|
StealthArcher posted:Might be wrong, but I think this is more true then not, mostly due to suicide rates among young LGBT youth, which of course you know isn't what this shitstain wasn't attempting to draw attention to. Don't forget murders, too! If his numbers included all LGBT people, well, 1 in 12 transgender people are murdered. Sorry for bringing the numbers down, y'all.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
StealthArcher posted:Might be wrong, but I think this is more true then not, mostly due to suicide rates among young LGBT youth, which of course you know isn't what this shitstain wasn't attempting to draw attention to. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that gay and straight life expectancies are pretty similar-ish. Anyways, there's apparently a whole host of problems with Paul Cameron's estimates (for example - how do you identify when someone's gay? Well, he only counted gay people who were out of the closet. Take a wild guess if you're more or less likely to be in the closet if you're older. Also, he used obituaries for collecting life expectancy information for straight people, used the married men as his straight male population, and... just. Basically, the entire thing was rigged. In a really obvious way). I think the entire identifying someone's sexual orientation after they're dead problem probably makes the entire trying to figure out how life expectancies vary based on sexual orientation a fairly difficult task.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Uh, I thought that guy just came up with 42 during the height of the AIDS epidemic when a whole bunch of gay men were dying early due to AIDS, and never changed it since then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Uh, I thought that guy just came up with 42 during the height of the AIDS epidemic when a whole bunch of gay men were dying early due to AIDS, and never changed it since then. No. He actually did differentiate between gay men who died of AIDS (calculated life expectancy of 39) and who did not die of AIDS (calculated life expectancy of 42). The other methodological flaws in the study should've been sufficient cause for rejection (I'm assuming that wherever his paper got published reviewed it in some form or another) - the use of obituaries to obtain average life expectancies, using disjoint sets of periodicals for gay and straight obituaries, comparing the life expectancy of married straight men with the life expectancy of gay men, and limiting the population of gay men to only those out of the closet. There's probably others - those are just the obvious ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
42? Clearly the fucker's just cribbing from Douglas Adams.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
moebius2778 posted:It wouldn't surprise me to find out that gay and straight life expectancies are pretty similar-ish. Actually it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that gays (or at least gay men) have a higher life expectancy, at least in the US. Being wealthy is a major determining factor of your lifespan, and gay men have a median income that is quite a lot more than the national median (from memory, the national median household income is $80k, lesbians are $75k, gay men are $100k or something along those lines). 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/27/harlem-church-sign-warns-obama-has-released-homo-d/  I think they're a little confused about what homosexuality is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjiYga9vn-Q Just a reminder that the only thing worse than being gay or black in America is being gay AND black in America, due to getting rejected on all fronts by everyone around you - including these homophobic malicious bozos. Spacedad fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
That's why Ice-T gets to talk about all those brothers on the DL on law and order.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
Gay sex is awesome so it stands to reason that the second it's accepted, every American man will suck dick nonstop.
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That's why Ice-T gets to talk about all those brothers on the DL on law and order. Ah yes, the down-low - the phenomena that's cropped up when gay black men grew up terrorized into the closet all their lives and pushed into sham marriages. Pleases don't take my gay husband, homo demons. I also like that somehow Obama is being scapegoated for this. "Yes, because Obama, your husband is actually gay." What a powerful president we have, able to bend magically bend sexuality at will, apparently. Spacedad fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:What a powerful president we have, able to bend magically bend sexuality at will, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Gay sex is awesome so it stands to reason that the second it's accepted, every American man will suck dick nonstop. Welp, better get a head start then! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:Might be wrong, but I think this is more true then not, mostly due to suicide rates among young LGBT youth, which of course you know isn't what this shitstain wasn't attempting to draw attention to. You're wrong. It isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Gay sex is awesome so it stands to reason that the second it's accepted, every American man will suck dick nonstop. Its all part of the Gay Agenda(T)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
