Political Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interested to know if you believe that certain Church Ministers of whatever denomination should be forced by law to marry gay couples or risk prosecution under the equal opportunies act?

No I don't.
 
Like it or not, his position isnt irrelevant as there exist a percentage of the popultaion who share the exact same point of view and he,as well as others,represent these people.

You could say put it to a vote and let the population decide?
To that I say; why should the wants and needs of such a small minority be afforded such a vote when so many other more pressing issues which affect a far larger percentage of the community have no chance of being decided upon in such a way?

I'm not sure who your small minority is?

Is it people who go to church, who are only about 15% of the population?

Is it people who are gay? Because that's about 10%, but once you include their family members it would grow to 40%+ of the population.

Is it people who DON'T agree with marriage equality? Because that's only about 30% of the population.

There aren't many things the government decides on that have 70% agreement by the public. So yes - of course it shouldn't have to be voted on by the public. The government should just decide to pass the law.
 
Interested to know if you believe that certain Church Ministers of whatever denomination should be forced by law to marry gay couples or risk prosecution under the equal opportunies act?
I thought a lot of churches now discriminate based on religion.

You wont find too many Greek Orthodox churches performing a wedding for couples not babtised as Greek Orthodox.



Are they at risk of running afoul of the law under that Act?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Also - what's an issue that affects a lot more people that the government isn't taking action on?
 
I think you could make the case that getting married is a right.

I don't think getting married in a particular church is. That's just ornamentation. That's just a wedding, not being married.
 
I think you could make the case that getting married is a right.

I don't think getting married in a particular church is. That's just ornamentation. That's just a wedding, not being married.
True. But it is still discrimination.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
I've got to say the Unions campaign against Nick is just dumb. People love him, especially battlers. It's only go to turn them off the Unions and make an enemy of Nick.
 
Like it or not, his position isnt irrelevant as there exist a percentage of the popultaion who share the exact same point of view and he,as well as others,represent these people.

You could say put it to a vote and let the population decide?
To that I say; why should the wants and needs of such a small minority be afforded such a vote when so many other more pressing issues which affect a far larger percentage of the community have no chance of being decided upon in such a way?
mate, it doesn't concern them, other people's private lives are none of your business! Opposition to gay marriage is being driven solely by straight people's "discomfort" towards the idea, to which I can only reply "suck it up snowflake".

and it absolutely should not require a ridiculous plebiscite, that's just been put there as an expensive obstacle, and one the Libs will hope fails anyway. To put it into perspective for you, some countries that have marriage equality: USA, UK, most of western Europe, Brazil, South Africa. Countries that don't have marriage equality: Russia, China, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Australia.

Ipsos ran a poll in 2015 and 69% were for, only 25% opposed.

Interested to know if you believe that certain Church Ministers of whatever denomination should be forced by law to marry gay couples or risk prosecution under the equal opportunies act?
no, of course not.

fyi, I've been to at least two dozen weddings in my time and only 5 or 6 of them were held in Churches or performed by ministers. Time to crawl into the 21st Century.
 
I've got to say the Unions campaign against Nick is just dumb. People love him, especially battlers. It's only go to turn them off the Unions and make an enemy of Nick.
It's their own stupidity, as will only lead to more voters switching from labor to Xman.

Would have thought they learnt from the last federal election... but obviously not.
 
Last edited:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...g/news-story/d617f5b1987e525c94d99bec377fd4bc

Bicks care to post the section about Labor accusing Nick of breaking preference deal.

Kristof, basically Labor agreed to a preference deal with Nick and one of the conditions was Nick back Labors industrial policies protecting the Unions. Still think the Unions wield no influence?
Derryn Hinch??

Kym Carr the ALP's Victorian Union "powerbroker"??

Hinch ‘broke Labor deal’

Left wing Labor powerbroker Kim Carr has today blasted crossbench Senator Derryn Hinch over the ABCC, accusing him of breaking a secret preference deal with the Labor Party which helped him secure a seat in parliament.

Senator Carr took issue with Senator Hinch’s decision to support government amendments to toughen the ABCC with the changes reducing a two year transition period — during which businesses would be required to comply with a strict new building code — to only nine months.

Senator Carr today argued that, by supporting the government’s amendments, Senator Hinch was breaching the terms of a deal made with the Labor Party which required him to take a particular approach to industrial relations legislation.

