For some, real actual people, who exist in great numbers, it is NOT qualified, but absolute, and that is both a problem and danger. It becomes a Boolean value where one must accept everything or nothing, and the fact and reasons we all disagree with that premise ought to illustrate WHY it is a problem and danger. Yet many people DO hold it; I did not make them up out of whole cloth, I recalled them from first hand experience. The sticking point is here:


As noted elsewhere, and as I am certain you know, tolerance=/=acceptance. It costs us nothing to tolerate people believing gay marriage wrong, but accepting that belief forces us to consider whether banning gay marriage is causes direct or "merely" indirect harm. We can avoid that whole issue by simply tolerating peoples disagreement without accepting it. Really, tolerating a belief is obviously a very different thing than ACCEPTING it.

We can tolerate people actively hating gays, wanting to harm them, but if we accept it with the restriction they not act on it we must constantly watch to ensure they do not violate that restriction, which they only tolerate without accepting. Rather than eroding or altering their hatred, that reinforces it with bitterness and resentment (hence the infamous and sometimes lethal "fagenda" accusations.) The moment we let down our guard and someone who hates gays thinks they can act on that hatred with impunity, they will pounce on the opportunity and their unfortunate victim. Often we do not even know whom to guard against, because accepting beliefs without accepting the actions they motivate only induces people to hide their hatred so we know not where it lurks and festers.

On the other hand, tolerating hatred without accepting it creates an opportunity for debate, and therefore dialogue, resulting in exchanged perspectives and reduced ignorance. That serves two goals: The dialogue reduces false and fearful beliefs that create hatred, and the inclusiveness reduces the alienation and isolation that nurture it. It is the difference between "separate but equal" and "equal protection under the law." Americas half century of the latter has been generally better for civil rights than its full century of the former.


I assumed nothing; I stated outright the real experiences I have had with real people holding that real position. I even dug up the Wikipedia article on moral relativism to cite two (arguably three) entire belief systems based on it. I assure you I did not just write it up (complete with its own citations) in the last five minutes. I cannot say I wish I had made up, because that would be rather shameful, but I most certainly DID not invent it.