Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column

The editor of a Devon newspaper says he stands by a column which described homosexuality as "an aberration" and claimed social acceptance of gays signalled the end of the British, Roman and Greek empires.

The South Molton News, a monthly local paper in North Devon, received four complaints and its editor Paul Henderson was questioned by police after publishing the controversial column in its September issue.

One complainant said the article was deeply upsetting and took the small town "back into the dark ages".


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/22/south-molton-news-gay-column_n_5861388.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

WTF....

ummm... good :\\:[: :\\:[: :\\:[:

but honestly pretty sure all those empires ended a long time ago....

silly old Europeans.. still think they have empires

Anybody who thinks that gay people haven't lived among the rest of human society since the dawn of humanity is seriously a fucking idiot who doesn't deserve to be listened to ... FFS.

I'm seriously losing tolerance for those who seem to think that every issue we're dealing with now is somehow new!

Also

claimed social acceptance of gays signalled the end of the British, Roman and Greek empires.

is double stupid cause Pretty sure Homophobia is a sign of the end of the Hellenic(greek) empire and the start of the Roman one.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Anybody who thinks that gay people haven't lived among the rest of human society since the dawn of humanity is seriously a fucking idiot who doesn't deserve to be listened to ... FFS.

I'm seriously losing tolerance for those who seem to think that every issue we're dealing with now is somehow new!

OK so the guy has different opinions from you - all he did was express them. You seem to think that is unacceptable.

Tolerance has to cut both ways and as far as I am concerned never meant changing your opinions just learning not to act on them.

A person who declares that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is not being tolerant they are being accepting. The one being tolerant is the one declaring they are opposed but doing nothing other than stating their opinion.

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Anybody who thinks that gay people haven't lived among the rest of human society since the dawn of humanity is seriously a fucking idiot who doesn't deserve to be listened to ... FFS.

I'm seriously losing tolerance for those who seem to think that every issue we're dealing with now is somehow new!

OK so the guy has different opinions from you - all he did was express them.  You seem to think that is unacceptable.

Tolerance has to cut both ways and as far as I am concerned never meant changing your opinions just learning not to act on them.

A person who declares that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is not being tolerant they are being accepting.  The one being tolerant is the one declaring they are opposed but doing nothing other than stating their opinion.

If you don't find someone's opinion unacceptable then you have no opinion at all.

What you should accept is the right to express that opinion.

THE WAY that the editor and his homophobe columnist (most likely one-and-the-same..) are presenting their views in their parochial fish-and-chips wrappers could quite possibly bring them a bit of unwanted official attention under the "Anti-Villification" Laws in many other jurisdictions (including over here ..).
NO DOUBT the Westbro Baptists will be cheering them on..

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Anybody who thinks that gay people haven't lived among the rest of human society since the dawn of humanity is seriously a fucking idiot who doesn't deserve to be listened to ... FFS.

I'm seriously losing tolerance for those who seem to think that every issue we're dealing with now is somehow new!

OK so the guy has different opinions from you - all he did was express them.  You seem to think that is unacceptable.

Tolerance has to cut both ways and as far as I am concerned never meant changing your opinions just learning not to act on them.

A person who declares that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is not being tolerant they are being accepting.  The one being tolerant is the one declaring they are opposed but doing nothing other than stating their opinion.

Tolerance doesn't have to cut both ways when the 'other' way is intolerance. That's like saying 'we both can stand for good, only what you stand for is bad.'

Nor does it help to bifurcate thought from action ("...declaring they are opposed but doing nothing"). At some point, someone with that same thought will put it into action. Look at Germany in 1932.

Intolerance is poison on any level.

Sorry, I should have explained that I meant I'm losing my ability to tolerate hearing from or being in the presence of homophobic idiots (or bigots of any other stripe).

So again where is all this fabled tolerance for people who object to homosexuality?

The demands are that they stop objecting and tolerate it but it seems nobody is willing to tolerate them

Where are their rights? Or are we campaigning for a world where holding the "wrong" opinion is a crime?

sphinx wrote:So again where is all this fabled tolerance for people who object to homosexuality?

The demands are that they stop objecting and tolerate it but it seems nobody is willing to tolerate them

Where are their rights?  Or are we campaigning for a world where holding the "wrong" opinion is a crime?

Can holding wrong opinions lead to violence and even death, based upon irrational views?

If someone was teaching a view to many people that women were scum and should be beaten, would you find this tolerant?

I would not and I would be openly vocal against how irrational it was, that means I am not going to tolerate someone spreading hate, because I have seen where hate leads too and would stand against these people.

Is that wrong to be intolerant of irrational views?

No

Take as stated by Quill rightly that of Hitler and where his intolerance led too.

Now as Zack rightly said, he has a right to express his views, but why should people be tolerant of irrational views which leads to discrimination?
Again I am not stopping him having his views, but I will speak out against his intolerance and there is no reason why I should have to tolerate such intolerance. Do you expect me to thank him for his views?

IWhy not give up the whole school system, there is no point teaching anyone anything, we might as well allow people to make up things as they want with your perception.

There is such a thing as right and wrong, are you telling me now when your children have done wrong you always tolerate it?
Do you tolerate them swearing at you?

Of course not.

sphinx wrote:So again where is all this fabled tolerance for people who object to homosexuality?

The demands are that they stop objecting and tolerate it but it seems nobody is willing to tolerate them

Where are their rights?  Or are we campaigning for a world where holding the "wrong" opinion is a crime?

Sphinx, please don't put words in my mouth -- I said I can't tolerate being in the presence of bigots or hearing their stupid opinions. I didn't call for a damn law to be written criminalizing stupidity and hate.

Idiotic bigots have their right to their opinions and to express them, and I have my equal right to not subject myself to their hate and idiocy and to criticize them.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:So again where is all this fabled tolerance for people who object to homosexuality?

The demands are that they stop objecting and tolerate it but it seems nobody is willing to tolerate them

Where are their rights?  Or are we campaigning for a world where holding the "wrong" opinion is a crime?

Sphinx, please don't put words in my mouth -- I said I can't tolerate being in the presence of bigots or hearing their stupid opinions. I didn't call for a damn law to be written criminalizing stupidity and hate.

Idiotic bigots have their right to their opinions and to express them, and I have my equal right to not subject myself to their hate and idiocy and to criticize them.

When you talk about tolerating their presence who is the party ostracized? Do you remove yourself because you are being intolerant or do you expect them to remove themselves - or pretend to be something they are not, so you can be comfortable.

Oh and (as I well know) those who do not want to hear opinions they consider stupid would be well advised not to run forums.

It depends on the situation. If it's in public or someone else's place, I'll remove myself from their presence. If they're at my house, I'll ask them to leave.

The problem with this debate is that you seem to be taking it as a given that all intolerance is the same. No, there is obviously some intolerance that is reasonable and other kinds that aren't.

I think tbh, it's idiotic not to tolerate intolerance.
We are all entitled to be intolerant of something if we wish.

Ben_Reilly wrote:It depends on the situation. If it's in public or someone else's place, I'll remove myself from their presence. If they're at my house, I'll ask them to leave.

The problem with this debate is that you seem to be taking it as a given that all intolerance is the same. No, there is obviously some intolerance that is reasonable and other kinds that aren't.

So what makes it obvious which type of intolerance is reasonable?

I would like an answer that is universal so that it can be applied now, 100 years in the future, and 100 years in the past to produce the same answer as to which intolerances are acceptable and which are not.

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:It depends on the situation. If it's in public or someone else's place, I'll remove myself from their presence. If they're at my house, I'll ask them to leave.

The problem with this debate is that you seem to be taking it as a given that all intolerance is the same. No, there is obviously some intolerance that is reasonable and other kinds that aren't.

So what makes it obvious which type of intolerance is reasonable?

I would like an answer that is universal so that it can be applied now, 100 years in the future, and 100 years in the past to produce the same answer as to which intolerances are acceptable and which are not.

It is reasonable to be intolerant of situations in which someone comes to harm against their will.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:
So what makes it obvious which type of intolerance is reasonable?

I would like an answer that is universal so that it can be applied now, 100 years in the future, and 100 years in the past to produce the same answer as to which intolerances are acceptable and which are not.

It is reasonable to be intolerant of situations in which someone comes to harm against their will.

And I am intolerant of situations where it is acceptable to abuse those who disagree with homosexuality in the way it used to be acceptable to abuse those who were homosexual.

I will no more tolerate someone opposed to homosexuality coming to harm against their will than I will tolerate a homosexual coming to harm against their will.

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:
So what makes it obvious which type of intolerance is reasonable?

I would like an answer that is universal so that it can be applied now, 100 years in the future, and 100 years in the past to produce the same answer as to which intolerances are acceptable and which are not.

It is reasonable to be intolerant of situations in which someone comes to harm against their will.

And I am intolerant of situations where it is acceptable to abuse those who disagree with homosexuality in the way it used to be acceptable to abuse those who were homosexual.

I will no more tolerate someone opposed to homosexuality coming to harm against their will than I will tolerate a homosexual coming to harm against their will.

OK, maybe I should rephrase -- It's reasonable to be intolerant of situations in which someone comes to harm against their will, through no fault of their own. If you offer up abuse, you deserve abuse in return.

eddie wrote:I think tbh, it's idiotic not to tolerate intolerance.
We are all entitled to be intolerant of something if we wish.

We are also entitled to be intolerant of intolerance and to refuse to subject ourselves to the presence of bigots

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

And I am intolerant of situations where it is acceptable to abuse those who disagree with homosexuality in the way it used to be acceptable to abuse those who were homosexual.

I will no more tolerate someone opposed to homosexuality coming to harm against their will than I will tolerate a homosexual coming to harm against their will.

OK, maybe I should rephrase -- It's reasonable to be intolerant of situations in which someone comes to harm against their will, through no fault of their own. If you offer up abuse, you deserve abuse in return.

So back to the "think like me or at least pretend to think like me otherwise I have the right to abuse you" stance.

Nice.

Lets apply that logic to single mums shall we? You are saying that because single mums do have the choice to have sex and get pregnant and give birth without being married their condition is their own fault so it is perfectly acceptable to be intolerant of them and blame them for the downfall of society.

I take it thats what you mean.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I think tbh, it's idiotic not to tolerate intolerance.
We are all entitled to be intolerant of something if we wish.

We are also entitled to be intolerant of intolerance and to refuse to subject ourselves to the presence of bigots

which is why the L/W vision of so called "freedom of speech" (and thought/opinion) is so perverse

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

And I am intolerant of situations where it is acceptable to abuse those who disagree with homosexuality in the way it used to be acceptable to abuse those who were homosexual.

I will no more tolerate someone opposed to homosexuality coming to harm against their will than I will tolerate a homosexual coming to harm against their will.

OK, maybe I should rephrase -- It's reasonable to be intolerant of situations in which someone comes to harm against their will, through no fault of their own. If you offer up abuse, you deserve abuse in return.

So back to the "think like me or at least pretend to think like me otherwise I have the right to abuse you" stance.

Nice.

Lets apply that logic to single mums shall we?  You are saying that because single mums do have the choice to have sex and get pregnant and give birth without being married their condition is their own fault so it is perfectly acceptable to be intolerant of them and blame them for the downfall of society.

I take it thats what you mean.

No, I'm saying being abusive makes you deserving of abuse. Take Tommy here, we all know he doesn't like gay people but he generally makes that point in a fairly civil manner.

I don't think single mothers can be blamed for anything that single mothers don't actually do ... not exactly sure what you're on about with that one.

victorisnotamused wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I think tbh, it's idiotic not to tolerate intolerance.
We are all entitled to be intolerant of something if we wish.

We are also entitled to be intolerant of intolerance and to refuse to subject ourselves to the presence of bigots

which is why the L/W vision of so called "freedom of speech" (and thought/opinion) is so perverse

Care to expand on that? If you have the right to not like, say, people from India, how do I not get the right to not like you because of your bigotry?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I think tbh, it's idiotic not to tolerate intolerance.
We are all entitled to be intolerant of something if we wish.

We are also entitled to be intolerant of intolerance and to refuse to subject ourselves to the presence of bigots

I'm starting to forget what the word intolerant means and it's starting to sound like it's pronounced wrong?? ::dunno::

Ben_Reilly wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

which is why the L/W vision of so called "freedom of speech" (and thought/opinion) is so perverse

Care to expand on that? If you have the right to not like, say, people from India, how do I not get the right to not like you because of your bigotry?

For a start, see how merely "not liking" is grounds for being labeled a bigot

for another see how that judgement is laid down instantly, with no regard to the possibility that I may have good reason not to like people from (where-ever)

so the perversity is down to the fact that the left are as dictatorial as any fascist state, ...either love without reserve that which we love or be labeled bigot for ever....in other words you cna ssay what you like as long as its what we want to hear....otherwise we wil "self righteously " abuse you....

I refer you to the posts I made about "righteousness" in another threqad.....

