Replies

Maybe gays don't make up 10% of the population as some claim but 0.1% is a ridiculously low figure.

Nobody here claimed gays were 0.1% of the population. The paragraph in context is below:

Racicot can't be trying to get lesbian votes, which have got to be 99% Democrat, and forever will be. That leaves gay men, which constitute roughly 2% of the male population. If the GOP were to embrace the gay male population what would it get? Maybe changing 10%, going from 90% to 80% Democrat. To try to get the votes of 0.1% of the population, the GOP must first stick the gay agenda thumb in the eye of 80% of their constituents.

The claim is that male homosexuals are 2% of males, and thus 1% of the population; of these, the best that could be expected would be to change 10%, which works out to 0.1%.

...they [sic]idea that the GOP would be offending 80% of their constituents is just plain ridiculous.

Gay marriage, gays in the military, forcing the Scouts to accept homosexual Scoutmasters is opposed by nearly 80% of the general voting population. It is far from ridiculous to figure that 80% of Republicans oppose these measures.

"Maybe gays don't make up 10% of the population as some claim but 0.1% is a ridiculously low figure."

Nobody here claimed gays were 0.1% of the population. The paragraph in context is below:

Go back and read the post I was responding to again.
It didn't include any of the convoluted rationale and number crunching nonsense from the paragraph you quote. It presented the gay male population at 0.1%. It isn't my job to correct another's poster's arguments before I respond to them.

"...the idea that the GOP would be offending 80% of their constituents is just plain ridiculous."

Gay marriage, gays in the military, forcing the Scouts to accept homosexual Scoutmasters is opposed by nearly 80% of the general voting population. It is far from ridiculous to figure that 80% of Republicans oppose these measures.

Funny, Racicot didn't bring up any of these issues nor did he claim to be promoting them...but simply wanted to open up a dialogue with gays, many of which happen to agree with conservatives on other important issues.

Once again, you choose to add your own words to other's statements to promote your own points. Not very convincing.