Pathetic really, and yea religion probably is a part of it. I get looked at funny, and treated differently when I say I'm not religious to my family. Then I discovered what an enmeshed family was, and they are extremely common today. This dude should make his own way and leave these cowards behind.
If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.
First off......... This all sounds and looks so staged - so I don't believe it anyway.....
However..... Someone may not choose how they are - but they choose if they follow how they feel or not. Note I am not making a comment for or against any lifestyle here - just pointing out. Some people are also predisposed to being attracted to children - but not all of these people become predatory paedophiles. Again I am not likening this to being gay, I am just pointing out that people don't always have to follow how they "are". There are times when we are truly grateful when they DON'T follow "who they are".
The other thing that people never seem to pay any attention to is that while someone may have every right to be gay/lesbian/bi/straight/whatever, and to believe that this is totally fine whatever it is.... people often ignore that people also have the right to NOT agree with that. Abusing someone based on their orientation (or any other factor) is never ok, but neither is it ok to abuse people because they do NOT share the commonly accepted view. If this video was not staged, then we have a family that have decided they disagree with homosexuality - and surely they have that right? Everyone has the right to believe as they want to. If you try and remove peoples right to believe how they want to on this subject then all you are doing is abusing people because they want to stand out as different. Isnt that EXACTLY what people complained that gays were doing a few years ago? They were abused for being "different" - so not everyone abuses those that disagree with homosexuality because they do not conform.
You cant have it both ways.... either people are free to form their own opinions or they are not. As for the person saying that the parents should be killed because they do not want their son living with them if he is gay..... I suggest a long look at your priorities.... murder because someone has a different view to you? Ever heard of tolerance? It DOES go both ways you know.
I am not stating my view on this matter - just putting some of the comments into a perspective that is very rarely heard - that people ALL have the right to their own opinions, and if someone's just doesnt happen to agree with the majority that is no reason to be abusive to them. This is somethign that gay rights activists have been fighting for for years. It kind of makes a mockery of it when those very people then start to abuse those against them now they have become more popular.
The moral high road would say take it on the chin, defend yourself if needed but spitting on someone else is not exactly defending yourself or the moral highroad mate.
It maybe emotionally satisfying, but at the end of the day it is not doing anything to make the situation better or defending yourself.
Are those nutjob hillbilly motherfuckers part of the westborough babtist church spurting all that fucking shit about some bloke that does not exist?!?
I dont think they was as mad about his sexuality as they were that he chose science over god.... fucking religious nutjob fucks each and everyone of them.
Aw, this is cute.
You want to try and talk "legal definitions of a crime" and shit your mouth off? Let's go.
"Under Section 58 of the Children Act 2004, it is unlawful for a parent or carer to smack their child, except where this amounts to ‘reasonable punishment’, though this is not defined in the legislation. As such, whether a smack amounts to reasonable punishment will depend on the circumstances of each case, taking into consideration factors like the age of the child and the nature of the smack. Physical punishment will be considered ‘unreasonable’ if it leaves a mark on the child or if the child is hit with an implement such as a cane or a belt.
It is illegal for teachers, nursery workers and child care workers to smack another person’s child. If a person is employed privately by a parent, such as a baby sitter or nanny, the parent may give permission for that person to smack their child as long as it is reasonable and does not amount to an offence."
"A parent can be charged with a criminal offence if they harm their child under certain offences, these offences are:
An offence under Section 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (wounding and causing grievous bodily harm);
An offence under Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (assault occasioning actual bodily harm);
An offence under Section 1o of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (cruelty to persons under 16).
Determining what charge will be made depends on the harm caused to the child. The Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales has produced a charging standard in order to help prosecutors to determine the appropriate offence in a case.
Common assault and Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)
The charging standard suggests that common assault is where no injury or injuries which are not serious occur. This guidance also states that “There may be exceptional cases where the injuries suffered by a victim are not serious and would usually amount to Common Assault but due to the presence of significant aggravating features (alone or in combination), they could more appropriately be charged as ABH [actual bodily harm] contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.”One such aggravating feature is whether the victim is a child. Even in such cases, however, prosecutors are required to bear in mind the charging order which states that “the definition of assault occasioning actual bodily harm requires the injury to be more than transient and trifling.”
The difference between common assault and actual bodily harm is therefore the severity of the harm caused. For example, loss or breaking of a tooth or teeth would be considered actual bodily harm, as would a broken nose, minor fractures, and temporary loss of sensory functions (i.e. loss of consciousness).
Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) and GBH with Intent
Grievous bodily harm is when someone wounds another person or inflicts grievous bodily harm on another person. For harm to be considered grievous, it must be really serious, amounting to an injury that results in permanent disability, loss of sensory function or visible disfigurement; broken or displaced limbs or bones, including fractured skull and compound fractures, injuries which cause substantial blood loss; or serious psychiatric injury.
GBH with intent is the most serious of the offences and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence is committed when a person unlawfully , maliciously and intentionally wounds another person or causes grievous bodily harm to another person. The difference between GBH and GBH with intent is not the severity of the harm caused, but evidence of intent, such as a repeated or planned attack, deliberate selection of a weapon to cause an injury (i.e. breaking a glass before an attack), making prior threats, or using an offensive weapon against or kicking the victim’s head."
Now, quite obviously, one could (rightfully so) say that smacking him for 'being gay' isn't a reasonable cause, but she was actually smacking him for 'disrespecting what his father has provided him with', which even if he did have a bit of his own right to be doing so; he certainly was.
His mom just smacked him a few times, you can sit here and shit your fucking pants all you want all day and all night long, no fucking parent is going to be charged with fucking assault just for harmlessly pussyslapping their kid a couple of times, give it a fucking rest you braindead twat. At the very least, they did not 'beat' their child and even if this absolutely laughable fucking argument of yours held any water (it holds none), all I was saying was that they certainly did not 'beat' him as the thread title and others were saying, whether or not they legally assaulted him was a different story because all I was saying was they didn't 'beat' him in the sense he wasn't horribly beaten to the ground, just slapped a couple of times.
You can't even comprehend enough to make a proper point of argument holy shit why are you so useless.
I'm 100% certain you wouldn't be screaming ASSAULT ASSAULT!!! ASSAULT ISN'T OKAY!! if a woman smacked a guy for poking her butt, so stop acting like you can just pick and choose what you consider assault just to make it serve your cause or not.
I will also gladly take an infraction for calling you out and being such a dumbass.
[Infracted]
Last edited by Endus; 2014-08-28 at 01:59 PM.
And this is why religion is complete an utter shit.. And why it shouldn't exist, people like this @__@ This is essentially a hate crime.. Yet I say because it deals with religion nothing will happen, at all.