Spin Off - Tolerance

49 posts / 0 new
Last post
Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427
Spin Off - Tolerance

As most debates that involve the treatment of homosexuals do, (:p) our debate on the gentleman from the hate group joining the anti-bullying task force has kind of devolved into a discussion of who is more intolerant. Is he more intolerant for being anti-gay marriage, or am I more intolerant for being anti-him-on-a-task-force?

Don't worry, that's not the debate question. Lol

The debate question is, how do you personally define tolerance?

Do you feel that in order to be tolerant, we have to tolerate intolerance? Or does the fight for tolerance necessitate calling out intolerance?

I don't even know if this will be a debate, I just thought it would be interesting to hear people's thoughts on it.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

In order to be tolerant you have to tolerate intolerance unless it affects someone's ability to do something they should be allowed to do.

Like I can tolerate the KKK/Black Panthers being racist, but cannot tolerate the fact that some people feel unsafe because of their intolerance. I can tolerate someone voting for the wrong party, but cannot tolerate the fact that some people are mistreated because they don't vote the way it's expected for them to vote.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

"wlillie" wrote:

In order to be tolerant you have to tolerate intolerance unless it affects someone's ability to do something they should be allowed to do.

I agree. That's where I think the pro gay camp wants to point out. Not allowing gays to marry is affecting someone else's ability to do something they should be allowed to do.

I'm tolerant of other viewpoints. I recognize their point to exist. We can disagree til the cows come home but I respect that you have a different stance. I can explain why I agree or don't agree. When it hurts people is when I become intolerant of intolerance Wink

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Or does the fight for tolerance necessitate calling out intolerance?

This. Not calling out intolerance is de facto acceptance of it.

And to answer the unasked question, he is more intolerant for being anti-gay marriage. Discrimination is despicable no matter what your religion says. It's *your* religion, keep it to yourself.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I agree, Lillie.

For me, there are a couple of parts to it. First of all, the very fact that you are "tolerating" something means that you disagree with it. We don't "tolerate" opinions that we agree with; so the fact that you disagree with the thing you are tolerating is kind of a given. Disagreeing with someone is not "intolerant."

The second part depends on what you mean by "tolerate."

It seems like there are two main definitions of "intolerant" that get used in conversation and debate.

1. A sort of legalistic definition - meaning that you think something should be against the law.

2. A more emotional definition, which basically means that you feel someone is criticizing an opinion.

I think opinions should never be against the law, even opinions that I personally find completely objectionable. However, how you act on those opinions should be a legal question. If your opinions lead you to seek to hurt others or try to deny them their rights, then I don't think that should be allowed. That goes in all directions, not just the ones I agree with.

On the other hand, I find that there are very few opinions that are so sacred that they should not be criticized. Being critical of an opinion is not "intolerant" in my opinion. I think it's meaningless to pretend that all opinions are equally valid and equally correct. Some opinions are silly, or wrong, or harmful, and I don't think it serves to pretend otherwise. However, I think that the only way that intolerance comes into it is if you do not think that people have a right to their opinions that you disagree with. As I said before, I think people have a right to their opinions; the only question is how they then act on them.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"Spacers" wrote:

This. Not calling out intolerance is de facto acceptance of it.

And to answer the unasked question, he is more intolerant for being anti-gay marriage. Discrimination is despicable no matter what your religion says. It's *your* religion, keep it to yourself.

People don't need/usually want acceptance of their intolerance. They usually just want to be able to have their own opinion without someone calling them names/stopping them from expressing said opinion. I'm terribly terribly intolerant of people who have kids they can't afford. You don't have to accept it and either way, it doesn't affect my intolerance. People calling me names or being ugly doesn't change how I feel about the issue and doesn't help me with my opinion of them.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

I think the difference is saying "I feel one way" vs. "I want to stop X" does that make sense.

Morally, I agree with you. I cannot fathom people purposely reproducing when they cannot afford that child or any current children. However, I don't feel that it needs to be illegal.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

Sooo weird, i wanted to ask the same question. I haven't been following the debate that you are talking about but I have been following this story, which is about an orchard that is nearby:

Treworgy family farmers take down ?No on 1? sign after Facebook flap

Alot of supporters of the farm are claiming the pro gay-marriage community is being 'intolerant' of the farms views...simply because they have vocally expressed that they are going to take their business elsewhere. To me, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. But it made me want to ask the question here. Perhaps in its most technical of definitions? But it doesn't even seem comparable to their opposition, yet that is exactly what some people are saying.

Treworgy family farmers take down ?No on 1? sign after Facebook flap

LEVANT, Maine ? When the owner of a local family farm operation exercised his right to free speech by putting up a small political sign near a private driveway, some customers with an opposing view exercised their consumer rights to boycott the business.

That, in turn, prompted others to publicly come out in support of the farm family in a battle that is being waged primarily on the farm?s Facebook page.

At issue is a small lawn size ?No on 1? sign that Gary Treworgy, patriarch of the family farm, put up in front of his house. The property is also the location of a business that employs several family members.

?Don?t redefine marriage. Vote NO on Question One. Marriage=One Man + One Woman,? read the sign, sponsored by the Protect Marriage Maine campaign.

A citizen initiative on the Nov. 6 statewide ballot, Question 1 seeks to overturn Maine?s ban on same-sex marriage. The issue has proven a contentious one ? pitting neighbors, family members and friends against one another from one end of the state to the other.

The first post critical of Treworgy?s sign appeared Sunday, family spokesman Jon Kenerson said Monday afternoon. Within less than 24 hours, more than 15,000 people had visited the page, with many of them weighing in with comments, he said.

Though Treworgy removed the sign Monday morning, after someone stopped to say it was hurtful, the Facebook battle continued to rage.

On Monday, several members of the family said they were taken aback by the backlash they had received.

A sampling of posts from Question 1 supporters:

? ?You have lost all of my family?s business as of now. You may not know me personally, but my family has done business for years with you. It?s disgusting that you would bring personal ideals into your business page. All the years you took making the orchard great and in a matter of weeks, you have ruined your name and business. We will be using Wallingford?s Orchard as of now. Hopefully lost profits will teach you to be tolerant and respectful in future business dealings.?

? ?You are certainly entitled to your beliefs but your business will no longer be supported by my family.?

? ?No matter your belief, it still shouldn?t be expressed at your place of business. You lost so many of your loyal customers. While you may believe that being gay is a sin, no one is free of sin, including you.?

And a sample from those who support the Treworgy family:

? ?You may have lost many who ?like? your page, but you have gained me.?

? ? ? I commend you for defending/explaining your stance on Question 1. I think it?s sad that because you support No on 1 that you are looked upon as ?closed-minded? or discriminatory. So what that you don?t share the Yeson 1 viewpoint. ? I thought we lived in a free country with freedom of speech.?

? ?You have a new customer in my family. Thank you for your courage.?

? ?I will continue to support your farm. Regardless of your point of view. If everyone could take a minute and stop condemning people of their views it would be great. With that being said ? If people knew every company?s personal views they wouldn?t be able to shop anywhere. ? Btw I support gay marriage ? I believe everyone should have the right to marry who they love ? Same rights as everyone else ? No more no less.?

The controversy playing out on the Treworgy Family Orchards Facebook page prompted the family to post a lengthy statement Sunday night in which the family apologized for any hurt the sign might have caused ? but at the same time stood by its position on same-sex marriage.

?This is obviously a very divisive issue and we value the freedom for every citizen to exercise their rights to express their opinion,? the statement read. ?It?s a shame that so many assume that we are hateful and discriminatory simply because we are convinced that marriage is defined by a higher power than civil government.?

It was not clear Monday how the to-do over the sign might affect the orchard?s business in the long run. Kenerson said everyone, regardless of their politics, is welcome.

?We want people to know that it is possible to disagree with someone and continue to love and serve them as we have consistently done for years at our farm. No matter the outcome of the referendum in November.

? Treworgy Family Orchards will continue to be a place that welcomes and serves people from every walk of life,? he said. ?We love all our guests even if we don?t see eye to eye on everything.?

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

Let me give you some examples of the comments that are being made:

The only " hateful and discriminatory" people are the ones criticizing a person for exercising his freedom of speech. But then the left is well know for it's intolerance of people with opinions different from theirs.

I'm sure if they had a sign that said "Vote 'yes' on Question 1" that those who DIDN'T agree with them would have still frequented their business. I know I would have, either way, regardless of what I believe. Tolerance goes in all directions and first starts with respect. The best thing these people who got insulted could have done, is to continue to frequent this business to show that they themselves are tolerant and good examples of what they, themselves, personally believe in. No one should be 'punished' or boycotted simply for having the courage to state what they believe or don't believe in. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and don't expect anything in return...

