It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A new Gallup survey, touted as the largest of its kind, estimates that 3.4 percent of American adults identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender."
"Contemporary media often think of LGBT people as disproportionately white, male, urban and pretty wealthy," he said. "But this data reveal that relative to the general population, the LGBT population has a larger proportion of nonwhite people and clearly is not overly wealthy."
"According to the survey, which was conducted between June and September, 4.6 percent of African-Americans identify as LGBT, 4 percent of Hispanics, 4.3 percent of Asians and 3.2 percent of whites. Overall, a third of those identifying as LGBT are nonwhite, the report said."
"The overall 3.4 percent figure is similar to a 3.8 percent estimate made previously by Gates after averaging a group of smaller U.S. surveys conducted from 2004 to 2008."
This is an interesting poll. Most people continually site 1.2% as to further marginalize the LGBT community.
It may be a small point, but the Constitution says nothing like that. Those words come from the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution does limit rights to certain individuals, for example, the 35 year-old age requirement for serving as the President.
The constitution does not say only so and so may be afforded certain rights. It's mighty clear that all Americans have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Those stats reflect a very tiny portion of the overall population. This being the case, No, they are NOT entitled to the same rights as the majority. Why can I say this?
Simple. Most states have constitutions that allow for the family unit of same sex partners to have benefits of marriage and all that go with it. These constitutions are democratically written and adopted.
If the tiny LGBT population wants these same rights, they need to get the constitutions changed in their states. That's not likely to happen.
This is not an equal rights or a civil rights issue.
There is a democratic process in place for a reason and it works for the overall good of the population.
There will always be a tiny minority that will not agree with everything the majority democratically elects.
So be it. That's just the way the ball rolls.
If you don't like it, you have two choices, become a dictator or change the states constitution.
It does not behoove the states or the nation as a whole to cater to the demands of minorities unless there is clear discrimination in the form of human rights issues.
( I remember back in the 70's when people would jump out the back of a pick up truck and bash gays coming out of gay bars with a baseball bat) This is clearly not the case here today. Gays are more accepted in our society now than in any other time in history.
If states cater to minorities in this manner, that would set a precedent for states to have to cater to all minorities.
This would lead to anarchy.
I can think of dozens of minorities even the gays would not want to see get special benefits.
That's why states constitutions are democratically written and adopted.
The will of the majority collectively sees reason to protect their citizens from anarchy. This is just and fair for everyone.
Originally posted by SinMaker
The constitution does not say only so and so may be afforded certain rights.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
The 'Family Unit" so to speak. The family unit is no longer traditional and we must stop attempting to return to this 1950's nuclear mentality. What we must focus on are healthy families, not traditional ones, or culturally accepted ones.
Originally posted by Maslo
What is interesting is that among 18-29 year olds, LGBT is 6.4 %. Maybe because of greater tolerance among youth? In that case, I wonder if the real figure is not even higher..
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
The 'Family Unit" so to speak. The family unit is no longer traditional and we must stop attempting to return to this 1950's nuclear mentality. What we must focus on are healthy families, not traditional ones, or culturally accepted ones.
How about do away with it all together? The 1950s definition of a family unit is antiquated and the reason for the government to offer special incentives for a family unit is also antiquated.
I think the way to go is NO favoritism or incentives for any group whether it is the majority or minority. If not then we should open up the Pandora's box for EVERY minority behavior out there...why should gays be a special case?
edit on 21-10-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
So you are advocatating in essense, for the removal of any government subsidized programs that assist families. Which are large part the reason the middle class became so wealthy back then.
~Tenth
Yep..if you can afford to get married then do if not then don't...If you can afford a kid or 10 have them if not don't.... A big part of family government subsidies was to encourage a family structure for population growth and security. To day we need neither and the family unit is different or not there at all.
There was also real advantages for big families back then, but not today. Things have changed and now we see people married with no kids and maybe one but get all the benefits. So why should two people married, pooling their money together and splitting the cost get benefits over the single guy trying to make a living.
So you didn't answer my question..why are gays special? Why should we not open the Pandora's box for ALL minority behaviors?
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
You see the problem with that, is that most people CANNOT afford to be married. People can barely make ends meet on 2 salaries. The tax deductions and assistance by these programs are what keep the majority of the Middle Class above the poverty line.
The single guy should be able to get together with his room mate, and then have access to the same programs. This institution should not revolve around romantic relationships, it should rely on financial partnerships.
This isn't about gays. The whole frame of the debate needs to change. It's a matter of some people do not have access to a government program because of sexual orientation. That should not be a qualification for getting into a government program.
Period.
~Tenth