More conflation and rainbow flag wedging from the intolerable rainbow warrior terrorists

I dismiss his objectionable objection as an objectionist of the objectionable rainbow flag.

Dan.

The Bible, at least its first part, the "Old Testament", is the national book of the Jews. It speaks of their history, mythology, culture, norms, law and of their wisdom and religion too. Some parts are truly spiritual and God-inspired, others mundane and yet others just fake.

The injunction of Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." is an example of Jewish law - what has this to do with non-Jews? Even then, marriage does not necessarily imply sexual relations.

---

«the plebiscite held on 17 February, 2017 in regard to the question: "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?".»

What a stupid question: same-sex couples, at least in Australia, were never forbidden to marry (not even when homosexuality was still a criminal offense). That the state did not recognise their marriage makes no difference - same-sex couples could still marry, no law would punish them for it and clergy could still freely marry them without fear of authorities.

This question was akin to asking, "should this door be opened?" when that door is already open - any rational person would need to answer 'No' in that plebiscite, as did I.

When anyone can prove beyond all doubt! That the bible is the literal word of God and free from any and all social mores of the time! Then well might we condemn SSM!

But because that's not possible and because hard medical science proves that there are gay genes. Then what the bible purports must be taken with a grain of salt.

If one believes something based on belief alone. Then in order for that belief to have legitimacy, the possibility of the opposite being true must be held open in the mind. SSM has never ever removed any of my rights! End of story.
Alan B.

It would be interesting to know how many people actually refer to the Bible to decide what they think of homosexuality. How many people actually refer to the Bible for any reason these days. My opinions on the matter, for instance, are my own, not what something or someone tells me.

An interesting article which gives rise to much logical thought.

For example:
Religion often trys to rival truth.
That cannot work!
Endless discussion of religious doctrine must lead nowhere?
Logical thinking has long superceded its tenets?
Preaching it can only benefit someone who likes to hear the sound of his own voice?
That someone probably likes to play 'dress-ups' too?

Another thing:
We live in a democracy.
We have laws.
Those democratically decided laws come first.
Where a personal religious view clashes with the law, that view must take second place.
The law is precedent.

Religious view is not law in our society.
It might be wise to consider why that is so.
And we must make sure it remains so.
That becomes clear when one thinks about countries where religion reigns.

The particular issue of sex with dogs was never considered within the historical context of the biblical writings