[tman]

Before I reply, I'd like to find out what you mean by that statement.

Do you mean, "Let us be willfully blind and refuse to engage our senses, not recognizing any differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals despite large behavioral differences (beyond sexual preference) which do exist."

Or do you mean, "Despite your arguments, I categorically state that no differences between these groups exist (beyond the sexual preference of each). I state this without any argument of my own, please accept it for no reason that I care to state."

[petercooper]

Sure, there are certain differences in the median characteristics of different demographic groups. The median teenager is a less safe driver than the median 30-something (as reflected in insurance costs). The median man is, likely, more promiscuous than the median woman. And so on.

Nonetheless, it's a tenet of polite, modern society that slight demographic variations are not turned into generalizations over entire demographic groups.

Not allowing gay people to adopt because they're "more likely" to commit abuses is discrimination, whether or not you have the data to prove the logical statement.

[defen]

> Nonetheless, it's a tenet of polite, modern society that slight demographic variations are not turned into generalizations over entire demographic groups.

Howver, a corollary of this tenet of modern society is that unequal representation in a given field/endeavor is prima facie evidence of discrimination, regardless of differences in group median ability. I trust I do not need to provide examples of this?

[astine]

Disallowing anyone an adoption for any reason is discrimination, if you understand the term literally.

[Locke1689]

But we don't. It's shorthand for "discrimination based on Constitutionally protected status."

[tman]

I've never seen someone straightforward enough to say that they'd rather be polite than logical.

I think that sufficiently sharpens the contradictions.

[ezy]

Posting basically unsubstantiated contrary shit like this and ambiguous snarky replies is typically not a hallmark of someone trying to discover the truth; it's just an excuse be an asshole without real repercussions.

But just to make it crystal clear: you're not being down voted just because people are too polite to confront the truth. You're being down voted because you're not very smart.

Dude, you essentially made up or misinterpreted the numbers you're using[1], then you make what amounts to completely irrational sweeping generalizations based on nothing but two numbers and/or your (limited) social experience.. And, admit it, you know these conclusions are offensive. Not only that, but you can't even stand by your intentionally ambiguous statements about homosexual behavior after you post them -- you're not only an asshole, but completely gutless.

i.e. Shut the fuck up, kid. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[puredemo]

It's not politeness. It's an unwillingness to make sweeping generalizations about a group, especially when the generalizations are being used to legislate and codify discrimination.

[petercooper]

I've never seen someone straightforward enough to say that they'd rather be polite than logical.

Try the average husband. When the wife asks "does my butt look big in this", there's an immediate and well acknowledged convention to be polite rather than logical ;-)

[cj]

You'd be surprised at the number of straight-acting gay men that you interact with everyday.

You're basing your judgments on the flamboyant feminine gay men, the ones who you know are definitely gay. That's a very biased sampling to base your judgments on.

[caryme]

Just as an aside, "straight-acting" isn't an appropriate term to use. It perpetuates false stereotypes of both gay and straight men.

[tman]

What? I think you meant to reply to someone else. Re-read my posts and find any statement where I suggested any behavioral differences and backed it up by anecdotal evidence.

[ErrantX]

No, what he means is that, certainly differences exist - and there is nothing wrong with that or them (as you seem to be suggesting).