Why all the hate?: an abstract analysis of LGBTQIAP intolerance

There is no harm in being a subject of the LGBTQIAP community. No one dies when a man makes love to another man because it happens. So then why in the name of all that is good and just is there such a vehement disgust against these subjects?

Religion often receives the blame. After all, religion has been around for millennia, and it is no secret that religious writings for almost as long have denounced anything outside the 'traditional union' between a man and a woman. It's plausible to understand why religious belief would be accused of perpetuating intolerance towards the LGBTQIAP community.

However, it's not just those who believe in religion that have animosity towards LGBTQIAP subjects. Sure, those who follow a religion are probably more likely to be intolerant, but what of those who don't have a religious affiliation and are averse to anything LGBTQIAP?

Truth is that religion still intrudes on the thoughts and beliefs of those who aren't religious. Since religion has been around for as long as it has, and has dominated the narrative of history for the longest time, understandings of morality and justice to this day still have roots in religious teachings. So even though there is a rise in secular thinking and lifestyles, the ever-present Ghost of Religious Past haunts our - that is, all of humanity's - reasoning.

Outside of the religious reasons for LGBTQIAP intolerance is another fanatical belief that has existed for a while and, subsequently dominates our ways of thinking: the product-centred system of financial governance, Capitalism. Under such a leadership, there are several moral concerns, and one such concern should be its treatment of the LGBTQIAP community.

Capitalist regimes and its predecessors, like feudalism, have always been focused on what it can produce. Such a focus would naturally lead to ethical issues (especially, among others, sanctioning the belief that 'the ends justify the means', so long as the job gets done). When a system of leadership prioritises the product over the process of production - which is why, in major corporations, the ones to whom the success of the product is attributed, the CEOs, earn millions while the actual workers, those involved in the product's production, earn pence in comparison - its subjects begin to follow the ideology of the leadership.

Now, as a result of the global reach and implementation of Capitalism, even reactions to the system, people the world over have become product-oriented. That is to say it is more likely that a person cares more about their car (or more what the car means) than how they get the car.

An ideology which idolises products over process doesn't favour LGBTQIAP subjects. It is perceived of the LGBTQIAP community that procreation is not part of their agenda: LGBTQIAP people, being who they are, are believed to be incapable of having children. (This we know is a lie. In vitro fertilisation has allowed for people of all orientations, LGBTQIAP included, to have children.)

Subsequently, because the LGBTQIAP subject is perceived to be incapable of procreating, the immediate inference is that they copulate meaninglessly, or, worse, purely for enjoyment and with no fear of consequence (i.e. pregnancy and children).

The LGBTQIAP subject has been classified, by means of religious propaganda and a conditioning towards a specific lifestyle, as a hedonist. Their life, according to the intolerant, is either pure enjoyment or doesn't produce anything of substance. (As an aside, this is in part why LGBTQIAP people are being denied marriage rights: to give them the ability to be united - either in the eyes of God or the Law - means their relationships now produce something of substance.)

Here, I make a suggestion. Perhaps due to the inhibitions taught to/conditioned into/imposed on non-LGBTQIAP people makes them jealous of the level of enjoyment and pleasure they perceive the LGBTQIAP community receive. What they subconsciously believe LGBTQIAP people have (enjoyment, less responsibility, etc.) they want also.

...perhaps not.