I have not proposed any clause, I was guessing that was a clause you'd approve of .... and it sounds like I wasn't far off the mark.

rlIf anyone's interested, my thoughts on this.rl

I am aware of that, and I set out to at least attempt to be as even-handed as possible in this.

Personally, I actually let a lot of things go, but this has been raised with me – hence my acting.

Test.

Tube.

We need more calm here.

It's never constructive to post when angry, which is what I suspect quite a few people on here do. I know that we often disagree on issues which are emotional, but I always find that it is better to walk away from the PC and make a cup of tea before posting a response. Once you've literally let off some steam, reason takes over and you can make a positive contribution to the debate.

My two cents.

Whilst I appreciate the sentiment, I also disagree with what you say (to an extent).

I disagree in that I think that, within this context, one of the major things that makes many people angry is attempting to debate rationally with others whose very basis for their intolerance is something for which there is not a shred of evidence.

And here we hit the impasse – and the wider problem of how we treat religion in a society that, by and large, does not actually appreciate fundamentalist religious adherence and most certainly not the proselytising of such.

That, of course, becomes in itself a problem for anyone who believes in the right of free speech. And generally I suspect that a lot of the more impolite language about it has been a response to that conundrum: no – we do not ban; we do not censor. But we do, therefore, expect to be able to voice strongly and in unequivocal terms our responses to nonsense arguments.

Some religious appear to want to have their cake and eat it: they want to have, for themselves, the right to say whatever they want about certain groups and issues. But when people respond, they whine about how badly they're treated.

It's rank hypocrisy.

You were very angry when you started that Paul Wood's thread about his sexual indiscretions though weren't you Kirky?
I'd go as far as to say you'd lost all rationale.
You were veritably seething.
It's nice to see the new, calmer you.

I felt the words "Christian" and "unrighteous" were relevant in the context of some people having strong opinions against gay marriage. The fact that some feel their views "wrong" does not negate their strongly held views or even "beliefs." They are perfectly entitled to hold their views.

The further point I am trying to make is that the law and rule of law has been and continues to be eroded by so many instances of morality shifting to accomodate vociferous minorities (of all types) claiming rights off society as a whole.

I hate to break it to you but that's just what happens in a civilised society

Civilised hey?

yes

That a belief is 'strong' does not make it logical, reasonable, or supported by evidence.

And no one has argued that bigots aren't 'entitled' to hold their bigoted views, but what they must not be allowed to do is to deny rights to other people based on their bigotry.