On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:18:28 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)"
wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:09:24 GMT, David Johnston
>puked:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:38:56 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)"
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:23:25 GMT, David Johnston
>>>puked:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:28:28 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)"
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:32:34 -0400, Dionisio
>>>>> puked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, not only are homo.uals a smaller set of the entire human
>>>>>>> population, but a smaller percentage of homo.uals get married than
>>>>>>> hetero.uals. Even then, in many cases those marriages aren't
>>>>>>> recognized legally, so they can't be accounted for, leaving you with a
>>>>>>> big hole in your statistics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Speaking of stats... If they can't be accounted for, then how do you know that
>>>>>>...s get married less often?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because there are less ...s.
>>>>
>>>>That's pretty meaningless.
>>>
>>>Are you doing this on purpose or are you just a little slow? If there
>>>are less ...s than straights, which is a given, who do you think gets
>>>married the most?
>>
>>The two things are unrelated in any meaningful way.
>
>What's the answer to the question?
I don't know the answer to the question of who is, per capita, more
likely to get to get married, and I don't care about the other
question. |
