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.
Rick676 Wrote: Feb 20, 2013 11:43 AM
The 4% figure is only accurate if you add in the bisexuals, so that is a false statistic in regards to homosexuality. Homosexuals already have equal protection under the law. The have the same ability to marry anyone of age of the opposite sex as I do, therefore they have the same rights that I do. That it is not what they want does not constitute inequality, just that what they want is outside of the law. They cannot marry someone of the same sex, and neither can I, therefore we have the same restrictions, or equal protection under the law. Tell me why a minute minority (>2%) can dictate the radical change of an institution that goes back for millenia just for them to feel "normal"?
James88 Wrote: Feb 20, 2013 1:08 PM
What if the government only recognized marriages between an individual and someone of the same race? Sure, you could say that this would limiting marriage, but you'd still have the same right to marry someone of the same race as anyone else would have.

You may think this metaphor is not applicable, because interracial opposite-sex couples can procreate with each other's genes. Fine, I grant you that, but it doesn't change my point. My point is that segregated equality is a misnomer. It's only equal through an unequal prism.

Also, why does a majority determine what human rights are? Expanding an institution does not change the original institution. The original institution exists. It's just complimented by a simliar institution
Rick676 Wrote: Feb 20, 2013 1:17 PM
Complimented? Not likely, and the experience of millennia of mankind's existence has proven that one man and one woman united in marriage provides the best foundation for civilized society. Race restrictions were only in certain places at certain times, not universal, so your metaphor is lacking not only due to melanin. Your point is that you want what you want and are willing to twist words and metaphors to get what you want. I don't care who you sleep with, but calling it a marriage is like calling a dog's tail a leg. The dog still only has four legs no matter what you call the tail.
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.
Rick676 Wrote: Feb 20, 2013 2:52 PM
And again, you have equality. You just want something that no one has ever had, and call it "human rights". The institution of marriage is not a "human right", but rather an institution that was initiated to protect the woman and her children. The woman was protected from other men, and given rights to her husband's property, and protected the child's inheritance and legacy rights. As for marriage involving love, there is no requirement for it even today. Love who you wish, but you can only marry the opposite sex. Anything else is a farce and misnomer.

A misleading new state-by-state study claims that nearly 4 percent of American adults identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender with Washington, DC boasting the top LGBT population of nearly 10 percent.

These figures seem to contradict a 2011 study from the same experts at UCLA’s Williams Institute that showed only 1.7% saying they were gay or lesbian. Where’s the discrepancy?

The new numbers include bisexuals, who actually outnumber lesbians and gays. This is politically inconvenient for the gay rights argument because bisexuals by definition feel attraction to both genders, and so exercise some element of choice in how they express...