You Hate Me! You Really Hate Me!

[Apologiaphoenix]

Do we hate homosexuals?

The link can be found here.

-----

Friends. This post is exceedingly long. For that reason, I am just going to leave a canonical link. All who wish to read it can do so.

[Zymologist]

Huh. I'm pretty sure I recognize her from my days at PCC...though I don't remember ever actually meeting her. Small world.

[arnoldo]

Allegedly, it's now a thoughtcrime in Canada to express such "hate." Maybe it's time to take another look in the U.S. First Amendment right to free speech.

[firstfloor]

[arnoldo]

Or think about it.

[Jedidiah]

We do know that when you speak against any thing that proves you hate them, so it must be true of Christians.

[One Bad Pig]

Allegedly, it's now a thoughtcrime in Canada to express such "hate." Maybe it's time to take another look in the U.S. First Amendment right to free speech.

It looks like George Orwell was merely off by a few decades.

[Catholicity]

Great Article Nick!

[Starlight]

A few thoughts on the OP linked blog post...

Jesus spoke the strongest words ever against sin that any one has ever spoken. Jesus also showed more love to sinners than any other man has ever shown.

Surely anyone can speak stronger words by quoting Jesus's words and then adding a few more negative words? Seems like you're making stuff up here.

What is this term homophobia?

You vastly over-interpret this word, and seem unduly obsessed with it.

English is a weird language, and you can't break words into pieces to determine what they mean. A "mandate" doesn't mean a "date" with a "man". "Understanding" isn't about "standing" "under" anything. And homophobia isn't a "phobia" of "homosexuals". You are simply wrong about the meaning of the word and misunderstand its meaning when you do this.

The term homophobia in common use among gay people is used as an exact parallel to the term "racist": To denote the presence of any kind of discrimination or prejudice. A person who discriminates or is prejudiced on the grounds of race is called "racist" and a person who discriminates or is prejudiced on the grounds of sexuality is called "homophobe". That is all that gay people usually mean by it. They are not meaning you have a mental disorder. They are not meaning you have a "phobia". They are not meaning you have fear of anything. All the word means is that you show some form of prejudice or some sort of desire for legal or social discrimination. Being against same-sex marriage, for example, makes a person homophobic by definition, because they endorse a legal distinction against gay people. That's all the word means. Being against Jewish people getting married, for example, would be racist for the same reason.

If the only piece of evidence is that I disagree with homosexual practice, then perhaps I could accuse her of having Christophobia because she disagrees with the orthodox Christian position on homosexual practice.

Exactly. Hence you are homophobic in the common use of the word. You can invent the term "Christophobia" if you like. It may, or may not, ever make it into widespread English usage.

I am a conservative Christian. I have no hatred of homosexuals.

Consider Jesus' words "by their fruits you shall know them". Generally we judge what is in other people's hearts by their actions and words. Sometimes we get it wrong. But at a certain point, it ceases to matter. If something looks enough like a duck and quacks enough like a duck, thinking of it as a duck is probably worthwhile for many purposes.

From the point of view of most gay people it's irrelevant whether any given Christian does or doesn't have hatred in their heart or not. It's their actions that matter. If their actions are the same as what the actions of someone who hated gay people would be, then it doesn't make a whole lot of difference whether they "truly hate" gay people in their heart of are "just doing it out of love". If their motives, whatever they are, consistently lead to actions that you'd normally see from a person who was filled with hatred, then thinking of them as being "haters" is probably worthwhile for many purposes. From the point of view of most gay people they see Christians acting the same as people who hated gay people would act, so for all intents and purposes they might as well be viewed as haters, because that's how they act.

And you would admit, I imagine, that there are some people out there somewhere who are actually out-and-out anti-gay haters. Somewhere, there are some people who truly hate gay people in their heart. You would presumably admit that some of these people might choose to use Christianity as a convenient cover for their anti-gay hatred. Such people might often try to convince others that they weren't truly haters and were just zealously religious, when in reality they were actually filled with hatred. Because others can never know their hearts, nobody can ever prove that they're true haters. They would be like the racist person who regularly says "I'm not racist, but...", where everybody always suspects they're racist, but nobody can completely prove it.

