Gay play comments - Police question father

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/10/father-reported-for-homophobia-after-complaint-about-gay-play-at-sons-school-5745072/

Statsi Police talk to father over gay play comments


A parent allegedly posted a homophobic rant on Facebook after his son’s school staged a play where two princes fell in love.
Julian Marsh wrote a public post on social media complaining his son came home ‘talking about gays, saying he had learned about gays.’ He accused the school of social engineering and claimed: ‘I think people who promote PC sex to kids below 11 border on paedophilia and are depraved.

‘It has nothing to do with gay sex that upset us but the lack of parental consent, a bit like finding the school had decided it has the right to vaccinate your kids for you and did it without your consent because it knows best.’ Now the headteacher of Sacred Heart RC Primary in Atherton, near Wigan, has vowed to stand up to homophobia. Carrie Morrow said she was shocked the workshop aimed at teaching children about diversity was criticised by a ‘small minority’ of parents on Facebook.

Actors from a theatre company came in to perform the fairytale where two princes fall in love, to teach pupils there are many different kinds of relationships. But not everyone was impressed. Mr Marsh was reported to police by another user for his comments, along with another man, and both have since been spoken to by officers. ‘I know for some schools it is not an easy aspect of the curriculum to teach, but our pupils handled it with maturity and sensitivity,’ Ms Morrow said, adding she was proud to be one of the first schools locally to publicly stand up to homophobia.

‘We have been quite bold and it has not been without some negativity from the community. We are not intimidated as we know such homophobic attitudes are in the minority.’ As well as watching the play, children were asked to design a logo for Wigan’s first Pride festival and were told when it was acceptable to use the word gay. When Mr Marsh was approached by the Manchester Evening News, he said he was not homophobic and did not wish to comment further.

Can you believe this? My blood is boiling.

The British Police since the 1990s have now been turned into a political force and take sides in social arguments when their job is to enforce the law. Another great legacy of Blair where we have the appalling site of Police stations flying the rainbow flag which is as distasteful as the prospect of the Civil Service putting a Labour/Conservative/Ukip flag up over their buildings. These organisations are supposed to be strictly neutral which is why this country has long enjoyed freedoms others have not.

One of the most sinister moments in my life actually came from an experience in a university lecture with the Police you know. I was attending a guest lecture on Freedom of Speech and near the end a man stood up (he was gay) and informed the room he was from the Police. He then went on to basically tell the room that if they heard any speech which basically objected to homosexuality, transexuality and so on to inform the Police. It was at that moment it dawned on me, with a fright, how bent the Police in this country now are and as a result I have zero faith in them. Sinister.

Amazing how the formerly persecuted (gays) have become the persecuters.

Then again, shame on the father for not standing up for himself. I'd tell the Police to get lost as I do not need to 'explain' or justify my views to them.

[FlyingJesus]

A love story isn't an advert for gay sex, and since when did schools need consent to teach children? That's literally their job

[!:random!:!]

A love story isn't an advert for gay sex, and since when did schools need consent to teach children? That's literally their job completely agree with fj on this. The parent seriously needs to think before posting. Teaching children that its ok for a man and another man to be in a relationship is perfectly fine and I would not see why consent is needed :/ I feel if it was a story about "two princesses falling in love" the father of the child would have been perfectly fine with it. some parents need to be taught before their kids :/

[Empired]

Bit of an overreaction for the police, especially as anyone with quarter of a brain would have looked at that man's comment and thought "what a ***" and then thought nothing more of it. Easier for people who disagree with him to just realise he's an idiot and get on with their lives than inform the police lol... Police have better things to be doing than telling idiots to stop spouting rubbish.

[-:Undertaker:-]

completely agree with fj on this. The parent seriously needs to think before posting. Teaching children that its ok for a man and another man to be in a relationship is perfectly fine and I would not see why consent is needed :/ I feel if it was a story about "two princesses falling in love" the father of the child would have been perfectly fine with it. some parents need to be taught before their kids :/

Why should a free man who pays his taxes need to "think" (aka change his views to suit your own) before airing them?

That's a very scary and sinister way to think. And on the love story itself, bringing any social views into schools like that at such an early age will only serve to confuse the children and is social engineering at it's worst. Keep this sort of social experimentation out of schools especially to small children below the age of 11 and 12.

[Cerys]

Why should a free man who pays his taxes need to "think" (aka change his views to suit your own) before airing them?

That's a very scary and sinister way to think. And on the love story itself, bringing any social views into schools like that at such an early age will only serve to confuse the children and is social engineering at it's worst. Keep this sort of social experimentation out of schools especially to small children below the age of 11 and 12.

How is teaching children that it's acceptable to be gay etc social engineering or an experiment, it's a part of life. That's like saying oh we shouldn't teach children that people die - it's a part of life that they're going to learn about regardless so we should surely teach them about it in a 'safe' environment.

[-:Undertaker:-]

How is teaching children that it's acceptable to be gay social engineering or an experiment, it's a part of life. That's like saying oh we shouldn't teach children that people die - it's a part of life that they're going to learn about regardless so we should surely teach them about it in a 'safe' environment.

It is a part of life but not one many children can get their heads around until they are older. I certainly couldn't get my head around it as a child even when I first understood what it meant and that was near the end of primary school/beginning of high school. The beliefs and morals of the parents come before those of the state.

Like I always say, it is really amusing to see those who drone on about tolerance on issues like these totally brush aside the moral views of others who actually have children of which the same cannot be said for most LGBTXYZ campaigners. How I raise my children is my choice, not that of Stonewall.

[Cerys]

It is a part of life but not one many children can get their heads around until they are older. I certainly couldn't get my head around it as a child even when I first understood what it meant and that was near the end of primary school/beginning of high school. The beliefs and morals of the parents come before those of the state.

OK so say your best friend in primary school had two dads - a gay couple - what would you expect your teachers to do, just dance around the topic whenever someone asks??

Just because you couldn't get your head around it when you were a child doesn't mean today's children can't - speaking from a relatives experience whenever homosexuality is discussed in their school the children are always interested and keen to learn more and respectful of the topic

[FlyingJesus]

How is it confusing to see two people fall in love? I think it would be far more confusing to be kept in the dark about something relatively common and discover that things aren't exactly what you think they are at an age where your ideals have become more ingrained. This is just letting kids know how some people think, it's not "cleanliness is next to Fordliness"

[-:Undertaker:-]

OK so say your best friend in primary school had two dads - a gay couple - what would you expect your teachers to do, just dance around the topic whenever someone asks??

I don't expect the teachers to do anything really other than briefly explain (if it really requires it).

In any case that is different. Explaining that somebody has two "Dads" is a factual legal statement that requires neither praise or condemnation from the teacher whereas coming into a school and having children take part in a pro-homosexuality play is a lot different as it is pushing a particular social agenda that many parents may feel uncomfortable with, including this man and myself.


Just because you couldn't get your head around it when you were a child doesn't mean today's children can't - speaking from a relatives experience whenever homosexuality is discussed in their school the children are always interested and keen to learn more and respectful of the topic

Are teachers/the schools respectful of alternative opinions on the matter I wonder?

Or if a child expresses disapproval or an objection to homosexuality, should the parents receive a knock on the door from the Police as this man has?

[Cerys]

Are teachers/the schools respectful of alternative opinions on the matter I wonder?

Or if a child expresses disapproval or an objection to homosexuality, should the parents receive a knock on the door from the Police as this man has?

If a child expresses disapproval then obviously they're one of the few who are too young to understand (not one of the many, as you stated). Having a grown adult and a child spouting homophobic views is completely different as the adult 9 times out of 10 surely has malicious intent, whereas the child either doesn't understand or has been brought up with them views, imo.
And yes I think the knock on the door was warranted, if people expressed concern over it then why shouldn't the police have a word with him. People have been arrested for racial slurs so why should homophobic statements be an exception.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If a child expresses disapproval then obviously they're one of the few who are too young to understand (not one of the many, as you stated). Having a grown adult and a child spouting homophobic views is completely different as the adult 9 times out of 10 surely has malicious intent, whereas the child either doesn't understand or has been brought up with them views, imo.

Hang on, what if they do understand but happen to believe different to what you/the school are teaching them?


And yes I think the knock on the door was warranted, if people expressed concern over it then why shouldn't the police have a word with him. People have been arrested for racial slurs so why should homophobic statements be an exception.

Wow just wow.

I believe homosexuality is immoral..... are you going to report me now to the statsi Police for holding a view different to your own?

The irony with you is that you cannot see that you are treating people simply for holding a different view to that of your own much how gay people were treated in the 1950s just for engaging in consensual acts in private together. I'm sure you consider back then awfully dark and backwards times... yet look at you.

[Cerys]

Hang on, what if they do understand but happen to believe different to what you/the school are teaching them?



Wow just wow.

I believe homosexuality is immoral..... are you going to report me now for holding a view different to your own?

The irony with you is that you cannot see that you are treating people simply for holding a different view to that of your own much how gay people were treated in the 1950s just for engaging in consensual acts in private together. I'm sure you consider back then awfully dark and backwards times... yet look at you.

Good for you if you believe you're immoral, and if you go around attacking people for who they are then yes you deserve to be reported. In that article (as far as I can tell) you couldn't see exactly what the guy in question stated, if it was something like 'I don't believe in homosexuality' then no he shouldn't have been questioned, however if he full on attacked them then yes he had it coming.

There is no irony and I don't treat people differently due to their views, if they don't agree with homosexuality then that's fine. The problem comes when they start raising their views to an aggressive standard and being verbally abusive.


How about look at this from another angle.


From a young age children are taught about other cultures, however if a racist comes along and says it's wrong and 'the beliefs and morals of the parents come before those of the state', as you said, they'd be told to get lost and deemed as a racist.
If children are then taught from a young age about different sexualities, but a homophobe comes along to say that's wrong, why should the schools have a different stance on that?

What I'm getting at is schools have the choice whether or not to teach their pupils about different aspects of life and help them to understand it. It's up to the child to make their own decision on if they personally believe it's wrong or right. Even if they think it's wrong then the school has allowed them to understand it so it'd be highly unlikely they'd turn into a homophobe.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Good for you if you believe you're immoral, and if you go around attacking people for who they are then yes you deserve to be reported. In that article (as far as I can tell) you couldn't see exactly what the guy in question stated, if it was something like 'I don't believe in homosexuality' then no he shouldn't have been questioned, however if he full on attacked them then yes he had it coming.

All he seemingly stated on social media was that his children shouldn't be taught homosexuality from an early age.

He deserves a knock on the door for that? It's objectionable that anyone receives a visit from the Police for an opinion let alone this.


There is no irony and I don't treat people differently due to their views, if they don't agree with homosexuality then that's fine. The problem comes when they start raising their views to an aggressive standard and being verbally abusive.

Who are you to decide in what tone people express their opinions?


From a young age children are taught about other cultures, however if a racist comes along and says it's wrong and 'the beliefs and morals of the parents come before those of the state', as you said, they'd be told to get lost and deemed as a racist.

If children are then taught from a young age about different sexualities, but a homophobe comes along to say that's wrong, why should the schools have a different stance on that?

I think you've pretty much summed it up and it isn't a good summary for your side either. Given how easily the racism accusation is thrown around now at people it does seem that you too believe if somebody states the opinion that a certain culture is wrong/backwards then they are a racist?

Am I correct? If so then you can report me in addition for believing that Saudi Arabian & Somalian cultures are wrong/backwards in many respects.


What I'm getting at is schools have the choice whether or not to teach their pupils about different aspects of life and help them to understand it. It's up to the child to make their own decision on if they personally believe it's wrong or right. Even if they think it's wrong then the school has allowed them to understand it so it'd be highly unlikely they'd turn into a homophobe.

It's up to the child you say but then you are wanting the Police to visit their parents for holding a view different to your own? Frightening.

[Cerys]

All he seemingly stated on social media was that his children shouldn't be taught homosexuality from an early age.

He deserves a knock on the door for that? It's objectionable that anyone receives a visit from the Police for an opinion let alone this.



Who are you to decide in what tone people express their opinions?



I think you've pretty much summed it up and it isn't a good summary for your side either. Given how easily the racism accusation is thrown around now at people it does seem that you too believe if somebody states the opinion that a certain culture is wrong/backwards then they are a racist?

Am I correct? If so then you can report me in addition for believing that Saudi Arabian & Somalian cultures are wrong/backwards in many respects.



It's up to the child you say but then you are wanting the Police to visit their parents for holding a view different to your own? Frightening.

Then no if that's all he stated it is ridiculous that he got questioned for it.

Hi I'm Cerys and I can decide for myself when I start getting offended by people :)

Not once did I say that saying you oppose a certain culture is racist, similarly not once did I say that saying you oppose homosexuality is homophobic.

Once again you're putting words into my mouth, good job dan you can't hold a decent discussion without dreaming up something random to say I said :rolleyes:

[FlyingJesus]

Dan it's nothing to do with people not liking someone else having a different view and you know it, it's about safety of the individual. Someone simply not liking the idea of two guys having a tumble is very very different to someone inciting violence over it or (as in this case) claiming that it's somehow damaging to children even though it's nothing to do with sex and everything to do with respect and relationships. Enforced ignorance is never a good solution to anything, that's why it's the job of schools to teach as wide a range of views as possible

[-:Undertaker:-]

Then no if that's all he stated it is ridiculous that he got questioned for it.

Hi I'm Cerys and I can decide for myself when I start getting offended by people :)

Not once did I say that saying you oppose a certain culture is racist, similarly not once did I say that saying you oppose homosexuality is homophobic.

Once again you're putting words into my mouth, good job dan you can't hold a decent discussion without dreaming up something random to say I said :rolleyes:

But you do realise freedom of speech is there to protect unpopular and offensive speech, right?

That sort of means when you hear something that might outrage you, boil your blood or make you cry... you make your case and show how the other side is wrong by what they said. You do not claim special rights and call 999 for the Police to come for your ideological/social/political opponents.


Dan it's nothing to do with people not liking someone else having a different view and you know it, it's about safety of the individual. Someone simply not liking the idea of two guys having a tumble is very very different to someone inciting violence over it or (as in this case) claiming that it's somehow damaging to children even though it's nothing to do with sex and everything to do with respect and relationships. Enforced ignorance is never a good solution to anything, that's why it's the job of schools to teach as wide a range of views as possible

If the schools were teaching and allowing the other side then fair enough, but they are not. Instead they're ringing the Police on parents.

How Cery's basically justified knocks on people's doors over different opinions is so scary. Even reading or watching debates between hardcore Bible belt people in America who believe gay marriage is the worst thing to happen since the death of Jesus I have never see intolerance of other views on such a level.

[Empired]

Ugh reading long replies on my phone is difficult but to the thing about children not being able to understand:

That's funny because my experience is generally that children are the most understanding about what adults call "controversial" issues. Adults get caught up arguing over things that their inconsequential opinions will not change (for example it amuses me how so many adults think people care about their moral standpoint on the gay community, and more importantly delude themselves into thinking their tantrum on social media will make the slightest difference to what men stick their dick in). But children ask questions that might not seem so important to us but are very important to them, mull it over for a bit and then go back to doing whatever they were doing before.

I think it'd do us all some good to start acting like children from time to time.

Though I'm steering away from the article somewhat so sorry pls continue

[FlyingJesus]

What other side? Are you suggesting that schools ought to outright teach that you shouldn't mix with people who don't do things the way you do them?

[Cerys]

But you do realise freedom of speech is there to protect unpopular and offensive speech, right?

That sort of means when you hear something that might outrage you, boil your blood or make you cry... you make your case and show how the other side is wrong by what they said. You do not claim special rights and call 999 for the Police to come for your ideological/social/political opponents.



If the schools were teaching and allowing the other side then fair enough, but they are not. Instead they're ringing the Police on parents.

How Cery's basically justified knocks on people's doors over different opinions is so scary. Even reading or watching debates between hardcore Bible belt people in America who believe gay marriage is the worst thing to happen since the death of Jesus I have never see intolerance of other views on such a level.

Lol for the last time, I'm only saying a knock on the door is correct if they're saying aggressive views that could hurt people. Stop picking and choosing what you want to read, it's getting embarrassing now

[-:Undertaker:-]

What other side? Are you suggesting that schools ought to outright teach that you shouldn't mix with people who don't do things the way you do them?

For example if Stonewall are invited into a school to give a certain perspective on homosexuality/SSM then a group opposing ought to be also brought in.

I don't believe schools, more so primary schools, should be involved in these things. But if they are, then both sides ought to be given and not just the one.


Lmfao for the last time, I'm only saying a knock on the door is correct if they're saying aggressive views that could hurt people. Stop picking and choosing what you want to read, it's getting embarrassing now

The fact you believe the Police should knock on doors because views may 'hurt' people is again frankly very scary.

I dislike a lot of views and they 'hurt' me but I don't ring the Police on my opponents, instead I take them on in reasoned debate.

[FlyingJesus]

So yes, you are in fact suggesting that schools ought to outright teach that you shouldn't mix with people who don't do things the way you do them. And also seem to have just stated that to you it's a greater affront to humanity that the police want to do their job of keeping people safe than civilians wanting to stone people who don't bang the right folk. Reasoned debate indeed

[dbgtz]

This seems like a complete non issue from all sides.

A gay couple in a play? Wow, it's called a plot.
Someone calls the police about something they believe to be illegal and the police look into it? Wow, they're doing their job. The police are ultimately forced to look into everything, so it's probably not fair to blame them. Fortunately there was no convictions (as there shouldn't be in my opinion), but this wouldn't be the first time someone was convicted from "bad" speech. If anyone is to blame, however, it is the lawmakers not those who are bound to enforce it.

[Cerys]

For example if Stonewall are invited into a school to give a certain perspective on homosexuality/SSM then a group opposing ought to be also brought in.

I don't believe schools, more so primary schools, should be involved in these things. But if they are, then both sides ought to be given and not just the one.



The fact you believe the Police should knock on doors because views may 'hurt' people is again frankly very scary.

I dislike a lot of views and they 'hurt' me but I don't ring the Police on my opponents, instead I take them on in reasoned debate.

I think you're purposely misinterpreting me now so I'm just gonna leave it here. To conclude;
Yes I think children should be taught the different ways of being in love.
Yes I think children need to understand it and then make their own views upon this
No I don't think (if dan is right in what the guy posted) he should've got a knock on the door.
Yes I think a knock on the door is warranted IF their views are seriously aggressive and abusive and endangering others.

If you feel ready to actually listen to my views instead of interpreting them in a way that makes you correct and me seem like scum, then feel free to tag me and I'll happily continue the discussion in a mature manner!

[-:Undertaker:-]

So yes, you are in fact suggesting that schools ought to outright teach that you shouldn't mix with people who don't do things the way you do them. And also seem to have just stated that to you it's a greater affront to humanity that the police want to do their job of keeping people safe than civilians wanting to stone people who don't bang the right folk. Reasoned debate indeed

You've tried dressing up as though you were on the fence and Mr Reasonable here but you've just basically said that schools should teach pro-gay marriage and homosexuality messages, that they shouldn't give the opposing arguments and that the Police should investigate people for having non pro-gay views.

I saw through you from the start, just so you know.


No I don't think (if dan is right in what the guy posted) he should've got a knock on the door.

If you feel ready to actually listen to my views instead of interpreting them in a way that makes you correct and me seem like scum, then feel free to tag me and I'll happily continue the discussion in a mature manner!

That's all I wanted, the confirmation that others can actually disagree with you without fear of having Police knock on the door.


Someone calls the police about something they believe to be illegal and the police look into it? Wow, they're doing their job. The police are ultimately forced to look into everything, so it's probably not fair to blame them.

As I wrote in the first post, I have witnessed first hand the Police urging people to report non-politically correct views.

From a neutral and respectable institution to Stonewall in jackboots. Zero respect from me.

[FlyingJesus]

That's interesting, I don't recall having said any of that. Making shit up as usual because you don't have anything of value to say, when are you leaving like you promised in feedback?

[dbgtz]

As I wrote in the first post, I have witnessed first hand the Police urging people to report non-politically correct views.

From a neutral and respectable institution to Stonewall in jackboots. Zero respect from me.

One person's anecdotal evidence is weak. Even if it was widespread, they have to enforce law which would mean urging "victims" to come forward, like with any other crime. The problem therefore lies in the law itself.

[!:random!:!]

Why should a free man who pays his taxes need to "think" (aka change his views to suit your own) before airing them?

That's a very scary and sinister way to think. And on the love story itself, bringing any social views into schools like that at such an early age will only serve to confuse the children and is social engineering at it's worst. Keep this sort of social experimentation out of schools especially to small children below the age of 11 and 12.

Because they are saying they think there child should not be learning something as normal as human nature. If it was a play about a man and woman loving each other would you still say its too early for the children to learn about love?or that its social engineering? How is that a scary and sinister way to think that this man should have thought how he worded his opinion on facebook? When did I imply he had to change his views? Thinking does not mean changing his views at all. If the dad was not happy with the education his son received why did he have to air it on facebook before contacting the school? would he not have already been seeking the attention of others? I personally would not mind if my son was taught about same sex relationships as its only right so he understood, if he saw a couple whom are the same sex he would not be confused, as he knows its ok. I do think it does not have to be taught into detail till a later age but simply saying its normal to be in a same sex relationship or not is completely fine for a child younger than 11 to learn and certainly not going to confuse that child.

[lawrawrrr]

It's ridiculous to suggest that schools should always be teaching both points of view! You couldn't have Genesis creation theory in a science class where they're teaching evolution.

As for the topic here, what he wrote is so glaringly hilraious I just can't


It has nothing to do with gay sex that upset us but the lack of parental consent, a bit like finding the school had decided it has the right to vaccinate your kids for you and did it without your consent because it knows best


Yes, having a plot with two men as the subjects is CLEARLY the exact same thing as forcibly vaccinating your child (because vaccines are clearly the worst things to have ever happened).


End of the day the majority of books, TV, films focus on heterosexual relationships so all this theatre company is doing is presenting that different point of view.

As for your baffling comments about the police, they DISMISSED the claim???


A police spokesman said: ‘Shortly after 10.25pm on Sunday February 28, police were called to reports that a number of homophobic comments had been made on Facebook.

‘This was investigated as a hate incident but it was determined that the comments did not amount to a criminal offence.


‘Local resolution officers spoke to all parties involved and advised two men of their future conduct on social media.’


People can report whatever they want and the police will investigate then make a decision. They didn't arrest him, they didn't force him to apologise, it won't be on his record, all they did is probably explain it had been reported and ADVISED not to post similar things or the same thing might happen again.

Yeah, to some extent I agree with you because I believe in freedom of speech, but people also have the right to report what they believe is hate speech such as racism, homophobia ETC. If it was threatening enough to

If you think it's fine to be homophobic and want to bring your kids up that way then that's up to you, but it's a school's place to give pupils a FULL explanation and they can make their own decisions. I've seen far too many comments and articles about shoving a homosexual agenda down kids' throats, but these things aren't telling kids BE GAY THERE IS NOTHING ELSE, it - and other things like promoting inclusion of women/POC in pop culture - just tells people that they're OK no matter what, and what is wrong with that?!

[-:Undertaker:-]

That's interesting, I don't recall having said any of that. Making shit up as usual because you don't have anything of value to say, when are you leaving like you promised in feedback?

Hahaha claims I make shit up and then makes shit up himself.

You're welcome to put the supposed quote with link of me saying I am leaving in your signature to make me look a fool. Problem is it doesn't exist.


One person's anecdotal evidence is weak. Even if it was widespread, they have to enforce law which would mean urging "victims" to come forward, like with any other crime. The problem therefore lies in the law itself.

Indeed it does lie with the law, but the problem is we have so many people - as shown throughout this thread and below - who are quite happy to have only one viewpoint accepted in society and indeed will even go to the measure of supporting Police knocking on doors over different opinions to their own.

I have always said it is always those who profess tolerance who are in reality the most intolerant.


Because they are saying they think there child should not be learning something as normal as human nature. If it was a play about a man and woman loving each other would you still say its too early for the children to learn about love?or that its social engineering? How is that a scary and sinister way to think that this man should have thought how he worded his opinion on facebook? When did I imply he had to change his views? Thinking does not mean changing his views at all. If the dad was not happy with the education his son received why did he have to air it on facebook before contacting the school? would he not have already been seeking the attention of others? I personally would not mind if my son was taught about same sex relationships as its only right so he understood, if he saw a couple whom are the same sex he would not be confused, as he knows its ok. I do think it does not have to be taught into detail till a later age but simply saying its normal to be in a same sex relationship or not is completely fine for a child younger than 11 to learn and certainly not going to confuse that child.

What. Has. It. Got. To. Do. With. You. Or. The. Police. How People. Word. Their. Opinions.

Where does this strange and creepy idea come from that I must express an opinion in the correct tone?

I find the 'tone' of gay pride offensive with public nudity, fetish porn & sexual innuendo infront of small children. Should that be banned?


It's ridiculous to suggest that schools should always be teaching both points of view! You couldn't have Genesis creation theory in a science class where they're teaching evolution.

Evolution is a provable fact, the definition of marriage is a social/societal opinion therefore the two are not comparable in the slightest.


As for your baffling comments about the police, they DISMISSED the claim???

Oh, so you believe this man should be charged for expressing his opinion?


People can report whatever they want and the police will investigate then make a decision. They didn't arrest him, they didn't force him to apologise, it won't be on his record, all they did is probably explain it had been reported and ADVISED not to post similar things or the same thing might happen again.

Then action has been taken as he has been intimidated into silencing his views which as a (supposed) free man he has a right to express.


Yeah, to some extent I agree with you because I believe in freedom of speech, but people also have the right to report what they believe is hate speech such as racism, homophobia ETC. If it was threatening enough to

Nobody who believes in so-called hate laws and especially the wide interpretation of them as in this case believes in freedom of speech.

There have always existed perfectly sound laws on the expression or promotion of violence.


If you think it's fine to be homophobic and want to bring your kids up that way then that's up to you, but it's a school's place to give pupils a FULL explanation and they can make their own decisions. I've seen far too many comments and articles about shoving a homosexual agenda down kids' throats, but these things aren't telling kids BE GAY THERE IS NOTHING ELSE

But you're the one saying above that schools should not give a full explanation and only one explanation. That's not very tolerant or liberal of you.


and other things like promoting inclusion of women/POC in pop culture - just tells people that they're OK no matter what, and what is wrong with that?!

Because people are not "OK" no matter what.

[lawrawrrr]

Gay people, POC and women are perfectly "OK" actually. It's only bigots who believe otherwise.

Also I DONT think he should have been charged but thanks so much for putting those words in my mouth! I think it's right that it was investigated because police can't just ignore complaints without investigating at all and a simple explanation is all that was needed. He hasn't been bullied or intimidated into shutting up at all and he could do the same thing again if he so wished now. My disbelief in the post above was at the massive negative reaction you've had to the story - I clicked on it thinking he'd been charged and they threw it out and you're so anti ALL police because of it - it's just baffling!

Also, I made the example of the biblical creation story not being taught as fact. There's a difference between social issues such as the topic in the thread and fact/fiction. Because gay relationships aren't fictional, shock horror! Pretty much exactly what you said too so it's amusing that you call me out for hypocrisy then repeat it yourself :p


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xxMATTGxx]

You're welcome to put the supposed quote with link of me saying I am leaving in your signature to make me look a fool. Problem is it doesn't exist.

No, you claimed you would stop posting or post less because you didn't get your way but at the moment you're posting pretty much similar to what you did before hand. So broken your promise? Maybe.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Gay people, POC and women are perfectly "OK" actually. It's only bigots who believe otherwise.

Pretending everyone is absolutely equal is an insult to reason and logic.


Also I DONT think he should have been charged but thanks so much for putting those words in my mouth! I think it's right that it was investigated because police can't just ignore complaints without investigating at all and a simple explanation is all that was needed. He hasn't been bullied or intimidated into shutting up at all and he could do the same thing again if he so wished now. My disbelief in the post above was at the massive negative reaction you've had to the story

Ah right well that is the impression I had. But on investigation, it was on a FB post so presumably the Police had seen the post before they went and spoke to him... and quite clearly the post did not require a knock on the door. He was not inciting violence of any kind just expressing his opinion which you may disagree with but that's life.


I clicked on it thinking he'd been charged and they threw it out and you're so anti ALL police because of it - it's just baffling!

Look at what I wrote about an experience in university.

Do you think that is an acceptable way for a neutral institution that is supposed to have the respect of all parts of society to behave?


Also, I made the example of the biblical creation story not being taught as fact. There's a difference between social issues such as the topic in the thread and fact/fiction. Because gay relationships aren't fictional, shock horror! Pretty much exactly what you said too so it's amusing that you call me out for hypocrisy then repeat it yourself :p

Of course they're not fictional however there is sufficient public opinion/views out there which ought not to be shut down.

If Stonewall are invited to schools, why are say the Coalition for Marriage not allowed? Both sides should be given if this stuff is to enter schools.


No, you claimed you would stop posting or post less because you didn't get your way but at the moment you're posting pretty much similar to what you did before hand. So broken your promise? Maybe.

My post count for this week is high because of that thread in Feedback... duh.

Watch my thread numbers dive. I posted something like 40 or 50 out of a forum total of 350 odd last month. That was and is my promise.

[xxMATTGxx]

Pretending everyone is absolutely equal is an insult to reason and logic.



Ah right well that is the impression I had. But on investigation, it was on a FB post so presumably the Police had seen the post before they went and spoke to him... and quite clearly the post did not require a knock on the door. He was not inciting violence of any kind just expressing his opinion which you may disagree with but that's life.



Look at what I wrote about an experience in university.

Do you think that is an acceptable way for a neutral institution that is supposed to have the respect of all parts of society to behave?



Of course they're not fictional however there is sufficient public opinion/views out there which ought not to be shut down.

If Stonewall are invited to schools, why are say the Coalition for Marriage not allowed? Both sides should be given if this stuff is to enter schools.



My post count for this week is high because of that thread in Feedback... duh.

Watch my thread numbers dive. I posted something like 40 or 50 out of a forum total of 350 odd last month. That was and is my promise.

Oh we will watch your numbers dive for sure, people will probably throw a party who knows.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh we will watch your numbers dive for sure, people will probably throw a party who knows.

Oh I don't know you know they might get bored quite quickly with your dull and dorky threads on planes, trains and internet freedumb.

at least i'm entertaining hunny x

[xxMATTGxx]

Oh I don't know you know they might get bored quite quickly with your dull and dorky threads on planes, trains and internet freedumb.

at least i'm entertaining hunny x

Least I'm not crying over a fake account having 25,000 posts. Oh and none of your threads are entertaining... please. Get over yourself.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Least I'm not crying over a fake account having 25,000 posts. Oh and none of your threads are entertaining... please. Get over yourself.

oh darling what are you on about this IS the entertainment happening right here right now for the habbox gallery.

it's just i'm the ringmaster and you the cheeky monkey x

[lawrawrrr]

Only replying to one bit as I'm at rehearsal but the reason why generally only one side is shown at a time is literally time issues - there are always going to be multiple opposing views to everything and there isn't time to teach all of that.

Besides this wasn't even a lesson it was a play (with a moral but still) - every time kids put on a show of Romeo and Juliet should they also be performing Bent or something? It's impossible - particularly in creative arts - to get across every opposing view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xxMATTGxx]

oh darling what are you on about this IS the entertainment happening right here right now for the habbox gallery.

it's just i'm the ringmaster and you the cheeky monkey x

You know what will be funny for everyone? Re-setting your post count to 0.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Only replying to one bit as I'm at rehearsal but the reason why generally only one side is shown at a time is literally time issues - there are always going to be multiple opposing views to everything and there isn't time to teach all of that.

Besides this wasn't even a lesson it was a play (with a moral but still) - every time kids put on a show of Romeo and Juliet should they also be performing Bent or something? It's impossible - particularly in creative arts - to get across every opposing view.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed but say at assemblies it should be one week for Stonewall and another for say C4M. Or in Religious Education lessons invite two people in or invite the class to present both sides. Nobody learns anything if they're not presented with two sides of an argument. To know your own argument you need to know the opposing view.

I always remember in RE lessons having to give view A, view B and then my own. It's like onnnnn say abortion or the House of Lords I used to hold different views but I had never looked into the other view properly and when I did many of the arguments I thought made sense crumbled before me and I was forced to change my mind.

[lawrawrrr]

There's more than one opposing view. Where would you draw the line? Would you invite ISIS for an assembly the week after one about terrorism threats? Because that's an opposing view, although an extreme example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

There's more than one opposing view. Where would you draw the line? Would you invite ISIS for an assembly the week after one about terrorism threats? Because that's an opposing view, although an extreme example.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope, there's debate within reasonable boundaries which doesn't call for violence ofc. C4M for example simply oppose gay marriage as they believe marriage is one man + one woman. Stonewall thinks differently. Both are widely-held views in the UK.

A lot of people on your side of the argument often confuse any opposition to LBGT issues to groups like Westboro Baptist Church. That's just an extreme.

[David]

You know what will be funny for everyone? Re-setting your post count to 0.

what do you call an undertaker with 0 post count

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmcpzxqnPC1qhubzt.gif

[lawrawrrr]

again, apart from the time element, I do kind of agree. I don't really think someone coming into a school spouting hate speech for gay people for the sake of it or being racist is a good example for children though.

So back to the actual topic, what about plays? I assume the idea of this play was to make the idea of being gay OK to pupils, so putting on a production of Romeo and Juliet the following week would be the logical assumption here, right? Except straight people don't need to be told they're OK as they are accepted in every walk of life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

again, apart from the time element, I do kind of agree. I don't really think someone coming into a school spouting hate speech for gay people for the sake of it or being racist is a good example for children though.

But like I said opposition to gay marriage isn't based on hate. For some like Westboro it may be, but most simply disagree for other reasons.


So back to the actual topic, what about plays? I assume the idea of this play was to make the idea of being gay OK to pupils, so putting on a production of Romeo and Juliet the following week would be the logical assumption here, right? Except straight people don't need to be told they're OK as they are accepted in every walk of life.

Indeed however children shouldn't be forced to take part and parents should be informed of any sensitive issues and allowed choice. Gay relationships still remain a divisive issue outside of north London for moral and social reasons so there's never going to be everybody going along with it.

[lawrawrrr]

But like I said opposition to gay marriage isn't based on hate. For some like Westboro it may be, but most simply disagree for other reasons.



Indeed however children shouldn't be forced to take part and parents should be informed of any sensitive issues and allowed choice. Gay relationships still remain a divisive issue outside of north London for moral and social reasons so there's never going to be everybody going along with it.

To the last sentence - what?!?!? Where is this from? Wherever you go there are going to be people pro and con for almost everything.

I understand why people have a problem with these things but I still don't understand why they can't keep it to themselves and let the people in the minority live their lives? As the UK government treats them as equals, shouldn't its citizens extend the same civility?

I don't like certain people because of their views or things they do (whether by choice or not) but I wouldn't stop them from doing something or take myself or my children out of that situation just because they were there. Like you said it's good for children to have a rounded education and make their own decisions, removing them from situations where they can learn and interact with people unlike them doesn't give them the opportunity to, and just puts blinkers on them to this "perfect" world


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

To the last sentence - what?!?!? Where is this from? Wherever you go there are going to be people pro and con for almost everything.

I understand why people have a problem with these things but I still don't understand why they can't keep it to themselves and let the people in the minority live their lives? As the UK government treats them as equals, shouldn't its citizens extend the same civility?

Indeed there are views for everything but gay marriage and related issues remain controversial among huge sections of the population as demonstrated in the United States for example after gay marriage was defeated in multiple votes on the issue. In social terms, it is still controversial to many people and people ought to be respectful of that and if they disagree they are free to debate it: but shutting down opinions is sinister.

I myself was waivering on the homosexuality/gay marriage issue a few months back after a lot of thinking about it but I have reverted back to my original position. It's stories such as this and the denial of the other side of the argument being given space that make me think I was right in doing so.


I don't like certain people because of their views or things they do (whether by choice or not) but I wouldn't stop them from doing something or take myself or my children out of that situation just because they were there. Like you said it's good for children to have a rounded education and make their own decisions, removing them from situations where they can learn and interact with people unlike them doesn't give them the opportunity to, and just puts blinkers on them to this "perfect" world

There's a difference though between teaching it as a fact and promoting it, which is what a play for instance does.

