I don't understand why we're even discussing what someone is allowed to say. Nobody ever suggested that anti-gay bigotry should be illegal.

It's just something Bushie came up with because he either missed the point or realized he couldn't win the debate without moving the goal posts.

If forced to live in the US, either California or Colorado.

If the story is accurate, it looks like Obama screwed up massively here. Akin to "Bin Laden determined to strike the US", only with (thankfully) far fewer casualties.

Still, as awful as this was, it's still not a reason to prefer the Republican alternative to the Obama government, so I think we can all be grateful that this happened after his re-election...

Thus why you support third parties.

Unfortunately, with America's voting system the way it is, that leads to your opponent winning with a plurality.

Oh well, I am going to close this thread.  Like I said in the National Day of Prayer thread, I came into that thread and created this thread with my gloves on looking for a fight.  I don't want this to blow up any more than what is has.  We all have our different viewpoints, all of which should be expressed in the public arena without fear of ridicule, harassment, humiliation, etc.  The same goes for mainstream view points and outlandish and controversial view points like the demographic dissension that Andrew is talking about.  Everyone has their view points and everyone should be able to express them.  This is America, we are a Democracy, not a Dictatorship.

That's like trying to fight a group of people with machine guns with a rifle (symbolically for the quality of the arguments in this fight), to put it in Oklahoman terms.

I understand the freedom of religion, but what homosexual supporters need to understand is the freedom of speech.  Not everybody has to applaud, endorse, and embrace homosexuality.

Is anyone being thrown in jail?

No, but they should not be silenced or mocked or ridiculed.

As for Franzl's argument that Young Earth Creationists should be mocked or ridiculed, that is just so outrageous it is humiliating.  It's not true, but America has different view points, that's just the way it is.  Nobody's view points should be subject to ridicule and humiliation and nobody's view points should be silenced.  If we were all forced to have the same viewpoint or keep dissenting viewpoints to ourselves, we would not be a Democracy, we would be a dictatorship.

I kind of wonder if this is a sincere sentiment, or whether it's just trolling.

I understand the freedom of religion, but what homosexual supporters need to understand is the freedom of speech.  Not everybody has to applaud, endorse, and embrace homosexuality.

Is anyone being thrown in jail?

No, but they should not be silenced or mocked or ridiculed.

As for Franzl's argument that Young Earth Creationists should be mocked or ridiculed, that is just so outrageous it is humiliating.  It's not true, but America has different view points, that's just the way it is.  Nobody's view points should be subject to ridicule and humiliation and nobody's view points should be silenced.  If we were all forced to have the same viewpoint or keep dissenting viewpoints to ourselves, we would not be a Democracy, we would be a dictatorship.

Nobody is saying you don't have the right to have whatever absurd view you want to have.

Objective facts aren't up for debate, though, and "disagreeing" with them should certainly be worthy of ridicule.

You're arguing that it's perfectly fine to say 2+2=5....after all, we're all entitled to our views.

I understand the freedom of religion, but what homosexual supporters need to understand is the freedom of speech.  Not everybody has to applaud, endorse, and embrace homosexuality.

Is anyone being thrown in jail?

I think Bushie has said before that he believes Christians will be thrown into jail at some point in the near future in America.

I understand the freedom of religion, but what homosexual supporters need to understand is the freedom of speech.  Not everybody has to applaud, endorse, and embrace homosexuality.

Of course bigots have the right to express themselves in any way they choose. But they should be the subject of ridicule and contempt for it.

Just as you should also be allowed to say the Earth is 6,000 years old. But be prepared to be mocked for the obviously incorrect belief.

The main point I'm trying to get across is that if the media is to be neutral on Christianity, not for or against, it should be neutral on homosexuality, neither for nor against.

Following this logic, the media should be neutral on both civil rights issues and the KKK. Wouldn't want to be unfair to either group.

At least allow dissenting view points without being forced to apologize.

America was designed with freedom of speech and that should be enforced and appreciated even when it comes to controversial topics like religion, politics, or sexual orientation.

See my last comment (which I have already repeated once). There aren't any "viewpoints" to discuss.

If this topic is ALL about courage, and has NOTHING to do with homosexuality, then I agree with you, but the media should allow dissenting view points that don't endorse, embrace, and applaud homosexuality.

