-
Website
http://randythomas.org/ -
Original page
http://randythomas.org/2008/01/15/median-income-for-gay-identified-households/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Gays are discriminated against in countless ways, and many of us are working in jobs where our sexuality could legally be used as a reason for termination. Consider that we also don't have access to one basic right that our heterosexual counterparts enjoy (and often abuse)... marriage. Even if marriage might not qualify as a civil right, the ability to have a government-recognized union with a person of the same sex should. A person's salary has no bearing on such things.
By the way, I'm gay and living in the same household as my partner. Our combined income is currently well below the amount quoted in your article. ;)
Gays, Jews, Big Boned (like me :)), Blacks, Ex-gays, conservatives, liberals ... everyone is discriminated against. Especially now with the license for intolerance in the name of tolerance. Which slingshots back from the other side making the cycle get worse. The issue here isn't that there aren't issues. There are. My contention is that it is wrong for the gay activist community to couch these terms in civil rights language because the gay identified community, while still having issues, do not meet the definition needed to afford protected class status.
I believe that the gay community has the same civil rights and civil liberties and freedoms in place already or they would not be as prosperous as they are (as a community.)
If you say that you and your partner don't make that much I will take your word for it. :) I have to remind myself that median is not equal to average. I am right about that ... right?
Thank you for your blog and the time you spend on it. As someone who has left homosexuality, I find the blog both encouraging and thought provoking. . .
Intolerance. . hummmm. . . All I know is, when I used to be a gay activist, I was the one who was intolerant.
Keep up the great work,
Jacob
God bless ya! :)
Mike thank you also sir :)... ok... gotta' get on the plane.
So far as immutable characteristics; they're same sex relationships. This is distinct (at least for now) because it diverges considerably from the rest of the population. I don't believe that race and religious beliefs are the only criteria for characterizing a group. Secondly, the inability to marry and enjoy the same tax benefits as same-sex couples is a widespread pattern of discrimination. As well, the ability to terminate an employee on the basis of homosexuality is another form. Disenfranchisement I'll give you, but that's about it.
Monetarily, it's evident that homosexuals are doing well for themselves. That's good. But saying that they aren't still receiving discrimination because of their success is not true.
We're a family of three. Our combined income is well above the median income listed for gay men. Of course, what this report doesn't seem to factor in is the cost of living in certain areas. Think about this, I would bet that you have a higher percentage of gay males living on the coasts (NY, LA, SF). I think it's probably safe to assume that a high percentage of the respondants to these surveys live in these geographic areas that are significantly more expensive to live in and as such pay significantly greater salaries. That would skew the results wouldn't it? The median white family is culled from all parts of the US. You wouldn't have the same reporting for gay people...just wouldn't happen.
My family of three has a combined income that is rather revolting...on paper. And yet, we don't live large. In fact, we can't afford to buy a home and combined, we make well over $100K a year. Why? Because it costs a lot of money to live where we do. Is that taken into account in these studies do you think?
Thanks for posting this! It's interesting!
j.
Unfortunately, I happen to be one of those gay Jews living well below the poverty line, let alone the national median. DSL internet is the most luxurious thing I have in my living space. But I'm well fed and have loving friends, and HaShem is with me.
Does this mean that KKK members or certain Christian groups have the right to express hatred or intolerance towards us, because they're only "keeping us in check?" or do we have the right to be both prosperous and protected?
You offer the source for the statistics on median incomes for gays/lesbians - what is the source for the statistics at the beginning of your post that break down median incomes by ethnicity? How comparable are the sources - did they gather data in a cmoparable way, etc.?
Are you sure the sources for the statistics didn't bias the results toward a higher income? Maybe only gays with economic security buy the gay publications that took the survey. Maybe gays with low incomes are less forthcoming, or secure enough to admit their sexual orientation.
Immutable characteristics: Why do you say that homosexuality is 'far from immutable'? My understanding is that it is about as immutable as heterosexuality - which is pretty darn near immutable.
Widespread pattern - I think it's evident that there has been a nearly universal, long-standing pattern of intolerance to homosexuality in the U.S and elsewhere. Are you arguing that there is not/has not been?
Economic disenfranchisement: it is my understanding that in most places in the U. S. today, it is perfectly legal to fire someone from their job because they are homosexual. Is this untrue?
Also, just because someone earns a high salary, that doesn't mean they are not being discriminated against. In order to determine this, you need to compare their salaries to the salaries of heterosexuals in the same profession, at the same level of advancement.
Just some food for thought. Nice blog you have here. :)
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&...
which has a transcript of the document, and the criteria you listed is not mentioned.
However, in light, I will acknowledge that I probably missed them and ask my question anyway.
In regard the the three criteria. I know religion is covered under title vii and religion wouldn't pass those three criteria. I wouldn't consider religion a factor in earnings, nor is religion mutable, nor is it shown that people are discriminated based on their religion. Thus, why is religion covered. Also, age is another category which is added later by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which also doesn't meet the given criteria.
Thus, my question is why is sexual orientation held up to a standard that neither religion or age concurs with?
A new report from the NGLTF shows that gay and lesbian youth have the highest rates of homelessness. They have been kicked from their homes, sent to live on the streets. When I hear you saying that gays men are rolling in the doe, I feel angry. It is simply not true.
A median income means that half of the people surveyed make 50% above and 50% below that number. So if the median is 82,000 than 50% of those surveyed make less than that number and 50% make more than that. To say that these numbers prove gays make more money is a dishonest claims because the numbers don't say that at all. What they do say is some gays have money and some don't, just like straight people.
I, like most gays, have a need to be treated as equal to straights. I like most gays tried to change my sexuality and couldn't and no longer want to. I want my relationship treated with the same rights and benefits and any straight relationship and at this point that is far from true.
I feel sad when I read the things you write about gays when they are based on gross generalizations like this article. I hope that you correct this misinformation or at least show the other side of it like the lack of services for those who are not above the 82,000 mark.
Sincerely,
Joe Brummer
I also wonder how locations affects these numbers. Are gay-identified singles and couples more likely to live in urban areas where acceptance tends to be higher? If so, does higher cost of living contribute to higher salaries? If gay individuals and couples moved away from lower cost-of-living areas, this could be why there aren't as many low-end salaries to balance out the median.
Regardless, Pat Robertson and other Christian heavy-hitters deserve the same rights and respect as the inner city Jewish family or the newly widowed atheist who has to take a low-paying job.
1. It is mutable for some but not for all (and we still do not know how much of our sexuality is genetic and how much is nurture)
2. Discrimination is apparant as it is written into the hate crime laws
3. Because a person's income is higher than the median does not mean that financial disenfranchisement has not occurred. Gays, Lesbians and their families are routinely disqualified from inheritance and family laws that protect their finances, homes, family trusts, estates. Sorry - Randy but it is not up to you nor anyone else to say "You have enough already" The test for financial disenfranchisement is - are they equal under the law - not - they enough already (what about the folks who do not make that income??)
2.) hate crimes laws were written by policy leaders and not ever fully explained to the public behind public policy. Black people were watching their neighbors being lynched and burned alive on the six o'clock news *all* the time. Civil Rights leaders were known for being burned by cigarettes and not fighting back, being spit on, called names and bombed. Gay people on TV nowadays are known for saying mean things about Donald Trump or giving fashion advice to straight men.
3.) If they are not equal under the law, then how in the world are gay identified households making so much more than the rest of us? How in the world are gay activist groups rolling in money and so politically powerful? I am all for people making money. I never said you have enough already... go... get paid, I think that is great.
Once again, there are legitimate issues about how you can appropriate your resources in the way that you see fit but what you all are facing is nothing like what existing protected classes have gone through.
Although it has been illustrated to you clearly that gay persons do not make on average more than other persons (though readers of gay magazines make more than heterosexual readers of no magazines), you continue to state that gay people are "making so much more than the rest of us" and "rolling in money".
If you believe that Christians are called to be truthful in word and deed, please stop bearing false witness.
Also, you state that homosexuality is mutable. However, the prospective portion of the Jones and Yarhouse study commissioned by Exodus illustrated that - at least for the study period - the methods employed by Exodus to change sexual attraction had no statistically significant results. In other words, on average for those highly motivated Christian study participants sexual orientation was immutable. Nor were any of those defined as "successes" without same-sex desire, including sex dreams, wandering eyes, fantasies, etc.
While that isn't "proof", your study certainly seems to refute your position.
Why? how would i know that someone was gay? Something is wrong here.
Why, because the methodology is completely different.
Oh, and if you go to the community marketing website where this data is gathered, there's this notation:
"The Gay Consumer Indexâ„¢ and Lesbian Consumer Indexâ„¢ provide valuable guidance regarding the perceptions and opinions of 'out' lesbian and gay consumers; those who can be reached by marketers through gay and lesbian media channels. This unique, community-based methodology polls LGBT consumers who can be reached using print publications, direct mail and internet media," said Tom Roth, President of Community Marketing. "It should be kept in mind, however, that the study's findings profile those who read lesbian and gay publications and websites. These results should not necessarily be extrapolated to the entire gay and lesbian population, which we feel is impossible to do with surveys due to social, employment and political pressures," added Roth."
Did you see that, it can't be extrapolated to the gay community at large, which is exactly what you did. Isn't that bearing false witness?
So what your article above should have said was
"For OUT gay men WHO RESPONDED TO THE MARKETING SURVEY the median household income is $83,000 per year (OUT gay singles WHO RESPONDED TO THE SURVEY $62,000; OUT gay couples WHO RESPONDED TO THE SURVEY living together $130,000),"
This is like taking a survey from Redbook and trying to suggest it applies to all women everywhere.
http://www.gayconsumerindex.com/
I see MLK is your hero. That's interesting considering he supported gay rights, worked with Bayard Rustin (an Out gay man), and that his wife Coretta Scott King often mentioned that gays and lesbians are welcome at the table of brotherhood.
The gay community wouldn't be doing better as a group if they weren't already enjoying the full exercise of their Civil Rights. The evidence proves that the gay community doesn't need special protected class status because, as you conceded ... they are doing better than the average American.
As for the rest of your hateful rhetorical flourish ... that can speak for itself.