Again, Sam misses the point - saying today that 'gay people shouldn't have rights' is not the same as saying 'gay people should have rights' 20 years ago (or honestly probably even 5-10 years ago). Arguing to take rights away from people is in no way equivalent to arguing to treat people equally.
Controversy is not a measure of worth or consideration. Instead, we should be considering what impact our statements have on other people. LGBT rights do not negatively affect straight people. But homophobic ideas can and do hurt gay people.
I do not get the impression, from the previous post nor this one, that Sam is unaware of the distinction between the impact of/consequences of/hurt caused by one controversial stance 50 years ago ("gay people should have rights") and the opposite one today ("gay people shouldn't have rights").
If this distinction is something he understands (which, personally, I believe he does but hey, I could be wrong), could it be that it's not him missing the point?
Sam's argument seems to be that one of our major social problems is that we socially disallow controversial ideas, which makes him feel uncomfortable expressing himself and stifles social progress. Therefore, we should start allowing controversial ideas.
The parent comment asserts that Sam's premise is wrong: ideas aren't being rejected for their controversy, but rather for their harmfulness. Saying that "it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people" (see his previous post) implicitly draws a false equivalence between civil rights advocacy and bigotry as fair-game "controversial" ideas.
No, you are missing the point. The moral history of the world does not terminate in the present. You are basically arguing that the modern consensus is the only acceptable opinion to hold. 50 years ago the modern consensus was that gays should not have rights. The person filling your shoes then would have said "It's unacceptable to discuss giving Gay's rights, we all know it's wrong and abominable, anyone with that opinion should be driven from their post".
> Instead, we should be considering what impact our statements have on other people.
But only people? Not animals? How do you feel about thinking, feeling beings being raised through a life of torture only to be slaughtered so that people can experience some mouth pleasure for a few moments?
How about consideration for people whose ideas don't completely align with yours?
Are you really so certain that the mainstream beliefs are, for the first time in history, unassailable?
There's an underlying issue here, which is that people come at these statements with different fundamental ideas of what is true and what are the likely consequences of an action. Few people would actively support denying rights to other people for zero reason. Most of the time, when they believe that rights should be denied, it's because they believe that allowing those rights would trample on the rights of other people in a significant way.
A significant fraction of America believes that allowing gay people to marry means that God will deny them entrance to the kingdom of Heaven when they die. I think this belief isn't just false, it's ridiculous - there is no God, there is no Heaven, and even if there were, He wouldn't be so petty as to deny entrance just because you supported other people having the same rights as you to get married.
But if you take this premise as given, then homophobia and all of the backlash against LGBTQ people makes a lot more sense. Which would you rather have, eternal damnation for your entire society or a few deviants being able to live their lives with each other? And I certainly can't prove that God doesn't exist and he doesn't hate gay people - I may think the ideas are ridiculous, but people who hold those ideas think that my heresy is ridiculous (and worse, dangerous - I'm certainly going to bring damnation upon myself, and probably upon those people who tolerate me). I've been told that I'm going to hell by certain more devout relatives, after all.
I think that this is the sense in which Sam thinks we should be tolerant. We need to be open to other conceptions of what is true, not necessarily what is good (and we need to learn to separate the two of them in our minds so that we can entertain different possible ideas of what is true without automatically endorsing or condemning them). Less than a century ago, it was taken as given within the Western world that God exists and the Bible is His literal word. Ideas that have challenged anything in it - like the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, or that it's more than 6000 years old - have met a violent reaction throughout history. What other ridiculous things do we believe today will be reexamined tomorrow, and how will we ever examine them if we can't countenance the idea that we might be wrong?
You're missing the point he's trying to make. He obviously understands this. He's just saying that freedom of speech should actually exist. As soon as you start adding subjective exceptions, you've killed it.
Saying they shouldn't have rights (what rights?) is different from plenty of derogatory things you could say about gays or the gay community, or trans people.
And LGBT "rights" by some people's definitions do negatively hurt straight people. For example, some want to force hospitals to perform operations on people, and others want to make rules about bathroom use on private or public property. The right of gays to engage in sexual activities has greatly increased promiscuous straight people's STD risk.
Your statement is both untrue and it's an idea that hurts straight people. I guess I'm supposed to think you should be ostracized from society for expressing it.
Controversy is not a measure of worth or consideration. Instead, we should be considering what impact our statements have on other people. LGBT rights do not negatively affect straight people. But homophobic ideas can and do hurt gay people.