The Statistics on Homosexuality and its Effects

You're in San Fransisco?

Hums the X-Files theme song. My, how Scully & Mulder of you, Ripit. The truth is out there.....yes and so are tin foil hat wearing nimrods waiting for the mother ship.

Well, you know what they say "Believe in something or you'll fall for anything"

Guess what?

You fell for 'anything' I hope it wasn't too far a drop, Gracie.

Just like 12 million illegal aliens there is nothing you can do with the billions of gay men and women and children who have been born gay and will grow up and come out.

Gee, I wonder if HIV/AIDS is only a gay man's disease why is it that so many straight men and women have it?

Oh, that's right. Shanghaied by the Gay Navy, set to sea and turned into "The Gay" so they can come back and Shanghai more "innocent" stray, straight, good Bible reading Christians and turn them into "The gay", too.

Good luck with that, Ripit.

Another lovely sage saying---"Keep telling yourself that and someday someone will smack you upside the head and tell you to "Snap out of it!"

Now, where have I heard that---oh yes. Moonstruck.

I think I just found the cure for insomnia. Watch yet another tin foil elephantine smack into the wall of DUH.

Wow !!

What billions of people? I believe his article addressed that statistic.

Wow, amazing how someone (the author) could fixate on and devote so much time to such garbage!

Yes, it is hard to refute statistics, much easier to simply attempt to dismiss.

This seeds shows dam near anything can be passed as fact .... thanks for the reminder of how sad and lawless I should be .... shame so many will believe this crap.

Wow, what utter bs. I'm sure this would be surprising to all of my homosexual friends, the majority of who have somehow managed to live past 45 and are in commited relationships.

Look at your sources and those dates. Somehow I don't trust a "study" in the 80s when back then everyone believed AIDS was a gay disease and started with the gay community (incorrect).

Lies don't help this world.

Uh oh... garbage alert, Ripit :

Wow, looking through the citations, none of which are peer-reviewed, are they -- heck, they aren't even research articles.

One is from a magazine "Medical Journal of Homosexuality" -- there never was a Medical Journal of Homosexuality!

One citation is "Kaifetz, J. "Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some," Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992"... it's a newspaper editorial! It's by a guy who is a religious commentator!

Oh, and the 50% claim -- it's made up.

How about the 78% of homosexuals having STDs? Umm.. a Catholic priest made up the claim -- his name is father Enrique Rueda, who wrote two strongly religious and anti-gay books.

Let's take number 4, by Cameron -- for whom we easily find this lovely snippet : "Dr. Paul Cameron is a tireless anti-gay activist who has played an important roll in encouraging punitive measures against people with AIDS. In 1983, the American Psychological Association dropped Cameron from its membership rolls "for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists." Despite being discredited by reputable social scientists, Cameron has served as an "expert" on homosexuality at numerous right-wing and Religious Right conferences, and was hired as a consultant on AIDS by California Assemblyman William Dannemeyer."

And he's been debunked, not just by individuals in HIS field, but entire organizations, as "Position statements issued by theAmerican Sociological Association and Canadian Psychological Association have accused Cameron of misrepresenting social science research."

The American Psychological Org dropped him.

He was dropped from other organizations because they said that he "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism".

So, Ripit, do you really want to stick to the article when the majority of what you have is non-academic, non-peer-reviewed and of what 5 minutes of my research shows is clearly baseless lies or ignorant opinion sprinkled with a liberal helping of deceit?

Most of the references were from the 80s with the most recent reference being from the early 90s. In this scientific community we call these "out of date" not to mention "filled with bias." Not to mention that his "references" are also poorly done, with some having no publication date or publisher. We call this "plagiarism." Would you like me to continue with the numerous flaws in this article? But I guess this article isn't about truth, its about spreading lies to justify your bigotry and hate.

what a pathetic excuse for a human being. oh well....

Here's why your statistics regarding child molestation are epically--one might say fatally--wrong:

http://jazzman646.newsvine.com/_news/2010/05/26/4360211-the-destruction-of-the-us-military-as-a-fighting-force-by-barack-obama-as-he-rots-the-soul-of-a-nation-?commentId=14541063#c14541063

In a second, I'll try to extract the most salient points for those without the patience to follow the links or read the research.

But first, to dance around a bit on the rest of the fallacies and/or irrelevant statistics:

* One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3)

My wife has had sex only one time with about 50% of her partners. How is this relevant?

* One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime

Averages are, in general, statistically suspect, as they can be skewed by, say, those who married their high school sweethearts, or those who abstained until marriage for religious reasons; it doesn't really compare apples to apples. Among sexually active individuals who weren't saving it, I guarantee you'll find very, very few heterosexuals who had as few as eight partners in a lifetime. I've been married for 14 years; before that, my wife and I each had numbers about double that . . . and we were apparently unusually chaste compared to those with whom we do business.

* Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7)

Um . . . And?

* Many homosexuals don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior" (16)

Homosexuals can be foolish? Oh, do tell. I bet some of them run stop signs, too.

