I Hate Gays

[Theophane]

It's the difference between dislike and mutual dislike.

[Hereandnow]

No, I got it the first time. Not all intolerances are the same. But the language is confusing to me. It's not a matter of liking or not, it's a matter of tolerating. I dont' like nazis but I do tolerate them (though it is possible that I could like a nazi personally; not likely though). Gays I don't like or dislike, depends on the person. I certainly tolerate gays qua gays, gun advocates qua gun advocates, and so forth. I tolerate most people even if I find their views despicable. Though again, I can imagine I would dislike many. I also tolerate those who don't tolerate those who don't tolerate someone for their views. I am not in this group myself, but I tolerate them. Now, I do not approve of their views, that is, the views of those who don't tolerate others' views. And I would argue with them: We live in a world of very different people and we have to learn to get along, that is, tolerate others even if we don't approve of their veiws; and so on.


The "moral difference"? It is not a moral issue until someone does something. Voting in favor of intolerance is morally wrong. Voting in favor of California's proposition 8 is wrong.


Sounds to me like you are fed up with liberal political correctness. I can understand this. But I also think there are many groups who live in the US and conditions for them can be rude, suppressive and abusive. The bad news is that it will get worse before it gets better.

[Misty]

The word tolerate means to permit, allow without hindrance. Perhaps instead of saying, I tolerate gay people, it would be more productive to see the gay person as a fellow American citizen who should have the same rights as oneself. Tolerance is not accepting one as equal under the law as oneself, and is really a word that reeks arrogance and superiority.

-- Updated Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:54 am to add the following --

The question I asked was, "What is the moral difference between those who dislike someone for their views, and those who dislike those who dislike someone for their views?"

For clarity of your question: What is the moral difference between one who dislikes gays for their views, and one who dislikes the one who dislikes gays for their views? I would say no difference unless either person doing the disliking exercises violence or action to disarm or prevent the disliked of their human rights.

[Logic_ill]

Like them or hate them, it seems like gays will always be among us. Might as well learn to live with it. I don't think anyone is necessarily evil for disliking gays, but they may be missing out on potential friends.

[Xris]

The word used was HATE.Something I would reserve for mass murderers or paedophiles. Not exactly the same as dislike or feel uncomfortable about.

[Spiral Out]

The word used was HATE.Something I would reserve for mass murderers or paedophiles. Not exactly the same as dislike or feel uncomfortable about.

Can you get past your emotions enough to consider the questions at hand? I used the term to draw attention to the thread and in order to get the prejudiced reaction I was expecting. That is the point of this thread.

Like them or hate them, it seems like gays will always be among us. Might as well learn to live with it. I don't think anyone is necessarily evil for disliking gays, but they may be missing out on potential friends.

Well, like them or hate them, it seems like child molesters will always be among us. Might we just learn to live with them as well?

I'm not equating gays to child molesters, but it comes down to moral standards. Are we just to accept the morals of others simply because they're everywhere or just because there are a certain number of them?

For clarity of your question: What is the moral difference between one who dislikes gays for their views, and one who dislikes the one who dislikes gays for their views? I would say no difference unless either person doing the disliking exercises violence or action to disarm or prevent the disliked of their human rights.

So then what if I choose to ignore them completely and I refuse to interact with them at all?

It's not a matter of liking or not, it's a matter of tolerating.

I tolerate a lot of things that I don't like. I only act on the dislike if it affects me directly and immediately. Why is it that if I merely tolerate gays, but I am honest in my disgust of the gay lifestyle, that I'm labeled a "homophobe". It seems like a hypocritical reverse discrimination to me.

Sounds to me like you are fed up with liberal political correctness. I can understand this. But I also think there are many groups who live in the US and conditions for them can be rude, suppressive and abusive.

Being rude, suppressive and abusive to the people who merely show disagreement with the gay agenda by calling them homophobes and trying to attach a certain social stigma to them doesn't help their cause at all either.

The term "homophobe" will be overused to the point where it will have no real meaning or emotional reactive value.

