Hatred or Hypocrisy? What's behind the Opposition and Backlash against LGBT?

[emilynghiem]

Hatred is the true motive behind the bathroom ban on transgender people

^ This author assumes it's "hatred" fueling the objections and rejection of LGBT laws and rulings.

I'd like to challenge this man, and others, to look at the real reason for resentment.

First, how much do you want to bet this man has ZERO knowledge, experience or understanding of people healed of homosexual or transgender orientation issues after undergoing deep spiritual healing therapy?

How can "hatred" by Christians be blamed when there are PLENTY of Christians who have forgiven and healed of these issues. If you look at the difference in attitude, there are AS MANY LGBT who refuse to forgive and accept Christians except Conditionally -- only if Christians agree to accept them, then they are accepted. But if Christians don't, they are BLAMED for their hatred. Well, by the same token, why can't they reject LGBT who REFUSE to forgive and insist on imposing their beliefs and judgments!

If HATRED is the problem, as many LGBT discriminate and reject Christians and are half the problem.
It's not fair to just blame one side. Especially where Christians who have seen proof and/or experienced spiritual healing that has changed orientation feel censored and left out of the discussion. Why isn't that angle on discrimination being addressed if the issue is inclusion and accepting people equally?

Given the FREE CHOICE people have made to forgive and accept differences over orientation and gender:
Is the GOVT in any position to PUNISH people if they don't forgive their differences in beliefs?
How can this decision be FORCED on people by law, under penalty of law?

If LGBT were forced BY LAW to "comply with" Christian beliefs in public schools and institutions,
some might forgive and accept this imposition if it was voted on. But wouldn't as many be OUTSPOKEN
and against the principle of imposing BELIEFS of one group on others through public institutions?

What I find to be the most disturbing, if not the main underlying cause of rejection
is the HYPOCRISY, not hatred which is not isolated.

The LGBT are expecting other people to change their beliefs and policies to accommodate them.
But if this was done to them by Christians, they would rebel against discrimination and/or
demand "separation of church and state."

In the case of DOMA, and state amendments that went too far by banning same sex marriage,
this WAS hypocrisy by conservatives and Constitutionalists who should have known this was unconstitutional by discrimination. Both the Clintons admitted the flaw in endorsing DOMA.
And because of the unconstitutional intrusion of beliefs in marriage, DOMA and other bans were struck down as discriminatory.

But when it comes to LGBT policies, why doesn't this same standard apply?
The proposals are equally biased by creed and faith-based, since orientation and transgender identity
are not proven to be decided at birth as race is, but are closer to creeds or beliefs and the free expression or exercise of those. So as creeds, why should the LGBT or the Christian beliefs be treated preferentially,
where one is endorsed by govt, while the other is penalized for being in conflict. Shouldn't both creeds
be equally included, and leave it to individual choice instead of abusing govt to take one side over the other?

The ultimate hypocrisy is where LGBT advocates expect people to forgive differences in beliefs and accept them -- NOT as a "free choice" to change their beliefs as the Christians like Obama
exercised when he changed his mind about gay marriage and equality.

They aren't required by law to forgive and accept Christian beliefs and change to accommodate them.
Yet they seek to impose laws that penalize Christians who "don't choose freely" to change their beliefs.

The abuse of govt and the double standard
are what I would argue is behind the reaction.

It's HYPOCRISY not hatred, and the responsibility to change the hostile relationship is mutual.

The natural law of reciprocity, or the Golden Rule, tells us by practical wisdom
to treat others as you want them to treat you.

Yet the LGBT who expect to use Govt impose their beliefs on others
would never agree for Christians to use Govt to impose their beliefs on them.

The fear, bullying, and backlash between the two sides is mutual.
It merely adds fuel to the fire to blame one side, while holding the other side faultless.
Half the resentment is coming from that.

Since both sides have equal rights to exercise their creeds, and to be protected from discrimination and unequal treatment,
neither side can be forced by govt to compromise or change their beliefs.

Thus, to prevent costs to the public of ongoing lawsuits and legislative actions over these disputes involving beliefs, wouldn't it be wiser to enact NEUTRAL policies that don't favor or endorse, impose on or penalize one creed more than another. Why require conflict resolution and mediation to form consensus on policies, that are mandatory for public institutions and voluntary for private businesses and individuals; where participants agree to respect each other's beliefs equally, and only to conduct business if they can resolve any differences amicably and mutually. If they cannot resolve conflicting beliefs, why can't agreements be made NOT to conduct business together, similar to religious groups letting each other have their own rituals and practices. Some even split off and fund separate schools and programs so they can exercise the policies of their choice.

If the pro-God and prolife groups are expected to keep their beliefs in private, and not impose them on the public through schools or govt; shouldn't the same standards on faith-based beliefs about gender and orientation be treated the same? Since opinions on sexual orientation and transgender identity are not yet proven by science (or else research studies would also show cases of how orientation and identity have changed by spiritual healing where the conditions were unnaturally caused by abuse), what gives one set of beliefs about "LGBT rights as natural" MORE favor by govt than beliefs that it represents a "choice of behavior" that is NOT protected by law or defined by science as race is.

Since neither side is proven or disproven, they both remain faith-based.
On that level, both LGBT proponents and opponents are pushing their individual creeds.

Since both sides RESENT the other abusing govt to push their own beliefs at the expense of others, why shouldn't they both be blamed for the hypocrisy of violating Constitutional laws
protecting people of all beliefs and creeds equally.

To blame one side merely fuels more and more resentment.
Aren't both equally to blame for inciting each other?

 

[Blackrook]

They said it was about what people do in private in their bedroom, but now it's about men invading the women's room and showing women their penises.

 

[Ravi]

It has nothing to do with Christians.

 

[Mac1958]

I'd like to challenge this man, and others, to look at the real reason for resentment.

Seems to me that, as with most major issues, it's a mix of things. To wit:

• There will always be a natural fear of what we don't (yet) understand.
• There will always be people with a vested interest in stoking that fear.
• There will always be people on the other end who leverage that fear by poking at it to give them something to use as an example, even at the cost of making things worse.

In any complicated, passionate issue, it's not terribly difficult to see counterproductive behaviors on both "ends" if one has both eyes open.
.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'd like to challenge this man, and others, to look at the real reason for resentment.

Seems to me that, as with most major issues, it's a mix of things. To wit:

• There will always be a natural fear of what we don't (yet) understand.
• There will always be people with a vested interest in stoking that fear.
• There will always be people on the other end who leverage that fear by poking at it to give them something to use as an example, even at the cost of making things worse.

In any complicated, passionate issue, it's not terribly difficult to see counterproductive behaviors on both "ends" if one has both eyes open.
.

Thank you Mac1958
So why can't both sides' beliefs or creeds be recognized equally under law as "faith based"
And why can't more people agree to unisex, neutral or single stall facilities that
don't tax, impose, coerce or exclude one set of beliefs or another?

 

[Mac1958]

I'd like to challenge this man, and others, to look at the real reason for resentment.

Seems to me that, as with most major issues, it's a mix of things. To wit:

• There will always be a natural fear of what we don't (yet) understand.
• There will always be people with a vested interest in stoking that fear.
• There will always be people on the other end who leverage that fear by poking at it to give them something to use as an example, even at the cost of making things worse.

In any complicated, passionate issue, it's not terribly difficult to see counterproductive behaviors on both "ends" if one has both eyes open.
.

Thank you Mac1958
So why can't both sides' beliefs or creeds be recognized equally under law as "faith based"
And why can't more people agree to unisex, neutral or single stall facilities that
don't tax, impose, coerce or exclude one set of beliefs or another?

Because, by far, the loudest voices in the conversation are those on the "ends" of the issue. While they represent the minority of the populace, they also represent most of the energy and therefore influence. The majority of Americans are open to ideas from both sides of most issues; these people are not. They just want to "win", no matter how long it takes, no matter how much damage is done in the interim.

Until we somehow culturally marginalize these people, important issues will remain and fester. Personally, I don't see how that happens.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah. The ends of the issue are both bad actors. Sure.

On one end, we have reasonable Americans who are not freaked out by gay people or transgendered people, understand the facts and know that allowing people to use the facilities that align with their sexual identity doesn't endanger anyone. Nobody in this group is stoking fear nor poking at it for any political advantage. Nobody here is going too far or taking a mile when given an inch.

On the other end, we have people who cannot come to terms with the fact that some people are gay and some are transgendered. They absolutely fear them. They pretend that their religion forces them to work against these people and they absolutely leverage their fear to force easily manipulated politicians into passing laws that restrict the rights of LGBT people.

No difference there except the end they are on. Right, Mac. If these groups just stop and let things go back to the way they were.....all would be fine. The gays could go back into the closet and the bigots could pretend they don't exist. It's a win win!

 

[Mac1958]

Right on cue.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Right on cue.

What's right on cue, Mac? A reply on a message board? You are like a magician the way you make people do things. Awesome.

 

[Crixus]

I'd like to challenge this man, and others, to look at the real reason for resentment.

Seems to me that, as with most major issues, it's a mix of things. To wit:

• There will always be a natural fear of what we don't (yet) understand.
• There will always be people with a vested interest in stoking that fear.
• There will always be people on the other end who leverage that fear by poking at it to give them something to use as an example, even at the cost of making things worse.

In any complicated, passionate issue, it's not terribly difficult to see counterproductive behaviors on both "ends" if one has both eyes open.
.

Thank you Mac1958
So why can't both sides' beliefs or creeds be recognized equally under law as "faith based"
And why can't more people agree to unisex, neutral or single stall facilities that
don't tax, impose, coerce or exclude one set of beliefs or another?

Mm, it should be a choice of the business owner weather or not a third facility is wanted or needed. People should not have to agree if they don't want to. It's also a money thing. Wet rooms cost allot of money to build where none existed before and for what, A group, a minority of only .3% of the population? That and why can't all people believe that humans with boy parts go in a restroom clearly marked "boys" and humans with girl parts use a restroom marked "girls"?

 

[Crixus]

Yeah. The ends of the issue are both bad actors. Sure.

On one end, we have reasonable Americans who are not freaked out by gay people or transgendered people, understand the facts and know that allowing people to use the facilities that align with their sexual identity doesn't endanger anyone. Nobody in this group is stoking fear nor poking at it for any political advantage. Nobody here is going too far or taking a mile when given an inch.

On the other end, we have people who cannot come to terms with the fact that some people are gay and some are transgendered. They absolutely fear them. They pretend that their religion forces them to work against these people and they absolutely leverage their fear to force easily manipulated politicians into passing laws that restrict the rights of LGBT people.

No difference there except the end they are on. Right, Mac. If these groups just stop and let things go back to the way they were.....all would be fine. The gays could go back into the closet and the bigots could pretend they don't exist. It's a win win!

Most gay people think cross dressers are odd folks. matter of fact, most gay people agree that men belong in men's rooms and women belong in women's rooms.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah. The ends of the issue are both bad actors. Sure.

On one end, we have reasonable Americans who are not freaked out by gay people or transgendered people, understand the facts and know that allowing people to use the facilities that align with their sexual identity doesn't endanger anyone. Nobody in this group is stoking fear nor poking at it for any political advantage. Nobody here is going too far or taking a mile when given an inch.

On the other end, we have people who cannot come to terms with the fact that some people are gay and some are transgendered. They absolutely fear them. They pretend that their religion forces them to work against these people and they absolutely leverage their fear to force easily manipulated politicians into passing laws that restrict the rights of LGBT people.

No difference there except the end they are on. Right, Mac. If these groups just stop and let things go back to the way they were.....all would be fine. The gays could go back into the closet and the bigots could pretend they don't exist. It's a win win!

Most gay people think cross dressers are odd folks. matter of fact, most gay people agree that men belong in men's rooms and women belong in women's rooms.

I also believe that men belong in men's rooms and women belong in women's rooms. We agree.

 

[Crixus]

Yeah. The ends of the issue are both bad actors. Sure.

On one end, we have reasonable Americans who are not freaked out by gay people or transgendered people, understand the facts and know that allowing people to use the facilities that align with their sexual identity doesn't endanger anyone. Nobody in this group is stoking fear nor poking at it for any political advantage. Nobody here is going too far or taking a mile when given an inch.

On the other end, we have people who cannot come to terms with the fact that some people are gay and some are transgendered. They absolutely fear them. They pretend that their religion forces them to work against these people and they absolutely leverage their fear to force easily manipulated politicians into passing laws that restrict the rights of LGBT people.

No difference there except the end they are on. Right, Mac. If these groups just stop and let things go back to the way they were.....all would be fine. The gays could go back into the closet and the bigots could pretend they don't exist. It's a win win!

Most gay people think cross dressers are odd folks. matter of fact, most gay people agree that men belong in men's rooms and women belong in women's rooms.

I also believe that men belong in men's rooms and women belong in women's rooms. We agree.

Not being a dick. just saying. Most folks feel the same, even gay folks.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah. The ends of the issue are both bad actors. Sure.

On one end, we have reasonable Americans who are not freaked out by gay people or transgendered people, understand the facts and know that allowing people to use the facilities that align with their sexual identity doesn't endanger anyone. Nobody in this group is stoking fear nor poking at it for any political advantage. Nobody here is going too far or taking a mile when given an inch.

On the other end, we have people who cannot come to terms with the fact that some people are gay and some are transgendered. They absolutely fear them. They pretend that their religion forces them to work against these people and they absolutely leverage their fear to force easily manipulated politicians into passing laws that restrict the rights of LGBT people.

No difference there except the end they are on. Right, Mac. If these groups just stop and let things go back to the way they were.....all would be fine. The gays could go back into the closet and the bigots could pretend they don't exist. It's a win win!

Most gay people think cross dressers are odd folks. matter of fact, most gay people agree that men belong in men's rooms and women belong in women's rooms.

I also believe that men belong in men's rooms and women belong in women's rooms. We agree.

Not being a dick. just saying. Most folks feel the same, even gay folks.

Most people know that transgendered women are women and transgendered men are men.

You are trying to tell me that gay people don't support transgender rights. You must think you are talking to an imbecile.