Ireland becomes first country to legalize gay marriage via pop vote

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-28-2015, 03:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You said that you think the spread rate will slow down if we allow SSM, at worst remain the same.

I bring in data showing that it actually increased in a country after they legalized SSM.

I showed that the amount of people living with HIV almost doubled in 10 years. Did the population rate double?  No it did not, so how can you sit there and say it remained the same taking into consideration that Population Growth Rates and Birth Rates have dropped drastically during this same time frame.

1. I just provided you a chart that showed that it did.
2. *sigh. If it's so much harder to get, then why does it keep spreading at such a high rate? What % of the population must be infected before we admit we have a problem?
3. I'm not sure what should be done, but I think that legalizing SSM is not the answer.

Let's look at Belgium.
Prevalence Rate same.
Infected Doubled.
Number of deaths same
Pop Growth rate dropped by 2/3
Birth Rates dipped

Canada
Prevalence Rate increased
Amount infected increased by 50%
Death Rates same
Pop Growth rate dropped by 50%
Birth rates dipped

Let's look at a country where it's not legal.
Japan
Prevalence Rate remained steady
Amount infected dropped by 30%
Death Rates dropped by 80%
Pop Growth rate dropped
Birth rates dropped

How about India.
Prevalence Rate dropped in half
Amount infected dropped by 50%
Death Rates dropped 40%
Pop Growth Rates dropped
Birth Rates dropped

You are confusing incidence and prevalence. The website you used to provide a graph without any context indicates the incidence is the same. That means the number of new cases each year is the same so the rate at which the disease is spreading remained relatively constant. The prevalence is total cases. The prevalence increased over time because the mortality rate was less than the incidence. In other words, they're not dying. If they were dying at the same rate as the incidence then the prevalence would remain constant. If the incidence was increasing while the prevalence was decreasing that is the disease you should fear because it is spreading like wildfire and people are dropping like flies. You really should take a course in statistics or epidemiology before telling Matt you're embarrassed for him. As far as your "analysis" goes, you don't have data regarding the rates in homosexuals vs heterosexuals. The rates among heterosexuals could exceed the rate among homosexuals or vice versa. Without this information, concluding a increase is due to one group is impossible and any attempt to do so foolish.

Believing discriminatory marriage bans will discourage homosexuality is foolish. Would a marriage ban discriminating against you make you reconsider your sexual orientation?  Of course not 

For once explain how married homosexuals will spread STDs at a greater rate than single homosexuals. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

[BmorePat87]

(05-27-2015, 01:08 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Unaffiliated:  9.2 raised in group.  4.3 left.  

Plus various graphs show that you become more religious as you get older.  

Obviously younger are gonna say not affiliated....  Once given enough time to think they go to religion.  

I was looking for quotes and found this. How did you misread this chart so horribly?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-23-2015, 01:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I was looking for quotes and found this. How did you misread this chart so horribly?

Because he doesn't use profanity!

[StLucieBengal]

(06-23-2015, 01:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I was looking for quotes and found this. How did you misread this chart so horribly?

What are you talking about?

I showed that non religious lost over half of their people who became religious as they got older.

Plus the dips in the "losing their religion" groups can directly relate to age. On another chart is shows as people get older they get more religious.

Where did you think I misread the data?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-23-2015, 07:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What are you talking about?  

I showed that non religious lost over half of their people who became religious as they got older.  

Plus the dips in the "losing their religion" groups can directly relate to age.   On another chart is shows as people get older they get more religious.  

Where did you think I misread the data?

Your reading skills are surpassed only by your math skills.

[BmorePat87]

(06-23-2015, 07:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What are you talking about?  

I showed that non religious lost over half of their people who became religious as they got older.  

Plus the dips in the "losing their religion" groups can directly relate to age.   On another chart is shows as people get older they get more religious.  

Where did you think I misread the data?

You said that Atheists dropped 50% when someone linked the study. According to their link, they increased by 100%.


Also, According to the graphic you supplied, "unaffiliated" had a net increase of 147%. It's almost like you ignored the "entered group" column and the subsequent columns that then showed the net result.

It should also be noted that 18% of Americans went from a religion to no religion while only 4.3% of Americans went from no religion to a religion.

I would say that you either misread that or are attempting to be dishonest in your assessment by ignoring the huge gains made by unaffiliated that greatly offset the losses.

You also misread the generational difference as "going to religion when you get older". The reality is newer generations are less likely to grow up in a religion and less likely to identify with one. In fact, it even says "people in older generations are increasingly disavowing association with organized religion".

So...

[StLucieBengal]

(06-23-2015, 08:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You said that Atheists dropped 50% when someone linked the study. According to their link, they increased by 100%.


Also, According to the graphic you supplied, "unaffiliated" had a net increase of 147%. It's almost like you ignored the "entered group" column and the subsequent columns that then showed the net result.

