posted
Thanks, Marlozhan. I appreciate your response. As you can probably tell, you were not the first person to mention celibacy as a workable solution. I am glad to know that you weren't actually suggesting it.
I am especially glad for your last paragraph. As I have noted before, I may be wrong. I may be hauled up before the throne of a condemning God. But I choose to stake my eternal life on a God who rejoices in love.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by happymann: My own position on homosexuality and SSM has certainly evolved over time. I am a faithful and practicing LDS so my beliefs are highly influenced by that doctrine.
I believe for me currently the battle is semantic in nature (I am definitely not speaking on behalf of any one person, group of people, or organization when I say "for me"). To be honest, I haven't always believed this and have certainly rode the wagon of intolerance in the past. But currently as it stands I believe that, if we were to live in a more ideal and tolerant world, then the government should get out of the marriage game altogether. Because I believe that the definition of the word "marriage" is a binding of a man and a woman (for a family, etc.). Under this definition I would be perfectly fine with the government allowing for legal purposes to perform "civil unions" (or whatever you want to call it) to whomever would like it (heterosexual, homosexual, etc.) so that they have legal documentation for legal reasons. But the definition of the word "marriage", I believe, should stay as a heterosexual word.
I understand that in our imperfect society that my desires to keep "marriage" as a heterosexual word (if I were allowed to have my way) could in turn continue to have bigoted people still oppress homosexuals because they are not technically "married" but only have a "civil union".
So, knowing that we are not in a closed society with only a few variables (but in fact live in a society with so many variables and second, third, fourth, etc. orders of effect that we simply can't measure) I have come to realize that I have lost my own personal battle over the definition of the word "marriage". I am okay with it.
What I think should happen, where the LDS church is concerned, is that the church should continue to preach love and tolerance (it hasn't seemed to always do that but I think the church has done a lot of introspection since the backlash of Prop 8). Elder Dallin H. Oaks said an interesting statement on the Mormons and Gays website and I think it's particularly interesting specifically how he worded it. He said, "[H]ow can we help members of the church who struggle with same-gender attractions, but want to remain active and fully engaged in the church?" I have spent a lot of time thinking about what I would do if I found out that a child of mine was homosexual. I have come to the conclusion that I would try and teach them as much as I possibly can about the doctrine of my own beliefs and also teach them as much about the love and tolerance of Jesus Christ as I can and then ultimately give them the choice whether they "want to remain active and fully engaged in the church" and being okay with it if they don't because I understand that it is asking a lot from them. If they choose not to stay in the church, I would not be able to blame them.
Also I think, since I like to define words (I studied linguistics in college), that the church should move away from the word "marriage" by itself and start to define its own marriages as something else (like "sealings" since it's a word that already exists in our church lexicon). But that decision is out of my hands.
This has kind of turned into quite a rambling train of thought. Let me see if I can add one more thing into the mix.
I believe the word "marriage" should be a heterosexual word. I don't think ANY couple should be denied legal support and protection. I know that I've probably lost the battle on the definition of the word "marriage".
I am anti-SSM. Am I intolerant? Do my ramblings make sense?
lest I be too much of a harp, i should note this is a good post and as far as i can see a better venture into the question of 'how do I analyze my tolerance in effect instead of intent'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a bigger problem here that is overlooked.
It was mentioned in passing above..."Gender is considered eternal."
For most pro-SSM people, SSM debate is about rights of homosexuals.
For many conservative thinkers, its about gender issues, gender roles, and really about the dominance of man over woman.
If you believe that Man were made in God's image to be masters over women, then you believe that there are natural, divinely ordained roles for men and for woman.
In the past 50-100 years those roles have been slowly blending. Women are doing "mens" work, demanding respect, taking places of power, and not being submissive to the man in any way.
Now, even in the marriage bed, men are taking the place of women and women are taking the place of men.
Chaos.
How can a man expect to keep his wife quiet and respectful if the roles of men and women are being legally erased?
They argue that allowing SSM will lead on a slippery slope to bestiality, child abuse, and worse.
It could be argued that denying SSM will lead to unequal pay for equal work, sexism, and the Burkah.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: There is a bigger problem here that is overlooked.
It was mentioned in passing above..."Gender is considered eternal."
For most pro-SSM people, SSM debate is about rights of homosexuals.
For many conservative thinkers, its about gender issues, gender roles, and really about the dominance of man over woman.
If you believe that Man were made in God's image to be masters over women, then you believe that there are natural, divinely ordained roles for men and for woman.
In the past 50-100 years those roles have been slowly blending. Women are doing "mens" work, demanding respect, taking places of power, and not being submissive to the man in any way.
Now, even in the marriage bed, men are taking the place of women and women are taking the place of men.
Chaos.
How can a man expect to keep his wife quiet and respectful if the roles of men and women are being legally erased?
They argue that allowing SSM will lead on a slippery slope to bestiality, child abuse, and worse.
It could be argued that denying SSM will lead to unequal pay for equal work, sexism, and the Burkah.
And while this can and is the case for many people, saying that gender is eternal does not inherently lead to these things. It is possible for the genders to have inherent differences without either being dominant over the other. It is possible for these differences to be a dualistic union that creates a unified whole out of differences.
An example of the type of dynamic I am talking about is some of the premises of chaos theory. Much of chaos theory is built on the idea that opposing forces work together to bring form to the universe. Democrat vs. Republican, gravity vs. other forces, chaos vs. order, masculine vs. feminine, structure vs. creativity. Man and woman together are meant to form the perfect union, under LDS doctrine.
If you believe that there is no God, then it is easy to blame the problems of religion on the fact that there is no God.
