Question for gay people

by expatbrit 25 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  expatbrit

  The question is about the term "tolerance" or "tolerating".

  When someone says something along the lines of "I'm very tolerant of gay people" or "gay people should be tolerated", how do you feel?

  The reason I ask is this: doesn't the concept of tolerating something imply a background negative?

  For instance, I can say "I tolerate my brother-in-law". All well and good, but the reason I have to tolerate him is because he's a jerk. There's the background negative.

  Could it then be considered that talking about tolerating gays still promotes the idea that there is something wrong in being gay? After all, why else would they need to be "tolerated"?

  Am I barking up the wrong tree here? Why have I asked a gazillion questions when I said I would ask only one?

  What do you think?

  Expatbrit

  p.s. I actually like my brother-in-law a lot. That was just an illustration.
• 

  Naeblis

  People who "tolerate" gay people are merely bigots hiding behind political correctness.
• 

  kes152

  You are indeed correct.

  I'm not gay, but I had to respond. I personally don't care for 'intercourse.' The reason people "tolerate" them is because they are showing they have Favortism in their hearts. Something NOT approved of by My Father.

  All sin, is sin. No sin is any worse than another other than the 'unforgiveable sin.' So if you are "tolerate" of gay people. Then you MUST be the exact same around, adulterers, fornicators, men with 2 wives, Liars (of ALL kinds), hypocrites (of ALL kinds), decievers (in ANY shape or form regardless whom it comes from), drunkards, etc.

  Keep in mind that this is a 'wicked and ADULTEROUS' generation. So they way a person acts around gay people because he 'tolerates' them, MUST act the EXACT SAME WAY around ALL others who basically make up everyone. Otherwise, that person has 'Favortism' in his heart and is thus a hypocrite. He is one who has NOT come to know the love of God and so he doesn't know God.

  Peace to you,
  Aaron
• 

  perfectpie

  Expatbrit,

  The meaning of tolerance in connection with homosexuals would depend on the context and/or attitude of the person using it, I guess. My observation is they say tolerate because although not agreeing or liking the lifestyle they don't hamper or block its continuance.

  Good question though. Although I like the opposite sex, I enjoy homosexuals company and I feel the most important thing is to love the person even if you don't love the lifestyle. "To the fringes gladly, to the unswept corridors we silently wander" chow 3.14
• 

  rem

  I'm not sure why the word tolerance has gotten such a bad rap. This is from dictionary.com:

  tol·er·ance (tlr-ns)
  n.

  The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

  Leeway for variation from a standard.
  The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent

  I think tolerance is great and I don't see why it should have a negative connotation. To me it means live and let live. I don't think we have to necessarily like everything in the world, but we can tolerate it. I think tolerance is a lower form of acceptance. Acceptance almost denotes agreement to me. I think acceptance is preferable, but I don't think it's realistic in the world we live in.

  If the Israelies and the Palestinians could at least tolerate one another, I think that would be a big improvement - and a step in the direction of acceptance. Or another example: Some people oppose abortion, some tolerate it, and some accept it. The opposers are the clinic bombers and the picketers, the tolerant ones don't agree, but are fairly benign, and the acceptors, well, accept it as a free choice and to them the freedom of choice is the issue - not whether they agree with abortion.

  I accept that not all people will agree what is or whether there is a "good" lifestyle. Or maybe I just tolerate them since I don't agree? I don't know - now I'm all confused! :)

  rem
• 

  dedalus

  It's all semantics. I'm pretty much with REM on this one, though I understand and appreciate where Expatbrit is coming from.

  Hey Aaron -- "All sin is sin?" So, to take the famous example, the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving children deserves the same punishment as the man who, say, robs a bank for the thrill of it?

  Just wondering where you're coming from. I suspect morality and ethics are more complicated that you presume.

  Dedalus
• 

  Zechariah

  I believe this old post answers the question you posed....

  These are my personal meditations on the subject of homosexuals as christians. I have perceived that the major failing of the Watchtower Society is that it has as the Bible prophecied "stumbled over Christ". That stumbling I understand to be in the sense that they have missed the mark as to the reason Christ came to earth and gave his life on behalf of mankind. They have resisted the awareness that the Christ came to the earth to act in behalf of the sinner and not the righteous man. He would provide with the sacrafice of his human life a new way of having a righteous relationship with God besides that of being good enough. The old law (Mosaic Law/Ten Commandments) demanded that everyone prove faithful to the law in personal deeds or acts or suffer the punishment of death. This was always a impossible burden because under the law all are condemned to death. It is only under the law that any person could earn a label of a thief, murderer, HOMOSEXUAL, etc. In examining the Bible to
  try to ascertain God's opinion about homosexuality I can clearly understand than in instituting the new law of love to replace the law code he was delivering the message he wished to have no opinion of this and would not judge this by the deed only but rather by the extent of ones love for him and his fellow man. Peter recieved a vision of unclean animals wherein he is told to eat and not call the things he has cleansed unclean. This means a great deal more than
  it is now okay to eat pork. It is making the unbelievable statement to most people that it is not what we do by which God judges us but by the love we show.

  This understanding of how the Mosaic Laws were done away with gives us new insight in understanding the main scripture used against homosexuals in the book of Matthews chapter 6 starting with verse 9.

  9
  Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the
  kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

  10
  nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

  11
  And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
  ================================
  comment- Certainly this is not saying that anyone with any longterm problem with addiction or spiritual or moral disease would be instantly free from his problem. No but he is made instantly righteous by eliminating the law which condemns him. The only way man can keep from breaking the law is to have no law to break. Though nothing about him has really changed the murderer, the thief, and the homosexual have been washed clean and are acceptable to God on the basis of their faith in God alone.
  ================================
  >
  12
  "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything.
  ================================
  comment-
  This can not be used to imply that God is endorsing any behavior as certainly he doesn't favor murder and theft. But he has chosen to ignore these blemishes in imperfect man by choosing to no longer consider them a criteria for judging them righteous. Therefore men can never be righteous by faithfully keeping the law. That is impossible. Righteousness can only be by declaration of God based on our faith. Just as keeping the laws regarding circumcision and the sabbath no longer has any bearing on ones becoming christian so to being homosexual has no bearing on their salvation and status as a christian. The bond of union of a christian is only not deeds but spirit (faith and love).

  Zechariah
• 

  hippikon

  Actually I don’t care about anyone’s sexual orientation. So long as they don’t pinch me on the arse when I’m trying to chat up a honey. My point is that if they accept how I am I can accept how they are. I’ve had some pretty wild times at gay bars and gay parties without being compromised (that I know of)
• 

  joelbear

  As a gay person I expect tolerance from those whom my life does not affect since I don't interact with them. So, as far as the general public goes I only ask for tolerance.

  For anyone who wants to be part of my life in any meaningful way, I demand acceptance. If someone cannot accept me for the person I am, I have no real use for them as part of my ongoing life.

  hugs to all

  Joel
• 

  SanFranciscoJim

  I have two brothers. Both are heterosexual. Before they married and started families, I posed a question to both of my parents:
  "Will you attend my brothers weddings when they decide to marry?" to which they answered "Of course!" without hesitation.
  I then asked my parents if they would attend my wedding if I decided to marry another man. After long hesitation, they replied "I suppose so."
  That is tolerance. It hurts, but it's understandable, and is much preferable to being disowned, as too many gay ex-JW's have been. In fact, tolerant individuals can eventually expand on their tolerance as they come to understand that the gay lifestyle is not the stereotypical animal sex life which right-wing society paints us. Case in point: my parents, neither of whom had ever been JW's, both said to me "I'd much rather have a gay son than a Jehovah's Witness son".
  Website of "A Common Bond" for gay ex-JW's: http://www.gayxjw.org