Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Are LGBT kids more likely to be homeless than straight teens?

No; of the youth population, 20-40% identify as LGBT, meaning that 60-80% do not identify as such.

And assuming that about 10 to 15% of teens identify as LGBT, I think that EXACTLY proves the point that they're disproportionately represented among homeless teens.

It's like the fact that Salt Lake is about 45%-ish active Mormon. That means that 55%, more, are not, but don't tell me that's not a lot higher than 2% of the U.S.

(Just saw the correction.)

A majority of the state's residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). As of 2007, 60.7% of Utahns are counted as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, although only 41.6% of them are active members.[9][10] Mormons now make up about 34%–41% of Salt Lake City,[9] while rural areas tend to be overwhelmingly Mormon.

This is why I can survive here. ;-)

Yeah, this answer was all sorts of problematic. You could tell it was written by someone who has zero understanding of the struggles that LGBT individuals often face.

1. Technically speaking, marriage wasn't what the LGBT community went after first. It started with not getting thrown in jail just for being at a gay bar. Then you had sodomy laws which had to be struck down. Fun fact. the sentence for Sodomy in Idaho was life in prison.

The modern gay rights movement has focused on marriage because so many other rights are tied to it, Want to be able to visit your spouse in the hospital, or make important healthcare decisions for them? Marriage solves that. Want to make sure that your children are taken care of in the event one of you dies? That you don't lose them to some random anti-gay relative? Marriage takes care of that. Want to make sure your partner can inherit your house... attend your funeral, get your benefits... the list goes on and on and on. Marriage is the de facto way to get access to a very large number of rights. It's also a cause that is easy to fight for. People understand wanting to marry the person they love. People understand wanting to protect your family, it's makes a very good political cause.

and because it's an easy cause to explain to people. Everyone wants to be able to marry the person they love, it's a relatable cause that can easily gain traction.

2. The question asker is correct in that unfair laws are not the cause of the LGBT homeless problem. The root of the problem is familial rejection, motivated by religion. For more info on this, check out The Family Acceptance Project Our religious leaders could accomplish so much by standing up and unequivocally saying this is a serious sin.

3. News media often ignore important information when it comes to issues like adoption or business discrimination. For example, in the case of the Catholic charity, they were not banned from offering adoption services because they refused to accept gay clients. What happened was they lost their government funding and rather then continue to fund themselves, they opted to shut down. This is why LDS family services is still able to refuse service to gay couples. A tax payer funded agency should be required to serve everyone equally... Mormon, Catholic, Gay... Straight... etc.

Slight correction on point 3, LDS family services doesn't facilitate adoptions any more (see here: https://www.lds.org/church/news/church- ... r?lang=eng) and works largely as a counseling service.

I still find it difficult to believe that I would be barred from visiting my long-term boyfriend if he were run over by a truck. What's the story there? If we had a wedding date, does that change things? Makes no sense. (We're straight, obviously.)

Portia wrote:I still find it difficult to believe that I would be barred from visiting my long-term boyfriend if he were run over by a truck. What's the story there? If we had a wedding date, does that change things? Makes no sense. (We're straight, obviously.)

I dunno. When my boyfriend was detoxing in the hospital, I'm the one who stayed with him because he wanted me and no one else. But if his parents had said I couldn't be there, then I think I would've been kicked out. I had no legal right to be there, just what my boyfriend wanted.

Imogen wrote:

Portia wrote:I still find it difficult to believe that I would be barred from visiting my long-term boyfriend if he were run over by a truck. What's the story there? If we had a wedding date, does that change things? Makes no sense. (We're straight, obviously.)

I dunno. When my boyfriend was detoxing in the hospital, I'm the one who stayed with him because he wanted me and no one else. But if his parents had said I couldn't be there, then I think I would've been kicked out. I had no legal right to be there, just what my boyfriend wanted.

How do we go about changing these laws? Seems stupid.

If the individual is conscious, then they can have wishes and they can be made known. If they aren't....

Marduk wrote:If the individual is conscious, then they can have wishes and they can be made known. If they aren't....

Yeah, at one point he was sedated, so if they had said I had to leave I would've had to. It's all about that consciousness.

Would a living will supersede the wishes of the relatives? I don't know if they're legally binding or not but I feel like they should be.

If a patient is unable to make decisions, then a healthcare power of attorney (which has to be made while the person is still of sound mind) is the only thing that supersedes the normal next-of-kin order. I had a patient a few weeks ago who was too demented to make decisions, and even though his daughter was his caretaker, we still had to run all medical decisions by his estranged wife who lived in another state, since she was still the legal next of kin. It was weird. Everyone, if you want someone other than your next of kin to make your health decisions should you be incapacitated, get your HPOA paperwork done stat.

Eirene wrote:If a patient is unable to make decisions, then a healthcare power of attorney (which has to be made while the person is still of sound mind) is the only thing that supersedes the normal next-of-kin order. I had a patient a few weeks ago who was too demented to make decisions, and even though his daughter was his caretaker, we still had to run all medical decisions by his estranged wife who lived in another state, since she was still the legal next of kin. It was weird. Everyone, if you want someone other than your next of kin to make your health decisions should you be incapacitated, get your HPOA paperwork done stat.

Sounds like a good idea.

What's the hierarchy for medical next of kin then? Spouse? Then parent, or child? What about siblings? Grandchildren?

I believe it's spouse, adult children, parents, siblings. If there are two people on the same level who disagree (like a widow's two adult children), then you either get them to agree or you start doing things through the courts. That's why it's so important to have a living will AND to discuss it with your family or HPOA--to avoid having one person say "Mom would have wanted this" and another saying "Mom would have wanted that." It's so painful for everyone when that happens.

Reminds me of Terri Schiavo. Husband said pull the plug, parents didn't want to. Both believed they were pushing for what she would've wanted. Court shuffling at state and federal level made seven years before they finally pulled the plug.