Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2019 1:49 PM
20 online now:
edge, JonF, Meddle, ringo, Tangle (5 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,032 Year: 7,068/19,786 Month: 1,609/1,581 Week: 431/393 Day: 22/43 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is homosexuality a natural response to large populations?
custard
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 44 (111056)
05-28-2004 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by phee
05-28-2004 1:23 AM


Re: new to board - fascinating
Great post. Small point of clarification.

(I vaguely recall some hazy statistic that 10% of the population is homosexual).

Yeah, hazy and erroneous. The numbers propigated by homosexual propagandists are inflated and based off of studies (e.g. Kinsey that have since been called into question).

Here is an example of the range of numbers from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality:

At one extreme, the Kinsey report (1948) reported that 37% of men in the U.S. had achieved orgasm through contact with another male after adolescence. However, Kinsey's work was based on a population sample that was likely to have been biased and consequently his results have been disputed.

Smith's 1991 analysis of National Opinion Research Center data [1] states that 5.9% of sexually active males had had a male sexual partner since age 18, but that "since age 18 less than 1% are gay and 4+% bisexual".

A 1998 survey by Christopher Bagley and Pierre Tremblay gave a figure of 13.5% of men who "reported being homosexual to some degree" including "overlapping homosexual (5.9%) and/or bisexual (6.1%) self-identification". [2]

The NHSLS survey reported an incidence of male homosexuality of 4.9% "over the last 18 years" [3]
In general, surveys quoted by anti-gay activists tend to show figures nearer 1%, while surveys quoted by gay activists tend to show figures nearer 10%. However, survey results can be expected to be biased by under-reporting.

Part of the problem is obtaining reliable data. Another part is that there is no clear definition of homosexual. E.g. where do bi-sexuals fit in? Does a single homosexual dalliance define one as a homosexual? Confusing, but these numbers, and others I have read, suggest the incidence of homosexuality defined as attraction only to the same sex is not as high as one might think.

This message has been edited by custard, 05-28-2004 02:54 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by phee, posted 05-28-2004 1:23 AM phee has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Denesha, posted 05-28-2004 4:20 AM custard has responded
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 05-28-2004 4:42 AM custard has responded
 Message 31 by custard, posted 05-28-2004 5:53 AM custard has not yet responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 44 (111062)
05-28-2004 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Denesha
05-28-2004 4:20 AM


Re: new to board - fascinating
You have focalised on Gay community, why didn't you get some female homosexual data?

No particular reason really. I just took what was readily available at that site, I didn't even notice it failed to include lesbians until you pointed it out.

I think that more young girls are bi and lesbian at this age but most of them "turn" hetero after a while.

The data on which you base this conclusion would be...?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Denesha, posted 05-28-2004 4:20 AM Denesha has not yet responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 44 (111065)
05-28-2004 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rrhain
05-28-2004 4:42 AM


Re: new to board - fascinating
The problem with this claim is that if it were true, that means every gay male in the US lives in either Los Angeles or New York.

How did you get there? Sorry, if I sound obtuse, but I don't follow.

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 05-28-2004 4:42 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Rrhain, posted 05-28-2004 5:09 AM custard has responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 44 (111067)
05-28-2004 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Denesha
05-28-2004 4:20 AM


Re: new to board - fascinating
Denesha,

thought you might find this interesting. It's from the NORC study (pp 10-13).

quote:
Studies of male and female homosexuality in the United States and Europe regularly find a higher proportion of males are gay than the share of females who are lesbian.

But

quote:
... lesbians, but not gays, are more common among younger age groups. This could indicate an increase in homosexuality among women across cohorts.

And for our Christian friends, I thought this was interesting

quote:
Finally, lesbians, but not gays, attend church less than heterosexuals {wonder if that includes priests?}. About 3.4% of women who rarely attend church have had a female sexual partner in the last year compared to only 1.3% of those who attend regularly.

This message has been edited by custard, 05-28-2004 03:57 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Denesha, posted 05-28-2004 4:20 AM Denesha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Denesha, posted 05-28-2004 5:28 AM custard has not yet responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 44 (111069)
05-28-2004 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Rrhain
05-28-2004 5:09 AM


Yep
There are about 140 million men in the US. 1% of them is about 1.4 million individuals.

