Some good news for civil & religious liberty

wolfsbane

It is encouraging to see the creeping erosion of liberty in Britain successfully challenged:
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20090709/lords-back-free-speech-shield-in-gay-hate-law/

And my hat's off to non-Christians who supported us in this:
Blackadder star Rowan Atkinson is in favour of keeping the free speech protection, as are several prominent homosexuals including journalist Matthew Parris, comedian Christopher Biggins and ‘gay rights’ activist Peter Tatchell.

A welcome change from the fascist-liberals who seek to suppress everything/one who disagrees with them.

PDN

This is an example of how people with very different views can cooperate to defeat an ill-thought piece of legislation.

I wish something similar could have happened here with the anti-blasphemy law. Instead the campaign chose to opt for gratuitous muppetry that alienated potential supporters.

Which all goes to show that you can achieve more with a spoonful of honey than with a swimming pool full of vinegar.

philologos

Great news. I was just watching some of the videos on the bottom and they are very disturbing indeed. People should have every right to disagree on this issue, and it's nothing more than a Big Brother police state if people can't. Certainly something to give thanks for anyway.

Mickeroo

It all boils down to "I do not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" doesn't it?

toiletduck

Well this non-Christian for one is glad to see such a decision!

Zombrex

Yeah me too.

I hate these "It is illegal to think that" type of laws.

If I can think some Christians are immoral degenerates then others should be allowed to think that about others

Here is hoping the blasphemy law will get struck down in Ireland.

marco_polo

While I would certainly not agree with anyone who expressed a negative opinion on the matter, the idea that doing so should be illegal is frankly ridiculous.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

I hate these "It is illegal to think that" type of laws.

It's not an "it's illegal to think that" law, but an "It's illegal to say that law". Diff'rent thing

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is encouraging to see the creeping erosion of liberty in Britain successfully challenged:
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20090709/lords-back-free-speech-shield-in-gay-hate-law/ [...] A welcome change from the fascist-liberals who seek to suppress everything/one who disagrees with them.

As yes, the old "fascist-liberal" line -- you should subscribe to the "Alive!" newszine -- available from all good churches!

Just out of interest, if christians are happy to be able to continue to describe homosexuality as, say, an "intrinsic moral evil" or a "moral disorder" (as the Vatican does) then are all christians here happy to have the same or similar terms applied to them? ie, are people happy to have gay men, or anybody else, describe them as suffering from an "intrinsic moral evil"?

And if people are ok with this, then where's the line on what's offensive?

Or is there no line at all, and people should be always and forever free to describe each other in public from positions of authority exactly as they want?

For example, in a school -- would everybody be ok with a non-religiously affiliated school in which the teachers habitually describe christians as suffering from the an "intrinsic moral evil"?

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Just out of interest, if christians are happy to be able to continue to describe homosexuality as, say, an "intrinsic moral evil" or a "moral disorder" (as the Vatican does) then are all christians here happy to have the same or similar terms applied to them? ie, are people happy to have gay men, or anybody else, describe them as suffering from an "intrinsic moral evil"?

Can't say I'd like it, but I've been called worse. Wouldn't like to see a law making it illegal though.

And if people are ok with this, then where's the line on what's offensive?

In ones own head? Maybe you haven't noticed as a non-christian, but there is so much these days which could offend Christians. I find most of the time though, its the 'offence police' that draw the lines not the offended. I.E. Someone who themselves are not offended, but thinks it will offend someone else.

Or is there no line at all, and people should be always and forever free to describe each other in public from positions of authority exactly as they want?

There are decency laws etc in place.

For example, in a school -- would everybody be ok with a non-religiously affiliated school in which the teachers habitually describe christians as suffering from the an "intrinsic moral evil"?

Firstly, in what context would a non-religious school be teaching such a thing?

Secondly, in all my time in school, homosexuality was 'never' mentioned by a teacher, religious or otherwise. Also, In my 28 years of existance, I recall 'one' sermon where homosexuality was mentioned.

The way some go on about it, they would have you believe its like, 'And now for the lets hate gays bit of the sermon'.

So again, I'm happy this law was not passed.

eightyfish

I'm an atheist, and believe strongly in gay rights and the recognition of gay marriage. This is mostly due to a friend who had to move to the UK in order to marry his Brazilian boyfriend, and they must now apply for a visa to get back into Ireland as a couple. I think that homophobia is akin to racism on certain levels, as it is in effect treating a group in society differently because of the way they were born.

Having said that, I support this protection. Even though I think that it is inherently and morally horrid to criticise homosexuality, it should in no way be considered a crime. It should also not be considered to crime to say something racist, though the racist statement should receive just criticism in turn.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

It's not an "it's illegal to think that" law, but an "It's illegal to say that law". Diff'rent thing

Yeah, well I hate them as well :pac:

robindch wrote: »

As yes, the old "fascist-liberal" line -- you should subscribe to the "Alive!" newszine -- available from all good churches!

To quote the Simpsons, You can't use that word, that is our word for making fun you guys!

robindch wrote: »

Or is there no line at all, and people should be always and forever free to describe each other in public from positions of authority exactly as they want?

I think so. The solution to one person calling someone else something ridiculous is to point out that it is ridiculous.

So I completely support a Christians right to say they believe homosexuality is morally wrong, but equally they shouldn't complain when people respond to that and say no it isn't. That is how free and open discussion of ideas works. You say something stupid and I correct you :pac: (JOKING!!!)

I do sometimes wonder about the "Why do you come to this forum...?" type threads that pop up now and again. But that is a different topic

robindch wrote: »

For example, in a school -- would everybody be ok with a non-religiously affiliated school in which the teachers habitually describe christians as suffering from the an "intrinsic moral evil"?

You get into a different situation when individuals are acting as representatives of public bodies.

philologos

eightyfish wrote: »

Even though I think that it is inherently and morally horrid to criticise homosexuality, it should in no way be considered a crime. It should also not be considered to crime to say something racist, though the racist statement should receive just criticism in turn.

I think it's inherently and morally horrid to deny free speech.

What if I said to you, that it is inherently and morally horrid to criticise Christianity. Would you agree with that?

Or, it's inherently and morally horrid to criticise politicians.

eightyfish

Jakkass wrote: »

What if I said to you, that it is inherently and morally horrid to criticise Christianity. Would you agree with that? Or, it's inherently and morally horrid to criticise politicians.

No, because you're not born a politician or a Christian by default.

[edit] Removed an additional quote because it was added at the same time as the post below and therefore could not have been read by the poster before they replied. [edit]

philologos

eightyfish wrote: »

No, because you're not born a politician or a Christian by default.

There isn't any clear evidence that homosexuality is biologically predetermined. Just to put that out there.

I don't see why Christians shouldn't be free to say that homosexual activity is inconsistent with a Christian lifestyle and I certainly do not see it as immoral to do so.

People should be able to deal with other peoples views in a pluralist society.

eightyfish

Jakkass wrote: »

There isn't any clear evidence that homosexuality is biologically predetermined. Just to put that out there.

There is a lot of evidence:

1 2 3 4 5

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see why Christians shouldn't be free to say that homosexual activity is inconsistent with a Christian lifestyle and I certainly do not see it as immoral to do so.

I never said Christians shouldn't be allowed to say that homosexual activity is inconsistent with a Christian lifestyle. I agree with you that it is inconsistent with a Christian lifestyle.

philologos

eightyfish wrote: »

There is a lot of evidence:

1 2 3 4 5

First link, doesn't take into account brain plasticity and the fact that peoples brain structures can change throughout their life time. This brain activity could also be attributed to other factors apart from mere biology.

Second link attempts to put human norms on animals. The sheep and rams thing doesn't suggest that it was biologically predetermined any more so than any other reason.

Here is an article from the National Geographic concerning homosexual activity in beetles:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081104-homosexual-beetles.html

This article argues that there are other purposes to this activity apart from mere sexual attraction, it is more as a survival technique. The praise that this research received is interesting:

"This is excellent research," said entomologist Klaus Reinhardt at the University of Sheffield, U.K.
"So many papers look at these sorts of behaviors and immediately consider them from a human perspective. This paper has done a remarkable job of not sexing up the homosexuality and [instead] just asking why beetles do this."

Instead of jumping to conclusions, we should ask ourselves are there any other possible reasons why this occurs in the animal world other than it being biologically wired into them.