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:
So back to the "think like me or at least pretend to think like me otherwise I have the right to abuse you" stance.
Nice.
Lets apply that logic to single mums shall we?  You are saying that because single mums do have the choice to have sex and get pregnant and give birth without being married their condition is their own fault so it is perfectly acceptable to be intolerant of them and blame them for the downfall of society.
I take it thats what you mean.

No, I'm saying being abusive makes you deserving of abuse. Take Tommy here, we all know he doesn't like gay people but he generally makes that point in a fairly civil manner.
I don't think single mothers can be blamed for anything that single mothers don't actually do ... not exactly sure what you're on about with that one.

I never said I didn't like gay people.




It is my opinion that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural and abnormal.






But that will not automatically make me dislike someone or discriminate against them.

I'm just gonna say For me it is not about tolerance at all
It is about being an Illogical Idiot Jerk...

I don't care what you tolerate but IF you make major sweeping claims about people for no logical reason... then YOU ARE AN IDIOT and why pray tell should I tolerate Idiots (or cowardice which the attempts at logic bigots usually give to try and justify the Piss stains in their terror soaked pants are).
You don't want to tolerate someone for the colour of their skin, what they do in the bed room with another consenting adult or cause their sky giant is different than your sky giant... Well I don't want to tolerate you because you are mean and nasty for no good, just or logical reason, even the emotive reasons the VAST majority of bigots have are pathetic. I would accept 'they killed Your family' but you saw them on TV and they made you Scared? NO not good enough.

there is no logical reason to be opposed homosexuality as it does not effect you in any way, does not in anyway impact on anyone's lives BUT the willing participants, any objections on public displays of affection should be levelled evenly, seeing two guys kiss makes you more uncomfortable than a guy and girl well that is no more justification for banning it than banning the colour orange because you don't like its aesthetics.

Your freedom to dislike something does not exceed my freedom to call you an idiot. If you want to exercise a freedom of illogical irrational hate for a group of your choosing than surely I can too? I means IF you believe that is a freedom everyone should have why are complaining when I exercise it against you?

sphinx wrote:So again where is all this fabled tolerance for people who object to homosexuality?

The demands are that they stop objecting and tolerate it but it seems nobody is willing to tolerate them

Where are their rights?  Or are we campaigning for a world where holding the "wrong" opinion is a crime?

Where is the tolerance for murders and child molesters? There is none, and people who harbor those ideas are not generally endured either.

Mormons still believe that 12-year old girls should be married to 40-year old men and bear children by them. For them it's a moral and religious principle, not merely an opinion. Where is the tolerance for their ideas?

Once an idea has clearly been determined to be out-of-bounds, it's not a matter of intolerance but lack of sympathy.

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I think tbh, it's idiotic not to tolerate intolerance.
We are all entitled to be intolerant of something if we wish.

We are also entitled to be intolerant of intolerance and to refuse to subject ourselves to the presence of bigots

I'm starting to forget what the word intolerant means and it's starting to sound like it's pronounced wrong?? ::dunno::

I guess I've been using the word in two senses -- "intolerant" as a synonym for "bigoted," and "tolerate" to mean "put up with, accept."

So to put my original statement in those terms -- I've gotten to where I can't put up with bigoted views.

Does that make me a bigot? I don't think so, because while I won't put up with the bigoted views of a member of the KKK, I'll still do my best to see that person as an individual who may be smart, talented, etc. despite being bigoted.

Awesome, I composed that response about six hours ago and just noticed I hadn't hit "Send" ...

victorisnotamused wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

which is why the L/W vision of so called "freedom of speech" (and thought/opinion) is so perverse

Care to expand on that? If you have the right to not like, say, people from India, how do I not get the right to not like you because of your bigotry?

For a start, see how merely "not liking" is grounds for being labeled a bigot

for another see how that judgement is laid down instantly, with no regard to the possibility that I may have good reason not to like people from (where-ever)

so the perversity is down to the fact that the left are as dictatorial as any fascist state, ...either love without reserve that which we love or be labeled bigot for ever....in other words you cna ssay what you like as long as its what we want to hear....otherwise we wil "self righteously " abuse you....

I refer you to the posts I made about "righteousness" in another threqad.....

Who said anything about loving without reserve? That's bullshit. You treat people as individuals and judge them on the basis of their actions, regardless of their background. It ain't rocket surgery.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

I'm starting to forget what the word intolerant means and it's starting to sound like it's pronounced wrong?? ::dunno::

I guess I've been using the word in two senses -- "intolerant" as a synonym for "bigoted," and "tolerate" to mean "put up with, accept."

So to put my original statement in those terms -- I've gotten to where I can't put up with bigoted views.

Does that make me a bigot? I don't think so, because while I won't put up with the bigoted views of a member of the KKK, I'll still do my best to see that person as an individual who may be smart, talented, etc. despite being bigoted.

It comes from intuiting your way into ridiculousness, something conservatives do a lot of because of there predilection for the mirror-image argument.  It works like this:

Liberal: Hating gays is a form of intolerance.

Conservative: Uoooh, I like that...I wanna call them intolerant.  Hey leftie, those little pink pansy fudge packers suck!

Liberal: You are intolerant for saying that.

Conservative: Well aren't you intolerant for saying that I'm intolerant (the mirror-image argument)?

Liberal: No, um...

Conservative (eg, Didge): Ha-ha...see?  I win.  I win.  I win.  I win.  I win.  I win.  I win.  I win.  I win.  I win.  I win.  I win.  I win.  I win.  I win.  I win, etc.

(Soz Didge, but you leave yourself wide open for that one.)

The point for conservatives is not to confront the meaning of words, but to win at a conundrum of logic...oh, and look good no matter what (have you ever seen an unkempt Mormon?  ::dunno::  ).

Your fault is to fall into that static language game.  Don't try to use words as labels.  Use them to express dynamic ideas, not as static placeholders.  'Intolerance'...use it once and move on.  Next time use 'narrow-minded' or 'dogmatic'...then you are free to employ the word in other useful contexts: eg, the law is intolerant.

It's just proper use of a language.

@quill
I think that is a pretty accurate example of the conversation ......

That's an awesome post, Quill. I sit here in awe

Actually I would like to have Quill reference exactly what he thniks I said wrong, where none of it makes sense to what I said in fact, seems he has gone off what others have said, where I am forming a view to dislike discrimination and speak openly about it, it has nothing to do with any liberal or Conservative view, point which he just added based upon the poor left wing philosophy.

Everyone does not tolerate when something is wrong be it when a child does something wrong to an adult, be this in work or within society, you would get the sack for being intolerant to your co-workers, if you formed a discriminating view about them. The left are so blinded at times they fail to see when people are in actual agreement with them on points.I am against discriminating views formed on groups of people based off their sexuality, ethnicity, religious views ect, as each individual should be seen on what they have said themselves. If they use the bases of the religion to be intolerant, then I stand against their intolerance using myths to back their views.
I think you are so intolerant of Conservatives yourself Quill because you hold some irrational view point they all think the same, when my social views are very different than to my economical views, showing how you poorly cast people which claptrap.

Again I asked a simple question why I should as individual tolerate people who spout intolerant views?I also want to see where exactly my views differed fro yours on people holding discriminating intolerant views?

In your own time Quill

Didge wrote:Actually I would like to have Quill reference exactly what he thniks I said wrong, where none of it makes sense to what I said in fact, seems he has gone off what others have said, where I am forming a view to dislike discrimination and speak openly about it, it has nothing to do with any liberal or Conservative view, point which he just added based upon the poor left wing philosophy.

Everyone does not tolerate when something is wrong be it when a child does something wrong to an adult, be this in work or within society, you would get the sack for being intolerant to your co-workers, if you formed a discriminating view about them. The left are so blinded at times they fail to see when people are in actual agreement with them on points.

In your own time Quill

Dude, stop rooting for laundry! If you agree with us left-wingers, just say so. If it helps -- if left-wingers are anything like you Brits portray them in the UK, I'll say they need to go into surgery, have those sticks removed from their anuses ASAP. That can't be healthy.

But a thing like tolerance doesn't need to be a left/right issue -- and shouldn't be. The left and the right really need to be finding common ground in the times we live in, with threats from multiple sources that endanger good people of all political stripes.

I will say, Didge -- conservatives like you make me think we're going to make it as a species. You cut through the bullshit. Just don't get sucked into the us-vs.-them mentality, please; I would hate to see you succumb to that limited mindset.

Oh, "rooting for laundry" is a Seinfeld reference, by the way:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:Actually I would like to have Quill reference exactly what he thniks I said wrong, where none of it makes sense to what I said in fact, seems he has gone off what others have said, where I am forming a view to dislike discrimination and speak openly about it, it has nothing to do with any liberal or Conservative view, point which he just added based upon the poor left wing philosophy.

Everyone does not tolerate when something is wrong be it when a child does something wrong to an adult, be this in work or within society, you would get the sack for being intolerant to your co-workers, if you formed a discriminating view about them. The left are so blinded at times they fail to see when people are in actual agreement with them on points.

In your own time Quill

Dude, stop rooting for laundry! If you agree with us left-wingers, just say so. If it helps -- if left-wingers are anything like you Brits portray them in the UK, I'll say they need to go into surgery, have those sticks removed from their anuses ASAP. That can't be healthy.

But a thing like tolerance doesn't need to be a left/right issue -- and shouldn't be. The left and the right really need to be finding common ground in the times we live in, with threats from multiple sources that endanger good people of all political stripes.

I will say, Didge -- conservatives like you make me think we're going to make it as a species. You cut through the bullshit. Just don't get sucked into the us-vs.-them mentality, please; I would hate to see you succumb to that limited mindset.

I have never denied I agree with some left wing people and their views, it does not make the views left wing, that is absurd Ben, what is even more absurd is what Quill claimed I would be stating when I never made any such claim, where he is so obsessed himself with how he believes Conservatives thinks, which is very irrational to be honest.
My reply to Sphinx had no comparison to what he was saying, it was so off the cut, it was weird.
I only use the left an right view as banter in debates, but he takes it seriously, as if there is a set concept with people which is completely untrue, when many people hold different view points on situations, hence why I take the piss when people use this. In fact many people actually hold many Liberal views here including myself, but I also hold Conservative view points, so it is impossible to place many people into brackets, but we are classed by the parties we follow, where even the Conservatives hold Liberal views.

Tolerance does not need to be a left and right issue, I never even claimed it did but Quill did, which is why his reply was daft, it was also a poor association as if all Conservatives viewed things in such a way.

Some left wing in the Uk are ok, some are wet fishes which are too blind to real issues, and then there are things we all agree on, in fact one the great things here is many are against discrimination, both left and right.

It doesn't matter if it's left-wing or right-wing. Just whether it's true! Why can't there be things like that, truths that conservatives and liberals agree upon without claiming for their own side? I remember interviewing members of a local conservation group. Many were conservatives who felt like the environment is worth protecting, and bristled at the notion that conservation is just a liberal thing.

I sometimes think with this left-vs.-right crap that we're like people arguing over which way to turn when the car's about to go over a cliff.

There are good and bad people on both sides; I know, I've met them. In fact, decent people on both sides sometimes do or say things that are wrong. Vice President Biden once described Obama as "articulate." That doesn't sound so bad unless you know that's traditionally been faint praise from American racists toward black people -- it insinuates that most black people communicate through grunts, etc., so to find one who is "articulate" is a real treasure or something ... and yet, he's the VP, because either Obama or someone on his team realized that Biden is worth more than that stupid utterance.

I guess that's what I mean by being intolerant of intolerance. I try to allow for human stupidity, including my own, and to be wise enough not to write people off as unworthy of life because of their faults. At the same time, it's tough to suffer a fool, and those who claim gay people are bringing down society really need to either wise up or get out of the way.

Actually, I think most of the so-called social issues -- from left wing values vs. right wing values to racism, pitting religious groups against one another, pitting races against one another, pitting man against woman, gay against straight, etc. -- are just ways that the powers behind the throne keep people from uniting to bring about real reform.

A intolerant view based on discrimination is wrong Ben, when it has no rational thought behind it, as is the case with this article.
I often wonder if people had not tolerated the views of Hitler if he would have risen to power, because we also see how intolerant views lead to such violence.

By me being intolerant of another is just me saying I will counter that view strongly, being intolerant of this view point they have. We should be seeking to educate people with what is rational yet people blind themselves to falsehoods. Hence why we teach children what is right from wrong yet some turn into adults where they form intolerant views and lets face it most intolerant view points on Homosexuality stem from religious views. Thankfully religious views are adapting but many homosexuals face unprecedented discrimination and even worse violence against them. It does not mean I wish to see crimes brought about but that people should be very vocal and intolerant of such views.

