Are Safe Schools a bad thing?

Bigots Attack Children

The bigots are at it again, it seems the mardi gras  upsets the bigots and puts them into full hate mode. If only they would educate themselves or seek professional mental help. But alas we have public displays of homophobia and bigotry.

First we had the hate group calling themselves the The Australian "Christian" Lobby demanding that they and other homophobes be exempt from anti-discrimination laws, in the lead up to a plebiscite on equal marriage rights. 

Seriously if you need to worry about your message vilifying others, maybe you should examine that message. Instead of enabling these hateful bigots, i believe that we should strictly enforce our hate speech and anti discrimination laws during this time. We need to protect LGBTI people, families and youth, from these hate groups and the negative effects they have on our society.

 Imagine what the Australia "Christian" Lobby could do if they devoted their energy to good instead of evil...

 Then we have Cori Bernardi a well know homophobe who joined the Australian "christian" Lobby in its attacks on the Safe schools program. Remarkably our Prime minister bowed to this known bigot and put the program under review. 

One would hope that the only logical outcome of a review would be that the program becomes compulsory for all students in all schools.

 This program was designed to help stop bullying in schools, as LGBTI youth are more likely to attempt suicide due to the homophobia they encounter. These people are fighting against this program. How many of them call themselves "pro-life" when they are clearly not pro (LGBTI youth) life.

Speaking for myself, i grew up in a small town public school. I imagine if there was a program like this back then, maybe i wouldn't have been bullied by the faculty into leaving school in year 11 after being denied my year 10 certificate. Perhaps the faculty wouldn't have been so homophobic, perhaps i would have fought harder to get my year 10 certificate.  Maybe i wouldn't have faced years of depression if homophobia wasn't so prevalent?

 But it isn't just Cori Bernardi (Has not been disciplined and is still a minister) and the Australian "Christian" Lobby (Now lead by Lyle Shelton, has not been outlawed, or charged) attacking our youth, Tony Abbott (Nullified marriages in the Australian Capital Territory that were between same sex couples), John Howard (Changed marriage act to exclude gay people, without a plebiscite, making the law unconstitutional), George Christensen (Disgustingly accused the safe school program of pedophile grooming among other nonsense claims. He is still a minister and has not been disciplined or charged), Eric Abetz (Who, while clearly homophobic, just seems confused and out of touch with reality in my opinion.). If any of these people are your government representatives, why not contact them and let them know their views are abhorrent.

Of course they have hit back against being labeled bigots and homophobes. But they need to understand it isn't "name calling" to call a spade a spade, if you don't like the label that fits you, change your views so that you no longer fit that label.

 I really do wish they would "think of the children" before spreading such hate, before attacking a program that reduces youth suicide. Their actions have real world consequences in our society, and in our schools. I wish they would understand they have a responsibility, if in a position of power or influence, to educate themselves, and to do the most good they can.

 I think this should show our Prime Minister that some in our community are not mature or do not have the common sense to act responsibly in the lead up to a plebiscite on equal rights.
The harm such groups could cause truly worries me.

If you would like to help keep our schools safe for all students please sigh the petition.

If you are upset, negatively effected by homophobia, or are yourself homophobic, please seek help.
Beyond Blue should be able to help or get you into contact with someone who can.

Should supporters of man-woman marriage be labelled bigots?

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.

 This will be the last one in this series I hope. Not because the ACL are not providing adequate material, its just that their feeble arguments have nothing to do with equal marriage and its boring me.

2 June 2015

“The Australian Christian Lobby was today concerned at the intolerance and vandalism being shown to conscientious objectors of same-sex marriage and call for a mature public debate.”

Intolerance; well in episode 3 I did give the ACL the Hypocrite award, and they continue to prove they have earned it. Perhaps those in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones?

Conscientious objectors? Really? checking the definition we see that label does not apply, unless the ACL is calling for war against Homosexuals and those who want equality?

“Those of us who in good faith do not support changing the definition of marriage are tired of being called bigots and other names,” ACL Managing Director Lyle Shelton said.

While I dispute that anyone can be opposed to equal rights “in good faith” I wonder if he is supporting the 2004 change to the definition of marriage, because this proposed legislation kind of voids that, I am obviously being flippant just as he is obviously being misleading with his comment to not be in support of changing our definitions of marriage.

The biggest thing here is if he is tired of being called a bigot, he simply needs to stop being one. We can’t do that for him, if he stops being bigoted I am sure people would stop pointing out that he is a bigot.

“I’ve got thick skin and these attacks are water off a duck’s back however there are millions of Australians who for religious and cultural reasons will never accept a redefinition of marriage.”

After complaining about being labelled a bigot he then goes on to describe anti-equality campaigners in terns that make it clear they are bigots.

“They would be forgiven for thinking these acts of vandalism and abuse are just a foretaste of what is to come if Australia redefines marriage.”

I’ll just leave this here shall I?

“This debate must be conducted in a climate of free speech and civility where the contrary arguments can be put and given a fair hearing.”

What debate? Should Australians have equal rights? I believe there is a difference between free speech and hate speech. I do not find the ACL’s comments or objections to me having equal rights to be at all civil. As I have demonstrated in this program, there are no real contrary arguments.

 

“Sadly we have seen in other countries that have redefined marriage that people who hold fast to the natural and timeless understanding of marriage have faced legal punishment for living out their conscientious beliefs.”

Really, you only just finished saying you wanted to be civil and speak 'in good faith'. Marriage has changed definition, between cultures, and withing religions, our own marriage act was changed to exclude homosexuals in 2004, that’s not timeless, it is difficult to remain civil with someone who is arguing that you should not have equal rights and is being incredibly disingenuous.  And to correct that statement further, bigots have faced legal action for discriminating against persecuted minorities, as it should be.

“Bill Shorten needs to guarantee that there will be protections for the millions of Australians who disagree with his plan to redefine marriage and family.”

I am sure people will be exempt from marrying couples on any grounds, and where did family’s come from. The legislation doesn’t change the definition of family; homosexuals come from, form, and exist in families today. 

Should supporters of man-woman marriage be labelled bigots?

No of course they shouldn't. However if those same people are against a race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality or other subset of the community having equal rights, then of course they should be labelled bigots, because they fit the definition.
If you don't want to fit the definition then you need to change your behavior.

Bigot; 

Merrium- Webster, 

 A person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group).

Conscientious objection:  

Dictionary.com

Refusal on moral or religious grounds to bear arms in a military conflict or to serve in the armed forces.

Civil 

(google definitions)
Courteous and polite.

 'In good faith"   

Fairfax dictionary

Honesty; a sincere intention to deal fairly with others.

Hypocrite

dictionary.com

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Meet the victims of same-sex 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

I was going to skip this one as it was just more pro bigotry, defend the homophobes right to discriminate nonsense. They seem to be repeating the same illogical and irrelevant stuff over and over.
But then i saw he included the part in the constitution, you know the part, the bit that makes Howards homophobic changes to the marriage laws in 2004 unconstitutional.

----

Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia reads:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for… prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

---

"Anti-discrimination laws are important, but Section 166 acknowledges religious belief as core to the people of this country.

Is it ok for Government to step in and favour anti-discrimination laws over the right to free exercise of religion?"

He fails to realise or chooses to ignore that the current laws actually prevent religions that do accept the natural variations in human sexuality from performing marriages upon their followers. 

The current laws that he is viciously fighting to maintain actually defy this part of our constitution. 

The exact part of the constitution he is trying to use to justify the continuation of the laws! 

Ahhh does my head in.

 Meet the victims of same-sex marriage?

The only victims here are my brain cells, as i am sure reading this nonsense has made me stupidated, stupidoring, more stupider, yer that's it.