Do people have a right to be offended by Gays?

[D_Relentless Original]

People have the right to be willfully ignorant, lazy and cruel. The question is where does that get anyone? Logically there is nothing inherently offensive about gays. People are born gay and if you're religious and you believe God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God would have had to intentionally created gay people. Otherwise you're saying God made a mistake. From a sociological perspective, gays do nothing to adversely affect society. Gays are not responsible for the majority of rapes, murders thefts or any other socially destructive acts. The only acts that gays do that is vastly different than their straight counterparts are sexual acts, which generally are between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes. How can anyone be offended by what someone else does in their own home?

There is virtually nothing about gay life that impacts straight people, so I can't understand how straight people could ever be offended by the existence of gays. If you are not interested in the lives of gays, then don't be a part of their lives.

Sorry Hyperhulk, i do not agree with this, how on earth can you say dont be part of their lives ? how about if you are working with Gay people of which i am one btw, like i said in my other post the 2 gay guys in our department make everybodies life a living hell,they affect all of us, they may not hit , rape etc but with the bitchiness, nasty remarks, constantly quoting discrimination and the trouble that they cause does affect peoples lives, society etc, even senior management are frightened of dealing with them in case of reprocussions, Gays are not angels, neither are they so Precious, but obviously cannot be touched.

I ain't being rude to you and sometimes in your other post's i do agree with your view, just do not find this real.

 

[elgrande]

Interesting discussion. The duality of this subject is very tricky. I'm a straight guy who believes equality is a right inherent to the human race, and yes, obviously that does include the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community. Some anti-LGBT people have used the freedom of choice thing that this particular community so strongly advocates againt them, counter-atacking by saying what you just said, that if there's actual freedom of choice, they have the right to be anti-LGBT.

You know what? That's just plain bullshit. It's just like saying that if there's freedom of choice, some people may actually have the right to choose to enslave people of a different race, or to shoot anyone who gives them a bad look. Your rights stop the second they violate someone else's. You can not 'choose' to be offended by LGBT people because you're violating their right to equality.

Now, that's not to say that you can't be 'annoyed' or whatever by them, just like for instance, I'm annoyed by Communists, Evangelics and Jehova's Witnesses.

 

[flame boy]

People have the right to be offended by anything - I may not agree with their opinion but there isnt a damn thing I can do about their thoughts.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Interesting discussion. The duality of this subject is very tricky. I'm a straight guy who believes equality is a right inherent to the human race, and yes, obviously that does include the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community. Some anti-LGBT people have used the freedom of choice thing that this particular community so strongly advocates againt them, counter-atacking by saying what you just said, that if there's actual freedom of choice, they have the right to be anti-LGBT.

You know what? That's just plain bullshit. It's just like saying that if there's freedom of choice, some people may actually have the right to choose to enslave people of a different race, or to shoot anyone who gives them a bad look. Your rights stop the second they violate someone else's. You can not 'choose' to be offended by LGBT people because you're violating their right to equality.

Now, that's not to say that you can't be 'annoyed' or whatever by them, just like for instance, I'm annoyed by Communists, Evangelics and Jehova's Witnesses.

But kaike, it isn't really that tricky at all. People are entitled to their own opinions. The problem is when someone thinks his right to an opinion automatically precludes my right to an opinion. That's the problem with most of the evangelicals.

Yes, they have a right to consider homosexuality offensive. The way I see it, all that entitles them to is the right not to engage in homosexual activities. The way they see it, it entitles them to prevent me from doing so. And if they want to bite the heads off chickens during their religious services, so be it. They had just better not try to force me to do the same.

If I may quote myself: "You have a right to believe as you choose to believe, but do not mistakenly think I am obligated to be subject to your beliefs."

 

[Phil Ayesho]

You know what? That's just plain bullshit. It's just like saying that if there's freedom of choice, some people may actually have the right to choose to enslave people of a different race, or to shoot anyone who gives them a bad look.

This is a false analogy.

Saying people have a right to THINK, and FEEL as they please in no way implies that they have a right to DO as they please.

The REASON they have a right to freedom of thought is the SAME reason they do not have a right to enslave anyone else, or shoot anyone else.

The fundamental tenet of individual freedom is that YOUR freedom to swing your foot ENDS just shy of my ass.

If you do not have the right to FORCE anyone else to behave as you prefer, physically.... then you certainly do not have the right to force anyone else to THINK as you prefer.

Law, in it best form, is simply about ensuring that people are not violating this tenet. All crime boils down to the criminal infringing upon the freedom of another.


You do not have the right to live your life UN-offended... simply because for that to happen would mean you would have to inflict YOUR standard of offense on ALL other people.

That is denying THEIR freedom.

Your being offended by anti LGBT people is no different than them being offended by your, differing, beliefs.

So what? As long as It does not affect their right to protest your lifestyle... and it does not affect your right to live your lifestyle.


But that is always the hard part.... ALLOWING others to live as they choose.
Allowing dissent, disagreement.

 

[Rugbypup]

OP Yes, of course, you may be offended by anything in this life.

But bare in mind, if gay is offensive to some, then so is straight.

But I'm sure you will be gland to know, it's usually people that piss people off, not how or who they shag.

 

[losangelestim]

i'm offended by straights and women in general (the shit they get away with!). offense is personal. anyone can be offended. if you don't like gays then you should avoid them. nothing worse than ANOTHER whiner in the room.

