I just popped "gay demographics" into Google and grabbed a few that came up. I didn't see a need to go any further because it proves the point. Which is...
As we have seen, even the definition of homosexuality isn't consistent from study to study. Therefore an expansive or restrictive definition of the term could expand or contract the percentage obtained as the result of such a study.
... that it's remarkable how consistant your chosen studies are, re: prevalence of homosexuality. Except for Gebhard & Johnson's re-evaluation of the Kinsey data -- they seem to be, according to you, pretty accurate in everything else they found, except that: their prevalence statistic seems to have been abit inconvenient.
The results are not bull's eye consistent, but they all point in the same direction.
One wouldn't know that from your essay. Or your follow-up arguments with madg,which seems to consist of "since 100% of squares are rectangles, therefore 100% of rectangles are squares" -- the presence or absence of pathological conditions in a population with a given characteristic is irrelevant to whether or not said given characteristic is in and of itself a pathological condition.
Josh, I've left out other Kinsey findings that were wildly inconsistent with the findings of other, more methodologically sound studies such as the Dutch NEMESIS study (published in the Archives of General Psychiatry in January 2001, and linked in my Post #370).
Kinsey didn't conduct just one survey. The second half of his entire adult life was devoted to one study after another. The first was very large and wildly inaccurate. But it's the source of that 10% figure that has been so comforting to so many homosexuals.
Reporting all of the studies done by Kinsey that were reviewed by Gebhard and Johnson, and found to be flawed methodologically, would do us about as much good as a detailed analysis of Cameron's lifespan studies based on obituaries. In other words, no good at all. I concentrated on that portion of the Kinsey data that is valid.