But if you do believe in God, then all of the flaws, prejudices, inequality, and abuses of religion are the result of a fallen world where people continue to misquote, misunderstand, and misrepresent the character of God. And if you are LDS, you understand (if you know your religion) why there is such limited communication from God. We are meant to fumble in the dark, so to speak (which leads into the discussion of why there is suffering and ambiguity, which is in another thread, which I am not going to repeat).
In short, I don't agree with those conservative thinkers who are masking inequality under the guise of eternal gender. As a matter of fact, humans will use whatever they can get their hands on to justify oppression, shame, inequality, and prejudice. They will and have used religion, God, politics, science, culture, and popularity to justify these things.
A tool used incorrectly does not make the tool bad. It is the user, or the method being used, that is wrong. I don't think it is good to blame religious or non-religious people. It is good to blame people who use religion a bad way or to blame people who use their lack of religious belief in a bad way.
I believe in building a society where the strength and positives of religion can thrive without all of the prejudices and abuses that have often accompanied it. This society must also allow the non-religious to thrive. At this point, someone might argue that these problems are inherent in religion, but I disagree. I believe the problem is inherent in human nature anytime you get together large groups of people into any organization. Shame and prejudice are the problems, not the things that they infect.
I think I may have gone off on a tangent, I am not sure Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problem with the speculation that there are inherent, eternal categorical differences based on gender is that there are too many obvious counterexamples to any particular traits that we can pick out as candidates. e.g. men that are more nurturing than the average woman, or women that are better breadwinners than the average man.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Emily Dickinson acting against gay people in a bigoted fashion.
Is there a non-bigoted fashion? I suspect for you there is not, and from there everything else flows I think.
quote:Again, that's the whole point. Your idea of 'tolerance' is useless, because all it is is tone policing for marginalized people. It boils down to "tolerance is if a bigoted person thinks they're being nice to a person they're oppressing, the person who is being oppressed by the bigoted person should be polite about the issue to the bigoted person, because if they express anger or even just refuse to be polite or associate with bigots, that's intolerant.'
You keep acting like my idea of tolerance is only directed at the minority side. It isn't. And just for emphasis here's bold and italics tolerating each other, IT ISN'T.
I still am not satisfied that you've proactively described tolerance. It's still basically, "You don't do this."
quote:The slavery comparisons keep coming up about this because they are being used to demonstrate how completely ridiculous this is. If I live in a country where slavery is a big issue or there's a party with slavery as a major active platform, whether or not a person has "good intent" or are "acting in a way they think is moral" when they espouse slavery, fight against anti-slavery, and vote in legislators to keep slavery on the books, really directly involves whether or not that person is a tolerant person. "good intent" is such a relatively worthless thing in these matters.
In that instance tolerance would be a function of why they believe as they do, and are they honestly willing to consider it. If not, they aren't being tolerant. But neither was John Brown.
I can't see how impact has anything to do with tolerance. I try to conceptualize a sliding scale of results and I just don't see any point where intolerance becomes tolerance. Your motivations and rationale behind your actions to me signals much more whether the individual is tolerant or not.
I need to get a shot. I'm physically too scared of needles to consciously allow one to puncture my skin. No psychological treatment exists that can cure me of my fear. Nor is there another way to accomplish the effects of the shot. My doctor is ethically required to give me a shot, he has the authority to restrain me and give me one. If he does this I will do everything I can including killing him in self-defense.
If the doctor doesn't want to bother working out a solution with me, because he can't allow me not to have a shot, tricks me into taking a sedative, and gives me the shot. He is intolerant.
If the doctor believes there is no persuading me, but can't allow me not to have the shot, and tricks me into taking a sedative, then gives me the shot. He is intolerant.
If the doctor believes there is no persuading me, says so, suggests kindly that we sedate me so he can give me a shot. I might consent, I might not. In either case he has demonstrated tolerance.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Emily Dickenson was against gays?
What other noteworthy writers or whatever were against it? I'd be interested to see a list.
Dickinson wasn't against gays, at least if she was nobody here has indicated that she was.
What I was originally saying is that Dickenson, a well known recluse, was not infringing on anybody's civil rights, but not out of tolerance, she just didn't like people, and was a bit unhinged.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You keep acting like my idea of tolerance is only directed at the minority side. It isn't. And just for emphasis here's bold and italics tolerating each other, IT ISN'T.
I still am not satisfied that you've proactively described tolerance. It's still basically, "You don't do this."
Well in response to your claim about Samprimary's kind of tolerance, I have to say that it appears to me your definition of tolerance is a basic 'do these things' list (speak respectfully-in person, maintain some relationships, invite to one's home) and then almost nothing will suffice to be considered intolerant.
If it's not what you meant I've misunderstood you, but in Card's case it seems that so long as he doesn't endorse or practice anti-gay vigilantism, then so long as he's friends with at least one homosexual it's unreasonable to suggest he's intolerant. So I guess my question is, given this one friendship we're referencing, at what point does his writing and political activity begin to drift into intolerancd? *Is* there a point?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well in response to your claim about Samprimary's kind of tolerance, I have to say that it appears to me your definition of tolerance is a basic 'do these things' list (speak respectfully-in person, maintain some relationships, invite to one's home) and then almost nothing will suffice to be considered intolerant.
I would not say what I provided was an exhaustive comprehensive list. I tried to give a general framework. Nobody else seems to have endeavored to do so. And again, you are ignoring motivation.
Chapman had gained notoriety for yelling a constant stream of racially charged trash talk whenever Robinson was at bat. After that horrible game, Robinson returned to play a home game in Philadelphia, and the hotel the team was staying at would not accommodate him. Baseball's commissioner could see how bad this was looking and put pressure on Chapman and the club owner to make things right.
Chapman asked a reluctant Robinson to take a photo with him, to show that things were fine.
I don't think (and I can't read Chapman's mind) that this was anything other than a publicity stunt rather than a true act of tolerance on Chapman's part. He wanted to be a racist, with all the laughs and support it generated without paying a racist's dues. My opinion would not have changed if Chapman had also invited Robinson over for dinner, or shook hands in the picture rather than holding a bat together. His motivations were the problem. Had Chapman freed the slaves, if it was done for say political reasons, he would still be an intolerant racist.
quote:If it's not what you meant I've misunderstood you, but in Card's case it seems that so long as he doesn't endorse or practice anti-gay vigilantism, then so long as he's friends with at least one homosexual it's unreasonable to suggest he's intolerant. So I guess my question is, given this one friendship we're referencing, at what point does his writing and political activity begin to drift into intolerancd? *Is* there a point?
I've never said that Mr. Card need only maintain friendship with one gay person, and thus he is immune to accusations of intolerance. I said that it was telling that a gay person who is more acquainted with Mr. Card than any of his vocal critics (that I am aware of) continues to work with him, and has not denounced him.
Either she's willing to overlook his intolerance, or she finds Mr. Card on the balance to not be intolerant.
Is Mr. Card gracious and willing to engage with gay people who want to have an open-minded conversation about what he's doing? I believe he is. Is Mr. Card intellectually honest in his views? I think he is. Are Mr. Card's views predicated squarely an unwillingness to change his mind, or because he is unwilling to accept the consequences of doing so? I don't think so.
Do I think Mr. Card has made some incorrect conclusions? Yes. So I believe he is wrong, but not intolerant.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: If you believe that there is no God, then it is easy to blame the problems of religion on the fact that there is no God.
Tangentially, I believe that there are no gods, and I don't think that the problems of religion aren't particularly well encapsulated by the fact that there is no god. Going one way, religions with no god share many of the problems that religions with a god have. Going the other way, learning that the Christian god exists as advertised, would in many ways be more horrifying than simply having a bunch of people believing wrongly.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would not say what I provided was an exhaustive comprehensive list. I tried to give a general framework. Nobody else seems to have endeavored to do so. And again, you are ignoring motivation.
I think perhaps the two of you are approaching things from different angles to describe the same state of mind-Samprimary has certainly described a general framework of things which if done might merit the label 'intolerant', for example. Serious question: how is that different from what you're doing, just in a different style? As in an algebra problem, for example.
quote:I don't think (and I can't read Chapman's mind) that this was anything other than a publicity stunt rather than a true act of tolerance on Chapman's part. He wanted to be a racist, with all the laughs and support it generated without paying a racist's dues. My opinion would not have changed if Chapman had also invited Robinson over for dinner, or shook hands in the picture rather than holding a bat together. His motivations were the problem. Had Chapman freed the slaves, if it was done for say political reasons, he would still be an intolerant racist.
A little preface to my response to this: obviously I'm trying to advance an argument, but I'm not trying to zing you-too much respect for that. That said I have to point out you just stated that it was Chapman's intentions which mattered. If intentions are enough to be an indicator of insincerity and thus intolerance, then it seems safe to say that-as you appear to be arguing-good, sincere intentions are to serve as indicators for tolerance. Actions seem to be secondary. But then it's a strange example for this point, since if Chapman had taken steps to demonstrate tolerance and had been sincere in doing so, well, he would've been tolerant and non-racist, end of story, right?
But it seems that in Card's case, he doesn't even have to execute the publicity stunt to show his good intentions. He can lobby (vigorously) for years for an intolerant political stance-in the Chapman example, he can be hurling abuse and lobbying for baseball not to integrate. But he doesn't have to act out the publicity stunt (which in that case was half the battle if not more)-to show, or pretend to show, he's willing to play professional baseball with all racial groups.
To stick with the Chapman example, has Card ever been a participant or even a guest in some sort of lifelong commitment ceremony for homosexuals? Since the question here is marriage and not professional athletics, that would seem to be the sort of action required to be a true comparison to the Chapman-Robinson situation. I don't really know the answer. Looking her up, it appears she's married to a woman with a stepdaughter-I'm not sure if her stepdaughter predated the marriage or not. Anyway, since the question in this case is marriage, it seems to me that for what you're saying to be applicable, it wouldn't be enough for Card to carry on a personal friendship with Ian and a professional relationship with her-and for the record, I'm in no position to judge how authentic either of those are, obviously. I'm simply discussing the broader point using a specific example (as Card has never been reluctant to do in this matter).
So-on the question of marriage-has Card's personal behavior with respect to homosexual let's say civil union been what one would expect of a tolerant person? Or is it again simply Card's intentions which matter?
quote:I've never said that Mr. Card need only maintain friendship with one gay person, and thus he is immune to accusations of intolerance. I said that it was telling that a gay person who is more acquainted with Mr. Card than any of his vocal critics (that I am aware of) continues to work with him, and has not denounced him.
You've never explicitly stated 'this is all that's required', I agree. But I have to point out: that was the point you made-Janis Ian's friendship and lack of denunciation validate Card's tolerance, his political activity not relevant.
quote:Is Mr. Card gracious and willing to engage with gay people who want to have an open-minded conversation about what he's doing? I believe he is. Is Mr. Card intellectually honest in his views? I think he is. Are Mr. Card's views predicated squarely an unwillingness to change his mind, or because he is unwilling to accept the consequences of doing so? I don't think so.
I have to point out that in the press, politically speaking Card is certainly not willing to have an open-minded conversation with gay people about what he's doing. I can point to any number of columns to illustrate if you'd like. As for his intellectual honesty, I fail to see how that has any impact on his tolerance-the foulest, most overt bigot may very well be intellectually honest, that being a very ambiguous term. Finally, I'm not sure where you get the idea that Card might be willing to change his mind-though I will agree* he's not worried about the consequences.
quote:Do I think Mr. Card has made some incorrect conclusions? Yes. So I believe he is wrong, but not intolerant.
