Thread: Towns and cities with large LGBTQ communities - how does the church work there? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030690
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Reading the Oblivionated thread about HTB's church plant in Brighton (you know your insomnia is bad when you're going through Oblivion ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
) got me wondering - how have various groups of churches dealt with having a gay scene on their doorstep, whether affirming, condemning, whatever? I used to live in Eastbourne for several years but I was not out to my church and also the churches in Eastbourne are not as diverse as in Brighton - Eastbourne (for Anglicans at least) is almost entirely conservative evangelical in terms of churchmanship - so I can't talk from experience about how the Brighton churches interacted with the gay scene. I have heard positive things about the AffCath churches being very welcoming, but I would especially like to know how the NFI/HTB churches deal with it. Do they ignore the gay scene or actively oppose it?
I'm guessing TEC have a more uniform approach to the whole thing!
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Are you interested in current treatment or also historical treatment? Some of the churches have changed considerably in recent years.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Are you interested in current treatment or also historical treatment? Some of the churches have changed considerably in recent years.
Current treatment, or at least within the last 5 years.
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on
:
Here is Sydney - the Roman Catholic and Anglican Dioceses are both heavy-handed anti-gay: the Cardinal has refused communion to people wearing a rainbow sash or badge; the Anglicans believe that homosexuality is a choice rather than a genetic disposition.
However, even with this said, I can advise that there are a number of Anglican parishes and communities (I can only speak with confidence about the Anglican scene) throughout the city who are openly and warmly accepting of ALL people, and who go out of their way to be supportive of GLBT worshippers and seekers, many of whom have been deeply hurt by the official stances and actions of their denominations, etc.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
Here is Sydney - the Roman Catholic and Anglican Dioceses are both heavy-handed anti-gay: the Cardinal has refused communion to people wearing a rainbow sash or badge; the Anglicans believe that homosexuality is a choice.
How anyone can believe this obviously utter shite I do not understand. I mean, I never chose to be straight; I just, am. I could no more choose to be gay than I could choose to have red hair.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
They want to believe it, so the wish is father to the thought. It fits in with their preconceptions, so it must be true. Thinking a prioristically is so cool, you don't need evidence.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
But the effort in purposely not thinking it through for the ten seconds it takes to realise it's utter bullshit must be immense!
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Reading the Oblivionated thread about HTB's church plant in Brighton (you know your insomnia is bad when you're going through Oblivion ) got me wondering - how have various groups of churches dealt with having a gay scene on their doorstep, whether affirming, condemning, whatever? I used to live in Eastbourne for several years but I was not out to my church and also the churches in Eastbourne are not as diverse as in Brighton - Eastbourne (for Anglicans at least) is almost entirely conservative evangelical in terms of churchmanship - so I can't talk from experience about how the Brighton churches interacted with the gay scene. I have heard positive things about the AffCath churches being very welcoming, but I would especially like to know how the NFI/HTB churches deal with it. Do they ignore the gay scene or actively oppose it?
I'm guessing TEC have a more uniform approach to the whole thing!
I think this is a really interesting question. I was looking at the Inclusive Church website the other day and was struck by how many more churches across the country seem to have signed up.
There is obviously a large LGBTQ community here in London and there appear to be degrees of inclusion. Many make the affirming commitment on their website explicity welcoming; most others I would say are less explicit but welcome is made at the service and it's clear that their congregations are representative; and then you have the places to avoid (All Souls and St Helen's Bishopsgate).
There seems to be a real mixture among the charismatic churches - some of my friends tell me that HTB is now much better and more inclusive whereas St Barnabas, Woodside Park still has a reputation for not being so.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But the effort in purposely not thinking it through for the ten seconds it takes to realise it's utter bullshit must be immense!
That's a very interesting point. Freud used the term 'disavowal' for stuff which we have to deny, in case it causes us traumatic consequences, (Ger. 'Verleugnung').
You may well be right about the energy involved, since such mechanisms involve some kind of rejection of reality. But I suppose people with these ideas also get lots of reinforcement from others.
"We all reject reality - ah, so much cosier!"
Hence, all the references today to echo-chambers, in which you can safely listen to the echo of your own thoughts, or something like that. But I suppose everybody does that to an extent.
Further point, it's also unconscious, not necessarily purposeful.
[ 28. June 2013, 12:22: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I say this very tentatively, but I'm not so sure that it is always bullshit to say that the sexual identity within which you live is a choice. That rather presupposes that people are either indelibly, unambiguously gay or straight, and while I know of people who tell me that this applies to them, and I have no reason to disbelieve them, I also know very well that this does not apply to everyone. I do think that for some people the form in which their sexuality is manifested in their way of life is a matter of choice, albeit one structured and constrained by societal norms.
Where I disagree with the church authorities in Sydney is that I don't think there's anything wrong with this.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
Here is Sydney - the Roman Catholic and Anglican Dioceses are both heavy-handed anti-gay: the Cardinal has refused communion to people wearing a rainbow sash or badge; the Anglicans believe that homosexuality is a choice.
How anyone can believe this obviously utter shite I do not understand. I mean, I never chose to be straight; I just, am. I could no more choose to be gay than I could choose to have red hair.
No one chooses to be. But everyone has a choice to do or not do something. I assume these people being denied communion weren't born wearing a rainbow sash?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
Here is Sydney - the Roman Catholic and Anglican Dioceses are both heavy-handed anti-gay: the Cardinal has refused communion to people wearing a rainbow sash or badge; the Anglicans believe that homosexuality is a choice.
How anyone can believe this obviously utter shite I do not understand. I mean, I never chose to be straight; I just, am. I could no more choose to be gay than I could choose to have red hair.
No one chooses to be. But everyone has a choice to do or not do something. I assume these people being denied communion weren't born wearing a rainbow sash?
No-one's claiming they were. The point is that people who are gay didn't choose to be. That's all.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Maybe they were wearing scout badges or T-shirts saying 'gland in hand, here we stand, man to man, you know it makes sense'.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
Here is Sydney - the Roman Catholic and Anglican Dioceses are both heavy-handed anti-gay: the Cardinal has refused communion to people wearing a rainbow sash or badge; the Anglicans believe that homosexuality is a choice rather than a genetic disposition.
However, even with this said, I can advise that there are a number of Anglican parishes and communities (I can only speak with confidence about the Anglican scene) throughout the city who are openly and warmly accepting of ALL people, and who go out of their way to be supportive of GLBT worshippers and seekers, many of whom have been deeply hurt by the official stances and actions of their denominations, etc.
So odd considering that RC organisations like Pax Christi frequently use rainbow motifs as a symbol of peace - I have one of their rainbow badges and it has nothing to do with LGBTQ issues.
As for the Anglicans, well - not sure I would expect anything else from Sydney. My church in Eastbourne was a big fan of Matthias Media ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
In a couple of locations on my travels, I have encountered churches with a rainbow flag on their street notice board.
There were 2 in Toronto in the area near the university and towards the gay village. I can't immediately recall where the other was. Possibly Montreal.
But that action, a small rainbow flag visible from the street, affected me mightily. I went to church in Toronto because of it.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Willing to bet that there are some conservative parts of Canada, but seriously Canada, why so great?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I do think that for some people the form in which their sexuality is manifested in their way of life is a matter of choice, albeit one structured and constrained by societal norms.
Where I disagree with the church authorities in Sydney is that I don't think there's anything wrong with this.
'Choice' though might carry the wrong connotations. As if it were as simple as selecting the vanilla ice cream rather than the chocolate off the supermarket shelf.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Oh sure. But I think that the basic point stands.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
What's a rainbow sash and who wears them? Is it like a proper sash right across the body?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What's a rainbow sash and who wears them? Is it like a proper sash right across the body?
Like this , worn for Pride events, protests etc.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
Oh I see. Why on earth would someone wear that to Church?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Oh I see. Why on earth would someone wear that to Church?
Dunno. I'm sure I've seen Graham Kendrick use a rainbow guitar strap. Maybe that's different.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Oh I see. Why on earth would someone wear that to Church?
Why not? Surely no weirder than a chasuble (not that Sydney Anglicans have those either). If it's Mardi Gras (which is a Big Gay Deal in Sydney) season then there are going to be people with rainbow stuff on all the time.
In any case, the Eucharist is a gift from God to His church and does not depend on what clothes one is wearing.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
IME most Anglo-Catholic congregations and clergy in both TEC and the CofE are quite gay friendly and gay populated. This is perhaps apt to be partly an artifact of the urban location of most such parishes in combination with the urban concentration of gay communities. London, NYC, Philadelphia, and Chicago would all be good cases in point.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
IME most Anglo-Catholic congregations and clergy in both TEC and the CofE are quite gay friendly and gay populated. This is perhaps apt to be partly an artifact of the urban location of most such parishes in combination with the urban concentration of gay communities. London, NYC, Philadelphia, and Chicago would all be good cases in point.
FiF would very much disagree with you on Anglo-Catholics within the CoE I think - and would of course object to AffCath churches being called Anglo-Catholic.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Well, AffCath parishes clearly are Anglo-Catholic to anyone viewing things objectively. I have studiously avoided FiF places apart from special events like their May Festival or Patronal.
Of course, in the USA, virtually all Anglo-Catholic parishes are essentially AffCath in orientation, and the policy of the Church nationally is inclusive and generally gay-friendly. Those who don't like this have pretty much walked out.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Well, AffCath parishes clearly are Anglo-Catholic to anyone viewing things objectively. I have studiously avoided FiF places apart from special events like their May Festival or Patronal.
Of course, in the USA, virtually all Anglo-Catholic parishes are essentially AffCath in orientation, and the policy of the Church nationally is inclusive and generally gay-friendly. Those who don't like this have pretty much walked out.
I misread 'patronal' as 'paranormal' and thought you must move in some exotic circles! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Not being a church goer I don't track this closely. Seattle has a large community. In recent years, the Vatican has replaced priests in position of responsibility who were trying to welcome Gay and Lesbians Catholics.
The Episcopal Church among others is fairly welcoming. This is convenient since their Cathedral is pretty close to what has been the major Gay neighborhood.
There's the usual cauldron of Homophobic Fundaments.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
For all the nearly naked bodies and gyrations shown in gay pride parades on TV, the truth is that a very large number of the entries are religious organizations. Most of the mainline Protestant denominations and liberal religious bodies (Reform and Conservative Jews, Unitarians, Buddhists, etc.) have quasi-official groups marching in the parade, often with clergy in collars and the local bishop or district president in tow. Gay members of less accepting groups like Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, conservative evangelicals, Muslims, JWs, etc., would march with their support groups like Dignity (Catholic), Axios (E. Orthodox), Affirmation (Mormon), etc., sans any official presence. Everyone considers those parades to be the most visible way to help gay people who have left organized religion get plugged back in, or reach out to new members.
In the cities I've lived in, many religious organizations also set up colourful booths at gay pride festivals with literature, pictures, etc. staffed by volunteers that would give info on the state of the gay community in their respective denomination, listen to stories by passerby and help guide people to more friendlier places of worship.
It seems to do some good. There are many people who have spiritual needs that left their churches as young adults, who aren't aware of how much things have changed since then and may give it a second try. We'd always get a few new faces after a parade event at church. A few have even become regulars.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Not being a church goer I don't track this closely. Seattle has a large community. In recent years, the Vatican has replaced priests in position of responsibility who were trying to welcome Gay and Lesbians Catholics.
San Francisco got a new RC archbishop...last year, IIRC. Name of Cordileoni. He's not welcoming of non-het orientations, though IIRC he says he welcomes the people who are so oriented. He sent out a gloomy message re the SSM decision.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
For all the nearly naked bodies and gyrations shown in gay pride parades on TV, the truth is that a very large number of the entries are religious organizations. Most of the mainline Protestant denominations and liberal religious bodies (Reform and Conservative Jews, Unitarians, Buddhists, etc.) have quasi-official groups marching in the parade, often with clergy in collars and the local bishop or district president in tow. Gay members of less accepting groups like Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, conservative evangelicals, Muslims, JWs, etc., would march with their support groups like Dignity (Catholic), Axios (E. Orthodox), Affirmation (Mormon), etc., sans any official presence. Everyone considers those parades to be the most visible way to help gay people who have left organized religion get plugged back in, or reach out to new members.
In the cities I've lived in, many religious organizations also set up colourful booths at gay pride festivals with literature, pictures, etc. staffed by volunteers that would give info on the state of the gay community in their respective denomination, listen to stories by passerby and help guide people to more friendlier places of worship.
It seems to do some good. There are many people who have spiritual needs that left their churches as young adults, who aren't aware of how much things have changed since then and may give it a second try. We'd always get a few new faces after a parade event at church. A few have even become regulars.
I have never seen that many religious groups at a British pride event. The MCC, sure, and maybe Reform Jews, but that's about it. Maybe LGBT+ people in the US are more inclined to be religious?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
An anglo-catholic church in Kemptown, Brighton became trusted by gay men back in the days when there were lots of AIDS funerals. it is in the heart of the 'gay village'.
Re FIF, I know one Fif which wouldn't survive without its gay men in the choir, serving team etc.
My church hosts LGCM, had an 'inclusive church' logo and statement on our notice board and we used to do more gay couple blessings than weddings before there was a clampdown on such rites.
St. Martin's in the Fields always flies the rainbow flag during Pride (Today).
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
While my town his hardly a metropolis we do have an active gay community. My church actually flies rainbow banners. We welcome everyone regardless of sexual orientation.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
I'm from Brighton, although I don't live there any more, and my detailed knowledge of the churches there is decades out of date.
Its has one of the lowest church attendances in Britain as a proportion of the population. Not THE lowest, but getting there.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Washington state is 41st in attendance, almost as low as New England. (32%)
As someone who did a book about religious regions of the US said; the Pacific Northwest is a bunch of tree worshipping pagans. Certainly overt atheism is higher here than many parts of the country.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Hey, when you live in paradise.....
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I have never seen that many religious groups at a British pride event. The MCC, sure, and maybe Reform Jews, but that's about it. Maybe LGBT+ people in the US are more inclined to be religious?
It's surprising that groups such as the Quakers and Unitarians don't have more of a presence. I wonder why that is. Obviously, British people, whether gay or straight, are less likely to be religious than Americans, but you'd think that openly liberal religious groups such as these would see Gay Pride as an opportunity for low-key, cheerful evangelism.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Toronto Pride features numerous church groups not only from TO itself but from many other places in Ontario marching in the Pride parade. The church groups are collectively a major contingent of Pride marchers.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I have never seen that many religious groups at a British pride event. The MCC, sure, and maybe Reform Jews, but that's about it. Maybe LGBT+ people in the US are more inclined to be religious?
It's surprising that groups such as the Quakers and Unitarians don't have more of a presence. I wonder why that is. Obviously, British people, whether gay or straight, are less likely to be religious than Americans, but you'd think that openly liberal religious groups such as these would see Gay Pride as an opportunity for low-key, cheerful evangelism.
I'm not sure current British Quakers are much into advertising themselves. Instead they march in other groups (I wouldn't put it pass them to volunteer to provide the support services). And then there are the sheer numbers or rather lack thereof, about 7,000 Unitarians and 15,000 Quakers in all of the UK. I'm fairly certain that most involved in equal marriage are aware of the Quaker and Unitarian participation there. However a google search shows Quakers did march in the 2011 London parade
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Willing to bet that there are some conservative parts of Canada, but seriously Canada, why so great?
As same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005 and, with the exception of a group of Conservative MPs and their backers, has generally been accepted. That which has parliamentary authority gets respected most of the time. Most objection from small c conservatives has dissipated, and dissenters in mainstream churches have generally drifted off to their own congregations in an interesting and complex if unpleasant culture war. The RCs have adopted an object-to-the-sin but love-the-sinners approach (which has singular manifestations as RC schools work to meet provincial human rights programming mandates). The Orthies in their dozen-plus jurisdictions have just not been very articulate-- a full-page tirade in the Srbsky Tsrkvy Vestnik does not have a great impact on Canadian society.
Gay friends tell me that settled partnerships are widely accepted throughout the country, even in small-town and rural areas. I hear mixed accounts of how settled partnerships are received in First Peoples communities-- IMHO it is impossible to generalize when dealing with a kaleidoscope of different cultures and religious mixes in these communities.
Likely the other factor, also found in parts of the US (I know Vermont and upstate New York best), is a mind-your-own-business as long as they-shovel-their-walk attitude.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...I have never seen that many religious groups at a British pride event. The MCC, sure,...
Oh, yes, that MCC. Of course. For a moment I had a vision of a gay cricketing contingent, perhaps identified by a discreet rainbow stripe on their egg-and-tomato ties.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
A lot of LGBT people from Devon end up living in London, because it is easier there. Apart from the big cities, there is still a lot of prejudice and misunderstanding, even amongst churchgoers in the more liberal churches. It is not good to be alternative in rural areas.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
It's fairly typical for mainline churches (read: Episcopalian, PCUSA Presbyterian, UCC Congregationalist, ELCA Lutheran, American Baptist, some Methodists) in New England to fly rainbow banners or have rainbow images on church signs, as well as to use somewhat-opaque labels like "open and affirming" to show their gay-friendliness. The Unitarians and most Quakers are in the same boat, of course.
While members of the gay community, often having been burned by other churches in the past, are less religious on the whole, there are few barriers to being in these churches. I live in probably the most liberal neighborhood in the first gay-marriage state, but it doesn't phase anyone to hear, in response to questions of how someone became an Episcopalian, "Oh, well my ex-boyfriend is a cradle Episcopalian and ..." from a young man any more than my own "Oh, well my girlfriend is a cradle Episcopalian and..."
Personally, I feel the need to qualify statements about the fact that I'm a Christian with "but the kind with gay marriage" when discussing it with relative strangers. It goes a long way, here.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Personally, I feel the need to qualify statements about the fact that I'm a Christian with "but the kind with gay marriage" when discussing it with relative strangers. It goes a long way, here.
It will be interesting to see how much the fight for same sex marriages damages the churches. The law team that brought DOMA to the Supreme Court is planning to do a 50 state push for parts not covered by Federal law There are going to be a lot of churches that end up not looking good after that fight.
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Re FIF, I know one Fif which wouldn't survive without its gay men in the choir, serving team etc.
Only one? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
No, seriously, although I've never had a FiF church as my regular place of worship, I've known a few. They are, almost without exception very gay. I also know at least one FiF church that blesses same-sex unions, with the full knowledge of both the Diocesan Bishop and the FiF hierarchy.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Re FIF, I know one Fif which wouldn't survive without its gay men in the choir, serving team etc.
Only one?
No, seriously, although I've never had a FiF church as my regular place of worship, I've known a few. They are, almost without exception very gay. I also know at least one FiF church that blesses same-sex unions, with the full knowledge of both the Diocesan Bishop and the FiF hierarchy.
Very gay but only gay and bisexual men, presumably?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Jade: in response to your question about Canada: we have the advantage of a Constitution that was accepted in 1982. It was written with the knowledge of the idea that all people are people, a novelty forced on us by WW2, the Depression and various other unfortunate events - and in the time when churches were becoming recognized as perpetuators of division and strife.
So it is very clear: no discriminations may be undertaken that have no practical or provable purpose. IOW under-16s probably should not be given driver's licences, and there are valid age limits on sexual behavior because of developmental issues. In the other direction, women are legally allowed to go topless if public, as much as men are (although this is a rarely-exercised right!)
But it was not possible to demonstrate what purpose discrimination against GLBTs served. An "ick" reaction by someone not involved was not a legal reason.
And, now that this has been around for 30 years, there are very few school-age or somewhat older who can see why there might be or have been discrimination against GLBTs.
Just as there is amazement when one says that, historically, Catholics and Protestants used to go to war over religious issues (or was that power issues?)
Similarly, there is no overall law governing abortion: there was no way to write a law that could be applied equally without involving men who were not having the abortions. Women are very firmly "people", not "possessions", in law.
We still have significant issues on equal pay to be worked out, but things are better than they were.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
I had to do a couple of errands downtown today, at exactly the time the Pride Parade started. Downtown was very quiet, even though it is a sunny Sunday on a holiday weekend, and Costco was deserted with no lines at the cashiers. Why? The annual Pride Parade.
Our regional population is about 2.5 million people. Half a million of them are expected at the Pride Parade.
Even allowing for tourists, it's clear we don't just have a large LGBQTTI community, we also have a vast and diverse community of allies. So homophobic churches aren't just pissing off gay people, they're also pissing off a far greater number of straight people.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I had to do a couple of errands downtown today, at exactly the time the Pride Parade started. Downtown was very quiet, even though it is a sunny Sunday on a holiday weekend, and Costco was deserted with no lines at the cashiers. Why? The annual Pride Parade.
Our regional population is about 2.5 million people. Half a million of them are expected at the Pride Parade.
Even allowing for tourists, it's clear we don't just have a large LGBQTTI community, we also have a vast and diverse community of allies. So homophobic churches aren't just pissing off gay people, they're also pissing off a far greater number of straight people.
I was in San Francisco last year for the Gay film festival the week before pride. I was taking a muni bus and got to listen to an off duty bus driver talk with the driver on the route diversions for the parade and how to get his wife and family in to watch the parade. It's the largest parade in the San Francisco year. There are clearly a large number of allies.
Posted by fluff (# 12871) on
:
Jade - could you give us a link to that Oblivionated Thread, as I can't yet discover it? I'd be interested to take a look; I can actually see the roof of said church from where I'm sitting...
Posted by fluff (# 12871) on
:
Found it, after a certain amount of time away from my computer
Correct search term turned out to be Holy Trinity Brompton - unsurprisingly enough....
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=012420#000000
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0