And thus no reason to deny someone equal protection under the law.
Perhaps not, but perhaps simple whim? Or perhaps on cultural grounds. Or ideological grounds.
Plenty reason, now that you think of it. Humans operate on emotion as well as logic.
That's hilarious. There is enough wrong with that comparison that, frankly, I'm not sure where to start. So, to pick one not quite at random, taxation involves a whole society, while marriage involves two people.
Actually, no.
If taxation is made voluntary, then it involves nobody more than you, and the people you pay.
My buying of bread does not affect you, it's between me and the store. You see? If you value consent and voluntarism so much, then it's rather hypocritical to support taxation
since you don't have to force it on everyone. You can pay, without forcing me to. Easy
And plenty of people regard marriage as a matter of society and family instead of just two individuals.
You'll have to explain how that contradiction works.
See above
Like I said, don't throw yourself in with that crowd.
I throw myself in no crowd.
I would certainly accept that outcome.
Interesting.
You did, however, defend that person, and admonish that calling such a statement bigotry was in and of itself bigoted.
No, not really. My point is that you confuse open-mindedness with tolerance. One can be intolerant, but not bigoted.
I would say that open-mindedness involves not only the capability to fathom it, but also to give it fair consideration.
Right, that is what I meant.
However, even then, one does not need to accept the idea. And if they do not, they are not 'bigoted'. It's an unfair card to play; I don't
have to be tolerant and you're damn right there are people I do not tolerate. I 'tolerate' gays simply because it is not my place to stop them, it's what the free market is all about.
An amusing venture, I suppose, but not impossible.
Good that you understand.
I look forward to your explanation of those moral arguments that are clearly more than aesthetics.
Read the Bible.
No, don't laugh! Those are moral arguments like any other; morals are relative, after all.
Then there are the moral arguments stemming from the idea that not adhering to tradition is immoral. Etcetera
Here's why. The reason is that opposing someone on the basis of their naturally occuring sexual preference, especially when that person does not harm anyone, is an irrational and bigoted thing to do.
No.
It is the same as opposing someone on the basis of their ethnicity or gender. A bigot is someone who dedicates themselves to irrational, negative beliefs about a group of people. Therefore, opposing someone on the basis of sexual orientation is, by definition, bigoted... and that's not up for debate.
No, opposing them on an
uniformed basis is bigoted.
If you are informed and aware and choose to oppose them, for whatever reason, then you are not bigoted.
Religion isn't an excuse, because religions are based on an irrational belief in a mythical sky daddy.
You see it this way, not religious people.
Culture does not make for rational thought, either.
How many times must I repeat this to sciforums?
Human beings operate on more than rationality; we operate on emotion also
If pure rational efficiency is your interest, then you must support eugenics, and many of the elements of fascism.
Intolerance is much more 'rational' than tolerance in that it makes a society arguably more predictable, more controllable, and more efficient.
Freedom is not 'rational'; we want it because of emotion, and desire.
The greasy little fucks in China who intentionally torture dogs and cats due to an insane belief that torturing makes the meat taste better for eating, are not acting out of rational thought. They do so because they have become desensitized to cruelty and brutality.
Really? Let's look at the situation:
The chinese torture them for a specific purpose, to make the meat taste better. I don't know if it does, but this is their reason, and very utilitarian.
You oppose it on emotional grounds, because you think it's 'immoral' and you 'feel bad' for the animal.
Right,
you are more rational
If you oppose a group of people because of an irrational dislike for them, then you are a bigot. If you aren't a bigot, then you have to have a rational reason for thinking that they are bad.
Plenty: culture, ideology, religion, politics
I suppose you are right, though; few might have a
rational reason to dislike gays. It's mostly an emotional one, although we must remember the importance of emotion in human society, and we must remember that
freedom is likewise based on an emotional need and desire, and not a rational one.
