TaraElla Post | Socially Aware Lifestyle Mag

New Requirements for 'Family Friendly'

2012-02-06T20:51:00.000-08:00

Throughout history, increased understanding of the human condition has led to culture changing adaptively, accordingly. Family orientated culture is no exception. In light of recent advances in the understanding of the human condition in the past two decades, I believe we should add requirements that qualify or disqualify a TV show, movie or song to be family friendly or not.

New things that should qualify a show as being family friendly:
1) Featuring ethnic diversity
2) Featuring gay and lesbian characters or themes (unless sexual)
3) Promoting messages of peace and optimism in its achievement
4) Promoting multicultural harmony in society
This list is based on what I would want my (hypothetical) children exposed more to.

New things that should disqualify a show as being family friendly:
1) Featuring negative stereotypes about ethnic groups or the LGBT community
2) Implicit or explicit racist or homophobic opinion
This list is based on what I would NOT want my (hypothetical) children exposed to at all before they reach adulthood.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Why National Guilt About Racism is Good

2012-01-24T19:18:00.000-08:00

{EAV:0567a69b276a82aa}
Tomorrow (26 January) is Australia Day. Every year, a distinguished Australian is invited to make a speech. This year it is Dr Charlie Teo, a famous neurosurgeon. His speech will examine the issue of racism, and that has, as expected, caused some controversy.

Many people have said that Australia has a problem with national guilt about racism, carried forward from the White Australia days. Some wish for it to end. But I don't. The national guilt causes the nation to reflect on itself repeatedly on this issue. It is this guilt that causes Australians to reflect on racism even on the national day, something you wouldn't find anywhere else. And this raises awareness that racism is not okay.

And it is this awareness, I believe, that has prevented European and American style resurgent ultra-racist politics (National Front, Geert Wilders, British National Party etc.) from taking hold here. The contrast between Pauline Hanson, widely seen as an irrelevant force and not taken seriously, and Geert Wilders, widely seen as part of mainstream politics, is stark, and an indication that Australia's approach has been healthier than that of Europe. One can only hope that this will continue.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Why I Don't Trust 'Christians'

2012-01-24T19:10:00.001-08:00

I don't trust anything in the secular world with 'Christian' in its name. Let me clarify something first. I'm not Christian but I have nothing against Christianity, and I like working with liberal Christians, having had plenty of positive experiences on that side. However, anything that operates in the strictly secular sphere (e.g. government, politics, education) that has 'Christian' explicitly in its name usually end up doing more harm than good.

For example, Christian Democratic parties usually don't do anything good for the populace. An extreme example may be the Australian Christian Democratic Party, usually considered a fringe party, whose views are staunchly bigoted and racist, and whose number one priority is to roll back gay rights. The Australian Christian Lobby, who is said to not represent mainstream Christians but instead is a force for ultra-conservative politics, are in the same lot. But even the Christian Democrats in Sweden, who are mainstream enough to be part of their conservative coalition government, are often up to no good. They were the main reason marriage equality was delayed for a few years in that country, and now they support continued forced sterilization of transgendered people.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Why Oversexed Culture is Bad

2012-01-19T00:24:00.000-08:00

As I said before, I am not sex-negative or anti-fun. But I do have concerns about an oversexed culture. My main concern is that, it stops people from thinking seriously about things. My other concern is that it promotes a certain body image standard that make people conform to it, unhealthily.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Just Showing Some Common Humanity

2012-01-17T23:27:00.000-08:00

Over the years, my attempts at highlighting my own similarities with my political opponents (the 'conservatives' as they call themselves), have not won a lot of friends amongst my own political 'friends', to put it mildly.

This is sad. I was just trying to show some common humanity. I was trying to show them that they do not need to change their core beliefs to come to our side, using my own experience to help highlight this. In other words, I was just trying to help liberalism along.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

No More Taboos

2012-01-17T23:25:00.000-08:00

I have things that I don't like. I speak about them openly.

However, society-wide taboos should not exist. They are unhealthy and they stop discussion. This is the reason I never respect taboos, whatever cultural context I am in.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Kelly Clarkson's Endorsement of Ron Paul Attracts Outrage

2012-01-14T05:13:00.000-08:00

Kelly Clarkson recently took to twitter to announce her support for US Republican presidential nomination contender Ron Paul. This act attracted outrage in the blogosphere, as some people identified Ron Paul as racist and homophobic. Apparently Paul is not that popular, after all.

Actually, Ron Paul is a great candidate for social issues in my opinion. He respects state decisions on marriage equality. He's also great for foreign policy, more so than the current US government, I believe. It's just that his economic stances are quite scary, to be honest. What does Kelly actually think about that, I wonder?

By TaraElla (News, Website)

People Should be Given Time Off to Lose Weight

2012-01-07T23:55:00.000-08:00

Here's a suggestion I have for employers and governments around the world: people who have a BMI of over 30 should be given the option to take 4 weeks paid leave to go to a weight loss service to help lose some of that weight.

I guess the money spent on this will come back to us by improving our health budgets a lot over time.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Happy New Year

2012-01-01T01:54:00.000-08:00

We wish everybody a happy new year, may your 2012 be filled with excitement, warmth and great surprises!

We will be back in a few days time.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Muscular Liberalism: Creating the Dominant Liberal Culture

2011-12-23T06:18:00.000-08:00

A movement needs a dominant culture to back it up. Therefore, a society with muscular liberal principles needs to be backed up with a strong liberal culture. How?

Culture is made up of both 'intellectual culture' and 'popular culture'. Popular culture wise Hollywood is pretty much on our side, but obviously some of their overly materialistic values and bias towards certain traditions need to be balanced out. I believe the participatory nature of the new media should do that quite well. As for 'intellectual culture', we have our fair share of writers, thinkers and philosophers, but as a whole I believe our intellectual culture needs to be more united within our own ranks and be more assertive about our common position. We also need to be more 'broad umbrella' than 'divided into factions'. For example, we may never get a consensus on whether abortion is moral or not, but we do have a consensus regarding freedom as the overriding principle.

However, culture is also about values and norms. In liberal ranks around the world, we value freedom of conscience, freedom of action, equality in freedom between all groups in society, respect for science and separation of church and state. Those who violate these norms are automatically illiberal. This is what defines us, and the definition must be clear at all times. For example, we must be able to show that those who argue political positions from religious doctrine or put dogmatic beliefs above scientific fact are not part of our kind. Refusing to stand up for this clear demarcation because it may cause conflict with minority extreme elements is no excuse for not defending our beliefs.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Muscular Liberalism: Applying it to Everyday Life

2011-12-21T06:22:00.000-08:00

I do believe that liberalism is the best ideology in the world and the only one that works. I personally am an economically left-leaning and personally lifestyle traditionalist liberal, but I am liberal first and those things second. I believe we should all be liberal first, and uphold a muscular liberalism as our primary ideology in everyday life.

First and foremost, I believe we should boycott any organization, without exceptions, that do not conform to liberalism. Organisations that, for example, donate to explicitly Christian or Islamic influences on our politics should be on that list. With the marriage equality debate going strong at the moment, there should be many of these organisations. As a committed liberal, I believe that if your church or religious group violates liberalism, you should also go to another church or religious group.

Secondly, I believe we should refuse to speak to or associate with anybody who dare to make political arguments based on religious dogma, and in severe cases resorting to quoting from their favourite religious book. This is not acceptable behaviour in a liberal democracy, and shunning them is standing up for muscular liberalism. Of course, any politician engaging in this type of behaviour should never get our vote no matter what (and if I had my way they wouldn't even be eligible to stand for election) - in Australia where I live this does not seem to be an issue for those of us who never vote for fringe parties, but for those of you in America this seems to be an issue.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Muscular Liberalism Should Apply Equally

2011-12-21T06:09:00.001-08:00

I said before that I do support Cameron's muscular liberalism approach. But I say that it must be applied equally.

For example, it is right to say that Sharia Law will not be accepted in a liberal democracy with a secular government. But it is equally true that Christian Biblical law should not be acceptable either. We should shun and automatically reject those who reject marriage equality with religious arguments, for example, with no ifs, ands or buts. This is hard line, but that's muscular liberalism for you.

I don't particularly appreciate secular rejections of equality e.g. Julia Gillard style either, but at least it's a BIG difference, way more respectable than religious based ones. Therefore, we should agree to disagree with but still respect the Gillards of this world, whilst rejecting without further compromise the religious right.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Geert Wilders Liberal? That's Not True.

2011-12-19T20:34:00.000-08:00

The word liberal is our shared identity. But it is also abused by some people, who are clearly not liberal. For example, Dutch extremist Geert Wilders says he is a liberal, but he clearly is not. Here's why.

He favours putting into the Dutch constitution the cultural dominance of the Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions, thus entrenching inequality into the highest law in the land. He also favours a ban on religious preaching in foreign languages and building mosques, hardly the stuff of freedom.

You see, you cannot call just anything 'liberalism'. It has to provide for equality and freedom, or else it is not liberal.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Respecting Masculine Culture without Allowing its Dominance

2011-12-17T05:55:00.000-08:00

I respect masculine culture, and I like men who embrace it, even if it is not my thing. I believe it is being curbed too much in the name of feminism these days, and in the name of political correctness, and this is wrong.

However, on the other hand, masculine culture is still being employed to judge all men in a sexist way that is so 1950s really. For example, boys are expected to toughen up when they are young in some cultural circles, without making exception for clearly femininely inclined boys. Grown men in some cultural circles are not allowed to be emotional, even if they are inclined that way. This has changed in more liberal cultural circles, and I am sorry to say that the rest of the world needs to follow.

I guess masculinity should be respected and left alone of feminist intrusion, but should not be allowed to be made compulsory for all men. And amongst these two issues, the latter would be more important in my belief.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

New Approach to Monogamy: Strengthening it by Making it Optional

2011-12-17T05:43:00.000-08:00

I am a supporter of lifelong monogamy - one partner for your entire life. But what worries me the most is not that people are not choosing monogamy per se, but rather than people feel forced to choose monogamy, and therefore choose it but not obey the spirit of it, ending up trashing the whole idea.

Therefore, I suggest a new approach: that monogamy be made optional. That we change society so that there be no discrimination or penalty for being polyamorous. That way, all who enter monogamy will be entering voluntarily, and will be likely to obey the rules. Over time, monogamy will be rehabilitated as an institution, and its benefits will become more visible.

That said, obviously, non-monogamous by choice couples have to have a solution to be responsible for the complex families they may create. I will leave this to them.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Why Monogamy is Rational

2011-12-15T19:34:00.000-08:00

The anti-monogamy crowd has a new champion: Professor Eric Anderson. He has cast monogamy as irrational and cheating as its rational response, and even gone as far as saying that 'men cheat because they love their partners' in his new book.

I guess it is up to us, the pro-monogamy crowd, to prove that why it is rational. Well, the first thing that comes to my mind on this topic is that it is the only way a family could be sustained throughout life, based on equality. The only two kinds of family that has been proven to survive are those based on lifelong monogamous coupling, and those based on traditional polygamy, where one man can have many wives, essentially many 'monogamous' relationships in parallel. In such arrangements, the man can be polygamous but the women must be monogamous, creating a huge power differential. I guess anybody supporting equal gender rights cannot support this. Sexual 'networks' where each person can have multiple partners, on the other hand, have been shown to be inherently unstable. I guess that leaves us with only one choice.

I am not going to force anyone to be monogamous if they don't want to, but I strongly recommend it due to the above reasoning.

p.s. what I recommend is lifelong monogamy with one partner - serial monogamy is worse than polyamory or polygamy in my opinion.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Sad Stories from Anti-Welfare Red America

2011-12-15T19:15:00.000-08:00

Parts of Red America are so anti-welfare that poor people there are in a living hell. Whatever happened to the right to the pursuit of life and happiness, and to raise a family? Seems that the ideology of letting fundamentalist capitalism to triumph over social democracy trumps all this, every time.

Just recently a Texas woman shot her children and turned the gun on herself after repeatedly being denied welfare payments. What decent society could let this happen? Aren't the people of Texas outraged that this could happen - or are they clinging to fundamentalist capitalism Tea-party style, still?

Equally disturbing is the case of Jennie McCormack from Idaho, who resorted to self-aborting her unborn baby because she couldn't afford to have another child. And yet, how has the community around her responded? They blamed her for having the abortion, fired her from her job and denied aid for her other children. It seems that they really can't face up to the real story about fundamentalist capitalism. In fact, in Red America, a countless number of abortions have been performed because of economic reasons. So much for family values.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Personal or Impersonal?

2011-12-12T19:53:00.000-08:00

People often like to ask others, 'do you believe in God'?

I believe this should be clarified with the response, personal or impersonal?

Many of my friends believe in a personal God, but I believe in an impersonal God along with many personal Gods. I think that is an important difference.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

In Defense of Liberal Separatism

2011-12-12T19:40:00.001-08:00

I am of the belief that liberals should form their own cultural community, and liberal adults should engage with the mostly-illiberal world out there, but should have a core culture they can call home in this multicultural world. In the West where liberalism is the norm, this would be a big community, and in other parts of the world where libearlism is not the norm, this would be a small community. Nonetheless, liberals from everywhere tend to believe in the same kind of things.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

You Won't Get This Out of Me

2011-12-11T22:41:00.000-08:00

Some people have suggested that 'progressives', which they define as all liberals, should say that they have no moral problem with abortion under any circumstances, or be regarded as suspect.

Sorry, you won't ever get that out of this liberal - I am a liberal, not a sheep after all. I believe a state should not make laws criminalising abortion, but I believe abortion is usually morally wrong. I have the right to believe what I believe, and so do you. We should all stand up for our beliefs.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

End Violence Against Children Now!

2011-12-11T21:04:00.001-08:00

In America, the frequent use of corporal punishment in fundamentalist Christian homes has gained widespread attention in the media recently. Coupled with this, the use of paddling in schools is also becoming increasingly criticised, and just this year New Mexico banned the practice.

I don't see a point in needing to allow corporal punishment on children. This is coming from somebody who supports judicial corporal punishment for all violent crimes (in addition to castration for rapists and long jail sentences, preferably life sentences, for all - prison is there to keep us safe, not to rehabilitate in my opinion).

Even parents don't need to keep a cane at home (something Asian parents traditionally do) to maintain discipline. In fact, I believe that children should be given more allowance for their behaviour. It is only when they reach their teenage years that parents need to be more careful. At that stage, supervision is the key to parenting, I believe. Whilst I applaud the helicopter parents of today, I personally believe that they are still not doing enough in terms of supervision. This is the cause of increased juvenile crime.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

That's Obama Being Responsible Again

2011-12-10T22:39:00.000-08:00

President Barack Obama has supported a ban on selling the morning after pill to those under 18 over the counter.

This has not proven to be popular with some liberals, but I applaud him for this decision. That medicine isn't entirely safe, and young people who don't know all the implications should not be able to buy it over the counter. Plus if anybody under the age of 18 has to buy the morning after pill, they also need to see a counselor probably.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

I'm Quite Ron Paul When It Comes to Mainstream Social Issues

2011-12-10T03:43:00.000-08:00

I'm totally against the Ron Paul version of economics, where if you don't do well under capitalism there is no safety net to save you. I'm not going to agree with his lack of support for protection of minority groups either - I believe their ongoing disadvantage is a disgrace to society, and needs to be corrected, by any means possible.

But when it comes to social issues, I'm not that different to Paul. For starters, whilst I hate that mind-altering drugs even exist (yes, I am that extreme), I don't support the drug war. I also agree that social issues should be determined community-by-community - in fact, I go further than Paul on this, and believe each City Council should make their own laws on a wide range of things, and am absolutely opposed to federal governments setting universal agendas on social issues, extending to my opposition to the 'national curriculum' in my own country. Like Ron Paul, I support isolationist foreign policies most of the time, and was bitterly opposed to the war on Iraq. I am pro-life, even though unlike Paul my social libertarian stance extends to supporting decriminalized abortion.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Guess I am Really More Liberal than Huffington Post

2011-12-06T23:56:00.001-08:00

Huffington Post is known for being liberal - sort of. Yet all the commentators on this piece do not seem liberal at all.

As a general rule, I think taxpayers should pay for all of this type of surgery as they are considered medically necessary. It should come from a tax-payer funded system. That way, there would be no special consideration needed for criminals. However, since America is still way too behind to have universal health insurance, then sadly only prisoners get their health care paid for.

But it remains fact that prisoners do get their health care paid for, whilst others don't, paradoxically, in America. Therefore, I don't see a justification to exclude this surgery. The thing that needs fixing is America's health care system - at least as liberals, you should see that, even through the sensationalism of this story, right?

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Australian Labor Party Endorses Marriage Equality

2011-12-03T19:29:00.000-08:00

The Australian Labor Party has yesterday endorsed marriage equality and added it to their platform, although members of parliament will be given a conscience vote. This probably makes it the first major party to add marriage equality to their platform in the English speaking world.

I have been a supporter of the ALP for years now. In fact, they have been responsible for most of the welfare programs in Australia, ending the White Australia Policy and introducing multiculturalism, apologising to the indigenous people, the stimulus that saved the Australian economy, restoring workers rights after the 'Workchoices' assault, universal health care, almost all of the gay rights reforms so far, and more. This just continues their tradition of supporting social justice, as party members said at the conference.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Cameron's Right: A Muscular Liberalism Will Unite Us

2011-11-29T05:13:00.000-08:00

I totally support multiculturalism. Readers of this column will be familiar with my firm stance on this. In fact, I celebrate the ethnic enclaves that exist to highlight this multicultural situation to all.

Many people have asked, in a multicultural society, what will bind us together? Conservative UK Prime Minister David Cameron is no multicultural supporter, but his answer would be a 'muscular liberalism'. And I totally agree. People come to free and democratic countries to seek opportunities provided by societies enlightened by the liberal tradition. Societies should seek to unite around these traditions, and our collective project for betterment would be to get rid of all those illiberal elements still lurking under the surface, like racism and homophobia.

Liberalism is a very basic belief for me, and I don't apologise for that. Everyone who lives in a free and democratic society should basically be liberal, any anti-liberal ideology has no place in our society. Liberal ideology can be shared by progressives (like the 'liberals' in America and Canada), conservatives (like Cameron and Malcolm Turnbull) and libertarians (it is their natural basis of belief) alike.

We may all have a different interpretation of liberalism, but it is still liberalism we should adhere to. We dislike basing our laws on religious texts, whether it is the Quran or the Christian Bible. We like equal opportunity, and support things like racial equality and marriage equality.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

War on Obesity Threatening Parental Rights

2011-11-29T03:30:00.001-08:00

The parents of an eight year old child has become the latest victim of the war on parental rights, masquerading as the war on childhood obesity this time. Due to his obesity, judges have taken him away from his mother and placed him in foster care.

This is plainly unacceptable in a free and democratic society in my opinion. Obesity is often genetic, and unfortunately some cases can be health threatening. However, it should never be used as an excuse to take away parental rights in a free and democratic state.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Don't Believe the Swipe Against Modesty

2011-11-29T02:57:00.001-08:00

Anti-modesty activists have taken a swipe at the growing modesty movement on alternet (one of my favourite news sites).

They claim that modesty is about the idea that women are on display to men all the time. This is patently not true. The fact that immodest dress can cause difficulties in a society where there are some men who cannot control their urges is a fact of life. Other than protecting yourself from that, however, modesty has a lot of other functions.

I have yet to see a real case where modesty has led to eating disorders and the like, as the author of that article said. However, I have seen that the sexuality-driven culture, which celebrates 'flat tummies', 'beautiful figures' and 'showing healthy skin', has driven many to eating disorders and mental disorders. This is a chief reason why I support the general idea of modesty.

In the end, what I still don't get is that, why do they hate modesty? I despise the religious right as much as they do, but I don't understand why they have to hate modesty and link it to the wider religious right movement. Not everything the religious right likes must automatically be something we hate, remember.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Australian Government to Withhold Family Tax Benefits to Vaccine Avoiding Families

2011-11-27T01:58:00.001-08:00

The Australian government, with the Labor party in charge ironically, has signaled its intention to withhold the family tax benefit from families who do not vaccinate their child.

Regardless of how irresponsible you think it is to not vaccinate your children, this should not be what a Labor government does. The family tax benefit is most needed by poor people, and this move creates a bad precedent by disproportionately infringing on the parental sovereignty of poor parents. If they had the guts to, they should have made vaccination compulsory for all children who go to school, for example.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Liberalism is not Anti-Conservative

2011-11-17T03:11:00.000-08:00

In the US, you may get the misinterpretation that liberalism is somehow anti-conservative. Actually, liberalism can be inclusive of, and involve, some moderate forms of conservatism.

Liberalism is about freedom. Therefore, social conservatives who don't force their beliefs down others' throats can also be liberals.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Breathing Traditional Values into New Institutions

2011-11-16T18:31:00.000-08:00

The creation of new institutions and ways of living life is going to happen anyway. Some conservatives stand in the way of that, but what is the use? They always lose, and tarnish their own reputations too.

Reasonable conservatives should instead accept the facts of life and move on. However we can inspire any new institutions and living arrangements with traditional values. Values like putting family first, lifelong monogamy and faithfulness, clean living, maintaining your spirituality, abstinence from substances of abuse, and the like, and hopefully make these the community standards in the emerging world.

Who knows, maybe through their adoption in new lifestyles and institutions, these traditional vales may come to dominate again.

By Jennifer (Reasonable social conservative).

I Would Happily Trade

2011-11-16T00:27:00.000-08:00

It has been asked by a minority of conservatives as to if we would like to trade marriage equality for no-fault divorce. Then it has been suggested that 'the left would not do the trade'. Not entirely - I would.

Marriage equality is of utmost importance because bigoted 'traditional' marriage sends the wrong message. The lack of no-fault divorce is positive or negative depending on who you speak to, but it is by no means unfair to anyone. After all, couples who wish to have a way to separate can enter into cohabitation agreements instead, and should not receive the same kind of priority the historically disadvantaged gay couples have. So yes, I am definitely in favour of such a trade and may even campaign actively for it, if it comes up as an option.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Seven Pillars in Our Battle

2011-11-13T22:21:00.000-08:00

Christian dominionists have identified seven spheres of life they want to take over. They are business, government, media, arts and entertainment, education, the family and religion. It is therefore in these areas that we need to be active, and have a clear vision in.

Here is my seven sphere battle plan:
Business: Christian dominionists favour pure capitalism. This however can only lead to an imbalanced system and lots of suffering. We favour a mixed approach to the market economy. We uphold the rights of unions, disabled people, welfare recipients, new immigrants etc to receive assistance from government.

Government: Christian dominionists wish to use government to establish what they believe as Biblical values. The best way to prevent this is by establishing a consensus that government should be libertarian socially. I am a bit on the conservative side when it comes to certain things, yet I refrain from the urge to impose these values by legislation on others. If you can join us from doing so, we can have this consensus.

Media, arts and entertainment: We need to create our own culture, specifically upholding values of fairness, equality and decency, and specifically disavowing and excluding Dominionist values. The mainstream, commercial Hollywood culture isn't strong enough at the end of the day. We also need to provide the clean living and family values culture they have in Christian Dominionist circles that mainstream culture is currently lacking.

Education: We need to educate our young on why liberal values are superior to Dominionist values in every single way. This needs to happen in every anti-Dominionist family. That is why I have produced a liberal education booklet. We also need to refrain from using Dominionist methods of raising children, like corporal punishment. If we are not more civilised, they cannot stand out as the savages they really are.

The Family: Dominionists insist that only church-approved marriages form families. We disagree. We uphold the right of every committed couple to have the same rights under law, and oppose marriage promotion and the monopoly of marriage. We also support marriage equality. Our opposition to marriage monopoly and anti-gay discrimination applies to everyday life as well as in legislation, as we treat all committed couples equally.

Religion: Interfaith initiatives are the best way to uphold the spirit of religion and keep us away from literalism. Dominionists know this, and that is one reason why they are opposed to everything interfaith. Multiculturalism is the cultural manifestation of interfaith harmony, and should be actively supported.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

My View of Religious Right Culture: Inspiration and Anger

2011-11-13T01:28:00.000-08:00

I'm not Christian and I am definitely no Christian conservative. But I do know quite a bit more about their subculture than the average outsider. After all, I lived through the mid noughties, when the religious right was supposed to upset the political process in every direction - thankfully that did not happen. But my interest in their subculture has developed ever since.

To be fair, they make me angry, through the way they spread ignorance and hate as truth, and the aggressiveness in which they pursue their twisted causes. They make me angry in the way they educate their next generation to believe the same lies they were brought up with. They also make me worried, since their youth is very socially and politically aware whilst mainstream youth is disengaged. But I honestly have to say that they have a great way of organising culture, something which hasn't been seen in the mainstream since the 1970s at least. In their culture, entertainment, the spiritual aspects of life and political issues come together, albeit in twisted ways. This model has become my main inspiration to 'fix' mainstream 'liberal' culture.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Religious Literalism, Evil and Marriage Equality

2011-11-12T04:57:00.000-08:00

I am of the strong belief that religious literalism is the greatest facilitator of evil in this world. This is not an overstatement. There are a few reasons for this.

First, people who appreciate religious ideas by overall meaning and taking into account of historical context generally get a picture of the need to treat others well and pursue the Truth, no matter which religion they are from. However, literalists often read things word by word and deduce meaning from one sentence alone, and without regard of context. This allows weird outcomes like reading religious texts to condone war, slavery, racial segregation and free market fundamentalism. Countless humanitarian disasters have resulted from this.

Secondly, whilst meaning-based religious people have found interfaith peace, literalists from all religions have not, and never will. In fact, anti-religion atheists love the literalist viewpoint of religion, because it invalidates all religions for them and leaves atheism as the only 'truth'. Why? Because all religions must conflict with each other when the literalist view is taken, and also one conflict necessarily invalidates everything else when the literalist view is taken. With the religions in conflict, the good of humanity is never united, and evil gets stronger.

The above two points added together have caused much of the evil and misery in this world, past and present. I decided to unconditionally oppose religious literalism nearly a decade ago now. For it is not just something that is wrong, but it is a great facilitator of evil.

Interestingly, the issue of marriage equality is the latest hot issue where religious literalism comes into conflict with doing the right thing. And you know which side I am on.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Redefining Liberalism? Just to Make it More Meaningful

2011-11-11T22:26:00.000-08:00

Some people in the liberal political camp have accused me of redefining liberalism. Well, liberalism has meant different things in different times and different contexts. But it has always been about freedom.

I support the government staying out of people's business as much as possible, along with providing welfare for people to maximise their life choices. To me, this sounds very liberal. Defining our movement around this idea makes it stronger. Adding unrelated issues to it, for example your stance on abortion (unless you believe it should be illegal), what is a 'respectable' lifestyle worth promoting etc. can only weaken it.

I don't like extreme political correctness, and I don't agree with recreational drug use or casual sex. I am culturally pro-life. But I guess these are personal values, as valid under liberalism as any other personal values that a liberal can have.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Small Businesses to be Tax Free?

2011-11-07T20:48:00.000-08:00

A Republican representative from Texas recently said he wanted to make small businesses pay no tax.

Which is a bit of an extreme measure. But I do agree that small businesses are paying too much tax, compared to larger corporations. The corporations have had a free ride on our system, and it's time to make them pay instead.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Mississippi may Make a Fertilised Egg a Legal Person

2011-11-07T20:41:00.000-08:00

Mississippi is going to vote on a constitutional amendment to make a fertilised egg a legal person in that state. Yes, a legal person who people cannot even see, who lives inside another legal person.

I am pro-life leaning myself, but this is ridiculous, and carries too many other implications. I cannot support this myself, simply.

This madness is yet another reason why many reasonable conservatives are now supporting the liberal side of politics all the way.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

The Inclusion of Conservatives: to What Extent

2011-11-05T05:27:00.002-07:00

Conservatives have complained that currently Hollywood culture is not inclusive enough of them as a group. I tend to partially agree myself, having family and friends who are ‘reasonable conservatives’ (e.g. Jen on the TE Post team) and being exposed to those ideas continuously.

However, I think that we should specifically make a point of including reasonable conservatives, not all conservatives regardless of belief. Unlike political culture, where homophobic and anti-multicultural sentiments are still well accepted in many circles, Hollywood culture is quite beyond that. Therefore, accepting and including cultural viewpoints like how people from minority cultural backgrounds should hide their identity, or how gay people should not be allowed to get married, is not on the agenda. Including these viewpoints would also destroy the inherent inclusiveness that is already partially characteristic of popular culture, and which we want to expand upon.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Impacting Popular Culture: Starting from Awareness

2011-11-05T05:27:00.001-07:00

Political campaigns to change the world for better do best when we get popular culture to come along. However, that does not happen often anymore in the modern world. I believe this has to do with a decreased awareness of how the world is still full of problems and difficulties for many people. I have met many people who simply don’t understand how bad the world can be for some people, not that they won’t help change things if they knew.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Maybe Israel has got its Marriage Model Correct

2011-11-01T01:50:00.000-07:00

Many people have said that marriage is a function of the religions, and governments should stay out of it. In Israel, they seem to have taken this advice seriously. In Israel, governments do not conduct marriages. Instead, it respects marriages conducted in each faith tradition. Meanwhile, cohabitants get many of the rights of married couples, and this includes gay couples.

The USA and similar countries often talk about freedom of religion being of the highest importance, yet government still meddles in marriage. Maybe its time they learnt from the Israeli model?

By Katie (Marriage Reform Champion).

Marriage Equality in Australia: The Battlefield

2011-10-09T21:07:00.000-07:00

If we are to get marriage equality through soon enough, the support of the ALP is what we must secure. This will either be successful, or not, on December 3. Meanwhile, we can work to make it more likely to be successful. Within Labor, currently some factions support equality, whilst others don't. Just as with party leadership, the balance of the factions make the outcome.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Not That Civil Unions are Marriage-Like, But that's the Only Successful Model

2011-10-08T23:08:00.000-07:00

Some people have opined that civil unions are not very revolutionary because they are quite marriage-like. But I don't think that's true. It's not that civil unions are marriage-like, it's that any stable type of couple union that has lasted for a long time, in any culture, has been of a similar form - two people, lifelong commitment, lifelong monogamy. Civil unions are just part of this tradition.

I personally uphold and support this tradition because it has been the only one that works. Being a reasonable social conservative, I tend to uphold things that have been shown to work, but respect different cultures' manifestations of those institutions.

By Katie (Marriage Reform Champion).

We are the Reasonable Social Conservatives, and we will Fight by Your Side

2011-10-08T04:22:00.000-07:00

I have held social conservative positions as a life-long thing, and my friends have not just reminded me that, they have also highlighted their disagreement with me on more than one occasion. Personal views on abortion, openness about sex, 'recreational' drugs and the morality of getting drunk are not good discussion topics between me and my friends generally, as most of generation Y don't appreciate my traditional views on those matters.

Yet I have shunned the conservative label until recently. That was because in the George Bush era conservatives were religious fundamentalists. This should never have been true, and is not true anymore.

I am a reasonable social conservative. I am not reactionary in any way, and will fight side by side with people with more unconventional lifestyles against that kind of politics. I support full gay rights, and full rights for ethnic minorities under multiculturalism. I support multiculturalism for those places which historically were meant to have it (Australia, Canada, USA and so on) whilst respecting that some places were always inhabited by their original inhabitants and thus can choose not to embrace multiculturalism (Europe, China, Japan and so on). I demand my rights to live my traditional lifestyle, and not have the oversexualised media culture shoved in my face, however, and I also demand that I can have a voice in promoting my lifestyle, even if some people may take offence. (And yes, people have often taken offence at my belief that recreational drugs have 0 value and only harm. But don't worry, I am not supporting the criminalisation of drugs.)

We are everywhere, especially in our generation. Some older politicians have also taken up our model in some ways, though not yet fully. For example, David Cameron supports marriage equality out of his socially conservative principles (but he does not support multiculturalism). Stephen Harper does not see multiculturalism as conflicting with his social conservatism (but he does not support marriage equality).

I am also still a liberal. As David Cameron said, a muscular liberalism must prevail, and this belief hasn't stopped him from being socially conservative too. Malcolm Turnbull is another example of a truly liberal, yet conservative in some ways, politician. Note that my conservatism only extends to social matters - economically I am all for social democracy, unlike Harper, Cameron and Turnbull. My economic welfarism is also based on my social conservatism - if you remember my critique of Tony Abbott last year.

By Jennifer (Reasonable social conservative).

David Pocock Joins Marriage Boycott

2011-10-08T04:04:00.001-07:00

Australian Wallabies rugby player David Pocock, also a committed Christian, has announced that he will not get married until same sex marriage becomes legal in Australia.

Good to see that marriage boycott is spreading around the world. It is really a meaningful thing to do, and should be taken up by more people.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Why I Support the Australian Greens

2011-10-06T20:41:00.000-07:00

Socially, I am definitely on the conservative side of my generation. I have quite specific, although personal, views on drugs, alcohol and openness about sex. However, I support the Australian Greens - who have a reputation of being 'radical' in some circles. Why?

The Australian Greens are the only party who support what mainstream Australia wants and needs. The Greens are the only major Australian party to support the popular majority opinion on marriage equality and euthanasia rights, and they are the only major party who still care for poor and disadvantaged people. Social conservatives, I believe, should support the welfare state because it ensures social stability and the status quo. I used to take offense at their 'harm reduction' drug policies, but I now believe they are suitable for a place like Australia, where the drug epidemic has gone out of control already.In short, supporting the Greens sit well with my social conservatism, contrary to popular belief.

One more point - what is the difference between reasonable social conservatism and ultraconservatism? Reasonable social conservatives support things like marriage equality. I don't particularly like David Cameron, but I like what he said recently: 'conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.' Ultraconservatives, on the other hand, let their homophobia run ahead of this important conservative principle. This includes people like Julia Gillard (yes, that's right) and Tony Abbott.

By Jennifer (Reasonable social conservative).

Supporting Civil Union Alternatives is not Anti-Conservative

2011-10-03T20:52:00.000-07:00

In the LGBT community, it seems that if you are on the conservative side, you need to support the idea of only having marriage as the option for gay couples who want to get committed. So where does my continual endorsement of civil union type arrangements as an alternative to (not a replacement for) marriage for both straight and gay couples sit?

The truth is that, marriage is not going to be taken up by everyone anymore. Those who have been attracted to some strains of feminism, and those who have been attracted to the 'queer' movement, for example, will not take it up, clearly. What reasonable social conservatives should do is to advocate for more people to have stable, life-long commitment, as reasonable social conservatives aim for social effects, not enforcement of old rules and institutions in and of itself. More and more people are now saying that monogamy isn't essential because marriage is outdated - what we are saying is that, even if you believe marriage is outdated, lifelong monogamy as an ideal is never outdated.

By TaraElla

I Support Almost All Feminism

2011-09-30T05:25:00.000-07:00

When I recently took issue with the stance of some feminists, I was accused of being anti-feminist. Not true, really.

I don't like people who look down on stay-at-home moms, and I really can't stand manhaters. Otherwise, I generally support all of feminism.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Religion is No Excuse (Guest Post)

2011-09-27T00:35:00.000-07:00

We have been told that we should tolerate bigots for their hatred because of their religion.

No, that's wrong. It doesn't have to be this way. In fact, I believe everyone should be under equal scrutiny, religious or not.

Recently, devoutly Catholic former NSW premier Kristina Keneally went on TV to defend marriage equality. Marriage equality has been introduced around the world by several leaders who were religious. Meanwhile, many atheists still defend bigoted marriage today.

Also, the likes of Eve Tushnet and John Heard should be exposed for what they are - self hating gay people who are testament to the fact that sexual orientation is not something you can change even if you hate the one that you were born with, rather than being allowed to hide behind their religion.

The bottom line is this: a bigot is a bigot. Enough said.

Guest Post by Rachel

President Obama Standing Up to Bullies Again (Guest Post)

2011-09-27T00:30:00.000-07:00

The evil anti-equality brigade has taken over more than 30 US states' constitutions, having written inequality into them over the past few elections. However, they are still hungry for more. This November they are going to put an anti-equality amendment into North Carolina's constitution.

Luckily, President Obama has been doing a great job of defending equality again. Unfortunately he cannot directly change the outcome of November's ballot. But he has denounced the measure. Which is still good, because now this evil piece of nonsense has official White House condemnation.

I urge all pro-equality Americans to keep Obama in 2012, no matter what.

Guest Post by Jennifer

A New Model of Family Relationships: With Liberty Comes Responsibility

2011-09-26T09:03:00.000-07:00

We all want more liberty. Less intrusion from the government. Yet I believe this is only viable if we maintain ourselves as responsible people, striving towards that goal.

This applies more to the area of family relationships than anything. Couples wishing to stay together forever should work hard on it, and couples wishing to have an option of exit should make detailed plans. Joint custody of children should be worked out amongst the couple themselves out if a couple separates. Court orders to resolve matters should be left as a last resort, for example when there is abuse in the relationship. The community around the couple should support their goal, in whichever direction they decide to take it, so that they don't end up needing that last resort.

The only way families and relationships can be free of government intrusion is if we don't invite it ourselves. And whenever we invite government intrusion, remember, liberty is lost.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Why I Ended My Support for Covenant Marriage

2011-09-23T07:20:00.000-07:00

I used to support covenant marriage. As of 2011, not anymore.

I thought that an instrument to help couples stay together would be great. But then, I couldn't see the side effect of fostering dependence on the government. That's not so great. Besides, only a few jurisdictions have covenant marriage, and they aren't also marriage equality jurisdictions. This is extremely unlikely to change. A culture that is unequal and also depends on the government to maintain families intact is a dystopia indeed.

That's why I began opposing covenant marriage.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

The Marriage Trap: Civil Unions to the Rescue?

2011-09-23T05:37:00.000-07:00

People have been separating at very high rates for a few decades now. Families have been torn apart by this, and many people don't think it's healthy. But nobody seems to have a proven effective solution yet. Conservatives opt for supporting 'covenant marriage' - but that has proven to be highly unpopular, and yet another of their policy flops.

I would suggest something different. We have heard anecdotes that couples have cohabited for years, and then got married - and then divorced after a short time. Could it be due to that, since marriage is a concept that carries expectations that came from another era, some couples have not been comfortable with it? Or maybe, since marriage and divorce go together like horse and cart so often in modern culture, in marriage divorce is almost accepted as an expectation, and is triggered once there is strife in the relationship? That may sound weird, but since humans tend to compare themselves with their peers, it's not impossible.

We don't know until we have an experiment to prove this one way or another. Providing civil unions with equal rights for all couples would be one way of doing this. Some couples will opt for them. And in the long run we will know how they fare.

By Katie (Marriage Reform Champion).

Don't Make Them Hate Us Anymore

2011-09-23T05:29:00.000-07:00

I am a clean living, pro-family values, pro-monogamy person, personally. I have never been ashamed of admitting this. However, just the admittance of this fact has brought a lot of hostility to me, over the years. I was even identified as a conservative just for this by some people.

At first, I was angry that this was the case. If I can respect you, why can't you respect me?

But then, something else may have been at work. Conservatives have demonised anybody who doesn't fit traditional stereotypes for ages. Those people who don't like clean living, family values and lifelong monogamy have been at the receiving end of their discrimination too. As a result, they have viewed anybody endorsing clean living, family values and lifelong monogamy as their enemies, rather than just the conservatives.

