Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If you believe that sexually depraved speech which promotes and leads to sexually depraved behavior is some kind of "right", then you're supportive of that cause.
Now that it's been established that your belief that homosexual child molesters have some supposed "right" to talk about raping little boys and putting out literature supporting their cause, where does this supposed "right" come from?
Both the right of free speech and the right of assembly derive out of the first amendment of the constitution. And once again, pointing out that you have to treat all speech the same is not supporting any type of speech.
The men who wrote that document didn't believe that sexually depraved speech was some kind of right (as you recall, Thomas Jefferson proposed legislation that would castrate male homosexuals. If it were known that homosexuals organized a group and put out literature supporting man-boy sex, there is no doubt in my mind that the penalty would have been death).
Judicial activists who said that abortion on demand, pornography and homosexuality is a supposed "right" have perverted the 1st Amendment to included sexually depraved speech.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Need we go over again how you're against laws enforcing prior restraint and how those laws prohibit immoral organizations from forming and hence doing harm to innocent individuals?
I never said I was against laws enforcing prior restraint. This is another of your misrepresentations. I simply pointed out that the courts have to treat all speech equally and cannot restrict speech except under very narrow circumstances. A line that sometimes NAMBLA has been able to walk, along with Nazis and other reprehensible groups.
So that I don't misrepresent you again: Should prior restraint laws be used against NAMBLA and their supposed "right" to promote man-boy sex and their publications that support adult-child sex?
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Your smear campaign against people who stand for decency is nothing new. When AFTAH's Peter LaBarbera exposed the SMUT that goes on within LGBT 'culture", instead of defending their depravity, they called LaBarbera "Porno Pete".
Peter LaBarbera is an American social conservative activist and the president of the anti-gay organization Americans for Truth about Homosexuality. Wikipedia
Like all true followers of Christ, Peter LaBarbera loves those who enbramce sin, in this case people who have same sex desires and engage in homosexual acts. He loves them so much that he's devoted years to helping those people out of their culture of death by exposing the homosexual behavior and the child molesting LGBTQ movement.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I don't run from child molesting perverts Kit, I fight them. Hence the reason for exposing them and attempting to change the corrupt system of law and injustice here in the US.
I agree, too bad you waste so much of your time in an overly generalized attack on all gay people instead of focusing on the child molesters specifically.
AS I've pointed out in previous scenarios given to you and Arthur Brain, indoctrinating children to the way of sexual perversion is "molesting" the minds of children.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
What size of millstone do you take Kit? I'm guessing pencil-neck small.
You are the one reading and promoting NAMBLA publications and promoting treatments on children that are considered unsafe perhaps you should ask the question of yourself.
Pencil-neck small it is.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
How about when you're out on that street corner with your sign that you put a little asterisk * at the bottom that says:
*While I don't endorse the murdering of homosexuals, I defend the right of those who do to speak openly about it and start organizations that promote their cause.
I'm sure that little asterisk * will smooth things over with those ever so tolerant free speech loving homosexuals that see your sign.
Any sign I carried would correctly represent my views both on the subject of speech, child abuse, and hate groups.
Except that we're on the subject of supposed free speech and how according to you it is a First Amendment right to promote violence against others, in this case beating up and even murdering those who identify as homosexual.
I can and have discussed such subjects in the other forum and had quite friendly interesting discussions. So I am not worried at all about it.
Please copy and paste one or two statements from those other forums (you can leave the 'gay' porn pictures out) where you stated that promoting speech and organizing groups that endorse violence against those who identify as homosexual is a supposed right.
So how about you put your money where your mouth is and go down among 911 survivors at the NY Fire Department with a sign expressing your view of Father Judge. Be sure your health insurance is paid up.
If I ever become involved in a discussion about Father Judge, I will let the people know that according to very reliable sources, he wasn't a homosexual as LGBT activists portray him to be.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Regarding "reprehensible speech must be treated the same as all other speech" :
Thoughts on homosexual 'hate crime' laws?
I disapprove of them in general,
But not when it comes to protecting LGBTQ people.
they smack too much of thought crime.
There are laws on the books (menacing, etc.) that make it illegal to harass or threaten people, even the proud and unrepentant moral degenerates of the LGBTQ movement.
Being that "thoughts" in and of themselves can't be criminalized (one has to speak or act on those thoughts), the purpose of homosexual related hate crime laws is to give those who engage in what has been proven to be a changeable behavior, special rights.
