The Forum > Article Comments > Why there should not be a conscience vote on gay marriage > Comments
Why there should not be a conscience vote on gay marriage : Comments
By Ken McKay, published 22/11/2010Equality under the law is not something to be left up to the individual conscience of Labor Party members.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
Posted by Huggins, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 4:22:40 PM
| |
Yuyutsu
'I understand the confusion of words, but this is still a secular term and a merely secular issue.' You are right. The demands by fundamentalist secularist to insist on hijacking words that pertain to morality such as 'marriage' and now conscience is evident. Now some claim they should have a 'conscience' vote. Isn't this Labour minister the one who stabbed Rudd in the back for his own slimy purposes along with the PM. Conscience vote (please!) Again if their consciences were not seared we could expect a reasonable outcome. With this current generation of secular social engineers it is doubtful that a conscience vote would produce any sort of reasonable outcome for future generations. Posted by runner, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 4:53:59 PM
| |
"(British Columbia's) attorney general has asked the B.C. Supreme Court to determine whether the law against polygamy is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if charges may only be laid when the polygamous relationship is with a minor or involves abuse."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/polygamy-case-opens-in-british-columbia-supreme-court/ Hey, we already knew where this "gay" "marriage" thing was going. <<We say that human rights provide equal recognition and protection without discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, age, political beliefs, race or sexual preference.>> How can you stop at homosexual preference? That would be discrimination. Polyphobes! Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 6:39:47 PM
| |
Dan S de Merengue the arrogance of christians astound me, marriage is a religious instituion is it , are you saying that only believers in a mystical entity or the supernatural entity can get married. or that the community cannot create an institution to suit its needs unless the religous disciples approve.
marriage is an institute that was originally established to transfer chatel (women) from their fathers to their husbands. But the institution has changed to meet the changing values in our society. can you tell me why christians celebrate Jesus Christ's birthday on a date that bears absolutely no resemblance to the day he was born on? the truth of the matter was that the pope in about 300 ad was concerned about recruitment, many people were attracted to traditional pagan beliefs. the celebration of the winter solstice etc was a significant event and in true christain spirit a decree was issued to celebrate christ's birth to enable a christian celebration to rival the pagan's activities. so just as christianity appropriated the winter solstice celebrations it is trying to appropriate the institution of marriage and have exclusive control over its rules Posted by slasher, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 5:57:28 AM
| |
Marriage pre dates Christianity or even Judaism and has existed in every human culture.
For Christians to claim ownership of the concept is laughable. Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 8:36:40 AM
| |
"As the Scriptures say, 'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.' This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one."
Traditionally, this is a picture or concept on which Western marriage was based; one woman & one man, for life. Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 1:07:06 PM
|
""When sex crazed deviates insist on the 'moral' acceptability of their position.... there is no limit to where it will lead.""
The Sodomites have lead us to the End Times and the LORD will return soon, this is a GOOD THING so bring on GAY marrige.