Those who say intolerance is a major problem in the debate over homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” have a valid point, but not in the way they think, according to one of the nation’s most popular pastors.
In a whirlwind media tour to promote the tenth anniversary edition of his bestseller, The Purpose Driven Life – What on Earth Am I Here For?, Rick Warren said the belief people can differ without rancor has disappeared, replaced by an insistence on ideological conformity.
“I am in favor of not redefining marriage,” he said on Tuesday’s edition of CBS This Morning “It’s not illegal to have a gay relationship in America. And so, it’s not a big issue to me.”
Co-host Charlie Rose replied, “You have to be tolerant of other people’s views,”
“The problem is that ‘tolerant’ has changed its meaning,” Warren said. “Tolerant used to mean, I may disagree with you completely, but I’m going to treat you with respect. That’s what tolerant means.”
“Today, to some people, tolerant means you must approve of everything I do,” he continued. “That’s not tolerance. That’s approval.”
21 Comments
Those interested in the development of the radical Left movement, including the sexual revolution, should read up on Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse said:
"Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left."
That is, one cannot tolerate one thing without creating intolerance for another.
There has never been tolerance among people who support same-sex marriage. I'm sure a lot of them are tolerant of disagreement, but the majority of the left believe anyone who thinks differently is a bad person.
Disappeared? Tolerance in the true sense of the term was never present to begin with. What has been clear to myself as a historian (but perhaps not so clear to the general public) is that two fundamentally incompatible political philosophies or world-views have been in collision since the Sixties. We are long past the "dialogue with the other side" stage. And this means we conservatives must now face a truth awesome in its implications: we must seize and retain control of the American political system and culture, educational institutions and means of mass communication. Either we do so, or their side tightens and makes permanent its grip. This is the task now. Nothing less...
I beg to differ! "Tolerance" USED TO imply that there was a truth that you tolerated departure from in order to give psychological space for someone to arrive at the truth. Today, it's as if we are fine with saying everyone is equally right or equally wrong. That's NOT tolerance! If you really get at the heart of current issues where "tolerance" is being demanded, you absolutely know that they hold a position they feel you should accept as truth. They're certainly NOT o.k. with your not believing what they do, and they'll work hard to cement their belief in the stone of national laws.
Speaking of tolerance, or the lack thereof, there some pretty good footage that demonstrates how the advocates of same-sex "marriage" will even break the law to silence any opinions that conflict with their own. Check this out: http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/what-we-do/news-and-updates/video-release-attacked-by-tolerance.html
It's not respectful to use the force of law to prevent other people from living their lives based on their beliefs. How can he not see that?
Accessing marriage is not about tolerance. It is a question of equality.
One person saying 'No' and standing in its way is intolerant of equal rights. Another person, saying yes, I want equal rights and you are wrong to deny it to me is not intolerance. It,s fighting for your the right to live your life. That's not intolerance.
@Marc Paul
"One person saying 'No' and standing in its way is intolerant of equal rights. Another person, saying yes, I want equal rights and you are wrong to deny it to me is not intolerance."
Only no one is saying "no", people are saying they believe Marriage is between a man and a woman. I have yet to hear from anyone on this site a coherent explanation as to why that's "intolerant". I believe that same-sex couples should receive all the same marital benefits, but the title of Marriage serves a purpose beyond "two consenting adults who love each other".
The "tolerant" supporters of same-sex marriage purposefully left out supporting 3 or more to marry from their campaigns. They themselves are intolerant for failure to support unlimited "equality". Why are they then claiming that they are for fairness and tolerance? I've never heard a good answer from even one of them. They either answer that "that's different", or "that's absurd" or "let that group fight for their own equality". Hypocrisy of the highest order.
Rick Warren couldn't be more correct.
Check the poll data presented at CBS news on percentage trends of those supportive of same-sex marriage (not gay-marriage).
One way of explaining the presented poll data is that gradually, those who draft the questions have gotten better at getting the poll results they want. This can also be done by varying fudge factors which are part of every single poll's mathematical assumptions.
Another way of explaining the presented poll data is to look at whether the same question was asked as a function of time, whether each poll had the same standard margin of error. And by the time you look at the most modern poll (or average of polls), you find the polls are within the standard margin of error.
Another explanation is that people against same-sex marriage have gotten tired of the issue and more and more do not answer poll surveys, or hesitate to go against the bigots (same sex marriage supporters) who would call them bigots for answering against same-sex marriage.
