So - not gonna lie here. The main reason I chose this is because of the link to the one and only Great Gatsby. (If you haven’t seen it get on it! I’m SO KEEN.)

The following submission was written by W P Gadsby as apart of the Senate Submissions regarding the Australian Marriage Eqaulity Amendment Bill 2010 and argues primarily against the Bill.

I’m not entirely sure I agree with it, but Gadsby sure does have a point. Or does he (or she, for the sake of gender equality)? Let me know!

“Dear Sir/Madam,

Re Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010

I respectfully request the Committee to take this submission into consideration.

As there will no doubt be many submissions on this controversial matter, I propose to limit my remarks to two main points.

Firstly, as you state on your website, the bill “seeks to remove all discriminatory references from the Marriage Act 1961 to allow all people, regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity, the opportunity to marry.”

It should be obvious that any Act of Parliament must of necessity ‘discriminate.’ Good Acts discriminate against wrongs; bad ones discriminate against good. So to chant the ‘It’s discriminatory’ mantra carries zero weight: one must ask whether the Marriage Act 1961 discriminates against what is wrong. I stand with centuries of human tradition and practice which says that the particular institution of marriage refers to a life-long commitment to a shared life between one man and one woman. Sexual relations outside this commitment are immoral. If this ancient tradition is wrong, then those advocating ‚marriage equality‛ need to prove it, and prove it conclusively.

Secondly, the proposed amendment purports to remove all discriminatory references, but apparently has a very limited view of discrimination, namely to remove any restriction of ‚people, regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity, the opportunity to marry.‛

If non-discrimination is the goal, then why limit it to these categories? For instance, the proverb says that a dog is a man’s best friend. If I love my dog, and she loves me, why should we not marry? Because she’s a bitch? That is no answer, because ‘speciesism’ is also discriminatory – against me, and against my dog. It denies us the ‘right’ to express our love in a married relationship.

Furthermore, why limit marriage to a partnership between two people (Sections 5.1 and 46.1)? Is that not also ‘discriminatory’? Why not authorize polyamory, with multiple partners in all kinds of mixes? On what moral basis should such groups be denied the opportunity to marry?

And why limit all this to adults? Is that not also discriminatory? Should not children also have the right to marry? (Should we legitimize paedophilia? And if not, why not?)

This proposed amendment purports to remove ‚all discriminatory references‛ from the Marriage Act 1961, but it cannot do so without itself discriminating, and failing in its purpose to remove ‚all discriminatory references‛ from the Act. It should therefore be rejected not only as immoral, but also as illogical.

Yours faithfully,

W P Gadsby”

For additional senate submissions click here.

Yep. So.. I haven’t posted in a little while, hey? Two weeks is a long time without cynical criticism in my life.

Anyway, I’m going to be really lame and make a tonne of the ususal excuses. Assignments, exams, illness, boring facts of reality dominating my life.

Now formalities out of the way, I think you guys will appreciate this.

Following is a Senate Submission upon the recent Marriage Equality Bill 2010 which I posted about a little while ago. Thanks for the massive response to all those who saw the post. It was a brilliant feeling to see so many people get on board by voting and reblogging. Hopefully soon we can convert action into real change.

During the senate inquiry the Committee received approximately 75,000 submissions, with 44,000 supporting the bill and 31,000 opposing. 358 of these submissions have been posted on the Parliament of Australia website which you can see here. Over the next few weeks I plan to pick out the finest and fine-less arguments both for and against marriage equality.

The following submission was written by Pastor Lynton Taylor, a Senior Pastor of River City Church. Taylor writes to the committee to “raise his concerns

Hilarity ensued, I’ve chosen this submission as it gave me a brief moment of laughter amongst a mass pile of incomplete assignments, essays and debates. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did!

“As a pastor I would like to raise my concern along with others in my congregation regarding the issue of same-sex marriage.

I would like to express our total opposition to the redefining of the age-old institution of marriage as defined by a man and a woman joined together for life for the main purpose of procreating and raising a family.

This is not just a religious institution that God instituted from the beginning of creation, but it is also a proven institution that has always been the foundation of a successful society like ours.

Please do not take my call to not support same-sex marriage as some expression of equality or inequality. And please don’t allow others to try and make this into an equality issue. Marriage is far more important than trying to lower its meaning and purpose to a question of rights and equality, which it is wrongly being presented as.

