SSM Plebiscite

[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?