3 ms·

If you wonder what exactly they want to protect, [1] is the recent ruling of a Polish court. As of Jan 12th, publicly saying that "gay people are perverts" is f

If you wonder what exactly they want to protect, [1] is the recent ruling of a Polish court. As of Jan 12th, publicly saying that "gay people are perverts" is fine as far as Polish law is concerned. [0] Background in English: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/polish-activist-refuses-to-apologise-for-remarks-on-varadkar-s-perversion-1.3661768 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/polish-activis... [1]The ruling (Polish only): https://oko.press/kaja-godek-wygrala-w-sadzie-zboczency/ https://oko.press/kaja-godek-wygrala-w-sadzie-zboczency/

xeyownt 6y ago
Yes exactly. Typical far right / extremists tactic, disguise their discourses as well accepted democratic ones. They say they want to protect free speech, etc, but in fact are only pushing for their own definition of free speech and will be very quick at banning any other speech that are not according to their views/laws.
- Speednet 6y ago
  As opposed to left-wing/progressive tactics of lumping half the country in with one particular group of rioters (ignoring the violent riots that progressives have encouraged all summer) and then trying to completely eliminate any speech that does not agree with their woke agenda. Got it. Thanks for posting your balanced viewpoint.
bobthechef 6y ago
Ad hominem much? And yes, why shouldn't someone have the right to say that? Under natural law theory, same sex attraction is gravely disordered, and indulging that attraction by engaging in an active gay lifestyle is perverse and self-destructive. That some people want to silence traditional views is revealing. Instead of counterargument, you see totalitarian attempts to silence people, in this case Catholics, though one not need be a Catholic to hold this view. The presumption that such criticism must come from a place of contempt shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of love (the willing of the true good of the other), conflating it with the scandalous encouragement of self-destructive behavior. Regardless, let us suppose such remarks show contempt. Then by that definition, the rabidly anti-clerical and Church-hating Jacobins on the left are the pot calling the kettle black.
- tremon 6y ago
  Under natural law theory, same sex attraction is gravely disordered, and indulging that attraction by engaging in an active gay lifestyle is perverse and self-destructive. You're claiming a natural law that doesn't exist. Even lions on the African savannah have been documented to engage in same-sex sexual acts. Worse, you're using that imagined "law" to disparage a whole class of people that do not fit your imagined world order. Even worse, you're then claiming that you should have the right to disparage these other people, and that not being allowed to spread your intolerance is somehow equal to you not tolerating these other people. And to top it off, in order to justify your position, you're claiming a universal concept (love), giving it your own spin, and claiming that any other interpretation than yours is invalid. So let me give you a counterexample: the Ancient Greeks had four main words for love: eros, philia, storge, agape. The latter one has been narrowed by Thomas Aquinas into the definition you just gave, but even in the language of the Bible, that does not preclude the other instances of love. So please, get off your high horse and stop imposing your narrow worldview on the rest of us.

xeyownt 6y ago

Yes exactly. Typical far right / extremists tactic, disguise their discourses as well accepted democratic ones. They say they want to protect free speech, etc, but in fact are only pushing for their own definition of free speech and will be very quick at banning any other speech that are not according to their views/laws.

Speednet 6y ago
As opposed to left-wing/progressive tactics of lumping half the country in with one particular group of rioters (ignoring the violent riots that progressives have encouraged all summer) and then trying to completely eliminate any speech that does not agree with their woke agenda. Got it. Thanks for posting your balanced viewpoint.

bobthechef 6y ago

Ad hominem much? And yes, why shouldn't someone have the right to say that? Under natural law theory, same sex attraction is gravely disordered, and indulging that attraction by engaging in an active gay lifestyle is perverse and self-destructive. That some people want to silence traditional views is revealing. Instead of counterargument, you see totalitarian attempts to silence people, in this case Catholics, though one not need be a Catholic to hold this view. The presumption that such criticism must come from a place of contempt shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of love (the willing of the true good of the other), conflating it with the scandalous encouragement of self-destructive behavior. Regardless, let us suppose such remarks show contempt. Then by that definition, the rabidly anti-clerical and Church-hating Jacobins on the left are the pot calling the kettle black.

tremon 6y ago
Under natural law theory, same sex attraction is gravely disordered, and indulging that attraction by engaging in an active gay lifestyle is perverse and self-destructive. You're claiming a natural law that doesn't exist. Even lions on the African savannah have been documented to engage in same-sex sexual acts. Worse, you're using that imagined "law" to disparage a whole class of people that do not fit your imagined world order. Even worse, you're then claiming that you should have the right to disparage these other people, and that not being allowed to spread your intolerance is somehow equal to you not tolerating these other people. And to top it off, in order to justify your position, you're claiming a universal concept (love), giving it your own spin, and claiming that any other interpretation than yours is invalid. So let me give you a counterexample: the Ancient Greeks had four main words for love: eros, philia, storge, agape. The latter one has been narrowed by Thomas Aquinas into the definition you just gave, but even in the language of the Bible, that does not preclude the other instances of love. So please, get off your high horse and stop imposing your narrow worldview on the rest of us.