In Michigan news, the defense tried to have the case thrown out because the DeBoers couldn't meet the burden of proof that a ban on gay marriage is harmful.  Judge said he would take it under advisement which if I know my social code means "gently caress off"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Deuce posted:The Utah ruling literally quoted Scalia a couple times. When the One True Case finally reaches a decision, I'm going to take the day off from work just to wallow gloriously in Scalia's tears. What a hateful little goblin that man is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:In Michigan news, the defense tried to have the case thrown out because the DeBoers couldn't meet the burden of proof that a ban on gay marriage is harmful. Here's the liveblogged article about today's session in Michigan. Third day in a row that they've hard a pre-noon adjournment. The judge must really want to watch The Price is Right or something. http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2014/02/live_from_the_courthouse_day_4.html#comments Edit: quote:"You agree that different sexes bring different contributions to parenting," asks attorney Brya to end cross-examination of professor Cott. quote:Cott during re-direct: 
Nth Doctor fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:Judge said he would take it under advisement which if I know my social code means "gently caress off" It just means the judge isn't going to make a ruling at that moment. Happens all the time. You're right about what the judge is going to do, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Scott "would somebody PLEASE string me up from a lamp post already?!" Lively went on NPR today to defend his campaign for exterminating gay people across the world. An excerpt (Audio and full transcript in link):quote:MARTIN: Well, you know, this law, though, has been denounced by the United Nations, by U.S. officials, including the Secretary of State and the president. A number of European nations have said that they're suspending aid to the country because they believe that this is a fundamental violation of human rights, particularly to criminalize relations between consenting adults. Are they all gay bullies? In the microscopic chance that you are reading this, Lively, I'd like to make a plea with you. Please, for everyone's safety, for your own safety even, KILL YOURSELF!! You are a plague upon this world, your actions have rendered you sub-human. Everyone who's not a gay-bashing savage wants to see you in prison, at best. Karma is coming either way, and I Also, where does one draw the line between "giving them enough rope to hang themselves with" and "I am the text-book definition of a spineless liberal. Please walk all over me, and feel free to use my show to advocate for all the genocide you want!"? staticman fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
I'm not fully read up on legalese, but when did sodomy stop meaning "Any sexual act that doesn't promote procreation" and start meaning "man dick in man butt"? I'm not trying to be Mr. Semantics here, but I was always under the assumption that, by definition, "Sodomy" meant anything from a blowjob to using a condom, or even straight anal. But was there a point in US legislative/judicial history where it was defined as (male) gay sex?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
staticman posted:Scott Lively: I majored in human rights. Sharkie posted:Don't forget murders, too! If his numbers included all LGBT people, well, 1 in 12 transgender people are murdered. Sorry for bringing the numbers down, y'all. quote:TL:DR – I read a statistic that 1 in 12 trans people’s lived end in murder, and cannot find a primary source for said statistic. However, trans people are being murdered because they are trans, and the murder of even one trans person is unacceptable. The Macaroni fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:What. The. gently caress. I can't process that. To be fair this is completely consistent with his viewpoint that homosexuals are less than human.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Morter posted:I'm not fully read up on legalese, but when did sodomy stop meaning "Any sexual act that doesn't promote procreation" and start meaning "man dick in man butt"? I'm not trying to be Mr. Semantics here, but I was always under the assumption that, by definition, "Sodomy" meant anything from a blowjob to using a condom, or even straight anal. But was there a point in US legislative/judicial history where it was defined as (male) gay sex? http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/21.06.00.html quote:(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex. https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+18.2-361
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
AcetylCoA! posted:Still broke! Wanna buy an incinerator? Maybe they legislature will get into right after they pass a severance tax and pension reform. At least Kane isn't going to defend the ban. Corbett compared gay marriage to incest but has a 24% approval rating and is behind in the polls. Still can't believe Harrisburg blew all their money on a god drat incinerator. Of all the things,  Just start a tire fire if you want to burn things. It's not that hard
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:What. The. gently caress. I can't process that. That number came from studies that primarily focused on prostitutes, if I remember right. It ended up being misstated as applying to all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:In Michigan news, the defense tried to have the case thrown out because the DeBoers couldn't meet the burden of proof that a ban on gay marriage is harmful. In the UK, there's actually legalese for the phrase "gently caress off": "I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram."
