Gay population in the USA....1.7%...less than 2%

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/7/study-sees-gays-as-17-percent-of-population/

the article is a year old but the number is similar to the Gay Times article which I've posted several times.

What is of interest is that there is a number who also report to having engaged in gay sex. Would you count them as being gay?

Do you accept the less than 2% number or should those who engage in gay sex also be counted?

what do you see as the reason that the number is much lower than the 3-5% which has wrongly been tossed around?

 

No, I wouldn't consider a person who sumitted once as a gay person. I also don't care about the numbers. Gay people are a group, regardless of the size, whose unique problems and needs should be considered seriously and addressed when appropriate.

 

but the number does seem to be skewed because of the confusion. If a person has gay sex, but refuses to accept that they are homosexual should they not still be counted? I'm not saying that the college girls who are drunk and put on a display are gay but if they continuously do it, then yes.

 

I think that ALL of the studies on the homosexual population are flawed.

One simple reason is the stigma attached to labeling yourself as a homosexual. Many people have sex with people of the same sex, but won't self identify as gay.
This study and most others are based on self identification.

 

then you agree that the criteria for homosexuality is the act itself. I agree with that and believe if counted correctly the number may well be near the 5% we hear about.

 

No the criteria (in my opinion) is attraction to people of the same sex. There are self identifying homosexuals that have never has sex.
I don't think that there is a way to get an accurate count. The only thing you have to go on is self identification.

It really doesn't matter, because we are all American citizens, and should be treated equally in the eyes of the laws of this country.

 

Then you'd be counting bisexuals who don't identify as gay, and you'd be failing to count gay people who aren't sexually active.

In other words, counting the number of people who have engaged in same-sex behavior is a much broader category and a different thing from counting those who experience an enduring same-sex attraction. The latter can only be counted by self-identifying.

Similarly, counting the number of people involved in a same-sex relationship is different from counting the number of people in a same-sex relationship whose feelings of attraction are primarily directed toward the same-sex. "Same-sex couples" include combinations of gay/gay, gay/bisexual, and bisexual/bisexual couples. The state of experiencing attraction that is not enduringly differentiated very strongly toward one sex as compared to the other doesn't mean a person must be in a relationship with members of both sexes.

Final observation: I'm not sure why it matters what the percentage is. I would posit as true that what one counts would be tied to the purpose of counting, and using that count to make observations beyond the original purpose of the count is automatically suspect.

 

on this we definitely agree and thus why I am against any affirmative action type program where one special interest group is given protected status

to the number, it is good for any special interest to be able to clarify the size of the group. It helps us evil capitalists who like to target niche markets if they are under-served. It also helps politicians who want to pander to special interests.

To target market to 4-5 million people doesn't get my blood moving. But, if that market is more like 10-15 million and is under-served, then that is an interesting market.

 

to the 2 points underlined

that is why identifying those who have engaged in the act is important. I would venture to guess that those who claim to be bi would share similar political leanings as well as consumer habits as those who claim to be gay. They should be counted.

WRT to those who are not engaged in the sexual act that would be the older folk who were once sexually active and thus should be counted.

Demographics intrigue me and thus why I made this thread.

 

I agree on affirmative action. People should be evaluated for themselves, not any group factor.
I'm kinda up in the air on hate crime laws. Any violent crime is caused by hate IMHO, but I can see how targeting someone based on a characteristic of their group can terrorize other people belonging to that group.

As far as marketing I would think disposable income would be more important than a head count. Homosexuals tend to have more disposable income than many other groups, or so I have read.

 

The reason is just as you've stated, there are many different ways to define "gay". I don't think 3-5%+ numbers have been "wrongly" tossed around, except to the extent that you disagree with how the being "gay" is defined. The higher estimates, anywhere between 5 and 10% are life-time prevalence numbers, not snapshots at a point in time.

Are you gay if you identify as gay?
Are you gay if you have same-sex attractions which you may have never acted on?
Are you gay if you have had sex with someone of the same sex EVER, or only if you have done so recently?
When you are estimating the "gay" population, are you using the life-time prevalence, or only the prevalence at this point in time?
At what age are you asked to identify your behavior/attractions? If a 13 year old virgin is asked if he's had gay sex, and he's said no because he's a virgin, does that make him straight or could he still be gay?

I would not say any single definition is wrong, it just has to be understood for what it is. Even among reputable & professional studies, there is no standard definition used. IMO, the "correct" definition largely depends on the purpose of the study.

For example, the Center for Disease Control & Prevention uses "Has engaged in same-sex activities in the last 5 years for men over the age of 13, regardless of sexual identity or attraction". And this definition makes sense for those who are concerned strictly about the spread of STD's around those who engage in same-sex sexual behavior. But a substantial number of minors 13-18 have not had sex, and will thus be excluded from the that statistic. Consequently, psychologists and those who want to understand the extent and nature of problems that gay youth face would likely use a different definition.... either identity, or same-sex attraction, regardless of if they've had sex or not. There are practical reasons for using one definition vs another, but I agree that these statistics are often misused and misrepresented, mostly by those who don't understand the difference between the statistics that aren't actually measuring the same thing.

 

The act itself is a strong indicator, but it's not the sole criteria IMO... depending on the purpose of course. There are many adults who have never had gay sex for fear of the stigma, not until many years later when they finally come out of the closet. There are also many teenagers who are virgins, some of whom have same-sex attractions and some of whom have opposite-sex attractions.

IMO, it's the same-sex attraction that is the definitive criteria when we want to measure the population as a whole. This is especially true of gay youth, who we may wish to study in order to help them deal with the social stigmas they face... if we only included gay youth who have had gay sex, we'd be missing a huge portion of the population. Similarly, if we only included youth who identified as gay, we'd be missing a huge portion of the population. Thus this population would include those who identify as gay + those who have gay behavior + those who have strong same-sex attractions, but have not acted on them nor identify themselves as gay. That last group will be especially difficult to survey and quantify, but the life-time prevalence of homosexual behavior will likely get us pretty close... nevertheless it can only be estimated by proxy.

But as I said before, the definitions are only as useful as their purpose.... The CDC can continue to rely strictly on the behavioral definition, including only those who have had gay sex recently because it makes sense for their purposes.

So I guess the first question to ask when we're deciding what the correct definition is, what is the purpose of measuring in the first place?

 

Of course, no one is contemplating giving gays "special rights." They are contemplating prohibiting discrimination (in marriage, among other things) on the basis of sexual orientation. That disallows discrimination for/against *any* sexual orientation: straight, gay, a, bi.

The "one special interest group" claim is old, tired and long discredited.

Traditionally, gay couples have tended to be more well off than the average, with high average disposable income (thanks to both partners working, and being less likely to have children). Gay male couples, in particular, do well, benefiting from the gender gap in pay that favors men. That makes them a particularly desirable demographic in some industries -- they basically have a very high percentage of DINKs (Double Income, No Kids).

That's changing a lot, as gays increasingly have or adopt kids and one or the other chooses to be a stay-at-home parent. But absent discrimination, gay couples will probably continue to have more disposable income, on average, than non-gay couples, because more of them fit the DINK profile.

 

bisexuals can do either or both, they are the only ones with a choice

 

I'd argue that sexual orientation is a spectrum, not a series of discrete points. If a pure heterosexual is 100% attracted to the opposite sex, pure homosexuals are 100% attracted to the same sex, and pure bis are 50/50, it stands to reason that there are people who are 90/10, 80/20, and so on.

Someone who was 90/10 hetero could choose a purely hetero lifestyle with little internal difficulty, and might even self-identify as hetero -- particularly if there is a cultural bias against homosexuality.

Someone who was 60/40 hetero would have a much more difficult time being "purely" hetero. Someone who was 90/10 homo might occasionally have opposite-gender sex, but that wouldn't make them hetero. Or even bi, really.

