primitives squabble about racism, gayism

[Lord Undies]

How common?  Give us a number.

Because of the stigma attached to homosexuality in the United States, determining the size of the gay population in the US is difficult. Given the difficulty in determining the size of the gay population in the US, I think that the best estimate is somewhere between the highest figure, which is 12%, and the lowest figure, which is about 2%. So, I'm guessing that 7% of the US population is gay.

Since this stigma reads like it is exclusive to the United States, could we not pick any other country on earth and use its population as a gauge?

[CactusCarlos]

Because of the stigma attached to homosexuality in the United States, determining the size of the gay population in the US is difficult.

Not it isn't, it's been done

"The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994)."

(Lawrence v. Texas, Docket No. 02-102 (U.S. Supreme Court), brief of amici curiae Human Rights Campaign et al., 16 January 2003, p. 16 (footnote 42).)

Now you said

Homosexuality and bisexuality is quite common in humans.

Does 7% = "quite common"?  Do the actual figures = "quite common"?

[Rebel]

You have 10 apples. 9 red, one orange. Which one's the oddball? You can't redefine "freak" to fit your agenda, TNO. It is what it is.

[overlord]

How common?  Give us a number.

Because of the stigma attached to homosexuality in the United States, determining the size of the gay population in the US is difficult. Given the difficulty in determining the size of the gay population in the US, I think that the best estimate is somewhere between the highest figure, which is 12%, and the lowest figure, which is about 2%. So, I'm guessing that 7% of the US population is gay.

In the study of statistics anything with a probability of .05 or less (that's 5% for the mathematically challenged) is considered an unusual or anomalous.  In the case of animals, so called "homosexual" behavior is typically done as a display of dominance, which from my own observations of the gay community (my brother is gay) pretty much fits.  The only way it can be scientifically said that one is born gay is because of some sort of genetic defect or perhaps some psychological disorder (which I suppose wouldn't fit cause those are usually developed later in life).

[The Night Owl]

The only way it can be scientifically said that one is born gay is because of some sort of genetic defect or perhaps some psychological disorder (which I suppose wouldn't fit cause those are usually developed later in life).

The hypothesis that gay people are born gay does not depend on genetic factors being the sole cause of homosexuality. Homosexuality could be the result of genetic factors combined with other factors.

I'm convinced that genetics play a key role in the development of homosexuality. Here is one clue about the nature of homosexuality...

Excess of counterclockwise scalp hair-whorl rotation in homosexual men

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/academy/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf

The fact that a significant majority of gay men have counterclockwise hair-whorl rotations is, I think, a pretty good indication that genetics play a major role in homosexuality.

[dandi]

The only way it can be scientifically said that one is born gay is because of some sort of genetic defect or perhaps some psychological disorder (which I suppose wouldn't fit cause those are usually developed later in life).

The hypothesis that people are born gay does not depend on homosexuality being the result of genetic factors only. Homsexuality could be the result of a combination of genetic factors and other factors. I'm convinced, though, that genetics play a key role in the development of homosexuality. Here is one clue that genetics play a role in homosexuality...

Excess of counterclockwise scalp hair-whorl rotation in homosexual men

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/academy/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf

Amazing, isn't it?

Uh-oh, look at the first line in that abstract:

While most men prefer women as their sexual partners, some are bisexual and others are homosexual. It has been debated for a long time whether a person's sexual preference is inate, learned, or due to a combination of both causes.

Well now, if that ain't just a fly in the ointment.

So is the study unreliable because its authors call sexuality a preference?

[The Night Owl]

While most men prefer women as their sexual partners, some are bisexual and others are homosexual. It has been debated for a long time whether a person's sexual preference is inate, learned, or due to a combination of both causes.

Well now, if that ain't just a fly in the ointment.

So is the study unreliable because its authors call sexuality a preference?

No. The study is reliable despite the fact that the author uses the term sexual preference to describe sexual orientation.

My complaint against the use of the term sexual preference is purely rhetorical in nature. I just don't think the term is precise.

[CactusCarlos]

The hypothesis that gay people are born gay does not depend on genetic factors being the sole cause of homosexuality. Homosexuality could be the result of genetic factors combined with other factors.

I'm convinced that genetics play a key role in the development of homosexuality. Here is one clue about the nature of homosexuality...

Excess of counterclockwise scalp hair-whorl rotation in homosexual men

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/academy/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf

The fact that a significant majority of gay men have counterclockwise hair-whorl rotations is, I think, a pretty good indication that genetics play a major role in homosexuality.

While you can observe an excess of counterclockwise scalp hair-whorl rotations you have no way to truly determine for sure if a person is homosexual or not.  You have to trust that the person is telling the truth which makes your attempted correlation moot. 

[CactusCarlos]

My complaint against the use of the term sexual preference is purely rhetorical in nature. I just don't think the term is precise.

The term "Sexual Orientation" is less precise.  It implies that a persons sexuality is not influenced by their behavior.  Without the means to determine that a person homosexuality is innate, your term is nothing but opinion.

[franksolich]

How common?  Give us a number.

Because of the stigma attached to homosexuality in the United States, determining the size of the gay population in the US is difficult. Given the difficulty in determining the size of the gay population in the US, I think that the best estimate is somewhere between the highest figure, which is 12%, and the lowest figure, which is about 2%. So, I'm guessing that 7% of the US population is gay.

I dunno.

I remember reading an article in Time or Newsweek magazine, probably from circa the mid-1970s, wherein was described a major anthropological or sociological study that had been done in places accepting of homosexuality, and where homosexuality was taboo; from the Netherlands to the former Netherlands East Indies, the whole gamut from "tolerated" to "not tolerated."

The study showed that apparently invariably 4% of all males are homosexual in orientation (not necessarily in practice); all over the world, throughout all societies and nations and cultures.  Four percent, invariably.

I don't want to get into any arguments, human sexuality being as complex as it is, but I suppose this reinforces the idea that homosexuality is a "natural" trait occurring in, invariably, 4% of all males.

And when thinking of all the people--and the diverse people--I've known throughout all my life, 1 in 25 seems about right, if not right on the money.

This of course is a far cry from what the gay interests insist, about "10%" or "25%" or "33%."

Of course, I am talking about the strictly scientific clinical definition of "homosexual," and not as one might describe himself.  I've always suspected that many "gays" are "gay" because it's hip, it's trendy, it's cool, it's with it, in self-indulgent decadent places.

[Lord Undies]

How common?  Give us a number.

Because of the stigma attached to homosexuality in the United States, determining the size of the gay population in the US is difficult. Given the difficulty in determining the size of the gay population in the US, I think that the best estimate is somewhere between the highest figure, which is 12%, and the lowest figure, which is about 2%. So, I'm guessing that 7% of the US population is gay.

I dunno.

I remember reading an article in Time or Newsweek magazine, probably from circa the mid-1970s, wherein was described a major anthropological or sociological study that had been done in places accepting of homosexuality, and where homosexuality was taboo; from the Netherlands to the former Netherlands East Indies, the whole gamut from "tolerated" to "not tolerated."

The study showed that apparently invariably 4% of all males are homosexual in orientation (not necessarily in practice); all over the world, throughout all societies and nations and cultures.  Four percent, invariably.

I don't want to get into any arguments, human sexuality being as complex as it is, but I suppose this reinforces the idea that homosexuality is a "natural" trait occurring in, invariably, 4% of all males.

And when thinking of all the people--and the diverse people--I've known throughout all my life, 1 in 25 seems about right, if not right on the money.

This of course is a far cry from what the gay interests insist, about "10%" or "25%" or "33%."

Of course, I am talking about the strictly scientific clinical definition of "homosexual," and not as one might describe himself.  I've always suspected that many "gays" are "gay" because it's hip, it's trendy, it's cool, it's with it, in self-indulgent decadent places.

"Natural", if it is being used in an argument as the reason something must be accepted, is a flawed concept.  It has been shown that a certain percentage of every population across the world, and in all cultures, is made up of people predisposed to become serial murderers.  That makes it natural, but wholly unacceptable.

(Frank, I am not dumping on your post.  I am using it to extend the theory to a part of its logical conclusion.)       

[franksolich]

I know what you're referring to, Demonic Underwear.

If I recall that article correctly, it quoted this 4% figure as being "natural" in the same sense it's "natural" for 51 males to be born, for every 50 females--a phenomenon that cuts across all lines, encompassing all nations, all societies, all cultures.

A natural phenomenon that's occurred since the beginning of mankind, and there's probably a good reason for it.

Now, the nocturnally foul one, who believes that mankind is capable of killing the "planet" before the "planet" kills us (i.e., that man can successfully overrride natural laws), might use China as an example of artificially tampering with nature, where because of man-made policies, far more males than females are given life, but the nocturnally foul one seems to have a problem grasping time, space, and distance; what's going on in China right now--and it surely isn't going to go on forever--is merely a blip in the experience of mankind.

The nocturnally foul one of course comes from a small congested state, and so it's easy to see why the nocturnally foul one doesn't grasp the big picture.

[franksolich]

And oh, I meant "natural" meaning it's just a blunt fact of life, and one has to accept it.

It does NOT mean one has to endorse or tolerate or promote it.

It's just something that's there.