Gallup included the question: "Do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender?" for 3 months of surveys, getting 121,000 responses
The always reliable Daily Mail headlines:
'White people are less likely to be gay': Poll reveals African-American community has highest percentage of 'LGBT' adults in U.S.
Gallup survey, based on interviews with more than 121,000 people, showed that 3.4% of U.S. adults were lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)
Highest proportion in black community, at 4.6%, followed by Asians (4.3%), Hispanics (4%) and Caucasians (3.2%)
Poll found 44% of LGBT adults were Democratic, and 13% Republican
I don't find the results too surprising, but I want to point out a couple of issues:
There are several percent who don't say know either, just "Don't Know" or "Refuse to Answer."
We don't have any way of knowing what the plain dumb error rate is. (E.g., we can't separate out the male lesbian percentage.) One of the authors of the Gallup Poll, Gary Gates, has discovered in the past that it's not uncommon for a sizable percentage of unusual situations in data to be comprised of typos.
Our work indicates that over 40 percent of same-sex “unmarried partner” couples in the 2000 U.S. Decennial Census are likely misclassified different-sex couples.
There was a flurry of excitement and Brokeback Mountain fantasizing among the, uh, more Andrew Sullivan-like press, over reports after the 2000 Census that there were more gay domestic partnerships in places like Wyoming than in Washington D.C.. But it mostly turned out to be people filling in their Census forms carelessly.
In a study on the military, Gates estimated:
An estimated 2.9% of women on active duty are lesbian/bisexual compared to only 0.6% of men.
Wow, 0.6% of male active duty military personnel are gay / bisexual ...
Posts
81 comments:
"White people are less likely to be gay..."
I'm surprised. I've always assumed that blacks are more likely than whites to engage in homosex, but less likely than whites to identify as gay. Blacks who are "on the downlow" don't call themselves gay, don't lisp, don't follow news about celebrity divas, etc.
Only an estimated 0.6% of military men are gay/bissexual?
My gosh who would have thought! With the media going crazy over DADT I thought they were 50-70% of the military or something.
Just goes to show you that being a "prison type gay" isn't the same as being gay gay if you know what I mean.
After all blacks are about 25% of the population and Hispanics are also 40% according to what some people believe.
Overestimation much? Media distortion more like it.
White women are less likely to be lesbians.
Gay penguin pair becomes parents (look at the other news at the site) Denmark is the most liberal country in the world.
"An estimated 2.9% of women on active duty are lesbian/bisexual compared to only 0.6% of men."
By my rough calculations, this means 6,000 gays and 6,000 lesbians total.
Oops, I see that in the link it gives actual numbers. Well, at least I wasn't far off.
I think the most interesting part of the survey is the results grouped by age, which you can see on this table:
http://goo.gl/QAUxW
6.4% of those aged 18-24 identify as LGBT, yet the percentage increases dramatically for the older cohorts, with only 1.9% of those over 65 reporting the same.
Why is this: Are older people just more likely to hide their sexuality from pollsters? Are there actually a higher percentage of LGBT individuals in the 18-24 bracket?
The results seem mostly consistent with what Richard F. Burton termed the "sotadic zone" where homosexuality was supposedly more prevalent. The main exception would be sub-Saharan Africans, who fall outside of the sotadic zone. It seems to me, though, that there is more bisexuality among Blacks than among non-Blacks (see, e.g., rape in American prisons which is mostly perpetrated by Blacks and doesn't occur in most of the world's prisons).
@Steve Sailer
"Wow, 0.6% of male active duty military personnel are gay / bisexual ..."
Yeah, that would include such flamming queens as Alexander the Great, Richard the Lionhearted, Cornelius Sulla Felix, Julius Caesar and members of the Sacred Band of thebes. All made careers in the military and all a LOT less masculine than your average straight guy.
Seriously, it is pathetic how badly you love to point out that gays are less masculine than straight men. You are absolutely devoid of subtetly and you should just point out what you are saying flat out instead of trying to be sarcastic:
Military = macho!!!!! = NOT GAY BECAUSE GAYS ARE EFFEMINATE! = no wonder only 0.6% of military men are gay or bisexual!!!!(PROFOUND EPIPHANY!!!)<--(that is me being sarcastic)
Yes, gay men are clearly less masculine in behavioral and psychological characteristics than straight men, but it's not like the average straight man is terribly masculine either. Most straight men work in cubicles at offices and take orders from wimps with college degrees anyway. And so what that they are less masculine? Men committ 99% of all homicides. The World would be a much better place if all men were less masculine than they are now. I make no value-judgements about masculinity or femininity. The fact that gay men are less masculine on average has no political or sociological implications to me.
