One of the frustrating things about the debates over homosexuality is the constant accusation of "hate" from the pro-gay side of the debate. I previously wrote a post discussing the various types of disagreement that are often misunderstood as hate (see What is Hate). Just this week, Greg Koukl at Worldview Weekend wrote a very nice article echoing some of my sentiments on the often juvenile and illogical hate accusations made by pro-gay apologists.
The Three Faces of Tolerance
- Tolerance of Persons – what might be called "civility," can be equated with the word "respect." This is the classical definition of tolerance: the freedom to express one’s ideas without fear of reprisal.
- Tolerance of Behavior – Note that respect is accorded to the person, here. Whether his behavior should be tolerated is an entirely different issue. This is the second sense of tolerance, the liberty to act, called tolerance of behavior. Our laws demonstrate that a man may believe what he likes–and he usually has the liberty to express those beliefs–but he may not behave as he likes. Some behavior is immoral or a threat to the common good. Rather than being tolerated, it is restricted by law. In Lincoln’s words: There is no right to do wrong.
- Tolerance of Ideas – Tolerance of persons requires that each person’s views get a courteous hearing, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth. The view that no person’s ideas are any better or truer than another’s is irrational and absurd. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance.
And here’s what happens when people conflate or confuse these three:
If one rejects another’s ideas or behavior, he’s automatically accused of rejecting the person and being disrespectful. To say I’m intolerant of the person because I disagree with his ideas is confused. On this view of tolerance, no idea or behavior can be opposed, regardless of how graciously, without inviting the charge of incivility.
The author concludes with a nice approach to real tolerance ;)
Tolerate persons in all circumstances, by according them respect and courtesy even when their ideas are false or silly. Tolerate (i.e., allow) behavior that is moral and consistent with the common good. Finally, tolerate (i.e., embrace and believe) ideas that are sound.
You know, when I need somebody to take 1,000 words to justify their hatred of gays, I look toward Seeker. Because dammit, he hates gays (just as anybody who opposes gay marriage certainly does, what with their insistence that gays remain second-class citizens), but he'll do anything to justify that hatred away.
I don't know what i find more disturbing: seekers opinion on what is 'tolerance' or sam's opinion on what is 'hate'
first tolerance: this word suggests that i need permission from a majority to shack up with my boyfriend. this is a corruption of what the founders intended – which is basic liberty and limited government. there is no compelling reason for the government to limit my relationships or my ability to support my family (e.g. providing SSN benefits to my and my partner, etc).
and now to "hate": while i agree that seeker seems to have an unhealthy obsession with gays – i don't agree that believing marriage is "defined" as between a man and a woman constitutes "hatred" of a group. Now the idea is an outdated opinion and mistaken in its belief that marriage has always been a static institution but i don't believe it constitutes hatred. This also exposes a more basic problem – people not being able to disagree civilly anymore. The moment someone touches on certain issues (abortion, marriage, hell – stem cells, etc) accusations of "hate", "murderer", "traitor" go flying around. Have we lost all perspective that we can't argue and disagree without wanting to kill each other anymore?
tolerance: this word suggests that i need permission from a majority to shack up with my boyfriend. this is a corruption of what the founders intended
I am not talking about the founders or of legislation, merely personal interactions with people, behaviors, and ideas. Tolerance is a virtue in which you exercise respect for those you disagree with.
This is not about homosexuality per se, either, but that is one good example of a discussion in which disagreement is mistaken for hate.
while i agree that seeker seems to have an unhealthy obsession with gays
Call it a personal interest. How would you define an unhealthy obsession? Trust me, I don't spend time thinking about gays while I am going about my normal activities of life. I think you guys are just oversensitive and don't like my overt position (no pun intended).
i don't agree that believing marriage is "defined" as between a man and a woman constitutes "hatred" of a group.
Agreed.
the moment someone touches on certain issues (abortion, marriage, hell – stem cells, etc) accusations of "hate", "murderer", "traitor" go flying around.
Agreed. However, I do believe that the word murder should come up in a logical discussion of abortion – not in calling others names ("you murderer"), but in believing that one's primary assumptions (fetus is a human person) lead to the conclusion that abortions may in fact be murder, or infanticide. While this may then lead to the conclusion that abortion doctors must now logically be considered murderers, but that is not the same as the outlandish claims of hate, naziism, and "un-American" that are thrown around.