• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Christian Voice - The most dangerous group in the UK?

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...34567
nearly_all_gone
SILVER Member since Aug 2004

nearly_all_gone

Pooh-Bah
Location: Southampton

Total posts: 1626
Posted:Written by:
They have taken on Jerry Springer: The Opera, the BBC and are now are planning to tackle abortion clinics. So who are Christian Voice?

Plenty of people have things to say about Christian Voice. John Cryer, MP, called them "fundamentalist thugs". The moderator of the United Reformed church calls them "a disgrace".

Their controversial protests against the "blasphemy" of Jerry Springer: The Opera involved publishing the home phone numbers of BBC executives. They also persuaded cancer charity Maggie's Centres to turn down a 3,000 donation from the show, threatening demonstrations.

Now they are planning to take on abortion clinics. So who is behind this group?

They are a small protest network, led by Stephen Green who describes himself as ex-Anglican and ex-building trade.

The heart of his mission is to return Britain to the 1950s. Back then, he says, it was a Christian country. Ever since, it has been turning away from God and sinking into immorality. Mr Green says he can cite 57 laws that have corrupted Britain in that time.

The "blasphemy and profanity" exemplified by Jerry Springer: The Opera are only two of his concerns. Others include familiar evangelical targets such as divorce and homosexuality; he has a particular concern over gay police. Less obvious enemies include globalisation, GM crops and the EU ("an antichrist totalitarian regime").


This kind of treatment is exactly what our Lord Jesus Christ said that those who follow him should expect
Stephen Green
He is currently angered by the royal wedding, which he condemns, whether in church or registry office.

"Colonel and Mrs Parker Bowles should have been divorced for adultery, but they weren't because that would have been too embarrassing," he says. "So in the eyes of God they are still married."

He likens Christian Voice to John the Baptist who preached against the incestuous marriage of King Herod.

"We're saying to the Prince of Wales: 'You cannot have your brother's wife.' This woman is still married to someone else."

Mr Green has been leading Christian Voice for more than a decade, without causing much of a stir, and became its first full-time employee only 15 months ago.

He is cagey about membership figures, but indicates that they are more than 600. By way of comparison, the Evangelical Alliance lobby group represents about a million Christians.

Notoriety

The new prominence of Christian Voice seems to be largely a matter of good luck and good timing, although depending on your position it may be the influence of the good Lord.

It had previously led anti-blasphemy campaigns targeting the BBC, the Sunday Mirror, Peter Tatchell, and the play Corpus Christi.

But in complaining about Jerry Springer, it had an enemy that caught the imaginations and consciences of a large number of Christians, so it was able - by a viral e-mail and letter campaign - to mobilise the phones of many people not usually connected with Christian Voice.

Mr Green has then multiplied the impact of that campaign through the offence caused by his choice of soft targets. First Christian Voice gained major media coverage when it was reported that BBC executives received death threats after he published their home numbers.

Now the cancer charity Maggie's Centres has turned down a donation from the opera, and Christian Voice is heard loud and clear again.

The publicity that came to Christian Voice over the reported death threats was obviously unintended, but Mr Green is clearly eager to capitalise on his notoriety, using it to get his anti-abortion protest on the front pages.

Yet, when I suggest to him that Springer has been good for Christian Voice, he is ambivalent. He does not seem to have been inundated with money and new members, but has had plenty of threats and abuse over the phone. (Mr Green's website is, to be fair, as free with his own phone number as he was with others'.)

"This kind of treatment is exactly what our Lord Jesus Christ said that those who follow him should expect," he says.

On the other hand, when I tell him of John Cryer's statement that Christian Voice are "fundamentalist thugs", he seems rather to relish this kind of persecution.

'Disrepute'

"He ought to wash his mouth out with soap and water," he declares. "He should withdraw those comments or resign. He brings politics into disrepute."

But he talks neither in anger or sadness - he laughs heartily and seems to be enjoying himself.

Mr Green disapproves of teaching about other religions in school and especially the celebration of Diwali.

Nevertheless, he has some admiration for Sikh protests in Birmingham against the play Behzti, but says Christian Voice "don't throw stones through theatre windows".

Would he draw the line at breaking the law? Green answers thoughtfully: "Yes... unless the law contravenes the law of God."



Any opinions? It seems religious fundamentalism and zealotry is gaining popularity daily..


What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau

Delete Topic

spinningstarlet
SILVER Member since Aug 2006

spinningstarlet

enthusiast
Location: Bradford *rolls eyes*

Total posts: 271
Posted:I always thought that in my understanding God gave the act of sex in order that we pro-create (bear with me...) and that gay/lesbian sex does not give this option (naturally) and That is why...

But then that is what my RS teacher told me.
*shrug*


Delete

ado-p
GOLD Member since May 2004

ado-p

Pirate Ninja
Location: Galway/Ireland

Total posts: 3882
Posted:And what about dolphins?

They have sex for pleasure too....


Love is the law.

Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel


Total posts: 15414
Posted:But dolphins are evil though....

devil


Delete

spinningstarlet
SILVER Member since Aug 2006

spinningstarlet

enthusiast
Location: Bradford *rolls eyes*

Total posts: 271
Posted:hey! i didn't say neciserally (sorry i can never spell that) that i agree or that it was right...



just that that is what my understanding is of the whole homophobia thing in the church.

tbh i don't have a problem with homosexuality in the slightest!

EDITED_BY: toobie (1160469856)


Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.

Total posts: 5276
Posted:dolphins also go in for a good bit of gang rape thou.

"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Delete

ado-p
GOLD Member since May 2004

ado-p

Pirate Ninja
Location: Galway/Ireland

Total posts: 3882
Posted:Stout, is that even a valid question, does not being a homosexual necessitate the act? Or, at least the desire to act? Whats the difference between the desire to act and the action itself? I would say there is a big difference. I could be wrong, if we were all zen enough then the thought and the act would be in unity. But we're not and we all know where the catholic church stands on 'impure thoughts' So I would say that your question is already answered in catholic doctrine.



Damned if you do, Damned if you dont.



Is god like Brit Joe in that he only condemns that which he personally doesnt like and is basically making up the rules as he is going along?


Love is the law.

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:I thought god was meant to be a Cthulic type being who's motives were entirely beyond us, except when it suits a believer to ascribe motives to justify their opinions on something.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Skulduggery
GOLD Member since Aug 2004

Skulduggery

Pirate Pixie Crew Captain
Location: Wales

Total posts: 8428
Posted:So let me get this straight Joe, you think that people kissing passionatly and partners touching each other in public is offensive but discussing anal sex on an public internet forum is fine?

You say

 Written by: Joe

Oh come off it, the only graphic word I used in that post was expell, and I posted it in a thread about anal sex, whats the point in dancing around the houses at that point so late in too an allready adult thread.



So as long as someone else has already done something that others might find offensive it's ok to drop your morals and join in?

If you can't see how hypocritical that sounds then I'm with MCP

<ignores brit-joe some more because he still hasn't managed to read and understand...>


Feed me Chocolate!!! Feed me NOW!

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:ado-p it's a completely valid question, it's got nothing to do with zen, and probably very little to do with the Catholic church. The reason I'm posing the question in the first place is that I've heard it used several times by Christians in defense of accusations of being a "hate group" I'm just wondering if it is indeed a bible translation issue, or maybe some religions ( other than Catholic ) have adopted this as "policy" If so then it invalidated the statement " God hates fags" in favour of something a little less polarizing like "God hates faggotry"



This is where I should errrrr, come out and state that I spent 6 years living in the middle of North America's second largest gay community ( the west end of Vancouver ) and I've seen attitudes from the gay community that would rival those of most Christian groups. For instance, when I first moved in, it was the GL community, a shaky alliance formed mainly out of necessity to establish "a presence" I say shaky because, really the two groups have very little in common.



Then along came the bisexuals, wanting to be included, initially they were denied, and had to fight against intolerance in order to be accepted ( the attitude hinged around bisexuals not being able to make up their minds about whether they were gay or straight)



Then along came the trans folk, (transgender, not transvestites) and they had to fight the same intolerance to be included. See, transgenders are more of a kink for straight guys, however, most of them are indeed gay. Heterosexual transvestites are still marginalized in the gay and straight communities.



When it comes to tolerance, we all want to be in our own little groups with like minded individuals, that's a given, but if one group is going to demand it of another, I feel they should at least demonstrate that they have a firm grip on the concept, and not simply use it as a weapon to demonstrate how "progressive" they are.



Interestingly enough, Christian Voice's website claims that they can't help but protest, the gospel makes them do it, so I figure they can't help being who they are, as much as the gay community can't help being who they are.



For the record, I'm on the side of the gay community, if I have to pick one, but I'm writing as an observer who really has no stake in either side "winning".


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:@ Doc - would your point then be to forbid and censor ALL "extremist" (whoever is defining this) organisations?

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Igirisujin
SILVER Member since Jul 2005

Igirisujin

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Preston

Total posts: 2666
Posted: Written by: Skulduggery



So let me get this straight Joe, you think that people kissing passionatly and partners touching each other in public is offensive but discussing anal sex on an public internet forum is fine?



You say



 Written by: Joe

Oh come off it, the only graphic word I used in that post was expell, and I posted it in a thread about anal sex, whats the point in dancing around the houses at that point so late in too an allready adult thread.





So as long as someone else has already done something that others might find offensive it's ok to drop your morals and join in?



If you can't see how hypocritical that sounds then I'm with MCP



<ignores brit-joe some more because he still hasn't managed to read and understand...>





I didnt force anyone to scroll down to the Xth page of posts and read the one that I wrote, and I'll also add (this goes for you as well mcp) that actions speak louder than words, comparing the two is utterly rediculouse. That and I noticed you where in that thread aswell skully, where is your comdemnation to everyone else who posted about sexual activitys? Oh thats right you wont bother writting any up because you like to stick your claws in one person at a time, witch.



Do me a favour and actually put me on ignore instead of throwing punches about it with your comments. I like the piece and quite I get from it.



::edit::



Oh and I'll also add, in reguard to both mcp and skullys posts, I am not being hypocritical in this instance. I beleive there is a time and a place for everything. Be that a thread that allready has an adult nature to it from the beggining, or too the bedroom. Something which I'll add that I was getting at from the begining, so dont tell me Ive been reading posts improperly.

EDITED_BY: Brit_Joe (1160681841)


Chief adviser to the Pharaoh, in one very snazzy mutli-coloured coat

'Time goes by so slowly for those who wait...' - Whatever Happend To Baby Madonna?

Delete

Igirisujin
SILVER Member since Jul 2005

Igirisujin

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Preston

Total posts: 2666
Posted: Written by: mcp



<ignores brit-joe some more because he still hasn't managed to read and understand...>



God CAN pick and choose who he condemns. He's GOD, he can do what he likes! ubblol He's already done it, it's in the bible. He hates gays, doesn't mind gang rape, and you shouldn't do any work on a sunday. And you should love your neighbour. Shame prince charles isn't your neighbour.









I never said condem mcp, I said love. If you had children you would still love them even if they did something wrong. It just hurts you to see them do it. Of course if you dont know the difference between condem and love...well you might not. You also compare dolphin activitys to standards of humans, comparing two seperate speicies with the same system of morals makes whatever you say utterly irelevent. Unless of course you can see the joys of throwing your feces around a zoo on a weekend.


Chief adviser to the Pharaoh, in one very snazzy mutli-coloured coat

'Time goes by so slowly for those who wait...' - Whatever Happend To Baby Madonna?

Delete

Sambo_Flux
GOLD Member since Jun 2006

Sambo_Flux

Introverted
Location: Norf London

Total posts: 833
Posted: Written by: Brit_Joe


Unless of course you can see the joys of throwing your feces around a zoo on a weekend.



Actually, that sounds like loads of fun to me. Maybe because I'm descended from apes. wink


My Mind is a Ship
Emotions become the Waves
Soul is the Ocean

If a quizz is quizzical, what is a test?

Delete

[Nx?]
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

[Nx?]

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Europe,Scotland,Both

Total posts: 3749
Posted:Im just shocked cos i never figured you for a prude. you can be one, thats fine, just never seen it before.

you know its mostly cultural? In italy PDA is really common, and i overheard two italian girls saying 'I dont like english gus, they are handsome but they dont show any affection' because us brits arnt used to the idea of touching someones breasts in public...

A prude isnt as bad as a fanatic, but its on the spectrum.

T wave


This is a post by tom, all spelling is deleberate
-><- Kallisti

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted: Written by: Brit_Joe


 Written by: Skulduggery


So let me get this straight Joe, you think that people kissing passionatly and partners touching each other in public is offensive but discussing anal sex on an public internet forum is fine?

You say

 Written by: Joe

Oh come off it, the only graphic word I used in that post was expell, and I posted it in a thread about anal sex, whats the point in dancing around the houses at that point so late in too an allready adult thread.



So as long as someone else has already done something that others might find offensive it's ok to drop your morals and join in?

If you can't see how hypocritical that sounds then I'm with MCP

<ignores brit-joe some more because he still hasn't managed to read and understand...>



I didnt force anyone to scroll down to the Xth page of posts and read the one that I wrote, and I'll also add (this goes for you as well mcp) that actions speak louder than words, comparing the two is utterly rediculouse. That and I noticed you where in that thread aswell skully, where is your comdemnation to everyone else who posted about sexual activitys? Oh thats right you wont bother writting any up because you like to stick your claws in one person at a time, witch.




Ladies, I don't really understand why you're picking on Joe all of a sudden. Have you not seen any of his other posts and threads?

ubblol

Now somebody's gonna have to explain to him that it's bad to call Skully a witch [because it's insulting Pagans]. tongue


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Skulduggery
GOLD Member since Aug 2004

Skulduggery

Pirate Pixie Crew Captain
Location: Wales

Total posts: 8428
Posted:ubblol Yippeeeee I'm a witch! biggrin

Feed me Chocolate!!! Feed me NOW!

Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.

Total posts: 5276
Posted:Oh my, in my standard of all-time stupidity brit-joe has just jumped to number one position! Then he moved back down a couple of ranks because he reminded me of the 'ignore' function... sweet, i need never see another pointless post again!

I wish somebody could make understand the concept of 'argument' brit-joe, it's when you 'understand' somebodies line of 'argument' and then make a reply that's 'relevant' to it.

Here's how it goes:

Somebody makes a referance to dolphins have sex for pleasure, like humans do. I believe in order to point out the stupidity of part of the christian faith.

Then I pointed out that you can't trust animals as far as you can throw them, because nature is by necessity a cruel master. And the same standards that apply to us don't to them.

That's how arguments work joe. You might want to look up the words I put in apostrophes above in wikipedia, so you can find the meaning of them. While you're there, you might want to look up 'apostrophes' also.

And yeah sure, once somebody has does something wrong in your book brit-joe, like making a thread about anal sex in a public forum, then it's okay to go along with it and continue it? Does gang rape work like that too? Or genocide? I mean, hitler started it, so it's fine to go along with it. It can't get any worse....

Well done brit-joe, well done. I applaud your lack of moral fibre.

and then the ignore button! Result!

Sorry NYC, I think it takes personal experience to realise the true depths of joe's stupidity. I would like to use other words. but y'know how censorship is... rolleyes


"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Delete

Skulduggery
GOLD Member since Aug 2004

Skulduggery

Pirate Pixie Crew Captain
Location: Wales

Total posts: 8428
Posted:Pffft! MCP, you're just mad at Joe because he didn't call you a witch! ubblol

Feed me Chocolate!!! Feed me NOW!

Delete

maus
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

maus

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Sihanoukville, cambodia

Total posts: 4191
Posted:MCP you're out of order picking on poor Joe...you witch.



better? ubblol



Seriously Joe, you're entitled to your own opinion, now...where's that ignore function? wink


Delete

ado-p
GOLD Member since May 2004

ado-p

Pirate Ninja
Location: Galway/Ireland

Total posts: 3882
Posted:Its true

There is only one thing you can do with a person who thinks its ok to talk aboput anal sex on a public forum, yet cant even handle looking a pair of lovers demonstrating their affection.