So rather than trying to spend endless time and fruitless effort to distinguish the true haters from those who just act like haters but who are really doing it out of love, gay people tend to save themselves time and effort and mentally categorizing the whole bunch as "haters" by which they mean "people who act in anti-gay ways". The motives are irrelevant to the recipients: If you're murdering me, it doesn't matter to me why you're doing it or what's in your heart at the time, the consequences for me are the same. In the same way, when gay people experience very negative actions towards them, they don't tend to care what's in the heart of the people doing it, and are much more concerned about the seriously negative consequences of the actions on them. Insofar as you try to re-frame the issue as being about what's in the heart of the person acting, you entirely miss the point that gay people are concerned about: The serious negative consequences of the actions on them.

The social conversation tends to go like this:
Gay people: Stop hurting us!
Christians: I don't hate you, I'm doing it out of love!
Gay people: It doesn't matter why you're doing it. Your actions are harming us. You're trying to deny us civil rights like marriage. Your discrimination leads to stress and anxiety and suicide for many.
Christians: It matters to me why I've doing it. You see, I'm full of love, and God and the bible says...
Gay people: I couldn't care less what you think God and the bible says. Stop taking actions that cause harm to us. Did you know over 1000 gay youths in America per year kill themselves as a result of experiencing discrimination and prejudice, that mostly comes from Christians?
Christians: I once heard someone say "homophobic" and you see I'm not homophobic, because my understanding of the word is different to yours.
Gay people: ~bangs head against the wall~ You're not getting the basic point that your discrimination and prejudice is actively harmful, and it doesn't matter why you're doing it, it doesn't matter what is in your heart, the physical and mental harms it causes still exist either way. Your actions lead to all kinds of depression and suffering, and suicide among gay people.
Christians: How dare you suggest I have any responsibility for the consequences of my actions! I'm just saying stuff from the bible out of love. I have no obligation to pay any attention to how my words or teachings are affecting others.

In Western societies we've mostly now reached the point where gay people have gotten through to a decent number of Christians, and so quite a few Christians have said to themselves "oh, right, yeah, those bad effects are bad. We don't actually want to see gay people getting chronically stressed, anxious, depressed, or committing suicide due to social discrimination and prejudice. Yeah, we'd better give them full civil rights and treat them well and ensure they aren't discriminated against." What's left are the semi-autistic Christians who are very self-focused in the righteousness of their own selves and cause, and who flatly refuse to pay any attention to the suffering of others no matter how much it is shoved under their nose. In their mind their own concern for biblical teaching, and the self-righteousness of their religious and biblical cause, outweighs all need to be concerned for others or to pay real attention to others and the suffering of others. So they are blind to the consequences of their own actions on others. Instead they are very self-obsessed and self-absorbed and are focused solely on themselves. So they spend a lot of time discussing themselves, and whether they are acting out of 'hate' or 'love', and whether people who called them a word with 'phobia' in it have terribly wronged them by doing so.

[Abigail]

English is a weird language, and you can't break words into pieces to determine what they mean. A "mandate" doesn't mean a "date" with a "man". "Understanding" isn't about "standing" "under" anything. And homophobia isn't a "phobia" of "homosexuals". You are simply wrong about the meaning of the word and misunderstand its meaning when you do this.

The term homophobia in common use among gay people is used as an exact parallel to the term "racist": To denote the presence of any kind of discrimination or prejudice. A person who discriminates or is prejudiced on the grounds of race is called "racist" and a person who discriminates or is prejudiced on the grounds of sexuality is called "homophobe". That is all that gay people usually mean by it. They are not meaning you have a mental disorder. They are not meaning you have a "phobia". They are not meaning you have fear of anything. All the word means is that you show some form of prejudice or some sort of desire for legal or social discrimination. Being against same-sex marriage, for example, makes a person homophobic by definition, because they endorse a legal distinction against gay people. That's all the word means. Being against Jewish people getting married, for example, would be racist for the same reason.

