Topic: In your opinion.....
Log in to post a reply
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3612
Posts: 3612
- Posted on: Jul 24, 2007 05:19 pm
My husband and I had a conversation last night and I am wondering about your input
The conversation started when we were watching the news. There was a story about misuse of the Patriot Act, then one on the abortion fight and then one on gay marriage. We started talking about how those 3 things are in the news a lot. He was complaining that he was sick of hearing those same stories over and over when nothing changed people just kept arguing with no change. Then I wondered aloud what percentage of the population was directly affected by those things .The conversation ended up being about what percentage of the population was gay. He guessed 1%, I guessed 4%, and then we went on line looking for numbers .
It seems there is quite a bit of debate. Kinsey said as much as 10% in their famous (or infamous) sex study, but they had a very loose definition of what it meant to be gay one encounter as an adult was enough to put someone in that category in some cases. Some obviously biased sites said only ½ a percent of the population was gay but they also said it was an illness so, I kind of wrote that off as a bunch of crap.
I guess I just wondered what you ladies think the percentage might be? I started adding up people I know and think that 3 to 5 % might be close Anybody have a guess or a real number??
Deb C
The conversation started when we were watching the news. There was a story about misuse of the Patriot Act, then one on the abortion fight and then one on gay marriage. We started talking about how those 3 things are in the news a lot. He was complaining that he was sick of hearing those same stories over and over when nothing changed people just kept arguing with no change. Then I wondered aloud what percentage of the population was directly affected by those things .The conversation ended up being about what percentage of the population was gay. He guessed 1%, I guessed 4%, and then we went on line looking for numbers .
It seems there is quite a bit of debate. Kinsey said as much as 10% in their famous (or infamous) sex study, but they had a very loose definition of what it meant to be gay one encounter as an adult was enough to put someone in that category in some cases. Some obviously biased sites said only ½ a percent of the population was gay but they also said it was an illness so, I kind of wrote that off as a bunch of crap.
I guess I just wondered what you ladies think the percentage might be? I started adding up people I know and think that 3 to 5 % might be close Anybody have a guess or a real number??
Deb C
| Posts 1 - 27 (27 total) | |
|---|---|
|
nosurrender… Joined: Dec 2004 Posts: 4771 |
Jul 24, 2007 07:10 pm
nosurrender wrote:
Deb, The people I know and am friends with the ratio is probably about 3-5% gay. Maybe because I am from an urban area?? |
|
sns Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 189 |
Jul 24, 2007 08:08 pm sns wrote: I suspect 3 to 5 percent of the population is about right. Personally many of the people I know are gay - but then I'm a lesbian. On the other hand, the percentage of the general population that is gay seems much lower here, but I'm in Arizona and gays tend not to be very visible here. |
|
Obama4Presi… Joined: Jan 2002 Posts: 2279 |
Jul 25, 2007 03:49 am
Obama4President wrote:
The CDC did a study that said the percentage was about 1%-- unfortunately, the study was statistically flawed in the way the questions were asked and they admit that there were probably many who didn't answer truthfully since it was a government survey. In psychology classes the figures were about 10% including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered. I'm not sure what you mean by "loosely" in the kinsey report. IMHO, bisexuals in heterosexual relationships also need to be counted. 1 encounter, IMHO might or might not count depending on the person's individual experience. For instance, it could indicate just one time, but it could also indicate that the person enjoyed it and is bisexual, but is currently with a different sex partner. To your husband I would say, even if 1% of the population is effected by these issues-- they are important because every consenting adult deserves to be able to love another consenting adult and have those civil rights protected. Also, if it's only 1% of the population, what's the harm in allowing these rights. The other countries that have allowed gay marriage in canada and europe haven't fallen apart. This is an issue I'm passionate about, because it doesn't feel good to not have the same rights as my heterosexual counterparts. |
|
AlaskaDeb Joined: Mar 2006 Posts: 3612 |
