Tolerance and Bigotry: What happens when the shoe is on the other foot?

[Darkwind]

How can someone who has proven that he does not understand tolerance start a thread on it?

I know that tolerance works both ways. You liberal gay rights activists seem to think this should only work one way. Surrender or die.

How can someone like you lecture me on tolerance when you are a member of a party who exhibits intolerance towards those who hold negative opinions of homosexuality? How can someone such as yourself lecture me about tolerance when you belong to a party that wishes to crush their opposition beneath their oh-so-tolerant boots?

O liberal, where is your victory? O liberal, where is your sting?

You say 'my party'. when you cannot accuse me.

I accuse you of blatant hypocrisy. Of demanding tolerance of others while being intolerant of others. I accuse you of employing double standards against your peers.

What intolerance is being show to these "others"? Is anyone trying to pass laws that would prohibit them from marrying each other...actual Constitutional amendments? Are they being denied service in public accommodations? Oh wait, that would be against the law wouldn't it? See, 'cause religion is protected from discrimination in Public Accommodation in all 50 states by Federal law.

You are ONLY being intolerant if your are trying to pass a law?

Well, imagine that redefinition...

 

[Seawytch]

How can someone who has proven that he does not understand tolerance start a thread on it?

I know that tolerance works both ways. You liberal gay rights activists seem to think this should only work one way. Surrender or die.

How can someone like you lecture me on tolerance when you are a member of a party who exhibits intolerance towards those who hold negative opinions of homosexuality? How can someone such as yourself lecture me about tolerance when you belong to a party that wishes to crush their opposition beneath their oh-so-tolerant boots?

O liberal, where is your victory? O liberal, where is your sting?

You say 'my party'. when you cannot accuse me.

I accuse you of blatant hypocrisy. Of demanding tolerance of others while being intolerant of others. I accuse you of employing double standards against your peers.

What intolerance is being show to these "others"? Is anyone trying to pass laws that would prohibit them from marrying each other...actual Constitutional amendments? Are they being denied service in public accommodations? Oh wait, that would be against the law wouldn't it? See, 'cause religion is protected from discrimination in Public Accommodation in all 50 states by Federal law.

You are ONLY being intolerant if your are trying to pass a law?

Well, imagine that redefinition...

By all means, expand the definition then. What constitutes this "intolerance" you are claiming?

 

[Darkwind]

I know that tolerance works both ways. You liberal gay rights activists seem to think this should only work one way. Surrender or die.

How can someone like you lecture me on tolerance when you are a member of a party who exhibits intolerance towards those who hold negative opinions of homosexuality? How can someone such as yourself lecture me about tolerance when you belong to a party that wishes to crush their opposition beneath their oh-so-tolerant boots?

O liberal, where is your victory? O liberal, where is your sting?

You say 'my party'. when you cannot accuse me.

I accuse you of blatant hypocrisy. Of demanding tolerance of others while being intolerant of others. I accuse you of employing double standards against your peers.

What intolerance is being show to these "others"? Is anyone trying to pass laws that would prohibit them from marrying each other...actual Constitutional amendments? Are they being denied service in public accommodations? Oh wait, that would be against the law wouldn't it? See, 'cause religion is protected from discrimination in Public Accommodation in all 50 states by Federal law.

You are ONLY being intolerant if your are trying to pass a law?

Well, imagine that redefinition...

By all means, expand the definition then. What constitutes this "intolerance" you are claiming?

Well, first you have to prove to Me that you even understand the definition of 'tolerance'....Most people don't.

 

[Andylusion]

Tolerance stops at intolerance. Now you know.

Perhaps you should practice what you preach.

I do. As long as you keep your bigotry limited to speech and not actions, unless it's in a private sphere (clubs, churches, homes, etc.) have at it.

You can have the No ******* Club, but not the No ******* Bakery. That is where tolerance ends.

A private business.... is private. My business that I run, is my private property. I can do what I want with my business, and practice my faith at my business.

You can choose to boycott my business, if you so wish.

 

[Seawytch]

Tolerance stops at intolerance. Now you know.

Perhaps you should practice what you preach.

I do. As long as you keep your bigotry limited to speech and not actions, unless it's in a private sphere (clubs, churches, homes, etc.) have at it.

