Gay play comments - Police question father

[-: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.