I'm not sure I follow that. It's one thing to say that homosexual acts are sinful and forbidden by the Bible--because that's what the Bible says. It's quite another to say that homosexuality is nothing but a wicked lifestyle choice and that homosexuals are evil predators trying to recruit our children. The Bible doesn't say that.You're clearly not qualified to speak about hate as you so easily confuse it with irreverence .
We also know some of those folks are simply autistic, and in their youth, are being convinced they're trans. They then embark on this permanent journey only to realize that wasn't the root issue they were trying to deal with, and now they're left with psychological changes that almost certainly condemn them to a life devoid of romance & companionship.
And no one is allowed to talk about this. These truths are deemed hateful, when the real hatred is letting people embark on this path with rose tinted glasses, oblivious to the path ahead. That's hatred.
How about letting the kids and the family decide rather then demanding that we be hateful and bigoted to them? Your hatred of reality doesn't change it.
The "letting the kids and family decide" is a double-edged sword.
I understand what you're saying, but the "let the parents decide what should be taught to their kids" is the exact same argument the other side uses when wanting to justify teaching something hateful to their kids.
For instance, when a parent pulls their kid out of public school and tries to homeschool them (even though the majority of parents aren't equipped to teach...not meant to be an insult, just simply stating a fact) simply because they don't like that public schools teach evolution or something else that goes against religious beliefs, that's an example of "letting the family decide" that could have a negative impact on the kids rather than a positive one.
Obviously there should be a tamping down on the kinds of teaching and rhetoric that directly lead to and incite abusive behavior, but vaguely worded laws can be problematic.
There's a massive difference between a church saying "we prefer traditional marriage", and the kind of stuff Westboro/Phelps used to do.
The issues with the "let the child/parents decide" is that there is a meaningful policy need to make sure that random religious strangers can't enforce laws on other people that prevent certain choices from being made based on a religious objection (when it's got nothing to do with them)
...the flip side is that the concept can't be so vaguely worded and applied that we drift over the line of common sense, like with some advocates in the US who are suggesting that we should allow 3-9 year olds to make the choice on whether or not they want to start hormone replacement therapy and take puberty blockers, and suggest that any objection to that idea amounts to "hate".
If a policy is constructed well, the extremes on both side should hate it lol.
True, but the point of puberty blockers is to let the child decide rather then force them into a decision that's worse later on.
Ok. But who would preach that in church? Seems odd.For instance that homosexuality is nothing but a wicked lifestyle choice and is not innate in any way, or that homosexuals are predators trying to recruit our children, things like that.
No, that's false. Jesus also defines marriage in the New Testament as when a man leaves his father and mother, cleaves unto his wife, and the two become one. If He meant, "Any two people", He would have said so and there would be confirmation elsewhere in scripture, as every word is confirmed by two or three witnesses. That is not hateful, any more than "do not defile the marriage bed" and stick only to your spouse is "hateful".It is not 'the rest of the stuff' for me. The scriptural stuff is enough - and is hateful. It all comes from the Old Testament and from St Paul. The Gospels have nothing to say on the subject.
What people do together is nobody's business but their own. It is presumptuous for one lot of people to presume to dictate to another lot who do not share their beliefs.
Many right-wing fundamentalist Pastors and Televangelists. it would surprise me a bit to learn that it was being taught at religious extremist institutions like Liberty or Bob JonesOk. But who would preach that in church? Seems odd.
https://www.christiantoday.com/arti...yL8ZZm7VKqIYoiM-ThN4qdMmpgvdUPnuDvmzhtReEdlnI
What do you think brothers and sisters?
Abusive behavior meant to stir up hatred against particular groups of people should not be tolerated in a just and humane society.
True, but the point of puberty blockers is to let the child decide rather then force them into a decision that's worse later on.
But I do agree as that would easily allow for circumcision of males and females under that, or conversion therapy and other stuff I would disagree with, but it's a hard balance. There is something to be said about way too many people getting their noses in other people's medical procedures. Try getting a vasectomy when young, as many people and even doctors will say, "You will change your mind." and such.
Didn't the UK just rule against puberty blockers for children?
It makes sense....children can't consent to sex, cannot consent to a drink of alcohol, cannot consent to any number of more benign choices we agree should only be made as adults.
Why then would we allow a child to consent to potentially life altering drugs at a young age for a condition that isn't life threatening?
Why?
There's a slogan that the Black Lives Matter crowd pushed during the most recent protests. It was abbreviated ACAB (and I can provide numerous examples of this if you want) which stood for "All Cops Are Bad"....except the last word isn't typically "Bad" it's an expletive that refers to a fatherless illegitimate son.
Would you support a law against such hate speech and, as they now do in some European nations, throw the offenders in jail?
It certainly meets your criteria for stirring up hatred against a particular group of people.
No, that's false. Jesus also defines marriage in the New Testament as when a man leaves his father and mother, cleaves unto his wife, and the two become one. If He meant, "Any two people", He would have said so and there would be confirmation elsewhere in scripture, as every word is confirmed by two or three witnesses. That is not hateful, any more than "do not defile the marriage bed" and stick only to your spouse is "hateful".
High suicide rates is not life threatening?
In the case of criticizing police, they are part of the government, and critique of the government is an established right in a liberal democracy.
Lol so is criticizing your fellow man. It's called freedom of speech.
It's a bit bizarre that you find the horrible abuse hurled at a person who wears a uniform and works a job completely acceptable.....but you think that the average person on the street deserves better.
I never said I found abuse acceptable, merely that there should be limits on what the government does about it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?