[toby843]

Originally Posted by flamingGalah!

YES IT IS!!! He could perform a civil partnership if he so wished, he isn't a bloody Catholic Priest is he?! He has his own made up loony religion...

He says he would not do it OUT OF PERSONAL CHOICE that is discrimination

I'm sorry but it clearly states in the Bible that being gay is wrong, many many times. Dave is only following his religion, which, yes, is something he chooses to do, but he can in no way be called discriminatory for it any more than he could for following any of the other biblical guidelines. I think everyone on this thread who is trying to make out he is as bad as a racist needs to take step back a minute and take a look at what they are saying and really think it through.
Why in this country do we feel the need to head down this blame culture and look for reasons to hate people? Another good example is the instant thread on how people are saying Keeley deserves compensation, why does she? She willingly entered the house having been made fully aware of the fact there would be physical tasks, she had as much protection on as you could wear, ie, helmet, elbow and knee pads, the surface was smooth and not unreasonably high. Now are we saying that the military shouldn't climb 6 and 9 foot walls on obstacle courses in training because they are too high? Where do we think the money will come from when people sue?? Our pockets. A woman sued the local council because when she was sat in the park under a tree and a small branch fell and hit her and caused no permanent damage. Are acts of mother nature the councils fault now? The money people sue for means it doesn't get spent on the things we really need. Why don't people see this. I'm sure endemol are well insured but in todays economical climate most large corporations are in some way government funded, see where I'm going?
Lets not forget that by heritage, law, popular culture and tradition, Great Britain is a christian country, whether you practice or not, so lets stick to at least part of our heritage and see that Dave is only living his life in line with his beliefs. If we can allow Sharia law in Islamic areas of the country then I'm pretty sure Dave should be allowed to follow the country's traditional religion, all be it a slightly personalised version.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by toby843

I'm sorry but it clearly states in the Bible that being gay is wrong, many many times....

Really? Many times? Where exactly?

The Bible also advocates beating your wife, beating your children, selling your children into slavery, owning slaves, stoning people to death for adultery and burning people to death for growing two kinds of crops in the same field.

If you're going to suggest that because something is in the Bible it has to be adhered to, I think everyone on this forum, including me, is in big, BIG trouble.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Livia

Really? Many times? Where exactly?

The Bible also advocates beating your wife, beating your children, selling your children into slavery, owning slaves, stoning people to death for adultery and burning people to death for growing two kinds of crops in the same field.

If you're going to suggest that because something is in the Bible it has to be adhered to, I think everyone on this forum, including me, is in big, BIG trouble.

Looks like we are both going to that warm place when we die then eh? I hear the music is better down there anyway.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Looks like we are both going to that warm place when we die then eh? I hear the music is better down there anyway.

Thinking about what some (not all...) reglious people are like, who the hell would want to spend eternity with them anyway?!

See you there. It'll be your round.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Livia

Thinking about what some (not all...) reglious people are like, who the hell would want to spend eternity with them anyway?!

See you there. It'll be your round.

No worries, will have a nice cold one waiting for you.

[toby843]

Originally Posted by Livia

Really? Many times? Where exactly?

The Bible also advocates beating your wife, beating your children, selling your children into slavery, owning slaves, stoning people to death for adultery and burning people to death for growing two kinds of crops in the same field.

If you're going to suggest that because something is in the Bible it has to be adhered to, I think everyone on this forum, including me, is in big, BIG trouble.

Ok, I didn't really want to get into a big religous debate as I am not religous myself but here goes:

•Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
•Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
•1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
•Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."


I think that just about covers the bible thing. Anyway, as I said, I'm not religous so I am not suggesting anything about how we live our lives.

I'm simply saying, Dave has his beliefs and he is entitled to them, and, as a christian country, we should not hold them against him.

You're right, there are some outrageous parts to the bible, hence the fact I am not religous, but if our country was founded in Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Shintoism etc etc. . we would find ourselves living in an altogether different society, wouldn't you agree, and in some ways, nowhere near as free as we are to live our lives.

So the point I'm making is as a society we feel the need to pick holes in beliefs yet moan and argue when we feel we are not being treated fairly. We seem to have inherited an "I owe you nothing but you owe me everything" culture, almost americanist in its reliance on blame culture and compensation, wouldn't you agree?

I'm pretty sure that if you were to take a snap shot of societies values 60 years ago and applied them to todays public, life would be a much smoother affair.

[Late for the Party]

“Religion easily has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bull**** story"

George Carlin

[flamingGalah!]

Religion is also the cause of most of the worlds wars...

[Livia]

Originally Posted by toby843

Ok, I didn't really want to get into a big religous debate as I am not religous myself but here goes:

•Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
•Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
•1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
•Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."


I think that just about covers the bible thing. Anyway, as I said, I'm not religous so I am not suggesting anything about how we live our lives.

I'm simply saying, Dave has his beliefs and he is entitled to them, and, as a christian country, we should not hold them against him.

You're right, there are some outrageous parts to the bible, hence the fact I am not religous, but if our country was founded in Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Shintoism etc etc. . we would find ourselves living in an altogether different society, wouldn't you agree, and in some ways, nowhere near as free as we are to live our lives.

So the point I'm making is as a society we feel the need to pick holes in beliefs yet moan and argue when we feel we are not being treated fairly. We seem to have inherited an "I owe you nothing but you owe me everything" culture, almost americanist in its reliance on blame culture and compensation, wouldn't you agree?

I'm pretty sure that if you were to take a snap shot of societies values 60 years ago and applied them to todays public, life would be a much smoother affair.

If you aren't religious, I'm an confused why you're arguing so hard in support of a couple of passages of a book you don't consider God's Word.

So you've given me two Old Testament mentions, both Leviticus (read the rest of it and see the all the other things you're not allowed to do) and two New Testament passages. You'll have undoubtedly noticed that it also says drunkards shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven, so presumably Andrew is out, after last night's performance. Oh, and you can be stoned to death for working on the Sabbath. And working on the Sabbath includes going shopping, cooking and even answering the telephone. So, are you going to embrace the bit that says homosexuality is an abomination, but ignore all the other "abominations" because you consider them to be archaic?

Sixty years ago people were sent to prison for being homosexual. Society has moved on.

When the Bible was written the world was a very different place. The bits about homosexuality are as outdated as the bits about being allowed to own slaves.

Incidentally, also in Leviticus [21.20] it states that you may not approach God's alter if you have a defect of sight. Our Rabbi wears glasses. Clearly he thinks there are bits that are past their sell-by date too.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Livia

You'll have undoubtedly noticed that it also says drunkards shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven, .

Sh1t....i'd better find other digs after i kick it....

[Livia]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

Sh1t....i'd better find other digs after i kick it....

Don't worry, we're getting party together in The Other Place. And Shasown's getting the first round.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Livia

Don't worry, we're getting party together in The Other Place. And Shasown's getting the first round.

Sounds hot stuff....

[toby843]

Originally Posted by Livia

If you aren't religious, I'm an confused why you're arguing so hard in support of a couple of passages of a book you don't consider God's Word.

So you've given me two Old Testament mentions, both Leviticus (read the rest of it and see the all the other things you're not allowed to do) and two New Testament passages. You'll have undoubtedly noticed that it also says drunkards shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven, so presumably Andrew is out, after last night's performance. Oh, and you can be stoned to death for working on the Sabbath. And working on the Sabbath includes going shopping, cooking and even answering the telephone. So, are you going to embrace the bit that says homosexuality is an abomination, but ignore all the other "abominations" because you consider them to be archaic?

Sixty years ago people were sent to prison for being homosexual. Society has moved on.

When the Bible was written the world was a very different place. The bits about homosexuality are as outdated as the bits about being allowed to own slaves.

Incidentally, also in Leviticus [21.20] it states that you may not approach God's alter if you have a defect of sight. Our Rabbi wears glasses. Clearly he thinks there are bits that are past their sell-by date too.

Hi, see this is what I like, this is what these forums are all about, healthy debate on relevant subjects. not mindless childish slagging for no real reason. Thanks you Livia.

So....Like I said before, I'm not religous, I'm not arguing for or against the bible, I'm arguing for Dave's right to have a religous view, and one that should by all rights be shared by the majority of the coutry as it is christian coutry by foundation.

When I talked about society 60 years ago my point was that if we could take their values we would be better off, not their laws. Would you not rather live in a world where the dustman would take your bin even if the lid wasn't shut slightly? Or, not worry about sending your child on a school sports event in case they bang their head against another child and the other parents sue you? Would you rather not be surrounded by health and safety signs everywhere yo go telling you not to do what you quite clearly wouldn't do anyway? And so on and so forth!

Now I'm not homophobic in any way but in my opinion, and it is my opinion and I'm allowed it, I don't agree that same sex couples should be allowed to adopt children, and I am happy to think that knowing that I am allowed an opinion, ergo, Dave should be allowed his religous views, after all, without national identity and the great and triumphant history of our country what would we be left with in todays society of immigration and assylum??

[flamingGalah!]

Originally Posted by toby843

...
So....Like I said before, I'm not religous, I'm not arguing for or against the bible, I'm arguing for Dave's right to have a religous view, and one that should by all rights be shared by the majority of the coutry as it is christian coutry by foundation.

So you think everyone in this country should be against gay "marriage" & you do not agree with same sex couples adopting children, but you are not homophobic... hmmm, well you sure hold some homophobic views...

[toby843]

Originally Posted by flamingGalah!

So you think everyone in this country should be against gay "marriage" & you do not agree with same sex couples adopting children, but you are not homophobic... hmmm, well you sure hold some homophobic views...

Well you're right about me not agreeing that same sex couples should adopt children. As for me wanting the whole country to be against gay marriage, thats not what I meant. I meant as a christian country the general view should be we follow christian guidelines, as a country.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by toby843

Hi, see this is what I like, this is what these forums are all about, healthy debate on relevant subjects. not mindless childish slagging for no real reason. Thanks you Livia.

So....Like I said before, I'm not religous, I'm not arguing for or against the bible, I'm arguing for Dave's right to have a religous view, and one that should by all rights be shared by the majority of the coutry as it is christian coutry by foundation.

When I talked about society 60 years ago my point was that if we could take their values we would be better off, not their laws. Would you not rather live in a world where the dustman would take your bin even if the lid wasn't shut slightly? Or, not worry about sending your child on a school sports event in case they bang their head against another child and the other parents sue you? Would you rather not be surrounded by health and safety signs everywhere yo go telling you not to do what you quite clearly wouldn't do anyway? And so on and so forth!

Now I'm not homophobic in any way but in my opinion, and it is my opinion and I'm allowed it, I don't agree that same sex couples should be allowed to adopt children, and I am happy to think that knowing that I am allowed an opinion, ergo, Dave should be allowed his religous views, after all, without national identity and the great and triumphant history of our country what would we be left with in todays society of immigration and assylum??

There’s quite a lot of healthy debate here, amongst a lot of mindless drivel of course. Some of my favourite posters on here I hardly agree with at all, but they don’t resort to name-calling and can agree to either see the alternate view, or to disagree.

Dave has a right to his religious view. We both agree on that. But the laws that he chooses to follow have been carefully chosen and discriminate expressly against one section of society. I’m not referring exclusively to Dave here, but to religious people generally, but as Dave is the point of this thread… He does not agree with homosexuality because it says so in the Bible. But he allowed Ben to cut his hair short, around his temples, which is also expressly forbidden in the Bible. So why is one held up as God’s word, and the other isn’t? It’s not a pick-and-mix, it’s supposed to be the Word of God. If one God-given law is archaic enough to be ignored, who chooses?

I will not argue that Health and Safety legislation is over-zealous. Yes there are elements of the bygone that are looked on with nostalgia… but to think everything was rosy back then would be erroneous. Sixty years ago food was still rationed, National Service (love it or hate it) was non-negotiable, inner cities, many destroyed by war, would remain virtual ghettos for at least another two decades. The “Darling Buds of May” view of the 1950s is, I think, a mistake.

You say that this is a Christian country, and although well over fifty eight percent of the country listed their religion as “Christian”, a visit to any church on any Sunday will show that attendance has been declining year on year over a long period. More people go to football matches on Saturdays than go to church on Sundays. Interestingly sixteen percent of people stated they had “no religion”, the highest proportion of non-believers in the country ever. While it would be nice to think the Christian doctrine of “Love thy Neighbour” would be a nice ethos, I’m afraid that’s not the reality of it. And as a side note, interestingly, during the last Census, seven people in every thousand in England and Wales listed their religion as “Jedi”.

Everyone has a right to believe what they want. But that doesn’t mean it is right or even legal to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their race, gender, disability or religious view. So how does it make it right to be able to discriminate against members of our society purely on the grounds of the sexual orientation? This is not an unter-class we’re talking about; gay people work, contribute and pay taxes and they should have the right to live their lives with the same rights as anyone else.

Finally, and slightly off-topic I know, you talk about the triumphant history and national identity of this country and ask what it would be in today’s society of immigration and asylum. Offering shelter to people IS a part of this country’s triumphant history and national identity. This country went to war for the downtrodden in 1939, and many people, including members of my own family, found shelter here. This country’s crowning glory in my view, is the willingness of the majority of British people to stand up for the underdog, to raise their fist against the bully even when it is outnumbered and to offer sanctuary to the downtrodden as it has done for hundreds of years.

[toby843]

Originally Posted by Livia

So why is one held up as God’s word, and the other isn’t? It’s not a pick-and-mix, it’s supposed to be the Word of God. If one God-given law is archaic enough to be ignored, who chooses?

A point I whole heartedly agree with, hence me not being religious.
I will not argue that Health and Safety legislation is over-zealous. Yes there are elements of the bygone that are looked on with nostalgia… but to think everything was rosy back then would be erroneous. Sixty years ago food was still rationed, National Service (love it or hate it) was non-negotiable, inner cities, many destroyed by war, would remain virtual ghettos for at least another two decades. The “Darling Buds of May” view of the 1950s is, I think, a mistake.

Again, good points, but again, I was refferring to the values of society back then, the feeling of mucking in together, family values, hard work, clean living, community spirit, national pride etc. When was the last time we had a good old street party with union flags flying everywhere? I'm sorry to say it, I doubt it would be allowed in todays climate as we may offend. Agreed?
You say that this is a Christian country, and although well over fifty eight percent of the country listed their religion as “Christian”, a visit to any church on any Sunday will show that attendance has been declining year on year over a long period. More people go to football matches on Saturdays than go to church on Sundays. Interestingly sixteen percent of people stated they had “no religion”, the highest proportion of non-believers in the country ever. While it would be nice to think the Christian doctrine of “Love thy Neighbour” would be a nice ethos, I’m afraid that’s not the reality of it. And as a side note, interestingly, during the last Census, seven people in every thousand in England and Wales listed their religion as “Jedi”.

very good point. Perhaps we should take a step back and have a look at the benefits of returning to the way we used to be.

Everyone has a right to believe what they want. But that doesn’t mean it is right or even legal to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their race, gender, disability or religious view. So how does it make it right to be able to discriminate against members of our society purely on the grounds of the sexual orientation? This is not an unter-class we’re talking about; gay people work, contribute and pay taxes and they should have the right to live their lives with the same rights as anyone else.

I guess this depends on how you take the term "discriminate" in any given situation. I wouldn't say in this case Dave is discriminating in the nasty sense that we would perceive rascism or sexism. I would say its more a case of womens only nights at swimming pools, men only on the front line (for now), adults only in certain pubs. The kind of "discrimination" we tend to accept as ok. If its our belief that a murderer is bad and we should lock them away we are in effect discriminating against murderers in the true definition of the word. It is Dave's belief homosexuality is wrong but he is not treating anyone differently within his relationship with them.
Finally, and slightly off-topic I know, you talk about the triumphant history and national identity of this country and ask what it would be in today’s society of immigration and asylum. Offering shelter to people IS a part of this country’s triumphant history and national identity. This country went to war for the downtrodden in 1939, and many people, including members of my own family, found shelter here. This country’s crowning glory in my view, is the willingness of the majority of British people to stand up for the underdog, to raise their fist against the bully even when it is outnumbered and to offer sanctuary to the downtrodden as it has done for hundreds of years.

What my point was, is that, as we, quite rightly, accept a steady incoming stream of asylum seekers we constantly integrate other cultures and religions and different ways of life into our own, we must make sure we don't forget our own national identity. Thats what I meant. As a serving member of HM forces I agree 100% with you on our countries crowning glory.

(Thanks for the nice intro too)

[stonedape]

Originally Posted by toby843

Ok, I didn't really want to get into a big religous debate as I am not religous myself but here goes:

•Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
•Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
•1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
•Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."


I think that just about covers the bible thing. Anyway, as I said, I'm not religous so I am not suggesting anything about how we live our lives.

I'm simply saying, Dave has his beliefs and he is entitled to them, and, as a christian country, we should not hold them against him.

You're right, there are some outrageous parts to the bible, hence the fact I am not religous, but if our country was founded in Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Shintoism etc etc. . we would find ourselves living in an altogether different society, wouldn't you agree, and in some ways, nowhere near as free as we are to live our lives.

So the point I'm making is as a society we feel the need to pick holes in beliefs yet moan and argue when we feel we are not being treated fairly. We seem to have inherited an "I owe you nothing but you owe me everything" culture, almost americanist in its reliance on blame culture and compensation, wouldn't you agree?

I'm pretty sure that if you were to take a snap shot of societies values 60 years ago and applied them to todays public, life would be a much smoother affair.

There are more verses in the bible about women not cutting their hair or what type of food to eat. "The bible told me so" is no defense, especially not in 2010 when so little is taken literally/seriously. The scarce passages in the Bible against homosexuality, the same ones you mentioned and I've personally heard over 100 times, are highlighted because of Western society's current fixation with homosexuality. And this was taught by our parents, not a book nearly no one reads. The Bible's just used as a shield in hope's no one has the balls to challenge their ignorant archaic beliefs, as in cases like this.

[toby843]

Originally Posted by stonedape

There are more verses in the bible about women not cutting their hair or what type of food to eat. "The bible told me so" is no defense, especially not in 2010 when so little is taken literally/seriously. The scarce passages in the Bible against homosexuality, the same ones you mentioned and I've personally heard over 100 times, are highlighted because of Western society's current fixation with homosexuality. And this was taught by our parents, not a book nearly no one reads. The Bible's just used as a shield in hope's no one has the balls to challenge their ignorant archaic beliefs, as in cases like this.

I wouldn't say my beliefs are archaic, I believe we live in a free country where everyone is entitled to an opinion or view. I have absoloutely nothing against same sex couples. See above for my opinion.
I did not post on this thread with the intention of being anti-gay, I am simply arguing for Dave's right to a religous belief.

I'm not sure what your point on western societies fixation with homosexuality is, in my opinion homosexuality is more accepted now than at any other time. I'm not sure what you mean?

[stonedape]

Originally Posted by toby843

I wouldn't say my beliefs are archaic, I believe we live in a free country where everyone is entitled to an opinion or view. I have absoloutely nothing against same sex couples. See above for my opinion.
I did not post on this thread with the intention of being anti-gay, I am simply arguing for Dave's right to a religous belief.

I'm not sure what your point on western societies fixation with homosexuality is, in my opinion homosexuality is more accepted now than at any other time. I'm not sure what you mean?

Didn't mean to insinuate you are anti-gay or you hold these positions I'm arguing against, I'm arguing against the common belief. And it is archaic. The Greeks would call the view archaic, and the Greeks are archaic.

My point on Western society's fixation with homosexuality is that this debate has almost nothing to do with the Bible, which was your initial argument. The Bible says it, they believe it, move on. But it's not that simple, because there's so many moral laws in the Bible they look past consciously or unconsciously. So why is this the issue where Leviticus applies? It's our society. Homosexuality has to be one of the biggest "moral" issues of our time, and it's literally which genitals you prefer.

[toby843]

Originally Posted by stonedape

Didn't mean to insinuate you are anti-gay or you hold these positions I'm arguing against, I'm arguing against the common belief. And it is archaic. The Greeks would call the view archaic, and the Greeks are archaic.

My point on Western society's fixation with homosexuality is that this debate has almost nothing to do with the Bible, which was your initial argument. The Bible says it, they believe it, move on. But it's not that simple, because there's so many moral laws in the Bible they look past consciously or unconsciously. So why is this the issue where Leviticus applies? It's our society. Homosexuality has to be one of the biggest "moral" issues of our time, and it's literally which genitals you prefer.

Ok, then lets put the bible to one side, as anyway I am not religous. From a moral stand point then, at the moment I would say society is very pro homosexual, almost every single school accepts it into lesson for children about growing up and forming relationships, it features very heavily in factual videos made specifically for teens. It has become part of the positive discrimination argument along with race and physical ability. Our media views have changed to accept and in some ways celebrate homosexuals, its almost like you can't have anything to do with fashion on tv unless you are gay, am I right?
You see, society at the moment is in almost a "gay fever" where it feels the need to celebrate homosexuality. So I would say the moral issue is really, do we think its the correct way to go?
And I still believe in Dave's inherent right to a religious belief, we wouldn't stop a muslim reading their Koran in the house would we?