 

Well, since you're looking at this from a consumer standpoint, then perhaps the importance (or lack there of) between the two can be highlighted like this:


Someone who does not identify as gay (or bisexual), but has same-sex behavior is not likely to go to gay events, gay prides, etc. He's not going to buy a gay news magazine, gay romance novel or a rainbow bumper sticker. You won't see him on a gay cruise or on other romantic getaways oriented for homosexual couples. He's not going to be looking for some venue to perform his gay-wedding. This is just not your target audience for measuring market penetration and market size. This guy just has gay sex on occasion, and likely little other involvement. You'll want to market him opportunities to find partners, anonymously... websites for finding sex partners, craigslist, etc. He'll likely want lube and condoms, but he won't want to be market to with rainbow colored labels... he'll want normal "guy" looking products. He'll need doctors/psychologists/etc. that are sensitive to his needs as someone who participates in gay-sex, but whom does not wish to be identified as gay. The CDC will watch this group closely for dangerous behavior and try to target and increase safe-sex among them with marketing campaigns.


This is quite different from someone who identifies as gay, regardless of if he's had gay sex or not. A teenager may not being have sex at all. A 60-70 year old may not be having sex at all. But they may identify as gay nevertheless. These people who identify as gay, but may not be having sex at all may still be interested in attending gay prides, going to gay bars, going on a gay cruise, reading gay magazines, and putting a rainbow colored bumper sticker on their car. They may seek relationship advice and legal advice that would not be necessary for someone who just has casual gay sex... but only necessary for someone romantically involved with same-sex partners. They will go to particular religious institutions that are sensitive to their sexualities, and donate to causes sensitive to them as homosexuals. They will promote gay youth-groups and adult support groups.

Certainly there is a lot of overlap between the two groups, but there are substantial differences as well in terms of how you might segment them from marketing perspective.

 

Agreed, the spectrum is the best way to understand sexuality, particularly in the sense that someone who's "90/10" can effectively identify as and consider themselves 100% heterosexual, when social stigma represses the feelings that they may not even acknowledge. This has much to do with why children who are raised by same-sex households tend to turn out heterosexual/homosexual at the same rate as those raised in opposite-sex households, but they are also more willing to experiment and less likely to label themselves.

 

I also think it tends to explain the disaster of "reparative" therapy. If you get an 80/20 hetero who wants to "fight their gay feelings", you might succeed in getting that person to repress the 20% and self-identify as pure hetero. Buoyed by that success, you turn to your next client, a 60/40 homo. Much more difficult. Or worse, the worried parents of a 90/10 homo send their child your way. Disaster.

That's why reparative therapy can claim some successes -- if repression of feelings counts as "success" -- while overall being pseudoscience and malarkey.

 

good grief,my head hurts

do you think it possible to ascertain the true gay population or at least within a reasonable % ?

 

Aye, there's a subtle difference between changing a homosexual to a heterosexual as opposed to turning a homosexual celibate or repressing the homosexual side of a bisexual.

But it's not entirely fair to say that those who promote reparative therapies truly think they are converting someone from homosexual to heterosexual. Often, the feelings of attraction are irrelevant... religious institutions, etc don't really care what's going on in your mind... it's the homosexual BEHAVIOR that's the sin, not the attraction. So the goal is to reduce or eliminate the same-sex behavior. Thus, cases of celibacy or bisexuals repressing their homosexual tendencies are reported as successes, which completely makes sense according to their said goals. And I don't necessarily fault them for that... people do a variety of weird and repressive things for their religion, this being just one of them. If people wish to become celibate for their religion, so be it.

The problem is when people, usually outsiders looking in, misunderstand the results of such therapies and present it as though a full conversion from homosexuality to heterosexuality has taken place. These therapies often were indeed successful, but only if you agree on the measure of success.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

Here's Gallup explaining the problem:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

I think the NGLTF estimate is probably the best, given the uncertainties: 3-8%.

 

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.

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.

 

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".