What gives us the right?

[Redfish]

Because the europeans are our allies? We do get involved in africa and south america. What were we doing in vietnam? We were there defending our allies against communists.

Again you are simply moving the goal posts. The discussion was not about vietnam, or bosnia, or rwanda. The discussion was about the lame street media declaring that russia should be as enlightened as we are regarding letting the homophobia go. The discussion was about free speech. You are the one trying to turn it from free speech into something else that employs force. Why? Obviously cause you lost the argument.

your position presumes that we are right about homosexuality and the rest of the world is wrong about it.

One last time, if you can't grasp the question by now I will have to conclude that it is beyond your intellectual capacity.

What makes us right and other countries wrong? Who are we to tell them that their beliefs are wrong? two simple questions----------

>>> What makes us right and other countries wrong?

What makes right and wrong? Odd question. You really don't know what makes right and wrong? Ok fine... In the case of discriminating based on race, sexual preference, etc. what makes right and wrong is an understanding of basic human civil rights. Do I need to explain what basic human civil rights are?

>>> Who are we to tell them that their beliefs are wrong?
We are free people with the right to speech, that's who we are. What part of PEOPLE BEING ENTITLED TO OUR OWN DAMN OPINION is confusing you? What would you do here, take away free speech, to force people to shut up, so you don't have to hear people say bigotry is bad on the TV? Dude if you don't want to listen turn off your damn TV. Or better yet why don't you create your own bigots against gays channel, you guys can all get in a circle and high five with the russians.

Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions and beliefs-------but so are other people and countries.

Our view of right and wrong is different from other people's views of right and wrong.

Its not about bigotry (we know that the liberal definition of bigotry is anyone who disagees with you).

My question is much much more basic, and I guess you will never get it, so I am going to let this drop. I am tired of wasting my typing skills on thick headed liberals whose only goal in life is to demonize anyone who dares disagree with the liberal agenda.

 

[kaz]

Because the europeans are our allies? We do get involved in africa and south america. What were we doing in vietnam? We were there defending our allies against communists.

Again you are simply moving the goal posts. The discussion was not about vietnam, or bosnia, or rwanda. The discussion was about the lame street media declaring that russia should be as enlightened as we are regarding letting the homophobia go. The discussion was about free speech. You are the one trying to turn it from free speech into something else that employs force. Why? Obviously cause you lost the argument.

your position presumes that we are right about homosexuality and the rest of the world is wrong about it.

One last time, if you can't grasp the question by now I will have to conclude that it is beyond your intellectual capacity.

What makes us right and other countries wrong? Who are we to tell them that their beliefs are wrong? two simple questions----------

>>> What makes us right and other countries wrong?

What makes right and wrong? Odd question. You really don't know what makes right and wrong? Ok fine... In the case of discriminating based on race, sexual preference, etc. what makes right and wrong is an understanding of basic human civil rights. Do I need to explain what basic human civil rights are?

>>> Who are we to tell them that their beliefs are wrong?
We are free people with the right to speech, that's who we are. What part of PEOPLE BEING ENTITLED TO OUR OWN DAMN OPINION is confusing you? What would you do here, take away free speech, to force people to shut up, so you don't have to hear people say bigotry is bad on the TV? Dude if you don't want to listen turn off your damn TV. Or better yet why don't you create your own bigots against gays channel, you guys can all get in a circle and high five with the russians.

As for the American people doing that, I can see your argument. I cannot see how our Government belongs in anyone else's business any more than they belong in the American people's. And I see zero reason to believe our politicians have any basis to believe they have the moral authority to lecture anyone on their values.

 

[Redfish]

your position presumes that we are right about homosexuality and the rest of the world is wrong about it.

One last time, if you can't grasp the question by now I will have to conclude that it is beyond your intellectual capacity.

What makes us right and other countries wrong? Who are we to tell them that their beliefs are wrong? two simple questions----------

>>> What makes us right and other countries wrong?

What makes right and wrong? Odd question. You really don't know what makes right and wrong? Ok fine... In the case of discriminating based on race, sexual preference, etc. what makes right and wrong is an understanding of basic human civil rights. Do I need to explain what basic human civil rights are?

