The Senate, pink Aussie flags and 5000 bums
Posted by Mathew | March 8, 2010 | No Comments
Last Monday morning (1 March 2010), on the fabled steps of the Sydney Opera House, photographer Spencer Tunick – world renown for his photos of mass nudity – snapped a five-thousand strong contingent of butt-naked nudites under the House’s white sails.
Said Mr Tunick of the event, “Gay men and women lay naked next to their straight neighbours and this delivered a very strong message to the world that Australians embrace a free and equal society.”
Australians have been demonstrating “a free and equal society” for pretty much most of its recent history (yes, ok – many could state that that statement has a fair bit of contention, but by and large I hold it to be accurate). And any Australian worth his salt should fight to retain such a society – I certainly do. But just what a bunch of naked people, gays and straights alike, do to further promote equality in Australia is a little mystifying. What equality was it supposed to be advocating? That we’re all human, despite our sexuality? Ok, check. That we believe in equal sunburn for all? – Ok, I jest. What about: that nudists have as much right to sit on the steps of the Opera House as clothed people? … er. I’m pretty sure the same equality could have been demonstrated without the nudity – what’s more, families who also believe in equality may have participated, too. But I guess the mass nudity kind of precludes any notion that families ought to be involved in this display of equality. I don’t know of any parent who’d feel comfortable with their pre-teen children masquerading amongst five-thousand leering nudes. (Not to mention the few hiding around the parklands or in office buildings and apartments, etc., with their telescopes and binoculars. Though I’m sure there would have been some measure of policing going on to try to catch any peeping Toms.)
But of course, reading between the lines, and taking the queue from Mr Tunick’s statement, the nude-shoot was to be connected to the issue of gay rights. After all, the event was specifically organised to run directly after the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.
… at which point, my comment about families still stands.
The Sydney Mardi Gras boasted a nine-thousand strong parade of drags, guys hugging each other in their CKs, a troupe of George Michael clones and Australian flags stripped of their royal blue for a stark shade of pink, among other things. While I’m aware these parades were originally begun to canvas for gay rights, I’m not sure what other rights they’re still lacking that the events need continue. Apparently, now, the events are held to garner support for the alternate lifestyle – as one spectator mentioned, “We want them to know that we don’t care that they’re gay.” Well, I can wholeheartedly say the same thing – as would the majority of Australians, I’d wager – so can they stop with parading their sexuality now? After all, I thought one’s sexuality was a private affair and that one oughtn’t go snooping into another’s bedroom?
(And for what its worth, I’d object to a similar public display of heterosexuality. It’s just not called for.)
Of course, arguably one of the reasons behind both of these events was likely a continued push for the oxymoronic notion of same-sex marriage. It would seem that some (and it really is some – it’s certainly not all) in the gay and lesbian community aren’t satisfied with equal rights, they want super-rights, something that no-one is currently entitled to do: marry someone of the same-sex. To ask for such a thing is really to ask for the nonsensical – as I’ve written before. It may be overly coincidental, but on the Thursday (25 February 2010) before both the Mardis Gras and the nude-shoot, the Australian Senate voted on the Greens’ Marriage Equality Amendment Bill. The Bill failed, as was expected (and was in accord with the recommendation put forth by the Senate Inquiry that researched the Bill), having garnered only five votes – and those were from the Greens’ own Senators.
Wisely, Liberals Senator George Brandis stated that the Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, voluntarily entered into for life, is non-discriminatory* – a factually correct statement – and that every country has restrictions that ought to be protected for the good of the wider society.
(*I would add, further, that marriage rights are not afforded to heterosexuals because they are heterosexuals; in fact, marriage rights are not afforded on sexuality at all. A right to marry is afforded on the complementariness of the sexes, as this is what marriage means – a union of the two halves of humanity, male and female. In such a meaning, there is no discrimination but a holistic equality of both genders.)
Such restrictions are in place for the good of society; no freedoms can be granted without adequate restrictions to protect them. A society without restrictions is a society that will crumble into chaos. And no one wants that to happen – whether they be gay or straight.
By all means, let’s protect and continue to promote this grand equality and the freedoms shared by all Australians. But let’s Endeavour to do this with our sails on, huh?
References:
- Mardi Gras Parade Struts Through Sydney
- Senate Votes Down Same-Sex Marriage Bill
- Over 5000 Go Naked at Sydney Opera House
Related Thoughts out !oud posts
Tags: culture > homosexuality > same-sex marriage > sexuality > Spencer Tunick > ssm
Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to my thoughts!
