent of the national homeless population while composing between three and five percent of the general population, according to a report released Tuesday, Jan. 30 by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the National Coalition for the Homeless."
- http://cityonahillpress.com/article.php?id=401

40 percent sounds like a lot to me, too. But queer people are definitely over-, not underrepresented in our lowest classes. Ask anyone who's worked with the homeless...

Most homeless people are people who have burned them selfs out on drugs or have some mental illness. Even if my landlord was to kick my parents and sister out of their home tomorrow the have friends and relatives they could turn too. They wouldn't be force out on the street. I know/hear of people who are pretty bad shape and none of them had to live on the street, This includes hurricane Katrina victims, single parnet families, ect. People in worse shape then I am none of them homeless (some close). Most people who are homeless are either burned out on drugs or have a mental illness. Those who aren't are professional beggars and aren't actually homeless.

--------------------
A rock has weight whether you admit it or not
Posts: 479 | Registered: Wednesday, July 12 2006 07:00
Guardian
Member # 5360
Profile #297
And that makes them not poor? Having a house or apartment doesn't mean a substantial source of income is present. And having a mental illness or being addicted to drugs certainly doesn't make anyone any less homeless. Face it, Safey, that was a completely ridiculous claim.

[ Saturday, December 15, 2007 17:59: Message edited by: Thoughts in Chaos ]

--------------------
Fear us, mortals, but never envy, for though we burn with power, our fuel is our sorrows.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Wednesday, January 5 2005 08:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #298
Maybe Safey's thought is true among his society, or perhaps I'm not realizing something.

Poverty doesn't prevent someone from having sexual relationship. Homosexual relationships don't carry a risk of pregnancy, which is why I think Slarty's stats are true.

--------------------
A Bile Crux
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 7298
Profile #299
quote:
Originally written by Thoughts in Chaos:

And that makes them not poor? Having a house or apartment doesn't mean a substantial source of income is present. And having a mental illness or being addicted to drugs certainly doesn't make anyone any less homeless. Face it, Safey, that was a completely ridiculous claim.
Its was my way of saying that the statics he posted have in some way have been twisted to the advantage of the group who fielded the statics something that is not hard to do,aka"bogus". People who are burnt out on drugs are to concerned with getting their next dose to be worried about sexual relationships. Mentally ill people don't really qualify unless you consider homosexuality a mental illness. As far
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Safey:

I always considered homosexuality to be something entertained by the rich. Judging from high schools few poor high schools have gay people.
High schools are not the best sample to use because many gay people have not come out yet in high school. High schools that you're familiar with do not constitute a representative sample of anything, so they can't be used to extrapolate anything.

I have meet people (at my college) the ones who complained about gay people at their school come from private schools or schools wealthy neighborhoods. We aren't talking about the school I went too.

--------------------
A rock has weight whether you admit it or not
Posts: 479 | Registered: Wednesday, July 12 2006 07:00
Guardian
Member # 5360
Profile #300
quote:
Its was my way of saying that the statics he posted have in some way have been twisted to the advantage of the group who fielded the statics something that is not hard to do,aka"bogus". People who are burnt out on drugs are to concerned with getting their next dose to be worried about sexual relationships. Mentally ill people don't really qualify unless you consider homosexuality a mental illness.
So that says. . . what? That homosexuals aren't druggies and don't have mental disabilities? That if you don't count druggies or the mentally disabled as the poor, that homosexuals take up a greater percentage of the poor?

quote:
I have meet people (at my college) the ones who complained about gay people at their school come from private schools or schools wealthy neighborhoods. We aren't talking about the school I went too.

Well, perhaps, but that certainly hasn't been my personal experience or impression. It certainly isn't majority opinion.

--------------------
Fear us, mortals, but never envy, for though we burn with power, our fuel is our sorrows.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Wednesday, January 5 2005 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 7298
Profile #301
quote:
Originally written by Thoughts in Chaos:

quote:
Its was my way of saying that the statics he posted have in some way have been twisted to the advantage of the group who fielded the statics something that is not hard to do,aka"bogus". People who are burnt out on drugs are to concerned with getting their next dose to be worried about sexual relationships. Mentally ill people don't really qualify unless you consider homosexuality a mental illness.
So that says. . . what? That homosexuals aren't druggies and don't have mental disabilities? That if you don't count druggies or the mentally disabled as the poor, that homosexuals take up a greater percentage of the poor?

The statics are bogus. They were posted by a gay rights group and if it is rather easy to distort statics if you want

--------------------
A rock has weight whether you admit it or not
Posts: 479 | Registered: Wednesday, July 12 2006 07:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #302
Actually, if you take the time to read the link, the study was undertaken in concert by a gay rights group AND a group advocating for the homeless.

Regardless, if you do think the statistics are bogus, just saying so isn't going to convince anyone. Instead, why don't you cite some studies that present conflicting statistics? Or look up this study, read its methodology and offer a critique explaining your accusation that it was doctored.

That said, I'm not really sure why a gay rights group would be served well by claiming lots of gay people are homeless if that isn't the case. Homeless people are generally maligned and looked down on by many Americans (as your own comments exemplify).

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #303
At least it is statistics. What are you basing your beliefs on besides your own limited experiences? Maybe homeless people aren't out looking for sex (although people seem to have plenty of sex in adversity...), but they can still be gay. As for high schools, I wonder if poor high schools tend to have more hostile views towards open homosexuality. Open-mindedness as a luxury of the rich?

—Alorael, who won't argue that many homeless people have other problems. But why do they have those problems? Being poor is hard, but so is being gay. Being gay and poor is a good way to get cut off from that safety net of friends and relations who won't take you in when you need them.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 7298
Profile #304
quote:
Originally written by Hanged Man:

At least it is statistics. What are you basing your beliefs on besides your own limited experiences? Maybe homeless people aren't out looking for sex (although people seem to have plenty of sex in adversity...), but they can still be gay. As for high schools, I wonder if poor high schools tend to have more hostile views towards open homosexuality. Open-mindedness as a luxury of the rich?

—Alorael, who won't argue that many homeless people have other problems. But why do they have those problems? Being poor is hard, but so is being gay. Being gay and poor is a good way to get cut off from that safety net of friends and relations who won't take you in when you need them.

Most homeless people are substance abusers. You can go to Google put in homeless people drug use and pull up any number of articals about homeless people and substance abuse here is an example: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CEFD61331F932A15751C1 A967958260
Substances abusers are to concerned with their next dose to be worried about whether or nor their gay. All homeless people are poor but not all poor people are homeless. The majority of poor people are not homeless their for your statics assuming they are true is not a good cross sectional for poor people since their are major differences between the habits of poor people and homeless people.

[ Saturday, December 15, 2007 19:49: Message edited by: Safey ]

--------------------
A rock has weight whether you admit it or not
Posts: 479 | Registered: Wednesday, July 12 2006 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #305
quote:
Originally written by Safey:

Substances abusers are to concerned with their next dose to be worried about whether or nor their gay.
That's like saying, "Substances abusers are to concerned with their next dose to be worried about whether or not they're male." It's not a philosophical question you have to ponder over; you're either gay or you're not, most of the time (although there are exceptions).

quote:
All homeless people are poor but not all poor people are homeless. The majority of poor people are not homeless their for your statics assuming they are true is not a good cross sectional for poor people since their are major differences between the habits of poor people and homeless people.
Uh, remind yourself what we were discussing again. You said that poor people aren't gay. The statistic is just to show that some are.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00

Pages