posted
So I was reading some comments on rotten tomatoes and I came accross somebody claiming that OSC donates money to these organizations in Africa who are responsible for killing gay people. I've looked and looked but I can't find ANY information from ANY reputable sources to confirm this---just more comments on message boards. Does anyone actually know if this is even true? If so, what's the full story? I seriously doubt that OSC would knowingly give money to a group that was killing people, but I guess stranger things have happened.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a big OSC fan but I have seriously big doubts about this.
He's hyper religious and while part of his religious view might be that gays need to be shoved in the closet and gagged, there's also a pretty big thing in his religion about not killing people. And while christians throughout the ages have thrown that out the window whenever they felt like it, he lives in a modern civilized country and he's never shown a propensity to get out his gay hunting shotgun. So I'm definitely going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's true. A few american activists spoke in Uganda and may have influenced the legislation there that included the death penalty for gays, but they've said they didn't want it to be so "harsh", I believe. OSC had nothing to do with those guys, except for being on the same side of the SSM issue.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Mr. Card was donating to such a group there's a very good chance he would not be able to remain a member in good standing of the LDS church.
The LDS church certainly does not (I would be willing to say it abhors that idea) support the death penalty for homosexuals in any country. A member publicly donating to such groups would be supporting groups that are in opposition to the teachings of the church.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
"We do not believe that homosexuals, by entering into a marriage, are personally hurting anybody. Where the law makes such a thing available, even temporarily, those who marry are not our enemies. We believe the law is wrong and the marriage is not, in any meaningful way, what we mean by marriage.
But my family and I are perfectly able to deal with such couples socially and keep them as friends, as long as they show the same respect and understanding for our customs and beliefs as we show for theirs.
Only when a gay friend demanded that I agree with his or her point of view or cease to be friends has the friendship ended. What is odd is that in every case they call me intolerant. They misunderstood the meaning of "tolerance."
Tolerance implies disagreement - it means that even though we don't agree with or approve of each other's beliefs or actions, we can still live together amicably. When we agree, we aren't being tolerant, we are being uniform.
It makes me sad when people are so intolerant that they cannot bear to be friends with anyone who disapproves of some action or opinion of theirs. But I believe that if we could only be friends with people who never disapprove of something we do, we will end up with "friends" who either don't know us very well, or don't care about us very much."
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
At worst, I suspect that money from NOM may have found its way to groups like Invisible Children and from there to Ugandan anti-gay groups. But I don't think any of that attaches to Card.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amka: Tolerance implies disagreement - it means that even though we don't agree with or approve of each other's beliefs or actions, we can still live together amicably.
It makes me sad when people are so intolerant that they cannot bear to be friends with anyone who disapproves of some action or opinion of theirs.
Gay people are under no obligation to tolerate people who hold beliefs and act on those beliefs in a way which furthers discrimination against them. You're just basically saying that it makes you sad that nobody's obligated to be nice to people who hold dehumanizing views about them. Views which further discrimination and othering. Well, too bad.
It's actually supremely insulting to lecture on tolerance in this fashion — it's effectively saying that there is any sort of onus is on an oppressed party to be nice to their oppressors in the name of "tolerance." And that's an incredibly dirtbag thing to do.
Being gay is not an "action or opinion" — it's not something a gay person chose for themselves that they can decide to change their mind on, like an opinion. Being gay isn't something that only exists as long as you are actively doing it, like an action. It is not these things, not any more so than you could change your race by having someone change your mind about it. So talking about tolerance with regard to other people's 'actions or opinions' is, at best, completely unrelated to the issue of responding to people's actions furthering discrimination against your sexuality.
You might as well call a black person "intolerant" for not wanting to be friends with someone who doesn't want to let interracial marriage be allowed by law. Tut-tut and lecture them about how we should all just be friends and respect each other despite differences of opinion. Tut-tut, minorities. Tut-tut.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll put it even more bluntly: what is so objectionable about a particular person being leery of, disliking, or even just *not speaking kindly about*, another person or group who works and votes and preaches so that it's more difficult, socially, legally, and economically, to live a life romantically attached and publicly to the person they choose, who also chooses them?
How quick would you be to be friendly with someone who lobbies a compulsory divorce for you or tries to bar you from future marriage? How baffled would you be, how offended, if when you expressed your sadness by not being friendly and amiable towards your opponent, they treated you as though you were rude or lacking in civility for doing so?
People may insist all they like that homosexuals ought not be allowed to marry. They may even try and force their religious beliefs and practices on them through the ballot box. Insisting that homosexuals ought to eat that up with a smile and still be pals, though, might just be asking too much.
Or put still another way: intolerance of intolerance isn't actually the clever, damning paradox it's claimed (usually by people defending their efforts to condemn the behavior f others) to be.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did I miss where Amka mentioned voting against gay marriage? OSC said it in the quote but I can't tell from Amka's post what his/her position there is.
To be considered tolerant do you not only have to vote for marriage rights but also approve of the lifestyle and not consider gay sexual relations a sin?
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tolerance doesn't mean you need to approve of someone else's views or change your definition of sin. It does mean, however, not doing anything that infringes on the rights of others, even in spite of different views.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't agree with OSC on a lot of issues, but I know he believe that all life is sacred, so I highly doubt that he would donate to such groups. More than likely it is just someone who thinks he knows what OSC's views are bashing him.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Did I miss where Amka mentioned voting against gay marriage? OSC said it in the quote but I can't tell from Amka's post what his/her position there is.
To be considered tolerant do you not only have to vote for marriage rights but also approve of the lifestyle and not consider gay sexual relations a sin?
This is what may opponents of SSM like to claim as a straw man argument, but it's not what I was getting at. I as referring specifically to the idea that a homosexual person is somehow being intolerant or rude or unnecessarily antagonistic if they're not friendly and speak kindly of those who want to stop them from marrying.
You don't get to do that to people, and the criticize them for not thinking kindly of those who did it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Did I miss where Amka mentioned voting against gay marriage? OSC said it in the quote but I can't tell from Amka's post what his/her position there is.
To be considered tolerant do you not only have to vote for marriage rights but also approve of the lifestyle and not consider gay sexual relations a sin?
This is what may opponents of SSM like to claim as a straw man argument, but it's not what I was getting at. I as referring specifically to the idea that a homosexual person is somehow being intolerant or rude or unnecessarily antagonistic if they're not friendly and speak kindly of those who want to stop them from marrying.
You don't get to do that to people, and the criticize them for not thinking kindly of those who did it.
OK it seemed like you were going beyond marriage rights so I was a little confused.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:But my family and I are perfectly able to deal with such couples socially and keep them as friends, as long as they show the same respect and understanding for our customs and beliefs as we show for theirs.
Which is to say...little to none?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But my family and I are perfectly able to deal with such couples socially and keep them as friends, as long as they show the same respect and understanding for our customs and beliefs as we show for theirs.
Which is to say...little to none?
I doubt that this is so. Janis Ian scored Mr. Card's Ender's Game Alive, and I doubt she would do that if she felt Mr. Card had no respect whatsoever for her beliefs. Or was actively oppressive towards gay people.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the perspective of a single person speaks for the entire community and the broader truth of another man's opinions? Because I'm sure I can find, quite easily, contrary individual examples with exactly as much weight and in greater numbers.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are welcome to tell me why you think Janis Ian is either in denial, or unwilling to confront Mr. Card about his views. Or you can just ignore actual evidence that what Mr. Card said that you quoted is true.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, you offered up a single person's experience as an example of why it cannot be that Card has little if any respect for the 'customs and beliefs' of homosexuals. If that's not what you meant then I misunderstood, and would be grateful if you explained it again.
