There’s a big grassroots movement right now against California’s Proposition 8 (banning homosexual marriages) called “NoH8.” 

I find this group very interesting. For one, I’m assuming that their end goal is to change California’s constitution. But what bothers me is the automatic assumption that if you’re against homosexual marriage or against the homosexual lifestyle, you somehow hate homosexuals. This baffles me. 

I’m hate promiscuity – as are many other Americans (including homosexuals). Does this mean I hate people who are promiscuous? I hate alcoholism. Does this mean I hate alcoholics? I hate drugs. Does this mean I hate drug addicts? Just because I hate the action does not mean I hate the person involved in the action. The reason for this is that what we do does not always define who we are. 

So I can disagree with a lifestyle choice and think that choice is wrong, but still not hate the person who made the choice. 

Unfortunately, however, the hope of civil discourse is thin. If you disagree with a lifestyle, then you are automatically branded as a “hater.” I can’t disagree with homosexual marriages without likewise being called a hater. Thus, any hope of a “civil discourse” on the matter is impossible; any opposing views are pushed into the same category as “racism” and other social taboos and subsequently shut out. It’s the attitude of, “Let’s discuss this…unless you disagree with me.” 

Thus, the whole “No H8” rhetoric is disingenuous. Being against homosexual marriage is not the same at hating homosexuals.


2 thoughts on “NoH8

  1. You made a false analogy between “lifestyle choices” and homosexuality.

    Did you choose to be straight?

    1. No, I don’t choose to be straight. I have a natural attraction to females. Two things though:

      1) I do choose not to live a promiscuous life. In fact, if I so chose, I could be celibate the rest of my life (I do intend on getting married, so this really isn’t an option). The fact is, regardless of my natural attractions, I have the choice to act on those attractions. Just as an alcoholic may not be able to help his addiction to alcohol but can choose to abstain from alcohol, so too can we do the same with sexual urges.

      2) You’re assuming that homosexual attraction is natural and the default position of humanity.

      Likewise, the analogy isn’t false at all. People may have natural tendencies to certain things, but they have the choice to act or abstain on those tendencies. So I fail to see how the analogy is false.

Comments are closed.