While this wasn’t the way to expalin that homosexual acts are sinful I still support freedom of speech.
What happened to this country? The West is turning it’s back on it’s heritage, it was the Christian faith that built Western Civilization and now it seems they are so determinded to undo over 2000 years of history. 
If he is a Protestant, he wouldn’t be explaining to them that they are only guilty of mortal sin if they
In Protestantism, all sins are mortal sins, unless you accept the forgiveness that Christ gives, through faith only.
Just saying, since it sounds like the guy might not be Catholic. 
According to the Catechism, they will be judged according to acceptance or refusal og grace. But the guy should be entitled to his style. I hope he went by some whorehouses too.
Western society is shooting itself in the foot by stifling the ability to debate issues which impact on morality and religion. All just in case someone gets upset. It is happening in the U.K. Canada, Australia and the U.S.
Read what this fellow has to say about it all.
In this case it’s the same thing.
Homosexual sex is a big sin.
They know it’s a big sin because the Church has been saying so for ages.
They want to do it, because no-one is holding a gun to their head in order to force them to do it. Does sex drive or lust count as a mitigating factor?
I would say that Catholicism has more sins than Protestantism.
Lord Wolfenden.
When homosexuality was legalised in England and Wales in 1967 there was a moral uproar stating that homosexual adults will prey on young boys so the age of consent was set at 21, in 1994 it was lowered to 18 and then in 2001 after a mass protest via the LGB community (who were all middle aged) the age of consent was lowered to 16.
I hate to sound like a bigot (and may God forgive me if I do) but it looks like they were right back in the 1960’s, it did eventually become legal that people were trying to prevent.
News Update
Michael Overd cleared of verbally abusing gay men in Taunton
I’m all for free speech, even if it is hateful or obnoxious. BTW, I think you might want to rephrase that last statement.
Lord Devlin was a member of that Wolfendon Committee. He was against its findings. In the 1960s Devlin entered into a famous debate with Utilitarian legal Philosopher H.L.A.Hart. You can read about here.
At the time, it was considered that Hart ‘won’ the debate. Since then, it is widely believed that Devlin was right after all.
His argument centred around the role of government in legislating on moral issues. he pointed out that almost all laws have a moral basis. He considered that government decisions on such matters should be based on what the ‘common man’ considers to be right, just as the tests for the common man are used in civil and criminal law cases. He argued that morality is the glue that holds civilisations together and, once fractured, those civilisations are white-anted from within and eventually fail.
What happened?
That is what happened.
Your ancestors let the fight get beaten out of them (I suppose fighting back would have caused offense to someone), and today Blighty can boast of being the worlds first PC police state.
I truly and I mean truly feel sorry for anyone living there.
I hope to live in the USA one day.
What I meant above was that people said legalising homosexuality would lead to adult men preying on young boys and that is what became legal in 2001 when it became legal for adult men to have “Intercourse” with 16-year old boys.
Why? In most Protestant denominations contraception is not a sin. Not attending Church service every time is not a sin. One can do a private Bible reading at home.
Divorce is not a sin. Confession is not a requirement for sin forgiveness.
And so on…
We are more strict. It’s a fact.
Note that I am not for free speech when it is hateful. First of all saying one is committing sin against God is not hateful or obnoxious. It simply isn’t. Of course no-one should force another person to listen to them. The Public Square is open to all but no-one has a right to ram their free speech down my ears. I am against free speech when it is hateful. When it says something like “Homosexuals are all child molesters!” or “Homosexuals are vile, pigs” or even worse “Homosexuals should be x…” where x is something violent or bad. That is hate and violence inciting speech. I don’t need that. And I don’t need to see “The God Delusion” which implies that I am psychiatrically ill although no psychiatrist will confirm that (and you’d fail your Psych Board Exam if you gave that as an example of a delusion) - it is hate speech - it means religious people are mentally ill and should be marginalised but is not a scientific statement yet it probably dresses itself as one.
Saying one is committing terrible sin is not hate speech. Saying one risks going to hell is not hate speech. But expediting that process in some suggestive way through speech is hateful and wrong. It’s also anti-Christian and I am against this. Jesus did not mock people. He spoke the truth but did not mock or insult them. He also did not encourage His Disciples to do this either. If people don’t listen, shake the dust off your sandals and leave, instead of swearing, cursing, calling them nasty names etc.
Then you are against free speech entirely.
I agree. Who defines what is “hateful”?
Freedom of speech requires allowing others to say things we find distasteful. No one needs freedom to say things that everyone likes.