If I think that the gay lifestyle and the people that live that lifestyle are repulsive and that I want nothing to do with them, then am I homophobic? What does that term mean? Do people have a right to not associate with others they find repulsive or otherwise not to their liking?

[Logic_ill]

But Spiral, child molesting is a crime, gay sex among consenting adults may not be. It depends on the country.

[Misty]

(Nested quote removed.)


So then what if I choose to ignore them completely and I refuse to interact with them at all?
(Nested quote removed.)

That is your right as an American citizen.

[Spiral Out]

Logic_ill,

Again, I'm not attempting to equate gays with child molesters.

Calling someone a homophobe to try to silence them by attaching a social stigma to them is no better than calling someone a **** to try to silence them by attaching a social stigma to them. It's complete hypocrisy.

There was another thread here where I voiced my opinion of disagreement to the gay agenda and was quickly labeled a homophobe. I think that it is a dangerous example of the mindset that will develop in response to the dangerous mindset that created it. All that is being achieved is a redirection of the bullying. That will only result is an escalation of conflict and violence.

People must recognize and give room for normal disagreement, otherwise there is the impression that one must either conform to an ideology completely or combat an ideology completely. People don't like to conform.

That is your right as an American citizen.

Are you sure? Are there any anti-discrimination laws that might require me to go against my own will?

[Misty]

(Nested quote removed.)


Are you sure? Are there any anti-discrimination laws that might require me to go against my own will?

Why would there be an anti-discrimination law when one is not actively discriminating against another?

[Spiral Out]

What if I'm a landlord and refuse to rent to gays? What if I'm a shop owner and refuse to serve gays? What if I refuse them based on my wish to have no interaction with them due to some religious or moral system, or for whatever reason? Do I have the right to exclude certain people from my life? Do I have that right or not?

[Theophane]

Like them or hate them, it seems like gays will always be among us. Might as well learn to live with it. I don't think anyone is necessarily evil for disliking gays, but they may be missing out on potential friends.

I like the way you think.

[Okisites]

What is the moral difference between those who dislike someone for their views, and those who dislike those who dislike someone for their views?

I think the former is disliking the “View”, while the latter one is disliking the “Person”. So I think the moral difference between the “those who dislike someone for their views” and “those who dislike those who dislike someone for their views”, would be the moral difference between “disliking the Views” and “disliking the Person”. This is a common initial thought of me.

Secondly what could be moral difference between “disliking the views” and “disliking a person”. Which of them are more morally correct than other? Right now, I do not have any deeper thought about this but like to express that:-

1- Though “disliking” is itself is not morally right, therefore any of the two variables cannot be morally right, I think.

2- Suppose if views are right, then disliking the views could be morally wrong. And those who dislikes a wrong person who dislikes the right view, I think, could be morally right.

3- Suppose if views are wrong, then disliking the views could be morally right. And those who dislikes a right person who dislikes the wrong view, I think, could be morally wrong.

So I think the moral difference depends upon, whether the view is right or whether the view is wrong. So it depends upon the soundness of the view.

Sorry, I find it difficult to properly relate the question with homosexuality issue, because I guess anybody can be considered to be appearing on any side of the two variables, as views are from both side and not from one side.

One thing for homosexuality issue is that, the main factor creating confusion and disagreement among both sides, I think, is considering homosexuality as a person’s orientation. One side is totally convinced that homosexuality is a sexual orientation from birth, while the other side is not convinced that it is a sexual orientation by birth. But certainly there is no proper explanation or evidence that homosexuality is certainly a Sexual orientation.

[Xris]

The idea that my homophobia can be construed as hate is never what I wish to convey. If this thread was about the dislike of the open display of gay affection or the dogmatic religious objections to the act it might be cause for debate.But simply stating you hate gays and any adverse result from that hate is acceptable can not be right. If your hate causes you to break the law or harm gays you will be condemned.

[Spiral Out]

But simply stating you hate gays...

Nobody has stated such a thing. If you are referring to the topic title then you are prejudicing yourself against something that is not there. Do you actually know that this thread is about?