Tolerance

keeponrockin

What if an anti inter-racial marriage has an employee in an interracial marriage. He is then forced to pay by means of benefits. His right to believe differently WOULD then be comprimised. How would you feel about this situation?

Juberoo, do you believe you are intolerant? Yes or no.

Drowned Out

How is his right to believe differently compromised? It isn't at all!
Having to pay into something he doesn't believe in does not make him have to believe in or agree with it. He is free to speak out against it and try to have the law changed back to how he wants it. In relation to the thread topic, he is not tolerating gay marriage. How are the gay people being intolerant by asking to be allowed to marry? A gay person asking to marry is not forcing any BELIEF upon YOU. Same as the drug issue brought up earlier today. If drugs are legalized, it does not mean that you condone their use to live in a non-prohibitionist society. You are not having any belief forced upon you, as drug users are having the belief that drug use is wrong thrust upon them.

Juberoo

.

Juberoo

.

keeponrockin

So, as a tolerant person, why would you have a problem with giving homosexual couples at least the same rights as married couples have through a civil union of some sort. I don't think the churches should be forced to accecpt this, but I think it is a good comprimise allowing homosexual couples to have the same rights, and the people that disagree can still have their 'marriage'. What do you think of this idea? I believe it would be good for things like medical issues, estate, etc...

Austicman

Thats twice I've posted in one of your threads without name calling or personal attacks and have gotten no reply. How about you answer someone who's debating the subject and not flame on with the name callers.

And don't answer this post, answer my original one will ya.

wolfbear

Juberoo wrote:

so isn't it forcing beliefs on those you consider "intolerant" by fighting to get laws changed to incorporate what they don't believe in into the mainstream.....for arguments sake, say homosexual marriage. If it becomes legal and an anti-gay marriage boss has a homosexual employee, he then is forced to pay for this marriage by means of benefits. His right to believe differently is then compromised. Why does that not matter?

My belief is that there should be no "nos".

jamtemplechains

keeponrockin wrote:

What if an anti inter-racial marriage has an employee in an interracial marriage. He is then forced to pay by means of benefits. His right to believe differently WOULD then be comprimised. How would you feel about this situation?

this is a perfect analogy....juberoo, i love how you responded to keeponrockin's post, yet you obviously didn't have an intelligent answer to the comparison presented. what IF a boss was opposed to interracial marriage? you think they shouldn't have to shell out benefits to these couples? hell, by this unbelievable logic, what if a boss hates jews? should he be able to pay jews less than anyone else? what if he has 'moral opposition' to hispanic people? should he be able to allow them less benefits than any other employees? arguing against gay marriage because an employer might not agree with it or want to support monetary benefits for it is the single most idiotic thing i've ever heard and is more laughable than i can even began to explain.

angelica

Juberoo wrote:

So why is it, that people who emrace generalized tolerance, have none for people that don't agree with them? If someone wants to be racist, a biggot or a fundamentalist christian...pro-life, anti-drug or right wing conservative...shouldn't these "enlightened" new age thinkers support ALL trains of thought? Not just the ones that coincide with their stand?
Hmmmmm......

This is the way it works:

People are at all kinds of different stages of evolution. 98 percent of the population are at developmental stages wherein they see that they are "right" and that others are "wrong". The only group who are truly tolerant are in the top 2 percentile. This group has raised their awareness enough that they can truly understand all perspectives and therefore just are generally tolerant. Humanity is evolving towards such stages.

Just before reaching this top percentile, we have the group of people who push for general tolerance. The reason you see contradiction and double-speak coming from these people (and I see it too) is because they have not resolved their inner issues. So while they understand the validity of tolerance on one level, they are showing us on another level that they are not totally on board with themselves and this "tolerance" yet. Their evolving-yet-not-complete "tolerance" includes all kinds of false justifications for poor behaviour, and inherent contradictions. Even though they are moving towards tolerance, like yourself they are human and they have all kinds of inner conflicts that cause them to act out in dysfunctional ways, yet. Until one actually does really get their inner stuff worked out, they continue to sabotage their own arguments, revealing their existing inner conflicts and problems. That's why you see this in 98% of the population.

jamtemplechains

angelica wrote:

This is the way it works:

People are at all kinds of different stages of evolution. 98 percent of the population are at developmental stages wherein they see that they are "right" and that others are "wrong". The only group who are truly tolerant are in the top 2 percentile. This group has raised their awareness enough that they can truly understand all perspectives and therefore just are generally tolerant. Humanity is evolving towards such stages.

Just before reaching this top percentile, we have the group of people who push for general tolerance. The reason you see contradiction and double-speak coming from these people (and I see it too) is because they have not resolved their inner issues. So while they understand the validity of tolerance on one level, they are showing us on another level that they are not totally on board with themselves and this "tolerance" yet. Their evolving-yet-not-complete "tolerance" includes all kinds of false justifications for poor behaviour, and inherent contradictions. Even though they are moving towards tolerance, like yourself they are human and they have all kinds of inner conflicts that cause them to act out in dysfunctional ways, yet. Until one actually does really get their inner stuff worked out, they continue to sabotage their own arguments, revealing their existing inner conflicts and problems. That's why you see this in 98% of the population.

this sounds almost to be in the same vein as maslow's self-actualization. what exactly is this theory you're describing and where do these figures come from? i'm not going to attempt to describe or explain on what level what percentage of people think or behave; i simply stand by my contention that to feel hatred for someone for natural and biological reasons they could never alter or control is radically different than feeling hatred and frustration toward's people who harbor these prejudices. i am not going to know if i will dislike another person before i know them or hear what they're all about. they could be of any age, sex, race, or sexual orientation. but i WILL admit that i am intolerant and prejudice towards certain people in that if someone is the kind of person who will immediately hate others for those very reasons, i will have a significant distaste for them.

Heineken Helen

Deni wrote:

I will tolerate a lot, but this I won't tolerate either. And like the poster above cutback said... I also have no tolerance for intolerance...

I also don't tolerate stupidity very well. I admit that. lol

One of the things that I do find really funny though is when somebody who is KNOWN to be a bigot comes to tolerant people says, why wont you tolerate me and my views and expects them to say... oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was supposed to tolerate hate.

well said! I don't want to be bigheaded but this thread MAY come from a discussion we were having on the AET of all bloody places about the girl who gave birth in a McDonalds toilet and tried to flush the baby down the toilet? I didn't defend her actions but some of us tried to make the intolerants see that we can't judge somebody for doing something like that and that we shouldn't string her up :rolleyes:

Heineken Helen

because what the fuck does it matter to you if two men want to marry eachother? How does this hurt you or effect your life in any way? Your stance that they SHOULDN'T marry, effects their life if you get your way, doesn't it? If you don't want to be in a gay marriage well don't marry someone of the same sex... simple as that.

Heineken Helen

So if you don't believe that women should be allowed to work, should that right be taken away from ME?

If you don't believe that God exists, should people not be allowed attend a church of their choice anymore?

If you don't believe in aliens, do they cease to exist?

Who the fuck died and made YOU God? I don't agree with everything that people do, but I believe in karma and if something's wrong, it WILL come back to bite them in the arse. Why should YOU be judge, jury and executioner?

Can you honestly say you have NEVER EVER done anything wrong in your life?

angelica

jamtemplechains wrote:

this sounds almost to be in the same vein as maslow's self-actualization. what exactly is this theory you're describing and where do these figures come from? i'm not going to attempt to describe or explain on what level what percentage of people think or behave; i simply stand by my contention that to feel hatred for someone for natural and biological reasons they could never alter or control is radically different than feeling hatred and frustration toward's people who harbor these prejudices. i am not going to know if i will dislike another person before i know them or hear what they're all about. they could be of any age, sex, race, or sexual orientation. but i WILL admit that i am intolerant and prejudice towards certain people in that if someone is the kind of person who will immediately hate others for those very reasons, i will have a significant distaste for them.

I'm talking about Clare Graves and his human development model.

Here's a bit about it from Ken Wilbur's book, "Spiral Dynamics", describing Graves' model: (edit: I made an error...the Ken Wilbur book is called "A Theory of Everything"--the model is Spiral Dynamics and is explained in this book.)


"Graves outlined around eight major "levels or waves of human existence," as we will see in a moment. But it should be remembered that virtually all of these stage conceptions--from Abraham Maslow to Jane Loevinger to Robert Kegan to Clare Graves--are based on extensive amounts of research and data. These are not simply conceptual ideas and pet theories, but are grounded at every point in a considerable amount of carefully checked evidence. Many of the stage models, in fact, have been carefully checked in first-, second-, and third-world countries. The same is true with Graves model; to date, it has been tested in more than fifty thousand people from around the world, and there have been no major exceptions found to the general scheme. "


It definitely aligns with Abraham Maslow's numbers. As well, the numbers for codependency--wherein people get tangled up in one another and their issues and are unhealthy--is estimated to be about 95%. So there seems to be similarities in these models, pointing to the same phenomena.

spiral out

Let's look at this way, All people should have the right to an equal standard of living. Just because you don't like a particular way that someone lives thier live does not mean they should not have the same rights as you.

You really do come across as a very ignorant person.

soulsinging

where did i say i can force my opinion on you? i specifically said, you can be the piece of ignorant trash you are. no skin off my neck. i won't force you to treat homosexuals as humans or blacks as equals. i can't. you, however, are trying to force your opinions by denying them equality and simple human dignity. kudos though... you are quickly becoming the king of posting bullshit answers to honest responses that you clearly lack the mental capacity to counter. try arguing my points. but i know you wont... you learned debate from rush and sean and bill, where all you have to do is cry about how oppressed white christians are and accuse anyone who thinks you're a homophobic and racist redneck of being a freedom-hater.

soulsinging

.

sweetpotato

no, since there are things that are empirically RIGHT or WRONG, so "opinions" such as bigotry and racism don't deserve the same respect (or any, for that matter) that, say, a pro-life or anti-drug stance deserve. ALL trains of thought are not of equal merit, and that's not a matter of opinion, it's fact.

you really seem to struggle with the whole right/wrong concept, don'tcha?



edited to add bolding & color.

decides2dream

of COURSE. i couldn't care less how ANYone choose to think for themselves, no matter how much i personally may disagree with said thoughts/beliefs/opinions. here's the big BUT though. i don't care what you believe, BUT i DO care if you try to force your beliefs on me or others through legislations limiting the rights of others who you disagree/disapprove of. otherwise, go ahead and be a hating individual, the only person you hurt with such disgust is yourself.


btw - your analogy of the emplyer being 'forced to alter his beliefs' if he has to pay benefits to a homosexual couple is just plain FALSE. he can still be anti-homosexual, anti-gay marriage....as anti whatever and filled with hate for others as much as he wants. thing is, his personally held beliefs cannot be used to deny said group their rights, that's all. no one is forcing him to change his stance, only to follow the law IF such a law existed...as it well should. as MANY have already stated...change the group from 'gay' to women, blacks, jews, interracial couples, whatever/whomever you want.......and while it is anyone's right to be anti-whatever, bigoted and hate-filled on such ignorant basis' alone.....it STILL is absolutely wrong to try and deny ANY group basic rights that are afforded to the majority. your religion and your personal morality have NO right to interfere with basic rights for ALL citizens. healthcare definitely amongst them.


i am QUITE pleased that my past 2 employers offered health benefits to same sex couples since sadly my state has not yet offered the rights of marriage to them...yet. and i am sorry, anyone 'anti-gay marriage'....is just wrong imo. sure, you're allowed to be wrong ....but it's still wrong. don't want them to be able to marry in your FAITH is fine and a whole other ballgame...but LEGAL marriage, simply recognized by the state/fed government...i think is only right. 2 consenting ADULTS who participate in society should be afford those rights like any other couple.


so yea, i just don't *get* how anyone's beliefs are forced to change or be altered in any way...simply b/c they must follow the law. if only such a law existed. the fact that it doesn't, to me, is the real problem. i don't care if someone finds it morally reprehensible.....no one is forcing you to live the lifestyle...only to allow them to live their lives with the same rights/freedoms as anyone else. seems fair enough to me.

Juberoo

.