Why Is It Okay To Hate Openly Gay People?

[Maj]

Even if they were somehow allergic to gay people, the appropriate response is to take some fucking Zyrtec.

Um... I don't think the allergy analogy works like you want it to. I am totally allowed to avoid cats if I'm allergic to them, but that doesn't apply if we're talking about people?

I don't want my son to be around other children whose behavior I find deplorable, and it's totally within my right to frequent a different park, change the school he goes to, etc. It might hurt someone else's feelings. It may even be considered by that child's parents to be insulting, but I still am well within my rights to do it.

Also, "ibid"?

Yeah, I use it in the "same source" sense when I don't feel like fully typing out someone's name, but since the second quote was from a different post of yours, I guess I technically used it incorrectly.

Wait, so you're saying that a person does not have an obligation to suppress feelings, or the behaviors that flow from them, even if they know that those feelings are unreasonable, irrational, harmful, or generally detrimental?

You tossed harmful and detrimental in there - to whom? And I specifically did not include behavior in my response because it encompasses such a wide spectrum of things that people do - from not being able to look someone in the eyes to beating someone to death.

Freedom of Speech means, to you, that someone shouldn't say to themselves, "Goddamn, I'm an unreasonable asshole! I really need to try and keep that shit in check and be less of a jerk."?

There is a difference between "should" and "must." Yeah, people should keep their unreasonable feelings to themselves, but that doesn't mean they are required to. I am fully allowed to say that I don't like dealing with people who don't bathe, women suffering from harried mother syndrome, and people who constantly wear bluetooth earpieces. I am also allowed to avoid those people and tell them to their faces that I don't like them. I'm allowed to write letters to my local newspaper that expresses my dislike for them, and post nasty comments about them on messageboards all across the internet. I'm allowed to look at them funny and whisper about them behind their backs.

From what I've seen of people on this messageboard, many would prefer to keep their rights to do and say those things. I don't see why what I'm saying is anything spectacularly out of the norm.

[Lago PARANOIA]

From what I've seen of people on this messageboard, many would prefer to keep their rights to do and say those things. I don't see why what I'm saying is anything spectacularly out of the norm.

In principle I agree with you, Maj, but at the end of the day the non-bathing person and friends aren't going to be denied their civil rights.

When you're trying to upgraydde a underprivileged out of the underclass, people doing all of the things you describe only make it that much harder to correct the injustice. While you still aren't obligated to keep your hostile thoughts to yourself (as long as you still respect their rights) you do need to realize that you're creating an environment that makes it That Much Harder for gays or Latinos or whoever to actually climb out of the underclass.

[violence in the media]

Even if they were somehow allergic to gay people, the appropriate response is to take some fucking Zyrtec.

Um... I don't think the allergy analogy works like you want it to. I am totally allowed to avoid cats if I'm allergic to them, but that doesn't apply if we're talking about people?

I don't want my son to be around other children whose behavior I find deplorable, and it's totally within my right to frequent a different park, change the school he goes to, etc. It might hurt someone else's feelings. It may even be considered by that child's parents to be insulting, but I still am well within my rights to do it.

Yeah, I'll agree that the allergy analogy is getting way out of hand, but it does wrap us around to the original point about the behavior in question. Having an issue with the behavior is fine, provided it's consistently applied and not based on qualities such as gayness or blackness or whatever. If you're complaining specifically about those "flamboyant gays," chances are it's the "gay" that raises your ire more than the "flamboyant."

Wait, so you're saying that a person does not have an obligation to suppress feelings, or the behaviors that flow from them, even if they know that those feelings are unreasonable, irrational, harmful, or generally detrimental?

You tossed harmful and detrimental in there - to whom? And I specifically did not include behavior in my response because it encompasses such a wide spectrum of things that people do - from not being able to look someone in the eyes to beating someone to death.

