JimHackerMP wrote:

The same thing is happening with Gay marriage...

Ricky, have you been hiding under a rock? How many states just passed their so called religious protection laws? If that's what you call catching on then you're a lot more patient than I am.

Not to hijack the thread, but some of those laws I think are "right" and some of them go too far. I have no problem with protecting religious institutions. I do think that some of the laws I've seen have gone well into gray areas, however.

But, yes, as usual, rickyp is a little "out there."

I'm dubious (and maybe it was a typo) that there was ever a survey that showed 4% approval for interracial marriage, unless all those surveyed were white Democrats from Alabama.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/330/university-toronto-dumps-transgender-bathrooms-pardes-seleh

Problems? Even in Toronto...

bbauska wrote:

rickyp wrote:I imagine that transgender who have successfully transitioned and are passing as their chosen sex are probably using their chosen public washroom without incident or comment all over the US.
Its the one's who aren't very successfully appearing as their chosen sex who might be in peril.

I am fine with them using after surgery for gender reassignment.

So for you it is all about the genitals?

At some point in this painful discussion the punch line will be photo ID or indelible ink.

Ray Jay wrote:At some point in this painful discussion the punch line will be photo ID or indelible ink.

Some good has come out of the discussion nationally. Bruce Springsteen, Bryan Adams, and others have exercised their constitutional rights not to engage in business with those people with whom they disagree.

Of course, they are protesting laws that permit that very same right.

hacker

Ricky, have you been hiding under a rock? How many states just passed their so called religious protection laws

Are you suggesting that because a handful of States have decided to pass discriminatory laws against Gays and Lesbians that this represents a ground swell of popular opinion? I'll suggest that this is a
reaction by politicians representing a minority of people.
I'll rely upon the dozens of polls that attempt to measure public opinion, by the increasing positive representation of gay marriage in popular culture, and by the response to the religious laws you point to by corporations and public figures.
This has come a long way from the sixties when bath houses were regularly raided across the US and gays arrested and charged with crimes that are now off the books
Things aren't perfect. But they are much better than they were 50 years ago.

Fate

I'm dubious (and maybe it was a typo) that there was ever a survey that showed 4% approval for interracial marriage, unless all those surveyed were white Democrats from Alabama.

You either didn't bother to read the poll or you think Gallop isn't a credible polling organization.
Which is it?

rayjay

At some point in this painful discussion the punch line will be photo ID or indelible ink

Well, for these IDs to be accurate, somehow this will have to include an inspection of everyone's genitals according to bbauska.
The dismal nature of the discussion is the result of the dismal nature of the laws that are being imposed upon people.

rickyp wrote:Fate

I'm dubious (and maybe it was a typo) that there was ever a survey that showed 4% approval for interracial marriage, unless all those surveyed were white Democrats from Alabama.

You either didn't bother poll or you think Gallop isn't a credible polling organization.
Which is it?

Well said.



I don't believe polling from 1958 is all that credible. Feel free to show why it is--given what we know now about polling, I'm dubious. 4% is about the same as saying "no one" given the margin of error. I"m not going to take one poll's "word" for it, particularly one taken nearly 60 years ago.

Fate

I don't believe polling from 1958 is all that credible

Why not?

Math hasn't changed. If 3,000 people were surveyed over the phone in 1948, the probabilities would be identical to today......with the caveat that today pollsters need to use both landline data bases and mobile... And that today, completed call ratios have declined a little.
The only difference in the question is that in 1958 they asked about marriage between whites and colored people...
Gallup rates only a C+ rating on 538, which isn't great. But the difference Gallup found 4% to 87% isn't going to be explained away by the polling technique or sampling techniques. They remained constant.
Your nation did not accept marriage between races in the 50s. Today it does.
Acceptance of Gay marriage was around 4% when polling firms asked about it first in the early 90s...by the way...
Its over 60% now.... and growing in only one direction despite the backlash from religious conservatives.
If this is a battle between religion and greater tolerance, which it seems to be, the other intersting trend is the declining influence of religion.

Americans' confidence in the church and organized religion has fallen dramatically over the past four decades, hitting an all-time low this year of 42%. Confidence in religion began faltering in the 1980s, while the sharpest decline occurred between 2001 and 2002 as the Roman Catholic Church grappled with a major sexual abuse scandal. Since then, periodic improvements have proved temporary, and it has continued to ratchet lower.

The church and organized religion is losing its footing as a pillar of moral leadership in the nation's culture.

If there is a war on Christianity in the US, its being lost from the inside.

rickyp wrote:Fate

I don't believe polling from 1958 is all that credible

Why not?

Math hasn't changed. If 3,000 people were surveyed over the phone in 1948, the probabilities would be identical to today......with the caveat that today pollsters need to use both landline data bases and mobile... And that today, completed call ratios have declined a little.
The only difference in the question is that in 1958 they asked about marriage between whites and colored people...
Gallup rates only a C+ rating on 538, which isn't great. But the difference Gallup found 4% to 87% isn't going to be explained away by the polling technique or sampling techniques. They remained constant.
Your nation did not accept marriage between races in the 50s. Today it does.
Acceptance of Gay marriage was around 4% when polling firms asked about it first in the early 90s...by the way...
Its over 60% now.... and growing in only one direction despite the backlash from religious conservatives.
If this is a battle between religion and greater tolerance, which it seems to be, the other intersting trend is the declining influence of religion.

Americans' confidence in the church and organized religion has fallen dramatically over the past four decades, hitting an all-time low this year of 42%. Confidence in religion began faltering in the 1980s, while the sharpest decline occurred between 2001 and 2002 as the Roman Catholic Church grappled with a major sexual abuse scandal. Since then, periodic improvements have proved temporary, and it has continued to ratchet lower.

The church and organized religion is losing its footing as a pillar of moral leadership in the nation's culture.

If there is a war on Christianity in the US, its being lost from the inside.

Don't care about all your other tripe.

I just don't buy it. I think the region would be determinative. The northeast and the west would be far more accepting of interracial marriage. In any event, what was Canada doing?

And, who cares about interracial marriage? How does that match up with the pseudo-science of psychologically-mixed up folks and gender dysphoria?

The two are not comparable. And, if you had any sense, you'd get that. Instead, you're going to parrot the "March of history" crap that Obama spews.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

rickyp wrote:I imagine that transgender who have successfully transitioned and are passing as their chosen sex are probably using their chosen public washroom without incident or comment all over the US.
Its the one's who aren't very successfully appearing as their chosen sex who might be in peril.

I am fine with them using after surgery for gender reassignment.

So for you it is all about the genitals?

I believe I asked a question about whether other people's rights are needed to be considered. Care to answer that one?

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Fate

I'm dubious (and maybe it was a typo) that there was ever a survey that showed 4% approval for interracial marriage, unless all those surveyed were white Democrats from Alabama.

You either didn't bother poll or you think Gallop isn't a credible polling organization.
Which is it?

Well said.



I don't believe polling from 1958 is all that credible. Feel free to show why it is--given what we know now about polling, I'm dubious. 4% is about the same as saying "no one" given the margin of error. I"m not going to take one poll's "word" for it, particularly one taken nearly 60 years ago.

Ha ha. Still smarting from 2012, when the polls you liked predicted Romney to get more votes, but polls of polls and weighted averages or Nate Silver were much closer to the actual result?

Polling is quite accurate, but is always going to have a margin of errors and issues with sampling.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Fate

I'm dubious (and maybe it was a typo) that there was ever a survey that showed 4% approval for interracial marriage, unless all those surveyed were white Democrats from Alabama.

You either didn't bother poll or you think Gallop isn't a credible polling organization.
Which is it?

Well said.



I don't believe polling from 1958 is all that credible. Feel free to show why it is--given what we know now about polling, I'm dubious. 4% is about the same as saying "no one" given the margin of error. I"m not going to take one poll's "word" for it, particularly one taken nearly 60 years ago.

Ha ha. Still smarting from 2012, when the polls you liked predicted Romney to get more votes, but polls of polls and weighted averages or Nate Silver were much closer to the actual result?

Polling is quite accurate, but is always going to have a margin of errors and issues with sampling.

Yes, good point*. Please show Nate Silver's review of 1958 polling on interracial marriage. It's good to see rickyp's barrister back in action--although you really need to show up more often, like every post he makes.



* #completelyirrelevant

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

rickyp wrote:I imagine that transgender who have successfully transitioned and are passing as their chosen sex are probably using their chosen public washroom without incident or comment all over the US.
Its the one's who aren't very successfully appearing as their chosen sex who might be in peril.

I am fine with them using after surgery for gender reassignment.

So for you it is all about the genitals?

I believe I asked a question about whether other people's rights are needed to be considered. Cre to answer that one?

Yes.
Other people's rights should be considered. But you never really answered the question as to what the harm was to which rights.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Fate

I'm dubious (and maybe it was a typo) that there was ever a survey that showed 4% approval for interracial marriage, unless all those surveyed were white Democrats from Alabama.

You either didn't bother poll or you think Gallop isn't a credible polling organization.
Which is it?

Well said.



I don't believe polling from 1958 is all that credible. Feel free to show why it is--given what we know now about polling, I'm dubious. 4% is about the same as saying "no one" given the margin of error. I"m not going to take one poll's "word" for it, particularly one taken nearly 60 years ago.

Ha ha. Still smarting from 2012, when the polls you liked predicted Romney to get more votes, but polls of polls and weighted averages or Nate Silver were much closer to the actual result?

Polling is quite accurate, but is always going to have a margin of errors and issues with sampling.

Yes, good point*. Please show Nate Silver's review of 1958 polling on interracial marriage. It's good to see rickyp's barrister back in action--although you really need to show up more often, like every post he makes.



* #completelyirrelevant

Just noting your general attitude towards polling. If it concurs with what you already thought, it's fine. Otherwise it must be bunk.


Gallup carried out polling on it over a period, and so there is a history going back to 1958. http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/appro ... hites.aspx

It is not a "typo" and is not out of line with the linear trend observed in later polling.

Ray Jay wrote:At some point in this painful discussion the punch line will be photo ID or indelible ink.

Well, those who want to make rules about toilet access do need to address enforcement. Do you have to drop your trousers/pants (or skirt) before you enter, instead of the usual custom of doing so inside the bathroom?