Miscellaneous desk
< July 6	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 7

Cases of Addiction and Counselling in USA

Which states in America have the most number of addiction cases and help counselling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.79.16 (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since addiction rates aren't likely to vary much by state, the most populous state, California, is likely the state with the most addiction cases. The rate of counselling is more likely to vary by state, perhaps with red states less likely to offer government funded programs. But, while California has some rather conservative areas, it isn't particularly conservative overall, so again it might take the top spot. Another high population "liberal" state, New York, might also be a contender. StuRat (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For fuck's sakes, Stu, I wish you'd stop guessing with this stuff. Addiction rates vary a lot by state, as you could tell with a two second Google search. Matt Deres (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the first link, that's not addiction rates, that's meth labs. Regarding your 2nd link, while the availability of one drug may vary by area, those with drug addictions can merely use other drugs, alcohol, etc. And your first map only shows where meth is produced. It can be shipped across state lines, you know.

Addiction is known to have a genetic component (in the case of alcohol, some of these genes are known), so for people in one state to be far more addicted than another would require that they have a significantly different gene pool. StuRat (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, I'm not interested in nitpicking my links with you: they're approximately a billion times more useful than whatever bullshit you spout off the top of your head. Where's your source backing up your claim that drug use doesn't vary by state? Where's your source for anything? Matt Deres (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See List of U.S. states and territories by population, which shows California has 44% more people than Texas. If you are claiming some other state has the most cases of addiction, then Texas is the obvious choice, and that would require that Texans have an addiction rate over 44% higher than those in CA. That would be an extraordinary claim, and would require extraordinary evidence, not the worthless links you provided. StuRat (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, obviously if you are looking for the number of cases then the population numbers have to be a major factor. However, to say that addiction rates vary by state isn't an extraordinary claim at all. The proportion of the population that is urban, the age profile, the availability of various drugs, education, poverty and employment would all be expected to have an effect. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some effect, yes, but a 44% increase would require a major difference in the populations. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see First law of holes, Stu! By your argument, New York should have more African Americans than Georgia and Mississippi combined. And "a genetic component" is something very different from "genetic predetermination". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<redacted per talk page> --Jayron 32 02:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided a relevant source (populations by state). You've provided none. StuRat (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These map collections provide some related information on drug use in American differentiated by state. [1][2]. Dragons flight (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here are detailed drug-use stats by state, for various licit and illicit drugs for 2012 (which seems to be the latest year available). The first set of maps that Dragon flight linked to correspond to a similar dataset for 2011. Abecedare (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer absolutely can't be based on the state population. For example, California has twice the population of New York state but their total numbers of people in treatment are about the same: in 2013, California had 117,159 people in treatment [3] while New York had 114,660 [4]. Note how the charts show the numbers fluctuating a lot - in 2010, for example, California had 123,611 while New York had more, at 130,171.

I haven't found an easy way to see the numbers for all the states in a list, but 180.191.79.16, you can check each state individually for yourself. Start here: [5] and click on one state at a time. Look under 2014 for the "behavioural health barometer". Inside each file, scroll to the table on number of people in substance abuse treatment. 184.147.138.101 (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did say "The rate of counselling is more likely to vary by state...". StuRat (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Squabbling @ Misc desk. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw a news story [6] saying that New Jersey had 3x the national rate of overdoses recently. But the overdose rate has to do with these particular smugglers selling heroin that is presumably cut with other stuff, but then spiked with fentanyl (which is vastly more potent than heroin). Under those circumstances it apparently is very difficult for an addict to guess how potent the drug they are using is. Unfortunately, every statistic I can think of - overdoses, people going to treatment, prison numbers, seizure amounts - they're all going to have confounding factors. So I'd be wary of quoting an absolute number of addicts, rather than a specific statistic, unless some academics have seriously sat down and claim that's what they worked out using some sophisticated model. Wnt (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I Figure These ?

