The sex continuum and gender fluidity

The sex continuum and gender fluidity


For years, LGBTIQ+ people have been fighting for acceptance, recognition, equity and respect. While there have been improvements, there are still some people who argue that there are only two genders and that this is supported by science. However, what theynet are talking about is sex rather than gender. Gender is about roles, identity and expression. The World Health Organization provides the following description of gender.

'Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men, such as norms, roles, and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed' (World Health Organization).

Gender development is not straight forward. It is complex with many possible variations that are influenced by a multitude of factors, including hormones or conditions such as congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) which causes a high level of male hormones in females, resulting in female genitalia often being mistaken for male genitalia  (NHS 2016).

Sex is binary in its most basic form, that is, male and female. But .... that doesn't exclude variations. Males and females have 23 pairs of chromosomes, for a total of 46 chromosomes. Of these, 22 pairs are identical between males and females. The remaining pair are called the 'sex chromosomes' and in females, they are both X chromosomes, whereas in males, one is an X and one is a Y chromosome (U.S. National Library of Medicine 2019).

However, not everyone is born this way. Some males are born with three X chromosomes, some females are born with a Y chromosome. Some people are born with a physical characteristics of male and female, although it may not be readily identified at birth, or even until much later in life. These people are called intersex. It is estimated that 1 in 1500 people are intersex (Newman 2018).

The following diagram of the 'Genderbread Person', provides an excellent and simplistic guide to sex, gender, identity and expression.

www.ItsPronouncedMetrosexual.com

Just because there's black and white, doesn't mean that colours don't exist. As a result of the variety of sex combinations available through various chromosomal combinations, some scientists have suggested that sex should be considered a continuum, rather than a binary construct (Newman 2018). Similarly, gender identity has a myriad of combinations. The following diagram illustrates some gender combinations.

Science may support two sexes, however, it also supports a spectrum of sex and gender formations and identities. Intersex, by definition, means 'between the sexes', which indicates that sex is not a binary construct; it doesn't have just two options. Unfortunately, understanding nuance is not the forte of conservatives. Many of them have the attitude that intersex is some new fad, even though the number or type of chromosomes one has is not something that one chooses ... and it's been this way for millennia.

Source: Lee (2017)

In terms of hormones, people have testosterone, oestrogen and progesterone. Females tend to have higher levels of oestrogen and progesterone, while males tend to have higher levels of testosterone. But this isn't the case for all. There are men with higher levels of oestrogen and progesterone, while some females are born with higher levels of testosterone.

People are a complex mixture of genes, chromosomes and hormones. Each of these will impact whether a person is male, female or somewhere in-between, whether they are attracted to the same sex, opposite sex or have no sexual attraction, whether they identify with the sex they were apparently born with, or identify some other way ... or any combination not already mentioned.

Sex is a spectrum and gender is fluid, with both presenting in multitudes of ways. This can be confusing for those who only think in black and white, who can't see colours or nuance, who refuse to look outside their own ignorance.

Some conservative or religious people may find that the sex continuum and gender fluidity do not fit their narrow world view, however, not everything can be slotted into some cookie-cutter mould defined by religion or ignorance. Sadly, this has manifested itself through rejection, hate, violence, forced 'medical' treatment, 'conversion' therapy and other harmful practices.

Back in 1967, a quaint, psychedelic British band recorded a song called 'Incense and Peppermints', which had the following timeless lyric that is as relevant now as it was then:

Beatniks and politics, nothing is new
A yardstick for lunatics, one point of view

It's hard to believe that more than 50 years later, there are still people with such narrow world views about sex and gender, while following ultra-conservative politicians and preachers who border on the lunatic.

There's nothing wrong with having a narrow world view, but there is something wrong when this manifests in ways that try to force those views on others. For thousands of years, LGBTIQ+ people have been reviled by others. Of course, not all societies were like that. Some celebrated or revered those who were non-binary or had a gender variance. For instance, North American indigenous communities held 'two-spirit' people, those with male and female spirits, in significant regard (Enos 2017).

Many nations persecute people for their sexuality and gender identity. There are 75 jurisdictions that criminalise same-sex sexual activity between men, 45 jurisdictions that criminalise lesbianism, 12 jurisdictions that impose the death penalty for same-sex activity and another six jurisdictions where the death penalty is a possibility, while 15 jurisdictions criminalise transgender behaviours (Human Dignity Trust n.d.).

Even in countries were it is not criminalised, LGBTIQ+ people face rejection, discrimination and persecution. This was evidenced in Australia during the debate over whether to legalise same-sex marriage. While it was eventually legalised, the arguments were particularly toxic, with there being numerous attacks on LGBTIQ+ people and numerous religious leaders declaring it to be immoral and a threat to the welfare of children. Numerous church leaders said they welcomed gay people as long as they were not engaging in same-sex sexual activities. Imagine the message that this sends to LGBTIQ+ people. It is saying that they are unable to be 100% themselves, they can't bring their whole self to church, to work, or even within their families.

This rejection has a significant impact on the mental health of LGBTIQ+ people. Imagine how it must feel to not be able to discuss what you did on the weekend because it involved your partner and you knew that this would result in you being ostracised, judged, rejected. The first country to legalise same-sex marriage was the Netherlands in 2001. Since then, several other countries have followed, but there is still significant ostracising of and violence against LGBTIQ+ people, resulting in them being more susceptible to anxiety, depression, homelessness, self-harm and suicide. LGBTIQ+ youth often have 'elevated rates of emotional distress, symptoms related to mood and anxiety disorders, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behavior when compared to heterosexual youth', with them experiencing three times the likelihood of suicide compared to heterosexuals (Russell & Fish 2016).

Conversely, where there is acceptance of LGBTIQ+ people, there is less mental health issues, less homelessness, few incidents of self-harm. For instance, in 1985, Denmark became the first country in the world to legalise civil unions, and Sweden followed in 1995. Since then, both countries have legalised same-sex marriage, resulting in the number of suicides of lesbians and gay men almost halving (Wakefield 2019)

When Australia implemented anti-bullying programs in schools, there was a backlash by religious fundamentalists who were convinced that this would turn children gay. Yet, this backlash was the very issue that the anti-bullying programs were trying to address. Studies have found that where schools have such anti-bullying programs and affirm student's sexual and gender identities, there are fewer reports of homophobic victimisation, assault and harassment, while LBGTIQ+ students feel safer and are less susceptible to depression, substance abuse and self-harm than in schools which don't have these programs (Russell & Fish 2016).

This affirmation of identity enables LGBTIQ+ people to be their whole selves without fear. They can go to school, work, church, family, and social situations without feeling the need to hide their sexuality or gender identity.

In 1970, the world's first gay pride parade was held in New York City, on the 12 month anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, in which members of the gay community rioted in protest against ongoing police harassment following a raid on a gay nightclub, the Stonewall Inn (History.com 2019).

Gay pride movements sprang up across the globe to combat the homophobia, harassment and rejection that LGBTIQ+ had experienced for so long, and to provide a safe place for people to be who they truly are without fear.

But the ignorance remains. Homophobic bigots have attempted to hold 'straight pride' rallies and think that gay pride is there for LGBTIQ+ people to force others into their 'lifestyles'. The bigots are the ones who are forcing others into their lifestyles, LGBTIQ+ people simply want the same rights and opportunities. They express it as pride, because for far too long they were made to feel ashamed of who they are, to hide who they are. They were subject to violence, persecution, arrest, vilification. They were told that their natural sexuality and identities were sins. They were told that they were abominations. There are some bigots who still claim this. Straight people have never been arrested or vilified for being 'straight', they have never been made to feel ashamed of their sexuality or gender identity and expression. They have never been in a situation where they cannot talk about their partner.

Thankfully, the world is changing and the dinosaurs who try to force their bigoted views on others are in the minority. Sadly, these dinosaurs continue to cause significant trauma to others. They argue that there is a 'gay agenda' to dismantle society's traditional values. They victimise LGBTIQ+ people in the name of their religion or conservative, archaic 'values', then when they are called out for their homophobia they squeal as though they are the victims.

Gender is fluid and sex is a spectrum, as evidenced by numerous scientific studies and regardless of whether or not some people can comprehend this.

Accepting the facts and accepting people for they are will not destroy society, but will improve it, enabling everyone to live their lives openly and fully. The only 'gay agenda' is one of acceptance, equality and equity.


References

Enos, T 2017, '8 Things You Should Know About Two Spirit People', Indian Country Today, 29 March, viewed 18 January 2020, https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/8-things-you-should-know-about-two-spirit-people-294cNoIj-EGwJFOWEnbbZw.

History.com 2019, Gay rights, 3 July, viewed 18 January 2020, https://www.history.com/topics/gay-rights/history-of-gay-rights.

Human Dignity Trust n.d., Map of Countries that Criminalise LGBT People, viewed 18 January 2020, https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/.

Lee M, 2017, 'How many genders are there? Two. Sort of.', Medium, 31 October, viewed 24 November 2019, https://medium.com/@cultureshock/how-many-genders-are-there-9a2aa6e82151

Newman T, 2018, 'Sex and gender: what's the difference', Medical News Today, 7 February, viewed 24 November 2019, http://medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php.

NHS 2016, Gender dysphoria - Overview, 12 April, viewed 18 January 2020, https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/.

Russell, S & Fish, J 2016, Mental health in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth, 28 March, Annual review of clinical psychology Vol 12, pp. 465-487, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4887282/

U.S National Library of Medicine 2019, Your guide to understanding chromosomes - how many chromosomes do people have?, 12 November, viewed 24 November 2019. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/basics/howmanychromosomes

Wakefield, L 2019, 'Same-sex marriage in Sweden and Denmark has reduced the number of lesbians and gay men dying by suicide by almost half', 14 November, viewed 18 January 2020, https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/11/14/same-sex-marriage-in-sweden-and-denmark-has-reduced-the-number-of-lesbians-and-gay-men-dying-by-suicide-by-almost-half/

World Health Organization n.d., 'Gender, equity and human rights', viewed 24 November 2019, https://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/understanding/gender-definition/en/.

Millennials: 'entitled' or a modern-day Diogenes Lamp?

Millennials: 'entitled' or a modern-day Diogenes Lamp?


Often we see the 'more enlightened' older generations, you know Gen X and Baby Boomers, accusing millennials (Gen Y) and post-millennials (Gen Z) of thinking they're entitled ... entitled to jobs, clean environment, affordable housing ... you get the idea. Throughout this, I'll refer to millennials, but this is inclusive of post-millennials.

One of the things that the older generations bang on about as evidence of this, is that millennials grew up receiving participation awards rather than getting awards for actually achieving things. it should not be forgotten that it was the older generations who started the participation awards. After all, four year old millennials didn't start or ask for this. The older generations forget, or refuse to take responsibility for the way that they raised millennials.

This lack of taking responsibility is pretty typical of baby boomers and Gen X who merely partied on the back of the wealth that the west acquired following World War II. They partied like it was 1999 and frittered it away, creating an economy which pushed house prices out of reach of millennials, where permanent jobs are more and more difficult to find, and destroyed the environment, all in order for the older generations to selfishly exploit the markets, job-seekers and the environment for their own interests without regard for future generations. As the economy, job markets and environment go south, older generations do what they do best: find a scapegoat and blame them for it; in this case, millennials.

Is it fair to accuse millennials of feeling 'entitled' just because they want affordable housing, permanent jobs with career prospects, and an environment that will sustain future generations?

There are other issues which span generations, but which still get blamed on millennials. For instance, the expectation that people should be able to marry those who they are in love with ... regardless of gender. This is a battle that has been fought for years by previous generations, but hey, let's blame millennials. There are issues of gender and sexuality. Many conservatives seem to lack understanding of the difference between sexuality and gender. For centuries there have been people who identify as a gender that they were not apparently born with. There have been hermaphrodites, who these days are referred to as intersexual. There have been people who are born with sexuality or gender proclivities within LGBTIQ+. Yet, now that people are finally gaining the rights that have been demanded for centuries, it is the fault of millennials.

Then there's my personal favourite, when Christians accuse millennials of being entitled. Why Christians? Well ... if any group believes they're 'entitled' it is the church. Here we have a group who demand that they are entitled to freedom from taxation while also expecting to have political clout and the right to enforce their beliefs on others. It is not the fault of millennials, nor are millennials feeling 'entitled', to expect that they can have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The moment someone wants something that contradicts a church dogma, the church grabs its bag of entitlement and screams persecution. Ironically, this is usually because the church is being stopped from persecuting others. We saw this most dramatically during the marriage equality debate. The church carried on with incredible lies and demonisation, characterising LGBTIQ+ people as loving pedophilia and bestiality. Claims which were blatant lies and fear-mongering. What great churches we have when they would rather spread hate and fear than show love to people who want the same rights as everyone else: to marry. Interestingly, since Australia legalised marriage equality, the sky hasn't fallen in and people are not marrying their pets, children or the Sydney Harbour Bridge, as predicted by many Christians.

Picking on the younger generation is something that every older generation has done from the beginning of time. You can read more on that in Ranting Panda's Kids of Today article. However, two quotes stand out. The first one could be from any of the older generation's criticism of millennials, but is actually 6000 years old:

'We live in a decaying age. Young people no longer respect their parents. They are rude and impatient. They frequently inhabit taverns and have no self-control' - inscription on 6000 year old Egyptian tomb.

However, Logan Smith has summed up why the older generation must bag out millennials (and sadly, millennials will bag out future generations):

'The denunciation of the young is a necessary part of the hygiene of older people, and greatly assists in the circulation of their blood' - Logan Pearsall Smith 1865-1946.

Millennials feel no more entitled than older generations do. Older people for instance, expect the government to give them all sorts of things, such as pensions, free health, free travel, and for younger people to respect them, to stand for them, to wait on them hand and foot. Many older people feel entitled to respect, but often don't give respect to others. When younger people work two or three jobs to pay for an exorbitant education (implemented mind you, by the older generation who could attend university for free), they are often abused by older people who think it is appropriate to treat people poorly if they work in retail or hospitality. How often do we see an older person abusing a sales assistant or a waiter for some trivial reason, for instance, because they had to wait an extra couple of minutes for service or because plastic bags have been banned (funnily enough by politicians who are from the older generation, but lets blame millennials).

Older people will say that back in their day they could crack racist and sexist jokes without anyone getting offended. Millennials are 'entitled' because they will often call out these racist and sexist 'jokes'. Is it that millennials are 'entitled' or is it that perhaps they are more enlightened and mature than the older generation in realising the hurt and harm these jokes cause to others.

An extension of this is the #MeToo movement and the ongoing allegations of historical sexual offences. Back in the day, women were expected to tolerate sexually aggressive behaviour by men, whether it was wolf-whistles or inappropriate groping, or worse. Donald Trump, currently US President and likely Putin's Manchurian Candidate, achieved the US presidency with the help of right-wing Christians, while boasting that he was able to just walk up to a woman and grab her on her pussy. One could be mistaken for thinking right-wing churches consider this to be their entitlement too as they were so willing to support Trump. But back to millennials, it wasn't just them that started the #MeToo movement, it was a reaction to a culture embraced by older generations, that had trivialised and normalised sexual assault.

