Is religion harmful?

In addition, the Church will no longer characterize same-gender marriage by a Church member as “apostasy” for purposes of Church discipline, although it is still considered “a serious transgression.” [8]

While Church leaders still consider a same-gender marriage by a member to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead the “immoral conduct in heterosexual and homosexual relationship will be treated in the same way,” he said. [8] 

“Well I’m one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and we believe the bible teaches sex is for a man and a woman who are married,” Sally says.[9]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, a text which contains dogmas and teachings of the Church, names “homosexual acts” as “intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law,” and names “homosexual tendencies” as “objectively disordered.” [10]

 It adds that, “the Orthodox Church believes that homosexual behavior is a sin.”  [11]

While transgender issues do not yet have formal treatment by a council of bishops, gender reassignment is condemned as an affront to God's design for each individual. [11]

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not perform or recognize same-sex marriages. According to a statement by the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops, "The Orthodox Church cannot and will not bless same-sex unions. Whereas marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred institution ordained by God, homosexual union is not." The Orthodox Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality is "firmly grounded in Holy Scripture, 2000 years of church tradition, and canon law, holds that marriage consists in the conjugal union of a man and a woman." It adds that, “marriage is necessarily monogamous and heterosexual." [11]

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not ordain openly LGBTQ people [11]

Article 2.

 

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. [12]

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. [12]

Due to these factors, LGBT persons who mature in a religious community context report experiencing increased discrimination and internalized homophobia (i.e., negative attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and stereotypes about LGBT people that is directed inward by someone with same-sex attraction or feelings of discontent with one’s biological gender [13]

Internalized homophobia was found to be associated with two of the suicide outcome variables. A higher rate of internalized homophobia was associated with a higher odds of reporting suicidal thoughts in the last month (OR=1.193, 95%CI=1.114–1.278) and reporting chronic suicidal thoughts over fleeting thoughts (OR=1.271, 95%CI=1.093–1.479). Internalized homophobia was not found to be significantly associated with suicide attempt in the last year. [13]

1. Hating LGBTQ+ is bad;
   
2. Religion, in general, hates LGBTQ+;
   
3. Thus, religion is bad.
   

1. The boundaries of a defined "harmful" thing
   
2. Religions help more than it harms
   
3. Religion, thus, is not harmful.
   

• Harmfulness is defined by relativity, and if I prove that religion has done more help that would surpass its "hate for LGBTQ+", then Con wins. If they balance out, then at least it is not harmful, meaning that Con still wins.
  

• Religion benefits at least 80% of the people and at most harms 6% of the people, according to this stage of the debate;
  
• Pro never specified the time is now, so I can include the past as my side's examples;
  
• I have disproven pro and proven mine. Vote Con.
  

• Definitions and Contentions within them
  
• The LGBTQ Case-Rebuttals and Extensions
  
• Fulfilling proposed BoP
  
• Rebuttals for Constructive
  
• Constructive
  

Conclusion(s)

• Harmfulness is defined by relativity, and if I prove that religion has done more help that would surpass its "hate for LGBTQ+", then Con wins. If they balance out, then at least it is not harmful, meaning that Con still wins.
  

I have already disproven pro that he did not fulfill his BoP, but I would look like a reproductive organ for taking advantage of this. As a result, I will write actual fillers that seem as if Con bears the BoP and he needs to justify it, even if in real life there is none.

 Pro's resolution would signify that he needs to prove all the time humans have religions, not just impact now. 

Until the 20th century, Homosexuality is basically a mental disorder and it is considered bad[2]. Obviously, we think otherwise in the year 2020, but the worldview, from the overall society and the scriptures within the holy books of all different religions, are basically consistent, excluding those who discriminate not against LGBTQ+, which are even better and are ahead of its time.

Orthodox Judiasm views homosexual acts as sinful.  [1]

 Most Christian denominations welcome people attracted to the same sex, but teach that homosexual acts are sinful.[18][19] These denominations include the Roman Catholic Church,[20] the Eastern Orthodox church,[21] the Oriental Orthodox churches,[22] Confessional Lutheran denominations such as the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod[23][24] and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod,[25][26] the United Methodist Church,[18][27][28][29] and some other mainline denominations, such as the Reformed Church in America[30] and the American Baptist Church,[31] as well as Conservative Evangelical organizations and churches, such as the Evangelical Alliance,[32] and fundamentalist groups and churches, such as the Southern Baptist Convention.[33][34][35] Pentecostal churches such as the Assemblies of God,[36] as well as Restorationist churches, like Jehovah's Witnesses and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also take the position that homosexual sexual activity is sinful.[37][38] [1]

The Catholic Church teaches that those who are attracted to persons of the same sex are called to practice chastity,[66] just like everyone else has to before they get married.[67] The Catholic Church does not regard homosexual activity as an expression of the marital sacrament, which it teaches is only possible within a lifelong commitment of a marriage between a man and a woman. According to the Church's sexual ethics, homosexual activity falls short in the complementarity (male and female organs complement each other) and fecundity (openness to new life) of the sexual act.

The views of the Catholic Church, which discourages individuals from acting on sexual desires that they believe to be sinful, and harmful to themselves and others, both physically[68] and mentally. As yet there is no evidence the church is willing to bend on this issue; until then the evidence cited here demonstrates the Catholic Church is unaccepting of homosexual behavior, regardless of what pew studies of parishioners individual views may suggest.[69]

The teachings of the Catholic Church on same-sex attraction are summarized in the Catechism: [1]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that no one should arouse sexual feelings outside of marriage, including those towards members of the same sex.[71] The LDS church recognizes that feelings of same-sex attraction may not change or be overcome in this earth life, and expect all un-married members, gay or straight, to abstain from any and all sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage.[72] [1]

All major Islamic schools disapprove of homosexuality.[79] Islam views same-sex desires as an unnatural temptation, and sexual relations are seen as a transgression of the natural role and aim of sexual activity.[80] Islamic teachings (in the hadith tradition) presume same-sex attraction, extol abstention and (in the Qur'an) condemn consummation.

Among the religions that originated in ancient and medieval India, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, teachings regarding homosexuality are less clear than among the Abrahamic traditions, and religious authorities voice diverse opinions. In 2005, an authority figure of Sikhism condemned same-sex marriage and the practice of homosexuality. However, many people in Sikhism do not oppose gay marriage.[86] Hinduism is diverse, with no supreme governing body, but the majority of swamis opposed same-sex relationships in a 2004 survey, and a minority supported them.[87] Ancient religious texts such as the Vedas often refer to people of a third gender known as hijra, who are neither female nor male. Some see this third gender as an ancient parallel to modern western lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex identities. [1]

Religious people are often more healthy and better mentally. It generally has more benefits[11]. Religion benefits over 80% of people and harms only 4.4% at most, according to at least this stage of the debate.

According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 123, or 6.98%, had religion as their primary cause.[1] Matthew White's The Great Big Book of Horrible Things gives religion as the cause of 11 of the world's 100 deadliest atrocities.[2][3] [2]

Conclusion(s)

• Religion benefits at least 80% of the people and at most harms 6% of the people, according to this stage of the debate;
  
• Pro never specified the time is now, so I can include the past as my side's examples;
  
• I have disproven pro and proven mine. Vote Con.
  

We should have learned this already from the terrible child abuse crisis, where clergy harmed children, and then the children’s abuse was hidden and denied by people running the churches. Despite this terrible history, the harm continues. [7]

Religiously-based psychological abuse of children can involve using teachings to subjugate children through fear, or indoctrinating the child in the beliefs of their particular religion whilst suppressing other perspectives. Psychologist Jill Mytton describes this as crushing the child's chance to form a personal morality and belief system; it makes them utterly reliant on their religion and/or parents, and they never learn to reflect critically on information they receive. Similarly, the use of fear and a judgmental environment (such as the concept of Hell) to control the child can be traumatic.[4] [8]

This harm is apparent in the recent decisions by some churches to hold services even after a state has said it is dangerous for anyone to meet in person. The states passed stay-at-home or shelter-in-place orders to keep people safe. Nonetheless, some pastors argue that church is the place where people heal. Others insist that the meeting bans are an attack on religious freedom, and that such meetings are absolutely protected by the First Amendment. “[O]ne of the church congregants said she believed she would not contract coronavirus because she is ‘covered in Jesus’ blood,’ and that she is not concerned she could spread it to anyone else.” Another pastor said “God will shield us from all harm and sickness, . . . We are not afraid. We are called by God to stand against the Antichrist creeping into America’s borders. We will spread the Gospel.” [7]

This, however, was no municipality-versus-state power struggle. A concerted effort to protect religious freedoms is playing out across the country in the face of the coronavirus pandemic, frustrating efforts by public health officials to enforce social distancing per federal guidelines and slow the spread of the deadly virus. [9]

According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 123, or 6.98%, had religion as their primary cause.[1] Matthew White's The Great Big Book of Horrible Things gives religion as the cause of 11 of the world's 100 deadliest atrocities.[2][3] [2]

Adding all of the deaths from every war and taking the necessary percentage, I calculated 42 million deaths caused by religious wars [3], considering the average household is 3 people [4] (probably more considering the amount of kids people had back then, but this is a low-end calculation), that is at least 126 million people harmed by religion. It's also commonly known that people have friends or other people that care about them outside of their family, due to the wide ranges of history, let's only add 3 per initial person, or an additional 126 million. That is one friend per family, who would also be harmed. 

A total of 452 million people harmed by religion, due to the death of someone caused by a religious war. 

{This also kind of establishes a case for harm by religion)

To actually rebut their actual point, the study they use it incredibly vague. Not to mention the benefits it specifically attributes to religion could easily be attributed to community [5] Not only that, but half of its claims aren't even from a vague source, only one of its claims are even attempted to be sources.

1. Individuals being "unaccepted" means they can't be harmed? 
   
2. The Bible's Perception & Fallacies
3. Wars (Re: Counter Rebuttal)
   

Pro has specified clearly that he proves religions of all times. 

 religious hating of Homosexuality is still of no harm, considering they are no different than sinners.

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God [3]

This creates nothing bad as only if the net harm of the religion compared to the average of the society surpasses its net good, it is then considered harmful

 Killing people that are thought to be just to be killed would be of no harm considering that their opinions on a topic are the same as the rest of the society, which is no net harm.

This is on top of that the bible does not even mention that the homosexual relationship forbidden are relationships of love and nurture, but those of lust and adultery[1]. Of all the bible verses mentioned, none contained the word "Homosexuality" in the original text as the term is coined after the bible was written. In other words: God does not forbid loving and nurturing relationships between men, but that of immoral sex

So we have most of the population having a religion where the hatred of LGBTQ people are only of misinterpretation and mistranslation, and that most Christians are accepting of them, it means that most people in the world accept them

 If you are gonna use only the rest to represent the religious group, then it is the same as representing the entire socialist group with Troskyists[5], which is definitely not true, and it is a fallacy by composition[6]: Using the part to represent the whole, especially when the part is less than half. The part that hates homosexuality and etc is no longer representative of the whole group of religious individuals.

Religious wars are against the teachings of most religions, and thus attributing conflicts in the name of God should not be counted as religions being harmful. 

. The foundation of a city is bad vs the citizens being bad are two different things. Me ironically killing someone in the name of the most peaceful lord of religion should not be attributed under religion[7].

Pro also mentioned global pandemics and people not wearing masks.

Obviously, the people going to church with no proper precautions is not of the teachings of the bible[8], and attributing it to the religious would also be incorrect. Bad apples =/= Bad system, and the fact the police killed black people doesn't mean the police's purpose is to murder black innocent people. Yes.

Saying, “If you will diligently listen to the voice of the Lord your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, your healer.” 

You shall serve the Lord your God, and he will bless your bread and your water, and I will take sickness away from among you. 

Who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, [3]

 Many Catholic head figures, including Pope Leo XIII praised Columbus for bringing the truth to the Natives. Although the spread of religion can be seen as a good thing, his actions were harmful towards the Indigenous people. [10]

“The majority of the kids I went to school with are dead,” says Manny Jules, “because of the experience they had, the abuse.” [12]

p1: Sinners cannot be harmed by religion

p2: Homosexuals are considered sinners

CON: Therefore Homosexuals cannot be harmed by religion

• If we go with the scripture, the Bible never hated loving relationships between two men, etc.
  
• If we go with the population, then most Christians are accepting of LGBTQ, etc.
  

According to my previous definition of harm: "Harm - "physical or mental damage: INJURY" Which you dropped in your rebuttals, therefore accepting it, is clearly demonstrative. Knock your hand against a rough door, scrap your knee, the millions cases of depression, all of these are demonstrations of harm [4] Just from this we can clearly see that one of the category ANY can be harmed, therefore debunking CON's claim. 

You have not proved this, you actually dropped it, and whenever we discussed it we were clearly talking of the net harm of RELIGION specifically not compared to society. This is blatant shifting of the goal post. 

“I never stated that sinners cannot be harmed by religion. However, religion had never stated the organized hatred of someone, at least nothing Pro has brought up.  We know that religion hates people who do harm to others, such as thieves and murderers, but it is also stated that the "LGBTQ+" people that Christianity had hated are lust-and-violence relationships, which is the equivalent of two heterosexual persons having a non-loving one-night-stand. “

“Plus, upon one of my sources, 70% of the Catholics are accepting of LGBTQ+. The worldwide average of accepting homosexuality for Christians has rung up to 54%, so these can be concluded:”

• “If we go with the scripture, the Bible never hated loving relationships between two men, etc.
  
• If we go with the population, then most Christians are accepting of LGBTQ, etc.”
  

“ If the world savior accidentally ran a red light 50 years ago, then it would be categorized as "harmful" under my opponent's present definition, which is not true.”

“ I could just say a serial killer is good because he threw one single dollar to a homeless man in 3rd grade”

“..those who say they pray daily and attend religious services at least once a week” [4]

“... highly religious people are about as likely as other Americans to say they lost their temper recently”

Well, maybe those cannot directly counter that religion has caused wars waged against millions of people, but so did China. Mao has killed millions within the revolution, but look at what China is now![4] I may not lay a finger on negating the bad things religion has done in the past, but the fact religious people have an overall healthier lifestyle is already proof why religion is good.”