Alright, let's get real for a minute.
First, for some back story, and just because it's beautiful and everyone should see it, go here and watch this:
And if you want to see pictures of some of the couples, as well as pictures of stars crying and taking pictures on their cell phones then click here.
After these 33 couples were married at the Grammy's, Facebook - as it is prone to do - exploded with people either talking excitedly about it, talking about how the world is going to hell, or taking the time to write a Facebook status about how they don't care…just incase, you know, not writing about it in one way or another might have confused people into thinking that they did, in fact, care.
One such status said something to the like of, "So all of Hollywood's homosexuals got married at the Grammy's tonight? I'll just leave that alone." The irony. However, in my opinion, if you're going to express thinly veiled disdain for something, you should at least get your facts right. So I commented on the status to let him know that the 33 couples were in fact not Hollywood stars but regular people and that the couples weren't just gay - they were gay, straight, interracial and a variety of otherwise demographically spread people in love. The person admitted that they hadn't even watched the Grammy's or seen a clip, but rather that someone they knew had just liked a news story about it and that's what he had ascertained from the title. And then we left it there. Because I make it a point not to start debates on other people's Facebook pages because I know first hand how frustrating it can be when people do that.
BUT WAIT. IT DOESN'T END THERE.
30 - 45 minutes later after the conversation was finished, another of this gentleman's Facebook friends felt the need to jump in and leave this lovely tidbit:
The original poster then agreed with him.
Well at first I laughed and ignored them, because is there even really a point in arguing with things that are so intrinsically illogical? But even as I told myself this, the comments made me more and more infuriated because A) holy random batman, you wanna throw a little bit more irrelevance into the conversation topic? B) it was a baseless comment the likes of which are usually only seen on Fox News, and C) because I wouldn't say anything back because I have seen this person's idiotic comments before and knew that if I did say anything it would blow up, and again, I won't start debates on other people's Facebooks.
And so here we are.
So let's start with some definitions. I love definitions.
Intolerant:
1. not willing to allow or accept something
2. not willing to allow some people to have equality, freedom, or other social justices
a. unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
b. unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted
So now that we all know what it really means to be intolerant, let's talk. We'll start with the line that has Christian activists and the GOP jumping up and down and saying "See?? See?? We're being discriminated against! The Gays are intolerant towards us and spreading hate!" or line 2a. But here's the real clincher: the line isn't talking about Christians. Or rather, the line isn't only talking about Christians, because, as hard as this is for many to Christians to grasp,
Christianity is NOT the only religion practiced.
Therefore, it is not only the beliefs and freedom of expression of Christians that need to be protected.
There are those who are Buddhist (check out this story for a great example of religious intolerance), Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Polytheistic, Wiccan, Atheistic, Agnostic, Satanists, and people whom's only belief system is that we should all strive to be good people…and guess what? Thanks to this little nifty Amendment to our Constitution right here, they are all considered equal in the eyes of the law:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"
This pesky little Amendment right here, which people love to throw around incorrectly when it fits their purpose (e.g. Duck Dynasty guy, Hobby Lobby refusing to fund insurance that covers birth control, preaching Christian teachings in public schools (or not teaching evolution), making "So help me God" optional in an oath, etc.) is what has Oklahoma all hot and bothered right now with their Satanic statue situation - legally, they have no groundings to say no. Why?
Because the 1st Amendment protects your right to be of whatever religious denomination that you wish to be. It's protects your right to build places of worship and practice your religion freely as long as you are not harming others. It does not grant one religion the right to dictate the laws and moral standings of an entire nation.
"But the Duck Dynasty guy! The gays were definitely intolerant in that one. He has freedom of speech and he can say whatever he wants and having him suspended just 'cuz he says gays are going to hell like the Bible says is just being intolerant and violating his rights. He was discriminated against!"
Ah. Unfortunately, this is wrong again my dear compadre. The United States Government did not suspend What's-His-Duck for his comments. Neither did the LGBT community. A&E - his parent company - suspended him because they have a policy of diversity and nondiscrimination which he violated. When you violate a policy of your parent company in a very public and vocal way, you are likely to be suspended because of it. It's a business decision. Similarly, returning him to the show was a business decision because, simply put, as much as I don't understand why (because talk about staged and boring) that show makes A&E a crap ton of money. Business are usually in the business of making money. This was not an example of a violation of freedoms or of intolerance towards Christians. This was an example of Foot-In-Mouth and suffer the consequences. (Plus do you really want to defend him? I mean really? Because he's also racist and a sexist - but you know racist/sexist in the name of God.)
But none the less, the accusation that a stream of intolerance has spewing out of the LGBT community is becoming some what of a battle cry for the GOP and religious right-wingers as of late. So what's the deal? Is the LGBT community becoming intolerant towards Christians, and in their battle for their own civil liberties, stomping on those of the religious? Let's look at the kinds of intolerant things that the LGBT community is currently fighting for.
- ENDA - The Employment Non-Discrimination Act - ENDA is an act which would work alongside the Civil Rights Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Race, skin color, religion, sex, and national origin are already protected statuses under the CRA. ENDA would mean that a company can not refuse to hire, refuse to promote, fire, or harass an employee purely because they weren't straight or sisgender. And yes, there is an exemption for religious institutes (and 'narrowing it' does not mean that Focus on the Family will be forced to hire an all gay staff…it means that organizations like religious hospital or social service agencies should not be allowed to pick and choose which of their staff they'll allow to be gay or not). Is it intolerant to not want to have to fear for your job or your ability to provide for your family simply because you don't have the protections offered to the rest of the nation's population? No.
- Hate Crimes & less tolerance of physical violence - The reality of the situation is there are still many places in this country where people are targeted for physical abuse just because they 'look gay', are transgender, or are not presenting with the gender characteristics that someone thinks they should be presenting with. Only 17 of 50 states have hate crime laws on the books that include the distinctions of both sexual orientation and gender identity. Is it intolerant to want to live in a world where you can walk down the street holding the hand of your significant other or to be able to present outwardly the gender that you feel internally WITHOUT having to fear physical or emotional abuse? No.
- Marriage Equality - There are 17 states + DC that currently have marriage equality, 2 states with civil unions, and 4 states that are somewhere in the middle of a weird legal process over the subject matter (e.g. Oklahoma, Utah). There are also a number of states that having pending lawsuits over marriage equality that will come to head somewhere in the near future. The American Family Association has released a list of 10 Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage which the article linked does a pretty great job of debunking so, in the interest of keeping things short, I let you read them there - especially since they're not anything you haven't heard and rolled your eyes at many times before. I'll address the religious aspect here in a second. As full citizens of our nation, LGBT people deserve the full legal rights, recognition, and protection that having a legally recognized marriage would provide. (If you disagree with any of that or think legal recognition/protections don't matter, watch this and get back to me.) Is it intolerant to want to have the union of yourself and your partner recognized and protected under the law as any other couples would be? No.
- Adoption - Hands down the most important thing a child needs is a family that loves and cherishes them, and fosters their growth. Whether that family be a mom/dad, a dad/dad, a mom/mom, a single mom or single dad, grandparents, or any combination of the like…if that child is loved, cherished, accepted, and cared for that is a beautiful thing. The opposition will make accusations to like of: gay men are pedophiles and shouldn't be allowed around children, or a child just NEEDS a mom and dad. it's proven. it's science. Both of these assertions have been disproven by numerous credible scientific studies by various different universities and scientific institutes. It is also worth noting that the "studies" which made those accusations were, more often than not, done by scientists whom aren't even credited by the disciplines they claim to belong to - e.g. Paul Cameron and everyone who works for the Family Research Institute. Is it intolerant to want lies spread by organizations who aren't even credited by their discipline to prevent you from adopting children into a loving home and growing your family? No.
- "That's So Gay"/other derogatory language - If you were at a sporting event, or sitting in a high school classroom, or talking with your friends in a public place…what do you think would happen if you were to scream a racial or sexist slur in an intentionally negative way? If you shaped a commonly used phrase synonymous to stupid, annoying, or unwanted to incorporate a term for a racial group and give it an overtly negative connotation? Would you do it? Would you think twice? What if a person of that race/gender was standing near you? Would you be even more cautious and respectful with your words? As a society we have worked hard to strike that kind of language from our every day speech. It's not ok, and it's not ok to use slurs against the LGBT community either. Of course, there are the people who still use racial/sexist/religious slurs but just don't do it around those people (still not ok, in case you were wondering)…but here's the deal. You cannot turn to your left and right and determine whether you are standing next to a person who identifies as a member of the LGBT community. You can't know whether the kid who sits behind you in math class, the class that you think is "so gay" and during which you repeatedly call the kid that annoys you a "f**got", is hearing and taking to heart every word you say in a way that makes him or her feel worthless. Is is intolerant to desire that intentionally negative and derogatory language not be normalized as acceptable in our societies vernacular? No.
- Principle 6/Athlete Ally/Out Sports/etc (and Scouts for Equality) - "Sport does not discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise." Principle 6 is the Olympic principle that states that sport is non-discriminatory as a rule. Given the current situation in Russia, where the Sochi Olympics will be hosted in a few weeks time, many activists have been promoting the wearing of principle 6 as a way of getting around Russia's anti-gay propaganda laws. The Athlete Ally/Out Sports/You Can Play movements are all variations on the same theme of working to make the world of sports a more inclusive environment so that LGBT youth and adults don't feel like they have to lie about an essential part of themselves in order to play the sport they love (or be an Eagle Scout and/or future leader for that matter). Is is intolerant to want to spread a message of inclusion and solidarity during the worlds biggest sporting event, or to want to foster a safe and welcoming environment within the realm of sports within our own nation? No.
So tell me, what exactly is it about these gays that makes them so darn intolerant?
Is is their unwavering passion in their fight for full equality and protections under the law? The love they have for their partners and families? The widespread and quickly growing support across the nation? It's the rainbows and glitter isn't it?
Or is it that a huge, diverse community of different races, ethnic groups, religious orientations, sexual orientations, gender identities, occupations, ages, sizes, shapes, colors, etc. doesn't want their civil rights and liberties to be dictated by one religious group's idea of what should legally define marriage?
That's it isn't it? Hit the nail on the head. Well, I hate to tell you, but not wanting to have your legal rights determined by one set of religious ideas doesn't make you intolerant. However, wanting to restrict someone's civil liberties and protections under the law based on your personal religious beliefs??…well that goes straight back to our handy definition of intolerance:
2b. unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted
So we'll rap it up with this. Until the leaders of the LGBT community hold summits to discuss how they can be more like nations where Christianity is illegal and/or there is a "Kill-the-Christian's" bill (see here), until the leaders of the LGBT community try to pass laws that will prevent the marriage of Christians, until 12-18 year olds sit in schools and refer to the class they hate the most or that homework assignment as "so Christian" when they mean stupid or annoying, until Christian's deal with the constant fear of beat to death for walking down a normal city street because they "looked at me funny and I thought they were Christians", until leaders of the LGBT community create discredited scientific institutes and try to pass off their studies filled with fabricated data as truth to accuse all Christians of being pedophiles who are trying to recruit children……
until then? calling the LGBT community "more intolerant than the taliban" just makes you look completely ridiculous, petulant, and ignorant.
But real quick while we're on the Tabliban, let's look at what some of their overly strict interpretations of Islamic law look like…
- they're anti-abortion
- supportive of the death penalty
- oppose the separation of church and state
- believe religious doctrine should be taught in public schools
- think women should/do have fewer rights than men
- oppose multiculturalism
- consider homosexuality evil and believe gay marriage should be outlawed.
Now, that sure doesn't sound like the LGBT community to me. But you know who is does sound like? I'll just leave this here.