I'm not sure how to respond to this. His conclusions are wrong, but not intolerant-even though his conclusions lead him to lobby vigorously for an inferior status for entire groups of people?
*Actually I have to qualify this. Card tends to get pretty dissatisfied when people start talking about boycotts, or complaining about homosexuals not being accepted publicly, and goodness knows he's quick to call the people he's calling inferior intolerant when they challenge him in some inappropriate way.
Which brings us back around to tone-policing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, I think that the way you are using "tolerant" might be confusing. It is not a synonym for "polite" or "kind" or "nice". Tolerance is not an absolute good. There are things that should not be tolerated. The word "intolerant" carries a lot of baggage these days that it should not.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BlackBlade, I think that the way you are using "tolerant" might be confusing. It is not a synonym for "polite" or "kind" or "nice". Tolerance is not an absolute good. There are things that should not be tolerated. The word "intolerant" carries a lot of baggage these days that it should not.
I think the way y'all use it is confusing too. But nor would I say being polite is an absolute good either. Drastically lacking, and undervalued yes, but not appropriate in every situation.
I'd be happy to hear what baggage you are referring to.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't say that being polite is an absolute good either.
I think that tolerance has become sort of a buzzword for embracing diversity and that isn't quite right.
I am still not sure how wanting to keep homosexual acts illegal and vigorously working against civil rights for LBGT+ folks can be called tolerating those things. Even if one is polite while doing it and means it kindly.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate: So what would you describe tolerance as? What is it?
If we go by willingness to let others have things their way, then I guess you are right. People who are blocking SSM by voting that way are not tolerating same-sex marriage. Nor are advocates tolerating religious people voting what their consciences dictate. So I guess we all just decide what kind of intolerance is justified?
posted
It seems we have discussions about definitions like this that come up fairly often (re: homophobe). In general it goes like this:
1. Use a buzzword. i.e. intolerant = back-country racist homophobic person who is unwilling to consider any views other than his/her own.
2. When someone takes issue with you calling them/someone else that disassociates the definition of the word from it's commonly accepted buzzword definition. i.e. intolerant = doesn't vote for marriage rights (possible synonym: homophobe).
3. Convince others that the definition is your watered down version.
4. Continue using the buzzword as it was originally defined with the ability to deny that you meant it that way.
It's like a get out of jail free card.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Kate: So what would you describe tolerance as? What is it?
If we go by willingness to let others have things their way, then I guess you are right. People who are blocking SSM by voting that way are not tolerating same-sex marriage. Nor are advocates tolerating religious people voting what their consciences dictate. So I guess we all just decide what kind of intolerance is justified?
It just doesn't sit right with me.
-----
Tom: Please.
Yes. We all decide what should be tolerated. We should not, for example, be tolerant of kicking puppies. We should be tolerant of people celebrate different holidays. Unless it is a holiday celebrating puppy-kicking.
Tolerance pretty much means allowing the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. People who work against the rights of LBGTQ+ folks are not tolerant unless you are using Tom's scale.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we go by willingness to let others have things their way, then I guess you are right. People who are blocking SSM by voting that way are not tolerating same-sex marriage. Nor are advocates tolerating religious people voting what their consciences dictate. So I guess we all just decide what kind of intolerance is justified?
It just doesn't sit right with me.
Again I have to point out that this isn't a valid comparison. Anti-SSM folks are actually stopping homosexuals from marrying, or even civil union-ing in many cases. Disapproval of purely-religious motives for laws and voting is just that-disapproval. Unless there's a widespread effort out there I'm unaware of, in which folks who disapprove of that attempt to somehow make it illegal to do so.
------
quote:4. Continue using the buzzword as it was originally defined with the ability to deny that you meant it that way.
You're the person complaining that other folks are misrepresenting an opponent's point of view, right? So you're...offering an ironic example of exactly that type of behavior then? Or perhaps I don't get it.
Because over here in the discussion that's actually happening, if you take a look you'll see multiple quite specific rejections of the 'backwoods drooling racist' version of 'intolerant' by the very people you're claiming are using a 'get out of jail free card'.
I think BlackBlade is tone-policing, but not in any intended way-it simply amounts to that as a consequence of his larger argument. You, on the other hand, you appear to want to make sure folks can't call anti-SSM an intolerant position by insisting that the backwoods drooling racist position is the default definition of 'intolerant', and they must mean it entirely from the start and doesn't that show what jerks they are?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me tolerance is best summarized by "live and let live" or the Wiccan Rede - "An' it harm none, do what ye will."
So merely having or privately expressing an objectionable opinion - definitely a live and let live situation. There are no significant harmful consequences of this. This is tolerable.
Acting on such an opinion to a degree that plausibly causes tangible harm to myself or others - not so much. Such an act is itself intolerance and should be answered in kind. And yes, you can believe you aren't actually causing harm or that the harm is less severe than the consequences of inaction, but tolerance is about the experience of those harmed (what can be expected of them), not about your intentions.
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: ... i.e. intolerant = doesn't vote for marriage rights (possible synonym: homophobe)
Technically, if one doesn't want to vote "for" minority marriage rights (in so far as voting to not ban something could be interpreted as being "for" something), one could also abstain.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Acting on such an opinion to a degree that plausibly causes tangible harm to myself or others - not so much. Such an act is itself intolerance and should be answered in kind. And yes, you can believe you aren't actually causing harm or that the harm is less severe the consequences of inaction, but tolerance is about the experience of those harmed (what can be expected of them), not about your intentions.
This. One can legitimately, honestly feel they aren't being intolerant but are in fact being exactly that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It just doesn't sit right with me.
Why? The alternative you are offering makes 'tolerance' unrelated to virtue, and necessarily related to tone policing marginalized people.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not complicated. Intolerance is generally considered a moral failing and one can* without any intention of harming anyone, indeed while sincerely believing they're helping, take actions to restrict SSM. Those kinds of motives aren't generally associated with moral failure-quite the opposite. In fact in many cases we would consider that if a bad outcome occurred as a result of those sort of motives, it would often be considered accidental or understandable-something to be pardoned and forgiven.
*The larger problem, of course, is the one Tom alludes to. The only possible path for opposition to SSM not being an expression of intolerance, and this path still requires a lot of argument to be considered valid, is if we accept 'God says so' as an acceptable motive. But that's a different though still related discussion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Intolerance should not always be considered a moral failing depending on what one is being asked to tolerate.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we go by willingness to let others have things their way, then I guess you are right. People who are blocking SSM by voting that way are not tolerating same-sex marriage. Nor are advocates tolerating religious people voting what their consciences dictate. So I guess we all just decide what kind of intolerance is justified?
It just doesn't sit right with me.
I thought we had gotten past the idea that wanting to use force to make other people live according to your religion is the same as not wanting people to use force to make you live according to their religion.
Why does that not sit right with you?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Kate: So what would you describe tolerance as? What is it?
If we go by willingness to let others have things their way, then I guess you are right. People who are blocking SSM by voting that way are not tolerating same-sex marriage. Nor are advocates tolerating religious people voting what their consciences dictate. So I guess we all just decide what kind of intolerance is justified?
It just doesn't sit right with me.
-----
Tom: Please.
Yes. We all decide what should be tolerated. We should not, for example, be tolerant of kicking puppies. We should be tolerant of people celebrate different holidays. Unless it is a holiday celebrating puppy-kicking.
Tolerance pretty much means allowing the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. People who work against the rights of LBGTQ+ folks are not tolerant unless you are using Tom's scale.
OK. For the sake of argument let's say I grant that. And I do see some things in what you are saying that make sense. Intolerance is not necessarily a vice, but the devil is in the details it seems.
So would we then say that in the example of Barilla Pasta, those calling for a boycott are intolerant?
-----------
Samprimary:
quote:Why? The alternative you are offering makes 'tolerance' unrelated to virtue, and necessarily related to tone policing marginalized people.
I don't see why tone policing is in of itself wrong. It sounds to me like if you believe you are marginalized, you can get away with more poor behavior.
-----------
MrSquicky:
quote:I thought we had gotten past the idea that wanting to use force to make other people live according to your religion is the same as not wanting people to use force to make you live according to their religion.
Force? As in physically restraining a person or inflicting harm to their person? Most people fighting against gay marriage do not believe marriage is a right, rather it is an institution setup by God as an expression of his will that men and women should form unions and reproduce. They don't want that institution altered and then that alteration given state sanction with their tax dollars supporting it.
Personally, I think there must be an equal standard or none at all. I think what SSM opponents actually want is to not be supporting SSM via their government. They get that if our government stops determining who can be married. They just don't realize that in large part because they are too tied up in the history of marriage in this country. And they are used to religious marriage being married (no pun intended) to government definitions of marriage. I think if we excised government from the institution, then marriage would move into the realm of religion and personal secular belief, where it belongs.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: So would we then say that in the example of Barilla Pasta, those calling for a boycott are intolerant?
Depends. How loudly are they calling? Are they just deciding not to buy it themselves? That would be tolerant, just not supportive. Are they trying to get laws passed to keep bigots from making pasta? That would be intolerant. Somewhere in between?
Here's one for you. An acquaintance makes lewd comments about every woman he sees. You tell him that you don't want to hang out with him unless he stops. Intolerant? I would say so but I would also say that it is a good intolerance and that you were right not to tolerate it.
quote: Most people fighting against gay marriage do not believe marriage is a right, rather it is an institution setup by God as an expression of his will that men and women should form unions and reproduce.
Doesn't matter why they do the harm they do. If I believed that God wanted me to kick puppies, I still wouldn't be right to do it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Force? As in physically restraining a person or inflicting harm to their person? Most people fighting against gay marriage do not believe marriage is a right, rather it is an institution setup by God as an expression of his will that men and women should form unions and reproduce. They don't want that institution altered and then that alteration given state sanction with their tax dollars supporting it.
But we're not talking about just gay marriage, at least as far as I can tell. Amka and Dustin are talking about laws keeping the gay people from having sex, and you are standing up for OSC, who wanted at one time to throw gay people in jail for the purpose - which he is still committed to - of making it clear that gay people do not belong as full members of society*.
* I have no idea how this translates to tolerance in your mind. To me, it seems like the dictionary definition of intolerance.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
For one thing, BB is not defending what he agrees is intolerant behavior on the behalf of those who want to marginalize and discriminate against gay people. A lot of the interlocutors seem to miss this. MrSquicky is the most recent.
For another thing, people are using different definitions for "intolerance" and "tolerance" - but at least this has come up already.
When OSC pleads for "tolerance" at this point, I think he's hoping people don't punish him for his anti-SSM activism and other related activity. When BB says that he thinks OSC deserves tolerance, I think he means that we should be generally nice and polite to him. I don't think he means that we should ignore and excuse statements and activities that we disagree with or that we think are harmful.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.
Phobic has a definition. Its Latin for Fear. So calling someone "homophobic" was literally wrong--unless they were afraid of getting hurt by a big bad gay posse.
