Homosexuality presents a recurring issue
for both society and sociology.
The behaviour occurs all over the world
and throughout history, although its
form, acceptability, and apparent
extent varies greatly from one society
to another.

Any attempt to divide the population into
two distinct categories must fail because
of the countless ambiguous cases that arise -
people whose deisres are heterosexual but
whose behaviour is homosexual;
people who have homosexual histories but
whose current behaviour is heterosexual;
people who alternate between the two
forms of behaviour; and so on.

On the basis of his research, Kinsey
recognized that sexual orientation is a
continuum. Subsequent studies of the topic
have generally indicated that approx. 10%
(today perhaps even higher) or so of the
population can be considered exclusively
or predominantly homosexual. This estimate
would include somewhere in the region of
25 million Americans, and growing.

This is a remarkable finding, given that
there are about as many substantially
homosexual people in the US as there are
blacks, or people aged 65 or over -
and they, obviously, all have to be
somebody's child, parent, cousin,
co-worker, teacher, neighbour, friend, or
fellow student.

Hopefully the day will come when a person's
individual human qualities, rather than
his or her sexual orientation, biological
sex, or race, would be the primary measure
of that person's worth and achievement.
Then the question of coming out of the closet
would not even need to arise.

Foxy,
I don't often call people a fool,
but you are testing my limits.
Numerous authoritative surveys,
conducted by census bureaus, etc,
and not by homo-apologists,
put the numbers closer to 1.5%.
You are the homosexual lobbyists "useful idiot".
You reduce their need to spread lies and propaganda
because you've actually managed to convince yourself.
Bravo.
What I have learnt from you though Foxy,
is that there is a certain number of people
who are beyond any form of reasoning.
I used to believe that everyone could eventually agree
on certain things because of the indisputable evidence
substantiating a particular viewpoint and hence
disproving its opposite.
You shatter that concept.
You are beyond hope.
For the record,
not that mere statistics could influence your viewpoint:

Homosexuals in Australia
Nationwide figure -
* 1.2% of adults consider themselves homosexual or lesbian.
* 1.6% of adult men identify as homosexual
* 0.8% of women identify as lesbian.
* 1.4% of women said they were bisexual.
* 0.9% of men said they were bisexual.
Source: The 2003 'Sex in Australia' survey of 20,000 people, with a special weighting to Sydney's homosexual centre.
Conducted by the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health & Society (ARCSHS) at La Trobe University.
Published in Australian & NZ Journal of Public Health, vol. 27, no. 2, 2003, ISSN 1326 0200.

Homosexuals in Canada (Where same-sex "marriage" is legal)
* 1.3% of men identify as homosexual.
* 0.7% of women identify as homosexual.
* 0.9% of women identify as bisexual.
* 0.6% of men identify as bisexual.
Source: Canadian Community Health Survey, June 2004.
A Canadian government survey of 83,000 people. (Statistics Canada).
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/040615/dq040615b-eng.htm

Al Gore: <"Indeed we do David..and it comes from the Law of Moses and Jesus Christ.">

Al,a little humour for you:

The philosopher, David Hume, wrote an essay on the sufficiency of the light of nature for man’s spiritual needs. A noted minister, F. W. Robertson, published a sermon upholding the opposite thesis,
pointing out that the light of nature needs to be supplemented by the light of a revelation from God.

The two were brought together by mutual friends to debate the matter. When the evening ended, Hume rose to leave. Robertson took a light to show him the way. Hume protested, “Don’t worry about me. I always find the light of nature sufficient.” But opening the door, he stumbled over something on the steps and tumbled into the street. Robertson jumped down beside him, and holding up his light over the prostrate philosopher to see that he was not hurt, softly but firmly said, “You need a little light from above.”

Proverbs 10:12 - Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.

- and here's a famous bit of humour. You've probably already seen it but it always gives me a laugh so maybe it will do the same for others here. Also, some interesting additional information is included in the link:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

Dear Proxy,

My reference was to subsequent studies of
the topic that were conducted after
Alfred C. Kinsey's , "Sexual behaviour in
the Human Male." The given 10% or so was
not something I made up but was a given
statistic referring to the US. I presumed
that most posters would be aware of the famous
Kinsey and his studies on sexuality - and the
fact that the studies were done in America.

I can't be held responsible for your lack of knowledge
on the topic.

This old adage might be worth considering
here in your case:

"It's better to let people think you're a fool,
Then to post and confirm it!"

Get the facts first old chum as I've told you
before (you can distort them later).

>> It appears that your argument [ ... ] was thoroughly debunked

No it wasn't.

(Those who want to spare themselves all the details can simply jump to the end of the next post.)

One of the discredited tactics used by those who would drive homosexuals back into the closet is to associate homosexuality with crimes. In this discussion it's been dope-smoking and incest.

Thirteen months ago my rejection of the linking of incest and homosexuality relied partly on the assertion that sexuality is not a choice. The so-called "debunking" of my argument referred to "studies" claiming that homosexuality can be cured (therefore it's not a choice). The first and most important reason that this doesn't "debunk" my argument is that even if individuals can change their sexuality, this has no bearing on the rights of same-sex-attracted people to determine how best to live their lives. Handedness is not a choice, and in some cases it's possible to turn left-handers into right-handers. However we've given up trying to "cure" left-handedness because (a) it has lost its stigma, (b) "curing" it doesn't provide benefits for the subjects and (c) the effort involved is often painful and traumatic. Should it ever be shown conclusively that it is indeed possible to "cure" homosexuality, I think the same conclusions will be reached as for left-handedness. We don't pathologise left-handedness, and attempts to pathologise homosexuality are cruel and misleading.

What I neglected to do thirteen months ago was to address in detail the quote from Essential Psychopathology and its Treatment (EPT) that has been provided above. It's an out-of-context snippet from a 685-page book, but nonetheless, because EPT has in the past been highly regarded, the quote merits a second look.

The text as quoted above omits the four supporting citations: Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Byrd et al., 2008; Shaeffer et al., 1999; Spitzer, 2003. However the anti-gay site Americans for Truth about Homosexuality does include them: http://americansfortruth.com/news/report-highlights-pedophile-connections-of-american-psychological-association.html

Continues ...

Byrd and Nicolosi are past presidents of NARTH, an organisation set up to promote conversion therapy, much loved by our resident homophobes as an anti-gay source.
Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002 is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12150399
Byrd et al., 2008 is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18481660

Note the publication, "Psychological Reports", whose impact factor puts it in the bottom range of psychology journals, http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_journals.html It requires authors to pay a fee, which also casts doubt on its authority.

Shaeffer et al., 1999 is: http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&uid=2000-13311-005

Haven't found any commentary on this article, but from the abstract it appears to share a lot of the problems with the Spitzer study (see next).

Spitzer's study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14567650 is deeply flawed (see http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_spit.htm and http://www.ralliance.org/SpitzerStudy.html ), and Spitzer himself has stated many times that it does not support the conclusions that christian groups draw from it.

All this raises the question of why a claim based on dubious studies would appear in a highly-regarded book. The originator of EPT, Jerrold S. Maxmen, died in 1992 http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/30/obituaries/jerrold-s-maxmen-psychiatrist-50.html The second edition was completed by Nicholas G. Ward, who in turn appears to have died before publication of the third edition http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/44/8/20.full The additional author for the third edition is Mark Kilgus. A survey of Kilgus' publications finds several co-authored with discredited anti-gay researcher George Rekers http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/anti-gay-preacher-george-rekers-took-rentboy-on-holiday-as-an-aide/story-e6frg6so-1225863027782 and at least one published in "Psychological Reports".

In short, since it's impossible to escape the non-scientific bias in this quote, it's prudent to rely on the American Psychological Association:

>> Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

>> No ...

>> Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
>> No ...

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

For two reasons, my argument from thirteen months ago still stands. First, it does not follow from the claims of some individuals to have changed their sexuality that homosexuality is a choice. Second, the literature claiming that sexual orientation can be changed is biased and unsound. The most reliable source on this subject, the American Psychological Association, states unequivocally that sexual orientation is not a choice.