Gay Marriage - are you for or against it and why?

[Violet]

Learn to hide quotes, please.

---

1. That's right, Neo Nazis do not deserve respect for anti-semitism, homophobes do not deserve respect for their hateful views on homosexuals, the extremely religious do not deserve respect for their hateful views of Atheists and other religious groups, nor do anti-feminists deserve respect for hating the right to pay parity and equal rights as males, also why should we not stand up against racism towards African Americans, and other races.

Also your view of respect is tainted, according to you hate speech is okay, and we should sit back and do nothing, rather that ridicule or voice disapproval. So by all means legitimize discrimination on basis of free speech, but remember free speech comes with a price, people can condemn such discrimination equally as those who can voice it. This is not like a differing view on a political party or economic policy, discrimination on basis on individual status is the undermining of individual rights, you think that deserves respect, then you are not an individualist by all accounts. I never said I deserve respect, you however are making the claim people do, you don't have to respect people to not discriminate.

If they do not deserve respect for any of that: stop fucking talking about them. A lack of respect is ignorance. If I do not have any respect for the other cars on the road, then there is no problem with me driving through them. Respect isn't a value that is inherently 'good' or 'bad', but of *RECOGNITION*, and the associated *APPRECIATION/DEPRECIATION* of what you have recognized. I recognize the tree is solid, and I appreciate the fact that if I walk into it there will be an impact.

My understanding of respect isn't tainted by petty morality and values... it is a clearly defined word that is not attached to any of my other beliefs whatsoever. If we didn't respect the power of the king when we revolted against him, then we wouldn't have gone to war over it: WE WOULD HAVE IGNORED HIM. Although it has absolutely nothing to do with respect: I do, infact, believe that hate speech is okay. Once you start censoring shit because you don't have a position that can be held past criticism: you've declared the weakness of your position. People are insulting you because (to you) they don't understand? Go them. You understand, and so you can heartily laugh in their face if they spout nonsense. Yes, legalize discriminatory speech... you really don't have free speech if your speech is free *to an extent* (read: not free).

I am quite the individualist, kiddo... i even call myself a 'resourcist' for lack of a better term (my morality changes according to availability of resources). If I believe a country is worth existing more than I am, then I make my choices accordingly.

2. I don't, except when it undermines my individual rights and the individual rights of others, if you bar people from marriage, bar people from the rights of marriage, refuse to hire people because they are homosexual and actively discriminate in politics so they can have no say in government. That is when I 'give a stuff'.

So... you don't give a stuff... until you do.

That is so beyond fucking intellectual that I am taken aback. All hail the genius of the century!

3. Fail. If that electrician works for a company (or is self employed), anyone can sue that electrician for discrimination, and most companies these days have standards, some by law, others by personal choice, at least in New Zealand such discrimination violates the human rights act. Come here mate, get sued. Though I doubt you would get away with much like that in America either.

/facepalm... it looks like you cannot separate a hypothetical discussion with the idiocy of the real world. Seriously... if a law is stupid, it will eventually be gone. 'Anti-discrimination laws' are stupid, and they will eventually be gone. The fact is: the best remains the best even when they do things you don't like. The best murderer in the world is a mysandonistic toxicologist, yet she's never been arrested (she is the best, after all). Get a clue: the real world is stupid, and when in a philosophical discussion, it would do you well to remember that.

4. So here we go, first you claim everyone is unequal by intelligence and ability as justification for racism, second you claim that we should have religious discrimination because some views on religion are better than others, by that logic Christians and Muslims should have a right to diver out religious punishment to any atheist they find (no matter how severe) especially if you would actively discriminate and not hire someone on the basis they are religious.

Everyone is unequal, but that does not mean that everyone is dissimilar. Groups of engineers likely contain individuals better at engineering than if we take someone randomly out of the full population to compare them. Religious people are likely stupider than scientists.

I didn't even get into the discussion on religious views, i noted the *INTELLIGENCE* of most religious people compared to most scientists. But: Muslims do have the right to punish heretics (i suppose they have there own word for it) religiously in several countries. Kiddo, we can all do anything we can do, but it would be foolish to think there would be no consequences for what we do.

5. Trying to make it absurd there but not working, discrimination by place in society is not as the same as discrimination on basis of what you prefer, discriminating by rose color is not an issue, discriminating on the basis that someone has no right to work, or live as other people is. This logic escapes you though, too bad, glad I don't live near you. It must be a place of hate alright.

Discrimination is discrimination... your criminalization of the term does not change the fact. What you are worried about, again, is not discrimination, but assholery and stupidity.

