‘OK to Say No’ campaign attempts to pressure agencies to withdraw marriage equality support

Interesting – Pfizer consistently ranks high in the States for their support of LGBT rights. Wonder if their local execs will approve of this move…

You are free to think what you like in Australia.

What you don’t have to do is work for / accept contracts from someone who holds the moral viewpoint that people aren’t equal and wants to convince others of that concept. “We aren’t going to work for you because, openly and respectfully, your ideology is repulsive,” isn’t the crippling of conscience and religion as we know it.

They are welcome to try this. At least they are doing it politely. Won’t make me change my mind though, especially when it says neither side has resorted to disrespectful tactics. Those despicable posters disagree.

I also thought freedom to boycott is the very definition of democratic. Not sure how making a choice like this is undemocratic.

People really don’t understand the concept of ‘freedom of speech’ do they?
If me and all my mates vocally resist drinking some shit beer – doesn’t mean we’re suppressing freedom of beer. It’s just a shit beer.
‘No’ is a shit beer.

This is at least a non-offensive and reasonably well thought out ‘no’ campaign.
I am 100% on the yes side, but unlike much of the awful ‘no’ work so far, I have no moral objection to this.

‘it may have seemed a nice idea at the time but if you are advocate of freedom of thought..’ are they suggesting that wanting to vote yes and oppose No is against freedom of thought? That there is some oppressive movement, that we are under pressure to comply to the yes vote and there’s some scary authoritarian saying we must vote yes? Really? I ‘thought’ that’s exactly what this is – Freedom to think and act on my freedom of thought (without harming any one else). This notion that wanting mariage equality is somehow a ‘restriction’ or ‘suppression’ of thought or freedom is ridiculous. Play the issue and not the person please.

So Pfizer is paying for a no campaign message.

Clients don’t like their vendors speaking out on topics that tarnish their own investment into brand awareness.

Dean is using his company for personal gain. I would have chosen a different platform.

The comments above are an insight into how badly this can for Dean and his business.

Yeahhhhh….might not take business advice from a company that last tweeted in 2014, has a dead Facebook and whose website has no ‘About Us’. But who needs the internet right? It’s totally just a fad. Like homosexuals.

http://antidotemarketing.com/
https://twitter.com/ANTIDOTETWEET

Really, Dean? The UN Declaration of Human Rights?

I think most people would recognise that ‘Say No To No’ isn’t actually stopping anyone from exercising their freedoms, just as a campaign to ‘Vote 1 Liberals’ doesn’t actually stop anybody from voting ALP/Greens/Nats/whatever. It’s silly, but it is consistent with the rest of the ‘Vote No’ messaging: it does all it can to avoid addressing the actual survey question.

I have made my mind up to vote NO. It is my democratic right to vote what I want. If someone wants to harm me or my business for voting NO, that tells me that voting NO is the right choice. I agree that businesses should not be involved. It is up to individuals. For me, I am struggling with the concept of a man inserting his penis into the rectum of another man. The yes vote endorses this behavior.

Gays and lesbians appear to be very strong in this country, with many bi-sexuals suporting them on the fringe.

There are lots of minority groups who are going to be disgusted and upset with ssm. In a multicultural country it is best to keep a low profile. This might unleash big problems in our multicultural community.

It seems to me that there are all sorts of issues here – not least of which is conflict of interest – that Antidote has not addressed with its campaign. It shows the paucity of the ‘No’ argument.

Hey Darrell

I am married and haven’t stuck my penis in anything for years.

Maybe same sex marriage will actually curb what you are struggling to deal with.

🙂

Hey Darrell, you can say no to anal sex without saying no to SSM… just so you know. Oh and you do realise straight people indulge in anal sex also, don’t you? I know straight women who love it. I know gay men who hate it. So, I reckon let’s have a vote on bum sex… just so we are all comfortable with what other people are doing in bed.

I just want a return to the family values like we’ve always had.
The problem with SSM is the gays will want to love each other in their deplorable ways. I know this, because I’ve done hundreds of hours of research into their filthy “love making”. I’ve read books, watched films, dressed my wife up as a man and even once went undercover into a few gay-friendly establishments. I even went so far as to kiss a few blokes for research. And it was definitely 100% about research and about how we can get rid of SSM and not about my own confusion about what sexuality should be because my parents told me and they were straight and they were good, God-fearing people.

In conclusion I’m 100% not gay but I will continue my research regardless of whether SSM passes or not.

Well, me and my mates have all been chatting tonight, and all of us are gay. We are all staunch NO voters along with many other members of the gay community who personally think this ballot is a stupid waste of taxpayers money. It’s funny isn’t it how our views get nil airtime whatsoever. Hmmmm, interesting…
We back Mr Millington and his work and dislike immensely the nasty and condescending comments towards him and his business on here. In fact, the very things the NO campaign say will happen if we vote for SSM are already happening – but some of our “delicate flowers” in the LGBT community just don’t want to face reality or take note of what is really happening in countries that have embraced SSM. To be honest, Parliaments have embraced SSM as a result of emotional pressure from LGBT lobbyists, but most of the populations themselves haven’t. This is resulting in greater resentment towards the entire LGBT population just because a delicate few want wedding pics, cakes and photographs to make them feel just like a bride and groom, and to affirm anal intercourse and all the other sexual fetishes and practices that us gays and lesbians get up to (and I don’t know one gay man who doesn’t engage in anal. If you find one, please let the rest of us meet him!)
We gay men wish to retain our freedoms too and see that these will be deeply affected and curtailed if same-sex “marriage” (Two guys married? Yeah right. Look at the pigs flying…) is passed. There is NO discrimination – that all got sorted back in 2008. Aus is a great country to live in as a gay man, but with SSM it has little choice but to get darker, divided and distasteful. In fact, it has already started.
To our fellow LGBTQIers: let’s get real, guys, girls and neuters, and face the multitude of lies that we tell each other but try to uphold as truths.
Go for it, Mr Millington. You may not know it but you’re doing a lot of gay men a favour, and a serious number of others. You’re the one with balls on here!

As agreed, please find the following response to your queries. In order to ensure that
nothing is taken out of context, I have reproduced most of the introduction to the ‘Say No
to No’ website below. I will quote the relevant section in italics and then provide my
comments, explanations and if necessary, my rebuttal. Whilst I understand that in our
current age, many would like something quick and easy, it is my experience that this is
one of the problems endemic to the entire debate around SSM; that it is treated in a
simplistic and superficial manner. To avoid this, I will address the issues in depth and if
necessary, at length. Hopefully, this will avoid misunderstandings and misinformation. If
any part of this response or the answers to your questions require clarification, then
please let me know.

Examination of SNTN introduction
‘When it comes to marriage equality somehow we have forgotten that a fair go is at our
core. Even worse, our elected officials don’t have the backbone to make the call on our
behalf’
These statements make the false comparison that opposing same sex marriage (SSM) is
somehow ‘unfair’. It is one thing to oppose SSM and quite another thing to be ‘unfair’. I
realize that the media has successfully convinced Australians that SSM means ‘marriage
equality’. This is only true when one believes that marriage can be anything other than
one man and one woman. If one believes, as do much of the world’s current population
and, as did the vast majority of people in times past that marriage has only ONE form
then there is no inequality, as it stands alone. I realize that many do not agree with me,
but we are all entitled to our opinion, and we must all justify our opinions with evidence
when called to. I will refrain from discussing the fallacies of the concept of ‘marriage
equality’ from a philosophical standpoint during this email. You can watch the videos
‘simple common sense’ and ‘marriage is not just about love’ on our website
thebigdealaboutmarriage.com.au for an introduction to the arguments that I use.
Suffice it to say that I do not accept the concept of ‘marriage equality’ and there are many
like me. I do however accept the concept of same sex marriage as it is a much more
accurate description of the phenomenon i.e. When individuals of the same sex wish to
enter into a ‘marriage’. Strictly speaking, this is NOT the same thing as ‘marriage equality’
as a same sex couple and an opposite sex couple are NOT THE SAME. While they may
be EQUALLY VALUABLE as people, they are not EQUAL THINGS.
Therefore it is entirely reasonable for someone to oppose SSM and be entirely fair about
doing it. I have been involved with a group of doctors who have written a detailed rebuttal
of the current AMA “position statement on marriage equality”. To date, no one has been
able to show clearly how any of the arguments or evidence we have used are flawed or
inaccurate. More than 600 doctors including some 25 professors have signed our petition
indicating their opposition to SSM. Are we to assume that these learned medical
professionals are somehow acting ‘unfairly’ by opposing SSM?
In addition, as we speak, a Sydney solicitor is taking legal action against the NSW Law
Society for putting out a statement suggesting that the legal profession as a whole

