The FRC stomps on gays for fun & profit
The Family Research Council just loves to stomp on gay folks for fun and profit. It’s a weird group. That uses mush numbers and forgets so much of the context in which any real numbers exist.
Here’s Part Four – of the Family Research Council mush numbers
I left off a few days ago in looking at the mush put forth by the Orwellian named “Family Research Council” — a group which has yet to find a gay person in a family anywhere in the nation, a group quite convinced that we seem to show up full grown dangers to society. It’s nuts. These people are trying to count the numbers of “homosexuals” or “exclusive male homosexuals” or “homosexuals and lesbians” in Vermont. They’re quite unsure of the term to use, for they use them all and more – going back and forth wherever it seems convenient to them.
But, anyhow, so now let’s continue on with the mush where we left off, three days ago, which is how they’re using three data sets to count the numbers of gay folks — including one from the US Census which is strictly prohibited from counting us. And when an organization that is told not to count something comes up with a number of what cannot be counted, well, then, that’s a miracle of some sort.
FRC: “… estimated the number of exclusive male homosexuals …”
ME: I thought homosexuals were automatically male? Didn’t you guys just say that? Will you make up your minds already, please — which term refers to which people? And is a guy who dated a girl but once, to attempt to conform to some societal norm to which he’s incapable of conforming – is he an “exclusive male homosexual.” Certainly he’s not a lesbian, since those gals are always sliced off from time to time for convenience sake, or an agenda, I can’t tell which. “Homosexual” of course refers, by the FRC reckoning as both guys and gals, or just guys, but never gals, and sometimes “exclusive” guys and never ever even dabbling guys, of course. Hey, kiss a girl, no more “exclusive” I would imagine. How could one be, given the tenor of the word?
FRC: “… in the general population to be 2.5 percent”
ME: To be fair – this is between 1 and 3 percent they cite often (though you would think they would make a clearer decision,) though leaning towards the larger, which negates the “promulgation” if I may be so bold, of the “10%” the FRC says we somehow foisted upon the nation. It strikes me then, that to say 1% just once, in your range, when you already accede to 2.5% is disingenuous. But I’m not on a crusade. Put your 2.5% upon the basket, and stop making reference to a number you yourself admit cannot possibly be true. Why bring up a number in counting anything when the number is just known to be wrong? But anyway, what other types of populations might there be beside “general” ones? Especially since you’re trying to count the number of us within the, um, entire “general” population, no? Why the modifier? Perhaps to set off that we’re not to be considered part of the general population? I’m not paranoid, sirs, but you do say you are out to get me.
FRC: “… and the number of exclusive lesbians to be 1.4 percent
ME: Ah, so why not call them “female homosexuals,” so as to truly compare the two. You folks have now used your terms so interchangeably that it reminds me more of a high school paper than a reasoned study on public policy.
FRC: “According to the 2000 Census, the adult population of Vermont is 461,304. Based on the Demography study, a reasonable estimate of the number of homosexuals and lesbians ..”
ME: Back to this again. Which? Or both? Or sometimes one and sometimes the other? And this is “scholarship”? And a “reasonable estimate” based on pure conjecture?
FRC: “… in Vermont would be approximately 5,600 (2.5 percent of the adult male population) for male homosexuals, and approximately 3,300 (1.4 percent of the adult female population) for lesbians, for a total of approximately 8,900 homosexuals and lesbians. [Note: these are only rough approximations for purposes of statistical comparison.])”
ME: Those are their brackets stuck in there, to give us “approximately” and “rough approximations” — of somewhere between “1 to 3%” or “2.5%” and “1.4%” of the “adult” population – they think. Actually, it’s exactly 5766 – for if ½ the 461,304 are men = 230,652 men x 2.5% = 5766.3. Actually it’s 3,229 ladies. But why not approximate when a calculator is so handy? I would venture they wouldn’t bother to count the number of non-adult “homosexuals” — aka Kids who are going to be adult “homosexuals” soon enough — that would give them a heart attack. Though too, is adult from 18 and older? 20? 21? Oh, do give me the facts! And then — between the two “approximations” and the four figures, they have about as much surety for “purposes of statistical comparison” to … well, wow, they don’t say what they’re comparing it to. In fact, they’re stating as fact some range of numbers which it is illegal to count by at least one of the three organizations they cite. And it’s all “data” compiled into nothing more than “we think” “we guess” “perhaps” and of course, “maybe.”
Other than that, everyone at FRC is quite clear on the number for statistical comparison to their preconceived notions. Not to mention, they don’t even bother to look at the number of “bisexuals.” Whom are really either future ex-gays (they hope) or future exclusive gays (they fear.) As soon as they either get off the fence, or society says it’s OK to be gay, which the Family Research Council has no intention of doing anytime soon. And well, not all gay guys are as pushy or vocal as me. Some do like to hide behind a wife for awhile, or just a general “haven’t met the right woman yet,” lest the FRC gets to carry out its “export” gays program.
And has the FRC ever heard of closeted gay men? Closeted even yet because of the assault on gay folks, and too the FRC demands we hush about it anyway. Don’t flaunt, right? I mean, tell some sissy boy to shush often enough and who knows, by the time he’s 30 he might be afraid of his own shadow. He’s visibly gay – but that can’t be counted, only the shall we say, “avowed” shall be counted. Other than that, again, very easy to come up with the number of gay folks you want by these favored measures of glop, yah.
I also note here, that this FRC mush does not say whether only “exclusive” gay folks can utilize the “almost” marriage-like, nationally unrecognized 300 benefits found at the town clerks locally in Vermont. Nor if any bisexuals who would divorce their wives or dump their girlfriends and go for the gusto would get these fine privileges conferred on us as newly exclusively gay. Which would, of course, alter their numbers some.
But suppose there are just 5600 gay adult men and 3,300 gay adult women in Vermont? Against this tiny miniscule number the FRC, NOM, AFTAH, and who knows who else is marshaling every resource they can get their hands on. This tiny bunch is FRC’s target of destruction. For they aim to have us “cure” ourselves (they can’t do it, that’s for sure) by constant condemnation and berating us, and accusing us of God knows what crimes such as molesting kids and horses, and in general wrecking civilization by our mere statement of existence — or so oppress us, criminalize us, and even export us if they had the chance. While all the while gay folks do nothing more than live perfectly fine peaceful productive lives within our towns and cities and in the bosom of our families from which the FRC is quite confident it has the right to rip us out of and be done away with by whatever methods they think will work. Which methods equal zilch, but hey, it’s not that they don’t spend all day thinking about the peril we are. And they still don’t even have a reason we do exist. Nor do they seem to have a given a moment’s thought as to why we are so inordinately stubborn in our resolve.
And since 1983 when this brigand of do-gooders got together they have utterly failed in all their big battles. For it has gotten better for gay folks despite the very determined efforts by this “family” group to stomp out of existence the runt of the family into which we’re born. For the fun of it I guess, perhaps for “family.” Maybe. Yah. Definitely for profit. They’re making a living off of berating people. The food they eat is paid for by bile hurled at gay folks. Beats me what their problem is. But fail they will. For their battle is against a mirage, against a chimera. They are fighting a shadow of some menace and we’re cutting hair and putting up drapes.
And yet these are considered rational decent people, while gay folks are the terrible ones?
- Posted in: Uncategorized