'Homosexuality is unnatural'

xara · Post by **xara** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:12 am

So I was reading the goings on between Piers Morgan and Kirk Cameron and Cameron claimed Homosexuality to be unnatural.

Now Cameron is an Evangelical Christian so his views on this are not surprising and by asking him about it, it looks like Mr. Morgan was stoking the fire.

My question is. Should we be tolerant of intolerance? Or is tolerance a one way street?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:27 am

As the intolerant have no choice but to witness and live with homosexuality, so does the tolerant have no choice other than live with the intolerant. The good news from where I'm standing is that one is negotiable.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:03 am

Tolerant of the intolerant but not of the harm that they cause.

The intolerant are locked into a fixed mindset and find it impossible to accept change - that is their loss.

Where, however, they try to force their intolerance on others and change life to fit their worldview then that is our loss and not to be accepted.

Does that lack of acceptance make us intolerant? No, I don't think so - people have a right to live their lives as they wish unless it harms others or restricts the ability of others to do likewise. If you accept that rule then life is always a trade off to come to a point of least restriction on individual action with the least harm to others.

So, a person can be as intolerant as they like in their beliefs and I will tolerate it - if they try to force those beliefs on me, I will not.

xara · Post by **xara** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:15 am

Bryn Mawr;1389851 wrote:

Where, however, they try to force their intolerance on others and change life to fit their worldview then that is our loss and not to be accepted.

So, a person can be as intolerant as they like in their beliefs and I will tolerate it - if they try to force those beliefs on me, I will not.

But the tolerant also try to force their beliefs on people, do they not?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:19 am

xara;1389843 wrote:

My question is. Should we be tolerant of intolerance? Or is tolerance a one way street?

Don't you do simple ?

I agree with Bryn

xara · Post by **xara** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:50 am

Bruv;1389855 wrote: Don't you do simple ?

Don't I do simple, what?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:17 am

xara;1389854 wrote: But the tolerant also try to force their beliefs on people, do they not?

No, be definition the tolerant tolerate other peoples' views.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:18 am

xara;1389862 wrote: Don't I do simple, what?

Don't you ask any simple questions?

Certainly that's how I'd read it.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:38 am

xara;1389862 wrote: Don't I do simple, what?

Bryn got it.

First question, what is Englishness ?

Next question, if the tolerant tolerate the intolerant, are the tolerant being too tolerant, and if the intolerant will not tolerate the tolerant, should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant ?

Throw in some homophobia......and you have another thread marathon.

Now you should be offended and say something like "Shouldn't I ask questions then?"

And I say "Of course you should......how would you learn otherwise ?"

That is the punchline to a joke......some may recognise.

Am I rambling ?

xara · Post by **xara** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:57 am

Bruv;1389895 wrote: Bryn got it.

I thought that's what it was. Wanted to make sure.

What would you prefer I ask?

xara · Post by **xara** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:03 am

Bryn Mawr;1389869 wrote: No, be definition the tolerant tolerate other peoples' views.

Surely you can't believe that.

The so called 'tolerant' are always pushing their beliefs on people.

Are you honestly telling me a person in this day and age could say something like 'being gay is wrong' and people would be fine with it, tolerate it, accept it, go about their business?

Because I'm pretty sure their would be yells of 'Homophobic' and 'Bigot' doing the rounds.

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:09 am

xara;1389904 wrote: Surely you can't believe that.

The so called 'tolerant' are always pushing their beliefs on people.

Are you honestly telling me a person in this day and age could say something like 'being gay is wrong' and people would be fine with it, tolerate it, accept it, go about their business?

Because I'm pretty sure their would be yells of 'Homophobic' and 'Bigot' doing the rounds.

Maybe the "so called tolerant" push their views on people but tolerant people do not. If they did they would not be tolerant

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:21 am

xara;1389901 wrote: I thought that's what it was. Wanted to make sure.

What would you prefer I ask?

See........I have offended you.

Don't worry about me......you just carry on.

The punchline was to a joke about a father answering his child's unanswerable questions.

"How high is the sky Daddy ?"

"Why is the sky blue Daddy ?"

"Where does the wind come from Daddy ?"

No you keep on asking......or else you will never learn.

I am being embarrassingly English by deflecting the interesting and uncomfortable questions into a humorous reply.......I am rambling now and I know it.

xara · Post by **xara** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:24 am

theia;1389907 wrote: Maybe the "so called tolerant" push their views on people but tolerant people do not. If they did they would not be tolerant

In that case I would say in the sense of.. can anyone be truly altruistic..can someone be truly tolerant of all things and all people? Are we all guilty of being intolerant to something and does that make us hypocritical in regards to not tolerating others intolerance?

xara · Post by **xara** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:27 am

Bruv;1389910 wrote: See........I have offended you.

I'm not that easily offended

And I did think of an easy question for you....

Which side should I margarine my toast on?

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:45 am

xara;1389912 wrote: In that case I would say in the sense of.. can anyone be truly altruistic..can someone be truly tolerant of all things and all people? Are we all guilty of being intolerant to something and does that make us hypocritical in regards to not tolerating others intolerance?

I would imagine that one could only be truly tolerant in the absence of a self...like altruism, which I believe could only be present when the self isn't.

I don't think we are guilty or hypocritical for being intolerant, it's just being human.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:48 am

xara;1389913 wrote: I'm not that easily offended

And I did think of an easy question for you....

Which side should I margarine my toast on?

Don't put margarine anywhere near toast, thickly spread with butter and bin the margarine

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:00 pm

theia;1389907 wrote: Maybe the "so called tolerant" push their views on people but tolerant people do not. If they did they would not be tolerant

Thank you, the definition in a nutshell

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:05 pm

xara;1389912 wrote: In that case I would say in the sense of.. can anyone be truly altruistic..can someone be truly tolerant of all things and all people? Are we all guilty of being intolerant to something and does that make us hypocritical in regards to not tolerating others intolerance?

There are degrees in all things, some cannot tolerate any divergence from their fixed views, others change their views depending on who's talking - most will only raise an objection if they see harm resulting from what is being said.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:06 pm

xara;1389913 wrote: I'm not that easily offended

And I did think of an easy question for you....

Which side should I margarine my toast on?

A very easy question - neither.

Revolting stuff margarine

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:46 pm

It's funny... I know some people that are deemed pretty obnoxious... One example... I have the dubious pleasure of coming Into contact with Nick Griffin here and there although I am no longer a member of his party ( all to do with unified Nationalist Parties sharing a common objective ) Anyway....... You would expect him and the people he surrounds himself with to be the Intolerant pushing their views onto others. However, I can honestly say that Nick nor any of his people have tried to sway me Into anything. Also I have never seen them try to sway others. ( Alright there was that night In Swindon Nick pissed me off with his view on Foxes and tried to get me to see his point of view but that was It ). The person I now answer to ( Jim Dowsen ) has to be one of the most gentlemanly chaps I've ever encountered.

My point Is this.... they are the very people that are deemed Intolerant yet I met more Intolerance and bias In my old days In the Labour Party.

Sometimes, Intolerance Is only In the eye of the one's who deem themselves the tolerant. Yet, often, they are not because they are the very one's who dismiss theose deemed Intolerant.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:44 pm

Which side should I margarine my toast on?
For a complete history of this conflict, please consult The Butter Battle Book by Dr. Seuss.

xara · Post by **xara** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:50 pm

I have never read a Dr. Seuss book.

But how do you know which side is up?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:05 pm

xara;1390009 wrote: I have never read a Dr. Seuss book.

But how do you know which side is up?
Having never read Dr. Seuss is your loss my dear. OK, I won't repeat this twice: Toss the bread in the air so it lands on a plate or other clean surface. The up side (the one facing you) will become the buttered side. However, there is an exception: If it is for a sandwich, then the buttered side becomes the down side. Good luck!

xara · Post by **xara** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:20 pm

AnneBoleyn;1390023 wrote: Having never read Dr. Seuss is your loss my dear. OK, I won't repeat this twice: Toss the bread in the air so it lands on a plate or other clean surface. The up side (the one facing you) will become the buttered side. However, there is an exception: If it is for a sandwich, then the buttered side becomes the down side. Good luck!

Sounds like an awful lot of work. Why can't they package them with 'up' written on it.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:23 pm

xara;1390038 wrote: Sounds like an awful lot of work. Why can't they package them with 'up' written on it.
Now, now don't be lazy. If your suggestion is taken it will raise the price & we will all blame you. Pitch in, do it for the people.

xara · Post by **xara** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:29 pm

AnneBoleyn;1390041 wrote: Now, now don't be lazy. If your suggestion is taken it will raise the price & we will all blame you. Pitch in, do it for the people.

