Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy

[Omega]

My fetish has nothing to do with kids.

I think animals are considered the same as kids - unable to give consent.  I don't know about incest.  Whatever your particular fetish is, if it violates another's rights (as understood by lack of voluntary consent) then it should be suppressed.

no it doe snot involves animals either
but your idea with animals is quite wrong. I suppose animals do not give you consent for being slaughtered or killed, however if you know something about dogs these beasts are constantly trying to rape every human in sight
and i think is someone is trying to rape you that counts as consent.
otherwise it should be just child or animal abuse without differentiation if abuse involves sex or you are beating them.

the fact that you cam beat your child but you cant touch him gently is somehow absurd.

But still i do not see any reason why US should care about what is happening in some obscure country where people are dying like fleas anyway.

What does this have to do with anything?

these poor countries can get lots of benefit from US pedophiles bu exporting their child porn and getting $$$
however now US government prefers that these kids die of starvation instead of  doing easy job and earning some money to live few days longer.

Sorry, mr conspiracy theorist, marriage is legally protected because it's been traditionally protected for a variety of reasons.   

name these reasons. that do not involve children.

Government is using my tax money to pay for other people and I definitely do not want then to increase army of these leeches by adding gays. Thats only reason why I oppose gay marriage.
in fact I equally oppose straight marriages but I cant do anything about that because married straight are majority and they set their own rules.

Is this a joke? This doesn't make any sense.

whats wrong here? I just don't want to support other families with my tax money and that's all.

[Omega]

Isn't this hypocritical of you? You're saying that since they disagree with you on who should get certain rights, we should deny them those very rights. By that logic nobody should have any rights at all.
People always disagree on who should get some rights. We just have to be fair about it and give equal rights to all, not deny others rights so they'll agree on giving those rights to groups they don't like.

My logic is that if  all class is bullying 2 kids, and one of them demands to join their bullies to bully remaining one together with majority.

That child is better to remain as victim until he will learn not to bully others.

[One Above All]

Isn't this hypocritical of you? You're saying that since they disagree with you on who should get certain rights, we should deny them those very rights. By that logic nobody should have any rights at all.
People always disagree on who should get some rights. We just have to be fair about it and give equal rights to all, not deny others rights so they'll agree on giving those rights to groups they don't like.

My logic is that if  all class is bullying 2 kids, and one of them demands to join their bullies to bully remaining one together with majority.

That child is better to remain as victim until he will learn not to bully others.

So instead of "give everyone equal rights" you want "give most people lack of rights and make them unable to request equal rights until they learn to want to give everyone equal rights, no matter how much they dislike them"
I don't think I have to point out the enormous flaw in that logic

[Omega]

Prostitution is forbidden in most or the world, as well as sex parties,orgies and other exclusively fun sex acts.
Punishment for these "crimes" depend on local laws but even if no legal punishment will follow you will be seen as immoral person by significant portion of society.

lets take a look at Los Vegas, they allow prostitution, swingers, and other sex acts but any one there does not look at the people at partake in the activity as immoral! it is only were Christian movements influence the population of that city. In fact there crime rate toward sex crimes is the lowest in the country if not the world.

yes, it is different everywhere.
same is in japan where simulated child porn is legal and they have lowest rates of child abuses.
but most f the world is different.

[jaimehlers]

Isn't this hypocritical of you? You're saying that since they disagree with you on who should get certain rights, we should deny them those very rights. By that logic nobody should have any rights at all.
People always disagree on who should get some rights. We just have to be fair about it and give equal rights to all, not deny others rights so they'll agree on giving those rights to groups they don't like.

My logic is that if  all class is bullying 2 kids, and one of them demands to join their bullies to bully remaining one together with majority.

That child is better to remain as victim until he will learn not to bully others.

So instead of "give everyone equal rights" you want "give most people lack of rights and make them unable to request equal rights until they learn to want to give everyone equal rights, no matter how much they dislike them"
I don't think I have to point out the enormous flaw in that logic

I agree.  That logic doesn't even make sense.  It's like he's expecting that people will change their minds and become super-tolerant towards everyone else if they're denied equal rights.

And sorry, Omega, but that bullying example just doesn't cut it.  All you end up with there are people who will dish out the same crap to anyone who happens to be weaker than them, especially if they're denied any out.

[Omega]

So instead of "give everyone equal rights" you want "give most people lack of rights and make them unable to request equal rights until they learn to want to give everyone equal rights, no matter how much they dislike them"
I don't think I have to point out the enormous flaw in that logic

No its opposite, gays are not asking same rights for everyone, they are asking for same rights for gays as for straight. thats quite different.
unless they start asking same rights for absolutely everyone I wont support them.
if gays get what they want  they will turn into enemies to me.

I don't want gays to join my enemies, I prefer the to fight and defeat enemy.

[One Above All]

So instead of "give everyone equal rights" you want "give most people lack of rights and make them unable to request equal rights until they learn to want to give everyone equal rights, no matter how much they dislike them"
I don't think I have to point out the enormous flaw in that logic

No its opposite, gays are not asking same rights for everyone, they are asking for same rights for gays as for straight. thats quite different.
unless they start asking same rights for absolutely everyone I wont support them.
if gays get what they want  they will turn into enemies to me.

I don't want gays to join my enemies, I prefer the to fight and defeat enemy.

So bully them into agreeing with you. That's disgusting.

[Dante]

Government is using my tax money to pay for other people and I definitely do not want then to increase army of these leeches by adding gays. Thats only reason why I oppose gay marriage.
in fact I equally oppose straight marriages but I cant do anything about that because married straight are majority and they set their own rules.

The use of your tax money seems to be the entire basis for your argument. Perhaps you should stick with that argument, instead of trying to paint any and all sexual orientations as "perverted".

[Omega]

So bully them into agreeing with you. That's disgusting.

No, i want  to use then to reach my goals  gays are making big fuss and that is good thing i definitely don't want them to stop doing that.
another argument is as previous poster said i don't want then to enjoy my tax money.

[One Above All]

So bully them into agreeing with you. That's disgusting.

No, i want  to use then to reach my goals  gays are making big fuss and that is good thing i definitely don't want them to stop doing that.
another argument is as previous poster said i don't want then to enjoy my tax money.

So use them; take away[1] their right to freedom of speech, thought and action to help you reach your goals
You should take your own advice. Don't accuse others of hypocrisy if you yourself are a hypocrite

1.	Because those rights are given at birth to everyone in most nations, specifically the USA, which I think it's the main focus of this topic

[Omega]

Government is using my tax money to pay for other people and I definitely do not want then to increase army of these leeches by adding gays. Thats only reason why I oppose gay marriage.
in fact I equally oppose straight marriages but I cant do anything about that because married straight are majority and they set their own rules.

The use of your tax money seems to be the entire basis for your argument. Perhaps you should stick with that argument, instead of trying to paint any and all sexual orientations as "perverted".

i don't see any problem with perversions, because everything that is not missionary position in the dark may be considered perverted.
Of course i can use word "deviation", but is there any difference?

Also marriage is not only one right for gays, of course they do not have any legal restrictions but unofficially they are  still quite heavily discriminated.

[Omega]

So use them; take away[1] their right to freedom of speech, thought and action to help you reach your goals
You should take your own advice. Don't accuse others of hypocrisy if you yourself are a hypocrite

1.	Because those rights are given at birth to everyone in most nations, specifically the USA, which I think it's the main focus of this topic

you are talking nonsense. I am not hypocrite because I say everything openly.
I see gays and homophobes like 2 enemies opposing each other  and it is quite foolish to support one side because both are same.

[One Above All]

you are talking nonsense. I am not hypocrite because I say everything openly.

I'm not sure what you understand by "hypocrite". You have double standards, as is clearly indicated in this topic. A person with double standards is a hypocrite

I see gays and homophobes like 2 enemies opposing each other  and it is quite foolish to support one side because both are same.

And yet when homosexuals ask for the same rights as straight people, you say they can't have them. Whether you like it or not, that's supporting the homophobes

[Omega]

I'm not sure what you understand by "hypocrite". You have double standards, as is clearly indicated in this topic. A person with double standards is a hypocrite

Where are my double standards?
I am fighting against double standards.

And yet when homosexuals ask for the same rights as straight people, you say they can't have them. Whether you like it or not, that's supporting the homophobes

they can have them but only as general unspecific rights that are independent from your orientation and preferences.

If they want gay marriage then please extend that to incest and polygamous marriages. (personally i do not support any kind of marriages)
if you want less discrimination at work please include same rights for necrophiliacs pedophiles and other nasties who do not harm anyone but make you puke.
if you want to teach about gay sexuality at school then do not forget to teach about all remaining perversions.

[One Above All]

Where are my double standards?
I am fighting against double standards.

You're saying that they shouldn't get equal rights because they don't support equal rights for everyone in the first place. Yet you say you're against all marriage types and expect to get equal rights anyway

they can have them but only as general unspecific rights that are independent from your orientation and preferences.

