Tolerance, Acceptance and Diversity

I've been thinking a little lately about multiculturalism and what it means for people to tolerate others' beliefs. Baden and I have had a bit of a discussion with Sarah (in reply to her post about inter-denominational disagreements over same-sex marriage). I think we are both having trouble understanding how one can justify requiring other people to follow one's own moral rules.

Now, in some cases innocent people are getting hurt and for the state to forbid this doesn't require much explanation; that's just one of the jobs of the state, to protect its citizens from each other. But what about moral rules where it's not obvious that one person's actions are hurting someone else. I think in these cases a very good explanation is necessary. That explanation is what I'm waiting for from the anti-gay lobby.

It's not just same-sex marriage laws. Many people ask the same questions about drug prohibition. I don't think that is quite so difficult to argue for, it's pretty easy to see how drug abuse could cause big problems for people apart from the user. But I was finding it very difficult to grasp how the mere presence of same-sex couples could possibly be construed as a harm to devout Christians, or anyone else who doesn't care for homosexuality themselves. Then Sarah said something that I hadn't really though of, "I don't want my children to grow up in a society that thinks it is A-OK for women to sleep with women..." What she's saying is that she will be harmed by the mere recognition of same-sex unions. I can't see inside Sarah's head so maybe I just have to accept that this would cause her some sort of psychological harm.

It would be easy to launch into hyperbole and say that this argument could allow some racists to object to the mere presence of another race. That's going too far, same-sex marriage is a way of living that requires a choice (in a way that most homosexuals claim that their sexuality is not a choice) and government sanction. But I still can't see how this is more offensive than these couples being in de facto marriages. If anything, it's slightly closer to what most religions want, ie a stable and formalised relationship.

Maybe we should compare this to a slightly less provocative issue, like religious conversion. There are plenty of religions that don't try to convert others: Judaism and Hinduism are the best examples. It's actually pretty hard to get into Judaism because they believe themselves to be the chosen race; an Indian friend tells me that Hinduism is similar, that one is meant to be born into a caste.

Or a better example, that doesn't entail a wholesale change of faith: Many Muslim countries ban alcohol. In Saudi Arabia and Kuwait posession of alcohol can mean imprisonment or flogging. But in Qatar, the UAE and Bangladesh non-Muslim foreigners are allowed to consume alcohol. Iran and Pakistan allow their non-Muslim ethnic minorities to consume alcohol privately. (To be fair, I doubt that these countries would allow non-Muslims to have same-sex marriages. But clearly the argument is the same, so they should.)

I don't know that I'll get a satisfying answer but I would welcome comments on this question:
*What is it about some religions that makes so many of their followers want to inflict their rules on others? (And why do other religions not?)
*Is there a theological basis? Do they wish they were living in a theocratic state? (ie Have Christians forgotten Jesus' question about whose head it was on the coin?)
*Or do people just have a tendency to conflate their own lifestyle choices with what is morally right for everyone?