Thanks for your input.

Have a look at comment #2 for a link to an article on Kinsey’s 10-percent myth.

–Walter

This is very good news.  At last we know how small EGALE really is [EGALE is an acronym to identify the name of the Canadian organization Equality for Gays And Lesbians Everywhere — égalé is the French term for equalled, with the use of that term as the desired acronym most likely having been a concession made to the French contingent of Canada’s gay and lesbian population sector — F4L].

If one were to calculate how much government attention and funding this 1.7% of the population receives, there should be outrage by taxpayers!

I recall that many years ago (in the 1980’s) when the AIDS epidemic was raging (I lived in Toronto at the time) and it was presented by the press of the day to be the most gigantic health issue facing Canadians!  For me, a young hetero male, it was disconcerting - and it occurred to me that if this problem was so large then certainly someone like StatCan would have an idea of the gay population’s size.  They didn’t.

Neither did the City of Toronto Public Health Dept., despite a massive PR campaign all over the city (Bus, Subway, Trams etc.) about the danger of unprotected sex (without bothering to say that the unspoken targets of the campaign were homosexual men, who were known for their prolific priapic tendencies of many multiple, unprotected sex partnerings.  Most single hetero men I knew were well protected - or perhaps generously un-accommodated is a better way to describe it - by the fairer sex.  They weren’t getting anything - and certainly not unprotected hetero sex or any other kind until the engagement ring was on her finger, thank-you!

To enhance its image, EGALE did little to dissuade anyone from believing that the Male Homosexual population might be as high as 10% of all men!  This was an incredible figure for me, as I only knew one or two gays!  I began to wonder if everyone with a lisp might be gay but just hid it well.  Of course, I learned that the “10% Homo” figure was an early discredited estimate of homosexual behaviour by Kinsey based on a 1945-50 male prison population!  Definitely biased, plus subjects were not “self-identified” (i. e., asked if they considered themselves to be homosexuals - which, given the time and place, would most likely have under-estimated the gay population).  The data reflected whether subjects had “ever performed homosexual acts” - clearly a broad interpretation open to great potential error.

Now that we know the “official” size of the gay population - lets start totaling how much we spend accommodating this tiny minority - and how pro-gay government policy interferes with, impedes  and inhibits genuine legitimate activity of the other 98.3% of the population who are neither gay nor lesbian. A cost-benefit analysis of sexual orientation if you will - and share that with the taxpaying public.  When that is completed, I am sure we will hear howls of protest from EGALE about how many homos are still in the closet - claiming that StatCan data still significantly under-represents the true population of “Dorothy’s Friends.”

Walter, thanks for bringing all this data to my attention.

Cheers, crj

I never made as exhaustive an investigation of the issue as you did, but over the years I took note of some study results that I came across.

Estimates of proportion of homosexual population sector
(Author; proportion in percent of population sample; nature of population sector; n = sample size)

Paul Cameron: 3%; homosexual; n ?
Judith A. Reisman: 4%; bisexual/homosexual; n ?
Fergusson et al.: 2.9%; gay, lesbian and bisexual; n = 1,007
Herrell et al.: 1.8%; male homosexual; n = 6,537
Kinsey * : 10 - 37%; male homosexual; n = 5,300

* Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Kinsey, Fig. 161, 10% exlusively, more than 10% but no more than 90% at least sometimes, Fig. 161 is reproduced in Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, p. 101) Due to the fact that Kinsey used substandard sample selection (i. e.: non-random sampling, self-reporting and prison populations), reputable social researcher no longer consider his “research” to be valid, but it is still widely quoted by homosexualists who persist in using a figure of 10 percent and even higher.

Refer to The Ten-Percent Myth for an in-depth discussion of why Kinsey’s estimates are wrong and for the proof that they are wrong.

It should be of some concern that the findings by StatCan indicate that men are twice as likely to engage in homosexual behaviour than women are. The explanation for that difference is quite possibly the fact discovered in a study that examined whether men or women are equally likely to tell the truth.

The study established that women are considerably less likely to tell the truth about their sexual proclivities if they assume that their answers are not made in complete anonymity, while they are considerably more truthful with their answers if they believe that their answers are provided in complete anonymity. The questions asked in that study concerned the respective proclivities of men and women to cheat on their partners.

Popular opinion dictates that predominantly men cheat or are unfaithful. Given that it takes two to cheat, that popular opinion does not make statistical sense and is definitely a false belief that is a product of years (perhaps hundreds or even thousands of years) of steady and intense indoctrination. The study found that men are persistently more likely than women to tell the truth, whether they feel that they have anonymity or not. On the other hand, when they believed that their answers were given in total privacy and under conditions of complete anonymity, women’s answers were in line with those provided by men. In other words, the results established that, in their own words, men and women are equally likely to cheat on one another. (More at: Adultery is not abuse, and women don’t lie?)

Perhaps it is possible that StatCan’s finding of the proportions of homosexuals in men and women, 1.5% vs. 0.7%, is an artifact of their selective sampling methods that were, as they identified in their article, not only based on declarations in census survey forms (whom few people believe to totally anonymous) but also on Innovative Methods for Surveying Difficult-to-reach Populations (thereby guarantied to provide skewed results), even though it appears that the assumption that homosexuals of either sex are difficult to reach cannot possibly be entirely correct and may quite well be totally wrong.

Saludos

Javier Alvarez (Madrid)