Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8975 total)
31 online now:
Phat (AdminPhat) (1 member, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: dad
Post Volume: Total: 875,886 Year: 7,634/23,288 Month: 193/1,347 Week: 210/342 Day: 2/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is homosexuality a natural response to large populations?
Trae
Member (Idle past 2824 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 41 of 44 (118210)
06-24-2004 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Rrhain
06-07-2004 12:30 AM


What about the 2000 census numbers?
Nearly 0.6% of the US population was reported by the 2000 US census to consist of male homosexual households. With that in mind, the number 0.7% seems unreasonably low.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf
301,000 male same-sex couples

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kprof00-us.pdf
Male population 138,053,563
Male population over 18 100,994,367

602,000 (Male homosexuals in relationships in US. 301,000*2)

100,994,367 (since we’re talking couples in living situations where one of the members is the head-of-household. It seems necessary to limit the male population to those over 18 year of age.

Yields:
0.59607284830053937562676144106136%

Doesn’t include the impact of AIDs deaths on the US male homosexual population.

Doesn’t include male homosexuals in institutional settings.

No reliable percentage was found for figuring a rate of census under-reporting by male homosexuals.

[Edited to fix formatting to improve readability.]

This message has been edited by Trae, 06-26-2004 03:36 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2004 12:30 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Trae, posted 07-02-2004 3:04 AM Trae has acknowledged this reply

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 2824 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 42 of 44 (121101)
07-02-2004 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Trae
06-24-2004 8:26 AM


Re: What about the 2000 census numbers?
So no comment? Does the math look correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Trae, posted 06-24-2004 8:26 AM Trae has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by custard, posted 07-02-2004 4:41 AM Trae has responded

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 2824 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 44 of 44 (121562)
07-03-2004 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by custard
07-02-2004 4:41 AM


Re: What about the 2000 census numbers?
I was looking at this thread and with all the numbers being thrown around my level of suspicion (my distrust of behavioral studies statistics) started kicking in. ;-)

I saw Rrhain’s figures based on a Washington march and remembered reading an article some time ago about the difficultly of establishing attendance numbers for public gatherings. Since I knew this was something that particularly the SFPD had been taken to task for (war protests, pride parades, etc), I thought perhaps there were some recent figures using more accurate methodologies. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to determine if they’ve been implemented as of yet. This seems to be a dead end, so I was racking my brain as to if there were any numbers which would be more trustworthy, when I remembered the census had started tracking non-married couples and specifically same-sex couples as of the last US Census.

I can’t think of any reasonable ways to extrapolate the Census data to encompass the general population with any degree of certainty.

As to your figures, and I really might be way off here (having never taken any statistic courses):

I’m not sure where you’re getting the 7% figure, did you mean 0.7% and not 7%? You’re referring to that earlier study you cited?

I’m not sure how one would go about making any comparisons between the given coupled same-sex populations and the unknown single same-sex populations. The societal presupposition is that same-sex male couples are less capable of forming and maintaining coupled-relationships. Even if that isn’t the case, I can’t think of a way to draw conclusions based on such dissimilar groups.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by custard, posted 07-02-2004 4:41 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 © 2020