[beelzebozo]

There aren't actual reasons, just bigotry.

but if god doesn't like it, and you don't want god to burn your house down (he totally will), you gotta go with the safe option here.

[Pollux]

Forgive me for grounding my definition of "rational" in a perspective that's detached from the idea of arbitrarily following what's written in any particular holy book.

Ok. Doesn't mean others are required to have the same perspective on the world.

[Emitan]

because there are actual reasons for being against gay marriage. He might be religious.

Wait... so you're saying I can do whatever I want as long as I'm religious?

[soul creator]

I meant rationally defensible reasons.

Are you saying religious reasons are irrational? Stop being intolerant!

[coldfoot]

literally any time someone supports a law to be passed they are forcing their beliefs onto others. That's exactly what democracy is.

True, but at least the intent of those laws is to increase the sum of everyone's benefits, such that the decrease of benefits for some people are vastly overshadowed by the increase of benefits for the rest.

Banning gay marriage does not increase anyone's real benefits, but decreases the real benefits of gay people, so it's a net negative act, and therefore bad.

[Devolution]

Ok. Doesn't mean others are required to have the same perspective on the world.

They can relegate their bigoted ass opinions to what they do and leave everyone else the fuck alone.

[bengraven]

They can relegate their bigoted ass opinions to what they do and leave everyone else the fuck alone.

And they would accuse you of being intolerant of religion. haha

[Timedog]

For a religious person that is rational.

For an insane person, Jimmy Jack hobby billmar jarmistan filmore blix is rational. Care to make an actual point?

[mastrbiggy]

Some people are over sensitive.

[Devolution]

And they would accuse you of being intolerant of religion. haha

Yeah because they're bigots. Then they get mad when they're called bigots too.

[beelzebozo]

Yeah because they're bigots. Then they get mad when they're called bigots too.

very much a "smeller's the feller" situation.

[Pollux]

Wait... so you're saying I can do whatever I want as long as I'm religious?

Well you could believe whatever you want. But that doesn't give you the right to force those beliefs on others, especially those who may not share those beliefs, and even more importantly you can't do that in a place like the US with the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection. So if your beliefs somehow violate someone's fundamental rights then you can have those beliefs you just can't implement them in the real world.

[Orayn]

Ok. Doesn't mean others are required to have the same perspective on the world.

People are indeed free to adopt whatever perspective they want. However, some worldviews, like those that discriminate on the basis of race, sexuality, nationality, etc. are "old and busted" for lack of a better term. Ethics have moved on, and people need to understand that certain ways of thinking aren't conducive to making the world a decent place to live.

[bengraven]

Yeah because they're bigots. Then they get mad when they're called bigots too.

Is it so wrong that they want the freedom to say what's on their mind?

Just because 99% of the time, they are only fighting for the right to be racist, homophobic and intolerant...

[DanteFox]

Could I instead challenge you to come up with a reason to oppose gay marriage that's based on science or secular, utilitarian ethics?

I don't subscribe to utilitarian ethics because it posits happiness as the ultimate good. But yeah under utilitarianism gay marriage and any other thing that makes the most people happy would be morally mandated.

Actually who knows if having gay marriage would even accomplish that.

[soul creator]

dunno if this is what the OP was getting at, but it reminded me of this potential example of that phenomenon

[Pollux]

People are indeed free to adopt whatever perspective they want. However, some worldviews, like those that discriminate on the basis of race, sexuality, nationality, etc. are "old and busted" for lack of a better term. Ethics have moved on, and people need to understand that certain ways of thinking aren't conducive to making the world a decent place to live.

Which is basically what I said in the post right above yours...

[Devolution]

Which is basically what I said in the post right above yours...

We have no reason to respect your beliefs either since said beliefs even if not lawfully imposed are still harmful.

[Fraull]

I don't agree because if you have an opinion, eg dislike a race, you have no right to show your distaste and use your hate for a generalization to judge people you do not know.

