Outrageous. Did you know there are people out there trying to stop you raising your children as gay-hating bullies?
Lady pretending to give a damn about children and tolerance makes a perfectly reasonable point.
“Anti-bullying programs”? What about your right, as a parent, to encourage your children to torment and beat up other children who might be gay? What about your right, as a parent, to make sure your kids are so terrified of being gay that if they are same-sex attracted they BURY IT DEEP and ultimately ensnare an unsuspecting future partner in a miserable sexless marriage? What about your right, as a parent, to indoctrinate your kids to be intolerant of anyone who doesn’t share your personal values and to demand the government inflict your religious views on the entire country?
And… “homosexual lessons”? At school? I’m going to choose to believe that’s exactly what it sounds like, which seems like something extremely illegal. And even though I know that can’t possibly be what is really happening, I’m going to pretend that I genuinely think it is.
And until we get bullying back into schools, this is just the sort of thing we can expect.
Moved On 
Oh god that just makes me sick. Someone needs to find a way to legislate against bigots presenting their opinions as legitimate!
Glynn: “Oh god that just makes me sick. Someone needs to find a way to legislate against bigots presenting their opinions as legitimate!”
Another supporter of free speech! Why do people want to use the machinary of the state to crush any opinions they don’t like?
In the US the debate is a lot more polarised, not least because the activists push things too far, like teaching primary students correct fisting techniques.
Pingback: Tolerance/intolerance « I've got something to say, yeah?
SB, Glynn argued for legislation to prevent such opinions as being presented as legitimate. He did not argue for banning such opinions. Slapping on a “Warning: contains bigotry, fictional assertions, and claims made without evidence” is no more a threat to free speech that an M rating on a mature movie is. Only in Right-Wing World is correct labelling a threat to free speech.
Source?
Or are you just taking the Michael, SB?
How do you “correctly label” and opinion, Unique? Open up a new section of the bureaucracy?
Jordan, the incidents are commonly referred to as Fistgate and Fistgate II. There are plenty of posts out there about these episodes, some hysterical some not. When I had a quick look just now, perhaps the issue wasn’t quite as egregious as I suggested, but the thrust of my argument remains valid: this area is highly charged and it would be better if activists didn’t overplay their hands, so to speak.
“How do you “correctly label” and opinion, Unique? Open up a new section of the bureaucracy?”
Well, when one states that something is a ‘special and treasured gift from the lord’ any rational person can dismiss the opinion as ridiculous.. :oP
Unfortunately SB your right-wingery is limiting your ability to converse. Clearly my own comment was in jest but I guess I overestimated the intellect of some denizens of this blog, I’ll explain for you and your own bigoted, misunderstanding of free speech though.
Reword or previous comment: “Isn’t it a shame that there is no way to legislate against racist/sexist/homophobic and every other kind of discriminatory pig sharing their hateful views without putting at risk legitimate free speech and opinion”. Any clearer for you?
Oops meant to say ‘Reword of* previous’
The issue, SB, is when it is claimed to be ‘reporting’ or opinion that is labelled as ‘fair and balanced’
Agreed BobbyBoy. Religious beliefs need to be regularly tested by the ridicule of fools.
Glynn: “Clearly my own comment was in jest”
I am greatly relieved to hear this and apologise for being much too quick to take such a ridiculous proposition seriously.
One of the benefits of free speech is that people don’t need to hide their idiocies and prejudices. They are out in the open for all to see, not festering in some dark recess.
“like teaching primary students correct fisting techniques.”
For a moment I thought I was on the Southbank Jester’s blog.
Get a grip Ronson, preferably the same way you grasp a pencil. 🙂
One of the benefits of free speech is that people don’t need to hide their idiocies and prejudices. They are out in the open for all to see, not festering in some dark recess.
Yes, let it all hang out, SB.
You and me both, Buns.
.
Really? I think activists honestly answering the questions of a (high school? or seems like it could even be university?) student about fisting is totally almost maybe sort of absolutely not at all as egregious as teaching sexual techniques to primary school kids!
In the abstract I might agree as a point of tactics.
However when even someone who tends to be sympathetic to the cause of equal rights for homosexual people, such as you, will, apparently, uncritically absorb and repeat the patently absurd talking points of right wing extremists on the topic, why bother trying to underplay the hand? Their opponents are going to hysterically attack them in either case, and with surprising success.
Jordan, at 14 most of my peers were keenly interested in the mechanics of sex in all its glorious forms. I don’t think that getting into the details in a youth (ages 14-21) session of a conference on sex ed is a big deal. We didn’t have much access to information back then until “The Little Red Schoolbook” became a hot item.
However the suggestion that grades 5 and 6 need instruction in the mechanics of gay sex is going to scare some parents. That was certainly a suggestion that was advocated. In my view that would be something that was likely to cause a backlash.
The problem I have is this. Are we still going to allow people to believe and say that they think homosexuality is morally wrong? If yes, won’t that likely lead to the perpetuation of prejudice? If no, doesn’t that come close to thought-crime? My own view is that personal morality is just that personal – it is not something to be used to judge other people.
One of the reasons I am in favour of marriage equality is that even if all the legal rights of marriage could be conferred, that is still not enough, and by not having the option of marriage available to certain couples, society is encouraging discrimination against them.
The same reasoning applied to sex education would ensure that when the mechanics of sex are taught (usually late primary), all common variants are covered. Still I am uncomfortable with this, and I can understand why many parents would be concerned.