Study: Same-sex couples face higher poverty rates

[AlphaCentauri]

Source: Minnesota Independent

A study released on Friday (PDF) by the Williams Institute at the UCLA College of Law found that gay and lesbian couples face higher rates of poverty than heterosexual married couples.

“The myth of gay and lesbian affluence is just that – a myth,” said the study’s authors. “Lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals are as likely to be poor as are heterosexuals, while gay and lesbian couple households, after adjusting for the factors that help explain poverty, are more likely to be poor than married heterosexual couple households.”

Children living in a same-sex household had poverty rates that were twice as high as those of married couples. One in five children in same-sex families was poor compared to one in ten for married families.



Read more: http://minnesotaindependent.com/30015/study-same-sex-couples-face-higher-poverty-rates

[Double T]

1. Must have something to do with one track minds.

[HillbillyBob]

2. Is that supposed to be a sarcasm or a slur?

It likely has to do with the fact that so many hate us including our supposedly loving families that we get thrown out of our homes when found out that we don't get to finish our educations, or that in the work place we get shit on and passed over for promotions or fired when found out.
For myself it was some of each, I was a Navy Air Traffic Controller who got found out (ratted out), upon discharge which was Administrative under Honorable , since I was not caught violating any law other than be told on by someone else who did get into trouble in a plea deal. The FAA would not hire me even though I was qualified to do the job, PATCO had been killed off by runnyraygun who could have fought for my side I ended up taking one shit job after another to eat, never making quite enough to actually go back to school. I could not take advantage of the GI bill because of my expulsion from the service. My family would not help me, in fact did not speak to me for nearly 20 year because I was in violation of their Talibabtis (sic) code to tolerate a humaseksul.

[Double T]

5. I have a lot of gay friends and acquaintances. Many of them make fun of their own orientation.

Some of my friends are very successful and others are dirt poor. I don't believe it has a damn thing to do with orientation. 'behavior' is usually driving force and the deciding factor as to level of success; just like it is with US heterosexuals. I support my gay friend's fight against the narrow minded jerks in our society.

[readmoreoften]

7. Your personal experience does not compete with studies of economic reality.

LGBT people are poorer, period. We--as a group--have a harder time getting and keeping jobs. Employers in almost all states have the right to fire us for being LGBT. When we do acquire property, we cannot pass it on to our partners and children because the state does not recognize our families. We pay more taxes because we are "single"--even when we are seniors who've been with our partners for over 50 years. Those of us who are women are even more likely to be poor. If we need access to homeless shelters, we're likely to be separated from our families.

I have a friend who is a professor at a major public university. Her partner had to take a job out of state and away from their daughter "for the health insurance."

Simply put: we have more economic hardship than heterosexuals. Period, end of story.

[No Elephants]

12. Support? With the kind of bias you displayed in Post #1? Doesn't seem credible.

[Double T]

22. Some people can't take kidding. Sorry.

[No Elephants]

25. "Kidding" is funny. Your post wasn't.

[nichomachus]

16. We can make fun of it. You can't.

Just like black people can call each other n***r -- and white people can't.

I can call my best friend a fag. If you do it, you're itching for a fight.

[Deja Q]

21. Leading by example; what if none of us should be making fun of it? Self-depreciating comments

do nobody any good.

Amongst other things.

[Double T]

23. One of my gay friends told me the exact same thing.......

with the exact same analogy, after I joked with him.

[Oak2004]

18. Yeah, that explains why statistically poverty correlates with discrimination.

If you truly believe its all personal behavior that determines who gets what (i.e., that society is inherently just), then you are by definition a conservative. If you are a conservative, what are you doing here?

[DUlover2909]

4. Can you elaborate your point?

I didn't quite get it.

[Double T]

6. Read above response to #2.

[No Elephants]

13. Which do we believe, Post # 1, or what you posted after you got called on Post # 1? Post # 5

does not elaborate on Post #1. It just makes a 180 degree turn.

[DUlover2909]

3. This is a statistic that will surely find its way into Anne Coulter's next book.

Whether it makes sense or not.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truthisfreedom]

10. Welcome to DU!

Enjoy your stay!

[No Elephants]

14. Amid all her crap, maybe no one will notice it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. That is contrary to my experience. Not doubting the study though.

[nichomachus]

17. People tend to associate with people in their own socio-economic group

and people who are in higher economic groups are more visible.

This tends to make people poorer than you invisible to you. Most of the people I see on a regular basis are doing OK, but I have no doubt the study is true.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. Then we agree.

[No Elephants]

11. All the more reason to make sure they can marry, if they wish!

[Festivito]

15. I'd have to read more, but, the graph shows the opposite in CA.

In CA the poverty rates for both men and women are LESS than heterosexual couples.

It is in the composite of the entire country that the poverty rates exchange relative heights.

The census bar chart shows males are LESS likely to be in poverty than heterosexuals, while women are MORE likely. Considering that women earn 70% of male earnings for the same jobs this makes sense with the caveat that women should not be subjected to this maltreatment in our society regardless of sexuality.

In my initial light perusing it hits me that the article seems more interested in bold type than making its data or description of data match its bold type. But, I'm being unfair for not reading it completely. Too much to do.

[mainer]

24. Just the lesbian incomes would skew it, then.

Since two women are generally going to earn less than a couple that includes a man.

[AngryAmish]

20. This is contrary to my experience

But, as someone above stated, people tend to associate with people like them so maybe it is my experience that is unusual.

One problem with comparing heterosexual married couples and same-sex couples is that married men nowadays are different than men in general. Married men (especially married men with children) tend to be better partners and thus can get women to marry them. This is for a host of reasons, most easily described as men who don't get married are less desirable partners (on average) then those who are married. Married men work and earn more, have lower rates of crime and violence etc. etc. So this study should compare all co-habitating couples. Married people do much better than those who are just shacked up.

So in order to have a fair comparison, compare married heterosexual couples to married homosexual couples. May have to change a few laws, but wouldn't that be a nice way to conduct an economic experiment!

[KansDem]

26. I agree...

A better picture would have been to compare heterosexual couples living together with same-sex couples. I suspect the findings would be much different...

[slampoet]

27. Exactly!! On Every job i have had in the last decade, I was passed over and got less money. WHY ???

I was told point blank that it was because I was single or didn't have a child or didn't legally Marry my heterosexual partner of 5 years.


The prejudice is a favoritism towards Breeders and against the single, gay, cohabitational, and voluntarily childless.