[lawrawrrr]

Well it is fact? I really don't get it :/ the play is a topical arts piece which tackles a popular talking point at the moment. Why should it be removed from performances at school because some of the country disagrees? You wouldn't stop plays with POC in them because some of the country doesn't believe they should have equal rights so what's the difference?

Well I assume you wouldn't stop that...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Empired]

Well it is fact? I really don't get it :/ the play is a topical arts piece which tackles a popular talking point at the moment. Why should it be removed from performances at school because some of the country disagrees? You wouldn't stop plays with POC in them because some of the country doesn't believe they should have equal rights so what's the difference?

Well I assume you wouldn't stop that...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Don't be silly laura, Dan is exactly right. Don't you know that the gay community is currently recruiting?? And for a limited time only they're offering £5 off vouchers for John Lewis if you go and see their propaganda plays and give them your email at the end :)

[lawrawrrr]

Don't be silly laura, Dan is exactly right. Don't you know that the gay community is currently recruiting?? And for a limited time only they're offering £5 off vouchers for John Lewis if you go and see their propaganda plays and give them your email at the end :)

i would so take that offer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FlyingJesus]

Opposing views are taught, it's just that when it's views that encroach on the actual rights and lives of others they're quite rightly taught as an unwanted mindset. There's a huge difference for example between teaching that some people don't like oranges (which affects only them) and teaching that eating oranges should be illegal (which affects rather a lot of people) - opinions are fine to have and everyone's free to make yourself look as stupid as you like but trying to put views into action moves it into the realm of the law, especially when it actually affects how someone can or cannot live

[scottish]

You know what will be funny for everyone? Re-setting your post count to 0.

http://data.whicdn.com/images/71809033/large.jpg

I love how there's no reply...

OT: I don't see the issue

[Thordenhime]

I dont care what your opinion on gay marriage or on homosexuality is demeaning and ostracizing someone for choosing to fall in love because your worried your son might end up gay makes you an absolute plonker and if it takes a visit from the police whos job it is to investigate crimes no matter how small or petty then good for the police for having the common sense to nip this in the bud before it gets out of control as far as im concerned the only people who are bothered by this are homophobes and if you find gay sex immoral i find having 25k post on a habbox radio forum immoral.

[The Don]

Indeed but say at assemblies it should be one week for Stonewall and another for say C4M. Or in Religious Education lessons invite two people in or invite the class to present both sides. Nobody learns anything if they're not presented with two sides of an argument. To know your own argument you need to know the opposing view.

I always remember in RE lessons having to give view A, view B and then my own. It's like onnnnn say abortion or the House of Lords I used to hold different views but I had never looked into the other view properly and when I did many of the arguments I thought made sense crumbled before me and I was forced to change my mind.

So when we teach children about the holocaust and how it was a bad thing should we also bring in some nut who believes it was a good thing? You seem to think that freedom of speech trumps the duty schools have of educating children.

[Empired]

I think we can all tell what we've learned from this thread.

As The Don rightly said, Tallcoolguy700 needs to tour round secondary schools in the country giving Holocaust "revisionist" speeches.

And that the original matter of this thread has been wildly blown out of proportion.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Holocaust is a historical incident that actually happened, so therefore not comparable to a social issue like gay relationships or marriage of which sections of the population still have reservations about. The comparison is really silly. But @The Don (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=9475); asks whether I would give the other side on the Holocaust on teaching it... well yes actually I would you'll be horrified to know. I find Holocaust revisionism absolutely absurd, but people ought to be made to think how they actually arrive at certain opinions. How can anybody reach a conclusion on something unless they have heard or been informed of the existence of dissenting opinions?

If a view is so absurd then it will fall apart on cross-examination. Only those who were never reasoned into their views are afraid of a challenge to them. I do find it ironic that those arguing against me portray themselves as open-minded yet here they are arguing with me about the basics of freedom of speech and thought.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM



I dont care what your opinion on gay marriage or on homosexuality is demeaning and ostracizing someone for choosing to fall in love because your worried your son might end up gay makes you an absolute plonker and if it takes a visit from the police whos job it is to investigate crimes no matter how small or petty then good for the police for having the common sense to nip this in the bud before it gets out of control as far as im concerned the only people who are bothered by this are homophobes and if you find gay sex immoral i find having 25k post on a habbox radio forum immoral.

Mussolini would be proud.

It is unbelievable to me that the dogma of political correctness is now seemingly is triumphing over English liberty and Enlightenment principles of open debate and freedom of thought + speech. The notion of Equality is virtually the new communism which seeks to shut out all dissenting opinion of a utopia that shall never be reached.

[FlyingJesus]

No-one's shutting out opinion or free speech, refer to my previous post. There's no call from any quarter here for people to be silenced, that's just some fiction that you've written

[-:Undertaker:-]

No-one's shutting out opinion or free speech, refer to my previous post. There's no call from any quarter here for people to be silenced, that's just some fiction that you've written

Yes there is.

You've all justified a man having the Police knock on his door for expressing his own opinion on Facebook and you've all argued with me about at least giving the other side of the debate a platform in schools, ie if Stonewall are allowed to present an assembly then the Coalition for Marriage should be able to. Two sides of an argument. So yes you are all wanting to silence dissenting opinions that do not conform to your own and I find that abhorrent.

[FlyingJesus]

Well you're a liar. A lying liar. A lying liar with a lie-bag of deceit. I for one have not said that the police should have done anything about the complaint, and plenty of others have stated that they don't agree with it either. And no, not letting people teach unjustified hatred is not the same thing as actually silencing someone. No-one's invited me to a school to talk in a maths class about how I don't like 6 so no-one should use it, does that mean I'm being silenced by the mathematical community?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well you're a liar. A lying liar. A lying liar with a lie-bag of deceit. I for one have not said that the police should have done anything about the complaint, and plenty of others have stated that they don't agree with it either. And no, not letting people teach unjustified hatred is not the same thing as actually silencing someone. No-one's invited me to a school to talk in a maths class about how I don't like 6 so no-one should use it, does that mean I'm being silenced by the mathematical community?

The fact you believe opposition to gay marriage or even homosexual acts is based on unjustified hatred goes to show how ignorant and clouded in your own views you are. You're seemingly incapable of comprehending the fact that people may hold different opinions to you not because they are evil but for a whole host of different reasons but still might be good people (shock horror!) just they disagree with you. And if so confident you are of your own opinions, why not allow them to be challenged in public? What do you fear?