Jul 25, 2007 04:38 pm
AlaskaDeb wrote:
Thanks for the answers... My hubby was not saying that these things should not get coverage in the news, or that they were not important issues. The conversation was also about why the things that ARE hot news items or political items GET to be the hot buttons. Who decides? It obviously isn't related to how many folks are directly affected. It just seems odd some times that one subject will be the big news story for weeks and weeks when other things that might affect more people never get mentioned. I guess the conversation was really more about who picks what is on the news than about gay issues. We just took a side track about statistics and then I got curious As far as the Kinsey report I was interested that they counted someone in the 10% homosexual category if they had one homosexual encounter, even if they did not consider themselves to be homosexual. I am interested the concept of visibility. I dont know if more folks are open with their sexuality in urban areas, or if the numbers really are higher . On another kind of strange conversation about sexual orientation and being PC I was at a writers conference this summer and went to a session that was a panel discussion on the ability of a person of one race or gender to authentically write in the voice of another. It was a VERY heated discussion with one group, led by a Native American woman, who thought it was disingenuous and rude for non-natives to try and write in the voice of a native .ANYWAY in the course of the conversation one of the people got talking about writing to include all genders in our speech. She mentioned that there are 11 currently accepted genders. We spent the rest of the session trying to come up with all 11 .I dont think we ever did come up with all of them. The whole time we were talking about it after lunch a friend of mine who is white, male, about 60-years-old, and deaf was just incredulous .OMG it was a wild conversation just trying to explain to him what transgendered WAS .and since he is deaf as a post most of the conversation was loud... I hope I didnt offend anyone. It was just an idle question. I get interested in the oddest statistical things .I just found some stats showing that a full HALF of the women in Alaska that get breast cancer will die from it! WTH??? Numbers are obviously only a small part of any story, but they always interest me and make me want to know more specifics. Deb C |
|
junie Joined: Apr 2003 Posts: 1438 |
Jul 25, 2007 09:42 pm
junie wrote:
hugggssss to all. I'm probably missing thw whole issue here. But, years ago, I clipped a quote and kept it on my desk for years (sorry, I can't quote the author, but the source was an old Reader's Digest....) "Torture numbers and they will tell you anything..." I am not fond of any statistical results for any subject. I know that I "tortured numbers" on several occasions when working, especially when I felt I needed a larger staff. When I read about this % or that % for whatever the subject is, I'm interested--but bottom line is--I don't have a clue what factors were considered by whoever to determine that particular %. The end results are interesting to read, but always with a grain of salt--not knowing what factors led to the conclusion. |
|
Obama4Presi… Joined: Jan 2002 Posts: 2279 |
Jul 26, 2007 02:22 am
Obama4President wrote:
</font><font class="small">Quote:</font><font class="post"> I believe that the market decidea. For instance, is Lindsay Lohan's dui arrest really top news? Or Paris Hilton? I think that ratings drive the market and when people start changing the channels or turning off their tvs, writing to protest that will change what's a hot topic. |
|
AlaskaDeb Joined: Mar 2006 Posts: 3612 |
Jul 26, 2007 07:29 am
AlaskaDeb wrote:
Junie- Love the numbers quote...funny and true  LOL AMy...Don't even get me started on the "brat of the week" stuff on TV! All these rich little girls breaking the law...I don't get it. And I REALLY Don't understand why people watch it. I guess you must be right...if people watch it, it sells. I just wish it was NOT that way with the news. It seems like it should have higher standards that watching "stars" messing up.... Deb C |
|
Emelee26 Joined: Aug 2004 Posts: 987 |
Jul 26, 2007 05:34 pm
Emelee26 wrote:
I watch it to see what their hair and makeup looks like :0 It's horrifying I know..but I would be a makeup artist in a second if I could...and I'm addicted to fashion and "beauty essentials" I know..I'm hanging my head  You're right Amy, media is run by ratings...my friend had a relationship with a girl for a year but now is with a guy..and she sees herself as bisexual and a very strong part of the lesbian and gay community. She also feels very strongly about equal rights, like you..I hope change will come with time.... Sns - I LOVE your avatar! |