>>> Who are we to tell them that their beliefs are wrong?
We are free people with the right to speech, that's who we are. What part of PEOPLE BEING ENTITLED TO OUR OWN DAMN OPINION is confusing you? What would you do here, take away free speech, to force people to shut up, so you don't have to hear people say bigotry is bad on the TV? Dude if you don't want to listen turn off your damn TV. Or better yet why don't you create your own bigots against gays channel, you guys can all get in a circle and high five with the russians.

As for the American people doing that, I can see your argument. I cannot see how our Government belongs in anyone else's business any more than they belong in the American people's. And I see zero reason to believe our politicians have any basis to believe they have the moral authority to lecture anyone on their values.

well said, thanks.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions and beliefs-------but so are other people and countries.

Correct.

Our view of right and wrong is different from other people's views of right and wrong.

Correct.

Its not about bigotry (we know that the liberal definition of bigotry is anyone who disagees with you).

No, that's not the definition of bigotry. Look up the definition if you are confused.

My question is much much more basic, and I guess you will never get it, so I am going to let this drop. I am tired of wasting my typing skills on thick headed liberals whose only goal in life is to demonize anyone who dares disagree with the liberal agenda.

I'm the opposite of liberal. I'm a classical conservative. I understand your point, fully. You don't think it's our place to make demands on other countries regarding their chosen moral code. Your mistake is not understanding, or at least not being willing to admit that said demands carry no force whatsoever, and are merely speeches having no authority whatsoever. It's like you are saying we should go burn books that preach things we don't like. Then you appeared to get it by deflecting to other situations like military conflicts. Clearly you get the difference between speech (the topic of the OP) and military conflicts.

My statements were not meant to demonize you, but rather to get you to understand that you are wrong. You are wrong to defend bigotry, and you are wrong to attack free speech by comparing it to military conflict and other forms of force.

 

[Redfish]

Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions and beliefs-------but so are other people and countries.

Correct.

Our view of right and wrong is different from other people's views of right and wrong.

Correct.

Its not about bigotry (we know that the liberal definition of bigotry is anyone who disagees with you).

No, that's not the definition of bigotry. Look up the definition if you are confused.

My question is much much more basic, and I guess you will never get it, so I am going to let this drop. I am tired of wasting my typing skills on thick headed liberals whose only goal in life is to demonize anyone who dares disagree with the liberal agenda.

I'm the opposite of liberal. I'm a classical conservative. I understand your point, fully. You don't think it's our place to make demands on other countries regarding their chosen moral code. Your mistake is not understanding, or at least not being willing to admit that said demands carry no force whatsoever, and are merely speeches having no authority whatsoever. It's like you are saying we should go burn books that preach things we don't like. Then you appeared to get it by deflecting to other situations like military conflicts. Clearly you get the difference between speech (the topic of the OP) and military conflicts.

My statements were not meant to demonize you, but rather to get you to understand that you are wrong. You are wrong to defend bigotry, and you are wrong to attach free speech by comparing it to military conflict and other forms of force.

Well, you are almost there.

Kaz summarized it quite well. There is a difference between a private citizen making a statement about the morals of another country and the government, or a government sanctioned group, making similar statements.

But its really more basic than that. We must recognize that our views are just our views, they are not universal truths. Other people's views have as much validity as ours. We, as a country, should not presume that our views and beliefs are superior.

We preach tolerance, and we practice it pretty well within our borders, but we ignore the concept of tolerance in the international arena.

 

[RKMBrown]

your position presumes that we are right about homosexuality and the rest of the world is wrong about it.

One last time, if you can't grasp the question by now I will have to conclude that it is beyond your intellectual capacity.

What makes us right and other countries wrong? Who are we to tell them that their beliefs are wrong? two simple questions----------

>>> What makes us right and other countries wrong?

What makes right and wrong? Odd question. You really don't know what makes right and wrong? Ok fine... In the case of discriminating based on race, sexual preference, etc. what makes right and wrong is an understanding of basic human civil rights. Do I need to explain what basic human civil rights are?

