How many gay men, lesbians, bisexuals or transsexuals have been sexually harassed or similar?

[papapi]

This directly pertains and is related to the campaign. We need to know who is going to protect our civil rights.

[Beregond2]

1. I don't know how to answer that.

For gay men, sexual harrasment (if you want to call it that) is a way of life. If you work around other gay men, it never ends. If you work in a gay bar or restaurant, gay men assume you are there to be ogled and groped; it's considered part of the service. If you work in a straight environment, women look upon you as a challenge, and never stop coming on to you, cornering you, grabbing you.

I take it for granted, and handle it with humor.

[papapi]

2. Has an employer ever threatened to fire you because of your orientation?

[Beregond2]

4. No.

But I wouldn't consider that "sexual harrasment." I'd call it bias.

[VotesForWomen]

3. i hear anti-gay remarks *every day* at work; sometimes several times per day.

[TheDonkey]

7. i don't think that is sexual harassment, it's just plain harassment/homophobia

I've never been sexually harassed ie. felt uncomfortable because of sexual advances or innuendo but have had to deal with anti-gay slurs of course. Not of a sexual nature but of a homophobic nature.

[papapi]

13. And you wouldn't call that harrassment? Better think again...

ha·rass /həˈræs, ˈhærəs/huh-ras/har-uhs/
(used with object)
1. to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.
2. to trouble by repeated attacks, incursions, etc., as in war or hostilities; harry; raid.

Synonyms 1. badger, vex, plague, hector torture. See worry. 2. molest.

[hfojvt]

24. is that partly mind over matter, and what about intent?

If I make an anti-gay remark that is not meant as an attack on anybody is it still harrassment? What if a gay person hearing it isn't particularly bothered by it? If they just think "what a fu$%ing moron" and go about their day, is that still considered harrassment?

There seem to be several types and I think it is kinda bizarre to equate them as the same level of assault.

1) There is contact - groping, chasing, attempting to hug, carress or kiss
2) There is quid pro quo - have sex with me or be fired/demoted/passed over
3) There is propositioning
4) there is teasing/ game playing
5) there is looking
6) there are incidental actions or overheard comments

I don't see how anybody of any sex or orientation is gonna work for more than two years without experiencing some of that at some point, but I also think it's a stretch to compare #5 or #6 to #1 or #2.

[papapi]

26. Would you consider it appropriate to make a racist remark...

...on the job? And expect everyone to let that pass? I really don't see any difference in the two cases. Racial slur, sexual orientation slur, it's all the same to me because the intent is to belittle, degrade or debase a particular segment of the population because of an innate characteristic. I don't buy the bullshit that being 'different' is a choice. Do heterosexuals choose to be that way? And the old saw about how abhorrent homosexual activity is applies to heterosexual activity from my perspective.

When I was young, my employment was jeopardized because someone said I 'looked' at them in a gay way. What the FUCK? I actually had no idea what my employer was talking about but I mitigated the incident by saying "I didn't even look at woman in an inviting manner." So much for your #5. And gossip doesn't belong in the workplace either. So much for your #6.

[hfojvt]

40. there's one big difference

If I make a racist comment to somebody, I can know if there is a person of that race within earshot and can be pretty sure that they will be offended. Not every gay person is out of the closet with their co-workers, and really it's nobody's business anyway. My point is that an offhand remark that the speaker does not know will offend a listener is not the same as deliberate harassment. When somebody says "I'd like to work you over with a falafel" that's gone beyond an overheard unintentionally offensive remark.

I am not sure what you mean by your "so much for" remarks. For one, it could be up to an employer to decide what is or is not appropriate in their workplace. Maybe I run a garage and employ a foul mouthed mechanic that I keep on the payroll because nobody else knows engines like he does. I expect a new person to either put up with it or find a different place to work. Filing a lawsuit over it, seems obnoxious to me and contrary to free speech rights.

For #6 I am thinking of one poster who related finding her co-workers looking at a Playboy magazine. Awkward yes, but not intentional and not the same level as being told "have sex with me or you're fired" or having to physically avoid a sexual advance.

Gossip does not belong in the workplace sounds overly strict to me. A certain amount of incidental yakking seems inevitable in this talkative society and it should come, in my view, with a certain amount of tolerance.

[papapi]

42. A person of that race? I'm anglo-saxon, latino, native american...

...you'll have to be particularly careful making a racist comment around me. But just because my skin isn't an identifiable color (race) doe not mean a comment about my black brother or sister will not offend me. It would offend me. Such remarks have often offended me and I informed the offender that their remark was offensive.

And I wouldn't tolerate a garage where I had to listen to a foul mouthed employee just because that individual was a whiz with engines. He should be reprimanded and if he doesn't comply he should be fired. I don't understand why you think someone like that would be 'good' for business. Many customers would be offended and not say so. That, my friend is the insidiousness of bigotry and discrimination.

Playboy and Playgirl magazines don't belong in the workplace and neither does gossip. Many have been much too tolerant for much too long.

The only way to rid ourselves of bigoted, discriminatory behavior is to expose it and root it out. I guess you'll never want to hire or work with me, huh?

[ruby slippers]

5. I'm straight. This poll is biased.....

[papapi]

6. and this poll is also biased...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6033252&mesg_id=6033252

[ruby slippers]

10. not really. You can be gay or lesbian and still be a woman or a man. It just isn't "specific", but

it isn't biased.....

[papapi]

12. Yes it is biased, unless you can't read...

...it says 'How many WOMEN here have dealt with sexual harassment or something similar?'. Men are not women, in case you haven't figured that out.

[ruby slippers]

16. you win. I got called on that one. My mind must have played the trick on me

that I just assumed it said "women or men" when I skimmed it. (You know, like when you read that triangle that has the double "the" in it.) You are right, it IS biased.....

[papapi]

17. No harm, no foul.

[ruby slippers]

18. but then I guess a PAPApi would notice if it didn't have a male gender attached....

peace!

[papapi]

20. generous smiles, happy thoughts...

...and it's a PA (Pennsylvania) papi (pronounced popee). I'm in VA now (which I predict WILL go BLUE in November) but will soon be moving to PA.

[ruby slippers]

22. Good luck...I moved from PA....to FL.....for the weather....but it does

have nice summers....and, I'm a 'Gramm'ie.....

[donheld]

8. What does this have to do with the primaries?

:shrug:

[papapi]

11. If you're gaymale, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered it has everything to do...

...with the primaries. Democrats are being asked to choose between the 'Don't ask, don't tell' conspirator - Hillary Clinton, or the 'I don't support gay marriage' - Barack Obama. I always thought the Democratic Party supported equal rights for ALL. But apparently that's not the case when the only candidate choices are both pansy faced scared-i-cats.

[boppers]

14. California, Massachusetts

:)

This, I think, is where we're going. Churches still get to define their own religious "marriage" as they see fit, but the state will have to provide equal rights for all of it's citizens, under some name or another, regardless of any individual religious beliefs about what "marriage" is.

Oregon's going the same way. Once the nut-jobs passed their amendment here, our legislature took that as a signal that we *had* to provide legal unions, because to do otherwise would be legal discrimination. (Oh, and both gender and sexual preference are now protected classes here... )

All that being said, I was fag-bashed growing up (in Tucson, Arizona), by a group of neo-nazi skinheads. Once the community realized this was becoming an ongoing problem, a bunch of our Bears & Kings shaved their heads, put on pink(!) Doc Martens, and started patrolling the same areas.

Problem solved.

:evilgrin:


edit: added the Kings

[papapi]

19. The word 'marriage' has no place in law and should be struck...

... from the laws and statutes that deal with the civil (legal) union of two individuals. Marriage is a pagan ceremony adopted by the church and sanctioned by the church. If two individuals, regardless of sex, can find a congregation willing to accept their spiritual union, so be it. But keep this 'marriage' shit out of our laws. You might find the following article interesting.

http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/marriage.htm

I read the entire California ruling. They made quite a case but still left the gap open for a public referendum which may allow the voters to overturn their decision.

[boppers]

21. Wouldn't the California result need a state constitutional amendment?

Over-turning state constitution-related court decisions with only a referendum seems.... scary, if true.

[papapi]

23. California voters can overturn the Supreme Court opinion by...

...referendum vote, which will be on the ballot in November. A simple majority is all they need to return to the previous proposition, which banned marriage except between one man and one woman.

[boppers]

25. Bans marriage? Or bans anything like, or resembling, or equal to, marriage?

Utah went pretty crazy with their law, contracts between *room mates* are contestable.

[papapi]

31. Californians already have many laws in place protecting....

...certain aspects of a civil union regardless of gender, but obstacles remain. The laws create a 'separate but equal' state because same sex unions are still barred from many benefits and burdens placed on the family unit in opposite sex 'marriages'.

[boppers]

32. Ah, so not exactly "equal"...

Which is the whole problem with "separate but equal" in the first place.

:(

[papapi]

34. You got it!

Separate but equal is never equal. It's discrimination.

[FreeState]

46. No the vote is to amend the constiturion - not a proposition

the only part of it that is a referendum is that it is being places on the ballot via a referendum (public signatures).


http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#pending_raw

Initiatives Pending Signature Verification
.....

Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment.

Summary Date: 11/29/07 Circulation Deadline: 04/28/08 Signatures Required: 694,354

Proponents: Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, and Mark A. Jansson c/o Andrew Pugno [phone]

Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state. (Initiative 07-0068.) (Full Text)

1304. (07-0066, Amdt. #1S) - Random Sample

[quakerboy]

30. I think I love you.

No more Govt marriage for ANYONE, any organization(church) can have its own informal internal connections, whether it be man/woman, man/chair, or man/man. Those should have nothing to do with our government and legalities regarding legal unions of individuals.

Why don't more people see this?

[papapi]

33. I love you too, but our spiritual union...

doesn't belong in a court or in laws. This problem arose because when people became 'enlightened' (four centuries ago) marriage was written into law so government could collect a tax when couples got married. What they were taxing was the civil union (creation of a family for legal purposes) and unfortunately they weren't 'enlightened' enough. Remember that this was the era of our forefathers when government of the people, by the people was government of the landed male gentry, by the landed male gentry. Women, in essence existed only to propagate and feed the species. Our laws have not changed much over the centuries so we're still battling in our courts to correct the oversight in archaic laws. If you're a bigot, then the best place for your head is in the sand. That way you only need to pull it out when someone ruffles your feathers.

spiritual union=love=marriage
civil union=law=equality

[quakerboy]

38. YES

You speak my mind, friend.

Keep marriage in whatever affiliations want it, and let each one make its own rules for the people who chose to participate in it. And keep civil agreements in the court, and let the government make those rules for the benefit of society, not the moral imperatives of any little set of beliefs.

Church, state, state, church. Separate em. And de-fang the righties in the process. Hand them Marriage and let them play with it in their little corner. While still retaining it for ourselves, and removing it as an issue for any court action.

[anigbrowl]

28. Then I suggest you construct your poll differently

I'm straight but am frequently mistaken for gay, and I support gay marriage and oppose discrimination. I completely fail to understand what you expect to learn from the poll, though.

[papapi]

29. I posted this poll in response to another poll which had no bearing...

...on my decision for a candidate in this primary either. But so far I have gotten some interesting response which sheds some light on the mistakes people commonly make when it comes to discrimination. There's no need for you to vote since this poll is biased toward a particular group. I WAS TRYING TO MAKE A POINT. Here is the other poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6033252&mesg_id=6033252

Neither candidate in the Democratic primary has taken an affirmative stand on gay rights, in my opinion.

[anigbrowl]

39. If you say so. I think the issue is well covered on DU already

I don't mean that I disagree with the point you're making or your desire to make it, just that it's hardly off the radar here. The amount of discussion it gets does tend to wax and wane though. A month ago there seemed to be 5 threads a day about it, now not so much...perhaps because it's not likely to have much effect on the outcomes of the few remaining contests, I'm not sure.

I'm going to leave the quality of candidates' stands on gay rights to you and other LGBT posters, since every time I throw in an opinion on this topic from the sidelines someone objects that I don't have a personal stake in it and therefore don't know what I'm talking about.

[papapi]

41. I value everyone's opinion regardless of their innate characteristics...

...but I simply cannot tolerate any opinion that puts someone else's morality or religious convictions on my lifestyle. I've seen too much of so called 'morality' from televangelists and politicians. Hippocrites comes to mind. The issue is equality for ALL regardless of innate characteristics.

Right now no politician vying for POTUS is is willing to embrace the GLBT issue because they still fear reprisal from the voters. Don't ask, don't tell has proven itself a failure and searate but equal equals discrimination.

I'd be interested to know your take on the situation.

[ccharles000]

9. No I don't think I have.

[goletian]

15. if being told im handsome counts as harassment, then yes. ^_^

[papapi]

35. It's harrassment if it offends you...

...it doesn't belong in the workplace.

[cali]

43. bullshit. I'm sorry but that's just wrong.

and it offends the hell out of me.

[papapi]

44. I'm not saying a single comment or compliment is harrassment but...

...if it embarrasses you, you ask the individual to stop and it continues, then I would consider that harrassment. I have often had folks tell me I'm handsome, cute, attractive even sexy. Depending on who is making the comment it may embarrass me, delight me or disgust me. If I don't want it to happen again, I tell the person in confidence that I would appreciate not receiving such attention. This has always worked for me but I do believe it could become an issue if it continued after calling a halt to it.

[anigbrowl]

27. I don't see the point. Such harrassment exisits and is a problem...

but how does quantifying this (unscientifically) get us any closer to selecting a candidate? I'm not questioning the importance of workplace homophobia, I'm questioning the usefulness of whatever statistic you end up with when the votes are in.

Say it's 43% of poll respondents have experienced it; how does that guide my vote?

[cliffordu]

36. What about Metrosexuals??

[papapi]

37. Since metrosexual has not been clearly defined it would be...

...difficult to determine what constitutes harrassment of a metrosexual. there are many -sexuals too consider and I couldn't include them all but you're welcomed to cast your vote here if feel so inclined. I don't discriminate.

This poll was posted in response to another poll that I felt was particularly biased. Here is the link to the other poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6033252&mesg_id=6033252

peace brother.

[Divine Discontent]

45. faced heavy worded harassment from friend's friends several different times in my life

people can be such lousy worms. fortunately, one of the friends who's straight went off on the group of friends making fun of me & him - it was a spectacle of awesome righteousness! lol...

I believe if you tell all of your friends you're gay, and are somewhat open in the workplace, as a gay man you are going to definitely get harassed at some point in your life...

God bless us all.

[iamthebandfanman]

47. im straight, but ive been harrased by a gay man

i was once in a bar with some friends(all of which were girls) and had a guy come up and tell me i was cute. i told him i was flattered but that i wasnt interested in men. he kept coming back and coming back , which wasnt a big deal... but then he grabbed my ass.
i left.

im most certainly not homophobic and i have no problem with anybodys lifestyle...but that was a little much.