This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Gay Marketing/Gay Marriage: What Are The Real Numbers?

Written on Tuesday, April 2, 2013 by

Screen shot 2013-04-02 at 11.59.14 AM

What percentage of America’s population is gay? Go ahead, guess. If you presumed 10 percent, 25 percent or even as high as 30 percent of the nation’s makeup, you would be in the majority of respondents according to Gallup research polls spanning a decade. But you would still be dead wrong.

Gallup conducted surveys in 2002 and 2011 asking respondents how large a chunk of the population they believed was homosexual. Both polls found that participants vastly overestimated the actual figure. Not surprisingly the percentage estimated by those polled had grown from the 2002 to the 2011 analysis, as familiarity with the subject of homosexuality resulted in decreased stigmatization over time. Studies, however, conclude that the actual number of homosexuals in America, gay men, lesbians and transgender, comprise a whopping 1.7% of the population. What is central about the fraction of the population that identifies itself as gay compared with the sway homosexuality holds over today’s culture is its pervasiveness. For centuries that hasn’t been the case. Numbers don’t lie. It is unrealistic to believe that the last ten or fifteen years have miraculously produced this seismic shift in the world’s social and political consciousness and created, instead, a need to dismantle cultural norms that have existed since men and women began to reproduce.

If the 1.7% figure comes as a surprise it shouldn’t. This percentage has been arrived at by several, extensive studies, such as that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Perhaps the most significant of these is the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law study. What gives the Williams Institute such overarching credibility is that it is a gay and lesbian think tank. According to them, that 1.7% fraction climbs to 3.5% or 4.0% if one factors in self-declared bisexuals. A large number of “closeted” individuals also participated in their study. The Williams Institute findings were released in April of 2011. Very little, if any, attention has been paid to it.

Two elements of the study are especially noteworthy. The first is that, according to an article in The Atlantic, May 2012: “These numbers (homosexual population percentages) are significant because identity — and not behavior — is the central determinant of whether or not someone will seek a same-sex marriage.” Secondly, and unexpectedly counter-intuitively, the percentage of self-described homosexuals has dropped from the publication date of the granddaddy of all such analysis, conducted in 1948 (Kinsey, “Sexuality in the Human Male”); the Kinsey report concluded that the homosexual population might be as high as 10%. The current figure, 1.7%, has dropped like a rock since then, despite the out-of-proportion marketing push to implement homosexuality as the new norm: “Such a misunderstanding of the basic demographics of sexual behavior and identity in America has potentially profound implications for the acceptance of the gay-rights agenda… people who overestimate the percent of gay Americans by a factor of 12 seem likely to also wildly overestimate the cultural impact of same-sex marriage.”
These observations are not intended as a dissection of the entire dispute about gay marriage. The subject, historically and ethically, is too cumbersome to encapsulate in one article. It is, however, intended as a Constitutional red flag. How and why has this issue taken such a predominant, societal role in contrast to the homosexual population’s minute numbers? Why worry?
The Wall Street Journal, March 27 (“Nelson Lund: A Social Experiment Without Science Behind It”) pointed out “The claimed right to same-sex marriage is not in the Constitution or in the court’s precedents, so the court must decide whether to impose a new law making marriage into a new and different institution…” To pretend that there aren’t political motives at work are naïve, to say the least. This would not be the first time The Supreme Court has volunteered to assume the role of vigilante legislators, to fabricate a nationwide, legal precedent for something nowhere to be found in the Constitution; something that the majority of Americans would never vote for. Or ever get the chance to vote on. Or had their vote overturned by a court.

Homosexuality has become a constant presence. Why? Heterosexuality isn’t. Every public source, from news media, to public school indoctrination to the avalanche of Hollywood movies, television programming and even advertising is in morally outraged lock-step to prove that homosexuality is far more prevalent than it is. Dr. Benjamin Carson recently had to suffer a demand that he be disinvited from commencement ceremonies at Johns Hopkins University. Why? Because he was asked for his opinion of gay marriage and he responded: “Marriage is between a man and a woman… It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition.” He was, at a minimum, technically correct. He wasn’t comparing homosexuals to other groups as a matter of moral equivalency; he was illustrating that once the definition of marriage is changed there is no way to prevent anyone who wants to marry anyone or anything, from doing so. But the outcry of the politically correct student body, the deliberate misinterpretation of what Dr. Carson meant, was immediate. A view contrary to accepted dogma cannot, after all, be tolerated. But the truth is that manufactured outrage can’t prevent marriage’s destruction once marriage is officially altered.

Tocqueville cautioned against “the tyranny of the majority.” But America has found herself persecuted by the tyranny of the minority. Gay marriage is an unparalleled marketing success. But it isn’t an “evolution.” And it certainly isn’t coincidental.

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.