http://www.ucanews.com/story-archive/?post_name=/1987/08/01/lee-kuan-yew-again-warns-all-clergymen-to-keep-out-of-politics&post_id=35564
Here's an article about a speech given three decades ago, might be old but it's still very relevant in relation to the Australian political atmosphere today.
those who voted no, why? :)
(just wondering, not attacking or anything)
Interjection =)
Okay, a lot of people have said... yes... cause freedom of speech (and Democratic systems) .
If religion should have no say in politics, why should they have a say in this debate as SSM is kinda political and societal at the same time?
This is about a legal institution, so does that not rule religious organisations out of this?
Well yeah, any Australian on the electoral roll can return a response of either yes or no to the postal survey, so the relgious and the non-religious will have a say on same-sex marriage. But if the question is "should religious people have a platform in the public debate on same sex marriage", then the answer is no, if they're presenting a non-secular argument, because Australian marriage law has nothing to do with religion, except that some religious officials are also registered celebrants. It would be a waste of airtime and newspaper ink to give them their 5 minutes.
Interjection =)
Okay, a lot of people have said... yes... cause freedom of speech (and Democratic systems) .
If religion should have no say in politics, why should they have a say in this debate as SSM is kinda political and societal at the same time?
This is about a legal institution, so does that not rule religious organisations out of this?
That's not really a valid argument. They're allowed their opinion as much as you are, even if you might not agree with it. But yeah, if they are presenting a nonsecular argument, it would be easy to break down since what they say would not apply to everyone so noone would do that. So either way, they should be allowed to give their sayThey're allowed their opinion, and they can even express that opinion on their ballot. They shouldn't be allowed to clog the public debate with irrelevant points from their personal doctrine, we don't have unlimited platforms. Our news media recognises that, it's why Lyle Shelton is scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find secular points to dissuade the "yes" vote, because he knows if he got on ABC radio and told the truth about why he doesn't want a yes win, he'd be laughed off air.
They're allowed their opinion, and they can even express that opinion on their ballot. They shouldn't be allowed to clog the public debate with irrelevant points from their personal doctrine, we don't have unlimited platforms. Our news media recognises that, it's why Lyle Shelton is scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find secular points to dissuade the "yes" vote, because he knows if he got on ABC radio and told the truth about why he doesn't want a yes win, he'd be laughed off air.This reminds me a lot of a uni reading that we once had to do, titled "No, you’re not entitled to your opinion" that honestly made me rethink my outlook on the concept of "freedom of speech" quite a lot! Here is the article if anyone is interested. Essentially, it makes the point that yes, everyone can have an opinion, but not every opinion deserves to be shared, or to be given a platform. Many news networks, in an effort to seem unbiased, will try to present both sides of a debate, even if one sides argument is factually/scientifically baseless, as equals. The SSM debate is an example of this, but also climate change, vaccinations, etc. Like they'll give equal platform to a climate change denier, and an accredited scientist and call that "unbiased", which in the authors (and tbh, my) opinion is just silly, and often harmful. It keeps debates on things that really shouldn't be up for debate still going, which promotes more skepticism, and the spread of misinformation.
Freedom of speech is not the freedom to be heard. Nobody owes you an audience.
I question whether anyone deserves a say in it being passed, purely because I don't believe this should be a matter of opinionthis x1000
this x1000Your spoiler isn't offtopic at all, in fact a lot of people at the very start of the announcement felt this way and still do in a way.slightly offtopicthis survey is stupid, pointless and a waste of money :) :) :)
Wow! First time I have seen a respectful discussion on this matter. This seems to be an anomaly which I'm quite disappointed about if I'm being honest.
To explicitly address your question; Yes.
