Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. What does the Anglican Priest have to do with 18C? With 18C, pretty much anyone is able to commence legal proceedings if they felt insulted or offended. That is the problem with subjective laws. We are heading towards a big train wreck. But the Priest isn't doing that. Why bring it up? They were discussing SSM. Yes he was talking about that Shorten called the priest a Homophobe and the Priest got "offended". Hence 18C is a legal avenue he is now exploring. Nothing you said is correct. Shorten did not call the priest a homophobe, the priest is not exploring 18c. you are a fool :) Well perhaps he should explore it. And someone rightfully made that comment. I just can't recall who. There will be a number of these Test Cases. Lino has one. The fools are those who resort to insults. But the priest is homophobic. Their religion dictates them to be that ... perhaps the priest is just upset that someone put it so bluntly to him, rather than the greys that religion try to paint their beliefs as. Somehow religion is meant to be above calling homophobes because God etc. I agree with you, religious beliefs don't absolve anyone of homophobia. You're all wrong. All the priest said was you should be able to be against same sex marriage without being called a homophobe or a bigot. He is 100% correct. Name calling is not an argument against anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. What does the Anglican Priest have to do with 18C? With 18C, pretty much anyone is able to commence legal proceedings if they felt insulted or offended. That is the problem with subjective laws. We are heading towards a big train wreck. But the Priest isn't doing that. Why bring it up? They were discussing SSM. Yes he was talking about that Shorten called the priest a Homophobe and the Priest got "offended". Hence 18C is a legal avenue he is now exploring. Nothing you said is correct. Shorten did not call the priest a homophobe, the priest is not exploring 18c. you are a fool :) Well perhaps he should explore it. And someone rightfully made that comment. I just can't recall who. There will be a number of these Test Cases. Lino has one. The fools are those who resort to insults. But the priest is homophobic. Their religion dictates them to be that ... perhaps the priest is just upset that someone put it so bluntly to him, rather than the greys that religion try to paint their beliefs as. Somehow religion is meant to be above calling homophobes because God etc. I agree with you, religious beliefs don't absolve anyone of homophobia. You're all wrong. All the priest said was you should be able to be against same sex marriage without being called a homophobe or a bigot. He is 100% correct. Name calling is not an argument against anything. How are we meant to describe these people? Someone who opposes same sex marriage because God? Hardly a respectable viewpoint if i'm honest.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion.
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep. A church is not a similar organization to your examples but nice try. Engineers Australia pays tax and lobby's on issues related to their members of which I am one. Churches are weighing in on a political debate as organizations concerning the rights of people that fucking resent their existence. It's as if some people feel that marriage is a religious thing when it existed a long time before they came along and started calling the shots.
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
Marriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers.
But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either.
Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. But it seems like religion has 'ownership' over the issue. The issue is also political. The Flood is also an important part of religion. Should they be allowed to lobby our government to teach it to our kids?
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act?
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? What is wrong with consenting adults making a decision like this? People have multiple partners these days before marriage/date multiple people, marriage is just a name. In this instance however, wouldn't it be an issue within government for taxation purposes more than anything?
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. But it seems like religion has 'ownership' over the issue. The issue is also political. The Flood is also an important part of religion. Should they be allowed to lobby our government to teach it to our kids? Yes, they should be allowed to lobby. And we should politely say, no thanks, teach religion at home or on sunday. As for not paying tax...does that mean only taxpayers can vote. If you get a net benefit from the government, can you not have a voice.
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep. A church is not a similar organization to your examples but nice try. Engineers Australia pays tax and lobby's on issues related to their members of which I am one. Churches are weighing in on a political debate as organizations concerning the rights of people that fucking resent their existence. It's as if some people feel that marriage is a religious thing when it existed a long time before they came along and started calling the shots. Your argument doesn't address my World Vision and Medicine Sans Frontier examples. Your argument was originally that they don't pay tax therefore they're not allowed a say. After I pointed out the irrationality of that statement you then morphed the argument into 'organisations' aren't allowed an opinion. After I pointed out the idiocy of that argument you've decided the church somehow isn't an organisation with a heirarchical structure that is entitled, just like any other organistion, to speak on behalf of it's members.
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue.
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? What is wrong with consenting adults making a decision like this? People have multiple partners these days before marriage/date multiple people, marriage is just a name. In this instance however, wouldn't it be an issue within government for taxation purposes more than anything? However polygamous marriages would play out legally and financially is not the point. The point is that the priest is correct to play that card. It is a valid argument. In fact I would like to see someone try to argue that same-sex marriages should be allowed and polygamous ones should not.
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Listening to some of the senators speeches today, Di Natale always speaks quite well. His outline wasn't that far fetched although there were some areas that would take some actual fiscal backing up on how things were done. He was followed up by Bernadi who spent most of his speech attaching Sam Dastyari over this drama about his private debt (a travel bill) being paid by a third party Chinese company. Kind of ironic really when the Libs are getting smashed in NSW over misconduct and bribery charges in the fallout from the ICAC investigation. Glasses houses and all that. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep. A church is not a similar organization to your examples but nice try. Engineers Australia pays tax and lobby's on issues related to their members of which I am one. Churches are weighing in on a political debate as organizations concerning the rights of people that fucking resent their existence. It's as if some people feel that marriage is a religious thing when it existed a long time before they came along and started calling the shots. Your argument doesn't address my World Vision and Medicine Sans Frontier examples. Your argument was originally that they don't pay tax therefore they're not allowed a say. After I pointed out the irrationality of that statement you then morphed the argument into 'organisations' aren't allowed an opinion. After I pointed out the idiocy of that argument you've decided the church somehow isn't an organisation with a heirarchical structure that is entitled, just like any other organistion, to speak on behalf of it's members. The reason I don't is because those medical aid organizations are not religious. I am of the opinion that a Church is not the same type of organization as an emergency medical organization. I fully support such organizations. I am of the opinion that the organization that represents its flock of followers should not, as an organization, be entitled to weigh into political debates on the basis that it is a religion. In this particular debate, my opinion is that religious organizations seem to be claiming ownership of the term 'marriage' and are using that to push their 'official' opinion into a political debate.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? What is wrong with consenting adults making a decision like this? People have multiple partners these days before marriage/date multiple people, marriage is just a name. In this instance however, wouldn't it be an issue within government for taxation purposes more than anything? However polygamous marriages would play out legally and financially is not the point. The point is that the priest is correct to play that card. It is a valid argument. In fact I would like to see someone try to argue that same-sex marriages should be allowed and polygamous ones should not. Why would anyone argue that? If you support marriage, what grounds do you have to deny the rights of consenting adults? What peer reviewed (sorry to use this term but in this case it is important) science suggests that these marriages would negatively impact children? The only arguments we see against SSM or Polygamy are false or biased science (there is a lot of it around) or religious grounds which is an unreasonable argument.
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous. I would not deny them that right. I do not care if polygamy is legal. But in 2016 we are talking about SSM because that is what many australians want legal. If a large number of australians want to have a ploygamy debate in 2026 the so be it. At the moment the poly argument is a deliberate distraction to derail SSM.
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep. A church is not a similar organization to your examples but nice try. Engineers Australia pays tax and lobby's on issues related to their members of which I am one. Churches are weighing in on a political debate as organizations concerning the rights of people that fucking resent their existence. It's as if some people feel that marriage is a religious thing when it existed a long time before they came along and started calling the shots. Your argument doesn't address my World Vision and Medicine Sans Frontier examples. Your argument was originally that they don't pay tax therefore they're not allowed a say. After I pointed out the irrationality of that statement you then morphed the argument into 'organisations' aren't allowed an opinion. After I pointed out the idiocy of that argument you've decided the church somehow isn't an organisation with a heirarchical structure that is entitled, just like any other organistion, to speak on behalf of it's members. The reason I don't is because those medical aid organizations are not religious. I am of the opinion that a Church is not the same type of organization as an emergency medical organization. I fully support such organizations. I am of the opinion that the organization that represents its flock of followers should not, as an organization, be entitled to weigh into political debates on the basis that it is a religion. In this particular debate, my opinion is that religious organizations seem to be claiming ownership of the term 'marriage' and are using that to push their 'official' opinion into a political debate. The Salvation Army is religious. The head of World Vision is Tim Costello. He's a Baptist minister. (They often comment on public policy. Neither pay tax and both are organisations.) You're not winning this argument. As for the church, the church are basing their arguments on tradition, a literal reading of the bible, history, fundamental tenants of their beliefs, legal precedents, conservatism and the fact that our society is historically at least, Christian based. These are fair and reasonable arguments and they're entitled to put them forward.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous. I would not deny them that right. I do not care if polygamy is legal. But in 2016 we are talking about SSM because that is what many australians want legal. If a large number of australians want to have a ploygamy debate in 2026 the so be it. At the moment the poly argument is a deliberate distraction to derail SSM. I can't wait for the argument that if SSM is legal, why can't beastiality be legal. Another gutter tactic used to ridicule SSM as something un-natural and wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? What is wrong with consenting adults making a decision like this? People have multiple partners these days before marriage/date multiple people, marriage is just a name. In this instance however, wouldn't it be an issue within government for taxation purposes more than anything? However polygamous marriages would play out legally and financially is not the point. The point is that the priest is correct to play that card. It is a valid argument. In fact I would like to see someone try to argue that same-sex marriages should be allowed and polygamous ones should not. +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Shorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep. A church is not a similar organization to your examples but nice try. Engineers Australia pays tax and lobby's on issues related to their members of which I am one. Churches are weighing in on a political debate as organizations concerning the rights of people that fucking resent their existence. It's as if some people feel that marriage is a religious thing when it existed a long time before they came along and started calling the shots. Your argument doesn't address my World Vision and Medicine Sans Frontier examples. Your argument was originally that they don't pay tax therefore they're not allowed a say. After I pointed out the irrationality of that statement you then morphed the argument into 'organisations' aren't allowed an opinion. After I pointed out the idiocy of that argument you've decided the church somehow isn't an organisation with a heirarchical structure that is entitled, just like any other organistion, to speak on behalf of it's members. The reason I don't is because those medical aid organizations are not religious. I am of the opinion that a Church is not the same type of organization as an emergency medical organization. I fully support such organizations. I am of the opinion that the organization that represents its flock of followers should not, as an organization, be entitled to weigh into political debates on the basis that it is a religion. In this particular debate, my opinion is that religious organizations seem to be claiming ownership of the term 'marriage' and are using that to push their 'official' opinion into a political debate. Well religion has history of ownership of the term "marriage" of the order of thousands of years across numerous cultures and societies to back that claim up. They have every right to express their opinion, and try influence government policy, as does every body else. Whether that results in anything concrete depends on votes, as it does for everyone else. Arguing "You're religious, therefore no say for you in politics" is not how democracy works.
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous. I would not deny them that right. I do not care if polygamy is legal. But in 2016 we are talking about SSM because that is what many australians want legal. If a large number of australians want to have a ploygamy debate in 2026 the so be it. At the moment the poly argument is a deliberate distraction to derail SSM. Explain how it is a 'deliberate distraction'. If someone says euthanasia should be legalised for the terminally ill is the argument that it will lead to people being pressured into being euthanised a 'deliberate distraction'. It isn't. Exploring the knock on effects of a law being passed is an exercise in risk assessment and a prudent thing to do. It's fair and reasonable and those that think SSM should be allowed should have the intellectual balls to not dismiss these arguments out of hand and engage them and rebut or agree with them. Otherwise they're hypocrites.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous. I would not deny them that right. I do not care if polygamy is legal. But in 2016 we are talking about SSM because that is what many australians want legal. If a large number of australians want to have a ploygamy debate in 2026 the so be it. At the moment the poly argument is a deliberate distraction to derail SSM. I can't wait for the argument that if SSM is legal, why can't beastiality be legal. Another gutter tactic used to ridicule SSM as something un-natural and wrong. its because if you take the logical argument that marriage is all about about "love" regardless as to how repugnant it is, why can't someone marry their pet? Not that I agree with it, its taking the arguments to the nth degree. On thing is certain I'll say once SSM gets in its only a matter of when not if that polygamy gets in, because there is not a single argument that could be made against it then. It will make for interesting times watching the SSM proponents argue against polygamous marriages...
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep. A church is not a similar organization to your examples but nice try. Engineers Australia pays tax and lobby's on issues related to their members of which I am one. Churches are weighing in on a political debate as organizations concerning the rights of people that fucking resent their existence. It's as if some people feel that marriage is a religious thing when it existed a long time before they came along and started calling the shots. Your argument doesn't address my World Vision and Medicine Sans Frontier examples. Your argument was originally that they don't pay tax therefore they're not allowed a say. After I pointed out the irrationality of that statement you then morphed the argument into 'organisations' aren't allowed an opinion. After I pointed out the idiocy of that argument you've decided the church somehow isn't an organisation with a heirarchical structure that is entitled, just like any other organistion, to speak on behalf of it's members. The reason I don't is because those medical aid organizations are not religious. I am of the opinion that a Church is not the same type of organization as an emergency medical organization. I fully support such organizations. I am of the opinion that the organization that represents its flock of followers should not, as an organization, be entitled to weigh into political debates on the basis that it is a religion. In this particular debate, my opinion is that religious organizations seem to be claiming ownership of the term 'marriage' and are using that to push their 'official' opinion into a political debate. The Salvation Army is religious. The head of World Vision is Tim Costello. He's a Baptist minister. (They often comment on public policy. Neither pay tax and both are organisations.) You're not winning this argument. As for the church, the church are basing their arguments on tradition, a literal reading of the bible, history, fundamental tenants of their beliefs, legal precedents, conservatism and the fact that our society is historically at least, Christian based. These are fair and reasonable arguments and they're entitled to put them forward. The bible is a subjective work of fiction as has absolutely zero credibility in arguments over government legislation, of which SSM is part of. Our society is secular for political purposes and we're historically Christian because they killed everyone who wouldn't convert in the dark ages. None of what you put forward as justification is reasonable because it's faith based and has absolutely no relevance to people outside of faith. World vision is a religious organization. If they want to weigh in on moral policies in a political forum, you know what I want. Question: Do churches have the right to lobby government to have Noah's Ark taught as fact in our schools?
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous. I would not deny them that right. I do not care if polygamy is legal. But in 2016 we are talking about SSM because that is what many australians want legal. If a large number of australians want to have a ploygamy debate in 2026 the so be it. At the moment the poly argument is a deliberate distraction to derail SSM. I can't wait for the argument that if SSM is legal, why can't beastiality be legal. Another gutter tactic used to ridicule SSM as something un-natural and wrong. its because if you take the logical argument that marriage is all about about "love" regardless as to how repugnant it is, why can't someone marry their pet? Not that I agree with it, its taking the arguments to the nth degree. On thing is certain I'll say once SSM gets in its only a matter of when not if that polygamy gets in, because there is not a single argument that could be made against it then. It will make for interesting times watching the SSM proponents argue against polygamous marriages... See that's the moronic thing about stuff like this. Everyone forgets the 'two consenting adults' part of the argument. It's a pathetic excuse for a debate and it's used to discredit the legitimacy of SSM.
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous. I would not deny them that right. I do not care if polygamy is legal. But in 2016 we are talking about SSM because that is what many australians want legal. If a large number of australians want to have a ploygamy debate in 2026 the so be it. At the moment the poly argument is a deliberate distraction to derail SSM. Explain how it is a 'deliberate distraction'. If someone says euthanasia should be legalised for the terminally ill is the argument that it will lead to people being pressured into being euthanised a 'deliberate distraction'. It isn't. Exploring the knock on effects of a law being passed is an exercise in risk assessment and a prudent thing to do. It's fair and reasonable and those that think SSM should be allowed should have the intellectual balls to not dismiss these arguments out of hand and engage them and rebut or agree with them. Otherwise they're hypocrites. If you legalise euthanasia then on day 1 there is potential for some to be 'pressured' as a result of the law. if you legalise SSM there is potential for a debate about polygamy....but you still need another change to the law for poly to happen. So the poly issue is distant from the SSM. The only 'knock on' effect is another debate in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous. I would not deny them that right. I do not care if polygamy is legal. But in 2016 we are talking about SSM because that is what many australians want legal. If a large number of australians want to have a ploygamy debate in 2026 the so be it. At the moment the poly argument is a deliberate distraction to derail SSM. I can't wait for the argument that if SSM is legal, why can't beastiality be legal. Another gutter tactic used to ridicule SSM as something un-natural and wrong. its because if you take the logical argument that marriage is all about about "love" regardless as to how repugnant it is, why can't someone marry their pet? Not that I agree with it, its taking the arguments to the nth degree. On thing is certain I'll say once SSM gets in its only a matter of when not if that polygamy gets in, because there is not a single argument that could be made against it then. It will make for interesting times watching the SSM proponents argue against polygamous marriages... See that's the moronic thing about stuff like this. Everyone forgets the 'two consenting adults' part of the argument. It's a pathetic excuse for a debate and it's used to discredit the legitimacy of SSM. Animals cant consent. Australians are repulsed by the idea. Its pure distraction and fear.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xMarriage is an important institution within religion so of course religion should have a public opinion to represent its believers. But homophobic arguments arent good enough. Suggesting that SSM will lead to polygamy etc (as this Priest has said) arent either. Im yet to hear why SSM should not be allowed. The polygamy argument is a valid argument. If same sex marriages are allowed then who are you to say polyamorous folk aren't allowed to have their defacto unions fully legalised under the marriage act? if that is the will of the people or the people they elect, then so be it....but we are nowhere near that so it is irrelevant to the SSM issue. It's not irrelevant. Now or in 20 years time it is a fair argument to make. If same sex marriage was legalised tomorrow and polyamorous people started to lobby to have their unions recognised would you be able to look them straight in the face and say no? Who are you to deny them their right to a loving, legal relationship? Every single argument run by the SSM mob could be used by the polyamorous. I would not deny them that right. I do not care if polygamy is legal. But in 2016 we are talking about SSM because that is what many australians want legal. If a large number of australians want to have a ploygamy debate in 2026 the so be it. At the moment the poly argument is a deliberate distraction to derail SSM. Explain how it is a 'deliberate distraction'. If someone says euthanasia should be legalised for the terminally ill is the argument that it will lead to people being pressured into being euthanised a 'deliberate distraction'. It isn't. Exploring the knock on effects of a law being passed is an exercise in risk assessment and a prudent thing to do. It's fair and reasonable and those that think SSM should be allowed should have the intellectual balls to not dismiss these arguments out of hand and engage them and rebut or agree with them. Otherwise they're hypocrites. When intellectual arguments are presented they can be assessed at present? I've only ever seen religious arguments. Utah in the USA legalized polygamy didn't it? Wouldn't there have been studies carried out to assess the social affects of polygamy that could be referenced. It's also an Islamic thing. Wouldn't there be studies to refer to on them as well?
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xShorten has to defend himself against an Anglican Priest who is upset about being called a homophobe for opposing same sex marriage. Hiding behind a deity doesn't absolve you of being homophobic haha This is good! The Anglican Priest has as much right to use 18C as anyone else. That is also not what the law was meant for. It seems the hard left is more open to 18C than the so called non progressive conservatives it was intended for. The hard left seem to be the ones who are more likely to throw insults and accusations. Nothing to do with 18C. The priest is upset because people don't respect his reasons for rejecting SSM. Religious beliefs should not affect the lives of the non-religious. Religious organisations are out of place trying to weigh in on this issue. Religions are not out of place. This is exactly the kind of social issue they should be commenting on and they have every right to comment on it. Then they should pay tax if they want to have a public opinion. Religion should worry about itself and its own members, not people who resent its existence. This is a retarded argument. Should World Vision or Medicine Sans Frontier not have an opinion on foreign aid budgets or refugee processes because they don't pay tax? Obviously you're not enamoured with the Church but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed an opinion. They're entitled to their say just like everyone else. As individuals yes. As an organization no. If we are meant to have a separation between church and state (politics) then the church as an organization should not have a public political opinion. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? According to you, and here's an example that might make you see sense, the Institute of Engineers should not lobby the government over infrastructure spending or building standards or registration or university content or in fact anything because they're an 'organisation'. The teacher's union aren't allowed to discuss education curriculum changes, the nurses union can't speak about professional development and hospital standards, the AMA can't talk about PBS spending etc etc on and on. Just say you're wrong now before you dig yourself in too deep. A church is not a similar organization to your examples but nice try. Engineers Australia pays tax and lobby's on issues related to their members of which I am one. Churches are weighing in on a political debate as organizations concerning the rights of people that fucking resent their existence. It's as if some people feel that marriage is a religious thing when it existed a long time before they came along and started calling the shots. Your argument doesn't address my World Vision and Medicine Sans Frontier examples. Your argument was originally that they don't pay tax therefore they're not allowed a say. After I pointed out the irrationality of that statement you then morphed the argument into 'organisations' aren't allowed an opinion. After I pointed out the idiocy of that argument you've decided the church somehow isn't an organisation with a heirarchical structure that is entitled, just like any other organistion, to speak on behalf of it's members. The reason I don't is because those medical aid organizations are not religious. I am of the opinion that a Church is not the same type of organization as an emergency medical organization. I fully support such organizations. I am of the opinion that the organization that represents its flock of followers should not, as an organization, be entitled to weigh into political debates on the basis that it is a religion. In this particular debate, my opinion is that religious organizations seem to be claiming ownership of the term 'marriage' and are using that to push their 'official' opinion into a political debate. The Salvation Army is religious. The head of World Vision is Tim Costello. He's a Baptist minister. (They often comment on public policy. Neither pay tax and both are organisations.) You're not winning this argument. As for the church, the church are basing their arguments on tradition, a literal reading of the bible, history, fundamental tenants of their beliefs, legal precedents, conservatism and the fact that our society is historically at least, Christian based. These are fair and reasonable arguments and they're entitled to put them forward. The bible is a subjective work of fiction as has absolutely zero credibility in arguments over government legislation, of which SSM is part of. Our society is secular for political purposes and we're historically Christian because they killed everyone who wouldn't convert in the dark ages. None of what you put forward as justification is reasonable because it's faith based and has absolutely no relevance to people outside of faith. World vision is a religious organization. If they want to weigh in on moral policies in a political forum, you know what I want. Question: Do churches have the right to lobby government to have Noah's Ark taught as fact in our schools? You keep moving the goalposts but anyway. Yes they do have the right to lobby the government. Just like you are free to write to your MP and ask for Sharia law to be introduced for theft. Whether or not you, or the church, get short shrift from the government is another matter. And just for your information the bible is generally recognised of being composed, in general terms, 1/3 history, 1/3 doctrine and 1/3 apocryphal stories, songs, poetry, psalms. It is without doubt a historical document, amongst other things.
|
|
|
|