Ryan Conrad "Why as a radical queer I'm ***AGAINST*** same-sex marriage
Oh, honey, if you need the church and state to tell you that you’re worth it, you’ve got more self-esteem issues than your flagrant wedding ceremony is going to compensate for. I mean, seriously, do we have to stoop to straight people’s level? Why should we be retrofitting our erotic and emotional lives to fit within the confines and shackles of the hetero world? How about straight folks adjust their laws to better match the varied ways we queers make family and not the other way around? Fuck being equal. Let’s use our queerest gift – creativity – and pave the way to a future that’s not just equal, but better.
We just don’t think people who want that kind of life should benefit from special rights administered by the state while those of us who don’t want to marry, for whatever reason, are being coerced to marry to access basic rights and legal protections that all people should have. I also worry that the overwhelming media representations of gay identity and politics in which everyone is being shown as desperate to wed is really going to warp the minds of queer and trans youth. I was lucky growing up because I was never expected to get gay married and I had the freedom to develop into the kind of person I am because I wasn’t being inundated with fanatical homo-flavoured family-values rhetoric that situates marriage as the ultimate goal and the only good way to have a healthy gay relationship.
More from Ryan Conrad
During the gay marriage campaign in 2009, the gays there spent more than $6 million in nine months on a losing battle for gay marriage. That is in one of the poorest states in the country where the very few agencies that provide essential services to LGBTQ2S people are cutting programs and closing doors. This kind of voracious, single-issue spending is totally insulting. Imagine what kind of services and long-term cultural change could happen if our social service agencies had even a fraction of the budget these short-sighted campaigns do. Instead, we have queer and trans youth organizations closing left and right, while the pile of lifeless bodies gets higher and higher.
I think situating us as on the same side, let alone in the same bed, as heterosupremacists and religious zealots is a mistake. The binary being created by the liberal mainstream gays and the homophobic religious right is a distraction from what we are actually trying to get at. We are trying to challenge the logic that marriage should determine whether or not people live or die – we’re talking about healthcare, financial security and immigration status, among other issues. And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit, so I don’t think we can be so easily situated with pieces of human trash like Fred Phelps, Maggie Gallagher, Dick Cheney and all the rest of them. The whole you’re-either-with-us-or-the-terrorists mentality that pervades the pro-gay-marriage camp sounds very George W Bush and leaves little room for actual critical thinking.
After a talk I gave at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, where I made an off-hand comment about Lady Gaga and her particularly underwhelming gay politics, we started receiving multiple death threats via email and on Facebook. Of course, we take that kind of stuff with a grain of salt; it is the internet, after all. But when these threats are littered with classist, racist and anti-rural epithets, we see the sad but true underbelly of the contemporary gay rights movement. Think about it: isn’t it strange that it’s other gays threatening to kill us for being self-critical and thoughtful about the future of queer and trans politics, not homophobes?
Who is Ryan Conrad??? And why should I give a shit what he thinks?
What a fucking idiot.
You don't want to get married? You don't have any legal need to get married? Fine, don't get married.
But don't deny the 1000 rights and privileges to others just because you don't want it.
Ryan Conrad is a radical queer cultural and activist focusing on the queer political imagination.
People need to realize that the importance of gay marriage is not about marriage itself. It's about the legal precedent it sets. The fundies get highly upset about it because they realize that it is the ultimate event that will propel homosexuality into the normal and accepted category. The existence of nationwide gay marriage leaves the bigots without a legal leg to stand on. They know that afterward, they'll no longer be able to argue against "acceptance."
I don't plan on getting married (too happy being a slut right now), so it really doesn't affect me personally. But I do realize how crucial this particular legal equality is.
I stopped taking him seriously at "Oh, honey".
But he's right...at least partially. I don't have anything against marriage equality and I'm likely to marry my boyfriend, but I don't like the way that gay rights have become completely synonymous with gay marriage. They aren't one and the same. It really is something for wealthy gay white men (mostly). Once marriage equality is the law of the land you can bet your ass that the "gay rights movement" will cease to exist, at least in the minds of most. That's because the only people who will be carrying out the struggle will be those who are already invisible and voiceless.
[quote]They aren't one and the same.
Well no shit, Sherlock.
Who says they are?
Other than people ignorantly ranting against Gay marriage.
The idea that marriage is for wealthy white gay men is a completely idiotic notion.
It's the wealthy who don't need the benefits of marriage. They can hire the best lawyers to draw up iron-clad power of attorney documents. They don't have to worry about a fundie nurse stopping them from visiting their partner on the hospital because they just played golf with the head of the neurology division.
They might think of marriage as something ornamental, but there are couples who take real, practical benefits from legalized marriage, and it's not the A gays who pay $1,000 a plate for the latest HRC gala.
is he hot, though?
Health care, job discrimination, and poverty are more important issues for the gay community. But, you have to chip away - and it seems that marriage is the "hot topic" so let's just go ahead and get it out of the way. At least it has some momentum right now. Once that is out of the way, then start on the next issue. Seems to be working.
Here's hoping he takes Sunday's off at least
[quote]But don't deny the 1000 rights and privileges to others just because you don't want it.
I'm sure you realize gay marriage will not be addressed as a federal issue, but will be a state issue, just as dear leader said in his lukewarm endorsement of gay marriage. Therefore the 1,000 benefits everyone talks about will not materialize as the federal government will still not recognize gay marriage.
R14, Obama has been a strong opponent of DOMA, and it's likely to fall in a Supreme Court ruling, or be repealed legislatively... either way, it's gone, and you're wrong.
Repealing DOMA does not grant federal rights nor would it automatically grant same sex marriage.. Talk to me after the verdict later this month.
R17, are you retarded?
DOMA is all that stands in the way of those who are legally married from getting full federal benefits.
Perhaps you should stop posting and making a fool of yourself until you actually know what the fuck you're talking about.
It's interesting how the same answer works for both homophobes and "radical queers", if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.
I'm so sick of these idiots who think marriage equality is about nothing more than throwing big weddings, "imitating straights" and seeking validation from the government. There are over a thousand rights granted by marriage, including tax breaks, inheritance rights, access to benefits, pensions, hospital visitation rights, next-of-kin status, and on and on and on....
These idiots must be independently wealthy and unable to fathom being in a relationship. They're so oblivious to what most of us call reality it's not funny.
[quote]Ryan Conrad is a radical queer cultural and activist focusing on the queer political imagination.
Thanks, Ryan Conrad.
[quote]Here's hoping he takes Sunday's off
Takes Sunday's what off?
Not just a white middle class issue?
So do you think the Gays in Nigeria,Iraq or Russia have gay marriage as their no 1 agenda?
I think it would be to live without fear first.But I bet you they are getting the fallout from Gay Marriage.
Dont delude yourselves to think that this is the No 1 issue for Gays everywhere.It is the issue the West faces because we can afford to look at the issue and in the end it will get through because being conformative is hard wired in us.
But don't for a moment think there wont be fallout for other gay people.
R18. How simple are you. Repealing DOMA is one thing, granting external same sex marriage is another, If, big if, DOMA is deemed unconstitutional, this will be a state's rights issue and not a federal one.
R24, you're truly ignorant about how marriage works, aren't you? Yes, yes you are.
Conrad is a dumb queen's idea of a smart queen.
R25. If DOMA was the only obstacle, why could gays get married for the past 200 years in the USA. You, my tired fairy, don't understand how things work.
Couldn't not could.
R27, goddamn you're a stupid fucking idiot.
Nobody is claiming that repealing or over-turning DOMA will lead to nationwide gay marriage, you fucking idiot.
The point is that those who ARE married and CAN get married will have federal benefits.
And depending on the rulings, other states will have to recognize marriages, whether they perform them in that state or not (just like first cousins married in West Virginia are recognized as married by both the Federal Government, as well as in any other state including those that don't allow first cousins to marry).
Stop blathering your stupid bullshit and learn what you're talking about before posting again. Jesus.
R29. Again, you are an idiot. This will not be addressed as a federal issue, but states will be given the autonomy to decide. Federal benefits will not convey. You queens will digest and regurgitate anything democrats tell you.
I agree with him, and I've been saying so on here for quite some time.
Back in the day, those of us who said we as gays should make our own rules and create our own relationships were NOT considered "radical queers." We were just ordinary gays.
Imitating straight people for whatever reason is counterproductive. They should be imitating us. Then there would be a lot less mendacity in this country.
I agree with him 100%. Have been saying this for years now.
If you agree with him, you're a fucking moron.
Just like he is.
This thread is ridiculous, people calling each other idiots, somebody reading that article and calling the writer ignorant. Christ, he lays out several great reasons that lead him to his conclusions, but the HRC Equal Sign (tm) Mentality seems to have really infected a lot of the responses here.
There had been a thought, at one time long ago, that liberation meant creating something better. Say what you want about the guy who wrote the article, but he does not come across as ignorant.
R34, you're a fucking idiot.
Clearly you don't live in the real world, where couples NEED these rights. I know too many people whose relationships have been destroyed (by homophobic relatives or the state when one wasn't a citizen) due to lack of these rights.
The guy is a fucking self-absorbed moron, just like you.
There are people in the real world for whom equal treatment under the law is desperately needed. Whatever utopian ideals you might have are irrelevant to them.
[quote]classist, racist and anti-rural epithets, we see the sad but true underbelly of the contemporary gay rights movement.
Sounds like he's talking about DL.
Last week Ryan Conrad was railing against men wearing flip-flops in the gym shower.
I couldn't agree more with his POV on gays in the military. What victory was won there?
R38, as the tens of thousand of gay men and women who have served in the military proudly, but then got denied benefits, kicked out, or had their careers ruined.
Jesus, what is wrong with you? Just because it's something YOU would never do or need, it's worthless to everyone?
Equality is equality, good and bad. Equal treatment under the law is a good goal, no matter what your selfish self-absorbed moronic notions are.
I was perfectly happy, R39, when being in the military was, quite simply, something I would never have to do.
I really wouldn't want to be bunking with all that nude male flesh. I would fall in love with someone. I would get killed for doing so. I would have gotten -- what was it called in the Aaron Sorkin play? -- pillowcased? Sandbagged? Blanketpartied. That's it. Blanketpartied.
I just know it. I want nothing to do with the military. I'm not of the warring persuasion. I'm really not. And I think that's true of a lot of gay men.
Not a place I belong. And until recently, it's a place from which I was safe from ever having to join. I'm too old now, anyway, but I'm quite certain there are boys out there now who are like I was, who would be absolutely miserable -- if they even survived being drafted -- and it could come to that.
The military didn't want us, and I was always happy about that. It felt right. Not a club I want to join at all.
My pussy stinks.
[quote]But don't for a moment think there wont be fallout for other gay people.
What is your point, R23? Are we supposed to halt the gay rights movement in the western world because some homophobe in Baghdad or Moscow or Lagos might take it out on one of the locals?
What a nutty post.
[quote]Clearly you don't live in the real world, where couples NEED these rights
There are couples being broken up by deportation, couples where one partner goes without health insurance, families with kids where the kids and bio-parent are denied the benefits of the second parent, plus the added tax penalties of "unmarried" partners sharing benefits and exclusion from marriage-related tax breaks. But we should drop marriage and all stay single because gay people who choose not to marry are feeling left out, or something. Yep, let's all get behind that movement!
[quote]he lays out several great reasons that lead him to his conclusions
Name one and explain why it's so great.
[quote]The military didn't want us, and I was always happy about that. It felt right. Not a club I want to join at all.
Are you aware that not everyone is like you? This is like saying you don't support civil rights because you personally prefer the back of the bus to the front.
Here's the thing about equal rights: we all have the same rights. We have the right to get married or choose not to. We have the right to enlist in the military or choose not to serve at all. Whether you exercise your equal rights or not, they're YOURS, and everyone has the same as you because all of us are EQUAL. Not the same, not identical, not cookie-cutter copies, but equal in the eyes of the law.