Unfortunately I cannot read the third article due to not being a subscriber of said magazine.

The fourth article doesn't deal with the question of whether or not a homosexual gene exists in the first place. I have seen no confirmation of this in any major discovery. Interestingly the fourth article confirms what I said concerning your second link:

It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males - rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair.

Many animal species operate in a different way than humans. There are different justifications for why things occur rather than just insisting that it is the exact same justification as humans have.

Fifth link, this deals with homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It does not say that it is biologically hardwired into animals. There could be numerous other alternative explanations for why this happens. Your fifth article also includes doubts of people who don't agree with your viewpoint in science:

No wonder then that putative gay sex among animals is typically explained away as examples of play, mistaken identity or an exercise in power. Indeed, some researchers, notably Tim Clutton-Brock of the University of Cambridge, would say that "true" homosexuality – if strictly defined as male anal penetration by males who show no interest in females – is virtually unknown among wild mammals. They argue that animals who mount same-sex partners and the like are behaving aggressively or merely practising for heterosexual encounters. Or they may be advertising their availability, or trying to make a heterosexual partner jealous.

The point is that this isn't evidence for it being biologically predetermined, and there is a lot of contention within science about this.

I personally take the view that we don't know and we shouldn't pretend we do! For all I know it could be biologically predetermined, but there are plenty of other explanations that have to be explored. I think it is dishonest when people claim that it is biologically predetermined as if it is a fact when it is not factual at all. It is merely an opinion that scientists have based on their assessment of what happens in the animal kingdom, other scientists differ.

I look forward to future studies on this though. It's not clear enough at the minute.

PDN

Do we have to do the whole gay gene argument yet again? As I understand it the evidence (even if it were indisputed) only suggests that some people may be slightly more attracted and disposed towards homosexual acts than others. Those born with this genetic trait would still be more likely to grow up practising heterosexual rather than homosexual sex. That is a hugely different matter from saying that people are born gay.

To compare homosexuality with race makes little sense. Race is wholly predetermined by factors beyond one's control. It would only be a valid comparison if:
a) The 'gay gene' made it virtually certain that everyone with that gene would grow up to be practicing homosexuals. or
b) Most people with black parents grew up to be white, but having black parents made it slightly more likely that you would be black than if your parents were white.

I am perfectly open to the idea that some people, be it through nature or nurture, are more inclined to certain behaviours than others - but that has no bearing whatsoever as to whether those behaviours are consistent or not with Christian morality.

eightyfish

Good post Jakkass, good article also.

I don't want to risk going too far OT and derailing the thread, but suffice to say there is debate in the scientific community as to whether it is nature or nurture, but there is some evidence that it is, at least for some gay people, nature. I say this not just from reading New Scientist but also from conversations with a lot of gay people over the years.

To get pack on topic - this alone shows, for me, that discriminating against anyone for being gay is wrong. This is my view and it is quite strongly felt, as I have had friends badly treated because of their sexuality. It is, however, perfectly fine for other people to have different views and for people to say things that I personally think are horrible. Any legal "protection" that is in effect against free speech - that includes this rejected law and also the new Irish blasphemy law - is wrong.

philologos

eightyfish wrote: »

To get pack on topic - this alone shows, for me, that discriminating against anyone for being gay is wrong. This is my view and it is quite strongly felt, as I have had friends badly treated because of their sexuality. It is, however, perfectly fine for other people to have different views and for people to say things that I personally think are horrible. Any legal "protection" that is in effect against free speech - that includes this rejected law and also the new Irish blasphemy law - is wrong.

I agree!

Christians should be vigilent and stand up against people who are mistreating anyone regardless of their sexuality. That doesn't cross my mind once. This is what we are meant to do as Christians. If anyone badly treats anyone for sexuality reasons that is pure wrong.

All I ask for is my right to disagree. That's all I want.

eightyfish

Jakkass wrote: »

Christians should be vigilent and stand up against people who are mistreating anyone regardless of their sexuality. That doesn't cross my mind once. This is what we are meant to do as Christians.

People should be vigilent and stand up against people who are mistreating anyone regardless of their sexuality. This is what we are meant to do as citizens.

