The "NO" Case in the Australian SSM Debate

[Rau]

Australian Law currently defines Marriage as between a Man and a Woman (and has since there was a Federal Marriage Act). SSM advocates want this changed to redefine marriage as being between “two persons”. The federal government, prior to its election about a year ago, committed to putting the matter to a plebiscite which would have compelled every voter in the country to vote yes or no on the proposal. Subsequently, after the government was returned in the election, the senate chamber of parliament would not agree to allow the plebiscite, insisting that all that was required was for the Parliament to debate the matter and vote itself on such a law change. The government therefore acted to conduct a “postal survey” (not compulsory and not able to be prevented by the parliament), and this is now in progress. The result will be known by November 15 2017.

Attached is a document setting out the case for NO change to the law. It is produced by a ‘coalition’ of organisations, including the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney. It focusses on setting out the consequences of a YES vote.

Consequences: Changing the Law on Marriage Affects Everyone

 

[Roseeurekacross]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Vote NO!

 

[Trishie]

May God guide us in this crucial vote:
A significant excerpt of the document shared by Rau

"Proponents of same-sex marriage are trying to narrow the scope of the public conversation which will occur on this critical issue. Whether it is through attempts to force legislation through federal Parliament without consulting the Australian people a High Court challenge to thwart the Government’s attempt at letting the people having a say, the threat of using anti-discrimination laws to punish the pro-marriage viewpoint, the refusal of advertising agencies to provide services to or news outlets to publish arguments from the “no” campaign, or the use of bullying tactics to intimidate people into silence, attempts to ensure the Australian people are fully informed and able to speak up are being stifled at every turn. Those seeking to change the definition of marriage know, as we do, that making a drastic change to a fundamental institution will have consequences for everyone. As former Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson AO, said recently:

"The reality is you’ve got a substantial group of Australians at both ends of the spectrum, strongly in support, strongly against, the redefinition of marriage. They do agree on one thing which I would say the middle needs to recognise and that is that these changes are actually very profound.

“It’s a bit glib to say, as some do, all that will happen is that 23,000 Australians, that’s the rough estimate made, will have a new-found freedom, that it won’t affect anyone else. In fact, people at both ends of the spectrum, if you listen carefully to what they’re saying, are saying that profound changes are much further reaching than you might realise.”

 

[Lion_IRC]

What I find amazing is how the NO campaigners are accused of red herring slippery slope fallacies for daring to mention possible flow-on effects, but when the YES campaigners deny those same potential risks, they themselves are equally speculating about a future they can’t know.

In any case, why is it wrong to ask whether SSM might lead to unexpected/unintended consequences? Consanguineous marriage or bisexual polygamous marriage might arise in the future irrespective of SSM law. But what’s wrong with considering these prospects now while the definition of “marriage” is on the table?

How is it that the SSM lobby thinks they can quarantine the scope of the debate?

 

[Rau]

What I find amazing is how the NO campaigners are accused of red herring slippery slope fallacies for daring to mention possible flow-on effects,

I suspect intelligent people can see there must be consequences, that they are central to deciding the matter, and thought is needed to determine how to deal with them. Eg.

If society deems traditional marriage and SSM to be identical…

• what restrictions might be applied to what can be taught in schools?
• what new ideas might have to be included in curricula?
• may schools discriminate against using children’s readers which incorporate same sex couples as examples of married people / families?
• may service providers - such as a photographer/videographer - offer to provide services to traditional marriage services but decline SSM services?
• may religious institutions continue to favour in hiring those persons whose values are aligned to those of the institution?
• etc

So called Religious Freedoms, which are so far excluded from the SSM debate, have not been canvassed so as to build a common understanding of even their scope, let alone to outline specifics. For many, I suspect they see Religious Freedoms as little more than allowing Churches to be excused from conducting a SSM.

 

[edwest21]

Schools in the US are already indoctrinating kids in kindergarten with gay marriage story books. Parents were told it’s “not a parental notification issue.” Two men and two women does not equal one man and woman who have biologically compatible sex organs. The outline of what will happen after same-sex marriage is legalized in the US are mentioned here:

Robert George: Beyond Gay Marriage | Robert P. George | First Things

 

[SuperLuigi]

The slippery slope argument on their part doesn’t hold because there is substantial evidence to refute it.

The only thing folks opposed to so-called gay “marriage” got wrong saying how people would be marrying their cat eventually.

Seems like they’ve managed to get hitched to everything and anything BUT that.

 

[Rau]

It is apparently a sackable offense to intend to vote NO.

'I'm not afraid to stand up for my beliefs': Teen party entertainer 'let go' for same-sex marriage view hits back

The business owner declared it is homophobic to vote no.

 

[Bradskii]

What restrictions might be applied to what can be taught in schools?

If marriage is mentioned in any subject, then it will be described as the union between two people, voluntarily entered into for life. Exclusions, such as polygamy, close family members, underage persons etc will remain.

What new ideas might have to be included in curricula?

See above.

May schools discriminate against using children’s readers which incorporate same sex couples as examples of married people / families?

Children’s readers already incorporate examples of the current situation regarding same sex relationships. If there is a small percentage of same sex marriages, why would one discriminate against a marriage of opposite sex couples? Allowing one does not mean we discriminate against the other. My marriage will still be a marrriage as will yours (if you were Australian and married).

May service providers - such as a photographer/videographer - offer to provide services to traditional marriage services but decline SSM services?

If they want to make a song and dance about it, then they may expect some backlash from the majority of the population who support SSM. If I were gay and I knew that a baker would likely decline my business, I would go elsewhere. These cases have generally been exploited, by both sides of the argument, to bring the position to a point where decisions need to be made. Which is where we are now.

In any case, are service providers likely to ask potential customers to fill in a questionnaire regarding one’s position on any number of subjects before a deal is struck? Do you simply support SSM or are you getting married to another man? The names on the cake – Lesley and Danni – are they both men or both women? Have either of you been divorced? Do you intend to have sex before the wedding? What type of sex are you likely to have after the wedding? Will you use contraception? What are your views on battery farming? Immigration? Alcohol? Legalising pot?

And is the guy who supplies the flour for the cake allowed to deny the baker service if he objects to SSM? Is the person who supplies the truck to the guy who delivers the flout to the woman who bakes the cake? Is the person who finances the guy who supplies the truck who delivers the flour…well, I think you get the message.

Where does it end?

May religious institutions continue to favour in hiring those persons whose values are aligned to those of the institution?

Yes.

And in passing, as far as I am concerned, in the case mentioned earlier about someone being sacked for expressing an opinion, the employer is completely out of order. Voting NO is not an example of homophobia. There was a case of a well-known, and well loved, sportsman who said he was going to vote no and the overwhelming response was that he was entirely at liberty to voice his opinion.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Actually, those exclusions won’t remain because this isn’t about equality and never was. Just wait until they start making excuses for child brides because “it’s the culture”. And what will you do should that come? Amend your position to be PC or draw the line and stand principle?

Fact is we’ve seen that same song and dance of how innocent so-called gay “marriage” is before.

 

[Bradskii]

Just wait until they start making excuses for child brides because “it’s the culture”. And what will you do should that come? Amend your position to be PC or draw the line and stand principle?

Maybe you would align yourself to that of the Vatican which decries that in Vatican City…

‘…the age of consent is 14 for girls…when the couple is married’. Vatican City Age of Consent & Statutory Rape Laws

Seems they have no problem with children getting married.

 

[DignumEtJustum]

The government’s actions, based on what the OP states, seem to clearly acting favorable for a “Yes” result. If it were a mandatory vote for everyone the answer would certainly be “NO!”

 

[Rau]

If marriage is mentioned in any subject, then it will be described as the union between two people, voluntarily entered into for life.

Not the question. I asked what may not be taught. And as for what new ideas might be introduced into curricula - I’d suggest that societal endorsement of the sexual relationship of two persons of the same sex (which marriage would encompasses) would seem to imply all sorts of ideas about parenting, family formation, adoption

Children’s readers already incorporate examples of the current situation regarding same sex relationships. If there is a small percentage of same sex marriages, why would one discriminate against a marriage of opposite sex couples?

I don’t understand your response. I would like to know whether my school age children can be spared being presented with examples of same sex married partners in his reading materials and positive re-enforcement of those relationships? Will the school be guilty of punishable discrimination for assiduously declining to use books incorporating same sex couples because of the inclusion of same sex couples?

If they want to make a song and dance about it, then they may expect some backlash from the majority of the population who support SSM.

By “some backlash”, do you mean taken to court? This has happened elsewhere on many occasions.

In any case, are service providers likely to ask potential customers to fill in a questionnaire regarding one’s position on any number of subjects before a deal is struck?

Hardly Brad. The question is simply: Will a photographer/videographer be legal forbidden to decline an assignment to prepare a beautiful memento of a marriage ceremony because the persons are of the same sex? In other jurisdictions - such persons have been taken to court for “discrimination”.

And is the guy who supplies the flour for the cake allowed to deny …Where does it end?

With a dose of common sense. Anti-discrimination laws always face the task of drawing the line. Mind you, that’s a line that did not prevent the Archbishop of Tasmania being taken before a State anti-discrimination board for doing no more than communicating Catholic doctrine to the parents of Catholic school children in sealed envelopes.

Yes.

And in passing, as far as I am concerned, in the case mentioned earlier about someone being sacked for expressing an opinion, the employer is completely out of order. Voting NO is not an example of homophobia.

I’m pleased you see no increased impediment to religious organisations (say, a Church school) being free to refuse to hire a candidate because they are in a same sex marriage, despite SSM being deemed by the law as identical to marriage.

 

[Rau]

And in passing, as far as I am concerned, in the case mentioned earlier about someone being sacked for expressing an opinion, the employer is completely out of order. Voting NO is not an example of homophobia. There was a case of a well-known, and well loved, sportsman who said he was going to vote no and the overwhelming response was that he was entirely at liberty to voice his opinion.

I believe you when you say that voting NO is not homophobia, but it seems that a great many are already convinced that it is. A great many seem to view Catholic moral teaching as “hate speech”. Where will it end?

The bottom line remains IMHO that the scope (let alone the details) of “religious freedoms” to be legislated is largely unknown. Many seem to think it’s just about what clerics/churches will or won’t be compelled to do.

 

[Rau]

Maybe you would align yourself to that of the Vatican which decries that in Vatican City…

‘…the age of consent is 14 for girls…when the couple is married’. Vatican City Age of Consent & Statutory Rape Laws

Seems they have no problem with children getting married.

Let’s make this clearer by quoting the whole section:

"The Age of Consent in Vatican City is 18 years old. The age of consent is the minimum age at which an individual is considered legally old enough to consent to participation in sexual activity. Individuals aged 17 or younger in Vatican City are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape or the equivalent local law.
Vatican City statutory rape law is violated when an individual has consensual sexual contact with a person under age 18. The age of consent is 14 for girls and 16 for boys when the couple is married(they can consent to their spouse only). "

The Catholic Church expresses no positive attitude toward marriage at age 14 - generally accepting the civil law in this regard - but has a universal law that no Catholic may marry below that age anywhere in the world.

When the Vatican City was first formed, it adopted the then-Italian age of consent of 12 as per the Lateran Treaty of 1929. Until July 2013 it had the lowest age of consent in Europe, but after that month, when the Pope made his decree, it became the highest.

 

[Bradskii]

Not the question. I asked what may not be taught. And as for what new ideas might be introduced into curricula - I’d suggest that societal endorsement of the sexual relationship of two persons of the same sex (which marriage would encompasses) would seem to imply all sorts of ideas about parenting, family formation, adoption

Changing the definition of a couple in a lifetime partnership to ‘marriage’ will not affect parenting, family formation or adoption. Those horses have already bolted.

I don’t understand your response. I would like to know whether my school age children can be spared being presented with examples of same sex married partners in his reading materials and positive re-enforcement of those relationships? Will the school be guilty of punishable discrimination for assiduously declining to use books incorporating same sex couples because of the inclusion of same sex couples?

If they live in the real world, then they will know that same sex couples live together, have sex and raise children. The only difference will be that the partnership will be called a marriage.

By “some backlash”, do you mean taken to court? This has happened elsewhere on many occasions.

I hope not.

With a dose of common sense.

Here’s hoping. But the question does remain. Make it simpler. Can an employee of the baker refuse to work if she believes that some of her work might go towards helping make ‘a gay cake’?

I’m pleased you see no increased impediment to religious organisations (say, a Church school) being free to refuse to hire a candidate because they are in a same sex marriage, despite SSM being deemed by the law as identical to marriage.

Freedom of religion etc. I support that. And support everyone’s right to vote no.

Let’s make this clearer by quoting the whole section:

Vatican City statutory rape law is violated when an individual has consensual sexual contact with a person under age 18. The age of consent is 14 for girls and 16 for boys when the couple is married(they can consent to their spouse only). "

As you have posted, the Vatican City statutory rape laws do not come into action if the girl is 14 and is married. I don’t care where she has been married. The Vatican declares that it is perfectly acceptable for a married child of 14 to have sex with her husband in the Vatican City.

 

[Rau]

I don’t care where she has been married. The Vatican declares that it is perfectly acceptable for a married child of 14 to have sex with her husband in the Vatican City.

No - the Vatican declares it is not the crime of (statutory) rape. It is of course presumed that she is freely and validly married (meaning she had mature counsel and decision-making), and with the legal consent of the place in which she was married.

 

[Bradskii]

No - the Vatican declares it is not the crime of (statutory) rape. It is of course presumed that she is freely and validly married (meaning she had mature counsel and decision-making), and with the legal consent of the place in which she was married.

We are not discussing the age of consent. We are discussing the age at which the Vatican considers it to be acceptable to be married. That age is 14. No conditions given.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

And interestingly the millenial generation , the tradies, the blue collars, the rurals, are voting no.

 

[Rau]

We are not discussing the age of consent. We are discussing the age at which the Vatican considers it to be acceptable to be married. That age is 14. No conditions given.

To state those conditions that make a marriage “invalid” is not to declare that all marriages under other circumstances are “acceptable”.

The Church states a valid marriage requires a raft of conditions including:

• the persons have reached the age/conditions required by the civil law; AND
• certain universal minimum age limits have been reached
  [and numerous other conditions including free choice, etc.]

In other words - the Church will deem persons not meeting these conditions to be NOT married. It’s a sledge-hammer position. The restrictions are not about establishing at what age it is “acceptable” to be married. Acceptability in the main rests largely with civil authorities, the persons themselves, their parents, and in some unusual cases the local Bishop.

Does this connect to the topic of SSM somehow?