Is there anything online or anywhere else that can give me an idea of how much a U.S. Dollar or British Pound was worth in centuries past ? The example I had was that in the movie Belle it was said that Dido Elizabeth Belle was to receive an annual income in about 1780 or so of two thousand pounds per annum, and I guessed that might be like a million New Zealand Dollars now. I know from a book I read twenty years ago that an English Maid might be paid about twelve pounds a year, and expected to live on that in about 1903, which certainly does not sound like much even accounting for inflation. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 07:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a search for 'historical exchange rates' brings up a number of various calculators. Dismas|^(talk) 08:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some very distinguished academics on the board of Measuring Worth. Suggests it's pretty reliable. Dalliance (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Yous both - I shall give them a look. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 05:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CNN anchor instead of Wolf today

Who was the blonde CNN anchor girl who, replacing Wolf, interviewed Jim Sciutto today in Wolf about Snowden, right before 2pm ET Amanpour? I caught the end and no credits were given. CNN's current schedule doesn't help either. Thanks. Brandmeister^talk 18:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely Pamela Brown judging from this clip. Nanonic (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's her, thanx. Brandmeister^talk 20:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will America invade our country?

We do not respond to invitations to speculate. Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What if Daesh beat us. Is there a good chance you Americans will finally deploy your marines over here and help over come the threats we are faced with. Or will it end up like another Iraq situation with our leader executed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.253.111.176 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Questioner geolocates to Damascus, Syria.) We are unable to respond to your question, which is a request for a prediction, per the rules at the top of this page which include "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Good luck. -- ToE 22:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American-led intervention in Syria covers some of how the invasion/intervention has already gone. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The US government doesn't even know, so it's not likely Wikipedia will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the US government not knowing? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something Obama himself said recently about the US not having a clear plan for what to do. Google the subject and you'll see various references from the last 6 months or more. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I have to Google? Found this. Ten months old, though, and starts with "too soon to say". Maybe it's not too soon anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one from yesterday. Apparently the plan is more aid to "moderate opposition". Too soon to say they're terrorists, at least in America. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Gays

Does the percentage of a population who are defined as homosexual vary from race to race. Or is it is the percentage fixed across the species as a whole.

Obviously, this rate would be without cultural taboos applied "in the closet, out of the closet type issues"

From a casual observers stand point, it seems like there are far less gay blacks / african decent. And more gay phillipino people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.172.220 (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the USA, see recent Gallup poll here [7], more coverage of said poll here [8]. Of note, all groups that are not "white non-hispanic" reported LGBT status at higher rates than white people. Black people in the USA reported the highest rate of LGBT self-identification, at 4.6%. This is the largest ever such poll in the USA, and fairly recent (2012). I expect these trends may be different in other parts of the world. If you have a specific non-USA area of interest, let us know, and perhaps someone can find data for that area. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are problems with the concept of race that would tend to render this question almost unanswerable. It is not simple to define race. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absoulutely, race is not a well-defined scientific concept. But it still exists as a social construct, and respondents self-identified on that as well. The Gallup poll technically doesn't report on "race", it reports on Ethnic_groupings - which are also self-assigned categories. I guess the point is, if someone says they are black and they are LGBT, (or Asian and not LGBT, etc), it is still informative of something to tabulate these results. It might be problematic to say that these results prove anything about race/ethnicity or sexual orientation, but the poll does support in a scientific manner many specific statements - that people in the USA who identify as black are more likely to identify as LGBT. That younger people in the USA are more likely to identify as LGBT. That women in the USA are more likely to identify as LGBT, etc. The "implications" section gives no undue weight to the findings, IMO, saying things like "In particular, the findings challenge both media and cultural stereotypes to reveal that the LGBT population is in a number of ways not that different from the broader U.S. population." SemanticMantis (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as being gay. That's a construct of the latter half of 20th century in the West. Humans are facultatively bisexual; look at Greek and Roman civilization. Augustus Caesar was noted by his contemporaries for the fact that he did not engage in homosexual acts. The real divide is between the behavior of men and women, certainly not racial. See, for example on the down-low and look at "straight", often married men who have gay sex.

