Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Awol, Dec 23, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Being the loving son that I am, I spent today doing work on my parent's house keeping the rain out and making sure they remain nice and toasty over the winter. In return, the old dear insisted on slapping a meal in front of me and as I'm one of those people that cannot eat unless I'm reading something, I ended up reading the Daily Mail. (That's my excuse anyway).

    The 'End Of The World' headline today was about a devout christian couple who had the audacity to put out leaflets in a public place pointing out that homosexuality was against god's teachings and was sinful in their eyes and also, presumably, sinful in the eyes of fellow christians. The local council swiftly called the Old Bill and the pair of them were then interrogated for a couple of hours and warned that they were a hair's breadth away from being charged for promoting hatred or whatever Plod do these days to people suspected of hate crimes.

    This got me to thinking....Apart from the lunacy of fashion (forty years ago, the State would have banged up the homosexuals, not their critics), is being critical of homosexuality a hate crime? My personal instinct is that liking someone who has wobbly bits the same shape as your own is more than a bit 'unnatural', but it is undeniable that men that 'like pink' are natural beings. But then so are peadophiles, sheep shaggers and, so they tell me, Richard and Judy.

    So the question is, should we treat the persecution of gay folk as we do the persecution of different races; ie recognise that any prejudice is unreasonable and bigoted because people should be judged by who they are, and not on their genetic make-up? Or should we, just to be safe, drown them all?

    Finally, is criticism of a lifestyle a hate crime, is it reasonable that this old couple were scared shiteless as they were 're-educated' by the agents of the State and is protecting the feelings of those of a 'flamboyant bent' more important than free speech?

    Link here..
  2. I wouldn't consider it a 'hate crime'? This particular case can be described as two devout Christians so absorbed in their faith that they believe handing out leaflets in a crowded street is the right thing to do. If on the other hand, they were pulling homosexuals in to dark alleys to beat them to within an inch of their life 'just because' they are homosexuals, then I would consider that a hate crime. In my humble opinion, these two bible bashers are indeed living life with their head firmly planted in between their own buttocks. Again, not a crime, but having my own head buried deep in my arrse hole is something I am guilty of on occasion. Luckily, I am surrounded by fellow human beings who, with complete respect for my well being, educate me and perform the surgical procedure of head/bottom removal, so that I can once again see the light.

    Live and let live is too simple a rule to live by.

    PS. I like cheese sandwiches.
  3. Rhetorical question (not intended to start a flame war): Would the old Bill have arrested a Muslim couple for doing the same thing? Especially as the Koran is even more forthright about this than the Bible, and many Muslim countries tend to take it rather literally...
  4. Much as I cannot understand how any sane chap can find the thought of shoving his todger up the poop chute of another man anything other than repulsive, I do find the argument that it is against God's teaching frankly ludicrous!

    If that were the case, none of us would eat pork, wear two different types of cloth at the same time or many other stupid rules that you can find in the same book of the bible as the one that forbids marmite mining.

    I'm not having a go at AWOL here, just pointing out the ridiculous.

    Tubs :D
  5. So the thought of it being against the teachings of a fictitious being is ludicrous, but being jailed for saying it isn't?
  6. If God is going to sort out who has been good and who has been bad on Judgement Day, why do religious types feel the need to fulminate against people for doing things that are, while religiously naughty, otherwise legal and harmless to others?
    That said a politely British "My God isn't too keen on that sort of thing, sorry." shouldn't be out of the question, it's when things get to the American Evangelist (i.e. Fred Phelps) sort of nastiness that I think that the Jackboots of the State should meet the testicles of the fundamentalist.

    Mind you I have always wondered why if "God hates [word meaning items of firewood]" why did he create them in the first place? Creating people jsut to have them stoned to death is, frankly, sick.
  7. Sorry, 3rd bottle of Shiraz obviously making me less clear than I wanted to be...

    Both suggesting that it is wrong merely because of the bible is as ridiculous as being arrested because you are "guilty of a thought crime"

    What happened to the old adage of "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to be a c*nt."?