It's unreal that the basic concept of equal civil rights has to be spelled out to an apparent gay person in 2013.
[quote]And until recently, it's a place from which I was safe from ever having to join.
Are you ok? There is no "danger" that you'll be forced to join now that DADT is repealed. Repealing DADT did not institute a gay draft. Why on earth do you suddenly not feel "safe" from having to join the military?
[quote]Are you ok? There is no "danger" that you'll be forced to join now that DADT is repealed. Repealing DADT did not institute a gay draft. Why on earth do you suddenly not feel "safe" from having to join the military?
When there is a draft, which could happen -- I'm old enough to remember my draft number: in the 300s, thank God -- do you [quote]really[/quote] think gays won't be draft-eligible? With "rights" come responsibilities.
[quote]Are you ok? There is no "danger" that you'll be forced to join now that DADT is repealed. Repealing DADT did not institute a gay draft. Why on earth do you suddenly not feel "safe" from having to join the military?
When there is a draft, which could happen -- I'm old enough to remember my draft number: in the 300s, thank God -- do you [italic]really[/italic] think gays won't be draft-eligible? With "rights" come responsibilities.
The repeal of DADT was a major step forward in gay rights. As a result, a number of gay couples in the military are party to the marriage cases going before the Supreme Court. The justices have to look at how gays can serve in the military according to the laws of the land. It's something they are considering in regard to marriage equality.
The radical queer movement has never represented most bisexual and gay people, especially today. They are stuck in a 1969 radical mindset and wonder why everyone is not enamored by their fixation on being fringe and extremist. Today, people just ignore them.
I agree with your first sentence, R12. Take a look at this polling data on ENDA.
I don't see how that's an idiotic notion, R10. You'd have to be in a fairly privileged position within a society to make marriage the central theme of your equal rights movement. I'm quite sure that most oppressed people in this country and around the world would gladly trade places if it meant that marriage would become their most pressing issue.
[quote]You'd have to be in a fairly privileged position within a society to make marriage the central theme of your equal rights movement
Marriage helps people who aren't well off at least as much as those who are.
And it's hardly the "central theme", it's merely where the current progress is being made. There are lots of other fronts, including ENDA, that are still being fought.
That's not what he's saying r3
r39 When a gay solider is killed by his fellow troops and the other solders get off with a slap on the wrist you guys are going to be wishing for a time when gays were not subjected to that.
r16, Obama didn't give a CRAP about LGBT until reelection and he needed votes.
Some people have suggested using "queer" to substitute for LGBTQRTSXGYP and i was kinda warming up to it but after seeing the term "radical queer" im dead set against it now.
R52, they were always subject to that.
At least now they'll have legal recourse. And publicity. And the majority of the public on their side.
Stop being a fucking idiot.
R53 lives in a fantasy world of his own imagination.
You're not getting it R50. My point is that for many members of the various subgroups within the gay community, marriage is way down on their list of priorities. These are people who already experience housing and employment discrimination. These are people who have an unemployment rate that is consistently higher than the white unemployment rate. Many of these gay people of various hues are homeless, living in abjext poverty, and have serious health problems but can't afford to see a doctor. These people aren't privileged enough to make marriage equality the central theme of their equal rights movement. A marriage certificate doesn't make them any less vulnerable. If marriage is your most pressing issue, count yourself lucky.
[quote]When a gay solider is killed by his fellow troops...
Wow! Just think, a soldier can be killed by friendly fire. That's certainly something never thought of before the repeal of DADT.
If there is an ENDA front it certainly isn't as intense as the marriage equality front. It's gotten to the point that gay rights automatically means marriage equality. The overwhelming majority of Americans don't even know that it's legal to discriminate against gays with regard to housing and employment ( and even restaurants). So that ENDA front is pretty darn quiet.
[quote] My point is that for many members of the various subgroups within the gay community, marriage is way down on their list of priorities
It's possible to have more than one goal at the same time, you know? Homophobes use this argument all the time as well - "We have mass unemployment,poverty, poor education and healthcare. Why waste time on ga marriage?" - it's a ridiculous argument. There will always be other problems. Solve those that are easily solveable.
When you take a step back and look at the entire gay rights movement, you see how far we've come in a relatively short period of time. However, not because some portion of the gay community needed specific rights or another group needed specific protections but because we've taken the long view and kept working even after achieving a step or two. Gay marriage is just the latest step, and the struggle will continue after marriage equality has been achieved, just as the struggle for marriage became the leading issue after DADT was repealed.
But, the fight for marriage equality is much greater than just the right for two people to form an acknowledged commitment and all the attendant rights. In fact, those rights are the compelling reason we'll achieve marriage equality, but they are not the end unto themselves. The whole point of marriage equality is to stuff the religious right's main argument against homosexuals back in their faces: that homosexuals are deserving of marriage rights because of our alternative sexuality, the freedom with which we embrace that sexuality, and the fact that it sets us apart from the mainstream. They have used the tired argument that we're perverts and freaks against us for decades if not centuries, and the framework of marriage was but one way they could oppress us and deny us basic human rights: to be with our loved ones in a moment of crisis; to not suffer the indignity of loss of financial security concurrent with the loss of a life partner; to be treated simply as equal in the eyes of the law. And you see the parallels of the black civil rights movement, as the same rights were denied to them as are denied to us, mostly, today.
That's why DOMA was enacted: it gave ideologically conservative states the legal standing to treat gays as second-class citizens, and once again in modern times, allowed the minority to subject the majority to their will. Just as the fig tonrepeal DADT was about more than gay people openly serving in the mikitary, the fight for marriage equality is not just about marriage; it's about correcting the bigoted artificial barriers that prevent homosexuals from enjoying the full benefits of citizenship.
To say that the fight for marriage equality is not the proper use of energy, money and clout is to deny that bigots and homophobes have outsized influence in our culture. And so long as we cede that authority to those who would deny us basic human rights, we guarantee that we will never attain those rights -- or any other gains we so desperately need.
Gays aren't really that much more creative overall. Of course, there's amazingly creative gays, and everyone else sort of rides their coattails.
Right R61, because marriage equality is more easily solvable than ENDA which has 73 percent of the nation backing it. If you believe that marriage equality would have a much greater impact on the gay community than ENDA, your priorities are out of order.
That whole ultra queercore sex obsessed hedonistic gay., is very 80s. I don't want to be queercore. I don't want to go to sex clubs and leather bars and watch two men poop on each other. I'm just a normal man who happens to be attracted to other men. I don't want to be imprisoned by some mincing whore's pink triangle, even if he finds liberation i it.
If that is who you are, then great, be that that person and be happy. But I'm not, I'm just a normal everyday man with normal simple human hopes and goals in my life; dealing with simple human fears and failings.
[quote][R39] When a gay solider is killed by his fellow troops and the other solders get off with a slap on the wrist you guys are going to be wishing for a time when gays were not subjected to that.
Wait. What? Huh???
Lets try and dissect this nonsense:
You are apparently arguing that ending DADT was bad for gay people.
To support that argument, you are imagining a post-DADT scenario where homophobic servicemen would turn on a gay soldier and kill him for being gay, and that the military would let them off with light sentences because everyone in the military hates gay people and they're all conspiring against us.
Then you end by saying we'll be wishing for a time "when gays were not subjected to that".
When, exactly, was this time when gay people weren't targets for homophobes? Can you give us some dates? When was it that the military was more protective of gay servicemen? BEFORE repealing DADT? Is that what you believe? You honestly believe that gay servicemen are MORE at risk for violence AFTER DADT was repealed?
The question whether to retrofit one's love and erotic life into the traditional heterosexual construct is a question that many straight couples face every day and weigh along with the rights and privileges that come with a recognized marriage.
The fight for marriage equality is just that. The right to have the same choice that straight couples have, even those who voice the same kinds of concerns and objections to the proverbial piece of paper and the historical baggage that comes with it.
Oh she's just mad cuz she can't pass for straight.
Gay people as a minority are defined by their sexual orientation, and homophobes' biggest wish is that we would "disappear" back into the closet, stay celibate and stay away from kids. While its true that they'll deny us jobs, housing and anything else if given the chance, this overwhelming desire to forbid our relationships, deny us our sexuality and keep us from raising kids is why marriage became the overarching issue in the gay rights struggle.
Being employed is not what defines us as gay, but who we form relationships with and how we structure those relationships certainly does. Denying marriage is an assault on our identity as gay people. To them we already don't exist; we're just sinners with behavioral problems, not a class of people with a shared, deeply rooted identity. If they can keep marriage at bay they can continue to deny us everything. But if we win, then the law has codified us as a particular class of people defined by our sexual orientation. Winning marriage will eventually lead to winning it all, including ENDA.
But also know that neither ENDA nor any other law will fully protect gays from employment discrimination. There are multiple "at will" states where you can be fired for no stated reason, and endless options elsewhere for a manager to "find cause" for firing someone when it's really because they're gay. Employment is a private contract whereas marriage is codified in law, so winning marriage will automatically have further and more concrete benefits than ENDA will.
self loathing prick
My partner (of 34 years) and I don't want to marry. We have gone through the legal work over the years to secure our rights as well as we can, but do see our being gay as something that does not require a societal imprimatur.
But we support gay marriage rights completely for all - if people want to marry, let them. Conrad confuses personal interpretations of what it is to be gay for the world at large, and for gay people in general.
Two things are at issue here. And he blurs them. Not helpful for those of us who are real radical queers, starting with the ideas of "let people be and do what they want," and ending with "don't force your ideas on others."
R70, tell that BS to someone who just lost their job for being gay and are now living on the street as a result. Tell them how much marriage equality will change their lives.
Someone needs to tell this queen that HE DOESN'T HAVE TO GET MARRIED.
I think this is going to be the new way types like Conrad get attention, because that is what their poses have always been about - ATTENTION FOR THEMSELVES.
Now that gay marriage is becoming a mainstream idea, they're going to pose against it. In the end, it is all about them. They don't like the idea that the gay rights movement has passed them by and has no more need for them. They're going to screech louder and act out in order to stay relevant.
Although, this bitch was never relevant to begin with. "Radical queer" my ass.
Marriage equality only benefits those individuals who choose to marry while ENDA benefits all gays who have a job or need somewhere to live which is the overwhelming majority. You don't have to enter a marriage contract to benefit from ENDA. And I don't see how marriage equality will help us win ENDA when ENDA has a great deal more support than marriage equality. If anything it's the opposite.
Well isn't she just the most special little snowflake!
Some of you need to take a deep breath and just read r5.
I'm surprised that Republicans/Conservatives support ENDA at around 60 percent. It's the lowest of all the demographic groups but higher than I expected. Another thing that surprised me is that senior citizens support ENDA slightly more than 18-29 year olds and that there is no difference between college educated and non-college educated.
RADICAL queer? More like fundamentalist queer. Everyone is afraid of change even us gays, I see. Getting married and even adopting, god forbid, is radical. What is his suggestion? To continue to go to circuit parties late into our 40's and 50's. Youth is definitely wasted on the young. I give him another 10 years before he finally sees the light.
Ok, R73, you win, because being homeless is worse than being single? Seriously? ENDA will solve our great gay homeless problem?
Since you love pissing matches so much, lets talk numbers:
How many gay people become homeless after being fired for being gay?
How many families are split up by INS when one partner is deported?
How many parents forgo health insurance and other benefits for them and their kids because the non-bio parent's job won't grant same-sex benefits?
How many couples are separated in hospitals, with one partner ostracized by the patient's homophobic family, who then legally assume responsibility and decision-making for the sick partner?
How many widowed gay people become homeless and destitute upon their partner's death?
ENDA provides one right, but marriage provides over a thousand, many of which are of great economic importance for those who are financially vulnerable. You're imagining a nightmarish, last chance scenario where one is fired and quickly ends up homeless as a result; I'm talking about commonplace problems that threaten millions of families daily.
