A week and a half ago Nightline did a 5-part series on "A Matter of Choice?"
about homosexuals in Roanoke VA in particular and in the US in general.
(Roanoke was the site of a bombing of a gay nightclub last year in which
1 person was murdered and others injured. It's in the south and I think
its fair to say that, at least on this issue, they are a generation or
two behind the times as lived in liberal Ann Arbor.)

One of the statistics flashed on the screen was that just over 50% (52%?)
considered homosexuality immoral. Another indicated that a slightly higher
number (54%? -- within the margin of error) supported homosexual marriage.
Both numbers were higher than I expected.

The last night was a "town meeting" which lasted about 1.5 hours. Nearly
an hour into it Ted Koppel queried the crowd to see if over the course
of the series anyone had changed their mind. Not a single hand was raised.

Maybe I shouldn't read too much into it. After all, it's probably only those
who already had strong feelings who chose to attend; or who wants to call
attention to themselves on national TV? Yet it got me thinking.

Is there an asymptote to acceptance? Much as the "toleration" of gay
people has progressed, is there a limit that is nonetheless too low?
Will there always be Roanokes -- and worse?

The words of John Leland (reflecting about religious freedom and oaths in
the Constitutional times of the late 18th century) came to mind:

        The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea
        is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence about the
        rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews
        Turks, Pagans and Christians." [Short Essays on Government, 1820.]

Are we doomed in that "toleration" is the end of the road, not the beginning?

97 responses total.

Quit a huffin', and please make my conference.  According to the rules, I
should have had mine made by now.

I think we have to wait for the old generations to die off.

Actually, don't quit a huffin', just make in addition to huff, please and
stuff.

Yet even after the slaves and owners died, it took generations and we're
still not there with respect to black racism.  (And once again the north
is ahead of the south?)

Yet my other concern is that these new generations will settle for
"tolerance" rather than equality.  As a society, we tolerate African
Americans who speak white English and a gay man who can "pass" as
straight is more likely to be tolerated than some queeny faggot....

"Toleration" as in "it's an evil, but necessary to tolerate it"?  
Or "toleration" meaning "tolerance", more of the mindset of "I really 
don't have any objection to it and don't see what the big deal is"?

I don't know many people who tell me they are homosexual.  I've never 
asked anyone if they were.  There was a time when I thought gays 
shouldn't be teachers; that's because I accepted the small-town opinion 
of the place where I grew up, that gay people were potential child 
abusers.  I've since given up that view.

I'm no activist for gay rights, or for any group's rights.  I don't 
care any more or less about someone's rights if they're gay, black, 
American Indian, a divorced father, a drug addict, or in a wheelchair.  
People are people, not members of a group that needs special 
protection.  (I guess it's pretty common for white male conservatives 
to say that sort of thing.  I'm not a dynamic social thinker, which 
suits me all right.)

I think that rights are purely an individual issue.  Group identification 
is employed both by the individual and by others as a means to 
distinguish the individual from others, and often individual rights are 
affected because of beliefs about the validity of the identified group.

To be an activist for gay rights or women's rights, or religious rights 
is to be one of two things, depending solely on what agenda the activist 
actually is pushing: 1) an individual rights activist, or 2) a [racist|
sexist|homophobe|bigot|fundamentalist wingnut|etcetera].

Anybody who is truly pushing for fairness and justice is pushing for 
blindness in the formation and application of the law with regard to 
group identification.  The only exception to this that I can think of at 
the moment is affirmative action, which seems to be predicated on 
stimulating change within a group by enhancing certain opportunities 
available to members of that group who can then become role models within 
the group because of achievements those opportunities make possible.  But 
that's just my two cents.

Tolerance is a basic element of understanding, which is itself a 
component of justice, which is essential to liberty.  Education -- REAL 
education, not what passes for it in bureaucratic institutions -- is the 
process by which the soil is tilled and the seeds of tolerance are sown 
and given what they need to flourish.  What is described in paragraph 2 
of response #4 is an essentially misleading position.  We, as a society, 
do nothing, tolerate nothing.  We as individuals either embrace the 
rights of individuals to self expression, or we deny them.  We as 
individuals ARE the society, but the solutions have to be implemented in 
a way that targets individuals, not "society."  Because "society" does 
not exist, and as a target, guarantees failure.

The little issues do go away.  You'd be hard pressed to find anyone these
days who thinks that music is a tool of Satan, or that women should not be
allowed to wear pants, or that the Irish are a blight on America's cities. 

The big issues don't go away.  There's still religious zealotry, sexism and
racism everywhere.

