sorry, dude, but a trait occurring in even 1% I think falls in the range of standard, common or usual. Homosexuality certainly wouldn't be an outlier on a statistical plot of all possible human characteristics in a significant population. But evidently we agree in the sentiment and are squabbling over semantics like a couple of homosexual redheaded step-children. I bet we can move past this if we try.

Right, we both agree that someone shouldn't be treated differently because of their sexual orientation.

But, seriously? How can you say that a trait that occurs in 1% of the population is "common?" That's exactly the antonym of common!

@McBry - 1% is statistically an outlier. In fact anything outside of 6 sigma is an outlier. That's about the middle 90%. And hair color is a bad comparison because there are so many different haircolors that cross-over to make hundreds of combinations like red and blonde (strawberry blond) but only 4 sexual distinct orientations (homo, hetero, polyamorous, or non-sexual).

In short under 5% is not normal. 5-10% is probably not normal, 10-15% is border line and over 15% qualifies as normal.

Well, if there are 6,885,000,000 of us on the planet, 1% is 68,850,000. We're not exactly talking about Northern White Rhinos here.

I stand corrected. Sort of... I said homosexuality (not 1%) isn't an outlier, and depending on the study the confirmed population is 2-13% and in anonymous surveys up to 20%. Normal. Thanks Draug.

Draug +1

mcbry, It's uncommon *for humans*. 1% is still 1%, no matter how many are in the total.

So how many rhinos are on the planet and how many are white rhinos? Of course, anecdotal evidence isn't statistical proof. You brought up percentages and homosexuality, polyamority (is that a word?) and non-sexuality all fall in the outlier, non-normal category percentage wise.

@mcbry

Please cite this survey that says 1/5 people is homosexual.

Now you twist your own words. 20% was "had homosexual thoughts" not "were homosexuals". Respected, non-biased studies find under 5% are truly homosexual and/or polyamorous. Mind you, my best friend (I miss him so) was homosexual in life. So I'm not placing qualitative judgment at all here. Just quantitative, measurable, statistical evaluation.

McConaghy, N., Hadzi-Pavlovic, D., Stevens, C., Manicavasagar, V., Buhrich, N. and Vollmer-Conna, U. (2006) Fraternal birth order and ratio of heterosexual/homosexual feelings in women and men. Journal of Homosexuality 51 161-174.

WOAH!

Having a homosexual thought does not make you a homosexual. I am talking about a man who is exclusively sexually attractive to another man. I would be shocked if 1 in 5 men fit this description.

Feelings, not admitted actual homosexuals. Twist words much?

"The present study investigated the birth order in the approximately 20% of men and women who anonymously report some homosexual feelings, few of whom identify as homosexual."

Is it normal to have a homosexual feeling? I'd say yes. But I would say so before I read the abstract. But, that isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about people who are actually homosexual.

yeah, but 1% doesn't refer to anything. The queer population (self-identified) is confirmed by different studies at between 2 and 13 percent. And we didn't define homosexual, Draug. Anyway, seriously, you two are not going to change my mind. We're playing with very non-specific words like normal and homosexual. You haven't convinced me that homosexuality is abnormal, so if it's all the same to you, I'll continue considering it perfectly normal.

You can consider yourself normal all you want, but chances are you'll be selling yourself short.

*sigh* I can see I'm not going to get much work done. How can you define homosexuality? Most of the openly gay people I know well admit to having at some point in their lives experienced attraction to the opposite sex, and even having sexual contact if not coitus. A lot of straight people I know likewise have dappled in homosexual sex. So do we define homosexuality (and heterosexuality) by the predominant choice of sexual partner for each individual? We're dealing with a practically infinite scale of variation and that's if we just consider sex acts. What about people who remain celibate? How can their sexuality be evaluated? Of each person, we can say, well, I'm 5% queer, you're 2%queer, Jon who swings both ways is 56% queer but Elizabeth is 98%. I know where I went to school if you had one homosexual encounter discovered, a kiss for example, that pretty much branded you as a fag for life if they couldn't beat it out of you. So. Whatever. Homosexuality is common, its normal, its cool, its beautiful, its love, its in all of us like it or not.

+1 abge. I get it. Like we said before, we agree on what's important here.

I can tell this issue is much more important to you than it is to me, so I hesitate to continue for fear of not putting decent thought into my argument.

I'm not claiming that there is some percentage of gay that can be calculated, but I do think there is a discernible difference, if only noticeable to the individual person, between being genuinely attracted to someone of the same sex and simply thinking of things. I would suspect that the issue is confused by societal pressure that is place on people that being gay is not "acceptable".

But, I believe we have reached an impasse and discussing it further would really only take away from the bigger picture.

OK, here's a way both mcbry and abgemacht can have their cake and eat it too. At an individual level, a gay person deviates from the norm and is therefore not normal. However for a society as a whole to have 2-13% of it's members identify as queer or LGBT or whatever term you like, is more or less what you'd expect and therefore normal, relative to other societies. How does that work?

Then again, according to wikipedia about 12% of the American population is African-American. That is a figure that is comparable to the hypothetical 10% often cited for % of the population that is LGBT. By abgemacht's logic, is an African-American therefore not normal?

wait when you say normal do you mean anything within one standard deviation of the mean or do you mean something which does NOT deviate from the mean.

The mean person has less than ten fingers. The average is brought down by all those people who have lost fingers, but most people are above average in this.

@Mafia

Yes, I think your first post summed it up perfectly. I wish I had said it first. There are as many LGBTs as you would expect from a Normal curve. However, since the number is between 1 and 2 sigma away from the average, it isn't normal to expect any one individual to be gay. That's all I was trying to say.

Is it true that only 10% of American's are Black? I thought it was more. But, if so, then, yes. I would say that it isn't normal for an American to be black.

After reading this, I'll admit that even I find it sounds a bit weird, but that's only because society has so butchered the meaning of "normal." I will not incorrectly use it just to please others.

For instance, it would not be normal for a Chinese citizen to be white. That doesn't mean there are none, or that they aren't as important. It just the way it is.

Yeah, I get your point. Normal as a neutral statement of fact "conforming to norms". Not a value judgment. Although for what it's worth, I'm quite glad to be not normal = ).

I'm just going to butt in here on what normal is. Referencing Draug earlier plus my own knowledge of statistics, anything more than two standard deviations from the mean is considered not normal. Two standard deviations cover approximately 95% of the normal curve, making 5% the line at which things are not normal. that is the point at which the null hypothesis is rejected. Between 5% and 10% there is no decisive conclusion either way. !0% and up is normal.

Doesn't anyone else think this whole disscussion is pointless, worrying about it is being slightly racist.

@goldfinger

I suppose that's reasonable. I've usually considered it to be within sigma, but I guess two sigma is just (if not more) as acceptable.

@Tribal

First, we're talking about sexual orientation, so your comment about racism makes no sense. Second, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging differences in people. To pretend everyone is the same is ignorant and simply wrong. Is it racist to say that Black people are more prone to have sickle cell?