We choose to set up a category not previously seen as inclusive, namely 'gay', and naturally can't define it, since its main use is to stand in for serious political commitment, a sort of displacement activity. Some people sometimes make love with people of the same sex, some people always do, and who knows how he/she will feel tomorrow? This is a daft discussion.
Gobeithiaw y ddaw ydd wyf.
Guru
What people are trying to tell you is that it totally depends on how you define "gay". And that you have to recognize that any given definition will have flaws, in part because of the cultural bias against homosexuality.Originally Posted by sec
It's like trying to define "unemployed." Do you include everyone who doesn't have a job? Or only those people who actually want a job? How about people who are working part-time? What about people who are underemployed relative to their skill level?
That's why the government publishes multiple measures of unemployment. Each measure accurately measures what it sets out to measure; but none of the measures by themselves give a full picture of unemployment.
So draw the line somewhere. Define gay as "anyone who has gay sex", knowing your count will include bisexuals and experimenters, and exclude gay celibates. Define gay as "anyone who self-identifies as gay", knowing your count will exclude people who are either repressing their sexuality or are unwilling to identify as gay in a survey.
Or take multiple measures, describe the flaws in each, and look for a ballpark figure.
Last edited by raytri; Jun 22 2012 at 12:39 PM.
Man up.
Think. *Then* post.
Guru
Here's Gallup explaining the problem:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what...ation-gay.aspx
I think the NGLTF estimate is probably the best, given the uncertainties: 3-8%.In his 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Alfred Kinsey shocked the world by announcing that 10% of the male population is gay. A 1993 Janus Report estimated that nine percent of men and five percent of women had more than "occasional" homosexual relationships. The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. So who's right -- what percentage of the population is homosexual?
It may be that no one will ever know for sure. To some people, homosexuality is a matter of perception and definition. Furthermore, many people have trouble admitting their homosexuality to themselves, much less to a researcher.
Man up.
Think. *Then* post.
wolfsgirl liked this post
Guru
Nobody said marketing was easy
I think we already have pretty good estimates... There are a variety of different definitions of "gay", and the particular definition that you choose will likely depend on your purpose.
do you think it possible to ascertain the true gay population or at least within a reasonable % ?
You, as a pharmaceutical company representative or the CDC, will likely use 5-7% estimate of people who are actively engaging in same-sex behavior during the last 5 years.
You, as a marketer for a marriage venue that performs gay weddings, will likely use the 1.7-2.0% of people who identify as gay.
You, as a psychologist interested in the amount of social services needed for gay youth, might use a different number based on same-sex attraction... as many gay youth will neither identify as such, nor have engaged in same-sex behavior.
You, as a psychologist interested in the sexual practices of the population, will likely use the life-time prevalence estimates at well over 7%.
None of the definitions or estimates are wrong, they're just measuring slightly different things... who's slight differences can be quite relevant depending on the purpose.
Again, yes, depending on your purpose I do believe we can come up with reasonable estimates, but at the same time no estimate will be perfect... there's a hidden segment. Broadly speaking, I'd say "gay" includes those who identify as gay + those who have same-sex behavior but don't identify as gay + those who don't identify as gay and don't have same-sex behavior, but have repressed attractions. That last segment could be particularly difficult to estimate, although I believe life-time prevalence estimates for homosexual behavior can be a good proxy for estimating the amount of the population with repressed homosexual attraction. Lifetime prevalence is quite high, although is largely irrelevant for most purposes that wish to study the homosexual population.
Last edited by JeffLV; Jun 22 2012 at 12:52 PM.
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.
Do heterosexuals share similar political leanings based on the fact that they're heterosexual? Seems obvious to me that they don't, but feel free to submit an opposing argument if you have one that will enlighten us. Likewise on their consumer habits.
If there's a strong political leaning in one direction among the majority of gay and bisexual people, it can perhaps be attributed to the difference between the parties on issues related to sex and family life. But I think it's a mistake to assume the majority of gay and bisexual people form their political leanings solely around those issues. I personally am not a one issue voter, and while I can be very turned off by politicians who have what I perceive to be an anti-gay voting record, and who have aligned themselves with anti-gay groups (AFA, NOM, FRC, FOTF, the rest of the Arlington Group), which generally means Republicans, that doesn't mean I'm at all excited about the policies of the other side in other areas, generally meaning Democrats.