There's no such thing. Even the right to live (which is given simply because you're alive) can be taken away if you do enough bad things

If they want gay marriage then please extend that to incest and polygamous marriages. (personally i do not support any kind of marriages)

I support all kinds of marriage, despite thinking it's worthless. If people want to marry others, so be it

if you want less discrimination at work please include dame rights for necrophiliacs pedophiles and other nasties who do not harm anyone but make you puke.

Don't project your tastes onto me.[1] Just because some people don't support equal rights for everyone doesn't mean they don't deserve them.

You seem to think that you can (and should) just bully (yes, that's the definition of what you want to do) people into supporting equal rights for everyone, regardless of their opinions of others. While the end is all fine and good, forcing people into agreeing with something is not. And contrary to what you seem to believe, the ends do not justify the means

if you want to teach about gay sexuality at school then do not forget to teach about all remaining perversions.

Here your homophobia is clear. Homosexuality is not a perversion. It is a natural, involuntary process by which people find other people of the same sex attractive

1.	Note: I'm not saying (or denying) that I find those things attractive. It's a matter of principle

[jaimehlers]

you are talking nonsense. I am not hypocrite because I say everything openly.
I see gays and homophobes like 2 enemies opposing each other  and it is quite foolish to support one side because both are same.

Hypocrisy is not about saying things openly, it's about practicing what you preach.  If you apply one set of standards to one group, and another set of standards to another group, that's hypocrisy.  However, I can at least say that I think I know where you're coming from, and that it's not exactly hypocrisy, although I fundamentally disagree with your position here.

You are basically against gay people getting equal rights with straight people because you believe if they get those equal rights, they will no longer get behind efforts by other minority groups to also get equal rights.  You are further implying that groups which currently have equal rights should have those rights taken away, at least in your opinion, until everyone gets those rights given to them.  I don't know where you came up with this idea, but it is the most flawed argument for giving people equal rights that I've ever heard, and that takes some doing.

It is impossible to give people rights if you're busy taking away rights because they aren't equal down the line.  Gay people do not deserve to have rights they should have had all along withheld solely because other groups have not gotten their own rights.  And nobody deserves to have rights they've earned taken away because other groups don't enjoy them.  Your opinion notwithstanding.  It is that simple, and no argument you can put forward can possibly justify taking rights away from people just because you don't feel it's fair.

they can have them but only as general unspecific rights that are independent from your orientation and preferences.

Except that you're trying to argue that they shouldn't get them at all unless all these other groups also get them.  Like it or not, that's saying they can't have them.  The fact that you're saying that everyone should have "general unspecific rights" doesn't change that.

If they want gay marriage then please extend that to incest and polygamous marriages. (personally i do not support any kind of marriages)

None of those will happen if you try to bar gay marriage until they do.

if you want less discrimination at work please include same rights for necrophiliacs pedophiles and other nasties who do not harm anyone but make you puke.

You do realize that dead bodies decompose, right?  It isn't a matter of being 'nasty', it's a public safety hazard because of the nature of decomposition.  And there's no way you can possibly argue that pedophiles "do not harm anyone" unless you can prove that none of them ever use a child (or a depiction of a real child) as a sex object.

if you want to teach about gay sexuality at school then do not forget to teach about all remaining perversions.

The whole point is that they have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, not just granting a blanket exemption for all 'perversions', as you put it.

[Omega]

You're saying that they shouldn't get equal rights because they don't support equal rights for everyone in the first place. Yet you say you're against all marriage types and expect to get equal rights anyway

isn't that golden rule, threat others in same way like they threat you?

There's no such thing. Even the right to live (which is given simply because you're alive) can be taken away if you do enough bad things

we are talking about things that do not harm anyone.

I support all kinds of marriage, despite thinking it's worthless. If people want to marry others, so be it

then fine yo can pay taxes to support these  married leches, while I prefer to keep my money for myself.
i do not force you to keep your money for yourself and you should not force me to give my money to someone i do not support.

Don't project your tastes onto me.[1] Just because some people don't support equal rights for everyone doesn't mean they don't deserve them.
You seem to think that you can (and should) just bully (yes, that's the definition of what you want to do) people into supporting equal rights for everyone, regardless of their opinions of others. While the end is all fine and good, forcing people into agreeing with something is not. And contrary to what you seem to believe, the ends do not justify the means

1.	Note: I'm not saying (or denying) that I find those things attractive. It's a matter of principle

So, assuming situation where slave is supporting slavery but wants so get personal freedom you will support that slave so that he could become slave master?
i definitely do not agree with that. if you are slave and you think slavery is right then be slave until you develop single standard for everyone.

Here your homophobia is clear. Homosexuality is not a perversion. It is a natural, involuntary process by which people find other people of the same sex attractive

I do not care to whom you are attracted it can be your dog , girl next door,  supermodel, fat ugly woman or  that big black guy.
the fact that you exclude people who like same sex from these who like horses or ugly fat women is double standard.

[One Above All]

isn't that golden rule, threat others in same way like they threat you?

And yet you're not doing it yourself. Ah, the hypocrisy...

we are talking about things that do not harm anyone.

So you're against things that do not harm anyone? (EG: Marriage)

then fine yo can pay taxes to support these  married leches, while I prefer to keep my money for myself.
i do not force you to keep your money for yourself and you should not force me to give my money to someone i do not support.

I kinda can. It's part of equal rights. Taxes (supposedly) exist so that the governments can afford to give everyone equal rights like marriage, free education, jobs etc

So, assuming situation where slave is supporting slavery but wants so get personal freedom you will support that slave so that he could become slave master?
i definitely do not agree with that. if you are slave and you think slavery is right then be slave until you develop single standard for everyone.

I don't even understand what this means

I do not care to whom you are attracted it can be your dog , girl next door,  supermodel, fat ugly woman or  that big black guy.
the fact that you exclude people who like same sex from these who like horses or ugly fat women is double standard.

No, the fact that I exclude homosexuality from those fetishes means that I actually understand the difference between gender attraction and fetishes. Clearly, you do not

[Omega]

You are basically against gay people getting equal rights with straight people because you believe if they get those equal rights, they will no longer get behind efforts by other minority groups to also get equal rights.  You are further implying that groups which currently have equal rights should have those rights taken away, at least in your opinion, until everyone gets those rights given to them.  I don't know where you came up with this idea, but it is the most flawed argument for giving people equal rights that I've ever heard, and that takes some doing.

not exactly so.
as i said on other post it is same as helping for slave to get freedom when that slave is supporting slavery and wants to become slave master himself.

Except that you're trying to argue that they shouldn't get them at all unless all these other groups also get them.  Like it or not, that's saying they can't have them.  The fact that you're saying that everyone should have "general unspecific rights" doesn't change that.

and whats wrong with that?

If they want gay marriage then please extend that to incest and polygamous marriages. (personally i do not support any kind of marriages)

None of those will happen if you try to bar gay marriage until they do.

You do realize that dead bodies decompose, right?  It isn't a matter of being 'nasty', it's a public safety hazard because of the nature of decomposition.  And there's no way you can possibly argue that pedophiles "do not harm anyone" unless you can prove that none of them ever use a child (or a depiction of a real child) as a sex object.

Thats ridiculous.
you are assuming that all these people are acting their fantasies in reality. nobody demands to let necrophiliacs to have sex with corpses in public.
also i can equally demand you to prove that i wont give job for gay unless you prove that no one of gays ever raped another man.
and finally whats wrong with using a depiction of a real child  as a sex object? does that mean you also forbid people masturbate by looking at the images of corpses?
why is that ever important if they are not harming anyone?

The whole point is that they have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, not just granting a blanket exemption for all 'perversions', as you put it.

then what objective criteria you are going to use for qualification?
maybe we should say that all perversions that start with letters H are good ones and ones that start with P are forbidden?

[jaimehlers]

then fine yo can pay taxes to support these  married leches, while I prefer to keep my money for myself.
i do not force you to keep your money for yourself and you should not force me to give my money to someone i do not support.

You don't get to arbitrarily decide that you should get to keep all your money for yourself.  The taxes you pay are part of your obligation for living in your country, and you don't have the right to not pay those taxes simply because you don't agree with certain things the government spends that money on.  If you really cannot stand paying for married 'leeches', then I suggest you find a country which doesn't give that kind of benefit to married people, or else become a political activist to try to change things in your country.

So, assuming situation where slave is supporting slavery but wants so get personal freedom you will support that slave so that he could become slave master?
i definitely do not agree with that. if you are slave and you think slavery is right then be slave until you develop single standard for everyone.

That isn't even remotely analogous to what you're talking about here.  Find a better example.

not exactly so.
as i said on other post it is same as helping for slave to get freedom when that slave is supporting slavery and wants to become slave master himself.

That has nothing at all to do with this subject, and it is a remarkably senseless argument to use in the first place.  We aren't talking about slaves, and you can't possibly come up with an argument good enough to prove a connection between equal rights for various groups and slavery.

and whats wrong with that?