Those are just a couple of examples (and of course there are plenty of counter arguments as well....but i just couldn't believe that people were trying to throw the discrimination and intolerance card out to those who have decided to boycott Treworgy farms.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

I support their right to do what they want. Like Chik fil A they have to expect backlash.

I stopped frequenting a local farm stand because they voted against something I found very important locally. They may not notice but I don't want my $ supporting that. Similar to why I won't shop at Walmart.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

"KimPossible" wrote:

Let me give you some examples of the comments that are being made:

Those are just a couple of examples (and of course there are plenty of counter arguments as well....but i just couldn't believe that people were trying to throw the discrimination and intolerance card out to those who have decided to boycott Treworgy farms.

The comment that if it was vote yes...I don't get that...obviously they would agree and continue going there. Then the opposing side could boycott if they wanted to. You don't have to boycott it's not a requirement on either side...people are strange.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I believe in free speech, but I don't think that First Amendment protects you from a sort of social backlash. It protects you from having the government come in and cart you away. Anytime some one makes a public, controversial comment I think it is fair that they can expect people to react. There is no amendment that protects you from people thinking poorly of you.

So, I support the farm's right to post a political sign on their property. I also support people's right to choose not to do business with them for any reason. I don't see what is so "intolerant" about that.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

So, I support the farm's right to post a political sign on their property. I also support people's right to choose not to do business with them for any reason. I don't see what is so "intolerant" about that.

I can agree with this. You can frequent or not frequent whoever you want.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

I obviously disagree with the main consensus on this. I do not think following the legal channels to make the laws you want is intolerant. For example, I do not think voting for someone who is against same sex marriage is intolerant. If that is against mainstream America it will not matter who you voted for, they will not win. You still have the right to vote for whoever you want and to have whatever opinion you want. Now on the other hand, this is not the same as the KKK where they put people on crosses and burnt them alive. The comparison is unreal.

I do want to clear up that while I support the right to be against same sex marriage, my personal opinion is that there should be no government benefits to marriage for anyone, gay or straight. That you could have one adult dependant and it could be anyone you chose. A sister, a husband, a best friend. Whoever. That would take the whole problem away and be true separation of church and state.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I obviously disagree with the main consensus on this. I do not think following the legal channels to make the laws you want is intolerant. For example, I do not think voting for someone who is against same sex marriage is intolerant. If that is against mainstream America it will not matter who you voted for, they will not win. You still have the right to vote for whoever you want and to have whatever opinion you want.

Are you trying to suggest that if something is put to a vote, or believed by a majority of the people, that means that it can't be an intolerant belief?

How are the two mutual exclusive. Voting or majorities have nothing to do with the definition of intolerance.

Now on the other hand, this is not the same as the KKK where they put people on crosses and burnt them alive. The comparison is unreal.

Simply because more extreme examples of intolerance exist does not mean anything lesser is 'tolerant'

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

What I am saying is you can use the legal means in place to change laws without being intolerant. For example, If I meet a homosexual in real life I would not tell them my opinions on the subject. I would treat them the same as any other person and they would have no reason to believe how I feel. (This is a debate board and I am more open with discussion) However, I can still vote along my beliefs with still being very tolerant to the people in my life. Treating them with respect and kindness.

Intolerance would be being mean, rude and obnoxious to said person. The attitude of "Eww, You are gay. You have cooties. Get away from me." That would be intolerant.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I believe in free speech, but I don't think that First Amendment protects you from a sort of social backlash. It protects you from having the government come in and cart you away. Anytime some one makes a public, controversial comment I think it is fair that they can expect people to react. There is no amendment that protects you from people thinking poorly of you.

So, I support the farm's right to post a political sign on their property. I also support people's right to choose not to do business with them for any reason. I don't see what is so "intolerant" about that.

I agree with you. It seems that many people are of the belief that they were 'forced' somehow to take their sign down, when in reality they chose to take it down. Because they keep bringing up that their rights have been taken away from them and keep trying to make it a freedom of speech issue.

I can only guess that the two go together somehow....that they feel there is intolerance from the pro gay marriage community because they have somehow 'forced' them to take their sign down and have refused to do business with them based on their beliefs.

I have no seen stranger definitions of the word 'force' and of the word 'intolerant'...and even 'hate' than i have in the last two days.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

What I am saying is you can use the legal means in place to change laws without being intolerant.

