Thinking Christian

… why is it called “hate” to disagree with same-sex “marriage”? Why is it not called hate to stage protests against those who disagree with same-sex “marriage”?

Tweet This Post

12 Comments

1. Jordan says:

   January 19, 2009 at 7:00 pm

   There’s good hate and there’s bad hate. Bad hate: Attending a KKK rally. Good hate: Protesting against said rally. See the difference?
2. Tom Gilson says:

   January 19, 2009 at 7:15 pm

   I see the difference. I don’t see the application here.
3. Jordan says:

   January 19, 2009 at 7:27 pm

   Well, to elaborate, when people talk about “hate”, they are usually referring to bad hate — i.e., the kind of hate that underlies things like racism, sexism, and anti-homosexuality.
4. Doug Peters says:

   January 19, 2009 at 7:30 pm

   There is no good hate, Jordan. I think you meant to say that there is “politically correct” hate, and there is “politically incorrect” hate.

   The difficulty is when the political leaning becomes the determiner for the label. As if!
5. Jordan says:

   January 19, 2009 at 7:47 pm

   Doug,

   Isn’t it good, in a sense, to hate racists (for example)? I mean, doesn’t that spur us on to fight against racism?
6. Tom Gilson says:

   January 19, 2009 at 8:04 pm

   I won’t speak for Doug, but I would definitely disagree. To hate racists is to hate persons. To hate racism is a different matter. The highest ethic, the one articulated by Jesus (who demonstrated it superbly) is to love one’s enemies.
7. Kendalf says:

   January 19, 2009 at 8:25 pm

   I agree with Doug’s observation about what is PC being the determiner for what constitutes “hate.” Would those who label people who disagree with same-sex marriages as “haters” apply the same label to those (perhaps including themselves) who disagree with polygamous or adulterous marriages?
8. Paul says:

   January 19, 2009 at 9:03 pm

   Tom, your distinction about hating the idea/behavior, and not the person, is excellent. But there is still a further issue.

   When Christians condemn homosexuality, even when acknowledging Tom’s distinction, it’s understandable that homosexuals take that as a personal attack, even though the criticism is specifically not personal. This is because one’s sexuality is a fundamental component of one’s personal identity. If you put the shoe on the other foot, you should see that condemnation of one’s sexuality, even when not condemning the person per se, is a severe and a personal criticism. Now, of course, one may condemn homosexuality based on one’s understanding of Christianity. Let’s take that as a given. But the effect of that is no less severe and personal. Imagine how you would feel if you were told by the dominant group in your society that your sexual orientation was evil.
9. Holopupenko says:

   January 19, 2009 at 9:40 pm

   Paul is, again, both sloppy and question-begging by asserting (without demonstration) that “one’s sexuality is a fundamental component of one’s personal identity.” If what he means by “sexuality” is one’s gender, then of course one’s gender is part of one’s nature. But homosexuality is disordered precisely because a homosexual’s nature is disordered. All our natures become disordered with sin, but homosexuality is far more complex because certain influences in one’s development can certainly incline one toward the act. But if that’s the case, then inclination is not a part of nature. If one says that homosexuality is “natural” because it is observed in the brute animals, then not only is that equivocation between rational and brute animals, but also conveniently forgets that many things arise “naturally” in us at significantly higher rates than homosexuality, but we certainly don’t tolerate them. The inclination to become an alcoholic or the natural occurrence of certain genetic diseases comes to mind. The latter is particularly damning to the reductionist’s argument: if we are reducible to complex bags of material, then there is no good argument to excise naturally-occurring genetic diseases. In fact, Darwinism (as opposed to Darwin’s theory) demands that genetic diseases “run their course.”

   Tom said, “to hate racists is to hate persons.” Correct and I agree. But, it presupposes secularists understand precisely what a person is (an individual substance of a rational nature) [which then presupposes they understand what substance means] and why it is objectively and fundamental wrong to hate persons even apart from Christ’s admonition. Moral philosophy can explain why it is wrong to hate others, Christ seals it by brinding it home and tying it to our relationship with God.
10. SteveK says:

    January 19, 2009 at 10:24 pm

    Great clarification, Holo.
11. SteveK says:

    January 19, 2009 at 10:42 pm

    I think this fits considering all the points made thus far and the fact that today is MLK Day…..

    One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all”

    Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

    (excerpted from King’s Letter from the Birmingham Jail, 1963)

    HT
12. Doug Peters says:

    January 20, 2009 at 8:53 am

    @Jordan

    Typically, folks who “hate racists” are very selective about which racists they hate. Being able to see good in people is a hallmark of one’s own goodness.

    I know plenty of conservative Christian folk who support traditional definitions of marriage, but are generous and kind to gays (i.e., do not brand the individuals as evil). And I expect that there are plenty of gay folk who support a redefinition of marriage, but who are respectful and understanding to traditionalists (i.e., do not brand the individuals as haters). These are the people I’m willing to listen to.