And who should determine when people do not have that right or other rights in general? How would this be enforced?  You are riding a very slippery slope here.

Cub, I think the thing is - with this kind of judgmental and I would say vengeful person - it probably doesn't matter what you do, they are going to find something they hate and push you out.

I knew a guy was of a certain religious view – different from his parents.  He asked his folks to buy his kids some cloths cause they were having a tuff time and had no cash.  The parents bought their grandparents some Nike shoes, and the kids nearly disowned his own parents cause they purchased something ‘with a deity that wasn’t (his) God.’

Simple rules:  If your beliefs, attitudes, or opinions are harming others, you don't get the freedom of speech!  simple!  

There is no biblical, historical or traditional context by which the Christian church can be able to have homosexuality as part of the context of its thinking on human sexuality.  The Biblical pattern is a man marries a woman (allowances for a man to marry more than one woman) for life, with some acceptance of divorce, but such divorce isn't something that is meant to be.  There is room for people of the same gender having a deep love and commitment to one another, deeper than brothers, but it doesn't flow sexually.  The Bible can speak of such love without the sexual, eros variety in it, and the eros variety is supposed to fit into the context of marriage between a man and a woman.  There is no other context to be able to show.  It isn't a matter of even saying, "Does the Bible oppose it?".  How about:  Does anything remotely connected with Christian thought show that it is the way it is meant to be?  In short, can it be shown anywhere that the Christian Church would end up having any context for marrying two homosexual people together at all?

It is more than the Bible, it also goes into everything connected with Christian thought.  And I think the Christian thought on all this is the dismay at modern society for not being able to see real love, without it being connected with sexuality.  Valentine's Day is all about sex now, and it is the supposed "holiday of love".  Never seen anyone on that day of love, decide they would do charity for strangers in need, because of the holiday.  What I had seen is you can buy a lingerie for your girlfriend on that day.

Ok while you have a valid point about what the bible doesn't say, doesn't that seem a bit odd to you? How can we say "Well God didn't say anything about _________, so it just aught not exist". I am a person completely without religeous faith mind you, so maybe I am missing something. I was on the other hand completely raised in a christian home.

Here is the thing, the bible says a lot of shit that society today picks and chooses what is really practical and believable.  The bible itself was originally a lot bigger but were romoved due to ludicracy or not being aligned with current beliefs. Yet through all of that fact cutting we still have a few remnants of crazy talk

-Abraham story of sacrificing his son (obvious schitzophrenic)

-Banning of shellfish, punishable by death.

-Animal sacrifice(fairly similar to the same many critasize from "paegan religion")

I mean, even if you believe all those fantastical stories actually happened and are not just hyperbole, its hard not to find some of the anecdotal stories contradictary to the actual overall message at hand.

So back to the plight of Homosexuals....

The main thing that has Christians(and muslims alike) believe Gay is wrong is because thats not the original design of marraige. Well the original design of marraige was a monetary transaction. I give you a goat, you give me your daughter, and forever our families are allies. This is not to say there were not gay people....it just wasn't a "thing" yet. Men had sex with other men, loved another man, they just also had a wife. It was seen as something that just was. Love never came into the equation of why you marry, and to do so was seen as stupid. It didn't matter which sex u prefered, you married to increase stability of the families. The more the merrier and all that jazz. Also having about 13 kids was seen as good as the odds of all of them surviving were very slim, it was a statistics game. But the family dynamic has drastically changed, women are not property, we marry for love rather then make a transaction, everyone is an equal.

And yes, we do concentrate on the Sex part far too much. Blame the media for that one.

Reserving judgement and keeping an open mind isn't efficent? I would think insulting other people for their beliefs would rarely be efficient. It's efficient to go getting involved in a family affair just because it relates to a hotbed issue? Like it or not same-sex relationships are still a very divided issue and you are not going to convince anybody of your position by attacking them. While this father obviously believes very strongly in his position he carried out his convinctions in a very polite and reserved manner.

I am not arguing that people should not be concerned with his actions if this is a sensitive issue for them; rather that they should still go about discussing the issue without attacking the offending individual. If anybody truly cares about human well-being then they would attack the father's position, not the father himself. They would attempt to change his mind, which you can't force. Fortunately this thread got better after I made my initial statement and there has actually been some discussion on the actual issue at hand.

Hitler had beliefs, too. Should we be not too hasty to judge him? Or should we be discussing his message and not him?

How about Charles Manson? Anders Breivik? How are we to judge these individuals with a message?

That's the most polite seething hatred I've ever read.

If you were familiar with pre-Hitler Germany you would recognize that anti-semitism was prevalent among not only Germany but many European states and even somewhat America around his time. Coupled with the sanctions after the first World War that crippled Germany's economy a second World War was nearly inevitable. So yes, I do think a good deal of his messages needed addressed and would have perhaps spared a great deal of bloodshed if done so at an appropriate time rather than waiting until fighting was the only solution.

Manson could obviously not be reasoned with as he lacked reasoning (insane - which I am somewhat hesitant to use since often I believe people are labeled insane simply because of unpopular reasoning; however, I think it is fitting in the case of Manson).

I'm not even aware of who Breivik is and its beside the point. Just because you can name a few extreme examples as to the opposite does not mean that reservations are without merit. I could just as easily do the same where reservations would have been more appropriate than rushing in (Occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the original World War I largely due to backing alliances).

There are times when immediate action is likely necessary and when a position should be debated. Even then, the immediate action is not so much about passing judgement on the offending individual as it is about lacking the time to debate his position. You can act to counter someone's position without passing judegement on them.

I'll point this out again. Who was the initial antagonist here? Was it the father who decided to give his son a life of torment, rebukes on what many consider should be unconditional love, or the son, who hurt his father's pride? 

Is what the father did illegal? No. Was it moral? It depends. Was it ethical? Completely bankrupt. You can sugarcoat it any way you like, but the one thing to take note is, a son was disowned. Extremes like that should NEVER even cross a parent's mind (at least not a good parent's..). Are you really saying we should be talking over whether what the father did was right?