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

[hunarcy]

What happened to GLAAD's free speech rights. When did you decide that pro-gay free speech should somehow be abridged?

No one objects to GLAAD exercising their free speech. However, there is an objection to their intolerance and bullying. And their intolerance is exactly what you are defending.

 

[Sunshine]

What then should the Tea Party get? They are routinely called terrorist

-Geaux

I don't think it would be fair to call all tea party people terrorists, but is definitely justified to say Ted Cruz is.

A bit OFF TOPIC, don't you think? What has TED Cruz to do with this? Did he weigh in with his verdict?

[MENTION=19484]The T[/MENTION]

What he has to do with this is that Billy Boi, in an archetypal display of his own intolerance, pulled his name out of the hat and labeled him a terrorist.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The difference is that while promoting their political beliefs, they do not "research" their opponents with the goal of insuring they lose their ability to make a living.

And, they didn't demand that the nations largest outdoors show be shut down. They just didn't go. If GLAAD had just said we won't watch Duck Dynasty and called for a boycott of it as they have done countless other times (Dr. Laura, for example) there wouldn't have been the backlash. It was the calling of the "jihad" that smacks of bullying.

Exactly as I predicted.

There is a "fish in the barrel" aspect to this isn't there?

We're running out of fish.

You don't even have the barrel, much less the fish.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.

Like it or not FF, Phil Robertson and Paula Deen are victims of the sanctions a free market creates. Corporate executives and corporate sponsors want no part of their vitriol. They see it as toxic to their ratings and profits.

You can't profess to be a 'free marketeer' and not accept the sanctions that come with it.

And to compare millionaires like Phil Robertson or Paula Deen to Rosa Parks is absurd.

But here is some food for thought...

The paradox of tolerance

Karl Popper on the paradox of tolerance - Windows on Humanity

Correct.

And however one might perceive the actions of corporate sponsors or advocacy groups such as GLAAD or the NRA, however one might perceive them to be capricious or ‘intolerant,’ this is the nature of a free and private society: where all are entitled to voice their support or opposition concerning the conflicts and controversies of the day, and where private citizens are allowed to make their own determination as to who has the most compelling argument.

Moreover, what exactly do conservatives want out of this?

Do they want Congress to pass legislation making it illegal for GLAAD to petition sponsors to discontinue support for the program? That doesn’t sound very ‘conservative.’

Do conservatives expect the gay and lesbian community to sit quietly by and not respond to the hateful, ignorant, and inaccurate statements made by Robertson concerning homosexuals?

Conservatives have attempted to make the argument that one’s livelihood should not be placed in jeopardy as a consequence of his speech or actions, however unpopular, controversial, or wrong. But this fails to address the notion of personal responsibility – that whether employee or self-employed, business owner, independent contractor, or actor – one must realize that his speech and actions might well be used to judge him at a professional level, and adversely effect him accordingly.

Conservatives will then counter that this amounts to de facto censorship, intimidation, and loss of free speech and expression, where persons remain silent out of fear of losing one’s job or business. But in this conservatives fail to address the fact that private society – absent government involvement and interference – is a liberty to do just that: to establish the parameters, boundaries, and guidelines as to what is or is not appropriate – to advocate anything else is to advocate an unworkable social paradigm anathema to the fundamental tenets of a Western industrialized democracy.

Again, conservatives, along with everyone else, are being allowed to express their opinions about this, and private society as a whole will make the final determination as what is or is not appropriate speech and behavior.

 

[Sunshine]

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.

Lets get down to brass tacks?

Should private companies be forced to retain people who do not adhere to company standards regarding hostile environments..

Say a guy in the office one day comes up to a girl and says "You got great Tits..and boy I'd like to fuck that ass.."

Is that appropriate?

Speaking of what is and is not appropriate:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...ine-s-cryfest-over-those-meanie-liberals.html

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, Derideo, that's called the democratic process. That's how its supposed to work this day and age, believe it or not. That isn't silencing people. What GLAAD did was seek out one solitary individual for destruction. Those instances and this share no correlation between one another.

Exactly as I predicted.

Hey, did the NRA go to the private employers of Colorado and demand that those State Senators also be fired from other jobs because they voted for the anti-gun rights measure after they were recalled? Because GLAAD is trying to do that to Phil Robertson.

What? lol, wake up.

Let's talk about the calls for boycotting HBO and its sponsors because of Bill Maher...

...why don't you posers entertain us with some looney reasons why that was 'different'.

 

[Sunshine]

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.

You're making a convoluted but ultimately fallacious argument primarily designed to attempt to somehow shame the people you disagree with into unilateral disarmament.

Of course you have NEVER done that:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...re-is-nyc-s-list-of-christian-terrorists.html

 

[NYcarbineer]

What happened to GLAAD's free speech rights. When did you decide that pro-gay free speech should somehow be abridged?

No one objects to GLAAD exercising their free speech. However, there is an objection to their intolerance and bullying. And their intolerance is exactly what you are defending.

You mean like the RNC threatening to boycott NBC/MSNBC debates if those networks ran a Hillary Clinton documentary?

You mean that kind of tolerance and bullying?

Entertain us...

 

[Sunshine]

You're making a convoluted but ultimately fallacious argument primarily designed to attempt to somehow shame the people you disagree with into unilateral disarmament.

You want to say that in English, carbine?

Foxfyre wants an open debate about homosexuality, but he wants the gay rights advocates, defenders, etc., to shut their microphones off,

out of respect for Foxfyre's absurd definition of 'tolerance'.

Wrong. She wants an open debate about intolerance.

 

[hunarcy]

Exactly as I predicted.

Hey, did the NRA go to the private employers of Colorado and demand that those State Senators also be fired from other jobs because they voted for the anti-gun rights measure after they were recalled? Because GLAAD is trying to do that to Phil Robertson.

What? lol, wake up.

Let's talk about the calls for boycotting HBO and its sponsors because of Bill Maher...

...why don't you posers entertain us with some looney reasons why that was 'different'.

Are you truly so retarded? Am I condemning GLAAD for talking to A&E or calling for Robertson to be fired? As soon as you can trot out a post where I did, I'll apologize. But, has anyone said that Maher be prevented from every venue? If so, that's just as wrong as what GLAAD is doing.

 

[hunarcy]

You're making a convoluted but ultimately fallacious argument primarily designed to attempt to somehow shame the people you disagree with into unilateral disarmament.

You want to say that in English, carbine?

Foxfyre wants an open debate about homosexuality, but he wants the gay rights advocates, defenders, etc., to shut their microphones off,

out of respect for Foxfyre's absurd definition of 'tolerance'.

How does one "debate" homosexuality? You're not making sense at all.

 

[Sunshine]

To the extent this is about the Duck Dynasty faux scandal,

be reminded that GLAAD stands for Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

What they did is what they do, and they make no secret of their mission and their goals.

Once more folks, let's get off the who is a true Christian and how people get gay. This is not a thread about homosexuality. There are threads aplenty out there dealing with that. Nor is the this a Constitutional free speech issue. This is an issue of promoting tolerance and/or exposing intolerance. And how intolerance of intolerance can erode the very freedoms that some say they cherish above all. The freedom to be who we are.

GLAAD's mission was originally to promote tolerance. Now their mission seems to be to promote intolerance for anybody who doesn't embrace being gay and advancement of gay rights as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And there seems to be a lot of that going around and it isn't just GLAAD. Too many seem to promote the idea that we MUST be tolerant of certain points of view and then they turn right around and condone others being punished because of their point of view.

Quite a few of you here get that. Why doesn't everybody?

I think it has been well established that at least one on here thinks that only a perfect person is a true Christian. I'm getting tired of his keeping on keeping on about it, too. Although it IS a display of his intolerance. Definitely it is that.

One thing comes to mind: No doubt Robertson got paid for doing the GQ interview. So, how come GLAAD went after A & E and not GQ where he actually made the statements? I think the answer is obvious, however, I wonder if others do as well.

