IT’S the sort of thing that can exercise those of us with a – I don’t know the best word to plump for –liberal? – outlook. Liberal isn’t right because it isn’t liberal to know that LGBT people exist and to support their rights.

It’s the sort of thing that those of us with a bit of basic humanity look at, don’t quite believe what they’re seeing and do a double take.

Question Time recently allowed an audience member to put the following question to the BBC political programme’s panel: “Is it morally right for five-year-old children to be taught LGBT issues?”

Is it morally right to even ask that question? Aren’t we so far past the point of debating the morality of the LGBT community that to suggest we should be shielding children from the fact that mummies can love mummies and daddies can love daddies feels like a sad parody?

Apparently not. The same week BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour posed the question, on Twitter, “Do you think LGBT rights should be taught in schools?” in relation to a debate it aired between a parent and a headteacher. The programme has since apologised for the wording.

This is all in reaction to protests in recent weeks from mainly Muslim parents against lessons teaching tolerance for different genders and sexual orientations at Birmingham primary schools.

The very purpose of a school is to provide information and widen horizons. Do parents have the right to mandate what that information includes? If children who are gay are being taught at home that they are invisible or morally wrong, then school is the place where those views can be usefully countered. If schools fail to deliver the message that every child is of equal value – even by a complicit silence – then they are failing their children.

Should the question then be: is it morally right for religious views to be prioritised over the dignity of and tolerance towards LGBT people? Or: both sexual orientation and religion are protected characteristics – which trumps which?

If radio and TV producers are looking for click-worthy questions, then they can have those two for free. If radio and television producers are looking for attention-grabbing questions, Jeremy Vine’s BBC Radio 2 show is also leading the way with this: “Is the judge correct to say sex within marriage is a human right?” asked in a tweet publicising the show. The tweet has been deleted.

Mr Justice Hayden said in an English court, “I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife.” There were reactions of horror to the suggestion rape is acceptable in marriage.

The case, which is still to be heard, involves a woman whose carers feel she no longer has the capacity for consent. The husband has given an undertaking not to have sex with his wife but Mr Justice Hayden stated he wanted to examine all the evidence in detail before making a decision.

The implication that rape is acceptable within marriage is, of course, grossly wrong, misogynistic and deeply troubling. It’s also legally wrong and certainly not a human right. Freedom from inhumane or degrading treatment, however, is a human right and one upon which Mr Justice Hayden might like to reflect.

There is another human right relevant here: respect for private and family life. And it is this which seems to influence the judge’s decision. The second part of his statement was that there is a “right of the state to monitor [the actions of a husband]”.

So, the state may interfere in private life but individuals have the right to live free of state interference in their private lives; thus the case should be fully tested.

Read more: Why outrage at Lambeth's class segregated playgrounds when we segregate our children routinely?

The judge phrased his position dreadfully. Does his phrasing speak to private views about conjugal rights? We can’t know.

The issue is, as always, language. Language has power. There are many other ways Mr Justice Hayden might have framed his stance while making clear that women have an inalienable right to bodily autonomy, respect and dignity.

In a liberal society no topic should be banned from debate but the framing of the debate is what is important.

What are the purposes and consequences of having these debates? To educate, to inform, to influence or change opinion. Being purposefully inflammatory to garner attention is irresponsible. Suggesting marital rape is a topic for debate is unacceptable but the court case could be used as a useful way into talking about consent, say.

It would be marvellous if we were all of a mind of moral affairs but we are far from it. The only useful way to gain consensus is through debate, not dogma. As the hosts of public discourse, the media has a responsibility to provide balance.

The LGBT community is made up of people. At the heart of Mr Justice Hayden’s case is a vulnerable woman and her husband. The education protests involve parents and their children. Those in power should be mindful of the fact our public discourse has an impact on individuals.

Bearing that in mind might make for a framing of debate that helps everyone and harms no one.