It is this maturity and enlightenment that drives this so-called 'entitlement' of millennials. Perhaps baby boomers and Gen Xers should remember what they were like back in the day. Remember all the protests of the 1960s and 70s, in which they demanded peace, freedom and environmental protection. They marched to save the environment, end war, end racism, improve civil liberties, and gain gay and lesbian rights. They held strikes demanding fairer conditions and better pay. Baby boomers and Gen Xers were militant generations that demanded better things for the future. Now that millennials demand the same thing, they are being demonised by the very people who also wanted these things thirty or forty years ago. How short are people's memories?

Everyone has an entitlement to live life free of interference from others and to not interfere in other people's lives. What is unacceptable are actions that infringe on people's freedoms and human rights.

A story from ancient Greece tells of Diogenes of Sinope (also known as Diogenes the Cynic), a Greek philosopher (c400-325CE), who believed that no-one in society was honest or good because they were tethered to rules and conventions that encouraged dishonesty and a lack of responsibility. Diogenes went on a quest with his lamp, holding it up to the faces of Greek citizens as he sought an honest (or good) person. Additionally, there is a story that Alexander the Great approached Diogenes, telling him that he could have any gift he wanted. Diogenes allegedly told Alexander the Great that 'what you've taken away from me, you can never give'. Alexander was perplexed and asked him what he meant. Diogenes replied with, 'you're standing in my sun'.

Rather than condemning millennials for their expectations for civil liberties, equal rights, a decent life and concern for the future, we should praise them for being the Diogenes Lamp in a society where dishonesty, lack of empathy, selfishness and greed epitomised previous generations to the detriment of society and the future - not unlike the society Diogenes found himself in. It seems that conservative older people only want to conserve the worst elements of the society they grew up in; namely the war, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, pollution and environmental degradation, while mocking goodness, empathy, human rights, environmental conservation and social justice - these things should be revered, not mocked. We do not build a better society by conserving hate and ignorance, we achieve it by promoting love and respect.

Holding up a lamp to the imperfections in society is not something that should be mocked, neither is expecting the rights that no-one should take away (as Diogenes pointed out to Alexander the Great), namely a sustainable environment, basic human rights and equality.

Millennials are not unfairly demanding 'entitlement', they are astutely calling out inequality and unfairness.

Abortion caution - patriarchy, pro-birthers and poverty

Abortion caution - patriarchy, pro-birthers and poverty

There are two issues that are guaranteed to mobilise the moralistic masses out of their social justice torpor: homosexuality and abortion. Recently, Australia saw these self-appointed guardians of morality taking time out from their bible studies and prayer groups where social justice is a dirty word, so they could attack marriage equality and bully LGBTIQ+ people while attacking anti-bullying programs such as Safe Schools. It's a pity these guardians of morality don't get as upset about the human rights abuses meted out by the Australian government as they do about people having the choice to marry whom they chose.

But abortion. The other moralistic meat. It is fodder to the self-righteousness of the pro-lifers ... or, more accurately, anti-abortionists ... because their idea of pro-life ends with birth as you will soon see. These anti-abortionists clapped and cheered and waved their flags when President Donald Trump stated he was going to cease funding health care providers around the world, if they gave advice about or provided abortions, even though evidence indicates an increase in backyard abortions when these programs are de-funded⁽¹⁾ and abortion is outlawed⁽²⁾.

Many of the anti-abortion brigade are Christians who will quote the bible as evidence of why abortion is bad. These are mainly scriptures about being formed in the womb, such as Psalm 139:13, 'For you created my in most being, you knit me together in my mother's womb', and Psalm 22:10, 'From birth I was cast on you; from my mother's womb you have been my God'. This scriptures are used by some Christians to argue that human life starts at conception, however, none of them address abortion - either in prohibiting it or in addressing the causes of abortion.

Anti-abortion Christians, often miss some critical scriptures; some to do with the horrid treatment of babies in the bible and some to do with reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortion. Firstly, the bible has some terrible examples of the treatment of children and babies. For instance, 1 Samuel 15:3 is one of many scriptures that advocates killing every man, woman and child.

Psalm 137:9 really sets the scene by declaring, 'happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against rocks'. I can't remember Dr James Dobson ever recommending this as an effective child-rearing technique, so hopefully no-one takes this scripture literally. As an interesting aside, that verse is in the same psalm that gave us the awesome Boney M song from the 1970s, Rivers of Babylon ... but I digress.

Numbers 5:11-31 prescribes abortion for unfaithful wives, or for wives whose husbands are jealous and merely suspect the wife of infidelity (even if the wife has committed no wrongdoing).⁽³⁾ Verses 30 & 31 state 'when the spirit of jealousy comes upon a man, and he becomes jealous of his wife; then he shall stand the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall execute all this law upon her. Then the man shall be free from iniquity, but that woman shall bear her guilt'. Note, these verses are printed in full at the bottom of this article. SO according to this scripture, if a man is jealous it is all the woman's fault (regardless of whether he has cause or not) and he can force her to have an abortion just because he is jealous - or at least drink poison that will mess up her ability to have kids if she isn't pregnant. She drinks the poison and if she cheated and is pregnant, she will have an abortion. What if she is pregnant to her husband and hasn't cheated? Are we to expect the magic potion can tell the difference? The abortion will happen anyway. The victims here are the wife and the fetus. The man gets away scot free for being unable to keep a lid on his jealousy. Sticking with songs of the 1970s, it's fortunate that John Lennon wasn't an advocate of this scripture ... he even wrote a song about being a Jealous Guy. Poor old Yoko could have found herself in a world of pain.

Numbers 5:11-31 applies to the woman's alleged infidelity. But what of the man's infidelity? This isn't a one off. Centuries later, Jesus rescues a woman who was about to be stoned for adultery. As it takes at least two to tango, where was the man with whom the woman allegedly committed this indiscretion? The society of the day was particularly paternalistic and gave women fewer rights than men. Perhaps referencing the values of such a patriarchal society is not the best thing when discussing a woman's choice to decide whether or not to have an abortion.

And then there's Hosea 13:16 which takes abortion, raises it to murder and then knocks it completely out of the park with 'Their infants shall be dashed in pieces, And their women with child ripped open'. This was a result of the hapless Samaria disobeying God. This disobedience thing comes at a high cost. Hosea 9:16, 'were they to bear children, I would kill the darlings of their womb'. Hmm ... forced abortion ... abortion is murder according to the anti-abortionists.

If one wishes to be anti-abortion, then clearly the bible is not the hallmark to use for defending the fetus.

Given the extremely patriarchal society described in the bible, it should not be used to justify legislation that affects a woman's right to chose what happens to her body. Women should have the right to chose whether or not they get an abortion. Not the church, not the self-appointed guardians of morality who will picket an abortion clinic while thanking God for a conservative government with the fortitude to torture and abuse asylum seekers fleeing persecution and war.

It is understandable that some people find abortion abhorrent and wish to stop it, after all, the fetus represents the potential for a life. But with backyard abortion rates increasing when abortion is banned, the so-called pro-life lobby needs to re-calibrate their position and look to the drivers of abortion if they truly want to stop it.

One of the main drivers of abortion is poverty, which affects the ability for people to afford contraception, thus increasing unwanted pregnancies, as well as the difficulty in meeting the cost of raising children; all of which contribute to an increased rate of abortion for poorer people⁽⁴⁾. It's interesting that many of the pro-life brigade are also opposed to welfare, increasing the minimum wage and penalty rates, Obamacare (or universal healthcare) and cheered on Trump's cuts to funding of programs across the globe that provided contraception and advice on safe abortions: all things that reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancy, abortion and backyard abortions, thus resulting in fewer terminations and saving the lives of countless women. In fact, most of the pro-lifers aren't interested in the child once it's born. Instead of calling themselves 'pro-life', they should call themselves 'pro-birth', because that is where their concern ends.

Anti-abortionists are more concerned with arguing when life begins than in protecting life once it's born.

Anti-abortionists focus on banning abortion even though the evidence shows this is ineffective. Banning it is quick and easy, but drives it underground and makes the anti-abortionists feel like they are doing something. As long as they can't see it, anti-abortionists are happy. Out of sight, out of mind. So they're not really anti-abortion, they are anti-legal-abortion. If they really wanted to do something they would address the causes of abortion, not sweep it under the carpet. Addressing the causes is more difficult than simply banning it.

It's interesting that so many 'pro-lifers' reference the bible to support their anti-abortion stance, but ignore the scriptures that would actually reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions. No, not the scriptures about remaining celibate! You know the scriptures. They're the ones that tell us to care for the poor, the widow, the orphan. Yet the moment that the government puts forward programs to do just that, these uber-religious types start looking for a socialist to crucify ... something like they did with Jesus a couple of millenia ago.

It's ironic that the only scriptures of the bible that will help reduce poverty and homelessness, and therefore reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortion, are the scriptures most often ignored by anti-abortion Christians.

References

1. World Health Organization, Eran Bendavid, Patrick Avila, Grant Miller, United States aid policy and induced abortion in Sub-Sahara Africa, 27 September 2011, http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/12/11-091660/en/. Accessed 28 December 2017.

2. The American Prospect, Nathalie Baptiste, This is What Happens When Abortion is Outlawed, 17 June 2015, http://prospect.org/article/what-happens-when-abortion-outlawed. Accessed 28 December 2017.

3. Bergant, D. and Karris, R., (1992). The Collegeville Bible Commentary: Old and New Testament Set. Liturgical Press, p. 156.

4. Guttmacher Institute, Heather D. Boonstra, Abortion in the Lives of Women Struggling Financially: Why Insurance Coverage Matters, 14 July 2016, https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2016/07/abortion-lives-women-struggling-financially-why-insurance-coverage-matters. Accessed 28 December 2017.



Numbers 5:11-31 (New International Version)


11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”

Love is Love & Fear is Homophobia

Love is Love & Fear is Homophobia

The No campaign in Australia's upcoming marriage equality survey, played their hand early by revealing that they will run a campaign of fear if marriage equality is legalised; declaring that everything from bestiality to marriage with inanimate objects will suddenly become the norm ... it is clear that fear-mongering and catastrophising is their modus operandi as they discuss everything but the real consequence of marriage equality, which is simply that two people in love can get married.

Oh, even though they are running a campaign of fear ... don't call them homophobic because ... er ... according to them ... they are not afraid ... right ... yep. The Oxford English Dictionary describes phobia as an 'irrational fear or aversion to something'. The No campaign: Irrational, tick; fear, tick; aversion, tick. Yep, it ticks all the elements of phobia ... ergo, the No campaign is homophobic!

Let's quickly go to bigotry - because that's another thing they don't like being called. Firstly, it is not bigotry to oppose same-sex marriage - everyone is entitled to an opinion. So why are some of them being called bigots? A bigot is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as 'a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance'. It is one thing to hold different views, but to force another group to live by those views is bigotry. Preventing someone from marrying the person they love because you are so obstinately unable to accept their love, is bigotry. Conversely, marriage equality does not force anyone to marry someone of the same sex, nor does it force opposite-sex couples to divorce. There is no impact on heterosexual people. They are still free to marry whoever they want, to have children if they can and want, to divorce, to criticise homosexuality. That doesn't change. Yet, the obstinate No campaigners are preventing people from marrying in order to enforce their intolerant views - that is bigotry!

One of the tactics of the No campaign has been to catastrophise issues that followed marriage equality in other nations, so let's unpack some of those.

Britain

An article in The Spectactor⁽¹⁾, listed four things that supposedly happened in Britain after same-sex marriage was legalised.

1. Gender reassignment surgery will no longer need medical consultation. The UK government stated that this was to continue on building an inclusive society for all people, including the LGBTI community following the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967, marriage equality in 2013, and Turing's Law in 2017 that posthumously pardoned men who'd been charged under the now abolished anti-homosexuality laws⁽²⁾. Medical diagnosis is seen as an intrusive and unnecessary procedure for someone who wants to change gender. The law aims to make it easier for LGBTI to transition to the gender of their choice. How is this a bad thing? It's only impact is on trans and intersex people, and given the significance of it, it isn't a decision that they would make lightly.

2. Freedom of religion. This point is argued on MP Justine Greening stating that churches should 'reflect modern values' and marry same-sex couples which currently the Church of England is not legally allowed to marry. The Speaker of the House also stated that in true equality, people should be able to get married in a church if they choose. And why shouldn't they? Nonetheless, in Australia, it is proposed that religious leaders would have the option as to whether or not to allow couples to marry. This will mean that there will be a number of churches available for couples to marry in, and those who feel strongly against conducting ceremonies for same-sex couples can still say no. How is this a problem?

This point went on to discuss a Pentecostal Christian couple who were denied the ability to foster children because they 'would not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable'. They argued that this was because of THEIR religious views. The court ruled that the right to live in a non-discriminatory home took precedence over religious views. And why shouldn't it? It is already well known that LGBTI children face significant emotional trauma over rejection and difficulty in reconciling their sexual orientations to those that parents, guardians, schools and churches try to force on them. Why should adults who refuse to accept homosexuality be allowed to foster homosexual children. What sort of impact would this rejection and emotional abuse have on the child. This issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion. No-one is preventing this couple from worshiping in the way they choose, it is however, about ensuring homosexual children are raised in a nurturing and welcoming environment.

The article claimed that the Vishnitz Jewish Girls School, which in 2013 (prior to marriage equality), was assessed by Ofsted (the body responsible for assessing schools) and 'passed with flying colours'. It then claims that in 2017 (after marriage equality was legalised), Vishnitz was assessed again by Ofsted and failed the school assessment 'on one issue alone', namely the 'inadequate promotion of homosexuality and gender reassignment' and is now facing closure as a result. It has since been revealed that this is a lie. Marriage Equality became legal in the United Kingdom in March 2014. Vishnitz was already running foul of Ofsted prior to this date for a number of reasons as stated by by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) on their website⁽³⁾, which included failing 'to have policies in place that would require it to report incidents of abuse and neglect. ECAJ went on to state that the UK Equality Act 2010 protected sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment. The UK Equality Act explicitly allows for schools to teach their own beliefs about sexuality and marriage 'in a way that does not disrespect LGBTIQ people'. In October 2016 and May 2017, Ofsted found that Vishnitz was not meeting the standards required to respect LGBTIQ people. Furthermore, the school failed on a number of other issues not related to  LGBTIQ people, including 'facility maintenance, lack of a medical room and poor labelling of suitable drinking water'. In May 2017, Ofsted found the school had rectified these issues, except for the requirement to respect LGBTIQ people. Ofsted did not mention teaching marriage equality and certainly was not forcing Vishnitz to teach gender reassignment surgery⁽⁴⁾. Vishnitz is protected under the UK Equality Act to teach their own beliefs, as long as it encourages respect for LGBTIQ people. Is there anything wrong with respecting others?

Is the right to disrespect others at a school level, at an educational level, what the No campaigners want? Are they arguing that it is ok to lie in order to make one's point and that children should be indoctrinated to disrespect others? What an example to set children by people who claim they have the children's best interest at heart.

It should be made clear, that not all Christians feel threatened by marriage equality. There is a large number of Christians who support it, including groups such as Australian Christians for Marriage Equality⁽⁵⁾.

3. Freedom of speech. This section talked of horrendous bullying that anti-same-sex marriage campaigners suffered, including excrement being thrown at one person's house and their children receiving death threats. Clearly unacceptable. However, this is an extreme example and fails to acknowledge the violence and abuse that LGBTI people have suffered for years at the hands of those who feel they are an 'abomination'. During the Australian debate over marriage equality, there have been terrible claims made about the consequences of marriage equality, including it leading to pedophilia, bestiality and polygamy. Even those who think they're being less ludicrous, still draw illogical conclusions with no evidence, such as marriage equality will damage children and fundamentally change society. The No campaign is based on such non sequiturs aimed at shutting down the Yes campaign.

Those who argue that proponents of marriage equality are opposed to free speech forget one very important point; free speech cuts both ways. If someone voices an opinion, others are entitled to challenge that opinion. That is free speech. It isn't the proponents of marriage equality who are trying to stop people doing or saying anything; that would be the No campaign who want to stop people in love marrying those they love and being able to talk openly about it.

The article goes on to list a number of workers, including public servants, who have lost their jobs for failing to comply with anti-discrimination laws. The funny thing about public servants is that while they may not always agree with a particular government policy, they have agreed through their employment to act impartially - regardless of their political views. A public servant who has a significant conflict of conscience would have to seriously consider their future if they can't remain impartial.

The article cites the example of a North Ireland bakery that discriminated against a marriage equality activist who asked them to bake a cake with the words 'Support Gay Marriage'. Any employee who feels strongly against homosexuality, whether they worked for a large chain store or a small business, would have to question their future employment if they refuse to serve customers on the grounds of sexual orientation. This is reminiscent of the days when some Christians refused to serve mixed-race couples.

The fact is that baking cakes is not a religious activity, it is a commercial one, so no-one's religious activities are being curtailed. In terms of freedom of speech, well speech just happens to be that - speech. It is not behaviour, and it certainly isn't the right to discriminatory behaviour. A person may feel strongly against someone or something, and they generally have the freedom to speak out about it - other than when it comes to hate speech or behaviours that encourage violence against others.

Now that LGBTI people might have the same opportunity to marry as others, the bullying has intensified and the homophobic No campaigners are trying to portray themselves as the victims, yet LGBTI people have been victims of bullying and abuse for years.

The hate-speak and fear-mongering of the No campaign, has given impetus for a neo-Nazi group called Antipodean Resistance to oppose same-sex marriage through vandalism and spreading of vile posters that link same-sex marriage to pedophilia⁽⁶⁾. The group admits they recruit radicalised individuals and hasn't ruled out violence in achieving their goals. Is this the sort of bigotry, discrimination and hate crimes that the No campaign feels should be part of the future?

Anti-discrimination laws are in place for a reason; and that is to protect the rights of all people to live a life in which they enjoy the same rights as others, free of discrimination. Is this really too much to ask?

Speaking of freedom of speech, like with much of the No campaign, this is only freedom for some people - namely, those who the No campaigners agree with. Recently, a Victorian church refused to marry a heterosexual couple because the bride posted her support for marriage equality⁽⁷⁾. The Presbyterian minister stated that this contradicted the 'teachings of Jesus and the church' ... really? Considering there are a large number of Christians supporting marriage equality, this is a shaky premise to take. It is unrealistic of any church to expect everyone they deal with to have exactly the same views as them. Freedom of speech? Not in the convoluted mentality of the No camp and disturbingly, Prime Minister Turnbull is condoning this attack on freedom of speech.

4. Children. The article discussed a number of independent religious schools which were brought to task for failing to promote homosexuality and gender reassignment. It mentioned that there was a push by the Minister for Equalities for sex ed classes to be LGBTI inclusive so that students were 'equipped for life in Britain as it is today'. This is similar to the concerns that were aired over the Safe Schools program run in Australia a couple of years ago. Safe Schools specifically addressed LGBTI issues with age-appropriate classes from primary school to high school. The idea was to reduce the stigma that LGBTI children already experience and which is the prime cause of their emotional trauma.

A recent study by the Centre for Social Research In Health at University of New South Wales concluded that marriage equality has a beneficial outcome on the mental health of LGBTI adolescents⁽⁸⁾. Surely anyone who is concerned about children would accept that this is a good thing. If children are taught to accept that not everyone is born heterosexual, that there are a number of variations to sexual orientation, and for that matter gender is not always a simple male/female issue, then this will help to reduce rejection and bullying of LGBTI children ... which clearly won't happen if they follow the lead of homophobic parents.

There is no disputing the fact that some people are born intersexual. This is clearly biological. Why should intersexual people be required to live in hiding so that some small minded people are not offended? As for people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender - the science around the causes is complex with evidence to indicate biological causes for some, while issues in early development may be the cause for others. Regardless, some people are gay ... or lesbian ... or bisexual ... or transgender... or intersexual ... or some other variation. This exists regardless of whether LGBTI people can marry.

Marriage Equality will not force or encourage anyone to 'become' gay.

Canada

Similar arguments to the above have been claimed in Canada⁽⁹⁾, such as supposed restrictions on freedom of expression, parental rights in public education and religious institutions' right to autonomy. Each of these have been addressed above regarding Britain and also addressed below about Australia. Ultimately, the opponents of same-sex marriage want the right to discriminate regardless of the harm it does to LGBTI people and their children.

Back to Australia

Failed Labor Party leader, Mark Latham claims that same-sex marriage will open a 'can of worms'⁽¹⁰⁾ by allowing 'gender fluidity', into the Marriage Act. This has been the latest ploy by the No campaign to remove the debate from same-sex marriage to ... shock horror ... any two people getting married regardless of their gender identity. Really? We're still looking at two people getting married. Latham then bangs on that 'Through Neo-Marxist programs like Safe Schools and Respectful Relationships, radicals have infiltrated the class-room'. Goodness. Poor old Karl Marx cops a hiding for stuff he never did or said. But resurrecting the 1950s 'reds under the bed' zeitgeist is part of the fear-mongering against same-sex marriage .... and they want us to believe they aren't homophobic. I'm not sure what part of 'safe' and 'respectful' that Latham and opponents of Safe Schools and Respectful Relationships don't understand. Why would they want the opposite: unsafe and disrespectful?

Imagine being a child who feels they don't fit within the definition of 'normal' or expected behaviour for their gender? Often they are battling with confusion and depression. Children are most likely to either withhold this information or discuss it with the people they generally trust most, their parents. How much will it damage them if their parents reject them, abuse them, tell them they're an abomination in the eyes of God. If people truly care about children, they would support programs such as Safe Schools and Respectful Relationships.

In an insightful article on transgender children, Benjamin Law quotes Paul Thoemke, an American case manager for LGBTI children, who says '... I sometimes think the greatest risk for these kids is their families'⁽¹¹⁾. If those families understood that gender and sexuality is a spectrum, they would be more inclined to support their children instead of forcing them to be someone they aren't .... or worse ... rejecting them, abusing them, kicking them out. Law goes on to quote statistics regarding the high levels of homelessness among LGBTI young people; America up to 40%, Britain up to 25%, and estimated in Brisbane of around 13%. Clearly families are rejecting their LGBTI children. Is this the world that the No campaign is campaigning for?

