LGBT Population in U.S. Significantly Less Religious

[cbayer]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/174788/lgbt-population-significantly-less-religious.aspx

August 11, 2014

Almost half are classified as nonreligious

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender are significantly less likely than non-LGBT Americans to be highly religious, and significantly more likely to be classified as not religious. The same percentage of each group is moderately religious.



Religiosity Among National Adults, by LGBT Status and Gender, January-July 2014

These results are based on more than 104,000 Gallup Daily tracking interviews conducted between Jan. 2 and July 31, 2014, including 3,242 adults who identified themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.

Gallup classifies Americans as "very religious" if they say religion is an important part of their daily lives and that they attend religious services every week or almost every week. That group constituted 41% of all U.S. adults between January and July 2014. "Nonreligious" Americans (30% of U.S. adults) are those who say religion is not an important part of their daily lives and that they seldom or never attend religious services. The remaining group, 29% of Americans, are classified as "moderately religious." These people say religion is important in their lives but that they do not attend services regularly, or that religion is not important but that they still attend services.

LGBT and non-LGBT individuals differ on both dimensions that make up the religiosity classification. About a quarter of LGBT individuals attend religious services regularly, contrasted with 42% of non-LGBT individuals.



more at link

[AtheistCrusader]

1. I'm shocked that it's even as high as that.

[cbayer]

2. Why? You do realize that there is a significant GLBT civil rights movement within

the religious community, right?

While not surprising that many have left religion because of the damage that some sectors have done to GLBT people, there is nothing that would lead one to believe that GLBT people are inherently less religious.

Some of the most religious people I know are GLBT.

[trotsky]

3. No, cbayer, none of us evil atheists are aware of that.

Remember, according to the caricature you continually promote of us, we hate ALL religion and want it outlawed and all believers executed.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. I accept your use of the word 'significant', but perhaps not in the way you meant it.

'Significant' in that it is unexpected, and incredibly brave, I totally accept that.
'Significant' in that it is numerically common/large, I reject.

[cbayer]

30. If you are unaware of the number religious groups and denominations that are

actively working for glbt civil rights, then you are not paying attention.

It is posted about in this group frequently, but blinders can be quite effective.

Have a great day!

[trotsky]

32. Always classy, aren't you?

Instead of documenting your claim, just accuse someone of having blinders on. Nice.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. I know the numbers.

You seemed to have missed some numbers in your own OP.

[cbayer]

35. Do you? What are they?

We are not talking about individuals, as the article does, but of religious groups and denominations.

I didn't miss anything, snarkman.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. See post 36.

Somehow I stuck it in the wrong part of this thread. But easy to find.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. LGBT civil rights are more than just marriage of course, but Pinto posted the PEW data

below.

"Religious Affiliation. Religious groups fall on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. More than 8-in-10 (83 percent) Jewish Americans, roughly three-quarters (73 percent) of religiously unaffiliated Americans, 62 percent of white mainline Protestants, 58 percent of white Catholics, and 56 percent of Hispanic Catholics favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally. By contrast, nearly 7-in-10 (69 percent) white evangelical Protestants and 59 percent of black Protestants oppose same-sex marriage. Hispanic Protestants are split, with 46 percent in favor and 49 percent who oppose."


The one denomination there that leads Unaffiliated, is also one of the least numerous groups, sadly. Less than 1% of the population.


You haven't responded to Warren's point about your claim that "there is nothing that would lead one to believe that GLBT people are inherently less religious."

[cbayer]

38. I have Warren on ignore and will never respond to him.

And you are about to joint that special little group. Your decision, basically.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. I find it disgusting you tried to paint that post as a personal attack. I thought that behavior

beneath you.

I will not miss you.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. Discussing the contents of cbayer's posts is a personal attack.

You should know that by now. When demonstrably wrong, she is suddenly a victim of a personal attack. You have been relentlessly courteous and thoughtful in your responses, and what you've gotten in return is entirely typical.

[okasha]

53. Do you have something that shows

that we're inherently less religious? If so, kindly produce it.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Pinto already did.

WHY is a different question, but the data is right there.

[okasha]

55. Thread title and post number, please.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. My mistake, the info is actually in the article in the OP.