FPY :rolleyes:

eightyfish

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I don't think people should be allowed to incite hatred in the public sphere, especially if their reasoning is highly questionable. I would love to see that as law and **** me if that makes me a "fascist liberal".

This is the "where do you draw the line" thing. If not illegal to say something racist, but illegal to incite hatred, who defines this? Fred Phelps' church, for example. "God Hates Fags" etc. Is this inciting hatred?

Also the "inciting hatred" label tends to be placed on things it does not relly apply to. Some posters on a thread about Brenda Power's anti-gay-marriage article in the Sunday Times were suggesting that it could be seen as inciting hatred when it was in fact just her (sneering, imo) opinion.

I've also seen this used by some atheists in reaction to articles that say we are arrogant, militant etc.

So - where be the line?

Zombrex

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I don't think people should be allowed to incite hatred in the public sphere, especially if their reasoning is highly questionable. I would love to see that as law and **** me if that makes me a "fascist liberal".

So you can't hate something or someone and then tell someone else? that should be illegal?

If I hate this government I can't tell anyone about it because that may inspire them to hate this government also?

Handsome Bob

eightyfish wrote: »

This is the "where do you draw the line" thing. If not illegal to say something racist, but illegal to incite hatred, who defines this? Fred Phelps' church, for example. "God Hates Fags" etc. Is this inciting hatred?

I would say it is. What's the basis for his opinion on gay people? He's using a book that not everyone believes in, a book which is impossible to call fact, in his quest to alienate gay people. It's out of order and certainly inciting hatred in my book.

Also the "inciting hatred" label tends to be placed on things it does not relly apply to. Some posters on a thread about Brenda Power's anti-gay-marriage article in the Sunday Times were suggesting that it could be seen as inciting hatred when it was in fact just her (sneering, imo) opinion.

But it's not just a case of her airing her opinion though is it? If she was sitting in the comfort of her own home and she said what she had to say to friends and family, then fine, whatever.

The fact is though is that the Sunday Times is something that for me is within the public sphere. Thousands of people in this country probably read it. Thus, Brenda Power has been given a very big platform in dismissing the prospective rights of gay people. And again what's her basis? I highly questionable book that not everyone lives their lives by. I wonder if the Sunday Times allowed someone to right a counter argument in favour of gay marriage?

So - where be the line?

No-one should be able to spout hatred in the public sphere if their reasoning is not well grounded within reality.

ScumLord

robindch wrote: »

Just out of interest, if christians are happy to be able to continue to describe homosexuality as, say, an "intrinsic moral evil" or a "moral disorder" (as the Vatican does) then are all christians here happy to have the same or similar terms applied to them? ie, are people happy to have gay men, or anybody else, describe them as suffering from an "intrinsic moral evil"?

And if people are ok with this, then where's the line on what's offensive?

The thing is though someone has to take offence to it. The best way to deal with offence people is to not take offence to what their saying. It either neutralises them or makes them angrier which is fun to watch. It's all a case of sticks and stones. A persons words only hurt you if you let them, unless their continually harassing you simply ignoring them is enough to fix the problem.

Jakkass wrote: »

Second link attempts to put human norms on animals. The sheep and rams thing doesn't suggest that it was biologically predetermined any more so than any other reason.

Other animals would ride a hole in a chair, I wouldn't put to much weight in arguments that highlight animal on male animal sex either. All it really shows is that other animals find the act of having sex enjoyable regardless of what their sticking it in.

Handsome Bob

Wicknight wrote: »

So you can't hate something or someone and then tell someone else? that should be illegal?

If I hate this government I can't tell anyone about it because that may inspire them to hate this government also?

As I said, if you can back up what you have to say and your reasoning is well grounded within reality, then you have the right to say whatever you want in a public forum.

And again as I said, you can say whatever you want in the comfort of your own home where you are not influencing a mass audience.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

...Instead the campaign chose to opt for gratuitous muppetry that alienated potential supporters...

Which campaign was that now?

eightyfish

LZ5by5 wrote: »

The fact is though is that the Sunday Times is something that for me is within the public sphere.

By this reasoning, anything printed in a paper that is opinion but not backed up by faultless logic would be illegal. The Daily Mail would be sold by skangers on dark street corners, and passed around like forbidden absinthe.

