University of Houston and Southern Methodist LGBT Question Forum

[sirchristaylor]

Also, what law school is in Bakersfield?

Why does it matter? The argument seems to be whether California is more liberal than Texas on acceptance of gays. Bakersfield is in California. You did say, "California is going to be more liberal towards LGBTs than Texas."[/quote]

California is the liberal state. If you weren't aware, both propositions were to ban gay marriage, so a higher percentage means more people want to ban gay marriage. Thus, I'm not sure I understand your question.

As to the Bakersfield remark - you were comparing Dallas to Bakersfield, as SMU is in Dallas. It's a fallacious argument because there's no equivalent law school in Bakersfield. Even if we were to extrapolate the discussion to encompass the state, your argument would still be fallacious. Bakersfield does not represent the totality of California, as Dallas does not represent the totality of Texas. If the debate is whether California or Texas is more gay friendly as a whole, then comparing Bakersfield to Dallas is clearly bullshit. Dallas is one of the largest cities in Texas, so you should have been more intellectually honest in your comparison and chosen one of the largest cities in California, such as Los Angeles or San Francisco.[/quote]

I don't mean to go back to this, but you cannot come to a numerical conclusion based on percentages (see bolded statement above) without knowing how many people voted because there's no way of knowing what the percentage corresponds to in numbers. So, a higher percentage doesn't necessarily mean more people. Let's say 100 people voted on gay marriage in Texas and only 10 voted on gay marriage in California. 75% of voters in Texas vote against gay marriage (75 people against gay marriage, 25 for). 95% of voters in California vote against gay marriage (9.5 against gay marriage, .5 for). While the anti-gay voting percentage is higher in California than in Texas, one cannot say that more Californians are against gay marriage than Texans (in this scenario).

I think we all get what you're saying about California being more progressive toward the LGBT community (and I'm pretty sure no one on here disagrees), but just watch how you use the numbers and percentages!

[jay115]

Also, what law school is in Bakersfield?

Why does it matter? The argument seems to be whether California is more liberal than Texas on acceptance of gays. Bakersfield is in California. You did say, "California is going to be more liberal towards LGBTs than Texas."

California is the liberal state. If you weren't aware, both propositions were to ban gay marriage, so a higher percentage means more people want to ban gay marriage. Thus, I'm not sure I understand your question.

As to the Bakersfield remark - you were comparing Dallas to Bakersfield, as SMU is in Dallas. It's a fallacious argument because there's no equivalent law school in Bakersfield. Even if we were to extrapolate the discussion to encompass the state, your argument would still be fallacious. Bakersfield does not represent the totality of California, as Dallas does not represent the totality of Texas. If the debate is whether California or Texas is more gay friendly as a whole, then comparing Bakersfield to Dallas is clearly bullshit. Dallas is one of the largest cities in Texas, so you should have been more intellectually honest in your comparison and chosen one of the largest cities in California, such as Los Angeles or San Francisco.[/quote]

I don't mean to go back to this, but you cannot come to a numerical conclusion based on percentages (see bolded statement above) without knowing how many people voted because there's no way of knowing what the percentage corresponds to in numbers. So, a higher percentage doesn't necessarily mean more people. Let's say 100 people voted on gay marriage in Texas and only 10 voted on gay marriage in California. 75% of voters in Texas vote against gay marriage (75 people against gay marriage, 25 for). 95% of voters in California vote against gay marriage (9.5 against gay marriage, .5 for). While the anti-gay voting percentage is higher in California than in Texas, one cannot say that more Californians are against gay marriage than Texans (in this scenario).

I think we all get what you're saying about California being more progressive toward the LGBT community (and I'm pretty sure no one on here disagrees), but just watch how you use the numbers and percentages! [/quote]

You're right; turnout for proposition 2 was low (around 10%). But I still argue that the low turnout speaks ill of Texas as a whole - those who don't care to vote on whether the government is maintaining separate but equal classifications are probably as homophobic as those who actively champion invidious government classifications.

[billyez]

This conversation has obviously gotten a bit bigger than the question that caused it to occur, but to return to the simple point of adding a DS the answer is yes. The "shocking revelation" that Texas isn't a podunk, homophobic place has already been revealed so I won't rehash that. The simple fact of the matter is that if you have a chance to differentiate yourself from the crowd in an application cycle you should. There are plenty of people who are going to put down that they're gay and not demonstrate how their orientation played a role in their decision to practice law or something along those lines. You'll be different.

That being said, I'm a URM and I wrote a DS but it was a roundabout way of connecting past racial problems my family has had to overcome but I didn't and how it helped me build the resolve I need to suceed in law school. I sometimes wonder if it seemed a bit transparent, but an opportunity to write is an opportunity to impress. Take it.

[FunkyJD]

Also, what law school is in Bakersfield?

Why does it matter? The argument seems to be whether California is more liberal than Texas on acceptance of gays. Bakersfield is in California. You did say, "California is going to be more liberal towards LGBTs than Texas."

California is the liberal state. If you weren't aware, both propositions were to ban gay marriage, so a higher percentage means more people want to ban gay marriage. Thus, I'm not sure I understand your question.

As to the Bakersfield remark - you were comparing Dallas to Bakersfield, as SMU is in Dallas. It's a fallacious argument because there's no equivalent law school in Bakersfield. Even if we were to extrapolate the discussion to encompass the state, your argument would still be fallacious. Bakersfield does not represent the totality of California, as Dallas does not represent the totality of Texas. If the debate is whether California or Texas is more gay friendly as a whole, then comparing Bakersfield to Dallas is clearly bullshit. Dallas is one of the largest cities in Texas, so you should have been more intellectually honest in your comparison and chosen one of the largest cities in California, such as Los Angeles or San Francisco.

Not sure how you got the idea I was comparing cities with law schools in both states, but I enjoyed your reasoning. Of course, it's inconsequential to the main point. You said, "California is going to be more liberal towards LGBTs than Texas." Since you're the intellect, maybe you can better explain how such a naive generalization is valid.

[jay115]

Also, what law school is in Bakersfield?

Why does it matter? The argument seems to be whether California is more liberal than Texas on acceptance of gays. Bakersfield is in California. You did say, "California is going to be more liberal towards LGBTs than Texas."

California is the liberal state. If you weren't aware, both propositions were to ban gay marriage, so a higher percentage means more people want to ban gay marriage. Thus, I'm not sure I understand your question.

As to the Bakersfield remark - you were comparing Dallas to Bakersfield, as SMU is in Dallas. It's a fallacious argument because there's no equivalent law school in Bakersfield. Even if we were to extrapolate the discussion to encompass the state, your argument would still be fallacious. Bakersfield does not represent the totality of California, as Dallas does not represent the totality of Texas. If the debate is whether California or Texas is more gay friendly as a whole, then comparing Bakersfield to Dallas is clearly bullshit. Dallas is one of the largest cities in Texas, so you should have been more intellectually honest in your comparison and chosen one of the largest cities in California, such as Los Angeles or San Francisco.

Not sure how you got the idea I was comparing cities with law schools in both states, but I enjoyed your reasoning. Of course, it's inconsequential to the main point. You said, "California is going to be more liberal towards LGBTs than Texas." Since you're the intellect, maybe you can better explain how such a naive generalization is valid.

I'm sure you're not merely arguing that more liberal parts of TX are more liberal than more conservative parts of CA - clearly not a novel idea. If you look at my original claim that you initially responded to, I asserted, "but just by demographics alone, California is going to be more liberal towards LGBTs than Texas. When it comes down to cities, I'm sure it becomes more subjective."

As "the intellect", I provided a basic raw statistic of why I think California is more LGBT friendly overall than Texas via levels of state support for government bans on same-sex marriage. In addition, Nate Silver of 538 also built a regression model with three variables (prevalence of religion, state demographics, and type of amendment) to determine when a majority of a state's population will become progressive enough to accept same-sex marriage: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/ ... riage.html Based on all three variables, CA outstrips TX. Statistics, historical facts, and Texas' general demographics illustrate that Texas as a whole is less accepting of LGBT individuals as California

If you weren't making a comparison of Dallas because it's the metropolitan area adjacent to SMU, then how about you address the second part of my response? Care to explain why you cherry picked Bakersfield as a generalization of California and Dallas of Texas? Oh, and I still don't understand your question, "I thought CA was the liberal state?"

I like the exasperated eye roll btw. It's always nice when people try to keep a discussion on an anonymous on-line forum civil.

[SEATTLEITE188]

Gentleman/ladies.........thank you so much for turning my post into a debate about liberalism in California and Texas. Nonetheless, I appreciate the input. Houston has an excellent reputation and a large legal market. Additionally, I am not like many people here in that I do not have stellar stats. Houston's part time program is one of few programs that I actually have a shot at......that is why I am doing my research on living in Texas. Additionally, it is very affordable. Thank you for your input, though.

[FunkyJD]

Also, what law school is in Bakersfield?

Why does it matter? The argument seems to be whether California is more liberal than Texas on acceptance of gays. Bakersfield is in California. You did say, "California is going to be more liberal towards LGBTs than Texas."

California is the liberal state. If you weren't aware, both propositions were to ban gay marriage, so a higher percentage means more people want to ban gay marriage. Thus, I'm not sure I understand your question.

As to the Bakersfield remark - you were comparing Dallas to Bakersfield, as SMU is in Dallas. It's a fallacious argument because there's no equivalent law school in Bakersfield. Even if we were to extrapolate the discussion to encompass the state, your argument would still be fallacious. Bakersfield does not represent the totality of California, as Dallas does not represent the totality of Texas. If the debate is whether California or Texas is more gay friendly as a whole, then comparing Bakersfield to Dallas is clearly bullshit. Dallas is one of the largest cities in Texas, so you should have been more intellectually honest in your comparison and chosen one of the largest cities in California, such as Los Angeles or San Francisco.

