It is/was grounded in the broad acceptance that is/was a foundation of gay culture for a long time.

Among the larger faultlines inside the gay community, religious/areligious is/was a small one.

As for the nongays, all I can say is that I find a wholly different tenor when I compare them to gay activists who the Right label as “viciously anti-Christian lesbian”, say. I admit, it is a difficult comparison to make, and perhaps more trouble than it is worth, but I find gay atheists more likely to say, ‘atheism isn’t anti-religious’ and nongay atheists more likely to say, ‘f-k “you”, religion, and the horse you rode in on.’

But, this is perhaps a fine point among ourselves and not really key to the entire purpose of fleshing out some opinions relevant to Tim’s point(s).

You can suggest all kinds of BS, but without any evidence, it remains just that. No one grows up without an endorsed belief system, including the children of atheists, atheists pass along their beliefs to their children just like any other parent.

Amicus said “However, as long as everyone is of the opinion that there is no necessary link between “a-religious” (whatever that means) or atheistic beliefs and some kind of benevolence toward gays or whatever, that’s enough, that’s good in itself.”.

I certainly never said I was of that opinion, in fact the survey quoted showed the opposite – a-religiosity is positively correlated with gay supportiveness, to the tune of 81% supportive.

(http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/282-spiritual-profile-of-homosexual-adults-provides-surprising-insights?q=gays)

Barna’s researchers show that there is some difference between the religious beliefs of straight and gay American adults. “Straight adults (72%) were more likely than gay adults (60%) to describe their faith as ‘very important’ in their life. And even though most Americans consider themselves to be Christian, there is a noticeable gap between heterosexuals who self-identify that way (85%) compared to homosexuals (70%).” In short, I’d agree with Amicus that quite a large chunk of the gay community is religious. However, I’d disagree with the conclusion he drew based on a few personal relationships that non-gay atheists “hate” religious people more so than gay atheists do.

Put another way, among the atheists I know (of know of), the ones who are the most “anti-religious” are the *nongay* ones.

Most of the gay a-religious attitudes in the gay community seem to be more about reclaiming power from a religious oppression (I know that generalization is fraught with peril, as soon as I make it, but it is my experience, at least). They really don’t “hate” religious _people_ the way some nongay a-religious people do.

I could disagree, suggesting that the absence of an endorsed belief system simply opens the door to more radical belief systems.

However, as long as everyone is of the opinion that there is no necessary link between “a-religious” (whatever that means) or atheistic beliefs and some kind of benevolence toward gays or whatever, that’s enough, that’s good in itself.

As for an assessment of a-religiosity, self-described, in practice, I suspect one would approach that with caution, too.

One could conjecture that such people may feel natively hostile to religion and, therefore, feel a fealty to gay people, the objects of religious scorn. In the absence of such considerations, one wonders if those emotions would be the same. It would be interesting to poll ‘a-religious’ people on how they feel about religious gay people, for instance.

Also, in societies one might point to for de facto success of “secular a-religiosity”, it might be hard to disentangle all religious beliefs enough to make a full, accurate assessment. So, for instance, someone might self-describe as a-religious, because they’ve rejected the sexual more of “the Church”, say, but, upon probing, they actually have fair amount of their belief system linked to religious teaching of one kind or another or get enjoyment out of celebrating holidays and associated traditions…

All’s to say that rushing into the arms of secularism or a-religiosity for a perceived safety might be a dicey bet.

No one has denied that. What we’re saying is that in general non-religous people are more accepting of gays then religous people.

Jim said “And that said, the same poll does lend some support to what Amicus said: there are people with “no religious affiliation”, whatever that means precisely, who nevertheless oppose marriage equality.”.

Once again, no one has denied that but what Amicus actually said was that he doesn’t believe there is any benevolent a-religiosity to be found, towards gays or anyone else. That is so demonstrably far wrong as to be utterly absurd and malicious.

Thanks for providing the Gallup poll link. Unfortunately, they don’t provide a good definition of what it means to “claim no religious affiliation.” It seems that Timothy’s “spiritual but not religious” definition could easily fit that description since the context appears to be that these people didn’t affiliate with a particular denomination.

And that said, the same poll does lend some support to what Amicus said: there are people with “no religious affiliation”, whatever that means precisely, who nevertheless oppose marriage equality.

Correct, it says 81% of people with no religious affiliation support gay marriage – my memory wasn’t quite accurate.

not benevolent, by definition or in practice, then, right?”

Wrong. Not benevolent by definition, but definitely benevolent by practice.

Amicus said “Of course, one might say that tolerance of moderate atheists permits more radical ones to get away with things.”.

That’s not a valid analogy. Moderate religionists validate the view that the bible and its writings are important and thus support the idea that the extreme passages of the bible such as killing gays and non-believers have merit. There is no associated philosophy, or book of rules for atheists so merely being a moderate atheist in no way provides support for extemist actions of some atheists.