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.

 

3.4% of Americans LGBT - Gallup Poll

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

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."


www.wtop.com...

__________________________________________________________________________________________

This is an interesting poll. Most people continually site 1.2% as to further marginalize the LGBT community. As if that number of Americans is insignificant. At 3.4% of the population, that equates to over 11 million people.

This poll does not include those that have not reached adulthood or those that are married and supposedly straight and those who fear to come out of the closet. I'm certain the true figure would be upwards of 5% of the population.

That would be approximately 17 million people that are denied the same rights afforded to the majority. Does anyone have a problem with this? I do. How can we, as a civil country allow this to happen? How can we set an example to the world when we castigate millions of people into second class status?

These numbers make me ashamed of our justice system. Fortunately, there are some strides being taken and there are future decisions that will made on DOMA by the superior court.

Equality is a fairly simple word and the constitution gaurantee's that to all Americans. Do you believe in the constitution? It's our law of the land. 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.

Our country accomodates people of all colors, religions and cultures. There are minorities of all kinds that have the same rights with exception to the LGBT community whom only want everybody else takes for granted.

We should be ashamed.




edit on Sat Oct 20 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS




posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SinMaker
 


I had no idea what LGBT was.

Should I feel ashamed?

I don't care what kind of sex people are having as long as you aren't involving children or raping people have a good time.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Pffftt... So gays are a minority now... Have you ever been to the castro district? They have more gays than Asians do in china town



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SinMaker
 

If you don't mind, I'd rather not get into a discussion about gay rights, I suspect I've done that five or six times here, but I am curious about the poll.

Depending on the race, the frequency of this identification goes between 3.2 and 4.6 per cent. What impact does this have on the idea that homosexuality is purely genetic?

This is an interesting poll. Most people continually site 1.2% as to further marginalize the LGBT community.

I didn't realize 1.2% was the generally accepted figure, I thought it was 2-3% for homosexuality, which is a different category than GLBT.

The best number I've seen for the adult US population is 235 million. 3.4% of that is 8 million. I think it's appropriate to not include the young, as they are still experimenting, and I see no evidence that people, in the closet or not, are hiding their preference in a phone survey. I think the 8 million figure is a better number than the 17 million your calculations reach.

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.
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 rest of your post is interesting, but it's well trod ground. Perhaps others will take up that argument.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Urgh.

Who cares?

Sexual Orientation is not a status. It should not be treated as a status, nor should it be involved in a conversation regarding rights.

The problem is simple. A group of people, are ineligible to participate in a government program.

A program which enables them to take advantage of certain services and financial savings, for attempting to work as a team.

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.

The only logical and moral action, is to afford the right to any legal, consenting "Team" to participate in this program for the betterment of their family unit.

The law actually requires this as one of it's basic tenants.

~Tenth
edit on 10/19/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Just want to add that homosexuality didnt just appear, its always been there and i suspect, if were trying to measure its medium in percentage, it would always be a steady occurrence in all populations.

And yes, gay marriage needs to be recognized as equal to that of heterosexual marriage.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
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..



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

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?


Because your a typical ignorant bigot who thinks its okay to deny other people equality in society because "there is not enough of them to ask for it"



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.


Wont be hard to tear up the rest of america's constitutions - atleast this one will be done for the right reasons.


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.


You sound happy about that.



This is not an equal rights or a civil rights issue.


Yes it is.


There is a democratic process in place for a reason and it works for the overall good of the population.


You mean it works for you while doesn't work for someone else but hey that's life and your love for the opposite gender is greater then that of my love for the same gender?



There will always be a tiny minority that will not agree with everything the majority democratically elects.


Which is why, normally, human beings would use critical thinking to assess the situation and recognise that what the LGBT are asking for would not affect the system in any dramatic way. They are simply asking for the same rights as a heterosexual couple when it comes to having their intimate relationships legally recognised. This does NOT endanger the "family" unit - Straight people have been messing that up without help from homosexual people.


So be it. That's just the way the ball rolls.


Well it doesn't roll with me and it doesn't roll with the other 3.4% of americans you're denying.



