While the committee concept clearly does have its drawbacks this is something that, if reasonable and tolerant people were debating it, wouldn’t even have reached that stage in the process.
I’m unsure what would be talked about on the floor… the defination of a word that the religious monotheistic segment of society feels should mean one thing based on its holy books, while other segments feel it should have a secular one?
When is it a good thing for a country that legislation be guided by the holy book or philosophy of one group of people?
“One group”? Are you sure about that?
Is there any group other than the monotheistics who are opposed to this?
I don’t make any assumptions about the monotheism or lack thereof of the visibly disparate groups in my neck of the woods that don’t seem to approve.
The only significant & vocal objections to gay marriage that I have seen come from the monotheistic belief structures - if there are others I would be interested in hearing about them unless of course they are the standard
(a) faith based
(b) homophobia based, or
(c) unexplainable rational about how it will somehow detract from hetrosexual marriage
…. I’ve heard them all before and they have no basis in either law or equality.
“Orthodox” would be a more precise term than “monotheist.” Most monotheistic religions are orthodox, but it allows grey areas so people can’t quibble over inconsequential details.
I am given to understand by my Indian neighgour (who doesn’t care either way) that the majority of the world’s largest non monotheistic faith (Hinduism) disapproves of homosexuality, based on Canto 3, Ch.20 Text 23, 24 & 26 of the Srimad Bhagavadham.
I think it’s more accurate to say that religious primitivists of any faith (who see their team’s scripture as a literal and inflexible rulebook, not a portal) will take that stance.
It's a sad state of affairs when Canadian kids are treated like this by the government - read about it here then contact your MP
1 year ago: 09/07/2007
2 years ago: 09/07/2006
There are 7 visitors currently online.
Powered by FireStats
When reading here you reminded of the words of Buddha: Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.
The Forte theme by Moses Francis
Valid XHTML and Valid CSS
I would rather committees didn’t terminate contentious bills early. The sword can cut both ways. Is there some reason to suspect this bill would not be defeated after open debate in Parliament?