Lost Boy Tootles

This is, by the way, jargon. Prepare yourself. But, I do think if you’re going to talk to these people, you may as well address them in their own language.

Dear Greg,Although my understanding is that you’ve already submitted your results for the national survey on the question of same sex marriage, I thought I ought to write to you to give you some idea of my view, as a constituent of yours. I’ll try to keep the points fairly short.
Firstly, it was a bit of a shock to find that I was attracted to members of my own sex, and that in itself is, I believe, something. To begin to understand that there is some exclusive and hostile element to society, which will keep you permanently ostracized and limit the nature of any romantic relationship I could have, was a little difficult to believe. These are no longer the opinions I hold regarding my sexuality, but to have seriously believed that to be the case at about 11 years old seems to contradict the type of social atmosphere that the industrially developed states generally try to create. More important than anything else I’ve got to say about this subject is that society really ought to come to some less antagonised position on ‘alternate’ sexualities (and, for that matter, ‘alternate’ gender identities). I do not think a kid should have to freak out about the rest of their lives, and how legitimate a citizen they can be, at such an age or with regard to such an unimportant question. Obviously that would require a more homogenized, accepting attitude towards the sexuality question than Parliament could begin to generate, but this brings me to my next point.
The importance of legislation regarding sexuality.For whatever reason, even in this modern age of appalling political discourse and aimless political ‘movements’, it seems to me that a large part of the population still looks to the democratic process and elected leaders for some abject notion of moral justification. That situation, of course, ought to be reversed, but the alienated nature of modern politics has managed to create a rule from above approach. Impressive, in so far as it has managed to turn a pretty bad economic system into an internationally despotic one, but this perhaps is an issue best left for another discussion. However, the implication for members of parliament such as yourself is to begin to act as a kind of guide to public sentiment. Much as I resent that this is the case, at this point in democratic history, one would be childish to ignore it.So Greg, let me push the point. For parliament to recognise same sex marriage would, in a sense, be a guiding act. It would be an act of solidarity with the principles originally outlined for the construction of the modern state (I refer here to Rousseau, Montesquieu etc) as well as with the marginalised groups of people that the act seeks to assist. More importantly, it would be a public declaration by Parliament that, in short, it is ‘ok to be gay’. Such terminology I dare say would be avoided in legislation, but that is the nature of the sentiment it would confer. The beginning of a changing attitude would, I suspect, be speeded by such a declaration. In short, worth it. For the ‘law to be on one’s side’ is, still, something.
A rebuttal of arguments against same sex marriage.This I simply will not give. In the ‘free’ world, the onus remains on conservatives to demonstrate ‘why not’, and the ‘why’ in regards to a civil liberty is wholly besides the point. I have heard the arguments that claim the apocalypse comes in the form of a same sex marriage act, that social degradation is the invariable outcome on women holding hands, that to pass such legislation is to declare war on the Church. Also the argument that this right for homosexuals is the restriction of rights for religion. Such arguments have outraged me in the past, but it is often no longer possible for me to take them seriously at all. So, I will refuse to answer the claims with a serious rebuttal, and allow you to decide whether ‘it’ll all end’ for yourself.
The unimportance of the question of same sex marriageHonestly, it seems the case that very few people I have encountered take this question very seriously. And really, I completely agree with them. We have a democratic system in a frightful state, an economy efficient only for the upper class (as, I’m afraid, is wont to be the case in a competitive economy), and a national future completely uncertain, for lack of any attempt at foresight (this, I think, is the inevitable result of abandoning ideology and playing the party politics game, as well as the end of coherency for the english language. I think it’s worth pointing out that, of all of Orwell’s predictions, this seems to have become realised most prevelantly). It seems that the sooner we have same sex marriage, the sooner politics can get on with broader issues. And I do think that the stubbornness of campaigners will tire long after the public’s and Parliament’s do. I know such a description may give you the impression that I consider the campaigners to be something like nagging children, which I don’t really feel at all, but I’m sure you see the point I want to make. Give them what they want, for after all, whom will it hurt?The question of marriage is also, in my opinion, unimportant in relation to the LGBTI community anyway. The other more damning concerns, especially regarding social acceptance of trans gender and trans sexual peoples, get no attention so long as we do not have same sex marriage. There is also adoption, for example, as another issue. I suppose it seems to me that the more fuss that is made over the marriage question, the less that other, more pressing and yet near-invisible issues, will be addressed. 
I’ve never been much of a finisher Greg, so this’ll have to do. If I might summarise, I suppose I’d encourage you to get this issue out of the way and just legalise it. You’d be doing the future of Australia a considerable favour. 
Sincerely,
Tomas Johnson