Gay play comments - Police question father

[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.