If I say “Love the sinner, abhor 
the sin” about someone’s homophobia, it makes sense. His homophobia is a wrong opinion and a wrongful emotional reaction, which he could correct, and be a better man for it.
If the homophobe says “love the sinner, abhor the sin” about homosexuality, it makes no sense. She rejects the gay person, because the sexuality cannot be removed from a person without blighting them.
How do you tolerate intolerance? By bracketing it, by realising that the intolerant one perhaps could not know better, and that not all his beliefs or actions are as wicked.
To be intolerant of a person, because of who s/he is, is wrong. To be intolerant of a belief, because it is false and harmful, is right. A refusal to tolerate homosexuality is a refusal to tolerate a natural characteristic. That is wrong. A refusal to tolerate homophobia is a virtue, because homophobia is stupid and harmful. We’re right and they are wrong. Simple.
Another thought. I imagine myself unintelligent, because I make connections and wish I had made them earlier, then kick myself. Better to think, How wonderful to make the connection now!
Nothing more to be said, so here is some more Giovanni Boldini. Just look at the hands!
I agree with you completely! Also, I love the Boldini paintings. He reminds me a bit of one of my favorites, John Singer Sargent.
LikeLike
Here is the demure Jane Emmet:
I held my hand tense, like Elizabeth Drexel’s, and it gave me an insight into it.
LikeLike
Hmm (got that from you), I agree with you about intolerance but find this post oddly out of your style. It’s so brief and definite. The hands are very interesting.
LikeLike
Sometimes I take the long view, and consider different positions, and sometimes I just say what I think. It is good to be able to do that, when I have been considering other people’s positions before my own.
Boldini has a way of making a little dark triangle with the folded hands.
LikeLike