So if I had a friend who was an alcoholic or a drug addict, and I claimed to love them but hate their addiction, I’d be a bigot?
He’s obviously talking about gays.
That’s precisely the trap they set, and you stepped right into it. Alcoholism and drug addiction are obviously self-destructive habits that people have to work hard to overcome. They want you to think of homosexuality the same way. It’s a sin, just like drinking and dope. “Just say no.”
Well, my love for my partner is not a sin. It’s not possible to love me and hate what I feel toward him.
Depends, do you consider homosexuality to be a disease, like addiction?
The problem isn’t with the “love the sinner but hate the sin” attitude, but with the disagreement over what is or is not sin. You’d have much less of a problem with anyone saying “love the sinner, hate the sin” if you and they agreed about what constitutes sin.
True sin harms people. A necessary consequence of loving people is hating what hurts them. Although, the question that remains in my mind is whether the attitutde that is healthy to have toward sin can safely be called “hate,” since “hatred,” as we normally think about it, is such a corrosive force.
ETA: I’ve been thinking about the line “love the sinner, hate the sin” more in general terms than as specifically applied to homosexuality—responding to the main topic of the thread than to the specific issue of the Catholic Church (or others’) response to homosexuals. But even there, I think that “love the sinner, hate the sin” is, at least, an improvement over “hate the sinner.”
That, and the fact is that when these people claim to “hate the sin and love the sinner”, I simply don’t believe them. Not for a moment. When someone says they hate homosexuality, but not homosexuals, I think to myself “there goes someone who’d cheerfully shove homosexuals into ovens if he could. Or torture them for the good of their souls, crying crocodile tears over how much they hate what they are doing.”
I agree. I have yet to meet anyone who comes across as actually believing that load of drivel. It’s nothing more than a platitude designed to avoid confrontation over their bigotry.
A narrow world view. I don’t know how many friends you have or their quality as human beings, but all of mine have flaws that I’d prefer they shed. But I put up with them because they have so many other great qualities that I admire. And I’m no paragon of virtue either, so it’s a wash. I’m very thankful for their patience.
I have a buddy that we’ve all known is gay for years—his partner is welcome anytime we all get together. They are discreet out of respect for others, but this is what you would expect any couple to do. They touch one another the way a hetro couple would in public but nothing more. (In fact, I’ve never seen them kiss.) I don’t like homosexuality—I think it’s wrong—and I wish he were bringing a girl to the Super Bowl party, but that ain’t happening. But he’s my friend and I have had to get over it. It was work, I’ll admit.
So, yeah, I hate the sin but I can love the sinner. And I won’t toss him into an oven because I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t toss me in.
Then perhaps, in light of your friendship, you need to rethink your conviction that his sexuality is wrong. You can see right before you that he and his partner are good people, and their love for each other is not some horrible thing, but very normal. So is it really that much of a stretch for you to question whether it is, in fact, a sin at all?
Let me ask this: is it hate speech to condemn conservative Christians for being homophobic, intolerant, and backwards?
You’re right. I should have used “non Abrahamic followers”.
We can start with Communism.
Ah, it’s the old “You’re not tolerant unless you tolerate intolerance” line. That’s a tired argument, and quite frankly, typically used by the intolerant.
To answer you directly, no, it’s not hate speech. Phelps engages in hate speech. People who call Phelps a nasty piece of work, for his stance, are not engaging in hate speech.
There are people who condemn all Christians as horrible people, simply for being Christian, regardless of their stance on particular issues. That’s a condemnation I don’t agree with. Polycarp, for instance, is a believer. He is also very open to rights for gays, is exceedingly tolerant, and isn’t backwards in any way. People who condemn Polycarp for his beliefs are wrong. You should keep in mind that there are probably as many, if not more, Christians who condemn Polycarp for his beliefs as there are non-believers who do the same.
(snip)
Apples and oranges. You are not condemning Christians because they are Christians, a state of belief I might add, that is totally voluntary. You are condemning their Intolerance and bigotry. On the other hand, They are condemning Gays for existing, and having the temerity to want to be treated as equally valuable human beings. Their state is NOT voluntary, and is not a belief structure subject to revision.
You are, of course, right. His sexuality isn’t wrong, simply different. He isn’t wrong, simply different. He’s my bud. I’m over it. I still have problems, but they’re mine, not his and I don’t bother him with them. But they are there. I simply can’t understand it and likely never will.
I agree with everything you’ve said. Except for horrible: I didn’t say that. And I realize that I don’t decide what a sin is or isn’t. Lord knows, I hope I skate on some of mine.
Thank you for your kind words.
Nicely put. If we could get the rest of the people to feel the same way, and not try to legislate your friend’s life, I think we’d all be in a better place. Hell, two guys having sex isn’t high on my list of things I find appealing, but that just makes me a heterosexual, not right or wrong.
While gays don’t necessarily want their sex lives to be thought of as “icky” and the like, I’m pretty sure they’d accept it if they were given equal rights in every way, and treated with the same respect we all want to receive.
I disagree and believe the comparison is apropos. Most groups have a belief of what is right and wrong. Many Christians believe that engaging in homosexual acts is a sin and saying so is not hate speech, just like saying sex outside of marriage is sin is also not hate speech. Homosexuals believe that intolerance is a “sin” (if I may use that word) and making their feelings known is also not hate speech. I don’t expect gays to “tolerate intolerance”.
You are missing the point. One group is being criticized for their intolerance. Their belief structure is voluntary and subject to change. The other group is acting on the natural consequences of their biology. What you are saying amounts to asking a paraplegic to give up their sex life due to their incapacitation.
It amounts to hate speech because they are actively pursuing an agenda to limit or revoke the full civil liberties of a specific class.
Then let gays get married and then bitch about the ones who have premarital or extramarital sex. At least then you’d be reducing the number of “sins” they have to commit to have the same rights as you and I. I’m sure they’d live with that.
I understand your point, I just disagree with it. IMO it amounts to you being allowed to criticize others but not to be criticized. Gays may not be able to help their sexual orientation but they can chose not to act upon it, just like a man who desires a woman who is not his wife can choose not to act upon it.
None of us like to be told that our actions are immoral. It can make us defensive and we tend to over-react.
Nobody criticizes a married man and woman sharing sexual relations, so the whole point of keeping gays from marrying is to avoid giving perceived legitimacy to their natural results of their union.
Again, I fail to see how you cannot make a distinction between speech designed to create a subclass and speech that criticizes intolerance. It is also worth making the point that for the most part, gays do not consider conservatives to be hell-bound immoral perverts, just ignorant bigots who could change if they could get past themselves.
If that man marries that woman, he can act on it all day long without sin. Big fan of giving gays the option of marrying that man they desire, are you? The Catholic church isn’t.