Nice people thread part 5 - nicely does it

zagubov

vivatifosi wrote: »

Just watching the paper review this morning. One headline says "You Have No Right To Wear the Cross", another says something along the lines of "Catholics Furious Over Gay Marriage". Why can't common sense prevail?

Of course people should be allowed to wear the cross if they want to. Seriously, in a nominally Christian country, who is offended by a practice that's happened for donkeys years. It certainly isn't any Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or any other religious group I know of (in this country).

At the same time, gay marriage. I understand what the bible says, but I don't have an issue with gay marriage. Surely the issue should be that no church should be forced to perform a gay marriage, rather than it being allowed as a civil service. I say this because non-religious people have been able to marry in registry offices for ages. I can see a reason why the church is worried though: that it could be the thin end of the wedge and they could be forced into something they are fundamentally against. Clearly this is where the common-sense backstop is.

Where is our famous British common sense and tolerance going? Why can't common sense prevail. Telling people they can't wear crosses just causes fracture and distress. Telling gays they can't marry does the same.

Sorry NPs for introducing a fractious subject to the board. If it causes dissent or nastiness can I suggest dropping subject immediately. However everyone here is a reasonable person and I just don't understand how the country as a whole has got into this mess.

I'm with you 100% so no controversy I can see.;) Part of the problem is that intolerant ideas used to be for the letters page. Now every dodgy decision or official iutterance is newsworthy as the press (including the freesheets) have column inches to fill. I heard that there was a day( April 18, 1930 I believe) when the BBC didn't broadcast any news because "nothing had happened" that day.
Never be allowed now!

vivatifosi

Thanks Zag, well changing the subject completely, I really need Gen if he's around. DH is going to Sydney the end of the week. You know that thread a week or so ago "how far would you go for a weekend"? He's going to a concert and will be away 4 days. So I'm trying to find out where the best place to stay in Sydney will be for a concert at Luna Park that finishes at 1.30am on a weekday, presumably after the public transport has stopped. He would normally stay at Darling Harbour for its good choice of amenities nearby but I don't know if that would work as its a bit far away if there's no public transport.

silvercar

I agree with Viva, there is an article by Ron Liddle in today's Sunday Times, which says, "now we have to decide if tolerance is a commodity we should waste on people who are intolerant of homosexuals"

I do think it's a generational thing, I would be more tolerant of anti- homosexual views from my parents (70+) than from my friends (40ish-50s). My kids generation think homosexuality is just a fact about someone, as important as whether someone is left or right handed.

silvercar

vivatifosi wrote: »

Thanks Zag, well changing the subject completely, I really need Gen if he's around. DH is going to Sydney the end of the week. You know that thread a week or so ago "how far would you go for a weekend"? He's going to a concert and will be away 4 days. So I'm trying to find out where the best place to stay in Sydney will be for a concert at Luna Park that finishes at 1.30am on a weekday, presumably after the public transport has stopped. He would normally stay at Darling Harbour for its good choice of amenities nearby but I don't know if that would work as its a bit far away if there's no public transport.

4days to Oz!! He's going to be knackered when he gets home? Can he fly home business class to get a bed?

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

Just watching the paper review this morning. One headline says "You Have No Right To Wear the Cross", another says something along the lines of "Catholics Furious Over Gay Marriage". Why can't common sense prevail?

Of course people should be allowed to wear the cross if they want to. Seriously, in a nominally Christian country, who is offended by a practice that's happened for donkeys years. It certainly isn't any Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or any other religious group I know of (in this country).

At the same time, gay marriage. I understand what the bible says, but I don't have an issue with gay marriage. Surely the issue should be that no church should be forced to perform a gay marriage, rather than it being allowed as a civil service. I say this because non-religious people have been able to marry in registry offices for ages. I can see a reason why the church is worried though: that it could be the thin end of the wedge and they could be forced into something they are fundamentally against. Clearly this is where the common-sense backstop is.

Where is our famous British common sense and tolerance going? Why can't common sense prevail. Telling people they can't wear crosses just causes fracture and distress. Telling gays they can't marry does the same.

Sorry NPs for introducing a fractious subject to the board. If it causes dissent or nastiness can I suggest dropping subject immediately. However everyone here is a reasonable person and I just don't understand how the country as a whole has got into this mess.

Well.....

I would make all registry office weddings 'civil partnerships' and leave marriage to various religios denominations.

I believe all couples should have the right to the protection we have underwhat is called marriage but i also think the state should not interfere with minority belief.

My thoughts on this through the week were that i believe in gay equality in marriage. I pondered i would feel about equality being bestowed to polygamous relationships, or other still unconventional but commited unions.....

The problem also is sex i do not believe it trymps other committed relation ships for purposes of inheritance of a shared home.....siblings for example, who cannot inherit a home they have lived in committedly as siblings, but to all intents and purposes a relation hip much like assexual marriage /partnership .

zagubov

PasturesNew wrote: »

I couldn't have kept doing 400 mile round trips to go to view cars up country.

Linking that to furthest you'd travel for a weekend, we once flew 400 miles to look at a car. Gave us a chance to visit my parents too. I'd asked them to keep an eye out for the kind of car we liked and my dad rang to say he'd test-driven a showroom model at a reasonable price.

We arrived on cheap return tickets and took it for a test-drive. Liked it so much we bought it on the spot and tore up the return plane tickets. Drove the car back here and saved £1000s on the price. Car prices vary so much around the country it proved really worthwhile Only catch is you probably need to have somebody in the low-price area to help with advance intelligence.:D

Some countries have attitudes to tolerance and intolerance that make you stop and think. The head of the right-wing anti-immigration party in the Netherlands was openly gay which would I'm sure be an issue if he was in a far-right party in the UK.

Although the BNP in Britian seem quite tolerant of Sikh religious attire (turbans etc.) despite AFAIK being intolerant of most other multicultural signs and symbols.

vivatifosi

Original posted by lir above.

I would make all registry office weddings 'civil partnerships' and leave marriage to various religios denominations. I agree, I just don't know how easy that would be to do given there have been non-religious marriages for years. You could get "those gays are stopping me having a proper wedding" stories in the paper. It would be a good place to start with a blank piece of paper but I think the existing arrangments complicate things.

I believe all couples should have the right to the protection we have underwhat is called marriage but i also think the state should not interfere with minority belief.

My thoughts on this through the week were that i believe in gay equality in marriage. I pondered i would feel about equality being bestowed to polygamous relationships, or other still unconventional but commited unions..... Yes, I'd probably have a problem with polygamy too and hadn't thought about that.

The problem also is sex i do not believe it trymps other committed relation ships for purposes of inheritance of a shared home.....siblings for example, who cannot inherit a home they have lived in committedly as siblings, but to all intents and purposes a relation hip much like assexual marriage /partnership I agree that should happen. There are plenty of examples and it is a crying shame that they don't have the same rights. Especially when two people have lived together for a very long time and the death of one leaves the other in a vulnerable position at a difficult time in life. Again, common sense should prevail over box ticking but I don't know whether it does.

chewmylegoff

Re: gay marriage, I really don't see why the church or any other religious institution should be put on a pedestal. I think it should be illegal for a church to refuse to marry a gay couple, just as it is illegal for a b&b to refuse to accept bookings from a gay couple. The church is discriminating, and some of the more outspoken zealots are commiting hate crimes when they speak out about this subject in my view. I don't really care if someone wrote some stupid things about gay people in a book a couple of thousand years ago, we have moved on and the church shouldnt be permitted to continue to propagate thinking from the dark ages.

But then again I am extremely atheist so I probably don't understand...

silvercar

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Re: gay marriage, I really don't see why the church or any other religious institution should be put on a pedestal. I think it should be illegal for a church to refuse to marry a gay couple, just as it is illegal for a b&b to refuse to accept bookings from a gay couple. The church is discriminating, and some of the more outspoken zealots are commiting hate crimes when they speak out about this subject in my view. I don't really care if someone wrote some stupid things about gay people in a book a couple of thousand years ago, we have moved on and the church shouldnt be permitted to continue to propagate thinking from the dark ages.

But then again I am extremely atheist so I probably don't understand...

I'm going to nicely disagree with you here.

The church can decide its own rules, just like it can refuse to marry people of different religions, it can refuse to marry those whose relationships it disapproves of. You couldn't force a catholic priest to marry a jew to a Sikh, so you shouldn't be able to force a catholic priest to marry a gay couple.

chewmylegoff

That's what I dont understand. I dont see why the church is allowed to make its own rules which discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality or religion. If I opened a shop and put a sign on the door saying that Sikhs Jews and gay people are welcome to come into the shop and look at the goods, but I would not serve them, I would be prosecuted. I have real trouble understanding why the religious institutions are effectively carved out from the anti discrimination legislation. I believe they should have to move with the times. If it is unacceptable for person A to hold a set of beliefs and put those beliefs actively into practice, why is it acceptable for person B to do just that.