Religious opposition to homosexuality in the United States

[Green Gaia]

Link

According to the stats on that site, the main opposition to accepting homosexuality in the US comes from Evangelicals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Muslims. None of which is surprising, but still rather striking to see it there in black and white.

What do you make of this and what does it mean for the overall acceptance of homosexuality in the United States?

 

[J Bryson]

Well, the Catholic numbers were a pleasant surprise, and since the fundamentalist churches are hemorrhaging members, I think that it actually bodes well.

 

[Seven]

My family are Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuality has been the source of some big arguments between my dad and I. Considering their response in the chart it's lucky they're also against political participation.

All in all this reinforces my position that religion has no place in politics.

 

[Smoke]

My family are Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuality has been the source of some big arguments between my dad and I. Considering their response in the chart it's lucky they're also against political participation.

All in all this reinforces my position that religion has no place in politics.

I have cousins who are Jehovah's Witnesses; in fact, one of my very favorite relatives is one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm quite sure she doesn't approve my being gay. However, she has never once shared that opinion with me, she's always treated me well, and she doesn't vote. So I don't any problem with her at all.

Actually, she's taken more crap from the family over being one of Jehovah's Witnesses than I have over being gay.

 

[Smoke]

Well, the Catholic numbers were a pleasant surprise, and since the fundamentalist churches are hemorrhaging members, I think that it actually bodes well.

Not that surprising, really. Catholics who really believe all that stuff the church teaches about contraception and homosexuality are in the minority. It's just a very vocal minority.

 

[J Bryson]

Yeah, I know, but since it was a Catholic organization that teamed up with the LDS church to funnel money into Yes On 8, it's nice to see that the numbers of Catholics who are fine with homosexuality is above the national average by a small but statistically significant amount.

 

[Father Heathen]

The Jewish percentage kind of surprised me, considering the stark contracts compared to the other abrahamic faiths.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, I know, but since it was a Catholic organization that teamed up with the LDS church to funnel money into Yes On 8, it's nice to see that the numbers of Catholics who are fine with homosexuality is above the national average by a small but statistically significant amount.

My general impression is that the attitudes of the Knights of Columbus aren't typical of the attitudes of Catholics as a whole.

 

[J Bryson]

Yeah, and since I'm always the one stating that one shouldn't judge a group by the actions of an annoyingly loud few, it's good for me to get a reminder.

 

[Sunstone]

Well, if Nate Silver over at 538.com has analyzed the national trend towards gay marriage as well as he did the 2008 elections, then the last state to legalize gay marriage will be Mississippi in 2024. I'd bet on Silver being just as right about gay marriage as he was about the outcomes of the 2008 elections.

 

[blackout]

Not that surprising, really. Catholics who really believe all that stuff the church teaches about contraception and homosexuality are in the minority. It's just a very vocal minority.

As an x-catholic mySelf, I do not understand the point of membership in a church/orgainzation, whose doctrine goes directly against my beliefs.

What is the point of such a thing?

 

[Father Heathen]

As an x-catholic mySelf, I do not understand the point of membership in a church/orgainzation, whose doctrine goes directly against my beliefs.

What is the point of such a thing?

Good question. I don't understand why people waste their time going through the motions of attending the sermons and performing the rituals if they don't buy into the actual rules and teachings. They need to toss the rubbish aside and get on with their lives.

 

[Green Gaia]

Yeah, and since I'm always the one stating that one shouldn't judge a group by the actions of an annoyingly loud few, it's good for me to get a reminder.

So how can we reduce the influence of the annoyingly loud few?

 

[Mind_Zenith]

:jester5:Makes me proud to be a Buddhist!

 

[J Bryson]

So how can we reduce the influence of the annoyingly loud few?

We saw it in the last presidential campaign: Steal their efficiency and organizing abilities. Get people from all walks of life as talking heads on the news shows (we really need to have some progressive religious types besides the Revs. Jackson and Sharpton stepping up to the plate, here). Naturally assume that people will look out for their own self-interest if all else fails, and point out how increased acceptance can help them personally. Every time an idiot spouts off some nonsense on any show (even the Fox ones), send off a polite email. Write to the local paper to present a counterpoint to narrow-minded editorials and op-ed pieces.

Also, save the anger for the demonstrations. Never blow your top or lose your cool when discussing things in person or online. Always come across as the more reasonable and thoughtful person. Since this issue is rather obvious, all that it usually takes is a few short questions before your opponent will tie him or herself into rhetorical knots. Once the contradictions are obvious to all, nod politely, smile, and thank him or her for the interesting discussion. You'll always come out on top that way.

