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

[Violet]

Having been exposed to homophobes in high school I can safely say they deserve no respect for their opinions whatsoever, they can provide some religious reasons why they are against it, but when it comes to the right of marriage they [meaning homophobes] can go stuff themselves to put it mildly, what right does a group have to dictate how individuals can live, think or say when it comes to the private affairs and property rights of two consenting individuals, where no one else's property or rights have been violated. None.

And what gives you the idea that their opinions deserve zero respect? If I can respect a tree enough to not walk into it, i can respect an opinion I don't share enough to disagree with it. And that's all that is different here... they are of an opinion you don't share.. and you're telling them to stuff it because of this. You believe that a group of people has no right to dictate how an individual lives, and that group of people believes that they are fully entitled to enforcing your life as they will. It is a difference in philosophy... which is not a thing a person shouldn't respect.

As for discrimination when I went to school it was still appalling. I had the misfortune as being picked out as gay by some foul minded people, indeed I couldn't give a stuff what they thought of me, I was not gay at the time but certainly after the level of discrimination and hate I found in high school towards people deemed gay that I discovered, this made me disgusted and appalled about how most New Zealanders view and treat people who are different. It was no wonder after that I became bisexual and accepted both sexes as being potential mates or companions in my life (even if I tend to favor females), after all its discriminatory not too.

That your philosophy changed in part because of it would suggest you did 'give a stuff' about what they thought of you. And it isn't just New Zealand... it is a practice that humans engage in just about everywhere I know. And the practice of discrimination is not a bad one... the poor practice engaged in by these people you refer to is not of discriminating: it is of being an asshole.

Assholes direct their comments at targets deemed negative by their discrimination... but it is lying to say that the problem is the thing targeted and not the response given. The man who rapes "petite women" isn't "evil" because of who/what he is raping... he is regarded as a poor member of the society because he is raping anyone, PERIOD.

---

Having been exposed to homophobes in high school I can safely say they deserve no respect for their opinions whatsoever,....

Fuck you.

I was pissed off by that too, but I expect for different reasons.

Still, just telling someone "Fuck you." for expressing themselves is lame, and hopefully we all know you are capable of much better.

---

Having been exposed to homophobes in high school I can safely say they deserve no respect for their opinions whatsoever,....

Fuck you.

And with that..you prove me correct. Like I need to say more.

All he 'proved' by that statement is that he didn't believe you worth his time, and that it pissed him off.

He wasn't the only one pissed off by it, but it would seem that unlike me (who is taking the time to respond in full): he is officially done.

PS: If you don't work for yourself, expect to get fired for hating queers some day.

And that is retarded. If my best electrician hates women: the more power to him. He is still my best, and I'm still going to pay him to do his job. It also doesn't matter if I despise religious people: I will still be cordial and polite to them if such (politeness) is mandated in my job. Try not to misrepresent dislike/hate of a thing with blatant assholery.

Also my respect for you has dropped to zero, the fact you need to use foul language to support a discriminatory opinion puts you pretty low in my book.

If you actually didn't respect Dotard, then you would not have responded to him. Given that you did respond to him, we can take that to mean that at the time of your response: your respect for him was a number greater than zero.

He doesn't need to use it to support his opinion (opinions need support now???), and your misinterpretation of his two word reply is monumental. Granted: it was a lame answer. But it was hardly intended to be an argument.

Here's a Lily Allen song to 'Fuck You' back <snip>

It is a good song, alas you also have just responded to him with a "fuck you", after a whole post devoted to expressing how pathetic it was. Hypocrite.

I guess it's a myth that Atheists and the irreligious are free of homophobia.

I honestly do not believe Dotard is frightened of sameness.

---

Having been exposed to homophobes in high school I can safely say they deserve no respect for their opinions whatsoever,....

Fuck you.

That was uncalled for Dotard. You just lost my respect. I have been reading your other quotes, and this was the straw that broke the camels back for me.

I would suggest trying the Objectifying Women thread as a place to start, if you wanted to build any of that respect back up... but then you might simply be classing with his personality.

---

http://atheistforums.org/editpost.php?pid=121940
Well the truth us that most people are indeed bisexual they just suffer from cultural indoctrination to believe they are not(culture my arch nemesis)

Well its pretty irrational (at least among sentient intelligent beings) to discriminate by race, religion, gender, or sexual alignment.

