|
Auggie
|
BigOl64 wrote on Aug 10 th, 2017 at 2:24pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 10 th, 2017 at 2:16pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 10 th, 2017 at 1:56pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 10 th, 2017 at 1:43pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 10 th, 2017 at 1:25pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 10 th, 2017 at 12:46pm: Vote NO to bigotry, authoritarianism and theocracy. Is that only for homos or does that apply to everyone? Because this is the first time it has been brought up, so will there be special laws to ensure this is only for homos or will there be an across the board sort of legislation? And if so will it get this homo thing sorted the way you want? Because I really hate authoritarianism and theocracy and my needs have nothing to do with what the homos want, so what's the deal? Please read my post called 'Libertarian solution to marriage'. Concerning this post, I believe that marriage is a secular institution (as well as a religious one). If we believe in a secular state, and the principal of the rule of law, then we all should support same-sex marriage. The issue, seems to be me at least, is that many opponents of SSM view marriage SOLELY as a religious institution, which happens to be legalized. Therefore the solution seems to me is: put marriage in the hands of religious institutions, and give legal recognition to TWO CONSENTING ADULTS known as Civil Unions. If you look at your post you will see that you wanted "vote NO bigotry, authoritarianism and theocracy" And I asked you was ONLY for homos or would this be for everyone, because I want some authoritarianism removed for myself. And everyone knows my hatred for theologianism. So, once again is this demand by you just for homos or is it for everyone? As you also know I could not give a fat rat's arse whether homos got married or not, nothing to do with me. It is for everyone. So I would like that I am forced to vote by the government removed from the statutes. I find that level of authoritarianism to be unacceptable and undemocratic. The I would also like sect 116 of the constitution amended to ensure there were no special rights for any religious institutions, breeds too much theologicalism among a small ban of religious loon.As far as bigotry, knock yourself out, I don't really care that much So homos get what they want and I get what I want. Sweet deal I agree with you on that point. Voting should be voluntary. The religious statement is a bit more difficult. I believe in 'separation of church of state', which means that the government doesn't interfere with religion, and vice versa. I'm confident that if the Commonwealth made laws preventing the dissemination of Wahhabism throughout Australia (whatever way that happens), that the High Court would uphold that decision. The argument would be that Wahhabhism is an 'ideology' not a religion. I think you'll find many Muslims agreeing with that definition, otherwise they'd have to concede that Islam is intolerant.
|
Forum
Pages: 
VOTE NO!!!!! (Read 26147 times)
