Students suspended for wearing Confederate flags to protest gay rainbow flag

[Danny Tanner]

The whole tone of this paragraph is disturbing. I have no doub that DT is well meaning and this is NOT directed at him personally. However, the idea that I can "believe" in private and then express in my public life my most fundamental beliefs is quintessentially American. Dr Martin Luther King Jr., certainly employed this line of reasoning, as did many of our Founders, and others - should their political actions have been invalidated because they were religiously motivated? To essentially re-categorize whatever disagrees with current trends as "hate speech" - because that is what is happening - is dangerous and it is a slippery slope to depostism, a nice politically correct and high-minded sounding despotism.

The whole idea of classifying some ideas as "hate speech", "insensitive", or "intolerant", seems to be promoting tolerance but is actually designed to preempt and stifle any debate. It is, at the core, ad-hominem because it avoids the necessity of reasoning through an argument by simply saying "you are bad for thinking/saying that so I don't have to address it". It is among the most injurious of ideas that have cropped up in our body politic in recent years.

Some, not all, of our founding fathers supported slavery and human ownership, which was a common economic and religious belief in times past. We've since learned that "All Men Are Created Equal", though not enough considering we're having this debate now, and abolished such beliefs. Just because political motives stem from religion doesn't make them good. On the other hand, just because political motives stem from religion doesn't make them bad.

Tolerance is very well defined and until every legal US citizen inherits the same rights, we'll live in an intolerant society. Personal beliefs are a completely different matter. One can harbor intolerant thoughts towards others, and perhaps that's where we come down to being insensitive, but that's his right. I don't support his belief, but I stand 100% behind him having the power to believe in whatever he wants to believe. However, no beliefs, including my own, are safe from criticism. That's the entire point I've been trying to exercise here.

Sorry, but anytime you tell me that everything I believe is either ignorant or a lie we cannot get along. As long as you presume to define what my morals should be, we will not get along. The difference between us is I said other people can do or believe what they want as long as it isn't forced on me while you attack and insult the beliefs of others that don't coincide with yours.
I don't care if people are gay or not. I don't care if they marry each other or not. That is their business. That I disagree with that lifestyle and hold to Christian values is my business. I don't push my way of life on any other person nor will I let the ideals of another be pushed on me or my family. You can't just advocate the rights of the groups you agree with.
It is also my right to not be associated with the lifestyles that I don't agree with. Does that mean I won't associate with a gay person? I'd say not since I have a gay cousin that I see from time to time and we get along just fine. The thing is, we never talk about sexuality or religion because we already know we don't agree. Instead we talk about whatever nonsense come to mind. I know he's gay and he knows I'm Christian, we disagree but we don't berate each other over it.That is tolerance. That is not what you have done on this thread. You attacked my values to promote your own.
I've been saying live and let live the whole time. Why doesn't that work for you? Why isn't that good enough? I have not advocated the opposition of anyone on here but you have continually suggested I have. Why are you slowed to have your opinion but I am not allowed mine? Who are you to dictate? I'm sorry to tell you this but you are nobody, just like me.
It's funny how the people most calling for tolerance are usually the most intolerant of those with whom they disagree.

If you choose not to get along with me, that's completely fine, that's all on you. I will in no way try to force you to like me. I have no problem getting along with those who don't see eye-to-eye with me on every single subject. I'm not going to present with a moral doctrine in which you must abide. If your morals influence racism, that's no more acceptable and no different than your morals influencing homophobia. I think you and I actually stand together on this debate more than we stand apart, but it's been clouded by misunderstanding and misinterpretation on both parts.

Regarding your last statement, I also find it funny how the people most calling for tolerance are usually the ones denying other legal citizens rights afforded and abused by themselves.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

I know I'm new to this forum but I thought I'd jump in on this debate.
What's the differance in a KKK member trying to force his opinions down someones throat, and a gay guy dressed in a jockstrap and fairy wings jumping around screaming "Im gay. You have to love me" ZERO differance. Keep your views, and opinions to yourself. I dont give a sh*t what you represent, as long as you dont try to force it down my throat. It's really that simple.

Well, the KKK encourages hatred and have been know to slaughter people based on their race, while gays are asking to not be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. That's kind of a big difference.

The bottom line is that gays deserve the same respect and right that any other American is afforded. If your argument against gay rights is based in religion then you really shouldn't concern yourself with their legal rights as per the separation of church and state clause.

 

[JeffT]

Originally Posted by elance

tell me ,so i can pass it on to my boy, what flag does he fly?

elance




man i knew better, but i asked and appreciate the effort , just thats ugly ! kinda like when you mix all the 'playdo' together all you got is ugly .
LOL

elance

This is what they should have worn, or maybe just the rainbow flag with the Circle Slash.

 

[Dukester]

The whole tone of this paragraph is disturbing. I have no doub that DT is well meaning and this is NOT directed at him personally. However, the idea that I can "believe" in private and then express in my public life my most fundamental beliefs is quintessentially American. Dr Martin Luther King Jr., certainly employed this line of reasoning, as did many of our Founders, and others - should their political actions have been invalidated because they were religiously motivated? To essentially re-categorize whatever disagrees with current trends as "hate speech" - because that is what is happening - is dangerous and it is a slippery slope to depostism, a nice politically correct and high-minded sounding despotism.

The whole idea of classifying some ideas as "hate speech", "insensitive", or "intolerant", seems to be promoting tolerance but is actually designed to preempt and stifle any debate. It is, at the core, ad-hominem because it avoids the necessity of reasoning through an argument by simply saying "you are bad for thinking/saying that so I don't have to address it". It is among the most injurious of ideas that have cropped up in our body politic in recent years.

Yon said that way better than I could.

 

[0311]

[Broken External Image]

 

[24T_missilejock]

Well, the KKK encourages hatred and have been know to slaughter people based on their race, while gays are asking to not be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. That's kind of a big difference.

The bottom line is that gays deserve the same respect and right that any other American is afforded. If your argument against gay rights is based in religion then you really shouldn't concern yourself with their legal rights as per the separation of church and state clause.

You do have a point. However, my point condones neither as an acceptable act. What I am trying to say is that no person has the right force their views or opinions on anyone else. I do agree that gays have just as much right to their beliefs and lifestyle as any other person. My only is issue when its forced upon someone against their wishes. The same goes for the KKK or any other organization or lifestyle.

 

[Danny Tanner]

You do have a point. However, my point condones neither as an acceptable act. What I am trying to say is that no person has the right force their views or opinions on anyone else. I do agree that gays have just as much right to their beliefs and lifestyle as any other person. My only issue when its forced upon someone against their wishes. The same goes for the KKK or any other organization or lifestyle.

Another difference is that gay rights advocates are fighting from a defensive position. They're the ones being denied rights and, in one way or another, forced to conform to heterosexual lifestyle parameters, at least when it comes to social acceptance and more importantly, legal acceptance.

 

[Dukester]

You do have a point. However, my point condones neither as an acceptable act. What I am trying to say is that no person has the right force their views or opinions on anyone else. I do agree that gays have just as much right to their beliefs and lifestyle as any other person. My only is issue when its forced upon someone against their wishes. The same goes for the KKK or any other organization or lifestyle.

The KKK have not been relevant for a looooong time. Really, if you're going to pick a hate group to use as an example how 'bout on that is still active? What pathetic little there is left of the KKK is a threat to no one. How bout Westborough Baptist or even the Democrat Party?

 

[TedKennedy]

This was about students wearing a symbol of their choice, correct?

 

[Dukester]

This was about students wearing a symbol of their choice, correct?

I saw it as being about one symbol being ok while the other is not in the name of PC.