Tolerance - The T word topic of the day

I was on for a little while earlier, so I decided to do some exploring. I overheard a conversation between a homosexual (presumed) male and a protastant (presumed as well) male. In this conversation, said homosexual was bashing away at this christ follower because the protastant was trying to "save" him. Now after the arguing, bickering, and name calling ceased, the protastant requested the homosexual not taunt his views... I do not know if that means not hit on him, or not act overtly gay, but I do not think that matters. However, instead of respecting the christains views of (uneasy perhaps) anti-homosexuality... said homosexual continued to flaunt, and broadcast his beliefs.

Now, this is me, but I believe tolerance is a 2 way street. I believe the protastant has every right to not believe homosexuality is ok. I believe every religious person (any religion christain, statanic, pagan, druid, shinto, islamic, etc) has a right to TELL and not FORCE thier views on people.

I also believe the homosexual has every right to believe how he lives, and that his sexual preference is ok. I believe homosexuals also share the right to TELL and not FORCE thier views on people.

That being said, I personally believe even though the christain may not believe in homosexuality, and the homosexual may not believe in god, if they both are tolerant enough of each other, they will speek thier views... see they disagree, and keep it to themselves. This is not what happened however, the homosexual continually belittled the protastant's beliefs... and he flaunted quite loudly how he felt. This of course caused the protastant to speak up, and things again got out of hand.

The reason I bring all of this up, I am puzzled. I believe the protastant was indeed tolerating the homosexual's belief, even when speaking against it. I do not believe the homosexual was tolerating the the protastant's beliefs at all. If someone told me they did not agree with me, and then continued to taunt my beliefs... am I being not tolerant if I speak my belief while not attacking theirs? Am I being not tolerant if I choose not to remain quiet? I am just quite perplexed about all of this, I am neither a religious person, or a homosexual. I am looking for some answers on how everyone feels. I feel that as long as I do not attack the aggressor's views... I am still tolerating his views, even if I speak against it or request he not say certain things around me. Just because I do not share the belief, and sometimes speak against it... does NOT mean I am not tolerating the views.

Am I right, am I wrong? I ask to learn, I learn to better myself.

How do you know the christian was a protestant? Moreover, why does it make a difference?

He said he was. The religion it's self does not make a difference, that is not what I am asking.

OK, sorry, I missed that bit in skimming. Oddly, christianity has a long history of homosexuality, especially amongst the clergy. But these days, there's a lot of hostility, especially (but not only) from the extreme right. I've noticed a lot of anti-christian feeling in SL too.

Personally, I wish people would leave it alone. Religion, like politics, has no place in what to all intents and purposes is (no matter what people may think) an entertainment. Or at least arguing about such.

Glrrrglpffblth.

Brain isn't awake enough for a topic like this, and it will be locked probably by noon anyhow, but here goes.



Right off the bat there is too much uncertainty and second-and-third hand knowledge of what was going on. So I will not make a judgement call on what happened in this specific instance.



I agree with this.



Again, don't ask for judgement on this incident. It can't be given fairly. We have neither side here to present the case, which would be a /bare/ minimum to even venture an opinion on what happened.



Now, see. It all depends what was said.

If a person says, "I don't agree with X, would you mind not talking about it around me"... Well, respectfully, I probably would stop talking about it around that person, but if the subject came up, I'm not going to avoid it. To summarize, I'll skirt around topics that make people uneasy, but I won't gag myself regarding the topic if I have reason to talk about it.

And that is mostly only because I'm basicly a nice guy. Nobody has any right to expect another person not to talk about something just because it bothers them. And if you start talking about a tangental subject (For example, you tell me not to talk about homosexuality, then you start telling me why homosexuality is a sin), well you just lost all right to say anything about what I talk about.

That said, if a person told me "I don't agree with X (Insert any facet of my life. My religion, my sexuality, etc), please do not do anything that reminds me of it in my presense."... Well, screw you buddy. I won't stop being who I am just because you dislike it. I would not expect a religious person to, say, stop wearing a (Insert symbol of religion here) around me just because I wasn't (Insert religion).

Tolerance is one of those words that gets twisted around until it becomes meaningless. Let's take the Merriam-Webster definition of Tolerance...

I would be careful with this train of logic, though, Hank. I strongly believe a person is within their rights to speak their opinion on political, legal, and religious issues. Other people have the right to respond, too. But ridicule? Or, as was phrased here, taunt? I'm not sure I'd go that far.

Well, taunting someone is never right. You have to separate intentions here. If someone has the right to propose the removeal of liberty from someone, the person who is having that liberty stolen from them has every right to respond.

I never said that the protestant must be silenced. They have every right to do what they want. But the word "tolerance" is being twisted (like so many words today). Some people believe that the homosexual should be "tolerant" of the protestant by just STFU. This is where you have to look at the two sides of the issue.

One side is attempting to restrict the other. The other side is attempting to restrict the restricting. It's not a simple arguement between whether they like hot or cold soup. It's an arguement about tolerance itself. With one side expecting the tolerant to tolerate their intolerance.

For example, if we were discussing the existence of God. I would expect everyone to be tolerant of each other's views. If the homosexual didn't believe in God (which isn't a requirement to be gay, btw), and the protetstant did believe in God (I'd assume so), I would expect both parties to be tolerant of each other's views. Whomever was intolerant in this situation would be in the wrong.

But, in my original example, the protestant was being intolerant (as shown by those against gay marriage or any gay rights, or re-enactment of anti-gay sodomy laws, etc). You can't expect the homosexual to be tolerant of intolerance. If one side is intolerant, you can't tell the other side "Ha Ha! You have to be tolerant and accept my intolerance of you!". It doesn't make any logical sense.

I'm not going to weigh in on this specific event, so to approach it from a more generic perspective...

It's not that I don't agree with your sentiments, Hank. It's just that I personally tend to be more of a "I refuse to sink to your level" type, and I guess that influences my opinion here. If someone starts spouting off homophobic crap, I'm not going to be able to change their mind no matter what I do. So I'll just continue to go about my life, and not sink to their level or lend legitimacy to their arguement by responding.

*shrug*

Now, before you say "Well that's just letting them gain support/power/whatever", no, it's not. If they are trying to /do/ something about their views, that's a whole different story. But I can't stop them from thinking whatever they want to, nor would I really want to. So I'm not going to waste my time trying, nor dirty myself by getting down in the mud and argueing pointlessly.

Oh, I agree. Getting into arguements with people that are intolerant, is a losing battle and not worth anyone's time.

But, I'm just arguing tolerance, and how it is being used to justify intolerance. So many words are being converted to NewSpeak, that it's just scary how we plot along towards the Orwellian state. In RL today, radicals are using tolerance as a way to justify their intolerant views. It's like saying to the good cop, "Don't do anything dirty to catch me. You have to follow the rules, I don't!".

We live today with a government (in the USA) controlled by an intolerant group of people running the majority party. (i.e. the religious right). They expect the USA public, which is very tolerant and laissez-faire in general, to allow their intolerance to rain free. We don't have the luxury to just dismiss people that want to restrict and take away liberty. They are in charge of the complete federal government, and have the power to enact all kinds of intolerant laws. People must speak out against intolerance, or suffer the consequences of living with intolerance.

I hear you, Hank. Sorry, Vade.

Also, I'd like to add, Reitsuki, that if you aren't fighting against that kind of intolerance, then you probably simply don't think it's an issue worthy enough of fighting. That's not to say you don't care, but if someone was being intolerant of, say, your handicapped sister (random example not based in truth,) you might jump into the battle scene fists-out. Some peoples' passion for certain topics run deeper than others. I have to say, that although I don't fight intolerance of homosexuals very often (for personal reasons,) I, (being a tad on the homosexual side) really really appreciate the words of others who are at my/our defense. So, there is -multiple- reasons for why "you should" combat intolerance when you have the chance--"it's a losing battle" is one reason not to, but, "I want the minority to feel safe" is probably a better reason to take part. Just my 2L.

Back to the original thread's topic.

Yes and no. It's not that I don't feel intollerance against homsexuality is worth fighting against. I'm not a big fan of intollerance against myself, ya know?

It's more than I don't feel it's worth it to roll around in the mud like children when it's not going to accomplish anything. When a person is open to reasonable debate (Even if their is no chance I'll change their mind, such as with my father), I'm more than willing to have a good arguement. I love arguements. But petty bickering I find below me, and a waste of time.

