It will be shouted!
It will be Shouted from the rooftops, in joyous Hallelujah, I’m sure, by tomorrow morning. GAYS ONLY 1 ½ %!!!! Oh God save us from this menace! Still, it’s not so clear at all. I saw this survey, linked from http://libertypundits.net/ which was the first place I saw it this afternoon.
Laughably, the writer was sarcastic about gays being all self-proclaiming, and can’t get more than that tiny number, said he had the requisite gay friend, is anti-government in every way, doubting every government official and statistic from this side of Cleveland to the next, and distrusts the socialist Sharia-leaning Brits more than Obama’s Socialists, and now, now all of a sudden a British Government study is the Gold Standard, the sine qua non, of studies! Mirable Dictu. His entire ability to analyze data was thrown out the window in his child like glee of shouting – “IT’S ONLY 1 ½ % Hahahahaha”
I’m sure by tomorrow it will be everywhere, with a similar snark, and gay “advocacy groups” will whimper about something, and we shall be talked about in the most amazing ways. Too many ways to count really, from the hateful to the pitied to the: not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Frankly, the data must be flawed, as I shall show momentarily. I don’t say it to boost the number for any political purpose. I merely point to the difficulties inherent in such a survey in our times, when malice is hurled at gay people rather publicly and accepted by the most important public figures of our nation, and Britain, where the survey is from. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not exactly gay friendly, I’m sure.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/8020574/Gay-population-much-lower-than-believed-first-official-figures-show.html is the article. Short, indeed. You know, for the deep analysis. And the government’s word taken as the Gold Standard by people who in virtually every other article published this very day in their own paper is skeptical of 100% else that the government does. Yes, these figures must be right, for they are counting the super important number of gays in the population lest the situation be more unmanageable than previously thought. Still, it’s the first time, gracious me.
“The announcement that the survey was to quiz people on their sexual identity was criticized in 2008 as an intrusion in to people’s private lives.” Well, I bet. Especially in a country where the government of the day was implicated in schemes to bring in Muslims for the votes, like Democrats and Mexicans in the USA. Muslims, eh? What’s that they say about Muslims and gays? Oh yah, death. That will help the gay folks answer honestly, to the same government taking the survey.
“Ninety-five per cent of people said they are heterosexual …” Leaving, wait for it – 5% — which is the number I would contend is more accurate by a comparison of lots of different data sets, which I compiled long ago, which I now feel compelled to gussy up my take on it, and publish it. One data set on gay folks ain’t going to cut it. Long ago you say? Sure, that damn Kinsey Report of 1948 is still quoted, as outdated as the computer science reports of the times, but still quoted. Bizarre. Ancient history is “gay years” and still quoted. Sad.
“… while less than one per cent put themselves in the “other” category, offered for those who did not see themselves as straight, gay or bisexual …” Yah, sure, the gender confused, of which we’re told we are, too. But so “other” so that even bisexual doesn’t cut it? Oh, please. So can’t we have them in our count? Since you already socially do say we’re “other” in a multiple of ways? If gay folks are gender confused, and those folks sampled say they are gender unknowing, as authorities say, than aren’t they really on our side of the fence? I would think so, but I’m, of course, a “biased Homosexual, promoting a militant homosexual agenda,” of course. But how much less? Would it be say .9% or .01%? Makes a difference.
“Some three per cent said they did not know their preference or refused to answer.”
Yah, sure, so 95% is a sure as the dickens, as is always said. The rest, presumably are “experimenting” or awaiting the “recruiter” or something. And some unstated percentage said they didn’t know – Didn’t know? How could they not? Well, gay folks are told we can’t really know we’re gay since no such thing exists, and it’s all in the “act” and not in the person. Right? Isn’t that what’s said? Do you not think that some more weak minded gay guy than I might think, well, it’s only an “Act” so I can’t “be.” Sure he can, we’re sissies right? And some percentage, unstated, refused to answer. Leaving 3% who are loosely accounted for in >> don’t know, and not gonna say, << But no break down of this 3% — which is odd, for technically, it’s larger than the 1 ½ percent which will be shouted from the roof tops as Proof that we are to be ignored. Oddly, legally, in many ways, the tiny 3% which is supposedly dwarfs us, has more rights than we do with no claim to be a threat to Republic or Realm.
Leaving aside that – how was this phone/doorstep survey taken?
In other words, how was the sample of people queried? For instance, if it’s true that gay men would presumably leave the Cotswalds and Merseyside, Norwich and East Blakenthorp or wherever, and wound up in London’s gay districts, was this accounted for? Or was it just a few folks per post code, or council district, or riding or what? How was this random sample taken? Did they drive down a road and say “that house, not that one”? Did they pick up a phone number, cover their eyes, stick a pin in and there, the number to be called? For if it’s true, as is also shouted from the rooftops, that with all those gays are over there, than how can you expect to be able to count them from right here, or down yonder, or up yon hill? For instance, in the US, we’re told, that Manhattan and San Francisco have higher concentrations of gays. So if a survey was done randomly, how can it take into account the thicker concentrations in one place, which perforce must thin the concentrations elsewhere?
And too, did anyone think of the idea that some “bisexual” guy, standing at the doorstep with wifey next to him, would say to the government worker — “Oh yah, I’m a bisexual, but (wink wink) don’t tell the missus”? Sure, that too was accounted for, I’m sure, by the able bureaucrats.
Ben Summerskill, chief executive of gay charity Stonewall, said: “We warmly welcome these figures as Stonewall’s pushed for this information for some time.” Yes we do, and have, for as my own “survey” of 90 IOTW readers showed, the “figure” ranged from 1 to 10%, with a few even higher. Now, they might all well switch to this new figure. I have contended from my analysis that it’s roughly 5%, however, which I will publish shortly.
“However this is the first time that people were asked and data collection happened on doorsteps or over the phone, which may deter people from giving accurate responses – particularly if someone isn’t openly-gay at home.
My my, a government worker shows up or calls “Hi, are you gay or straight?” And you expect gay folks to simply say, “oh, yah, gay, put me down for that”?
After a lifetime of being told to hide. A lifetime perhaps of being harassed at home and church. By the government itself. A gay guy 60+ would be perhaps still a bit scared from the bar raids and arrests of his youth to volunteer to any government worker by phone or at the doorstep to admit anything to anyone.
I won’t even bring up the gay guy who was forced somehow into marriage now being asked with the wife in earshot if he might be gay.
Nor will I wonder if the survey counted anyone under 21, or 18, who might be around. When the survey taker asks dear old mum if there might be a gay guy about, do you really think she might say, “well, my son?” even though he might be cowering upstairs with magazines he hides from his mother? No, I doubt she would, thereby altering the count.
In it’s first results, published yesterday, it concluded 480,000 people in the UK are gay or lesbian and a further 245,000 are bisexual.
Is this the number including kids 1-18, or 1-21, what was the cut off age for making the assessment of an absolute number once a percentage was gleaned?
Though, that number, it’s hysterical, for a good gay pride march in London would draw more people. In fact, I’d say there’s more than half that number in gay clubs on any given Friday night across her Majesty’s Realm, and I sincerely doubt that more than half the number of gays are out that night.
A Government impact assessment for the 2004 Civil Partnership Act estimated between five and seven per cent of the population was gay. Yes, well, with 95% saying straight, and the first survey putting 5% in the catch all, I’d say the assessment was nearer to the truth. Meanwhile, on what then was the first assessment made?
Estimates in other broader surveys that have included some sort of question on sexuality have ranged between one per cent and 2.4 per cent, but they have all covered much smaller samples. To which I can say, as above, if the data is collected merely by doorstep & phone interviews by a government worker than it would make no difference the size of the survey.
And so, what I thought would be the Weekend Gay Card, might well be the daily gay card, for Obama was heckled by gay protestors just yesterday or something. That was going to be an evening post today, and this interceded. The gay news comes so fast now, it’s amazing.
Strangely though, there’s a-coming a big gay reckoning. And you know why? There are hundreds of lawsuits on gay issues – marriage, divorce, custody, living wills, medical powers of attorney, property divisions, DADT, DOMA, and so many other things. Gay folks are just not going to sit still. And all these court cases are wending their way upwards, to you know where. Eventually it will all be dumped in the lap’s of the Supremes in DC. The patch work of laws is unsustainable in a Land of Law.
By the way, the surveys that tout the 1 ½ % number come about once every decade since the 1970s. And they all reference Kinsey’s 10% and all say the same darn thing – 95% of the people say they’re “normal” and 5% say they are “not normal.”
Perhaps, like in Anna Karenina, all “normal” families are alike, and all “not normal” families are unalike. But if extending a modicum of decency and legal recognition to 5% of the population who is weird is the downfall of civilization than that’s just pitiful. What does it say about the foundation of Normalcy?
- Posted in: Uncategorized