The Pope should be banned from Britain

[HBK-aholic]

Pope Benedict XVI's condemnation this week of British equality legislation designed to protect gays and women in the workplace has deepened the battle lines between the Vatican and secularists, who demand that taxpayers not foot the security bill for his newly announced September visit.

The Roman Catholic Church's steadfast opposition to allowing gays to become priests or having rights such as adoption puts it at odds with changing attitudes in Britain, where acceptance of homosexuality has increased dramatically in recent decades.



"I am sure many others feel the same resentment as we do at the National Secular Society at funding the presence of someone who wishes to impose a reactionary agenda of social change on us," said the group's president, Terry Sanderson.

Inciting hatred - we ban extremists for that. His comments are disgusting, how are people still a part of this homophobic, sexist religion? He doesn't deserve security, and it definitely shouldn't be paid for by taxpayers. Worried about a backlash? Well don't attempt to spread bullshit.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I thought this was about him being a Nazi. Or a member of the Hitler youth... which I believe would still technically make him a Nazi.

Anyway, not being from the fifteenth century, I don't have much use for the Pope. I don't really think his bills should be paid by the British (or any other) public but fuck it, it's probably costing me around one pence, so why not?

And of course he's a bit of a dick. You know, not a cafeteria Catholic and all that. I actually stole that from the Da Vince Code.

 

[X]

Completely disagree with you here Becca. Mainly because it's utter horseshit for anyone to be banned from a country for their opinions. You know how I feel on this issue, and the Pope is about as relevant to me as the Saskatchewan Water-Polo team, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a basic human right to be allowed to think and say what you want without fear of bullshit like this.

The Pope could drop dead tomorrow and I could care less, but if he wants to do it in Britain, by all means, go for it. I think it's utterly ridiculous that the UK has barred people from entering their country for their opinions anyways, it's borderline fascist.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Well I definitely don't personally agree with the UK taxpayers footing the bill for it, but there are undoubtedly a large amount of people who still want to hear what he has to say. We don't always unfortunately agree with everything our tax dollars go to, and certainly this is one of those things. So X is probably right, even though many may not personally agree with The Pope's message.

Although there probably aren't as many people in Britain as America that look forward to a visit from the Pope being there is a far greater percentage of Atheists and Agnostics in Britain from what I understand.

My parents were actually Catholic and have since left the Catholic Church for its old, archaic ways. They are now Methodist.

 

[Razor]

Pope John Paul II has been on record saying that gays should be abstinent instead of engaging in Homosexual sex. He is widely regarded as a loving and successful Pope, so much so that there is a large, overarching movement to grant him speedy Sainthood. He said these things, and yet he is regarded by many people (myself included) as a wonderful man.

Is he calling for the death of all gays? The expulsion of all gays from public office? Is he urging that any gay in the Vatican City leave? No? Well then. If you're going to be mad at him be mad at him because he said Condom use in Africa was actually making the AIDs epidemic worse. That's bullshit. Saying that Christian agencies of adoption shouldn't have to give babies to gay couples is bullshit in my eyes, but not inherently evil. Or inciting hate.

This is public discourse. I'm sorry. But if everyone who said anything against liberal social norms were banned from Britain, then half of the United States couldn't enter your homeland.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Completely disagree with you here Becca. Mainly because it's utter horseshit for anyone to be banned from a country for their opinions. You know how I feel on this issue, and the Pope is about as relevant to me as the Saskatchewan Water-Polo team, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a basic human right to be allowed to think and say what you want without fear of bullshit like this.

The Pope could drop dead tomorrow and I could care less, but if he wants to do it in Britain, by all means, go for it. I think it's utterly ridiculous that the UK has barred people from entering their country for their opinions anyways, it's borderline fascist.

But do you still have that right when it can cause prejudice, inequality, violence, and possibly death? I mean, we've banned Islamic extremists who have preached hatred for the West from Britain for fear they could influence young Muslims into acts of terrorism. Personally, I think that's a perfectly valid reason to stop 'freedom of speech'. Your right to say what you want < Other peoples right to live and do so withut fear and discrimination.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

Completely disagree with you here Becca. Mainly because it's utter horseshit for anyone to be banned from a country for their opinions. You know how I feel on this issue, and the Pope is about as relevant to me as the Saskatchewan Water-Polo team, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a basic human right to be allowed to think and say what you want without fear of bullshit like this.

The Pope could drop dead tomorrow and I could care less, but if he wants to do it in Britain, by all means, go for it. I think it's utterly ridiculous that the UK has barred people from entering their country for their opinions anyways, it's borderline fascist.

what if their opinions inspire nut jobs to blow themselves up?, I don't understand why they should be allowed to spread such an insane and negative message.

Look at what Hitler did with the Germans, he took a whole country of people and basically turned them into soldiers thats what Britain is worried about allowing extremists to come into this country and kill thousands and thousands of people do you remember the 7/7 bombings?, and what about the group of young men who where tried this year and sentenced to life for attempting to bomb a crowded train?.

You may think its fashism but the fact is people like that have no place in this country or no place in religion IMO, they abuse the system and take everything and still want us all dead its ridiculous.

Maybe X if you saw it from that point of view you understand.

And the Pope protesting gay rights?, he shouldnt be allowed near the country because its wrong, he's no better then the extremists that killl because they believe allah wants them to...

 

[X]

But do you still have that right when it can cause prejudice, inequality, violence, and possibly death?

Absolutely. Freedom of speech isn't an easily guarded concept, if it were every nation would have implemented it from the start of time. Freedom and equality are not easy things, they're hard, and they're worth it. And yes, that includes the freedom to preach hatred. I'd sooner kick a Nazi in the balls then listen to his ideologies, but I'll defend his right to preach those ideologies until the day I die.

I mean, we've banned Islamic extremists who have preached hatred for the West from Britain for fear they could influence young Muslims into acts of terrorism.

Which is just wrong, 100% wrong.

Personally, I think that's a perfectly valid reason to stop 'freedom of speech'. Your right to say what you want < Other peoples right to live and do so withut fear and discrimination.

Absolutely not. As Benjamin Franklin so famously said, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". Truer words have never been spoken. When you begin curtailing basic rights like freedom of speech in exchange for "security" Becca, that is the stepping stone to fascism, as history has shown us time and time again.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Pope John Paul II has been on record saying that gays should be abstinent instead of engaging in Homosexual sex. He is widely regarded as a loving and successful Pope, so much so that there is a large, overarching movement to grant him speedy Sainthood. He said these things, and yet he is regarded by many people (myself included) as a wonderful man.

So was Hitler. Now, I'm not comparing the 2 for any acts or anything other than the statement I've bolded, but to use 'many see him as wonderful' as a reason to like someone doesn't wash with me.

Is he calling for the death of all gays? The expulsion of all gays from public office? Is he urging that any gay in the Vatican City leave? No? Well then.

And? The prejudice is simply taking a different form - so that people can defend him, much like you're doing now. We're not urging for gays to be killed, but now they just can't have the rights we have.

If you're going to be mad at him be mad at him because he said Condom use in Africa was actually making the AIDs epidemic worse. That's bullshit. Saying that Christian agencies of adoption shouldn't have to give babies to gay couples is bullshit in my eyes, but not inherently evil. Or inciting hate.

Oh I definitely hate him, and Catholicism for that. Telling people in countries where AIDS is widespread not to use contraception because some 'God' 'said' this in a holy book written by man thousands of years ago is complete bullshit.

This is public discourse. I'm sorry. But if everyone who said anything against liberal social norms were banned from Britain, then half of the United States couldn't enter your homeland.

I see a different between having a differing opinion, and actually spreading stupid prejudices.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Absolutely. Freedom of speech isn't an easily guarded concept, if it were every nation would have implemented it from the start of time. Freedom and equality are not easy things, they're hard, and they're worth it. And yes, that includes the freedom to preach hatred. I'd sooner kick a Nazi in the balls then listen to his ideologies, but I'll defend his right to preach those ideologies until the day I die.

I see the lives of the millions of Jewish people (Not to mention people of other faiths, disabilities, ethnicities, nationalities etc) as more important than Hitler's 'right' to preach his hatred.

Which is just wrong, 100% wrong.

How? You're probably right though, someone in Britain might have killed him off for us if we'd let him in.

Absolutely not. As Benjamin Franklin so famously said, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". Truer words have never been spoken. When you begin curtailing basic rights like freedom of speech in exchange for "security" Becca, that is the stepping stone to fascism, as history has shown us time and time again.

Another fundamental right is the right to live. I only disagree with Freedom of speech when there's a significant possibility of it causing harm to others. What the pope said is probably a very mild form of that, but Hitler and terrorists? No way.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

Absolutely. Freedom of speech isn't an easily guarded concept, if it were every nation would have implemented it from the start of time. Freedom and equality are not easy things, they're hard, and they're worth it. And yes, that includes the freedom to preach hatred. I'd sooner kick a Nazi in the balls then listen to his ideologies, but I'll defend his right to preach those ideologies until the day I die.

Which is just wrong, 100% wrong.

He can as long as its not in the uk, where in the bible does it say gay's have no rights?, it doesn't say kill all non muslims in the quran either but people still attempt to use religion to mess with decent people.

Absolutely not. As Benjamin Franklin so famously said, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". Truer words have never been spoken. When you begin curtailing basic rights like freedom of speech in exchange for "security" Becca, that is the stepping stone to fascism, as history has shown us time and time again.

So basically your a hipocrit?, the fact is I understand your beliefs but when it basically allows people like the pope to go round denying the rights of decent people then that my friend is wrong, why should his right to free speech be allowed when the money can go on affordable housing or even for children in broken homes?, why should it go to someone who only wants to deny the rights of decent people who choose their own lifestyle.

 

[X]

I see the lives of the millions of Jewish people (Not to mention people of other faiths, disabilities, ethnicities, nationalities etc) as more important than Hitler's 'right' to preach his hatred.

Good thing that Hitler's speech didn't kill any Jews then Becca. Speech is FAR different from actually taking action and committing a genocide, and I think that would be rather obvious.

How? You're probably right though, someone in Britain might have killed him off for us if we'd let him in.

Because regulating speech is wrong, always. How would you like it if the UK said "All right, anyone who discussed Shawn Michaels will be banned from this nation from now on." Would that be right?

Another fundamental right is the right to live.

Good thing then that words have never killed a single person in human history.

I only disagree with Freedom of speech when there's a significant possibility of it causing harm to others. What the pope said is probably a very mild form of that, but Hitler and terrorists? No way.

You can't say "some" free speech is okay, and others isn't. It doesn't work like that Becca, it's all or nothing.

Again, words don't kill people or cause harm to people Becca. They can influence one to do so, sure, but so can movies, music, and sports team losses. This is the same argument that upset mothers used to use to try and ban all heavy metal music, because it was "evil" and was influencing their children to use drugs and kill themselves. It's an argument that holds no weight whatsoever, YOU are solely responsible for your actions, blaming the words of another is a bullshit excuse for that.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Good thing that Hitler's speech didn't kill any Jews then Becca. Speech is FAR different from actually taking action and committing a genocide, and I think that would be rather obvious.

Oh come on now X, you know exactly what I meant. If Hitler hadn't preached his ideas, you think the country would suddenly have killed millions of people?

Because regulating speech is wrong, always. How would you like it if the UK said "All right, anyone who discussed Shawn Michaels will be banned from this nation from now on." Would that be right?

If Shawn Michaels was in the US preaching extremism, or something that there was a good chance of harming innocent people, he shouldn't be allowed in the country. Discussing him here harms no one, so of course I'd disagree with that.

Good thing then that words have never killed a single person in human history.

Again, you know exactly what I meant.

You can't say "some" free speech is okay, and others isn't. It doesn't work like that Becca, it's all or nothing.

Why? Basically, say what you like unless it's likely to cause significant harm to innocent people. I'm not sure what's wrong with that.

Again, words don't kill people or cause harm to people Becca.

I love how many times you say my name in debates, it's like e-sex.

They can influence one to do so, sure, but so can movies, music, and sports team losses. This is the same argument that upset mothers used to use to try and ban all heavy metal music, because it was "evil" and was influencing their children to use drugs and kill themselves. It's an argument that holds no weight whatsoever, YOU are solely responsible for your actions, blaming the words of another is a bullshit excuse for that.

Kind of. I'm not saying people who carry out the actions aren't to blame. I'm saying people like Hitler, or the Muslim extremists that have been banned preach the hate - their intention is to get people killed. The Nazi's and suicide bombers themselves are just as bad - but why let it get that far?

 

[Razor]

So was Hitler.

Wow. You broke Godwin's Law right off the bat. Where did Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II ever preach the killing of millions and millions of Jews? Or gays, as this case would be.

Now, I'm not comparing the 2 for any acts or anything other than the statement I've bolded, but to use 'many see him as wonderful' as a reason to like someone doesn't wash with me.

I never said "Hey, like him. We all do." That's a horrible bandwagon argument. However, what I'm saying is that everyone who doesn't like a gay person isn't evil. In fact, many like gays, but they don't think that others should be forced to neglect their own beliefs to give children to gay couples. I honestly believe that that is morally reprehensible, (to reject gays from adoption), but I can't call the Pope Hitler because he believes differently than I do.

And? The prejudice is simply taking a different form - so that people can defend him, much like you're doing now. We're not urging for gays to be killed, but now they just can't have the rights we have.

It is against the law in America to give preferential or detrimental treatment to someone because of their sex, age, disability, creed, race, or sexual orientation.

However, it is not against the law to say that Gay people should not adopt. I, once again, fail to see how saying a group of people shouldn't adopt children is worthy of facing banishment from a country. I'll go further than Xfear wants to go and call that outright Fascism. If I don't agree with you, and speak out about it, I go to jail or am banished from the country? Bullshit.

Pope Benedict is not organizing rebellions or mass murders of gays in Britain. He is merely saying that equal rights legislation that forces religious organizations to allow gays to adopt from them impedes their right to practice their faith. He is saying that. The last time I checked, Britain had a clause that promised Free Speech.

Oh I definitely hate him, and Catholicism for that. Telling people in countries where AIDS is widespread not to use contraception because some 'God' 'said' this in a holy book written by man thousands of years ago is complete bullshit.

See? This statement he made had real, deadly consequences from it. However, telling people not to allow Gay People to adopt does not. That is the difference.

I see a different between having a differing opinion, and actually spreading stupid prejudices.

You call them prejudices, he calls them religious rules. I can call them bullshit, he calls them God's Law. That's the problem we get into with public discourse. However, the good thing is that Free Speech is a inherent right for everyone. As long as their speech doesn't incite riots or violence he's fine to speak it. And, guess what. Saying "Religious Institutions shouldn't be forced to allow Gays to adopt" doesn't incite violence.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Wow. You broke Godwin's Law right off the bat. Where did Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II ever preach the killing of millions and millions of Jews? Or gays, as this case would be.

Lol, I knew you'd take this the wrong way. Despite my next sentence saying I wasn't making this comparison

I never said "Hey, like him. We all do." That's a horrible bandwagon argument. However, what I'm saying is that everyone who doesn't like a gay person isn't evil.

Well they're not good.

In fact, many like gays, but they don't think that others should be forced to neglect their own beliefs to give children to gay couples. I honestly believe that that is morally reprehensible, (to reject gays from adoption), but I can't call the Pope Hitler because he believes differently than I do.

Again, not calling the Pope Hitler, and I thought you were intelligent enough to get the comparison.

It is against the law in America to give preferential or detrimental treatment to someone because of their sex, age, disability, creed, race, or sexual orientation.

However, it is not against the law to say that Gay people should not adopt. I, once again, fail to see how saying a group of people shouldn't adopt children is worthy of facing banishment from a country. I'll go further than Xfear wants to go and call that outright Fascism. If I don't agree with you, and speak out about it, I go to jail or am banished from the country? Bullshit.

We're not banishing him, he doesn't live here. But a country has the right to not allow people preaching bullshit to do so in their country.

Pope Benedict is not organizing rebellions or mass murders of gays in Britain. He is merely saying that equal rights legislation that forces religious organizations to allow gays to adopt from them impedes their right to practice their faith. He is saying that. The last time I checked, Britain had a clause that promised Free Speech.

How does it impede their right to practice their faith? He comes out with such bullshit.

See? This statement he made had real, deadly consequences from it. However, telling people not to allow Gay People to adopt does not. That is the difference.

Well okay, we can ban him for that instead.

You call them prejudices, he calls them religious rules. I can call them bullshit, he calls them God's Law. That's the problem we get into with public discourse. However, the good thing is that Free Speech is a inherent right for everyone. As long as their speech doesn't incite riots or violence he's fine to speak it. And, guess what. Saying "Religious Institutions shouldn't be forced to allow Gays to adopt" doesn't incite violence.

Religion being against homosexuality does incite violence. People shouldn't be able to get away with it disguising it as religion.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Becca, you're preaching tolerance while being intolerant. That just doesn't work for me.

The Pope has every right to his opinion, and he is voicing the opinion of his constituency. The world's billion Catholics are not that quick to the gay rights raillies. I have no problem stating that his problem is with the gay part, not the women part, and according to him, those people are living in sin. Could be right, could be wrong, but banning him from the country is ludicrous. You want gays to have the right to express themselves, but not the pope? That's hypocritical.

 

[Shadowmancer]

OK lets get a few things straight here, The Pope is a head of state. Therefore the payment of security by a country while he is visiting is standard procedure. So the taxpayer is paying for nothing more than what would happen if the head of Jamaica came to town for a visit.

As for The Popes opinions, they are that his opinions and he is entitled to them, while you may feel he is out of touch with reality, he isn't. I am pretty sure that many people agree with his point of view. lets not even get into the Infallible thing. You don't agree with him, fine. But it isn't like he was a holocaust denier, which is hate speech, he just doesn't feel that gay people should adopt. As far as I know Benedict XVI takes the same line as the last pope but I can't remember off the top of my head.

But Becca Hypocrisy does not become you.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Becca, you're preaching tolerance while being intolerant. That just doesn't work for me.

The Pope has every right to his opinion, and he is voicing the opinion of his constituency. The world's billion Catholics are not that quick to the gay rights raillies. I have no problem stating that his problem is with the gay part, not the women part, and according to him, those people are living in sin. Could be right, could be wrong, but banning him from the country is ludicrous. You want gays to have the right to express themselves, but not the pope? That's hypocritical.

OK lets get a few things straight here, The Pope is a head of state. Therefore the payment of security by a country while he is visiting is standard procedure. So the taxpayer is paying for nothing more than what would happen if the head of Jamaica came to town for a visit.

As for The Popes opinions, they are that his opinions and he is entitled to them, while you may feel he is out of touch with reality, he isn't. I am pretty sure that many people agree with his point of view. lets not even get into the Infallible thing. You don't agree with him, fine. But it isn't like he was a holocaust denier, which is hate speech, he just doesn't feel that gay people should adopt. As far as I know Benedict XVI takes the same line as the last pope but I can't remember off the top of my head.

But Becca Hypocrisy does not become you.

It's not hypocritical to want someone to not spread prejudice in the world. If a country wants to ban someone who's preaching discrimination of homosexuality, or hatred of the Western world, the Western country who is tolerant of homosexuality and is against terrorism has every right to disallow people into their country. We're not sending people away, simply saying if you're doing something which could cause harm to the innocent people living in our country, we have every right to disallow you access.

And it may be standard procedure to give him security, that doesn't make it right though.

 

[Via Armbar]

This is a sticky situation. On one hand i beleive that no one should ever be banned from a country for something they say or beliefs they hold. Simple as that. Just as we have the right to support gay marriage, others have the right to show that they don't support it. Everyone has the right to say what they want without fear.On the other hand doing and saying or two different things. People can say whatever asinine or ridiculous things they want, but when saying becomes doing and peoples rights are violated its a problem.

When people start taking what their religious or political figure heads preach without some sense of freethought and individuality, it says more about the people then it does the person saying these things. It would seem the general population no longer has the ability to think for themselves and seperate what theyre told to think or feel by the people who are major representatives of their religion or political affiliation and what they truely feel. It's okay do disagree with these things, it makes for the dynamic we need to evolve and thrive.

 

[X]

This is a sticky situation. On one hand i beleive that no one should ever be banned from a country for something they say or beliefs they hold. Simple as that. Just as we have the right to support gay marriage, others have the right to show that they don't support it. Everyone has the right to say what they want without fear.On the other hand doing and saying or two different things. People can say whatever asinine or ridiculous things they want, but when saying becomes doing and peoples rights are violated its a problem.

Completely agree with this here. And this is exactly the point here---NO ONE's rights are being violated. Is the Pope coming to the UK to violate gay rights? Absolutely not. Why should his rights be violated because you don't agree with his political opinion? People are allowed to believe whatever they want, and frankly anyone who thinks radical opinions should be barred from a country scares the shit out of me because they're dealing with some extremely borderline dictatorial-fascist tendencies there.

 

[BladeRunner]

I believe in freedom of speech. And that includes every type of speech. Even the kind I personally don't like.

JS Mill, a philosopher, I think gives the best defense of freedom of speech:

"Mill reaffirmed and added strength to the ideas on liberty of thought and discussion. Shall individuals decide these matters for themselves, or shall some powerful individual or group such as the government or some religious body make the decision for society as a whole? Mill prefers to let the individual make the choice. A declaration of the reasons why a community for its own vital interests should ensure to its members the maximum freedom from pressure whether moral or governmental. Any attempt to control an opinion by government action or public intolerance is illegitimate. Mill argues that although abuses of freedom of speech are inevitable, governments should not intervene to enforce a standard of ethics in public discourse. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.

1) The censored opinion may be true and the accepted opinion may be in error

2) Even truth needs to be challenged and tested, else it becomes a dead dogma

3) There is probably some degree of truth in all opinions."

 

[Tastycles]

I think a point that has been missed here is what exactly free speech means. Free speech is exactly that, speech. It is when it becomes threatening that it is no longer a matter of freedom. Think of it on the individualistic scale. If you're walking down the street and someone calls you a cunt, then it doesn't matter. If you are walking down the street and someone pulls a knife on you, then it does. The difference between the pope and Muslim extremists is that the pope is doing the former while the extremists are doing the latter.

You cannot give anyone a platform to threaten the populous regardless of who they are because it incites civil unrest. There has never been a stable country that allows people to threaten the public, and there is a reason for that. The pope is as entitled to his achaic and frankly backward views, and he should be allowed to air them. Simiarly, muslim extemists should be allowed to berate the western way. They should not be allowed to call people to arms, because that isn't what freedom of speech does. Until the Pope starts praising the IRA and telling Catholics that they should burn the heathens, he should be allowed here.

As for the taxpayers footing the bill, I'm more bothered about them doing it for people like Colonel Gadaffi, who is directly responsible for Lockerbie bombing and who provided the lion's share of the IRA's semte, to be honest with you.

 

[Schizophrenic]

Well they're not good.

Are you seriously saying that someone who doesn't like a gay person is a bad person? Wow really? I personally have no problem with homosexuals, bisexuals, trandsgender what ever you are. I know there are some people who don't agree with that lifestyle and that doesn't make them a bad person. Now if they were to have that mindset of "I'm gonna kill a ***!" then yeah they are probably a little wacko and COUDL be classified as a bad person. But if someone doesn't agree with that lifestyle yet allows them to live that way because it doesn't have impact on their life then how are they bad?

 

[Miko]

No he shouldnt be banned from England just because of a few comments he's made, me personally, I believe that any religous group should play by the rules of the country it happens to be in, dont like gays? Tough shit, it's not illegal. Want your wife to wear a full face veil? Tough shit, we dont allow headwear that could hide your identity in Bluewater, take it off.

Despite that, if the Pope dont agree with our liberal views he's allowed to say that, Catholicism (sp?) has been anti gay for a long time, why should they change just because one rainy little island suddenly becomes all accepting? He's allowed to say it, all the catholics in this country should be allowed to agree with it, if that's honestly how they feel. Could it make some people upset? Yeah, but that's mainly because we've become a complete bunch of *****es in this country, so terrified of offending anybody that we think we should ban a head of state that has a lot of followers in this country, just because he thinks gay people shouldnt adopt.

If someone tried to tell some gay guy to shut up because he was calling the straight man redundant I'd defend his right to say that, even if I dont agree, same goes for the Pope.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

Becca is far and by the most intolerant, narrow-minded, stubborn, and ignorant person that I've ever spoken with. On top of all of that, she's being a hypocrite; Becca wants the gay man to have free speech, but the other man to be silent. Freedom of speech does not have exceptions. Words are not actions. When I express my opinion here that abortion is immoral, posters don't dress up in bed sheets and shoot teen girls that had abortions. If the Pope inspired Catholic zealots to go steal babies from gay "fathers" (which was obviously not his message), then so be it. That is their decision, and the blame lies solely with them.

... certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty...

Liberty is freedom. Freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom of speech. How far can you infringe on any of these before you eliminate liberty?