I did toss harmful and detrimental in there because those are the sorts of actions that usually flow from unreasonable and irrational mindsets. Of course, the "harm to whom" applies to the same object or group that's the subject of your bias.

Look, not meeting someone's gaze, crossing the street to avoid them, and beating them to death are all forms of bigoted behavior (provided they're done because the target is black/gay/different) that are only separated by degree of severity. And all these behaviors stem from someone being a bigoted fuck.

Freedom of Speech means, to you, that someone shouldn't say to themselves, "Goddamn, I'm an unreasonable asshole! I really need to try and keep that shit in check and be less of a jerk."?

There is a difference between "should" and "must." Yeah, people should keep their unreasonable feelings to themselves, but that doesn't mean they are required to. I am fully allowed to say that I don't like dealing with people who don't bathe, women suffering from harried mother syndrome, and people who constantly wear bluetooth earpieces. I am also allowed to avoid those people and tell them to their faces that I don't like them. I'm allowed to write letters to my local newspaper that expresses my dislike for them, and post nasty comments about them on messageboards all across the internet. I'm allowed to look at them funny and whisper about them behind their backs.

From what I've seen of people on this messageboard, many would prefer to keep their rights to do and say those things. I don't see why what I'm saying is anything spectacularly out of the norm.

There is a difference between "should" and "must" and you have a right to express your dislike for whatever group of people you want. However, we as a society rightfully do control some behaviors, mostly by instituting "must not" policies regarding hiring, banking, and housing. You can still hate the blacks or the Mexicans in this case, just so long as you don't discriminate against them through your actions.

If you have a problem with blacks, and will not hire them or loan to them or rent to them, the problem is not with black people, the problem is not with white people, the problem is with you. And I am totally behind government and society doing what they rightfully can, through legal action and market forces, to make sure you are not in a position to hire, loan, or rent to anyone in the future.

Freedom of speech is a tricky thing though. It is not freedom of action (the newspaper doesn't have to publish your racist screed), and you have to implicitly or explicitly deny it to some people in order to preserve it for others.

[Maj]

In principle I agree with you, Maj, but at the end of the day the non-bathing person and friends aren't going to be denied their civil rights.

True. And I understand that it's difficult to pass laws that protect civil rights of individuals when the people passing those laws are bigotted, but for some reason, the topic seemed to me to be a lot more about dealing with random haters who don't have law-passing ability.

Having an issue with the behavior is fine, provided it's consistently applied and not based on qualities such as gayness or blackness or whatever. If you're complaining specifically about those "flamboyant gays," chances are it's the "gay" that raises your ire more than the "flamboyant."

...

Look, not meeting someone's gaze, crossing the street to avoid them, and beating them to death are all forms of bigoted behavior (provided they're done because the target is black/gay/different) that are only separated by degree of severity. And all these behaviors stem from someone being a bigoted fuck.

See, I don't agree that that's necessarily true, and that's precisely why I tried to bring up other situations that make people uncomfortable, because they are outside the sexually acceptable norm even though they are perfectly normal - like breastfeeding.

I went to visit my sister at the Doubletree Hotel in Portland, Oregon, and my son needed to eat. The concierge behind the desk didn't want me to breastfeed in a public space, however, and the bathrooms were closed at the time, so I was given a hotel room where I could go to feed my son.

I don't think that guy was a bigot at all, and I don't consider people who are uncomfortable with breastfeeding mothers to be bigots, either. Many of them are even mothers who breastfed their own children, but boobs are not things that are acceptable to show in public - even in a perfectly natural context.

The mentality that says "boobs are not acceptable to display in public" is part of the same thing that says "boys are not allowed to kiss other boys in public." 100 years ago, the same mentality included "women shall not wear skirts above the ankle."

So how do you change that mentality to make gayness OK? Does Adam Lambert need to go around kissing more boys at award shows?

...

Freedom of speech is a tricky thing though. It is not freedom of action (the newspaper doesn't have to publish your racist screed), and you have to implicitly or explicitly deny it to some people in order to preserve it for others.

I noticed that things changed back again here from what my examples were to deliberate issues on race, and it suggests to me that you think that it's OK to be a bigot when it comes to people who don't bathe (or any other group that I've mentioned so far), but it's not OK to be a bigot when it's race or sexual orientation. Do I understand that correctly?

[Username17]

The question is not whether people have a right to say "I hate [EDITED]!" the question is whether people around them have an obligation to put social pressure on them to stop.

That's the problem. The problem is that currently if you shout that you hate "[EDITED]" or "the jew" you'll have people around you tell you that your statements are totally fucked up. But if you say that you hate "[EDITED]" people feel like they have to put up with it. Ad that is a problem. It's not socially acceptable to hate on Black people. It is socially acceptable to hate on homosexuals.

You can make the world a better place by insulting and belittling people who make anti-gay remarks. In exactly the same way, and for exactly the same reason, as you make the world a better place by insulting and belittling people who express sympathy for the goals and methods of the KKK.

-Username17

[Jilocasin]

The question is not whether people have a right to say "I hate [EDITED]!" the question is whether people around them have an obligation to put social pressure on them to stop.

That's the problem. The problem is that currently if you shout that you hate "[EDITED]" or "the jew" you'll have people around you tell you that your statements are totally fucked up. But if you say that you hate "[EDITED]" people feel like they have to put up with it. Ad that is a problem. It's not socially acceptable to hate on Black people. It is socially acceptable to hate on homosexuals.

You can make the world a better place by insulting and belittling people who make anti-gay remarks. In exactly the same way, and for exactly the same reason, as you make the world a better place by insulting and belittling people who express sympathy for the goals and methods of the KKK.

-Username17

+ Fucking 1

[Maxus]

The question is not whether people have a right to say "I hate [EDITED]!" the question is whether people around them have an obligation to put social pressure on them to stop.

That's the problem. The problem is that currently if you shout that you hate "[EDITED]" or "the jew" you'll have people around you tell you that your statements are totally fucked up. But if you say that you hate "[EDITED]" people feel like they have to put up with it. Ad that is a problem. It's not socially acceptable to hate on Black people. It is socially acceptable to hate on homosexuals.

You can make the world a better place by insulting and belittling people who make anti-gay remarks. In exactly the same way, and for exactly the same reason, as you make the world a better place by insulting and belittling people who express sympathy for the goals and methods of the KKK.

-Username17

+ Fucking 1

+ Fucking 2

[TOZ]

Into threesomes are you Maxus?

[Starmaker]

Two of my friends write in their public profiles that they are lesbians. But when a loser troll came around and posted a lot of offensive things ('shopped photos and the like) about them, they were really angry at being called lesbians (the neutral term, not an expletive).

I have (openly) gay female friends who don't like the word "lesbian". From what I gather it's half the word itself produces unpleasant ocular impressions and half a dislike of the general stereotype the word engenders.

That happens, too. But I reckon "lesbian" is the least likely term to offend a woman who's into women ("dyke" used to be a slur, "homosexual" emphasizes sex, "homophilic" deemphasizes sex and can be seen as an attack on free speech, "gay" is moe associated with males and can be seen as an attack on Wymynhood etc.) Then again, people who live on Lesbos could take offense...

But the thing is, my friends were okay with the term, they just didn't like being called lesbians by anyone else (because they are not).

One of the opinions expressed in this topic was "gays should make substantially more effort to be nice since as members of a minority they are representing the minority as a whole". And while that last (italicized) bit is true, the opinion as a whole is not because the behaviour of actual gays has negligible impact compared to the anti-gay bullshit that is apparently okay to spew. I mean, my parents are watching a British serial where gay characters often appear, and when they do, they are always criminals.

And attention whores are not helping either. Despite what Cielingcat says, people who prance around shouting "I'm gaaaay!" exist because identifying as a minority ("srsly 1/3 Native American") is what attention whores do. "My Immortal" is THE example, even though it's likely to be a parody.

Until hate speech is actively suppressed by making it unprofitable (social ostracism of the individual fucktards, boycotting brands that use anti-gay imagery in advertising), there won't be any progress. And I have to idea how to achieve this breakpoint with an actively antagonistic populace.

Example: in Russia, a system of juvenile justice is being established. And while opponents say "under the new regime, you can lose parental rights if you try to prevent your child from hanging out with kids who are [EDITED]" (which would be awesome if it was true), the system is there just to steal money. It's going to be run by the same haters who will be more likely to harass single parents on suspicions of homosexuality than actually protect children.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Starmaker, sadly, this is just one of these occasions where substantial progress will only be made when the older generation dies off, like with racial civil rights.

Either that or something so horrible or wonderful happens that it shames people out of their bigotry or reveals how pointless it is. I think that meeting benevolent Vulcans would cure revulsion of teh gays pretty fast.

[violence in the media]

I noticed that things changed back again here from what my examples were to deliberate issues on race, and it suggests to me that you think that it's OK to be a bigot when it comes to people who don't bathe (or any other group that I've mentioned so far), but it's not OK to be a bigot when it's race or sexual orientation. Do I understand that correctly?

Ok, Maj, I was ignoring it because it was a deliberate whitewashing attempt to create a false equivalence between breastfeeding mothers and historically oppressed minority groups.

Now, I'm of the opinion that if the behavior isn't harming you or anyone else, that you should stuff any "uncomfortable" feelings you may have about it. However, I don't give a fuck about the plight of the unwashed, the breastfeeding mother, or any combination of the two. I don't much care if people engage in either action (personally, I prefer boobs to stinky people), but the fact that you're attempting to compare discrimination based on behavior to discrimination based on an inherent quality seriously makes me question your motives. If you were one of those asshats that consciously supported or promoted Prop 8, then you can go fuck off right now.

[Crissa]

I don't think it's right to be bigoted against people with blue hair. And yet it's legal.

-Crissa

[Maj]

I don't think it's right to be bigoted against people with blue hair. And yet it's legal.

Crissa seems to be demonstrating understanding of what I'm trying to say - bigotry is bigotry regardless of whether it's against someone who can solve their problems by bathing or someone who can't.

But the reason I originally brought up breastfeeding is that I was trying to point out that there is a generally accepted idea of what's sexually acceptable. While showing affection for someone of the same gender in public goes against that socially acceptable idea, so does feeding your kid. Which means that in a lot of situations, it's not being gay that people object to - it's acting in such a way that goes against that underlying socially acceptable behavior*.

The question is - how do you change that underlying assumption? And how do you determine what you should include as OK? Does that only apply to aspects of people that are unchangeable?

*TGDMB Required Caveat: There are people who just flat-out hate gay people. I know this. I am not talking about them.

[Juton]

I think like Lago said, this is going to take time. First people have to become tolerant of their even being gay people. Then they'll just be uncomfortable with same sex couples holding hands, but after a while they'll just stop caring. Interracial couples won the right to marry in all the states by the end of the 60s, they can hold hands in public now in most places.

I don't think it will take 40 years for general acceptance, I think people are more willing to extend civil rights than they where in the 60s. As an example of how fast change can happen it's become acceptable for women to breastfeed in public in the little Canadian town in which I live. I don't remember seeing it 10 or even 5 years ago, it's not really that common yet but sometimes you'll see a woman on the bus or in a food court breastfeeding and it's not a big deal.

I also wonder if how terms like '[EDITED]' and 'gay' are used will slow down it's progress and perhaps a dearth of gay characters in television aimed at younger people. I say perhaps because I don't watch kid shows now, but back in the 80s they stuck in token characters of other races, this showed them in a positive light and I think it probably helped reduce racism, if even a little.