But bread falls butter side down, doesn't that mean it's no longer up? :-2

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:31 pm

xara;1390047 wrote: But bread falls butter side down, doesn't that mean it's no longer up? :-2
For goodness sake, must I do everything for you? The answer is obvious. If it were a snake you would be bitten.

DON'T DROP THE BREAD!

xara · Post by **xara** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:34 pm

AnneBoleyn;1390048 wrote: For goodness sake, must I do everything for you? The answer is obvious. If it were a snake you would be bitten.

DON'T DROP THE BREAD!

I'm not going to drop it. I'm saying in theory once buttered it would be considered down and no longer considered up.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:38 pm

xara;1390051 wrote: I'm not going to drop it. I'm saying in theory once buttered it would be considered down and no longer considered up.
Wow. If you are using it for sandwiches, yes, it is considered down. Otherwise, it is up. I cannot discuss this with you further, you are being deliberately obtuse. I don't suffer fools gladly, so this comment perhaps should be transferred to your other thread, Should we tolerate the intolerable.

xara · Post by **xara** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:41 pm

...:-1

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:43 pm

My, my, wasn't paying attention. This is that thread. Oops. Sorry.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:45 pm

xara, don't cry. I made a mistake too, see above. We're just human after all. No dope, no hope, that sort of thing. Cheer up, pip pip and all that sort of rot. I'm all right so F-U Jack! Chin up, none of that now!

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:05 pm

But it can be rectified by Raja Yoga.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:04 am

After reading this thread I have deduced that, If you're homosexual you butter your bread on the bottom and if your straight you toss your bread into the air and if it lands on the bottom then you butter your bread on top, unless of course it's for a sandwich.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:42 am

If you consider a person who tolerates some things but not others, does the word "tolerant" or "intolerant" apply to him? In a tolerant society he'd abnormally stand out as intolerant, in an intolerant society he'd abnormally stand out as tolerant.

So - "Should we be tolerant of intolerance? Or is tolerance a one way street?", it depends on what sort of society you want to construct. If you want to live in an intolerant society then you can afford to be intolerant of intolerance. If you want to live in a tolerant society your only legitimate position regarding intolerance is to tolerate it, quite likely by mocking those who descend to such depths of inadequacy. The one thing intolerance can't survive is being laughed at by the majority.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:43 am

Well I never......all those words and I agree.

You do have your uses.

xara · Post by **xara** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:25 pm

Bryn Mawr;1389930 wrote: most will only raise an objection if they see harm resulting from what is being said.

Not if what is being said is being said by a person in authority or someone who a person perceives to be in authority.

xara · Post by **xara** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:45 pm

spot;1390123 wrote:

If you want to live in a tolerant society your only legitimate position regarding intolerance is to tolerate it, quite likely by mocking those who descend to such depths of inadequacy. The one thing intolerance can't survive is being laughed at by the majority.

But people want to live in a tolerant society and they don't want to tolerate the intolerant - they want something done about it. For example, you might say England is a tolerant society. And you have a group of intolerant loonies who are spreading their hate, like 'Al-Muhajiroun', people want them to be arrested/banned from spreading their hate or they take it upon themselves to protest against such groups/create or join a counter group.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:00 pm

Individuals want many things and quite often there's a contradiction between some of the things wanted. They face a dichotomy which they have to resolve as best they can. There's a tension between liberty and the view of the majority. I could, it it would help, post a paragraph from John Stuart Mill, unless you feel it would be presumptuous.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:07 pm

Here we are, found it. The whole Introduction is relevant to the thread. The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

I. Introductory. Mill, John Stuart. 1869. On Liberty

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:20 pm

xara;1390198 wrote: Not if what is being said is being said by a person in authority or someone who a person perceives to be in authority.

When comments like that are being made by those in authority harm is being done, if only to the perception of what is right and proper. Such people are, by default, leaders of opinion and have been set up as role models.

xara · Post by **xara** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:46 pm

spot;1390205 wrote: Here we are, found it. The whole Introduction is relevant to the thread. The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

I. Introductory. Mill, John Stuart. 1869. On Liberty

So what about things that don't cause harm but are seen as morally wrong?

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:36 pm

xara;1390216 wrote: So what about things that don't cause harm but are seen as morally wrong?

That, should anyone be so unwise as to advance it in my hearing, comes under the category of "Up Yours".