i see no reason why tolerance of others rights is a bad thing...
i see no reason why the norm has to be heterosexual or homosexual at all...why does it have to be one or the other...it's been both since the beginning of time...it'll be both for the rest of time...it's not an either/or norm...
just because i don't understand how a man could look at another man with amorous intent...doesn't mean i have the right to tell him he can't have a job in the boy scouts...his normal isn't mine...but his normal has no factor on my tolerance of his lifestyle...because they are his...not mine...the minute his lifestyle impinges upon my rights...THEN my tolerance will be tested...
as for lines...who draws the line though?...only the people that agree with your norm?...and how is the line drawn?...your rights end where another person's rights begin is an old adage...but how is a homosexual getting a job with the boy scouts mess with your rights...or in otherwords...how does that cross the line that you've drawn?...
Tolerance of others is not a bad thing. But in this case, we are discussing "normal" and "tolerance" and the BSA allowing gay leaders. Fine, we can all agree there is no problem with that. But you asked the original question - "btw what is normal?" This is what I'm taking you to point for. You're indicating that just because people are different, we should be tolerant and accepting as long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights. That's utopian thinking and not able to be defined in practice. You must discuss - "where do you draw the line?"
I'll offer a few examples, some of which are tired examples, but show how your justification is just wide open to slippery slopes.
Polyamory. I define normal as having more than one wife. You think marriage should be between two people only. Who wins? I'm not abusing your rights, am I? Why can I not have 3 wives? But someone drew a line once, that it should be one man and one wife and having more than one wife isn't "normal." Who drew that line? Their definition of normal was different than mine. Why can't they be tolerant of my wish to have multiple wives?
Animal Rights. PETA and other organizations, and activists, work to protect animals. Makes sense. I'm a dog owner. My dog is a member of my family, practically human to us. But I also grew up on a farm. I cut the heads off of hundreds of chickens, I held rabbits as they were slaughtered while alive with a knife to be served for dinner. I've killed a thousand fish, I hunt deer and have killed 25 bucks and 3 does for food, and while growing up participated in the slaughter of countless pigs and cattle to feed our families. This is normal to me and millions. This lifestyle does not violate anyone else's rights - but it is abnormal to others. Who gets to define normal? At some point in time, if PETA and other organizations get to re-define what is normal, I could go to prison as a mass murderer.
I think back to the Michael Vick case. There are countless families that grew up in the south, for generations, where dog fighting was considered normal. Somewhere, along the line, dogs somehow became protected (though they are still just animals). And what was normal for one group suddenly became illegal. How long before a man is charged for animal cruelty for killing a stray snake that wanders on to his lawn because the slippery slope of "defining normal" continues to shift and one by one more and more animals are added to the list of animals man shalt not kill?
Pedophilia. No, I am not comparing gay people to pedophiles. And this is the tired example. But it exposes slippery slope. For the sake of this discussion, take the illegality aspect out of pedophilia for just a moment. Look at it simply from the aspect of loving and caring. I can fathom that there are people out there that could truly fall in love with a child or a minor. I can fathom that to them, their love is likely and truly "real love" as they feel it, though
we may all say it is sick and twisted and distorted. To the pedophile, these are normal feelings, and she'd likely argue - if I and the child truly do LOVE each other, what is so abnormal about that? If it weren't already illegal (thank God it is), she could determine her desires are normal and we should be tolerant.
Hopefully you get my point. You can't use your stated logic - that we should simply be tolerant and understand that other people define normal differently - to handles these types of situations . That set of parameters fails very quickly.
