A letter to the editor

A vote yes means little to those who aren’t same sex attracted but makes a big difference to those who are.

A vote yes means no change to church weddings (if the church doesn’t want it to) but it means that all married couples have the same piece of legal paper issued by the State. 

A vote yes means that should you be married already that you will remain so but those who can’t because of gender can now have the same rights as you. 
A redefinition of marriage is no different than any other redefinition of issues that society decides it’s ready to change – like redefining who can vote, who can no longer be held as a slave or who has access to education. 

A vote yes for marriage equality will result in the same things happening in other countries that have passed this legislation. LGBTQI people getting married. That’s it. 

Wishing you all the happiness the Universe can bring 


Is there always two sides to a debate?

I’m not talking little things like which chocolate you like.

I’m talking bigger things, like is racism bad? Should we let LGBTQI people marry? Do Nazis have a point?

Because I think there is a tipping point when most people realise that some things are just wrong, or at the very least not right, and there is no logical or real or scientific argument they have for their side.

Take Charlottesville, which held protests between Nazis (no, they aren’t alt-right) and the left leaning side (*we are all equal) groups. One of the Nazis drove a car into the crowd of not-Nazis and killed one (injured 19).

I don’t think anyone disputes the fact that this was a very bad thing to do. The argument that some use (like Trump) is that there is blame on both sides.

But is there really? I’ve no doubt the lefties are not all good and the Nazis are not all bad. As INDIVIDUALS.

But think of it this,I think we can all agree if you’re a good person, you help old ladies across the road.

If you’re a good Nazi person, you help old, WHITE ladies across the road. If they are of colour, Jewish or any other non Christian religion, disabled, gay or trans, then you don’t help them.

I put forward that this is in fact not a good person. Not all bad (still helps some old ladies) but definitely not good.

It’s not an ethical or moral way to define things if you are separating out old ladies to help by whether they are abled, white, Christian or straight.

Similarly, if you are State you should not be deciding that some people can get married and other people can’t, just because of your religious beliefs (don’t get touchy, I’m talking CONSENTING ADULTS HERE). It’s precisely why religion and State are (sometimes not very well) separated.

If you are in a religion and you object to people of the same gender getting married in your religion, that’s fine. Go hard. Make rules.

But no religion should tell a person who is not a member of that religion how to act –

  • (no you can’t have technology (Amish);
  • what to wear (Islam);
  • whether your sexuality is wrong (most religions); or
  • who you should marry (Judaism, Catholic and Anglican religions until very recently, Sikh).

Just because it happens to be YOUR religion in the majority does not make it OK for a law to be based on it.

If you transpose yourself to another culture, where another religion is dominant, are you still accepting those religious based State rules and laws? Many religions directly clash with each other (although let’s face it, most religions tend to be controlling, hypocritical and secretive organisations run by powerful men – but that’s another blog).

My point is, the debate about same sex marriage is that there is no real debate. There is no evidence to back up any claim that anyone makes about man- woman being the superior coupling for society on a State level.

I’m not going to debunk all the arguments here – there are plenty already doing it out there. Here’s an older, British one, for example. The two main arguments when it boils down to it are –

  1. children are not possible and
  2. men and women biologically ‘fit together’.

But guess what? Just like we changed our minds about working on Sunday, religious or racial intermarriage or stoning adulterers, we’ve changed our mind here –

  1. children can be born to anybody via IVF, and
  2. gay people are, well, quite boringly average, tax paying, working, community minded contributing to society people.

So ultimately the No side has no real points.

It’s just a RELIGIOUS preference.

And that’s fine for your religion but it’s not fine to run a State by, which is why we have the Marriage Act in the first place!

There is no need to spew the hatred of the No side, or the Nazi side (or the no climate change side or the anti vaccination side) because we’ve all moved on to understand as a community some things are just, well, right.

You can disagree but if all you can say is ‘because my religion says it’s wrong’, then that’s the same as saying ‘because I said so!’.

Ultimately, if any religion, State or person asks you to hate someone ‘just because’, I’m not sure you can really argue your side (again, I’m talking consenting adults and reasonable people).

Wishing you all the happiness the Universe can bring


Update on the social addition

So I did delete Tumblr permanently and Candy Crush from one of my iPads.
Do I miss either of them now they are gone? No.
I need to pick my next one carefully though…I'd love to win a cat tattoo and I just entered a comp for that on Instagram. It closes 30/8 so I'll have that until then.
Perhaps Blossom Blast off my phone…

Wishing you all the happiness the Universe can bring