A discussion of the new tolerance
Amazing! An in depth look at the virtue and curse of tolerance- without any reference to the political use of the intolerance of liberal toleration.
Proposed Amendment 28
Section 1. That the following language be stricken as unworkable from the US Constitution, Article I, Section 10: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress." Section 2. And be replaced with "All States, for the protection of their citizens, may reject any Treaty, Alliance, or Confe...
Comments
I don't oppose homosexuality merely because it is against the will of God and unnatural. I oppose *certain actions* done by those who are *same sex attracted* because those actions harm the same sex attracted.
A same sex attracted man who stays celibate, is to be supported. Even one who has a special friendship with another same sex attracted man, who also stays celibate. Even one who, in human weakness and out of original sin, fails in his vow of celibacy from time to time.
THAT is tolerance.
Due to that, and in the spirit of tolerance, I'm willing for the State to support certain laws, that make the lives of such people livable- and in the *same* spirit of tolerance, I'm willing to extend those *same* laws to heterosexuals outside the church, pseudosexuals outside the church, and those who don't share the same beliefs about human sexuality that I do.
But I have to draw the line somewhere- and the line of tolerance for me is drawn at acceptance. I cannot accept that which will do harm. I have a positive duty to warn those I see doing harm, or have harm about to be done to them, that they can and should avoid the situation.
I don't see how anybody can live with themselves otherwise.
You should worry about you and your family and not be so concerned about how other people choose to live their lives. They are not your children and its not up to you to make sure that they do not live a lifestyle that you think will be harmful to them. I can't believe I have to tell you that. It seems like something you would have learned a long time ago.
So I utterly reject your philosophy of "live and let live" because people like you aren't willing to allow me to live.
Thus making it wrong for people to mind their own business? That's just another one of your exaggerations. To each his own.
I always find it interesting when dissenters try to shut down dissent against dissent.
Do you know what recursion is? I think it might help.