First no to same sex marriage TV ad says ‘Parents have lost their right to choose’
The Coalition for Marriage has released the first television No campaign for the same sex marriage plebiscite, claiming parents will lose their rights to make decisions about their children should the Yes campaign win.
“School told my son he could wear a dress next year if he felt like it,” a mother says opening the ad which describes parents’ fears if marriage equality was legalised.
What a cop out that the agency who created this rubbish won’t even put their name to it.
Which part about it talks about same sex marriage again? All I heard was sex education and uniform choices.
Totally. It’s not like people won’t eventually find out who did the ad.
There was likely a separate film production company involved as well.
In fact, by not saying their name upfront, they’re almost daring someone (like Mumbrella) to investigate further and make a big noise about it.
Why dont they just say…..”You can be a bigot”
Hi Mike, How do these mothers concerns about how their children are educated make them bigots?
Because the concerns are ridiculous and not based on reality. It actually comes across as a parody.
These Mums are taking about real world experiences. To anyone unfamiliar with Safe Schools it does seem unbelievable but every experience they have highlighted is factual. Check this out: http://www.theaustralian.com.a.....d53cc8a055
Because this is a total red herring based on lies.
The entire campaign is based around unfounded fear mongering.
The role play is designed to help kids feel empathy for those that are not like them. You can’t make someone gay and a role play is certainly not going to be detrimental to anyone.
In addition, the protections that allow religious organisations to proactively discriminate against gay people will continue to be in place. The Attorney General has confirmed this publicly.
This ad is misleading at best and fails to address Marriage as a ‘thing’. Other than bigotry, what do you propose the motivation might be?
And that’s the key – you can’t make someone gay. That seems to be what all these fears are based on.
Or maybe they are caring Mums who don’t want their kids sexualised at an inappropriately early age …just sayin’. Please research Safe School before you judge these women…
@Dane Because these ‘mothers’ (actors) are not talking facts. It is always the facts that really hurt the obsessive, conservative religious folks. (All religions, I am not picking on just one). I do notice that it is mainly, (in fact I will say predominantly), the ultra religious who are against marriage equality. Sad.
Basically it’s an ad that says:
‘There’s no good reason to vote no, other than the fact that you can – and perhaps you can irrationally fear your child becoming a transvestite.’
No wonder the agency didn’t put their name to it.
Perhaps they are saying their reason to vote NO is because they want the right to have a say in what their children are taught?
But the vote has nothing to do with education…it’s about marriage
I was unaware that this was a vote on same-sex education.
Perhaps parents should consider that children are taught the facts of life, and gay couples, trans couples, and all other LGBTIQ relationships are parts of those facts.
Not wanting your kid to be taught the realities of life in sex is no less stupid than refusing to allow your kids to be taught evolution, or refusing to give them vaccines.
@Rob, Evolution! The world did not just evolve – it is far too complex to have come about out of nothing.
Busy day today, hey Dane? A lobbyist’s job is never done.
Nah mate, just an average joe …seems like no one on this little site has had their kids subjected to Safe Schools. These Mums are taking about real world experiences. To anyone unfamiliar with Safe Schools it does seem unbelievable but every experience they have highlighted is factual.
Man, I am really, really curious who was the agency/production company behind this. Come on Mumbrella, get to the bottom of this!
Has anyone fact-checked this? Last I heard you couldn’t just make stuff up in ads.
Those regulations don’t apply to this debate. You can say whatever you want.. it’s purely political.
These concerns are clearly generated by these Mums experience with Same Schools curriculum. Any parent should make themselves aware of this program. Their logic is sound…If SSM is legalised then you can’t stop Same Sex practices being taught to children
Same Schools Overview: http://www.theaustralian.com.a.....d53cc8a055
I went through public schoo ages ago and children are already taught about same-sex relationships, you know, because they’re a fact of life.
How is the logic sound- this is about a change to the marriage act which has no jurisdiction over the department of education, last time I checked?
What a massive surprise that it’s already confirmed as lies:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-.....y6ygk.html
@Dane (if that is your real name?)
These mum’s are: Celia White, Dr Pansy Lai and Pastor Heidi Mcivor.
All three women are Christians. I strongly believe that an acerbic and aggressive campaign for ‘NO’ will further hurt religious groups, whose flocks are dwindling, as recent ABS data proves and rightly so. ‘Christian values’ – indoctrinate and discriminate right?
So I went to the website and it’s just as misleading as the ad. Plus they want contact details from you if you click the button that says you disagree with them. Why? So they can harass people about it? Sounds creepy.
It’s a disservice to the ‘no’ campaign to create this work. I’m completely stunned that they’ve created something that talks to a hard right base instead of targeting the middle ground. There is a case that can be made for the ‘no’ vote in a respectful, logical way – but this is not it.
Who made this trash? The agency should stand up and own it, as should whoever bought the space for it. Disgusting. Another example of ad land hiding behind the “It’s not our place to judge” mantra. Sorry, it’s 2017 and that doesn’t fly anymore. Hate and bigotry is hate and bigotry; if you work on it, you condone it.
There’s a fair amount of underhandedness in our industry, but that’s an all time low.
This ad reminds me of the hysteric from the Simpsons ‘think of the childreeeeen’
Parents have lost a right to choose? What – choose that their kids are encourage to be their true self? What type of parents don’t want that?
It’s a time honoured strategy and exactly what the anti-republican movement did when they made it all about the model and not a simple yes-no on should Australia be a republic. Christine Forster and George Brandis said it best on Q&A this week – it is a very simple question about whether everyone should have the same rights to get married. It was sadly too much to hope for that the No campaign would rise above and make a sensible, reasoned appeal. They are just trying to tap into a general feeling of unease within some members of the community who can’t articulate why they want to say no, just that they don’t feel right about it, so the no campaign is trying to give them a reason to vote no. It’s going to get worse before it gets better….
This is just shameful. It really points to the fact that the “No” argument groups are grasping at straws and need to resort to lying in order to prove a “point.” I come from a country where SSM has been legal for decades and somehow we’ve all managed to survive. Shocking, I know.
That would be the brilliant work of OPUSfidelis – US ad agency. Famous for their work with Duck Dynasty
It would seem that OPUSfidelis used this campaign as the template https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhaihBGD2tc
OK, that’s the parody of it, but the original is almost as amusing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOoXRBzHgds
Don’t these ‘No’ people realise that this is not all about them.
I wasn’t aware that parents would lose the right to choose who they or their offspring could marry. Oh, that’s right – they won’t.
The irony is that their very stance acknowledges that they have rights that are being withheld from LGBTI people.
I defy them to name the overseas countries with gay marriage where it is compulsory for boys to wear dresses to school, and where parents lose their right to choose. Oh, that’s also right – they can’t because there aren’t any.
The loony right is determined to stop this great country from proudly acknowledging the errors of our past now that we are well into th21st century, but want to slam us into reverse and head us right back to the Dark Ages by leveraging fears devoid of facts.
What marriage inequity campaigners will point to are a small number of cases in the world where religious schools have been officially penalised / reprimanded for not delivering sex education to the standard dictated by their national curriculum. These programs typically require that aspects such as same sex relationships be taught as existing rather than excluded from discussion.
That’s the whole “parents lose their right to choose a school that pretends GBLTIQ+ don’t exist” basis for that particular argument. Plus it’s a potent bit of fearmongering, which is really all the ‘You can say No’ side has.
22 comments already, talk about a multiplier effect! The ad is being well promoted by the people who don’t want it promoted. Trump used visceral hate (In this case it would be to the SSM opponents) to win the 2016 Presidential election, so watch out.
Why can’t we have the choice to wear what we want to wear. I assume sarongs and kilts are wrong for guys to wear.
This now boarders on being sexist and racist!
I suppose role playing in school would be no different to how gay kids must feel about playing straight couples.
I knew I was interested in the same sex at 5. But never thought anything of it until education guidelines pointed out I was different and one of 10 people…
Mumbrella: appreciate that you want to give coverage to all sides and communications- but given that communications in this campaign will not be subject to the usual standards of factual accuracy, you have a responsibility when it comes to reporting on it
– anything that conflates the issue with children, education, religion (i.e. anything outside of the jurisdiction of the marriage act) should be called out and reported as such.
– the “facts” or testimonials should be thoroughly checked. You will note other publications today reporting on the schools where the alleged incidents took place, finding that there supporting evidence to support the claims made.
Do do any less is to take part in the deliberate spread of misinformation.
Hi CJ,
Thanks for the comment. Mumbrella’s main audience is that of savvy industry professionals. Our job is to tell them about the marketing campaigns out there rather than to form a view on the content on their behalf. I’m reasonably confident that any sensibly minded reader who views the ad here will understand the message to be bullshit.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
But the Safe Schools program the school is part of includes material saying boys should be allowed to wear a dress to school. How is the ad deceptive?
Thanks Tim- and in about 80% of the comments you’re 100% right. But if, say, a telco used false information in an advert, you wouldn’t report that? Not wanting to take a view is totally understandable. But surely reporting the facts where there is false advertising would be the kind of thing you’d want to cover accurately?
Nice one Tim. Well played?
I am voting “yes” because I don’t hate people. And I am with Optus.
@nick bartlett, I don’t hate people either but I’m voting No because marriage is male & female – a civil ceremony for gays & others will suffice. Don’t mess with things otherwise society will fall apart as we’ve clearly seen every time in the past 20 years that people/the govt chip away at another thing.
Very simple and informative television ad aimed at families, christians, mums, dads, that do not support gay marriage because it would allow more schools to support more transgender gay friendly policies. The marketing campaign used real mums to speak on behalf of their kids not to be against gay marriage.
@Danny Wu
The advert used three highly religious Christian women, some (or it might be all?) of whom actively campaign against SSM and other things like a woman’s right to abortion. (Just perform a few Google searches). Believe it or not but one is a Dr!!??? I truly hope that they are not a DR in medicine, because science usually wards off religious theology. Their names are: Celia White, Dr Pansy Lai and Pastor Heidi Mcivor. I say: lets make them famous.
“Lets make them famous”. Why? So they can be bullied and harassed?
Are you a sadist ‘Really’?
The three women who appeared in the Australian Christian Lobbies’ advertisement, are all practicing Christians. One is a pastor at the ‘City Church’. A good friend of mine is an Anglican. He once, (‘once’), attended ‘City Church’ and told me that it was, (and in his words): ‘mass market’ religion. They wanted his debit card details and wanted to start the direct debit asap…… He was horrified.
Surely, if these three Christian women have so openly appeared in this advertisement, we (the community), should understand who they are and what they believe in? (This will enable us to understand their motives and then apply reason to determine their argument.) They surely are not shunning publicity, otherwise they would not have appeared in the advertisement?
“Bullied and harassed”. I certainly would never bully or harass anybody? (I have never done so. I show compassion and treat others as I wish to be treated myself.)
Dr Kerryn Phelps doesn’t disclose in her Yes ad that she is in a same sex relationship and a long time advocate of SSM. Surely, we (the community), should understand who who she is and what she believes in don’t you think Fact Checker? As you state, “this will enable us to understand their motives and then apply reason to determine their argument”.
You also infer that I’m a sadist. The behaviour of a bully. You need to take a good look at yourself!
Not sure what you’re really getting at here?
We all know who Kerryn Phelps is… she was president of AMA and is kind of a big deal… no need for further disclosure???
Marriage has nothing to do with 7-year olds. In Australia, 7-year olds cannot get married. “No” parents are distraught that they will lose the right to control whether their adult children (18+) can marry a partner of the same sex.
Im confused. What’s the total freak out about her son wearing a skirt to school? Looking at the bigger picture, do these parents understand what Safe Schools is trying to do? Create a culture of empathy for others? Understanding that gender is just a box we stick people in?
‘God’ * forbid we help foster less bullying and a generation of kids experiencing mental health issues and in worse cases suicide.