The Link Between Religion and Anti-Gay Bigotry

I get called out on occasion by self-professed Christians who feel I am too hard on religion and religious individuals. I guess it's a matter of perspective. I view the issue from a legal/constitutional perspective. When viewed from this perspective, the right to religious freedom of one citizen stops when it imposes on (or destroys) the civil liberties of other citizens of differing beliefs. Yes, there are many LGBT accepting Christians, but they generally remain invisible - at least when it counts, including on main stream media broadcasts. Moreover, whether these offended individuals like it or not, there is an undeniable link between religious belief and the effort to stigmatize and demonize LGBT Americans (note the quoted passage in the image at left). An article in the Essex Human Rights Review sums up the linkage. Here are some highlights:

The anti-gay rights movement, . . . . propagates discrimination. This includes sodomy laws (which are discriminatory on the basis of sex and sexual orientation), and discrimination in various spheres such as employment, marriage, child adoption and guardianship, inheritance, health care, and education, in violation of the fundamental principle of equality before the law.

The Religious Right has been framing different values and beliefs against gays and their human rights. Among them are claims that homosexuality is immoral, unnatural and against God’s plan, that homosexuality and paedophilia are connected, and that gays pose a threat to society in general. Many of these claims are backed by conservative religious doctrines, . . . .

The fact that hostility toward the LGBT community in the Christian Right has been growing is an essential point that cannot be underestimated. It disproves the argument that ‘moral’ values are constant and invariable, and demonstrates that the religious conservatives have changed their position on homosexuality and have become increasingly antagonistic, especially as explicit opposition to other minorities has become socially unacceptable.

The rhetoric and reasoning of the anti-gay rights movement can be divided into two basic framing categories. The first one refers to the immorality of homosexuality. Since the bulk of such arguments is based on the Scriptures and people’s relationship to God, it can be argued that such arguments mostly target Christians, although this does not necessarily exclude others.

‘The Christian Right has been effective over the years in promoting the message that “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” should be the norm in any decent society.’ Therefore, it should be obvious that God has not created homosexuality, and consequently homosexuality works against the plan God has for humanity. A natural implication of such an argument is that people cannot be gay by birth. If God did not create homosexuality, it cannot be inherent in people. Gays choose to be gay, and it is because of their wrong choice that they are condemned.

To counteract the theory that homosexuality is inherent, Christianity Today asserts that ‘homosexuality is contrary to nature, and that it is part of degeneration of man that guaranteed ultimate disaster in the life and the life to come’ and that ‘those who practice it shall not inherit the kingdom of God.’57 By portraying homosexuality as a choice, the Religious Right opposes the gay rights movement’s argument that gays deserve the same rights as everybody else, just like women and ethnic minorities.

Since religious values, such as the story of creation, procreative sex, and a limited set of permissible sexual acts, are significant for conservative believers, the Religious Right focuses its appeals on influencing these people.

In the discourse on homosexuals and their human rights, however, the Religious Right seems to have dominated the agenda and liberal churches appear to be in a position of retreat. Although it seems that the attitudes of liberal churches are more positive and inclusive of LGBT populations, their voice is more subdued than the conservative outcries.

Robert Wuthnow argues that liberal Christians have let fundamentalists ‘set the agenda’. . . . Wuthnow describes liberal Christians as accommodating toward modernity and change, as a result of which they appear non-traditional. He further suggests that the positions of those Christians require complicated reasoning; and this, in turn, makes it more difficult for them to transmit their principles to their children. Because their positions are not so easily broadcast to the general public, liberal churches also appear less capable of framing their religious beliefs for the promotion of human rights of the homosexual.

[R]eligion is a very important source of evaluation of gays and lesbians. . . . Through framing, the Religious Right portrays religious beliefs and values in a way that appear anti-gay. There is no logical reasoning that gays pose a threat to society.