support SSM. The society has until 08.09.17 to retract their statement or court action will
apparently follow. The fact that a prominent legal professional is taking action against
their own association indicates the depth of feeling many have about marriage as an
institution and about SSM in particular. Are we to assume that these judicial and legal
professionals, who spend their lives acting in matters of justice and fairness are somehow
‘unfair’ just because they oppose SSM?
Therefore, let me make it clear that it is entirely reasonable to oppose SSM without acting
‘unfairly’. Opposing any idea or any change in the law will always affect one group of
people over others. That is the nature of living in a democratic society where the rule of
the majority means that decisions made based on this majority will affect the minority that
do not agree with the decision. This is democracy and it is widely agreed that this system
is the fairest and most equitable system of government. So, there is nothing ‘unfair’ about
opposing SSM. It is an opinion and if that opinion can be justified by evidence, it is an
entirely reasonable position to take.
With respect to the alleged lack of ‘backbone’ of our elected officials, the current coalition
government took the promise of a plebiscite to the people at the 2016 election and were
elected based on that promise. The fact that they govern by a majority of one makes no
difference. It is still a MAJORITY. If an athlete wins the 100m sprint at the Olympic Games
by 0.001 sec or 1sec, that athlete still wins the gold medal, and the next one wins the
silver. In addition, they were not elected to ‘make a call on your behalf’, they were elected
to have a plebiscite so that we could ALL MAKE THE CALL.
So, the bottom line is that the Turnbull government was given a mandate by the people to
have a plebiscite, regardless of the actions of the Senate, and regardless of whether or
not I or any other individual in ‘saynotono’ finds it unsatisfactory. Rather than showing a
lack of ‘backbone’, the government is showing that it keeps the promises that it has
made to the electorate. So, to complain of us now having the plebiscite that the
MAJORITY voted for is bordering on ‘sour grapes’ shows a lack of respect for the
democratic process.
‘And with this plebiscite come a whole lot of hurtful messages from the no campaigners.
Messages that will upset many of our community. Messages that may push some of us
into depression or, even worse, to take our own lives’
This statement is full of assumptions and completely inappropriate. I not that the write
uses the first person plural pronoun ‘us’ when describing suicide among the homosexual
community. This leads me to presume that the writer is part of this community. If this
presumption is not correct, then I retract it, but the presumption is a natural one
considering the ‘us’ used. It is my understanding that over the years the homosexual
community have had to endure prejudice and other inappropriate stereotyping from the
heterosexual community. The author is however engaging in exactly the same behavior:
he or she is labeling everyone in the ‘NO’ campaign as somehow evil and that we will
publish or say things that will lead to homosexual suicide. The author makes NO
REFERENCES to any evidence of this and it appears that they have made one massive
assumption. I thought the ideas of ‘fairness’ included being ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
Now isn’t this prejudice exactly the kind of thing that the ideals of ‘tolerance’ and
‘inclusion’ are supposed to oppose? Isn’t that the kind of prejudice that is exactly the
OPPOSITE of a ‘fair go for all’? Now, if my presumption about the author is correct, then I
find it disingenuous and highly disappointing that someone who came from a community
that has suffered prejudice and stereotyping over the years would engage in exactly the
same kind of behavior.

The bottom line is, it is entirely possible to oppose SSM and avoid stereotyping,
assumptions and so-called ‘homophobia’. It is entire possible to strongly oppose SSM on
the one hand (which I do) and to condemn the actions of people like the ‘Westboro
Baptist Church’ on the other (whose actions I wholeheartedly do not support). Hopefully,
you have found my correspondence thus far moderate and unemotional in tone and fair
and rational in delivery. If I have not done this, then please feel free to point out precisely
where I have been offensive and why my words have caused any offense. I would then be
only too happy to review things. Similarly, if you or anyone else disagrees with any of the
material from ‘oktosayno’, that is entirely your right. If you disagree with any of our
material, then the burden of proof lies with you to show where and how our arguments are
flawed.
The author of ‘say no to no’ does not however have the right to prejudge everyone in the
‘NO’ campaign before examining any of the material that comes from that campaign.
Indeed, it has been my experience that individuals who support SSM often do not
address the evidence presented and instead engage in ‘ad hominem’ attacks. It is
because I am not prejudging you that I have decided to write you this email. I am giving
you the benefit of the doubt and I ask that everyone else extend to us the same courtesy.
In summary, please respect my right to disagree with SSM and please do not prejudge
any of the material that our campaign may produce as ‘messages that may push some of
us into depression or even worse to take our own lives’
‘Depending on the research you look at, people who identify as being gay or lesbian are 3
to 4 times more likely to suffer from anxiety and/or depression, largely due to homophobic
harassment and violence. A report called Growing up Queer, conducted by the University
of Western Sydney and Twenty10, proves that the unfair treatment of non-heterosexual
people is a life and death matter. The study found 16% of LGBTIQ young Australians had
attempted suicide and a third had harmed themselves, largely again due to homophobic
harassment’.
There is much in this section that requires comment. Some is accurate, some is not.
Firstly, I have not had the opportunity to review the ‘Growing up Queer’ report in detail,
but I will in due course and I may send you a separate email regarding this. Therefore I will
not comment on this report specifically, but I have reviewed much of the evidence on
homosexual suicide and health from the last 2-3 decades. I will therefore use this to
address what has been said by the author.
Firstly, it is accurate to state that non-heterosexuals have higher rates of suicide and
mental health problems in general. The evidence confirms that the rate of suicide has
remained at least 2x greater over the past few decades.
Secondly, it must be pointed out that while it is correct to say that homosexuals have
higher rates of suicide, it is not correct to make the blanket statement that this is due to
‘harassment and violence’ or ‘homophobic harassment’. There has been no convincing
evidence that proves the so-called ‘social stigma’ hypothesis. It remains just that, a
hypothesis.
Thirdly, the culture as a whole has definitely become MORE accommodating to
homosexuality rather than less over the last two decades. The mere fact that we are
having a plebiscite on SSM is evidence of this. Such a vote would never have been
possible in the 1980s for example. Therefore, despite the society becoming more

accommodating, suicide rates remain much the same. If stigma were the cause, they
should at least be DECREASING, but this is not what we see.
Fourthly, the author provides no quotes or references from the source that PROVE that
homophobic harassment is the cause of the higher rate of youth suicide. Again, the
burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. Simply making statements without
providing evidence is not appropriate.
Finally, we see the same trend with suicide in societies that are gay-friendly and who have
had homosexual civil unions from 1989 (Scandinavia) and SSM from 2000 (The
Netherlands). Despite the fact that Holland was the first country in the world to legalize
SSM, and despite the fact that homosexuals in Holland have essential equal rights as
heterosexuals, 17 years of SSM has not eradicated the health issues faced by
homosexuals. This fact was confirmed last year (2016) when a Swedish study showed
that men in same sex marriages were 2.8x more likely to suicide than men in heterosexual
marriages. The authors note the fact that Sweden is a country that is generally friendly to
homosexuals. The fact that despite this lack of ‘homophobia’, the suicide rate remains
strongly suggests that factors other than ‘homophobia’ and ‘harassment’ are at play. For
more information about these studies, please see the ‘research’ section at the website
thebigdealaboutmarriage.com.au under ‘same sex marriage research’.
Therefore, in conclusion, it is sad and regrettable that homosexual people have higher
rates of suicide and mental health conditions. They deserve the best possible care and
they deserve us looking for the root causes of this trend, otherwise they will simply
continue to take their own lives. It is reasonable to mention this trend as a problem, but it
is not reasonable to attribute it to ‘homophobic harassment’ without evidence and proof.
To refuse to consider alternative explanations and simply continue attribute it to
mechanisms and causes that are not proven and not supported by the data, such as
‘homophobia’ simply consigns more people in the homosexual community to an early
death.
‘Yes, the NO campaigners will find a way to make their hurtful divisive messages. But we
can make it difficult for them.’
This is hardly an impartial statement from a professional who believes that their position is
backed by solid evidence. Whilst the author has every right to refuse to service clients
who represent the NO campaign, I do not believe that they have the right to ‘make it
difficult for them’. That is not the way that civil society works. A civil society would allow
BOTH the YES and NO campaigns to make their best case before the people and then
allow them to judge for themselves. If those supporting the YES campaign are indeed
backed by the best evidence and arguments, they will win, pure and simple. So, what do
they have to fear from the NO campaign making their best case. Surely if we in the NO
campaign are so ‘out of touch’ and ‘on the wrong side of history’, then the history and the
Australian people will judge us accordingly.
I find it interesting that the author is exercising their right to refuse to service a NO
campaign customer, when in countries that have legalized SSM, individuals who have
exercised EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHT, (to refuse to bake a cake for a same sex wedding)
have been taken to court. So, should we start to consider whether or not the author of
SNTN is ‘discriminating’ against people who oppose SSM in their clientele? Of course
you would say that that would be incorrect; that the author has the right to choose his
clients and yes he does. But, does the author have the right to exhort other advertising
professionals to basically boycott a whole group of people, simply because they don’t

share the same belief on SSM? I respectfully submit that the author does not have this
right.
It is ironic that the author begins his introduction with a reference to a ‘fair go’ but then
will not allow a ‘fair go’ for the NO campaign in his closing statements. How can one
reconcile the statement ‘we can make it difficult for them’ with “a fair go’? The answer is
that one cannot and the author is, unfortunately being inconsistent, hypocritical and
basically unfair. The bottom line is, that this ‘petition’ to get people to ‘say no to no’ is not
giving everyone a ‘fair go’.

Text from email sent to SNTN signatories and comments
I will now reproduce the text from our colleague’s original email and comment
accordingly.
You or your employees may have recently been encouraged to add their names, and in
some cases organisations, to the Say No to No website. It may have seemed like a nice
idea at the time but if you are an advocate for freedom of thought (as described in Article
18 in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights) please consider removing your name
from this list.
Legal academic Augusto Zimmermann said the boycott, while not illegal, was “a serious
display of undemocratic behaviour”.
There is nothing untoward or inappropriate in these sentences. He has taken objection to
the ‘say no to no’ (SNTN) campaign, pointed out that it suppresses freedom of thought,
asked them to consider removing their name and cited an experience barrister who has
offered an opinion on the campaign. He is correct in stating that it oppresses ‘freedom of
thought’ because it attempts to have advertising agencies boycott en masse an entire
group of clients, without giving any due consideration to the merits or otherwise of any
particular client. This is basically imposing the will of the few over the many and hardly
‘freedom of thought’.
He has quite correctly asked for people to ‘consider’ removing their name. When one is
addressing an opinion or course of action that one does not agree with, it is entirely
reasonable and civil to ask them to reconsider their actions.
If you have made the request (or have been authorised to make the request) for inclusion
on this site after due consideration for all the facts then we applaud you for taking the time
to fully research the impact redefining marriage has had on other countries and will have
on Australian society.
He has again considered the possibility that some who have joined the campaign have
done so after considering the evidence for the many adverse impacts of SSM. He has
made no assumptions here.
As a professional “communicator” we trust you will have examined and discussed openly
with your colleagues the ongoing impact on the redefinition of marriage has had on the
right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief in countries such as Canada,
UK, Ireland and NZ.
Again, he brings up the need to have close examination and open discussion regarding
the ongoing impact of the redefinition of marriage. I can see nothing inappropriate here.

Please respectfully ask to have your name and organisation removed from the website
(see listed individuals and organisations below) by clicking the button below:
This statement could have been worded differently and he could have asked the
individual to carefully review all of the evidence, if they had not done so, and THEN to
‘consider’ having their name removed. I have spent considerable time exploring the fact
that we are all entitled to our opinions and that, in matters such as these, we do not have
the right to tell others what to do. I trust I have made myself clear on that point.
It should be noted that following your phone call to my colleague, he has reflected on this
and indeed has agreed that he could have worded things differently in this section. I
reproduce correspondence from him to myself regarding this as follows:
“perhaps it should have been prefaced with language such as “After you have considered
all the evidence” although this was highlighted in the previous 2 paragraphs)”

RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION …
GOOD FOR AUSTRALIA
Open respectful debate is the hallmark of a mature society. To date, neither side of the
debate has resorted to disrespectful tactics so let’s not prejudge what may or may not be
said during the lead up to the promised plebiscite.
Please also consider that millions of Australians support the current definition of
marriage … these will include your friends, family and clients.
This is a respectful way to end the email. He has stated that neither side has resorted to
disrespectful tactics and urges us to avoid this. He also urges us not to prejudge each
other leading up to the plebiscite. Finally he points out something that bears repeating
and remembering by all: that millions of Australians DO NOT SUPPORT redefining
marriage to support SSM and that these millions include our friends, family and clients.
For the signatories of SNTN campaign to ignore this fact is not only foolish and
disrespectful, it is simply unfair.

In Answer to your specific questions
‘Why did you decide to do the campaign’?
Myself and a few likeminded people wanted to start a campaign to equip and empower
people who do not support SSM but may be either afraid to speak out or not have the
words to say. It is our belief that there is a large ‘silent majority’ whose voice is simply not
being heard.
Our desire is to allow ALL AUSTRALIANS to have an equal voice in this debate. It has
become clear that the majority of the media and big business are firmly behind the YES
campaign, we felt that something needed to be done to assist those who opposed SSM.
The aim was to provide factual resources based on science, history, philosophy and logic
to assist people who oppose SSM to engage in productive discussion and ensure that
their voice would be heard.
As members of the team are in the marketing industry, they wanted to provide a voice or
platform for likeminded people in the same industry to have a voice. In doing this, he is
simply exercising the same right that myself and 600 doctors have done via the
critiqueAMA.com website and what it appears that lawyers are about to do. Just as we
medicos and the lawyers have a right to object to SSM, marketers like my colleague have

the same right. It was out of this belief and desire to provide a ‘voice for the voiceless’
that ‘It’s ok to say no’ was born.
‘How do you think it will start ‘respectful’ debate vs the Say No to No campaign?
How is the campaign more respectful that others?’
I believe the answer to this can be summed up in the very names of the campaigns. On
the one hand we have a campaign telling you what to do i.e. SAY NO TO NO. On the
other hand we have a campaign telling you that you have the right to your opinion i.e.
ITS OK TO SAY NO. I believe the differences are clear. The name of our campaign is not
‘say NO to YES’ and we are not telling people that they cannot vote to ‘yes’. We are
telling people that opposing SSM is an acceptable viewpoint i.e. That its OK to say no.
We have provided evidence and logical arguments for our viewpoint and this can be
viewed on our website.
To date, I am not aware of any convincing evidence that what we have said is bigoted or
offensive. There may well be people who disagree with us and that is their right. We think
it’s OK to say YES if you think you have examined the evidence, but equally, we strongly
believe that its OK to say NO. We have provided the campaign as a tool to equip those
who want to say NO to do so and to dialogue in a respectful manner with other
Australians.
The fact that all of our arguments are based on logic, history and science in itself makes it
a more respectful way to dialogue. As stated above, the differences in our campaigns,
and the reasons we believe our approach is more respectful, lies in the names
themselves. The YES campaign have every right to say YES and they have every right to
encourage others to say YES. They DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT however to discourage
people from saying NO. They do have the right to encourage a ‘no’ to change into a ‘yes’
just as we have the right to encourage a ‘yes’ to become a ‘no’. But, by the same token,
just as we don’t have the right to discourage people from saying ‘yes’, they do not have
the right to discourage people from saying ‘no

“Why did you decide to name every single person on the SNTN campaign and send
it around to agencies’?
I will defer to my colleague’s answers to this question. He has made the following points:
• We have contacted companies who have made themselves publicly known on the
website “ honor roll”
• We have only represented in the email the names / organizations who are publicly listed
on the sites “ honor roll”
• Interestingly, we piloted this message with only a small number of agencies to test
reach (24 only have opened the email)
“How do you think taking people’s names of the SNTN campaign will change their
opinions”?
The main aim was to highlight to people that there was another side to this debate and to
invite them to consider all the facts and research. The possibility that individuals or
agencies may have joined the campaign without giving all the the facts due consideration
was considered. We did not want to assume that all advertisers and indeed all those on
the ‘honor roll’ were by default SSM advocates, without asking the appropriate question.

The fact that the ‘honor roll’ was publicly displayed and marketed meant that contacting
these people was not, in our view, inappropriate or a violation of privacy. As for removal of
their names, it was never a desire to see removal of names simply because ‘we said so’ ,
it was a desire to invite them to careful examine ALL OF THE EVIDENCE and then make
an informed decision. From there, if individual or agencies chose to remove their names
or have their names remain, at least those choices would be informed choices. I have
already discussed the fact that in one area, my colleague could have chosen his words
differently, but ‘in the grand scheme of things’ this represents only one small part of the
correspondence. The rest of the communication was, in my view, appropriate and
respectful. Of course, anyone has the right to disagree with me on that, but, as I stated
above they also have the burden of proof to show clearly where and how the
communication has been inappropriate and disrespectful.

Conclusion
I trust that this addresses your queries and answers your questions. I have tried to be as
thorough as possible but if there are any areas that require further clarification please let
me know. If you would like any further information on why I believe that Australians
should vote ‘NO’ to SSM, then please don’t hesitate to contact me via email.
Respectfully yours
Dr Con Kafataris

Whilst my mind is a little blown at how ridiculous the reasons the ‘No’ camp are giving, it is not surprising. Ignorance is shining through. Ignorance through being sheltered and, it would seem, 9 times out of 10 the no voters are religious. Religions hide behind a quagmire of, (it would appear), lies. Or some might call them ‘belief’s’, which seem to be unproven. It’s 2017. It is time to ban religious schools and integrate the good humans in Australia, as one worldly, intelligent group. What do people think?

p.s. ‘It okay to say no’, is the equivalent of saying it is not okay for women to vote. Truly, it is. Look at the 3 BIG Abrahamic religions. Do women truly play leadership roles and are they truly empowered as members and followers of these sects? No they are not. – More reason for religion in general to be banished to the history books. The acerbic, thoughtless nasty, distasteful recent ‘no’ video from the Christian Lobby attests to this with bells on; (Anglican’s aside). The ‘NO’ campaign is going to help to diminish religious believers further, a bit like kiddy fiddling priests and genital mutilators have done in all three of the major religions. Please correct me if I am wrong.

This is not a debate about homosexuality, that battle has been fought and won. It is no longer illegal to be homosexual. This is a debate about marriage, which is a legal contract between a man and a woman. There is no logical reason why the gay and lesbian part of society could not instigate something similar between a man & a man and a woman & a woman and name it something different from ‘marriage’. There are plenty of ‘joining’ words. This contract could reflect the needs and desires of such unions including the path of raising children. It could be a beautiful and loving legal ceremony. To do so would defuse the entire debate and appease all parties. Australia would lead the world. Leave marriage alone. I will be voting No.

Is this Dr Con’s Twitter feed? https://twitter.com/drConK?lang=en

Makes sense if it is…

Just came across this discussion… did anyone actually read and digest the SayNotoNo site. It said the No voters “would” be hurtful …wow …we are judging what people “might” do or “might” think? Anyone seen Minority Report or read 1984 (George Orwell) …. I actually see a lot of hurtful comments (actual not perceived) from the Yes crew here. Before this “triggers” you …think about it….. all that aside gotta congratulate The Royals (authors of the site) for gaining some great PR and slaps on the back by getting other agencies to jump on their bandwagon.

“Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the ‘transcendent’ and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.”
– He would have voted ‘YES’.

Honestly, what are you afraid off

Don’t understand a lot of ur comments so far, but hears how I see it. (Plus I prob won’t read ur replies so don’t expect anything back, sorry. Not being rude but I just stumbled on this somehow)
So gays have their ‘gay community’… if we said we are the straight community, we’d be discriminative. Gays have their ‘gay bars’… if we called any bar a straight bar, we’d be discriminative. Gays have their own flag… if we had a straight flag, we would be discriminative. Why don’t gays want ur own word/legal commitment that we can’t have?? I don’t get it. I believe if u love someone u should be able to be legally recognised as married/committed, but just do what u always do & make ur own name up. & on the other subject of kids being told they are ‘fluid’ at kindy/primary school- mate, if u are born with a penis, ur a boy. If u are born with a vagina, ur a girl. Simple. If u feel different later on (after u actually realise ur feelings & not told them) go for it. Let kids be kids!