* 25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11)

Then they're doing better than we Irish. :)

* 37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8)

Classes like that are available for all in the BDSM community, many members of which (indeed, most members of which) are straight.

* 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8)

You don't have to tell me they know how to throw a party.

* The Kinsey study of 1948, which homosexuals often cite to say that 10% of the population is homosexual, actually says that only 4% of the population is EXCLUSIVELY homosexual. This study involved a disproportionate number of people who had been in jail for sex crimes (hardly a random sample of the population). Kinsey also did perverse studies involving young boys and pedophiles. Information on Kinsey
* Current research shows that the true percentage of homosexuals is in the 1-2% range (15,23,26,28). Consider how small this number is when compared to most of the numbers above.

Which only takes into account, again, those who engage exclusively and primarily in homosexual activity, and/or those who self-identify as gay. I still think that percentage is low; I'd place that percentage to be around 3-5%.

Nonetheless, what this doesn't account for is those who have periodic homosexual experiences, those who engage in homosexual acts as part and parcel of an otherwise heterosexual lifestyle (like couples who bring third parties in), or those who have engaged in one or more homosexual experiences at some point in their pasts.

* The average yearly income of a homosexual is $55,430.00 (most of which is disposable because no children to take care of!).

As a party in a childless marriage, I can assure you that the absence of marriage doesn't leave much income "disposable."

* 59.6% of homosexuals are college graduates. 18.0% of the general population are college graduates (24). Too bad they aren't smart enough to listen to God. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22)

Irrelevant, since there's no more evidence for the existence of [G/g]od(s) than for the sun being made of cheese.

If you're not going to discriminate based on "sexual orientation", then you must not discriminate against any of the following. Bestiality, pedophile, necrophilia., exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, masochism, sadism, transvestitism, voyeurism. If you discriminate against any of these, you're a hypocrite.

Masochism and sadism are already legal between consenting adults; many married, heterosexual couples do it do avoid the sort of routine, vanilla sex that I can only imagine you're having. As for fetishism, I have more fetishes than anyone I know . . . and there's no law against it.

Consenting adults, in fact, is sort of the key term. The point of frotteurism, exhibitionism, and voyeurism, for instance, is the involvement of a non-consenting party; engaging in these activities is therefore a violation of someone else's right to determine the acts in which he or she engages. That said, consensual approximations of the above are not illegal, nor should they be.

Pedophilia, by definition, victimizes a minor. Or rather, acting upon such impulse victimizes a minor--we are justifiably more concerned with behavior than with proclivity.

As to bestiality and necrophilia . . . I hold them to be immoral, but do not believe they should be illegal. Some say both matters speak to consent, but we don't ask the consent of the beast before eating it, training it to find drugs or lead blind people, saddling it up and riding it, etc.; on what basis, then, do we require its verbal consent for having sex with it? Provided that there's no evidence of "rape"--i.e., the animal doesn't resist; resistance would at least provide a basis for accusation of animal cruelty--I don't see how verbal consent is relevant. Similarly, while we limit decisions as to what can happen with the dead to spouses and families--and such decisions should remain in those hands--the dead don't "consent" to being embalmed or buried, cremated, etc. As such, I think necrophilia should be a matter for civil, not criminal, court, with all charges being pressed by those who would, under current law, have legal custody of the dead parties.

Well I guess you don't like gay people. Understandable given your religious views, but why have homosexuals drawn so much of your wrath today?

There are murderers, rapists, and thieves, children dying by the thousands everyday from hunger alone. I could go on, but all these things are in direct violation of Christian teachings. And yet you target homosexuals.

Not only do you target them, but you ignore many of Jesus' teachings in the process. This disparity between the rhetoric of the Christian community and that of Jesus Christ was what first drove me to second guess Christianity as a lifestyle. I'm sad to see that 15 years later, my intuition remains correct.

Wow that was a pile of crap

I'm gay and not a single one of those statistics fit me....am I a freak?

To BrilliantOratorAndAwesome

No it just means you live in reality.

Goddamn, I really should be getting more sex then according to that statistic ha!

But seriously, you have unleashed the homosexual agenda to the public and now you must face the consequences!

*que the Queen's Greatest Hits on repeat for eternity*

This had me falling around the place laughing, seriously!

A full counter to these flawed statistics can be found here:

Several of the references in the statistics you have posted are from recognized hate groups and people associated with them btw and are not remotely scientific/empirically derived.

Guess it doesn't let you post URLs... oh well, here it is:

Google some of what is below to find the original.

It will be detailed how the sources/references of the information provide in the above link have no validity whatsoever (at least in terms of demonstrating the heterosexist message that the article is designed to convey). Most, if not all of the article involves information that is fabricated, misrepresented or based upon flawed methodology etc (as will be demonstrated).

