How many gays does it take to....?

[Ponster]

In a recent discussion on another board, the subjest of the amount of gay people there are in the' UK/US came up. I remember in the 80's TV advertisments telling us about AIDS and how 1 in 5 people might be gay.

Now this figure seems a littler large to me considering that in reality only about 2% of my friends are gay and not 20% as I had been told 15 years ago.

I realise that it's always going to be difficult to get a true answer but what's the general thinking at the moment. Closer to 5% ?

[Fromage A Trois]

Apparently 1 in every 5 people in the world is gay... and there are 5 people in my family. So it must be me, my dad, my mum, my younger brother Colin or my older brother 'Dancing Queen' Dave... But I think it's Colin.

Sorry, Tommy Cooper moment there.

I think your suggestion of about 5% is nearer the mark, it matches the number of my friends that are gay. Perhaps it depends on where you define "Gay" - is someone only gay if they sleep only with members of the same sex, or are you gay after one same-sex encounter? This would make the percentage increase markedly I think.

[Fromage A Trois]

Thinking about it, you don't need to participate in homosexual relationships to be gay... I was hetrosexual before I had sex... oh, for so long... [cough]. Sorry. Anyway, I'm moving more into GD territory here.

5%.

[GorillaMan]

Ummm, probably a quarter of my non-work-related friends are gay. That's what I get for being a lily-livered arty liberal type :p

[Marley23]

One in five? That's 20% of the population. No way. Kinsey said 1 in 10, and from this board I'm given to understand that's still much too high. I thought it was more like 2%.

I don't know what's considered the best or most current research, but this article backs up that range. (http://content.gay.com/channels/finance/glmoney/60yearshealth.html)
The National Health and Social Life Survey was conducted in 1992 by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. It include a random sample of 3,432 U.S. residents and found 2.8 percent of the men self-identifying as being gay and 1.4 percent of the women.

[roger thornhill]

The numbers have come down dramatically in the last 30 years, from 10/20% to 2%. Either the earlier studies were wrong (of course, today's never are - scientific advances, you know), or, assuming homosexuality to be biologically caused, then either or both our genes are mutating or the embryonic soup has changed its hormonal levels. Something for the evolutionary biologists to sink their teeth into.

Michael Flanders (of Flanders and Swann) summed it up best for me (though about mental illness):

It has in fact been calculated that in this country alone, over 30% are sub-clinically neurotic. Or as a psychiatrist would say, stark staring bonkers. Over 30%, just think - that's every third person. Happily, there are only two of us.

[Iceland_Blue]

Well,according to a preliminary analysis of the 2001 census,those who actually stated they were in a homosexual relationship was much lower than the figures usually quoted-approximately 80,000 which works out at approximately 1 in every 750 people.

[Marley23]

Either the earlier studies were wrong (of course, today's never are - scientific advances, you know)
Jeez, rog, you do realize that happens and things can be improved, right? Scientific review? From other pages on the same site:
[Kinsey's] study, though groundbreaking and often cited, has never been statistically relevant to the overall gay male population
The [1992 Janus] report (http://content.gay.com/channels/finance/glmoney/60yearsjanus.html) concluded that 22 percent of men and 17 percent of women claimed to have experienced at least one same sex encounter in their lives. Of those responding 9 percent of males identified as being homosexual or bisexual and 5 percent of females as being homosexual or bisexual.

[roger thornhill]

Well,according to a preliminary analysis of the 2001 census,those who actually stated they were in a homosexual relationship was much lower than the figures usually quoted-approximately 80,000 which works out at approximately 1 in every 750 people.
Bloody hell! Someone put something in that soup quick. We're down to less than one half of one percent!

[Iceland_Blue]

Well that's only those who stated they were in a homosexual relationship....those who didn't declare it on their forms or who had someone else filling in the forms and didn't tell them wouldn't get recorded...

[Marley23]

Well that's only those who stated they were in a homosexual relationship....those who didn't declare it on their forms or who had someone else filling in the forms and didn't tell them wouldn't get recorded...
Yes, please take note of the differences. Being asked something in a relatively anonymous survey - at least for some people - is pretty damn different from writing it down on a government form.

[roger thornhill]

Marley, all stats are dodgy, especially self-reports.

Anyway, according to the cites provided by you (both for 1992):

"2.8 percent of the men self-identifying as being gay and 1.4 percent of the women."

"9 percent of males identified as being homosexual or bisexual and 5 percent of females as being homosexual or bisexual."

If this is science, then, well, I'm a scientist.

[Squee]

So roger thornhill, where do you put the numbers at? You love to scoff at all figures presented, so where do you stand?

As far as my answer goes, I would think the Kinsey answer is pretty accurate at 10%. At least until proven otherwise, scientifically.

[Ponster]

"2.8 percent of the men self-identifying as being gay...

"9 percent of males identified as being homosexual...



So were 6.2% identified as being gay yet didn't admit to it?

[GorillaMan]

Well that's only those who stated they were in a homosexual relationship....those who didn't declare it on their forms or who had someone else filling in the forms and didn't tell them wouldn't get recorded...
Also, if it's raw numbers, it includes a few million children, which would lower the proportion somewhat.

[Futile Gesture]

Sexuality doesn't exist in a binary state. It's a continuum. And one sexual encounter of one type or another doesn't set your sexuality in stone forever.

Self-reporting surveys are notoriously prone to inaccuracies, but there's no certain way for a third-party to determine someone's sexuality. You can only ask. Frankly I'm not willing to accept any percentage as more accurate than any other, they're all flawed. All I can say is that personally, in my experience, around 5% is possibly in the right region. But we're never going to get accurate figures for this.

Perhaps we're better off that way. I don't see what a numbers game proves or matters from any viewpoint.

[roger thornhill]

If homosexuality is in large part genetic, then it would be expected that the number of homosexuals if falling, as those with the homosexual gene (especially men) are far less likely to have offspring, and thus the numbers will progressively be reduced.

[Diceman]

People who come up with figures like 10 or 20 percent (like Kinsey) are casting their nets as widely as possible. A "same sex encounter" (from the 22%/17% study) could be something as innocuous as having a gay guy or lesbian hit on you. OTOH, studies that define homosexuality extremely narrowly (ie, exclusively homosexual, with pretty much no heterosexual inclinations at all) tend to get something like half a percent. I'd say that the 3% figure is probably pretty close to correct for people who consider themselves "gay."

Note: in my area, the number of people who are openly gay is far less than 3%, but then this isn't a very tolerant area. In some place like California, I'd imagine that the number of gays who are still "in the closet" would be very small. Also, certain areas (like California and New York) have a larger-than-normal percentage of homosexuals because these areas have a reputation for being more tolerant.

[Sevastopol]

If homosexuality is in large part genetic, then it would be expected that the number of homosexuals if falling, as those with the homosexual gene (especially men) are far less likely to have offspring, and thus the numbers will progressively be reduced.

No, biology is never that simple. Consider the benefit of having homosexual aunts and uncles. How might that increase:

1) the survival and reproductive health of children so advantaged &

2) the number of children to be born in those propitious circumstances.

recalling, such children will carry close to half the aunt/uncle's genetic material.

[bonzer]

Apparently 1 in every 5 people in the world is gay... and there are 5 people in my family. So it must be me, my dad, my mum, my younger brother Colin or my older brother 'Dancing Queen' Dave... But I think it's Colin.

Sorry, Tommy Cooper moment there.

It's OT and a nitpick, but - like many of the lines now well-meaningly attributed to Cooper - the original joke's actually by the British comedian Tim Vine - see this recent interview with him (http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/theatre/interviews/story.jsp?story=617642).

[Sevastopol]

FWIW 3 - 6% sounds about right to me. That's 1 in 15 to 1 in 30.

[Polycarp]

So were 6.2% identified as being gay yet didn't admit to it?

