I'd Plus rep you if I could Grave, it's brave being up front like that. Now you see Erico, your words are going to directly affect a member of this website.
Including that statistic..? (just kidding) I just sat through a 1/2 hour debate two days ago on this subject, so I'm 85% sure these are reliable. If you still REALLY don't trust the first site, then just stick to the second one... or just Google "homosexual statistics" and find something from there.
Human's instinct of distrust isn't an excuse to over generalized a population. For example it is wrong to say: All homosexuals will create a bad living environment for a child because some homosexuals live in different lifestyles. You say it's smart to judge, but what happens when you find that they are in fact able to raise a child because they don't fall in these percentages of negative statistics? Lol. I really do not feel like looking up information on something that should be obvious, so I'll give you examples: Whatever % of African Americans have AIDS/HIV Whatever % of White Americans males that use drugs Whatever % of Americans that engage in underage/over sex Whatever % of Americans that are alcoholics Pick a group you don't like, list attributes the public finds offensive, find statistics of offensive attributes on said group. Easy equation to devalue a population of people. Pretty good summary of how it's not fact because of the conservative origins of the statistics. Look at the tone of writing it uses, for example: Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8). The added note about filthy third world countries is irrelevant and is only there give a negative connotation. It's obvious what the writers intentions are. 50% of the calls to a hotline to report "***** bashing" involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (18). This one made me lol. It gives no context, whatsoever. How do we know that some of the calls (to some hotline, who knows) weren't about parents abusing their homosexual teens? It's a domestic violence that involves gay bashing. Once again it is a skew of some statistic to make it look worse. It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10). lololol, rage much? I'll just highlight the word choice and tone the author uses to try and convince others on the terribleness of gays. It should be self explanatory. Not when you are analyzing in order to accuse (i.e. Lets find everything bad about blacks and then present it in order to spread my own bias)
Yes, one group of people will be judged more than another, simply because they've been analyzed differently. They may feel hurt that they have to suffer just because one or more people of the same group did something illogical. It's unavoidable... but, as I said before, it's smarter for people to judge others if they want to keep safe. It doesn't have to stay this way forever if trust is regained.
Saw this on another forum I frequent, thought I would share so we can get away from debating anti-gay pseudo facts: I agree fully, there should be a separation between church and state. Any opinions?
They feel hurt because you have foundation on which to judge them and yet you still do. WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY WRONG???? Can you just answer the question without any reference to "it just is" or "God's word says". Think for yourself and answer the question honestly.
You know what I find awesome about that list of statistics? It doesn't matter. At all. It is a scare tactic, they went and looked up as many studies of statistics in homosexuals as they could find, and then listed only the bad ones. What a nonbiased and honest person should have done is check on some statistics that are common indicators of healthy sexual lifestyles, and then compare the results between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Instead, they just found a list of statistics from the past 20+ years before that list was published, and spouted off the worst ones. Oh and did you catch what I said about it being 20+ years? The newest statistic on your list(which itself was published in 2000) is from 1994. The oldest? 1977. Hilariously out of date statistics. It is extremely clear that the author just hunted down the worst statistics they could find without regard for their current accuracy. Society changes very quickly. I think you'll find that gays are accepted at a much greater level now than 1977. Years ago, gays were discriminated against(well, more than they are now anyway) so being openly gay was rarer. Those that were going to engage in homosexual acts did so behind closed doors, when opportunity arose. As such, they were far less likely to have planned for the act, and it was more likely that there would be multiple people present, and partners were unlikely to be in stable relationships. Plus, education years ago was poor on the homosexual lifestyle, so compared to today, homosexuals would be at greater risk. The age of the statistics alone completely discredits all of the ones about STDs and multiple partners. The other half of the statistics discredit themselves by being outright lies. Some judge or police chief says a lot of crimes are committed by homosexuals? Wow, such a great source! Not. One guy's statement means nothing. Gays prey on children! No, pedophiles prey on children. Throwing all gays in with a few pedophiles that prey on same sex children is just a scare tactic, and not indicative of anything. Oh and NAMBLA is a joke. They throw out the man/boy love association name to scare people, and say it has thousands of members. That is a complete lie. It was for all intents and purposes dead when this list of "statistics" was compiled. The author of the list is a liar. The only thing that makes him seem reasonable to people that already share his opinion is that he lies with statistics. Seriously, click that link, buy the book. It will open your eyes to all the ways that people can and do lie to you under the false sense of authority granted by numbers. I only wish they'd update the examples used from when the book was published in 1954, but the methods used then are still around, and computer research has only made it worse. Oh and 50% of suicides being attributed to homosexuals is the fault of all you ****s who hate them so much.
There are far more heterosexuals then homosexuals, so statistically: Homosexual Statistics will have a larger percentage then Heterosexual Statistics. Heterosexual Statistics will have a larger amount of people then Homosexual Statistics.
Okay, lets all settle down. Last time I stated that homosexuality could be cured and you said it couldn't, then I was warned. Please, it's just my opinion, and I'm really, honestly not trying to insult you at all. This is a debate about words and phrases. It is not about how you self interpret other people's words to form against yourself. We're trying not to get personal, and it's only one person that trips up and starts accusing things. If this is a debate, then I'm freely able to speak my own opinion. If this is not a debate, then I will be left to watch as someone self interprets words and starts accusing others of abuse. I'm not talking about the churches opinion. I'm taking factual statistics and am trying to form an argument with them... But it seems that some disagree with these statistics, so I'm left to either reply OR say an argument that doesn't have any proof or anything behind it. Now, I am perfectly able to say that you're now offending me, according to your logic because you're saying God and marriage are two different things. If anyone starts saying I'm hurting others, then you might as well say Grave Robber is hurting me. Now can we continue?
No, you're openly admitting that you don't want his rights to be equal with yours. He's saying he doesn't want to be married in a church.
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! Seriously, I lol'd imagining the thought process behind writing that, "It's unfair that the only sources I can find are biased and skewed! I acknowledge that my argument can be seen as having no real substance, yet I continue to fight for my belief!"
Well then that's one less person who's "passed" the test. As soon as many people start "passing", then you won't have the need to test any longer. Yea, it may look bad from the other side's point of view, but what you've gotta do is what you've gotta do. I'm really trying to put homosexuality and heterosexuality on the same balance beam, and this is what I've honestly concluded. Yes, it's his own little words that he adds.. but there are still statistics that are under his little corruptible blanket, if you will. It's sad to see that this person is trying to make it seem worse, but I still stand with what I just said. Ditto Yes, this guy's pretty biased... but.. yea, I'm still going with what I just said.. I provided two sources then told you to google it yourself. The statistics are still there. I'm still with the statistics, and I'm willing to shrug off this person's small biased remarks.. but there are still usable statistics.
*facepalm* You aren't getting it at all. If you google "homosexual statistics", you get the EXACT SAME BULLSHIT that's just differently worded from other rather anti-gay/homophobic websites. Do you understand what I'm saying here? It's nothing more than a bullshit chain letter your parents send around to you and their friends, and you roll your eyes because you know it's all crap. I challenge you to find any real data that was cited in those statistics, and then we can have more of a discussion on them. Otherwise, I will continue to disregard them and everything else you point to as a basis of your arguments.
Yes, if I have reason to judge them, then it's my nature to judge. I can try not to, but I may end up with a bullet in the brain (just to make things over-dramatic). Perhaps you missed the statistics I posted just 2 or 3 pages ago. I don't see why you have such a strong connection between me and God all the sudden. I've only said God once.. and that was because someone else brought it up! ........ So okay, now, when 3 or 4 sites have similar information that is against a topic you call it "THE EXACT SAME BULLSHIT that's just differently worded..". Yes, and did you know that dictionaries actually copy one other because they know the next dictionary is 100% correct?.. It's actually the same with Bible translations too.. they just reword a couple things, slap on their name, then bam... On topic, yes, no?
If you know he's lying, and you stand by his statements, doesn't that make you a liar? Obviously, they aren't all outright lies I guess, since they are supposedly real statistics, but they're intentionally deceptive and intentionally cherrypicked and out of date by 20+ years from when the list you provided was written, and by 30 years today. If there are some out there that are both real and current, I suggest you find them if you want to continue arguing that being gay is bad.
I totally meant you have no foundation ER1CO. Skewed facts that have been taken grossly out of proportion don't have any bearing on morality. Facts at all about homosexuality at all have no bearing on the legality of same sex marriage. You're discriminating and you know it. That's unconstitutional. Stay in China.
The bias in these statistics is what we would call confirmation bias, which is defined as the tendency to search for, interpret or remember information in a way that confirms preconceptions or working hypotheses. (gays r bad!) The biases appear in particular for issues that are emotionally significant (like gay marriage!) and for established beliefs which shape the individual's expectations. Now, why are they not usable statistics? Confirmation biases are mistakes found while interpreting data, and in the context of scientific research, it can lead to theories persevering the face of inadequate or even contradictory evidence. (Much like the thousands of skewed facts about gays across the internet) A biased theory causes problems because any statistic computed from the sample has the potential to be consistently erroneous. A fact is a truth, a statement that can be checked and confirmed. Obviously data that constantly has errors can't be considered "fact." Right?
As the people have done already, they've checked the sources. The sources were incredibly biased, very vague or squed. Find a different list of statistics. Actually, don't. Why do the people judge every person from a group because of one person? Are you afraid of gays? Are you afraid that a gay man will start hitting on you? Are you afraid that a gay person will raise children who are gay? How are people to regain trust if they are constantly judging each other?
I'm not quoting the rest due to its Irrelevancy. Also the first paragraph was meant for you not the second one, your taking it personal, don't be so conceited. you may say the same about me but I am the only Gay who is stating that hurts me and my friends directly. This just shows how flawed your argument is, come back with more reliable resources as to why homosexual people should not be married, and less of why they shouldn't be who they are. Again stop refering to the Statistics they are false and hurtful... I googled like you said and I found alot on positive statistics on homosexuality on the first page. The only reason I am saying this hurts is because no gay person is saying anything about it, I'm here with my boyfriend and he finds it insulting too. Don't encourage discrimination, I know your trying to help but if he did then I could report him again for Anti-gay slander, and I don't want that I may disagree with his opinion but I don't want to do that unless he truly deserves it.
Okay, I'll admit it. That was stupid of me. I didn't look at the dates and I went around that website searching and saw how illogical it was. Well, it's 3 AM, so I gotz to go to bed. Turns out I can't find anything really against homosexuals, but I remember hearing a bit of what I just saw in a debate two days ago, so I could have sworn that some of that was true.... which is weird..... but whatever.