Dear_fellow_posters..

Chainsmoker.. ur not progressing, :) ur missing the point of this thread. (yes..I do enjoy the company though both for and against).

Here is 'the point'. IF.. you said “Boaz, ur a stupid evil Christian, just like the rest of your mob”

It is hate speech and legally actionable.

If I said “Chainsmoker..I think you are a prize dill , just like the rest of your secular mates” it's just opinion.

Why the heck do we need some secretive 'Star Chamber' like cloister of inHuman Rights subversives adding laws according to their own very discriminatory and biased opinions on what constitutes 'hate speech'?

Foxyness :).. you raise the other side of this whole question.. YES.. “If” I want to be free to preach/study/educate people along the lines of Romans 1 and also to make such information known in the public sphere, why shouldn't Muslims be free to do the same with their own faith?

ABSOLUTELY...... My 'psychopathalogical' issue with all this is ..(now..focus please :).. how the HR law is applied in a selective and discriminatory manner primarily against Christians!

So, people can be free to express, teach, promote their faith or morality as long as those of contrary views can also, including vehement criticism of those values, without fear of the law.

A Catholic Bishop Frederick Henry who defended traditional_marriage!
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/mar/05033001.html

Clearly 'Christian' religious teaching is increasingly being supressed by law. That is totalitarianism.

If HR law is about protecting 'feelings' then based on what I'm called here regularly I'd set up a permanent humpy at VCAT :)

Illegal acts, calls for destruction of named classes of people, and immoral acts are open to criticism in a free society, even if they are only immoral to 'some' members of that society.

Sharkfin.. need to mention something about your post.

If Homosexuality is a birth defect? Imagine this, "Paedophilia" something gone wrong such that people believe they are 'predisposed' to that area of life. Of course we prohibit it, by law.

The issue with Homosexuality always and inevitably comes back to the moral relativism on which it is based.
If for example we accept the Islamic viewpoint that 'puberty' is the age when sex is acceptable (though in Islams case, it means marraige) then obviously the Gay lobby will want the age of consent to be 'puberty'. Because clearly if a 'child' is capable of reproduction, she/he is capable of all the associated mental processes and responsibilities.

There is absolutely no moral prohibition of sex between much older individuals and much younger. Mohammad 53, Ayesha 9.. just as an example without making any value judgement on that here.

Thus, Nambla who are always seeking a lowering of the age of consent, do so for this very reason..moral relativism. I.e.. if there is nothing but the 'law' preventing mature men/young boy(child) sex, then the solution is:
a) Change the law.
b) Change public opinion.

So, this raises the horrendous possibility that given time, Nambla will succeed just like Rodney Croome and his associates did in Tasmania. 20 yrs is all it took.
They had to be prepared to be arrested and jailed for promoting 'gay rights' information at a public market...and indeed they WERE arrested...but now? Go figure.

Our biggest challenge in all this is 'perspective'. We absolutely MUST look at 'time' and how things are changed.

The Law is simply the means by which people gain acceptability for some behaviors and unacceptability for others.

Re the topic of this thread, we now see criticism of homosexual behavior as 'unacceptable'..... So, what's caused this? 'activism'!

chainsmoker: << You're trying to teach a pig to sing, as the saying goes. It's a waste of your time, but at least the pig enjoys the company. >>

Thanks maaaaate - you're quite correct of course :) However, the process of porcine singing lessons is quite entertaining in itself, and I am at heart an animal lover.

I also note that even your comment elicited a bit of a warble from our very own Napoleon :D

"Chainsmoker.. ur not progressing, :) ur missing the point of this thread."

Since when have you been the arbiter BD of who's progressing or not progressing and who's getting or not getting the point of your narrow-minded little threads or any other thread for that matter?

Chainsmoker was making an aside to another poster which we are all perfectly entitled to do. I'm sure he's as interested as most of the rest of us in getting involved in another one of your many rants on the evils of homosexuality. Oh alright I know that's not the point of the thread, the point is free speech.

Well let me give you my opinion on free speech. Freedom of speech should always comes with the responsibility not to offend and hurt others. The power of free speech should never give people the right to slag off indiscriminately at whomever they want. The issue of whether or not that slander is supported by a religious document is irrelevant.

Once again, the irony of you dictating terms of speech to others in a thread you've started and stated specifically is all about free speech, is obvious to all but yourself.

post script:

On today's "Insiders", on TV, it was mentioned the Pope, presumably a Christian, has provided sanctionary to the Bishop of Boston, whom himself protected paedophile priests. US legal authorities seemingly are after the Bishop. I did/do not hear any cries from Christians condemming the Vatican. Why so quiet?

If the Australian Potestant Churches are serious about real sexual deviates, they should be "in the Pope's face" during his visit on the issue.

All,

- Should Protestant Archbishops slam the Pope in the media on this matter? Should the Media slam Christian leaders, who like Simon and Garfunctal, "The Sound of Silence":

Relatedly:http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol5No1/media%20versus%20church.htm

Boazy, Christian leaders and Christians, like the Pastor you cite, will know Matthew 7.5:

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Source, Christ, J. (c. 32 CE) in Matthew, Bible KJV

Paelophilia amongst Christians, with a due of care towards children, Boazy, that is a real issue.

Regrads,

O.

Hi David, thank you for your answer to my post,

“We now see critiscism of homosexual behaviour as unacceptable, so what caused this activism”.

I can see that saying that homosexuality is a birth defect would lead to activism for acceptance. I also said that as a birth defect it should be regarded as not normal.
This is an enormously difficult area for the church leaders in trying to have compassion but at the same time saying God did not intend this to be the natural order of things. Some church leaders instead of speaking with compassion get all inflamed and vilify these people as though their sin was murder. Their will always be church leaders who do not counsel in the wise and compassionate ways of Jesus.
There will always be homosexuals who do not take even being told in the gentlest way that in the eyes of God, it was not the intended order of his creation.