Cultural relativism says cannibalism is moral in cultures where it's the norm, because there is no true "norm. " Instead, no matter how barbaric and inhumane an act, if there is, was or could be a culture somewhere where it was accepted, it's not immoral, and if you'd just open your mind a little more you'd see that. Needless to say I strongly disagree, because I still hold that your right to be a cannibal ends where it intersects my liver (chianti or no. ) Among other reasons, but most of those would reference my religious beliefs, so....

Tolerance is another thing entirely, because supporting my right to want a policy you'll legally prevent me from implementing... well, how would you feel if I told you I support your right to WANT to marry someone of your gender, but will still do everything in my power to make it legally impossible? Pretty empty statement, no? You can and should oppose the policy if you think it's morally wrong, but as long as I keep it on private property you don't have the right to do anything more than try to be persuasive (and I do mean "persuasive" not "coercive. " ) Maybe that's what you meant and I just misunderstood (in which case I'm wasting a helluva lot of keystrokes, but it would hardly be the first time. )

However, tolerance DOES mean you can still strongly disapprove of something and actively discourage it so long as you don't try to IMPOSE your will on those who disagree. Really, what other basis is there for tolerating things like the Klan? Unless we're going to affirm them via moral relativism there's not much to defend about the beliefs themselves, so the only options remaining are to either defend their RIGHT to those reprehensible beliefs, or condemn even that as unacceptable in a civilized country. The courts have come VERY close to doing just that with the Klan--on the grounds that they incite violence even when not actively committing it.

That, I still maintain, is the litmus test, not how mainstream a practice is in any given society. If it were the latter this thread and THOUSANDS of others like it over the years wouldn't exist: Homosexuality is decidedly less common in every modern society I can think of, so either moral relativism isn't an applicable metric here, or there's nothing to debate. This isn't complicated, though it can be a bit nuanced: You can disagree with people. Strongly. Loudly. Uncompromisingly. You can try to dissuade them (shouting epitaphs actually falls more under the category of "assault" than "free speech" incidentally; you may not get prosecuted, but if you get the crap beat out of you the other person ought to have a shot at claiming you provoked him. ) You just can't do anything to actually PREVENT them, because it's their choice. That, and the fact it's counter to very basis of Christianity, is why I'm not canvassing the neighborhood dragging people to the river.