‘You’re promoting hate’: Toronto police shut down preacher at Gay Pride parade

Onesimus

TORONTO, Ontario, July 6, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Christian preacher spreading God’s word on a sidewalk in Toronto during the Gay Pride Parade on Canada Day was verbally assaulted by homosexual supporters as police watched, and was later surrounded by as many as 12 officers who forced him to vacate the area.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/youre-promoting-hate-toronto-police-shut-down-preacher-at-gay-pride-pa

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npvWGCPv2j0

I think we should expect more of this as the years progress. What are your thoughts on this story? When I was watching it, I was disgusted at the treatment he got from bystanders not to mention the police. I would encourage all to read the article and watch the video in full first before making any rash comments.

God bless
Onesimus

Snappy Smurf

The people were horribly aggressive, but I do wonder if this is a case of wrong place, wrong time.

I dunno, I think the Christian has a right to be there, but I wonder how effective it is that he is there doing what he is doing. Thoughts?

Jesus Shaves

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

The people were horribly aggressive, but I do wonder if this is a case of wrong place, wrong time.

I dunno, I think the Christian has a right to be there, but I wonder how effective it is that he is there doing what he is doing. Thoughts?

He has a right to be there but he has no right to force his beliefs on other people

newmug

I just cant believe how acceptance of gayism has crept in and infiltrated everywhere so thouroughly. 10 years ago it was an insult to call someone gay. Now its seen as "brave" to "come out". This is not a Christian v athiest issue. Gayness is wrong, it always was and it always will be.

Snappy Smurf

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

He has a right to be there but he has no right to force his beliefs on other people

Well I think he was simply trying to deliver a message. Whether this is the best time and place for doing so is debatable.

Rather than using a megaphone indiscriminately at a large group who will not be properly disposed to receive his message, he might instead get to know one of them personally as a friend, perhaps eat with them, and witness to the love of God in a personal way.

Perhaps standing silently with a picture of the Divine Mercy would be more effective.

The police have a difficult job to do. Without the police, that preacher could easily have been set upon. Leaving him there was tying up police resources.

Nervous Wreck

Convenient for his cause how the video shows none of what he was saying before people started talking back. Anyone who goes to an event just to troll (which is essentially what he was doing*) deserves to be argued with. The cops shut him down for causing a disturbance; perfectly legit tbh.




*by this I mean that there were any number of places he could have gone to preach his beliefs but he specifically chose a Gay Pride parade and, judging by the evidence at hand, obviously pissed a lot of people off, most likely on purpose.

Onesimus

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

He has a right to be there but he has no right to force his beliefs on other people

But he isnt. he is just preaching the love of God. The same as homosexuals are preaching their love of homosexuality.

Nervous Wreck

newmug wrote: »

I just cant believe how acceptance of gayism has crept in and infiltrated everywhere so thouroughly. 10 years ago it was an insult to call someone gay. Now its seen as "brave" to "come out". This is not a Christian v athiest issue. Gayness is wrong, it always was and it always will be.

Define "wrong".

Snappy Smurf

newmug wrote: »

I just cant believe how acceptance of gayism has crept in and infiltrated everywhere so thouroughly. 10 years ago it was an insult to call someone gay. Now its seen as "brave" to "come out". This is not a Christian v athiest issue. Gayness is wrong, it always was and it always will be.

I think the boys in the school yard still view calling someone gay as an insult. It is still widely used as an insult among teenage boys in Ireland.

jaffa20

newmug wrote: »

I just cant believe how acceptance of gayism has crept in and infiltrated everywhere so thouroughly. 10 years ago it was an insult to call someone gay. Now its seen as "brave" to "come out". This is not a Christian v athiest issue. Gayness is wrong, it always was and it always will be.

Everything is right and wrong, left and right then yeah?

newmug

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Define "wrong".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wrong

jaffa20 wrote: »

Everything is right and wrong, left and right then yeah?

Not everything. But gayness definetly is. Yeah?

Nervous Wreck

newmug wrote: »

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wrong

How 'clever'. Can you adequately show how the term is applicable to homosexuality?

dahamsta

newmug wrote: »

I just cant believe how acceptance of gayism....

When you're using made-up words to criticise something, you're not qualified to comment.

Corkfeen

Onesimus wrote: »

But he isnt. he is just preaching the love of God. The same as homosexuals are preaching their love of homosexuality.

He went there with a clear agenda to provoke, he's standing there with a microphone attempting to claim that they're being intolerant. It seems somewhat strange how the beginning of the incident seems to be cut, something had to start the incident. I think the police were more irritated by the fact that he was trying to create a disturbance. It's exactly like the behavior of the westboro baptist church, instead of picketing a soldier's funeral instead he's doing it at a gay pride festival. He appears to have a sign that's designed to provoke too.

newmug wrote: »

I just cant believe how acceptance of gayism has crept in and infiltrated everywhere so thouroughly. 10 years ago it was an insult to call someone gay. Now its seen as "brave" to "come out". This is not a Christian v athiest issue. Gayness is wrong, it always was and it always will be.

It never was wrong, label it as wrong but it doesn't make your point any stronger. You have nothing to backup your claim besides a few leviticus lines. It is brave to come out when people are subjected to the intolerance that you are displaying. No, it isn't an issue of atheism and Christianity, it's merely an issue of everyones right to be equal.

Bloodwing

newmug wrote: »

Not everything. But gayness definetly is. Yeah?

According to who? Who or what in society gives you or the biggot in the video the right to say homosexuality is wrong?

Onesimus

newmug wrote: »

I just cant believe how acceptance of gayism has crept in and infiltrated everywhere so thouroughly. 10 years ago it was an insult to call someone gay. Now its seen as "brave" to "come out". This is not a Christian v athiest issue. Gayness is wrong, it always was and it always will be.

I think it's important for Catholics and people in general suffering with this problem to... come out. A lot of people under societal rejection have suffered great depression and suicide over societal pressure of ''what their friends'' might think of them because they are homosexual.

Although we acknowledge homosexuality as an act that is wrong. It is not a sin per se to be homosexual, just the act in itself and the agreement that it is ''right'' when it is ''wrong''.

There are many Catholics who are suffering with homosexual tendencies and live a life of chastity and prayer and remain in the Church. If they didnt ''come out'' then they would never be able to get the help that they need. They should never have to suffer in silence out of fear of bigotry.

It is important that people of all beliefs respect one another newmug.

Snappy Smurf

Neilos wrote: »

According to who? Who or what in society gives you or the biggot in the video the right to say homosexuality is wrong?

Onesimus wrote: »

I think it's important for Catholics and people in general suffering with this problem to... come out. A lot of people under societal rejection have suffered great depression and suicide over societal pressure of ''what their friends'' might think of them because they are homosexual.

Although we acknowledge homosexuality as an act that is wrong. It is not a sin per se to be homosexual, just the act in itself and the agreement that it is ''right'' when it is ''wrong''.

There are many Catholics who are suffering with homosexual tendencies and live a life of chastity and prayer and remain in the Church. If they didnt ''come out'' then they would never be able to get the help that they need. They should never have to suffer in silence out of fear of bigotry.

It is important that people of all beliefs respect one another newmug.

Well the world is a cruel place. Perhaps it's best kept to a few trusted individuals and one's confessor? Even families can be very un-Christian when it comes to this issue - rejecting the person, even if they haven't acted out homosexually.

lmaopml

I don't think that meeting people head on is very good. I think that there is a time and place - and most people will not meet Christ when they are angry at you and him too and all Christianity represents, or even just that bit. Everybody is entitled to public demonstration, this is true - but invoking that many curses is probably not the best approach - unless being 'persecuted' - but not really ( I feel sorry for the officers ) is on the agenda.

Meet people and give hope and love is probably a better approach - just celebrating.

Onesimus

He went there with a clear agenda to provoke, he's standing there with a microphone attempting to claim that they're being intolerant. It seems somewhat strange how the beginning of the incident seems to be cut, something had to start the incident. I think the police were more irritated by the fact that he was trying to create a disturbance. It's exactly like the behavior of the westboro baptist church, instead of picketing a soldier's funeral instead he's doing it at a gay pride festival. He appears to have a sign that's designed to provoke too.

The same could be said about the LGBT community who came out in their thousands ( much stronger than a man with a mic imho ). They could be said to come out on to the streets into a public space where a lot of people have a variety of beliefs and ''provoke''. But they were just exercising their rights on freedom of speech. That is exactly what this preacher was doing in a public space. I am only going by what I saw on the video and in the article. It is possible though that he was shouting ''hatred'' that led to the incident but making an assumption there would'nt be right seeing as we have no evidence that he did say anything like that.

I am just going by what I read and saw, thats it.

Bloodwing

Onesimus wrote: »

Although we acknowledge homosexuality as an act that is wrong. It is not a sin per se to be homosexual, just the act in itself and the agreement that it is ''right'' when it is ''wrong''.

Again, who or what gives you the authority to declare that homosexuality is wrong? Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong. I disagree with with the catholic church in every way but I won't be turning up at the church tomorrow with a megaphone. I guess that's because I'm more tolerant than the biggot in the video.

Snappy Smurf

Neilos wrote: »

Again, who or what gives you the authority to declare that homosexuality is wrong? Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong. I disagree with with the catholic church in every way but I won't be turning up at the church tomorrow with a megaphone. I guess that's because I'm more tolerant than the biggot in the video.

You'd probably be arrested. I understand that it is an offense to interrupt a religious service.

At an event like gay pride, there should be the freedom for anyone to have a respectful counter-protest. I personally wouldn't be bothered.

Onesimus

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Well the world is a cruel place. Perhaps it's best kept to a few trusted individuals and one's confessor? Even families can be very un-Christian when it comes to this issue - rejecting the person, even if they haven't acted out homosexually.

I think Catholics suffering from this problem should in no way bottle it in. I have met many Catholics who make it publicly known that they are homosexual. I think in so doing they become witnesses to the faith, that one can carry this Cross and still be Catholic. They become a witness to those other Catholics who are suffering with it and feel rejected by the Church.

Families will always reject you for any view you have. Much of my family rejected me and insulted me when I ''came out'' and decided to be a practicing catholic again. The thought of me even blessing myself before a meal in a public space to them was embarrassing and I used to get a lot of stick over it.

Onesimus

Neilos wrote: »

Again, who or what gives you the authority to declare that homosexuality is wrong? Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong. I disagree with with the catholic church in every way but I won't be turning up at the church tomorrow with a megaphone. I guess that's because I'm more tolerant than the biggot in the video.

What gives you the authority to declare the Catholic Church to be wrong? Just because you do not agree with us doesnt make us wrong. We have conflicting views. So what? Get over it already.

I have seen a youtube video of a homosexual man trespass on Church property and disrupt mass to proclaim his homosexuality. There is a difference between tresspassing on private property and exercising ones rights in a public space, which is exactly what this preacher did, he exercised his rights on public property.

Nervous Wreck

Onesimus wrote: »

What gives you the authority to declare the Catholic Church to be wrong? Just because you do not agree with us doesnt make us wrong. We have conflicting views. So what? Get over it already.

Neilos didn't declare anyone to be wrong in his post.

Bloodwing

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

You'd probably be arrested. I understand that it is an offense to interrupt a religious service.

At an event like gay pride, there should be the freedom for anyone to have a respectful counter-protest. I personally wouldn't be bothered.

It certainly isn't an offence to protest at any service, religious or not. There's a difference between a protest and interrupting a service. It's an offece to prevent anyone going about their business, even "the gays".

My issue isn't with this man having his little protest (bearing in mind we've seen none of what he was saying prior to the altercation), my issue lies with him and some people here declaring that homosexuality is wrong as if they are stating a fact.

AtomicHorror

newmug wrote: »

I just cant believe how acceptance of gayism has crept in and infiltrated everywhere so thouroughly. 10 years ago it was an insult to call someone gay. Now its seen as "brave" to "come out". This is not a Christian v athiest issue. Gayness is wrong, it always was and it always will be.

Well, I say "gayness" is right now, was always right and will always be right. We disagree on what right and wrong are. Now what?

Oh yes, I know: you point to your moral guidebook.

lmaopml

Neilos wrote: »

Again, who or what gives you the authority to declare that homosexuality is wrong? Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong. I disagree with with the catholic church in every way but I won't be turning up at the church tomorrow with a megaphone. I guess that's because I'm more tolerant than the biggot in the video.

The biggot in the video, is entitled to be a...... well 'biggot', I suppose, with a loud speaker, if you see him as such than that's what he is, just as much as any other 'biggot' who demonstrates on the day, but curses their way through putting their point across to him too.

Was he effective? I don't think so - was it necessary and beneficial - certainly not!....but truly neither were the demonstrators a very good representation for the homosexual community either - it was all a bit sad really.

Gosh, Christ is theirs too - every broken heart can approach him as long as it's honest, and you won't find him among the cursing crowd, whether you are homosexual or straight - and think that sex is what defines you.

Onesimus

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Neilos didn't declare anyone to be wrong in his post.

He said: ''I disagree with the catholic church in every way''

Corkfeen

Onesimus wrote: »

The same could be said about the LGBT community who came out in their thousands ( much stronger than a man with a mic imho ). They could be said to come out on to the streets into a public space where a lot of people have a variety of beliefs and ''provoke''. But they were just exercising their rights on freedom of speech. That is exactly what this preacher was doing in a public space. I am only going by what I saw on the video and in the article. It is possible though that he was shouting ''hatred'' that led to the incident but making an assumption there would'nt be right seeing as we have no evidence that he did say anything like that.

I am just going by what I read and saw, thats it.

First of all, the majority of people have moved on from homophobia so most couldn't give a crap about a gay pride rally. Note the word 'pride', the lgbt community have faced constant persecution because of their sexual orientation in the past. Might be worth reading up on the basis for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_pride
It serves a rather positive purpose that pursues equality and acceptance. It also encourage those that are gay to come out. While that man carried a sign that had an intention to offend as was pointed out by one of the crowd. Combating homophobia is inoffensive except for people who hold a warped opinion about it.

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

You'd probably be arrested. I understand that it is an offense to interrupt a religious service.

At an event like gay pride, there should be the freedom for anyone to have a respectful counter-protest. I personally wouldn't be bothered.

Sure, during the sixties, you could have the KKK visit a civil rights march. They're only airing an opposing opinion. And no, there isn't a difference. People would rightfully get pissed off as they did here.

AtomicHorror

Onesimus wrote: »

What gives you the authority to declare the Catholic Church to be wrong? Just because you do not agree with us doesnt make us wrong. We have conflicting views.

How exactly do we go about disagreeing with something without saying we think it's wrong? By saying "I disagree" and merely implying that we think it's wrong? I think you'd still be offended by the challenge. We need no authority to declare something wrong if we believe it to be so- we have a right to do so and it is very disturbing that you can't so much as tolerate that, let alone give the challenge serious thought.

Snappy Smurf

Neilos wrote: »

It certainly isn't an offence to protest at any service, religious or not. There's a difference between a protest and interrupting a service. It's an offece to prevent anyone going about their business, even "the gays".

My issue isn't with this man having his little protest (bearing in mind we've seen none of what he was saying prior to the altercation), my issue lies with him and some people here declaring that homosexuality is wrong as if they are stating a fact.

You can't go into a church or other religious building for the purposes of any kind of protest. You can try, but you will probably be forcibly removed and likely arrested. Protesting a religious service inside a religious building IS interrupting a religious service.

Bloodwing

Onesimus wrote: »

What gives you the authority to declare the Catholic Church to be wrong? Just because you do not agree with us doesnt make us wrong. We have conflicting views. So what? Get over it already.

I have seen a youtube video of a homosexual man trespass on Church property and disrupt mass to proclaim his homosexuality. There is a difference between tresspassing on private property and exercising ones rights in a public space, which is exactly what this preacher did, he exercised his rights on public property.

As Nervous Wreck said, I did not declare that the catholic church was wrong. Your entitled to your opinions, but it's important that you remember these to be opinions and not matters of fact, if you're going to express your opinion in a factual manner it's important that you provide evidence to support the supposed facts.

I hope that man that tresspassed on the church grounds was dealt with in the appropriate manner by the authorities because he had absolutely no right to trespass and disrupt the service.

Nervous Wreck

Onesimus wrote: »

He said: ''I disagree with the catholic church in every way''

That he did. What's your point?

lmaopml

AtomicHorror wrote: »

How exactly do we go about disagreeing with something without saying we think it's wrong? By saying "I disagree" and merely implying that we think it's wrong? I think you'd still be offended by the challenge. We need no authority to declare something wrong if we believe it to be so- we have a right to do so and it is very disturbing that you can't so much as tolerate that, let alone give the challenge serious thought.

The point should be considered vice versa too no? Or is that inconsiderable?

Nervous Wreck

AtomicHorror wrote: »

How exactly do we go about disagreeing with something without saying we think it's wrong? By saying "I disagree" and merely implying that we think it's wrong?

You say "I disagree."

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think you'd still be offended by the challenge. We need no authority to declare something wrong if we believe it to be so- we have a right to do so and it is very disturbing that you can't so much as tolerate that, let alone give the challenge serious thought.

What Neilos was saying is that simply saying that something is 'wrong' does not give your declaration any basis in fact. Declaring something to be contrary to your belief-system would be accurate. Declaring something to be 'wrong' is not objective proof of anything; it basically means nothing.

Snappy Smurf

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

You say "I disagree."

What Neilos was saying is that simply saying that something is 'wrong' does not give your declaration any basis in fact. Declaring something to be contrary to your belief-system would be accurate. Declaring something to be 'wrong' is not objective proof of anything; it basically means nothing.

Well the Christian would say that God has revealed the purposes of His creation, the pinnacle of which is man. God taught about what it is to be truly human.

The Christian and other people of good will would also look to the evidence in nature where they see that the design of the human race, male and female, is designed for the procreation of the species. The parts of the body are carefully designed and the male and female are made for each other - they are complementary in a way that two people of the same sex are obviously not.

Bloodwing

AtomicHorror wrote: »

How exactly do we go about disagreeing with something without saying we think it's wrong? By saying "I disagree" and merely implying that we think it's wrong? I think you'd still be offended by the challenge. We need no authority to declare something wrong if we believe it to be so- we have a right to do so and it is very disturbing that you can't so much as tolerate that, let alone give the challenge serious thought.

I said I disagree with it. I never said it was wrong for someone to choose to be a member of it. I'm sorry but if you're going to declare something to be wrong then it's expected of you to be able to expand on why it's wrong, otherwise I will treat our claims with the disregard they deserve. I'm a very tolerant person, everyone is entitled to an opinion and I accept that there will be numerous occasions when their opinion differes to mine. All I ask is that if someone decides to declare their opinion to be fact they at least try to substantiate the claim.

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

You can't go into a church or other religious building for the purposes of any kind of protest. You can try, but you will probably be forcibly removed and likely arrested. Protesting a religious service inside a religious building IS interrupting a religious service.

I really don't know where your going with this. Firstly i said I wouldn't be going down to the church to protest and secondly you cannot protest inside any building or private property, a religious building holds no special place in relation to that legislation.

Nervous Wreck

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Well the Christian would say that God has revealed the purposes of His creation, the pinnacle of which is man. God taught about what it is to be truly human.

The Christian and other people of good will would also look to the evidence in nature where they see that the design of the human race, male and female, is designed for the procreation of the species. The parts of the body are carefully designed and the male and female are made for each other - they are complementary in a way that two people of the same sex are obviously not.

You're ignoring words like 'fact' and 'proof' in my post and going off on a tangent about intelligent design (for which there is no proof, incidentally).

Believing in something is one thing; arguing it as a fact when it is not factual is quite another.

efb

The Free Pres protest was great at belfast pride last year! We were all going to hell!
Some lady once in Dublin was going on about holding a candle to your hand but the burning in hell would be a million times worse!

lmaopml

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

You say "I disagree."
What Neilos was saying is that simply saying that something is 'wrong' does not give your declaration any basis in fact. Declaring something to be contrary to your belief-system would be accurate. Declaring something to be 'wrong' is not objective proof of anything; it basically means nothing.

Yes, declaring something as 'wrong' means nothing to some who are consistent -

So think about that a little? No? How much has somebody who believes that nothing is good, bad right or wrong, or to feel or not realise in the slightest that they are just a living animal with other animals, giving a point of view got any particular weight at all? So no point in feeling it's all 'wrong'? Or are you pleading to something people should know? What?

If you are an Atheist that you are inline fully with nothing being right or wrong, even though you feel wounded by the wrongs done to you as a person, and also to others atheist, christian, or no - Well that's daft and inconsistent, because it's not wrong, and there is nothing better, there is nothing really wrong.

Snappy Smurf

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

You're ignoring words like 'fact' and 'proof' in my post and going off on a tangent about intelligent design (for which there is no proof, incidentally).

Believing in something is one thing; arguing it as a fact when it is not factual is quite another.

I'm a trained biologist and I know that there is an intelligent design in nature in as much as specific organs have specific purposes which can clearly be discerned through observation!

Chuck Stone

Attention seeking real life troll.

God loves you unconditionally*


*terms, conditions and eternal torture may apply.

efb

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Well the Christian would say that God has revealed the purposes of His creation, the pinnacle of which is man. God taught about what it is to be truly human.

The Christian and other people of good will would also look to the evidence in nature where they see that the design of the human race, male and female, is designed for the procreation of the species. The parts of the body are carefully designed and the male and female are made for each other - they are complementary in a way that two people of the same sex are obviously not.

what about the male prostate?

Bloodwing

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Well the Christian would say that God has revealed the purposes of His creation, the pinnacle of which is man. God taught about what it is to be truly human.

The Christian and other people of good will would also look to the evidence in nature where they see that the design of the human race, male and female, is designed for the procreation of the species. The parts of the body are carefully designed and the male and female are made for each other - they are complementary in a way that two people of the same sex are obviously not.

I would consider myself a person of good will and I would not look to the evidence in nature where you see the design of the human race. The reason I would not look there is because I would not find and evidence of design, I would find evidence of evolution. If we're so carefully designed then why are we all walking around with an appendix that serves no purpose other than to explode and kill us!! Further more there are a number of asexual species in nature where the lines between male and female are extremely blurred.

Corkfeen

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

You're ignoring words like 'fact' and 'proof' in my post and going off on a tangent about intelligent design (for which there is no proof, incidentally).

Believing in something is one thing; arguing it as a fact when it is not factual is quite another.

I'm a trained biologist and I know that there is an intelligent design in nature in as much as specific organs have specific purposes which can clearly be discerned through observation!

I doubted it the first time I read it but now my bull**** meter is off the charts..... So homosexuality is not present in the animal kingdom and people aren't naturally attracted to the same sex? It's perfectly natural and if you really are a biologist, you'd know it.

Nervous Wreck

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes, declaring something as 'wrong' means nothing to some who are consistent -

So think about that a little? No? How much has somebody who believes that nothing is good, bad right or wrong, or to feel or not realise in the slightest that they are just a living animal with other animals, giving a point of view got any particular weight at all? So no point in feeling it's all 'wrong'? Or are you pleading to something people should know? What?

If you are an Atheist that you are inline fully with nothing being right or wrong, even though you feel wounded by the wrongs done to you as a person, and also to others atheist, christian, or no - Well that's daft and inconsistent, because it's not wrong, and there is nothing better, there is nothing really wrong.

I'm sorry, your syntax is all over the place and I don't have a clue what you're on about*.

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

I'm a trained biologist and I know that there is an intelligent design in nature in as much as specific organs have specific purposes which can clearly be discerned through observation!

Apologies, I misread the way you meant that. Your point, as I see it now, is that a penis is made to go into a vagina etc. etc. (which happened because of evolution) yes? What does that have to do with.... anything?



*Genuinely not trolling btw, I really can't decipher that.

lmaopml

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Attention seeking real life troll.

God loves you unconditionally*


*terms, conditions and eternal torture may apply.

Would it be wrong to say...:o dear me...that an..


Asshole could drive by! Seeking thanks and backslaps is not exactly new on boards - yay!

AtomicHorror

lmaopml wrote: »

The point should be considered vice versa too no? Or is that inconsiderable?

Not in the slightest. Free exchange of ideas is the only path that makes sense. Onesimus wants to know from where critics derive the authority to do this. I say they need no such authority, irrespective of which side they stand on.

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

You say "I disagree."

But that implies that we consider something wrong relative to our values. Why are we obliged to say that we "disagree"? So that we make clear that the opinion we have voiced is just an opinion? Of course it is!

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

What Neilos was saying is that simply saying that something is 'wrong' does not give your declaration any basis in fact.

I'm not arguing with Neilos, I was replying to Onesimus. Of course stating something is wrong is not a very good argument in itself, but we don't need to be granted any "authority" to make the statement, however lacking in support it might be. If the statement is weak, dismantle it with argument. Don't deny that the speaker may make the statement.

How is this: In my opinion, the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality is wrong. Enough caveats for you?

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Declaring something to be contrary to your belief-system would be accurate.

It would be completely redundant- all such statements can be taken as being relative to a given set of subjective values. If you believe in moral absolutes then I can see how that would be confusing.

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Declaring something to be 'wrong' is not objective proof of anything; it basically means nothing.

I would say that declaring something is wrong is a weak statement, certainly. It's not backed up with argument or evidence. That's not what I'm arguing about though- I'm confused as to why Onesimus questions the right to disagree with him at all.

AtomicHorror

Neilos wrote: »

I said I disagree with it. I never said it was wrong for someone to choose to be a member of it. I'm sorry but if you're going to declare something to be wrong then it's expected of you to be able to expand on why it's wrong, otherwise I will treat our claims with the disregard they deserve. I'm a very tolerant person, everyone is entitled to an opinion and I accept that there will be numerous occasions when their opinion differes to mine. All I ask is that if someone decides to declare their opinion to be fact they at least try to substantiate the claim.

I was replying to Onesimus, who questioned your authority in disagreeing with his position. I'm confused- why do both you and Nervous Wreck seem to think I'm disagreeing with you?

lmaopml

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I'm sorry, your syntax is all over the place and I don't have a clue what you're on about*.

It's English, sorry you don't understand punctuation and 'syntax' pml..



And you expect people to know what you think is 'wrong' - because you think so, but you don't really know why except you think so. Nice reasoning.

The guy did a **** job, but he did deserve to be there and in fairness the crowd that were demonstrating had some fairly crap speakers who sought out the mike - not all homosexuals curse their brains out and hate Christians, very many count themselves as Christians with apparently an uphill battle against the holier than thou's.

Improbable

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

I'm a trained biologist and I know that there is an intelligent design in nature in as much as specific organs have specific purposes which can clearly be discerned through observation!

There's a lack of congruence between those 2 statements.

The statement that "specific organs have specific purposes which can clearly be discerned through observation!" is correct. But that in no way lends itself to your previous statement that this means it was intelligently designed. Evolution by natural selection very handily explains how that occurs without having to resort to the supernatural.

FYI, I'm a biologist too.