@BigD

Quote:

You really have not read what the most recent ComRes poll shows;

/facepalm

OK, enlighten me with your wisdom.


Quote:

Quote: The ComRes poll, published by the Coalition for Marriage campaign against the reforms, surveyed 2,000 adults earlier this month. Asked whether it was duck or winnie the pooh Sixty – five per cent agreed with the statement: "It's a duck" Looks fairly conclusive to me; 62% of think marriage should remain as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. 65% think Cameron is just trying to be trendy!! George Osbourn is just delusional to think the Tories can push ahead with this ridiculous redefinition and still win the next election and 77% of respondents agree.

OK D, I know you struggle with truth and facts from time to time. And points. Points generally fly right over your head. Like this time!

I posted a link to an unbiased expert on conducting polls where he explained that some polls are weighted to give the results the people commissioning the poll are after and he explained how they do it. One of the polls he mentioned was the entirely weighted and biased ComRes polls (The second of which was commisioned by Catholic Voices, which bizarrely you now seem to be siding with Catholics when they support your viewpoint?). He explained clearly enough for a non English speaking chunk of wood to understand. He then went on to explain that in all the polls conducted by people not trying to weight the poll in one direction or another, that the majority favour same sex marriages.

I then pointed out that the PM mistakenly named the ComRes poll as supporting him whereupon the politician in the Telegraph article pointed out that the (already explained) heavily biased poll did not support the PM's claims, whereas all the non biased polls DO support the PM's claim.


And for some bizarre reason, you have suddenly in the space of a couple of posts, managed to convince yourself that the ComRes poll has somehow become legitimate despite all facts to the contrary and used it to (yet again) falsely claim your utter nonsense that the majority support your position.

NOTHING. HAS. CHANGED. SINCE. THE. LAST. TIME. YOUR. CLAIMS. WERE. DISCREDITED.

And certainly not in the 5 posts that have been made since. Do you even read your own posts any more? You sure don't seem to be capable of reading anyone else's.

Edit:

And to further help clarify what Nimrod has just again pointed out, the person who's professional job it is to collect statistics from polls and knows and understands how they are best conducted to minimise bias, he helpfully ends his post with the following advice...

"I would again urge people to be cautious about polling questions asking if people agree/disagree with a loaded statement. It is rarely the best way of asking a question and carries with it risks of bias. If there are a conflicting polls on a subject, do not cherry pick those that suit your own views – take a broad look across all the polls. In this context, when the argument is cast in terms of equal rights a majority support gay marriage, when cast as a minority imposing their views upon the rest a majority are opposed – when asked simply and directly just under half are in support."

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 22-Nov-2012 at 11:00 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 22-Nov-2012 at 10:56 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 22-Nov-2012 at 10:48 PM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

NOTHING. HAS. CHANGED. SINCE. THE. LAST. TIME. YOUR. CLAIMS. WERE. DISCREDITED.

No ComRes data has been discredited. The Prime Minister would not have name dropped ComRes if he didn't think the company was trust worthy, the problem is he is trying to twist the actual data to suit his prejudice and his been called on it just as you have!

You might not like the findings just as you might not like the C4M petition, however it is perfectly clear now that the majority of the public do not support redefining marriage and the Coalition Government has no mandate to meddle with it. The sooner the Tories back down the more likely they'll have another shot at Government. If they don't back down I foresee a worse defeat to Labour next time round than in 1997. I also think the Tory Party's traditional supporters will leave the Conservatives for UKIP in droves. This is simply a stupid policy that doesn't further equality, destroys marriage and will nigh on destroy the Tories as an electable party for a generation.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Ahh, the marginalisation of the conservative right... we can but dream!

But seriously, can you explain how it would be a bad thing if the Conservatives lost the next general election (not that they won the last one mind you)? As a Christian yourself, you must know that traditional Conservative "values" run at odds with Jesus' teachings?

Not that I'm a big fan of Labour either (well, not in their current guise) but it's a lesser of two evils.

With the FPTP system in Westminster, any fragmentation of the right resulting in more votes for UKIP would simply deliver a landslide Labour victory (not to mention the collapse of the LibDem vote that is also likely to happen), and a mandate to do whatever they wanted, including introducing equal marriage for homosexuals.

I take it you are a Tory then as well? I suppose it figures...

Also, have you killed any homosexuals, or kids that cuss at their mothers recently? Pull your finger out, there's God's work to be done...

AndyC

Last edited by AndyC on 23-Nov-2012 at 11:13 AM.
Last edited by AndyC on 23-Nov-2012 at 11:10 AM.

@BigD

Quote:

No ComRes data has been discredited.

Huh?

Are you even capable of reading other peoples posts. I've just provided a link to a man who makes a living conducting polls. He explains is detail exactly why the ComRes polls are deeply flawed and even offers advice which I quoted for you.

And despite that, this information was unable to penetrate that dense skull of yours.

Quote:

he is trying to twist the actual data to suit his prejudice and his been called on it just as you have!

Twist the data? Pointing out that something is deceitful and misleading is not "twisting data". No wonder you are so ignorant. You aren't even able to comprehend the truth when it is held up in front of your eyes with evidence you can see for yourself.

Instead, you put all your trust in a book that provides ZERO evidence to support it's claims, polls that show quite clearly their flawed nature and people that time and again are shown not to hold the values they preach!

D, you cannot accuse others of prejudice or delusion when you are standing on foundations made of sand. The book you claim to hold so dear even tells you this. The bible may be codswallop as a factual text, but it is full of advice about how to behave, what not to do and about not being deceitful, misleading and bearing false witness.

You'd do well to actually read the thing for once in your life instead of just reading quotes.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: The Prime Minister would not have name dropped ComRes if he didn't think the company was trust worthy

You really have led a sheltered life haven't you...

It's bad enough you believe the crap you read in the papers, now you think just because the Prime Minister trusts a company that somehow makes them above doing anything wrong... remember Westland... Obviously you don't...

Here's the thing BIgD, Prime Ministers, Presidents, MPs and Companies big and small aren't above doing naughty things, not saying that anyone is in this case but if you seriously think just because a company has the approval of the Prime Minister and that automatically makes that company beyond reproach then you really are as bammy and as gullible as you sound...

PS: It's obvious you haven't sought help yet eh...

_________________

Christopher Hitchens at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_LA47fuWc8&feature=related

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BigD

You keep referring back to two basic pieces of what you call "evidence" to support your idea, knowing both of them to be based on lies.

The first of these is a poll that breaks all of the rules of finding out the facts. If you wish to find out what people think you ask if they agree/disagree with very carefully worded and precise statements. You have several statements about the same topic setting out differing viewpoints, and you conceal the important questions amon control statements so that you do not lead the person being questioned to agree with your own personal preferences. (you already know your own opinion on the subject.
What the "Catholic Voice" did was hire a company to produce a poll stating that the majority were in favour of persecution of minority groups. Comres then asked a series of questions to "set the stage" in the interviewees mind, and then asked a deliberately vague and wooly question that most people could find something to agree with. The dishonesty comes when the acceptance of a vague statement of ambition is used to declare a narrow and specific agenda driven assertion.
I am a male, married to a female. We have been married for a long time, and when we married we had no plans to divorce. Disagreeing with the statement that this poll asked would be tantamount to kicking a puppy to death. But agreeing that divorce is not a good option does not mean that I do not want the benefits of marriage extended to as many people as want it, or can benefit from it.

The second was a deliberate policy of a known and declared hate group to produce a document that they could call "scientific proof" that their hate speech was justified. In this, they are indistinguishable from the Nazi propogandists who "scientifically proved" that the Jews Negroes and Slavs were sub-human. Members of an anti-democratic group funded the production of falsified data that was directed via a third party and then sabotaged the peer review process that the publisher had set up. The questions were even less use than tose of the Comres poll, and the definition of homosexuality was so loose as to be ridiculous. They basically defined all homosexuals as abusers and then trumpeted a breakthrough that abusers are all homosexual. All that they have achieved is to trash their own scientific credentials, and compromised the integrity of Princeton University.

You do not advance the cause of truth by spreading lies.

Last edited by Nimrod on 24-Nov-2012 at 09:58 AM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BigD
Quote:

That sounds a bit like you! Ignore the stats and keep spouting your world view until all children as just as screwed up and dysfunctional as you think is fitting!!

Pot, kettle, black.

@AndyC

Quote:

Any person who curseth his father or mother must be killed. ~Leviticus 20:9

And just for consistency (!) we have:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
(Luke 14:26)



No wonder BigD is so confused, his dodgy book tells him to do opposing things frequently.


BTW. He still has not enlightened us about what he has been saved from !

@BigD

You're against abortions. It appears the US abortion rates have been dropping from the use of more effective and more widely available birth control. US Abortion rate down

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

Are you even capable of reading other peoples posts. I've just provided a link to a man who makes a living conducting polls. He explains is detail exactly why the ComRes polls are deeply flawed and even offers advice which I quoted for you.

