Should religious have a say in the same sex debate?

[geminii]

I think everyone should be able to have a say on the matter (given that they're eligible to vote). Even if you can't vote, you're still allowed to have an opinion.

I have a group of four friends - three are Christian, of which one cannot vote yet, one is on the fence, and one will vote no, and a Catholic friend, who will vote yes. I am a Hindu, and I am on the fence.

Yes, my religion is one of very few that permits homosexuality. However, my reason for being on the fence and not jumping to the YES vote is that I fear that by allowing same-sex couples to get married, it may go too far. I have nothing wrong with gay and lesbian people. I have gay friends. What I mean by 'it may go too far' is, if we take a look at Canada, after they allowed same-sex marriage, laws like Bill C-16 and Bill 89 are destroying free speech.

Bill C-16 means you can go to jail if you misgender someone - whether purposely or accidentally - and you could be fined up to $250,000. It means you can sue someone for misgendering you. And with the new list of genders (the number is constantly changing), it makes it extremely difficult to remember someone's pronouns of either he, her, zir, hir, vir, xem, etc...). If you slip up, it can be extremely dangerous.

Bill 89 means that if a parent does not accept their child's gender identity, the child can be removed from the home. Never mind that of children who say they're transgender as a child, 80% grow up to feel comfortable in their birth bodies...

I 100% have no problem with same-sex marriage. But I do have a problem with the potential introduction of bills such as these in Australia. So for me, I'm probably not going to vote.

[Joseph41]

^I'm struggling to see the connection between SSM and those things you've identified. Could you flesh it out a little further?

[appleandbee]

^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).

Quite frankly, I don't mind free speech being impacted in this manner, as there are many far more interesting and constructive debates that we could be having than ones about the legitimacy of someone's identity or sexuality. We lose very little in terms of freedom of speech, if those debates and views are delegitimised, even they were legitimised, there would be very little if anything that would come out of it (apart from people being hurt). People can still free hold homophobic views, but they are rightly delegitimised in the public space if SSM is legalised. But yeah, it's the inherent purpose of SSM is to reduce homophobia and legitimised the identity and relationships of people from those groups.

[geminii]

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).

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', meaning accidental, 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'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.

Ah, this is one of those areas where I've changed my mind! I used to believe that religious businesses such as bakers should be forced to bake cakes for same sex marriages, but then realised, the person could just go to a different bake shop. Forcing the baker to bake a cake for a wedding he does not approve of is infringing on religious freedom - but if the baker was allowed to refuse, the customer could simply go elsewhere and find another baker. I find it very hard to believe that every single bakery within reasonable distance of anyone is religious.

Think of it this way: if we can force Christian bakers to bake cakes for a same-sex wedding, can we then force a Muslim who works at a printing company to print a drawing of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)? Can we force a Hindu, like me, to cook meat for a certain event? Can we force Jews to sell leather during Yom Kippur? All of these scenarios could be easily avoided - if you want to print a drawing of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), just go to a non-Muslim printer. If you want someone to cook meat for a gathering, go to a non-Hindu chef. If you want to buy a leather bag during Yom Kippur, go to a non-Jewish clothes store owner.

[Bri MT]

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.

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.

[geminii]

I find it strange that you say "will" repeatedly, when there is no proof of a causative relationship.

I think appleandbee explained it pretty well, but here it is explained fully so you might understand it:
- 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)

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.

If you can provide me evidence of this, I will be happy to concede.
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:

"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).

I know. I am talking about the possible ramifications of allowing same-sex marriage, not about the same-sex marriage itself.

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.

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.

[Bri MT]

I think appleandbee explained it pretty well, but here it is explained fully so you might understand it:
- 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)

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.
Opinion polls show that most Australians believe that same sex marriage should be legalised, so I would suggest that you those who disagree are already "outsiders". Can you show me something which points to legislation where if you say "I do not believe same sex marriage should occur" you could be 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"
-"the left" are already fighting against multiple things including Australia Day being on the 26th of January, the Adani coal mine, increases to the student contribution amount, and indigenous Australians having disproportionate jail time. I doubt that is a set number of discrete issues that they focus on at a time, and that the next issue is the sequence is likely to be transgender rights.
-What makes them likely to follow Canada's example?

"- 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"
-I highly doubt that they would be treated similarly to SSM for a number of reasons including:
-Less people are transgender than same-sex attracted
-Less Australians are familiar with the transgender community than the LGB community
-There seems to be more fear around transgender people, and less empathy for transgender people
-I highly doubt our majority conservative government would enact laws resulting in people being "criminally prosecuted, fined, and maybe even thrown in jail."

If you can provide me evidence of this, I will be happy to concede.
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.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/education/face-facts/face-facts-lesbian-gay-bisexual-trans-and-intersex-people
http://www.lgbtihealth.org.au/sites/default/files/Cultural%20Competancy%20Framework.pdf   (go to page 7)
https://www.beyondblue.org.au/who-does-it-affect/lesbian-gay-bi-trans-and-intersex-lgbti-people/the-impact-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."   I think there's a simple solution to this, don't discriminate intentionally or accidentally. Just refer to people using language that matches their gender identity.
See also: "9.1          In criminal trials, the prosecution bears the burden of proof. This has been called ‘the golden thread of English criminal law’[1] and, in Australia, ‘a cardinal principle of our system of justice’.[2] This principle and the related principle that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt are fundamental to the presumption of innocence.[3]."  https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/common-law-principle

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.

Given that we have different perspectives on this, I understand that it is easy for messages to be misinterpreted and that this may create the perception that I didn't read the post thoroughly. However, I assure you that I did read (and reread) your post to understand your points as best I could.

[Bennie_Boy]

(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)

It's a problem to use language like 'will' because it implies that something is definitely going to occur as a consequence of legalising SSM, which you of course can't be sure of.

- 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

Except it doesn't, because legislating for SSM doesn't simultaneously mean that people who express opposing views are liable to be 'thrown in jail' (we're still just talking about SSM at this point in your explanation). Of course everyone will still have the freedom to hold those views, just as others will have the freedom to judge people based on whether or not they disagree, and again there's no legal limitation placed on people expressing their opinion.

If you're arguing that people will just feel like they don't want to say they don't like SSM because of possible backlash from those around them, then that's just a product of society progressing. I'm sure people who were against interracial marriage (or the abolition of slavery, or women voting etc etc) felt like they didn't want to express opposing views after it was changed, but we can't just not have any societal change ever because of the feelings of people who hold the minority view.

- 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

I'll put forward my arguments against the rest of your points below, however arguing that 'the left' moves from one social issue to the next collectively, and that the legalisation of SSM will also lead to the enactment of other laws relating to transgender issues without further debate within society (as if they aren't being debated right now, and wouldn't continue to be debated in the future regardless of the outcome of this postal survey), seems like a pretty disingenuous slippery slope.

- 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.

Reading into one of the 'new transgenderism laws' that you brought up (C-16) led me to the Canadian Bar Association's response to it, which can be found here: https://www.cba.org/News-Media/News/2017/May/CBA-position-on-Bill-C-16. In it they argue:
"Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation."

On the debate as a whole being shut down if the law was enacted, the CBA cites the Supreme Court of Canada (Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott):
"The distinction between the expression of repugnant ideas and expression which exposes groups to hatred is crucial to understanding the proper application of hate speech prohibitions. Hate speech legislation is not aimed at discouraging repugnant or offensive ideas. It does not, for example, prohibit expression which debates the merits of reducing the rights of vulnerable groups in society. It only restricts the use of expression exposing them to hatred as a part of that debate. It does not target the ideas, but their mode of expression in public and the effect that this mode of expression may have."

On the other law from NYC, you seem to ignore the use of words such as "repeatedly referring to a person.." or "refusing to call a person..." when you argue that "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". The law is clearly designed to protect individuals from continual harassment based on their gender identity, as opposed to someone accidentally referring to a trans person by the wrong pronoun and the trans person going "haha got you now!!!". Intentionally or accidentally misrepresenting the law in this way seems to come across as just scaremongering.

If you can provide me evidence of this, I will be happy to concede.

"Social dysphoria can describe distress and discomfort that occurs as a result of how one is viewed by society. Assuming a person’s gender, using incorrect pronouns, or making assumptions about social roles in relation to gender can all be factors contributing to a person’s experience of social dysphoria." https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/issues/gender-dysphoria
Although there are bound to be many other sources for this, as constantly triggering someone's dysphoria by referring to them as a gender they don't identify as would seem pretty distressing.

[boooom]

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?

[A TART]

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 recieves a majority yes vote, it will pass into parliament.

I honestly think the survey is a waste of money (even if I disagree with SSM) given the statistics from other sources. (making it non-binding makes it even worse. Poor trees)

[elysepopplewell]

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.

[vox nihili]

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.

[elysepopplewell]

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.

[vox nihili]

Yes, I completely agree with what you've said! And am a special fan of that great analogy at the end.

HAHA glad someone noticed...I was pleasantly surprised I came up with that one :p



For those wondering, we should know about the outcome of the plebiscite in a few weeks (Nov 15).