Most people have already said 'freedom of speech' and hence, your motivation should not matter so I don't need to go over that. Although very much entitled to do so, I think 'no voters' shouldn't primarily use The Bible as their reason for voting no. I personally think there will be repercussions for Businesses, Schools, Churches etc. and this is where I think the argument of 'it won't affect you' is not entirely true. I don't know if anyone remembers the religious bakery that was issued a $135,000 fine for refusing to write 'support gay marriage' on a wedding cake and consequently had to close down. I don't feel as though this was discrimination, just a different political view. For example, if I went into a bakery and asked for a cake with the message 'Make America Great Again' and they refused, it isn't discriminatory against me as a person, it is a political view, thus I feel they are justified to refuse it. In Britain, Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close down and an orthodox Jewish school threatened with defunding. So the notion of 'it won't affect you' may be true for most but I believe that legalising gay-marriage will precipitate major ramifications for some religious people/groups.
I don't want to see this in Australia but I also want gay's to have the right to marry. Unfortunately, I believe the two are mutually exclusive and therefore I am glad I'm not 18 yet because it would be a difficult decision.
Just reiterating that this is all my opinion (even though AN has the most respectful community- quite literally) and I do want to become more educated on this topic so please feel free to contest anything I have said.
^I'm struggling to see the connection between SSM and those things you've identified. Could you flesh it out a little further?
I think she is referring to the way that SSM which is aimed at reducing homophobia (at least send a social message that belong to the lgbtq+ identity group is legitimate) , would result in those homophobic views being officially socially unacceptable if SSM is legalised, leading to those kind of laws which doesn't permit such behaviour (although I think that the description of the punishments may be a blow-up and exaggeration by conservative media).
I'm personally conflicted on refusing service to people on the grounds of opinion (hate speech excluded). I feel it could lead to some dangerous circumstances. Say I wanted a cake with a picture of my hypothetical boyfriend and myself for our wedding, but all the cake shops in the area refuse. Shouldn't I have the freedom to acquire goods like anyone else? Freedom to serve v. be served, I suppose.
Yes, this is exactly what I mean - everybody will be forced to hold a certain view of a topic on which people should be free to develop their own opinions.
Schools, even religious ones, will be forced to teach transgender issues to children as young as 4 or 5, and even earlier in kindergarten, whether the parents agree to it or not. If you don't agree with teaching a four-year-old that girls can become boys and boys can become girls and people can be in between or neither, then you will have no say in your child being taught this at school.
Recently, parents of a five-year-old child were outraged after the child's kindergarten teacher performed a demonstration involving introducing "the student to the class as a boy and then he went to the bathroom and emerged dressed as a girl. The teacher reintroduced the student explaining that he was "now a girl."" Children were traumatised. ""My daughter came home crying and shaking so afraid she could turn into a boy," another parent said."
Washington State's New Health Education Law - http://www.k12.wa.us/HealthFitness/Standards/HPE-Standards.pdf.
Note, under the Kindergarten Age Group on page 29: "Understand there are many ways to express gender." Kids this age cannot even read, but are being taught about something as complex as gender to push this agenda. Children this young need to be learning their alphabet, not transgenderism.
Also, two parents have been left with no option but to pull their six year old son out of school to homeschool him after his school denied his parents the right to opt out of the transgenderism classes. (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/09/11/christian-parents-sue-school-six-year-old-change-gender-identity/).
"Mr. Rowe told The Sunday Times: “A child aged six would sometimes come to school as a girl or sometimes come to school as a boy. Our concerns were raised when our son came back home from school saying he was confused as to why and how a boy was now a girl.""
Also, the punishments are not an exaggeration.
For Bill C-16:
- "“If you try to disavow that theory, you can be brought before the Human Rights Commission for misgendering or potentially find yourself guilty of a hate crime. To sum up, on the subject of gender, we’re going to have government-mandated speech.”
Those who refuse to go along could be “brought before the federal tribunal,” Brown said.
If the tribunal assess a penalty such as a fine or “non-monetary remedy, such as a cease and desist order or an order to compel them to do something,” and the person refuses, “they will find themselves in contempt of court and prison is the likely outcome of that process until they purge the contempt.”"
- "Section 319(1) makes it a criminal offence to incite hatred against any identifiable group where this is likely to result in a breach of the peace. Section 319(2) makes it an offence to communicate, except in private conversation, statements that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, whether by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means." Meaning you could be talking to a friend about how you might not think Caitlyn Jenner is really a woman over the phone and you would be breaking the law. What if you're religious or don't believe that people can suddenly swap genders? Bye bye freedom, hello jail.
