[subverter]

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think it makes sense. "I'm tolerant of everyone except those I view as intolerant." In other words, you're intolerant of those you disagree with.

I believe true tolerance is respecting that everyone can have their own opinion/worldview. We can certainly disagree and have a good discussion about it, but nobody should be forcing their opinion/worldview on others who don't agree.

[gnaritas]

> but nobody should be forcing their opinion/worldview on others who don't agree.

And where in this thread has me or anyone forced our world view on you? Not allowing you to force your view on others isn't forcing our view on you. Frankly I don't think you understand what oppression or tolerance actually is.

[subverter]

Nowhere. I haven't claimed that. We're having a (mostly) thoughtful discussion with different opinions, which is great.

If you read back through the hierarchy to my comment here[1], you'll see that I ask the hypothetical question, What if gay marriage were rolled back in the U.S.?, to make the point that currently you'd have to move out of the country to escape the law. I do not believe in rolling it back! I used it as an example of a law/idea where there's a difference of opinion among worldviews.

We're actually on the same page here, gnaritas. People should have equal rights, regardless of their race, gender, sexual identity, etc. Nobody should be forcing their worldview on others. But that's exactly what the federal government does by making decisions that affect everyone. Every decision they make is made from a specific worldview. It's impossible for them to make a decision that complies with every unique worldview out there.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14554612

[gnaritas]

> Nowhere. I haven't claimed that.

yes you did with this comment...

> while in the same breath calling for the oppression of those you disagree with.

You accused me of calling for the oppression of those I disagree with, so please do show me where I did that.

> But that's exactly what the federal government does by making decisions that affect everyone.

No, when the thing they're doing is providing equal rights, that isn't forcing anyone's world view on anyone else. Those who don't want gays to have rights aren't being imposed upon, they're still free to think whatever they like and they're free not to be gay; they have not suffered at all even though the law is in conflict with their world view.

> Every decision they make is made from a specific worldview.

While that is true, that doesn't imply said decision is imposing that view on anyone. Stopping group A from oppressing group B is not imposing a worldview on group A.

> It's impossible for them to make a decision that complies with every unique worldview out there.

Of course, but it's not impossible for those decisions not to impose that view on anyone else. Protecting minority rights imposes nothing on anyone. If someone doesn't believe in gay marriage, the federal protection of it might be against their worldview, but nothing has been imposed upon them; they are not losing anything by someone else being treated equally.

You're failing to draw the necessary line between having different points of view, and having those points of view imposed upon you. Just because the feds do something at the federal level that may be the result of a world view in no way implies that thing they're doing imposes that view on anyone else.

Now certainly, many things they do "do" impose a worldview, but I'm only defending the protection of minority rights to have equal protection under the law, and that doesn't impose anything upon anyone.

[bjl]

Nah people that think gays shouldn't marry should have the non-bigoted views forced upon them.

[bjl]

All I can say is that I'm glad the vast majority of academia, and the population in general, think your position is indefensible.