Contending with Profanity in Jewish Law and in American Society

On some level, I always find that America expresses bi-polarity when it comes to morality. Think about it for a moment. When it comes to sex, we have a Puritan-like taboo on the topic while simultaneously having it on television and advertisements, being told that "sex sells." Being able to swear is no different. We Americans love the ability to say what we want, but we also have this borderline-compulsive desire to bleep out expletives for "decency's sake."

I would like to approach profanity from two standpoints: Jewish law and American jurisprudence. I want to look at the issue Jewishly because 1) I'm Jewish, and 2) Judaism influenced Christianity, and as such, has impacted this bi-polarity. I also want to bring American legal arguments because it's interesting to see how "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" interact and/or conflict with Jewish values. 

Profanity in Jewish Law

Jewish speech ethics are not only nuanced, but they also set a high standard. Since G-d created the universe by speaking (read Genesis 1), Judaism teaches that words have a powerful impact. The Chofetz Chayim points out that speaking לשון הרע (literally "evil tongue," denotes "bad speech ethics"), one can violate up to 31 mitzvot. In Jewish law, it goes well beyond avoiding slander and libel. Gossip, slurs, and negative truths are forbidden under Jewish law. If such restrictions are in Jewish speech ethics, it would be safe to assume that the high bar set also applies to swearing, and you would be correct. Foul language (נבול פה) is also forbidden under Jewish law.

One of the main reasons not to swear under Jewish law it degrades another individual, which is prohibited because we are all "created in His image." But what if you are using swear words to convey intensity of a given feeling? Some people might. Most don't. Since swear words are used so frequently these days, they have lost their intensity, but have not lost their meaning. Plus, if an individual has a sufficiently large vocabulary, he'll find a way to express the same intensity without resorting to swearing.

If you think about it, most swear words are focused on either sex or functions performed in the bathroom. If Judaism teaches that we should elevate the mundane to a level of holiness, especially speech, then swearing is not the way to go about it. Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov (Derech Eretz Rabbah 3:3) compares swearing to pollution: "A person who uses rough language is like a pipe spewing foul odors in a beautiful room."

Given the amount of swearing in our culture, the only way to have a completely swearing-free zone is to live in an insular community with those who have similar values to you. For most of us, however, we hear swear words often enough. For those of us who want to cut back on swearing, we try to apply such high standards to our lives, easily forgetting that we are human, and thus prone to err. Although we might swear from time to time, we have to accept our inconsistencies if we are to minimize the gap between theory and practice in our daily lives. 

Profanity in American Law

It would be nice to close the gap between in theory and practice not just in my private life, but in greater society. If there were a society free of swearing and people speaking unkindly of one another, it would be spiritually liberating, akin to not having to inhale second-hand smoke all the time. It might explain why nearly two-thirds of Americans favor FCC regulation of profanity. 

As nice as it might sound to have the government regulate profanity in the name of moral decency, there's this little thing called the First Amendment. Aside from exigent circumstances such as one's speech inciting violence or causing harm to another, the First Amendment gives an individual the right to free speech. That is why the Supreme Court has upheld such acts as desecration of the American flag (Texas v. Johnson), a Nazi rally in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie), owning pornography (Stanley v. Georgia), depictions of animal cruelty (United States v. Stevens), and the right for the Westboro Baptist Church to disseminate its hate message on public property (Snyder v. Phelps). 

There is no constitutional right to not be offended. As repulsive as these acts might be for a good majority of Americans, they are protected by the First Amendment, whether we like it or not. As tempting as it might be to censor things such as swearing, if we do, it's only a hop, skip, and jump away from having censorship bureaus and have the level of censorship they have in China. 

Additional Thoughts

If you're worried about your children swearing, as I mentioned earlier, you can live in an insular, religious community, such as the Amish or the the Satmar Chasidic community of Kiryas Joel. If that doesn't work, censor television programs that have swears in them. If that doesn't work, have a mature, one-on-one discussion with your child about swearing and how to handle it. Either way, it's called good parenting.

And for those of us that are adults, we are grown up enough to make our own decisions about what we view and what we hear. In America, if we cherish "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness," we should be able to choose the level of obscenity of our media. If you don't want to deal with swearing, shut off the television or find more suitable programming. 

Why should moral puritans and those of the Religious Right, who are a minority, get to dictate the programming of American citizens? In a free society, one of the joys I get is free will. Free will gives us the ability to make moral decisions. I should be given the choice of whether to listen to or use profanity. If that free will is taken away from me, I don't have the ability to actualize my potential in the moralistic sphere. 

To summarize my Jewish libertarian standpoint, it would ideally be nice not to have to deal with profanity. It is spiritually healthier for people. However, we don't live in that ideal world. We have to deal with the pervasiveness of swearing in our culture. As much as a lot of us do not like profanity, there is that reality that we ourselves will give into it because we are human. But we should be given the latitude to deal with it. Those who crusade against profanity shouldn't erode the Constitution to bring about their misconceived notion of utopia. Rather than treat us like children who cannot handle the concept of profanity, maybe citizens should be treated like adults and figure out how to deal with profanity on their own terms.

Conservatives vs. Hispanics?

I came across an article entitled "Public Opinion Snapshot: Conservatives versus Hispanics" from the Center for American Progress (CAP), which identifies itself as progressive. The premise behind the article is that the Republican Party's stance on immigration puts it at odds with the Hispanic community. CAP uses the Hispanic support for the Dream Act, as well as allowing illegal immigrants to attend college at in-state tuition rates, as evidence of how "anti-Hispanic" the GOP is. The ultimate conclusion is that the GOP will pay for its views on immigration in November.

Although immigration policy has a greater impact on the Hispanic community than it does other demographics in this country, viewing the Hispanics as one-issue voters is over-simplified. That's like saying Jewish voters only care about Israel, gay voters only care about gay rights, and that Catholics only care about abortion.

AP and Univisión did a survey of Hispanics back in 2010. A majority (i.e., 65%) of those surveyed were most worried about the state of the economy and unemployment rates. The current unemployment rate of the Hispanic community is currently at 11.0%, which is higher than the recently-reported national unemployment rate of 8.5%. The Hispanic community has been hit hard by the current state of the economy. Is it any wonder that by looking at the Gallup poll and the even more recent Ipsos-Telemundo poll, Obama's approval rating amongst Hispanics is at an all-time low?

Also, looking at campaign promises that Obama made with regard to immigration, he did not adequately keep a single one. Obama's inability to deliver on immigration reform also factors into his low approval ratings in the Hispanic community.

However, this is not to say that the GOP is exactly a fantastic alternative to Obama. Their stance on immigration reform has typically been "put up a fence and enforce our laws on illegal immigration." Such an attitude comes off as hostile towards the Hispanic community. The Republicans would have to come up with a more comprehensive immigration reform plan to put in their party platform if they want an overwhelming support from the Hispanic population. This might be a good idea since the Hispanic accounted for a majority of the population growth in the past decade.

Even if the GOP decides not to change its immigration stance [right away], they can still gain a number of Hispanic votes by appealing to them with promises of job creation, something which has not been a strong suit during Obama's term in office. Although the GOP will have a difficult time convincing Hispanics to vote Republican, the Hispanic vote is anything but a guarantee for Obama and the Democrats in the upcoming elections.

Why America Shouldn't Adopt the Value-Added Tax

The value-added tax, better known as the VAT, is a consumption-based tax that assesses a tax during each stage of production of a given good. This was brought to my attention because I was reading a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece by Daniel Mitchell pointing out that in a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he would be open to the idea of implementing the VAT in the United States.

There are some things that I like about the VAT. There would be an equal tax burden on each stage of production, rather than having the burden solely on the distributor of the final product. The VAT is a much simpler form of taxation than, let's say, the progressive income tax we currently have, which means less bureaucracy. The end result of both equally distributed burden and simplified flat rate is increased revenue with less inefficiencies. Also, the VAT is more in lines with a free society. Under the current system, you don't have any say as to how much you pay in taxes. However, with the VAT, you can pay as much or little as you want in taxes because it's directly linked with consumption. If it's high enough, it might even incentivize you to save up some money instead of go into over-consumption mode.

If every other country in the OECD has implemented the VAT, why shouldn't America? To answer that question, here are some issues I have with implementing it here:

1. Although the VAT can incentivize savings, it could just as easily backfire and have a detrimental effect on consumption if the rate of taxation is too high.
2. The richer members of society will consume more goods, and thus put more into tax revenue. In theory, this should equalize tax burden amongst socio-economic classes. However, there is an issue where you have more inelastic goods, such as food, clothing, or even gasoline. When discussing such inelastic goods, the tax becomes more regressive, thereby further hammering the poor with tax burdens.
3. There are still issues with enforcement of the VAT. Unlike the flat tax, the VAT involves many stages of production, which means that there would have to be greater enforcement mechanisms in place to make sure the tax is being paid.  Tax evasion with the VAT has been an ongoing problem both in Europe and in China.  As such, any reduction in costs of the simplification of the tax code would most likely be negated by enforcement costs. 
4. As Mitchell brings up in his op-ed, Congress would realize that the tax is more efficient, and thus cause a tax hike because they would not think that they have reached the top of the Laffer curve yet. 
5. Even if Mitchell is wrong about the VAT being a carte blanche to increase taxes, many people are forgetting something. This tax would most probably not be in lieu of the current tax system. If it were, I, along with other economists, would feel differently. Knowing the politicians in Washington, if this were ever to pass, my educated guess would be that the VAT would be in addition to the current tax system, thereby creating a greater tax burden for the American people. 

Much like they did back in 2010 (see Section 11 of H.R. 4851), I hope that Congress has the minimal common sense to maintain the stance that implementing the VAT, especially in this economy, is not only bad policy, but against their self-interest, especially if they're up for re-election this year.


1-9-2019 Addendum: The World Bank recently released a paper (Gunter et al., 2018) not only showing that VATs come with a large, negative tax multiplier, but that it is worse in developed nations because they have a high tax burden to begin with. 

Does Krugman Understand Debt?

U.S. debt is at 100% of GDP, and citizens are worried. Odds are that reducing the debt will be a hot-button topic in the upcoming elections, especially considering that Obama has increased U.S. debt by more than four trillion since he took office.

Keynesian economist Paul Krugman recently wrote an op-ed piece entitled "Nobody Understands Debt." Krugman's bottom line is that although the issue with deficits is not unimportant, there are more important things to worry about than ever-climbing debt. Is he correct that we shouldn't be as worried about debt as we actually are?  

He brings up the point that we don't have to pay off the debt like a family does.  I'll give him that. As long as we're paying interest on the debt, and that our GDP growth exceeds what we owe in debt, it's not an issue. Debt is not inherently a bad thing. 

History of debt-to-GDP ratio is also interesting. Looking at data provided by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Krugman points out that the United Kingdom's debt had been over 100% for quite some years. Japan reached 203% after World War Two, but was able to pay it off. Even the United States reached 121%, where it eventually reached a low of 32.2% in 1974. Historically speaking, paying off debt that is at ridiculously high amounts in comparison to economic growth is indeed possible. Maybe Krugman is right. 

I also have an alternative idea: Krugman should apply the op-ed title of "Nobody Understands Debt" to himself.

Does Krugman think uttering the words "we owe it [the debt] to ourselves" makes the problem go away? It won't. The trajectory of government spending shows that the problem is only going to get worse, not better, especially considering that more and more Baby Boomers are going to retire and consume more Social Security and Medicare. This is only going to get more burdensome, unless you believe in the Ricardian Equivalence, which Krugman himself calls a "dubious doctrine."

As economist John Cochrane points out, Krugman never asks where the money comes from, which is important. Borrowing is not costless, which is something that Nobel Laureate James M. Buchanan brings up in his work Public Principles of Public Debt. Money doesn't grow on trees, and capital does not come out of thin air. Since the government does not have any money of its own, guess where it has to borrow from? The private sector. Every dollar that gets put in the public sector gets taken away from the private sector. The private sector ultimately creates wealth. Although it's beyond the scope of this blog entry, it should go without saying that a considerably large amount of money that government spends is done so inefficiently (i.e., for every dollar spent by the government, less than a dollar of benefit is derived). 

Krugman is right that we need to get out of the unemployment trap. But if you're under the impression that increased government spending has nothing to do with economic woes, think again. Increased government spending impedes job growth in the short-run and transfers economic burdens in the long-run.

Top Twenty Blog Entries for 2011

As we approach the end of 2011, I look back on the blog entries that I have wrote throughout the year.  It was so hard to narrow the list to a "Top 10" that I had to expand it to a "Top 20" list.  Looking at factors such as most page views, comments posted on the entries, as well as what I thought was best-written, did not make the endeavor any easier.  Since I was unable to devise a rating system, the entries are rated based on the chronology that they were written.  Enjoy!  May you have a Happy 2012!

1) I used to find myself in numerous arguments with Christians, whether they be friends or acquaintances, where they were asserting that Jesus was the Messiah. Looking at the text from a Jewish perspective, I knew that Jesus was anything but the Messiah. The existence of two perspectives does not mean they are both valid. In order to break the argument of intellectual relativism, I wrote a concise, but nevertheless convincing and well-cited argument as to why Jesus was not the Messiah according to criteria in Hebrew Scriptures.

2) My religious criticism is not limited to Christianity. A few weeks later, I wrote a piece putting the claim of "Islam is a religion of peace" into question. After looking at multiple factors, including the nature of Koran, the history of Muhammed, the history of how Islam has been practiced, and how Islam is currently practiced, the conclusion was that if Islam has any hope of being considered a peaceful religion, it has to overcome significant hurdles, much greater than those of the Protestant Reformation.

3) Orthodox Jews look forward to a day where the Third Temple is reinstated and that sacrifices can be re-instated. Many Christians like to inaccurately analogize the sacrificial system with Jesus' crucifixion. Both tend to forget that sacrifices were a means, not an ends, to getting closer to G-d, upon which this blog entry focuses.

4) The Left has the mentality that anything and everything is a right. The self-entitlement mentality extends to health care. Looking at the health care issue from the perspective of natural rights upon this country was founded, it turns out that health care is not a right.

5) Without question, this was the blog that received the most page views. Leviticus 18:22 has been used throughout history to condemn homosexual behavior, but after a considerably profound analysis of the verse in its context, the verse leads to many interpretations, none of which that line up with what the Religious Right has to say on the issue.

6) Obama hasn't exactly catered to the Jewish population as well as American Jews were expecting, hence the decrease of Jewish support for Obama. One of the biggest gaffes that Obama made this past year was calling for a "return to the 'pre-1967' borders."

7) Those "progressives" in San Francisco were at it again! This time, it was with an attempt to ban circumcision. For the sake of the freedom to parent in accordance with one's religious views, I'm so glad the measure did not pass.

8) Global warming, now referred to as climate change because it was easier to stick with one name rather than switch back and forth between global warming and global cooling, has reached a status of being an unquestionable fact of life. Knowing that the scientific establishment has never been wrong (think of claims that the earth was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe), I gave skepticism of climate change a go this past June. Although I don't consider this entry a Top 20 entry, I nevertheless became skeptical of my skepticism later this year since I find it to be healthy for one's intellect.

9) This blog entry received the second largest amount of page views. A libertarian actually made an argument against gay marriage from a libertarian perspective, but ultimately fell short.

10) I have written blog entries about why we should get out of Afghanistan, but this entry covers the reasoning from an economic perspective.

11) I think we still live in a country in which dissent is patriotism, which is why I spent part of my Fourth of July questioning whether America is the greatest nation on earth. Let's just say that there were multiple factors to consider, and that there was no easy answer to the question.

12) As if questioning Christianity or Islam were not fun enough, I decided to do so with my own religion. I took a look at the practice of tzedakah and tried to see if there were a way to get out of the practice. After looking at all attempts to excuse myself from giving tzedakah, I found that although I could not completely eliminate the mitzvah, I could limit the extent to which I give tzedakah.

13) This had to be one of my personal favorites for 2011: Why Biblical Literalism is Folly.  The title speaks for itself.

14) So many Jews, especially those that religiously lean to the Left, equate Judaism with social action. Although there are certain values that might line up with tikkun olam, the attempt to reduce Judaism to social action led me to tell Jews to take it easy with tikkun olam.

15) Many capitalists can talk about the economic efficiencies of the free market, but rarely do we hear about the morality behind capitalism. Rather than lack morality, capitalism actually ends up being morally superior to socialism.

16) Throughout history, many individuals have used the concept of "the Chosen People" to advance their anti-Semitism. Aside from the fact that every group of people has been guilty of ethnocentrism at some point, the notion of the "chosen people" is not what you would think.

17) Rick Perry made a supposed faux pas when he said that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. I took his assertion one step further: I opined that Social Security is actually worse than a Ponzi scheme.

18) With the increased media attention of the Occupy Wall Street movement, I asked myself about income inequality and whether it is morally problematic. After giving it some thought, I am not bothered by the existence of income inequality, especially to the extent which those on the Left are.

19) Especially with the class welfare rhetoric that has existed in the news lately, it emboldens one's resolve to think that the rich have it so easy. Looking at this from a Jewish perspective, Abraham had many riches. You would think that he were living without challenges, but his richness actually created additional burden.

20) This past November, Mississippi tried to pass a bill defining personhood at the moment of conception. Too bad the pro-lifers advocating for the passage of the bill did not realize that implementing the policy would cause unintended consequences.

The Wealthy and Taxation: What is "Their Fair Share?"

The Pew Research Center put out recent survey data as to what the American people think about the tax system.  When asked about "what bothers you most about the tax system," the number one answer was "the wealthy people don't pay their fair share."  Not surprisingly, there is a partisan divide on this one.  73% of Democrats agree, whereas 38% of Republicans agree.  Interestingly enough, 57% of Independents agree.  For those who feel this way, here's my question to you: what constitutes as one's "fair share?"

Before figuring out whether the rich are paying their fair share, it would behoove us to see how much everyone is paying in taxes.  Looking at the percentage that individuals pay in taxes (both federal and state/local) comparison the shares of comprehensive household market income, the top forty percent pay more in proportion (see Tables 21 and 22).  If they pay more in proportion, then the dollar amount they pay is surely higher than what the poor pay.

Let's consider the notion of redistributive justice, which allocates property and wealth in a "socially just" manner.  The poor don't have enough, and it's up to the government to redistribute wealth so that they can have a decent living.  That would be typical rhetoric from the Left.  For the Left, desired outcome would be a smaller Gini coefficient, which is a measurement of income inequality.  That could very well sound fair.  We're all equal in the sense that we receive the same amount, which would eliminate any income inequality.  But it was Winston Churchill who said that "socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.  Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."  The notion of equality of income has never boded well for mankind.

The Pilgrims tried income distribution and nearly died because of it.  The Former Soviet Union gave it a go, and life couldn't be more miserable.  Chairman Mao Zedong redistributed food in the Great Leap Forward, which killed well over twenty million.  Over history, the United States government has implemented certain programs (e.g., Medicare, welfare, Social Security), and debt has now reached 100% of GDP.  Amazing how any attempts at equality of income minimize equality and opportunity.

This country was built on the idea that all men are created equal.  If that were the case, then everyone would pay the same percentage in taxes.  A progressive income tax does not do that.  You know what does?  A flat tax.

Two more alternative views before I conclude.  The first is that life is not fair.  There has always been income inequality, and no government programs can adequately mitigate the issue.  The second is there is nothing wrong with income inequality, something which I have discussed before.

Do I think the rich pay their fair share?  Yes, I do.  Since rich people pay more in absolute dollars and percentage-wise in tax dollars than the poor, I think they pay more than their fair share in taxes.  But good luck telling that to those who perpetuate class welfare in order to aggrandize Big Government.

Is Ten Percent of the Population Homosexual?

It's always nice to know that you can meet up with your high school friends with whom you have kept in touch all these years and still partake in political polemics as if nothing has changed.  Granted, I became libertarian since then, and thus don't agree with the Right like I used to, but it's still pleasant to have that sense of nostalgia with good friends.

I had such a rendez-vous with some Left-leaning high school friends yesterday. Although a good number of topics came up in discussion, the one that lasted the longest and was the most heated was whether a tenth of the population was homosexual.  Whether it was personal experience, intuition, or previous, brief encounter with a small handful of studies, I didn't agree with the "ten percent gospel" that has its origins in the well-renowned Kinsey study.  As I should well know by now, if you question something that someone else deems "unquestionable," the response is "attack mode."  As long as it's not personal, I don't mind the heated debate since the important thing at the end is ascertaining the truth.

I was told by one of my friends that I should look at the Kinsey study, as well as the Time Magazine article from 2004.  A lot more has been published on the subject since Kinsey, and the article from Time didn't answer the question of "what percent of the population is gay?"  Regardless, I was going to look at the data to see if my friends were right.

It's not only a matter of the fact that homosexuality is a hot-button issue in America.  Both sides have a stake in the debate, which is why I am just as skeptical of the Left's 10% claim as I am of the Right's claim of a considerably small homosexual population. 

A paramount question is how one goes about defining "homosexual."  Is a homosexual who has only one sexual encounter with someone of the same sex? Can we define a homosexual as someone who exclusively or predominantly has sexual relations with someone of the same-sex?  Are people who self-identify as homosexual an accurate measurement of the homosexual population?  As we go through the prominent studies on the matter, let's keep these questions in mind.  

A look at the Kinsey study itself: The Kinsey study was under heavy criticism for selection bias.  But let's consider that the Kinsey study isn't methodologically flawed, because no study ever is, right?  Under the Kinsey study, 37% of males and 13% of females have had at least one overt homosexual experience.  A good majority of us are not going to consider translating one homosexual interaction into being homosexual.  The colloquialisms for such an experience are "experimenting" or "being bi-curious."

Analyzing more long-lasting findings, the study shows that 10% of males and 2-6% of females were exclusively homosexual.  80% of the aforementioned males (i.e., 8% of the statistic sample) were exclusively homosexual for at least three years.  However, 4% of males and 1-3% of females were exclusively or predominantly homosexual from the onset of adolescence.  How long does someone have to have same-sex attraction to be considered homosexual?  Your answer is going to vary based on your definition.  In spite of that, the revered study hardly claims that 10% of the population is homosexual.

The Census Bureau findings are commonly used by those on the Right because the percentage is around 2-4%.  The Census Bureau has a few flaws.  First is that there is no explicit question asking about sexual orientation.  The person filling out the form has to report how the other person is related to them, which causes ambiguities in the answer.  There is still the social stigma of being homosexual, which means people are hesitant to put their sexuality on the form.  Even if that stigma didn't exist, there will still be people out there who feel that it's none of the government's business.  

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) recently did a study on sexual behavior. The study measured sexuality on two primary levels.  The first is the sexual act itself (Table 10).  Does having any sexual contact count?  Does it have to be a specific act?  And again, does partaking in a single homosexual act render you homosexual?  Then there's the matter of sexual identity.  How the question is framed brings about different answers.  Being framed in terms of "Are you mostly [or partly] homosexual/heterosexual, or just bisexual (Table 11)" has different results than "Do you consider yourself heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or other (Table 12)."  You can finagle over 10% from Table 11 if you lump in people who consider themselves mostly heterosexual.  You can't pull it off with the findings from Table 12.

The Williams Institute, which essentially is a think tank for issues regarding advocacy for sexual orientation, did a study about same-sex couples and individuals in the United States.  Looking at Table 2, the state with the highest estimation of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals was Washington DC at 8.1%.  Since the sample maximum is below 10%, there is no way the national mean is 10%, which means that according to this pro-gay rights study, the LGB (Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual) population is not 10%.

Even a 2010 study, which grabbed the Huffington Post's attention because it was "the largest survey on the topic published since the 1990s," does not match up to the 10%.  Looking at Table 1 (p. 258), 92.2% of men and 93.1% of women identified as heterosexual.  You would have to include bisexuals to have a median population parameter of 5.65%, which is a fancy way of saying that it doesn't make it to 10%.  Even if you decide to use sexual acts within the past year as an indicator (which is better than sexual acts over a lifetime, but still is limited in terms of meaning), none of the homosexual acts reach the 10% mark.

Postscript: There are other studies on the issue, but the major, peer-reviewed ones have been covered in this blog entry.  In order to make the "ten percent" argument, one would have to make the definition of "homosexual" so broad that it included bisexuals, individuals with very transient same-sex attraction [much like in the Kinsey study], and those who have had at least one lifetime homosexual act, all of which undermine the claim itself.  This is truly a stretch of statistical data to bolster numbers.  Looking at the data puts the percentage closer to five or six percent.

Does this mean that Americans should stop focusing on making sure that homosexuals are provided their rights?  Absolutely not!  Having a smaller percentage of homosexuals in society does not mean we abandon the endeavor of making sure that the government protects the natural rights for homosexuals, an endeavor that will most likely be the civil rights issue of our time.  However, the continued usage of the "ten percent" statistic only debilitates credibility.  Those who argue for gay rights don't need to use exaggerated numbers when they already have the advantage of a sound argument.

6-5-2016 Addendum: Last Wednesday, the Archives of Sexual Behavior published a study showing the prevalence of same-sex behavior. The number of men having sex with at least one man increased from 4.5 percent in the early 1990s to 8.2 percent in the late 2010s. For women having sexual relations with women, that increased from 3.6 to 8.7 percent within the same time period. Given the increased societal acceptance of homosexuals and homosexuality, these findings could simply mean that more people are comfortable reporting their true sexuality and sexual practices. Assuming that a) these figures are correct and b) we want to use the definition provided in the study, they are still slightly below the 10 percent mark.

5-22-2018 Addendum: Gallup estimates that 4.5 percent of the U.S. population is homosexual.