Sexual Orientation and the Canadian Voter

[normanchateau]

How 'bout we stay on topic. 

You raised the topic of whether the media should cover a topic relating to a minority group, i.e., gays, early in the campaign. I responded. Sorry that you didn't like my response, a portion of which asked the question of whether other minority group topics

are also verboten by your standards. Should the media ONLY ask questions which are of interest to the majority?

[sharkman]

Already asked and answered, the media should cover more important things first, less important things LIKE GAY MARRIAGE in later weeks.

[normanchateau]

Already asked and anwered, the media should cover more important things first, less important things LIKE GAY MARRIAGE in later weeks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fair enough but that assumes media people actually have a plan as opposed to running amok randomly, sometimes reacting, sometimes poking, sometimes prodding, sometimes appearing totally out of control and hysterical. While I think some media might have a plan, I suspect most just run amok. In other words, if they weren't working for the media, they'd be politicians.

[sharkman]

Actually some media have a plan, thats why the question was asked on day one, and reported on long and hard.

[normanchateau]

Actually some media have a plan, thats why the question was asked on day one, and reported on long and hard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the media have a plan, they're very poor at executing it. I've not even heard them mention C-250 once nor have they reminded the voters about Harper's homophobic comment about Svend Robinson. Or do you think that Harper's homophobic comment will be reported in January? I do not trust the media to remind Canadians sufficiently about Harper's past mistakes, e.g., building a firewall around Alberta, health care flip flops, attacks on Mike Harris and Preston Manning's health care report, and so on.

[sharkman]

Maybe the professional media think c-250 and Harper's Svend remark are much less of an issue than you think it is. There are plenty of hacks within the MSM that want to see the Conservatives lose, if they aren't using this stuff, mabe there is a reason.

[normanchateau]

Maybe the professional media think c-250 and Harper's Svend remark are much less of an issue than you think it is.  There are plenty of hacks within the MSM that want to see the Conservatives lose, if they aren't using this stuff, mabe there is a reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, the reason is that the media are merely running amok and don't have the smarts to produce a coherent plan...just like some politicians.

[sharkman]

Yes, hopefully Martin can get his act together, with 8 surpluses and an economy the envy of many, he can so far only manage to be 4 or 5 points in the lead.

So if the media aren't acting like you think they should they are merely running amok? Yes, I can see you thinking that.

[normanchateau]

Yes, hopefully Martin can get his act together, with 8 surpluses and an economy the envy of many, he can so far only manage to be 4 or 5 points in the lead.

Yes, it's a problem when 30% of the populatiuon (NDP and BQ) are further left and want

more government spending.

[Leafless]

Black Dog

You wrote - " Well it's a good thing SSM doesn't change Christian beliefs: It's a civil institution."

Homosexual lifestyle does have an impact on Christian beliefs (which is off topic under this topic).

Civil institution has nothing to do with this point as it is focused on religious instiution of marriage NOT civil.

You wrote- " Yeah , gay parents will make kids gay, just like straight parents so successful at making their kids straight."

Yes, I think heterosexual parents are VERY successful at making their kids straight, considering only 1% of the population is gay.

In fact they would probably be even more successful if it was not for people like Pierre Trudeau.

You wrote- "Imposed on the majority." " Let me clear something up for you. SSM doesn't require someone of the same sex. There is no impositon involved."

Nice try, but we are talking about homosexual perversed lifestyles imposed on hetrosexuals or the normal standard used as part of a major system as building blocks for the successful creation of Canadian society and also used by virtually every country in the world.

[normanchateau]

Nice try, but we are talking about homosexual perversed lifestyles imposed on hetrosexuals or the normal standard used as part of a major system as building blocks for the successful creation of Canadian society and also used by virtually every country in the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds like my CPC candidate.

[Clopin]

Openly gay MPs in the HoC constitute more than 1%... that's just the OPENLY gay ones.

If we are in a situation where even women are not represented fairly in terms of numbers in parliament... make your own deductions.

[shoop]

I don't agree with the 1% figure either. I figure the truth lies somewhere between that and the 10% figure of people who have *ever* had a gay experience that the Gay and Lesbian lobby trumpet as their percentage of the population (from the Kinsey study, which had a number of flaws including a disproportionate number of incarcerated convicts.) If I had to guess, and I have no real interest in getting into competing studies, definitions of homosexuality yada yada, I would put the figure at 2 to 4% of the population.

Openly gay MPs in the HoC constitute more than 1%... that's just the OPENLY gay ones.

If we are in a situation where even women are not represented fairly in terms of numbers in parlaiment... make your own deductions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[sharkman]

I thought the 1% seemed a little low as well, but when you add gay plus bisexual, you get 1.7%, and remember these results are from people filling out a survey without any embarrasment. Stats Canada doesn't have any axe to grind on this issue and has buckets of money to get accurate results with.

[shoop]

Good insight. My bad for not reading the link before.

Strange how Clopin overlooked that. Care to explain the difference Clopin?

I thought the 1% seemed a little low as well, but when you add gay plus bisexual, you get 1.7%, and remember these results are from people filling out a survey without any embarrasment.  Stats Canada doesn't have any axe to grind on this issue and has buckets of money to get accurate results with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Black Dog]

Problem with any attempt to define sexuality is that, if you ar eoperating on the basis of a sexual bianary (gay/not gay) you are going to miss out on a helluva lot of people. What about bisexuals? Transgengered folks? Where woud you put a woman undergoing surgery to become a man who dates wmen? Or what about someone who considers themselves predominately straiht, but still fools around with members of the same sex?

