Why the hysteria over only 4-5% of the population?

[daws101]

Based on the 2013 NHIS data [collected in 2013 from 34,557 adults aged 18 and over], 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1% of adults identified as “something else[]” [0.2%,] stated “I don’t know the answer[]” [0.4%] or refused to provide an answer [0.6%].


More specifically, 1.8 percent of men self-identify as gay and 0.4 percent as bisexual, and 1.5 percent of women self-identify as lesbian and 0.9 percent as bisexual.


Who is hysterical over marriage equality?


U.S. Adults Estimate That 25% of Americans Are Gay or Lesbian

Those with lower incomes, the less educated, women, and young people give the highest estimates



Even if the "less educated" were right, marriage equality does not impact their lives, so why do they care? Why do they want Big Government to control the lives of these people?

What about politicians? Surely they know their monstrous bills making discrimination legal would affect only 5% of the population, so why do they harp on it?

My own opinion is that RW politicians pander to the fundie nutters because they figure they'll only lose that 5% of the vote.

What about posters here? Why do they get so hysterical over 5% of the population? Why do they want to deny them the same rights the rest of us enjoy?

Its the left that get hysterical about queers. The rest of us could care less. They already have the same rights as everyone else, they just want special rights and they want to force everyone to accept their disgusting behavior as 'normal'.

Faggots aren't normal and no one has to accept them as normal. That's our right.

lets see....2 pejorative references to gays 3 false claims about what is normal
1 personal claim to what's degusting.
1 patently false claim of special rights .
who's hysterical about gays again?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

What percentage of children being intentionally denied the human right to be raised by their actual parents is OK with you? Why should everyone be forced to subsidize these people if their numbers are so irrelevant?
Such a low percentage of males are homo yet they spread the most STD's by far.
Why such a loud and large representation in the public sphere if the numbers are so low? Why should they be so heavily propagated if their numbers are so irrelevant?

"What percentage of children being intentionally denied the human right to be raised by their actual parents is OK with you?"

How does marriage equality 'deny children their [birth] parents'?

"Why should everyone be forced to subsidize these people if their numbers are so irrelevant?"

Who is "subsidizing" same sex marriage?



Same sex marriage was recorded as far back as the 13th century.

Legal marriage forces subsidies in the name of tax beaks and joint claims to health insurance.
No homo couple were ever the birth parents of a human child.

Why stop there, it opens up marriage to heterosexual same sex couples with all the benefits that you listed.

Can you imagine. Singles are waiting longer and longer to marry. Just find another single member of the same sex, set up a purely financial "marriage" and make bank until you find an opposite sex actual partner to marry.

A Quicky divorce and BAM.

What a brave new world we've created!

I've made that same point. College buds could say they're homo, get married and get the financial benefits and then just get some cheap no-liability divorce and use the system. Thank a homo.

You know college buds could do that before gays could get married, right?

College buds of the same gender? Since when?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Step parents who exist as a consequence is very different from intent. Why should we deny people who deserve tax breaks?

So, according to you, some parents and some couples deserve tax breaks and health care but others do not, and its all according to some arbitrary idea you have of what constitutes both parenting and marriage.

Lucky for all of us that you don't get to make those rules cuz that's just plain nuts.

"What percentage of children being intentionally denied the human right to be raised by their actual parents is OK with you?"

How does marriage equality 'deny children their [birth] parents'?

Natural procreative design is not arbitrary.

Which takes you right back to step parenting.

Step kids aren't biological offspring either.

No matter what the "argument", shine a bright light on it and it falls apart.

Bottom line is, you think its icky and you think you have the right to impose your will on others.

You make stuff up to fit your biases.
Step kids are a anomalous. That is you using the anecdotal to justify a problem. Like George Burns smoking cigars every day and living to 100 proves that smoking is good for you.

say's Mr. makin' shit up to fit his bias..

Show me what I made up.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You don't understand that?

yes ...that's why I said it's off topic.
you are attempting to switch the topic from gay issues/ parenting to stds and black single parent homes.
if that's what you want to bitch about ,than start another thread.

The thread is about the alleged irrelevance of homosexuals and I'm pointing out relevant facts. What is so difficult to understand?

false the "facts" you so often bring up are not facts but propaganda.

I rely on the empirical. You resort to propaganda.

false steaming pile..
one question, with your obvious homophobia why did you pick a profession (musician) that is so densely populated with gay people?

Show me what is not empirical.
I have no irrational fear of homos. Homophobia is a misnomer term used by pro-homo bigots.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Step parents who exist as a consequence is very different from intent. Why should we deny people who deserve tax breaks?

So, according to you, some parents and some couples deserve tax breaks and health care but others do not, and its all according to some arbitrary idea you have of what constitutes both parenting and marriage.

Lucky for all of us that you don't get to make those rules cuz that's just plain nuts.

"What percentage of children being intentionally denied the human right to be raised by their actual parents is OK with you?"

How does marriage equality 'deny children their [birth] parents'?

Natural procreative design is not arbitrary.

really? procreation and parenting are two different things
being able produce offspring is no guarantee of stability or love..

But providing the actual parents is an empirically proven necessity.
And are you suggesting that homo parenting is a guarantee of stability and love?

nope, unlike yourself.
there is no empirical evidence that the biological parents are a necessity.

Do the research yourself. Look at every community with a plurality or majority of unstructured families and you'll see a very clear trend of social demise. And it transcends socioeconomics.

 

[Pop23]

"What percentage of children being intentionally denied the human right to be raised by their actual parents is OK with you?"

How does marriage equality 'deny children their [birth] parents'?

"Why should everyone be forced to subsidize these people if their numbers are so irrelevant?"

Who is "subsidizing" same sex marriage?



Same sex marriage was recorded as far back as the 13th century.

Legal marriage forces subsidies in the name of tax beaks and joint claims to health insurance.
No homo couple were ever the birth parents of a human child.

Why stop there, it opens up marriage to heterosexual same sex couples with all the benefits that you listed.

Can you imagine. Singles are waiting longer and longer to marry. Just find another single member of the same sex, set up a purely financial "marriage" and make bank until you find an opposite sex actual partner to marry.

A Quicky divorce and BAM.

What a brave new world we've created!

I've made that same point. College buds could say they're homo, get married and get the financial benefits and then just get some cheap no-liability divorce and use the system. Thank a homo.

You know college buds could do that before gays could get married, right?

College buds of the same gender? Since when?

RKM is a little confused. Once SSM is codified then it's a very real possibility. and why claim they're gay? They will simply fall into the same sex and married category. Requiring them to declare themselves gay would be discrimination.

It is interesting.

 

[jknowgood]

Well the experiment liberals did on black families was a total failure. The same will be proven with queer parenting. Why do liberals like to abuse kids with failed experiments?

another completely irrelevant post...

I know it's irrelevant to a liberal, because it's the truth.

truth is relative, fact is not, you have no facts to back YOUR racist and homophobic bullshit .

Fact is before welfare blacks families were close.

your point? that did not make them any less disadvantaged

What are you talking about? You take a once strong family unit and destroy it. You don't call that a disadvantage?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Legal marriage forces subsidies in the name of tax beaks and joint claims to health insurance.
No homo couple were ever the birth parents of a human child.

Why stop there, it opens up marriage to heterosexual same sex couples with all the benefits that you listed.

Can you imagine. Singles are waiting longer and longer to marry. Just find another single member of the same sex, set up a purely financial "marriage" and make bank until you find an opposite sex actual partner to marry.

A Quicky divorce and BAM.

What a brave new world we've created!

I've made that same point. College buds could say they're homo, get married and get the financial benefits and then just get some cheap no-liability divorce and use the system. Thank a homo.

You know college buds could do that before gays could get married, right?

College buds of the same gender? Since when?

RKM is a little confused. Once SSM is codified then it's a very real possibility. and why claim they're gay? They will simply fall into the same sex and married category. Requiring them to declare themselves gay would be discrimination.

It is interesting.

Good point. It is a very realistic dilemma. Good luck getting the pro-homo crowd to acknowledge.

 

[Pop23]

Why stop there, it opens up marriage to heterosexual same sex couples with all the benefits that you listed.

Can you imagine. Singles are waiting longer and longer to marry. Just find another single member of the same sex, set up a purely financial "marriage" and make bank until you find an opposite sex actual partner to marry.

A Quicky divorce and BAM.

What a brave new world we've created!

I've made that same point. College buds could say they're homo, get married and get the financial benefits and then just get some cheap no-liability divorce and use the system. Thank a homo.

You know college buds could do that before gays could get married, right?

College buds of the same gender? Since when?

RKM is a little confused. Once SSM is codified then it's a very real possibility. and why claim they're gay? They will simply fall into the same sex and married category. Requiring them to declare themselves gay would be discrimination.

It is interesting.

Good point. It is a very realistic dilemma. Good luck getting the pro-homo crowd to acknowledge.

Consider how many more hetros would qualify than gays. This could really cut deep into any inclusiveness programs there are

 

[RKMBrown]

"What percentage of children being intentionally denied the human right to be raised by their actual parents is OK with you?"

How does marriage equality 'deny children their [birth] parents'?

"Why should everyone be forced to subsidize these people if their numbers are so irrelevant?"

Who is "subsidizing" same sex marriage?



Same sex marriage was recorded as far back as the 13th century.

Legal marriage forces subsidies in the name of tax beaks and joint claims to health insurance.
No homo couple were ever the birth parents of a human child.

Why stop there, it opens up marriage to heterosexual same sex couples with all the benefits that you listed.

Can you imagine. Singles are waiting longer and longer to marry. Just find another single member of the same sex, set up a purely financial "marriage" and make bank until you find an opposite sex actual partner to marry.

A Quicky divorce and BAM.

What a brave new world we've created!

I've made that same point. College buds could say they're homo, get married and get the financial benefits and then just get some cheap no-liability divorce and use the system. Thank a homo.

You know college buds could do that before gays could get married, right?

College buds of the same gender? Since when?

No, when gays could not be married only hetero college buds could get married. The point being that being a student in college is irrlevant. Unless of course you were trying to evoke some level of emotion over gay marriage at college? You know like arguing against 2nd amendment rights of college students to "protect" the kids.

 

[RKMBrown]

Legal marriage forces subsidies in the name of tax beaks and joint claims to health insurance.
No homo couple were ever the birth parents of a human child.

Why stop there, it opens up marriage to heterosexual same sex couples with all the benefits that you listed.

Can you imagine. Singles are waiting longer and longer to marry. Just find another single member of the same sex, set up a purely financial "marriage" and make bank until you find an opposite sex actual partner to marry.

A Quicky divorce and BAM.

What a brave new world we've created!

I've made that same point. College buds could say they're homo, get married and get the financial benefits and then just get some cheap no-liability divorce and use the system. Thank a homo.

You know college buds could do that before gays could get married, right?

College buds of the same gender? Since when?

RKM is a little confused. Once SSM is codified then it's a very real possibility. and why claim they're gay? They will simply fall into the same sex and married category. Requiring them to declare themselves gay would be discrimination.

It is interesting.

I don't think I'm even a little bit confused. The world could end tomorrow it is a very real possibility. But I try not to live in fear of such things happening.

 

[Pop23]

Legal marriage forces subsidies in the name of tax beaks and joint claims to health insurance.
No homo couple were ever the birth parents of a human child.

Why stop there, it opens up marriage to heterosexual same sex couples with all the benefits that you listed.

Can you imagine. Singles are waiting longer and longer to marry. Just find another single member of the same sex, set up a purely financial "marriage" and make bank until you find an opposite sex actual partner to marry.

A Quicky divorce and BAM.

What a brave new world we've created!

I've made that same point. College buds could say they're homo, get married and get the financial benefits and then just get some cheap no-liability divorce and use the system. Thank a homo.

You know college buds could do that before gays could get married, right?

College buds of the same gender? Since when?

No, when gays could not be married only hetero college buds could get married. The point being that being a student in college is irrlevant. Unless of course you were trying to evoke some level of emotion over gay marriage at college? You know like arguing against 2nd amendment rights of college students to "protect" the kids.

"College buds could say they are homo's get married"



RKM, the only way that what you said makes any sense in the context of the discussion is to admit.........

GAYS WERE NEVER EXCLUDED FROM MARRIAGE.

 

[daws101]

So, according to you, some parents and some couples deserve tax breaks and health care but others do not, and its all according to some arbitrary idea you have of what constitutes both parenting and marriage.

Lucky for all of us that you don't get to make those rules cuz that's just plain nuts.

"What percentage of children being intentionally denied the human right to be raised by their actual parents is OK with you?"

How does marriage equality 'deny children their [birth] parents'?

Natural procreative design is not arbitrary.

Which takes you right back to step parenting.

Step kids aren't biological offspring either.

No matter what the "argument", shine a bright light on it and it falls apart.

Bottom line is, you think its icky and you think you have the right to impose your will on others.

You make stuff up to fit your biases.
Step kids are a anomalous. That is you using the anecdotal to justify a problem. Like George Burns smoking cigars every day and living to 100 proves that smoking is good for you.

say's Mr. makin' shit up to fit his bias..

Show me what I made up.

you'd have to repost everything you've ever done.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why stop there, it opens up marriage to heterosexual same sex couples with all the benefits that you listed.

Can you imagine. Singles are waiting longer and longer to marry. Just find another single member of the same sex, set up a purely financial "marriage" and make bank until you find an opposite sex actual partner to marry.

A Quicky divorce and BAM.

What a brave new world we've created!

I've made that same point. College buds could say they're homo, get married and get the financial benefits and then just get some cheap no-liability divorce and use the system. Thank a homo.

You know college buds could do that before gays could get married, right?

College buds of the same gender? Since when?

No, when gays could not be married only hetero college buds could get married. The point being that being a student in college is irrlevant. Unless of course you were trying to evoke some level of emotion over gay marriage at college? You know like arguing against 2nd amendment rights of college students to "protect" the kids.

"College buds could say they are homo's get married"



RKM, the only way that what you said makes any sense in the context of the discussion is to admit.........

GAYS WERE NEVER EXCLUDED FROM MARRIAGE.

Being gay at all was illegal. Then when being gay was no longer illegal, they dared to attempt to get married. Then the religious whacks pissed their pants and ran to their representatives to write laws banning gay marriage. Then the SCOTUS decided to hear the case for whether states can ban gay marriage and / or not recognize gay marriages from other states. Try to keep up Pop23. The issue is gay marriage not sibling marriage.

 

[GHook93]

Based on the 2013 NHIS data [collected in 2013 from 34,557 adults aged 18 and over], 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1% of adults identified as “something else[]” [0.2%,] stated “I don’t know the answer[]” [0.4%] or refused to provide an answer [0.6%].


More specifically, 1.8 percent of men self-identify as gay and 0.4 percent as bisexual, and 1.5 percent of women self-identify as lesbian and 0.9 percent as bisexual.


Who is hysterical over marriage equality?


U.S. Adults Estimate That 25% of Americans Are Gay or Lesbian

Those with lower incomes, the less educated, women, and young people give the highest estimates



Even if the "less educated" were right, marriage equality does not impact their lives, so why do they care? Why do they want Big Government to control the lives of these people?

What about politicians? Surely they know their monstrous bills making discrimination legal would affect only 5% of the population, so why do they harp on it?

My own opinion is that RW politicians pander to the fundie nutters because they figure they'll only lose that 5% of the vote.

What about posters here? Why do they get so hysterical over 5% of the population? Why do they want to deny them the same rights the rest of us enjoy?

