Not so long ago, one could debate with a liberal. But nowadays, whenever you disagree with them, they have a ready comeback to shut you up, one that is very difficult to rebut:
You are a hater spreading hate and a bigot spreading bigotry.
The implication is that your opinion stems from some deep-seated unworthy negative emotion and is thus fundamentally illegitimate. And so not even worth debating.
The best response to this is not to pathetically apologize and assure them that you mean well, really. Instead, point out that it is rude of them to cast such aspersions on your character. You refuse to engage with them unless they will debate with civility.
The same applies when one quotes religious sources to justify one’s personal beliefs, such as referencing the fact that according to the eternal, universal laws of Noach transmitted in the Torah, sodomy should be outlawed, and same-sex marriage is not just forbidden but constitutes the nadir of societal degeneracy.
Secularists will interpret one’s words in the most uncharitable fashion and respond:
- Your religion differs from the latest social fad, so it is inherently hateful, so shut up. (Of course, they will only tell this to Christians and Jews, but not Muslims.)
- Your deeper motivation behind taking your position is hateful, because otherwise why wouldn’t you be out promoting something else religious like not to desecrate Shabbos, intermarriage, or the like? Why oppose the LGBT movement, of all things? You must have an irrational, unworthy, emotional dislike for them and your religion is just a pretext to express your hateful tendencies.
- You must be a closet pervert, or else you wouldn’t focus so much on sexual matters.
- If you think my religion is “hateful”, so be it. But I will not be deterred by your denigration of my faith. Also, this is an argument from popularity, which is fallacious.
- I and others discuss matters related to the LGBT agenda because it is a major issue of the day, if not the foremost one. And although those and many other sins are rampant among the Jewish people, there is no political movement actively legitimizing and promoting desecration of Shabbos and the like. Also, the LGBT ideology militates against basic family-oriented sexual morality that is universal and fundamental to civilized society, and therefore in a way speaking out about this is even more pressing than promoting Torah observance in those other areas. Also, there are plenty of rabbis encouraging non-religious Jews to observe Shabbos, but precious few speaking out against the LGBT agenda. On a personal level, I can tell you that I had almost no knowledge of or interest in the LGBT agenda until it was legalized in the USA due to the calamitous Obergefell ruling.
- Odd, isn’t it, that if one would return that compliment and cast such aspersions on the motives of LGBT advocates, that accusation would be met with outrage and condemnation, and yet it is viewed as perfectly acceptable to hurl at religious people.
Both the second and third point are also classic examples of ad hominem attacks—dismissing the character of the person making the argument without actually responding to its substance. You would think that these liberals, who all attended college and sing its praises, where they are supposedly schooled in the art of detecting logical fallacies and are therefore armed with reasoning skills vastly superior to those religious plebs who didn’t attend college, would notice these glaring errors. You would be wrong.
To those who say my stance on LGBT matters is intolerant and hateful, I say that as far as I am concerned, I am simply being true to my religion, and of this I am proud. Moreover, I can quote Torah sources relevant to the issue upon which I base my view. If you think I err in my quotes or you have counter-quotes, I am willing to discuss that. But to dismiss my words out of hand as hateful without any rational debate—this very accusation is intolerant and hateful of religious folks. As an Orthodox Jew, I am fully entitled to delve into Torah sources in order to seek guidance and remain true to my religious tradition—even if that means holding views that (gasp!) don’t conform to the latest wacky intellectual fad, or to secularist values in general.
Accusing an Orthodox Jew of hate merely for holding unpopular views and voicing them unapologetically is blatant anti-religious—in this case, anti-Semitic—persecution. But of course, that itself is the latest social fad—to shame and ostracize all dissenters from the new atheist ideology by branding them as monstrous haters.
Don’t be ashamed of the scoffers whose only “argument” is anti-religious slurs. Speak out proudly in defense of the eternal, universal laws of Noach.
B”H I think that homosexual orientation is wrong, tragic, disgusting, and damaging to the spiritual environment of our planet, but I do not agree with that post, because many people who became homosexual or lesbian when they had a choice, not out of compulsion, and bought the lie that they were just born this way (as distinct from those who felt compelled, who really are dealing with the problems anyone is who has unhealthy or unacceptable compulsions) had no way to analyze the lie they were being presented with. They had no idea that suddenly in 2017 the rules are going to change, and they are not just being nasty… they are threatened with their lives, because they cannot change such a fundamental factor in their way of life this fast, and if the anti-homosexual rhetoric given out by politicians and elected officials is too strong and too absolute, they can easily become subject to the equivalent of lynching and pogroms, not just the inconvenience of not being able to get a “wedding” cake decorated. Yes, I agree that the practice is disgusting and wrong and it’s an abomination in no uncertain terms from both the Torah and its Christian follow-up, the NT. Consider the age of the offenders and realize that the APA stated, due to a political takeover, as per Scott Lively, that this practice was healthy in 1973, and how long these individuals have been laboring under this illusion that was started when the APA was their parents’ authority-organization regarding what is okay to “let be” in their children, and they were teenagers, and how they tried to be idealists, to be advocates of peace and to practice “better than ZPG” lack of population growth, for the sake of the planet, for ecological balance and the survival of humanity, to stop the use of nuclear weapons so that masses of people don’t die from over-radiation, etc. They found long-term companions of the same gender and truly believed they wanted to spend their lives together, having, perhaps, in the back of their mind, the thought that the planet does not need more children anyhow, so what right do they have to risk getting pregnant, or getting someone pregnant, in a heterosexual marriage, but indeed they needed commitment, affection and stability with a young person their own age, as by late teenage years parents cannot do everything and one cannot be alone… not all homosexuality has been practiced in a degenerate spirit or with degenerate intentions (these people wanted to be moral heroes and did not understand or know of the prohibition) and they need the proper ideological background, given the proper way, to readjust, especially after so long. Some were raised from birth according to this philosophy, in later years. Putting the wrong zealots in power now could lead to violence against people who are actually innocent in their intentions and have always done their best to promote the good of society. Chances are that these people never had a chance to study the details of 613 mitzvos for Jews, or 7 mitzvos for non-Jews. To suddenly switch because the political administration changed, and to spout inflexible and hateful rhetoric against them, as individuals, places them at danger of their lives, and then we’ll see violations of another of the Seven Commandments: Murder. Heaven forbid! Education takes time, especially when the “system” under which their parents gave them directives said that homosexuality is healthy. Scott Lively, who seems quite inspired, has some interesting presentations on this, if one does not mind having it presented in Christian terms (which is not so bad for me, as I am from an ecumenical neighborhood and attended a Christian college without realizing, until later, that it had been chartered as such, so it’s quite familiar to me) and it would be okay if one knew that once this is firmly outlawed, that orthodox and conservative zealots would be honorable and compassionate and not take to the lynching trail to finish off anyone who does not comply. I am not so sure his approach is really safe, and he has stated that homosexuality is worse than mass murder, which I find inaccurate, frightening, and downright offensive, citing the example of the time the Israelites killed the Canaanites off, before moving into the land we now call Israel. I think that is not okay. It’s clear there was a Divine directive at that time, and we are no longer in the age of Divine directives. It seems that a certain Germanic person in about 1928 thought he had a Divine directive, and we see what happened then… 6 million Jews were killed, as well as 13 million Catholics, homosexuals, gypsies, the mentally ill and handicapped, and even some Lutherans who did not agree that Jews needed to be exterminated. In 1928 this Mr. H. ymach shmo had announced that this is going to be a Christian project and had gotten signed agreements and support from the Pope of that time and many bishops and governmental heads of nearby countries, so Europe must have appeared to be his for the taking, to become Judenrein (this info I found from a site maintained by a Harvard scholar called Robert Price), all based on the Nicene’s council’s