Finding Out [Whoever] Believes in God

[Ryantology]

That was just an example. Are you really trying to extend the particular ratios I gave into the real world???

I am highlighting the absurdity of making arbitrary ratios to support an argument.

I challenged your assertion. You refused to provide evidence. That's a tacit concession. I don't have to disprove unevidenced claims.

Rather, you are unable dispute the veracity of the statement and have instead chosen to hide behind pedantry.

You could figure it out from the central limit theorem. What is the size of the population that you're attempting to measure?

The question was rhetorical. I am not going to provide hundreds or thousands of pieces of evidence. I can't convey to you how little your acceptance of my point means to me compared to the ridiculous efforts you are attempting to make me undergo in order to establish what is obvious to anyone with even a modicum of awareness regarding American politics today.

And that shows how people reacted specifically to the candidates' views on same-sex marriage?

It is a major issue in this election year. Supporting a candidate based on their same-sex marriage views amounts to acceptance of those views, or at the very least, a measure of apathy towards the equal rights of gay people.

Do you mean that the likelihood that a person who thinks homosexuals are subhuman is more likely to be proud of it if he is conservative than if he is liberal?

Almost certainly. A liberal who is proud of discrimination against gay people is not someone most other liberals are going to want as an associate. A conservative proud of this same assertion will find welcome and comfort much more readily.

It wasn't a real-world example. It merely highlights that there are factors other than "support of same-sex marriage" for measuring whether a group considers homosexuals subhuman.

I dispute that. There is no other reason which can exist. There are only self-serving justifications.

The only legitimate opposition to gay marriage which does not involve irrational bias against homosexuality would be a person who opposes the very institution of marriage.

You understand what a hypothetical is, right? If I say, "Suppose that Barack Obama murdered someone, and you knew about it," your response shouldn't be, "OMG YOU ARE ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT OF MURDER YOU BETTER BACK THAT UP WITH EVIDENCE"

I understand what a hypothetical is. I did not read it as hypothetical because it's so unusual to offer a hypothesis without a point. If you suppose the sky is green, then yes, my assertion that it is blue would be wrong. So what?

Pedophiles? Rapists?

Both involve non-consenting parties, so no.

What if someone isn't denying equal rights to another human being, but merely opposes same-sex marriage? You're assuming that same-sex marriage is a matter of equal rights, but that's precisely one of the issues in contention.

I do not recognize the opposition as valid. Opposing same-sex marriage is opposing equal rights for same-sex couples. As I've stated repeatedly, I care nothing for the justifications of those who oppose it, because the opposition, whatever the reason, comes from a seed of perceived superiority. I have no doubt that, for most people who are in opposition, the seed of that perceived superiority is religion.