There's a lot of people in denial out there! :p

Seriously, numbers can be "cooked" in either direction by people whose agenda is advanced by having them high or low. Hence the wide divergence in figures.

Second, consider what you use for a definition. Predominantly attracted to t he same sex? Exclusively attracted to the same sex? Actively boinking someone of the same sex? "At one time in one's life" followed by each of the above? Ever had sex to orgasm with anyone of the same sex? Ever thought seriously about it? None of the above but react involuntarily to pictures of naked people of the same sex?

Push the definition in one direction, and you've ruled out Homebrew[b] and [b]Esprix, Elton John, Oscar Wilde, and G-d knows who else from being gay. Push it in the opposite, and everybody from Fred Phelps to Tom DeLay becomes a closet gay person.

[Gfactor]

A previous thread on this very topic.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=234769

[Ponster]

Thx Gfactor, I searched for such a thread but must have been alseep.

[Gfactor]

Tom DeLay becomes a closet gay person.

You mean he's not? :D

[Scott Plaid]

screw in a lightbulb?

[panache45]

Push it in the opposite, and everybody from Fred Phelps to Tom DeLay becomes a closet gay person.
I hope not! I'd much rather have these guys as my enemies than my lovers! Ewwwwww.

Regarding the census: If I recall correctly, they asked only whether you were living with someone of your own gender. There are a whole lot of people, gay and straight and others, who are not in a commited, live-in relationship, and would not have been counted. I know several long-term gay couples who, for various reasons, don't live together. And obviously there are same-gender people who live together but not that way.

[shy_kat]

For the record, I know an awful lot of bisexuals who would turn up as "straight" on a census form...

[Excalibre]

If homosexuality is in large part genetic, then it would be expected that the number of homosexuals if falling, as those with the homosexual gene (especially men) are far less likely to have offspring, and thus the numbers will progressively be reduced.
Humans have been around for tens of thousands of years. Why hasn't it happened before now? By your simplistic logic, we must have started out back on the African savannah with a population that was 10,000% gay.

Or else genetics is a lot more complicated than your understanding of it would indicate. As is human sexuality.

[Polycarp]

If homosexuality is in large part genetic, then it would be expected that the number of homosexuals if falling, as those with the homosexual gene (especially men) are far less likely to have offspring, and thus the numbers will progressively be reduced.

Someone suggested (anybody know the cite for this?) that if homosexuality is genetic, it may be a "Sickle Cell" gene, where heterozygosity conveys an evolutionary advantage that offsets the disadvantage produced by homozygosity. (You know the drill on this: the gene that when homozygous produces sickle-cell anemia conveys reduced susceptibility to malaria when heterozygous, and so is selected for by the latter as well as against by the former.

For example, consider "male-bonding" -- the relationship that is formed between two men who are friends, enabling them to hunt together, work together on each other's home projects, etc. There's nothing overtly homosexual in that sort of relationship; most men form such friendships. Now contrast that to the stereotypical Macho Loner, who does not form such friendships. Only the ablest of men would survive hunting alone in Paleolithic cultures, while men with the ability to bond and work together to bring down that mammoth or wild boar would survive and flourish, and reproduce.

Okay, for the sake of simplicity, suppose the whole thing to be governed by a single gene pair, and no such thing as bisexuality. LL produces the Loner. LG produces the heterosexual male capable of male-bonding. And GG produces men who takes male-bonding to a sexual level as well. Clearly few if any GG men will reproduce. But LG men will be selected for; while Macho Loner LL is getting his gonads ripped out by the wild boar, LG2 has speared the one trying to do the same to LG1 on their hunt, and together and intact they kill it, feast with their wives on roast pork, and engender another generation that night.

[Chronos]

recalling, such children will carry close to half the aunt/uncle's genetic material.If you consider one fourth to be "close to half". And so far as I know, nobody's ever calculated, measured, or estimated just how much benefit the "gay uncle" effect provides to such offspring. But considering how easy it is for most modern humans to survive to adulthood and reproduce, even without a gay uncle, it's hard to believe that the effect would be strong enough to make homosexuality genetically advantageous.

