[Closed] The church and homosexuality

So it appears that the position of the church has changed in a mere 13 years from irreformably against contraception to reluctantly accepting it.

You think they reached this position through revelation and the word of god? Or that they face compromise or death in the face of modern secular standards?

Neither. I don't think it was from the word of god, otherwise there would have been some kind of papal announcement. I don't think it was from fear of 'death'. I don't think people were leaving the catholic church because of some of the views being expressed about condoms. I think they had a think about it and decided that they might need to change their mind. But it does demonstrate that any teachings were not a part of doctrine, and so not actually fundamental to catholicism.

I live in a country whose head of state and head of the state church are one and the same person. It is also a country in which senior figures in this state church hold unelected positions within the upper chamber of the legislature.

That's why the position/teachings of the christian church bother me. Perhaps you live in a different country?

I think I probably do, but many of the people in you legislature, are not senior figures in the state church. Work with them first, they are the people you can influence.

That's a whole lot of voters, but I bet a whole shedload of them disagree with what religion HQ say to the government.

then they need to make their feelings known, it could be a simple vote winner for anyone looking to move into government

phew, thats three more pages since i left to go the bookies,watched a horse called Turbulent Priest, it was 100/1- ran okay for a bit then gave up the struggle and pulled up.

It is also a country in which senior figures in this state church hold unelected positions within the upper chamber of the legislature.

Hang on.. what's the difference between having a senior church figure in the legislature and a lay person who is in fact devoutly religious?

That certainly my position. All the would be required for me to change my mind is evidence. Just as I'd believe any scientific 'truth' to be false, if I were presented with evidence to the contrary

but would you need to understand that evidence and see it for yourself or would you be happy that the leading minds in science have recognised that their idea of the scientific concept was previously wrong? That just seems like faith in scientists to me

Hang on.. what's the difference between having a senior church figure in the legislature and a lay person who is in fact devoutly religious?

One is put there by the head of state. One is elected by their constituents. One is democratic, the other not.

Well no. A lord isn't elected.

Let's not get into a debate about democracy - that's not what I want to ask here.

The question is specifically why do you have a problem with there being bishops in the lords WITHIN the current unelected system, and not lay people who may be religious?

but would you need to understand that evidence and see it for yourself or would you be happy that the leading minds in science have recognised that their idea of the scientific concept was previously wrong? That just seems like faith in scientists to me

Trust in a system of evidence, peer review and experiment is not faith. There is a world of a difference.

The question is specifically why do you have a problem with there being bishops in the lords WITHIN the current unelected system, and not lay people who may be religious?

Because if the lay religious MP voted for or against the general view of the electorate because of their faith, the electorate can do something about it at the next election.

To pick a topic at random: gay marriage. If the general view of the population is that two people who love each other should be able to get married but an MP votes against this because of their religious beliefs, there is a channel through which the electorate can make their views know.

If the bishop votes against it there is no recourse.

The question is specifically why do you have a problem with there being bishops in the lords WITHIN the current unelected system, and not lay people who may be religious?

I have a problem with the concept of the House of Lords generally, yes. But within that I specifically have a problem with the idea of Bishops getting to vote on our laws, especially given the intolerance many of them are espousing in their official religious capacity.

Fair comment. The only problem there is, if we stop generalising and start picking out individual groups like, say, Catholics, the discussion spirals into "why are we picking on the Catholics?"

Trust in a system of evidence, peer review and experiment is not faith. There is a world of a difference.

but then what do you call it when the belief system was shown to be wrong? It can only be belief, you can't know something which is subsequently shown to be wrong

Bishops, men in long dresses, funny hats, must be a party !

The elected house is bad enough, the appointed one is a bad joke well passed its time. I have no time for unaccountable mouthpieces of privilege, they are a parasitical layer of obfuscation .

To pick a topic at random: gay marriage. If the general view of the population is that two people who love each other should be able to get married but an MP votes against this because of their religious beliefs, there is a channel through which the electorate can make their views know.

If the bishop votes against it there is no recourse.

Well, Bishops can change their mind, I don't know the CoE, but I don't think the case against gay marriage is doctrinal. In fact, as i understand it, most churches don't actually perform marriages. Marriage is a civil procedure, and by definition within the law, only allows it to take place between a man and a woman. Priests are only blessing the union. This blessing can be applied to all such partnerships, and has been applied to same sex couples too. It seems that the injunction to gay marriage is not something which Christians forbid, it seems that it is something which the English forbid. Why do you English do that?

It seems that the injunction to gay marriage is not something which Christians forbid, it seems that it is something which the English forbid

I think this is pretty disingenuous TBH. What do you think the most common opinion on gay marriage would be amongst christians worldwide? Happy tolerance?

Well, they don't forbid it the way you English do

Because if the lay religious MP voted for or against the general view of the electorate because of their faith, the electorate can do something about it at the next election.

Nonono you misunderstand.

Given that the Lords is unelected, what's the difference between a bishop and a devout lay person?

Well, they don't forbid it the way you English do

Um.... there's only 10 countries in the world that recognize gay marriage.

I don't think any of them are officially christian countries, strangely enough.

Given that the Lords is unelected, what's the difference between a bishop and a devout lay person?

That one is officially representing the opinions of an organisation that legitimises/encourages bigotry, whereas the other should hopefully realise that he shouldn't allow his personal beliefs to cloud his professional judgement?

Belief based on rational analysis differs fundamentally from belief based on faith.
By it's nature it is subject to change as evidence is presented, tested and challenged.

Theologians have often used logical arguments to prove the existance of god, but these arguments are not rational or verifible as they present no evidence that can be tested.

Hence the comments re the irrelevance of theology.

The link between the stance of the Catholic church with regard to condoms and Aids in Africa is often cited. This is strange as Catholicism is not the majority Christian religion in Africa. Then even in the countries with a large proportion of Catholics, AIDS is not noticeably more widespread.

The whole AIDS / Africa thing is very complex with a number of contributory factors, not least of all the large number of parasites looking to line their own pockets at the expense of the lives of others. I'm looking at you, Mathias Rath.

However, even if they're not the majority doesn't mean that they aren't at least part of the problem, and even if as you suggest they aren't part of problem then it's still bloody irresponsible for influential people to be condemning condom use in areas where HIV is rife, don't you think?

Regardless, that wasn't really the point I was making. The question asked was about who preaches against condom usage; this was but one example.

why do you have a problem with there being bishops in the lords WITHIN the current unelected system, and not lay people who may be religious?

Because they're there because they're religious rather than despite it?

But when you generalise, you leave large holes in your argument. No one would expect to get away with an argument say "why do Englishmen ..."

I take your point, but it is a little of a catch-22 situation.

Given that the Lords is unelected, what's the difference between a bishop and a devout lay person?

The lay person is there presumably on the basis of expertise on some area (although granted that is not always the case), their faith is not relevant to this and they will presumably not be guided by the fact. The bishop is there solely because of the elevated position he holds in a particular religion with no requirement for any other expertise. That is the difference.

That one is officially representing the opinions of an organisation that legitimises/encourages bigotry, whereas the other should hopefully realise that he shouldn't allow his personal beliefs to cloud his professional judgement?

Is that their actual purpose and brief? To represent their organisation?

The lay person is there presumably on the basis of expertise on some area (although granted that is not always the case), their faith is not relevant to this and they will presumably not be guided by the fact. The bishop is there solely because of the elevated position he holds in a particular religion with no requirement for any other expertise

Lots of presumablies and hopefullies there.

So you trust the lay person not to let faith cloud their judgement, but not the Bishop?

EDIT from the CoE website:

"they seek to be a voice for all people of faith, not just Christians."

Hmm.. interesting.. there are quite a few of those in the UK aren't there? There does seem to be an official difference after all.

"they seek to be a voice for all people of faith, not just Christians."

Seems like a sensible claim to make if you want to maximise your chances of retaining power.

The rest of us godless heathens can get ****ed though, presumably.

Well not really, we can be represented by the 96% of Lords who are not Bishops.

So you trust the lay person not to let faith cloud their judgement, but not the Bishop?

Pretty much yeah. After all the bishop has no other reason to be there. Oh and the presumablys are there to highlight the general imperfections in the upper house.

Well not really, we can be represented by the 96% of Lords who are not Bishops.

But they represent religious people too surely - why do the religious need special extra representation?

So you trust the lay person not to let faith cloud their judgement, but not the Bishop?

*sigh*

Not necessarily but the lay person isn't there specifically to represent (intolerant) religion.

In the 14th century, religious leaders and landed gentry formed the 'Upper House' (the Lords) as, respectively, the Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal. Local representatives formed the 'Lower House' (the Commons). Apart from a brief interruption following the English Civil war, religious leaders have played an active role in parliament ever since.

It's absolutely ludicrous that in the 21st century we are still ruled, at least in part, by our unelected 'betters'.

After all the bishop has no other reason to be there

I dunno.. Bishops have generally spent a career thinking carefully about people's problems and issues, like judges.

Many of the ones I've heard speak have sounded pretty intelligent and switched on. Not all, of course.

It's absolutely ludicrous that in the 21st century we are still ruled, at least in part, by our unelected 'betters'.

Ok well I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there is definitely a place for an unelected house. Since the democratic system is pretty much bound to produce garbage.

But that is another thread, shall I start it?

I don't have a issue with religious people have positions in parliament, so on that basis there's no difference. It is the link between church and state which is the issue.

We do seem to have wandered away from stylish gentlemen and ladies who follow the tennis...

but then what do you call it when the belief system was shown to be wrong? It can only be belief, you can't know something which is subsequently shown to be wrong

Science gives the current best hypothesis, as supported by the available evidence. There are no absolute truths, merely theories that are currently supported by the available evidence. If new evidence is found, the theories are reformulated to account.

Belief doesn't come into it. I don't have a belief in gravity or evolution or bacteria.

Ok well I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there is definitely a place for an unelected house. Since the democratic system is pretty much bound to produce garbage.

I don't have too much of an issue with an appointed upper house. It's essentially a representation of the past x years of the elected lower house and can add stability and prevent more short-termist actions of the lower house. During the Blair years the Lords stopped a lot of the dodgier policies.

But bishops in the Lords skews the house away from being representative. If a proportion of the population were religious, these people would be represented anyway.

That one is officially representing the opinions of an organisation that legitimises/encourages bigotry, whereas the other should hopefully realise that he shouldn't allow his personal beliefs to cloud his professional judgement?
Is that their actual purpose and brief? To represent their organisation?

The lay person is there presumably on the basis of expertise on some area (although granted that is not always the case), their faith is not relevant to this and they will presumably not be guided by the fact. The bishop is there solely because of the elevated position he holds in a particular religion with no requirement for any other expertise
Lots of presumablies and hopefullies there.

So you trust the lay person not to let faith cloud their judgement, but not the Bishop?

EDIT from the CoE website:
they seek to be a voice for all people of faith, not just Christians

[b]Their presence in the Lords is an extension of their general vocation as bishops to preach God's word and to lead people in prayer.[/b] Bishops provide an important independent voice and spiritual insight to the work of the Upper House and, while they make no claims to direct representation, they seek to be a voice for all people of faith, not just Christians.

could somebody summarise in a couple of sentences please?

The Bible according to singletrackers.

Oh yes he is!
Oh no he isn't!

The Bible according to singletrackers.

There was very little of this

Oh yes he is!
Oh no he isn't!

There was none of this.

Did you just feel the need to make some contribution? No matter how facile?

So singletracked, I'll ask again. Why has the bit about the mixing of fabrics in the bible been conveniently forgotten, but not homosexuality? Or the ban on eating pork or shellfish? Or women wearing gold? Or having tattoos?

could somebody summarise in a couple of sentences please?

Dog with Bone

Which do you think is most likely to let their faith cloud their judgement - the lay person or the person who has dedicated their entire life to doing gods work. Its a tough one that eh.

I don't know. Neither do you. I think you are being rather judgemental there, I'd be embarassed if I'd said that.

😉

So singletracked, I'll ask again. Why has the bit about the mixing of fabrics in the bible been conveniently forgotten, but not homosexuality? Or the ban on eating pork or shellfish? Or women wearing gold? Or having tattoos?

He already had in his discussion of the relative importance of the New and Old Testament.

Thanks mefty.
Also, depending on the level of generalisation you are applying, the Catholic church blesses same-sex unions, as do some other churches. Unless, you mean a specific church

I don't know. Neither do you. I think you are being rather judgemental there, I'd be embarassed if I'd said that.

I dont understand why you take up positions you dont really believe in them labour them to death

News Flash

Pope Decrees God Does NOT Exist

He already had in his discussion of the relative importance of the New and Old Testament.

Where? this bit?

There also seems to be a treatment of Christianity as a monolithic body, quoting passages from the Old Testament as examples of intolerance or hypocrisy is a meaningless approach, for Catholics at least. Catholics are not asked to believe the Old Testament as a literal text and it is recognised as a metaphorical text for the a specific time and place. Of course, Catholics are allowed to take it literally if they like, very few do.

Not sure why you are specifying Catholics, but are you suggesting the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christians then? If so why is it frequently quoted by Christians seeking to justify certain arguments? Wasn't it meant to be the direct word of God?

This would seem to suggest Jesus was in favour of all the old laws.....

2. “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:46-47.)

And anyway, what specifically does Jesus say about homosexuality in the New Testament, assuming 'all bets are off' and the Old Testament is to be ignored?

are you suggesting the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christians then? If so why is it frequently quoted by Christians seeking to justify certain arguments? Wasn't it meant to be the direct word of God?

The OT is not irrelevant or to be ignored, however many elements do not apply in the same way after JC & the new covenant (New Testament basically).

For example, Christians are no longer required to sacrifice animals to cover for their sin etc.

There are also many elements of the OT that need to be interpreted/understood in the context of the culture of the time, hence why the Bible should not always be taken literally.

Some "christians" will use the Bible out of context to argue a point. As with many things, it is quite easy to twist things without trying very hard or ignore the context of a verse which means it completely loses it's intended meaning.

The thing with the Bible is that it is not intended to be read as a purely intellectual exercise - Christians believe it is the 'living word' of God, and full/true understanding comes through the Holy Spirit.

Singletracked, I'd already made several contribitions, with the benefit of a strict Catholic upbringing.
However, you appear not to have read them.
I wonder if this is indicitive of a closed mind on other subjects, or just with this one?

I've mostly found those raised in a Catholic environment to have an excellent sense of humour, God knows, we need one.
Nice to find an exception that proves the rule.

Rusty Spanner-- some good mates of mine, like you had strict upbringings, thankfully they can laugh about them now.

Ah we are in the playground , excellent.

You started it, I was just repeating it for a bit of a joke. But it is a serious point that your objections seem to be based on assumptions which seem to be based on prejudice.

I dont understand why you take up positions you dont really believe in them labour them to death

It's the principle.

I don't believe in God, but I don't believe that other people who don't should be allowed to be really nasty to people who do. I've no problem with intelligent debate, but the nastiness and name calling is really not nice.

Surely that's clear enough?

If I think that religious belief is a load of old vacuous drivel (which I do), why should I not be honest about it and say so?

Because it might "cause offence" amongst the religious?

Religion itself is something that I find offensive. So I'm offended. Nothing's going to happen.

Ah we are in the playground , excellent.

You started it

*slow hand clap*

but the nastiness and name calling is really not nice.

who's been nasty ??

and just an aside, when the jehovahs' come a knockin-- if you tell em your'e a catholic they leave you alone--- they know a dead horse when they see one

I don't believe in God, but I don't believe that other people who don't should be allowed to be really nasty to people who do. I've no problem with intelligent debate, but the nastiness and name calling is really not nice.

I've not seen any real nastiness in this thread.

The OT is not irrelevant or to be ignored, however many elements do not apply in the same way after JC & the new covenant (New Testament basically).