A prisoner of your own thoughts as the late Christopher Hitchens put it in the video above. Let's not allow everybody else to become a prisoner of them too.

[FlyingJesus]

I do allow things to be challenged, that's why I make fun of you rather than trying to get you banned. And yes, trying to stop people from having the same rights as everyone else because what they do privately makes you uncomfortable (which is hilariously what you're trying to accuse everyone else of) is unjustified and hateful. Now if you'd care to 1) respond to the actual points and/or 2) apologise for openly lying to try scoring points, that would be fab

[-:Undertaker:-]

I do allow things to be challenged, that's why I make fun of you rather than trying to get you banned. And yes, trying to stop people from having the same rights as everyone else because what they do privately makes you uncomfortable (which is hilariously what you're trying to accuse everyone else of) is unjustified and hateful. Now if you'd care to 1) respond to the actual points and/or 2) apologise for openly lying to try scoring points, that would be fab

"Rights" yeah mate that's kinda the entire DEBATE whether gay marriage actually is a right or not.

Just because you feel it is a 'right' does not mean the debate is over or that you can silence opponents of it. It's so close-minded and ignorant. In any case, the right of freedom of speech and freedom of expression is a concrete right that triumphs over all other said rights apart from perhaps property rights.

Freedom of speech is there to protect unpopular opinions, not popular ones. Otherwise it wouldn't be needed would it.

[FlyingJesus]

Whether marriage as a whole is a right or not may be a real debate (and on that as far as I remember we agree that it shouldn't have anything to do with the state anyway), but whether or not people should be excluded from a legal union just because it's two men or two women is an issue of prejudice and nothing more - I doubt people would seriously suggest that two women couldn't enter into a business partnership together just because historically it's mostly been men that do so, and the only folk who would suggest such a thing would do so out of their own discomfort rather than because there's any real logic to it

[-:Undertaker:-]

Whether marriage as a whole is a right or not may be a real debate (and on that as far as I remember we agree that it shouldn't have anything to do with the state anyway), but whether or not people should be excluded from a legal union just because it's two men or two women is an issue of prejudice and nothing more - I doubt people would seriously suggest that two women couldn't enter into a business partnership together just because historically it's mostly been men that do so, and the only folk who would suggest such a thing would do so out of their own discomfort rather than because there's any real logic to it

aye yes *we* do actually agree on first principle now that you mention it that it ultimately shouldn't have anything to do with the state.

well that's the debate though on how far it goes, i'm not debating the issue at hand just arguing that both sides should be given a platform.

most organisations like C4M if i recall are in favour of some sort of legal protections (hospital visits, property legalities) but just object to the marriage label.

[FlyingJesus]

If that's all they're after then it's even more of an arbitrary discrimination, and still about something that literally has zero impact on them other than their feefees

[-:Undertaker:-]

If that's all they're after then it's even more of an arbitrary discrimination, and still about something that literally has zero impact on them other than their feefees

that's your opinion though isn't it, and they have their opinions. opinions ought to be debated.

and i myself being gay have listened to countless debates (endless hours and hours and written, theological, medical, social arguments) on the homosexuality/gay marriage debate and they've helped me a lot from both sides understand where i stand. i've come to a conclusion and everybody should have that opportunity to come to an informed decision.

[FlyingJesus]

No it isn't opinion, it really does have zero impact on them other than how they feel

[Empired]

To the stuff on the previous page: er what no I'm arguing against that man's insistence that gay relationships shouldn't be taught about in schools, or that parents should be able to 'opt out' of teaching their children an important part of society, particularly these days.

Why are you putting words in my mouth undertaker wtf

[FlyingJesus]

Welcome to Current Affairs

[The Don]

To the stuff on the previous page: er what no I'm arguing against that man's insistence that gay relationships shouldn't be taught about in schools, or that parents should be able to 'opt out' of teaching their children an important part of society, particularly these days.

Why are you putting words in my mouth undertaker wtf

I think that's what everyones talking about in this thread, as usual Dan's trying to score easy points by twisting what you've said.

Dan, what you propose is utterly ridiculous. There's literally no feasible way to teach children multiple fringe opinions on different subjects as they are only in school for a number of hours each day.

[ajs406]

Lmao what is wrong with society, we seem to always go from one extreme to the other. Everyone getting butt hurt about literally everything, people need to get a grip. You want to make a big deal out of something then its going to become a bigger deal then it really is. If people support gays then oh well, if people dont then oh well. If Gays want to have rallies and speak against homo-phobics then oh well, if homo-phobics want to speak out against Gays then oh fucking well. Our society is full of some of the biggest easily offended hypocrites i have ever seen, damn.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why is it that the people who preach to the rest of us about so-called diversity are so scared of diversity of opinion?


I think that's what everyones talking about in this thread, as usual Dan's trying to score easy points by twisting what you've said.

Actually it is quite clear what they've said which is just what you've repeated below.

That only your opinion on this topic is not only just taught but is actually heard. It is not only that, but people in this thread have actually *justified* the formerly neutral Police knocking on a man's door because he stated an opinion.


Dan, what you propose is utterly ridiculous. There's literally no feasible way to teach children multiple fringe opinions on different subjects as they are only in school for a number of hours each day.

There's actually no need to teach children anything on any of this stuff as just as Ben Shapiro said in an interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdVccjfWV_Y) I was just watching, it is up to parents to teach children values and not the state. What marriage is/means is a value.

As for fringe, this view is not a fringe view in the slightest. I would remind you and others - which I love doing because you all put on a mask of tolerance when you're all anything but - gay marriage was voted down in nearly every single vote in the United States of America that it was voted upon. It was only recently put into law here. It remains not written into law in Northern Ireland which is a part of this country. Australia. Italy. Russia. I could go on. It remains a tiny minority view on this planet.

The fringe view across the world certainly and half of the western world is actually pro-gay marriage.

[Empired]

The fringe view across the world certainly and half of the western world is actually pro-gay marriage.
Can you find a reliable source of evidence for the western world statistic you just pulled out of the air please?

[FlyingJesus]

inb4 a poll of 6 people or "I'VE HEARD PEOPLE SAY"