A Hypocrite in the Life

I agree with you. That whole freedom to speak or practice whatever religion you want thing is a two way street. People with radical views should be treated with respect, as should those who hold staunch religious beliefs.

I think one of the major differences between alcoholism and homosexuality is that being gay won't destroy your liver and kill you.

And fighting to be treated like everyone else isn't hypocrisy, it's bettering humanity.

Discrimination is not acceptable; I don't care if it's "just someone's opinion." Years ago it was just someone's opinion that people who were left-handed, or women that could read should be burned as witches. Years ago, it was just someone's opinion that Black people were not, in fact, people, and so it was ok to force them into slavery.

There are just some opinions that need to be bashed on.

http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof

"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-

I have absolutley no problem with your point about alcohol. Acutally, I had predicted that your point would be the first comment. I was one off!
It does harm you physically and it is a good point that we should help those that are physically hurting them selves.
And I am just curious on your opinion of the body...does it consist of all physiological makeup? In other words...do you think there is such a thing as hurting your self spiritually, or hurting your moral makeup if you will?
But wait your also saying... if some one were to make a discovery that homosexuality would hurt you physically....then it would be bad? or immoral?
Well good luck convincing the gay population of this.

Oh and as far as how your trying to compare people who discrimanate black people to people who disagree with the ACT of gay sex...there are two pretty significant differences
1- you usually don't hear of people who disagree with the simple act of gay sex wanting to hang those people who do it
2-gay sex is an action, where as being black is not a choice...Yes i know i know, you've heard that one before.
But honestly comparing those who disagree with gay marriage or exuse me, sex, to those who lynched blacks in our country. Well that's a little ridiculous.
I for one don't know if gay sex is wrong. Assuming that there is such a sin as gluttoney, then yes.
And that sounds really stupid that some people's opinions should be bashed and not others...
what logic do you follow in coming to that conclusion?

O,K. Well I am feeling I got a rise out of you. That was not my intention. I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings.

But anyway...
I'm not completly following you with the mix up of words. I guess I didn't define them preciesly??? Which would not really change my overall point of the blog. But get back to me if I'm really just missing a huge problem.

AND

Yes I have heard about that kid. And I think it's terrible.
But it is sooo soo unfair that your making people who simply disagree with gay sex or homosexulity ( I'm sorry I missed you point about me differentiating) to people who would ever take someon elses life.

Someone who says "hey maybe we should try to convince someone to not live a Gay life style because we THINK it is immoral"
is not the same as "let's get rid of anyone who advocates gay rights..."

do you see my point??

I guess your right. Racism is an opinion, but unless anybody acts upon it discriminately it isn't really a matter...

I don't think as far as the law goes you could pick out and punish a racist who has all the hate in the world towards a ceertain group...but in the real world follows this behavior
- hires people of all color
-has friends of all colors
- loves people of all colors

so really I guess I don't see your big point on comparing Racism to me saying.
HEY everyone has their own opinion, since no one can prove anything anyway, why don't we just respect what everyone else has to say about the matter. Now hurting someone or discriminating is something else. And its ridiculous that you try to put Mathew's case on me. Honestly that is very unfair and a low blow! That is fine, this is a touchy subject anyway.

But anyone who says "respect peoples choices" e.i. you
then says "differences of opinion should not be tollerated"
.......is not taking enough time to think about the matter.

oh, and thanks for letting me know that the person who wrote that blog wasn't gay. very relevant!

p.s. anyone reading this should know that I am not agasint gay marriages but it appears so when my remarks are taken out of context. ( I am not a good writer.)
--misunderstood--

Yes. This highly likely hypothetical situation becoming reality was my point exactly. But only a really clever person could have drawn such a conclusion, as I worded it with a super-secret subliminal message. Congratulations.

Hold on a second before you begin with the insults..can't we keep this civilized??

I asked you if hurting your self can only be done in a physical way...
actually said it like " is there only a physiolgical aspect to humans or spiritual and physiological?"

I ask this becuase as crazy as it sounds to you, there actually might be debate about wheater your hypothetical situation with subliminal messages, (lol) is correct.
I mean there is Catholic organizations that physically hurt them selves as sacrafices....haha assuming the bood Da Vinci Code is right, to increase spiritual well being.
And also don't forget about Islam, where certain radicals take there lives to find paradise.
I myself fast becuase I feel it makes me stronger in other way, now if I asked a doc. wheater fasting for a couple days is healthy...well I'm guessing he wouldn't recommend it

I mean it's really not that crazy to some people. But I could see how that sounds really dumb to you becuase I know you have it all figured out....

First off, the writer of that blog is a woman.
Second off, the person who got a lot of slack had said a lot of stuff, on and off that blog, very offensive to homosexuals. Also, he came out very strongly against discrimination, when the perceived victim of it was himself, but supported institutionalized discrimination against another group.

I'd also suggest, in a blog about tolerance of different opinions, that you be a little tolerant yourself.

"So maybe…unless you’re an existentialist, atheist, or just don’t give a crap, etc. etc.
Don’t call anyone out on speaking badly about gay marriage.
That, my people, would be hypocrisy."
I don't see how atheism or existentialism has anything to do with not giving a crap or are ways of life that allow you to be hateful.

"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson

I don't think I was being intolerant...
pleae give me a couple specific examples and I would gladly elaborate..
you have to understand my personality is trying to defend the defenseless. OR in other words the BAD guy. I do tend to play a devil's advocate alot and thats my fault.

As far as the atheist/ existentiaist comment.....well first off I am not very educated on those views but I was making an atttempt to make this point.....get back to me if you follow me or not....
God fearing people usually tend to beleive in a definate right or wrong.
Since there is no manual out there (that every one agrees upon) that specifically states what is wrong or right indefinatley...then every one could equally speculate on what is infact moral or immoral.
Does that make sense at all...like in other words if your going to make your assumptions of what right wrong behavior is, then without being a hypocrite you can't really go to someone else and bash on them for their opinions becuase there is no reference to what is right or wrong. ...maybe constitutional or unconstitutional...or lawful or unlawful but like I said there is no absolutes out there that we will ever all agree upon

p.s. thank you for letting me know that the writier was a woman!!!!! I just skimmed her articles and then the comments. No disrespect intended to her viewpoints but it did give me an idea for a blog...

To be honest, I hardly know where to begin. But, I'll take a stab in the dark and begin with the point that social tolerance and social intolerance are mutually exclusive philosophies. Progressivism as a socio-political philosophy does not include "tolerance" in its core values. Rather, it promotes "social justice," which is a very different thing.

The suggestion in your argument would seem to be that we (as a community) should "tolerate" attitudes that are essentially "intolerant." I find it interesting (and more than a little disturbing) when this topic comes up (as it invariably does) after a virulent anti-gay bigot is taken to task for his or her opinons in the blogs and comments of ProU. It disturbs me because it demonstrates how deeply ingrained the homophobia in our culture really is. If one were to attempt to pursure an argument of this sort in regards to equivalent statements made in support of racial discrimination, or which proclaimed that women were inherently immoral, or which expressed an anti-semitic point-of-view, that argument would be instantly dismissed as ludicrous. But for some reason, a lot of people (including a significant number of otherwise pro-gay supporters) seem to think that even extraordinarly virulent anti-gay slurs and direct calls to actively discriminate against gay and lesbian people is somehow more "tolerable" than similar attacks directed againt other identity groups. If there is a hypocrisy in this discussion, THIS is where it lies.

Take for example the common argument found throughout the ProU blogs comparing homosexuality to murder on a moral/ethical level. Now, really think about that comparison for a moment, and personalize its application. Turn to your significant other, look them in the eye, and tell us that if some yahoo came up to the two of you in the street and compared your love for one another to the crime of murder, it wouldn't upset you. Then, have that same person imply in none-too-subtle terms that you are a secret child molestor, that its your fault that people get diseases like HIV and Cancer, and that you and your family are systematically destroying all civilization as we know it. Now, add to that a rant where this person begins to detail out a plan by which the government should (in their "opinion") use its police power to systematically deny you the most basic rights of citizenship, up to and including seeing you arrested for the "crime" of having sex with your S.O. Finally, multiply that experience by a few hundred repititions, and then come back and tell me if you really think that the appropriate response to this kind of verbal assault is to pat the offending jackass on the head and say, "oh well, it's just an opinion."

The only way to prevent discrimination is to confront it. And, I don't mean that we just need to confront the obvious things (like the fact that gay and lesbian people suffer a significantly higher rate of violence directed against them than any other identity-based demographic). For every Larry King there is a Brandon McInerney, and for every Brandon McInerney there is a parent, a teacher or a priest that taught him that gay people are evil criminals that deserve whatever you do to them. I am sure there are those that will say that I am exaggerating, and I am (a little bit) in order to make a point. There is certainly a difference in believing that homosexuality is "wrong," and in translating that belief into the act of actually murdering someone because you perceive them to be gay, but when someone begins to compare homosexuality and murder as if they were moral equivalents, suddenly that difference seems a lot less queer (please, pardon the pun).

Think about it. If you saw someone about to commit a murder, and you responded with a violent action intended to prevent that crime from happening, would you think you were "wrong?" Most people would probably applaud your decision to act. What if you knew someone was a murderer...absolutely and without question...and for some reason the justice system was unable to bring them to heel? Many people (even most) would probably go so far to say that it would be wrong to take the Law into your own hand, but a LOT of those people would still feel sympathetic to your motivations. Now, consider the argument once again that murder and homosexuality are moral equivalents, and tell me If you don't see how attitudes like these contributed to the murder of Larry King (or Matthew Shepherd, or Brandon Teena, or Harvey Milk, and the list goes on, and on...).

As for the philosophical question of what is "right" and what is "wrong," there is certainly a wide range of standards against which one can measure any give situation or circumstance, and quite obviously not all of those standards are in agreement. However, in the United States of America we have a Constitution that for all practical and legal purposes trumps any other standard that might be offered up for consideration (and yes, it even trumps "the bible," no matter how much that fact might gall the religious right). So, while the philosophical argument over whether or not homosexuality is "right" or "wrong" may be somewhat subjective, the question of whether or not it is lawful to discriminate against gay people most certainly is not.

And finally, I think that many young bloggers make the mistake of not realizing that blogging is an interactive medium. Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinon, but If you decide to blog about that opinion, there is a part-in-parcel assumption inherent to the experience that you may have to defend that opinion in the comments that follow. Sometimes, these exchanges may be generally agreeable. But when you decide to blog about something that is controversial, well...this kind of verbal conflict is kind of the whole point behind the word "controversial," n'est pas?

So, turning back to the question I asked above, i.e. "Should we tolerate intolerance?" I think the answer is "no." People have a right to their opions. And the doctrine of Freedom of Speech ensures that they have a right to express that opinion, if they so desire, without being punished for doing so by the government. But, people do NOT have a right to simply fire off with their opinions into a crowd (such as the members of ProU) and then dance away without having to face the responses that their opinions evoke. It IS possible to have a calm and perfectly rational conversation about these topics, but once the flaming starts, well...things tend to "catch fire" (if you know what I mean).

TTFN,
percivale

P.S. I liked this so much, that I gave it its own blog.

-------------------------

Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.

There is a very VERY big difference between being intolerant of other's opinions and being intolerant of bigotry. I think pretty much everyone can agree that bigotry and racism are very wrong and that they don't have the same "protections" as someone's opinion. Discriminating against homosexuals and supporting the integration of that discrimination into law is definitely bigotry and even worse, it's trying to spread your bigotry to the entire country. That should definitely NOT be tolerated as a sharing of "opinions."
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi

My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com