 

[ayani]

well, i'm personally not in favor of homosexuality. as a Christian, i believe it goes against God's plan and design for His creation.

that is not to say that same-sex desires and homosexual identity do not exist, or are not real. clearly, it's not a choice the individual gay man or woman is making. yet i would also argue that more than anything, it's a persona or a state as opposed to a God-given and innate part of who the person is.

i say this having come from a place where i identified as gay, and during certain times in my life was living or passing as male. i've been a gay-rights activist myself, and protested in favor of gay marriage. now i stand on the opposite end of this debate, much, in retrospect, to my amazement and surprise.

now, as far as how religious feeling about homosexuality go, i really don't think it'll make a difference. the potential for same-sex couples to get married, adopt kids, etc. will likely find wider and wider acceptance and support, and will someday be fully (or near fully) legalized in this country.

hate crime laws protecting gay men and women can and should cover a variety of wrongs such as physical abuse, violence, intimidation, and being fired from one's job.

yet one Catholic-run adoption agency has decided to close down rather than allow gay couples to adopt children from their organization, as demanded by the sate. should religious organizations opposed to homosexuality (and this includes Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, and other faith groups) be obliged to accept state rulings on what constitutes a legal right of gay individuals and couples, even though it goes against their beliefs?

and i have heard of fears that it may soon be illegal in at least one state for religious leaders inside their houses of worship to condemn or speak against homosexuality, and if these fears are based on a reality, i find this wrong.

Link

According to the stats on that site, the main opposition to accepting homosexuality in the US comes from Evangelicals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Muslims. None of which is surprising, but still rather striking to see it there in black and white.

What do you make of this and what does it mean for the overall acceptance of homosexuality in the United States?

 

[J Bryson]

yet one Catholic-run adoption agency has decided to close down rather than allow gay couples to adopt children from their organization, as demanded by the sate. should religious organizations opposed to homosexuality (and this includes Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, and other faith groups) be obliged to accept state rulings on what constitutes a legal right of gay individuals and couples, even though it goes against their beliefs?

and i have heard of fears that it may soon be illegal in at least one state for religious leaders inside their houses of worship to condemn or speak against homosexuality, and if these fears are based on a reality, i find this wrong.

Catholic Charities was accepting state money (tax money) to run its adoption agency in Massachusetts. As a government-supported charity, it was subject to the anti discrimination laws of the state. They chose to forgo further state funding rather than abide by the nondiscrimination codes, and shut down all adoption services due to the loss of finances.

The Church of Latter Day Saints also facilitates adoptions in Massachusetts with their own agency. They also do not accept same sex couples as candidates to be adoptive parents. However, as they are not taking taxpayer money, they are continuing to provide these services without interference.

The final rumor that you have stated is simply incorrect, and I wish that you had researched it in depth before repeating it in a public forum. There is no way in which any city, state, or federal government can keep any religious figure from stating anything whatsoever so long as the Constitution remains in effect.

 

[ayani]

J ~

that's why i was clear that it was only a rumor i had heard, and not a fact. i see no reason why i shouldn't repeat it in a public forum, so long as i'm clear that it only hearsay, and don't try to pass it off as something that has or will happen.

at the same time, Catholic Charities was not a state-run venue, but rather a state-supported one. and i recognize now that, inevitably, state and religious views will sometimes clash, and be at such odds that compromise is not an option.

 

[J Bryson]

J ~

that's why i was clear that it was only a rumor i had heard, and not a fact. i see no reason why i shouldn't repeat it in a public forum, so long as i'm clear that it only hearsay, and don't try to pass it off as something that has or will happen.

at the same time, Catholic Charities was not a state-run venue, but rather a state-supported one. and i recognize now that, inevitably, state and religious views will sometimes clash, and be at such odds that compromise is not an option.

I understand that you weren't trying to pass it off as the truth, and I respect that. However, as I'm sure you're aware, information on the internet is a huge telephone game, and information tends to be added to and subtracted from the original source at an astonishing rate. Therefore, "I heard a rumor that religious leaders will not be allowed to condemn homosexuality in their churches, but I'm not sure that it's true" can turn into "The government is going to shut down churches that are against homosexuality purple monkey dishwasher" in less than a day.

 

[InerrantWord]

Well, the Catholic numbers were a pleasant surprise, and since the fundamentalist churches are hemorrhaging members, I think that it actually bodes well.

Um, Fundamentalists are the only christianity expanding their numbers in the US, some by 19% a year.

It is mainline protestants that are hemorrhaging, as well as Catholics. Catholics lose about 9 million people a year in the US...many of whom are joinging Evangelical churches.

What this data tells though is that more "secular" faiths see homosexuality as ok, which explains why most of those faiths are losing members to secularism.