Not sure how you got the idea I was comparing cities with law schools in both states, but I enjoyed your reasoning. Of course, it's inconsequential to the main point. You said, "California is going to be more liberal towards LGBTs than Texas." Since you're the intellect, maybe you can better explain how such a naive generalization is valid.

I'm sure you're not merely arguing that more liberal parts of TX are more liberal than more conservative parts of CA - clearly not a novel idea. If you look at my original claim that you initially responded to, I asserted, "but just by demographics alone, California is going to be more liberal towards LGBTs than Texas. When it comes down to cities, I'm sure it becomes more subjective."

As "the intellect", I provided a basic raw statistic of why I think California is more LGBT friendly overall than Texas via levels of state support for government bans on same-sex marriage. In addition, Nate Silver of 538 also built a regression model with three variables (prevalence of religion, state demographics, and type of amendment) to determine when a majority of a state's population will become progressive enough to accept same-sex marriage: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/ ... riage.html Based on all three variables, CA outstrips TX. Statistics, historical facts, and Texas' general demographics illustrate that Texas as a whole is less accepting of LGBT individuals as California

If you weren't making a comparison of Dallas because it's the metropolitan area adjacent to SMU, then how about you address the second part of my response? Care to explain why you cherry picked Bakersfield as a generalization of California and Dallas of Texas? Oh, and I still don't understand your question, "I thought CA was the liberal state?"

I like the exasperated eye roll btw. It's always nice when people try to keep a discussion on an anonymous on-line forum civil.

I regret if offense was taken. I respectfully disagree. I'm not sure how much time you've spent in Texas. Theory is one thing, experience is another. Nate Silver's alright, but I don't trust anyone who's never eaten at the Salt Lick.

[jay115]

I regret if offense was taken. I respectfully disagree. I'm not sure how much time you've spent in Texas. Theory is one thing, experience is another. Nate Silver's alright, but I don't trust anyone who's never eaten at the Salt Lick.

I've only been to Austin, and I had a great time. What's the Salt Lick?

[kalvano]

Gentleman/ladies.........thank you so much for turning my post into a debate about liberalism in California and Texas. Nonetheless, I appreciate the input. Houston has an excellent reputation and a large legal market. Additionally, I am not like many people here in that I do not have stellar stats. Houston's part time program is one of few programs that I actually have a shot at......that is why I am doing my research on living in Texas. Additionally, it is very affordable. Thank you for your input, though.

You'll be fine in Texas no matter where you go.

I would shoot for SMU if your stats allow it. They have a PT program too, and Dallas is nicer than Houston.

[isaiah6v8]

I regret if offense was taken. I respectfully disagree. I'm not sure how much time you've spent in Texas. Theory is one thing, experience is another. Nate Silver's alright, but I don't trust anyone who's never eaten at the Salt Lick.

I've only been to Austin, and I had a great time. What's the Salt Lick?

You haven't trully "been" to Austin if you haven't eaten at the Salt Lick. It is an amazing BBQ place outside of Austin. BYOB and the best BBQ sauce you have ever tasted.

[Zojirushi]

You haven't trully "been" to Austin if you haven't eaten at the Salt Lick. It is an amazing BBQ place outside of Austin. BYOB and the best BBQ sauce you have ever tasted.

Truth.


I live 5 minutes from it.

[bonnieblue]

yeah i would say that both Dallas and Houston are conservative, but its more of a "i don't care what you do, as long as it doesnt affect me getting a beach house" kind of conservative

[sirchristaylor]

yeah i would say that both Dallas and Houston are conservative, but its more of a "i don't care what you do, as long as it doesnt affect me getting a beach house" kind of conservative

Houston is not a conservative city in the social sense, and not as fiscally conservative in the financial sense as Dallas.

[jayare]

I regret if offense was taken. I respectfully disagree. I'm not sure how much time you've spent in Texas. Theory is one thing, experience is another. Nate Silver's alright, but I don't trust anyone who's never eaten at the Salt Lick.

I've only been to Austin, and I had a great time. What's the Salt Lick?

You haven't trully "been" to Austin if you haven't eaten at the Salt Lick. It is an amazing BBQ place outside of Austin. BYOB and the best BBQ sauce you have ever tasted.

Mmm SALT LICK. They had a booth at the Big Apple BBQ Block Party in New York and it was obscenely good.

[jayare]

Incidentally I am gay, applied to SMU, outed myself in my application, and was accepted.

[voiidd]

-

[roxbury16]

How is the status checker changed at University of Houston? My file just says "file complete" as of 1/5/10. How long does it usually take them to review/decide? Anyone know? Btw, I don't know if this matters, but I am out of state.