> "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
-Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)
And whose tolerance is the right tolerance? Shall we defend against the "intolerant" who attempt to force their sexual-interpersonal ideals upon the public despite repeated referenda that demonstrate the public rejects those concepts, or did you mean the "intolerant" who do not believe that new types of relationships are necessarily automatically entitled to hetero-identical encouragement from the state?
It seems "intolerant" is basically an empty ad hominem, usable by any side.
Indeed -- those unblinded by hatred of sexual morality, successful sexual development, and normative familial relationships will see the issue as unambiguous.
I find your attempts to illegitimately marginalize an opposing argument with such an elegant and sophisticated rebuttal as "knock this shit off" both amusing and demonstrative.
Would you have said that it's acceptable for black people to be forced to ride the back of a bus? Or perhaps that women should not be allowed to vote.
The idea that all ideas have merit is complete shite. Some ideas and attitudes are reprehensible - the more so when being cloaked in language like "social conservatism"
