Read the Description

This stamp used to be called "Disagreement is not Hatred," but after countless rude comments (examples: comments.deviantart.com/1/5677…, comments.deviantart.com/1/4713…, comments.deviantart.com/1/4713…) and "response" stamp (the-faygo-queen.deviantart.com…), and even a hate journal filled with lies about what I believe (anoddperson.deviantart.com/jou…) where people are screaming that a sexuality isn't a "lifestyle," all due to them not bothering to read the description (and them using a different defintion of the word "lifestyle"), I was obliged to rename it. Seriously, people. Read what you're criticizing. I even address this issue in bold. All you have to do is use grade-school-level skimming skills to find it.

And before you call me that catch phrase "homophobic," understand that I personally don't care either way what gay people want to do. In my opinion, it's their business. I've heard convincing arguments on both sides of the issue, both of which take all the Scripture passages into account and seriously consider them. On top of that, I'm asexual, so while I choose not to identify with the LGBT crowd (due to them making making it their life's goal to attack me) I understand what it's like to be different and harassed because of how you're wired, and I do not support bullying or harassing gays in any way. Just getting that out of the way before all the rabid SJWs go nuts on this stamp, lol!

People don't want to be respected nowadays, they want to be actively supported in everything they do. Anything less than full, active, support is labeled as hatred.

Check out this well-written explanation from a gay man: rogue-ranger.deviantart.com/ar…

One time on here I ran an experiment on an LGBT person who passed by my page to call me names for being a Christian. I've been telling people for a long time that a lot of gay rights activists don't want mere acceptance, they want LGBT to be celebrated, nigh worshiped. So what I did was I told this guy that I support gay marriage and whatnot, but that I choose not to identify with LGBT, even though I'm demisexual (all of which is true, btw.) This guy lost it. He totally lost it. It was kind of hilarious, actually! He didn't want to be accepted or respected, he wanted to be praised and celebrated for being gay, and he couldn't stand it that I was taking a neutral stance: comments.deviantart.com/1/4713….

“Just because someone disagrees with your lifestyle doesn’t mean they hate you.” The stamp speaks for itself. This stamp doesn't apply to only the LGBT debate, either. There are lots of disagreements in the world, but they don't all equal hatred.

Please do not hate on me for writing this. I’m just trying to show people that the question of homosexuality and religion isn’t as cut-and-dried as people think it is. Some Christians might be against homosexuality, but that does not mean that they hate or fear homosexuals. I'm not asking you to change your position on the LGBT debate. I just want you to understand theirs.

There are homophobic Christians out there who say and do hateful things, but I am not referring to them, nor do I support the. It is a gross over generalization to lump all Christians (including educated ones) in the same pot as homophobic ones. While there are plenty of haters on both sides, the LGBT community and its supporters tend to see hatred where there is none. A lot of religious groups (Christianity tends to get the most flak because there are a lot of them in the Western World) disagree with homosexual lifestyle/acts, but that doesn't mean that they all hate homosexuals. Instead of throwing hate speech at them and accusing them of being bigots, why not just try to show them that you can be loving and accepting of them?

However, a lot of Christians do understand, but they still disagree with gay actions. Does that mean they all hate or fear homosexuals? Absolutely not. Educated Christians realize that there is a difference between simply having homosexual desires and acting on them. In fact, there are homosexual Christians! A Christian might be a homophobe, but not all Christians are homophobes, whether or not they agree with the gay actions/homosexual lifestyle, and either way, hatred and homophobia is not what the Bible commands.

There seems to be a lot of hypersensitivity about opinions these days, but especially when it comes to the LGBT debate. When someone disagrees with same-sex marriage, they get responses like this (be warned, there is bad language): www.letthetolerancebegin.com/ . Here is another instance: www.truthrevolt.org/news/lgbt-… , chicksontheright.com/blog/item… . People preach tolerance but don't live it. They think that if a person disagrees with their choices, opinions, or their lifestyle, that that person automatically hates or even fears them. In fact, it's gone so far that merely being the least bit "condescending" is viewed as bigotry, whether or not that person agrees or disagrees. The word "homophobe" is spat out at every person who doesn't worship homosexuals, regardless of how they actually feel about it. It's ironic, because I actually qualify as LGBTQA+, but I choose not to identify with them because that community has verbally attacked and abused me on multiple occasions, so much so that it can be considered a habit of theirs. Their excuse? They wouldn't bother to hear me out. They see that I believe people should be allowed to their opinions, and they assume I hate gays. It makes no sense. A few have gone on to call me homophobic because I choose not to identify with LGBTQA. What exactly do they expect to accomplish by behaving that way? When they act that way, all they do is drive people away. They're the ones being bigots, not all those "closed-minded" Christians.

