# Polycarp does not tolerate homosexuality, **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 17, 2005, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-does-not-tolerate-homosexuality/299788 "2005-04-17T20:19:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2005, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-does-not-tolerate-homosexuality/299788/21 "2005-04-17T23:51:12Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > In the same vein, while I cannot and do not speak for **polycarp** -I would say, from what little I know of him, that he also accepts and tolerated homosexuals–I don’t know his stance on Paminder-me, I think she is hot as hell. I think, respectfully, you need to read the OP again. That was sort of the whole point. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2005, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-does-not-tolerate-homosexuality/299788/22 "2005-04-17T23:59:50Z")
> [@furt](#): > > 😕 Why? Unless your objections involve personal attacks or profanity? If I’ve wounded you somehow by using your name as an attention-getting device, I apologized; I truly thought you would see it as harmless. email me if you wish to discuss it privately. Well, I am glad to see an apology to **polycarp** -a liberal minded Christian whom I respect a great deal. **furt** -I am not “taking this too personally” nor I am “overreacting”–you have implied that I am intellectually on par with Gilligan, and have essentially attempted to make mockery of my “tolerance” (quotes are for your implications), by asserting that it is meaningless (if I am following you-it is certainly circuitous). This is not warranted or accurate. > [@](#): > > Despite the impression you seem to have, the OP was not directed at you personally. It was addressed at a quite widespread idea which I viewed your post as reflecting. Again, if I have misunderstood you, feel free to clarify. I note that you are willing to apologize to **polycarp** , but I am patronized. I believe I was quite clear, as a rereading of my post here and my posts #32 and #35, and on the last page(sorry, no post #) of that other thread will attest. If you have misunderstood me, feel free to apologize. This belongs in the Pit–this isn’t playing nice. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-does-not-tolerate-homosexuality/299788/23 "2005-04-18T00:05:24Z")
**furt** > [@](#): > > I think, respectfully, you need to read the OP again. That was sort of the whole point yeah-I got the whole play on concept thing…kind of a “pun” of ideas, eh? How clever. Question remains is are you tolerant of other’s POVs? Think about it. I think you need to look up the meaning of the word “tolerance”. 2 examples: I am not a fundamentalist Christian, but I am tolerant/accepting of them. Their faith DIFFERS from mine, you see. I am not homosexual, but I tolerate and accept their sexual orientation. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-does-not-tolerate-homosexuality/299788/24 "2005-04-18T00:23:43Z")
**Furt** , I’ve said repeatedly that “homosexuality” is a term with multiple referents, and one’s opinion on it depends on what particular definition of the term one is using. I don’t condone, much less tolerate or affirm, promiscuous barebacking. Neither do those notorious homophobes **matt\_mcl** and **gobear**. But that’s one definition that some of the anti-gay crusaders would hang on the abstract term. It may mean an effectively unchangeable sexual orientation. It may mean a complexus of behaviors, some of them the commission of sexual acts, usually associated with that orientation, though occurring in some circumstances in the absence of available heterosexual outlets. It may mean the presence of same-sex acts elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Etc. Likewise, “toleration” can have a wide range of meanings, from “affirmation” through “acceptance” to “condonation” to a grudging attitude of putting up with what you are powerless to change. I **affirm** gay **people**. They are individuals with feelings similar to mine, hopes, aspirations, fears, guilt, joys, sorrows, exaltations, depressions, etc. They are entitled to equal treatment under law and on a person to person basis. They are entitled to respect for their dignity as human beings. They are entitled to love and be loved. I do not have a clue what God in His wisdom happens to think about how **gobear** reacts to Randy Harrison in QAF. I suspect that He is far less concerned about that supposed sin than he is in [insert homophobe of your choice’s name here]'s presumption that he, the homophobe, is entitled to judge **gobear** ’s morality in His name. If your point about “tolerance” was that it was a piss-poor weak word for what’s being said, then I will concur. But you don’t know how I feel about “tolerating homosexuality” because you haven’t defined the terms, and because I have never spelled out my entire perspective on the subject – nor will I. If I happen to think that one of my gay friends on this board is making a wrong decision, I will e-mail him and talk it out privately. Not because I have any business judging his behavior. But because he is my friend and brother, who deserves whatever I have to give him by way of friendship, and of advice if he wants it. Anything less than that is back to standing-in-judgment mode. And my philosophical speculations about an abstract term parallel your views of Ms. Nagra, whom I was not familiar with before your link but whom I will agree has a fair degree of hottitude, not in the slightest. It’s about equivalent to saying that **Lib** likes Objectivism but **Airman Doors** likes sirloin steak. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-does-not-tolerate-homosexuality/299788/25 "2005-04-18T00:31:41Z")
I applaud you, **polycarp**. Bravo! And hence, to bed for me (0500 comes early). ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-does-not-tolerate-homosexuality/299788/26 "2005-04-18T00:48:24Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > Well, I am glad to see an apology to **polycarp** -a liberal minded Christian whom I respect a great deal. Note the way I apologized to him \*\*if \*\* I offended him personally by using him as an example. If he just thinks I’m wrong, no apology is warranted (and I don’t think he was looking for one in any event.) > [@](#): > > You have implied that I am intellectually on par with Gilligan, I have not. Please follow: 1. Some people seem to me to believe that it is a bad thing to think that other people’s beliefs are wrong or incorrect; that this is “intolerant.” 2. I contend that the only way one can not think that at least some people are wrong is if one has no beliefs of one’s own. 3. Not having any beliefs of one’s own is very foolish. You are only insulted if you grant that A) I am correct on all three, B) that you are one of those people (that indeed you have no beliefs of your own) and that C) you agree it is very foolish. Actually, that wouldn’t be an insult, since you’d be agreeing with the charge. If, on the other hand, you say that # 1 or 2 are incorrect, than # 3 is not about you. If you wish to engage in a debate, you could simply say that #1 is not true (and then I’d say that I must have misunderstood you, and you could clarify if you like); or to say that #1 is true, but to attack my logic in #2; or to disagree with my value statement in #3. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-does-not-tolerate-homosexuality/299788/27 "2005-04-18T01:00:07Z")
You know that whistle? The one people make as a way of saying “_hooo_-boy”; that quick attack and rise in pitch, followed by a more gradual decay and glissando? Whatever you call that, that’s the sound I just made. Now I’m just gonna hunker down in my trusty asbestos tent and press my palms against my ears. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-does-not-tolerate-homosexuality/299788/28 "2005-04-18T01:24:44Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > If your point about “tolerance” was that it was a piss-poor weak word for what’s being said, then I will concur. Well, that was the only point in re: you. The larger point of the thread, which I am sure will be lost now, is that many people seem to have the attitude that \*\*Case Sensitive \*\* does [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6065251&postcount=49); that saying “my belief system is right and others aren’t” is by definition judgemental and intolerant, no matter how graciously or reticently phrased. On the contrary, it is my contention that reticence and gracious phrasing are the very definition of tolerance. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-does-not-tolerate-homosexuality/299788/29 "2005-04-18T01:55:08Z")
Ah, that makes infinitely more sense, and in broad terms, I completely agree. (I’m sure we have differences in detail, but conceptually you are on target.) If I did not feel that my belief system was “the right one,” then I would not hold it. However, that does not give me license to impugn or coerce yours or **gobear** ’s or **SCCajun** ’s where they disagree; that is a part of the respect and tolerance, in the sense you appear to give the term, that is incumbent on us as persons putatively equal and deserving of mutual respect of each other. On that note, I apologize for my misconstruing of the point of your OP, and the hostility of my first post. I trust that my long post clarified my position with regard to the inference that I erroneously drew as to your point. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-does-not-tolerate-homosexuality/299788/30 "2005-04-18T02:04:10Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I apologize for my misconstruing of the point of your OP, and the hostility of my first post. I trust that my long post clarified my position with regard to the inference that I erroneously drew as to your point. None needed … I detected no hostility. And your longer post did indeed give me quite a bit to think about. ---
**Author:** ![Merhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Merhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merhouse)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-does-not-tolerate-homosexuality/299788/31 "2005-04-18T02:26:21Z")
**Polycarp** is my hero. And that’s all I have to say about this thread. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-does-not-tolerate-homosexuality/299788/32 "2005-04-18T13:39:54Z")
**furt** – > [@](#): > > \*\* Case Sensitive and elanorigby\*\* seem to object to thinking someone else is wrong; which amounts to the same thing as objecting to believing anything at all. You need to explain this. This is not a logical statement, and backing it up with a quote from a fictional character, no matter how popular, is not good enough. The two positions are not equitable or even interchangeable. If you have a point to make regarding other people’s “beliefs” and “tolerance” it would behoove you to be clearer in your delivery of such a statement. Because…at the end of your post you say this: > [@](#): > > The second sort of tolerance – where no one has any opinions or beliefs – is impossible or anyone with an I.Q. larger than Gilligan You hold me and **cse senstiive** up as examples (yes, despite your “seem”, your position could not be clearer) of your #2 and 3 (see below) and then equate people who hold to #2 and 3 with the IQ of Gilligan! And then, you state that you have done no such thing. IF–and it’s a mighty big IF at this point–you HAD actually read any of my posts in the the thread in question–you would have read that I said my problems started with fundies when they attempt to legislate their morality unto others. How this amounts to objecting in believing anything at all, I leave to you to expound on. The phrase, “live and let live” does not mean what you think it means. I have no desire to bandy words with you-tuns out I am off today, so I can reply here now. I am sure that you will remain unaware and unapologetic that your statemtents were offensive– > [@](#): > > I have not. Please follow: > > 1. Some people seem to me to believe that it is a bad thing to think that other people’s beliefs are wrong or incorrect; that this is “intolerant.” > > 2. I contend that the only way one can not think that at least some people are wrong is if one has no beliefs of one’s own. > > 3. Not having any beliefs of one’s own is very foolish. > > You are only insulted if you grant that A) I am correct on all three, B) that you are one of those people (that indeed you have no beliefs of your own) and that C) you agree it is very foolish. Actually, that wouldn’t be an insult, since you’d be agreeing with the charge. > > If, on the other hand, you say that # 1 or 2 are incorrect, than # 3 is not about you. > > If you wish to engage in a debate, you could simply say that #1 is not true (and then I’d say that I must have misunderstood you, and you could clarify if you like); or to say that #1 is true, but to attack my logic in #2; or to disagree with my value statement in #3. And then you finish off with telling me when it is acceptable to be insulted. I am speechless. Your tone, your choice of words, your very sentence structure is pedantic, patronizing and smug. I have no need to clarify my position; it is clear to most folks on this bb, present company excepted. I have no wish to engage in your form of “debate”. I wish you well, sir, and I say, good day to you. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-does-not-tolerate-homosexuality/299788/33 "2005-04-18T15:36:43Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > \*\*Your tone, your choice of words, your very sentence structure is pedantic, patronizing and smug. I’m sorry if it appears that way; I was aiming for “precise and courteous.” > [@](#): > > I have no need to clarify my position; it is clear to most folks on this bb, present company excepted. I have no wish to engage in your form of “debate”. I wish you well, sir, and I say, good day to you. Well, then that’s that. I told you the way I percieved what you were saying; I told you what I saw as the logical consequences of that thinking; and I said that I thought those logical consequences led to idiocy. You chose to take that as “you’re calling me an idiot.” I did not mean that, and I’m sorry you took it that way. I meant is an invitation to debate. To analogize: “If you’re doing A, then you must be doing B, and if you’re doing B you’re an idiot” is not the same as “you’re an idiot,” nor is it an insult. All one has to do is say is “I am not doing A” or say “I am doing A, but A does not lead to B” or “I am doing both A and B, but that doesn’t make me an idiot.” The three points above are sequential points in an argument: if #1 does not apply to a given individual, #2 and #3 are irrelevant. To repeat: > [@](#): > > You are only insulted if you grant that A) I am correct on all three, B) that you are one of those people (that indeed you have no beliefs of your own) and that C) you agree it is very foolish. > … > You could simply say that #1 is not true (and then I’d say that I must have misunderstood you, and you could clarify if you like); As I understand you now, you do not grant the first point, and that you have no problem at all with someone who believes another person’s religious beliefs are wrong, untrue or incorrect. Case closed, and you have not been insulted. I am sorry that you thought you were, and I’m sorry if I was not clear enough in my writing. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-does-not-tolerate-homosexuality/299788/34 "2005-04-18T18:26:47Z")
> [@](#): > > To analogize: “If you’re doing A, then you must be doing B, and if you’re doing B you’re an idiot” is not the same as “you’re an idiot,” nor is it an insult. I do not agree with the premise that if one is doing A then one must do being B, at all. But I do think that if you say that-and then include, “if you’re doing B, you are an idiot” IS an insult. I fyou had said that in your opinion, doing B is idiotic, then I would have had no quarrel with you. I am sorry you cannot see this. I am also sorry that you cannot see that it is not up to you to decide when someone has taken offensive at a statement of yours. You don’t get to decide th course of other people’s feelings. You can say that you see no reason for that person to take offensive, but that is not the same as saying that there is no cause. A subtle difference, but a crucial one–and one that I thinkyou would appreciate, given the subtlety of your OP. However, I will not belabor this point–it really isn’t very important. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-does-not-tolerate-homosexuality/299788.md?page=1)