Ironically, the anti-marriage-equality people are concerned about children being forced into gender and sexuality models that they don't believe are natural, when in fact, it is THEY who are forcing LGBTI children into lives that aren't natural for them. 

What's the worst that could happen?

Consenting LGBTI adults will be able to marry the person they choose.

Will Ministers or other people of faith be forced to marry same-sex couples? No.

Will butchers, bakers and candle-stick makers be forced to sell their wares to same-sex couples? Possibly - because ... anti-discrimination. Hmm ... let me see, not baking a cake - yeah that will teach people for being gay - goodness, if the cake is tasty enough, it might even motivate them to give up the gayness. What's more important? Someone's bigoted interpretation of scripture, or someone's right to live a life free of discrimination and abuse!

Will kids be denied the right to a mother and father? No. Marriage Equality does not steal children from their parents. Divorce does that, yet No campaigners are strangely silent around this ... perhaps because quite a number of them are divorced, so that would mean shining the light on themselves. 12%  of LGBTI people in Australia already have children of their own who live with them(12), and further, they are legally able to adopt. Additionally, a comprehensive study into child-rearing over a 30 year period concluded that gay and lesbian parents are as competent and effective as heterosexual parents. The authors observed that the inability for same-sex couples to marry adds to stress for their families and that 'because marriage strengthens families, and in so doing, benefits children's development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married'. ⁽¹³⁾

Will schools teach gender fluidity rather than the binary male and female genders? Unlikely, but so what if they do? Biology classes will obviously go into detail about male and female as these are the two genders required for reproduction, however, will it kill anyone to understand that the world is not black and white, that there are people who are intersexual, homosexual, bisexual, transgender or have other views on gender and sexual orientation. This is not the end of the world, it just means children will have a better understanding of the real world than their parents did - perhaps this means they won't grow up with obstinate and intolerant views on those who are different to them.

Gender identity and sexual orientation are a spectrum, they are not a neatly categorised binary system. Why should children be taught an inaccurate paradigm of gender because reality is too uncomfortable for some who can't reconcile their limited views with fact.

The rainbow that represents LGBTI people is appropriate as sexual orientation and gender identity are not black and white.

The No campaigners are trying to re-engineer themselves as the victims in this debate, claiming they are being bullied, demonised and victimised. Why? So they can continue bullying, demonising and victimising LGBTI people who have suffered from homophobic violence and discrimination all their lives.

Many of the No campaigners are Christian. Which means they are bound to have repeated the scripture that 'perfect love drives out fear'. So why are they so hell-bent on using fear to drive out love?

The positive effects of marriage equality

With all the fear-mongering from the No campaign, we cannot forget what marriage equality will actually achieve:

1. Same-sex couples will have the same opportunity as heterosexual couples to marry, providing greater legal protection and recognition of their next-of-kin status.

2. Same-sex couples will be able to provide the support of a recognised family for their children.

3. A reduction in the stigma of same-sex couples and their children.

4. A reduction in hate-crimes against LGBTI people.

5. Freedom of religion for LGBTI people.

6. Freedom of expression for LGBTI people.

7. Greater community awareness and appreciation that gender and sexuality are not binary, that there is a spectrum and no matter where on that spectrum people are, they are entitled to the same opportunities as others.

If two consenting adults are in love, why shouldn't they get married? Their ability to love, to marry, to commit, is not dependent on their genitals or where they want to put them.

Love is Love - regardless of gender, regardless of sexual orientation.

It's time to end the discrimination and victimisation.

It's time for marriage equality.

References

1. The Spectator Australia, David Sargeant, What's changed in Britain since same-sex marriage? 7 September 2017, https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/whats-changed-in-britain-since-same-sex-marriage/. Accessed 9 September 2017.

2. UK Government, Rt Hon Justine Greening MP, Government Equalities Office, New Action to Promote LGBT Equality, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-action-to-promote-lgbt-equality. Accessed 9 September 2017.

3. Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Factual inaccuracies surrounding London's Vishnitz Girls School #DebateWithoutHate, 4 October 2017, http://www.ecaj.org.au/2017/factual-inaccuracies-vishnitz-girls-school/. Accessed 6 October 2017.

4. The Guardian, Paul Karp, Claim UK school failed inspection over marriage teaching 'factually inaccurate' 5 October 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/05/claim-uk-school-failed-inspection-over-marriage-teaching-factually-inaccurate. Accessed 6 October 2017.

5. Pink News, Jasmine Andersson, Christian group backs marriage equality campaign in Australia, 30 August 2017, http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/08/30/christian-group-backs-equal-marriage-campaign-in-australia/. Accessed 9 September 2017.

6. ABC News, Danny Tran, Antipodean Resistance Neo-Nazi group trying to sway Australia's same-sex marriage postal vote, 5 September 2017, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-05/neo-nazi-group-antipodean-resistance/8852682. Accessed 9 September 2017.

7. The Age, Michael Koziol, Malcolm Turnbull defends right of church to refuse to marry couples who support gay marriage, 15 September 2017, http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-defends-right-of-church-to-refuse-to-marry-couples-who-support-gay-marriage-20170915-gyi0hm.html. Accessed 15 September 2017.

8. Hopwood, M., Treloar, C., Kolstee, J., Koonin, J., (2016), The Impacts of Marriage Equality and Marriage Denial On the Health of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual people, Centre for Social Research in Health, UNSW, Australia, https://csrh.arts.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/marriage-equality-evidence-review/

9. The Witherspoon Institute, Public Discourse, Bradley Miller, Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada, 5 November 2012, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/. Accessed 10 September 2017.

10. The Daily Telegraph, Mark Latham, Same-sex Yes Vote Will Open a Can of Worms, 29 August 2017, http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/mark-latham-samesex-yes-vote-will-open-a-can-of-worms/news-story/248eb22253826ed116f51eb08c353a48. Accessed 9 September 2017.

11. The Canberra Times, Benjamin Law, Why do transgender children raise the hackles of 'tolerant' Australians?, 9 September 2017, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/good-weekend/why-do-transgender-children-raise-the-hackles-of-tolerant-australians-20170906-gybvyv.html. Accessed 10 September 2017.

12. Australian Government, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Lixia Qu, Ken Knight and Darryl Higgins, Same-sex couple families in Australia, September 2016, https://aifs.gov.au/publications/same-sex-couple-families-australia. Accessed 22 September 2017.

13. Perrin, E.C. & Siegel, B.S., 2013. Promoting the well-being of children whose parents are gay or lesbian. Pediatrics, 131(4), pp.e1374 – 83, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377. Accessed 10 September 2017.

Updated 6 October 2017.

NO! The YES campaign is NOT worse than Racism - a response to Karina Okotel's claims.

NO! The YES campaign is NOT worse than Racism - a response to Karina Okotel's claims.



The Australian published an article regarding Liberal Party vice-president, Karina Okotel, who was born in Australia but is of Sri Lankan background. In the article she talks of racism that she has experienced in Australia because of her dark skin colour⁽¹⁾. Obviously, racism is not to be tolerated and it is terrible that she experiences this, as many others have because of their skin colour, nationality and religion.

However, No Campaigners confuse argument with bigotry. They argue for freedom of speech, but when opponents exercise their freedom of speech, the No campaigners unleash their claims of persecution by political correctness. However, much of the offense they claim is manufactured.

Liberal Party vice-president, Karina Okotel ⁽¹⁾

Ms Okotel goes on to talk about how the accusations of bigotry against her opposition to marriage equality is worse than the racism she has experienced. Ms Okotel says that she has been refused service in shops because of her race. Again, this is bad. Yet, this is the very thing that the No campaign wants the right to do for same-sex couples. 

Ms Okotel was told to go back to her own country, which considering she was born in Australia, shows the ignorance of racists. Unfortunately, her experience isn't isolated with many people in Australia being told the same thing. In particular, we saw this reach a crescendo during the discussions about asylum seekers ... and much of that was led by people in the current No campaign.

It is unfortunate that many in the No campaign align with Christianity, yet they have vociferously led the racist, fear-mongering attacks on asylum seekers, Muslims, migrants and even Australia's indigenous people.

Ms Okotel claims she has been bullied 'just for querying whether we should be legalising same-sex marriage'. I don't know what Ms Okotel considers to be just a query, however, many of those on the No side, aren't 'just querying', they are making highly inaccurate, hateful and fear-driven claims regarding the impact of same-sex marriage. For example, the corybantic Cory Bernardi who claimed marriage equality would lead to people having sex with animals, or others claiming it would lead to pedopholia. It is these sort of disgusting comments that has led to the No campaign being labelled bigotted. It is not worse than racism to call out such hate, ignorance and lies.

Ms Okotel claims that the Yes campaign's accusations of the No campaign conflating issues is a debating device to shut-down discussion about the consequences of marriage equality. Yet, the No campaign has not been able to show the mechanics behind the downfall of the pillars of society or fundamental family rights and the implementation of marriage equality. Nowhere is there a map joining the dots from legalisation of marriage equality to all of these irrational conclusions of the No campaign. The No campaign goes from an illogical 'Cause to Effect' without showing the How. The reason is that there are no links.

The article about Ms Okotel's experiences is designed to make the No campaign feel like the victims.
However, victims of racism and bigotry, who have been attacked because of their sexuality, race and religion, may be surprised by this. The Yes campaign isn't violently attacking people as we have seen in racist and homophobic attacks in Australia and across the globe. One of the issues that created the Sydney Gay and Lesbian parade back in the 1970s was the violence that gay people suffered from ignorant fools who considered 'poofter-bashing' to be a weekend sport. The No campaign is not experiencing these levels of hate and violence. The No campaign just doesn't like being challenged.

The No campaign has based much of their argument on fear-mongering, yet they don't wish to be called homophobic. Considering that phobia means having an 'irrational fear or aversion' to something, then the No campaign either needs to own the label or improve their arguments.

Ms Okotel claims that the consequences of same-sex marriage need to be addressed because these include erosion of freedom of speech, religion and association.  Yet when the Yes campaign challenges these, it is accused of being intolerant. Hmm ... pot/kettle. The No campaign are the ones want the right to be intolerant to same-sex couples.

Marriage Equality will not force any significant change other than to allow same-sex couples to marry. It is not like people will be forced to quite their religion or long-held beliefs ... it's not like marriage equality requires some sort of 'conversion therapy'. Oh wait, some in the No campaign, such as Pansy Lai who featured in the No's first ad, do advocate conversion therapy for LGBTIQ people though to force them into being heterosexual⁽²⁾.

Marriage Equality will not remove the rights of heterosexual couples to marry, procreate, choose what schools they go to, what shops they shop at or what churches they go to ... that would be exactly what same-sex couples already face and which is why the No arguments have been accused of bigotry, which means a complete intolerance of other people's beliefs, and which has manifested itself through the inequality in marriage that Marriage Equality is trying to rectify.

Reference

1. The Australian, Greg Brown, Yes bigotry 'is worse than racism', 1 September 2017, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bigotry-from-yes-campaign-is-worse-than-racism/news-story/333d3eb398e130bc7110fb95839c877c. Accessed 1 September 2017.

2. News.com.au, Jessica Anne Washington, Anti same-sex marriage campaigner Pansy Lai promotes conversion therapy, 1 September 2017, http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/anti-samesex-marriage-campaigner-pansy-lai-promotes-conversion-therapy/news-story/19a06432ae2887daa903e4be3566c2fa. Accessed 1 September 2017.

The simple right to say 'I Do' and the real consequences of marriage equality

The simple right to say 'I Do' and the real consequences of marriage equality


 Any number of idioms sum up the Liberal and National Parties' positions on marriage equality:

• Much ado about nothing

• Making a mountain out of a molehill

• The mountains laboured and brought forth a mouse

When it comes to marriage equality, the L&NP are making a simple matter as hard as possible.

In 2015, then Prime Minister Tony Abbott, so caught up in religious right-wing zealotry kicked marriage equality (or same-sex marriage) down the road by promising a plebiscite because he wouldn't allow his government a free vote on the issue. His successor, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull went to the disastrous 2016 election also promising a plebiscite costing around $180 million.

To be clear, the plebiscite is to ask the majority of Australians to decide if a minority of Australians can marry because a vocal 'moral' minority have already decided that marriage equality should not be legalised. It basically breaks down as this:

One minority's choice being decided by another minority's choice.

So in 2017, rather than put forward a marriage equality bill to be debated, the government puts forward a plebiscite bill (for the second time), which is promptly debated and defeated (again) within an hour. Now, think about this. One hour. It could have been a marriage equality bill, debated and voted on within an hour. So rather than pursue this option, Turnbull decides that the Coalition government will uncharacteristically keep  an election promise, namely the plebiscite ... even though the plebiscite was defeated twice. So he engages the Australian Bureau of Statistics to run a $120 million postal survey in place of the defeated plebiscite. The postal survey is neither compulsory or binding. The pollies will still have to vote on the marriage equality bill even after the $120 million is spent. Why not cut out the middle man, and just vote - that's what politicians are paid significant wages to do. $120 million could have been avoided by a one hour debate and vote. Think about that. The survey is non-binding, so regardless of the outcome, politicians can vote however they feel. This would have been the same with the non-binding $180 million plebiscite. So what's the point??

The point is to placate a predominantly religious minority who are hanging on ancient scripture from a book that many of them fail to follow anyway. Remember the clamour from the religious right about when the government abused asylum seekers, destroying families, abusing the poor, the widow, the refugee. No? I don't either. Because most of them justified it and voted for the ongoing abuse by good Christian politicians of the ilk of Tony Abbott and John Howard, who reveled in hyperbole and lying about, demonising and abusing people fleeing war and persecution. ... 'whatever you do to the least of these ...'

The religious right, whipped into a fanatical frenzy by the Australian Christian Lobby and a number of fundamentalist pastors whose beliefs are founded in Absolutism ... the belief that everything is black or white; there is only good or bad, there is no relativism. Funnily enough, relativism requires context, Absolutism requires obstinance. Absolutists believe that their personal interpretation of 2000 year old scripture is the only correct one. However, as Leon Trotsky nicely explained, 'There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or in war. Everything depends on circumstances'.

The No campaign, if not rooted in religious fundamentalism, is concerned about irrelevant issues, such as children, 'traditional' marriage, religious freedom, fear-mongering that it will be a slippery slope to people marrying their pets or inanimate objects ... but none have a reason why two loving people should not marry.

'Traditional' marriage isn't the domain of Christianity even though some have argued that it is a covenant before God. Funnily enough, people tailor their vows to suit their beliefs. Non-Christians have a right to marry whether or not they believe or say it is before the eyes of God.

'Traditional' marriage has not always been between one man and one woman ... heck, even in Australia, 'traditional' marriage once included one adult and one child; girls as young as 12 were able to marry until 1942 ⁽¹⁾.

One of the arguments of the No campaign is that children have a right to a mother and father. The biggest threat to the family unit is divorce. Marriage Equality doesn't deprive anyone of parents, divorce does that - yet, I haven't heard any Christian campaign against divorce and funnily enough, many of the people in the No campaign are divorced - and that's the real issue they don't want to contend with.

