Tool

The honourable Brendan Nelson, MP, federal leader of the opposition, has made public his thoughts on queer rights. He states that:

We believe … in relation to people, that families are the foundation of Australian society, I make no apology for saying that a man and a woman is a marriage and that forms a family. I don’t support gay marriage, I don’t support gay adoption and I don’t support gay IVF. But I sure as hell believe very strongly that no Australian should pay a dollar more in tax or receive a dollar less in social security by virtue of his or her sexuality and I will do everything I possibly can from opposition to see that those and other things are delivered.

Effectively he is saying:

“I believe that same-sex couples should be denied social recognition in the form of marriage, adoption of children or access to IVF; in these areas it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. This belies my belief that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships. On the other hand, I don’t believe that there should be discrimination on the basis of sexuality in the areas of taxation or social security. This belies my belief that although same-sex relationships are inferior, it is my hope that they will be placated by this concession. Furthermore, it shows I am not homophobic, nor is my party.”

I wonder what exactly he was trying to achieve in such an incongruous statement. Yes, it is a breath of fresh air to read this coming from the leader of the liberal party after eleven dark years of having John Howard at the helm, but does he really expect it to hold any water with anyone? Who exactly was he was trying to please with such a blatant compromise?

It can’t be the Christian Right, who will criticise it for giving same-sex couples any kind of recognition, even if it is only in the legal-financial arena and not social recognition—remember that this is a group who want to raise the age of consent for male-male sex and/or reintroduce sodomy laws. It can’t be gay and lesbian lobbies or voters, who will criticise it for denying full equality to same-sex couples in the social recognition arena and family arena.

Now if this is actually what he believes then I think he’s a tool because it makes no sense to discriminate only some of the time, but at least he stands up and says so. If, on the other hand, this was contrived to make both sides happy, then it still shows he’s a tool because it just won’t work.

Conversion therapy and other acts of lunacy

For the first time in a long time I looked at my counter’s stats this morning. What interests me about the stats is the search terms that bring punters to my blog. Usually I have a quick giggle at the weirder ones (such as “shorts pissings”, “why gay.com slows computer”, “4 foot fibre optic virgin mary”) or I sign over the ones that make me sad (“my life seems empty”, “sick of this s[h]it life”), but on occasion I find one that gets me really mad. And l found one such search term this morning, about three quarters down the page that got me intrigued, and a little bit mad: “conversion therapy places”. [I warn you now, this is a heavy post so if you’re in a light mood I recommend reading this another day.]

I followed the link to the search engine page and found that the link led to an entry from many months ago where I was talking about using two cross-over network cables together (which effectively makes one straight-through cable and renders them useless). Liz made the comment that you shouldn’t try to make things straight (thankfully her grandmother, who was in our presence, didn’t get the joke) and I said in the post that this proves conversion therapy is a crock of shit. Boom-boom, end of story.

I’ve actually done quite a lot of reading on the concept of “reparative” and “conversion” therapy. I use the quotes around the words because I think they only apply very loosely to the reality of conversion therapy and the misery it brings with it. Before I came out to Sister I looked into it because I thought there was a very real possibility of her insisting I seek out this kind of “help” to “cure” my homosexuality. I was lucky and she has never preached to me on the issue. I think it’s partly because she knows I have read so much on these things that she’d have a hell of a fight on her hands, but even so I do respect her for leaving me to live my own life, when it clearly goes against many of her beliefs.

I wasn’t so much angry that someone had come to my site hoping to find information on conversion therapy—they surely would have taken one look around and then left quick smart—but after seeing some of the other links on that search page, I was more pissed off at the mere existence of these lunatics. Ironically, my discussing it will only ensure it happens more often.

Five pages caught my eye, four (long) articles and a blog entry. The articles (for anyone who is interested) are: Mission Impossible: why reparative therapy and ex-gay ministries fail from the Human Rights Campaign, Conversion Therapy Revisited: parameters and rationale for ethical care by NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, who set up their organisation under the guise of a reputable charity with the express purpose of promoting conversion and reparative therapy…a bunch of crap-merchants if I ever I saw one), Deconstructing Reparative Therapy: an examination of the processes involved when attempting to change sexual orientation from the Clinical Social Work Journal, and “Reparative” Therapy: whether parental attempts to change a child’s sexual orientation can legally constitute child abuse from the American University Law Review.

The blog entry was about a sixteen year old kid who had been sent to an ex-gay group called Love in Action against his will (another bunch of crap-merchants, you can tell straight away by the name; google them if you want a fun look at whacky fundamentalism), who published the rules of the organisation on his blog. The links to his blog are now dead, since this all happened in 2005, but I was able to track down a copy from elsewhere on the net, and I also found this really interesting blog post about Love In Action and how love and hate play out when it comes to these things. I also found a wholly annoying article outlining LIA’s stance on what homosexuality is and how it needs to be cured.

The last article boils being gay down to ineffectual upbringing and/or some kind of failure on the part of the father or mother. I didn’t read the entire article; I ended up skim-reading it because it made me so mad. The thing is though that the ineffectual upbringing outlined in painful detail in this article doesn’t fit in with my experience of growing up. My father wasn’t distant and was always there as a “male role model” in my life. My mother didn’t smother me or overdo it with her “feminine influence”. I don’t fit the mould of the religious-right’s definition of what makes a homosexual. That gives me hope. It gives me hope because it means there must be other exceptions to their “rules”, and after a point they will no longer be rules anymore.

So that’s all I’m going to say on it. I realise I haven actually said anything substantive, that I’ve merely given a list of files and articles to read, but I figure there isn’t much I can say on the subject that hasn’t been said in those articles I read this morning. If you’re in a hurry and don’t have time to read them, or if you don’t want to read them (which I totally understand cos they’re big and long and depressing), here’s the short version:

Being gay is not a choice, it is innate. As such conversion therapy is a false therapy peddled by the neo-con religious right which seeks to change a person (whom they believe is not innately gay, but an individual who suffers from same-sex attraction, which is seen as unnatural and due to an inadequate upbringing in some way) from being a homosexual to a heterosexual through dubious psychoanalysis, sheer will power and prayer. It is denounced by all major psychological bodies around the western world as being an inappropriate therapy in any circumstances.

Insidious

Yesterday I had lunch with a friend that I haven’t seen or contacted since the messy ending of high school. I’ve known her the longest of my friends, except Lala, since second grade in 1991.

It was interesting. Considering the length of silent time that had passed between us, and the circumstances of our last contact, I was a little nervous. Although the great watershed of 2001 didn’t involve her at all, I withdrew so totally from the world in 2002 that I didn’t contact her at all until facebook brought us back together. But then she didn’t contact me either, so I guess it’s a wash.

We met and hugged when we saw each other for the first time—and it was a real hug—and soon the conversation turned to my coming out. She didn’t make a big deal about it, saying only “Oh yes, I ran into Calla ages ago and she mentioned it” and asking how it went with my parents and Sister.

I explained how it happened and how “It” hasn’t been spoken about between Sister and I since then despite speaking of it loudly and often before I came out. “What kind of things did she say?” she asked. “Oh you know, always saying things like ‘the homosexuals want to get married, the homosexuals want to adopt, isn’t it awful’. Stuff like that.” She nodded in comprehension as I spoke. “I mean I don’t know what you believe about all this,” I added, thinking suddenly that I hate it when people talk to me about politics or religion and assume that I agree with them. The conversation progressed and I found myself asking her, “So what do you think about all this then?”

She paused before answering, choosing her words carefully. “Well,” she began, faltering. “Look,” I said, “tell me what you really think. Don’t worry about upsetting or offending me. Whatever you say you’re not going to change my mind, I’m not going to change yours, and we’re both old enough to agree to disagree.” She smiled and told me that, like Sister, she doesn’t believe same sex attraction to be sinful, but she does see same sex contact as sinful. I was expecting this so I rolled with the punches and asked her to continue. She admits she cannot fathom how difficult it must be, for which I thanked her, but that God knows what is best for us so just because humans can come up with logical conclusions and justifications, doesn’t mean it’s actually good for us. This, too, I was expecting. I had previously made the point that I don’t believe Christianity to hold the patent on marriage, since it existed before the time of Christ. To this she she responded that just because marriage existed before Christ doesn’t mean that it wasn’t created by God and revealed or explained through him. I had to agree but of course it could very well be that this is not the case, rather (as I feel) that it was created by God for loving couples, not genders or sexes.

The conversation progressed and mentioned that she had two friends who “had struggled with same sex attractions”. One, she said “doesn’t do anything with guys…for now” (she added the “for now” in as an afterthought, as if she didn’t think it would last for long), the other has overcome these desires and is now in a relationship with a girl. I fumed, but I said nothing. Since then I’ve thought of a million responses but I was totally lost for words upon this revelation.

On the way home I mulled over what had been said. I felt such sorrow for the poor boy who has deluded himself into thinking that being gay is something to be ashamed of or something to be corrected. As many of you know, acknowledging that one is gay is hard, accepting it harder still; I felt for the poor boys and girls, men and women out there who go from acknowledgement straight into correction and suppression mode. I felt for the men and women they get involved with in their quest for heterosexuality. I felt for the children that are born into these doomed relationships. I don’t deny it can be done, to a point, if one discounts the psychological damage done—self-denial with enough vehemence must surely work in some cases—but I absolutely reject the entire “ex-gay movement” ethos nonetheless.

I find it repugnant that so many powers-that-be in Christian churches advocate this kind of inhumane quasi-therapy from their exalted pulpits. I find it repugnant that many adherents to Christianity believe homosexuality to be a pathological problem, something that needs to be cured. They base their homophobia on the Bible, on science of anatomy, on reason, on anything they can find; and all so that they can hate and discriminate against queer folk with a clear conscience. Basic relationship recognition is dismissed as “special treatment” when they fail to recognise that the present system is the selective one, not the proposed amendments in which any two people marry.

So that’s it. There’s no need to write about it any further, I think I’ve made my stance clear. It just makes me so sad that such insidious homophobia exists, all without the person even knowing it.

Good news

“Did you hear about what Brendan Nelson said this morning?” Amy asked me this morning.
“No? Am I going to be disgusted?” I replied.
“Well he said he wants to bring in same sex entitlements, but not marriage.”

Well this is wonderful news. The leader of the Liberal Party has come out on record supporting the removal of most of the 58 discriminatory laws. All, that is, except the Marriage Act (2004) and laws governing access to IVF for same-sex couples and adoption by same-sex couples (source).

To my mind, while I’m overjoyed at having “practical discriminations” in the areas of taxation, superannuation and social security, it’s a bit of a slap in the face that same-sex couples continue to be treated like second-class citizens. That said, I enough of a pragmatist to graciously accept the changes they are willing to make before fighting for the removal of remaining discriminatory laws.

Bring on the revolution!

Ding dong the witch is dead...

... and now the new beginning.

Last night I felt like singing, dancing, and running around the lounge room with my shirt pulled over my head. I restrained myself, content to say to Dad “guess who won?” It was smug, I admit, but I was so overjoyed at the unceremonious ousting of ol’ Johnny. Dad didn’t ask who, he just waited silently for an answer. “Rudd”, I said triumphantly, adding “and it looks like Howard will loose his seat. And Bartlett [our local MP] lost his too”. I grinned. He replied “Well that’s it, we’re fucked now”.

I have to admit, while I am overjoyed at Howard’s defeat, I am totally underwhelmed by Rudd in general. My parents both voted for the coalition because of its economic policies; I voted against them because of their social policies. Rudd got my vote only because he was the lesser of the two evils available to me on election day.

It will be really interesting to see what happens now in terms of Rudd’s election promises and their coming to fruition. What he neglected to remind voters, during his election campaign, is that to pass new laws (or amend current ones) the legislation must be passed by the senate. The Howard government enjoyed having a coalition controlled senate from 1 July 2005. It was having control of both houses that allowed the coalition to push Workchoices legislation through both houses with little public consultation. The current senate will continue to sit until 30 June 2008, at which time the new senate will take over, so I think it’s unlikely he will be able to do anything too dramatic before that time.

As well as promising to roll back workchoices, Rudd has vowed to remove legalised discrimination against same-sex couples. Well, sort of. I was listening to an interview with Julia Gillard on Triple J’s current affairs show, Hack. The woman is, without doubt, a savvy politician, yet for me she is one of the most tedious people in politics, if only because of her total inability to actually answer a simple question. Instead she opted to recite party lines, confuse issues, annoy the reporter, and avoid answering the question in any way, shape or form. She was asked at one point about removing legalised discrimination against same-sex couples. She stated, in a roundabout way, that the Labor party is committed to removing all discrimination against homosexual couples, and as such it will amend the federal laws listed in the HREOC report, “Same-sex: same entitlements”.

