Massive study finds only 3.4% of American adults identify as LGBT

Posted by on Oct 18, 2012 at 7:42 am

A massive new survey published this morning reveals that only 3.4% of American adults publicly identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, with the highest percentage coming among the younger, less-educated non-whites.

The new Gallup Poll of more than 121,000 adult, the largest of its kind on record, wass conducted during the past four months. It finds the percentage of self-reported LGBT Americans to be much smaller than a general impression derived from their presence in popular culture and their perceived influence in liberal American politics.

The special report found 3.4% of adult Americans publicly reporting themselves as personally identifying with those categories, 92.2% saying they do not and 4.4% refusing to say or claiming not to know.

Given the stigma often attached by some to those categories, some unknown portion of the Didn’t Say’s and No’s presumably are choosing to remain in the closet, holding down the LGBT number somewhat.

Full story.

7 Responses to “Massive study finds only 3.4% of American adults identify as LGBT”

  1. MT Geoff on 18/18/12 at 9:06 am

    If there were three people who were gay out of our entire population, those three would still be God’s children as surely as any of us. I would only be glad that they were happy, so long as they harmed no one — the same way I feel about anyone who is straight.
    Why should any couple have to work harder at establishing their relationship in the law than any other couple? Perhaps the answer is to end the term “marriage” in civil law, or at least remove its religious elements in law, and recognize any couples who register according to law — civil unions for all, basically.
    Let families and churches cherish the religious component. If only something like 5% identify as gay, their civil unions are far less of a threat to society than families that fail or families that never launch.

  2. Blue Hen on 18/18/12 at 10:20 am

    Perhaps the answer is to end the term “marriage” in civil law, or at least remove its religious elements in law, and recognize any couples who register according to law — civil unions for all, basically.
    Let families and churches cherish the religious component. If only something like 5% identify as gay, their civil unions are far less of a threat to society than families that fail or families that never launch.

    So much stupidity.

    Society establishes what is beneficial to it; not to your sensibilities (or any lack thereof). Society established marriage. Society promotes marriage, and discourages that which tends to not be of benefit to it.

    You propose driving marriage out of the civil area, for the sole reason of placating one group. This assumes first that it is the best solution and that it will work, and that that one group will call a halt. And what if they do not? Do you seriously believe that anyone will be allowed to be “left to cherish” anything if this is rammed through as a new civil right? Are you then going to re-install marriage in the civil realm? Doubtful.

    Second, the notion that there are “religious elements” in civil law is spurious. Or are you snidely equating the proposed changes with the false premise that religion stands in the way of this next great civil rights crusade?

    Right now, our society imposes restrictions on marriage as recognized by the state. Opposite genders, two people at a time, and minimum ages of consent. Are these what you’re referring to as “religious elements”? You wanna be the reincarnation of Rosa Parks? Remove all three. I’ve noticed that the beautiful people seem only interested in the first.

  3. lori on 18/18/12 at 10:24 am

    Years ago, when gays wanted equal protection under the law, conservatives worried this would lead to gays demanding the “right” of marriage. “Oh, no!” replied the gays. “We don’t want to be discriminated against because we’re gay. That’s all we want, honest!”

    So now we’re presented with not only the demand that they be allowed the “right” of marriage, but anyone who disagrees with them is guilty of “hate” speech.

    Why should we change the legal definition of marriage for the sake of less than 5% of the population? If 5% of the population decide tomorrow that they should be allowed the “right” to legally marry farm animals, should we agree with them and make that legal, too? How about if we first legalize sexual relations between humans and farm animals and then wait 20 years. Will it be okay to demand the “right” of human-farm animal marriage then?

    The concept of legal marriage exists because it’s a protection to inheritance rights of the partner left behind and any children which issue from the union. Gays can’t biologically have their own children, so the necessity to protect the inheritance rights of children is moot. And the law has already made it possible to inherit from a gay civil partner, so that’s covered, too.

    The minute they labelled anyone who disagrees with them as purveyors of hate speech, they’ve lost the argument and the right to pursue this matter.

