Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[Wysiwyg]

It would be good to fact check if that information about school events is true and how widespread. Shorten has Penny Wong to support and is backing a win he votes for. The more I hear from Shorten, the less I like. Typical go where the momentum is and lie about what Labour can do for Australia. So fake. A lot of this stems from Turnbull not being able to or willing to say NO, this is the law. So weak.
You mob have forgotten about the 98% of Australians paying the way and spend a load of time and money on minority group wanters. Show me any of the minority group claimants not already getting a fair deal?

 

[basilio]

Here's another response on SSM from two leading catholic schools.

Perhaps it's time for a total clean out of these schools as well ?

'Love is the primary gospel value': Elite Catholic schools defy church leadership on same-sex marriage

Two of Australia's most prestigious Catholic schools have cautiously endorsed same-sex marriage in messages to parents, staff and students, directly rebuking recent statements from church leaders.

While stopping short of advocating a "yes" vote, St Ignatius' College in Sydney and Xavier College in Melbourne appealed to Pope Francis' teachings on love, mercy and non-judgment, and urged the school community to dwell on their own consciences.

The two Jesuit schools have educated generations of Australian politicians. St Ignatius', which is independent of the Catholic system, is the alma mater of former prime minister Tony Abbott and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, while Opposition Leader Bill Shorten attended Xavier College.

Father Chris Middleton, rector of Xavier College, called on the church to reflect on the overwhelming support for marriage equality among young people, and cited an Irish archbishop who called for the church to take "a reality check".

"In my experience, there is almost total unanimity amongst the young in favour of same-sex marriage, and arguments against it have almost no impact on them," Father Middleton wrote.

"They are driven by a strong emotional commitment to equality, and this is surely something to respect and admire. They are idealistic in the value they ascribe to love, the primary gospel value."

The rector of St Ignatius', Father Ross Jones, outlined the rights already afforded to same-sex couples in Australia, adding many now wish to marry "for the same reasons as their opposite-sex counterparts".

He argued Catholic couples could "in good conscience" engage in sexual relationships for reasons other than procreation under the "order of reason" school of Natural Law, rather than a physicalist view.

"Presumably, same sex-couples, who make such a commitment to each other in good conscience, do so by reflecting on experience and on what it is to be human, using their God-given reason," Father Jones wrote.

In his August 24 letter, Father Middleton sought to downplay the role of religion in the upcoming postal survey. While maintaining the church had a right to participate in the debate, he noted: "The vote relates to marriage as a civil right, and is not in essence about the Catholic sacramental understanding of marriage."

Parents at Xavier College in Melbourne were asked to consider whether denial of same-sex marriage was "unjust discrimination". Photo: Wayne Taylor
Father Middleton also suggested the church exposed itself to charges of hypocrisy following the revelations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

"To be brutally honest, the church speaking out in controversial areas around sexuality risks being mired in vitriolic attacks on its credibility in the aftermath of the royal commission," he wrote.

The Xavier College rector cited a letter by Archbishop Tim Costelloe of Perth, an opponent of same-sex marriage, who wrote that there should be no "unjust discrimination" against same-sex couples.

But Father Middleton turned that around and told parents: "For many Catholics engaged in the debate the critical question is whether the denial of the right to civil marriage is an 'unjust discrimination'?"

In St Ignatius' newsletter Viewpoint, principal Paul Hine rejected a warning from Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart - revealed by Fairfax Media last Sunday - that staff at Catholic schools and parishes who entered same-sex marriages could be sacked.

Dr Hine said it was a difficult time for same-sex attracted people, who faced an "onslaught" from not only the media but also "religious institutions".


"I do not know if Riverview has any LBGTQI teachers or parents in the college and if they have intentions of marriage: I won't be asking with a view to removing them from the school," he wrote.

"Those of same-sex orientation who are part of our community are welcomed and valued as part of the greater mission of the church, and that is to bring God's love to the world and those in need of it."

Paul Hine, principal of St Ignatius College, Riverview, cited Pope Francis in his letter to parents.
A recent poll commissioned by same-sex marriage advocates found 66 per cent of Catholics said they were inclined to vote "yes" in the upcoming postal survey - the same proportion as the general population.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...ship-on-samesex-marriage-20170829-gy66eo.html

 

[basilio]

For those interested in one Catholic Theological POV on this debate perhaps this newsletter from the Rector of Xavier College is interesting.


From the Rector
The postal vote on same-sex marriage will no doubt generate much discussion within families and communities, and, in particular, will play on sensitivities in Catholic circles where an understanding of sacramental marriage is so strong.

At the outset it is important to argue for a sense of civility and respect to be shown in this national debate, lest the degree of polarisation that has blighted the United States scene afflict us. Already there are worrying signs of overheated rhetoric. Former Justice Michael Kirby has virtually equated opponents of same-sex-marriage with hate speech. There is a campaign among advertising agencies to deny their commercial services to the no campaign. The ABC has had to instruct its staff to avoid partisanship. On the ‘no’ side the Australian Christian Lobby has made the hurtful claim that the children of same-sex couples are a new stolen generation. Offensive ‘Stop the Fags’ posters have appeared in Melbourne. There can be a tendency on both sides to so frame the debate as to unavoidably demonise the opposing view that is destructive. And it seems to me to be in the interests of both sides to avoid this. The ‘yes’ campaign, in my reading of the polls, can only lose if a perception of suppressing alternative voices alienates many in the middle, and the ‘no’ campaign can risk all credibility for its proponents in Australian society if they are identified with prejudiced or hateful language.

It is important to the understanding of the emotions generated already in this debate to recognize not simply the two different positions, but also to recognize the two different lenses through which the debate is seen. For many on the ‘yes’ side the issue is about equality and the human rights of the LGBTI community, and from this perspective a vote on whether they have such rights, or not, in itself seems offensive (especially now that so much of the Western world have already recognized same-sex marriage). It leaves some exposed and feeling vulnerable to attacks about the most intimate part of life. On the other hand, many in the ‘no’ campaign believe marriage to be integral to social structure, and therefore an issue of significant social policy that is deserving of debate. They fear that something they cherish is being diminished and society is weakened.

For many Christians another dimension to the debate is that there is an understanding of marriage that predates civil marriage. In our Catholic tradition, the marriage vows (the priest does not marry a couple) signal a mutual covenant, based in God’s creative and loving relationship with us, anchored by Jesus’ teaching that God created us male and female, and that the two become one body. It is not simply a social construct and thus has an extraordinary importance for the believer. There are related concerns about religious liberty, about the freedom of those who will continue to hold to an understanding of marriage as a spiritual ideal.

Our Church leaders face a difficult path to tread in discerning how the Church should have its voice heard in this debate, both from a pragmatic point of view (what is achievable in a pluralist society) and from an ethical view (what is right or desirable). And to be brutally honest, the Church speaking out in controversial areas around sexuality risks being mired in vitriolic attacks on its credibility in the aftermath of the Royal Commission.

Two reflections have been helpful for me. One Jesuit pastor notes that “the Catholic Church has two distinct modes of teaching about marriage and they should not be confused. The far more important teaching is about marriage as a sacrament grounded in earthly realities; the second concerns the role of marriage in God¹s plan and so about its social aspects. Of course, these two sets of teaching are related. Whereas, most other Christian Churches don’t make the distinction, so that any threat is a threat to the whole.” In our social history, understandings of marriage have evolved and changed as our culture has changed (arranged marriages, the role of women, divorce and so on).

A Jesuit theologian writes about “the importance of the Christian ideal of marriage for society”, but that “its power lies in being lived not in enforcement”. Such an emphasis leaves room for the Church to respect those who believe or live differently, while still witnessing to its own belief in the meaning of marriage. It could be argued then that “the vote is not for or against Christian marriage but about what definition of marriage best serves the harmony and unity of civil society in its imperfect state”.