As for the disparity by race, some of that may be due to the urban versus suburban and rural environment. I once asked a black person from Harlem half-kiddingly whether all black people were gay, to get the response that blacks (in Harlem) wonder whether all white people are gay (presumably from the skewed sample that the Village and the Upper Left Side provides).

μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, there's no such thing as the English (or any) language, the American (or any) presidency, the Gregorian (or any) calendar, the C major (or any) scale, the internet, or the secret ballot. They're all constructs of various people or groups at various times. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you are missing my intended point. I am not saying there is no such thing as homosexuality; that we share with the Romans, the New Guinea highlanders, and with bonobos, penguins and dolphins. What I mean is that certain fads, fashions, institutions, like hanky culture in the 70's, wearing beads in the 90's, living in enclaves, voting left-wing, and so forth, that we call "gay", are not a historical constant, but very recent and ephemeral things. I am quite sure there are many married and "straight" men who either engage in buggery on occasion or by preference who identify as straight. That has apparently always been the case. Female homosexuality is a bit less overt, and attested or as easy to study. "The Homosexual" as a category, as opposed to homosexuality as a behavior dates back only to the late 19th century. But buggery has been around forever. μηδείς (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifiying. But on your last point, "homosexual activity" does not necessarily imply "buggery" (if you intend that to mean penetrative anal intercourse using a penis). Porn would have it as the almost universal component of every male-male sexual encounter, but everything I've read in RL tells me it's rather less common. A large chunk of the sexually active gay male cohort never get into it at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not for Lesbians! That was more rhetorical than anything. I am really not opposing anything anyone has said, I just want to make it clear that viewing homosexuality as the same thing as what has been called gayness in the modern West is like looking at domesticated mammals as representative of the animal kingdom. As for your metaphysical point, that there would be no such thing as the English language or the Gregorian Calendar, it's a very interesting topic. Obviously there is no thing physically that corresponds to English other than brain-states, utterances, texts, and the like. And the calendar exists as a matter of convention only; it has a tenuous connection to physical reality on the scale of the universe. But individual sexuality and what people think of as being gay, as in "gay pride parade", are very different monsters. Western "gayness" is much closer to goth and hip-hop and trekkie subculture as a chosen identity and in-group.

