Homosexuality and Hate

I've never bothered to argue against the charge that opposition to same-sex marriage, or disapproval of homosexual activity in general, constitutes "hate," "bigotry," and so on. One reason is that it's so ridiculous. I tend to think that most of those making the charge recognize, somewhere deep in their hearts,  that it's irrational. I even speculate that an intimation from their own consciences that they're not being entirely honest accounts for some of the ferocity with which they make it.

I find it hard to take the charge seriously, because I experience its absurdity directly. I have direct and certain knowledge of my own feelings, and I know I don't hate or even dislike homosexuals. As a matter of fact, if I have any discernible tendency toward them, male or female, it's toward liking them. As a mild-mannered bookish male, with a decided deficiency of machismo, I've always been something of a misfit, and tend to be more comfortable with others who don't fit in. I have in common with a lot of gay men a relative lack of interest and aptitude for masculine things like sports, and a great interest in books and music. Like everyone, I've known, worked with, and been on friendly terms with, a number of homosexuals over the years, including one very close friendship, and simply have never felt anything approaching animosity toward them based on their sexuality. Puzzlement as to why they are sexually attracted to their own sex, yes; animosity, no.

However, I do think homosexual acts are wrong.  A great many sexual acts are wrong, and we are all to some degree "objectively disordered," to use the Vatican phrase that so angers many homosexuals. I will say, too, that many of the specific acts involved in homosexuality, especially between males, are distasteful to say the least to me. Moreover, I think marriage between two men or two women is a logical contradiction, which is to say that I think it's inherent in the definition and concept of marriage that it involves opposite sexes.

These admissions, I know are enough to convict me of "hate," "bigotry," and "homophobia" (that last word being a bit of cant which no one who cares about language and truth should use) in the eyes of gay rights activists and their allies. I'm under no illusions about how much credence or moral credit my insistence that I don't hate will be given; I only want to say it publicly for the record.

Because I know I don't hate homosexuals, and have never seen any evidence that any Christians whom I know personally hate homosexuals, I tend to discount the idea entirely. But no doubt hatred does exist (apart from the clearly disturbed Westboro Baptist group). I do run across some  hostile and derogatory stuff in comments on blogs and news sites, though most of it doesn't strike me as being at the level of animosity that I would describe as hate. But as we experience more hostility and contempt from the other side, the impulse to react in kind is going to grow. That's where it seems to me that the struggle against the inclination to hate will be fought for most Christians. God doesn't give us any choice about fighting it.

29 responses to “Homosexuality and Hate”

  1. I am much like you in that I am a bookish heterosexual who favors the arts over sports. Last year I had a long back and forth correspondence with a friend who is adamantly opposed to the idea of gay marriage whereas I have slowly come to be in support of it.
    Neither of us changed the other’s mind, but here is a brief excerpt of one of my responses to him:
    It has become clear to me in my reading and in my conversations with gay friends that sexual orientation is genetic. I have seen too many sincere gay Christians spend half their life thinking there is something wrong with them, feeling condemned and trying to change in order to adapt to society’s expectations. I know that I had no choice in my own heterosexual orientation, and to try to imagine going through some program to change my sexual orientation is just bizarre. I can only believe that forcing gay people to change their orientation is just as bizarre.
    As we know, Jesus gave no discourses on homosexuality. The one thing he does show us consistently, however, is that compassion trumps tradition and legalistic codes.

  2. Grumpy

    I know what you mean. I’ve always had gay friends and now I’m struggling not to see them as the guys who are on the verge of making Catholicism illegal in North America / Canada.

  3. Jennifer Fulwiler had a post a few weeks back in which she described a conversation with two gay friends to whom she’d been pretty close before her conversion. She tried to explain to them her views on this whole thing. It didn’t break out into open hostility and ended inconclusively (as I recall), but I was left with the feeling that the friendship was pretty shaky afterwards.
    El Jefe assures us that he respects the American tradition religious liberty. I want to say “your opinion about a tradition has nothing to do with it–it’s in the blinking constitution.” But that’s not a big obstacle any more.

  4. Charles, your comment was caught in the spam catcher for several hours, in case you were wondering. I’ll respond later–must work now.

  5. Grumpy

    I think gay-straight friendships are going to be a casualty of the legalization of gay weddings.

  6. You may be right. How could it not be pretty tense? It doesn’t seem to be something where agree-to-disagree is going to be possible.

  7. The comment saying Charles’s comment was stuck in the spam-catcher was stuck in the spam-catcher. Dang it, I thought we were done with this.

  8. Ok, replying to Charles now:
    I agree with most of your “It has become clear…” paragraph. I don’t know that it’s possible to prove that homosexuality is strictly a genetic thing. Personally I think it’s like almost everything else, a mixture of heredity and environment, with the proportions varying from one individual to another. But that doesn’t mean that the basic orientation is anymore a choice than if it were purely genetic. And it does seem clear that the forced or semi-forced conversion tactic is a bad idea.
    It is certainly true that “compassion trumps tradition and legalistic codes.” Compassion doesn’t approve everything, though. More importantly, I don’t agree that the concept of marriage is a merely human tradition, much less a legalistic code. The male-female polarity is built into the basic nature of human beings, and there is no analog to the conception of children.

  9. Grumpy

    Something doesn’t have to be genetic in order for someone to have no choice about it. People grow up with all kinds of ingrained proclivities, some stemming from genes and others from nurture. It is wrong to act on some of these proclivities, whether or not they are chosen.

  10. Yes. And I really really sympathize with those whose whole sex drive falls into that category. It must be a very heavy cross. Which is another reason for Christians to behave as kindly as possible toward those who carry it.

  11. Grumpy

    A horrific cross. Not as bad as mental illness in my opinion (consider the loneliness of the mentally ill), but still, a very heavy cross to bear.

  12. I think serious mental illness would be much worse. It’s a terrifying thought to me. I can’t remember–have you read Elizabeth Goudge’s The Sound of Water? It deals with that very powerfully. A relatively mild case in the main character, but there’s a sort of supporting character who’s worse, and is very moving.

  13. Grumpy

    No I like Elizabeth Goudge but I haven’t read that one.

  14. I think it’s my favorite of the three or four I’ve read. Not by a wide margin, but a bit ahead of the others.

  15. Scent of Water, not Sound of Water.

  16. It has become clear to me in my reading and in my conversations with gay friends that sexual orientation is genetic.
    Whatever your thinking is, ‘clear’ it is not. The phenomenon of discordance among identical twins discredits the thesis that it is a genetic trait. One study commonly quoted 15 years ago had it that discordance was at least as common as concordant homosexuality. A more recent study (I think done by Michael Bailey) had it that discordance was three times as common.

  17. Grumpy

    How can one tell from DNA cells if someone is going to be gay or not? What are they looking at when they say there is (or is not) evidence that gayness is genetically programmed?

  18. I think they’re conjecturing. I suspect on pretty thin grounds. Ten or fifteen years ago there was talk of a “gay gene” but I haven’t heard that in a while.

  19. IIRC, the proponent of that was a neurophysiologist named Simon LeVay. I think one study he did was discredited fairly rapidly. That was around about 1991.
    Jeffrey Satinover offered many years ago that a number of character and personality traits were known to have a heritable component and hypothesized that these in the right configuration were soil for the development of homosexuality. He said at that time there was little serious research being done into the origins of homosexuality. His rough model had it a multi-stage process, with different stages salient for different individuals.

  20. I think we can be “clear,” in the sense of very confident, nearly certain, that for some individuals it’s a condition that was always there, sometimes even recognized in childhood. For others, equally clearly, it’s a development, and frequently a struggle. And even with some element of choice, if the letter I read in Dear Abby a week or so ago was honest.

  21. I think we can be “clear,” in the sense of very confident, nearly certain, that for some individuals it’s a condition that was always there,
    Robert Stacy McCain had a brief but interesting take on this subject recently, discussing the distinction between the ‘special child’ and ordinary children.
    I always found absolutely incredible those memoirs (that you would see in Harper’s or The Village Voice that had phrases like, “I knew from the time I was seven…”. Camille Paglia’s explanation of such statements was that those offering them had retrospectively confounded feeling ‘different’ with subsequent sexual feelings. I believe she is right.
    It doesn’t much matter. Societies ought to develop a sexual ethic which informs a stable equilibrium in social relations. That is never going to be satisfying to everyone. Right now, what is restraining us from descending into a Huxleyan dystopia (and see R.S. McCain on a recent criminal case in Florida) is a countervaling frivolity identified by Steven Sailer: the distinction between Mormon polygamists and homosexuals is that the latter are now high-school popular and the former are not, so the appellate judiciary will do nothing for the former.
    The homosexual population is small and neither the rank and file nor the vociferous element therein are particularly winsome. It should not have been difficult for elites to ignore them as they ignore people like you and me and as they ignore wage-earners generally.

  22. Fashion is a monstrously powerful force.
    I don’t believe anyone can say “I was gay at the age of seven” or such. But I can imagine that retroactively they can see that they had certain feelings that were the childhood precursor to being sexually attracted to their own sex. I distinctly remember having, as a child, feelings about women that I now recognize as erotic in a very diffuse sort of way. I can’t really pinpoint the age but it was well before puberty.

  23. Your phrase, Art, “high-school popular” (or was it Sailer’s?–anyway–) has come back to me several times. That really does explain the inordinate fawning attention.
    Also, about ignoring wage-earners: to me that’s the dirty secret of the dominant mode of leftism today: they really do not like the working class or the middle class at all. I’m sure I’ve said this before, but examples appear frequently. They may speak with concern in broad terms about income inequality and the like, but the actual people treated in those concerns are repugnant to them. Their socio-sexual causes are what’s really important to them.

  24. This phenomenon has been manifest for nearly fifty years. James Q. Wilson had stories related in one of his books about survey research he and a colleague were doing in Boston in 1966. He said the disjunction between city hall and the man in the street was immense and that the concerns of ordinary people – centered on problems with crime – were completely alien to the thinking of Mayor Collins and his staff. The city hall agenda concerned ‘poverty’, which was not a priority of ordinary Bostonians.
    To the extent that the left concerns itself with economic issues, their objects are building and maintaining patron-client relationships with a partially alienated lumpenproletariat. Some other client groups – the elderly – make an appearance as well. Intact wage-earning families are not of interest because they are generally self-supporting bar episodic medical or psychiatric disasters and they are difficult to mobilize on other grounds. A principle enunciated tongue in cheek by George Will holds: leave no social worker behind.
    About 15 years ago, a Democratic Party politico told Michael Lind that they had given up on the domestic working class and were going to concentrate on building a base among chicano immigrants. “Immigration reform” is population replacement for Democratic Party vote-farmers.

  25. I’m a little surprised to hear that about Boston in 1966. I wouldn’t have thought it was evident at that point. Not that I know anything about it, but would have assumed pols in a place like Boston still took care of their own.
    Very interesting that the immigration thing was explicitly considered. I’ve always wondered why the Democrats have been able to bless mass illegal immigration and not lose huge numbers of domestic votes,esp. from the working class.

  26. This is good, Maclin. Of course, I agree with you, so that really helps. 🙂
    That last bit is especilaay true.
    AMDG

  27. Thank you. “especilaay” is pretty high praise.

  28. Ha! I made it up just for you. You can tell by that how tired I was, and that was before my day got really exhausting.
    AMDG

  29. I appreciate that.

Leave a comment