 

[D_Relentless Original]

i'm offended by straights and women in general (the shit they get away with!). offense is personal. anyone can be offended. if you don't like gays then you should avoid them. nothing worse than ANOTHER whiner in the room.

Lost on this one Tim

 

[HyperHulk]

[/color]

Sorry Hyperhulk, i do not agree with this, how on earth can you say dont be part of their lives ? how about if you are working with Gay people of which i am one btw, like i said in my other post the 2 gay guys in our department make everybodies life a living hell,they affect all of us, they may not hit , rape etc but with the bitchiness, nasty remarks, constantly quoting discrimination and the trouble that they cause does affect peoples lives, society etc, even senior management are frightened of dealing with them in case of reprocussions, Gays are not angels, neither are they so Precious, but obviously cannot be touched.

I ain't being rude to you and sometimes in your other post's i do agree with your view, just do not find this real.

Tardis what you cited is offensiveness of specific individuals. It isn't the fact that the men who annoy are gay that is offensive but the fact they are individually jerks. They would be jerks if they were straight or whatever. What I said is that there is nothing inherently offensive about gayness, just like there is nothing inherently offensive about straightness, ethnicity, color of one's skin or gender. It isn't someone's gayness that causes them to act like a jerk at work, it's because they are a jerk. Gay people are people like everyone else, some good, some bad, many in-between.

Being gay has a simple definition, being sexually attracted to one's own gender. There's nothing inherently offensive about that.

 

[D_Relentless Original]

Tardis what you cited is offensiveness of specific individuals. It isn't the fact that the men who annoy are gay that is offensive but the fact they are individually jerks. They would be jerks if they were straight or whatever. What I said is that there is nothing inherently offensive about gayness, just like there is nothing inherently offensive about straightness, ethnicity, color of one's skin or gender. It isn't someone's gayness that causes them to act like a jerk at work, it's because they are a jerk. Gay people are people like everyone else, some good, some bad, many in-between.

Being gay has a simple definition, being sexually attracted to one's own gender. There's nothing inherently offensive about that.

Thanks Pal. i accept what you are saying, really i do and maybe you are right, it is just the problems i have seen and some been involved with have been with the bitchy type of gay men either in work or seen socially,maybe there are more jerks around these days, i can honestly take what you are saying, but i guess it boils down to peoples own experiences in life and how they see it to drawing their own conclusions, but i do in some instances think people have the right to be offended by gays along with other groups.

 

[elgrande]

This is a false analogy.

Saying people have a right to THINK, and FEEL as they please in no way implies that they have a right to DO as they please.

The REASON they have a right to freedom of thought is the SAME reason they do not have a right to enslave anyone else, or shoot anyone else.

The fundamental tenet of individual freedom is that YOUR freedom to swing your foot ENDS just shy of my ass.

If you do not have the right to FORCE anyone else to behave as you prefer, physically.... then you certainly do not have the right to force anyone else to THINK as you prefer.

Law, in it best form, is simply about ensuring that people are not violating this tenet. All crime boils down to the criminal infringing upon the freedom of another.


You do not have the right to live your life UN-offended... simply because for that to happen would mean you would have to inflict YOUR standard of offense on ALL other people.

That is denying THEIR freedom.

Your being offended by anti LGBT people is no different than them being offended by your, differing, beliefs.

So what? As long as It does not affect their right to protest your lifestyle... and it does not affect your right to live your lifestyle.


But that is always the hard part.... ALLOWING others to live as they choose.
Allowing dissent, disagreement.

It's not that false an analogy, actually. There's a certain ranking order in people's rights, and the right to equality is very much up that ladder. People really shouldn't be able to 'choose to be offended' by a certain lifestyle, whichever it may be, because it implies that said lifestyle is somehow wrong and it directly violates the latter's right to equality, which precedes the right to choose. Think about it: by you logic it's alright for people to hate someone who is different in anyway, like the mentally challenged or short people. And it's just not.

It all really comes down to semantics, just like these certain words that are considered offensive when describing a person's skin color. Just like I said, they may 'choose' to be 'annoyed' or 'bothered', because that's more a matter of, let's say, taste.

 

[DC_DEEP]

People really shouldn't be able to 'choose to be offended' by a certain lifestyle, whichever it may be, because it implies that said lifestyle is somehow wrong and it directly violates the latter's right to equality, which precedes the right to choose. Think about it: by you logic it's alright for people to hate someone who is different in anyway, like the mentally challenged or short people. And it's just not.

Now you are getting into the Thought Police domain. It isn't ideal for anyone to hate anyone else, but yes, they are fully entitled to do so. They just are not entitled to use that against the person they hate.

I think turnips are disgusting, and I'm entitled to feel that way. I'm just not entitled to demand that anyone else not eat them. I can feel however I want about whatever I want, but the only person I'm entitled to affect is myself.

 

[swordfishME]

Now you are getting into the Thought Police domain. It isn't ideal for anyone to hate anyone else, but yes, they are fully entitled to do so. They just are not entitled to use that against the person they hate.

I think turnips are disgusting, and I'm entitled to feel that way. I'm just not entitled to demand that anyone else not eat them. I can feel however I want about whatever I want, but the only person I'm entitled to affect is myself.

This is the answer I was expecting from a majority of the respondents when I asked the question. Of course there will always be some who feel that they have the right to impose their likes and dislikes on other people and there are also the ignorant few who feel that people don't have the right to have certain prejudices but by and large this is what I was expecting the consesus to be.