In a private place maybe. In government funded public arenas? I disagree.



That's not the kind of thing I'm advocating. People should be able to do what they wish in their own homes. If they want to hang swastikas on the inside walls of their house then I have no problem with it. It's when that sort of thing leaves their private lives and starts infringing on others'.

I'm big on freedom of speech... just not in public areas.

This post was edited by Scaly on Oct 18 2014 07:57pm

I would never discriminate against someone or even be rude to someone who has sexuality issues. I do disagree with the left that these people are 100 percent healthy though.

Call it whatever you want, a sexual identity disorder or disease, but a healthy sex drive consists of a guy liking gals vice versa. Something went wrong if it's anything else imo. Sexuality is supposed to lead to offspring. Biologically the male and female parts fit together and serve an obvious purpose.

LOL

you just did.

You know that is like your opinion man.

You say sexuality is supposed to lead to offspring. Well I just cannot trust a man who thinks blowjobs are bad.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 18 2014 08:01pm

...advocating no freedom of speech in public areas , what a hoot

Loving the spin on this. What happened is the city passed an anti-discrimination measure and the pastors that are being subpoenaed are part of a group suing the city after they tried to repeal the ordinance through a referendum, the city threw out a lot of the signatures, so they sued them in response. Part of open discovery in litigation, they're requesting the sermons to prove their case on throwing those signatures out. I'm sure some of you can figure out what that means when a church is using their sermons to push a political agenda. Thing is, they changed the wording and are focusing specifically on the instructions they were issuing their members.

So if anyone is actually violating the separation, it's the pastors in question. They opened the door by suing the city.

This post was edited by Arsenic_Touch on Oct 18 2014 08:16pm

Not no freedom. Just restrictions on activities which are damaging to others.

It may sound ridiculous to someone who is used to the American ideas of freedom of speech but we already have these laws in the UK and they work quite well for us.

for example -

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

and

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress. A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence.


In the end all I'm advocating is a restriction on the freedom to hurt others. There are already many laws in America which prohibit that... indeed most every law is put in place to stop one party from harming or infringing upon the rights and freedoms of another.

This post was edited by Scaly on Oct 18 2014 08:20pm

the plot thickens

Lots of freedom haters here...not even going to waste my time given that several people in this thread are far too gone. Your ideas are dangerous and I would not shed a tear if you were executed.

That's as politely as I could put it. I've never talked to someone with those problems about it.

As long as it's a women that is a healthy sex drive.