There are more gay people in the US than Jews, Muslims and Buddhists COMBINED

[TechBear_Seattle]

I posted this to another thread, but I think it deserves mentioning on its own.

The smallest figure for how many human adults are homosexual ever found by a scientific study is 2%; this is based on a study that ran from 1990 to 1992. Keep in mind that this is the LOWEST ratio: other reliable studies have reported ratios of 2.5% to 5%, depending on how the researchers were defining sexual orientation.

As of the 2000 census, the United States had 281,421,906 residents. Two percent of that is 5,628,438 people.

Now consider the American Religious Identification Survey of 2001. This survey, which has been peer-reviewed and is widely considered to be an accurate measure of religious identification in the US, found that about 2,831,000 Americans identify themselves as Jewish, 1,104,000 as Mulim and 1,082,000 as Buddhist. The total number of Americans who identify as Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist as of 2001 is only 5,017,000.

Let's look at those numbers again:

5,628,438 gay people
5,017,000 Jews, Muslims and Buddhists.

Would any of the "Shut up, you will cost us the elections!" people care to explain how we gay people are too small a minority to bother with?

[Orrex]

1. Well, you all chose to be gay

Those Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists were born that way.


Er...

[MNBrewer]

20. Precisely.

Religion is a CHOICE. People can claim to be born Jewish or Catholic or Muslim, but the fact is, they CHOOSE whether they actually are or are not, in a practical sense.

Religion, like personal grooming habits, is completely a matter of choice. We protect that choice, yet we don't protect on the basis of sexual orientation because it's a "choice"????

(note: I don't believe sexual orientation is a choice. I'm parroting the claims of the "sexual orientation is a choice" crowd."

[Deep13]

2. If there were only two gay people, discrimination would still be wrong. nt

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. I agree, but a lot of people try to play a numbers game

They say, "Gay people are only 2% of the population, so their fundamental human rights can wait."

I have yet to see anyone make a serious effort to strip marriage rights away from Jews, or prevent Muslims from adopting children, however.

[Deep13]

4. I know it. You're right. nt

[zipplewrath]

5. Apples and oranges

You're comparing total population to adults. There are only 18 million adults in the referenced study, your quoted numbers are the adults in the us, not the total population. 5% of adults is 900,000 gays. Alternately, 2.8 million is 15% of the population. And that's only the religious jews. The total jewish population is 5.3 million or 29% of the adult population. I'm not part of the "shut up" crowd, but you can begin to see the political problem the GLBT community is dealing with. Even the African-American community can claim something on the order of 17%, and look at the political struggle they deal with. But as Harvey Milk is represented as saying in the movie, that small percentage all have family and friends. So politically it is important to leverage those people in "the cause". It is potentially 5 votes or more per person.

[Zuiderelle]

6. Huh? Jews make up 29% of the adult population?

:crazy:

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Whatever it takes to make excuses, I guess.

:eyes:

[zipplewrath]

8. I screwed up

I misread the total adult population. It isn't 18 million, it is 207 million. Jews are 5.3 million or 2.5% (1.3% claim to be "religious") The original poster is right. The two populations are at least comparable in size depending upon how wants to collect the labels.

[Zuiderelle]

10. Ok, cool. You're right that the OP's numbers are correct.

[dbackjon]

16. Except that 5.3 million Jews includes CHILDREN....

[zipplewrath]

17. Don't think so

I've been corrected once in this thread already, but if I'm reading it correctly:

"Projecting from the present sample, there are about 5.3 million adults in the American
Jewish population: 2.83 million adults are estimated to be adherents of Judaism; 1.08
million are estimated to be adherents of no religion; and 1.36 million are estimated to be
adherents of a religion other than Judaism."

[LostinVA]

12. OMFG

[Bluenorthwest]

9. YOur post confuses me

The cuny study itself says "total US population 18+ in 2001: 207,980,000". That is the number of adults in the US, not 18 million.
So what the hell are you talking about?

[sui generis]

11. I am a gay married terrorist jewish buddhist islamic atheist!

Hah!

But one time, at band camp . . .

?v=0

[4lbs]

13. I think it's more about the financial impact that the groups have.

While GLBT may have more people, I don't think they have as much "power", financially and politically, as the other groups mentioned, especially the Jewish lobby.

How many GLBT do you know that are the CEOs/Presidents/Directors of powerful companies and governmental sectors?

How many are the heads of banks, major corporations, entertainment industries, and those that make/interpet our laws?

Even with that disadvantage, the fact that GLBT issues have been at the forefront and in the news this election means that we are on the cusp of full rights for our GLBT brethren.

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. My point is that the numbers game is a flat-out lie

There are many people, here at DU and in America at large, who claim that because gay people make up "only" 2% of the population, our basic human rights should not be a high priority. Yet many of these are the same people who will aggressive take action -- real deeds and not empty words -- to defend the rights of religious minorities, including Jews (about 1% of the American population), Muslims (about 0.39%) and Buddhists (about 0.38%.)

My point is to deflate those people who try to play the numbers game, and to provide ammunition that the rest of us can use against them.

[4lbs]

15. Oh ok. I understand and agree.

However, it is usually better to be "only" 500,000 people, but in control of $500 billion in assets.

That's where power comes from often.

[zipplewrath]

18. It is thought provoking

It is interesting to realize the relative "size" of the population. I suspect the real problem here is that it is an easy leap for someone to see a muslim being oppressed and extrapolate to their own baptist self. However, not many people are seeing the same correlation with their sexuality. They don't get that "they'll come for me next" feeling.

[Deja Q]

19. The human condition; the perception often eclipses the fact.

Especially when perception is altered by those who can make or break facts.

That's inevitable. For any situation. Stereotypes. Successfully fighting the stereotype is required. Not playing into it unless there is a disclaimer up front acknowledging what it does. To reduce or eliminate such actions being perpetuated as stereotypes that the whole of the group is claimed to partake in.

But I digress.

I'd also reckon the actual population that has BGLT feelings is near 10%.

Those fully outed closer to the 2% of which is claimed.

[bluedawg12]

21. So, we are numerically sigificant, it's only our priorities that are not.

[Zuiderelle]

25. Apparently I need to go buy some dresses.

:cry:

[Vanje]

22. Um.

Deja Q spewed the following:
"Successfully fighting the stereotype is required. Not playing into it unless there is a disclaimer up front acknowledging what it does. To reduce or eliminate such actions being perpetuated as stereotypes that the whole of the group is claimed to partake in."

It sounds like you mean that gays should stop acting GAY.

Should I exchange my plaid flannel shirts and sensible shoes , for nylons and high-heels, so that I will not fit a lesbian stereotype?
Should I stop acting so darn GAY?
Should I batt my eyes at men?
Should I find myself a closet, and go in it?

[Zuiderelle]

23. Convoluted and insulting

That's what your response is.

[bluedawg12]

24. I don't have my decoder ring

It was little over my head, unless of course it means that gay people should not act in a sterotypical way as it offends heternormative sensibilities, which of course would be offensive to heteronormative-based judgmental people.

Teh Gay should not rock the prejudice boat. :eyes:

[Zuiderelle]

26. It was pure bullshit-speak.

Your interpretation is the only thing that could possibly be gleaned from it. We are responsible for the prejudice others have against us, and we are also responsible to do away with all stereotypical behavior by any others among us, even if we aren't stereotypical ourselves.

[bluedawg12]

27. Thank heavens all people other than Teh Gay look perfect.

There are no flawed people too look at, sniff, hear and guffaw out there who might be a poor representation of our species, except the "stereotypes."

[TechBear_Seattle]

28. Speaking of stereotypes, what's with the naked chicken?

:toast:

[Vanje]

29. Turkey! nt

[bluedawg12]

30. Defying avian normative standards.

Those radical fowl. :toast:

[Meeker Morgan]

31. The number does not matter when it comes to rights. n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

32. Many DUers have said otherwise n/t

[bluedawg12]

36. This refutes the right wing claim that gays are a small, vocal, left wing faction.

Of course, even a small, vocal, left wing faction deserves Justice and equal civil rights.

But, some social conservatives like to play this numbers game. :eyes: Of course it's bullpuckey, as is the claim that same sex marriage leads to high divorce rates for different sex couples, but every once in a while, these do need to be refuted to remind our opponents that we are paying attention to their propaganda.

Oh, another one that seems to seep into national consciousness, that being gay is a choice. On occasion one of us takes the time and makes that effort to refute that too. :evilgrin:

[Meeker Morgan]

41. Fair enough, but what about gay Jewish Buddhists?

O8)

[bluedawg12]

42. There is a special place in heaven for them.

:thumbsup:

[TEmperorHasNoClothes]

33. junk science--

You won't get an accurate counting of gays due to cloests and people uncomfortable disclosing especially on a religious survey. Things have gotten better, but when you look at 15-20 year old studies you can basically throw away the survey.
What about gay jews, muslims and buddhists, are they counted twice.
Plus you're using very old data.

[bluedawg12]

34. Here is some data that I found.

.........
The US census bureau looked only at same sex couples. Here is some data from them (2000).

The second link attempts to identify individuals who are self identified as gay.

http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/USA.htm
2000 Census information on Gay and Lesbian Couples

..........

http://www.rockhawk.com/how_many_gay_people_are_there_i...

Last Updated January 10th 2009
How many gay people are there in America?

More recently, data has been collected in America, during the ten-year national census, on married and unmarried-partner households. They did not ask the actual sexual orientation of the respondents, so there is no measure of single gay people, nor is their a measure of those gay people in committed relationships but not living together. Whilst the census cannot give us a figure for the number of people who are gay in America, it can inform us on how many same-sex partnership households identified themselves in the survey. The 2000 census tells us that

There are 105.5 million households in the USA.
5.5 million of these consist of unmarried partnerships,
Of these, 595,000 consist of same sex partners.

This can be interpreted as there being nearly 1.2 million gay people living with a same sex partner in America. This is a huge increase from the 1990 census, which identified only 145,000 same sex unmarried households.

As with the NATSAL survey in the UK, there is undoubtedly a large amount of under reporting in these sorts of surveys. Possible explanations of this include continued prejudice and discrimination against gay people.3

There have been various other surveys in the US that have tried to measure numbers of gay people. An analysis of these surveys by the Human Rights Campaign came up with this conclusion.

'In the last three elections, the Voter News Service exit poll registered the gay vote between 4 percent and 5 percent.


While concluding that the Census 2000 undercounted the total number of gay or lesbian households, for the purposes of this study, we estimate the gay and lesbian population at 5 percent of the total U.S. population over 18 years of age, (209,128,094).

This results in an estimated total gay and lesbian population of 10,456,405.

A recent study of gay and lesbian voting habits conducted by Harris Interactive determined that 30 percent of gay and lesbian people are living in a committed relationship in the same residence. Using that figure, we suggest that 3,136,921 gay or lesbian people are living in the United States in committed relationships in the same residence. '4

So, if we accept that the data presented by the Human Rights Commission is indeed indicative of the real numbers, then it shows that the census data is only showing up a small percentage of the actual number of gay people living in America. Until, however, a nationwide survey is done, asking questions on sexual attitudes and behaviors, then we can only use data and analyses, such as the ones above, to work out an answer to the question of gay people living in America.

.........

[bluedawg12]

35. This is NOT junk science.

I don’t think it’s junk science. Here is why, but, if you have better data, please post it.

The only study cited from 20 years ago, was a source from 1990, included out of fairness by the OP, as that study actually placed the adult gay population at the lowest estimate, at 2%, if you wish, we can throw that out and certainly go with newer studies that place the adult gay population at 5%.

The US census is conducted every ten years. That is the latest census number until the next one in 2011. So, that reflects best effort and the most recent US census, by the OP, at information about US population

“The Census Bureau now conducts a full population count every 10 years in years ending with a 0 (zero) and uses the term "decennial" to describe the operation. Between censuses, the Census Bureau makes population estimates and projections.” -wikipedia

”You won't get an accurate counting of gays due to cloests and people uncomfortable disclosing especially on a religious survey.” -TEmperorHasNoClothes

-->This is just plain wrong. People were not asked their sexual orientation on religious surveys. Those are separate surveys having to do with religion or sexual orientation.

“Things have gotten better, but when you look at 15-20 year old studies you can basically throw away the survey.” - TEmperorHasNoClothes

-->The only study that old, was already discussed above and it placed the gay population at the lowest estimate of 2%. Let’s throw that out. It’s higher. Agreed.

“What about gay jews, muslims and buddhists, are they counted twice.” - TEmperorHasNoClothes

-->Again, different polls, different pollsters, different cohort. There was no, “What is your religion and are you gay,” poll that I am aware of and that was not discussed in the OP.


The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS)of 2001, cited in the OP, holds up well with the later Pew Research Councils (PRC) 2005 study.

(ARIS) (PRC)
Jewish 1.4% 1.9 %
Muslim 0.5% 0.5 %

So, while the PRC 2005 report does not carve out Buddhists, there is empirical evidence that this number should also be consistent and not an outlier. Therefore, Buddhists are estimated at around 0.5% or less.

That comes out to approximately 2.9% of adults in the US for combined Jews, Buddhists and Muslims.
............

http://pewforum.org/world-affairs/countries/?CountryID=222
Religious Demographic Profile
United States
Copyright 2009

According to a Pew Research Council survey from 2005 Jews account for 1.9% of the population, Muslims account for 0.5% of the population.

.............

Now I agree that it is difficult to obtain accurate numbers for self identified gay people, due to concerns about being exposed to discrimination, there is a tendency to under report the number of adult gays in polls. Hence, historically, we have ended up with ranges from 2% to Kinsey’s 10%.

Now one may or may not agree with the estimate of 5%, from rockhawk cited previously, but, at it is a source from something recent, i.e. last updated 1-10-09. That source places the population of gay people in the US at around 5%.

..............
http://www.rockhawk.com/how_many_gay_people_are_there_i ...

Last Updated January 10th 2009
How many gay people are there in America?

..............

The point of the OP was that gay rights issues have been called distracting, have been blamed on political losses for Democratic party candidates and have been called by our right wing opponents as a “small group of selfish special interest activists” (paraphrasing, taking literary license). In short there are too few gays for themto make such a fuss, and too few gays for serious politicians, serious policy makers and serious voters to worry about, it’s just a “distracting tempest in a tea pot from a very small but vocal group.”

N.B. "serious" is a favorite word, used by the right wing and neocons, to add gravitas to their argument.

The OP shows and I think this is correct, that at 5% of the adult population, gay people do account for a statistically relevant group, and, that we number more than other well accepted politically "relevant" groups such as jews, Muslims and Buddhists.

Of course, that is an interesting thought exercise but I do note that extending human rights, civil rights, and legal justice does not require any statistical significance, relevance or majority in numbers, the laws should apply to all fairly and equally, from the smallest minority to the largest and most influential majority. It is the duty of the many to protect the rights of the few, to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

Still, the exercise is well worth the effort, as the common right wing social conservative refrain remains: there are so few gays and they are so insignificant, yet, they are so vocal beyond any reason justified by their small numbers. :nopity:

The right never seems to tire of reminding people that power comes from superior numbers, forgetting that justice is blind to such matters. :grr:

Off to work with me. :hi:

[TEmperorHasNoClothes]

38. still not accurate

That kind of study is always going to produce smaller numbers of gays than there actually are because of those closeted folks who won't self report and because of single people. There will be a number of gays who are jewish, muslim or buddhist who will then be counted twice. In order for the numbers to be accurate you can't compare apples and oranges, even if you're using the same study. Sexual orientation and religion are two separate categories of status. It's like saying there are 500,000 red heads and that's more than people with hazel eyes.

[bluedawg12]

40. First error: we are not counting noses or heads.

This is an example of two single variable polls.

What is the religion of all adults in the US?

What is the self admitted sexual orientation of all adults in the US?

The results are that in the US, percentage wise, there are more self described gays, then there are self described Jews, Buddhists and Muslims combined, percentage wise.

Now, how does that or how should it, affect policy? Is it fair to say that there are so few gays that we should not take their issues into consideration? If so, would that, could that or should that, be said of a smaller cohort looking strictly at religious affiliation? The latter would not happen, the former happens too frequently.

Your analogy, about red heads and hazel eyes is actually correct and does work.

One can count all of the adults in the US with red hair, but we would not. We would take a statistically valid random sample, or perhaps a poll, if it were not done in person, to approximate the number of adult red heads in the US. Polls are a short cut to actual nose counts or head counts.

Likewise, one can poll and approximate the statistical likelihood, to a certain level of confidence that the numbers are not due to random chance in the poll, i.e. the "degree of confidence," of what percentage of all adults have a pair of hazel eyes.

We can arrive at statistically valid percentages of all adults in the US having red hair and a statistically valid percentages of all adults in the US having a pair of hazel eyes.

Now, that does not tell us that red hair causes hazel eyes, it does not tell us what percentage of people have both red hair and hazel eyes, but it sure does tell us what percentage of the adult population has one or the other. In fact, some will have both, but that's not what the poll, as defined just now, asks.

This is used all of the time in business and politics. If we know that 20% of adult Americans have red hair, and that is all we want to know for the moment, it does not detract from the data that some have hazel eyes, as well.

On the other hand, if the red heads of the world wanted to throw a coup d' etat and run the world, and if we knew that 60% of all Americans had red hair and only 20% had hazel eyes, wouldn't you consider dying your hair red as opposed to buying hazel contacts?

Edited for bluedawg rule: Post first spell check later.

[TechBear_Seattle]

37. I deliberately chose the smallest percentage of gay people

While the 92 survey of sexual practices was flawed, it is the very same one used by bigots to claim that gay people make up "only" 2% of the US population. Most other surveys show that the number of gay people in the US is between 4% and 7%, depending on how they define "gay." Using a higher percentage would only further strength the point I was making.

As for the ARIS survey, it has been peer-reviewed and is generally accepted as one of the best, most accurate surveys of the religious self-identification of Americans.

I'm not sure how you could call my post "junk science."

[bluedawg12]

39. You went out of your way to be fair and post data that has been re-verified

If you wanted to make your point, a priori, you would have omitted the 1992 survey, with the lowest number.

Also,the ARIS study has been reverified by the Pew Research Council in 2005.

I guess gays need to conduct their own nation wide census and do it better than the US government, which only does a census every 10 years, in order to meet the "strict criteria for gays to be allowed to post an OP."


Of course, it is just fine for people to misread the OP and actually opine about combined religious denominations and sexual behavior polls, as if such polls were cited in the OP or known to exist.

Better yet, avoid the main issues, raised by the right wing, that gays are out of proportionally vocal in relationship to our small percentage in the population, and hence, looking for undeserved "special" treatment, rights, or laws. :grr:

[Cherchez la Femme]

43. I been saying...

that we have the numbers, especially with PFLAG, to flex our political muscle if/when the Democrats (along with the Repub's of course) continue to relegate us to the back of the bus.

All we have to do is utilize our power.
If we don't receive our full, equal rights I sure hope a new Stonewall is in the future.