Food & Drink3 mins ago
Bigots On The March Again In The States
http://
These people would repeal all equality laws if they could. Disgraceful.
These people would repeal all equality laws if they could. Disgraceful.
Answers
> http://
16:08 Wed 01st Apr 2015
It seems unlikely to make such a choice in the face of all the vicious discrimination gay people have faced in the past. I don't see why anyone would choose to undergo that of free will -- or, perhaps more to the point, why so many people did. To live life in the shadows, in fear of perpetually being "outed" and humiliated, is just fundamentally not a choice anyone would make.
The Constitution discussion is a separate one. I can see that it has advantages of stability, but I worry that it's too rigid, particularly today. If the changes in society over a handful of years or a couple of decades or so are too fast to expect law to have to reflect them, over timescales of centuries then it's equally strange to have the law be so static in the face of what have been some seriously massive changes.
The Constitution discussion is a separate one. I can see that it has advantages of stability, but I worry that it's too rigid, particularly today. If the changes in society over a handful of years or a couple of decades or so are too fast to expect law to have to reflect them, over timescales of centuries then it's equally strange to have the law be so static in the face of what have been some seriously massive changes.
mikey4444
I didn't see your answer that was removed, but thanks for apologising all the same.
I didn't think my reply was odd, it was just because there was no need to call people bigots, your last leader was guilty of using that word.
But then you went on to repeat the insult and added yet another by calling the Americans 'DAFT'. You must try and refrain from using such insults or you yourself may stand the risk of being a pariah.
/// And its people like these daft Americans, that are trying to put their country back into the dark ages that I think are bigots Apariah. Most people on here seem to agree with my sentiments. ///
I didn't see your answer that was removed, but thanks for apologising all the same.
I didn't think my reply was odd, it was just because there was no need to call people bigots, your last leader was guilty of using that word.
But then you went on to repeat the insult and added yet another by calling the Americans 'DAFT'. You must try and refrain from using such insults or you yourself may stand the risk of being a pariah.
/// And its people like these daft Americans, that are trying to put their country back into the dark ages that I think are bigots Apariah. Most people on here seem to agree with my sentiments. ///
Clanad
You raise some interesting points, especially when you refer to businesses who have been targeted, but 'militant' homosexuals.
Do you think that the right response to these tiny number of cases is justification for enshrining bigotry in law? What this bill represents for the first time since Jim Crow, is legislation which will allow someone to be sacked for their sexual orientation.
You wrote:
It's amazing to some of us that a segment of the population totalling, by latest counts, less than 2%, has the power to force so many other people to conform to their wishes through coercion
There's a common misconception that just 2% of the nation are pro gay rights. There are substatial numbers of straight people who also support equality for gay people.
Regarding gay people dying 20 years earlier than straight people.
I'm loving that this piece of nonsense is still doing the rounds.
Please read this:
THE ARGUMENT
Anti-LGBT organizations, seeking to promote heterosexuality as the healthier "choice," often offer up the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of gays and lesbians as reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt or foster children.
THE FACTS
This falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled "The Lifespan of Homosexuals." Using obituaries collected from newspapers serving the gay community, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.
Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron's statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News' "This Week."
However, like virtually all of his "research," Cameron's methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron's methods "just ridiculous."
You raise some interesting points, especially when you refer to businesses who have been targeted, but 'militant' homosexuals.
Do you think that the right response to these tiny number of cases is justification for enshrining bigotry in law? What this bill represents for the first time since Jim Crow, is legislation which will allow someone to be sacked for their sexual orientation.
You wrote:
It's amazing to some of us that a segment of the population totalling, by latest counts, less than 2%, has the power to force so many other people to conform to their wishes through coercion
There's a common misconception that just 2% of the nation are pro gay rights. There are substatial numbers of straight people who also support equality for gay people.
Regarding gay people dying 20 years earlier than straight people.
I'm loving that this piece of nonsense is still doing the rounds.
Please read this:
THE ARGUMENT
Anti-LGBT organizations, seeking to promote heterosexuality as the healthier "choice," often offer up the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of gays and lesbians as reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt or foster children.
THE FACTS
This falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled "The Lifespan of Homosexuals." Using obituaries collected from newspapers serving the gay community, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.
Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron's statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News' "This Week."
However, like virtually all of his "research," Cameron's methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron's methods "just ridiculous."
I am absolutely certain that if homosexuality was a choice, many gay people would not have chosen it. Obviously I don't mean every gay person, but the amount of grief some people are given simply for being themselves - being bullied, not accepted by their families and so on - I'm positive that there are some people who if it were a choice, they would have chosen not to be gay if they could.
Not sure what you mean, Clanad -- but nevertheless your claim of homosexuals having a lifespan a full 20 years shorter than heterosexuals is so ridiculous that I can't even see a point in hunting for a refutation.
Bearing in mind that the average lifespan is about 70 or so for men, currently, 20 years represents almost a 30% reduction! Stuff and nonsense -- and indeed that's what sp's post points out.
Bearing in mind that the average lifespan is about 70 or so for men, currently, 20 years represents almost a 30% reduction! Stuff and nonsense -- and indeed that's what sp's post points out.
Oh dear Clanad - your postings today are full of non-sequiturs
Bear in mind that the Gt late Geo Washington only gave the constitution twenty years. [ Some evidence he thought it would founder on slavery, and was very nearly right ]
//Homosexuals of both genders lives are at least 20 years shorter, they have, by far more health issues during their shortened lives, expend an enormous amount of public money addressing the health issues.//
Now what one has to show is .... if homosexuals start kssing girls and you know doing other things.... that they go back to living 20 y longer and save money . There is no evidence of this.
Shortened lives of homosexuals - some connection with HIV/AIDS which was costed as costing the gt american public - one trillion dollars. Reagan was warned that if he did nothing it would balloon/explode and he chose to do nothing and the costs exploded. " And the Band Played on " but the somewhat unlikely named Randy Shilts makes a very depressing read. The Brits by the way did not do this and I think the HIV prevalence rate is stuck at 0.6%
Other howling non sequiturs I will leave it others to skewer
Bear in mind that the Gt late Geo Washington only gave the constitution twenty years. [ Some evidence he thought it would founder on slavery, and was very nearly right ]
//Homosexuals of both genders lives are at least 20 years shorter, they have, by far more health issues during their shortened lives, expend an enormous amount of public money addressing the health issues.//
Now what one has to show is .... if homosexuals start kssing girls and you know doing other things.... that they go back to living 20 y longer and save money . There is no evidence of this.
Shortened lives of homosexuals - some connection with HIV/AIDS which was costed as costing the gt american public - one trillion dollars. Reagan was warned that if he did nothing it would balloon/explode and he chose to do nothing and the costs exploded. " And the Band Played on " but the somewhat unlikely named Randy Shilts makes a very depressing read. The Brits by the way did not do this and I think the HIV prevalence rate is stuck at 0.6%
Other howling non sequiturs I will leave it others to skewer
Jimbo - hi by the way
70 for life expectancy of a man in the UK is low by the way
it has gone up by twenty y in the last twenty y ! ( shout yay for the NHS ! ) - I think it is 86 for women and 78 for men.
I havent followed it very carefully as I have had CT in the last five years and so have a 25% chance of dying in the next 5 years. It is still more highly tied to the average age of death of your parents than anything else
When Lloyd george brought in old age pensions - people " danced in the streets because they would not have to work until they dropped " 2% of the population would reach the age of 65 y at that time by the way.
Now your kids have a 30% chance of living to 100 apparently
70 for life expectancy of a man in the UK is low by the way
it has gone up by twenty y in the last twenty y ! ( shout yay for the NHS ! ) - I think it is 86 for women and 78 for men.
I havent followed it very carefully as I have had CT in the last five years and so have a 25% chance of dying in the next 5 years. It is still more highly tied to the average age of death of your parents than anything else
When Lloyd george brought in old age pensions - people " danced in the streets because they would not have to work until they dropped " 2% of the population would reach the age of 65 y at that time by the way.
Now your kids have a 30% chance of living to 100 apparently
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Body & Soul7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Looks Like Bob The Builder Has Done A...
News32 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.