I was born deep within the heart of the Southern Bible belt. A truly unique place of traditional values, religion, and culture. I wasn't just born into Southern tradition however, I was also born a traditional southern pastor's kid. As a pastor's kid there are certain responsibilities and moral standards that you are expected to live up too. Aside from being a member of a highly religious, Christian family, being born a pastor's kid also means that you are automatically placed into a strict system of biblical politics and Christian ideals. Growing up I was raised by the bible almost as much as I was raised by my biological parents. Our tight knit, religious family made it clear to pray before every meal, show up every Sunday on the front row and made a point to fill conversation with as many religious references and biblical metaphors as possible. We existed in our Christian bubble without interruption, until the fateful day my oldest brother came out of the closet to my parents and community. 

At the time, it was crushing. Having been raised on the fundamentals of a non-affirming religion I felt as though I had no other choice but to excommunicate my brother. I watched as my parents struggled to handle and grasp the situation, failing to give my brother the support he so desperately needed. I watched as our church community, turned its back on him, ostracized him, and excluded him, no longer wanting any part of his awkward "sin" and its consequences. I watched as our public school, humiliated, persecuted and tortured him, unable to accept his differing sexual orientation. I watched all of this, I soaked it up, it permeated me to the core, it shook every religious fiber in my being and called into question every fundamental Christian belief I was raised on. I came to a place where I was able to see these "religious", anti-gay teachings for what they were and saw what a congregation of individuals who failed to value the core human rights of LGB was capable of.

It was Bishop TD Jakes who once said, "There is nothing as powerful as a changed mind" (Saviuc). For me, it was the outing of my older brother that changed my path from a life dedicated to fundamental religion and set me on the path of LBG advocacy. I used my brother circumstance as a means of asking questions and gathering research. I became curious, what is it about homosexuality that makes it so despicable? Why is something as trivial as sexual orientation the reason for the breaking of families, communities, religious groups, schools, and government? There are multitudes of different grievances and sins within the non-affirming religious sector, but when it comes to homosexuality something changes. I started researching and I came across a working definition for this disgust and these negative attitudes towards homosexuality. 

Gregory Herek, in his lifetime of impressive work, has written multiple essays on several diverse aspects of Homosexuality. It is in within his essay "The Psychology of Sexual Prejudice" that he defines this modern, societal disconnect towards LBG as being "the perception that gay people and the gay community represent values that are directly in conflict with one's personal value system" (Herek "The Psychology ... ").  Herek uses this definition to define what he calls "Sexual Prejudice", or basically, the negative attitudes and discrimination toward homosexuals because of their values (Herek). This is huge because it takes homosexuality out of a moral context and places it under the ethical standards of a Nation that provides safety, freedom and equality to all values.

Similar to Herek's definition, Kris Coonan in his essay on understanding sexual prejudice introduces something called "Heterosexism" (Coonan). Though you're probably aware of the term "Homophobia", which refers to a certain individual's hatred and disgust of homosexuality, "Heterosexism" is used to describe an institution or culture's hatred of homosexuality (Coonan). When you connect this to Herek' sexual prejudice (Herek) you get a picture of a society that as a whole, harvests hateful and discriminatory attitudes towards homosexuality because of a difference in value systems (Coonan). Though many would wish to hide this behind a theological curtain, making it not only acceptable within society, but believable within a religion, it remains an unjust, negative position, which effects the community around it. 

So in light of these societal outlooks and definitions from Herek and Coonan it becomes much easier to detach homosexuality from its moral rooting and  look at it through a lens of ethicality in relation to a free and accepting country. The big question that must arise from this "perspective change" is where are these underlying feelings of hate and discrimination coming from? Or more importantly, are the teachings of non-affirming religious congregations harvesting attitudes of sexual prejudice within the United States? For though we are a nation built on freedoms and equality, where everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and value systems, if a widely practiced belief is the direct cause of unjust harm and unwarranted discrimination towards another group, than it seems those particular values must be called into question. This has been the course of civil rights and liberation throughout history, since the beginning of time.

Though it could appear clear cut and the "easy" presentable solution would be for non-affirming religious to simply "accept" homosexuality into their values, several complicated issues arise when targeting fundamental religious group's teachings. The idea of homosexuality becomes one of extreme sensitivity and delicacy because personal moral convictions and beliefs become the focus point for argument and analysis. There are those that will argue the importance of "live and let live" and will argue that as long as non-affirming religious followers and LGB members stay separated everyone benefits and the issue is resolved. This could be acceptable but because of the correlation between heterosexism and anti-gay messages from the non-affirming religious community it is no longer viable for the two values to coexist.  Through my research I have encountered two different kinds of religious opposition to homosexuality: One, the hardcore, radical rejection that leaves no room for a moral acceptance of homosexuality; Two, that idea that a religious group has the ability to "accept and reject" homosexuality. Though differing, both of these stances lead to continued sexual prejudice and fail to meet the ethical standards accepted by our Nation.

