Christian-Sponsored Hatred for Gays

[Jagella]

Do you support Christian hatred for gays?

I was inspired to broach this topic after reading a column in the January 2020 issue of Scientific American. The column written by the editors is entitled Time's Up for "Anti-Gay Therapy." According to those editors:

Although medical and psychological associations have asked explicitly that Congress and state governments ban anti-gay conversion (by Christians), there has been a backlash from (Christian) groups like the Liberty Council, which promotes "evangelical values."

The column condemns the "detestable practice" of the attempt by many Christians to alter a person's homosexuality because the practice does "irreparable harm" to people. Forty-two percent of a subgroup who have had this "therapy" inflicted on them have committed suicide.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 30 by Goose]

I'm not sure even that goes far enough!

Paul lists actions (sins) that, if practised unrepentently would bar one from the kindom, not sexual orientation.

I do wonder if it is constructive to define people by their sexuality, It's like the modern day trend to categorize people by their gender rather than their biologcal sex. Sex has an impact on medical diagnosis, phyicality, as well as our role in society, gender is nobody's business but your own and possibly your psychiatrist and is effectively very hard to define anyway.

The bible makes no comment on homosexuals per se, it condemns certain behaviours (actions). Telling someone I am heterosexual says nothing (or very little) about me as an individual. The bible doesn't bother with gender issues nor does it condem one purely on the basis of orientation. But If one decides that one's sexuality is what defines who you are as a person, inseperable from what choices one makes, then it seems obvious to me that a prohibition of certain behaviours (that may or may not come "naturally" ) will feel like an attack on ones person, even if this is not the case.


JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SEX, SIN and ...HOMOSEXUALITY

FURTHER READING What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102016128

[Jagella]

It is also just as likely that you could be wrong.

Yes, I could be wrong, but considering that Paul was a Jew who never repudiated the law that mandated killing those who "were consumed with passion" for others of the same sex, then I think he was in favor of that law.

He gave them up to their sinful ways.

In this case you believe that homosexuality is a "sinful way."

There you have it! They didn't acknowledge God for who He is and instead, worshiped other things.

What's wrong with worshiping "other things"? In any case, gays and lesbians might worship the Christian god. I don't know why they would want to, but they might.

And I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the penalty to be inflicted on gays that Paul was referring to. Are you arguing that if gays and lesbians worship the "wrong gods," then Paul is not calling for the execution of gays and lesbians?

You assume much. It is not for you to say why I treat her right, for you cannot be the judge of my motives.

Actually, I'm assuming that you believe you get your morality from the Bible. If so, then can you cite a passage that mandates that gays and lesbians be treated well? Please take a look, and let us know if you can find any such passage. If you find no such injunction in the Bible, then please think about where the modern moral tenet that gays and lesbians are not to be persecuted came from.

Could it be that the article you cited was misleading?

Misleading in what way? I've found that Scientific American is a good source of information. One of its best qualities is that it reports on social injustices and how there is rarely if ever any good scientific evidence to support those social injustices.

Anyway, yes, the article could be misleading. What reasons do you have to doubt it?

And further proving my point that all who say they are acting in Christ's name can do so falsely.

I suppose you're right here. Because of Christian faith, many people end up trusting people they should not trust. The Christian clergy rakes in tax-free money from the people in the pews, for example. I've often wondered why the clergy relies on monetary donations instead of the God they preach. The clergy tells people to trust in God and his provisions, but when the clergy needs money, they solicit it from the faithful.

Maybe the clergy is hoping that people don't notice.

...telling me what to post about Biblical issues is certainly not a smooth move on your part. I disagree with you on your interpretation of what the Bible says in Romans.

How about the passage in Leviticus? Do you disagree that the Bible god commanded that homosexuals be killed?

This is debate, we don't have to agree.

I just get really annoyed when Christians I debate run off and disappear refusing to acknowledge a good point I've made. When Christians act that way, I think it's obvious that they're running from the truth.

I appreciate your passion.

If you realized that you could be victimized in the same way many people have been victimized by Christianity, then I think you're be rather passionate too.

[JehovahsWitness]

Such therapy is quackery, and should be banned as a threat to public health.

Well then it is a healthcare issue which healthcare professionals should examine. "Quackery" is "dishonest practices and claims to have special knowledge and skill in some field, typically medicine", if claims are made that are unsubstantiated, I dont see that as being criminal, as long as one doesn't falsely claim medical credentials. Otherwise we come dangerously close to State censorship which has historically not been free of its own abuses.

In short if the only problem is exaggerated claims, the market usually takes care of its own. In a world where MK Ultra could (and probably still does) exist there is no doubt caution and consent should be balanced (one might well give ones concent to electric shock treatment and then regret the decision after a session). But even with "public health issues" (like smoking, over indulgence in alcohol or promiscuous, unprotected sex) the State still has to balance protection with the freedom to exercise ones choices.

