In his latest rant, Andrew Sullivan urges Kathryn Jean Lopez to “come clean” and admit that opposing gay marriage “necessitates marginalization and second class citizenship.”
Sullivan wrote of marriage: “We are not redefining it. We are making it available for the tiny minority of human beings and citizens who otherwise have no secure legal or social protection for their relationships.”
Tiny minority? What happened to the oft quoted ten percent of humans being gay? Because ten percent is certainly not a tiny minority. It seems that the infamous ten percent number may not be as hard and fast as the media would’ve liked us to believe. When the gay agenda changes, do demographics change as well?
In an essay published in 1993 in The New Republic, Sullivan himself referred to homosexuals as “a sizable and inextinguishable part of society.”
Sizable or tiny, Andrew? Which is it? It seems the answer may be whichever is convenient at the time.
The Family Research Institute quotes both Newsweek and Fortune Magazine using the infamous ten percent number from the Kinsey Report as well as many homosexual activists.
1. Newsweek, 2/15/93, p. 46: “For years, the gay-rights movement has sought safety in numbers. Its leaders have long claimed that homosexuals constitute 10 percent of the American population. They cited Alfred Kinsey, who interviewed thousands of men and women for landmark studies on human sexuality in the 1940s and 1950s. Activists seized on the double digits to strengthen their political message–that millions of citizens are excluded from the mainstream by anti-gay discrimination. Policymakers and the press (including NEWSWEEK) adopted the estimate–despite protests from skeptical conservatives–citing it time and again.
2. Fortune, 1991, p. 42: “Kinsey’s classic 1948 studies suggest that about 10% of American adults are homosexual, a figure that more recent surveys support.”…
3. Cathy Renna, co-chairwoman of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, said, “I feel the 10 percent figure is probably about right’ because many homosexuals fear to admit their sexual orientation.”
But some even admit now that they knew that number wasn’t accurate but used it anyway. In Newsweek: “Some gay activists now concede that they exploited the Kinsey estimate for its tactical value, not its accuracy. ‘We used that figure when most gay people were entirely hidden to try to create an impression of our numerousness,’ says Tom Stoddard, former head of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund.”
Now some, like Sullivan, obviously believe it’ll help their cause if gays constitute a smaller number so they start minimizing the number with words like “tiny.” Is this science? Nah. It’s sophistry. It’s politics.
August 19, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Alfred Kinsey was a masochistic monster. He never should have been taken seriously and the whole scientific community should have questioned his “research.” His population was thousands of pedophiles and prisoners. In that population, the rate of homosexual sex are probably 40%. Maybe someone should have a look at how he arrived at his findings of childhood sexual behavior. The homosexual community doesn’t want America to know the truth—so they hide behind the lying monsters who started this whole mess.
August 19, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Yet Hollywood lionizes him in a movie and his science goes on unquestioned.
August 20, 2008 at 2:19 am
Yes. I read that Kinsey used a disproportionate number of prisoners in his research. I believe it’s called “situational homosexuality” – if you’re in jail, “any hole will do”. Sorry for that, but boarding schools and prisons are notorious for sodomy, carried out by blokes who end up as happily married men. They just can’t or won’t control their libido at that stage of their lives….
August 20, 2008 at 6:03 am
I always thought the “10 percent” theory to be so much bunk. I come from a family of 6 children. No gays in my family. My aunt had 9 children. No gays in her family. My uncle had 3 children. No gays in his family. My other aunt had one child. He’s not gay either. And this is just on my mother’s side (no known homosexuals on my dad’s side either).
August 21, 2008 at 2:45 am
Yeah, but you don’t have to be “flaming” to be a Queen. As anyone who has had anything to do with a Marriage Tribunal knows, there are a lot of blokes cheating on their wives with other men, in sham marriages etc… I honestly don’t know what to think. Except that Andrew Sullivan is simply unreliable and will say anything to support his cause…
August 21, 2008 at 2:45 am
Yeah, but you don’t have to be “flaming” to be a Queen. As anyone who has had anything to do with a Marriage Tribunal knows, there are a lot of blokes cheating on their wives with other men, in sham marriages etc… I honestly don’t know what to think. Except that Andrew Sullivan is simply unreliable and will say anything to support his cause…
August 21, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I remember when being gay was a “lifestyle choice” or a “sexual preference.” Then they came up with it being genetic (for which there is no proof), so now its not a choice or preference. Really, it is all smoke and mirrors. Who among the gay activists really cares about truth?
August 22, 2008 at 1:19 am
Ah, several people already beat me to the lie that is Alfred Kinsey. I discovered his ‘story’ in 2003 when the lie that is same-sex marriage got imposed on us in Massachusetts.
August 22, 2008 at 11:18 pm
{Readers beware: The following contains unbridaled rant of guy bored at work and ticked at the lies of this culture. However, for a rant, it actually has facts worth seeing. Reader discretion is advised.)
I majored in psych and I remember them covering this in abnormal psych (in the 90's even! I went to a decent school). That 10% number is NOT from Kinsey. REAL psychologists don't take Kinsey's "research" seriously. He's more of a historicial figure. The first real human sexuality research was Masters & Johnson. Yes, their stuff is flawed and biased, but that is where the 10% comes from. And guess what? Everyone gets it wrong. It was really:
5% bisexual
3% male homosexual
2% female homosexual
And even that depends on how their research defines homosexual. I'm sure MTV's active propaganda campains have helped change those numbers. In 1973, 14 people (somewhat under duress) decided to make homosexuality "normal" by removing it from the DSM-IIIr. Before that time, there was actual legitimate research that was really trying to help these people. On that topic they found that there was different TYPES of homosexuality and that the lifestyle type was the rarest. Most common? Situational: male prisons, and such.
Ironically, the leaders of the LGBT (i.e. gender identity disorders – missing from the DSM-IV) are pushing to move AWAY from the rheotic of, "but we can't help it. we were just born this way." That was great for gaining political power, but not for gaining "acceptance" and new recruits. Now, they are moving to a model of dynamic human sexuality; that preferences and appitites ebb and flow during a life span. I think it makes it easier to keep getting funding.
Ya know why they* are trying to get away from sex change surgery? It costs a lot and it just makes the person worse of. They had been placing all their woes on this one thing, "if only I was the oppisite sex", and now that they "are", they aren't any happier and have lost that excuse. *(They, in this case was the orignial physicians and researchers that were the Dr. Frankenstien's, but thought they were being helpful and advancing their career. The capitalists have steped in now, and care even less.)
Sorry for the rant — this stuff just steams me. It's also infuriating because one side lays claim to be the compasionate side, when in fact, they are USING homosexuals to serve their POLITICAL agenda; thus just don't value them for who they are. It's not all homosexuals that are leading this – just the ones that will not be happy until EVERYONE "accepts" them on their own terms. That doesn't happen and it's abnormal and unhealthy to tie your self-worth to the ludicrious.
Here's a bonus trivia bit for those that suffered through this whole rant. How exactly did San Francisco become the male homosexual capitol? The Navy. During WWII, those dishonorably dischared for homosexuality were dropped off in San Francisco. True story. For those wackos that think the government invented aids to kill africans, you should find a way to add this to your insanity.