"Mother Theresa - and who else was there for the dying?"
Posted by Constance, Friday, 10 September 2010 8:54:01 PM

Mother Theresa was more about suffering for preparation for the after life than relieving it. She siphoned off funds for religious institutions rather than use them for her "patients". The standard of care in her facilities were so poor, she flew overseas to the best hospitals for her own treatment.

Kipp

Kipp, you mean manipulating social justice and abusing (and luxuriating in) the human rights issues - that's what you're on about. I've met and publicly greeted a Nobel Prize winner for Human Rights. Believe me, I know what it genuinely means. Oh please, another damn ubiquitous nuisance acronym - what the hell is GLBTI?

McFony (sorry, I just had to),

Yes, sound like you've been reading the Catholic-Bashing media rants - easy targets aren't they? She lived in India so did not want to run a western-style charity. You know, when in Rome do as the Romans do. Well, she was quite a treasure afterall for all that self-less work she did. So being particularly special - don't you think she would have deserved the best treatment - you know like it may have been quite a loss without her around. Oh, you seem really mean-minded.

briar rose, "when the government passes legislation that states marriage is a union only between a man and a woman, then the government is interfering in sexual relationships."

Plainly what you are doing is imposing your own values and judgement to determine when a gay person's rights should be overridden by the State.

No-one allowed gays choice when the de facto provisions were extended to apply to them. Mind you that came as no surprise because heterosexuals were similarly ambushed by an elite who think that they know what is best for everyone else.

If you do want an example of the State interfering in homosexual (and heterosexual) relationships, why go past family law affecting de factos, where a person can be deemed to be in a de facto relationship without even knowing it let alone giving his/her consent. Worse, even with a lawyer on hand to advise it can still be contentious if a relationship is de facto or not and again, regardless of the lack of consent of one or more of the parties involved.

Government bureaucrats routinely decide the status of 'relationships' between or among people and government agencies can disagree, which is not surprising given that forty or more 'indicators' can be used to make a decision. Gone are the days when students sharing digs could decide their own relationship status.

In fact it is possible for married person to be deemed to be in a de facto relationship with one or any number of others, again without the small matter of consent. Incredibly, any or all of the de factos can make a claim on the assets and income of the marriage.

contd..

contd..

Regarding the Marriage Act, it is deceitful to pretend that the Act did not apply to one man and one women previously. All that the Parliament did and with a clear majority, was to confirm its meaning as understood by the electorate and deter frivolous actions to frustrate it. The Australian Parliament has confirmed the Marriage Act twice in recent years, the first by PM Howard and the second in the failed attempt by the Greens to hijack it in the Senate. If there is to be a third challenge to the Marriage Act, it should go to the people as a referendum. However, given the expense of that it should coincide with an election, where the policies of minor parties like the Greens can be examined and put to the vote.

Personally, I don't mind which way the electorate might wish to go on marriage. However, like a good many others I do object to the lack of direct consultation with the community that has been a feature of recent changes to very significant legislation that affects the most important choices a person could make in his/her lifetime. It is incredible and intolerable abuse of a citizen's rights that his/her relationship decisions can be second-guessed and overruled by a State bureaucrat. Suck it up or lose a small fortune in the courts.

Are gays happy to lose their previous free-wheeling and flexible lifestyle? Many wouldn't be, but they continue to be howled down by those who know what is best for them.

An excellent article that made a lot of sense to me Briar Rose.
You gave some excellent examples of crazy church teachings that were the main reasons why I am no longer a Christian.

Some apparent 'teachings' of Jesus and the Catholic church have changed over the years with no say-so from the man as far as we know!

People in most countries used to be banned from marrying people of other races or skin colours by the Christian churches.
Now they 'allow' these marriages in churches.

"Christian beliefs about marriage change, as the above example demonstrates. Presumably, this is as a consequence of god changing his mind, and somehow relaying that change to the faithful who then update the law." Indeed.

What possible harm can letting two gay men or two lesbian women get married do to the average person in Australia?
If you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the opposite sex!

Funny old world. It also seems that marriage promotes devorce, where defacto has a longer shelf life. See marriage imho, makes you feel locked in, and your sence of individualism has be sold to someone in the long term, you may not feel the same when the love spell wears off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

http://www.lifesip.com/marriage.html

http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary.org/vismarr/marr1.htm

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/getting-bored-of-the-rings/2007/07/20/1184560038730.html

and dont forget the rediculus cost of marrage, which funny enough, the church would like to see more of.......... and I wont get into that one. $10.000 and thats just the tip of the check book with no 100% the relation-ship will work.

Again! its horse for corses.

TTM>