It is very frustrating for those of us who don't vote a straight gay party ticket to have certain expectations simply dropped on us. When I had a crush on both the Six-Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman in elementary school, I didn't expect it to mean that when I worked at Christopher Street Magazine my employer would give me paid time to register and then vote for Bill Clinton in the '92 election. I voted Ross Perot. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing of interest is that our pre supposed impressions of certain matters can end up being very different to the realities. My assumption would have been that there were more White gays than Black or other races. I also had an impression that there might of been a lot more Jews who were gay than others, but I think this was more due to seeing more portrayals of gay Jews in Movies and on Television than of other races, due to the personal opinions of some Hollywood script writers wanting to show as many gays as possible. To be absolutely sure, the vast majority of Jews portrayed in Media and such were not shown as gay, and I would like to make clear that as a People, whether they are a Race, a Nationality or a Religion, I have always had the greatest respect for Jews, or in fact people of all Races, since we all contribute something to this World. God hath made of ONE BLOOD all Nations of Men for to dwell on all the face of the Earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation ( Acts 17 : 26 ) These impressions as to whether certain Races are more likely to be gay, or belligerent, or criminally minded, or whatever else, are as much due to stereotypes, which may have developed due to some measure of truth, but are not ultimately borne out by the facts. But whether or not one is gay or straight, these things are choices, whereas Race is not, and yet why it appears that more people of Colour identify themselves as gay, is also a mystery to me. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 05:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gay or straight is not a choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So lets see, stereotypes have a grain of truth to them, but stereotypes don't tell the whole story, and race differs from sexual orientation in that sexual orientation is a choice but race is not, and it is a mystery to you, Chris the Russian, that the homosexual sexual orientation appears disproportionately among people of colour. Do I understand you so far? If so, what would be your overriding point? I'm just trying to figure out what you are trying to say, or are you just telling us that you are mystified by the findings of the abovementioned Gallup poll? Bus stop (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a gay man, and neither I nor any other gay person that I've known has "chosen" attraction to the same sex. That status is either innate or the result of environmental influences in the first couple of years after conception, or some combination of the two. What is a choice is whether to be open about one's attraction or to try to hide it. While I am white, I have known many gay people of color, and in my experience their share of the gay population in any metropolitan area is roughly proportional to their share of the overall population. If people of color are slightly more likely to identify as gay than white people, that would not surprise me. If it's true, the reasons are surely cultural at root, since races as they are conceived in North America are not meaningful genetic categories. Marco polo (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly relevant to the cultural attitudes/difference is Down-low (sexual slang). I think there were some statistical white/black cultural differences several years ago, but of course one should not read too much meaning into racial observations, since they're prone to change. (Can you remember when many people thought girls weren't as well suited to college as boys?) Wnt (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted down-low yesterday, Wnt. I'll use the opportunity to repeat that a lot of perception and self-reporting is based on the difference between rural and urban settings. Given urban America is less predominantly white than rural America and also typically more gay friendly, it might not be unexpected that this would skew both perception and willingness to self-report. μηδείς (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by all I have written, as I am sure You all do. Agree to disagree. So, to Bus stop (talk), yes You understand me correctly - the mystery about this to me is only due to these things not being in my realm of experience, but what is, is my knowledge that God does not make us gay. This is a choice, and is never natural, since as Marco polo (talk) has stated, and I quote :That status is either innate or the result of environmental influences in the first couple of years after conception, or some combination of the two. This suggests that if a child exists in an environment that leads them to become gay, this cannot be a natural thing, since there could also be a suggestion that without such a result of environmental influences, such a child would not become gay, if as is suggested, this is one of the causes. As for homosexuality being innate, as I stated, this is not true. God is not so unjust as to create gay people then condemn them for being as such as if it were natural. Somewhere or other there is some other factor that has caused the gay person to choose to be gay or to become so, but not as of Nature. What I was saying about the results of the Gallup Poll was simply that I was surprised that there were more likely to be gays among blacks than other races, but I concede this is due to my not knowing the exact details of gay society. I admit it might also be due to some of my own sometimes subconscious misconceptions about gays as if they are soft, and yet to be honest, I actually know that this is not necessarily true, but as I say, this idea is in a way subconscious. Combine this with an impression I have that blacks are generally tough, but I think this is closer to the truth, since as many of them are subjected to unjustified racism, at least in certain areas, they have to toughen up. I admit I allow myself to be influenced by certain stereotypes, and this I intend to deal with. As for what I said about these stereotypes, I do honestly believe most of them do begin with a sprinkling of truth, or at least some one's impression of the truth. It is unfortunate that blacks for example are seen by certain whites as criminals, and those of the white power variety want only to see that side of them, but I know not all blacks are criminals at all - I suggest more skinheads are - and yet, imagine one is robbed by a black person, what then are they to think ? So my point here, is any idea of blacks being criminals might come from certain people being robbed by them, which is the factual part, and yet they then ignore the fact that just as many people are robbed by whites, or also that most blacks were not out robbing that night, and from these unfortunate things comes some sort of stereotype, which though is not necessarily always believed, and certainly not always true. To finish off, I mean what I said, and if it is not clear to anyone it may be You did not want to agree with it - fine - but there it is. There is not natural, innate gay nature in anyone of any race, and anyone who thinks they are gay, are mixing up who they are with what they do, just as those who rob banks do such things but certainly do not have to, and can change if they desire to. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 11:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it fundamentally wrong about sexual orientation. You possess no "knowledge" about what God does or does not do. It's strictly your personal prejudice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Bugs, yes I do have knowledge about God - not all of what He does, but what He has already made clear in His Scripture. I may, as is noted below, have prejudices about some things, which I admit to, in terms at least of falling for the ideas behind some stereotypes, which I acknowledge is not on, but what I say of God is my personal opinion, but I believe it to be fact, and I am sure many out there will disagree and believe what they want to be fact, and I know I am right about what I said about sexual orientation, because it is not of me, but of God, and throughout Scripture He condemns homosexuality to the point of commanding the Jews to execute them, but thankfully, God has changed how He deals with us, to show us obedience to the Law of Moses was all but impossible, and saves us all by grace through faith.  Sorry for repeating some of this, as I published it, then it was responded to above, and in the mean time I realise I had more to say. Here it is in full. I stand by all I have written, as I am sure You all do. Agree to disagree.

So, to Bus stop (talk), yes You understand me correctly - the mystery about this to me is only due to these things not being in my realm of experience, but what is, is my knowledge that God does not make us gay. This is a choice, and is never natural, since as Marco polo (talk) has stated, and I quote :That status is either innate or the result of environmental influences in the first couple of years after conception, or some combination of the two. This suggests that if a child exists in an environment that leads them to become gay, this cannot be a natural thing, since there could also be a suggestion that without such a result of environmental influences, such a child would not become gay, if as is suggested, this is one of the causes. As for homosexuality being innate, as I stated, this is not true. God is not so unjust as to create gay people then condemn them for being as such as if it were natural. Somewhere or other there is some other factor that has caused the gay person to choose to be gay or to become so, but not as of Nature. What I was saying about the results of the Gallup Poll was simply that I was surprised that there were more likely to be gays among blacks than other races, but I concede this is due to my not knowing the exact details of gay society. I admit it might also be due to some of my own sometimes subconscious misconceptions about gays as if they are soft, and yet to be honest, I actually know that this is not necessarily true, but as I say, this idea is in a way subconscious. Combine this with an impression I have that blacks are generally tough, but I think this is closer to the truth, since as many of them are subjected to unjustified racism, at least in certain areas, they have to toughen up. I admit I allow myself to be influenced by certain stereotypes, and this I intend to deal with. As for what I said about these stereotypes, I do honestly believe most of them do begin with a sprinkling of truth, or at least some one's impression of the truth. It is unfortunate that blacks for example are seen by certain whites as criminals, and those of the white power variety want only to see that side of them, but I know not all blacks are criminals at all - I suggest more skinheads are - and yet, imagine one is robbed by a black person, what then are they to think ? So my point here, is any idea of blacks being criminals might come from certain people being robbed by them, which is the factual part, and yet they then ignore the fact that just as many people are robbed by whites, or also that most blacks were not out robbing that night, and from these unfortunate things comes some sort of stereotype, which though is not necessarily always believed, and certainly not always true. To finish off, I mean what I said, and if it is not clear to anyone it may be You did not want to agree with it - fine - but there it is. There is not natural, innate gay nature in anyone of any race, and anyone who thinks they are gay, are mixing up who they are with what they do, just as those who rob banks do such things but certainly do not have to, and can change if they desire to. Some last things I should add. Yes, I do not believe homosexuality is right, but we have all sinned, and none of us is perfect, no, not one, so I admit that I do not endorse the practices of the Westboro Baptist Church or any other of that like who seem to be preaching hatred and the Wrath of God only, but there does not seem to be any Love. They seem to forget their own sinful nature and concentrate on that of all others, and have adopted a kind of guilt by association hate list, against, among others, brave soldiers who fought and died in current wars not of their own making, just because they are in a Military run by a Government that supports homosexuality. They did not die for their Government, but for their Country, and some of them may not even have supported homosexuality, either. If such Christians want to lay this guilt on people only by association, well, they live in a country whose Government supports homosexuality - does this not make them associated with gays, also ? Remember Your First Love guys, come out from among her and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing, and realise, that as God is Love, He sent his Son for ALL OF US, that we may be humble in His Sight, and that goes for us all. On the other side, I see a film on You Tube of a little girl holding a rainbow flag, the kind associated with the support of homosexuality, and the caption reads 1st Grader Backs Down Homophobe Street Preacher. This I see not. They conveniently do not show the whole thing, and the way these Christians appear to be acting seems alright to me, but only from what I can see, and the preacher stops talking to the girl simply because she is not listening, and the Bible tells us not to go on when we have made our point and they will not hear. Grown ups, to their shame are high fiving the little girl, and here may be an example of someone too young to choose what her parents might have taught her, and here she goes supporting something she cannot possibly know ( nor should she ) the exact details of. And yet others criticise Christian parents for raising their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I cannot think of any of the many young children in my family who would do what the little girl is doing, as support of such things is simply not normal to us. My point here being that we need to know the Truth of God's Word, but His Truth, and not get it wrong and turn it into a doctrine of hate - that's for skinheads, who, like all of us, for what ever our sins may be, can repent of all sins, even if we do not see it as such. God Bless Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 12:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, calling all of us gay people liars, as you have just done, is the sort of thing that gets Christians such a bad name. DuncanHill (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, Sir, You and some of the others are calling me a liar - I guess this goes with the territory when we cannot and will not agree.Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 12:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're calling you ignorant. How many gay people have you actually talked to about this? I'm guessing none. But if you do, you should ask, "How long have you known you were gay?" and they're liable to answer, "How long have you known you were straight?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Chris that you are allowing doctrine to get in the way of facts. DuncanHill (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is someplace in his sermon that tries to give a factual answer to the OP's question, you might consider boxing it up along with all the responses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True Christian Doctrine is the Facts, and far from being ignorant, I am half a year away from a Bachelor of Science in Statistics, so don't talk to me about being ignorant. I could just as easily say the same about Yous. Read the Bible, fully, as I have done, and as for talking to gays, I have, and have met and known some - maybe not as much as some of You, which perhaps says a lot about both our sides of the argument, but to be honest, discussing something such as homosexuality all that much does not appeal to me, and I do not need to - I only need Scripture and God's Grace, and His care for all - Straight and Gay, that we all come to Him.Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 12:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're knowledgeable about statistics. But you're ignorant about sexual orientation. Have you ever asked a gay person how long they've been gay? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the Bible, cover to cover. If this is a subject that does not appeal to you, perhaps you would be happier refraining from passing comment on it? DuncanHill (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I was his age, I was rather ignorant about such matters also. I thought straight was straight and gay was an aberration. I was wrong. It's to be hoped that he'll also understand these things (and himself) better as he gets older. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I have I - six times cover to cover, and many other times in reading passages or great part of It. Having read the Bible, You would then know that Christians are told to speak out, even against things that we would rather not - those where it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. So if these things are done in secret, that is where they should remain. If You say Christians have a bad name I might suggest it is because if You choose to disagree, You give us such a bad name. But Okay, I have said my piece, and You yours, and I am sure our points are taken. If You wish not to hear any more, leave it at that, and I will. Thank You. God Bless Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 13:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing though about my age - how old did you think I was, Bugs ? I am 47, and age should have naught to do with this as Scripture even says let no man despise thy youth - the only issue is whether one is correct - I believe I am, You do not. What is done is done Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 13:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I say again: Have you ever asked a gay person how long they've been gay? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris The Russian—you said "My assumption would have been that there were more White gays than Black or other races." Why would that have been your assumption? Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of random miscellaneous points running around here, but to deal with a few:

Homosexuality in animals is very common, throughout many species, and shows that it is a part of Nature's plan. Are animals in the wild capable of unnatural behavior?
Christianity was organized by the Roman emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea, I think it was, to resemble a respectable religion of long-standing more than a recent "superstition" (i.e. cult) on which the Romans frowned in their typically brutal way. AFAIK before Nicea the Romans threw Christians to the lions; afterwards, they treated "heretics" the same way, with much the same motivations. Part of that was distributing the Old Testament as part of the Bibles they copied up and subsidized distribution of. However, the relevance of ancient Israelite statutes in Christianity is usually weak - for example, you don't see Christians turning out to condemn people for wearing a shirt made out of two different kinds of thread. Anti-homosexuality laws have been regarded as part of an "Old Covenant" between God and Abraham to make the latter's seed "as numerous as the dust of the earth" - and nothing else. The relevance to that deal is obvious. However the New Covenant, focusing on salvation of the soul, is something far more elevated and very distinct, many would say.
My opinion is that around the age of 3-5, the scent of various pheromones caused me to reinterpret various things as appealing that previously had not been. My assumption is that someone's sexuality depends on whether they smell and/or instinctively react to male or female pheromones specifically.
I suspect that the presence of endocrine disruptors in the environment makes it very difficult to know whether any particular person's orientation is inborn or the result of chemical exposure, but the last time I looked (which was several years ago) I didn't see any literature addressing their effect on sexual orientation directly. Wnt (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If pheromones were the cause of sexual orientation, one would expect children raised in a single sex environment to have a much higher incidence of homosexuality, and I don't believe that to be the case. StuRat (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For an anecdatum, I remember noticing that men and women had interesting smells that children didn't have somewhere about age 4-5 based on memories of TV shows that aired at the time. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StuRat: The experiment you propose is interesting but hard to do right. If a child were raised entirely in some all-male monastery, no images of women anywhere, no women visible, can he develop a sexual orientation that is aroused by women? Might the boy one day produce, purely from genetic memory, fantasy and pencil sketches, images of hypothetical beings he's never seen with jiggling boobs and broad butts? Otherwise, if he sees a first woman at 18, does he immediately perceive her as sexually attractive? My hypothesis here is that he would see her and feel nothing, but upon experiencing her scent a few times he would quickly become conditioned to see her unique features - whatever they are, though perhaps with some preset biases - as attractive. But that's speculation, and the IRB is not going to approve this experiment! Wnt (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too, have thought of males that never saw females till 18. And also 10-17. When I saw Willie Wonka again at age 10 I got turned on by microscopic breast buds, lol. I spent the whole movie watching for the slightest bump appearing in her shirt, lol. I preferred underdeveloped breasts and tiny butts and mild waist curves to adult women till my peers stopped looking like that. I don't feel like kissing the Pirates of the Caribbean 1 girl anymore, lol, so close but she needs one more year in the oven. Would that boy draw 10 year old females from genetic memory at age 10, or at least like them if he escaped the experiment and saw but didn't smell them? This brings up something I heard about gay people. Some say they can tell in hindsight that the homosexuality was there as early as 5 but barely under the surface. I agree. On a field trip at age 7 I saw my young teachers' calves and feet and really liked it and didn't know why. (I'd never seen her not wearing pants before) I wanted to stare but played on the equipment between looks to not be weird. I think I wanted to touch them despite not liking girls yet. The leg skin shades of the women I usually saw didn't interest me. And to this day legs of that shade make me so, so horny. (I saw a woman I knew of that shade completely naked at age 12.5. Then the dry dream ended.) Orientation is clearly set way before you start liking your preferred sex. (Not that anybody with a brain would've ever thought otherwise) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This "experiment" has been done many times, with single-sex boarding schools, monasteries, nunneries, etc. Once you discount "situational homosexuality", where a heterosexual engages in homosexual acts, just because that's the only option they have for sex, and discount people joining those institutions because they were already homosexual, I don't believe those single-sex environments have been shown to cause homosexuality. StuRat (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we can bring ourselves back from our various wanderings to the original question,the most accurate way would be to find census results and then work out the proportion of gay white,gay black,gay Asian etc. etc. Unfortunately they tend not to be split like that-results will be X% identified as gay in sexuality,Y% identified as black in the ethnic minority,without reference to how many identified as both. This link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11398629 gives the gay/bi total as some 750,000 people whilst this http://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/one_minority_at_a_time_final.pdf from Stonewall claims that some 400,000 people are black or ethnic minority gay/bi/lesbian-which produces the somewhat unusual revelation if we take both as being correct as approximately 50% or so of gays are not white. Lemon martini (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not bothered responding to this questioner's comments after he denied the reality of my experience because he clearly doesn't have a clue about human sexuality and refuses to accept facts about it that depart from a literal reading of Christian scripture. This is a fact-based reference desk, and those who reject the facts simply have no business here. I suppose there are religious forums that might be more appropriate, if unenlightening. Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]