Gay Marriage - The next step in equality

In 100 years (or 50 years even) future generations will look back on the fight for homosexuals to have the right to marriage and wonder what all the fuss was about. We look back on slavery and limited rights for women and people of colour as shocking by today's standards. Same-sex marriage will be in the same league.

There are many arguments against same-sex marriage. Many say that the definition of marriage is 'between and man and a woman' and that it shouldn't be changed. Before the general acceptance of homosexuals in our society, that may have made sense, however times change as our society matures. These are simply words and these should not be an unbreakable barrier between inequality and equality.

Why not just allow civil unions? Because that is not equality. Separating the unions of hetero and homosexual couples is segregation. By that logic, maybe the gays shouldn't have first rights to seats on the bus either? Besides,"Will you civil union me?" doesn't have the same zing.

Won't someone please think of the children?! Ah yes. The purpose of marriage is to provide a stable upbringing for children and children need a mother and a father, etc, etc. Although I agree that male and female role models are important for children of both genders, exposure to these role models need not lie solely for the parents of the children. Many kids grow up in single parent households and become healthy, well-rounded adults.

But some arguments take it to another disturbing level. Recently, columnist Miranda Devine rather craftily criticised gay Senator Penny Wong and her partner's decision to have a child by indirectly blaming the London riots on the 'fatherless society' of young people leading to struggling, single-parent, misguided youths.

"Marriage is not just a private relationship: it is a social good. Collectively, the erosion of the institution of marriage, and the relegating of fathers to the sidelines, is destructive to society".

As if trying to lift the argument to higher levels of insanity, Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce said that his four daughters would be affected if same-sex marriage was allowed.

"We know that the best protection for those girls is that they get themselves into a secure relationship with a loving husband, and I want that to happen for them. I don't want any legislator to take that right away from me".

Ok Barney. If I was one of your daughters, I would be blushing immensely at that comment. First you think that they need a strong secure husband for protection, and second, you believe that it is your right that your daughters get married. Off with the min mins again I see.

In the end, legalising same-sex marriage shouldn't be an issue for anyone other than homosexual couples. No one owns the concept of marriage. And in no way will it diminish the rights or symbolism that marriage has for other couples. If people believe it will lessen the specialness of marriage for themselves and their partner, then they need to take a hard look at what is most important in their lives. The exclusivity of marriage or their marriage itself.

It makes you wonder, that in a first-world country like Australia, which appears to be socially-progressive, multicultural and tolerant of others, has such trouble in this step towards greater equality. We are all human and are just trying to live our lives as happily as we can. If it doesn't harm anyone else, what's the problem? Just because it is, doesn't mean that it should be.

Live and let live.

Sydney Icons

Sometimes I forget and take for granted the stunning icons we have in Australia.  The simple things that make you feel like you're home. The smell of eucalyptus, warm westerly winds and cold meats and salads at Christmas. Or for me recently, enjoying the newly warm weather on Sydney Harbour and having lunch at a pub overlooking Manly beach.

When I go to Sydney I don't really take much notice of the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Opera House, but this time when viewing it from the Manly Ferry, it took on a new perspective. From Circular Quay we changed ferries to the Darling Harbour service. Here are some photos of the icons we passed on the way:

Sydney Opera House

Luna Park

Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House from Darling Harbour

Here is a video of The Ship Song Project, which highlights the Sydney Opera House as a musical, art and cultural hub for Australia. Apologies to the non-Australians who may not recognise the iconic artists in this video. Still, it's beautiful to listen to:

Gift-giving dilemmas

When did something that is meant to feel good and charitable become a mind-bending nightmare? Who? How much? When? And what is appropriate? It's such a first world problem, but one we face throughout most of the year. Some thoughts on the perils of modern gift-giving:

The abundance of gift-giving events - Seriously. We have created so many celebratory events that seem to have gifts tied to them. I blame Hallmark. All they have to do is create a new card range recognising some non-event which then ties the possibility of adding a gift for good measure. Or maybe it's our desire for attention that creates these new events in our lives? Standard gift-giving events include birthdays, cultural holidays, weddings and babies. Branching out of these are new 'events' that some believe involve the need for gifts:

• engagements
• bridal showers
• bridal kitchen tea (what on earth is this?)
• hen's parties
• house warmings
• anniversaries
• graduation
• new job
• retirement
• Valentine's day
• Mother's/Father's day

Cash please - I realise that these days a lot of people have lived with each for a long time before engagements and marriage and will often request money instead of gifts for these occasions. This annoys me. Probably because I'm the type of person that puts a lot of thought into gifts and giving cash just lowers me to the level of people that don't bother thinking at all. Cash in a card makes me think that it's a cash-prize for being clever enough to throw yourself a party. It's impersonal and people will judge your friendship and generosity on the amount you contribute.

How far does gift-giving extend? - A few years ago when I moved out of my parents home and Christmas came along, I grappled with the dilemma of who would be included on my gift-giving list. Immediate family was a given, but what about aunties, uncles, cousins, grandparents, work colleagues and friends? In the end I added a couple of friends and grandparents into the mix. Any further and the occasion would have been unbelievably expensive.

Not opening gifts in the presence of the giver - I show up at a party. Fair enough, there's a lot of people there to talk to, but guests (like myself) that spend time thinking about the perfect gift don't appreciate it when there is a gift table and nothing gets looked at while guests are there. In buying the gift, I think about the surprised and happy look on your face as the gift is opened. This is doubly annoying when there's no recognition down the road like "Oh, thanks for that book. You know I looked everywhere for that title". You would think that I would get the same response (ie: none) if I brought nothing, but I doubt it. It would be noticed and I'd be labelled as a non-gift giver.

Anyone else have their own gift-giving peeves to share?

Save Us From Ourselves

This is a great example of when common sense is replaced by moronic politics and bureaucracy. For those unaware of this situation, look at the photo above and try and guess what has prompted the need for this 'safety' fence. Uneven ground? A car accident? A bomb threat? No! It's the trees lining the street.

Over the last couple of years (yes, years) there has been ongoing debate in Newcastle, New South Wales, about the removal of these fig trees due to their apparent unsafe nature (trees drop leaves, you know). Council's public insurance won't cover potential injuries or deaths resulting in tree failure and, therefore, they have decided that the trees need to go.

The local people want them to stay. They provide natural scenery, shade and a beautiful green archway along a significantly cultural street in Newcastle. And according to historic photos (see below), the figs have grown with the development of the area. They are essentially part of the heritage of the precinct.

Laman Street figs circa 1930s

Laman Street figs circa 1950s

Laman Street figs circa 1970s

Laman Street figs today

The figs have been identified as potentially dangerous in high winds (like any large tree, I suppose) and I understand the need to warn people of these dangers. Why not put signs up? "Dangerous in high winds. Enter at your own risk". There! Now it's up to the people to decide. 

Council - don't patronise the public by fencing off the area like we're toddlers. Stop saving us from ourselves. 

These figs are some of the last remaining stands of mature greenery in the Newcastle CBD. Figs have extensive root systems which allow them to stand for hundreds of years, even in urban spaces. Despite the many storms and high winds over the last few years, the trees have managed to stand without harming anyone. However, by council's logic, maybe they should go around and tear down every old tree within a dripline of a suburban building? 

I'm not trying to push some hippy agenda here. By all means, tear down trees that pose a threat, but I don't believe these ones do. We should be hanging onto any natural environment we can in our urban areas. The figs have developed such a beautiful and iconic corridor in the Newcastle CBD. It will be tremendously sad to see them go.

More photos:

Council will meet next week for a final vote on the fate of the figs. Will common sense prevail? Or will financial concerns and politics get in the way? 

I'm not holding my breath . . . .

Odd things I don't like

Do you have certain things in life that just rub you the wrong way? Even if it's not exactly rational? Words, numbers, animals, people, social norms, etc, etc? Here are some of mine:

Prime numbers - stupid, non-conformist numbers that don't look good on anything. I secretly hated turning 23 and was so relieved to make it to 24. 29 coming up in the next few year though. Yikes.

Sloths - possibly the creepiest, slow-moving, alien creature on planet Earth. Why don't they have an obvious head shape? It just looks like an extension of their neck. And wolverine-style claws? I'm so glad I can't accidentally come across them in Australia.

Sticky date pudding - looks chocolately, smells chocolately, but isn't. Disappointing on all levels.

Bureaucracy - "Excuse me, you need to re-do this form, you signed slightly outside the box". Get out of my life, please.

The term 'preggers' - As in "Did you hear that Jodi is preggers?" Please don't cheapen the situation by using such a tacky word to describe it.

'Parents with Prams' special carparks - I hesitate at this one because not having a child myself I can hardly judge how difficult it is to cart kids around a shopping centre. But the pram is on wheels and provides a handy place to hold heavy shopping items. Unlike me with my hands dropping off walking 10 kilometres to my car. I'd rather see the priority parks go to the elderly or disabled.

The 5-day working / 2 days off standard week - So much for work-life-balance.

Being asked to give money as a wedding/engagement gift - Getting married? Here's a cash prize. Seriously though, it feels sterile, boring and unthoughtful. Let people be creative!

What rubs you the wrong way?

