If this was not the aim of their study, since you have a copy of Bell & Weinberg's study at your fingertips, would you care to share with us what was the aim of their study?
Bell & Weinberg posted meticulous, detailed results on a wide array of issues relating to homosexuality. The very same foreword you've cited explains their vigorous efforts to obtain a more representative sample. What was the point?
And is it possible to obtain a representative sample and conduct research from which conclusions may be extrapolated to the entire homosexual and bisexual population? If it's not poossible, why bother to study them at all?
If no one can draw any conclusions from any of their research work, Bell & Weinberg have created an exercise in futility.
And is it possible to obtain a representative sample and conduct research from which conclusions may be extrapolated to the entire homosexual and bisexual population? If it's not poossible, why bother to study them at all?
Without knowing what the entire population of homosexuals and bisexuals is, I don't believe it is possible. That's why I've been harping on your to provide a definition of what a "homosexual" is -- you spent an entire section telling us Kinsey was wrong because only 1-3% of the population identifies as "homosexual", and then the rest of the essay relying on data for people who have behaved homosexually. (To the best of my knowledge, Kinsey studied behavior, not identity.)
Surely you know that there's more people who behave homosexually than identify with it, and if you want to include "bisexuals", identified and/or behavioral, there's another whole set of numbers to confuse things.
Why study them? Because those studies are generally accurate for the circumstances under which they were taken.