For Bill 89:
- "QP Briefing reports: “[Ontario’s Minister of Child and Family Services] Coteau said … that it could be abuse for an LGBT teen to be told their identity is wrong and they should change. ‘I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently,’ he said. ‘If it’s abuse, and if it’s within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops,’ he said.”"
Additionally, New York City's Discrimination Law can fine you for up to a hefty $250,000 dollars for misgendering someone, along with various other 'crimes'. Some are:
"-Repeatedly referring to a person by something other than their chosen title, such as “Mr.” or “Ms.” The policy doesn’t explicitly say how gender-neutral titles such as “Mx.” should be treated, though it is implied such titles must be used if a person desires it.
-Refusing to call a person by their chosen pronoun. Said pronouns not only include “he” and “she,” but also explicitly include gender-neutral ones such as “ze/hir,” if that is what they desire.
-Requiring a person to legally change their name before using their preferred alternative. For example, company may not insist on calling an employee John if he prefers Jane, even if John is his legal name.
-Requiring a person to prove they have begun gender transition treatment before referring to them by alternative pronouns, names, and titles."
"Ordinary violations of the guidelines can result in fines of up to $125,000, while offenses stemming from “willful, wanton, or malicious conduct” can incur fines of up to $250,000. In addition to these civil penalties, the commission may award an unlimited amount of compensatory damages to anybody deemed a victim of discrimination." - it is extremely difficult to prove whether someone was intentionally discriminating or accidentally discriminating against a transgender person, hence the danger of this law. But even if it was an 'ordinary violation', you can say goodbye to $125,000.
Sources:
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2017/august/kindergarteners-scared-they-will-be-turned-into-boys-after-school-celebrates-transgender-transition
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transgender-reveal-kindergarten-class-rocklin-academy-parents-upset/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-bill-opposing-transgenderism-will-put-you-in-jail
https://arpacanada.ca/news/2017/01/06/bill-89/
https://lop.parl.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?Language=E&ls=c16&Parl=42&Ses=1&source=library_prb
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/new-york-can-fine-you-250k-for-misgendering-somebody/
http://www.dailywire.com/news/6274/washington-state-will-now-teach-small-children-james-barrett
http://www.k12.wa.us/HealthFitness/Standards/HPE-Standards.pdf
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/09/11/christian-parents-sue-school-six-year-old-change-gender-identity/
I find it strange that you say "will" repeatedly, when there is no proof of a causative relationship.
I question why you think it is of great concern that a particular city in America requires people to address someone as the gender they identify with. Being told that your identity is wrong can be very damaging, which is what these measures are likely designed to protect against, but that isn't even the point of this survey.
"Ordinary violations of the guidelines can result in fines of up to $125,000, while offenses stemming from “willful, wanton, or malicious conduct” can incur fines of up to $250,000. In addition to these civil penalties, the commission may award an unlimited amount of compensatory damages to anybody deemed a victim of discrimination."[/i] - it is extremely difficult to prove whether someone was intentionally discriminating or accidentally discriminating against a transgender person, hence the danger of this law. But even if it was an 'ordinary violation', meaning accidental, you can say goodbye to $125,000.
In your post you discuss your fears regarding people being able to choose a gender identity that is different to the sex they were assigned at birth, but this isn't what the plebiscite is even asking. It asks about same sex marriage (only).
If your main argument against same sex marriage isn't related to same sex marriage I would ask you to consider why you are using it.
I think appleandbee explained it pretty well, but here it is explained fully so you might understand it:The word will was used in your first, your second sentence, and your third sentence. The reason why I picked up on it, as I have stated, is because "will" implies causality when I do not believe that such causality exists.