I don't understand why it has to be either/or; everyone I know supports both. Marriage gets more attention because it directly impacts more people.
"Gay and transgender individuals continue to face widespread discrimination in the workplace.* Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay people have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job. These workplace abuses pose a real and immediate threat to the economic security of gay and transgender workers."
"With all of the momentum behind same-sex marriage, the fact that many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people lack a crucial yet basic protection often goes unnoticed: there is still no federal law that explicitly protects workers from job discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
“Where we are headed with marriage is fantastic, but at the same time, in over half of states you can be legally fired for being gay or transgender and no one is talking about that,” said Ineke Mushovic, executive director of the Movement Advancement Project, a research group that co-wrote a recent report about the job discrimination and the various financial inequities that gay people face in the workplace.
That means even if the Supreme Court were to declare that the law that denies same-sex married couples federal benefits was unconstitutional — it is expected to weigh in on the issue this month — such a decision could have a perverse effect: workers who may be permitted to add a same-sex spouse to a pension or a health plan, for instance, would be forced to expose their sexuality in a potentially hostile workplace to receive those benefits.
“As gay people are able to participate more in the normal activities and institutions of everyday life, their visibility in the workplace is more apparent and they are a more visible target for employment discrimination,” said Shannon Price Minter, a civil rights lawyer and legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “We are seeing people run into problems because of that or be fired.”
"Besides disproportionate rates of homelessness as youth, a root cause of lower
incomes and poverty among adult gay and transgender Americans is the high rate
of workplace discrimination they face. This discrimination includes unequal pay,
barriers to health insurance, unfair hiring and promotion practices, and verbal and
sexual harassment that create hostile and unsafe working environments. Studies
show that 16 percent to 68 percent of gay and transgender individuals experience
this type of discrimination at some point in their lives.4 And an estimated 12 percent
to 30 percent of heterosexual co-workers have reported witnessing antigay
discrimination in the workplace.5
Looking at incomes, gay men earn 10 percent to 32 percent less than their heterosexual
male counterparts who are similarly qualified.6 Transgender individuals are
more likely to face high rates of unemployment and earn less than $25,000 a year,
compared to people who are not transgender.7
Further, data from the Williams Institute point to the income disparities between
the gay and straight populations. Several findings are striking, and completely dispel
the stereotype that gay people are more affluent than others. For example, lesbian
couples and their families are more likely to be poor than their heterosexual
counterparts, while children from homes headed by same-sex couples are twice as
likely to be in poverty compared to children from homes headed by heterosexual
couples. Based on that data, it is not surprising that gay and lesbian individuals
and their families are also more likely to be recipients of government programs
that support poor and low-income families.8
Queers for Economic Justice, or QEJ, also examined the impact of poverty and
economic hardship on gay and transgender people compared to those who are not
gay or transgender. This research found that:"
[quote]because marriage equality is more easily solvable than ENDA which has 73 percent of the nation backing it.
Actually, it is, since progress can be, and has been, made on marriage equality in many states. ENDA, on the other hand, is currently blocked by the Republican-controlled House. There is literally nothing we can do there. ENDA is still moving forward at the city, county, and state levels all across the country where progress can be, and is being, made.
Oh, and Ryan Conrad is a moron. That interview was just an embarrassment.
According to R80, if you're gay and don't get married then your shit out of luck. If you want benefits, get married. If you are harassed on the job or fired, show your boss/coworkers your marriage certificate. If your landlord calls you a faggot and decides to evict you, show him or her your marriage certificate. If your homeless and no one will hire you because you happen to be gay or transgender show them your marriage certificate. A marriage certificate is like kryptonite to homophobia and transphobia.
Nice strawman, R85. Tell me, has reading comprehension always been this much trouble for you?
Housing and Homelessness
"One in five transgender people in the U.S. have been refused a home or apartment, and more than one in ten have been evicted, because of their gender identity. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued guidance stating that discrimination against transgender renters or homebuyers based on gender identity or gender stereotypes constitutes sex discrimination and is prohibited under the federal Fair Housing Act. While federal authorities have pursued transgender housing discrimination claims under this guidance, lack of awareness and legal clarity mean that discrimination persists. Strong, explicit legal protection from gender identity discrimination is essential to securing equal housing opportunities for transgender people.
Homelessness is also a critical issue for transgender people, with one in five having experienced homelessness at some time in their lives because of discrimination and family rejection. As a result, an estimated 20-40% of the more than 1.6 million homeless youth in the United States are LGBT3. Unfortunately, transgender people facing homelessness also face discrimination from agencies that should be helping them, with nearly one in three (29%) reporting being turned away from a shelter due to their transgender status. While leading experts on homelessness recommend providing emergency housing consistent with a person’s gender identity, 42% of trans people facing homelessness have been forced to stay in a shelter living as the wrong gender."
R86, go back to yapping about how marriage equality benefits LGBT people more than ENDA would, even those who don't get married, moron.
I'm looking in vain for anyone on this thread, or anywhere else, who is insisting that we shouldn't fight discrimination on all fronts, from marriage to housing to employment. Maybe you can help me, R87?
[quote]go back to yapping about how marriage equality benefits LGBT people more than ENDA would, even those who don't get married, moron.
Well, see, here's the thing: I didn't "yap" about anything, since I didn't write that earlier post. I'm simply calling you on your bullshit response, where you completely missed the earlier poster's point and accused him of holding a position that he does not hold, at least based on reading his posts here, something I encourage you do to before you embarrass yourself further.
You have to be kidding, R84? Please tell me that you are. We should fight discrimination on all fronts but are we? Clearly, many idiots on this forum feel that marriage equality is the most important issue facing the LGBT community (like R80 who thinks being single is worse than being homeless). I'd still like someone to explain to me how marriage equality benefits those who don't get married.
R90, save the BS, you're the same moron. I'm not going to argue in circles with you. I've made my point. But I can't expect someone who things being single is worse than being homeless to get it.
^thinks (you should try it sometime)
[quote]You have to be kidding, [R84]? Please tell me that you are.
[quote]We should fight discrimination on all fronts but are we?
Define "we." As an entire community, yes, in fact, we are.
[quote]Clearly, many idiots on this forum feel that marriage equality is the most important issue facing the LGBT community
*Shrug* I'll take whatever equal rights buzz I can get and right now that buzz is on the subject of marriage equality. And it's a struggle we are now clearly winning.
[quote]save the BS, you're the same moron.
Uh, no, moron, I'm not.
[quote]I'm not going to argue in circles with you.
Thank you for conceding that you can't back up the bullshit you've been spewing.
[quote]I've made my point.
No, actually you haven't, since you had to distort someone else's point and argue against a strawman that nobody on this thread has supported.
[quote]But I can't expect someone who things being single is worse than being homeless to get it.
R31,32,38= gay ghetto mentality. Dinosaurs who think that glory holes, rest areas, and alienation are radical political statements.
Equality is the 'radical' objective, not preserving antiquated customs from the days when GLBT people could be arrested in bars for dancing together.
I hear this bullshit that Ryan's peddling at school. Home-made porn is "radical", nude 'Twister" is "radical", being ambiguously gendered is "radical". Except that it's not. It's the stuff that the culture expects of us, it's conformity to the stereotype.
What's radical is the notion that GLBT people are just as 'normal' as those people who constitute the 'norm'. That we deserve full equality and that we can be responsible, participating citizens in a free society. That we can be loving parents, faithful partners, and friendly, caring friends and neighbors. THAT'S radical, because it flies in the face of cultural expectations of the 'deviant'.
Conrad just wants to get laid. Hence the nude pics online and the 'college queer radical' persona. College queers love that shit, especially kids from privileged backgrounds. Whereas GLBT kids from working class or poor backgrounds understand that being part of society takers much more courage and persistence, than some trust fund kid who thinks flipping off society is "radical'.
I was going to tell you why your post at R84 is so idiotic and shows how little you know about equal rights but I'm not going to be that nice today. We are clearly winning marriage equality guys, your rights are still on a ballot but you're winning. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how marriage equality benefits those who don't get marriage but somehow benefits more people than ENDA.
Your post at R95 is pointless, you said nothing, you refuting nothing. It was meaningless. It just means that your so insecure and your argument is so weak that you are desperate for the last word. Anyone who writes a post like R84 is a complete idiot and you're in over your head.
And the reason that I know that you and R80 ( and all of the other posts) are one in the same is because I'm nearly 100% sure that even the others in this thread who see marriage equality as our most important issue, surely wouldn't agree that being single is worse than being homeless. And you agreed when you defended that crap. Like I said, you're a moron. I've made my point and backed it up with several links that you couldn't refute. Therefore, you can have the last word, you definitely need it. Have good day.
Uh, R96? Are you trying to say that MARRIAGE isn't an "antiquated custom"??? Hahahahaha.
^and the same
First, I was talking about antiquated customs that comprise the gay ghetto. That are part of a broader context of being closeted. You might want to pay better attention to the context of what's said before you respond to it.
And you sound like a fundie.
Marriage has not remained the same institution for thousands of years. It has changed dramatically. At least in this culture. Women are no longer the property of their husbands here. Marriage is not just reserved for the aristocracy. People of different religions can marry, and people can marry despite religious, ethnic, and cultural differences. Now gay people are fundamentally changing the institution by becoming part of it. Which is what frightens the fundies so much.
I get it. Your whole life is about cruising and tricking and you're afraid of being left behind. But the fact is that by changing and broadening marriage as an institution we are creating a space for people to also choose NOT to be married, something the fundies get that you apparently don't.
Don't laugh at things you don't understand. Makes you look foolish.
You can't argue with morons. Ryan has organized protests against Lady GaGa, during the period when she was speaking out against DADT. He has organized protests against gay people protesting for marriage equality. He's one of these losers who wants to be a contrarian because it garners him attention. LOSER.
There's no reason we shouldn't fight for equal rights. To suggest that oppression is better because it's 'more authentic' is lunacy.
R96 fucking nailed it. End of discussion!
But Ryan Conrad, who is openly gay, says he is speaking out for those gays who share his views.
Shouldn't we respect his right to speak out for those gays who he represents?
Conrad is a reactionary idiot who's trying to pretend he's radical. But then, what do you expect from a website called faggotz.com?
r103...no. I don't respect the view that we shouldn't have equality. Not from him, not from the Westboro Baptist Church.
He's a little cunt. A contrarian punk, like I was when his age.
Why would anyone take advice on marriage from someone who hasn't been alive long enough to know what love really is?
Ryan Conrad's views are not my own. But he represents a fair number of gay men who share his viewpoint. He represents a fair number of gay men who have rejected the views of many gays who support marriage equality.
Isn't that what free speech is all about?
Hopefully something good will come out of this passionate discussion. People tend to say things that they don't really mean when they're passionate and angry about something. And we should be passionate about equal rights for all.
R107 doesn't know what "free speech" is. Here's a hint: it's not freedom from criticism of what you said.
People like R107 who ask rhetorical questions like that make me want to beat their faces in.
I thought we were suppose to be an inclusive community.
If so why are we rejected someone just because they have a different viewpoint than the majority.
Does that mean we as a community are exclusive, and not inclusive when it comes to different points of view?
btw Ann Coulter has said that all her gay male friends share the same ideology as Ryan Conrad.
Fuck off, R111. Your arguments stink of the Yahoo! comments section.
R113 read R112
All of Ann Coulter's gay male friends subscribe to R111 statement
[quote]If so why are we rejected someone just because they have a different viewpoint than the majority.
He started it by rejecting the idea that equal treatment under the law for gay men and women is a net good in the long run.
Typical asshole rich kid. Lives in Canada, summers in Maine. Lots of time on his hands to attack the work of GLBT activists who are trying to improve things for all of us.
R111, you have a right to your opinion, the others are just telling you that they don't agree with you and that's OK. Don't take it as a personal rejection. Like I said when people are passionate about something ( gay marriage, ENDA, homelessness...) they may express themselves in a harsh way. You shouldn't take that personally or as personal rejection. They're rejecting your views, not you.
