Do conservative Christian teachings on homosexuality cause hatred and violence against the LGBT community?

[PRmerger]

I’ve had it described to me regarding a transgender woman being forced to conform to cisgender norms as her every day having to drown the little girl that is her on the inside until the little girl goes limp. That is how she described the psychological distress to me, that of her having to drown herself. Note, the “little” part describes how she due to having to pretend she is someone else refers to how it has stunted her growth as a person.

Yes, this definitely has the component of a mental disorder.

 

[Lion_IRC]

“cisgender norms”

1. Exist.
2. Are naturally selected.
3. Are the prerogative of people to assert and defend - as part of THEIR gender identity.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Or, to put it another way, cisgender, heterosexual norms should be taught in the government schools built and paid for by cisgender heterosexual tax payers.

 

[PoorKnight]

Hey everyone. I have heard the argument that conservative Christian teachings on homosexuality have contributed to hatred and violence against the LGBT community. Is this true? Please note that I did say “conservative Christian teachings” and not simply “Catholic teachings” because I want to include conservative Protestant beliefs about homosexuality in this discussion as well but I also don’t want Catholic beliefs to be excluded.

But anyway, is it possible to hold a middle ground of condemning the sin of homosexual unchastity and “gay marriage” while not allowing this condemnation to incite hatred and violence against LGBT people?

If you read the Catechism on Homosexuality that “middle ground” you spoke of is EXACTLY what the Catholic Church teaches: the ACTS are “objectively disordered”, i.e. sinful; the PEOPLE are to be loved, respected and all signs of unjust discrimination eliminated.

To answer the first part: in a philosophical sense, no. The spoken belief of any kind CANNOT result in violence. Only violent actions can result in violence.

To say that speaking the belief that homosexual acts are wrong “causes” violence against those who suffer with Same Sex Attraction would be a non-sequitor. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

BUT would speech that advocates violence against someone else put those ideas in someone else’s head? Sure. Look at what happened to the police.

However, I do not hear, out of any mainstream Christian source a call to violence against people with Same Sex Attraction.

Hope this helps,
God Bless,
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church

 

[Strydersroom]

If you read the Catechism on Homosexuality that “middle ground” you spoke of is EXACTLY what the Catholic Church teaches: the ACTS are “objectively disordered”, i.e. sinful; the PEOPLE are to be loved, respected and all signs of unjust discrimination eliminated.

To answer the first part: in a philosophical sense, no. The spoken belief of any kind CANNOT result in violence. Only violent actions can result in violence.

To say that speaking the belief that homosexual acts are wrong “causes” violence against those who suffer with Same Sex Attraction would be a non-sequitor. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

BUT would speech that advocates violence against someone else put those ideas in someone else’s head? Sure. Look at what happened to the police.

However, I do not hear, out of any mainstream Christian source a call to violence against people with Same Sex Attraction.

Hope this helps,
God Bless,
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church

However, I DO hear, on this very forum, calls to ban those with SSA from getting married, adopting children, and not to mention considering punishment for sodomy, making homosexual acts illegal (whatever those are), and blaming homosexuals for creating AIDS. All of these I have heard just this past month and the threads are still active.

Words can hurt more than physical violence and these are some great examples in my opinion of things used against people with Same Sex Attraction.

 

[davidv]

However, I DO hear, on this very forum, calls to ban those with SSA from getting married, adopting children, and not to mention considering punishment for sodomy, making homosexual acts illegal (whatever those are), and blaming homosexuals for creating AIDS. All of these I have heard just this past month and the threads are still active.

Words can hurt more than physical violence and these are some great examples in my opinion of things used against people with Same Sex Attraction.

Other than call a same sex arrangement, none of these things are Christian teachings. How is banning SS marriage violent?

 

[Rau]

If you read the Catechism on Homosexuality that “middle ground” you spoke of is EXACTLY what the Catholic Church teaches: the ACTS are “objectively disordered”, i.e. sinful; the PEOPLE are to be loved, respected and all signs of unjust discrimination eliminated.

The acts are “intrinsically disordered”. It is the inclination towards such acts which is described as “objectively disordered”. The latter term does not mean sinful.

 

[Rau]

However, I DO hear, on this very forum, calls to ban those with SSA from getting married, adopting children, and not to mention considering punishment for sodomy, making homosexual acts illegal (whatever those are), and blaming homosexuals for creating AIDS. All of these I have heard just this past month and the threads are still active.

Words can hurt more than physical violence and these are some great examples in my opinion of things used against people with Same Sex Attraction.

To assert that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that children should preferably be brought up by a man and a woman (ideally the child’s natural parents) is not to act “against” people who experience SSA. It is the proper order of things.

 

[Rau]

What are we to make of the direction the law is taking in determining who is or is not a man or woman? It seems clear that, if it’s not the law everywhere it looks like it soon will be, that a person is whatever (s)he claims to be. A man suddenly becomes a woman solely by asserting he is one. Are we required to believe this?

So, what of a person who claims to be a homosexual? In what scientific way is he different from his neighbor who makes no such claim? Surely we acknowledge the condition is not binary (homosexual or heterosexual) since we all admit the existence of bisexuals, so what does it mean to claim to be a homosexual (man) other than one is sexually more attracted to men than to women?

It seems the use of the term tacitly assumes that a homosexual is inherently different than a heterosexual, and not merely that his sexual preferences are ordered differently. It’s the difference between “I was made this way” and “I am inclined to act this way.” It assumes a condition - like a man claiming to be a woman - that doesn’t actually exist. “Gayness” is not part of a person’s core identity.

Ender

I don’t know what “core identity” means.

The debate you raise is hamstrung by a lack of knowledge of why persons have sexual attractions, or a sense of “gender”, which is inconsistent with their body. Something is wrong that one’s sense of self is severely out of kilter with one’s evident physical self. Jjr9 will tell us it’s nothing more than Satan tempting us to do wrong.

 

[Rau]

I am strongly supportive of ‘gay rights’ for what it’s worth. And I put ‘gay rights’ in inverted commas because I find it odd that I find I have to support something that shouldn’t need any support in the first instance. It’s beginning to sound like saying that I support the right of people to play soccer or go line dancing.

I support gay rights too Bradski. It is just that you and I may differ over what “rights” a person may have. I put “gay rights” in inverted commas because the term -as used- is ill defined and/ or inherently contorted.

 

[truetofaith]

Why are some Topics Closed after 8 posts & this Topic goes on & on ??

 

[Rau]

Why are some Topics Closed after 8 posts & this Topic goes on & on ??

Probably because some Threads seek an answer to a question with an established answer, and once the answer is given, there’s little more to be said. Others are more subjective.

 

[johnnyc176]

Why are some Topics Closed after 8 posts & this Topic goes on & on ??

Good question. This was answered by Jesus Christ.

For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’

 

[Rosebud77]

Been off the forum a while and getting a terrible sense of deja vu here… echoes… flying off to more fruitful topics

 

[PutresOmega]

Depends on the teaching, really. The teachings that directly attack us are problematic as are some of the lies put forth by mostly protestant hate groups like the Family Research Council. Saying gay people are more likely to molest children, lead to the acceptance of pedophilia, or that we are intrinsically spreaders of disease, for example. Same with the dehumanizing slogans and name calling (again, more from Protestants, though Catholics do it to at times): sodomites, perverts, devils, and so on. The name calling and linking us to ills via bad science and propoganda is designed to make the middle-of-the-road folks want to kill us and those who already dislike us want to kill us even more. Thankfully, the internet has proven especially good at shining a light on these tactics and outing the shysters who peddled it.

 

[Rau]

Depends on the teaching, really. The teachings that directly attack us are problematic

Which teaching directly attacks people?

Saying gay people are more likely to molest children, lead to the acceptance of pedophilia, or that we are intrinsically spreaders of disease, for example. Same with the dehumanizing slogans and name calling (again, more from Protestants, though Catholics do it to at times): sodomites, perverts, devils, and so on. The name calling and linking us to ills via bad science and propoganda is designed to make the middle-of-the-road folks want to kill us and those who already dislike us want to kill us even more.

Which Christian teachings say any of this?

 

[at9009]

Which teaching directly attacks people?

Which Christian teachings say any of this?

I think he means not the teaching but the way some people have acted regarding this issue and the silence that is often coming from the Church leaders which to some imply at least tactic support (**Not implying that they are).

Saying gay people are more likely to molest children, lead to the acceptance of pedophilia, or that we are intrinsically spreaders of disease

There are unfortunately a substantial number of people out there who imply or make statements that equate gay people (especially gay/ssa men) as higher risk to be predators (I could find sources but here is one from a quick google: churchmilitant.com/news/article/priestly-sex-abuse-would-not-have-happened-without-homosexuals. They didn’t flat out say gay men are all abusers but basically implied a lot.

There are plenty of Christian sources, including Catholic ones, which imply causes for same sex attraction as scientific fact and not speculation, make baseless assumptions about an SSA/gay individual, lack charity or compassion, and attempt to fuel a culture war mentality that does create an atmosphere of animosity towards ssa/gay individuals.

If sources constantly tell a person that all gay/ssa people are out to attack and dismantle one’s faith as part of a overarching agenda, then those same people tend to have at least some animosity and suspicions directed towards all gay/ssa people (including those who are celibate and trying to live chastely within church teaching).

I do think the other poster went a little too far and hyperbolized. There are some people out there (like a ‘pastor’ named Steven Anderson’ are pretty awful. However, the church teaching is not the problem. It is I think just how some can understand the sexual acts are immoral part but not the compassion part. So, more to do with a lack of overall understanding of the Church teaching. Some still do not seem to understand the church distinguishes between the acts and the orientation which is why homosexuality is a sin statement is problematic. If you mean same sex sexual acts (lust or physical) are sin then it is in accordance with Church teaching. If you mean the orientation, then that is not within church teaching.

In the catechsim

Homosexuality refers to **relations **between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex

Relations (which would include lust I believe) would be sinful but the attraction is not but does represent a temptation

So, confusion can result if one isn’t clear about what they are trying to say and in a culture that never ever has in depth conversations, the predominant view by secular people is that the Church views having same sex attractions as sinful in of itself and this is rarely ever corrected or addressed by most people.

 

[jjr9]

I don’t think the Magisterium says anything controversial when referring to people who believe they experience an exclusive (or predominant) sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

When we read the text it’s actually pretty ambiguous. It’s not an empirical or scientifically emphatic statement, objectively defining the what the word “attraction” means. It’s merely a reference to the fact that there exists in society a very small cohort of people who claim that they personally experience a certain feeling which they (tentatively) claim is inherent and unchanging.

Bhat does an “experience” of such feelings entail apart from the subjective inner feelings of the person who makes the claim?

Even if I dispute the claim they make about their own personal “experience” - I still need a word, a taxonomy, a common language to talk about the thing in question. Because it’s pretty difficult to commence a discussion about the “H” word if someone says we can’t start talking unless and until everyone agrees on every last detail about the precise meaning of the “H” word.

*"…I’m not discussing homosexuality with you until you agree that people are born that way"

“…oh yeah? Well I’m not discussing it unless you agree they aren’t*”

Thank you. God bless you also.

Thanks for your view. I believe that you are mistaken.

The Magisterium does not claim that some people believe or imagine that they “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction
toward persons of the same sex”. I believe that would be a true statement.

CCC 2357:
“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual
attraction toward persons of the same sex”

The Magisterium presents this claim as being objective not subjective and is in no way ambiguous on this claim. How the
Magisterium arrives at the claim is certainly ambiguous but not this claim. If something from the Magisterium informs your
view I would be very interested in what that is.

God bless

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Thanks for your view. I believe that you are mistaken.

The Magisterium does not claim that some people believe or imagine that they “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction
toward persons of the same sex”. I believe that would be a true statement.

CCC 2357:
“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual
attraction toward persons of the same sex”

The Magisterium presents this claim as being objective not subjective and is in no way ambiguous on this claim. How the
Magisterium arrives at the claim is certainly ambiguous but not this claim. If something from the Magisterium informs your
view I would be very interested in what that is.

God bless

You need to stop with this: “Magesterium in error” rant.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

I suppose the message put forth about and toward gay people depends on the denomination and even the parish within each denomination. In addition to potential hatred and, in the extreme, violence toward gay people, one should not overlook those gays who leave their church due to its stand and become gay activists against church teaching, as well as those who become self-loathing as a result. Compassion on the part of church leaders–without sacrificing their faith’s moral principles–can go a long way toward preventing the above.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches. Compassion for the person, but no condoning of the sin . Sex outside of marriage is wrong regardless of how much people would like it to be different. The church welcomes all sinners and encourages all to repent and believe in the Gospel. The church views marriage as a sacred lifelong covenant between a man and a woman. Sex outside of this covenant is always wrong.
Many outside the church do not understand what the church teaches and why. I highly recommend studying Theology of the Body, to those inside and outside the Church. Education is a sure cure for ignorance.