What’s The Difference Between White Nationalism & White Supremacy?

I used to try to make this distinction but I’ve given up. Every group, including blacks, Jews, and the Japanese, believes it is supreme, so who am I to begrudge goyim (white non-Jews) from believing they are supreme?

I see every people, every race, having special gifts, so to me the question of racial supremacy depends on the question of supreme at what task? Jews, blacks, goyim, Japanese, etc create very different societies. Blacks are best at some things, Orientals at other things, whites at other things, Jews at other things. Hispanics aren’t a racial group, they’re a linguistic group, so I can be forgiven for not being able to name off the top of my head what things Hispanics are supreme at.

Together, all peoples make up a complete image of God, to quote Reggie White.

Posted in Race | Comments Off on What’s The Difference Between White Nationalism & White Supremacy?

Ray Donovan & The Varieties Of The Jewish Experience In LA

This TV show is the best dramatic representation of the Los Angeles I’ve experienced. It reminds me of the Jewish pornographers I’ve interviewed and the Italian and Irish tough guys I’ve met. It’s inspired by the career of fixer Anthony Pellicano. In 2003, I broke the story of Pellicano’s connection to the bullet hole in journalist Anita Busch‘s windshield.

If any mainstream journalist wrote about Hollywood Jews the way this TV show depicts them, he’d be in for a world of hurt.

The Jewish temple this show most evokes for me is Stephen S. Wise on Mulholland Drive.

Joshua Neuman writes:

Ray Donovan is the Most Important Jewish Show on Television Today

…contains the most fascinating conversation about Jewish culture on television today.

The J.Q. (“Jew Quotient”) of Ray Donovan is insane…

While Goodman consults with the Torah before engaging in nefarious activities, Avi consults only with his instinct to survive. Together, Ezra and Avi wage an improbable Jewish war over Ray’s soul with Ezra tapping Ray’s moral conscience and Avi, his will to survive.

There are other characters that should immediately trigger your jewdar (unctuous Hollywood producer Stu Feldman, yenta neighbor Judy Hoffman, and judging marriage counselor Dr. Finkel), but perhaps the most interesting “Jewish” character on the show might be Ray himself.

For me there is no greater compliment than “offensive.”

Queerty suggests Ray Donovan is the most offensive show on TV:

Have you heard? Apparently everyone in Hollywood with any power is Jewish. Is this the Southies’ perspective or some universal truth we’re being alerted to? Elliot Gould’s character, a partner in a talent management firm, and the one responsible for importing Ray from Boston, is in mourning for his recently deceased wife and it’s an excuse for him to rediscover his Jewishness and spout Yiddish exclamations! to break the tension where appropriate (you can imagine the writer’s room cards being rearranged). Gould’s partner, played by Peter Jacobson (House), gets to play the money-grubbing Jew-agent type, screaming! screaming! screaming! into his phone headset against a 10th floor Beverly Hills view. Oy, he’s gonna have a heart attack, he’s so stressed! And for good measure there’s the cowardly Jew-producer type “Stu Feldman”(Josh Pais) who also yells a lot — about drive-ons! — but is ultimately craven. Check that off your list of stereotypes.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Ray Donovan & The Varieties Of The Jewish Experience In LA

Fetishes Are Progressive

Alcohol in the hands of the non-alcoholic is a great way to enhance life. In the hands of the alcoholic, it is a great way to extinguish life.

Similarly, fetishes for the non-addict may be the spice of life, but for the addict, they can mean death.

Rob shares at a Sexaholics meeting: “Fetish as obsession. People won’t accept it if you talk about being a sex addict, and within sex addiction, fetish is unacceptable. My specific fetishes are obsessions. Surrender does kill the obsession, whatever my obsession. Our addiction thrives in the dark.”

“My obsession has been cross-dressing. I use that as my drug… I spiraled down into debased activity and acting out.”

I identify with Ron, who says: “Before sex, I remember having certain fantasies. I used to tell my parents, I am going to go dream. I’d lie in bed or sit some place and drift off into fantasies. I started young. It became a way of life. Later on, I used it for boredom and stress. My mind will tend to drift off into these obsessive thoughts.”

Patrick: “When I was four, I saw a picture of a woman tied up and gagged on TV. I had never been so aroused and intrigued in my life. I remember staying up in bed thinking about my teachers, my friends’ mothers, my mom’s friends, tying them up, gagging them and making them my own. That progresses to molestation, abduction and rape. It’s hard to be gentle to your wife, and to live with the shame, when you know you have these fantasies of humiliating women. Pain is not involved. That it excites you more than sex with your wife. There’s a cause. My therapist thinks it is my pacifier being taken away.”

“I know I’m not alone. All these internet sites are not just for me.”

Posted in Addiction | Comments Off on Fetishes Are Progressive

Why Are Jews So Successful?

Jews outperform their IQs (while Latinos tend to underperform their IQs and blacks perform in line with their IQs). Why? Part of the answer is that Jewish life is the single best way to lead a life (measured by any stats you want). We look after our own. We network. We party together and work together and pray together and study together. We are tapped in to some powerful forces (God, Torah, tradition, peoplehood) that make for greatness and other groups would do well to study our example and appropriate it as necessary.

Jews put more emphasis on social, economic and academic success than do whites, that’s why they succeed more, even when adjusted for IQ. When a Jewish parent gets his kid into a great university, he boasts about it to a degree I’ve never seen among the goyim. Jews put more emphasis on getting into the Ivy Leagues and may well have fewer scruples about getting there than WASPs. In my life experience, members of tribes are more likely to cheat (in work, school, etc) than WASPs, who (along with Mormons) are the most honest group of people I know. Growing up a WASP, it simply wasn’t done to take soap or towels away from your hotel. You didn’t steal alcohol on planes or life jackets. I’ve noticed other groups don’t have these scruples to the same degree (Japanese and Koreans, though not Chinese, come closest to WASPs). The tribal mentality is different from the white mentality. Tribes often have no compunction about taking from the wider society to the degree they can get away with it because they identify primarily with their own tribe rather than with their host country.

Judaism is a legal system and so Jews excel at working a system and dealing with laws.

Jews, in my experience, tend to behave in line with their ancestors and their host nations. German Jews tend to behave differently from Iraqi Jews and English Jews and Hungarian Jews. Radical Jews, a tiny percentage of Jews but terribly destructive, seem to come from East European stock while German Jews are patriots.

When I ask whites about sweeping social issues such as immigration and welfare and free speech, they always respond with answers of universal morality while when I ask tribesmen and they feel safe with me, they usually answers such questions in the light of what is good for their tribe.

Jews get more of the good things in life, even when you account for IQ, because of the following reasons:

* Everybody tends to get more of what they value and Judaism and Jews put more value on this life than other religions.
* Judaism has more ease with the natural passions (for money, sex, honor, etc) than other religions.
* Superior ethnic solidarity
* Wisdom of your Jewish ancestors is usually superior to the wisdom of the goyim
* Jewish intensity
* Jews and Judaism (as it is practiced by most Jews as opposed to just reading its sacred text, which frequently extols humility) don’t place a big value on humility.

Psychologist Byron M. Roth reviewed Richard Lynn’s 2011 book The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement:

The most notable difference among Jewish groups is average IQ. While the Ashkenazi average is 110, the Sephardic average is about 99, close to that of Europeans. The Mizrahim score about 91, markedly lower than Europeans, but higher than the Arabs with whom they have lived, whose average is about 84. The genetically distinct Falashas have IQs of about 70, typical of sub-Saharan people.
These IQ differences have had an important impact on the achievement of each group. This is especially clear in Israel, where they live side by side. The Israeli population of about 6 million people (in 2000) is about 40 percent Mizrahim, about 40 percent “European,” and about 20 percent Arab Muslims. Comparisons are complicated, however, because the 2.4 million characterized as European include 110,000 Sephardim. Furthermore, many in the group classified as European Jews are immigrants from Russia, a large number of whom—some Israeli demographers estimate as many as 900,000—are not Jews at all. They are ethnic Russians “who pretended to be Jews in order to obtain permission to leave the Soviet Union.” For these reasons the average IQ of those classified as European Jews is estimated to be about 106, lower than would be the case if all were Ashkenazim.

Nevertheless, on all measures of social and educational success, the Europeans do better than the Mizrahim, who in turn do better than the Arab citizens, a ranking perfectly consistent with IQ estimates. Of particular interest are the Ethiopians, who do very poorly, and behave like American blacks. According to an Israeli researcher, many “identify with an ‘aggressive and semi-criminal African-American youth culture’ and have become a ‘kind of ethnic underclass.’”

…In general, Jews do not differ in any appreciable way from Gentiles in the things they value, with one exception: They have a greater desire to achieve economic and social success, that is to say, they are high in “achievement motivation.” Professor Lynn suggests that, like many personality variables, this may have a partly genetic basis “brought about through having been selected by eugenic customs, persecution, and discrimination.”

Posted in Asians, Jews, Whites | Comments Off on Why Are Jews So Successful?

Should I Grieve James Foley and Steven Sotloff?

If you deliberately travel to a bad place and then bad things happen to you there, am I supposed to be surprised and shocked and saddened? Visiting Syria is a deliberate dance with the devil. Who asked you to risk your life like that? For what good purpose?

The Arab Islamic world is generally horrible. It is filled with horrible people who do horrible things, whether they reside in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, England or Manhattan. Nobody rational expects anything good to develop from the Arab Islamic world. If the various sides in Syria and Egypt kill each other, why does it matter? When cannibals eat each other, should we stop the presses? There’s no reason to care, just as we don’t care when lions eat zebras. James Foley and Steven Sotloff wanted more people to care about Syria. They were naive and they paid for their foolishness with their lives. Most folks have no reason to care about Syria and Egypt and Iraq because these countries have never produced much good in the world and the low average IQ of their populations does not portend much good.

Islam in general attracts a low IQ crowd and produces little good in the world.

The United States and its allies were stupid to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and thousands of first-world peoples lost their lives for no good reason (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans who would probably be alive today if we had not invaded) and about seven trillion dollars was wasted and the first world got a lot of unwanted immigrants from the losing sides.

Posted in Arabs, Islam, Journalism, Syria | Comments Off on Should I Grieve James Foley and Steven Sotloff?

Why Don’t Good People Want To Ride Public Transport In Los Angeles?

This story never mentions race, which is probably the biggest reason people avoid Metro. Most people don’t want to mix with people who are different from them, particularly if the different are in a lower social class, particularly if they’re black. Given the high crime rate of blacks and their penchant for destructive behavior, this is prudent. The top ten percent of blacks are as liked as the top 10% of any race, but the bottom 50% of blacks are widely loathed.

Decent people want to avoid gangbangers, lowlifes, the criminally inclined, the unhygienic, and these are characteristics of the bottom half of blacks and latinos. When you ride the subway in LA, you’ll notice that young blacks often don’t pay their fare, destroy the infrastructure, and diminish the quality of life of those around them. Professional blacks and latinos don’t want to ride Metro with the bottom 50% of their people any more than whites and asians do. My sense is that twice as many people would ride Metro if it were adequately policed.

Oregon’s public transport does not have the same problems as Metro because there are few blacks and Mexicans in Oregon.

Assimilation is largely a lie. People from Africa are going to act more like Africans than like Americans. People from Mexico are going to act more like Mexicans than like Americans. People from Somalia are going to act more like Somalis than Americans. People from Japan will act Japanese (with academic scores, high incomes, high savings, stable family lives, long lifespans) wherever they live in the world. By and large, people don’t assimilate (except in the most superficial of ways). Swedes keep acting like Swedes even when they live in Los Angeles and mestizo Mexicans keep acting like mestizo Mexicans, even when they work in Beverly Hills and have American passports.