"There are a number of possible explanations for the lower level of religiosity among the U.S. LGBT population. LGBT individuals may feel less welcome in many congregations whose church doctrine, church policy, or ministers or parishioners condemn same-sex relations, and for the same reasons may be less likely to adopt religion into their own daily lives and beliefs.

Other possible explanations have to do less with church doctrine and more with the demographics of the LGBT population. LGBT individuals may be more likely to live in areas and cities where religion and religious service attendance are less common, and may adopt the practices of those with whom they share geography.

The LGBT population skews substantially younger than the non-LGBT population, and because younger people are the least religious of any age group in the U.S. today, age could be an explanation. However, a look at the relationship between LGBT status and religiousness across age groups shows that while older individuals in both groups are more religious than those who are younger, differences in religiousness are evident within all three age groups. In short, even if the LGBT population had the same age divisions as the non-LGBT population, the former's lower levels of religiousness would most likely still be evident."

The chart above and below that section.

Sorry, Pinto's point/data was about a slightly different point.

[okasha]

85. Those aren't inherent characteristics, though.

An inherent trait is one that is inborn or otherwise essential. Sexual orientation and gender identity are inherent. The tendency to lactose intolerance among Native Americans is inherent. The process of language acquisition is inherent in humans.

Religious or political affiliations, place of residence, profession, etc. are all choices. I still see nothing that inherently predisposes LGBTs to be either more or less religious than heterosexuals.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Do you consider intolerance/homophobia to be an inherent characteristic of the dominant abrahamic

faiths in the US? Intolerance in the form of things like lobbying to oppose SSM, up to outright open hostility/bigotry? (I do, even if some are opening up so to speak.)

If so, that is the sense in which I mean, because I think it unlikely people will invest themselves in a culture that immediately rejects them outright. So, perhaps one step removed from being an inherent characteristic of the individuals themselves?

As more denominations open up to LGBT civil rights and equality, I think we might see that dip in religiosity reverse itself in this demographic. Though, it'll take time. A lot of bridges have been burned...

[okasha]

95. No.

I consider homophobia/intolerance and misogyny to be inherent in patriarchy. To the extent that a religion frees itself from patriarchy, it also frees itself from gender-based bigotry and discrimination. It's no accident that the Episcopal Church and Reform/Reconstructionist Judaism, say, have women/LGBT leaders. And it's no accident that the patriarchal LDS and Southern Baptist Convention don't. The RCC is beginning the process of transition, and the laity and parish clergy are way out in front of the bishops. Women theologians and scholars are starting to shake up American Islam, too. Change in some cases may be slow, but it's inevitable.

[AtheistCrusader]

96. A factor, to be sure, however

until some revisions are made to the source Abrahamic documentation, the bible is going to give some people pause, I would think...


But I agree in so far as this is a cultural thing. Not just what the book says. And culture is on the move, even if the book hasn't changed.

[okasha]

100. Parts of the Bible

have been giving a lot of people pause for a very long time. I wouldn't favor revisions--we wouldn't want to revise The Taming of the Shrew or Macbeth, for example--but I would and do favor far better education about the historical and cultural context of the Bible. It's what we do with Shakespeare, and what we should do with any text that isn't contemporary.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Except of course, when asked LGBT people indicate they are less religious.

there is nothing that would lead one to believe that GLBT people are inherently less religious.

I dunno cbayer, did you read your own freaking op?

Here, in case you missed it:


Your own data. What are you going to cling to here, "inherently"?

[Goblinmonger]

7. Sometimes one fucking wonders, doesn't one.

I mean the same person who posts the survey tries to act like there is no survey that indicates what it indicates. Frankly, it boogles the fucking mind--if one has a fucking mind to boggle, I guess.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Well that poll was about LGBT people, not GLBT people, so there is that.

On the other hand, it is fairly typical for privileged people with superior minds to just *know* what lesser people really think.

[pinto]

16. That was the article's title - "LGBT Population in U.S. Significantly Less Religious". (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

21. I'm trying to figure out cbayer's odd response.

Perhaps GLBT people are something entirely different? I'll go ask my daughter, she's an expert.

It is either that, or some ludicrous parsing of "inherent", or I give up, Ministry of Arguments?

[okasha]

23. It would be interesting to see this broken down further by denomination.

I imagine attendance would be significantly higher among Episcopalians, UU and UCC members, given that those churches by now have a substantial history of supporting LGBT rights and marriage equality. Methodists, Presbyterians, Reform Judaism and Lutherans are getting there, as are some individual Catholic and even Baptist (!) congregations.

I would guess the lowest affiliation would be among fundamentalist and evangelical churches, which have done just about every thing they can to drive away LGBT's. (MCC excepted, of course.)

[Goblinmonger]

24. I would agree that those would be higher

Well, isn't there a split with Episcopalians? (not being an ass, I'm just seem to remember that there is an anti-gay branch or something like that) It would also be interesting to see how many have left their previous religion and are now UU or UCC.

[okasha]

25. There are individual parishes

that have broken with the national church over this. They can't call themselves Episcopalian, though--that's been settled through lawsuits--and generally adopt an "Anglican" label. Some have put themselves under the supervision of the African bishops who are adamantly against full acceptance of LGBT's, in the church or anywhere else.

I can't remember where I saw it or what the exact figures are, but there has been an influx of LGBT's in both the Episcopal and UCC churches. Those LGBT's who are more evangelical usually join the MCC.

[trotsky]

8. That would be my guess. Holding out hope that it was just a few bad apples...

that scared LGBTers away from religion. That deep down, they really are religious and need religion.

Because that's what she needs to believe.

[Goblinmonger]

9. I'm sure there is some argument coming that it is homophobic

to not be religious. Or at least religious friendly.

[trotsky]

10. Wait, I know!

It was DAWKINS!!!!!!111one!!eleventyOMGWTFBBQLOLTTYLSMH!

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Wow Just Wow!

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Double secret probation religion

[Warren Stupidity]

13. It does seem that way.

Odd that a person who routinely jumps down anyone's throat for mistaking her for a "theist"when she claims she is an "agnostic" would think that.

[trotsky]

18. She can decide what people really believe.

No one else can.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. I imagine this thread is not going as planned.

[Goblinmonger]

6. You do realize that there is a significantly significant amount of homophobia in regligion

Case in point: the RCC.

[pinto]

15. Yes, there certainly is. Along with misogyny, a blindered view of the world, a disconnect.

Institutionally it's a narrow, dogmatic, calcified world. Yet many rank-and-file Catholics recognize that disconnect from their own day to day lives. Many of their views run counter to church dogma. And they choose to make their own choices.

[trotsky]

17. They sure do.

And while doing that, they also give money and time to support the bigoted institution and its leaders.

(P.S. It's primarily American and European Catholics who reject the LGBT bigotry. The much larger memberships of Latin and South America, and Africa, are almost universally on board with it.)

[AtheistCrusader]

19. How many is 'many', and why bother having a church at all?

[pinto]

26. Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%
Nearly eight in 10 young adults favor gay marriage

by Justin McCarthy

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' support for the law recognizing same-sex marriages as legally valid has increased yet again, now at 55%. Marriage equality advocates have had a string of legal successes over the past year, most recently this week in Pennsylvania and Oregon where federal judges struck down bans on gay marriage.








http://publicreligion.org/research/2014/06/lgbt-fact-sheet/

Same-Sex Marriage

A majority (53 percent) of Americans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally, compared to 41 percent who are opposed.

Party Affiliation. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of Democrats and a majority (57 percent) of independents favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally, compared to 34 percent of Republicans.

Religious Affiliation. Religious groups fall on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. More than 8-in-10 (83 percent) Jewish Americans, roughly three-quarters (73 percent) of religiously unaffiliated Americans, 62 percent of white mainline Protestants, 58 percent of white Catholics, and 56 percent of Hispanic Catholics favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally. By contrast, nearly 7-in-10 (69 percent) white evangelical Protestants and 59 percent of black Protestants oppose same-sex marriage. Hispanic Protestants are split, with 46 percent in favor and 49 percent who oppose.

Generation. There is more than a 30-point generation gap. Nearly 7-in-10 (69 percent) young adults (age 18 to 29) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally, compared to 38 percent of seniors (age 65+). A majority (56 percent) of seniors are opposed.

Region. Roughly 6-in-10 Americans who live in the Northeast (60 percent) and West (58 percent)—including 59 percent of Californians—support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally. A majority (51 percent) of Americans who live in the Midwest also support same-sex marriage, while southerners are split between those who support it (48 percent) and those who are opposed (48 percent).

[Goblinmonger]

28. I agree that many Catholics ignore the dogma

Which is why I said the RCC and not Catholics. Hopefully that word choice didn't go unnoticed.

[pinto]

29. No, I got it. A good distinction overall. I noticed it. Wanted to add that.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. k&r for an unintentionally ludicrous thread.

This place is laugh riot.

[okasha]

27. This topic has also been posted in Interfaith,

should anyone care to, like, you know, actually talk about it.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. "actually talk about it" - meaning just say utterly vapid nonsense and not have it challenged.

Yeah, I see there is just a ton of interest in that post over in the interfaithy hug-fest. The only posts there that get any traction at all generally are the ones bashing the Bad Atheists - all completely in line with the actual effective SOP of the Interfaithy Group of course. "0 replies" is the mode for posts there. Why is that?

[AtheistCrusader]

34. We talk just fine here.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. And over there you are claiming that this post of yours was not

Last edited Wed Aug 13, 2014, 05:52 PM - Edit history (1)

exactly what it is.
"should anyone care to, like, you know, actually talk about it."

neener neener we're going to our clubhouse. NO BAD ATHEISTS ALLOWED!

Well you got what you wanted, a couple of people banned while politely posting while being atheist, and yet another chance to play the poor besieged people of faith card.

[okasha]

41. Wrong.

But there's a record of your and others' posts on that thread, available to anyone who cares to check.

Ta.

[trotsky]

42. I would strongly encourage EVERYONE to go read that thread, and check the hidden posts.

See who was "civil" and who wasn't.

[Goblinmonger]

43. Oh, come on now

"Fuck you, you fucking fucker" is obviously civil and no reason to block someone from Interfaith.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. With any luck somebody will manage to convince a jury that

you quoting somebody saying "fuck you, you fucking fucker" is a deeply offensive personal attack.

[Goblinmonger]

46. I think it is what Jesus said to the money changers

It just got lost in the translations.

[rug]

48. Don't forget this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123026025

[Rob H.]

63. Interesting that apparently it's okay to link to a post in a protected group when YOU do it

especially since it takes you a hot minute to get onto others for doing exactly the same thing.

[rug]

66. Every group is part of DU whether you like it or not.

Pointing out what passes for discussion there pales in comparison to using it as a base for attacks on other DU groups and members.

[Rob H.]

67. So you've decided to jump straight to denial and justification, then?

There's a shock.

[rug]

68. You've said nothing warranting either a denial or an affirmation.

Let alone justification.

Now it's your turn to shock me: state something of substance.

[hrmjustin]

69. There is no rule against linking to safe havens on this site.

[Rob H.]

70. Then you might want to remind rug of that, too

given that he's jumped on people for doing it in the past.

[hrmjustin]

71. I have never seen him do that but there is no rule.

AA has special rules set by their membership of not linking to safe havens I believe, and have asked that AA links not be posted here.

[Rob H.]

80. "…and have asked that AA links not be posted here."

Which is exactly what rug did, and why I called him on it.

[hrmjustin]

83. true but there is no rule against it.

[rug]

98. Tell me, how does this meet the SoP?

Should there be a safe haven group with NO BAD ATHEISTS ALLOWED?

Or should the Interfaithy Group just change its SOP to be clearer?

[Goblinmonger]

102. It meets the SOP because the hosts haven't locked it.

Alert on it if you have a problem with it.

[rug]

103. That's not how it works.

I was just reminded of Bull Connor.

That post is already hidden. Problem solved.

[Goblinmonger]

104. Take it up with Skinner

I eagerly await to read about it in ATA.

[rug]

106. I'm sure he's read the post, the alert, and the results. He gets them all.

I eagerly wait to read about it.

[kdmorris]

72. Awesome

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12643825

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12643738#post14

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12643825#post37

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12643825#post22

Cherry-picking can go both ways...

[hrmjustin]

73. lol I am glad you read my posts.

[kdmorris]

75. Usually I don't

But these were just so interesting...most of them aren't your posts, though.

Edited to add: Yes, I linked to your posts, but it was the incivility evidenced by others that I thought everyone should see.

[hrmjustin]

77. Well no one can be interesting all the time.

Cheers!

[rug]

78. !

[hrmjustin]

49. interesting. I thought you had me on ignore.

[okasha]

52. Oh, my.

How embarrassing.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Actually I just tested this.

Temporarily put you on ignore for a couple minutes. If I follow ANY link to that thread, I can see it, and all your posts, even with you on full ignore. If I look at the forum level, I can't see your OP, but any link whatsoever to the interior of the thread, and I can see it.
So that claim may be true.

[hrmjustin]

76. lol he might have just signed out to see it. no big deal.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. It is even more interesting that in the interfaith forum of good feelings

and nonjudgmental niceness, telling somebody to "fuck off, you fucking fucker" is not a problem. Nor is atheist bashing. Nor is Dawkins bashing. Perhaps you really ought to change the SOP of your group so it is clear what the rules are.

[rug]

81. Tsk, your feelings were hurt.

That post was a problem and it was hidden.

There's no atheist bashing going on, just asshole banning. Fortunately, there are many more atheists posting than there are assholes. You should learn the difference.

Dawkins should be bashed for what he's been saying lately. As should Harris.

Perhaps you should start another thread telling Interfaith to change its SoP.

[hrmjustin]

82. I did not realize we had to agree with you on dawkins.

The fact is what was said to you should not have been but it is over as far as I am concerned.

Our group was doing just fine.

[Warren Stupidity]

84. So in the interfaith group it is a-ok to tell people

to fuck the fuck off.

I really don't see how that fits in the group SOP, but indeed it is YOUR group.

I also don't see how attacking Dawkins fits in the SOP. Can I post there attacking the pope?

But again, it is indeed YOUR group. I just don't want to get banned for not understanding the effective SOP, as it clearly doesn't match the stated SOP:

A safe haven that provides opportunities for people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance. Criticisms of individual beliefs or non-belief, or debates about the existence of higher power(s) are not appropriate in this group.

You really should make it clear what the rules are in your group. The SOP is obviously very out of date.

[hrmjustin]

87. Our SOP works just fine for us.

We are not changing it because some people who don't post in it just decided to show up.

I will post about Dawkins all I want in there and I will do it again.

When I went into AA I was told what the rules were and I backed out after people were upset with my arguments and presence. I will not go back because I do not want to be disruptive. Please understand if you regularly come in there the members of the room are not pleased and ask the hosts to deal with it.

We all know the personality of posters here and who gets along with who. It is best if you just leave the room alone and say what you want here or in AA.

To be frank the hosts are very frustrated and are ready to ban any disruptor that comes in there.

If a person chooses to post in there who has not done so in the past they must stick to the topic and skip any meta.

I am sorry that was said to you and he admitted he was wrong. He no longer posts in religion because he doesn't feel comfortable here and you guys came in there and he handled it wrong. People make mistakes.



I am asking you Warren not to post in interfaith. I am sorry to say your presence is a disruption and I am afraid our members will get hidden posts and I do not want that.

Atheists are welcome but people who have showed they have issues respecting religious belief are not welcome.

I am sorry to be blunt with you but I feel I need to be.

[Warren Stupidity]

88. You were told what the rules were.

So what are the rules in your group Justin?

They clearly are not what is written in the SOP.

So what are the rules. Spell them out. Make it clear how pope attacks are out, Dawkins attacks are in, and telling people to "fuck off you fucking fuck" is part of tolerance and civility to all people believers and non-believers.

So what are the rules in your group Justin?

[hrmjustin]

89. Don't start meta and debate respectfully and don't critize members for their beliefs.

And don't bait our members.

[Warren Stupidity]

90. So "fuck off you fucking fucker" is respectful debate?

And it is ok to criticize non-believers, you just can't criticize believers. Is that right?

Oh and one of the interfaithy hosts started the meta in that thread, here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1264&pid=3881

Until then there was a discussion about the topic, and none of it was rude or incivil or meta. It didn't get rude until somebody chimed in with "fuck off you fucking fucker".

[hrmjustin]

91. no I admited he was wrong and so did he.

And if I gave you hard time about you being an atheist there it would not be appropriate.

[Warren Stupidity]

92. So again, ok to attack the pope in YOUR forum?

[hrmjustin]

93. What do you mean by attack?

[Warren Stupidity]

94. Post an op about the latest homophobic outrage from the RCC.

[hrmjustin]

97. We have discussions there.

If it is in the news I post it in the room unless I feel it would cause disruption.

We do not post things to belittle but to discuss.

[Warren Stupidity]

101. So for example:

Ireland confronts past treatment of unmarried mothers

The Republic of Ireland is to investigate the homes for children born outside marriage and their mothers, run by religious institutions for most of the last century. It follows concerns over the deaths of almost 800 children at a convent-run mother-and-baby home in Galway over several decades and controversy about whether they were given proper burials.

The BBC's Fergal Keane considers what the inquiry might mean for survivors, and for Ireland.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28298236

Would be perfectly fine in your group?

[hrmjustin]

105. I personally would not post it but I would not lock unless I feel the poster is there to disrupt.

[Warren Stupidity]

107. Got it. So you would lock the fuck out of it if I posted it there.

Go back and chuckle some more about calling us assholes.

[hrmjustin]

108. Don't post in the room again and you are no one to judge.

[Warren Stupidity]

109. When have I called you an asshole Justin?

Be specific.

[hrmjustin]

110. I never said you did.

[Warren Stupidity]

111. When have I chuckled publicly over somebody calling you an asshole Justin?

Be specific.

"Don't post in the room again and you are no one to judge."

In response to my noting that you found a suggestion to add "no assholes" to the SOP hilarious.

You seem to be a bit of a hypocrite on this issue Justin. All for civility etc. except when you want to be rude and nasty, or tolerate rudeness and nastiness directed at the people here you despise.

Try some honesty. God is watching you Justin.

[hrmjustin]

112. Tell me something Warren.

What was your reaction when in the spring I came into AA and challenged your post?

[Warren Stupidity]

113. Who the fuck knows you deleted the entire episode.

Did I tell somebody to "fuck off you fucking fucker"?

Huh? Did I? Or anything even remotely close to that?

Did I call you an asshole in public and have all my friends chuckle over it?

You allow that shit in your clubhouse Justin. Your clubhouse is not about tolerance and respect and positive postings about belief and non belief.

Be honest Justin, you owe yourself that much.

[hrmjustin]

114. If I were honest here with you I would get a hidden post.

Btw no one called you that.

It was a general reference.

Now leave me alone.

[Warren Stupidity]

115. Oh bullshit Justin. Just complete bullshit.

"It was a general reference" - right.

Feel free to put me on ignore, but you do not get to have the last word.

[hrmjustin]

116. Good bye warren.

[Warren Stupidity]

117. Change your SOP. Be honest.

Your clubhouse should clearly state that it is not about tolerance and positive postings about belief and non-belief. It is a clubhouse for your team.

[hrmjustin]

118. Let it go.

We will do what we feel best.

Just let it go.

[Warren Stupidity]

119. .

[rug]

99. So, how does your hidden post fit under the Statement of Purpose?

A place where atheists and agnostics can engage in frank discussions about the effects of religion on politics, free of debate about the existence of a deity or deities.

I already knows it violates the Terms of Service.

[hrmjustin]

47. When football season starts I won't be in church as often.

[kwassa]

56. Apostate.

Just kidding.

but some are religious about football.

[hrmjustin]

59. Yes. Fanatics to be honest.

[Goblinmonger]

60. Yeah, but you're probably a Giants fan.

Or Jets, I guess. Which I could respect.

[hrmjustin]

61. I am both.

[Goblinmonger]

62. Doesn't that get you, like, beat up in NYC?

I thought you had to pledge allegiance to one or the other.

Me, I'm a Vikings fan (grew up in ND on the MN border) living 45 miles south of Green Bay. That often makes things interesting.

[hrmjustin]

64. no it is common to be a fan of both.

I favir the giants more.

[ZombieHorde]

51. This is to be expected.

Many people grow up in conservative churches, and being gay while belonging to a conservative church must be discouraging. I wonder how many GBLT folks that have kept their faith grew up in a liberal church. Would be interesting to see how childhood church experiences affected gay people's faith.

[cbayer]

58. That is indeed the most important question, and

I suspect it would support your hypothesis.

[trotsky]

65. Some folks will have a conflict with that theory.

Several people seem to think that conservative churches are a tiny, insignificant minority. Thus, the number of LGBTers raised in them should be tiny and insignificant. Certainly not enough to show up as such a vast difference in non-believers later in life.

So for those who want to believe conservative Christians are a small, albeit vocal minority, but ALSO believe that the disparity in belief among LGBTers is explained by them leaving conservative churches, well, time for some cognitive dissonance.