The moderates and the conservatives - the state of the NSW Liberal Party (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

Yea but MLS, it comes from a religious tradition, and sure you could argue that today marriage is a separate thing, but the church won't be happy.

The best solution is to turn ALL "marriages" into "civil unions", and the church can call religious marriages a seperate thing.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Yea but MLS, it comes from a religious tradition, and sure you could argue that today marriage is a separate thing, but the church won't be happy.

You ought to know that "the church not being happy" is not exactly a persuasive argument with me

The best solution is to turn ALL "marriages" into "civil unions", and the church can call religious marriages a seperate thing.

Yes I think that's a good idea - it would remove any inequality involved

 

[withoutaface]

Marriage is essentially a religious tradition, and if you want to be wed and call it a marriage then you should do it on some religions terms (be it Christian, Muslim etc), otherwise it should be a civil union.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The problem with that is that gays will be upset because it seems that their 'civil union' means less than someone elses 'marriage' (however of course legally it won't).

Personally I don't think marriage is a religious tradition at ALL anymore, it only has its routes in religion. i.e. Santa Claus (christmas), Birth of Jesus... u kno how it is.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Marriage is essentially a religious tradition, and if you want to be wed and call it a marriage then you should do it on some religions terms (be it Christian, Muslim etc), otherwise it should be a civil union.

Marriage today is not a religious recognition, it carries social and legal importance. Therefore if it is the religious tradition that is to be preserved, all marriages should be changed to civil unions and then the church can still use the word or concept of marriage without it being "tainted".

 

[withoutaface]

Marriage today is not a religious recognition, it carries social and legal importance. Therefore if it is the religious tradition that is to be preserved, all marriages should be changed to civil unions and then the church can still use the word or concept of marriage without it being "tained".

I agree.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Why can't the government realise this? They should come to BOS for solutions.
I can't imagine either side being upset with this result for any logical reason.

 

[katie_tully]

Marriage today is not a religious recognition, it carries social and legal importance. Therefore if it is the religious tradition that is to be preserved, all marriages should be changed to civil unions and then the church can still use the word or concept of marriage without it being "tainted".

Since when hasn't marriage been of social and legal importance? As well as being a religious tradition, those bonded by marriage now, or 700 years ago were then bonded socially and legally. The wife was the legal property of her husband, the husband acquired whatever the wife owned - your social status depended on who you married, etc.

For some marriage is still a unity through religion...we won't count those who get married upwards of 2-3 times.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Since when hasn't marriage been of social and legal importance? As well as being a religious tradition, those bonded by marriage now, or 700 years ago were then bonded socially and legally. The wife was the legal property of her husband, the husband acquired whatever the wife owned - your social status depended on who you married, etc.

For some marriage is still a unity through religion...we won't count those who get married upwards of 2-3 times.

True

There have been some rather quaint legal rules regarding women and property in the past...

 

[withoutaface]

The wife was the legal property of her husband, the husband acquired whatever the wife owned - your social status depended on who you married, etc.

Was ?

 

[katie_tully]

Ohhhh cheap shot.

-slinks back into kitchen-

 

[putri tini]

looks like howard is pleased with costello's budgethttp://www.bloggerheads.com/images/costello_howard.jpg

HAha!

 

[Generator]

*bump*

Stateline - Extremists

Federal MPs behind radical push: Hewson

Edit: Far right puts the fear of god into Young Libs

 

[katie_tully]

Oh you beat me to it
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nsw/content/2005/s1452416.htm

Stateline was quite interesting. I hope dear Pat is wrong and that the idea of a severe right wing faction is just something she is imagining in light of recent events.

 

[erawamai]

Oh you beat me to it
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nsw/content/2005/s1452416.htm

Stateline was quite interesting. I hope dear Pat is wrong and that the idea of a severe right wing faction is just something she is imagining in light of recent events.

I have the feeling that dear old Pat is right.

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/0/babd384f3ee9ee2cca256d050017172c/$FILE/David%20Clarke.pdf

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Far right puts the fear of god into Young Libs

wtf is with that guy's shirt

Anyway let's hope that Alex Hawke is put in his place sometime soon.

 

[Generator]

MP's 'extreme' views must be questioned: Hockey

 

[Not-That-Bright]

pfft sif there's any social liberals in the current liberal party state or federal...
a few in the alp. We have the neo liberals and the conservative religious nuts.

This whole thread makes me lol.

 

[spell check]

they're like the opposite of how government should be

pushing their own opinion onto people's private lives regarding drugs, sex, abortions, euthanasia etc

they should have as little to do in that sphere as possible and more to do in the economic sphere

 

[xeuyrawp]

Ack, the argument of 'how much should ideology be present in the way one runs the country'.

Frankly, I couldn't give a shit about a party's personal stance on anything as long as it doesn't manifest in a way that affects us. I really don't care if the leaders are homophobic racists, I don't have to personally get on with them. I care if they start making nasty laws, but we can't pretend that a leadership's personal views will always infiltrate into legislation.

Although you could argue that a lot of one's beliefs dictate politics, I think that grouping yourself with 'conservative', 'left' etc, is dangerous. Essentially, if you think you're mainly 'right-wing', you'll end up doing things you don't believe in.

I would say I'm pretty conservative; I would say that I'm very old-fashioned when it comes to the judicial system and punishment. I would say that I'm a tough asshole and treat drug addicts and pedophiles like sub-citizens. I would say that, whilst I'm against the government's current immigration stance, I'm not as 'forgiving' as a lot of the idyllic trash I read. If I'm against the government on immigration, but aren't with the 'let them in' camp, what label am I? Surely my cruelty to criminals would make me a right-wing jerk, but how could I be right wing and also gay? Doesn't that just not work?