@Erez: As I noted to North King, I am not making a slippery slope argument (that A will inevitably lead to B) but pointing out the logical trajectory of the position you maintained regarding toleration. A position which does indeed extend to every kind of action or behaviour that a person does, unless you think that toleration should only be given to homosexuals and other sexual minorities akin to yourself (to the exclusion of everything else). Now you have since then said that your entire moral calculus descends entirely to self-interest and that all morality (ergo, objective moral norms) is indefensible (ergo you repudiated toleration as a universal moral principle, and universal morality in general). Instead you admit that your advocacy for tolerance is purely a selfish pragmatic stance for the benefit of yourself and your own inclinations and interests. Now presuming this moral position (and it is a moral position) that self-interests is paramount in terms of social positions is applied universally and is in fact true (it isn't), and that as you say there are no moral norms. I am free to say that, applying your own system to myself, there is no moral objection you could use against me under your moral system to object to me imprisoning or executing you in defence of my interests. Afterall I am perfectly justified in seeking to punish those who break the fabric of the civilisation in which I live (I of course don't advocate for imprisoning or executing you, I'm merely saying that under your moral principles I would be perfectly justified doing so). Likewise since you disavow any objective and universal moral principles, you also have no basis from which to object to my objection to your perverse and repulsive principles on moral grounds (be it by pointing to toleration or anything else), since your appeals to the morality of toleration (and indeed anything else) is, as you say, indefensible. Hence we come to a logical contradiction in your position, since you are using a moral dictate to oppose my difference of opinion, while simultaneously rejecting the very concept of objective morality with which you have been condemning me.
You are still thinking with Moralism when referring to what I am saying, and that is where you make your mistake. I am not a moralist. Anyway:
Saying "pointing out the logical trajectory of the position you maintained regarding toleration" is the same as saying slippery slope.
Morality isn't just indefensible, it is subjective and so nothing objective can be achieved using morality. My "morality" is subjective as well. All moral position are inherently selfish, you think you know what is right, and want to push it onto others. I don't do that. I do not claim absolute morality, or any at all.
I am not saying my stand is "true" in any way. I am not saying others must follow my laws. What I am saying is that if anyone is intolerant to anyone, than it opens the door for intolerance, and intolerance will objectively and evidently lead to a collapse of civilization, or at least the end of its progress, or at most selfish - to a civilization I cannot live in (in the literal sense).
If the fabric of your civilization is somehow dependent on what other people do among themselves with consent than your civilization is childish and backwards, and also big brotherly. And as said that will lead to civilization to collapse, or end its progress (like in 1984).
Moral grounds are meaningless. The only thing that can allow civilization to oppose something is if it has evidence that it is disturbing civilization. For example, children raised in homosexual families end up being stronger mentally, and more open to other people and less intolerant so all children must be raised by homosexual families, that is the way civilization will survive and progress better.
another example is countries where homosexuality is forbidden by law, you can see those are backwater, and have been for a very long time. Those either are getting close to collapse under their own intolerance (by their people who seek tolerance for themselves) or are stagnating for the last thousand years or so...
In short - morality is subjective and so cannot be claimed as support for anything. Scientific evidence is objective and so can be claimed to support things if need comes. Only way of life for me is to let others do what want and do my best to support the existence of the civilized world (taxes and voting for example). If anyone oversteps that at me or at anyone else or at civilization, I will oppose them, because that will benefit me.
I'm not defending a moral stand here, I am defending my self.
).
.
