I think we can go all the way back to the 1950s and find gay players in the NBA. Same for the NFL, and especially for major league baseball.
Where did that come from? . . . 4% . . . it's barely 1.5% if that. One of our local news-twits said it was 10% . . .
It's like that 90% figure of people against gun ownership . . . comes right out of their a$$. But, if you repeat it enough . . . some of it sticks.
who gives a flip, he is a narcissistic attention seeker
No need to know or hear about a person’s sex life...keep it in the closet. This is PRIVATE and not NEWS.
I am sick and tired of this gay shyte and it is sickening too. It was better when they were in the closet doing what they do far way from everyone else
Lesbians generally get a break. after all, I'm sure I'm not the only lesbian-trapped-in-a-man's-body here on FR!
If Jackie Robinson had waited until he was a 36 yr old free agent to tell the world he was Black, then Jason would be “just like him”.....
Yes, the poofter isth thoo brave!
This is being called a “Jackie Robinson” moment.
Bull$hit.
No one has prevented gays from playing major league sports. No one has set up separate fountains for gays.
Blacks got a raw deal in this country. Gays enjoy all the privileges they could ever dream of.
Apologize to blacks.
It is interesting that we are told that homosexuality is in the genes, that it is not environmental or learned or a choice. But this guy has an identical twin and identical twins have identical DNA.
Guess what? The twin is not homosexual and was as stunned as the nine-year girlfriend by the gayness declaration.
they only make it up to 3.4%.
There is a flaw in this methodology. PEW Research was able to identify it when they discovered that 91% of all persons who are polled don't ever end up giving an answer ~ which means the average poll has only a 9% response rate. Start with the PJ Media story ~ >http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/30/we-are-the-91-only-9-of-americans-cooperate-with-pollsters/
You might ask what that has to do with anything ~ other than the need to make polls bigger ~ and you would be right to do so. Turns out that as we approach '0', '0' being a situation where NOBODY ANSWERS A POLLSTER, a smaller and smaller portion of all those polled is providing ALL the answers!
If that very small portion is aware that there's a question of peculiar interest to them, and they answer 100% of the time any one of their members is polled they can easily distort the actual response levels!
Think about it if 100% of the sample population responds at a 9% level, and X% of the sample population responds at a 100% level..................
We can examine the issue this way. Assume that 10% are homosexual. Say that we sample 100 homosexuals, and 900 straight folks (they'd all be chosen perfectly randomly BTW). That's 1000 in the sample population. Out of that we get 100 answers from homosexuals and 90 answers from straight folks!
WOW! The homosexual response is then 52% of the total response ~ or roughly 5X the percentage we'd imagine with their being but 10% of the population.
Now that I've addressed your concerns about gay marriage and JCPenney marketing poll results, let's go a bit further.
Assume there are 1% of the population who are homosexual. We sample 1000 people, 10 of them homosexual and 990 straight. The 10 homosexuals answer 100% of the time, and the 990 straight people answer 9% of the time. The result is that homosexuals account for 11% of the total response ~ that is 11 TIMES their assumed representation in the population.
Let's say the gays are just .3% of the population. We ask 1000 people to answer questions. 3 gays answer. 90 straights answer. The result will be that gays are once again 3% of the answer.
That, BTW, is 10 TIMES their assumed representation in the population.
That tells you where the polls came from that favored Romney. A miniscule number of gays, answering 100% of the time to every possible poll, made themselves look like they were 3%. That was enough to tip every poll, including Gallup's own poll about how many people are gay, to the gay point of view!
This year you will go to the store and buy products that fit the gay point of view on acceptable color and fit! You will near 'newsies' tell you that gay marriage is good, gay sex is good, gay shampoo is good, and whatever it is they are eating this year, is good.
If I might quote The Hildabeaste:
What difference, at this point, does it make?
In other words, who cares?
We have to stop using their preferred terms and call them what they are. Not with hatred, but for clarity.
HOMOSEXUAL, because there’s nothing GAY about it.
Forty-Five posts and nobody realizes that photo isn’t Jason
Collins.
a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition.
