response 303 of 404:

Nov 14 16:39 UTC 1998

Measures of Central Tendancies are not very useful when trying to determine
the average sexual orientation of a population since it is completely unknown
just how many people in this world are homo, or bi. It's also nearly
impossibly to obtain an unbiased, totally random selection of the population.
Sexual orientation is a personal issue for most people and a lot of people
really don't like to share that info with others. I remember working for
Greenpeace some years ago. Management decided to do a diversity survey, but
the only minority that was excluded was a catogory for gays and lesbians. I
was a little pissed so I called the woman that did the research and she
explained to me that she originally created a catagory for gays & lesbians,
but as she was calling each of the offices around the country, no one would
give her information on how many gays & lesbians worked for the country
because they didn't know, nor would anyone step forward to be counted. I
instructed her to redo the survey and include a catagory even if I was the
only person on the list. She eventually did, but I thought it was a bit
ridiculous that out of an organization with over 10,000 employees throughout
30 different offices throughout the country, including San Francisco, that
there was only one openly gay person-- and Greenpeace, the world's largest
environmental organization, was one of the most liberal and progressive
organizations on the planet.

The point to all of this is that the power of statistical validity if greatly
reduced with a population selection that does not represent the true
population. Now, having said that, back to the regular discussion...

response 305 of 404:

Nov 15 18:40 UTC 1998

well, I've never bought the "one out of ten" theory, but I'd like to believe
that there's more of us than 1 out of 10,000. This is just a prime example
of how skewed statistical research can get. Imagine how impossible it would
be to get accurate data on how many minorities lived in the US if all of them
were somehow able to disguise themselves as Anglo Americans. The data would
be useless.

response 307 of 404:

Nov 17 07:26 UTC 1998

re #302: Wow, I've gotta see this place..

re #303: I think *everyone, everywhere* has their biases, hiding places,
myths, etc. etc.  Even minorities and minority-friendly groups exclude some
people.

i.e. it is interesting to note that even people of color have derogatory terms
for those of mixed ethnicity

response 309 of 404:

Nov 18 07:53 UTC 1998

sorry brighn, did you say something?

response 311 of 404:

Nov 18 23:40 UTC 1998

Just got around to reading this very long discussion.  I respect Kenton for
supporting his beliefs, particularly as they differ from those of most of the
other participants in this conference (in other words, they are, at least for
grex, 'abnormal').  Kenton, if you are still around, could you explain to us
how you happened to have opinions on homosexuals when you say you never knew
any?  Where did you get your facts?  I suspect they may be close to majority
opinion for people where you live (very rural Pennsylvania), in which case
this is a valuable chance for people in grex to actually have a civil (most
of the time) discussion with someone trying to explain the reasons for such
opinions.  I also strongly suspect that if Kenton actually knew as many
homosexuals as the average person in Ann Arbor (and knew that he knew them),
his opinions would change.
        To draw a parallel, Kenton was a highly active participant in the
dowsing discussion (a few agoras ago, linked to paranormal).  He grew up in
a society where it was normal to dowse, and began dowsing from an early age.
Rane, on the other hand, who does not know any dowsers personally (at least
not any close friends or relatives), does not believe dowsing even exists,
or if it does, a rod going down in someone's hands is something they do by
choice.  I thought dowsing was a big hoax until a few years ago, because of
the silly stuff I read about angels and earth spirits and dowsing for lost
keys and the like.  That was until Jim, who has never lied to me, dowsed on
his very first try, and consistently, even with his eyes shut.  He has no idea
why it works for him and not for me.  I will probably never learn to dowse,
Jim learned immediately, other people may be able to learn after a while.
Similarly, some people have always had homosexual feelings, some never will,
and some may have them only if exposed to certain environments.  
        I think it is wonderful that there is a such a broad range of
individual talents and features, that is what has allowed humankind to spread
into so many different environments.  Even if one feature, say the ability
to dowse or to develop a strong emotional and physical attachment to a member
of the same sex, is not particularly advantageous in most environments, in
the long run is has obviously been beneficial to society, since it persists.
(Schizophrenia, Tay-Sachs, sickle-cell anemia, and some other diseases also
benefit society under certain conditions, just not the individual.)
        Rane, I suggest that some day you watch Jim dowsing, and Kenton, I
suggest that you take the time to read the discussions in the glb conf, in
order to collect more facts on which to base your opinions.
        I also thought I did not know any homosexuals until I came to Ann Arbor
(where this is not something to hide), but then one day my mother mentioned
that her best friend's son, who had gotten divorced, had AIDS and was living
with another man.  And a friend from high school mentioned that his brother,
who had gotten divorced (in both cases there were children), had move to
Provincetown (a gay community on the tip of Cape Cod).  Which all goes to show
that you can't spot a gay person unless they want to be spotted.  I have known
lots of men with mannerisms and interests closer to the norm for women, and
vice versa for women, and most of them were not homosexual.
        Sorry for the long entry, but it is my only one.  And I want to say
that I am glad that Kenton has been willing to tackle most of grex in defense
of what he believes to be right, just as I am glad that Rane persisted in
challenging just about everything I said in dowsing - it gets people thinking.

response 313 of 404:

Nov 19 07:50 UTC 1998

Oh, goodness, not THIS discussion again.

response 315 of 404:

Nov 19 19:12 UTC 1998

While we are at setting up experiments, how about one in which Jim dowses for
gays, blindfolded?  Or a statistical analysis of the relative percentages of
dowsers who are and are not gay?

response 317 of 404:

Nov 20 01:03 UTC 1998

Hahahahaha

response 319 of 404:

Nov 20 12:55 UTC 1998

Subsequent banter aside, I though Sindi's resp:311 was excellent. It
always amuses me when people assert that they "don't know any
gay people".  They probably know a number but are simply unaware
that they're gay. This speaks to some pretty prevalent erronoeous
stereotypes about what gay people are "like". In my less enlightened
days I held to some of those stereotypes myself. My enlightenment was
quite similar to that described by Jan Wolter in an earlier response.

response 321 of 404:

Nov 22 15:08 UTC 1998

As long as it doesn't come up, yes.

response 323 of 404:

Nov 22 19:54 UTC 1998

Somehow the `can't have a normal man-to-man relationship with an out gay'
in #320 strikes me as odd.  Is this like `can't have a normal person-to-
person relationship with a woman', or `can't have a normal friendship with
a Jew', or ???

Would it make a difference, kenton, if the homosexual man was really 
committed elsewhere, so he had no more sexual interest in you than you
have in, say, Barbara Bush?  

response 325 of 404:

Nov 23 05:48 UTC 1998

Kenton, have you ever had any personal contact with someone you knew was
homosexual?  I think you said you had not, so how do you know how you would
react?