I agree on people from different political view points being in agreement on common goals, but then you have to teach people to eat humble pie also, where they may have other views that conflict, by placing the common goals above their differences.
::D::

Ben_Reilly wrote:Actually, I think most of the so-called social issues -- from left wing values vs. right wing values to racism, pitting religious groups against one another, pitting races against one another, pitting man against woman, gay against straight, etc. -- are just ways that the powers behind the throne keep people from uniting to bring about real reform.

Agree on that, it keeps people divided.

I wonder how much Hitler manipulated the views of the people, though. I would admittedly rather think the German people were deceived than to think they wittingly went along with the worst of his agenda.

And because my brain is what it is, and I'm hungry, now I'm in the mood for a big meal from my favorite German restaurant in the Texas Hill Country (largely settled by Germans, some of whom still speak it at home):

http://www.theauslander.com/

Ah, for the Kasewurst plate (spatzle on the side) with a nice tall Flensburger Dunkel right about now

He certainly manipulated some and used fear to obtain hatred, though some views had been consistent throughout European history of a hatred against Jews.

Enjoy your food, I have to get back to work.

::D::

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:So again where is all this fabled tolerance for people who object to homosexuality?

The demands are that they stop objecting and tolerate it but it seems nobody is willing to tolerate them

Where are their rights?  Or are we campaigning for a world where holding the "wrong" opinion is a crime?

Where is the tolerance for murders and child molesters?  There is none, and people who harbor those ideas are not generally endured either.

Mormons still believe that 12-year old girls should be married to 40-year old men and bear children by them.  For them it's a moral and religious principle, not merely an opinion.  Where is the tolerance for  their ideas?

Once an idea has clearly been determined to be out-of-bounds, it's not a matter of intolerance but lack of sympathy.

The problem is that in our present state ideas that were determined to be out of bounds as little as a single generation ago are being declared as sacrosanct and those who maintained the stance of a generation ago are the ones being declared out of bounds and subjected to the treatment they are being punished for subjecting others to.

Or at least that is my problem

sphinx wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Where is the tolerance for murders and child molesters?  There is none, and people who harbor those ideas are not generally endured either.

Mormons still believe that 12-year old girls should be married to 40-year old men and bear children by them.  For them it's a moral and religious principle, not merely an opinion.  Where is the tolerance for  their ideas?

Once an idea has clearly been determined to be out-of-bounds, it's not a matter of intolerance but lack of sympathy.

The problem is that in our present state ideas that were determined to be out of bounds as little as a single generation ago are being declared as sacrosanct and those who maintained the stance of a generation ago are the ones being declared out of bounds and subjected to the treatment they are being punished for subjecting others to.

Or at least that is my problem

At the same time it was illegal to be gay it was also perfectly ok to hold racist views- should we tolerate racist views?

Honestly the whole idea that people who label intolerant people as bigots are themselves being intolerant is a circular false starter. If someone dislikes people based on an irrational reasoning they ARE being bigoted, the people labeling them as such are NOT being intolerant at all.

Quill is exactly right in what he is saying, we don't tolerate many things for damn good reason, and bigotry is one of them.

It is not intolerant to think homosexuality is wrong, unnatural or abnormal, it is common sense as it is obvious to an idiot what the biological and mechanical design and purpose of our sexual organs are, And that attraction is designed to be between opposite sex. And primarily for reproductive purposes with the pleasure being included to encourage this.



But strangely some override all the logical and informed knowledge on this in the pursuit of somebody of the same sex which they again know will always remain fruitless.....




If somebody was continually banging their head on a brick wall you would all say that they had a problem and need help, well I don't see how a man continually trying to bang the head of his penis on the inside of another mans rectal cavity wall can be seen as any more normal.....

Eilzel wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The problem is that in our present state ideas that were determined to be out of bounds as little as a single generation ago are being declared as sacrosanct and those who maintained the stance of a generation ago are the ones being declared out of bounds and subjected to the treatment they are being punished for subjecting others to.

Or at least that is my problem

At the same time it was illegal to be gay it was also perfectly ok to hold racist views- should we tolerate racist views?

Honestly the whole idea that people who label intolerant people as bigots are themselves being intolerant is a circular false starter. If someone dislikes people based on an irrational reasoning they ARE being bigoted, the people labeling them as such are NOT being intolerant at all.

Quill is exactly right in what he is saying, we don't tolerate many things for damn good reason, and bigotry is one of them.

+1

Monk, your ramblings and ignorance on the subject are boring; you fail to understand the concept of love entirely (your username is apt perhaps haha). The only thing I've found fruitless is discussing things with you...