Tolerance

Quote: Face

You might not, and it is appreciated. But Webster's defines it as "a state of mind where a person strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.". If I'm being honest, I think that exactly describes my view of urbanites, or "citiots", as I've been known to call them. I don't know them, don't experience their lives, etc. I just don't like it. It offends my country sensibilities. It's stupid, and probably unfair, but it just is.

There is one other thing. When you meet one of these people, how do you treat them?

There are kinds of people I dislike, though my concept of such is rather more nebulous than yours. When I meet one of them, I treat them the same way I treat everyone else: as individuals. I may or may not like them, but solely on the merits of the interaction.

Quote:

I guess it's sort of like my posts on racism at WoV, which you may or may not have read. I could protest for recognition, I could demand "equal rights", I could do a lot of things. But all of these acts serve to control or direct the power of gov. I don't want to do that. In fact, my base beliefs state I must not control said power, but attempt to remove it entirely.

I agree with this. In fact it poses an ethical problem: While the government shouldn't be doing A or B, as long as it does it should do A and B fairly. This means that while government shouldn't be funding scientific research in general, as long as it does it should do so fairly. That is, no exceptions for fetal stem cells and such. likewise with marriage, which I maintain the government has a legitimate, though much lesser, role in.

Quote:

While your view that it should be codified makes sense, I can't agree with the premise because I can't agree that the gov should have the power to decree who is fit and who is not.

It doesn't have to. See, I mean things like age of consent to freely enter into marriage, minimum age requiring parental consent, proof of age, and other things like that.

Things like spousal privilege would apply as well to common-law marriages.

Quote: Evenbob

Marriage was invented to protect the offspring.
Men had a natural tendency to desert the family
when the kids were small and find other women
to impregnate. Marriage made him deserting
the woman illegal. It was obviously invented by
women, and is being reinvented every year since
by them. Men really are pigs if left to their own
devices.

Another poster on the other forum said it was men who invented marriage originally to establish ownership. That may have something to do with plural marriages?

IMO, if someone is crazy enough to marry more than one at a time, they deserve it.

I firmly believe that men and women get married for different reasons, so a contract would be more appropriate. This spoken by a man who found out "half" isn't what I thought it was.

Not to ruffle feathers but I also think it is mainly women who keep legal prostitution from becoming the law of the land. There is no such thing as a free lunch or free sex.

Quote: Face

What is tolerance?

Tolerance wasn't preached so all the hate groups could use it to keep being intolerant. Definitely wasn't the idea.

Quote: petroglyph

Another poster on the other forum said it was men who invented marriage originally to establish ownership.

Yeah, I think it was Bob who said it. (could be wrong, but....)

Quote: zippyboy

Yeah, I think it was Bob who said it. (could be wrong, but....)

Not me.

yeah okay, after a search, you're right.

Quote: EvenBob-from WoV

Yup. That's why women invented marriage. It's a fact
that when men fathered a baby, it was very hard to get
them to stick around after the kid was born. They
just had no interest in it. Their instinct was to procreate,
which was different than the woman's instinct. So
marriage was invented to keep the man around at least
till the kid was 5 years old, when he had a chance of
fending for him or herself.

Quote: zippyboy

yeah okay, after a search, you're right.

It could have been some other poster, but I'm almost certain I read it was men who invented marriage. To accumulate property through, dowry etc.

Quote: rxwine

Tolerance wasn't preached so all the hate groups could use it to keep being intolerant. Definitely wasn't the idea.

Since no one objected, I must not of been clear in my meaning.

For instance, if a pro-gay group preaches tolerance, they aren't saying we want the anti-gay people to feel free to practice even more intolerance. And I'm pretty sure if you think about it, you'd have to think they would be pretty crazy to want that when they say they want tolerance.

I think what is not understood is the meaning is, We will tolerate people that tolerate others. Not all views regardless.

I probably have to elaborate further, but I won't right now. (for instance it's only meant for the same legal class of people that you would mean in a rights setting with people of legal age and similar rights. Not criminals in prison, etc.,)

edit to people not viewpoints.

Quote: petroglyph

It could have been some other poster, but I'm almost certain I read it was men who invented marriage. To accumulate property through, dowry etc.

I would say with pretty good certainty that marriage came before property rights. Consider that it existed hundreds of years before the concept of deeding property. Some form of it goes back to when the Bible was written as the Story of Creation places one man and one woman together. If this was not the practice at the writing then we would not have a story of just Adam and Eve but Adam something else.

BTW: Dower interest protects the female, not the male.

Quote: AZDuffman

If this was not the practice at the writing then we would not have a story of just Adam and Eve but Adam something else.

The Story of Adam and Steve?