Actually it was in the past people like you who set the ideas on this one since it was once a big thing to accuse people of being scared of homosexuals. Most people never were and I think people know it. You are speaking nonsense when you draw your little parallel with racism. Marriage as known in most countries was always defined as being between a man and a woman. So not allowing a Jewish man and woman to get married was racist because they met met the criteria.

Consider Jesus' words "by their fruits you shall know them". Generally we judge what is in other people's hearts by their actions and words. Sometimes we get it wrong. But at a certain point, it ceases to matter. If something looks enough like a duck and quacks enough like a duck, thinking of it as a duck is probably worthwhile for many purposes.

From the point of view of most gay people it's irrelevant whether any given Christian does or doesn't have hatred in their heart or not. It's their actions that matter. If their actions are the same as what the actions of someone who hated gay people would be, then it doesn't make a whole lot of difference whether they "truly hate" gay people in their heart of are "just doing it out of love". If their motives, whatever they are, consistently lead to actions that you'd normally see from a person who was filled with hatred, then thinking of them as being "haters" is probably worthwhile for many purposes. From the point of view of most gay people they see Christians acting the same as people who hated gay people would act, so for all intents and purposes they might as well be viewed as haters, because that's how they act.

And you would admit, I imagine, that there are some people out there somewhere who are actually out-and-out anti-gay haters. Somewhere, there are some people who truly hate gay people in their heart. You would presumably admit that some of these people might choose to use Christianity as a convenient cover for their anti-gay hatred. Such people might often try to convince others that they weren't truly haters and were just zealously religious, when in reality they were actually filled with hatred. Because others can never know their hearts, nobody can ever prove that they're true haters. They would be like the racist person who regularly says "I'm not racist, but...", where everybody always suspects they're racist, but nobody can completely prove it.

So rather than trying to spend endless time and fruitless effort to distinguish the true haters from those who just act like haters but who are really doing it out of love, gay people tend to save themselves time and effort and mentally categorizing the whole bunch as "haters" by which they mean "people who act in anti-gay ways". The motives are irrelevant to the recipients: If you're murdering me, it doesn't matter to me why you're doing it or what's in your heart at the time, the consequences for me are the same. In the same way, when gay people experience very negative actions towards them, they don't tend to care what's in the heart of the people doing it, and are much more concerned about the seriously negative consequences of the actions on them. Insofar as you try to re-frame the issue as being about what's in the heart of the person acting, you entirely miss the point that gay people are concerned about: The serious negative consequences of the actions on them.




The social conversation tends to go like this:
Gay people: Stop hurting us!
Christians: I don't hate you, I'm doing it out of love!
Gay people: It doesn't matter why you're doing it. Your actions are harming us. You're trying to deny us civil rights like marriage. Your discrimination leads to stress and anxiety and suicide for many.
Christians: It matters to me why I've doing it. You see, I'm full of love, and God and the bible says...
Gay people: I couldn't care less what you think God and the bible says. Stop taking actions that cause harm to us. Did you know over 1000 gay youths in America per year kill themselves as a result of experiencing discrimination and prejudice, that mostly comes from Christians?
Christians: I once heard someone say "homophobic" and you see I'm not homophobic, because my understanding of the word is different to yours.
Gay people: ~bangs head against the wall~ You're not getting the basic point that your discrimination and prejudice is actively harmful, and it doesn't matter why you're doing it, it doesn't matter what is in your heart, the physical and mental harms it causes still exist either way. Your actions lead to all kinds of depression and suffering, and suicide among gay people.
Christians: How dare you suggest I have any responsibility for the consequences of my actions! I'm just saying stuff from the bible out of love. I have no obligation to pay any attention to how my words or teachings are affecting others.

In Western societies we've mostly now reached the point where gay people have gotten through to a decent number of Christians, and so quite a few Christians have said to themselves "oh, right, yeah, those bad effects are bad. We don't actually want to see gay people getting chronically stressed, anxious, depressed, or committing suicide due to social discrimination and prejudice. Yeah, we'd better give them full civil rights and treat them well and ensure they aren't discriminated against." What's left are the semi-autistic Christians who are very self-focused in the righteousness of their own selves and cause, and who flatly refuse to pay any attention to the suffering of others no matter how much it is shoved under their nose. In their mind their own concern for biblical teaching, and the self-righteousness of their religious and biblical cause, outweighs all need to be concerned for others or to pay real attention to others and the suffering of others. So they are blind to the consequences of their own actions on others. Instead they are very self-obsessed and self-absorbed and are focused solely on themselves. So they spend a lot of time discussing themselves, and whether they are acting out of 'hate' or 'love', and whether people who called them a word with 'phobia' in it have terribly wronged them by doing so.

Totally overdone and one sided and actually not an accurate representation of the facts

Of course a Christian's actions will go along with their beliefs in the main but as long as they afford you the right to make your own decisions and get together under state marriage then you can't demand any more and doing so will be going beyond your rights. I can't understand why gays need 100% affirmation from everybody or they think they have been the victims of some horrendous crime. You need to grow up and realize that not everbody has to affirm another's actions. Your bigotry is evident in the ignorant way you dismiss Christians who are trying to live in accordance with their beliefs as 'semi-autistic'. Christianity is a reasonable faith. If anything it is the hysterical over-sensitiveness in some which is the real problem.

[Apologiaphoenix]

A few thoughts on the OP linked blog post...

Surely anyone can speak stronger words by quoting Jesus's words and then adding a few more negative words? Seems like you're making stuff up here.

Nope. Not doing so.

You vastly over-interpret this word, and seem unduly obsessed with it.

It might sound odd, but when the piece I'm critiquing uses this term as a main point, I think it's important to look at what it means.

English is a weird language, and you can't break words into pieces to determine what they mean. A "mandate" doesn't mean a "date" with a "man". "Understanding" isn't about "standing" "under" anything. And homophobia isn't a "phobia" of "homosexuals". You are simply wrong about the meaning of the word and misunderstand its meaning when you do this.

The term homophobia in common use among gay people is used as an exact parallel to the term "racist": To denote the presence of any kind of discrimination or prejudice. A person who discriminates or is prejudiced on the grounds of race is called "racist" and a person who discriminates or is prejudiced on the grounds of sexuality is called "homophobe". That is all that gay people usually mean by it. They are not meaning you have a mental disorder. They are not meaning you have a "phobia". They are not meaning you have fear of anything. All the word means is that you show some form of prejudice or some sort of desire for legal or social discrimination. Being against same-sex marriage, for example, makes a person homophobic by definition, because they endorse a legal distinction against gay people. That's all the word means. Being against Jewish people getting married, for example, would be racist for the same reason.

Ah. So they speak of a phobia but it doesn't mean phobia. Maybe people who are acrophobic aren't scared of heights. They just don't like heights. Maybe people who have arachnaphobia aren't scared of spiders. They just don't like spiders. Could we apply the same to claustrophobia or hydrophobia?

Also, I have no problem with homosexuals getting married. I have a problem with two people of the same sex getting married based on what I think the definition of marriage is. I'm also right in line with most every society in human history up until our time.

Exactly. Hence you are homophobic in the common use of the word. You can invent the term "Christophobia" if you like. It may, or may not, ever make it into widespread English usage.

No. I'm not. A phobia means a specific thing and if you have to redefine the term in this one instance in a way that isn't for any other term, it shows how weak the objection is.

Consider Jesus' words "by their fruits you shall know them". Generally we judge what is in other people's hearts by their actions and words. Sometimes we get it wrong. But at a certain point, it ceases to matter. If something looks enough like a duck and quacks enough like a duck, thinking of it as a duck is probably worthwhile for many purposes.

In other words "If you don't totally agree with everything that I do, then you are a wicked person."

Why should I endorse and/or celebrate homosexual practice?

