Jump to content

Menu

Hate


Recommended Posts

It frustrates me to see disagreements recast as "hate." Nobody wants to be accused of "hate," so pretty soon nobody dares to express an opinion.

 

Same comment about __-phobe, war on ___, etc. Can't a person politely express a belief without being turned into a monster?

 

On a related note, do you think Americans are capable of listening nowadays?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what you mean. Sometimes I think it is pointless to even discuss controversial topics because very rarely does anyone ever change their opinion on something.

 

I read a blog post about this that I find interesting: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

 

Heather

(who has opinions on things but doesn't hate anyone)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It frustrates me to see disagreements recast as "hate." Nobody wants to be accused of "hate," so pretty soon nobody dares to express an opinion.

 

Same comment about __-phobe, war on ___, etc. Can't a person politely express a belief without being turned into a monster?

 

Yeah I can see that. I just think there is so much extreme. People like to use words that make an impact. I really try to see from the other person's view and not use harsh words.

 

On a related note, do you think Americans are capable of listening nowadays?

Not all of them for sure

 

eta - That was weird I don't know what happened but my replies are in bold LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It frustrates me to see disagreements recast as "hate." Nobody wants to be accused of "hate," so pretty soon nobody dares to express an opinion.

 

Same comment about __-phobe, war on ___, etc. Can't a person politely express a belief without being turned into a monster?

 

On a related note, do you think Americans are capable of listening nowadays?

 

*shrug* You are connecting dots that don't connect, IMO.

 

I believe it is hate to think a person's *being* (sexual orientation) is wrong or sin. Those effected by the reaction experience it as hate.

 

Politely state any opinion you want. :glare: Expect a reaction or response.

 

And, finally, I don't see too many people afraid to express an opinion on the issue from either side.

 

If by "listen", you mean that I should sit and say nothing when in the presence of opinions that cause pain to the point of addiction and suicide and family estrangement? That's not listening; it is part of the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You won't see or hear them if they are afraid to speak up.

 

OK. That's fine.

 

If I believe that on THIS issue, being against homosexuality is HATE, I am supposed to not say so in order for people to be able to state their opinion to the contrary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by "listen", you mean that I should sit and say nothing when in the presence of opinions that cause pain to the point of addiction and suicide and family estrangement? That's not listening; it is part of the problem.

 

See, you already assumed that my whole point is to wish ill on people. And my point is that I see too much of that around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. That's fine.

 

If I believe that on THIS issue, being against homosexuality is HATE, I am supposed to not say so in order for people to be able to state their opinion to the contrary?

 

Depends on whether you want it to be a one-way or two-way conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, not everyone is saying they are against, just that their faith says it is sin. I am not religious, but I thought there was a lot of people trying to say they love all people and do not judge but cannot ignore their bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, you already assumed that my whole point is to wish ill on people. And my point is that I see too much of that around here.

 

Um, no. I am reporting the truth. That the experience of sexual minorities in response to a culture that holds the opinion of them as "in sin" is painful.

 

I never said you wish ill on people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It frustrates me to see disagreements recast as "hate." Nobody wants to be accused of "hate," so pretty soon nobody dares to express an opinion.

 

Same comment about __-phobe, war on ___, etc. Can't a person politely express a belief without being turned into a monster?

 

On a related note, do you think Americans are capable of listening nowadays?

 

I agree and it wearisome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It frustrates me to see disagreements recast as "hate." Nobody wants to be accused of "hate," so pretty soon nobody dares to express an opinion.

 

Same comment about __-phobe, war on ___, etc. Can't a person politely express a belief without being turned into a monster?

 

On a related note, do you think Americans are capable of listening nowadays?

 

When ones "opinion" deprives others of their basic civil and human rights (assuming this "opinion" prevails as policy) then it is not benign. It is not "polite" to be a bigot. It is not "polite" to deprive people of their rights. These are monsterious acts. Good people will not sit passively by while hateful "opinions" (that actually cause harm to others) are advanced.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why you keep harping on it.

 

Growing up in this culture, I have heard how I was going to burn in hell and suffer eternally because I didn't believe the same way as the speaker. That is worse than anything I've ever said to *anyone*, and yet I am not here complaining about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It frustrates me to see disagreements recast as "hate." Nobody wants to be accused of "hate," so pretty soon nobody dares to express an opinion.

