Is 'Bush Science' to blame for the decrease in the homosexual population?

[Cannikin]

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00.html

After reading the news of the junk science that the administration spews, I started wondering about something...

For years, I'd heard gays (lesbians included) made up around 10% of the population. Then when all the negative backlash from the Massachusetts case started, I began hearing anti-gay groups saying we were an insignificant 3% and did not matter, and I know I've heard one news source say 'anywhere from 1-4%' and would have little if no effect on the election.

Its very sad that science is no longer about gaining knowledge, but a means to a political end. Hopefully, those speaking out will make a difference...or his fundies will do the usual and turn a deaf ear since it was God and not science that put Bush in the White House.

I'm sorry I cant quote any sources for my figures, but I'm sure some of my GLBT friends can back me up on hearing those numbers mentioned.

[DrWeird]

1. Since when...

did republican fundamentalist christians ever let the truth get in the way of their science?

[stopthegop]

2. the 3-4% figure is several years old..

not related to current events...

[soleft]

3. The 10% figure

I'd heard came from the old Masters and Johnson Report, I don't know if there's been a more recent study which substantiates it. I'd be interested to find out -

Allegorically - in my Dept. at work on my floor there are 44 people, 3 of which I know are gay, which is 6.8 percent.

[theorist]

4. I've looked into this.

I haven't been able to find a study that accurately states the percentage of the population that is homosexual and/or bisexual. It is a pure shame that our government (this includes all four presidents since Reagan) has been so disinterested in the homosexual community that it cannot determine this simple statistic.

For example, I am forced to put down any "evidence" that claims to show that homosexual men are more likely to be pedophiles than any other group, or any study claiming to debunk the same myth. The simple fact is that until we can pinpoint the fundamental statistics concerning the GLBT community (i.e. how many members it has, age distributions, etc.) we cannot trust studies claiming to make conclusion about it.

This can only be achieved when equal rights are extended, which will allow all Americans to be honest about their sexual orientations. What Bush has done is take us further away from this goal. Clinton did it with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Until we have a president who will "change the tone" of how Americans perceive sexual orientation, HIV/AIDS will continue to ravage the gay community. Unfortunately, I don't believe either of the Democratic frontrunners fit this profile. Let me know if you think I'm wrong....

edit: altered for clarity

[Ediacara]

5. I've heard anywhere between 16% and 1%

Each extreme's backers having their own agenda. From my non-scientific personal experience :-) I'd say probably 7-9% is a good round number for men in the western US.

Not that it matters...... if gays made up <0.1% active discrimination is not something an enlightened democracy should tolerate.

[Cannikin]

6. Very true.

[izzie]

7. Months ago I read you had to be the right party to work at NIH

I thought that was just awful. We will be teaching the world is flat yet.

[serinlea]

8. the numbers differ...

I'm a psych major who's read far too many studies on sexuality, and as far as I can tell, the numbers differ depending on how the questions are asked.

Asking based on a range of sexual behaviors is usually the culprit of smaller numbers. If you ask people to place themselves on a scale from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual (including all the points in betwee), you get smaller numbers on both of the "exclusive" ends and higher numbers in the middle than conventional wisdom would lead one to think.

However, if you just ask, "are you straight or gay?" I know plenty of bisexuals (myself included) and homosexuals who've "experimented" with the opposite sex in the past who, while they wouldn't place themselves on the extreme of the other scale, would definitely identify as queer given only the two options. So, the former kind of scale is likely responsible for the 1-4% numbers, and the latter for the 10%. Ironic, isn't it, that conservatives would seize upon one end of a scale that actually reveals MORE non-straight behavior than the norm to push the idea that we're a super-small minority that can be ignored.

Edited: because I said the opposite of what I meant at first.

[Ediacara]

10. Thanks :-)

Great post, and welcome to DU!

[newyawker99]

16. Hi serinlea!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Endangered Specie]

9. Bush Science is an oxymoron

[Cannikin]

11. I've always imagined it as a graduated scale....

Not JUST like this one, but its pretty.

[TrogL]

12. 5% is a more realistic number

but it comes down to "define gay".

I'm using the "a long-lasting sexual relationship with a woman just isn't gonna happen - get over it" definition.

If you take the "you're gay if you ever leafed through a muscle magazine and smiled" the figure is 100%.

If you include bisexuals it's probably around 15% or higher.

[Cannikin]

13. And red necks after a few beers...

around 45%

[dusty64]

14. By lowering the numbers

they want to make gay people seem even more fringe and insignificant. I know a LOT of people that would be wary of discussing their sexuality honestly. Too many reasons to not be, like fear of being put into a database for instance.

[Cannikin]

15. Precisely...

I'm not outing myself on some registry until I'm convinced it cant be used against me.