FAMILY RESEARCH REPORT	Journal of the Family Research Institute Founded 1982
The 1996 National Sexuality Survey			Vol. 19 No. 6-7 Oct-Nov 2004

This issue of Family Research Report [FRR] will summarize findings from the largest national random survey regarding adult sexuality ever conducted in the U.S. — 12,283 non-institutionalized adults aged 18-59. These individuals took part in the 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse [NHSDA], an on-going and periodic examination of American drug habits. Occasionally, the NHSDA includes supplementary ‘add-on' questions about particular topics. In 1996, this survey — for the first and only time, and with little fanfare — added a series of questions on sexuality.

FRI had significant difficulty originally obtaining the survey material, even though it was funded at public expense and by law required to be publicly available. Once we retrieved it, however, we went to work analyzing and exploring the data in ways the government never attempted or reported. FRI has written a book on these findings and now a separate scientific article. However, to date there have been several obstacles to getting the book published and, until very recently, finding a journal willing to publish our scientific analysis.

Though we are continuing our quest to get this material into the scientific literature, it is far too important and relevant to let gather dust on a shelf. Consequently, FRI will report summaries of the main findings in this and subsequent issues of FRR. Eventually, these findings will be posted on our website ( www.familyresearchinst.org ) for use by scholars and activists worldwide.

Advantages of the NHSDA

One of the helpful things about the 1996 NHSDA is that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control [CDC] was responsible for the sexuality portion of the survey. The sampling design was nationwide and probability based, and all the raw survey data was collected and processed by government researchers. Neither FRI nor any other conservative- or tradition-minded organization had any hand in the study; certainly no accusations of bias against homosexuals can be leveled against the CDC.

Another benefit of the 1996 NHSDA is that it does not stand alone. Indeed, a careful examination of prior sex surveys demonstrates many of the same results. In fact, the same key findings can be found in every one of the other major sexuality surveys — including those conducted by Alfred Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute. This fact verges on the astounding. Social science is seldom unanimous or near unanimous on any issue. Even studies comparing married people's kids with with the children of single parents don't uniformly find an advantage for children of the married.

Caveats

Of course, just because a large survey is done by the government does not mean it is perfect or completely accurate. Asking people questions is always fraught with uncertainties. Will respondents ‘tell the truth' or will they ‘fudge?' Will those who respond remember what they did sexually, can they remember it accurately, and will they ‘tell all' even if they do remember accurately? All we end up with is knowing are the answers they provide, and a hope that those answers bear a close relationship to what people have done sexually.

Participation is another large problem. No matter how well-executed the survey, and no matter how persistent the interviewers, around 30% of the anticipated sample typically refuses to cooperate (and a significant number who cooperate answer some questions in a contradictory fashion). Most sexuality surveys have in fact had non-participation rates considerably higher than 30%. For example, it appears likely that those parts of the Kinsey surveys conducted outside of prisons and colleges had non-participation rates around 90%. The 1983-84 FRI survey also had a non-participation rate of between 50% to 70% depending on how non-participation is defined.

These facts make absolute certainty about the distribution of even the answers on sexual matters impossible. The ‘missing third' of respondents, if they are systematically hiding something or if they systematically differ in some important way from those who do respond, renders sophisticated statistical treatment of the answers questionable. For what if, say, a much higher proportion of those who refused the survey engaged in child molestation, or participated in homosexuality, or haven't had sex, or are much more religious, etc .?

Statistical models and the inferences derived from them are predicated on probability-based samples, which in turn assumes that even if not everyone is interviewed (as would be in a census), relatively speaking , each group or type of person is sampled in a known or estimable proportion.

A probability sample is designed to do just that. The fly in the ointment, however, is that while such samples are easily collected from balls in a jar or goods off a production line, and can be used to generate a reasonable set of addresses or phone numbers to contact in a human population survey, it can only tell us so much when a significant portion of the sample cannot be interviewed (due to refusals, non-cooperation, and the like) and we don't know how they would answer.

All researchers in the field hope that the ‘missing' are not appreciably different from those who respond — but there is no certain-sure way to determine this. Even though sexuality surveys have consistently reported similar findings (as noted above), it does not mean that they ‘tell us the truth.' Each has its large portion of ‘missing respondents,' so their consistency could simply mean a similarity of answers among those who are willing to respond.

Yet, even with all these caveats, the answers from sex surveys are what we know . And, interestingly, what we know about homosexuals is strikingly similar in every sexuality survey. The picture that emerges from the answers to sex surveys corresponds fairly closely with what clinicians, gendarmes, and guards working with homosexuals have said about them. It also corresponds with what FRI's Dr. Paul Cameron has encountered in the custody cases at which he has served as an expert, in his interactions with homosexuals, and in what other clinicians have told him.

Plan of Analysis

FRI tried to be as fair with the NHSDA database as possible. We decided to compare people who choose to do things that our society considers to be ‘bad' or ‘harmful,' those who engage in homosexuality, and those who do not participate in these things. Our reasoning was that if those who choose to do commonly recognized ‘bad' things were similar in profile to homosexuals, then supporters of gay rights — and the notion that homosexuality has no deleterious effects — would be stuck trying to explain away the similarities.

On the other hand, if homosexuals did not differ from most people (and were similar in profile to the general public), then opponents of gay rights would have some explaining to do.

Prostitution : All U.S. states (with some exceptions in Nevada) have made prostitution illegal, while Europe generally contains it by licensing and keeps prostitutes confined to certain areas. Irrespective of the approach used to reduce prostitution, everyone generally agrees that it injures society.

So participation in prostitution in the past 12 months was one of the behaviors we compared with the possible social harms (or benefits) of homosexuality (for the technically-minded, prostitution was one of our 5 “independent variables”).

Because of the way the NHSDA questions were posed, we can't determine which participants acted as prostitutes and which as customers. So the prostitutes and their customers were lumped together. This prostitution ‘lump' was compared with all those who did not report participation in prostitution in the past year (a much larger ‘lump').

Illegal drug use is, by definition, harmful to society. Yet George Soros and other revolutionaries want drugs legalized. Many people undoubtedly use drugs ‘responsibly' or at least in situations where it is not obvious that they harm others. Nevertheless, we looked at those who used illegal drugs in the past 12 months (the great bulk of which was marijuana) and compared them against those who did not report using illegal drugs during the same timeframe.

Smoking was indexed by ‘ever having been a regular smoker.' This question does not address current smokers vs . nonsmokers, but people who ever regularly smoked against those who were never regular smokers. Smoking is like many other habits — not quite ‘black and white.' Some people smoke irregularly throughout their lives (perhaps they smoke only under stressful situations, then stop — perhaps for years — only using cigarettes once in a while). Many people have been regular smokers and then have stopped ‘cold turkey.'

The way we indexed smoking lumps all who have ever been regular smokers together — even those who have quit — so as to let the personality of those who become regular smokers ‘shine through.'

Homosexuality was indexed by the question “have you engaged in same-sex sexual activity involving anal, oral, or vaginal sex in the past 12 months?” This answer excludes a number of people who would say, when asked, that they are ‘homosexuals.' This is because some are ‘philosophic homosexuals,' never (or almost never) actually having homosexual sex. Still others only masturbate or engage in mutual masturbation (which would not count in the NHSDA because no bodily fluids would be exchanged).

Some who consider themselves ‘homosexuals' are married but fantasize that they are having sex with a same-sex partner when they have sex with their spouse (these ‘homosexuals' would be counted as non-homosexuals in the NHSDA). From a public health standpoint, since no exposure to others' bodily fluids occurs, both these individuals and ‘philosophic' homosexuals are ‘safe' from a public health standpoint. Only those homosexuals who actually engaged in homosexuality in the past 12 months were compared to ‘everyone else' in our analysis.

Racial differences : Gay activists have made a living charging that their ills are the result of ‘discrimination.' If people don't like us, they say, their animus makes us weak and susceptible to disease, drug use, child molestation, etc . So society is actually ‘at fault' for any undesirable differences you might find between ‘homosexuals' and non-homosexuals.

To examine this contention and get some real empirical data on it, FRI compared blacks and whites on every question. Our reasoning went like this: blacks are still discriminated against. If discrimination ‘causes' sickness, promiscuity, ill health, etc ., then blacks ought to differ from whites in the same ways that homosexuals differ from non-homosexuals. If, however, blacks and whites do not differ in the same ways that homosexuals differ from non-homosexuals, then the discrimination argument falls flat.

NHSDA Findings

Participation in prostitution in the past 12 months was reported by 138 respondents (93 men and 45 women), and participation in homosexuality by 176 (77 men and 99 women); 5 men and 5 women reported participating in both activities.

Applying statistical weights developed in accordance with the NHSDA survey design, an estimated 1.2 million individuals (0.8%) of the U. S. non-institutionalized population aged 18-59 (1.4% of men and 0.3% of women) participated in prostitution during the previous 12 months. Likewise, 1.7 million (1.2%) individuals within the same age range (1.3% of men and 1.1% of women) participated in homosexual activity involving contact with bodily fluids within the last year.

Since homosexual activity is more common in same-sex institutions, 1, 2, 3, 4 and roughly 2% of those aged 18-35 are institutionalized, it is likely that the NHSDA survey — which covered only the non-institutionalized — underestimated how many engage each year in homosexuality.

Countering this, there are individuals younger than 18 and older than 59 (about 23% of the adult population is over the age of 59) who practice same-sex sex. Were these ‘missing' ages included, it would increase the absolute numbers claiming homosexual involvement, but would — because participation in homosexuality declines markedly with age — probably reduce their fraction of the total sample of adults.

In the NHSDA, for the sample as a whole, 43% were under 35 years of age and 16% were over 49. By contrast, 67% of those who engaged in homosexuality were under age 35, and only 5% over the age of 49 (the oldest man who reported homosexual activity was 54, the oldest woman 49).

A reasonable adjustment can be made to these statistics. FRI has examined the whole 2003 Statistics Canada survey of 121,300 adults over age 17. If those aged 60 or older are included in an ‘all adult sample,' the relative proportion of homosexuals drops by 16%. Adjusting the NHSDA estimates by this figure would lower the absolute estimate of homosexual participants to 1.0% of adults (1.1% of men and 0.9% of women) in the past year.

Illegal drug use was also primarily a fancy of the young — 67% were under the age of 35, 2% over the age of 49 (the oldest user, both male and female, was 57). Overall, 17% of men and 9% of women said they had used illegal drugs in the past 12 months (13% of adults aged 18-59; but only 6% of all adults). Among the old, use of illegal drugs is very infrequent; less than 1% of adults were users in the 1940s.

Unlike homosexuality and drug abuse, prostitution and regular smoking were behaviors with more older participants (although it should also be noted that the oldest male prostitution participant was 50, and the oldest female was 49). 47% of all adults 18-59 (51% of men, 44% of women) either currently or at one time were regular smokers. If all adults are included, the figures go up to 51% (54% of men, 47% of women). Clearly, smoking has become much less popular over time, but is still common among older adults.

One Poison Deserves Another

Those who admitted involvement in any one of the censured activities also tended to more frequently engage in other censured behaviors:

• Those who reported involvement in homosexuality in the past year were about 3 times more apt to report use of illegal drugs in the last 12 months — about 31% of homosexuals vs . 13% of non-homosexuals. Note, however, that most homosexuals did not report the use of illegal drugs.
  
• Regular smoking was reported by about two-thirds of homosexuals, and about half of non-homosexuals. At 4%, reported involvement in prostitution was higher among homosexuals than the 1% among non-homosexuals. But there were substantial differences by sex. Lesbians were about six times more apt to be involved in prostitution than non-homosexual women. Almost all of these women probably served as prostitutes — a profession that tends to dull a woman's desire for men.
  
• Almost all the non-homosexual men were probably customers of female prostitutes, but it is hard to know about the homosexual men. We already know that buying and selling sex is fairly common in the homosexual subculture. But although common, in any given year, it certainly appears to be a minority practice.
  
• Those involved in illegal drug use last year were about three times more apt to engage in homosexuality, and better than two-thirds were or had been regular smokers (smoking is probably a ‘gateway' experience to drug use). They were also about six times more apt to report involvement in prostitution.
  
• Smokers trace an interesting pattern. They were about twice as likely as non-smokers to report homosexual activity last year. Smokers were also almost three times as apt to use illegal drugs and twice as apt to participate in prostitution. Since the unhealthful nature of smoking has been known for centuries, smokers seem more likely to be ‘risk takers,' willing to do yet other risky things.
  
• Those involved in prostitution were five times more apt to report homosexual activity, three times more apt to use illegal drugs, and about two-thirds smoked regularly at some point in their life. The stereotype of the drug-soaked female prostitute seems to be true, with two-thirds reporting their use ( vs . 10% of non-prostitute women).

As is evident from these findings, those who engaged in each ‘vice' were more apt to engage in the other vices. But, other than smoking — which was highly correlated with just about every other vice — each vice ‘had its own following.' So talking about ‘drunks' is not the same as talking about ‘drug addicts,' nor are the same ‘causes' apt to lead to homosexuality and drug abuse. Nevertheless, there is a good degree of overlap in all these behaviors.

Racial Differences

Do illegal drug users feel bad about themselves, misbehave, lead less productive lives, etc . because society ‘discriminates against them?' How about homosexuals, or smokers, or those who participate in prostitution?

Both socialism and psychiatry have their own theories that proclaim that the ‘individual' is not responsible for his actions — socialism because he is not wealthy or is exploited (society is at fault), psychiatry because his parents left him ‘emotionally crippled' or ‘not whole' (the family is at fault).

The racial comparisons between blacks and whites are instructive in this regard (see Figures 1 through 4 ). Compared to whites, blacks are disadvantaged in our society in three major ways: they don't have as much wealth, and a majority are not being raised by a married couple. Further, everyone knows that blacks are discriminated against to some degree — not because of what they have done, but because of something with which they were born — their looks.

Two of these factors are social (less wealth, discrimination), the other social-psychological. Do these ‘three strikes' drive blacks into vice? In a word — NO. The black family constellation, which by Freudian standards ought to have generated much greater levels of homosexuality, appears to have had no effect.

Blacks might be a tad more apt to use illegal drugs, but the overwhelming proportion do not. And lest their somewhat more frequent drug use be attributed to ‘the stresses associated with poverty or discrimination,' blacks are also less apt to smoke. In addition, ‘poverty' can not be invoked for their greater use of illegal drugs rather than smoking — after all, drugs cost much more than cigarettes.

On the other hand, blacks were about three times more apt to indulge in prostitution. This greater participation might be due to their less frequent status as married, or attempts to make money, but only about 1 of every 25 was so involved, so it is very difficult to ‘blame' anyone but those who made this choice.

Overall, while those who engaged in homosexuality were also much more likely to engage in the other vices (prostitution, smoking, drug abuse), the results for blacks showed no consistent pattern, thus weakening the argument that all the misfortunes homosexuals ‘suffer' are due to our ‘oppressive' society.

Certainly, the black family is in shambles and there are serious problems faced by the black subculture. What is not evident from the NHSDA findings, however, is a clear linkage between these problems and the vices of homosexuality, prostitution, drug abuse, and smoking.

Next Issue: A look at criminality

References:
1. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy W. B., & Martin C.E. (1949) Sexual behavior in the human male . Philadelphia: WB Saunders.
2. Gebhard PH, Pomeroy WB, Martin CE, & Christenson C. Sex offenders: an analysis of types . NY: Harper-Hoeber, 1965.
3. Bluestone, H., O'Malley, E. P., and Connell, S. (1966). Homosexuals in prison. Corrective Psychiatry and the Journal of Social Therapy, 12 , 13-24.
4. Moore, W.E. (1976). How to end sex problems in our prisons. Ebony , 20-21(#1), 83-92.

The Family That Eats Together

A survey of 4,746 adolescents from Minneapolis-St. Paul found “one fourth (26.8%) reported eating 7 or more meals with their family in the past week, and almost one third (33.1%) reported eating family meals only 1 to 2 times per week or never.”

Compared to peers who regularly ate their meals with their families, adolescents of both sexes who seldom or never ate with their families were more likely to use tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, more likely to receive low grades in school, more likely to suffer from depression, and more likely to think about suicide.

In addition, girls who seldom ate with their families had weaker self-esteem and higher likelihood of actually attempting suicide: “girls reporting more than 7 family meals per week were almost half as likely to report a suicide attempt compared with girls eating no family meals.”

The researchers concluded that “eating meals as a family has benefits for young people above and beyond their general sense of connection to family members.” This was so even when statistical adjustment was made for factors such as family connectedness, parents' marital status, school level, race, and socioeconomic status.

Teen boys who seldom or never ate meals with their families were distinctively at risk to smoke and use alcohol and girls who seldom or never ate meals with their families were more likely to use alcohol and marijuana and to be depressed.

The researchers speculated that “family meals may... provide a formal or informal ‘check-in' time during which parents can tune in to the emotional well-being of their teens, particularly girls. Likewise, family mealtimes may serve as a marker for young people spending more time at home and away from negative peer influences or youth culture more generally.”

What a surprise! Family meals may serve as “a protective factor in the lives of adolescents, particularly among adolescent girls.”

Reference:
Eisenberg, M. E., et al., (2004) “Correlations Between Family Meals and Psychosocial Well-being Among Adolescents,” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 158, 792-796.

Corner

Banning Gay Marriage ‘Of Any Sort’ No Harder Than Saving Name

Since the November 2nd election, much political hay has been made over the 11 states that passed bans against state-sanctioned ‘gay marriage.' The results have buoyed conservative activists, and have renewed calls for a Federal Marriage Amendment [FMA]. What is important to note, however, is the fact that not all of these state measures were about the same thing. Three states banned the use of the name ‘marriage' by gays (OR by 56%, MT by 66%, MS by 86%), but left open the possibility of ‘gay domestic partnerships.' The other eight states banned ‘gay marriage of any sort, by any name' in their state constitutions (MI by 59%, OH by 62%, UT by 66%, ND by 73%, AR and KY by 75%, OK by 76%, GA by 77%).

In Oregon, where gay rights activists spent the most money per voter, Portland defeated the gay marriage ban by 63%. But the more rural areas of Oregon overwhelmed the Portland rejection . This was the general pattern across the states, with urban areas rejecting and the suburban and rural areas passing it easily, even as suburban-rural areas voted for Bush, urban areas for Kerry.

Consider the size of the winning margins on these measures, which were considerably larger than the 51% majority with which Bush won re-election. The currently proposed Musgrave FMA — backed by so many pro-family leaders, including Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, American Family Association , etc. — only protects the name ‘marriage,' but appears no less politically viable to the electorate (though not necessarily to Congress) than one that would protect the institution of marriage from being shared with homosexuals.

Bans against the status of marriage for homosexuals (‘gay marriage of any sort, no matter what it is called') were just as successful and readily passed as measures preserving the name ‘marriage' for a man and a woman. In the latter type, the question of whether the same rights and benefits should be given to homosexuals, but not called marriage, is left open. This happened, for instance, in California, which passed a ‘name only' referendum in 2000, but ended up with ‘gay marriage in all but name' a year later.

No matter what the polls have been construed as ‘saying,' there is little evidence that voters want both gay unions and preservation of the name ‘marriage' for a husband and wife. The evidence from these 11 states suggests that a federal ban on gay marriage which excluded any kind of ‘counterfeit marriage' for homosexuals, such as civil unions, would probably be acceptable with the electorate.

Academia (including law schools) and politicians have generally accepted the argument first advanced by gay activists, and then by the mental health/social service professions, that those who engage in homosexuality are like blacks — being discriminated against because of irrelevant factors like skin color. Somehow these professionals and their associations have decided that the ‘identity' of homosexuals is tied to their participation in same-sex activity (surely they wouldn't believe that the ‘identity' or ‘essence' of blacks is their skin color). That most ‘homosexuals' also have sex with the opposite sex and some quit engaging in homosexuality altogether (thus changing their ‘identity' or ‘essence') are facts that are ignored. As far as most of the elite is concerned, the fact that gays complain in a steady drumbeat that they are compelled to have homosexual sex is evidence enough of the reality.

Once you buy the argument about homosexual ‘identity,' it is only a matter of time until these poor folk need ‘protection.' So most judges and most politicians dislike laws that preserve the status or institution of marriage for only husband and wife (although they can often ‘live with' preserving man-woman ‘marriage' in name only). Witness the fact that in Ohio, the Republican governor and both GOP U.S. senators opposed the ballot measure that passed November 2nd protecting marriage as an institution . Likewise, President Bush's remarks just before the election seemed to put him as supporting ‘marriage in all but name' for homosexuals. Bush was clear that he did not agree with the more conservative Republican platform on this issue.

Lawyers are the gay movement's ace-in-the-hole. Matt Foreman , executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said the issue of gay marriage will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. “As we are losing these amendments, we are still on the offensive, winning on marriage in Massachusetts and [potential wins] in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California and Washington state.” Foreman pointed out that a legal challenge to the passed amendments is expected to take place in Georgia and another is pending in Louisiana, which passed its own gay marriage amendment ban on September 14th.

Overall, in 2004, Louisiana (78%) and Missouri (71%) passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage (the Louisiana amendment was thrown out as ‘unconstitutional' by Dist. Judge Morvant on October 5th). Alabama, Nebraska, and Nevada already had bans against gay marriage in place. To date, a total of 41 states (including California) have defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, either by an amendment to their state constitution or by statute. Nonetheless, gay activists continue to be persuaded that they will have their day in court. According to Foreman, “Ultimately this issue, like so many others in history, will be resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court, where they will not give a damn about what the state constitutions say.” ( Washington Blade on line, 11/7/04)

Let us hope that should this occur, conservatives will be fighting — at all levels — to protect the institution of marriage, and not just a name.

Family Research Report critically examines empirical data on families, sexual social policy, AIDS, drug addiction, and homosexuality, digging behind the 'headlines' and breaking new scientific ground.

FRR is published 8 times/year by the Family Research Institute.

Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor

Subscriptions: $25/yr ($40 foreign)

©2004

Family Research Institute

P.O. Box 62640

Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2640

(303) 681-3113

Return to top

Return to the FAMILY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Web site