This is priceless.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21490633as is this unamibuous "christian message"[/url

what a really tolerant group they are, honest.

There is no call within the Christian faith to be tolerant. Respectful, yes; tolerant, no. The same can be said for Judaism and Islam. The liberal wing of each of those religions will apply tolerance because their approach is what it says on the tin (liberal) but that is all. Tolerance can be hypocritical and patronising anyway and is certainly an extension of situational ethics. The central Christian message is about acceptance (of falibility), forgiveness (for where that falibility leads) and redemption (starting afresh). It isn't and never has been about tolerance.

even more reason to view it as loony tunes then!

Indeed, history shows that many (most) religions are totally intolorant of views which oppose theirs, all of which makes some of us shake our heads in wonder at how the House of Lords ended up allowing intolorant sexists to make the laws of our land - and how Prime Ministers in the past have made no secret of the way that religion has guided their decision making process, as if that is some sort of virtue.

so "love thy neighbour" means "love thy neighbour, but on insofar as they do things you agree with", sounds like sky pixie claptrap so you're right.

and as for "do unto others" well, that was clearly just bat too.

Since when has love equated to tolerance? Never, I would suggest. If you love your child, for example, and your child steals something of yours or hits you or shows other behaviour that you find uncomfortable or just plain wrong then you'll discipline your child accordingly. That will be because you love your child and want them to grow up following the values you think are important rather than doing stuff that will harm them. Parents are very intolerant towards their children but most would be loving them and would accept them as their children no matter what they did.

As is evidenced all over this thread, it isn't just religions or the religious who are totally intolerant of views which oppose theirs!

no, decent people can see homophobic bigotry for what it is.

I can tolerate anyone's views, so long as they aren't f'ng idiotic.

As I pointed out about twenty pages ago, only an idiot would try to paint intolerance of bigotry as being on a par with bigotry itself.

I am not "tolerant" of homosexuality and I am not "tolerant" of the moves towards same-sex marriage.

"Tolerant" suggests that there is something to tolerate.

I have paused to think, and you are quite right, it's not toleration, that was the wrong word.

I am seraching, and failing, to find an alternative.

And isn't it interesting how such words are used in an absolutely mainstream manner, yet, as you rightly say, actually convey something quite specific that most people don't think of?

I'd say the same about the way 'admit' is used in much of the media: 'He admitted he was gay,' for instance. But to 'admit' something naturally suggests that one is guilty of something.

Yes, even "accepting" or "acceptant" has a hint of reluctance about it.
I'm going with the rather ugly "I'm fine with ..." until I come up with a better word or phrase.

Not at all. Decent people can usually determine the difference between a view that has been thought through and arrived at with conscience, and bigotry. The two are different and both can apply to any subject, not just being gay.


Proves my point really!

Indeed. And to tolerate something is not to accept it or welcome it or embrace it, but to 'put up with' it. It can be a hypocritcal notion.

Sometimes though acceptance can be an honest thing. Not everything is easily come by. Some things require an internal wrestle and they are not necessarily bad because of that. Just honest.

Acceptance is far more honest than tolerance anyway.

But from what you have said so far you sound like you embrace homosexuality and gay marriage.

The problems start when those well-thought through arrived at with conscience decisions have a starting point rooted in religion for if any of the major religions are your base point in understanding issue sof equality that directly contravine the hard and fast rules of that religion then your starting point is flawed for you can never oppose those hard and fast rules without denying your religion.

If your religion has told you over and over again that being gay is an abomination and goes against the teachings of your God then you can never accept any reasonable argument that gay people can be married in your church.

It doesn't matter how well thought out and reasoned your argument is, if its base point is bigoted and prejudiced then so will your conclusion be.

Oh! You have no idea how much he embraces it!

Wink wink.

Look, you're a teacher, IIRC. Do you believe that, in education, children should be taught facts?

Yes, but not only facts. Actually, it is very difficult to teach only facts, even in science, which most people assume to be very fact based. There is so much theory also. Just as there are values which every school promotes and which every teacher will teach in their classrooms, to one degree or another.

You are making two erroneous assumptions here: firstly, that all religions are the same (which they are not) and secondly, that everyone thinks in a vacuum (which they do not).

Even those who are very devout in their religious practice are influenced by their national culture, their family culture and their individual experience which colours their judgments and interpretations of what their religion may be requiring. Personally I find the study of religious belief fascinating, and always have, because it is very subtle. The people who hold to beliefs may not be subtle, but the beliefs themselves are. Some are positively enigmatic.

You have your own value system; your neighbour will have theirs. You will believe your value system is right and you will teach your value system to your children. You are no different from religious people in that respect. Or indeed in other respects.

But to go back to my point, when your well thought out discussion point has as its starting point a belief system that has told you that homosexual marriage is impossible within the confines of your religion, then you are going to find it very difficult to reconcile that viewpoint even in your own mind let alone admit to anyone that you think your religion has got it wrong ("your religion" being in the thrid party and not literally "your" religion).

Your opinion, based on a conscience developed by years of indoctrination, is by definition already tainted by prejudice before you even start to reason.

I'd hate to think SaintsFan, or any of his homphobic religous ilk, were teaching any of my nieces or nephews.

another brain washed mentalist

Neither of those things hurt me or you or anyone, hence "I'm fine with it".

Not only that, but we must remember that gay, bi, lesbian and trasgender people are PEOPLE, valuable human beings like the rest of us, with the same range of emotions, strengths, weaknesses, conversation and contribution to humanity as the rest of humankind.
I have no right to tell them what they should and should not do with their genitals, any more than I have the right to tell you.
I also have no right to tell them they are not allowed to love each other, or get married.

Hence, I welcome the moves towards same-sex marriage and will be pleased to see people being allowed to marry the one they love, just like I did.

You mean like the theory of gravity, or the theory of evolution?