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

[BlackUnicorn]

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

Fuck you.

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.

[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.

[Dotard]

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

Fuck you.

Label me a "Homophobe" then state you have zero respect for the "homophobe's" opinion.

What the fuck did you expect? 'Fuck you' was an entirely appropriate response.

Just making that statement demonstrated you have zero respect for my opinion so there was no need to respond in a dignified manner, it would have had zero respectability according to your opinion. So Fuck you. Really, need I had said more?

That was uncalled for Dotard. You just lost my respect.

Ya break my heart. It was completely 'called for'.

---

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.

I am not in the least bitter and foul tempered. Just different than you. Sue me.

---

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

---

*Dotard hangs his head in shame* Yes ma'am. You are right.

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

Right again. I was 'officially done' at the moment. But not entirely.

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

Really, I don't "hate queers". Hatred is not in any of my opinions.

Try not to misrepresent dislike/hate of a thing with blatant assholery.

Me saying "fuck you" was blatant assholery. My dislike of the homosexual lifestyles is not.

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.

Please, Aerzia Saerules Arktuos, you already occupy the place of highest respect of any internet persona I have ever met. Seriously. Don't make me come up with a whole new higher catagory of respect to move you up in. Your sense of fair play is astounding.

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.

LOL?

[corndog36]

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.

Discriminate:
To make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit.

I suspect a properly trained chihuahua would make a better guard dog than an untrained rottweiler that loved strangers. The rational approach is to choose according to merit.

[BlackUnicorn]

---

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Violet]

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.

Discriminate:
To make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit.

I suspect a properly trained chihuahua would make a better guard dog than an untrained rottweiler that loved strangers. The rational approach is to choose according to merit.

Right... and that rottweiler can still barrel me over in his happiness. That little dog will be kicked like it's a football, and I will have won that little "game". See a rat, kick a rat I do understand your argument, and I agree with it to an extent. However, it isn't quite accurate in a fair number of situations.

The truth is that there is first a level of what can possibly be done by a being, which is easy to discriminate along the lines of. The second level is that which a being does. This is merit... and I would agree that it is often a much better guide to people. But to ignore the first level is to do a disservice to future talent that can be trained to be much more potent than anything current in favor of dogs whose days are done.

Examples: when it comes to potency in bearing children, i discriminate hard against males. This is because they by definition have no capacity to perform such a task without strong interference from technology far today's superior.

When it comes to tasks requiring a great deal of strength, I will discriminate strongly against females, as their capacity for strength and men's are wildly different in most cases... and it would be senseless of me to employ a female for this task and expect her strength to be equivocal to the men i hire. If a truly exceptional female came forward, then I might consider her... but the flat out truth is that the vast majority of the female human population is less powerfully built, and that it is a workable policy to enforce along those lines.

These discriminations even apply to such intellectual tasks as chess. For all the arguments I hear that women and men are similar intellectually, I find that the best among the female chess players ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polgár ) is also arm and leg and head above the rest of her sex, and has been training to be so for her entire life. Note, i do not use this to argue the point that women are not intelligent... i use this to clarify my spite to the sacrosanct 'equality' that is lobbied for between men and women. I do not believe in it, any more than I would believe that all of the same gender are equals (they are not, as i should hope Polgar provides evidence).

People belong in "groups" for a reason, and to not judge groups based on similarities many of them share is to do a disservice to efficiency and the invention of the group to begin with. It is efficient to discriminate, and to anyone that thinks otherwise: go and greet every tree you see according to what it is individually. I'll be sitting back with my tea and doing something constructive while you're busy with that.

[Ashendant]

Right... and that rottweiler can still barrel me over in his happiness. That little dog will be kicked like it's a football, and I will have won that little "game". See a rat, kick a rat I do understand your argument, and I agree with it to an extent. However, it isn't quite accurate in a fair number of situations.

The truth is that there is first a level of what can possibly be done by a being, which is easy to discriminate along the lines of. The second level is that which a being does. This is merit... and I would agree that it is often a much better guide to people. But to ignore the first level is to do a disservice to future talent that can be trained to be much more potent than anything current in favor of dogs whose days are done.

Examples: when it comes to potency in bearing children, i discriminate hard against males. This is because they by definition have no capacity to perform such a task without strong interference from technology far today's superior.

When it comes to tasks requiring a great deal of strength, I will discriminate strongly against females, as their capacity for strength and men's are wildly different in most cases... and it would be senseless of me to employ a female for this task and expect her strength to be equivocal to the men i hire. If a truly exceptional female came forward, then I might consider her... but the flat out truth is that the vast majority of the female human population is less powerfully built, and that it is a workable policy to enforce along those lines.

These discriminations even apply to such intellectual tasks as chess. For all the arguments I hear that women and men are similar intellectually, I find that the best among the female chess players ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polgár ) is also arm and leg and head above the rest of her sex, and has been training to be so for her entire life. Note, i do not use this to argue the point that women are not intelligent... i use this to clarify my spite to the sacrosanct 'equality' that is lobbied for between men and women. I do not believe in it, any more than I would believe that all of the same gender are equals (they are not, as i should hope Polgar provides evidence).

People belong in "groups" for a reason, and to not judge groups based on similarities many of them share is to do a disservice to efficiency and the invention of the group to begin with. It is efficient to discriminate, and to anyone that thinks otherwise: go and greet every tree you see according to what it is individually. I'll be sitting back with my tea and doing something constructive while you're busy with that.

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

People are complex, deal with it

[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 ^_^

---

[corndog36]

The truth is that there is first a level of what can possibly be done by a being, which is easy to discriminate along the lines of. The second level is that which a being does. This is merit... and I would agree that it is often a much better guide to people. But to ignore the first level is to do a disservice to future talent that can be trained to be much more potent than anything current in favor of dogs whose days are done.

The flaw in judging people based on preconceived notions is that even if those notions are correct about the group they may not be correct about the individual. You are better off judging on individual merit. I don't see anything gained by considering weather the average male is stronger than the average female. Hire the strongest person regardless of gender. Or religion, or orientation, or whatever.

These discriminations even apply to such intellectual tasks as chess. For all the arguments I hear that women and men are similar intellectually, I find that the best among the female chess players ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polgár ) is also arm and leg and head above the rest of her sex, and has been training to be so for her entire life. Note, i do not use this to argue the point that women are not intelligent... i use this to clarify my spite to the sacrosanct 'equality' that is lobbied for between men and women. I do not believe in it, any more than I would believe that all of the same gender are equals (they are not, as i should hope Polgar provides evidence).

The equality between men and women is equal rights, not equal abilities. Battles over equality in employment may have blurred that distinction a bit, but, obviously men and women are not equal in all ways.

[Violet]

The flaw in judging people based on preconceived notions is that even if those notions are correct about the group they may not be correct about the individual. You are better off judging on individual merit. I don't see anything gained by considering weather the average male is stronger than the average female. Hire the strongest person regardless of gender. Or religion, or orientation, or whatever.

It matters because of a key word: efficiency. It is morbidly inefficient to analyze every tree in the forest when deciding what will make good firewood and not. Where I live there is a predominance of three species, and while every tree that comes in is different, there is a set of standard things that I can judge of each species and be right about most of the time. The alders do not make good firewood, and are not even worth the time of cutting down. The spruce will catch faster and burn faster, and so is a poor choice to stick in over the night. The birch will catch slower but will burn longer and is therefore a poor firestarter.

This is a simple view? Yes. But the view is efficient and it gets the job done well. And variants of this view apply to people.

The equality between men and women is equal rights, not equal abilities. Battles over equality in employment may have blurred that distinction a bit, but, obviously men and women are not equal in all ways.

Equal rights should not exist between all of men or all of women, let alone the two together. Treating people equally is to say that all of their differences, wether they be in achievement/talent/usefulness matters not in the eyes of the law. I disagree, if we are lacking something, the law needs to recognize this. The community is lacking teachers at the moment, and you are considering locking a teacher up as if they were anyone else? That is to ignore the problems faced by the state in favor of a blanket statement.

At least you understand that men and women are not equal in all ways