In this context, the Church needs to find a voice that is appropriate to the secular sphere – after all, the vote relates to marriage as a civil right, and is not in essence about the Catholic sacramental understanding of marriage. There are of course legitimate public issues about the nature of marriage as an institution in civil society, for the relationship of marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks in society that impacts the common good, for good or ill. But such discussion, in which the Church has every right to participate in, needs to be determined on the merits of the arguments rather than through appeals to authority, religious or otherwise. There are also important aforementioned considerations of conscience and religious liberty connected with important social change, but they are more likely to be respected if the Church is not seen as an uncompromising enemy of same-sex marriage in civil society. At the same time, some proponents of same-sex marriage are disingenuous in reducing concerns about religious liberty to excusing religious marriage celebrants from requirements to officiate as same-sex marriages. Will, for example, Catholic school be free to teach a traditional approach to marriage? Will religious bodies be open to all kinds of civil suits if they only recognize traditional marriage in their specific religious contexts?

As one who works in a school and who is charged with witnessing to our faith to the young, it is clear that the debate exposes a real disconnect between the Church’s public opposition to same-sex civil marriage and the attitudes of young people. In my experience, there is almost total unanimity amongst the young in favour of same-sex marriage, and arguments against it have almost no impact on them. This has been the experience in many similar countries. In Ireland, Archbishop Martin of Dublin picked this up with his comments after the Irish referendum delivered a result in favour of same-sex marriage:

I think really that the Church needs to do a reality check, a reality check right across the board, to look at the things it’s doing well, to look at the areas where we really have to start and say, ‘Look, have we drifted away completely from young people?’

Again it is important to draw the distinction between the argument about public policy in a secular state and our own moral positions. As Archbishop Martin commented further, “That doesn’t mean that we renounce our teaching on fundamental values on marriage and the family. Nor does it mean that we dig into the trenches. We need to find...a new language which is fundamentally ours, that speaks to, is understood and becomes appreciated by others.” The Archbishop added that:

We tend to think in black and white but most of us live in the area of grey, and if the Church has a harsh teaching, it seems to be condemning those who are not in line with it. But all of us live in the grey area. All of us fail. All of us are intolerant. All of us make mistakes. All of us sin and all of us pick ourselves up again with the help of that institution which should be there to do that. The Church’s teaching, if it isn’t expressed in terms of love - then it’s got it wrong.

I believe that this last sentiment by the Archbishop is critical in how we communicate our views in areas like sexuality. It is a challenge for the Australian Church in our debate today, where the rhetoric of political discourse and partisanship can over-ride a pastoral priority. Pope Francis’ call needs to be heeded:“Let the Church always be a place of mercy and hope, where everyone is welcomed, loved and forgiven.”

Whatever of the postal vote, the Church needs to reflect on why there such strong support for same-sex marriage among the young. They are driven by a strong emotional commitment to equality, and this is surely something to respect and admire. They know the reality of homophobia, and the destructiveness that it, like racism and sexism, can have in the lives of people, and especially on the young. They are idealistic in the value they ascribe to love, the primary gospel value. Any argument against same-sex-marriage must respectfully address these core values, or they will fail a basic test of credibility with our young. Such arguments must appeal to believer or non-believer alike.

A start is made by Archbishop Costelloe of Perth who in a pastoral letter written in defence of a traditional view of marriage articulates some carefully chosen words about a Catholic approach:

This view presumes that marriage is about more than the mutual love between two people: it is also about the creation of a family. None of this suggests that there should be any unjust discrimination against same-sex couples. Nor does it suggest that legal protections and government benefits should be denied to same-sex couples.

Many of us have family and friends in same-sex relationships: we love and respect them and want to see them treated with dignity,

For many Catholics engaged in the debate the critical question is whether the denial of the right to civil marriage is an “unjust discrimination”?
https://xavier.vic.edu.au/xavier/bulletin-article/90791/459/469/692/89889

 

[basilio]

How bright is Tony Abbot to try and pin the Liberal mast to a No vote in the SSM plebisite? Perhaps he is creating an elaborate anchor to take the Liberal Party into the deep..

