KWW- Thanks for both your kind words and your thoughtful comments.
Indeed- Don’t Lay Your Trip On Anyone Else- that is the real focus of tolerance, isn’t it.
Glad to have you stop over anytime.

If you were a Chef, yours would be the best house on Restuarant Row. I am in awe! You put into words so much of what I care about and with such flow and ease. Sometimes, I wind myself into emotional knots and have to stop to untangle myself when I write.

Tolerance has always been an important issue to me because of the religious discrimination that I experienced from a Christian teacher and the Christian kids in the neighborhood 46 years ago. I also grew up knowing several gay people quite well and have never understood the hate movement against them. Having been sexually abused by heterosexual pedophiles and raped when I was a young woman by a married, church-going guy, I would like to suggest that Ottman talk to some of us who have experienced the “sexual preferences of deviant heterosexuals.”

Respect is basic to tolerance and peace. American foreign policy is based on disrespect for the people of other cultures and for their religious beliefs. The members of our paternalistic, authoritarian government stride into other countries and tell them what to do followed by threats of what what happen if they don’t comply. There isn’t any real discussion because we treat people who are different or live in the third world as children. They are adults who deserve respect, should be listened to, and who have wisdom, insight, and solutions to many of the problems that we face today around the globe.

I am a volunteer art docent at a title one school. The children in the classes that I teach are racially and culturally mixed. They are too young, as yet, to have learned the hateful, hurtful practices associated with racial, and religious superiority. I love the diversity in this garden of children. They are blind as to who is African American, Christian, Arab, Hispanic, White, Muslim, Asian, Catholic, Jewish, rich or poor, and abled or disabled. I also know, that somewhere amongst my young artists, are one or two budding gays who already “feel” differently.

The children fight of course, but over normal kid things like, who copied or who took too long of a turn. Otherwise, I am constantly amazed at how considerate they are of one another. Their wonderful teachers paractice and teach tolerance. The children give me hope.

“Don’t Lay Your Trip On Anyone Else” is a saying that dates back to The 60’s. I have always practiced this even while raising my kids. We could use it again, today.

So, if you don’t agree with gay marriage don’t marry someone of the same sex. What an easy solution! If you feel you have to stop someone else’s marriage to a same-sex someone then You Are Laying Your Trip On Them…Your Trip involves You, not them. If you don’t like someone else’s religious beliefs so be it, but if you try to convert them…..You Are Laying Your Trip On Them. Simply step back, think, and ask them about their trip instead.

It always comes back to respect and tolerance which are the opposite of control and force.

Liam- I hope you enjoy your stay also. Thanks for dropping by.

Tom-Anger writing has its place and value in that it shows clearly the emotion behind the thought. Shrill can be persuasive in that it brings a problem to light, albeit in a big bright way.
As for me, it’s just not my way, at least when I write. But I enjoy your posts as well, so don’t change a thing.

Thanks for stopping by my blog today.. It reminded me that I need to come by and read you more often. It’s truly exceptional writing…

My problem is that I write when I’m angry. For example, after I read what Ottman wrote there, my first impulse was to go off. I could go and collect a mountain of statistics, documented studies on sexuality, and wrap it all around a nice angry STFU rant.

I do that routinely on my blog.

I have to disagree with Gun-Toting liberal as well. Clearly, we are not making progress towards tolerance as a nation. Just last week, the Governer of the state I lived in suggested that there are other states that might be more accomodating to me, and perhaps I should leave.

That from the Governer of the state of Texas.

In years past, I really didn’t think much about the ignorance of people like Ottman. They simply were not a part of my life and could not affect me. Now they do. The 11 state consitutional ammendments passed last election, deprived many the right to marry the person of their choice. I am in the same boat. It infuriates me.

They look at me as if I am less than human, simply for being gay. They judge as if they understand a concept that is clearly foreign to them. They make up bogus statistics to reinforce their contention that society has a right to regulate what two consenting adults do in their own home.

That was the essence of Lawrence vs. Texas last summer. That is why Scalia came unglued when the SC struck down sodomy laws.