What we need to do is to stop making them hate us. We need to show that we are not the same as the conservatives, and whilst we cherish and promote our own lifestyle and values, we are not going to hate them for being different. We need to affirm our acceptance of difference and show how people with different lifestyles and beliefs can live together.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Our Opponents Shouldn't Shape Our Agenda

2011-09-10T08:22:00.000-07:00

As liberals, we innovate progress, and therefore we should be deciding the agenda going forward. Too many times, our opponents have been able to shape our agenda, however. That especially happens whenever we become cowards and buy into their ideas of what we are and how we aren't doing things right.

This happens especially to political parties who are desperate to win elections. But it can happen to everyone else too. Don't let it happen to you.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

The 'Universality' of Marriage: It should have been Civil Unions that are Universal

2011-09-09T10:19:00.000-07:00

One of the main arguments for marriage equality is that marriage is universally recognised whilst civil unions are not. That's a very valid point to make, and I'm all in favour with presenting more points for marriage equality, but it is a very tragic point indeed.

If you ask people in the West, most think marriage is a religious matter, and its roots lie in their religion, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. A poll in the US favoured this view by 2:1. That's more people than either supporters or opponents of marriage equality. (By the way, this is something to be acknowledged, not hated, by marriage equality supporters, because freedom and equality of religion in law, specifically of Reform Jews, Unitarians, the MCC and others, will provide the absolute argument for state recognition of gay marriages in itself). How come a Judeo-Christian-Islamic institution is universal, when half the world don't believe in this religion?

The couple relationships in other cultures? They are not essentially 'marriage' then according to this definition. Yet couple relationships in China and India, for example, are being translated as 'marriages', and therefore 'marriage' became universal. It should have been that couple relationships and government recognition of these relationships are universal, rather than marriage in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic sense is universal.

Maybe it's time for the whole world to recognise that civil unions, rather than marriages, should be what is universal currency in law.

By Katie (Marriage Reform Champion).

How Many People are Affected by Marriage Equality?

2011-09-06T06:18:00.000-07:00

Some people say that marriage equality will not benefit a lot of people. I would completely disagree.

The simple thing is that, the calculations given by those people for the percentage of people affected by marriage equality is wrong. Some suppose that as 2% of the population is gay and most are not in a hurry to get married, the issue affects less than 1% of the population. But my take is different. As it is basically an issue of dignity, equality and human rights, it affects the whole 2%+ of the LGBTI community, interested in marriage or not. And then it also affects their family and friends, so you have to times that by a few fold at least. Therefore, marriage equality benefits around 20% of the population roughly, in my opinion.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Marriage Equality is not a Fringe Issue

2011-09-05T06:15:00.000-07:00

I am tired of people saying that marriage equality is not important enough to be considered a major issue, because it affects too few people.

Well, let me say this LOUD. That's just tyranny of the majority. A decent society shouldn't even ever think this way.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Australia: ALP has 2 years to Re-Energise Its Base

2011-09-04T20:52:00.000-07:00

All the opinion polls now show that the ALP is going to lose an election if held right now. That means conservatives are going to rule Australia again. But an election is NOT going to be held right now - it is going to be held in 2013. This means that the ALP has two years to improve its standing.

If I were their party strategist, I would start re-energising the base, seeing that when the primary vote is as low as 27% that would be the first thing to do. The ALP has been pandering to marginal seats and therefore refusing to take on controversial issues, but they should forget about them now. From now to September 2012 should be about re-energising the base and recovering their primary vote to acceptable levels. This would mean a more humane asylum seeker policy and passing marriage equality. And they will have to be done in the next year. Then maybe it will be time to chase after marginal votes.

I guess if this strategy is followed, the ALP will either be back in power in 2013 or at least be competitive for 2016.

And one more thing. The ALP is not going to be 'wiped out' like some people now say, no matter what. Some people, like me, will preference the ALP no matter what.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Support Florida's Repeal of Archaic Law

2011-09-03T05:50:00.000-07:00

Most liberal countries offer cohabiting couples some rights and benefits. In Australia, they are offered pretty much the same rights as married couples, and Canada's also close in this regard. The US is lagging here, with no cohabitation rights at all. But the state of Florida takes this a step further - it apparently still has its anti-cohabitation law from the 19th century on its books.

Now an effort is being launched to repeal this and other outdated and unenforced laws. Normally I am all for the repeal of ANY unenforced law as they could become tools of improper use - for example used to build cases against political opponents. But this one is, in addition, plain discriminatory, and should be removed ASAP.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Proof that the AFA is a Hate Group

2011-09-01T05:47:00.000-07:00

As I stated before, I totally agree with the Southern Poverty Law Center's categorization of the American Family Association as a hate group. And now they have just gone out of the way to prove us right again.

AFA spokesman Bryan Fischer told listeners on his radio show that there is no reason why homosexuality can't be recriminalised. The AFA is on the record of opposing homosexuality decriminalisation when it happened in 2003.

Shocking stuff.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

I'd Rather Burn in Hell than Support Bigotry

2011-08-31T03:20:00.000-07:00

Conservative Christians have said that people who support gay marriages will burn in hell. Well, I am not a conservative or a Christian, but let's suppose that's true. I still would support marriage equality. I just cannot bring myself to do otherwise.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Books to Educate the Young on Equality

2011-08-30T03:14:00.000-07:00

Whilst everybody is getting involved in the fight for marriage equality, one aspect that is often lacking is the integration of the education of acceptance and inclusion in our children's education.

That's why books like My Uncle's Wedding always get my praise. My Uncle's Wedding is said to be an ideal read for children who are about to participate in a gay wedding, but I believe it should be read to all children.

In a generation, 'marriage is between a man and a woman' will sound very antiquated indeed.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Traditional Marriage 'Ideally' for Life? Bigots Are Hypocritical.

2011-08-26T07:47:00.001-07:00

Recently, Australian anti-marriage equality politician Bob Katter started his very own ultra-conservative party, Katter's Australian Party. And in the constitution of the party, his opposition to marriage equality is well spelt out. It defines marriage as between a man and a woman, 'ideally for life'.

Excuse me, ideally for life? I thought traditional marriage was for life, period, not ideally for life, since divorce was not an option. Mr Katter, are you affirming the rights of heterosexual couples to enter a union with the option of exit in mind (since you said it's only 'ideally' for life, as in 'ideally' there would be no poverty) whilst calling that 'marriage' (which arguably is what it's not), and denying the rights of homosexual couples to enter a lifelong union without thinking about an exit and call that 'marriage' (which is what it is)? This just proves that opponents of marriage equality really want 'bigoted marriage' not 'traditional marriage'.

By the way, I personally had way more respect for marriage when people did not think about an option to exit.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

All That Normalcy Ain't Healthy

2011-08-23T02:17:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time, everyone wanted to be liberated. Nowadays, some people still want to be liberated, but some others have decided it is better to be 'normal'. What nonsense.

To be normal is to be regulated extensively by a nanny state. To be normal is to give up whatever freedom left to peer pressure (yes it exists in adults too).

Don't think your decision to be 'normal' is only your own. By choosing not to stand with and stand up for 'the rest of us', you are helping the system marginalise us. The only way you can redeem yourself is to stand up for everybody's rights to do their own thing.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Don't Encourage the Nanny State

2011-08-21T02:12:00.000-07:00

The nanny state is where the government butts into people's lives and make us all miserable. It is good for nothing. Families should be allowed to regulate their own business, just as they have for centuries. The modern nanny state idea needs to go.

How can you help to make the nanny state history? Don't encourage it! Keep your personal affairs out of the reach of the state whenever possible. Whenever possible, try making lifestyle arrangements with your family and friends without seeking government approval. Whenever possible, do conflict resolution without involving the government. Don't ever do something just because the government encourages it - be it having a baby (the baby bonus) or buying a house (first home owners grant).

Original article from TaraElla Post

Let's Call a Spade a Spade: The AFA is a Hate Group

2011-08-21T02:05:00.000-07:00

Every since the American Family Association became classified as a 'hate group' by the Southern Poverty Law Center, there have been protests at the decision. Some who don't agree with the AFA otherwise have said that this designation is too extreme.

What too extreme? If their anti-gay crusades aren't hate, I don't know what is. The way they sneakily include 'family' in their name doesn't negate this, and this needs to be made clear. By the way, many of those groups that have 'Christian' in them but engage in Unchristian behaviour all the time, also deserve the same designation.

Just the other day a fellow marriage equality activist asked us to be more understanding of our opposition instead of calling them bigots. But then, what are they if they are not bigots? Discrimination equals bigotry, simple. Anything else is just trying to muddle the waters to please everyone.

If we don't call a spade a spade and just sit on the fence all the time, what will our children learn, after all? That it is acceptable to hate?

Original article from TaraElla Post

What if my daughter grows up to be Republican? It's Your Fault Then.

2011-08-21T00:01:00.000-07:00

Recently in Salon, a liberal writer wrote on the topic of What if my daughter grows up to be Republican. Specifically, as a parent she introduced her daughter to liberal causes, and her daughter campaigned for Obama in 2008. But she wanted her daughter to make her own mind up regarding politics. And now she ponders what consequences the family relationship will face if her daughter decides to become Republican after all.

I like to call a spade a spade, so let me say this: if your daughter becomes Republican, it will be YOUR fault. You decided not to show her how liberal beliefs and actions are inherently superior to conservative ones, even though you know better yourself. You teach your child that killing, stealing and lying is wrong, right? You believe that if a parent doesn't teach a child these things and they become criminal as a result, it is the parent's fault, right? You know that conservatives are responsible for destroying the environment, bringing misery to the poor, contributing to gay suicides, and starting wars all over the world, yet you would not teach your child this and would rather she made up her own mind.

If, despite of strong liberal upbringing one's children become conservative, then I believe the parents are not to blame. But clearly this writer has not done enough.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Sick Conservatives and What They Believe

2011-08-20T01:53:00.001-07:00

Recently, the Catholic Church in Australia apologized for forcing teenage mothers to give their newborns up for adoption in days gone by. They said that they were only doing so because of the then social norms.

Evil social norms that caused many regrets amongst many families. Truly amazing, how wicked the human race was in those conservative times.

Yet just this year I have seen at least two conservatives actively arguing for the government to encourage teenage mothers to give their child up for adoption. In 2011. Truly amazing.

Nuclear Family Norm Must Go

2011-08-20T01:24:00.000-07:00

Everywhere where law and society presuppose the nuclear family as 'normal', people get hurt. Therefore I support that laws and customs everywhere stop presupposing the nuclear family for everyone.

Consider a recent case in NSW, Australia. A lesbian mother recently applied to court to have her ex-partner listed on the birth certificate of her daughter. The court had to remove the sperm donor, who also acted as a part time father. Now the father has lost the right to see his daughter.

Conservatives trying to keep the nuclear family above all others clearly have no time for sympathy for these cases. They think that non-nuclear families deserve less. But in the end, family is for nurturing people, not preserving outdated traditions. That's why they don't have a case here and should mind their own business.

Original article from TaraElla Post

Christine O'Donnell Walks Out over Gay Marriage

2011-08-20T00:03:00.000-07:00

Christine O'Donnell has walked out over questions on gay marriage on US television. It seems that more and more conservatives have developed an inability to handle this question. Maybe they just can't justify their opposition anymore?

As for those anti-marriage equality arguments, I used to hold them too - when I was under 16. When will these conservatives grow up?

By TaraElla (News, Website)

I'm Permissive Now

2011-08-19T10:03:00.001-07:00

I used to frown on people who were for a permissive society. Later on, I found out that I was actually just insecure about my own traditional beliefs. Of course, when those beliefs include a bit of homophobia (which is a form of hate) one just cannot be too sure they are right.

Not long after, I got rid of my homophobia. Soon after, I became more secure in my traditionalist beliefs. Yes, I still believe in things many liberals don't believe in (like how divorce is bad and drugs are really bad). I am different to them and they are different to me.

But that's alright. The other lesson I have learnt is that we can live and let live.

Original article from TaraElla Post

It's Not Inconsistency, It's Recognition of Cultural Difference

2011-08-13T03:44:00.000-07:00

I have said that I support zero tolerance for some places and harm reduction for some places in terms of drug policy. Some have called this inconsistency. But I just believe this is adjusting policy to suit the situation.

For example, Asia and the Scandinavia have been able to maintain a good drug-free culture, and zero-tolerance seems to work for them. I would support the continuation of zero tolerance in those areas, as removing zero tolerance may lead to social unrest and conservative uprisings in those areas.

However, places like the US and Australia actually have high drug use rates, and zero tolerance in the US has been a dismal failure, becoming more like a racist weapon of oppression of minorities. At least Australia, which adopted harm minimization in the 1980s, has fared much better. In situations like these, I support harm minimization.

Original article from TaraElla Post

70% of Australia now Support Marriage Equality

2011-08-12T00:04:00.000-07:00

Australia had its census a few days ago. At the same time, some people organised an 'alternative census' to ask questions that really mattered to everyday life, in which nearly 20000 people were polled.

One question was about same-sex marriage, a hot topic in Australia right now. The poll showed 70% support overall, ranging from 63-74% in different states.

In fact, amongst those Australians I have met, the divide is more between those who support marriage equality and those who do not even know their country does not have marriage equality. I have yet to meet anybody who has been openly against marriage equality in recent years.

Julia Gillard, hear that?

By TaraElla (News, Website)

The HomoCons - More Vicious Than We Expected

2011-08-11T20:36:00.000-07:00

The HomoCons, or gay conservatives, are nothing new. But their viciousness seems to have risen to a new level recently.

Take for example the recent announcement by Australian lesbian finance minister Penny Wong that her partner is pregnant. Marriage equality campaigners have been quick to use this occasion to attack Gillard's opposition to marriage equality, but then the homocons joined in and said the child will be a 'bastard'. Some even went as far as to say Wong should move to New York or Canada or else she shouldn't bring a 'bastard' child into this world.

The gay world of 2011 is quickly becoming the straight world of 1951. I guess 'gay marriage' changed gay more quickly and thoroughly than I ever thought.

I guess the marriage boycott would have to be longer than originally anticipated, and focused not only on marriage equality but should last until these outdated attitudes are gone forever, straight or gay.

Original article from TaraElla Post

The Creation of Eve Tushnet - A Cautionary Tale for Every Liberal Parent

2011-08-08T00:04:00.000-07:00

In case you don't know who Eve Tushnet is, she is a lesbian writer who was raised in a liberal family but became an ultra-conservative Catholic in university. Nowadays she actively fights against marriage equality. Sad stuff.

I have read the story of Eve Tushnet a few times now. She used to be liberal when she was growing up, and then one day in university she went to a conservative debate society to 'watch the farm animals'. It was there that she was converted. As some put it, her parents prepared her well to find her own identity, and this is the one she found, unfortunately. Obviously something went wrong - I wasn't even raised in a liberal family, yet I am well grounded in my liberalism such that although I have read lots of conservative writing across the spectrum I never for one second entertained the idea of becoming one of them. I guess the same would apply to a lot of you readers.

So what went wrong with Eve? Her parents may have provided her with a liberal upbringing, where she had no difficulty coming out as lesbian. But then they did not educate her in the virtues of liberalism and why liberalism is the way and conservatism is selfish. In other words, she benefited from liberalism but she never knew anyway, and eventually turned away from what gave her this chance to have a confident, happy life many conservatively-raised children do not have, not even knowing what she was turning away from. A complete liberal upbringing is not just about the child being raised in a liberal-minded environment, it is also about the child learning about the virtues of our values. I know a lot of liberals have a problem with being negative about anything, but being negative about conservatism is necessary because this sick ideology that has caused much suffering needs to be properly dealt with.

I really don't wish to see any more liberal kids growing up to become Eve Tushnets. To prevent this tragedy from happening again, recently I wrote a guide for providing kids with an education with a good grounding in liberal values throughout their growing up.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Fundamentalism is a Dangerous, Evil Movement. It is not a smear.

2011-08-07T04:11:00.001-07:00

Recently, fundamentalists have decided to say that fundamentalism is a smear against them, for being orthodox in their beliefs about their religion. That’s just false. Fundamentalism is a movement that emerged in Western Christianity in the early 20th century, and this is a historical fact. Therefore saying fundamentalism is a smear word is denying historical fact.

Fundamentalism began as a reactionary movement. In the West, by the late 19th century, many religious people were beginning to understand God in spiritual ways, the so-called process of demythologicalization. Fundamentalists sought to bring them back into believing the Bible as the literal word of the Christian God. They used political manoeuvres to remove liberal theologians from power in churches. This is the spirit of fundamentalism, and this spirit continues on today, attacking not just Christian churches but also our culture and secular government. Fundamentalism is nowadays also not confined to Western Christianity, but also found in other cultures.

Fundamentalism must be regarded as the enemy of Truth and freedom. It seeks to impose its own view of the Truth on all of us, and it will resort to oppressive political tactics to do that. It is afraid of the truth, and will do anything to stop the truth from destroying the fallacy of fundamentalism. That is why fundamentalists seek to change science courses to teach Creationism, change our government to become what they consider to be biblical government (no economic intervention, but punishing who they consider the ‘wicked’ on social issues), and change our laws to be in accordance with what they believe are biblical laws. And that is why we must resist all this with no compromise. Liberalism is the best defence against fundamentalism we have. Therefore, to be liberal is not just to hold a political ideology, nor is it just an expression of secularism in politics, but to engage in a spiritual battle on the side of the Truth.

Taken in this light, the fight for marriage equality is not just the fight for decency towards gay and lesbian couples. It is a fight to disallow fundamentalist principles (which are NOT universally agreed to be ‘biblical principles’, that’s just being dishonest) from being able to dictate that our laws be discriminatory. It is a victory of freedom over fundamentalism. The same goes for the inclusion of intelligent design in SCIENCE classes, which I believe should be outlawed by a constitutional amendment (note that I am not advocating a ban on teaching Creationism, just a ban on confusing what is science and what is religion/tradition/myth that even the Catholic Church wouldn’t believe in literally).

Original article from TaraElla Post

From Colonial Wrongs to Real Multiculturalism

2011-08-06T08:12:00.000-07:00

The West invaded and colonised many parts of the world. This is a well known fact, and something most westerners aren't proud of anymore nowadays. What is a less well known fact is that cultures were changed irreversibly, and the implications may not be known for generations. The world needs to heal from all this, and only time will tell which way it should heal.

Take religion for example. Western religion has been imposed on people living around the world, making them lose connection with the faith of their ancestors. As to how they may return to the faith of their ancestors - who knows? A lot of these people don't even know how to practice the transplanted religion, and a lot of suffering and injustice can occur as a result. For example, the Ugandans think they are acting like Good Christians when they debate the Kill the Gays bill, something nearly no Western Christian would agree upon. The difference is that the west has had Christianity for ages and Uganda has not. When you have had something for ages you naturally apply it better.

Or take marriage. In the cause of marriage equality debates, it is clear that even the West doesn't seem to agree on what tradition marriage represents anymore. One camp seems to think that marriage is the Christian sacrament that the government later took control of, the other camp think that marriage is the universally present couple relationship that is present across cultures and religions. Didn't this confusion arise because the West sought to impose its family structure on other cultures thinking that their experience is universal, rather than respecting cultural differences and differentiating carefully between what is universal and what is uniquely Western/Christian? I really don't know how this problem can be solved now.

Original article from TaraElla Post

The Creation of Eve Tushnet - A Cautionary Tale for Every Liberal Parent

2011-08-06T07:59:00.000-07:00

Where a Well Organised 20% Will Take Us

2011-08-06T07:45:00.000-07:00

There are approximately 20% of people in society, who have principles of social justice, fairness and compassion, and will stand up and fight for them. I claim to be part of that 20% of people, and I have a plan for us all.

Why do I pick the 20% number? Poll after poll in America have asked people whether they identify as liberal, moderate or conservative. And in poll after poll across the years, even in the dark days of Bush Jr, at least 20% will proudly identify as liberal. Probably not coincidentally, it is probably about 20% who will always stand up against pandering to the religious right, for example even in the face of our defeat in both America and Australia in 2004, when some in our ranks considered that maybe we need to do a bit of pandering ourselves too. It was probably 20% that stood up for marriage equality even in those Bush amendment-happy days, and it is probably 20% of us who will try to make a difference for marriage equality whilst the other 30% or so of supporters just sit there passively. In short, the 20% of us are proud and committed liberals.

Within us 20%, we agree to the need to stop pandering to the religious right, to enact marriage equality ASAP, and to root out racism in society once and for all right now. Therefore, if we are well organised enough and start presenting ourselves as a bloc (think of the evangelical bloc, which is about the same size), we will yield considerable influence. And we will use this influence to advance our causes for humanity. But to do this, we need to take our position as seriously as the religious right take theirs. For example, we need to start voting for values and not economic gains. All of us need to be values voters, and vote in a bloc to support the parties and candidates who represent our values. We need to have our own culture - not detached from mainstream culture but not simply part of it. We need to be able to pass our values down the generations through education, and we need to protect our future generations against the non-education that the religious right may want to expose our young to (like the intelligent design myth) by setting them up for the right ideas.

Original article from TaraElla Post

I Acknowledge and Will Work With the Mainstream of Liberals

2011-08-05T00:37:00.000-07:00

I am a very opinionated person who has all sorts of ideas about all sorts of things. However, I acknowledge that the culture that I work with will be based around the most liberal 20% of society. I additionally acknowledge that I made this choice personally because I believe that's where our best future would be found, just like how many parents immigrate to a nation with a better future for their children.

Thus currently our mainstream considers Obama to be conservative even if I do not personally. Our mainstream in America is centered around Dennis Kucinich, with Obama and Clinton in the right. Our mainstream in Australia is bound by the likes of Sarah Hanson-Young to the left, Bob Brown and Doug Cameron in the centre, Rudd and Turnbull to the right, and nobody in our mainstream likes Gillard or Abbott because they are considered to be in the far right.

This implies I am part of a culture I seek to promote and defend. In polls we look at the most liberal 20% of society, and the cultural practices that are mainstream amongst the most liberal 20% of society are considered to be mainstream by me - i.e. something where there is now a consensus to work together for.

The support for marriage equality in the mainstream is now almost 100%, and it is part of the glue that binds us together. Opposition to marriage equality is decidedly unmainstream amongst us. I also acknowledge that our mainstream is overwhelmingly supportive of drug decriminalisation, even if I am currently ambivalent about it. I thus would not be reactionary to people who support drug decriminalisation even if I don’t support them. On the other hand we must acknowledge that divorce reform is not mainstream and I am not going to make it a political priority anytime soon until I can convince the mainstream about it.

Original article from TaraElla Post

De-Emphasizing Marriage vs Marriage Equality? They're Two Separate Aims

2011-08-04T20:12:00.000-07:00

Some conservatives have labelled my dual support of enacting legal marriage equality and de-emphasizing marriage both socially and legally as taking over an institution and destroying it. This is a complete mischaracterization.

Fighting for the enactment of marriage equality in law is part of our agenda to fight for social justice everywhere, especially in law. It is our duty as liberals. However, this has been a dismal cause so far (face the facts, people. Even in the UK, France, Germany, Australia, and most blue states in the USA it is NOT happening anytime soon, let alone the gay-hostile parts of the world). Therefore we need something that really works.

The last time a lot of people called for the de-emphasis (or even abolition) of marriage was in the 1970s when women were treated unequally in marriages before law. And 40 years later - guess what? They still are in many countries! And this cause has been far more successful than marriage equality ever has been.

Imagine if the campaign to get women legal equality in marriage failed in the 1970s like marriage equality right now. The cry for the de-emphasis of marriage would have been louder and it would have been what worked for women in the end. It would have been what was required, and what worked, and it would have been roundly praised by liberals. So many people were willing to support equality that works (even if unconventional) for women then. So why not support equality that works (even if unconventional) for all people?

Original article from TaraElla Post

Drug Policy Needs to be Targeted to the Context

2011-08-04T20:09:00.001-07:00

I said not long ago that it is not unreasonable for liberals to support a zero-tolerance drug policy, and I may indeed support such a policy under certain conditions. But then I probably should also stress that drug policy needs to be targeted to the context.

For example, I would rather support harm minimization in places like North America, Europe and Australia, for obvious reasons.

Original article from TaraElla Post

Anti Marriage Equality Constitutional Amendment On the Table Again?

2011-07-31T00:05:00.000-07:00

In 2004 George Bush almost introduced an amendment into the US constitution to ban marriage equality. He failed and the idea sort of lapsed for a while.

Now possible 2012 Republican candidate Rick Perry has touted his support for the idea again.

To those liberals who have been too critical of Obama and have already decided to stay at home come November 2012: the nightmare of Bush can return if you do so. Be afraid, be very afraid.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

Lesbian Relationships can be Marriage, but not just Marriage

2011-07-27T01:15:00.000-07:00

Original article from TaraElla Post

It is now fashionable for lesbian couples to define themselves by the marriage ideal. Whilst this was not what I expected just less than a decade ago (and totally out of everybody's expectations just two decades ago), I totally support marriage equality and I totally support their right to define their relationship this way.

There is one thing we really need to remember however. Whilst marriage has been about property and ownership in the past, lesbian relationships were never like that. Lesbian relationships have also had very low rates of abuse. Clearly whilst they can subscribe to the ideal of marriage, they have also always subscribed to another higher ideal, and that should be maintained.

A lesbian relationship can indeed be a marriage. But it can be MORE than a marriage too. Just like a heterosexual marriage is a friendship. But it is MORE than a friendship too.

Why De-Emphasizing Marriage and Abolishing State Marriage is a Step Forward

2011-07-23T04:38:00.000-07:00

De-Emphasizing marriage and abolishing State Marriage would definitely have been seen as liberal, up until very recently. Certainly, removing state control over an area where it is not required is definitely liberal. That was the understanding when I began to back this long term goal back in 2004.

That is, up until recently. Now that marriage equality (a cause I support myself) is the primary progressive movement in the West, it seems that many liberals don't think of my position as liberal anymore. Why? Because it would render marriage equality 'useless'.

Certainly not. In fact, the reason why we are fighting for marriage equality is because we have to work with the present governmental system for a while yet. Marriage equality is currently easier to achieve than getting government out of the business, but the latter should be our long term goal. As for de-emphasizing marriage in culture, that is the only way to achieve freedom and equality for all (globally) in the long run that I can see. Therefore, the two goals do not contradict each other - one is short term and the other is long term.

Another thing is that 'marriage' is a Western export, and one that has been assimilating other cultures in a bad way. Certainly, the end of marriage-as-we-know-it will allow these cultures to return to their roots regarding how relationships are formed and socially recognised, and give relationship multiculturalism a go.

Defeding Liberal Culture, our Ideological Home

2011-07-22T02:33:00.000-07:00

Conservative Christians have long said their culture was under attack. Most of us just see that as paranoia. They are free to reject gay marriage, spread their creationist ideas and preach their fundamentalist religion as they like. However, due to this paranoia they have developed an effective method to defend their culture.

Now our liberal culture is under attack. The evidence is everywhere: schools that want to teach our kids creationism, organisations who are fighting for governments to disregard our liberal consensus on gay marriages (to recognise them), the attack on non-marital family forms in the USA in the form of 'marriage promotion', the list goes on. It is now up to us to defend our culture just as well. Hillary Clinton style reactions won't work - that's call pandering. Lady Gaga style reactions won't work either - screaming slogans whilst not dealing with the core differences won't work, as they will just continue to attack our beliefs if we don't stand up for them well enough.

We must pass the culture and its essence down our generations. Our next generations must be equipped to deal with this world with a liberal worldview, no matter what kind of world it becomes. We must establish a home-ground of cultural values we live by, and fight the good fight in the world out there. For example the matters of union rights, marriage equality and welfare for all are important battlegrounds right now. We need to remember as liberals we agreed to the equal dignity of all couple relationships, being non-judgmental and a good standard of living for all. Thus now (or any other time) is not the time to call Julia Gillard 'living in sin' like it's 1951 or to join dole-bludger-bashing with the conservatives. It is the time when we should recommit to our own values and standards, whilst fighting the battle out there.

Multiculturalism is the Solution for Liberal vs Conservative

2011-07-21T02:02:00.001-07:00

I think we can live in the same society peacefully with Conservatives. I don't think we can live in the same culture, as one unified culture with them, without sacrificing our principles. Moreover, I don't think they are going to come aboard the liberal moral agenda anytime soon.

I think I can say the same about very traditionalist Muslims, very traditionalist Indians or very traditionalist Asian Christians. Luckily, we have a thing called multiculturalism. The government recognises that we have equal rights to our culture. That's why I can work with and be friends with all of the above. I believe it's time we apply the same standard in our dealings with conservatives.

It's also time we apply this ideal in our conflicts with the conservatives. Sure, they can refuse to accept gay marriages, but what right do they have in stopping the government to equally honour our decision to accept gay marriages? Remember conservatives, it's not just gays vs conservatives, it's the whole liberal community here vs conservatives, and we are roughly half of the population. Or taking it further, many sub-cultural communities e.g. feminists, queers have a problem with the marriage thing. Their couple relationships should also be afforded equal rights, however. As for gay adoptions, I guess it's for the liberal community to say yes and the conservative community to equally have the right to say no. In that sense, children put up for adoption by the liberal community should not be barred from going to gay parents.

This is the minimum standard us liberals should demand when dealing with conservatives. If they want to maintain their own culture, fine. But if they want to deny us the right to our own liberal culture, then that's not a compromise we can ever make.

Come Join Us, You HomoCons

2011-07-21T01:56:00.000-07:00

HomoCons, or homosexual conservatives, are gay people who are conservative, and support parties like the GOP in the USA and the Liberal Party in Australia. The Conservatives don't want them there of course, and the mainstream think they are weird.

