When homosexual marriage is a topic of discussion, as it is now, lots of charged language gets tossed around. It’s easy for things to slide into personal attacks and assumptions about “The Other.” Both (or all) sides are guilty of assumptions and vilifying. While we need to be aware of and empathize (see below) with the essential humanity of our debaters, we must be able to honestly judge arguments and positions, and to receive such judgments without calling foul.

The word tolerance gets tossed around a great deal. Both sides accuse the other of intolerance. Both protest tolerance in their actions.

It’s worth considering the value of tolerance. Is that the end goal in our social relationships and communities: Religious, racial, and sexual tolerance? The word has an air of condescension. If I can tolerate the heat, I will survive it, but not be comfortable. If I tolerate a given music genre, I will allow it to be played in my presence, but I do not enjoy it. I tolerate changing diapers, because that is a cost of having a child—but it isn’t something I look forward to or appreciate.

The Gospel invites us to go further when we are talking about our brothers and sisters. Jesus, our exemplar, does not tolerate us—He loves the entire human race. According to our doctrine, Jesus developed a perfect understanding of us through taking on our pain, suffering, and sin in the Atonement. He has empathy and compassion; he weeps for us.

I propose that tolerance is a low and unworthy bar. We as a faith don’t want religious tolerance, where people permit us to practice our faith with reluctance. We want our faith to be understood and respected as equal to others, regardless of whether or not it is believed by others. We should seek the same thing in all aspects of society.

A person can believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and still be a good person. They can choose not to engage in intimate relationships with people of the same sex, let alone marriage. They can attempt to persuade others of the same belief. They can teach that to their children. They can elect to participate in a religion which does not allow homosexual marriages within their faith. They can refuse to participate as an observer in any sort of formalization of homosexual relationships. None of these per se makes someone a bad person. None proves them to be homophobes. They can take these stands and still be respectful of others. I believe that, within the Church, Marlin K. Jensen provides a good model of this. He has never challenged the official Church position on homosexual marriage, nor its actions. But he has made clear a number of times his empathy for homosexuals, his understanding of the difficulty of what the Church asks of them.

However, there is a line that has frequently been crossed. Tolerance, let alone respect, by its very nature demands that things be given the freedom to exist, people be given the freedom to act in ways different from our own. I am not tolerating country music, for example, if I raise a ruckus when I hear it, demand it be turned off. I am not tolerating my son’s behavior if I put him in “time-out” when he engages in that behavior (screaming, whining, throwing, whatever it might be).

To attempt to use legislation to prevent others from behavior or choices with which you disagree is inherently intolerant, no matter how many people agree with you. There is no way around this. The only thing more intolerant than outlawing the rights or choices of another is physical violence against those who would make those choices.

Is it intolerant to oppose those who are seeking such legislation? Tolerance does not require someone to allow others to deny them rights. Fighting back is a natural and legitimate reaction to those efforts.

So when Orson Scott Card and his supporters accuse detractors of intolerance and hypocrisy, for example, Card’s claim has no standing. He actively advocated in support of Prop 8. He serves on the board of NOM, an organization the purpose of which is to prevent the legalization of homosexual marriage. It is he who has been intolerant. He can protest all he wants that he’s willing to be friends with and kind to homosexuals all he wants: by campaigning in favor of laws outlawing homosexual marriage, he has participated in one of the most extreme sorts of intolerance. You could make a case for his intolerance: We are told in the scriptures that “I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance [synonymous with tolerance](D&C 1:31).” So own up to it. If you support laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, you are being intolerant of homosexuals. If you say “I’m no homophobe. I don’t care what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms, but I don’t want to see that [displays of affection—kissing, holding hands, hugging, etc] in public!” You are being intolerant. You are being intolerant in your pursuit of (your perception of) the Lord’s will. Maybe that’s a virtue in your eyes. No doubt most who will call your actions intolerant will consider it a flaw. You cannot justly complain that you are being “picked on” if people refer to your actions as intolerant, or calling your actions bigoted (i.e, intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself). They are only stating a fact. You will just have to tolerate that.

Update: finally got around to read “The Distress of the Privileged” on my Instapaper reading list. Fantastic article, explaining other aspects of the need for empathy, the psychology behind the persecution complex people like Card, and the reason not “agreeing to disagree” cannot work in dealing with those who would restrict rights.