Christianity And LGBT Rights: More Christians Than Ever Say Gays Should Be Accepted By Society


More American Christians are accepting LGBT people, even if their churches strongly oppose gay and lesbian relationships, according to a Pew Research Center report of U.S. religious beliefs and practices released Friday. While more non-Christians accept gay relationships than Christians, the number of Christians who say LGBT relationships should be accepted and not discouraged has grown by 10 percentage points since 2007, the study found.

This is quite sad. Same sex romantic relationships should not occur because they can be an occasion for sin. That is not to mention the fact that God designed marriage, the ultimate end of romantic relationships, for one man and one woman only because only a man and a woman can procreate naturally and procreation is one of the main points of marriage.


This is mostly running on the fumes of popularity. There’s not much principle here at all; it’s just something that is a bandwagon fad in historical terms.

Forces that are staunchly opposed to so-called gay “marriage” are gaining significant influence around the globe, and if most of the supporters are there only because it’s :cool: right now, what happens when it not only becomes uncool, but dangerous? How many activists will there still be? Will they risk their lives for that GLBTQ person they smiled at across the street and felt good inside about?


This is a Catholic forum so of course the Catholic view is the one I would expect faithful Catholics to present. But other Christian traditions have evolved in their understandings. The link provided in the article gives a starting point to their understandings and it’s not difficult to find more progressive Christian perspectives on Scripture along with their theology and reasoning on homosexuality and same sex marriage with simple searches on the internet. I don’t at all expect or encourage faithful Catholics to reach the same conclusions as some of these other faith communities. I’m just saying it goes beyond I think that the others are merely running on fumes of a popularity. There are simply differences among the branches. LGBT rights is not the only one.


I would expect faithful Catholics to present.ther Christian traditions have evolved in their understandings.

Why is it that every time agrees with so-called gay “marriage”, it’s somehow an “evolution”? I see it as a clear step backwards.

I’m just saying it goes beyond I think that the others are merely running on fumes of a popularity.

I don’t think it does in many cases. The current generation doesn’t have the stomach for dogs and firehouses, let alone sharia law.

Progressive causes like so-called gay “marriage” will lose.

The fundamental premise to changing marriage has to do with personal selfishness and entitlements, not genuine equality and principle.


The Bible says what it does regarding homosexuality. People can try to twist themselves into metaphorical knots trying to reinterpret what it says, or ignoring the verses altogether, but it says what it says.

A note of caution and question about poll questions and results regarding homosexual relationships and same-sex marriage. It has been acknowledged by various sources that same-sex marriage opposition has been understated (Pew Research Center) for example, in U.S. polls. If that is true, it seems possible that such a poll as cited as an OP could also overestimate acceptance of homosexual relationships, because a percentage of people may say they accept it to a polling agency, because if they don’t, they’ll think they will come across as a bigot, so the real acceptance rate may be lower than determined in that poll.

  • what are “relationships”?

  • what are “poll questions”?

  • what are “poll samples”?

  • what are “poll” “results”?

In my day and my parents’ day EVERYONE WAS ACCEPTED.

There were boundaries about behaviours in situations. This was because of the impact on those in the situation and the common purpose. Some tried to bend those and some twigged there was no point thinking of it. Whether using the office phone to row with the spouse - or for flirting - or stashing the kickbacks behind the wiener can in the desk. At least that’s not what the desk is for!!! (Maybe the firm has a covert policy of arranging kickbacks.) (Without prying, at a practical level we were sometimes looking in other people’s desks for something.) Either way there were BEHAVIOURS in situations that NEEDED NO BACKING IN LAW. If the school cook has got a friendship that the state has strangely decided to give a strange name to, he shouldn’t have to talk about it. The school cook is there to talk about the food. It’s humane to allow leave for what might be generalised as “various family reasons”. It’s not for us to pry who’s got an adopted brother or an adopted cousin or what. Leave is leave - it’s not about “getting people” to “accept” you. If somebody’s on leave they are on leave. When they are back they are back.

What doesn’t have to be our business doesn’t have to be our business and can this please be respected.

The idea of everyone being accepted isn’t a new invention. Everyone always was, unless you were the wrong caste. In fact the present trend is indeed to set up a caste system.


For some reason I am envisaging this as a passage in the Screwtape letters.


I wouldn’t be particularly concerned about what Protestants think. The Episcopal Church for one years ago made a man with a gay partner a bishop. This is representative of other Protestant groups, which are developing towards acceptance of the gay agenda, as well as, for example abortion. Not that some Protestant churches are not healthy in this regards, who act as allies in the cultural war.


Pope Francis called gay marriage an anthropological regression.
It is not a sign that society is progressing but regressing.
Just before the fall of the Roman empire the same lack of morality and corruption prevailed.


correction: “anthropologic regression” were the words used. The book “On Heaven and Earth” chapter 16 page 116.


When Christians go against what the Lord clearly teaches, it is like saying that His Grace cannot work in their lives.

With God all things are possible.

When a person talks about their challenges here on this earth, and they say they are impossible to endure and so the Church should look differently on it, they are saying that His Grace cannot work in their lives.

With God all things are possible.

May we never forget that!


And why shouldn’t we accept them? After all, they only want the same thing contracepting heteros want: sterile sex.


First, I understand your point; that as a society the divorce of sex from procreation has practically turned sex into a matter of self-expression, not a covenant bond reaching fruition in children. However, I still think that in many cases, homosexuals want what we all want, which is communion and love. Like I said, though, I understand your point.


They’ll never find that love they’re looking for by committing mortal sin.


I’m gonna start by saying - I KNOW this ISN’T what society means as acceptance…!

But, yes, we should “accept” them.

Because we cannot assume all homosexuals are PRACTICING. And for the most part, in my experience, if someone is even presumed to be gay, they are automatically classified as a sinner who has no place within the walls of a Catholic Church. We do not look at all 20 year old single heteros and jump to the conclusion they are fornicating, or every married couple with only 1 or 2 children and assume they are contracepting! And yet that is exactly what is being done to homosexuals. It’s odd to me that contracepting/fornicating/divorced & dating individuals/etc stop to point a finger at a homosexual and say they should not be accepted! The FIRST place they need to be is in a church, with an incredible spiritual director! I feel bad for them - they will have to live a life of chastity and, in all honesty, loneliness to avoid sin. Even friendships will be more difficult and could be occasion of sin. They need some kind of devout Christian understanding and empathy, no??


Yes, none of us will. Sin offers empty promises. We all have our favorite sins, at least I do.


It’s a lot like alcoholism. Like alcoholism, the causes are unclear as to how much is genetic, and how much events after birth. Alcoholics were once rejected as moral degenerates, with no acceptance of them as persons, no understanding that some behaviors were at least partly out of their control. It is “unfair” that an alcoholic must not have a beer or glass of wine with the guys to relax. Unfair for gays, too. There are many people who are not gay who remain chaste because of disability or circumstances.

But the fact that alcoholics are - and must be - more “accepted” today, does not mean **all **their actions have no moral consequences. To the extent they can, they must remain sober. The Church forgives them (and gays) when they fall, but the Act of Contrition includes “to avoid the near occasions of sin”. If there was a movement to give alcoholics hiring preference as bartenders, with a long term employment contract, the Church would oppose it. Likewise gay “marriage”.

The media has brainwashed people by making it sound like everyone who does not accept gay “marriage” is rejecting gay persons. For alcoholics trying to get, or stay sober, it is much harder if they have a regular, steady drinking buddy. The media makes it sound like gays are better off having one steady sex partner. But that makes chastity much harder. Gay “marriage” is the cruelest thing to happen to them.


Yes. People who have to bear that cross need to be loved and accepted by society. Their cross is heavy and they need that help. HOWEVER, this does not imply that those temptations should be indulged in, as that puts one in a state of mortal sin. In short, be kind, show generosity, and pray for them, but discourage relationships.


There are so many paradoxes that make any issue involving sexuality and sexual behaviors fraught with complication. I firmly believe that the “eww factor” had for a long time caused Christians to distance themselves from gay people, and this was tragic because before the progressives co-opted the entire issue, there could’ve been positive, morally acceptable ministries to help gay people carry their heavy crosses knowing that they are part of a community, children of God. Moreover, straight and gay single people could at least partially help one another in efforts to live chastely according to each’s state in life and particular struggles.

In my friendships with gay and lesbian people, I did my best, albeit imperfectly I’m sure, to relate to the person first and foremost, whilst also making it clear that I would be following the Church’s teaching on the moral aspects. I also did the best I could to empathize with the grief some felt over not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex, pointing out that we are still called to chastity as single persons and that it’s not always easy even for straight people.

Yes, there is hope of eventual marriage for some straights in the abstract, but in reality many of us have the odds stacked against us for various reasons. For me, for example, it has been my psychiatric difficulties of anxiety and PTSD and other things that really cramp my style - in short, I find it hard to connect with men, to control my nervousness, overcome my awkwardness, and get one to even ask me out. I’m terribly nervous if one does and struggle on first dates, rarely get asked for second dates . . . During my fertile years, although I yearned to be a mom on one hand, I feared how my panic attacks might negatively impact my ability to be there for my hypothetical children. The predictable result was that I remain unmarried.

Sorry for the digression there . . . :o Back to the concept of Christians at the church/parish level being more welcoming to gays and lesbians without compromising morality: Nowadays that ship seems to have sailed and we are all the worse for it. Christians swayed by progressive propaganda have capitulated to the idea that to accept the gay person entails enthusiastically accepting gay practices, and if requested, giving them the official approbation by equating their “marriages” with true marriage.

Don’t let it be forgotten that a similar process has already been happening for the last couple of decades or more with the matter of cohabitation and other irregular unions among straights. These “alternative” unions were increasingly protected under the “don’t judge” cultural gag order on anyone who would suggest the practices are immoral. Sex on the third date, cohabitation soon afterward, fiance’s pretty much always living under the same roof, sometimes for years, while planning a fancy wedding whose symbolism and significance beyond conspicuous consumerism and “self expression” eludes me.

With regard to any of these things, straight or gay, that have come to be lauded in the public square rather than seen as the aberrations they once were, it has come to the point where John and Jane Doe Average Christian are given the choice with regard to how to relate to persons in unmarried straight OR gay unions or “gay marriages”: Either take the script handed down by the politically correct thought police and follow it rigorously, or be labeled and persecuted as bigots and haters. :frowning:

None of this is made easier by the fact that sex IS a private matter in many ways - when this concept is carrried to the extreme on the one hand, we get the famous “The Church has no place in the bedroom” mentality. It may be a sound bite of rebellious folks, who misunderstand that the Church isn’t meaning to meddle but rather to help, and that the human race does have a stake in the family, and that marriage is a reflection of the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. But some feel it intrusive, and until their understanding is awakened, that is where they’re coming from.

And it would rightly be immodest to expect people to go around proclaiming publicly the details of their sexual goings-on (though that doesn’t stop many of them from posting them on Facebook :rolleyes: ). Therefore we are hampered by lack of information - is So-and-So gay? Should we therefore discreetly slip him/her a pamphlet about the gay/lesbian ministry “just in case”? Even if our “gaydar” is ringing loudly, it is obviously impolite to let on, to confront the person(s) with information they have not given permission to publicly acknowledge. Confidentiality is kept very meticulously in organizations such as Courage and Encourage. So everyone’s hands are tied . . . and then along comes the tide of public opinion and the changes, suddenly SCOTUS hands down a ruling that’s a game-changer - I don’t know. I’ve pondered all of this for years and there are no easy answers. :shrug:


I would go further and say for Christians who accept the doctrine of global climate change, homosexuality should be preferred by society. If human beings are the cause of climate change, then the easiest solution is to discourage the production of more humans. Homosexuality is the climate friendly choice.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit