Who is the least tolerant?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What do you think, does intolerance come from that one cares and people who tolerate everything, don’t really care about what happens to others? I think it is so and explains also why people with religious beliefs usually are intolerant to things they think are not good or are harmful to others.

The problem is, it is not for me to always know what is not good for someone else. I don't happen to like cannabis, for example -- not for "moral" reasons, but because it tends to make me feel ill. But cannabis is now legal in my country, and though I suspect it's probably not good for people, what should I do about someone else who wishes to use it?

As a gay man, I've heard from many people, including on this site, how bad homosexual behaviour is -- and I say to them, "it may be bad for you, because you are not gay, but it is very, very good for me because it is my only route to the happiness that a healthy and loving life relationship that includes all the things that I want." Furthermore, a very great many people worked very hard to prevent gay people from marrying, and sharing in all the benefits -- and all the responsibilities -- thast go with marriage. Why? Was it hurting them? How? They think it was hurting those who married? Why didn't they just ask, instead of assuming. Even today, there are those right here on RF who rail mightily against gay people -- and they virtually always cite their religious passages for doing so. It happened just today, in another thread in General Religious Debates.

Even worse, in my view, is the "missionary impulse." To go and take away some other peoples' faith beliefs, and replace them with their own -- "For their own good." That's intolerance disguised as doing good, when it isn't doing good at all, and I can cite hundreds of examples of where it did very, very great harm. Leading, even, to the eradication of some groups. Surely that can't be "for their own good."

 

[Heyo]

What do you think, does intolerance come from that one cares and people who tolerate everything, don’t really care about what happens to others? I think it is so and explains also why people with religious beliefs usually are intolerant to things they think are not good or are harmful to others.

Tolerance ≠ indifference.

 

[1213]

…it's probably not good for people, what should I do about someone else who wishes to use it?

I think it would be ok, if you tell that you think it is not good for the person and also why you think so. That is enough, if the other person doesn’t agree, you can let him be.

…many people worked very hard to prevent gay people from marrying, and sharing in all the benefits -- and all the responsibilities -- thast go with marriage. Why?

I don’t see any good reason for marriage in other cases than man and woman. And, if we loosen the idea of marriage for gay people, why not for everything? Why deny the “benefits” from anyone? We could as well be all married to everyone, if we use the same arguments that gay people have for marriage. It becomes meaningless. This does not mean that I am going to prevent such thing. And I think heterosexuals are pretty much as harmful, when so many people divorce and get remarried very easily.

 

[ppp]

Why deny the “benefits” from anyone? We could as well be all married to everyone, if we use the same arguments that gay people have for marriage.

Do you know any of the benefits that one gets from marriage? Because when I think of the practical list, you aren't making much sense. For instance, your spouse, being your next of kin, is the one whom you entrust to make medical decisions for you when you cannot. Marriage grants them the legal power to make that decision. Granting "everyone" that power, as you suggest, makes no sense at all.

 

[McBell]

I don’t see any good reason for marriage in other cases than man and woman.

Wonder how this can be...
Oh...
You think marriage is for making babies only?

And, if we loosen the idea of marriage for gay people, why not for everything?

Not sure what you are asking here.
Would you be so kind as to elaborate?

Why deny the “benefits” from anyone?

as long as they are legally married, why not?

Not sure I understand what you mean here either.

We could as well be all married to everyone, if we use the same arguments that gay people have for marriage.

Again, you will need to elaborate.

It becomes meaningless.

You seem to think marriage is some sort of elitist club...

This does not mean that I am going to prevent such thing. And I think heterosexuals are pretty much as harmful, when so many people divorce and get remarried very easily.

I have said for years that marriage should cost thousands of dollars and divorce should be dirt cheap.

 

[1213]

...
Again, you will need to elaborate....

My question is basically, why any limits to marriage?

 

[1213]

...For instance, your spouse, being your next of kin, is the one whom you entrust to make medical decisions for you when you cannot. Marriage grants them the legal power to make that decision. Granting "everyone" that power, as you suggest, makes no sense at all.

I think it makes as much sense as granting it to spouse. There is no quarantine that spouse makes the decision you want. And if it would be only about that, the right could be given without marriage also. There is no good reason to require marriage for that purpose. And if that would be good reason, should I marry my sister, if I want her to make the decision? Is there any reason to deny siblings to marry? Where should we draw the line? Why? If we accept gay marriage, we could as well accept marriage between kid and adult for example.

 

[ppp]

I think it makes as much sense as granting it to spouse.

Well, you're wrong.

There is no quarantine that spouse makes the decision you want.

No relevance established.

And if it would be only about that, the right could be given without marriage also

No relevance established.

And if that would be good reason, should I marry my sister, if I want her to make the decision?

No need. Your sister can already make that decision if she is the nearest Next of Kin available. In most states the order of precedence is your spouse, your parents, your adult children, your adult siblings.

Is there any reason to deny siblings to marry?

No relevance established.

Where should we draw the line?

Wrong question. The question is on what ground should we draw the line at straight couple? If you choose to answer, please spare me the stupid stock responses. Don't knee-jerk. Think through your answer.

If we accept gay marriage, we could as well accept marriage between kid and adult for example.

Perhaps you are unaware that children cannot give legal consent. If so, then please stay away from children. Surrender any parental right you might have.

 

[McBell]

My question is basically, why any limits to marriage?

Because marriage is a legal contract.

Which means to ban someone from marriage you will have to present a legitimate legal argument.
Thus the reason the same sex bans failed.

Now before all the nonsense about religion "owning" marriage,,, It does not.
All the ceremony, fluff, glitter, window dressing, etc. that people and religions attach to marriage is just that, ceremony, fluff, glitter, window dressing, etc.
Marriage is a legal contract first and fore most.
Thus the limitations placed on it.

 

[McBell]

I think it makes as much sense as granting it to spouse. There is no quarantine that spouse makes the decision you want. And if it would be only about that, the right could be given without marriage also. There is no good reason to require marriage for that purpose. And if that would be good reason, should I marry my sister, if I want her to make the decision? Is there any reason to deny siblings to marry? Where should we draw the line? Why? If we accept gay marriage, we could as well accept marriage between kid and adult for example.

Spoken like someone who knows little to nothing about what benefits are granted with marriage.
Nor do you appear to know much about the legalities of marriage.

 

[1213]

....
Marriage is a legal contract first and fore most.
...

Interesting claim. By what I know marriage was first set for man and woman. I don’t see any intelligent reason why it should be for anyone else.

 

[1213]

...The question is on what ground should we draw the line at straight couple?

Because there really is no intelligent reasons for others to have it and it was originally set for man and woman.

 

[ppp]

Because there really is no intelligent reasons for others to have it and it was originally set for man and woman.

Well, that's false. But even if it were true, that would be a dumb reason. It would be like saying that voting should be restricted to male citizens of Athens.

Athens is in Greece.

 

[McBell]

Interesting claim. By what I know marriage was first set for man and woman. I don’t see any intelligent reason why it should be for anyone else.

Not a claim.
Reality.
And like any other legal contract there are legalities that must be followed.

Your "reason" given above does not meet the "legitimate" part of legitimate legal reason.

Thus the bans on same sex marriage have been banned.
At least here in the USA.