What is tolerance?

What is tolerance? A response to a Christian's claim that his belief that homosexuality is immoral is not tolerated.

TheEdge012's video:

Part 1—

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyMujj6rbic

Part 2—

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxhf3a4FajM

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Jesus
• Bible
• atheist
• Christian
• gay
• lesbian
• homosexual
• heterosexual
• tolerance
• morality
• apologetics
• sin
• rights
• marriage

[warterra]

@ProfMTH "Where does one find..."

So, we can just make stuff up, eh? Well, since writers are dead we can't ask them, but then we do have historic records, don't we?

I disagree with the idea of retconning the US Constitution, but don't let me bother you. I think we agree on the outcome just not how to get there.

Some of the dissent in Roe v Wade is identical to my point here.

"Again, I refer..."

Point was: if everyone agreed; then no issue/debate.

[ProfMTH]

@warterra "Obviously the amendment was not drafted to address this issue...."

Where does one find the list of the things that the 14th Amendment was "drafted to address"?

"Loving dealt with the specific issue the 14th sought to redress."

So the 14th Amendment applies only to race, is that correct?

"If so then there wouldn't be an issue to discuss."

Again, I refer you to Loving and the other marriage cases.

[ProfMTH]

@warterra "the concern at the time in the Loving decision as in the drafting of sec.1 of the 14th was racial"

So it's your view that the 14th Amendment only applies to matters of race, is that correct?

[warterra]

@ProfMTH Oh I've watched most of your videos, they're really good.

I did not propose state law as supreme to the federal. If the argument can be made, then state law becomes unenforceable.

Loving, of course, overturned supreme court precedent before it, but ignoring that, the concern at the time in the Loving decision as in the drafting of sec.1 of the 14th was racial.

[warterra]

@ProfMTH "...so what?"

Obviously the amendment was not drafted to address this issue and we might be better off in the long run changing current law than imagining new meanings to established law.

Loving dealt with the specific issue the 14th sought to redress. I will acknowledge that state law is not exclusive.

"...Marriage has always been regarded as a constitutionally protected fundamental right."

If so then there wouldn't be an issue to discuss.

[warterra]

@ProfMTH Yes, a very recent 2-1 success by the most reversed circuit court in the US. It will be interesting to see what the full Ninth says.

I believe some district courts have struck down state restrictions before but only to be reversed.

[ProfMTH]

@warterra "You must know that the constitutionality of state restrictions on marriage has been challenged before and without success for same sex marriage advocates."

And they've also had successes. See, e.g., the Proposition 8 case--just one example.

[ProfMTH]

@warterra "The 14th amendment was ratified at a time when homosexuality was illegal and continued to be illegal for over 100 years after."

Even if true, so what?

"civil marriage has always been governed by state law in the US"

Not exclusively. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia.

"My point in posing it was that the federal constitution does not address marriage directly."

So what? Marriage has always been regarded as a constitutionally protected fundamental right.

[ProfMTH]

@warterra "I don't think you can make a convincing argument that the US federal constitution requires States, that define marriage in a certain way, to issue licenses outside that definition."

You're wrong. You should see my other videos on same-sex marriage, including the video series I did on the Proposition 8 case. Your claim would, among other things, make state law superior to the Constitution, which it is not. That would render decisions such as Loving v. Virginia legally invalid.

[ProfMTH]

@Schwazoom "Not denying you, but wondering under which.14th Amendment under equal protection of the law, right?"

I think denying same-sex couples the legal right to marry violates both equal protection and due process (the latter inasmuch as it precludes the exercise of a fundamental right without sufficient reason).