Posted on 11/25/2008 6:44:36 AM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan
Can you read? This is a myth, but welcome to FR and say hi to the peeps at DU for us.
It is a fact that SF is only slightly above 15% queer. Do you research, become better informed.
Most of the ones I know aren't. Once again the ones you see are the attention/media whores. And you see plenty of them.
It depends on where you live- homosexuals tend to cluster in gay-friendly communities. Which makes sense- it would really suck to be gay in rural Oklahoma.
But there is no way homosexuals are 10% of the general population. I suppose we can stretch the definition of who is a homosexual, but I would limit it to someone who is exclusively sexually attracted to their own gender. I've seen studies that suggest maybe 2-3% of the population falls into this category.
I wasn't as bright as you. I simply thought, "dang, I'm not normal," not really thinking whether it was something I could have controlled. I just was shocked to hear that all of my friends were having those thoughts that I didn't have!
There was a young lady (freshman) I had as a student at a prominent research university. She was one of the most innocent-looking--and truly innocent--young ladies I have known. (I got to know her because she was diligent in her studies and asked for help often.)
She was also very pretty, classy in her dress, with gorgeous golden hair, but her shy, conservative, distant demeanor kept guys at bay, I'm sure.
I barely recognized her when I saw her on the street a couple of years later. She had shaved off her hair to a severe cropping, and was wearing dumpy clothes, no makeup, and a scowl. Turns out, she had taken a Womens Studies course to fulfil a humanities requirement, and had been indoctrinated fully.
I asked about her and what was new, and she replied with a litany of radical feminist dogma. My friend asked her details about the rhetoric she was reciting, and she had none. This was the young lady who insisted on learning the basis for everything in science class, now a man-hating zombie, spewing propaganda without questioning.
My heart aches even now as I recall that. I hope that she has since moved out of that phase and is a happy person again.
I think that also depends on where you are.
What concerns me is the number of people that are practicing heteros yet vote in favor of gay marriage. In California 48 percent of the people voted for it. I think there are a lot of people still in closets or people that are curiously sympathetic to sodomites.
Nope. They just have lots of money and no families to care for so they like to mess it up a bit. It just makes it seem like they are everywhere.
Exactly right. Even pro-homosexuality teachers and psychologists and psychiatrists will admit that.
It's a way to get attention, it's a fad, it's a way to rebel, it's a new way to "express onesself," it's a way to express "pseudo-uniqueness" (faux individualism, while not truly leaving the peer group), it's a way to explain "I'm not understood," etc, fulfilling many typical attitudes and emotional needs of youth.
I believe th 1-2% level
Interestingly enough probably 20-25% (conservative estimate) of the crap coming out of Hollywood features homosexual entertainment of some sort.
They are 2% of the population - they just make 80% of the noise. ;)
Meaning 14% are not.
Many women are attracted to women, and I can't blame them--women are beautiful creatures. :-) I also know women who aren't attracted to women yet say they can easily see how others are. So that's a large chunk of the population with empathy for those with these sexual desires.
But a lot of the disconnects are based on definitions of "homosexuality." I prefer using a term like "homophilia" for those who are attracted to same sex, with "homosexual" for those who act upon the attractions. But even that doesn't get to the definitional question...what about those who "tried it" but don't continue? Activists twist Kinsey's numbers to include them as "homosexual."
I also think a being a victim of abuse tends to lead to some of this.
I think the more interesting number in these sexual statistics is the number of practicing celibates. The number is a real 10%, defined as the number of adults who haven’t had any sex for over a year.
I thought once of promoting this group as a political faction. Think of the pluses. They produce no unwanted pregnancies or diseases. Rape no one. Leave little kids alone. Should make for a worthy platform, but then I’d have to give up sex myself. Too high a price.
But celibates sure are underrepresented in the media.
My definition of homosexual is anyone who is sexually attracted only to members of their own sex. I don't think that behavior is relevant- a celibate homosexual is still a homosexual, just as a celibate heterosexual is still a heterosexual.
The percentage of the population that is exclusively homosexual is probably very small, but there is probably a larger (but still fairly small) percentage of the population that is bisexual, to a lesser or greater extent.
No matter what a queer is still a queer.
I almost fell out of my chair. The same folks who ardently believe that evolution is the only explanation for how we got here, are trying to tell us that an evolutionarily dead-end practice is common throughout nature.
"Every animal species".? Hmmm...I'm pretty sure there's no sodomy in the Grizzly Bear, Mule Deer, or Alligator "communities". How about those cute little Rabbits. Everyone knows how much they like to do it, why not a little "gay bunny love"? Unless they also breed to pass along their genes (which, I guess by gay logic, would make the animals "bi"), it's an aberrant, one-generation phenomenon, and homosexual animals would have died out millions of generations ago.
Which means it must be something other than an inherited trait, or a "gene". From a strictly evolutionary perspective, there's no way for a "trait" that prevents/precludes transmission of one's genes to be passed along for any significant period of time. Again, it's a dead end.
Hmmm... maybe that means it's not genetic. Maybe that really means that it's a behavior? Ya think? Can't have that, because then they'd have to look at themselves as responsible for their own behavior. And when your behavior is risky, self-destructive, and outside of the norms of the society in which you live, who wants to be pestered by that revelation? Or, you could surreptitiously and/or violently overturn those pesky norms, and force everyone to accept you, evoking your very own little evolutionary regression (devolution?).
I pretty much quit watching O'Reilly that moment, because he never said a word to her about her ridiculous statement, letting it pass into the lexicon of contemporary "tolerance" mythology.
Anyway, the ten-percent thing is, and always will be, BS. It's two to maybe three-percent, tops. It just seems like more because they are the loudest voices in the room, and because they thrust themselves into the limelight (with the willing help of the Tolerance Mafia).
Homosexuality is not a race and as far as a natural occurance would go it would be classifed as a defect. Scientifically speaking and species that cannot procreate will soon become exticnt.
It seems that 10% figure is right—on TV that is.
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.