I don't like your definition of tolerance and you're not consistent with it anyway. - Edit 1
Before modification by Vivien at 07/01/2012 01:52:48 AM
You give a very extreme definition of tolerance and then say you're tolerant of your children. How do you reconcile this?
Besides the extreme definition, what's bothersome is that your examples of tolerance are very much from the perspective of the majority. You didn't give enough detail for me to really pick them apart (since it's all about views, it's not clear in your examples how those views would translate into actions) but the framing is bothersome on a really fundamental level that's very much there but is kind of hard to explain.
Besides the extreme definition, what's bothersome is that your examples of tolerance are very much from the perspective of the majority. You didn't give enough detail for me to really pick them apart (since it's all about views, it's not clear in your examples how those views would translate into actions) but the framing is bothersome on a really fundamental level that's very much there but is kind of hard to explain.
Your first paragraph is meaningless. Again, tolerance is not about being okay with stuff that you are not personally into. If you believe that homosexuality is perfectlly fine and you are not offended by homosexual behavior, then there is no tolerance required, even though you aren't into it.
Tolerance is not about being okay with people that like vanilla when you like chocolate. Tolerance is being at peace with people eating vanilla when you think it is wrong to eat vanilla and that it is bad for individuals and society.
I am tolerant with my children when I am bothered by what they do but am patient with them. A person with high pain tolerance is not a person that feels no pain, but a person that can feel a lot of pain and still function.
So yes I believe that accepting homosexuality as just fine does not make a heterosexual person tolerant. Advocating for homosexual rights (while being heterosexual) does not make one tolerant.
A tolerant person is one who is bothered or offended by the notion that homosexuality is immoral, but is patient and at peace with those that hold it. Likewise a tolerant person is one that finds homosexuality to be wrong or sinful, but endures it in others and is at peace with it.
So in my opinion the tough question is how much should people tolerate. We would all agree that we should not tolerate murder. But there isn't agreement on gay marriage. Some people won't tolerate those who want to redefine marriage to something it has never been. Others won't tolerate those who want to deny homosexuals the right to marry each other. We all believe tolerance should be limited.
For me, I believe it is most important for people to not hate each other. Many people who claim that they want love to rule are in fact filled with hatred for those that oppose them. You can't have it both ways. I know people that are true homophobes; they hate gay people. I know some that truly hate those that oppose homosexual marriage. How do you know the haters? They are the most vitriolic, angry, and quickest to dehumanize their opponents. And both sides of the issue are swarming with them.
For those that are Christian, the Apostle John asks a searching question: (paraphrasing) "How can you claim to love God whom you have not seen, when you hate your brother whom you have seen?" And Jesus himself said (paraphrasing various verses), if you love only them that love you, what good have you done? Everybody does that. Love your enemy, pray for them that persecute you, etc...
Tolerance is not about being okay with people that like vanilla when you like chocolate. Tolerance is being at peace with people eating vanilla when you think it is wrong to eat vanilla and that it is bad for individuals and society.
I am tolerant with my children when I am bothered by what they do but am patient with them. A person with high pain tolerance is not a person that feels no pain, but a person that can feel a lot of pain and still function.
So yes I believe that accepting homosexuality as just fine does not make a heterosexual person tolerant. Advocating for homosexual rights (while being heterosexual) does not make one tolerant.
A tolerant person is one who is bothered or offended by the notion that homosexuality is immoral, but is patient and at peace with those that hold it. Likewise a tolerant person is one that finds homosexuality to be wrong or sinful, but endures it in others and is at peace with it.
So in my opinion the tough question is how much should people tolerate. We would all agree that we should not tolerate murder. But there isn't agreement on gay marriage. Some people won't tolerate those who want to redefine marriage to something it has never been. Others won't tolerate those who want to deny homosexuals the right to marry each other. We all believe tolerance should be limited.
For me, I believe it is most important for people to not hate each other. Many people who claim that they want love to rule are in fact filled with hatred for those that oppose them. You can't have it both ways. I know people that are true homophobes; they hate gay people. I know some that truly hate those that oppose homosexual marriage. How do you know the haters? They are the most vitriolic, angry, and quickest to dehumanize their opponents. And both sides of the issue are swarming with them.
For those that are Christian, the Apostle John asks a searching question: (paraphrasing) "How can you claim to love God whom you have not seen, when you hate your brother whom you have seen?" And Jesus himself said (paraphrasing various verses), if you love only them that love you, what good have you done? Everybody does that. Love your enemy, pray for them that persecute you, etc...
The equivalence to homosexuality tolerance and acceptance is tolerance and acceptance of heterosexuality, not tolerance and acceptance of homophobia.
Seeing it differently is perfectly ok- what's not ok is if someone's "seeing it differently" means taking choice/agency/freedom from other people. It's ok to be personally not into gay sex or birth control but it's a problem if you seek to also tell others what they can and cannot do. However, they are totally free to be homophobic in the privacy of their own homes.
For example, when we were watching the show where everyone stopped dying and they were scenes of 2 men, my dad would fast forward through them. [And I actually sat through the first episode of Spartacus with both my parents because we did not know what we were in for but somehow there was no fast forwarding there]
Seeing it differently is perfectly ok- what's not ok is if someone's "seeing it differently" means taking choice/agency/freedom from other people. It's ok to be personally not into gay sex or birth control but it's a problem if you seek to also tell others what they can and cannot do. However, they are totally free to be homophobic in the privacy of their own homes.
For example, when we were watching the show where everyone stopped dying and they were scenes of 2 men, my dad would fast forward through them. [And I actually sat through the first episode of Spartacus with both my parents because we did not know what we were in for but somehow there was no fast forwarding there]
One group thinks homosexual behavior is wrong. Another group thinks it is wrong to think homosexual behavior is wrong. One group claims to be the tolerant group, but it is hardly tolerance to embrace what you think is perfectly acceptable while villifying those who think differently.
I think a better definition of tolerance is living at peace with what you find objectionable. There are tolerant people on both sides of the argument, though far fewer than would tag themselves so. The trick is to rise above the desire to villify those who honestly see it differently than you.
That is why we come up with labels like pro-choice and pro-life, to give the implication that the other side is anti-life or anti-choice. Why do you like seeing babies die? Why do you like rippping agency from women? Those who see it differently than you are patently evil. The oldest trick in the political/religous/sports/social/anything book is to dehumanize those who oppose you so that you can unleash all of your vitriol and frustration against them without restraint. Afterall, why should you show restraint when the otherside has willfully and knowingly chosen to work for Satan?
I think a better definition of tolerance is living at peace with what you find objectionable. There are tolerant people on both sides of the argument, though far fewer than would tag themselves so. The trick is to rise above the desire to villify those who honestly see it differently than you.
That is why we come up with labels like pro-choice and pro-life, to give the implication that the other side is anti-life or anti-choice. Why do you like seeing babies die? Why do you like rippping agency from women? Those who see it differently than you are patently evil. The oldest trick in the political/religous/sports/social/anything book is to dehumanize those who oppose you so that you can unleash all of your vitriol and frustration against them without restraint. Afterall, why should you show restraint when the otherside has willfully and knowingly chosen to work for Satan?