Most Gays Are Spiritual

Six in 10 gays and lesbians say that faith is an important part of their lives, according to a Christian research group. Conversely, about 72% of straight adults describe their faith as being an integral part of their lives.

"People who portray gay adults as godless, hedonistic Christian-bashers are not working with the facts," said George Barna of the Barna Group, which conducted the study. "A substantial majority of gays cite their faith as a central facet of their life, consider themselves to be Christian, and claim to have some type of meaningful personal commitment to Jesus Christ active in their life today."

The study's authors wrote that the findings were "surprising. "In the wake of those controversies and the spotlight aimed at gays, Americans have developed numerous assumptions about the lives of the homosexual population."

Additionally, about 60% of straight Christians said they were completely devoted to their faith, compared to 40% of gay responders identifying as Christian. The study also revealed that straight adults were nearly twice as likely as gays to qualify as born-again Christians (47% compared to 27%, respectively).

In the study, conducted between January 2007 and November 2008 by phone interviews, researchers asked 9,232 people about their sexual orientation.

really? i didnt know that

You couldn't know that, cause like all statistics it's practically a lie (we had a saying at our university "Never trust a statistic you didn't make up yourself").

I have to say, over 9000 interviews is an impressive and very thorough number, but it's still phone interviews, those are not really reliable. Plus, you don't know how many of those interviewees were actually homosexuals, that's the one thing they don't tell you. For all I know they could have asked 9.000 straights and 232 homosexuals.

And just take this sentence: "A substantial majority of gays cite their faith as a central facet of their life, consider themselves to be Christian, and claim to have some type of meaningful personal commitment to Jesus Christ active in their life today."

There's an important part missing, like "in the USA". This whole statement is just a generalization. I doubt many gays in Asia, the Middle East or Africa fall under the category of "considering themselves Christians, committing to Jesus".

I'm speaking for myself- I'm a Malaysian, and I consider myself bisexual, and I also am also religious. AND I know for a fact, 2 other guys attending my church who are also gay/bi.

I know this doesn't prove or disprove anything, just stating my point.

it's good to hear that a lot of gay people have Faith ....
For me I'm believe 2 but not in the church....
i explain why...
I'm gay and i see myself as an normal person, but still we have to fight to people ho consider that we different and i think that the religion give us that problem, because they say that straight is normal and that being Gay's is a bad thing. what is more beautiful that two people love each other , if that be two boy's or two girls or boy and girl, that doesn't Mather....
i hope some day, every religion see us as normal people and that we can com out of the closet whit out fearing the reaction

thx

When I lived in San Fran and after a rather traumatic experience, I basically gave up and was encouraged to join the MCC...(Metropolitan Community Church...primarily for gay people) and while I didnt last, there were very few attendees and there was no one knocking down the door to get in. And amongst all those gay people in the area, I was somewhat surprised of how few attended. Granted one needn't attend church to have Faith but those numbers seem pretty skewed.

I consider myself agnostic (I tried Wicca but I was too lazy) but I have respect for people who have faith and belief. It'S those damn organized religions where I draw the line.

I hate religions but I am spiritual.

I gave up spiritual for realistic a long time ago, it's actually one of the first questions I ask a guy if i'm interested in him. If he says he's spiritual i always blow him off as a flake.
Most ppl consider themselvs spiritual because it sounds "cool".

well...
most of the gays i know dislike religion and are not really spiritual in any way...
in fact i know many more spiritual straights than spiritual gays

Jamaal125 said:

I hate religions but I am spiritual.

Click to expand...

Same with me. I believe in a god but don't follow a religion lol

I'm neither spiritual or religious...

Can anyone who describes himself as "spiritual" actually define what it means? For me it sounds like an attempt to disassociate yourself from the bad things of religion, and there's no real substance to the word.
And results from a "christian research group"? Yeah, not biased at all

What you are describing Integritas doesn't conflict with materialism at all. In fact, the sense of awe and the mystery of the unknown is the motive that makes materialism successful as a world view. Whether the universe is the only one, the origin of matter and all those questions that inspire awe won't be answered simply by putting the spirituality label on them but only through the materialistic scientific method. Once, the sun and the stars were great mysteries. Now we know all about how they came to be, what they are made of and how they die... this doesn't diminish the awe when one looks at them.
Why should this be depressing? You are aware of all this awesome physical world, and you say you want there to be more. Nobody owes us more.
And of course there is NO justification for there to be more. There is no evidence for anything supernatural. Even human mental life is explained by the workings of the brain and there's no need to invoke ancient concepts like a "soul". But I suppose it's much better to be "spiritual" than "religious" with all the baggage of the "holy" texts.

I think it all comes down to how you view God, I think all God wants us to do is love each other and love each other as much as we love Him. I doubt a God would turn down anyone regardless of sexual orientation. Religious groups ain't all that anyway.

Integritas0 said:

There are limits to humanity, its science and its language. Leading queer theorists and feminists attack scientific methodology insofar as it must rest on/opperate through language (logos. Think phallocentrism, logocentrism, or phallogocentrism.

Click to expand...

I don't think any -isms.
Sure there are limits. You may as well argue that scientific methodology is limited by the human mind and reason.
I suppose you think "spirituality" (whatever it means) has none?

Integritas0 said:

Also watch out for 'pop. science', a la Richard Dawkins or Neodarwinism. This is a form of scientific fundamentalism. Atheism may be antithetical to theism but it is not always opposed to dogmatic assertions.

Click to expand...

"Neodarwinism" is a word only a religious fundamentalist would use. I think that's something for you to watch out. Atheism is merely the disbelief in deities.

Integritas0 said:

Karl Popper (philosopher of science) has set out powerful arguments to the effect that science has no foundation whatsoever.

Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? Popper introduced the concept of falsifiability on which the scientific method is based on. Either you are reading Popper wrong, or your computer works by accident, since the science that built it has "no foundation".

Integritas0 said:

Sure, the method is useful -flawed, but useful in the interim sense and in the absence of workable alternative methodologies. But how does science tell right from wrong? It claims to be 'above' ethics (the scientific halo) and on this basis the creation of the atomic bomb, genetic modification of foods, or cloning is said not to form a logical basis for a critique of scientific methodology??

Click to expand...

Huh?? Of course it doesn't. Scientific methodology is judged by its results, it is a tool, and it has no ethical content whatsoever. Science works. Whether its use is right or wrong is a whole other discussion.
I would be thrilled if you could point to "workable alternative methodologies" to science.

Integritas0 said:

Many subscribers to 'pop. science' are kind of blind to the horrific social ramifications of fundamentalist scientific thinking. Do ruthless corporations not act as a political lobby that influences what is considered to be scientific 'truth'? Do scientists (yes, even the 'mad' ones), universities, government research entities, and scientific communities like MONEY?? If the answer is no... then maybe there really is a 'halo' over the concept of science (that has it's origin in the 'Enlightenment'). Russian Leninists went about murdering every priest or religious person that could be found, and for what -to turn around and start venerating science?

Click to expand...

What does all of the above have to do with the discussion? The problems of the scientific institutions are social, economic and political. The scientific method has nothing to do with that. I merely criticized the notion of "spirituality" insofar it connects with the supernatural. Then, you start attacking science as a concept, like its presence in society is an evil. No one is "venerating" science.

Integritas0 said:

Ps. If you find yourself getting a little knot in the stomach and feeling compelled to respond to these points, watch out, you may well be a fundamentalist, following a popularised movement/agenda!

Click to expand...

Oh please...how condescending! Maybe I should watch out and shut up?
No, I just feel compelled to reply to nonsense. I may as well write that you wrote those points under the influence of the new age/healing crystals/deepak chopra making-money-off-the-gullible movement.

Well he does have a cat that wears lime peel on its head !

No serious scientist uses the word "neodarwinism". Perhaps you are thinking theologians. Evolution is a scientific theory that has moved beyond Darwin, it's not an ideology or a dogma with an agenda that you can neo-ism.

Any evidence for Dawkins repeatedly saying this? Actually, he has NEVER claimed such a thing. The tv program that had this title was actually titled "The Root of All Evil?", with the question mark in the end. Dawkins himself has stressed that the program's title was chosen by the channel, and how it's ridiculous to credit religion as the root of ALL evil. This doesn't change the fact that religion is responsible for a lot of evil. As the targets of much of this evil, it really surprises me that some of our own get upset when this is mentioned.

