The Core Claim
A post submitted to the r/changemyview community by a self-described Christian presents a position that has proven deeply divisive: that believing homosexuality is morally wrong, when grounded in sincere religious conviction rather than contempt, does not constitute hatred. The original poster describes receiving what they characterize as vicious personal attacks — being compared to Nazis and accused of endorsing conversion therapy — simply for expressing their theological view. They argue these reactions are disproportionate and that the attacks reveal a double standard about what kinds of beliefs are considered socially acceptable.
The poster is careful to distinguish their internal belief from public conduct. They emphasize that their faith tradition, as they interpret it, does not license approaching strangers to condemn them, that all people are equally sinful in their framework, and that they actively oppose government or social discrimination against LGBTQ individuals. Their argument is essentially one of private conscience: a person can believe an act is sinful while still treating others with dignity and opposing institutional harm done to them.
Why Many Commenters Pushed Back
Responses in the thread revealed several distinct objections. One recurring argument is that the impact of a belief cannot be neatly separated from its content. Critics contend that classifying a core aspect of someone's identity — who they are attracted to, who they love — as morally defective is inherently degrading, regardless of how gently that view is held. From this perspective, the belief itself communicates that LGBTQ people are broken or lesser in a way that inevitably causes harm, especially to younger people navigating their identities in religious households or communities.
A second line of pushback challenges the framing of belief as purely private. Commenters noted that religious communities are social institutions, and the views taught within them shape behavior, policy advocacy, and family dynamics. A parent who believes homosexuality is sinful may not picket a Pride parade, but that belief can still influence how they raise their children, whether they support a gay child's relationship, or how they vote. The argument is that labeling a belief as non-hateful based solely on the holder's internal attitude ignores the structural effects of widely shared convictions.
A third objection addresses the asymmetry between belief and identity. Several participants pointed out that religious belief is a chosen and changeable commitment, while sexual orientation is not — at least not according to the overwhelming consensus of psychological and medical science. Calling someone's immutable characteristic sinful, in this view, is categorically different from criticizing a behavior or a doctrine that can be reconsidered.
The Case for the Original Poster's Position
Defenders of the OP's position, or those who at least found the argument worth engaging seriously, raised their own substantive points. A central one is the distinction between a belief and an act of aggression. Liberal democratic societies have long recognized that people hold a wide spectrum of moral and theological views, and that the mere possession of a belief — even one others find offensive — does not rise to the level of hatred unless it motivates or constitutes harmful action. By this standard, equating private religious conviction with hatred conflates thought with conduct in a way that could have troubling implications for freedom of conscience more broadly.
Others pointed to the long tradition of moral disagreement within pluralist societies. Many religious traditions hold views on sexuality, gender roles, diet, interfaith marriage, and dozens of other topics that outsiders find objectionable or even offensive. The argument is that demanding theological conformity as a condition of social acceptance sets a precedent that is difficult to limit consistently. If the standard is that any belief a group finds demeaning is automatically hateful, the category of permissible disagreement shrinks considerably.
Some commenters also acknowledged the OP's explicit position opposing legal discrimination and their stated commitment to treating LGBTQ people as equals in human dignity. They argued this kind of distinction — between theological categorization and civic treatment — is precisely what a pluralist framework requires people of differing faiths and worldviews to maintain.
Where the Lines Get Blurry
Much of the most substantive discussion in the thread centered not on the extreme positions but on the genuinely hard cases. What happens when a sincerely held but non-aggressive belief shapes institutional decisions — a religious school's enrollment policy, a family's response to a child's coming out, a community's approach to pastoral care? At what point does a belief shade into something more harmful through its social context, even if its holder never intends harm? These questions did not receive clean answers, which perhaps explains why the post generated such sustained and heated engagement.
The debate ultimately reflects a broader tension in modern pluralist societies: how to extend genuine respect to both sincere religious conviction and the dignity of people whose identities that conviction scrutinizes. Neither side of this conversation appears close to persuading the other, and the comment count suggests the topic is nowhere near settled.
Source: r/changemyview — CMV: It is not hateful to believe that homosexuality is wrong for religious reasons
Discussion (0)