>>> Who are we to tell them that their beliefs are wrong?
We are free people with the right to speech, that's who we are. What part of PEOPLE BEING ENTITLED TO OUR OWN DAMN OPINION is confusing you? What would you do here, take away free speech, to force people to shut up, so you don't have to hear people say bigotry is bad on the TV? Dude if you don't want to listen turn off your damn TV. Or better yet why don't you create your own bigots against gays channel, you guys can all get in a circle and high five with the russians.

As for the American people doing that, I can see your argument. I cannot see how our Government belongs in anyone else's business any more than they belong in the American people's. And I see zero reason to believe our politicians have any basis to believe they have the moral authority to lecture anyone on their values.

Pretty sure the politicians don't forfeit their right to free speech when they become leaders. Lecturing is a time honored job of all leaders.

If you don't think we give moral authority to our government,... then what do you think the law is, if not moral authority?

 

[Redfish]

Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions and beliefs-------but so are other people and countries.

Correct.

Our view of right and wrong is different from other people's views of right and wrong.

Correct.

Its not about bigotry (we know that the liberal definition of bigotry is anyone who disagees with you).

No, that's not the definition of bigotry. Look up the definition if you are confused.

My question is much much more basic, and I guess you will never get it, so I am going to let this drop. I am tired of wasting my typing skills on thick headed liberals whose only goal in life is to demonize anyone who dares disagree with the liberal agenda.

I'm the opposite of liberal. I'm a classical conservative. I understand your point, fully. You don't think it's our place to make demands on other countries regarding their chosen moral code. Your mistake is not understanding, or at least not being willing to admit that said demands carry no force whatsoever, and are merely speeches having no authority whatsoever. It's like you are saying we should go burn books that preach things we don't like. Then you appeared to get it by deflecting to other situations like military conflicts. Clearly you get the difference between speech (the topic of the OP) and military conflicts.

My statements were not meant to demonize you, but rather to get you to understand that you are wrong. You are wrong to defend bigotry, and you are wrong to attack free speech by comparing it to military conflict and other forms of force.

one more point, bigotry is in the eyes of the beholder. we think muslim countries practice bigotry, they think that we practice it.

 

[Redfish]

>>> What makes us right and other countries wrong?

What makes right and wrong? Odd question. You really don't know what makes right and wrong? Ok fine... In the case of discriminating based on race, sexual preference, etc. what makes right and wrong is an understanding of basic human civil rights. Do I need to explain what basic human civil rights are?

>>> Who are we to tell them that their beliefs are wrong?
We are free people with the right to speech, that's who we are. What part of PEOPLE BEING ENTITLED TO OUR OWN DAMN OPINION is confusing you? What would you do here, take away free speech, to force people to shut up, so you don't have to hear people say bigotry is bad on the TV? Dude if you don't want to listen turn off your damn TV. Or better yet why don't you create your own bigots against gays channel, you guys can all get in a circle and high five with the russians.

As for the American people doing that, I can see your argument. I cannot see how our Government belongs in anyone else's business any more than they belong in the American people's. And I see zero reason to believe our politicians have any basis to believe they have the moral authority to lecture anyone on their values.

Pretty sure the politicians don't forfeit their right to free speech when they become leaders. Lecturing is a time honored job of all leaders.

If you don't think we give moral authority to our government,... then what do you think the law is, if not moral authority?

our elected representatives have the moral and legal authority to engage in free speech regarding morals and laws-------------within the borders of this country.

They do not have the right to go to a muslim country and tell its citizens that islam is a sham.

 

[kaz]

>>> What makes us right and other countries wrong?

What makes right and wrong? Odd question. You really don't know what makes right and wrong? Ok fine... In the case of discriminating based on race, sexual preference, etc. what makes right and wrong is an understanding of basic human civil rights. Do I need to explain what basic human civil rights are?

>>> Who are we to tell them that their beliefs are wrong?
We are free people with the right to speech, that's who we are. What part of PEOPLE BEING ENTITLED TO OUR OWN DAMN OPINION is confusing you? What would you do here, take away free speech, to force people to shut up, so you don't have to hear people say bigotry is bad on the TV? Dude if you don't want to listen turn off your damn TV. Or better yet why don't you create your own bigots against gays channel, you guys can all get in a circle and high five with the russians.

As for the American people doing that, I can see your argument. I cannot see how our Government belongs in anyone else's business any more than they belong in the American people's. And I see zero reason to believe our politicians have any basis to believe they have the moral authority to lecture anyone on their values.

