AJ Philips,

No. It is you who is wrong. As always, you confuse your personal opinions with holy writ.

Foxy,

What special qualifications does a medical practitioners' union have that makes gives it an advantage over the rest of us when it comes to SSM? How about Qantas and other businesses who support SSM? I don't think their opinions are hold any more sway than other organisations or individuals. And, yes, we know homesexuality is legal, and that same sex 'couples' can adopt children; but that has nothing to do with the Marriage Act.

Dear AJ,

I'm reminded of the following concerning religion:

"However many Holy words you read or speak,
What good will they do you if you
don't act upon them?"
(Buddha).

Dear ttbn,

The Australian Medical Association were speaking from their
professional knowledge and experiences in dealing with
Gay people and they gave their medical expertise on the
subject. Their opinions hold a great deal of clout
because they can back their views up with proven facts.
Hence their opinions do matter.

cont'd ...

Dear ttbn,

The following link explains:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics-political-news/ama-throws-its-weight-behind-same-sex-marriage-declares-it-a-health-issue-20170518-gw7qi8.html

ttbn,

At no point did I rely on personal opinion. I never do. I provided reasoning as to why the priest was wrong. You, on the other hand, appear to have relied entirely on personal opinion.

Care to explain why I'm wrong?

The biased opinions of some Friar Tuck from the Anglican Church have no more validity than the opinion of anyone else.
ttbn why is his opinion of such significance?

Paul1405,

In fairness to ttbn, I’m not sure that he was appealing to the priest as an authority on the subject. The impression I got was that he simply found the arguments compelling and wanted to share them.

Of course, they weren’t compelling, and for the reasons I mentioned. There are plenty of things that we have the right to do which have nothing at all to do with rights intrinsically, but we still have the right to do them.

It takes a special sort of irrationality to formulate such a confused argument. I still can’t get over how bad it was. At least a fallacious appeal to nature, prima facie, sounds like it makes sense.