I Hate Gays

[Spiral Out]

Xris,

I wasn't trying to portray myself as a "baddy". I meant that people generally avoid face to face confrontation unless they're a certain type of personality. Perhaps you're the personally aggressive type, but anyway, that's not what I meant. Think of it this way...

The internet is the equivalent of a gun. It makes it far too easy to pull the trigger on your impulses. That's all.

[Xris]

Spiral. I am trying to make the point that you are correct. Yes others will oppose you and make their point of view known to you.Is that wrong? I agree that there are many who would not dare act in the way they do with the safety of anonymity.

[Newme]

You're right Newme. Everything Humans do is to satisfy their need to ameliorate their suffering, disharmony or disequilibrium. Everyone is constantly attempting to achieve a better state of emotional being. We rationalize our actions as being altruistic, generous or kind, but subconsciously, and ultimately, we are only attempting to achieve those for our own benefit.

Good way of putting it, SpiralOut.

It is more moral to be smartly selfish. Stupid selfishness is failing to consider how we all affect each other. Smart selfishness is having the honestly to realize we are truly in it for our own motives, but because we see how we benefit by helping others, our motives are not just for our own well-being, but also for others, since they affect us too.

[Mayanka]

I'm eleven pages late but I couldn't resist. It's an interesting question. I expect I'd be repeating points, so sorry, but here goes.

When I say I hate people who hate xxxxx, I think I imagine myself as a defender of the weak and the voiceless. I think that's how many of us see it? Your question made me realise this for the first time. The dislike is a like a manifestation of the disbelief and impatience at that someone for not getting your views for supporting the other views. You aren't fighting for your own self are you? It's for someone else whom you support, so i think for the defender it adds a bit of nobility and morality to his arguments which makes it justified.

So morally, it can be argued that since that person's dislike and indignation is on someone else's behalf, it's actually pretty kind and supportive. And loyal. And from what I've noticed, the dislike isn't exactly hatred. The person mostly feels the other to be lacking the knowledge that makes his opposed views right. It generally isn't something he considers permanent.

[Thatsage]

How could you hate gays? My best friend is gay. I think they're fabolous.

[Spiral Out]

I see your point. Your best friend is gay and you think they're "fabolous" (whatever that is) therefore everyone must like them. Good logic.

[Greatest I am]

It is not a matter of liking anyone.

It is a matter of not discriminating and denigrating people without a just cause.

Change the labels in this quote to women, Gays or children being brainwashed by religions and it shows what we should be thinking and doing for each other.

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

Regards DL

[Spiral Out]

That little quip would have more purchase if anyone was "coming for" anyone else. It's a bit of an exaggeration to say the least. I can dislike anything I wish, and based on any reason I wish. As long as I've not infringed on anyone's rights or freedoms then there's no fault.

We all discriminate. Like you DL with your discrimination against the religious. It's just a different flavor for you, yes?

Good to know that we agree.

[Greatest I am]

That little quip would have more purchase if anyone was "coming for" anyone else. It's a bit of an exaggeration to say the least. I can dislike anything I wish, and based on any reason I wish. As long as I've not infringed on anyone's rights or freedoms then there's no fault.

We all discriminate. Like you DL with your discrimination against the religious. It's just a different flavor for you, yes?

Good to know that we agree.

Discrimination is good if the target is worthy. Remember that every law you follow is designed to have you discriminate against a sub group in our society. In fact, it compels you to discriminate.

As to this issue, are the religious spoken of here showing views that you would not discriminate against?

Do you endorse what they do?

Code: Select all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_BVzw&feature=related

Code: Select all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlyh2XbbtsM

Regards DL

[Thatsage]

I see your point. Your best friend is gay and you think they're "fabolous" (whatever that is) therefore everyone must like them. Good logic.

It's like what they say to people who don't like sushi. You just didn't find the right one yet

[Spiral Out]

Discrimination is good if the target is worthy.

Whether or not a target is "worthy" of discrimination is entirely subjective. Besides, I'm not discriminating because I am not treating anyone any differently. If I state a dislike for someone or their ideology, but then treat them no different than anyone else, then I am not discriminating against them. It's that simple.

As to this issue, are the religious spoken of here showing views that you would not discriminate against?

Completely irrelevant.

It is a matter of not discriminating and denigrating people without a just cause.

Define what a "just cause" is, and how it applies to discrimination.

[Newme]

Discrimination is good if the target is worthy.

This statement is illogical, when related to human beings, and reminds me of the mentality of that which begins genocides.

And as far as your ad hominem attacks, remember in debate, those who resort to them are considered to be those who have lost the debate.

Whether or not a target is "worthy" of discrimination is entirely subjective. Besides, I'm not discriminating because I am not treating anyone any differently. If I state a dislike for someone or their ideology, but then treat them no different than anyone else, then I am not discriminating against them. It's that simple.

It is ironic or hypocritical when many in the homosexual fetish group cry out discrimination, when those representing their group have stomped on other's rights (denying democratic process) and dish out discriminating ad hominem attacks (ie "homophobe", "hate monger") simply for someone acknowleding the means by which every one of us came to exist - through a mother and father. They want to shoot the messenger, and feel "discriminated against" because nature itself discriminates against 2 of the same sex, by denying them true sexual intercourse and offspring.

[Quotidian]

It seems to me that the language of discrimination and minority rights has been appropriated by gay activism to advance its cause in the Western democracies - and with great effect, too. It is reflexivly asserted that any criticism of 'gay rights - anything other than adulation, in fact - amounts to 'discrimination' and is therefore akin to racist bigotry.

I think the 'middle path' in all of this is to place 'gay rights' under the general protection accorded to the right to privacy. This right asserts that individuals are free to engage in whatever consensual sexual behaviours they like in a free society. But it doesn't say that all sexual behaviours are equal, and it falls far short of what the gay activism movement is demanding in Western cultures.

Of course such an opinion is categorized as 'discriminatory' in the liberal democracies, so I rarely venture it. (Incidentally one progressive columnist who has been particularly brave and forthright in refusing to kneel before the gay rights juggernaut is Brendan O'Neill in pieces such as Congratulations, gay marriage campaigners – you have completely destroyed the meaning of social progress and Gay Marriage: A Case Study in Conformism).

[Spiral Out]

Interesting and insightful articles. I'd be interested to know what perspective the gay campaigners here (all those who have been calling me a homophobe throughout this thread, you know who you are) take on those articles.

[Xris]

Interesting and insightful articles. I'd be interested to know what perspective the gay campaigners here (all those who have been calling me a homophobe throughout this thread, you know who you are) take on those articles.

I have slightly altered my argument Spiral. I accept it is reasonable to dislike the open display of homosexuality without actively opposing homosexuality. The problem you have is the association with the obvious homophobes who would actively oppose gay rights.