Part 3 “Family Research Council” Duplicity
Part Three of the Disingenuous Duplicity of the Family Research Council
Let us continue an exploration of a measly four paragraphs of arrant disingenuous duplicity by the Family Research Council, shall we:
FRC: “For example, a recent study in Demography relying upon three large data sets–the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. Census–”
ME: This to “prove” gays are 1 to 3 percent of the population, and oddly, therefore deserve absolutely nothing, ever.
Meanwhile, the US Census is specifically prohibited by law from asking or noting if anyone is gay, lesbian, homosexual or anything of such kind – but only asks if people are unmarried partners and their genders and guesses from there. There was even a brouhaha about it for the 2000 census, during which I’m sure the FRC itself was adamant that no such count be made, for as was said at the time – that would be taxpayers’ money promoting homosexuality.
According to the http://www.urban.org/publications/1000491.html in 1990 the Census Bureau simply changed the gender of one of the partners of those who so “truly desired” to be counted that they counted themselves even though there was no place on the form to be counted. And that’s a tenaciousness that should be respected I do believe. But no, that’s debased by the FRC as a “militant” and “radical” “promoting homosexuality.”
So the FRC wants us both to shush and not be counted, and then has the temerity to say they will count us by what we say to those who would shush us. This you call “reasonable debate”? This I call “Heads you win, tails I lose.”
Still, so what numbers could they have but guess work and supposition dedicated to lowering our numbers? Their 1 to 3 percent is technically as good as Kinsey’s 10%. And since the other two “studies” almost certainly were funded with government funds, which the Family Research Council is inordinately worried about using to count gay folks, well, then, they didn’t “count” gay folks, but inferred by other criteria – and thus they too are suspect I would think.
Meanwhile, according to the Urban League (www.urban.org): “In the last three elections, the Voter News Service exit poll registered the gay vote between 4 percent and 5 percent. While concluding that the Census 2000 undercounted the total number of gay or lesbian households, for the purposes of this study, we estimate the gay and lesbian population at 5 percent of the total U.S. population over 18 years of age, (209,128,094). This results in an estimated total gay and lesbian population of 10,456,405.”
Though I’ll note how weird it is that only people over 18 are counted as gay, as if somehow magically, when the clock strikes one’s birth-time on one’s birthday one “changes” to gay. (Is that the moment of “choosing” to be gay? Yeesh) Especially in light of every gay person contending repeatedly ad nauseum that we’re born gay! Thus if 5% are self-identified gays in exit polls to complete strangers I dare say 5% of the 100,000,000 people under 18 are gay too. Which does add another 5,000,000 or so to the count right off the bat. Not to mention that another two to three percent or more just aren’t going to admit anything to anyone, or hide behind the convenient “bisexual.”
Still, how recent is the FRC’s fave data? How large? How compiled? What methodologies? The mysteries are so deep that I can’t but wonder. Especially given the FRC’s predilection for using debunked data from 1948 and reference to obituaries from the 1980s, and even an unread book twenty years old called “After the Ball.”
Not to mention FRC’s bizarre claim that we really “truly desire” to date horses. See www.goodasyou.org for that tidbit, it’s a constant reference point – as it should be. For the number of horses, even in Vermont, does not quite equal the number of gay guys. So I really do wonder about the FRC’s vapidity and cupidity in their numbers game.
And if the three large surveys could only come as close as “1 to 3” percent, I dare say singularly or in compilation they could not really be used to come to anything like an accurate number to be used to snidely attack us or make any pronouncements about gay folks. Especially since I doubt all the various kinds of people who they were trying to count are going to just volunteer such information to any government official at the door or on the phone. And that’s how all those studies are done. With the FRC monitoring it all to make sure no “militant homosexual agenda” seeps into the proceedings. Meanwhile, how 1 to 3 percent, or even 5%, of the population is going to take over the place I don’t know.
If you really wanted a better gay folks number go to all the gay bars across the nation on a given Saturday night over the course of the evening and count heads coming and going – then count all the hairdressers at work and all the interior decorators busy and so forth and so on — and extrapolate from that. No, instead, you’ll call us up and ask, and we’ll spill the beans, to people dedicated to the proposition that we’re unnatural threats to the natural order. Sure. Sure.
Not to mention, any and all data before 2003, when gay sex was finally legalized nationwide, must be flawed – who would admit to criminal activity to the folks who employ the prosecutors?
Here’s an unorthodox method to count gay guys, which no one ever proposes: Count all the woman who want to get married but can’t because there are some number of gay men who won’t marry them. For every never-to-be married straight woman there must be a gay guy who will not do the honors, right? Isn’t that the complaint? Right? The number can be derived at like this: count all the men who get married to available women or are planning to or want to, or are cohabiting with women or dating them, or just lust after them in their hearts. Then count all the women who get hooked up to all the self-identified and avowed straight guys. That number should be equally boy-girl, say, 100 for 100.
If gayness is not natural – in the sense that we’re taking potential straight guys out of the mix through our choosing to be immoral sinful dangers to family – then there will be a given number of straight woman who never get married – for the lack of available men – those who choose to be gay!. That number of never married straight woman must equal the number of gay men. For we just won’t marry ’em. And there’s a guy for every gal in the wondrous world of death-till-we-part marital bliss of the FRC fantasy land. If God put one for one – well then, there must be a never married woman pining for some boy gone sissy.
Oddly, what we find is the number that is present at birth – for every 100 girls 106 boys are born. And even if some die before 18 years of age, — it’s still 95 for 95 – with six left over. Six extra boys. Who are they? Whom could they marry? For there are no girls for them. Ah, don’t fret fellas, God did provide. He made the six, um, gay. And we find each other, like salmon find the lake they come from, and swim upstream, against all odds. And if you were nice to us, who knows, we might all settle down behind a picket fence.
- Posted in: Uncategorized