Lies and Lessons of the Intolerant

Intolerance = lack of understanding or kindness towards people who are different from the majority of people.

While intolerance has generally been used in reference to race or religion, I have only personally dealt with intolerance towards gay people. However, I do think that intolerant people, in general, use the same tactics ad nauseum when arguing their points.

By intolerance towards gay people, I mean, "unwilling to acknowledge or accept sexual orientation as a natural, normal state of being that deserves equal status under the law as heterosexuality." When I say "intolerant" in this article, it means "intolerant against gay people," because as I stated before, this is the intolerance I have faced.

But most Intolerants do use the same arguments regardless of who their target group is. Just insert "Black" or "Woman" or "Transgendered" for "Gay" or "Gay Marriage." That's my definition. I'm sure the critics will find something wrong with it. As a matter of fact, this leads me to Lesson #1.

Lesson #1: The intolerant person will consistently argue over word choices and semantics as a way of evading the original argument.

For example, an argument with an intolerant usually goes something like this:

"Jane: I think that anyone who opposes gay marriage is heterosexist and committing a metaphorical lynching of gay people.

Intolerant: Oh, so now anyone who disagrees with Jane Know is a lyncher? That's just great. See, everyone, she doesn't even know how to argue correctly."

or

Intolerant: So I guess anyone who opposes polygamy and incest is a lyncher, too. because we don't agree with those, and anyone who doesn't agree with something is lynching them. Further, you are obviously in favor of polygamy and incest due to your own faulty reasoning."

Instead of focusing on the argument of whether or not people who oppose gay marriage are heterosexist or committing metaphorical lynching, the Intolerant will focus on one word (lynching) and blow it up into an inflammatory argument that you didn't even make .

Note also the Intolerant's use of trusty ol' polygamy and incest red herrings- which, apparently, are multi-purpose distractions. There is no real desire for meaningful exchange of arguments. In fact, their only motive is to denigrate or embarrass their opponent.

Lesson #2: The Intolerant puts most of his/her eggs in the tradition basket.

In simple terms, this is almost always what the argument boils down to (petty namecalling, bad reasoning, and patronizing comments aside): Straight marriages have been around for millenia. Gay marriages haven't. Thus, we are obviously correct in thinking that you don't deserve to get married.

I don't even have to bring up the U.S.' embarrassing past stances on slavery and women's equality for most people to know that appeals to tradition aren't a very strong argument.

Oh, apparently I do have to bring it up.

Lesson #3: The Intolerant puts the rest of his/her eggs in the "Natural" basket.

This goes hand-in-hand with Lesson #2. The Intolerant often will add: "The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise responsible citizens. And gay couples can't procreate, it is against the nature of gay couples, so they don't deserve to get married."

I have already sufficiently addressed this argument.

Yet no matter how much you dismiss the "natural" arguments some Intolerants will continue beating the dead horse as though, no really, you just don't understand than men and women are able to procreate, and that's a beautiful, natural thing that two people of the same gender can never do.

Lesson #4: the Intolerant are modern day witch-hunters, that firmly deny this on grounds of protecting something they deem important.

They often operate under the guise of "protecting" something that most people would like to protect, like "family values," "children," or "religion." This way, if you are pro-gay or pro-gay marriage, then obviously, you are anti-family, or anti-religion, or you must be harmful to children.

For example, the AFA (American Family Association) operates under the guise of Christianity. It is basically a witch-hunt against homosexuals, and how homosexuals are to blame for everything wrong with this country. However, it is easy to counter this type of argument by saying that a true Christian is tolerant. (if that is the religion that these people claim to be). as even Jesus would say, Biblical literalists and judgmental people are "wolves in sheep's clothing."

Opine Editorials motto: "Defending Marriage on the Firm Ground of Reason and Respect for Human Dignity." They purport to defend marriage, yet the overwhelming majority of their articles are related to gay marriage and homosexuality, which is thus far (since gay marriage isn't even legal) the LEAST of their worries. I'd say they have much, much bigger fish to fry than the gays. Further, if one of their grounds are "human dignity," they have a loooonnnnng way to go. Gays are their current scapegoats for the failures of the modern-day heterosexual marriage. Websites like this are thinly-veiled in their homophobic and narrow-minded content.

Lesson #5: The Intolerant will Try to Reverse the Argument.

For example, opine editorials comment policy states: "Some of the following feeds are from sites who feel that marriage equality means something other than a man and a woman being completely supportive of each other's uniqueness. You may wish to take such assertions for the value that they really believe that marriage equality means being indifferent to childrens needs, and social concerns that would get in the way of their ambitions. These feeds are given in hopes that you will engage them in polite and meaningful discussion, in hopes that with loving compassion they will no longer see equal marriage representation of one man and one woman to be a threat."
(emphasis mine)

This is similar to the oft-used: well, you're intolerant because you don't tolerate me being intolerant argument.

Tolerance as used in the above sense is not the same context that gays and other minority groups use it. "Toleration and tolerance are terms used in social, cultural and religious contexts to describe attitudes and practices that prohibit discrimination against those whose practices or group memberships may be disapproved of by those in the majority"

Sure, I may not "tolerate" the idea that gays don't deserve to get married. But does that mean I am "intolerant" in the sense of discriminating against a minority group?

And, I am "tolerant" of heterosexual marriages. I am also tolerant of two people of the same gender getting married. I am not, however, tolerant of those who are intolerant of two people of the same gender getting married. So, no, i guess i don't tolerate intolerance.

That's all for now.

Up later, when I have more time: the myth of "special rights" for minority groups.