Thou shalt not criticise homosexuals
What kind of country arrests religious preachers in the streets and drags them to court? Britain, actually.
"A born-again Baptist who travels from America to preach the word of God on the streets of Britain is bound to be a bit … shall we say ‘eccentric?’ It should come as no surprise that such a person would be intolerant of homosexuality, which is regarded as a sin amongst Baptists.
But should religious people who hold such views be punished for expressing them in public? That is what the arrest and fining of the American Christian, Shawn Holes, in Glasgow earlier this month suggests.”
Source
There is not much free speech in Britain. Only Britain's highest court (the Privy Council of the Supreme Court) occasionally allows it and going to them is an expensive proposition.
22 comments:
Actually, most of the worlds established religions are intolerant of, or outright condemn, homosexuality. In fact, they are "almost" as intolerant as gays are.
As for Britain, this kind of official conduct is no surprise. They are a lost nation, and sinking even further every day.
At least Britain's Muslims tolerate and celebrate homosexuality.
Oh, wait....
The people should just rise up en masse and exercise free speech anyway. Just dare the authorities to try to prosecute everyone. And if they do try, just let them try to find juries for all those cases with people who are not themselves on trial.
It wouldn't happen if the people didn't agree with it.
5:21 - What are gays intolerant of? Being called sinful? Being insulted by these religions? Prevented from legal recognition of their partnerships?
9:54 PM You believe you have the right to prevent other citizens from having equivalent rights. People who believe in those religions influence politicians who in turn prevent legally recognized marriage between adults of the same gender (don't be cute about using "partnerships" in only a business or commercial sense). You are smugly content that you are free to marry the gender you prefer, and race, as there is now no restriction on race as there once was. I suppose you wouldn't have cared a damn for people then who wanted to marry across racial boundaries and if you now have done so, that it was once impossible.
You are a drama-queen if you think homosexuality is "rammed down your throat" unless you literally solicit it!
While it would be considered a travesty in the U.S., it happened in Britain, so he is not under the protection of the U.S. Constitution.
If some loud-mouth Brit came to the US and started preaching in a hostile manner, would he/she have any protection under the US constitution as an alien?
Anonymous 11:45 way to hide behind anonymity. Clearly it must be because you do not want people recognizing your lack of reading comprehension.
I am all for equal rights. I do not have the right to marry another man, why should the next guy have that special right? What about the guy that wants to marry a minor, or an animal? Why can't we extend the right for those types of people to marry whomever or whatever they please? C'mon, equal rights for all, right?
The guy was preaching his beliefs, nothing more. If you don't like it, don't listen. Quit throwing your unsolicted homo agenda in my face.
Leroy, you bring up some very often overlooked and good points. I never actually thought it through, but the reality is that there IS no legal inequality here. As you stated, marriage laws permit me (a straight male) the EXACT same rights as it does to any gay man: We both have the absolute legal right to marry a woman. There is no inequality or prejudice because the opportunity under the law is exactly the same.
What the gays are trying to change is the OBJECT of what makes marriage, marriage. And again, you bring up good points (although some will no doubt chime in that it's the "slippery slope" argument, and for some unknown reason, they don't like that argument.) But the fact remains that the law provides complete equality in marriage. WHAT you marry is what is stipulated by law. As a male, do you want to marry a female? Sure! Go ahead! Do you want to marry a minor? Well, you can't. Want to marry your dog? Sorry, you can't. Want to marry a Ford Taurus? Nope, you can't. Want to marry another male? No, you can't. The real issue is that those trying to push forward the gay marriage agenda simply do not like being told what to do.
In any society, lines must be drawn to keep and maintain order. Without that, we have nothing but disorder, chaos, and anarchy. In this case, a line has been drawn with marriage long, long ago by many, many cultures, so it is now up to us--those who ascribe to traditional marriage concepts--to ensure that it is never taken away by those who insist on breaking or not following the rules.
Anonymous 5:02 AM said, "It must also be understood that the status of rights can change in an instant, depending on which rights benefit the state in the net sum."
This is true only if your worldview embraces relative morality and ethics. Yes, the status of rights can change in an instant, but for those of us who believe in moral absolutes, they SHOULD NOT change in an instant. Those who believe in moral relativism accept a world in flux where morality and ethics are defined by the will and whim of society. On the other hand, those who believe in moral absolutes strive for a society that defines itself by morality and ethics, not bending to the latest whims and passions of society.
Leroy - are you also going to similarly criticize all the anon posters who seem to agree with you for being anon, or are you as inconsistent as you are disingenuous with your arguments?
The next male would not have a special right to marry another male, as you would also have that right, just as you now have the right to marry a person of another race whether you choose to do so or not. The law was extended to allow inter-racial marriage, just as it could be extended to allow same-sex marriage. Yes you do go on to use the slippery slope fallacy. Those cases are separate issues if anyone is interested in mounting a public campaign in their favor, but some would involve the difficulty of competent consent as in the case of wedding animals and minors.
Anon 2:34 No, I only direct my comments at one person at a time. At this point, it seems there is nothing to gain from re-establishing your, or any other posters', cowardice in not putting their name to their thoughts.
What is beautifully ironic about your argument, and you fail to see it, is that when you have the right to marry a woman and you don't want it, then that is unequal. But when I get the right to marry another man and I don't want to, that is equality.
Or maybe even better, your competent consent argument. The age of consent is merely a regulatory establishment based on cultural norms. This is exactly what homos are fighting against. They want to change the law to allow them to violate established cultural norms. Fallacy indeed.
Perhaps this convoluted logic is why you hide your identity. I know I would hide if that's all the better I could come up with.
Leroy - Which issue do you want to discuss? - same sex marriage? - age of consent? - or what? Btw. to satisfy your pointless need for a soubriquet - mine is "Bordovue"!
Your argument about "equality" would find nothing wrong with the situation where no woman could vote (since it was equal for all women) or no person could marry someone of another race (since it was the same for everyone). The issue is not the equality in restricted freedom but whether it is justified to restrict that freedom.
2:16 AM. I know "countless" people who would think you are wrong - so what!
Catholic priests are a suitably topical case of people being required to suppress all their sexuality - and look where that has led!
Many drives have a genetic component but you just pick negative ones like alcoholism and violence, maybe your bigotry is another example of negative genetic traits!
Hey Leroy are u dumb? When you have the right to marry a guy you still have the right to marry a woman, so everyone wins. But I guess you're only into self-gratification.
Let's not forget the PURPOSE of marriage, which is to provide THE family structure that allows children to grow up into well-adjusted adults as the next generation of citizens - a mother and father. Perverting that perverts the lives of the children.
Anon 2:43
Awesome response. You bring up the age of consent issue and then flame me for discussing it. Priceless. I am assuming you can't refute the validity of the argument so you just attack me. Thank you for living up to my expectations of your type of person.
The rest of your argument is sensible, but not relavent to this topic. It is clear that there is no difference between the abilty of men and women to vote. it is clear that any racial differences are minute and irrelevent. It is not clear that men and women are equivalent sexually. They have different sexual organs and functions. No matter how hard she tries, no lesbian can impregnate another woman. No matter how much he wants it, no man can become pregnant by another man. Voting and interraccial marriage are clearly not analogous to this situation.
Anon 3:08 to answer your question, I would say no, but I guess anything is possible. But other than attacking me, what was your argument again? Everyone wins? Considering that our society has advanced based on the family unit of a mother and a father and your plan would destroy that foundation, where exactly does the win part come in? Certainly not for the children.
Leroy, your continue to nail it. It's not about everyone winning, it's about maintaining the very reason for marriage.
After all, I thought mankind is supposed to have evolved into such a higher order. Have we not evolved into thinking, intellectual beings that do not need to satisfy our carnal passions at every whim like the animals do? The gay lifestyle is really nothing more than reverting back to one's animal nature where one cannot control his carnality. Breaking from that bondage and seeking higher pursuits is what we should be doing, but no, the gays must have it their way because they can. Having the capability to do something does not mean you should do it.
Leroy - It was you who first mentioned "age of consent". I referred to competence of consent in passing as a probable difficulty for those advocating marrying minors, which I thought you might have agreed with. You then went on to discuss age of consent like a strawman argument against me.
yours sincerely Bordovue
(btw you still don't criticize anyone else for being anon, so I presume it was only because I criticized you, and thus your excuse was deceitful!
Anon 3:06
So you're splitting hairs between the competence of consent and the age of consent? Really? That's the best you got?
No wait. You still have have your personal attacks on me. Keep those up, they're really making your point.
And now your fixation with your being called out for your cowardice. When I am responding to anonymous I do not know if I am responding to someone a second time or a third time or whatever because they are anonymous! Get it?So I can now assume that every anonymous post I replied to wasn't you, and it bothers you that I assumed it was. Well, maybe if you had a way of identifying which anonymous poster you were, then we could figure something out. Hmmm, but then that would defeat the whole anonymous deal wouldn't it? I'll have to get back to you on that one, this seems a little tricky.
Anyway, I can honestly say that I didn't call out anon 3:08, but clearly this poster has many issues, the least of which is cowardice. But if it will really make you feel better, you just say the words and I will call him a coward as well.
By the way, why are you only attacking me, and not the other posters who agree with me? Once again, the clear irony of you behaving exactly as you accuse me of behaving is hilarious.
Reflecting on the projection defense mechanism, I have to just review what my initial post said. Deep inside, you know you are wrong.
So it is "cowardice" to leave a comment as an anon, but hugely brave to head one as Leroy Jenkins?
I leave you to your speciously convoluted posts, as they're not worth the time taking apart every time - signed Bordovue
Post a Comment