You really can't accept that there is a difference between work and home life can you

But Cameron has definitely decided that homosexuality is wrong and bullfighting is right. He need't have come to either of those conclusions. He chose to.

I would debate 'sly bastard' but as for the rest, I will agree he isn't stupid and it would appear he is not poor either

So is it time for the white smoke then?

What Cameron was asked was his opinion on gay rights, what was shown on the telly was PART of his answer. I saw him say that he believed 'man should not lie with man' and that he believed marriages should be 'husband and wife' but what they did not and have not shown is what else he said. All the rest therefore is pure speculation, he may have added that being gay was evil and all gays should be slaughtered, but it is equally probable he added it was how he felt about it for himself, not how he felt others should believe or act. A lot was made out of his firm belief in Leviticus, word for word, but this is the opinion of some of the forum, not necessarily what he actually said.

As for the bullfighting, my belief is that it is cruel and in no way a sport. I think he is wrong to support this but I also recognise why he may well see things differently.

[quote]Originally posted by Elderflower
[b]What Cameron was asked was his opinion on gay rights, what was shown on the telly was PART of his answer. I saw him say that he believed 'man should not lie with man' and that he believed marriages should be 'husband and wife' but what they did not and have not shown is what else he said. All the rest therefore is pure speculation, he may have added that being gay was evil and all gays should be slaughtered, but it is equally probable he added it was how he felt about it for himself, not how he felt others should believe or act. A lot was made out of his firm belief in Leviticus, word for word, but this is the opinion of some of the forum, not necessarily what he actually said. ]

which means he thinks homosexuality is wrong. His decision. If he didn't, he wouldn't have said that.

Can you genuinely not see the grey area here? How do you mean he thinks it is wrong? personally for himself or as a whole?

These arguments have already been well enough rehearsed. I think it's stretching a point to breaking to say he doesn't think it is wrong, especially since it is well know that many Baptists and self-styled born again Christians believe the same. You need to think of him as a person who doesn't hold such views. Fine! I don't think it's worth going through all the arguments again.

I think you misunderstood me, I did not try and prove that he does not think it is wrong, and I am talking about Cameron not Baptists and born-again Christians as a group, I was asking you what you thought, I am sorry if I missed this already covered on the forum, give me the link and I can happily look up what you said myself. Just incase you still misunderstand, I was asking what you personally thought he meant when he said it was wrong, wrong for who?

Cameron is a born again Christian and a Baptist. Wrong as in 'against God's law' 'morally wrong' and therefore gays are to be denied equal civil rights (as in not being able to marry) (his views not mine) and I don't have tme to look for links (I am behind in work enough already!).

Thanks for taking the time to answer, it explained a lot

Most of the stuff was on the 'Cameron's repulsive homophobia' (or words to that effect) thread. Went on to rival War and Peace in length!

Yes I have read that thread, shame it was all based on supposition too

Whatever. He said what he thought clearly. I give up.

There are vegetarians and there are vegans in which is there are a few differences. I don't eat meat (never have in my life) literally because I was a picky little bugger when small. I wear leather etc as I see nothing wrong with it, in fact there is nothing wrong with eating meat, I just don't like it. I don't class myself as a veggie just a fussy eater.

I agree with the barbarity of bullfighting. 'Part' of some people's British culture includes fox hunting which is also barbaric. However if someone wants to support them then as far as I'm concerned, although it disgusts me, who am I to condemn them.

lu

I don't claim to be an expert, but if the bulls enjoy respect and freedom in life, endure a few hours(?) of torment at the end and are then eaten, why is that so much worse that the conditions in which animals in this country endure throughout their life?

Also, some people in this country live in awful conditions and just get treated like sh*t.

I would say it was a daft idea for someone like Cam, from the UK to have pictures of the bullfight up, and would love to hear his arguments defending it. I posted because I felt the tone of some FM's opinions seemed a bit culturally superior, which
was maybe a bit hippocritical unless these FM's truly are saintly vegans who never consume anything which includes animal products.

[

which comments were culturally superior?

the stuff about the spanish.

I don't know what you're referring to but I said I had met many Spanish people in Spain who detested bullfighting and the image it gave to their country and I saw posters and graffiti as well which condemned it. I add now that they blamed tourists for maintaining its existence. I don't remember claiming cultural superiority to the Spanish.

I didn't say that you were

Are bulls and bullfighting deeply ingrained in Spanish culture?
Seemed that way when I visited this year.
My host took me to a bull run, and I didn't like it. The atmosphere was excellent but I didn't like the way the bulls were tormented. But it is something that I know very little about.

If people in Spain don't consider it part of their culture and have no problem with foreigners looking down on it then I stand corrected.

I don't remember anyone claiming cultural superiority to the Spanish!

I'm sure there are may who think bullfighting is part of the fabric of their being and many who don't, just like fox hunting here. I was just pointing out that the cultural argument isn't universally accepted as excusing bullfighting, even in Spain!

*note to self - just read the forums, don't bother posting*

Spain - bullfights- some defend it, some don't.

UK -intensive farming, dubious slaughtering methods etc- some defend it, some don't.

I personally wouldn't take the moral high ground over someone who defended bullfighting because I eat meat, brush my teeth, wear shoes, drink wine etc. Perhaps "culturally superior" was the wrong choice of phrase. I daren't choose another, I'm not a lawyer.

well its about cam and he mentioned bullfighting and tamara mentioned spain as its a common practice there. So spain came into the picture. Would he have talked about fox hunting it would be a british issue, hunting for fun a european issue etc.

Cams attitude is the issue, not the various groups he hides behind. Its a clever tactic he uses

When is someone entitled to take the moral high ground then and why characterise someone's opinion in that loaded way? If you did read earlier posts, you may have seem the one where I suggested that not achieving perfection did not mean a person wasn't entitled to an opinion. Perhaps a person should qualify every opinion with: and I don't agree with sutee, female circumcision, adultery, late abortion, capital punishment, battery chickens, domestic violence,
war, evil........................................

or perhaps not have an opinion at all. Because I nicked a pen from work doesn't mean I can't say that theft is wrong. I hate that kind of argument. It means that nothing can be discussed!

"When is someone entitled to take the moral high ground then "

You don't need my permission for that.

"and why characterise someone's opinion in that loaded way?"

I honestly didn't mean to say anything loaded, and don't really know what you are referring to.

"If you did read earlier posts, you may have seem the one where I suggested that not achieving perfection did not mean a person wasn't entitled to an opinion. "

I read them. I usually form an opinion about something when I feel that I know enough about it, even then I'm flexible, I can't know everything.

"Perhaps a person should qualify every opinion with: and I don't agree with sutee, female circumcision, adultery, late abortion, capital punishment, battery chickens, domestic violence,
war, evil........................................"

I disagree with most of these things, but again I wouldn't get into an argument with anyone who knew more about it than I did.

"or perhaps not have an opinion at all. Because I nicked a pen from work doesn't mean I can't say that theft is wrong. I hate that kind of argument. It means that nothing can be discussed!"

Anything can be discussed, In my opinion it is better when some subjects are held at a certain distance even if you feel passionately about it, if only for fear of looking like an assh0le when you get shown up by someone who really knows what they are talking about. (I don't mean you).