I just sat through a tolerance panel for LGBTQI individuals in healthcare and was shocked and appalled at their open intolerance and open labeling they deemed as people groups who are intolerant. Instead of identifying individuals who were intolerant towards their choice, They identified entire groups because of an experience with one or a small group of individuals.
Intolerance is to take an experience, Label the person as "whatever you like" and determine that because that one person does not agree with your choice that the entire group must feel the same way and is dangerous, Discriminatory, And. Very sad. Isn't that a paradox to the inclusion that every group of people who feels marginalized is fighting for? Isn't that doing the same thing these groups identifying themselves as marginalized are fighting against?
They are being forced to accept the LGBT point of view. A fantastic example is the Baker in Oregon. This man had no personal prejudice against the same sex couple who requested a wedding cake be made for them. He told them No because it was against his beliefs. However he was courteous to them and even gave them the name of another Baker down the street who would make them a cake. This man kept his opinions to himself, he didn't hoist anti-LGBT flags or hand out anti-LGBT propaganda. He simply disagreed with what they were doing. He did not force his opinion on them or force them to not getting married or be gay. Yet, this couple forced him, and the court forced him to do something that was against his morals. That's Intolerance. They could easily have gone to the other baker but no they had to force their belief on someone who disagreed with them. This question is not stupid, it points to the double standard that current society hold.
Well the regressive sect of it at least. The LGBT community as a whole has made a profound contribution to the intolerant and regressive PC culture which slanders anyone who is; white, male, straight, cis, etc.
I do not have a problem with the LGBT culture existing, their core message from the beginning was live and let live/love, this was an extremely libertarian stance and I respect that, many libertarian LGBT peoples still exist but they are no longer the loudest in their group, that award goes to the monsters we see at college campuses that will not allow any opinion outside of their triggerless safespace culture.
The LGBT community has an agenda, and that agenda defies some opinions, e.G., the staunchly Christian community, the homophobic community, the traditional family nucleus advocates community, the we-attack-homosexuals community. And it has made efforts to change those opinions, e.G., gay pride parades, increasing depiction of homosexuals in the media.
As such, I believe it is safe to say that since the LGBT community is trying to change opinions and perhaps redefine principles (boys should be with girls), they are not tolerant of opinions that oppose their opinions, otherwise they would be okay with the status quo- them being discriminated, and the heterosexual dichotomy being defended through and through.
To tolerate means "to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit."
The following statements clarify the situation:
- Politely saying one disagrees or disapproves of something or someone DOES NOT qualify as intolerance.
- Saying something impolite or even cruel to somebody one disagrees with or disapproves of DOES NOT qualify as intolerance, but it does qualify as rudeness.
- Starting advertisement campaigns or filling the media with messages that oneself and ones ideas are right, and that those one disagrees with are wrong and evil DOES NOT qualify as intolerance.
- Deciding not to do business with someone one disagrees with or disapproves of (whether as a customer, a business, an employee, or an employer) DOES NOT qualify as intolerance, but it is a poor business practice.
- By contrast, physically restraining someone to prevent him/her from doing something one disagrees with or disapproves of DOES qualify as intolerance.
- Beating or killing somebody one disagrees with or disapproves of DOES qualify as intolerance.
- Imprisoning somebody one disagrees with or disapproves of DOES qualify as intolerance.
- Confiscating property of somebody one disagrees with or disapproves of DOES qualify as intolerance.
Based on this definition, the vast majority of LGBT people in the US are tolerant of those who do not agree with them. For that matter, the vast majority of people in the US who find anything other than heterosexuals in 'traditional' gender roles to be repugnant or immoral, filthy, gross, etc. are also tolerant.
Yes, there is some violence on both sides because there are antisocial people on both sides. However, that is generally rare. As much to the point those same people would probably beat somebody else for some other reason; the disagreement is the excuse for the violence. (e.G. Football hooligans don’t fight fans of other teams because of some dedication to their favorite team. They fight simply because they like to hurt people. The excuse/reason is irrelevant.)
More to the point, the vast majority of people in the US do not seem to care about the issue. The legislation, news stories, court cases, protests, and hoopla are generated by a remarkably small percentage of people on the outer fringes of both sides. Most people really, REALLY DO NOT CARE with whom other people have sex (unless it is someone with whom we are sexually involved). We also don't care about whether other people approve of our sex partners. Honestly, I do not see how anyone comes to the conclusion it is a significant issue. Gay Pride parades are just exactly as irrelevant as anti-gay protest marches. Even so, neither type of event is intolerant.
Those who have people vocally disagree with them, even to the point of casting aspersions on their characters, are NOT the victims of intolerance. We all disagree about something or other. It is a natural result of being independent beings.
Those who don't agree with them, those who oppose the legalization of same sex marriage, are being intolerant through their belief that because they don't agree, that belief should be reflected in legislation, even though they are not being forced to do anything they do not want to. Wanting the right to get married isn't intolerant of people not wanting that right, because the LGBT community is not proposing to make heterosexual marriage illegal. What a stupid question.
If "those who don't agree with them" includes "religious fundamentalists who think homosexuality is immoral," then yes, LGBT people are intolerant of them. HOWEVER, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
There is a philosophical theory called the Paradox of Tolerance. It states that, in order for a society to be truly tolerant, it must be intolerant of intolerance itself. Those who would deny rights to LGBT people because of their intolerance, mostly brought on by religious fundamentalism, should not be tolerated.
So yes, LGBT people are intolerant of "those who disagree with them," but only in the interest of preserving tolerance, by not allowing intolerance to go unchallenged.