I've recently been browsing three sites on this network dedicated to major religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And I found it jarring to see answers like the below, some of which are highly upvoted:
Grouping in homosexuality/bisexuality with pedophilia, claiming they're "fetishes" [+42]
Generally anti-transition: Islam SE [+1], Christianity SE [+15]
Claiming that a transgender person is "a man that want [sic] to be confused with a women [sic]" [+2]
Recommending sexual orientation conversion therapy [-1]
Comparing homosexuality to necrophilia, claiming it would be "plain hypocrisy" to allow the former but not the latter [-1]
Recommending a user goes to a gay wedding to protest (non-aggressively) and bring up HIV [+2]
Claiming that it's "rational wisdom" that same-sex relations are "immoral" [+4]
Giving "logical reasons" why homosexuality is bad, such as "It's just abnormal" [-1]
Claiming lesbians and gays "and those other things" are against the laws of nature [+1]
Claiming that homosexuality "leads to death", "is contagious" and "needs a community in which to destroy life" [-2] (edit: now deleted, archive link)
I believe that, on certain sites, it is important to allow discussion of potentially offensive/alienating content related to religious stances or old literature, but not to state the content as fact, endorse it, or go off on personal rants. E.G:
"It's just logic that homosexuality is immoral. Homosexuals should try conversion therapy"
"Saint So-and-So considered homosexuality "immoral" and recommended conversion therapy"
"Saint So-and-So considered homosexuality "immoral" and recommended conversion therapy which was common at the time, but modern medical institutions widely consider conversion therapy practices ineffective and potentially harmful"
I believe these answers violate the code of conduct. I tried to resolve this through the individual sites by suggesting edits that removed this content from the answers, but didn't get too far so I'm bringing up here to discuss the topic and hopefully prod some change into action on enforcement policy.
Addendum: what I've done since starting this discussion
Following the initial response here, I have contacted SE, flagged the content (once I got enough reputation), discussed it in chats, suggested deletion of the content, and made this meta post. I'm now aware that using the edit-suggest feature to suggest post deletion is not how the site intends it to be used (I could have instead gained enough reputation on those subsites to vote-delete), but I'd prefer the discussion stayed on topic rather than just on my actions/missteps.