I am firmly of the view that homosexuality should be tolerated. What people do with their body parts should be no concern of the law and no cause for oppression.
But whether homosexuality should be accepted is surely an individual matter. People should be perfectly free to dislike it and say so if that is how they feel. And to protect their childen from the delusion that homosexuality is normal is surely part of that right
"A US supermarket has come under fire for censoring a magazine cover featuring a photo of Elton John, his husband and their new baby boy.
The Harps store in rural Mountain Home, Arkansas placed plastic covers with the words - "Family Shield. To protect young Harps shoppers" - over the copies of the current edition of Us Weekly celebrity magazine.
Shopper Jennifer Huddleston said she was offended after spotting the magazines earlier this week. She posted a photograph on Twitter where she vented her outrage.
Her complaint created internet buzz after she addressed tweets to celebrities Anderson Cooper, Kathy Griffin, Ellen DeGeneres, The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the ACLU, ABC reported.
Harps was flooded with calls and removed the shields.
Source
16 comments:
In so many regions in the United States, Christianity is practiced according to our First Amendment right of religious expression, yet it conflicts with one's right to be openly gay. But is being openly gay a Freedom of Speech issue, or is it even covered in the Constitution? If it is considered covered, what is to prevent an adult from wanting to have sexual relations with a child? Should not that then be protected? What about a person who wants to marry a dog. Should that be protected as well? Yes, it's the "slippery-slope" argument, but if homosexuality is so correct and right, why is it that so many homosexuals are so afraid to come out?
-sig
Once again, one person from a "specially protected group" who happens to get "offended" is allowed to cause a major dust-up. Notice how no one is giving any consideration to all the people who might find that cover offensive.
What we see in this story is the ongoing attempt by radical gay activists to force their chosen lifestyle on everyone, usually using the courts or the media. They've learned that they can't leave it up to the people, (ie. referendum, etc.) since the majority of Americans are not in favor of special treatment for gays. And make no mistake, that's exactly what they want. Their political pressure was behind the "invention" of so-called "hate crime" laws, which should be unconstitutional (equal protection clause) since they give "special protections" to one small segment of the public, but not the rest. In fact, what gay activists really want is to have their chosen lifestyle "legislated" into law, thereby forcing everyone to accept them. And that offends me! But, unlike "one offended gay", i can't get a business, or court, or newspaper, to bend to my will.
Personally, i don't believe i have the right to force my beliefs, opinions, or chosen lifestyle, on anyone else. Therefor, when it's done to me, i am offended! Now you know why the Left worked so hard and so long to do away with the concept of majority rule this country always had.
Funny, a picture of two fathers and their kid is offensive, but a picture of Britney Spears making out with Madonna is not.
I think it's REALITY must be accepted, families come in different forms. Of course, having said that if a private business chooses to censor reality, that's their business and all I can do about it is protest.
Not that I will, I got better things to do, like complaining about Hollywood destroying Captain America.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2011/01/captain-global-hollywood-changes-name.html
Sig - to respond to a couple of points in your confused comment - heterosexual people can have sex with children of the opposite sex, that is why there are laws against sex with minors. Many homosexuals are afraid to come out because of prejudice and bigotry by heterosexuals.
Brilliant argumentation Spur - you're a credit to the homo(phobe) agenda!
Bird-brained Spurwing is also a credit to the spelling-phobes!
Ahh, give old Spur a break. He serves an important function here. He make me laugh my ass off. Old Spur must actually be a liberal trying to make conservatives a laughing stock.
I believe that Spurwing is a DCL (Deep Cover Liberal). From RationalWiki, "A deep cover liberal is someone who pretends to be ultra-conservative with the intended purpose being to discredit conservative political parties or conservatives in general. They act in a way contrary to their own beliefs and often sacrifice their credibility to defend the world against ultra-right-wing nutjobs."
How many other DCL's are here?
I think this story is fine. The supermarket expressed their views, some organizations expressed theirs. No official threats of violence or action other than speech. The supermarket changed their views. Had the govt stepped in, or the violent wing of the homosexual movement started threatening them or actually assaulting them, then there is a problem. Definately a story of PC, but not anti free speech.
"I am firmly of the view that homosexuality should be tolerated."
Jon, I'm not questioning your right to your view on personal moral subjects, but what do you think about bestiality? Does that fall into the same remit as homosexuality?
Bestiality seems rather hilarious to me
Not hilarious for the poor animal concerned! It is rape as the animal or beast cannot give clear consent.
Anon 3:27,
Consent is irrelevant. Genesis 1:26-29 states: [26]Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” .
Maybe you were joking in some way, David - but if not, have fun fu**ing every living thing in sight (but you may get an STD of some kind and spread it to mankind - isn't that how syphilis or even AIDS might have arisen? - was that what God meant by "dominion"? - more like dominion of germs over humans!)
Maybe you were joking in some way, David.
No joke, that is the word of the Lord. One cannot go against the word of the Lord. I will pray for you.
So what exactly will you pray for? Do you think God will change his whole Cosmic agenda to accommodate little you?
Post a Comment