It is not only the gay issue. It is the war issue, and fiscal issues, and just about every side of politics you can imagine.

I’ve steadily let go of my ability to calmly state an opinion and write 2000 words of thoughtful material for a blog post. In many respects, that bothers me because I realize that shrill is not persuasive.

But – in the long run, I don’t care. Perhaps sometime down the road I could write an analysis without coming unglued, but right now ranting works.

Truly, you have to be part of a group that is thought of as less than human to understand real rage. White hetrosexual America has no idea what it’s like.

I’m glad you dropped by my blog, giving me an opportunity to check yours out!

If all of your posts are as well thought out as this one, I’m sure I shall enjoy my stay!

Liam

Dennis K- While I am sure I detect the facetiousness in your tone, I actually have no problem with teaching religion in schools, provided that the courses focus on all predominant religoius beliefs and approach them from an educational point of view and not an absolutist stand point of endorsing one as the only true religion. I think most people would be better served with a greater understanding of the similarities and differences between the world’s religions if we could move past the public rhetoric.
But if you are just talking about the promotion of one religion over all others and indoctrinating that into public education, then yes, I would have a problem there, since that is not actually tolerance but rather exclusionary.

Also, since I am in a heterosexual marraige, I find that to be normal for me, as well as for many others. But it is not normal for people who are homosexual, so in that regard, their desires should be no less respected either. I would rather focus on the idea that committed relationships between two people should be considered the norm, regardless fo their sex.
Ta-Ta to you too.

Ottman-You are probably the first person to ever accuse me of operating from an emotional point of view, and I’ve been categorized by thousands in my life. Often I am accused of being over rational and logical. Which is also OK.

The only deaf ears around are those with closed minds, people who seem to be too wrapped up in their own little worlds to venture out and actually seek ideas different from their own, consider them for their merit or lack thereof, and move on. My positions are based on rationality, fairness, and Common Sense, not on hateful spite, pseudo-religious mythology, or other such banality.

As usual, thanks for dropping by.

It is obvious that you run on emotions instead of sound logic and reason. And that’s OK. You’ll do much less harm to society that way as your words fall on deaf ears to your “own dismay.”

Zack- Thanks for the invitation. I’ll drop by.

Windspike- Your comments and suggestions are quite valid and perceptive. And while I allude to an attitude greater than mere tolerance, at our current state, achieving this is more than a baby step. But I agree with the idea that tolerance is but the first step towards better human relations. Great comment!

GTL- I think our national progress is more a piece of wood adrift in the waves that hit the shore. We make some progress towards firm ground, only to have a larger wave pull us back out. Sure, from a national perspective we have mostly moved beyond most of our racial intolerances, only to have them replaced by sexual intolerances or religious intolerances.
And you are right about our global applications of tolerance. We definitely need to work on that a bit. Good to hear from you again.

Ottman- Others have responded to your comments before I could, and have managed to grasp the tone that I will take.
First, what I or your neighbors prefer sexually is of absolutely no concern to you, or your god, especially if we don’t share the same god or expect you to participate. Your equivication of homosexuality to rape or pedophilia merely shows your own confusion, or worse, blatant bigotry. I hope for the former, for at least that could be more easily remedied. If the latter though, this essay is primarily directed at you.

I purposely included examples of activities or ideas that are intolerable under all circumstances, at least for anyone who values freedom and peaceful coexistence. If you insist on willfully disregarding or purposefully obfuscating the salient points of the essay, an honest conversation is not possible.

Further, in many cases, tolerance is the best we can hope for. You can’t force people to like each other, you can’t legislate emotion or feelings, but you can learn to subjugate your own distaste, or at least shrug off people you view as intolerable, except in cases where the freedoms of yourself or others are being violated, in shich case, legislation is acceptable and necessary.

