A Little More Tolerance, Please

Remove all ads!

@ Foradasthar:
1) yes, I do find the word “nigger” offensive. It goes back to the days of segregation where that word was used in probably the most demeaning way possible.
2) I suppose it’s a matter of opinion whether the comments in the thread are offensive, but my take on them is that they are meant as an insulting comment on homosexuality, and that's my whole point.

@The Great Snook:
I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to respond to you, but here it goes.

For the record, I am not gay. I say this not because I care what you (or anyone else) thinks about me, but because I want it to be clear that I have no self-interest here.

As for why I shouldn't be tolerant of a bigot, I can't actually believe I'm seeing that in writing, so I'm not even going to try to answer it.

Finally, as far as the "Queer Nation" goes, were they acting in a threatening manner? Beating anyone up? "Get used to it" sounds like good advice to me.

 

I've just read that thread and found nothing offensive therein. Well, that YMCA comment maybe was immature, but it was still an opinion and perhaps the author was even joking - although I haven't noticed any smilies that would indicate this.

Certainly. It also signifies weak will and major problems with self-acceptation.

Short and up to the point. And very correct. Damn, do what you will, but don't expect me to smile and pat you on the arm for doing something with which I disagree.

Agreed. Fending off attacks against you based on the grounds of your sexual orientation is one thing and preaching your controversial ideas under the banner of the rights and laws that protect you from abuse is a completely different thing. I consider the latter immature and won't change this opinion. You may flame me at will.

I also agree that advocating violence against homosexuals or any other group is a criminal matter. Those people are fellow citizens, colleagues, friends, co-workers... function in the same society and have the same rights. I'd stress the same: no less, but no more either. And everyone has the right to peace, corporal integrity and good name among others.

If someone truly has a phobia than yes, he might be making a fool of himself, but someone who shares his particular beliefs about whatever is not and neither is he having a phobia. Homosexualism also belongs to particular beliefs about sin, even if sin in a lay social context. According to my peculiar religious beliefs any sort of sexual intercourse without marriage is a sin and chaotic act and marriage is only between one male and one female human. Am I a fool then? Of course you have every right to believe I am and express this belief provided you enclose the above argumentation.

We extend the border constantly. Legal and social systems first allowed divorce apart from traditional separation, then made marriage a contract, then allowed non-marital sex, later on minimised kinship restrictions to sibling-sibling and ascendant-descendant level, made a large pro-contraception campaign amongst teenagers who were encouraged to have sex (instead of making love) without any responsibility, then group sex began to be considered acceptable, now they're allowing same sex marriages. What will be next? I can imagine that they'll make a set of rules regulating what's acceptable in adult-minor relationships and under what circumstances showing records of sexual activity involving human(s) and animal(s) is allowed. Or they'll start to believe that unfaithfulness towards spouse is a completely private matter, doesn't touch the spouse and it takes a retard to criticise it. Oh well, they already believe so.

However, discussion is one thing and random criticism is another. People who frequent gaming forums don't do this out of the desire to take part in gay/straight struggle or whatever else than a particular gaming topic. The very same applies to the topics we have in Whatnots and even the Alley. If someone wants to have a heated debate in which to unleash his anger (still in a more or less socially acceptable form!) then let him start a thread about his particular problems. If you make a 'Gay Pride' topic, anti-gay preachers will know they have nothing to seek there and if you make a 'Hetero Fest' pro-gay preachers will keep away.

It's important to realise that everyone has every right to his opinion, no matter what an opinion it is, and a limited one to express it (limited only in form, not in meaning) and that under no circumstances does your own right to opinion allow you to deprive another man of his very similar right. If you call a person disagreeing with gay pride and gay promotion narrow-minded, retarted and out-dated, your own logic proves that exactly the same adjectives apply to you because you present people with them solely on the grounds of their disagreeing with your views.

Last but not least, some modesty and basic consideration is required on both sides: if I were to go to a Jewish friend for a couple of days, I wouldn't take ham sandwiches with me or order a pepperoni pizza to his house. And if he were to come to my place, I wouldn't serve anything non-kosher for meals had together - but I wouldn't throw all pork out the window or remove crosses from walls. If I'm going to talk to an atheist I don't remove the cross from my neck, but I don't take a 10'' shining one. Consequently, I don't provide my gay, lesbian or bisexual friends with regular sermons, but every time my opinion is asked it's given in full detail.

 

I am neither "Gay", "Jewish" or "Black". But I do sometimes feel offended, when I see or hear things involving these.

Tolerance, in my view is a virtue. A virtue, I do not possess nor do I claim to possess.

Now "jokes" are always a problem and everybody knows that or should know that. It belongs to literature learning in schools, or it should belong there.

In secondary school I was in, there was some dork, who made some very interesting jokes. Lol, but his jokes weren't the only reason, he wasn' the most popular guy.

Examples:

"How many jews fit into a beetle-car ? 100, put them all into the ashtray."

"What do you throw to a drowning Ethiopian ? A toothpick".

Those are very offensive. And I don't need to be "black" or "Ethiopian" or "jewish" to be offended. Or a recent example I've heard about why something is NOT funny:

"What does an American call Anne Frank ? Dutch surrender monkey".

So, jokes are problematic. And humour lies in the eye of the beholder. Someone thinks that and this is offensive another person does not. And then whoops, the same person which found this and that funny is suddenly offended by another thing. It's difficult. No one can bring down a good joke. But some jokes are bad.

The YMCA joke I actually found very funny. Because YMCA guys for me are dull boring people. Not gay, just boring. Fitting for the radiant heart. Dam, they do not even drink !!!

 

Chev, I fully recognise and accept that people are entitled to their own opinions. I also recognise that people may object to homosexuality on the basis of, for example, religious beliefs. I may disagree with those beliefs, but I support their right to them. What I do not accept, however, is if you were take that belief as justification for hurling insults, any more than I would stand still for insults directed at, say, working women just because a group of people may feel that a woman’s place is in the home. You are absolutely correct when you say that "discussion is one thing and random criticism is another"; it’s the random criticism that I have a problem with.

One final comment (for now); when you say that "I can imagine that they'll make a set of rules regulating what's acceptable in adult-minor relationships and under what circumstances showing records of sexual activity involving human(s) and animal(s) is allowed", the difference between those examples and homosexuality is that, in your examples, one of the parties involved is not a willing participant (or at least is not mature enough to understand the ramifications of what is going on). It’s not an apples-to-apples comparison.

P.S. Tal, I was expecting you to say that and, of course, you're right. Lumps accepted. I'm also glad to hear that my understanding of the "attacks, insults or flames" rule does extend to homosexuals.

 

Sometimes at school I will say something is gay, like a subject, a coincedence, homework, whatever. But I'm not referring to homosexuals when I say it. I know one of my teachers is homosexual and even he refers to some things as gay. I use the word because the people at school understand it in that context. I couldn't give a damn whether the printers are school are homosexual or not.

In the topic they may have used these words to express like I sometimes do at school, or maybe they think that the NPCs are homosexual and are annoyed by the fact they are not meant to be.

I do not care who likes who or what, though I think young children and animals are taking it too far, it is up to them. Anyone who has a problem with them can go themselves people they think deserve such company.

 

@ Splunge

If you are not tolerant of a bigot then what do you do about it? Do you feel that you have some moral responsibility to correct the bigot's behavior? How are you positive that you are the one with the enlightened position?

 

That just h reminded me, that the former corners of the Empire are divided by a common language and different cultures. Me, as poor foreigner, have made some rather funny experiences with the word "fag". Because I asked an American for a cigarette and he seemed to get very annoyed which really puzzled me.

 

I agree with what you say (with one exception, I still see homosexual intercourse as not a valid option), but my point is to show the way tolerance works - or its media incarnation. Step by step from tiny concessions to larger ones.

 

Charlton Heston, is that you?

 

@chevalier:
Point taken, and it’s a good one.

@Snook

I feel I have a responsibility to point out their prejudice to them.

One of the key elements of bigotry is prejudice. The online version of Merriam-Webster defines prejudice as including "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics"

The key word is "irrational". So someone who objects to homosexuality on religious grounds is not being irrational, and therefore is not a bigot.
On the other hand, someone who doesn't like gays just because they have same-sex partners, but who is not impacted in any meaningful way by this, is bigoted towards gays. Whether I have a real problem with these people depends on how they express their dislike.

