Ed—If no one responds to peopel that dont know, then, they never wwill know.

“Notice that I’ve had to point this out to you before. “

Actually I hadn’t noticed.  But it wouldn’t have changed the way I replied to him, because whether it opens his mind up or not is only partially the goal.  There are others reading these posts as well who may have a more open mind. 

Whenever these sort of statements are made, they have to be replied to - realizing that the person who made them is not the only audience that will see the response.

Robertinwestbury writes:

“And anyway, many gay couples do have children so it’s not an argument to begin with..”

Exactly, Robert; and that’s why there’s no point in getting drawn into this irrelevant issue.

Notice that I’ve had to point this out to you before. For some reason you treat Hawkeye’s phony issues with respect — even though, as you arrive at the end of your laborious post, it seems to dawn on you that he has once again gotten you to waste a lot of time on a non-issue, implicitly validating the issue itself.

I just posted the answer to a question. From what I could get from Gallup. Then, I agreed with Robert. NO one asked me my opinion of the polls, but, I thought that the noted study that said that 10% was “too high” , it should be noted, was from a “family” organization…

I rather think that a discussion of the rights of Af Ams vs Jews is irrelevant, except to the probable role that Af Am “born-again” “christian” voters had on passing Prop 8 in California.

“It pointed up the great importance of human companionship. With raging divorce rates and all the social turmoil, that would be the most effective argument.”

I agree.  The right likes to maintain that marriage is about procreation - that this is why it exists. 

I don’t buy that at all.  Procreation is not a pre-requisite to marriage.  There are many heterosexual couples who choose not to have children, and there are many more who cannot have children (my brother and sister-in-law among them). 

My widowed grandmother, in her 70s, just remarried.  Both are way beyond the child-bearing years. 

Nobody would argue that any of the people in these circumstances should have their marriages dissolved or annuled or re-cast as civil unions simply because there are no children in the equation. 

Companionship for them is acknowledged as a valid enough reason for them to be married and to enjoy the benefits of marriage. 

Well it’s no different for us.  We have the same need for companionship, and there is no reason why we shouldn’t have the same rights and benefits under the law.  Just because we cannot procreate is not an argument.  It might be if they did dissolve marriages of heterosexuals who don’t produce children, but they don’t.. 

And anyway, many gay couples do have children so it’s not an argument to begin with..

re: By RobertinWestbury, May 27 at 11:24 pm:

Robert writes:

“It’s maddening because the issue would be of no less importance if we really did just represent 1 or 2% of the population.”

Exactly, Robert, which is why there’s no point in getting drawn into this irrelevant issue. There are about four or five times as many African Americans as there are Jews in America. Does that tell us anything whatsoever about the relative importance of the civil rights of blacks and Jews?

RobertinWestbury—that makes sense. I rad some of that,too. I was just trying to answer a statistical question.

I saw some of the studies Hawkeye saw, but, they were from some Family Research Council, or something, so….if anyone can find happiness on this planet, and love, with all the hate, it is just great with me and I have no understanding why other people think that it “hurts” them if someone loves someone else, or , how they think that their rights will be protected if they refuse to protects others’ rights.

Think how many would be considered “heterosexual” if, a qualification for it was “currently having sex”..lol

REF: ROB IN WESTB.

Nobody argues with that interpretation. The best insight anybody offered that I have read was on another thread. It pointed up the great importance of human companionship. With raging divorce rates and all the social turmoil, that would be the most effective argument.

As to what people may or may not do behind closed doors is private. Humans have highly varying tolerances for lonliness but it cannot be ignored. I could list so many examples of how loneliness can be used to torture. Adaptation to circumstances can be a matter of life and death. Makes good sense. I am reminded of Robinson Caruso and the pages describing his finding footprints on the beach.

“Just read a web article that said the 10% is a myth and that most homosexual activists acknowledge the number is more like 2.3% or less.”

Actually no.. 

The number has always been shown to be between 10 and 14%. 

The 2.3% is a misreading of a major study done by the University of Chicago around 1992.  That report showed that roughly 10% of the population identifed themselves as exclusively attracted to members of their own gender.  Of that 10%, only 2.3% engaged in regular sexual activity.  Thus the conservative media proclaimed, only 2.3% of the population was homosexual, because to them…. homosexuality is about behavior only. 

It would be like saying some straight guy whose wife died, and because of his religious beliefs refused to have sexual relations with anyone for 10 or so years until he remarried, couldn’t be considered heterosexual during that timeframe because he wasn’t sexually active.. 

Ever since they have tried passing off this idea that homosexuals only represent 1-2% of the population. 

It’s part of the game of politics they play in trying to diminish how many of us there are, and thus the importance of the movement as an issue…  It’s maddening because the issue would be of no less importance if we really did just represent 1 or 2% of the population.

REF: KDelphi

You are right about the estimated general population. Just read a web article that said the 10% is a myth and that most homosexual activists acknowledge the number is more like 2.3% or less. I have read that it has likely always been that way. Based on all the publicity over the years, it really isn’t all that many, particulary, since they tend to be concentrated in a few metro areas.

Guess everybody has their own cross to bear in the end. 

I know nothing about all that, it is just a matter of curiosity about mainstream media activities that interst me.

I am of the current opinion it has become so bad that it worse than the soviet union when Stalin lived. Well, it will be that way before much longer. Stalin believed in “freedom of the press,” it made him free to do anything he chose.

Hawkeye—you mean 300 million….

Gallup says:“Whether increased acceptance of homosexuality has led to an upsurge in the number of positive media portrayals of gay characters or vice versa, one result seems to be that Americans now tend to overestimate the gay population in America. While most expert estimates place America’s homosexual population at 10% or less, Americans tend to guess that the number is higher, around 20%.”

Dont know if its accurate.

REF: DEMOGRAPHICS OF HOMOSEXUALS

To Whom It May Concern:

I have heard commentary about homosexuality my entire life but not like the current times. I am under the impression the proportion of homosexuals have never changed in the history of mankind. I do not know if that is correct, but I do know the actual breakdown is never mentioned.

If there is roughly 300,000 citizens in the USA, how many are homosexuals?

I want to know because MSM provides so much coverage, everyday but never any indication of this news in either quantitative nor qualitative terms.

How many homosexuals? Are some more homosexual that others. Where is the underlying data other than feature reports on CNN, MNBC etc. I ask because I just watched another news item on Fox on the subject which prompted me to post this question.

Something that helps grease the wheels of this legislative process is the tendency of the media to protect homosexual conservative politicians from being outed, as they go about the dirty business of publicly promoting an antigay legislative agenda while hiding their Washington AC/DC gay sex lives in plain sight of the diligently unreporting media.

Even progressive Truthdig seems to be participating, for example, in the near total media blackout imposed on Kirby Dick’s documentary, “Outrage”, which names names - including Florida GOP governor Crist. None of the hypocritical politicians outed in the film is suing, and that’s because it’s all true, and because they know that the fawning corporate media will make sure it all gets shunted down the memory hole ASAP.

What? Haven’t heard of “Outrage”, even though this Academy Award-nominated film was one of the biggest hits of last month’s Tribeca Film Festival?

Well, you sure didn’t read about it at Truthdig.

To win gay marriage, we need a divorce (from the Dems)
Sherry Wolf, author of Sexuality and Socialism: History, Politics and Theory of LGBT Liberation, looks at a critical question for the struggle for same-sex marriage.

http://socialistworker.org/2009/05/26/democrats-and-marriage-equality

This is Brilliant.

Thought provoking.