[Timedog]

I don't agree because if you have an opinion, eg dislike a race, you have no right to show your distaste and use your hate for a generalization to judge people you do not know.

Oh, you have every right to do it. And people have every right to react to it.

The problem comes (and holy shit this happens a lot) when people want to be bigoted without other people calling them out on their shit. Call them a bigot or racist when they act in a bigoted or racist way and they freak the fuck out. It's hilarious, especially when right beforehand they try to argue about how "it's just an opinion" and "people need to have thicker skin", but they don't have the skin to handle other people's "opinions".

[DR2K]

Because humans as a whole do some very evil shit when there is no check on tolerance.

[Satch]

Oh, you have every right to do it. And people have every right to react to it. The problem comes (and holy shit this happens a lot) when people want to be bigoted without other people calling them out on their shit. Call them a bigot or racist when they act in a bigoted or racist way and they freak the fuck out. It's hilarious, especially when right beforehand they try to argue about how "it's just an opinion" and "people need to have thicker skin", but they don't have the skin to handle other people's "opinions".

Exactly. The hypocrisy is delectable. I go super saiyan every time.

[Pollux]

We have no reason to respect your beliefs either since said beliefs even if not lawfully imposed are still harmful.

I would love to hear how a private belief is harmful to another person.

[PersonaX]

Someday one of those gypsy threads is going to be the end of me, most of the stuff that would get me banned here would go pretty much unnoticed out there in the real life, or at least it wouldn't get me a black eye like someone said on the first page, some of you should easy up a little.

the restraint i see in some posts here is so visible it gets hilarious after a while, it's like a walking on a minefield of quite extreme political correctness. (does that even make sense? ugh, i'm tired)

oh wait, is the word gypsy bannable too?

[plasmasd]

People only pretend to be tolerant on this site because you get banned if you are not. Unregulated, it would look more like 4chan around here.

[Canuck76]

For an insane person, Jimmy Jack hobby billmar jarmistan filmore blix is rational. Care to make an actual point?

I loled

[soul creator]

I google searched Jimmy Jack hobby billmar jarmistan filmore blix and was sad that this thread was basically the only search result :(

[G-Fex]

Because humans as a whole do some very evil shit when there is no check on tolerance.

Pretty much.

Hence it's not so much needing to hold back and being censored and all that it's just knowing the difference between a right and wrong. And respecting. But there's also others like me whom are keeping things inside, maybe immense hatred, like I have.

[CrushDance]

I would love to hear how a private belief is harmful to another person.

It's not private when you're denying other people the same rights you ask for yourself.

[onemic]

because there are actual reasons for being against gay marriage. He might be religious.

If the US was a non secular state then this would hold some merit. Good thing we live in a secular state. With this line of thanking shouldn't they be against any non christian person marrying?

[DanteFox]

If the US was a non secular state then this would hold some merit. Good thing we live in a secular state. With this line of thanking shouldn't they be against any non christian person marrying?

no. I don't see how that follows.

[Pollux]

It's not private when you're denying other people the same rights you ask for yourself.

I don't think I ever advocated denying anyone any rights.

[Famassu]

Well you could believe whatever you want. But that doesn't give you the right to force those beliefs on others, especially those who may not share those beliefs, and even more importantly you can't do that in a place like the US with the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection. So if your beliefs somehow violate someone's fundamental rights then you can have those beliefs you just can't implement them in the real world.

But allowing gays to marry each other isn't forcing beliefs on others, nor was giving black people equal rights. They aren't forcing YOU to marry a person of the same sex and they weren't making YOUR stature in the world any worse when non-whites got equal rights.

Of course not everyone needs to share the world view, but they should also understand that they need to fuck off when it comes to affecting people's life negatively when it's about basic human rights & what they are like. No (rational) atheist is trying to make it so that religious people can't marry or that they shouldn't be given certain jobs due to their religion, but (a portion of) religious people are trying to worsen the life of a large group of women & men in many ways simply because how they interprit an old book.

give any reason you have for opposing anything and you could break it down until it's no longer rationally defensible.