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
If one of those religous freedom laws gets passed I'd like to see a bunch of orthodox jews hurling rocks at j*hovah's witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Morter posted:I'm not fully read up on legalese, but when did sodomy stop meaning "Any sexual act that doesn't promote procreation" and start meaning "man dick in man butt"? I'm not trying to be Mr. Semantics here, but I was always under the assumption that, by definition, "Sodomy" meant anything from a blowjob to using a condom, or even straight anal. But was there a point in US legislative/judicial history where it was defined as (male) gay sex? Sodomy in the context of American law traditionally consisted of only anal sex, and then in the late 19th century and early 20th century it was expanded to encompass fellatio and in some cases cunnilingus. The sodomy laws were originally predominately used to charge rapists and child molesters but were then used to target gays extensively in the early to mid 20th century before the start of the gay rights movement. Consensual heterosexual anal or oral sex was never prosecuted under the laws even though it was technically considered sodomy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
twodot posted:Sodomy is just a generic term that people use. The law in question for Lawrence v Texas was literally a ban on gay sex: People who create laws like this need hobbies. I suggest knitting, or possibly hiking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:People who create laws like this need hobbies. I suggest knitting, or possibly hiking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:
Whoa, this is from the Washington Times? I thought they were mostly conservative assholes, this is more of a "laugh/be outraged at the conservative assholes" story you'd expect from Daily Kos or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:Whoa, this is from the Washington Times? I thought they were mostly conservative assholes, this is more of a "laugh/be outraged at the conservative assholes" story you'd expect from Daily Kos or something. The pastor is black, and it's a church in a black community. "Black people are the real homophobes" is a popular meme the right has supported in the past to sow dissent among dems. There's probably an element of "Obama's liberal agenda has failed real black people," in there, along with an element of laughing at something ridiculous a black person has said as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 09:46
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:Other states banned specifically any anal/oral sex: Hiking the Appalachains.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:Whoa, this is from the Washington Times? I thought they were mostly conservative assholes, this is more of a "laugh/be outraged at the conservative assholes" story you'd expect from Daily Kos or something. Now now, a lot of them are libertarian assholes. Libertarians generally support civil rights in principle, though they're against most governmental social justice measures because MAH TAXES. Libertarians are generally okay with gay marriage because they recognize there's no good reason to restrict it - it doesn't affect their taxes, it would require minimal regulation, and it expands choice without hurting anybody. Pththya-lyi fucked around with this message at 12:07 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:Now now, a lot of them are libertarian assholes. Libertarians generally support civil rights in principle, though they're against most governmental social justice measures because MAH TAXES. Libertarians are generally okay with gay marriage because they recognize there's no good reason to restrict it - it doesn't affect their taxes, it would require minimal regulation, and it expands choice without hurting anybody. I dunno, lately I've been hearing a lot of libertarians spouting the "Government should get out of marriage entirely" line, which is consistent, but somehow only ever gets brought up when people are talking about gay marriage. I suspect it's just a convenient way of obfuscating their opposition to gay marriage, since they know there's no way in hell that straight marriage is going to be eliminated anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:I dunno, lately I've been hearing a lot of libertarians spouting the "Government should get out of marriage entirely" line, which is consistent, but somehow only ever gets brought up when people are talking about gay marriage. I suspect it's just a convenient way of obfuscating their opposition to gay marriage, since they know there's no way in hell that straight marriage is going to be eliminated anytime soon. Ask them if they ever once expressed this belief before it became obvious that marriage equality was going to be a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:Now now, a lot of them are libertarian assholes. Libertarians generally support civil rights in principle, though they're against most governmental social justice measures because MAH TAXES. Libertarians are generally okay with gay marriage because they recognize there's no good reason to restrict it - it doesn't affect their taxes, it would require minimal regulation, and it expands choice without hurting anybody. Libertarians are generally "gently caress you, got mine" wankers, and in my experience oppose anything which doesn't directly benefit them. The main "Libertarian, non-racist party" in the UK is actively opposed to same-sex marriage, has silenced and dismissed members of the party who have argued in favour of same-sex marriage, and has elected representatives who believe that the recent floods were caused by same-sex marriage. 'Libertarian' is convenient code for 'right-wing, but we know you don't like right-wingers, so we wont call ourselves right-wing'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:I dunno, lately I've been hearing a lot of libertarians spouting the "Government should get out of marriage entirely" line, which is consistent, but somehow only ever gets brought up when people are talking about gay marriage. I suspect it's just a convenient way of obfuscating their opposition to gay marriage, since they know there's no way in hell that straight marriage is going to be eliminated anytime soon. Yeah, never give libertarians, specifically white straight ones, the benefit of the doubt on civil rights. The whole philosophy is cover for some of the most disgusting racists, sexists, and other assorted bigots around-- just look at all the interconnections the Pauls have with neo-confederates and WS types. The only thing most lizard-brained libertarians want with gays is to get them out into public so they can be dispossessed and starved/killed. Trying to treat it as a legit set of politics rather than just a fig leaf for status quo privilege is a huge mistake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Critiques of fascism apply to libertarianism. They've bought the meritocratic dogma of the ruling classes while accepting that the world doesn't measure up, so they're trying extra hard to be patriotic-entrepreneurial-vicious. They believe the world is wrong instead of the lies. To this end they fabricate vast conspiracies to explain why the power of their foes is illegitimate and they'd all be comfy if it weren't for those cheating lying fucks and their evil conspiracy to control the world. That they do this while espousing meritocratic just-world nonsense is loving hilarious. Also, what Pasco and rkadj said. Big Hubris fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
Sharkie posted:The pastor is black, and it's a church in a black community. "Black people are the real homophobes" is a popular meme the right has supported in the past to sow dissent among dems. There's probably an element of "Obama's liberal agenda has failed real black people," in there, along with an element of laughing at something ridiculous a black person has said as well. When I was reading the article I kept thinking that something seemed familiar about it, but I couldn't quite place what it was. Turns out the pastor is the same guy who has hated Obama since he was a senator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU This video is notable because it inspired the song that I play whenever I'm having a bad day and want a little pick-me-up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaa_WdPPP8E 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 19:04
|
|
