This is something that really bugs me. I hear all the time that Christians are intolerant. I hear it on the news. I hear it in politics. I see it in papers. I believe that the "intolerant" is being confused for the word "unaccepting". I would love to hear others opinions on this. I believe that Christians as a whole are quite tolerant of the society we live in. I, as a Christian, have no desire to stop people from being Homosexual. I can tolerate homosexuality, however I can not accept homosexuality as defined by our society. To accept is to react favorably to or to consider right and proper. I do not react favorably to homosexuality. To tolerate is to show respect for the rights and the opinions or practices of others. I show respect for homosexuals rights and opinions, even if I do not agree with them. Please understand that homosexuality is just the buzz word. The argument could be applied to many other social issues. What do you think?
Christians are tolerant, accepting, intolerant and unaccepting, all in varying degrees depending on where you go and who you ask. There are some rabid Christian homophobes who think gay people are out to conquer the world with redecorating and fashion shows, and Christians who really couldn't care less and think it's a dandy idea.
No one is asking you to agree with everything that is "buzzing" around, instead i think the issue is the real die hard bible thumpers who damn anyone who does not agree completely with them. They are resistant to change, which is perfectly normal, but rather shunned in our society. I am not targetting Christians here specifically, any group, religious or secular that has strong opinions or ideas is guilty of intolerance in some way shape or form. Christians are targetted by the media because the of the huge size and political influence of the group. But as d33pthought said it is really an individual not a group issue. Just that many Christians claim the word of god and therefore the backing of all good christians on their INDIVIDUAL opinions or position. Just my thoughts, later
So true... the individual is the one who either 'tolerates' or 'accepts'. Based on this definition here, there shouldn't be much of a ruccous over gay marriage. I mean if people were tolerant, then what someone else does shouldn't bother them (ie if something doesn't directly affect someone they don't have to be bothered by it). By accepting it, the person is saying that they approve it and even possibly support it. I personally accept someone's choice to be homosexual. I am also tolerant of someone's choice to be homosexual. I would never ask anyone to accept someone else's beliefs. I would, however, ask someone to be tolerant of another's beliefs. I understand you're not trying to turn this into a debate about religion vs homosexuality, but it was a perfect example to use in the comparison of tolerance vs acceptance.
if what someone else is doing doesn't harm others and it doesn't physically impinge on you, why worry? it is the fact that people feel the need to tell the world their opinions and expect the world to care that does my head in at times. why should i care if someone is tolerated or accepted? if they are being attacked or victimised, then that is different, but would any of you sleep better at night knowing i accept people with blond hair but only tolerate people with green eyes. I can't accept the green eyed people you see, they all seem shifty to me, but those blond haired people, they have it bad and need us to collectively show them they are accepted by us all...otherwise they just feel marginalised. (i'm not having a pop at the originator of the thread, just in case the post reads that way)
Interesting question. Ignoring pedanticness (I think Christians in general tolerate homosexuality but don't accept it. Obviously, some accept it, some won't even tolerate it, but in general... right? ) I'll answer the question. I think that you're right. I mean, the least that anyone can do is tolerate something that doesn't cause direct harm to them. Like some of my friends smoke. I tolerate it but I don't think I'll ever accept it. I think that everyone should have the right to tolerance, but no one should demand acceptance because that's choosing people's opinions for you. And people do seem to be mixing the two up. Just because things ARE gaining acceptance in some areas, that doesn't mean that everyone should HAVE to accept them. Going back to homosexuality, I think I accept it, but I also accept that my grandad merely tolerates it rather than accepts it. I tolerate slight homophobia and racism (by slight, I mean in actions that COULD offend someone, but only if they're very sensitive to it) but I'd never accept it. But I could accept racist jokes between a group of mixed race friends because there'd be no actual racism there... if you know what I mean. Complex, isn't it!
Interesting, I agree and think that there shouldn’t be much of a ruckus over gay marriage either. I think that gays should tolerate and accept that marriage was created by and for heterosexual people. I think that they are so intolerant of the institution that they are actively trying to dismantle it and make a mockery of it. In my opinion it is showing lack of acceptance on their part. If gays want to create an institution that includes their lifestyle I would have no problem with it. They should not however dictate to us what our practices should and should not include. MaybetheycancallitsodamiageMartialartsnobout!
Thanx for the feedback everybody. It is a very interesting topic to me. What does everyone think about "acceptance" vs. "tolerance" of abortion? I tolerate it because I can not force people to have their babies. But I will never accept it. Now, as far as making it illeagal...ofcourse I would be for making abortion illeagal in most cases, because I believe it to be murder. However my view would most likely be portrayed as intolerant. It should be viewed as unaccepting. I don't know maybe I am arguing the definition of "it" here.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, "As a former fetus, I do not support abortion". I had to laugh. This is a really tough issue. I think that it is obvious that in some cases abortion should be allowed. I don't like the idea of people using it as a form of birth control to be used over and over again. That is just sick. I tried to talk to my insurance company about a billing dispute concerning my son and I was told that I needed a signed waiver from him allowing me to talk to them about procedures he received. If you add to this that my daughter could get an abortion without my consent, you have a nightmare scenario for many parents. My daughter could do this (she wouldn't) and the only part I could be involved with is paying the bill, in fact I would HAVE TO. This is just wrong! SosickofPCDr.SpockliberalpoliticsMartialartsnobout!
I totally agree! Hence the reason I can not accept abortion as legal. When it starts affecting me and mine so to speak, we have a problem.
Good start, shame it went a bit downhill after this.... That comment is just ridiculous! Homosexuals aren't trying to get married, they're trying to get equal rights to those of heterosexuals to form a legal partnership with the person they love. In my view, banning people from getting married is actually against "making a mockery of the institution of marriage". I'm an atheist, so I put no religious significance on marriage. I feel that a gay couple should have the same right as me to form a union with someone they love. That's tolerance and acceptance, your comments above showed neither. They ARE trying to create an institution that includes their lifestyles! Since the church seems opposed to marrying them, they want to be able to form non-religions civil unions. However, many religious people I've spoken to also seem to be against that! You should listen to your own advice: "They should not however dictate to us what our practices should and should not include" rather than making comments which essentially amount to "be straight or don't form a legal union", which really isn't very tolerant of other lifestyles.
I was walking down the street yesterday, headphones in, boppin away to Linkin Park album......minding my own business, when something caught my eye, I looked into the shop window and what I saw made me stop dead still in the middle of the footpath and be sick. When I stopped IO looked up and started to cry. The shop was an anti abortion charity shop, fair enough you say. But they had A3 posters in the window of many freshly aborted feotus......some in such a sick state my stomach churns at the mere thought of it. That I disagree with, and will be writing a letter to the police Sergeant of the town to get it removed. These pics were open for everyone to see....kids and all! Abortion as a cosmetic operation is wrong......put the kid up for adoption. Abortion in the instance of rape is a different matter, and it will be administered quicker. Some of those pictures were of fully formed babies. Hands, fingers, toes, noses......thats sick!
I think that's a perfect synopsis (sp?). It would be intollerant, though. But the question is, would the intollerance be justified? I know that I wouldn't tollerate murder. I don't quite believe abortion to be murder... not quite. I don't quite equate "potential human" to "human". And I feel that a great deal of the "badness" of death it how it affects the people who knew the "die-ee". Lastly, abortion reflects the feelings of the mother towards that child. If the mother can't abort an unwanted child then the chances of her looking after it properly... I think it HAS to be the mother's choice, for better or for worse. Unless there is another way for that baby to be completely taken off her hands. I can accept a few types of abortion, like where the mother's health is in jeopardy... but ultimately I just tolerate it.
You came across as against it. If I've read too much into what you said, I apologise. Instead treat my response as an open comment to those who would deny homosexual couples the chance to be legally joined.
Just for everyones info, I think civil unions for homosexuals is fine. I do not agree with the constitution being bastardized for the gay lobby. Marriage is and should remain defined as the union between a man and a women. JMO. As far as those pics you saw silatpupil, those are probably only three month old fetus'. I don't agree with the delivery of the message but I think we do women a diservice if they are unaware of what they are aborting.
Sorry, didn't intend that. People are free to be with anyone that they wish, provided that they are consenting adults. A civil union is not the same thing as Marriage and the two should not be confused. If the issue is the legal and financial benefits from being married, are what is sought then provisions for gay couples (who have children) should be make to create equality. If the issue is that they want to be seen as the same (under god) as a heterosexual couple is, then I disagree. Marriage is a legal contract yes, but it is also a sacred bond that by definition is exclusive to heterosexuals. I can't really see a way around that. Snob
Then they should show them to the prospective abortion patient......not every Tom, Joe and Harry on the street! Its disturbing seeing that when you have kids yourself.
