SSM Plebiscite

[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.