What's the percentage of people that are gay?

[Dis]

Originally posted by MrFun


So because the majority of Germans supported Hitler's war policies, his war policies were normal?

they were normal to the german population at the time. you are correct sir.

a society's attitudes towards normal can shift of course. As what happened in germany after the war.

but in this case we are dealing with raw numbers. Yes it is normal for less than 10% of the population to be gay. There is nothing wrong with that.

But you have to admit, most people are not gay, and will never be gay.

So what is normal is that the fact the small percentage of the population is gay. but with respect to the population as a whole, that is not normal. But it happens. There is nothing wrong with that.

P.S. below is the definition of normal.

nor·mal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nôrml)
adj.
Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.
Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
Abbr. n or N Chemistry.
Designating a solution having one gram equivalent weight of solute per liter of solution.
Designating an aliphatic hydrocarbon having a straight and unbranched chain of carbon atoms.
Mathematics.
Being at right angles; perpendicular.
Perpendicular to the direction of a tangent line to a curve or a tangent plane to a surface.

Relating to or characterized by average intelligence or development.
Free from mental illness; sane.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dissident


they were normal to the german population at the time. you are correct sir.

a society's attitudes towards normal can shift of course. As what happened in germany after the war.

but in this case we are dealing with raw numbers. Yes it is normal for less than 10% of the population to be gay. There is nothing wrong with that.

But you have to admit, most people are not gay, and will never be gay.

So what is normal is that the fact the small percentage of the population is gay. but with respect to the population as a whole, that is not normal. But it happens. There is nothing wrong with that.

Well duh -- I know that most people are not gay. The vast majority are flaming heteroes.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by skywalker
They were normal for Germans (at the time).

Normality confers no value upon something, moral or otherwise. It is simply a statement as to how common something is.

Well then...fine. Let's just wait another 20 or so years and see what is "normal" and what is not.

[Wittlich]

Double Post.

[Dis]

P.S. I'm not really proud to be hetero.

How can you be proud to be of a certain sexuality?

I am what I am.

Nothing to be proud of.

pride isn't always a positive thing. Pride can be a symbol of superiority.

[Wittlich]

You are right Diss, it's not so much as being proudful of one's sexuality, but rather it's more of fighting for our rights as human beings. My partner and I are registered with the state of California as Domestic Partners - but currenty the only benifit of that is the legal right to visit each other while in the hospital. I am sorry, but that's just not good enough! We want a domestic partnership that has the full rights as any other partner who are together (I won't use the "marriage" word - since I don't want to get into religion and what not).

[Dis]

get a pre-nup either way

[Wittlich]

After 13+ years together, it's cheaper to keep him.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by SpencerH


I have no need to do so since the question is irrelevant to me. I dont give a **** what makes anyones **** hard . It's none of my business.

If I went by the proportion of my friends who are gay I'd have to give an answer like Wittlich but I dont believe the 10% number. From a biological standpoint, for 10% of a mammalian population to be 'non-breeding', it would require a noticable advantage for the species to maintain such a population. Unless you're gonna tell me that gays have hidden superpowers, I'm afraid that it doesnt make sense. Of course if you included bisexuals and adolescents who may be unsure of their orientation in the number it would be higher than 3%.

In many mammalian species, including a number of primates, the percentage of males who manage to breed is less than one third. In these species dominant males acquire social/family groups around them and at least atempt to prevent other males from breeding with their females. In the primate world such groups typically consist of an alpha male, 2 to 4 beta males, 4 to 8 females and a number of juveniles and adolescents. Judging from the ratio of skeletons at archaeological sites early hominids had a similar organization, but at some point Homo ergaster seems to have come up with
the idea of allowing each male keep one mate. This is hypothesized based on the distribution of skeletons at digs. Monogamy seems to have caught on quickly, probably because it allowed groups to have a larger component of adult males, thereby giving them an advantage in competition for choice territory. Thus the phenomenon of giving each male in the species an opportunity to mate is actually not that common, and in the case of our species is really a specific survival strategy unique to our condition.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Wittlich
You are right Diss, it's not so much as being proudful of one's sexuality, but rather it's more of fighting for our rights as human beings. My partner and I are registered with the state of California as Domestic Partners - but currenty the only benifit of that is the legal right to visit each other while in the hospital. I am sorry, but that's just not good enough! We want a domestic partnership that has the full rights as any other partner who are together (I won't use the "marriage" word - since I don't want to get into religion and what not).

Well look on the bright side you dont get screwed by the marriage penalty (tax) like we do

[Wittlich]

True, but there are alot of other things that we do get screwed on:

I'm retired military, but my partner cannot receive a dependent ID card (though he was with me for my last 11 years while I was in the service) - because we are not married.

My partner works for the city of Palo Alto and I'm back in school again full time - but his health benifits don't cover me (because we arn't married) - Thank God I still have the ability to access the VA.

We were checking into getting a mortgage loan from Calvets - but they will not consider my income - only my partner's, because we are not married ...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

In many mammalian species, including a number of primates, the percentage of males who manage to breed is less than one third. In these species dominant males acquire social/family groups around them and at least atempt to prevent other males from breeding with their females. In the primate world such groups typically consist of an alpha male, 2 to 4 beta males, 4 to 8 females and a number of juveniles and adolescents. Judging from the ratio of skeletons at archaeological sites early hominids had a similar organization, but at some point Homo ergaster seems to have come up with the idea of allowing each male keep one mate. This is hypothesized based on the distribution of skeletons at digs. Monogamy seems to have caught on quickly, probably because it allowed groups to have a larger component of adult males, thereby giving them an advantage in competition for choice territory. Thus the phenomenon of giving each male in the species an opportunity to mate is actually not that common, and in the case of our species is really a specific survival strategy unique to our condition.

An interesting point, especially in the light of the 'free-sex'-like society of the bonobos. Under similar conditions, there would be little selective pressure at the species level to act on the 'homosexual genes' (if they exist). There would still be a much slower "weeding-out" process of such genes at an individual level (if there is no progeny) unless the 'sexuality genes' were the target of a mutational process.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Wittlich
True, but there are alot of other things that we do get screwed on:

I'm retired military, but my partner cannot receive a dependent ID card (though he was with me for my last 11 years while I was in the service) - because we are not married.

My partner works for the city of Palo Alto and I'm back in school again full time - but his health benifits don't cover me (because we arn't married) - Thank God I still have the ability to access the VA.

We were checking into getting a mortgage loan from Calvets - but they will not consider my income - only my partner's, because we are not married ...

Yeah that sucks. I didnt realize you were ex-military.

[mindseye]

From a biological standpoint, for 10% of a mammalian population to be 'non-breeding', it would require a noticable advantage for the species to maintain such a population. Unless you're gonna tell me that gays have hidden superpowers, I'm afraid that it doesnt make sense.

Doesn't make sense? Having extra non-breeding adults around to assist with childcare, food gathering and defense wouldn't be an advantage for the offspring of such a group?

[Japher]

No, you're openly gay, right?

No. I'll let my wife answer that one...

See how that works?