Book Review: Intermediate types among Primitive folk

 Intermediate types among Primitive folk

Author:                          Edward Carpenter

Publisher:                      George Allen & Unwin Limited

Type:                              Hard Cover

Pages:                            174

Genre:                            non-fiction

Published:                     1911

ISBN:                             Unknown

 This is an old book, its pages roughly cut and i had to read it in short bouts as its ancient pages brought on sneezing fits.

 This amazing work looks at the why of queer (LGBTQ) people, why did homosexuality evolve, what is its purpose? And in doing so it shows how influential queers have been to the development of civilisation. It is not difficult to read though and avoids using too many "university speak terms." It remains highly accessible to the novice reader.

 I often write notes when i know i am going to review a book, and i have filled two double sides of A4 pages with brief notes to refresh my memory of things i thought were fundamentally important. 

 Do no t fear i am not going to write about everything this book entails. I will note that it does use some antiquated language and has some old fashioned beliefs, but considering it was partly written in 1907 i am sure that can be forgiven. 

 The book looks at the role queer people have had through many different civilisations in our history.  We see again that queer members of society have filled valued positions in the past and such people were seen as a blessing to the group.

 This work is well thought out, excellently explained and logicly reasoned. It shows that being queer is of course natural and proposes that civilisation itself may have relied upon queer people to develop. It shows that queers being outside the usual masculine/feminine roles had time and inclination to think, to developed new ideas and look at problems from a different perspective. It shows that queers were a forward force in human evolution giving us amazing advances in religion, science, invention, art, crafting, healing, philosophy, music dance and poetry, 

 There is also chapters on "hermaphrodites", women, and the Samurai. In addition to a conclusion and index.

 Before talking about what is traditional, (yes this book does demonstrate some traditional same sex marriages through history), you need to read this book. Before talking about what is natural or best for society you need to have read this book. It should be required reading for everyone commenting on queer issues. It should be in every high school and university library.

 It is extremely shameful that we had this knowledge way back on 1907 and homophobic bigots in Australia are still trying to deny queer rights.

 

BIGOT POINT: Children need both a biological Mother and Father.

BIGOT POINT:

Children need both a biological Mother and Father.

 This is an interesting one and i have heard it by some otherwise rational people. While on the surface such a statement might seam almost reasonable, personally this argument makes me sick, and it gives me great pleasure to debunk it. 
First lets look at what this argument is actually arguing against.

Those bigots using this argument are against:

* Same sex couples who are already raising children.

* Those who are caring enough to adopt a child.

* Those who choose to look after foster care children.

* Those who raise children from their partners former relationship,whether the need arises through separation, death or unfitness of the biological parent.

* Relatives who raise children because the parents are unable to do so for whatever reason.

* Single parents.

 As you can see when you actually examine their argument, its rather shocking. These people think children are better off on the street then in caring homes. I hope they never gain the power to remove these children from their homes.

 Then we have to consider that some biological parents are not fit to raise children. biological parents can unfortunately mutilate, neglect, indoctrinate, molest and abuse their own children. 

 Do these bigots really think that children are better off in that kind of environment then if they were adopted by a couple who really wants to care for the child or raised  by a single parent?

 I would hope not, but that is their argument. I would also hope they would put aside their prejudices if they were in a position to choose what environment a child was raised in.

 Their argument also neglects the fact that single people and gay couples often have extended family's of both sexes. Thankfully not all family's would turn their back on a single parent or same sex couple who are raising a child. Meaning the child will have both male and female influences.

 In the case of surrogacy, the birth mother, or sperm donor (are their better words for these amazing people?) who help a same-sex couple (or even a straight couple) often have an important place within this extended family.

 Further independent studies have repeatedly shown that same-sex couples are equal to or in some cases even better parents than their straight counterparts. I think this is probably because for same sex couples having a child is almost always a choice, and often a difficult path. So the decision is not made lightly.

 Some bigots will argue that the child of a same-sex couple will be bullied. The irony of this is mind blowing as it is people like those who make this argument raising bigoted children that do this kind of bullying. Surely the answer is to educate children and stop the bullying, to protect the children from bullying.

 There is also the fact that not all same-sex couples ever want to have children. The desire to have children is not and never has been a prerequisite to marriage eligibility in Australia (I am aware that some bigots argue it is, but ill go into that nonsense in another post).

 How could i forget the ridiculous spin off argument that same-sex parents would create gay children. This is so stupid its difficult to address, ill just say that most LGBT people are born from and raised by straight people.

  I would argue that instead of children needing both a biological mother and father, that children are better off with one or more adults who care about them. No one is depriving these children of anything, they are being gifted with a home that truly cares for them.

Bigot Points:

"Same sex marriage isn't biblical marriage."

"homosexuality is a choice."

"Same-Sex marriage isn't Traditional Marriage"

"Homosexuality is Unnatural"

 "Marriage Equality threatens religious freedom"

Further Reading:

Children raised by same-sex couples healthier and happier

Does Telstra support equality?

Telstra supports marriage equality again

...maybe...

Back in May of 2015 a group of Australian businesses large and small stood up to bigotry and declared their support for Marriage Equality. 
Telstra One of the largest telecommunications company's in Australia was part of this group. Sadly Telstra admitted they are no longer fighting for equality. Telstra in fact claimed that the anti-gay bigots views are equal to the simple desire of LGBT people for equal rights, going so far as to describe equal rights as merely an ideology.

Telstra has now double back flipped and has announced that it will actively support marriage equality.
In this announcement Telstra did try to blame unspecified "misunderstandings" but admitted they should be stepping forward and actively supporting marriage equality. 
Though to Telstras continued shame they claim that they continue to "recognise and respect" the anti-gay bigots misinformation, discrimination, violence and terrorism.

Sorry Telstra while i apreciate that this is a step in the right direction, it really isn't good enough. You cant back away from equality and then reaffirm your on the right side of history, but also keep the bigots placated. No you cant hedge your bets on this important issue. Telstra should completely denounce the evil that these homophobes endorse.
Time will tell i suppose just how committed to equality Telstra really is. Or if we will see Howard getting worried of Telstra breaking his back flipping records.
I expect to see major ad campaigns in favor of equality, and massive donations to the cause.

To contact Telstra, and let them know you support equality,  please follow this link. 
Also please remember that there are other telecommunication company's that are consistently standing on the right side of history, that would appreciate your business.

Bigot Point: "Same sex marriage isn't biblical marriage."

Bigot Point:

"Same-sex marriage isn't biblical marriage"

 Some of the bigots who argue against marriage equality, say that same sex marriage is nontraditional and that that somehow is an excuse to discriminate against others.
 We have already seen that same sex marriage is traditional, but what a lot of homophobes mean when they say traditional marriage is actually biblical marriage. 

So what is biblical marriage? 

This is what these people mean when they argue for traditional biblical marriage.

 *Monogamy is allowed in their view of marriages, but know that a rape victim must marry their rapist. 
 *If your brother dies you must marry his widowed wife, so monogamy isn't always required.
 *Know that they believe it is actually better to remain unmarried, then to marry. They are actually encouraging self castration and a life of celibacy as a better option then marriage. Those advocating traditional christian marriages aren't actually that fond of marriage.
 *They are against interracial marriage, and demand that those already in interracial marriages get divorced. That's right those who celebrate biblical traditional marriage are kind of racist.
*And keep in mind that divorce is seen as a hateful thing, usually outlawed, unless very specific things happen.
*They believe that those few who are allowed to divorce can never remarry.
 *They are even actually endorsing same sex marriages; as the god of the bible blessed the lesbian union of Ruth and Naomi. In addition to the gay male relationship of  David and Jonathan.
 *They will sometimes allow you to have multiple wives and to keep concubines.  
 *They will allow you to have your wife and her slaves, yes they are condoning slavery. You can force your male slaves to marry your female slaves if you have the whim to do so. As an added bonus you get to keep the children they produce as slaves too.
 *If your a male solder then you can force any prisoners of war you capture to be your wife. 
 *They want the legal age to be around 14 for boys and 12 for girls.

The people who advocate for traditional biblical marriage are often the same people who claim marriage has never changed and can never be changed, and so must endorse all of the above.
 This is obviously inexcusable as not all chistians choose to be so bigoted, and there is nothing stopping anyone from worshiping a different god who is nicer to the LGBT community. It really does seem they are only hiding behind religion to try to justify their existing prejudices.

  If your interested this site is a great easily accessible resource.

 I wont get into the separation of religion and law here, ill save that for another time. 

This baseless argument also doesn't address why moral christians or non-christians should be forced to follow christian laws.

Children need both a biological Mother and Father.

"homosexuality is a choice."

"Same-Sex marriage isn't Traditional Marriage"

"Homosexuality is Unnatural"

 "Marriage Equality threatens religious freedom"


Further Reading:

What constitutes marriage according to the Bible?

The Christian Mythology Bible

Bigot Point: "Same-Sex marriage isn't Traditional Marriage"

Bigot Point:

"Same-Sex marriage isn't Traditional Marriage"

 

I am writing this to address some of the catch phrases and fallacies that bigots use to oppose equality. I intend to link to these instead of having to rehash the same BS every time. Also i hope that those searching might read it and choose to further educate themselves by doing their own research.

The video version of this post is right here:

This post also applies to the false claim that marriage has always been strictly between a man and a woman.

 Traditional marriage is often banded about by some homophobes, but what exactly is traditional marriage?



 Marriage as a legal and spiritual institution has so many different definitions depending on culture, spiritual beliefs and time in history that it would be impossible to address them all.
So i am going to limit myself to addressing that question as it relates to same sex marriages.

 Firstly you cant get much more traditional then the same sex marriages in Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, Ming and Zhou Dynasty China, Ancient Mesopotamia and of course Ancient Europe.

Ancient Egypt (3100 BCE)
Ming Dynasty China (1368 BCE)
Zhou Dynasty China (1043 BCE)
Ancient Greece (800 BCE)
Ancient Rome (753 BCE)
Ancient Mesopotamia (620 BCE)
If you take a look at the dates you can see that all these traditions predate the invention of Christianity in 355 CE.

 Ancient Native Americans performed same sex marriages, sadly much of Aboriginal Australian cultures is lost and we may never know how the traditional Australians treated their homosexual fellows.

 Late medieval France had legal same sex marriages. While in Europe the post middle ages Orthodox church performed same sex marriages. Records exist of a church marriage performed in Spain in 1061 between two men.

 Again back in Australia we see that our marriage laws were changed in the marriage act in 2004, marriage was defined to specifically exclude same sex couples. 
(I will note that this goes against our constitution* and that also no plebiscite was deemed necessary by the same government that now refuses to accept marriage equality without a plebiscite.)

 The Australian Capital Territory had legalized same sex marriage but these were overturned because of the 2004 definition of marriage.

 While i have not gone into the various definitions of marriage endorsed by the various religions here, i will just note that strictly man - woman marriages aren't even that traditional in Christianity.

 I would advise you to rethink and educate yourself if you falsely believe that marriages are only between an man and a woman.

* Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

Children need both a biological Mother and Father.

"Same sex marriage isn't biblical marriage."

"homosexuality is a choice."

"Homosexuality is Unnatural"

 "Marriage Equality threatens religious freedom"

Sources:
 History of Same sex marriages
Secret History of Same sex Marriage 
History of Same Sex Marriage 

 "A History of Same Sex Marriage"

 

The plebacite question

The Plebiscite

So i am not going to go over why its such a bad idea in much detail, i will just leave some points here:

* Marriage laws changed before,by this government, without a 
   plebiscite.
* The bigots will come out of the woodwork with their damaging 
   hate speech and vilification.
* It is expensive (525 Million +).
* It is unnecessary.
* It is non-binding.
* The bigots have already said they wont abide by its decision 
   if it goes against their bigoted views.
* Its stalling as it will only happen if the Lib/Nats are re-elected 
   (IE: when hell freezes over). 
* The current laws are unconstitutional and should be changed 
    as a matter of law.
 * The hate groups often pose as Christians and their rhetoric 
    will further tarnish the reputation of Christianity and through 
    association other religions.

Anyway, what i actually want to talk about is if we had to have this ridiculous plebiscite, what should the question be? 

1. Should Australia have marriage equality?

    This is probably a little too simple.

2. Should all non-related Australians of legal age and with 
   full consent be allowed to marry?

   This is probably a little too wordy.

3. Does Australia need a plebiscite to change the marriage 
    laws? 

    An interesting one, because if the answer is yes, then we 
    would rescind the Lib/Nats changes to the marriage act and 
    i believe that would technically allow marriage equality. If the 
   answer is no, then marriage equality could be achieved in 
   parliament.

4. Should marriage laws be in line with the Australian 
    constitution?

    I believe a yes vote would force the laws to be changed to 
    make them constitutional, allowing marriage equality.

5. Should Australia remain a democracy and resist 
    fundamentalist religious fanatics trying to implement 
    religious laws? (IE: sharia law, Mosaic law).

    A yes vote would be for marriage equality.

6. Should all Australians have equal rights?

    Personally, i think this is probably the fairest and simplest.

 

 
 So if we have to have this plebiscite, what should the question be?