If that *is* what you meant then I fail to see why my questioning of the notion that a single person's perspective should count as some sort of blanket immunity for the question of whether they respect an entire group's customs and beliefs. I'm not suggesting Card has no respect for homosexuals at all, or that any opponent of SSM must also feel no respect for hem as people. But I cannot understand how someone who says 'homosexual behavior is sinful, homosexual marriage isn't a real marriage, and thus society must not recognize homosexual couples on an equally valid footing with heterosexual couples' can be said to be respecting the 'customs and beliefs' of homosexuals. I'm not talking about, I dunno, a given homosexual's custom of celebrating the Fourth of July or even a given homosexual's custom of fidelity to their partner. But what does Janis's friendship (which is often held forth in these discussions, as though this friendship spoke for all) have to say about Card's respect for the customs and beliefs of those homosexuals who wish to cohabit an share their lives together in the eyes of society with society's respect and the dignity that affords? Does the friendship of Janis mean Card respects that?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anther question: why is it unfair to charge someone who has lent their time, pen, and name to the cause of banning SSM as 'oppressive' towards homosexuals? Serious question-I don't understand how it can be claimed it's not. Is it simply the connotation of injustice that prevents the word from being used?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: We are not talking about whether Mr. Card has said or done things that homosexuals could take legitimate grievance with. We are talking about whether Mr. Card is able to be respectful to gay friends.
I have indicated through one well known friendship that yes he can. You said that he shows little to no respect at all. I think I am right.
Unless you know about some gay former friend of Mr. Card that hates his guts now because he wasn't respectful, it's all we have to go on.
Look I know the "I'm not racist, I have black friends" is a tired trope, but only because lots of people don't know that racism is actually a state of mind, not the inability to make friends with a different race.
But appealing to the way you actually treat people, is a fair indicator of your actual mind set.
I'm not sure it's worth debating again whether a person can vote against gay marriage and not hate nor disrespect gay people. I think it's possible, I think that you do not. That's fine. But it's an extremely dangerous road when those who do not vote as you must all be bad people believing bad things.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Rakeesh: We are not talking about whether Mr. Card has said or done things that homosexuals could take legitimate grievance with. We are talking about whether Mr. Card is able to be respectful to gay friends.
I have indicated through one well known friendship that yes he can. You said that he shows little to no respect at all. I think I am right.
Then we are in fact having different discussions, which explains some of the dispute. My contention isn't, and wasn't meant to be, that Card cannot have a friendship with any given homosexuals. It was simply that it is, at the very best, incomplete to say that Card respects the 'customs and beliefs' of homosexuals. Among heterosexuals, it's a pretty important custom and belief that if a consenting people love each other and wish to marry, cohabit, have sex, or some blend of all of these it needs to be their business.
Card doesn't respect the custom and belief of those homosexuals who wish the same. It seems fair to me to describe that as a pretty important, central 'custom and belief' of most adult human beings period, homosexuals not excepted. It seems fair to me to say Card has little if any respect for this custom and belief. Now that it's clear I'm not addressing Card's ability to have individual homosexual friends, could you address which part of my reasoning is invalid in the question of respect?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure it's worth debating again whether a person can vote against gay marriage and not hate nor disrespect gay people. I think it's possible, I think that you do not. That's fine. But it's an extremely dangerous road when those who do not vote as you must all be bad people believing bad things.
I'm not talking about whether it's a bad thing, though of course I think it is. I'm asking how much respect someone can be said to have for a custom they wish to ban. And...dude. People wishing to ban SSM *start* the chain by believing-and legislating!-that homosexuals who wish to marry are believing and doing bad things. If it's objectionable or intolerant for someone, in response to that, say say 'that's not right and I don't like it!', why on Earth ain't it also intolerant or objectionable to be the one working to ban?
quote:But appealing to the way you actually treat people, is a fair indicator of your actual mind set.
