‘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…

User ID not verified.

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.

User ID not verified.

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.

User ID not verified.

Clearly you were not awake during history classes at school. Just because you disagree doesn’t entitle you to behave like the East German Stasi, or Mao’s ‘cultural revolutionaries’ towards those who dissent from the dominant view that emanates from the inner-city media-political bubble. Visit a library, do some reading, and when you discover the historical context of the SSM ideological bullying, you’ll feel shame for what you wrote. We can hope, anyway.

User ID not verified.

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.

User ID not verified.

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.

User ID not verified.

It’s not ideological bullying. There’s nothing wrong with wanting equal rights for all. That’s the essence of being a good Christian.

User ID not verified.

‘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.

User ID not verified.

Interesting link there – someone choosing not to do work is somehow the same as past communist regimes.

You should perhaps read some history books and realise that suppressing the rights of people is always viewed critically in the years to come.

User ID not verified.

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.

User ID not verified.

Perfection

User ID not verified.

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

User ID not verified.

Are you suggesting that people refusing to work on a campaign that denies people equal rights is comparable to people being arrested and killed by the government for having a dissenting view?

User ID not verified.

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.

User ID not verified.

100%

User ID not verified.

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.

User ID not verified.

Saying “I don’t want to work on a ‘No’ contract because it doesn’t align with my beliefs” is in no way analogous to me saying “I’ll kill you for having a different belief”.

Grow up, Mike.

User ID not verified.

Huw, You suggest that people shouldn’t work for others, as they do not agree with their ideology. Just a quick question, would the same apply for the so-called florists and cake bakers who wouldn’t serve gay people? I personally do not think it is a good thing to suggest that gay people are ‘repulsive’, but you would suggest that people can refuse contracts because they find their ideology repulsive. What’s good for the goose, etc.

User ID not verified.

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.

User ID not verified.

Or does your struggle and focus on the specific detail of anal sex suggest a slightly deeper reason for you being against SSM?

User ID not verified.

This comment is an attempt at satire, right?

User ID not verified.

Totally agree that you aren’t suppressing freedom of beer there! However, if you and your mates were to restrict that beer from advertising (with anyone) because you believe it is shit, that would indeed be restricting its freedom. Each pub can serve whichever beer they believe is good and we can respectfully disagree about what is right and wrong, because in the end – everything is an opinion.

User ID not verified.

“Are you an advocate of freedom of thought? Yes? Good. Then follow our silly dogma.”

User ID not verified.

“For me, I am struggling with the concept of a man inserting his penis into the rectum of another man.”

It’s very simple. Penis goes into rectum, penis comes out. Goes in again. Repeat until satisfied.

Simple, yes?

User ID not verified.

To be fair no one is having their inability to advertise taken away – all publishers have said they will taken on the dollars ‘as a matter of free speech’.
The ‘No to No’ campaign was a bunch of creatives saying ‘nah, don’t even approach us with this’ AKA me and my mates vocally resisting that we don’t want to drink this shit beer.

Nothing is stopping the ‘No’ campaign from designing their own shitty ads.

User ID not verified.

Pointing out the obvious, but seems necessary.

Darrell: not every gay person engages in anal sex.

In particular, lesbians do not, but you’ll find many homosexual men do not either.

You may have made up your mind, but if it’s on such flawed analyses as that you’ve outlined, perhaps it might pay to keep your mind open a tad?

User ID not verified.

You make a good point.
I think the way I’ve perceived the ‘No to No’ campaign is “not only do I think that beer is shitty, but if you choose to drink it you are also shitty”. Of course this is only my opinion and I can’t stand accurately in another’s shoes. So this is where it feels as though it is encroaching on people’s freedom of speech – only people who drink one brand of beer are being publicly accepted, rather than each being able to contribute their opinion (freedom of speech) without it reducing their validity as an individual contributor.

User ID not verified.

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.

🙂

User ID not verified.

Um Darrell, you do know that anal sex will be happening whether SSM is legalised or not, right?

And not all married gay people have anal sex.

Your fixation on this is odd to say the least.

User ID not verified.

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.

User ID not verified.

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.

User ID not verified.

Our relationships are not an ideology. Our love is NOT AN IDEOLOGY.

User ID not verified.

You think preventing people getting married is somehow going to stop them from having gay sex? I’ve got news for you, friend…

User ID not verified.

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!

User ID not verified.

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

User ID not verified.

that’s some bs right there Mike. If you were listening in history class Mike you missed the point. When people stay silent and don’t take a stand, evil wins. THAT’s the takeaway, not the twisted revisionism you’re peddling.

User ID not verified.

That’s their prerogative. It would also be my prerogative to not work on campaigns peddling inequality. Likewise, if I found out my local cake shop was turning away people based on their sexuality, I’d buy my bread somewhere else and urge people I know to do the same. People are welcome to their beliefs, but if their beliefs affect others negatively? Then we’ve got a problem.

User ID not verified.

Not sure you can equate beer brands with people’s equal rights, seems like a rather poor comparison which downplays the importance of what’s being discussed.

It’s pretty simple: one side is peddling hate, the other is saying let people be equal. Everything else in between is useless ideologically-driven guff. Agencies are right to turn away in droves.

User ID not verified.

Exactly, well said

User ID not verified.

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?

User ID not verified.

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.

User ID not verified.

Absolutely spot on @Anonymous

User ID not verified.

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.

User ID not verified.

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

Makes sense if it is…

User ID not verified.

Hi Mind not Blow,
A lot of hot air but no actual logic or intelligent response from you to this guys argument. Perhaps you can take the time to construct a rational response rather than moral grandstanding. Whether we agree with him or not at least he knows how to argue a case.

User ID not verified.

Hi Tim, I think I know this guy and he is legit. Perhaps you guys could write a story about Gay Guys Vote NO. I have a close gay mate who is saying No and is being insanely bullied….but perhaps that doesn’t appeal to your readership? and perhaps you don’t believe I’m legit either?

User ID not verified.

Hi NeoCube Chump, Ahh…I see your highly rational argument here. He is a Christian so he must not be able to think rationally? Wonder how he got through Medical School and was able to articulate a well constructed argument? You would have better spent your time trying to examine what Dr Con had written then tracking down his twitter feed. He makes a number of valid evidence based assertion…if you can’t argue against them don’t throw up red herring about his beliefs.

User ID not verified.

Tim,
Are you saying actions have no consequence?
We are not simply being asked if people can marry who they chose….this simplification totally dismisses the complexity of the issue. You can stick you head in the sand mate but any rational person would look to other countries to gather real world evidence before making a call…If you don’t know …maybe vote NO.

User ID not verified.

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.

User ID not verified.

Mate, by all means be cynical – that shows me even more what rubbish is going on in this debate.
Most of us gay guys just want a quiet life, and we’ve ben having it perfectly good in Australia for quite some time, thank you.
Now we’ve got lawyers divided, and doctors divided, and the LGBT divided, and airlines divided, and breweries divided, and the general population divided – just because a few flowers want a piece of paper to show to their kids or parents. We’ve never had it so good, but oh no, we’ve got to have more, and then more, and then more. There is no satiating some of our LGBT disunity… whoops, I mean community. Mate, it’s all doing my head in.
And if you don’t believe me and what I say, or you don’t think I am “legit”, do you want screenshots from my gay profiles with evidence of what some of us gay guys are talking about? Is this the totalitarian state rising up within Mumbrella as well?
Mate, I’m done with Mumbrella if I am now gonna get hunted and IP-ed at every move.

User ID not verified.

@Chris

No moral grand standing here friend. Just facts stated. Please correct me if any of my statements are untrue.

I have come across so many people within this debate, citing their holy books to prove that marriage equality should not occur. The ‘Australian Christian Lobby’ is behind the TV ad. I find it very interesting that people cite what a book (written yonks and yonks ago by humans), should dictate what happens today. If you are going to cite a book to exclude same sex marriage, then why are we not still burning witches (women) in the park on Friday nights? Oh, that’s right: responsible people rose up and gave women their rights.

User ID not verified.

Anglicans seem to be supportive of SSM, plus a few rogue priests from the Catholic church. Can you point to any other denominations or people who are openly religious and pro SSM?

Go the Anglican’s and rogue priests!!!! (Not the paedo priests though – they are evil, whilst of course, still being God’s representatives.) – all facts. Agreed though – just because you identify as religious, this does not make you anti ssm.

User ID not verified.

Hi mate, Couldn’t find anything in Con’s post about faith…why did you bring it up?

User ID not verified.

Sorry Chris. I hadn’t read Con’s post and in the heat of the ‘online’ debate, had a good rant. I am however referring to the video. Have a good one captain!

User ID not verified.

p.s. (I was supposed to start a fresh post and not reply to Con’s……)

User ID not verified.

“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’.

User ID not verified.

@Blakeden

See ya!

User ID not verified.

You are pathetic. Hope other companies take the moral highground and don’t use your company again. Marriage means a man and a woman. Stop calling it marriage, because it is not and never will be regardless of the outcome of the vote.

User ID not verified.

Didn’t you know Mumbrella is big on IP slut-shaming? You asked for it…

User ID not verified.

So you’re saying that it can look like marriage, sound like marriage and have all the rights and legal responsibilities of marriage? Genius! I’ve got the perfect word for it. Marriage.

User ID not verified.

Chris, I disagree

User ID not verified.

Get a job and worry about your own marriage

User ID not verified.

If shit beer is the breakdown of our beautiful Australian society where marriage is simply accepted as a man + a woman, then voting no is actually protecting our society from shit beer.
I have no issues with gay unions, it just can’t be called marriage, which is a religious union. Go find another word for it and leave marriage alone. Voting No to protect marriage, our children, and the future society.

User ID not verified.

I’m legally married but there was nothing religious about my union. There was no church, no minister, no mention of god. It was a civil ceremony on a beach. Yet still legally married.

User ID not verified.

Honestly, what are you afraid off

User ID not verified.

Seems too many people are confusing marriage with wedding. I also have been perfectly legally married for 27 years and there was no religion involved. You can have a church wedding or a non religious ceremony and both are still legal. The same but different. All the arguement about calling it something other than marriage for same sex couples is rather ridiculous really. Of course their marriage wil be different to yours. Every marriage is unique and individual. Equal access to the law for all Australians won’t take away rights of those who already have them.

User ID not verified.

After I marry a fella I’ll be married, regardless of what you think.

User ID not verified.

Except when the beer is someones right to free speech.

User ID not verified.

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!

User ID not verified.