I introduced the idea, in the previous post, that hate, if it is based in reason, and being used as a mere differential term in regards to preference, is not necessarily a bad thing. If we use the general definition of hate and base it in certain facts, hate becomes merely a gauge by which it is possible to make certain judgments possible. So, there must certain objective means to establish those reasons.
Anything determined by genetics is not an objective reason. Skin color, physical gender, hair color, etc, are contingent on measures beyond control. These items do contribute anything more than a basis for identifying an individual. But behavior, that is different, independent of our inborn differences.
Behavior can be determined by certain elements of the objective, if they operate within their given parameters toward their defined objective: i.e. physical gender identity must operate in accordance with its design and function. The problem arises when when emotional drive overrides the physical definition. Behavior, then, when it breaks from the normal course of life becomes the necessary exclusive point that gives reason to exhibit the extreme dislike that is encapsulated in the word “hate”. We hate theft, therefore we punish those who steal. We hate murder, therefore we punish those who commit murder. These are extreme examples, but show that we necessarily prove the point by admitting that certain behaviors acceptable and others not. Notice that we “admit” to their acceptability. There are certain behaviors that certain cultures make acceptable, but when reason is applied, whatever they are falls into the realm of the unacceptable, and therefore fall into the boundaries where the concept of hate may be properly applied. Given our current cultural leanings this may be a difficult task, but worth the effort to understand and articulate.