Another possible explanation for why a "gay gene" might have survived so long, and why it might be diminishing in recent decades or currently, is that it hasn't been strongly selected against. In a society where homosexuality is frowned upon, many homosexuals will enter into heterosexual relationships in an effort to fit in. Despite being homosexual, they'll still be having on average nearly as many kids as the heterosexuals (or perhaps even more, if they're overcompensating). In such an environment, there would not be a strong selective pressure against homosexuality, and the gene would persist. However, if society changed such that homosexuality were accepted, then the people who manifest the trait would preferentially partner with those of the same sex, and almost never produce children. In such an environment, homosexuality would be strongly selected against, and the number of homosexuals in each generation would sharply decrease.

Of course, like Polycarp's example, this is highly oversimplified. Sexuality is almost certainly determined by both genetic and environmental factors to some degree, and even to the extent that it's genetic, it's probably influenced by many different genes, some of which may have other effects for good or ill.

[bonzer]

Someone suggested (anybody know the cite for this?) that if homosexuality is genetic, it may be a "Sickle Cell" gene, where heterozygosity conveys an evolutionary advantage that offsets the disadvantage produced by homozygosity.

In the famous/notorious final chapter of Sociobiology, Wilson attributes the suggestion to G.E. Hutchinson's 1959 paper "A speculative consideration of certain possible forms of sexual selection in man", American Naturalist, 93 (869), 81-91.

[Yllaria]

How many gays does it take to....

screw in a lightbulb?

I came here for a lightbulb joke and I'm not leaving until I get one. Don't make me make one up.

[AskNott]

Among all those sources, you have a variety of definitions. Kinsey's numbers were about ever having had a homosexual experience. On the other end of the spectrum, how many men "consider themselves gay" or "are in a homosexual relationship." Among those three, you'll get a progressively smaller number. Mooshing together all those dissimilar surveys wouldn't be statistically valid, but if you did, you'd probably get less than 5%.

[AskNott]

screw in a lightbulb?
One to screw it in, and all those Queer Eye guys to decide whether the lamp is just in the wrong place, or entirely too tacky.

[Marley23]

If this is science, then, well, I'm a scientist.
It is, and you're not. :p I'll trust a group of surveys (they don't agree, but they at least give you an idea and would back up the idea that 1 in 5 is way too high, like I said) over your uninformed comments.
If homosexuality is in large part genetic, then it would be expected that the number of homosexuals if falling, as those with the homosexual gene (especially men) are far less likely to have offspring, and thus the numbers will progressively be reduced.
That's entirely wrong, and it is at most only partly genetic.

[Scott Plaid]

Yllaria, now that youv'e seen post 26, maybe you'll leave. :D

Just joshing with ya'

[cmkeller]

Yllaria:

How many gays does it take to....

screw in a lightbulb?

Only one, but he gets it into the AC outlet rather than the usual socket.

[ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks]

Sexuality doesn't exist in a binary state. It's a continuum. And one sexual encounter of one type or another doesn't set your sexuality in stone forever.


Here here! I completely agree. There are circumstances to consider when talking about sexuality, there are experiments, there are drunken escapades, there are varying degrees of bisexuals.

A heterosexual man confined to prison certainly won't identify himself as homosexual even if he's having regular gay sex. People who call themselves lesbians get pregnant the "usual way" and have kids. Does one heterosexual relationship, perhaps even a marriage, make them heterosexual? Even though having one homosexual experience might put you in the "bi" or "gay" column in a survey?

I think the only thing that really comes out of these surveys is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of argument. If we find that it's exceptionally rare we can ostracize those few who choose to go against the grain. If we find it's fairly common, we can throw public tantrums about how even SPONGE BOB is gay and the horrible immorals are taking over our society.

[Yllaria]

So it isn't "It only takes two, but don't ask me how they get in there"?