“I’m particularly concerned about Senator Hinch’s role in this,” Senator Carr said. “Senator Hinch, in the last election, made commitments. Made commitments. Because ... He made commitments to the Victorian Branch of the Labor Party upon which he received a preference arrangement from us.

“Those commitments have now been broken. Categorically, you have broken your word in regard to the approach that you would take to industrial relations ... we made it a condition of providing support in terms of preferences at the last election.

“I put it to you Senator Hinch that I hope this is your last term, because we won’t be doing it again. We won’t be doing it again.”

FacebookTwitterGPlus
 
WTF...
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...k=05d6c0480ab31cc68211d04b02288c0e-1487138496

THE state’s Guardian for Children has complained that a ban on female genital mutilation has been left out of new South Australian child protection laws.

Amanda Shaw said that while the practice would still be illegal under criminal law, she fears if it is not added to the draft child protection Bill, preventive measures like stopping girls as young as 5 being sent overseas for the “operation” will be lost.

Until now, these protections have been in the Children’s Protection Act 1993, but are not part of the State Government’s new Children and Young People Bill being debated this week in Parliament.

“Including it under the old Act as a child protection matter meant as well as being illegal, people can do harm minimisation, risk management, and prevention,’’ Ms Shaw told The Advertiser.

“We don’t want to have to wait for a crime to take place, and protecting the child goes far beyond just cases where a crime can be proven in court.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

You serious??
"Until now, these protections have been in the Children’s Protection Act 1993, but are not part of the State Government’s new Children and Young People Bill being debated this week in Parliament."
...
"The new Bill has been drafted"

are we really going to act surprised that the SA State Government didn't cross every t or dot every i? I'm sure it hasn't been left out because they endorse the procedure. It'll most likely be fixed I would have thought.
 
mate, it doesn't concern them, other people's private lives are none of your business! Opposition to gay marriage is being driven solely by straight people's "discomfort" towards the idea, to which I can only reply "suck it up snowflake".

and it absolutely should not require a ridiculous plebiscite, that's just been put there as an expensive obstacle, and one the Libs will hope fails anyway. To put it into perspective for you, some countries that have marriage equality: USA, UK, most of western Europe, Brazil, South Africa. Countries that don't have marriage equality: Russia, China, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Australia.

Ipsos ran a poll in 2015 and 69% were for, only 25% opposed.


no, of course not.

fyi, I've been to at least two dozen weddings in my time and only 5 or 6 of them were held in Churches or performed by ministers. Time to crawl into the 21st Century.

Before I go further please read my previous posts where I state that I don't personally give a s**t who,what or how many people choose to marry as sadly, I don't think marriage holds the meaning that it once did.
 
Before I go further please read my previous posts where I state that I don't personally give a s**t who,what or how many people choose to marry as sadly, I don't think marriage holds the meaning that it once did.
that's fine, but you were still replying to me defending people who hold similar views to Bernardi. Whether I should have used "none of their business" instead of "your business" doesn't really change anything in the rest of the argument.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/06/news/economy/donald-trump-beattyville-kentucky/

Today, the town is a ghost of its former self. The vast majority of Beattyville residents get some form of government aid -- 57% of households receive food stamps and 58% get disability payments from Social Security.

"I hope [Trump] don't take the benefits away, but at the same time, I think that once more jobs come in a lot of people won't need the benefits," says Hayes, who currently receives about $500 a month from government assistance. She's also on Obamacare.
have to feel sorry for these people, living in a dream world.

the sad truth is that small towns like these have little to offer a modern economy - and while I support social services and "welfare" in general - propping up half a town with food stamps when there's no work because there is no economic reason whatsoever for the town to exist is madness and not sustainable.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/06/news/economy/donald-trump-beattyville-kentucky/


have to feel sorry for these people, living in a dream world.

the sad truth is that small towns like these have little to offer a modern economy - and while I support social services and "welfare" in general - propping up half a town with food stamps when there's no work because there is no economic reason whatsoever for the town to exist is madness and not sustainable.
A bit like Whyalla and Mt Gambier
 
A bit like Whyalla and Mt Gambier
Mt Gambier is still reasonably significant as an agricultural hub isn't it? Or maybe I should say shopping hub for the surrounding agricultural regions.

certainly not much going for Whyalla though, but the iron ore mines aren't completely dead and buried - but obviously can't support the population it once did without the steelworks and that's had it.

will be interesting to see what happens though if bits of public infrastructure made out of Chinese steel keep falling off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top