Intolerance is not a legal term...it has nothing to do with legal or illegal. Things that are legal can be intolerant...they can be mistakes, bad beliefs put into law.

If the majority of people were to vote back in segregation of blacks from whites today...does that all of a sudden mean that it is no longer an intolerant view? SImply because it was put in place by a legal system?

This argument makes no sense. Legal does not equal tolerance and the legal system can't somehow magically make something that is intolerant not intolerant.

For example, If I mean a homosexual in real life I would not tell them my opinions on the subject. I would treat them the same as any other person and they would have no reason to believe how I feel.

Who cares what you say to their face, if you would choose an action that directly affects their ability to do what you do...youar actions are intolerant. Just because you would do something behind their back and be nice to their face doesn't make you a tolerant person. I am using the general you...not you specific. If you have views....keep them to yourself and never try to affect their lives, to their face OR behind their back, then you are tolerant.

(This is a debate board and I am more open with discussion) However, I can still vote along my beliefs with still being very tolerant to the people in my life. Treating them with respect and kindness.

If you are Christian, and I am friendly to your face and never share my personal view of your faith, but then attempt to legally ban the participation in organized Christian Churches, i am not tolerant of Christianity. I'm just intolerant and you don't know it.

Intolerance would be being mean, rude and obnoxious to said person. The attitude of "Eww, You are gay. You have cooties. Get away from me." That would be intolerant.

This is just flat out false...and is not the defintion of intolerance.

tol?er?ate/ˈt?ləˌrāt/
Verb:
Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.

The second definition is not the type we are talking about. That would be like a 'high tolerance for pain.'

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I think that you can be against something and not be intolerant. An example of this would be the people who believe that you should not live together before marriage. In their churches they may talk about not living together before marriage. At home, they may tell their children that they do not think they should live together before marriage. But they also don't typically try to make it illegal for consenting adults to live together before marriage. They live their beliefs by simply not engaging in the act that they believe is wrong. I believe that is a good example of being tolerant towards something that you disagree with.

The homosexual marriage thing is different, since instead of being content to not engage in homosexual marriage (as they are with not living together) Christians have taken it upon themselves to make it illegal. It is that piece of it that crosses the line into intolerance IMO.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

The homosexual marriage thing is different, since instead of being content to not engage in homosexual marriage (as they are with not living together) Christians have taken it upon themselves to make it illegal. It is that piece of it that crosses the line into intolerance IMO.

Yes that whole 'inteference' thing.....gets you every time Smile

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

This is a good argument Alissa and I see your point. As I said earlier, I wish that there was no government involvement in marriage for either straight or same sex marriage. It would be so much easier. I personally treat same sex couples and non-married straight couples the same. One is no worse or better than the other. There are other social issues that are much more important to me (Such as abortion), that most candidates are the same on (Someone who is strong pro-life is also often pro-family), but would not vote solely on how someone felt about same sex marriage. I however do not think that someone who opposed same sex marriage and the only activity they did was to vote, is necessarily a bad or bigoted person. It does nothing to further your agenda to be mean to or call names to those people. The only thing it does is drive a larger wedge in between two groups of people. Dividing the country not between North and South, but between conservative and liberal. Having the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman does not make you a bad person. I know many wonderful people who have this belief. It may not be super tolerant to not be against same sex marriage, but neither is it tolerant to hate anyone who is against same sex marriage.

Another point is that you can be against an activity, but not against the person doing it. For example, I can not stand abortion. I think it is terrible and should not be legal. That said, I have nothing but love and compassion for someone who has been in that situation. Why can not people who are pro gay marriage be against legislation banning gay marriage, but still accept people who are against it?

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

So if the law wasn't involved in marriage, than anyone could get married....gay or not gay.

But if its legal, only straight people can get married?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I don't "hate" anyone. I also believe that they have the right to their opinions. "not super tolerant" though they may be. I do not wish to make it against the law for people to be against gay marriage, although I do think it is wrong. "Bigoted" and "not super tolerant" are kind of the same thing, aren't they? One is just trying to sugarcoat it a little. At the end of the day I just sincerely cannot wrap my head around the argument that someone can want to keep someone else and their families from having the same rights that they themselves enjoy, and yet they have no animosity towards them. I can't imagine thinking that someone deserves less rights than I have, but then turning around and saying that I respect them or am not against them. If I thought someone deserved less rights than I have, it would be because I thought they were somehow less than me in some very fundamental ways. I believe you used the word "sub human" in the other debate. That is exactly how people are treating homosexuals - as if they are sub human.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"KimPossible" wrote:

So if the law wasn't involved in marriage, than anyone could get married....gay or not gay.