But he has the same viewpoint as Ann Coulter's gay male friends.
R111...inclusive of anti-gay bigotry? Just because it's coming from a "queer" person? You must be joking. You do understand that most of the freepers who are passionately anti-gay are also usually closet cases? Should we be "inclusive" of them too? Do you have an argument of any kind or are you just trolling?
Don't speak for me, R117. I am rejecting the poster as well as its views.
R119 yeah but GoProud showed they could be inclusive by inviting Ann Coulter as their keynote speaker, despite her stance against marriage equality.
R111, rejecting your VIEWS., as R117 states. Rejecting bigotry whether it comes from straights or gays. People like Conrad are dangerous because they reinforce the notion that we don't matter.
For example...he opposes hate crimes legislation which protects GLBT people because he feels it cuts into 'prisoner's rights'. What's the underlying message there? He opposes equality for GLBT people under some ridiculous notion that we are better off being discriminated against and oppressed. This is self-loathing at its finest. He PROTESTS gay rights marches.
I'm sorry, but there's nothing radical about him. Within five years he will be an activist "ex-gay" who does the fundie circuit blaming gay people for hurricanes.
R121= gay Republican. Makes sense he would support Conrad.
"I thought we were suppose to be an inclusive community.
If so why are we rejected someone just because they have a different viewpoint than the majority.
Does that mean we as a community are exclusive, and not inclusive when it comes to different points of view?"
This is a stupid argument because it starts from the false premise that somehow the gay community has expelled this person from it because of his views.
He is still a member of the gay community no matter how much anyone disagrees with him.
R122 what about R121
Ann advocates everything Ryan Conrad does. And GoProud showed they could be inclusive by inviting her to be the keynote speaker.
I have no idea who this guy is, and I'm sure the rest of the country doesn't either.
[quote]I was going to tell you why your post at [[R84]] is so idiotic and shows how little you know about equal rights but I'm not going to be that nice today.
ROFL.... Thanks for conceding that you cannot, in fact, argue with my posts.
[quote]We are clearly winning marriage equality guys
Yup. Did you have a point to make?
[quote]your rights are still on a ballot but you're winning.
*Shrug* Yup. Did you have a point to make?
[quote]I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how marriage equality benefits those who don't get marriage but somehow benefits more people than ENDA.
R80 already covered that. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he explained his point. He didn't back up his numbers but you weren't able to successfully attack them, which is why you had to have that bullshit strawman argument, completely misstating his point, and trying to refute a point that nobody had made!
[quote]Your post at [R95] is pointless, you said nothing, you refuting nothing.
So? That describes every post of yours in this thread, most notably the post I was responding to in R95, which was content-free.
[quote]It was meaningless. It just means that your so insecure and your argument is so weak that you are desperate for the last word.
ROFL.... Oh, the irony... When someone provides a rational argument, I respond in kind. When someone engages in ad hominem and strawman arguments, I don't see the need.
[quote]Anyone who writes a post like R84 is a complete idiot and you're in over your head.
[quote]And the reason that I know that you and [R80] ( and all of the other posts) are one in the same
LOL.... You're just determined to prove my point, aren't you? You're welcome to believe anything you want but you're still wrong.
[quote]is because I'm nearly 100% sure that even the others in this thread who see marriage equality as our most important issue, surely wouldn't agree that being single is worse than being homeless.
Q.E.D., since nobody on this thread has even remotely said anything like that.
[quote]And you agreed when you defended that crap.
Nope, I didn't, which is why you can't find anything I wrote that even remotely resembles that. Nice strawman, though. Oh, and once again, Q.E.D.
[quote]Like I said, you're a moron.
ROFL.... Oh, the irony....
[quote]I've made my point and backed it up with several links that you couldn't refute.
Alas, no, I'm afraid you didn't, since your links were in refutation of a strawman argument that nobody was making!
[quote]Therefore, you can have the last word, you definitely need it. Have good day.
Love you too, snookums.
Misogynist. It's LGBT.
[quote] He is still a member of the gay community no matter how much anyone disagrees with him.
Judging from these comments, I don't think anyone would agree.
[quote] And GoProud showed they could be self loathing and willing to accept second class status by inviting her to be the keynote speaker.
He doesn't want to be a "member of our community". He's very clear about that. He loathes LGBT politics and people and wants to be identified as a "faggot" or a "queer" who OPPOSES gay equality. It's not about being 'inclusive'. He doesn't want to be included.
There was a time and place for these sorts of fairies, and that time has come and gone.
R129...oh please. Enough. You're a ridiculous person. Trying to drum up 'sympathy' for this loon. Conrad doesn't want your sympathy. He'd probably spit on you.
You've got to check out his "art work". Oh sweet Jezebel! He's got one 'art piece' that's just pics of guys fucking with the words "Fuck the Supreme Court" on it. So radical! i almost did a spit take when I saw it.
Well, R127, I found those links pretty informative so I wouldn't describe them as pointless, particularly since he/she was asked for numbers. I agree that ENDA benefits more gay people than marriage equality and I believe those links do show why. With that being said, we have to fight for all rights, no one is more important than the other. I'm just happy to see that people are passionate about this topic. And someone did imply that being single is much worse than being homeless which is a very odd point of view.
I really hate some of you bitches, and if I could keep you from ever getting your rights, I would.
I was in the military. I loved it. I want to get married. Why do I have to run any of this by you? Fuck you. There are laws in the way, so we're working to repeal them. You can take all of your "I didn't have to join the military" (I didn't either faggot, it's call duty to country) and "dear leader" bullshit (seriously you idiot bitch?) and please, PLEASE move to some other country where they'd only be to happy to leave you to die in the road.
Fuck. Self. Hating. Faggot. Uncle. Toms.
We fought too hard to get here. It's time to route out these fucking knuckle draggers and send them packing to Market Street.
Why are you getting worked up over this guy? His entire website is a desperate call for attention. And a rather pathetic, pedestrian attempt at that.
Miss Thing is obviously trying to get his fifteen minutes of fame. But if you're going to be edgy and profound, at least come with it. This is like a high school kid's attempt at being clever. And even then, I'm sure some high school kids could have been more creative than faggotz. org or "outlaw artist, terrorist academic, petty thief."
I don't understand why some people think we have to be oppressed in order to be distinct. I also think that is a very odd point of view as well. Marriage equality won't force you to get married. And I don't think it will make us just like straight people. We would still have a distinct culture.
R136...a lot of these rich kids don't give a shit about what previous generations courageously fought to get us where we are now. They take it for granted. But again, and this is VERY important, it's a class divide. Conrad and his trust fund buddies can rail against GLBT rights because it doesn't affect them. I grew up in a working class household, and believe me it drives me crazy too. I hear this shit at school and it always comes from kids who had everything handed to them and who think it's 'radical' to give the middle finger to society. They're idiots.
Good point, R139. And I don't think his reason for opposing our rights is very strong. I'd rather be free and equal than creative and oppressed.
[quote]I found those links pretty informative so I wouldn't describe them as pointless
They were pointless in reference to the point he was responding to, since they didn't address that point.
[quote]I agree that ENDA benefits more gay people than marriage equality
*Shrug* I have no idea one way or another and those links don't answer that question, which is fundamental to the point that R80 was making.
[quote]With that being said, we have to fight for all rights, no one is more important than the other.
Which is why much of this debate is pretty dumb.
[quote]And someone did imply that being single is much worse than being homeless which is a very odd point of view.
Sigh.... No they didn't, which is why what that idiot posted was such a complete waste of time. It's a fairly common tactic, creating and demolishing a strawman argument rather than deal with the real argument.
if yall actually want to know what he is talking about, check out this:
R141- we have to agree to disagree. To me, if someone says "You think being homeless is worse than being single?" and then asks "Seriously?" it is implying that being single is actually worse than being homeless. And I do think that the statistics on homelessness, harassment, pay inequity, and discrimination gay people face at the workplace does address R80's beliefs that LGBT people are more negatively impacted by the inability to get married versus ENDA.
One could get married but could be fired for it if anyone at their workplace found out and nothing could be done about it. Without ENDA in place, one wouldn't be able to add their partner to their healthcare policy without fear of possibly losing their jobs.
One of those links mentioned that LGBT people are at a higher risk of being homeless so I think it's reasonable to believe that workplace and housing discrimination contributes to that. Anyway, I don't have to be right. We just have to agree to disagree.
I just thought about something. As I read one of those articles at the links provided, I realized that I was harassed on the job but didn't fully realize it at the time. I used to work with these two guys who used to call each other fag or faggot right in front of me. I was pretty young at the time so I wasn't sure what to do about it, so I mentioned it to another coworker who happened to be a lesbian. She told me not to tell our boss about it because it could get me fired. She told me that being gay could get me fired so I never said anything. I was also sexually harassed by the vice principal of a school I worked for but never reported it for fear of being fired. It's sad.
Ryan Conrad = Luke Sissyfag Mark II.
R144...BINGO. Exactly right.
No one here has argued that we should ONLY fight for marriage equality. So you're presenting a straw man as a red herring.
As for Conrad's site, if you want to know his full views you have to look around. He and his 'friends' promote such things as "responsible" bare-backing. They oppose hate crimes laws because it's 'unfair' to prisoners. They oppose non-disclosure laws that protect people from others who are spreading HIV wantonly. They actually encourage HIV + people not to disclose their status because it might affect their chances of getting laid. They are NUTS. They come very close to the kind of lunacy you see with HIV deniers.
R146, where in my post did I argue that anyone here was saying that we should only fight for marriage equality? Where did I present this straw man? Point it out and be specific. For someone who complains about other people's reading comprehension you need work on your own.
[quote]To me, if someone says "You think being homeless is worse than being single?" and then asks "Seriously?" it is implying that being single is actually worse than being homeless
R80's point, made rather inelegantly, is that same-sex marriage has the potential to affect more people than non-discrimination laws. That's all he/she was really saying, which is why the overheated, over-the-top rhetoric in response was rather amusing, particularly since none of the rhetoric really responded to that point.
I freely concede that R80 didn't cite statistics to back up the claim but it is not an unreasonable claim. And none of the posts in response contradicted it. And, of course, R80 never made any claims at all that we should *only* focus on same-sex marriage; in fact, he directly stated otherwise, that we should support both.
In short, R65/R73/R85/etc. remains a moron.
[quote]To me, if someone says "You think being homeless is worse than being single?" and then asks "Seriously?" it is implying that being single is actually worse than being homeless.
To me, you sound incredibly fucking stupid. This is what R80 actually wrote:
[quote]Ok, [R73], you win, because being homeless is worse than being single? Seriously? ENDA will solve our great gay homeless problem?
R80 did not say "You think being homeless is worse than being single?" He framed it as a rhetorical question mimicking R73's reduction of the argument to "marriage" versus "homelessness", which is absurd in itself.
People DO lose their jobs for being gay, just like families ARE torn apart because they can't get married, and in both cases this can lead to homelessness, but reducing the discussion to a point where you frame anyone who disagrees with your approach as callous towards homeless people is asinine.
But what's tremendously more asinine is how many of you actually read R80 as someone saying "Being single is worse than being homeless". We go from asinine and absurd to full-blown cognitive impairments at that point. This thread is insane.
You and so many others in this thread are so tone-deaf and unaware that you can't even read the meaning of a simple post properly. You jump to a ridiculous misunderstanding of someone's post and spend half the thread arguing about THAT and framing it as "Marriage" vs. "Gay Homeless". Meanwhile, the people you're arguing with aren't even saying we can't fight for both issues.
What some are trying to explain is WHY and HOW marriage became the leading cause of the gay rights movement, but none of those people are saying ENDA shouldn't be pursued with equal fervor and determination.
R147...oh shut the fuck up. You keep repeating the same mantra, then ask where you've said it? You're a complete phony.
R150...well said. But they don't 'want to understand'. They just want to find some rationale for why it's okay for them to oppose marriage equality.
For someone who claims to have not written the post at R80, you sure seem to know exactly what the poster meant. You're way too invested in defending what someone else said. I don't know why it takes a million posts for someone to understand that ENDA would positively affect more LGBT people than marriage equality. One requires a contract and a union with another person while the other only requires that one be a member of the protected group. Common sense. But sense ain't so common.
[quote]One could get married but could be fired for it if anyone at their workplace found out and nothing could be done about it. Without ENDA in place, one wouldn't be able to add their partner to their healthcare policy without fear of possibly losing their jobs.
Here's where you reveal your ignorance of the political process and how laws are made and enforced.
If marriage passes before ENDA, and the scenario you happened came to pass (and it surely would, multiple times, almost immediately), the fact that marriage is legal at that point actually strengthens the case for ENDA, and makes anti-gay workplace practices like this more tenuous.
Lawyers would have a much easier time arguing on behalf of a married couple in that instance than two people who are technically single in the eyes of the law, and the company's position would be much harder to defend in court--the state defines marriage, and if the state says two people are married, and the company says it offers benefits to spouses and their kids, then there's likely a better case against the company in court. And companies would know that (they have lawyers, too).
But you keep stamping your feet and framing this as an either/or debate. The rest of us will be over here fighting for your rights.
[quote]For someone who claims to have not written the post at [R80], you sure seem to know exactly what the poster meant.
Multiple people have explained what R80 meant. R80's meaning is crystal clear to me. But fine, you've decided I'm too "invested" in this because you're apparently Nancy Drew, when what I've posted supports both movements, and recognizes the very real injustices that both prejudices inflict.
I think this whole thread is absurd. The idea of splitting the gay rights movement into "ENDA" vs. "Marriage" factions is so counter-productive, and the determination on one side to shut out the other is so damaging to us all, I just don't know why we're even debating this. Why should one fight be put on hold because another one needs attention? We should be fighting for both, not fighting each other.
Just as I thought, R151, you couldn't back up your assertion. If I keep repeating, it should have been easy for you to cite it. You're too emotionally immature for this debate. You need to grow up. I don't mind sounding "incredibly stupid" to someone as sad as you are. It's funny how you agreed with my post at R135 when I said neither issue is more important than the other but then go on to claim (without evidence) that I said the opposite in another post simply because I disagreed with you ( again emotionally immature). You're unhinged. I guess HRC is completely ignorant to the political process as well since they reached the same conclusion that I did. Unlike you I can handle someone disagreeing with me and I said that we have to agree to disagree but that wasn't good enough for you. You have to win an argument on an anonymous forum. Thankfully my life isn't that empty.
Because he obviously wrote it, R153. Unless he has telepathy.
[quote]For someone who claims to have not written the post at [R80], you sure seem to know exactly what the poster meant.
Just because you have reading comprehension issues doesn't mean the rest of us do. The meaning was not exactly obscure or hard to figure out.
[quote]You're way too invested in defending what someone else said.
I'm not pro-R80; I'm anti-stupid. And the posts in response to R80 have definitely given me a lot of fodder.
[quote]I don't know why it takes a million posts for someone to understand that ENDA would positively affect more LGBT people than marriage equality.
*Shrug* That may well be the case but, if so, you haven't made the case.
[quote]One requires a contract and a union with another person while the other only requires that one be a member of the protected group. Common sense. But sense ain't so common.
Shut up, Paul!!!! Tiresome fucking troll.
No one would post with such assurance about what someone else meant in their post, particularly when what you say they meant appears to be the opposite of what they wrote. No one would invest this much time (2 days) defending another poster's unsubstantiated point. ENDA would provide a greater benefit to LGBT people because most of us need a roof over our heads and a job. I don't see any talk about splitting up into factions. Of course you attack me for pointing this out. Everyone has reading comprehension issues except you. The only point that you've made is that you dodge trolldar and you wrote the post at R80.
He didn't inherit Robert Conrad's lovely ass, so I'm really not interested in what he has to say.
Um, Nancy Drew at R160, you do realize that you're talking to two different defenders of R80, neither one of whom actually wrote R80? Maybe you should look into becoming a Hardy Boy instead.
[quote]ENDA would provide a greater benefit to LGBT people because most of us need a roof over our heads and a job.
*Shrug* You may even be right but you haven't put up any data, either. And while people *can* be fired for being gay, the majority aren't.
[quote]The only point that you've made is that you dodge trolldar and you wrote the post at R80.
I'm afraid your detective skills are on a par with your debating skills. Nice try, though.
The "two defenders" are both you. How many more days are you going to defend a point that you didn't write psychic Sylvia Browne? And if you need data to know that ENDA would benefit more people than marriage equality, you're clueless. I think half of all LGBT workers having to leave their jobs because of discrimination makes that point clear. Move on and give it up, it's obvious that the multiple defenders you speak of are all you. I don't now why you bother. End of discussion.
This is why I said Paul was the most annoying troll on DL R159. At least he spared us the "Dear hearts" this time.
[quote]But Ryan Conrad, who is openly gay, says he is speaking out for those gays who share his views.
Shouldn't we respect his right to speak out for those gays who he represents?
Of course we should respect his right to speak out. That doesn't inoculate him from people thinking he's wrong, contrived or stupid.
[quote]No one would post with such assurance about what someone else meant in their post, particularly when[bold] what you say they meant appears to be the opposite of what they wrote. [/bold]
I honestly think this the person who wrote this has a mental impairment.
This is just another example of how "Radical Queers" are just as bad as right-wing fundamentalists.
[quote]The "two defenders" are both you.
LOL.... Nice try. How many more times are you going to keep beating that dead horse and making a fool of yourself?
[quote]How many more days are you going to defend a point that you didn't write psychic Sylvia Browne?
Just as long as you keep amusing me.
[quote]And if you need data to know that ENDA would benefit more people than marriage equality, you're clueless.
Still waiting for that data.
[quote]I think half of all LGBT workers having to leave their jobs because of discrimination makes that point clear.
Since that assertion is false, I'm afraid that once again you don't have a point.
[quote]Move on and give it up
Funny, I was just going to give the same advice to you.
[quote]it's obvious that the multiple defenders you speak of are all you.
LOL.... At least you are consistent in your accuracy.
[quote]I don't now why you bother.
Because I find you amusing in your flailing around, desperately looking for a point.
[quote]End of discussion.
Oh, I doubt it.
Now we have day 3 of Paul AKA multiple defenders desperately trying to defend a post that he claims didn't write. Paul also appears to be an illiterate. In your next post have some data to back up the post that you didn't write at R80, Paul.
Well wait no more Paul
HRC Study Reveals Ongoing Discrimination Against LGBT Workers
Nope, still the same 2, R169. I'm just posting from my laptop. I always lay claim to my own posts.
[quote]Paul also appears to be an illiterate.
Whatever you say, dear.
[quote]In your next post have some data to back up the post that you didn't write at [R80], Paul.
Since I didn't write it, dear, I don't feel the need to back it up, but thanks ever so for your concern.
[quote]HRC Study Reveals Ongoing Discrimination Against LGBT Workers
Dear heart, that warrants a big "duh." It still doesn't back up your claim nor contradict R80's.
Oh boy, Paul aka multiple defenders ( again on day 3 of defending a post you didn't write). At R163, I said that half of all LGBT workers leave their jobs due to discrimination, you said it was false. I proved it wasn't. You then state it didn't prove my claim which is further proof of your illiteracy.
We all know that it's perfectly normal to treat a fact free post that you didn't write as the holy grail and defend it for 3 days in row and then claim that you don't need to back it up because you didn't write it. Right Paul, we believe you. I'm still waiting for that data to back up the post you ( did) didn't write at R80. It should be easy, Paul.
[quote]Oh boy, Paul aka multiple defenders
LOL.... Still beating that dead horse, dear?
[quote](again on day 3 of defending a post you didn't write).
At this point, dear, I'm doing it because I'm having fun responding to your drama queen hysterics.
[quote]At [R163], I said that half of all LGBT workers leave their jobs due to discrimination, you said it was false. I proved it wasn't.
Actually, no, you didn't. Is reading comprehension always this much trouble for you? Did you actually *read* the study you cited? Free clue: both you and the Advocate got the basic facts of the study wrong. In particular, this sentence:
[quote]The report has determined that among the estimated 5.4 million LGBT workers in 93% of U.S. counties, nearly 2 million leave their positions each year due to workplace discrimination
is not supported by the cited study nor claimed by it.
By the way, if you want additional data, did it occur to you to check the synopsis of the very report you cite? Here, let me quote it for you:
Additionally, when it comes to worker and family benefits, LGBT workers face a “1-2-3 punch” that hurts their families:
• First, couples have to be married, and workers must have a legal parent-child relationship with their children, in order to access most family benefits and tax relief.
• Second, most states prevent same-sex couples from marrying and/or have no mechanisms for some LGBT parents to create legal ties to the children they are raising - making it impossible for many LGBT families to qualify for family benefits.
• Third, even when LGBT workers can legally marry a same-sex partner, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents the federal government from recognizing their
It goes on further to say:
Barrier #5: Unequal Access to Health Insurance Benefits.
Barrier #6: Denial of Family and Medical Leave.
Barrier #7: Denial of Spousal retirement benefits.
Barrier #8: Unequal Family Protections When a Worker Dies or is Disabled.
Barrier #9: A Higher Tax Burden for LGBT Families.
Barrier #10: inability to Sponsor Families for immigration.
[quote]We all know that it's perfectly normal to treat a fact free post that you didn't write as the holy grail
And if anyone were doing that, dear, you might have a point. Alas, nobody is, so this is simply another strawman, among many.
[quote]and defend it for 3 days in row and then claim that you don't need to back it up because you didn't write it.
Dear heart, is the truth always this much trouble for you to handle?
[quote]Right Paul, we believe you.
That's nice, dear.
[quote]I'm still waiting for that data to back up the post you ( did) didn't write at [R80].
Since I didn't write it, dear, I don't feel compelled to back it up. But thank you so much for playing; we have some lovely consolation prizes for you.
Oh, and dear, did it not even occur to you to *think* about just how unlikely this claim really was, that "half of all LGBT workers having to leave their jobs because of discrimination?" That it just doesn't make sense?
No? Ah, well....
oh dear god/
Oh boy not only is Paul aka multiple defenders illiterate, math also presents a bit of challenge. 35% of 5.4 million is nearly 2 million and thus nearly half. Two million lost their jobs. This is why you're a joke here, you never know when to quit and continue to make a fool of yourself. And the fact that you deny defending a fact free post you claim you didn't write for 3 days in a row and acting as if it's the holy grail when the evidence of this is in this very thread, tells me that you're mentally ill. This exchange is so easy it's boring. Over and out.
And the reason you refuse to post any data is because you can't.
[quote]Oh boy not only is Paul aka multiple defenders illiterate
ROFL.... Oh, the irony. Read on to see why.
[quote]math also presents a bit of challenge. 35% of 5.4 million is nearly 2 million and thus nearly half.
Dear heart, math doesn't seem to be your strong suit, either, since 35% is not "nearly half," by any reasonable definition of that phrase. But in this case it doesn't matter because the real figure isn't 2 million!
[quote]Two million lost their jobs. This is why you're a joke here, you never know when to quit and continue to make a fool of yourself.
ROFL.... Oh, the irony.... Read on.
Dear heart, not only is 35% not half or even "nearly half," so I have you on a technicality, but you *still* haven't read the actual survey! Had you done so, you would have realized that the 2 million figure was for *all* individuals who move on because of discrimination, including discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, age, gender, and the like. And that the 2 million figure came from a separate survey, not from HRC. And that other survey included just 113 people respondents who identified as LGBTQ, which means that drawing conclusions on the basis of sexual orientation in the population at large is problematic, at best.
[quote]And the fact that you deny defending a fact free post
Dear heart, I've never denied "defending it." I've denied writing it, which is the simple truth, and I've denied "acting as if it's the holy grail," which also is the simple truth. The truth really seems to be a problem for you. Why is that, dear?
[quote]when the evidence of this is in this very thread
And yet you are unable to quote a single line I've written. Why is that, dear?
[quote]tells me that you're mentally ill. This exchange is so easy it's boring. Over and out.
LOL.... Funny, I was just about to say the same thing. How does it feel to have your ass handed to you, dear?
For those of you who are curious, this is what the HRC survey says:
[quote]It is estimated that more than 2 million people voluntarily leave their jobs each year because of workplace unfairness.
The footnote (56) states that this figure comes from: "Level Playing Field Institute. “The Corporate Leavers Survey: The Cost of Employee Turnover Due Solely to Unfairness in the Workplace." 2007. And the link to that is below. That survey starts:
[quote]What happens when an Arab telecommunications professional, returning from a family visit to Iraq, is jokingly asked by a manager if he participated in any terrorism? Or when an African-American
lawyer is mistaken, three times, for another black lawyer by a partner at the ﬁrm? What is the effect when a lesbian professional is told that her employer covers pet insurance for rats, pigs and snakes but does not offer domestic partner beneﬁts? What about when a Latina information technology professional is told by her manager that she is too “ethnic” to be taken seriously? They leave.
[quote]The Corporate Leavers Survey, a groundbreaking study conducted by the Level Playing Field Institute in January 2007, shows that each year in this country, more than 2 million professionals and managers in today’s increasingly diverse workforce leave their jobs, pushed out by cumulative small comments, whispered jokes and not-so-funny emails.
If you scroll to the bottom of the survey, what you see is that the main survey sampled 2015 people, of whom 1780 responded. The "alternative sexual identify" folks were 113, of whom 100 responded.
You see, unlike our dear little chum, I didn't rely on a blurb in the Advocate. I actually went to the survey and read it, mostly because the numbers that the Advocate and our dear little chum quoted just didn't make sense. Now what was that our dear little chum was saying about "illiteracy" and "math being a bit of a challenge?" What's hilarious is that I told him quite clearly in R172 that he was wrong and I told him why and that he needed to actually read the survey. Instead of doing so, he doubled down on the stupidity. I do so love giving an idiot enough rope to hang himself with.
You are the biggest fucking idiot I've ever come across on this board. Have you ever heard of this thing called rounding off ( we learn in elementary school), which makes 1,890 million nearly 2 million ( as cited in the HRC article) and therefore nearly half of 5.4 million. Damn you're stupid. Second, if you had actually read the study it distinctly states that 9 percent of gays and lesbians and 26 percent of transgender persons lost their jobs due to being LGBT (again illiterate). 26+9=35 you idiot (math challenged). If that's the best you've got, you're done. I proved my point while you proved what an idiot you are. The last paragraph on page 7 says this:
"Another survey found that nearly one in 10 “out” workers (9%) reported losing a job in the past five years because of their sexual orientation. The National Transgender Discrimination Survey found that 26% of transgender workers lost a job because of their transgender status."
Of course I shouldn't expect illiterate Paul to comprehend what he reads. You're so stupid that you think we're all as stupid as you are to think you didn't write the post at R80. Again no data, no facts. You're so desperate to win an argument that you make yourself look like a fool. And you wonder why people think you're a joke. I'll let you think you won with no facts, you're clearly mentally ill, not to mention embarrassingly unintelligent. You certainly lived up to your reputation in this thread.
R179 Paul is an annoying dope and a known troll who should be ignored. If you engage him he'll spend the rest of his life on this thread. I think he's a sociopath or has an inferiority complex and works as a dishwasher because he can never admit when he's wrong and DL means way too much to him. People, stop engaging him please, he'll never stop posting.
[quote]You are the biggest fucking idiot I've ever come across on this board.
ROFL... I love you too, snookums.
[quote]Have you ever heard of this thing called rounding off ( we learn in elementary school), which makes 1,890 million nearly 2 million
Really, dear? "1890 million" is "nearly 2 million?" Are you sure? Gee, how could I not have seen that?
[quote]( as cited in the HRC article) and therefore nearly half of 5.4 million.
Dear heart, 35% is not "nearly half." Sorry to burst your bubble. And you *still* haven't acknowledged that you were wrong about the "2 million!"
[quote]Damn you're stupid.
ROFL.... Right back at you, dear.
[quote]Second, if you had actually read the study it distinctly states that 9 percent of gays and lesbians and 26 percent of transgender persons lost their jobs due to being LGBT (again illiterate). 26+9=35 you idiot (math challenged).
ROFL.... Oh my.... you *really* don't know anything about math, do you? Free clue: you can't add percentages that way; it doesn't work. Do you want me to post a simple example to demonstrate why that was a *really* stupid thing to write or can you figure it out for yourself? Hint: try adding 9% of 1 million with 26% of 100,000.
[quote]If that's the best you've got, you're done.
Funny, dear, but I was just going to say the same thing to you.
[quote]I proved my point while you proved what an idiot you are.
Alas, dear, I'm afraid that all you proved was that you really don't know what you're talking about. You're pretty funny, though, so that counts for something.
[quote]"Another survey found that nearly one in 10 “out” workers (9%) reported losing a job in the past five years because of their sexual orientation.
Gee, dear, 9% really *is* "half of all LGBT workers leave their jobs due to discrimination," isn't it? Gee, how foolish of me. How could I not see the light?
[quote]Of course I shouldn't expect illiterate Paul to comprehend what he reads.
ROFL.... Oh, the irony....
[quote]You're so stupid that you think we're all as stupid as you are to think you didn't write the post at [R80].
Dear heart, I'm really sorry you're having so much trouble with numbers and with the truth.
[quote]Again no data, no facts.
Yes, dear, we know. Maybe you should keep looking?
[quote]You're so desperate to win an argument that you make yourself look like a fool.
No, dear, I'm making you look like a fool. And loving every minute of it.
[quote]And you wonder why people think you're a joke.
Whatever you say, dear.
[quote]I'll let you think you won with no facts, you're clearly mentally ill, not to mention embarrassingly unintelligent. You certainly lived up to your reputation in this thread.
ROFL.... I do so love the unintentional irony from this poster.
Like I said complete and total idiot. I can't believe I have to actually post this. Fuck, you're stupid.
How to Add Percentages Together
Sorry, R81, I'll take your advice now. I'm just amazed at his stupidity. illiterate, math challenged, and dumb as a box of hair. It almost doesn't seem real, but it is.
Estimating and rounding decimals
[quote]Like I said complete and total idiot. I can't believe I have to actually post this. Fuck, you're stupid.
ROFL.... You do realize that that technique only works when the sample sizes are the same size, right? Oh, you don't, do you? Oh, dear....
Let's walk through this again, for the sake of the math-challenged moron. Let's say that there are 5 million LGB folks in the workforce and 500 hundred thousand T folks (those aren't the real numbers but they are close enough for this example).
9% of 5 million is 450,000.
26% of 500,000 is 130,000.
Total number of LGBT affected = 580,000.
Total population of LGBT is 5,500,000.
Percentage of LGBT affected = 10.5%.
Thus endeth the math lesson.
Oh, and for those whining about my trolling, this thread was never going to be anything *but* trolling, since Ryan Conrad's comments were a classic troll, guaranteed to generate "controversy" and replies without actually generating any thoughtful debate. There is a right way and a wrong way to have this debate. Ryan (deliberately, I'm sure) picked the wrong way. Based on what others have written about him, this isn't the first time he's engaged in such practices.
In any case, how can I possibly resist a drama queen in full rant, absolutely bound and determined to be completely and totally wrong, particularly one whose idea of a good debate is to tell someone how mentally ill they are? It's positively irresistible.
Paul troll, if that's your name, I have to agree, you're pretty stupid. 1) The numbers are already in percentage form 2) When the number is in decimal form you multiple it by 100 to get the percentage form .25-25/100-25% 3) The denominator which is the bottom number will always be 100. 100 is not the sample size. You multiply the decimal by 100 to get the percentage form 4) Sample sizes are irrelevant when adding ( or subtracting, multiplying, dividing ...) percentages 5) This is something you should have learned in elementary school 6) If you dispute this provide a link to support your conclusion.
I left something out that you need to know. 25/100 is simply asking you what percentage 25 is out of 100. You divide 100 by 25 and get 25%. Once again if you dispute this provide a link to support your conclusion. Math is math, it doesn't change based on opinion.
Multiply not divide. Sorry about that.
[quote]Paul troll, if that's your name, I have to agree, you're pretty stupid.
LOL.... Coming from you, dear, I'll take that as a compliment.
[quote]1) The numbers are already in percentage form
Yes, dear, I know. That's totally irrelevant to this discussion, though. Have you *still* not figured that out?
[quote]2) When the number is in decimal form you multiple it by 100 to get the percentage form .25-25/100-25%
Yes, dear, I know. That's totally irrelevant to this discussion, though. Have you *still* not figured that out?
[quote]3) The denominator which is the bottom number will always be 100. 100 is not the sample size.
Yes, dear, I know. That's totally irrelevant to this discussion, though. Have you *still* not figured that out?
[quote]You multiply the decimal by 100 to get the percentage form
Yes, dear, I know. That's totally irrelevant to this discussion, though. Have you *still* not figured that out?
[quote]4) Sample sizes are irrelevant when adding ( or subtracting, multiplying, dividing ...) percentages
ROFL.... And here, alas, is where you are completely wrong. I've already demonstrated this, dear, in a post that you cannot answer.
[quote]5) This is something you should have learned in elementary school
My teachers were more careful, dear. They taught me how to handle percentages properly.
[quote]6) If you dispute this provide a link to support your conclusion.
I don't have to, dear. I've already demonstrated how wrong you are in R186. Come back when you're ready to deal with reality.
Oh, and if you really must have a link, see below. This isn't rocket science, dear.
Dear heart, there really isn't anything you can teach me about math, although it's hilarious to watch you flail.
Try this, dear. Let's say that 50% of LGB are discriminated against and 50% of T are discriminated against. By your "math," the resulting discrimination percentage is 50+50=100%!
Is any of this sinking in, dear?
You're going to have to provide a legitimate link. That was written by some random person and makes no sense. If you get 50% on two different test you add 50+50 and then divide the sum by 2 (because there are two tests). It will be 100, then divide by 2 which gives you a 50% average. What the percentages are out of is irrelevant ( and it will always be a percentage out of 100 anyway). You're senseless. Provide a legitimate link for all I know you couldn't have written that.
And there's a difference between trying to get the average of two percentage numbers and adding two percentages numbers to get a sum total.
We started out with a radical queer in the OP and now at R 194 we're deep into a math lesson.
Fuck, I love this place.
Sooooo...I 'm thinkin'....I would totally enter a civil union with my partner of 15 years....the legal side of a wedding...but I am of the opinion that the very word " marriage" is what has screwed the whole thing up....might as well have called it " gay Baptism".... I have no interest in what the religious hets call marriage but i truly want the legal rights thru a commitment ceremony to my love...I sware its when it switched to " marriage" is when it got derailed
[quote]You're going to have to provide a legitimate link.
No, dear, I don't. It's not my fault that you're incapable of understanding basic arithmetic. You already have all of the data you need in R186. Come back when you've been able to grasp that very basic example.
[quote]That was written by some random person and makes no sense.
*Shrug* So was your link above and, alas, it was incorrect.
[quote]If you get 50% on two different test you add 50+50 and then divide the sum by 2 (because there are two tests).
By that "math," you would add 9+26 together to get 35 and then divide the sum by 2 (because there are two surveys). That would yield 17.5%, which would be closer but still be wrong. Just accept it and move on, dear.