Handsome Bob

eightyfish wrote: »

By this reasoning, anything printed in a paper that is opinion but not backed up by faultless logic would be illegal. The Daily Mail would be sold by skangers on dark street corners, and passed around like forbidden absinthe.

Fine by me, I wouldn't mind seeing a purging of inaccurate tabloid drivel.:)

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Which campaign was that now?

The 'Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime' campaign. The one that thought the best way to combat a blasphemy bill was through a website that posted various clips of blasphemy and saying 'This is the kind of thing that will be banned'.

There are large numbers of practising Christians who, if mobilised and recruited, would have every reason to oppose the Blasphemy laws. But there was no way that church ministers like myself could persuade our members to join in a campaign that chose to assert an explicitlly atheist position.

Zombrex

LZ5by5 wrote: »

As I said, if you can back up what you have to say and your reasoning is well grounded within reality, then you have the right to say whatever you want in a public forum.

How does that work

Me - I hate this government, they have ruined this country
The Government - That is not grounded within reality, throw him in jail

eightyfish

PDN wrote: »

The 'Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime' campaign. The one that thought the best way to combat a blasphemy bill was through a website that posted various clips of blasphemy and saying 'This is the kind of thing that will be banned'.

Just want to be sure here - are you referring to a current campaign like blasphemy.ie, or a past campaign?

philologos

eightyfish: The current campaign by Atheist Ireland also isn't very inclusive for those of faith who want to object to the blasphemy law.

eightyfish

Jakkass wrote: »

eightyfish: The current campaign by Atheist Ireland also isn't very inclusive for those of faith who want to object to the blasphemy law.

I understand, but not for the want of trying. There were voices asking for the campaign to be split from atheist ireland to become a separate entity with the specific aim of it not being an "atheist" thing. I think that may be why they created the blasphemy.ie site but I'm not sure.

I think they are trying, I'm not sure it's working. I definitely think they wouldn't want to be non-inclusive. Everyone who feels that free speech is important should be against the blasphemy law - no matter what their religion or lack thereof.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

How does that work

Me - I hate this government, they have ruined this country
The Government - That is not grounded within reality, throw him in jail

In a democratic society it would probably be a majority vote thing.

So, if the majority of people in Ireland believe in God then they might well decide that a book such as The God Delusion is not grounded in reality and as such represents incitement of hatred against theists. Poor Richard!

The problem with (or beauty of) the kind of intolerance and censorship proposed by LZ5by5 is that such measures tend to eventually bite their own advocates in the ass.

Of course you could circumvent this by appointing an unrepresentative elite who decide on everybody else's behalf what constitutes 'being grounded in reality'. But if that's what one is looking for then wouldn't it be easier simply to emigrate to North Korea?

Handsome Bob

Wicknight wrote: »

How does that work

Me - I hate this government, they have ruined this country
The Government - That is not grounded within reality, throw him in jail

We live in a democracy don't we?

I still think that what I believe should and can be applied to people inciting hatred towards other races or those of different sexual orientation, religion, etc etc. I studied censorship and argued the points I'm making here (within 3rd Year Info Studies) in UCD and I got an A so there. :pac:

eightyfish

PDN wrote: »

Of course you could circumvent this by appointing an unrepresentative elite who decide on everybody else's behalf what constitutes 'being grounded in reality'. But if that's what one is looking for then wouldn't it be easier simply to emigrate to North Korea?

+1

Live and let live. Rant and let rant.

PDN

eightyfish wrote: »

Just want to be sure here - are you referring to a current campaign like blasphemy.ie, or a past campaign?

I'm referring to the campaign that could have shut the stable door before the horse had bolted (ie before the bill was passed).

I am confident, for example, that groups such as Evangelical Alliance Ireland would have participated in a broad alliance. That would bring to the table groups which, according to census statistics, carry more clout and therefore are viewed by politicians of being more representative of public opinion.

Handsome Bob

PDN wrote: »

The problem with (or beauty of) the kind of intolerance and censorship proposed by LZ5by5 is that such measures tend to eventually bite their own advocates in the ass.

I really am intolerant, intolerant towards ignorance that is.

Of course you could circumvent this by appointing an unrepresentative elite who decide on everybody else's behalf what constitutes 'being grounded in reality'. But if that's what one is looking for then wouldn't it be easier simply to emigrate to North Korea?

Out of order PDN, I only ask that people can live their lives without someone else telling them that they are inferior. I only ask that someone cannot without evidence incite one group to hate another group. I am not a ****ing fascist.

eightyfish

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Out of order PDN, I only ask that people can live their lives without someone else telling them that they are inferior. I only ask that someone cannot without evidence incite one group to hate another group. I am not a ****ing fascist.

To be fair, I don't think PDN was suggesting that you were a fascist, he was just commenting on the idea of an all-powerful judge of what it and is not racism/sexism/hatred etc.

philologos

If we deny people the right to free speech, we deny ourselves the title of democracy. No state that does this deserves to be referred to as a democracy.

Handsome Bob

Jakkass wrote: »

If we deny people the right to free speech, we deny ourselves the title of democracy. No state that does this deserves to be referred to as a democracy.

And we'll never effectively deal with bigots and racists by not denying the the right to free speech.

philologos

LZ5by5 wrote: »

And we'll never effectively deal with bigots and racists by not denying the the right to free speech.

So you'd silence Christians with mere disagreements to homosexual activity and refer to them as "bigots", or "homophobes" by 7 years imprisonment?

Just watch the videos on wolfsbanes link. One guy was hassled by police for giving out leaflets to Easter services at their church because it was in a "homosexual area". Another was hassled by police because he was preaching about Christianity on the streets without having mentioned homosexuality. Others were hassled by the police because they wanted to give out Christian literature when homosexual activists were handing out their literature.

eightyfish

Jakkass wrote: »

So you'd silence Christians with mere disagreements to homosexual activity and refer to them as "bigots",

Yes.

Jakkass wrote: »

or "homophobes"

Yes.

Jakkass wrote: »

by 7 years imprisonment?

No.

philologos

eightyfish wrote: »

Yes.

a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

Really?

eightyfish wrote: »

Yes.

a person who hates or fears homosexual people

Really?

I don't think we do come under either of these definitions. Am I really bigoted for saying I don't share their views, and am I really hating or fearing anyone for not agreeing with them?

Think about it.

eightyfish wrote: »

No.

If Christians were really spreading hatred or fear about homosexuals, I would expect them to deserve 7 years in jail.

PDN

What about porkophobic Jews? They believe that eating bacon sandwiches is wrong and, since I don't see that belief as grounded in reality, I am offended. Why should they be allowed to incite hatred against bacon eaters? Send them to jail, I say!

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

a person who hates or fears homosexual people

Actually I think the meaning of homophobe has evolved beyond that. Now it seems to get applied to anyone who doesn't believe that gay sex is a simply wonderful idea.

eightyfish

Jakkass wrote: »

a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

a person who hates or fears homosexual people

Yes, I would see people who express disagreements with homosexual activity as bigoted and homophobic, and by these definitions. I'm serious about that - I am not gay but have seen the harm that people who "express disagreements" can do to people's self confidence and in turn their whole lives. I've seen people forced to live in a foreign country because they are gay and this country expresses disagreements with their homosexual activity. I think this is a serious problem, I think a whole subsection of society is being seriously mistreated. I think any criticism of them because of what they are is, as I said before, horrid. However, this is only my opinion. I'd see them as homophobic, etc, but they should by all means able to say it, and we should all be able to debate in a civilised manner without having the shelter of legal protection.

Handsome Bob

Jakkass wrote: »

So you'd silence Christians with mere disagreements to homosexual activity and refer to them as "bigots", or "homophobes" by 7 years imprisonment?

I'd silence any opinions in the mould of "God Hates Fags". If you are making people feel like animals, second class citizens, or inferior you (with the bible as your sole source of evidence) then I would like to see you silenced.

Just watch the videos on wolfsbanes link. One guy was hassled by police for giving out leaflets to Easter services at their church because it was in a "homosexual area".

Is that all he was doing? Handing out leaflets for mass? Or was he preaching for these damned people to save their souls? If it's the former he was harshly treated by Police. If it's the latter than I'm glad he got harassed by the Police.

