Atheist knowledge

[octave]

My understanding is that the British Monarch is the head of the Church of England not gods henchman.

 

The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is a title held by the British monarch that signifies titular leadership over the Church of England.[1] Although the monarch's authority over the Church of England is largely ceremonial, the position is still very relevant to the church and is mostly observed in a symbolic capacity. The Supreme Governor formally appoints high-ranking members of the church on the advice of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who is in turn advised by church leaders.[1]

 

Apart from that Becks even if your assertion were true it would not prohibit a parliamentary vote or a referendum and then the Queen could disallow it (although this would be extremely unlikely) and why would she if she has not done this in other Commonwealth countries including Britain.

 

 

[octave]

Canada seems to indicate she won't interfere with same sex marriage.

On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world, and the first country outside Europe, to legally recognize same-sex marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act which provided a gender-neutral marriage definition.

 

 

[Litespeed]

One man can not put a law through by himself, what an absolutely stupid claim.

I did not say it was approved by Labor, I told you a fact, it was unopposed by Labor. it could not go through into Constitutional Law with out Labor's consent and finally, the Queen's consent, i.e. Royal Assent - guess what, another fact.

 

Prove that statement.

Mate it is not a stupid statement- keep calm and have a bex, cup of tea and a lie down.

 

It is rather simple- as Prime Minister he proposes to cabinet a new law (which is written by parliamentary legal staff and the attorney generals department)- cabinet approves it and then it goes through to the lower house of parliament.

 

The government of the day (lead by same Prime Minister John Howard) is in control of the lower house (otherwise it is called the opposition and has no control) It is only the government which can effectively put forward legislation in the lower house, as they are the government and the lower house is the house of government. The lower house can debate all it wants but as long as the government has the numbers (ie is the government) it passes legislation in the lower house.

 

John Howard ruled with a iron fist and no one dared to not tow the party line of what he wanted- unlike the current LNP rabble. John wanted and John got- always.

 

Then it goes to the Senate- the house of review. Here the government may or may not have numerical control (Howard actually did in his last term). They can argue all they like and kick it back to the house of reps with some changes or vote for a inquiry or pass it through or refuse in which case the government sends it back again to them. If that happens twice it can be used as a trigger to desolve both houses of parliament called a double dissolution and a complete election for all members of the senate plus the lower house is called. That is what just happened here- Turnbull rolled the dice and lost everything bar his torn shirt.

 

One man can ensure the passing of a piece of legislation if he is infact the Prime Minister and holds firm control of his party- John Howard did it all the time.

 

He is as Prime Minister by virtue in charge of the lower house and as such the leader of the government of the day.

 

All that is then required is for it to pass the senate- which unless the major opposition party (in that case Labor )has a majority by itself in the senate- it is powerless to stop. That is where minority senators come in.

 

At no point in any of this does it require the asscent of the Labor party to make legislation lawful or any non government party or independant. It is purely down to numbers on the day of the vote.

 

And when Howard had a majority in both houses- nothing could stop him putting anything he liked into law except a revolt from his own side or plain common sense- neither of which appeared likely.

 

Once it has passed both houses all that then happens is the Governor General signs it and it becomes law.

 

Done and dusted.

 

At no point in any of this can a strong Prime minister be stopped doing their thing as long as they control the numbers in the lower house and can sway enough for a majority of those voting on the day in the upper house.

 

You could have 140 senators but if only 10 are present and 6 are government- bingo it becomes law.( a extreme example)

 

QED

 

For the above to not be true- it assumes that the government of the day does not in fact have confidence in its Prime Minister- for it is he/she that calls the shots. To not approve what they propose in cabinet is the kiss of death to your political career- that is why the are BOSS.

 

 

[dutchroll]

I think the farce on day 1 of this term of parliament demonstrates it nicely.

 

Government members, freshly chuffed from "winning" the election decide to go home early. Opposition keeps all their people in parliament and starts defeating government motions. Opposition tables motion to establish Banking Royal Commission which the government objects to. Only the fact that the motion must be debated allows government time to send SOS to its absent members telling them to "get the hell back here NOW!!!" so they can defeat it.

 

I'm actually a bit disappointed that those government members made it back in time to vote, personally!

 

On signing into law, there was another thread where this was discussed and the history is quite fascinating.

 

The Governor General is the Queen's representative here, and she only gets to decide if he refers the legislation to her. At no point does he have to do this. If the GG is happy and signs it......its law, irrespective of what the Queen thinks. In any case, only one Bill in Australia's history has been referred to the monarch by the GG and failed to receive Royal Assent. That was the Customs Tariff (British Preference) Bill of 1906.

 

Saying God has anything to do with all this is a bit tenuous.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I think this parliament has embraced insanity.

 

- They rip half a billion dollars from ARENA, the organisation tasked with delivering grants to innovative clean energy projects. In short, an organisation that is critical to delivering the PM's own agenda on innovation and agility and all the other positive-sounding stuff he spouted prior to the election.

 

- At the same time they want to waste $175 million on a plebiscite which will only tell them the same answer than multiple polls have already told them, which won't be binding on ministers, which will result in the widespread spewing of hate speech and bullying, and is an abrogation of their responsibility as elected representatives.

 

Labor is complicit in this too and should never have voted for the omnibus savings bill while it contained cuts to clean energy research. Hopefully they at least have the guts to vote down the plebiscite and do their damn job. Apparently the Australian people don't need to be consulted on little issues like going to war or losing their civil rights in the name of national security, or even the original change to the marriage bill by Howard and his ilk, but we do need to be consulted at a cost of $175 million to take that sentence back out.

 

 

[Bruce]

Thanks for the recipe Bex, but I have a nitpicking comment about your 2.3 children per couple for population constant numbers.

 

This would only be true in the steady-state. If there are initially a lot more young people ( as is the case ) then the population will grow greatly before the steady-state is reached. This is only high-school mathematics.

 

On the same-sex referendum, I can't believe they are funding anybody, especially the conservative nasties . It is like having a poll on flat-earth and giving the tiny number of flat-earth crazies the same funding as the round-earth people. Actually its worse because nobody could be deeply hurt by any nonsense the flat-earth people came out with.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Actually its worse because nobody could be deeply hurt by any nonsense the flat-earth people came out with.

I have had bruises on my forehead from a desk impact when reading those types of things on a number of occasions. It hurts quite a bit.

 

 

[Yenn]

Surely for our 2 kids to be a replacement, we would have to die. Then I agree it is a replacement, but at the moment it is doubling.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Surely for our 2 kids to be a replacement, we would have to die. Then I agree it is a replacement, but at the moment it is doubling.

You plan to live forever?

 

There may be 4 generations alive at any one time (5 in Bridgewater), but that doesn't matter. It's a conveyor belt with new ones being added and old ones dropping off the end.

 

 

[Litespeed]

But the increase in life expectancy has thrown a major spanner in the works.

 

It was not too bad when you rarely had people live past 50, but we all seem to want to and a lot will be consuming at 90.

 

 

[Yenn]

Just to add to the insanity, I see in todays paper that female homosexual couples are unhappy that there can be only one mother on the birth certificate of a child. They want the law changed so that both can be mother.

 

What we must do is change the whole language, so that it will be legal for anyone to call anything whatever they want and the remainder of the population must understand what they are saying.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Just to add to the insanity, I see in todays paper that female homosexual couples are unhappy that there can be only one mother on the birth certificate of a child. They want the law changed so that both can be mother.What we must do is change the whole language, so that it will be legal for anyone to call anything whatever they want and the remainder of the population must understand what they are saying.

I don't really see why that's insanity. I'm not homosexual, but if I was, I wouldn't like to be called "mother" just because the form says you have to have a mother and a father.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Heck why don't they just say "parent 1" and "parent 2"? What does it matter what sex they are and who really cares?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just to add to the insanity, I see in todays paper that female homosexual couples are unhappy that there can be only one mother on the birth certificate of a child. They want the law changed so that both can be mother.What we must do is change the whole language, so that it will be legal for anyone to call anything whatever they want and the remainder of the population must understand what they are saying.

This, and two "fathers" is one of the reasons I'm against same sex marriage, is for the "children".

 

I was 8 when my mother died and grew up without the female component of the marriage, who fills out the feminine part of parenting, such as social skills, etc. Even now it's not unusual for me to arrive at a function in inappropriate clothing etc.

 

There are always going to be unavoidable cases like mine where a mother or father are missing, but it's just plain wrong to put a child into a family without the male/female balance.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Option A:

 

Heterosexual parents with mum and dad are available to raise child. Both are heroin addicts and unemployed. Dad with history of domestic abuse. Both with long criminal history of drug abuse. Father has previously introduced a 17 year old girl to her first ever heroin shot.

 

Option B:

 

Homosexual parents with two guys are available to raise child. Both with impeccable character references, well liked in community. One employed in well paid professional job and the other also fully employed. Both willing to adjust work to share full time parenting. Desperately want kids.

 

Solution? Put the child only with the mum and dad in option A? Put the child into string of foster homes? Anything but option B?

 

Fact for the curious.........Mrs Dutch knows both of these situations. One (the drug users and the 17 year old daughter) she dealt with as a GP. The other (gay blokes with kid) are friends of hers.

 

At some point, you just need to be thankful that there are two respectable people out there who are willing to do everything for this kid, which will ensure the child grows up in the best environment possible and ends up a happy, responsible adult.

 

 

[Marty_d]

This, and two "fathers" is one of the reasons I'm against same sex marriage, is for the "children".I was 8 when my mother died and grew up without the female component of the marriage, who fills out the feminine part of parenting, such as social skills, etc. Even now it's not unusual for me to arrive at a function in inappropriate clothing etc.

 

There are always going to be unavoidable cases like mine where a mother or father are missing, but it's just plain wrong to put a child into a family without the male/female balance.

I'm led to believe that, on balance, gay men are far better dressed - so your situation of inappropriate clothing shouldn't be a problem for those children...

 

 

[Bikky]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. In my opinion, a good parent is a good parent, independent of gender and a sole good parent is better than none. Two good parents are even better, irrespective of gender or sexual preference.

 

Love and commitment are good things and shouldn't be legislated as the exclusive domain of heterosexual couples because it was written in some old book.

 

Can't help but think it's all a bit ridiculous really.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Option A:Heterosexual parents with mum and dad are available to raise child. Both are heroin addicts and unemployed. Dad with history of domestic abuse. Both with long criminal history of drug abuse. Father has previously introduced a 17 year old girl to her first ever heroin shot.

 

Option B:

 

Homosexual parents with two guys are available to raise child. Both with impeccable character references, well liked in community. One employed in well paid professional job and the other also fully employed. Both willing to adjust work to share full time parenting. Desperately want kids.

 

Solution? Put the child only with the mum and dad in option A? Put the child into string of foster homes? Anything but option B?

 

Fact for the curious.........Mrs Dutch knows both of these situations. One (the drug users and the 17 year old daughter) she dealt with as a GP. The other (gay blokes with kid) are friends of hers.

 

At some point, you just need to be thankful that there are two respectable people out there who are willing to do everything for this kid, which will ensure the child grows up in the best environment possible and ends up a happy, responsible adult.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Option A

 

Both parents are doing something illegal; I know that's simplistic because, as a society and as a country, we should have fixed this but we've failed, and the ice epidemic is tearing the country apart, particularly out in country areas.

 

We have an obligation to solve the drug problem, and your example is one of the reasons.

 

Option B

 

I only gave the clothing example because the rest was too painful to revisit, but your comments were typical of the patronising "solutions" I used to be given by relatives and friends of the family.

 

There are always going to be children who for some reason or other are best cared for by foster parents; they should not be condemned to a single sex development?

 

The ones I had in mind in particular were those where two females decide one of them will have a child naturally, so they can be "parents".

 

I don't have anything against gays; I know it's not their fault that they were wired wrongly; I have two long standing gay couples as valued friends, but I wouldn't want them to inflict a single sex upbringing on children, any more than I should be allowed to psychologically abuse a child.

 

 

[2tonne]

TP, I have several gay friends and work colleagues and they are not "wired wrongly". Well, I guess you did start with "I don't have anything against gays...", yeah right!

 

 

[turboplanner]

TP, I have several gay friends and work colleagues and they are not "wired wrongly". Well, I guess you did start with "I don't have anything against gays...", yeah right!

Sorry, I used the wrong words.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

British comedian and author Pete McCarthy once wrote " never leave the catering or the interior decoration to heterosexuals".

 

 

[dutchroll]

Option A

 

Both parents are doing something illegal; I know that's simplistic because, as a society and as a country, we should have fixed this but we've failed, and the ice epidemic is tearing the country apart, particularly out in country areas.

