In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?

[Foxfyre]

So when the NRA decides to run/fund attack ads, they deserve no respect... Interesting take on the first amendment you have.

If you had bothered to read the thread before wading in here, you would know that this isn't a First Amendment issue. And I have strongly resisted those who have attempted to make it that. It also has nothing to do with who is or is not a 'real' Christian. It has nothing to do with whether somebody is straight or gay or how they got that way. And now I will add that it has absolutely nothing to do wth the Second Amendment either. It has nothing to do with those who are advocates for or lobby for whatever causes. And it has nothing to do with whatever business decisions A&E chooses to make. And it has nothing to do with who is and who is not a bigot.

This is a thread that focuses on tolerance. And the hypocrisy of those who expect others to be tolerant of their point of view and not give them a lot of sh*t or punish them or discriminate against them because they are who they are - BUT - who will not extend that kind of tolerance to a Phil Robertson or anybody else who holds an opinion they don't like.

Again almost everybody, both leftwingers and rightwingers, who have posted on this thread have easily grasped that concept. Only a very few, both leftwingers and rightwingers, have not. Why do you think that is?

I did read the thread...it reinforces that since you have ant-gay views, you support this guy from DD and disapprove of GLAAD. You just try to dress up that essence with trying to frame it as some sort of referendum on tolerance; you're tolerant of those who agree with you and distolerant of those you disagree with.

Almost everybody here can see it. Only you and a few others cannot.

Again if you had bothered to read the thread, you would have seen that I agreed neither with Phil Robertson's opinion nor how he expressed it. I hope everybody here saw that. You obviously didn't. And probably can't understand the concept of the OP anyway. But do have a pleasant evening.

 

[TemplarKormac]

She says she has no problem with GLAAD but does have a problem with GLAAD. You say you're a libertarian but are against certain people excercising their personal liberties.

Typical.

Am I? So, it is clearly evident that you won't allow Mr. Robertson to exercise his. He should be bullied and silenced. I don't have to be a libertarian to know whose in the wrong here. However, I acknowledge the personal liberties of those involved to do what they did. Still doesn't make what they are doing to him right.

You are a liberal that preaches tolerance, but will call a man a bigot for quoting the Bible and expressing his faith. Par for the course for you.

Incorrect.

He’s accurately being identified as someone who exhibits ignorance and hate toward homosexuals, comparing gay Americans to terrorists, prostitutes and bestiality.

If that’s an expression of Christian faith then Robertson is not alone in his ignorance and hate.

The issue has nothing to do with tolerance, or the lack thereof; the issue is Christians’ very inconsistent message as to what exactly their faith is about.

Is Robertson expressing personal opinion only, having nothing to do with his faith, or does he indeed represent all Christians? If the former then criticism of Robertson’s statements is not intolerance, if the latter then Christianity as a whole should be rebuked.

You can’t have it both ways.

LOL.

Spouting your talking points does not make up for the fact that you have no argument, Clayton.

So you simply say that he has not the right to say what he thinks? Is that not the most sincerest form of intolerance this thread addresses? Your arguments via personal incredulity are too predictable.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Correct.

No one’s being ‘censored,’ ‘shutdown,’ or otherwise ‘disallowed’ to give his opinion, express his views, or be who he is.

I would agree with you had GLAAD not announced they were "researching" Robertson to contact all who used him as a sponsor. They seem determined to drive him out of public life, which will censor him and prevent him from expressing his views.

Also incorrect.

Private entities lack the authority to censor other private entities. And no one can be ‘driven out of public life,’ if sponsors pull their support for the program that’s the sponsor’s decision alone, based on whomever they perceive to be the more valued audience.

What is transpiring is normal, healthy, and desirable – the American people alone, in the context of private society, debating and determining what is or is not appropriate speech and behavior.

It should be celebrated and encouraged, not feared and condemned. And that conservatives, for the most part, fear and seek to condemn this process is both telling and unsurprising.

 

[candycorn]

If you had bothered to read the thread before wading in here, you would know that this isn't a First Amendment issue.

A simple yes or no to the highlighted conclusion above will suffice.

The problem is that it is a conclusion, not based on reality, or the topic. Stop with the red herrings.

I'm sure she appreciates you coming to her rescue...she almost had to come out with an anti-NRA stance or lose face....

We'll just remember that they cannot be respected because Foxy said so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Am I? So, it is clearly evident that you won't allow Mr. Robertson to exercise his. He should be bullied and silenced. I don't have to be a libertarian to know whose in the wrong here. However, I acknowledge the personal liberties of those involved to do what they did. Still doesn't make what they are doing to him right.

You are a liberal that preaches tolerance, but will call a man a bigot for quoting the Bible and expressing his faith. Par for the course for you.

Incorrect.

He’s accurately being identified as someone who exhibits ignorance and hate toward homosexuals, comparing gay Americans to terrorists, prostitutes and bestiality.

If that’s an expression of Christian faith then Robertson is not alone in his ignorance and hate.

The issue has nothing to do with tolerance, or the lack thereof; the issue is Christians’ very inconsistent message as to what exactly their faith is about.

Is Robertson expressing personal opinion only, having nothing to do with his faith, or does he indeed represent all Christians? If the former then criticism of Robertson’s statements is not intolerance, if the latter then Christianity as a whole should be rebuked.

You can’t have it both ways.

LOL.

Spouting your talking points does not make up for the fact that you have no argument, Clayton.

So you simply say that he has not the right to say what he thinks? Is that not the most sincerest form of intolerance this thread addresses? Your arguments via personal incredulity are too predictable.

Is Robertson speaking for all Christians or just himself?

Is this the Christianity you wish to be associated with?

Simple questions you should have no trouble answering.

 

[candycorn]

If you had bothered to read the thread before wading in here, you would know that this isn't a First Amendment issue. And I have strongly resisted those who have attempted to make it that. It also has nothing to do with who is or is not a 'real' Christian. It has nothing to do with whether somebody is straight or gay or how they got that way. And now I will add that it has absolutely nothing to do wth the Second Amendment either. It has nothing to do with those who are advocates for or lobby for whatever causes. And it has nothing to do with whatever business decisions A&E chooses to make. And it has nothing to do with who is and who is not a bigot.

This is a thread that focuses on tolerance. And the hypocrisy of those who expect others to be tolerant of their point of view and not give them a lot of sh*t or punish them or discriminate against them because they are who they are - BUT - who will not extend that kind of tolerance to a Phil Robertson or anybody else who holds an opinion they don't like.

Again almost everybody, both leftwingers and rightwingers, who have posted on this thread have easily grasped that concept. Only a very few, both leftwingers and rightwingers, have not. Why do you think that is?

I did read the thread...it reinforces that since you have ant-gay views, you support this guy from DD and disapprove of GLAAD. You just try to dress up that essence with trying to frame it as some sort of referendum on tolerance; you're tolerant of those who agree with you and distolerant of those you disagree with.

Almost everybody here can see it. Only you and a few others cannot.

Again if you had bothered to read the thread, you would have seen that I agreed neither with Phil Robertson's opinion nor how he expressed it. I hope everybody here saw that. You obviously didn't. And probably can't understand the concept of the OP anyway. But do have a pleasant evening.

You're just pissed because everyone can see what you're up to. That's fine. You'll do better in the future if you just come out and say whats on your mind instead of trying to cloak it into some sort of intellecutal debate that you're not up for.

Yeah sure...you have no pro/con opinion on his hatred of gays. When a lefty gets in trouble for expresssing their views counter to the wishes of their employer, can we count on you to start this same thread?

I'm guessing no.

 

[hunarcy]

[Also incorrect.

Private entities lack the authority to censor other private entities. And no one can be ‘driven out of public life,’ if sponsors pull their support for the program that’s the sponsor’s decision alone, based on whomever they perceive to be the more valued audience.

What is transpiring is normal, healthy, and desirable – the American people alone, in the context of private society, debating and determining what is or is not appropriate speech and behavior.

It should be celebrated and encouraged, not feared and condemned. And that conservatives, for the most part, fear and seek to condemn this process is both telling and unsurprising.

Very correct. I know you can't allow yourself to admit the truth, anymore than I can force you to be correct. However, 50 years ago, we had to fight to allow people to express their views in order to have a healthy debate about race. We had to fight to allow people to express their views in order to have a healthy debate about women's rights. And, it wasn't government that was trying to stifle those debates. Today, it's GLAAD trying to silence those who express views they don't agree with and you are defending them. That's sad.

 

[Gracie]

I did read the thread...it reinforces that since you have ant-gay views, you support this guy from DD and disapprove of GLAAD. You just try to dress up that essence with trying to frame it as some sort of referendum on tolerance; you're tolerant of those who agree with you and distolerant of those you disagree with.

Almost everybody here can see it. Only you and a few others cannot.

Again if you had bothered to read the thread, you would have seen that I agreed neither with Phil Robertson's opinion nor how he expressed it. I hope everybody here saw that. You obviously didn't. And probably can't understand the concept of the OP anyway. But do have a pleasant evening.

You're just pissed because everyone can see what you're up to. That's fine. You'll do better in the future if you just come out and say whats on your mind instead of trying to cloak it into some sort of intellecutal debate that you're not up for.

Yeah sure...you have no pro/con opinion on his hatred of gays. When a lefty gets in trouble for expresssing their views counter to the wishes of their employer, can we count on you to start this same thread?

I'm guessing no.

You aren't very intelligent, are you?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Incorrect.

He’s accurately being identified as someone who exhibits ignorance and hate toward homosexuals, comparing gay Americans to terrorists, prostitutes and bestiality.

If that’s an expression of Christian faith then Robertson is not alone in his ignorance and hate.

The issue has nothing to do with tolerance, or the lack thereof; the issue is Christians’ very inconsistent message as to what exactly their faith is about.

Is Robertson expressing personal opinion only, having nothing to do with his faith, or does he indeed represent all Christians? If the former then criticism of Robertson’s statements is not intolerance, if the latter then Christianity as a whole should be rebuked.

You can’t have it both ways.

LOL.

Spouting your talking points does not make up for the fact that you have no argument, Clayton.

So you simply say that he has not the right to say what he thinks? Is that not the most sincerest form of intolerance this thread addresses? Your arguments via personal incredulity are too predictable.

Is Robertson speaking for all Christians or just himself?

Is this the Christianity you wish to be associated with?

Simple questions you should have no trouble answering.

I'll answer your question. Who gives a f*ck. What does this have to do with freedom of speech? That's the topic.

 

[candycorn]

Again if you had bothered to read the thread, you would have seen that I agreed neither with Phil Robertson's opinion nor how he expressed it. I hope everybody here saw that. You obviously didn't. And probably can't understand the concept of the OP anyway. But do have a pleasant evening.

You're just pissed because everyone can see what you're up to. That's fine. You'll do better in the future if you just come out and say whats on your mind instead of trying to cloak it into some sort of intellecutal debate that you're not up for.

Yeah sure...you have no pro/con opinion on his hatred of gays. When a lefty gets in trouble for expresssing their views counter to the wishes of their employer, can we count on you to start this same thread?

I'm guessing no.

You aren't very intelligent, are you?

Im a freaking Rhodes Scholar compared to the frauds here.

 

[Gracie]

You're just pissed because everyone can see what you're up to. That's fine. You'll do better in the future if you just come out and say whats on your mind instead of trying to cloak it into some sort of intellecutal debate that you're not up for.

Yeah sure...you have no pro/con opinion on his hatred of gays. When a lefty gets in trouble for expresssing their views counter to the wishes of their employer, can we count on you to start this same thread?

I'm guessing no.

You aren't very intelligent, are you?

Im a freaking Rhodes Scholar compared to the frauds here.

And a very rude one too. Foxy has been very polite. Me, not so much when it comes to assholes. So...ok. Asshole Rhodes Scholar. Gotcha. Not.

 

[SwimExpert]

It seems to me that much of this discussion has hinged on a moral interpretation. But I've come to a more existential view. And after thoughtful consideration I realize that it is not a logically sound position to say that a person is themselves intolerant for calling someone else intolerant. To call a person intolerant simply for identifying another person's intolerance, is to commit the reductio ad infinitum fallacy.

Phil Robertson, like all people, is either tolerant or intolerant. He cannot be both.

How can an otherwise tolerant person be recognized as such, if not by the contrast of intolerance? Intolerance cannot exist, without tolerance also existing. If all tolerant people cease to be tolerant the moment they recognize intolerance in another person, then ultimately every person would be intolerant. Because there would always be someone seemingly tolerant to point out the intolerance of the previous person. And in so doing, themselves become intolerant, ad infinitum. Subsequently, without any actual contrast between any two people, neither tolerance nor intolerance could actually exist under such circumstances.

