Anyone who has received their Census form

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

How about the Christian couple who have been struck off fostering because of their religious beliefs ?

 

Its just one recent example...

You'll need to give me better examples than that.

 

It was decided that the Christian couple were not a suitable choice for fostering because the would refuse to tell there child that being gay is ok. Perfectly understandible and I applaud the decision. Their religious beliefs were irrelevant to the decision. Why would anyone give custody of a child to this couple under those circumstances?

 

Liberal campaigners / Groups heavily pushed for it saying they wanted a more liberal society without realising its a form of fascism.

Please elaborate.

 

I think my point is liberalism is being hijacked to create fascism.

My point is that if somehow a liberal ideology morphs into fascism then it is no longer liberal. Hence the mislabelling.

[oafc0000]

You'll need to give me better examples than that.

 

It was decided that the Christian couple were not a suitable choice for fostering because the would refuse to tell there child that being gay is ok. Perfectly understandible and I applaud the decision. Their religious beliefs were irrelevant to the decision. Why would anyone give custody of a child to this couple under those circumstances?

 

It's actually a perfect example if you like it or not.

 

We can each explorer the given pros and cons of such a thing. You find it acceptable... Others find it madness... Specially given the full facts of the case including the perfectly adequate care given to the 14 or so previous children in their care. But its fits what I said above perfectly. Because of their beliefs they are now excluded from civic duty.

 

You think right on brother and I think fascist. Because where does it end ?

 

Just so you don't get confused I do not believe there is anything wrong with being gay.

 

Please elaborate.

 

I don't see how or the need to...

 

My point is that if somehow a liberal ideology morphs into fascism then it is no longer liberal. Hence the mislabelling.

 

Someone abusing children and blowing people up shouldn't be called Christian either... but they are...

 

Liberal Groups behaving like fascists they are going that far... I think the label works...

Edited March 7, 2011 by oafc0000

[Ackey]

No I have faith in god... Religion is just a tool to explore that faith...

 

I find you really strange (and that's a compliment, normal is boring).

 

I'm looking for clarity: You consider yourself a Christian and thus I assume you believe in Yahweh, the Christian flavour of God? The foundation of this God is the Bible and the people over thousands of years who have manipulated those books define how God is perceived, no?

 

Like I say every time we go down this road you're open about your Christianity and so I'm talking to you about it. I'm happy to answer any counter-questions you have about my beliefs and also equally feel free to say "I don't want to answer that" at any time.

 

Cheers,

[Ackey]

We can each explorer the given pros and cons of such a thing. You find it acceptable... Others find it madness... Specially given the full facts of the case including the perfectly adequate care given to the 14 or so previous children in their care. But its fits what I said above perfectly. Because of their beliefs they are now excluded from civic duty.

They're entitled to their belief so long as that belief is not oppressing others or in this case teaching those in their care to do the same.

 

They genuinely believe that a man :censored:ing another man is wrong and should be illegal. The thought that they could be in a position to teach children that same mentality sickens me and I agree with the decision.

 

 

The catholic church has shown systematic abuse of children. Should all Catholics be restricted from having children in their care? No. Should those that think it's acceptable? Yes.

[Ackey]

Gotta love Reddit for finding something topic appropriate totally by accident:

 

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

You think right on brother and I think fascist.

I find it interesting that you find the act of using discretion on who is or isn't suitable to be foster parents to be "fascist". If you can't see the folly in giving a child (who may themself turn out to be gay) to a couple who will be making that child aware that their lifestyle and part of their identity is wrong, then I don't what to say to you.

 

Because where does it end ?

Slippery slope fallacy.

 

 

Someone abusing children and blowing people up shouldn't be called Christian either... but they are...

What constitutes a "Christian" is subjective to the believer you are talking to at the time, and it would be difficult for you to convincingly argue to the neutral observer that they weren't "Christian".

 

Liberal Groups behaving like fascists they are going that far... I think the label works...

The label doesn't work because the term "liberal" actually means something. If you are behaving like a fascist then you are NOT being liberal. The two terms are diametrically opposed.

Edited March 7, 2011 by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills

[Matt]

I don't know what to declare on the census as my religious leaning....

 

Looking at the pdf snappily entitled: Self-Described Religious Identification of Adult Population from 1990 to 2008 >> here << from a couple of years back, Wiccans are on the up and up. I'm more worried about creepy, weird cults/religions getting recognition in the census. Spiritualist? Christ on a bike.

[oafc0000]

The label doesn't work because the term "liberal" actually means something. If you are behaving like a fascist then you are NOT being liberal. The two terms are diametrically opposed.

 

Tell them that!

[oafc0000]

Gotta love Reddit for finding something topic appropriate totally by accident:

 

I think that gives too much credit to the internet... That image portrays my local church quite well with no help from the internet...

 

Just posting a reply to you now going into this :P

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

Tell them that!

If I encounter a person who thinks he's being liberal but I think he's not, I do tell them. Less than two weeks ago, I was having an interesting debate with a barrister about the rights of people to discriminate (for whatever grounds) on who they employ or do business with.

[Matt]

I think that gives too much credit to the internet... That image portrays my local church quite well with no help from the internet...

Meh, you would say that though.

 

Look, we know you're wasting your time with all this faith and superstition, and I know these other two (Phil and Admiral Ackbar) are wasting their time with you. So, I'll just :censored: off and go about my day. But before I do...

 

[oafc0000]

I find you really strange (and that's a compliment, normal is boring).

 

Cheers

 

I'm looking for clarity: You consider yourself a Christian and thus I assume you believe in Yahweh, the Christian flavour of God? The foundation of this God is the Bible and the people over thousands of years who have manipulated those books define how God is perceived, no?

 

The concept and ideas of God existed long before Christianity. People have always sought answers to where we came from, why are we here... People have formulated ideas, opinions and some people claim to have witnessed certain events. This then forms the basis of a religion. As we both accept, during the formation of any organised religion people no doubt throw in their own bits for their own concerns.

 

I think once you understand and accept all of this you can then start to explore your own faith. The bible is littered with contradictions. How anyone can use it as the be all and end all regarding their faith is beyond me. Some people do. I speak to them everyone Sunday. The problem is the person sat next to them in the same building will be seeing it all a different way. And that is within just one of the many variations of Christianity out there. Yet they know it all and they have their bible to prove it. It just dosen't work for me that...

 

But while some people like to point out the contradictions there is a lot of consistency in the bible. There is a lot of witness statements, ideas and beliefs that do match up with and work. There are also a lot of consistencies etc across all faiths. A lot of faiths share prophets, events and ideas. Islam, Christianity, judaism. Some things have grounded in historical fact and witness statements match up.

 

Overall I have faith in me. I don't just sit back and accept what is thrown at me o a Sunday. I challenge, explore and try to learn. I don't think calling myself a Christian is helpful really. Its too subscribed. I don't think ultimately anyone should subscribe that heavily to a religion. Its faith and understand that is important.

 

I know I am rambling a bit but its very hard to get it all across on an internet forum :P

[oafc0000]

Meh, you would say that though.

 

Look, we know you're wasting your time with all this faith and superstition, and I know these other two (Phil and Admiral Ackbar) are wasting their time with you. So, I'll just :censored: off and go about my day. But before I do...

 

 

[oafc0000]

Gotta love Reddit for finding something topic appropriate totally by accident:

 

Also, the idea that the "Church" is one big black spot pouring out information isn't really what I experience at my church. I think if you removed the dot and then just had all the peers spouting crap that would be more on the money

[Ackey]

The concept and ideas of God existed long before Christianity. People have always sought answers to where we came from, why are we here... People have formulated ideas, opinions and some people claim to have witnessed certain events. This then forms the basis of a religion. As we both accept, during the formation of any organised religion people no doubt throw in their own bits for their own concerns.

 

I agree that of course religious ideas, of Gods and such, existed long before Christianity. That doesn't provide any validity though. We thought the earth was flat and evidence has shown we were wrong (although the original idea was considered heresy). We thought the Universe revolved around the sun but we were wrong (same brackets). You get the idea. We're learning and evolving away from the need to believe in the immeasurable.

 

 

I think once you understand and accept all of this you can then start to explore your own faith. The bible is littered with contradictions. How anyone can use it as the be all and end all regarding their faith is beyond me. Some people do. I speak to them everyone Sunday. The problem is the person sat next to them in the same building will be seeing it all a different way. And that is within just one of the many variations of Christianity out there. Yet they know it all and they have their bible to prove it. It just dosen't work for me that...

 

 

But while some people like to point out the contradictions there is a lot of consistency in the bible. There is a lot of witness statements, ideas and beliefs that do match up with and work. There are also a lot of consistencies etc across all faiths. A lot of faiths share prophets, events and ideas. Islam, Christianity, judaism. Some things have grounded in historical fact and witness statements match up.

 

I can't say with confidence that the bible's contradictions outweigh it's consistencies as I've simply not read enough of it. However I'd question the relevance of matching statements. The books were not written in isolation. Alien abduction stories follow a very similar narrative, astonishingly similar at times, however there is absolutely no substantiated evidence to support the idea that aliens have come to earth and captured humans.

 

Overall I have faith in me. I don't just sit back and accept what is thrown at me o a Sunday. I challenge, explore and try to learn. I don't think calling myself a Christian is helpful really. Its too subscribed. I don't think ultimately anyone should subscribe that heavily to a religion. Its faith and understand that is important.

 

I know I am rambling a bit but its very hard to get it all across on an internet forum :P

Bob Hoskins. It's fun to talk.

[oafc0000]

The thought that they could be in a position to teach children that same mentality sickens me and I agree with the decision.

 

This is the interesting / important part... Chances of the young children asking the question in the first place seemed to have been lost. From what I understand the way the couple would explore the subject with the child wasn't talked about. In my opinion its fine to say we believe one thing as long as you tell them the counter argument.

 

What I say is where does it end ?

 

Sexism... Ageism... Racism... Hombopbic... Issues of life and death to with contraception, abortion... Spirituality ...

 

What is the answer to a child looking for answers. What are the right answers ? I certainly don't know... BUt all of the above will spark massively different reactions in different people about the role of people and what they should and should not be doing.

 

The role of a women in society. Stay at home with the kids or got to work and throw the kids in nursery ?

Abortion... Murder or not ?

Spirituality... Should you discuss this ?

Racism... Should ethnic groups mix together or be separate ?

 

Within in families and care environments like schools you have to explore these things and let people come up with their own ideas. You can't just not talk about it. And quite simply who is to say what is right and wrong. That is for society to work out. And we are still asking the questions within our society to be quite frank. What makes your answers right and theres wrong ?

 

As soon as you stop the discussion and your draw an opinion everyone must adopt, its very fascist like... liberalism is about live and let live ultimately... Not restriction...

Edited March 7, 2011 by oafc0000

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

We need to stiffen up our defence something rotten. While the pretty boys upfront can't seem to do their job, the key is organisation at the back and scraping clean sheets.

 

For once, 0000s isn't in the "I don't go no more but I've got plenty to say about it" brigade, whereas Ackey seems to be writing 10,000 words on why he's not interested anymore. Who'd a thunk it?

[oafc0000]

I agree that of course religious ideas, of Gods and such, existed long before Christianity. That doesn't provide any validity though. We thought the earth was flat and evidence has shown we were wrong (although the original idea was considered heresy). We thought the Universe revolved around the sun but we were wrong (same brackets). You get the idea. We're learning and evolving away from the need to believe in the immeasurable.

 

 

 

I can't say with confidence that the bible's contradictions outweigh it's consistencies as I've simply not read enough of it. However I'd question the relevance of matching statements. The books were not written in isolation. Alien abduction stories follow a very similar narrative, astonishingly similar at times, however there is absolutely no substantiated evidence to support the idea that aliens have come to earth and captured humans.

 

 

Bob Hoskins. It's fun to talk.

 

Ultimately, we both know its not about validation and proof... If either of us had those things we wouldn't be talking about this in the first place. It about faith or the lack of it.

[Ackey]

This is the interesting / important part... Chances of the young children asking the question in the first place seemed to have been lost. From what I understand the way the couple would explore the subject with the child wasn't talked about. In my opinion its fine to say we believe one thing as long as you tell them the counter argument.

 

What I say is where does it end ?

 

Sexism... Ageism... Racism... Hombopbic... Issues of life and death to with contraception, abortion... Spirituality ...

 

What is the answer to a child looking for answers. What are the right answers ? I certainly don't know... BUt all of the above will spark massively different reactions in different people about the role of people and what they should and should not be doing.

 

The role of a women in society. Stay at home with the kids or got to work and throw the kids in nursery ?

Abortion... Murder or not ?

Spirituality... Should you discuss this ?

Racism... Should ethnic groups mix together or be separate ?

 

Within in families and care environments like schools you have to explore these things and let people come up with their own ideas. You can't just not talk about it. And quite simply who is to say what is right and wrong. That is for society to work out. And we are still asking the questions within our society to be quite frank. What makes your answers right and theres wrong ?

 

As soon as you stop the discussion and your draw an opinion everyone must adopt, its very fascist like... liberalism is about live and let live ultimately... Not restriction...

But as PSSS pointed out above - what if they get a little 13 year old boy who in later life will come to the realisation that he wants to be with other men? If these people believe as passionately as they seem to do (if it wasn't a passion for them chances are it would never have been noticed... it's not hard to be subtle about your prejudices when in situations you know will backfire) that this is indefensible and that this child will live for eternity in hell they will likely pass on a feeling to this child that what and who they are is wrong.

 

Children, especially when coming to terms with their sexuality (gay, straight or any variation there of) are incredibly vulnerable. I know that my promiscuity in my late teens and early twenties stems from my immaturity as a teenager. I was the stereotypical late developer. I can look back now on it as a life lesson however I dread to think what could have happened to me if at that age I'd been subjected to some form of misguided person's (be they religious or just wrong) idea of right and wrong.

 

If you had someone who was racist and they were teaching kids that black people are the devil you would not give them children to foster and I fail to see how a 'faith' or 'religion' is exempt from this - this is in fact coming back to my original points about how over time our move to secularism and not religion will lead to more equality.

 

 

 

[oafc0000]

But as PSSS pointed out above - what if they get a little 13 year old boy who in later life will come to the realisation that he wants to be with other men? If these people believe as passionately as they seem to do (if it wasn't a passion for them chances are it would never have been noticed... it's not hard to be subtle about your prejudices when in situations you know will backfire) that this is indefensible and that this child will live for eternity in hell they will likely pass on a feeling to this child that what and who they are is wrong.

 

Children, especially when coming to terms with their sexuality (gay, straight or any variation there of) are incredibly vulnerable. I know that my promiscuity in my late teens and early twenties stems from my immaturity as a teenager. I was the stereotypical late developer. I can look back now on it as a life lesson however I dread to think what could have happened to me if at that age I'd been subjected to some form of misguided person's (be they religious or just wrong) idea of right and wrong.

 

If you had someone who was racist and they were teaching kids that black people are the devil you would not give them children to foster and I fail to see how a 'faith' or 'religion' is exempt from this - this is in fact coming back to my original points about how over time our move to secularism and not religion will lead to more equality.

 

You haven't really took on what I just said above though...

 

As a society we are still exploring the rights and wrongs of various opinions and stand points and we are a very long way from getting universal agreement on some of them and million miles away from others.

 

The example of teaching a child quite openly directly that all black people are the devil is clearly going to win little support from the masses. I am pretty confident in that. The situation of a sexuality on the other hand still greatly divides opinion. Either way, in both cases, you make a worse case senior that the person is going to quite literally push these views onto the child with no context or balance to their opinion. Or you think even if they did counter balance just holding the opinion is wrong.

 

Ultimately what you are saying is your view point is the right one and people should adopt it. While in some cases you will no doubt win universal agreement, racism by and large wins no friends, feelings on sexuality divides and will no doubt continue to divide. Just like the other subject matters I raised above.

 

Myself personally, I will teach my child what I feel is right and wrong, but at the same time explain the counter arguments and wider opinion of people. After that is it for the young one to make her own choices. I have no fear of someone expressing a homophobic, racist, sexist view to my child as she will be exposed to counter arguments in her life. In the end she will have a balanced upbringing and will form her own opinions.

 

Children at risk etc... Is the answer to give them a unnatural upbringing where the moral issues they face and must choose what is right for themselves. Is it right to just push one view point on them ? Or give them a very normal upbringing where the exposed to all manner of views or opinions.

 

Overall Ackey I think you are doing what the church gets jumped on for doing. its just from a different side of the coin. All be it a more "political correct" side of the coin.

 

Before anyone starts, I dislike almost all forms of the "isms"... I would just rather have the debate and make someone look an arse and show them the error of their ways than pass laws restricting freedoms.

 

 

What is important is that people don't preach hatred or stop opportunity. Outside of that, I don't think you can really control what people think and believe... and I certainly don't think its the place of law to make judgements on what people should believe...

Edited March 7, 2011 by oafc0000

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

I would just rather have the debate and make someone look an arse and show them the error of their ways than pass laws restricting freedoms.

I agree. But noone should have the automatic freedom to adopt a child. These things need to be decided on case by case suitability basis.

 

 

What is important is that people don't preach hatred or stop opportunity.

Don't entirely agree. Westboro Baptist Church preach hatred. And I fully support their right to do so, so long as they don't infringe on anyone elses liberties. But you certainly wouldn't want to see the state entrusting them to foster a child.

 

and I certainly don't think its the place of law to make judgements on what people should believe...

No. Nor does it. It only makes judgements on how those beliefs are acted upon.

[Ackey]

As a society we are still exploring the rights and wrongs of various opinions and stand points and we are a very long way from getting universal agreement on some of them and million miles away from others.

 

The example of teaching a child quite openly directly that all black people are the devil is clearly going to win little support from the masses. I am pretty confident in that. The situation of a sexuality on the other hand still greatly divides opinion. Either way, in both cases, you make a worse case senior that the person is going to quite literally push these views onto the child with no context or balance to their opinion. Or you think even if they did counter balance just holding the opinion is wrong.

 

Ultimately what you are saying is your view point is the right one and people should adopt it. While in some cases you will no doubt win universal agreement, racism by and large wins no friends, feelings on sexuality divides and will no doubt continue to divide. Just like the other subject matters I raised above.

 

My view is that people are entitled to be themselves unless they're oppressing others. My view is that if they want to be bigoted they can be. However they shouldn't be able to oppress people with that view. Their views that gays are evil would put a child at risk if they were gay and it's an unacceptable risk to take. Why should racism be different to sexuality? Both are judging people based on superficial measurements. One skin colour the other who you :censored: in the privacy of your bedroom - between two consenting adults. Ageism is not comparable to a limited extent as older people are statistically worse at some things (we slow measurable in reaction time as we age and this is a valid consideration - if two people are physically equal then ageism is indeed an issue which should be addressed).

 

 

Children at risk etc... Is the answer to give them a unnatural upbringing where the moral issues they face and must choose what is right for themselves. Is it right to just push one view point on them ? Or give them a very normal upbringing where the exposed to all manner of views or opinions.

What? Instead of teaching tolerance of all people? We should teach that we judge people for their actions and not their superficial rankings is important, nothing else. Like you say - raising your kid to make value judgements based on evidence.

 

An example: You're religious and so are those homophobic dingbats. I don't assume you hold the same view as them. You're rational and they're not. Equally, one gay man might be a prick and the other a loving father and giving person in your very church. These people would raise a child to say that those two men are equally evil and that is wrong and I know you well enough now to know you agree with that.

 

So why should we risk putting a child in that environment? Teach the child to look at a person and see a person. Not to look at a person and see a race or a sexuality.

 

Protecting vulnerable children from the narrowmindness of people like this is not to be feared. I agree they should make their own decisions. I'm not "PC" - I encourage people with outdated and narrowminded views to speak out so we can address them. That's different to putting children with known racists, sexists, agists or any other 'ist' you care to mention.

 

Overall Ackey I think you are doing what the church gets jumped on for doing. its just from a different side of the coin. All be it a more "political correct" side of the coin.

 

Before anyone starts, I dislike almost all forms of the "isms"... I would just rather have the debate and make someone look an arse and show them the error of their ways than pass laws restricting freedoms.

 

What is important is that people don't preach hatred or stop opportunity. Outside of that, I don't think you can really control what people think and believe... The law is certainly a blunt instrument to use on issues of morality.

I don't think I am doing what Religion is and I think you're wrong to say that this is the pushing of a viewpoint. I'm pushing the idea of thinking and reason. That we should raise children with their eyes open. Religion doesn't for the most part do that. All of it requires a degree of faith which is not required to live a secular life. I don't oppose that choice but I will try to highlight it's weakness. I would never deny that religion exists to a child or claim that I am dogmatically correct. I would show them gravity, the moon, the stars, the wonderful things which surround us and that we can investigate and explain and those we can't but are working on and hope that child would look for answers instead accepting an insufficient one of "I don't know so it must be God".

 

Your final line: Don't preach hatred

 

 

That's what these people were doing. You're saying the law is wrong for preventing people from taking vulnerable children and teaching them that homosexuality is wrong.

 

 

This is long and winding and I don't have time to edit myself for clarity so sorry if it's a bit of a :censored: to read.

[Stitch_KTF]

The following question will likely demonstrate a degree of ignorance on my part, however I'm enthralled with that.

 

 

How is it that people can have faith in something invented 500 years ago by a randy king?

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

The following question will likely demonstrate a degree of ignorance on my part, however I'm enthralled with that.

 

 

How is it that people can have faith in something invented 500 years ago by a randy king?

Decapitating Queens???

[oafc0000]

My view is that people are entitled to be themselves unless they're oppressing others. My view is that if they want to be bigoted they can be. However they shouldn't be able to oppress people with that view. Their views that gays are evil would put a child at risk if they were gay and it's an unacceptable risk to take. Why should racism be different to sexuality? Both are judging people based on superficial measurements. One skin colour the other who you :censored: in the privacy of your bedroom - between two consenting adults. Ageism is not comparable to a limited extent as older people are statistically worse at some things (we slow measurable in reaction time as we age and this is a valid consideration - if two people are physically equal then ageism is indeed an issue which should be addressed).

 

 

 

What? Instead of teaching tolerance of all people? We should teach that we judge people for their actions and not their superficial rankings is important, nothing else. Like you say - raising your kid to make value judgements based on evidence.

 

An example: You're religious and so are those homophobic dingbats. I don't assume you hold the same view as them. You're rational and they're not. Equally, one gay man might be a prick and the other a loving father and giving person in your very church. These people would raise a child to say that those two men are equally evil and that is wrong and I know you well enough now to know you agree with that.

 

So why should we risk putting a child in that environment? Teach the child to look at a person and see a person. Not to look at a person and see a race or a sexuality.

 

Protecting vulnerable children from the narrowmindness of people like this is not to be feared. I agree they should make their own decisions. I'm not "PC" - I encourage people with outdated and narrowminded views to speak out so we can address them. That's different to putting children with known racists, sexists, agists or any other 'ist' you care to mention.

 

 

I don't think I am doing what Religion is and I think you're wrong to say that this is the pushing of a viewpoint. I'm pushing the idea of thinking and reason. That we should raise children with their eyes open. Religion doesn't for the most part do that. All of it requires a degree of faith which is not required to live a secular life. I don't oppose that choice but I will try to highlight it's weakness. I would never deny that religion exists to a child or claim that I am dogmatically correct. I would show them gravity, the moon, the stars, the wonderful things which surround us and that we can investigate and explain and those we can't but are working on and hope that child would look for answers instead accepting an insufficient one of "I don't know so it must be God".

 

Your final line: Don't preach hatred

 

 

That's what these people were doing. You're saying the law is wrong for preventing people from taking vulnerable children and teaching them that homosexuality is wrong.

 

 

This is long and winding and I don't have time to edit myself for clarity so sorry if it's a bit of a :censored: to read.

 

Ultimately you are searching your heart and mind and coming to various conclusions on what you think is right and wrong and giving reasoning and justifications for these feelings. People on the other side of the arguments come to different points of view giving different justification for their feelings.

 

Its interesting how you don't feel that you force your opinion and feelings onto other people in just the same way that certain religious minded people force their views onto people with little sway or moveability. You feel you are ultimately in the right, I guess largely down to your view being in-line with political view of the age. But you should recognise that you are no more "liberal" or "accepting" as people holding entrenched opposite view points. You are actually being quite fascist and controlling. Its quite on thing fighting for equal opportunity and rights and quite another demanding certain people are deemed inappropriate to care for children based on a moral opinion alone. At one time gay people where viewed this way. Thankfully no more and now its gone full circle!

 

I personally think there is nothing wrong with being gay for many reasons including quotes from the bible. I am not arrogant enough to think I might be wrong though and I am not fascist enough to force my belief on other people. I can't prove its not immoral, against nature, or just plane wrong, I just feel it isn't. The ground swell of opinion across the world is seriously against me for a start.

 

Interesting stuff this.

 

This is why I talk about this disguised Liberalism... It isn't liberal to impose your will on other people. Yes, we should teach tolerance. You can be tolerant and still believe its a sin. I don't have to deny someone a promotion because I think they perform sinful acts ? Live and let live and all that.

 

A final note... I have respect for the law that has been passed. Society will ultimately deem if it feels the ruling was right and we will all conform to it. Its not just for me to say. Law and Democracy isn't a perfect tool. Its pretty much a compromise so we can all get along, well in theory anyway.

Edited March 7, 2011 by oafc0000