-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Bisexuals?
- Thread starter ExistencePrecedesEssence
- Start date
Mumei
Senior Member
Considering that the estimates of the homosexual population by the conservatives is around 1 - 3%, by that logic there's no reason not to give it to us.
And you do deserve protection under the law. You know those laws covering "sexual orientation"?
Yeah, they cover heterosexuals.
Upvote
0
Mumei
Senior Member
Explain your accusation.
"Most people are not 100% straight or 100% homosexual."
This means that at least 50%, if not more, of people swing "both ways" to some degree, with the majority being collected on the 0 - 2 (heterosexual, with incidental to moderate homosexual inclinations). It suggests that less than probably 25% (if we assumed a 50 / 50 split of the less than 50% maximum) are homosexuals. If we assume that homosexuals are much less common than heterosexuals, maybe it is as low as 10% or lower.
And then I say that the conservatives (You might not know this, but they aren't pro-gay groups) say that homosexuals make up 1 - 3% of the population. Most other population estimates suggest something higher. Most estimates of purchasing power and the like use a figure of 5.5%. When LGBT organizations use higher numbers, they are often including bisexuals and transgendered, which knocks up the numbers somewhat.
I'm sorry, where are the statistics being manipulated? And what argument is it is being manipulated for? That both gay and straight people deserve to be protected against discrimination in hiring and housing?
What an evil, evil argument.
Upvote
0
Mumei
Senior Member
There's no discrepancy. The numbers being different doesn't mean that there is a discrepancy.
They both say that a minority are 100% homosexual, or completely homosexual. One of them also says that a minority of people are 100% or completely heterosexual. The 100% number does not refer to any statistics. The 1 - 3% numbers, while supposed to be used as statistics, are not accurate.
Before you say, "Well, why did you use them?!" take a look back at our conversation. You tried to use the supposed minority status of heterosexuals as, "Well, if we're a minority, maybe we deserve discrimination protections!"
I said that if conservatives took that attitude, that they might as well support sexual orientation discrimination, because it covers heterosexuals and homosexuals, and homosexuals are, by their own beliefs (which is why I quoted the inaccurate conservative numbers; to say what they actually believe) a small minority.
This conversation really isn't that hard to follow. It is a series of reading interpretation errors on your part, really.
They both say that a minority are 100% homosexual, or completely homosexual. One of them also says that a minority of people are 100% or completely heterosexual. The 100% number does not refer to any statistics. The 1 - 3% numbers, while supposed to be used as statistics, are not accurate.
Before you say, "Well, why did you use them?!" take a look back at our conversation. You tried to use the supposed minority status of heterosexuals as, "Well, if we're a minority, maybe we deserve discrimination protections!"
I said that if conservatives took that attitude, that they might as well support sexual orientation discrimination, because it covers heterosexuals and homosexuals, and homosexuals are, by their own beliefs (which is why I quoted the inaccurate conservative numbers; to say what they actually believe) a small minority.
This conversation really isn't that hard to follow. It is a series of reading interpretation errors on your part, really.
Upvote
0
Mumei
Senior Member
Do you know the phrase "Put up or shut up"?
Put up your explanation for why it is contradictory or shut up. You are lying if you cannot tell me where the contradiction is. I have explained at least three times how there is absolutely no contradiction. You have responded with, "Blah blah blah I'm sorry blah blah blah."
No. If there's anything wrong, you can explain it.
Upvote
0
Mumei
Senior Member
Don't try that ****.
Main Entry: dis·crep·an·cy
Pronunciation: dis-'kre-p&n-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
1 : the quality or state of being discrepant
2 : an instance of being discrepant
Main Entry: dis·crep·ant
Pronunciation: -p&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English discrepaunt, from Latin discrepant-, discrepans, present participle of discrepare to sound discordantly, from dis- + crepare to rattle, creak -- more at [SIZE=-1]RAVEN[/SIZE]
: being at variance : [SIZE=-1]DISAGREEING[/SIZE] <widely discrepant conclusions>
Do you know the definition of the word of which you speak? There's no disagreement. The numbers don't disagree. They both have the same message.
Main Entry: dis·crep·an·cy
Pronunciation: dis-'kre-p&n-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
1 : the quality or state of being discrepant
2 : an instance of being discrepant
Main Entry: dis·crep·ant
Pronunciation: -p&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English discrepaunt, from Latin discrepant-, discrepans, present participle of discrepare to sound discordantly, from dis- + crepare to rattle, creak -- more at [SIZE=-1]RAVEN[/SIZE]
: being at variance : [SIZE=-1]DISAGREEING[/SIZE] <widely discrepant conclusions>
Do you know the definition of the word of which you speak? There's no disagreement. The numbers don't disagree. They both have the same message.
Upvote
0
MachZer0
Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
I'm sorry you don't see it, even though you understand the definition of discrepancy.Don't try that ****.
Main Entry: dis·crep·an·cy
Pronunciation: dis-'kre-p&n-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
1 : the quality or state of being discrepant
2 : an instance of being discrepant
Main Entry: dis·crep·ant
Pronunciation: -p&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English discrepaunt, from Latin discrepant-, discrepans, present participle of discrepare to sound discordantly, from dis- + crepare to rattle, creak -- more at [SIZE=-1]RAVEN[/SIZE]
: being at variance : [SIZE=-1]DISAGREEING[/SIZE] <widely discrepant conclusions>
Do you know the definition of the word of which you speak? There's no disagreement. The numbers don't disagree. They both have the same message.
Upvote
0
MachZer0
Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
You asked me to explain the obvious, so, as I said, any explanation I give would be for naught. It is indeed a debate/discussion forum, but that does not mean taking people by the hand and re-explining the obvious. I'm sorry you can't recognize the obvious discrepancy.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