Its ok Joe, you dont need to reply. Im putting you on ignore too!!!

ubblol


Love is the law.

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:umm interesting that ppl demand tolerance, argue against "christian voice", hence seem to be unable to practice the same thing under certain conditions and completely burn bridges... isn't that a bit over the top?

in most of Asia it's not custom to display affection, usually there's not much more than holding hands in public... yet they have entire brothel-villages... bigot? contradictory?

any which way, I can see a difference between posting about sexual pratices and performing them - don't you?

Joe has posted his opinion, you may dislike it - no prob. but then to go a step further by putting him with the back against the wall and into in the corner... everyone wants to have a go? umm have you ever posted or did you ever say something that offended others? well I did and ppl started to pick on me from all sides, deliberately not wanting to understand what I was pointing at and taring me to pieces... I tell you: it feels censored

just because Joe is gay, doesn't mean that he has to be tolerant, just because he enjoys whatever, he's not obliged to watch ppl go on with each other in public.

what's wrong with you all of a sudden? has the christian voice gotten into you? devil wink ubblol

@ first I thought you were all offtopic but then it appears to me - that's exactly the point! maybe you ponder a little and come back then?


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

ado-p
GOLD Member since May 2004

ado-p

Pirate Ninja
Location: Galway/Ireland

Total posts: 3882
Posted:Im not obligating Joe to do anything. I think he is contradictory and hyppcritical.

I dont care if hes gay.

Im not obligating him to look at anything. In fact, Im pointing out that he simply doesnt have to look. We are not in Asia... When in Rome...

Posting about anal sex on a public PG forum is wrong. I would have thought this was fairly obvious tom. Though I appreciate that you have been censored also and may feel sensitive to it.

The simple fact is. Plenty of people have tried to reason with Joe. And he has demonstrated time and time again that he is unable to enter into a rational discussion.

The topic changed from Christian Voice to Religous Tolerence to Tolerence in General to Tolerance of Joe...

I appreciate your parting blow of being off topic... but do you honeslty think it helped?


Love is the law.

Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.

Total posts: 5276
Posted: Written by: FireTom


any which way, I can see a difference between posting about sexual pratices and performing them - don't you?




Not when you're talking about the public visibility of them. Which is what we're talking about. There is a small technological barrier in the different between a public forum and a public space. I don't see why we should treat them differently.


"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:that's the point: I now do think that we're exactly ON topic....

when going off on joe, because he is "contradictory and hipocritical" and putting him on the pillory is not right - mankind is contradictory and hipocritical. IMHO it simply human. look at the last scandal in the whitehouse over "inapropriate emails with sexual content to minors" by a rep. congressman.

this is one reason why I personally do not close shoulders with christian, or fundamental organisations of what faith so ever and rather try to verify my very own truth.

as you worded it: "The topic changed from Christian Voice to Religous Tolerence to Tolerence in General to Tolerance of Joe... and we may close the circle by acknowledging that under certain conditions we're likely to say or write stupid things ourselves and be intolerant to others for the exact same thing.

therefore I draw the conclusion that the "christian voice" is not more or less dangerous than we are likely to listen to it... [?] get my point [?] umm wink

I asked before, why someone thinks that "CV" is interfering with personal rights, or whether or not the the conclusion can be drawn that all ("extremist/ religious") organisations should be censored and illegal...

as of which point something is morally and ethically or politically correct? just because the majority believes in it?

well simply look at Gallilei, Luther, Sokrates and many many more... (nope Joe, I am not putting you in one row with them wink hug smile )


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted: Written by: mcp


 Written by: FireTom


any which way, I can see a difference between posting about sexual pratices and performing them - don't you?




Not when you're talking about the public visibility of them. Which is what we're talking about. There is a small technological barrier in the different between a public forum and a public space. I don't see why we should treat them differently.



ubblol you're kidding, MCP - are you? umm

I do see many reasons why we should treat them differently and I am certain you too.

Writing about "rear end intercourse" in public and actually doing it on Leicester Square (wherever that is) in your lunchbreak appears to be different.... at least to me wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted: Written by: FireTom


have you ever posted or did you ever say something that offended others? well I did and ppl started to pick on me from all sides, deliberately not wanting to understand what I was pointing at and taring me to pieces... I tell you: it feels censored




That's because you posted one of the most bigoted and hateful posts on HoP. You showed your hate for Muslims and Chinese and said they should all be put in insane asylums.

Don't get me wrong, I've had my moments where I've gotten grumpy also. I mean, nothing as bigoted as "An entire country and religion should be put in a mental institution and cured of their mental illness" like you did, but times when I've gotten grumpy with individuals and said stuff that was over my own definitions of what I should have said at the time. And people pointed out my mistakes, and they were right.


 Written by:

just because Joe is gay, doesn't mean that he has to be tolerant,



If we're going to let people say ignorant and bigoted stuff on this site we should at least have the right to disagree with them. And if it's so bigoted and ignorant that several people disagree then then that's what's should happen. I'm not going to feel sorry for the bigots because people are disagreeing with their intolerant posts.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:@ NYC - either you still didn't get my point, or you're exactly on it:



If you have followed my history of posts even slightly, you should get the correct picture. In not even an instant I would seriously suggest that an entire faith or country should be put in a mental insitution and if you'd only have a single cell of reason and compassion in you - you would not indicate that I "hate Muslims and Chinese". But maybe you just put me off your "ignore list" recently? wink



Besides, I was talking about my thread on the female magician, that was inapropriate and my posts on the rape thread... (those who did not deliberately try(ied) to get me wrong, got what I was pointing at)



And you should know me good enough that I am not jumping on the same train, just because reputed and respected members of this board travel on it - I can take a different one and still have as much respect, affection and compassion as before... biggrin



[as to avoid another double post:] I am not saying you HAVE to have compassion for people whose opinion you dislike and neither you have to tolerate people whose worded opinion is incompatible with yours. Not a second.



It would just be nice if we would find a way in which we're able to practice the tolerance we demand for ourselves... I heard this quote recently in a movie (can't recall it exactly): You can tell a lot about the character of people by the way they treat those who they don't have to treat well... (correct me, it was in MI3)



@MCP: I understand what you mean, but if someone doesn't like to watch, they may say so - even if those posted explicitly before. Maybe you are focussing too much on the finger instead at what he pokes around in? wink

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1160743247)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.

Total posts: 5276
Posted: Written by: FireTom



 Written by: mcp



 Written by: FireTom



any which way, I can see a difference between posting about sexual pratices and performing them - don't you?







Not when you're talking about the public visibility of them. Which is what we're talking about. There is a small technological barrier in the different between a public forum and a public space. I don't see why we should treat them differently.





Writing about "rear end intercourse" in public and actually doing it on Leicester Square (wherever that is) in your lunchbreak appears to be different.... at least to me wink





well talking about anal sex and actually kissing someone in public is more of the analogy your after isn't it? Cos that's what we're talking about. None of this thread has ever been about having anal sex in public, cos that would be illegal and isn't an issue.



Talking about (or doing) graphic sex acts in public in real life doesn't increase public visibility as much of said act, because sound fades quickly, and you'd probably not talk about it around kids.



On a public rated PG forum, posts can stay around for years, and anybody can read them.



So which is worse? Explicit Sex Acts on a forum, or socially acceptable displays of affection in real life?



"when going off on joe, because he is "contradictory and hipocritical" and putting him on the pillory is not right - mankind is contradictory and hipocritical. IMHO it simply human. look at the last scandal in the whitehouse over "inapropriate emails with sexual content to minors" by a rep. congressman. "



Just because it's 'simply human' doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean we should put up with it, let it pass or not point it out to ourselves or others.



"If you have followed my history of posts even slightly"



No offense, but like, why would anybody bother to do that?


"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel


Total posts: 15414
Posted:*passes the popcorn*
wink


Delete

maus
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

maus

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Sihanoukville, cambodia

Total posts: 4191
Posted:thanks. wink

Delete

Page: 1...34567