The wordsmithing Brits behind the Oxford Dictionary define "hate" as "hostile actions motivated by intense dislike or prejudice." But words take on new meanings as people speak them, often deriving more from the context of their usage than from their actual definitions.
The word "hate" has become one of many such grammatical casualties as some now use it to describe the positions of any who vary from emerging cultural norms. Among offenders are gay activists who increasingly define anyone who believes that marriage should be applied only in the context of monogamous, heterosexual union as anti-gay and hateful. But is a belief in traditional marriage an inherently hateful posture?
Blogs erupted last month with news that Blake Mycoksie, founder of TOMS Shoes, apologized for speaking at an event hosted by Focus on the Family. The Christian non-profit is "dedicated to helping families thrive," but has long opposed same sex marriage. Bloggers at Change.org lamented Mycoskie's association with what they termed an "anti-gay hate-group." He responded with a public apology:
"Had I known the full extent of Focus on the Family's beliefs, I would not have accepted the invitation to speak at their event. It was an oversight on my part and the company's part and one we regret."
The move against Focus incited other activists to apply pressure to companies like Apple, Microsoft and Delta Airlines to cease their involvement with the Charity Give Back Group (CGBG). CGBG encourages consumers to give to more than 200,000 charities, including socially conservative groups like Family Research Council, when they purchase items from over 600 brand retailers.
Ben Crowther, a student at Western Washington University, collected more than 20,000 signatures on a petition to Apple, prompting the removal of iTunes from CGBG.
"I knew that once this issue was brought to Apple's attention, they would not want to be a part of CVN because it funds anti-gay hate groups," Crowther said. Microsoft and Delta caved to the pressure as well.
The third hammer fell last Wednesday, this time on Chicago pastor Bill Hybels and his Willow Creek Church. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced he would withdraw from Hybels' Leadership Summit, an annual conference at Willow Creek that simulcasts to more than 168,000 people worldwide. Schultz's decision immediately followed a petition from Asher Huey on Change.org.
The ultimate coup, however, may lie just around the corner. Change.org has issued yet another petition soliciting PBS to have Bert and Ernie marry. Big Bird and Snuffleupagus, you're next.
This recent shelling of Christian groups by those who support same sex marriage is not unique. The rhythm of crossfire over marital law has become a staple in America's culture wars. But it does raise questions about the prudence of applying emotional labels to those who disagree with one's position.
Are organizations that oppose same sex marriage, and people who associate with them, hate-mongers? Should we assume those who support the traditional definition of marriage are "motivated by intense dislike or prejudice"?
American Christians must surely wrestle with a sordid history on same sex issues. In years past, some believers opposed funding for HIV research and aid because they viewed the illness as God's judgment on sexual immorality. Worse still, the faithful have often employed angry, reactive and, yes, even hateful rhetoric when speaking about the LGBT community.
But today's Christian leaders seek common ground solutions to same sex problems, even as many still hold to a traditional definition of marriage. Willow Creek Church, for example, disassociated with the controversial ex-gay Christian group Exodus International in 2009. And none can deny the softer, less partisan posture taken by Focus on the Family since it's former President James Dobson retired and Jim Daly took the reins.
When gay activists wield the label of hate against such organizations, their efforts turn counter-productive. They simply reinforce the conservative talking point that gay activists cannot be satisfied shy of full capitulation to their positions. Turning up the rhetorical heat serves no purpose other than retrenching your opposition and inflaming an already contentious issue.
We live in a world that glorifies tolerance. It's ironic that those who often champion this characteristic are quick to abandon it when they encounter people who disagree with their perspectives. Tolerance is a two-way street. Advocates on both sides of contentious issues should avoid extreme rhetoric and name-calling in attempts to marginalize political opponents.
As Jim Daly rightly responded, "'Hate' is too big a word to be thrown around with so little discretion. It is a damaging and dangerous thing to hang such an emotional epithet on a person or group because they think differently about some issues than you do."
These labeling efforts are also inappropriate. The word "hate" is too potent and carries too much baggage to be thoughtlessly tossed around. Those engaged in public discourse must display better judgment in the words they choose.The importance of the marriage debate demands our commitment to intelligent, winsome and precise language.
It's time to stop applying hurtful and emotional labels to people who disagree with us. This tactic is more than poor form; it's bad grammar. And that's something that these two writers absolutely hate.
Tim Willard is an Atlanta-based writer and co-author of 'Veneer: Living Deeply in a Surface Society' (Zondervan, 2011).
Jonathan Merritt is a prominent religion writer and author of two books: 'Green Like God' and the forthcoming 'A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars' (Faithwords, 2012).
Follow Jonathan Merritt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonathanmerritt
Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gay Marriage Opponents Rally In New York : NPR
Gay marriage opponents sue to overturn N.Y. law - CBS News
Gay Marriage Opponents Now in Minority - NYTimes.com
Can gay-marriage opponents overturn New York's law? - The Week
Where do you get off?
A call for tolerance means this.
As a gay man, though I believe organized religion more of a bad thing than a good thing, would not dream of starting petition efforts to ban it.
You also don't see me out there starting petition drives to repeal your tax exempt status.
You?
I can't say the Christian anti-gay faction has shown the same degree of tolerance.
Get out of your narcissistic bubble and look at your flagrant hypocrisy.
As we all know, it doesn't stop at that. It extends to campaigns, generally well-funded by "God's people", to deny civil rights to a targeted group of American citizens. "Difference of opinion" would better describe the reactions of various people to a TV show.
http://businessclarksville.com/2011/08/21/treat-hate-groups-with-the-contempt-they-deserve-31312/
It was re-posted by permission at http://www.jiveinthe415.com/2011/08/to-tell-truth-hate-groups-in-america.html
~ Gail
www.facebook.com/homospirituality
"Blogs erupted last month with news that Blake Mycoksie, founder of TOMS Shoes, apologized for speaking at an event hosted by Focus on the Family. The Christian non-profit is 'dedicated to helping families thrive,' but has long opposed same sex marriage. Bloggers at Change.org lamented Mycoskie's association with what they termed an 'anti-gay hate-group.' He responded with a public apology:
" 'Had I known the full extent of Focus on the Family's beliefs, I would not have accepted the invitation to speak at their event. It was an oversight on my part and the company's part and one we regret.'
"The move against Focus incited other activists to apply pressure to companies like Apple, Microsoft and Delta Airlines to cease their involvement with the Charity Give Back Group (CGBG). CGBG encourages consumers to give to more than 200,000 charities, including socially conservative groups like Family Research Council, when they purchase items from over 600 brand retailers. "
Please explain why you think this is all such a bad thing.
Who do these two guys think they're kidding?
Definition: intense and passionate dislike.
With this Oxford definition, we see that the issue is about "ha te" after all. It looks like this article is thin veil covering an exposed raw nerve.
Yes. Allowing Gay and Lesbian People to marry takes NOTHING away from heterosexuals. There are not a limited number of marriage licenses issued. Heterosexuals can still get marrried and divorced as many times as they wish.
It is irrational, and HATEFUL to deny others rights you claim for yourself when doing so does not affect your life in the least.
It's just the reality. Not everyone agrees with us morally, but we can persuade them that sometimes you do need to separate moral from legal.
Your "know[ing]" that "deny[ing] others rights you claim for yourself ... does not affect your life in the least" means those who believe otherwise "for religious reasons" are simply wrong.
They actually DO "believe" that religious institutions WILL be "force[d] to perform same sex marriages" - because they have been LIED to by the "Family" "Research" Council, the American "Family" Association, and by Let's Focus on SOME People's Families, Just Not Our Own. They ARE hate groups because what they say about God's gay and lesbian children is the bearing of false witness.
If they have to LIE about us in order to 'win' this battle, then they've already lost the war.
I mean, if the religious right can infer than anyone not "pro-life" is PRO death, which they do all the time, doesn't that headline imply that the authors themselves are ANTI-gay? I mean, using their own rules, that's all we're doing.
I write this as someone from an Evangelical family. In the 80s our family's church was the subject of a 60 MINUTES expose on The Bible Speaks, out of Lenox, Massachusetts. I was in high school. As a closeted gay teen, witnessing my family struggle with the Evangelical movement's blatant hypocrisy and willful ignorance, helped me survive suicidal years; the experience gave this gay person PROFOUND insight into how many Evangelicals operate, and I decided not to let the self-hate the Evangelical church instill in me win. My point of all this? As an addendum to my other posts: It's not as if I'm speaking as "an outsider." I was WAY in. WAY.
"I can believe that my gay friends are engaging in something spiritually damaging, without asking the law to stop them. They can perceive that my convictions are grounded in an ancient spiritual consensus, not hate. We still won’t agree. But perhaps we can understand each other, and continue the conversation with mutual respect." - anonymous person of faith
I do indeed respect this person's ability to recognize his or her obligation to respect his/her countrymen's civil rights, under the Constitution.
I'm gay. Sorry, but if a friend thinks a core part of myself is merely a failure on my part to morally construct myself, SEE YA! *That is premium Grade-A disrespect.* I'm not about to allow a friend to call me a friend while disrespecting me in this way. In return, I am happy in my disrespect of a blind adherence to ancient dogma written by men representing a patriarchy ignorant of contemporary realities of human sexual nature and orientation. Time for a new friend.
(continued...)
"They can perceive that my convictions are grounded in an ancient spiritual consensus, not hate."
No, that's what you want to believe, and it makes you feel just grand and...so...SUPERIOR!. world of difference. Most likely it is just ignorance or blind religious belief, uninformed by learning, logic, or compassion. It is ancient, for sure, but spiritual, not at all. This has no more to do with being spiritual than did segregation, slavery, stetls, and the murder of witches. all justified by a fervent belief that God was in the mix.
As for consensus, maybe, if you believe the passages, madbly and badly mistranslated over centuries, from a book written by people 2000-3000 years, 5000 miles, and a whole world of thought and knowledge away, about a subject which, in a vague, general sort of a way, might possibly be about some aspects of what might be homosexuality, at least as understood by those people, and not by people who actually know something about it.
Someone who would prefer to believe that this is some sort of moral (ha!) or worse spiritual (HAHA), instead of the evidence of my personhood would certianly be no friend of mine.
I love your last line.