Never heard of 'Dr. Katherine Harper', but good on her for intending to vote NO, although why she feels the need to say that she is not “ especially religious” is beyond me. Religion is getting a bad name from the SSM bullies, who would like us to think that religion is the main, if not only, reason why anyone would vote NO to changing the Marriage Act, which is NOT religious. Many people calling themselves 'particularly religious' are in favour of SSM and wrecking the Marriage Act and tradition. And, just how many of the very few homosexuals who actually wish to 'marry' (how ridiculous) are going to trot off to a church? They will more likely go to some camp and simpering celebrant.

Religion as a reason for objection is probably not the main one. What the activist bullies want to do to marriage, has already been done to religion, particularly in the nonconformist area, which has converted to Left wing politics in a vain attempt to be relevant. The only branch of Christianity that can be taken notice of these days is Catholicism, where they still actually believe in the gospels. The rest of us have our own non-religious reasons to be for or against.

The essay below was written as a response/criticism of two books:
Dirt Sex and Greed by William Countryman and Sex in World Religions by Geoffrey Parrinder.
William Countryman was a committed Anglican who did a very thorough study of what the Bible actually had to say about emotional-sexual matters and the "purity codes" associated with them. He argued that in a free democracy no religion has the right to impose its sexual morality/teachings on to non-Christians. They do of course have the inherent right to argue their case in public forums.
Geoffrey Parrinder was also a committed Christian. He essentially argued that in todays world the "conservative" Christian teachings (etc) on emotional-sexual matters are the only appropriate ones for modern human beings.
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/freersex.html

and we know of the fallacy of the ' slippery slope' arguement. In the 1970's murdering the unborn was all about that poor 14 year old who was raped and had to carry the rapist child. Now with about 100,000 killings per year just in Australia it it largely about ' women's rights' and convenience. The left have no integrity with their lying mantras. Its not just about ' love'.

Yes Peter, logical rational reasoned argument.

But you're hissing into the wind, if you think facts or the emerging science will make any difference to brainwashed, clinically disingenuous folks, governed almost exclusively, by ideological imperatives, and Pavlov dog like, mind bending, cradle to grave, conditioning?

Who know with absolute certainty, their set in concrete, immovable positions are always right! Be it SSM, burqas or a one true God?

Let's have the "managed" and possibly inconclusive, non binding, one hundred and twenty two million dollar survey, then ask the people, whose money has been so thoroughly wasted! What they really, really think at the next general election!
Alan B.

Well said Runner. You stole my thunder. We are already seeing the beginnings of the slippery slope SSM may lead to and it has not even been legalised yet. We have already seen stories of the so called Safe Schools programme and what is being taught to our children. Fathers day is due in a few days yet some within the SSM lobby are already demanding that Fathers Day be abolished and replaced because, well, in some SS relationships the children do not have a father, or mother for that matter, While in heterosexual relationships they have both. This may be the last Fathers Day we will celebrate if they get their way. I will be voting NO, and NOT on religious grounds.

Woolworths has Father's Day, Mothers' Day and sour grapes on special but if push comes to parenting and Woolies doesn't choose Fathers it's still in the dictionary and the whole day is for dads. Kids without a father are miracles.