"They all have husbands and wives and children and houses and dogs, and, you know, they've all made themselves a part of something and they can talk about what they do. What am I gonna say? "I killed the president of Paraguay with a fork. How've you been?" Martin Grosse
rstones199 - The Voice Of Reason!
When you say 'god', which one are you referring to?
I'm not saying let's kill all the stupid people, I'm just saying let's remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.
My sig has run afoul of the tiny scolds again, proving the truth of it.
(What is the smallest quanta of exercisable power on the internet?)
Any excuse will serve a tyrant. - Aesop . . . . . . . SHRUG
My hope is for Civil Unions in all 50 states. All privileges except adoption, and only because I see that as a difficult one to come to a decision on. There needs to be a high bar with all adoptions.
What's the point? I say if gays can marry, than everyone can marry anyone or anything they want..
now back to more partying
This article in the Open AIDS Journal pegs it at 2.9% of the population at large, with a margin between 2.6% and 3.2% (go back further and the numbers get quite a bit higher), so the 2% in the article - well, okay, 2.1%, varying by race - is not that far off the mark. It's also possible that I misread the data. But did you even read the data to begin with? As said, if you want to assert bias, provide evidence. You now have the dataset, the methods of accumulation, and much of the information they used to provide their conclusions. The sample size was quite clearly not 10, they didn't interview solely people coming out of the "homosexuals for monogamy" club, and their numbers match up with society at large. So what's the bias? You have all the information you need to review the study; how come you're still throwing out hypotheticals and baseless accusations, rather than, say, actually saying, "here's the error, here's the bias, this is why the study is bad"?