Taken down.

I could kind of see them making it work, but after reading the Q & A wonder what they might deem to be homophobic, misogynistic etc.

I'd have just salvaged the 'eternity in hell... not for being gay, being married' for a one liner.

Did you send it as a one-liner/jackapp too?

Yeah, I was worried about it steroetyping. Don't think it's homophobic, but like you have read the Q and A and it is a kind of - did they think that? That's partly why I posted here to see if people thought that too.

No, just the sketch

I don't really think it comes across as offensive, the only thing might be the Village People bit as the rest is explained away, but that's just me second guessing.

It's on pretty dodgy ground. 'Dark back passages' gags, and so on. Plus you seem to be saying Justin likes soliciting for a gay shag, which I'm pretty sure he doesn't since he's a married father.

Ask yourself this. What point is your sketch actually trying to make? Whether or not you meant it, the 'eternity in hell' gag is a nice one, as it subverts prejudices. The rest of the sketch just seems to support them. I'd have just reshaped that line as something like...

"I think gay people should spend an eternity in hell... and now they can get married legally, they can" Or

"When I said homosexuals should spend an eternity in hell, legalised marriages weren't quite what I had in mind"

It's alright. I laughed a couple of times but was confused by the whole story and didn't notice it last week. I thought gay marriages were legal already but it turns out civil partnership is not the same as marriage.

Sketch is a bit static in structure and nothing really happens. Certainly needs something to happen at the end.

Dan

There are definitely a few good bits in there, but it doesn't quite feel right on the hole