Family First in Australia poilcies include.
total Abortion Ban
Poker Machine Ban
total Blanketing of porn on Internet
Not things that all people like. but i see this as reducing choices. (in a free country) what do you think
2007-10-02 14:46:14 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
if funny i asked a simular question about this party the other day. asking if a religious group should be able to form a party, but i was told that i shouldn't discriminate
2007-10-03 11:40:14 · update #1
I tried asking these questions to a family first senator and got given the runaround and when queried further they gave me the cold shoulder.
No way in hell would I vote for a party who believes that it has the right to tell me what I can do to my body, where I can waste my money or censor what I can view in my own home.
Fundamentalism should stay in the pulpit and away from the government. I don't tell christians how to live, don't presume to force your ideals on me.
And for those who didn't realise, this party came within one seat (and lost that only by a handful of preferencial votes) of holding the balance of power in the senate at the last election. We just got rid of Brian Haradene now I think we're up against something a lot more worrying.
2007-10-02 23:09:28 · answer #1 · answered by szekley 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's just social conservatism. No I would not vote for a party with such a platform. If those are their three main points, their focus is pitifully myopic. They make no statement on political and economic reform, or any real pressing social issues (what about poverty, or the rich-poor gap, or education). They only care about what they believe is morally good, and would rather foist this on EVERYONE, with the threat of punishment, rather than accept personal liberties for all at the expense of some things they personally find distasteful. To force your morals on others to the exception of everything else makes you a zealot and a fanatic. Those people need to be kept far, far away from the political process (well, let them vote, denying them suffrage would be going too far). Furthermore, what does any of that have to do with "family first"? Or is the name just a convenient device to label anyone who disagrees with them "anti-family"? It's juvenile politics. I doubt it will make a mark.
2007-10-02 14:58:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
While I may agree in principal with the ban and would restrict these things by age, in a free society, people must be allowed to make their own choices. I would never vote to give up my freedom to make poor decisions.
2007-10-02 14:50:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like fundamentalism to me. What country is truly free if the only choices permitted are those which a single religion deems acceptable?
2007-10-02 14:50:35 · answer #4 · answered by Deirdre H 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Better the Green Party.
2007-10-02 14:52:30 · answer #5 · answered by americanhero_aa 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely not. People should be free to make their own choices, even if those choices are bad for them. We live and learn, and we don't need a government to tell us what is right and wrong.
2007-10-02 14:51:37 · answer #6 · answered by Molten Orange 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That might rile me up enough to actually bother voting just to vote for someone else.
2007-10-02 14:52:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I am a Christian and I would like to see the abortion ban, but not Poker or Porn, even though I don't like those things, I think that it would limit our freedom..
I personally believe that all porn should have to have a .xxx after the address and then we could have good filters so that kids don't get there without parental permission.
2007-10-02 14:51:19 · answer #8 · answered by † PRAY † 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋
I would never vote for that party.
2007-10-02 14:51:02 · answer #9 · answered by JavaGirl ~AM~ 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Nope, wouldn't vote for them.
2007-10-02 14:52:38 · answer #10 · answered by punch 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