Same-sex marriage advocates mock the argument that redefining marriage will affect many areas, including education.
While they continue to ignore the proof of Safe Schools, they can’t deny the proof in this latest episode: students are being banned from using the word “marriage” – for a math class!
Math students at the University of New South Wales are being banned from using the word ‘marriage’ when proving Hall’s Marriage Theorem, a word problem which involves pairing men and women into couples. According to honours student Sean Lynch, lecturer Catharine Greenhill openly prohibited math students from referencing the theoretical heterosexual relationships in the assignment. She made it clear that she considered the phrase ‘marriage theorem’ offensive, tacitly giving a nod of the head to the LGBTI agenda.
'The reason why was because the canonical example has homophobic implications, at least in (lecturer Catherine Greenhill's) eyes,' Mr Lynch said.
Mr Lynch said that while same sex marriage was never explicitly mentioned, it's clear what staff members were referring to.
In his live interview with SkyNews, Sean not only told his story, but expressed some concern for his future profession:
‘I’ve heard much about these issues in the humanities, and too see it come into this discipline [mathematics] which I pursued because of its objectivity is amazing.’
‘I think the response is definitely unjustified. It just shows that the markers couldn’t separate their own ideology from the content which they were marking.’
Greenhill’s class was not the only one to enforce gender ideology in the classroom, as discussed in the interview. Last November, another student from UNSW filed a complaint about mathematics professor, Dr Diane Coombe. After completing a similar assignment regarding Hall’s Marriage Theorem, she received her paper back, with comments such as these:
‘The phrasing of the Hall’s marriage theorem problem was offensive.’
‘This is not just political correctness… Most people choose to rephrase the context of Hall’s matching theorem to reduce rather than emphasize the offensiveness.’
Just another example of how political correctness has been working hand-in-hand with gender ideology, to quash free expression and speech in our country. ‘Offensiveness’ for using the word ‘marriage’ is now a valid reason to mark down a math assignment, and heterosexual relationships are the new villain on the block.
If citizens do not take action by casting their ‘no’ votes in time, one can only guess how much worse this situation will become in the near future.
Marriage has never been a homophobic term. Only in recent years has the LGBTI lobby deemed innocuous and common terms as “offensive”. In the same way, the ‘No’ campaign is not in any way homophobic. A ‘No’ vote means saying ‘no’ to discriminating against students for using the actual language of a math theorem. A ‘No’ vote means saying ‘no’ to clamping down on free speech in the classroom, in the workplace, everywhere in Australia.
A ‘Yes’ vote is a ‘yes’ to punishing citizens for using basic terms that one group decides they don’t like. A ‘Yes’ vote is a ‘yes’ to letting political correctness run rampant.
A ‘No’ vote is not homophobic – it is the only way to protect free speech, both inside and outside the classroom.