homosexuality and where it stands morally

[emprworm]

It's up to the judge to decide if someone is out of line when it comes to statements like that.

and there is the utter failure in your law. There is no objective law, only the subjective whim of a judge. Do you not think that is too much power to give someone?

I believe it is fair and necessary for all citizens to have an objective, clear standard of what is legal and what is illegal.

To give a judge the legal power to deem the statement:

"I believe homosexuality is wierd" as criminal simply based upon his personal moral biases, is an abomination to your country.

If your laws allow for this kind of summary subjective judgment, i fear for your country.

A man says to his friend: "I dont like blue eyed girls. I only date brown eyed girls."

Blue eyed girl overhears and is offended.

Police arrest.

Judge is a girl who has blue eyes (and a personal bias against men). Verdict: GUILTY!

Netherland Law: no recourse. Authority is granted for judges to subjectively decide what is legal and what is illegal. No written law governing their determination. Absolute power given to the judges.

Is this what you really want?

[nampigai]

I agree with you emprworm to some extend, and I can see your point, however when you say that we should have the total freedom of speech I disagree, Denmark is a mekka for organisations illegal elsewhere and that's one thing that I'm ashamed of.

[VigilVirus]

Verbal discrimination is a part of freedom of speech and therefore is lawful, but afterall, what country has freedom of speech?

The US "freedom of speech with limitations" is a joke in itself. How can a freedom have limitations??

Example of freedom of speech with limitations:

"You can only say what we want you to say or you will die!"

[Caid Ivik]

And why is it vile? Try to come up with any argument that is not based on religion.

When you do it as adultery? Homosexual partnership can't be sacred as classic. If they live as partners, but without sexual point, it is acceptable. But when it comes, it's vile adultery.

[Anathema]

Any person can appeal against a sentence.

Do you not think that is too much power to give someone

No, I do not. Our judges aren't as repugnant and corrupt as yours.

According to you, Adolf Hitler had every right to state his opinion. And that's the danger.

[emprworm]

freedom of speech is limited to other laws. their are unrest laws and disruptive laws that prevent you from saying anyting you want any place you want.

example: yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is illegal. Not because your opinion is being regulated, but because you are causing civil disruption.

direct threats against someones life are also illegal because of harrassment laws.

having an opinion, however, is not illegal and should never be.

[Anathema]

example: yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is illegal. Not because your opinion is being regulated, but because you are causing civil disruption

Sigh.

The guy was an imam! His statements are bound to cause civil disruption! In your system, this would thus be punishable.

[nampigai]

again if I said I think jews are the source of all evil and they should all work in concentration camps, then that's my opinion. IMO this sentece should be enough to through me to jail.

[Caid Ivik]

So, propagation of inhumanic societies (or societies preventing to talk anything) is illegal.

[VigilVirus]

again if I said I think jews are the source of all evil and they should all work in concentration camps, then that's my opinion. IMO this sentece should be enough to through me to jail.

It is rediculous to be jailed for an opinion whatever it may be. Only people living in tyrannical and communistic societies could be jailed for that.

[nampigai]

I'm sorry but IMO a man standing before masses saying what I just typed before, is a dangerous man. But then again I don't believe in total freedom as I said before.

[Acriku]

I believe that the only way to be born homosexual is to have an imbalance of chemicals and you wind up with more opposite sex chemicals. Other than that, you either make your decision subconsciously at an early age, or just started liking men due to perhaps an experience in your life. Evolution-wise, it is totally bad. It is against the core instinct of survival, since you survive through the reproduction of your species. The first type of species is born and the last of the other species (the mother that just gave birth to the new species, a boy and girl) dies a year later with no other births. That species dies, but two new ones are born, and can mate since they are male and female! But wait, the male is homosexual and doesn't mate with the female, letting another species go extinct. Homosexuality is the weak link, not fit for survival, and thus in evolutionary terms is bad.

In my opinion, I tolerate homosexuals, but I don't accept them. I do accept homosexuals though who only do relationships with love, not lust. The lust is sickening, disgusting, and yeesh.

[VigilVirus]

I'm sorry but IMO a man standing before masses saying what I just typed before, is a dangerous man. But then again I don't believe in total freedom as I said before.

Well, using that smae principle of which you speak - jailing men for their opinions - people could be jailed just for standing up against an unjust tyranny.

[Inoculator9]

I have no problem personally with homosexuals. My friends, and I use the term lightly, from my home town call people gay when they dont like them. This has more to do with their parent's opinions then their own though. I believe that everyone is welcome to their own preferences.

But freedom of speech is a two sided coin. Muslims speek out against Jews in America everyone gets pissed. Were the government to tell the Muslims they couldn't do this, everyone would get pissed. Also if we want to speak out, then why shouldn't everyone else have the right to aswell? I hate Nazis, and were they ever to appear in my town I'd probably try to assassinate their leader, but if pressed I could not deny there right to speak in a world like our own. For denying a Nazis right to speak would be denying your own. But that wont stop me from kicking the shit out of them.

[Acriku]

Yep the right to speech lets anyone say anything more or less, and we can't silence them, but we can sure make up some consequences for them saying that ;)

[nampigai]

that's how you interpret it?

[emprworm]

The guy was an imam! His statements are bound to cause civil disruption! In your system, this would thus be punishable.

no. it depends upon WHERE he says it. We have a guy in the US named Lewis Farrakhan that says that kind of thing constantly from behind his pulpit, on his own property. you cannot punish that. you just cant.

if he were to start saying that in a public market, then you could punish him for civil disruption.

[nemafakei]

Er... "Are you so weak, that you cannot withstand someone's opinion?"

You might well say that, but in this context, the government is not protecting themselves, but minorities of society.

Your right to free speech does not extend to lying. If you honestly believe that it is unjust if civic buildings are not painted purple, then you can say it, yet if you're just saying it, and it is likely to cause chaos, then you are in the wrong.

Your right to free sppeech does not extend as far as that you would use it to deny others of rights.

[Dude_Doc]

The power of words and philosophy is dangerous. Hitler got the majority of the german people to believe he was right. On that time, there weren't mutch racist toughts. Every country had its national socialism. Germany was first to conquer other countries with it. Yes, I agree that saying what you want is right. But when people starts to believe in your ideas of maybe how the world should look like, which race is supperior to the other, and in some smart way trough words, convincing people to it, then you get dangerous. However, if you want to believe in Hitler and his ideas, sure, go ahead. As long as you don't cause me or any other people harm, your toughts is free to go.

Anyways, I think that gay and lesbian people shouldn't be bothered. There are so much else pain in the world, that small problems like homosexuality and bisexuality is just redicolous. Gays should be free to do whatever they want to do at home. It's their life, not ours.

(oh, mind: I'm not gay or bi :P)

[VigilVirus]

Er... "Are you so weak, that you cannot withstand someone's opinion?"

You might well say that, but in this context, the government is not protecting themselves, but minorities of society.

Your right to free speech does not extend to lying. If you honestly believe that it is unjust if civic buildings are not painted purple, then you can say it, yet if you're just saying it, and it is likely to cause chaos, then you are in the wrong.

Your right to free sppeech does not extend as far as that you would use it to deny others of rights.

True. Let everyone have freedom and what we shall have? Anarchy!

[Anathema]

I think a person has the right to do everyday business without being scowled at on the street. Imams like these prevent that.

[emprworm]

people do not need to be personally harrassed. but harrassment is defined as someone seeking YOU OUT.

if a guy is publishing hate speech on his webiste that says "People with brown hair are EVIL!" and YOU SEEK OUT HIS WEBSITE, you have no right...NO RIGHT at all to demand that his opinions be squelched.

if he follows you around while you try to access public areas, then YES you can press for criminal conduct.

if he is giving his opinion to his friend in public and you OVERHEAR HIM, then too bad. just move along. If you decide to STAND AROUND AND LISTEN TO HIM, then thats your problem.

If he is giving his opinion on his property and you live in another city and hear about some guy saying "people with brown hair are evil" on his property, and you dont like it...TOUGH. Wake up. Life isn't here to serve your every beck and call.

If he comes to YOUR PROPERTY and starts spewing his hatred at you...then press criminal charges against him.

[Terror]

i do not have problems with gay people

but if i said now that everyone can become gay if he wants goes a little far... then i would lie.

It's not natural and cuz of that i think it's a bit strange, and i do not encourage it. But if someone wants to be gay.. so be it.. i cannot change it. If he or she is happy because he/she's gay then who has the right to stop that? Noone.. you are boss of your own body and noone can/should change that.

I am glad that gaymarriages are allowed now here. Otherwise it just wouldn't have been fair

[TMA_1]

personally I think it causes many problems in society. It is age old and by many cultures but not all has been looked upon as wrong. Only when cultures become worldly do most of them accept things like homosexuality. IMO I think it is unnatural. I do have friends who are gay and lesbian but they know my stance on it. I dont not compramise my beliefs. The lord will judge, not me.

[Inoculator9]

Well think about it this way. God doesn't approve of sex that doesn't result in a visit from the stork. Obviously homosexual marriages or acts don't. So that is what I think the logic behind anti-gays in the Church is.