And I'll be leaving soon, but only because I have some poles to measure.

[Marley23]

A heterosexual man confined to prison certainly won't identify himself as homosexual even if he's having regular gay sex. People who call themselves lesbians get pregnant the "usual way" and have kids. Does one heterosexual relationship, perhaps even a marriage, make them heterosexual? Even though having one homosexual experience might put you in the "bi" or "gay" column in a survey?
I guess that's why these things are self-identified.

[Scott Plaid]

I have some poles to measure.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[Sevastopol]

recalling, such children will carry close to half the aunt/uncle's genetic material.

If you consider one fourth to be "close to half".

I think you are wrong here. The amount of genetic material a neice/nephew will carry is close to half. In simple form,

- siblings share close to 100% of genetic material (P), not half.
- the child will carry will carry ~ 1/2 the parent's genetic material.

therefore the neice/nephew will carry 1/2 P, or close to half of the aunt/uncle's genetic material.

And so far as I know, nobody's ever calculated, measured, or estimated just how much benefit the "gay uncle" effect provides to such offspring. But considering how easy it is for most modern humans to survive to adulthood and reproduce, even without a gay uncle, it's hard to believe that the effect would be strong enough to make homosexuality genetically advantageous.

The example was illustrative or how the survival of genetic material is more complex than it appears at first blush. It's not a thesis. That said I believe there have been studies of the genetic benefit of non-reproducing aunts/uncles in some animals. Similarly the high survival rates of modern humans to adulthood is a small and recent effect and probably not statistically significant.

Another possible explanation for why a "gay gene" might have survived so long, and why it might be diminishing in recent decades or currently, is that it hasn't been strongly selected against. In a society where homosexuality is frowned upon, many homosexuals will enter into heterosexual relationships in an effort to fit in. Despite being homosexual, they'll still be having on average nearly as many kids as the heterosexuals (or perhaps even more, if they're overcompensating). In such an environment, there would not be a strong selective pressure against homosexuality, and the gene would persist. However, if society changed such that homosexuality were accepted, then the people who manifest the trait would preferentially partner with those of the same sex, and almost never produce children. In such an environment, homosexuality would be strongly selected against, and the number of homosexuals in each generation would sharply decrease.

Of course, like Polycarp's example, this is highly oversimplified. Sexuality is almost certainly determined by both genetic and environmental factors to some degree, and even to the extent that it's genetic, it's probably influenced by many different genes, some of which may have other effects for good or ill.

Again your alternate explanation is a good one, but I think more confined to a more recent times.

[Ilsa_Lund]

screw in a lightbulb?


Just two, but how do they fit them in there?

[ltfire]

I came here for a lightbulb joke and I'm not leaving until I get one. Don't make me make one up.


It would have to be a mighty large light bulb.

[roger thornhill]

Marley, all stats are dodgy, especially self-reports.

Anyway, according to the cites provided by you (both for 1992):

"2.8 percent of the men self-identifying as being gay and 1.4 percent of the women."

"9 percent of males identified as being homosexual or bisexual and 5 percent of females as being homosexual or bisexual."

If this is science, then, well, I'm a scientist.
It is, and you're not. :p I'll trust a group of surveys (they don't agree, but they at least give you an idea and would back up the idea that 1 in 5 is way too high, like I said) over your uninformed comments.
If homosexuality is in large part genetic, then it would be expected that the number of homosexuals if falling, as those with the homosexual gene (especially men) are far less likely to have offspring, and thus the numbers will progressively be reduced.
That's entirely wrong, and it is at most only partly genetic.
But according to people such as Spectrum who have researched the factors that cause homosexuality from the perspective of those who have first-hand knowledge, "it seems to be that there has to be a genetic predisposition, mixed with some sort of environmental trigger". He continues, "even that environmental trigger is likely pre-natal or in the first few months of life".

The full post may be found here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5061956&postcount=64).

