How far does tolerance go?

Question

If you tolerate homosexuals shouldn't you tolerate people that disagree with homosexual weddings?
If you tolerate abortion shouldn't you tolerate people that disagree with abortion?
If you tolerate affirmative action, shouldn't you tolerate people who disagree with that?
How much do you tolerate?

Answer 1

Liberals try to claim that they're tolerant, but it's a crock. Just look how INVITED conservative speakers are treated at universities around the country. The only freedom of speech they defend is their own. Anyone else apparently doesn't deserve to be heard in their world. Amazing, the hypocrisy of it...just amazing.

Answer 2

Of course people who disagree with my points are tolerated. That's why I live in this country.

Read your question again, you'll notice that all of the follks on the right are the ones with ideas and in this country all of them are tolerated because they just express ideas.

So your point is weak. Homosexuals are the way they are because it's their choice, abortion is also a choice, as is the decision to employ affirmative action.

So why should we not tolerate those who choose differently than you?

Answer 3

Check ArgleBargle's answer- They don't tolerate anyone who doesn't go along with their ideas of "tolerance". To say "We don't tolerate the intolerant" is about the stupidest thing one can say. I hear people say they "hate intolerance" all the time. I laugh because they are too dumb to even understand simple irony. How can one possibly hold a shred of credibility by saying dumb crap like that?

Answer 4

If I tolerate both homosexual rights and people who oppose gay marriage, I would do that by allowing people to define marriage for themselves and letting them do as they see fit.

Tolerating both pro-choice and anti-abortion would mean allowing people to make up their own mind on abortion, and letting those who want it have access, while not minding if those who oppose abortion don't have any themselves.

Tolerating both those who support affirmative action and those who oppose it would mean allowing people to hold whichever political position they desire, and encouraging those positions to compete in the market of ideas for the chance to become law, while recognizing that in many cirucmstances, affirmative action is the current law of the land and must be recognized as such.

And all of that is what I already do.

Answer 5

You are confusing tolerance and acceptance. I think we should tolerate homosexuals by giving them the same rights as us. But you don't need to accept them by agreeing with their lifestyle or participating in their wedding. I tolerate people who disagree with homosexual marriage by agreeing that it is their right to do so. But I don't accept that since I think that is not equal rights.

Same thing with abortion. You can tolerate the right to chose, but you don't need to accept their choice. So you can give them the choice, but disagree with their choice.

Answer 6

The problem is that we are not asked to tolerate them, it is demanded that we accept them and embrace them, without regard for our moral convictions. How long will it be before we are required to accept pedophiles because "they are people too"? The morals of this country are sinking fast, probably because we had to "tolerate" the atheists as if they were a religious group.

Answer 7

tolerance is one thing, but having equal access and rights is another. I tolerate homosexuality and I believe they should have the equal rights I do to marry. I tolerate people who disagree with homosexual marraige but I don't believe they should have the right to deny gays the same rights they have.
I tolerate abortion rights and people who disagree but I don't think the people who disagree should be allowed to tell others what to do with their bodies by passing laws that would make the fetus more important than the woman carrying it.

Answer 8

IMO the difficulty isn't political correctness or "tolerance" in any respect, in line with se. its incorrect "Tolerance". I ought to look at it from the perspective of the US..... some issues are allowed/tolerated/in spite of interior the united kingdom, by ability of the christians even, that is wonderful to the yank perspective. the reality that those issues are allowed for the CHRISTIANS ability that "tolerance" ends up in those issues being allowed for others. and thats no longer neccesarily a sturdy factor. interior the US, all and sundry has to persist with the comparable regulations. this restricts some issues that are no longer limited interior the united kingdom, in spite of if it additionally prevents specific issues that happen interior the united kingdom. woult the christians interior the united kingdom be keen to have their non secular freedoms be tempered with a greater secular baseline, with the intention to offer a greater even keel to different non secular expressions? interior the US, the quite a few "issues" that that author refers to... could be improbable! the finished device is dampened against those very issues, by ability of a mundane mass that restrains the enterprise of religion. on a similar time as interior the US, some people could act as though a similar difficulty is occurring, (and, bizzarely, able to do it often times with much less vile racism and separationism) the difficulty isn't almost as extensive-unfold as they make it out to be. the reality that this: "those info talk greater to the crippled state of the Church of england" seems correct, or is even of any which ability, is the very center of the difficulty. it form of feels blatantly obtrusive to me that the finished difficulty if fact be told, very almost each and all of the united kingdom's issues, come from an historical festering wound that has in no way been fastened. that's made clean by ability of the reality that interior the US, it replaced right into a founding concept to no longer enable this wound to be carried over to usa. "shall make no regulation respecting an enterprise of religion, or prohibiting the unfastened exercising thereof;" its extremely... sickeningly... truly, ironic. the factor that the author of that article is striving for... is the very rationalization for the difficulty.

Answer 9

We tolerate your opinion and your freedom to express that ideology. However, it is the intolerance that is suggested by said ideology that people are against.

For example one can say that I support your opinions and that if one defines tolerance as "interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint" than I am perfectly tolerant and if you were to respect my opinons than the similiar could be said.

It is the name calling and finger pointing on BOTH sides that is intolerance.

Answer 10

I tolerate most anything until it infringes upon my right to the pursuit of happiness. In other words you're rights end at my front door.