Well, I don’t know that it is, but I thought that the heading was a great way to confuse Pauline Hanson’s One Nation voters. Although confusing them is hardly difficult…
What gives me the right to talk about Sharia Law when I know absolutely nothing about it. I don’t know, but there seems to be a prevailing argument in Australia at the moment that one can say whatever nonsense one likes and if someone points out that you’re wrong, you can complain that your freedom of speech rights are being violated.
I couldn’t help but smile during the week when I read about that couple having their wedding in the Presbyterian Church in Ballarat cancelled. But let’s back up a bit, and remember some of the arguments we’ve been hearing from the “No” case.
A large number of the arguments are about things that are currently happening – boys wearing dresses, schools promoting “safe” environments for people regardless of the sexual orientation – and the rest rely on hypotheticals. You know the sort of thing: If we allow two people the same sex to marry, how can we stop a cat and a dog from deciding that they want to get married?
And, we’ve been hearing that religious freedom was at stake. John Howard, for example, was telling us that we need to enshrine religious freedom before the vote. His concern was that Parliament was only taking about “the putative# marriage ceremony”, and that we needed to more “specificity” on how religious freedoms will be protected before we vote.
Mm, I don’t remember him expressing concerns about religious freedoms after Pauline’s attempts to argue for a burqa ban. Yes, I know the burqa’s cultural rather than religious, but aren’t most religious customs?
Anyway, there’s been all this concern expressed about churches being forced to marry gay people. And that will be contrary to their religion because, for example, Catholic priests aren’t allowed to marry anyone. Not only that, but all the florists and bakers who have religious objections will be forced to make bouquets and wedding cakes and this may offend their religious beliefs. Although, when I think about it, I’m yet to go into a bakery and have the baker ask me about my sexual orientation in case they have to refuse me service. Anyway, once the marriage equality is passed, I can’t really understand why Esmeralda and Petunia, or Tony and George, or whoever’s getting married would actually want to give their business to a homophobic religious nutter.
Oh, is that bullying? Calling somebody homophobic when all they’ve done is refused to make a cake because it’ll have two people of the same sex on the top? I mean, we’ve got to keep the debate respectful and not call people names just because they have a different point of view. Imagine if politicians did that! You know, if they called people with compassion “bleeding hearts” or people who think that maybe some millionaires could afford just a little more tax were called “socialists’…
So we must have no bullying in this respectful debate. Which brings me back to the Ballarat Church. Steven North, the minister, saw a Facebook post by the bride expressing support for a “Yes” vote in the ABS survey. Outrageous. But rather than bully them by calling them names, he simply called them to his church and told them that not only would he not perform the ceremony, but they couldn’t marry in his church. Ok, some of you pedant’s may want to point out that it’s surely God’s church and then some people will use this as an opportunity to push their militant atheist views down our throats with all the passion of a Jehovah’s Witness who hears the words, “This sounds interesting, tell me more!” So let’s just not go there, ok?
Anyway, the gay community – which, of course, is a group of like-minded people who all think the same way – should thank Steven North, because he has single-handedly shown up the absurdity of the argument that churches would be forced to perform ceremonies for LGBTI people. Churches can’t even be forced to marry Christian, heterosexual couples. They can already paraphrase John Howard and say: “We will decided who marries in this church and the circumstances in which they marry!” So how on earth would marriage equality lead to churches losing their border protection rights? There’d have to be new legislation enacted which forced to churches to make their buildings and clergy available to whomsoever wished to marry in a church. And, like the raising of children by gay couples, this wouldn’t be affected by simply changing the marriage act.
Yes, I think that the gay community – at their regular community meeting or whenever they all get together to set their agenda to wreck civilisation as we know it – should take up a collection to send a bunch of flowers to Reverend North. First checking that there’s a florist who doesn’t object sending flowers to religious people.
- Yes I had to look it up. I’m still not sure what he means by it: Commonly believed or deemed to be the case; accepted by supposition rather than as a result of proof.
Rossleigh,
You must remember that this is a Presbyterian Church – the fundametanlist rump that would not join the Uniting Church. How could they possibly join a group that actually thinks?
You know the sort of thing: If we allow two people the same sex to marry, how can we stop a cat and a dog from deciding that they want to get married?
Or an owl and a pussycat? Or a frog and a mouse?
Or as Ericabetz has said the Sydney Harbour Bridge?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/30/man-marries-laptop-sues-for-recognition-wedding-ca/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/russian-man-marries-pizza-because-6846784
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/chinese-man-marries-robot-built-himself
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/09/married-to-a-doll-why-one-man-advocates-synthetic-love/279361/
And so forth.
Pauline really confuses me. On her page about Islam, she says
“Our laws, way of life and customs enforced in the Australian Constitution were based on a secular society. Secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government or religion or religious practices upon the people.”
Yet she has said she will ignore a YES vote in the postal survey which seems to be government very much imposing religious practices upon the people
.
She also calls for a referendum to change Section 116 of the Australian Constitution which seems to mean she DOES want the government to make laws about religion.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”
When New Matilda tried to ask Hanson’s office to elaborate on their policy to change Section 116, a staffer answered “We don’t want to change anything and Pauline is not going to give any more interviews about this. You do shitty work on her and you’re dishonest. If you don’t understand what she’s saying is ‘define religion’. Islam is not a religion, it’s a medieval culture and I’m terminating this call now.”
Right then, that’s cleared that up.
Hanson is a nutter who has no idea what she is talking about.
It’s only apparent that Pauline confuses you, Kaye, because you possess the ability for independent (and intelligent) thought.
For that reason, it is apparent that her supporters don’t.
They are not confused at all.
Peace Be Upon All
As a devout Australian Muslim who follows the Sunni Faith (the Fundamentals of the Sunni Faith; and no that does not make me a radical nor a fanatic), and I am certain Michael Taylor can vouch for that, I can speak with some rather minor authority about Islam and Homosexuality.
Let me set some boundaries.
I have been quite vocal about the fact that Homosexuality itself is forbidden in Islam. But that doesn’t give me or anyone any right to hate homosexuals.
Australia is a non-Muslim Country. In fact its a secular country and thus religion shouldn’t play a role in any matters pertaining to the running and management of this country.
Australia’s Laws and Constitution are in no way shape or form connected to or possess any representation of Islamic Beliefs and Practices – Sharia Law for the choice of better words to describe this point.
The SSM Topic is debating the legalization of the marriage or companionship of 2 loving people. It is not discussing nor debating the “homosexual act” itself. If that was the case, we would be having a different debate.
If SSM was legalized, then the piece of paper that registers or records the marriage of 2 loving people who happen to be of the same sex, is produced and recognized by the law and constitution of a country that does neither change nor alters any Religious Law and Practice be it Islamic or not. Irrespective of the outcome of the survey, the “homosexual act” itself, will continue to occur anyway.
Since the SSM Survey is a non-compulsory, non-binding survey, seeking the publics’ input/feedback on the topic, non of us are bounded to one of 2 answers. There is a third option. The 3rd Option was to “not register”.
Much, if not all of what I’ve said above resonates with all other religions and faiths too.
In conclusion to the above, I will say something fairly easy, simple and sensible too; “If we want Equality, we MUST either Give It FIRST or Give It BACK” and that applies to EVERYONE…
Peace Love and Respect to ALL
Khaled
All of us have probably {almost certainly} been around LGBTI folk all our lives and didn’t know it. Hasn’t faded the curtains or stopped the chooks from laying so let’s just let them love and live without restrictions.
For me a Yes vote is personal. I have a nephew who is gay but he has never came out, not even to his family. No one in the family has ever raised the subject with him but have all just nodded approvingly.
All the family without exception are voting YES and on social Media and by other means we have let him know our opinion on Marriage Equality.
With some luck this will also encourage him to come out, live life joyously and openly and without his stubborn need to stay “hidden”
So please. A strong YES vote
Rossleigh Brisbane
“one can say whatever nonsense one likes and if someone points out that you’re wrong, you can complain that your freedom of speech rights are being violated.”
This statement makes no sense. Can you provide an example?
The is whole point of free speech is so that nonsense can be contested and corrections made.
“some people will use this as an opportunity to push their militant atheist views down our throats”
Open wide: Religions brainwash kids. Another form of child abuse. Surely you do not approve of this, do you?
Well said Khaled.
Indeed, well said, Khaled. (And yes, I can vouch for you). ?
As for “Erica Betz” comment about being able to marry the Sydney Harbour Bridge, perhaps that structure is indeed able to give informed consent in his particular version of reality.