However, it is well known that the Labor party doesn’t support gay marriage, civil unions, or formal partnership recognition of any kind, despite sanctimoniously trumpeting its abhorrence of discrimination on the basis of sexuality and avowing to remove all legal discriminations. I’m sure I’m not alone in seeing the contradiction. Kate O’Toole, the reporter, pushed the issue, asking Ms Gillard to comment on the fact that the party is essentially saying “all discrimination is unacceptable, except for this one act [the Marriage Act] where it’s ok to discriminate on the basis of sexuality”. Ms Gillard was asked if that was not the case. She couldn’t answer yes or no, rather sticking to the old “we see marriage as a union between a man and a woman” shtick. It was, in short, one of the most tedious interviews I’ve heard in a long time with one of the most tedious people in politics.

So ultimately, the point I’m trying to make here is that with a coalition controlled senate, at least for the present term (ending 30 June 2008), Rudd is going to have to work very hard to get changes to industrial relations laws passed, as well has amending the 58 laws that discriminate against same-sex couples (oops, I mean 57, since the Marriage Act will remain untouched as things presently stand).

One last thing. In Australia, as many of my American readers may have realised by now, we follow the British spelling system. This means, among other things, that many words that end in “or” in the US (such as harbor, neighbor and color) are spelt “our” in Australia. The word “labour” fits this category, yet the Australian Labor Party insists on misspelling its own name.

I hope that they make better governors than proof-readers.


UPDATE (in response to Drew's comment):
Oh I totally agree... baby steps, especially after the last 11.5 "dark years" lol.

I'm just saying, don't think that the Labor party is going to be our salvation. Because it just isn't.

Fifty-seven out of 58 is a great start... once we have them signed, sealed and delivered, will be the time to push on and start lobbying for that last one.

As for holding Rudd accountable, I agree, but it will be interesting to see if the senate co-operates, and how Rudd spins it... the new senate appears to be more balanced, but there is still a coalition majority at this stage but the counting takes weeks to finish, and besides which, it won't take effect until 1 July 2008.

State civil unions are all very well, but they will never count in federally legislated areas (tax, super, work, etc) so while they're great for finally being allowed a recognised ceremony, they don't do much in the legal arena.

Horror movie

The past week I’ve been making an admittedly feeble attempt at studying, amidst a sea of distractions—this blog included. In an effort to avoid any actual study, I bring you the weeks’ news highlights that I’ve heard on the radio while in a state of semiconsciousness as I slept through my morning alarms.

Candidates ‘should declare sexual preference’
1 November, 2007

The Family First candidate in the far north Queensland seat of Leichhardt says voters have a right to know the sexual preference of all candidates contesting the federal election.

Apparently being gay makes you a lesser politician, according to FF candidate Ben Jacobsen at least. Actually that’s not quite accurate, being gay doesn’t (necessarily) make you less of a politician in Jacobsen’s eyes, it merely makes you a less of a representative: “Look I think this is a public office, this is a person that's going to represent Leichhardt in our House of Representatives… I think the public have a right to know the values that you’re going to pursue in Parliament.” Of course, this is in no way related to his questioning the sexuality of opposing liberal candidate for his seat (oh the irony). Dickhead.

Pell backs discrimination against gays
30 October, 2007

The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, has argued in favour of maintaining discrimination against gay couples, saying it is wrong to equate the position with any sort of racial discrimination.

Pell not only wants discrimination against homosexual (or indeed any non-heterosexual) Australians to continue, but he wants it condoned. Not only does Pell display a massive lack of Christian kindness and compassion, but he misses the point rather spectacularly in saying “I think what we’re talking about here is making sure that while we remove unfair discrimination, that we do not allow a very small part of the population to force their model for relationships to be adopted as the community norm, when it isn't.” Gay marriage (or even just the simple removal of practical legal discriminations in the 58 federal pieces of legislation which discriminate against non-heterosexual Australians) is not about foisting “our model for relationships” as a community norm. It will never be a norm. A norm is, by definition, of the majority. But being the norm does not mean being ‘normal’, and not being the norm does not mean being inferior at all. Only people in same sex relationships can get same sex relationship recognition…everyone else can carry on as they have thus far been privileged enough to do. Fuckwit.

Faith and reason...and a little bit of semantics

I was reading blogs yesterday when a link on Best Gay Blogs caught my eye. It read “ten arguments against gay marriage”. Intrigued, I followed the link to a post which outlined ten reasons why gay marriage is something to be feared and rejected. It occurred to me that anti gay marriage groups are fuelled not only by vicious right-wing rhetoric, malicious homophobia, and a penchant for complex and confusing sentences, but also by a serious case of irrational logic.

The post was a summary of an article on another site, No Gay Marriage (if you want a link, go to the post on Teresa Centric’s site; NGM aren’t getting a link from me). Teresa posted the summary to shoot them down, some were actually a little funny and most if not all were totally unrealistic anyway. It would have been amusing if it weren’t so appalling. I can’t say I was surprised—I’m way too jaded for that—but I was appalled nonetheless. Reading the article got me thinking about how faith and reason seem to be mutually exclusive on this issue and how semantics play a big part in its interpretation.

At this point, I should point out that I am Catholic. Increasingly, the term “gay Catholic”—and “gay Christian” or any “gay any-other-religion” for that matter—is becoming oxymoronic, from both sides of the fence; each thinks that you can’t be one if you are the other. But I disagree, strongly.

Obviously my conception of what it means to be a Catholic differs sharply from that of the anti-marriage lobby. Christian fundamentalism is constitutionally rule-governed; tradition and biblical “evidence” (I use the term lightly) always win out in their arguments. For me, religion is more spiritual: a connection between your deepest self and your Creator in which rules have little place or authority. Even on the question of morality, rules are fairly moot to my mind; if I followed the rules simply for the sake of avoiding punishment rather than for doing the right thing, am I really a good person? Or just a coward who doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing for its own sake?

God is love. The bible says this in plain black and white. So how could God possibly hate people who are, among a long list of other things, gay? If hate is the absence of love, then surely it must be impossible for God to hate. I’m not for a second saying that God is not angered at times, nor do I suggest that he blithely condones everything like some bearded grandfather figure sitting on a cloud while his angels play the hard, but I certainly don’t see how love between two people who happen to be of the same gender can be wrong. Love is amoral. It is neither good nor bad, morally speaking. It just is.

They argue that gay marriage will result in the end of the family—the building block of society—and as such must be stopped at any cost. But what is a family? Personally, I feel that family is a state of mind. I consider my close friends to be part of my family; I feel that a family composed of two dads or two mums with children to be of equal value to one with a mum, dad and children. Why should a family that does not conform to their notion of family be any less family-like? If each group is a family, then gay marriage will in fact help entrench the family unit into society more concretely because in each model the parents of the children will be bound together in matrimony. Even if one does not accept my assertion that same-sex couples with children constitute the hallowed family, why should their marriage affect any other family unit? Unless, of course, they want it to. Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t marry someone of your own sex and shut up.

You would think that any reasonable person could see these arguments for what they are, but in my experience reason has little to do with the arguments of the anti-marriage lobby. They are veiled in the rhetoric of biblical prohibition and moral superiority and few within the fundamentalist camp are willing to question such dire predictions when they are framed in the rhetoric of “traditional marriage”. They ignore, of course, the fact that until recently, historically speaking, the emphasis of the marriage contract has shifted from one of ownership (one in which the wife became property of the husband) to one of mutuality and commitment.

It seems to me that it often boils down to a different interpretation of “family” and of the nature of God. There isn’t much I can do about it—despite what I think, say or believe, the anti-gay-marriage lobby will continue spreading its message of hate. I just don’t see how they can justify such hatred and exclusion by invoking a God of love and inclusion.

Please don't let labor preference family first

You may also want to visit www.pleaselabordontpreferencefamilyfirst.com, a petition to the Federal Labour Party, asking them not to give senate preferences to the socially conservative Family First Party in the upcoming federal election. In 2004, Labour preferences helped elect a Victorian Family First senator.

The Family First party believes that “Family grows out of heterosexual relationships between men and women” (source). While their policy documents aren’t overtly homophobic, they are conspicuously silent on gay and lesbian families (at best) and covertly homophobic in their constant touting of the “loving mother and father” as the creators of a safe and happy home, ideal for raising children (source) at worst. I haven’t read all of their policy documents, only the two listed here, but they appear to be a fairly right-wing bunch of ... well let’s leave it there shall we?

Get up and come out

I received the following email, forwarded by the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, the other week and have been meaning to post about it.

Dear friends,

We've done the research and it's a landslide. A GetUp-commissioned Galaxy poll last weekend reveals a whopping 71 per cent of Australians, including 63 per cent of Coalition voters, believe same sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples in de facto relationships.

These results should make all Australians proud. Yet on Friday, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission released its year-long inquiry into same sex discrimination which reveals that discrimination remains ingrained in 58 pieces of federal legislation. From superannuation and workers' compensation to Medicare, tax and pensions, Australians are treated like second-class citizens purely on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Right now our politicians are deciding how to respond to these damning findings. This is our urgent opportunity to tell them it's time to wipe this discrimination off the books forever by giving legal equality to same sex couples.

www.getup.org.au/campaign/EqualBeforetheLaw

Australians want their friends, family and colleagues in same sex relationships to have the same rights as other citizens. One piece of legislation, redefining de facto legal status, can start us firmly on the path towards greater equality.

Sometimes change can only happen when the people lead. And we will. GetUp's poll found majority support for equal rights extends across every demographic, across every region, across every political party in the nation. Tell the politicians it's time they caught up to the people that voted them in.

Put your name to the petition calling for equality now - and please share this campaign with all your friends. You can be sure that at least 70 per cent of them will thank you for it! You can also support this campaign by donating here.

www.getup.org.au/campaign/EqualBeforetheLaw

Thanks for being part of this,

The GetUp team

I think it speaks for itself.

The economy of rights

I’m watching the news, the shorts haven’t even finished yet and I’m already pissed off.

Peter Costello has been praised for his new budget. Wayne Swan just said “the treasurer is rolling in money; it has been raining gold bars”.

Yet attorney general, Philip Ruddock, explained that it was budgetary restraints that prevented war-widow pension scope being widened to include same-sex partnerships. “Issues that can be readily addressed that don’t involve significant budgetary outlays which do bring different considerations to bear will be examined by the government”, he added (presumably to make the government look a little less homophobic).

Human rights only if financially viable huh?

More info at here and here.

Dear Rachel,

After I put my tongue back into my mouth and wiped a tear from my eye, I decided to write a post dedicated to your comment on "The fallout". Usually I wouldn't give you the time of day, but you picked the wrong post to comment on. For the last month I have been anguishing over saying those four words to my parents: "Mum, Dad, I'm gay". "The fallout" was an emotional post to write for many reasons, not the least of which is that I hate seeing my mother in such a state of pain and confusion. I wrote what I thought was an honest and emotive piece of writing and you came along and chalked up the whole painful experience to self exploitation and telling the world about my sex life. That is not what it is about at all. Allow me to enlighten you, clause-by-clause.

Clarify this for me if homosexuality is about sex,

Homosexuality is not about sex. It is about love, attraction and identity. Sex is a by-product. Not all homosexuals are sexually active (I am not) just as not all heterosexuals are sexually active (my sister is not). Furthermore, in any given relationship, the sexual practices of homosexuals are as varied as there are couples--just as in the heterosexual bedroom.

should heterosexual couples flaunt themselves in public?

I strongly object to the word "flaunt". Is a man and a woman walking down the street hand-in-hand flaunting their sexuality? Many would say "of course not". Is a man and a woman kissing in public flaunting their sexuality? Again, many would say "of course not". I am one of them. If, however, the heterosexuals who bandy around words such as "flaunt" think that by doing the same things with my boyfriend that I am "flaunting" my sexuality, then so are they. Perhaps you are referring to the boys from the television show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Are their mannerisms, voices and/or demeanours tantamount to flaunting? Would you say the same of the mannerisms, voice and/or demeanour of a straight truck driver?

Some do, some don't

Either all do or all don't. You can't have it one way for heterosexuals and the other for homosexuals.

my point is that homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time.

This is one of the few things we agree on. It has been around since the beginning of time, and thank you for acknowledging that. The point you seem to miss here is that the stigma attached to it has not existed since the beginning of time; it is a far more recent invention.

They didn't need to exploit themselves they worked, they had their personal lives and life went on.

"Exploit" is an interesting choice of verb. Dictionary.com defines exploit as "to utilize, esp. for profit". I fail to see where the profit is in being one's self. I cannot see where the profit comes in. I am assuming that you think the very act of declaring one's self a homosexual is exploitation. But to what end? To get attention. To get the shit kicked out of you. Ask Matthew Sheppard's mother if the attention was worth it.

Furthermore, you have no idea how difficult it is to grow up gay. It's all very well to say that homosexuals should go on with their lives and leave everyone else out of it, however if they did so there would be no quality of life. Life for the sake of maintaining the staus quo isn't life. I'm not trying to appeal to your emotions nor am I being all "woe is me", all I'm doing is stating a fact: life is hard when you are taunted and bullied at school, told you're sinful and immoral at church and unnatural and abnormal at home. Suicide rates among gay teenages are just astronomical. I should know, I was very nearly a statistic.

Even in the early 60's everyone knew who was who.

I doubt that very much. I admit that I have only lived in the post-Stonewall society, when homosexuality is considerably more "accepted" than it was pre-Stonewall, so my conception of what things were like then is somewhat limited, but I would argue there was higher stigmatisation and hence lower numbers of people coming out and higher numbers of people hiding their true sexuality under the guise of a heterosexual marriage for dear life.

There was a certain amount of respect.

Again, I doubt that very much. Just because something was not spoken about does not mean that it is a case of the force of "respect" at work. I'd say it was more the force of fear.

I am not trying not to offend anyone, but I think this coming out as you call it is self exploitation.

This statement, more than any other, shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Firstly, everyone comes out for their own reasons and in their own way; some choose not to and some cannot. Personally, I chose to come out for two primary reasons: I was sick of lying to people I love and I was sick of the distance those lies put between us. I did not do it to say "look at me, look at me", nor to say "I'm a faggot and I hope that some day I can put my dick in some guy's arse". It was not a bid to gain attention. I would much rather this whole thing went away with a minimum of fuss.

What is personal is personal

Again, you miss the point. You are correct in saying that "personal is personal", however you say it like that is a bad thing. As I said earlier, homosexuality is not about sex. If it were then you might have a point. But as it is about identity then things get messier. We live in a heterosexist world. That means that people see things in terms of the male-female binary. Not only do they see things in terms of male-female but they assume things in terms of male female. When a boy is born it is assumed he will grow up to marry a woman (or at the very least be attracted to one). If you had people making assumptions about your identity every day you would want to set the record straight too (no pun intended). Furthermore, there should be no need for coming out. It is the heterosexism of our society that necesitates it.

should heterosexual couples say that they hang from chandeliers before making love.

This statement comes in as a close second to the one above in which you demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. In the entire coming out process I barely touched on details of my sex life, and only then with very close friends, not with everyone. Heterosexuals do, however, tell the world the sex of their partner. Why am I not extended the same courtesy?

I think your her son first and foremost,

Absolutely. But last week I was her straight son and now I'm her gay son. The entire point of "The fallout" was that she needs time to adjust, more time and in a more profound way than I had realised on Sunday night.

being a respectable part of society is all that a mother can hope for from her children.

There is no question that being a respectable part of society is part of what a mother can hope for, but is it everything? My mother hoped for a daughter-in-law and grandchildren. Now she won't get that. The dream is dead for her.

I think a good mate of any kind is better then being in a bad relationship.

That's nice but I don't see the relevance to the case at hand.

As the mother of six, I love and respect my children for their differences not their similarities.

Presently, my mother does not love nor respect me for my difference at all. She wishes I was similar. By the sounds of it, you would too if you were in her situation. That does not mean she doesn't love or respect me. Despite her sadness and confusion I can tell she respects me for having the guts to come out to her and Dad. That said, Mum has always encouraged me to be myself, not to simply blend into the background of banality. I don't think this is quite what she had in mind but I am only doing what she has instilled in me.

I don't know who you are or how you found your way to my blog but I suggest you close your browser right now and not come back if you don't like what I say, do or am. You obviously don't know anything about the struggle involved in the coming out process or extent of heterosexist discrimination in Australia.

So thank you, Rachel, for reducing a difficult, emotional and life-changing situation down to "self exploitation".

You don't know me.

With my spear and magic helmet!

It's been too long since I posted last (not counting, of course, the one from a few hours ago). It's funny but I tend to do that a lot. Saying "it's been ages since ..." when I have just completed something, I mean. What I really mean is that before that instance, I haven't done it for ages. So anyway here I am. I don't really have a concrete reason for not posting in so long beyond being busy and tired. Yet I have nothing to show for it really.

So anyway, here I am. Getting ready for uni the way a studious young man does--watching Bugs Bunny cartoons that he downloaded from the net. I've downloaded four so far: What's Opera Doc, The Rabbit of Seville, Ali Baba Bunny and Beanstalk Bunny. The first two are my all time favourites. When I was younger they seemed longer, but they are each all of six or seven minutes.

What's Opera Doc is the one where Elmer Fudd is a viking in an opera and he wants to kill the wabbit with his spear and magic helmet. Meanwhile, Bugs dresses as Brunhilda, the viking beauty, and woos Elmer, who eventually kills him and then cries over having killed his beloved Brunhilda. The Rabbit of Seville is arguably the most famous, where Bugs is running from Elmer and ends up on the stage of an opera house and poses as the Barber of Seville. He gives Elmer a cut, shave and cement face wrap before proposing to him (which Elmer accepted, changing quickly into a wedding gown). Bugs takes his "bride" to the top floor of an apartment building and drops him over the threshold (the building was a set in the opera house) down countless flights into a cake, conveniently in the right position.

It just occurred to me, recounting these plots, how much cross-dressing went on in these cartoons. Considering they were made in 1950s, the idea that Elmer and Bugs could get together in the two marriage scenes described above was obviously totally alien to the writers, hence the cross-dressing to ensure that one was a bride and the other a groom. With all my lobbying and letter writing, I can't even watch a simple cartoon without politicising it. So sad really.

Evading the big questions

I received a reply to my letter to Kerry Bartlett today.

Tuesday, 20 February, 2007

Dear Dan,

Thankyou for your letters of 10 February 2007 and 23 November 2006. In answer to your question as to what the government is doing to address measures regarding taxation, superannuation and pensions, I would direct you to the website of the Same-Sex:Same Entitlements Inquriy. In particularly the Background Briefing page, a copy of which I have enclosed.

You are correct that the second HREOC discussion paper was released some months ago. The purpose of a discussion paper is that it be in the public domain for some time so that all interested parties can comment on it. The Federal Government will consider finders of the Inquiry when HREOC presents their final report, and decide from there what legislative action to take. It would be presumptive of the Government to act before receiving this report.

Thank you again for your letter and for advising me of your views.

Yours sincerely,

Kerry Bartlett
Federal Member for Macquarie
Chief Government Whip

On the one hand, its vagueness exceeded my expectations; on the other, I'm not surprised. When he said, in his first reply to me, that "the Government is looking to address measures regarding taxation, superannuation and pensions" I was under the impression that he was asserting that they were actuing doing something, not waiting around for the HREOC Inquiry's report (remember that this is the inquiry which Howard forbade government departments to contribute to). So it seems they are in fact, as Bartlett said, looking to address, and not actually doing any addressing at this time.

I wonder why he has chosen not to rebut my rebuttals? It could, of course, be that he is a busy man and doesn't have time to collect evidence against me. It could be that no such evidence exists. It could be a combination of the two.

I was hoping to hear his answers to my points. But then I am young and idealistic.

The only place to find freedom ...

... is in the dictionary, under F.

I read an article in November, Abbott wont end gay discrimination, in which some rather ill-thought out comments in relation to homosexual couples were quoted from the federal health minister, Tony Abbott. One line struck me as being particularly absurd:

"I'm just going to say I'm all in favour of human rights, I'm much less in favour of 'group rights'" (emphasis added).

The whole thing made me so mad that I sat down and wrote a letter to the honourable (and I do use the term loosely) Mr Abbott. This is what I wrote:

10th November, 2006

The Hon T Abbot, MP
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Re: Continued discrimination against homosexual Australians

Dear Mr Abbott,

I refer you to the attached article, 'Abbott won't end gay discrimination', published 3/11/06 in the news section of the website gay.com.

Since accepting my own homosexuality in mid 2005, something I had been denying and struggling with for some ten years, I have been keenly following the issue of discrimination against homosexual Australians. The comment you made that you "are all in favour of human rights" but "much less in favour of 'group rights'" left me dumbfounded and angry. Not only is it hypocritical but it defies logic.

I wish to point out that Australian law and society have many examples of 'group rights'; denying rights to one 'group' when they are freely given to another is illogical.

Section 5(1) of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cwth) grants exclusive rights to a certain 'group' of Australians; it is only one of many Australian laws that grants the right to marry exclusively to heterosexual Australians. Not only does it grant this 'special right' to heterosexual Australians, but it explicitly denies it to homosexual Australians in section 88EA. Many other state and federal laws deny, either explicitly or implicitly, rights to homosexual Australians that are enjoyed by their heterosexual brothers and sisters. The areas of taxation, superannuation, inheritance, adoption, and family law still remain areas of inequity.

It could be argued that the above example is invalid because the group in question is comprised of the majority of Australians and is therefore the norm. If it is accepted that the group in the majority is the yardstick to which other (minority) groups are compared and measured, then it could be rightly argued that minorities should conform themselves to the norm's way of life and not enjoy 'special rights'. This argument too is illogical by virtue of the fact that Australian law and society are full of examples of 'group rights' which are applied to benefit minority groups:

• Australian churches receive many tax exemptions that are not available to other Australian businesses or citizens, for example under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cwth) (s.50-5), Fringe Benefit Tax Assessment Act 1986 (Cwth) (s.57), Land Tax Management Act 1956 No 26 (NSW) (s.10(1)(e)), Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (s.555(1)(e)), and A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cwth) (s.38-220). Other philanthropic and charitable organisations receive similar exemptions under these laws.
• The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cwth) (ss.30-47), the Disabilities Discrimination Act 1992 (Cwth) (ss.45-58), and the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cwth) (ss.33-47) allow certain employers to be exempt from the anti-discrimination proscriptions of the acts.
• The Australian Road Rules permit disabled Australians to park in special parking spaces (s.203) for an indefinite time (s.206).
• The Disabilities Discrimination Act 1992 (Cwth) (s.9) permits disabled Australians to take assistance dogs into areas that other Australians are not permitted to take their dogs such as shopping centres.
• Australian society provides countless initiatives aimed solely at various minority groups, such as multi-lingual government services and publications for immigrants and Australians of diverse ethnic backgrounds.
  

If we accept the argument that minorities should not expect 'special rights' (such as homosexual relationship recognition), then all 'special rights' that benefit minorities should be removed from Australian law and society: Australian churches, philanthropic organisations, and charities should not receive tax exemptions but should pay the same tax as other Australian businesses; there should be no EEO exemptions; disabled Australians should not receive special parking concessions but should walk the distance from their car nor should they be permitted to take their assistance dogs into shopping centres and areas where animals are restricted but should leave their assistance dogs outside; and Australians of diverse ethnic backgrounds should not receive multi-lingual services but should be expected to communicate in English, the official language of Australia.

Clearly, the above argument is flawed. I totally support the abovementioned 'special rights' that benefit various minority groups -- I myself am disabled -- however I am at a loss to understand why recognition of homosexual relationships is deemed a 'special right' when legal provisions that benefit other minority groups are not. It is totally illogical.

Perhaps the answer is that the religious convictions of the majority prohibit homosexuality. Religious convictions should be moot when it comes to public policy as Australia has no official religion; it is not a Christian country. If it were, we would have an established Australian church. I am Catholic, yet I do not intend to tell my fellow Australians what to believe or think, so I am offended that their religious convictions regarding homosexuality prevent me from receiving what is given to others. Furthermore, I resent that I am forced to lobby the government for a right given freely to others. Interestingly, the United Kingdom, a country that does have an established Christian church, allows civil unions for their homosexual citizens.

When examined outside of the rubrics of the cultural majority and religion, the argument for marriage and relationship equality becomes a logical one. It has been demonstrated that 'special rights' are given to various other Australian minority groups, so why not to homosexual Australians?

Having explained these facts, I would assert that if you are truly not in favour of 'group rights', then you are not in favour of marriage or relationship recognition of any kind in its present form: one that gives 'special rights' to one group and not another. I would further assert that by not supporting 'special rights' you in fact support total relationship equality for all Australians, regardless of their sexuality, for once 'special rights' are removed from the equation, a right is a right and should be available to every Australian.

I am interested to hear your thoughts on this issue of 'group rights' as it pertains to homosexual Australians' relationship rights, given the facts presented in this letter.

Thankyou for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,
Dan

CC: Mr Kerry Bartlett, MP, member for Macquarie; Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (NSW).

I sent a copy to my local federal member, Mr Kerry Bartlett, with a cover letter inviting him to comment. This is the reply I received from Bartlett

15/11/06

Dear Dan,

Thankyou for your letter and copy of correspondence you forwarded to Mr Abbott.

The Australian Government condemns discrimination in all its forms, including discrimination on the basis of sexuality. It believes that each of us should have the opportunity to participate in the life of our community and to experience the benefits and accept the responsibilities that flow from such participation without fear of discrimination. The Government is committed to maintaining that Australian traditions of tolerance and respect for diversity, which are the foundations of one of the world's most successful and harmonious societies.

However, the Government is also strongly of the view that the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman for life should remain. This is not to say that same sex relationships are not as valuable to those involved but they are different. Having said that, the Government is looking to address measures regarding taxation, superannuation and pensions.

Thank you again for your letter and I have noted your personal views.

Yours sincerely,

Kerry Bartlett, MP
Federal member for Macquarie.

This reply only made me even more mad. I have always admired Bartlett (although this has a lot to do with the so-so calibre of the labour candidates). I wrote a reply and sent it off...

23rd November, 2006

Mr K Bartlett, MP
PO Box 376
Springwood NSW 2777

Re: Continued discrimination against homosexual Australians

Dear Mr Bartlett,

Thank you for your prompt reply (dated 15/11/06) to my letter (dated 10/11/06) regarding same-sex relationship equality. I would like to take this opportunity to rebut a few points.

I was disappointed that you cited the government's party line that "the Australian government condemns discrimination in all its forms", when in reality it actively discriminates against its citizens. I base this assessment on findings by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission's Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Inquiry, an inquiry to which John Howard instructed the federal government not to make submissions (see attached article Howard accused of failing gay community, 28/6/06 and media release, dated 28/9/06). The Commission has published a preliminary list of 68 federal Acts in which discrimination against homosexual Australians occurs.

I was similarly disappointed by your citing another party line regarding "Australia's traditions of tolerance and respect for diversity". While it is true that diversity has always existed in Australian society, tolerance and respect for that diversity have not. The government appears to have a very short memory. Until the mid 1970s the White Australia policy required immigrants to assimilate to Australian norms; this was neither tolerant nor respectful of diversity. The criminalisation of homosexual acts, a practice which continued until the mid 1970s in most states and until 1983 in Tasmania, was neither tolerant nor respectful of diversity. This intolerance and disrespect for diversity has continued into modern times; the Cronulla race riots are a very recent example. The "traditions of tolerance and respect for diversity" to which you allude are, paradoxically, both true and false at the same time. They are false in the sense that these traditions never existed, at least not in the sense that the current government would have its voters believe. They are true, however, because the actual traditions of intolerance and disrespect for diversity have always existed, and continue to exist, in Australian society.

I found your final paragraph condescending and insulting: "The government is also strongly of the view that the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman for life should remain. This is not to say that same sex relationships are not as valuable to those involved but they are different. Having said this, the government is looking to address measures regarding taxation, superannuation and pensions" (emphasis added). The fact that you used the words "to those involved" tells me that these relationships are not as valuable in the eyes of the government, nor yours. I would not dare rebuke you for your own personal opinions on the subject--they are your opinions and none of my business--however as an Australian citizen and voter I have the right to rebuke the government for its obviously discriminatory views.

The government's view of marriage as being exclusively "between a man and a woman for life" lacks substance by virtue of the very existence of divorce laws. Allowing divorces negates this "traditional definition" as it provides a way out of what is, by definition, a life-long contract.

Saying that homosexual relationships are "different" is a gross oversimplification of a very complex phenomenon. I agree that homosexual relationships are different insofar as all relationships are different. Each relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual, married or de facto, is different. I strongly disagree with the implication that being "different" is negative or means being unworthy of equality. My grandparents' 64 year marriage relationship is different from my cousin's three year de facto relationship with her boyfriend, which in turn is different to that of Justice Michael Kirby and his partner, who have been living in a homosexual de facto relationship for 38 years. Each of these is different, yet all three are very similar as they are all loving, committed, voluntary and for life. Despite this, only two are legally protected. Even more absurd is the fact that a three-year heterosexual de facto relationship is legally protected while a 38-year homosexual de facto relationship (which is virtually the identical except for the fact that one consists of a man and a woman and the other two men) receives very little legal protection.

I read and watch the news daily and am a member of many gay and lesbian news lists; I have seen no evidence of the government "looking to address measures" of discrimination in any area of law. On the contrary, I have only seen opposition to progress and law reform. Phillip Ruddock's veto of the Civil Unions Act 2006 (ACT) belies Mr Howard's and Mr Ruddock's homophobia. The fact that debate over the Greens bill to close loopholes in the Anti-Discrimination Act has been gagged (see attached media release, dated 15/11/06) by both sides of government indicates a refusal to even discuss reform. It has been nearly two months since HREOC released its second discussion paper in connection with the Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Inquiry.

Mr Bartlett, I would like to know how, precisely, the government is "looking to address measures regarding taxation, superannuation and pensions". What is being done? Which acts are being examined? What changes have been made? What changes are being proposed?

In conclusion, the government's arguments and opinions on this subject are contradictory and flawed. Either marriage is for life, without provision for divorce or any alternative such as recognition of de facto relationships, or it is not necessarily for life because divorce is available and de facto relationships are recognised; either the government is discriminatory in its treatment of Australian homosexual couples by refusing equal rights, or it is not discriminatory and grants the same rights for all couples. The government can not have it both ways.

Thankyou for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,
Dan

CC: Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (NSW).
Enclosed:

• Article: Howard accused of failing gay community, 28/6/06
• Media release: HREOC Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Inquiry, 28/9/06
• Media release: Debate gagged on Greens' bill … 15/11/06

As of today, I haven't received a reply. Perhaps Bartlett doesn't want to engage in a debate with me? Perhaps he knows he won't win? Whatever the reason, I have written a follow-up letter:

10th February, 2007

Mr K Bartlett, MP
PO Box 376
Springwood NSW 2777

Re: Continued discrimination against homosexual Australians

Dear Mr Bartlett,

Thank you for your prompt reply (dated 15/11/06) to my letter (dated 10/11/06) regarding same-sex relationship equality. I have sent you a reply (dated 23/11/06) however I have not received a reply nor a receipt from your office. I have included that letter in case the original one was mislaid at your office or lost in the mail.

If you did receive it, and have chosen not to engage in a debate with me, I do understand and respect your decision. However, I would appreciate it if you would expand on your assertion that the government is "looking to address measures regarding taxation, superannuation and pensions". What is being done? Which acts are being examined? What changes have been made? What changes are being proposed?

The truth is, Mr Bartlett, that I see no evidence of these measures; on the contrary I only see the government's homophobia in the news. I have enclosed four articles for your information that belie the government's attitude. The first demonstrates the homophobic move to deny foreign adoptions to same sex couples; the second, third and fourth demonstrate the flimsy excuses used to reject the ACT's second attempt at same sex union legislation.

Election time is upon us, Mr Bartlett, both state and federal. I suspect that the queer community and their heterosexual allies are much larger than the incumbent government thinks. This issue, among many other legal disparities between gay and straight Australians is likely to be an issue at the front of many gay voters' minds.

Thankyou for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,
Dan
CC: Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (NSW); Community Action Against Homophobia (Sydney); Community Action Against Homophobia (Blue Mountains)
Enclosed:

• Article: No recognition of gay couples' foreign adoptions, 2/2/07, The Age.
• Article: ACT gay marriage plan rejected again, 6/2/07, The Age.
• Article: Concern for minors in ACT gay union plan, 7/2/07, The Age.
• Article: Ruddock blocks gay union plan, 7/02/07, The Age.

We'll see what happens now. If Bartlett is smart he'll write me a killer letter, detailing these steps that are being taken. He should have a list of legislation somewhere that he can use. If do hope, for his sake, that he didn't make that assertion just to shut me up.

He should know that I'm not going anywhere by now.

A lesson in logic

While reading the Gay.com news tonight, I stumbled across an article entitled "Kirby states case for gay marriage".

High Court Justice Michael Kirby, a man who is quickly rising in the ranks of my personal heroes, has spoken out about the controversy surrounding calls for gay marriage in our country. He is gay and has been in a relationship for 38 years. Gay marriage is an issue that I bring up quite a bit, on this blog and in real life; it's an issue very close to my heart.

Justice Kirby said it was in society's interest to support stable and sustainable relationships, in whatever form they may take.

"It is a source of puzzlement to Johan and me, as we go about our tranquil lives, that there are many fellow citizens, some of them well educated and very important, who seem to be threatened and upset by such relationships and who feel the need to discriminate against them by laws enacted or unenacted by our nation's parliaments."

The point that keeps cropping up by people opposed to gay marriage is that it will denigrate marriage. The logic behind this is quite beyond me. How could my getting married possibly affect anyone else except me and my partner? Unless, that is, they let it? What annoys me most about this line of opposition is the inherent homophobia -- these people don't feel threatened by heterosexual de facto relationships, only homosexual ones. If my getting married reduces the worth of my grandparents' 51 year marriage, so too should my cousins' de facto relationship shouldn't it? That is a logical conclusion to make. Furthermore, why make legal allowances for straight people who choose not to marry (and there are many places in the law where de facto couples are treated as married) when there are no legal allowances for gay couples who can not marry? It defies logic.

We live in the world of the free market. For example, a Dominoes Pizza and a Pizza Hut service a town side by side. Their products are virtually the same although some citizens prefer one over the other. They are the only fast food outlets available to the citizens of this town. Occasionally one or the other will make a pizza that cannot be eaten -- perhaps there is too much chili sauce on a pizza from Dominoes, or perhaps anchovies were put on a pizza from Pizza Hut when it was ordered without them. Is the mere fact that these fine establishments make the odd unpalatable pizza reason to shut down the pizza industry altogether? Of course not. Now consider that this same town, home only to pizza restaurants for as long as anyone can remember, is selected as the new site for a MacDonald's. Some citizens choose to dine at MacDonald's, while others still prefer their pizza. Is the simple fact that "there has never been a MacDonald's here before" a good reason to shut it down? Is the fact that "most people prefer pizza" a good enough reason? Does the fact that some people prefer MacDonald's lessen the values of the preference of others who enjoy Pizza?

Justice Kirby told the conference he and his partner of 38 years, Johan van Vloten, had considered marriage but it was not a priority.

"Naturally, we recognised that this was hardly the relevant question - the issue is not whether marriage is wanted by everyone but whether ... it should be available to all citizens who feel the need for that form of public affirmation of their relationship," he said.

This argument annoys me the most: that because not all gay couples wish to marry, it shouldn't be made available. What annoys me the most is that this is an argument used by gay people themselves. Where is the logic? Not all straight couples choose to marry either, should we do away with marriage altogether? Of course not! Then why do these arguments get used against gay marriage? It defies logic.

A small ice cream shop serves a small community. They serve a variety of flavours, the most popular two being vanilla and chocolate, although there are people who prefer strawberry and lemon. While placing orders each weekend, the proprietor takes the popularity of each flavour into account, but he still orders them all. Would it be fair to all the lemon fans to discontinue their ice cream of choice just because others prefer another flavour? Furthermore, would it be fair to them to discontinue it because others dislike their favourite ice cream? Does the fact that strawberry ice cream is consumed lessen the pleasure a child gets from his chocolate ice cream? The fans of vanilla would be up in arms if this skewed logic was used to take their ice cream away!

So whether you like vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, lemon, or any other type of ice-cream, you are entitled to exactly the same right to consume it as the next person. If you prefer pizza from Pizza Hut, pizza from Dominoes, or MacDonald's, you should be able to have the choice, and the option, to legally eat your favourite fast food.

Can't we all just eat in peace?