Another was hassled by police because he was preaching about Christianity on the streets without having mentioned homosexuality. Others were hassled by the police because they wanted to give out Christian literature when homosexual activists were handing out their literature.

I would have to know what was in the homosexual literature and what was in the christian literature. But lets say for example that the homosexual literature merely promoted gay rights without attacking someone, while the christian leaflets directly attacked homosexuals. Then again, I'm glad the Police hassled the christian activists.

philologos

eightyfish wrote: »

Yes, I would see people who express disagreements with homosexual activity as bigoted and homophobic, and by these definitions. I'm serious about that - I am not gay but have seen the harm that people who "express disagreements" can do to people's self confidence and in turn their whole lives. I've seen people forced to live in a foreign country because they are gay and this country expresses disagreements with their homosexual activity. I think this is a serious problem, I think a whole subsection of society is being seriously mistreated. I think any criticism of them because of what they are is, as I said before, horrid. However, this is only my opinion. I'd see them as homophobic, etc, but they should by all means able to say it, and we should all be able to debate in a civilised manner without having the shelter of legal protection.

So because I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle, and I do not subscribe to it, I am automatically hating gay people? Do you hate people who disagree with you on their favourite meal, or do you get along with them just fine? Just curious.

What about people who like to wear clothes that you don't like? Do you hate them for that or do you get along with them just fine?

I disagree that I am hating anyone because I disagree on homosexual activity. Infact, I would perceive them to be equal to everyone else. Just curious do I hate adulterers because I feel adultery is wrong? Or is it possible to like an adulterer but disagree with them on the ethics of adultery?

I don't think you have thought about this enough.

philologos

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'd silence any opinions in the mould of "God Hates Fags". If you are making people feel like animals, second class citizens, or inferior you (with the bible as your sole source of evidence) then I would like to see you silenced.

I don't think this is what Christianity says. I would say God loves those who lives a homosexual lifestyle, but disagrees with the lifestyle. God offers us to life for Him instead of living for worldly aims and ambitions.

Even if you did threaten Christians with imprisonment, do you think that they would truly be silenced if it was for what they perceived to be the truth?

I'm a bit taken aback, usually you are one of the more levelheaded posters.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Is that all he was doing? Handing out leaflets for mass? Or was he preaching for these damned people to save their souls? If it's the former he was harshly treated by Police. If it's the latter than I'm glad he got harassed by the Police.

It was handing out leaflets. They even show what the leaflets had written on them. At first the police told them they were promoting homophobic activity, secondly the police told them that it was that a complaint was made because Evangelical Christians handing out leaflets was offensive to homosexuals living in the area.

However, even if the man was street preaching, that is currently legal in the UK. Evangelism is also legal. Of course hate crime is taken into account, but mere disagreement of homosexuality is not a crime even if it is vocalised in public.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I would have to know what was in the homosexual literature and what was in the christian literature. But lets say for example that the homosexual literature merely promoted gay rights without attacking someone, while the christian leaflets directly attacked homosexuals. Then again, I'm glad the Police hassled the christian activists.

Watch the video if you wish. There were homosexual activists seeking to hand out promotional leaflets in an area where a Christian couple were living. They rang up the council and asked if they could hand out Christian leaflets, and were even offering to show them what was written on the leaflets. The council immediately said no without looking at them. However, this couple challenged the decision and the courts agreed that this was a form of discrimination against people of strong religious convictions.

eightyfish

Jakkass wrote: »

So because I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle, and I do not subscribe to it, I am automatically hating gay people? Do you hate people who disagree with you on their favourite meal, or do you get along with them just fine? Just curious. What about people who like to wear clothes that you don't like? Do you hate them for that or do you get along with them just fine?

All your examples are not fair comparisons because, ans I know people here will disagree with this but, as far as I see it you are born gay. It is something you are. It's not like they can decide that they want to be straight. It's not like they can choose another option.

As far as "automatically hating gay people" - no, I wouldn't say that. I know I said "by those definitions" a few posts ago but the definition of homophobia is in retrospect not the one I would choose. This all depends on the criticism, of course.

(Don't ask me to re-define it because I'd have to think about that - and I have to leave work in a few minutes to go see a very important football match. Thanks everyone, It's been fun. Will have a look at this thread tomorrow)