The Gallup Polls – Fake or Real? 54% of Americans support gay marriage? (moved)

[Skybringr]

According to this poll, African Americans are allegedly the largest group of LGBT

Special Report: 3.4% of U.S. Adults Identify as LGBT

 

[Fenny the Fox]

According to this poll, African Americans are allegedly the largest group of LGBT

Special Report: 3.4% of U.S. Adults Identify as LGBT

No, according to the poll, a slightly higher percentage (about one point to that of whites, less so still to other non-white) of African Americans are LGBT. Not that Africans make up more of the LGBT pop.

Directly below that stat, it points out that approximately 33% of LGBT in the US are non-white. Which means that African Americans are an even smaller percentage of the whole than that.

 

[trunks2k]

According to this poll, African Americans are allegedly the largest group of LGBT

Special Report: 3.4% of U.S. Adults Identify as LGBT

You read the question wrong. African Americans are the group most likely to self identify as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or trangender (4.6% versus 3.2% for whites). That doesn't mean African Americans are the largest group thereof, nor does it tell us much about the overall attitude amongst the entire African American population.

 

[Skybringr]

No, according to the poll, a slightly higher percentage (about one point to that of whites, less so still to other non-white) of African Americans are LGBT. Not that Africans make up more of the LGBT pop.

I said the largest group, not the majority.

 

[Skybringr]

I find it just a bit dubious (my favorite word late, dubious) that wherever there's a lot of liberalism, there's a lot of LGBT.

Couldn't have anything to do with it being a choice coerced by liberals could it....

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I said the largest group, not the majority.

I never said majority either. I said they are NOT, at all, the largest group. And pointed out that the poll results you linked pointed that out, as well. YOu stated they were the largest group.

They are not - only 33% of LGBT, as per the poll you provided, are non-white. Of that even fewer are black.

If less than 33% of LGBT are African American while roughly 66% are white...how can they be the largest group? Logic, man. Logic.

 

[Joykins]

I said the largest group, not the majority.

More accurately, there is a slightly larger percentage of the black population that self-identifies as LGBT (4.6%) than the percentage of the white population that self identifies as LGBT (3.2%). Since the total black population is much smaller than the white population (72% vs 12.6% respectively), the total number of white people self-identifying as LGBT is much higher.

I think this provides us with enough numbers to do the math:

4.6% of 12.6% = 0.57% of the US population is black self-identified LGBT

3.2% of 72% = 2.3 % of the US population is white self-identified LGBT.

2.3 > 0.5

QED

 

[JGL53]

Actually, what is currently ascending is inchastity (ie: sex outside of marriage and/or not for procreation), of which same-sex acts are a part but not the whole.

Once the break was made between sex and procreation, the floodgates were opened to all forms of non-procreative activity that either genuinely have consent of the participants or for which it is irrelevant.

So your point is that I am right but that is a really terrible thing?

OK. I think we can all live with that.

lol.

 

[Skybringr]

More accurately, there is a slightly larger percentage of the black population that self-identifies as LGBT (4.6%) than the percentage of the white population that self identifies as LGBT (3.2%). Since the total black population is much smaller than the white population (72% vs 12.6% respectively), the total number of white people self-identifying as LGBT is much higher.

I think this provides us with enough numbers to do the math:

4.6% of 12.6% = 0.57% of the US population is black self-identified LGBT

3.2% of 72% = 2.3 % of the US population is white self-identified LGBT.

2.3 > 0.5

QED

Blacks have the highest percentage within their group, relative to others.
They are vastly liberal as well.

Wherever there is liberalism, there is LGBT. Only 2% of blacks are conservative, and only 6% Hispanic.

White people are the reigning champs of conservatism, and relatively have the lowest percentage of homosexuals in their group.

There's something to be acknowledged there- homosexuality is in fact very political.

 

[theophilus777]

It is obvious that, to ascertain homosexual marriage, one has to redefine marriage altogether.

Lots of holes in your statements, but I think everyone will agree with this much. The question becomes, do we need to point out why re-defining marriage is not a good idea? I don't think we do. We are not the ones wanting to change anything. I think the gays need to make a valid reason why it needs to be re-defined. They haven't done so. Their civil rights can be afforded w/o re-defining marriage. And what they hope to accomplish by re-defining marriage will not be accomplished, so how is it worth the turmoil?

 

[theophilus777]

Um... what? Where did I mention religion?

You don't have to, everyone else does that for you. Not only is that on your side of the aisle, that is their major complaint.

So you see a link between squickiness and future generations. Could you, perhaps, clarify exactly what your concern in this regard is?

Not likely

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I find it just a bit dubious (my favorite word late, dubious) that wherever there's a lot of liberalism, there's a lot of LGBT.

Couldn't have anything to do with it being a choice coerced by liberals could it....

I'm sure that has nothing to do with conservatives being the ones calling them abominations and condemning their private lives and comparing them to child molesters and zoophiles and denying them their right to be in committed relationships.

Nah... it couldn't be that.

 

[theophilus777]

The US federal gov't did not recognize them a couple years ago. No state in the US recognized SSM 11 years ago. No country recognized them until 2001 - now some 13 countries or so perform same-sex marriages (at least in some regions, if not as a whole). I would say that is major progress.

I call it regress; degeneration, to be more precise. At least you recognize this is a new phenomenon.

Also, the issue of SSM in the US is very unlikely to be revoked and changed in a negative way by SCOTUS - who only over a year ago removed the barriers to the US Federal Gov't recognizing it. And are set to here cases that could, potentially, end the issue altogether - by making removing what is left of DOMA, causing all US states to at least recognize SSM.

If you think SCOTUS' decision is a shoe-in, you know neither them nor the issue very well. I do agree they will end the issue altogether, by settling it one way or another. I also realize its a huge risk the gays are taking by tackling it all at once as is being done. I'm not sure if I should respect that or consider it stupid, but there it is.

When DOMA was first passed I did not understand why it was bad law, but that's rather evident now, isn't it? Just because it was bad law, really doesn't tip the Court's hand. They are keeping their cards close to their chest.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Lots of holes in your statements, but I think everyone will agree with this much. The question becomes, do we need to point out why re-defining marriage is not a good idea? I don't think we do. We are not the ones wanting to change anything. I think the gays need to make a valid reason why it needs to be re-defined. They haven't done so. Their civil rights can be afforded w/o re-defining marriage. And what they hope to accomplish by re-defining marriage will not be accomplished, so how is it worth the turmoil?

Why do you get to decide what constitutes a valid marriage? Who made you the arbiter of truth?

Basically your argument is that marriage shouldn't be redefined to fit modern society because some people already defined it a certain way 20 centuries ago. That is an appeal to tradition and is not a good enough reason to deny members of the public the same liberties that are afforded to other members of the same public.

You are the one who wants to protect the current definition of marriage, you are the one that needs to give a valid reason why it shouldn't be expanded to include homosexuals. You've given reasons but so far, none of them are working. The courts disagree with you, most of the country disagrees with you, and more importantly, the constitution disagrees with you.

And here we are, with almost half the states approving SSM and more to come and almost every developed country in the West having done the same. Clearly, your arguments don't hold up.

 

[theophilus777]

Wouldn't you want to promote a culture amongst gay men that encourages long term monogamy (i.e. marriage) to help cut back on infection?

This is not only a good question, but central to the issue.

Does marriage really make a relationship last any longer? Not really. It might ruin an otherwise good relationship. What you want to label as tyranny and oppression is actually looking out for your best interests.



Seriously, you're either going to stay together or you're not. The piece of paper won't do it for you.

 

[theophilus777]

To be fair, at least as of 2010, 78% of new HIV infections in the US were transmitted via male to male sexual encounters

That is over-representative of that sector of our population.

 

[Skybringr]

Lots of holes in your statements, but I think everyone will agree with this much. The question becomes, do we need to point out why re-defining marriage is not a good idea? I don't think we do. We are not the ones wanting to change anything. I think the gays need to make a valid reason why it needs to be re-defined. They haven't done so. Their civil rights can be afforded w/o re-defining marriage. And what they hope to accomplish by re-defining marriage will not be accomplished, so how is it worth the turmoil?

I feel that if homosexual marriage must be part of society, it is much better described as a civil union.

They are so busy playing hardball, they don't want to give the traditional notion of marriage any respect- they want to run over it, redefine it, make it theirs, so on and so forth.

I am disappointed in churches, such as the Metropolitan and Episcopalians, for having ignored what even the State recognizes. It's all to me just radical- a complete sabotage of even the mere consideration of tradition in such regard, despite the fact of these churches' otherwise traditional core.

 

[JGL53]

That is over-representative of that sector of our population.

More heterosexuals have contracted AIDS, as a per cent of the population, than lesbians.

Explain that. Does god love lesbians more than she does the rest of us?

lol.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Blacks have the highest percentage within their group, relative to others.
They are vastly liberal as well.

Wherever there is liberalism, there is LGBT. Only 2% of blacks are conservative, and only 6% Hispanic.

Democrat =/= liberal. Republican =/= conservative. Blacks vote democrat but not because they are these ultra-progressive liberals. Some probably are but as a group, African Americans tend to be very religious and therefor, conservative in their beliefs.

White people are the reigning champs of conservatism, and relatively have the lowest percentage of homosexuals in their group.

I'm not sure that's true. The conservatism part, maybe. The homosexual claim, not likely.

 

[theophilus777]

Sure, but that doesn't mean they were homosexual.

This is a valid point. As far as Christianity goes, we really don't care about orientation, it's not sinful either way. (Or ... any way you slice it) It is only the behavior, meaning a heterosexual male engaging in homosexual sex (however you have that happening I don't want to know) is just as sinful as the homosexual male engaging in homosexual sex.

Also, worldwide, homosexuality is not the biggest demographic of HIV infections.

True, but this skews the facts and is due to other trends that kicked in after the disease reached epidemic proportions. I remember the days before AIDS. They were better. Shroomier, too