"Mothers don't stop Getting angry with stupid bigots who (mess) with their children!"

[Liberty Belle]

Yep, and again, we live in the United States of America and it is our RIGHT to be able to protest that which we find objectionable. Along with this right, people also have the right to NOT be called a bigot because they don't agree with a lifestyle. You also have every right to fight for that lifestyle. Are you then a bigot because you want to live a gay lifestyle and not a straight lifestyle--bigoted against straight people? Somewhere along the road, people DO need to stand up for common moral beliefs or you see civilized societies fall...

Take the gay/straight/transexual issue off the table--how about if we had a large group of people in the US fighting for zero population growth. Overpopulation is a strain to our natural resources, usable water is slowing diminishing, fossil fuel production and use is killing our environment, etc. This group now wants to limit people to having one child and you can only have that child between the ages of 25 and 30... So, are you a bigot because you want to have 3 children or are you a bigot because you think that no one should have more than one child?

I've never once heard a gay person objecting to heterosexuals and their "lifestyles." Please this is just ridiculous. You think civilized societies are going to fall because some people start making their outside look like how they feel on the inside? I think ignorance and hatred have a better chance.

 

[tlbwriter]

No, I didn't answer my question. When do people that find things morally objectionable get to stop being called bigots? Where do MY rights start in this. What if I don't want to be exposed to the gay lifestyle? What if I want to be able to walk down the street and not see two men kissing? Where are my civil rights???

Why do you think you have the RIGHT to not see things you find objectionable? There are many things I'd prefer not to see when I walk down my street. What if I find golf objectionable? Should I be able to have those nasty golf players forced to stay in the closet where they belong?

 

[golfgal]

First of all, I'm actually not gay. (Not that there's anything wrong with that!)
Secondly, your example of zero population growth does affect my life, so I would stand up and fight for what I believed in. How Cher's child chooses to live, be it as a man or a woman, does not. You really can't compare the two.
You (general you) would be a bigot for saying that everyone has to live his or her life in a way you find acceptable, especially since it will have no bearing whatsoever on you.

Exactly--and say that same sex marriage does effect my life--what if I don't want to watch same sex partners....where is the line of my rights vs their rights???

I think the bigot word is thrown around way too often.

I think there is a difference in saying "I don't approve of <whatever>" and in saying "I don't approve of <whatever> so I want to make <whatever> illegal or limit the rights of <whatevers>."

One is voicing your opinion and the other is limiting other's rights because of that opinion.

Just doing the first might make you closed-minded but I don't think it necessarily makes you a bigot.

I disagree that it makes you closed minded too. You can object to something based on your beliefs without being closed minded.

Only if you try to make it difficult or even illegal for straight people to live a "straight lifestyle."

When do we as a society as a whole draw the line though? By allowing everything, the only result will be chaos. What if someone has the belief that they should be able to kill their own children if they don't like something that child did, doesn't effect your life so why should it matter, right???

 

[golfgal]

Why do you think you have the RIGHT to not see things you find objectionable? There are many things I'd prefer not to see when I walk down my street. What if I find golf objectionable? Should I be able to have those nasty golf players forced to stay in the closet where they belong?

Exactly, that is where we as a society need to decide what is morally right and wrong. If society as a whole finds golf objectionable, close up the golf courses.

 

[Uncle Remus]

No, I didn't answer my question. When do people that find things morally objectionable get to stop being called bigots? Where do MY rights start in this. What if I don't want to be exposed to the gay lifestyle? What if I want to be able to walk down the street and not see two men kissing? Where are my civil rights???


Keep in mind this is all for argument sake......it isn't as easy as you are making it out to be. We DO, as a country, need to define what is morally acceptable or eventually society will turn into chaos.

I wouldn't mind bein' called a bigot because I do find it morally objectionable to deny the LGBT Americans their full rights, I've been called worse.

 

[Princess Dolly]

Yep, and again, we live in the United States of America and it is our RIGHT to be able to protest that which we find objectionable. Along with this right, people also have the right to NOT be called a bigot because they don't agree with a lifestyle. You also have every right to fight for that lifestyle. Are you then a bigot because you want to live a gay lifestyle and not a straight lifestyle--bigoted against straight people? Somewhere along the road, people DO need to stand up for common moral beliefs or you see civilized societies fall...

Take the gay/straight/transexual issue off the table--how about if we had a large group of people in the US fighting for zero population growth. Overpopulation is a strain to our natural resources, usable water is slowing diminishing, fossil fuel production and use is killing our environment, etc. This group now wants to limit people to having one child and you can only have that child between the ages of 25 and 30... So, are you a bigot because you want to have 3 children or are you a bigot because you think that no one should have more than one child?

False...our First Amendment right allows us to do that very thing. And you are throwing around the word bigot in instances in which it would not be used.

 

[golfgal]

False...our First Amendment right allows us to do that very thing. And you are throwing around the word bigot in instances in which it would not be used.

Look at the title of this thread....that is kind of the point of this argument isn't it??

No where in the first amendment does it say that people in the US can call other people a bigot because they don't agree with you...

 

[Liberty Belle]

Look at the title of this thread....that is kind of the point of this argument isn't it??

No where in the first amendment does it say that people in the US can call other people a bigot because they don't agree with you...

Well, no, it doesn't get that specific, but I do believe that's covered under free speech.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Look at the title of this thread....that is kind of the point of this argument isn't it??

No where in the first amendment does it say that people in the US can call other people a bigot because they don't agree with you...

Oh, is that free speech for thee, but not for me?

 

[golfgal]

Well, no, it doesn't get that specific, but I do believe that's covered under free speech.

Just like protesting something you find objectionable is....

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

Exactly--and say that same sex marriage does effect my life--what if I don't want to watch same sex partners....where is the line of my rights vs their rights???

When do we as a society as a whole draw the line though? By allowing everything, the only result will be chaos. What if someone has the belief that they should be able to kill their own children if they don't like something that child did, doesn't effect your life so why should it matter, right???

First of all, your "right" isn't not to SEE gay people kissing...your right it to not BE gay or live a gay lifestyle.

Second, you're comparing apples to oranges. Consenting adults' rights to live their lives with each other is nowhere near a belief about being to take someone's life.

This is just getting ridiculous. I suggest that anyone who doesn't want to SEE something they don't like turn off the TV and stay under the covers.

 

[tlbwriter]

Look at the title of this thread....that is kind of the point of this argument isn't it??

No where in the first amendment does it say that people in the US can call other people a bigot because they don't agree with you...

So you think you have the right to protest things you find objectionable, but no one else has the right to call you a name because they find your protest itself objectionable? Interesting set of rights you seem to have there.

Exactly--and say that same sex marriage does effect my life--what if I don't want to watch same sex partners....where is the line of my rights vs their rights???

Well, if you could show me how same sex marriage affected your life, I'd be willing to listen to your argument. But it has to be something other than "I don't want to watch them," because that's simply laughable. I don't want to watch Gwyneth Paltrow. Where are my rights?????

When do we as a society as a whole draw the line though? By allowing everything, the only result will be chaos. What if someone has the belief that they should be able to kill their own children if they don't like something that child did, doesn't effect your life so why should it matter, right???

Why is allowing two people to get married the same thing as murdering your child for saying something objectionable? And the "doesn't affect your life" argument doesn't apply, because it does affect someone's life - the child's life. Again, if same sex marriage affects YOUR life, you have the right to attempt to do something about it. But you'd have to be able to demonstrate how it affects your life, other than simply being something you find icky.

Exactly, that is where we as a society need to decide what is morally right and wrong. If society as a whole finds golf objectionable, close up the golf courses.

That "as a whole" part is tricky, isn't it? Because many people don't find same sex marriage objectionable at all. And society changes. At one point, "society as a whole" found it objectionable for people of different races to marry.

 

[golfgal]

First of all, your "right" isn't not to SEE gay people kissing...your right it to not BE gay or live a gay lifestyle.

Second, you're comparing apples to oranges. Consenting adults' rights to live their lives with each other is nowhere near a belief about being to take someone's life.

This is just getting ridiculous. I suggest that anyone who doesn't want to SEE something they don't like turn off the TV and stay under the covers.

It's not ridiculous. It is the very core of the gay/straight argument. Doing what you want in the privacy of your own bedroom is fine, once you take it out of the bedroom is where it becomes an issue. People have every right to object to this.

As for the apples to oranges, no, it ins't, it is still talking about what is considered morally acceptable in our society. It is morally acceptable in other societies to kill your children does that make it wrong there too?? Our society as a whole, however, has decided that it is NOT ok to do this but what if there was a movement to change this just like there has been a movement in recent years to "accept" the gay lifestyle. Not to turn this into a religious post but even the Catholic church accepts gay people, they do NOT agree with the gay sex--that is a HUGE distinction. Our society as a whole has not decided that the gay lifestyle is morally acceptable. People are trying to change that.

 

[cornflake]

No, I couldn't name their kid (do they only have one?) if you put a gun to my head, and know I'm wondering what he did!

Heh, no they have several. but apparently just one (at this point, as iirc, it's the eldest and she's only in her late teens or early 20s) is transsexual headed toward transgender.

The utter hilarity of someone insisting they have the right to protest - and have the nonexistant right to have things they don't want to see banned from view in public, but somehow, despite that pesky First Amendment, people don't have the right to call them something? Who's going to stop those people from considering someone a bigot or ignorant or whatever? Beyond. In several ways.

 

[Princess Dolly]

It's not ridiculous. It is the very core of the gay/straight argument. Doing what you want in the privacy of your own bedroom is fine, once you take it out of the bedroom is where it becomes an issue. People have every right to object to this.

As for the apples to oranges, no, it ins't, it is still talking about what is considered morally acceptable in our society. It is morally acceptable in other societies to kill your children does that make it wrong there too?? Our society as a whole, however, has decided that it is NOT ok to do this but what if there was a movement to change this just like there has been a movement in recent years to "accept" the gay lifestyle. Not to turn this into a religious post but even the Catholic church accepts gay people, they do NOT agree with the gay sex--that is a HUGE distinction. Our society as a whole has not decided that the gay lifestyle is morally acceptable. People are trying to change that.

How does it become an issue? Why does it become an issue?

"Accept"...snork.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I'm sorry I don't see the connection between LGBT Americans livin' their lives 'n immorality.

 

[tlbwriter]

It's not ridiculous. It is the very core of the gay/straight argument. Doing what you want in the privacy of your own bedroom is fine, once you take it out of the bedroom is where it becomes an issue. People have every right to object to this.

Well, yes, if you see gay people having sex in the street, obviously you have a right to object to that. Just as you have the right to object if you see straight people having sex in the street.

 

[golfgal]

Heh, no they have several. but apparently just one (at this point, as iirc, it's the eldest and she's only in her late teens or early 20s) is transsexual headed toward transgender.

The utter hilarity of someone insisting they have the right to protest - and have the nonexistant right to have things they don't want to see banned from view in public, but somehow, despite that pesky First Amendment, people don't have the right to call them something? Who's going to stop those people from considering someone a bigot or ignorant or whatever? Beyond. In several ways.

First, protesting and name calling are two different things. Again, why is it not ok to stand up for what you find morally objectionable, no one seems to be able to answer that...

 

[golfgal]

How does it become an issue? Why does it become an issue?

"Accept"...snork.

It becomes an issue when others find it morally objectionable....

I'm sorry I don't see the connection between LGBT Americans livin' their lives 'n immorality.

You many not but others do...and by you calling them stupid bigots is where this whole argument started.

 

[tlbwriter]

First, protesting and name calling are two different things. Again, why is it not ok to stand up for what you find morally objectionable, no one seems to be able to answer that...

It is okay to stand up for what you find morally objectionable. You just have to accept that fact that some people will find you a bigot.

If I stood up and said I found it morally objectionable for my daughter's school to welcome non-white students, would you refuse to call me a bigot simply because I'm standing up for my moral beliefs?

It seems you want the right to pass moral judgments on the behavior of others without anyone being able to judge your own behavior.