Is the prevalence of gays overestimated? Does it matter?

[bluedawg12]

According to a talking point article making the rounds on the internet and attributed to the group called, Catholic Apologetics International:

“The true number of homosexuals.

The Kinsey study of 1948, which homosexuals often cite to say that 10% of the population is homosexual, actually says that only 4% of the population is EXCLUSIVELY homosexual. This study involved a disproportionate number of people who had been in jail for sex crimes (hardly a random sample of the population). Kinsey also did perverse studies involving young boys and pedophiles. Information on Kinsey.
Current research shows that the true percentage of homosexuals is in the 1-2% range (15,23,26,28). Consider how small this number is when compared to most of the numbers above.
(15) Morton-Hunt Study for Playboy
(23) Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p. 322.
(26) United States Census Bureau
(28) University of Chicago's Nation Research Corp.”
.................



I am unable to find the particular article on the Catholic Apologetics International web site- but I did find some pretty awful “medical articles” that are rabidly homophobic in orientation.
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles.htm#8

I looked up some references regarding the percentage of gays in the U.S. They are listed below. And then, some questions for us.

What is the response to the position that gays have over estimated their numbers to 10% when in reality it is closer to 4% for men and somewhere between 1- 5% for women?

Is this central to fair treatment of gay men and women?

Is there a threshold number that must be reached in order to qualify for democratic voice in society?

Is the number 10% proposed by gay activists? Is it correct? If not- should it be revised and the correct numbers sited and then debate can proceed on the new facts?

I am confused and would appreciate any thoughts or a discussion on this.

..........................
Studies through the years varied by technique and results and possibly affected by societal mores, sexual liberation and then AIDS.
..............

“In The Kinsey Data, Gebhard and Johnson (1979) reexamined the amount of homosexual experience in Kinsey's basic sample of noninstitutionalized males and females. They found 9.9% of the males in the College Sample had extensive homosexual experience. 3.7% of females had extensive homosexual experience. “

“Tabulations by Gebhard (McWhirter 1990) on Kinsey's basic sample of noninstitutionalized males and females indicated that "13.95% of males and 4.25% of females, or a combined average of 9.13%" had had either "extensive" or "more than incidental" homosexual experience.”

Hunt (1974)
“Hunt's survey of sexual behavior in the 1970s indicated that 7% of males and 3% of females had homosexual experiences during more than three years of their lives.”


Janus and Janus (1993)
Janus and Janus, in their cross-sectional (not random) nationwide survey of American adults aged 18 and over, stated that 9% of men and 5% of women reported having had homosexual experiences "frequently" or "ongoing


Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, and Michaels (1994)
Homosexuality was viewed as a complex of same-gender behavior, desire, and identity. 9% of men and 4% of women reported having engaged in at least one same-gender sexual activity since puberty.

Binson, Michaels, Stall, Coates, Gagnon, and Catania (1995)
Combined data from the GSS and NHSLS surveys showed 5.3% of men reporting sexual activity with a same-gender partner since age 18. Data from the NABS showed 6.5% of men reporting sex with men during the previous five years. The highest prevalence was found in central cities of the 12 largest SMSAs (14.4% since age 18) and among "highly educated" White males (10.8%).

Gonsiorek, Sell, and Weinrich (1995)
The authors reviewed methods used in defining and measuring sexual orientation, and briefly critiqued surveys of homosexual activity from Kinsey in 1948 to the 1994 study by Laumann, et al. Because of the possible risks involved in self-disclosure, it is posited that the recurrent 2-5% for same-gender sexual behavior in the studies reviewed represents a minimum figure. They suggest that the current prevalence of predominant same-sex orientation is 4-17%.

Hewitt (1998)
Hewitt analyzed past surveys on the prevalence of homosexuality in the United States, from 1970 to 1994, looking critically at the methodology of these studies. He offered a metanalysis of the typologies used in these surveys to classify the homosexual. He found five types: (1) open preferential homosexuals, (2) repressed preferential homosexuals, (3) bisexuals, (4) experimental homosexuals, and (5) situational homosexuals


A more recent study by Hewitt reviewed the literature and concluded:
.........
http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:53390356&ctrlInfo=Round18%3AMode18c%3ADocG%3AResult&ao=
Homosexual Demography: Implications for the Spread of AIDS.

The Journal of Sex Research; 11/1/1998; Hewitt, Christopher

FINDINGS

A reasonable estimate is that currently about 3% of males are preferential homosexuals or bisexuals, and that another 4% are experimental or situational homosexuals.


The Implications of Homosexual Demographics for the Spread of AIDS

The increased attention paid to gays and homosexuality is partly due to the growing visibility and militancy of the gay community. Equally important is the emergence of AIDS, and the historical connection in the United States between AIDS and homosexuality. AIDS was initially labelled GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency), and regarded as a disease that attacked only gays.

[bluedawg12]

1. You know those talking points I mentioned?

Well, that trash is all over the internet and has been picked up by every anti-gay group in the world, it seems.

I just tried to look a study by Morton-Hunt for Playboy which is mentioned in a few places and I found this hate anti-gay libel all over.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Morton+Hunt+study+in+Playboy+on+homosexuality&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt

Those pernicious talking points have done their damage and the issue about gay prevalence is just one of many things they use to make people freak out about gays.

I think this stuff matters.

[Hello_Kitty]

2. Sexuality is on a continuum as far as I understand it

So it's difficult to quantify and specify. When you add social stigma to the mix, it's almost impossible to tell how many people really fall into particular sexual orientations because so many are going to be loath to admit their true proclivities in surveys or studies. I've heard everything from 2% to up to 15% gay/bisexual orientation. So yeah, what of it? Regardless of what estimates you believe, there are people who prefer their own gender sexually. And they deserve the same basic human rights and consideration as everyone else. I think the goal of those who try to underestimate the percentage of gays is to marginalize them and portray them as deviants. Well, Jews are about one percent of the world's population and (I think) about 2 percent of the US population and none but the most reprehensible bigots would suggest that they should be treated differently or denied civil rights because they are such a small minority.

[bluedawg12]

3. Excellent point. I wonder where this

notion about percentahe came from?

Was it part of the GLBT movement, or did the RW take it and when the numbers were reported downwards after Kinsey THEY used it as a straw man argument.

I don't beleive that in a democracy as ours,meaning not a democracy where a majority of 51% rules, but one where the many protect the rights of the few, that in such a system it matters what the percentage is.

Of course this is a myth, that over representation and too much power by gays is unfair, that argument was used by antisemitic NAZI Germany and is now being used against gays.

[ISUGRADIA]

4. A true % is always going to be difficult because many people

will never admit sexuality in a survey. Voting surveys in the past have had the electorate at 4% or so self identified gay/lesbian. In the closet could easily push it to 10%.

[bluedawg12]

5. You always woder in surveys if they somehow track you

I am certain that a good number of people would evade on that question.
They must be low in all the studies I bet.

[applegrove]

6. Who cares. Really. Why do we have to qualify it? Do we care about

the sex lives of others? Why do we need a number.

[bluedawg12]

7. Anti-gay groups say that gays are over stating

their importance in terms of how many people are truly affected by anti-gay laws.

I think the arugment goes:

Who cares if a few queers have marital rights and protections? They are just a few loud activists asking for "special" treament.

But you know- how many cases of spina bifida, MS, or Lou Gherigs disease are out there? Yet we rally to the call.

I think the answer is as said above, even one gay person is still a human being and has rights, and a right to fairness.

[bluedawg12]

8. Why do they care so much about the sex lives of gays?

Or is it that they care about portraying the sex lives of gays as unhealthy and bad for society.

They take it ot the next level- they don't care if gays die of AIDS, or are subject to hate violence.

But they want to use pseudo science to ghetto-ize gays from mainstream America and they use asymmetrical sex data to support their cause.

I heard about a recent Zogby poll two days ago about straight singles sex behavior- pretty damned riske'. They should clean their own house first.

Anyone seen the new Zogby poll?

[Terran]

9. 5% or 10%, who cares?

There are still millions and millions of us in the US. 5% would mean about 15 million people here, and, if you apply that worldwide, that's about 300 million world-wide. It makes no difference at all to me.

I think the estimates are probably based mostly on the number of people who actually identify as some degree of homosexual. I don't think that's going to include the large number of people who will never, under any circumstances, willingly admit to being homosexual.

[bluedawg12]

11. Great point 15 million, minimally, is nothing to sneeze at

Imagine if we were truly united, organized, and activated and motivated to stop the hate.

I think there are two reasons they harp on this stat.

1.) They try to undermine our credibility by saying we are a small, small, minority..and we ae so small in number because it is a deviant and unnatural state of being.

2.) The other reason is more pragmatic...how much mnoey and how many votes are we worth? How many votes does bashing gays bring in?

Follow the money.

[davidinalameda]

10. I would say no

but in this country we like to quantify things

we keep track of batting averages; death tolls; etc

we like to know how many there are of everything-including gays obviously

people need to come out and say that they're gay, bi, lesbian

only when people can put a face to an issue, it drives home the point that these laws affect real human beings, and not just a number.

[bluedawg12]

13. Coming out- or at least living openly without excuses

and living a lifestyle that is seen to be healthy, supporting and nurturing makes a strong impact on people.

Sadly, polls show, that even when middle America knows gays and actually likes the ones they know, they still tend to vote against fairness issues for gays like marriage. On the other hand, if you ask about civil unions and rights and benefits the same amount will vote for it as will vote against marriage.

My concern is the juggernaut of anti-gay propaganda- that's where our unity and the internet will be able to get our message out.

My other thought has been litigation against those who publicly make hostile and untrue statments about gays-- libel or slander or both.

[kweerwolf]

12. I don't think we'll ever really know the prevalence of gays ...

"Gay" is a self-chosen label. Any poll of survey that attempts to come up with a number in the "gay" category is going to run into problems.

For one thing, if you ask someone if he or she is gay, the answer you get depends not only on whether the person is being truthful, but whether or not the person chooses to apply that label to himself. How do you count people in the African American group who call themselves "same-sex loving" but refuse to accept the term "gay" since they associate that would with white culture? What about members of cultures that prize machismo and believe that when two men have sex, it's only the receptive partner who is "gay." What about the closeted married man who stops on the way home for a quick blow job before ... then goes home to the wife and kids? There's no way he would apply the word "gay" to himself.

Even beyond the label, how does one define "gay"? If it depends strictly on sexual behavior, then where do celibate gays belong? Or people who engage in situational homosexuality such as prisoners? Or "ex-gays" who have have sex with an opposite-sex partner, but fantasize about someone of the same sex to accomplish it?

Regardless of what criteria one uses, there will always be an undercounting of "gays" because there is no single definition that encompasses the entire spectrum of same-sex behavior/affection/fantasy/etc.

[bluedawg12]

14. I think you are spot on, didn't the US census ask this too?

Who would asnwer that? hello data base.

This is a rightwing cannard, a straw man they could knock down, as if it mattered.

They will get the message when we gave a strong, focused, and active political base- there will be no question once we make a presence in unity as opposed to pretending that we are some pathological statistic like studying as disease--this theofascist rightwing
non-sense has to stop.

Minorities all deserve to be protected from the majority in a true democracy. Otherwise it would be a tyranny of the majority which is why some of our founders actually hated strict democracy.

I noted that Kinsey did break behavior into subcatagories, as you mentioned.