I certainly wasn’t intending to. Let me clarify. I made a post saying that gay people ought to keep their private life to themselves if they live in a community that would be disturbed by their lifestyle if it were public. Your reply say that on my reasoning, slaves should remain slaves rather than speak up, and homosexuals should stay quiet when they are mistreated.
I’ll repeat, using different words, that I thing homosexuals ought to speak up when they are mistreated. People ought not assault or persecute homosexuals any more than anyone else. What I object to is the idea that homosexuals are somehow entitled to be public about their sexuality, despite their community’s wishes. If a community doesn’t want to see two guys holding hands or kissing in public, etc., then people should respect that.
If you don’t think this addresses what you had to say in your previous post, let me handle each question in that and this most recent post of yours:
No. Protesting being locked up, treated as property and worked without pay is different from having a sexually explicit parade because you suspect the community doesn’t like what you do in your bedroom.
I don't believe in rights, and this is one of the reasons why. Obviously some forms of speech are hurtful or offensive towards other people for no good reason. I think people have an obligation not to hurt or offend people when they can help it. Of course, this obligation extends also to people who would hurt or offend homosexuals.
It depends. If the people telling you to stop the behavior either owned the establishment, or had been long regulars at the establishment before you came along, then I would say Yes, you ought to comply with their wishes. If you owned the place yourself, or if they were newcomers trying to make you stop a behavior that you had been allowed to do a long time before they showed up, then I would say no, you didn't need to follow their request. This seems much more natural and ethical to me than to justify being offensive because of some 'right'.
To extend this to homosexuals, if a homosexual wants to kiss their SO in a place and they are asked to stop, they should honor that wish if they are newcomers to that environment. Similarly, if a straight person goes into a gay-friendly environment and asks that everybody stops doing what they've been doing for years, there's no obligation to listen to him.
Your next couple questions seem not to apply since I disagree with you about the above.
Which leads me to believe that the parade had nothing to do with protesting mistreatment, and everything to do with forcing acceptance. The rest of the paragraph seems to pointing out that gays are often nice people, which doesn’t seem overly relevant to me.
I think, by the time you get to this reading of this post, you’ll understand that this isn’t what I’m saying at all.
To put it in perspective with the above examples, it seems like this place is the sort where dissenting opinion is encouraged, and discussion is enjoyed. Am I wrong? You wouldn’t see me going to “www.gaymessageboard.com” or whatever and telling them all they’re immoral- assuming that message board doesn’t welcome that sort of thing.
Actually, my point is saying that we have control over our behavior was to say that a homosexual has control over whether or not they demonstrate their homosexuality in a public place. The person with three-arms may not.
I imagine violence and pedophilia are influenced by genetics as well. Is there a ‘demonstrate your sexual orientation in public even when it will offend most of the people in attendence’ gene?
Nowhere that I know of. I’m discussing behavior, not internal workings of the mind.
Well, ok, so slavery wasn’t so bad after all. Still, homosexuals aren’t treated at all like slaves, and I don’t see the comparison as valid.
If they unknowingly offend someone, then what can they do? They have no obligation to change their behavior until they are approached and asked to, or they have other good reason to beliee they’re being offensive.
No problem. Which society?
Just because my view is that people should respect societal norms doesn’t mean It’s not my own opinion. Does a view have to be outrageous to be credible?
I’m afraid I don’t see the comparison between “Having an opinion most people would disagree with” and “Knowingly engaging in offensive behavior in public”.