From the point of view of most gay people it's irrelevant whether any given Christian does or doesn't have hatred in their heart or not. It's their actions that matter. If their actions are the same as what the actions of someone who hated gay people would be, then it doesn't make a whole lot of difference whether they "truly hate" gay people in their heart of are "just doing it out of love". If their motives, whatever they are, consistently lead to actions that you'd normally see from a person who was filled with hatred, then thinking of them as being "haters" is probably worthwhile for many purposes. From the point of view of most gay people they see Christians acting the same as people who hated gay people would act, so for all intents and purposes they might as well be viewed as haters, because that's how they act.

See the above question.

And you would admit, I imagine, that there are some people out there somewhere who are actually out-and-out anti-gay haters. Somewhere, there are some people who truly hate gay people in their heart. You would presumably admit that some of these people might choose to use Christianity as a convenient cover for their anti-gay hatred. Such people might often try to convince others that they weren't truly haters and were just zealously religious, when in reality they were actually filled with hatred. Because others can never know their hearts, nobody can ever prove that they're true haters. They would be like the racist person who regularly says "I'm not racist, but...", where everybody always suspects they're racist, but nobody can completely prove it.

Sure, kind of the way some homosexuals like to put Christian businesses out of business by suing them for exorbitant amounts.

So rather than trying to spend endless time and fruitless effort to distinguish the true haters from those who just act like haters but who are really doing it out of love, gay people tend to save themselves time and effort and mentally categorizing the whole bunch as "haters" by which they mean "people who act in anti-gay ways". The motives are irrelevant to the recipients: If you're murdering me, it doesn't matter to me why you're doing it or what's in your heart at the time, the consequences for me are the same. In the same way, when gay people experience very negative actions towards them, they don't tend to care what's in the heart of the people doing it, and are much more concerned about the seriously negative consequences of the actions on them. Insofar as you try to re-frame the issue as being about what's in the heart of the person acting, you entirely miss the point that gay people are concerned about: The serious negative consequences of the actions on them.

Ah. So instead of treating each person on a person to person basis, it's okay to paint with a broad brush and stereotype everyone. Got it.

The social conversation tends to go like this:
Gay people: Stop hurting us!
Christians: I don't hate you, I'm doing it out of love!
Gay people: It doesn't matter why you're doing it. Your actions are harming us. You're trying to deny us civil rights like marriage. Your discrimination leads to stress and anxiety and suicide for many.
Christians: It matters to me why I've doing it. You see, I'm full of love, and God and the bible says...
Gay people: I couldn't care less what you think God and the bible says. Stop taking actions that cause harm to us. Did you know over 1000 gay youths in America per year kill themselves as a result of experiencing discrimination and prejudice, that mostly comes from Christians?
Christians: I once heard someone say "homophobic" and you see I'm not homophobic, because my understanding of the word is different to yours.
Gay people: ~bangs head against the wall~ You're not getting the basic point that your discrimination and prejudice is actively harmful, and it doesn't matter why you're doing it, it doesn't matter what is in your heart, the physical and mental harms it causes still exist either way. Your actions lead to all kinds of depression and suffering, and suicide among gay people.
Christians: How dare you suggest I have any responsibility for the consequences of my actions! I'm just saying stuff from the bible out of love. I have no obligation to pay any attention to how my words or teachings are affecting others.

Not how my conversation goes. My main question is still above. Why should I celebrate and/or endorse homosexual practice?

In Western societies we've mostly now reached the point where gay people have gotten through to a decent number of Christians, and so quite a few Christians have said to themselves "oh, right, yeah, those bad effects are bad. We don't actually want to see gay people getting chronically stressed, anxious, depressed, or committing suicide due to social discrimination and prejudice. Yeah, we'd better give them full civil rights and treat them well and ensure they aren't discriminated against." What's left are the semi-autistic Christians who are very self-focused in the righteousness of their own selves and cause, and who flatly refuse to pay any attention to the suffering of others no matter how much it is shoved under their nose. In their mind their own concern for biblical teaching, and the self-righteousness of their religious and biblical cause, outweighs all need to be concerned for others or to pay real attention to others and the suffering of others. So they are blind to the consequences of their own actions on others. Instead they are very self-obsessed and self-absorbed and are focused solely on themselves. So they spend a lot of time discussing themselves, and whether they are acting out of 'hate' or 'love', and whether people who called them a word with 'phobia' in it have terribly wronged them by doing so.

No. I'm not responsible for someone else suffering. That's using guilt as a bludgeon to make people do what is wanted. The question is first off "Should we celebrate and/or endorse homosexual practice?"

[Starlight]

It might sound odd, but when the piece I'm critiquing uses this term as a main point, I think it's important to look at what it means.

In any language words are defined by how they are widely used. Dictionaries are regularly updated to reflect changes in the meanings of how words are being used in society. If you don't know what a word means, then you can look up a dictionary.

When new words are first invented, they often bear some sort of resemblance to previous words they are derived from, but sometimes not. They often rapidly change in meaning before a meaning for them stabilizes and becomes widely adopted into the language. In general, looking at word-origins is not particularly helpful in determining current meanings of words, and is often more misleading than it is accurate. It is a mistake to think that the current meaning of a word in any language is tied to its original meaning, or that people are using it "wrong" if they are not using it according to it's original meaning. It is likewise a mistake to break a word into pieces and think that the definition of the whole word is a sum of its parts. Doing these sorts of things is called the etymological fallacy.

Basically, if you want to know the meaning of a word, then you need to look at how people are regularly using it. A dictionary will tell you that information, if it is up to date.

So they speak of a phobia but it doesn't mean phobia.

Homophobia isn't a phobia in the same way that understanding isn't about standing. Breaking a word into parts is just a mistake on your part.

I'm also right in line with most every society in human history up until our time.

Plenty of pre-Christian societies appear to have had same-sex marriages. In the US, for example, at the time of it's founding, most of the native American peoples allowed marriages between two people of the same biological sex.

Why should I endorse and/or celebrate homosexual practice?

I think the vast majority of gay people would be 100% fine if you just never opened your mouth on the subject again.

All gay people want is for discrimination, prejudice, persecution, and oppression against them to cease. They want it because it is massively harmful to them, and causes chronic stress, anxiety, depression, and suicide. They would like that to stop happening, and thus would like you to do your part in not perpetuating that by ceasing to voice opposition to gay rights and gay behaviors.

Not how my conversation goes. My main question is still above. Why should I celebrate and/or endorse homosexual practice?

You relentlessly make it all about you, don't you? Try reading again my spiel on how Christians make it all about themselves all the while doing immense harm to gay people with their words and actions.

You should love others, and therefore you should be genuinely concerned about their well-being. You should care about the stress, anxiety, depression and suicide that your words and actions and the words and actions of people like you cause. You should not shut your eyes to their suffering that you are causing, nor close your ears to their pleas for you to stop the massive harm that you are an active agent in.

No. I'm not responsible for someone else suffering.

Of course, you're totally not responsible for your actions or the effects of your words.

The question is first off "Should we celebrate and/or endorse homosexual practice?"

Well if you don't want to murder them through discrimination and prejudice, and if you want to be a loving and kind person who supports others and cares about them, then yes. If you want to keep being an active participant in mass murder via perpetuating prejudices and discrimination that leads to stress, anxiety, depression and suicide on a massive scale, then carry on.

[Adrift]

You keep using this lame etymological fallacy argument every time the meaning of the word "homophobia" is brought up, and you're just plain wrong. There have been countless incidences of "experts" and others ridiculously attempting to connect the word with its literal meaning, that posit that so-called homophobes actually do have deep-seated fears,

Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals/

Homophobes should consider a little self-reflection, suggests a new study finding those individuals who are most hostile toward gays and hold strong anti-gay views may themselves have same-sex desires, albeit undercover ones. . . .

The research, published in the April 2012 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, reveals the nuances of prejudices like homophobia, which can ultimately have dire consequences.

"Sometimes people are threatened by gays and lesbians because they are fearing their own impulses, in a sense they 'doth protest too much,'" Ryan told LiveScience. "In addition, it appears that sometimes those who would oppress others have been oppressed themselves, and we can have some compassion for them too, they may be unaccepting of others because they cannot be accepting of themselves."

Ryan cautioned, however, that this link is only one source of anti-gay sentiments.

© Copyright Original Source

Stop acting like people don't use the word "homophobia" in the same sense as other phobias, or that it isn't implicit in the actual use of the word itself. The word's power as an insult or as a way to shut down conversation comes precisely from its literal meaning. Stop using this dumb argument. No one believes it, and it doesn't work.

[Apologiaphoenix]

In any language words are defined by how they are widely used. Dictionaries are regularly updated to reflect changes in the meanings of how words are being used in society. If you don't know what a word means, then you can look up a dictionary.

When new words are first invented, they often bear some sort of resemblance to previous words they are derived from, but sometimes not. They often rapidly change in meaning before a meaning for them stabilizes and becomes widely adopted into the language. In general, looking at word-origins is not particularly helpful in determining current meanings of words, and is often more misleading than it is accurate. It is a mistake to think that the current meaning of a word in any language is tied to its original meaning, or that people are using it "wrong" if they are not using it according to it's original meaning. It is likewise a mistake to break a word into pieces and think that the definition of the whole word is a sum of its parts. Doing these sorts of things is called the etymological fallacy.

Basically, if you want to know the meaning of a word, then you need to look at how people are regularly using it. A dictionary will tell you that information, if it is up to date.

Homophobia isn't a phobia in the same way that understanding isn't about standing. Breaking a word into parts is just a mistake on your part.

Adrift has answered you on this.

Plenty of pre-Christian societies appear to have had same-sex marriages. In the US, for example, at the time of it's founding, most of the native American peoples allowed marriages between two people of the same biological sex.

Evidence?

I think the vast majority of gay people would be 100% fine if you just never opened your mouth on the subject again.

In other words "Shut up." You see, a few years ago, we were told tolerance was a virtue and we should celebrate diversity and be open to other views.

Now that homosexuality has received approval, this is no longer the good news. Now it's "shut up."

You're so tolerant. Rather than answer a question, you say "shut up!'

All gay people want is for discrimination, prejudice, persecution, and oppression against them to cease. They want it because it is massively harmful to them, and causes chronic stress, anxiety, depression, and suicide. They would like that to stop happening, and thus would like you to do your part in not perpetuating that by ceasing to voice opposition to gay rights and gay behaviors.

Again, why should I celebrate and/or endorse homosexual behavior? Do you also think it's proper for someone to make their total identity be based on who they sleep with?

You relentlessly make it all about you, don't you? Try reading again my spiel on how Christians make it all about themselves all the while doing immense harm to gay people with their words and actions.

No. You talked about how it went. How it really goes is a Christian raises an objection and then the media falls on him and accuses him of hate speech and rips him and his family apart.

You should love others, and therefore you should be genuinely concerned about their well-being. You should care about the stress, anxiety, depression and suicide that your words and actions and the words and actions of people like you cause. You should not shut your eyes to their suffering that you are causing, nor close your ears to their pleas for you to stop the massive harm that you are an active agent in.

And if I think homosexual behavior is wrong and not something I should celebrate and/or endorse, then the loving thing to do is to speak out against it. Are you going to speak out against what happened to Memories Pizza and Sweet Cakes by Melissa?

Of course, you're totally not responsible for your actions or the effects of your words.

I'm responsible for my actions and words. Others are responsible for theirs. If someone tells me they don't approve of my relationship with my wife, I move on.

Well if you don't want to murder them through discrimination and prejudice, and if you want to be a loving and kind person who supports others and cares about them, then yes. If you want to keep being an active participant in mass murder via perpetuating prejudices and discrimination that leads to stress, anxiety, depression and suicide on a massive scale, then carry on.

Once again "SHUT UP!" Why not instead offer counseling for people who want it?

[fm93]

It's not technically about gay people, but I would advance this Civics thread as Exhibit A in professed Christians hating LGBT people. Especially seer's posts.

The military is finally allowing transgender people who want to fight for our country to do so, provided that they've been stable for at least 18 months and are medically certified as fit for service, and seer and others are out here insisting that transgender people can't possibly be competent soldiers. Our military could potentially become even stronger than it already is, and seer and co. are vehemently objecting to it.