I think asking if someone "identifies" as LGBT is going to miss black males who are functionally bi-sexual but don't identify as such. Maybe a better question would be if you engaged in a homosexual act in the last X months/years.
"6.4% of those aged 18-24 identify as LGBT"
It'd be interesting to see that broken down by the different types, because I'm wondering how many of those are lipstick lesbians or LUG (lesbian until graduation). I know several women who considered themselves bisexual when they were young and partying, but they all later married a man and had kids. So it might be revealing to see which numbers are inflated in that young age range. If it's the L and B, I'd say they're mostly straight girls trying to be wild. If the G or T have really increased much from previous generations, that would be more puzzling.
Steve, thank you for this thread.
I think that you should separate out the discussion of homosexual men vs. homosexual women.
If you examine the statistics, it is clear that female homosexuality is driven by what is most convenient for the female, what is popular in her social group.
First example, google the statistics on women who were raised by lesbians. Women over 25 who were raised by lesbians are more than TEN TIMES as likely to be lesbians themselves as women who were raised by heterosexual women. This is strong evidence that lesbianism is learned behaviour, not genetic
Another example, if you spend time among Smith College alumni, what they will pretty much tell you is that at Smith a very large percentage of the students practice a lesbian lifestyle while at college. Upon graduation, more that 80% of the physically attractive Smith alumni start practicing a heterosexual lifestyle and eventually marry men.
If you look exclusively at the Smith graduates who are extremely physically unattractive, more than half of them continue to live a lesbian lifestyle after graduation and never marry men.
Again, there is no proof here, but the strong evidence is that lesbianism is determined by a female's social group, not by her genes.
"Wow, 0.6% of male active duty military personnel are gay / bisexual ..."
Gays prefer buns to guns.
Why is this: Are older people just more likely to hide their sexuality from pollsters? Are there actually a higher percentage of LGBT individuals in the 18-24 bracket?
How much of this increase is due to bisexuals? I imagine people with weak bisexual leanings were less likely to act on them in previous generations. Perhaps they were even inhibited in their sexual fantasies. In either case, it's not clear whether these people should count as LGBT.
Cennbeorc
" An estimated 2.9% of women on active duty are lesbian/bisexual compared to only 0.6% of men.
Wow, 0.6% of male active duty military personnel are gay / bisexual ..."
Which I guess is redundant because its like saying butch women are more likely to be lesbians than macho men are to be gay. Then again, this number could be lower in male soldiers if there is more threat of reprisal for a male homo among male soldiers than a female homo among female soldiers.
In any case, even the butch females are below the average for the US, especially below what is likely the avg for butch females.
Well, now we know the reason why Truth keeps jumping to the assumption that everyone else posting here is gay.
"6.4% of those aged 18-24 identify as LGBT, yet the percentage increases dramatically for the older cohorts, with only 1.9% of those over 65 reporting the same.
Why is this: Are older people just more likely to hide their sexuality from pollsters? Are there actually a higher percentage of LGBT individuals in the 18-24 bracket?"
Dammit, I knew all that Harry Potter and Twilight crap was making fruit cakes out of Gen Y.
This doesn't surprise me. Homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism are all dysfunctional and blacks, Hispanics and even Asians as a whole are more dysfunctional than whites. Despite the image of gays as white yuppies, homosexuality is fundamentally lower-class behavior.
I find it surprising that whites are straighter than other races, The most outspoken gays are white; but maybe they are just the vocal minority.
even Asians as a whole are more dysfunctional than whites
Really?
"Upon graduation, more that 80% of the physically attractive Smith alumni start practicing a heterosexual lifestyle and eventually marry men."
Some liberal arts college slang:
GAG- gay until graduation
"The World would be a much better place if all men were less masculine than they are now. I make no value-judgements about masculinity or femininity."
When you contradict yourself that suddenly, does it cause whiplash?
