>>33878287
>Why is it that if my friend worked in a butcher shop and I was a vegetarian we couldn't have a friendship and by principle of "reflecting one's own values" I would suddenly start loving meat?'
First of all, there is a difference in the kind of immorality, since diet doesn't directly impact how you relate to other people (unlike views on the place of intimacy in relationships, which are as close as you could possibly get), so it's easier to compartmentalize.
But that aside, it doesn't mean you will start loving it--but it still shows it's well within the realm of tolerance for you. So someone who can't stand eating meat, who is against raising their kids to eat meat, would be justified in treating you with caution, since they'd have reason to believe you wouldn't be interested in enforcing that boundary.
>The contention is why does someone you are friends with doing something you find immoral for work automatically mean you are somehow condoning it?
Because if you found it truly repulsive, you wouldn't want anything to do with it. You don't have to act like a spastic towards people, but being cordial while distant is very different from being friends and ignoring it.
> What matters is that you can articulate why you think a certain thing is true and defend it from scrutiny.
It's near-axiomatic. The basic belief, common to many conservatives, is that sexuality is something deeply intimate, typically proper between a married couple only. Maybe he's more loose (and I'd argue with him over it) and things it just needs to be some kind of "serious" relationship. Either way, it's a fundamental rule of how people relate to one another. For many people, the reasoning ends there. You presumably think people are equal. Why? Same thing.
I don't want to speak for him, but for me, any kind of promiscuity is wrong because it's destabilizing to relationships and encourages people to treat each other as disposable amusements.
