Believers Must Fight for Gay Teens - By Gene Robinson

[DonViejo]

Compassion is important, but so is fighting systemic injustice—like the way our social institutions harass and criminalize gay teenagers.

There’s an old saying among social justice advocates: it’s not enough to pull drowning people out of a raging stream; we must also walk back upstream and find out who’s throwing them in.

Religious people of all stripes are called by their various sacred texts to care for the most vulnerable in our midst. But that “care” cannot and must not be limited to compassionate acts of kindness and “rescue.” Compassion is one side of the “care” coin; the other is justice. If religious people and religious institutions are to respond to God’s call for compassion and justice, then we need to address societal systems that target and victimize the vulnerable in the first place.

Nowhere is this need more evident than in the systematic criminalization of LGBT people (especially LGBT youth) and people living with HIV infection. A startling and disturbing new report, “A Roadmap for Change: Federal Policy Recommendations for Addressing the Criminalization of LGBT People and People Living with HIV,” outlines the frightening world facing this vulnerable population. This confluence of societal systems—policing and law enforcement, incarceration, immigration laws, and the increasing criminalization of youth and people living with HIV—are working in tandem to make already-difficult lives more burdensome and dangerous.

LGBT youth are disproportionately susceptible to being thrown out of their homes and forced to fend for themselves at a young age, often “triggering a lifetime of economic and social instability. … Family rejection and homelessness are top predictors that a young person will come in contact with the juvenile justice system because of police targeting of homeless and low-income communities and people engaged in survival economies—such as drug sales, sex work, and other criminalized activity—to quite literally survive. Schools can also play a critical role in pushing youth onto the streets, from hostile school climates that leave LGBT youth feeling unsafe, to harsh discipline policies that have a disparate impact of perpetuating a school-to-prison pipeline.”

more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/18/believers-must-fight-for-gay-teens.html

[Warpy]

1. That's right, the churches could be a force for good

Unfortunately, they're operating under the dual burdens of the OT priests and Paul in the NT. Homophobia is almost as central to their doctrine as the subjugation of women is, and yes, they are linked.

[okasha]

2. Still true for the fundamentalists

but not for all. Gene Robinson is gay, and a retired bishop of the Episcopal Church.

[cbayer]

3. Check this out, I think they may have set it up for you.

http://notalllikethat.org

[hrmjustin]

4. Not in the Episcopal Church.

[Lordquinton]

46. Amazing how some people here are more concerned

with making sure we pat the good ones on the head than they are about how bad the bad ones are.

[okasha]

55. Amszing how some people here

are more concerned with condemning all churches, even those with a long record of supporting women's and LGBT rights, right along with the ones thst still retain homophobic snd misogynistic policies.

[skepticscott]

80. Feel free to point to any posts here

Where people are "condemning all churches". We'll wait.

While you're at it, show us which churches have a "long record of supporting women's and LGBT rights. "Long" as in, for the majority of their existence, rather than just catching up with more enlightened secular society, and trying to take credit for coming late to the party.

[Lordquinton]

87. My point exactily

A real ally won't pull the spotlight to themselves and make it all about them, they would stand right beside and denounce the ones giving them a bad name.

[cbayer]

66. Amazing how some people here are more concerned

with making sure we kick all of them in the ass and not about using a minimum of discriminating thought in seeing the differences between those doing good and those doing bad. Such a shame to kick allies.

[Lordquinton]

86. If the allies are truly allies

then they won't insert themselves into the conversation and make it about them, and instead condemn the many more churches that are making them look bad.

Pulling the spotlight to yourself is being a bad ally.

[cbayer]

93. Why can't we celebrate and support those that are working towards mutually shared goals

and work together to expose and fight those that aren't?

Please take a look at this, if you haven't already.

http://notalllikethat.org

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "pulling the spotlight to yourself". Are you talking about Gene Robinson?

Why this need to condemn all things religious to the point of rejecting all the good things religion does? What in the world is the point of that LQ?

[trotsky]

96. Why can't we do both?

Be thankful for the churches that have come around to support progressive values, but still make sure we call attention to those that haven't?

Why this need to condemn all things religious to the point of rejecting all the good things religion does?

Has anyone actually done that besides the straw man that you drag out every time you want to scold someone?

[AtheistCrusader]

97. Belief AT ALL carries baggage. Good and bad.

Can't separate them.

[cbayer]

98. So does non-belief, my friend. So does non-belief.

[AtheistCrusader]

99. Such as?

[rug]

5. Case in point.

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2014/05/san_francisco_catholic_school.html

[AtheistCrusader]

6. Good to see the kids fighting... against their catholic school.

I think the OP's point was in reference to the whole, not just parts.

[hrmjustin]

7. But it could be individuals as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Uphill battle.

Case in point is a top-town authoritarian organization.

It is not a grassroots thing to be modified by individuals who are not residing in the 'holy see'.

Edit: well, they CAN, but by splitting off into new orgs of which they have some control. entities like the Episcopalian church.

[hrmjustin]

9. Well we are talking about all belivers and just because you say it is an uphill battle doesn't mean

people should stop.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Individuals can move to a church more amenable to their views.

Why not just leave the RCC holding an empty sack if it doesn't align to the members' values? Be done with it. There are alternatives. If it was open to revision by the rank and file members, that would be one thing. It is not.

When I say there are alternatives, I am referring even to groups like, the Episcopalian church.

From wiki:
"In 1976, the Convention declared that homosexuals are "children of God" and "entitled to full civil rights"."


Boom, done. What purpose is served by sticking it out and attempting to change an org that is built to resist change?

[hrmjustin]

11. Well some people don't want to leave their church.

I did but others like where they are and prefer to change from within.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. the RCC is not designed to be modified in that manner.

Hence offshoots.

[hrmjustin]

13. And people disagree and want to stay and fight.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Fight what?

Fight their local parish? Priest? Ok, so they change their local church. What then?

Oh, right, the church just gets kicked out of the org.

Rosemarie Smead was ordained as a priest. But her church is viewed as a dissident non-affiliated org.
What's the point.

[hrmjustin]

15. So they have to leave because you say so?

Leave them be and let them do what they want to do.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. No, I won't leave them be.

They belong to an org that spends MILLIONS on anti-progressive social issues.

I'm a progressive. I'm not going to kick back and ignore their money, their lobbying and court efforts to DESTROY progressive causes.

They've engaged the ACA in every level of our nation's courts now.
They are attacking abortion access nationwide.
They spend millions on, and lead the fight against physician assisted suicide/end of life care.
They've contributed mightily to keeping same-sex marriage unrecognized by the government.


Sorry. It's not 'because I say so', it's because they belong to a fundamentally misogynistic and bigoted organization. 'change from within' isn't happening, so there are alternatives if members want me to believe they themselves aren't patriarchal, misogynists, bigots, etc.

I detest racism, you don't see me joining the KKK to foster 'change from within'.

[hrmjustin]

17. So I ask again, are they supposed to leave because you say so?

[AtheistCrusader]

18. I already answered this. Sorry you didn't like the answer.

The answer remains the same. You (RCC members, not *you*) belong to a fundamentally anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-abortion/choice/family planning organization, and I have a problem with you sitting around 'hoping for change' when your MONEY is being spent on these issues, your church is being deliberately disruptive to American politics, bolsters the political right wing, and there are alternatives on the table.

As long as those are the conditions, then yeah, I would hope people would abandon the church, and find one in line with their views.

If the church then changes in response to the exodus, they can always go back.

[hrmjustin]

19. I undertand your point and your talking to a gay man who left and became Episcopalian.

However I know plenty of good Catholics that are for change in the church. I also know plenty of liberal priests that want change and they fight for it.

We all deal with things differently and they have a constitutional right to do so and you and I have a right to comment on it.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. They have a right, absolutely.

But membership adds political clout and money to the church's agenda. If the RCC wasn't so politically and judicially active, I'd be happy to live and let live.

But it is. And so I must.

The Episcopalian church seems much more progressive in its lobbying/etc, so it escapes my notice most of the time.
How do you feel about this commentary?
http://thesubdeansstall.org/2012/03/05/of-the-one-percent-and-dissolute-dissolution-where-the-money-is-going-in-the-episcopal-church-budget/

[hrmjustin]

22. Yes I read this and I have mixed feelings.

We should trust the Presiding Bishop to do the right thing for Episcopalians and her budget must enable her to do the job and lobby.

But we must keep enough funds to do the mission of the church on a local level.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. The Episcopal church seems very progressive on additional issues

like immigration, and immigration reform.

I continue to think of it as a high-quality alternative for catholics who find the RCC out of touch with their values. Seemingly out of touch with democratic/progressive values on a broad list of social issues, in fact.

I don't understand why it seems to bother you that people like me place pressure on the RCC to change, or go away, and it's members to change or find a less obnoxious place to be, where their money and clout won't be used to represent and bolster regressive/right wing political issues.

[hrmjustin]

24. I have no issue with you giving your opinion but I am standing up for those who choose to stay and

fight.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. 'standing up' for what?

I point out only their contributions to current church lobbying/legislative efforts as being harmful.
I also point out the relative unlikelihood of them accomplishing change that will eliminate such a broad range of anti-progressive efforts on behalf of the church.

What is there to 'stand up' for? Am I WRONG that there are alternatives? Am I WRONG that the church's efforts in our courts and our legislatures are harmful? Am I WRONG that sea change on a host of political issues seems unlikely from a bottom-up approach to a top-down authoritarian organization?

[hrmjustin]

26. I am n8t saying your wrong I just think we should respect those who fight the system.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. How do I tell which ones those are?

[hrmjustin]

28. Well if they are your friend or relative you ask their opinion on issues.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. And if I've run out of those?

I don't have any more living catholic relatives.

I do raise these issues with my catholic friends.
What am I supposed to do for the millions that aren't my friends? Just ignore them?

[hrmjustin]

30. Then go up to people in the street and ask them.

I don't get what your asking. Give your opinion to people and hope they agree.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. I don't get what you're objecting to.

You raised some sort of objection here, but it remains unclear to me what this entire subthread was about.

[hrmjustin]

32. my point is we should respectvthose who choose to stay and work to change their religious

institutions. That they are no less progressive than the rest of us.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Are they?

You seem to have skipped over the material contribution that membership in the church carries. Membership that translates into political dollars and political clout for lobbying efforts.

Membership that translates into catholic services that employ people to serve, who then turn around and sue to block the ACA over 'religious objections'.

Membership, even for the purpose of 'change' on one or more issues, is not cost-free. It carries baggage that is directly detrimental to progressives everywhere.

[hrmjustin]

34. You assume people are giving money. Second while I agree the RCC spends too much on RW causes, they

also do a lot of work for the poor. This is what a parishoner has to balance when choosing to give. Also they can make a point of saying what their money goes to when they give it. We have that option in my parish.

Perhaps you should ask progressive Roman Catholics that go to church their opinions before making up your mind on this.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Even if some individuals don't give

they are counted among as members when money DOES change hands on lobbying efforts.

It is not different from progressive members of the NRA, who only spend 35$ a year for membership, in some cases just for access to certain firing ranges that require membership as condition to access the range. That 35$ is negligible, but the NRA then gets to tout FOUR MILLION+ MEMBERS when slinging around the thousands to tens of thousands per member who *IS* politically active. And similarly, there are pro-firearms non-NRA orgs one could select instead. (Though it may not give access to the same ranges/benefits.)

'a lot of work for the poor' does not motivate me. I would sooner see the tax exemption for churches be removed, and then spend that money via government social safety nets with REQUIREMENTS to serve all comers, without discrimination/proselytizing, etc. Measures that can be audited, verified.

If every religious charitable org in the nation closed its doors tomorrow, fine by me. Government can handle that. And it can do it better, in my estimate.

[hrmjustin]

36. Many go for the sacraments and the people they know there. They just won't go to another

denomination. I ghink they are just as progressive as you or I.

Btw in many countries the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church are major NGO and if they didn't provide help then their countries problems would be worse.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. In the US the archdiocese of Boston shuttered its entire adoption agency

rather than A) risk losing state dollars for other charity works on contract, or B) deign to facilitate adoptions to same sex couples.


I don't think the AD of Boston shuttering that social works project made the country's problems worse. I think it made them better, because I don't appreciate the need for discriminatory bigots to be doling out social services on a 'we approve of you' basis.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601456.htm


I don't trust them.