Psychology Today article once examined why 15% of young women identify as bi / lesbian when it looks like the natural rate might be closer to 2 percent:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sax-sex/201004/why-are-so-many-girls-lesbian-or-bisexual
Author suggests porn-focused men and encouragement of sexual experimentation among women could be helping boost the trend.
Gays prefer buns to guns.
No doubt. But perhaps men join the military in order to impress women. And so do lesbians.
Geez, Mr. Sailer, I have to ask: what the %#$# is a "male lesbian"?
Well, in 1886 when he came up with the theory of the Sotadic zone, Asia was pretty dysfunctional.
"Wow, 0.6% of male active duty military personnel are gay / bisexual ..."
But that doesn't mean Don't Ask//Don't Tell wasn't the singularly most important issue ever oppressing thousa...uh hundreds...well, maybe a few dozen...
Burton for some reason included Greece in the Sotadic Zone, but not the rest of Europe. He probably either conflated Classical Greece with modern, or believed all the Greek stereotypes.
"Geez, Mr. Sailer, I have to ask: what the %#$# is a "male lesbian"?"
It would be a man who made an error filling in his Gallup Poll. Small demographic groups in polling often include a not insignificant number of people who are put in that group due to typos.
But this study is not constructed in a way that allows anybody to measure the number of obvious typos.
Lesbianism is, as you have long stated, quite a different phenomenon than male homosexuality. Women drift in and out of lesbianism for a variety of reasons. My own sister was straight identifying until she joined the Air Force, was a closeted lesbian throughout most of her twenty year enlistment, and on retirement married a man-a former fighter jock-and had two kids. He has no idea she was a mussypuncher for two decades.
"the Sacred Band of thebes."
Oh God, the Sacred Band of Thebes. Please cite actual evidence that this existed. Plutarch mentions them, but he prefaces his descriptions of them with "it is said..." - meaning, that their legendary homosexuality was just that, a legend.
Anonymous, can you explain what the play Lysistrata means?
"First example, google the statistics on women who were raised by lesbians. Women over 25 who were raised by lesbians are more than TEN TIMES as likely to be lesbians themselves as women who were raised by heterosexual women. This is strong evidence that lesbianism is learned behaviour, not genetic"
I haven't googled to check those numbers, but I'll share something I heard once in case I've never said it here before.
I remember back in the late '80s or very early 90s Phil Donahue had a gay man as a guest on his daytime talk show. The man said "If you ask a gay man if he chose to be gay, he'll probably say no. If you ask a lesbian if she chose to be lesbian, she'll probably say yes."
I don't know if he could get away with saying that today in 2012 or not.
Some posters here are talking about a possible increase in bisexual women or young bisexuals. If that's so I'd say it's a result of our more permissive times. Bis feel more comfortable acting on bi urges and in our more promiscuous society women indulge in or fake bisexuality in order to attract guys.
"Hey dude! Choose me. I'm "bicurious" I won't say no to that threesome you want!"
"Geez, Mr. Sailer, I have to ask: what the %#$# is a "male lesbian"?"
It would be a man who made an error filling in his Gallup Poll. Small demographic groups in polling often include a not insignificant number of people who are put in that group due to typos.
Or it's a man who fantasizes about being a woman having sex with women
"Geez, Mr. Sailer, I have to ask: what the %#$# is a "male lesbian"?"
Eddie Izzard is one.
Sexual preference: Latvian
Uh, meant to say "GUG-Gay Until Graduation".
None of the historical figures you mentioned where homosexual it is understood today. They were merely repeating the cycle of pederastry that they suffered as young males. I never understood why the homosexual lobby always touts these historical Jerry sanduskys. I don't understand how hilighting the fact that some historical figures raped and buttered boy and teenagers is supposed to show us bigoted straits that homosexuals can be fierce honorable warriors. It doesn't help your cause. Homosexuals can never be warriors in the same sense as heterosexuals not for lack of fierceness but profound difference in motivations. A husband and father fights to secure his genetic heritage. A homosexual can not by definition fight to preserve his genetics since they die with him.
If whites are less gay than blacks, then Rushton's theory predicts that Asians should be less gay than whites.
There are 3 likely reasons why the poll failed to find this pattern:
(1)homosexuality has little relevance to r/K reproduction strategies
(2)homosexuality is largely non-genetic
(3)the Asian homosexuality rate was inflated by south Asians and southeast Asians who self-identify as Asian despite being largely Caucasoid or part-australoid, and since australoids are arguably phenotypically Negroid, it makes sense that their sexuality would resemble blacks'
It could also be that homosexuality like handedness has a curvilinear relationship with IQ, causing gays to be overrepresented among both dull races (blacks) and smart races (Asians) but underrepresented among average IQ races (whites)
A homosexual can not by definition fight to preserve his genetics since they die with him.
Actually you're 100% wrong. Homosexuals are even more likely to be warriors, because defending their tribe is the ONLY way they can preserve their genetics since they tend not to reproduce.
"None of the historical figures you mentioned where homosexual it is understood today."
Exactly. You know, the post-modernists aren't exactly wrong when they point to the importance of language in shaping our perception of reality, and thus having a consequence in shaping reality itself.
Now, in the case of homosexuality, the concept didn't even exist until the 1800s, and certainly 'gay' didn't exist until the 1920s or later. Of course there were always men who primarily attracted to men, women to women, etc. But until the very recent past this wasn't seen as an immutable, essential part of a person's being. So in a real way homosexuals didn't exist.
In fact, the number of middle aged 'gay' men who have children sired in the natural way shows that when push comes to shove, men can put aside their 'preferences' to get sexual release.
I wouldn't expect the poll to give men the option of identifying as lesbian. Lesbian would just be how they would categorize a female who identifies as gay. And I would expect Sailer to know that, even if his point about errors on surveys is accurate.
even Asians as a whole are more dysfunctional than whites
Someone is confusing and conflating Muslims with all Asians.
Are older people just more likely to hide their sexuality from pollsters? Are there actually a higher percentage of LGBT individuals in the 18-24 bracket?
There may be an element of hiding by the older people but I think (Ive got no evidence!) that some people just grow out of it. More so than those who come out/switch in later life anyway.
The fact that gay men are less masculine on average has no political or sociological implications to me.
Not to you and not to the more insightful. But it can be held up against the political/MSM cliches that relentlessly deny that gay men are more effeminate, are teeming throughout the military and so on.
If whites are less gay than blacks, then Rushton's theory predicts that Asians should be less gay than whites.
There are 3 likely reasons why the poll failed to find this pattern:
Or maybe Rushton's theory explains a lot of things but doesn't explain every last racial difference?
The wording of the question probably inflates the numbers.
Do you...identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender
So if you're a married woman and sometimes you see a woman and think she's pretty, you can call yourself a gay-bicycle.
I would have a list of sex acts and a space for a number by it and you have to write a number in the space. Put out or get out.
"6.4% of those aged 18-24 identify as LGBT, yet the percentage increases dramatically for the older cohorts, with only 1.9% of those over 65 reporting the same.
Why is this: Are older people just more likely to hide their sexuality from pollsters? Are there actually a higher percentage of LGBT individuals in the 18-24 bracket?"
For the 65+ crowd, both genders are more closeted and a lot of the men are dead of AIDS.
"If whites are less gay than blacks, then Rushton's theory predicts that Asians should be less gay than whites"
Not all traits follow Rushton's theory. For example Whites are on average taller than both Asians and Blacks.
'White people are less likely to be gay'
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Or is there, in this day and age?
6.4% of those aged 18-24 identify as LGBT, yet the percentage increases dramatically for the older cohorts, with only 1.9% of those over 65 reporting the same.Why is this: Are older people just more likely to hide their sexuality from pollsters? Are there actually a higher percentage of LGBT individuals in the 18-24 bracket?
In the 1960s idiom that gay activists hate, they're "just going through a phase". Wait until you are middle aged; a large portion of the people you now know as gay will no longer be so. They will follow the example of the Village People:
Village People: Our songs are not gay
Yet Felipe Rose, the original Native American character, said the group “are just a party band”. And David “Scar” Hodo, the group’s construction worker, said In The Navy was just about enlisting.
The band's former lead singer Victor Willis was married to the actress who played Mrs. Huxtable on The Cosby Show and is now married for a second time and living in Wales. So, the moral of the story is that all that glitters is not gay.
"If whites are less gay than blacks, then Rushton's theory predicts that Asians should be less gay than whites"
Not all traits follow Rushton's theory. For example Whites are on average taller than both Asians and Blacks.
Whites might be taller than blacks, but I suspect blacks are taller than the ENTIRE Caucasoid race (which includes short Indians) who in turn are probably taller than Mongoloids.
But I agree we shouldn't expect ALL traits to fit rushton's theory, but sexuality is pretty central to rushton's r/k hypothesis.
But now that I think of it, this DOES fit rushton's theory, because there are 2 types of gay men. The super masculine butch type who rape other men, and the super feminine sissy type who become hair dressers.
Perhaps blacks become gay because they are too masculine and East Asians become gay because they're too feminine, and white men, being in the middle of both extremes, become straight.
"In the 1960s idiom that gay activists hate, they're "just going through a phase". Wait until you are middle aged; a large portion of the people you now know as gay will no longer be so. They will follow the example of the Village People:
Village People: Our songs are not gay
Yet Felipe Rose, the original Native American character, said the group “are just a party band”. And David “Scar” Hodo, the group’s construction worker, said In The Navy was just about enlisting.
The band's former lead singer Victor Willis was married to the actress who played Mrs. Huxtable on The Cosby Show and is now married for a second time and living in Wales. So, the moral of the story is that all that glitters is not gay."
Interesting anecdote, CJ. Yes, this theory that everyone is either gay or not gay; and if gay, is either in the closet or out, may or may not be true. It's certainly politically convenient.
As for the high number of black ho moes, I suspect it's those South LA gangs trolling the survey.
Gilbert P.
Legendary Linda,
They do indeed fight for the tribe, but that's not their genetics, that's their relative's genetics. There are all types of differences amongst humans, race, gender, ethinicity, sexuality, ect. This is one of them. Accept reality, it will relieve much of your frustration.
Legendary Linda:
"Or it's a man who fantasizes about being a woman having sex with women"
I have seen one of those on the Internet refer to himself as a "pre-op transsexual lesbian woman", AIR. If the man fantasises about having sex with men as a woman it's "pre-op transsexual cisgender woman".
CJ:
"In the 1960s idiom that gay activists hate, they're "just going through a phase". Wait until you are middle aged; a large portion of the people you now know as gay will no longer be so. "
As others have noted, that's certainly true of women. I'm not sure it's equally true of men; the Village People example may be more about career opportunities, like those casting-couch young male actors exploited by the gay Jews of Hollywood that Sailer has talked about.
There is a theory that homosexuality was passed on genetically in the past by enough homosexuals marrying and reproducing under the pressure to conform. So the great irony may be that the gay rights movement may liberate homosexuality into extinction.
Men committ 99% of all homicides.
Only due to the incompetence of Crystal Mangum.
Didn't The Village People have a majority straight membership because they could not find enough good gay dancers?
Actually you're 100% wrong. Homosexuals are even more likely to be warriors, because defending their tribe is the ONLY way they can preserve their genetics since they tend not to reproduce.
Just like necrophiliacs and foot-fetishists. It all must be a bizarre reproductive strategy, somehow.
I would have a list of sex acts and a space for a number by it and you have to write a number in the space. Put out or get out.
Alfred Kinsey lives!
"Military = macho!!!!! = NOT GAY BECAUSE GAYS ARE EFFEMINATE! = no wonder only 0.6% of military men are gay or bisexual!!!!(PROFOUND EPIPHANY!!!)"
Thats SUPER convincing. Add more exclamation marks because people are coming over to your side.
And stamp your foot while you are at it.
My anecdotal impression, as a rider of the NYC subways, is that there are a lot of black bulldykes running around. This makes armchair evolutionary sense -- fifty years of dysgenic selection for the thuggin’est, ruggedest babydaddy on the block has to have left its mark in the form of exceptionally high-T daughters.
Despite the image of gays as white yuppies, homosexuality is fundamentally lower-class behavior.
What does "fundamentally lower-class behavior" mean?
The study didn't divide answers by class. It's not clear which class from each respective race tended to answer yes. It could be the case that higher classes from each race tended to answer yes.
As some here may remember I believe that homosexuality is caused (not correlated - caused) by a toxoplasma gondii infection in the mother. These ethnic distributions are consistent with that theory.
There is a crude epidemiological correlation between national t. gondii rates and gay rates.
This theory is quite easy to disprove as Popper requires of a real scientific hypothesis. There is a simple test for t. gondii antibodies. The theory says that every woman who has had a gay son (or child) will test positive. Find just one who doesn't and the whole idea simply blows away.
