10% is widely considered an overestimate these days.
What Percentage of the Population Is Gay? by Jennifer Robison, Gallup
Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are—The Atlantic
Same Sex Marriage
- Thread starter Ezri D
- Start date
- Status
What Percentage of the Population Is Gay? by Jennifer Robison, Gallup
Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are—The Atlantic
Thanks for reminding me. I could only manage to get through this episode about twice, in all the years I watched Voyager. I'd forgotten.
I wouldn't be comfortable with that either. Marriages ought to last longer than a week or two.
Bry_Sinclair said:
Well the 1.4% is the lowest "serious" estimate by cross polling with the same criteria.
The estimate low is most commonly 1.7%
Now, those numbers don't include bisexuals, hermaphrodites, or people with sex change operations.
When including Bisexuals (from the sources that news article I linked to included) the percentage goes up to 3 point something.
Now obviously if you poll people in just a localized area like San Francisco, you get 15% and you get 12% to 14% by polling Seattle and Atlanta.
If you look at recent (within the last decade) polls which have really high numbers like 10% to 15% nationwide, you'll notice in all cases bisexual, bi-curious, one homo-sexual experience of any kind what so ever, is included in the questions, and girls under 18 are included. Considering, in my personal observation, 4 or 5 years ago it was more common for a girl ages 14 to 16 to answer something other than straight, this skews the results. Problem is, at the turn of the mellinium, girls being bi was a popular fashion statement (for lack of any other word I can think of). It has been my personal research (yes I actually did many polls and research on this) that in 2007, 2 of 3 girls answered as Bi, gay, bi-curious, pan, asexual, unsure. That was the majority of teen girls. Only 1 in 3 were straight. For teenage girls, being straight was boring, vanilla, and out of step. I did multiple polls again, averaged it, and in 2010, I found only 35% of girls answered something other than Straight.
My research and examination of other more "official" polls both show that the number of homo and bi sexual is greatly inflated when allowing teens and young women to participate. But as I said, and linked to that article, when you poll women over 30, very few are actually gay or bi.
Interesting fact, more males report gay than women, more females report being bi than men.
Now, I often discount pansexual and asexual from actually being a statement. Asexual, basically means you got no sex drive. That's not even close to saying you're not heterosexual. And nearly everyone who reports themselves as Pansexual, actually just means they're bi sexual, as most of them don't fully understand the very subtle difference between the two to begin with.
In my personal polling, I create different polls that either include, asexual, pansexual, bi-curious, unsure, and then I poll with just homo, hetero, bi. when averaging them out, I do not cross the findings of the different poll types.
Also, be weary of studies that compile surveys asking if they are bi, and another that asks asexual, and another that asks homo, and another that asks asexual. And then regardless of the other options, takes each number into account, and adds them. This, in any type of statistical gathering, will forge an exaggeration of false positives.
I also discount all reports by the LGBT and by church groups, as both have a biased motive to inflate and deflate the actual numbers through common statistical trickery.
Fixed that for you.
Actually, I would have used "may" if I had said "will have inflated and deflated statistics out of personal bias".
how ever if you read closely, I said they had a "motive". That doesn't mean their statistics will be doctored; it means a motivation to do so is there
Why are you asking all these teenage girls about their sex lives?
The same way a heterosexual woman gets pregnant who can't conceive with her partner, artificial insemination.
Would you like to answer my question? Should a lesbian couple have the ability to "adjust" their unborn child's sexuality to emulate their own homosexuality?
Wrong, GID's link is to transgenderism and not homosexuality.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). In 1942, the APA declared that homosexuality was a disease. In 1973, the APA removed Homosexuality from its list of diseases.
In the 168 year history of the American Psychiatric Association, homosexuality was considered a "disease" for 31 years.
Darn it!
Loved it when her home porn video got "leaked."
Funnyteacake said:
Because for a few years I used to create a lot of polls, and refine my polling method, and I studied statistics. It was a bit of a hobby. I made polls in different ways in various mediums on a ton of issues.
I must have created so many hundreds of polls on pretty much any topic, and then analyzed them, cross referenced them, classified them by race, sex, age, and so on.
It's a great way of discovering how people think.
And to be honest, I think I do have a fascination with how girls in their mid teens view the world. You can tell a lot about the current political environment, the American spirit, and what the future of opinions will look like just by asking questions to teen girls.
Teen girls tend to be the biggest recipients of propaganda. I believe it has something to do with a compulsory need to fit in, to be in fashion with the "perceived" norm. But that is a different topic all together.
How about this for a gay character:
We model him after Tom Paris. He's gay, and has a husband. Early in the first season, his husband dies. So he's single, and that will give him dating opportunities. I say he should get some romance scenes. Not a lot, just the usual trek series amount.
By itself, this is completely boring.
So here is how we make the character interesting, he gets paired up with a guy who is "old fashioned", borderline homophobe. Just imagine the character being like Trip, only a little on the homophobic side.
When I say, paired up, I mean forced to work together, or even roommates.
I think back to three's company, Jack Tripper and Mr Roper. I think about Stewart and Carter from Spin City.
There could be a scene where a young man is asking the gay guy about how he can court this young lady he really likes.
The gay man starts giving him advice. But the homophobic character can say "oh for crying out loud, advice on women from this guy is like asking an Egyptian about ice fishing. Look if you really want to know how to attract women..."
And goes on with some ridiculous idea of a woman wanting a take charge man, or something like that.
The gay man says "not only won't that get him a date, he's liable to end up with mace in his eyes"
And they begin arguing, and the boy just ducks out.
I think another scene where they are trying to find out something about one of the female crew members, so they sneak into her quarters and they're looking through her stuff. But then she returns. Quickly they have to hide, the gay man suggests the closet. The homophobe says "you really want me to get into the closet with you?'
"Oh just get in you idiot."
And then the woman finds them. And the homophobe says "This! This right here, is not what it looks like!"
After getting lectured by the captain about unjustly search and seizure, they walk out of the captains ready room. The homophobe says "look at the trouble you got us into." And the gay man says "well at least we both came out of the closet, together." and smirks.
And perhaps another scene could be they need to get up a latter. The homophobe insists the gay man goes first. When asked why, he says " because I don't feel comfortable with you staring at my ass the whole way up."
"Just because I'm gay you think I go around staring at every man's ass?"
"maybe not every man's ass, but at least all the good asses."
"and you think your ass is one of those asses?"
"well yeah. What? You don't think I have a nice ass"
"do you want me to tell you that you have a nice ass?"
"Hell no!"
"than why would you ask?"
"just shut the hell up and go up the latter first!"
"oh so you can look at my cute firm gay ass?"
"what!?"
"yeah, you play all homophobic, tell me I have to climb this latter so I can't check you out, and all the while you're staring right at my ass the whole way up, because deep down inside, you want it."
The homophobe's face gets blood red, he's about to go on a screaming tirade when their superior officer shouts down "I don't care which ass goes first, but both of you get your asses up here before I have the two of you reprimanded!"
Now I am not suggesting scenes like this be present in every episode, but maybe 2 or 3 times a season we get a scene like this.
What do you guys think about that? What do you think of the character dynamic between the gay and the homophobe?
Would it produce entertainment, while advancing the presence of gays? Or would the fact that a few people left in the universe who aren't 100% accepting of homosexuality, work against your homo-normative agenda?
I'll second that opinion.
I've seen said video, and it very definitely isn't her. The girl bears only a slight resemblance to Hannigan, but the dead give away is her voice, which isn't anything lemotely like Alyson's. And then there's the fact that it's fairly obviously a pro porn shoot with a full crew, and most obviously not a "home video" shoot.Loved it when her home porn video got "leaked."
Well, yeah, OK, but I think we're splitting hairs at this point, considering everyone knows there is a link/association between transgenderism and homosexuality.T'Girl said:
If you disagree, than you disagree. I'm not going to split hairs on this.
well, if homos can be married, and they can adopt, and parents have a pre-existing right to genetically engineer their offspring, and in this society there is no disadvantage to being gay, and it's even possible to genetically engineer homosexuals and heterosexuals, than sure, OK.T'Girl said:
I can't put my finger on it, but there is something unsettling about that scenario. I don't know, I can see some comedian on TV saying "did you hear about the lesbians that genetically modified their kid? Yeah, they decided to have a kid, but because mother nature said no, they decided to get artificially inseminated, but they weren't through kicking mother natures ass, they decided to modify the kid's DNA, and then... then the modification they insisted on was to make the kid homosexual, talk about rubbing salt in Mother Nature's wounds, she just got raped more than the Chicago Bears last week."