"ist" is the usual hate filled suffix we add to words to describe those who are cruel and mean to another group. You can be Race-ist, or sex-ist. That doesn't fit with this conversation because we are being prejudiced based on sexual preference, and sexist is already taken.
I have suggested "Hetero Supremacist" as the term--for someone who believes that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals. (Kind of like that weird guy in the camo over there isn't a racist. He's a white supremacist. He doesn't hate people of different races. He just wishes they would realize that whites are better than them and quit complaining.)
Instead people have settled for the term "Intolerant".
Note there is a hierarchy of feeling for people of different sexual orientation.
you can LOVE all homosexuals and think they are just marvelously superior.
you can Like Homosexuals, and in an oddly romantic way, fight for their rights against the forces of tyranny and injustice.
you can be Neutral about Homosexuals--which should be the goal. You realize that people are not Homosexuals. They are people who happen to be homosexual--its just one side of a many faceted personality. Some are good. Some are terrible.
you can be Tolerant of homosexuals. This means that you disagree with what they do, but not what they are. You want to change their actions, but not punish them for being different. You tolerate their existence, but disagree with their choices.
you can be Intolerant of Homosexuals. This means that you want them hidden, silent, forgotten, and ashamed. You think what they do is so sinful it must be punished in order to stop others from sinning in the same way.
you can Hate homosexuals. This means that you want them gone--destroyed, mocked, forgotten, removed from your life. They are the cause of what is wrong with the world, and their destruction is the most important thing.
A similar spectrum can be made about Christians, or any group. The difference is that some Christians are upset if you don't Like or Love them. To them, Neutral is terrible.
I fall in the Neutral to Like part of the spectrum.
OSC seems to fall into the Intolerant part of the spectrum. He does not come close to the Hate part.
People who use their faith as a reason to vote against SSM are also falling into the intolerant part of the spectrum. Those who wish they wouldn't fall into the tolerant part. Their is a difference. They don't like what you are doing, and wish you wouldn't, but aren't actively trying to force you to stop.
They don't want people punished for voting Christian.
Those Faithful who are using the Christian faith to vote against SSM are punishing people for being homosexual.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So would we then say that in the example of Barilla Pasta, those calling for a boycott are intolerant?
For me, the concept of tolerance/intolerance doesn't map well to consumer behaviour. The default for a business isn't me giving them money. The default for a business is me not giving them money and them attempting to earn my business. There are a lot more companies that I don't give my money to than those that I do.
This is contrasted with a government where everyone more or less has to follow the same laws unless they move to a different country.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK. For the sake of argument let's say I grant that. And I do see some things in what you are saying that make sense. Intolerance is not necessarily a vice, but the devil is in the details it seems.
So would we then say that in the example of Barilla Pasta, those calling for a boycott are intolerant?
Speaking for myself, I'd certainly say so. But then I never did see much of a wounding paradox in the 'intolerant of intolerance' angle.
quote:I don't see why tone policing is in of itself wrong. It sounds to me like if you believe you are marginalized, you can get away with more poor behavior.
To be candid, it sounds to me like you believe that so long as your intentions are good, a behavior (in this case, voting and political activity) can only ever be qualified as neutral, mistaken, or good.
quote:Force? As in physically restraining a person or inflicting harm to their person? Most people fighting against gay marriage do not believe marriage is a right, rather it is an institution setup by God as an expression of his will that men and women should form unions and reproduce. They don't want that institution altered and then that alteration given state sanction with their tax dollars supporting it.
I think we're all aware that the only motives against SSM spring from religious sources, but I don't see why that matters to the question of whether doing so is intolerant. 'God says so' doesn't seem to preclude intolerance-and historically we can easily find examples that everyone would agree on. But to take it a step further, you've suggested that 'it's not intolerance if you're right' isn't a good reason to be critical and/or unkind of SSM opponents...but it appears that you're arguing exactly the same thing. Anti-SSM isn't intolerance because they feel they're right.
quote:Personally, I think there must be an equal standard or none at all. I think what SSM opponents actually want is to not be supporting SSM via their government. They get that if our government stops determining who can be married. They just don't realize that in large part because they are too tied up in the history of marriage in this country. And they are used to religious marriage being married (no pun intended) to government definitions of marriage. I think if we excised government from the institution, then marriage would move into the realm of religion and personal secular belief, where it belongs.
I don't mean to overreduce or repeat myself, but doesn't this again amount to 'they don't see how it's wrong, they mean well, so it's not intolerance?'
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Force? As in physically restraining a person or inflicting harm to their person? Most people fighting against gay marriage do not believe marriage is a right, rather it is an institution setup by God as an expression of his will that men and women should form unions and reproduce. They don't want that institution altered and then that alteration given state sanction with their tax dollars supporting it.
But we're not talking about just gay marriage, at least as far as I can tell. Amka and Dustin are talking about laws keeping the gay people from having sex, and you are standing up for OSC, who wanted at one time to throw gay people in jail for the purpose - which he is still committed to - of making it clear that gay people do not belong as full members of society*.
Mr. Card never advocated for throwing gay people in jail. If you are referring to his statement that anti-homosexual legislation be kept on the books, here is his commentary on that quote.
quote:The Supreme Court had declared in 1986 (Bowers vs. Hardwick) that a Georgia law prohibiting sodomy even in the privacy of one's own home was constitutional. OSC wrote an essay in 1990 (23 years ago) to a conservative Mormon audience that, at the time, would have felt no interest in decriminalizing homosexual acts. In that context, his call to "leave the laws on the books" was simply recognizing the law at the time. In the same article he called for them not to be enforced. Within that context this was the liberal and tolerant view - for which OSC was criticized in conservation Mormon circles as being "pro-gay." The law was not overturned by the Supreme Court until 2003. Now that the law has changed, OSC has no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than he wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books.
You might also consider his words from a very recent interview.
quote: And in fact my main opposition to gay marriage isn’t with gay marriage itself, it’s that they’re going to try to enforce propaganda for it in schools, and that’s going to run up against religious freedom, and that’s where the real, bloody conflict is going to come. And the result I fear is going to be a massive takeover of our country by the extreme right wing. Because while I have had plenty of opportunity to see the left at its ugliest, having been under attack by the Taliban of the left, I am also deeply acquainted with the Taliban of the right. I fear for my country when they take over. We haven’t had such divisive rhetoric in our country, such absolute hatred expressed by both sides, since just before the Civil War.
Take from that what you will, but I don't think you can argue that Mr. Card wants gay people locked up, or mistreated. He does seem to believe that with this extension of rights, that the next step will be to require schools to present same-sex marriage is exactly identical to heterosexual marriage. But for many Christians, including many Mormons marriage as a sacrament is distinct from a common law marriage. They don't want schools contradicting what they believe, and are worried that children who don't parrot what schools present will be treated poorly.
This is why I think it's best if the government has no position on marriage. Even if we allow for gay marriage, we are still discriminating against polygamists, who largely come at marriage with the same justifications homosexuals do. It's consenting adults, and it's their business, and they aren't harming anybody.
And what scifibum says is correct. I am not trying to suggest that all those who voted against same-sex marriage are tolerant. Only that they cannot all be rightly described as intolerant bigots. Many of them could be described that way. But at the same time, I do feel that many advocates of same-sex marriage are blinded by the virtue (as they suppose) of their cause, and that it justifies any action that chips away and silences their opposition. To me it's no different than opponents of SSM who say it is better to be obedient to God's law than man's, so more leeway for action is permitted. We all justify our bad behavior with the cloak of virtue.
I am perfectly comfortable with people criticizing votes against same-sex marriage. It is essential that we never fail to describe the damage that is done to homosexuals by our failure to provide them equal protection under the law. But there are allies who would change their minds by a careful appeal to reason. By an appeal to their humanity. We've seen that after Prop 8 was passed. There are plenty more where they came from. There are others who will not see. They will fight tooth and nail, and we don't have to get out of their way. But there are also others, who for rational and honorable reasons will not see eye to eye with us. They vote, they discuss, they can be talked to. Those people deserve the same respect we demand for ourselves.
It's far too easy to look at results and use that as a means to condemn advocates for anything. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in Iraq. Were Christopher Hitchens still alive, should we call for a boycott of all his writings? What about all the people suffering under the effects of our economic system? Should those advocating for less government regulation and intervention be similarly chased out of polite society? I voted for Obama, twice, the second time knowing he wasn't closing Guantanamo Bay. Am I morally responsible for our absolute failure to give those prisoners their basic human rights?
This calling for boycotts for people ideas, even on artistic offerings that do not reflect those ideas is an inconsistent and misguided effort. It's been tried before when Communists were blacklisted from working in Hollywood. Though the funny thing then was that there *were* Communists trying to integrate into all levels of society, steal secrets and information, and give it to their Russian contacts. It was still wrong, even with the real threat that existed.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
For one thing, BB is not defending what he agrees is intolerant behavior on the behalf of those who want to marginalize and discriminate against gay people. A lot of the interlocutors seem to miss this. MrSquicky is the most recent.
For another thing, people are using different definitions for "intolerance" and "tolerance" - but at least this has come up already.
When OSC pleads for "tolerance" at this point, I think he's hoping people don't punish him for his anti-SSM activism and other related activity. When BB says that he thinks OSC deserves tolerance, I think he means that we should be generally nice and polite to him. I don't think he means that we should ignore and excuse statements and activities that we disagree with or that we think are harmful.
I definitely agree-I think you make a good point, scifibum. Tolerance is a murky word and it's pretty clear there are several equally murky definitions being used here.
Broadly speaking, when I say I tolerate something I'm usually speaking of a thought or behavior I disagree with. I don't know how general that is, but I don't 'tolerate' things I agree with-that's not how I describe things to myself. But there are many things I tolerate that I disagree with. Some of them are pretty mild-I tolerate my grandmother fretting about food poisoning from a medium-cooked steak and will cook it up further or request that it be done, even though I know health-wise it's not an issue and my personal taste is different.
Politically speaking, though, I think I usually use the word in more narrow ways. I tolerate a whole host of behaviors and ideas that I disagree with, sometimes even bitterly disagree with, and will even say so. Someone lobbying or voting for a law based entirely or even primarily on their own religion, for example. I strongly disagree with that and am not shy about saying so, but I tolerate it-by that I mean I won't make any effort even if I could to compel them not to make that attempt, and I won't sit quietly if someone else does so either.
So I suppose tolerate for me has much less to do with whether or not I'll witness something said or done I disagree with and remain silent, than with whether or not when that happens I'll attempt to stop it by anything other than persuasion. That's tolerance to me. I'll tolerate someone saying that we need to have the 10 Commandments everywhere, I'll tolerate someone saying we need to have armed guards at all schools, I'll tolerate someone saying we need to send all people of x, y, z, or any religion to reeducation camps-I just won't do it quietly.
To me, everyone has a right to expect-demand, even-that kind of tolerance from me but nobody has the right to expect much less demand that I tolerate something I disagree with quietly-and that flows from as well as to me.
ETA: I think if Hitch were alive, he would welcome any effort at a boycott for a variety of reasons.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:To be candid, it sounds to me like you believe that so long as your intentions are good, a behavior (in this case, voting and political activity) can only ever be qualified as neutral, mistaken, or good.
So long as your intentions are good, and you are willing to discuss and consider them honestly. Both parts must be there.
quote:I don't mean to overreduce or repeat myself, but doesn't this again amount to 'they don't see how it's wrong, they mean well, so it's not intolerance?'