Otherwise it’s a very delusional and desperate statement.
Look I will vote Yes, I believe that equality is not negotiable, I hope that I am not homophobic (I assume that only a gay person could determine that).
One thing that I would like to know is – why is it that a gay person has to “come out” is it true or not true that sexual preferences and practices are none of anyone elses business.
I think it important that we get to the point where a persons sexuality is so “doesnt matter” that it is not even mentioned because we dont need to know, lets face it hetrosexually oriented people don’t ” come out”.
S G B
Pauline falls into that category of individuals of whom it can generally be said : Those who know they know, don’t.
Khaled – magnificent, that level of eloquence and lucidity would make you a great guest on Q&A, and, easily able to counter the nonsense of some of the incoherent rambling guests that seem more frequent
What Khaled shows with his thoughtful approach is that we don’t all have to agree about everything but that we can find common ground through tolerance, understanding and respect. He is not asking us to agree with his (or his religion’s) view of homosexuality. Instead he says “If we want Equality, we MUST either Give It FIRST or Give It BACK and that applies to EVERYONE.”
He does not have to condone homosexuality to call for equal rights for all. I do not have to agree with religious beliefs, be they Islamic or Christian or whatever, to call for their right to practice their religion in peace. We should not seek to impose our beliefs on others or to deny equal rights to those who believe differently.
Great photo, Rossleigh.
The very idea of men in dresses – all gussied like women FFS. Religion – where men are manly and women know their place and the children are nervous.
As the LNP have taken the country backwards on every level could it be they want SSM survey /debate to shield the public from delving into LNP= INCOMPETENCE?.
Mark Dreyfus impressed me on Q&A .
Yes jim, Mark Dreyfus is an asset for Labor, he should be out there more, intelligent, pleasant, most presentable…
So wish there were ‘like’ buttons here. Khaled would get more than a like from me … a ‘heart’ would be more to the point. … Well said, Khaled.
Excellent article Rossleigh – thank you.
Harquebus …. I have NO idea where you are coming from. There are hundreds / thousands of examples of people who have opened their mouths in their perceived spirit of ‘freedom of speech’ only to be lambasted and then ? …. they complain about their freedom of speech being attacked. These grizzlers, complain for the sake of complaining – some for notoriety ( if they make the press or social media ) … or in the neighbourhood, family etc. I’d like anyone anywhere to truly define the meaning of ‘freedom of speech’ … what the hell does it mean, and does it really matter ? We say things we mean, we say things we don’t mean. The “freedom of speech” thing is flavour of the month(s) in recent times. And thus should be tossed on the scrap heap, where it belongs, in every day consideration. Comes from legislation to provide rules ( or not ) for determining whether slander / defamation can be seen to have happened, in a court of law.
Howard and his ilk, are resting upon some notion of religious intent. ( wonder how many times he attends his church ? ) …. this is not a religious matter at all – despite what the bible might say about sin – ( man laying down with man etc.). This must be brought under the heading of “legal rights” of a [ homosexual ] couple who love one another and wish to commit – on signed paper; want a properly worded certificate to say they are legally married, and then to be assured that their rights over property, wills, estates, other financial considerations, family interference, rights of any children they have through surrogacy or adoption, …. ARE ALL PROTECTED.
Homosexuality has been around for millenia … and it ain’t about to change. This has nothing to do with specific sex acts or preferences. Heterosexuals indulge in some mighty weird doings themselves. Are they ( any man and woman couple ) to be denied because of their private sexual preferences ? And who is going to investigate those ? Parliament ?
There is nothing written anywhere, that I know of ( stand to be corrected ) …. that says a minister, vicar, pastor or priest cannot deny marriage to anybody. They do, they can, they will, and they should — at times. …. I can personally attest to that – but it is waaay too long a story to go into. Whether a minister decides, because he’s been delving around on Facebook ( or not ) … to not marry a couple, is the ministers’ problem. They will find a way to do what they want, without his so called ‘blessing’. All HE does is bring his own ideologies into the spotlight, and most likely into disrepute, adding further fuel to a debate that should not even be happening. …
Not to mention the religious rules – currently in the Catholic and C of E churches, divorcees cannot be married there. … Got a news flash for those interested. The crossing of palms with lotsa silver, can bring about ‘ways’ to make e.g a catholic marriage, null and void – even after the birth of 3 children. Yep – it happens. …. Happened to me – and my 3 children were called ( by a most ‘delightful’ 🙁 🙁 ugh – family member) – – bastards, after the marriage had been annulled – by the Catholic church, at the wishes of my ex husband. … It was his right to request it and pay dearly for his wishes, but it makes a mockery of the rules and regulations of churches and religion. But then – they are indeed a mockery – across the board, are they not.
