Moderator:
I'd agree, and it would be useful if members reported such posts in future in order that they can be reviewed - I'd say this is essential for consistency reasons.
It may be that there is a need to review the relevant Rule (1.h) in order to clarify the issues here and where the 'line in the sand' should be drawn.
'While it is expected that some exchanges will be ‘robust fair comment’, members are asked to avoid comments (in posts or PMs) that may be considered to be: overtly aggressive or threatening, that are demeaning to others and specifically advocate discrimination solely on the basis of personal taste, that involve questionable sexual content, that involve gratuitous swearing or contains abuse or insults directed towards specified members, or that might reasonably be assumed to imply certain members (such by reference to a 'group') to the extent of causing offense or alarm. Members should report any posts or PMs that involve such content.'
Looking at this I think the question is what amounts to advocating discrimination, I think the idea that gays need treatment or that all religious parents are child abusers fall close to any line that one might use the phrase to draw but, from a purely personal reading. the first crosses it and the second doesn't. That said I'm not sure I feel that in terms of my overall reaction I see them as that different. That someone is accusing me old sainted mother of child abuse seems to cross a line for me. It's not actively advocating discrimination but that me old sainted mother teaching me her beliefs is to be seen as child abuse, as opposed to me teaching my kids that murder is wrong seems to be down the road of suggesting passively that my mother should somehow be punished for her actions.
The other problem, of course, is that which we think should be protected is different. We don't actually mean that anyone who suggests murderers (as wrong as homosexual activity according to Hope) should be locked up, should be stopped from advocating such discrimination on here. It seems to me that the zeigeist of society and indeed the board if it is consistent should protect groupings who act within the boundaries of the law, and within the spirit of the board. If the board is going to allow consistent suggestions that homosexuals are ill. diseased. disordered , then I think I will slowly back away - and that's fair enough in some sense. It's the same as me not wanting to go to a pub in company of people who would say such things. I don't think it crosses the line of where legislation would currently kick in but it does cross a personal line for me. That line also covers the whole theists are delusional, stupid, child abusers schtick.
We each have to consider where that line is drawn, and to an extent the mods are both representatives who work as a coalescence of opinion of that line, and delegates in that they have a duty to reflect in some way the wider membership. I don't envy their position, but then I think each memebr also has a duty to consider what sort of board do they want this place to be. I'm not convinced that it can encompass a full width of opinion, nor do I believe it should, see comments on all Jews should be gassed,