 

Same comment about __-phobe, war on ___, etc. Can't a person politely express a belief without being turned into a monster?

 

On a related note, do you think Americans are capable of listening nowadays?

 

:iagree: Which is why I do not post on those kinds of threads. I know that my beliefs will be turned around to mean "hate." I do not hate anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this mean that you are pro-life? You would not deprive an unborn child of their basic human rights would you? That would be monstrous indeed! Or does being anti-abortion make me the monster?

 

Cindy

 

When ones "opinion" deprives others of their basic civil and human rights (assuming this "opinion" prevails as policy) then it is not benign. It is not "polite" to be a bigot. It is not "polite" to deprive people of their rights. These are monsterious acts. Good people will not sit passively by while hateful "opinions" (that actually cause harm to others) are advanced.

 

Bill

Edited by Cindy in FL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of "hate" to describe a belief that someone is "in sin" - but only if that person is homosexual - makes no sense. Lots of people are believed to be "in sin." First of all, some religions believe that everyone is born in sin and continually guilty of sin until they die. Even Mother Teresa. Then you have the common usage of "living in sin" which includes everyone who has had sex before / outside of marriage. (Which probably isn't a minority, but whatever.) I never hear the term "hate" in that context.

 

I do sometimes feel hated when people get nasty about conservatives / liberals. (Which recent research suggests we can't help - we're born that way.;)) However, I usually don't make the "hate" accusation; certainly not as a knee-jerk reaction.

 

We're smart people here. Most of us try to be somewhat precise with our language. Yet "hate" is guaranteed to come up on any thread remotely related to homosexuality. I don't know anybody who "hates" homosexuals, but if such people exist, let's let them say it for themselves.

 

I think anorexics should try to attain a healthy weight. That may be hurtful for them to hear, but is it "hate"?

 

I think only I have a right to say whether I "hate" someone or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When ones "opinion" deprives others of their basic civil and human rights (assuming this "opinion" prevails as policy) then it is not benign. It is not "polite" to be a bigot. It is not "polite" to deprive people of their rights. These are monsterious acts. Good people will not sit passively by while hateful "opinions" (that actually cause harm to others) are advanced.

 

Bill

 

If it's so painful, then maybe discussions about homosexuality should be banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Pointing out my child's lie/disobedience/laziness, etc. does not in any way mean I hate him. Quite the contrary. Correction is not pleasant at the time, but ultimately is for our good.

 

Cindy

 

The use of "hate" to describe a belief that someone is "in sin" - but only if that person is homosexual - makes no sense. Lots of people are believed to be "in sin." First of all, some religions believe that everyone is born in sin and continually guilty of sin until they die. Even Mother Teresa. Then you have the common usage of "living in sin" which includes everyone who has had sex before / outside of marriage. (Which probably isn't a minority, but whatever.) I never hear the term "hate" in that context.

 

I do sometimes feel hated when people get nasty about conservatives / liberals. (Which recent research suggests we can't help - we're born that way.;)) However, I usually don't make the "hate" accusation; certainly not as a knee-jerk reaction.

 

We're smart people here. Most of us try to be somewhat precise with our language. Yet "hate" is guaranteed to come up on any thread remotely related to homosexuality. I don't know anybody who "hates" homosexuals, but if such people exist, let's let them say it for themselves.

 

I think anorexics should try to attain a healthy weight. That may be hurtful for them to hear, but is it "hate"?

 

I think only I have a right to say whether I "hate" someone or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think only I have a right to say whether I "hate" someone or something.

 

Hatred is "intense animosity or hostility." This is not necessarily something that people will recognize or admit to in themselves, but it can still be seen from the outside. Do you think all racists admit openly, or even to themselves, that they are racist?

 

Additionally, to the OP, there is a difference between disagree about something and ACTING in ways that hurt others, whether emotionally or materially. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions, obviously. And everyone is allowed to express their opinions, though they will have to deal with the results of that from people reacting. But if you are ACTING in a way that hurts other people emotionally or materially, and you are doing so intentionally, then you are being hateful. In the case of homosexual marriage, opposing does hurt others emotionally and materially, and so opposing it politically, for only religious reasons which ought to be personal, is hateful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this mean that you are pro-life? You would not deprive an unborn child of their basic human rights would you? That would be monstrous indeed!

 

I am pro-life, but suspect I have a different definition than you. :)

 

My father, who was born over 100 years ago and was very Victorian in attitude, believed there was a difference between an "unborn child" and an embryo. Although he would have considered the topic of abortion **highly inappropriate** to discuss with me as a child, he did talk about it when I was in my 30s (but possibly only because I was a doctor!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Pointing out my child's lie/disobedience/laziness, etc. does not in any way mean I hate him. Quite the contrary. Correction is not pleasant at the time, but ultimately is for our good.

 

Cindy

 

We have a duty and an obligation to correct our children. We do not have the duty to correct consenting adults that do not share our own worldview

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of "hate" to describe a belief that someone is "in sin" - but only if that person is homosexual - makes no sense. Lots of people are believed to be "in sin." First of all, some religions believe that everyone is born in sin and continually guilty of sin until they die. Even Mother Teresa. Then you have the common usage of "living in sin" which includes everyone who has had sex before / outside of marriage. (Which probably isn't a minority, but whatever.) I never hear the term "hate" in that context.

 

I do sometimes feel hated when people get nasty about conservatives / liberals. (Which recent research suggests we can't help - we're born that way.;)) However, I usually don't make the "hate" accusation; certainly not as a knee-jerk reaction.

 

We're smart people here. Most of us try to be somewhat precise with our language. Yet "hate" is guaranteed to come up on any thread remotely related to homosexuality. I don't know anybody who "hates" homosexuals, but if such people exist, let's let them say it for themselves.

 

I think anorexics should try to attain a healthy weight. That may be hurtful for them to hear, but is it "hate"?

 

I think only I have a right to say whether I "hate" someone or something.

 

Lots of people used to believe white folks marrying black folks was sinful. That white folks should not be adopting dirty black babies into white homes and bring them to white neighborhoods and white schools. Not so long ago either. Heck, I bet many still feel that way.

 

People couched racism in "polite" terms most of the time. That did not make it less hateful than the actions those who were less genteel. There are was to get across racism without dropping f-bombs. Know what I mean?

 

These days it is still OK is some quarters to be an open bigot when it comes to gays. To most of us this is as unacceptable as being a racist. But this battle ain't won (yet). When the bigots come out they should not be surprised when they encounter push-back.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a close family member who is gay and they have never called me a bigot or accused me of hatred for my own beliefs. I have only heard those words from someone who does not live that lifestyle. I don't go around sharing my beliefs with others because they are my beliefs. I will be honest if asked though. I don't have all the answers. I try to live my life as I feel I should and I try to love others. I can love others while not completely agreeing with everything they do, just as I hope others can love me while not always agreeing with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not differentiate between the two. Thanks for sharing about your father. It's fun to get little glimpses into people's history!

 

Cindy

 

I am pro-life, but suspect I have a different definition than you. :)

 

My father, who was born over 100 years ago and was very Victorian in attitude, believed there was a difference between an "unborn child" and an embryo. Although he would have considered the topic of abortion **highly inappropriate** to discuss with me as a child, he did talk about it when I was in my 30s (but possibly only because I was a doctor!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess everyone who supports higher taxes for only some people are also hateful, by some definitions.

 

Do you have an objective, socially-helpful purpose for supporting higher taxes? If the results of higher taxes could be felt by everyone, how would they then be emotionally and materially harmful? You cannot, however, make this argument regarding opposition to gay marriage, because that opposition does not come from a desire to make the world/country a better place, it comes from the desire to control, to tell other people they have to live their lives by someone else's values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heck, I bet many still feel that way.

 

You bet. Someone hubby grew up with, someone with a college education, recently said that bi-racial children have more birth defects/retardation because "God condemns miscegenation". She most certainly would not think of herself as a "hater", and labors at her church's charities. But I nearly choked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It frustrates me to see disagreements recast as "hate."

 

Yep. Gets really old. The intention in casting this aspersion is to shut down those who disagree with whatever position you hold, to suggest that they are less rational and blinded by passion, when that is not the case at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of people used to believe white folks marrying black folks was sinful. That white folks should not be adopting dirty black babies into white homes and bring them to white neighborhoods and white schools. Not so long ago either. Heck, I bet many still feel that way.

 

People couched racism in "polite" terms most of the time. That did not make it less hateful than the actions those who were less genteel. There are was to get across racism without dropping f-bombs. Know what I mean?

 

These days it is still OK is some quarters to be an open bigot when it comes to gays. To most of us this is as unacceptable as being a racist. But this battle ain't won (yet). When the bigots come out they should not be surprised when they encounter push-back.

 

Bill

 

I am a white mother of two adopted black daughters, and have a gay sister who I love dearly and am close to. I am not a bigot, and once more, I do not hate anyone. According to my beliefs, homosexuality is a sin, but not a greater one than my own. You can hold to a belief without hating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a duty and an obligation to correct our children. We do not have the duty to correct consenting adults that do not share our own worldview

 

 

But most of us aren't out there correcting consenting adults. We just don't share their worldview. And it seems in some of these conversations that even that's considered hateful.

 

< Checking self >

 

Nope, not hating. Just not agreeing. And happy to not stick my nose in other people's choices. I have enough on my own plate to be concerned with.

Edited by milovaný
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But most of us aren't out there correcting consenting adults. We just don't share their worldview. And it seems in some of these conversations that even that's considered hateful.

 

<Checking self.> Nope, not hating. Just not agreeing.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hatred is "intense animosity or hostility." This is not necessarily something that people will recognize or admit to in themselves, but it can still be seen from the outside. Do you think all racists admit openly, or even to themselves, that they are racist?

 

Additionally, to the OP, there is a difference between disagree about something and ACTING in ways that hurt others, whether emotionally or materially. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions, obviously. And everyone is allowed to express their opinions, though they will have to deal with the results of that from people reacting. But if you are ACTING in a way that hurts other people emotionally or materially, and you are doing so intentionally, then you are being hateful. In the case of homosexual marriage, opposing does hurt others emotionally and materially, and so opposing it politically, for only religious reasons which ought to be personal, is hateful.

 

 

No, I don't think they do. But even as a person of color, I don't assume all those people hate me. I assume they have an opinion that I don't care for and that is different from my own. I only believe a racist to *hate* me if they spew venomous speech to me or threaten me in some way. There IS a difference.

 

I am a white mother of two adopted black daughters, and have a gay sister who I love dearly and am close to. I am not a bigot, and once more, I do not hate anyone. According to my beliefs, homosexuality is a sin, but not a greater one than my own. You can hold to a belief without hating.

 

:iagree:I have a family member that was born a woman, had surgery to become a man and is now living married to a woman. I love them, they are family, but I absolutely do not agree with their lifestyle and they know it. They do not believe I hate them. I have gay friends. One slept on our couch for some time when his partner threw him out. He also knows our stance, but does not think we hate him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't think they do. But even as a person of color, I don't assume all those people hate me. I assume they have an opinion that I don't care for and that is different from my own. I only believe a racist to *hate* me if they spew venomous speech to me or threaten me in some way. There IS a difference.

 

I think you underestimate people who are racist if you think they don't threaten you in any way.

 

And giving money or voting against the rights of homosexual people to marry IS threatening them. It is threatening their rights, their stability, their money.

 

Holding a personal opinion, and making meaningful economic or political action in support of that opinion, are two different things that many people are conflating when they should not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But most of us aren't out there correcting consenting adults. We just don't share their worldview. And it seems in some of these conversations that even that's considered hateful.

 

< Checking self >

 

Nope, not hating. Just not agreeing. And happy to not stick my nose in other people's choices. I have enough on my own plate to be concerned with.

 

And I have no problem with that at all. The problem I do have is that some families do not enjoy the same rights as my family. I'm glad we're a country with diversity of religion. But I don't think any particular world view should be legislated. If you would be ok with legal civil unions and letting churches take care of weddings as they see fit, we see eye to eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you would be ok with legal civil unions and letting churches take care of weddings as they see fit, we see eye to eye.

 

As long as this means no church would ever be forced to perform homosexual marriages in order to keep their 501-3c designation, and churches can be free to not agree that homosexual unions are moral without being labeled "hateful," then I can agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of people used to believe white folks marrying black folks was sinful. That white folks should not be adopting dirty black babies into white homes and bring them to white neighborhoods and white schools. Not so long ago either. Heck, I bet many still feel that way.

 

People couched racism in "polite" terms most of the time. That did not make it less hateful than the actions those who were less genteel. There are was to get across racism without dropping f-bombs. Know what I mean?

 

These days it is still OK is some quarters to be an open bigot when it comes to gays. To most of us this is as unacceptable as being a racist. But this battle ain't won (yet). When the bigots come out they should not be surprised when they encounter push-back.

 

Bill

 

Apples and oranges.

 

You would not be here if tens of thousands of years had not brought a man and woman together. It's natural law, and every time a child is birthed with an egg and a sperm, it's proven again. It doesn't matter if the egg is Chinese and the sperm is Aboriginal. THAT'S why racism is wrong, it denies that every woman is a woman, and every man is a man.

 

No matter what you do, no matter how hard you want it, two sperm/egg will never a baby make. They can adopt, they can do in vitro, but they'll never be able to create a child through a natural act of their own. That's not racist to point out, it's basic biology. I think it's more demeaning to ignore it. It's almost patronizing "well wish real hard and maybe it will come true!"

 

It's not 'racist' to allow that a natural law that has stood for tens of thousands of years be acknowledged and held up in a nation. We are trying to rewrite nature itself by changing the law, and how foolhardy is that? No matter how hard we try, we're just not that powerful. You can override it, but you'll never change it.

 

And though minorities should be accommodated in all ways possible because we are all human and have rights, we cannot rewrite a majority's rights to do so.

Edited by justamouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as this means no church would ever be forced to perform homosexual marriages in order to keep their 501-3c designation, and churches can be free to not agree that homosexual unions are moral without being labeled "hateful," then I can agree.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as this means no church would ever be forced to perform homosexual marriages in order to keep their 501-3c designation, and churches can be free to not agree that homosexual unions are moral without being labeled "hateful," then I can agree.

 

:party:

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of "hate" to describe a belief that someone is "in sin" - but only if that person is homosexual - makes no sense. Lots of people are believed to be "in sin." First of all, some religions believe that everyone is born in sin and continually guilty of sin until they die. Even Mother Teresa. Then you have the common usage of "living in sin" which includes everyone who has had sex before / outside of marriage. (Which probably isn't a minority, but whatever.) I never hear the term "hate" in that context.

 

I do sometimes feel hated when people get nasty about conservatives / liberals. (Which recent research suggests we can't help - we're born that way.;)) However, I usually don't make the "hate" accusation; certainly not as a knee-jerk reaction.

 

We're smart people here. Most of us try to be somewhat precise with our language. Yet "hate" is guaranteed to come up on any thread remotely related to homosexuality. I don't know anybody who "hates" homosexuals, but if such people exist, let's let them say it for themselves.

 

I think anorexics should try to attain a healthy weight. That may be hurtful for them to hear, but is it "hate"?

 

I think only I have a right to say whether I "hate" someone or something.

:thumbup:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apples and oranges.

 

You would not be here if tens of thousands of years had not brought a man and woman together. It's natural law, and every time a child is birthed with an egg and a sperm, it's proven again. It doesn't matter if the egg is Chinese and the sperm is Aboriginal. THAT'S why racism is wrong, it denies that every woman is a woman, and every man is a man.

 

No matter what you do, no matter how hard you want it, two sperm/egg will never a baby make. They can adopt, they can do in vitro, but they'll never be able to create a child through a natural act of their own. That's not racist to point out, it's basic biology. I think it's more demeaning to ignore it. It's almost patronizing "well wish real hard and maybe it will come true!"

 

It's not 'racist' to allow that a natural law that has stood for tens of thousands of years be acknowledged and held up in a nation. We are trying to rewrite nature itself by changing the law, and how foolhardy is that? No matter how hard we try, we're just not that powerful. You can override it, but you'll never change it.

 

And though minorities should be accommodated in all ways possible because we are all human and have rights, we cannot rewrite a majority's rights to do so.

 

So only people that are fertile and and intend to have children are to be accorded their full human rights? For real???

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If by "listen", you mean that I should sit and say nothing when in the presence of opinions that cause pain to the point of addiction and suicide and family estrangement? That's not listening; it is part of the problem.

 

 

:iagree: but, I've never been one to just nod politely and smile insipidly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some religions really do teach hate.

 

 

Yes, they do. Read the news on any given day and that's obvious. Heck, read this board on any given day and it's obvious!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So only people that are fertile and and intend to have children are to be accorded their full human rights? For real???

 

Bill

 

I think that's what some are saying, yes.

 

But agreeng with your statement, Bill. I consider it hate speech as well.

Edited by LibraryLover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...