Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums
Jazzy Jan

Australia's postal vote on marriage equality

Recommended Posts

Jazzy Jan    0

We are so behind other Western countries on this.  Absolutely embarrassing and pointless.  Why our politicians can't just keep up with the rest of the world and do the right thing by allowing gay marriage.  But instead we have to have a postal vote, then if the "yes"  vote gets up,  the politicians can then decide if they want to make marriage equality legal.   Will cost Australian tax payers over $120 million and create lots of hate talk and scare mongering.  Already the vote "no"  people are lying in their adverts.   None of these bigots have any proper reasoning for objecting gay marriage but sadly the whole "  don't vote yes because we don't want to be politically correct or latte drinking lefties"  is doing the rounds.   As expected.  It is sad that people want to deny others the rights they take for granted.  Hopefully Australians will do the right thing.  

Coalition for Marriage ad blitz links marriage equality to gender education

 

Television ads warning schools will allow boys to wear dresses and compel students to role play same-sex relationships will hit the air tonight, in the first major foray from the no campaign in the same-sex marriage postal survey.

The Coalition for Marriage ads, authorised by Marriage Alliance spokeswoman Sophie York, were released online and will air for the first time on Tuesday evening.

The ads have already drawn the ire of Bill Shorten, who has labelled them “offensive and hurtful” and accused Malcolm Turnbull of “giving the green light to this rubbish”.

The 30-second ad features three mothers and attempts to link the issue of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry to anti-bullying programs such as Safe Schools, which teach acceptance of sexual diversity.

“School told my son he can wear a dress next year if he felt like it,” says one mother.

Another says: “When same-sex marriage passes as law overseas this type of program become [sic] widespread and compulsory.”

Another complains that “kids in year seven are being asked to role play being in a same-sex relationship”.

“In countries with gay marriage, parents have lost their rights to choose,” the titles of the ad read. “We have a choice, you can say no.”

The yes campaign fears their opponents are prepared to outspend them on advertisements and link marriage equality to other topics not at issue in the survey.

Shorten said the ads showed “freedom to hurt ... not freedom of speech”. “This is offensive and hurtful to LGBTI Australians and their families,” he said.

“This is exactly what was predicted when Malcolm Turnbull decided to waste $122m on a postal survey.”

The “you can say no” tagline echoes the Australian Conservatives slogan “It’s OK to say no”, which is used as a frame for profile pictures on Facebook and other social media.

The Australian Conservatives’ digital ads also attempt to link same-sex marriage to gender education, including one posted to Facebook that claims “if same-sex marriage is given legal recognition, it will become mandatory for schools to teach inappropriate sexual materials like [anti-bullying program] Safe Schools”.

The Australian Christian Lobby director, Lyle Shelton, has made numerous media appearances in which he claimed the postal survey is a referendum on Safe Schools and that the program teaches children their gender is fluid.

The executive director of the Equality Campaign, Tiernan Brady, has said those tactics show marriage equality opponents are intent on campaigning “with a tone of fear and marginalisation”.

“It’s already clear they’re not going to fight it on marriage equality at all, because they know Australian people are for that, so they’ll talk about all those other issues. They’re trying to pretend this vote is about something else.”

Moderate Liberal frontbenchers including the attorney general, George Brandis, and the defence industry minister, Christopher Pyne, have said that the ability for same-sex couples to get married is the only issue in the postal survey.

Conservatives including Peter Dutton and Tony Abbott have publicly rejected that position, while Malcolm Turnbull has hedged his bets by saying the survey is not a vote on religious freedom but the legislation that would follow a yes vote “will certainly have implications” for it.

On Monday Libs and Nats for Yes launched with its patron, the federal president of the Liberal party, Nick Greiner, calling for a yes vote and dismissing claims marriage equality will threaten religious freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karbatal    0

Wow it's DISGUSTING.  

It always happens,  though.  In France and Spain the Conservative parties were having big demonstrations against gay marriage,  while in fact most of citizens doesn't care and don't think it would be bad to have it.  But it's true,  it's the rampant scary mongering and vicious lies what truly affect.  People saying "but if that's called marriage then I can marry my dog" and things like that.  

Try to keep it positive,  Jan,  and remember that most western countries are the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elijah    0
59 minutes ago, Hector said:

:megamanson:

 

Disgusting and to top it off: horrible accent :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jazzy Jan    0
On 30/08/2017 at 6:22 PM, karbatal said:

Wow it's DISGUSTING.  