 

[Sunshine]

Once more folks, let's get off the who is a true Christian and how people get gay. This is not a thread about homosexuality. There are threads aplenty out there dealing with that. Nor is the this a Constitutional free speech issue. This is an issue of promoting tolerance and/or exposing intolerance. And how intolerance of intolerance can erode the very freedoms that some say they cherish above all. The freedom to be who we are.

GLAAD's mission was originally to promote tolerance. Now their mission seems to be to promote intolerance for anybody who doesn't embrace being gay as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And there seems to be a lot of that going around and it isn't just GLAAD. Too many seem to promote the idea that we MUST be tolerant of certain points of view and then they turn right around and condone others being punished because of their point of view.

Quite a few of you here get that. Why doesn't everybody?

Because people who are militantly intolerant of others speaking their opinions ( as Billy is, but not only him) are usually convinced THEY know what IS tolerant, accepted, and BETTER, including FOR YOU.
That is a mindset.

The defenders of Robertson's 'free speech' rights have made as many attacks against GLAAD et al, i.e. that side of the argument,

just for the fact that GLAAD etc. MADE their argument,

as if it was somehow their obligation to remain silent in the face of something they found objectionable.

What justifies that belief?

And who got suspended at GLAAD over it?

 

[hunarcy]

What happened to GLAAD's free speech rights. When did you decide that pro-gay free speech should somehow be abridged?

No one objects to GLAAD exercising their free speech. However, there is an objection to their intolerance and bullying. And their intolerance is exactly what you are defending.

You mean like the RNC threatening to boycott NBC/MSNBC debates if those networks ran a Hillary Clinton documentary?

You mean that kind of tolerance and bullying?

Entertain us...

Is there no deflection you won't throw up so you can avoid admitting you're wrong?

I don't believe there was a call to boycott MSNBC if they did not “cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production.” There was a threat to not work with them if it was aired, but no call for everyone to stop watching them or calling for sponsors to stop advertising, thus making it impossible for them to make money.

“If you have not agreed to pull the programming prior to the start of the RNC’s Summer Meeting on August 15, I will seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor,” Mr. Priebus wrote in letters he released Monday."

I don't see the call for anyone to be fired from every job they have...do you?

Every example you throw up actually shows how different the attack on Robertson by GLAAD is.

 

[BDBoop]

Very interesting thread. I said up front and immediately that I believe A&E erred with the hiatus decision.

As I asked elsewhere earlier today, paraphrasing "Are you saying that I have to tolerate racism, sexism, bigotry and prejudice, lest I be perceived as 'intolerant?'"

On a more immediate note, I'm sure the entire board knows my sister is gay, and her son is married to a biracial woman. I have always struggled with being expected to turn a blind eye when people on this board, whom I genuinely care about, speak ugliness about my loved ones.

 

[hunarcy]

Very interesting thread. I said up front and immediately that I believe A&E erred with the hiatus decision.

As I asked elsewhere earlier today, paraphrasing "Are you saying that I have to tolerate racism, sexism, bigotry and prejudice, lest I be perceived as 'intolerant?'"

On a more immediate note, I'm sure the entire board knows my sister is gay, and her son is married to a biracial woman. I have always struggled with being expected to turn a blind eye when people on this board, whom I genuinely care about, speak ugliness about my loved ones.

I tend to agree that they may have erred as a business decision, but I believe and have said that they were within their rights as an employer.

I have more of a problem with GLAAD's subsequent demands and threats. They go beyond "not tolerating racism, sexism, bigotry and prejudice", IMO.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one objects to GLAAD exercising their free speech. However, there is an objection to their intolerance and bullying. And their intolerance is exactly what you are defending.

You mean like the RNC threatening to boycott NBC/MSNBC debates if those networks ran a Hillary Clinton documentary?

You mean that kind of tolerance and bullying?

Entertain us...

Is there no deflection you won't throw up so you can avoid admitting you're wrong?

I don't believe there was a call to boycott MSNBC if they did not “cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production.” There was a threat to not work with them if it was aired, but no call for everyone to stop watching them or calling for sponsors to stop advertising, thus making it impossible for them to make money.

“If you have not agreed to pull the programming prior to the start of the RNC’s Summer Meeting on August 15, I will seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor,” Mr. Priebus wrote in letters he released Monday."

I don't see the call for anyone to be fired from every job they have...do you?

Every example you throw up actually shows how different the attack on Robertson by GLAAD is.

Exactly as I predicted.

Every example I put up has proven what partisan hackery this thread was, made all the worse by the pretense that it wasn't partisan hackery.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

Actually the NRA does.

Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA

Rhode Island Gun Recall: Voters Reject Council Ouster | TIME.com

Actually, Derideo, that's called the democratic process. That's how its supposed to work this day and age, believe it or not. That isn't silencing people. What GLAAD did was seek out one solitary individual for destruction. Those instances and this share no correlation between one another.

Removing a platform and/or removing someone from office is de facto "silencing". If A&E "fires" PR then he will no longer have that platform. No different to someone being ousted from office and losing that platform.

Yes, they still have their right to express their opinions they just don't have the right to use the platform concerned. And what the NRA is doing is "silencing" those who have opposing views with the power of money. The SCOTUS has given this it's blessing but I suspect that Citizens United will eventually be taught in law schools in the future as one of the great blunder decisions.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.

Like it or not FF, Phil Robertson and Paula Deen are victims of the sanctions a free market creates. Corporate executives and corporate sponsors want no part of their vitriol. They see it as toxic to their ratings and profits.

You can't profess to be a 'free marketeer' and not accept the sanctions that come with it.

And to compare millionaires like Phil Robertson or Paula Deen to Rosa Parks is absurd.

But here is some food for thought...

The paradox of tolerance

Karl Popper on the paradox of tolerance - Windows on Humanity

Correct.

And however one might perceive the actions of corporate sponsors or advocacy groups such as GLAAD or the NRA, however one might perceive them to be capricious or ‘intolerant,’ this is the nature of a free and private society: where all are entitled to voice their support or opposition concerning the conflicts and controversies of the day, and where private citizens are allowed to make their own determination as to who has the most compelling argument.

Moreover, what exactly do conservatives want out of this?

Do they want Congress to pass legislation making it illegal for GLAAD to petition sponsors to discontinue support for the program? That doesn’t sound very ‘conservative.’

Do conservatives expect the gay and lesbian community to sit quietly by and not respond to the hateful, ignorant, and inaccurate statements made by Robertson concerning homosexuals?

Conservatives have attempted to make the argument that one’s livelihood should not be placed in jeopardy as a consequence of his speech or actions, however unpopular, controversial, or wrong. But this fails to address the notion of personal responsibility – that whether employee or self-employed, business owner, independent contractor, or actor – one must realize that his speech and actions might well be used to judge him at a professional level, and adversely effect him accordingly.

Conservatives will then counter that this amounts to de facto censorship, intimidation, and loss of free speech and expression, where persons remain silent out of fear of losing one’s job or business. But in this conservatives fail to address the fact that private society – absent government involvement and interference – is a liberty to do just that: to establish the parameters, boundaries, and guidelines as to what is or is not appropriate – to advocate anything else is to advocate an unworkable social paradigm anathema to the fundamental tenets of a Western industrialized democracy.

Again, conservatives, along with everyone else, are being allowed to express their opinions about this, and private society as a whole will make the final determination as what is or is not appropriate speech and behavior.

This sea of words can be boiled down to this:

Conservatives are the only ones capable of evil and mischief. Liberals are not. Therefore, conservatives must sit on the sidelines and keep their opinions to themselves, since those opinions are not compatible with societal norms. They lack understanding of the concept of personal responsibility, so again therefore, it must be taught to them as Hephaestus brought primitive man the flame. Liberals, not society will make the final determination of what is or is not appropriate speech and behavior.

How arrogant.

 

[BDBoop]

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:



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.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

Honey? I see confused people.

They're everywhere.