Nice people thread part 5 - nicely does it

lemonjelly

lostinrates wrote: »

Lj, you asking someone who truely believes it is wrong to do it could be compared to some one forcing you to do something you thing is wrong....government imo can prevent wrong actions....like forbiod the use of child saxrifice for the sort of witch craft we hear about, prescribe limits on the age we allow marriage...even if others believe younger is ok, but to force someone to do something seems dodgier. I am not sure my arguemnt follows through...i do think peple should be compelled to actively do something like pay taxes.

I don't disagree lir. I just think that most religions can be quite hypocritical.

TBH, I wasn't aware of the massive clamour of gay coupkles requesting marriage as opposed to civil partnership was so huge it needed urgently addressing. I'd have thought there were bigger issues for the government to deal with really.

That & the papers are spinning a lot of rubbish relating to this issue.

lemonjelly

Ice? If it is hot, yes. If the drink isn't cold (& is supposed to be) then yes. I like cold drinks cold. I'm a big milk fan, & love drinking it cold from my freezer mug.
Lemon - need you ask? Otherwise, I might not exist...
Mushrooms god no! Foul, foul things.
Meat - I don't eat red meat. Never liked beef or lamb. Not a pork fan either, though will eat i in small quantities.

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

I don't disagree lir. I just think that most religions can be quite hypocritical.

TBH, I wasn't aware of the massive clamour of gay coupkles requesting marriage as opposed to civil partnership was so huge it needed urgently addressing. I'd have thought there were bigger issues for the government to deal with really.

That & the papers are spinning a lot of rubbish relating to this issue.

Lj i have not met the person yet who is not in someway hypocritical. I cannot expect more of institutions. I was lucky enought to have some fabulous mentors withon the cathoplic church, mainly men, who were kind, loving caring supportive and very wholesome people. Two included the Monsignor who took me trhough first holy communion and a time living in a funnybplace twixt and tween the peoe i lived among in different places and taught me a lot. The second the priest who counselled me when i decided i did not want to be confirmed, and who assured me i must do what was right for me in the face of some persuation to the contrary, and told me the church would always be there if i changed my mind properly and that he hoped i would believe still int he importnace of good and bad and my part in those when choices in life had to be made. There was a dodgy priest no dodgier than most men, and a couPle of wenchy nuns.


I also know of nuns who saved the sanity of a young girl suffering abuse at home, giving her a home from home in the face of anything else at the time.

Churches, dispite my disbelief, can be tremendous forces for good lj, as good as the state equivalent.

chewmylegoff

lostinrates wrote: »

Because its not just 'the catholics'. The big news on sunday was about the letter to anglican parish churches throughout england and wales!

Imo, the logical thing to do if not enough existing churches of whatever denomination are willing to have weddings is to found a new christian denomination, its happened many times before and they are well established and powerful now, there is no reason i can think opf it could not happen again.

Lj, you asking someone who truely believes it is wrong to do it could be compared to some one forcing you to do something you thing is wrong....government imo can prevent wrong actions....like forbiod the use of child saxrifice for the sort of witch craft we hear about, prescribe limits on the age we allow marriage...even if others believe younger is ok, but to force someone to do something seems dodgier. I am not sure my arguemnt follows through...i do think peple should be compelled to actively do something like pay taxes.

If the church said it didn't want to marry black people, would you support its right to so refuse? I just wonder where we draw the line and why? It seems illogical to me that (I) they are allowed to discriminate but I am not and (II) it is only acceptable for them to discriminate on certain bases, and not others.

I think will young made a good point about all this on question time when he said it shows a lazy underlying homophobia - people prepared to accept the church's discrimination against gays because deep down they think it's still socially acceptable. The fact that there are passages in the bible about it is irrelevant. There are passages in the bible about punishing "an eye for an eye" - it doesn't mean the church can put your eyes out if you blind someone.

Ultimately my view is that there should be one law for everyone and I don't think you should be able to use religion as a get out clause. Otherwise the logical extension is that I should be able to just set up my own religion and ignore the law.

vivatifosi

lemonjelly wrote: »

TBH, I wasn't aware of the massive clamour of gay coupkles requesting marriage as opposed to civil partnership was so huge it needed urgently addressing. I'd have thought there were bigger issues for the government to deal with really.

That & the papers are spinning a lot of rubbish relating to this issue.

I have some gay friends who are happied to have a civil partnership, some who see civil partnership as a marriage and refer to it as such, and others who want to be married. Apparently there are also straight couples who want to have a civil partnership because they want to have the rights but don't want to be married. I don't think it's black and white. Having said that, I don't think the papers are spinning things particularly, more reporting on the letter read out in church.

sss555s

vivatifosi wrote: »

Not a band, a singer. Its looking less likely now though. We've been to Australia to see this person before as well:o, though at least that was for 3 weeks and I got to see the family as well. If he could get to Melbourne, my cousin works in St Kilda and he could stand and watch the GP from their roof terrace.

Why so secretive. We won't laugh if it's Right Said Fred


Ice, Only if it's roasting and not a fan of cold drinks. Well said mskool

Lemon, Love the stuff, and pineapple.

Mushrooms, Yuck and double yuck!!

Meat, Fillet steak and chicken is about all I have meat wise these days, though i do love lamb.



Has anyone tried "Super Jam"?

It's a brand made by a young lad further up Scotland which is supposed to be more natural and better for you. I seen it on BBC Alba one night so bought one of each that they make, Raspberry and Blueberry n Blackcurrant.

Nice on Tiger bread.

zagubov

Ice- I like to chew the cubes to the horror of my family.
Lemon- works no magic on me. Prefer mint tea to lemon tea.
Mushrooms yes,like I said above. Just imagining eating a bit mushroom omeletteicm, or eating garlic mushrooms.

Meat, yes, especially crisped bacon, and including kidneys, but not liver, no way, it's a foul horror:eek:
Saving rodents? Not a chance.:D

lostinrates

chewmylegoff wrote: »

If the church said it didn't want to marry black people, would you support its right to so refuse? I just wonder where we draw the line and why? It seems illogical to me that (I) they are allowed to discriminate but I am not and (II) it is only acceptable for them to discriminate on certain bases, and not others.

I think will young made a good point about all this on question time when he said it shows a lazy underlying homophobia - people prepared to accept the church's discrimination against gays because deep down they think it's still socially acceptable. The fact that there are passages in the bible about it is irrelevant. There are passages in the bible about punishing "an eye for an eye" - it doesn't mean the church can put your eyes out if you blind someone.

Ultimately my view is that there should be one law for everyone and I don't think you should be able to use religion as a get out clause. Otherwise the logical extension is that I should be able to just set up my own religion and ignore the law.

We found it easier to find a rabbi to marry us rather than a priest. In the end we used neither.

I support my old churches right not to have married dh and i. Is black different to jew? (i would have had to be confirmed, rightly, in any case.)

Edit. I would supoort peoples right to do either. In your supposition, then you bet i would protest about it, i would not support it, nor its members businesses.....

I would find it distasteful in the extreme, and lose respect i had for them, but not for their right. If they then tried to say outside the church black people had fewer rights in someway i would be fighting it tooth and nail. I would also point out that i have seen rasism rather blatently anti white in some churches some years ago. I think thats less common now, but have no contact with such communities now so really cannot say!

Edit: i despise will self, but i do think that was a good point, but think the point is actually broader. There is significant less lazy bigotry rampant in this country in various communities, including those who feel themselves victimised....sometimes most strongly so.

sss555s

Not religion again :rollseyes:

Can't we leave it out of the NPT please :A

lostinrates

sss555s wrote: »

Not religion again :rollseyes:

Can't we leave it out of the NPT please :A

Is that discriminatory?:D