As an example advocating homophobia will lead to a quick ban on A+. I'm rather disapointed it doesn't here moreso that said fact is a point of such pride for so many of you. Someone who thinks there is something unethical about being gay is evil. That opinion is disgusting and vile. The idea that they could spew their hatefilled excrement here and I would be punished for calling them what they are is absolutly backwards.
That opinion about how this forum should be run is the reason that I, and I believe most members here, did not want and do not want the ideas and practices of Atheism Plus put into effect in any systematic way across the skeptical community.
(A year ago, I speculated on whether Atheism Plus would be activists enough to attempt to influence the policies here, for instance in
this post.)
This opposition to A+'s methods is based on general principles that are highly regarded here, including open discourse and skepticism, not on emotional feelings about any one particular cause or issue. In the presence of the latter, it can become difficult to consistently uphold the former.
For instance, there are a fair number of members here who have requested that holocaust deniers no longer be permitted to spew their hate-filled vile antisemitism here.
And there are a fair number who have requested that 9/11 conspiracy theorists no longer be permitted to spew their hate-filled vile terrorism apologetics here.
Not to mention the ones who would prefer it if we stopped letting global warming deniers spewing their hate-filled vile oil-company-funded pseudoscience here. (Wait, weren't there some famous skeptics who in the recent past were doubtful about the sufficiency of the scientific evidence for AGW? All the more reason to kick 'em out. Wait, they changed their minds recently? Too late! **** 'em!)
And one or two have mentioned that they would prefer it if Republicans or at least those crazy Objectivists were barred from spewing their hate-filled vile reward-the-rich politics here.
And I'm pretty sure that I've seen some complaints about "trolls" who seize every opportunity to insert their hate-filled vile anti-American propaganda into a topic. Surely that's against some rule and we should make them stop?
And I don't doubt that many Christians would much prefer if we didn't permit atheists to spew their vile hate-filled blasphemies against the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ here. They understand that most people here aren't believers, but could they at least not be so
offensive? (I'm not aware of any who have requested that blaspheming members be banned, but I have seen many requests that they be prevented from "derailing" specific proselytizing threads with such conduct.)
This path leads precisely nowhere. By the time we were done picking sides on every question and eliminating everyone who didn't already agree with it (or change their minds on command, something that is not only unskeptical but rarely occurring in human nature), we'd be left with a handful of people in an echo chamber where the only place real discussion could happen would be behind the scenes where all those constraints couldn't be enforced. Kind of like... hmm, what was the place I described as "an object lesson" in a recent post? That one.
But... what about the gays? Maybe everything i just said is just a long-winded excuse to hate the gay, hate the gay, hate the gay, all day long, tra la la?
The readily observable fact is that in this generally skeptical, largely atheist, predominantly humanistic community, acceptance of gays and gay rights is a
fait accompli.
Outside it, in many cases, it is not.
Both those facts are crucial. Keep them both in mind for the next few paragraphs.
Is the tolerance here
perfect? Of course not. The tolerance of nothing in this world is perfect, anywhere in this world. There could be members, maybe even well-known well-regarded members, who get funny bad feelings in their tummy when they think about someone doing
that in someone else's
there. They either keep it to themselves (which counts as tolerance; tolerance doesn't have to mean delighted approval) or they talk about it and learn. Someone might make a joke that someone else thinks is intolerant. Is it? I don't know; tell
me the joke and we'll discuss it. (But, sorry, no one gets to decide
a priori based on personal "privilege," "punching up," or who can brandish the more urgent throbbing emotions. Oversensitivity is not an alien nor forbidden concept.)
We don't go crusading against any such residual evil in our midst for the same reason people don't undergo chemotherapy when they don't have cancer. It's poison, and we're skeptics, so show us the evidence that we're deathly ill and really need it before recommending we take it.
At the same time, we also acknowledge that a lot of homophobia does exist in the world. If it didn't, there would be no need to talk about it. We don't pretend otherwise or attempt to shelter anyone from being reminded of it. We talk about where it comes from and what to do about it. When a Bible literalist bigot comes along and rants about Leviticus, it helps us to address those questions, and it reminds us that we still have a long way to go. So, we let them rant.
Respectfully,
Myriad
it's times like this that the chemgeek needs to sit down, look in a mirror and ask herself....what would ceepolk do ? 
