First Person: Are we a tolerant society?

“Exactly: the question remains unanswered. Maybe it never could be answered completely satisfactorily.

In the meantime, there seems to be - correct me if I'm wrong - something of a campaign underway that would favour just some particular kinds of couples, though without precise aims (that would, if formulated, deny similar "rights" to other groups). Far from tolerant, it seems to me that this could end up just replacing one kind of bigot with another.

On the other hand: favouring just some particular kinds of couples is exactly what we have already .. is that a problem ?”

“by Leveret2 Friday, March 22 2013, 7:01PM
.
"In campaigning for something like this, one thing we could think about is the question, "Do we, in future, want every couple to have everything that at the moment only some couples have (total equality, in every way) ? Or is what we want really to deny those couples something that they have that we haven't ?"

How far do we go with that argument ? Should we allow siblings to marry ? Should we allow "group marriages" ? Should we allow people to "marry" their pets ? Once you enter into the area known as "Grey" you find that it an awfully expansive "colour".”

“All the "education" in the world (as long as are speaking about education and not brain-washing) will not change how people think. Response to others comes from within and that is something that you cannot change. You can suppress a persons ability to SAY what he or she THINKS, but not the thought itself. If you try to suppress everything that a person wants to express then you are heading for trouble, like-minded people can gather (or meet on the internet) and express themselves freely. The odd attention seeker may "grass" on these people or their meetings / publications but their concealment from public view is generally unremarked.

I attended an evening in a beer hall in Hamburg many years ago with some German colleagues. The backdrop was somewhat sinister and it turned out to be a Neo - Nazi gathering. From the back of the hall some uniformed men marched out with flags and everyone started singing "the old songs". Uniformed men now stood at the door barring entry. The audience, many of them now sporting armbands, listened to a few speeches then drank lots of beer, ate sausages and enjoyed their somewhat loud evening.

There were no images of Hitler, no anti-semitic themes, very few "skinheads", no weapons, just paraphernalia that I would relate to National Socialism.

I did not feel threatened, I felt rather embarrassed as the gathering seemed a little pathetic, but perhaps the objective had been achieved. The pressure had been released in a sort of group-bonding. I could not help wondering what would happen if the people concerned were denied that "safety valve".

Perhaps our seemingly "tolerant society" has become so by repressing (or suppressing) people. If this is the case then there may be trouble ahead.”

“In campaigning for something like this, one thing we could think about is the question, "Do we, in future, want every couple to have everything that at the moment only some couples have (total equality, in every way) ? Or is what we want really to deny those couples something that they have that we haven't ?"

Can we have an honest answer to this question, please, from the campaigners ?
Or .. does it - the campaign, that is - go beyond couples, to groups of 3 or more people (and if not, then why not; or if so, then what do the campaigners mean by "marriage" ?)

Can we try and be clear about this, please .. like, if you as a campaigner want to establish a new right, or a new law, does your campaign know of any particular limits it wants to set, for example ? Or if not, and literally "anything goes", are you really campaigning for the abolition of all law, or of any morality ?

My guess is that you do want to lay down some limits - you want to lay down your law - but that you haven't done it; or can't, or won't .. is that right ?”

“Wrangler, I take your point and accept it as your opinion as I am entitled to mine.
In regard to your half cousin, I would suggest that it is not just her who has contributed to the situation she is in. If she isn't a product of the parenting she received herself and the morals if any, that were taught to her, I would ask whether the x4 men that impregnated her have any responsibility for their children or not?
As the original article says its easier to attack the jobless rather than deal with the fact there is a severe shortage of jobs. So is it easier to attack the lone mothers rather than deal with all the absent fathers that do very little financially or otherwise to support or raise their offspring?
Obviously I would not accept or "tolerate" someone coming into my home to assault me but is that a fair comparison when we are talking about tolerance of others who are different to ourselves? That example sits firmly and would be dealt with in law, as you quite rightly state, rules and law are needed in a civilised society, a society that is meant to be based on respect for the individual. Homophobia, racism and sexism are dealt with in law too and have been for over 40yrs but they are still very evident in small minded individuals in back water towns like this, despite it being the 21st century (other posts on here prove that!).
I am tolerant of the ignorant because education can perhaps improve that but entrenched bigottism and the desire to stereotype individuals into pre-judged and often incorrect groups, I find little more difficult to swallow.
I do actually agree with your last paragraph in your comment in regard to the media's contribution to encouraging enthnocentricism and prejudice. In regard to those who are in a minority, does that make them any less worthy of fair treatment as those in the majority because of "their behaviour" being different? Should they not be entitled to the same opportunities or fair treatment as those in the majority purely because they are in the minority? Ginger people may be in the minority too but should that justify disrespectful language, treatment or behaviour towards them?
Offenders may be in the minority too (including those who wish to enter other peoples homes to attack them) but they do endanger society and the individual, hence law is defined to deal with this. I fail to see how a homosexual marriage or a mother raising a child alone endangers society.”

“ROFL - that is the funniest post ever Walter!

Not sure if it is meant to be ironic (suspect no), but if it is not - own goal!!!”

“What a load of rubbish.
So called 'gays' are to me homosexuals.
I find this repulsive.
How do they consummate their sexual relationship?
The mind boggles.”

“Chixxey,

I clearly state that these people are in a minority, but can only assume that the reason you have "yet to meet a lone mother who has deliberatley chosen to raise her children alone" is because you have not come out from your left wing tower recently. I can introduce you to my half cousin if you like, who has never worked a day in her life and will openly tell you that she never intends to, she has 4 kids by 4 separate dads and knows all the tricks going.

Tolerance is not something that should be earnt, but neither is it "inately the ethical, humane and social quality we all should possess collectively and individually as members of a civilised, functioning and progressive society." That is complete left wing twaddle!

Civilised, functioning and progressive societies only function because there are rules that have evolved over time and by which the majority of society live to. Rules change over time, but slowly and only if it is clear to society that the change in the rules will not destabilise the society. Being tolerant of all would lead to the mass breakdown of society.

As I asked before: Are you going to be tolerant of someone who wants to come and attack you in your home? Is it their inate right to do what they want to you? Should you be tolerant of that behaviour?

I think I know your answer.....and speaking openly, your intolerance of the views of others expressed in your post... is somewhat hypocritical!”

“Tolerance should not have be earned by the recipient, it should inately be the ethical, humane and social quality we all should possess collectively and individually as members of a civilised, functioning and progressive society.”

“I think the issue I have regarding comments made here is the stereotyping of whole groups of people/individuals. Prejudice is based on ignorance and incorrect subjective assumptions. This then naturally causes offence.
Personally I want to be treated as the unique individual I am and not as a result of bigotted and ignorant viewpoints.
I have yet to meet a lone mother who has deliberatley chosen to raise her children alone and a life of struggle and/or poverty. Those who make such sweeping statements and stereotypes clearly have little knowledge about the cause of single parenthood or indeed the responsibility by all those absent fathers who impregnate women carelessly and irresponsibly walk away - just another notch on the bedpost way of thinking, the state will pick up the tab anyway. I always thought contraception was a joint responsibility? It does after all take two to create a child.
I read comments on this site yesterday that again made sweeping and incorrect assumptions based on subjective opinion and that were not objective in any way, yet this site had no issue in publishing this incorrect waffle, inflaming already controversial issues and actually exacerbating ethnocentric and borderline racist attitudes. It made no attempt to print/publish correct and informed data in a bid to educate or correct but instead printed these very divisive opinions under the guise that what was printed was in some how "news".
It saddens me to think that in 21st century Britain, some still find it difficult to "tolerate" those different to ourselves, whether they are also British citizens, parents of future generations or contributers to our society or not. Having a colour-blind approach is pointless too. Yes we may all bleed all the same colour and yes we are all human but we are all uniquely different and its the diversity of our society that should be celebrated not frowned upon.
Comments such as "Seeing how others are given precedence by authorities" and "having it rammed down our throats all the time" seems to smack of ignorance and selfishness. The blame culture and the "me, myself and I" attitude leaves little room for tolerance, education and open mindedness. What happened to "the big society" and "we're all in this together" flavour of the day? I find it pathetic, sad and disheartening that folks in this area seem more upset and vocal about people who park on grass verges as opposed to educating themselves and making real attempts at tackling the real issues that plague not only this small town but society as a whole.”