Skip to main content

When is it ok to hate?

There have been many reasons given throughout the ages for one group of people to hate, wage war on, or discriminate against another group of people.  Sadly, a great number of these types of aggression have had a religious basis for motivation.  The Crusades and the Inquisition are a very good example.  But there have been many "holy wars" due to people having differing religious beliefs.  Just a few decades ago, people used religious beliefs to be racist.  And, even today, there still are some fringe racist groups--many of which remain hateful because of their religious beliefs.

Of course, I don't mean to make religion seem to be "the bad guy".  There are also those who hate religion and religious people, and that hate is just as real and as unjust as hate from religious people.  Different religious groups of people have been persecuted throughout time for their beliefs, including these modern times.  In America, it is not altogether uncommon for people to discriminate against Muslims, Jews, Mormons, and many other groups.

So, the question is, is any of this hatred or discrimination justified?  There are reasons given for it, and many believe those reasons to be logical.  Some people really do believe that one race is better than another, but at least these days it is not a popular belief.  It is more common to view such a belief as immoral or incorrect.  We are currently seeing this same process happen with homosexual people.  Not many decades ago, gays were persecuted quite severely merely for being gay.  Many hateful things have been said about homosexuals.  Fortunately, the scales of acceptance and understanding are turning.  It is now generally accepted as okay for people to admit that they are homosexual.  I believe that in the near future (a decade or two), gays will be just as universally accepted as people of other races.  (Certainly, there will still be groups of people who discriminate against gays, but they will be like the fringe groups who are racist--being frowned upon by the majority of society.)

One thing that has been bothering me for a while now is one of the arguments given to oppose the legalization of gay marriage.  One thing that people say is "If we allow gays to marry each other, where will it end?  Next, people will want to marry their pets, and pedophiles will want the right to have sex with children."  First of all, I want to say that it is a logical fallacy to say that homosexuality will lead to beastiality or pedophilia.  This illogical argument comes from the misconception that being gay is a choice.  The reasoning goes like this: first, a person wants to have sex with someone of the same sex, then they want to have sex with children (possibly of the same sex), and then with animals.  This is false because gay people did not decide one day to want sex with a same-sex partner, they were simply created that way.  Similarly, people who wish to have sex with pre-18 persons did not choose to have those feelings, they simply found themselves having them--it was not caused by anything they did.  I don't know enough about beastiality to say whether there are people who claim to be intrinsically attracted to animals--that may be a fetish or it may just be the way they are, I don't know, so I will stick to pedophilia.  (I'm using the term "pedophilia" very broadly here.  I know there are more specific definitions.  I'm using to simply mean someone above the age of consent being attracted to--or having relations with--someone under the age of consent, so for example that could mean a 17 year-old dating an 18 year-old.)

I was actually rather disturbed when, several months ago, I posted something pro-gay on my wall and one person replied with the comment "Don't forget that NAMBLA is pushing for recognition as well."  I have to admit, I didn't know what NAMBLA was, so I had to look it up.  (It is the North American Man/Boy Love Association, if any reader is unaware.)  At the time, I was affronted that he would associate homosexuality with that organization, since I perceived it as a group of perverted men wanting to have their way with young children--unfortunately, a rather common misconception about that organization.  I have, since that time, read much of what they say on their website and found this to be a rather inaccurate painting of what the organization is about.

But, I don't want to get too much into whether organizations such as NAMBLA are moral or immoral--whether pedophilia is moral or immoral--I only want to ask the question, is it ok to hate someone simply because of whom they are attracted to?  If a person is truly attracted to younger people, is there a need to discriminate against them?  Is there a need to look down on them, to scorn them, and shut them out of society?  Is there a need to put them on a database and shame them for their entire lives?  Don't mistake me--I'm not talking about people who have actually molested or sexually abused children, I don't mean people who have coerced a child into having relations with them.  I merely mean someone who is attracted to children (again, I'm using the world "child" loosely, to mean anyone under the age of 18) and wishes to peacefully push for change in society to be less harsh on such people.  Is it okay to hate someone simply because we don't understand them?  Are we so closed-minded that we won't even listen to people with views that differ from our own?  What does that say about us as a race, or as a society?

Not to grow too tiresome on the issue of compassion, that I've discussed a lot recently, but I feel like we as a society are in grave need of a much higher level of compassion than what we have.  Instead of discriminating against people who love children, hating them, fearing them, thinking they are immoral, and putting them on lists of sex offenders to shame them their whole lives, why can't we just love them?  Why can't we comfort them?  They are already frustrated because they are unable to be with the person they love, so why can't we appreciate that rather than hate them for it?  Why complicate their own emotional pain by condemning them as immoral?  I'm not advocating that adult-child sex be legalized--that's an issue I'd have to learn much more about before I ever arrived at a conclusion--I'm merely saying that we could do a better job of trying to understand people who are different.

Also, I have no personal motive for promoting awareness of adults who are attracted to children, because I am only attracted to people my own age.  I have no desire to have sex with anyone more than 10 years younger than I am (which would be 18).  My fiancé is 5 years my junior and I would probably not go for a guy much younger than that.  So, I have no selfish interest in this matter.  But I do have love for my dear brothers and sisters who may have romantic feelings for people that they cannot legally enter a relationship with.

