Home > Religion, Atheism, & Hollywood, Social Issues > Christians – can we vote on YOUR marriage now?

Christians – can we vote on YOUR marriage now?

.

Lobby group presents petition against same sex marriage

Source

.

72,000 signatories to Family First’s petition want the right to vote on other people’s right to be married?

That would be fair – if the rest of us had a chance to vote on whether or not those 72,000 Christians (?) should be married or not.

We could make it totally democratic and run on-going Referenda on  couples, through Facebook. Each couple could state their case to voters and the public could vote “Yay” or  “Nay”.

Is it too late to have a belated vote on whether Mr MCoskrie (and Garth McVicar!?) should be allowed to be married? (Not to each other, I mean. Although… )

This is how ridiculous it gets, that so-called “Christians”  think it appropriate to vote on other peoples’ private lives.

Little wonder that so many view religious fundamentalism as intrusive in our lives.

.

Facebook-Like-or-Dislike

.

(Note: with apologies to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pantheists, etc, who are more tolerant. )

.

*

.

Other blogs

Ideologically Impure: Marriage equality and polygamy

.

.

= fs =

About these ads
  1. Strawberry Paddocks
    22 January 2013 at 4:38 pm | #1

    LOL! That’s be a Nay Vote on McCroskie and McVicar being married and having kids! we don’t need any more bigots. LOL!

  2. Debbie Kendrick
    22 January 2013 at 5:00 pm | #2

    Actually that’s not such a bad idea. I mean, christianity is the most aggressive religion in the world today and the things being done in it’s name are terrifying.
    Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for freedom of religion and I’d never try and stop anyone who is a christian from practicing their religion… but there is quite a lot of them already… maybe it’s time to stop breeding new ones?

    (also with apologies to the many many people of varying religions including christians who don’t go around telling other people how to live their lives.)

  3. Juzzy
    22 January 2013 at 5:07 pm | #3

    In many ways i think the Government should get out of the whole debate. What has it got to do with them anyway. If people want to be together, it’s up to them. Why do we need laws for it?

    • 22 January 2013 at 5:13 pm | #4

      That’s an interesting point, Juzzy.

      On the one hand, various fundamentalist groups oppose Parliament “re-writing” marriage laws, saying that our elected representatives have no right to “re define” marriage.

      On the other hand, just imagine the furore from the same groups if Parliament repealed all laws relating to marriage and basically said it was now a personal choice for all consenting adults – go for it.

      Interesting…

    • Kevin H
      22 January 2013 at 5:17 pm | #5

      Juzzy just knocked the scab of a very deep sore. You sure drilled into that one Juzzy.

      • Juzzy
        22 January 2013 at 5:43 pm | #6

        Haa haa, well there seems a real common denominator for a whole list of problems and it’s called Government I will say this though, if the dictionary definition of Marriage is between a man and a Women then why not just call it Civil partnerships or whatever? I know it makes no real difference what it is called but in a wider context, when you start to change the meanings of words, what else can be changed? Two adults want to be together….who am i to tell them what to do whether i agree or not. They are free to choose. They are not harming people are they?

  4. 22 January 2013 at 5:48 pm | #7

    Some people seem incredibly threatened by it, Juzzy. Which, it seems, speaks volumes of their own gender identity insecurities than the “issue at large”…

  5. Juzzy
    22 January 2013 at 5:57 pm | #8

    I had some great gay friends when i lived in Sydney. They are actually some of the best people i met. I’m not gay and in a lot of ways i don’t even really agree with it deep down but it’s not my business. I’m a lover of freedom so long as no harm is being done to anyone. Yep no need to be insecure about it at all. It does have a way of exposing peoples prejudice. We are talking about Human beings who want to be together and be happy. if it is wrong then the Universe will have a way of dealing with it. It is not my task to tell them what to do or not do.

  6. 22 January 2013 at 7:21 pm | #9

    I’d love to vote in a Facebook referendum on whether McCoskrie should be allowed to get married. I also want to vote whether he should have children or not and where he should be allowed to live.

    Seems fair to me.

  7. Richard S
    23 January 2013 at 4:33 am | #10

    Yesss brilliant Frank

  8. Debbie Kendrick
    23 January 2013 at 2:02 pm | #11

    I’d agree, Juzzy, that at a bottom line it’s none of the government’s business what the gender (or for that matter number) of people who wish to marry each other is, but I don’t think changing the name for it is a solution. Words have power and the term ‘Marriage’ has a validity in the public mind, quite separate from any personal views on the religious significance of the union, that civil union (or civil anything) does not. In addition, to make it a ‘civil’ union puts it totally in the sphere of the government (which is not enough for some couples) rather than taking it out.
    Further, couples of the same gender who have religious (or personal morality) views on sex before marriage are pretty screwed under the current system. It has been a very powerful issue in some couples I have known. What do you do in such a situation? Betray your convictions and yourself? Or remain celibate for life? A pretty hard rap for a couple who love each other enough to wish to make a life commitment but will never be able to express that physically. No one has the right to force people into the position where this is the choice they have to face.
    I think what’s needed is to change the definition of the term. Not the term itself.

  9. Clive @ large
    27 January 2013 at 12:36 am | #12

    McVicar is a busy-body and should learn to mind his own business.

  10. Citizen Gee
    27 January 2013 at 12:40 pm | #13

    Seems to me that guys who constantly wank on about gays have “issues” about their own sexuality.

    As Clive said, McVicar should mind his own business.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 594 other followers

%d bloggers like this: