Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: SSM Plebiscite (Read 113242 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #271 –
That headbutt reads like a setup, it almost too good for the "No" camp to be true!

crap like that just doesn't happen by accident, and not everybody is stupid enough to let a friend put the kibosh on the rest of them.

If it wasn't a setup, there's a bunch of people getting their ar5e kicked at Protective Services this morning, you can't have an Ex.Prime Minister getting physically assaulted even if he's a knob!
The Force Awakens!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #272 –
Definitely an inside job. No yes voter worth their salt would leave Abbott with little more than a "very slightly swollen lip".

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #273 –
Fake news?
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #274 –
An opportunity missed, clearly!
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #276 –
Quote from: PaulP on
Some further reading, for those who may be interested :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-02/margaret-court-marriage-bible-isnt-meant-to-be-read-so-literally/8583412

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/biblical-marriage-iowa-scholars-op-ed_n_3397304

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:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)


Keep in mind what we have stated earlier about not being too literal.  Most people wouldn't be able to quote those passages of the bible from memory and may not have heard them before unless they had intensely studied scriptures.

Irrespective of that, I think that people from the Yes side place far too much weight on the religious side of the argument as to why people are saying No.  I think more people reject the notion of homosexuality based on personal ideology, and not one guided by Religion.  Religion is the excuse for some, whilst some yes people like myself will argue that Jesus teachings are the ones that should be followed and his teachings speak more about acceptance and love without judgement.  I think if the No people really spoke their mind about why they will vote No the LBGTI society wouldn't cope.  It would be far too hurtful.

Still as a Christian, judge not, lest ye be judged.  Its pushing me more to vote Yes than no and I still think our leadership should be passing legislation accordingly without wasting public money.

The bible is full of opposing arguments.  If you spent your life trying to follow it, you would constantly be in opposition to the previous action you took following the bible's own example.  Some have chosen to turn away from it because of this, but others have decided that it's written like this for people to investigate, read about and explore their own spirituality.

Ultimately, it's taught me that even the road to hell is laid with good intentions, and that provided you don't deliberately go out of your way to cause harm, and you do actually repent for your bad actions and outcomes, then thats where religion becomes important.  Note, when I say repent, I mean really repent not just ask for forgiveness and repeat the same aforementioned behaviour ignoring the guilt that comes with it.

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #278 –
A caller to Jon Faine on the ABC:

"I don't know what all the fuss is about, my wife and I have been having the same sex for 60 years!"
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #279 –
Quote from: DJC on
A caller to Jon Faine on the ABC:

"I don't know what all the fuss is about, my wife and I have been having the same sex for 60 years!"

 :D ;D  Us oldies can appreciate that caller...

In a side issue...Sam and Eddie seem at war over the issue...or maybe its just good propaganda for some footy show ratings.
This situation has divided the community, cost too much money and the govt should have passed the legislation in parliament and saved a lot of anguish.....whether you agree
with it or not its going to be a yes eventually so Turnbull should have acted and got on with more pressing issues.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #280 –
Quote from: PaulP on
Thry, this is an article I linked earlier, discussing briefly those Leviticus passages.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/same-sex-marriage-what-bible-has-to-say-robyn-whitaker/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.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #281 –
Quote from: Thryleon on
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.





Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #282 –
Quote from: Thryleon on
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.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #283 –
Quote from: dodge on
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.


"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #284 –
Quote from: Thryleon on


@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.