[Omaha Rocks]

It is interesting that those who are always screaming about the intolerance of others are, often, extremely intolerant themselves.

[mattpoulsen]

the point is some intolerance is justified.

We're all intolerant of rapists, murderers, terrorists and etc.

The question is where do you draw the line. Religious tolerance is of supreme importance in my mind. But that doesn't mean it extends to the point where said religion is used to justify taking rights away from others.

So, while I agree ehenningsen has been somewhat religiously intolerant he has done so because those who oppose his ability to marry are most often from the religious right.

That doesn't mean he should dismiss all religions or all religious people. But when someone is telling him that he is a diseased ridden person because of his lifestyle and that god hates him I think its justifiable for him to be "intolerant" of their belief system.

This is no different than those who thought (and think) it was justifiable to be "intolerant" of those who used religion to demonize interracial marriage.

Yes, reasonable people can disagree on the issue of gay marriage. But if you read some of the spew a few have pumped out on here indicting the gay lifestyle one clearly realizes the person is not coming from a reasonable place.

That said, I agree ehenningsen has been antagonizing you personally quite a bit and his religious commentary has been pretty childish and unfair. But, on the flip side, he has had to read quite a bit of material that attacks his life style in a pretty hateful way (not from you...but others).

Anyway, I think everyone needs to chill the hell out.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

the point is some intolerance is justified.

We're all intolerant of rapists, murderers, terrorists and etc.

The question is where do you draw the line. Religious tolerance is of supreme importance in my mind. But that doesn't mean it extends to the point where said religion is used to justify taking rights away from others.

So, while I agree ehenningsen has been somewhat religiously intolerant he has done so because those who oppose his ability to marry are generally from the religious right.

That doesn't mean he should dismiss all religions or all religious people. But when someone is telling him that he is a diseased ridden person because of his lifestyle and that god hates him I think its justifiable for him to be "intolerant" of their belief system.

This is no different than those who thought (and think) it was justifiable to be "intolerant" of those who used religion to demonize interracial marriage.

I agree. But the over-reaction by those seeking equality or tolerance is counter-productive.

Not agreeing with something, or somebody, does not automatically make a person a hate-monger or some sort of bigot. I'm not Catholic, and there are some things about the RCC that really bother me. But I'm not intolerant of Catholics, nor am I some hate-monger. In fact, I have quite a few Catholic friends who are wonderful people.

I'm not homosexual, and I'm not any more interested in having somebody's homosexuality thrust in my face, than I am interested in having a heterosexual behave the same way. Everything in the world is not about homosexuality. And I get really sick of the juvenile, in-your-face behavior of a couple of the homosexuals here, who seem to feel that unless you pander to their every whim, agree with everything they say, and heap all manner of praise on their silly behavior, that you're some sort of bigot or hater. It's ridiculous. Do they not realize that they are making as*es of themselves, and actually doing harm their hopes and dreams?

Not being interested in talking about one thing, constantly, does not mean a person is a hater or bigot. I am not at all interested in sitting around and talking about nothing all day but philosophy. But that doesn't make me a philosophobe. It just means that I have a lot of other things I'm MORE interested in.

[mattpoulsen]

I don't disagree with you. I don't classify anything you've said as suggesting anything related to "intolerance."

My criticism is aimed at a select few who focus on nothing but anti-gay rhetoric.

My whole issue is that both sides need to treat the other side with respect. And I'm not at all suggesting that you haven't done that.

I am suggesting others haven't done that though.

[SCGranny]

How often is one supposed to "turn the other cheek" when one is insulted? I don't have much use for religious folk who use their religion as a basis for mistreating and insulting others, either. All too often, the people whom I have met in both business and social situations who are the rudest, the most self-righteous, the most critical, and the most snappish around others base their total arrogance on the whole "I'm going to heaven, you're not, Nyahh nyahhh" aspect of their beliefs. They won't even countenance the fact that they could be - um, wrong. They have no problem with breaking every one of their God's commandments, then telling folks, "Yes, but I can't go to hell like you are - I'm saved, You're not." These types are so prevalent - the ones that are so insecure and so unable to function in a normal society without the emotional crutch of religion - that they give the quietly religious folk, the ones who believe in Jesus' teachings and follow them wholeheartedly and with love and self-respect, a bad name. Put up with that for 20 or 30 years and it becomes very difficult to see any other basis for religious belief than a desperate need to hide from oneself, while attacking others, in the safety of Someone Else's robes. It also gets tiring to repetitively defend oneself from the verbal self-righteous insistence of these types. I'm not gay but I see the point of their dissention; I don't belong to any church, and won't, for the same reason I won't identify with Dittoheads or Obamaites - Passionate and single-minded religious fervor is not only self-destructive but destructive to others, and that's not what I read in the Bible. Of course, loving folks for who they are, respecting their opinions, and encouraging them in their personal growth doesn't make any points with or money for preachers, Limbaughs, or CNN, no matter what Jesus said.

That pertains as well to the arrogant and self-righteous who base their whole belief system on shrieking, screaming, insulting, sneering self-righteousness (Which, BTW, indicates a deep-seated self-hate ) - on either side of any discussion. "Warring" fanatics who insult each other may vicariously torpedo and flame each other all day long - but they win no adherents to their cause by doing so, nor do they prove anything but their own insecurities. Such endless and pointless "debate" is more of a time waster than Facebook.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

I don't disagree with you. I don't classify anything you've said as suggesting anything related to "intolerance."

My criticism is aimed at a select few who focus on nothing but anti-gay rhetoric.

My whole issue is that both sides need to treat the other side with respect. And I'm not at all suggesting that you haven't done that.

I am suggesting others haven't done that though.

Right. The rhetoric of people like the Westboro Baptist folks does nothing constructive at all. Actually, I'm pretty sure that they - and people like them - are obsessively addicted to hatred. If homosexuality isn't the focus of their hatred, something else will be.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by SCGranny

How often is one supposed to "turn the other cheek" when one is insulted?

You are right.

But just remember that that knife cuts both ways.

[laserdisque]

66% in Omaha back legal recognition of gay couples

Omaha.com Metro/Region Section

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by laserdisque

66% in Omaha back legal recognition of gay couples
Omaha.com Metro/Region Section

You could also read it this way: 66% in Omaha oppose same-sex marriage. Which is a much higher margin than we had in CA with Prop 8.

[ehenningsen]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

You could also read it this way: 66% in Omaha oppose same-sex marriage. Which is a much higher margin than we had in CA with Prop 8.

I don't think many gay couples care about the religeous term 'marriage', they are not centered on be recognized by churches they do not go to..

They are more or less looking for legal rights in which civil unions can provide the equality they are looking for and if any churches recognize that, then that very church can deem them married..

And in effect, 66% of Omahan's do not believe that gay people will destroy the city, but in fact are stating they support equality. 66% is a high number of supporters..