Regarding what I consider to be the myth of "gay disposable income", that has generally been associated with the idea that gay people don't form families and raise children; something that becomes less and less true all the time. It also neglects other demographic factors, like the economic class one is born into, the opportunities (or lack thereof) one has for obtaining an education, job experience, etc. and individual levels of talent and ambition. Not to mention that women often don't enjoy pay equality, which tends to put the oft-ignored lesbians at something of a disadvantage, generally speaking.
Consumption habits vary widely, too. There are gay people who live far beyond their means, and others who are well off that save rather than spend. Just doesn't seem like this is something driven by orientation to me. If there's a driver, it's a company's record on treatment of their gay workers and what we can find out about the political leanings of their owners. HRC publishes an annual list to help guide people in that respect, (though I tend to ignore favorable ratings for companies with a prior record of bad behavior. I'm just not that forgiving).
Selling me something 'gay' related probably isn't going to net you much. Having the fortitude to put your money where your mouth is in support of organizations fighting on my behalf and in your advertising <- much more likely to at least get my attention, but not necessarily my loyalty. I'm not going to buy crap just because the person selling it is gay-positive. Crap is crap is crap.
Not necessarily. Since there are so few of us, there are fewer "fish" in our "sea" as compared to heterosexuals - especially for those of us who don't live in cities with thriving gay populations.
As far as I'm concerned, most of the stuff "known" about gay people as a demographic applies to young, gay, white, male, city dwellers. Hardly any of it applies to me. Apparently I'm my own "niche".
To anti-gay bigots: Don't bother disrespecting me, as I've probably already ignored you. To some, "we will never be, never be anything but loud and nitty gritty, dirty, little freaks". Search YouTube for "Lily Allen" & "Gay Collab"; you'll find collaborations by people in several countries expressing my ultimate opinion of your attitude problem.
I'm an independent and consider 'Left vs. right', 'liberal vs. conservative', 'Democrat vs. Republican' partisan hackery unworthy of my time.
Ditto. It really grinds my gears when people try to characterize anti-discrimination law as if it were affirmative action.
While hate crime law is general in the same way anti-discrimination law is, I don't see it as having similar value. A crime is a crime, whether or not it's motivated by hate, and regardless of whether it targets an enumerated trait or something else. I'm not persuaded of its value as a deterrent.
On that point we agree.
This I regard as more stereotype than fact, and as I mentioned in my other post, as more gay couples venture into raising families, the less truth there is to that perception.
Last edited by Perriquine; Jun 22 2012 at 01:19 PM.
To anti-gay bigots: Don't bother disrespecting me, as I've probably already ignored you. To some, "we will never be, never be anything but loud and nitty gritty, dirty, little freaks". Search YouTube for "Lily Allen" & "Gay Collab"; you'll find collaborations by people in several countries expressing my ultimate opinion of your attitude problem.
I'm an independent and consider 'Left vs. right', 'liberal vs. conservative', 'Democrat vs. Republican' partisan hackery unworthy of my time.
Guru
If punishment is meant to be reparative, then the motivations for the crime are certainly important. The "value" of the crime may be no different, but the risk of repeat offense after they are released and the type and effectiveness of reparative treatments before release may be quite different.
The "value" of the crime might also be said to be different based on the fact that a hate crime terrorizes a vulnerable population.
Whether or not any of that has anything to do with how a crime is prosecuted and punished depends on your philosophy of what the criminal justice system is for. If it's just about vengeance, an eye for an eye and paying your dues then hate-crime has no place. If hate-crime has little to do with repeat offense, when hate-crime has no place, I agree. I'm on the fence with hate crimes, where I can see value to them only if they serve a practical purpose, not just a feel-good thing for getting back at the person.
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.
1.7% of a third of a billion people, that's a lot of people...
"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it."- American Philosopher George Santayana
Guru
Well some people are bisexual, meaning they are attracted tlo both sexes. But I would not call them gay. Then there are the number of hetro porn stars who have gay sex for money.....They should not be counted either, since being gay is who you are attracted to and not who you have sex with.
Guru
That is correct.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks