Equal Rights » unsane

When there’s no lesser of two evils

Equal Rights, Life, Morality No Responses »

Jan 072012

There are some words I’m very careful to avoid using. “Hate” is the one I’m keenest to avoid, and lately I’ve realised I’m none to fond of the word “scorn” either, both for the mental images they summon. One which I used to toss around in my youth with (ha!) gay abandon was “evil”, but that too has become a word I find myself very reluctant to use – particularly when describing people.

Yet, when I consider the GOP Presidential selection campaign, I’m unable to express my feelings any other way than the following:

The GOP presidential selection race is a celebration of arch stupidity; it’s a deliberate, calculated embracement of mean spirited obtuseness with the goal of maximising divisiveness and persecution whilst appealing to the very worst parts of human nature – selfishness, cruelty, savageness and narcissism. They heap scorn on the poor, the non-heterosexual and the non-christians who dare to want to live their own lives as equals and with respect. They shit kick and they bully for no other reason than the simple fact that it’s a blood sport to ignorant fools and bigoted arseholes who are too afraid to step outside their own blinkered worldview to see life in the full glory it can be beheld. I wish injury or death on no-one, and yet, if I were the only person in the street and saw any of these candidates on fire, I doubt I could even bring myself to piss on them, they’re so abhorrent. They are all, without a doubt to me, fundamentally hateful individuals who bring no worth to the mental evolution of the human race.

That these people can be held up as paragons of morality or democracy by anyone at all is a sad inditement on the state of politics and the influence of radical religious belief in the United States.

For years I wondered what “GOP” stood for in relation to the republican party. It seems that, at best, it means “Glorifying Obtuse People”.

Making sense of gay rights

Equal Rights, Humour, Life No Responses »

Dec 292011

The extreme right, bigots, bogans, and other suppressors of social advancement often spout the nonsense that gays, lesbians, transexuals, intersexed and bisexual folk are after special rights when we talk about sensitive issues, such as say, the right to marry.

Since this is seemingly a really difficult concept to understand, I’ve decided to flowchart it. After all, flowcharts make complex and difficult decision processes much easier to understand.

Introducing the Flowchart

In case you’re confused, this is how you work out whether the GBLTI community are asking for special or equal rights:

So that there’s absolutely no confusion, I’ll provide two examples for the use of this flowchart.

Example 1: Asking for the right to randomly fondle strangers in public

Now, imagine if you will, a situation where the GBLTI community were actively campaigning for the right to fondle strangers in public. No, they’re not, this is just an example.

In this situation, the flowchart would guide us as follows:

The flowchart works! It clearly tells us that such a campaign would be a request for special rights, because it’s something that heterosexuals aren’t currently allowed to do.

Example 2: Asking for the right to marry the person we love

A current trending issue is that of same-sex marriage. That’s where the GBLTI community is asking for the right to marry the person they love. This flowchart would look like the following:

Wrapping Up

As you can see, even the most complex of conundrums, such as working out whether the GBLTI community are asking for special or equal rights, can be solved with a flowchart.

5,506 days

Equal Rights, Life 1 Response »

Dec 282011

Darren and I consider the start of our relationship proper to be 30 November 1996.

That means as of today, as I type this post, we’ve been together for 5,506 days. Yet somehow, we don’t qualify for marriage.

On the other hand:

Sinead O’Connor announced today that her and her latest husband split after 16 days (in which they only lived together for 7 days);
Kim Kardashian stayed married for 72 days;
Britney Spears stayed married for less 3 days (55 hours, to be exact);
Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra were married for 9 days;
Lisa Marie Presley could only manage to stay married to Nicolas Cage for 107 days;
Pamela Anderson and Kid Rock got the big D after 122 days;
Drew Barrymore and Tom Green hitched their wagons for 163 days, though that was an improvement on her first marriage which lasted just 42 days;
Liz Taylor’s shortest (but by no means only) marriage was 205 days long.

(The majority of those figures were taken from “TIME’s Top 10 Short-Lived Celebrity Marriages“, you can find more in “Wikipedia – Hollywood Marriages“.)

Let’s graph those relationships:

That’s right, our relationship is the Pacman of relationships against those marriages.

And people still want to hold up the notion of marriage being exclusively between men and women as a way of preserving it?

What a joke.

Methinks he doth protest too much

Equal Rights, Humour, Life, Morality 1 Response »

Dec 102011

I’d heard about this study ages ago, and at the time it just seemed deliciously ironic. However, the last 15 years has well and truly proved to me that there’s a strong element of truth to it, too. After all, we’ve all heard about:

Ex-gay groups headed by gay men who supposedly overcome their desires, only to come out years later.
Pastors who lead churches that can “deliver” people from homosexuality, then take young men on trips overseas and “deliver” them happy endings.
Fire and brimstone preachers who end up getting caught with a $30 male prostitute … ahem … taking one for the team.
Politicians who pass anti-gay laws then get discovered looking for sex in urinals at airports.
Politicians who pass anti-gay laws and write papers called “Growing Up Straight: What Families Should Know About Homosexuality”, then hire rent boys to “carry their luggage”.

The list just goes on and on. There’s quite a few public lists out there that are worth checking out, such as this one, this one, and this one.

There are always titillating stories in the gay community of known politicians, sports people, etc., who don’t necessarily have the most gay-welcoming of public stances but privately lead a double life. Some of these stories undoubtedly are wishful thinking, but some are 100% accurate.

Now, returning to the study I mentioned at the start…

Someone tweeted about it this week, kindly reminding me of it (though I’ll admit I’ve unkindly forgotten who it was who sent it around – if it was you, let me know). It was conducted in 1996, and was titled: “Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?”

Quoting from the abtract:

“The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect towards homosexual individuals.”

They broke the study up into two groups – a collection of 35 men who were homophobic, and a collection of 29 men who had no issue with gays.

They then proceeded to show the men “stimuli” – aka, “porn”, of 3 varieties: regular heterosexual porn, gay male porn, and lesbian porn. As would be expected, both groups got rather excited about the heterosexual porn and lesbian porn.

However, what was the real corker – and something just about anyone in the gay community would attest to – was that the homophobic men were the only group to get aroused about gay male porn. That’s right:

“Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”

So, next time some guy starts blathering on homophobically about gays, just ask yourself this one question:

Is he a top, or a bottom?

On female preachers standing against same-sex marriage

Equal Rights, Life, Morality No Responses »

Dec 072011

The Reverend Margaret Court, a former tennis player, and leader of a church in Perth, has today come out swinging against same-sex marriage, saying:

“To dismantle this sole definition of marriage and try to legitimise what God calls abominable sexual practices that include sodomy, reveals our ignorance as to the ills that come when society is forced to accept law that violates their very own God-given nature of what is right and what is wrong.”

(“Legend condemns gay marriage“, thewest.com.au, 7 December 2011).

To Margaret, and any other female pastor who has the audacity to decry same sex relationships, and claim to be on some moral high ground when it comes to attacking the GBLTI community, I say this:

I strongly believe you’re acting like a hypocrite, and likely a bigot, too.

Why?

Because like so many who cling to religious authority to deny equal rights, you conveniently ignore any biblical directive that doesn’t suit your purpose. And in this case, let’s consider Timothy 2:11-12:

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

Female pastors, reverends, whatever you call yourselves; don’t preach to me that I’m a sinner, or that I shouldn’t be allowed to get married. By the religious tenants that you cling to, not only are you going against god’s will by seeking to “teach” or have “authority” over me as a man, you’re in a position of authority in a church, which is also by your own bible against god’s will.

If you’re prepared to speak without hypocrisy, I’ll listen. Until then, shut up: by your own religion, your opinion is worthless and immoral.

Special vs Equal Rights

Equal Rights No Responses »

Dec 072011

Today the US government tied foreign aid to the level of treatment offered to the LGTBI population of countries, following in the footsteps of Great Britain.

Predictably, the right wing politicians and fundamentalist religious types have been quick to condemn this. For instance, the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, condemned it, saying:

“This administration’s war on traditional American values must stop. Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money.”

(“Republicans condemn LGBT aid pledge“, Star Observer Online, 7 December 2011.)

It’s worth pointing out, yet again, that there’s a lot of people who are massively confused as to the difference between “special rights” and “equal rights”.

Let’s consider some examples here:

Heterosexuals in all Western countries can marry one another.
Heterosexual couples in most if not all Western countries can adopt.
Heterosexuals can give blood.
A heterosexual couple can safely walk down any street in any Western country holding hands and not be attacked on the grounds that they’re holding hands.

What are they examples of, you may be wondering?

Why, they’re examples of special rights. Why?

Homosexuals in most Western countries are still unable to marry one another.
Homosexual couples in most Western countries can’t adopt.
Homosexual men typically can’t give blood.
There are a great many streets in Western countries that a homosexual couple would not be able to walk safely down whilst holding hands, without fear of attack or reprisal just for holding hands.

So tell me now – who has the special rights here?

Anyone who runs around shouting that the LGTBI community is trying to steal or otherwise achieve special rights is either a bigot, or a mouthpiece for one.

Hollow victories or baby steps?

Equal Rights, Morality, Politics No Responses »

Dec 042011

Yesterday, in an apparently historic move in Australia, the ALP voted at their national conference to amend their position on marriage such that it was no longer exclusively between a man and a woman. However, the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, managed to carry the day with the proposition that any vote on changing the law would be a conscience vote rather than a binding vote.

You know when some arsehole shock jock says something particularly vitriolic, then the next day gives an apology like “I’m sorry if you were offended by my turn of phrase”?

I can’t help thinking that yesterday was like one of those bullshit apologies. You see, those apologies aren’t really apologies – the person doesn’t say “I’m sorry I caused offence”, they’re saying “I regret that you chose to be offended by what I said”. Likewise, yesterday’s decision by the ALP may turn out to be just as full of shit.

The ALP celebrated 120 years during the conference. I wonder how many other times in those 120 years they had a party position that was non-binding? It certainly hasn’t been with uranium, for instance. Some people in the ALP – typically from the left – actually understand that this isn’t a matter of special rights, but of equal rights. Anthony Albanese at the ALP conference yesterday was quoted as saying:

“By giving a group of people rights that they’ve been denied you don’t take away existing rights of another section in our community. The Australian people understand that.”

(“Labor votes in favour of gay marriage“, The Age, 2011-12-03).

The right wing of the ALP (whom personally I consider to be closet liberals, too scared to admit which party they really want to belong to – and yes, that includes our current labor PM) argued strongly that this is a bad move, and yet again revealed all the dumb and wrong arguments. Joe de Bruyn, an outspoken union official who perhaps needs to spend more time observing the old phrase “we have two ears and one mouth – use them in that ratio”, came out with some typical corkers yesterday:

“This issue is one we should decide with our heads, not on the basis of emotion”

(Ibid.)

True, that – we should decide it with our heads. And our heads should tell us that all people have a right to be treated equally. If Joe’s head doesn’t tell him that, Joe’s head perhaps should be checked.

Joe went on to give the old, factually incorrect argument:

“The definition of marriage as set out in the legislation is that it is the union of one man and one woman, voluntarily entered into for life. It has always been that way since the dawn of humanity.”

(Ibid.)

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Anyone who does even the most cursory historical investigation of same-sex marriage over history would see that there was a long tradition for it for many centuries, and it’s only been in the last few centuries that bigotry and prejudice disguised as religious zeal took over the conversation.

Even for Australia, marriage defined as being between a man and a woman didn’t become part of legislation until John Howard seized it as a wedge political issue in 2004:

On August 13, 2004, in a debate punctuated by rage and tears, the Senate passed a Howard government amendment to the Marriage Act banning same-sex marriages.

(“A history of marriage in Australia“, The Drum, Rodney Croome, 1 July 2011).

So here we are, in 2011, 7 years on from Howard’s shameful and discriminatory dark victory, and where are we? What have we achieved?

That change to the marriage act didn’t get scrape through with the ALP opposing it, it got through with the ALP supporting it, which they willingly did, since they were actively pursuing the politics of sameness – the sad and democracy-shattering notion that by making themselves more like the Liberal party they’d have a better chance of winning votes from their traditional voters.

In a speech to a religious group shortly only months after those changes went into law, Kim Beazley, perennial failed leader of the ALP said that the ALP would look to identify and remove discriminatory laws however:

“Debates on issues like this are often marginal to the real pressures that families face every day in our society.”

(“ALP Woos Religious Right“, Sydney Star Observer, Ian Gould, 3/11/2005).

Normally, political parties get all excited about marginal things, but only when they’re electorates. Joe de Bruyn again could be relied on to speak of what the ALP delegates opposed to this change were also thinking of – grubby vote issues:

“The head of the powerful shop assistants union, Joe de Bruyn, declared the policy shift ‘tragic’ and warned it would cost Labor votes, particularly in ethnic communities. But he conceded the numbers were never there to hold back the tide.”

(“I do: Labor to Gay Marriage“, Misha Schubert & Stephanie Peating, The Age, 4 December 2011.)

These sad arguments about votes and tradition just don’t wash any more, yet, at the end of the day, they resulted in the shamefully wishy-washy approach of saying “we accept it can change, but we won’t force MPs to vote for it”.

Unless something drastic happens on the other side of the political fence – within the Liberal/National coalition, this effectively scuppers same-sex marriage for this term of government. While Tony Abbott had nothing to say yesterday (which quite frankly in and of itself is astounding), he has repeatedly said that as leader of the LNP he won’t allow a conscience vote on the matter. So given the current parliamentary numbers, pretty much every member of the ALP would need, on a conscience vote, to vote for the change, yet we know for a fact this won’t happen – there are many who won’t, and given the intense lobbying that they’ll get from fringe religious groups, others may indeed buckle, too.

While the LNP does allow members to cross the floor, even on non-conscience votes, the chances of enough LNP members deciding to show back-bone on this issue to pass the legislation seems hopeful at best. Frankly, I had more hope yesterday for Gillard giving in on the conscience vote amendment than I would on LNP members crossing the floor to support a same-sex marriage bill.

And there we have it – a victory that seems to all intents and purposes to be hollow indeed.

I will not celebrate yesterday’s “victory”. I applaud those in the ALP and those who rallied outside who stood up for the rights of consenting adults to enter into equally recognised relationships, but I decry those who deliberately and systematically scuppered the issue.

Marriage vs Gay Marriage

Equal Rights No Responses »

Dec 032011

I don’t want to gay marry a dog.

I don’t want to gay marry a frog.

I don’t want to gay marry my mother.

I don’t want to gay marry my brother.

I don’t even want to gay marry significant other.

I don’t gay wash.

I don’t gay iron.

I don’t gay drive.

And I certainly don’t gay jive.

I’m just me.

So while some talk and work themselves into a frenzy about gay marriage, I just talk of marriage.

I don’t want to gay marry anything or anyone. I just want to marry someone.

It’s not special rights, it’s equal rights.

A fair go for everyone!

Equal Rights, Morality, Politics No Responses »

Nov 172011

Australia, where we believe in a fair go for everyone!

Well, unless you want to get married to someone of the same sex.

Australia, where we believe in a fair go for all heterosexuals! (GLBTI are second classers.)

Well, unless you’re an indigenous Australian under the auspice of the Northern Territory Intervention.

Australia, where we believe in a fair go for all non-indigenous heterosexuals! (GLBTI and the Indigenous are second classers.)

Well, unless you’re an asylum seeker.

Australia, where we believe in a fair go for all non-indigineous heterosexuals that arrive in a way approved by A Current Affair! (GBLTI, Indigenous and asylum seekers are second classers.)

Well, unless you’re protesting corporate greed or personal freedom.

Australia, where we believe in a fair go for all non-indigineous heterosexuals that arrive in a way approved by A Current Affair and only protest about articles of religious faith! (GBLT, Indigenous, asylum seekers and left-wing protestors are second classers.)

Well, unless you come from a non-marginal electorate.

Australia, where we believe in a fair go for all non-indigineous heterosexuals that arrive in a way approved by A Current Affair and only protest about articles of religious faith, while residing in a marginal electorate! (GBLT, Indigenous, asylum seekers, left wing protestors and those living in non-marginal electorates are second-classers.)

How long can we keep up this farce that Australia is really about a fair go for everyone?

But it’s traditional

Equal Rights, Politics No Responses »

Nov 162011

Imagine a society where we only did things if they had been traditionally done.

…if we go back 50 years in Australia, the indigenous population were not allowed to vote; that was 1967.
…if we go back 50 years in Australia, people were still being executed for crimes. Technically that wasn’t stopped until 2010, though the last execution was 1967.
…if we go back 50 years in the United States, segregation was still legal; that was not repealed until 1964.
…if we go back 100 years in Britain, women were still not allowed to vote; that was 1928.
…if we go back 200 years in the United States, people were still kept as slaves; it wasn’t until the civil war ended in 1865 that change happened there.
…if we go back 500 years in England, the monarchy was still largely absolute; a constitutional monarchy wasn’t enacted until 1689.

The simple fact of the matter is that if we go back far enough, there’s always a tradition to justify some level of bigotry. Conservatives cling blindly to tradition and shout histrionically about the “thin end of the wedge” when it comes to abandoning traditions – yet when we stop for a moment, society and human development has been defined by dropping traditions that are no longer appropriate.

If you want to look at groups of people that cling mindlessly to tradition above all else, check out the Amish or the Exclusive Brethren. People who decided that they’d had enough ‘advancement’, and now won’t use any technology past a particular point. To be fair, the Amish are probably more honest in what they do, since they try their best to isolate their communities so they’re not actively participating. The Exclusive Brethren on the other hand are hypocritical in their beliefs – they refuse, for instance, to use computers, but are happy to directly employ the services of people who do, etc.

It’s time we stop letting people cite ‘tradition’ as a way of ending an argument. When you think about it, the “it’s traditional” argument is about as logically accurate and syntactically complete as the lazy “because why” argument.

So when someone tells you that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman, the real response is: “Is that the best you can come up with? Give me a real reason.”

Older Entries Newer Entries

unsane