The "NO" Case in the Australian SSM Debate


In the US, certain minorites are setting up reeducation camps, forcing us to use certain words (in some places) and the propaganda machine known as ‘the media’ are behind them.


This is NOT a vote, it’s a survey. There is no compulsion to return it. What it’s doing is showing the worst in the yes camp, with things they are doing. It’s actually set back the yes vote.

There is no compunction on the government to act on it,
If the govt does act on a yes result, then a real vote has to happen through government process in govt.

It’s a huge waste of money.


It is indeed just a survey, though there will be orders of magnitude more participants than in any other survey of the topic in Australia.

What’s your preferred course of government action in the absence of a survey?


I think in that case, action is certain, and a law change seems equally certain to follow.


Establishing another venue for Christian education outside the school would seem to largely eliminate the justification for catholic schools, and not insulate the students from government mandated curriculum inclusions eg sex education which is “LGBTQI friendly”.


A neutral position is inexcusable. Evil prospers when good men do nothing. When opposing the works of the Devil, being neutral is not an option for a Christian.


I’ve read Bishop Wright’s excuses - “for the common good” - LOL!!! The pathetic sophistry of the Left. Fr. Frank Brennan declared that he will vote Yes and uses a similar excuse. Who cares what idiotic reasons they invent - a vote for Satan is a vote for Satan.


Getting into bed in the figurative sense with government is the worst idea for a Catholic school. Times and ideas change, and you never know when that beast will roll over and crush you.


He offered no “excuse”, as though he advocated a course of action and then sought to justify it. He did not. He pointed to an argument.

Fr. Brennan did say he would vote yes. I understand his reasoning, and I think his weighing up of the consequences is not right - but I could be wrong. There is no article of faith that civil marriage applying to same sex couples, or to divorced people for that matter, must be opposed. The Church does advocate (indeed instruct) that we oppose the former, though not the latter. Both contradict the faith. There are many such divergences in civil law vs the faith.


That’s true. But the government gets to “approve” schools and mandate a curriculum and there seems to be no way to avoid that. The best that can be done is to procure protections.


The problem here is the fundamentals, Rau. Adultery may not be illegal in AU, but how many adulterers are demanding that kids be educated about adultery at age 6? How many of them demand a cake be baked for the occasion? How many are marching in parades down main street of your largest cities?

There’s a reason not all moral situations are equal.


Talking like this means one has already lost. If the ‘yes’ vote wins, we are supposed to rely on the goodness of their hearts to procure protections for speech and religion, the same hearts that call us bigots, homophobes and haters.

Anyone in this debate talking about religious or speech protections should the ‘yes’ vote succeed have already lost. It was the same with abortion, which became available all the way to birth and even partial birth.

God Bless

Thank you for reading


Adultery, like same sex relationships, is generally not illegal. Adultery is not a crime in Australia. Under federal law enacted in 1994, sexual conduct between consenting adults (18 years of age or older) is their private matter throughout Australia, irrespective of marital status. Prior to then, if a divorce had been obtained, the civil law recognises no breach of contract at all because the civil contract has been terminated.

Certainly, not all moral situations are the same, and you might well judge the SSM is a graver moral situation than divorce and remarriage. Opposing the revision of the civil law to accommodate SSM is I think a matter of prudential judgement, not the obligatory response to an article of faith. But that’s my personal take.


Bishop Long says,“it should also be an opportunity for us to listen to what the Spirit is saying through the signs of the times.”

What does he mean by this? That the Holy Spirit is telling us that the time is right to allow SSM? God forbid!

Romans 12:2 - “do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”


Josh - it’s a democracy Josh and the majority are likely to have sway. And even if there is a narrow NO win, I would not be confident that the parliament, be it this one or the next, will respect it. If you propose the NO voters secede, I don’t think that will fly.


It’s not my assessment. It’s one of the things Church leaders have done their homework on and agree that threats to marriage and family—and religious freedom by extension----are fundamental to the Faith.

If I were to advise your government, it would be to get out of the marriage business altogether. Modern governments just can’t handle it.


Me too, thank you very much for your support. Please pray for us.

God Bless You



It’s an assessment that we and they have in common then. But I stand by the point I made.

Sure. Change the name. It’s problematic because marriage is meaningful globally.



That’s the problem with the government getting involved. It’s not about equality----it’s about state power, feeling good in front of friends on Facebook and just general selfishness of getting ahead using the force of the state (aka the point of a gun) masked as generosity.

A lot of same people who claim to be GLBT allies would turn on them in a hot second if say sharia law became cool or conquered Australia.

It’s not even about helping gay or lesbians or trans folks. It’s about a group of people who just want to be in the moment, appease the right people and feel good doing it.

Just look at what happened to Dave Rubin. Dave Rubin is a “married” gay atheist. Gay “marriage” hasn’t even been legal here for 10 years, and people who were at his “wedding” have ditched him because he doesn’t have the right opinions on free speech or Islam.

That’s where this is going. It’s not going to be just Catholic religious freedom—this will, in the end, hurt GBLT folks a lot as well. They are being sold a batch of lies and false promises. Essentially what big government does best.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit