Latter Days Guy

That is very true, nothing is ever black and white. But when you have the veto of the US in the UN security council in your back pocket then the prospect of peace isn't looking very likely.

And its that kind of arrogant attitude that destroys the trust and support that the US could have in the rest of the world.

Israel dropped more on Gaza in two weeks that have been shot at them since 2012. During the so called cease fire after the latest Israeli incursions there was almost daily sorties by their air force bombing into Gaza, not much of a cease fire. Palestinians are subjected to kidnapping and imprisonment on an almost daily basis. When the only way to get food, construction materials, medical supplies into Gaza is via the tunnels due to the Israeli blockade and limited quota on what can be brought in, then tunnels are going to continue to be built. One of the tactics the Israeli armed forced used last year was to drop leaflets stating safe zones and UN compounds as places of safety which where then bombed. Are Palestinians not allowed to have weapons to defend themselves or is that just the right of the occupying Israeli forces? They did elect a government in full and fair elections, that Israel doesn't like them doesn't give them the right to bomb and starve them into submission. Hamas offered a 10 year long truce to allow the peace process to proceed, there has been a frame work to get a peaceful resolution to the situation on the table since 1993 but Israel stalls and changes the goal posts at every turn. Now they are against the two state solution that they said they supported since 1993, is it any wonder there is no peace? The Arab League has even tabled a peace plan which would have brought the normalisation of relations and peace treaties with all Arab nations which Israel snubbed, Is that what a country looking for peace does? The border between Egypt and Gaza is closed at the behest of the Israeli government as Egypt values the support of Israel and the US over the lives of those dying in Gaza.

So you would trade the president who has improved the over all feeling of good will towards the US whilst in power for a leader who has damaged the global reputation of his nation internationally during his time as leader? That really makes sense doesn't it! not.

If you were a person living in Gaza, what would you do? You live in a piece of land 25 miles long by 7 miles wide at its widest, your hemmed in on all sides, have no right to free travel outside of the border wall and there is close to 2 million people living in that tiny space. Your amenities are bombed into dust on a regular basis, there are severe restrictions on the import of most commodities. You have to spend hours waiting for the possibility of getting through a checkpoint which can close at the drop of a hat on the whim of the soldiers manning it. If you need to attend a hospital or in desperate need of medical help you have to wait in line, no chance of being rushed through. Premature babies are delivered in ambulances and often die due to not getting to the hospital in time. What would you do in that situation? I think I would do as some people in a similar situation did, I would fight to get my freedom back, even in the face of over whelming military forces rained against me, a bit like the Jews in the Warsaw getto in 1943 did. As for all those countries clamouring for Israel's destruction, since 1973 which of those nations have acted in or directly attacked Israel? None. However that cannot be said of Israel who seem to think they can attack anyone they wish with little or no threat of repercussions due to the blank cheque of protection afforded them by the US in the United Nations. The only people who are under siege are the Palestinians, who according to the UN are still an occupied people.

The genocide against the Palestinians he sanctioned in operation cast lead and protective edge, the continued illegal settlement building on Palestinian land, the implementation of an apartheid regime where Palestinians are subjected to a brutal occupation by the Israeli Armed forces, his flagrant disregard for international law, his total unwillingness to follow through with the various peace process agreements dating back to the Oslo accord, the list goes on.

The guy in Paris wasn't beaten up by Muslims at all, I don't know where you got that idea from.

He's a war criminal and should be indited as such.

So some kid went to school on world book day dressed as Christian from 50 shades! Didn't go down too well! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31760713

On a completely unrelated topic, I noticed that Vort has changed his avatar back to the female (who is it by the way??) picture. For the first 6 months of membership of the forum I thought he was female and that was an actual picture of him!

Such sad news, one of my favourite actors, and a hero to me for most of my life! I remember watching Star Trek on a Monday night as a young child and being allowed to stay up past my bedtime to see it to the end! Lets hope his memory lives long and prospers. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31662024?post_id=1131748297_10205007182955895

And there was me this would be the one sane place I could go to get away from this daft dress media hype! It's Gold and White! Doh! ?I've fallen for the hype!!

This is an interesting read on the subject: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm

Oops, I see someone has answered my question as I was writing my post above!

That is correct about having to have weddings that are open to the public. We also have as I mentioned above civil marriages which are carried out by locally appointed registrars and are not religious at all, purely secular, which those who choose not to have a church wedding can opt for. Gay marriage in the UK is a civil marriage in that its done from a purely secular standpoint. So church weddings (not necessarily LDS church weddings) and civil weddings are totally different, other than a few legally prescribed bits which need to be said to make the marriage legal in law. As I asked above, do you have state enacted civil marriages and if you do, do you view these as being the same as a church wedding where the commitments are made before God instead of before a local government official?

I don't know about the US but in the UK gay marriage is a civil wedding and is not done in a church or has anything said or relating to God in the service, its purely secular. Is that the case in the US? Also do you view a Church wedding where you make commitments before God to be the same as a civil wedding where you are basically making a legally binding contract between two people? Personally I would have no problem with attending a Gay wedding if it was a civil one, but would not attend a religious one as that would go against the scriptural teachings on what a faith based marriage is.

This is what makes Christianity shine, the whole God with us as opposed to the old guy on a cloud separated from us.

It was doing it last night, but is fine tonight!

You say she doesn't act 21, doesn't stop her being that. When I was at bible college we had an American girl in our year, she wore her hair in pigtails, did cart wheels out the back of the dorm, roller bladed around the car park. She was quite proud that she had never experienced or done any of those things before in her life either (talking about sex and masturbation). She was 23. Is it consensual? If what happens in the books is consensual then by definition it cannot be abuse. From what my wife says he never goes beyond what she wants to happen, if it was abuse then that wouldn't be the case. But its not popular in our culture, the our culture being the culture of the Church. It is popular in the worldly culture outside of the church, but then the world isn't defined by the same standards as the Church.

I think that from now on I'm just going to ask anatess to write anything I want to post here as she says it so much better than me!

Just read that is coming to netflix sometime soon, might see if the wife will watch it with me!

There's a gay agenda in Frozen! Never heard that one before!

No the author is a woman, there is no if or buts about it. Also if the book says she's 21 I would assume that that is her age, if you or the author of the article read into it something else then I think its you who has the problem not the author of the book. I asked my wife about this last night (she has read all three books and seen the film), if she thought that Ana's character in the book was written to be a lot younger than portrayed? She laughed and said no, she's just very inexperienced and a bit naive to start. Also its not paedophiles its hebephiles who are interested in 12/13 year olds. Does Gray mirror those steps or is the author of the article just seeing what they want to see to promote their own agenda and garner some publicity of the back of someone else's success? The thing is we can read what we want to see into anything we read if we want to find something wrong with it.

So the article is basically saying that female author of the story has written it because she wants to appeal to a male paedophile audience? You did know it was written by a woman don't you?

Insults? Obviously insults means something different in the US as nothing I said has insulted anyone.