|
lv2cmp Joined: Sep 2004 Posts: 1857 |
Aug 2, 2007 06:45 am
lv2cmp wrote:
Deb-great question. I would say 3-5% but so hard to get a true number because so many cant or wont answer truthfully. I bet you found some interesting reading while researching though. It kills me how some people says its a choice. Dont get me started there. If I was in a male/female relationship his insurance would cover me and I wouldnt be stage 4 and working fulltime but my SO's insurance will never cover me. Thats just the facts. Hopefully one day it will be better but for now its just the way it is. |
|
Obama4Presi… Joined: Jan 2002 Posts: 2279 |
Aug 2, 2007 06:58 am
Obama4President wrote:
lv2cmp- your story just makes me sick---when will we be allowed our equal and civil rights???? I really think 3-5% seems low, considering bisexuals who are in heterosexsual relationships... but who's to really know. |
|
bonny1963 Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 564 |
Aug 2, 2007 07:11 am
bonny1963 wrote:
I don't have a clue as to a percentage. In my neighborhood alone (at one time) we had five same sex couples. I live in East Tennessee. I love the ladies across the street. They are the greatest ever. But I agree. If you are in a committed relationship with someone (regardless of their sex) then you should be allowed to have certain rights. Just like anyone else. I had a long discussion with my best friend from high school this week about being gay and I found out a lot of things. He said if he could have made a choice, then he might have opted for the "perfect" life but he was happy with his partner. I say to each his own. Live and let live. The percentage thing is interesting. . . |
|
Obama4Presi… Joined: Jan 2002 Posts: 2279 |
Aug 2, 2007 08:45 am
Obama4President wrote:
Sounds like an interesting conversation bonny. I like (most) men, I just don't want to be with them. I have a hard time imagining what it would be like to be heterosexual. Sure, it would be easier but gosh, I love being lesbian- I just don't always like the way some people react to it. I don't think I'd ever want to be heterosexual. I hope that we are the generation that gets equal rights for ourselves and those that come after us, in the same way the women of a generation ago got us reproductive rights. |
|
DragonladyT… Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 2285 |
Aug 2, 2007 06:36 pm
DragonladyTina wrote:
I am proud to say that here in the city I live in, we perform many legal gay marriages. My cousin John was among the first gay couples to be able to legally wed. I believe (not 100% sure though) companies can not deny same sex benefits, medical coverage etc. I know at the hospital I work at, it is written right into our contract that benefits be extended to all family members, spouse etc regardless of gender. I love Canada!! Tina |
|
Obama4Presi… Joined: Jan 2002 Posts: 2279 |
Aug 3, 2007 02:33 am Obama4President wrote: Canada rocks! It's a far better country than the USA. Very cook about your cousin! |
|
nosurrender… Joined: Dec 2004 Posts: 4771 |
Aug 3, 2007 10:10 am
nosurrender wrote:
Amy I have a question for you. I catered weddings for gay couples when I had my catering business. I also was a bridesmaid at a gay couples wedding. These all occurred in NY. I believe these couples are as married as any of the straight weddings I catered or attended. What is the real deal? Legally they are not recognized in NY so the spouses cannot have medical rights or decision making ability? Or they cannot be beneficiaries in a will? The one couple I was a bridesmaid for adopted a child and have raised him. I am unclear on what is not allowed. Clearly these folks are married in the eyes of their friends and families- just what are they not allowed to do? I never thought of them as not being really married. But then again, I told you I don't believe that the government should have any say in who gets to marry whom. I would really appreciate it if you could help me understand. Thanks. g |
|
sns Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 189 |
Aug 3, 2007 10:43 am
sns wrote:
Here's a link that gives a pretty good overview of the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage |
|
Obama4Presi… Joined: Jan 2002 Posts: 2279 |
Aug 3, 2007 10:59 am
Obama4President wrote:
Massachusetts allows gay marriage-- but it's still not recognized by the federal government. This means that one spouse cannot collect on the other spouse's social security in the case of death. My uncle and his husband have been together close to 40 years. My uncle made lots of money over the years, but his husband primarily stayed home and took care of the house, cooking etc. He takes great "care" of my uncle. If my uncle dies before him, he's lost, since he had little or no money paid into social security. Florida doesn't allow gays to adopt- so if a gay couple has a child (through whatever means)- only one of the couple can have legal rights. If something happens to the parent who has legal guardianship (on paper), the other mom or dad has no rights. There are many more examples of rights that gays are denied by state and federal gov't. |
|
Madalyn Joined: Jul 2007 Posts: 413 |
Aug 6, 2007 05:55 am
Madalyn wrote:
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070806/LOCAL18/708060398 Here's an article that shows what can and does happen to gay couples. They should have had legal documents of course but who thinks something like this is going to happen with no warning ... and why should they have to go to all the legal expense? Even if they had, this is the kind of family that would be in court endlessly to try to nullify them. No one is talking about forcing churches to perform their religious ceremonies for gay couples. However, a civil marriage should be available. They are not asking for your blessing ... just equal rights and protections. |
|
Obama4Presi… Joined: Jan 2002 Posts: 2279 |
Aug 7, 2007 03:19 am
Obama4President wrote:
Thanks for sharing that article. It made me cry. Some churches gladly marry gay couples. Some don't. Not all discriminate. I agree that no one has talked about forcing churches to marry gay couples, but sometimes I wonder-- since churches have tax exempt status why they should be allowed to discriminate. I'm not saying that churches should be forced to marry gays-- just that I'm not sure it's should be allowed. Other groups that discriminate lose their tax exempt status. |
|
Methusala Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 248 |
Aug 19, 2007 07:05 pm
Methusala wrote:
really interesting thread... I'm just catching up over there, as with the other threads. I like to get some insight into my sister's world. Also, just to add, in most of my "Christian" circles, the general consensus is about 1-3%. |
|
CherylRubie… Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 160 |
Sep 5, 2007 06:56 pm
CherylRubie wrote:
So I'm guessing that the percentage is 5 - 10%, maybe even a little more. What is interesting to me is that more people don't post on this forum. 5% of the women who come here don't post on this forum for sure. Maybe it's that the main issues are not related to sexual orientation? Cheryl |
|
Obama4Presi… Joined: Jan 2002 Posts: 2279 |
Sep 6, 2007 03:05 pm
Obama4President wrote:
Yes, but what percentage of the people who are registered with the site actually post. I long for the day that sexual orientation isn't a part of health care and breast cancer. Heterosexuals are often unaware of the hissues we face with complications they might not even imagine. |
|
tawyna1 Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 418 |
Oct 27, 2007 09:53 pm
tawyna1 wrote:
hi, i think gay, straight you should be allowed to legally get married. love is love just my opinion. |
|
Obama4Presi… Joined: Jan 2002 Posts: 2279 |
Oct 28, 2007 09:05 am
Obama4President wrote:
Thanks tawyna! I (obviously) agree. |
|
brendast Joined: Feb 2008 Posts: 10 |
Apr 4, 2008 07:48 pm
brendast wrote:
Me too....women rock and love between the two of them is even better. |
|
AnnNYC Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 1978 |
Apr 4, 2008 11:22 pm
AnnNYC wrote:
Interesting question about percentage. I always tended to believe the Kinsey 10%. Really hard to say what percentage of "all people" is gay -- but one thing is, I think a lot of gay people migrate to places where they won't be such a minority. So, for instance the gay population in the West Village and now Chelsea, in NYC, seems like it could be 80% -- or at least 50% -- because for a century probably 90% of the gay children of "the heartland" have been migrating to specific neighborhoods in NYC, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Atlanta! Gay marriage -- absolutely. BTW, if anyone is ever disconcerted to hear about a sexual relationship in the past between a gay "parent" and his or her "child" who was adopted as an adult (not during actual childhood!) -- please understand that this was a means some gay people employed to gain some legal protection for their relationship back in the ultra-closeted day: an "adopted child" was next-of-kin who could see you in the hospital and inherit your property, and your blood relatives could not legally thwart it. Dx 3/9/2007, IDC, <1cm, Stage I, Grade 2, 0/5 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2- |
|
Obama4Presi… Joined: Jan 2002 Posts: 2279 |
Apr 5, 2008 04:46 pm
Obama4President wrote:
You rock Ann! Amy Hussein
|