You can have the No ******* Club, but not the No ******* Bakery. That is where tolerance ends.

A private business.... is private. My business that I run, is my private property. I can do what I want with my business, and practice my faith at my business.

You can choose to boycott my business, if you so wish.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act and a few SCOTUS cases dispute that anonymous internet claim.

The Right to Refuse Service

At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations against a particular group of people, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people.
​

 

[TemplarKormac]

I accuse you of blatant hypocrisy. Demanding tolerance while being intolerant. I accuse you of employing double standards against your peers.

Could you give a few examples?

Namely, your silence and lack of disagreement with far left liberals who participate in the kind of behavior for one, and posts like these:

How can someone who has proven that he does not understand tolerance start a thread on it?

Silence is complicity. Or in this case, silence and speech.

To wit, you even contradicted yourself. First, you say that you respect my opinion, but turn around and accuse me of "not understanding tolerance." That to me demonstrates the reality that despite your aura of tolerance, you are actually very intolerant of my opinion as demonstrated below, which in turn reveals your hypocrisy and implementation of double standards:

I respect that other people have the right to believe other than me and live their lives differently than I do.
If homosexual relationships are against someone's religion, that pertains to members of that religion, not everyone.

Need I say more?

Yes, give some relevant examples to prove your point.

After giving it some more thought, I realized I should be more concise about my charges against you:

1. You by your own silence are guilty of hypocrisy and double standards by not speaking out against the behaviors that the mainstream of your party engage in against Christians regarding the issue of homosexuality.

2. And by that silence, you demonstrated complicity in the behavior of other members of your party or members who share like mind.

3. You also demonstrated your lack of tolerance and colossal duplicitousness when you stated how you "respected" my stances on homosexuality due to my Christian faith and also how you had no qualms with how I live my life. However, theretofore, you asked this pointed question: "How can someone who has proven that he does not understand tolerance start a thread on it?"

Such a question implies an assertion on its own, asserting that I am intolerant and therefore do not understand or are incapable of exercising tolerance for homosexuals or their relationships. A genetic argument, to be sure, which I have demonstrated repeatedly to be false. You have yet to show how I have "proven" that I "do not understand tolerance."

I thereby challenge you to back up this claim, or concede the point.

4. An additional point. After reading this statement:

"If homosexual relationships are against someone's religion, that pertains to members of that religion, not everyone."

Am I to assume that such a belief should be confined only between members of a faith? That they shouldn't speak out based their belief because of their "intolerance"? Or is it that simply not everyone shares their belief? If it is the former, then that would yet be another contradiction, and would belie your so-called "tolerance" of other peoples opinions and beliefs.

However, if it is the latter, then I agree. Not everyone will share the same opinion on homosexual relationships. But I might add that you can't force them to have a favorable opinion of homosexual relationships in the same stead.

Laws should not be made or refuted because of someone's religious beliefs. A religious person should show tolerance to someone else's beliefs if they expect people to respect their beliefs.
I am not a 'party man', I believe what I think to be right or wrong.

As for my silence, some of us have jobs and careers and cannot sit on a message board all day.

So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?

As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?

.

When people use their religion as an excuse to be intolerant of gays, there is no tolerance to reciprocate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Eh... perhaps the OP is too long? Or am I simply being the fat jobless twinkie eating man that I am by even bringing it up?

I myself dozed off about a third of the way through.
But then, that's not unusual, as you can tell from my posting.

I don't follow your problem with the page you linked though. All he says in a couple of sentences is that religion (whatever that may mean) must adapt to changing culture or face dwindling support. But that's always been true.


I will say this for the OP though:
Until tonight I did not know what Sulu's first name was.

Anyone who thinks that Christianity garners followers and supporters by conforming to The World - or that that has ever been the case - doesn't understand Christianity or human nature. Christianity - and really, religion in general - flourishes most under adversity. It appeals to the perverse part of human nature that is attracted to struggle and hardship and being the underdog.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I totally understand where you are coming from, and I have been subject to attacks for making comments about welfare reform on a friend's Facebook page who happens to be very liberal. The level of hatred from both political extremes is mind boggling sometimes.

