Cliques and Cliches

@(f)politics? wrote:

why shouldn’t there be a stop button or certainly a slow up button from changing a nations culture from what it was and is ?
Britain has become a melting pot in many ways agreed and inclusion in that respect is great, but why change what it was to suit those changes? You don’t buy a dog if you want a horse, or marry a man when you want a woman, so why do we feel the need to change so much that is our culture and our traditions ?
When in rome and all that, so yes i feel there should be a stop button, we need limits to maintain both our country, our faiths, our traditions… why bother being british and christian otherwise.. chose to be timbuktooish and follow the faith that suits your requirements not change the country and the faith to suit your own.
We have choices in this modern world we are in unlike ever before, exercise that right of choice and chose whats is best for you dont change something that doesnt suit your ideals, or what is the point in anything at all?

So if you’re British and gay, you should emigrate and change your citizenship and culture if you want to marry your soulmate? If you believe in God, Jesus, the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and the Ressurrection heaven and hell etc. and you are gay, you should change your religion to one whose fundamentals you disbelieve in order to marry. I don’t think that’s reasonable.

By that logic, shouldn’t the campaigners against slavery, or for votes for women, or rights for wives to own their own property or to report their husbands for violence have just left things as they were and done the same or left? Why campaign against cruelty to animals or children? why campaign for decent housing standards? Why challenge the sovereign’s absolute right over subjects?

If you don’t change a culture from what it was, then you preserve the bad as well as the good. Even if opening doors was every ‘ruled’ offensive, would you swap it for the vote, your own property, access to jobs, choice over child-bearing or marriage? Not saying you’d have to, but they were all absent from this country’s culture for far longer than they were present and they were regarded as far worse than PC when they were introduced

@wordsworth60 wrote:

So if you’re British and gay, you should emigrate and change your citizenship and culture if you want to marry your soulmate? If you believe in God, Jesus, the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and the Ressurrection heaven and hell etc. and you are gay, you should change your religion to one whose fundamentals you disbelieve in order to marry. I don’t think that’s reasonable.
no you shouldnt emigrate or change your citizenship, you can love your soulmate without the need to marry them in a church, so no need to go anywhere, if you believe in god and so forth and the faith dictates you cant marry in church and that effects your faith then its obviously not the faith for you so yes considering changing it may be an option, if marrying is more important than said faith to you.

By that logic, shouldn’t the campaigners against slavery, or for votes for women, or rights for wives to own their own property or to report their husbands for violence have just left things as they were and done the same or left? Why campaign against cruelty to animals or children? why campaign for decent housing standards? Why challenge the sovereign’s absolute right over subjects?
i dont think gay marriage is remotely anything like slavery, or reporting their husbands for abuse, refusing a gay marriage in church is not going to physically hurt a person or indeed humiliate them to slavery, refusing gay marriage isnt the same as cruelty to children or animals, this arguement doesnt hold up at all its totally different
If you don’t change a culture from what it was, then you preserve the bad as well as the good. Even if opening doors was every ‘ruled’ offensive, would you swap it for the vote, your own property, access to jobs, choice over child-bearing or marriage? Not saying you’d have to, but they were all absent from this country’s culture for far longer than they were present and they were regarded as far worse than PC when they were introduced
You shouldnt want to change a culture at all merely make improvements within it when the inclusion of things is new to it, improving a culture should mean evolving with in not changing its core and fundamental values

And what if those core and fundamental values need changing?

Didn’t the Church in this country give its blessing to burning ppl at the stake?

Wasn’t it acceptable to burn witches or drown them?

You say things shouldn’t change but evolve. Surely evolving is changing? :shock:

Perhaps poli, it’s simple. Gay ppl who are religious want the right to marry in Church because it is important to them to be joined in matrimony in the eyes of God. You say it makes no difference? To you maybe but to them it is important and it does make a difference in the same way it’s important for someone to be baptised or Confirmed.

You clearly belong to and believe in cliques.

@wordsworth60 wrote:

@(f)politics? wrote:

@wordsworth60 wrote:

. . . . . . . improving a culture should mean evolving with in not changing its core and fundamental values [/b]

At some point, if you’re going to evolve, you got to kill the dinosaurs . . . . . . .

So basically you are saying extinguish one culture*dinosaurs* to make room for the culture you want, dont evolve it by maintaining the dinosaurs living within their culture just get rid ? like i said before… so whats the point of anything,any cultures traditions faiths ? lets just have wars and kill each other off far less painful