You're still not understanding the problem. Would it be acceptable to recognize "dissenting view points that don't endorse, embrace and applaud" being black, for example?

This nation was built on prayer, and was created by God, so should this country turn its back on the God who created it and sustains it?

No, the US was founded by "We the People." And built by millions of people working their a$$es off. You should try it some time. Prayer never built a thing. If you want something to happen, you have to get up and make it happen.

Who gave "We the People" the health to do their jobs effectively and build this country to what it is today?  If you say the doctors, then who guides the doctors hands and minds that they're steady and strong?

Different people have different answers to this.

Several theories, only one answer.

Says you. Do you really not understand why it's problematic for the government to recognize your version?

Nein.

This nation was built on prayer, and was created by God, so should this country turn its back on the God who created it and sustains it?

No, the US was founded by "We the People." And built by millions of people working their a$$es off. You should try it some time. Prayer never built a thing. If you want something to happen, you have to get up and make it happen.

Who gave "We the People" the health to do their jobs effectively and build this country to what it is today?  If you say the doctors, then who guides the doctors hands and minds that they're steady and strong?

Different people have different answers to this.

The main point I'm trying to get across is that if the media is to be neutral on Christianity, not for or against, it should be neutral on homosexuality, neither for nor against.

Following this logic, the media should be neutral on both civil rights issues and the KKK. Wouldn't want to be unfair to either group.

At least allow dissenting view points without being forced to apologize.

America was designed with freedom of speech and that should be enforced and appreciated even when it comes to controversial topics like religion, politics, or sexual orientation.

See my last comment (which I have already repeated once). There aren't any "viewpoints" to discuss.

The main point I'm trying to get across is that if the media is to be neutral on Christianity, not for or against, it should be neutral on homosexuality, neither for nor against.

I repeat:

Which is akin to "discussing viewpoints" on whether someone should be black. Or a woman. Not sure what you want to discuss, applaud or endorse about that.

Ah well that makes perfect sense. Blame the Democrats because the GOP is throwing a temper tantrum again.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-espn-chris-broussard-sparks-uproar-after-jason-collins-remarks-20130429,0,1157118.story

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-chris-broussard-jason-collins-20130430,0,4496676.story

These two links are the same story and I did not realize Mr. Broussard clarified his remarks, but when ESPN says it was a respectful discussion of viewpoints, that seems like code for "the only viewpoint acceptable is applaud and endorsement of homosexual relations."

Which is akin to "discussing viewpoints" on whether someone should be black. Or a woman. Not sure what you want to discuss, applaud or endorse about that.

Any recognition is related to the courage it takes to come out as a member of a minority in an environment that discriminates against them.

Just because someone comes out as gay, does not mean everyone should applaud or endorse such.

It's worthy of praise because he's in a relatively small minority that has been strongly discriminated against (and in some ways, continues to be).

Christians, however, are a large majority and it doesn't take much courage to declare that you belong to it.

Absolutely the right thing to do.

Why is it considered a heinous act to offend any part of society, but it's perfectly acceptable and even applauded to offend God?

Because by declaring that there is a God to which the public should pray, the government is promoting religion.

So, answer the question directly.  Is it horrible to offend any sector of society, but perfectly acceptable and even applauded to offend God?

You're assuming that God (in your case and my case a Christian God) exists. Not everyone agrees on this, and in a society founded on religious freedom (including freedom from religion), this isn't acceptable.

Napoleon

Absolutely the right thing to do.

Why is it considered a heinous act to offend any part of society, but it's perfectly acceptable and even applauded to offend God?

Because by declaring that there is a God to which the public should pray, the government is promoting religion.

True, I could be doing more with my health, but things are what they are.

Translation: I know I'm too lazy to do anything about it.

Well giving a 5-year old a rifle as a gift was certainly a great idea.

Those parents should be imprisoned for 10-15 years and the boy given to foster parents.

I agree, but in America (well....maybe if he were a few years older...) it's probably more likely that the boy will be charged with something.

Anything that divides the right is good.

#praying4jules

What good does dividing the opposition do in Australia?

Well giving a 5-year old a rifle as a gift was certainly a great idea.

His parents are acting as if they know he is not capable of living on his own.

They probably do.