On the marriage equality postal plebiscite

Keith Binns writes: Re. “Matthewson: don’t give homophobes a platform in marriage ‘debate’” (August 11)

With the announcement of a plebiscite on same sex marriage, the conservative churches will, of course, be urging a “No” vote as that is the way their literalistic reading of the few verses of the Bible that seem to deal with this issue will lead them. However, seeing as we’re having a plebiscite with all its expense and accompanying aggravation, it might be a good idea to add some more questions and try and bring in some extra conservative measures that are equally Biblical. I therefore suggest the following questions be added to the plebiscite:

1. Should we have the death penalty for adultery? The Bible is quite clear in Leviticus 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

2. Should we ban Capitalism? Capitalism is based on lending money and charging interest on the loan. Charging interest on a loan is expressly forbidden in at least ten verses, including Exodus 22:25 and Deuteronomy 23:19-20. In fact, Ezekial 18:13 says that people who charge interest on loans should be put to death, so maybe the question should be Should we execute all bankers?

3. Should we reintroduce slavery? Of course, this question may not be strictly necessary as with internships, the abolition of penalty rates and the appallingly low, illegal wages some national franchises pay we almost have slavery anyway, and that’s OK as at no stage does the Bible condemn slavery in either the Old or New Testaments. It accepts it as a given and simply regulates it. For example, Exodus 21 gives instructions on the conditions involved if a father chooses to sell his daughter into slavery. To the Bible, slavery is a normal part of life. The Bible is ambivalent on whether it is OK for an Australian to have an Australian slave or whether the slave has to be a foreigner. To be on the safe side, we’d better use Tasmanians.

If any of these proposals seem ridiculous or offensive to you, I remind you that they are based on exactly the same literalistic reading of the Bible used by those opposing same sex marriage and I would urge you to support my modest proposals.  Alternatively, you could interpret the Bible with intelligence and compassion.

On North Korea and the US

John Richardson writes: Re. “Rundle: US and North Korea are more dangerous than fiction” (August 11)

Why would Kim Jong-un be the slightest bit worried about bellicose threats of “fire & fury” from Donald Trump, launched from the safety of a bunker on a local golf course, when the keeper of the fearsome ”death stare” & Minister for Armani, Julie Bishop, is in his face?
Of course, while Australia has worked assiduously to construct its international reputation as Washington’s forever loyal & ferocious ”lap dog”, no-one would have predicted that we would wind-up as a yapping Miniature Pinscher.
And on the question of “defence shields”, I wonder if President Bozonger could give us a quote for an Abbott proof fence?

Thomas Richman writes: Re. “Rundle: US and North Korea are more dangerous than fiction” (August 11)

If North Korea is such a Stalinist police state how do the mainstream media garner the information that forms the basis off its nearly ritualised condemnation? They can’t (or at least shouldn’t) have it both ways:either the DPRK ia less secretive than portrayed and such data is relatively obtainable or their comments are nothing more than ideological venom shorn of the ability to see such a paradox

Further betraying this bias,why does the press insist on prefixing any reference to the North with the ever ready epithet “Communist” when to be fair, why not make reference to “Capitalist” when applied to the South. Similarly wouldn’t it be more accurate to use American vassal when referring to the latter? At least as counterpoint to Rogue state.