Passion is great, hysteria is dangerous.

JW


RELATED POSTS

WHY does scripture prohibit sexual immorality?
viewtopic.php?p=1019649#p1019649

Does the bible advocate celibacy?
viewtopic.php?p=1058174#p1058174

[Tcg]

Well then it is a healthcare issue which healthcare professionals should examine.

They have:

• Conversion therapy should be banned, medical experts agree
  
  Professional health associations have publicly denounced conversion therapy and documented the significant harm it can cause. As the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and other organizations have indicated: “The idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-sex attraction and orientation among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has no support among any mainstream health and mental health professional organizations.�
  
  https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commen ... 90815.html

Their conclusion is clear, homosexuality is not abnormal nor unhealthy. Conversion therapy on the other hand, is unhealthy. The only question left to ask is why do some groups and individuals continue to support this known to be harmful therapy.


Tcg

[ttruscott]

And that's why I haunt this forum. I want to expose Christianity for the harm it does to innocent people.

But not all Christians hate gays and Christians are not the only folk who hate gays...

https://religionnews.com/2014/03/10/ath ... ic-sexist/
Pew data suggests that around 20 percent of self-identified atheists and agnostics don't support same-sex marriage. That number is less than among other groups, but it certainly isn't zero. (Also, I've previously addressed the mistaken claim that the roots of homophobia are "100% religious.")

And then there's this astonishingly hateful letter from Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the founder of Silverman's organization, which calls the male recipient a "c-ck-sucker" who "like[s] men and boys" and encourages the subject to "form your own group of c-ck-sucking Atheist Marxists."

The Dalai Lama
Regarding Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama’s perspectives are complex and evolving.On the positive side, he has publicly condemned violence against LGBTQ people and has been reported to have said, “If the two people have taken no vows [of chastity] and neither is harmed why should it not be acceptable.

Yet in a 1997 press conference he commented that “from a Buddhist point of view [lesbian and gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct.� have been mixed and somewhat influx. During a meeting with representatives of the LGBTQ community, the Dalai Lama reportedly showed interest in how modern scientific research might create new understanding of the Buddhist texts, acknowledging a “willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context."

We know the stance of Muslims on this topic.

China
Internal Chinese government documents and academic studies state that currently there are about 15 million homosexuals within China's population of 1.2 billion (Reuters 7 July 2000). The vast majority of them still choose to keep their sexuality a secret, due in part to societal conservatism, strong pressures to marry and have children, and fear of prejudice, though societal attitudes may also be liberalizing (Agence France-Presse 15 Jan. 2001, Asiaweek 7 Aug. 1998, CSSSM News Digest 3 Aug. 1998, South China Morning Post 28 Jan. 2001).

Are you serious about human rights for gays or are you serious about attacking Christians?

[Tcg]

The column condemns the "detestable practice" of the attempt by many Christians to alter a person's homosexuality because the practice does "irreparable harm" to people.

Some leaders of the ex-gay Christian movement are agreeing and admitting that attempting to change one's sexual orientation is a total failure:

• The ex-gay Christianity movement is making a quiet comeback. The effects on LGBTQ youth could be devastating.
  
  Michael Bussee, an early ex-gay pioneer, left the movement in 1979 and entered a relationship with another ex-gay leader, Gary Cooper. On his way out, Bussee confessed he never witnessed an LGBTQ person become heterosexual. Ex-gay icon John Paulk was ousted as chairman of Exodus International, the world’s most prominent ex-gay ministry, after being photographed at a gay bar in 2000. He later declared that instead of helping anyone, the movement had done “great harm to many people.�
  
  Then in 2013, the movement’s most visible leader seemingly sounded the death knell. Alan Chambers, then the head of Exodus International, announced he was closing the organization and apologized for the “pain and hurt� it had caused. Chambers, who once called homosexuality “one of the many evils this world has to offer,� lobbied against marriage equality and touted examples of happily wed “former homosexuals,� said that 99.9 percent of ex-gay ministry participants he had met had not experienced a shift in sexual orientation.
  
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion ... vastating/

If these former leaders have admitted the ex-gay movement is not only a total failure, but has caused great harm, why are new Christian leaders attempting to revive this movement?


Tcg

[Jagella]

Do you support Christian hatred for gays?

I'm sorry if I've confused you, but I meant to ask if Christians support persecution of gays. The Bible mandates that any homosexuals known to have engaged in same-sex are to be executed. Christians face a moral dilemma here: either they repudiate the Bible's injunctions to persecute and execute gays, or they do support the persecution of gays. I see that some of the Christians here are refusing to face this dilemma head-on, and they have disappeared from the debate.

It happens to me all the time. I make a point that if recognized will falsify Christianity or demonstrate that it is harmful, and then my Christian interlocutors flee the debate never to return.

Seems the only people that do that are those that 1) aren't secure enough in their faith &/or 2) are struggling with homosexuality themselves.

In the case of McKrae Game, you may be right. He ran one of the Christian anti-gay "therapy" groups, and he came out of the closet because he is gay himself. He apologized for the harm he did and admitted that his work was morally wrong.

Rather or not it's a sin is immaterial here because my sin isn't your sin and vice versa. If it IS a sin, those who practice it are responsible for it. If it's NOT a sin, then get over it.
At any rate, live your life, I'll live mine - to each their own.
Why people make it more complicated than this is very telling of their own shortcomings.

One of the strange things about religion is how it makes such a fuss going against what is harmless. In addition to homosexual acts, it does no harm to eat shrimp or pork, yet the Bible condemns all three!

[JehovahsWitness]

One of the strange things about religion is how it makes such a fuss going against what is harmless. In addition to homosexual acts, it does no harm to eat shrimp or pork, yet the Bible condemns all three!

Are you aware that dietary laws were part of the Mosaic law that was not imposed on Christians but that homosexual acts are condemned in "new Testament" and regarded by many as Christian law?

[otseng]

This type of therapy is harmful even if an individual chooses it voluntarily and therefore should not be practiced.

Lots of things can cause harm, even though people voluntarily choose to do them. Should we then ban everything that has the potential to cause harm?

For your "God", homosexual men are not to be respected - or even simply ostracised - they are to be put to death.

Technically, it's homosexual acts that are condemned, not homosexual orientation.

But, like I said, we are all guilty of sins and we are all worthy of death. It would be hypocritical for anyone to accuse homosexuals as being a worse sinner than themselves.

[Rom 3:10] 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

[Rom 3:23] 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

[Rom 6:23] 23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What do you mean by not approving of homosexual sex? Do you think gay sex should be outlawed?

I'm against divorce and premarital sex also, but those are not outlawed.

Do yo repudiate the law in Leviticus 20:13 that prescribes death for men caught in homosexual acts?

I know of no Christian that is actively pursuing the death sentence for anyone engaging in homosexual acts.

I think it's productive to allow gays, lesbians, and transsexuals to live their lives free of stigma. Let them live and work in the mainstream of society granting them opportunity to make good lives for themselves.

Sure, I'm not too opposed to this.

Allow same-sex marriage.

Same situation here. I'm opposed to same-sex marriage, but if they want to do so, it's their choice. However, what I would be against is demanding any church to perform same-sex marriages if the church believes it is wrong.

I have no doubt that the whole idea of sin causes a lot of social and psychological problems.

Actually, I have the completely opposite view. Most of social problems is a result of not realizing and admitting to being in sin.

We are all equally moral failures in God's eyes and we all need redemption.

I must disagree here. Most people are good most of the time. It's entirely possible to be a "moral success." I am. Christianity smears us as "moral failures" no matter what we do.

Well, you might consider yourself good and other people might consider yourself good. But, that's not what I'm referring to. In God's eyes we are all equally moral failures.

The anti-gay therapy that is often "offered" to gays is not based on good science, so it's not a legitimate offer. People may want harmful drugs, so should we let them use them? Therapy is the same way. Just because some people want it doesn't mean we should allow it.

Who decides what should be allowed? 50 years ago, good science said homosexuality was a mental disorder. Who knows, 50 years from now, science might again say that.

Jesus speaks about adultery and divorce but not about homosexuality, so why is homosexuality the sin that seems to occupy Christian consciences so much?

Yeah, Jesus never spoke about homosexuality. But, I think the main reason for the Christian preoccupation with it is a reaction to the gay community pushing their agenda.

[Jagella]

But not all Christians hate gays and Christians are not the only folk who hate gays...

I'm sure, but what relevance does your statement have to the topic? Does non-Christian bigotry somehow get Christianity off the hook?

And then there's this astonishingly hateful letter from Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the founder of Silverman's organization, which calls the male recipient a "c-ck-sucker" who "like[s] men and boys" and encourages the subject to "form your own group of c-ck-sucking Atheist Marxists."

What's your source for that letter? I was not aware that Madalyn was anti-gay.

Are you serious about human rights for gays or are you serious about attacking Christians?

LOL--here we go playing the persecution card. How is that supposed to work? Do you think people will convert to Christianity if they feel sorry for Christians?

Anyway, to answer your question, I'll need you to clarify what you mean by "attack Christians." Do you see any criticism of Christianity as an attack on Christians?