The gay infection idea is well established in scientific circles. Afterall it has to come from somewhere and it can't be genetic. The various Freudian-like child rearing theories don't hold up very well. So what's left?
The infectious agent has to target the INAH3 nucleus of the hypothalamus at just the right time. It has to be a relatively common agent. And it has to work by hijacking the host's nervous systemso as to change the host's behavior. The list of infectious agents that meet all these criteria is short.
Albertosaurus
Anon 9:11:
Wow, that's horrifying, but I think you may be right. AIDS killed a really incredible number of gay men, though I think it killed very few lesbians. (MM transmission via anal sex is much easier than MF transmission, which is in turn much easier than FF transmission.)
I imagine some of the difference is social, involving what kind of label you give yourself. I imagine there are decent survey numbers somewhere asking about # of partners of each sex, which would clarify the difference between someone who says she's bisexual because she had a crush on her best girl friend in college (before marrying a man and having a couple kids) and someone who's been living with her girfriend for the last five years.
Anecdotally, a fair number of my college female friends self-identified as bisexual, but almost all of them ended up married to men, often with kids. One of them lived with her boyfriend for a decade, then left him for a girl she met at work, and they're still together many years later--it seems pretty clear to me that she is meaningfully bisexual (she's had serious long-term sexual and romantic relationships with both sexes), but I'm not sure the other women I know, who maybe experimented a little in college and then got married to men, quite fit the category the same way.
Urban areas correlate with homosexuality. I believe blacks and Asian are the most urban groups in the US. Hispanics and whites are less urban.
@Cail Korishev
"When you contradict yourself that suddenly, does it cause whiplash?"
It is not a contradiction. If you read carefully what I wrote - obviously not the case-, I stated that I make no value-judgements regarding masculinity or femininity as far as their POLITICAL or SOCIOLOGICAL implications; that is, methinks no one should be granted or denied rights based on their level of maculinity or lack thereof. Sailer is constantrly bringing up the effeminacy of gay men as grounds to deny/remove their rights, and that is what I oppose - Sailer also think it's ok for the Israelis to treat the Palestinians as the Nazis treated the ancestors of those same Israelis, so it's not like I am dealing with a very ethical person here.
I do think tyhe World would be a better place if men were a lot less masculine, but this does not mean that I make this into value-judgements that I use to infer the value of different groups of people as far as political rights and social status is concerned.
Actually asians are more suburban, in La County they lived in suburbs more. Hispanics in La-Orange live a lot more urban. Old parts of La and Long Beach-Anaheim-Santa Ana are where about 40 part of the hispanic populations live in the Los Angeles-Long Beach- Santa Ana super metro area.
"As some here may remember I believe that homosexuality is caused (not correlated - caused) by a toxoplasma gondii infection in the mother."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasma_gondii
http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/HTML/Toxoplasmosis.htm
"Serologic prevalence data indicate that toxoplasmosis is one of the most common of humans infections throughout the world. A high prevalence of infection in France has been related to a preference for eating raw or undercooked meat"
I can't find a link, but I'm sure infection rates were 50% in France vs around 12% in the UK. I'm not sure the French are four times more gay than the English.
The gay infection idea is well established in scientific circles. After all it has to come from somewhere and it can't be genetic.
Why does the explanation have to be biological? Non-adaptive behaviour could simply be non-adaptive behaviour, not adaptive behaviour for a parasite.
Do the mothers of celibate Christian monks have t. gondii as well?
Junkies engage in non-adaptive behaviour - few of them exhibit much reproductive success - heroin tends to inhibit sexual performance and often shortens lifespan. Does it need a biological explanation? (Aside from possible susceptibility to the effect of the drug in the first place.)
Anon 4:24:
Er, can you link to the place where Steve said or implied that gays being less masculine than straight men was a reason to take away any of their rights? Or that he thinks it's a good thing for Israelis to mistreat Palestinians?
Why does the explanation have to be biological? Non-adaptive behaviour could simply be non-adaptive behaviour, not adaptive behaviour for a parasite.
The theory doesn't suggest that homosexuality is adaptive for the t. gondii parasite. This very common parasite wants to cycle between cats and mice. It gets into other creatures by mistake. When it gets into a sea otter it kills them immediately. When it gets into a human it causes bad driving, schizophrenia, and several other well established problems. These problems are being discovered all the time. My hypothesis is simply that one of these is human homosexuality. I could be wrong of course but if there is an infectious agent involved in homosexuality it should look and act like t. gondii.
