Would your lesbian friend like to be told she should be held within a lower social status on the basis of her sexuality? As a lesbian, I find that deeply offensive. I also do not need you, or anyone else, to 'tolerate' my lifestyle. But thanks for taking time out of your day to tell me how super-tolerant you are. The sad fact is that most 'minorities' (because lets face it, its always the minorities that get it stuck hardest to them) ignore nonsense like this now because they've put up with it for generations. Those of Max the Bear's generation will come down harder on these opinions than those of my generation as the majority of society chooses to ignore this kind of bullshit. There is a reason people call your opinions pseudo-fascist. Just because you dress up bigotry with a large dollop of "but its the individual's choice really!" doesn't stop it being a form of bigotry. The fact you willingly segregate these so called 'individuals' into differing groups evidences that. I like a person or I don't like a person. Period.
Incidentally, I don't really give a toss about your opinions - mainly because I have the intelligence and maturity to realise the rest of the world doesn't give a toss about mine. The problem with people who volunteer telling others how to think or live their lives is that usually they have such little sense of importance in their day to day living that its the only way they do have any importance.
Boring, waiting for the inevitable Lucie support that you really aren't little more than an articulate bigot.
I really have no desire to engage with you any further, but this comment made me burst out laughing. In Ethel's paganism thread, you sat whining about how you have no relation to emotion and it shouldn't matter how other people feel in expressing discriminatory opinions.
Or does 'hurt' only extend to physical hurt? Seriously, who the hell are you to suggest I should be held in a lower social status because I'm a lesbian? You, in the grand scale of things, are nothing. Your opinions, like everyone else's, mean nothing. You can take your Viking socialisation bull and shove it up your arse, if only you could stop talking out of it for 5 minutes.
Considering I'm a heterosexual male and you're a lesbian woman, I would probably like that a hell of a lot more than you do 
And that just shows how little respect you have for the LGBT community you've offended on here.
I pity your children for growing up with a parent who's so intollerant towards other opinions.
Propaganda??? Oh so we have recruiting stations now? Banhammer pur-lease..........
If you know you sound like an arsebag, then you remove all excuse of 'Aspergers' out of it. You are using your AS as an excuse to make blatantly antagonistic comments. And you're an affront to the rest of us.
To answer your original question, no, racist or homophobic theories are not tolerated here. To insult a group while using "polite phrases" is no different to insulting the group by any other device. Calling it a "political opinion" does not make it acceptable or tolerable.
Consider this post to be an official warning. If I see any further posts about gay people having a lower "social status", or anything similar, action will be taken. This includes any theories, any off-the-cuff remarks, any innuendos, or any other remarks. Considering the above, combines with your beliefs, I'd suggest staying off the topic of gay people altogether.
That's because YOU attach these words to a value judgement and YOU therefore ASSUME that another person does this too when he uses those words. That assumption is where YOU are wrong. NOT everyone makes those same value judgements. I sure as hell don't.
I do attach value to words when written in a certain context. And I am aware that even if I use a word that can mean something 'neutral' too, I cannot be sure others will read it like that. So I try to be as precise as possible and I do make mistakes. And the same is happening when you write 'Heterosexuality as a norm is vital because reproduction and a family unit are essential for the future of the species.'. You do not use 'a norm' in a neutral way here. It seems directive because you state it is a vital norm, essential for the future of the species. There you add value. There you do make a judgement.
Your friends in real life feel or experience how open you are to their lifestyle. We've only got your words. And that is not a game or so. No it is dead serious. We've only got words to communicate. And it is not only you who has problems with that as an aspie. Most people on this forum are autistic. Most people on this forum struggle with communication. We try hard. Really hard.
All I'm saying, is that heterosexuality should remain a norm. The reason for this is not based on any sort of prejudice but on the simple fact that a male-female relationship is the best environment for any child to grow up in and the only natural way to procreate. From a nature-oriented perspective, heterosexuality must and can only be the norm. Why is it wrong to oust that opinion?
IlluSionS667
The bolded pieces of text are full of valuations of you. It should. Who says so? You do, it is your opinion. Then you base that opinion on the simple fact that a male-female relationship is the best environment for any child to grow up in . Were do you find that fact. It is how it is mostly happening in western culture. But it is not an overall fact. Lots of non western children are raised in matriarchal structured families. I've even heard bible translators having a problem with translation of 'father' in a certain language, because children did not have any relation with their biological father at all. And research is not finding that children growing up with homosexual parents are not being raised well. That also challenges your third neutral fact From a nature-oriented perspective, heterosexuality must and can only be the norm. You use very strong words here. must and can only be the norm. There are cultures with different 'norms' that go back for ages and ages. They are just as 'natural' as the 'norm' you grew up with.
You're absolutely right about the fact that my friends in life can just me on how I behave while people out here can only judge by what a person says. That's exactly why I object so much to all these people here making one assumption after another about what a despicable monster I supposebly am. If they knew me in real life, they'd know I can be quite charming and I wouldn't even hurt a fly. It's their prejudice that somehow triggers them to make all sort of assumptions because they do not read what I'm saying but what they think I'm saying.
That is the point. We only have your words and they are not as 'neutral' as you state.