DJKillaQueen

About four months ago I reported a guy to two police officers in Sainsburrys that I had watched outside the station casing women as they emerged, before (I think) he suspected I was standing at the bus stop too long and went into the park next to sainsburrys. I followed him and saw him riding up and down (he was on a bicycle) along the fence of the childrens play area looking at buggies and bags. I had no doubt he was looking to rob someone. All it would take would be a period of covert surveilllance by the police to catch these muggers. The police also have mobile cctv equipment they can install and use too.

I tend to agree with Loz that use of the word God (Allah) and gay in the same sentence on a bus would be too controversial for some people/institutions. But the minority outrage shouldn't have the power it does, not in the UK anyway. Bob is right though about the church and state dilema. It is because the Anglican church has such an entrneched constitutional and historical connection to the dominent culture that there is time given to the views of its opponents. Other religions outside of that establishment have gone through many changes in law that conflict with their beliefs, catholicism and abortion for example, without much regard for their beliefs by the state.

There will be minutes of the debate available at some point SF but I think the result doesn't suggest too many arguments against. I've seen the Stonewall ads but don't really know if I think they are an effective addition to the debate. After all, the debate is a religious one at the core of most opposition. And no-one is denying that gay people exist. If instead of saying 'Some people are gay - get over it', the ad said 'God makes some people gay - get over it', then it might have more impact, whilst at the same time confronting the core prong of opposition.

From Southwark council...... The Civil Gay Marriage motion was debated last week on Wednesday 28th March, and of the 63 Southwark councillors (34 Labour, 25 Lib Dems, 3 Conservatives and 1 Independent) about 59 were present for the vote. The motion was proposed by Cllr Noakes and seconded by a Labour councillor. When the free vote took place all the councillors present voted in favour apart from 7 who abstained.

I think it's more of a gesture by the council to show it's support for gay people living within the borough rather than any belief it will influence the outcome of any government proposals. Southwark has shown longstanding support of the LGBT community so it's not out of character for the council to encompass the debate on gay marriage within that realm of support.

LOL OCDC indeed.... ;)

Asking someone who knows nothing about international football to follow a national team during a major football tournament doesn't exactly make me want to go out and read anything that journalist writes I'm afraid.

This is a wind up surely ;)

Turfing in such dry weather would be disastrous without constant watering. Grass seed though doesn't take that long to grow and the pitches wouldn't be needed until the next season starts in September.

lol Rosie..... I always thought of truck drivers as being highly skilled....not everyone could manoeuvre an articulated lorry with such precision (especially when motorway tailgating) and long distance lorry drivers spend days away from their families.....like errr soldiers! (do they get ?45k a year?). Tbh I have no idea is a lorry driver is worth 45k a year any more than a tube driver etc. I do know that the cost of living is rising faster than wages and housing inflation has been outstripping wages for almost two decades. So who can blame any worker for using whatever they can to get as much salary as they can. I think we'd all do it if we could.

:,(

Oh I am so sorry to read that....just posted on the other thread wishing Morph well..... Please let Mark Newell the park warden know. I've put his contact email on the other thread but will pm you his number. It can not be that a dog is allowed to put other people's dogs in danger like this. Someone needs to have a chat with the owner of this other dog and asap.

Might be worth having a chat with Mark Newell, the head warden at the park too. Maybe a chat with the owner from him might help. It sounds as though this dog perhaps needs a muzzle if it's off the leash. You can email Mark at [email protected] And I hope Morph has a speedy recovery.....sounds as though it could have ended far worse.

Those are valid points too sphilips. The treatment of homosexuals and women in several African countries is shameful. That religious institutions validate that treatment is also shameful. SF is under the illusion that most christians think the same way but ignores the extremes which are prevalent in some other nations. SF also thinks that because something is the law as it stands, it can't be offensive. When homosexuality was illegal, that wasn't offensive then. By the same logic, if the law is changed then the church can't possibly be offended either.

Which is where the court come into play. Breaking an injuction for example, is an arrestable offence. So a private homeowner can have restrictions placed on them and their guests which can lead to fines or even imprisonment if broken. Council tenants can lose their home altogether and private tenants can be evicted by their landlords for ASB.

Of course it is the legal position but one you do not wish to see change, but have given no sensible reason for opposing. That the government are seeking to change it is the whole reason for this debate, and yes it does offend me that you think that gay marriage is such a threat to the stability of anything. The church does a pretty good job of dividing itself without even considering gays, as it is a continuing battle between orthodoxy and moderation. This is something seen in most religions. Descrimination against homosexuality in the name of the church though is indefensible and changing the law reagarding marriage would be a step away from that descrimination.....a descrimination you are trying to defend, with predictions of doom for the church and society if it does change. That IS offensive to me. It's almost akin to the argument that nationalists use against immigration. If you let too many immigrants in they'll ruin the social and genetic fabric of the country! If you deliver equality to gays within the CofE it will be the end of marriage and the CofE! ......see how ridiculous both statements are? Fragmentation is a price worth paying for the greater good, because fragmentation will dilute the power of that institution to persist with descrimination and to destroy lives, because gay children growing up in orthodox religious cultures suffer. There are very good reasons why the suicide rate amongst gay people is almost twice the average and whilst extending rights of marriage to gays won't completely negate that, tackling institutionalised prejudice will send a clear message that religious descrimination and homophobia is no longer acceptable, any more than descrimination is in any other form. With regards to Africa and HIV, it is not an over simplification to state that one of the most vocal opponents to efforts by the WHO to stem the spread of HIV was the Church in some Africa countries. It is well documented. Of course other factors are at play too but I never said church prejudice was the sole factor, just one of many, but shameful all the same. You will never have a united global church movement. The culture from nation to nation varies greatly. So it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the CofE should tailor itself to the culture of THIS country....not some far off land where most of us will never go.

A 70cl bottle of spirit contains 28 units. So it seems to me as though the 40p price tag is designed to not impact on the cost of bottles of wine and spirits anyway.

It's not true to say the council can not do something, but yes they need to have evidence. ASBOs are being phased out but there is a process which starts with a voluntary ASBO agreement between the offending person(s) and ends with an injuction if the council can convince a magistrate to grant it. A person does not have to be a council tenant to be dealt with by this process, but obviously a council tenant can be evicted for ASB. As part of an ASBO, the friends visiting your neighbour for example, can be restricted to the hours they visit. The hard part though is convicing the council that the problem is so detrimental to local residents that they need to act. So definitely worth engaging with other neighbours and getting collective evidence and complaint together. It is not going to be a quick process, but persistence will pay off.

What offends me most about SF's stance is not the continual diatribe that 'marriage' is for men and women only (an argument SF is losing miserably) but the avoidance of saying why homosexual relationships can not be seen as equal to heterosexual ones.....because that is what is at the core of it. The argument that an institution has a right to be openly prejudiced because most of it's members are prejudiced doesn't wash. Other institutions have been forced to remove descrimination and the church should be no different. Why? Because it is the sign of a civilised society. SF earlier pointed to the orthodoxy of the African Anglican movement for embellishment of his/her view. Well SF, in some African countries, up to half the population is infected with HIV. The churches refusal to promote safe sex and aid efforts to educate on HIV prevention played a major part in taking those countries to the abismal place they find themselves in now. These are the consequences of a literary religious view.

Might be worth taking the poor thing to a vet to see if it's chipped. The vet could then put it in cold storage allowing time for an owner to be traced.

I wouldn't put too much status into the European ruling either. The Catholic church for example is far more powerful in Europe than the UK (the dominent religion of France too incidently) and it's influence is not to be underestimated. Fortunately the UK hasn't always felt the need to take notice of the European view on everything. The ruling also says that if gay couples are allowed to marry, any church that offers weddings will be guilty of discrimination if it declines to marry same-sex couples. This statement contradicts itself. It acknowledges that the church already descriminates agaisnt some heterosexual couples and then argues that an end to descrimination is somehow a bad thing. Pinch me if we are not living in the 21st century here! ?The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states? governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.?... This is only the statute in law as it currently exists, 'require', being the key word. It doesn't mean it is morally right (or that any government can't change that status if it sees fit) and like any European statute can be changed in due course if the will is there in Europe to end ALL descrimination against gays. Also these rulings are specific to a case involving two women in a country with different local laws to the UK (and as pointed out, strongly Catholic). Gay couples are allowed to adopt in the UK for example. They were challenging the law in France as it currently stands and the basis of their argument was that they should be allowed the same rights as married heterosexual couples in relation to adoption and that it was an infringement of their human rights to be denied that equality. The European ruling has to take into consideration whether the French government acted in accordance with their own laws and are those laws fair. Should a heterosexual couple challenge the right for a gay couple to adopt in the UK through the European court, arguing say that it infringes the child's human rights to be placed with a gay couple, the court would uphold the UK law as it currently stands. It has nothing to do wih any proposed changes to laws on marriage by the UK government though. The UK government is free to make any changes it pleases as long as it follows the correct parliamentary procedure. And no doubt other lawyers in favour of the move, will point this out. I would argue that if the UK government changed the law and church lawyers tried to get that law revoked through the European courts they would rule that whilst ?The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states? governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.?...that a government was still free to do so, if they so choose. I totally agree Otta that for this thread to reach five pages shows how sadly we still have some way to go before all prejudice is wiped out. Combatting religious bigotry is perhaps the final challenge for gays in the UK and will perhaps be the hardest one to combat. Thankfully SF is a lone voice on this forum at least.

Which is exaclty why SF's argument that you could be considered devisive and selfish is a nonsense. The church has never had a unity of belief and religions/ branches of religions that do, are usually run by dictatorships that demand it, putting the frear of everything in their followers and filling them with absolute guilt if they think otherwise.

However, it does not follow that because a person may not agree with Gay Marriage in a Church they are homophobic. Many Christians may simply see it as 'inappropriate' given the particular Church's teaching and tradition especially as there are secular alternatives. They don't hate gays. I have to diagree here. The orthodox teaching (and it's a tenous interpretation tbh) is that homosexuals are sinners. But there are all kinds of sins in the bible that don't then magically turn heterosexuals into inferior beings. Some religions have in the past apllied those same prejudices (or still do), such as taking a stance on adultery or abortion, but the CofE has seen sense on those issues. And yes there are orthodox versions of christianity (that frankly border on right wing fascism), such as evangelicalism and then more progressive ones too but on homosexuality, the rule seems to be applied equally. Surely it should be up to the church to decide who they marry or bless in their church. Allow the liberal ones to welcome gay partnerships and let the orthodox ones steer clear.The debate on who should be the next Archbishop of C is also one between those who want a traditionalist vs those who want a liberal. I think the church does a pretty good job of dividing itself. sphilips is committed to his faith but I think we can all agree that religions change their thinking from time to time. There is no reason to believe that homosexuality is something that the church can't one day also change it's attitude towards. Imo what happens in Africa should have nothing to do with the UK. That's like saying all Islamic states should be the same...but they are not because nations have different identities and cultures. To suggest sphilips is being divisive and selfish is unfair. God is his God too and I think God personally would be horrified by the behaviour and thinking of many of the religions that claim to serve in God's name. The history of religion is pretty shameful to be honest. Good article MNH When otherwise intelligent people rely on such specious arguments, you have to wonder whether it isn?t because they daren?t say what they truly believe ? that gays are lesser human beings who should be denied the same rights as others. It would be wrong to tar everyone in this way, but it is striking how many of the most vociferous objections come from those with a less-than-stellar record on gay rights. This is my point entirely. One of the most striking (and heartwarming) social developments of the past decade is just how quickly civil partnerships have become entirely unremarkable. It is hard to believe the same would not be true of gay marriage. But maybe this easy acceptance is what is really driving the increasingly apocalyptic warnings. Perhaps, what worries opponents is not that marriage and society will be disastrously undermined by this reform, but that they won?t. Good point I think.

That is the Archbishops own choice I'm afraid. There is a simple yes or no answer depending on belief. I don't accept that you don't have a view in principle on this point whatever the consequences might be either way. You did in an earlier post agree that it was wrong to descriminate against someone because they merely are gay and that the law was right to outlaw decrimination. You can;t have it both ways if that's what you genuinely believe. And If we all went through life sitting on a fence then nothing would ever change. Sometimes people have to be prepared to change too.

But SF you still haven't said if you think gay Christians should be allowed to have their relationship blessed in a church before God. That is the whole point here, not whether we call it a marriage or not. You have to decide if you are going to accept that first before you can argue the toss on what it should be called. If you think no, you are not only unfairly descriminating against gays but also supposedly fellow Christians, and knowing that, is why I think you won't say where you stand on it - better to say nothing than admit a belief in prejudice eh ;). I think I should just give up on you tbh.....and the shore analogy is a pretty good discription I think of your moral dilemma - wanting to believe in the orthodox, when deep down you really know the moderate view is the fairer one.