If you think nothing is wrong with it, then by all means give up all your own rights that are not shared by every group.  Then you can find out for yourself just what's wrong with your attitude here.

Thats ridiculous.
you are assuming that all these people are acting their fantasies in reality. nobody demands to let necrophiliacs to have sex with corpses in public.
also i can equally demand you to prove that i wont give job for gay unless you prove that no one of gays ever raped another man.
and finally whats wrong with using a depiction of a real child  as a sex object? does that mean you also forbid people masturbate by looking at the images of corpses?
why is that ever important if they are not harming anyone?

No, what's ridiculous is the distinctions you're trying to parse.  You're the one trying to say that these people should have the legal right to indulge in their fetishes[1].  Except that you're not actually talking about the full-blown fetish itself, you're talking about a 'harmless' version of it, like masturbating to the picture of a corpse or the likeness of a child ("nobody demands to let necrophiliacs to have sex with corpses in public"...well, nobody's demanding that gay people should have sex in public either; apples and oranges).  And then you're trying to compare it to the legal right for gay people to marry.  And that's nonsense, plain and simple.  Get your argument straight before you make it look even worse than it already is.

Your statement about giving, or not giving, gay people jobs is equally nonsensical.  I could just as easily ask you about whether it's appropriate to give any straight person a job unless one can prove that no straight person has ever committed rape, and it would make just as much sense...which is to say, no sense at all.  What it looks like you're saying is that gay people have to be held to the much higher standard that nobody who is gay has ever committed a crime, and that's a ludicrous way of looking at it.

As far as using the depiction of a real child as a sex object, I was referring more to using a depiction of a child having sex for that purpose.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.

then what objective criteria you are going to use for qualification?

What you don't get is that you aren't suggesting "objective criteria" in any way, shape, or form.  You're simply saying that nothing is 'okay' unless everything is 'okay', and that's not being objective.  That's being extremist.  Objective criteria would be things like, "does doing this risk hurting someone?  If so, has the person in question shown that they are responsible enough to be trusted doing this?"  And so on.

maybe we should say that all perversions that start with letters H are good ones and ones that start with P are forbidden?

Maybe you should refrain from making comments such as this.  They don't do anything but put egg on your face.

1.	As a more general term than 'perversions'.

[Omega]

isn't that golden rule, threat others in same way like they threat you?

And yet you're not doing it yourself. Ah, the hypocrisy...

No, i am doing it. just that it is hard to apply in regards to whole group of different people.
but if one Jew  offended me then I have no other option that hate all Jews if they do not expel that one from their group.

we are talking about things that do not harm anyone.

So you're against things that do not harm anyone? (EG: Marriage)

I kinda can. It's part of equal rights. Taxes (supposedly) exist so that the governments can afford to give everyone equal rights like marriage, free education, jobs etc

of course you can, you are majority and you can do anything you like.
but the fact that you can do it does not mean that what you are doing is just.

So, assuming situation where slave is supporting slavery but wants so get personal freedom you will support that slave so that he could become slave master?
i definitely do not agree with that. if you are slave and you think slavery is right then be slave until you develop single standard for everyone.

I don't even understand what this means

Is there a problem with my language?
another similar example would be Jew genocide.
Jews are proud of committing genocides in their bible, but finally they had chance to taste their own medicine when Hitler did to Jews same as Jews supposedly did to amaleks.
so even if i am against genocides I support Hitler here because jews think that genocides are ok.

if you have moral code which gives you right to murder my, that means it gives right for my to murder you, even if my moral code does not allow to murder people.
if  your moral code allows you to murder other people I do not need to support you when another people are going to kill you.

No, the fact that I exclude homosexuality from those fetishes means that I actually understand the difference between gender attraction and fetishes. Clearly, you do not

You cant do that unless you can prove it objectively.
of course it is assumed to be different  from practical reason because officially fetishes are one side attractions to nonhuman objects, but in theory it is still sexual attraction. 

[One Above All]

No, i am doing it. just that it is hard to apply in regards to whole group of different people.
but if one Jew  offended me then I have no other option that hate all Jews if they do not expel that one from their group.

Yeah, you do have a choice. You can stop being such an idiot and actually judging people on a personal basis, not joining people in groups and saying "these 3000000 people are bad because one of them was mean to me and they didn't expell him/her"

of course you can, you are majority and you can do anything you like.
but the fact that you can do it does not mean that what you are doing is just.

