Was perusing this rebuttal (badly-formatted but well written, scroll down to the debate between Gagnon and Countryman) of a particular pro-homosexual interpretation of the bible, when a particular turn of phrase caught my eye.

Gagnon, the anglican author, maintains that the bible contains strong prohibitions against homsexual behavior, and has written a book saying so. Countryman, his critic, maintains he's quite wrong. All well and good so far. But I found a from his critic interesting, and telling:

Countryman more or less states his motivation for writing the review in the third-to-last sentence: he does not regard my book “as an overture to friendly conversation.”

Interesting. So what's an "overture to friendly conservation"? As with the author, this strikes me as a backhanded way of saying: "I will not speak with you on friendly terms unless you agree with my position," or more directly: "I will be your enemy, and will treat you as such, if we disagree on this point."

Or even more succictly: I am intolerant.

The narrative that we're sold is that people like Gagnon, who feel that homosexual behavior is sinful, are "intolerant" of gays like Countryman. In reality, I get the feeling that Gagnon has nothing personally against Countryman, just that he feels Countryman is attempting to distort the bible's teaching to justify his own position. Rather, it seems it is Countryman who indicates people will not be spoken to peacefully, or in friendly tones, unless they agree with him.

What is tolerance, after all?

"Tolerance" means getting along, or at least "live and let live", in the face of serious differences; "tolerance" itself presumes there are serious differences of opinion -- after all, how can you be said to "tolerate" only those who completely agree with you?

But the way certain gay (and leftist) extremists use "tolerance" is a perversion, an inversion of the meaning of the word: When they use the word, they mean eliminating differences in opinion, which is the exact opposite of tolerance. If you hold a serious, principled difference, such extremists will not get along with you, as Countryman promises.

As such, they reveal the totalitarian instincts lurking beneath the surface: In order to feel good about themselves, as TS Elliot indicated, they must exert an enormous amount of control in order to silence or at least estrange each dissenting voice which might cause them to feel bad.

How much better to be secure knowing that you are alright because of some absolute fixed point of reference.