We have one debate going on about Akermanis statement.

In view of the vicious and unfounded attacks on him subsequently, it might be of value to examine just how insidious is the attack on our freedom to even debate such things.

THE UK
This will take a bit of work on your part folks..but it's worth it.

SEQUENCE.

1/ There is a general trend world wide, under pressure from the U.N. and gay lobby (Maurice Strong is in this as well) to repress any hint of non acceptance of homosexual behavior as 'normal'.

-PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986 SECTION III

Criminalized'inciting racial hatred'.

-RACIAL and RELIGIOUS HATRED ACT 2006

added "religious orientation" to section 3 of the PUBLIC ORDER ACT

-CRIMINAL JUSTICE and IMIGRATION ACT 2008

added "and sexual orientation" to the hate speech provisions of the POA

AMMENDMENT. Lord Waddington (Lords) added an ammendment to the effect of protecting free and robust speech on the issue of sexual orientation as follows:

After section 29J insert—

“29JA Protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation)

In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”

-CORONERS and JUSTICE BILL 2009 tries to add "CLAUSE 61"

61 Hatred against persons on grounds of sexual orientation

In Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) (hatred against persons on grounds of sexual orientation etc), OMIT SECTION 29JA (protection for discussion or criticism of sexual conduct etc).

*BINGO*.. and there you have it. Communist Jack Straw's attempt to stifle free speech of the type WE HAVE BEEN HAVING in the other thread.

DISCUSS.

ALGOREisRICH,

The more secular a society becomes the more comfortable they become with all sin. This includes sex outside of marriage, killing the unborn, pornography, idolatry, lying, cheating and homosexuality. Anyone whose conscience is not seared knows these things are all wrong. Thankfully God sent His Son to die for all mankind despite their mocking and self righteousness.

What you are trying to do is convince people filled with secular dogma that what they say is wrong and what you say is right. I agree that when it comes to some areas no matter how lovingly you say it that some secularist try and stop free speech. This is generally because they are insecure and hate their dogmas being challenged. They want to enjoy their sin and pretend that one day they wont be held to account.

ALGIR
"...homosexual behaviour as normal..."

It is normal for the person who is homosexual Al even if it is not normal (as in 'most common', 'the usual', 'the majority) among the wide spectrum of human beings.

Normal refers to what is the norm. It does not necessarily imply anything wrong or negative. I read somewhere recently that the most widely drunk beverage in the world is beer, followed by tea. It is normal for people to prefer beer, however there is nothing amiss if people prefer a different beverage.

There is no infringement on free speech in any of those clauses only laws against discrimination and hate speech that might stir up violence towards any one group based on race or sexuality.

There is no point in saying that homosexuals are not normal - the fact is homosexuals exist indicating a wider spectrum of human characteristics than you imagine. There is a wide spectrum of what can be termed 'natural' and even on the feminine/masculine scale there are many who hover in the middle area whether it be based on hormonal variations or other genetic factors who can say. And does it matter

Pely

you said:

"There is no infringement on free speech in any of those clauses"

Mind answering a simple question ? :)

When Lord Waddington called for the ammendment which GUARANTEED free speech in the form of 'robust conversations' and even criticism..which equally apply to Hetero sexual orientations....

Then LABOUR wanted to REMOVE that simple bit of freedom......

WHY....would labor want remove something which only guaratneed 'conversation and criticsm' .. as our law says.. "in good faith and reasonable" or. "in the public interest" which their law does not have.

Why? why would labour want to remove an ammendment which guarantees the right to criticise ?

Since when is 'criticism' incitement to hate ? (Really..I want to know)

Al

Criticism is not an invitation to hate unless it is done with the intent and purpose to incite violence against those with different sexual orientation. In the case you talk about the law was not changed - your free speech is still protected.

However, where do you draw the line in relation to violence. If the hate speech contributed to a death can it be used in a Court of Law as aiding and abetting or as inciting violence.

I know there are fine lines on this issue. But free speech does not mean we hold no responsibility towards the safety and rights of others.

The good thing about free speech, is those who engage in hate speech (not criticism) tend to dig themselves into a big hole by their own prejudices and at least their motives are transparent for all to judge.

You have not answered my question about your issues with homosexuality?

runner>>The more secular a society becomes the more comfortable they become with all sin. This includes sex outside of marriage, killing the unborn, pornography, idolatry, lying, cheating and homosexuality.<<

runner, I am surmising that you are a fire and brimstone kind of person.
I agree with your thoughts...mostly.
Religious adherence stabilizes society by inhibiting actions contrary to the religious teachings, we do the morally wrong things less, we don't stop completely, but the recidivist percentage goes down.

The point of difference I take is the addition of the fagotty guys and lesbian gals to your list. I can only gather that you have never really known a person who is homosexual. In exactly the same way that you as a heterosexual are psychologically drawn to and aroused by the shape and the demeanor of the opposite sex, so is the homosexual drawn to their own gender. It is not a lifestyle choice, its god giving another poor sod an extra cross to bear. God gave us, above all other creatures a free will, and from the fruits of our application of that will we are to be judged.

Homosexuals do not have a "free will" choice in regard to their sexual orientation, as most priests do when they take advantage of their position of power to seduce boys. Boy molesting priests should be in your sights not consenting homosexuals.