Despite a torn nation, and a split supreme court decision, On June 26, 2015 same sex marriage became legal within all 50 United States. With homosexuality being recognized nationally as an ethical right, it would seem that a societal acceptance was not far behind. Sadly, almost a year later we still foster a broken, judgmental society that harvests an attitude of prejudice and discrimination against the LBGT community. Regardless of recent legislation Gay, Lesbians, and Bisexuals are all statistically facing increased violence and discrimination as a result of their sexual preference. So where are these anti-gay emotions and prejudices coming from? The fundamental religious community has been the front runner in anti-gay messages and teachings since the beginning. As the moral fight for homosexuality wages the traditional religious leaders continue to produce messages of rejection and distain towards same sex relationships. So when seeking to find answers to why LGB individuals are continuing to face discrimination and harassment the question that must be asked is would a moral acceptance of homosexuality within non-affirming religions decrease sexual prejudice and harassment? 

I grew up a pastor's kid. Our tight knit, religiously oriented family was extremely close throughout my entire childhood until my older brother came out to my parents and church community. Chaos ensued and I spent my teen years watching my older brother face unrelenting persecution and unwarranted disrespect all because of his sexual preference. I am in a special position because I have seen both sides of the battle, I have seen the issue through my religiously fundamental lens and I now see the issue as a secular, unaffiliated individual. Now, having been invested in this issue for some time I believe the only way to bring about real change is to target the heart of the issue, the necessary moral acceptance of same sex relationships. 

In his article written in 2000 "The Psychology of Sexual Preference" Gregory Herek, a member of the department of Psychology at the University of California, sets out to define and solidify sexual prejudice as an issue (Herek). Herek has done an incredible amount of work on a variety of issues regarding homosexuality and society and has repeatedly advocated for gay rights (Herek). Hereks paper seeks to specifically identify major contributors to sexual prejudice. Herek uses different studies to show that sexual prejudice and antigay discrimination does exist in different levels because of fundamental religious beliefs, political party values, and lack of exposure to people that identify as gay or lesbian (Herek).

 Herek identifies a major root of prejudice 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). This is huge because it shows that the underlying cause for such a large amount of hate and rejection is not the ethical principle of homosexuality, but a moral dilemma. Homosexuals and Lesbians are not being rejected because of a negative input into society but rather because their values differ from those of the surrounding community. This could seem logical, but looking at it through the scope of a nation who prides itself on accepting all religions and all diversities, how can something as trivial as same sex attraction be the cause of so much hate and violence? If all these religions, races, and genders can coexist so peacefully within our borders, what changes with homosexuality? Herek's article does an excellent job of identifying and exploring the issue of sexual prejudice in relation to different key aspects of modern culture (Herek). 

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. Hubbard also posted an article to the Love into Light website, "Same Sex Marriage: How should Christians respond?" As a pastor of a community church Peter Hubbard does carry an incredible amount of religious bias and one-sided fundamental views throughout his article targeted at the church going community. Hubbard promotes popularly held Christian beliefs, specifically the idea of the sanctity of marriage being between one man and one woman. Hubbard rejects the growing acceptance of homosexuality and believes it should never have a place within Christianity. 

  In his article 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). Peter Hubbard's proposition is a courageous, and respectful move from someone deep within the southern fundamental church. Interestingly, though Hubbard preaches a 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).  These obvious rhetorical strategies are used as means of evoking strong and deep rooted emotion within the average church goer. So the question arises, is what appears to be an honest good hearted message, actually the cause of substantial social prejudice? Is it possible to preach a message of both acceptance and rejection and not expect negative results? Peter Hubbard's "hopeful" text is just one example of how without moral acceptance, confusing religious contradictions will continue to produce messages of prejudice and hate. 

A research overview was done by members of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, Michelle A. Marzullo and Alyn J. Libman, titled "Hate Crimes and Violence: Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People". In this research overview hate crimes in relation to the LBGT are explained, analyzed, questioned, and ultimately advocated for (Girshick). Marzullo and Libman are concerned heavily with gay rights and are seeking to promote the safety and acceptance of Homosexuality by exposing key contributors to sexual prejudice and violence. The researchers oppose those who encourage anti-gay violence and attitudes.

There is section within the research overview titled "Predictors of Bias and Sexual Prejudice". Within this section Marzullo and Libman's research exposed that whites were responsible for 46% of LBGT violence (Girshick). On top of this, the researchers also found that being a religious fundamentalist was the strongest predictor of LBGT prejudice and anti-gay evaluations (Girshick). Unlike any other category of violence, the researchers found that LBGT individuals are blamed more for being attacked than any social group (Girshick). Marzullo's and Libman's quality research paints the homosexual/lesbian community as victims of substantial anti-gay violence and prejudice as a result of strong fundamental values (Girshick).This research is a perfect example of how key fundamental values are creating a negative environment and attitude towards the LBGT community. 

The issue of homosexual acceptance is of a special nature because there is no simple solution. Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals face an increased rate of violence due to anti-gay prejudice, this is an undeniable fact, but it's not so easy to track the source of it. It's no secret that the greatest anti-gay message is coming from the fundamental church. So how do you propose to someone a change in their fundamental followings without disrespecting and debunking the rest of their beliefs? This is the complexity and multi-layered scope of this argument. The only way to bring about social change is a moral acceptance, but in order to do so a massive revolution would be necessary within fundamental religions. With such an intense and personal topic it remains key to represent both sides in the fairest way possible while still exploring the underlying possibilities for change. As this research paper develops and narrows it'll be important to analyze and focus only on the moral implications both homosexuality and traditional religions have on society.

