SSM Plebiscite

[Thryleon]

Thry, this is an article I linked earlier, discussing briefly those Leviticus passages.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/sa...er/8831826

There is a bit of creative interpretation there though Paul.

It assumes that the man lying with another man is married, when the verse doesnt actually say that in Leviticus.

Therefore, the ABC article is simply one interpretation of things, and a lot of religious people will dismiss it, if it doesnt fit their IDEOLOGY.

Which is what I alluded to earlier, and not the religion being the issue.



Irrespective of that, I am debating the argument.  Religion is not going to be the reason why people have arrived at their conclusion irrespective of how wrong people think religion is.  Its become the scapegoat, and has nothing to do with why people are going to vote the way they are.

[dodge]

Just on the bible not being meant to be read so literally, I think you'd have to tell that to the Atheists first before convincing most Christians.


Irrespective of that, hear are some quotes from the bible:

Leviticus 18 & 20

Leviticus contains two well known statements about homosexual activity:

Thry, while I am certainly not an expert on scripture, my concerns with these two passages is that they are talking about male homosexuality be detestable and punishable by death.  They don't talk about marriage.  Chapter 18 talks about a whole heap of people that a married male shouldn't bonk (most of who we as a society agree with).  It also doesn't talk about female homosexuality.  It does however, seem to accept that your father and mother might have daughters to different partners (18:6-10)  - part of the Robyn Whitakers article that Paulp references.  There is an abundance of Christians espousing "Yes"

I haven't looked closely into what the Bible says about marriage, which this is all about.

For me, similar to you, there are ultimately two commandments of Jesus - Love me with all your heart, mind and soul and Love your neighbour as you love yourself.  This is far more important, then a few verses here and there as they aren't open to nearly as much interpretation and updating for the times.

[PaulP]

There is a bit of creative interpretation there though Paul.

It assumes that the man lying with another man is married, when the verse doesnt actually say that in Leviticus.

Therefore, the ABC article is simply one interpretation of things, and a lot of religious people will dismiss it, if it doesnt fit their IDEOLOGY.

Which is what I alluded to earlier, and not the religion being the issue.



Irrespective of that, I am debating the argument.  Religion is not going to be the reason why people have arrived at their conclusion irrespective of how wrong people think religion is.  Its become the scapegoat, and has nothing to do with why people are going to vote the way they are.

Thry. 3 things :

1. Firstly, big up for you for leaning towards a yes vote. I would assume for a practicing Christian that it is not such a straightforward matter. Keep leaning.

2. I can imagine that the Bible would not be the easiest document to unravel, but you would think that someone who has dedicated their professional life to studying it would have some idea of what they're talking about ?

3. If a lot of these no voters are not basing their vote on religion, then what is the basis for their opposition ? My guess is that the basis starts off as indoctrination, and gets subsumed or evolves into a personal preference, and that some people are simply unaware of why they feel this way, and cannot justify or explain it. This for me is a huge problem. If their basis for no is not religion, it's not science, it's not law, then is it good enough to say "well, it's simply my opinion, and I'm sticking to it" ? Can such an opinion have the same validity as an opinion from an expert who claims teenage lives will be saved, from someone who can observe other countries with ssm where no discernible negative impacts have occurred, or someone who can state with accuracy that no legal issues will be created, or the fact that men will still be able to marry women, much as they always have, with no impact whatsoever on the way they go about their lives, or where one can say that a fairer society for LBGT is a fairer society for all ?

To me, those two opinions simply cannot have equal validity. And if they don't have equal validity, then one must be more valid, i.e more correct, than the other.

[Thryleon]

Thry, while I am certainly not an expert on scripture, my concerns with these two passages is that they are talking about male homosexuality be detestable and punishable by death.  They don't talk about marriage.  Chapter 18 talks about a whole heap of people that a married male shouldn't bonk (most of who we as a society agree with).  It also doesn't talk about female homosexuality.  It does however, seem to accept that your father and mother might have daughters to different partners (18:6-10)  - part of the Robyn Whitakers article that Paulp references.  There is an abundance of Christians espousing "Yes"

I haven't looked closely into what the Bible says about marriage, which this is all about.

For me, similar to you, there are ultimately two commandments of Jesus - Love me with all your heart, mind and soul and Love your neighbour as you love yourself.  This is far more important, then a few verses here and there as they aren't open to nearly as much interpretation and updating for the times.

I get that, its why I state that the religious argument isn't the one that the No people are generally arguing even though the Yes people are arguing against it.


Irrespective of the marriage bit, in the bible, people are not voting No because of the bible.  They are voting because of their IDEOLOGY.

Their Ideology rejects a society that is accepting Homosexuality.  Hence why they vote No.

Others don't care so much about it, as it doesn't effect them in their world, and they vote Yes.

Others are passionate about it, want it, need it, because it ratifies that their ideology including the LBGTI community is an existential right so they vote yes.



People are going to vote for a variety of reasons, and I'm actually moving away from quoting the bible, because its far too open to interpretation and what ends up occurring is quote and counter quote and counter quote with interpretation until people arrive at their desired conclusion.  Thats fine, but it does nothing for others and their ideology.





@PaulP.  I think people reject homosexuality and the LBGTI community as part of their ideology of how they see society and their real world view, but I dont want to expand too much on that, as its hurtful.

[PaulP]

@PaulP.  I think people reject homosexuality and the LBGTI community as part of their ideology of how they see society and their real world view, but I dont want to expand too much on that, as its hurtful.

Yes, but gay people exist. Gay people in long term relationships exist. Gay people with children exist. You have gay work mates, gay neighbors etc. Gayness is here to stay. And if I've followed your logic, you're saying the non-religious no voters will vote that way because they reject gayness in its entirety, or that they're trying to send a message / teach gays a lesson. All of which is beyond disgusting.

[hotspur]

Can someone please tell me why is the Liberal govt getting all the flack ,if i remember rightly didnt Wong and company say no when the LABOR govt was in power. 

[LP]

I feel there is some confusion in the religious arguments, in that religion is about faith, and it would seem to me that by definition faith in a scripture from any religion therefore means a literal belief. If there is human interpretation, that implies undeniable doubt because there is more than one possible understanding.

Didn't a human "interpretation" of the Quran lead to Daesh?

Maybe this is too big of an issue to discuss here.

I studied logic as part of my scientific/engineering training, in the olden days science was a natural philosophy and philosophy included logic as in Mr Spock style logic. If there are theological students here they would have also studied logic as part of philosophy. Lots of these "Yes" and "No" arguments are full of contradictions and ambiguities which proponents of both sides choose to conveniently ignore or introduce for their own purposes.

I'm against the concept of a vote because it's going to bring a lot of those issues to the surface and will not really help anybody who needs genuine help. A lot of people think this change in the law is going to make things better, I doubt it as the problems run much deeper. The question also seems binary, but it's far from it because the debate surrounding it allows participants to infer so much more. The problem is people, we are not binary.

Is it likely that someone suffering anguish or illness will see two simple choices?

[PaulP]

Can someone please tell me why is the Liberal govt getting all the flack ,if i remember rightly didnt Wong and company say no when the LABOR govt was in power.

If that's true, then yes, Labor should be subjected to the same scrutiny as the Libs. But I don't recall Labor ever being anti ssm. If you have any links to this effect, please post them. Penny Wong is a lesbian, if by chance you weren't aware.

[LP]

Can someone please tell me why is the Liberal govt getting all the flack ,if i remember rightly didnt Wong and company say no when the LABOR govt was in power.

iirc, Labor said no to a public vote, they wanted a parliamentary conscience vote and for the politicians to take responsibility, but the coalition wouldn't agree to it.

[Thryleon]

Yes, but gay people exist. Gay people in long term relationships exist. Gay people with children exist. You have gay work mates, gay neighbors etc. Gayness is here to stay. And if I've followed your logic, you're saying the non-religious no voters will vote that way because they reject gayness in its entirety, or that they're trying to send a message / teach gays a lesson. All of which is beyond disgusting.

I know this.

We all (people who are logical) accept this hence why I'm leaning towards Yes, but you have to remember that I have experienced a homosexual at school as young as age 6 (I would have been similar age andhe probabaly didnt know it himself at that age) who couldn't possibly be that way aside from them being born that way.

I have also spent a considerable amount of time working down Commercial road in a hospitality environment.  This gives me perspective that not everyone does.  It normalises the community, because you are with the community more often than not in these settings.  Working in hospitals also leads me into the LBGTI community frequently as it is true that the majority of male nurses are that way inclined, and a lot female nurses prefer the company of females too.  It is what it is.

Not everyone has such extensive normalisation, and I don't think they intend to teach gays a lesson, but rather that they don't accept homosexuality as "normal" (which is a misnomer as the only thing that is normal is the word normal) and tend to believe that homosexuality lives in the realm of mental health issue.

Now, I am stating the arguments on here, and I don't agree with them, but I state it because many of these people will not get these points across and on this forum is the only place I can write it fairly anonymously.  If I even began discussing this publically, I would be branded and outcast and that has far reaching repercussions proffesionally and socially that frankly, would be unfair for me to wear.

Why?  I went to the christening of a little girl less than 6 months ago.  Her two female parents, and the Anglican church they had the christening in and had I not been happy to accept the LBGTI community, I would not have gone.