[hrmjustin]

38. I understand how you feel and I have many issues with the bishops. Your points on this post are well

taken. I can seperate the parish church from the bishops.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. You mentioned that you left, previously.

It seems that you personally have a closer connection to my suggested position on members choosing fight or flight.

It seems to me that your choice was in keeping with your values, and I applaud it. And not in some small mean way of sticking it to the RCC, I mean that genuinely.

That is what I encourage others to find, until and unless the controlling authority of the RCC begins meaningful change, on a whole host of social issues.

I would accept even a shift of 'we hold these doctrines to be true for our members, but we will not interfere with state politics anymore'. That would be enough for me, right there. And I will busy myself with other things.

[hrmjustin]

40. I wish the bishops would pay more attentions to the poor and how the gop policy screws them over.

[Lordquinton]

41. You do realize that unless people leave

the RCC has no reason to change anything. People do like you say, stay. Doesn't matter past that as long as they have numbers they don't have to do anything.

[hrmjustin]

42. Well some just don't want to leave their home church.

Some want to stay and change the church. They don't see it as you do.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Change means they won't be in the same church regardless.

They MAY end up occupying the same physical location. But that's it.

If the RCC changes at the top, some measure of churches in the US will splinter off to keep the old ways. Some will change. Either way, people are separated from The Church of old.

If local churches change, and the top end doesn't, again, splintering as churches become renegade.


There is no 3rd option, as this is predicated on absolute doctrine.

The church will leave them, or they will leave the church. The end result is a different 'church' in either case, OR the third option: No change at all.


That's my perspective anyway. This has all happened before.

[hrmjustin]

45. Well there are different thoughts on this.

[Lordquinton]

47. Then they don't really want the change

I don't know how anyone could stand beside an organization that is misogynistic, homophobic, (all supported by the church's rules) that also ran a worldwide pedophile ring.

I mean once you change everything harmful in the catholic church you really have a different entity. You basically have the Episcopalian church, so the alternative is there, they just don't want to take the effort.

[hrmjustin]

48. There are different thoughts on this.

[Lordquinton]

49. Clearly

Some are ok being members of an organization that is harmful to the world around them.

[hrmjustin]

50. Your opinion. They love their church and want to move it a progressive direection.

[rug]

51. Leaving rather than fighting is woefully ineffective.

Sniping from the internet is even worse.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Says you.

[rug]

53. I am fallen into submission by the logic and reason of your argument.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Let me rephrase.

"Staying rather than leaving is woefully ineffective.
Apologia from the internet is even worse."

Your move.

[rug]

56. The original is so much more accurate.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be fairly dismissed without evidence.

[rug]

58. Indeed.

"Says you."

[AtheistCrusader]

59. I'm not sure if you're catching on, or pretending that's a valid role reversal.

You made the initial assertion about leaving being 'inadequate'.

You didn't source or support that statement.

[rug]

60. You could have saved seven posts had you said that instead of "Says you">

[AtheistCrusader]

61. I thought it obvious. Now that you know, feel like addressing it?

[rug]

62. It's not.

First, as a general principle, fleeing is never a good tactic in a political fight, especially ones that are deadly serious.

Secondly, the current problem with the RCC is its gross overreach. It has not a thing to say on civil law, yet it continues to say it. That should and can be stopped. But not by running away mewling on the internet.

Third, the argument made usually comes down to an attack on dogma, usually misstated. As a matter of pure politics, that is not the problem, it's the lobbying and political acts themselves

Fourth, this meme that every Catholic, if not a misogynistic homophobic child molester, is complicit with it unless fleeing out the church door, while spitting, is completely stupid. It is stupid political strategy. It doesn't work. Oh, and it's stupid.

I really am dubious of the motives of those who repetitively repeat this claptrap. Especially when the righteous indignation is dowsed in a coat of anti-Catholic bigotry.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Ok.

First: Actually it's a viable tactic, in line with a boycott. Dwindling numbers of congregants is an EXCELLENT tool to get the upper hierarchy's attention. It's possibly the only, with the exception, PERHAPS, of the survey efforts Francis has undertaken. I don't hold out much hope for that effort, but I must acknowledge it as a possibility, however unlikely I rate it. Do you believe that a mass exodus, for instance, to the Episcopal church, would go unnoticed, and un-answered by the pope and fellows?

