LGBT+ and the Church

QIV. Homophobia

The Questions (and Statements): 

➢ Believing homosexuality is sinful is hateful to gay people. 

➣ Why don't Christians just accept that they're homophobic?

➢ Being against gay marriage is discriminatory and homophobic.  

➣ Not letting homosexuals adopt is homophobic. 

The Answer:

"Believing homosexuality is sinful is hateful to gay people." & "Why don't Christians just accept that they're homophobic?"

There are two sets of definitions used. First, that homophobia is about fear and disgust; second, that homophobia is about hate and dislike for the LGBT+ community. For the sake of the chapter, I'll apply both equally. I do agree that hatred and dislike for a person on the basis of sexuality constitutes homophobia as does fear of and disgust of gay people. 

With this in mind, we'd have to understand that as Christians we separate actions from attractions and temptations that people struggle with. Genuine Christianity does not consider a person sin, but that people commit themselves to sin by actions of the body (physically doing an action) and the mind (acting in imagination, approving of sin, and such of this nature). So, in condemning an action as sinful, we are not professing hatred for the person.  

To use an example, drunkenness is sinful. It impairs the mind and can cause misbehaviour as well as addiction. Drunkards, like the sexually immoral, can even be found among the list of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. It is written: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 6:9-10) Drunkenness is a condemned sin also, yet the accusation that Christians hate drunkards doesn't have any similar prevalence. This is because we do not hate drunkards, just as we do not hate the sexually immoral. 

Faithful Christians do not hate gays; on the contrary, Christians do hate sin. As sin of any kind moves one farther from God, furthers the drive to sin by committing it, and is immoral by being against goodness, Christians would naturally hate the sin. Christians are not supposed to hate liars, slanderers, drunkards, or homosexuals, especially as a result of the sins committed.

Since hatred is intense dislike and homophobia is an intense dislike of homosexuals, how is the Christian position homophobic when hate is not to be given to them? It is homophobic to disown gay children, to beat and insult gay people, to dislike them because of their sins—believing they are sinning is not hatred. 

Personally, I am of the mind that making a belief that the actions are sinful as a component of homophobia is more so an attempt to condemn the conversation and quiet Christians that express their beliefs. I find this to be a very manipulative and hateful tactic and, in the contemporary period, a very powerful one that should be shunned. I see it as devaluing what homophobia is and renders many unable to take the accusations as seriously since it can be comprised simply and generally of religious beliefs. When we use "homophobia", we should consider genuine acts and statements of hate. 

For those that object to this on the basis that it is not a choice, I have a question segment directed to this itself—refer to QII. 

So, with this in mind, if any want to comment on their reasons for this position, feel free to do so and I'll update this chapter accordingly to new information if it is not another manipulative tactic. 

"Being against gay marriage is discriminatory and homophobic."

This question has two elements to it: civil law and religious law. On a civil basis, I am personally of the opinion that the government should have zero involvement in marriage as long as it is not endangering another person or regards the involvement of minors. Considering marriage is a cultural and religious union across many cultures with unique traditions and beliefs in relation to it, it should remain a cultural and religious activity, not a governmental one. This would leave the government capable of civil unions alone as these are unions by law, not by a ceremony which the government does in a pretending way. I am against government marriage—this subsequently means I am against the government validating or invalidating ceremonious unions without basis.