The new definitions of "Love" and "Hate"

 It seems that there has arisen a new definition of hate. Hate use to mean something, but like the term “racism” it has now morphed to mean something completely different. It appears that now “hate” means- to disagree with the wants or perceived injustices by a group. If one believes in a traditional definition of marriage, of one woman and one man, they are accused of “hating” those that would choose to re-define marriage to mean man-man, woman- woman, or any other variation of one or more people that love one another, and choose to be recognized as a “couple”. This is asinine. Not that they would like to be recognized as a couple, nor that they would like to call this union a marriage. That’s not asinine, but considering another person’s opinion as to whether they choose to call this union a marriage, hate is asinine. It’s irrational, and ludicrous. Is that what we’ve come to? A disagreement with someone about what the government will or will not sanction, is now termed and viewed as “hate”. 

Now I am not saying that there are not people that disagree with same sex marriage that do not hate homosexuals, but I would think that it is a tremendously small faction. See the kooks at Westboro Baptist Church for real “hate” towards homosexuals, yet to some homosexuals, and same sex marriage advocates, ANY dissent towards them having the government sanction their unions as marriages are just as “hate- filled” as Westboro Baptist Church holding a sign that says “God hates Fags” at a killed soldier’s funeral . Now eating at a restaurant is “hateful”. Now supporting a company that has an owner that disagrees with the government sanctioning of same-sex marriage, is seen as “hateful”.  

What transpired over the last week in regards to the boycott of a company, the outpouring of support of that company, and then the subsequent labeling of that support of a company as “hate” is mind boggling. What I can say about the support of the company is that there is a growing feeling among some people that Christianity is under attack. To some in the LGBT community, Christians represent those that would oppose their very existence, their lifestyle, their “marriages”, and are “hate” merchants.  This has brought out a different tactic which involves a new definition.  Christians are commanded by Jesus to love one another. So since those that have redefined the word “hate” to mean any opposition to their political or social goals, naturally the opposite of “hate” , “love” has become in fashion as a club to beat those people with and in context, they would like to say that since Jesus commanded us to “love” one another, that if those people that oppose Same Sex marriage were following Jesus’ commandment that they would “love” them and in their new definition of “love”, and “hate” means that they will support their cause. See how redefining words, can be a powerful tool to manipulate? “Love” equals agree and support, and “hate” means disagrees, and not support.  So remember when your 12 year old child comes to you and asks if they can start smoking cigarettes that if you say yes, you “love” them, and if you say no that you “hate” them.  

Personally I do not believe that homosexuality is wrong, immoral, or bad. A few of my best friends are gay, and I knew from an early age that they were different from me. Do some people “choose” to live the gay lifestyle? I think so. Are most of the people that live the gay lifestyle born gay? I believe so. Should they have the same rights as heterosexuals to become married? I believe so. Do I believe that the government should treat them the same as heterosexual marriages? Yes and no. I don’t believe that government sanctioned marriages are a good thing at all, for heterosexuals or homosexuals. However, there are benefits, and privileges that are afforded to heterosexual married people, which are not afforded to homosexuals, and I cannot abide that. Social Security (end it tomorrow please) death benefits to a surviving spouse, hospital visiting policies, even end of life decision making are not the same for gay people. That’s just not right and anyone that believes in the equal treatment under the law, or freedom of association (is marriage not the purest form of this?) cannot deny them this right. So where does that leave us? Either a) you wish to project your religious beliefs of what a marriage is or is not upon other people, and you continue to discriminate based solely on your religious beliefs or b) you disagree with them about what a marriage is, but you understand that this is the United States, and we’re are ALL created equal by our creator, and are all endowed with inalienable rights even those that you disagree with on religious principles. What other option is there?  

My personal belief is that we: gays straights, Christians, Heathens, are a dumb bunch to allow the government to define what is and is not an acceptable union between 2 or more (for those that are stupid enough or gluttons for punishment  to want more than one spouse) consenting adults. Replace the government sanction of “marriage” with what the government is supposed to do, which is the enforcement of laws and contracts. Leave the “marriages” to what they were originally intended; religious and social groups. You become “legally bound” through a contract filed with the government, and you become “married” in front of family, friends, or nobody, and just announce, “We are married”, or if your beliefs require it in front and with the consent of the governing body of your religious or social group. I am a Christian, and nowhere in the Bible is there an account where Jesus,  a prophet, or an apostle says, to become married, a man and a woman go to the government of the land to seek permission from the ruling government, then comes back to their religious or social group in order to make it all legitimate. Therefore, those Christians, and other religious groups that seek government to intervene in order to stop Same Sex Marriage, are the same type of stupid as the Same Sex Marriage advocates that would seek the government to intervene to make their “marriages” the same as hetero marriages. Both seek the government to make their views legitimate, and I am telling you right now that both are wrong.

So in conclusion: Same Sex Marriage Advocates need to take a different tact in order to gain equality. The answer is not to seek government interference in order to legitimize your relationships, but instead to seek less government interference in ALL marriages. Anti-Same Sex Marriage people should either face the fact that either they wish to use the force of government to discriminate against other Americans, or that they really do “hate”.