Abbott's opposition to marriage equality will cost the Liberals for years to come
Tony Abbott and other Liberal conservatives still imagine they can build a winning constituency from the no side. Instead, he has wrapped the party in impossible tangles


@Jeff_Sparrow
Tuesday 29 August 2017 15.01 AEST Last modified on Tuesday 29 August 2017 21.25 AEST

Though he devised his plebiscite scheme to trap equal marriage advocates, Tony Abbott unwittingly created a snare for the Liberal party, one that’s wrapped them in impossible tangles.

With every poll showing public support for reform, a cannier conservative might have quietly passed the necessary legislation, thus taking the subject off the table.

Instead, as I argued back in 2016, by committing the Liberals to a popular vote, Abbott placed his disagreement with the majority of Australians right in the centre of public debate.

He linked support for marriage equality – something that conservative parties elsewhere have accepted without much fuss – to opposition to the Liberal party, and he forced those who want change (namely, most of the population) to become politically active so as to get it.

Already, Malcolm Turnbull’s version of the plebiscite has unleashed an extraordinary tide of sentiment.

A few random examples:

• Triple M – a station you might once have associated with “Tony’s tradies” – has updated its logo to incorporate a rainbow flag.
• Pubs and music venues across Sydney have staged an Equality Weekender to encourage people to enrol to vote.
• Singer Meghan Trainor reacted to the use of her image by no campaigners by joining Miley Cyrus, Ellen DeGeneres, Stephen Fry and other stars in urging Australians to support reform.
• The Officeworks chain has declared it won’t allow the printing of hate speech at its facilities.
• In Sydney and Melbourne and elsewhere, town halls have been illuminated to urge a yes vote.
• Some 20 000 people rallied in Melbourne.

......
Look at Tony Abbott’s own career (The joys of being young and carefree..)

In the Quarterly Essay entitled Political Animal: The Making of Tony Abbott, David Marr describes the young Abbott launching himself into Sydney University politics by attacking gay students for “perversion”.

Publicly identifying himself “an infrequently practising heterosexual and drunkard” (truly!), Abbott opposed the legalisation of homosexuality. His friends remember the way he baited lesbians during political arguments.

But that, of course, was a different time, an era in which prejudice could be taken for granted.

If Abbott repeated today the language he used when he was promoting the Heterosexual Solidarity Society (yep, seriously), his parliamentary career would be over...

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...lity-will-cost-the-liberals-for-years-to-come

 

[Tisme]

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...s/news-story/535dcae290582136cb2445f3869ff820
(comercial add)

the times sure are changing...

Billy Shorten was quick out of the blocks. He must feel the pain and misery of LGBxyz

Australian Labor Party and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten told Fairfax Media the ad was “offensive and hurtful to LGBTI Australians and their families”.

 

[Tisme]

Having kids in a household that includes just one of these people is dangerous to them. Put two of them together in a sanctioned marriage and God knows what the ultraviolet lamps and microscopes would reveal. Icky, squishy, habits .... yuck, double yuck

Certain enteric ailments are particularly common among homosexual men. They are primarily infectious diseases and include not only such common venereal diseases as gonorrhea and syphilis but also infections not usually regarded as being sexually transmitted. Among the latter are shigellosis, salmonellosis, giardiasis, and amebiasis. Patients' symptoms are non-specific and seldom helpful in diagnosing particular diseases. The practitioner must be prepared to identify a number of infections with similar presentations that may occur singly or together in gay men. Gonorrhea is probably the most common bacterial infection in gay men. Carriage rates as high as 50% have been reported, and extra-genital carriage is common; this necessitates culturing the urethra, rectum, and pharynx. Procaine penicillin G is the treatment of choice for most patients; spectinomycin is probably the drug of choice in penicillin-sensitive patients. In contrast to other venereal diseases, syphilis may have a characteristic protoscopic presentation. Benzathine penicillin G is the treatment of choice for most patients. Lymphogranuloma venereum causes penile lesions and inguinal lymphadenitis in heterosexual men, whereas homosexual men are more prone to proctitis. The disease may mimic Crohn's disease. Recommended treatment includes tetracycline or sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim. Shigellosis usually presents as an acute diarrheal illness. Patients generally require only supportive treatment with fluids. Herpes simplex viral infection is difficult to diagnose and has several different presentations, including lumbosacral radiculomyelopathy. Symptomatic treatment with sitz baths, anesthetic ointment, and analgesics is recommended. Venereal warts are believed to be caused by the same virus that causes verrucous warts; they are usually found in the anal canal or around the anal orifice. They are commonly treated with 25% podophyllin solution. Parasitic infections include giardiasis, amebiasis, and pinworm infections. Metronidazole may be used in the treatment of symptomatic giardiasis and amebiasis, but it is not approved for the former indication; quinacrine is approved for giardiasis. Pinworm infestation may be treated with pyrantel pamoate or mebendazole. Cure of enteric diseases in homosexual men must be documented.

 

[wayneL]

The left seem to be pushing the notion that love is the only prerequisite for marriage. Isn't that a dangerous path?

Couldn't the same logic be used to justify that other relationships are qualified ro marry?

 

[Tisme]

The left seem to be pushing the notion that love is the only prerequisite for marriage. Isn't that a dangerous path?

Couldn't the same logic be used to justify that other relationships are qualified ro marry?

I don't think love is a prerequisite or encouraged in the current marriage legislation nor in the bible regarding marriage? I'll stand corrected if someone proves me wrong.

 

[basilio]

"Your boy can wear a dress to school ?" This thought provoking/horrendous idea is part of the No campaign against the SSM postal vote.

Was this suggestion actually made ? Does it matter anyway if it was because after all it could have been said (and surely that possibility alone is enough tp concern parents.)
And of course there is no necessaity to make factual or relevant comments in this debate. That has become abundantly clear.

Back to the semi-real world the Principal of the school from which the comment was (allegedlly) made says it never happened (but of course it could have..)

'It never happened': Principal denies mum's TV claim that son could wear a dress

2,189 reading now
Show comments
A Melbourne principal has disputed a mother's claim – aired in an anti same-sex marriage TV ad – that her son was told he could wear a dress to school.

Cella White, who has previously appeared in videos attacking the Safe Schools program and whose claims have been heavily promoted by the Australian Christian Lobby, is one of three mothers featured in the Coalition for Marriage's debut TV ad which aired on Tuesday night.

"The school told my son that he could wear a dress to school next year if he wanted," Ms White says in the 30-second commercial.

But the principal of the school in question, Frankston High, said Ms White's claim had no substance.
"We checked with all the teachers, it never happened," John Albiston said.

"I have never had any complaints that we advised the boys they could wear dresses. We didn't offer them that option.

"Why would this so-called incident that never happened have anything to do with marriage equality?"
Mr Albiston said Ms White had raised concerns with him about the Safe Schools program, but the school's uniform had never cropped up as an issue.
"She has never spoken to me about it," he said.

"You would think if she was so concerned she would have raised it."

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...hat-son-could-wear-dress-20170830-gy6ygk.html

 

[grah33]

>>In St Ignatius' newsletter Viewpoint, principal Paul Hine rejected a warning from Melbourne >>Archbishop Denis Hart - revealed by Fairfax Media last Sunday - that staff at Catholic schools >>and parishes who entered same-sex marriages could be sacked.

Which may be the right thing to do. you're gonna get furious parents who pay good money to send their kids to those schools, because they want them educated in certain values. They'll be furious if the gov modifies values over there (should they do that later on). 'clubs' have the right to run things their own way.

They appear to be using the clergy child molestation thing as leverage... as horrific as it is, it's not an excuse for the gov to start taking away religious freedom (if it does try to do that later on, wouldn't be surprised).

as for the priest's comments, a lot of blocky text there ... Yet there seems no purpose to it all. I mean common, let's get something straight here. if you're into religion, then you're not into gay marriage etc. It's a no-brainer really.

 

[Logique]

Could the LGBTi lobbyists sink any lower?

Now attacking ordinary Australian mums, simply for caring about their children's balanced values-based upbringing! On tactics alone, the SSM lobby deserve to lose.

We all know what the Safe Schools agenda is Mr disingenuous school principal!

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...hat-son-could-wear-dress-20170830-gy6ygk.html
30 Aug 2017:
'It never happened': Principal denies mum's TV claim that son could wear a dress..

 

[Value Collector]

balanced values-based upbringing!

what does that mean?

 

[Logique]

what does that mean?

Not what the LGBTi and the Safe Schools program think!

Nor contrary to the societal mores handed down to us from 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian thought. Sorry to the SSM lobby if it's not groovy enough for a Newtown or Brunswick cafe in 2017

 

[Junior]

If two people love each other and want to get married, get amongst it I say. Unlike many, the prospect of a man marrying a man does not terrify me, and cause me lost sleep. Whatever makes you happy and causes no harm to others, is a good thing.

The arguments around harm to children, traditional definition etc. etc. are just a gigantic fear campaign and turning a simple issue of equality into a political issue. There is a certain %% of the population that fear change and will blindly oppose change in all its forms. Similar arguments have been wheeled out in the past when women gained the right to vote, when blacks were permitted to marry whites and when homosexuality become legal.

SSM WILL definitely be legalised, if not this year, then certainly the next time the Coalition loses an election - likely to be the next one based on how polls are trending. Folks squirming and fighting it are wasting their energy and are delaying the inevitable. SSM will happen and life will go on, your marriage will not be impacted one iota; perhaps you should be fighting the concept of divorce - which destroys 30% of all marriages and has a tangible and proven negative impact on children.

 

[Junior]

Further to the above, no matter which poll you choose to believe, you'll find that those in the younger demographic overwhelmingly support change. To me, this is important for two reasons:

1. As this group ages, and as teenagers are added to the voting roll, support will only get stronger. The definition of marriage WILL change in this country, so those opposed will need to open their minds a little and get used to the idea.
2. These are the people who are actually getting married. All due respect to the 65+ amongst us, but on this particular issue younger folk should be heard, as it has a far greater impact on them then older folk who have already been married (often more than once), and probably won't be doing it again.

 

[SirRumpole]

These are the people who are actually getting married. All due respect to the 65+ amongst us, but on this particular issue younger folk should be heard,

A lot of young people just go along with the anti establishment radicals, a rebellion against their elders as they always have done. It doesn't mean that their views are any more valid than those who have had a few more years to think about the issues.

 

[Value Collector]

Not what the LGBTi and the Safe Schools program think!

I am asking what you think it means?

 

[Value Collector]

A lot of young people just go along with the anti establishment radicals, a rebellion against their elders as they always have done. It doesn't mean that their views are any more valid than those who have had a few more years to think about the issues.

saying that, the older generation has always tended to be slow on the uptake when it comes to social change.

I mean my 81 yearly grandmother still gets upset when we go to the city once or twice a year because she thinks there are to many asians, she doesn't believe she is racist either.

 

[qldfrog]

saying that, the older generation has always tended to be slow on the uptake when it comes to social change.

I mean my 81 yearly grandmother still gets upset when we go to the city once or twice a year because she thinks there are to many asians, she doesn't believe she is racist either.

you mean the beatniks and free love of the 60's aka my parents are the ones prohibiting any bits of breast or love making on today's TV while we are having the most gruesome murders, dissection and forensic macabre scenes displayed at dinner time?? It is not a generation problem, it is an IQ and education issue
The "older generation" had something missing around now: common sense with a mixed of above education and IQ;
IQ is going down in the western world..a fact you can google, and not by an insignificant amount.
=>Dum and dummer sheeps looking for tribe inclusion a la "hitlerian youth" , keen on their instagram 2s of fame are now ruling the place...
Their parents had to read 1984 at school and knew about USSR and the horrors of propaganda.They just blame Trump or the russians.So funny in a way

 

[Tisme]

"

'It never happened': Principal denies mum's TV claim that son could wear a dress

he's either lying or his staff are. He advocated for Safe Schools Program and that in turn promotes "fluidity" in gender identification, and this mob is behind it: https://minus18.org.au/