I am arguing against the framework of, "It's always intolerant, therefore reprehensible, and worthy of being treated as such."
I don't believe that is the case with all same-sex marriage opponents. When they go to the polls to vote against gay marriage because "It's just gross" or "God says so." or "It's an abomination" and that's it, then absolutely they are acting intolerant, and should be told so, though I think that telling should be done charitably with the intent to change minds, not feel good about ones self by discomfiting them.
And as I've said before, not all opponents of same-sex marriage do so because they just don't care about the rights of homosexuals. Where that is true, they should be given more benefit of the doubt, and more patience.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even though they are causing the same harm? The ballot box doesn't care about your reason. The money you donate spends the same.
If you are suggesting that it is more useful to persuade rather than shame, that is possible in some cases. I think that different methods of changing behavior work for different people.
When you write, "It's always intolerant, therefore reprehensible, and worthy of being treated as such." are you referring to the behavior or the person? Those are different things. One specific kind of bad behavior or belief does not make up the whole of a person.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see why tone policing is in of itself wrong. It sounds to me like if you believe you are marginalized, you can get away with more poor behavior.
Wow, ok. This is one of the few times that responses back to me or about my point are all fundamentally answered by posts I have already made.
But while I'm trying to figure out a way to restate with more emphasis what I think should be clear, I'm just amazed at the implications of what's being described here.
As described you could literally have a "tolerant" KKK member who sincerely believes that blacks should be removed from the continent systematically by a relocation program, but so long as they individually think that their "intentions are good" and will be friendly to a black person in terms of surface formality or will invite them to discuss segregationist plans for the lesser races such as they, they're "tolerant" and if a black person doesn't want to associate with them at all and wants KKK members to 'stay the hell away from me, asshole' and simply wants to find a way to live with dignity without the 'polite' oeuvre of this person's 'tolerance' — you'd call that "intolerant"
.. actually, it's gotten kind of worse than that; it's not just judged as 'intolerant' and inferior to the goodly sincerity and Good Intentions of the KKK member. It's now worse. You've insinuated that, say, if the black person did that, it's 'poor behavior' and if they hold the opinion that they don't have an obligation to afford their oppressors a reciprocation of surface politeness, they're using their race to get away with more' poor behavior'
i should not, i should absolutely and sincerely not have to explain the troubling nature of those connotations.
i should not have to explain how much like with workplace sexual harassment and discrimination arbitration, it is impact and not intent which is analyzed. that there's insanely good reasoning behind that.
i should not have to explain that taking an issue of people who engage in continued social and legal marginalization of people and moving it away from the issue of actions that marginalize human beings by placing any interest in tone policing said marginalized people to not use their societal marginalization to 'excuse more poor behavior' is a function of privileged reframing and distracting it with concerns about the behavior of the marginalized to their actual oppressors, and concerns about people's feelings when people they marginalize (for some inexplicable reason) don't feel compelled to be polite back to people who marginalize them.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary: You are getting hung up on implications for positions I haven't taken.
quote:As described you could literally have a "tolerant" KKK member who sincerely believes that blacks should be removed from the continent systematically by a relocation program, but so long as they individually think that their "intentions are good" and will be friendly to a black person in terms of surface formality or will invite them to discuss segregationist plans for the lesser races such as they, they're "tolerant"
No. The KKK does not just talk about friendly relocation programs. It practices violent behaviors at community and institutional levels. A person who pledges membership there must respond to that. Further, "surface" formality? You are reducing the outline I made. I grew up in Asia where they will smile and lie to your face, and it's not even rude to do it. Tolerance would mean our weird KKK member not only is kind to black people, he empathizes with their side of things. He recognizes the draw backs to his proposal, but he makes a rational reasoned argument as to why he still believes as he does.
quote: and if a black person doesn't want to associate with them at all and wants KKK members to 'stay the hell away from me, asshole' and simply wants to find a way to live with dignity without the 'polite' oeuvre of this person's 'tolerance' — you'd call that "intolerant"
If it's polite "oeuvre" than it means very little. But if our black person thinks white people should just shut up and get out of the way, then yes, there is intolerance. I don't see how you could argue they are tolerant at all, only that it seems like all you care about is excusing intolerance, not finding a reason to be tolerant.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Once more, there is no virtue in being tolerant of bad things. Quite the opposite.
If by tolerance you mean something like what Sam means--not forcing people to behave in ways you approve of, unless their behavior would otherwise harm you--then I think it can be virtuous. For example, it's good that KKK members have 1st Amendment rights.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Once more, there is no virtue in being tolerant of bad things. Quite the opposite.
I agree with you that one is not morally required to tolerate all bad things. But even Christianity requires a person to turn the other cheek when struck. What is that other than tolerance?
In Mormonism we have a scripture where God says,
"For I the Lord God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance."
Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven."
God can't allow our sins to follow us into heaven, but he doesn't expect us to be heaven ready immediately. I would not say we tolerate sin, but we must tolerate mistakes and the actions of misguided people in order to function in society. We also must accept that there is a chance that it is *us* that might have a beam in our eye, so we cannot see clearly the mote in our neighbor's.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
BlackBlade, it is pretty bad form for the person doing the striking to keep demanding fresh cheeks from the person being struck.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Destineer, the harm part is important.
BlackBlade, it is pretty bad form for the person doing the striking to keep demanding fresh cheeks from the person being struck.
And that is where we part ways. I don't believe that everybody who votes against SSM is sinning, and should be treated like they apathetically struck somebody.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are certainly causing harm to them at least when they win those votes. I don't know what "apathetically" has to do with anything. Many of them are quite passionate about it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
