When person says something, it's typically safe to assume that she has reasons to say that. Everything else (i.e. that she believes that; that she's telling the truth; that she wants to make certain impression; that she wants to be heard; that's she's competent to make judgement etc) is to be verified separately.
Given a choice between spending a lovely evening with family and friends or spending same evening in an exhaustive Internet flamewar about human rationality, what would a truly rational man do?
Regarding all kinds of "a homophobe's right of free hate speech", the only thing I really have to say is that never in my life I've met gays who had aggressively insisted that what me and my wife do in our bedroom is "unprogressive", "intolerant", "not liberal" and "wrong". For the sake of a theoretical argument, I'm fine to accept that maybe they exist somewhere, but as for meeting one in flesh, I never had a chance.

On the contrary, I've heard just enough of "traditionalists" preaching about which positions are unacceptable, and which types of contraception are sinful, and how
[read more]
Do you know that in Scheme it is legal to write
(set! car cdr)
Naming magic has its limits. If you take a doughnut and wrap it in a napkin, and then name it "art object" or "hi-tech device" or (insert your favorite political term here), all you have is still a piece of pastry and a piece of cloth.