- Same sex marriage is legalised
- This makes it the norm for gay & lesbian couples to get married
- This means if you disagree with gay and lesbian marriages or relationships, that is not the norm
- Meaning if you hold those views, you are an outsider
- If you are an outsider in terms of the views you hold, voicing those opinions more often than not results in backlash (any unpopular opinion is sure to be shut down by the majority)
- This limits freedom of speech, as you cannot say that you disagree with something for fear of being shut down...and criminally prosecuted, and possibly thrown in jail
- With same sex marriage out of the way, the left will attempt to find something else to fight against, and as is the case with Canada, they are likely to turn to transgenderism issues
- Transgenderism issues are likely to be treated in the same way as same sex marriage, and laws such as the ones I've mentioned are liikely to be enacted and put in place
- As a result of these new transgenderism laws, people who disagree with transgenderism are unable to voice their opinions as they are once again the minority and are outsiders...it is not irrational to conclude that transgenderism is treated differently to SSM...so people are, again, criminally prosecuted, fined, and maybe even thrown in jail.
- Hence, freedom of speech is impacted.
(Note - I didn't use 'will' anywhere in my answer. Hope you're happy, but I don't understand why using the word 'will' was such a big problem)
If you can provide me evidence of this, I will be happy to concede.https://www.humanrights.gov.au/education/face-facts/face-facts-lesbian-gay-bisexual-trans-and-intersex-people
As for why I think enacting a law making it a criminal offense to misgender someone is a bad idea, I said it in my post, so you would have seen it already if you read my post:
I know. I am talking about the possible ramifications of allowing same-sex marriage, not about the same-sex marriage itself.
Again, I urge you to read my post thoroughly. I am talking about the possible consequences of allowing same-sex marriage to be legalised, not about same-sex marriage directly. When we are discussing whether or not something should be legalised, it is important to look at the consequences.
(Note - I didn't use 'will' anywhere in my answer. Hope you're happy, but I don't understand why using the word 'will' was such a big problem)
- This limits freedom of speech, as you cannot say that you disagree with something for fear of being shut down...and criminally prosecuted, and possibly thrown in jail
- With same sex marriage out of the way, the left will attempt to find something else to fight against, and as is the case with Canada, they are likely to turn to transgenderism issues
- As a result of these new transgenderism laws, people who disagree with transgenderism are unable to voice their opinions as they are once again the minority and are outsiders...it is not irrational to conclude that transgenderism is treated differently to SSM...so people are, again, criminally prosecuted, fined, and maybe even thrown in jail.
If you can provide me evidence of this, I will be happy to concede.
Sorry for the random tangent, but what happens if the current postal plebiscite comes out with a majority yes vote? Has the government promised to do anything?
If it comes back a "no" then as Malcolm Turnbull has said, it will be off the agenda within the Coalition government.
There has been no word to say that a YES vote will be binding, or will be definitely considered. There is every legal likelihood that a YES vote would be dismissed as a statistic instead of it being moved through Parliament.
Given some of the commentary lately, like that from Peter Dutton talking about getting a move on to make laws to protect the things people are worried about losing if two consenting adults get married, I'd suggest that the government is ready to say "alright, let's do it." But based on the government's movements otherwise, I'm not at all confident that a YES result will be taken as indicatively as a no result. Sadly.
PS. TWO MORE DAYS TO ORDER YOUR REPLACEMENT SURVEYS IF YOURS HAS BEEN LOST, DAMAGED, EATEN BY A DOG, ETC.
Some of these concerns are very, very unlikely.
You're certainly right that a yes vote will not be binding within the Liberal party; however, it will pass. There are probably just enough votes already if it goes to a conscience vote (which it will if yes comes up) and there would certainly be opponents of SSM who would vote yes if a yes vote were returned.
I think the biggest stumbling block will be the details of the legislation to allow SSM. Opponents of SSM may use debate around provisions for the protection of religious freedom as a "principled" reason to continue to oppose SSM. The government will also likely delay, up to a point, bringing such a Bill to parliament until the details of it have been fleshed out within the party.
At the end of the day though, any significant delay to the legalisation of SSM after the return of a yes vote will cause enormous trouble for the Liberal party. This issue only serves to highlight how utterly bizarre a large chunk of the Liberal party is and how inconsistent the views of their parliamentary members are with the views of those who voted for them. Any delay will just see them bleed votes, which isn't great when you're already anaemic.
Yes, I completely agree with what you've said! And am a special fan of that great analogy at the end.