But if its legal, only straight people can get married?

In this instance, people against same sex marriage would not have their tax money going toward a union they did not support. In the same sense, same sex couple would not have their tax money going toward straight couples. It would just be a non issue. Anyone could have whatever ceremony they wanted, and no one else would have to pay for it. IMO, it is the only reasonable solution.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I can't imagine thinking that someone deserves less rights than I have, but then turning around and saying that I respect them or am not against them.

So then how can you think that a pro-gay activist can be an advocate for anti bullying for Conservative Christian students who's families are against same sex marriage? If Conservative Christians can not be nice and in the class room treat gay students kindly, than neither can a liberal activist be kind to conservative Christians. (Which of course I do think you can be kind to someone and stand up to what I think of as bullying without agreeing with that person)

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

In this instance, people against same sex marriage would not have their tax money going toward a union they did not support. In the same sense, same sex couple would not have their tax money going toward straight couples. It would just be a non issue. Anyone could have whatever ceremony they wanted, and no one else would have to pay for it. IMO, it is the only reasonable solution.

Civil marriage is about a lot more than just taxes. It deals with a large array of topics including sharing assets, inheritance, insurance coverage, and even being able to visit their loved ones in the hospital. I think it's reasonable to argue whether or not it's fair for married couples of any stripe to get tax breaks, but getting rid of that there is still a lot of things that we use the marriage contract to keep track of. And that is the part that slays me - when you're talking about banning civil marriage, these government rights and protections are the ONLY things that we are talking about. Whether or not gay marriage is legal, gay people will still live together, build families, and even have ceremonies to join them together in the churches that perform gay marriage rites. You aren't protecting ANYTHING to do with religion, you are only denying them equal rights under the law.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

In this instance, people against same sex marriage would not have their tax money going toward a union they did not support.

False...because you said yourself that in place of marriage, people would be able to designate any beneficiary they want...and there would be a process involved in that.

So they can still be married and get your tax money.

ETA:

this is what I'm thinking

Scenario 1) We do not ban SSM and ensure they are included and receive equal benefits of marrage
Outcome: Gay couples can marry freely and receive all the benefits that one desires for their partner and themselves

Scenario 2) We get rid of legal marriage and replace it with the ability to designate another individual to receive all the benefits that we now tie to marriage
Outcome: Gay couples can marry freely and receive all the benefits that one desires for their partner and themselves

Seeing as the outcome is exactly the same,
I would like to know how the second scenario doesn't cost you any tax dollars but the first one does. And exactly what tax dollars are going to this process (where are they being spent?)

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

So then how can you think that a pro-gay activist can be an advocate for anti bullying for Conservative Christian students who's families are against same sex marriage? If Conservative Christians can not be nice and in the class room treat gay students kindly, than neither can a liberal activist be kind to conservative Christians. (Which of course I do think you can be kind to someone and stand up to what I think of as bullying without agreeing with that person)

I don't know of any pro-gay activists that think that Conservative Christians deserve less rights than them.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

bully - definition of bully by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

bul?ly 1 (bl)
n. pl. bul?lies
1. A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.
2. A hired ruffian; a thug.
3. A pimp.
4. Archaic A fine person.
5. Archaic A sweetheart.
v. bul?lied, bul?ly?ing, bul?lies
v.tr.
1. To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner. See Synonyms at intimidate.
2. To make (one's way) aggressively.
v.intr.
1. To behave like a bully.
2. To force one's way aggressively or by intimidation: "They bully into line at the gas pump" (Martin Gottfried).
adj.
Excellent; splendid: did a bully job of persuading the members.
interj.
Used to express approval: Bully for you!

IMO - Bullying is physical. A big bully steals the smaller kids lunch money. A big bully threatens the nerd that he will hurt him if he does not do his homework. Voting for a conservative candidate is not bullying. Any person that is an adult working in a public school should be able to prevent bullying regardless of their political views. If they can not, they should not be working in a school. How someone votes, or what they do in their spare time does not prevent them from keeping the children safe.

- I apologize for not keeping the debates separate.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I don't think that bullying is purely physical. If I disliked you and actively worked to try to get you fired from your job, that would be bullying, would it not? I think whenever you actively work to bring harm to someone because you dislike them or disagree with them, you are being a bully.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I don't think that bullying is purely physical. If I disliked you and actively worked to try to get you fired from your job, that would be bullying, would it not? I think whenever you actively work to bring harm to someone because you dislike them or disagree with them, you are being a bully.