interpretation of Scripture, which stated that the man (we consider him human, and they consider him divine) they worshiped was not actually Jewish due to the divine origins of his birth, and since the Jews of the time had said that his execution should be on their heads, every single one and manifestations of Jewish culture were to be wiped out and henceforth the Christians would be considered the new Jews and the Chosen People. That reading of their Scripture gave them the green light to do this, but we know it to be wrong, many of us actually having lost relatives over there, and most of the modern post WWII society agrees that this was not a good project. We believe that there are three kelipos tameios, three unclean husks, namely Idolatry, Murder, and Incest. A Jew has been instructed to surrender his/her life rather than engage in these, especially when asked to do so in an anti-Semitic regime. The prohibition against illicit sexual relations has been developed from the third of these, principally involving incest and adultery, and I have not studied carefully enough, I am not sure the level of severity that is assigned to homosexuality within this, it’s just that I have read that the prohibition against lesbianism is less severe, being “the immodest ways of the Egyptians” rather than an abomination, as is male homosexuality. But I do not think that the primary focus of “respect the family” is to go against homosexuality. I do not think the prohibition of homosexuality is as severe as that of murder,even of murdering just one person, as each person is a whole world, so I think that as idealistic as Mr. Lively may be, that his words can easily be taken out of context and taken too far and have tragic results. There was a time when Hashem’s presence appeared on Mt. Sinai, and then reappeared regularly in the Tent of the Assembly throughout the travels in the wilderness, eventually giving a command that the Canaanites should be ended in an obligatory war, with a statement that if not, they will be a thorn in the sides of the Children of Israel. We are past the time of such supernatural directives, although on some levels it seems that people do and will increasingly receive some degrees of prophecy as the Seventh Millennium draws closer. We have seen at least a doubling in anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. since our new President took office, as the cause of eliminating reverse discrimination has been championed and those elements who wished to revive WWII types of activities are not as afraid to express their feeling regarding Jews, who largely set up many African-Americans for equal rights, being that the Reformed Jewish movement was part of the initial formative administration for the NAACP, so once white rights, easily gradating into white supremacy is on the rise, so, also, it seems safer to them to try again to protest at the presence of Jews among the general populace. Comparably, it seems that there is a danger with spouting unqualified and vehement rhetoric against homosexuals and lesbians now, because the thought-and-behavioral threshold that prevents violence regarding this sexual preference pattern from being expressed with actual crimes of property defacement and theft, as well as, possibly, murder, given some of the rhetoric that has been heard from Lively and a certain Southern senatorial candidate now running, would be reduced. I think they’re not just being argumentative. They do not know how they are going to live. Someone has to show them a palatable way to give this habit and set of beliefs up. It has to look mighty attractive to go straight, and, even then, it may take time. One can’t just reverse all the policies, or even the prevailing rhetoric, at once, and, indeed, I’m not sure this is the domain of the government at all. Rape of any sort is a crime and should be prosecuted severely, but to check too far as to what is happening in private rooms among consenting adults opens a whole Pandora’s box regarding privacy. Imagine not being able to give a ten-year old a sip of Kiddush wine at home behind closed doors because a mandatory video-cam will capture the moment and one will be caught dispensing alcoholic drink to a minor! It’s a comparable thing in terms of privacy law. Homosexuals need to learn, in depth, the Scripture behind the prohibition, or appropriate secular material if they cannot accept Biblical religion, for a while, before they will be able to make such a fundamental change. Sudden policy shifts with death-mongering rhetoric are not acceptable under the Seven Mitzvos, as far as I am concerned, as they can lead to murder and theft. Zealous leaders can wind up using implementation of such policies for sordid subconscious motives of which they, themselves, are not aware, as every personality has its hidden flaws and imbalances, and thus we will be further from the Justice-dispensing, Noahide-law compliant community we wish to create, than we would be if we gave some time and leniency to LGBTQ individuals so that they may adjust to what we hope will be a new and ongoing development of the Noahide-mitzvah way of life.