Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Tolerance"

Revision as of 00:08, January 5, 2010

Intro

I have seen a real burst of anti-gay rhetoric here lately. I think the problem is this: fundamentalist Christians oppose homosexuality, and editors on this site read that as license to oppose homosexuals. A basic dictum of tolerance, and life in civil society, is that when you disagree with someone, and even when you disagree with someone as to a basic aspect of their personality, you do not make it personal, or reach for reasons to criticize them. You live & let live, even if you think they're wrong.

Gay rights activists, like me, don't want to mess with Christianity, or private Christian teachings, or private Christian beliefs. We just hope that homosexuals can be accepted into civil society as equals. That's all. The goal is not to teach that homosexuality is right, but rather that it deserves acceptance, and not to be sidelined & insulted at every turn. That's it. Can we agree on these ground rules?-AmesG_yo! 16:40, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Responses #1

I agree. Man, you're smart. Flippin 16:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Wasnt it you who put on RSchlafly's page the question "why do you hate gays"? sounds like you are disagreeing with someone, making it personal, and criticizing him with baseless accusations, does it not?Bohdan

Tolerance does not imply tolerance of intolerance.-AmesG_yo! 16:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Homophobia, fear simply breeds hate. What is so tricky about that? Flippin 16:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I believe that Ames has put his finger on a couple of good points. However, we need to understand why many (most?) Christians feel that they cannot "accept" homosexuality. --Ed Poor 16:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed's got the main objection nailed. But "acceptance" of homosexuality isn't at issue. Gay rights activists don't want you to think that being gay is "good," just that it's not "bad" enough to merit civil condemnation.-AmesG_yo! 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, I've never quite understood how someone else's choice to live their life a certain way should offend you. As long as it doesn't directly impact you, what's it matter? Jrssr5 17:18, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Have you forgotten what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah? By accepting homosexuals in society we are essentially saying that it is okay to be gay and that it is not wrong to be gay. And if something is not wrong then people will start assuming that it is good to be gay. This is the same reason why the US hasn't legalized pot because people will start accepting it as the norm in society and more people will start doing this bad behavior. --AdrianP 19:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

May I suggest a reading of Ezekiel 16:49-50? Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it. (RSV) Before you go pointing to the abominable things, the Hebrew word is "tow`ebah" which has two meanings: a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages), and in ethical sense (of wickedness etc). --Mtur 20:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Evil deserves no acceptance whatsoever, just like errors in your math homework deserve no acceptance. You can't invent your own way to do math: 2 + 2 = 4 and there's no way around that. If you say the answer is 5, I'm going to mark you wrong. --Ed Poor 20:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Glad to hear it. Could you correct item #7 on Examples of Bias in Wikipedia when you have an available moment, please? --AKjeldsen 20:28, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Morality is a much less precise body of knowledge than math. Even translating texts a few thousand years old is more precise than morality. Go to the seminary and poll all the priests, ministers and rabbis there and you will likely get almost as many answers as individuals. Claiming that something is evil based on an old story without actually looking at what the words are and accepting the interpretation that most agrees with your view does not mean that everyone reads it the same way. My reading of the Sodom and Gomorrha story is one of the cities refused to provide hospitality when there were plentiful resources to do so. If you want to read that as being evil, go ahead. --Mtur 20:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

And before people point me to Jude 1:7, Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (KJV), the passage giving themselves over to fornication is the Greek ekporneuo which is derived from porneuo which has an obvious root that we recognize in today's English. Strange flesh is heteros sarx which has a wide range of possible meanings - including "eating unclean meat." --Mtur 20:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

See Exegetics and Hermaneutics. --Ed Poor 20:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I tried. "You've followed a link to a page that doesn't exist yet." I presume they are simple enough to add and explain so I can follow this conversation? Exegesis seems familiar, but I think I am confusing hermaneutics with carefully sealing out air. Human 21:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Need Help with Hateful Articles

I don't have the time to correct these all, but any enterprising editor willing to tackle the prejudiced statements in the current versions of homophobia, homosexuality, and reparative therapy would have my eternal gratitude.-AmesG_yo! 17:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)