The No campaigners are out, and they’re making their thoughts known. For instance, they worry:
What our kids are being taught in schools! – Television Advert by Australian Christian Lobby
- But when have kids ever cared about what they get taught in school? My niece and nephew visit, I ask “How was school?” they say, “Yeah ok.”, “What did you learn?” “Nothing much.”, “Did you do anything?” “Kylie had subway for lunch why can’t I have subway?”
- They care more about their friends than their teachers!
- In fact a parental guardian has a much bigger impact on a child’s development than schools do. No-one gets older and says, “Oh, I’m turning into my year 9 teacher Mrs Richard’s,” because classrooms don’t have that big an influence. It’s TV first, parenting second, app on the phone, your friends, music, TV again, home life and somewhere down further is schooling. If you’re worried about the school teaching all morals and values, then you’re not leading a good example as a parent.
Definition of marriage, “It’s the union of a man and a woman to create a child.” – Matt Canavan (Liberal Party Senator)
- This is a bit of a “fuck you” to the infertile. Is he going to go into cancer wards and strip off engagement rings from blokes with testicular cancer, or women who have had ovaries removed?
- Is he going to bash down doors of couples enjoying their 85th wedding anniversary, while morning telly interviews them, and tear up their wedding certificate, proclaiming “This marriage is annulled! She’s had menopause and you’re no longer of child bearing age.”?
- Marriage is what two people do when they love each other and want to stay together, and they use the word because the term civil union is dull. Creating a child is not a definition for a relationship.
It goes against parental rights – Eric Abetz (Liberal Party Senator)
- Right, so according to some people a relationship is about parenting. But same sex marriage has no impact on parenting. Same sex couples can already adopt kids. An argument of needing a mother and father to be parents is only a big fuck you to single parents.
- It’s just kicking in the guts the father whose wife died in child birth, and mother whose husband died in Afghanistan. It’s not relevant to the debate, and it’s only mean to really nice people struggling to do their best.
It’s a restriction of freedom of speech – Eric Abetz (Liberal Party Senator)
- Abetz, a leader of the No vote, also says it’s an attack on freedom of speech, but people don’t have to use the word.
- How’s this for freedom of speech? I already have same sex friends who have been married. They got dressed up and married their partner and invited a whole bunch of friends and had cake. They used the word married a lot. They exercised their freedom of speech to use it, just as I am doing now. We can still say words. Watch. Nigger, nigger, nigger. I can say words. It doesn’t fucking matter. No-one can stop me. Except those trying to stop freedom of speech by stopping people using a word.
- The whole point of preventing Marriage Equality is to actually stop freedom of speech. An argument to allow freedom of speech should be an argument for the Yes campaign!
Freedom of Religion – Eric Abetz (Liberal Party Senator)
- Oh, so the idea is it limits what religions can do? First, we shouldn’t have a religious state. Anything that legislates because of decisions by a religion must be avoided. It hasn’t worked for Muslims states, Jewish settlements, or Buddhist countries. Don’t do it!
- Second, religions don’t need to recognise any marriage. This legislation is about using a word. Not forcing everyone to use a word. People can’t be discriminatory now, despite their religious feelings. Florists, bakers, and photographers have to provide a service regardless of a customer’s gender, religion or ethnicity, but they don’t have to use a word to label those people. They can already supply civil union cakes, flowers, and pictures. They can’t discriminate now and they won’t be allow to in the future. Only religions will be exempt. There will still be religious freedom.
It’s all about using a word, and it’s stupid to try and stop people from using words. Words are forever changing. It is awful (once a word meaning “worthy of awe”, now meaning something disgusting) to manufacture (once a word meaning handmade craft, now applied to mass produced objects) an argument against people who are nice (once a word describing a senseless person, now someone polite) is silly (once a word describing happiness, now means foolish) and propagated by cheaters (once a word describing a person employed by a king, now a deceitful person). But, you might ask, who is giving this semantic masterclass (once a word to describe students showing their learnt skills to their master, now an education session given to students by a proclaimed authority)?
I’m not gay or bi. I’ve never been married or had a relationship. I’m 38 and I’ve never known what it feels like to sleep next to someone. I’ve never arrived home to a partner’s welcoming smile, had the pleasure to laugh or cry with them, and never been able to help them in need or been supported by them in peril, though I’m constantly baffled by the flippancy people treat this bond.
I have such amazement that people find a partner, and for some to want to devalue it is horrible, with a justification of a claim of ownership over a word ridiculous.
I’ll not get anything out of a Yes vote. Some people will be happier. Some very lucky people, who know what it is to be happy, will be happier. I’m all for supporting that. There’s no good argument against it.