It always happens,  though.  In France and Spain the Conservative parties were having big demonstrations against gay marriage,  while in fact most of citizens doesn't care and don't think it would be bad to have it.  But it's true,  it's the rampant scary mongering and vicious lies what truly affect.  People saying "but if that's called marriage then I can marry my dog" and things like that.  

Try to keep it positive,  Jan,  and remember that most western countries are the same. 

 

6 hours ago, Hector said:

:megamanson:

 

 

5 hours ago, elijah said:

Disgusting and to top it off: horrible accent :(

This advert is so vile, pathetic and embarrassing.   Everywhere here in Australia, people are tearing it apart and are disgusted. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jazzy Jan    0

Also,  have to love Tim Minchin and this song.   A great take off of " I still call Australia home"  calling out the homophobic bigots 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acko    0
14 hours ago, Hector said:

:megamanson:

 

Why are these WHORES so upset? And lying? Sorry Karby, but not all western countries r the same...in Holland and Belgium people didnt even bat an eye lid...right wing parties didn't even make an effort cuz public opinion was so clear...that's why it's important 2 speak up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LSD    0
14 hours ago, Hector said:

:megamanson:

 

There's really no way to make a parody of this. It's already self-parody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Je5u5    0

So the ad shows a group of women bringing up anecdotes that have nothing to do with gay marriage. Seriously, what is the argument they are trying to present here? And what "right to choose" are they losing?

giphy.webp

 

They are not even trying to make a case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karbatal    0
On 31/8/2017 at 11:49 PM, acko said:

Why are these WHORES so upset? And lying? Sorry Karby, but not all western countries r the same...in Holland and Belgium people didnt even bat an eye lid...right wing parties didn't even make an effort cuz public opinion was so clear...that's why it's important 2 speak up.

Yes I know.  But the fact that some noisy or even powerful group starts a campaign doesn't mean that they're the majority.  That's what I meant. 

Australian government should have directly approved the law,  tbqh.  Just as Chile will do now. 

Why is Australia so conservative,  by the way? It's not as if the church plays such an important role there. Or does it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acko    0
8 minutes ago, karbatal said:

Yes I know.  But the fact that some noisy or even powerful group starts a campaign doesn't mean that they're the majority.  That's what I meant. 

Australian government should have directly approved the law,  tbqh.  Just as Chile will do now. 

Why is Australia so conservative,  by the way? It's not as if the church plays such an important role there. Or does it? 

Rupert Murdoch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jazzy Jan    0
On 3 September 2017 at 5:02 PM, karbatal said:

Yes I know.  But the fact that some noisy or even powerful group starts a campaign doesn't mean that they're the majority.  That's what I meant. 

Australian government should have directly approved the law,  tbqh.  Just as Chile will do now. 

Why is Australia so conservative,  by the way? It's not as if the church plays such an important role there. Or does it? 

 

On 3 September 2017 at 5:11 PM, acko said:

Rupert Murdoch?

Acko, you have part of the reason right there.  Rupert Murdoch owns so much of our press and his conservative, racist, sexist and right wing views are intolerable. He hires ultra conservative writers who are firmly on the side of religious conservatives.  His papers and writers are also on a mission to defend the rights of so called religious freedom of speech and are painting "yes" campaigners as self serving and part of the "loony left"  These writers have been defending Margaret Court so that will give you an idea. We do have other press of course but Murdoch's papers always make the most noise.  I know many look down on them though as well and see through their agendas. 

We usually have compulsory voting in Australia. This postal vote is controversial because it is not compulsory this time.  Seems strategic. Older voters always make an effort to vote. The conservative elements will be on a mission to send their votes back.  Some younger  people are sadly more apathetic over politics. The over whelming majority of younger people are behind the yes vote.  That us why there has been a push to get as many to sign up to make their voice heard. 

Also, the debate has been taken over by issues that have nothing to do with marriage equality. When politicians such as Tony Abbott are encouraging voters to vote "no" so not to be politically correct, some will listen. A lot of our politicians are religious. Our PM wanted to just bring marriage equality in but the conservative factions in his own party have a lot of say. 

I know that if the "no" vote gets up, we will be a laughing stock to the rest of the world and will deserve it. I am hopeful that the yes vote will easily romp in, but after Brexit and Trump are not taking things for granted.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
runa    0
On 2017-08-31 at 3:09 AM, Hector said:

:megamanson:

 

I'd be so ashamed of myself if I was one of these women... I'd hide in the closet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jazzy Jan    0
1 minute ago, runa said:

That's just pathetic.

It is.  These stupid idiotic pathetic women make me feel ashamed to be Australian.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karbatal    0
4 minutes ago, Hector said:

These ads are making me lose brain cells 

 

 

Disgusting, absurd, stupid. Family means LOVING and RESPECTING your partner. Conforting and educating your kids, if you have kids. No matter if you are a boy or a girl. Ugh, I just can't with these people. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jazzy Jan    0

Sick of how the "no'  campaigners are out in such force demanding their rights to oppose marriage equality and getting so much sympathy.   Plus, 2 gay men campaigning for the "no side' :wacko:  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jazzy Jan    0

Same-sex marriage postal survey: the five worst arguments for voting No

Today, the High Court is hearing arguments about the same-sex marriage plebisurveythingummy, which, in the opinion of constitutional guru George Williams, is likely to be struck down. But while the silks slug it out, what better time to look at the arguments that have been playing out in the public space?

The curious thing about the No campaign is that the arguments advanced rarely have much to do with the central question of whether two people of the same sex should be allowed to enter a secular marriage.

So let's take a look at some of the things the No campaign has been talking about instead of the question being posed in the ABS one-question questionnaire — "should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?"

1. When a man loves a bridge

A slippery slope argument is when you argue that allowing one thing will inexorably lead to a far worse thing. Eric Abetz suggested that marriage equality could subsequently lead to people marrying the Harbour Bridge because "why not?" And full credit to him — I've never previously seen a slippery slope argument involving an actual slope.

But let's answer his question. Bridges, at least as far as I know, are not sentient beings able to consent to marriage. Besides, last time I checked, the Harbour Bridge was very much a pay-to-play operation, if you get what I mean.

The broader problem with slippery slope arguments is that defining precise limits on things is essentially what governments do. The Medicare schedule, for instance, precisely delineates what the Government will pay for, and what it will not.

Sometimes these lines can move over time — but again, that is what government is supposed to do. Australian governments once prevented Aboriginal people from marrying non-Aboriginal people. Now, they don't, because we know better. Ending dowries, changing ages of consent, no-fault divorce — all evolutions in marriage.

Nobody thinks you can marry a road, and I know this because I've been trying to make an honest span of Brisbane's Go-Between Bridge for years. Besides, Sydney Harbour Bridge fans know that the Bradfield Highway already is very much hitched to the Cahill Expressway.

In recent days, Cory Bernardi has made his own version of this argument via a "pink rainbow Trojan horse", which looks so much like a My Little Pony that he may well accidentally convince impressionable young girls that marriage equality involves rainbows, sparkles and magic friendship. Which, to be fair, it does.

2. Kevin Andrews' cycling buddies

Our politicians love arguing via analogies, which is where you try to make a point about something controversial by pointing out something uncontroversial. This rhetorical device is known as the straw man.

Former prime minster Tony Abbott and backbencher Kevin Andrews sit together in Parliament.

In the early days of this debate, Coalition backbencher Kevin Andrews made an analogy between same-sex couples and his cycling buddies.

"I have an affectionate relationship with my cycling mates, we go cycling on the weekend," he said, invoking an image of middle-aged men in cycling garb that many of us are still frantically trying to purge from their retinas. "But that's not marriage."

Well, no, unless the Pollie Pedal regularly transitions into a Polyamory Pedal — but Andrews' point seems a better justification for a ban on Lycra than a ban on gay marriage.

Not all "friendly" relationships should be recognised via marriage — well, yes.

Perhaps the most generous thing that can be said here is that in such a heated debate, it's lovely to have at least one thing on which we can all agree.

Which is not to say that if the law changes, two male cycling mates shouldn't be able to get hitched if they so desire. And if they do, Kevin Andrews would no doubt recommend that they have some marriage counselling beforehand.

3. Political correctness gone mad!

Tony Abbott, who has a particular genius for opposing things, claims that people should oppose same-sex marriage if they don't like political correctness — which is of course, well beyond the bounds of the very limited question being asked by the ABS.

"I say to you, if you don't like same-sex marriage, vote no," he said, which is indisputably sensible advice, as that's the question on the table.