Anthony Wells works for YouGov and so will defend his company's polls when they conflict with polls from other companies. The reputation of YouGov is at stake so of course he will fight his corner. His comments are however bias against his competition and so in no way discredit the results of the ComRes poll they are simply his opinion.

It stands that around 70% of the public think civil partnerships offer enough rights to homosexual couples wanting commitment and the redefinition of marriage would be a sensless waste of time and money.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

civil partnerships offer enough rights to homosexual couples

Until the rights are equal they are not enough. When equal the same term will be used for both, marriage. If anything civil partnership shows you that your society won't burn to the ground because of this. It may for other reasons. To date no society has ever burned to the ground by establishing more equality.

Another outstanding Christian story. Christian charity leader says all gays should be killed

Last edited by BrianK on 25-Nov-2012 at 02:20 PM.

@BigD

Quote:

Anthony Wells works for YouGov and so will defend his company's polls when they conflict with polls from other companies.

ICM Question "Do you support or oppose the move to legalise gay marriage?”
Support 45% Oppose 36% Don't know 19%
YouGov Question. Which of the following best reflects your view?
A) I would support same-sex marriage
B) I support civil partnerships, but would oppose samesex marriage
C) I oppose both civil partnerships and same-sex marriage
D) Don’t know
A) 43% B) 32% C) 15% D)10%
Populus Question "Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships"
Agree 65% Disagree 27% Don't know 8%

When you ask specific and meaningful questions you get specific and meaningful answers, however the job of a politician is not to do what is popular, but what is right. The race relations laws passed through parliament in the 1970's had far lower levels of popular support than even the most favourable polls in favour of same sex marriage. Somehow I cannot see the Archbishop of York campaigning to return to the status of second class and subhuman.

Quote:

It stands that around 70% of the public think civil partnerships offer enough rights to homosexual couples wanting commitment and the redefinition of marriage would be a sensless waste of time and money.

And because 70% of the public are ignorant of the facts, we should perpetuate ignorance and prejudice. This is a stance that could be anticipated from an organisation that refuses to accept equal rights for women, yet demands unelected power of oversight in the legislature of this country.

The comres polls are based around two dishonest and misleading questions, and an abandonment of best practice when conducting polls.
Question 1.Quote:

“Since gay and lesbian couples already have the same rights as married couples available to them under civil partnership, they should not be allowed to redefine marriage for everyone else”

This question is a leading question that makes two deliberately fallacious claims in order to elicit the required response the two lies are in the claim that equality already exists when it doesn't and also in the implication that this change will make homosexuality compulsory. My marriage will not be affected or disturbed in any way by this change in the law, any more than existing marriages were changed when the law changed to allow a man to marry his late brothers widow.
Question 2.Quote:

Marriage should continue to be defined as a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman

This question makes no mention of homosexuality, and could be interpreted as a statement of aspiration toward sexual fidelity and longevity of marriage that the 118 MP,s whose names are on this list had better make sure that they live up to. Any of them caught in breach of the life long or more importantly exclusive aspect of this statement, should be questioned in parliament and publically shamed for their lack of integrity and honesty.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BigD

Quote:

Anthony Wells works for YouGov and so will defend his company's polls when they conflict with polls from other companies. The reputation of YouGov is at stake so of course he will fight his corner.

"If there are a conflicting polls on a subject, do not cherry pick those that suit your own views – take a broad look across all the polls"

That doesn't sound like a man fighting his corner. It sound like a man talking a great deal of sense. That quote of his would also work against YouGov should any of their polls show erroneous results.


It's funny though, you don't have a problem finding fault in Anthony Wells's explanation, accusing him of bias, but trust utterly a poll from an anti-gay marriage organisation and a poll from an anti-gay religion without trying to apply the same standards to them.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: It stands that around 70% of the public think civil partnerships offer enough rights to homosexual couples wanting commitment and the redefinition of marriage would be a sensless waste of time and money.

I wonder... does everything you believe in life have to be based around a poll which in turn is based on a minority of peoples thoughts/ beliefs !!!

I wonder if you are capable of actually thinking or making a decision for yourself...

Does someone hold a poll for you to decide what you have for dinner or when you got to bed... I wonder...

I wander near,
I wander far,
I wonder just how mad you are...