However, children are not an issue in this debate for numerous reasons. People do not necessarily marry to procreate, otherwise infertile couples wouldn't marry. Many LGBTI people already have their own children and can adopt - so that ship sailed long ago if the No campaign wants to focus on children. LGBTI people with children are often in committed and stable relationships with the only thing missing being the ability to marry the person they love. Surely, the No campaign isn't advocating that they be forced to marry someone of the opposite gender or remain single all their lives. This would be a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 16) which states that consenting adults have the right to marry and found a family - it doesn't specify gender as a restriction⁽²⁾.

Arguments abound that children of same-sex parents are more prone to self-harm and suicide. Yet, what impacts them the most is rejection, bullying and criticism ⁽³⁾. Numerous studies have demonstrated that children of same-sex parents are no worse off than those raised by heterosexual parents, and have high self-esteem and low levels of depression and anxiety⁽⁴⁾. Quality of parenting is more important than the gender of parents.

People are born gay, people are born intersex. If God doesn't want gay or intersex people then he should stop making them. Of course, this doesn't fit the Christian narrative that homosexuality is a sin, because that would require choice. For most LGBTIQ people, it is not a choice, but an inherent orientation ⁽⁵⁾. Even the bible acknowledges people were born gay. Matthew 19:12 says 'For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it'. Way back then, eunuchs were men who were not interested in women which made them the perfect choice to guard high ranking women. As Jesus himself pointed out, some were born like that (born homosexual), some were made by men (castrated) and same made themselves like that (self-castration). Eunuchs were often considered effeminate and homosexual.⁽⁶⁾

Some Christians believe their religious freedom will be violated if same-sex marriage is allowed. It has already been stated that the marriage equality bill will allow churches to refuse to conduct same-sex weddings if they so choose. So how is this a violation of religious freedom? Perhaps its because people want the right to discriminate against same-sex couples, for instance not baking their wedding cakes. So, say a religious absolutist works in a large supermarket and a same-sex couple wishes to buy stuff for their wedding, is the religious fundamentalist going to risk their job by refusing service? Even now, do they check the sexual orientation of the people they serve, or of their doctor, mechanic, hairdresser, baker? It is fundamentalists wanting the right to discriminate. Not surprisingly, these same people then get upset if accused of being bigots or homophobic. If a person wants the right to deny someone else their basic human rights, then bigot is probably the politest word that can be used. Religious freedom does not mean the right to deny someone else's freedoms.

As for homophobic, the Oxford Dictionary describes phobia an 'irrational fear or aversion to something'. Clearly the rabid opposition to same sex marriage indicates irrational aversion to homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

As for the other arguments about same sex marriage leading to polygamy or bestiality - remember these claims by the corybantic Cory Bernardi ⁽⁷⁾ and others like him ... seriously? Desperation much? Anyway, where's the consent in this? Marriage Equality is about choices being made by consenting adults.

Dozens of countries have legalised marriage equality and the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west. The world hasn't ended.

The No campaign conflates and confuses the argument with irrelevancies. They come to conclusions without mapping the links between the start and end point. For instance, how does same-sex marriage rob children of a mother and father if the parents aren't together anyhow?

There are those on the No side who claim to love LGBTIQ people, but state they are just opposed to same-sex marriage, usually for one or more of the reasons covered above. However, what is often missing in their argument is the impact on LGBTIQ people. Currently they face systemic discrimination through not having the choice to marry. A recent study by the Centre for Social Research In Health at Uni of New South Wales concluded that marriage equality lessens the impact of this systemic discrimination and 'positively impacts their health'. The study called out the potential negative impacts from holding a potentially harmful plebiscite because of the extended debate on the issue and the negative impacts this will have on LGBTIQ people, whose health and well-being should be a primary consideration, yet is being completely ignored by the No campaign. ⁽⁸⁾

This study reflects others that have been done which indicate that discrimination is associated with 'increased psychological distress and increased rates of psychiatric morbidity, such as increased rates of depression and anxiety'. Marriage is one way to legitimise a person's sexuality, which is extremely important considering how critical sexuality is to identity. Not having their sexuality legitimised 'creates problems for lesbians and gay men with respect to stigma, self-acceptance and lack of support from family and communities'. For those concerned about children, the failure to legalise same-sex marriage also has a flow-on affect to the mental health of children of same-sex couples who are denied the stability and structure that comes from a formalised marriage.⁽⁹⁾ These are the real consequences of marriage equality that we should be concerned with, the positive consequences that we should be focused on.

The issue is one of consenting adults choosing to marry the person they love in order to have a normal, loving family - just like anyone else's. It is simple. We don't need a costly and damaging postal survey, we don't need rabid debate that inflicts further pain, suffering and stigmatisation on LGBTIQ people and their children.

We just need Marriage Equality.

Update - 30 August 2017

The No Campaign released their television advertisement on 30 August 2017, and got off to a flying start when they were busted lying. The ad claimed a school said a young boy could wear girl's clothes to school. The Principal of the school has publicly stated that this is not true ⁽¹⁰⁾. As kids learn by example, it appears the No campaign is comfortable teaching children that it is ok to lie in order to make a point. This ad claims that removing gender from the Marriage Act will remove gender from the classroom, however, education is not linked to marriage. Same-sex marriage is about allowing people of the SAME gender to marry ... so how is this genderless marriage? It isn't. What it is, is the No camp fabricating information ... lying.

As many predicted, the No campaign will focus on scare-mongering, conflating irrelevant issues and outright lying rather than addressing the real subject, namely marriage between two consenting adults. The No campaign has no substance to their opposition to marriage equality, so grasps at straws to manipulate the gullible. Clearly this is going to be a dirty campaign.


References

1. ABC News, Kathy Gollan, Marriage in Australia: A timeline of how love and laws have changed in 130 years, 17 April 2017, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-17/marriage-in-australia-how-love-and-law-have-changed-in-130-years/8430254. Accessed 27 August 2017.

2. United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf.

3. Daraganova, G., (2017), Self-harm and suicidal behaviour of young people aged 14-15 years old, LSAC Annual Statistical Report 2016, Growing up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children, http://www.growingupinaustralia.gov.au/pubs/asr/2016/asr2016f.pdf, accessed 27 August 2017.

4. RMIT ABC Fact Check, Fact or fiction: A mother and father is better than same-sex parents, 21 August 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/2015-07-24/same-sex-parenting-fact-or-fiction/6616352. Accessed 27 August 2017.

5. The Guardian, Qazi Rahman, Gay genes': science is on the right track, we're born this way. Let’s deal with it, 24 July 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/jul/24/gay-genes-science-is-on-the-right-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it. Accessed 27 August 2017.

6. Ringrose, K.M., 2003. The perfect servant : eunuchs and the social construction of gender in Byzantium, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (p. 21)

7. ABC News, Simon Cullen, Bernardi resigns after bestiality comment, 19 September 2012, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-19/controversy-over-cory-bernardi-bestiality-comments/4269604. Accessed 29 August 2017.

8. Hopwood, M., Treloar, C., Kolstee, J., Koonin, J., (2016), The Impacts of Marriage Equality and Marriage Denial On the Health of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual people, Centre for Social Research in Health, UNSW, Australia, https://csrh.arts.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/marriage-equality-evidence-review/

9. Kaplan, A., (2006). Same-Sex Marriage: Mental Health Perspectives. Psychiatric Times, 23(9), p.1.

10. SBS, Rashida Yosufzai, 'Untrue' says school principal of mother's claims in 'No' marriage ad, 30 August 2017, http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/08/30/untrue-says-school-principal-mothers-claims-no-marriage-ad. Accessed 30 August 2017.