Free Speech on Campus Survey, LGBT+ by religion

[Calm]

Would be very interested in the opinion of anyone who is educated in stats on this survey.

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2024-college-free-speech-rankings

This is relevant to the board because Pastor Ryan Burge used the data and came up with this interesting analysis that includes LDS (his bold, not mine).  I thought some might be interested.  

Quote

The religious group that is the most likely to be straight is Muslims at 85%, followed closely by a whole bunch of other groups such as Protestants, Catholics, Just Christians, and Hindus. But here’s a really big surprise to me - only 78% of Latter-day Saints in college say that they are straight. That’s seven points lower than Protestants. Thirteen percent of LDS fall into the “something else” category. 

The groups that are the least likely to say that they are straight are atheists at 55% and agnostics at 53%. It’s pretty staggering to consider that nearly half of young atheists/agnostics are not heterosexual. Nothing in particulars are not far behind, either, at 62%. The nones are much less likely to be straight compared to their religious counterparts.

https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/gender-sexual-orientation-and-religion?

[The Nehor]

Nice to see the gay agenda’s plans are still working.

*EVIL LAUGH*

[LoudmouthMormon]

Yeah, it also has something to do with people changing the definition of words, so nobody knows what they are any more.  College remains a place where the immature fancies of youth begin to crash into the harsh reality of reality.

Ask that 21% again, once they've got a spouse, a job, and a mortgage.   It'll probably be 3-5% by then.

Edited September 22 by LoudmouthMormon

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yeah, it also has something to do with people changing the definition of words, so nobody knows what they are any more.  College remains a place where the immature fancies of youth begin to crash into the harsh reality of reality.

Ask that 21% again, once they've got a spouse, a job, and a mortgage.   It'll probably be 3-5% by then.

So as people become more “of the world” they become more straight?

Hmmmmm……..

[Pyreaux]

Hmm... Not "Gay" but "Something else", could the questionnaire be confusing, and they mean "Celibate"? If they identify as LDS, I assume they are believing LDS, does it mean we are somehow more tolerant of them than other Christian groups? Or is it a problem, a movement of woke activists that retain membership to help make social changes to the church from within?

Edited September 22 by Pyreaux

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Hmm... Not "Gay" but "Something else", could questionnaire be confusing, and they mean "Celibate"? If they identify as LDS, I assume they are believing LDS, does it mean we are somehow more tolerant of them than other Christian groups? Or is it a problem, a movement of woke activists that retain membership to help make social changes to the church from within?

Oh I don't think LDS is in any danger of being somehow more tolerant of gays than other Christian groups.  The Church has made that pretty crystal clear through past actions and how the Church still treats BYU students.  

[Calm]

Speculation on why the higher percentage for LDS than some other faiths rather than us being similar due to similar views of homosexual behaviour as immoral….since I don’t know much about family culture in other faiths or how doctrine impacts self perception, etc, my speculation here is not in really in comparison to other faiths, but just what might contribute in positive ways to self acceptance/perception of LGBTQ identity for those also identifying as LDS.  Other faith communities could be better than us in some of these areas but be much less likely to create support for LGBTQ self identification in other ways leading to overall less acceptance.

There are also cultural and doctrinal aspects that are negative and even highly negative, but I am focusing on where the comparison is with a higher number of LDS young adults identifying as LGBTQ, so not dealing with what might cause LDS numbers to be lower than Jewish, agnostics, etc they tested lower than.

Possible influences, maybe biological or cultural….

Larger families:  from memory I believe rates of homosexuality at least go up with size of family, but I can’t remember reading anything on LGBTQ in general.  I need to check the size of Catholic families here. Quickly checked:  looks like LDS run at 3.4 kids and Catholic at 2.6, not much higher than the national average…very surprising to me.

Religious doctrine:  I was reading someone’s analysis of the graph and they expressed surprise because they said for Catholics and some Protestant faiths, doctrinally speaking there is no recognition of the existence of actual homosexual identity, so the numbers should be much lower for those faiths in their view.  If I understood their point correctly, for example one technically can’t say ‘I am gay and I am a Catholic’ because they are rejecting Catholic doctrine.  I have no clue if the commentary is right, but if it is, this could be why numbers are lower in those categories, higher numbers in those faiths have rejected that religious identity.  

Due to a few things said by LDS leaders, some might see LDS doctrine the same way, but I think generally there is no conflict with doctrine to identify as LGBTQ+ even if not seen as a desirable state generally speaking; the issues in our faith in my view currently are the view of same sex sexual behaviour as immoral and finding meaningful roles for those who choose not to marry someone of the opposite sex so they feel a part of the community, not an outright rejection of even the identity (though there is an indirect rejection because such identities are typically viewed as problematic, part of the natural man, unlikely to be eternal, etc).  I will try and find the article that mentioned this in case I misread it or they are quite wrong about Catholic and some Protestant doctrines so they can be blamed for the misrepresentation and not me.  Added:  

Quote

 

For example, if none of these faith traditions recognizes LGBTQ as a part of their faith, how can we say 16% of Protestants or 17% of Catholics are LGBTQ+ when in order to make such an identification, they would have had to abandon their faith?

 

https://notthebee.com/article/new-research-says-16-of-christians-are-lgbtq-and-i-have-questions

Cultural acceptance:  perhaps in general or at least among college groups, there is more acceptance of minority identities with LDS than with the other faiths that have lower rates or maybe parents can adapt better and be more accepting for more family support for some reason, perhaps the belief in sealing leads to less worry in general about eternal state of children than with other faiths.  Or other stuff that does not occur to me or I am aware of…would live to see ideas.

Rebellion or experimentation:  maybe LDS young adults are more adventurous, etc because of various beliefs and practices…confidence may be higher because of opportunities to speak in front of others, including adults, mission experiences lead to higher independence, experiences as leaders in classes, etc or perhaps views of oneself as a literal child of God raises self esteem and confidence; maybe our view of eternity creates a view this life is for experimenting, etc.

Age:  even though this takes in all college students, maybe on average LDS are younger and this leads to higher numbers of greater acceptance 

Genetics:  https://www.science.org/content/article/genetics-may-explain-25-same-sex-behavior-giant-analysis-reveals

Unknown but possible factors:  dietary tendencies (maybe smoking or drinking leads to fewer LGBTQ children)

Speculation welcomed…

Edited September 22 by Calm

[california boy]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would be very interested in the opinion of anyone who is educated in stats on this survey.

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2024-college-free-speech-rankings

This is relevant to the board because Pastor Ryan Burge used the data and came up with this interesting analysis that includes LDS (his bold, not mine).  I thought some might be interested.  

https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/gender-sexual-orientation-and-religion?

My guess, and it is strickly a guess, I think that maybe more LDS gays identify as being members longer than those that leave other Christian religions.  Other gays that grow up Christian arrive in the "Nothing in Particular, Other, Athiest, Agnostic" statistics much sooner than LDS members.  

[Pyreaux]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So as people become more “of the world” they become more straight?

Hmmmmm……..

Or rather, when some straighter people become of a collage, specifically, they become gayer than they might actually be. I think the term used is, "Experimenting"? Not everyone, but some people do grow to regret things they did when they were in collage, or so I hear in Sitcoms. I've never been.

Edited September 22 by Pyreaux

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would be very interested in the opinion of anyone who is educated in stats on this survey.

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2024-college-free-speech-rankings

This is relevant to the board because Pastor Ryan Burge used the data and came up with this interesting analysis that includes LDS (his bold, not mine).  I thought some might be interested.  

https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/gender-sexual-orientation-and-religion?

This raises a few questions for me:

1. If, as we are so often told, that "gender" is merely a "social construct," then is it possible that the same can be said about "sexual orientation"?

2. Conversely, if "sexual orientation" is fixed and immutable (and not a "social construct"), then is it possible that the same can be said about "gender?"

3. Also, if "sexual orientation" is fixed and immutable, why are there such significant disparities in the above categories?  Wouldn't we expect a fixed and immutable trait to be fairly constant across demographic groups?

4. What are the "Something Else" options?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

Oh I don't think LDS is in any danger of being somehow more tolerant of gays than other Christian groups.  The Church has made that pretty crystal clear through past actions and how the Church still treats BYU students.  

Yes.  It asks them to comply with the same behavioral constraints as apply to everyone else.  

See, e.g., here:

Quote

4. All of Us Are Held to the Same Standard:

Elder Oaks has spoken of the ongoing debate about "evidence or theories suggesting that 'there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation,'" about sexual behavior being "profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live," and how all of this is part of a "highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy" and that "most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies."  The Church, having taken this into account, holds all members of the Church to the same standard of sexual conduct (see above).

People with same-sex attraction are asked to abide by the same standards as anyone else. There is no shortage of widowed, divorced, not-yet or never-married church members who are commanded to be celibate. Those who are married are commanded to confine their behavior to certain parameters.

5. Feelings are Not Determinative of Morality (Where God Has Spoken):

This one is pretty straightforward, but it still gets glossed over.  A lot.

A married man doesn't get to have an adulterous affair because he desires it. 

A married man doesn't get to enter into polygamy because he desires it.

An unmarried person doesn't get to have sex because he desires it.

And, yes, members of the Church do not get to engage in homosexual behavior, even if they desire it.  

Desires are not determinative of the standard. God has prohibited adultery amongst His children. God has also prohibited same-sex behavior amongst His children. It is true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in adultery. This is wrong. It is also true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in same-sex behavior. This is wrong. The same standard applies to all church members.

This board is chalkablock full of threads and posts explaining how homosexual members are treated differently because they cannot fulfill their desires.  But if we take desires out of the equation, and simply look at the standard of behavior imposed on church members, we see that the same standard is applied across the board. Once we see that, all the various arguments presented in this thread, based as they are on homosexuals being downtrodden because of their unfulfilled desires, fail.

I should clarify something: I don't begrudge anyone their pursuit of happiness.  I wish them the best.  However, in my community, in my voluntary association with other like-minded persons who belief in the Restored Gospel, we must come to grips with the reality that God will sometimes command us to do things that may be unpopular or difficult to understand.  Sexual behavior is a big part of life.  An important part.  It makes sense that God would impose regulations about it.  It would also make sense that "The World" might disagree with those regulations.  So we need to take a good hard look at what the prophets and apostles and the scriptures are saying, and make sure we are on the right track.  

I can't speak, in this thread, as to all of the complexities surrounding same-sex attraction. It is a complex and difficult topic. However, I can speak to what the Restored Gospel has said about it, which is that acting on such inclinations is sinful and requires repentance. Likewise, those who succumb to inclinations to engage in behaviors which are likewise prohibited (adultery, fornication, improper violence, greed, etc.) are also committing sin and must repent.

I see no reason to privilege same-sex attraction and separate it from any of the other types of mortal predilections which, if acted upon, violate the commandments of God. I know that currently the socially popular and politically correct thing to do is capitulate to eroding social mores, ditch the scriptures and the prophets, and to instead go with what the Great-and-Spacious-Building tenants are telling us to do. Sadly, there are some Latter-day Saints are who are listening to these voices, but there are also those that are not, and who as a result are getting an earful of bigotry and hatred for clinging to the Iron Rod.

Well, so be it. To finish up King Benjamin's instruction: "But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not."

I'll end with this encouragement from our Lord: "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."

And here:

Quote

Quote

I'm not suggesting that desire overrides chastity. A married man doesn't get to have an affair simply because he desires it.

Great! And a homosexual man doesn't get to have sex with another man simply because he "desires it."

Desire, you see, is not determinative of the standard. God has prohibited adultery amongst His children. God has also prohibited same-sex behavior amongst His children. It is true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in adultery. This is wrong. It is also true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in same-sex behavior. This is wrong.

The same standard applies to all church members.

And here:

Quote

Quote

but at the same time, I am at least understanding of a gay mormon's desire to find a committed relationship with someone who feels and thinks similarly to him/herself.

First, I am understanding of that desire.

Second, I cannot condone it insofar as it contravenes the commandments of God. There are people in unhappy marriages who "desire to find a committed relationship with someone," but that desire is wrong insofar as it seeks a relationship outside of that person's marriage. There are single people who "desire to find a committed relationship with someone," but that desire is wrong insofar as it includes prohibited sexual behavior.

And here:

Quote

Quote

I'm not suggesting that "desire" is the standard.

Well, it appears that is exactly what you are suggesting. Your entire premise is that homosexuals should be exempted from the same standards of sexual behavior that apply to everyone else because they want to engage in that behavior.

This thread is full of posts explaining how homosexual members are treated differently because they cannot fulfill their desires.

But if we take desires out of the equation, and simply look at the standard of behavior imposed on church members, we see that the same standard is applied across the board. Once we see that, all the various arguments presented in this thread, based as they are on homosexuals being downtrodden because of their unfulfilled desires, fall apart.

Quote

I agree with you that there is much that we desire that we cannot act on.

And yet here you are, proposing that homosexual members be given some sort of special dispensation. That they be allowed to engage in conduct prohibited to the rest of us, solely because they want to engage in that behavior.

But such reasoning falls apart quickly. By your reckoning, adultery is A-OK as long as the adulterer wants to engage in that conduct, which is prohibited to others.

And with that, let's move on to the "I'm not arguing for special rules exempting homosexuals from the commandments of God, except that I am" argument:

Quote

The important difference is the sexual orientation we each have which in many cases is unchangeable (that last word being something that the Brethren have said, not my own words).

I disagree that sexual orientation is fixed and immutable for all people. For some, but not for all.

In any event, so what? How does having those desires justify exempting homosexuals from adherence to the same standards of sexual behavior expected from the rest of us?

And here:

Quote

Quote

For legalistic purposes, it is useful to distinguish between content and impact. The rules/content are the same. The impact of the rules are not the same (since a homosexual couple can't physically express their affection in the same way a heterosexual couple can).

The Honor Code applies to individuals.  And it applies to everyone regardless of inner-felt sexual orientation/desire.  Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior.  

The "impact" to the individual, then, remains the same.

Feelings and desires are, in my view, insufficient grounds to claim "disparate impact," even for "legalistic purposes." 

A heterosexual BYU student who wants to be sexually active outside of marriage cannot claim that the Honor Code disparately impacts him because regardless of his desires, he agreed to constrain his behavior to the parameters set in the Honor Code.  He faces the same constraints all other BYU students do.  That he may subjective chafe more against those constraints more than some other student (who is quite willing to abstain from sex outside of marriage) is neither here nor there.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  It asks them to comply with the same behavioral constraints as apply to everyone else.  

Can we skip this part of the discussion, please, as it has been covered many times in other threads and stick to why Saints have more who identify as LGBTQ+ than most other Christian faiths. I think it obvious why everyone is higher than Muslim and I doubt anyone here has great insight into Hindu stances. Would be interested to hear why Orthodox or Jewish run higher if familiar with those faiths.  The rest are nobrainers.

Edited September 22 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Can we skip this part of the discussion, please, as it has been covered many times in other threads and stick to why Saints have more who identify as LGBTQ+ than most other Christian faiths. I think it obvious why everyone is higher than Muslim and I doubt anyone here has great insight into Hindu stances. Would be interested to hear why Orthodox or Jewish run higher if familiar with those faiths.  The rest are nobrainers.

In my personal experience, most homosexuals I know seem to gravitate to Buddhism, it pulls them out of depression and they seem to be on a positive and more wholesome path. Intelligent, clean and well mannered. Though the transgenders I know seem to gravitate to Wicca, and as a group though they claim to be "white magic", they seem more groomed than the regular male Wiccans who seem a bit unkept. Less negative but still in a negative group, that they all seem to desire control and power over things. Say we all played a game together, the Buddhist gays are upbeat, good humored, easy going about losing (they practice being unattached), while the Wiccans get along okay, they'll study hard on how to best win, some will even cheat with the dice and cards, and get upset when they can't win. I think they approach life that way, they want to manipulate it. To escape into RPGs and fantasy where everything goes their ways. I don't know if being transgender is a part of that, but it seems related to using your will to make reality the way you want.

Edited September 22 by Pyreaux

[Chum]

9 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

In my personal experience, most homosexuals I know seem to gravitate to Buddhism,

Furries here but that could just be the circles we move in.

[blackstrap]

Ranking like the chart does, ignores the margin of error. Depending on how many were surveyed , the margin could be 3-4% which means the top 5 could be shuffled in any order. 

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Ranking like the chart does, ignores the margin of error. Depending on how many were surveyed , the margin could be 3-4% which means the top 5 could be shuffled in any order. 

I was just thinking after posting last time of how they run in bunches, which are all quite close, so ranking would be best by 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th group because of error margin.  That would group LDS and Orthodox together. 

Edited September 22 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Furries here but that could just be the circles we move in.

Serious or not?  And if serious, tell me more because it seems contextless to me…I can’t connect the two and would like to know what you mean because you are typically an interesting poster.

Edited September 22 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Furries here but that could just be the circles we move in.

Furry isn’t a religion. It is often a kink.

[pogi]

Who knows, maybe it is all Madam Pattrini’s fault  In Mormonism, we like to keep it all in the family.   By marrying other members, we all seem to marry people with common pioneer or early Mormon ancestors.  If there is a heritable component as suggested by some studies, maybe we are just circulating the same gayness around and around and around again.  

[MrShorty]

How many LDS students are represented in this data? Burge says that he pared FIRE's data down to 39000 students from 55000 students, because he wanted to focus on the 18-25 age group. I didn't see anything that said how many of each religious grouping were in that 39000. If I assume a typical 2% representation, since that seems to be a common approximation for the number of LDS in the US, that says his conclusions about LDS are based on about 800 students. I clicked through to FIRE's description of their recruiting methods, but did not invest enough time (and don't have the expertise) to judge how statistically representative this 800 or so students might be of LDS college students generally. I notice that he Burge puts error bars on some of the charts, and you can see that the error bars on LDS are much larger than more common groups like Catholic and Protestant. This is a big thing for just about any survey type of data like this -- how representative is it of the subgroup you want to know about -- especially when that subgroup tends to be a small fraction of the larger sample (as noted, LDS tend to be about 2% it seems). That would be one possible avenue to explore.

In agreement with a couple of the comments on the essay, religious affiliation is self-reported, but we otherwise don't see anything here to talk about participation level or just what drives respondents to identify as LDS. Could and LDS identifier be "stickier" (as one commenter put it) than other religious affiliations -- in that one who no longer believes or participates might still identify as a "cultural Mormon." In other contexts, I've seen talk about "secular Jews" (those who don't believe in God or specific Jewish practices, but still identify as Jewish), could this sample under or over represent active, believing LDS?

I could see from FIRE's report on Free speech that they could tie data to individual campus affiliations. I wonder how much of the LDS sample came from BYU/CES schools and how much from non-CES schools. If there are enough people in each pool, could we see data based on university affiliation?

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

This raises a few questions for me:

1. If, as we are so often told, that "gender" is merely a "social construct," then is it possible that the same can be said about "sexual orientation"?

2. Conversely, if "sexual orientation" is fixed and immutable (and not a "social construct"), then is it possible that the same can be said about "gender?"

3. Also, if "sexual orientation" is fixed and immutable, why are there such significant disparities in the above categories?  Wouldn't we expect a fixed and immutable trait to be fairly constant across demographic groups?

4. What are the "Something Else" options?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

1. Yes, it can be said. That is not really a debated point. The behaviors exist long before we had orientation labels to describe them.

2. Sexual orientation is not fixed and immutable. It is not something we have any idea how to shift deliberately but that it can and does sometimes shift is pretty well known. It doesn’t tend to shift a lot.

3. It is a self-reported survey and the results are more likely about what people are willing to report about themselves. It is more about how deep in denial members of the group are.

4. Unsure, asexual, non-binary, wanting to believe they are straight but can’t, monosexual but biromantic, bisexual but monoromantic, or they identify as an attack helicopter.

[Smiley McGee]

4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

harsh reality of reality.

reality^2. Sounds pretty intense.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

My guess, and it is strickly a guess, I think that maybe more LDS gays identify as being members longer than those that leave other Christian religions.  Other gays that grow up Christian arrive in the "Nothing in Particular, Other, Athiest, Agnostic" statistics much sooner than LDS members.  

This is likely the reason. It is generally (though not always) easier to go off to college and stop being a Baptist than it is to abandon the Church.

[Smiley McGee]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So as people become more “of the world” they become more straight?

That’s what really happens when you crash into the harsh reality of reality of the real world. 

[rpn]

"Something else" could mean, I'm not going to tell you.

In the 1990's the BYU Alumni Mag reported on some research documenting  that same gender attraction occurred more often when the number of male children in the family was greater, and in the younger boys, suggesting it could be an hormonal issue in vitro.   Guess which faiths tend to have the largest families?    If that is someday proven true, it should come as no surprise that there are many lds young men who deal with same sex attraction.

NOTE:  I clearly recall the article, and when I tried a few years ago to track it down, others confirmed having read it too and my recollection of the report.  But none of us could pin down the exact issue nor find in the Alumni Mag old copies the article or anyone associated with the Alumni Mag who acknowledged knowing it.

And if I'd been asked this question when the brewhaha (sp?) about the colored lights on Y Mountain, I might not have  identified myself accurately either.

Edited September 23 by rpn