Generally speaking, neither CBS anchors nor lawyers (Charlie Rose) delve into the mathematics of polls. I have to tell you, they are complex. This is not a subject for simple TV anchors. This is a subject for mathematicians alone, and objective statistics.
(To be fair, all polls taken should be published. But that's not going to happen. That's not how human nature is at all. Human nature accepts the helpful data, and ignores the unhelpful data. Who is to know, anyway?)
There is no firm basis in the laws of nature for treating same gender pairings as being equal to opposite gender pairings.
Decadence is not a public good.
Marc Paul, you repeat a basic error.
Equality, or fairness, commands that we not treat like things (such as types of relationships) unalike, arbitrarily. But that is only one-half of that moral imperative. The other half is that we not reat different things the same, arbitrarily.
Please explain, without reference to the husband-wife scenario, the essential feature(s) of the type of one-sexed relationship you have in mind.
Essential features are those without which other types of relationship are decisively unalike the type you have in mind.
No arbitrary line may be drawn. It must be justified by the core or the essential feature(s) that are intrinsic to the type of relationship you favor.
Having drawn the boundary, you then need to justifyspecial treatment of that type. Special, that is, amongst all other types of one-sexed relationship that are possible.
Arbitrary line drawing is anti-equality. Arbitrary favoritism is anti-equality. And you say that you stand against both.
The onus is on you, Marc Paul, in light of your repeated invocation of equal treatment and your repeated rejection of the core or essentials of the type of relationship heretoforth known as the union of husband and wife.
Best to focus on the range of one-sexed types of relationship before comparing your favored type with the marital relationship. Then readers can assess your application of equality or fairness.
That is what SSMers do when then talk of infertile husband-wife duos, so you do know the basis of this query. If you cannot abide the onus, then, that would shed a harsh light on your comment and place in sharp reveal your repeated error.
The liberals talking about "marriage equality" are just using a bullshit euphemism. They don't officially mean legalizing marriage between an adult man and an underage boy (though the 1972 Gay Rights Platform called for the "Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent"), nor do they yet want to equalize marriage between 3 or more people (though the 1972 Gay Rights Platform demanded the "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers." So whenever the left or gay activists use the expression "marriage equality," they really mean forcing society to accept their redefinition of marriage between just two adults of the same sex. At least until the less popular deathstyles get enough lobbyists and charismatic public advocates to successfully sway public opinion.
Words like "intolerant," and "bigot," are only used to sway emotions towards the support of the child-endangering, Christian-persecuting, redefinition of marriage.
I dont mind the namecalling, as a Russian immigrant, Conservative Orthodox Christian and a proud Texan, I am the butt of many jokes made by Northerners. But people like Frank Turek and Dorothy Bond, principle of Haywood High School (Google them) losing their jobs merely for expressing their christian values is not acceptable in a democracy. I dont care if California, Hawaii and Maine want to redefine marriage but I dont want it being imposed upon all 50 states, including the South! That would be the end of religion in America
Re: "Rick Warren: Tolerance Has Disappeared From the SSM Debate"
HA!
There never was any.
Same-sex "marriage" advocates' main soundbites during California's Proposition 8 campaign were "No H8" and "BIGOT!!!"
They've never strayed from these, even though they later found other spin that works, and used that a lot too.
Calling your opponents "bigots" and "haters" and labeling their beliefs "hate", has nothing to do with tolerance.
@Chairm -
Great set of questions that you posed to @Marc. I hope that he answers them!
As much as I like Rev Warren, he got played by Obama in the first campaign. I think Warren should feel some responsibility for these disastrous policies.
Thanks, Overcame SSA.
The query turns the table and assumes the SSMer will abide by his own professed standards. This why I expect Marc Paul to flee from it.
There is no rational basis for a special legal status for the type of relationship he has in mind. The SSMer is more ready and more comfortable attacking the marriage idea than he is prepared and delighted to promote the SSM idea itself. He would tear down and is ill-equipped to build.
If you have watched those DIY rennovation tv shows, you might know what I mean by way of analogy. The SSMer is reckless at demolition but hopeless at the rest. They are not the crew of This Old House.
The onus remains on Mar cPaul who flees when his remarks are challenged forthrightly. His intellectual and moral cowardice is thus illustrated.