anti-gay wedsites that claim true statistics

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2007 2:43 PM GMT
    I was think and what does everyone else think of them. I have found a few that are just plain dumb.
    The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75
    Is just one of a page of statistics like that. Anyone have any thoughts. I would not care about them becouse i know they are wrong but one of my friends online was attacked verbaly by these statistics when she said homosexuals have the right to marrige. So what is everyone elses thougtht. Wed link below
    http://worstgenerationseed.blogspot.com/2006/01/true-statistics-on-homosexuality.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2007 3:54 PM GMT
    The problem with statistics is the fact that they can be made to say what you want. I checked up all the sources from this article and I would tell your friend that it can be discounted because the newest source was from 1994 over 10 years ago, so its not really accurate, because things have really changed over the last 13 years. Some of the sources date all the way back to 1978 over 30 years ago. On top of the age of the sources there is also an issue with the fact that it was complied by Catholic Apologetics International and Free Republic, both religious right groups that are hardly impartial.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2007 5:11 PM GMT
    Statistics are persuasive when their errors are quantified, the assumptions behind the model and its robustness to the parameters made explicit; alternative explanations considered and falsified and the certainty with which this may be done presented with care; sources and the methodologies used in the sources listed and annotated; definitions are precise and consistent. Such things are the work of careful science... they are not easy!

    Numbers like 70% should not be graced with the label statistics because they do not meet any of the above criteria. The website you link to is deeply offensive, but also the arguments and numbers it presents are manifestly silly; the numbers are thrown around like smarties, the logical fallacies (where there is any logic) blindingly obvious; assertions are rife, causes and effects are confused; types of average are used without justification masking the behaviour of a distribution function; the sources are archaic and unreferenced.... need we go on?

    Everyone should try to help stop the trend in society to bandy round numbers in order to look authoritative by getting up and shouting at people who throw them around.

    For many elegant explanations of how to assess statistics and evidence, have a look at www.edwardetufte.com

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2007 5:26 PM GMT
    "Everyone should try to help stop the trend in society to bandy round numbers in order to look authoritative by getting up and shouting at people who throw them around."


    I live with an epidemiologist/statistical analyst. I can't wait to tell him it's been recommended that I shout him down.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2007 5:44 PM GMT
    Yes her sources are dated, and I'm always suspiscious when people won't use the newest information, but that in and of itself does not make them wrong. Her problem is she hasn't read the sources or though about how you gather sources -- she admits this much with the line "Can all these sources really be bunk?"

    She hasn't read these sources, but rather cut and pasted them from some other internet site, which who knows where they got them from as they may have cut and pasted from somewhere else and so on, but you get the idea. Without reading each a everyone of the sources does she know they were quoted properly? Were the statistics quoted taken in context ie. are they being used the way the author intended and wrote about them. Unless you sit down and read each article or book you don't know.
    Furthermore is it really surprising that 29 sources collected together would be bunk? If you did a literature search on even a few of those 'statistics' you would be inundated with thousands of papers. 29 really? That's all? You could write books on many of those individual statistics. The question is why were these 29 sources grouped together. What common demonimator do they share, or what biases are reflected in them that are also reflected in the compiler? These are at best opinion pieces, and as such the opinion is paramount and the sources secondary, but that isn't factual or evidence based writing.

    What always gets me with these people is that they don't realize how what they believe is really a form of Nationalism, and how unique or odd those views are when compared to the rest of the world. Look at her interests. The only place you get that grouping of interests/beliefs is on the American right and while they might cry their christianness it is basically an American-centric, nationalistic view of Christianity.
  • mcwclewis

    Posts: 1701

    Jun 19, 2007 7:23 PM GMT
    according to statistics, 85% of statistics are incorrect.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2007 8:26 PM GMT
    Oh no! I'm going to die within 6 months! I'd better get busy!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2007 8:39 PM GMT
    It is the nature of satistics that if you analyze any subset of the general sampling it will deviate from the norm. That is just the arithmetic behind it. It you look at other subsets E.G. "Amercian Heroes" or Amercian Artists they would not fair any better.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2007 8:46 PM GMT
    I'm reminded of a college political debate that I had the misfortune to witness. (It was kind of a follow-up to a Reagan/Carter debate.) When one of the democratic team pointed out that the stories and numbers used by Reagan were totally fictitious, the guy who responded for the republicans appeared to be genuinely puzzled. His response was "So what? It got his point across, didn't it?"

    I'm not picking on the right here, I've actually seen far more of this sort of thing from the left.

    It has been my rather shocking experience when presenting data to any kind of government body, from county commissions to state and federal environmental officials, the minute you bring out actual data, they stop paying attention. It's as if numbers are completely invisible to them. What they want are dramatic idological statements, then they weigh the arguments based on whether they agree with their pre-conceived idiological bias.

    Well... it used to be shocking, before I got so cynical. Now it's just sad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2007 9:02 PM GMT
    I just read thru the statistics you spoke of... I apparently have a LOT of catching up to do when it comes to the number of partners a homosexual male has in a year (then again, I should have been dead two years ago, so I guess I have plenty of time to catch up!) These stats would be hysterical if it wasn't for so many people taking them seriously. It's sad what some people will believe in order to make themselves feel better.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2007 9:19 PM GMT
    Even if the statistics were correct for the individuals polled, one wonders about the gay individuals NOT polled.

    In other words, have any of you been polled about your sexual orientation? I have a feeling that, somehow, someone got a hold of statistics from a hospital, or studies, in which a subset of individuals self-identified themselves as gay.

    If that were the case, obviously, the mortality and illness rate would be high.

    Does anyone know of a legitimate source of demographics on gay men?

    John
  • allamericantx

    Posts: 140

    Jun 19, 2007 11:19 PM GMT
    I sold medicine for years. I can tell you that statistics and data can easily be manipulated so that IF YOU have an agenda, you can make anything legitamize your angle.

    In pharmaceuticals, people die during drug studies, yet the companies can pull it off so that their drug looks like it smells like a rose (though there are many dead people in it's path)

    Be careful - anything can be twisted.
  • allamericantx

    Posts: 140

    Jun 19, 2007 11:27 PM GMT
    Oh, Geez. I just read that page. Come on.

    "One judge in NYC said that homosexuals are responsible for over half the murders in all large cities?" LOL Yum. I like it rough.

    Another point was that homosexuality originally belonged on the list of mental illnesses, therefore it is a mental disease.
    - Perfect. Now I can't be blamed for being gay. I'm mentally deranged. Not my fault.

    .......did you notice the banner on the upper right corner? "As for me and my blog, we will serve the Lord"? Ok, enough said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2007 12:20 AM GMT
    Again Allamerican, I'd call her an American nationalist with a veneer of Christianity to provide a moral cover.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2007 5:06 AM GMT
    It's amusing how people go from like "a study shows that x %" to like "one judge says." We can play these games too. Here are some for you:

    Heterosexuals in NC are responsible for 100% of divorces, 100% of unwanted pregnancies, and 100% of abortions. Of people who molest females related to them, almost 100% are heterosexuals. Child abuse is a direct result of the actions of heterosexuals, who choose to have sex, which leads to children, which they then abuse. Heterosexual sex results in a condition called pregnancy, which is often painful, dangerous, and has to be treated with surgery. Heterosexuals often resort to oral or anal sex in order to avoid pregrancy. Many heterosecuals are so obsessed with sex that they illegally obtain erection enhancing drugs such as viagra in order to enduldge their unnatural desires. Heterosexual females often experience tearing of the vagina when first having intercourse, and often experience frequent bladder infections as a result of having sex. Heterosexuals are responsible for overpopulation, and for all genetically transmitted disease.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2007 7:11 AM GMT
    fastprof asked:

    Does anyone know of a legitimate source of demographics on gay men?

    This might be a start:

    http://sfpl.lib.ca.us/librarylocations/main/glc/glbtdemo2.htm

    Also: the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago has been publishing a series of studies on sexual behavior since the mid-1990s.

    http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/941013/sex.shtml

    http://cloud9.norc.uchicago.edu/faqs/sex.htm

    I think some of the data are available online.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2007 7:47 AM GMT
    NORC's sex study is, in my humble opinion, today's most accurate in terms of population sampling and data analysis. I had the pleasure of working with the study's lead investigator, Ed Laumann, and I can say that the man behind the work is easily sociology's leading guru on social networks and a very shrewd social scientist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2007 7:58 AM GMT
    Yep, I'm competely agaisnt homosexual marriage. Homosexual should have no right to marry. I think the homosexual people are all having the psychological problem. They are not normal. They all should be in hospital to treat their psycological problems.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2007 8:06 AM GMT
    ' THE MEDIUN age of DEATH ... '
    BLAH - BLAH - BLAH ... Such fatalistic NONSENSE !

    Yah, and we could easily retort with the fact that way too many stupid people out there are having unwanted babies and overpopulating an already extreemly taxed planet out of selfishness and EGO and that because of that MOST peoples' days are numbered, or that IF the bible is right the world will explode ( OK - I stole that line from Bob Dylan ) ... not to mention how screwing eachother over for profit has BECOME the institution for marriage, and yet they won't even grant us that ... uhh-mm pleasure - but we WON'T go there !
    HEY -
    They are just pissed and looking for a scape goat in us because their lives SUCK and they KNOW it !!!! Why else would they expend their LIMITED amount of energy barfing up such TRIPE ?! Why else would they be trying to hold us down ?
    DEATH, DOOM AND DESTRUCTION - That's all these people are about.
    The days for these morons are numbered. This is their last hurrah. What you hear from them is nothing but their OWN fears about what is already happening to THEM, not US. They just want to take us down with them. Misery seeks company, remember....Now all we have to be is patient and strong... and VERY optimistic ( sigh )

    That's all ...

    In the mean time, PEACE LOVE AND EQUALITY FOR ALL.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2007 12:46 PM GMT
    Here's one for her.......
    "4 out of 3 people have trouble with fractions"!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2007 4:18 PM GMT
    Here's an article on the source of that median age of death number---the author's corrective "back of an envelope" math trick doesn't impress me (it has nothing to do with finding a median), but there's more sense to it than the foolishness that produced the original number.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2098/

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2007 5:01 PM GMT
    Thanks, MikeOnMain...

    Now, this is the way to begin accumulating valid statistics:

    "...The study involved 90-minute, face-to-face interviews with 3,432 randomly selected Americans ages 18 to 59. Of those selected, 80 percent, an extremely high percentage for response to any survey, agreed to disclose the facts of their sexual lives. The survey was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center..."

    I've looked at the three references you've provided. And, their conclusions are thoughtfully general, which is what I'd expect given the task.

    That's why I am very skeptical about any "study" or group of studies that purports to relate crime, average age of death, average income to gay people, such as "true-statistics-on-homosexulaity.html" does.

    Unless all people who die self-identify themselves as gay, unless bank records list sexual orientation, unless convicted criminals check the "I am gay" box on their prison registration forms....all of that kind of specific nonsense sounds like a hoax, perpetrated by someone who is seeking do demonize gay people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2007 5:44 PM GMT
    Thanks again, MikeOnMain....

    Hah...this article, written in 1997,

    http://www.slate.com/id/2098/

    completely strips baloney foisted in

    http://worstgenerationseed.blogspot.com/2006/01/true-statistics-on-homosexuality.html

    "...However, Harry Rosenberg, the mortality-statistics chief at the National Center for Health Statistics, says he's unaware of evidence that HIV-negative gays have a lower life expectancy than other males. Rosenberg also points to one reason to think the HIV-negative gay male may actually live longer on average than the straight male: Gays may have higher incomes and more education on average than straights--two factors powerfully correlated with longer life spans. (Bennett himself appears to share this view, terming gays, "as a group, wealthy and well educated.")..."

    If you guys didn't have time to read through the link, the average age of "death" statistics only included ages of people who had died and who were gay, and did not include ages of people who were still alive and yet to die.

    In other words, all those guys in their 60s, 70s, 80s, even 90s who had not passed on...by definition, wouldn't be included.

    In other words, 43 years old may (or may not) have been the average age for the guys whose obituaries these mindless idiots examined...and not the life expectancy for gay men in general.

    That's why I despise the right...and the way they create mis-statistics for their own purposes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2007 6:00 PM GMT
    Thank you for the forum posts. Also SHE was getting attacked by HIM. Some of you have been saying her when you should say him. She is still beening attacked by the guy. Now he is stating the numbers are going up to 20-180 partners a year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2007 6:29 PM GMT
    Which her and which guy? You website you gave was to some stay at home mother called Dani. Well, I guess I better get busy than because at the rate I'm going I won't hit 180 partners in my life time! Even at 20 you would be changing partners, about ever 2 1/2 weeks, and at 180 that would be every other day almost. And while there may be people who manage that, they'd have to be out there working far harder than I think most of us have time for.