Its a really complex area of research. That has been some of the greatest problems with the Spitzer and the Regnerus studies, very badly defined definitions of sexuality. The very good studies I've seen use multiple measures.
My own thought is that the distribution is more like a multi modal distribution, with one moderate bump at one extreme, then a trough, then a considerably larger bump that trails off (there are times I wish this list would accept graphics). The assumption is that no one except the very extremes are exclusively attracted to the opposite sex, or the same sex. But what we consider straight are mostly attracted to the opposite sex, while gays tend to be attracted to the same sex. The data mostly shows that the basis for sexual attraction is to a great extent based on genetic factors (although no specific gene or combination have been exactly pinpointed, yet), and certain intrauterine hormonal changes during the first timester of pregnancy. End of story. On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:59 AM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You're right here, a lot of people would lie, and some have unique self and > world images that are gay, bi and poly. > On Oct 26, 2012 10:56 AM, "Larry C. Lyons" <larrycly...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> That 2% figure (taken from the 2000 Census) has been shown to be much >> in error, based on how the question was asked, the perceived lack of >> anonymity and so on. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which >> used somewhat superior methodology, estimated three to eight percent >> of both sexes. >> >> Still its not a matter of numbers its a matter of equal treatment >> before the law, you know that pesky amendment to the constitution. >> >> so basically what you're saying is that since there are not so many >> these people's basic civil rights and the 14th amendment don't apply >> to them. What was that classic comment about the tyranny of the >> majority? >> >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > You're mixing apples with oranges. Not wanting to redefine the >> > institution of marriage to accommodate 2% of the population does not >> > make you racist. I'm amazed at how angry and hateful people are and >> > they don't even realize who the real haters are. >> > >> > . >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> I know I am going to regret asking this, but..... >> >> >> >> How am I not on topic? Jerry pointed out that it seems a minority of >> >> people are against gay marriage. I simply pointed out there was a time >> >> not too long ago that people felt the same way about inter racial >> >> marriage. >> >> >> >> Being gay, like being black or Hispanic, is NOT a choice, so the >> >> analogy is quite fitting to the discussion. >> >> >> >> If you believe being gay is a choice, then I don't really think >> >> anything worthwhile can come from continuing this discussion with you. >> >> >> >> For what is is worth, if being gay is a choice, I admit my analogy >> >> might not fit as well, but it does not make gay marriage opponents any >> >> less discriminatory. >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:356880 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