[Koumei]

Starmaker, sadly, this is just one of these occasions where substantial progress will only be made when the older generation dies off, like with racial civil rights.

Now we're talking! Lucky Americans with your death panels...

[violence in the media]

I don't think it's right to be bigoted against people with blue hair. And yet it's legal.

Crissa seems to be demonstrating understanding of what I'm trying to say - bigotry is bigotry regardless of whether it's against someone who can solve their problems by bathing or someone who can't.

Well, that's great. It's a revelation right up there with water is wet. While it would be nice if the world was equally accepting of all things, in reality you have to prioritize. Is it more important for non-white, non-male, non-straight people to have equal rights and protctions to straight, white, males; or for blue, pink, and green haired people to be equal to their blonde, brunette, and redheaded counterparts? Maybe, once you have equal acceptance for inherent qualities, you can push for acceptance of elective qualities.

However, as I mentioned before, whitewashing bigotry against gays as somehow equivalent to bigotry against breastfeeders is actively harmful and is one of the tools of people who have no intention of allowing equality at all.

But the reason I originally brought up breastfeeding is that I was trying to point out that there is a generally accepted idea of what's sexually acceptable. While showing affection for someone of the same gender in public goes against that socially acceptable idea, so does feeding your kid. Which means that in a lot of situations, it's not being gay that people object to - it's acting in such a way that goes against that underlying socially acceptable behavior*.

I could almost agree with this assessment if a person was equally opposed to all forms of PDAs. If you're only squicked out because it's two dudes kissing, then your problem isn't the result of some nebulous "socially acceptible behavior" code. I can't imagine a defensible behavior code that excludes gays and breastfeeding, but that allows hetero displays of affection.

The question is - how do you change that underlying assumption? And how do you determine what you should include as OK? Does that only apply to aspects of people that are unchangeable?

These questions really depend on whether the underlying assumption is worth giving credence to.

[Maj]

However, as I mentioned before, whitewashing bigotry against gays as somehow equivalent to bigotry against breastfeeders is actively harmful and is one of the tools of people who have no intention of allowing equality at all.

<sigh>

That is not relevant in any way to what I'm trying to say. Yes, being the victim of dickish behavior sucks. No, it's not acceptable, especially if it's in a scenario where the victim of said dickishness can't do anything to solve the problem. Etc, etc, blah, blah.

We agree on that. It's not what I'm trying to say.

I could almost agree with this assessment if a person was equally opposed to all forms of PDAs. If you're only squicked out because it's two dudes kissing, then your problem isn't the result of some nebulous "socially acceptible behavior" code. I can't imagine a defensible behavior code that excludes gays and breastfeeding, but that allows hetero displays of affection.

It's clear that no matter how many times I try to explain what I'm saying, or how many times I rearrange and/or add new words, this conversation isn't getting anywhere.

I will attempt this last time.

There are unspoken societal norms. Call it culture, call it whatever - people who live together tend to have similar ideas that aren't ever codified or written down, but are just commonly accepted.

Some completely easy-to-understand-not-supposed-to-be-related-to-anything-particularly-inflammatory examples are:

Cake is a wedding tradition
Black is a color of mourning
Blue = Boy, Pink = Girl
The standard word day is 9 - 5
Thirteen is unlucky
Soccer moms drive mini-vans and/or SUVs

These are just underlying, unspoken assumptions that people frequently have in our society. They don't hold true for other cultures around the world or through history. They don't even hold true 100% of the time, but they hold true enough that when someone does something different, it's noteworthy in people's minds. To say that the US doesn't have an underlying image of sexual behavior is naive; we even have a word for it - puritanical.

All I'm trying to say is that I think it's a mistake to attribute hatred/dislike/whatever of gays to people who are uncomfortable with situations outside the puritanical norm (Technically, I think the word is just a bit too strong because our views on sexuality have changed a lot - especially in the last hundred years - but I'm trying to convey a concept that apparently isn't conveying at all). Because they are frequently uncomfortable in more than just a boy-on-boy situation. They are also uncomfortable in the presence of moms showing their boobs in public, girls who dress like prostitutes, men with strategic sock purposes, etc, etc, etc.

I'm not talking about defensible, I'm talking about what's actually out there. And I'm not trying to say it shouldn't be changed - I've repeatedly asked how to change it.

[God_of_Awesome]

One argument against repealing the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy is that most people who voluntarily join the military are with "conservative values" (I quote and italicize this because I call it bullshit. I have conservative values and they are small government and limited taxes, not gay hating).

Now, I have no numbers to back this up but that makes sense. If anyone has numbers to the contrary then please tell me.

Now my point is I still think 'DADT' should be repealed, but I think we need to prepare for eventuality of a violent reaction from "conservative value" soldiers. We need to accept that it is likely to happen and have some plan to stop it.

Just my two-cents.

[Maxus]

with "conservative values" (I quote and italicize this because I call it bullshit. I have conservative values and they are small government and limited taxes, not gay hating).

Um, back in the day, 'conservatism' meant 'unwilling to change the status quo'.

There are people so conservative that I'm sure you can find one, somewhere, who would favor pulling down the houses and going back to living in the trees and eating their meat raw.

This is a favorite way to get the exactly two people my age who I know are in favor of conservative values. I, and some other people, can keep on bringing up the crazy on their side of the fence and keep pointing out that these people call themselves practicing 'conservative values', too.

Conservative values include a lot of things which aren't good values.

But I do agree: trying to say that it's a gay dude's fault he got beat up by his mouthbreathing testosterone-poisoned peers is like saying it's a woman's fault if she gets raped.

[Cielingcat]

But I do agree: trying to say that it's a gay dude's fault he got beat up by his mouthbreathing testosterone-poisoned peers is like saying it's a woman's fault if she gets raped.

Note that people love to claim that it's a woman's fault if she gets raped.

[Maxus]

But I do agree: trying to say that it's a gay dude's fault he got beat up by his mouthbreathing testosterone-poisoned peers is like saying it's a woman's fault if she gets raped.

Note that people love to claim that it's a woman's fault if she gets raped.

Yeah, 'cuz those bitches shouldn't be wearing those short skirts and acting so hot, am I right?

It's blaming the victim and making it okay to not cut in some self-restraint, and I fucking HATE that kind of reasoning.

[RobbyPants]

I'm not talking about defensible, I'm talking about what's actually out there. And I'm not trying to say it shouldn't be changed - I've repeatedly asked how to change it.

Time, really.

It's just going to take time for people to slowly get used to new social norms. Lago mentioned earlier that we might get more change as older generations die off.

Just take a look at what we consider normal now compared to decades past. It's a fairly natural progression, but it tends to happen slowly. It usually takes something big to make it happen faster.

[Lich-Loved]

It's just going to take time for people to slowly get used to new social norms. Lago mentioned earlier that we might get more change as older generations die off.

Just take a look at what we consider normal now compared to decades past. It's a fairly natural progression, but it tends to happen slowly. It usually takes something big to make it happen faster.

Agreed in more ways than one. To wit:

What is more than passing interesting is that we have another thread here laughing at the otherkin when in one and half generations, being an anime/animal/machine/snake/whatever trapped in a human body will be more than just a fringe group you laugh at, it will be a group that demands their right to be treated fairly even after having the quasi-medical/dermatological/cosmetic changes made to allow them to express who they really are. The pioneers of this group are already altering their bodies and more techniques will be available to them as science progresses.

Don't think it will happen? Check the trends. This thread is living proof of it. Maybe one of your kids will be trans-species, what then? I suppose you will need to support his/her surgery and right to slither about on his/her belly while not facing discrimination at work. At least, I hope so.

[Username17]

It would b pleasant to believe in a steady and slow march towards universal acceptance, but unfortunately that's total bullshit. Gays have in various places and at various times in the past been much more accepted than they are here and now. The status of gay people was specifically and deliberately eroded by the work of religious organizations the world over. The only reason that gays are getting a better deal now, is because the enlightenment ethics, guided as they are by the light of reason and the power of science, have absolutely nothing against gay people. The works of Darwin not only severely lambasted European society for mistreatment of Black people, they also offer a very reasonable and compelling narrative for a "natural" place for homosexuals in human society (see: Kin Selection). And it is precisely the works of the atheistic liberals that push for rights and equality for humans of all shapes and colors and sizes - and sexual orientations.

The Otherkin have no such allies, because they are religious fanatics. Their central dogma that they want respected is an anti-scientific screed of incomprehensible Woo, and the very enlightenment soldiers that shine lights on prejudice against people or being Black, Brown, or Gay simply have nothing to add. Similarly, the "forces of tolerance" are not going to make it socially acceptable to perform cliterodectomies on young girls, and they are not going to make it socially acceptable to arrange marriages to your nieces. Those people we think of as the "forces of tolerance" are not really in favor of tolerance generally nor are they going to endorse dog raping or any of that slippery slope nonsense any time soon.

The fight for gay rights begins and ends with a fight against religion. And when it is over, people from bullshit marginal religions won't be any less bullshit or marginal because of it.

Now, that being said, transhumans of the materialistic variety are going to be moving forward, because they are allied with the Enlightenment Virtues. And we are winning, and will continue to win, because we have medicine and airplanes. But the transhuman mantra is not the same as the otherkin mantra, and in th long run the two groups are not allies. There is a profound difference between wanting to transfer your consciousness into a giant machine and wanting other people to take you seriously that you are the reincarnated soul of a giant machine and you want back into a proper machine body.

-Username17

[Lich-Loved]

But the transhuman mantra is not the same as the otherkin mantra, and in th long run the two groups are not allies. There is a profound difference between wanting to transfer your consciousness into a giant machine and wanting other people to take you seriously that you are the reincarnated soul of a giant machine and you want back into a proper machine body.

You raise a fair point, but the point is largely academic or philosophical, not practical. In the end, would you as a transhumanist of the former variety discriminate against one of the latter? Today, should a man be deprived of a sex change operation because he believes he was a woman mistakenly reborn as a man or because he wants to better align his exterior with his interior mental and emotional state?

When a person can be whatever race/sex/eye color/skin type/scaled/furry they want to be, for whatever reason, do you honestly believe that claiming to hold the momentary scientific high ground will prevent you from being a bigot? Has claiming to hold the scientific high ground allowed others to maintain their version of normalcy in generations past, like when Blacks were thought to be genetically inferior to whites? You seem to think that science will go only so far and and then stop once it reaches your level of comfort. My prediction is that science will continue to expand its definition of what it means to be a human with a free will to encompass these groups you find lack merit. If I am incorrect, and I may be, then rather than a scientific movement, it will be a social movement, with those raised in a time where body alteration is as practical as tattoo and cosmetic surgery is today will not only desire but demand to express their individuality. You, a member of the older generation by then, will simply not understand what drives those strange others to chip their heads and grow day-glo tiger fur over their bodies. In turn, they will look to your generation as one that stands in the way of their progress, of metahuman/transhuman rights.

My point is not to quibble semantics with you, only to point out that what seems preposterously unsupportable to one generation becomes the basis of freedom and individuality for another and that such progress will continue either by scientific advancement (as it has with race and sexual orientation), social advancement, or both, be it in lurches or in some more gradual manner. Transport someone from 1910 to 2010 and watch them ogle at the changes - same sex marriage, women with tattoos, the rampant, open sexuality, sex change operations, interracial marriage, in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, cloning... you get the idea.

Transport someone from 2010 to 2110 and the change will be just as great, if not greater whether that change is based upon evolved social beliefs, scientific evidence (or lack thereof) or both.