Column: Does it matter if only 1.4% of people are gay?

Skip to Main Content
Column: Does it matter if only 1.4% of people are gay?

By Michael Medved

Updated 5/24/2011 11:43 AM |


The nation's increasingly visible and influential gay community embraces the notion of sexual orientation as an innate, immutable characteristic, like left-handedness or eye color. But a major federal sex survey suggests a far more fluid, varied life experience for those who acknowledge same-sex attraction.


The results of this scientific research shouldn't undermine the hard-won respect recently achieved by gay Americans, but they do suggest that choice and change play larger roles in sexual identity than commonly assumed. The prestigious study in question (released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) discovered a much smaller number of "gays, lesbians and homosexuals" than generally reported by the news media. While pop-culture frequently cites the figure of one in 10 (based on 60-year-old, widely discredited conclusions from pioneering sex researcher Alfred Kinsey) the new study finds only 1.4% of the population identifying with same-sex orientation.

Moreover, even among those who describe themselves as homosexual or bisexual (a grand total of 3.7% of the 18-44 age group), overwhelming majorities (81%) say they've experienced sex with partners of the opposite gender. Among those who call themselves heterosexual, on the other hand, only a tiny minority (6%) ever engaged in physical intimacy of any kind with a member of the same sex These figure indicate that 94% of those living heterosexual lives felt no physical attraction to members of the same sex, but the great bulk of self-identified homosexuals and bisexuals feel enough intimate interest in the opposite gender to engage in erotic contact at some stage in their development.

A one-way street
Gay pride advocates applaud the courage of those who "come out," discovering their true nature as homosexual after many years of heterosexual experience. But enlightened opinion denies a similar possibility of change in the other direction, deriding anyone who claims straight orientation after even the briefest interlude of homosexual behavior and insisting they are phony and self-deluding. By this logic, heterosexual orientation among those with past gay relationships is always the product of repression and denial, but homosexual commitment after a straight background is invariably natural and healthy. In fact, numbers show huge majorities of those who "ever had same sex sexual contact" do not identify long-term as gay. Among women 18-44, for instance, 12.5% report some form of same sex contact at some point in their lives, but among the older segment of that group (35-44), only 0.7% identify as homosexual and 1.1% as bisexual.
In other words, for the minority who may have experimented with gay relationships at some juncture in their lives, well over 80% explicitly renounced homosexual (or even bisexual) self-identification by age of 35. For the clear majority of males (as well as women) who report gay encounters, homosexual activity appears to represent a passing phase, or even a fleeting episode, rather than an unshakable, genetically pre-determined orientation.
The once popular phrase "sexual preference" has been indignantly replaced with the term "sexual orientation" because political correctness now insists there is no factor of willfulness or volition in the development of erotic identity. This may well be the case for the 94% of males and 87% of females (ages 18-44) who have never experienced same-sex contact of any kind and may never have questioned their unwavering straight outlook — an outlook deemed "normal" in an earlier age.

‘Let go’ of one in 10
For the less than 2% of men and women who see themselves as gay, however, the issue of sexual orientation remains vastly more complicated. Within a month of the release of the CDC/NCHS report, one of the world's most respected think tanks on gay life confirmed some of its most surprising findings, without specifically referencing the recent government study. UCLA's Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy offered a new estimate of homosexual identification: concluding that 1.7% of Americans say they're gay, and a slightly larger group (1.8%) identified as bisexual — by definition attracted to both genders and shaping their sexual behavior through some mixture of inclination and preference.
Brad Sears of the Williams Institute defended the accuracy of these numbers, suggesting gay leaders "let go" of previous, unrealistic estimates of homosexual orientation. He told the Associated Press that "with other populations of a similar size of 2% to 4%, we don't question whether there are too many or too few." For instance, no one suggests Jewish Americans should be treated with contempt or dismissed as irrelevant to the Christian majority because they number below 2% of the U.S. population. Nor would the news media shy away from reporting that in an age of religious conversion, choice plays a role in adding to and subtracting from the Jewish community.
Religious identity arises from birth, upbringing, instinct, even destiny, but the fact that it almost always includes some element of choice doesn't entitle the believer to less respect. By the same token, it's no sign of hostility or homophobia to point to recent data suggesting that life experience and personal decisions play roles alongside inborn inclination in the complex, sometimes inconclusive, emergence of the gay and lesbian identity.

Michael Medved, author of The 5 Big Lies About American Business, hosts a daily, nationally syndicated radio talk show. He is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.

Interesting first few paragraphs (I stopped reading after that) that a better done survey indicates that only around 1% of the US adult population is identifiably gay or bisexual. Again, I wonder why this isn't getting major airplay. You'd think by listening to Hollywood that it was around 50%.

More interesting. Open up the PDF and read the AIDs/HIV stats.

Again my stand on homosexuality: Only if the chicks are hot.

So wait...3.7 percent are admitted gay or bisexual, and 6% of heterosexuals have admitted experimenting with homosexuality? Sure sounds a lot closer to 10% than 1% to me...

I certainly believe in the 'spectrum' idea of sexuality and that WALDT, and that should be respected regardless of if it's a 'choice' or if it's genetically encoded. But if there was federal and state law saying that if I wanted to get married, I had to marry someone I didn't want to be with, I'd be pretty pissed off too.

No it doesn't matter and in fact is an even better reason to stop trying to convert them, or keep them from marrying. Hardly any at all! Why bother infringing on their human rights? If my cat suddenly starting hunting one rare type of bug with such passion and vengeance i would probably assume he was crazy.

Multiply the estimated gay fraction by the total population, giving you the total estimated gay population, and compare that number with the AIDS/HIV statistics.

An amicus brief in the Texas Sodomy Act case, submitted by a gay legal defense foundation (I forget who exactly), gave an estimated gay fraction that was significantly higher than the number presented here. That was considered to be the best number available at the time. (For the purposes of their brief, they wanted the fraction as high as possible, but it had to be a number they could support with data. It is impossible to support 10%. 3% or so (the number I remember) they could claim without being laughed out of the courthouse.

Funny how liberals cry and whine about their freedom and civil rights about silly things but want oppression for important things.

How about some freedom for:

keeping more of the money we earned
healthcare choice
retirement savings choice
charible giving choice
educational choice
product and service purchase choice


I'm surprised that homosexuals are even 1.4%....it's probably lower in my opinion.....there is a war on normalcy and an attempt to make deviancy seem normal

If same sex marriage should be a civil right, then how about a civil right to marry more than one person? Someone under 15? A non-human?

Isn't there a rational reason for government to limit marriage to 1 man and 1 woman? Isn't marriage's main purpose to enhance the bearing and raising of children? Is gay sex just as important as heterosexual sex? Only heterosexual sex can lead to human life......isn't human life important? Isn't raising children to be good and healthy citizens important to all of us?

Does anyone understand what an oppressive and dangerous contract the marriage contract is? People may enter marriage for love, but there is some serious financial issues involved. I can think of only one societal goal sufficient to allow anyone to enter such an oppressive contract...that reason is the raising of children....children are best off in a nuclear family related by blood....marriage protects those children....

anyone that believes in gay marriage believes in making the lives of gay people worse....

So wait...3.7 percent are admitted gay or bisexual, and 6% of heterosexuals have admitted experimenting with homosexuality? Sure sounds a lot closer to 10% than 1% to me...
Originally Posted by Meiji

By your logic, then those homosexuals who experimented with heterosexuality are not homosexual and that brings us back to 1%

So wait...3.7 percent are admitted gay or bisexual, and 6% of heterosexuals have admitted experimenting with homosexuality? Sure sounds a lot closer to 10% than 1% to me...

I certainly believe in the 'spectrum' idea of sexuality and that WALDT, and that should be respected regardless of if it's a 'choice' or if it's genetically encoded. But if there was federal and state law saying that if I wanted to get married, I had to marry someone I didn't want to be with, I'd be pretty pissed off too. Originally Posted by Meiji

But somehow, it is okay that 3% to 5% of the population [these percentages IMO are more accurate] can impose their worldview on the remaining 95% to 97% of the population?

“SACRAMENTO, Calif. - The state Senate has approved legislation that would require California's public schools to include gay history in social studies lessons.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Cal...4/17/id/393120

I'm surprised that homosexuals are even 1.4%....it's probably lower in my opinion.....there is a war on normalcy and an attempt to make deviancy seem normal

If same sex marriage should be a civil right, then how about a civil right to marry more than one person? Someone under 15? A non-human?

Isn't there a rational reason for government to limit marriage to 1 man and 1 woman? Isn't marriage's main purpose to enhance the bearing and raising of children? Is gay sex just as important as heterosexual sex? Only heterosexual sex can lead to human life......isn't human life important? Isn't raising children to be good and healthy citizens important to all of us?

Does anyone understand what an oppressive and dangerous contract the marriage contract is? People may enter marriage for love, but there is some serious financial issues involved. I can think of only one societal goal sufficient to allow anyone to enter such an oppressive contract...that reason is the raising of children....children are best off in a nuclear family related by blood....marriage protects those children....

anyone that believes in gay marriage believes in making the lives of gay people worse.... Originally Posted by Marshall

Typical closed minded thinking. Why should it be up to the government to determine what a family is? Hell, those guys in DC are some of the biggest deviants out there.

You don't like the government telling you what to do with your money, but you don't seem to mind the government coming into your bedroom and telling you what's right or what's wrong.

Marriage doesn't protect children from anything. When the typical "nuclear family" gets a divorce, who suffers because mommy and daddy use them as pawns most of the time? The kids suffer.

It wasn't that long ago that Native American Indians weren't deamed humans by our wonderful government, ladies weren't allowed to vote thanks to our wonderful government and blacks weren't allowed to shit nor were they allowed to enter into a mixed marriage. Yes, lets leave it up to our government to tell us about human nature.

Not everyone is going to agree about gay marriage, but don't shove YOUR beliefs down someone's throat.

Oh and for that poll........its wrong just like every other poll is usually wrong because they only ask a certain demographic and not the entire US population. There are tons of people out there who are gay/lesbian and will never admit it because of friends/job/family and will continue to live in the closet.

Why should it be up to the government to determine what a family is? Originally Posted by MsElena

Agreed....that's why EVERY TIME the issue is put on the ballot for a vote, the people vote down gay marriage, even California! The people should decide, not the government politicians [including judges]....

Typical closed minded thinking.One can rightfully say you're closed minded.... Why should it be up to the government to determine what a family is? Hell, those guys in DC are some of the biggest deviants out there. Barney Frank and Anthony Weiner deviant? Agree

You don't like the government telling you what to do with your money, but you don't seem to mind the government coming into your bedroom and telling you what's right or what's wrong.Ummm...marriage has very little to do with the bedroom as married people will tell you.....

Marriage doesn't protect children from anything. sure it does....it increases the odds that a child's parents will stay together to raise the child togetherWhen the typical "nuclear family" gets a divorce,the typical nuclear family doesn't get a divorce....take a look at the divorce rates who suffers because mommy and daddy use them as pawns most of the time? The kids suffer.you are making my point....children suffer when their parents are not together....marriage increases the odds that parents will stay together......

It wasn't that long ago that Native American Indians weren't deamed humans by our wonderful government, ladies weren't allowed to vote thanks to our wonderful government and blacks weren't allowed to shit nor were they allowed to enter into a mixed marriage. Yes, lets leave it up to our government to tell us about human nature.yet, you put your faith in government!....HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! The people overwhelmingly don't want gay marriage, but liberals in government do! People vote against gay marriage and liberal judges and politicians are the only ones that make it happen......I'm sure you rejoice when politicians support gay marriage

Why do gay people even want to copy heterosexuals relationships? What benefits do gays think they're getting if they get gay marriage? Do they want ALL the detriments too, or did you even think that far?

Not everyone is going to agree about gay marriage, but don't shove YOUR beliefs down someone's throat. you shove your beliefs down everyone's throat...I am merely stating my beliefs and reasons for them....you state NO REASONS for your opinion other than how you "feel" about it

Oh and for that poll........its wrong just like every other poll is usually wrong because they only ask a certain demographic and not the entire US population. Oh? Since you know it is wrong, then tell us why the methodology is wrong....or is this a case where deep in your heart you feel it is wrong so it has to be wrong....There are tons of people out there who are gay/lesbian and will never admit it because of friends/job/family and will continue to live in the closet. Originally Posted by MsElena

maybe there are tons of people who say they are gay even though they are not because they think being gay is cool after they learned that being gay is cool from their teachers in GOVERNMENT schools.....

Marshall,

Sweetie, you seem like a smart man. But, you've made it clear that you have a dislike for democrates. You fail to point out that republican politicans have done wrong too. I'll let you state their names.

Marriage has little to do with the bedroom? LOL OK.

Its a proven fact that people who stay married for the sake of kids end up screwing everyone's lives up in the long run. I've seen more kids go to therapy because their parents hate each other, but yet stay together. Some children may suffer when their parents are apart, but not all.

Darlin', don't put words in my mouth. I never said I have faith in my government and the reason for that is because I don't have faith in it.

I do rejoice when politicans and judges make gay/lesbian marriages happen. Why should a gay/lesbian person be denied the opportunity to get married like anyone else? We're all human, we all breathe the same, bleed the same and should be given the same opportunities to get married.

People saying their gay because they learned from teachers in govt schools? Oh please. Where do you come up with some of this stuff.

I don't know why you're so against gay marriage. Is it going to effect your life directly?

I've wondered why few respond to your threads, now I know why.

I don't know why you're so against gay marriage. Originally Posted by MsElena

It's an oppressive and dangerous contract for gay people to enter and not in the best interest of gay people.......

People saying their gay because they learned from teachers in govt schools? Oh please. Where do you come up with some of this stuff.
Originally Posted by MsElena

http://www.americanthinker.com/print..._of_youth.html

It's an oppressive and dangerous contract for gay people to enter and not in the best interest of gay people....... Originally Posted by Marshall

Then straight people shouldn't get married either by that thinking. Because its so oppressive and dangerous.

Again, why are you so against it? Does it effect your life directly?