* The Post/Article that this is responding to will be referred to as "the article" throughout this essay.
* Please note that "heterosexist" is not a derogatory term and is simply a definitionally correct term to use here based upon the article that this response is directed towards.
* Quotes from the article will have a yellow background while quotes from other sources will have a grey one.
* Wikipedia is used a few times during this response but unlike the article, it provides links to it's sources, therefore allowing it's claims to be easily traced and verified.
* Using Ctrl F may work well to find counters to specific references. For example, Ctrl F for (15) should take you to reference 15.
* Under each of the content's sections, the references countered within those sections are listed.

CONTENTS:
~~~~~~~~~

NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES:
1,10,12,17,18,20,22,23,25,27
REFERENCES NOT USED FOR ANY RELEVANT POINT OR NOT USED AT ALL:
14,15,21,23,26,28
AGE OF REFERENCES/SOURCES:
HATE GROUPS, PAUL CAMERON AND MISREPRESENTED STUDIES:
2,3,4,7,8,9,13,19
OTHER REFERENCES:
5,11,16,24,29
SUMMARY:

NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

10 REFERENCES

If you actually look at the references you will see that many of them are from magazines/newspapers. Hardly peer-reviewed scientific research. You can get anything you want from a newspaper/magazine.... members of the public can and do even write in to them and journalists are not scientific researchers... to use them as a source in a serious debate is ludicrous. They are not based upon empirical evidence and are not even expert opinion, they are simply a random person's opinion.
(1) Advocate, 1985
(10) Kaifetz, J. "Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some," Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992
(12) Lesbian News, January 1994
(17) Newsweek, February 1993
(18) Newsweek, 4 October 1993
(20) Rueda, E. "The Homosexual Network." Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982, p. 5
(22) San Francisco Sentinel, 27 March 1992
(23) Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p. 322
(25) "The Overhauling of Straight America." Guide Magazine. November, 1987
*(27) United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989

*Reference 27 is actually just a record of what is said in congress debates. So what it amounts to is that a politician (not a qualified researcher or medical practitioner) once said the things attributed to reference 27. By "once", we mean 22 years ago. Despite being a mere politician, this source is used in the article to make claims about the history of homosexuality and a couple of STIs.

All other references listed above are newspapers or magazines. That is 10 references. Over one third of the references for the article that have no scientific validity whatsoever. This is indicative of what we can expect from the ones that remain.

REFERENCES NOT USED FOR ANY RELEVANT POINT OR NOT USED AT ALL:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

6 REFERENCES

The article Only cited the following 4 references when referring to the population of homosexuals (not for any other points in the article) and 2 of them are 2 of the more reliable looking references:
(15) Morton-Hunt Study for Playboy
(23) Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p. 322
(26) United States Census Bureau
(28) University of Chicago's Nation Research Corp

They are used as follows:
"Current research shows that the true percentage of homosexuals is in the 1-2% range (15,23,26,28). Consider how small this number is when compared to most of the numbers above."

Not only is this irrelevant but it is also only a collection of those studies/surveys showing the smallest values. Here is a more thorough quote:
"In the modern West, according to major studies, 2% to 13% of the population are homosexual.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] A 2006 study suggested that 20% of the population anonymously reported some homosexual feelings, although relatively few participants in the study identified themselves as homosexual.[19] Homosexual behavior is also widely observed in animals.[20][21][22][23][24]"

References 14 and 21 don't even appear to be used in the article:
(14) Manlight, G. et. al. "Chronic Immune Stimulation By Sperm Alloantigens." J. American Med. Assn., 1984, 251(2), pp. 237-438
(21) San Francisco AIDS Foundation, "Can We Talk."

AGE OF REFERENCES/SOURCES:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The average (mean) year in which the references in the article are from is 1986. That's 25 years ago... While this alone is not a total destruction of the article's validity, it is another subtle hint about it's reliability. Has the article's creator had to cherry pick little bits of "evidence" from across the decades to try and make their argument seem valid perhaps? This also makes it significantly harder to find the originals to actually analyse their content (another ploy?).

HATE GROUPS, PAUL CAMERON AND MISREPRESENTED STUDIES:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

8 REFERENCES

(2) Bayer, R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry

Reference 2 is used in the article as follows:
"Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. "Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence" (2)."

The quotation here does not actually state or imply what the sentence preceding it states. Unfortunately, the book in question has to be paid for in order to access it's contents, so the quotation above can not be placed within context. Homosexuals did protest at the APA conference. That does not mean that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was as a direct result of those protests though. Had Bayer (Author of reference 2) stated this, we can be sure that the article's author would have quoted that instead. So the way the 2 sentences are structured actually indicates that an attempt is being made to deceive the reader.

(3) Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978

The very first point in the article cites reference 3. The original appears to be lost in time because it is soo old... however, a review includes details of this studies findings, as follows (reference 3 is the first one mentioned in the quotation of the review below):

Research on Homosexual Couples: An Overview, Letitia Anne Peplau, PhD:
"Evidence (e.g., Bell & Weinberg, 1978) indicates that most homosexuals want to have a steady love relationship and find this preferable to having only cas