Marc's Journal

Have we been fighting the wrong fight?

I got my reply back from Senator Kirk, of the ALP. Was much as I expected, Labor will not support the concept of gay marriage, but will fight discrimination, starting with a thorough (read: long) assessment of legislature, and then introduction of legislature to change those acts with discrimination. Sounds like a long progress, really, why can't they just support the Democrat's Sexuality and Gender Identity Discrimination Bill? It's already written for them, thought out by the most qualified political party to do so.

Ms Kirk said she thought that gay marriage was unconstitutional. Well, not those exact words, but that High Court judgements have led her to believe that. So I checked out the constitution. It mentions marriage once. I don't have it with me, so I'll paraphrase in that it basically includes a list of areas that the parliament is allowed to create laws about, marriage being one of about twenty.

Unconstitutional, my arse!

But her letter got me thinking. Do we really want gay marriage? Labor certainly won't be supporting it. What's the core of the problem? What exactly *do* we want? Have we been fighting the wrong fight?

For those of you interested, there's a great online resource for legal and parliamentary documents, the Australasian Legal Information Institute. You can find heaps of information in there. Whilst looking up gay marriage, definitions of marriage, and all that, I came across this article. It highlighted some of the issues that I've come across, and I even mentioned in my original letter. I don't want gay marriage. I want civil unions. I want no discrimination on the areas of superannuation, taxation, guardianship, I want family law court support for breakups. I don't want a religious ceremony. I only want equality. When it comes down to it, I don't want to be discriminated against in those situations, if I'm not married. If I'm not married, and my partner is in hospital, I want the government to ignore that I'm not "married" and grant me access. I think the only way to do this, to sort out who is living "as married" and who isn't, is to introduce the idea of a civil union. And perhaps even enlarge "defacto" to include same-sex couples. So that we don't have to go out and get that civil union, to have access to family law courts in times of breakups, like heterosexual couples have.

So yeah, I think we *have* been fighting the wrong fight. Lets push for civil unions for all couples.

Oh, and some good news. Canada is introducing gay marriage this month, and Spain's current political party is introducing a bill that supports the same thing. Is Australia really to be last of the western nations to remove discrimination from it's federal legislation?

I have a new hero..

... Senator Brian Greig, of the Australian Democrats. His opinion piece on gay marriage is almost the same as my letter to my local MP. I also read his first speech, and it moved me enormously. If you're Australian, please support Brian Greig, and please support the Democrats.

We're not alone?

I had lunch with a couple of good friends yesterday (Chantelle and the lovely Daniela), and amongst all the things we chatted about (including politics, like the last post), we talked about aliens, and whether they exist, and all that. I approach the topic all very scientifically, I guess. I think there's a religious or spiritual or esoteric answer, as well as a scientific answer to everything. Even if we have to admit we don't know the answer yet.

Take past lives, for example. I think there is a scientific explanation. But it could be flawed, because this is my own idea, and not backed up by research that I know of. A while ago I wrote this entry about our atomic composition. We've all come from the same common bunch of atoms. And what is memory, but stuff stored in electrons. They say that our body is not the same cells as it was 7 years ago, so it follows that memories can be stored and transmitted from one atom to another. Given that, is it so far fetched that our bodies might contain atoms that have other memories in them? What if what we think is a past life is just a particularly strong memory floating around the atoms in our body? Of course, leave a comment if this is completely impossible, but I still think it's an interesting theory. Of course, the spiritual/esoteric explanation for past lives is that reincarnation exists, and we all go through many different lives...

There are plenty of interesting theories relating to aliens, and their contact with Earth. I don't think I believe in any one theory strong enough to support it with my full belief, but I think they're all interesting. Well, I think there are a lot of unanswered questions that can be answered by alien interaction. But then I could accuse myself of being as weak as those people centuries ago who used religion to explain things that they couldn't explain themselves. I still maintain that "I don't know yet" is the best answer to something you can't explain.

But how do we explain the pyramids? The startling accuracy of their astronomy? How do we explain the great leaps in our scientific evolution? They say scientific progress is a hyperbole, but there have been a number of discoveries, namely the atomic bomb, that have been out of place with the rate of progress. Alien interaction? Possibly.

Then there's the argument "we couldn't possibly be the only intelligent life". I read once that the circumstances that produced humans on earth are extremely rare. We need a planet on it's axis, so we get the variation of the seasons. We need a satellite of a big enough size to produce tides, we need a particular temperature, a particular atmosphere, and a certain coverage of water on the planet, etc etc. All those things in combination caused the first life on Earth, for those conditions to be present on another planet is pretty bloody rare.

But there are those who say that alien life isn't carbon-based, like us, that it's silicon-based. Obviously to produce a silicon-based life form, you might need different conditions, that could be more common. Who knows?

And then people ask "well why haven't they come down to Earth yet, and made themselves known?" It may be a cop-out answer, but would you? We still shoot each other. We have global wars. There are atrocities committed against so many other humans, just because we're different in religion, skin colour, sexuality, or ability. You think an alien has much of a chance at nice treatment? They wouldn't want to step foot in Texas, or they'd get a shotgun to the head. No, hell no, if I was an alien I'd steer clear of this planet full of murderous people. Sure, I think we've had much more benelovent societies and cultures on earth, and what do you know, they're the ones that have history of alien interaction. But current cultures? How can we treat an alien with respect whilst Matthew Shepard can be bashed to death just because of his sexuality. That civil war never stops in areas of Africa. That religion that are supposedly benevolent still cause the majority of conflicts. Aliens, stay away.

So do they exist? Scientifically I can't really say eitherway. Here I go "I don't know yet". I'd like to think so, though.

Why I'd never get into politics

And why I should never say never
I got a reply back from one of the politicians I CCed the letter to, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja. She's great, and so are the Democrats, so I didn't expect anything less than what I got. I got a lovely letter from her, outlining in general all the things that the Australian Democrats have been doing to fight for the rights of same sex couples. Along with that she included about 30 pages of transcripts of speeches and press releases that the Democrats have done, really good reading. I was most impressed. But as I said, I always expected to be impressed by Natasha and the Democrats.

I wish I had it in me to go into politics. I have all these wonderful ideas, and ideals.

Firstly, I'd obviously introduce a civil union, with all the financial and social aspects of marriage, without the religion, available to all and sundry. The reason for this is bloody obvious, really.

Then I'd double the pay of teachers and university staff. And nurses. I think these are (some of) the most important jobs in Australia. We should have brilliant people *fighting* to get these jobs. Our kids and our university students should be taught by the best people in Australia, not the ones who don't get hired by big companies to do research. Private industry is taking away the brilliant lecturers. Shitty conditions are getting the teachers to change jobs. Shitty conditions are getting the nurses to quit.

Arguably, 100% of the people in Australia are touched by people in these professions. Our kids all go to school, people would be better off if we all went to university, and nurses treat us when we're sick. The reason the Australian government is so *stupid* with the way they treat these professions, is that they're generally done by people who are passionate about what they do. Teachers stay in their jobs because they feel drawn to teach. Nurses stay in their jobs because they have a passion for it. And the Australian government knows this, and treats them like shit. Double their pays, no question.

Austudy. What a joke! Can someone explain this to me? Why do we pay our students less than we pay our unemployed? I don't get it. If someone needs the money, they're better off unemployed than studying. That's just stupid. Ok, I get one thing, if someone goes on Austudy, then the government is committed to paying that for 3 or 4 years. If someone is on the dole, then the government hopes they'll be off in a few weeks.

Why oh WHY does the government only think as far ahead as it's term? It's a coincidence that it takes as long to get a degree, as the government stays in power. The STUPID government won't put into place things that the next administration will benefit from. Why would the current government increase austudy, to hopefully get more students with degrees, when that's only really going to come into affect 4 or 5 years down the track, when they might not be in power at that point. Grrr. That shits me. Answer me this, what's better, a nation of people with degrees, or a nation of people that have been unemployed for the last 3 years? Would you rather employ a graduate or someone long term unemployed? It's a no brainer, and I can't see why we haven't fixed it. Lets make Austudy more than the dole, lets encourage students, not dole bludgers.

What else? Oh, how would I pay for this? I'd raise income tax. Yeah yeah, stop complaining. I'd also eliminate GST again. Why is it we have a standard tax on items, to reduce income tax? Isn't that making *everyone* pay for what they buy, rather than the people who can specifically afford it? I think that's socially wrong. It may be "user pays", which seems fair, but it's not, really. It should be "who can afford, pays".

I'd start a campaign to raise the social awareness of Australians. Start building national pride again, and not just pride in ourselves, but for everyone around us, and what we do for them. Raise the upper brackets of income tax, and tell them they're paying for a nation of kids with degrees. Tell them we're paying for their kid's free education, and for their poorer neighbour's kid's education. Give everyone's social conscience back, let us feel responsible for everyone else in this beautiful country, not just ourselves. So there's a few people that earn a lot of money, it doesn't make them better people. Heck, I think the teachers and the nurses are better people, they're the ones with a social conscience.

I make a fair bit of money, and I certainly don't think I'm "better" than someone who doesn't. Infact, my job doesn't particularly "add value" to people's lives. I write intranet applications. Big deal. I bow before teachers and nurses and think they're a hell of a lot better than me. So with my money I sponsor a child, and make large donations to a set number of charities every year. Really, it's the least I could do, I really could *and should* do a lot more.

So lets raise our awareness. Lets raise the upper taxes, and teach these people that they're paying for Australia's future. Lets promote and celebrate our teachers, our nurses, our universities, for they're the ones building a smarter Australia.

But the title of this post is "Why I'd never get into politics", so I should explain that. Why wouldn't I, if I'm so passionate? Because I'm also a realist. What I want would never happen. I'd get into politics with my ideals, and they'd eventually be replaced by what was possible, rather than what I want. I'd be privvy to more information than I am as a normal citizen, and I'd probably realise that we couldn't do the things I want. I'd have to take second best. I'd have to make compromises. That's what being a politician is about. I'm sure just about every politician got into politics to make a difference, and some day realises they can't make that much of a difference, because we have the real world to deal with, too. I honestly believe that's why Australia went into Iraq. Not because we wanted to, because I certainly think we didn't want to, but because of agreements we have with US. Deals, to provide grain contracts. A plethora of other seemingly unrelated situations and deals. Australia makes X amount of money from this trade deal, in return we commit troops, is that worth it? Yes, so into Iraq goes Australia, much the chagrin of the majority.

That's why I don't think I'd go into politics, I don't want my ideals shattered. I harbour a deep love of this country, and of what we could be. I don't want to see that shattered by compromises and second best. I think my heart would shatter, too.

Pre-New Year's Resolutions..

Hrm. On my walk to the shop and back for lunch, I figured since it's nearing the end of the year, it's time to sort out some goals. Hopefully realistic ones.

Financial/Asset Goals
To own a vespa! Cool!
To have a new mp3 player.
To get 'that rug' for the lounge.
To get a DVD/VHS player.

Personal Goals
To become fluent in French.
To go to the gym more.
To write more of or even finish the novel/screenplay.
To write, shoot and edit a short film of some sort.
To join the Media Resource Centre

Business Goals
Find a good part-time contract.
Produce a business plan for the cards idea.
Gain interest from vendors for the cards idea.

Wonder how far I'll get...

Needs Work, Renovator's Dream

Thoughts on my "type"
I think I'm a wimp. I've just realised this. On the weekend I took a road trip with some friends to Melbourne, where we clubbed and drank and ate and basically had fun all-round. On Sunday night we were at a pub, in the "gay" section on the side. We were basically just sitting around and chatting and stuff, and I could see these two guys up at the bar, obviously debating whether to come over and sit with us. Me, specifically.

And they did. Lets call them Richard, and Peter. Richard was good looking, with a big smile and an enthusiastic manner. Peter was gorgeous, simply put. But I think it was Richard that was interested in me, who instigated the "lets go sit over there and talk to him" manoeuvre. But, I wasn't attracted to Richard, although he seemed to be a lovely guy. Peter was gorgeous... Kinda short, with short blond hair, a nice flushed face (the Prince William flushed cheeks look), and a very funny manner. And a great voice, too. Not only that, he's lived in France for a year or so, as well as having studied in Germany. So we had lots to talk about - his take on the different accents of the regions, what the people were like, etc etc. He also seemed rather successful, doing international marketing with a bank or something, I can't really remember the specifics he didn't really go into. Richard was into social working, also quite interesting.

But I found myself becoming quite attracted to Peter. He was funny, smart, spoke multiple languages, had worldly experiences. Very successful, I would imagine. Nice apartment in a nice suburb. We even talked about landmarks in Melbourne and he agreed that I really should see the Australian art gallery, as well as a newly opened up domed ceiling in the state library. A man after my own heart, to value those kinds of things.

Throughout our weekend, my friends and I pointed out people to each other, ie "There's a guy for you, Brad", etc. That led to discussions on what our "types" were. If I want to look at someone, I like looking at people with the eastern european look, mostly. Anywhere in Czech Republic, Slovakia, Scandanavia, Germany, etc etc. I like that look. But my "type" of personality I go for, it's always the same. Well, the ones I end up dating are always the same. They're always a little bit flawed, I guess, and have much less experience than I have. Renovators delights, as it were. People with issues about themselves - be it being newly "gay", or something else similar. People with plenty of baggage.

But I also find myself terribly attracted to people like Peter, above. Successful people. People with which I would imagine a hell of a lifestyle. Two people with my income, dating? That would be wild. Two people without the obvious big issues? Fantastic.

But in the end, they always make me run a mile. Just look at my attempt at dating Dominic, when I last lived in Melbourne. He had no issues. He had his own company, he was successful, had his shit together, was happy with himself. Great to be around. Just no big flaws. I run from people like that - I certainly ran from Dominic. And Andrew, another friend from Melbourne. I'd say we had an opportunity to date, it just never eventuated. He's certainly cute, and very successful. Comes from a very successful family. He's very genuine, caring, honest, and smart. All those things I'm attracted to in a person, just not in a relationship. I look at him today and think "shit, maybe I should have dated him". I'd probably think the same of Dominic if I saw him. And I was certainly thinking that of Peter the other night. I imagined what it would be like to date him.

But I know I'd never go through with it.

Which leads me to my conclusion - I'm a wimp. People who are as smart/successful/together as me, or even more so, threaten me. I don't like being around people that know more than me. Some of Peter's French scared me. I found myself to not be the most interesting person at the table, when he was there. That's threatening to me. I wish it wasn't, but it is.

So I'm a wimp. I date people I can impress. I don't date people I can really learn from, I date people who can learn from me. Is it out of compassion for them, or because I'm a wimp? I'm thinking it's the latter.

At the beginning of the "courtship" with Dominic, I said to him "don't let me run away from this because it's too good for me". He wasn't sure what I meant. I showed him within a week - I was out of there. As George Michael sings in one of his songs "You look for your dreams in heaven, but what the hell do you do when they come true?".

Peter was the guy of my dreams. I want him, but I don't. I'd try to date him, but I'd run a mile. Do I not want to be happy? Or does it all come down to a guy's fear of committment? Do I run from things I think might work, only to find things that probably won't? Am I more comfortable failing? I already know I'm more comfortable when I'm not learning things from someone else. I already know that smart people make me feel uncomfortable.

So where to from here? I guess realising these things about myself will help me in the future. Do I continue dating people like I do, or do I try to find someone successful? I guess I'll just play it by ear. Anything that I end up in, that I put my heart into, is bound to be worthwhile, however long it lasts. I love Craig enormously. He may not be an investment banker, or multi-lingual, or able to travel overseas at the drop of a hat, but he's my boyfriend and I love him.

This is really interesting...

I've been dispensing advice such as this to friends both gay and straight for a while, and now here's someone else's view:

Monogamy Is Unnatural, Fidelity Comes Hard For Humans--Gay and Straight

Have a read, it's cool!

Personalities

Thoughts on our opinions and personalities
Personalities are interesting things. I was having a fantastic discussion with a good friend of mine last night. At times we were getting so frustrated at the lack of tolerance in the world. We had quite different upbringings, yet we both have the same views on a lot of things. Such as why the hell we're so hung up on race, colour, creed, or sexuality. I mean, why? Why does the colour of our skin change who we are? Why does a cosmetic change of skin alter people's beliefs about you? And do we really care who sleeps with who? Why does my choice of partner affect who I am as a person? I'm still me, regardless of who my partner is. Take that partner away, it doesn't change me as a person.

Far too many people have adopted the opinions of their parents, or of their friends around them. Chances are, too, that the opinions of their friends around them is only that of their friend's parents, anyway. I mean, this is logical. Until you've actually met a "gay person", or a "black person", why would have you had a chance to formulate your own *real* opinion of them? So you might as well just inherit your opinion.

It just annoys me when I see these people, with no *real* opinions of their own, using those same opinions as a basis for hatred. As a gay man, I see a lot of it. Most of the time it doesn't really bother me, I decided long ago to accept humanity, warts and all. If humanity at large wants to be bigoted, well, so be it. But when it affects me personally, that's when I get angry. Some of these people are so blind! They just can't see reason. They can't step out of their opinion for a moment, and look at it from another point of view. They won't even entertain the fact that their opinion might not really be based on anything valid. If they've had a bad experience with a black person, so be it. If they've had a gay man be really inappropriate towards them, so be it. But unless they've got something to back up their opinion, they don't have a damn right to have such hatred. "I hate poofs." Well, honey, how many poofs do you actually know? Sheesh.

But back to personalities. My friend and I were wondering, just how it was that we think like this. Without entering the debate of nature vs nurture, we can generalise and say we get a lot of our morals from our parents, whether it be genetically or environmentally. But my parents have strong views on things that they don't really understand. They've certainly had trouble accepting my sexuality in the past. The unknown frightens them, and I guess that's how bigotry and discrimination arises. If you spend time with black people (for instance), you realise they're just the same as everyone else. Likewise with gay people. I remember chatting to a previous boss about some money issues I was having with my boyfriend. My boss remarked to me "gee, you seem to have the same issues we do". By "you" he meant "gay people", and by "we" he meant "straight people". And he was genuinely surprised. And he most certainly didn't discriminate against me on the basis of my sexuality, he knew right from the outset and had never had issues with it. But still, from not really having known any gay couples, he hadn't *had* to think about if they're much the same as any straight couple.

My conclusion? If we don't have a personal experience with something, we're bound to adopt the opinions of our parents, or those around us. But I think we close our mind to too many things if we *fight* to keep those opinions. As a great mentor to me once said, "Fight for your limitations, and they're yours."

Moving On...

Thoughts on loving ex boyfriends
Once you break up, is it better to move on completely? How do you turn intense love, into indifference? Often that can occur when the split up is nasty. Intense love turns to intense hate, in an instant.

But what if you still have intense love for someone, and they dump you, how do you deal with that? People tell you to "move on", and sure, you can find someone else. And sure, you can love that person with just as much intensity.

But what about the ex? Do you begin to not care for them?

Once I love someone, I can't really undo that.

I don't love all my exes with the same intensity, though. There are two that I still love dearly. I guess it can be put down to whether I'd date them again. These two, I would.

But I'm currently attached. To someone I love.

You know, if we lived in a more open minded world, I'd be quite happy dating all three. Call me a bigamist if you will, or polygamist, actually. But I have love for these people, I care about what happens to them, and about their happiness.

I've been chatting to one of my exes today. It's like we stuffed it up when we had a go at it, and we've both changed. Given other circumstances, we'd probably give it another go. I guess the "other circumstances" is if I was single. Well, that also depends on my ex, and whether they'd actually give it another go, too. I know I would.

Am I wrong for thinking about it, whilst I'm attached? Should I deny love I have for others, when I'm with someone? I'd prefer not to.

Of course, I don't blab about them all the time. Or blog about them all the time. I guess in an ideal world I'd be able to show (and prove) my love & affection for those that love me back.

Until jealousy rears it's ugly head.. It's easy to be a hypocrite in these situations.

What are we?

Thoughts on our atomic composition and our position in the world
We're just atoms, right? What's a rock? Atoms. What's my laptop? Atoms. Where did I come from? Well, apart from that book having the answer, it's established that we're not sure. Where did my laptop come from? Well, it's component parts, I suppose. Out of the ground. Where did my ancestors go? Into the ground. Are my ancestors part of my laptop? Quite possibly.

Consider us humans, and consider a rock. What's the difference? Not much. We have component atoms. We just have moving parts. Ok, perhaps we have more in common with plants. What's the difference? We have legs, they do not. We have intelligence; they, arguably, don't. With our intelligence we've crafted clothes to wrap our bodies in, tools with which to make it easier to get food. But we're still basically the same thing, component atoms. When we both die, we both get absorbed back into the earth, back to join the large pool of atoms that don't currently make up humans, or plants, or other "living" creatures.

Apart from the odd meteorite hitting earth, or the satellites we fling into outer space, we're not growing or anything. We basically keep the same amount of atoms, we can't "create" any, right? So the greater we populate the earth, the more of this pool of atoms we take up, right?

So the earth is just this big hulk of atoms, some rising from the earth to be part of humans or to rise from the earth to be plants, to be consumed my humans, to become part of humans, and then to be released back in to the earth at a later stage, possibly to become another plant, a rock, or a mineral only to end up in someone's laptop.

To me that's remarkably visual.. this ever changing ever morphing lump of earth, popping out "creatures" on it's surface, only to take them back in later.

Fascinating.