In your estimation, what percentage of the population is gay?

ernst barkmann said:

privilege to marry...

we need to stop calling privileges under the Constitution....rights.

Click to expand...

Ok, but then what do you call all the things that are allowed subsequent to state's recognition of marriage, such as inheritance, visitation privileges, etc.? Rights? That is why I referred to marriage as a right.

29A said:

Ok, but then what do you call all the things that are allowed subsequent to state's recognition of marriage, such as inheritance, visitation privileges, etc.? Rights? That is why I referred to marriage as a right.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, several states have dealt with this question by passing legislation that explicitly confers rights like the ones you mentioned on "domestic partners."

ernst barkmann said:

privilege to marry...

we need to stop calling privileges under the Constitution....rights.

Click to expand...

The Constitution itself doesn't privilege marriage. Historically, marriage was a private contract between families. Seems it wasn't until states began issuing licenses that it ceased to be a right and became a privilege.

Could you also clarify your distinction between rights and privileges?

Why wouldn't marriage be considered to be included among the right to pursue happiness?

DifferentDrummr said:

Interestingly, several states have dealt with this question by passing legislation that explicitly confers rights like the ones you mentioned on "domestic partners."

Click to expand...

Right, but the law moved too slowly and involved too few states. Homosexuals realized the quicker and easier way to receive those rights was to call their unions marriage.

29A said:

Ok, but then what do you call all the things that are allowed subsequent to state's recognition of marriage, such as inheritance, visitation privileges, etc.? Rights? That is why I referred to marriage as a right.

Click to expand...

Marriage itself is a right. That does not mean that everything included in government marriage is a right.

Henrin said:

Marriage itself is a right. That does not mean that everything included in government marriage is a right.

Click to expand...

Methinks ernst barkmann will disagree.

Everything included in "government marriage"? You refer to state licensing/recognition?

Then those subsequent allowances would fall under equal protection of the law.

29A said:

The Constitution itself doesn't privilege marriage. Historically, marriage was a private contract between families. Seems it wasn't until states began issuing licenses that it ceased to be a right and became a privilege.

Could you also clarify your distinction between rights and privileges?

Why wouldn't marriage be considered to be included among the right to pursue happiness?

Click to expand...

at one time government was not involved in marriage at all, under Blacks law, government got in the marriage business because of mixed marriage.

you have a right to be with another person, but no one has a right to a piece of paper and have another person preform a service for them.

a right..... is given to you by god/ or by nature/ or by a higher power however ever you choose the founders left it subjective........but its..........an entity.... ABOVE government.

a right...... is something you exercise without it being hindered in any way, by another person or government..........it requires no action, from another person or a government

a privilege/ civil right /legal right ...is something you receive from government, and it requires an action from government, like government services.

a marriage....... requires a license [rights are not licensed] and a third person to at least to preform the service of marriage.

nothing can be a right, if it lays a cost or burden on another citizen.

when people say, "i have a right to be married"........then they are saying they can use FORCE on another person to see their right is fulfilled..... thats illogical.....rights do not have the power of force on another people, because you would be are stepping into their rights.

pursuit of happiness is ......[property].

29A said:

Ok, but then what do you call all the things that are allowed subsequent to state's recognition of marriage, such as inheritance, visitation privileges, etc.? Rights? That is why I referred to marriage as a right.

Click to expand...

the constitution deals in only 2 things.....natural rights, and privileges and immunities ,that's all nothing else.

government grants privileges, and ONLY government must honor them.....government cannot grant privileges to people, on or for the property of other people.

Article 4

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

29A said:

The Constitution itself doesn't privilege marriage. Historically, marriage was a private contract between families. Seems it wasn't until states began issuing licenses that it ceased to be a right and became a privilege.

Could you also clarify your distinction between rights and privileges?

Why wouldn't marriage be considered to be included among the right to pursue happiness?

Click to expand...

What is the origin of your presumed "right to pursue happiness?" That phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. In any case, Jefferson was not using "happiness" in the sense of "joy" or "bliss." He used it to mean good fortune or prosperity--i.e. acquiring wealth. John Locke had listed life, liberty, and property as inalienable rights.

matchlight said:

What is the origin of your presumed "right to pursue happiness?" That phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Right, I wasn't attempting to present it as coming from the Constitution.

In any case, Jefferson was not using "happiness" in the sense of "joy" or "bliss." He used it to mean good fortune or prosperity--i.e. acquiring wealth. John Locke had listed life, liberty, and property as inalienable rights.

Click to expand...

The fact that Jefferson didn't use the word "property" in the DOI may indicate that's not what's meant. Given his in-depth knowledge of not only Enlightenment thinkers but Greek thinkers, what makes you think he was channeling Locke and not Epicurus?

October 31, 1819 letter to William Short.

I take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of our master Epicurus, in indulging the indolence to which you say you are yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that "the indulgence which prevents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain, is to be avoided."

Syllabus of the doctrines of Epicurus.

Physical.

Virtue the foundation of happiness.

To William Short, with a Syllabus Monticello, October 31, 1819 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826 < Thomas Jefferson < Presidents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

Click to expand...

100% of the gay ones.

radcen said:

Would it? I would think that it'd remain relatively constant over time. Barring unnatural outside influences.

Click to expand...

Well, IF they are born with it as many assert, it's genetic. In the past they were encouraged to marry straight and pass those genes on. However, now they can marry same sex with less chance of reproduction. So the number may shrink in the future. Another win for homosexual marriage.

Based solely on my own anecdotal experience involving my family and friends, I would guess 5%.

clownboy said:

Well, IF they are born with it as many assert, it's genetic. In the past they were encouraged to marry straight and pass those genes on. However, now they can marry same sex with less chance of reproduction. So the number may shrink in the future. Another win for homosexual marriage.

Click to expand...

Hmm, that is an interesting observation. That makes sense, IF it is genetic. It is possible for something to not be a choice and still not be genetic. It is also possible that conditions inside the womb that have little to do with the genetics of the fetus could affect it as well. My non-expert opinion is that orientation derives from a myriad of factors. But if even a portion of it is genetic then one would expect the actual percentage to decrease, even if the numbers of people coming out of the closet increases.

vesper said:

It's got to be between 2 and less than 3% according to the latest data I have read. But, those whose enlightenment comes in the form of sit-coms, and Hollywood through films, those folks seem to think the percentage is much higher. Last gallup poll on the subject most people guessed at least 20%. I think the entertainment industry by design has created this persona as a way to shift public opinion more favorable to a gay lifestyle. Heck just watch HGTV for a couple of hours and you would swear that over 33% of the population is gay. One in every three shows has a gay couple looking for a home or wanting a new interior design.

Click to expand...

Indeed, most of the media would give the impression that the percentage of gays and lesbians, excluding bisexuals and transsexuals, is in the double-digits and significantly higher than it truly is.

But Gallup may be the best we have to establish an accurate foundation, so that's what I used: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/207661-your-estimation-percentage-population-gay-8.html#post1063899910.

I recall a previous Gallup poll that specified that most of the LGBT community is B.

Putting everything together, the correct answer is most likely .1 - 2 percent, the first response in the poll.

In your estimation, what percentage of the population is gay?

Click to expand...

Here in the UK I'd say less than 2%

I have lived in France for 4 years. There the number is the same but about 85% of men have sex with other men, but not in a gay way.

I have never understood the French mentality.

BrewerBob said:

Hmm, that is an interesting observation. That makes sense, IF it is genetic. It is possible for something to not be a choice and still not be genetic. It is also possible that conditions inside the womb that have little to do with the genetics of the fetus could affect it as well. My non-expert opinion is that orientation derives from a myriad of factors. But if even a portion of it is genetic then one would expect the actual percentage to decrease, even if the numbers of people coming out of the closet increases.

Click to expand...

That's right, conditions in the womb during gestation that are not genetic, but are epigenetic, is the recently revealed scientific presentation on the etiology of homosexuality: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/207732-less-than-half-americans-think-people-born-gay.html#post1063901614

ernst barkmann said:

at one time government was not involved in marriage at all, under Blacks law, government got in the marriage business because of mixed marriage.

Click to expand...

So it used to be a right, and now it's a privilege?

you have a right to be with another person, but no one has a right to a piece of paper and have another person preform a service for them.

a right..... is given to you by god/ or by nature/ or by a higher power however ever you choose the founders left it subjective........but its..........an entity.... ABOVE government.

a right...... is something you exercise without it being hindered in any way, by another person or government..........it requires no action, from another person or a government

Click to expand...

By that presentation what happens in the course of contracts. One has a right to make them, but it also involves the free consent of another individual/entity.

a privilege/ civil right /legal right ...is something you receive from government, and it requires an action from government, like government services.

a marriage....... requires a license [rights are not licensed] and a third person to at least to preform the service of marriage.

Click to expand...

But as I noted above, state requisitioning of marriage licenses is a fairly recent development.

nothing can be a right, if it lays a cost or burden on another citizen.

Click to expand...

Exactly, which brings us to the differentiation between positive and negative rights. Positive rights burden another.

when people say, "i have a right to be married"........then they are saying they can use FORCE on another person to see their right is fulfilled..... thats illogical.....rights do not have the power of force on another people, because you would be are stepping into their rights.

Click to expand...

That would be an example of a positive right. Examples of positive rights include those listed by FDR in his January 11, 1944 State of the Union Address.
Second Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

pursuit of happiness is ......[property].

Click to expand...

I kind of made this argument to machlight below: If Jefferson meant, by "the pursuit of Happiness", "property", why didn't he use that term? Perhaps his source of inspiration for the phrase was not from Locke, but Epicurus? Perhaps it was an euphemism, inspired by abolitionists' reservations in enshrining property as a right, given the status of slaves.

clownboy said:

Well, IF they are born with it as many assert, it's genetic. In the past they were encouraged to marry straight and pass those genes on. However, now they can marry same sex with less chance of reproduction. So the number may shrink in the future. Another win for homosexual marriage.

Click to expand...

Interesting point. I hadn't thought about that aspect.

So, that begs the question: Going with gays being born as such, is it a 'genetic defect'*, or is it simply random chance?

If a 'defect', then numbers might shrink in the future as genes aren't passed down. Most gays would adopt as part of a SSM couple, not procreate. If random chance, then nothing would change, percentage-wise.

*- I can't think of a better phrase, no ill intent is meant.

radcen said:

In your estimation, what percentage of the population is gay?

I say "...in your estimation" because, as someone else said in another thread, not all gay people are willing to admit it (for reasons of their own), so the best stats we have are most likely incomplete.

Note also, bi-sexual, bi-curious, etc., are not included in the question. Straight (pun only slightly intended :mrgreen gay only.

Click to expand...

I voted 6-10% but i wouldnt be surprised if its near 15%
with the amount of fear of coming out and bigotry against gays its hard to tell.
Id guess no lower than 7%

ptif219 said:

There is no reason to give such a small percentage power or special rights

Click to expand...

good thing "special rights" arent factually not happening then LOL
and there is a reason for us ALL to have power its called the constitution and rights

funny how freedom works huh?

ptif219 said:

Changing laws and using federal courts to interfere in states legislation. The feds are abusing their power

Click to expand...

theres no evidence or facts to support this claim
what is actually going on is the states overstepped thier power and violated the constitution and the fed fixed it. Facts, laws, rights and court cases all prove that.

ptif219 said:

There is no right to marry. Can you show the right to marry in the constitution

Click to expand...

this strawman fails and gets laughed at every time

fact is marriage is a right
fact is the word marriage doenst have to be in the constitution, if you disagree please tell us why a word needs to be in there.

i dont read freedom of rape in there anywhere either?

ptif219 said:

Not even close more like comparing apples to oranges

Click to expand...

not its a direct comparison of equal rights LMAO
there are court cases on this that even refer to Love V Virginia, what do you have that says the comparison is false? lol

ptif219 said:

No they stand up for their religion and against immorality

Click to expand...

translation "some" want thier religion to be the law because they dont care about the rights of others lol

saw the same stuff with women and minorities, this mentally retarded idea that religion trumps freedom and rights failed then because it had no logical foot to stand on and it fails now also.