from the Volokh Conspiracy (based right here at GMU Law School). There's extremely wide disparity between the percentages who admit to "attraction" to the same sex, and those who admit to actually having had same-sex partners. And even more strangely, it's the professed behavior that suggests much broader homosexuality and bisexuality than appears credible. The professed "practice" is, in fact, so broad that one would have to conclude (if you believe the numbers) that the notion that a same-sex attraction is a not a choice is something of a myth. Either that, or it represents a rather odd form of bragging. [Note: See the update below. I've apparently misread the second table. Oh well.] Anyway, here's a key graf:
So there do seem to be quite a few bisexuals out there, though how many depends on how you define bisexuality. This suggests that the law (for instance, law limiting marriage only to male-female marriage) might indeed affect people's choice to enter heterosexual relationships as opposed to homosexual ones, whether by direct incentives (e.g., financial benefits) or by affecting social mores. If we thought everyone was either firmly heterosexual or homosexual, such effects would be extremely unlikely. But if quite a few people can go either way, then they might be swayed by legal or social pressures.
Well OK, for those who demanded a direct effect on heterosexual marriage here it is, in spades. [Note: Not "in spades" perhaps, but it does suggest a significant direct impact, depending on how you interpret the numbers.]
[Update: As the aptly named commenter "UpNights" points out, I've misread the second table on Eugene's post. That's what comes of being too long in the saddle. The percentages in the boxes of the second table just demonstrate the portion of those who had same sex partners that also had opposite sex partners, so roughly speaking it isn't a departure from the first table. It still doesn't support the contention that having same sex partners is a choice, however. You could make an argument that there's an innate tendancy for same-sex attraction. And the high percentage of "bi" activity, especially in the bottom row, could be due to experimentation or social pressure.]
Eugene also suggests an interesting revision of the FMA.
Posted by Demosophist at February 28, 2004 11:30 PM | TrackBackAs I read the second table, it doesn't show how many people or what percentage of the group are "(the ones who had some same-sex partners)", so it doesn't show if bisexual behavior is more prevalent than bisexual attraction.
Posted by: UpNights at February 29, 2004 02:42 AMDamn, you're right! I misread the table. That's what comes of staying up too late at night, I guess.
Posted by: Scott (to UpNights) at February 29, 2004 11:35 AMWhether or not homosexual attraction is a "choice" is irrelevant to the question of whether gay marriage is a good idea. Marriage is a form of social organization, the purpose of which is to dissuade people from acting according to their instincts (i.e., the central role of marriage is to keep males from abandoning their wives and children). It seems to me that advocates of gay marriage are dressing this up as a civil rights issue in order to evade the fundamental questions about what effects, if any, legalization of gay marriage will have on society.
Posted by: Ben at March 4, 2004 11:41 AMWell what can I say, Ben? I agree 100% with everything you said. There is, potentially, a small issue concerning the "direct effect" of bisexuals (competing for mates), but I think the numbers are pretty small. Furthermore, I don't think the acceptance of gay marriage by twenty-somethings in our society is necessarily indicative of a healthy or progressive trend. It's more like a failure to differentiate between acceptance of gays and the socio/cultural role of marriage. It's simply a fact that around 5% of the population are attracted to the same sex. I suspect you'd have found even broader acceptance of gay marriage among my generation at the same age if anyone had thought to ask, and it really reflects another aspect of the breakdown in rule-following that's one result of the dissolution of the family. It's a kind of recursive process. Family breakdown leads to reduced willingness to follow rules, which leads to more family breakdown. There's a left and a right variation of this, which explains the conflict that a lot of right-leaning libertarians feel at the moment.
By the way, I heard Maggie Gallagher yesterday on Public Radio. Very coherent and thoughtful presentation of the issues. She sees equating SSM with the Civil Rights issues of the past era, and even the discussions about the Jim Crow marriage laws, as not only irrelevant but destructive. Even the Jim Crow laws against miscegenation weren't about marriage, they were about race-mixing. If one follows the logic of applying that to the SSM debate it places married heterosexuals in the position equivalent to being race biggots.
Posted by: Scott (to Ben) at March 4, 2004 12:37 PMScott --
1. I think the acceptance by 20 somethings of SSM is a recognition of 2 facts about our society, neither of which is good: (a) Our society has lost its understanding of the purpose of marriage; and (b) We have a tendency to elevate individual pleasure over social good (some element of this is good, but we've gone too far).
2. Reducing this to a Constitutional argument and/or claiming bigotry is an attempt to close off debate. For the good of our social fabric, this needs to be resolved by the political process NOT by judicial fiat.
Posted by: Ben at March 4, 2004 02:24 PMfree mature personals http://free-mature-personals.acyspalace.info/
swimming pools in austin2c texas http://swimmingspiat.activashow.info/
canadian wedding party gifts http://canadiancwpg.adikts.info/
camcorder backpacks http://camcorder-backpacks.acrowhapt.info/
insurance company ratings http://insurance-company-ratings.adailyverse.info/
b casalinghe b con cavalli http://bcbcc.add-a-ware.info/
barely legal 47 http://barely-legal-47.adageinc.info/
new house floor plans http://newnhfp.acuhoi.info/
3d mountain bikes http://3d-mountain-bikes.adhedoria.info/
audi a4 grilles http://audi-a4-grilles.activnal.info/
samsung ring tones http://samsung-ring-tones.actorr7.info/
free gay man sex personals http://freefgmsp.acyspalace.info/
indianapolis better business bureau http://indianapolisibbb.haobaomu.info/
outdoor lighting components http://outdoor-lighting-components.acrowkh.info/
cape san blas florida vacation rentals http://capecsbfvr.actionpunx.info/
distance learning college http://distance-learning-college.adageinc.info/
razor light http://razor-light.haoisu.info/
diet drug online http://diet-drug-online.acuition.info/
donate men27s clothing and chicago http://donatedmcac.harleyt.info/
disabilincorsa lo sport per tutti 347 3845121 sports e http://disabilincorsalspt33se.add-a-ware.info/
child blowjob http://child-blowjob.adkeycards.info/
call center background http://call-center-background.harehore.info/
starting a manufacturers rep business http://startingsamrb.harehore.info/
convertible pants http://convertible-pants.adminmed.info/
future toyota tundra http://future-toyota-tundra.adan-net.info/