Pretty sure the politicians don't forfeit their right to free speech when they become leaders. Lecturing is a time honored job of all leaders.

Fair enough, so if all you're saying is that you want politicians to State with their free speech they oppose Russia that's fine. I was under the impression you wanted more than that.

If you don't think we give moral authority to our government,... then what do you think the law is, if not moral authority?

That's why we need to keep it as small as possible and do only those things that only government can do. Military, police, roads, civil and criminal courts, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions and beliefs-------but so are other people and countries.

Correct.


Correct.


No, that's not the definition of bigotry. Look up the definition if you are confused.

My question is much much more basic, and I guess you will never get it, so I am going to let this drop. I am tired of wasting my typing skills on thick headed liberals whose only goal in life is to demonize anyone who dares disagree with the liberal agenda.

I'm the opposite of liberal. I'm a classical conservative. I understand your point, fully. You don't think it's our place to make demands on other countries regarding their chosen moral code. Your mistake is not understanding, or at least not being willing to admit that said demands carry no force whatsoever, and are merely speeches having no authority whatsoever. It's like you are saying we should go burn books that preach things we don't like. Then you appeared to get it by deflecting to other situations like military conflicts. Clearly you get the difference between speech (the topic of the OP) and military conflicts.

My statements were not meant to demonize you, but rather to get you to understand that you are wrong. You are wrong to defend bigotry, and you are wrong to attach free speech by comparing it to military conflict and other forms of force.

Well, you are almost there.

Kaz summarized it quite well. There is a difference between a private citizen making a statement about the morals of another country and the government, or a government sanctioned group, making similar statements.

But its really more basic than that. We must recognize that our views are just our views, they are not universal truths. Other people's views have as much validity as ours. We, as a country, should not presume that our views and beliefs are superior.

We preach tolerance, and we practice it pretty well within our borders, but we ignore the concept of tolerance in the international arena.

Said another way... everyone thinks their views are correct, right up till someone explains why they were wrong, and even then some people continue to resist right up to being the last biggot of that type on earth. For example, flat earthers were proven wrong, the view of the round earthers was in fact superior, no? As another example, beating a child to death because you want a male child is just flat out wrong. Some rights and wrongs are universal in belief, even though at one point that was not so. As still another example, slave trade of humans is seen as wrong in every country around the world, even though it was widely practiced at one point in time as moral.

On this particular topic of discrimination against gays, the bigots are wrong. Care to get back on that topic?

 

[RKMBrown]

As for the American people doing that, I can see your argument. I cannot see how our Government belongs in anyone else's business any more than they belong in the American people's. And I see zero reason to believe our politicians have any basis to believe they have the moral authority to lecture anyone on their values.

Pretty sure the politicians don't forfeit their right to free speech when they become leaders. Lecturing is a time honored job of all leaders.

Fair enough, so if all you're saying is that you want politicians to State with their free speech they oppose Russia that's fine. I was under the impression you wanted more than that.

If you don't think we give moral authority to our government,... then what do you think the law is, if not moral authority?

That's why we need to keep it as small as possible and do only those things that only government can do. Military, police, roads, civil and criminal courts, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights.

Correct, all I meant to say was that it's somewhat ok for our leaders and individuals to voice their opinions regarding human rights abuses abroad. Where I get pissed is when politicians and individuals say they are speaking for all Americans.

 

[Redfish]

Correct.


Correct.


No, that's not the definition of bigotry. Look up the definition if you are confused.



I'm the opposite of liberal. I'm a classical conservative. I understand your point, fully. You don't think it's our place to make demands on other countries regarding their chosen moral code. Your mistake is not understanding, or at least not being willing to admit that said demands carry no force whatsoever, and are merely speeches having no authority whatsoever. It's like you are saying we should go burn books that preach things we don't like. Then you appeared to get it by deflecting to other situations like military conflicts. Clearly you get the difference between speech (the topic of the OP) and military conflicts.

My statements were not meant to demonize you, but rather to get you to understand that you are wrong. You are wrong to defend bigotry, and you are wrong to attach free speech by comparing it to military conflict and other forms of force.

Well, you are almost there.

Kaz summarized it quite well. There is a difference between a private citizen making a statement about the morals of another country and the government, or a government sanctioned group, making similar statements.

But its really more basic than that. We must recognize that our views are just our views, they are not universal truths. Other people's views have as much validity as ours. We, as a country, should not presume that our views and beliefs are superior.

We preach tolerance, and we practice it pretty well within our borders, but we ignore the concept of tolerance in the international arena.

Said another way... everyone thinks their views are correct, right up till someone explains why they were wrong, and even then some people continue to resist right up to being the last biggot of that type on earth. For example, flat earthers were proven wrong, the view of the round earthers was in fact superior, no? As another example, beating a child to death because you want a male child is just flat out wrong. Some rights and wrongs are universal in belief, even though at one point that was not so. As still another example, slave trade of humans is seen as wrong in every country around the world, even though it was widely practiced at one point in time as moral.

On this particular topic of discrimination against gays, the bigots are wrong. Care to get back on that topic?

its only bigotry if you believe that homosexuality is a normal human condition. most of the world does not believe that, therefore they view our position as bigotry.

Just because you believe it and verbally repeat it does not make it so in the minds of other people.

Back to the original point----what makes your views on gays correct and everyone else's wrong?

 

[RKMBrown]

They do not have the right to go to a muslim country and tell its citizens that islam is a sham.

Why not? What law prohibits anyone from going to a muslim country and telling those citizens that islam is a sham?

 

[Redfish]

Pretty sure the politicians don't forfeit their right to free speech when they become leaders. Lecturing is a time honored job of all leaders.

Fair enough, so if all you're saying is that you want politicians to State with their free speech they oppose Russia that's fine. I was under the impression you wanted more than that.

If you don't think we give moral authority to our government,... then what do you think the law is, if not moral authority?

That's why we need to keep it as small as possible and do only those things that only government can do. Military, police, roads, civil and criminal courts, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights.

Correct, all I meant to say was that it's somewhat ok for our leaders and individuals to voice their opinions regarding human rights abuses abroad. Where I get pissed is when politicians and individuals say they are speaking for all Americans.

by jove, I think he's got it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well, you are almost there.

Kaz summarized it quite well. There is a difference between a private citizen making a statement about the morals of another country and the government, or a government sanctioned group, making similar statements.

But its really more basic than that. We must recognize that our views are just our views, they are not universal truths. Other people's views have as much validity as ours. We, as a country, should not presume that our views and beliefs are superior.

We preach tolerance, and we practice it pretty well within our borders, but we ignore the concept of tolerance in the international arena.

Said another way... everyone thinks their views are correct, right up till someone explains why they were wrong, and even then some people continue to resist right up to being the last biggot of that type on earth. For example, flat earthers were proven wrong, the view of the round earthers was in fact superior, no? As another example, beating a child to death because you want a male child is just flat out wrong. Some rights and wrongs are universal in belief, even though at one point that was not so. As still another example, slave trade of humans is seen as wrong in every country around the world, even though it was widely practiced at one point in time as moral.

On this particular topic of discrimination against gays, the bigots are wrong. Care to get back on that topic?

its only bigotry if you believe that homosexuality is a normal human condition. most of the world does not believe that, therefore they view our position as bigotry.

Just because you believe it and verbally repeat it does not make it so in the minds of other people.

Back to the original point----what makes your views on gays correct and everyone else's wrong?

Being against bigotry is bigotry. ROFL That's like the libtard argument that liberty is the liberty to take away liberty.

There are more white people in this country than black people. Does that mean white is the normal human condition, therefore racism is justified? ROFL

The reason my views on gays is correct... is based on my view of liberty. I've given the issue a great amount of thought. I see the gay issue at hand in very simple terms. I see no reason to punish gays for being gay. I see no reason to take away their liberty, simply because they are gay. So for me it's black and white. You are either for liberty or not.

I used to be in your place. My views on this topic have changed.

 

[Redfish]

They do not have the right to go to a muslim country and tell its citizens that islam is a sham.

Why not? What law prohibits anyone from going to a muslim country and telling those citizens that islam is a sham?

I guess its called respect, and tolerance---------two words our left wing friends use constantly, but do not practice.

 

[KNB]

its only bigotry if you believe that homosexuality is a normal human condition. most of the world does not believe that, therefore they view our position as bigotry.

Just because you believe it and verbally repeat it does not make it so in the minds of other people.

Back to the original point----what makes your views on gays correct and everyone else's wrong?

Most of the people on Earth think that there is at least one invisible man in the sky because of the same children's book that says that homosexuality is an evil disease. Jesus didn't say anything about gay people, but he did say, "Judge not, that you be not judged."

What makes rational views about gay people correct and all of those religious monkeys' views incorrect is the fact that rational views (and American laws) are based on current science and real world empathy, not ancient fairy tale dogma.

 

[RKMBrown]

Fair enough, so if all you're saying is that you want politicians to State with their free speech they oppose Russia that's fine. I was under the impression you wanted more than that.



That's why we need to keep it as small as possible and do only those things that only government can do. Military, police, roads, civil and criminal courts, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights.

Correct, all I meant to say was that it's somewhat ok for our leaders and individuals to voice their opinions regarding human rights abuses abroad. Where I get pissed is when politicians and individuals say they are speaking for all Americans.

by jove, I think he's got it.

Internet message boards... are just not as easy as shooting the shit at the bar. Words get in the way, you miss the facial expressions and fast back and forth conversations where you can more easily discern meaning.

 

[RKMBrown]

They do not have the right to go to a muslim country and tell its citizens that islam is a sham.

Why not? What law prohibits anyone from going to a muslim country and telling those citizens that islam is a sham?

I guess its called respect, and tolerance---------two words our left wing friends use constantly, but do not practice.

Ah well yeah, but some people don't have respect or tolerance. And to be quite honest, some people don't deserve respect or tolerance. I guess it sort of depends.

The man that grows up as an Islamic terrorist probably sees himself as being in the right. But that does not make him right. That just points to the human condition where some are slaves to their environment.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

How about being fined or imprisoned or put out of business for just being a Christian? What gives homofascists the right to force us to photograph their disgusting pagan rituals as they slobber on each other, or what gives them the right to shove their filth in the faces of our children in the public schools? What gives homofascists the right to interfere with parental authority and the therapy parents choose for their children . . . based on any pretense at all, let alone their pseudoscientific, politically correct claptrap? What gives these punks the right to vandalize church buildings or crash church services and spew their profanities?

Homosexuality is not merely an abomination, it is and has always been the stuff of tyranny. The depraved never simply allow folks to just live and let live, they always demand acceptance or else. The rest of America is beginning to wake to what Christians have always known about sexual perversion and about those who defend or practice it.

Of course homosexuals should be treated with dignity, but when you do not respect the liberties of others, don't blame the victim who has had enough of your "tolerance" when he stomps you, especially when you put your filthy self between him and his children.

While I deplore the violations of anyone's fundamental rights and dignities, your rights end where my begin.

Check?

I don't have to respect you, and I don't have to like you.

What do you know about tolerance? Screed such as this reveal that there is a deep, but thankfully, not wide streak of ignorance, bigotry and hatred that wishes to server as a "moral" template as well as the framework for repressive laws and legalized hated. With any luck at all, this mindset and the generation harboring it will soon be dead, literally and figuratively.


As for laws like the one the Arizona haters passed, if a business owner loves Jesus so much to use Him as an aegis behind which to hide, but strike out in his vile stupidity, why not make it public? If you own a business and your love of "Christian Virtues" is so large that you could not abide serving Sons and Daughters of God because you think it's 'icky', post a sign in your window for all the world to see: No Gays served Here due to
Christian Values.


Then the rest of us will sit back and see what is more important to you; your warped interpretation of "Do Unto Others", or your precious bottom line.

Your blather merely demonstrates that you don't grasp the dynamics of liberty in everyday life. You're a statist dupe. A useful idiot. An ignoramus. Relative to established case law, it's nothing new. It's protections apply to all, irrespective of one's sexual orientation. It's immediate purpose was to stave off the financially ruinous affects of frivolous lawsuits.

The leftist media's slant is hysterical demagoguery.

See link for SB-1062:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ry-have-the-right-to-deny-32.html#post8700263