Profound insights from MAD on Gay Marriage

[_skippy the dead]

You forgot to read the rest of the reference. For example....

LGBT domestic violence still appears to be vastly under-reported, and appropriate services in most locations are not available.

So at the worst (from my pov) the rate is equal or higher. And on top of that, this is only one of the many references I gave. You haven't been able to adequetly address even this one.

Same with heterosexual domestic violence. So you'll need to make the same assumption that the hetero domestic violence is also higher than reported. It's a non-starter.

[_Zoidberg]

Renegade is absolutely right. bcspace's own references are damning. He cited an overview of an IOM report on Lesbian health. The report itself acknowledges that sex with male partners is a factor that increases the risk of cervical cancer. The concern about cervical cancer in lesbians is largely there because most lesbians have had heterosexual intercourse at least once and because they are less likely to get PAPs than hetero women, as the report that bcspace indirectly cited states.

The report bcspace indirectly cited also talks about studies that seem to indicate low prevalence of STD among women who report having sex with women (Robertson and Schachter, 1981) and no risk of transmission of HIV between female sex partners (Raiteri et al., 1994b). Although the report criticizes these studies as having a small N or not employing newer diagnostic tests, those studies are way more scientific than an article from a proctologist.

[_bcspace]

Then you are simply ignorant of how to read a reference. No worries, it's correctable.

Again with the sneering. Sigh.

Well, if you're going to claim 'crappy research' on my part without giving any evidence for it.....

If a pedophile says incest is wrong, does that invalidate his point about incest?

Nope, but if the pedophile says that he has scientific evidence giving the health benefits of pedophilia but gives nothing but anecdotal evidence, that would tend to invalidate his point.

Indeed. But I have given evidence for the health risks of lesbianism.

If I have said anything that you construed as invective, I apologize. From what I've seen, only one of us has been sneering and ridiculing.

I'd say your reading into what I have said things that aren't there qualifies.

If you want to discount my stated modus operandi of giving the weakest (but not crappy) evidence first, then that's your own lookout.

[Guest]

You forgot to read the rest of the reference. For example....

Nope. I read the rest.
The percentage referenced wasn't 'reported instances of abuse'. Look at it again. Read the words.
The rate reported was simply 'the rate of abuse'.

...why are you telling ME to read your own reference more carefully...?!

If the reserchers didn't have data regarding the discrepency between the rate of reported instances, and the rate of 'unreported' instances, then how could they possibly construct the statement 'LGBT domestic violence still appears to be vastly under-reported', or even attempt to construct a percentage related to actual instances of abuse with the relationships...?

You simply do not understand statistical analysis. This has been obvious from every single discussion I've ever had with you...

You read exactly what you want to see...
...and you want to talk to the rest of us about science?! It beggers belief...

[_bcspace]

So at the worst (from my pov) the rate is equal or higher. And on top of that, this is only one of the many references I gave. You haven't been able to adequetly address even this one.

Same with heterosexual domestic violence. So you'll need to make the same assumption that the hetero domestic violence is also higher than reported. It's a non-starter.

You're still left with equal or higher. But I think now that you've made it your own, you'll have to show that heterosexual abuse is just as under reported as homosexual abuse.

[_bcspace]

The percentage refernced wasn't 'reported instances of abuse'. Look at it again. Read the words.
The rate reported was simply 'the rate of abuse'.

Reported instances of abuse affect the rate. Did you never take a statistics class?

[_Zoidberg]

I have given evidence for the health risks of lesbianism.

bcspace, read the IOM report you cited here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6109#toc

Here are the conclusions:

Conclusion 1: Additional data are required to determine if lesbians may be at higher risk for certain health problems. Further research is needed to determine the absolute and relative magnitudes of such risk and to better understand the risk and protective factors that influence lesbian health.

Conclusion 2: There are significant barriers to conducting research on lesbian health, including lack of funding, which have limited the development of more sophisticated studies, data analyses, and the publication of results.

Conclusion 3: Research on lesbian health, especially the development of more sophisticated methodologies to conduct such research, will help advance scientific knowledge that is also of benefit to other population subgroups, including rare or hard-to-identify population subgroups and women in general.

If you consider this report "evidence for the health risks of lesbianism", let me respectfully tell you that you have not read the source and are full of it, which seems to be the case with you most of the time.

[Guest]

The percentage refernced wasn't 'reported instances of abuse'. Look at it again. Read the words.
The rate reported was simply 'the rate of abuse'.

Reported instances of abuse affect the rate. Did you never take a statistics class?

It also affects the hetrosexual 'rate'. And the report doesn't mention the need to 'offset' either figures based on 'reported' firgures.
You provided the reference, and yet you don't even believe what it tells you. Priceless.

...and yes, I did actually. A-level statistics. Thanks for asking...

[_Zoidberg]

Did you never take a statistics class?

Sic!

[_bcspace]

If the reserchers didn't have data regarding the discrepency between the rate of reported instances, and the rate of 'unreported' instances, then how could they possibly construct the statement 'LGBT domestic violence still appears to be vastly under-reported', or even attempt to construct a percentage related to actual instances of abuse with the relationships...?

Besides your aforementioned statistical error, it's really fun to see you bash conclusions drawn by a gay advocacy group (NYC Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence project ).

That's your whole problem, you see something in the first paragraph and you get uptight before having read the rest. You also don't pay any attention to who the source is.