And I live in alaska, not exactly what I would call a place of hate, though we did manage to elect that parrot that is Sarah Palin.

6. Trying to spin me won't work, I said not all right wingers are religious extremists.

And I said that most right wingers are religious (and again, extremists is going too far for many of them).

7. Democracy is one way to attempt equality, not the only way, you can't hold the flaws of democracy as an excuse against the notion of all other forms of equality. Last I checked sexual orientation had nothing to do with democracy, unless of course democracy legislated against or for it.

Equality is disgusting. Oh, and just why do you think the founding father's of america were all so vehemently against democracy? It isn't because of equality, but because of mob rule. I hold equality itself as disgusting, and democracy has nothing to do with it (at all).

8. Wrong, socialism did not exist during the early hunter-gather days, but altruism, socialism is a system designed by man due to inspiration from altruism. Dawkins even could tell you that, but I guess you don't pay much attention to what he writes or I wouldn't have to say it.

Oh boy... this little boy has no idea what socialism is. Here... let me tell you what socialism is: socialism |ˈsō sh əˌlizəm|
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Aka: the very system we see if we look into nomadic hunter gatherers, which did not have currency.

And if Dawkins did say anything along those lines, then yes: i would disagree with him. And I would be right under the above definition as to how hunter-gatherers managed their resources.

9. I am simply stating his views are similar to similar haters like Glen Beck, and others on the religious right (and religious left), plus your argument is that I have no right to criticize discrimination or respond to it. Merely because I don't respect a viewpoint doesn't mean I can't respond or shouldn't respond to it,

Oh, are they really? No, they are not. Glen beck does not say "Let them marry if it makes them happy". Stop misrepresenting people, it's sooooo gotten on my nerves by now.

I do not argue that you have no right to criticize anything, and infact i don't think i even once declared you to have the 'right' to do anything or not. If I did, then my mistake, because my position is thus: "rights" are not what you can do, but rather what you will not be legally penalized for. And I disagree with being legally penalized for the likes of "hate speech", nudity, swearing, whatnot.

10. Her words not mine, it merely expresses the reverse of what was said. I agree with what she said though, if you are going to treat homosexuals as inferior, dirty and undeserving of equal rights, expect to have your hate thrown back at you.

I have no idea what you were responding to here, quote-vortexer... but I stand by whatever statement I said.

Finally...I have no time for you either. There are left wing Atheist forums that attack libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism in the same fashion you have here, it appears this forum does the same thing but with the issue of civil rights. Keep hating homosexuals, it makes you a hypocrite on an epic scale.

Funny that he says this to a transexual woman, isn't it?

Safe to say I am not coming back, and you can delete my account as far as I am concerned. It would be better talking with someone who hates me in a fanatical sense , than one that pretends to not to and make the same response, it is clear tolerance does not exist here when it comes to homosexuality.

I stated you pissed me off, did you miss the memo? We don't delete accounts unless you go the way of, was it Edward?

Funnily enough, i think every atheist member here tolerates homosexuality (even dotard, though he posits it is abnormal and that he finds it disgusting (i think?)). What you can't deal with isn't that we don't tolerate homosexuality, it is that we don't tolerate bigotry. Not bigotry towards homosexuals, and not bigotry by homosexuals.

At the least, I cannot tolerate people telling others that they do not care about their opinion after insulting them. That is the lowest of low you can go in words... lower than dirt... lower than libel.. that is outright slander without giving the ability to the other side to refute.

PS: I wouldn't sue, reporting the site to homosexual, womens rights, and anti-racism organizations as a result of what is written here would be enough. I doubt I would waste my time however, as there are likely some people here in the forum that don't deserve the harassment. I would advise the admins to ban talk on such topics as gay marriage in the future, or you can be sure that if anyone of that variety comes here and gets offended you will be screwed/or sued then.

Lol, sue? You? Lol ^_^ Perhaps you should read the site rules, kiddo

Go ahead and report this site to homosexual, women's rights, and anti-racism organizations... and let it be known that you pathetic threats are quite funny and stupid.

Oh, and further: why did you write all of that? If you are leaving, just leave.

This is actually really annoying to me... it's like when someone is going to murder you, and they make you sit through a monologue. It's just rude... if you are going to do something: just do it! Don't stand there talking about it!

---

Yet you still say that people are defined in groups when you said they weren't

People are complex, deal with it

What what? People are plenty definable in groups. Your definition may not be accurate for a few of them, or even all of them, but then: the group was your invention.

I don't really understand what isn't to understand about that, but then: I'm nuts ^_^

---