Category Archives: Text

hate

What’s With All the Gay Hate?

This article addresses the question: “Why do some same-sex marriage (SSM) advocates mention the hateful motivations of their opponents so much?”  Of course there are many who oppose SSM because of their hateful motivations, but this article addresses why some might say that any and all opposition to SSM is motivated by hate.  The focus will also be specifically in regard to Christians who oppose SSM. Christians have opposed all aspects of the sexual revolution to one degree or another: contraception, pre-marital sex, no-fault divorce, abortion, co-habitation, alternative sexual relationships of all stripes. But opposition to SSM has warranted the label of ‘hateful’ no matter how civil one is about it. Why might the advocates of SSM refer to their opponents as hateful so much?

The format lists a reason and why to consider a change of mind.

Argument from Ignorance

There is more than one motivation to oppose the SSM besides hate, such as moral and/or religious convictions. To claim one knows something without facts or evidence is a fallacy called an argument from ignorance.

Consider:

  1. You don’t know if it’s true.
  2. If it’s false it is slanderous.
  3. You don’t want others doing this to you.
The Race Analogy

The thinking of many is that homosexuality is an inborn trait, just like race. Many people are motivated by hate when they discriminate against black people, therefore, peoples motivation must be the same towards gay people.

Consider:
  1. It’s a disanalogy. See here and here.
  2. There are non-hateful reasons to oppose SSM, such as morality.
  3. It’s an argument from ignorance, claiming to know others motives without actual evidence.
Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin

This phrase, a favorite of Christians, is meant to communicate love yet actually communicates hate to gay people. While for most straight people their sexuality is an afterthought, for gays it’s a primary thought – an identity. As one gay person put it, “To say you love me but hate my sin is like saying to a black person you love them but hate their blackness.” There is little to no separation of sin and sinner in this regard in the mind of many gay people.

Consider:

  1. It communicates the opposite of what is intended to gays.
  2. It’s not really effective with anyone.
  3. It’s not from the Bible – there is no imperative to use it.
Hurts Gays

Gays see marriage and the acceptance it brings as having many benefits. If one does not affirm SSM, they must want to deny gays these benefits, and conclude others motivation must be hatred.

Consider:

  1. It’s self-condemning. There are others in America, i.e., incestuous, polygamist, who want the benefits of marriage yet SSM supporters oppose them. This would condemn SSM supporters as hateful.
  2. It assumes what first needs to be proved – that SSM is morally good. If one first determines SSM is immoral, the ‘hurt’ point is mute.  Nobody wants to promote immoral relationships. (Marriage is a promotion of certain sexual relationships).
  3. Morality is a paramount concept. It supersedes other arguments. No matter how well incestuous couples argue for benefits, morality will override them all.
Projection

Psychological projection occurs when people defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.[1]

Consider:

  1. It leads to false views of others.
  2. You don’t want others to do it to you.
  3. The hatred within will harm you more than anyone else.
Bullying

Some SSM supporters will use whatever tactics available to achieve their goals. Calling others names like ‘hater, homophobe, and bigot’ is an effective means in the absence of valid arguments of bullying some people into submission.

Consider:

  1. Bullying is hateful.
  2. In light of the fact that most gay people have been terribly bullied, they and their advocates should not do the same.
  3. By your actions you are teaching others to bully.
Stereotyping

It’s always easier to stereotype someone or a group of people than to actually get to know them and represent them accurately in the face of strong disagreement.

Consider:

  1. Stereotypes are not true of everyone in a given group, therefore they are slanderous.
  2. Gay and lesbian people have been terrible stereotyped. SSM advocates should not do the same to others.
  3. It teaches others to stereotype.
Loaded Language

Loaded language attempts to influence others with manipulative wording instead of a valid arguments. Campaigning politicians are the most prevalent users of this kind of rhetoric, demonizing their opponents instead of providing valid reasons why anyone should vote for them.

Consider:

  1. It’s unkind to hateful, depending on the severity of the language.
  2. It gives the impression, and sometimes the truth, that your position is too weak to argue fairly.
  3. You don’t want others doing it to you.
Superiority

Some SSM advocates use loaded language not only to demonize their opposition but also to portray their superiority. While opponents are portrayed as haters, SSM advocates are portrayed as champions of love and compassion. It is obviously better to be a loving than hateful, therefore SSM advocates can think of themselves as better people.

Consider:

  1. It creates excessive pride.
  2. Reveals a character problem that one would needs to put others down in order to prop themselves up.
  3. You don’t want others doing it to you.
Leadership

SSM activists encourage the thought of any opposition as hateful.

Consider:

  1. This is stereotyping.
  2. This is bullying.
  3. This is arguing from ignorance.
  4. This is using  loaded language.
Conclusion

Many SSM supporters feel that the loving thing for Christians to do is affirm SSM even if it contradicts their beliefs. But this represents a serious lack of understanding of most conservative Christians. There is a saying in out culture: “go to hell.” Now this is not meant for a person to go burn in a literal place but to simply go away. It’s a hateful thing to say. Now for the conservative Christian, asking them to be in favor of SSM in contradiction to their beliefs is like asking them to literally wish gay and lesbian people to go to hell.  That is the most hateful thing imaginable to such a  Christian.

Luke 13:3,5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

1 Corinthians 13:6 Love finds no joy in unrighteousness but rejoices in the truth.

1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)

think

How Shall We Think About LGBT?

Consider two friends, Jen and Amy, catching up in a coffee shop:

Jen: My daughter Jane has a new boyfriend. He’s struggling with AIDS.
Amy: Really? Have you given her any advice about him?
Jen: Yes, I told her to go with her feelings.
Or
Jen: Yes, I talked to her the health risks, her desire for a life-long marriage, and to have kids.

Which advice is more reasonable? Regarding sexual ethics, sound moral decisions are derived from the mind and mistakes are derived from the emotions. In the above example, Jane may feel like being sexual active with her boyfriend, but is it the right thing to do? Feelings should not answer this question – her intellect should.

LGBT supporters often heavily appeal to emotion to persuade people of their position.  But regarding sexual ethics, whether LGBT causes should be accepted or not, should be for intellectually valid reasons, not emotionally invalid ones.

Since birth

Born Gay Makes It OK (Part 2 of 2)

What’s most amazing to me about the ‘born gay’ phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.*

Scientific Evidence

My response to those who claim science confirms inborn sexual orientation is simple: convince the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological Association, and the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrist – all pro-gay organizations. All three have the same statement on their websites: “No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.” The APA states that while there is interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality there are to date no specific supporting replicated scientific studies. So those who insist sexual orientation is inborn can send their evidence to the APA. But even if there is evidence supporting specific biological etiology, it does not mean people are ‘born gay.’ The APA states, “Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime.” So sexual orientation cannot be completely inborn. This should be of no surprise. Every other human behavior develops throughout life – why wouldn’t sexuality as well?

Doesn’t Matter

‘Born gay makes it ok,’ although rarely stated but implied, is a fallacious statement – a non-sequitur. It does not follow that ones biology makes their behavior morally acceptable. Dr. John Corvino is a philosophy professor and also a gay man and activist. He has stated that he doesn’t know if he was born gay and doesn’t care. He uses an analogy of an anger gene. If it were determined he had an anger gene, would it be acceptable for him to beat other people? He concludes no. He concludes that the morality of a behavior is to be determined by its actions, not its biology.

Now what if researchers came out tomorrow and said, “We’ve finally figured it out – sexual orientation develops completely after birth.” Would this mean that homosexuality is morally bad? No, not anymore than it would mean heterosexuality is morally bad. The morality of a behavior is to be determined by its actions, not its source.

Social Utility and Attractive

‘Born gay’ is a useful and attractive argument two major reasons.

First, it lessens the erroneous claim that gay and lesbian people freely choose their sexual attractions. They are not ‘choosing’ their attractions anymore than straight people are. These attractions develop over ones lifetime and are so complex that how they come about is not yet fully understood and may never be. Gay and lesbian people deal with many hardships that straight people never have to even considered. It used to be common for gays to point out that if sexual attractions are freely chosen, then they’d choose to be straight to avoid the difficulties. The ‘born gay’ idea combats the ‘you are freely choosing homosexuality’ idea.

Second, it legitimatizes homosexuality. The analogy is often used to compare sexual orientation with race. If it is wrong to discriminate against someone for their race, the reasoning goes that it must also be wrong to discriminate against someone for their inborn sexuality. Most people cannot see that this is a disanalogy – comparing apples and oranges. The issue of race is non-moral and the issue of sexuality is moral. For example, think of two babies, one black and one white. Which is morally better and which one is morally worse? The question is nonsensical and cannot be answered because color is non-moral. Now think about the two babies as married adults. One is faithful to their spouse and the other cheats at will. Which one is morally better and which is morally worse? Now this question can be answered because there is behavior which can be morally examined. Also, as previously mentioned, the argument is a non-secquitur – a logically fallacy. It does not follow that how one is born makes their behavior either legitimate or illegitimate. Oddly enough ‘born gay’ is rarely used to legitimize other behaviors, but when applied to homosexuality it resonates with a significant number of people. This is another fallacy called special pleading, better know as cherry picking.

While the ‘born this way’ argument is attractive and very effective, it lacks both evidence and logically reasoning. But even though it is broke, it still works and will continue being used until it is thoroughly refuted.

*  Quote by Dr. John D’Emilio, a professor of history and of women’s and gender studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago and former Director of the Policy Institute at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force from 1995 to 1997.