For tens of thousands of Los Angelenos of all races, the most depressing experience of their day is riding public transportation. It wasn’t like this when America was 90% white. It isn’t like this in Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and most of Australia because these countries have few black people and mestizo Mexicans. The more black people you have in your country, the more dysfunction (when measured by first world standards). The highest achieving black people, such as Barak Obama, tend to be the least black.

Why do many Jews hate this kind of frank talk about race? Because they believe that it will lead to critical talk about Jews and then another Holocaust. Why do many Jews hate talk about average IQs among the races? Because they fear it will lead to another Holocaust. Why do many Jews hate discussion of Jewish influence? Because they believe it might lead to another Holocaust. All sorts of important areas of public discussion are ruled out of bounds in the western world because our elites decree it and the dumb goyim go along.

Posted in Blacks, Jews, Race | Comments Off on Why Don’t Good People Want To Ride Public Transport In Los Angeles?

ISIS Would Be Little Danger To America If We Took Prudent Precautions With Our Borders

The United States government is a biggest danger to America than ISIS because we allow open borders, forbid criminal profiling by race and religion, and we treat every group as equally likely to contribute to our society (when statistics show otherwise). If we protected our borders and used race and religion in criminal profiling to the extent that they are statistically useful, and if we tailored our education and job market to the differing abilities of our population, we could keep the Islamic threat to America at bay.

Which groups in America are most likely to join ISIS?
* Mormons
* Jews
* Whites
* Latinos
* Asians
* Blacks
* Muslims
* Somalis
* Black African immigrants
* Arab-Americans
* Eskimos
* Lesbians

Posted in Race | Comments Off on ISIS Would Be Little Danger To America If We Took Prudent Precautions With Our Borders

Are Black Problems The Fault Of Whites?

Black economist Walter Williams writes: In 1950, female-headed households were 18 percent of the black population. Today it’s close to 70 percent. One study of 19th-century slave families found that in up to three-fourths of the families, all the children lived with the biological mother and father. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black households were two-parent households. Herbert Gutman, author of “The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925,” reports, “Five in six children under the age of six lived with both parents.” Also, both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.

A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia found that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families (composed of two parents and children). What is significant, given today’s arguments that slavery and discrimination decimated the black family structure, is the fact that years ago, there were only slight differences in family structure among racial groups.

Coupled with the dramatic breakdown in the black family structure has been an astonishing growth in the rate of illegitimacy. The black illegitimacy rate in 1940 was about 14 percent; black illegitimacy today is over 70 percent, and in some cities, it is over 80 percent.

The point of bringing up these historical facts is to ask this question, with a bit of sarcasm: Is the reason the black family was far healthier in the late 1800s and 1900s that back then there was far less racial discrimination and there were greater opportunities? Or did what experts call the “legacy of slavery” wait several generations to victimize today’s blacks?

The Census Bureau pegs the poverty rate among blacks at 28.1 percent. A statistic that one never hears about is that the poverty rate among intact married black families has been in the single digits for more than two decades, currently at 8.4 percent. Weak family structures not only spell poverty and dependency but also contribute to the social pathology seen in many black communities — for example, violence and predatory sex. Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it’s 22 times that of whites. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Coupled with being most of the nation’s homicide victims, blacks are also major victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault, rape and robbery.

To put this violence in perspective, black fatalities during the Korean War (3,075), Vietnam War (7,243) and all wars since 1980 (about 8,200) come to about 18,500, a number that pales in comparison with black loss of life at home. Young black males had a greater chance of reaching maturity on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan than on the streets of Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, Newark and other cities.

The black academic achievement gap is a disaster. Often, black 12th-graders can read, write and deal with scientific and math problems at only the level of white sixth-graders. This doesn’t bode well for success in college or passing civil service exams.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on Are Black Problems The Fault Of Whites?

Fired For Homophobia

About 20 years ago, a friend of mine worked for the Steven Spielberg funded Shoah Foundation. He received an email from his workplace celebrating Ellen DeGeneres coming out as gay. He wrote back that he didn’t think this was anything to celebrate. He was promptly dressed down, fired, and escorted off the premises.

Posted in Homosexuality | Comments Off on Fired For Homophobia

Is There Much Difference Between Gay And Straight Couples?

Chaim Amalek writes: “Women are the gatekeepers of sexuality, and if there is no gatekeeper at the gate, anyone who wants to can just barge right on in.”

Timothy J. Dailey writes for the Family Research Council: “Married and Gay Couples Not All that Different,” proclaimed the headline of a news article portraying homosexual households as remarkably similar to married couples. “We’re the couple next door,” claimed one partnered homosexual. “We have a dog and a cat. I drive a Volvo. I’m boring.”[1] Such down-home portrayals of homosexual couples are meant to provoke the question: Since gay couples really differ only in that both partners are of the same sex, what rational basis exists for denying them full marriage rights?

Are homosexual households, as the article suggests, simply another variant of human relationships that should be considered, along with marriage, as “part of mainstream American society”?

On the contrary, the evidence indicates that “committed” homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects:

relationship duration
monogamy vs. promiscuity
relationship commitment
number of children being raised
health risks
rates of intimate partner violence
Finally, this paper will present evidence from gay activists themselves indicating that behind the push for gay marriage lies a political agenda to radically change the institution of marriage itself.

RELATIONSHIP DURATION
Gay activists often point to high divorce rates and claim that married couples fare little better than homosexuals with regard to the duration of their relationships. The research, however, indicates that male homosexual relationships last only a fraction of the length of most marriages.

Married Couples

A 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with fifty percent lasting twenty years or longer.[2]

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)

A 2002 U.S. Census Bureau study reported similar results, with 70.7 percent of women married between 1970 and 1974 reaching their tenth anniversary and 57.7 percent staying married for twenty years or longer.[3]

Source: Current Population Reports: U.S. Census Bureau (2002)

Male Homosexual Relationships

The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a “current relationship,” only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.[4] While this “snapshot in time” is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.

Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census

In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that “typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in ‘transactional’ relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months.”[5]

A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.[6]

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”[7]

In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]

MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP
Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing:

Married couples

A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.[9]

A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.[10]

A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.[11]

Male Homosexuals

Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:

The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]

Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]

A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.[15]

“Commitment” in Male Homosexual Couples

Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” or “monogamous” typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.

A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous.” According to study author Barry Adam, “Gay culture allows men to explore different…forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals.”[16]

The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which “many self-described ‘monogamous’ couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern.”[17]

In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:

Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[18]
As the following chart shows, the extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men dramatically contrasts with the high rate of fidelity among married heterosexuals.
According to McWhirter and Mattison, most homosexual men understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression.

In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.[19]

Brad Hayton provides insight into the attitudes of many homosexuals towards commitment and marriage:

Homosexuals…are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good “marital” relationship.[20]
While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a significant difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even “committed” homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage.

LEVEL OF COMMITMENT IN HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS
If homosexuals and lesbians truly desired the same kind of commitment signified by marriage, then one would expect them to take advantage of the opportunity to enter into civil unions or registered partnerships, which grant them legal recognition as well as the legal rights of marriage. However, surprisingly few homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into such legally recognized unions where such arrangements are available, indicating that such couples do not share the same view of commitment as typified by married couples.

Vermont

In April 2000, the governor of the state of Vermont signed a law instituting civil unions for homosexuals. The bill conferred 300 privileges and rights enjoyed by married couples upon same-sex partners who register their relationship with the town clerk and have their union solemnized by a member of the clergy or the justice of the peace.

Estimating the homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont: The number of homosexuals and lesbians in the state of Vermont may be estimated based on national studies. Contrary to the widely promulgated but inaccurate claims that up to ten percent of the population is homosexual, research indicates that homosexuals comprise one to three percent of the population. For example, a recent study in Demography relying upon three large data sets–the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. Census–estimated the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population to be 2.5 percent and the number of exclusive lesbians to be 1.4 percent.[21]

According to the 2000 Census, the adult population of Vermont is 461,304.[22] Based on the Demography study, a reasonable estimate of the number of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont would be approximately 5,600 (2.5 percent of the adult male population) for male homosexuals, and approximately 3,300 (1.4 percent of the adult female population) for lesbians, for a total of approximately 8,900 homosexuals and lesbians. [Note: these are only rough approximations for purposes of statistical comparison.]

Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont who have entered into civil unions: USA Today reports that, as of January 2004, only 936 homosexual or lesbian couples (for a total of 1,872 individuals) have entered into civil unions.[23] This indicates that only about 21 percent of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont has entered into civil unions. Put another way, 79 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont choose not to enter into civil unions.

By contrast, in Vermont, heterosexual married couples outnumber cohabiting couples by a margin of 7 to 1, indicating a much higher level of desire on the part of heterosexual couples to legalize their relationships.[24]

For purposes of comparison it may be useful to examine two countries that have granted special rights to homosexuals, including marriage-like civil unions, which grant gays and lesbians virtually all of the rights of marriage.

Sweden

In 1995 Sweden passed the Registered Partnership Act which created civil unions for homosexual couples. In 2003 that law was amended to give registered homosexual couples the same right to adopt or have legal custody of children as married couples. The percentage of homosexual or lesbians in Sweden that enter into civil unions may be estimated as fo llows:

Estimated homosexual and lesbian population of Sweden: Extrapolating from the Demography estimates in the U.S., a similar percentage of the homosexual and lesbian population of Sweden would be approximately 140,000 (2.5 percent of the adult male population of 3,531,554, and 1.4 percent of the adult female population of 3,679,317).[25]

Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Sweden who have registered their unions: The number of registered same-sex unions in Sweden is reported to be about 1,500 (for a total of 3,000 individuals) out of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of 140,000.[26] This indicates that only about two percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into legally recognized unions. Put another way, about 98 percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians do not officially register as same-sex couples.

The Netherlands

A landmark law allowing same-sex “marriage” was instituted in the Netherlands on March 31, 2001, with a highly publicized communal ceremony that included two lesbian “brides” and six homosexual “grooms.” The Netherlands instituted a “registered partnership” law in 1998 that accorded legal status to homosexual relationships similar to that of marriage. The new law, which explicitly recognizes same-sex matrimony, is restricted to Dutch nationals. However, as the following analysis shows, the percentage of homosexuals and lesbians that have entered into marriage-like civil unions is very low.

Estimated homosexual and lesbian population of the Netherlands: Extrapolating from demographic figures for homosexuals and lesbians in the U.S., a similar percentage for the Netherlands would be 242,000 (2.5 percent of the adult male population of 6,161,662, and 1.4 percent of the adult female population of 6,311,338).[27]

Number of Dutch homosexuals and lesbians who have registered their unions: A news report by the Gay Financial Network predicted that “some 10,000 gay couples could be married” in the first year following the legalization of gay “marriage” in the Netherlands. In reality, far fewer chose to solemnize their relationships. The Office of Legislative Research released a report in October 2002 stating: “The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs reports that 3,383 of the 121,776 marriages licensed between April 1, 2001, and June 30, 2002, involved people of the same sex.”[28]

Thus, as of October 2002, only 2.8 percent, or 6,766 individuals (3,383 licenses) out of an estimated homosexual and lesbian population of 242,000, have registered their unions as “married.”

Posted in Homosexuality | Comments Off on Is There Much Difference Between Gay And Straight Couples?