I disagree with your assessment regarding my comments about making excuses for or flaunting laws. Isn’t the current modus operendi in our governing branches to excuse dishonest behavior, simply because “that’s what everyone does.” How else to explain the excesses of DeLay, as well as countless others from both sides of the aisle? What about our federal government’s inexcusable lack of enforcement of our border and immigration laws. Many bad laws find birth in the back offices of our politicians offices and meeting halls. Many bad laws are quid pro quo for political contributions. Why else did a law banning certain shapes of ice cubes get put on the books in California? “Activist judges” are unable to create actual law, only to rule on it. Perhaps if there were more honest law making there would be no need for judges to rectify ridiculous legislation in accordance with the various state or federal constitutions.

As for the foreign angle, I fully understand the concept of dealing with the lessor of two evils to eradicate the other, but I don’t accept the notion that we can’t expect them to work to better the lives of their citizens, and perhaps we should work more closely with those in less strategic locations or with less valuable resources, but who share our values of freedom. Sometimes the better friend isn’t the one who is also your foe.

I agree that keeping and spreading freesom isn’t easy, especially in areas with little historical reference to fall back on. But the lack thereof isn’t necessarily the will of the people, but the force of their dictators.

I am glad you took the final paragraph to heart, since judging from your opening comment, you really need to.

As always, thanks for an engaging dialogue.

Cattrin- Your response to Ottman was quite apt. Perhaps you could fill in for me when I need to take a vacation. I’m glad you enjoyed the essay. Feel free to look around at some previous ones if you make it back here again.

Big Gay Sam- I can only conclude that your comment is also a rebuttal to Ottman’s comment.
I don’t think you need to move to Canada yet though, as there are many who don’t share those same views.

You may be interested to read my own thoughts on homosexuality.

http://4commonsensenow.blogspot.com/2005/02/not-that-theres-anything-wrong-with.html

I think you’ll find that we agree on the issue. If you do head north, be sure to take a warm jacket, and drop by again for some Common Sense.

Parated2k- I’m glad you did too! You make a good point about people who achieve a sense of normalcy from the development of tolerance, and their desire for more and more. It becomes something of a victim mentality.

Those who embrace different beliefs and lifestyles must also show tolerance and respect for those who differ from them. Sometimes, it must be enough to simply be, to accept that about a person which you feel comfortable accepting while ignoring those aspects you disagree with. If we disagree about religion, lets make sure we only talk about weather or sports. Makes things much easier all around.
Folks are likely to be less tolerant towards an “in your face” attitude than towards an “I’m just another person, albeit different from you” frame of mind.
All sides participating in a menage-a-intolerance must agree to disagree in a peaceful, non-hateful manner, while looking to the benefits each can offer the other.
Thanks for the comment.

Ashley- Perhaps there was some cosmic disturbance that led you to this post. Perhaps not. Either way, it’s nice to run across an article that touches us in the here and now. Your experience with the co-worker is a classic example of conditional tolerance. You more readily embrace the concept I wrote about while your co-worker is really jsut concerned with herself. Pity, but she obviously can’t see the hypocrisy of her own actions.

As for Ottman…we must be tolerant of his views, even while expressing our own dismay with them. But if those views are put to actual practice and begin to restrict the freedoms of law abiding, productive people, we must cease our tolerance and work to revoke those plans.

Tolerance also requires patience and forebearance. So, yes, we should try to be tolerant of someone who refuses to play nice, and we should try to help them to see the intolerance in their own actions first, but that doesn’t mean we have to continue to play with them if they never quite catch on. Even then, we must be careful not to demonize them, lest we begin the circle all over again.
Sometimes it really is better to just walk away. A little marginalization can go a long way.
Godd to hear from you again.

I accept her beliefs as hers and I went out of my way to help her when I felt her beliefs were being unnecessarily tread upon but, because I believe in abortion she couldn’t bear to talk to me.

I think this personal divide is very reflective of where our societal tolerance is right now. For example, I am finding it pretty hard to be tolerant of OTTMAN’s views right now. But, it really goes both ways. I think what he said is hateful, but he probably sees it as being a good Christian. Do we stop being tolerant because the person (or group of people) on the other side refuses to play nice? That is really the rub for me.