_________________

@BrianK

Quote:

Until the rights are equal they are not enough. When equal the same term will be used for both, marriage. If anything civil partnership shows you that your society won't burn to the ground because of this.

Equality already exists and David Cameron's own MPs are questioning the rational of thumping on the gay rights drum when it doesn't need to be drummed;

The Daily Mail: 118 plus Tory MPs set to support Marriage

Quote:

They are an eclectic bunch – including a former breakfast TV presenter, a former top City investment manager, a Liverpool football fan and a gay friend of Margaret Thatcher. But all have one thing in common: they are among the many Tory MPs who bitterly oppose David Cameron’s controversial policy to make gay marriage legal. Altogether, there are at least 118 Tory MPs (out of a total of 303) who, the Mail can reveal, have condemned the proposal to redefine the centuries-old institution of marriage.

As shown yet again, the majority (including many of Cameron's own MPs) like marriage just the way it is and the vociferous liberal minority should count the cost on society before continuing this senseless march towards redefinition.

Quote:

For this week, a survey by the polling organisation ComRes found that 62 per cent of voters and 68 per cent of Tory supporters believe marriage should continue to be defined as a ‘life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman’. A further 65 per cent said that plans to legalise gay marriage are ‘more to do with trying to make the Conservative Party look trendy and modern’ than a matter of conviction.

Also, there is absolutely no clammer from homosexuals for this redefinition!

From the ITN coverage.
Quote:

Among the MPs opposing the Government's plans for gay marriage, is Conor Burns, the openly gay MP for Bournemouth West. Mr Burns told a local newspaper: "I marvel at why we're bringing this forward. There is no clamour for this at all within the gay community."

Last edited by BigD on 27-Nov-2012 at 01:00 AM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Ah yes, the same old pseudo evidence trotted out again and again and again...

A very famous scientist, that you might have heard of (A. Einstein) once said that "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".

That would, by his reckoning, make you certifiably insane...

AndyC

@BigD


Quote:

They are an eclectic bunch – including a former breakfast TV presenter, a former top City investment manager, a Liverpool football fan and a gay friend of Margaret Thatcher. But all have one thing in common:

They have all got slim majorities in traditionally conservative constituencies...

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BigD

Quote:

Equality already exists and David Cameron's own MPs are questioning the rational of thumping on the gay rights drum when it doesn't need to be drummed;

IF equality exists the answer is simple. Call them both by the same term, marriage. Ensure the laws reflect the equality justly. This will help greatly to prevent "confusion" such as Christians who desired to discriminate against legal civil unions by proclaiming 'marriage only' B&B. This will help greatly in future laws if we want to improve something for committed couples we include the term marriage instead of needing to spell out marriage and civil commitments in each bill. This would also prevent an 'accidental' dropping of one term out of new laws. It simply ensures the legal equality continues unadultered and kept inperputity.

You're worried about a relatively cheap $4Million expense. What is the cost in lawsuits and to society if we don't combine the terms and some future leglislation missed a term and thereby creates inequality? Fixing the inequality through lawsuits and subsequent legislative charges and changes may well outstrip the $4Million. We just won't know the cost until it happens. It may actually be more conservative to absorb the expense now and prevent future greater costs.

EDIT: I looked up the lawsuit of the first B&B. The Gay couple asked for a meger 3,600. They received it. Don't be shocked that this isn't the full cost of the case. Both parties had to retain lawyers. And there's the government cost to run the building, judge, etc. Also, there's a 2nd similar case pending. Who knows what that couple will ask. If this is anything like US cases what happens is ever increasing costs are incurred for not only monetary damages but penalities are soon added for civil rights violations. Which can be in the millions, especially if this isn't a little B&B but is a large business. For example, if a large 'Christian' hotel chain said no gays in all their rooms across the nation. The lawsuit would easily in the multi-million range. Often paid to gay rights organizations to further their gay agenda. :END EDIT

Quote:

Also, there is absolutely no clammer from homosexuals for this redefinition!

Other polls have been posted that have positive polling for homosexuals and positive polling for the majority to get this done. Looking at the diverse sources of the polls yours seems to be more politically pre-selected outcome based. I'd say the best thing to do is take in the variety of sources and see what they all say instead of cherry pick your favorite (or anyone's favorite.)

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Nov-2012 at 05:24 PM.

@BigD

Here's your favorite Dr. Who episode.



I find it a good characterization of the gay issue. Are you the Dr. who supports the individual's right to self determination. Or are you the Sheriff, who is demanding that his view of the world be asserted upon others.