I wasn’t specifically referring to this incident as hateful or obnoxious, although now that you mention it, it perhaps does qualify. What I meant is I include hate speech in general as protected by the Constitution. On the other hand, freedom of speech has certain constraints as well, including inciting violence, panic, etc. The courts often decide on such matters.
With regard to your statement that Catholicism has more sins than Protestantism, I meant that on the surface it reads as though you mean Catholicism is more sinful than Protestantism. My attempt at humor!
Surely yes. But as our understanding of the impact of speech on people grows we do realize that words have meanings some of which can affect people quite significantly. When one denigrates another person in a very callous way, it can affect people. We may all be equal under the law and freedom of speech with major restrictions may exist but that still allows for serious harm toward others. Harm which is not only intrinsically bad but which also is harmful and unnecessary. We know for example that psychological torture may be as bad or worse than physical violence. Also it would help if religious people were specific whenever they condemned sin. Say “homosexual SEX” is sinful, not the fact that one is attracted to their own sex. Don’t say gay or homosexual per se because those are synonymous with same sex attraction. People do however perceive this as attacks on themselves as persons. They’ll say “we’re born this way and we can’t help it that we like other men…” but that’s OK, what the problem is, is the actual acting out of their impulses, and so on… All to often non-Abrahamaic people believe that they’re being condemned outright the way a racist condemns a black man or a misogynist condemns a woman because she is a woman, and not because most women are just worse at some jobs (and men worse at others, and there is scientific evidence for this), etc.
With regard to your statement that Catholicism has more sins than Protestantism, I meant that on the surface it reads as though you mean Catholicism is more sinful than Protestantism. My attempt at humor!
I get you. ;)
I have an MP3 here I ripped from a CD, can I post it online. Will the FBI mind? Free speech?
Or how about I post 3 pages of NYT Top 10 books in my daily paper, each day? I’m sure it would boost sales. Oh and you say it’s copyrighted? But suppose the copyright holder doesn’t want his book in my paper no matter how much money I throw at him? What if he already has an exclusive agreement with Amazon? Right…
So I can also post insulting anti-religious speech which sounds convincing because I’m a biology professor, is blasphemous and will lead weaker or more easily swayed people to become atheist? You want that? Or will you dedicate your life to post counter arguments for the sake of free speech? You won’t? And all those poorly catechized people - who cares, my “secular free speech at all costs”* argument is most important, the 10 Commandments be damned, right? Ok.
Books like The God Delusion. I don’t know about you but I see this book and Hawkin/Mlodinow’s latest book in most bookshops and on window displays, yet I don’t see books arguing against them. They’re not just as popularised. Well yes I’m sure these books and that exercise of free speech is leading people away from Church and God. And perhaps they could read a fine counterargument but it’s just not there. It’s sitting at Amazon.com somewhere buried deep in results.
Free speech with responsibility, friend.
Also to add, religious speech as delivered in a church service or the Bible is not hate speech. When a Jehova’s Witness tells me that I am going to hell for my Catholic beliefs I don’t consider it hate. I just don’t agree with him. But when someone in a public square tells me that I am a moron, a bigot, a pervert or a criminal, well I do take exceptions. Right?
I can think of just such a biology professor in the US, with a very popular blog, who fits that description. And he has engaged in deliberately provocative, blasphemous actions. But I wouldn’t want his free speech curtailed.
Even if I don’t choose to dedicate my life to combat what he posts, that isn’t my responsibility. However, collectively Christians would be responsible for countering his faulty arguments. Not necessarily by going to his blog and challenging him, but by engaging in polite discussions with non-believers or those who have doubts.
I agree with you that free speech comes with responsibility. And speech which leads others to act violently needs to be curtailed. I can think of one semi-prominent radio host sitting in prison right now because he advocated murdering a judge and read out her home address. Two weeks later, her husband and son were murdered at home. I think inflammatory speech, which can reasonably be assumed to lead to violence, requires intervention.
But do people have a right not be to offended by the public speech of others? I can think of many political commentators who say things on television or radio which offends me. But they have that right and taking away their freedom would do harm to the common good.
In a recent thread here, we discussed an Indian law (and a court decision backing it) which required Internet sites to take down religiously offensive material. Given the simmering religious conflicts in India, this law seems reasonable. However, in the case of the UK, I think the gay couple simply should have avoided or ignored the street preacher. The UK doesn’t have a culture of religious violence, so despite being offended the gay couple wasn’t being threatened.