Subject:
|
Re: Sex Scandal: U.S. President had sex with Intern!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 May 2003 19:53:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
294 times
|
| |
|
|
Annoyingly, I was unable to post to LUGNET for a few weeks and wasn't able
to contribute in my usual, brilliant fashion. I apologize for the late
response to Scott's posting, but this was just about my first opportunity to
do so.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes:
> The intolerance I was refering to is that of those who take issue with
> religions or religionists for their beliefs, basically telling someone that
> they must unconditionally accept your chosen lifestyle.
It should be noted that the type of intolerance you describe in this blurb
usually occurs between one religious group and another, rather than a
secular group and a religious group. Except in extreme circumstances, such
as those involving abuse or fraud, it's rare for a modern secular agency to
take issue with religious groups except when those groups attempt to force
their beliefs upon others. Condemnation of intolerance is perfectly
acceptable, if you ask me.
> One of my best friends has recently moved in with his girlfriend, I have
> expressed to him that I personally believe that this is wrong, but it is his
> decision to make.
But don't you see that you've already declared your intolerance? It's
frankly none of your business whether he chooses to live with his girlfriend
unless he or she specifically consults you about it. The fact that you
"have expressed to him that [you] personally believe that this is wrong" is
a loud-and-clear indication that you actually do not tolerate his lifestyle.
That's your right, of course, but it's deceptive to claim that you uphold
principles of tolerance while actively expressing your intolerance.
If your friend actively sought out your input (which seems unlikely to me,
but who knows?), then you should state this clearly to remove any impression
of presumptuousness.
> His choice in no way makes me feel less about him, and I still spend a
> great deal of time at his new house. I am tolerant of his lifestyle, even
> though I disagree with it, he is tolerant of my postition, even though he
> disagrees with it.
> My beef is with those who would try to force me to
> completely accept their arangement, rather than simply tolerate it.
And here's another problem! Who are you to deign to be tolerant of him?
That presupposes that you are in a position to rule yea or nay on his
lifestyle, and really that's not the case. You may elect not to associate
with him, and you may choose privately not to approve of his lifestyle
choice, and you may certainly offer your opinion if he solicits it, but it's
grossly presumptuous to volunteer your judgment as though you speak from
some higher moral plateau.
> When one of my inner-circle of friends confessed to all of us that he was
> gay, he expected, because of my faith, that I would be the least accepting
> and tolerant, in fact he told me that I was the most understanding.
That's anecdotal witnessing, but for the sake of argument I'll take it for
true-as-written. Without knowing anything further about your friend, it's
difficult to form an assessment of what you've described, but here goes:
If your friend feels that you have been the most understanding among his
circle of friends, perhaps that is because he has not been exposed to the
underlying intolerance that you've demonstrated here. Your choice of words
speaks volumes about your views: You describe your friend's revelation of
his homosexuality by saying that he "confessed to all of us," as if he'd
committed a sin before the congregation. Would you say of yourself that
you've ever "confessed" to being a male or "confessed" to being a Mormon or
"confessed" to being heterosexual or "confessed" to being left- or
right-handed? Obviously not! To "confess" implies pennitance for
wrongdoing, and none of my examples qualifies, just as the fact of
homosexuality qualifies as such pennitance.
Of course, it may be that your friend has previously concealed his
homosexuality and is "confessing" his guilt about this concealment.
However, I don't get that impression from your post. If that's what you're
trying to convey, you should restate your point more clearly.
> Do homosexuals harm communities? Should the be rooted out? Absolutely not. Why
> must you make such assumptions?
I can't speak for Hop-Frog, but I'm not making any assumptions about you
whatsoever; instead, I am interpreting the language of your post. If you
feel that my interpretation is incorrect, then by all means please clarify
whatever you like.
In the meantime, I should point out that the tone of your post comes
across as a kind of in-the-closet intolerance which can be more far
insidious and damaging in the longterm than overt bigotry. Especially
interesting is the fact that the friend whom you assert to be part of your
"inner-circle" expected a sharply intolerant response from you. It may be
that others perceive you (and your "tolerance") in a manner quite different
from what you might prefer to convey.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
37 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
