Tolerance Not Acceptance

Tolerance Not Acceptance
The Advocate, The Last Word
September 18, 2001

In early August, when the New York Times ran an article about supposedly controversial me, my parents were a little less than pleased. They were proud, of course, but a tad taken aback by the word lesbian appearing in big black letters above my name in the "paper of record." As my father so indelicately put it: "It's one thing to come out. It's another to come out in Macy's window."

Naturally, this meant, as they went on to tell me, that though they'd been nothing less than supportive of my sexual preference for the better part of a decade, they hadn't told their friends that I was a euphemism, or at least not, as they say, "in so many words." It seemed I'd been the pink elephant in the living room for all this time-that is, a queer Republican. Of course, I'm not a Republican, but then try telling that to the New York Times.

Anyway, the interesting thing about all this is not that my parents are still a bit embarrassed by my lesbianism, but that this doesn't make them silent bigots. Deep down, they don't approve, and that's okay, because there's a big difference between tolerance and approval and I have no right to expect or demand the latter from anyone.

Let me explain the difference. Queers generally insist that the rest of the world view them as peers, and approach them in an "I'm okay, you're okay" sort of way. No judgments. This is understandable, but neither realistic nor fair. Here's the thing. It's nice when people think you're dandy just the way you are. That's approval, and it feels good. We've all wanted that (especially from our parents) since toddlerhood. But, do we have a right to expect it? After all, are we just as willing to approve of everyone else, including (to pick a few obvious hot buttons) the Christian Right, the NRA, and NAMBLA? Not usually. And why should we? In a free society, there's no such thing as mind control, nor should there be. But that's exactly what we're doing when we try to impose approval of our lifestyle, beliefs, and choices on other people. It's invasive, and it's illiberal.

It's also a boomerang. You and I, for example, may not like the Christian Right, the NRA, and NAMBLA. But, if we're committed to fairness, we recognize their right to exist and express themselves freely. At the same time, however, we reserve our right to disapprove of them. Within certain obvious limits, we don't get to tell anyone else how to live, and no one gets to tell us what to think. That's tolerance and it's the most anyone is entitled to.
So, you see, my parents, like most of the rest of society, tolerate me. They don't approve of me, and never will. And that's fine. I'm an adult. I don't need unconditional approval anymore, and if the gay movement is to grow out of its adolescence, it too, has to move beyond the puerile need for approval, and graduate to the more sensible appeal for, and practice of tolerance. Think about it. If we can't even tolerate disagreement in our own community-and the New York Times article on me is a pretty good indication that we can't-then how can we expect the rest of the world to tolerate, much less approve of us?

If Dr. Laura or anyone else believes that we're a biological mistake, or that we're sinners, so be it. That's their belief, and they're entitled to it, just as we're entitled to our belief that Dr. Laura is a charlatan. We agree to disagree. What's more, in a pluralistic society, we learn to respect that disagreement, even to cultivate it civilly. Because there is a middle ground between adulation and homophobia, and, unless you're perpetually twelve years old, you can't go through life believing that everyone who doesn't sing your praises is out to get you.

"unless you're perpetually twelve years old, you can't go through life believing that everyone who doesn't sing your praises is out to get you."

Well, that's exactly it, isn't it. Twelve year olds are selfish, hormone-ridden messes -- but then they mature, become firmly heterosexual, and realize it's time to put away childishness. Those who don't mature are the whiny cause of most of society's ills.

And I resent the crack about the NRA, as if that could in any universe have some equivalency to the pure EVIL of NAMBLA? Not to mention the so-called Christian Right -- whatever she might mean by that.

See the last sentence of the post just before yours; the poster pointed out succinctly the flaw in this woman's reasoning. Lieberals are all about manufacturing specious equivalencies that further their twisted agenda ... to remake the American society along the philosophical notions of 'You may think I'm a deviant, but go beyond tolerating me, to affirm me, and I'll stop harassing you' and I won't accept it, ever. I can tolerate, but I will never affirm them as normal in their deviant behavior. Sadly this female (Norah Vincent) will likely never realize how her defiance breaks God's heart as He continues to love while losing her for eternity because of her willful rejection of His grace.

Good thought, but while I think the writer's opinion is sensible my guess is that she is motivated by something else.

One possibility is that she cannot shake internal doubts that what she is doing is not normal. Sure it's fun, but feels abnormal nonetheless. Lots of us heterosexuals feel that way about simple everyday activities that are risky or otherwise not something that ordinary folks did 100 years ago.

Another possibility is that the writer feels guilt (imagine a liberal having a conscience or feeling remorse).

The final possibility is that the writer is just being honest. I know that most liberals sacrifice truth for political objectives, but this might be a rare one.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.