Therefore, there are only two possibilities.

1) To be "intolerant" of intolerance is not itself actual intolerance.

OR

2) Neither tolerance nor intolerance exists.

 

[Gracie]

It seems to me that much of this discussion has hinged on a moral interpretation. But I've come to a more existential view. And after thoughtful consideration I realize that it is not a logically sound position to say that a person is themselves intolerant for calling someone else intolerant. To call a person intolerant simply for identifying another person's intolerance, is to commit the reductio ad infinitum fallacy.

Phil Robertson, like all people, is either tolerant or intolerant. He cannot be both.

How can an otherwise tolerant person be recognized as such, if not by the contrast of intolerance? Intolerance cannot exist, without tolerance also existing. If all tolerant people cease to be tolerant the moment they recognize intolerance in another person, then ultimately every person would be intolerant. Because there would always be someone seemingly tolerant to point out the intolerance of the previous person. And in so doing, themselves become intolerant, ad infinitum. Subsequently, without any actual contrast between any two people, neither tolerance nor intolerance could actually exist under such circumstances.

Therefore, there are only two possibilities.

1) To be "intolerant" of intolerance is not itself actual intolerance.

OR

2) Neither tolerance nor intolerance exists.

Dayum. That is something to really mull over. I like it! But, my brain cells are verrry sleepy so I will think on it tomorrow.

Meanwhile, I am out of rep but soon as I can slap ya some, i will. You are on topic and put much thought into your post.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

It seems to me that much of this discussion has hinged on a moral interpretation. But I've come to a more existential view. And after thoughtful consideration I realize that it is not a logically sound position to say that a person is themselves intolerant for calling someone else intolerant. To call a person intolerant simply for identifying another person's intolerance, is to commit the reductio ad infinitum fallacy.

Phil Robertson, like all people, is either tolerant or intolerant. He cannot be both.

How can an otherwise tolerant person be recognized as such, if not by the contrast of intolerance? Intolerance cannot exist, without tolerance also existing. If all tolerant people cease to be tolerant the moment they recognize intolerance in another person, then ultimately every person would be intolerant. Because there would always be someone seemingly tolerant to point out the intolerance of the previous person. And in so doing, themselves become intolerant, ad infinitum. Subsequently, without any actual contrast between any two people, neither tolerance nor intolerance could actually exist under such circumstances.

Therefore, there are only two possibilities.

1) To be "intolerant" of intolerance is not itself actual intolerance.

OR

2) Neither tolerance nor intolerance exists.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I hate existentialism.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I realize that.

And this might sound a little barbaric to you, but anyone who is "gay" and is a "christian" isn't a Christian to me. I've read the Bible, studied the Bible, nowhere does it speak of letting gays become leaders of a church or being a Christian while doing things that fly in the face of God's teachings. It is disingenuous to force your lifestyle on a religion that has unanimously rejected the notion of gay marriage. It is also disingenuous for the homosexual to put himself in a hostile environment that isn't conducive to his lifestyle. I would admonish his brethren to treat him with love and kindness, but I will not force them to accept his way of life.

I see homosexuality as an affront to the God's divine order of creation. Scientifically speaking in my opinion, homosexuality is contrary to natural procreation. If you have to resort to artificial insemination so a gay couple can reproduce, it is therefore unnatural.

Thank you for the honest response, TK. You are most certainly entitled to your views and opinion as to what constitutes Christianity and what does not.

What struck me in your response was that you are essentially displaying much the same intolerance as PR did in the GQ article. And yes, you do have that right. However if I recall Pope Francis's recent remarks on the subject correctly he admonished those who were fixated on Christian dogma over and above the people themselves.

If we are dealing with the topic of intolerance per the OP then aren't gays just as much the children of God and their acceptance of the concept of eternal life something that is between them and God? Should we be hidebound by the intolerance that existed 2000+ years ago or should we deal with the reality of the life that surrounds us today? A single father can successfully raise a child even if he cannot conceive it himself. We see Stat doing that today so must we condemn him because he is not a heterosexual marriage? Are you as intolerant of him as you are of gays?

This is not intended as a personal criticism of you at all, just an observation on the light of the topic in the OR. I support your right to your beliefs but I am curious as to how you reconcile the differences here.

Alright, I will respond to this as best as I can, point by point. [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

First:

What struck me in your response was that you are essentially displaying much the same intolerance as PR did in the GQ article. And yes, you do have that right. However if I recall Pope Francis's recent remarks on the subject correctly he admonished those who were fixated on Christian dogma over and above the people themselves.

Okay, firstly, my views of Christianity are based off of Protestantism, not of Catholicism. Therefore, I don't see the Pope as a true man of God. Anyone who prays to Mary and believes in the act of buying someone out of hell or purgatory does not truly understand the ultimate aspect of salvation and damnation. Christians worship Jesus Christ, not his mother. Pope Francis is an admirable man, but I cannot adhere to the tenets he believes in. We all have a general belief in God, therefore we should pray to God and to nobody else. In the end of all things, being a mere man will be irrelevant when God comes to earth at the end of days. All men will be judged equally for his transgressions. Catholics like gays are the children of God, but I believe personally that they are misguided and are stepping ever so closely to the wide path of destruction.

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Matthew 7:13-14 NKJV

If we are dealing with the topic of intolerance per the OP then aren't gays just as much the children of God and their acceptance of the concept of eternal life something that is between them and God? Should we be hidebound by the intolerance that existed 2000+ years ago or should we deal with the reality of the life that surrounds us today? A single father can successfully raise a child even if he cannot conceive it himself. We see Stat doing that today so must we condemn him because he is not a heterosexual marriage? Are you as intolerant of him as you are of gays?

As I said previously, all humankind are the children of God. But I must stand true to what I believe the Bible says about homosexuality. In the Book of Matthew, Chapter 7, it tells us not to judge other by our preconceived standards, lest we be judged by those same standards om heaven. It also warns us not to cast what is precious before swine, too. However, if a homosexual claims to be a member of my faith, I feel I must judge him according to the teaching of my faith. I am allowed that right. Christians are to help other Christians grow in the body of Christ.

Interesting you should ask that question, Derideo, "should we be hidebound to the intolerance of 2000+ years ago?" A lot of people think that we still believe in the old mosaic laws of the ancient Israelites, therefore we are seen as intolerant supposedly because it is assumed we are believing in such a system. However, Jesus did away with the old law and established a new covenant. All sin can be forgiven, any man can be redeemed, all he has to do is give his heart to God and expunge himself of his sinful ways. No man should die for his sin, since Jesus himself redeemed mankind with is death on the cross.

My rationale for "gay Christians" can be found here.

What Stat does with his life is of no concern of mine. It does not however stop me from disapproving of it. I cannot openly judge him for what he is. I am tolerant. I have never been intolerant of homosexuals my entire life. My uncle was gay, I have two gay friends. If I see two men holding hands on the street, I don't say a word. I don't cause a scene. Tolerance is a relative term to both gays and Christians. Frankly I've seen gays exercise more tolerance that Christians, and then again I have seen the converse.

Thank you for that clarification, TK. I appreciate your honestly and forthrightness.

 

[candycorn]

You aren't very intelligent, are you?

Im a freaking Rhodes Scholar compared to the frauds here.

And a very rude one too. Foxy has been very polite. Me, not so much when it comes to assholes. So...ok. Asshole Rhodes Scholar. Gotcha. Not.

I guess you're simply not used to the M.O. Its tire, played, we've seen it before. Nobdody buys it; it's just accepted by the simpler people that if you cloak your support into some supposedly intellectual argument, it will carry more weight. Sort of like if someone has an English accent, they are seen as being smarter.

Serioulsy...do you think Foxy would be anywhere near this if this dude from DD had come out in favor of gay rights and A&E had suspended him because of it? If you do, you're either an idiot or a liar; or both.

 

[Derideo_Te]

But again, do you approve of GLAAD demanding that A&E fire Phil Robertson because, in your point of view, he was 'hateful of gay people'? Or if you expect Christians to be tolerant of homosexuality, does it not follow that homosexuals should be tolerant of an expressed fundamentalist Christian view expressed by a fundamentalist Christian?

A person who believes gays should be compared to terrorists is not a true Christian in my opinion. Period. They can all themselves anything they want.

Where did he compare them to terrorists? I read the interview myself. Even if he did, and if you want to get technical, GLAAD is a militant gay rights group, so he is partially correct. When you use coercion to force someone to accept you and your lifestyle, you are no better than a terrorist. When you seek someone out to destroy them for opposing your way of life, you are no better than a terrorist.

