The Forum > Article Comments > Parliamentarians should have a conscience vote on gay marriage > Comments
Parliamentarians should have a conscience vote on gay marriage : Comments
By Rodney Croome, published 1/11/2010For often perverse reasons our parliamentary institutions have failed to keep pace with public opinion on gay marriage.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- ...
- 25
- 26
- 27
-
- All
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 1 November 2010 9:34:31 PM
| |
Parliamentarians do somewhat let their personal connections to idealist ambitions get in the way of pure business decisions rather than corporate separation.
Life is not about how much is in the bank but rather happiness, in achieving happiness is doing what’s right for balance of harmony. To achieve long term harmony we need to listen to all and resolve, rather than nitpick or provoke through personal choice but a broader sense. There are problems worldwide, there are resolutions and answers to all problems achieved through working together rather than against. The Australian public have already spoken not by sensor companies but by forums and voice that ‘this is not a big deal so what if people same gendered what you couple up let them’. People sometimes find what they are looking for on the same side of the tracks rather than the opposite such as soul mates, it’s not in stone that true love is an opposite attraction, but more something that comes when you least expect. On the subject of gendered mates its nature’s way of people finding happiness, something that not only happens with humans but also within the animal kingdom where even sometime different species find perfect happiness together Posted by BrettH, Monday, 1 November 2010 9:51:11 PM
| |
<<its nature’s way of people finding happiness, something that not only happens with humans but also within the animal kingdom where even sometime different species find perfect happiness together>>
Proving that homosexuality is normal and natural, homosexual biologists have discovered the happiness imperative! The biological imperative is heteronormative because it implies that the sexual drive is somehow linked to reproduction. That's "crazy" fundamentalist thinking! No, nature's happiness imperative is what really drives both humans and animals to have sexual relations with their own gender so that they can "find perfect happiness together". Hmmm, I wonder where AIDs, MRSA, Gay Bowel Syndrome, anal cancer and all those hepatitis' fit in with nature's happiness plan for homosexuals? Posted by Proxy, Monday, 1 November 2010 10:34:13 PM
| |
It really does my heart good to realise that we have so few real problems in our world today, that we can waste so much time on such rubbish.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 1 November 2010 11:53:55 PM
| |
Dear Woulfe,
You said "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood". Could you please tell me who gave us those rights and conscience and why we do not live by them and then we may be able to find the answer to the problem. 2 wrongs never make a right so we have a duty to get it right for future generations. Posted by Richie 10, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 4:37:16 AM
| |
Well there you go again Rodney....
Your spurious arguments at the 'GAY MARRIAGE' ABC program at Hawthorn, are still no less spurious now. When Bill Muhlenberg demonstrated the fallacious nature of your position, you chose to simply Deny Dig in Distract you suggesting that we are in no danger whatsoever of 'other polyamourous' groups using the same reasoning as your gay lobby to justify their own deviate behavior would have been shot down by my question which just missed out on getting asked (due them shutting down question time), but it was this: "Don't you find that Keysar Trad's demand for a public debate on Polygamy is evidence that your position is incorrect"? Which of course....it is. You maintained that "Australia is traditionally a one man one woman society so gay marriage would be one man one man" but in the light of actual facts...that is ludicrous and absurd! http://www.theage.com.au/national/melbourne-sheik-backs-calls-to-legalise-polygamy-20080625-2wv9.html Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 6:30:10 AM
|
That is the point in question. When you elect someone to "represent" us, there is no practical reason they are going to respect their constituents beliefs and aren't just going to turn around and simply govern by their own personal views instead.
Except of course, to pander to a swinging fringe, or another political party to get preferences- which of course requires conforming to the party line (Which representatives from safe seats are willing to do to ensure party principles triumph).
Politicians are at perfect liberty to govern how THEY want and not how WE want, if they so choose.