HomoCons, and others in similar situations, must understand something. The conservative community was never made to include you. The liberal community is here for you. In the liberal community you can also lead a traditionalist life (like me). Why bother going to a party where you are not wanted at all?

Home Ground vs Battleground

2011-07-13T07:08:00.000-07:00

To win in a battle, we must have a secure home ground, and confidence to fight in our battlegrounds. The battle of liberalism vs conservatism is no exception.

Our battlegrounds are both defined by us, where we see a lack of freedom or equality, and by other people, where they provoked us by an attack on freedom. Sometimes it can be a combination of both. For example, in the campaign for marriage equality we indeed need to rectify the inequality that exists (whether by equal marriage or other means), so there's no denying that we are actively changing the status quo. On the other hand, our opponents have provoked us by an attack on freedom for example by constitutional amendments in some US states not only outlawing same-sex marriage, but also the government recognition of civil unions.

However, our home ground should be completely defined by us, and independent of the battleground. It is how we define our culture, our relationships, our families and our lives. It is what makes us strong.

Liberals Can Hold Any View Regarding Drug Policy

2011-07-13T07:04:00.000-07:00

I once said that it is not invalid for liberals to hold a zero-tolerance view on drug policy, and I provided the justification for it. However, I probably should clarify that liberals can hold any position on the matter, and I am not suggesting that a zero-tolerance policy be the new default for liberals either. Liberalism is a broad camp, and besides basic issues like respect for the secular state, a basic standard of living for all, freedom on social issues, freedom of religion and the like, I guess a diversity of opinions should be accommodated.

The Moral Value of Liberalism

2011-07-12T05:51:00.001-07:00

My support for liberalism comes from a moral perspective. I first became a liberal when I came to a conclusion that the state must step out and let each individual make their own moral decisions. The freedom to do the right thing is indeed the freedom to do anything that does not harm another, even if it may be politically or religiously incorrect, or not fitting in with the prevailing views of the age.

I now have a second reason for supporting liberalism. When people are not afraid of being persecuted or punished for their lifestyle choices, then we will regain the ability to state why we prefer a certain lifestyle without offending others. Let me explain with an example. Once in an opinion piece I outlined my reasons for disagreeing with polyamory. A few polyamorists hit back at me immediately saying I was being offensive to them. I was actually merely upholding my preference of lifelong monogamy. Although I wasn't being hostile, they still perceived hostility, perhaps because they know much of society persecute them. In effect, this limits freedom of speech, in a way that a society that doesn't persecute or discriminate against anyone would not.

Why Abortion Would Never be Outlawed Under Liberalism

2011-07-10T03:53:00.001-07:00

I am pro-life myself. If I were an ob/gyn I would not perform an abortion, for example.

Not all liberals have to be pro-choice in their own conscience. But liberals cannot support outlawing abortion, no matter pro-life and pro-choice. This we can agree on, and this will hopefully form the liberal consensus on abortion. Here's why.

Liberals believe in limited government when it comes to social issues. We are committed to limited government here because unlike in economic issues, for the maximum amount of freedom in society (so that everyone can determine their own morality and life rules), government just needs to step out most of the time when it is not invited. This limited government means that government only deals with issues affecting more than one legal person, in which conflict may arise between them in some way. For example, governments ought to prohibit killing and stealing, because it violates the right of another legal being.

On the other hand, many people believe the slaughtering of pigs and cows to be immoral. Yet there is no law against this, as pigs and cows are not legal persons. Sure vegans around the world can unite and pressure the government to make a law banning all animal slaughtering, but that's not liberal, isn't it?

The same goes for abortion, I believe. The fetus may be life, but it is not a human being that exists physically independently of another and can be proven to have an independent human conscience - at least not yet. Therefore it cannot be a legal citizen under law. That's why you cannot get a passport for a fetus, just as you cannot get a passport for your dog. As for the 'it will potentially become a human being' argument, well, you can't extend citizenship to sperm and eggs too, can you? The law is not about 'potential human beings' but actual human beings.

For the record, I do believe that abortion is the killing of an unborn baby, but that does not matter in this debate. It is not whether the fetus is a life, or even a human life, but whether the law should be concerned about a fetus. And if you are liberal, you shouldn't believe it should. While I believe Roe vs Wade will eventually be overturned, I believe this should be the constitutional basis for the lack of government intrusion into abortion in the future in every liberal democracy.

Conservative Abrahamics who want Political Control are Incompatible with my Brand of Liberalism

2011-07-10T03:04:00.000-07:00

Conservative believers of Abrahamic religions who seek to transform the politics of their country to fit with their beliefs are incompatible with my brand of liberalism. In fact, I believe they are so dangerous and opposed to our cause that we ought to oppose everything they do politically unless there is a good reason to support it, sort of like how Australian politicians have shunned Pauline Hanson.

This incompatibility is seen in the diametrically opposite outcomes we pursue. Whilst liberal Jews, Christians and Muslims have made many great contributions to our awareness about social justice and our work towards world peace, their conservative counterparts are a hinderance to social justice in general. For example, many American conservative Christians actually believe in right wing extreme capitalism. Conservative Abrahamics also do not have time for equal rights for gay and lesbian people, and I have seen some who have said that this difference is one of the main reasons they can't stand their liberal counterparts.

This incompatibility is theological too. Whilst our liberal belief tells us that government is for sorting out the rights and conflicts of individual citizens, conservative Abrahamics believe that the government ought to be an agent of God who punishes those who are 'wrongdoers' in their eyes. They have to realise that this is a terrifying fascist idea in the minds of many liberals like us.

In particular, conservative Christians are currently aiming for more control of the state of politics in the Western world. This is incompatible with our program, and therefore if we are serious about the liberal ideal we should help to thwart their attempts at controlling politics everywhere.

NY on Marriage Equality - My Opinion

2011-07-05T08:13:00.001-07:00

We congratulate the New York senate for passing marriage equality. We would like to thank both the democrats leading the way and the equality-supporting republicans.

The usual allies for equality, including Lady Gaga, took to twitter to celebrate. I was busy yesterday so I'm late to the party, but this is me adding my congratulations to New York.

New York is a place cities around the world aspire to be like. This will definitely put more pressure on the rest of the world to get their act together. Marriage equality supporters in Australia have immediately turned to put the pressure on Julia Gillard to drop her stupid support of discriminatory marriage (that's what we will call 'traditional marriage' from now on), for example. Good work!

Anthony Weiner and how We Liberals Lost Our Plot

2011-06-09T00:07:00.000-07:00

In the wake of the Anthony Weiner scandal, opinions are flying about all over America. However, one particularly interesting piece I found was from Frank Schaeffer, famous for quitting the religious right and joining us instead.

He makes a point about the excessive obsession over 'sexual liberation' by liberals since the 1960s. And this is a very good point to make. After all, as he notes, this has made liberals look like we are all about tearing down the standards that underlie family values. And I am going to tell you: we aren't about that. We are all about freedom and fairness, nothing more, nothing less. I actually believe 'sexual liberation' is so outdated now, and was never accurate to begin with. The only things that have anything to do with 'sex' that we support, women's rights and gay rights should go under the civil rights banner.

By TaraElla (News, Website)

What Liberal Communities Should Not Tolerate

2011-05-28T05:17:00.000-07:00

I have always advocated for the liberal community not to become an echo chamber, where only people of certain lifestyle beliefs can feel comfortable. However, there are certain lines that need to be drawn. Bringing in facets of the religious right into the liberal community, like what some politicians have tried to do to 'bring us together', is definitely not appreciated.

For example, whilst liberals can be pro-life, they cannot base that on their Holy Book, but must instead argue from a scientific viewpoint. Again if they are against stem-cell research they need to argue their case scientifically. Whilst liberals can believe in evolution or creationism, they cannot try to blur the line between science and religion by having creationism taught in science classes. Liberals are also not allowed to be racist or homophobic in any case. Liberals are allowed to believe that being atheist or being religious is morally more helpful, but are not allowed to condone the differential treatment of the religious vs the atheistic, and are further not allowed to condone differential treatment of different religions in society, unless they violate other liberal principles.

There is a clear line between liberalism and conservatism and I don't believe there can be a wishy-washy in between unless you really don't know what you believe in.

The Real Agenda Behind Covenant Marriage

2011-05-28T01:01:00.000-07:00

Much has been made of Mike Huckabee and his love of 'covenant marriage'. Whilst I do agree with having a separate stream of relationship arrangements for people who are committed enough to not want the option of 'no-fault divorce', some liberals have suggested that Huckabee's real aim is to make the legal definition of marriage fit his holy book's definition.

To that, I propose a solution. Create a new stream of relationship arrangements for people who are extra committed, but do not include it under the banner of marriage. This leaves the legal definition of marriage (if one is required) untainted by religious fundamentalism.

The Real Agenda of the Religious Pro-Life in America

2011-05-27T21:59:00.000-07:00

I am sort of pro-life myself. I mean, whilst I don't want to outlaw abortion, I do want more welfare for single mothers and also families in general so that abortion can be avoided. Too many abortions are currently due to economic circumstances, and as a society if we don't fix this we are plain uncivilised. On the other hand, outlawing abortion will just drive it underground and does nothing good really.

However, the religious right in America don't care about all this. They ONLY want to outlaw abortion - no talk of actually reducing abortion numbers. I guess it's because they want secular law to conform to their religious book's law - to them this is probably more important than the actual fate of unborn babies. That's why I am very opposed to the so-called pro-life movement in America.

Let's Pay Stay-at-home Moms an Allowance

2011-05-27T21:55:00.000-07:00

Feminists just have to face this - a significant proportion of mothers would love to be stay-at-home moms. And there's not a problem with this choice - it's because of their nature, and it's a very legitimate choice.

Some have raised concerns about this making them dependent on men. I say, it doesn't have to be this way. The government can pay stay-at-home moms an allowance to allow them to be financially independent, in lieu of childcare services. This should also apply to single moms. While we are at it, let's extend it to home dads too.