 

Well, thank god we no longer allow churches to make the laws. We would not have computers no cars, because they would have been deemed sin. Just like the way churches strangled the development of spain and the middle east. And don't forget that crappy protestant fasion of black clothes.

AND GOD BLESS THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION. Sex without having to merry and being condemend to have babies is just way more fun. And chicks in mini-skirts just look better.

But then again, wouldn't it all be better, if chicks couldn't vote and would make the dishes without complaining ?

 

How do you know? It's sort of anti-clerical. Someone pro-clerical might say that in a Christian theocracy everyone would automatically uphold Ten Commandments and love his neighbour. Truth is in the middle.

Did they really? First, it's more complex. Second, it's impossible to tell. And it's more about obscurantism deep within people than any churches anyway.

Is fun all that matters? We need at least some serious and responsible people for the others to be able to have fun.

Personally I'm looking for a wife rather than house-wife

Ankle-long split ones are better

But actually in Eden there was complete nudity and still no adultery... Not much covering clothing is different to revealing clothing amd the whole problem is about how people will react and to what be driven.

 

Sheesh! Come on people! You need to be incredible sensitive for taking offence is someone calls someone or something 'gay'. Especially if it is an NPC in a game that could very well be gay. For instance so do I think that Anomen is totally gay. He really should come out of the closet. Cernd too seems quite gay. I am a quite PC person but there are limits. Gay is a very mild word and has no real offensive value no matter how it is used in my eyes.

 

There are 11 Commandments. Christ added the extra one, which he said was the most important. I am glad that you mentioned it in connection with the other Ten. That everyone should love his/her neighbor also seems to apply to this thread. It's too bad that Christ's Commandment is ignored by most practicing "Christians."

The problem is that gays are treated as second class citizens in America. They are not protected by the Civil Rights Act. Nor are they protected in most workplaces. Hell, they are not even protected in the military. But I was very pleased with the Supreme Court ruling yesterday, which struck down our idiotic "sodomy law." It was used as an excuse to discriminate against gays in Texas and other mostly (surprise!) southern states.

 

@ Chandros

I couldn't disagree with you more.

To say that gays are treated as second class citizens couldn't be further from the truth. If anything they have fought and demanded better rights then straight people.

You claim that they are not protected by the civil rights act. Here is a quick list of other groups not on the "list" Short people, fat people, ugly people, people with excessive back-hair, etc.

All of the laws that protect straight people are still valid against gays. However, against gays they are even more stringent. Get in a fight with a straight person and you will face assault charges. Get in a fight with a gay person and it could be turned into a "hate crime" which would make it a federal offense and could triple the jail time. I have never been able to figure out how we can legislate how serious a crime is based on who the crime is committed against. My intrepretation of that is that the "hate crime" groups must be some sort of royalty.

Your statement of how they are not protected in the workforce is even more troublesome. As opposed to how other people are protected? In the United States almost all non-union and government workers are considered employees at will. That means you do not have a constitutional right to a job. If your boss wants to fire you he may do so. He does not need a reason at all. Now some states (mine included) have passed laws making it illegal to fire certain protected groups without cause. Once again we have legislated who can have a job. To me that seems a hell of a lot more like a special privledge than a negative. My boss could fire me for what color tie I'm wearing and I would have no recourse.

As to gays in the military, I have no idea if it would be a good or a bad thing. I do not understand why any gay person would want to join an organization that clearly doesn't want them. To me this is just dumb.

I do agree with you in principle that sodomy laws are stupid. But, why is this under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Does this somehow interfere with interstate commerce? This issue should be an issue for the states. At one time all fifty states had sodomy laws. Now it is just a handful for they have realized it is a personal issue.

 

The law was found to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS, and any federal court, has jurisdiction over matters impacting on the US Constitution. Therefore, SCOTUS had jurisdiction.

Further, Justice Kennedy writing for the majority notes the penumbral right of liberty implicated in the case. The penumbral right to privacy also was implicated:

So, the equal protection clause and two penumbral rights were involved making it a constitutional question.

Why is this decision important? It's not that important when viewed as a stand alone case imo. However, it is important for the possible line of cases it will spawn. Scalia, writing in dissent, notes why this case is important:

So, homosexual marriage is on the horizon -- ok, maybe the far horizon of a few decades, but this case will be mentiioned whenever that happens.

I guess Charlton Heston was right.

Edit -- Links to opinions:

Majority - http://www.brunchma.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=9&t=12154&s=65dd22b44ef5e8c9409585b3038cf353

O'Connor concurring - http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/02-102p.zc.pdf

Main Dissent by Scalia - http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/02-102p.zd.pdf

Dissent by Thomas - http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/02-102p.zd1.pdf

EDIT The Second --

Forgot to mention why it was an equal protection clause problem -- the law was written to apply only to those who: "engage[] in deviate sexual intercourse with another of the same sex." Apparently it was ok to engage in deviate sexual intercourse as long as it was heterosexual.

[ June 28, 2003, 06:29: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

@ The great snook

I know what you mean about the Queer nation. I mean, is all that really necessary ? Homosexuals are already widely recognised and accepted, so why these "demonstrations" ? That's just annoying. When i'm sitting in a bus, ands someone yells in my face "i'm here, i'm queer, get used to it", i won't say anything the first time, or the second, but if he keeps doing it, eventually i'll kick his queer ass out of the bus, cause that's just provoking people.

Here in the Netherlands we have the gay parade every year, a big caravan of partying homosexuals, and not too long ago they came up with the Gay Olympics. Gay athletes from all over the world came to Amsterdam, for a certain period of time, to do their thing.

I thought the gays struggled a long time to have equal rights, for not being treated differently from heterosexuals ? Well, i'm sorry, but with activities like this, you place yourself right back outside the society. if you're gay, and also a good athlete, wouldn't you rather compete in the real olympics, instead of joining an orgy-like gettogether ? Cause that's what it was, nothing more, nothing less. I happened to be working in Amsterdam for a few days right at that time, and it was kinda disgusting to watch. People were making out in public, just to let others see their sexual orientation. What's wrong with these people ?

[ June 28, 2003, 13:23: Message edited by: Pac man ]

 

There are ten and Christ summarised all of them in the 'new' one. The difference between former and latter is like between abiding and compassionate commitment.

For the purpose of this thread we may extend this analogy a bit. So, if we make a set of laws people will only abide laws and consider themselves to have fulfilled all obligations whatsoever. What we truly need is not the letter but the spirit. And it's not the spirit of tolerance, it's the spirit of love (like in Christian understanding of loving thy neighbour). However, it's impossible that all people become honest, compassionate, considerate etc. Some will always want to cut their way, to go around and to cheat on the others. That's why we need laws. This of course doesn't mean we shouldn't care about the emotional side or even proper education. But proper education's aim is not preach idiocies like 'all beliefs are equally true', 'all ways of life are equally good' etc. This would only lead to relativism. If one believes in his deity or lack thereof, he follows his deep internal conviction about what's really true (for him). Thus from his point of view it's true. We can't and shouldn't make him diminish his beliefs by forcing or soliciting him to admit they're meaningless as any and all choice is meaningless if everything is the same. What we need is respect. Everyone has his particular beliefs and conviction and everyone has basic human and citizen rights. Nothing less, but nothing more.

Practical example: you own a shop in the US. You sack a hetero WASP salesman. Everything is OK. Now sack an Asian or black one or a gay one and you'll see miracles.

There are many choices that affect our lives and there are even more qualities we have and haven't chosen. Aggression against gay people should be criminal and personal attack on the grounds of someone's being gay should be frowned upon, but this shouldn't extend beyond some reasonable borders. I believe gay people should receive no more rights and special protection than fat people or blondes.

 

Well,
every year in the capital of Croatia (Zagreb) we have a gay parade (GAY PRIDE). I've nothin' against it, but I don't see the point. Why do they again make themselves different. Why not stay quiet like everybody else? Imagine me trying to organize a HETEROSEXUAL parade? Dumb, ain't it?