homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Hiding being gay, and the difficulties faced

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.    
Source: (consider it) Thread: Hiding being gay, and the difficulties faced
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Today I came across a few interesting articles I thought I'd share...

This guy analyzes data from online activity and concludes that about 5% of males are predominantly same-sex attracted. (I came across that article while reading another interesting article by the same guy here)

That number is substantially higher than what gets reported in surveys (usually 1-3%). It is a known problem with surveys that the more surety that people have that their answers are absolutely and completely anonymous the more likely they are to admit to being bisexual or gay. One way of doing this I've seen used is to get the person to roll a dice in private and then answer the question "Tick yes if you rolled a six, or are gay/lesbian or bisexual." That way, even if someone sees what the person has answered when filling out the anonymous survey, they wouldn't have actually admitted to being bisexual. When researchers subtract out the 1 in 6 people would would have actually rolled a six, they find consistently higher rates of people reporting being LGB (up to 20% of people!) than with standard anonymous surveys.

It seems that to this day a large number of Americans continue to hide the fact that they are gay/bisexual from everyone, including standard anonymous surveys.

This survey of a representative sample of more than a thousand LGBT Americans over age 18, unsurprisingly shows that a large percentage of them have experienced discrimination of various kinds in their lives. What surprised me, however, was that more than a third of respondents had not told their parents they were LGBT. I find that really really surprising: I would personally have assumed a number <10% for that.

Scrolling further down that article [past what looks like the end, but isn't] reveals that only 28% of bisexual people are out to most of the important people in their lives. ie a whopping 72% of bisexual respondents are at least partially closeted!

This anecdotal article is an interesting read, about how difficult it can still be for same-sex couples living in conservative areas, even after same-sex marriage is legalized.


If anyone has any interesting articles on the subject I'd love to read them. [Smile] Or thoughts/comments on these articles are good too!

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This was a lot more obvious a few years ago when things were harsher. I recall seeing a survey based on door to door census taking which unsurprisingly revealed that only 1 percent of people who lived in states with anti-sodomy laws acknowledge being gay. That's better than the previous census which had no place for same sex marriage, and it turned out that if someone entered two people in the household of the same sex being married and of the same sex, the census tidily randomly flipped the sex of one of the two on the assumption there was an input error.

I also remember a comment from a AIDS researcher about questionnaires on cause of HIV infection. He said "Straight men would rather admit to sex with dogs than admit they had passive anal sex.

In fairness, people also find their own situation complicated and not easily reduced to Gay/Straight. Some of this is not wanted to deal with being of a despised status. (I have sex with women sometimes and occasionally men, if they wear panties". Many people have to translate to make things work.

My favorite instance of this was during a long term HIV infection survey run in Boston. They had a carefully selected group of long term gay couples they were tracking. At one point they were looking at discordant status couples and asked them if any of the people had gay sex outside the relationship. This evoked a minor storm of protest. A number of the self identified gay couples had a partner who was having regular sex with a woman, They wanted to know why they weren't being included.

There are still consequences if you are known to be gay. You can't be kicked out of the military but you can lose your job if you are a teacher or work for Christians. It's also true that many so called scientific polls are being run by people with their own agenda to harm gay people. Why help them?

Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
There are still consequences if you are known to be gay. You can't be kicked out of the military but you can lose your job if you are a teacher or work for Christians.

Is there any hope of this changing? It would seem reasonable that in a secular state (such as the US is supposedly meant to be) one's employment rights are secure against the religious biases of one's employers - but apparently not.

t

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not if you work for a religious organization. It's part of religious freedom to run an organization and exclude who you want as long as you're paying for it and not sucking up government funding. Even then, religious groups routinely try to claim religious freedom to spend tax dollars the way they want.

There's a fresh example recently. The Mormon Church came out in favor of anti-discriminations for GBLT but they wanted exemptions for religious freedom so a doctor could decide not treat a lesbian.

Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Not if you work for a religious organization. It's part of religious freedom to run an organization and exclude who you want as long as you're paying for it and not sucking up government funding. Even then, religious groups routinely try to claim religious freedom to spend tax dollars the way they want.

Would that allow a religious group to discriminate on racial grounds? On the grounds of disability? Or just on the basis of sexuality?

t

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Protection against certain types of discrimination (race, biological sex, religion, ethnic background, disability, age) exists at the federal level and so applies across the US. Sexual orientation is not though protection exists in some states and some parts of states. Religions are usually exempt at least in religious employment or membership (they can discriminate as far as ministers but not janitors [except probably janitors in LDS temples where one is required to be a member in good standing to enter]).

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530

 - Posted      Profile for stonespring     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In the US this is where the current debate is raging. Do religious hospitals and universities - most of whose employees and patients/students do not belong to the religion that the institution is affiliated with, have a right to discriminate or otherwise to be exempt from legal requirements that they find morally objectionable? The big example was whether they had to pay for health insurance plans that covered birth control (including the morning-after pill).

In terms of employment most of the controversy is over religious schools, which are different than religious universities and hospitals in that most of them in this country do not receive money from the government. (Universities receive research grants and student financial aid from the government, and hospitals receive payments from Medicare and Medicaid, government health insurance for the elderly and poor (and I guess now also from some people who have government-subsidized private insurance plans bought on the new Obamacare exchanges)).

Religious schools can also claim that any employee involved in forming student's values in any way (such as a teacher, principal, or coach) is passing on the values of that religion and is therefore a religious minister and covered under the ministerial exemption that allows religious institutions to only hire male ministers, only hire Jewish ministers, etc, depending on the religion. However, Catholic schools are claiming that non-Catholic teachers (who are often the majority of teachers) are covered by the ministerial exemption as well and therefore subject to dismissal if they violate Catholic teaching on sexual morality and marriage. The biggest issue has not been being gay - many gay Catholic schoolteachers (like their divorced, remarried, and cohabiting straight Catholic schoolteachers) have been at least semi-out for years, even out as having partners - but about entering into a same-sex marriage. Like abortion, the Roman Catholic Church sees same-sex marriage as a line in the sand, an "intrinsic evil" that threatens to destroy the heart of what the Church stands for and therefore as something that it cannot endorse in any way.

It may seem odd that anyone would want to work for a religious school, university, or hospital if they are gay, but in many parts of the US a third or more of students attend Catholic schools and Catholic universities and hospitals are often the biggest such institutions in a given area.

Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Would that allow a religious group to discriminate on racial grounds? On the grounds of disability? Or just on the basis of sexuality?

For religious groups taking federal funding I think this was largely settled by the IRS removing the tax exemption for Bob Junes University a few decades ago. A privately funded religious organization has great latitude on what it does.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged


 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools