The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

To Answer Your Question, Seth …

Posted on | December 9, 2013 | 92 Comments

“How Many American Men Are Gay?”

At the New York Times? All of them.

At Harvard University? All of them.

So when I read in the New York Times, “Seth Stephens-Davidowitz is a contributing opinion writer who recently received a Ph.D. in economics at Harvard,” I know where he’s coming from — a world in which homosexuality is so common as to seem pervasive.

No self-respecting heterosexual would set foot on the campus of Harvard University, much less write for the New York Times, and what perplexes Seth Stephens-Davidowitz  is what’s going on in those “less tolerant” places where not everyone is gay (yet):

While these data sources all measure different degrees of openness, one result is strikingly similar: All three suggest that the openly gay population is dramatically higher in more tolerant states, defined using an estimate by Nate Silver of support for same-sex marriage. On Facebook, for example, about 1 percent of men in Mississippi who list a gender preference say that they are interested in men; in California, more than 3 percent do.
Are there really so many fewer gay men living in less tolerant states? There is no evidence that gay men would be less likely to be born in these states. Have many of them moved to more tolerant areas? Some have, but Facebook data show that mobility can explain only a small fraction of the difference in the totally out population. I searched gay and straight men by state of birth and state of current residence. (This information is available only for a subset of Facebook users.) Some gay men do move out of less tolerant states, but this effect is small. I estimate that the openly gay population would be about 0.1 percentage points higher in the least tolerant states if everyone stayed in place
The percent of male high school students who identify themselves as gay on Facebook is also much lower in less tolerant areas. . . .

Seth Stephens-Davidowitz‘s conclusion, basically, is that there are millions of closeted gay men — including teenage boys (oh, goodie!) — cowering in fear in “less tolerant” states like Mississippi. He doesn’t bother examining the obverse thesis: The New York Times and Harvard University invented homosexuality, which has since oozed out across the country in every direction, except in those places like Mississippi where the Gospel continues to be preached.

You don’t find many vampires near a garlic farm. Just sayin’ . . .

 


Category: Gays, New York Times

Comments

92 Responses to “To Answer Your Question, Seth …”

  1. Bob Belvedere
    December 9th, 2013 @ 5:14 pm

    Give me a child for the first seven years of life and I will show you a man is attributed to the Jesuits [which might explain why a lot of homosexuals entered the Society Of Jesus in the 1950’s and 1960’s].

  2. Bob Belvedere
    December 9th, 2013 @ 5:17 pm

    Those who profess Christianity while defending homosexual behavior seem to be to be really engaging in Gnosticism.

  3. If You Like Your Death Panel-Assisted Suicide, You Can Keep… | Regular Right Guy
    December 9th, 2013 @ 5:20 pm

    […] To Answer Your Question, Seth … […]

  4. Neo
    December 9th, 2013 @ 5:34 pm

    I’ve been thinking, if it’s not OK to have a White person do a Black in “black face,” why should it be OK for “gays” to portray “straights” (I wouldn’t them to betray their ‘center’). I realize that Hollywood might be hard pressed to find enough “straights” but perhaps then there would be a better balance, as compared to the census. Sort of, a Title IV for the media.

  5. CrustyB
    December 9th, 2013 @ 5:59 pm

    The press talk about homosexuality as if every other person were homosexual. Most accurate estimates put it at about 3% of the population. They’re freaks, unnatural aberrations.

  6. Michael Smith
    December 9th, 2013 @ 6:13 pm

    I have it at 426,258.

    http://therionorteline.com/2012/08/02/chick-fil-a-and-the-426258/

  7. Joe Dokes
    December 9th, 2013 @ 6:23 pm

    I can’t tell if you’re saying Porter professed some form of Christianity. If so, I missed it. I don’t recall him making any such profession. What I did see is very common: an unbeliever trying to score points with twisted and simply wrong prooftexts he’d clearly had prepared in his discussion arsenal….yet I suspect there was also a bit of conviction working in him. Maybe I’m wrong on that and only God knows…but I hope.

  8. Joe Dokes
    December 9th, 2013 @ 6:26 pm

    True. The Bible equates homosexuality with idolatry, and elsewhere flatly says that idols (whatever form they may take) are actually demons, or inspired by demons.

