Redefining marriage is indeed at the top of the slippery slope, and radical gender ideology is not far below it.
It’s only too clear how the current definition of marriage is one of the great shields protecting Australian freedoms.
The “Yes” Campaign is intent on removing this shield, guising their campaign as an “equality” and “rights” movement – which is simply misleading. Waiting to pounce in anticipation of a 'yes' vote removing gender from marriage, gender ideologists are lining up and getting ready to strip gender from the classroom.
Sounds extreme or exaggerated? Sadly, it’s the reality – and it’s already in motion:
Gender could be stripped from classroom talks about sex and anatomy, with body parts described according to their function rather than being considered “male” or “female”, in a proposal by two academics to make school sex education more inclusive of transgender youth.
The terms “penis” and “vagina” could be replaced with gender-neutral terms, while reproduction and safe sex could be taught without referring to “sperm and eggs”.
In a paper published in the Journal of Sex Education, Damien Riggs and Clare Bartholomaeus of Flinders University in South Australia have called for sex education programs in schools to extend beyond the “norm of … a male with a penis and female with a vagina”.
Even before the marriage vote has been completed, same-sex marriage and gender activists are pushing to further erode Australia’s adherence to biological truths about gender and sexuality. Naturally, the Coalition for Marriage pointed out how this was only one of the consequences that accompanies redefining marriage, and blasted the report by these gender extremists:
The report, which points to sex education policy in New Zealand where “gender diversity and identities are explored”, has been seized upon by same-sex marriage opponents who have argued that changing marriage laws would lead to a resurgence of Safe Schools-style programs in schools.
Coalition for Marriage spokesman Lyle Shelton described the report as a “smoking gun”. “We have them advocating for the degendering of sex education of all students and confirming the concerns raised by parents about how radical LGBTI sex and gender education would infiltrate their children’s education,” he said.
As expected, such radical ideology proponents try to deny this connection to redefining marriage by their usual means – appealing to “feelings”. Such an excuse was used by Dr Riggs, an associate social work professor:
…while the idea might be difficult to understand, it was possible to talk about “the different things our bodies do without having to name them in a gendered way”.
“As a parent of children, I know these are difficult conversations to have with children as they involve using words that not everyone is comfortable using,” he said. “But actually it opens up the possibility for those parents … to say ‘these things can happen’ — STIs, pregnancy — without having to get tripped up with the language.”
Dr Riggs, the Australian Research Council Future Fellow and national convener of the Australian Psychological Society’s gay and lesbian interest group, said sexuality education in schools had nothing to do with same-sex marriage and it was disappointing to see them linked in public debate.
It is far more disappointing to see professional academics kowtowing to an agenda that denies biological facts. Yet another consequence of removing gender from marriage – our “professionals” become brainwashed, broken records.
Redefining marriage would break the lock on Pandora’s box of radical ideologies, paving the way for education, free speech, and more to being ruled by the tyrannical extremists.
This is why is it is crucial to protect marriage from being defined. This is why we most vote “No”.