My FB friends list became shorter when I started posting honest responses to everything, rather than just bypassing and ignoring the political posts. That's okay. I warned everyone ahead of time that it was going to happen, and that I considered anyone who could dish it out but not take it to be someone I could do without in my life. Those liberals who stayed - and I do have a lot of liberal friends - are the ones who are strong enough to withstand disagreement and even ridicule of their most-treasured tenets of faith, and therefore valuable as a way of keeping my own beliefs strong and sharp.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm a huge fan of George Takei, and I follow him on Facebook, Takei makes no bones about the fact that he's flaming gay and has a husband/partner named Brad. Hikaru Sulu was and is still one of my favorite characters in the original Star Trek (aside from Spock, Kirk and Chekov). But sometimes he can be quite provocative and downright hostile to people who express dissenting views of homosexuality (namely Memories Pizza), and as a result, I must sometimes roll my eyes and scroll past some of his inflammatory discussion topics (most of the time he is absolutely brilliant with puns and therefore a constant source of hilarity), but one of his topics tonight in particular compelled me to write this thread, of which can be seen here.

It's funny though, there is this far reaching cry in America for religious tolerance of homosexuality, or otherwise face inevitable demise for their intransigence. I hear how the religious (mainly the Christian religion) should have to change their values and precepts in order to be more inclusive to homosexuals, yet what I see in today's far left social liberal are words of hate and bigotry towards Christians and people of faith. In other words, the same hatred, intolerance, and bigotry that those same people claim come from those of faith.

One wonders, how does it feel for them to become the very thing they're fighting against? Doesn't tolerance work both ways? It stands to reason that if you want tolerance, you must give it in same while taking care not to be what you condemn; as Friedrich Nietzsche put it, "fight not with monsters, lest you become a monster, for if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

If you fight so much and so hard, and with too much zealousness against a perceived evil (in this case, intolerance and bigotry), you risk becoming the same evil you were fighting against in the first place (intolerant and bigoted). This is what the LGBT activists and hordes of pro gay rights liberals have done and are doing. Preaching against intolerance and bigotry whilst being intolerant and bigoted.

Am I saying there aren't bigots? Not at all, there are. There are bigots all over the place! Am I saying that all gay people are this way? Heck no. In fact, I've seen a few examples of gay people standing up for people of faith. Am I am saying that all pro gay rights liberals are this way? Well, I'd be lying if I said no.

But this is ludicrous. The only target of this outrage in America thus far is Christianity. Not one Muslim has been sued or called out by the LGBT community for discriminating or contending that homosexuality is a sin against Allah. Nope. Just Christianity. As far as I can tell, and from what I've read, Muslims treat homosexuals a hundred times, no, a million times more harshly than any Christian today would. Christians think homosexuality is a sin that can be forgiven by God. Muslims think homosexuality is unforgivable, and is a sin punishable by death. But why just Christianity?

I also note the lack of concern some self proclaimed gay rights activists hold for homosexual people in the Middle East. When other gay people around the world are subject to the same, if not worse treatment that they condemn Christians for committing against gays in America, the silence is quite damning. To fight for gay rights in my mind, is to fight for the rights of gay individuals everywhere on Earth, not just here in America. Those who do only focus on gays here in America should realize their advocacy rings hollow. The focus is myopic.

Christianity is often condemned for its behavior during The Crusades, for forcing the conversion of unwitting Muslims and rightly so, though we have grown out of exercising such forms of barbarity; but now, I see a crusade of a different sort. And it's being waged by the extreme fringe of the LGBT crowd this time around. "Make your religion accept us, or be damned!" Their vanguard, consisting of the far left and left wage the war of identity against the opposition, hurling words like "intolerant" and "bigoted" like fire and pitch across the sociopolitical battlefield, landing squarely where it doesn't belong.

When you've been damned to hell for a couple thousand thousand years, burned at the stake, imprisoned, and denied the right to legally commit yourself to the person you love, it is certainly reasonable that you feel some intolerance to those that have persecuted you and made your life a living hell.

Hogwash and excuses. "It's EVIL when you don't do what I want, but it's always okay for me to do the exact same thing, because . . . IT IS!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

You know, some day, I wish the liberals would realize just how little Christians think about gay marriage, etc. We're comfortable with our choices ..... if you want to go to Hell for your actions, frankly, I don't give a damn. You won't hear any complaints from me ... and you don't hear me trying to convert you.

One of God's tenets is the concept of free will ---- we all have choices to make, and we will live - and die - by those choices. It is not God's intent to convince you to come over from the dark side. He has been pretty explicit about what the results will be - and left it to us to choose. If you choose not to believe in His laws, so be it. You've been given the facts --- now, make your choice.

I've chosen - and I'm comfortable with that choice. Is all this noise we hear just a case of trying to justify to yourself the decisions you have made?

They're trying to make everyone forget that they're the ones who brought it up and started this fight.

Leftists are very bad at leaving well enough alone.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When you've been damned to hell for a couple thousand thousand years, burned at the stake, imprisoned, and denied the right to legally commit yourself to the person you love, it is certainly reasonable that you feel some intolerance to those that have persecuted you and made your life a living hell.

Right, so you plan to do the same to the so called oppressors, right? They gave you hell so you want to give them hell back. How mature. Gays are playing the role of judge, condemning their oppressors in the same way their oppressors condemned them. How colossally ironic.

Funny how I have people accusing me of not knowing what tolerance is, yet here I see people like you issuing your own definitions of tolerance, while passing down judgement on those wicked bigoted Christians! Gays want to fight persecution of their way of life, yet fully intend to persecute those who don't "tolerate" them, i.e. those of faith.

How dare you fight for tolerance? You don't want tolerance, you want outright capitulation. You want revenge, not acceptance. You don't want to build, you wish to destroy.

So, I wonder, how long will you keep this up until it completely backfires on you?

The vast majority of gays do not march in parades, carry signs condemning anybody. Most people that are gay have lived much of their life in the closet, hiding their homosexuality. Even after they come out, most are reluctant to reveal themselves to all but family and close friends. As far as gay marriage is concerned, less than .1% of gays are married. Even it every gay and lesbian in the country married, 99% of all marriages would be between heterosexuals. The reality is that gay marriage effects a very small percent of the population. It's important to gays because it's a right they believe they should have, even though most will not every use that right.

Not seeing the point here.

 

[Flopper]

Could you give a few examples?

Namely, your silence and lack of disagreement with far left liberals who participate in the kind of behavior for one, and posts like these:

How can someone who has proven that he does not understand tolerance start a thread on it?

Silence is complicity. Or in this case, silence and speech.

To wit, you even contradicted yourself. First, you say that you respect my opinion, but turn around and accuse me of "not understanding tolerance." That to me demonstrates the reality that despite your aura of tolerance, you are actually very intolerant of my opinion as demonstrated below, which in turn reveals your hypocrisy and implementation of double standards:

I respect that other people have the right to believe other than me and live their lives differently than I do.
If homosexual relationships are against someone's religion, that pertains to members of that religion, not everyone.

Need I say more?

Yes, give some relevant examples to prove your point.

After giving it some more thought, I realized I should be more concise about my charges against you:

1. You by your own silence are guilty of hypocrisy and double standards by not speaking out against the behaviors that the mainstream of your party engage in against Christians regarding the issue of homosexuality.

2. And by that silence, you demonstrated complicity in the behavior of other members of your party or members who share like mind.

3. You also demonstrated your lack of tolerance and colossal duplicitousness when you stated how you "respected" my stances on homosexuality due to my Christian faith and also how you had no qualms with how I live my life. However, theretofore, you asked this pointed question: "How can someone who has proven that he does not understand tolerance start a thread on it?"

Such a question implies an assertion on its own, asserting that I am intolerant and therefore do not understand or are incapable of exercising tolerance for homosexuals or their relationships. A genetic argument, to be sure, which I have demonstrated repeatedly to be false. You have yet to show how I have "proven" that I "do not understand tolerance."

I thereby challenge you to back up this claim, or concede the point.

4. An additional point. After reading this statement:

"If homosexual relationships are against someone's religion, that pertains to members of that religion, not everyone."

Am I to assume that such a belief should be confined only between members of a faith? That they shouldn't speak out based their belief because of their "intolerance"? Or is it that simply not everyone shares their belief? If it is the former, then that would yet be another contradiction, and would belie your so-called "tolerance" of other peoples opinions and beliefs.

However, if it is the latter, then I agree. Not everyone will share the same opinion on homosexual relationships. But I might add that you can't force them to have a favorable opinion of homosexual relationships in the same stead.

Laws should not be made or refuted because of someone's religious beliefs. A religious person should show tolerance to someone else's beliefs if they expect people to respect their beliefs.
I am not a 'party man', I believe what I think to be right or wrong.

As for my silence, some of us have jobs and careers and cannot sit on a message board all day.

So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?

As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?

 

[Spare_change]

Namely, your silence and lack of disagreement with far left liberals who participate in the kind of behavior for one, and posts like these:

Silence is complicity. Or in this case, silence and speech.

To wit, you even contradicted yourself. First, you say that you respect my opinion, but turn around and accuse me of "not understanding tolerance." That to me demonstrates the reality that despite your aura of tolerance, you are actually very intolerant of my opinion as demonstrated below, which in turn reveals your hypocrisy and implementation of double standards:

Need I say more?

Yes, give some relevant examples to prove your point.

After giving it some more thought, I realized I should be more concise about my charges against you:

1. You by your own silence are guilty of hypocrisy and double standards by not speaking out against the behaviors that the mainstream of your party engage in against Christians regarding the issue of homosexuality.

2. And by that silence, you demonstrated complicity in the behavior of other members of your party or members who share like mind.

3. You also demonstrated your lack of tolerance and colossal duplicitousness when you stated how you "respected" my stances on homosexuality due to my Christian faith and also how you had no qualms with how I live my life. However, theretofore, you asked this pointed question: "How can someone who has proven that he does not understand tolerance start a thread on it?"

Such a question implies an assertion on its own, asserting that I am intolerant and therefore do not understand or are incapable of exercising tolerance for homosexuals or their relationships. A genetic argument, to be sure, which I have demonstrated repeatedly to be false. You have yet to show how I have "proven" that I "do not understand tolerance."

I thereby challenge you to back up this claim, or concede the point.

4. An additional point. After reading this statement:

"If homosexual relationships are against someone's religion, that pertains to members of that religion, not everyone."

Am I to assume that such a belief should be confined only between members of a faith? That they shouldn't speak out based their belief because of their "intolerance"? Or is it that simply not everyone shares their belief? If it is the former, then that would yet be another contradiction, and would belie your so-called "tolerance" of other peoples opinions and beliefs.

However, if it is the latter, then I agree. Not everyone will share the same opinion on homosexual relationships. But I might add that you can't force them to have a favorable opinion of homosexual relationships in the same stead.

Laws should not be made or refuted because of someone's religious beliefs. A religious person should show tolerance to someone else's beliefs if they expect people to respect their beliefs.
I am not a 'party man', I believe what I think to be right or wrong.

As for my silence, some of us have jobs and careers and cannot sit on a message board all day.

So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?

As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?

I think I can answer this one ....

Some people have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be condoned.

Gay activists and supporters, on the other hand, want to stifle that view, and want to make it illegal.

That DOES sound like intolerance, doesn't it? Not allowing the anti-homosexuality people their place and their platform?

Seems kinda logical to me ...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, give some relevant examples to prove your point.

After giving it some more thought, I realized I should be more concise about my charges against you:

1. You by your own silence are guilty of hypocrisy and double standards by not speaking out against the behaviors that the mainstream of your party engage in against Christians regarding the issue of homosexuality.

2. And by that silence, you demonstrated complicity in the behavior of other members of your party or members who share like mind.

3. You also demonstrated your lack of tolerance and colossal duplicitousness when you stated how you "respected" my stances on homosexuality due to my Christian faith and also how you had no qualms with how I live my life. However, theretofore, you asked this pointed question: "How can someone who has proven that he does not understand tolerance start a thread on it?"

Such a question implies an assertion on its own, asserting that I am intolerant and therefore do not understand or are incapable of exercising tolerance for homosexuals or their relationships. A genetic argument, to be sure, which I have demonstrated repeatedly to be false. You have yet to show how I have "proven" that I "do not understand tolerance."

I thereby challenge you to back up this claim, or concede the point.

4. An additional point. After reading this statement:

"If homosexual relationships are against someone's religion, that pertains to members of that religion, not everyone."

Am I to assume that such a belief should be confined only between members of a faith? That they shouldn't speak out based their belief because of their "intolerance"? Or is it that simply not everyone shares their belief? If it is the former, then that would yet be another contradiction, and would belie your so-called "tolerance" of other peoples opinions and beliefs.

However, if it is the latter, then I agree. Not everyone will share the same opinion on homosexual relationships. But I might add that you can't force them to have a favorable opinion of homosexual relationships in the same stead.

Laws should not be made or refuted because of someone's religious beliefs. A religious person should show tolerance to someone else's beliefs if they expect people to respect their beliefs.
I am not a 'party man', I believe what I think to be right or wrong.

As for my silence, some of us have jobs and careers and cannot sit on a message board all day.

So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?

As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?

I think I can answer this one ....

Some people have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be condoned.

Gay activists and supporters, on the other hand, want to stifle that view, and want to make it illegal.

That DOES sound like intolerance, doesn't it? Not allowing the anti-homosexuality people their place and their platform?

Seems kinda logical to me ...

Wrong.

Seeking one's comprehensive civil rights does not make one an 'activist,' nor does it 'deny' other citizens their rights.

And it's a ridiculous lie to claim that gay Americans wish to 'stifle' those hostile to homosexuals, or to make it 'illegal' to be hostile to gay Americans – nothing could be further from the truth.

Consequently, there is no 'intolerance' toward those hostile to gay Americans, they are at liberty to express their ignorance, fear, and hate with impunity, where no one is advocating they be prohibited from doing so through force of law.

It's as if you and others on the right don't even care that you're liars.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When you've been damned to hell for a couple thousand thousand years, burned at the stake, imprisoned, and denied the right to legally commit yourself to the person you love, it is certainly reasonable that you feel some intolerance to those that have persecuted you and made your life a living hell.

Right, so you plan to do the same to the so called oppressors, right? They gave you hell so you want to give them hell back. How mature. Gays are playing the role of judge, condemning their oppressors in the same way their oppressors condemned them. How colossally ironic.

Funny how I have people accusing me of not knowing what tolerance is, yet here I see people like you issuing your own definitions of tolerance, while passing down judgement on those wicked bigoted Christians! Gays want to fight persecution of their way of life, yet fully intend to persecute those who don't "tolerate" them, i.e. those of faith.

How dare you fight for tolerance? You don't want tolerance, you want outright capitulation. You want revenge, not acceptance. You don't want to build, you wish to destroy.

So, I wonder, how long will you keep this up until it completely backfires on you?

The vast majority of gays do not march in parades, carry signs condemning anybody. Most people that are gay have lived much of their life in the closet, hiding their homosexuality. Even after they come out, most are reluctant to reveal themselves to all but family and close friends. As far as gay marriage is concerned, less than .1% of gays are married. Even it every gay and lesbian in the country married, 99% of all marriages would be between heterosexuals. The reality is that gay marriage effects a very small percent of the population. It's important to gays because it's a right they believe they should have, even though most will not every use that right.

Not seeing the point here.

The point is that opposition to same-sex couples accessing marriage law is unwarranted and devoid of merit, and that the vast majority of gay Americans have no interest in political activism, where those who do are not representative of all gay Americans.

 

[Spare_change]

After giving it some more thought, I realized I should be more concise about my charges against you:

1. You by your own silence are guilty of hypocrisy and double standards by not speaking out against the behaviors that the mainstream of your party engage in against Christians regarding the issue of homosexuality.

2. And by that silence, you demonstrated complicity in the behavior of other members of your party or members who share like mind.

3. You also demonstrated your lack of tolerance and colossal duplicitousness when you stated how you "respected" my stances on homosexuality due to my Christian faith and also how you had no qualms with how I live my life. However, theretofore, you asked this pointed question: "How can someone who has proven that he does not understand tolerance start a thread on it?"

Such a question implies an assertion on its own, asserting that I am intolerant and therefore do not understand or are incapable of exercising tolerance for homosexuals or their relationships. A genetic argument, to be sure, which I have demonstrated repeatedly to be false. You have yet to show how I have "proven" that I "do not understand tolerance."

I thereby challenge you to back up this claim, or concede the point.

4. An additional point. After reading this statement:

"If homosexual relationships are against someone's religion, that pertains to members of that religion, not everyone."

Am I to assume that such a belief should be confined only between members of a faith? That they shouldn't speak out based their belief because of their "intolerance"? Or is it that simply not everyone shares their belief? If it is the former, then that would yet be another contradiction, and would belie your so-called "tolerance" of other peoples opinions and beliefs.

However, if it is the latter, then I agree. Not everyone will share the same opinion on homosexual relationships. But I might add that you can't force them to have a favorable opinion of homosexual relationships in the same stead.

Laws should not be made or refuted because of someone's religious beliefs. A religious person should show tolerance to someone else's beliefs if they expect people to respect their beliefs.
I am not a 'party man', I believe what I think to be right or wrong.

As for my silence, some of us have jobs and careers and cannot sit on a message board all day.

So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?

As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?

I think I can answer this one ....

Some people have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be condoned.

Gay activists and supporters, on the other hand, want to stifle that view, and want to make it illegal.

That DOES sound like intolerance, doesn't it? Not allowing the anti-homosexuality people their place and their platform?

Seems kinda logical to me ...

Wrong.

Seeking one's comprehensive civil rights does not make one an 'activist,' nor does it 'deny' other citizens their rights.

And it's a ridiculous lie to claim that gay Americans wish to 'stifle' those hostile to homosexuals, or to make it 'illegal' to be hostile to gay Americans – nothing could be further from the truth.

Consequently, there is no 'intolerance' toward those hostile to gay Americans, they are at liberty to express their ignorance, fear, and hate with impunity, where no one is advocating they be prohibited from doing so through force of law.

It's as if you and others on the right don't even care that you're liars.

Hmmmm ---- if gay supporters aren't interested in stifling those "hostile to homosexuals" - then what is that move to have all anti-gay speech declared hate speech, or those movements attempting to have LGBT be afforded special class protection available to blacks and women? Why do i constantly see cowardly attacks of misrepresentation, half truths, and outright lies on those (the latest was Rubio) who make the 'mistake' of even mentioning the LGBT crowd? Why do I see constant attacks, on these threads, on those who profess their commitment to Christianity?

That's probably not trying to silence people, huh?

 

[Flopper]

Yes, give some relevant examples to prove your point.

After giving it some more thought, I realized I should be more concise about my charges against you:

1. You by your own silence are guilty of hypocrisy and double standards by not speaking out against the behaviors that the mainstream of your party engage in against Christians regarding the issue of homosexuality.

2. And by that silence, you demonstrated complicity in the behavior of other members of your party or members who share like mind.

3. You also demonstrated your lack of tolerance and colossal duplicitousness when you stated how you "respected" my stances on homosexuality due to my Christian faith and also how you had no qualms with how I live my life. However, theretofore, you asked this pointed question: "How can someone who has proven that he does not understand tolerance start a thread on it?"

Such a question implies an assertion on its own, asserting that I am intolerant and therefore do not understand or are incapable of exercising tolerance for homosexuals or their relationships. A genetic argument, to be sure, which I have demonstrated repeatedly to be false. You have yet to show how I have "proven" that I "do not understand tolerance."

I thereby challenge you to back up this claim, or concede the point.

4. An additional point. After reading this statement:

"If homosexual relationships are against someone's religion, that pertains to members of that religion, not everyone."

Am I to assume that such a belief should be confined only between members of a faith? That they shouldn't speak out based their belief because of their "intolerance"? Or is it that simply not everyone shares their belief? If it is the former, then that would yet be another contradiction, and would belie your so-called "tolerance" of other peoples opinions and beliefs.

However, if it is the latter, then I agree. Not everyone will share the same opinion on homosexual relationships. But I might add that you can't force them to have a favorable opinion of homosexual relationships in the same stead.

Laws should not be made or refuted because of someone's religious beliefs. A religious person should show tolerance to someone else's beliefs if they expect people to respect their beliefs.
I am not a 'party man', I believe what I think to be right or wrong.