Well this certainly isn't true. At all.

[Devolution]

I would love to hear how a private belief is harmful to another person.

Because it's rarely ever private and it gets distilled into their kids? Or has there not been a rise in LBGT related violence and bullying in schools?

[CrushDance]

I don't think I ever advocated denying anyone any rights.

If your belief says that only your way of life is correct. Than there is a problem. How can you let "you way", the "right way" be threatened?

Pretty much. Hence it's not so much needing to hold back and being censored and all that it's just knowing the difference between a right and wrong. And respecting. But there's also others like me whom are keeping things inside, maybe immense hatred, like I have.

Like what? I don't see what things could anger some of you so badly.

[ShockingAlberto]

Being an asshole isn't fun.

Being respected feels nice.

Being respected simply because you're not an asshole shouldn't be realistic, but somehow things have shaken out that way.

[Canuck76]

Because it's rarely ever private and it gets distilled into their kids? Or has there not been a rise in LBGT related violence and bullying in schools?

Has there? It's tough for me to imagine that it's gotten worse for LGBT people. I'm not messing if you have some stats or whatever please do share.

[onemic]

no. I don't see how that follows.

considering the term 'marriage' is a christian one, why exactly would they be against gay marriage for religious reasons? Because it's a christian tradition and practicing gays are exempt from those traditions as they are supposedly perpetual sinners. The same should also apply to people that aren't christian as well. Atheists for example. Based on your logic of religious beliefs they should also be against atheists marrying as they don't believe in any of the general Christian dogma. They may be a man and a woman, but they aren't getting married under the intentions of doing it under God, therefore making their marriage fraudulent.

[Orayn]

Has there? It's tough for me to imagine that it's gotten worse for LGBT people. I'm not messing if you have some stats or whatever please do share.

Things can be still shitty without getting significantly worse.

[Timedog]

I don't think I ever advocated denying anyone any rights.

People usually (pretty much always) do things like vote based on their beliefs. Or would something like voting based on the belief not make it "private" anymore by your standard?

[DanteFox]

considering the term 'marriage' is a christian one, why exactly would they be against gay marriage for religious reasons? Because it's a christian tradition and practicing gays are exempt from those traditions as they are supposedly perpetual sinners. The same should also apply to people that aren't christian as well. Atheists for example. Based on your logic of religious beliefs they should also be against atheists marrying as they don't believe in any of the general Christian dogma. They may be a man and a woman, but they aren't getting married under the intentions of doing it under God, therefore making their marriage fraudulent.

I don't think marriage is an exclusively christian tradition. Also as far as I know the bible doesn't forbid non-believers from marrying.

[Sentry]

I don't see how being tolerant of someone else's non-destructive beliefs is something that shouldn't be happening in society. What's the issue? The more tolerance, the more non-emtional/zealot conclusions/judgments.

[Pollux]

But allowing gays to marry each other isn't forcing beliefs on others, nor was giving black people equal rights. They aren't forcing YOU to marry a person of the same sex and they weren't making YOUR stature in the world any worse when non-whites got equal rights. Of course not everyone needs to share the world view, but they should also understand that they need to fuck off when it comes to affecting people's life negatively when it's about basic human rights & what they are like. No (rational) atheist is trying to make it so that religious people can't marry or that they shouldn't be given certain jobs due to their religion, but (a portion of) religious people are trying to worsen the life of a large group of women & men in many ways simply because how they interprit an old book. Well this certainly isn't true. At all.

I'm for gay marriage...

Because it's rarely ever private and it gets distilled into their kids? Or has there not been a rise in LBGT related violence and bullying in schools?

And then it's not private. If that belief is affecting anyone then it needs to be addressed and isn't protected by the "it'd just my opinion" crap. For example, someone may find gays to be "ewe the gay". That would be a private belief. But if that person never treats gays with anything other than courtesy, kindness, and respect...and then goes to the polls and votes to make gay marriage legal...is there really a problem?

If your belief says that only your way of life is correct. Than there is a problem. How can you let "you way", the "right way" be threatened?.

See my hypothetical man above. He may believe that being gay is somehow wrong because that's his belief. But e also says to himself that he has no right to tell someone else how to live their life. What's wrong for him might be right for someone else. So he votes for marriage equality and all that. Private belief. But not harming anyone.

People usually (pretty much always) do things like vote based on their beliefs. Or would something like voting based on the belief not make it "private" anymore by your standard?

Then it wouldn't be private. Hypothetical man finds gays gross but holds his belief in the constitution and equal rights for all above his phobia. So he voted for gay marriage. That would be a private belief that isn't harming anyone. Unless I'm looking at this wrong?

[Gotchaye]

Some topics are treated differently because people feel differently about some topics.

The basic rule here is pretty simple: don't be an asshole.

You want to express extreme annoyance about people who take too long in the line at Starbucks? Go for it. Nobody's insecure about how much time they take in line, and nobody thinks that "taking a long time in line" is an important part of who they are. At worst, you'll mildly annoy someone, and they'll get over it pretty quickly.

You want to express how gross you find fat people? Stop and think. That's likely to be hurtful. Many people are insecure about their weight, and many people struggle with their weight. The value to you of getting that off your chest is tiny compared to how hurtful that sort of speech can be. So you'd have to be an asshole to say it. Don't say it.

You want to express your belief that the love that a man can have for a man (or a woman for a woman) is not as worthy of recognition or respect as the love of a man for a woman (and vice versa)? Again, please stop and think. You're talking about a very important part of people's lives, and you'd be contributing to a pretty widespread culture that makes homosexuals feel excluded because of their sexuality. On face, that's the sort of thing that only an enormous asshole would say. You'd need to have really, really, really, really good reasons not just for believing it but also for wanting others to know you believe it to say that sort of thing out loud, at least outside of a very private setting. Of course, if you're at risk of being called out for intolerance then you're clearly not in a private enough setting anyway, and the decision is much easier. Again, don't say it.

Of course, if you do say something asinine that marks you as an asshole who cares far more about letting others know what's on your mind than about the feelings of others, expect other people to not care about your own feelings very much, and to call you an asshole.

Edit: And of course, following the discussion in the latest half of the thread, one can go farther than just talking. If you express support for a political decision that materially hurts other people while not helping you, except insofar as you positively want those people to be hurt, expect to be called names. At least that's an awful lot friendlier than what you've just advocated.

[alphaNoid]

Being an asshole isn't fun.

100% false.

[Satch]

I don't think marriage is an exclusively christian tradition. Also as far as I know the bible doesn't forbid non-believers from marrying.

it's not

most other religions have marriage in some form

[Cyan]

And then it's not private. If that belief is affecting anyone then it needs to be addressed and isn't protected by the "it'd just my opinion" crap. For example, someone may find gays to be "ewe the gay". That would be a private belief. But if that person never treats gays with anything other than courtesy, kindness, and respect...and then goes to the polls and votes to make gay marriage legal...is there really a problem?

No, although it's also not likely. The way you act affects your beliefs, to a surprising degree. If you treat gay people the same as everyone else, you vote for gay rights, etc, your beliefs will change.

There's also not really much reason to posit such people. If their secret anti-gay beliefs have absolutely zero effect on their behavior, they are effectively not anti-gay. If their beliefs are only revealed in private to their close friends... then yes, it's still a problem. Social pressure helps reduce bigotry.

[Air]

Some topics are treated differently because people feel differently about some topics. The basic rule here is pretty simple: don't be an asshole.

You'll have a harder time teaching this to people than you would talking to a chair about physics.

[ghostmind]

So we can have a false impression of superiority and feed our egos.


Civilization isn't civil, but we sure try hard to convince ourselves that we are.

[Dead Man]

Bloody hell. You have to be tolerant of things that you don't like if they don't hurt anyone. Otherwise people will be intolerant of shit you do that they don't like that doesn't hurt anyone. It's pretty simple. Golden Rule and all that.