Definition of homophobia: ho·mo·pho·bi·a /ˌhōməˈfōbēə /noun/ "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people."

There is nothing extreme about disagreeing with a homosexual lifestyle. No one agrees on everything. On top of that, the word irrational means "without logic or reason." Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc. all have a reason for disagreeing with a gay lifestyle. You may not agree with their reason, but it is a reason nonetheless. Thus, it is logical for them to hold their positions. Unless they downright hate homosexuals or unless they bully homosexuals, their opinions are neither extreme nor irrational.

On top of all that, being a homosexual under Islamic law is a crime punishable by death. And people are angry that Christians disagree?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________


Many in the LGBT community want more-than-equality. Equality by definition means having the same rights as another person, but a lot of people in the LGBT community are no longer content with having the same rights as straight folks. A good example I can think of is that many gay folks will tell you that straight people can't have "pride." I actually had a friend tell me "straight pride is not a thing. That's a no." Saying something like that makes the person no better than the people who have been oppressing them. She was upset because she wasn't allowed to wear a gay pride badge at work, and I said "I'm not allowed to wear a straight pride badge, either," in a clumsy effort to cheer her up. She responded by telling me I shouldn't be allowed to wear a pride badge anyway. She should be allowed to wear one, but I shouldn't, because I'm not special enough. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Now don't get me wrong, I completely understand why the LGBT community feels this way, and I don't blame them. They've been bullied, shamed, attacked, discriminated against, and straight up murdered for centuries. Most gay people alive today have experienced discrimination and bullying to some extent, some very severe abuse. In their eyes, a "straight pride" badge probably feels like a mockery. I understand why they feel this way, but it doesn't make it right.

The fact of the matter is this: if gay people can wear pride badges, so can the rest of us. That's what equality is. I don't feel the need to wear a straight pride or demisexual pride badge, especially not out of respect, but I should be allowed to if I want to. I believe everyone should be proud of who they are, not just people with partners of the same sex. It doesn't matter to these people that I've struggled for decades to find a partner because of my autism. It doesn't matter to them how happy I am to finally have someone, or my contentment in figuring out that I'm demisexual and finally feeling comfortable in my sexuality. I'm not allowed to express any of this because I have a boyfriend instead of a girlfriend. I didn't want to wear a straight or demi pride badge, but now it upsets me that I'm not allowed to!



A sexuality is not the same thing as a lifestyle. Before you explode at me, telling me how being gay "isn't a lifestyle," "is never something you choose," etc., take a moment to actually read what I'm saying.

I use the word "lifestyle" in this stamp to refer to actions. I'm not assuming that gay people are unusually promiscuous or whatever else the word "lifestyle" may connotate. I'm simply using it according to it's literal dictionary definition, and as you'll see, there's nothing discriminatory about it, because "lifestyle" applies to everyone, not just gay people.

Definition of lifestyle: "A way of life or living of a person or group." A lifestyle is determined by what you do. Liking hamburgers is not a lifestyle, but eating hamburgers is. A lifestyle is determined by what you do. Something you are isn't something you do. Being a homosexual is no more a lifestyle than being a heterosexual. The lifestyle is what you do. A person who has sex with people of his own gender is leading a homosexual lifestyle, and a person who has sex with people of the opposite gender is leading a heterosexual lifestyle. Thus, a gay person can lead a homosexual lifestyle, a heterosexual lifestyle, a bisexual lifestyle, etc., if he so chooses to. Likewise, a straight person can lead a heterosexual lifestyle, a homosexual lifestyle, a bisexual lifestyle, if he so chooses to. A sexuality isn't a lifestyle. A lifestyle is what you do.

Now, please be aware that there are people out there who disagree with sexualities. I am not condoning those people. Disagreeing with a sexuality is like disagreeing with someone's hair color. Funny story, but I've actually had people disagree with my hair color. I wanna know what they were smoking...



