Have Fun With This Graph
Today's election day. Several states have marriage equality and other LGBT rights issues up for a vote.
The New York Times blog had this chart today, which is kind of fascinating. I will use their description of how it works:
There's a lot of information in this one graph. You can spend hours staring at this crazy thing.
I hope we win today! Lots of close ones.
The New York Times blog had this chart today, which is kind of fascinating. I will use their description of how it works:
My colleague Adam Liptak has a piece in The New York Times today about the disconnect between the public acceptance of gay marriage and its legal adoption. In his article about a California case, public opinion on same-sex marriage (at least in the form of Proposition 8) appears to lag behind the more liberal opinions of the bench.
But in many states, and on many other gay rights issues, the lag seems to go in the opposite direction: legal and policy responses (whether from the legislative or judicial branch) lag behind much more liberal popular opinion.
The chart below gives a nice summary of state attitudes on gay rights issues, based on estimates from national polls. It’s from a new paper, by Jeffrey R. Lax and Justin H. Phillips, both of Columbia University, that was recently published in the American Political Science Review. (Methodology for the survey estimates is on page 32 here.)
Bubbles are placed to represent public opinion on a gay rights issue, with bubbles farther to the right indicating greater public support. For example, the red bubble on the line for California shows that slightly less than half of Californians say same-sex couples should have the right to marry.
Filled-in bubbles signify that the policy has been adopted in that state (either by legislative or judicial action). The red bubble for California, for example, is not filled in, indicating that gays in the state are not currently allowed to marry. Does Policy Trail Public Opinion on Gay Rights?
There's a lot of information in this one graph. You can spend hours staring at this crazy thing.
I hope we win today! Lots of close ones.
posted by JimK at 8:00 AM
26 Comments:
"the disconnect between the public acceptance of gay marriage and its legal adoption"
you have to wonder about the validity of this data when voters have consistently rejected gay "marriage" in dozens of states and it is only legally adopted when the juduciary intervenes
California's attitude is significant because a very public debate took place on the matter so everyone there has had a good chance to hear all sides and consider the implications
also germane is the fact the lunatic fringe gay advocacy groups tend to vigorously resist putting this to the voters, as they have recently done in D.C.
What's the relationship between public acceptance of anonymous trollery and its legal adoption?
this guy's swift:
"Obama Says U.S. Must Reduce Debt, Spur Job Growth"
Earth to Barry:
you can do both by reducing taxes
"Anonymous" exactly which of your guaranteed rights as a citizen of the United States would you like to put up for a vote by voters? (germane is the fact the lunatic fringe gay advocacy groups tend to vigorously resist putting this to the voters, as they have recently done in D.C.)
Diogenes
what's confusing you, dio, is that you think gay "marriage" is already a right
it isn't
if I were seeking a new "right", or to redefine the English as a propaganda move for my own personal benefit, it would be fine to have it voted on
when two people of the same gender move in together and start rubbing themselves on each other, that doesn't constitute marriage
Bad anonymous said "what's confusing you, dio, is that you think gay "marriage" is already a right it isn't."
Of course it is, the 9th amendment makes that clear. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.". The right to marry the one you love is an unenumerated right that is retained by the people. The government has no business trying to dictate to people who their marriage partners should be.
Bad anonymous said "if I were seeking a new "right", or to redefine the English as a propaganda move for my own personal benefit, it would be fine to have it voted on".
No one's seeking a new right, they're seeking an existing right, the right to marry a partner of one's choosing. If your right to marry someone of the opposite sex was put up for a vote you'd be screaming from the rooftops about the Nazi government trying to deny you your rights.
Bad anonymous said "when two people of the same gender move in together and start rubbing themselves on each other, that doesn't constitute marriage".
No one said it did. When two people commit to love and support each other for the rest of their lives that is what marriage is all about and the government rightfully should recognize it.
"The right to marry the one you love is an unenumerated right that is retained by the people."
This is a big, fat lie.
I think once that's stated, all the other lies by Deleta follow and we don't need to examine the rest of the comment.
"Anonymous"...Please explain how Priya's quoting of the words from the Constitution is a lie!
Bad anonymous is still stingining from his shameful performance on this thread:
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2009/10/survey-shows-discrimination-against.html#comments
His lies were exposed repeatedly and he contradicted himself more times than one can count. He tries to cover his disgraceful behavior by claiming others are lying but can never provide any proof (of course).
"Please explain how Priya's quoting of the words from the Constitution is a lie!"
Preeyuh said:
The right to marry the one you love is an unenumerated right that is retained by the people. The government has no business trying to dictate to people who their marriage partners should be.
This is nowhere in the Constitution.
She lied.
AGAIN!!
Anon, what do you think the word "unenumerated" means?
it means not counted or listed
Breeyuh's notion that gay "marriage" is a right because it is not listed in the Constitution is a lie
are you joining her in this adventure in deceit?
This post has been removed by the author.
"Your claim that there's no right to marry the person of your choice because its not enumerated in the constitution is shown to be a lie by the 9th ammendment. To suggest people don't have a right to this unenumerated right is like suggesting they don't have a right to the unenumerated right to eat food."
Give it up, Breeyuh.
As Americans demonstrated yesterday, we don't fall for your lies.
Yesterday, Americans gave the gay agenda a big ol' slap in the face.
Bad anonymous, a chronic liar like you calling an honest person a liar carries no weight whatsoever. We saw on this thread
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2009/10/survey-shows-discrimination-against.html#comments
how you repeatedly went back and forth claiming there was no discrimination, denying that you had said there was no discrimination, acknowledging the discrimination, and then back to saying there was no discrimination and denying you had said there was no discrmination and then topping it off with the lie that no one cares about honesty. We've seen you don't care about honesty - you've made that perfectly clear.
Your claim that there's no right to marry the person of your choice because its not enumerated in the constitution is shown to be a lie by the 9th ammendment. To suggest people don't have a right to this unenumerated right is like suggesting they don't have a right to the unenumerated right to eat food.
"Your claim that there's no right to marry the person of your choice because its not enumerated in the constitution is shown to be a lie by the 9th ammendment. To suggest people don't have a right to this unenumerated right is like suggesting they don't have a right to the unenumerated right to eat food."
Breeyuh, you're a notorious liar.
If people don't eat food, they die.
If they don't engage in sexual deviancy, they live.
See the difference?
To say the right to gay "marriage" is in the Constitution is a huge lie and everyone knows it.
31 states have confirmed they don't want to change that.
Your ignorance of what an analogy is bad anonymous only highlights your stupidity. An analogy doesn't describe two identical situations, it describes two situations with an underlying similarity, in this case both situations are ones where the right is so basic no one needs to be told they have it (except morons like you).
Bad anonymous said "To say the right to gay "marriage" is in the Constitution is a huge lie and everyone knows it.".
I never said it was in the constitution, idiot, I said its one of the unenumerated rights the 9th ammendment says is retained by the people.
well, that's what you were implying
if you now concede that the Constitution doesn't grant a right to gay "marriage" then we agree
at least your lying about that has stopped!!
The constitution doesn't grant people rights they already have, rights are intrinsic to being human, they don't come from the governement. The constitution only recognizes rights enumerated there and acknowledges that other rights retained by the people aren't enumerated there.
I never lie, you do constantly.
"If they don't engage in sexual deviancy, they live."
Why? Are you planning to kill anyone who you thinks engages in sexual deviancy?
"The constitution only recognizes rights enumerated there and acknowledges that other rights retained by the people aren't enumerated there."
Of course, so why are you bringing it up? The constitution is irrelevant.
You're trying to associate your inane suggestion of a "right" to gay "marriage" with the Constitution.
Your attempt is a lie.
"Are you planning to kill anyone who you thinks engages in sexual deviancy?"
Perfect example of how a question can be a lie. My context was clear. This is an attempt to insinuate a different meaning.
It is an attempt to deceive.
Deceive is a synonym for lie.
Anon responded to:
“If they don't engage in sexual deviancy, they live.
Are you planning to kill anyone who you thinks engages in sexual deviancy?"
With
“Perfect example of how a question can be a lie. My context was clear. This is an attempt to insinuate a different meaning.
It is an attempt to deceive.
Deceive is a synonym for lie.”
What was absolutely clear Anon was that you were trying to conflate gay sex with death, typically mentioning AIDS in the same sentence, to insinuate that all gay people are going to die from AIDS. Completely ignoring the fact that AIDS is caused by a VIRUS, and not gay sex (or “deviant sex” as you like to call it). Plenty of straight people have infected other straight people with AIDS and died from it as well. Ignoring this fact is perilous to society at large.
Let’s look at the numbers for AIDS:
(From: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure )
In 2007 there were an estimated 18,413 cases of AIDS attributed to Male to Male Sex and / or injection drug use.
The last estimate I saw showed roughly 4.5% of the population is gay. This works out to be about 13.5 million people, and if we assume 50% are male, that’s 6.75 million gay males.
If we now assume that ALL 18,413 cases of AIDS results in a death from AIDS (not realistic, because many will die from other causes, but we can find a worst-case estimate this way): 18,413 out of 6.75 million is 0.273%. So, worst case, about 0.273% of the gay male population will be dying every year at current rates (assuming current rates and no cure). While I’m sure you’ll agree with me that this many wonderful gay men dying every year is a terrible tragedy, it begs the question:
What are the other 99.727% of gay men going to die from?
Not from AIDS. Not from “sexual deviancy.” Any other suggestions? An unlucky rash of car accidents?
Last look at some other statistics:
From 2005 to 2007 there were approximately 1.2 million abortions per year
(http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html )
And in 2003 to 2005 there were roughly 4.1 million life births.
(http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html)
So 1.2 million out of a total 5.3 million fetus died, for a mortality rate of 22.6%.
0.273% of gay men may die from AIDS. 22.6% of children are aborted. Statistically speaking, it’s 83 times more dangerous to be an unborn child in this country than a gay man. For every gay man that dies of AIDS, about 83 infants are aborted.
It seems to me that the consequences of promiscuous heterosexual sex are FAR more lethal on society than promiscuous homosexual sex.
On another note, the incidence of HETEROsexual transmission of AIDS has increased by more than a factor of 5:
(From: http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-01-03#S1.5X )
“Also contrary to predictions a decade ago that injecting drug users (IDU) would account for 50% of new cases, the proportion of cases among IDU only increased from 17% in 1983 to 25% by 1992 and did not increase in the subsequent decade (26% in 2001).(14) The largest proportional increase has occurred in cases attributed to heterosexual transmission--from 5% in 1983 to 28% in 2001. No cases associated with the receipt of blood or blood products were diagnosed in 2001.”
So the question still stands: “What are the other 99.727% of gay men going to die from?”
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
Ooops, mistake in my math – I used the percentages rather than the absolute numbers in one of the statements. It should have read “For every gay man that may die of AIDS, about 65 infants are aborted.” The statement immediately previous to this which uses 83 is still mathematically correct, as it is comparing the rates themselves. Keep in mind however that I used the INFECTION rate numbers rather than the MORTALITY rate numbers – the mortality rate is about half of the infection rate, so as I stated before, my analysis is “worst case.”
Sorry. Didn’t want anyone to think I was lying.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
Bad anonymous said "You're trying to associate your inane suggestion of a "right" to gay "marriage" with the Constitution".
No, you've got it backwards. The right isn't associated with the constitution, the constitution is associated with the right - the right comes first, it is inate to the state of being human. The constitution merely recognizes this fact and the ninth amendment in particular acknowledges that just because the right isn't listed doesn't mean people don't have it.
Good anonymous asked "Are you planning to kill anyone who you thinks engages in sexual deviancy?"
Bad anonymous said "Perfect example of how a question can be a lie. My context was clear."
No, whatever context you think was clear wasn't. You said "If they don't engage in sexual deviancy, they live".
If by deviancy you mean same sex the converse of what you were suggesting is that same sex sex will result in the death of gay couples. There is no reason to believe that unless you intend to kill sexually active same sex couples or if you were trying to suggest gay sex itself results in death which is obviously a lie.
So either you were suggesting you intend to kill sexually active gay couples, or you were lying - there's no other explanation.
"Your claim that there's no right to marry the person of your choice because its not enumerated in the constitution is shown to be a lie by the 9th ammendment. To suggest people don't have a right to this unenumerated right is like suggesting they don't have a right to the unenumerated right to eat food."
Breeyuh, you're a notorious liar.
If people don't eat food, they die.
If they don't engage in sexual deviancy, they live.
See the difference?
To say the right to gay "marriage" is in the Constitution is a huge lie and everyone knows it.
31 states have confirmed they don't want to change that.
Post a Comment
<< Home