I dunno. Just sounds weird to me. But again, if all other factors mentioned are within the boundaries of the law, than why not.
Of course enough generations of this homo engineering and you'd have the youths of America swapping their "born this way" t-shirts for "engineered this way" t-shirts.
T'Girl said:
You got a point, but not really a good one.
The DSM didn't exist in 1942. I know, you said the APA declared yada yada.
Furthermore homosexuality was listed as a disorder before then, though I honestly don't know if was by APA, and I am just too tired to google it right now. I remember reading about some research on homosexuality and moral insanity (can't even remember if they were supposed to be linked) that took place in 1894. Actually come to think of it, it was not considered a disorder, it was being researched to determine if it qualified as a disorder. never mind.
Alright, so before 1942 it wasn't called a disorder, but I think what you may be over looking is that more than half the diseases we have today weren't disorders back then.
There was no ADD/ADHD or a lot of the stuff people are diagnosed with. Basically there was hysteria, schizophrenia, catatonia, Manic Depression (I don't think bipolar I and II were around then though I may be mistaken) there was neurosis and egodystonic category disorders (I honestly don't remember which illnesses went in there).
But my point is, in the early 1900's there wasn't a whole lot of things called mental illness. There was just what ever was "popular" and could make money treating, and then there was "you're bat shit crazy".
If you're really shooting for "homosexuality is not a mental illness" I think you're better shouting "psychology is a crock" which it is. But again, saying that homosexuality was not considered a disorder for the majority of psychology, is a bad argument because most of the popular behavioral labels people are given didn't exist until 1952, with the printing of the first DSM
But the point that Homosexuality wasn't listed as a mental disorder back then doesn't mean much considering a lot of stuff wasn't listed (or invented) back then.
And the reason I ever brought it up in the first place is to make the point that "some people consider it a mental illness" and these people are not making "baseless" assumptions. Although you may disagree with their conclusions, it isn't baseless. And secondly, i pointed out it's removal was a political maneuver, not based on new evidence, or a new psychology paradigm, or a terminology shift, but a political maneuver. And so people who still consider it a disease, are still not being baseless on how they came to such a conclusion.
T'girl said:
What! you're kidding, there is a home sex video of Alyson Hannigan leaked? OMG this is too good to be true. I got to find it.
T'Girl, you wouldn't happen to have it would you?
Look, here's the deal, I'll give you two bars of gold pressed latinum. Three bars if you toss in a lobe job.
Oh yeah, and another thing I wanted to mention about my surveys and polls. I did some research when I was in my late teens and early twenties, and determined that 99% of women were lesbians. My method of survey was flawless I tell you. I asked out every beautiful woman I seen, and each one that turned me down, must have done so because she was a lesbian. again, flawless methodology.
Sorry T'Girl.
The only way might be if it was a woman to man, packing a huge...um...heart
Now that's some find quality Trek right there.
<citation needed>
That's news to me.
I think it would earn it an R-rating right there just for language.
I prefer PG-rated Star Trek, I don't want to have to stay up till 10 pm to catch a Star Trek Episode because they foul mouthed it. This is what basically happened to Battlestar Galactica.
You know you can record stuff.
I think you can make a good science fiction show without restricting it from children. After all the Children are our future, and Star Trek is about the Future. I can't have lewdness and sexually suggestive language cause the show to be restricted from children to watch. I think it was pretty bad what they did with BSG, it used to be on cereal boxes, and there was a line of Battlestar Galactica toys, with the new series, because of the vulgar languages and graphic violence, its for adults only.
I don't want Star Trek going the adults only route, and give up that lucrative toy line besides.
Yeah, flipping the bird in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home really created a problem for it at the box office.
Not to mention the language. "Double dumbass on you!" Ow, my ears!
Not to mention the language. "Double dumbass on you!" Ow, my ears!
I've seen said video, and it very definitely isn't her.Loved it when her home porn video got "leaked."
Yup, that one was blatantly obivous as a fake, and debunked in less than a day by those who how double check these things anyway.
Besides, I prefered Amber Benson back in the day.
- Status
Similar threads
