What Does Tolerance Mean?

The Mad Monarchist blog is a part of my regular reading. Its masthead says, “They cannot understand as yet that we are not fighting a political party but a sect of murderers of all contemporary culture” – a statement that neatly sums up a major theme here at Confederate Colonel. I have made no secret of the fact that I believe that monarchy – or some form of government based on the principles of monarchy – would be far preferable to the mob rule that allegedly governs America. That is not the purpose of this post though, so we will continue that line of discussion another time.

The Mad Monarch’s August 5 post lays out one of the best analyses I have seen yet about the current controversy over homosexual “marriage”. While it completely skips over the most important reason against it – the Biblical truth that it is a sin that God calls “an abomination” – that is also what makes it so good, since it holds up in even the most secular of arguments.

I have copied some of the key points below, but please be sure to read the full post to get the most from it.

The whole nature of this argument frankly baffles me. By long established tradition “marriage” is defined as the permanent union of one man and one woman. Now, a vocal minority wants to change that definition and when anyone complains about that or voices opposition the retort is that you are being discriminatory by not treating them just like everyone else. What? I’m confused. Of course they are being treated different than everyone else because their behavior is different from that of everyone else. If they were behaving just like everyone else there would be no reason to change the definition in the first place.

In any event, some want their relationships to have the same legal status as that of other legally married people. Why? You don’t need the government to make a commitment to someone and you don’t need the government to give you a license to behave as you please in your own home. The only reason I can see is that these people want government recognition, sanction and effectively the “blessing” of the government of this country which rules on behalf of “we the people”. And that is where I am forced to get involved -forced- in something I have no desire to. By my vote and by my words they want me, through my government and personally if they ever met me, to say what they’re doing is okay. That is what it comes down to. They don’t just want me to let them do it, they want me, through our representative government, to officially and publicly approve of them doing it. I cannot. I will not.

About Stephen Clay McGehee

Born-Again Christian, Grandfather, husband, business owner, Southerner, aspiring Southern Gentleman. Publisher of The Confederate Colonel and The Southern Agrarian blogs. President/Owner of Adjutant Workshop, Inc., Vice President - Gather The Fragments Bible Mission, Inc. (Sierra Leone, West Africa), Webmaster - Military Order of The Stars and Bars, Kentucky Colonel.
This entry was posted in Culture and Heritage and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to What Does Tolerance Mean?

  1. It is a good point, but then, I’ve never thought that the whole artificially created hoopla was anything other then an agenda being followed. I don’t recall this being an ‘issue’ of civil rights until a few years ago when it became the standard, by which people are judged as good open and tolerant, or evil closed minded bigots.

    For me it is absurd, and I can’t believe that no one, has called them out on it! A part of me thinks someone decided with a few friends in the MSM to run a joke and see what happened, they banged on about gay marriage and hey presto, instead of people laughing, they earnestly expressed support and demanded that government allow it!

    But it is absurd, marriage means ‘union’, a coming together, and that is only possible through a woman conceiving a child. Now, I know the gays are a bit detached from reality, but surely even they would admit, that it is highly unlikely that a man can be made pregnant by another man?

    They can pass all the laws they want, it still aint marriage, and never will be. When this sick and tired ‘civilisation’ of ours collapses, this whole ‘gay marriage’ thing will be soon forgotten, except by historians using it as one of the signs of how they knew this ‘civilisation’ was near to collapse.

  2. “When this sick and tired ‘civilisation’ of ours collapses, this whole ‘gay marriage’ thing will be soon forgotten, except by historians using it as one of the signs of how they knew this ‘civilisation’ was near to collapse.”

    I think you pretty much said it all right there, sir. I also agree that this is not some spontaneous movement that formed from an oppressed people. Instead, it is part of the Marxist movement that seeks to tear down that which kept our civilization together for thousands of years. A system as wicked as Marxism cannot improve on an existing society – it must first tear a civilized society and then replace it with its own dark system.

    Walter Williams (one of my favorite writers) had a great column on July 31, 2012 that made a point I hadn’t fully thought out before. He said, “a society’s first line of defense is not the law but customs, traditions and moral values.” Using this whole homosexual issue, it shows that society is indeed failing to the point of collapse. Our first line of defense – customs, traditions and moral values – has failed. The homosexual advocates and the Leftists who control them are now attacking the last line of defense – the law. That will soon fall, as it has with other traditional social barriers that have fallen.

    I used to be heavily involved in politics, thinking that is the way to make things better. I was wrong. Nothing changes until the culture changes, and that is the motivation behind Confederate Colonel (and other projects).

    Thank you for stopping by. I look forward to hearing from you again.

  3. James,
    I have enjoyed browsing through your blog. I especially enjoyed your “A Constitution” post – http://anirishtory.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/a-constitution-3-2/ – I have been working on a similar project for a while, but have far to go before reaching the finished product that you have. Congratulations to you for undertaking such a project. It is an exercise that everyone should at least consider at some point in their life. You’ve inspired me to spend more time on it. Thank you, sir!

  4. UK Fred says:

    I must confess up front that I do not know anything about the US tax system, beyond the old adage of “merge ‘The’ and ‘IRS’ and all you have is ‘Theirs'”, but on the other side of the Pond, we have a new institution of ‘civil partnership’ in which adults of the same sex can obtain most if not all the tax priviledges of marriage without actually being married. I cannot see why people would want same sex marriage when they can have all the advantages in a civil partnership, unless of course the intention is to destroy the institution of marriage that we have seen evolve in societies of all sorts and with all religious beliefs over time.

    At school in the late 1960’s, we had to read various books for English, and two that stuck in my mind were “1984” and “Brave New World”. In both books, the society was controlled, in 1984 as a command economy, akin to the East German system of the time so we thought, but far more like the UK system of today with CCTV cameras just about everywhere. The manner of retaining control in Brave New World was much more decentralised, and until I became an adult, I did not realise why it worked, but by effectively enforcing promiscuity, emotionally intense relationships never happened, and so the driver that is love was absent from the whole of the society, and without strong bonds between individuals, there was never any likeliehood of the system being challenged.

    I wonder if Don MacLean knew he was being prohetic when he included the lines in American Pie, “The three men I admired most, The Father , Son and Holy Ghost, They caught the last rain for the coast, The day the music died” because in its rush to be ‘relevant’ (trendy) the church has thrown the babies of Sanctity of Marriage and obedience to Christ’s teachings out with the bathwater of man-made inessential traditions.

  5. Charlie D says:

    We wouldn’t have this problem if straight people stop having gay kids!

    [Edit: These are “Words of Wisdom” from “Charlie D”. You’ll find more from him on the “About > Hate Mail” page. – Stephen Clay McGehee]

  6. Charlie D says:

    There is really no point to engage with you because as Mark Twain said: “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

  7. I fully agree with your first point – “There is really no point to engage with you”.

    Contrary to what liberals claim, there are basic beliefs that are simply incompatible. There is no room for negotiation and compromise. An example is the age-old struggle between Islam and just about everyone else. Islam’s idea of compromise is “you become a Muslim or we kill you.” Liberals are much the same – compromise means tolerance, then acceptance, then approval of depravity.

    Liberals make up their own rules so that there is no absolute right or wrong. Many, if not most of those who visit Confederate Colonel adhere to a set of beliefs based on The Holy Bible – a very uncompromising source when it is read and believed as the literal, inerrant word of God. There are other sources of belief, of course, but the bottom line is that when what we believe says one thing and the amoral society in which we live says another (or simply says nothing), then there is no room for compromise. If the point of “engaging” is to convince me and others here that you are right and we are wrong, then you are correct – “there is no point to engage”. Your fight is not with us but with the source of our beliefs.

    In the end, one side will prevail and the other side will not. It appears – and The Holy Bible foretells this – that your side will prevail… for a season. Society will continue to degenerate into a narcissistic libertine orgy of decadence until it reaches a climax and comes crashing down.

    Your side is in the driver’s seat for the moment – enjoy the ride while you can. The crash at the end is going to be painful.

    A few quotes are in order here:
    “If we continue to teach about tolerance and intolerance instead of good and evil, we will end up with tolerance of evil.”
    Dennis Prager

    “Tolerance is another word for indifference.”
    W. Somerset Maugham

    “It is not the evil itself which is horrifying about our times — it is the way we not only tolerate evil, but have made a cult of positively worshipping weakness, depravity, rottenness and evil itself.”
    George Lincoln Rockwell

    “Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.”
    G. K. Chesterton

    “Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When an immoral society has blatantly and proudly violated all the commandments, it insists upon one last virtue, tolerance for its immorality. It will not tolerate condemnation of its perversions. It creates a whole new world in which only the intolerant critic of intolerable evil is evil.”
    Hutton Gibson

  8. Charlie D. used the “Contact us” form to ask a very legitimate question, so I will answer it here.

    He asked, “How can a Christian post comments from a man who denied the holocaust?”

    It is a question that I struggled with when I first started collecting quotes a number of years ago (I have them posted on another web site since they cover a wide range of topics).

    I have posted a couple of quotes above from some rather unsavory characters (to put it mildly). Hutton Gibson is well-known holocaust denier, and George Lincoln Rockwell is the founder of the American Nazi Party. Clearly not folks that I would in any way align myself with. I hope that even those who strongly disagree with what the Confederate Colonel blog is about would trust my integrity enough accept that as fact.

    The question comes down to this – do we reject the entire content of a man’s life because of his background? Think it over carefully before answering. Would you disagree if Adolph Hitler were to have quoted a great truth in Mein Kampf? Is every word spoken by Joseph Stalin a lie never to be repeated by decent people because of who he was and what he did? My answer is “No”. Even the vilest of men can speak words of wisdom. In fact, it would not surprise me to learn that those of evil genius (and any man, such as Hitler, who can take over an entire nation – for whatever reason – clearly has a spark of genius) have something in their lives that anyone can learn from.

    In my list of collected quotes, I have quotes from Hitler, Stalin, Rockwell, Lincoln, and others who, to a greater or lesser degree, were ruthlessly evil leaders. The spark of genius that they have can be learned from. That is a far cry from saying they should be emulated. Words of wisdom stand alone; they can be separated from those who spoke or wrote them, yet credit must be given to the author of those words. To do otherwise would be to steal their words. Of the 261 quotes that I now have, there is one from George Lincoln Rockwell, one from Hutton Gibson, and perhaps a half dozen at most from Hitler and Stalin.

    The truth does not become a lie because of who spoke those words. Words of truth must not be banished because they were spoken by evil men. The answer to Charlie D.’s question is simple – The quotes I included in the above comment are true, and that is why I posted those comments.

    I will close with another quote:
    “There is not a truth existing which fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.”
    Thomas Jefferson

Comments are closed.