 

We have an obligation to solve the drug problem, and your example is one of the reasons.

Yes absolutely TP, I agree.

 

Yet we now have 17 year old girl who has become a heroin addict because her step-dad injected her with heroin and it is not enough of a reason to have allowed her to have been adopted and brought up in a loving family which happens to be two guys, which would've prevented that happening?

 

This religious mentality is like how the Jehovah's Witnesses treat a child who has been severely injured and lost a lot of blood, and needs an urgent blood transfusion. Doctors: "without a blood transfusion, your child will die". "Unfortunately our faith will not allow that". Child dies. Conundrum solved.

 

Girl gets heroin addicted. Cory Bernadi would say "Thank God they didn't place her with a gay couple though - think of the damage that could've done!"

 

Option BI only gave the clothing example because the rest was too painful to revisit, but your comments were typical of the patronising "solutions" I used to be given by relatives and friends of the family.

It wasn't my intent to be patronising. I'm trying to show, using two real-life examples, the dilemma created by taking an idealistic stand on this issue. Idealistic treatment here is not going to help anyone.

 

There are always going to be children who for some reason or other are best cared for by foster parents; they should not be condemned to a single sex development?The ones I had in mind in particular were those where two females decide one of them will have a child naturally, so they can be "parents".

If you're a parent you're a parent, whether it's biological or not. My 45 year old sister was adopted as a baby and has never met her biological mother, nor has any desire to. My mother is her mother. Not her "mother" (inverted commas).

 

TP we live in an age where so many kids get abused, mistreated, or poorly cared for in heterosexual families that for the children's sake, it makes no sense to disallow respectable, caring, fully employed gay folk to adopt them. All it does is take away yet another chance that these kids might live a decent life. There is no evidence that children brought up in these situations have any more problems adjusting to life than in your average heterosexual family. None at all.

 

......but I wouldn't want them to inflict a single sex upbringing on children, any more than I should be allowed to psychologically abuse a child.

Mate, scabies is "inflicted". Heroin addiction is "inflicted". Being in the care of two kind and loving parents is not "inflicted", nor akin to psychological abuse.

 

 

[Bruce]

Dutch, it is my impression that much more effective stuff could be done against drugs than we see occurring. I am reminded of how , as a kid , I found that dingo bounty-hunters always left the bitches and their pups alone ( this is really first-hand ) so that they would have business in future years.

 

I reckon the powers that be could use greed against the drug sellers and they could manage the fear with their vast powers, eg to relocate and rename.

 

I don't see ads like " sell us your drug supplier and get well paid".

 

Well my knowledge of the drug scene comes from the media, while yours comes from your wife's patients, which is obviously closer than mine, so what do you think?

 

 

[dutchroll]

She didn't see that many drug addicts, but many years ago when she worked in a pretty poor area she saw a few, and this was one of the bad examples of a kid who really needed to be brought up by different parents.

 

I dunno mate. It's a pretty hard task, but I agree with both of you that not enough is done. It's not an easy solution though and we need to try something other than pure "enforcement", which hasn't worked anywhere in the world, ever in history.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I don't have anything against gays; I know it's not their fault that they were wired wrongly; I have two long standing gay couples as valued friends, but I wouldn't want them to inflict a single sex upbringing on children, any more than I should be allowed to psychologically abuse a child.

"Wired wrong" Turbs? Perhaps their wiring met a primeval group need. There's a credible theory explaining the evolutional need for same-sex preference in our species:

 

Hunter-gatherer groups sent out hunting or war parties averaging about a dozen blokes. All the young, fit men. Who could they trust to stay behind to protect their women and kids? One strong young gay bloke. Hence the average incidence of homosexuality in men, across all cultures of about 1:12.

 

I only gave the clothing example because the rest was too painful to revisit, but your comments were typical of the patronising "solutions" I used to be given by relatives and friends of the family...

The perfect childhood doesn't exist. Too many parents work themselves into an early grave to ensure their own kids have an easier life. Those who enjoy a wealthy, carefree childhood often learn nothing of substance (one may be the next US president).

 

Every kid has to learn to cope with adversity. Often those with the toughest upbringing have the mettle and drive to achieve great things in life. I don't want to appear patronising Turbs, but suspect you are one of them.