Search results

this thread. i didn't mean lobby literally

this is not according to the pro-gay side's logic. it's now purely about love

good idea. separation of church and state.

it's funny how you think humans have reached the apex of social values - legal polygamy and bestiality still to come - we're always improving in that regard what would be the point in that? more red tape? isn't this already the case. i'm not being critical, but clarify

really? if it's no longer between a man and a woman then why must it be monogamous. that's why i don't take your advice below

what exactly are you suggesting?

that's unfair to animal rights! how do you know animals can't sign a contract - just because ur religious beliefs say they can't, u shouldn't impose it on others

that's because take out religion and there is no valid argument against marrying an animal

that's tantamount to religious persecution pretty hypocritical for someone with supposedly "liberal" views (= freedom of expression) to say

it is my civic responsibility to stand up for what I believe in. if i "vote" for it, i'll be partly responsible for the societal consequences

that sounds like gay marriage when there is a 2450% greater chance of HIV/AIDS

this is already the case

+1 i'd like to add that the reason tradtional marriage is traditional is because alternate forms are damaging to society (eg divorce) the damage in the case of gay marriage is an endorsement (including in public schools) of a practice that leads to a 2450% greater chance of HIV/AIDS -...

it's very hard to determine this but the main reason for covering up (supplemented by social pressures nowadays among muslim communities) is something that is commanded by the man as he has authority over the woman

doctrine of salvation came well before indulgences, and other churches as ancient as the catholic church believe the same doctrines without indulgences (and always have)

because, unfortunately, divisions in the church, partially politically fuelled, ultimately occurred

I hope he and craig thomson get kicked out of parliament

+1

as for the 1st point, it is not related to the 2nd point, and is neatly summarised by: companies based in the usa how dare they sell the products they produce? as for the 2nd point, i think it is dangerous to discount american involvement altogether (eg. they saved the balkan muslims - yes...

This is a false analogy to what im suggesting, which is a global (including china, india, us, eu) binding agreement. the carbon tax in fact can be likened to: smoke "light" cigarettes, its better than nothing