Why is Card's self-publicized political activity exempted from the 'way he actually treats people' category?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It appears to be in the way you're applying Ian's thoughts on the matter. His friendship with this particular homosexual, and behavior in that friendship, was stated by you to be the real indicator to their 'actual mind set'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I doubt that this is so. Janis Ian scored Mr. Card's Ender's Game Alive, and I doubt she would do that if she felt Mr. Card had no respect whatsoever for her beliefs. Or was actively oppressive towards gay people.
Yeah, I don't think you're getting the issue with harping on 'tolerance' and attempting to enforce some sort of obsequious tone on the part of gays, lest they not also be 'tolerant' to people who don't want them to be allowed to get married.
It's entirely a person's choice to be friends with a person who acts in a way which furthers social and institutional oppression against their race, gender, sexuality, etc. But if they choose not to be friends with their oppressors over these issues, it is a breathtakingly dickish thing to police them on that decision and whine about how it shows that they are not being 'tolerant.'
And when Amka (or for that matter, OSC) struck that very chord, that deserves to be called out for what it is.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam: Our society only functions because we tolerate people who while they are doing things we think damage society, are acting in a way that is moral.
It's why abortions are allowed to happen even though a segment of our population thinks it's murder. Something far worse than not being told you can not get married.
The very definition of tolerance is that you fellowship people who believe contrary to you, even if you think those beliefs are not just incorrect, but egregiously so.
It means understanding what motivates those people. Actually understanding why they might make that choice. Instead of reducing it all to ignorance or evil.
There are people here who would vote to keep polygamy illegal in the United States. Should I call them all bigots and say I can't be friends with intolerant people? Regardless of their motives for doing so?
There are actually people who for honorable reasons feel it is important that gay marriage not be placed alongside heterosexual marriage.
If those people vote those convictions, but are not doing it because they seek to harm or don't care about gay people, what does it say about us if we tell everyone that those people are evil, and we should be kicked out of polite society? It means we are intolerant.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sam: Our society only functions because we tolerate people who while they are doing things we think damage society, are acting in a way that is moral.
I don't understand this. Would you tell a gay person this in response to their decision to not be polite or not associate with people who do not support and/or vote against their ability to marry?
When someone is actively oppressing you, when someone is bigoted against you, the question of whether or not they personally think they are being moral when they are oppressing you should not at all be held as relevant to your right to not be "tolerant" (read: be polite to your oppressors) to them.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam: What do you mean by tolerance when you refuse to be polite to or associate with people when they do not support and vote against same sex marriage?
Sorry if this is answering a question with a question, but I honestly don't know what tolerance means if you do neither of those things.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you are obliged to extend tolerance to people that are actively causing (or intending to cause) harm, regardless of their opinion of their own actions.
To take this to an absurd degree - Should we tolerate an invading army? What about people that advocate for an invasion?
Tolerance should be applied to a diversity of opinion, but shouldn't be an obstacle to criticizing and countering actual harm and the agents of that harm. I can tolerate country music and anime. I can't tolerate racists - even if they really believe in their heart of hearts that black people are stupid and lazy.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think you are obliged to extend tolerance to people that are actively causing (or intending to cause) harm, regardless of their opinion of their own actions.
So should pro-life folks refuse to engage with those who think abortions should be legal? They believe abortion is murder, an absurdly worse offense than not allowing a marriage to take place. You can easily find harm in what your opponents believe. If you think taxes should be lower for business, then you support worker exploitation, and even hate school children who need tax revenues for schools to remain open.
quote:To take this to an absurd degree - Should we tolerate an invading army? What about people that advocate for an invasion?
That's not actually that absurd. I'm reminded of during the Civil War where a union officer and confederate soldier both happened on each other at a stream in between major engagements. They both drank, exchanged pleasantries, inquired as to each other's families, and allowed each other to walk away without so much as an insult.
If I believe gay marriage should be permitted in society (and I do) because it's the right thing to do, I am voting against what other people in my community want. I've been rankled by intolerant family members who think I am out of touch with God, my church, and morality. Is it really OK for me to return the favor because I happen to be right?
I can't imagine a society where that is how things go. Being right does not give one license to just marginalize, dismiss, and be rude to those who also believe they are right, but happen to be wrong in that.
quote:Tolerance should be applied to a diversity of opinion, but shouldn't be an obstacle to criticizing and countering actual harm and the agents of that harm. I can tolerate country music and anime. I can't tolerate racists - even if they really believe in their heart of hearts that black people are stupid and lazy.
So what if one of these racists wanted to be your friend? What if their beliefs are based on actual events they feel are valid and applicable? What if in fact every single black person they have known was lazy and stupid? What if they are a Mormon from the 70s who doesn't hate black people, but they just can't permit them to hold the priesthood because institutionally they are not the ones to make that call?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Sam: What do you mean by tolerance when you refuse to be polite to or associate with people when they do not support and vote against same sex marriage?
Sorry if this is answering a question with a question, but I honestly don't know what tolerance means if you do neither of those things.
It comes down to what this 'virtue' of tolerance is, and contrasting that against what is being intentionally or unintentionally advocated here.
To be perfectly straightforward about it: the type of tolerance you right now SEEM* to be suggesting people should have for their oppressors turns tolerance into tone policing for marginalized people, and that kind of 'tolerance' is not a virtue of society, it's a tool of oppression. It's not something that 'our society can only function with,' it's unnecessary, bad, and something we're better off without.
*and I'm completely open to having this be clarified completely
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam: So explain to me in your interactions with around 40+% of the country that in polls indicate they don't support same-sex marriage how you demonstrate "tolerance" to them?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't attempt to legislate away their ability to be in a marriage and have a spouse and have spousal benefits. I don't denigrate their sexuality by comparing it to a choice or an opinion. I don't say that their being married to someone of the opposite sex is wrong or bad. I don't elect people who have — as a major party platform — an agenda to keep them from having the legal right to get married or legislate it away where it already exists. That's already more tolerance than they show the gays, which makes it riotously absurd and insulting when people like OSC claim that they are the true face of tolerance because the pro gay marriage side doesn't stay polite about their views. They want any more "tolerance?" They going to call people intolerant when their feelings get hurt and a polite reception of their views is not guaranteed? Too bad.
But, then again, I'm not gay. I'm not a marginalized party in this equation. So my "tolerance" is a different issue than what we are talking about — and what I'm directly criticizing — when people are upset that gay people won't be "tolerant" of the people who marginalize them, and when they set the standard for 'tolerance' as having to be polite to people who are bigoted against them, or they're 'intolerant'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's what it amounts to for me as well. It's not simply 'both sides disagree equally with one another, therefore it's fair to expect mutual amiability'. One side tries-successfully!-to control behavior and lives. The other wishes to mind their own affairs and live their own lives to the same extent their opposition does-but they don't attempt to stop their rivals from doing so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... If those people vote those convictions, but are not doing it because they seek to harm or don't care about gay people, what does it say about us if we tell everyone that those people are evil, and we should be kicked out of polite society? It means we are intolerant.
I don't think many people have that thought process about people that would vote for bans on interracial marriage. We don't waste a lot of time dicking around wondering if we would be "intolerant" of racists as a result. We also don't spend a lot of time caring about whether their intentions were noble, if they were trying to protect people from inbreeding or whatever, understanding their choice and deeming their reasons for voting "honourable."
At some point, we just collectively say "screw em'" and that time for people that would vote for bans on same-sex marriage is probably (hopefully?) sooner rather than later.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I can't imagine a society where that is how things go. Being right does not give one license to just marginalize, dismiss, and be rude to those who also believe they are right, but happen to be wrong in that.