It makes plenty of sense to me to discriminate by race. Do you honestly believe every breed of dog is an equal at everything? Yes, let us see that almighty chihuahua guard dog of yours.

It makes plenty of sense to me to discriminate by religion. Do you honestly believe the majority of religious people became so because of their great intellect? I suppose that the 90some percent irreligiousness of scientists statistic is utterly worthless, because being religious has no effect upon anything... of course.

It makes plenty of sense to me to discriminate by gender. I am not about to give a man flowers or candies to show my love to him... and I am not about to ask a fellow woman to come help me setnet in the summer. Granted, gender has less of an impact in this case than sex. If you had said 'sex', and not 'gender', I would have all the more vehemently disagreed with you (a simple linking of physical differences would have sufficed). Alas, I am relegated to the personality-defining gender... which makes men and women different beings, and therefore not equal and worth discriminating between.

It makes plenty of sense to me to discriminate along lines of sexual alignment. If a man says he absolutely will not consider sex with one of his own sex, then I discriminate all sexual advances towards him at the moment as very difficult and possibly ineffective. And when someone says they will only have one partner, and they need that partner to only have them... then I discriminate that person as selfish and childish, and not worth my time.

I guess its a far off concept to believe in social and political equality for some people, ironic since they believe in being equal before the law, equal on basis of gender, believe everyone should have a say in government. Yet when push comes to shove many are still bigots one way or another discriminating against people by one or more of the above.

Yes, and I hope that it fucking stays that way for at least my lifetime. I definitely do not want to finish going through my many-years-long transition only to be considered as a man anyway. I do not believe everyone should have a say in government, and especially against everyone having an equal say in it (I am full on against democracy).

Marriage is a thing that I believe should not exist in the first place, but if it must be tied to the state: I agree that it really doesn't matter whether the people being married are both men, both women, two androids, or a man, woman, and other woman. When it comes to legal action towards people of differing genders (but the same crimes), i agree with you to an extent. I still do not believe that men should be sharing a cell with women, and of course I would have everyone in their own individual little cells if prisons must exist.

And seriously... bigots are the problem... not whatever they are bigots towards.

That was uncalled for Dotard. You just lost my respect. I have been reading your other quotes, and this was the straw that broke the camels back for me.

I was reading some parts of this 'No Ma'aam' http://no-maam.blogspot.com/, "Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10" - Fail, they are not the same, its a massive generalization, like claiming everyone on the right is a religious extremist.

It isn't such a poor generalization, as you will notice most of the people on the right are infact religious (calling them extremists is a little too far, i think). And I say that it isn't a poor generalization as a feminist-hating socialist.

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806 - Good he is dead now (at least I hope), another sexist bigot bites the dust.

You call that man a sexist bigot because he suggested that "a world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize"? Grow up kiddo: men and women are *not* equal. Do we have similar capacities? Yes. Equal capacities? No... and i will go on record saying that I do not believe I will ever see a baby pop out of a man.

"Psychological differences between the Sexes ARE NOT a social construct. (Gender, however, is a Feminist Construct)." - Anyone see the contradiction in this sentence? *yawn*

Depends, are we using my definition of gender... or their *unknown to me* definition of gender? If mine, then yes... if theirs: I don't know.

I do not believe it was a mere coincidence that the Suffragette Movement was born at virtually the same moment as the birth of Marxism. (Yes, I know there was "talk" before that, just as there was Socialist-Transcendentalism decades before Marxism)." - Wrong on all counts, there is a good comic poet out there called Aristophanes, he put the concept of gender equality in one of his plays called 'the assembly of women', and that's just one example. You might say the concept of gender equality occured at least a thousand years before socialism or communism existed.

Socialism has existed since at least the nomadic hunter/gatherers of our species. Gender equality does not exist where there remains gender difference. Where there is equality, there are no accusations of mistreatment because of difference.

That which is fair is not that which is equal. Equal treatment disgusts me thoroughly.

---

That's the best response you could think of?

Having thought about it now I think he should go hang with Glen Beck, but alcoholics anonymous might help if he suffers from bitterness and foul temper due to constant alcohol use.

You think you're hot stuff don't you?

I am not impressed by your constant degradation of Dotard. None of us disagree that his response was lacking... so get over his lacking response.