Second. I agree with your position here, except on discussing it online, which is one of many ways for ideas to take voice. If it were mere 'mewling', it wouldn't rate your attention, or anyone else's attention, would it? Yet, we have apologists responding. Therefore, it is striking a chord somewhere.

Third, I'm willing to separate the two, except the latter seems dictated by the former. I have been told that the church MUST oppose, for instance, physician assisted suicide due to dogma. I think that's wrong, at least, insofar as it MUST oppose it for non-members of the faith. Keep it in-house and then we agree. Because that would take the politics issue off the table.

Fourth, I am not suggesting, nor have I suggested, that every member is a monster, but remaining a member with little or no hope of change does indeed lend money and credence to the church in its political activities. Remove the political activities, and this is no longer a concern. Keep them, and the 'weight of numbers' issue comes into play, even if they are not truly represented by the agenda, and even if they don't give a dime to the church. (Same effect with the NRA membership example I gave Hrmjustin above) Membership has consequences, so it is imperative to weigh that against potential change.

It might sound like 'anti-Catholic bigotry', especially where I allow a wide berth for, specific example upthread, Episcopalian lobbying and political reach. But that is because their political lobbying is much in line with the progressive platform. I think it's still troubling, but they are low on my list of opposition priorities, because frankly, not much political friction between them and me. I've detailed issues in the past where I have actively helped campaign against the RCC's default and overwhelming leadership position on issues like the physician assisted suicide imitative and subsequent law in WA, and that fight isn't even over, because NOW their method appears to be to acquire all the fucking hospitals in the area, and stop offering the service.

it's always always always a fight, and it's tiring, so, sure, I sound grumpy and all, but don't mistake that for bigotry. These are issue positions, and I can clearly document and support every single one of them.

[Lordquinton]

90. "anti-Catholic bigotry"

It's not bigotry if it's against bigoted beliefs.

It's really hard to carry on these conversations when everything that gets said is twisted into a personal attack, so it would be nice if you stopped that.

[rug]

91. Keep on believing that crap.

Read what you've posted routinely.

You are left in the irrational position of claiming that a person who holds bigoted beliefs is not a bigot.

Have the intellectual honesty to claim your words.

[Lordquinton]

88. Because not leaving

and "Changing it from within" is doing so much better, I mean they got a new pope who says such wonderful things, even if he doesn't back them up and his actions are questionable at best.

Sniping from the internet seems to work well enough for you.

[rug]

92. I can see how wonderfully effective your tactics are.

[cbayer]

67. Not true.

They have to contend with groups like the American nuns and the more progressive leaders in the church. They have to contend with the numbers of people who are disregarding their rules but choosing to stay in the church.

Do you agree with everything that every organization you belong to does or says?

That would be most unusual.

Change can come from people abandoning an organization, but it can also come from within. I have personally stayed with organizations because I wanted them to change direction.

Not only was it often successful, it was very gratifying.

[Lordquinton]

89. I don't belong to organizations that have such heinous beliefs

so the parallel is not valid. They are still members of a church that does not represent them and has no reason to change. In fact groups that do disregard the rules and try to change from within get a visit from the not the inquisition.

[cbayer]

94. Are you a registered Democrat?

Inquisition? Really?

Surely you jest.

[okasha]

63. Probably you should

just ignore them, given that the odds are infinitesimal that you have any credibility with them.

Oh, and you'd also do well to give up the notion of "doing" anything "for" them. Not only is that patronizing as all hell, it makes you just another annoying missionary.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Oh well yes, I guess i'll just go home then and shut the fuck up like a good little boy.

Or not.

[okasha]

69. Which is exactly what you're likely to be told

by the folks you're attempting to convert. I rather think you probably have been told to butt out and mind your own business.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. It is my business.

If you follow the thread, I've given multiple examples where RCC spending, legislative lobbying and court efforts run diametrically opposite progressive platform planks.

I also gave a very specific state level initiative that the RCC pulled out all the stops to fight, that took enormous effort on our part to pass.

So stop pretending I don't have a dog in this fight, if you can't even be bothered to read this thread in its entirety.

[okasha]

74. Oh, I've read the whole thread.

If you want to lobby for liberal causes, I'm all for it.Have at it.

That doesn't give you or anyone else the right to stick your Nosy Parker schnozz into another person's very personal decisions.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Sure it does. Just like it gives me reason to question some of my co-workers decision to be

members of the GOP, when I know their values are not in alignment with the party platform.

I've actually been highly successful in getting people to SEE that and change, in fact.


So yeah, I will stick my 'nosey parker schnozz' whatever the fuck that is, 'into another person's very personal decisions' where those decisions impact me as a subject of the laws in which that other person's personal decision includes legislative lobbying efforts.

[cbayer]

68. But they need to be "saved".

Now, where have we heard that before?

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Oh quit it.

Everyone can see what you and that poster are doing. Quit playing games.

[okasha]

72. Hmmmmm. . . .

Now let me think. . .oh, yeah, from those otherwise nice folks I won't open the door to. Maybe we should all chip in and get AC a bicycle and helmet so he can "preach the word" door to door.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Or you can just admit defeat, and save keystrokes.

[okasha]

75. Indeed, you could do that.

It would probably be helpful in reducing your risk of ulcers.

[cbayer]

77. At this point, I would sooner be proselytized to by JW or Mormons.

Seriously. They are often much less dogmatic and rigid.

And they are generally very polite.

[okasha]

78. One of my closest friends is Mormon,

and I've met more than a few of the missionaries socially. They tend to be really sweet kids. A group of 8 or 9 of the young men performed one of their Acts of Service by helping another friend unpack her U-Haul when she moved. They spent about 3 hours at it--they were only supposed to spend 1--and wouldn't accept anything but some lemonade and pizza in return. No attempt whatsoever at preaching.

[cbayer]

79. Have you seen Book of Mormon by any chance.

The South Park guys did a brilliant job of portraying these kids and their dilemmas.

Really excellent, and exceedingly funny.

Anyway, I also have known quite a few Mormons. Not a single one has preached to me, tried to convert me or seemed to be on anything close to a crusade.

[okasha]

81. The show?

Not yet. Will maybe catch it if it comes to San Antonio.

My Mormon friend is an artist, and she painted the most erotic picture you can imagine of chocolate-covered cherries--for an AIDS benefit. A truly beautiful person.

[cbayer]

82. If you get a chance, do not miss it.

I'm back in the states, in Houston as a matter of fact. The border was a nightmare.

I've got some really interesting experiences with Mormons.

Hope you are doing well.

[okasha]

83. Oh, yeah. Crossing is migraine-inducing

these days. Best spot.is probably the bridge at Falcon Dam. Not much traffic and the BP/INS are a lot more relaxed.

Doing well and being lazy between the end of Spring semester and 1st. summer session.

[cbayer]

84. It's so strange being back in the US.

I'm watching Colbert Report in Houston - worlds away from my most recent life.

Driving to New Orleans tomorrow, so going to get some rest.

Would love to meet you sometime.

[rug]

95. Here's an update.

JessicasTux @JessicasTux Follow
Everyone read this! This may not have happened without all of the attention you brought to it! You all made a change! http://www.shcp.edu/news/2014/05/letter-our-community …

3:00 PM - 19 May 2014

23 Retweets 24 favorites

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12214842

[trotsky]

20. *sigh*

It's great that Mr. Robinson can at least acknowledge it (since so few, even here on DU, are willing), but a pity that he doesn't bring it up until his second-to-last paragraph:

Institutionalized religion is perhaps the single most contributing factor to the attitudes of parents who, because they have been taught condemnation of homosexuality, are likely to dispossess their LGBT children and throw them into the streets.

In other words, the whole reason why everything he addresses first in his essay are issues, is BECAUSE OF the religious attitudes of parents & family. Believers aren't fighting some nebulous societal monster that's harming LGBT youth, they are overcoming the attitudes and prejudice so prevalent in religious belief for centuries.

[LeftishBrit]

44. k&r & so should everyone!

[Prophet 451]

85. I think he's absolutely right

The churches could, and should, be a great force for social justice. Gay people (and gay youth especially) are pretty much the "least of these" in the western world.