I'm hoping that this is hyperbole and not a real failure of imagination. Imagine a society, were for example, one marginalizes, dismisses, and is rude to those that would advocate slavery but believe that they are right. You may find that pretty familiar.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't attempt to legislate away their ability to be in a marriage and have a spouse and have spousal benefits. I don't denigrate their sexuality by comparing it to a choice or an opinion. I don't say that their being married to someone of the opposite sex is wrong or bad. I don't elect people who have — as a major party platform — an agenda to keep them from having the legal right to get married or legislate it away where it already exists. That's already more tolerance than they show the gays, which makes it riotously absurd and insulting when people like OSC claim that they are the true face of tolerance because the pro gay marriage side doesn't stay polite about their views. They want any more "tolerance?" They going to call people intolerant when their feelings get hurt and a polite reception of their views is not guaranteed? Too bad.
You aren't telling me what you do to demonstrate tolerance. You are telling me what you don't do. That's only half an answer.
---------
Rakeesh:
quote:That's what it amounts to for me as well. It's not simply 'both sides disagree equally with one another, therefore it's fair to expect mutual amiability'. One side tries-successfully!-to control behavior and lives. The other wishes to mind their own affairs and live their own lives to the same extent their opposition does-but they don't attempt to stop their rivals from doing so.
It's really not that simple. Look at Guido Barilla the pasta owner. All he did was indicate that he would not feature gay people in a pasta advertisement, as he thinks the traditional family is crucial for society, but that he has no beef with homosexuals living their lives just as he does. That was immediately turned into a boycott effort. Tolerance sounds more and more like, just shut up unless you are promoting gay rights. Which is exactly what our society used to be like but in the other direction. If you so much as sympathized with homosexuality you hated America's Christian values.
--------
Mucus:
quote:I don't think many people have that thought process about people that would vote for bans on interracial marriage. We don't waste a lot of time dicking around wondering if we would be "intolerant" of racists as a result. We also don't spend a lot of time caring about whether their intentions were noble, if they were trying to protect people from inbreeding or whatever, understanding their choice and deeming their reasons for voting "honourable."
At some point, we just collectively say "screw em'" and that time for people that would vote for bans on same-sex marriage is probably (hopefully?) sooner rather than later.
I've never said ever that people who support same-sex marriage should hold off on actively pushing for those efforts, engaging in debates, voting, challenging intolerance.
But you don't get to take the lazy shortcut of prejudging people for their beliefs rather than who they are as people. That's intolerance. It's no different than Christians who predetermine homosexuality is evil, so everybody is homosexual is evil, and should be suppressed.
quote:I'm hoping that this is hyperbole and not a real failure of imagination. Imagine a society, were for example, one marginalizes, dismisses, and is rude to those that would advocate slavery but believe that they are right. You may find that pretty familiar.
You are calling my statements hyperbole, and then go on to compare those who believe same-sex marriage is bad for the country to slave owners.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you don't get to take the lazy shortcut of prejudging people for their beliefs rather than who they are as people. That's intolerance. It's no different than Christians who predetermine homosexuality is evil, so everybody is homosexual is evil, and should be suppressed.
Even if we take your larger argument as a given, it's still not be same thing. One side attempts to use legal force to suppress-the other does not.
As for Barilla, I'm not sure what the problem is. Their president stated that in the opinion of his company, homosexuals couldn't form 'classic' families, and that the company intended to focus their efforts towards these classic families. Then he invited those who didn't agree with this message to buy pasta elsewhere.
So where is the transgression against tolerance?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That's intolerance. It's no different than Christians who predetermine homosexuality is evil, so everybody is homosexual is evil, and should be suppressed.
BlackBlade, that would only be true if both beliefs were equally false and equally harmful. No one is saying that it is impossible to be kind to people who oppose SSM, or to care for them, or to befriend them. They can even be otherwise lovely people. But tolerating their actions when they are harmful and their beliefs when they are false is harmful and false as well.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:BlackBlade, that would only be true if both beliefs were equally false and equally harmful. No one is saying that it is impossible to be kind to people who oppose SSM, or to care for them, or to befriend them.
That sounds a lot like "We're not intolerant because we're right". I hope you see the problem with that line of reasoning. Additionally, my reading of this thread is that some people are saying precisely that "it is impossible to be kind to people who oppose SSM, or to care for them, or to befriend them."
posted
I have been fascinated to find that tolerance is apparently the same as "shut up or agree with us."
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You aren't telling me what you do to demonstrate tolerance. You are telling me what you don't do. That's only half an answer.
So if I describe that I'm not discriminating against people, not using legal force to suppress them in society and legal standing, not being bigoted against them, not attempting to hold back their relationship or denigrate it and call it unnatural and unholy .. but I'm not making an outward show of how pleasantly we can discuss their views, I'm not going far enough, that's not 'demonstrating tolerance,' I need to demonstrate it to them.
.. but if I were to discriminate against them, try to keep them second-class citizens and be bigoted against them, but smile and engage in pleasantries and be sure to stress I'm only doing what I think as moral so why can't we all just not resort to name-calling or being mean to each other, I'm 'demonstrating tolerance'
...
yeah, the way you describe 'demonstrating tolerance' makes 'tolerance' a wholly worthless thing. It just basically means "if you're not polite back to me about my oppressing and demeaning you, you're not tolerant"
and that kind of "tolerance" — which goes inside the quote marks a mile high — can die in a fire. It's crude tone policing. It's not central to a decent civilization. It's only central to protecting the feelings of people who oppress marginalized folk and still expect that they deserve polite reception of their views.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:BlackBlade, that would only be true if both beliefs were equally false and equally harmful. No one is saying that it is impossible to be kind to people who oppose SSM, or to care for them, or to befriend them.
That sounds a lot like "We're not intolerant because we're right". I hope you see the problem with that line of reasoning.
Not unless you think that all beliefs are equal. In other words, yes, I do think that right and benevolent beliefs should be treated differently than wrong and harmful ones.
quote: Additionally, my reading of this thread is that some people are saying precisely that "it is impossible to be kind to people who oppose SSM, or to care for them, or to befriend them."
Hobbes
I am not reading that at all. It is possible to be and do all those things while still making it clear that you disapprove of the beliefs of bigots.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, what do you consider "kind behavior" towards people you consider bigots?
Additionally, I think stridently claiming that your beliefs are right and using that rightness to justify treating other people with contradictory beliefs "differently" sidesteps the question I think BlackBlade is asking.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The same things I would consider kind behaviour in general, I suppose. Depends on the relationship. Being kind doesn't have to mean approving of their beliefs or even being quiet about them but discussions about their bigotry don't have to be the whole of your relationship.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm hoping that this is hyperbole and not a real failure of imagination. Imagine a society, were for example, one marginalizes, dismisses, and is rude to those that would advocate slavery but believe that they are right. You may find that pretty familiar.
You are calling my statements hyperbole, and then go on to compare those who believe same-sex marriage is bad for the country to slave owners.
I think you're reacting emotionally rather than thinking through the logic of the matter. The comparison is not on a moral level (e.g. "these people are as bad as slave owners!") but on a logical level.
In those times, people that approved of slavery were a good rough half of the voting population. People that disapprove of same-sex marriage used to, at least in the recent past, also comprise half of the population. However, when people that approved of slavery come up, you don't spend time understanding their "honourable reasons." By your strange definition of tolerance, you're "intolerant" of them. You dismiss them out of hand and in fact it seems that you find a comparison with them emotionally offensive.
You're fine with and support a society that "marginalizes, dismisses, and is rude to" them.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that is fair to say about BlackBlade. He, rather bravely considering his circumstances, does argue for and support SSM. He just tries to be "nice" while doing it which isn't always easy. It can be tough trying to walk that line. I have it easy. Most of my friends and associates are pro-ssm or just don't think about it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