Albertosaurus
Lesbian Until Graduation is also a convenient way for rich white college girls to keep away icky men, and of course pregnancy. Then she can marry the musclebound millionaire of her dreams and have a family.
When [T.Gondii] gets into a human it causes bad driving, schizophrenia, and several other well established problems.
What about Autism?
Or am I thinking of mercury?
"Why is this: Are older people just more likely to hide their sexuality from pollsters? Are there actually a higher percentage of LGBT individuals in the 18-24 bracket?"
it's because lots of them are dead by then from STDs. and, possibly, drug use. think they use more drugs than heterosexuals.
they are also, for obvious reasons, dramatically less like to create families. and a family with children that you made, is a good, good reason to stay alive, keep fighting, and keep trying to go on day after day after life gets boring, difficult, and your health starts to decline after age 50.
most homosexuals don't have that drive, to stay alive for my family. not only do i wonder if the suicide rate is higher, i wonder if they can rely less on people close to them to help them and save them if their health crashes for whatever reason.
there won't be a wife and several kids who are desperately interested in you staying alive and who will do whatever it takes for 12 hours a day, spend whatever it costs, $100000 a year or more, to make sure you survive whatever health ordeal you're going through, and make sure you live.
most people are probably thinking about the upper class socialite homosexuals on television which the cultural marxists want to portray as the typical gay guys, and saying "Wait, they have to money and the health insurance to handle a serious medical situation."
but in reality, millions of homosexuals are dumb poor minorities. so the "no family to save you when you're 50 and get you through medical condition x" factor is bigger than you might think.
in most third world nations, without all the outreach programs and money transfers specifically to save homosexuals from themselves, being a homosexual is an almost guaranteed short life sentence. you aren't living much past 50 if the state isn't picking up the tab for your health care.
as i estimated 3 years ago, the US military was ruined in order to accommodate about 10000 people, none of them critical to it's function, all of whom could have safely been excluded from duty with no effect on anything. next up, diversifying US special forces.
this is how it works in cultural marxist america. i still LOL that it was GW bush who went after the fire departments with the full force of the justice department, and not a democrat president. shows how truly ensconced we are in the new america of head counting, then declaring "not enough of group x in activity y". even the republicans are strong purveyors of it.
most homosexuals don't have that drive, to stay alive for my family. not only do i wonder if the suicide rate is higher, i wonder if they can rely less on people close to them to help them and save them if their health crashes for whatever reason.
The standard explanation is the high homo-suicide rate is caused by alienation and persecution. Only a fool would deny that such alienation exists. But those other reasons are valid too. Male homosexuals have little sense of solidarity, except for certain issues. And even these issues relate more to defense against heteros than to both physical and mental health. The AIDS campaign hinted that both AIDS itself and lack of outside funding and support were hetero plots to destroy them. Male homosexuals have no children or other "post" family, and relations with their "pre" family are often poor. There are no grandchildren to serve as glue to strengthen their bonds with their parents. Their promiscuity and "gayness" gets in the way of true friend-making.
" Homosexuals can never be warriors in the same sense as heterosexuals not for lack of fierceness but profound difference in motivations. "
You want your warriors to be ruthless dominators.
Homosexuals get off on sexually submitting to other men.
Hence why you wouldn't want them as warriors for your group as they would constantly be fantasizing about their own subjugation by the outgroup men.
The incentives are off.
Not all gay men are submissive. Some are sexually sadistic.
The World would be a much better place if all men were less masculine than they are now. I make no value-judgements about masculinity or femininity.
the homosexual man's ability to reason aptly demonstrated here...
@Udolpho
"the homosexual man's ability to reason aptly demonstrated here..."
The lady doth protest too much, methinks...
"The standard explanation is the high homo-suicide rate is caused by alienation and persecution. Only a fool would deny that such alienation exists. "
The electric tube culture tells me other wise.
"Are there actually a higher percentage of LGBT individuals in the 18-24 bracket?"
you didn't have a LGBT club at your high-school? omg, old folks!
'He may not be much for hand-to-hand combat, but I bet he can polish the hell out of a bayonet...'
-General George S. Patton, speech to Congress on the value of drafting J. Edgar Hoover into the Army, April 3, 1942.
Post a Comment