Unless you include the 4% bi-sexual men, another 5.6 million. Additionally most of these studies report that there is a greater concentration of gays in large urban areas than elsewhere.

Of course the study to which you refer is now 13 years old, but
looking at all three studies, it appears you end up with a range from 5%-13.5% if you include bisexual men. If lesbian populations are indeed slightly lower than gays, then they would easily fall within that range as well.

This message has been edited by custard, 05-28-2004 04:21 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Rrhain, posted 05-28-2004 5:09 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Rrhain, posted 05-31-2004 8:10 AM custard has responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 44 (111073)
05-28-2004 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by custard
05-28-2004 3:54 AM


More Data On Genetics - conclusive?
Did some rummaging through the ether and came up with some info regarding genetic studies for homosexuality. So far it looks as if there is no strong data supporting genetic inheritibility of gender preferences.

The overviews of the studies I looked at were:

1- Studies of brain structure (e.g. Simon LeVay's study of the neurons in the hypothalamus)
2- Twin studies (e.g. the study of John M. Bailey and Richard Pillard on twin brothers)
3- Studies of chromosomes (e.g. by Dean Hamer)

Of the first study, LeVay himself states

quote:
"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. ...Since I look at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth or if they appeared later."

The twins studies seem to indicate that "genetic factors play some role in the development of sexual orientation, but that they probably account for only a minority of variation and that further work will be needed to quantify their influence more precisely."

But it should be noted that the following criticisms were made of the studies:

1-in general is that they depend upon an assumption that MZ and DZ twins share a similar amount of their environments with their twins.
2-that the heritability of homosexuality has been overstated by volunteer studies.
3- Using different definitions of homosexuality yeilded different results, particularly for lesbians

Hamer's study's conclusions were:

quote:

1-...in families with two gay brothers, 33 out of 40 pairs shared a distinctive pattern in one region of the X chromosome, a far higher number than chance alone would predict DNA and family studies confirmed a much higher than average rate of homosexuality among male relatives on the mother's side of the family.

2-Dean Hamer also said: 'It would appear that whatever is being transmitted to lesbians is different than what is transmitted to gay men. It's more nurture than nature'. http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~stafflag/deanhamer.html#X%20Chromosome


However a follow up study found no evidence of Hamer's chromosomal link

George Rice and George Ebers of the University of Western Ontario in Canada studied 148 families with two gay sons, 34 families with three gay sons and two families with four. Dr Hamer investigated the family history of a smaller sample of 76 gay men and 40 pairs of gay brothers.

The Canadian group reports in the journal Science that it failed to find a link between this marker and homosexuality, which would have emerged because their study was bigger than Dr Hamer's. (same site as Hamer link)

To me this indicates that, as far as we currently know, genetics do not determine sexual preference; therefore homosexuality could not be a biological response to large populations.

This message has been edited by custard, 05-28-2004 04:55 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by custard, posted 05-28-2004 3:54 AM custard has not yet responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 44 (111905)
05-31-2004 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Rrhain
05-31-2004 8:10 AM


Re: Yep
Rrhain writes:

But I'm not. Just the gay ones.

I think you missed my point. What constitutes 'just the gay ones?' You referenced that a million people showed up to the gay march on Washington, that certainly does not mean that the entire population was homosexual (as you implied), nor that they were 100% gay (attracted to same sex only). There were family members, hetero supporters, bi-sexuals. Who knows what the percentages were?

Using the number of the participants in the march to infer the true numbers of non-bisexual homosexuals in the US will not provide an accurate number.

Rrhain writes:

I wasn't really quoting from any study.

Semantics. You were using the figure of 1% I quoted. So you were referring to that study through my quote.

Rrhain writes:

I'm simply pointing out that those who claim only 1-2% of the population is gay really has no idea what they're talking about.

Bold claim that NORC has no idea what it was talking about regarding the conclusions to it's own study. I find it amazing that they came up with "since age 18 less than 1% are gay and 4+% bisexual" my gut tells me that is low; but I don't know what the sample size was, how the participants identified themselves, what the criteria for 'gay' sex was (masturbation without contact - a la George Michael, any male-male contact leading to ejaculation, etc).

