LGBT News Study finds religious people more likely to hurt gays

Unsurprising, but more study and evidence is always welcome in any situation. I would like to see the actual study though because that article doesn't make it sound very good.

 

Yeah i sort of already knew this

 

abrahamic religions. that is all.

 

Just goes to show you, the more educated you are, the less religious you tend to be.

 

This is not neccesarily true, sorry but honestly I think this is bull.

 

That's true. I think all those college professors, especially in the sciences, tend to be atheists or agnostics.

Back to the article: sure, that boss I once had who went to church regularly, married his high school sweetheart (glad someone did), had kids, and split rail fence (ha), and was deep-down one of the rottenest people created.

 

that's because people seem to think knowledge in science is a definitive measure of intelligence. so no, i wouldn't say such a thing with such confidence.

 

That's also the reason that 91% of scientists are not Republicans.

 

Huh. And here's another news story. Reading about walking on water won't make you walk on water. *laughs jokingly*

No, but in all seriousness, that makes a ton of sense.

 

This^

There are many things that are unsettling about this:

1) The factors, which in this case are the presenters. If the gay person talked about Technology and the "neutral" presenter, as the article defines it, talked about LGBT rights...would have that influenced the results. Maybe it were the ideas they were against and not the person? (I am just wondering).

2) The presenters themselves. Apparently they were different for each case and that can be an issue because you should at least have have the same or very close to same factor when preforming a dependent test (same sample of people). Liking and disliking a person after first impression is very common.

3) Study was done in a Catholic University, could the results been different if they were asked outside of University walls? After all fear of peer judgment can be rough.

4) To turn the table around and see things from their point of view...If two presenters talked to an LGBT group, one about Tech and the other preaching their religion and/or how marriage should be between a man or a woman I am sure the second one would have got more hot chilli...I know I would have probably given him/her more :icon_wink

 

Yes, just because someone claims to be a Christian that doesn't necessarily mean that they practice what Christ taught. Many people do un-Christian things in the name of Christ. Adolph Hitler thought of himself as an incarnation of Christ.

 

You know a lot about many things, but let me add some clarification here. The U.S. has over 310 million people and thus many universities. I can tell you of two Catholic universities, one in New Orleans and the other in New York City, that are way more liberal than a lot of big main state universities in other places. Then, there are tiny Catholic colleges in small rural areas that are not liberal.

 

It's true. There are catholic churches where I feel welcome. Then there are other catholic churches where I feel tolerated at best. Not all catholic churches are equal.

 

oops just saw your reply:

1) That is why I said maybe switching the topics would have given us a better understanding of the hate..whether it is against the person or the topic he/she is discussing.

2) Ignored.

3) Tightrope already answered you on this one. However, I said that the same group perhaps should have been asked outside of Uni walls. After all there is peer pressure and well we all know "groups tend to be more immoral than individuals" MLK.

4) I never mentioned homophobia :dry: there is a difference between preaching religion and preaching hate, unless they are using religion as a hate tool and that was not what I was talking about. After all, opinions are like assholes...everybody has one.... and everyone's asshole must be equally respected. Bear in mind, once in power the bullied becomes a bully, it is not a culture or background thing it is human nature. That was the point ...

 

This is the major thing. Ideally the study should've had several (15-20) people talking about an equal number of subjects, and the match up of presenter to subject should've been randomised for each instance of the study. This is the only way you are going to be able to isolate and test the subject itself. (Doing this would also build up a nice 'religious spite index' for different subjects, not just LGBT people.)

The presenters should change; see 1.

Perhaps, but the aim is to find the reactions of the religious, of which the anticipation of peer judgement is a significant contributor, and to remove that (and other factors) would mean you are testing a manufactured situation and not reality. I expect the testing would've been done in an isolated and private environment anyway.

Irrelevant.