Bill: Government Priorities-Religion and Heterosexuality
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 2138
|Certain things are more important than other things, and we all know what needs to be done. It's about time we do it.|
Old value:: Everyone may adopt children.
Current: Everyone may adopt children.
Proposed: Only heterosexual couples and singles may adopt children.
Old value:: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
Current: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
Proposed: The government only recognises civil marriages between a man and a woman.
Old value:: The government subsidises the cost of pharmaceutical drugs for people on low incomes.
Current: The government pays for all citizens' pharmaceutical drugs.
Proposed: Pharmaceutical drugs are banned for religious reasons.
Old value:: The state does not intervene in the remuneration of ministers of religion.
Current: The state does not intervene in the remuneration of ministers of religion.
Proposed: The salaries and pensions of ministers of religion shall be borne by the state and regulated by the law.
Old value:: Sexual relations of all types are legal for consenting adults.
Current: Sexual relations of all types are legal for consenting adults.
Proposed: Sexual relations are only legal for procreation.
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
|Date||20:56:00, November 09, 2005 CET||From||Cooperative Commonwealth Federation||To||Debating the Government Priorities-Religion and Heterosexuality|
|Message||This is why we cannot be in a Remnants cabinet.|
|Date||21:28:11, November 09, 2005 CET||From||Tuesday Is Coming||To||Debating the Government Priorities-Religion and Heterosexuality|
|Message||Surely you dont want to seriously legalize gay sex or adoption? Gays and children...they dont seem to mix very well.|
Then there is article 2, really that only deals with the concept of "marriage" which, for some odd reason we can't really put our finger on, is supposed to be sacred. Indirectly, maybe, in some minor way, if a gay couple were to be permitted to say the word "marriage", instead of "domestic partnership" or "civil union", well, it just seems to us that straight people might not like marriage very much any more...
Considering that they deserve to live in a world where only their stereotypes of sex and other issues are permitted, it's only fair that we give them the right to a nation without recognized homosexuality. Because...the Pope says so. And it's probably wrong, according to a really old book that still sells fairly well.
|Date||02:16:33, November 10, 2005 CET||From||Cooperative Commonwealth Federation||To||Debating the Government Priorities-Religion and Heterosexuality|
|Message||ooc: Nope. Not gonna debate homophobia.|
|Date||02:30:52, November 10, 2005 CET||From||Tuesday Is Coming||To||Debating the Government Priorities-Religion and Heterosexuality|
|Message||Is there no response? Where are the parties who vote against our righteous bills? Why are they so silent?|
They claim the moral high ground when they dont even attempt to justify their immorality.
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Total Seats: 118
Total Seats: 154
Total Seats: 28
|Random fact: Real life-life nationalities, cultures or ethnicities should not be referenced in Particracy (eg. "German").|
|Random quote: "The Religious Right dislikes both abortions and homosexuality. But who has fewer abortions than gays?" – George Carlin|