As for my silence, some of us have jobs and careers and cannot sit on a message board all day.

So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?

As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?

I think I can answer this one ....

Some people have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be condoned.

Gay activists and supporters, on the other hand, want to stifle that view, and want to make it illegal.

That DOES sound like intolerance, doesn't it? Not allowing the anti-homosexuality people their place and their platform?

Seems kinda logical to me ...

When a Christian Pastor and his deacons psychically and verbally abuse a gay couple to prevent them from entering their church, when Christian ministers across the country call gays an abomination in the sight of the lord, when Christian leaders for decades promoted cures for homosexuality that leaves teens in severe depression and suicidal, when Christian missionaries in Uganda fanned the flames of homophobia resulting in a death penalty for homosexuals, you don't think gays should speak out against such in tolerance and abuse.

Anti-homosexuals certainly have a platform to spread their hate against homosexuals in 350,000 congregations throughout the country and every word they say is protected by the constitution.

 

[Spare_change]

After giving it some more thought, I realized I should be more concise about my charges against you:

1. You by your own silence are guilty of hypocrisy and double standards by not speaking out against the behaviors that the mainstream of your party engage in against Christians regarding the issue of homosexuality.

2. And by that silence, you demonstrated complicity in the behavior of other members of your party or members who share like mind.

3. You also demonstrated your lack of tolerance and colossal duplicitousness when you stated how you "respected" my stances on homosexuality due to my Christian faith and also how you had no qualms with how I live my life. However, theretofore, you asked this pointed question: "How can someone who has proven that he does not understand tolerance start a thread on it?"

Such a question implies an assertion on its own, asserting that I am intolerant and therefore do not understand or are incapable of exercising tolerance for homosexuals or their relationships. A genetic argument, to be sure, which I have demonstrated repeatedly to be false. You have yet to show how I have "proven" that I "do not understand tolerance."

I thereby challenge you to back up this claim, or concede the point.

4. An additional point. After reading this statement:

"If homosexual relationships are against someone's religion, that pertains to members of that religion, not everyone."

Am I to assume that such a belief should be confined only between members of a faith? That they shouldn't speak out based their belief because of their "intolerance"? Or is it that simply not everyone shares their belief? If it is the former, then that would yet be another contradiction, and would belie your so-called "tolerance" of other peoples opinions and beliefs.

However, if it is the latter, then I agree. Not everyone will share the same opinion on homosexual relationships. But I might add that you can't force them to have a favorable opinion of homosexual relationships in the same stead.

Laws should not be made or refuted because of someone's religious beliefs. A religious person should show tolerance to someone else's beliefs if they expect people to respect their beliefs.
I am not a 'party man', I believe what I think to be right or wrong.

As for my silence, some of us have jobs and careers and cannot sit on a message board all day.

So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?

As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?

I think I can answer this one ....

Some people have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be condoned.

Gay activists and supporters, on the other hand, want to stifle that view, and want to make it illegal.

That DOES sound like intolerance, doesn't it? Not allowing the anti-homosexuality people their place and their platform?

Seems kinda logical to me ...

When a Christian Pastor and his deacons psychically and verbally abuse a gay couple to prevent them from entering their church, when Christian ministers across the country call gays an abomination in the sight of the lord, when Christian leaders for decades promoted cures for homosexuality that leaves teens in severe depression and suicidal, when Christian missionaries in Uganda fanned the flames of homophobia resulting in a death penalty for homosexuals, you don't think gays should speak out against such in tolerance and abuse.

Anti-homosexuals certainly have a platform to spread their hate against homosexuals in 350,000 congregations throughout the country and every word they say is protected by the constitution.

LOL --- I'm not sure how you can advocate intolerance on one side, and not on the other .... but you've managed to dance on the head of that pin.

 

[Spare_change]

When voices that defend traditional Judeo-Christian values can be smeared, labeled and dismissed as “hateful” by radical ideologues with impunity, America has turned away from its commitment to free speech.

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D, is the new executive director of the World Congress of Families who will be hosting their first gathering in the United States this year.

Crouse has dedicated her life’s work to research and policies promoting optimal outcomes for families, women and children.