You're right, the fact that I'm part of the majority doesn't mean that what I'm doing is just. The fact that it's just means it's just

Is there a problem with my language?
another similar example would be Jew genocide.
Jews are proud of committing genocides in their bible, but finally they had chance to taste their own medicine when Hitler did to Jews same as Jews supposedly did to amaleks.
so even if i am against genocides I support Hitler here because jews think that genocides are ok.

I'm not even going to dignify your idiocy here with a response

if you have moral code which gives you right to murder my, that means it gives right for my to murder you, even if my moral code does not allow to murder people.

So you can break you own moral code? More hypocrisy. By the way, since you want to take away rights from people, I also have the right to take them away from you. From now on you have no right to freedom of speech, thought or action. You are my slave

if  your moral code allows you to murder other people I do not need to support you when another people are going to kill you.

I understand that this is an example, but I am still offended by this. My moral code includes the preservation of all life

You cant do that unless you can prove it objectively.
of course it is assumed to be different  from practical reason because officially fetishes are one side attractions to nonhuman objects, but in theory it is still sexual attraction. 

I can prove it objectively. A fetish is something unrelated to the appearance of a person; what a person considers "hot" or not.
Being straight, gay or bisexual means feeling sexual attraction towards the opposite gender, same gender or both. IE: Thinking that people of a specific gender (or both) are "hot"

Question: How long have you studied English for? You have a severe misunderstanding of concepts such as "hypocrisy" and "equal rights"

[jaimehlers]

No, i am doing it. just that it is hard to apply in regards to whole group of different people.
but if one Jew  offended me then I have no other option that hate all Jews if they do not expel that one from their group.

You don't have any option but to hate all Jews equally if you got offended by one Jew and the others wouldn't expel him from their community?  Do you realize how that sounds?  That's bigotry, plain and simple.

of course you can, you are majority and you can do anything you like.
but the fact that you can do it does not mean that what you are doing is just.

You have no business talking about justice when you think you have no other option than to hate all members of a group if one offended you and didn't get kicked out by their group.  Because that's not justice.  The fact is that you're just making excuses to justify why it's okay for you to be a bigot even though you know it's wrong.  And I find that contemptible.

Is there a problem with my language?
another similar example would be Jew genocide.
Jews are proud of committing genocides in their bible, but finally they had chance to taste their own medicine when Hitler did to Jews same as Jews supposedly did to amaleks.
so even if i am against genocides I support Hitler here because jews think that genocides are ok.

The fact that the ancestors of the Jews committed genocides thousands of years ago does not justify genocide being committed against them in the recent past.  Your belief that it's okay to do unto others what their ancestors did in the past is just...just...I can't think of a word that describes just how horrible that attitude is.  We can't change the mistakes people made in the past, but we can at least make a legitimate effort to learn from them.  You not only aren't doing that, you're excusing doing the same things back to them just because they did it first.  Do you not realize this?

if you have moral code which gives you right to murder my, that means it gives right for my to murder you, even if my moral code does not allow to murder people.
if  your moral code allows you to murder other people I do not need to support you when another people are going to kill you.

The fact that someone else is being an idiot does not mean I should be an idiot too.  If someone tries to kill me, I have the right to defend myself, and to kill them if I have no other way of keeping them from killing me.  But I do not have the right to seek them out and kill them just because they believe they have a moral justification for killing someone.  And they don't have the right to kill me - or anyone - in the first place, so you're right that nobody's obligated to support them when they do so.  The obligation is to keep anyone from being killed, not to simply play "see-no-evil".

[Omega]

then fine yo can pay taxes to support these  married leches, while I prefer to keep my money for myself.
i do not force you to keep your money for yourself and you should not force me to give my money to someone i do not support.

You don't get to arbitrarily decide that you should get to keep all your money for yourself.  The taxes you pay are part of your obligation for living in your country, and you don't have the right to not pay those taxes simply because you don't agree with certain things the government spends that money on.  If you really cannot stand paying for married 'leeches', then I suggest you find a country which doesn't give that kind of benefit to married people, or else become a political activist to try to change things in your country.

that is exactly what I am doing. but you know it is a bit hard hen 99% most of people are on other side.

So, assuming situation where slave is supporting slavery but wants so get personal freedom you will support that slave so that he could become slave master?
i definitely do not agree with that. if you are slave and you think slavery is right then be slave until you develop single standard for everyone.

That isn't even remotely analogous to what you're talking about here.  Find a better example.

That has nothing at all to do with this subject, and it is a remarkably senseless argument to use in the first place.  We aren't talking about slaves, and you can't possibly come up with an argument good enough to prove a connection between equal rights for various groups and slavery.

that has nothing to do with slavery. i am talking about moral standards. whole idea is that slave is supporting slavery.

If you think nothing is wrong with it, then by all means give up all your own rights that are not shared by every group.  Then you can find out for yourself just what's wrong with your attitude here.

and why do you think i have more rights than gays?we all have same rights just that we find some of them useless.
whats use for me if I have right to marry if i have no intention to do so anyway. you are free to take that right from me I do not care.

No, what's ridiculous is the distinctions you're trying to parse.  You're the one trying to say that these people should have the legal right to indulge in their fetishes[1].  Except that you're not actually talking about the full-blown fetish itself, you're talking about a 'harmless' version of it, like masturbating to the picture of a corpse or the likeness of a child ("nobody demands to let necrophiliacs to have sex with corpses in public"...well, nobody's demanding that gay people should have sex in public either; apples and oranges).  And then you're trying to compare it to the legal right for gay people to marry.  And that's nonsense, plain and simple.  Get your argument straight before you make it look even worse than it already is.

1.	As a more general term than 'perversions'.

I am not comparing that with gay right to marriage maybe I said it wrong, but i meat to compare it with gay rights to work on some jobs.
I can compare gays working in military with pedophile working as pediatric doctor.

 

Your statement about giving, or not giving, gay people jobs is equally nonsensical.  I could just as easily ask you about whether it's appropriate to give any straight person a job unless one can prove that no straight person has ever committed rape, and it would make just as much sense...which is to say, no sense at all.  What it looks like you're saying is that gay people have to be held to the much higher standard that nobody who is gay has ever committed a crime, and that's a ludicrous way of looking at it.

this is your demand not mine it syou who demand that pedophiles prove that no one of them ever molest children

As far as using the depiction of a real child as a sex object, I was referring more to using a depiction of a child having sex for that purpose.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Iam still not sure what do you mean. whats with that "depiction" i suppose all you cant do, is to use real child as sex object.

What you don't get is that you aren't suggesting "objective criteria" in any way, shape, or form.  You're simply saying that nothing is 'okay' unless everything is 'okay', and that's not being objective.  That's being extremist.  Objective criteria would be things like, "does doing this risk hurting someone?  If so, has the person in question shown that they are responsible enough to be trusted doing this?"  And so on.

I already said that my criteria is just do not hurt anyone.  I do not evaluate anything separately i just use my criteria on each specific case.
I am against evaluation is advance when you say that all pedophiles hurt children, we need to evaluate every case separately, but we also have presumption of innocence.
If you can prove that specific act of  pedophile was harmful to specific  child he will get what he deserves.
I am against system which evaluates all actions in advance without checking results separately.

[One Above All]

I already said that my criteria is just do not hurt anyone.  I do not evaluate anything separately i just use my criteria on each specific case.
I am against evaluation is advance when you say that all pedophiles hurt children, we need to evaluate every case separately, but we also have presumption of innocence.

If you cannot see why this is a contradiction[1] of:

No, i am doing it. just that it is hard to apply in regards to whole group of different people.
but if one Jew  offended me then I have no other option that hate all Jews if they do not expel that one from their group.

then I am wasting my time

1.	Making you a hypocrite, by the way

[nogodsforme]

You're saying that they shouldn't get equal rights because they don't support equal rights for everyone in the first place. Yet you say you're against all marriage types and expect to get equal rights anyway

isn't that golden rule, threat others in same way like they threat you?

No, the golden rule does NOT say treat others in the same way like they treat you. What you are talking about is tit for tat, or reciprocity or eye for an eye  or something simple like that. Mafia-style: "you whack on of my boys, we whack one of yours."

The golden rule demands something more than that. It says treat others the way you would like to be treated. For example, if you would like to be treated with kindness and respect, treat others with kindness and respect.
 
The golden rule is not about what other people do. It does not matter what they do. For the most part, you can't control what other people do.  What matters is what you do, because that is within your control. That is the idea behind the golden rule.

The golden rule is the basis of taxing people to pay for government--if you would like to have a decent life, help others to have a decent life, too. If you live in an industrialized country, you benefit from tax-supported government services, even if only paved roads, clean water and air, police and fire protection. There is very likely an army to protect you if there is a war, and relief services if there is a natural disaster. You benefit from a legal system that allows businesses to run so you can get goods and services. You benefit from a money system so you don't have to barter for everything.

You benefit from zoning laws that keep people from putting a giant pig farm next to your house. You benefit from environmental rules that prevent companies from putting poison into your air, soil and water. And you benefit from health laws that require food to be inspected before it is sold to the public. Unless you are in the US, you are guaranteed to get health care without having to sell everything you own.

You benefit from young people around you being educated and employed (or at least having enough income so they don't rob your house and kill you!) You benefit from not having to step over the bodies of sick and dying homeless people in the street-- or to become one yourself.  You benefit from not having to live in abject poverty when you are too old to work.  And you benefit because you can choose to be single and not have children-- that is a luxury many people in poor countries do not have!

Try to provide all that for yourself and you will see how far your own money goes. "I don't want leeches living off my tax money" is as far from the golden rule as one can be.

[Omega]

No, i am doing it. just that it is hard to apply in regards to whole group of different people.
but if one Jew  offended me then I have no other option that hate all Jews if they do not expel that one from their group.

You don't have any option but to hate all Jews equally if you got offended by one Jew and the others wouldn't expel him from their community?  Do you realize how that sounds?  That's bigotry, plain and simple.
You have no business talking about justice when you think you have no other option than to hate all members of a group if one offended you and didn't get kicked out by their group.  Because that's not justice.  The fact is that you're just making excuses to justify why it's okay for you to be a bigot even though you know it's wrong.  And I find that contemptible.

Is't that what US president Bush thinks? Bin laden offended US and US bombed Afghanistan.

The fact that the ancestors of the Jews committed genocides thousands of years ago does not justify genocide being committed against them in the recent past.  Your belief that it's okay to do unto others what their ancestors did in the past is just...just...I can't think of a word that describes just how horrible that attitude is.  We can't change the mistakes people made in the past, but we can at least make a legitimate effort to learn from them.  You not only aren't doing that, you're excusing doing the same things back to them just because they did it first.  Do you not realize this?

I am not talking about actual genocides, most likely they did not committed any of them. I am talking about fact that Jews think these genocides were right thing to do.
and unfortunately Hitler's lesson was not enough they still think so.
I am not big fan of "eye for an eye" politic. but if you are proud of committing crime you deserve to taste your own medicine.

The fact that someone else is being an idiot does not mean I should be an idiot too.  If someone tries to kill me, I have the right to defend myself, and to kill them if I have no other way of keeping them from killing me.  But I do not have the right to seek them out and kill them just because they believe they have a moral justification for killing someone.  And they don't have the right to kill me - or anyone - in the first place, so you're right that nobody's obligated to support them when they do so.  The obligation is to keep anyone from being killed, not to simply play "see-no-evil".

Thats your moral code and mine is different. I invented it to deal with people of different moral values.
this also falls under rule "When in Rome, Act Like a Roman"
If it would happen for me to visit cannibals i have no objections to act as cannibal for that time. I may try to convince them to change that behavior because it is not optimal way to live, but wont change mine until they all agree to change theirs.
life is game and It is scientifically proven that "tit for tat + forgive" strategy is the best one, so i suggest you to follow it too if you want best results.

by the way, anyone has right to kill you for any reason if he wont mind to deal with results of that action, Believe what you like but that is fact.

[Omega]

The golden rule demands something more than that. It says treat others the way you would like to be treated. For example, if you would like to be treated with kindness and respect, treat others with kindness and respect.
The golden rule is not about what other people do. It does not matter what they do. For the most part, you can't control what other people do.  What matters is what you do, because that is within your control. That is the idea behind the golden rule.

so lets apply it in reverse, if someone is trying to hurt me that means he also wants to be hurt so I merely do what he desires.
Of course I start with my best intentions.

The golden rule is the basis of taxing people to pay for government--if you would like to have a decent life, help others to have a decent life, too. If you live in an industrialized country, you benefit from tax-supported government services, even if only paved roads, clean water and air, police and fire protection. There is very likely an army to protect you if there is a war, and relief services if there is a natural disaster. You benefit from a legal system that allows businesses to run so you can get goods and services. You benefit from a money system so you don't have to barter for everything.

isnt that "tit for tat" i give to society and society gives something to me?

You benefit from young people around you being educated and employed (or at least having enough income so they don't rob your house and kill you!) You benefit from not having to step over the bodies of sick and dying homeless people in the street-- or to become one yourself.  You benefit from not having to live in abject poverty when you are too old to work.  And you benefit because you can choose to be single and not have children-- that is a luxury many people in poor countries do not have!

that right, but If I don't get that then i wont pay my taxes willingly.

[Azdgari]

so lets apply it in reverse, if someone is trying to hurt me that means he also wants to be hurt so I merely do what he desires.

This is actually testable.  We can study people who hurt others, to see if it means they want to be hurt.  There are probably already sociological/psychological studies on the topic.

What do you expect they'd say?