Terrorism is the illegal use of violence to obtain a desired outcome. GLAAD might be militant but it is not using violence therefore it not a terrorist organization. The 1st Amendment protects the rights of GLAAD to advocate for gay rights.

 

[candycorn]

I realize that.

And this might sound a little barbaric to you, but anyone who is "gay" and is a "christian" isn't a Christian to me. I've read the Bible, studied the Bible, nowhere does it speak of letting gays become leaders of a church or being a Christian while doing things that fly in the face of God's teachings. It is disingenuous to force your lifestyle on a religion that has unanimously rejected the notion of gay marriage. It is also disingenuous for the homosexual to put himself in a hostile environment that isn't conducive to his lifestyle. I would admonish his brethren to treat him with love and kindness, but I will not force them to accept his way of life.

I see homosexuality as an affront to the God's divine order of creation. Scientifically speaking in my opinion, homosexuality is contrary to natural procreation. If you have to resort to artificial insemination so a gay couple can reproduce, it is therefore unnatural.

Thank you for the honest response, TK. You are most certainly entitled to your views and opinion as to what constitutes Christianity and what does not.

What struck me in your response was that you are essentially displaying much the same intolerance as PR did in the GQ article. And yes, you do have that right. However if I recall Pope Francis's recent remarks on the subject correctly he admonished those who were fixated on Christian dogma over and above the people themselves.

If we are dealing with the topic of intolerance per the OP then aren't gays just as much the children of God and their acceptance of the concept of eternal life something that is between them and God? Should we be hidebound by the intolerance that existed 2000+ years ago or should we deal with the reality of the life that surrounds us today? A single father can successfully raise a child even if he cannot conceive it himself. We see Stat doing that today so must we condemn him because he is not a heterosexual marriage? Are you as intolerant of him as you are of gays?

This is not intended as a personal criticism of you at all, just an observation on the light of the topic in the OR. I support your right to your beliefs but I am curious as to how you reconcile the differences here.

Alright, I will respond to this as best as I can, point by point. [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

First:

What struck me in your response was that you are essentially displaying much the same intolerance as PR did in the GQ article. And yes, you do have that right. However if I recall Pope Francis's recent remarks on the subject correctly he admonished those who were fixated on Christian dogma over and above the people themselves.

Okay, firstly, my views of Christianity are based off of Protestantism, not of Catholicism. Therefore, I don't see the Pope as a true man of God. Anyone who prays to Mary and believes in the act of buying someone out of hell or purgatory does not truly understand the ultimate aspect of salvation and damnation. Christians worship Jesus Christ, not his mother. Pope Francis is an admirable man, but I cannot adhere to the tenets he believes in. We all have a general belief in God, therefore we should pray to God and to nobody else. In the end of all things, being a mere man will be irrelevant when God comes to earth at the end of days. All men will be judged equally for his transgressions. Catholics like gays are the children of God, but I believe personally that they are misguided and are stepping ever so closely to the wide path of destruction.

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Matthew 7:13-14 NKJV

If we are dealing with the topic of intolerance per the OP then aren't gays just as much the children of God and their acceptance of the concept of eternal life something that is between them and God? Should we be hidebound by the intolerance that existed 2000+ years ago or should we deal with the reality of the life that surrounds us today? A single father can successfully raise a child even if he cannot conceive it himself. We see Stat doing that today so must we condemn him because he is not a heterosexual marriage? Are you as intolerant of him as you are of gays?

As I said previously, all humankind are the children of God. But I must stand true to what I believe the Bible says about homosexuality. In the Book of Matthew, Chapter 7, it tells us not to judge other by our preconceived standards, lest we be judged by those same standards om heaven. It also warns us not to cast what is precious before swine, too. However, if a homosexual claims to be a member of my faith, I feel I must judge him according to the teaching of my faith. I am allowed that right. Christians are to help other Christians grow in the body of Christ.

Interesting you should ask that question, Derideo, "should we be hidebound to the intolerance of 2000+ years ago?" A lot of people think that we still believe in the old mosaic laws of the ancient Israelites, therefore we are seen as intolerant supposedly because it is assumed we are believing in such a system. However, Jesus did away with the old law and established a new covenant. All sin can be forgiven, any man can be redeemed, all he has to do is give his heart to God and expunge himself of his sinful ways. No man should die for his sin, since Jesus himself redeemed mankind with is death on the cross.

My rationale for "gay Christians" can be found here.

What Stat does with his life is of no concern of mine. It does not however stop me from disapproving of it. I cannot openly judge him for what he is. I am tolerant. I have never been intolerant of homosexuals my entire life. My uncle was gay, I have two gay friends. If I see two men holding hands on the street, I don't say a word. I don't cause a scene. Tolerance is a relative term to both gays and Christians. Frankly I've seen gays exercise more tolerance that Christians, and then again I have seen the converse.

Can you watch and comment on the parts of the Bible discussed below?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYaewOBGybw]The West Wing: Bartlet quotes scripture. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Derideo_Te]

So what if his comments were disrespectful and insulting? I've heard many insulting and disrespectful comments on television. I'm a conservative and I've been called every name in the book by people on television. So what? I've been called a racist, xenophobic, sexist, terrorist, etc by people who classify conservatives in the dumbest and angriest language possible. I find Pierce Morgan and Chris Mathews as insulting and disrespectful as I'm sure you find Duck Dynasty guy. However, it would never occur to me to suspend them because of their vile remarks. I'm far more interested in the rights of the individual to express their opinions than I am about forcibly shutting other people's arguments down.

The obvious difference is that gay people were born gay. Conservatives are not. And I am against the idea of calling all conservatives dumb. They aren't.

I would like to know what they exactly have said about conservatives.

WRONG. Science has proven that homosexuality is not genetic. The precursors to homosexuality is epigenetic. No man is more "born gay" than I am born a Christian. It's all a choice, pure and simple. And furthermore, you don't like calling conservatives dumb, but don't mind referring to them as bigots. How do you reconcile such reasoning?

No one chooses which epigenetic markers are triggered in the uterus. Everyone has those markers therefore anyone might be born gay but only those whose markers were triggered end up being born gay. But it isn't a choice because it is a biological process over which one has no control. Therefore science has proven that some people are born gay.

New Insight into the (Epi)Genetic Roots of Homosexuality | TIME.com

“It’s not genetics. It’s not DNA. It’s not pieces of DNA. It’s epigenetics,” says Sergey Gavrilets, a NIMBioS researcher and an author on the paper that outlines the new theory of homosexuality, published in The Quarterly Review of Biology. “The hypothesis we put forward is based on epigenetic marks,” he says.

To be specific, the new theory suggests that homosexuality is caused by epigenetic marks, or “epi-marks,” related to sensitivity to hormones in the womb. These are compounds that sit on DNA and regulate how active, or inactive certain genes are, and also control when during development these genes are most prolific. Gavrilets and his colleagues believe that gene expression may regulate how a fetus responds to testosterone, the all-important male sex hormone. They further argue that epi-marks may help to buffer a female fetus from high levels of testosterone by suppressing receptors that respond to testosterone, for example, (thus ensuring normal fetal development even in the presence of a lot of testosterone) or to buffer a male fetus from low levels of testosterone by upregulating receptors that bind to the hormone (ensuring normal fetal development even in the absence of high levels of testosterone). Normally, these epi-marks are erased after they are activated, but if those marks are passed down to the next generation, the same epi-marks that protected a man in utero may cause oversensitivity to testosterone among his daughters, and the epi-marks that protected a woman in utero may lead to undersensitivity to testosterone among her sons.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ya didn't ask me, but I will answer. YES, I have a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe because they are hypocrites. But they have a RIGHT to say whatever they want to say, whine and have a temper tantrum whenever they want, and then they need to change the channel if they don't like what they see or hear and stop trying to force everyone else to think as THEY do.

Sorry...groups do that all the time. Should the NRA stop trying to influence others?

The NRA doesn't go around trying to silence gun control advocates who disagree with them. When will you stop with the red herrings?

The NRA spends millions trying to get or keep people out of office in government. If that isn't trying to silence people I don't know what is.

And, while we're at it:

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons

"A massive boycott backed by the NRA and outdoorsmen and women outraged that the nation's largest outdoors show banned the exhibition of assault weapons has caused the show's organizers to abruptly cancel the week-long event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The successful boycott, started by the website mynortheastoutdoors.com, was the biggest demonstration of support by the outdoors industry yet against gun control efforts being pushed in Washington and in several states."

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons | WashingtonExaminer.com