From: kak@hico2.westmark.com (Kris A. Kugel)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: no obvious logic error [Re: How Many Homosexuals?]
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:08:21 GMT
Reply-To: kak2@hico2.westmark.com
Organization: High Country Software
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink.UUCP) wrote:
: From article <1992Nov9.004823.3211@u.washington.edu>, by tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith):
: > One approach to estimating this would be to find some way to calculate it
: > based on other estimated factors.  For example, 9% of men over 65 are
: > either single or divorced.  Assuming that by the time one reaches 65,
: > even gay men who got married before they realized that they were gay
: > are likely to be divorced, this would put an upper limit of 9% on
: > the percentage of gay people over 65.
: 
: Talk about a skewed sample.  You are making the remarkable
: assumption that the percentage of gays over 65 is the same
: as the percentage of those under 65.  A smoking survey that
: I recently read showed that gay men are far more likely to
: smoke cigarettes than straight men.  This factor alone would
: significantly alter the number of gay men who make it to 65.
: There are too many other variables to list.
: -- 
: Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh

Having not been following this discussion, I can see that
walsh@optilink.UUCP may have actually been remarking on how
the group over 65 may not represent the percentage of gay men
in the U.S. male population as a whole.  I agree with this.

But I disagree that tzs@carson.u.washington.edu's logic for
the over 65 males group is invalid.
As an upper bound within the population described,
*using the following strict definition of "gay"*
the logic sounds good to me:

1. males with strongly enough male-male sexual preference
   to discontinue heterosexual marriages by age 65 are considered "gay".

2. By this definition, those who are still married at age 65 cannot be "gay".

3. because the unmarried/over 65 male population is 9%,
   the maximum of (unmarried gay male > 65 ) + (unmarried non-gay male > 65)
   must be less than or equal to 9%.

Note the following:
If the definition is incorrect, the arguement fails.
The arguement only holds for the over 65 group.

so no, this particular arguement doesn't deal well
with the population under 65, and therefore with the population
as a whole.

If you use the above assumptions, and you add in the male
mortality rate, and you make the addition assumption that
nobody switches sexual preference from male-male only to male-female,
you still can determine an upper bounds for the percentage
of "gays" in the population who were born 65 or more years ago.
To do this, you *still* have to have a tight definition of "gay".

So I think tzs@carson.u.washington.edu's logic shows promise.
I also think that the process of evaluating it would make sure
that we are using a common terminology in discussing this.
(for example if instead we allow the definination of "gay" 
 to include those who remain married after age 65, and ignore
 the situation of "married but not sexually active within the marriage",
 then what will differentiate gay from bisexual?)
Subject: logic error [Re: How Many Homosexuals?]
Newsgroups: soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Organization: High Country Software
Reply-To: kak2@hico2.westmark.com
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink.UUCP) wrote:
: From article <1992Nov9.004823.3211@u.washington.edu>, by tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith):
: > One approach to estimating this would be to find some way to calculate it
: > based on other estimated factors.  For example, 9% of men over 65 are
: > either single or divorced.  Assuming that by the time one reaches 65,
: > even gay men who got married before they realized that they were gay
: > are likely to be divorced, this would put an upper limit of 9% on
: > the percentage of gay people over 65.
: 
: Talk about a skewed sample.  You are making the remarkable
: assumption that the percentage of gays over 65 is the same
: as the percentage of those under 65.  A smoking survey that
: I recently read showed that gay men are far more likely to
: smoke cigarettes than straight men.  This factor alone would
: significantly alter the number of gay men who make it to 65.
: There are too many other variables to list.
: -- 
: Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh

Having not been following this discussion, I can see that
walsh@optilink.UUCP may have actually been remarking on how
the group over 65 may not represent the percentage of gay men
in the U.S. male population as a whole.  I agree with this.

But I disagree that tzs@carson.u.washington.edu's logic for
the over 65 males group is invalid.
As an upper bound within the population described,
*using the following strict definition of "gay"*
the logic sounds good to me:

1. males with strongly enough male-male sexual preference
   to discontinue heterosexual marriages by age 65 are considered "gay".

2. By this definition, those who are still married at age 65 cannot be "gay".

3. because the unmarried/over 65 male population is 9%,
   the maximum of (unmarried gay male > 65 ) + (unmarried non-gay male > 65)
   must be less than or equal to 9%.

Note the following:
If the definition is incorrect, the arguement fails.
The arguement only holds for the over 65 group.

so no, this particular arguement doesn't deal well
with the population under 65, and therefore with the population
as a whole.

If you use the above assumptions, and you add in the male
mortality rate, and you make the addition assumption that
nobody switches sexual preference from male-male only to male-female,
you still can determine an upper bounds for the percentage
of "gays" in the population who were born 65 or more years ago.
To do this, you *still* have to have a tight definition of "gay".

So I think tzs@carson.u.washington.edu's logic shows promise.
I also think that the process of evaluating it would make sure
that we are using a common terminology in discussing this.
(for example if instead we allow the definination of "gay" 
 to include those who remain married after age 65, and ignore
 the situation of "married but not sexually active within the marriage",
 then what will differentiate gay from bisexual?)
Xref: sparky soc.motss:48671 rec.pets.cats:13973