FWIW 3 - 6% sounds about right to me. That’s 1 in 15 to 1 in 30.
There’s a lot of people in denial out there! 
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 and 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.
A previous thread on this very topic.
Thx Gfactor, I searched for such a thread but must have been alseep.
You mean he’s not? 
screw in a lightbulb?
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.
For the record, I know an awful lot of bisexuals who would turn up as “straight” on a census form…
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.
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.
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.
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.
I came here for a lightbulb joke and I’m not leaving until I get one. Don’t make me make one up.
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%.
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.
It is, and you’re not. 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.
That’s entirely wrong, and it is at most only partly genetic.
Yllaria, now that youv’e seen post 26, maybe you’ll leave.
Just joshing with ya’
Yllaria:
Only one, but he gets it into the AC outlet rather than the usual socket.
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.
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.