Pointless Products We Think We Need

We are an all-consuming society. But some products are just useless and unnecessary, but are marketed as if we need them. We don't.

Dettol No-touch Hand Wash System
The ad for this product claims that there are millions of evil Hitler germs left on normal soap pumps and this system prevents the spreading of germs by eliminating the need to touch the pump. But wait a minute! Isn't the purpose of hand wash to clean your hands anyway? So after you touch the soap pump, you literally wash your hands of any germs transferred onto your hands anyway. Dettol targets the clean-freak psychos of society with this one.

Bottled Water
In the first world, where tap water is hygienic and completely drinkable, bottled water is an unnecessary and expensive product. People will readily complain about the cost of petrol, but currently petrol is a mere $1.50 a litre in comparison to $2.50 for 600ml of bottled water. Yet people still buy it. Maybe because it gives them the false sense of health superiority over the others who buy sugared drinks with their lunch. "That's right everyone, I'm health conscious and drink bottled water". Too bad they don't realise they're being rorted out of their money for something that's free out of the tap.

Internet Fridge
Ok, so most people saw through this monstrosity. Not sure where they connected the concept of a fridge and the internet. Steve Jobs must have had a good ole laugh at this one. Excuse me while I lie comfortably on my lounge with my $600 iPad while you stand in the kitchen and browse the internet on your $15,000 fridge. Enough said.

3D Television
If 3D television did what you see in the picture above, I'd be impressed. Unfortunately for this so-called 'revolutionary' television experience, all you get are the images sitting a couple of inches off the screen. People seem to forget that we actually view television in 3D anyway. When you watch a film, you're not seeing an old Super Mario-style 2D picture. You can see depth. When 3D television starts making me duck out of the way of explosions on screen, then they can call it 3D. In the meantime, the current technology is just a gimmick.

Does anyone have any other examples of products that are just unnecessary?

Why religion and politics don't mix

Illustration: Reg Lynch

Last week, Fred Nile, leader of the Christian Democratic Party in Australia wrote this drivel about his campaign to remove the option of ethics classes in New South Wales' schools.

Quick background for those unaware:

• NSW state (and apparently secular) schools have religious education classes to teach, more times than not, Christian beliefs and the bible.
• If parents wish for their children not to participate, up until 2010, it was prohibited for the children to receive any instruction while they did not attend scripture. 
• Due to popular demand, a draft curriculum for an ethics-based class as an alternative to religious education was prepared and trialled in late 2010. 
• State Premier Barry O'Farrell made an pre-election promise to keep the ethics classes and since then Fred Nile has used his parliament voting powers to threaten to block O'Farrell's legislation moves unless he scraps the classes.

The option of an alternative to scripture in secular schools makes so much sense, I can't see how anyone could oppose it. If anything, in secular public schools, ethics classes should be the norm and religion classes optional, not the other way around. Or even the study of all major religions in an informative and educational way, not in a factual and converting way. Parents have the option of sending their children to religious schooling if they want or attending church in their own time. This should not be the role of the public school system, particularly in a multicultural country such as Australia.

Some quotes from Fred Nile's on the subject:

"I have not sought to blackmail the NSW government. I simply reminded them: before they reject my Ethics Repeal Bill, they should remember they need our votes to pass their controversial industrial relations legislation." - possibly the best definition of blackmail I've ever heard. 

"I agree with the teaching of ethics in NSW schools, colleges and universities, provided it is based on history's greatest teacher of ethics, the Lord Jesus Christ." - excuse me while I vomit into my lap.

Now, this is not an anti-religious post. Fred Nile and everyone else has every right to practice whichever religion they like. However, his role in politics isn't to indoctrinate every child into his chosen faith by banning all other educational options other than scripture. Even representatives within the Catholic and Anglican churches have backed the option of ethics classes.

He has even gone on to say that secular ethics is the philosophy that lead to Nazism and WWII and is therefore 'dangerous' for our children. Wow . . . way to throw the hardest, most irrelevant card on the table for sake of shock value and scare tactics. We all know what you're up to here Fred. You don't want possible converts being 'wasted' in ethics classes when they could be on the path of Christian enlightenment.

I think these actions from Fred Nile demonstrate the need for ethics classes for our young people, so the next generation don't end up just like him.

"So kids, imagine you are a politician who wants to pass an unpopular bill through parliament. What would be the most ethical way to approach the problem? Yes, Johnny?"

"Um,  threaten to withdraw support for another bill until everyone votes for yours?"

"Hmm . . . . " 

Last week, 11 year old Charlie Fine, a public school student, explained his sentiments over the drama in this article and gave some insight into what the ethics classes involve. I encourage everyone to read it.