Are Lesbians Given A Pass?

Originally posted by FMF
RJHinds has chosen to make his son's homosexuality the forum's business and he has talked openly about it. I commend him for it.

That doesn't mean he has to be subject to anyone/everyone wanting to give him grief over it. It is still his right to decide to whom he responds about it.

Originally posted by Suzianne
That doesn't mean he has to be subject to anyone/everyone wanting to give him grief over it. It is still his right to decide to whom he responds about it.

I also think it is his right to decide to whom he responds about it. So we agree.

Originally posted by FMF
You may be unaware, but RJHinds decided to talk about these matters in public and he has referred to it many times and fielded questions on it before.

Goodness knows, Hinds has provoked enough people here himself--that's still not a reason to taunt him, or his son, and especially not below his son's belt.

EDIT: Suppose for the sake of argument that Hinds had a child with Downs Syndrome and an IQ of 60. Hinds fancies himself The Near Genius. Maybe you and some others here think it would be uproariously funny to taunt him about having an idiot child. Well I don't, and I think chaney3's comment in particular about his gay son going to hell dropped the bar of decency here so low that even a slug would have trouble squeezing under it.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
rj is it a sin to have homosexual feelings or only if you act on those feelings?

I may be wrong, but I believe it is a certain homosexual act that is the abomination. I will not describe that act because it is not appropriate to do so on RHP.

Originally posted by moonbus
... I think chaney3's comment in particular about his gay son going to hell dropped the bar of decency here so low that even a slug would have trouble squeezing under it.

Be that as it may, but there are many people here who propagate an ideology in which it is "perfect justice" that people with different beliefs from them will be tortured in flames for eternity and that this demented wrathful violence will in revenge for their thoughtcrime, so the bar is pretty low already ~ unless of course you have been rendered numb to all this by all the pomposity, self-anointment and sanctimoniousness going on here.

RJHinds, for example, has picked out an individual here and claimed he deserves eternal torture over a difference of opinion regarding doctrine/superstition. We don't have to like or agree with the kinds of things people like RJHinds and chaney3 say and yet we can support their right to freedom of speech nevertheless.

Originally posted by moonbus
Suppose for the sake of argument that Hinds had a child with Downs Syndrome and an IQ of 60. Hinds fancies himself The Near Genius. Maybe you and some others here think it would be uproariously funny to taunt him about having an idiot child.

What makes you think that I might find it "uproariously funny" to make fun of a child with Downs Syndrome? Which of my posts have led you to think such a thing?

Originally posted by FMF
Be that as it may, but there are many people here who propagate an ideology in which it is "perfect justice" that people with different beliefs from them will be tortured in flames for eternity and that this demented wrathful violence will in revenge for their thoughtcrime, so the bar is pretty low already ~ unless of course you have been rendered numb to ...[text shortened]... ke RJHinds and chaney3 say and yet we can support their right to freedom of speech nevertheless.

There is a difference perhaps in making such comments about a user of these forums and a member of someones family. (Both i happen to find distatseful, but more so when it comes to someone's family, even if they have chosen to disclose information about them). Freedom of speech should at least come with some basic consideration and decency.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Freedom of speech should at least come with some basic consideration and decency.

I believe it is usually a wiser and more effective exercise of freedom of speech when it involves some appropriate consideration and decency

Originally posted by RJHinds
I may be wrong, but I believe it is a certain homosexual act that is the abomination. I will not describe that act because it is not appropriate to do so on RHP.

'it may be wrong'

do you think the bible is unclear on this point?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
are you worried by the prospect Palfie? been drinking too many shandys, lager and lime?

i wont take any advice from a so called heterosexual who is afraid of his wifes vagina.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
There is a difference perhaps in making such comments about a user of these forums and a member of someones family. (Both i happen to find distatseful, but more so when it comes to someone's family, even if they have chosen to disclose information about them). Freedom of speech should at least come with some basic consideration and decency.

Proposed Geneva Convention regarding the Treatment of Prisoners at SF

1. Forum members only shall be subject to mud slinging.
1.1 The President of the United States, and former Presidents of the United States, shall be subject to mud slinging (whether or not they are forum members).

2. Family members shall enjoy diplomatic immunity.
2.1 If a family member is also a forum member, then clause 1. applies.
2.2 If a family member is also President of the United States, or a former President of the United States, then clause 1.1 applies


All in favor say, "Aye!"

Originally posted by FMF
What makes you think that I might find it "uproariously funny" to make fun of a child with Downs Syndrome? Which of my posts have led you to think such a thing?

It was an analogy for mocking Hinds for having a gay son. And it was directed specifically at chaney3 who was out of line for the comment he made in that vein and anyone else who thought his comment was not out of line. I assumed that anyone with a lick of sense would see the analogy and apply the wisdom of it in his own case (insofar as applicable).