Love, love is a verb/love is a doing word.

[gaudior]

When right-wing Christians talk about gay rights these days, they'll often try hard to couch it in terms of "respectful dialogue." They get very upset when people call them "hateful" or "bigoted." They argue that "just because you disagree with someone, whether it is on the subject of homosexual 'marriage' or any other, doesn't automatically make you a hater."

This reminds me of a quote my wife often repeats: "Love is not a feeling. Love is an action." It was said in those words by psychiatrist M. Scott Peck in 1978, but you can argue that it also has Biblical roots ( 1st Corinthians, Chapter 13). The idea is that the emotion is all well and good, but it's not sufficient or necessary; with real love, you take care of others, nurture their growth, do things to help them. You can tell that someone loves through the consequences of their actions for other people, no matter what they may say or feel.

I would argue that hate works the same way. Hate is also not a feeling. Hate is also an action. Anger is a feeling, sure. So is the desire for vengeance. So is fear-- of the unknown, of difference, of change. Those are feelings. But hatred is action which results in harm to others.

So when I look at the above-mentioned quote; sure, disagreeing with someone isn't hate. You can disagree with someone without damaging them in the least. Hate is when you take actions that harm people with whom you disagree, no matter how you feel about those actions-- whether you feel calm, or justified, or even compassionate. Hate is when you vote for someone who makes sure that someone cannot be comforted in illness by the person they love the most. Hate is when you donate money to make sure that children won't have legal protection if one of their parents dies. Hate is when you stand at someone else's parade with signs written to dim their happiness and pride in the thing they're celebrating. All of those are things that do harm, from great to small.

Some right-wing Christians would argue that these actions are done out of love because they're trying to save GLBTQ people from Hell. They would argue that hurting people a little on Earth is justified if it will save them from greater hurt after death-- spare the rod, and all that. That argument... seems very counter to the idea of free will. It suggests that people can't find their own salvation from sin unless that sin is made incredibly difficult to do-- unless the consequences of that sin are financial burdens, physical danger (from untreated illness, from bullying, from murder), social isolation, depression, shame, and guilt. The approach there seems to be "we will save your souls whether you want us to or not." I can see that as a practical means to an end if you think that forced, grudging obedience to God's laws is enough for salvation-- but every Christian I've ever talked to talks about salvation as a conscious, willing process-- a surrender, maybe, but to God, not to humans who beat you into it.

So no, I wouldn't say that increasing the danger to GLBTQ people, increasing our inconvenience and discomfort and financial expense (it cost me $300 at tax time this year to be married to a woman instead of a man. Well-- that's how much extra I paid. I'm not even sure how much more I would have saved in benefits in a heterosexual marriage) can be an act of love. It does us actual harm, physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. And the fact that this harm is not new-- that this is harm which has been done for decades, so that it's status quo-- doesn't make us not hurt.

Hate is not a feeling. Hate is an action. It's the action of voting, contributing money, protesting, and speaking in ways that influence others to make my life harder because of who I love. People's feelings don't directly affect me, but their actions do.

That's what we're talking about when we say people opposing same-sex marriage are "hateful."

--R

Comments

[angstnokami.livejournal.com]

Very well said. Thank you for putting this so clearly.

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[navrins]

Hmm. I should think about this some more, but I don't think I agree with you. (About the use of the word "hateful." I do basically agree with you on gay marriage, as far as I know your position.)

[I feel like I'm about to have a tone argument. I also think you invited it with this post. If I'm wrong, feel free to let me know.]

I mean, philosophically, I can see your point. It's even a good one, and you've expressed it well. But in the practical world of people arguing with one another, trying to influence one another's behavior, calling someone "hateful" when they don't perceive themselves so is probably going to have similar results to them calling you "sinful." It shuts down the conversation, reinforces them in their opinion, makes them less likely to listen to yours.

I think your strongest point here is about how the behavior of right-wing Christians toward gays is harmful, and if I were going to make a suggestion (which apparently I am) it would be to stick with that language. That way you're talking about yourself and your own experience: "I am being harmed, in these ways, by your actions." It's hard for them to argue that you aren't being harmed - at best, they can say you deserve to be harmed, or you're harming yourself, and that isn't very persuasive. When you argue that their harmful behavior implies hateful feelings, you're now talking about them. That's where I think your argument isn't very persuasive, even if it is philosophically justified.

[navrins]

Also, sticking with the "harm" language pretty neatly counters the "respectful dialog" argument. If I'm having a "respectful dialog" while you're calling me a hater and a bigot, I look noble and even-tempered. If I'm having a "respectful dialog" while you're getting hurt, I look like a bully. (And I hope that isn't what I'm doing with these comments.)

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

Hm. I agree that when I'm starting a conversation with someone, my using the language of "harm" rather than "hate" is more effective and clearer. When I have these conversations with people, I generally do take the tack of "Do you have any idea of the actual harm you're actually doing? because I bet you're a nice enough person that if you did, you'd change your mind."

Do you think, though, that if such a person were to read this post, and hear this argument, that they would not get the point I'm making?

[navrins]

I think someone who thinks you think they are a hater is unlikely to read this post and hear this argument. They might, of course, but there's a good chance they would just dismiss you as someone else labelling them a hater, not worth listening to.

I think that you could make (what I think is) the more central point you have - that opposition to gay rights is not just a respectful disagreement but something that causes tangible harm and personal distress to fellow human beings - without using the word hate. I think your hypothetical person would probably be more likely to hear and take in that argument.

Of course, being neither you nor that hypothetical person, I'm probably not the best person to ask.

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

Okay, thank you, and like I said, I agree with the general point about language and effective ways to argue.

But... I've already talked (I believe in previous posts, but if not there, then certainly all over the internet) about tangible harm. What I was interested in looking at here was, very specifically, the conversation that happens wherein opponents of my marriage complain about being called hateful.

Does that make sense?

[navrins]

Yes, it does. I'm still not sure I entirely *agree* with you - or rather, I accept that that's what *you* mean by "hateful," but I'm not sure I would use the word that way or understand that that's what someone meant if they didn't explain it as you've done here. But with your explanation, I do understand what you're saying.

[pastwatcher]

I don't think the best audience for this post is people who oppose gender-neutral marriage. The people who should read it are people who have previously had trouble understanding that the actions and attitudes being described are indistinguishable to us, the victims, from actions of people who admit they hate us. In particular, there are many people who aren't homophobic themselves but believe that queer people are going over the top to use words like "hateful" to apply to the people actually spreading homophobia. People who, once we start using the word "hate", would rather try to stop us from using that word than focus on the damages being dealt.

I don't know about gaudior. But if I were trying to communicate with someone who hates what I am rather than shut down the conversation, I would not call them bigoted or hateful. I would possibly call them condescending, overbearing or disrespectful, but mostly explain to them the rest of this post: the harm they and others are doing.

(For my own background: I'm queer myself, and I think it's stupid that marriage should not be gender-neutral, but I'm not much invested in marriage politically compared to other queer issues.)

[sovay]

The approach there seems to be "we will save your souls whether you want us to or not."

A few days ago I passed a church whose front-lawn letterboard sign read, "GOD LOVES YOU AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT." Possibly it was intended to reassure me that I could never do anything so terrible as to destroy God's love for me, even if I was trying, but all it put me in mind of was a line from a story by cucumberseed: "With the Gods, it is always rape."

That's what we're talking about when we say people opposing same-sex marriage are "hateful."

Yes. You can make a case for people feeling however they feel, but you have a choice over what you do with your feelings. That is very well sorted. Best cousin.

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

"With the Gods, it is always rape."

Yeah, I can see that. Because if someone's got complete control over every aspect of you and your environment, it's almost impossible for anything you do towards them short of absolute, full-out rebellion to not be under duress.

You can make a case for people feeling however they feel, but you have a choice over what you do with your feelings.

Exactly yes. Thank you!