Posted on 12/07/2004 6:56:46 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
August 9, 2004 - An Australian medical ethics expert told an audience at a marriage conference recently that homosexuals are excluding themselves from marriage and family by refusing to join the great "circle of life."
Dr. David van Gend told the audience, "By its very nature, homosexuality has excluded itself. It has stepped outside the circle of life--the timeless, endless natural circle of male and female, parent and offspring."
He notes that the origins of homosexual behavior are complex, but "whatever its origins, the outcome of homosexuality is best understood as a very complex state of confusion over sexual identity."
Van Gend cites the National Health and Social Life Survey published in 1994 in the U.S. In this survey, 8% of the 16-year-olds thought they were gay--but, "significantly, that by age 18 only 4% still thought they were gay, and by age 25, only 2 percent still thought they were gay. What that means is that most sexual confusion in school children clears away if left to iteslf. It doesn't need therapy or counseling. It is a passing phase..."
CNSnews.com has more details on this story: "Homosexuals Are Excluding Themselves From Marriage, Family." The Thomas More Centre in Brisbane has posted a speech on homosexuality from a medical perspective by Dr. van Gend on its web site: Thomas More Centre.
There is nothing mythical about homoerotic behavior amongst animals. The whole silly controversy revolves about the motivations for the behavior and the qualification of a 'homosexual personality' (or lack thereof). The actual existence and extent of homoerotic animal sexual behavior is beyond serious dispute.
That animals exhibit more rudimentary forms of the same capacity evident in humans is hardly unexpected, and typical of any behavior in humans. The "animal/homosexuality myth" proofs establish nothing more than that..
A more interesting question is why some cultures seek to justify human homoerotic behavior by pointing to animal prototypes, whereas others seek to condemn human homoerotic behavior for the same reason. Both are evident in this very thread, in fact.
Cite sources, please. All the figures I've seen (Gutmacher and others) have between roughly 1.5 and 2.7%.
I have *never* seen anything more than 4% and even that is iffy. *8%*? I seriously doubt that one.
Indeed. There are some who will say anything to change the subject. The article states:
He notes that the origins of homosexual behavior are complex, but "whatever its origins, the outcome of homosexuality is best understood as a very complex state of confusion over sexual identity."That is exactly the problem - homosexuality is sexual confusion. Former homosexuals have been saying this for years but some folks don't want to listen. Others will go so far to deny their existence.
When somebody tries to change the subject we get a good view of where they stand on the subject. They'll rant on and on about non-related topics, squirming and twisting trying to tie them in, and this to save face because they look really ignorant when all the facts are known. It's called misdirection.
You've probably noticed their point has nothing to do with the sexual confusion in homosexuals or the fact that homosexuals leave the lifestyle (the points in the article).
Please cite your source.
I meant to say, credible source. Something that hasn't been discredited.
One source is the very NHSLS study that inspired this thread. The percentage of men who reported having engaged in homosexual activity since the age of 18 was 4.9% .. as I mentioned previously, the figures given before (which were the 'gay identity' percentages, which are always lower than actual homosexual behavior) were an average of men and women. Men almost always report higher levels of homosexual activity (in fact, I would go so far as to say that any study which produces a higher figure for women is therefore suspect).
The widely cited Centers for Disease Control and Alan Guttmacher Institute surveys seem representative of less sophisticated approaches that consistently report figures of about one percent to the virtually meaningless question of exclusively homosexual lifelong behavior and between three to four percent for the narrowly focused criterion of homosexual intercourse in the preceding five or ten year period. It's also worth noting that I do not accept the assumption that the percentage of homosexuals is roughly static over time.
I have cited the NHSLS. The 1992 Janus Report also arrived at about a 4% figure for reporting of homosexual identity. A series of exit polls since 1998 have also consistently give 3-5% gay/lesbian reporting amongst voters (you may decide for yourself how credible you consider that).
Note also that I am consistent in specifying that these are percentages that actually report the activity/identity. My assumption is that no one who is not homosexual reports themselves to be, and that some who are do not.
If you define the parameters more narrowly, then you can get figures less than 4% - so I should've accounted for that. Let me also reiterate once again that I do not conflate male and female homosexuality, so any combined averages are meaningless in my estimation.
What's amazing is all the expert opinion by some here that ignores what science tells us about homosexuality. How homosexuality develops, and how homosexuals leave the lifestyle is key to understanding the entire issue, but some here apparently refuse to even acknowledge what science tells us.
Hmm, less sophisticated. I wonder what exactly that means. And when you say you don't accept that numbers of homosexuals are static, do you mean because people become "former" homosexuals - i.e., quit engaging in same sex behavior, and/or self-identifying as homosexuals?
Another point is this: the 4.9 figure apparently means (if accurate, which is debatable) any men who have had any same sex behavior since the age of 18, even if it was once, at age 18, and now the man is 40. So in this case, former homosexuals would also count among the 4.9%.
Counting former homosexuals is not accurate. Using that logic, I would be counted among drug users and alcoholics, since I used to be a user, albeit 35 years ago. Is that rational?
Less sophisticated means less effective at deriving meaningful results. If it is known that a significant number of people who engage in homosexual behavior do not consider themselves homosexual, then you cannot arrive at a reasonable estimate of homosexual behavior by asking only about homosexual identity. Moreover, if it is known that the vast majority of those who engage in homosexual behavior have also engaged in heterosexual behavior at some point, then you cannot arrive at a reasonable estimate of homosexual behavior by reporting only those who have not engaged in heterosexual behavior.
As I stated, it depends on how you define your parameters, there is no doubt about that. The figure of adult men who reported an actual homosexual identity in NHSLS was in the 3rd percentile iirc, but as I stated I do not have the exact figures here with me. If you want my own, personal assessment of everything I've researched, the percentage of men with a homosexual identity is between 4% to 5% and the percentage of those who have engaged in homosexual behavior enough to be deemed bisexual at least at one point is between 6% to 8% (including the 4-5%).
Let me add that I tend to be more interested in activity than identity so when I'm trying to be brief I sometimes don't do a great job of distinguishing.
You didn't cite it in post 241 (to me) so I had to look to find it in post 15 which you posted to Laissez-faire capitalist. I have better things to do than look through every post to find what you've previously said, so please be kind enough to reference a post number.
As I see it, since the ratio of men and women are approximately 50/50, combining male and female homosexuality is fairly close, closer than inaccurate polls. When I cite the 2.1 percentage, I will always try to expand that to include specifics... that is: 1.4% female and 2.8% male, including bisexuals.
I've read stats compiled and posted at homosexual sites that don't include bisexuals, and the highest percentage of the population identifying as homosexual is 1.5% with some lower than .5% And this at homosexual websites.
Everything I've read indicates the numbers are quite low, and the number of former homosexuals are growing.
If you are implying that I, myself, ignore what science tells us about how homosexuality develops or gets abandoned by some, then I'm not sure what you're basing that on, since I don't think I've made any comment about etiology in this thread.
On the other hand, I think it's quite valid to criticize my slight tendency to favor surveys with higher levels of reporting than lower levels, since that is based on my assumption that in contemporary society survey respondents are on average more likely to underreport than to overreport.
Of course, when I'm writing more formally I am much more precise and qualified in my very limited discussion of percentages, especially since that's such a hot topic. I actually think it's a trivial distraction from more serious inquiries, and if it were all up to me I would simply say: "Perhaps 5%, maybe slightly less, of adult American men could be said to be 'gay' as commonly understood" and then move on.
I wasn't! Sorry for the confusion.
Please remember our freep mail conversation a few weeks ago - we're a lot alike when we post, and I'm busier than ever working about 18 hours a day this week.
Let me just add one more thing, if you define homosexual as someone who (a) reports homosexual behavior AND (b) reports homosexual desire AND (c) reports a homosexual identity, then I would put that figure at 2.5% to 3.0% of adult men.
Would you say that includes those who identify as bisexuals?
OK, just making sure.
BTW, I want to go ahead and revise my comment #253 a bit to read: "Perhaps 5%, probably somewhat less, of adult American men could be said to be 'gay' as commonly understood".. It puts a little more emphasis on the lesser part!
In my assessment it would include some who identify as bisexuals, but not all.
I also wanted to go back and clarify that the highest 8% figure I gave earlier would need to be arrived at by including: (a) those who express significant homosexual desire but have never acted on it; as well as (b) those who consider themselves heterosexual but have engaged in significant homosexual behavior at some point. Most people would (I think correctly) not consider that an accurate gauge of "how many people are homosexual?" but I was trying to include all possible interpretations when I made that comment.
OK, one last quick note: I've done a really piss-poor job of writing clearly in my last several posts. If you can figure out what I'm really saying, then I'm impressed. LOL
Time for a break..
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.