How is it that you know? I think getting an accurate number would be difficult. Sexual persuasion is something that can be hidden. Unlike gender or race.Dilbert_X wrote:
10% is quoted a lot, in reality its more like 2-3%.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
he means 90% of the pop is straight, 10% is gay (general numbers). He means that previously 90% of people could marry who they wanted, while 10% was left shit out of luck. Pretty easy to understand, read the sentence in context.
UK 1992
A study of 8,337 British men found that 6.1% have had a "homosexual experience" and 3.6% had "1+ homosexual partner ever."[14]
2005
HM Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry completed a survey to help the Government analyse the financial implications of the Civil Partnerships Act (such as pensions, inheritance and tax benefits). They concluded that there were 3.6 m gay people in Britain—around 6% of the total population or 1 in 16.66 people
Norway
1988
In a random survey of 6,300 Norwegians, 3.5% of the men and 3% of the women reported that they had a homosexual experience sometime in their life.[12]
2003
According to Durex Global Sex Survey for 2003, 12% of Norwegian respondents have had homosexual sex.
2006
A study found 2–3% Australians identified as homosexual while 20% of Australians reported having same-sex attractions.
As you can see the numbers are all over the place.1998
A stratified random sample of 750 males aged 18 to 27 in Calgary, Canada included questions on sexual activity and orientation. 15.3% of men "reported being homosexual to some degree" on the basis of three (often overlapping) measures of homosexuality: (1) voluntary, same-gender sexual contact from age 12 to 27: 14.0%; (2) overlapping homosexual (5.9%) and/or bisexual (6.1%) self-identification: 11.1%; and (3) exclusive (4.3%) and non-exclusive (4.9%) same-gender sexual relationships in past 6 months: 9.2%
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-02 01:07:11)
Then all marriages between 2 people that are not madly in love is committing fraud and should be jailed?Kmar wrote:
Why would two straight people marry each other beyond the desire to commit fraud?lowing wrote:
IF 2 straight people wanted to get married same sex, for whatever reason, they would not be allowed to do so. So no, nobody can marry who they want. The law does not specify between gay and straight, if there is no distinction then there is no discrimination.Kmar wrote:
It's the right to marry who you want to. It's the right to be able to choose. If one section of the population is allowed to marry who they want, why shouldn't the other?
Being gay is a social class. It's not a choice, just like being a woman is not a choice. Should we take away the right for women to vote because not all women want to vote?
You're on much better ground when you are arguing against the government being involved at all. They are the ones who created the inequality in the first place.
ok then don't. Just do me a favor, if you are not going to say anything in this thread other then call me stupid, stay out of it.Jaekus wrote:
Why? You'll only get it all wrong anyway, like you usually do.lowing wrote:
Well lets nail it down then...Do you think gays are being discriminated against by not allowing same sex marriage? lets start off with a yes or no shall we? THen feel free to elaborate.Jaekus wrote:
So by the fact I said I didn't make such an assertion you assume I am now of the same weird notion you hold?
lulz
I was merely pointing out that despite you once again trying to put words in someone's mouth, it isn't true.
In short: keep being wrong, you're very good at it.
As I've said over and over, the govt shouldn't be sticking their nose in it either way. The way to eliminate fraud here is to take away the government right to decide what is legit or not.lowing wrote:
Then all marriages between 2 people that are not madly in love is committing fraud and should be jailed?Kmar wrote:
Why would two straight people marry each other beyond the desire to commit fraud?lowing wrote:
IF 2 straight people wanted to get married same sex, for whatever reason, they would not be allowed to do so. So no, nobody can marry who they want. The law does not specify between gay and straight, if there is no distinction then there is no discrimination.
I agree with that, but as it is the govt. does have its nose in it, and as such, do you believe the current laws disallow same sex marriages between gays, or do the laws disallow same sex marriages for everyone? If you think the laws apply to everyone, then there is no discrimination.Kmar wrote:
As I've said over and over, the govt shouldn't be sticking their nose in it either way. The way to eliminate fraud here is to take away the government right to decide what is legit or not.lowing wrote:
Then all marriages between 2 people that are not madly in love is committing fraud and should be jailed?Kmar wrote:
Why would two straight people marry each other beyond the desire to commit fraud?
You're just confusing the whole issue, or perhaps you yourself are merely confused.lowing wrote:
ok then don't. Just do me a favor, if you are not going to say anything in this thread other then call me stupid, stay out of it.Jaekus wrote:
Why? You'll only get it all wrong anyway, like you usually do.lowing wrote:
Well lets nail it down then...Do you think gays are being discriminated against by not allowing same sex marriage? lets start off with a yes or no shall we? THen feel free to elaborate.
No, don't weasel out of it. The WHY is the whole point of marriage.lowing wrote:
I agree with that, but as it is the govt. does have its nose in it, and as such, do you believe the current laws disallow same sex marriages between gays, or do the laws disallow same sex marriages for everyone? If you think the laws apply to everyone, then there is no discrimination.Kmar wrote:
As I've said over and over, the govt shouldn't be sticking their nose in it either way. The way to eliminate fraud here is to take away the government right to decide what is legit or not.lowing wrote:
Then all marriages between 2 people that are not madly in love is committing fraud and should be jailed?
You all are hung up on why would straights want to? and it does not matter why, it is not the govts. business short of immigration related crimes. So leave the question as to why out if for now, and go with the knowledge that there are a ton of reasons for marriage and love is but one of them.
LOL, since when?Jaekus wrote:
No, don't weasel out of it. The WHY is the whole point of marriage.lowing wrote:
I agree with that, but as it is the govt. does have its nose in it, and as such, do you believe the current laws disallow same sex marriages between gays, or do the laws disallow same sex marriages for everyone? If you think the laws apply to everyone, then there is no discrimination.Kmar wrote:
As I've said over and over, the govt shouldn't be sticking their nose in it either way. The way to eliminate fraud here is to take away the government right to decide what is legit or not.
You all are hung up on why would straights want to? and it does not matter why, it is not the govts. business short of immigration related crimes. So leave the question as to why out if for now, and go with the knowledge that there are a ton of reasons for marriage and love is but one of them.
Last edited by lowing (2011-07-02 04:33:46)
As I said before, the law allows heteros to marry people they are genuinely attracted to. It does not allow gays to marry the people they are genuinely attracted to. The idea that the law can be abused should not be grounds to dismiss one section of the populations right to be happily married.lowing wrote:
I agree with that, but as it is the govt. does have its nose in it, and as such, do you believe the current laws disallow same sex marriages between gays, or do the laws disallow same sex marriages for everyone? If you think the laws apply to everyone, then there is no discrimination.Kmar wrote:
As I've said over and over, the govt shouldn't be sticking their nose in it either way. The way to eliminate fraud here is to take away the government right to decide what is legit or not.lowing wrote:
Then all marriages between 2 people that are not madly in love is committing fraud and should be jailed?
You all are hung up on why would straights want to? and it does not matter why, it is not the govts. business short of immigration related crimes. So leave the question as to why out if for now, and go with the knowledge that there are a ton of reasons for marriage and love is but one of them.
ok, so you think the laws are discriminatory against gays and only apply to them then? Then you must also assume the new laws will only allow gays to marry same sex while disallowing straight people the same right, then that must be also discriminatory.Kmar wrote:
As I said before, the law allows heteros to marry people they are genuinely attracted to. It does not allow gays to marry the people they are genuinely attracted to. The idea that the law can be abused should not be grounds to dismiss one section of the populations right to be happily married.lowing wrote:
I agree with that, but as it is the govt. does have its nose in it, and as such, do you believe the current laws disallow same sex marriages between gays, or do the laws disallow same sex marriages for everyone? If you think the laws apply to everyone, then there is no discrimination.Kmar wrote:
As I've said over and over, the govt shouldn't be sticking their nose in it either way. The way to eliminate fraud here is to take away the government right to decide what is legit or not.
You all are hung up on why would straights want to? and it does not matter why, it is not the govts. business short of immigration related crimes. So leave the question as to why out if for now, and go with the knowledge that there are a ton of reasons for marriage and love is but one of them.
But most importantly its not the government role. I cant say that enough.
Last edited by Jay (2011-07-02 04:39:38)
How is that discriminating against straights if the intent is true?lowing wrote:
ok, so you think the laws are discriminatory against gays and only apply to them then? Then you must also assume the new laws will only allow gays to marry same sex while disallowing straight people the same right, then that must be also discriminatory.Kmar wrote:
As I said before, the law allows heteros to marry people they are genuinely attracted to. It does not allow gays to marry the people they are genuinely attracted to. The idea that the law can be abused should not be grounds to dismiss one section of the populations right to be happily married.lowing wrote:
I agree with that, but as it is the govt. does have its nose in it, and as such, do you believe the current laws disallow same sex marriages between gays, or do the laws disallow same sex marriages for everyone? If you think the laws apply to everyone, then there is no discrimination.
You all are hung up on why would straights want to? and it does not matter why, it is not the govts. business short of immigration related crimes. So leave the question as to why out if for now, and go with the knowledge that there are a ton of reasons for marriage and love is but one of them.
But most importantly its not the government role. I cant say that enough.
The idea of Marriage is to enter into a loving union. Otherwise what is the point? Taxbreaks? Surely we can find a better alternative than making two people who don't like each other live together for the rest of their lives. The fact that people suck at marriage isn't reason enough to disallow one group to try.. the right way.Reasons to get married are numerous, and please, heterosexuals have hardly demonstrated LOVE is a good reason to marry, not at 70% divorce rates or infidelity rates.
If the laws now are discriminatory without specifically naming any one group, then the new laws can be discriminatory as well.
I don't see it that way. Taking an "everyone can marry everyone and it's not our job to recognize it at all" sounds less discriminatory to me. It's only discriminatory when we give the government the power to discriminate.We agree, it is not the govts. business to begin with and that is why I have this thread, this is not a fix for anything if the govt. is still going to have their hand in personal lives. If you think the govt. was discriminatory before, this law can be a continuation of that, only in the other direction.
Jay, what does it say of you, when you seem to care what others do on the computer or internet? post my opinions, if you that bothers you so much you must passionately post insults in the forum, I think that might make you worse than any opinion you have of my presence here.Jay wrote:
lowing, I think you need to go back into self imposed exile. I know you're bored in life and one of your primary sources of entertainment is trolling in D&ST, but I think it's safe to say the rest of us grew tired of the act a long, long time ago. I just read through five pages of you being repeatedly told you are wrong, stupid, stubborn and a liar. Is that what you come here for? You enjoy that? You're not a martyr for your cause lowing. I don't even think you know what your cause is. Get the fuck over yourself, get off the computer, and go spend time with your supposed wife and kids.
Right, because I'm the one that wakes up at 7am on a Saturday and the first thing he does is argue with a bunch of people that dislike him on a video game forum about a topic he doesn't even care about. You come here for attention. I watch you post and post and post in a thread until someone finally rises up, takes the bait, and you now have the attention you desire for the next few hours. It's sad lowing. Find a hobby.lowing wrote:
Jay, what does it say of you, when you seem to care what others do on the computer or internet? post my opinions, if you that bothers you so much you must passionately post insults in the forum, I think that might make you worse than any opinion you have of my presence here.Jay wrote:
lowing, I think you need to go back into self imposed exile. I know you're bored in life and one of your primary sources of entertainment is trolling in D&ST, but I think it's safe to say the rest of us grew tired of the act a long, long time ago. I just read through five pages of you being repeatedly told you are wrong, stupid, stubborn and a liar. Is that what you come here for? You enjoy that? You're not a martyr for your cause lowing. I don't even think you know what your cause is. Get the fuck over yourself, get off the computer, and go spend time with your supposed wife and kids.
Would much rather you act like an adult and either respond as such, or if you are not interested, ignore it as such. but pal, I have read your responses to me as well as others in this forum, and their are personality issues here, they are yours.
Because it does not allow straight people the same privilege as gays. Look at it this way, with this new law, gays can marry same sex, or opposite sex, for whatever reason they choose to without question. Straight people may not be able to without govt. interference. THAT is discriminatory.Kmar wrote:
How is that discriminating against straights if the intent is true?lowing wrote:
ok, so you think the laws are discriminatory against gays and only apply to them then? Then you must also assume the new laws will only allow gays to marry same sex while disallowing straight people the same right, then that must be also discriminatory.Kmar wrote:
As I said before, the law allows heteros to marry people they are genuinely attracted to. It does not allow gays to marry the people they are genuinely attracted to. The idea that the law can be abused should not be grounds to dismiss one section of the populations right to be happily married.
But most importantly its not the government role. I cant say that enough.The idea of Marriage is to enter into a loving union. Otherwise what is the point? Taxbreaks? Surely we can find a better alternative than making two people who don't like each other live together for the rest of their lives. The fact that people suck at marriage isn't reason enough to disallow one group to try.. the right way.Reasons to get married are numerous, and please, heterosexuals have hardly demonstrated LOVE is a good reason to marry, not at 70% divorce rates or infidelity rates.
If the laws now are discriminatory without specifically naming any one group, then the new laws can be discriminatory as well.
You make a good point though. Many heteros say that they have to "protect the institution of marriage". As if they haven't screwed it up every way imaginable. They haven't earned any exclusivity rights on doing it for love.I don't see it that way. Taking an "everyone can marry everyone and it's not our job to recognize it at all" sounds less discriminatory to me. It's only discriminatory when we give the government the power to discriminate.We agree, it is not the govts. business to begin with and that is why I have this thread, this is not a fix for anything if the govt. is still going to have their hand in personal lives. If you think the govt. was discriminatory before, this law can be a continuation of that, only in the other direction.
Ummm, you are up as well right? and you are trying to start shit now right? lol. I am up, always get up early, got shit to do today, but not at 7 in the morning. So I log in the PC. Nothing for you yo worry about, and like I said, if you are worried about it, you are the one with a problemJay wrote:
Right, because I'm the one that wakes up at 7am on a Saturday and the first thing he does is argue with a bunch of people that dislike him on a video game forum about a topic he doesn't even care about. You come here for attention. I watch you post and post and post in a thread until someone finally rises up, takes the bait, and you now have the attention you desire for the next few hours. It's sad lowing. Find a hobby.lowing wrote:
Jay, what does it say of you, when you seem to care what others do on the computer or internet? post my opinions, if you that bothers you so much you must passionately post insults in the forum, I think that might make you worse than any opinion you have of my presence here.Jay wrote:
lowing, I think you need to go back into self imposed exile. I know you're bored in life and one of your primary sources of entertainment is trolling in D&ST, but I think it's safe to say the rest of us grew tired of the act a long, long time ago. I just read through five pages of you being repeatedly told you are wrong, stupid, stubborn and a liar. Is that what you come here for? You enjoy that? You're not a martyr for your cause lowing. I don't even think you know what your cause is. Get the fuck over yourself, get off the computer, and go spend time with your supposed wife and kids.
Would much rather you act like an adult and either respond as such, or if you are not interested, ignore it as such. but pal, I have read your responses to me as well as others in this forum, and their are personality issues here, they are yours.
I'm up because I have a bunch of family on their way to help paint my new apartment today. You won't see me for the rest of the day, enjoy.lowing wrote:
Ummm, you are up as well right? and you are trying to start shit now right? lol. I am up, always get up early, got shit to do today, but not at 7 in the morning. So I log in the PC. Nothing for you yo worry about, and like I said, if you are worried about it, you are the one with a problemJay wrote:
Right, because I'm the one that wakes up at 7am on a Saturday and the first thing he does is argue with a bunch of people that dislike him on a video game forum about a topic he doesn't even care about. You come here for attention. I watch you post and post and post in a thread until someone finally rises up, takes the bait, and you now have the attention you desire for the next few hours. It's sad lowing. Find a hobby.lowing wrote:
Jay, what does it say of you, when you seem to care what others do on the computer or internet? post my opinions, if you that bothers you so much you must passionately post insults in the forum, I think that might make you worse than any opinion you have of my presence here.
Would much rather you act like an adult and either respond as such, or if you are not interested, ignore it as such. but pal, I have read your responses to me as well as others in this forum, and their are personality issues here, they are yours.
but you do know the first thing you did this morning was get up log into the forum, and try to insult me for getting up and logging into the forum right? was that irony or hypocrisy lost on you? lol Now you know why you are so entertaining.Jay wrote:
I'm up because I have a bunch of family on their way to help paint my new apartment today. You won't see me for the rest of the day, enjoy.lowing wrote:
Ummm, you are up as well right? and you are trying to start shit now right? lol. I am up, always get up early, got shit to do today, but not at 7 in the morning. So I log in the PC. Nothing for you yo worry about, and like I said, if you are worried about it, you are the one with a problemJay wrote:
Right, because I'm the one that wakes up at 7am on a Saturday and the first thing he does is argue with a bunch of people that dislike him on a video game forum about a topic he doesn't even care about. You come here for attention. I watch you post and post and post in a thread until someone finally rises up, takes the bait, and you now have the attention you desire for the next few hours. It's sad lowing. Find a hobby.
Last edited by lowing (2011-07-02 05:10:02)
There have never been any laws passed that took govt. out of a thing. Why would there need to be a law stating the govt. is powerless?Dilbert_X wrote:
So as I see it:
Heterosexuals can marry whoever they like for whatever reason
Gays can marry whoever they like for whatever reason
I don't really see how this is discriminatory or involves government interference.