Thanks joao3v16, but does the bit I quoted not suggest the old laws should still apply? That's what they're arguing here in what is to my mind a very tenuous justification of homosexuality still being seen as a sin.

http://www.thebible.net/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=81&cat=9

And again, is there anywhere in the NT where Jesus specifically says that homosexuality is wrong?

but the nastiness and name calling is really not nice.

Like where Christians tell homosexuals (or non-believers) they are sinners and will burn in hell you mean? I'd say that's a fair bit nastier than mocking someone and saying you don't believe what they believe. Presumably you would have less of a problem with that though.

It seems you are being offended on behalf of christians while the actual christians on here calmly get on with having a conversation. 😕

The thing with the Bible is that it is not intended to be read as a purely intellectual exercise - Christians believe it is the 'living word' of God, and full/true understanding comes through the Holy Spirit.

The problem with this is that everyone interprets it differently, which then makes it impossible to have a reasoned discussion about it. Even christians can't agree on what it means or what is a christian position.

The problem with this is that everyone interprets it differently

Moreover, should we really be setting laws which affect everyone based on something which by admission of its advocates is open to interpretation?

I've not seen any real nastiness in this thread.

Not as much this time around, admittedly.

Perhaps my message is getting across 😉

And again, is there anywhere in the NT where Jesus specifically says that homosexuality is wrong?

[b]Mark 10:6-7[/b]
6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,

This part of the gospels, where Jesus describes a marriage as being between a man and woman, is often used to justify not allowing homosexual marriage. Jesus gives the model for marriage as being between a man and a woman, sex outside of marriage is a sin and so homosexuality is a sin.

Of course the fuller quote shows that Jesus is saying the divorce is wrong...

[b]Mark 10:2-12[/b]
And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." 5 But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

The Anglican church will remarry a divorcee, but not two men or two women.

To accept any of this is to suppose that the alleged Nazarene actually existed as a historical figure, which is largely open to question.

At least we know that Mahommed existed, although he seems to have spent his time preaching just as equally vapid nonsense, having lifted most of it from the bible in the first place.

6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,

And in the original language?

I've mostly found those raised in a Catholic environment to have an excellent sense of humour, God knows, we need one.
Nice to find an exception that proves the rule.

Bzzzzzt!! Making an assumption there, old boy.

And in the original language?

Who knows.

It's a ludicrous situation. Even if we assume that the Bible is what the believers claim it is; it's written in dead languages, collated from various sources over centuries, translated and retranslated by hopefully impartial men based on what they think they original meant.

It's then been hacked about with over the last millennium or so by various groups who've created their own versions, and is now presented to us as the ultimate 'guide to life' that we should all follow and revere, even though after fifteen hundred years to work it out we're still making excuses for our lack of understanding. And yet this still has an influence on our legal system?

Not sure why you are specifying Catholics, but are you suggesting the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christians then? If so why is it frequently quoted by Christians seeking to justify certain arguments? Wasn't it meant to be the direct word of God?

I'm only specifying Catholics because it demonstrates that it is not useful to talk about Christians as a whole. Some Christians may think the OT is the word of god, others don't. Some Christians churches including Catholic ones, bless same-sex unions.

Out of interest, Singletracked, can I ask what your view on same-sex marriage is?

And in the original language?

Do you mean the language Jesus spoke (Aramaic) or the language first used to write the gospels (Greek)?

I speak neither, so they don't help. But, Young's Literal Translation has these verses as:

6 but from the beginning of the creation, a male and a female God did make them;
7 on this account shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife,

For all your "that verse in different translations and languages needs" I give you [url= http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:6-7 ]Bible Gateway[/url]

"The Anglican church will remarry a divorcee, but not two men or two women.".... Yet

It's a great big slow poddling instution it'll get there in time.

Much like society in general really, we wouldn't have thought the whole thing was possible 10 years ago... and I'm sure there are just as many and probably far more non-christains who sadly don't beleive in gay marriage.

Never been told by a Xtian ( of any sort ) that I'm going to burn in hell. Btw

Edit agree with Rosey, only a matter of time

Singletracked, I'd already made several contribitions, with the benefit of a strict Catholic upbringing.

Is this becuase I called your recent contribution facile? If you've engaged in the threa, why did you represent it as 'Yes he is / No he isn't?' It seemed a strange interpretation of the discussion. But now you say I lack a sense of humour, because of my response? Oh, ok "Yes he is / No he isn't?" was a joke!!! haha I get it! good one!!

Is my sense of humour good enough to be a Catholic now?

I'm sure there are just as many and probably far more non-christains who sadly don't beleive in gay marriage

But we're allowed to call those people homophobes. [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/08/archbishop-canterbury-gay-marriage-tory ]Saying the same to a christian is like the beginning of Nazi Germany[/url].

Out of interest, Singletracked, can I ask what your view on same-sex marriage is?

It should be legal

*page change glitch*

Much like society in general really, we wouldn't have thought the whole thing was possible 10 years ago... and I'm sure there are just as many and probably far more non-christains who sadly don't beleive in gay marriage.

Religion, as ever, is dragged along kicking and screaming by ethical improvements in society bought about by secular forces.

Who cares whether or not whomever "believes" in gay marriage? Make it the law.

Selah.

It should be legal

So you support it, or do you just think it should be legal despite your personal feelings?

(Not meaning to single you out here, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion; feel free to tell me to bugger off)

No Singletracked, not an assumption.

I said that I had mostly found it to be true.
This is based on personal experience, not assumption.

Anyway, I stopped believing in The Assumption when I was about nine.
That's a lapsed Catholic/atheist joke, btw.

Good job I didn't say 'He's behind you' really isn't it?

"But we're allowed to call those people homophobes." Saying the same to [b]a[/b] christian is like the beginning of Nazi Germany.

No not to A christain you're right... but to tar the whole group as such ??

Never been told by a Xtian ( of any sort ) that I'm going to burn in hell. Btw

My friend's mum is a devout evangelical christian. She genuinely believes and has told all her kids they are going to be damned to an eternal fiery hell, unless they repent and bring Jesus into their lives. Apparently it really upsets her (and to a lesser extent the kids). Pretty tragic IMO.

I'm only specifying Catholics because it demonstrates that it is not useful to talk about Christians as a whole. Some Christians may think the OT is the word of god, others don't. Some Christians churches including Catholic ones, bless same-sex unions.

How many Catholic churches actually do that? I strongly suspect the number is so few as to make it pretty much irrelevant. The fact is that the vast majority of Christians do believe homosexuality is a sin, and that gay marriage is wrong. This is based on my experience of being brought up a Christian, in a Christian country, having listened to the pronouncements of various Christian leaders, and knowing a fair bit about Christianity in certain parts of Africa through some work I've done.

Yes that doesn't apply to every single Christian but it's a reasonable generalisation to make - otherwise the concept of Christianity at all is meaningless. Do you think it's also unfair to generalise that most Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, or that they believe in the concept of hell?

No not to A christain you're right... but to tar the whole group as such ??

Maybe not the whole group but there is a strong, officially endorsed strain of homophobia throughout most of Christianity.

Grum, I don't doubt it, my ex is at Oxford uni and belongs to to GLTB group that was regularly attacked by some regilous students, I know it happens, just not to me personally.

Cougar, you don't need my views on gay marriage, right? 😀

Emsz, I'm fairly sure your views aren't difficult to work out. (-:

No not to A christain you're right... but to tar the whole group as such ??

Maybe I should have said The Church, rather than christians.

The church and some christians hold/express homophobic views. Some christians do not.

As I said earlier, my wife is a church-attending christian. She's not homophobic, but I've certainly heard other members of that church expressing homophobic views.

It could be said that those views aren't because of their religion, because some non-religious people also hold those views. But, as that religion's official position is anti-homosexual marriage and they're of an age, class and level of education who are currently generally open-minded and liberal, it would seem that it is their religion which is the cause of their views.

The fact is that the vast majority of Christians do believe homosexuality is a sin

I'd like to see stats on that.

Christians, church goers, or believers in God? How about broken down by country?

So that makes me and Miketually's wife... as pro-homosexual marriage

Hey ... its a start

It's not really a "homosexual marriage" issue. It's an equal rights issue.