  9. Joe Dokes
    December 9th, 2013 @ 6:29 pm

    The first question I asked him that he did not answer (shortly before he disappeared) was if he’s ex-Catholic. I asked because something he said rang that bell in my mind. I dunno but I *suspect* he knows more than he let on.

    Porter, if you’re reading this, come on back.

  10. Joe Dokes
    December 9th, 2013 @ 6:34 pm

    Sure would: the Left’s sacrament of sacraments pitted against the unquestionable living embodiments of all that is good and loving. Which would win?

  11. Quartermaster
    December 9th, 2013 @ 7:14 pm

    Indeed!!!

  12. Zohydro
    December 9th, 2013 @ 7:15 pm

    Do ya got the breakdown on the numbers of “tops”, “bottoms” and “versatiles” there?

  13. DaveO
    December 9th, 2013 @ 7:48 pm

    Joe Dokes: “Canada Orders Pastor to Renounce His Faith” (http://catholicexchange.com/canada-orders-pastor-to-renounce-his-faith)

    “In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.”

  14. ihazconservative
    December 9th, 2013 @ 8:33 pm

    Um, why would you want to know?

  15. ihazconservative
    December 9th, 2013 @ 8:36 pm

    Any man who says it’s an acquired trait is essentially saying that not only could they imagine performing oral sex on another man, but that they could even imagine craving it.

  16. ihazconservative
    December 9th, 2013 @ 8:40 pm

    Are you saying that only the “norm” is not aberrant? Are gingers aberrant? People born with a third nipple? What sort of principle are you trying to articulate?

  17. Steve Skubinna
    December 9th, 2013 @ 8:46 pm

    Something of an idiotic argument, the kind of clueless stupidity that is only possible from an Ivy League intellectual.

    Does the good professor postulate that something in the water in San Francisco turns men gay, or causes them to be born that way? Is there some aura around the “gay district” you’ll find in any large American metropolitan area that causes homosexuality? Since it appears obvious that gay men relocate to such areas, then why the hell is this question even being posed, with the completely made up “5%” number which immediately assumes solidity from having passed through his lips?

    I live in rural WA. There is no gay district, nor are there any obviously flaming couples. Sure, there are gay people, the sort that are never portrayed on Broadway or in films. They look and act, publicly that is, like everyone else. They dress the same, speak the same way, and drive the same kinds of vehicles. You might see on in a pickup, with a gun rack and a Romney sticker.

    In short, they act normally. They are not conspicuously fabulous. They don’t flock to designated zones to flaunt self aggrandizing quirks and pretend moral preening is part of sexuality.

    Very likely there’s many in horrifyingly closeted Mississippi that answer personal questions with “not your business” or merely ignore the surveyor. To them it isn’t something to flaunt, any more than I would march in a left handed pride parade.

  18. Dana
    December 9th, 2013 @ 9:49 pm

    Yes, master.

  19. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    December 9th, 2013 @ 11:37 pm

    Of course, Mississippi Burning takes on a whole new meaning in the gay context.

    Gays are terrified of being ignored. Which is already happening. The shock value is gone and most people are not interested in the product.

  20. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    December 9th, 2013 @ 11:39 pm

    If wishes could be fishes, Dr. Stephens Davidowitz would be getting all the dishes.

  21. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    December 9th, 2013 @ 11:41 pm

    Or a walk on the wild side.

  22. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    December 9th, 2013 @ 11:42 pm

    Benedictine!

  23. trangbang68
    December 10th, 2013 @ 12:37 am

    unfortunate choice of words in the opening sentence

  24. trangbang68
    December 10th, 2013 @ 12:41 am

    Both groups mount from the rear..

  25. concern00
    December 10th, 2013 @ 2:02 am

    And thus you lose, as inevitably it must be so. Humbly I admit that as an adolescent I craved and desired that which is unimaginable, but through God’s grace I no longer crave nor desire satisfaction where it should not be sought. I passed the test and haven’t failed my God in this.

    Though I willingly admit to being a sinner in other matters, neither better nor worse do I claim to be in my sin than those that choose to pursue homosexuality. My redemption is that I willingly admit my sin and seek the Lord’s forgiveness.

    And I trust in the death and resurrection of my saviour who died so that I may be free. I pray that you too can find redemption from your sin.

  26. concern00
    December 10th, 2013 @ 2:30 am

    Ultimately, you are not unique no matter how much you pray that you are. We all suffer from the same suite of deviant predilections but there is something very different about you and I in regards to how we deal with our demons.

  27. Dana
    December 10th, 2013 @ 6:44 am

    Unfortunate? Rather apt, I should think. 🙂

  28. Dana
    December 10th, 2013 @ 6:47 am

    Dear Mr McCain: Your opening question, “How many American men are gay?” is incorrectly stated. To be factually correct, the question should be, “How many American males are gay?” The answer to the question, “How many American men are gay?” is zero.

  29. Joe Dokes
    December 10th, 2013 @ 7:23 am

    You assume way too much.

  30. Bob Belvedere
    December 10th, 2013 @ 7:54 am

    Mrs. B. and I like to have some B&B after dinner, so I suppose you’re right.

  31. RS
    December 10th, 2013 @ 8:10 am

    It’s a classic tactic. Deny the authority of Scripture, but then attempt to use Scripture to score points. I refuse to play those games, inasmuch as there are other arguments contra homosexual behavior which do not rely on Biblical revelation for validity. It’s only when an interlocutor professes Christianity, where the Bible becomes relevant.

    BTW, I asked Porter for a cite to one of his assertions about Christ, but didn’t receive a response. It was to the whole “Sin of Sodom=lack of hospitality” trope.

  32. Dandapani
    December 10th, 2013 @ 8:58 am

    During the 70-80’s I worked for a large Fortune 500 company and we had plenty of “diversity” training sessions. One was on homosexuality and the facilitator claimed a 10% homosexuality rate across the board. Many in our training group rejected such a claim. Others cited other sources suggesting 1% rate. Dunno.

  33. Quartermaster
    December 10th, 2013 @ 9:02 am

    Indeed!

  34. Quartermaster
    December 10th, 2013 @ 10:16 am

    Not seem. Effectively that’s exactly what they are doing. Greek dualism is a poison.

  35. Quartermaster
    December 10th, 2013 @ 10:21 am

    My understanding is the so called human rights councils are in trouble. ISTR one province’s courts threw out several of their “decisions.” I think de Valk and Boisson are in one of the much more libtard provinces. Were I in their shoes, I’d tell them to put it where the sun don’t shine.

  36. Quartermaster
    December 10th, 2013 @ 10:22 am

    And, he’s also engaging in the logical fallacy known as “changing the subject.” He knows exactly what you are talking about.

  37. Adjoran
    December 10th, 2013 @ 2:00 pm

    Popcorn vendors.

  38. Joe Dokes
    December 10th, 2013 @ 5:26 pm

    “It’s a classic tactic. Deny the authority of Scripture, but then attempt to use Scripture to score points.”

    Yep. When they’re overt scoffers about it (which Porter didn’t quite strike me as being), I gently remind them that when they do that, they’re attempting to apply to me a moral standard they make no attempt to apply to themselves. That is _precisely_ the type of hypocritical judging Christ warned of when He said to judge not, for with what measure YOU judge others, that same measure will be measured back to you [by God].

  39. ihazconservative
    December 10th, 2013 @ 6:00 pm

    Didn’t answer my question of what principle you were getting at, but okay.

  40. Joe Dokes
    December 11th, 2013 @ 5:43 am

    Because it wasn’t. It was a statement of someone too cowardly to come out and say what he really thinks so he tries passing it off as a question. Go ahead, no dilly-dally. Say what you really believe (as if we can’t already guess).

  41. ihazconservative
    December 11th, 2013 @ 11:22 am

    When you write “would actually finding a “gay gene” only give more proof that it’s aberrant, since such would have to be a mutation from the norm?” you are hinting at a principle (if something deviates from the norm, it is aberrant) and I just wanted you to spell it out. What you appear not to want to say is you only believe this is the case for “gay genes” and not to be used as a principle for anything else. Got it.

  42. Joe Dokes
    December 11th, 2013 @ 4:42 pm

    If you want to make the case of how homosexuality is indeed biologically or psychologically normal – since you obviously believe it is – please do.