The "NO" Case in the Australian SSM Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rau
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From the document linked in the OP:

Students and staff of Trinity Western University, a Christian college in Canada, are expected to consent to a set of standards of behaviour, including abstaining from “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman” by signing a “community covenant”. After Trinity Western added its law faculty in 2013, three of Canada’s nine Provincial Law Societies, those for Nova Scotia, Ontario and British Columbia, declined to accredit Trinity Western law graduates because of the community covenant. The objection of the law societies did not relate to the quality of the degree or graduates, but rather it was based on the personal decision of the individual students to refrain from sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage. The decision of the law societies of Nova Scotia and British Columbia were overturned after lengthy court proceedings; however, the Ontario decision was upheld, meaning that Trinity Western graduates are not permitted to practise law in Ontario.

The appeal court said that the case involved a collision of religious freedom and equality, and that the law society’s decision needed only be reasonable to stand.


The court said: “The Covenant is a document that discriminates against LGBTQ persons by forcing them to renounce their dignity and self-respect in order to obtain an education.” [Bizarre since no one is obligated to attend this school. So much for religious freedoms.]

The idea that the push for the redefinition of marriage is based on a “live and let live” attitude is unfounded and unfortunately naïve.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
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’?
Click to expand...
Hmm, interesting point. One must always be on the watch for those dastardly and damnable gay cakes…

I’m a straight-cake fellow myself. And should a cake appear to blur the lines toward androgyny, I don’t take the risk. Might be a gay cake putting up a ruse…
Just having some pointless fun. I like to take a poke at Bradski on odd occasion.
 
Here is what Australia can expect:

"1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun

"The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.

"Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. 10 Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth.

“All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use their preferred name regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change, except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government). Asking someone their preferred gender pronoun and preferred name is not a violation of the NYCHRL.”

So, in New York City, you are forced to ignore biology or face legal action.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
40.png
Bradskii:
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’?
Click to expand...
Hmm, interesting point. One must always be on the watch for those dastardly and damnable gay cakes…

I’m a straight-cake fellow myself. And should a cake appear to blur the lines toward androgyny, I don’t take the risk. Might be a gay cake putting up a ruse…
Just having some pointless fun. I like to take a poke at Bradski on odd occasion.
Click to expand...
Good to see you survived the change over to the new forum, V.
 
Not the best comeback, considering your side is fine with boys and girls of that age and younger sharing a locker room. That’s next, and I’m sure you’ll be scrambling to find excuses to support that when it comes so you don’t lose face in polite society.

Oh, and then there’s the whole thing about letting middle-schoolers get contraception because golly gee, it’s not like we can stop them.

I also don’t suppose you’d have a problem with Islam doing it?
 
SuperLuigi said:
Not the best comeback, considering your side is fine with boys and girls of that age and younger sharing a locker room. That’s next, and I’m sure you’ll be scrambling to find excuses to support that when it comes so you don’t lose face in polite society.

Oh, and then there’s the whole thing about letting middle-schoolers get contraception because golly gee, it’s not like we can stop them.

I also don’t suppose you’d have a problem with Islam doing it?
Click to expand...
If you try really, really hard, you might be able to stay on topic. Give it a go, why don’t you.
 
I’d vote no because marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
Based on the NO case link, here’s some of the stuff I read:

“in Article 16(1) of the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR): “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.”131 The UDHR is not binding but it is a significant document because it preceded the ICCPR and was the first time that countries had agreed on a comprehensive statement of human rights.”
Also from the No Case link:
“In multiple cases involving same-sex couples arguing that same-sex marriage was a human right being denied to them, both the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) have ruled that a country is not in breach of human rights if it does not recognise same-sex marriage.”

So I guess denying it doesn’t breach human rights legislation, and saying “NO” is a perfectly just answer.
 
Last edited:
The NO case campaign includes a door-knocking program. Their approach and message is very simple and low key. It’s connected with the general idea (evident in the document linked in the OP) that changing the definition of marriage has consequences which are not widely understood, and not spelled out anywhere.

The primary messages door-knockers will offer is:
  • It’s OK to vote NO [which counteracts the false message that one must be a bigot or similar to say no];
  • People are free to vote as they choose;
  • I’m not comfortable I know what consequences will flow from (what the government will do with) a Yes vote.
The impacts of SSM which the No case primarily identifies are:
  • Sex education in schools will evolve to address LGBTIQ sexuality;
  • Free Speech: political correctness will be applied to close off free speech
  • Religion: Activists will seek to use anti-discrimination laws to prevent churches, schools & charities from operating in accordance with their beliefs.
Is this at all similar to campaigns in other countries?
 
Last edited:
A comment was made earlier that the revision of the meaning of marriage to incorporate SSM will see minimal changes in school, such as the adoption of slightly different definition of marriage. I think that greatly underestimates what’s ahead.

While it’s true that we are already seeing some push to ‘educate’ children about sexuality beyond the sexual relationship of a man and a woman, it is - IMHO - inconceivable that a decision to incorporate same sex sexual relationships into the societally endorsed institution of marriage will not turbo charge that trend.

From the document in the OP:

“If the law is to declare that there is no difference between marriage between two people of the opposite sex and marriage between two people of the same sex, then sex education will be amended to teach that all forms of sexual activity are equal. This will result in sex education becoming more complex and detailed, and not simply an explanation of “the birds and the bees.”

"Sex education was expanded in Canada following the legislation of SSM. An early decision of the Canadian Supreme Court related to the introduction of books in the kindergarten – year one curriculum portraying same-sex couples. 83 The Supreme Court ruled that it was in the interest of same-sex parented families and the children who belong to them to receive “equal recognition and respect” in the school system. When parents objected on the basis that the material was not age-appropriate, the
Court responded that “tolerance is always age appropriate.”

“Just over 10 years later, the required education was expanded from family structure to sexual activity. All schools – including religious schools – are now forced to teach year three students a sex education curriculum introducing homosexuality, and year seven students the specifics of homosexual sex .”
Canada - Updated Sex Education

Similar directions are evident in the UK with a teacher union campaigning for comprehensive age-appropriate content including promotion of LGBT+ matters… and expressing a view that exemptions for faith-based schools are a dangerous loophole.
UK - Teach Toddlers about Transgender et al

And here is the thinking of some activists in Australia
Aust - Sex Ed Fails Queer Students

While many may think this is an unlikely directly for Australian schools to take - I don’t understand on what logical basis society could on the one hand say that marriage includes SSM, and on the other hand, not adjust sex educational programs accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Not to worry, though. When it does happen, they’ll just say they were “surprised” and “didn’t think it could happen”.

BTW, make sure they get their check in the mail…
 
Rau said:
Is this at all similar to campaigns in other countries?
Click to expand...
No because our countries were the guinea pigs. Those impacts you listed were not expected at the time. Even knowing the consequences now doesn’t make much of a difference when the most people in the West are brainwashed and prevented from thinking.
 
Last edited:
I think the more basic issue is the place of small Christian communities not just in the world, but in a formerly Christian nation, a post Christian nation.

I think that when we accept that we are merely a minority group that now has little direct leverage in society it will appear increasingly foolish to believe we do have, or should have, more influence over the mores and laws of the population as a whole.

The new normal is not Christian and it seems we may need to realise that being a Christian community is difficult and perhaps we should start pulling our heads in and devote our energy’s to self preservation of our values by other means. That may mean educating in Christian values at home or Sunday School rather than Catholic Schools which must conform to Govt rules and books etc inimical to normative Christian values.

Being in the world but not of the world is still possible, but it take s a different strategy.
My Asian brother in law is a Catholic despite the fact his mother was wife #2. Bigamy in the flesh (as opposed to a primary school book) did not brainwash him against Christianity.
Clearly his experience of bigamous paternity was not a pleasant one (which can be expected if natural law is right on this point) and may well have had influence on why he valued monogamy and therefore Christianity as opposed to State Atheism or Confucianism, Taoism or Buddhism.
I don’t see why homosexual paternity/maternity would be significantly different in this regard.

In this changed landscape Christians will be so more by choice than by conveyor belt.
Yes, there may be fewer. I dont believe its a number’s game but an internalised/lived values game.
 
Last edited:
Roseeurekacross said:
But the AFL is copping a bit of flak for the yes stunt.
Click to expand...
I find it astounding that corporations and non-voter entities across the country think they ought to be taking a position before the people have spoken. Were the shareholders and other stakeholders polled first? I think not. Or are we to assume their support is a form of business development / marketing? How cynical would that be! [And you gotta wonder what they’ll do if the ‘vote’ were to come back favouring “No”!]

By the same token, I would object to corporations giving money to charity without some form of consent from their shareholders.

And before anyone claims there is some hypocrisy in “allowing” Churches and the like to take a position without first polling their members, it should be noted that membership of the relevant Churches ought reasonably to signal endorsement of / adherence to the teachings of that Church concerning marriage. I don’t see how the AFL can claim the same for itself.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top