Comments

  1. Great post here. I get offended as well when someone affiliates being gay with being perverted... my high school history teacher did that in her class

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a good, thoughtful post, as usual, and the content is excellent.

    However, it's late enough (so I'm tired and my filters are down) that it has inspired me to go on an occasional tirade against the abuse of the word "hate."

    I detest how within the discourse of issues of sexuality the word "hate" has been used to recklessly label and dismiss people of opposing viewpoints. It sounds trite, but hate is in fact a strong word--or it was.

    I assume that as people from an LDS background we can clearly see that while some people actually could legitimately be said to carry hatred in their hearts and to have their actions thus driven, these people are FAR in the minority and that whatever drives most--be it pride, ignorance or whatever--is not "hate."

    When we take an emotion that is so hard and, well, barbaric as "hatred," it's an easy excuse to dismiss some other's perspective and feelings. Sure, some people have what could be called incorrect and ignorant views, but addressing them AS SUCH will yield far greater and longer-lasting results than simply ascribing them to "hate" and thus not worthy of debate. You could argue that it's just a cycle of repetition and ignoring and back-and-forth and that "well, it *must* be 'hatred' because what else could it be?" But no, people can actually just be ignorant and stubborn, and this can be and--dare I say it--usually is entirely disconnected from the presence of any sort of true "hatred."

    Again, this isn't a response to the content of this post, per se. It just drives me crazy how strong words like "hate" are often abused and cause communication and empathy to suffer. I just hope that by occasionally speaking up about in forums like this, somebody might notice and take it to heart.

    Sorry to rant on your blog and take advantage of your having built up your blog's audience.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That is a good point, Trev. I suppose one of the main issues is the fluidity of language--its propensity to change over the years. So, while some people use the word "hate" to mean a very intense and irrational feeling of dislike, others may use it quite differently. For example, in colloquial speech, my friends will often say something such as "don't hate" whenever someone else says something that could be interpreted as even mildly judgmental. So, I suppose when I use the word "hate" in the discussion of discrimination, I do not use it in quite the same way as it has meant in the past. Perhaps I should be more careful in this point.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah, it's good your conscious of the natural change of language. You're absolutely right, and I agree that this is happening here, too, and is probably often used innocently.

    The problem occurs at the boundary of the flux where language can easily be manipulated to be deceitful or unintentionally inflame emotions. It always pays to be careful about the language we use. Certainly, if we think about it, you and I can see that accusing genuinely well-intentioned religious people as being motivated by "hate" is not the best way to convince them of the error of their ways. It just riles people up and keeps the *real* issues from being addressed.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Anyone is allowed to comment on this blog. As you can tell from reading my blog, I am very opinionated and I'm not afraid to share my opinion. You're welcome to disagree with me as mildly or vehemently as you like, but be aware that I will reply with my own opinions, very strongly. If you don't want that kind of open discussion, or you think it will hurt your feelings, then please avoid posting. I do try to be respectful, but my verbology often comes across as brusque.

Popular posts from this blog

Hitchens v god

I'm rather ashamed to admit that I just recently discovered Christopher Hitchens. And, while I normally add my own thoughts and commentary to videos when I post them here, in nearly every Hitchens video that I've encountered, I have not a single word to add. He is so articulate and does such a good job of presenting his case that I couldn't possibly add anything to it.  I would definitely be interested if any of my readers have any comments to make in regards to what Hitches says in this video. Enjoy.  

Do you really believe?

This is Richard Dawkin's talk from yesterday's Reason Rally in Washington DC.  He makes several good points, but the one that stuck out to me the most was when he told people that they should challenge someone when they say they're religious.  The example he gave is when someone says they're Catholic, ask them if they really  believe that when a priest blesses a wafer that it actually turns into the body of Christ, or that the wine actually turns into his blood.  So, this post will be dedicated to me asking any of my reader base who are religious, do you really  believe what your religions teach? For those who are Christian (any denomination thereof), Do you really believe every word of the Bible to be the word of god?  If so, read every word of the Bible and then come back and answer the question again. Do you really believe that a snake tricked Eve into eating fruit that made her suddenly unfit to live in the paradisiacal garden god had just made for her? Do y

Co-efficiently Co-related

 I'm a fairly reserved person. I don't open up easily to people. I tend to hold my hand close to my chest, hesitant to lay cards on the table. However there have been a few times in my life where I have had a heart-to-heart talk with someone and I find them to be very rewarding. I've been seeing a therapist for over a year now. One thing that I have decided over all the chats I've had with him is that the people I want to spend the most time with are the ones that I feel the closest to. I have many friends (I use the term "friends" more loosely than some, since to me the term "acquaintance" feels very odd) who are fun to interact with, but our interactions are sparse or superficial. I think it's perfectly fine to have these kinds of friendships--in fact, I think they can be very beneficial. But I have decided that for my own well-being, I will not be putting any measurable amount of emotional effort into such a friendship. I want to reserve that