What’s this got to do with the article ? …. A lot in fact. … Think about it. … and while thinking, consider the push for the “No” vote; the inferences by the likes of Abbott and his cohorts; the holier than thou bods who look solely on the sexual side of things and not on genuine love ( they probably don’t know what that is anyway ).
Not hard to guess, my vote is “YES”.
The sign in front of the presbyterian church was ALL WELCOME ironic???
Our murdoch paper had a full page by jill poulson with rainbows and why she is voting YES because she is not an arsehole. QED.
The church is corrupt because there is no free women. Its cash corruption became a slogan which started the revolution of luthor:
as soon as the coin in the coffer rings the soul from purgatory springs
ps good one kaled. I complained to the abc for green’s wheel which declared 3 parties labor, lib/nat or greens Why not 4? Similarly I complained about range of xstians in the census but one muslim why not 2 shia/sunni?
@Zathras If that fruitcake Eric Abetz is having sexual fantasies about copulating with the Sydney Harbour Bridge who are we to deny him?
This article is nothing but a conflated load of unintelligent claptrap. I have seen more bigotry, violence and intolerance from the ‘yes’ campaigners than any of the ‘no’ campaigners.
“I have seen more bigotry, violence and intolerance from the ‘yes’ campaigners than any of the ‘no’ campaigners.”
Let’s see….
We had the old guy who smashed a pie into Alan Joyce’s face.
We had the guy that punched Kevin Rudd’s godson in the nose.
We had the Presbyterian minister who refused to marry two heterosexual members of his congregation because the bride showed support for marriage equality on her facebook page.
There was the poster claiming that “gay couples are thirty times more likely to molest children” and another that claimed 92% of children raised by gay parents are abused, that 51% have depression, and that 72% are obese.
There was the flyer distributed in Hurstville which claims that “the number of victims being raped in public female changing rooms and bathroom in those countries that has passed the same sex marriage legislation is a stunning fact to all!”
There was the ad that showed a troubled looking office worker with a rainbow noose around her neck with the claim that “Same sex marriage increases PC bullying in the workplace,”
Marriage Alliance says the yes campaign wants “to destroy our entire Aussie way of life.”
Various parliamentarians have linked marriage equality to bestiality.
Well over 1 million kids who don’t live with their two biological parents have been told their family is inadequate.
No campaigners drove their cars into a group of yes campaign protesters in Brisbane.
From the yes side, Benjamin Law made a crude and tasteless tweet that was very disappointing.
There was a protest at Sydney uni where people from the yes campaign “started throwing glitter at us, starting taking our own food, the hummus, and threw it on one of our members,” and someone tried to grab a sign from the hands of a member of the Catholic Society. A NSW Police spokeswoman said “We attended but there was virtually no action taken.”
One side are asking for equal rights for all, the other seek to exclude people from the rights they enjoy while casting themselves, from their position of privilege, as the victims. Extraordinary.
Thank you, Peter, for your well-reseatched informed opinion. It’s hard to argue with someone who presents such comprehensive evidence to back up their point of view.
Oh Kaye, such unbelievable and bigoted bias is unbecoming of you.
If you had bothered to watch the video of the Sydney Uni violence, you would have seen what was actually perpetrated, for instance the activist in the yellow shirt threatening to kick the face in of one of the no campaigners. But hey, that’s not violence I guess, and certainly not bigotry, just because the no campaigners happened to be Christian?
Makes me wonder what these brave little students would have done if it were muslims declaring a no vote?
Maybe the students would have feared for their necks?
But because Christians turned the other cheek, somehow there was ‘no violence’??? Pffft, please try to do better.
And I’m sure you will find this video extremely tolerant of the ‘rational debate’ by yes campaigners:
No campaign supporters just finished erecting posters on a fence with the owner’s permission, when militant yes campaigners violently tore down and stole all their material.