It is particularly disturbing to only hear about the ‘rights’ of same-sex couples in regard to marriage but NOTHING is being mentioned about the PURPOSE of marriage in procreating and raising children, and nothing is mentioned about the welfare of children. Especially as it is a proven fact as well as an observed reality from my experience, that every child is FAR better off and more balanced in life if they are brought up by a mother and a father in their distinctive roles and as role models. I believe it to be a monumental derelict of duty for any Government to be compromising the value of marriage and family for the sake of appeasing a minority group.

Are we really willing to risk the cornerstone of what has so successfully built our society because of the outcry of less than 2% of Australian homosexuals who are crying out for their equal status? In saying this you need to understand that I am in no way ‘homophobic’ as I have had a lot to do with homosexuals and have helped homosexuals who have given up their homosexuality to now live in a heterosexual marriage with children, and I have great respect and admiration for them.

But homosexuals are not the only minority group who are denied the right to marry the person of their choice and it would be naive to think that they will be the only ones to challenge the right to marry once a precedent was set to change the definition of marriage. There are blood relatives, under age people who can’t get permission from their parents, those holding to different cultural customs and laws as well as others of ‘different sexually orientation’ waiting in the wings for such a precedent to be set in relation to ‘marriage’.

Marriage should never be treated as a universal right in these cases and if you go down the track of decision making purely on the basis of the rights of a minority group, then the welfare of the majority will inevitably suffer. When we start placing the rights of a few people over the welfare of society as a whole it will inevitably result in repercussions that may never be able to be rectified.

Please be careful about this issue, and others like it that are making a concerted assault on our values system, as once we start moving any of the key boundary lines of our society, such as marriage and family, (as with the progress of abortion) you will have set a precedence for many other calls for ‘rights and equality’ which may have catastrophic repercussions on our society.

I respectfully ask that would you reject same-sex marriage, not on the grounds of equality vs. Inequality (as same-sex couples already enjoy equality), but on the grounds that it would definitely compromise the existing foundation of marriage. Call it anything you want BUT PLEASE DON’T CALL IT ‘MARRIAGE’.

Whatever gains same-sex couples (the minority) feel they will have achieve in this, will take away something from heterosexual couples (the majority) to the same degree and discriminate against them by reducing the sanctity of marriage to something other than what it was when they entered into it. No longer will the wearing of a wedding ring and using the title ‘Mr’ mean that I am married to a woman. I do not want to have to explain to anybody ‘what sort of marriage’ I have and I am deeply grieved and offended at the prospect of having to do this in the future if this proposed change becomes law.

Can I encourage you to please continue to put the welfare of Australian FAMILIES and CHILDREN first in Government policy and to protect marriage between a man and a woman who can procreate and raise balanced children by their distinctive roles as mother and father.

I respectively ask that you would reject any move toward same-sex marriage in Australia.

Warm regards

Ps Lynton Taylor”

DISCLAIMER: The above quotation derives straight from the Senate Submission of Pastor Lynton Taylor and in no way shape or form reflects the views of gaydelaide (obviously). All views, grammatically incorrect use of capitalisation and bolding for excessive emhasis, are that of Pastor Lynton Taylor.

Photo Courtesy of: http://weheartit.com/entry/2204733

So I know this is primarily a gay blog. But I’m gay. And I’m going to this. So.. causation upheld?

Anyway - next week from May 7th - 11th I’m participating in this awesome campaign called Live Below the Line in which participants are asked to live below the extreme poverty line.

Basically this means I’ll be living off a food budget of $2 per day for 5 days. That shit cray huh?

At the end of all this starvation time we’re throwing a SUPER MASSIVE AWESOME RADCORE PARTY to celebrate!

If you happen to live in the Adelaide vicinity ie. HQ Complex and happen to be free on Friday 11th of May and happen to posess $10 and happen to want to come and rock out to some awesome bands and DJ’s THEN you should most definitely shoot me a message and I’ll be able to grab you some tickets! If you’re not convinced, check out the info!

Alternatively, if you’d like to get on board and sign up to Live Below the Line you’d be a lifesaver! (PS. The campaign is most definitely do-able world-wide, so you can join wherever you are.)

Or - even better - if you’re keen to sponsor me in my personal conquest/be able to watch a whole heap of hilarious videos of me struggling without caffine donate to me!

Indulge  - you know you want to.

I went op shopping the other day around my local (HIPSTER! I hear you cry. I know guys, I know..) which reminded me of the above.

A friend and I were in St Vinnies looking like stereotypical lesbians in tank tops and flannies when I found the above set of degrading feminist offensive porno playing cards all for the price of bargain $0.50. Cheap right?

Of course I had to have them. Not only was I an avid card collector but I simply couldn’t let them get into male chauvinist hands (who apparently lurk around op-shops?)

Upon conferring with my friend I suddenly realised my dilemma.

I was in an op-shop.

A Christian op-shop.

With Christian volunteers.

Who probably don’t like lesbians.

DRAMA!

Would they persecute me at the stake? Drown me in a pond and cry witch? Who knew.

Working up false bravado and trying not to think about the endless possibilities that could eventuate, I went into my best old ladies charm mode and headed to the counter.

At first everything started off ok. I was addressed with “lovey” and a smile that makes you want to take up knitting crochet and drinking hot coca by a warm fire. That is until she  looked at my product of purchase.

Adjusting her glasses, she wrinkled her already wrinkled nose and turned to her fellow volunteer with a look of sheer terror and disgust.

Suddenly the smile was gone and the thought of crochet and coca turned to stale biscuits and itchy sweaters. Needless to say – shit was awkward.

“That’s fifty cents” she sighed, almost as if I was a burden merely being in the shop.

“Excellent! Have a brilliant day then!” I chirped, before heading out of the store and collapsing in a fit of laughter with my friend.

I think this was the first time I’ve ever really felt homophobia at it’s fullest and whilst at the time I made light of the situation, it honestly did hurt.

To be ostracised, excluded, mocked or shamed on an everyday basis is something I could never handle.

So to all those feeling all of the above – feel more than free to send me a message at anytime if you need somebody to talk to.

And remember, keep kicking against the pricks.

Daily Stars 25 | www.grafizine.com

Dear tumblrites,

I’ve stumbled upon a dilemma which I think some of you may be able to resolve. It wasn’t something I’ve ever really considered before, but now I’ve thought about it I’m a little concerned.

My lesbian friend and I were having lunch today (Zambero on Rundle St has the best burrito’s. Quick plug. Get on it.) talking rather crudely about our latest ventures and checking out the Rundle St talent. Throughout the discussion I couldn’t help but compare it to the way I’ve heard some of my guy friends speak about girls. You know the type I mean. The after the game chat over a few beers, the round COD banter - whatever floats your boat.

It seems totally ironic because the amount of times lesbians are stereotyped as hardcore feminists is ridiculous, but as we sat around and talked about how bangable women are I quickly realised this might not be as true as I thought.

Hence I pose the question to you: Do lesbians objectify women?

I guess, looking at my own actions, the truth is yes, they actually might. Perhaps it’s not in the same context of the usual “make me a sandwich” slurs, but abuse is abuse right?

A quick google search on ‘lesbian’ brought up mostly comforting conclusions, with mostly pages regarding lesbian culture, dating, events and advice, yet images was another thing entirely. I need not explain.

Undoubtedly lesbian pornography can be quite demeaning. But most of this is faniciful male constructions rather than actual reality, yeah?

Yet another google search brought along not so reassuring results. According to a report conducted by Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse, “Studies in the US indicate that approximately 22% to 46% of lesbians had been in a physically violent intimate partner relationship.” While no specific stats were provided from Australia, the AIDS Council of NSW Counselling Service, a service used primarily by HIV positive LGBT members, reported that 11% of counselling matters included issues of intimate parner violence. Perhaps this seemingly innocent trash talk does have more ominous consequences.

Is it really all that bad though? Innocent conversations about attractive girls whose pants you may be interested in entering?
Surely there’s a difference between appreciating beauty and objectification.
Does it make a difference if we too are females, as opposed to the masochistic masculinity with which sexism is usually associated?
If anything wouldn’t this make objectification of women by women even worse?

My head’s currently in a spin over all of this. Given the amount of violence and abuse the LGBT community receives from disapproving homophobes, it seems unrealistic and completely ridiculous that internal hate would be occurring. Am I right?

Shoot me an ask if you know/have anything to say about the issue. Lesbian objectification - is it ligit?

[edit: If you want to read more about the aforementioned study the link is: http://www.broken-rainbow.org.uk/research/domestic%20violence%20in%20gay%20and%20lesbian%20relationships.pdf]