I fully support gay marriage, but your article is bullshit 25% of the population? Who you crappin? 2-3% tops!

 

[daws101]

yes ...that's why I said it's off topic.
you are attempting to switch the topic from gay issues/ parenting to stds and black single parent homes.
if that's what you want to bitch about ,than start another thread.

The thread is about the alleged irrelevance of homosexuals and I'm pointing out relevant facts. What is so difficult to understand?

false the "facts" you so often bring up are not facts but propaganda.

I rely on the empirical. You resort to propaganda.

false steaming pile..
one question, with your obvious homophobia why did you pick a profession (musician) that is so densely populated with gay people?

Show me what is not empirical.
I have no irrational fear of homos. Homophobia is a misnomer term used by pro-homo bigots.

bullshit your intense dislike of gays is irrational hate come from fear.
you have not answered this: one question, with your obvious homophobia why did you pick a profession (musician) that is so densely populated with gay people?

 

[SillyWabbit]

The thread is about the alleged irrelevance of homosexuals and I'm pointing out relevant facts. What is so difficult to understand?

false the "facts" you so often bring up are not facts but propaganda.

I rely on the empirical. You resort to propaganda.

false steaming pile..
one question, with your obvious homophobia why did you pick a profession (musician) that is so densely populated with gay people?

Show me what is not empirical.
I have no irrational fear of homos. Homophobia is a misnomer term used by pro-homo bigots.

bullshit your intense dislike of gays is irrational hate come from fear.
you have not answered this: one question, with your obvious homophobia why did you pick a profession (musician) that is so densely populated with gay people?

Densely populated...

 

[daws101]

another completely irrelevant post...

I know it's irrelevant to a liberal, because it's the truth.

truth is relative, fact is not, you have no facts to back YOUR racist and homophobic bullshit .

Fact is before welfare blacks families were close.

your point? that did not make them any less disadvantaged

What are you talking about? You take a once strong family unit and destroy it. You don't call that a disadvantage?

dodge a strong family has fuck all to do with it.
they have and still do get the shitty end of the stick.
having a so called strong family doesn't change that.
as always you're spewing pseudo religious garbage.....

 

[daws101]

Why stop there, it opens up marriage to heterosexual same sex couples with all the benefits that you listed.

Can you imagine. Singles are waiting longer and longer to marry. Just find another single member of the same sex, set up a purely financial "marriage" and make bank until you find an opposite sex actual partner to marry.

A Quicky divorce and BAM.

What a brave new world we've created!

I've made that same point. College buds could say they're homo, get married and get the financial benefits and then just get some cheap no-liability divorce and use the system. Thank a homo.

You know college buds could do that before gays could get married, right?

College buds of the same gender? Since when?

No, when gays could not be married only hetero college buds could get married. The point being that being a student in college is irrlevant. Unless of course you were trying to evoke some level of emotion over gay marriage at college? You know like arguing against 2nd amendment rights of college students to "protect" the kids.

"College buds could say they are homo's get married"



RKM, the only way that what you said makes any sense in the context of the discussion is to admit.........

GAYS WERE NEVER EXCLUDED FROM MARRIAGE.

false pop! and you know it .
if you are barred from marrying who you love in any way that's an exclusion..
religious nonsense and homophobia are not solid or fair reasons to keep people from marrying.
all anti gay laws, ordinances etc. are based on those two things.

 

[daws101]

false the "facts" you so often bring up are not facts but propaganda.

I rely on the empirical. You resort to propaganda.

false steaming pile..
one question, with your obvious homophobia why did you pick a profession (musician) that is so densely populated with gay people?

Show me what is not empirical.
I have no irrational fear of homos. Homophobia is a misnomer term used by pro-homo bigots.

bullshit your intense dislike of gays is irrational hate come from fear.
you have not answered this: one question, with your obvious homophobia why did you pick a profession (musician) that is so densely populated with gay people?

Densely populated...

what term would you have used ?
the entertainment bizz has always had a large number of gays and other assorted so called non normal people.