The problem here is that the researchers themselves are far from agreement on a definition of what a "homosexual" is. If we limit the definition to non-incarcerated adults who are exclusively having sex with persons of the same gender, it would probably be about 1-2%.
If we expand the definition to include anyone who has ever had sexual contact with, or felt a sexual interest in, another person of the same gender (including current and former prison inmates), it might go as high as 10%.
It seems to me that the logical definition would be limited to persons who are currently attracted to persons of the same gender. This number might be around 2-3%.
The Evelyn Hooker Study and the Normalization of Homosexuality
By Thomas Landess
Evelyn Hooker has been among the most influential figures in the highly successful movement to convince the American people that homosexuality is a "normal variant" of human sexual behavior. Her 1957 study, "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual" (Journal of Projective Techniques, 1957, 21:18-31) is the most frequently cited scientific source for the argument that homosexuality is not a pathology, that homosexuals are as free from mental disorder as heterosexuals.
Such assertions have not only found their way into standard psychology textbooks but have also provided a scientific basis for decisions in major court cases involving the legality of state sodomy laws and prohibitions against homosexual employment in certain state and local agencies (e.g., schools, police departments).
Indeed, when the American Psychiatric Association debated the issue of homosexuality in 1973, Evelyn Hooker's work was Exhibit A for those who wanted to remove homosexuality from the group's list of mental disorders.
For many commentators and activists, the Hooker study effectively ended the debate over whether or not homosexuals were in any way abnormal in their relationships with each other and with the community at large. Today many Americans have accepted the idea that homosexuality is "normal" and "healthy" without realizing that such an opinion is derived in large measure from a single study -- one conducted by a UCLA professor whose previous laboratory subjects had been rats.
In all this extravagant homage to Hooker and her study, several points have escaped her admirers, to say nothing of the federal courts:
1. In her 1957 report, Evelyn Hooker did not use a random sample to test the stability of homosexuals, but allowed gay rights activists to recruit those homosexuals most likely to illustrate her thesis that homosexuality is not a pathology. Individuals who proved unstable were deleted from the final sample.
2. Hooker's published account of how she recruited heterosexual subjects is not consistent with a more detailed later account.
3. Six subjects in her study, three from each group, had engaged in both homosexual and heterosexual behavior beyond adolescence.
4. Hooker made several errors in her mathematical calculations that raise doubts about her care and competence as a researcher.
5. Hooker did not attempt to prove that homosexuals were normal in every way, nor does her study support the idea that homosexuals as a group are just as stable as heterosexuals.
6. Hooker was relatively inexperienced in administering the Rorschach test, and this inexperience may have led to mistakes in the administration and evaluation of the Rorschach.
7. On the Thematic Apperception Test and the Make-A-Picture-Story test -- which require subjects to make up fictional narratives about depicted scenes -- the homosexuals could not refrain from including homosexual fantasies in their imaginary accounts. For that reason, Hooker altered the nature of the study by no longer asking the judges to use the TAT and MAPS in an attempt to determine the sexual orientation of each of the 60 subjects, since the differences were apparent from the narratives.
The solution to that is picking one and sticking with it from data-collection to results-presentation.
If we limit the definition to non-incarcerated adults who are exclusively having sex with persons of the same gender, it would probably be about 1-2%.
See, there's an example of not sticking to a definition. From your essay, 1-2% is the number of people who admit to being "homosexual" on surveys. As a non-scientist, while I believe one can reasonably assume those who identified "homosexual" on the survey are exclusively homosexually-active, one cannot assume that everyone who is exclusively homosexually-active would or did respond such. (Please feel free to correct me if you have sources indicating that only 1-2% are exclusively homosexually-active.)
If we expand the definition to include anyone who has ever had sexual contact with, or felt a sexual interest in, another person of the same gender (including current and former prison inmates), it might go as high as 10%.
It's most certainly much higher, especially with a definition so broad. "The Janus Report", "The Kinsey Report", and "The Hite Report" all put it over 20% just for having a single "homosexual encounter", and that's just off the top of my head. (Aside: "homosexual encounter" is another term that would need to be defined to be meaningful -- would it require orgasm or just physical contact? Would kissing a cheek count, or would the situation have to be overtly sexual? What about two boys pleasuring themselves simultaneously to the same copy of Playboy?)
Whatever the definition, consistancy counts from beginning to end.