Unfortunately, tolerance (as can be seen very well by the forum here) is something that really lies with oneself to accomplish. Attempting to preach or "teach" it directly to intolerant folks is an eternal catch-22, because they'd first need to be tolerant enough to approach your view with an open mind.

That said, all you can really do is enforce your own brand of tolerance, and do what you can for folks. I realize I'm not the *most* tolerant individual in Second Life, but hey - I see a lot of things I don't agree with in Second Life, and I just move on. I must say, also, that many of the people I know and have come in contact with in-world are surprisingly civil and tolerant folks... whereas some of these forums go without saying.

So yeah. Tolerance comes from within, and other misc. motivational poster catchphrases.

First, let me say that there have been a number of recent threads on this and related topics, and IMO, we're beginning to dilute the potency of the debate. As a gay person who happens to be a Christian, I for one am tiring of these threads. It seems to me that there is less interest in meaningful dialog than in stirring up a sensationalistic plot line.

That said, assuming that your description of the exchange between the homosexual and the Christian is accurate, it only serves to underscore what Jeffrey said, a moment ago. Arguing and brow beating is never a successful means by which to sway beliefs or opinions. It offends me just as much to hear of homosexuals bashing Christians as does the converse.

Since the incident in question was caught in medias res it's impossible to judge the right/wrong of the situation. You'd need to know what started it all in the first place. Tolerance has to be a two-way street. I'm an atheist that doesn't particularly care for any religion at all, but I know many religious people here that I have nothing but respect and admiration for. We can talk about our differences with civility and often do just for the sake of interesting and thought provoking conversation. Even though we think very differently the conversations are usually an exercise in tolerance and a desire for mutual understanding. I won't be so tolerant if I'm being judged or proselityzed to and I'd be unlikely to just bite my tongue. That goes both ways. If I were to walk up to someone that I know to be religious and started expounding on all the things I find wrong with religion I would expect to receive hostility in response... and it would be justified.

Chip - I gotta commend you for civility and restraint in many of these debates where you and I have both participated. You really do seem to practice what you preach WRT civil debate, and I for one have come to respect and admire you in the process.

Thanks Paolo Right back at ya. It's so easy to cast people on the opposite side of a debate into preconceived stereotyped roles. It's incredibly eye-opening to get to know people who happily shatter them.

Homosexuality isn't a belief - it's a part of a person's make up. Most people don't choose to be homosexual - they just are.

People choose to be Christians.

Yup, but you'll have a very difficult time convincing most Christians of this.

Careful.

The other side would say very nearly the same thing, just in reverse.

Do you think they keep coming up because they happen? If you grow tired of it, do not read it, simple. I however enjoy reading how others feel when these things happen. It helps me understand how people would feel if they were in each of the "character's" shoes.

Yeah, but if they try to say that you can't choose whether you're a christian or not, they're more foolish than I thought.

I think you missed my point, Vade. This was not a criticism directed at you, personally. I obviously have a vested interest in this topic, but have seen most of these threads degrade into cultural warfare. To suggest I simply not read threads like this is a red herring argument that fails to acknowledge my very valid points.

Most of the threads related to this topic are not based on events that occur in-world, such as you describe. In this case, you are reporting about a hostile, in-world exchange between a homosexual and a Christian. Perhaps it was not your intention, but it appeared to me that this thread was intended to flare up the tensions between these two factions. That is what I am tiring of. If a genuine, meaningful debate was really what you were after, then my apologies for the mis-interpretation.

Apology accepted. The only reason I mentioned Christain and homosexual, is because that is how they were introduced in world, and yes this did happen. I saw it as both a valid concern, and a great way to learn how others would feel. Put yourself in thier shoes.

Paolo, being both a christain and a homosexual, I am sure you are faced with some similar, however more extreme, scenarios. Have you ever been attacked by anyone for being cristain? For being homosexual? For both? Is it harder to educate people of christ if they know you are also gay? I am not making any attacks here, I want to know. I, like many others, think the church is against homosexuality. I do not personally follow religion, so if you would mind, would you tell me some things about this? I would appreciate it if you would.

FYI, this is not a flame thread, so if anyone starts to make it that way, ignore them... people are ignorant sometimes.