Remember that “respectful, balanced and impartial” ABC reporting of the same-sex marriage plebiscite we were talking about yesterday? There’s an update.

From the ABC News website this morning:

There is a strong and statistically significant association between higher cognitive ability and a greater likelihood to support equal rights between same- and different-sex couples.

This may shed some light on why those who stand against equal rights may not be persuaded by evidence-based arguments in the ongoing same-sex marriage debate…

The findings do not mean that all who intend to vote “no” in the marriage ballot have a low level of cognitive ability. Nor do they mean that all those who intend to vote “yes” have a high level.

Yet the results suggest that, on average, people who stand against equal rights for same-sex couples are less likely to have cognitive resources that are important to participating in meaningful debate.

These may include the ability to; engage in abstract thinking and process complex chains of ideas, separate arguments based on facts from unfounded ones, not feel threatened by changes in the status quo and critically engage with new or diverse viewpoints.

These results may thus shed some light over why some on the “no” side may be failing to offer or accept evidence-based arguments, or why they keep relying on philosophically, historically or empirically flawed ones.

This applies, for instance, to the scientifically unsupported claim that children are worse off in same-sex households.

In fact, these arguments are being exploited by a “no” advertising campaign that relies almost exclusively on emotional instead of rational arguments.

It is possible many supporters of the “no” case could not be convinced by reason and evidence…

Or stated simply: “Vote ‘no’; you’re thick”. The ABC view of the plebiscite in just four words.

True, the piece originally appeared on The Conversation, but that’s no cover.

Instead, by republishing such pseudo-academic inanities, the ABC is providing its endorsement.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.