Though many would agree that falling to far one way on any subject or spectrum will usually lead to dangerous and unbalanced viewpoints, it still helps to provide examples of such radical hate and disgust. Just as Herek concluded that individuals with a lack of exposure to homosexuality are more likely to reject it or find wrong in it (Herek), individuals who have had a lack of exposure to radical non-affirming religious protest of homosexuality are more likely to become complacent with it and not find an issue with it. One such example of a widely praised, non-affirming religious leader is Dr. James Dobson. 

On Dr. James Dobson's "My Family Talk" website you can find Dobson's religious perspective on a veritable plethora of controversial issues. In one section of James Dobson's responses he addresses the shocking and inappropriate question "AIDS God's Punishment for Homosexuality and Promiscuity?" (Dobson). Throughout his response Dobson uses several biblical scripture verses to build his case that, yes indeed AIDS is a punishment for all homosexuals, because well, in the mind of Dobson when you go against God you deserve it (Dobson). Dobson ends his response by saying this "AIDS is only one avenue by which sickness and death befall those who play Russian roulette with God's moral imperatives." (Dobson).

Similarly to Dobson, Bible.org provides information on anything you could ever want to know about the bible, its standings, different pastoral takes on different passages of scriptures, as well as different leaders stances on popular moral issues (Tucci). Under the section on homosexuality, Tony Tucci writes a piece dedicated to answering all of the questions regarding homosexuality and the bible (Tucci). One response that stands out among the rest is Tucci's answer to "why should two people who sincerely love each other not be allowed to get married just because they are of the same gender?" (Tucci). Tucci answers this by explaining that based on the bible and Gods decree it is impossible for two people of the same gender to sincerely love each other because if they really loved each other they would recognize how they are going against God and that would be enough to break them apart (Tucci). A perplexing, ridiculous, and overall awkward response to a relatively simply put question.  Tucci and Dobson are two extremist who make it easy to challenge the place of anti-gay attitudes held deep within non-affirming religions. However, to give the non-affirming religions credit and fair representation, not every argument is composed like Tucci and Dobson's.

Peter Hubbard, a head pastor at North Hills Community, recently collaborated on and came out with a book called Love into Light, a Christian response to the issue of homosexuality. In his book Hubbard appeals to a fundamental religious society to reject homosexuality because of biblical text but to do so in a manner of love, and respect (Hubbard). Interestingly, though Hubbard preaches a substantial message of acceptance, his article is full of strongly worded, emotionally charged text that continuously paint the image of homosexuality as destructive, unnatural, and immoral (Hubbard). Phrases in Hubbard's article such as "intentionally dismantling the family", "children will pay the price for our country's moral suicide", and "the meaning of marriage is stretched to near meaningless", all degrade and blame homosexuality for our countries failures, despite the label and title of love (Hubbard). Peter Hubbard's "hopeful" text is a perfect example of how without moral acceptance, confusing religious contradictions will continue to produce messages of prejudice and hate. 

Non-affirming religious leaders have now been exposed for being one of the largest contributors and predictors of sexual minority discrimination, sexual prejudice, and heterosexism. Still, In order to bring about change to a certain aspect of life it remains primarily important that a definite problem exist. Many might be tempted to say the issue of anti-gay violence and discrimination is no larger an issue than violence facing heterosexuals, minorities, or any sub group within the United States. Others might make the argument that there is no proof that non-affirming religions have any connection to anti-gay violence and discrimination. The truth of the matter is, that due to anti-gay themes from non-affirming religions that lead to sexual prejudice and heterosexim, sexual minorities such as lesbians, gays, and bisexuals are at a higher risk of violence and acts of aggression than the average, U.S. heterosexual (Girshick). So it remains that the only way to stop violence and eliminate discrimination is for the non-affirming religious congregations to morally accept homosexuality into their values. 

It is hard for many to admit that homosexual and lesbian individuals face discrimination as a result of their sexual orientation because when you admit something is real, that an issue exists, you must also begin to look at solutions and answers to the issues. A key factor of not recognizing an issue is to have zero or little expose to it (Herek).  Crosby Burns and Philip Ross composed a piece of LGB testimonies that expose anti-gay discrimination outside of the common workplace (Burns). Among these testimonies several shocking, powerful quotations standout. One individual William Hubert, a quadriplegic, testified he was leasing an apartment in Southern California when he hired a live-in attendant, Cindy Kelly, to tend to his needs. Hubert said he was swiftly and inexplicably evicted from his apartment when the landlord found out Cindy was a lesbian and Hubert associated with gay people (Burns). Another individual Guadalupe "Lupita" Benitez was denied infertility treatment by the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group because she was a lesbian. Her former doctors were conservative Christians who claimed that their religious beliefs gave them a right to withhold care from Benitez that they routinely provide to heterosexual patients (Burns). 

Though Hubert, Cindy and "Lupita" are just several examples, in a 2001 Survey done in the state of New York it was found that in public spaces, 27 percent of the gay respondents reported inappropriate treatment and hostility,  25 percent were verbally harassed, 6 percent were denied service, and 5 percent were physically harassed (Burns). The Survey also found that Eight percent of gay people report an outright refusal of health care services, 12 percent said they were personally blamed for their health status, and 11 percent said their health care professional refused to touch them (Burns). It should also be noted that it has been determined that gay or lesbian individuals are more likely to end up obese, more likely to contemplate suicide, and more likely to show addictive habits with drugs and alcohol than other individuals (Burns). 

A video segment was done by The Nation who determined that LBG youth were being incarcerated at an alarming rate (The Nation).  The Nation found that due to familial circumstances and the rejection of their way of life LBG youth are making poor decisions and being detained at a higher and higher rate (The Nation). The video goes on to explain how while behind bars, LBG youth are also forced into government programs that aim to "turn them straight" and change who they are (The Nation). This research done by Crosby Burns, Philip Ross, and the Nation all point to the undeniable fact that individuals who identify as lesbian, homosexual, or bisexual all face increased levels of violence, discrimination, verbal harassment, and imprisonment, as a result of sexual prejudice and heterosexism. 

To determine where these acts of aggression and discrimination are coming from The Human Rights Campaign did a study on Anti-Gay Hate Crimes and found that the greatest predictors of anti-gay violence were white males, religious fundamentals, and conservatives (Girshick). The Human Rights Campaign also found that unlike any other category of violence, LBG members were blamed more for being attacked and instigating violence than any other social or ethnic group (Girshick). Similar to The Human Rights Campaign study, Paul Poteat and Ethan Mereish in their piece "Ideology, Prejudice, and Attitudes Toward Sexual Minority Social Policies and Organizations" found that Right Wing Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation, and Conservatism were all major contributors to attitudes of sexual prejudice (Poteat). It is interesting to note here that the survey found that fundamental religious beliefs usually go hand in hand with right wing authoritarianism and conservatism (Poteat).

The United Nations Human Civil Rights Council met for the first time in 2012 to discuss an end, worldwide, to violence and discrimination against gay and Trans people (Gray). Ban Ki-Moon opened  the meeting by addressing the council and discussing acts of violence and discrimination against LBGT members, calling it "a monumental tragedy" and referring to it as "a stain upon our collective conscience" (Gray). Anti-gay violence, discrimination, prejudice, harassment, and inequality is real. I have witnessed it firsthand in my community, in my schooling, in my family, and ultimately in my religion. Through my personal experience and through my research I have reached the ultimate conclusion that in order to move forward as a United States society built on the fundamentals of freedom, concerned with the equality of all social groups and ethnicities, responsible for the ethical standards of human rights, charged with protecting the rights and equalities of all its citizens, that traditional non-affirming religious congregations must accept homosexuality. 

The only way to provide safety and equality for LBG individuals is to provide acceptance. There should be no radical rejection, there cannot be room for "acceptance with rejection", there must simply be acceptance. So many religious leaders are working tirelessly to make sure that homosexuality stays out of our society. It was Bishop TD Jakes who said "There is nothing more powerful than a changed mind", and it was also Bishop TD Jakes who went on to say "You can change your hair, your clothing, your address, your spouse, your friends, but if you don't change your mind, the same experience will perpetuate itself over and over again because everything outwardly changed but nothing inwardly changed." (Saviuc).

There will be those who will always oppose homosexuality. There will be those that from the moment they are born till the very day they die will view homosexuality in a negative light, in disgust, with hatred, and with misunderstanding. That to me is far more tragic than any single act of violence, any act of harassment, or any act of discrimination and judgement. In her interview with The Daily Beast GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said, "More than 100 million Americans still say they're uncomfortable just seeing a gay co-worker's wedding photo, and staggering rates of hate violence continue to devastate the transgender community, We must not only advance policy, we must also accelerate acceptance of the LGBT community -- because laws alone don't end discrimination, people do." (Allen). There must be a change within the way non-affirming religions see homosexuality, a change of mind, and a change of heart. Imagine the pain that could be saved if the only knowledge children had of sexual prejudice and heterosexism was what they read in history books, not what they experienced for themselves at home, at school, and at church. 

