1 - 2
In response to:

Distorting Numbers on Gay Identity

JayWayne Wrote: Feb 20, 2013 1:22 PM
Your definition of equality is shockingly flawed. In order to try to help you understand, I will resort to the following imperfect but I hope illustrative metaphor. For your concept of marriage equality to apply, laws defining opposite sex marriage would have to stipulate that the two people involved not be in love. The institution of marriage, until about 100 years ago, was almost exclusively concerned with arranged marriages, and in most cultures included customs regarding dowries, exchange of property, etc, etc. Only recently has marriage evolved to be between consenting adults in some places. The 'adults' part isn't required everywhere, even now. And again, the size of a minority should not bear on providing equality for all.
In response to:

Distorting Numbers on Gay Identity

JayWayne Wrote: Feb 20, 2013 11:05 AM
What year is it on this web site? Some time in the mid-60's? The 4% figure has been widely accepted for some time. You can quibble about the terminology and methodology if it amuses you, but the greater question is: Did you have a particular numerical threshold in mind above which equal rights under the law for a minority is appropriate? Jews are 3% of the population and are treated equally. If there was a published survey which showed that gays constitute at least 3%, THEN do we get equal protection under the law? Please advise. Also, please give up on the marriage-procreation blather. Married people don't always have children. People who have children aren't always married. They are not legally linked.
1 - 2