But hey, that’s not bigoted or disrespectful of a rational debate is it?
Please try again.
I agree with Rossleigh. It’s just too hard to argue with you, Peter.
I guess it’s too hard to argue because you have no valid argument?
Here’s some more evidence: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4893784/Skywriter-Vote-No-deluged-abusive-messages.html
And how about the Canberran entertainer who has sacked a contractor for daring to post an ‘It’s ok to say no’ header on her facebook page? But that’s not bigotry is it?
Or remember back in June when fascist lefties spewed so much hate on Margaret Court for daring to stand up for traditional marriage? https://www.facebook.com/lyle.shelton.7/videos/10155399352401081/
Peter,
Discrimination is a blight on society and it is those who perpetuate the discrimination who are causing the problems. You have no right to impose your beliefs on others or to deny them equal rights before the law. Believe what you like and allow others to do likewise. Human rights are not yours to bestow or withhold based on your prejudices.
Peter, you clearly missed the point.
I don’t want an argument with you because you’re not capable of engaging in one.
Why did Noah allow the species Homosexual into the Ark ? Must have been God’s plan I suppose. At least it gave the religious an enemy they could “get behind” for a couple of thousand years.
I sure hope these Christians are sacrificing lambs as part of the No Campaign – might be the only way they’ll win.
I wonder how many religious people with children have relived the testing of Abraham. Sacrificing their son or daughter (via rejection and suicide) to prove their faith and obedience to a God that they actually don’t know anything about.
The No-voters really do not understand how repugnant, offensive, reprehensible that a nation-wide judgement on the equal rights of a minority of Australians before the law this postal farce is.
There IS no “NO” argument, which is why we are subjected a stinking pile of red herrings such as “freedom of speech”, “freedom of religion” and the perennial so-called “rights of biological parents”.
None of which stand up to any reasoned scrutiny and have nothing to do with the question of Equal Marriage.
… and we are so far from a solution (thank you little rodent Johnny Howard)… we have to endure more claptrap from the No-voters (which is putting it politely) for sooooo much longer.
Amazing!
Since being here last have watched a clip on panelists pointedly debating questions on QA and just came across a very severe lie from the Daily Telegraph falsely implicating mainstream muslims as to alleged homophobic sentiments.
How important is social media in the refuting of politically-motivated slanders?
It’s why I take the current Conservative attack on msm so seriously.
Agree with Kaye Lees’ eloquent appraisals of this ludicrous situation – “yes or no” handed to the people of our country.
It was evident that there would be strife – which is probably what this rabid government wanted to achieve – they wish to divide and conquer ( as it were ), if they can. Create more turmoil ( at huge cost ) in order to deflect from other important issues – like say, the health, education and properly handled wealth distribution of our country, for our benefit. … At that, the current government sucks.
Agree with Diannaart … there IS no “NO” argument. ‘Marriage’ ( for what it is worth these days, with divorce stats. high ) … is already in place – to be between man and woman. The “YES” vote ( if it is ever taken seriously and counted correctly ???? ) … is, or should be, for equality. … People are people, no matter their preferences for a particular way of life, or whether they like avocado or not. … I think it might be called ‘freedom of choice’ .. ??
Paul Walter – your comment ” How important is social media in the refuting of politically-motivated slanders? ” ,,,, in reply, frankly I think social media is a curse, period…. It allows so called ‘freedom of speech’ [ as long as it suits the Yank agenda, and after all, the Muricans are who control 95% of it ]. And along the lines of any media reporting, social media ( Facebook in particular ) ‘chooses’ what to post and ‘newsfeed’, in order to get people to argue ( they would call it debate ) …. and thus bring further focus on the negative. They stir this – and any other contentious pot, to make money …. ( what else ) … by their advertising on all pages, which many will see, and act upon while they click on likes or argue in replies. A very cunning lot is controlling social media.
Peter I seriously think you need to go back to your bible and see how accepting Jesus was of people – all kinds of people – ( except the money makers in, and degrading, the Temple ) … and abide by his wisdom. It is acceptance that this subject is about, which translates to equality. In casting stones, can you honestly and honorably say – you are ‘without sin’. I doubt it….. very much. … I can’t and wouldn’t presume to try and do so. In biblical terms, I am a sinner …. but then so are you !
Live and let live.