Fickle statistics and other obscurities

Yesterday, Sunday, July 14, I had the pleasure of attending the Ottawa Gay Pride Day. It was a wonderful celebration and an enjoyable day all around. The only dark spot was the two Christian fundementalists who dogged the parade, waving signs saying that everyone present were "abominations" destined for hell.

Today I came to check out the latest issue of the Imprint on the Web and found those men's sentiments being echoed in the letters to the editor.

I won't touch long on Mr. Hagey's letter. It is the standard dogma spew that we see far too often. Just these three brief comments. The Bible, Hagey's "source of ulitmate truth," is a document that has been translated multiple times by individuals with their own political agendas. Don't ignore the bible, but take what you read with a grain of salt. Secondly, a question for Mr. Hagey. Who has put you on the bench of almighty judgement, that you may decree what is ultimately right and wrong? Finally, would Mr. Hagey please specify exactly what "effects on society" he is afraid of.

I think Hendrik van der Breggen's letter deserves much more careful consideration. At least he has attempted to raise logical, valid points. There are quite a few flaws here, however. First of all, regarding the statement that anal intercourse does more damage than vaginal, I am sure that there are a few women who would strongly disagree with you on that point.

Another problem I have with Mr. Breggen's letter is his use of the term "statistically deviant." Be VERY careful in the way you throw that term around! We are ALL "statistically deviant" in one way or another.

In general, be careful with the use of statistics. Ask any statistician. Any given figure can be interpreted or reinterpreted to support a variety of different positions. For example, you cite the fact that, although heart disease killed more people in 1992, AIDS research received more money in 1994. 1992 versus 1994, two different years. Comparing apples and oranges perhaps?

Your argument about the effects on the public through health care costs certainly does bear careful consideration and public discussion. But look at it from this point of view: at what point do we start curtailing rights because they are going to cost us more? I ride a motorcycle. Statistically, we motorcyclists are more prone to more seriously injurious accidents. Should I be banned from riding my bike (which costs me less than a car would) because of the potential burden to the health care system if I have an accident? Do you, Mr. Breggen, eat fatty fried foods? Should you be denied rights because you are at higher risk of developing cardio-vascular problems? I could extend this argument into the realm of the truly ridiculous, but I think you get my point.

I will definitely try to find those works that Mr. Breggen has recommended. However, no matter what the statistics say, I believe we should work a little harder at putting human rights before dollar figures (despite what the Tory government's views to the contrary).

Back | Index | Forward

Send comments to: kovu at lionking point org