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

[The T]

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?

Show me the evidence of that. Give a link to the research.

Here's a question to you Christians. If homosexuality is such a big deal, why did Jesus himself NOT to mention it in the Bible anywhere?

Jesus came to us to BOLSTER God's LAW, and to give US another chance as his children...by a new covenant...

1) Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it. There were dimensions of the Jewish law that do not carry over into Christianity. But Christ told us He fulfilled the law, not reneged on it.

As He explained, He heightened its morality (Matt 5:17-20); fulfilled its signs, made good on its promises and gave substance to its shadows (Luke 24:46-47). He did not come hat in hand conceding that Old Testament God was backwards and uninformed. Leviticus says that God finds homosexuality “detestable” (Lev 18:22).

God did not change, morally, in the New Testament. What God finds detestable one day He does not suddenly find agreeable the next. Now, if anything, Jesus says, we have a morality that now supercedes, and not contradicts, the moral law (Matt 5:17-21). Certain ceremonial shadows and social codes were fulfilled in Christ, but He did not, in any way, come to revise the God behind the law.

But whom was Christ but GOD incarnate, and amongst us to affirm what was already known?

___________________

ALL LAW to him were already spoken by the Heavenly Father.

My friend? YOU have a lot of soul searching to do.

Phil spoke the truth as he saw it, as HE was taught and lived his life.

SO be it.

Speak to that, and that alone. DON'T Silence him for it.

 

[Gracie]

Again dragging the train back on the tracks. The topic is NOT who is or is not a true Christian. The topic is NOT how people become gay. The topic is NOT what Jesus thought about homosexuality.

The topic is tolerance and/or the lack thereof. Could you answer the question please. Should Phil Robertson be able to express what he believes without an outside group demanding he be fired purely because they didn't like what he said?

(Maybe if it is bolded and colorized, people will see the question being asked. Then again, maybe they already know the answer but want to keep their heads buried in the sand.)

 

[Billy000]

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?

Show me the evidence of that. Give a link to the research.

Here's a question to you Christians. If homosexuality is such a big deal, why did Jesus himself NOT to mention it in the Bible anywhere?

Again dragging the train back on the tracks. The topic is NOT who is or is not a true Christian. The topic is NOT how people become gay. The topic is NOT what Jesus thought about homosexuality.

The topic is tolerance and/or the lack thereof. Could you answer the question please. Should Phil Robertson be able to express what he believes without an outside group demanding he be fired purely because they didn't like what he said?

I think it's important to consider what he exactly said. What he said was insulting. Luckily there is no law to punish him for it, but the first amendment right doesn't keep you from having consequences other than the legal sense. That's how life is. Actions have consequences. Some times they are justified.

 

[Sallow]

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?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Show me the evidence of that. Give a link to the research.

Here's a question to you Christians. If homosexuality is such a big deal, why did Jesus himself NOT to mention it in the Bible anywhere?

Again dragging the train back on the tracks. The topic is NOT who is or is not a true Christian. The topic is NOT how people become gay. The topic is NOT what Jesus thought about homosexuality.

The topic is tolerance and/or the lack thereof. Could you answer the question please. Should Phil Robertson be able to express what he believes without an outside group demanding he be fired purely because they didn't like what he said?

I think it's important to consider what he exactly said. What he said was insulting. Luckily there is no law to punish him for it, but the first amendment right doesn't keep you from having consequences other than the legal sense. That's how life is. Actions have consequences. Some times they are justified.

You're dodging. That's not what she asked. Should Phil Robertson be able to express his beliefs without a group demanding he be fired simply for want of their disagreement?

How many times must people ask you this question before you give an intelligible answer?

 

[The T]

Show me the evidence of that. Give a link to the research.

Here's a question to you Christians. If homosexuality is such a big deal, why did Jesus himself NOT to mention it in the Bible anywhere?

Again dragging the train back on the tracks. The topic is NOT who is or is not a true Christian. The topic is NOT how people become gay. The topic is NOT what Jesus thought about homosexuality.

The topic is tolerance and/or the lack thereof. Could you answer the question please. Should Phil Robertson be able to express what he believes without an outside group demanding he be fired purely because they didn't like what he said?

I think it's important to consider what he exactly said. What he said was insulting. Luckily there is no law to punish him for it, but the first amendment right doesn't keep you from having consequences other than the legal sense. That's how life is. Actions have consequences. Some times they are justified.

FINE. YOU find it insulting...MANY DO. But is it just cause to silence him? FIRE HIM for his speech? Again? WHOM is intolerant?

 

[SwimExpert]

Again dragging the train back on the tracks. The topic is NOT who is or is not a true Christian. The topic is NOT how people become gay. The topic is NOT what Jesus thought about homosexuality.

The topic is tolerance and/or the lack thereof. Could you answer the question please. Should Phil Robertson be able to express what he believes without an outside group demanding he be fired purely because they didn't like what he said?

(Maybe if it is bolded and colorized, people will see the question being asked. Then again, maybe they already know the answer but want to keep their heads buried in the sand.)

You're being intolerant of other topics.

 

[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.

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?

Your argument is a non sequitur.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Again dragging the train back on the tracks. The topic is NOT who is or is not a true Christian. The topic is NOT how people become gay. The topic is NOT what Jesus thought about homosexuality.

The topic is tolerance and/or the lack thereof. Could you answer the question please. Should Phil Robertson be able to express what he believes without an outside group demanding he be fired purely because they didn't like what he said?

(Maybe if it is bolded and colorized, people will see the question being asked. Then again, maybe they already know the answer but want to keep their heads buried in the sand.)

You're being intolerant of other topics.

No she isn't. If you want to be tolerant of other topics, go make another thread. It's that easy.

 

[The T]

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?

And is it appropriate for Government to make LAW to FORCE acceptance LIKE ObamaCare IF it goes against their beliefs?

DOUBLE EDGED SWORD. Nice YOU come in and DEFEND private interests on one hand, but in other instances DEFEND the other side. Sorry Sallow. YOU speak with two mouths, and are NOT to be believed in ANY instance.

Your creds suffer greatly in ANY opinion you might render on this topic.

(MY humble apology to the OP in my lambasting of this poster).

 

[The T]

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?

Your argument is a non sequitur.

^This as well.

 

[Billy000]

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?

Show me the evidence of that. Give a link to the research.

Here's a question to you Christians. If homosexuality is such a big deal, why did Jesus himself NOT to mention it in the Bible anywhere?

Read up, bud.

Study Finds Epigenetics, Not Genetics, Underlies Homosexuality

Jesus, Marriage, and Homosexuality | Catholic World Report - Global Church news and views

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]: I am simply responding to his inquiry. I will not engage in any further irrelevant discourse.

You need to have a better understanding of the stuff you post dude. What this study is saying is that "earmarks" LATCH onto GENES which manipulates how they are expressed. In other words, the study is saying you are born gay, but the genes were simply manipulated by these earmarks. It's not a gene, but your genes are manipulate to express the orientation. Biologically, yo are still born gay.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Billy, I will respond no further to irrelevancy. I must apologize to Fox for helping to pull her thread off topic as it is. Your flawed contentions notwithstanding. Please answer her question, Billy, she has asked you six times, each time you evaded. Why can you not give a direct answer? It's a simple yes or no question:

Should Phil Robertson be able to express his beliefs without a group demanding he be fired simply for want of their disagreement?

 

[Vox]

No, what is the issue are the remarks themselves. They were disrespectful and insulting. Had he simply stated homosexuality goes against his beliefs, he wouldn't have been suspended. He took it too far.

I don't understand why people aren't getting that.

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.

not true in the majority of cases.
and if even some are ( in some cases it is true) - that has absolutely nothing to do with expressing the views of not accepting them.

It is not about TOLERANCE.

It is all about FORCED ACCEPTANCE.

You must accept me, or I will destroy you - is not tolerance at all.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

 

[Billy000]

Billy, I will respond no further to irrelevancy. I must apologize to Fox for helping to pull her thread off topic as it is. Your flawed contentions notwithstanding.

Figures.

 

[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.

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?

 

[Billy000]

Billy, I will respond no further to irrelevancy. I must apologize to Fox for helping to pull her thread off topic as it is. Your flawed contentions notwithstanding. Please answer her question, Billy, she has asked you six times, each time you evaded. Why can you not give a direct answer? It's a simple yes or no question:

Should Phil Robertson be able to express his beliefs without a group demanding he be fired simply for want of their disagreement?

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.

not true in the majority of cases.
and if even some are ( in some cases it is true) - that has absolutely nothing to do with expressing the views of not accepting them.

It is not about TOLERANCE.

It is all about FORCED ACCEPTANCE.

You must accept me, or I will destroy toy - is not tolerance at all.

You are making things up.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Billy, I will respond no further to irrelevancy. I must apologize to Fox for helping to pull her thread off topic as it is. Your flawed contentions notwithstanding. Please answer her question, Billy, she has asked you six times, each time you evaded. Why can you not give a direct answer? It's a simple yes or no question:

Should Phil Robertson be able to express his beliefs without a group demanding he be fired simply for want of their disagreement?

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.

not true in the majority of cases.
and if even some are ( in some cases it is true) - that has absolutely nothing to do with expressing the views of not accepting them.

It is not about TOLERANCE.

It is all about FORCED ACCEPTANCE.

You must accept me, or I will destroy toy - is not tolerance at all.

You are making things up.

Still you are evading the question. I'm beginning to think you're afraid to answer her. She has you backed into a corner.

 

[Vox]

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?

Show me the evidence of that. Give a link to the research.

Here's a question to you Christians. If homosexuality is such a big deal, why did Jesus himself NOT to mention it in the Bible anywhere?

except HE did.