[quote]What the percentages are out of is irrelevant
No, dear, it's not. When you're adding the results from two different sample sizes, you have to take the sample size into consideration. I already showed you how to do it and you haven't refuted that simple example.
ROFL.... You really can't handle the fact that you're wrong, can you? Too funny.
[quote]Provide a legitimate link for all I know you couldn't have written that.
Wow... you really are paranoid, aren't you? I've written all of the posts on this thread and now I've written other online posts specifically to contradict you? And got them uploaded so quickly? Sorry, dear, I don't take you seriously enough to work that hard. You're nothing more than an idle amusement.
R197 read R194. You don't understand the difference between the average of two numbers and the sum total. When I want the average of two numbers I add them together them divide( 25% + 75%=100% and then divide 100% by 2 to get a 50% average. To get the sum you simply add the percentages (75% + 25=100%). Your own link gives you the sum total of 50%+50% which is why I said it doesn't make sense. The person at your link is giving the sum total but talking about averages. I was trying to help you but if you want to be stupid be stupid. The reason you can't provide a legitimate link is because one doesn't exist. No legitimate link would support your conclusion. Math is math and you don't understand basic math.
[quote][R197] read [R194].
I did. It's irrelevant to this discussion. Read R186.
[quote]You don't understand the difference between the average of two numbers and the sum total.
Yes, actually, I do, which is why I know that the percentage of LGBT folks losing their jobs is nowhere close to 50%.
[quote]When I want the average of two numbers I add them together them divide( 25% + 75%=100% and then divide 100% by 2 to get a 50% average.
Yup. Alas, that doesn't work in this scenario. Your simple example isn't relevant.
[quote]To get the sum you simply add the percentages (75% + 25=100%).
Sigh.... That only works when you are working from the same sample, which isn't true in this case. It doesn't work when you're adding percentages across samples.
[quote]Your own link gives you the sum total of 50%+50% which is why I said it doesn't make sense.
Your failure to understand simple math is not my problem, dear.
[quote]The person at your link is giving the sum total but talking about averages. I was trying to help you but if you want to be stupid be stupid.
ROFL.... Oh, the irony. You *still* don't get it, do you? You're just absolutely determined to be wrong. Again, see R186. Show me where the math is incorrect there, dear. You can't, of course, because it's not.
[quote]The reason you can't provide a legitimate link is because one doesn't exist. No legitimate link would support your conclusion.
No, dear, it's because *any* link I can find would be met with the same skepticism you're demonstrating here. You're simply not capable of understanding the issues, nor of admitting that you are wrong.
[quote]Math is math and you don't understand basic math.
ROFL.... Oh, the irony.... Like I said, take a look at R186. Come back when you're ready to deal with the "basic math" there.
Provide link ( even though you don't understand the one you provided). If you don't it just proves that you're an idiot. Your next post without a legitimate link will prove me correct ( even though a 3 grader would know that already). No legitimate link=means you're wrong. I see why people think you're a dope and stupid. I just hope you're not American.
Radical Queers work my last nerve. Ugh.
[quote]Provide link ( even though you don't understand the one you provided).
ROFL..... No, dear, I'm afraid it's you who didn't understand that link I provided, nor basic math.
[quote]If you don't it just proves that you're an idiot.
Still waiting for you to address the data I provided in R186, dear. Were you going to take a look at that anytime soon? Go ahead, dear: if I'm such a moron, it should be easy to debunk, right? Find the flaw.
[quote]Your next post without a legitimate link will prove me correct ( even though a 3 grader would know that already).
ROFL.... I do so love the unintended irony in this idiot's declarations.
[quote]No legitimate link=means you're wrong.
No, dear, I'm afraid that, as usual, you are incorrect. Whether I post a link or not has nothing to do with whether the math in R186 is correct. Still waiting for you to look at it, dear. After all, I'm just so stupid that it should be easy, right?
[quote]I see why people think you're a dope and stupid. I just hope you're not American.
As usual, dear, you're wrong. Sucks to be you but there it is. It's rare, and hilarious, to find someone so determinedly wrong, though. too funny.
By the way, dear, I easily found half a dozen additional links, including one on the very site your link was posted, ehow.com. But obviously I must have written all of those posts, right?!
Just as I thought. I'm right and you don't understand 3rd grade math ( and now everyone reading this knows it and will probably use it against you in the future). I was so looking forward to that link that would just prove me wrong, just blow me out of the water but it looks like you don't have one ( too bad). You couldn't provide a link because no link that supports your conclusion exists. Thanks for proving me right by posting with no legitimate link. Again, I hope you're not American. Although I did giggle when you said the sum of 35% and 9% needed to be divided because they were two different studies. OH MY GOD. All it does it give you the average of the two numbers which is irrelevant to the study results. The two numbers have already been average to get 35% and 9% based on occurrences by race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. I knew you would post without a legitimate link and prove me right ( well of course I did, I know math). Thanks for playing.
[quote]Just as I thought.
LOL.... Yes, dear, we know. I'm afraid you're quite predictable.
[quote]I'm right and you don't understand 3rd grade math
ROFL.... Oh, the irony. Still can't deal with R186, can you, dear? It's right there, dear. After all, if I "don't understand 3rd-grade math," it should be easy to prove me wrong, right? You can't, of course.
[quote]( and now everyone reading this knows it and will probably use it against you in the future).
LOL.... Oh, I doubt that, dear, since they don't want to embarrass themselves as you've done.
[quote]I was so looking forward to that link that would just prove me wrong
You already have it, dear, and you ignored it because, alas, you didn't understand it.
[quote]You couldn't provide a link because no link that supports your conclusion exists.
They aren't hard to find, dear. Have you ever heard of Google?
[quote]Thanks for proving me right by posting with no legitimate link.
I'm afraid that all I've "proved," dear, is that you don't understand cumulative percentages. (That's a clue, dear.)
[quote]Again, I hope you're not American.
Alas, dear, your hopes are dashed on this point just as they are on everything else on this thread.
[quote]Although I did giggle when you said the sum of 35% and 9% needed to be divided because they were two different studies.
Dear heart, I was using your own "math" to show you just how silly you were. It's not my fault you misinterpreted that. The correct answer, of course, is in R186, a post that you *still* cannot deal with.
[quote]OH MY GOD. All it does it give you the average of the two numbers which is irrelevant to the study results.
ROFL.... Oh, the unintended irony of this assertion.
[quote]The two numbers have already been average to get 35% and 9% based on occurrences by race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.
Um, no, dear, they haven't. Wow, you *really* don't understand basic statistics, do you?
[quote]I knew you would post without a legitimate link and prove me right ( well of course I did, I know math).
The evidence to date, dear, strongly suggests that you don't. Still waiting for you to deal with R186. You can't, of course.
[quote]Thanks for playing.
My thoughts exactly, dear. Next time, try a little harder, won't you? I hate to win so easily.
Notice everyone no legitimate link again. It just doesn't exist because someone as combative and deranged as Paul troll would have posted already if it existed, but sadly (for him) it doesn't. I'm right and you're basically retarded. Every-time you post without a legitimate link that supports your conclusion you prove me right and you look like the idiot that you are. Without a legitimate link I don't even bother to read your posts. I really don't know or care what you're saying. I need to see a legitimate link to support your claims and then maybe I'll read them. Now where's that link?
[quote]Notice everyone no legitimate link again.
ROFL... So I'm to be held to a standard that you won't live up to? I did provide a "legitimate link," dear; you just didn't like it because you didn't understand it. And I'm still waiting for you to look at R186. Were you planning to do that anytime soon?
[quote]It just doesn't exist because someone as combative and deranged as Paul troll would have posted already if it existed, but sadly (for him) it doesn't.
Dear heart, why on earth would I stop now when I'm having so much fun watching you dig that hole deeper and deeper? And watching you do everything in your power to avoid thinking about R186?
[quote]I'm right and you're basically retarded
LOL.... I couldn't have put it better myself, dear.
[quote]Every-time you post without a legitimate link that supports your conclusion you prove me right and you look like the idiot that you are.
R186, dear. You can't handle it, can you? You can't find the flaw because it doesn't exist and you don't want to admit you're wrong because you don't understand basic math.
[quote]Without a legitimate link I don't even bother to read your posts.
ROFL.... Whatever, dear. You do seem terribly invested in this, though.
[quote]I really don't know or care what you're saying.
And yet here you are, posting how many posts on this thread? You do seem to be working terribly hard for someone who "doesn't care."
[quote]I need to see a legitimate link to support your claims and then maybe I'll read them. Now where's that link.
Try Google, dear. And while you're waiting for your web browser, check out R186. You still can't deal with that, can you?
Paul is not a troll. He's a very smart man. Eloquent and knowledgeable.
If you're on a debate opposite him, you're almost certainly in the wrong.
Time and time again.
He's a DL treasure.
Another post and no legitimate link. This guy just loves proving me right. Where's that link, Corky? Another post without a legitimate link to back your conclusions means I destroyed you and proved your idiocy. Prove me wrong. Provide a link and then maybe I'll read your posts again. This is the final time I'll ask. Provide a legitimate link or I win, I'm right, and right about you. You seem to want to win this argument very badly but another post without a legitimate link means you lost and you're basically retarded. Show me the link. If you post without a legitimate link I'll take that to mean I've proved my case and I can call it a night. I look forward to you proving me right again ( very shortly).
[quote]Another post and no legitimate link.
Dear heart, it's not my fault that you can't handle the data at R186.
[quote]This guy just loves proving me right.
LOL.... No, dear, I just love rubbing your nose in it that you're wrong. And you're playing along beautifully.
Here's another example, dear: in 2012, the exit polls showed that Romney won 52% of the male vote and 44% of the female vote. Using your "math," that must mean that he won 96% of the total vote since you can just add percentages, right? Is any of this sinking in, dear?
[quote]Where's that link, Corky?
Have you tried Google, dear? It really isn't difficult.
[quote]Another post without a legitimate link to back your conclusions means I destroyed you and proved your idiocy.
ROFL.... Only in your fevered imagination, dear. I took care of you with R186, a post you have been very carefully avoiding ever since. You've been desperately looking for the flaw but, alas, you can't find it because it doesn't exist.
[quote]Prove me wrong.
I already have, dear, many times over. Your failure to comprehend that is not my problem.
[quote]Provide a link and then maybe I'll read your posts again.
ROFL.... Dear heart, do you really think I care? I'm enjoying myself, dear.
[quote]This is the final time I'll ask.
Oh, I doubt that, dear. You can't bear to be wrong and you can't bear to give me the last word.
[quote]Provide a legitimate link or I win
Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that I'm not playing by your rules?
[quote]I'm right, and right about you.
Dear heart, you can say it as many times as you like. You can even say it in ALL CAPS. It doesn't make it any more true.
[quote]You seem to want to win this argument very badly
Dear heart, I already won, at R186.
[quote]but another post without a legitimate link means you lost and you're basically retarded.
ROFL.... Or it means the reverse, since you still can't deal with R186.
[quote]Show me the link. If you post without a legitimate link I'll take that to mean I've proved my case and I can call it a night.
Dear heart, you're welcome to "take that to mean" anything you wish. You're welcome to decide that I need to provide a pink unicorn or you win. It has as much meaning as anything else you've been saying.
[quote]I look forward to you proving me right again ( very shortly).
Had to walk the dog, dear. And I've already proved you wrong in R186. And again in this post.
Here it is again, dear:
Let's say that there are 5 million LGB folks in the workforce and 500 hundred thousand T folks (those aren't the real numbers but they are close enough for this example).
9% of 5 million is 450,000.
26% of 500,000 is 130,000.
Total number of LGBT affected = 580,000.
Total population of LGBT is 5,500,000.
Percentage of LGBT affected = 580,000/5,500,000 = 10.5%.
Basic math, dear, just multiplication and division. Go ahead, dear; debunk this. Show me just how "retarded" I am. Rub my nose in just how wrong I am and how many mistakes I've made. Show me how I failed to understand basic math. It's all right here, dear. Waiting for you. I'm not holding my breath, though.
Here's a thought, you can fight for more than one thing. You can be for marriage equality and for ENDA. It's not an either or.
It's like when gay men were getting bashed in New York City, the LGBT community focused on that. They publicized it, had vigils, got extra patrols and some people offered self defense class. See how that's a state with marriage equality but still able to respond to other gay issues? Gay people are able to focus on more than one thing that's important to them.
The idea that once the marriage issue is settled, everything is over is absurd.
No one is forcing anyone to get married or to have that as their goals. But I think as gay marriage happens, it's harder & harder to sweep other gay issues away. Take sports for instance and look how quickly someone is hammered for making homophobic slurs and how many athletes are speaking out saying that they would be OK with gay players and how the different divisions in sports have assured the players of equal treatment. All that happened as a result of the publicity generated from fighting for marriage equality. People more & more see all these surrounding issues as a question of civil rights.
The fight for marriage equality leads to the fight for equality everywhere. It's just like when there was the fight for interracial marriage. It didn't mean blacks & whites had to get married. it didn't affect all blacks but it had a huge impact because it said you're just as equal as everyone else.
I'm victorious and you're a idiot who I suspect is borderline retarded and everyone reading this thread will know this. You waste a lot of keystrokes because I couldn't tell you what you're saying. No legitimate link, I don't read it. But it's too late now. I've been proven right. The link doesn't exist and you don't know shit about math. But that the sum of 26% and 9% should be divided because they are two different studies will keep me giggling for awhile. Oh and that you need to know sample size before you add percentages is another hilarious one. Thank for proving me right. I won and you're done. Maybe they should call you Paul troll the math expert from now on. It's been fun.
[quote]Paul is not a troll. He's a very smart man. Eloquent and knowledgeable.
These aren't mutually exclusive. On this thread, I'm definitely trolling. The idiot I'm trolling has painted such a large target on himself and is just so completely clueless and, at the same time, so utterly convinced of his own total rightness that it's an irresistible combination. So yeah, occasionally I'm a troll.
People worth taking seriously, I take seriously and post accordingly. Idiots I either ignore or I mock, depending on how busy I am and how entertaining they are. At the moment, I'm not busy, he's very entertaining, and the thread wasn't going to go anywhere, anyway, so I'm indulging myself. After all, where else can I go to be told just how retarded and mentally ill I am? Gotta love it.
[quote]I'm victorious and you're a idiot
LOL.... Oh, the irony.... Told you that you'd be back, dear.
[quote]who I suspect is borderline retarded and everyone reading this thread will know this.
Oh, everyone reading this thread knows something, dear, but I doubt it's the conclusion you'd like them to have. Have you checked out R186 yet? Or 212?
[quote]You waste a lot of keystrokes because I couldn't tell you what you're saying.
LOL.... No, dear, I type what I want to type for my own amusement. I'm afraid that I don't really care if you read it or not. Sorry.
[quote]No legitimate link, I don't read it.
*Shrug* Your loss, dear. I'm fine with you being exposed as a fool.
[quote]But it's too late now.
Oh no!!! It's too late?!! Omigod!!! Whatever will I do??? ROFL....
[quote]I've been proven right.
No, dear, you haven't, but I'm sure it comforts you to think so. At least until you check out R186, when you realize yet again that you still can't debunk it and still can't reconcile it.
[quote]The link doesn't exist and you don't know shit about math.
So you keep saying, dear, and yet you still don't have an answer for R186. Why is that?
[quote]But that the sum of 26% and 9% should be divided because they are two different studies will keep me giggling for awhile.
It kept me giggling, too, dear, since I was using *your* math on that.
[quote]Oh and that you need to know sample size before you add percentages is another hilarious one.
I found it hilarious, too, dear, particularly the fact that you didn't know, and still don't know, that basic fundamental fact of statistics.
[quote]Thank for proving me right.
ROFL.... Only in your fevered imagination, dear. Out here in the real world, there is still R186.
[quote]I won and you're done.
So you keep saying, dear. Alas that repetition doesn't make it any more right than when you first wrote it.
[quote]Maybe they should call you Paul troll the math expert from now on. It's been fun.
On this we agree, dear. I've loved your utter cluelessness. Do feel free to come back anytime.
We'll call them Paulisms or PWOW (Paul's Words Of Wisdom) Kiddies, if you see a question on your next math exam asking you to add percentages, SKIP IT and LEAVE IT BLANK. Why you ask? Well, it's not a simple as it seems. One must know the sample sizes in the studies. What studies you ask? Well, the studies the percentages are referencing as all percentages reference studies (i.e. The famous Missing Two Thirds of the Pie study in which you have to know how many people were involved in eating two thirds of the pie in order to know how much pie is truly missing). I mean, the sample sizes could be 15% of a kabillion versus 33% of a katrillion and that won't work. Get it together kids! And The Advocate needs to fire its editor as he clearly doesn't know his math!
The Advocate reporter was sloppy. He was looking at the "2 million" figure reported in the HRC study without noticing that the figure was from another survey, one that was looking at all forms of discrimination. In that case, the study reported that 2 million people a year were leaving their jobs due to gender/age/religion/race/etc. discrimination. (It's worth calling out that many of those people were in protected classes and still chose to leave or were terminated; ENDA is not a panacea.)
When you get into the weeds of the HRC survey, what you realize is that it's mostly a meta-survey; a compilation of data from various surveys. The 9% figure came from "another survey" ("another survey found that nearly one in 10 'out' workers (9%) reported losing a job in the past five years because of their sexual orientation."). The 26% figure came from the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Due to that survey's sloppiness, I don't know the time period for that 26% figure, but I suspect it was open-ended, i.e., "Have you ever been fired for being transgendered?" (Which would be another reason why adding the two percentages together was really stupid.)
So you've got the 2 million figure, which was annual and which included all forms of discrimination and harassment, not just LGBTQ. And you've got the 9% over five years for LGB termination, so a bit less than 2% a year. And you've got the 26% over the lifetime for T termination. Any attempt to simply add these figures together would be adding apples to oranges to grapes and would be pretty dumb.
So instead of "half of all LGBT workers having to leave their jobs because of discrimination," which was the silly claim above, what you really have is roughly 2-3% of LGBTQ workers every year facing this kind of discrimination, a figure that makes far more sense. Think about it: we all have gay friends. Are *half* of them losing their jobs due to discrimination *every single year*?
When a figure just doesn't make sense, go digging into the weeds to figure out where it comes from and whether you're interpreting it correctly. Sadly, our dear little chum was unable to do that and so he got his ass handed to him.
Sure, The Advocate reporter was sloppy. Let's just ignore the obvious fact that 35 percent of 5.4 million just so happens to be nearly 2 mill as cited in the Advocate article. I suppose it's just a mere coincidence. Never-mind the fact that gay men and women and transgender men and women are apart of the same community called LGBT which is the reason the 2 percentages were combined to equal 35 percent. If that's what you need to believe to get through the day then it's no skin off my nose. I'm not going to argue all day over something that anyone with a clear understanding of arithmetic would know. Refer to my post at R218 before taking that exam, kids.
[quote]Sure, The Advocate reporter was sloppy.
Yup, not to mention inaccurate.
[quote]Let's just ignore the obvious fact that 35 percent of 5.4 million just so happens to be nearly 2 mill as cited in the Advocate article.
*Shrug* So? Did you have a point to make?
[quote]I suppose it's just a mere coincidence.
Given that the HRC study specifically referenced "2 million people" losing their jobs every year, it's not entirely a surprise that a lazy reporter would simply report that without checking.
[quote]Never-mind the fact that gay men and women and transgender men and women are apart of the same community called LGBT which is the reason the 2 percentages were combined to equal 35 percent.
ROFL.... Wow, you really are clueless, aren't you? Those were two different studies from two different populations, moron. They were not both LGBT and pretending that they are is just making you look silly. And you haven't even addressed the fact that these were over different time periods, which makes combining these percentages even dumber!
[quote]If that's what you need to believe to get through the day then it's no skin off my nose.
ROFL.... Nor off mine, dear, since you're still wrong. And still clueless as to why. Take another look at R186 and come back when you've figured it out. Until then, I'm going to continue laughing at you.
[quote]I'm not going to argue all day over something that anyone with a clear understanding of arithmetic would know.
ROFL.... And yet despite this "clear understanding of arithmetic," you continue to get this wrong, embarrassingly, stupidly, and oh so humorously so. Why is that, dear?
[quote]Refer to my post at [R218] before taking that exam, kids.
Uh-huh, and refer to R219 and R186 before you embarrass yourself even more. But hey, if you want to amuse me again today, I'm up for it.
Here we ago again. Do you have a fucking life? You're on datalounge for hours and hours a day, day and night arguing with people. Do you have job, a pet or anyone who cares about you? JFC this thread has turned to shit. What don't people just stop responding this guy? You see he responds to every single post directed at him all day and night long.
He doesn't know Math, big deal. he clearly doesn't want to learn so stop trying to teach someone who doesn't want to be taught. Holy shit I see why people think he's annoying. And I think the sociopath label fits. Anyone who has had experiences with sociopaths know that they are never wrong even when proven wrong. So let it be. Ignore him.
[quote]Here we ago again.
I dunno about you but I'm having fun.
[quote]Do you have a fucking life?
Dear heart, you're spending as much time here as I am. I can ask the same thing of you.
[quote]You're on datalounge for hours and hours a day, day and night arguing with people.
No, dear, I'm not. I only spend time on here when someone is amusing me, as you're currently doing.
[quote]Do you have job, a pet or anyone who cares about you?
Why yes, dear, I do. Thank you so much for asking. I'm ever so touched by your concern.
[quote]JFC this thread has turned to shit.
Dear heart, this thread started out as shit and never was going to be anything but, thanks to the idiotic comments from Ryan that we're responding to.
[quote]What don't people just stop responding this guy? You see he responds to every single post directed at him all day and night long.
Dear heart, has it occurred to you to follow your own advice?
[quote]He doesn't know Math, big deal.
ROFL.... And yet, dear, none of the people arguing with me have proven me wrong yet and none of them have been able to deal with the very simple math at R186 that proves them wrong. Tell me again, dear: who doesn't know math?
[quote]he clearly doesn't want to learn
Actually, dear, that's not true. I do like to learn, when I encounter someone worth listening to. Sadly, that doesn't include you.
[quote]so stop trying to teach someone who doesn't want to be taught.
Well, I would, dear, but it's so much fun watching you flail around trying to add apples to oranges and being totally clueless as to why you can't do that.
[quote]Holy shit I see why people think he's annoying.
Quite intentionally so, dear, but only when I'm dealing with a fellow troll and/or a moron.
[quote]And I think the sociopath label fits. Anyone who has had experiences with sociopaths know that they are never wrong even when proven wrong.
Dear heart, nobody has "proven" me wrong on this thread, mostly because I'm not. It's not my fault that you fail to understand basic math.
[quote]So let it be. Ignore him.
I'm fine with that, dear, although I will be considerably less amused.
So, though I'm reluctant to get involved in the numbers debate...
Are people here actually arguing that HALF of all G/L people have lost their jobs due to discrimination? I mean...that's ridiculous. It's completely ridiculous. Ten percent...makes sense. HALF?? No way.
That's exactly what they are arguing: "I think half of all LGBT workers having to leave their jobs because of discrimination makes that point clear." ([R163]). And yes, it's a ridiculous misreading of the data.
so how does he feel this morning?
[bold]""Why as a radical queer I'm ***AGAINST*** same-sex marriage"[/bold]
Anyone who writes a sentence like that and describes himself/herself is [italic]radical[/italic] is using the wrong term.
Ryan Conrad is self-loathing. And he wants other LGBT persons to hate themselves just as he does.
He just wrote on his Facebook page
"My contribution to Southern Maine Pride. Can't wait for the mass divorce at next year's event!"