Thus, the genetic component is for many people central, something that "has to be", with which other factors, such as the hormonal embryonic soup, are admixed.

Hopefully, continued rigorous scientific research will help bring light and knowledge into this area of the natural world, thereby dispelling at least some of our current ignorance.

[ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks]

I guess that's why these things are self-identified.

Right, but sometimes that type of identification is flawed. For example, as someone mentioned I believe, Kinsey might hand you a form that says, "Have you ever kissed someone of the same sex on the lips." And you're answer may be yes, but you may not identify yourself as homosexual. But they do.

People don't necessarily have a personal identity that matches their behavior. So there's no way to get a meaningful count or percentage of anything.

And while I'm ranting, I think looking for a genetic basis to homosexuality is a huge mistake too. It's another lose/lose situation. If it IS genetically linked (which I tend to think might be part of it, but who knows) then we can consider it a "genetic disease" which can be prevented and cured. If we determine somehow that it's not genetic, then we can ostracize those who choose to live as homosexuals or the parents or whoever who "made them that way."

It shouldn't matter why someone has whatever sexual preferences they have...they have every right to have them. I don't know if I have a genetic predisposition to eat chocolate ice cream, or if my environment influenced me by inundating me with chocolate ice cream ads. I only know that I have every right to eat whatever the heck I want. Ditto for what I do in bed.

Or on the kitchen table.

L

[roger thornhill]

But what sort of message would choosing to live in ignorance regarding aspects of sexuality send out? And what ramifications might it have in terms of extension of such censorship to other areas of study? Truth makes free, no? The alternatives, however enticing, are invariably dangerous.

[ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks]

But what sort of message would choosing to live in ignorance regarding aspects of sexuality send out? And what ramifications might it have in terms of extension of such censorship to other areas of study? Truth makes free, no? The alternatives, however enticing, are invariably dangerous.

Hmmm...I see your point. And I honestly don't think stiffling research is ever a solution to anything. I guess I just see this as research that could be used for bad purposes no matter what the outcome is. Sure, go ahead and DO the research, and let everyone know what the results are. But I think we should be careful how we end up using those results. The same isn't true of most other aspects of sexuality. I mean, no one is going to be up in arms trying to cure the disease if we were to find out that a preference for oral sex was genetic.

Also, I'm afraid that the studies don't make us any less ignorant of reality than if we hadn't done them at all...because of the difficulties in accuracy already suggested. Are we really that ignorant NOW about what goes on around us?

[roger thornhill]

But I'm referring to research into what causes certain people to be homosexual, not how many people identify or are identified as homosexuals.

I'd like to think that everyone that conducts such research does not believe homosexuality is a disease. To drag this up (not you - others) as a reason not to conduct research is manipulative and unscientific.

[hyjyljyj]

I'm not sure if it's in The Naked Ape or in one of his other books, but zoologist Desmond Morris suggested back in the early 70s, I believe, at the height of the popularity of the notion that the earth soon would be overpopulated beyond all hope with H. sapiens writhing over each other a hundred feet deep the world over thanks to the supposed geometric progression of human reproduction, that homosexuals [not unlike monks, nuns, those who are infertile or physically unable to copulate, and the really really severely, profoundly ugly--Ed.] "are valuable NON-contributors to the population explosion". In other words, homosexuals were being relied upon to save the planet, simply by not reproducing themselves. Now even this benefit is in doubt, since we've figured out ways around it, and the percentage of homosexuals in the overall population appears to be too small at around 5% or whatever to have any significant non-reproductive effect.

FWIW, I don't know anybody who isn't either grossly ignorant or a repressed religious zealot who thinks that having a single or a few experimental sexual interludes with members of the same gender makes a person homosexual by definition. Heck, it's been every weekend for 25 years now, and what my wife doesn't know won't hurt her. Just kidding.

Also FWIW, I have on more than one occasion heard homosexual males opine in all seriousness, without irony, that ALL people are actually homosexual at bottom (if you'll pardon the pun), but most of them are just in denial, their homophobia dominating their natural tendencies in order to allow them the comfort of conforming to societal norms and expectations. I have asked these gentlemen whenever possible if they have ever studied biology or genetics, and they have answered in the negative. (This survey is not scientific.)

[Helen's Eidolon]

- siblings share close to 100% of genetic material (P), not half
- the child will carry will carry ~ 1/2 the parent's genetic material.
Untrue. Siblings are generally considered to share 50% of their genetic material, as an average. You get a random half of dad's genes and a random half of mom's genes, so it's generally assumed that you'll get half of the genes your father gave your sibling, etc.

[pessimisticgrace]

I suggest you do some research into scientific/psychology journals (NOT magazines), then. Anything we give you here is going to be "Well, I heard.."

One of my psychology teachers says that research shows that the brains of women who have identified as lesbians differ from that of women who identify as homosexual. I honestly don't remember the specifics, though I do recall it having something to do with chemical production.

There's a lot of credible research out there if you know how to find it. There are many many studies that show differences. And it would not be a "disease" anyway, it's a predisposition, unless you consider "aggression" to be a disease because it can be tied to certain hormones and their levels.

[pessimisticgrace]

And as for the numbers.. Who the hell knows? Even if you are "out" among your friends, family and community, it's entirely another thing to tell the government. Whether the government really is/isn't showing bias against homosexuals is irrelevent; People are afraid of it.

There are just too many factors that prevent any real certainty. Closetedness, partial closetedness, government wariness, shame, paranoia, privacy.. You can't characterize homosexuals as blatantly "out" or in total denial. There are many degrees in between and they don't necessarily dictate one behavior.

It also depends on what you mean by homosexual. I don't think 20% is too high if we're talking about anyone who ever engaged in a single homosexual encounter/experimentation. But that would be a poor classification because, by that rule, a woman's status as a lesbian would be undermined by her history of heterosexual relationships as a youth. So I can only assume we're talking about people who are primarily attracted to members of their own gender. 20% may be too high in that case, but 2% strikes me as quite low as well.

[Balthisar]

So I can only assume we're talking about people who are primarily attracted to members of their own gender. 20% may be too high in that case, but 2% strikes me as quite low as well.

Isn't there an element of sex just plain sex here? You can have great heterosexual sex without much in the way of attraction... I have to imagine the same is true for homosexuals, errr, people that may or may not be homosexuals but that have homosexual sex despite being primarily attracted to members of the opposite sex.

[Princhester]

I hope not! I'd much rather have these guys as my enemies than my lovers! Ewwwwww.[/b]way.

Are you compelled to have sex with anybody who has the appropriate sexual orientation? ;)

[Quercus]

ChoosyChips -- (May I call you ChoosyChips instead of M(s). CeilingWhacks?)

I just want to make two points. First is to point out that there are characteristics which are neither genetic, nor completely behaviorally/culturally determined.

The easiest example is, say, a missing limb due to accident. Obviously, the person can't just choose to grow a new one, but it isn't genetically determined. There are plenty of other examples -- allergies comes to mind -- though many of them may well end up having a genetic component (for all I know susceptibility to allergies may have a genetic component, but I find it hard to imagine that having a reaction to a specific allergen is genetic).

And it's also important to note that having a genetic component to a characteristic is far different from being absolutely determined by that gene. Height is somewhat genetically determined, but childhood nutrition also plays a huge role in determining final height. Left/right-handedness is maybe the best example: there's some evidence it's genetically influenced, but not absolutely determined, while there is also a clear cultural component, in that many people are trained/forced into right-handedness.

Of course, I agree with you that it wouldn't be easy to mass-communicate these two points if a major discovery about a biological basis of homosexuality is made in today's cultural climate.

[SCSimmons]

- siblings share close to 100% of genetic material (P), not half.

Only if they're identical twins ...

[Polycarp]

screw in a lightbulb?Just two, but how do they fit them in there?

You guys are forgetting an important parameter here: was the light bulb blown first?