Repulsed or Nonplussed: the problem with the No campaign

I was chastised some time ago when I questioned whether Australians could have a civil and constructive debate about SSM. People assured me that we are capable of debating the issue without allowing the discussion to become hateful or deceptive or aggressive.

Then these despicable posters started appearing telling us that 92% of children raised by gay parents are abused, 51% have depression, and 72% are obese. The poster cites a study that has been thoroughly discredited.

The hateful tone of the image needs no explanation. It’s clear for all to see.

While the Australian Christian Lobby has distanced itself from the posters (I readily acknowledge the ACL had nothing to do with their production), earlier in the campaign they hosted a series of lectures by Millie Fontana, in which she explains how negative her experience of being raised by a same sex couple has been. I’ve seen a number of other sites explaining how detrimental being raised in a non-traditional household is.

Not as repulsive, but still in poor taste, some No advocates have been posting a 20 year old quote by Paul Keating, taken completely out of context from his election debate with John Howard in 1996, reframed to make it look like he is campaigning against SSM today (presumably to appeal to lefty ALP Yes voters).

I’ve also seen sites claiming that Canadian society has almost collapsed in light of the legalisation of SSM over a decade ago. I’ve seen quotes explaining that SSM will put us on the slippery slope to the normalisation of “genderlessness”, incest, polyamorous marriages, and even pedophilia and bestiality.

All this leads those voting Yes to assume the No campaign is just desperate.

Of course, some Christian commentators have tried to make a more respectful and cogent, less bigoted, case for keeping traditional marriage.

Some argue that same sex marriage, if legalised, won’t be marriage as we know it. It won’t be “marriage equality”: it will be an entirely new thing.

This argument goes, marriage is a word used to describe a life-long union between a man and a woman, so to allow people to marry someone of the same sex monkeys with the nomenclature. It will lead to a fundamental change in the definition of the term.

This line of reasoning is often made in grave tones as though it is a real killer argument. “No, seriously, it will lead to a fundamental change in the definition of the term.”

But I can just hear millions of Australians shrugging their shoulders and saying, “Meh.”

Most people know that the meanings of words evolve over time. We use terms today that don’t mean what they once did. Who cares if a word’s definition is evolving, they say. It’s evolved in other Western democracies. It can evolve in ours.

I know words mean a lot to Christians, particularly to Protestants. Evangelical ministers spend a lot of their week interpreting and parsing words, defining concepts, explaining ideas. We place a high premium on clarity and fidelity in language. But, and I hate to break it to you, most Australians aren’t so precious about nomenclature. I can’t see anyone being convinced that we can’t modify the meaning of the word, marriage.

A second plank in the case made by more moderate voices in the No campaign argue that marriage should remain a life-long union between two people who exemplify the biological duality of the human race, with the openness to welcoming children into the world.

The argument is that because only a man and a woman can produce children and because marriage is a binding institution in which children can be raised, then traditional marriage should be preserved. In other words, marriage and children are expressions of the “sexed twoness” of humankind.

It’s a complicated argument for the average voter to whom it is intended to appeal. Most people will retort that the church happily marries heterosexual couples who have no intention or no ability to conceive children. They also know full well that same sex relationships were legalised long ago, and that with this came the right for same sex couples to adopt children and raise them in stable families.

One of the more respectful people making this case, Michael Jensen argues, “To remove the sexual specificity from the notion of marriage makes marriage not a realisation of the bodily difference between male and female that protects and dignifies each, but simply a matter of choice.”

But what practical sense does that make to the average voter? I suspect not much.

Is this what the No vote comes down to? Hatefulness or esoterica? Is the No campaign reduced to either repulsing voters or leaving them largely nonplussed?


Because No advocates are required to construct their arguments for broad public consumption in a contest about human flourishing and the common good in a secular society, the Christians among them know they can’t resort to biblical interpretations or appeals to religious tradition. And once you knock out those two arguments, what’s left for the Christian case against SSM? Phrases like “sexed twoness” and grave warnings about changing nomenclature? Anecdotes from the unhappy adult children of gay couples?

My prediction is that the Yes vote will win the postal plebiscite and that SSM will be passed by the parliament. Even if that doesn’t happen, the ALP will pass such legislation as soon as they’re elected to government anyway. And then the Christian community really will be left with their biblical interpretations and religious tradition.

In the future there will be a variety of types of marriage, from secular marriage that includes same sex couples to Catholic and Islamic marriage that doesn’t. The Protestant denominations will have to make up their minds what their various stances will be and some of them might be torn apart by this, especially the larger, more diverse groups like the Anglicans.

As in England, the USA, South Africa, New Zealand and Canada, the church in Australia will need to get used to this very different social terrain and will need to figure out what loving their neighbour looks like in that new landscape.



Share to:

Subscribe to my blog


The views expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent the official views of Morling College or its affiliates and partners.

Latest Blogs

Picturing the Resurrection

The best paintings of the resurrection don’t include Jesus in them. At least it seems that way. Seven years ago (was it really that long??)

The Perfect Ash Wednesday Picture

What an eccentric painting this is. Carl Spitzweg’s 1860 painting Ash Wednesday depicts a clown, dressed presumably for Mardi Gras, languishing in a dark and

The Fierce Mother Heart of God

My three-year-old grandson Jarrah has been unwell recently. Really unwell. He has been seriously ill with what we’ve now discovered was a horrible combination of

9 thoughts on “Repulsed or Nonplussed: the problem with the No campaign

  1. Well written. Thank you Michael.

    I’ve not fully understood the Christian’s ‘No’ to SSM. While, I understand the various nuances to the debate and how it overlaps with other concerns, such as ‘safe schools’ and whatever else may ensue if SSM is legalised. What I do not understand is the Christian’s desired outcome of imposing a biblical expression of marriage on those who do not hold to their faith or conviction, or personally know Jesus. It seems like an exercise in futility and I wonder how detrimental our ‘No’ to others might be in the grander scheme of what God desires to do in the lives of our not yet Christian neighbours. The fear and disgust spouted by many Christians perplexes me. I’m not advocating that Christians vote ‘Yes’, rather that we consider the wider impact of our ‘No’ and particularly the way we express that ‘No’. Sadly, many Christian’s ‘No’ seems akin to going down to the local pub and yelling at people “Stop getting drunk! The bible says so!” – what do we possibly expect to achieve?

    1. @Josh, if you really do want an answer to your question (many just ask questions without wanting the answer) then the article below would have to be one of the most detailed and well referenced articles I’ve seen. It joins the dots well by addressing common misnomers and references problems in other countries who have already made the change. Hope it helps you understand better.

    2. sorry forgot to add the http thing to make it a link. 🙂

  2. I find the poster appalling and somewhat bizarre in that it effectively gives a footnote to the quote.
    That is sort of out of sync with the purile and emotive imagery and offensive language.

    You state that “The poster cites a study that has been thoroughly discredited.” I have spent a little while googling and while I see this remark repeated the most detailed response was in a letter published in the journal that originally published the article. Some have ridiculed the journal it was published in but at least it published a letter arguing against the article and the author’s response to that criticism. There may be literature out there which those with access to University databases will be able to find. I would appreciate if responses in reputable industry journals could be referenced to evidence that statement. Even better if there is a study with a bigger sample which has come to findings which contradict those in this study – then that would be worth knowing about. While the article is in sociology jargon I can see some weaknesses in it but that seems to be the case in most studies I read.

    What is not cited is the fact that while the finding may be used by anti-SSM groups the author sees the results as important because:

    “the most useful response is to try to understand the problem better, so as to address the conditions or provide support necessary to ameliorate the problem, not deny the evidence.”
    Nathaniel Frank, “Comment on “Invisible Victims: Delayed Onset Depression among Adults with Same-Sex Parents”,” Depression Research and Treatment, vol. 2016, Article ID 3185067, 2 pages, 2016. doi:10.1155/2016/3185067

    I can only imagine that the author would be appalled at the use that has been made of his findings. If there is a problem that seems to have been lost in the politics surrounding the findings.

    1. As I reference in my published letter, nearly 80 peer-reviewed studies on this matter are all aggregated at our site, showing an overwhelming consensus that children with gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than their peers. See:

  3. I’ve not meet too many children raised in same sex relationships let alone same sex marriages but I’m sure some have ended up with various levels of issues due to their upbringing.
    I have however meet many children raised in a traditional marriage / family relationship that are completely messed.up with all the issues and more that are raised by opponents to SSM.
    Even sadder is that many of these children have been raised in christian homes and environments.
    The traditional idea of marriage doesn’t guarantee great parenting skills. Neither will SSM guarantee poor parenting skills.
    As a kiwi I can’t vote in the Aussie plebiscite but I do know the sky hasn’t fallen in over NZ since SSM was passed there.

  4. Another argument against SSM from christians I’ve noticed appearing in social media is an attempt to “out PC the left” by appealing to the sacred nature of marriage within indigenous culture. Manipulative and insincere.

    1. Manipulative and insincere indeed.

    2. Well I lived the majority of my life in an indigenous culture other than my own (ie in what was traditionally called a third world society) and there was no evidence of “SSM” or the campaigning for it. In fact the overwhelming number of cultures and people groups accross the globe even with little or no Biblical teachings on the institution of marriage practise the traditional biblical view in terms of a heterosexual relationship. Sincerely.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *