LGBT demographics of the United States

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

The demographics of sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States have been more accurately studied in the social sciences in recent decades. In the first large-scale government survey measuring Americans’ sexual orientation, the NHIS reported in July 2014 that 1.6 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent identify as bisexual.[1] In a Williams Institute review based on an June–September 2012 Gallup poll, approximately 3.4 percent of American adults identify themselves as being LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender).[2] An earlier report published in April 2011 by the Williams Institute estimated that 3.8 percent of Americans identified as gay/lesbian, bisexual, or transgender: 1.7 percent as lesbian or gay, 1.8 percent as bisexual, and 0.3 percent as transgender.[3] The 2011 Williams Institute report also states that 8.2 percent of Americans reported that they had engaged in same-sex sexual behavior, and 11 percent reported some same-sex attraction. Studies from several nations, including the U.S., conducted at varying time periods, have produced a statistical range of 1.2[3] to 6.8[4] percent of the adult population identifying as LGBT. Online surveys tend to yield higher figures than other methods,[4] a likely result of the higher degree of anonymity of Internet surveys, which elicit reduced levels of socially desirable responding.[5]

LGBT Adult Percentage by State in 2012.

State-by-state summary

Pop.
Rank
 %
Rank
State or Territory 2012 LGBT
Adult Percentage
Estimate[6]
2012 State
Total Population
Estimate[7]
2012 LGBT
Adult Population
Estimate
2000
Same-Sex Couple
Households[8]
2010
Same-Sex Couple
Households[9]
2000 to 2010
Couple Households
Growth[10]
LGB

Employment

Discrimination

Transgender

Employment

Discrimination

1 10  California 4.0% 38,041,430 1,338,164 92,138 98,153 6.53% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
2 32  Texas 3.6% 26,059,203 579,968 42,912 46,401 8.13% No state-level protections No state-level protections
3 14  New York 3.8% 19,570,261 570,388 46,490 48,932 4.05% Protections for all employment Protections only in public employment
4 23  Florida 3.5% 19,317,568 513,847 41,048 48,496 18.15% No state-level protections No state-level protections
5 16  Illinois 3.8% 12,875,255 362,048 22,887 23,049 0.07% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
6 21  Ohio 3.6% 11,544,225 315,592 18,937 19,684 3.95% Protections only in public employment No state-level protections
7 15  Michigan 3.8% 9,883,360 285,431 15,368 14,598 -5.0% Protections only in public employment Protections only in public employment
8 22  Georgia 3.5% 9,919,945 263,870 19,288 21,318 10.52% No state-level protections No state-level protections
9 44  Pennsylvania 2.7% 12,763,536 262,308 21,166 22,336 5.50% Protections only in public employment Protections only in public employment
10 18  New Jersey 3.7% 8,864,590 249,273 16,604 16,875 1.60% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
11 31  North Carolina 3.3% 9,752,073 244,582 16,198 18,309 11.36% No state-level protections No state-level protections
12 7  Massachusetts 4.4% 6,646,144 247,247 17,099 20,256 18.46% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
13 11  Washington 4.0% 6,897,012 209,670 15,900 19,003 19.51% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
14 13  Arizona 3.9% 6,553,255 194,238 12,332 15,817 28.25% Protections only in public employment No state-level protections
15 19  Indiana 3.7% 6,537,334 183,829 10,219 11,074 8.37% Protections only in public employment Protections only in public employment
16 37  Virginia 2.9% 8,185,867 180,416 13,802 14,243 3.20% Protections only in public employment Protections only in public employment
17 30  Missouri 3.3% 6,021,988 151,032 9,428 10,557 10.70% Protections only in public employment No state-level protections
18 29  Maryland 3.3% 5,884,563 147,584 11,243 12,538 11.52% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
19 4  Oregon 4.9% 3,899,353 145,212 8,932 11,773 31.80% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
20 12  Kentucky 3.9% 4,380,415 129,836 7,114 7,195 1.13% Protections only in public employment Protections only in public employment
21 48  Tennessee 2.6% 6,456,243 127,526 10,189 10,898 6.95% No state-level protections No state-level protections
22 34  Colorado 3.2% 5,187,582 126,162 10,045 12,424 23.70% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
23 41  Wisconsin 2.8% 5,726,398 121,858 8,232 9,179 10.32% Protections for all employment No state-level protections
24 36  Minnesota 2.9% 5,379,139 118,556 9,147 10,207 11.60% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
25 33  Louisiana 3.2% 4,601,893 111,918 8,808 8,076 -8.31% No state-level protections No state-level protections
26 38  South Carolina 2.9% 4,723,723 104,111 7,609 7,214 5.20% No state-level protections No state-level protections
27 43  Alabama 2.8% 4,822,023 102,613 8,109 6,582 -18.80% No state-level protections No state-level protections
28 27  Oklahoma 3.4% 3,814,820 98,575 5,763 6,134 6.44% No state-level protections No state-level protections
29 9  Nevada 4.2% 2,758,931 88,065 4,973 7,140 43.60% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
30 20  Kansas 3.7% 2,885,905 81,152 3,973 4,009 0.09% No state-level protections No state-level protections
31 24  Arkansas 3.5% 2,949,131 78,441 4,423 4,226 -4.45% No state-level protections No state-level protections
32 25  Connecticut 3.4% 3,590,347 92,775 7,386 7,852 6.30% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
33 42  Iowa 2.8% 3,074,186 65,419 3,698 4,093 10.70% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
34 49  Mississippi 2.6% 2,984,926 58,982 4,774 3,484 -27.00% No state-level protections No state-level protections
35 47  Utah 2.7% 2,855,287 58,591 3,360 5,814 73.03% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
36 2  Hawaii 5.1% 1,392,313 53,966 2,389 3,239 35.45% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
37 5  Maine 4.8% 1,329,192 48,489 3,394 3,958 16.61% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
38 1  District of Columbia 10.0% 632,323 48,057 3,678 4,822 31.10% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
39 40  New Mexico 2.9% 2,085,538 45,965 4,496 5,825 25.56% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
40 35  West Virginia 3.1% 1,855,413 43,713 2,916 2,848 -2.33% No state-level protections No state-level protections
41 45  Nebraska 2.7% 1,855,525 38,075 2,332 2,356 0.01% No state-level protections No state-level protections
42 17  New Hampshire 3.7% 1,320,718 31,138 2,703 3,260 20.60% Protections for all employment No state-level protections
43 6  Rhode Island 4.5% 1,050,292 35,920 2,471 2,785 12.71% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
44 46  Idaho 2.7% 1,595,728 32,744 1,873 2,042 9.02% No state-level protections No state-level protections
45 8  South Dakota 4.4% 833,354 27,867 826 714 -13.36% No state-level protections No state-level protections
46 26  Delaware 3.4% 917,092 23,698 1,868 2,646 41.65% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
47 3  Vermont 4.9% 626,011 23,313 1,933 2,143 10.61% Protections for all employment Protections for all employment
48 50  Montana 2.6% 1,005,141 19,862 1,218 1,848 10.70% Protections only in public employment No state-level protections
49 28  Alaska 3.4% 731,449 24,869 1,180 1,228 4.06% Protections only in public employment No state-level protections
50 39  Wyoming 2.9% 576,412 16,716 807 657 -18.60% No state-level protections No state-level protections
51 51   North Dakota 1.7% 699,628 9,040 703 559 -20.50 No state-level protections No state-level protections
Total 3.8% Total Population 313,914,039: Adult Population 238,574,670:[11] 9,083,558 [12] 594,391 646,464 8.76%

By locality

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found. The American cities with the highest gay populations are New York City with 272,493, Los Angeles with 154,270, Chicago with 114,449, and San Francisco with 94,234, as estimated by the Williams Institute in 2006.[13] However, one is much more likely to encounter gay residents in San Francisco, Seattle, Atlanta, Minneapolis, and Boston as a higher percentage of those cities' residents are gay or lesbian.

The U.S. metropolitan areas with the most gay residents are the New York, New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island, New York metro with 568,903; followed by Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana, California with 442,211; and the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin metro with 288,748.[14]

The charts below show a list of the top U.S. cities (in alphabetical order), metropolitan areas, and states with the highest population of gay residents and the highest percentage of gay residents (GLB population as a percentage of total residents based on available census data).[13] The numbers given are estimates based on American Community Survey data for the year 2000.[15]

By city

Cities with the highest percentage of LGBTs in 2006.
%
Rank
City 2005
LGB
Percentage
Estimate[16]
2005
LGB
Population
Estimate[16]
1 Flag of San Francisco.svg San Francisco 15.4% 94,234
2 Seattle 12.9% 57,993
3 Atlanta flag.png Atlanta 12.8% 39,805
4 23x15px Minneapolis 12.5% 34,295
5  Boston 12.3% 50,450
6 Flag of Sacramento, California.svg Sacramento 9.8% 32,108
7 Flag of Portland Oregon.svg Portland, OR 8.8% 35,413
8 Flag of Denver, Colorado.svg Denver 8.2% 33,698
9 Flag of the District of Columbia.svg Washington, D.C. 8.1% 32,599
10 Flag of Orlando, Florida.png Orlando 7.7% 12,508
11 Salt Lake City 7.6% 10,726
12 Flag of Dallas.svg Dallas 7.0% 58,473
13 Flag of Baltimore, Maryland.svg Baltimore 6.9% 30,778
14 Hartford 6.8% 5,292
15 25px Rochester 6.8% 9,371
16 Flag of San Diego, California.svg San Diego 6.8% 61,945
17 Flag of St. Louis, Missouri.svg St. Louis 6.8% 16,868
18 Flag of Columbus, Ohio.svg Columbus 6.7% 34,952
19 Flag of Kansas City, Missouri.svg Kansas City 6.7% 22,360
20 Phoenix 6.4% 63,222
21 Flag of Tampa, Florida.svg Tampa 6.1% 14,119
22 Flag of San Jose, California.png San Jose 5.8% 37,260
23  Chicago 5.7% 114,449
24 Flag of Birmingham, Alabama.svg Birmingham 5.6% 9,263
25  Los Angeles 5.6% 154,270
26 Flag of Miami, Florida.svg Miami 5.5% 15,227
27 Nashville-Davidson 5.1% 20,313
28 Flag of New Orleans, Louisiana.svg New Orleans 5.1% 16,554
29 Austin 4.8% 24,615
30 Flag of Indianapolis.svg Indianapolis 4.8% 26,712
31 Providence 4.8% 5,564
32 Flag of Las Vegas, Nevada.svg Las Vegas 4.6% 17,925
33 Flag of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.svg Milwaukee 4.6% 18,243
34  New York City 4.5% 272,493
35  Houston 4.4% 61,976

By metropolitan area

Metropolitan Area 2006
% LGB Est.[13]
2006
LGB Pop. Est.[13]
2012-2014

% LGB

Est.[17]

2006-2014

Change in

% LGB

Est.[17]

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont 8.2% 256,313 6.2% -2.0% Decrease
Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton 6.1% 94,027 5.4% -0.7% Decrease
Austin-Round Rock 5.9% 61,732 5.3% -0.6% Decrease
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner 3.7% 35,230 5.1% 1.4% Increase
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue 6.5% 154,835 4.8% -1.7% Decrease
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy 6.2% 201,344 4.8% -1.4% Decrease
Salt Lake City 3.7% 26,761 4.7% 1.0% Increase
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana (Anaheim) 4.8% 442,211 4.6% -0.2% Decrease
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood 5.8% 99,027 4.6% -1.2% Decrease
Hartford-West Hartfod-East Hartford 5.6% 49,000 4.6% -1.0% Decrease
Louisville/Jefferson County 4.2% 17,102 4.5% 0.3% Increase
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News 3.9% 44,689 4.4% 0.5% Increase
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River (Warwick) 3.6% 43,417 4.4% 0.8% Increase
Las Vegas-(Henderson)-Paradise 3.9% 48,532 4.3% 0.4% Increase
Columbus 5.5% 68,300 4.3% -1.2% Decrease
Jacksonville 4.0% 36,422 4.3% 0.3% Increase
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach (West Palm Beach) 4.5% 183,346 4.2% -0.3% Decrease
Indianapolis-(Carmel-Anderson) 4.5% 52,963 4.2% -0.3% Decrease
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta (Roswell) 5.1% 180,168 4.2% -0.9% Decrease
Orlando-Kissimmee 5.7% 81,272 4.1% -1.6% Decrease
Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater 5.9% 119,044 4.1% -1.8% Decrease
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale 4.8% 132,960 4.1% -0.7% Decrease
New York-Newark-Jersey City 4.1% 568,903 4.0% -0.1% Decrease
San Antonio-(New Braunfels) 3.5% 46,188 4.0% 0.5% Increase
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria 5.0% 191,959 4.0% -1.0% Decrease
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario 4.9% 131,555 4.0% -0.9% Decrease
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington 4.2% 179,459 3.9% -0.3% Decrease
Baltimore-(Columbia)-Towson 5.2% 100,031 3.9% -1.3% Decrease
Buffalo-(Cheektowaga)-Niagara Falls 3.3% 28,193 3.9% 0.6% Increase
Detroit-Warren-Livonia (Dearborn) 3.0% 98,402 3.9% 0.9% Increase
Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade 5.5% 81,759 3.9% -1.6% Decrease
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos 4.9% 102,016 3.9% -1.0% Decrease
Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia 3.3% 36,464 3.8% 0.5% Increase
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet (Elgin) 4.3% 288,748 3.8% -0.5% Decrease
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington 4.5% 183,718 3.8% -0.7% Decrease
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor 4.3% 66,943 3.7% -0.6% Decrease
Kansas City 5.1% 72,080 3.6% -1.5% Decrease
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington 5.7% 130,472 3.6% -2.1% Decrease
St. Louis 4.1% 83,769 3.6% -0.5% Decrease
Oklahoma City 3.3% 28,288 3.5% 0.2% Increase
Richmond 3.4% 28,750 3.5% 0.1% Increase
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-(Franklin) 3.8% 57,027 3.5% -0.3% Decrease
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis 3.7% 40,407 3.5% -0.2% Decrease
Houston-(The Woodlands)-Sugar Land-Baytown 4.1% 152,288 3.3% -0.8% Decrease
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara 5.0% 63,941 3.2% -1.8% Decrease
Raleigh 3.2%
Cincinnati-Middletown 3.8% 57,027 3.2% -0.6% Decrease
Memphis 3.4% 30,531 3.1% -0.3% Decrease
Pittsburgh 2.8% 50,994 3.0% 0.2% Increase
Birmingham-Hoover 3.0% 24,276 2.6% -0.4% Decrease

Statistics by year

1990s

1990

"Homosexuality/Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation" published findings of 13.95% of males and 4.25% of females having had either "extensive" or "more than incidental" homosexual experience.[18]

1990

An extensive study on sexuality in general was conducted in the United States. A significant portion of the study was geared towards homosexuality. The results found that 8.6% of women and 10.1% of men had at one point in their life experienced some form of homosexuality. Of these, 87% of women and 76% of men reported current same-sex attractions, 41% of women and 52% of men had sex with someone of the same gender, and 16% of women and 27% of men identified as LGBT.[19]

1990–92

The American National Health Interview Survey conducts household interviews of the civilian non-institutionalized population. The results of three of these surveys, done in 1990–91 and based on over 9,000 responses each time, found between 2–3% of the people responding said yes to a set of statements which included "You are a man who has had sex with another man at some time since 1977, even one time."[20]

1992

The National Health and Social Life Survey asked 3,432 respondents whether they had any homosexual experience. The findings were 1.3% for women within the past year, and 4.1% since 18 years; for men, 2.7% within the past year, and 4.9% since 18 years.[21]

1993

The Alan Guttmacher Institute of sexually active men aged 20–39 found that 2.3% had experienced same-sex sexual activity in the last ten years, and 1.1% reported exclusive homosexual contact during that time.[22]

1993

Researchers Samuel and Cynthia Janus surveyed American adults aged 18 and over by distributing 4,550 questionnaires; 3,260 were returned and 2,765 were usable. The results of the cross-sectional nationwide survey stated men and women who reported frequent or ongoing homosexual experiences were 9% of men and 5% of women.[23]

1994

Laumann et al. analyzed the National Health and Social Life Survey of 1992 which had surveyed 3,432 men and women in the United States between the ages of 18 and 59 and reported that the incidence rate of homosexual desire was 7.7% for men and 7.5% for women.[24]

1998

A random survey of 1672 males (number used for analysis) aged 15 to 19. Subjects were asked a number of questions, including questions relating to same-sex activity. This was done using two methods—a pencil and paper method, and via computer, supplemented by a verbal rendition of the questionnaire heard through headphones—which obtained vastly different results. There was a 400% increase in males reporting homosexual activity when the computer-audio system was used: from a 1.5% to 5.5% positive response rate; the homosexual behavior with the greatest reporting difference (800%, adjusted) was to the question "Ever had receptive anal sex with another male": 0.1% to 0.8%.[25]

2000s

2000

During the 2000 US presidential election campaign, market research firm Harris Interactive studied the prevalence of a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender identity employing three distinct methods. In phone interviews, 2% of the population self-identified as LGBT. Using in-person surveys with a blind envelope, that number was 4%. And using online polls, 6%. The group concluded that the difference between methods was due to the greater level of anonymity and privacy to online surveys, which provides more comfort to respondents to share their experiences.[26]

2003

Smith's 2003 analysis of National Opinion Research Center data[27] states that 4.9% of sexually active American males have had a male sexual partner since age 18, but that "since age 18 less than 1% are [exclusively] gay and 4+% bisexual". In the top twelve urban areas however, the rates are double the national average. Smith adds, "It is generally believed that including adolescent behavior would further increase these rates." The NORC data has been criticised because the original design sampling techniques were not followed, and depended upon direct self-report regarding masturbation and same sex behaviors. (For example, the original data in the early 1990s reported that approximately 40% of adult males had never masturbated—a finding inconsistent with some other studies.)[citation needed]

2003

In a telephone survey of 4,193 male residents of New York City, 91.3% of men identified as straight, 3.7% as gay, and 1.2% as bisexual. 1.7% said they were in doubt or were not sure and 2.1% declined to answer. 12.4% of men who responded to the sexual orientation question, reported sex exclusively with men in the 12 months prior to the survey. Most of them (~70%) identified as heterosexual.[28]

2005

The American Community Survey from the U.S. Census estimated 776,943 same-sex couples in the country as a whole, representing about 0.5% of the population.[13]

2006

Fried's 2008 analysis of General Social Survey data shows the percentage of United States males reporting homosexual activity for three time periods: 1988–92, 1993–98, and 2000–06. These results are broken out by political party self-identification, and indicate increasing percentages, particularly among Democrats (perhaps reflecting, in the authors' view, either a shift of political allegiance among gay Americans, or increasing likelihood of acknowledging a homosexual orientation).[29]

2007

Cornell University, carrying out research into sexuality amongst a representative sample of more than 20,000 young Americans, published that 14.4% of young women were not strictly heterosexual in behavior, a group that included lesbian and bisexual women; 5.6% of young men self-identified as being gay or bisexual.[30] The percentage

General Social Survey, 2008

The GSS's first survey asking interviewees directly about their sexual identification, it found 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, 1.1% as bisexual, and 97.3% as heterosexual.[31]

2008

CNN exit polling showed self-identified gay, lesbian, and bisexual voters at 4% of the voting population in the United States presidential election, 2008.[32]

2010s

2003-2010

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys interviewed a nationally representative sample of 11,744 adults aged 20 to 59 between 2003 and 2010. One hundred and eighty (1.5%) self-reported a homosexual orientation and 273 (2.3%) a bisexual one.[33]

General Social Survey, 2010

The GSS found that 1.2% of its interviewees identified as gay or lesbian, 1.4% as bisexual, and 97.4% as heterosexual.[31]

2010

The National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior surveyed nearly 6,000 people nationwide between the ages of 14 and 94 through an online methodology and found that 7 percent of women and 8 percent of men identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual.[34]

2010

Using a phone methodology, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey found, in a sample of about 10,000 women and 8,000 men, that 1.3% of women and 2% of men identify as gay or lesbian, and 1.2% of men and 2.2% of women identify as bisexual.[35]

General Social Survey, 2012

The GSS found that 1.5% of its interviewees identified as gay or lesbian, 2.2% as bisexual, and 96.3% as heterosexual.[31]

2012

A Gallup report published in October 2012 by the Williams Institute reported that 3.4% of US adults identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Minorities were more likely to identify as non-heterosexual; 4.6% of blacks, 4.0% of Hispanics and 3.2% of whites. Younger people, aged 18–29, were three times more likely to identify as LGBT than seniors over the age of 65, the numbers being 6.4% and 1.9%, respectively.[3][36]

2012

The National Election Pool found that, among voters on Election Day, 5% identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.[37] CNN obtained the same result.[38]

2013

In the first large-scale government survey measuring Americans’ sexual orientation, the NHIS reported in July 2014 that 1.6 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent identify as bisexual.[1] 1.5 percent of women self-identify as lesbian and 0.9 consider themselves bisexual, while 1.8 percent of men consider themselves gay and 0.4 percent identify as bisexual.[1]

2011-2013

The National Survey of Family Growth found that, among US residents aged 18 to 44, 1.9% of men and 1.3% of women identified as homosexual and 2% of men and 5.5% of women as bisexual. The share of people identifying as bisexual was significantly larger than that found in a previous NSFG study performed from 2006 to 2010.[39]

2013

In a study, National Bureau of Economic Research reached the conclusion that the share of the population that is non-heterosexual has been significantly underestimated in surveys utilizing traditional questioning methods, even if anonymous. In this study, it was found that, in all three facets of sexual orientation (identity, attraction, and behavior), the percentage of individuals who recognized themselves as non-heterosexual was larger when the survey method in use was the item randomized response, known to reduce socially desirable responding, in lieu of questions with direct responses. Because the study was, however, based on online volunteer samples, researchers make no suggestion as to the real size of the LGBT population.[40][40][41][41]

2013

Writing in the opinion section of The New York Times in 2013, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz estimated that roughly 5 percent of American men are "primarily attracted to men". First, using Facebook data and Gallup poll results, he correlated the percentage of men who are openly gay with their state of birth and residence. Second, he measured what percentage of Google pornographic searches were for gay porn. The first method gave between 1 and 3 percent. The second showed that roughly 5 percent of men search for gay porn in every state. The figure was slightly higher in states considered gay-tolerant than in others.[42]

General Social Survey, 2014

The GSS found that 1.7% of its interviewees identified as gay or lesbian, 2.6% as bisexual, and 95.7% as heterosexual.[31]

2014

The Public Religion Research Institute survey of 2,314 Millennials found that 88% identified as heterosexual, 4% as bisexual, 2% as gay, and 1% as lesbian. In a separate question, 1% identified as transgender. In total, 7% of Millennials identified as LGBT. Three percent refused to identify their sexual orientation. The unaffiliated were more likely to identify as LGBT than the religious, as were Democrat-leaning Millennials compared to the Republican-leaning. No differences were found among the races.[43]

2014

In a nationally representative telephone survey of 35,071 Americans, Pew Research found that 1,604, or 4.6%, of the sample identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual, and 32,439 (or 92.4%) as heterosexual, with the remainder refusing or being unable to provide an answer, or identifying as something else.[44]

2015

In a Yougov survey of 1,000 adults, 2% of the sample identified as gay male, 2% as gay female, 4% as bisexual (of either sex), and 89% as heterosexual.[45]

Footnotes

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 [1]
  2. Special Report: 3.4% of U.S. Adults Identify as LGBT
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  4. 4.0 4.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  5. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  6. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  7. Numbers are from List of U.S. states and territories by population.
  8. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found..
  9. Williams Inst. Census Snapshot http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/category/research/census-lbgt-demographics-studies/
  10. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found..
  11. 76% of Total Population over 18 2010 US Census http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010/br-03.pdf
  12. 3.8% of Adult population
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 Gary J. Gates Same-sex Couples and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Population: New Estimates from the American Community Survey PDF (2.07 MiB). The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, UCLA School of Law October, 2006. Retrieved April 20, 2007.
  14. Note: the study cited is unclear as to the exact metro NY area that is included; on table 5, page 8, "New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island" is included, but in Appendix 2, page 15, Pennsylvania also seems to be included as it states "New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island, New York–NJ–PA"
  15. American Community Survey 2000
  16. 16.0 16.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  17. 17.0 17.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  18. McWhirter, David P., Sanders, Stephanie A., & Reinisch, June Machover(Eds.). (1990). Homosexuality/Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation. The Kinsey Institute Series. New York: Oxford University Press.
  19. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  20. Dawson, D. & Hardy, A.M. (1990–1992). National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control, Advance Data, 204, 1990–1992.
  21. Summary of The National Health and Social Life Survey ("The Sex Survey")
  22. John O.G. Billy, Koray Tanfer, William R. Grady, and Daniel H. Klepinger, The Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States, Family Planning Perspectives, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, vol. 25, no. 2 (March/April 1993). Guttmacher Institute home page
  23. Janus, Samuel S. & Janus, Cynthia L. (1993). The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  24. Laumann, Edward O., Gagnon, John H., Michael, Robert T., and Michaels, Stuart (1994). The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 297.
  25. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  26. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  27. American Sexual Behavior: Trends, Socio-Demographic Differences, and Risk Behavior
  28. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  29. Fried, Joseph, Democrats and Republicans – Rhetoric and Reality (New York: Algora Publishing, 2008), 10.
  30. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  31. 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  32. [2] CNN.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-10.
  33. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  34. National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. Nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu. Retrieved on 2010-10-26.
  35. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf
  36. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  37. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  38. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  39. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  40. 40.0 40.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  41. 41.0 41.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  42. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  43. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  44. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  45. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.