If you don't like it, you have two choices, become a dictator or change the states constitution.


Working on it, one day soon they'll be enough tolerance to change it.


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.


And just how long did it take america to recognise black people as being equals? Long enough.




( 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.


Which is a lie because many societies before the almighty america was dreamed up were pretty okay with homosexuality. Ancient Greece for example?



If states cater to minorities in this manner, that would set a precedent for states to have to cater to all minorities.


God forbid minorities are also seen/treated as equal to the majority.




This would lead to anarchy.


Before or after a long hard stare at yourself?


I can think of dozens of minorities even the gays would not want to see get special benefits.


"the gays" haha, Which minorities are you referring to btw?


That's why states constitutions are democratically written and adopted.


Just to remind you, your constitution states that there be a separation of church and state - Its better that way. Less hate.


The will of the majority collectively sees reason to protect their citizens from anarchy. This is just and fair for everyone.


Because, according to your logic, granting equal rights and benefits to have your love legally recognised would cause "anarchy" I think the only thing it would do is hurt your feelings and we all know after a good sulk, a 6 year old will happily go back to playing with whatever toy they had in the beginning.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SinMaker
The constitution does not say only so and so may be afforded certain rights.


Can you list the rights they don't have?



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

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)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

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..


Maybe it's the bi part....not gay, but open to a bigger pool of behaviors...

BTW should Bi really be part of all this?



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

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)


I don't think you understand the implications of what you are asking.

This government contract, so called "marriage" which provides these financial services/benefits are really just tax incentives.

Other than the really important ones like next of kin, power of attorney etc. The rest of it, is just tax rebates, red or black in your tax leger.

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.

We should be advocating for more participation, in smarter programs that not only provide revenue, but help pull families out of poverty.

~Tenth



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
They sure are a noisy bunch for only 3.4% of the pop.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SinMaker
 


I hate these polls, because they're as meaningful as surveys establishing the color of peoples eyes or hair, or the length of their toes, or the speed at which they run...

Sexuality should be no more meaningful than any of those things. It's a small aspect of what we are as Humans, and it's a shame that a mentally retarded group of religious fanatics fixate on the sex other people have in order to victimize others like the little bullies they are.

These surveys are never accurate. It all depends on who funds it and their motives.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

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?




edit on 22-10-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



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.


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.


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.


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.

It's the same reason that 5 guys start and LLC or a Incorporate, instead of just opening a small business.


So you didn't answer my question..why are gays special? Why should we not open the Pandora's box for ALL minority behaviors?


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



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

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.


But you are forcing people to meet a requirement for support...that is wrong. I was married two times just to get the benefits of marriage, so i would never have married if the benefits were not there.


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.


Both are stupid IMHO...just have a program for everyone then, that is basically what you are saying...why even have a partnership of some kind? Oh and since I might change roommates every 6 months that is going to be tricky figuring it all out.



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


So we have a program for everyone..who pays the bill. We would have craglist ads as EVERYONE join together for benfits, maybe all in the same LLC/group...see my point?

All I know is two people can live better together than a single person on their own, so how about this... if you are single then you get the benefits......



edit on 22-10-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Those numbers are low, as well they should be.
The problem is that there are many people that would like nothing more than to see this number grow.
Things like this should not be forced down our throats.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


The single aspect receiving the benefits of a single financial entity is kind of spurious.

A partnership will always end up spending more money. They will always end up stimulating the local economy more than the single person.

I'm sorry but two responsible, relatively well paid people are far more equipped to buy a home, a car and al the other big ticket items that actually matter in driving the economy; than a single person.

Now of course we can use the highly paid single person, but that also makes no sense, because he already has all the income that is required to cover his expenses aand live comfortably.

Your economy cannot flourish without a healthy and growing middle class. The government must create the environment where this is possible.

Trust me I want the government to provide nothing but essential services. Maybe you could abolish all of it and we'd all be better off.

I don't really care either way. If they are going to have it, it needs to be fair. It's a partnership agreement, therefore any legal, consenting partnership should be allowed access.

Otherwise kill it all with fire and try something different. Such is the way things are supposed to be.

~Tenth




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join