Quoted from Peewee
"But no, I do not "tolerate" people who are homophobic, any more than I tolerate people who are anti-Semitic or racist or sexist just because that is their point of view and they should be allowed to think what they want. If someone said people with non-white skin are inferior, am I being "intolerant" if I challenge them on it?? Well then, so be it.
People who dislike or disapprove of homosexuals because they think they are immoral or gross are not "tolerant". So don't give me this nonsense that they are innocent and I am being intolerant of them." [end quote]

So, then I would assume you would have a problem with music that glorifies anti-semitism or gay bashing. Right?

So, you do not tolerate anti-semitism or homophobia. You have the right to not tolerate something, to believe what you want, yet those who don't tolerate the glorification of homosexuality are wrong for their intollerance?

What makes you so high and mighty that you can tell people what they should and should not tolerate?

So exactly how, Hudson, does a person ever challenge a viewpoint someone has that seems to be racist or sexist or whatever?

The way you argue this, any time I challenge someone who is, e.g., racist, I am being "intolerant" of them.

If someone posts that black people are bad, exactly what could anyone say in response to that that, by your definition, would not be "intolerant"?????

And if I challenge someone who is racist, am I being "high and mighty"??? Or am I disagreeing with them and trying to engage in a discussion that I hope might illuminate the issues and create more tolerance?

I fail to see how your argument allows any discussion of difficult issues.

quote:

Originally posted by Peewee:
And if I challenge someone who is racist, am I being "high and mighty"??? Or am I disagreeing with them and trying to engage in a discussion that I hope might illuminate the issues and create more tolerance?

Challenging someone through discussion is one thing. But you clearly said you do not tolerate those "homophobic" individuals who view homosexuality as wrong. That's what I reacted to, your lack of tolerance for those who believe differently than you.

Racism, anti-semitism, and sexism are wrong because they condemn people not behaviors. However, most of the individuals I know, that are against homosexuality, aren't against those who participate in the lifestyle, they are against the homosexual behavior itself. Big difference.

It's one thing to condemn a behavior, it's another to condemn a person regardless of their behavior.

Of course, you could make the argument that you were born gay and therefore those that condemn homosexuality do, in fact, condemn the person. But that argument holds absolutely no scentific, conclusive, factual water. Under no circumstance, at any time, has anyone proven that homosexual behavior is due to any genetic predisposition.

But don't you realize that you're doing the exact same thing?
You are condemning him for condemning someone else, just like he is.
Someone has to be wrong for something, otherwise it goes on forever.

quote:

Originally posted by grabblegarrr:
But don't you realize that you're doing the exact same thing?
You are condemning him for condemning someone else, just like he is.
Someone has to be wrong for something, otherwise it goes on forever.

I'm not condemning anyone and at no point in this discussion did I condemn anyone. People are free to believe whatever they want. That's my whole point. Intollerance stems from a person's desire to take that freedom of belief away. I don't like intollerance.

So calling a person out for supposedly acting "high and mighty" isn't condemning them?

To quote you:

quote:

What makes you so high and mighty that you can tell people what they should and should not tolerate

Yes, this is EXACTLY what your doing, you are telling him that he should tolerate intolerance itself.

You have to realize Hudson, people who are intolerant of homosexuals ARE intolerant of them, otherwise, they obviously wouldn't be.

This is why you have to draw a line, otherwise you look like a fool.

Why is it that you think it's ok for someone to be intolerant of homosexuals, but it's not ok for someone to be intolerant of those who are?

And yes, people who are against homosexuality ARE against those who participate in the lifestyle. That is why so many of them will be or have been condemned for being Homosexual.

quote:

Originally posted by grabblegarrr:
And yes, people who are against homosexuality ARE against those who participate in the lifestyle.

Whatever you say buddy. I'll just sit back and watch you make absolute and completely unsubstantiated remarks. Obviously you're not interested in intelligent discussion because you do nothing to support your absolute claims, like the above quote. Care to back that one up?

Hudson may indeed have a point that if you're preaching tolerance then you should practice it yourself. Homophobia may be wrong, but someone who advocates tolerance and the flourishing of diversity (sexual or whatever) and then claims that he doesn't "tolerate" homophobic people may be doing things inconsistently. I hope nobody gets offended here, I'm just trying to stay objective. Just to make my point, I do not believe that any kind of prejudice/intolerance/bigotry is right. But that's just me.

quote:

Originally posted by hudson:

Racism, anti-semitism, and sexism are wrong because they condemn people not behaviors. However, most of the individuals I know, that are against homosexuality, aren't against those who participate in the lifestyle, they are against the homosexual behavior itself. Big difference.

It's one thing to condemn a behavior, it's another to condemn a person regardless of their behavior.

You may be condemning only the sexual activity, but the activity is inevitably continuous with sexual identity. When you condemn an activity, you are consequently condemning the person engaged in the activity. It's like condemning a person for murder. You can go round and round saying it's the act you have an aversion to, but you know you are ultimately condemning the person himself.

We had a curious lecture in psychology class back in first year university about the origins of homosexuality. There wasn't any solid, conclusive statement as to whether it was "born that way" vs. environment kinda thing, but I can almost tell that the textbook we were using (or maybe even the prof giving the lecture), was pushing the envelope that it is biologically based (it gave examples such as that homosexuality existed in higher forms of mammals, e.g., primates, dolphins, etc.)

This should be incredibly obvious, I should not have to back it up, but I will if you really need me to.

Here.

And the whole don't ask don't tell thing in the military? Just possibly a result of all the harassment they receive if someone does find out.
Just a stub, but Here

Here

I'm done with that, because everyone (hopefully) knows that Homosexuals have faced persecution for a long time, I shouldn't have to verify that.

Or, I could say that most of the individuals that I know who are against homosexuality are against those who are in that lifestyle, not just their behavior, and I wouldn't have to support that now would I?

I guess you can play semantics here. I suppose you can say that even those people who are harassing homosexuals are doing so for their behavior and are not actually harassing the people themselves, but harassment is harassment, no matter what they are technically harrasing. If you think otherwise, there is obviously is a bigger problem here.

quote:

Originally posted by hudson:

quote:

Originally posted by grabblegarrr:
And yes, people who are against homosexuality ARE against those who participate in the lifestyle.

Whatever you say buddy. I'll just sit back and watch you make absolute and completely unsubstantiated remarks. Obviously you're not interested in intelligent discussion because you do nothing to support your absolute claims, like the above quote. Care to back that one up?

Grabblegarr was responding to YOUR argument that people who condemn homosexuality are condemning the behaviour, not the person. How was his statement sweeping and unsubstantiated and yours was not?

But it is a comfort to know that when I was gay-bashed when I was walking down the street in a gay neighbourhood of Toronto, the assailants were just attacking my "behaviour" and not me. I know how passionately people feel about the "behaviour" of walking. I should be more tolerant of their views about my inappropriate walking behaviour. By the way, my "behaviour" needed seven stitches and still bears a scar.

quote:

Originally posted by grabblegarrr:
This should be incredibly obvious, I should not have to back it up, but I will if you really need me to.

Here.

And the whole don't ask don't tell thing in the military? Just possibly a result of all the harassment they receive if someone does find out.
Just a stub, but Here

Here

I'm done with that, because everyone (hopefully) knows that Homosexuals have faced persecution for a long time, I shouldn't have to verify that.

Or, I could say that most of the individuals that I know who are against homosexuality are against those who are in that lifestyle, not just their behavior, and I wouldn't have to support that now would I?

I guess you can play semantics here. I suppose you can say that even those people who are harassing homosexuals are doing so for their behavior and are not actually harassing the people themselves, but harassment is harassment, no matter what they are technically harrasing. If you think otherwise, there is obviously is a bigger problem here.

Well, first off, the articles you displayed do nothing to prove your point that all those that believe homosexuality is wrong in fact condemn the people who practice homosexuality.

You made a sweeping generalization about all people who think homosexuality is wrong. And your generalization was wrong. The fact of the matter is, most people who condemn homosexuality do not comdemn those who practice it.

The reason I say that is, in America, for instance, Christians, according to the bible and their own personal beliefs, hold homosexuality to be a sin, wrong. However, Christians also believe that sin does not condemn a person since Jesus died for all of the sins of mankind. In addition, the bible states that all of mankind has sinned.

The bible does not condemn any human being rather it condemns certain sinful behavior, among those, homosexuality.

Finally, I am 100% against harrassment, and i've given no indication otherwise. My point was that every person is free to believe and think as they wish and no one has the right to tell anyone what to think or believe. I will stand up for anyone who is harrassed for their beliefs or ideas.

quote:

Hudson may indeed have a point that if you're preaching tolerance then you should practice it yourself. Homophobia may be wrong, but someone who advocates tolerance and the flourishing of diversity (sexual or whatever) and then claims that he doesn't "tolerate" homophobic people may be doing things inconsistently. I hope nobody gets offended here, I'm just trying to stay objective. Just to make my point, I do not believe that any kind of prejudice/intolerance/bigotry is right. But that's just me.

The problem with this, though, is that Hudson himself is condemning PeeWee. If you are being intolerant of those who are intolerant of intolerance, which goes against what you are trying to do in the first place. It goes on forever and ever really, that is why there needs to be a line SOMEWHERE.

quote:

Originally posted by grabblegarrr:
The problem with this, though, is that Hudson himself is condemning PeeWee.

Listen pal, enough with the false accusations. Either show me where I condemned Peewee, or shut up about it.

I wasn't saying that all of the homophobics hate the people who practice the homosexual lifestyle, I wasn't responded to YOUR generalization that they weren't. Maybe I should have said some in front of it to make it more clear, but still I was just responding to your generalization, not making one.

Edit, Hudson, see the first sentence of my second post on this page where I addressed this briefly.

quote:

Originally posted by grabblegarrr:
I wasn't saying that all of the homophobics hate the people who practice the homosexual lifestyle, I wasn't responded to YOUR generalization that they weren't. Maybe I should have said some in front of it to make it more clear, but still I was just responding to your generalization, not making one.

Edit, Hudson, see the first sentence of my second post on this page where I addressed this briefly.

Honestly, you lost me. Maybe we should slow this down a bit. It sounds like most of your responses are generated from emotion, which is ok, it just makes it difficult to discuss the issue objectively.

It has nothing to do with emotion, what I said makes sense. Funny, Peewee said the exact same thing as I did.

quote:

Grabblegarr was responding to YOUR argument that people who condemn homosexuality are condemning the behaviour, not the person. How was his statement sweeping and unsubstantiated and yours was not?

This a response to what you said earlier

quote:

Racism, anti-semitism, and sexism are wrong because they condemn people not behaviors. However, most of the individuals I know, that are against homosexuality, aren't against those who participate in the lifestyle, they are against the homosexual behavior itself. Big difference.

It's one thing to condemn a behavior, it's another to condemn a person regardless of their behavior

You made the generalization (or at least gave the impression of it) that people who are homophobic do not hate the people who are, just their behavior. My response was not saying that all people who are homophobic act on that belief, it was saying that some are, which I should have probably made more clear.

quote:

Originally posted by grabblegarrr:

quote:

Racism, anti-semitism, and sexism are wrong because they condemn people not behaviors. However, most of the individuals I know, that are against homosexuality, aren't against those who participate in the lifestyle, they are against the homosexual behavior itself. Big difference.

You made the generalization (or at least gave the impression of it) that people who are homophobic do not hate the people who are, just their behavior. My response was not saying that all people who are homophobic act on that belief, it was saying that some are, which I should have probably made more clear.

No where, in any of my comments was an unsubstantiated generalization made. Read what I said again. I used the words "most" and "the people I know". That's not a generalization, that's me talking about the people I know.

An unsubstantiated generalization is what you did, not me. Quit trying to drag me down simply because you've found yourself in a hole. Shall we continue in a rational manner now?

To make myself clear, I said you at least made the impression of it. This is why Peewee and I both felt the same way. I am not trying to drag you down at all.
I also then said, I probably should have said some people, because that is truly what I meant. You can tell me that's a cop out if you'd like, but it was really just a mistake.

quote:

Originally posted by hudson:

quote:

Originally posted by grabblegarrr:
This should be incredibly obvious, I should not have to back it up, but I will if you really need me to.

Here.

And the whole don't ask don't tell thing in the military? Just possibly a result of all the harassment they receive if someone does find out.
Just a stub, but Here

Here

I'm done with that, because everyone (hopefully) knows that Homosexuals have faced persecution for a long time, I shouldn't have to verify that.

Or, I could say that most of the individuals that I know who are against homosexuality are against those who are in that lifestyle, not just their behavior, and I wouldn't have to support that now would I?

I guess you can play semantics here. I suppose you can say that even those people who are harassing homosexuals are doing so for their behavior and are not actually harassing the people themselves, but harassment is harassment, no matter what they are technically harrasing. If you think otherwise, there is obviously is a bigger problem here.

Well, first off, the articles you displayed do nothing to prove your point that all those that believe homosexuality is wrong in fact condemn the people who practice homosexuality.

You made a sweeping generalization about all people who think homosexuality is wrong. And your generalization was wrong. The fact of the matter is, most people who condemn homosexuality do not comdemn those who practice it.

The reason I say that is, in America, for instance, Christians, according to the bible and their own personal beliefs, hold homosexuality to be a sin, wrong. However, Christians also believe that sin does not condemn a person since Jesus died for all of the sins of mankind. In addition, the bible states that all of mankind has sinned.

The bible does not condemn any human being rather it condemns certain sinful behavior, among those, homosexuality.

Finally, I am 100% against harrassment, and i've given no indication otherwise. My point was that every person is free to believe and think as they wish and no one has the right to tell anyone what to think or believe. I will stand up for anyone who is harrassed for their beliefs or ideas.

Hudson --
1. Oh come on, you're not that alive are you!!!??? The claim of the Christian right that they do not condemn homosexuals, but homosexual acts, is just a dishonest way of framing their hatred of gay people. You actually buy that???!!!

What other views of the Christian right do you accept on their face without question??? I have to say I thought you might be just a wee bit more skeptical about their claims and think a little more deeply about their motives.

2. Second, you make the sweeping statement that in America most people who disapprove of homosexuality do not condemn the person but the act. Qualifying your statement by saying
"most" doesn't mean it is not a generalization. A generalization is not a statement of definitive fact that is true in every case, it is a statement about the GENERAL tendency of something to be true. To say that MOST people think a certain way is just as much a generalization as anything anyone else said.

3. Finally, you argument that we should "tolerate" homophobia because, after all, it is just the view of people about a moral issue, we all disagree about moral issues, and there is no proof homosexuality is biologically based.

This is a totally bogus argument.

If someone made an anti-Semitic statement, would you say no one should challenge them, we should all "tolerate" it? Of course not. Yet religion is absolutely a cultural and learned behaviour and obviously has no biological origin.

Of course people should be "allowed" to say what they want. No one is questioning that. But if "tolerating" such a statement means not even challenging it, and just letting an anti-Semitic comment pass without a response (after all, it's just an opinion on someone's "behaviour" and not about an innate characteristic that people cannot change!), then I have to disagree.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Peewee,

quote:

Originally posted by grabblegarrr:
You can tell me that's a cop out if you'd like, but it was really just a mistake.

Naw, it's all good.

Peace.