It’s not a sin to be homosexual. Oh my gosh, did you actually read that? Yes, you did. It’s not a sin to be homosexual. Being homosexual simply describes a person’s sexual orientation, or in other terms, their desire to have sex with people of their own gender. Many Christians view being homosexual as a temptation to sin, but it’s important to remember that being tempted is not a sin. Jesus was tempted. What many Christians consider the sin is when a person acts on his or her homosexual desires. Again, they're talking about the ACTIONS (or as the stamp says, the "lifestyle"), NOT the person's existence!  



Most homosexuals did not choose to be homosexual. While sexuality can be fluid (meaning that someone's sexuality can change), and in many cases people do choose what they want to be attracted to, this does not mean that all homosexuals chose to be homosexual. If all gays choose to be gay, when do all straights choose to be straight? Some people choose, and some people don't. It's as simple as that.

Yes, there are New Testament verses regarding homosexuality. Many misinformed Christians only ever quote Leviticus and other Old Testament verses, but there are New Testament passages as well. I'll list the common ones here for you to read.
Romans 1:18-32 – Possibly the most explicit and clear verse in the New Testament about polygamous/idolatrous homosexuality (always condemning the action, though, not simply being a homosexual).
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 – This verse names the action of homosexuality as a sin (assuming it has been translated correctly, and there is actually much debate about that, and not just from LGBT supporters), but it also says that people who give up homosexual desires (or at least don’t give into them) are among people who can be saved. The verse is saying that if a person feels no desire to stop sinning, chances are they're not saved. However it's translated, homosexuality isn't the main focus. 
1 Timothy 1:10 – Most translations translate this as “those who practice homosexuality," as the Greek words used here are relating to sexual acts. The direct translation, however, is "male with many beds." This could be referring to polygamy in general, a cheating husband, homosexual polygamy, any of the above. Paul also combines it with a Greek word referring to a child sex slave, usually a boy, which is where scholars pulled the "men who practice homosexuality" translation from. Basically, when the direct translation is taken into account, the verse appears to be talking about men who keep or visit male sex slaves.  
Jude 1:7 – Refers to Sodom and Gomorrah. In the Old Testament, the men in Sodom and Gomorrah called for Lot to bring out his men so they “might know them.” The word “know” there was a word meaning to have sex. The “flesh” here is not referring to food (that’s a different word in Greek) but rather flesh of a sexual nature. Perhaps other men, perhaps the angels? It's not clear. 
Matthew 19:1-8 – Jesus condones only one type of marriage – heterosexual. The key words here are "for any reason." It also has another reference to Jesus being tempted, which goes to show that it’s not a sin to be tempted. However, Jesus does not explicitly condemn monogamous homosexual relationships. Simply not mentioning something does not mean he's against it. This verse really doesn't say much for or against homosexuality.  Colossians 3:5-7– Talks about sexual sins, which according to Romans, at least, include polygamous homosexuality. 
Galatians 5:19 – Another verse about sexual sins, which, according to Romans, include polygamous homosexuality.

After doing some research and talking to some very intelligent people, I've come to realize that actually the only verses in the Bible that condemn monogamous homosexuality are Leviticus 18:23 and Leviticus 20:1. Both of those are in the Old Testament, and part of the levitical law, and are Christians still under that law? Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to that. However, this is what my friend Rogue-Ranger has to say on the matter (it's a long read, and please note that I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but I think you'll see that there are many views on homosexuality that really do take these verses into account):

"Since this began with the idea of "homophobic" verses, I'll begin by saying that prohibiting some sexual activities is not necessarily homophobic. If sex between people of the same sex is prohibited, there are two ways of seeing it:
1. Those verses are like the ones that seem to say women are saved in childbirth or should learn in silence and may be misinterpreted or not be universal for monogamous same-sex relationships, or
2. All sex outside opposite-sex marriage is wrong, so people with same-sex attractions and no opposite-sex attractions should not have sex (it tends to be better for all involved to be celibate rather than try to "make" oneself straight through sex). 
You make an excellent point about having a desire to no longer sin and how that should never be confused with having no temptations. We will be tempted and even occasionally sin, but if we are saved the Spirit will convict us. But, what some people believe is that someone must not really be saved unless God gives them a sexual desire for someone of the opposite sex and removes any desire for someone of the same sex and I don't believe that's biblical. Even if you believe all non-marital sex is wrong, that doesn't mean no one will ever be tempted to lust even briefly. Someone's sex drive doesn't disappear the moment they are saved.
This is why I feel the main focus should always be to first bring someone into a relationship with Christ, as that is the only way to change desires or even be convicted of sin and then freed from it. So, if we feel something someone is doing is a sin, instead of simply saying that it's a sin and to stop, we need to focus on their relationship with God, as no one can stop sinning or even truly desire it without that. Focusing on sin alone won't make it go away. Now, as for if we're ever wrong about what's a sin, I guess that's what we're addressing.
Romans 1 talks about people turning away from God and worshiping idols. Paul writes that knowledge of God is known to everyone. This is also the source of the belief that atheists know there is a God but are in denial. The mention of burning lust is actually a punishment for turning from God, as the paragraph starts with "for this reason God gave them over to", which is the source of the belief that people become gay after turning from God. After that, it progresses into various other sins, including murder. 
My belief is that Paul was using practices in the Roman temples at the time to illustrate the nature of all sin on global and personal level, how sin begins and how God allows us to continue in sin if that's what we desire over Him. However, it should never be read alone, with sins picked out, as Paul later writes in Romans that everyone has sinned, not just some people.
Observational and scientific data suggests it's extremely rare that anyone chooses their sexuality and that many people, when they discover they are different, want to change to fit in and not be bullied. Becuase people can be born intersex and with sexual instincts never learned, it's probable people are born with various attractions or lack there of and other factors, such as sex drive, make them more noticeable.
You can look at this as just something to accept, but, since straight people often desire to have sex with multiple people who they are not married to, we must all realize that simply desiring something doesn't make it moral. Just because you want to do it, even if it's an inborn desire common among humans, doesn't by default make it right. That being said, if someone's sexuality doesn't change, is it cruel to force celibacy on them or does it only seem cruel because humans are so obsessed with sex?
The verses in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy both use the same Greek word, literally meaning male with many beds, but is generally believed to be male-bedding, or male-male sex. Most scholars believe Paul made up the word, as it doesn't exist before his letters, and that he got the idea from the Greek translation of Leviticus' prohibition of male anal intercourse, since it uses a phrase about men in beds.
The word (arsenokoites) is paired with another word in both verses. In 1 Corinthians, it's paired with soft (malakos), a word that some scholars and even bibles like the NKJV say means catamite, which is a boy kidnapped and kept as a sex slave for a man. However, in 1 Timothy, arsenokoites is paired with kidnappers, so if malakos is referencing boy sex slaves, it's far more likely it condemns the kidnappers and not the victims. Of course, when we are washed, we are art free from all earthly bonds, including slavery.
However, many other scholars believe malakos means the passive partner in male-male intercourse. This would make 1 Corinthians a pairing of both partners in male-male intercourse, the active and passive. Not including both in 1 Timothy could just be that it's not necessary to list every sexual sin. The In fact, Paul often simply uses pornea, which is the general Greek word for all sexual sins.
The thing I object to is interpreting the King James translation of malakos as "effeminate" to mean that men who are naturally more feminine are somehow worse sinners just for that and that alone. Why would someone be condemned for something beyond their control, like being more sensitive and feminine? Therefore, it is far more likely it's about an action, like sex.
I've studied a little of the history of angels having sex with humans referenced briefly in Genesis and most scholars believe Jude actually references sex with angels when it talks about "strange flesh", as the apocryphal books and other literature of the time use the same words for when angels and humans have sex. There is no time "strange flesh" is used between humans, even of the same sex.
However, let's say it does talk about homosexual sex. The crowd in Sodom attempted to gang rape the visiting angels, a practice discussed elsewhere as a way evil people treat outsiders or perceived invaders, and was common in ancient times. They tell Lot that they'd treat him "worse" than the visitors and Lot offers his virgin daughters who were already promised as wives, so there's no way to see it as something consensual. It was attempted gang rape. Of course, the Bible lists many reasons Sodom was destroyed, focusing a lot on inhospitality, so that may have simply been the final straw, as God planned to destroy the city already.
If you would like to tell someone that homosexual sex (not simply being homosexual) is a sin, I'd recommend Romans, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, as comparing people to rapists in one of the only cities fire bombed by God would likely elicit a negative reaction. I mean, technically we're all sinners, no more or less in need of redemption than rapists and murders, but not everyone understands that. Comparing two people falling in love and marrying with rapists won't help convince them. They must first come to Christ and be convicted of sin.
In Matthew 19, Jesus says that no one should divorce for any reason other than sexual infidelity. To illustrate this, he references Genesis and the purpose of creating males and females. However, immediately after this, he acknowledges this isn't for everyone. We must acknowledge this too. While God made male and female, some people are born with both parts because we live in a fallen world.
However, when Christ goes on to talk about people who are born, made or choose to be eunuchs, some people interpret this as Him saying the only alternative to marriage is castration. However, eunuchs were a class of people at the time and not all were castrated. So, it's more reasonable to conclude that He's simply talking about celibacy for those men born with no desire for women or who choose to forgo marriage to better serve God. This concept scares some people, but both Christ and Paul speak highly of celibacy. Going without sex can sometimes help us better serve God.
Which brings us to the topic of same-sex marriage. I understand both points of view on this. People fall in love and get married. It's been celebrated throughout history. Narually someone would want that even if they fall in love with someone of the same sex. Marriage is about more than simply sex, as it builds deeper bonds as the couple works toward shared goals, and it also eliminates the previous concept of the "gay lifestyle" as being a series of one night stands.
On the other hand, same-sex marriage is clearly not God's original intent, as we see when Jesus references Genesis when talking about divorce. Same-sex marriage is a man-made concept, just like polygamy. Yes, the Bible has polygamy, but it was not God's intent and causes a lot of problems, as we see with Jacob, David, Solomon and others. God told Abraham He'd give him a child though Sarah, but it was human choice that led him elsewhere for a son. It was never God's will.
The other two verses just reference sexual sins in general, so they don't introduce anything new to discuss. The simplest way to articulate the belief that homosexual sex is a sin without singling people out is simply to say that any sex outside marriage between an unrelated man and woman is sin.
All that being said, some people are drawn to someone of the same sex and that person may also be drawn to them. Their personalities click and they love each other. So, we should be understanding that this isn't some abstract concept. It affects real people. We should never confuse love and lust and instead show that there's more to life than sex. Not that sex doesn't have its place. It does. But not all relationships need it or even should have it. But only the Holy Spirit can truly convict us, no matter what we're told by humans.
Since the Bible doesn't mention monogamous homosexual relationships, this is about all I can say conclusively."

You're right that it is confusing. That's because the world is complicated. In the beginning it was simpler because it was perfect. There weren't all these exceptions, so special cases didn't exist. But here we are in an imperfect, complicated world.
You make an excellent point about meat. I have progressive digestive issues and so there are more and more types of foods I can't digest as time goes on. For most of my childhood and early teens I tried to be vegetarian because I can't stand the thought of eating animals. But as I became unable to digest beans, nuts, soy and more, I had to find other sources of protein and eventually I found I could tolerate small amounts of chicken. So, while I'd like to eat like I live in the garden of Eden, I can't. My body is imperfect and won't let me.
There are some people with androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) and so, although they have XY chromosomes, in the womb they develop like a girl. Sometimes they go to a doctor when they never get a period or never grow pubic hair and find out then that they have testicles inside their body or sometimes they try having sex and realize the hole isn't very deep, but they feel like a female and often want to marry a male. They can't have kids and even sex can't be in the traditional sense. Where do people with AIS fit into God's plan? Where in the Bible can I find conclusive proof one way or another?
We have to make some exceptions because the exceptions already exist. People don't wake up one day and say, "I think I'll be attracted exclusively to members of my own sex. Sure it'll make life harder and may even make me feel depressed or angry, but why not?"
So, while obviously I don't feel sex is necessary and I support celibacy, I understand that sometimes people do have sex and so it should be monogamous. I prefer celibacy but accept monogamy.
But we should be aware of when we are making sex or the human body an idol. Most people aren't aware of this because they don't outright worship sex or a human body, but anything you place above God is an idol. So, if God doesn't want someone to have sex, they shouldn't. The thing is, I can't speak for God.
So, while I prefer celibacy but allow for monogamy because sex can be a way to express love between two people, I'm not claiming my opinion is God's. But, when in doubt, I believe in getting to know the people this affects. Maybe what's right for one couple won't be for another. We're all different.
Sex can be a beautiful union between two people and it was originally designed for a man and a woman to make a child, but yes there are some exceptions to that and I acknowledge them. I mean, it turns out the male prostate is positioned in such a way as to create pleasure and orgasm from anal stimulation alone, which is frankly weird.
As for if a monogamous relationship should be called marriage, from a legal standpoint in our society it makes sense, what with hospital visitation and inheritance, etc. But no church should be forced to perform any marriage ceremony they don't want to. The state, however, should issue marriage licenses now that it is legal to do so.
But people should also be aware of social pressures to have sex in marriage. For example, if a couple were to say they don't have sex, the response is often, "What's wrong? Are you fighting or do you need Viagra?" But even marriages don't need sex to sustain them.
A lot of people want to believe we live in a black and white world, but we don't. So, while I can't use the Bible to back up all of what I believe, really no one can say the Bible outright contradicts it either (except for certain modern translations).
We all have a unique purpose in this life and I believe only by drawing close to God can we discover His purpose for our life, not by making sweeping rules for everyone. So, long story short, I prefer celibacy but also accept monogamy.

It’s God’s place to condemn, not humans’. Christians who condemn homosexuals are at fault. Are they commanded to help those in sin or temptation? Oh yes! But never does the New Testament (which holds the New Covenant which is what Christians live under) command the condemnation or the execution of homosexuals by Man. Condemnation is God’s place, not Man’s. God punishes sin, and to many Christians, Islam, and Mormonism, homosexuality is a sin just like any other. Thus, as a righteous God, they believe He must punish it. However, unlike Allah, Jehovah gives homosexuals their entire earthly life to come to Him. That’s the difference between Christianity and Islam, no matter how conservative they are, and I personally find it kind of hilarious that Christianity is bashed by the liberal community while Islam, which to this date, executes homosexuals without giving them a chance, is supported by liberals.

 

Disliking the lifestyle does not mean disliking the person. I believe that it’s wrong to eat meat that comes from factory farms, gestation crates, etc., but most of my friends eat meat from such places, and I love all my friends. Most of my friends are against marriages with large age gaps (for example, a 40+ man and a woman who is around 20, or an older woman and a younger man). They think it's wrong and "weird," but I don't, as long as the marriage is consensual on both parties. Do we hate each other because we disagree? No. We just disagree.

Assuming the Bible IS against homosexuality, it condemns the action, not the person. In Corinthians, it says “those who practice homosexuality,” not “homosexuals,” and in Romans it says "those who practice such things," not "people who have those desires." It is consistent throughout the rest of the New Testament. Even the Old Testament, (which is under the Old Covenant and has very different punishment rules than the New Testament and New Covenant,) punishes the action, not simply the fact that a person is homosexual. That’s because, no matter how liberal or conservative the Christian is, it’s not a sin to simply be a homosexual and feel those desires. Temptation is not a sin. Jesus was tempted. Christians believe that how a person responds to temptation might be a sin, however. Thus, it would be wrong for Christians to shun, bully, or do anything of the like to a homosexual. On top of that, there are many Christians who are also homosexuals! So if Christians are automatically homophobic then what, all these people are afraid of themselves?

I don't agree with everything on these websites so don't lump me with whatever random stuff appears on them (one of them is an open forum after all), but here are some examples of homosexual Christians: 
www.experienceproject.com/grou…
www.peoplecanchange.com/storie…
www.reasonablefaith.org/what-s…

 

While it may not be the best idea, the reason Christians want to “convert” homosexuals is because they love them. Most people seem to think that if you disagree with the lifestyle, that automatically means you hate the person. If that were true, why would Christians be trying to convince homosexuals not to practice gay sex? If Christians truly hated homosexuals and wanted them to “burn forever,” wouldn't it be easier to just let them do what they want to do?

To Christians, Hell is very real, whether or not you believe in it. Since many believe gay people are dooming themselves, if they have any love or compassion for gay people, it only makes sense that they would want to stop them. If someone believes that something horrible will happen to someone if they continue an act, it’s inhuman to stand by and do nothing. That would be loathsome. While of course people must make their own descisions, it's only human to at the very least try to convince someone not to do something if we believe it will harm them.

 

“Conversion” counseling is not always harmful. I personally don’t believe that conversion counseling is a good idea because a person having homosexual desires can be caused by so many different things, just like a straight person. Because of that, there’s no “fix-all” treatment, and ignorant or forced treatment can ultimately be very harmful. It's just plain evil to force anyone through conversion therapy. It MUST be voluntary.

There is a myth, however, that all conversion therapists, counselors, and camps are abusive and beat, bully, etc. their patients, but most of them aren’t abusive at all. Like any other group subject to hatred, we only ever hear worse-case scenarios.

However, sensitive counseling, where both parties are open, has proven to be effective and helpful in many cases where homosexuals would rather be heterosexual. I personally know of a few people who were once homosexual, wanted to convert of their own free will (were not pressured or coerced), got therapy, and now identify as mainly heterosexual (I've never witnessed a "complete conversion," and I honestly don't think that's possible or healthy) . No one forced, bullied, or abused them. One person who commented on here said it very well: "If you're an adult and for whatever reason you're a homosexual and don't want to be, I hope you can get the help you need. Whether that help is someone helping you realize you're fine the way you are or somehow becoming heterosexual, that's great. Everyone deserves to be happy. But if it's happening because you're a child and your parents are trying to "fix" you and make you heterosexual? No." Here are some stories of happy "ex-gays":

www.wnd.com/2007/07/42473/
www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch12.pd…
www.worldmag.com/2013/08/ex_ga…
www.urbandictionary.com/define…
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/g… 
www.peoplecanchange.com/storie… 
www.wnd.com/2004/05/24738/

However, if you get someone who doesn’t want attention and a person has been hired to “fix” him, chances are it’s not going to be pretty. Situations like that generally involve parents hoping to "fix" their child. That's why it's vitally important for therapists to weed out patients who want  therapy of their own free will from those who are being pressured into it. Those who are being pressured into it should apply for help for their family, not for them. Those situations are the ones that gain public spotlight. Again, we only hear worst-case scenarios. It is intellectually dishonest to publicize only worst-case scenarios as if they are the only scenarios. It's also the Hasty Generalization logical fallacy.

NEWSFLASH: Many U.S. states are making all forms of counseling illegal, thus forcing all homosexuals to be homosexual regardless of their personal wishes. Such action discriminates against homosexuals who would rather be heterosexual and smacks of bigotry towards such people. According to the law, heterosexuals have two choices: they can be heterosexual or they can be homosexual. According to the direction laws are taking, homosexuals will have only one choice: they can be homosexual only. They will not be allowed to try to change, even if they want to. How does that support gay rights?

While we might not believe conversion counseling is a good idea, it's their descision to make. It's their life. They would hurt no one but themselves. We have a responsibility to warn them and a responsibility to make sure it's what THEY want (and not their family or others around them), but in the end, it's their call. We shouldn't have the right to legislate their life choices here any more than the people did who voted against making gay marriage legal.

Many Old Testament laws do not apply to the New Covenant, which is what Christians live under. The Old Testament has very different laws regarding the punishment of homosexuality, but that is the Old Covenant. Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant and now Christians live by the New Covenant. Quoting the Old Testament as homophobic, harsh, etc. only applies to modern Judaism, not Christianity.

There is debate among Christians as to which laws still apply and which don't. Unfortunately, I don't know the answer. However, executing gay people is clearly not something Christians are supposed to do. Jesus made that very clear in John 8:1-11.

Educated Christians can and do accept homosexuals for who they are. "Who" a person is is not defined by their sexuality. If someone's entire identity revolves around how they have sex, they're obsessed, be them heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc. Christians can accept homosexuals who practice homosexuality for who they are even if they don't agree with their lifestyle/actions (whichever word you would rather I use. Disagreeing does not equal hatred.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________






Again, I'm not asking you to suddenly adopt Christians' ideas. I'm not asking you to change your position on the LGBT debate. I just want you to understand what Christians believe. This is what educated Christians believe and I wanted to share it with the world to help prevent future misunderstandings!



__________________________________________________________________________________________________





EDIT: I have been accused by the group Intersectional-911 that this message is hateful and discriminatory towards gay people and that it promotes bullying and abuse. I was even banned from that group because I submitted this and later blocked by its moderator when I tried to explain how this is meant to be an encouragement for gay people (in that not everyone hates them) and that it is also meant to simply explain the beliefs of a religious group.

I'd like everyone to realize what happened in that situation. Intersectional-911's response to this stamp is precisely what I mean when I say "people tend to see hatred where there is none." They have just lived out the reason why I made this stamp.