[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.