Sexuality is a continuum that can't accurately be measured by surveys like this.

Besides: even if there were a grand total of 12 homosexuals in Canada, not allowing them the same rights as everyone else would still be wrong.

[sharkman]

But the survey allowed people to identify themselves as they wished. therefore it's pretty accurate. And it also measured bisexuals!(you must have missed that in the link) The rest of your examples are of the extremely rare kind that hardly exist period. Just because Maury has them on his tv show everyone thinks transgendered or sex change types are common.

I think us Canadians tend to focus too much on this minority and that minority rather than realize we lead the world in minority and gay rights. And besides, we are all Canadians and all equal.

Edited December 7, 2005 by sharkman

[Leader Circle]

Openly gay MPs in the HoC constitute more than 1%... that's just the OPENLY gay ones.

If we are in a situation where even women are not represented fairly in terms of numbers in parliament... make your own deductions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you referring to Pierre Pettigrew & his Chauffeur(Man servant???)?

LOL

This generation will have to be called the "Me Generation", because everybody wants the world to stop turning for their issue or their cause. They don't care what their issue may be, just that the world jumps when they ask for it.

They use the media to claim racial or sexual orientation biases, so that people will sympathize with them. It is truly pathetic.

What does SSM have to do with human rights? NOTHING! It is mainly about pushing the envelope that much farther and Canada just gives in. Although they claim there are only 300,000 people who claim to be gay, 300,000 of them vote and they vote as a group for their policy or issue. When you consider the amount of voters out there, that number is huge. They have more stroke in politics than many unions!!

Now, after this ruling in BC against the KoC hall, the gays in Canada will finish their original task of removing religious freedom from Canadians. They have proven their ability to get what they want and now being religious is worse than being a smoker!!! They paint all religious people as bigots & human rights abusers, and suggest(like norm) that religious folks would actually like hate crimes against gays to be legal, so that they can further their cause of removing religion from all aspects of public life!! When in actuality, religious people do not hate them, they just don't like the lifestyle they represent.

I think these people do not care about anyone but themselves and their selfish causes are actually hurting the lifestyles of everyone else!

And all we have left is to piss & moan about it or forums like these, because the deed is done. Welcome to the ME GENERATION!

[Black Dog]

But the survey allowed people to identify themselves as they wished. therefore it's pretty accurate. And it also measured bisexuals!(you must have missed that in the link)

No, I saw that. My point is, there's no universal definition of an of these terms, which means any survey relying on these terms (especially self-applied) will have some big gaps.

It also doesn't count closest cases...

What does SSM have to do with human rights? NOTHING! It is mainly about pushing the envelope that much farther and Canada just gives in

Gives in to what?

[Leader Circle]

But the survey allowed people to identify themselves as they wished. therefore it's pretty accurate. And it also measured bisexuals!(you must have missed that in the link)

No, I saw that. My point is, there's no universal definition of an of these terms, which means any survey relying on these terms (especially self-applied) will have some big gaps.

It also doesn't count closest cases...

What does SSM have to do with human rights? NOTHING! It is mainly about pushing the envelope that much farther and Canada just gives in

Gives in to what?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whatever, that is the power they have. Lets make a national "Crossdressers day" and if these people get on board, we will have one!(Other than gay pride parades of course)

[sharkman]

No, I saw that. My point is, there's no universal definition of an of these terms, which means any survey relying on these terms (especially self-applied) will have some big gaps.

It also doesn't count closest cases...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I think the gay and bi culture know much better than the average Canadian what their identity is and can define it just fine on a survey such as this whether there is a universal definition or not. As well, closet cases have a survey to fill out in their living room at their leisure, it's not like they're trying to hide something illegal like falsifying their taxes. IMO all gays would want to admit their lifestyle in a hope of as high numbers as possible on the results to further legitimize their need for government attention.

There are no gaps, blackdog, is it so hard to believe the numbers only amount to about 1.7%?

[August1991]

There are no gaps, blackdog, is it so hard to believe the numbers only amount to about 1.7%?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, yes.

Go back to the StatCan link.

First, you will notice a difference by age: 18-34 gives a 2% whereas 45-59 gives 1.2%.

In addition, in Quebec the percentage is 2.3% whereas in Alberta, it is 1.2%.

Altogether, this implies that there is some under-reporting.

----

The issue however is not one of numbers. It is a question of respect in a civilized society. Live and let live, that's all.

[Black Dog]

hatever, that is the power they have. Lets make a national "Crossdressers day" and if these people get on board, we will have one!(Other than gay pride parades of course)

Ah yes: "they" have the power. "They" are out to corrupt our society...with parades.

IMO all gays would want to admit their lifestyle in a hope of as high numbers as possible on the results to further legitimize their need for government attention.

I forgot that's page 17 of the Gay Agenda. This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but there's no gay hive mind that issues orders to all gays dictating how to act, dress and answer Stats Can surveys.

[kimmy]

The issue however is not one of numbers.  It is a question of respect in a civilized society.  Live and let live, that's all.

This is really all that need be said, in my opinion.

I did wish to complain about some of the numbers being brandished about earlier, though. Classifying people as "homosexuals" based on something as tenuous as having "a voluntary same-sex experience between the ages of 12 and 27" seems like a willful effort at inflating the number. What's the point?

-k

{not gay, but wouldn't kick Angelina Jolie out of-- uh, nevermind}

[shoop]

OMG k, what a thought. And I am going back to Edmonton next week. hmmmm..... I'll get my people to call Angelina.

-k

{not gay, but wouldn't kick Angelina Jolie out of-- uh, nevermind}

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>