You say that "there is no impregnable, unquestionable core of truth in any human field". That may be true (well, as true as anything can be ). However, you can't start questioning everything unless you abandon reason and logic completely. Some things are true : the earth revolves around the sun, the universe expands, life evolves. Humankind has achieved useful knowledge through the scientific method because it WORKS. There is nothing fundamental about this. Yes, nothing exists in a vacuum, science is limited by human biases, lobbying, etc. So? It's still the one thing that explains the world, where everything else fails. When I get sick, is choosing a trained doctor over a street charlatan being fundamentalist? Can anyone afford to be a relativist when it really matters? I see nothing extreme in an atheistic, rational world view.

To explain myself better, I have no problem with people being "spiritual". Even Sam Harris, one of those mean, atheist authors, finds spiritual experiences useful. The problem begins when people start using spirituality as a way to explain the world, and make up gods, spirits, and all kinds of silliness. Even worse when they write books about "quantum healing" or similar crap. I don't see how being spiritual says anything about one's ethical character, so I don't find spiritual scientists reassuring.

I think the server can dedicate a few bytes for us hehe.

I still don't think the term "neodarwinism" is honest or describes anything real. Its use can only reveal a hidden agenda. I don't know how that connects to memetics or Dawkins stating anything about aliens (he doesn't believe in aliens, that's a shameful distortion used in the hideous propaganda film "Expelled" when he was asked in what ways could intelligent design be scientific). That's the second time you report something false about Dawkins which is a testimony to how much he is slandered around. Anyway, memetics is interesting, but I agree that it's far from being a science. I do think it's something to be considered. Keep in mind that Dawkins merely speculated on memetics, there are other authors who made more serious cases like Susan Blackmore.

I didn't retract anything, I didn't say that science was above anything, I just said it's the most reliable tool we have to reach the truth about the world. How we make use of it ethically is another topic we should maybe discuss. Even then I will argue that religion has little to offer in ethics.

I have read "Consciousness Explained" by Dennett and I'd like to read more, especially "Freedom Evolves" looks really interesting. I would also suggest Steven Pinker

Integritas0 said:

Science is a reliable tool that moved towards a form of truth. This is a rational statement -your updated positions still involve excessive presupposition. Yes I have read Blackmore's seminal (!) book and found it to be throughly unscientific. She is, interestingly, a believer in the ways ofZen! BY HER OWN ADMISSION.

Click to expand...

"excessive" presupposition? a "form" of truth? Can you elaborate as to what those presuppositions are, and what "form" of truth did you have in mind?
"The Meme Machine" was mainly speculative but Blackmore does suggest a few experiments to test her theories. It's funny that you capitalize the last sentence as if it's something important. It's Zen, not catholicism

Integritas0 said:

You seem interested in the topic, which can often be somewhat dry. Maybe you could read McGrath (another Oxford elitist, like Dawkins) -he is a theologian, but he does hold a DPhil in science). He is a former atheist. He serves to check Dawkin's latter-day scientific fundamentalism! I would consider McGrath a moderate -he spoke in my university a few years ago.

Click to expand...

I've read stuff of his on the internet, and I've also heard him in debate with Dawkins. Frankly, he's a joke. It's a wonder there's people who take him seriously.

Integritas0 said:

Ps. Dawkins has alluded to his belief in Aliens multiple times, rather explicitly in terms of probable existence. More recently he hypothesised that these Aliens might have "seeded" planet earth. Maybe he just does it for attention and to sell books --I don't know!

Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. Dawkins writes best sellers since the 70s and you say he talks about aliens for attention? Your disdain for Dawkins is revealing...
Many (if not most) scientists express the same views about aliens, all based in cosmological data. So, it's not some looney bs that you can use to discredit him.

Integritas0 said:

Pss. I would be weary of placing too much faith (for want of a better term!) in any one thinker.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. But that's not what I and many others are doing when defending Dawkins. It's because he's constantly attacked and misrepresented unfairly. It's getting tiresome and pathetic.

I would love to read Chomsky, I like what he says whenever I catch him on a video. So what if he's "better" than Hitchens, they speak about different things. No idea why you had to mention such a thing...

A final question : are you a creationist?