    Let them put up their posters as long as they don't eat shellfish or touch a menstrual woman...
  8. The couple in question were not handing out leaflets in the street, their local council was allowing Gay leaflets to be distributed on council property, the Christian couple merely asked permission to put Christian leaflets there too in the name of equality. Someone in said council complained and Christian couple were interrogated for 80 minutes by the police. The same police force that has one of the worst clear up rates in the country. It is not about Gays and Christians, it is about the fact that the police are being used to enforce a political dogma, it doesn't matter whether you agree with the council or the bible or whatever, what happened here is truly sinister and just one of the many examples of the death of freedom of speech in this country. A woman on a radio phone in had a similar visit for daring to say that Gay males shouldn't adopt male children. Personally speaking I don't care what they get up to in private, but should a male child be placed with gay people? Would they let two heterosexual men adopt a female child? Or should adoptions only take place in a normal family environment? All valid points for discussion, all in danger of being labelled a Hate crime under the Neue Arbeit thought police programme.... Where does all this lead?
  9. I think I'd be more open to the idea of criticism of gays
    if there were not still cretins who think a nights etertainment is gay bashing.

    although I did hear a heart warming tail last year about a pair of these hero's who went down the local crusing site armed with a baseball bat only to find themselves confronter by about 50 bloke.
    apprantly the baseball bat ended being used as a dildo on them! bwhahaahaha
    try reporting that as a hate crime
  10. AWOL wrote
    Like it or lump it, the legislation ref gays has been through the 2 Houses and is law. Therefore, persecution of gays is the same as persecution of any other lawful (and law-abiding obviously) group. Illegal. Those who feel they need to show prejudice may do so but should not cry or blame the police if their actions are judged unlawful - again in the light of the laws of this country. Deciding on a personal and individual basis which law should be complied with and which needs no observation, is the short road to chaos.
    Don't like what has changed? That's OK. Power of the ballot, petition MPs. Just do it so that your dogmatic opinions do not impinge upon mine which are equally genuine and worthy to me.
    Just for old times sake - I would never have voted for any gay rights. Just so long as they stay away from me and mine, I live within the law. I even adopt what I call reverse apartheid that keeps me away from them (and those of dark pigmentation but that is another story)
  11. Nothing dogmatic there then.
  12. I was about 14/15 when the law permitting Concenting Adults to perform in private was made law.
    I was a round a mates house with a couple of other lads for we where going out to Cinema.
    My mates dad was in watching BBC TV when the annucement came on. He was a pit miner and old salior WW II,
    Right Look you Lads the've just made it legal in my time !
    In yours they'll make it COMPULSORY.
    YES MR. SMIFF we all said with a strieght face.
    When we got outside we all fell on the ground laughing.
    Does the Bible ban Pork ?
    The first Muslim I had a serious talk with, a Pakistani (Brunei 79) told me there is nothing in the Koran forbidding Alchohl. He was a devout person very upset about the Iranian Revolutionary Guards desecrating the tomb of the old Shah of Iran.
  13. Don't get me wrong, it must be quiet a blow when a man wakes up to realise he's a screaming bender with no more right to live on Gods clean Earth than a weasel, still why should I complain? it just leaves more rampant totty for us real men...
    A slight misquote from Blackadder III there but sooner or later that will be banned and the likes of Little Britain will no doubt be threatened by hate crime legislation. When does humour and genuine criticism become a hate crime, should there be a knock on the door and an 80 minute police interview when no law has been broken? Is this the price we must pay so that blokes can bugger each other and try to pretend it's normal? (It's a one way valve guys!!) But then again... rampant totty and real men springs to mind again! Fortunately I do sympathise with gays, I myself am a screaming lesbian, cruelly trapped in a mans body...
  14. OldRedcap-almost agreed with your post, until you spoke about reverse apartheid, including those of a"dark coloured pigmentation." Playing with words is fine, but you're a bigot. What's more, you're a bigot who dresses it up, which is worse!
  15. Live and let live is the way I look at things, mother nature has all this little humours tricks up her sleeve to make the world a more interesting place. The only fly in the ointment is the Church that wishes to control all aspects of ones life. Just look at what these people have gone through because of the Church and if they had a chance to change their ways all those years ago do you think they would have taken it. Now I am not a brown hatter and have desire to be one as I am quite happy playing around with orifice that mother nature designed for a male to play with. But if look on just how the the Christian church and Muslim Religion treat these people and still have not stamped out this practise of turd burglary then why not let them get on it