Gay Patriot Header Image

On calling disagreement hatred

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:47 pm - April 4, 2011.
Filed under: Identity Politics,Liberal Intolerance

On Friday, a friend posted an icon on Facebook asking, “I was born gay, were you born hateful?”

What struck me was the assumption inherent in this question — and how it parallels the attitude of many in the gay community to those offering views at odds with their own.  Advocates of California’s Proposition 8, they claimed, did not favor traditional marriage because they saw the institution as defining a union between individuals of different sexes, but because they hated (or, h8ed) gay people.

Disagreement, one of her friends wrote, “does not equate to hate in any of the studies that I have looked at lately.”  Liking his comment, I told my friend, a wise a kind lesbian that I agreed with this friend of hers:

Having spent a good part of my adulthood as an openly gay men among conservatives and Republicans, I have found much disagreement on gay issues and even some (oftentimes crazy) criticism of what some deem the “homosexual lifestyle,” but very little actual hatred. I’ve found more hatred, far more hateful attitudes, among left-of-center associates, including, indeed, especially among gay and lesbian left-wingers.

I wonder (and not for the first time) why those who use such venom in their criticism of conservatives and Christians, must themselves label their critics as haters and their arguments as hateful.

UPDATE:  As the friend who posted the icon has since commented, I wanted to make clear that in the first ¶, it is the icon which asks.   Here’s a screenshot of that icon:   

Share

32 Comments

  1. Wait… You call that person a “friend”? I think you should put quotes around that word.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — April 4, 2011 @ 4:58 pm - April 4, 2011

  2. Sonic, while occasionally wrong-headed, she is definitely a friend. No quotes needed. :-)

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 4, 2011 @ 5:00 pm - April 4, 2011

  3. Projection?

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — April 4, 2011 @ 5:15 pm - April 4, 2011

  4. Same old, same old. Dismissing all alternative points of view as “hate” relieves the leftist of the responsibility for defending her own positions.

    Funny story: A recent acquaintance said over pizza that he “hated” Sarah Palin. I challenged him, saying even though there were politicians I strongly disagreed with, I couldn’t hate anyone who didn’t harm me personally and specifically. He called me a hippie.

    Comment by V the K — April 4, 2011 @ 8:02 pm - April 4, 2011

  5. Piffle. I am the friend in question, no quote marks ever needed, and I said no such thing. Yes, we all know that some folks opposed to marriage equality do hate us; the icon expresses that. It does not, IMO, cast all opponents of marriage equality in the same light. YMMV, and apparently does. BTW, V the K, I have never had difficulty defending my positions. Dan can attest to that. Plese get a grip on your generalizations.

    Comment by Catherine Nelson — April 4, 2011 @ 8:42 pm - April 4, 2011

  6. It does not, IMO, cast all opponents of marriage equality in the same light.

    How? If it doesn’t specify whom the message addresses, specifically, then how does one conclude that it doesn’t cast all opponents in the same light?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 4, 2011 @ 10:29 pm - April 4, 2011

  7. I’m starting a tote-board for every time you post about the persecution of the poor, misunderstood gay Republican. It will be a collection of tiny violins. There’s already a first and second violin section so I’ll be starting with a viola section next.

    Wah-wah.

    Comment by Countervail — April 4, 2011 @ 10:46 pm - April 4, 2011

  8. Oh, I’m sorry. I forgot that folks that vote the right way, but are opposed to gay marriage, aren’t considered haters. They’re considered champions of “gay rights”, for some reason.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 4, 2011 @ 10:47 pm - April 4, 2011

  9. #7
    Classic Counterfail assholishness.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 4, 2011 @ 10:49 pm - April 4, 2011

  10. What is this? Did I misunderstand about “rational debate?” Y’all sling too much mud. I’ll continue to read and learn from/with Dan and his blogs, but I would not want to share a pitcher of lemonade here. Best wishes.

    Comment by Catherine Nelson — April 4, 2011 @ 11:19 pm - April 4, 2011

  11. Catherine, since you believe in “marriage equality”, are you fighting for such equality for Kody Brown and his four wives? Are you fighting for Kody’s first wife, Meri, to get her job back after she was fired for living her polygamous lifestyle? If “marriage” can mean two men or two women, why can’t it mean one man and four women? If it’s “hate” to deny official recognition to two men or two women, why isn’t it “hate” to deny official recognition to one man and four women? Just askin’.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — April 4, 2011 @ 11:21 pm - April 4, 2011

  12. Labeling those who disagree with you as “hateful” is not a defense of your positions.

    However, let’s parse the question. “I was born gay, were you born hateful?” The question implies a parallel between being gay and being hateful. OK, if one infers from the question that the speaker believes gay people are, generally, born that way… then the logical inference is that the speaker believes those at whom the question is addressed are, generally, hateful.

    Now, if the speaker wants to weasel out of this by saying, “I don’t mean everyone is hateful, just some people” the only way that statement makes logical sense if the speaker believes “not everyone is born gay, just some people.”

    And even then, we would have to pretend that this poor attempt at a syllogism is somehow isolated from a broader cultural context in which gay rights advocates routinely call their opponents “hateful,” which would be absurd.

    Comment by V the K — April 4, 2011 @ 11:24 pm - April 4, 2011

  13. Wipeout Homophobia on Facebook

    And replace it with………a more acceptable “phobia”? Shall we have a FB purge of all thought criminals who don’t adhere to the party’s “Current Truth”?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 4, 2011 @ 11:56 pm - April 4, 2011

  14. “I was BORN gay, were you born HATEFUL?”

    Nope. Learned it from liberals.

    Comment by Sean A — April 5, 2011 @ 12:31 am - April 5, 2011

  15. I have learned well from my liberal friends that if you don’t agree with them you are just WRONG!! It is never a matter of respecting an opposite opinion, bit heaven forbid if you say that they are wrong!!!

    Comment by Ranger1 — April 5, 2011 @ 1:37 am - April 5, 2011

  16. Maybe I’m missing the context of this icon, but I think too much is being made over this. This is just countering persons who hate gay people or the people who spew the I love the sinner hate the sin crap to justify their homophobia and/or gay bigotry. One can still debate what is really hate, if liberals are haters, etc. I’m not sure how this icon necessarily means that those who supported Prop8 are haters.

    And replace it with………a more acceptable “phobia”? Shall we have a FB purge of all thought criminals who don’t adhere to the party’s “Current Truth”?

    TGC, I don’t see a statement like “wipeout homophobia” anymore an assault on persons’ thoughts than a statement like “wipeout racism.” I don’t see anyone advocating that homophobia be a crime. But the goal here is perhaps to make homophobia less socially acceptable like racism is.

    11.Catherine, since you believe in “marriage equality”, are you fighting for such equality for Kody Brown and his four wives?

    Seane-Anna, you can fight for Kody Brown. I mean, if we allow interracial marriage, won’t that lead to same sex marriage? Or should we cut the crap and argue for each situation on its own merits?

    Comment by Pat — April 5, 2011 @ 7:33 am - April 5, 2011

  17. #16: “This is just countering persons who hate gay people or the people who spew the I love the sinner hate the sin crap to justify their homophobia and/or gay bigotry.”

    OH! I see. The icon isn’t directed to everyone that supported Prop. 8. It’s really just meant for those homophobic bigots who believe homosexuality is sinful and contrary to their religious beliefs, you know, Christians, Mormons, Catholics,…those H8ers. Duh!

    Comment by Sean A — April 5, 2011 @ 9:44 am - April 5, 2011

  18. I personally am highly amused by the juxtaposition of gay and lesbian liberals like Catherine and Pat whining about “hate” when their fellow liberal gay and gay-sex marriage supporter Auntie Dogma is insisting that death threats against Republicans and Jews are justified.

    Given that, it seems pretty obvious that their whining and bleating about “hate” has nothing to do with actual hate and is just a childish way to try to scream conservatives into shutting up.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2011 @ 10:50 am - April 5, 2011

  19. TGC, I don’t see a statement like “wipeout homophobia” anymore an assault on persons’ thoughts than a statement like “wipeout racism.” I don’t see anyone advocating that homophobia be a crime. But the goal here is perhaps to make homophobia less socially acceptable like racism is.

    The goal is, as always, to replace what liberals consider “hate” (which is really anything that disagrees with them) and replace it with their own hatred, which they consider totally cool and acceptable.

    It’s bullshit disguised as some crappy “feel good” initiative.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 5, 2011 @ 11:04 am - April 5, 2011

  20. But it is socially acceptable among gays and lesbians to make anti-Semitic death threats against Republican legislators. Indeed, they justify these death threats — without a word of criticism from Rob Tisinai, Counterfail, Pat, Catherine, Evan Hurst, or any of the other gay and lesbian people who regularly show up here to whine about “hate”.

    TGC is right. Gays and lesbians who whine about “hate” are doing nothing more than trying to get rid of anyone who disagrees with them. Their blatant and obvious hypocrisy in endorsing and supporting death threats against Republicans makes that completely and totally obvious.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2011 @ 11:19 am - April 5, 2011

  21. Well, I suppose by the usual leftist logic, if I were actually born hateful, then that would make it okay to be hateful.

    Comment by Matteo — April 5, 2011 @ 11:39 am - April 5, 2011

  22. And, Matteo, to build on that, since there is mounting evidence that pedophiles may indeed be “born that way”, for gays and lesbians like Pat and Catherine to support laws against pedophiles having sex with and marrying that to which they are sexually and romantically attracted is “hateful”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2011 @ 11:44 am - April 5, 2011

  23. http://www.gaycitynews.com/articles/2011/04/04/gay_city_news/news/doc4d9a1259d32bf479353694.txt

    Comment by Doom — April 5, 2011 @ 12:21 pm - April 5, 2011

  24. Aw look, non-sequtor boy is back!

    Dooms. If you can overcome your mental illness long enough, think you can answer my question

    Given your proving you are a ‘socialpath’ by your own words last time I asked, I assume you’ve taken the time off to see a therapist.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 5, 2011 @ 1:13 pm - April 5, 2011

  25. OH! I see. The icon isn’t directed to everyone that supported Prop. 8. It’s really just meant for those homophobic bigots who believe homosexuality is sinful and contrary to their religious beliefs, you know, Christians, Mormons, Catholics,…those H8ers. Duh!

    Sorry, Sean. The “either…or” situation you cooked up here had nothing to do with my post. In fact, most Christians I know don’t hate gay persons. In other words, they don’t used outdated dogma as an excuse to hate homosexuals (or just homomosexuality, whatever) and think for themselves about whether homosexuality is a sin, like I assume you do.

    By the way, since you listed Mormons and Catholics in addition to Christians, should I also unfairly jump to conclusions and assume that you don’t regard Mormons and Catholics as Christians? ;-)

    Comment by Pat — April 5, 2011 @ 6:03 pm - April 5, 2011

  26. The goal is, as always, to replace what liberals consider “hate” (which is really anything that disagrees with them) and replace it with their own hatred, which they consider totally cool and acceptable.

    It’s bullshit disguised as some crappy “feel good” initiative.

    TGC, I’m not a mindreader. I am not going to assume that Catherine, someone who Dan regards as a friend, is a hater herself. Anyone whose point is to counter hate with hate, fine, I’ll agree with you. But isn’t what liberals get rapped for in the blog and elsewhere, by making unfounded assumptions?

    And just to clear things up, are you saying that someone who wants to wipeout racism is also a hater?

    Comment by Pat — April 5, 2011 @ 6:08 pm - April 5, 2011

  27. 18.I personally am highly amused by the juxtaposition of gay and lesbian liberals like Catherine and Pat whining about “hate” when their fellow liberal gay and gay-sex marriage supporter Auntie Dogma is insisting that death threats against Republicans and Jews are justified.

    NDT, I am personally highly amused when you make up stuff about me. You know me well enough to know that I categorically oppose death threats to anyone. I even supported you when someone suggested that you kill yourself. So I would appreciate that you don’t EVER again tie me to anyone who supports death threats.

    without a word of criticism from Rob Tisinai, Counterfail, Pat, Catherine, Evan Hurst, or any of the other gay and lesbian people who regularly show up here to whine about “hate”.

    I don’t everyone conservative responsible when you deliberately twist or lie about posts. You are responsible for your posts. No one else. And again, I oppose such hate by you or anyone else. Okay?

    Pat and Catherine to support laws against pedophiles having sex with and marrying that to which they are sexually and romantically attracted is “hateful”.

    I have never stated that simply because one opposes same sex marriage, they are a hater. I don’t live in the same black and white world that you either live in, or assume I live in.

    I’m sorry that we apparently disagree on the difference between two consenting adults and an adult with a child. Again, marriage and relationships involve both parties, and cannot accommodate only the whims of one person.

    Further, I have stated that I adamantly oppose pedophilia, and support marriage laws that have 18 as the minimum age for both persons. Are you with me on this point? Or are you going to weasel out again and sidestep this question?

    Comment by Pat — April 5, 2011 @ 6:21 pm - April 5, 2011

  28. You know me well enough to know that I categorically oppose death threats to anyone.

    Really?

    I haven’t seen you telling Auntie Dogma off.

    Indeed, I haven’t seen any of the gays who regularly whine about “haters” going over and telling Auntie Dogma that endorsing and supporting death threats as it does is wrong.

    You’re very good at claiming these things, Pat. But when it comes down to actually enforcing them against your fellow gays and lesbians, somehow you are nowhere to be found.

    It surprises me that you can’t put the same effort into condemning gays and lesbians who support death threats that you do into parents who aren’t “supportive” enough for you. But then again, the latter is bashing Christians and conservatives, which always plays well in the gay and lesbian community; the former is holding gays and lesbians accountable, which does not.

    Further, I have stated that I adamantly oppose pedophilia, and support marriage laws that have 18 as the minimum age for both persons.

    You forget the basic problem, Pat.

    The Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees “equal protection” and which the gay and lesbian community interprets as being the supreme law of the land when it comes to who may and may not marry, has no restrictions for age in it.

    Furthermore, the gay and lesbian community insists that no one has the right to prevent someone from marrying whomever they “love”, and that laws passed by majority vote that limit marriage are automatically unconstitutional.

    In short, of course you support your theoretical law. You’re putting in place the legal underpinnings to have it struck down the moment it passes.

    I have no such problems, because I believe that a) marriage is a privilege, not a right and b) the voters may determine to whom this privilege is extended and for what purpose. But the reason this viewpoint is not popular in the gay and lesbian community is that it requires the consent of the governed.

    When you decide to affirm that marriage is not a constitutional guarantee and that the voters may with perfect right choose to limit it, then I will be happy to consider your arguments for removing the parental-consent option for marriage and making it require you to be of legal age to enter into it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2011 @ 9:40 pm - April 5, 2011

  29. Really? I haven’t seen you telling Auntie Dogma off.

    NDT, you haven’t, because I don’t remember having ever seen Auntie Dogma endorse death threats. I don’t read every post on this blog, because 1) there are periods of time where I am too busy to read any of this blog, 2) even when I do get a chance like now, I don’t bother reading posts that do not interest me.

    But regardless of whether you think that is true or not, or if you can find one of these posts in which Auntie Dogma actually posted about supporting death threats (not one of your links that show almost the opposite of what you claim, which happens all too often), I still vehemently oppose death threats. Heck, I oppose any kind of hate-filled vile, including by you. I don’t always bother responding to that either. But I’ve seen fellow conservatives even tell you once in a while to knock the crap off too.

    It surprises me that you can’t put the same effort into condemning gays and lesbians who support death threats that you do into parents who aren’t “supportive” enough for you.

    A few things here. Once again, your premise is entirely wrong. I promise you that if I see Auntie Dogma or anyone else here supporting death threats, then I will pipe in. Next, as much as I deplore death threats, I don’t see it causing as much harm as parents who directly and continuously inflict the type of emotional abuse on their children. The fact that many children overcome such abuse and thrive in spite of their parents does not excuse them. But yet not only do you not condemn such parents, you outright excuse them.

    Further, you even show your excusing such behavior by saying “not ‘supportive’ enough.” That’s like me excusing Auntie Dogma’s alleged support of death threats by saying that Auntie Dogma doesn’t “support” conservatives or Christians (or whatever group that she supports death threats for) enough.

    But then again, the latter is bashing Christians and conservatives, which always plays well in the gay and lesbian community; the former is holding gays and lesbians accountable, which does not.

    And you do the opposite. You have no problem bashing gays and lesbians, and even making stuff up to do so. But yet I hardly ever see you hold Christians responsible for their wrongs. And when I do, it’s quite tepid to the point of being silly, completely opposite of the vile you spew against gay and lesbian persons who disagree with you.

    The only problem you have when I criticize gay people is that I don’t do it enough or forceful enough. And yet when I ever criticize Christianity or religion, in general, I’m an anti-Christian bigot. What can I tell you?

    You forget the basic problem, Pat.
    The Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees “equal protection” and which the gay and lesbian community interprets as being the supreme law of the land when it comes to who may and may not marry, has no restrictions for age in it.

    NDT, you are forgetting a problem that’s even more basic. I am not the gay and lesbian community. Not even close. My general political leanings might be closer to the community, but I am no more the gay and lesbian community than you are. No kidding.

    So even if a majority of gays and lesbians are taking the 14th Amendment and interpreting it a certain way, it doesn’t mean that I do. In fact, I recall stating on this blog at least once that I am not a constitutional expert, and really don’t know how to interpret the equal protection clause. And even if the 14th Amendment does grant gay persons equal protection, it doesn’t mean anything will happen in that regards until there is enough people of board so that legislation occurs, or yes, action by “activist” judges.

    I have no such problems, because I believe that a) marriage is a privilege, not a right and b) the voters may determine to whom this privilege is extended and for what purpose.

    Hmm. Exactly what I believe. I also believe I have the right to support a law even when a majority of people oppose it. And I don’t weasel out by talking about the 14th Amendment.

    When you decide to affirm that marriage is not a constitutional guarantee and that the voters may with perfect right choose to limit it, then I will be happy to consider your arguments for removing the parental-consent option for marriage and making it require you to be of legal age to enter into it.

    Even if we did differ on your point about constitutional guarantee, I don’t see why you cannot lay out your opinion. In any case, I have demonstrated once again that marriage is not a constitutional guarantee. And I understand it’s possible to accept a law and the will of the people even if you disagree with them. So I look forward to your response to my question once again. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — April 6, 2011 @ 7:22 am - April 6, 2011

  30. NDT, to be clear about something here. I didn’t finish my point in the sentence in the second paragraph above.

    But regardless of whether you think that is true or not, or if you can find one of these posts in which Auntie Dogma actually posted about supporting death threats

    please add the following. “in a thread that I also posted on.”

    Comment by Pat — April 6, 2011 @ 7:30 am - April 6, 2011

  31. But yet I hardly ever see you hold Christians responsible for their wrongs. And when I do, it’s quite tepid to the point of being silly, completely opposite of the vile you spew against gay and lesbian persons who disagree with you.

    Mhm, whatever you say, Pat.

    I understand. You always get really upset when I ask you to act on your convictions, instead of just mouthing them.

    Even if we did differ on your point about constitutional guarantee, I don’t see why you cannot lay out your opinion.

    Because you and your friends like Cas hate more than anything else having to state a position and stick to it.

    Now that you have, any strange reversals on your part become blatant and obvious hypocrisy.

    And my opinion is that I am agnostic on the matter. If a child wishes to marry at the age of 16 with the consent of his or her parents, I am more prone to defer to the parents to assess and guide the situation properly than to demand that the age be arbitrarily set. However, I would also have no particular issue in raising the minimum age for marriage to age 18.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 6, 2011 @ 8:45 pm - April 6, 2011

  32. Mhm, whatever you say, Pat.

    Thanks for proving my point, NDT. You even had to go to 2007 to give an example of even tepid criticism of a particularly hateful individual.

    I understand. You always get really upset when I ask you to act on your convictions, instead of just mouthing them.

    Don’t know what you are talking about. I get really upset when you make up stuff of what I say. And here we have Exhibit A again.

    Because you and your friends like Cas hate more than anything else having to state a position and stick to it.

    Not sure what you are talking about here. But I will say that periodically, my position has changed. Heck, once through our discussions, I changed my position. Sometimes people get wiser as they get older. We’ve seen that with persons’ position on homosexuality, and even same sex marriage.

    In any case, your answer still doesn’t make any sense, and doesn’t explain why you couldn’t give your opinion.

    Now that you have, any strange reversals on your part become blatant and obvious hypocrisy.

    ???? Okay, whatever.

    And my opinion is that I am agnostic on the matter. If a child wishes to marry at the age of 16 with the consent of his or her parents, I am more prone to defer to the parents to assess and guide the situation properly than to demand that the age be arbitrarily set. However, I would also have no particular issue in raising the minimum age for marriage to age 18.

    Okay, so you at least set a minimum age of 16. Some states have a minimum age of 14 with parental consent, I believe. With respect to parental consent…If the child wants to marry, I would be more prone to defer to parents that tell their child to wait and 18, and see if they still want to marry the same person. A better late then ever strategy is much better for the child. And if it’s the parents who want a reluctant child to marry, well, I obviously have a problem with that. Anyway, thanks for your opinion. We’re in more agreement than I thought.

    Comment by Pat — April 7, 2011 @ 6:40 am - April 7, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.