We will have to agree to disagree because I do not agree that voting for a political candidate is bullying or that it makes you a bad person.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

OK, I can't figure out where this debate is going but I'm going to spin back to the gay marriage tolerance thing. There's a case in New York where an engaged lesbian (EL) couple is suing a married straight (MS) couple who rent out their farm for weddings. Gay marriage is now legal in New York and the EL couple wanted to get married at this farm. They paid a deposit, but then the MS couple found out the ELs were lesbian and refused to proceed with the contract. The EL couple is suing to make sure that any wedding-related business must follow the law and allow gay & lesbian weddings. This is what I mean when I say that not addressing intolerance is a de facto acceptance. This EL couple could have just gone off and gotten married somewhere else, but then other gay couples might want to get married at that farm and encounter the same thing. They would be perpetuating the intolerance by not doing something to correct it.

smsturner's picture
Joined: 05/11/09
Posts: 1303

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal

I don't think that bullying is purely physical. If I disliked you and actively worked to try to get you fired from your job, that would be bullying, would it not? I think whenever you actively work to bring harm to someone because you dislike them or disagree with them, you are being a bully.

We will have to agree to disagree because I do not agree that voting for a political candidate is bullying or that it makes you a bad person.

I don't understand how you can disagree, but it seems like the comment has nothing to do with the other. And not voting for someone doesn't make you a bully or bad person, but insisting your employees do because otherwise they will lose their job is bullying and makes you an unethical person.

I think being intolerant of intolerance is technically intolerant, but a definitely more acceptable kind of intolerance. I think we need two levels of intolerance lol maybe we could think of a new word for being intolerant of intolerance? Wink

I'm TOTALLY intolerant or intolerance. I don't care what that makes me.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"smsturner" wrote:

I don't understand how you can disagree, but it seems like the comment has nothing to do with the other. And not voting for someone doesn't make you a bully or bad person, but insisting your employees do because otherwise they will lose their job is bullying and makes you an unethical person.

I think being intolerant of intolerance is technically intolerant, but a definitely more acceptable kind of intolerance. I think we need two levels of intolerance lol maybe we could think of a new word for being intolerant of intolerance? Wink

I'm TOTALLY intolerant or intolerance. I don't care what that makes me.

I think we are intolerant of lots of things, and thats good! Like violence for example or drunk driving. THere is a place and time for intolerance. I'm intolerant of the verbal fighting that goes on between my kids...or of late homework. All those things will invoke someone to interfere and put an end to the behavior...and thats the way it should be.

I think when people throw out the word in an accusatory manner, or as a negative quality, it is when we see it as an issue of being intolerant of human rights. It seems to me when the word is used on its own and negatively "This is an example of intolerance, and is an embarrassment to our society"....it almost always has to do with treating people as equals or protecting someones human rights.

And being 'intolerant of intolerance' is really a way of saying "I am intolerant of violations of human rights and equality"

ETA: I am at the point where the words tolerance and intolerance have been said so many times that they are beginning to sound funny....like made up words. Isn't that weird when that happens?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"KimPossible" wrote:

I think we are intolerant of lots of things, and thats good! Like violence for example or drunk driving. THere is a place and time for intolerance. I'm intolerant of the verbal fighting that goes on between my kids...or of late homework. All those things will invoke someone to interfere and put an end to the behavior...and thats the way it should be.

I think when people throw out the word in an accusatory manner, or as a negative quality, it is when we see it as an issue of being intolerant of human rights. It seems to me when the word is used on its own and negatively "This is an example of intolerance, and is an embarrassment to our society"....it almost always has to do with treating people as equals or protecting someones human rights.

And being 'intolerant of intolerance' is really a way of saying "I am intolerant of violations of human rights and equality"

ETA: I am at the point where the words tolerance and intolerance have been said so many times that they are beginning to sound funny....like made up words. Isn't that weird when that happens?

Totally agree with this post.

Also, to the bolded, I got that way in the anti-bullying debate. I said bully so many times that it started to sound like a made up word. LOL

ETA: I think that people have figured out that if you value tolerance (having more to do with equality and rights) then being called "intolerant" is an easy insult.

"You're intolerant."
"No, YOU'RE intolerant for not tolerating my intolerance!"
"Am I really intolerant?"

But I don't think that tolerance means that you have to agree with or even like every opinion out there. If that were the case, who could possibly actually be tolerant? What I think it really means is, do you respect others' rights to have differing opinions, even if you disagree with them. "Respect" by the way, doesn't mean "agree with their opinion" or "think it's equally valid." Just like the example I gave of people living together before marriage; people who are against it don't have to think that it's just fine and dandy, they only have to respect the fact that it's not their place to make that decision for other consenting adults.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"smsturner" wrote:

, but insisting your employees do because otherwise they will lose their job is bullying and makes you an unethical person.

Who insists their employees vote a certain way? Particularly in a controversial way like this? You can not make your employees vote any certain way, neither can your boss go into your polling booth with you.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"KimPossible" wrote:

I think we are intolerant of lots of things, and thats good! Like violence for example or drunk driving. THere is a place and time for intolerance. I'm intolerant of the verbal fighting that goes on between my kids...or of late homework. All those things will invoke someone to interfere and put an end to the behavior...and thats the way it should be.

I think when people throw out the word in an accusatory manner, or as a negative quality, it is when we see it as an issue of being intolerant of human rights. It seems to me when the word is used on its own and negatively "This is an example of intolerance, and is an embarrassment to our society"....it almost always has to do with treating people as equals or protecting someones human rights.

And being 'intolerant of intolerance' is really a way of saying "I am intolerant of violations of human rights and equality"

ETA: I am at the point where the words tolerance and intolerance have been said so many times that they are beginning to sound funny....like made up words. Isn't that weird when that happens?

lol...I often think the same thing. I see a word any particular day so many times that it doesn't look like the real word to me anymore, and when I say the word it sounds funny, like foreign or something. Like the other day it was the word 'job'. I just had issues all day long with that word. Smile

Admittedly I am extremely intolerant of certain things. I also tolerate lots of other things. To me tolerance implies that you don't necessarily agree with something, but respect that it is agreeable to others. Live and let live, I suppose. That's tolerance to me.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

The homosexual marriage thing is different, since instead of being content to not engage in homosexual marriage (as they are with not living together) Christians have taken it upon themselves to make it illegal. It is that piece of it that crosses the line into intolerance IMO.

It's not different. Instead of being content to not get married (which is a union between a man and a woman) Gay activists have taken it upon themselves to change the definition of marriage to make it legal. (It was already illegal they are the one's trying to change things). I would guess that marriage means a lot more to religious people than the gay activists who may be religious in some cases but not on a large scale. But instead of actually making it about rights and going for a civil union for everyone or something similar which they could have MORE easily have done because less people would object, they are trying to take away the meaning of marriage from those who it means the most to.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

It's not different. Instead of being content to not get married (which is a union between a man and a woman) Gay activists have taken it upon themselves to change the definition of marriage to make it legal. (It was already illegal they are the one's trying to change things). I would guess that marriage means a lot more to religious people than the gay activists who may be religious in some cases but not on a large scale. But instead of actually making it about rights and going for a civil union for everyone or something similar which they could have MORE easily have done because less people would object, they are trying to take away the meaning of marriage from those who it means the most to.

It is presumptuous to think that marriage only matters to religious people. It matters tremendously to me, and I am not religious. I could have lived with my husband indefinitely but we chose to get married because it matters a great deal to us. It certainly matters a great deal to the best example I have at my disposal, my father. He's been with his husband for over 35 years, they have two children. How can you say that Angel marriage doesn't matter to them; and (b) they want to take ANYTHING away from you?

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

It's not different. Instead of being content to not get married (which is a union between a man and a woman) Gay activists have taken it upon themselves to change the definition of marriage to make it legal. (It was already illegal they are the one's trying to change things). I would guess that marriage means a lot more to religious people than the gay activists who may be religious in some cases but not on a large scale. But instead of actually making it about rights and going for a civil union for everyone or something similar which they could have MORE easily have done because less people would object, they are trying to take away the meaning of marriage from those who it means the most to.

Seriously....i can't tell sometimes, if this is just genuinely your thought process that you innocently put out on the table or if you try to purposely find things to say to truly piss people off.

You have no understanding or concept of what marriage means to people aside from in your own little bubble.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

It's not different. Instead of being content to not get married (which is a union between a man and a woman) Gay activists have taken it upon themselves to change the definition of marriage to make it legal. (It was already illegal they are the one's trying to change things). I would guess that marriage means a lot more to religious people than the gay activists who may be religious in some cases but not on a large scale. But instead of actually making it about rights and going for a civil union for everyone or something similar which they could have MORE easily have done because less people would object, they are trying to take away the meaning of marriage from those who it means the most to.

No, they have taken it upon themselves to challenge government to change the legislation to make it legal. A definition does not make something legal. And heaven forbid a group that faces such discrimination should challenge legislation. I mean, at one time women weren't legally allowed to vote, and it was legal to own slaves, but those changes to the laws you're okay with, presumably. That's kind of picking and choosing which groups you favour to challenge archaic legislation. Even playing field, for all groups

smsturner's picture
Joined: 05/11/09
Posts: 1303

I am not religious in any way whatsoever. So much that we wrote our own wedding ceremony to avoid any religion. After leaving one abusive marriage, i waited years before i could even think about it. Now that i have someone who will cherish and love me, and i want to keep forever, being married meant a hundred times more to me, a non-religious person, than to many religious people I know. I find it terribly insulting that anyone would presume it matters more to them than to me.

And for that matter, my sister, finally finding the WOMAN she loves and deciding to spend her life with her, married in a church. Her marriage and wedding meant more to her than anyone straight that I have ever seen get married. How dare you say she, a woman you have never known, takes anything away from you by getting to be legally and spiritually joined with her life partner!

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

I use this example a lot, but I think that tv shows where you "win" a bride or a groom (like The Bachelor) is much more threatening to the state of marriage and how people view it than gay marriage. Celebrity marriage is more threatening! It certainly gives teenagers, who are exposed to those things, a warped view of what marriage should be.

Anyway, the religious people don't own marriage. Lots of us who aren't religious at all feel very passionate about our own marriages and why it is important to us. I'm somebody's wife, I have a husband. That is intensely meaningful. I made vows that I take very seriously.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

I use this example a lot, but I think that tv shows where you "win" a bride or a groom (like The Bachelor) is much more threatening to the state of marriage and how people view it than gay marriage. Celebrity marriage is more threatening! It certainly gives teenagers, who are exposed to those things, a warped view of what marriage should be.

Anyway, the religious people don't own marriage. Lots of us who aren't religious at all feel very passionate about our own marriages and why it is important to us. I'm somebody's wife, I have a husband. That is intensely meaningful. I made vows that I take very seriously.

Your point however true to you, isn't a valid argument. Just because something may be more threatening, doesn't mean something else isn't.
I do see both as a threat to a traditional view of marriage, one reason we don't have TV in our house is because of all the nonsense.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Your point however true to you, isn't a valid argument. Just because something may be more threatening, doesn't mean something else isn't.
I do see both as a threat to a traditional view of marriage, one reason we don't have TV in our house is because of all the nonsense.

While I disagree with the stance that a long term loving gay relationship is threatening, I support that this is your stance. However, it is just another example of why gay marriage should be legal. If we allow any bozo heterosexual "couple" to get engage and marry why not gay people?

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Of course it is threatening to the traditional view of marriage.. It is not the same as it. It will be changing the definition of what marriage is. And thus threatens the traditional view/definition of marriage.
It is not a good example, as it is a different definition.
heterosexual couple (2 people of consenting age) is the current societal definition.
changing any of those attributes, changes the definition of what a marriage is.

You may be ok with changing the definition, but you can not say it isn't changing the definition. And thus can not state that changing one of the attributes doesn't "threaten tradition marriage" OF course it does. You are just OK with it.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

Changing the definition does not, to me, pose any threat. You can still have YOUR hetero marriage and they can now enjoy the same perks you do.

smsturner's picture
Joined: 05/11/09
Posts: 1303

IMO it still doesn't change the definition. I've always considered it defined as two life partners joining together, legally and/or religiously. Maybe it's just how you choose to define it in the first place...

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

"Rivergallery" wrote:

You may be ok with changing the definition, but you can not say it isn't changing the definition. And thus can not state that changing one of the attributes doesn't "threaten tradition marriage" OF course it does. You are just OK with it.

How does it threaten it? Beyond actually requiring a change in the actual definition so that the people getting married can be of the same gender, which is a matter of words, what does it threaten? Does it make heterosexual marriage less important or less stable? In what way? Does it teach children that marriage doesn't matter? I have trouble understanding the threat here, beyond having to change some words in a definition.