  4. MT Geoff on 18/18/12 at 11:55 pm

    Howdy friends
    Many married couples have no children, by choice or by fate, and of course many married couples now have blended families. The protection of the surviving spouse and of children is valid and would continue whether we use the term “civil union” or don’t, whether the protections extend automatically to couples who are gay or they don’t.
    People who are gay look at those who consider them a threat to marriage and, imagine that, feel like they are being pushed to the margin. They ARE being pushed to the margins, which I allow is better than being treated as criminals but only somewhat.
    As for people who are gay wanting full acceptance and full rights at the law — yes, of course they do. They know some people will never accept them, but they would prefer to be accepted and so they continue to work for it. This is wrong — well, why, exactly?
    The great threats to family and marriage are from heterosexual couples treating each other and their children badly, not from couples who are gay.

  5. Blue Hen on 19/19/12 at 12:01 pm

    The nice thing about your crap geoff is that it can be ignored so easily. You lead by example, and ignore what you yourself wrote.

    You spewed some BS about ” families and churches cherish the religious component”. Bullshit. You are no one to bandy about this ludicrous promise. If the definition of marriage is changed, there is no assurance possible that this will be honored. And as I noted, what if it isn’t? Any chance we’ll restore the current definition of marriage?

    It’s interesting to note that even you realized that your line of crap fell flat. You’ve now expanded upon the victim card. I didn’t know that families that didn’t have kids or blended families were under attack by the eeeeeeeevvvvvvviiiilll state with its religious trappings. But what the Hell, expanding the roll call of victims may score points, so heave them on in. Any statistics? Any proof of harm, blood in the streets? Any Lifetime movie plots you’d care to share with the class?
    If a man and a woman want to get married, it’s in society’s interest to encourage that. If they have kids, great. If they have kids and they die in a fire, that isn’t. That’s why societies have institutions and establish norms. Societies seek to survive and propagate. Not every attempt will be successful.

    What does society get from changing the definition of marriage? What’s in it for it? Is there any downside? How real is the prospect of that downside? Is any downside worth the risk?

    Newsflash: your angle of attack is no different than the dear leader suddenly demanding that the Catholic Church pay for abortions and abortion drugs, and then hysterically screaming that the “Church declared war on women”. You advocate changing something, and offer nothing but a worthless notion about “cherishing the religious component” while accusing anyone who questions this change as “pushing people to the margins”. Ya want someone to blame for the opposition? Blame your dear leader. He signalled loud and clear that he has no intention of respecting anyone or anything other than what pleases him.

  6. MT Geoff on 19/19/12 at 7:22 pm

    Howdy blue hen
    I beg to differ with you.
    For openers, I consider homosexual attraction to be a difference rather than a perversion or a sin. I find myself thinking you find it sinful, which makes common ground hard to find.
    Second, I am not advocating that any church be required to act against its teachings. I am advocating that no church’s teachings be the basis of civil law. Big difference. If all couples have civil unions at the law, a couple may marry in a church that recognizes their marriage but would have no right and no reason to demand that any church recognize their marriage if it conflicts with doctrine.
    Keep in mind that some denominations — the Unitarian-Universalists and the United Church of Christ, at least — want to be able to recognize the marriage of gay couples. The Roman Catholic Church and Islam do not want to be forced to do it. So, as far as civil law goes, let’s just leave the churches out of it.
    Nor would this be such a departure from European tradition, at least. For many centuries, a couple had both a civil marriage and a religious ceremony. One was binding on earth and the other in heaven.
    My religion is precious enough to me that I want the state to have as little as possible to do with it. Your freedom is precious enough to me that I want the church to have as little as possible to do with the state. As I believe the government has no right or business telling anyone what their insurance needs are, I believe the government has no right compelling an organization to provide services that are anathema.
    But your anathema and my anathema are different. As I won’t put my anathema on you, I decline to take yours onto myself.

  7. Blue Hen on 20/20/12 at 11:34 am

    For openers, I consider homosexual attraction to be a difference rather than a perversion or a sin. I find myself thinking you find it sinful,

    My your having problems remembering what you yourself wrote. Now you’re Miss Cleo? Pathetic. I find you flailing about rather than addressing a single point. But demonization works wonders; it scares off some.

    You keep pretending that any limitation is there for one reason and one reason only: the evvvvvviiilllsss of religion.

    You keep trying to assign motives to people as well as parameters; why?

    I noted three major limitations in the current definition of marriage; two people, opposite genders and above the age of consent. No matter what the reason for them being there (and I ain’t playing your sorry ass game for a minute), they are there. Should all three go, and why? Did you bother to think of society for a minute? And if you go with only door #2, defend both your answer and why you have standing to deprive other people from being limited by eeeeeeevvvvvvviiilllllllllll religion.