To Answer Your Question, Seth …

Posted on | December 9, 2013 | 92 Comments

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 …”

CHideout
December 9th, 2013 @ 10:42 am

To Answer Your Question, Seth …: “How Many American Men Are Gay?” At the New York Times? All of them. At Harva… http://t.co/jk1GW4m70i
Resista38176897
December 9th, 2013 @ 10:42 am

To Answer Your Question, Seth …: “How Many American Men Are Gay?” At the New York Times? All of them. At Harva… http://t.co/cP7SeC6QpA
Citzcom
December 9th, 2013 @ 10:42 am

To Answer Your Question, Seth …: “How Many American Men Are Gay?” At the New York Times? All of them. At Harva… http://t.co/4z0K9lZ89P
jwbrown1969
December 9th, 2013 @ 10:42 am

To Answer Your Question, Seth …: “How Many American Men Are Gay?” At the New York Times? All of them. At Harva… http://t.co/TwWI6pCHQ7
Lockestep1776
December 9th, 2013 @ 10:42 am

To Answer Your Question, Seth …: “How Many American Men Are Gay?” At the New York Times? All of them. At Harva… http://t.co/owKDNXGPP9
rsmccain
December 9th, 2013 @ 10:43 am

“How Many American Men Are Gay?” At the New York Times? All of them. http://t.co/t44IcugRkR @seththoughts @DouthatNYT #tcot
instapundit
December 9th, 2013 @ 10:43 am

RT @rsmccain: “How Many American Men Are Gay?” At the New York Times? All of them. http://t.co/t44IcugRkR @seththoughts @DouthatNYT #tcot
OpenlyCatholic
December 9th, 2013 @ 10:45 am

RT @rsmccain: “How Many American Men Are Gay?” At the New York Times? All of them. http://t.co/t44IcugRkR @seththoughts @DouthatNYT #tcot
CFLancop
December 9th, 2013 @ 10:46 am

RT @rsmccain: “How Many American Men Are Gay?” At the New York Times? All of them. http://t.co/t44IcugRkR @seththoughts @DouthatNYT #tcot
rsmccain
December 9th, 2013 @ 10:47 am

“You don’t find many vampires near a garlic farm. Just sayin’ …” http://t.co/t44IcugRkR #tcot
rsmccain
December 9th, 2013 @ 10:49 am

@instapundit “The obverse thesis: The New York Times and Harvard University invented homosexuality …” http://t.co/t44IcugRkR
instapundit
December 9th, 2013 @ 10:53 am

RT @rsmccain: @instapundit “The obverse thesis: The New York Times and Harvard University invented homosexuality …” http://t.co/t44IcugRkR
SkyeShepard
December 9th, 2013 @ 10:54 am

RT @rsmccain: “How Many American Men Are Gay?” At the New York Times? All of them. http://t.co/t44IcugRkR @seththoughts @DouthatNYT #tcot
bubblehead82l
December 9th, 2013 @ 10:58 am

To Answer Your Question, Seth … http://t.co/fgz2crwLCw
jamiedelton
December 9th, 2013 @ 11:03 am

RT @rsmccain: “You don’t find many vampires near a garlic farm. Just sayin’ …” http://t.co/t44IcugRkR #tcot
Joe Dokes
December 9th, 2013 @ 11:09 am

‘You don’t find many vampires near a garlic farm’

Just last night on this very site, a fairly long conversation I’d been having with a devout homosexual had *just* turned in the direction of Christ when he suddenly vanished.
Dana
December 9th, 2013 @ 11:44 am

When I was in grad school in the early 1980s, I worked at the university hospital. Apparently the word got out that the the hospital was a good place for homosexuals to work and not have to hide their sexual preferences, because there were a lot of open and obvious homosexual men working there. Yet, outside of the hospital, I had met only one male who was openly homosexual, in a fairly large community.

The answer was obvious: once the homosexuals knew that they could work at that hospital and not have to worry about getting canned for being openly homosexual, it drew more applicants for positions.
Dana
December 9th, 2013 @ 11:56 am

The esteemed Mr Stephens-Davidowitz wrote:

There is no evidence that gay men would be less likely to be born in these states.

Which raises the obvious point: maybe they aren’t born that way.

It is simply Accepted Fact that homosexuals are born, not made, but unless we wish to postulate the notion of a defective gene which leads to homosexuality being far more prevalent in California, Colorado and the northeast than in other areas — and genes can, and do, concentrate more heavily in some gene pools than others — then we must consider the possibility that no, homosexuals are not all born that way. Perhaps, just perhaps, homosexuality exists where it is taught that it is acceptable to exist.
Dana
December 9th, 2013 @ 12:05 pm

I went to the distinguished Dr Stephens-Davidowitz’s original, and found a rather striking contradiction. First, he wrote:

At least 5 percent of American men, I estimate, are predominantly attracted to men

and then:

These results suggest that the closet remains a major factor in American life. For comparison, about 3.6 percent of American men tell anonymous surveys they are attracted to men and a tenth of gay men say that they do not tell most of the important people in their lives. In states where the stigma against homosexuality remains strong, many more gay men are in the closet than are out.

How is it that Dr Stephens-Davidowitz concludes that “at least 5% of American men are predominantly attracted to males, when the very evidence he cited puts the figure at 3.6%? For a man with a PhD from Hahvahd, such statements would seem to be dramatically at odds with a sound and thorough education.
Zohydro
December 9th, 2013 @ 12:18 pm

I used to think that most “male nurses” must be homosexuals…

As it turns out, many are, and I know several, but a disproportionate number are not and have military or law enforcement backgrounds, and wives and children!
DaMav
December 9th, 2013 @ 12:20 pm

Great column, Stacey.
Joe Dokes
December 9th, 2013 @ 12:24 pm

Given that our race is, by vast predominance, heterosexual, 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?
Dana
December 9th, 2013 @ 12:26 pm

At the hospital at which I worked, none of the obviously homosexual males I knew there were nurses: they tended to be other support personnel, from pharmacy techs to ward clerks.
Dana
December 9th, 2013 @ 12:29 pm

It has occurred to me that, if there really is a single or multiple set of genes which lead to homosexuality, such could be a biological response to our having reached such a high population, a gene or set of genes which reduces future competition for resources.
Zohydro
December 9th, 2013 @ 12:29 pm

I would also have thought that the nursing profession would be a something of a “lesbian magnet”, but that doesn’t appear to be the case either…
Dana
December 9th, 2013 @ 12:29 pm

Good to see a commenter who knows the correct way to spell “Stacey.” 🙂
Joe Dokes
December 9th, 2013 @ 12:31 pm

Where would the new information required to impose such a change come from?
DaMav
December 9th, 2013 @ 12:38 pm

Pardon my vowel movement. 😉
Quartermaster
December 9th, 2013 @ 12:47 pm

You are clearly an ignoramus on such subject. Since he is a Harvard PhD and you aren’t, then QED, you’re an ignoramus.

I think that’s how it goes. Seems to be something along the lines of their reasoning anyway.
Quartermaster
December 9th, 2013 @ 12:49 pm

It would seem to be an acquired thing, if that’s the case. Unless Lysenkoism has suddenly been revitalized recently, I don’t see anything that would suddenly cause such a gene, or gene set, to express.
MichaelBarger1
December 9th, 2013 @ 12:59 pm

RT @rsmccain: @instapundit “The obverse thesis: The New York Times and Harvard University invented homosexuality …” http://t.co/t44IcugRkR
Dana
December 9th, 2013 @ 1:02 pm

I stand humbly chastened.
Professor_Why
December 9th, 2013 @ 1:19 pm

To Answer Your Question, Seth … http://t.co/zRg4SIdBNu
M. Thompson
December 9th, 2013 @ 1:22 pm

What was once the love that dare not speak it’s name, is now the lust that won’t shut the hell up.
concern00
December 9th, 2013 @ 1:48 pm

Farm animals tend to throw more female offspring during times of good fodder and more males when feed is poor. Homosexuals could be just like farm animals…in lots of ways.
concern00
December 9th, 2013 @ 1:52 pm

How many? Far too many but not enough to ever be considered normal. Because homosexual behavior is an acquired/learned trait, it stands to reason that tolerance begets experimentation which leads to addiction and embedding of the predilection. Hence teens are a fertile ground in which to plant the seeds of recruitment.

This is the greatest evil of the homosexual agenda – the conversion and recruitment of youth.
Quartermaster
December 9th, 2013 @ 1:59 pm

In the future remember your place among the rest of us benighted heatherns.
rmnixondeceased
December 9th, 2013 @ 2:11 pm

You win the Interwebz …
CatholicLisa
December 9th, 2013 @ 2:33 pm

@rsmccain In my old #Kentucky home, the sun shines bright and the people are gay. Is that what you mean? http://t.co/zYlqdt7sPm
CatholicLisa
December 9th, 2013 @ 2:34 pm

@rsmccain Because if you mean that “other” kind of “gay” the answer is, no one IS “gay.” It’s a choice. http://t.co/zYlqdt7sPm
Joe Dokes
December 9th, 2013 @ 3:17 pm

You are correct, leftists in general and homosexuals in particular seek to appeal to and exploit our innate iniquity, even that of children. And why shouldn’t they? It works. It’s a tried and true approach patented by Satan himself in Genesis ch. 3.

That’s the point I confessed to Porter last night just before he left: EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION sins, and will sooner or later exhibit some sin or sins that can and will enslave us. None of us differ from Porter in that basic regard; only in the outworkings, which are really irrelevant. Even the most moral son or daughter of Adam we can think of, outwardly upright yet without Christ, is still a sinner utterly separated from God (which is the main reason mere religion – particularly “Christendom” – serves Satan’s ends and stokes the Lake of Fire).

I do hope Porter stops back by sometime.
Doink
December 9th, 2013 @ 3:57 pm

Someone is trying to justify an agenda. The gay community have said, and would like to believe, it’s 10%. Obviously, the higher the percentage the more acceptance of them would be warranted. From what I’ve read from verifiable scientific studies, it’s anywhere up to 1%
DaveO
December 9th, 2013 @ 3:57 pm

It’s been said 1 in 1,000 are born gay, and the rest are sucked into it.
Larger point: the Marines used to say about their recruits ‘get ’em young, get ’em for life.’ The gay recruiters have figured that out, which is why they are in the schools and pushing for sex education as early as kindergarten: teach a child that s/he is gay, that child may be gay for life.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
December 9th, 2013 @ 4:09 pm

When the population hits a density that allows the luxury of hair dressers, interior designers, and broadway musicals–the gay gene comes to the rescue.
To Answer Your Question, Seth … | Dead Citizen's Rights Society
December 9th, 2013 @ 4:31 pm

[…] Read the rest … […]
RS
December 9th, 2013 @ 4:59 pm

I read through the comments yesterday and noted Porter’s. The problem with those who profess Christianity while defending homosexual behavior, is the troubling concept of Sin. To be a Christian implies certain things, first and foremost the concept of Sin separating us from God. The question then becomes what is this “Sin” thing? Unless people are willing to accept the authoritative Word of God as the basis for making that determination, there can be no discussion or argument regarding what follows. Stated differently, if one is going to argue from authority, both sides need to acknowledge the same authority. Even that may not be enough, if those seeking to do what they wish, pervert the authority to their own ends. See, e.g. “the sin of Sodom was the refusal of hospitality,” even attributing that interpretation to Christ.
Adjoran
December 9th, 2013 @ 5:03 pm

To extend your thesis one more step, perhaps it is Harvard and the NYT and the Inescapable Breeziness of Being Californian that is, in fact, turning men gay.
Adjoran
December 9th, 2013 @ 5:05 pm

Quite so.

Besides, Stephens-Davidowitz said it was his estimate, which to a Harvard PhD means “fact for which the evidence has not yet been discovered.”
Adjoran
December 9th, 2013 @ 5:07 pm

The real fun would come once a “gay gene” were isolated when wymyn began to have their unborn children tested and aborted if “gay.”

It would make the Democratic Conventions interesting again!
DaveO
December 9th, 2013 @ 5:14 pm

In Canada, it is illegal for preachers to teach about the Biblical view of homosexuality. In America, many of the denominations have set aside the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy in order to fill the pews. May well be in Porter’s case he’s never been taught Christianity’s doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, and therefore that homosexuality is an abomination.
Those that have heard being gay is an abomination, don’t know why God considers it to be an abomination (and the definition of abomination). They just think they’re Kevin Bacon dancing-down the stuffy bigoted preacher man.