But then he went on. "If you're worried about religious freedom, and freedom of speech, vote no. If you don't like political correctness, vote no — because voting no will help to stop political correctness in its tracks."

This feels a bit like tone policing, fittingly for a Tony who used to live in a police college. Tone policing is a kind of "genetic fallacy", where you look at where an argument came from instead of what it says.

Here, Abbott is discrediting an argument by focussing on the way people express it — so instead of judging marriage equality on its merits, you reject it because it's just another instance of how namby-pamby lefties are always whining on about some vegan intersex poetry, or some other equally crude stereotype.

You reduce an argument to just more "blah blah blah" from the usual suspects.

4. Won't someone think of the children?

This is a favourite of Lyle Shelton from the Australian Christian Lobby, and is what's known in formal logic as an appeal to tradition — the view that because something has long been the case, it must therefore remain so.

But even though some of Australia's social mores are derived from Christian societies in Europe, our Parliament is constitutionally barred from imposing one religion on all of us, and the current debate is about secular marriage of the sort already performed by celebrants for those seeking to avoid the involvement of the church.

 

Of course, the Anglican Church itself was created so Henry VIII could get divorced — and let's not forget that Jesus was raised by a man who was not his biological father, which might suggest the virtue of sympathy for blended families.

The idea that kids need the active involvement of a father and a mother to be "normal" is not borne out by data, or in the many same-sex and single-parent families we already have, but it remains powerful after centuries of being the social norm.

Of course, this has very little to do with the question at hand.

5. What if it teaches people it's okay to be gay?

"Kids in Year 7 were asked to role-play being a same-sex relationship", warned one of the women in the Coalition for Marriage's first ad. I remember studying Macbeth in school and being asked to role-play both the Scottish king and his wife, and somehow that hasn't turned me into a mass-murderer. I also acted out Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? in a high school English class, and so far my marriage has yet to descend to anything like those depths, fortunately.

Many of these arguments display a discomfort for gay and lesbian people in general. While of course people are entitled to their private views, acting on that discomfort contravenes antidiscrimination laws, and tends to make people social pariahs — sorry, young lawyers.

I wish kids in my high school had been asked to role-play gay relationships in Year 7. "Gay" was used constantly as a slur in the playground. Some of my classmates have now come out, and I just hate to think how difficult we must've made things for them.

As opposed to the other arguments listed above, there is no rhetorical sleight of hand going on here. The two options are a society where many people are told that their sexuality is wrong and suffer as a result, or a society where consenting adults are allowed to love other adults as they please.

We've already resolved the legality question of homosexual sexual relationships. Nobody is seriously proposing recriminalising that, thank goodness.

But some of the arguments proposed by the No case betray discomfort with those relationships in general.

And while "you can say no" to marriage equality, as the Coalition for Marriage reminds us, we can't legally say no to homosexuality, not any more.

So it's now a question of whether we take the next step beyond legalisation, and treat gay and lesbian relationships as truly equal.

Dom Knight is a writer, broadcaster, and co-founder of The Chaser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul    0

... and now we have to put up with stupid arguments for another 3 months. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mmmmm    0

Oh wow! Can't believe what I'm reading. Seems I got Australia wrong, thought they would be so ahead of everyone but they seem so backward! 

Sad times for gays and lesbians over there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pjcowley    0

Wow... the country that gave us one of the most beautiful movies ever centered around three drag queens in the 90s.... shouldn't surprise me but it is very sad to see evidence of such deep despise against the LGBT community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jazzy Jan    0
3 hours ago, Mmmmm said:

Oh wow! Can't believe what I'm reading. Seems I got Australia wrong, thought they would be so ahead of everyone but they seem so backward! 

Sad times for gays and lesbians over there. 

It is a loud noisy minority that are really going all guns blazing to to be heard.  They are making Australia look stupid. 

2 hours ago, pjcowley said:

Wow... the country that gave us one of the most beautiful movies ever centered around three drag queens in the 90s.... shouldn't surprise me but it is very sad to see evidence of such deep despise against the LGBT community.

Imagine those wonderful drag queens of Priscilla fixing up those stupid women in that advert and the conservative politicians! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jazzy Jan    0

 

Just now, Mmmmm said:

Let's hope so @Jazzy Jan The majority needs to shut these stupid minority up on voting day.

Absolutely.  People need to send their yes votes back and not be lazy or slack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×