The moderates and the conservatives - the state of the NSW Liberal Party (3 Viewers)

[neo o]

Oh come on neo read his maiden speech.

- 'I find it an honour to be serving inthe same house as the Rev Fred Nile...I identify with many of the values that he has courageously fought for...'

- I love god. Thank god

- Changing values. My job is to keep those values. God is great.

-I love the monarchy

- Union jack three christian crosses should be on our flag

- God does lots of stuff for us

- UN is bad. John Howard is good

- Must combat communism.

- I hate gays

- I love Peirce Akerman

- 'Alan Jones represents the mainstream'

- I love Professor David Flint (But isnt he Alan Jones Boy Pal?)

- I love Bishops Pell and Jensen.

- I love Tony Abbot, Helen Coonan and Bill Heffernan (homophobe)

- I will uphold conservative christian values.

Asquithian, that is David Clarke's maiden speech. The guy in the article is Alex Hawke, he works for David Clarke - but he isn't David Clarke. Apart from pointing out the obvious, quite a lot of what you've paraphrased from that speech is absolute shit anyway (and to be honest, out of all the things that he said, you didn't mention the part about his support for state sovereignty (the constitution was written over a hundred years ago, times are 'a changing) and national sovereignty (which just smacks of protectionism), which I thought were the strangest.)

 

[frog12986]

Why is it that everyone can openly criticise and denounce christianity and its inherent values so profusely? If one was to apply the same rhetoric towards Islam and its values then there would be an immense outcry from the left of discrimination and racial targeting. I for one, would rather a society based upon the principles of christianity than those of Islam and the welfare state alike...

I must've forgotten a few key points...

- Asquthian, Kerry O'Brien, Mike Carlton and Alan Ramsay actually represent the mainstream...

- Homosexality is more natural than heterosexuality...

- A Monarchy is primarily associated with evil and conducive to a flawed society..

- Communism is the most viable structure under which society can exist...

- John Howard is the root of all problems that Australia has encountered since 1901..

- Conservative Christian values will cause the end of the universe and are the root of all evil...

- One cannot stand up for what they truly believe in, unless it coincides with the views of the left... otherwise open and vicious criticism is absolutely necessary.. Damn democracy and voice of opinion sucks!

The fact is this supposedly 'evil' government were voted in with a resounding increased majority in both houses of parliament...Of the 65 years it has existed it has been in power for 66% of that time (federally)...

The views of this government/party must be so out of tune with 'mainstream' Australia as Asquithian infers...Why don't we adopt left-wing or Islam based structure ,which will, as we've seen in most countries that promote such systems, succeed so magnificently in creating a fairer and more prosperous society in which people can live...

 

[frog12986]

Ok Asquithian what is it that Howard government has actually done that is so treacherous........spill out a substantive list..... the ones you mentioned there have very little or no impact on peoples lives...

My world view is skewed according to YOUR perceptions of the world... a slight difference. You so avowedly promote democratic principles of freedom of opinion yet the moment someone will voice something that does not conincide with you 'perfect' view, then you automatically rip it apart believing that 'you' are entirely correct..

What particular agencies/bodies has the government 'gagged' as you put it? What agencies have they 'bribed' or given money to?

I do stand corrected on the Asylum Seeker issue, however, the fact remains that they were not lawfully in this country.. no visa, citizenship or otherwise. If anything, they should have faced immediate deportation rather than detention, which in turn gave those people a greater chance at being processed...

Oh it is by coincidence that the principles of democracy were founded within mainly christian states? I think not... the values and beliefs of the christian ideology are attuned to that of democracy. Moreover, define what you believe constitutes 'democracy'....

It is reassuring to note however, that you are not part of the mainstream and this would probably provide many people with the hope and knowledge that that future will in all likelihood, not reflect you lines of opinon...

 

[frog12986]

I do admit you have the edge particularly on commonwealth law..... obviously... so in essence im not really qualified to respond on issues such as the asylum seekers. My view is one more based upon values rather than any statutory provisions...So inevitably you will win such an argument...I enter such debates knowing that I will get hammered ...

Nonetheless, I would like to hear some of the issues you deem to be important?

I said that democracy was 'based' upon, not created by, Christian values. There is a distinct difference. Additionally, over time the principles were gradually altered to accomodate more than just what was inherent in the christian system...

In the end, we will agree to disagree... in the future I will only attempt to respond on issues that I have some 'substantive' knowledge of.. otherwise inform that they are 'value'based'...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Workers are generally conservative, they only really vote for Labor because people care more about what's in their pocket than social policy. The ammount of true leftists (or righties) out there, i'd say is fairly small.

Another point to make is that Labor and the Liberals are both fairly conservative governments.
Look at Bob Hawke, it was HE who privatised Australia and crushed many of our useless trade barriers.

edit: On the issue of Asylum seekers:
- we should try to find out what we can about them (within 7 days),
- if any of them are suspect.. keep them of course.
- Provide medical/psychological care to all of them.
- Help adjust them to australian life, give them ID etc.
- send them on their merry way, perhaps asking them to check in with some local government office every month or so for a while just to see how they're going.

 

[Xayma]

- Homosexality is more natural than heterosexuality...

- Conservative Christian values will cause the end of the universe and are the root of all evil...

Homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality, and is an inevitable consequence of more males surviving (if you have an older brother, without mechanisms that turn some people gay, you might not have survived to birth).

The maximum amount of civil liberties should be given in such a way that society still functions in a safe way. Conservative Christian values limit these civil liberties for no reason (how may I ask is denying homosexuals the right to marry unsafe for society?).

 

[frog12986]

'value-based'...

I can see what you are saying, however why do these groups receive govenment funding in the first place? If they are representing individuals interests what right do they have to have taxpayers, who may not necessarily agree with their plight, fund their efforts? I just get bemused as to why people continuously rely upon others to maintain their interests....

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Xayma, the main problem as I understand it is that marriage is a christian tradition, and if we are to have true separation between church and state you cannot have the state dictating to the church whom they MUST marry.

 

[frog12986]

Yeah entirely what NTB said...

Marriage is a Christian institution and the church should and can not be 'ordered' to alter their values in order to accomodate the needs of the homosexual...

I can make a fairly solid assumption that 'marriage' or its equivalent in the Islamic faith would not be compromised to accomodate the needs of the homosexual...

It is purely an arguement of morality and christian values... why do homosexuals want it so much anyway?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

They want it as a way to express love for one another, as marriage has really gone beyond being a religious thing and into a cultural thing.
However as the church doesn't want the word "marriage" used, that's where we have civil unions come in.

 

[Xayma]

Yeah entirely what NTB said...

Marriage is a Christian institution and the church should and can not be 'ordered' to alter their values in order to accomodate the needs of the homosexual...

I can make a fairly solid assumption that 'marriage' or its equivalent in the Islamic faith would not be compromised to accomodate the needs of the homosexual...

It is purely an arguement of morality and christian values... why do homosexuals want it so much anyway?

The legal rights maybe? Not all rights can be achieved through de-facto relationships (but more then say the USA).

The church can have marriage back Im for making all current marriages civil unions (even between heterosexuals) and letting the church decide who can have a civil union in its church (ie a marriage).

Anyway we should get back on topic, sorry for deviating the thread.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Nah, I say you take away the word "marriage" from heterosexual marriages too and make them all civil unions like xayma said.

But yea, i dun really think it should be as big an issue as it is.

 

[Xayma]

That is one of the bigger problems is that they often push for adoption rights etc at the same time (adoption laws would have to change to prevent homosexual marriages) I dont think society is at a point where adoption would be welcome. Child bearing I'm not against, using IVF, I don't think it should be funded by medicare (because it isn't a fertility problem as such).

But more research needs to be done (I have only seen one study, although I know of another, but they only go into the childs teenage years).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yea, well I don't really have too much a problem with gay people raising a child, but I do think a straight family is preferable.

To me I just kinda worry about the child, because (maybe it's just the media), but it seems to me for a group as relitively small as the gays are there seems to be alot of gay pedophilia.

 

[Xayma]

Got stats on the last one?

Most pedophiles don't consider themselves gay, and would not be in a married relationship (although exceptions do exist).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

No it's just that as many sexual assaults seem to happen to boys as men (i guess it doesn't matter to their sick minds anyway?).
Also - You must remember that men are much more likely to keep sexual assault a secret.

There are no stats, and either if there were i doubt they'd be done by anywhere reputable.

 

[b0b444]

'value-based'...

I can see what you are saying, however why do these groups receive govenment funding in the first place? If they are representing individuals interests what right do they have to have taxpayers, who may not necessarily agree with their plight, fund their efforts?

well, i'd say a fair proportion of taxpayers were opposed to war in iraq, yet they paid for what a minority (the australian government) wanted.

I just get bemused as to why people continuously rely upon others to maintain their interests....

what are you talking about? are you saying that taxpayers pay money towards homosexual interests? do you have any evidence of this? something tells me there isn't going to be a whole lot...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Since we never had a referendum or a vote on the war in iraq, that's hard to know.
While people may have disagreed on iraq, but voted in the government for other reasons (financial etc), i think this is the most accurate picture we have of where people stand.

 

[Xayma]

No it's just that as many sexual assaults seem to happen to boys as men (i guess it doesn't matter to their sick minds anyway?).
Also - You must remember that men are much more likely to keep sexual assault a secret.

There are no stats, and either if there were i doubt they'd be done by anywhere reputable.

Most sexual assaults are conducted by men as well. Yes I agree that many of the pedophilic acts are conducted in a homosexual nature but alot of these who commit them are married and have kids. It isn't talking about giving anybody who identifies as homosexual a kid, they would be limited to the same restrictions as heterosexuals (the requirement to be "married").

 

[b0b444]

Depends how liberal you want to go.

For me I DO THINK it is preferable that a child be raised with a mother and father.

Most average people have no issues with homosexuals in a civil union. They DO have a problem when they want to bring up children.

Australia still thinks that the best environment for a child is mother and father...and I tend to agree.

But I dont really know. There is nothing to say that a gay couple cannot bring up a child in a loving atmosphere. But simply because it is ingrained in me and most people this just doesnt click...

IMO, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they should not let it affect someone else's life. what right does some old-red-neck-conservative/politician have to tell homosexuals that they shouldn't have children, and the same with abortion... if it doesn't affect anyone else in the community then governments should not be able to interfere...