I'm not sure where to put homophobia in that scheme, though.  I'm sure
there'll always be some sexual practices that aren't considered respectable,
and some sorts of relationship that are frowned on.  I suppose it's possible
that 200 years from now we'll have found some other kind of couple to dump
on.  But I wouldn't hold your breath.

Well, it's hard to find anyone who thinks *all* music is a tool of satan,
but there are certainly people who think music *can* be a tool of satan:
http://www.christrocks.com/satanic.htm
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar19.htm
http://www.tagnet.org/adventist.fm/bible/d12up.htm
http://www.probe.org/docs/music.html
http://www.umgministries.com/watch3.html

Oh, and I also found this:
http://uli.net/policies.html
        oral roberts: no pants on women before 4pm
make of it what you will.

At last, a champion for us morning people.

They are supposed to go naked before 4 pm? How liberal.

Must they get dressed after 4pm, or may they continue to be naked?

jep:

>"I really don't have any objection to it and don't see what the big deal is"?

That's more in line with "acceptance" than "toleration".

I think toleration is more of "I do object and it stinks but I'll hold my
nose and not complain -- too much."

Other: Much taht you say about "society" versus "individual" is correct,
but how then do you reflect upon the common view of the majority of these
individuals? And can we not speak of a society by its laws?

Michigan law forbids gay marriage, just as once there were miscegnation laws.
Is it wrong to say that society forbids gay marriage and that it frowned on
mixed marriages even after they became legal?

Toleration is the nominal form of the verb tolerate. I tolerate filet mignon,
although that's an understatement. I tolerate brocolli; that's not an
understatement. "Tolerate" means "put up with, don't try to avoid or get rid
of."
 
It's morally reprehensible that, not only is gay marriage illegal, but
conservative politicians go out of their way to keep it so (I'm not meaning
"conservative" as a political term, here, either, since the biggest step back
for gay marriage was joyfully taken by Bill Clinton, who likes to get his cock
sucked by underlings while his wife is blissfully unaware, but who has strong
feelings about the sanctity of marriage *spit*).

Tyranny of the minority.  It is a fact that gays (including
female muff divers) make up about 2% of the population of the
US for whatever reason.  Doesn't matter.  The fact remains that
it is entirely possible to structure a 'gay marriage' legally
such that all the benefits (and little or none of the penalties
I might add) are equivalent.  Sure and it takes a lawyer and
a good accountant just as it does among the 'rich and famous'.
(Pre-nuptual agreements are no more common than gays.)  So what.
Both represent a small insignificant minority.  The legal system
is intended to handle the vast majority, nothing less and nothing
more. 

And leeron, I'd be more impressed with your arguement if you
weren't married to a shiksa.

#15> How does it hurt the majority to allow same-sex marriage, beady? How does
it affect you if two fags get married? Obviously, you don't think it should
be fully illegal, otherwise you wouldn't be pointing out that it can be done
with huge lawyer fees (thousands of dollars, usually). So you're even more
nefarious than the people who want to ban it altogether: You think gay
marriage should be legal, you just think that fags should have to pay through
the nose for it.
 
Also, if the majority of people think that gay marriage should be legal (as
the cited poll indicates), isn't keeping it illegal "tyranny of the minority"
(Even if that minority is as much as 45% of the population)?

Separate but equal? I thought that went out the window half a century ago.

I also reject the argument that laws that infringe on a small minority are
acceptable. Jim Crow laws worked for the majority and only infringed on a
minority....

Yeah, the "laws are for the majority" argument is easy to say if you're 
a member of the particular majority under discussion.  

Note that Brian's argument applies to straights as well as gays, btw.

I actually thought parts of the Bill of Rights -- especially the religious
clause of the First Amendment -- were written to prevent rule-by-majority on
certain topics.
 
As far as I'm concerned, polygamy and same-sex marriage are religious issues,
and the onus should be on the government to prove why they must be banned,
not on the petitioners to prove why they should be legal.

Our laws and rules of governance are designed to let the majority rule
while protecting the minority. If you look at congressional rules of
order (like Roberts Rules of Order), they are rife with ways to ensure
that the minority can be heard and even stay the hand of the majority. 
This goes even further, as brighn observes, with particular rules (as
in the Bill of Rights) that give specific rights to minorities that
overrule the majority (such as freedom of speech). 

Tolerance isnt a bad thing but it should be viewed as only the first 
step towards equality. 

I think that's exactly it, Lynne.  Yet so often tolerance is what is
placed on the pedestal as the final goal. 

I suppose but why worry about what comes after tolerance when you 
havent even got that yet. I mean, if people are out *killing* gay 
people for being gay, tolerance is a HUGE improvement. Let folks put 
tolerance on a pedestal as the final goal. Goals can change or new 
goals can be formed after the old ones are acheived. 

I think tolerance is a pretty good goal for now and when our society is 
tolerant, then one can go about trying to change people's deep 
attitudes and feelings. 

Lynne, it's not just tolerance for (in this case) gay people.
I wonder if, as a society, we're establishing that tolerance is good
enough -- even if it's the minimum that can be expected (even as some
believe that it is the most that can be expected). I don't know how
realistic it is to say that when gay people are tolerated, only then
can we ask for more -- as if we'll ever get to the point that enough
people are tolerant that we can move into phase N+1.

Tolerance, or put less selfishly, acceptance, goes a long way. I am
thinking in terms of traveling the world, meeting people of all 
nationalities, beliefs, and practices, and getting along with them
as fellow humans. This requires not being bothered in the least by
any differences one encounters. Isn't this esentially "tolerance"? 

So what is needed beyond this? I think it may be when one lives somewhere
more permanently and of necessity has to accomodate these people of
different nationalities, beliefs, and practices on a daily basis, in one's
ordinary lives. This does require a greater acceptance and a respect
that goes beyond hospitality. 

English is my 3rd language and sometimes I have problems with words that
differ slightly from others, perhaps because I map them to words that may
or may not mean exactly the same thing.

In Hebrew, the word I associate with "tolerance" shares a root with
suffering. Perhaps the opposite of "I can't stand it". Or maybe even
the "do not suffer a witch to live".

So it's not just a selfish distinction from "acceptance" -- a view I
think was shared by John Leland over 200 years ago when (as quoted in
the item text, speaking against the necessity of requiring the swearing
of a religious oath) he said:

        The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea
        is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence about the
        rest to grant indulgence....

I suppose, though, that one could state the exact same about "acceptance".
Who are you to indulge me (or not) with your acceptance?  (And whom would
I be if I lived my life based on the tolerance/acceptance of Mr. Nobody?)

Yet in a democracy, where representatives -- who may are may not choose to
pass laws showing either "tolerance" or "acceptance" -- are elected by
the sum of the people, obviously what people think does count. Collectively
(which is what I called "society") if not individually.

The meaning of "toleration" is not as limited as either Mr. Leland or
you fear.  Just as the meaning of "acceptance" is broader than you imply.
I don't think there *is* an English word that means precisely what you want.
"Toleration" is better, in my view, than "acceptance", though, for this
purpose.

I guess I just dont see where one can have acceptance without having 
tolerance first. I mean, lets just say that I really hate purple people 
and some purple people start moving into my neighborhood. My reaction 
could be one of aggression, tolerance, or acceptance. Lets just say 
that I am not ready for acceptance. You see, I really hate these purple 
mofo's but I value tolerance as a virtue so when they move in, I put up 
with it even though it bugs me that they are there. 

You see, in the tolerance model, the only person who suffers is the one 
who creates the suffering. e.g. I suffer because I am the one with the 
hatred of purple people so I am the one who is bothered by them living 
in the neighborhood. 

Now maybe I am lucky and these purple people are really cool and stop 
by my fence when they walk by to tell me funny jokes. And maybe after a 
while, I stop hating them and actually accept them. The acceptance 
might benefit them some but mostly it benefits me. 

Who am I to grant tolerance and/or acceptance? I am me. Every 
individual has that power no matter what group they belong to. 

Except that "tolerance" is the term oft used.  Whereas some have defined
"tolerance" as something approaching "acceptance", why then not use the word
"acceptance"?

I'm not sure if "tolerance" and "acceptance" are overlapping sets or if
"tolerance" is a subset of "acceptance", but I'm pretty sure that "tolerance"
and "acceptance" are not synonyms.

A group I was in had suggested this method of voting:
3 - Great, let's go for it!
2 - It's ok, I guess.
1 - I don't really like it, but I won't leave the group over it.
0 - Forget it. If we vote this in, I'm leaving.

If a vote received any 0s at all, the issue lost. Otherwise, if the average
of the votes was 2.0 or higher, the issue won.
 
In that system, I'd say that a 1 equated to tolerance, and a 2 to acceptance.
OBviously, somebody putting an issue forward wants as much acceptance as
possible -- if all there is is tolerance, then the measure would still fail.
And yes, "tolerance" does imply a right to judge: As poetic as I find Leland's
words, he's wrong. Tolerance (and toleration, the 18th-centurty vogue version
of basically the same word) does not imply that one group of people has some
right to judge everyone else. It implies that *everyone* has the right to
judge everyone else's actions, which they do, inasmuch as those actions might
affect them. For instance, two men holding hands in San Francisco aren't going
to affect me directly (unless they happened to be filmed doing so, in a film
I see); two men holding hands on my front lawn will, everytime I look out my
window. I have the right to say, "I don't like seeing that!" They have the
right to say, "I don't like being told how to express my affection!" But will
I leave the country because of it?

So when a gay activist group say it's seeking tolerance, it means that it
would really love it if everyone accepted them, but at the very least, they
want everyone to stop beating gays up for being gay. That's what "tolerance"
(and "toleration") means to me: You don't have to like it, but you have to
live with it.

(29 and 30 slipped in)
You've got it backwards, Leeron. "Acceptance" is a subset of "tolerance." If
you accept something, you tolerate it, but if you tolerate it, you may not
accept it.

The other confusion is, some activist groups use "tolerate" when they really
do mean "accept." Forcing an employer to keep gays, or blacks, or women in
their employ is legally enforced tolerance. Preventing an employer from saying
negative (but civilly expressed) things about gays, or blacks, or women in
their employ is legally enforced acceptance. (By "civilly expressed" I mean:
"I think that homosexuality is a moral perversion, and all who practice it
are destined for Hell" is a civilly expressed opinion; "Faggots are sinners,
and their souls will be food for Satan" is not.)

tolerance and acceptance are terms still based on personal (selfish)
judgements, and not the real issue. i think a better word may be empathy.

Lynne slipped in. Again I don't really see a difference in your
"toleration" and "acceptance" models -- other than in how you feel.
But just because you like the jokes the purple people tell may not
overcome the drop in the value of your property because of the
lack of acceptance of others who might otherwise be interested in
buying your house. Nor does it mean that the purple people can drink
from your drinking fountains.

We all realize that purple people have to live somewhere. Tolerance
might be the willingness to have them live elsewhere. Acceptance might
be the willingness to have them live next-door.

I can tolerate black people as long as they stay south of 8 Mile Rd.
I can accept black people if they speak "white" English.

I can tolerate gay people as long as they don't "flaunt" it.
I can accept gay people if they can "pass" as straight.

I can tolerate Jews as long as they stay in the shtetl/ghetto.
I can accept Jews if they aren't decked out in black garb.

I can tolerate Muslims as long as they don't want to marry my daughter.

I could accept all these different mofos if they were a little bit more
like me.  So much for the facade of tolerating diversity?

empathy, you hypocrite.

Paul, I think your notion of "tolerance" vs. "acceptance" is close to what
I think (and note the closeness to "suffer". In Hebrew, I think the word
"patience" is also related).

But you also introduced a new word: "like". Is that the same as "acceptance"?
I accept that I must pay taxes, but I don't have to like it....

I like having gay people next door because their yard is so nice.

I dislike having gay people next door because sometimes I see them holding
hands or (shudder) kissing.

I accept having gay people next door because they have every right to be
there.

I tolerate having gay people next door because I can't kick them out.

The "accepting" person may or may not "like" it. I think the "tolerant"
person does NOT "like" it but suffers through it.

I don't know, I would prefer to be accepted rather than tolerated.  I 
agree that acceptance does not automatically mean "agreement," as many 
today believe it to be.

#36> Hm. Interesting points, I'm not sure I mentally categorize "to accept"
and "acceptance" in the same way. I'll have to think on this.

Well, I think it is human nature to seek acceptance from others. How 
would you feel if you knew that your neighbors had real issues with you 
but arent doing anything about it because they are being tolerant? If 
it were one neighbor, it probably wouldnt bother you. What if you knew 
that all of your neighbors considered you an outsider because of your 
skin color or sexual preference or whatever? It would feel really 
weird. 

I think my view of tolerance is different than lk's though
I think tolerance is being willing to let them live next door but still 
disliking them or what they do Acceptance is treating them like they 
belong.

Tolerance = I can tolerate black people living in my neighborhood but I 
still think *they* are bad people and not like *us* at all.

Acceptance = I accept that black people are going to live in *our* 
neighborhood. *We* will get along fine, I am sure.

Tolerance = Fags are sinners but it isnt any concern of mine. Let God 
do the judging and lets make sure the law here on earth treats everyone 
equally.

Acceptance = Homosexuality isnt for me but I can see why some folks 
might like it. 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss