Thanks for taking a shot at helping me understand the numbers. I wonder if this 1.4% will ever get any traction? When you add in the bisexual and “something else” percentages it moves up to about 8%.

I do think it is interesting to note how much confused sexuality there is out there. I bet that if serious secular medical professionals ever do muster up the courage to discuss the percentages they will be shouted down by the entertainment industry.

Greg, I think the 1.4% figure is derived from the figures in Tables 12 and 13 on pages 29 and 30 (“Sexual Identity among [women/men] aged 18-44 years…”). By my math the numbers work out this way (all figures in thousands, as noted on the tables):

From table 12 (women): In 2006-2008 1.1% of the 56,032 women surveyed are homosexual; that works out to 616.352 homosexual women

From table 13 (men): In 2006-2008 1.7 % of 55,556 men surveyed are homosexual; that works out to 944.452 homosexual men

Combining the figures for both sexes, 1,560.804 out of 111,588 people surveyed are homosexual. By my math that works out to 1.399%, or about 1.4%

Math was never my strongest subject; any reliable corrections to these figures will be gratefully accepted.

Why not write the CDC and ask about their methodology?

Help. Anyone?

I have looked at the tables and, depending on the number I add together, can come up with a percentage significantly larger than 1.4.

Couple that with the irrationality and immaturity of so much ‘gay’ ideology, mythology and behaviour and the fact that many people are able to move beyond homoerotic feelings and relations, if they choose to do so and actively seek repairative therapies and experiences , and I think that we begin to be able to formulate not merely a reactive, negative opposition to problematic behaviours but a proactive and positive policy of loving, nurturing and supportive therapeutic outreach based upon a message of growth and progression, in both the emotional and spiritual aspects of life, that gives hope to so many people virtually imprisoned in the limiting and desperate gay dogma of ‘born that way; can’t change.’

The experience of Mike D’Virgilio’s daughter and her friend is very illustrative of the pressure being exerted on people, especially vulnerable young people, to conform to a pernicious revolutionary ideology. The irony is that this is all being done in the name of ‘freedom’ when it is really a sinister form of oppression and slavery to the amorphous, faceless ‘ubiquitous other’ and the malevolent power behind it determined to destroy souls and their relationship with their Lord and others.

So many good people are trapped in this delusion! Focusing on proscribing behaviour without dealing with the underlying affectual issues is not the answer. Accepting the false notion of the radical otherness of ‘those people’ is really contrary to the whole purpose of the Incarnation, to bring all people out of the darkness of sin, brokenness and alienation into the Kingdom of God. Are we not all struggling with wounds, traumas, brokenness and estrangement, from God, each other and even our true selves? There’s where the real work of the Church is to be done. Abbot Tryphon, of All-Merciful Saviour Monastery, in his daily blog, today, quotes the Moscow Patriarchate’s document on social policy:

1.4. The unity of the Church overcomes all barriers and frontiers, including racial, linguistic and social differences. The message of salvation is to be proclaimed to all nations in order to bring them into one fold, to unite them by the power of faith and the grace of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15; Acts 1:8).

Doesn’t that help establish a positive and functional focus in this matter, too?