? I dont know what you mean. it's an important topic and I've even started threads on LGBT+ issues in the past.

I won't bring up the topic ever again, as per my agreement with WN.

But I will defend myself against false accusations.

I made it easier to read for you, tightlag. Seemed easy to understand to me but I get that formats affect individuals differently.... ya kno, like quotation marks.

,,,,and now you might share your views....?

As far as I know you’ve started one thread on the issue, posted a couple articles and this was in pu, not politics.

Do you think lagtight's statement, a pretty standard statement of the conservative Christian view on homosexuality, is hate speech?

But maybe dont let the troublemakers jerk you around and get you to do what you dont want to do with their name calling thingy. Treat it with the respect it deserves.

As of this moment I am done with the topic of homosexuality other than to defend myself against false accusations.

Are the Mods on board with this?

Point is I have absolutely no objection to the topic and think it's an important one.

I do think there should be rules on what people can say when it comes to harmful speech against vulnerable groups

So you know a person that is gay whose behavior you find offensive. Do you know how many hetero people engage in offensive behavior?

I find it so disheartening when people try and label a sexual preference as offensive because of one bad apple. I think two consenting adults have the right to love one another however they choose, whatever their gender. I worry about the haters, not the lovers. With the current spate of violence that is being leveled against transgender people, murdered because of who they are, no matter that who they choose to be, to love, doesn't affect your life at all, it is even more egregious to cast aspersions on a whole group of people because of the inappropriateness of a single individual.

Life is hard enough without stooges discriminating against people because of who they identify as. It's their life, their body, their decision. No one gave you a vote in the matter, nor are you entitled to one.

And boy, did you ever!

I think it's verging on it although it's tricky because we also try to protect religious views. So in UK law it's not the sort of thing than can be covered by the hate speech laws because of the specific higher bar for religous views.

That may well be correct. I'm ok with the UK law at the moment but it's still evolving.

Edit: perhaps I should add that I would never expect this level of anonymous comment aimed at no-one in particular to result in police action.

I actually don’t believe you when you say you want to protect vulnerable groups. I haven’t read the forum in a long long time but you have a documented history of alienating almost every lgbt poster and every woman who regularly posts in the threads you do. I’m actually sorry to say this but it’s true. I also think your perceptive enough to understand this. Have you ever wondered why there is so little diversity of people and thought here?


On the other hand , I know lagtiggt believes his own views.

If you are unwilling to engage in sex with a homosexual, then you are by definition a homophobe. End of discussion.

Desire, I have to go so note that I criticized his behavior , not his sexual orientation.

I’d co-sign this as well.

Looks like chez found a new friend!

Thank God for the First Amendment. I have no desire to evolve into banning religious speech.

Great, a scofflaw-inducing law, another mark against hate speech legislation.

Thanks, SpewKing!

I'm sorry about that.

If it ever changes anything about what is harmful speech, what posts should be allowed, what the laws should be etc etc than let me know. If you just want to attack me then that's fine as well.

I am living proof that this statement is incorrect. I have never been sexually attracted to someone of my gender but that is just how I am wired. Anyone that knows me knows I am not homophobic, nor do I tolerate being in the presence of anyone that is.

Maybe.

Here's a UN based definition of hate speech. Debatable no doubt but do you have any huge objection to this even if you think it should all be legal.

Link is a PDF
https://www.un.org/en/genocidepreven...20SYNOPSIS.pdf

So, saying "Christians are stupid" is Hate Speech?

I don't have any preferred definition of hate speech, so this is fine. Nor am I disputing your claim that saying homosexuality is a sin is hate speech. I am opposed to making it illegal for religious people from expressing their religious views and I'm suspicious that hate speech legislation is trying to backdoor this kind of ban.

Ok but recognising a definition of hate speech and supporting hate speech laws, does not mean thinking all hate speech by that definition should be illegal. Nor is all hate speech equal. It's a complex issue.


Sure but very mild. A bit like saying that someone travelling a tiny bit over the speed limit is speeding. Yes they are but it would rarely be called out by a passenger and it's not the same as harmful speech against LGBTers which, in the analogy, is like driving much faster than the speed limit.

Context matters of course and in a time/place where christians are persecuted then it is more serious than it is in the west at this time.

I don't think ANY speech should be illegal, unless it specifically advocates violence against groups or individuals.

Slander and Libel also should be illegal.