cyn...i don't know why you insist i have no understanding of your argument. I get it. You think tolerance works, that the quiet example will win in the end.
I don't fail to comprehend what that will mean. I just disagree that it is efficacious. Suspending moral judgement of what is in our midst is to accept responsibility for affirming it. Silence is assent. And i do not assent to a culture that wants to treat some people as second class citizens.
And i'm not particularly bothered that a few of your friends disagree with my position as relayed to them by you. You choose to focus on certain elements of what i'm saying and have disregarded others. You have yet to tell me in what way you think that my disagreement with these people is coercive. In what way am i using power (what power do i have in the first place) to make them do what i want?
Do you not beleive in free speech? Should i be keeping my opinion to myself entirely? Do you really think that silence on queer issues will even keep queers safe? You keep dodging this. Will silence keep me safe? Can you really claim this, given the history of queer politics in this country? Yes or no. Will silence keep queers safe?
Your friends...do they not make public statements about why they think that homophobia is wrong? Is that not "intolerant" in the increasingly broad way that you have outlined? How is your intolerance for intolerance not intolerance itself?
Roachboy...excellent points. We are never given complete or objective information. Decision making is always on the basis of too little and often too late. But that does not excuse us from being moral agents, responsible for the decisions we do choose to make. These limitations should make us humble and cautious, but not paralytic.
and roach, while i do appriciate your question to Cyn about the way he represents his friends, i don't feel he was trying to out-gay me. he's right about one thing. the queer communities are not in static agreement. but he's wrong to imply that i'm isolated. along the comparative spectrum, i'm not terribly militant, but i'm not a doormat either. the difference is that i'm contesting for the idenity of religious groups as well as secular ones. it seems to make a pretty strong difference in how i get perceived. i carry a pretty traditional religious language, one that i think makes much more sense for those who are familiar with conservative protestant groups. i try to translate a bit when i know i'm talking to a broader audience, but there are a few quirks that i think end up being stumbling blocks in the process.
The allusion to racism is a strong one on this issue. Cyn, do you support the actions of the civil rights movement of the US? Was King too confrontational? Does putting racism in the language of sin create intolerance? or is Carver more to your taste?
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.
-John 3:16
|