Yours is the same argument as:
If you don't like abortion, don't have one.
If you don't like methamphetimine, don't smoke/inject/snort it.
If you don't like spousal abuse, don't practice it.
If you don't like porn shops on the road where your kids walk to school, have them walk a different route.
Etc
It's the "etc." that bothers men. Everyone is offended by something. The list really is endless. And this being America, we can adopt your list. However, then we'd have to adopt everyone else's list as well.
You're spouting moral relativism. Which, in the final analysis, isn't relative at all, but whoever has the power makes the morals. Or lack of them, which is the same thing.
Moral relativists say that all values are equal, and none should be forced on anyone. But their values are always the "real" ones, and those are the ones the moral relativists want enforced.
Like, pornography must be allowed anywhere and everywhere (practically). There must be no censorship in libraries especially library computers. Porn shops and strip clubs must be allowed in areas even if the people living there don't want them.
There are universal moral rules that are in basic agreement. These are extant in all monotheist religions in the world, and some that aren't even monotheist. These guidelines form the basis of what used to be our own laws, but the moral relativists have been very busy for some time dismantling them.
And what have they been replaced with? A situation where even if the majority of people want very much, and vote for, or their elected representatives vote for some kind of restriction on, say, what level of disgusting obscentity or sexually explicit stuff should be allowed in some particular venue, a couple of judges in black robes, assisted by lawyers from the ACLU, tell the citizenry what must be.
This is judicial oligarchy, aided and abetted by organizations who do not have our benefit in mind, such as the ACLU.