Why Bachman was Right About the Gay Myth

[NYcarbineer]

And that’s not really the point, however.

I posted the OP so I think I decided what the point to the post was, Sherlock.

The point is Bachmann will claim that because one ‘decides’ to be gay, homosexuals are not entitled to due process and equal protection rights.

Except she does not say that.

Everyone is entitled to those rights simply because they are human beings. One doesnt have to be a minority of some sort to qualify for them, and as a good conservative, Bachman knows this.

But that is what I love about the left; absent facts they'll just make up whatever the hell they want to anyway, lolololol.

If it's totally irrelevant how many Americans are gay, as it relates to gay rights, why bring it up?
Why did Bachmann bring it up?

 

[JimBowie1958]

And that’s not really the point, however.

I posted the OP so I think I decided what the point to the post was, Sherlock.

The point is Bachmann will claim that because one ‘decides’ to be gay, homosexuals are not entitled to due process and equal protection rights.

Except she does not say that.

Everyone is entitled to those rights simply because they are human beings. One doesnt have to be a minority of some sort to qualify for them, and as a good conservative, Bachman knows this.

But that is what I love about the left; absent facts they'll just make up whatever the hell they want to anyway, lolololol.

If it's totally irrelevant how many Americans are gay, as it relates to gay rights, why bring it up?

Because, believe it or not, there are other important issues in this world than just gay rights.

That might come as a shock to you, but things like scientific fact, Truth, and trying to correct an error someone has subscribed to are plenty of reason to discuss this matter. The pattern of Bachman being correct and yet vilified as an idiot by ignoramuses is another.

Why did Bachmann bring it up?

She didnt, Einstein, a Democrat liar did.

Edit: BTW, I like your sig line: "Conservatism is an army in perpetual retreat." It is just so true. The conservative values of today was that of the moderate leftist fifty years ago, as Heston demonstrated.

 

[tinydancer]

To the white wing, all Asians look the same. They don't have a lot of experience with "ethnics".

Yeah and we kick the shit out of puppies too. Oh and we beat up old people and starve them.

And while we're at it on a day to day we punch out kitties.

 

[newpolitics]

In any given mammalian population, there are a statistical number of homosexuals... I guess this was the point of his research?

Who cares what number he got, or whether people 'waiver'? This is all scientific speak, and does not reflect reality. You are using it so validate Bachman, which I find hilarious. You seem to want to prove what, that homosexuality is a choice? Well, its not. So, it doesn't matter the statistical numbers. I've known many gay guys who would sleep with women, just because women want to sleep with them, and they are curious. It doesn't mean they are actually straight. It's just a little experiment for them. Girls feel empowered around gay guys, and will do 'funny' things to get them in the sack. The truth, however, is that sexuality exists on a continuum, and not by choice. Where a guys 'penis' (sexual compass) points is not a choice. Sexual drive is the most primitive drive known to any species anywhere, and as such, and it not simply conscious choice who we are attracted to. If Kinsey's research showed that homosexuality was a choice, I think he would have either concluded it himself, or would have been concluded by other professionals in academic papers through peer review. You forming this conclusion here and putting it forth as 'truth' that somehow people have missed all of these years is a little ridiculous, and should not be considered truth by anyone reading it. You are manipulating the facts and wording to form bias conclusions.

 

[Katzndogz]

My question. Why should it matter if it is 3% or 10% or 25%?

the economy sucks just as much for gay folks right now as it does for straight folks. Maybe they'll be happy that they can't get thrown out of the military thanks to Obama right now, (although most of the people thrown out under DADT outed themselves when they found out their recruiters lied about the color TV's) .

Our real problem is that the economy sucks and the middle class is disappearing and China is creeping up in our rear view mirror (objects are closer than they appear).

I want to hear what these guys are going to do about that. Most of it seems to be kow-towing to our new Overlords.

This is the sort of thing we should be upset about.

You know that's the Emperor of Japan, not someone from "China", right?

It's actually the Mayor of Tokyo and his wife.

One of our more embarassing moments.

 

[The Rabbi]

What's the point? Is there a minimum percentage you have to get to if you're in a minority before you get equal rights in this country?

Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else in this country. We've been through this a dozen times and no one has shown what rights they are missing.

 

[The Rabbi]

My question. Why should it matter if it is 3% or 10% or 25%?

the economy sucks just as much for gay folks right now as it does for straight folks. Maybe they'll be happy that they can't get thrown out of the military thanks to Obama right now, (although most of the people thrown out under DADT outed themselves when they found out their recruiters lied about the color TV's) .

Our real problem is that the economy sucks and the middle class is disappearing and China is creeping up in our rear view mirror (objects are closer than they appear).

I want to hear what these guys are going to do about that. Most of it seems to be kow-towing to our new Overlords.

This is the sort of thing we should be upset about.

You know that's the Emperor of Japan, not someone from "China", right?

It's actually the Mayor of Tokyo and his wife.

One of our more embarassing moments.

No, that is the emperor of Japan.
Japan’s emperor praises the nation for coming together following quake and tsunami disasters - The Washington Post

SOmeone post the cartoon of Obama bowing to the Burger King.

 

[JoeB131]

To the white wing, all Asians look the same. They don't have a lot of experience with "ethnics".

Actually, I work with Chinese and Japanese people, and I know that this is the Japanese Emperor.

My problem is that ANY bowing went down at all by the so-called "Leader of the Free World".

Somewhere FDR is turning in his grave.

 

[tinydancer]

Look at how low Obama is grovelling before him> Most won't understand this.

 

[mskafka]

Bachman told a gay supporter the other day that the factoid that 10% of the total population is gay is a myth, and people have been slamming her for being wrong on the topic. The media seems to simply presume the myth Bachman referred to is correct without discussion and referenced Kinsey's research to support their presumption.

The fact is that Kinsey's research support Bachman's claim. According to Kinsey, about 11% of males engage in K3+ sexual behavior which is basically bisexuals and those tending more toward exclusive homosexuality. What places one in this category is if one has engaged in that type of behavior for 3 or more years of their adult lives. So one could be exclusivley heterosexual in behavior from the age of 16 to 25, experiment with bisexuality from the age of 26 to 28, then go back to being exclusively heterosexual the rest of your life and you are still classified by Kinsy as bisexual or K3. Kinsey's research also showed that people driftin in and out of a sexual behavior category and into others for their entire lives.

Since gay advocates claim that 10% of the population is gay and people are born exclusively gay for their whole life, basically Kinsey's research refutes that completely.

So Bachman is once again correct, her critics imbeciles and all that is 'situation normal'.

As to Kinsey's research, it has been proven that he used a data sample that included about 25% felons, which should surprise no one that for at least three years 11% of those in his survey engaged in homosexual behavior. That is simply a thing that happens in prison. His defenders admitted to the data sampling error, but claimed later to have removed the felon derived data and still ended up with the same results. For that to be true, then one would have to accept that the prison population is no more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than the general population which is preposterous.

Also, Kinsey used volunteer data, which by its very nature opens one up to self selection bias.

So it is extremely likely that Kinsey's numbers are exagerated by several factors.

I wont even go into moral questions regarding his surveying people he knew to be active pedophiles but not reporting them to the police, and his own bias in his research as he was bisexual himself.

I will encourage you to do some research on what being homosexual was like in 1948, when this study was first published. Homosexuality was considered to be a mental illness, until 1973. People were jailed for "homosexual relations". Undoubtedly, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals were lynched or murdered. (hey it still goes on, so there's no question that it was happening then.) Police would pull up to gay bars in paddywagons and arrest most of the men in the bar. In some states, sodomy is still on the books as illegal.

And so....with all this information (knowing that you might be arrested, murdered, placed in a psych hospital)...would you have been open about your sexuality in the 1940's?

Does anyone else think that Kinsey's study might be a bit dated to pertain to now?

 

[The Rabbi]

Bachman told a gay supporter the other day that the factoid that 10% of the total population is gay is a myth, and people have been slamming her for being wrong on the topic. The media seems to simply presume the myth Bachman referred to is correct without discussion and referenced Kinsey's research to support their presumption.

The fact is that Kinsey's research support Bachman's claim. According to Kinsey, about 11% of males engage in K3+ sexual behavior which is basically bisexuals and those tending more toward exclusive homosexuality. What places one in this category is if one has engaged in that type of behavior for 3 or more years of their adult lives. So one could be exclusivley heterosexual in behavior from the age of 16 to 25, experiment with bisexuality from the age of 26 to 28, then go back to being exclusively heterosexual the rest of your life and you are still classified by Kinsy as bisexual or K3. Kinsey's research also showed that people driftin in and out of a sexual behavior category and into others for their entire lives.

Since gay advocates claim that 10% of the population is gay and people are born exclusively gay for their whole life, basically Kinsey's research refutes that completely.

So Bachman is once again correct, her critics imbeciles and all that is 'situation normal'.

As to Kinsey's research, it has been proven that he used a data sample that included about 25% felons, which should surprise no one that for at least three years 11% of those in his survey engaged in homosexual behavior. That is simply a thing that happens in prison. His defenders admitted to the data sampling error, but claimed later to have removed the felon derived data and still ended up with the same results. For that to be true, then one would have to accept that the prison population is no more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than the general population which is preposterous.

Also, Kinsey used volunteer data, which by its very nature opens one up to self selection bias.

So it is extremely likely that Kinsey's numbers are exagerated by several factors.

I wont even go into moral questions regarding his surveying people he knew to be active pedophiles but not reporting them to the police, and his own bias in his research as he was bisexual himself.

I will encourage you to do some research on what being homosexual was like in 1948, when this study was first published. Homosexuality was considered to be a mental illness, until 1973. People were jailed for "homosexual relations". Undoubtedly, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals were lynched or murdered. (hey it still goes on, so there's no question that it was happening then.) Police would pull up to gay bars in paddywagons and arrest most of the men in the bar. In some states, sodomy is still on the books as illegal.

And so....with all this information (knowing that you might be arrested, murdered, placed in a psych hospital)...would you have been open about your sexuality in the 1940's?

Does anyone else think that Kinsey's study might be a bit dated to pertain to now?

Except people have examined Kinsey's study, which is the source for the 10% myth, and discovered that they over-counted dramatically, including for example prison inmates.
The truth is the gay population is about 3%.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Everyone is entitled to those rights simply because they are human beings. One doesnt have to be a minority of some sort to qualify for them, and as a good conservative, Bachman knows this.

Apparently not:

“We are wide open and vulnerable and in all likelihood an activist judge will strike down our Defense of Marriage Act, our state law against gay marriage, this year. And in all likelihood, we will have gay marriage in 2004 in Minnesota , if we don’t get this amendment on the ballot for November.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

The Bachmann Record : Revealing Quotes

Her efforts to disallow equal access to the state’s marriage laws is clear proof Bachman is opposed to due process and equal protection rights for homosexuals.

In this and other issues she is indeed a ‘good conservative.’

Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else in this country. We've been through this a dozen times and no one has shown what rights they are missing.

No one ever said homosexuals don’t ‘have’ the same rights as everyone else, that was never the issue; the issue is the effort by many conservatives, such as Bachmann, to illegally preempt those rights by statue.

As with Colorado’s illegal amendment to its constitution disallowing gays access to that state’s anti-discrimination laws, Bachmann’s effort to enact a ‘defense of marriage’ measure ‘classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [a state] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. [A ‘defense of marriage’ act] violates the Equal Protection Clause…’

Romer v. Evans (1996).

 

[JimBowie1958]

Everyone is entitled to those rights simply because they are human beings. One doesnt have to be a minority of some sort to qualify for them, and as a good conservative, Bachman knows this.

Apparently not:

“We are wide open and vulnerable and in all likelihood an activist judge will strike down our Defense of Marriage Act, our state law against gay marriage, this year. And in all likelihood, we will have gay marriage in 2004 in Minnesota , if we don’t get this amendment on the ballot for November.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

The Bachmann Record : Revealing Quotes

Her efforts to disallow equal access to the state’s marriage laws is clear proof Bachman is opposed to due process and equal protection rights for homosexuals.

On what basis do you think that there is a right to marriage?

In this and other issues she is indeed a ‘good conservative.’

I would agree with you on this particular issue, but over all she is doing Romney's dirty work, playing the attack dog on all of Romneys rivals.

Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else in this country. We've been through this a dozen times and no one has shown what rights they are missing.

No one ever said homosexuals don’t ‘have’ the same rights as everyone else, that was never the issue; the issue is the effort by many conservatives, such as Bachmann, to illegally preempt those rights by statue.

As with Colorado’s illegal amendment to its constitution disallowing gays access to that state’s anti-discrimination laws, Bachmann’s effort to enact a ‘defense of marriage’ measure ‘classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [a state] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. [A ‘defense of marriage’ act] violates the Equal Protection Clause…’

States can and do exactly that in a wide variety of such behaviors from pedophilia to polygamy to adultery.

And she is right to consider it a defense of marriage. I would support making a version of civil unions that have all the same rights of marriage except for calling it marriage.

For that, forget it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

To the white wing, all Asians look the same. They don't have a lot of experience with "ethnics".

Yeah and we kick the shit out of puppies too. Oh and we beat up old people and starve them.

And while we're at it on a day to day we punch out kitties.

I try to jack-boot stomp at least three kitty cats a week.

It's good for the soul.

 

[JimBowie1958]

In any given mammalian population, there are a statistical number of homosexuals... I guess this was the point of his research?

Behaving like animals validates smething in human behavior? Dont think so.

Who cares what number he got, or whether people 'waiver'?

Well, apparently, a whole lot of researchers do, for starters.

This is all scientific speak, and does not reflect reality.

Science does not reflect reality? lololol

You are using it so validate Bachman, which I find hilarious.

It would seem you find rational thought itself hilarious.

You seem to want to prove what, that homosexuality is a choice? Well, its not.

Wow, I didnt know you defined reality. No wonder you have no use for science.

So, it doesn't matter the statistical numbers. I've known many gay guys who would sleep with women, just because women want to sleep with them, and they are curious. It doesn't mean they are actually straight. It's just a little experiment for them.

Or that maybe they are actually bisexual? Very few people who have homosexual sex only have it exclusively with their own sex. And yes, it is so a choice. Otherwise it would be rape.

Girls feel empowered around gay guys, and will do 'funny' things to get them in the sack. The truth, however, is that sexuality exists on a continuum, and not by choice. Where a guys 'penis' (sexual compass) points is not a choice. Sexual drive is the most primitive drive known to any species anywhere, and as such, and it not simply conscious choice who we are attracted to.

No, attraction is not a choice, but screwing is a choice.

If Kinsey's research showed that homosexuality was a choice, I think he would have either concluded it himself, or would have been concluded by other professionals in academic papers through peer review.

It is obviously choice since people choose to have sex with either sex as they please.

You forming this conclusion here and putting it forth as 'truth' that somehow people have missed all of these years is a little ridiculous, and should not be considered truth by anyone reading it. You are manipulating the facts and wording to form bias conclusions.

I am supposing that no one has missed anything till my post since the igniting event was a statement by someone who asserted this very thing.

You're not very bright, are you?

 

[daveman]

To the white wing, all Asians look the same. They don't have a lot of experience with "ethnics".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbwPu_LuTZs]Rosie O'Donnell ching chong - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What's the point? Is there a minimum percentage you have to get to if you're in a minority before you get equal rights in this country?

Apparently, how else do you explain affirmative action?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To the white wing, all Asians look the same. They don't have a lot of experience with "ethnics".

My guess is you have no idea how to tell the difference between the various Asian ethnic groups yourself.

 

[Political Junky]

What's the point? Is there a minimum percentage you have to get to if you're in a minority before you get equal rights in this country?

Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else in this country. We've been through this a dozen times and no one has shown what rights they are missing.

Yes, it's been repeated so often, and many have told you of the rights that gays don't have.

 

[JDzBrain]

What's the point? Is there a minimum percentage you have to get to if you're in a minority before you get equal rights in this country?

Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else in this country. We've been through this a dozen times and no one has shown what rights they are missing.

SAME RIGHTS HELL...gays have been made a protected class in this country!

Everyone is entitled to those rights simply because they are human beings. One doesnt have to be a minority of some sort to qualify for them, and as a good conservative, Bachman knows this.

Apparently not:


Her efforts to disallow equal access to the state’s marriage laws is clear proof Bachman is opposed to due process and equal protection rights for homosexuals.

On what basis do you think that there is a right to marriage?

Exactly Bowie!

You are issued a privilege license to get married. Although it's more like a penalty license with the marriage penalties you pay in taxes.

Rights...rights DON'T REQUIRE A LICENSE!