An absolute moral authority does not exist. It is not me saying someone isn't a moral authority that makes it true; the lack of its existence makes it true.

Demonstrate one. First you will have to define my "morality". The only way you will ever change somebody's mind about something is to actually see things from their perspective. Basing your arguments on another's moral inferiority precludes your ability to see things from their perspective.

Please explain how advocating the avoidance of using emotional arguments is arguing from the gut.

Fair enough but that comment was talking about people of the "someone must stop you" variety. And that someone saying that others are "free to hate" is somehow anti-gay and pro-homophobia. Of which there are quite a few. AmiMojo's strawman there is pretty good evidence that they are one of those people.

My issue is that kind of sentiment only makes problems worse. If both sides are just screaming that the other is harming society how can we make it anywhere? They are both deaf of anything but emotional arguments which they fully belief are already on their own side.

There was nothing wrong with saying Eich was wrong, explaining why he was wrong or even mocking him (I did all those things). But attacking him personally for his political opinion crosses a line. And no matter how wrong you think his opinion is it is in fact shared by a lot of people. If the tide ever turns back in their favour do you really want to leave them with the power to destroy political opponents on that level?

I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm not saying one will lead to the other. I am saying people's moral objections to both are usually fairly similar. All I am advocating is for people to avoid making emotional and moral arguments. They just don't help. For instance: the main reason that the anti gay marriage folks are losing the battle (slowly but surely) is because all they have is emotional and moral arguments. Using the same method to combat them only gives their methods more power.

And gays aren't legally allowed to marry. Case closed? You cannot use "one is illegal" as justification of difference when you are arguing why something should be legal for the other. It just doesn't make sense.

Well we were talking about Eich's political beliefs and how people caused him to lose his job because of them in this thread. You seemed to be defending those people. Or at least trying to deflect criticism away from them.

No one has even made the claim that homosexuality is wrong. Only that some believe that and that they should be free to have such a belief.

The only person that wants beliefs to be unchallengeable here is you. The rest of us are happy to have actual discussions about it. You want to punish and silence people you claim cause harm. I say you both cause harm.

The very fact that you think you have the moral authority to say people should be fired for their political beliefs is what I'm contending. You say that because you think it causes harm that it's totally fine to infringe on political freedom. If Eich had have started firing people for supporting pro gay marriage groups I'd have the same problem with that (plus other problems since I'm pro gay marriage).

There are a whole lot of people that think that homosexuality is harmful. They are wrong. You are never going to change their minds by telling them "no u". Emotional arguments cannot defeat emotional arguments. They only inflame people.

I am perfectly capable of defending someone's political freedom without having to agree with their politics. If I wasn't then I wouldn't be capable of defending anyone's political freedom.

The reason you feel you are arguing over and over again is because you keep insisting you have some kind of moral authority and ignoring the fact that people are telling you that you do not. You give absolutes that don't apply to yourself as soon as you feel they don't.

If you can't provide meaningful evidence other than "if you can't see it you are blind" then you are either wrong or not the person to be advocating. I have skimmed, read and participated in many such discussions. When asked for evidence it is the same two responses: You are blind and part of the problem. And anecdotal, completely unverifiable stories from people with more bias than an Apple Store employee.

You missed the point. By incorrect usage I meant having sex with a minor (the common usage).

So where are you when people are getting prosecuted (and persecuted) for pictures? Or when a minor consents with an adult.

Your reasons for saying, in absolute, that a minor cannot consent with an adult and therefore it is harmful is completely as arbitrary as homophobes saying that homosexuality is harmful.

Homosexuality is safer because it really cannot harm anyone- I agree there. But you can't just throw words like "legal rights" around. Why is one a legal right while the other is not?

Again, replace that with pedophile and see if you still agree with it. Are you still going to tolerate the characteristic (by your definition of tolerance)?

This is why I am opposed to using "tolerance" as the moral mallet to silence others. It is an emotional argument and not a rational one. You are right that homosexuality harms no one and there is no reason to fight it. Full stop. Relying on emotional arguments does more harm than good.

You just proved my point in its entirety. You think one is wrong and the other isn't. Others believe both are wrong. You even use the same language as homophobes. They think that homosexuality is not normal, healthy or acceptable.

But someone that says they are fine with gays as long as they don't act on it (like getting married) is still a homophobe and intolerant. That is what the whole Eich fiasco was about.

Other than being fired unjustly I guess they are different. I never tried to make them "equivalent". They are both wrong. Just because you think one is "more" wrong doesn't justify the other nor excuse it from criticism. I'm perfectly capable of criticizing both.

I have to stress that I do not in any way, shape or form condone any kind of homophobia and I believe that not allowing gay marriage is against your Constitution (and would require an amendment if it wasn't). I am only against the huge number of people that get very sanctimonious about it. That only retards progress.

All that you actually done is an intense bit of handwaiving. You even italicized it for extra wave. You say that everyone misses your point (I say you are unclear purposefully). I see your point perfectly clear; it just isn't as solid as you think it is. You know what you are supporting is counter to political freedom so you have latched on to something else you think you can pin it on. The fact that you think you have more justification in three simple sentences he made as opposed to his opinions is laughable.

His statement was true even if you don't want it to be. He had no obligation to defend his political opinions to you in the first place. You do not approve of his politics- that is why you say he is unfit. It was not his response you had a problem with. It was that his response wasn't a full repentance of his sins of offending your morality. You say that clearly enough in that little journal post.

You say strike one was donating and the second was not apologizing for it and saying he was wrong. Your metaphor got a little mixed when you didn't find a strike three though (shouldn't that mean he's still fit?)

So how, exactly, are you not simply opposed to his politics when you say his only recourse was to change his politics?

AmiMojo counts sentiments like yours as proof of hate. If you disagree (or ask for meaningful evidence) that the problem is all around us and unbearable then you obviously support misogyny. He's now in a feedback loop because he gets himself into more and more of a moral panic which just brings more people to tell him he's overreacting and looking for problems that don't exist.

Just to make sure I'm clear on your meaning:

It wasn't because "he didn't like gays". It was because he "happened to be anti-gay marriage" and donated to a campaign which you disagree with so therefore he has bad judgement and wasn't fit to lead. Aren't those two statements effectively the same thing? Do you think someone could be anti-gay and not have "bad judgement" to you? Are you sure it is not you that is making the rhetorical slight of hand? (love the gay; hate the sin comes to mind here).

I read your little journal- you do know that constantly repeating "objective" doesn't actually make something "objective", right?

Scratch homosexual and put in pedophile (used in the broad, incorrect way) and are you still so strongly supportive? How about the rest of the "fire Eich" brigade? I don't see too many people defending their rights. You think one is morally wrong and some people think they're both morally wrong. Eich did "tolerate" homosexuals by the way- he just didn't think they should marry. You may disagree with him but disagreeing with his right to have a political opinion is a bit different than wanting him to "tolerate". Which is the problem with using the term. "Tolerate" is a nebulous concept and is often (mis)used as a moral mallet to make others look bad and the user to feel superior.

Now before you go and think I am saying something I am not I happen to largely agree with you- and probably for mostly the same reasons. I disagree with using it as a means to morally elevate yourself above others- which is pretty much what the whole debacle was about. Trying to legislate or force morality on others never turns out well. Moral superiority is far too addictive and unstable.

That was my whole point. "Their" has as much historical usage as a singular possessive pronoun as "yours". The pronoun "you" is also a plural pronoun- the singular was "thou". So you accept "you" as a singular because of popular usage. Well "they" as singular has popular usage as well and is perfectly understood.

"Their" is about as plural as "you". They have both been used in the singular for approximately the same amount of time. It is only the arbitrary opinion of a few prescriptivists that say "their" cannot be used in the singular.