Is this fair?

[Oor Wullie]

On another site I visit a member made a comment about homosexuals. He said it was an unnatural act. That god made Adam & Eve. Not Adam & Adam or Eve & Eve. He also said that homosexuals were as bad as paedophiles for committing unnatural acts. He was promptly banned from the site.

On the election of the new Pope quite a few members started saying things like he's a Nazi, he's been with sweaty young priests and one member actually called him a shifty eyed ******. Now as the leader of a church numbering 1.1 billion don't you think these members should have been banned?

Nothing was said, no posts removed. No reprimands.

What do you think?

Will

[tetherend]

In this age when we are all subject to PC watchdogs, it is difficult to know what is not offensive any more.  So many boundaries have been pushed back.  Maybe we will all go full circle and return to free speech, within reason.

[Louis]

When one is in the public eye, one will always have critics, slanderers and enemies! The sign of a good leader is to over look these acts of pettiness and jealously and look to the real issues and help the real people who need help! Not to sink to the same level as the 'mud slingers'! After all, 'Mud thrown is ground lost!'

[Octavius]

Freedom of  speech.

I just hope that people who say these things are 100% certain of their facts.  Adam & Eve was an allegorical name for mankind in general so in fact it means many many Adams and many many Eves.

The present Pope was apparently forced into the Hitler Youth (essential at the time or liable to persecution) - who knows the full truth, I bet the posters don't.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[netibiza]

Yes but Will wants to know why the questions were not banned- that's right isn't Will??

[Oor Wullie]

My question really is should these posters be banned and made to make an apology to the full group as the one concerning homosexuals had to do.

[wellhungjock]

They have their opinions and it might be true especially as lots of priests have been found guilty of sex crimes then it might not so the debate goes on.

The first stone, sounds feasible to me!

[woofgang]

well but it comes back to the same thing, if you don't like the way that the website is run, then don't go there. It doesn't sound nearly as cultivated as this one!!

[Quizmonkey]

Surely two very different things are being compared here. Linking homosexuality to paedophilia is clearly wrong, ignorant and offensive to anyone of reasonable intelligence - as is any expression of homophobia. It is also, thankfully, illegal nowadays, and the banning of the person concerned was probably the correct decision.

Comments about the new Pope seem to reflect his opinions and politics which he is perfectly open about - not just that he was 'forced into the Hitler Youth'. By anyone's standards, his stance on women, gays, abortion etc etc do put him very much right of centre - some might say, to the right of many Nazis themselves. The fact that he represents a faith shared by millions who choose to believe as he does is irrelevant - if probably quite worrying in 2005.

[Octavius]

Yes, people will say that.  Similarly like Pope John Paull II who refused to accept the use of contraception and caused widepsread AIDs.  People have a choice and must accept their own personal responsibilities.

I share Pope Benedict XVI's faith, but I do not necessarily share his views.  The fact that he is the global head of my faith and has these views to me in the 21st century is irrelevant.

ABed has an obligation to delete anything considered 'objectional' or discriminatory on matters of 'race, sex, age or religion'.

As they run the site, it inevitably falls for them to decide what goes and what stays.  If something offends you, report it.

[Oor Wullie]

I was the person who said homosexuality is not natural. I was the one who was banned.

[delilahcat]

Why didn't that surprise me?

[ICEMANSAV]

I would have to say that a comparison with paedophiles is far from the mark in the majority of cases, and this reason alone could be the case of why the question was banned. However if your statement or opinion read that you disagree with homosexuals and their practice, and if the nature of the other site was not a Q and A but a discussion site, then your question should have stood. It was probably deleted due to that generalisation between homosexuals and paedophiles, as not agreeing with a particular way of life is not a valid reason to be banned. It is afterall just an opinion and this should be allowed to be voiced. I disagree with another post saying that we should accept illegal immigrants with open arms, but it should still be allowed to stand as it is an opinion. As for the pope I could not care less, never understood such a devout religion. Some of your post i agree with and some I do not, but that is what some sites are for, discussion between people with varying opinions, not this one however, as it is a Q&A site.

 

Spleen Vented!

[littleoldme]

You also have to look at it from the point of view of the administrators. They have to be careful not to allow anything which would get the site into legal difficulties, since they are the ones who would carry the can. Saying "I don't agree with homosexuality" would probably be seen as a valid opinion, whereas comparing homosexuality (a way of life shared between consenting adults, of which the sexual act is only one part) with paedophilia (grown perverts deliberately preying on innocent children) would, quite rightly IMO, not.

With this in mind, one thing I do agree with Oor Wullie on is not understanding why a post branding the new pope a Nazi should escape censure. This could certainly be seen as slanderous, possibly libellous. He was once a member of the Hitler Youth, but apparently saw the light, left the organisation and renounced Hitler and everything he stood for.

[morg_monster]

just for information, there has actually never been any convincing evidence produced that the proportion of gay people who are paedophiles is any greater than the proportion of straight people who are paedophiles.  There are many young girls who are abused by straight men just as there are boys abused by gay men.  Maybe most of the 'straight' paedophilia occurs within families and thus the abuser is more secretive about it; if it does get found out within the family maybe it is less likely to be reported.