Is Tolerance Enough?

Post Reply New Topic

I recently watched a documentary about the country music singer Chely Wright. She came out of the closet a few years ago, and since then she has been the recipient of many death threats from homophobic country music fans. She also has not received a single invitation from the country music world.

This is one of my favorite quotes from Chely.

"I hear the word 'tolerance'—that some people are trying to teach people to be tolerant of gays. I'm not satisfied with that word. I am gay, and I am not seeking to be 'tolerated'. One tolerates a toothache, rush-hour traffic, an annoying neighbor with a cluttered yard. I am not a negative to be tolerated."

When it comes to the importance of gay rights, do you agree with her stance on the word "tolerance?"

I must say that I do agree with her. I think tolerance makes people think that you need to be critiqued. I also get thoroughly irritated with "Christians" who say that we should be "tolerant" of homophobes and "understand where they are coming from." I already do understand where they are coming from. They were indoctrinated into believing such ignorant things about the LGBT community and they use their religious beliefs to justify their hatred. What else is there to be "tolerant" of?

As a Christian who struggles with the question of gay rights and is still undecided on it. I would have to concede that I agree with Chely’s quote about tolerance. I consider myself to be tolerant but not in a patience or forbearing way as imply in Chely’s quote but more in an open minded sort of way, always willing to listen and consider the other person’s point of view.

Fear of change and unfamiliar things, a sense of loss and disorientation when long-standing ideologies are questioned, the fact that not everyone thinks and feels alike. Not everyone enjoys liberal societal structures that allow people to do almost whatever they want and flout traditional restrictions on personal behavior. Some people honestly feel more comforted by the predictability and relative simplicity of uniform cultural mores and stricter, more comprehensive behavioral standards, much like someone with AS might prefer structured and predictable types of socialization to the high-speed randomness of stereotypical extroverted neurotypical socializing. Losing the possibility of living in a world that suits them upsets them; some of them lash out verbally in desperation. They struggle and often fail to understand the individualistic personality type that motivates people to go against the grain socioculturally, and ignorantly ascribe negative characteristics to such people, much as more liberal, individualistic people sometimes ignorantly ascribe negative characteristics to them. Some of these people act from an attitude of hatred; but not all.

Why? This is what Jesus has to say about homosexuality:



The whole message about Christianity is to be good to your fellow men and help those in need. There's no "unless they're not normal".

Tolerance also involves "dealing with" something that makes you uncomfortable.

Some folks are uncomfortable with even the possibility that someone else may be on the LGB spectrum. To those people, I say "Deal with it - it's your problem, not theirs!"

In this case, "tolerance" means putting up with one's own ignorance in the face of the Unknown, and the discomfort that is caused by one's own ignorance.

Sorry your quote from Jesus didn’t appear on my end so I can’t address that.

As to the “The whole message about Christianity is to be good to your fellow men and help those in need. There's no "unless they're not normal". I must respectfully disagree as this being the whole message of Christianity but rather only one facet of it. Apart from that I am in agreement with you; I do not think people should be marginalized for being who they are. The struggle I spoke of is that I am still considering both sides of the argument in regards to same sex marriage, and to be perfectly frank I have seen both sides behaving badly towards each other. Normally I wouldn’t even bother with such an argument as there seems to be no clear way of coming to an agreement on it, but I feel compelled to consider it in view of what is at stake.

Yeah, when it comes a to minority rights situation, "tolerance" shouldn't really be the goal. However, some people are never going to move beyond "tolerance", so for those people it's better than nothing.

I hadn't thought that way about the word "tolerance" before, but Chely is right. "Respect" is a much more positive word, and to me implies that although someone doesn't agree with another, or is unable to identify with or understand why they're different - which is, I think, most homophobes' problem with someone being gay - that at least they respect that person as a person, and respect that they have a right to be different.

^ Yes, "Respect" is probably more appropriate than mere tolerance.

But respect beyond a certain point - like trust - must be earned.

This is the same exact thing I say to the supporters of Chic Fil A and all of the other organizations that donate their profit to organizations that make gay and lesbian people feel like they do not deserve respect and compassion. They try to convince me into believing they "love" me but hate what I do. I firmly believe that is the exact same thing as saying they love people of different races, but hate the fact they are different from you.

I guess the best decision any LGBT person can do is avoid people who demand respect but don't give it to them in return. I have many people in my extended family who are Conservative Southern Baptists. Some of them have expressed their "concern" regarding their belief that I may go to hell. They eventually got the message that I do not want anything to do with them.

"Tolerance" seems to imply that LGBT people are a segregated unwanted group of people. I'd rather have respect as some suggested or acceptance, maybe. I think what LGBT people would like to achieve ultimately is to be fully accepted without having to feel "tolerated". That woman doesn't seem to be even tolerated to receive death threats or excluded from the country music people.

When there was a big racial conflict in Australia (QLD or NSW or somewhere) some years ago, someone said the same thing: people shouldn't just tolerate one another, but should live in harmony. I think the idea is the same.

But a large enough facet that it was one of exactly two things Jesus said 'summed up all the Law and the Prophets'.

This cuts both ways. In your OP, you expressed a lack of tolerance for people who disagree with you.

Indeed you are correct.

I agree. Tolerance is a great thing in general (although there are some gaping holes in this tolerance - just look at the amount of anti-smokers there are), but not to the point of tolerating or excusing dangerous, violent intolerance.

I think the country and western scene ought to be absolutely ashamed of themselves for their disgusting, bronze-age bigotry. It might actually be the case though, that while 'the group' is circling the wagons and is strongly anti-gay, many people in that group individually don't share that hatred of homosexuals or homosexuality. Worth a thought.

Perhaps the woman concerned could set up a special LGBT Country and Western Group or something like that? I'd go along to see something like that, particularly if I lived in some ultra-Christian craphouse in the Southern U.S.

That was the point. Jesus said precisely NOTHING about homosexuality. It's completely irrelevant to being a Christian.
Any Christian who thinks Jesus is anti-gay has not read their bible properly.



Well, there's this stuff about an omnipotent being incarnating himself as his own son in human form so he can arrange his own death, then rise from the dead a few days later, all to let humanity off for a crime their ancestors committed which he himself was punishing us for. But that part doesn't make any sense and was probably garbled by all the word of mouth stuff before anyone wrote it down.



I decided long ago that the fairest and simplest solution is not to allow gay marriage but to abolish marriage entirely. The only people that would really lose out are wedding planners and divorce lawyers, and there's no reason why the wedding planners can't adapt.