On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:18:53 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)"
wrote:
>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, as I said, that's meaningless.
and the
>answer is straight people. You changed my question.
No, I said it's unimportant. Meaningless. Trivial. Not worth
discussing. |