It should also be noted that 18% of Americans went from a religion to no religion while only 4.3% of Americans went from no religion to a religion.

I would say that you either misread that or are attempting to be dishonest in your assessment by ignoring the huge gains made by unaffiliated that greatly offset the losses.

You also misread the generational difference as "going to religion when you get older". The reality is newer generations are less likely to grow up in a religion and less likely to identify with one. In fact, it even says "people in older generations are increasingly disavowing association with organized religion".

So...

Yes but.... Look at the chart showing that as we get older we go from no religion to religion. Negating any gain that young people give non religious.

You can't ignore the fact that as we get older we find religion.

[StLucieBengal]

As for your contention of growing up non religious = non relgious adult.

The biggest factors in finding religion is getting married and having kids.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-23-2015, 08:37 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yes but....  Look at the chart showing that as we get older we go from no religion to religion.  Negating any gain that young people give non religious.  

You can't ignore the fact that as we get older we find religion.

Please explain how the chart indicates we become more religious as we age.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-23-2015, 08:50 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Please explain how the chart indicates we become more religious as we age.

Look back in the thread.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-23-2015, 08:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Look back in the thread.  

Don't pretend to be coy. Just explain your assertion instead of avoiding my request.

[BmorePat87]

There's literally no chart posted in this thread that says what you are saying, St. Lucifer.

In the link, there's a chart that shows that newer generations are less likely to identify with a religion and Pew remarks that "people in older generations are increasingly disavowing association with organized religion".

Nothing that says what you say, though.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-23-2015, 09:10 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Don't pretend to be coy. Just explain your assertion instead of avoiding my request.

Hey I can't help it if your late to the party.

[StLucieBengal]

Pat,

By age

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/age-distribution/

Now look at the married vs others.

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/marital-status/

This backs up my assertion that getting married is one of the main reasons people find religion. This is due to a spouse typically.

Also by age young people are alwags non religious as a whole but they mature in faith .... Whether it be getting their by spouse or other factors.

I can't past the pics only the links atm.

Your stance that young people are moving away from faith is flawed because traditionally young people have been less with their faith than older generations. You would need to run this poll i. About 30 years and see whether your assertions are valid. Until then it's all up in the air because it's hard to believe that Millennials will all of a sudden do what no other generation has done.

Now where I get 50% is where we take 9.2 raised in Unaffiliated .... Then losing 4.3 ... I stopped there to just look at the those who were raised unaffiliated..... They are also losing people, which is consistent with raised religious . Which could be just kids rebelling against what they were raised.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(06-23-2015, 08:39 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The biggest factors in finding religion are unitelligence and low class.

Which would mean religious people must swear an awful lot.

....something like that.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(06-23-2015, 11:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Now where I get 50% is where we take 9.2 raised in Unaffiliated .... Then losing 4.3 ...    I stopped there to just look at the those who were raised unaffiliated.....  They are also losing people, which is consistent with raised religious .  Which could be just kids rebelling against what they were raised.

Lose 4.3% only to gain 18%? Sounds like a recipe for success.

[fredtoast]

(06-23-2015, 11:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Now look at the married vs others.  

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/marital-status/

This backs up my assertion that getting married is one of the main reasons people find religion.   This is due to a spouse typically.  

Getting married does not lead to religion.  Religious people are just more likely to get married

[BmorePat87]

(06-23-2015, 11:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Pat,

By age

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/age-distribution/

Now look at the married vs others.  

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/marital-status/

Ok, but this doesn't say what you say it does. If anything, it proves that people are dropping religion. It also still doesn't negate that the findings from Pew say that even older generations are dropping religion

Quote:This backs up my assertion that getting married is one of the main reasons people find religion.   This is due to a spouse typically.  

You said that to someone else. I cannot confirm nor deny whether or not this is true.

Quote:Also by age young people are alwags non religious as a whole but they mature in faith .... Whether it be getting their by spouse or other factors.    

Speculation not backed up by the source you're citing...

Quote:Your stance that young people are moving away from faith is flawed because traditionally young people have been less with their faith than older generations.    You would need to run this poll i. About 30 years and see whether your assertions are valid.    Until then it's all up in the air because it's hard to believe that Millennials will all of a sudden do what no other generation has done.    

It's not my stance, it's the findings of Pew.

Quote:Now where I get 50% is where we take 9.2 raised in Unaffiliated .... Then losing 4.3 ...    I stopped there to just look at the those who were raised unaffiliated.....  They are also losing people, which is consistent with raised religious .  Which could be just kids rebelling against what they were raised.

and yet they're gaining people... as your source has also said, while religion is losing people.


It's like you're arguing that the sky is red by posting a picture of a blue sky titled "the sky is ***** blue".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-23-2015, 10:52 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Hey I can't help it if your late to the party.

I read your first explanation and it didn't make any sense looking at that graph.  I'm withholding judgment until after I give you another chance to further explain yourself.