Gallup confirms that homosexuals are not more than 1% of the population; in order to pump up the number, the GBLT community has to include people who disprove the canard that sexuality is fixed from birth.

Although most people think that homosexuals are around 20 to 40% of the population.

I grew up with the canard - repeated time and time again - that homosexuals were 10% of the population. There was no data supporting this, but it was repeated so often that it became true per se. The gay paper at U.C. Davis was called "10%" as I recall.

But it is and always has been nonsense. There have been innumerable studies done by pro-gay institutes that confirm that the gay population may be around 1.2% and the lesbian population around 10% to 50% of that number.

Gallup comes in with another poll that identifies the GBLT community as 3.4% of the population.

That number is higher than the 1% I quote, but that is because of the "B" in "GBLT", i.e., bisexual, which probably accounts for two-thirds of the respondents.

Why is that significant?

Because we are told that sexuality is a fixed identity component and that simple justice demands that we reshape the concept of marriage for the 99% because of the 1% that are fixed in their sexual identity.

But what about "Bisexuals." Doesn't the "bi" mean anything, such as a fluidity and choice-making behavior among the largest component of the GBLT community.

The "B"s are included because they are "opportunistic homosexuals" - a group that has long been known to exist in prison populations and English private schools - and because without the "B"s, the population of "G"s, "L"s and "T"s disappears as statitstical noise. But the "B"s undermine the narrative of the homosexual project, which is based on making that community into a fixed and insular minority, for the purpose of getting "heightened scrutiny" under "footnote 4" of the Carolene Products decision, which it isn't.

Defending the Regnerus Study.

The cliche is that a study gets published that questions a lefist sacred cow; a barrage of criticism gets launched from leftist precincts; then leftists go on to demand that everyone ignore the study as "anti-science."

The recent Regnerus study on homosexual parenting is following the same pattern, but with a difference; social scientists are rejecting the criticisms against Regnerus methodology.

Same-sex marriage is one of the most contentious and vexing issues now facing our nation. It is perhaps in part for that reason that the new study on same-sex parenting by University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus, which finds that young-adult children of parents who have had same-sex relationships are more likely to suffer from a range of emotional and social problems,[1] has been subject to such sustained and sensational criticism from dozens of media outlets, from the Huffington Post to the New Yorker to the New Republic. These outlets have alleged, respectively, that his research is “anti-gay,” “breathtakingly sloppy,” and “gets everything wrong.”

Although Regnerus’s article in Social Science Research is not without its limitations, as social scientists, we think much of the public criticism Regnerus has received is unwarranted for three reasons.

First, there are limitations with prior research on this subject that have seldom been discussed by the media. The vast majority of studies published before 2012 on this subject have relied upon small, nonrepresentative samples that do not represent children in typical gay and lesbian families in the United States. [2] By contrast, Regnerus relies on a large, random, and representative sample of more than 200 children raised by parents who have had same-sex relationships, comparing them to a random sample of more than 2,000 children raised in heterosexual families, to reach his conclusions. This is why sociology professor Paul Amato, chair of the Family section of the American Sociological Association and president of the National Council on Family Relations, wrote that the Regnerus study was “better situated than virtually all previous studies to detect differences between these [different family] groups in the population.”[3] We are disappointed that many media outlets have not done their due diligence in investigating the scientific validity of prior studies, and acknowledging the superiority of Regnerus’s sample to most previous research.

Second, Regnerus has been chided for comparing young adults from gay and lesbian families that experienced high levels of family instability to young adults from stable heterosexual married families. This is not an ideal comparison. (Indeed, Regnerus himself acknowledges this point in his article, and calls for additional research on a representative sample of planned gay and lesbian families; such families may be more stable but are very difficult to locate in the population at large.[4]) But what his critics fail to appreciate is that Regnerus chose his categories on the basis of young adults’ characterizations of their own families growing up, and the young adults whose parents had same-sex romantic relationships also happened to have high levels of instability in their families of origin. This instability may well be an artifact of the social stigma and marginalization that often faced gay and lesbian couples during the time (extending back to the 1970s, in some cases) that many of these young adults came of age. It is also worth noting that Regnerus’s findings related to instability are consistent with recent studies of gay and lesbian couples in countries such as the Netherlands and Sweden, which find similarly high patterns of instability among same-sex couples.[5] Even Judith Stacey, a prominent critic of Regnerus’s study, elsewhere acknowledges that studies suggest that lesbian “relationships may prove less durable” than heterosexual marriages.[6] Thus, Regnerus should not be faulted for drawing a random, representative sample of young-adult children of parents who have had same-sex romantic relationships and also happened to have experienced high levels of family instability growing up.

Third, another study[7] published this month in the Journal of Marriage and Family comes to conclusions that parallel those of Regnerus’s study. This study finds that “children in same-sex parent families scored lower than their peers in married, 2-biological parent households” on two academic outcomes, and that these differences can be attributed to higher levels of family instability in same-sex families, compared to intact, biological married families. This study was also based on a large, nationally representative, and random survey of school-age children; moreover, the same-sex parents in this study lived together. The parallels between the findings in this study and Regnerus’s study strongly call into question the New Republic’s claim that the Regnerus study “gets everything wrong.”