More consequences of changing marriage

A look at the 'arguments' against equality.

In this series we are going to have a look at The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), a political anti-gay group, as with a vote on equality looming, they are exploding with nonsensical vitriol and hate speech.

Andrew Hinge - Thursday, 28 May 2015

Wow this one has so many slights, such a hateful rant, its sad really.
 *"changing the definition of marriage" he makes it sound like a bad thing, this is about making marriage laws equal for all Australians.
*"protections for freedom of conscience" Not too sure what he is getting at here, he is probably still supporting protection for those who wish to continue to discriminate, and indeed that will be included in the legislation, no one will be forced to perform any marriage.
*'(Include protection for the) rights of children" What seriously? The legislation will not change the legal age to marry, children will not be getting married. 

"ACL Managing Director Lyle Shelton expressed disappointment at the apparent capitulation in the Parliament to the same-sex political agenda"

Just to be clear the so called "homosexual agenda" is equal rights under the law. That is it, noting more than these bigots already have.

So he goes on more about wanting protection for bigots, and children getting married, argues that bigots might get ostracised (he is apparently against ostracising bigots), he goes on and on about protecting the rights of homophobes.

If the laws pass he seems to want the right to lie to his children about what marriage is, I am sure there was something about not committing falsehoods in Christianity, but I think it’s currently legal to lie to your children, I don’t think this legislation will address that, it’s about marriage equality not parental responsibility.
Or he could simply tell the truth to his children, explain how he defines his marriage, and how other religions define marriage, how his religions definition of marriage has changed over the years and how Australian law defines marriage.

 Mr Shelton said a law redefining marriage would pave the way for commercial surrogacy to be legalised in Australia.
No, again the legislation has nothing to do with surrogacy, and we do not allow commercial surrogacy in Australia, this bill will not change that.

“So called ‘marriage equality’ cannot be provided for two ‘married men’ without lifting the ban on commercial surrogacy."

So called marriage equality? That is what it’s called because that is what it is. What? No, it can indeed; the legislation has nothing to do with surrogacy, commercial or otherwise.

“If two men with ‘marriage equality’ are to have access to babies, they need unfettered access to donor eggs from women and carrier wombs."
No they don’t, access to babies, or surrogacy, has nothing to do with weddings, I don’t know what kind of wedding ceremonies this guy is going to but damn, just no.

“Perhaps the parliament will attach a ban on commercial surrogacy to its gay marriage bill.”

We already ‘ban’ commercial surrogacy in Australia; marriage equality will not change that.

He goes on further about surrogacy, expanding into
donor anonymity for some unknown reason; as I said marriage equality laws won’t change any of that.

So we just have more misdirection and some outright false claims. if this is the basis of the opposition to marriage equality it’s  ridiculous. 

I have to assume none of their objections have anything to do with the actual issue because there are no logical objections, but we are not done yet…

More consequences of changing marriage?

None that i can see, other than the legal definition of marriage being non-discriminatory.