And, of course, what my gut thinks is not statiscally valid, so I wouldn't presume to say they don't know what they are talking about. Your assesment based on the numbers of the march on Washington is not valid either, but you don't seem to have a problem with that. Interesting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Rrhain, posted 05-31-2004 8:10 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Rrhain, posted 05-31-2004 8:19 PM custard has responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 44 (111956)
06-01-2004 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Rrhain
05-31-2004 8:19 PM


Re: Yep
Ah, but I'm not going by my gut. I'm going by my mathematics training. I am a mathematician, after all, and this is what I spent a lot of time and money learning how to do.

Wonderful; however, training does not preclude one from making mistakes, which you have.

Let's start at the beginning. You state:

Rrhain writes:

Suppose we were to take the extremely conservative view that half of the people at the march weren't gay. That's still half a million people. And if we assume that half the participants were male, that means a quarter million people.

No it doesn't for the following reasons:

1- We don't know how many people were there. Crowd estimates for the 2000 gay millenium march are between 200,000 and 750,000 depending on the source. The march organizers estimated between 750,000 and 1mil but that figure is almost universally challenged.

Here's ONE example from sfgate.com:

quote:
Organizers said between 750,000 and 1 million people participated in the rally, though others said that number was grossly exaggerated and suggested the real turnout was barely 200,000.

So somewhere between 200,000 and 1 million. So what would your number be now? Using your current calculation something considerably less than 250,000. But wait, there's more.

2 - We don't know how many gay men were there. You assume half of the total population is homosexual. Then you assume half of that population is comprised of gay men. What evidence allows you to make that assumption? The march was comprised of gays, lesbians, transgenders, bi-sexuals, heterosexual supporters, and who knows how many other folks trying to get some free publicity for their own causes.

Can you honestly tell me you have a good idea what the actual percentage of gay men (remember, no bisexuals, you eliminated those) were there? You can't. The best you can do is make a broad generalization.

3- Do you even know what the definition of 'gay man' was, as used by NORC to for its sample populations? I don't, but maybe you do; but if you don't, how can you possibly call into question their analysis of their own sample population? You can't. Not with any reasonable amount of certainty. Does a transgender individual who used to be a man count as a gay man? What about a pre-operative transexual? Would that person be considered a gay man? How could you possibly know?

The best you can do is come up with a potential range of the number of gay men who were at the march. But you have to make so many assumptions, that the number is nothing better than a guess.

I'm not challenging your math. I'm challenging the assumptions you have made to come up with the numbers you have plugged into your equation. You simply can't know the real numbers, so you have to guess.

How can you proclaim NORC's study is ridiculous when you have stacked assumption upon assumption to come up with your final number? You can't. Not with any real degree of certainty; therfore, this statement:

Rrhain writes:

Ergo, the claim of 1-2% must be false.

is meaningless. How can you possibly compare your guess to factual evidence and hard numbers provided by NORC? That's hubris.

If you want to continue this discussion, I will be happy to do so in another thread. I'm not making these statements to get your goat, I'm just amazed that you think you haven't made an error here - even after it has been pointed out to you.

This message has been edited by custard, 06-01-2004 12:30 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Rrhain, posted 05-31-2004 8:19 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Rrhain, posted 06-01-2004 3:07 AM custard has responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 44 (111973)
06-01-2004 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Rrhain
06-01-2004 3:07 AM


Re: Yep
The 1993 March had a million.

Ok, cool. What do you base that number on? What the organizers reported? Please show your evidence.

You are right that I do not know the exact proportion of gay people to non-gay people at the March. However, it is unreasonably conservative to claim that only half of them were.

Why is it unreasonably conservative to claim that? What information do you have to indicate otherwise?

By the way...that same NORC study found that 40% of men had never masturbated. Does that sound likely to you?

Irrelevant. You are committing two fallacies here: incredulity and false analogy. Because this number seems low to you does not mean that this is not the number NORC's study arrived at; furthermore, whether that number is correct does not validate or invalidate the statistics regarding sexual preference.

It is unreasonable to think that a quarter of all gay men went to the March on Washington.

Why do you think that is unreasonable? What do you think is a reasonable percentage and why?

...the claim of only 0.7% of the population of men in the US are gay necessarily cannot be true.

How can you possibly say this? I'm sure I don't know one way or the other if .7% of US men have only had sex with other men since they were 18. How do you know this? If you have evidence that rebuts NORC I'm all ears; I just want to know why you are so sure of this.

Let's remember also, shall we, that any married gay man would have been considered a bi-sexual by the definition of the report. In fact, ANY gay man who had a female sexual partner ONCE since he was 18 would have been considered bi-sexual. Where is your evidence that more than .7% of the male population has only had sex with another man since turning eighteen years old?

You have presented no data, no evidence, only incredulity as your rebuttal. I don't understand when you think you can come up with a lower bound when you don't know:

1- how many people attended the march
2- how many of those people were men who only had male sex partners since their own eighteenth birthday.

I'm not a NORC wonk. I have no interest proving them correct, but your dispute of their seemingly statistically valid survey of a valid sample size (1500) is not based on data; or, if it is, you have not shown it adequately.

You seem to have real difficulty accpeting NORC's numbers. I think it is interesting to note that NORC cites over 12 other studies that are close to their results (page 10 of http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/sex.pdf). These other studies indicate that only 2-3% of men in the US and Europe actively engage in same gender sex (I have no idea if that means once a year, once every five years, etc.).

Finally, I am curious to know what figure(s) you think are realistic for gay men (and lesbians) in the US (and EU if possible)? Why do you think those figures are correct?

Thanks,

Custard

This message has been edited by custard, 06-01-2004 03:32 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Rrhain, posted 06-01-2004 3:07 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by custard, posted 06-01-2004 4:47 AM custard has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2004 12:30 AM custard has not yet responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 44 (111974)
06-01-2004 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by custard
06-01-2004 4:23 AM


Re: Yep
Look, I'm not sure if we are arguing semantics here but it seems to me the real issue is how the term 'gay male' is defined.

I would describe a gay male as someone who has sex with other men regardless of how frequently he may have sex with female partners. I certainly consider married men who have children, yet cruise for male sex partners gay, although I suppose they are technically bi-sexual.

I think the issue we are belaboring is one of definition. The NORC study resulted in the following statistics:

Smith's 1991 analysis of National Opinion Research Center data [1] states that 5.9% of sexually active males had had a male sexual partner since age 18, but that "since age 18 less than 1% are gay and 4+% bisexual".

We seem to be arguing over whether it is really true that 1% (or slightly less) of US males have had no other sex partners but other men since age eighteen. I submit that without evidence from another study, which you, or others, may be privy to but have not yet cited, there is no way to refute this claim.

Calculations based on populations of LA and NYC and a 1993 Washington march do not reach the level of granularity necessary to confirm or refute the statement "in 1991 approximately 1% of all US males have only had sex with other men since age eighteen." If anyone can refute this, I would be happy to see the data.

Finally, back on topic, if these statics, or other that indicate that only 2-3% of the population of males in US and Europe are gay, and less are lesbian, then it would appear that homosexuality is NOT a natural response to large populations; unless a 2-3% decline in fecundity, which is not compensated for elsewhere, could somehow slow population growth to a significant degree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by custard, posted 06-01-2004 4:23 AM custard has not yet responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 44 (121115)
07-02-2004 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Trae
07-02-2004 3:04 AM


Re: What about the 2000 census numbers?
No, it looks good. I did some more analysis of the numbers you provided and from the census and came up with some interesting things:

1- If every man who is married and lives with a woman is not considered gay (and here is the great unknown)
2- AND If 7% of the male population is gay
3- THEN 17% of the remaining male population over 18 must be gay.

Here's the math:

1-males over 18 (100,994,367) - males over 18 in household with female partner (59,374,609) = 41,619,758
men not in long term relationships with women.

2-If 7% of the total male pop is gay, then 7% * 100,994,367 = 7,069,605 gay men over 18 in the US.

3-If an insignificant percentage of men who are in long term relationships (married to or living with) with woman are gay, then the 7 million gay men must comprise the male population of 41 million.

4-7,069,605 gay men/41,619,758 men = 17% gay men.

Obviously the big IF is number 3. I couldn't find any data to indicate what the percentage of men who identified themselves as married or living with a woman might be gay.

So if the 7% number is true, then nearly one in 5 of the male pop not living with women is gay, or there are still a statistically significant number of men who live with women yet consider themselves to be gay.

Does that math seem correct?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Trae, posted 07-02-2004 3:04 AM Trae has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Trae, posted 07-03-2004 4:59 AM custard has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019