• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin

I think we get it twisted when we combine the right to say whatever you want with the viability of the content of the message or dialog plus the venue inwhich we use to convey that message or exchange dialog.

In other words, was what this preacher said wrong? No.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them [men] have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Similar wording is found in 1 Corinthines 6 -

9.Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived : neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10.Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

So, what this preacher said according to the word of God is correct.

In other words....yes, the Bible states this and this is what the preacher was quoting. It was true to what the bible states, not whether you believe it or not or whether the statement in and of itself is true or not.

Was where he said it wrong? According to the article he spoke in a public place which is not against the law.

self explanatory.

Did how he say it violate the law? According to the police community support officer, the preacher allegedly "made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others". What what exactly does that mean? Was it as the preacher said that he had finished giving his surmon when he spoke with a passer-by and perhaps others overheard his quite, but casual conversation? Is that the wrong that was committed?

According to the article, "the Public Order Act, introduced in 1986 to tackle violent rioters and football hooligans, is being used to curb religious free speech." So, is it possible this preacher was being persecuted and this law is being used as a tool to shut him up?

All the man was saying is this guy wasnt arrested for really disturbing the peace or whatever. The cop didn't like what he was saying, so he arrested the dude and that is wrong.

Folks, we really need to stop being so touchy. No one is telling you to believe this or that or anything like it.
 
See! Now, there U go again prejudging.

No. I'm judging you on what you said. You don't like that though, do you?

I'm on the preacher's side.

How do you know I'm not?

And who said that in order for one to be persecuted they had to be put to death in the process? Slaves were also persecuted, and whipped, nad their civil rights violated, but many lived to tell about it including those who were beaten.

Are you actually equating those things with having your posts debunked on an internet forum? Oh, the soul-crushing agony of persecution by logic.

:doh

My point concerning the preacher is simply this: His voice was silenced not because he broke the law, but because of the content of the message he spoke of.

No. He was silenced because he broke the law IN ENGLAND. I don't personally support those laws, no matter how wrong-headed and stupid I believe the preacher (and those like him) to be.

that was more in affect to reel in rowdy crowds at local high school football games than for people of God trying to preach their message on peace, love and harmony in a public venue where apparently they had a right to speak under the law.

Spare me the love of Jesus. The message he was sharing was one of hate and intolerance towards gay people in the guise of his religious views...views that I personally consider archaic, backward ass, and stupid.

The law is stupid. So was his message. Do not mistake my defending his right to speak with me condoning his message. His (and your) messages about gays and lesbians are abhorrent, repugnant, and socially retarded. I don't care that they're biblical, the Bible is an archaic document that belongs in the dungheap. We'd be far better off as a society without these silly archaic prejudices.

Nonetheless, the U.S. is a better system than the British system because people have unrestricted freedom even to put out viewpoints that I find personally disgusting.
 
Last edited:
Say what you will about Christians, non-Christians scare me more, simply for the fact that "nothing matters" and "the ends justify the means" type of rationale.

You really know nothing about non-believers aside from the bogeyman stories that someone has told you, huh?
 
Technically the officer was in the wrong, but my sympathy for the preacher = zero. For years the religious right has repeatedly acted to deny gays equal rights, so when the law is used against a preacher for acting like the dickwad he's grown so comfortable being in this nation, I admit I get a small chuckle out of it.

So you believe the anal cavity is a sexual orifice rather than the orifice for expelling waste?
 
So you believe the anal cavity is a sexual orifice rather than the orifice for expelling waste?

Are you trying to indicate that only gays are drawn to the sweet chocolate tunnel? A lot of gay men don't even have anal sex. They rely on oral sex and manual stimulation for sexual contact.

And, since the mouth is an orifice for eating food, rather than sexual contact, oral sex would be out for you, as well, right? I mean, we'd want to be consistent, right?
 
Last edited:
No. I'm judging you on what you said. You don't like that though, do you?



How do you know I'm not?



Are you actually equating those things with having your posts debunked on an internet forum? Oh, the soul-crushing agony of persecution by logic.

:doh



No. He was silenced because he broke the law IN ENGLAND. I don't personally support those laws, no matter how wrong-headed and stupid I believe the preacher (and those like him) to be.



Spare me the love of Jesus. The message he was sharing was one of hate and intolerance towards gay people in the guise of his religious views...views that I personally consider archaic, backward ass, and stupid.

The law is stupid. So was his message. Do not mistake my defending his right to speak with me condoning his message. His (and your) messages about gays and lesbians are abhorrent, repugnant, and socially retarded. I don't care that they're biblical, the Bible is an archaic document that belongs in the dungheap. We'd be far better off as a society without these silly archaic prejudices.

Nonetheless, the U.S. is a better system than the British system because people have unrestricted freedom even to put out viewpoints that I find personally disgusting.

Yep, another unbeliever.
 
So you believe the anal cavity is a sexual orifice rather than the orifice for expelling waste?

I would like to nominate this as the most over the top bit of stupidity of the month. Not only does it have nothing to do with anything, but he actually thinks he is making a point, instead of just being hysterical.
 
Yep, another unbeliever.

You know what's nice about non-believers? We're logical, and we defend our arguments logically. Additionally, no matter how stupid and offensive I find your beliefs, I still would fight to the death to protect your right to have them.

Would you extend the same tolerance to me?
 
In my view, I think the Police Officer acted unreasonably in arresting the man on this offence. The appropriate response would have been to advise the man against making such pronouncements loudly in a public place.

The Public Order Act exists for very good reasons, but preventing people from expressing their religious views is not one of them. I think this is a case of overzealousness on the part of a police officer - it happens in every society.

But what we do not know, are the circumstances surrounding the arrest. How reasonable and/or cooperative was the 'preacher'? Remember, he had just been delivering a sermon from the top of a step ladder, in a shopping mall, and presumably made the remark that homosexuality was against the word of God, from that vantage point. This is qualitatively different from a quiet conversation between two private individuals.

Remember also, that the man delivered a twenty minute sermon to the police officer who was charging him. Precisely what a completely sane individual would do under those circumstances? :rofl So I think there is a lot more than has been reported to this incident.
 
As I suspected, you prefer the conservative slogan "NO NO NO NO NO NO NO *plugs ears*"

Difference of opinion I guess!

Did you ever develop a sense of humor? Ever?

On topic though...this is ridiculous and I am glad we aren't at this point in the US. First of all, reciting a passage from a book is not hate speech. I don't care if it is the Bible...reciting Corinthians is no more homophobic than reading a "nigger" passages from Huck Fin are racist.

Secondly, freedom of religious expression trumps anyone's right to not be offended. In fact, there's no right to not be offended. Religious expression is a fundamental human right.

It's sad to hear about what's going on in England.
 
Did you ever develop a sense of humor? Ever?

On topic though...this is ridiculous and I am glad we aren't at this point in the US. First of all, reciting a passage from a book is not hate speech. I don't care if it is the Bible...reciting Corinthians is no more homophobic than reading a "nigger" passages from Huck Fin are racist.

Secondly, freedom of religious expression trumps anyone's right to not be offended. In fact, there's no right to not be offended. Religious expression is a fundamental human right.

It's sad to hear about what's going on in England.

It's funny seeing you of all people talk about hate speech.
 
Are you trying to indicate that only gays are drawn to the sweet chocolate tunnel? A lot of gay men don't even have anal sex. They rely on oral sex and manual stimulation for sexual contact.

And, since the mouth is an orifice for eating food, rather than sexual contact, oral sex would be out for you, as well, right? I mean, we'd want to be consistent, right?

Is that so? Do you have any statistics on that?
 
So you believe the anal cavity is a sexual orifice rather than the orifice for expelling waste?

You ever kiss someone? Engage in oral sex?

Yeah, thought so.
 
Roughly about 25% of heterosexual men have engaged in anal sex with a woman and about 10% of women have had anal sex.

How many regularly indulge? Yes, many people have tried something once or twice.
 
How many regularly indulge? Yes, many people have tried something once or twice.

That is as a practice. Tried it, then you go up to 40% of men and 35% of women with condoms being used 29% of the time.

It also depends on the society. The Dutch are straight up freaks and love the hershey highway. Koreans, not so much weighing in at 3.5%.

A study in 1997 places the prevalence of anal sex as a practice among homosexuals in America to be between 57.6% and 62.1%.

Gay men aren't doing anything that straight men don't do or wouldn't do more often if women would let them.
 
You know what's nice about non-believers? We're logical, and we defend our arguments logically. Additionally, no matter how stupid and offensive I find your beliefs, I still would fight to the death to protect your right to have them.

Would you extend the same tolerance to me?


I extend that tolerance to you every time you speak on the topic of religion. I dont agree with you. But like you, I will defend your right to say what you want about it.

The only thing I personally get upset about with you, is you can't just simply say that you do or dont believe something. You have to say something derrogatory about the person who's saying something in the process, calling them stupid and various other words ive seen you post in this and many other threads. That is the only thing that frustrates me. If you dont agree with something fine...say so and leave it at that.
 
I"m not a big fan, but most of my younger friends engage regularly. And they're in committed relationships/married.
 
The only thing I personally get upset about with you, is you can't just simply say that you do or dont believe something. You have to say something derrogatory about the person who's saying something in the process, calling them stupid and various other words ive seen you post in this and many other threads. That is the only thing that frustrates me. If you dont agree with something fine...say so and leave it at that.

Please. Link to the post where I called someone stupid. I've called their ARGUMENTS stupid. NOT the person. If you ever see me call an individual on this forum stupid, please feel free to report me.

Note: I did call the preacher stupid. But he doesn't post here, and I doubt he'll read it. If he does, he can identify himself and get me gigged for personally insulting him.

If you're going to be on the internet posting stupid arguments, best not to get all butthurt when someone calls you on it.
 
Last edited:
I extend that tolerance to you every time you speak on the topic of religion. I dont agree with you. But like you, I will defend your right to say what you want about it.

The only thing I personally get upset about with you, is you can't just simply say that you do or dont believe something. You have to say something derrogatory about the person who's saying something in the process, calling them stupid and various other words ive seen you post in this and many other threads. That is the only thing that frustrates me. If you dont agree with something fine...say so and leave it at that.

I don't think her tone is any different than when the religious, as a practice, say derogatory things about the people engaging in what they see as "sins". There isn't much distinction between the insults of "stupid" and "morally bankrupt". :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom