105
submitted 5 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] count_dongulus@lemmy.world 55 points 5 months ago

They disproportionately move to LGBT tolerant places, which tend to be expensive metro areas or blue states where real estate is expensive.

[-] Beaver@lemmy.ca 10 points 5 months ago

I know right! Why can’t more socially progressive places also be economically progressive.

Not everyone can afford an education or have enough support and stability to keep working their way towards it.

For crying out loud. The whole foods plant based diet is 30% cheaper and yet the places that also have the most vegans is also likely to be the most expensive.

[-] orrk@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

ah, you see, turns out supply/demand isn't actually a thing =D, don't get me wrong, it's fine and all until you remember that there are things people can not live without

[-] LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world 28 points 5 months ago

While there's a lot of fine print reasons, I'd imagine it all goes back to 1 thing. Bigotry.

[-] ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 27 points 5 months ago

You don’t get an inheritance if your family abandoned you….

[-] DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

A lot of gay people are kicked out of their homes as children, because they are gay.
A lot of straight people get help from their parents that allows them to purchase their first home.

These are likely connected to that 5% ~~difference.~~.

Also, what's the cost to medically transition in the states? I bet that also prevents you from being able to get a down-payment together, even if you don't face workplace issues stemming from you being true to yourself.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

5 percentage points, not 5% difference

[-] Fondots@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

In addition to being disinherited, discrimination, moving to more expensive bluer areas that are more tolerant, and such that people have already touched on, and I'm sure are significant factors at play, I just kind of want to spitball a couple thoughts. I'm no sociologist or economist or anything of the sort so I don't know how much these thoughts hold water

The sort of stereotypical American dream- husband & wife, 2.5 kids, 2 cars, house in the suburbs, etc. probably looks at least a little different for many LGBTQ people. In many cases, the kids are kind of a non-starter- adoption, IVF, surrogacy, etc. are out of reach for a lot of people for a few different reasons, and if you're not planning around having kids, you may not need that house in the suburbs with a good school district and a yard for them to play in. And if you're not spending money on kids, you may want to spend that money elsewhere, it may be more important to you to be close to other things, or to not have a mortgage hanging over you're head and want to be able to move to a different neighborhood, city, state, or maybe even country every few years when your lease is up.

I'm a fairly stereotypical straight dude, I grew up holding the flashlight for my dad and getting yelled at while he fixed pretty much everything around the house himself, and it gave me a pretty solid foundation as a handyman. There's not much around a house that I'm not confident I could fix myself or with a couple buddies if I needed to, and I suspect that a lot of girls and probably many gay guys have a different experience with that kind of thing in their childhoods. Not that they can't learn those skills on their own later on in life if they want/need to, but it can be a pretty daunting prospect, and I could see a lot of people who didn't grow up learning those skills choosing to live in an apartment or rental house where they can just call maintenance or their landlord when something breaks instead of needing to learn a bunch of plumbing, electrical, carpentry, drywall, etc on the fly as your house is falling apart around you. I'm not sure I'd want to take on home ownership if I had to start from square one and relearn everything I picked up from my dad on my own.

[-] STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Lol your points are very reasonable, but that part about gay dudes not being familiar with home improvement is pretty goofy/baseless. I'm not mad, just acknowledging the outdated stereotype. Gay kids learn from their fathers same as you.

[-] Fondots@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

A lot of them absolutely do learn those skills the same way I did

But for a lot of parent/child relationships, being gay can still be a pretty big stumbling block. If your dad is rejecting you, doesn't want anything to do with you, maybe even kicking you out of his house, you're not going to be able to learn anything from him. If he's overall supportive but worried about not wanting to push you into traditional gender roles and ideas of masculinity and such that you may not identify with, he may not try hard enough to pass those skills on. If a kid coming to terms with his sexual orientation feels pressured to act a certain way because of pressure from his peers or society, he may push back against his parents trying to teach him those skills, etc.

It's not unique to being the father of a gay son, lots of parents struggle to find ways to bond with their kids who have different personalities, interests, opinions, etc. than they do, but being gay can throw an extra level of complications into the mix and so I suspect you'd see it at least somewhat more among gay guys than otherwise comparable straight guys.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

I'd be interested if they took samples of home ownership across LGBTQ+ and cis populations in geographies with high acceptance of LGBTQ+ populations. Do we see parity in this case? Could it be that geographies that contain accepting societies all have low home ownership?

As in, could places where higher home ownership exist not overlap with LGBTQ+ acceptance?

[-] STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Give me one example of an "accepting society"

Gay marriage may be legal, but nowhere in this world exists true equality. So what I'm saying is, it'd be impossible to reliably gather research comparing more accepting and less accepting places, because the overwhelmingly conservative climate still exists regardless of minor differences in public sentiment.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I imagine a gay couple living in the Castro District in San Fransisco experiences a different level acceptance than if that same couple were living in Birmingham Alabama.

[-] STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Different, yeah.

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Here's a link to the actual study:

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/Why_Are_There_Gaps_in_LGBTQ%2B_Homeownership.pdf

Unfortunately the link was broken in the article and the article itself didn't have a lot of detail. I think this led to most of the comments here as saying "oh this is just because such and such factor" which yes of course everything people are saying are all factors and they're specifically listed as factors in the report. But the gap still remained when controlling for those factors too, including lgbt people living in more expensive areas (and even with that, the reason they're in more expensive areas is because those areas have more tolerant policies, also nicely laid out in the report).

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 5 months ago

Uhh... Am I the only one who says "because LGBTQ persons make up like 10% of the population?" I'm pretty sure the headline left out a "proportionally" somewhere but... Hmmm.

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 12 points 5 months ago

the headline did, but the actual article does not

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 5 months ago
[-] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

Agreed. The real problem is affordability. Most people are already priced out and it continues to get worse.

this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
105 points (94.1% liked)

politics

19241 readers
1686 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS