On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:46:31 GMT, David Johnston
puked:
>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.
Per capita? Or percentage wise? I was talking sheer volume and the
answer is straight people. You changed my question.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Stupid humans... |
