Why not? I think that everyone SHOULD be concerned with what offends others.
Being generally concerned that I will inevitably offend someone for something I did is a feeling all decent people should have.
Being specifically concerned with not offending everyone all the time would mean no dialogue at all could ever take place.
Feeling concern in the form of empathy or sympathy is what decent people do. Acting to alleviate that concern in all things is impossible, a waste of time, and does a disservice to the ones we are trying to have a dialogue with by lying to them and ourselves by belittling our own opinions for the sake of that lie. Of course a little bit of tact in dialogue goes a long way.
Disagree. Their feelings aren't legitimate.
Um...so your saying that the feelings of those who disagree aren't legitimate as apposed to your own feelings? I'd say if their feeling anything its a legitimate feeling for them.
If homosexuality is to be respected by all, we need to speak to the ones who don't respect a homosexual person's right to being loved and accepted by his or her community
And why shouldn't others who disagree with homosexual practices have those rights as well? And in what way must one respect what they have dissent against? I don't think any particular proclivity someone has must be respected. I think your misplacing what should be respected about another person.
I certainly don't respect, nor should I have to, a persons right to bestiality, to self mutilation, to sex in public, to hate speech, to using the bathroom where ever they wish, to obnoxious entitled behavior, to murder someone, to being uncivil, to indiscriminate drug use, to abuse their spouse, to total disregard of another's discomfort for the sake of ones own, to lie for personal gain....the list could go on and on and on. So how do we determine what behavior deserves respect?
It seems to me that homosexuals (my own experience that is) go out of their way to emphasize their sexuality over their humanity. Just look at the gaudy way so many pride parades display their preferences. Or the cartoonish characterization of femininity many homosexuals display. Might that be your "learned behavior" as well?
Can you give me an example of one other minority group who's parades, advertisements, actions, and arguments more often than not
emphasize what kind of sex they prefer to have over what kind of human being they are in consideration of the content of their character? Even the transgender group does better in that regard.
I can drum up respect for another decent human being. I don't need to know your sexual preferences to do that.
But push acceptance and respect of your particular kind of sexual fetishist proclivities on me and you've got an argument.
What some of us including me are doing here is pushing back against institutionalized homophobia. We want to make such opinions disappear.
I'm sorry...but I'm afraid your performing a Sisyphean task there. As long as living natures sexual proclivity towards propagation and sustainment of life exists and as long as an attitude of dismissing the feelings of others in favor of your own exists your not going to be successful. Your approaching the whole idea of acceptance wrong if you think that accusing every dissent of homophobia and hate mongering will result in progress towards your goals in this endeavor. The only thing your likely to accomplish is alienating even those who would have been your allies. Dialogue is what's needed not forced acceptance. And with that dialogue comes inevitable offence.
The "institutionalized homophobia" you speak of is a ridiculous label applied as a result of the homosexual's total fixation on not being offended.
So some bakeries won't bake a wedding cake for a homosexuals wedding because of their personal convictions. Some institutions won't admit homosexuals into their ranks. Some stores prefer not to sell to homosexuals. Some families prefer not to view movies that include homosexual scenes. Your not going to change any of those convictions by forcing respect upon them or labeling their every action homophobic as if that title is a testament to their deplorably ignorant character. Your not gonna change anything by destroying the rights of one to ensure the rights of another.
I'm barred from doing a lot of things that I'd like to do because of someone else's preferences and convictions. I have too much money, I have too little money, I'm the wrong race, the wrong sex, the wrong height, weight, prefer the wrong foods, wrong religion, wrong world view, etc.
I don't demand what I see as my rights be respected by destroying someone else's rights nor do I dwell upon it. If I wish something to change I'm more likely to change it through enticement rather than through force if I wish it to be substantively successful.
Your more likely to get somewhere by asking them why, even though you think you know the answer. Why do these people not like homosexual behavior? Why don't these people take into consideration homosexual desires when formulating their desired rights?
IF dissent against homosexuals is merely learned, can I prove that, how is it learned, why is that learning sustained in society, and what is the best path to change that learning? Again, I'm pretty sure the last isn't best changed by labeling all dissent as homophobic as if homophobes are ignorant degenerates.
That begins with making them uncomfortable to express. We won't change too many of those minds, but they will generate fewer copies of themselves the more they are intimidated to express such opinions.
If this were true you wouldn't have the explosion of public declarations of homosexuality that we see today. Seems everyone's rushing to come out of the closet accompanied with stories of persecution nowadays.
The world is more divided than its ever been. Its not getting better its getting worse. I think part of the problem is the attitude that suppression of opinion gets rid of that opinion. What ends up happening is grouping and entrenchment of like opinion instead of communication with unlike opinion. The end result is often verbally or physically violent interaction with no productive progress being made.