...And now you're doing exactly as I said in my previous post that you attempted to deny - merely stating that it was good and completely ignoring all of the negatives that had to occur to make the positives you promote happen.
Printable View
...And now you're doing exactly as I said in my previous post that you attempted to deny - merely stating that it was good and completely ignoring all of the negatives that had to occur to make the positives you promote happen.
I've not said it was all perfect, we're talking about marriage here however and the family - not children working in the mines.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
I agree that inciting racial hatred etc should be banned. Yes I agree with that. That is my opinion and has nothing to do with 'free speech'. You don't seem to understand the implications of this at all. It can and usually does lead to harrassment, bullying and quite often acts of violence against these people who are usually sheep led by an often intelligent but warped & bigoted view on life who knows exactly what they are doing. e.g. Osama Bin Lade, Abu Hamza etc. I do not believe in limitless detention - that is where people are just detained without even going before a court at all for an indeifinite time by the state. The example you gave was somebody who had been through a court on numerous occcasions and detained for a certain time and then bought back before the court. Obviously things appear to have gone wrong with this case but only time will tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
So religious people would go to their church and others would go back to the registry office/ place of civil marriage. How on earth would this work and be specific please. Also a civil marriage is conducted ohn behalf of the state so how would that work?Quote:
Not really, I don't believe there's such a thing as gay marriage - however, my solution (libertarianism) accepts the fact that there's two sides to the debate and that if its possible, the state shouldn't side with either side and allow organisations/individuals to define their own terms of marriage.
It means I don't have your defintion of marriage imposed upon me via the state and the same vice versa in regards to my definition.
Then they would go to their organisation which does ceremonies/weddings for agnostics and so forth, we already have registery offices for example. As for the state being removed from marriage, why not? i've already explained that by not allowing gay marriage conservatives would be trampling on the views of those on the left, and that by allowing gay marriage socialists would be trampling on the views of the conservatives in this country.
Remove the tool of control (the state) out of this, and the problem vanishes.
Quote:
Well I actually said that was you, but nevermind.. its right here......
If you feel that some psychotic, bigoted person should be allowed to stand on a corner
spouting out racial hatred etc inciting other people to commit criminal acts is curbing 'freedom of speech' then I guess you are right. But that's your view - it doesn't mean you are correct.
Woman are not suited as as men to to be MPs.Quote:
Come on now, give some examples.
Burkas should be banned.
Gays should not allowed to be married.
There should be no equalisation of representation in parliament to reflect society as it is today - it should be left as it always has been despite the fact that straight men have always had full rights throughout history.
Any homosexual or woman who expresses any view that oppose yours is labelled 'militant'.
Then you don't understand free speech or believe it in, next point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
I must ask though, why should gay marriage be allowed by the state (or homosexuality for arguments sake) but things (radical opinions) you disagree with cannot be spoken? homosexuality leads to acts of violence itself, yet you do not call for this to be banned on the basis of 'it will lead to violence' - is it simply the case that you pick and choose what you wish to ban on the basis on whether it suits your own opinion?
Why did you say this then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
........Quote:
Originally Posted by Previous quote
What do you mean how would this work? it would simply mean that any documentation and/or permission usually needed by the state to carry out marriage wouldn't be needed. You go to the religious place of worship/registry, sign the contract of marriage/civil partnership (whatever you wish to call it) and you are then married - any disputes which arise would be tried in public courts based on the contract you signed when you got married. Its that simple, you don't need government to tell you how to do the simplest things you know, as hard as that may be for some to grasp the concept of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
So as i'm allowing any type of 'marriage' by getting the government out of marriage (hetrosexual, homosexual, pagan, incest, objects - the lot) i'm allowing people to do things which I may not approve of but in doing so they are not forcing their ideas upon me of gay 'marriage' - just as I wouldn't be forcing my conservative views of what a marriage is upon you or homosexuals.
Now why is this such a bad idea I ask you? is it the case that you simply wish to force me to accept it?
Hang on, why are you saying to me then that I don't stand for freedom and liberty? I don't think you quite understand what those words mean then. While I do think men are more suited to be MPs, private owners should be able to ban burkas (i'm not in favour of a ban through legislation at all) and everyone shouldn't have the idea of gay marriage forced upon them by the state - this does not mean I do not think others people shouldn't be allowed to do these things. That is liberty as with free speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
Libertarian in method, conservative in person as outlined with my views on marriage.