Marriage equality? Why not?

In the recent years, a real revolutionary idea gains support all over Europe and other regions of our world: Marriage equality for all human beings, or more simply the debate for civil partnerships and gay marriages.

Until  now, marriage was considered an institution that applied only between a man and a woman. That is what our religion and traditions taught us. On that belief we formed our societies and all moral laws to make them work and be coherent. So is it any wonder that any radical change in this institution, finds so many conservatives radically opposing it!


Well it is always one corrupt establishment that is staunchly against gay marriage and anything coming from the gay community: The Church. Especially the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches in Europe are the worse offenders. The Protestant Churches are more tolerant, that is why we see in those countries more progress and acceptance.

When the priests preach about "God's will" isn't it ironic that they think that love between two men or two women is shameful, punishable and unchristian, yet the rape of boys and abuse of many children in general committed by them, especially by the Catholic Church is something that they can commit and get away with it? For centuries the priests, monks and nuns of the Catholic Church were abusing and raping children all over Europe, Africa and Latin America. What a hypocrisy!

And all this because the Church is dominated by corrupt, narrow minded bigoted males. No gay man or woman will ever find peace and equality as long as these men are allowed to pour their bile and poison Christianity's true message, that is a message of love and tolerance.

And what about other regions of the world? In a recent article published in the Economist, we read about the unhappy marriages that many women in China suffer, simply because their husbands are gay. To hide their homosexuality they marry unsuspected women. But these marriages of course are loveless, sad unions. So both men and the women they marry fall victims of the society's outdated "morality." So there goes Asia's and other conservative countries' argument that homosexuality is a "western disease".

In many regions of Africa, Japan, India, and the Arab states, they boast that homosexuals simply do not exist in their countries and only western countries "suffer" from this disease. Well in the above mentioned article we see why. Unhappy marriages, unhappy lives, forced to live together with a person that you do not love or are attracted to. And what a pity for those women too. Cultures like these just create unhappy and unproductive people, easy to manipulate and guide; human robots.

Because human sexuality is highly linked with human creativity and freedom of thought. If you can express yourself freely sexually, then you can express yourself creatively in all other spheres of your life. Suppress the first and then you control all the other. That has been and is happening in Europe and the "West" in general as we speak.

And it is why the Christian Church like most oppressive religions like Islam, Judaism Catholicism and so on, the first thing they do is to suppress human sexuality, outcast homosexuality and even ban masturbation itself!! No wonder this world has so many messed up people. It is a crime against humanity, and if I could, I would sue any religion and its leaders that promotes such barbaric ideologies for crimes against humanity.


So many "straight" people do not reach their full potential because some of them are just breeders. Their only purpose in this world is to make children. And not only raise children, but make sure they baptize them as soon as possible and initiate them into a dogma or religion. "Multiply the flock of God!" As if they have no other use or grace. But then they simply remain in their animal status and never progress as human beings intellectually or spiritually, if their only use is to procreate and the only legacy they leave behind is their children.

 You see, some people have only yin in them. Some others have only yang and they desperately are trying to find the opposite to feel whole and fulfilled. They can not exist unless they are in some union with the oposite sex only. Some people though have both yin and yang in them, so they do not need the opposite sex to feel fulfilled.

They only need another human being of any sex or orientation, that will be able to connect with them spiritually, emotionally, mentally and physically. Who would you value more; a wife beater husband, an alcoholic dad, a useless mother and bad wife, or a person with developed spirituality and intellect, no matter of what sex, age, color or sexuality he or she belongs!

Marriages should be among two human souls, not just two farm animals that procreate and produce more workers. I know I put it a bit bluntly, but that's what it is. Any two people who want to share their lives together, should be able to do so. We only find gay "marriages" weird and a threat because we are used to see only "straight" ones.

 Besides, we do not discuss of having two men, one in a dress and one in a tuxedo in a church, having the exact same ceremony as a straight couple. Rather about a legal platform, that will give both gay and straight marriages the same and equal status.

To protect two lovers that live together for years from any legal action by the family of either party, in the case of one of them passes. Or in the case of any legal action of one party against the other in the case that  the relationship ends.

Or give the same protection and rights in a case that one partner is a non-EU national, just as any straight person can have his/her rights protected when he/she marries an EU national. So in other words, marriage equality should be passed in a pan-European level and accepted, protected and promotes in all European states. There should be no divisions on this issue either.

And how about adoption? Well for the moment I do not favor such move as I believe it is too soon for a society to digest both the marriage and the adoption. Not that I believe that gay parents are any less competent in raising a child than a straight couple. If any alcoholic, drug user, violent criminal or a religious fanatic can have the right to have children, then why not a gay person?

I just think that it will take some time for our societies to fully accept a child that comes from a gay marriage. And for the child's best interests, I think that for the moment we should focus on pushing for marriage equality.

That of course should not exclude the case of one parent already having one or more children from a straight relationship, to have his/her gay partner able to adopt these children if their natural parent proves unwilling to contribute to their upbringing.

Or he/she is simply dead. Many women find themselves in gay relationships with other women after an abusive marriage to a man and in many cases they are already mothers. If their former husbands are unfitting or indifferent in the upbringing of their children, why can't the new gay partner of that mother adopt the children and provide for them?

Having said that, I find that many people in the gay community are not ready either for such progressive changes. They simply do not understand the concept of love, because nobody has taught them that during their lives. Many gay people are lost in obsessions, sexual addictions, fear, various complexes and a constant search to find themselves, to be able to commit to one person and only, or even worse have children.

 I do not blame them. They have been systematically bullied, mocked, forced to live a double secret life and it is not wonder that they seem lost. But they will only recover and act as normal human beings, when the society stops discriminating against them, slander them and mock them in every chance they get.

It is simply what I have said above: the destructive influence of religion's indoctrination and fanatic dogmas against human sexuality for many centuries, that created empty shelled people, messed up, desperately in need in finding acceptance, love and a purpose. Many gay people live their lives as "normal" straight people, only to seek the occasional sexual experience in a public space to satisfy their needs.

Sex is what identifies them as homosexuals and for them it is usually something shameful and they try to hide it, never accepting it. Others feel that homosexuality is a "culture" and they identify themselves only through the gay community and certain bars, music artists, bands, occasions, events or programs. In other words they broke out of the ghetto bars or parks that gay people used to meet in secret to satisfy their sexual needs, only to create a new ghetto, this time in their own minds!

For me being gay is only a part of who one person is, not who she/he is. And I dream that one day, people will chose their partners not according to age, sex, sexual orientation, color, race, religion or ethnic background. Rather to what they see in the other person's soul and heart, according to compatibility, common traits, values, according to chemistry, attraction and the emotions that one evoke to another. Simply two souls embracing and loving each other, not two mammals that need to procreate.

Not that I am against marriage between members of the opposite sex. On the contrary I believe that finding a person that can be your other half and spend your life with, turning the "me" into "we" is the greatest achievement that one can achieve. The ultimate challenge and goal that any human being should strive to achieve, in order to grow as a spirit and entity.

But in some cases our other half is not necessarily what we would expect it to be, of the race, sex or age that we would expect. So why waste or limit so much potential? And remember, not too many decades ago, it was unthinkable for a person of one race to marry a member of another race! I hope soon one day we will end the taboo of sex and sexual orientation too.

Should Catalonia and Scotland become independent?

On September 11th, 2012, a march in favor of self-determination was held in Catalonia, with city police estimating that up to 1.5 million people took part. And this comes not long after the announcement that Scotland will have a referendum in 2014 regarding its independence from the United Kingdom! How will Europe look like in the future and what new challenges await us all with the new change of the continent's borders?

If those two countries (or regions) achieve their goal of independence, then how many more in Europe are likely to follow suit? Wallonia, Sardinia, Corsica, Wales and perhaps many more regions will bid for independence. Are we prepared for this new reality, and what impact will all this have in our continent's future politics and economy?

Personally I am split between supporting the will and the wishes of the people of those regions and being a bit more cautious on the impact that this will have in an already troublesome European economy. I am just not sure that now is the time for such moves; in fact sadly, I believe that it is time for more unity.

Part of me thinks: what is the point of having too many new states in Europe, since we are working for European integration? A more federal Spain, United Kingdom or any other state that faces the same issues, perhaps would be a better solution. Give them more freedoms for self governance. Because I am sure when they gain their independence from Spain, they will rejoin the EU as Catalonia or Scotland. Thus still have no borders between them and still not being totally independent from them.

One of the main arguments the separatists put forward to support their bid, is that Catalonia contributes 20% of Spain’s GDP but only receive back 14%. But that is true for any country! Is it all about money again?  I was talking to a Finnish lady once, and she told me that the South Finland contributes and sustains the Northern part of the country that has very few natural resources. The Helsinki region in fact supports the north! “We send them bucket-loads of money” she said, when we compared Finland and Europe as money transfers from region to region is concerned!

She supported the idea that poorer regions in Europe should get money from richer regions of Europe, as in Finland, the south supports the north! That would be true for most countries. In Greece we have the same problem, in Italy too. Should we start breaking up all countries up? Shall we make a regional Europe, with many small regions being autonomous, while all be governed by one entity in Brussels? And if we achieve that, how easy will it be with so many smaller but more numerous voices in EU to reach to an agreement? We are having troubles now as it is!

Why don’t we create federations within a greater federation, so while Catalonia, Scotland, Corsica, Sardinia, Walloon and any other regions that wish to have more independence, remain in a more federal state formation, they will be governed in local-national, state-federal and European level? They will have their own government and parliament that will cooperate, answer and send their representatives to the Spanish one and the Spanish will do the same in its relations with the European one.

Of course that is only when the economy is concerned. There are many other issues involved, like protecting the Catalan language, culture and heritage. According to many Catalans, new laws appear from Madrid  everyday that take more and more control of Catalan culture and language.

So perhaps the change must come on a Spanish front, not just Catalonia? If the loss of language and identity is being promoted by Madrid then we are talking about potentially a full Spanish state dissolution if the Basques, the Galicians and others follow the example of Catalonia. Perhaps with the encouragement of the EU, Spain should promote more diversity of its culture and heritage. Follow the European motto: Unity in diversity!!

And of course we should be careful on how this dissolution will take place: the Yugoslavian way or the Czechoslovakian way? In most ex-Yugoslavian states, there are still supporters of Tito that remember the Yugoslavian days with a sense of longing. And they all now aspire to become EU members, thus giving up their short lived independence too soon.

Is now the best time to promote dissolution of states in Europe? How will the global markets and economy react and will this shake their confidence on the Spanish region and the euro? Possibly the Spanish region as a whole will find itself in the eye of new a storm, affecting all regions of the former Spanish state. Will such a solution be wise now, and what impact will it have in the overall Iberian and European economy? If Spain dissolves as a country, will this be the solution to the country's economic woes, or the creation of more and will the global investors be happy to invest in new emerging regions?

Perhaps this is what the global players want. To end the existence of old established European states, thus getting rid of the rigidity of the established European elites and their conservatism. So they promote, support and perhaps even fund this new surge of independence bids across Europe. Probably this is good. We need new voices and a fresh air in European politics.

But could it be possible to give the regions their autonomy in a Europe of regions? It is possible that what we need right now is a Europe of regions with their own culture, identity and governance under the umbrella of a European economic and political framework. But that means a redrawing not so much of the borders, rather the institutions and legislative powers that govern Europe so far. Are we ready for this? Should we perhaps focus on establishing a fully functioning European democracy and governance, before we move to the dissolution of the existing European states? Perhaps such moves come a bit prematurely.

Are we ready as Europeans to accept this new reality and start thinking as citizens of a region, rather a nation state? I do not wish to block any attempts for independence from any populace of Europe. Because if that was the case, then Ireland, the country I live in or Greece, the country I come from, should have never gained independence from their former colonial powers. Nevertheless, Ireland is still highly reliant in the United Kingdom or the USA economically and culturally and Greece still struggles economically as a county, relying in a great extend on Europe.

There are many reasons of course for this, that lay on the interests of people both in those countries, Europe and further abroad. But perhaps the Catalonians should be careful not to rush in any decisions and become reliant to any foreign country, group or organization, in their struggle to gain independence from Spain. What good does it make to have many small fragmented states in Europe, that are easier to manipulate? Are the Catalonians rushing to jump from the pan into the pot? Will they become what have FYROM and Montenegro become in their struggle to attract foreign investment and support, to fund their existence; another potential tax haven for big corporations!

I will respect the outcome of both referendums in Catalonia and Scotland of course and I will support the wish of the majority of the population of those nations. But I also wish that they will decide responsibly and not because a passing surge of nationalism!!

Are private owned charity agencies doing any good to the countries in need?

When I was growing up as a kid in Greece, I remember that almost every year my mother was buying notepads of UNICEF for me to use at school. Just so that we did our little bit to help their cause.

We were watching so many advertisements on our television set about the humanitarian emergency that some parts of the world were facing, so we were moved by all the images we were exposed to.

I am now a 35 year old man and one would think that nearly 30 years later, the campaigns to save the "poor kids of Africa" would be a thing of the past.

Well they aren't. After so many charity events, concerts like LIVE AID and LIVE8, high profile campaigns all over the world and many new NGOs and private charity organizations like Concern and Barnados, the continent of Africa still needs help.

Where are we going wrong? It is doubtful that it's only the African leadership's fault, that their continent is still lacking the development that other parts of the world have achieved. Though Africa is not the only region of the so called "Third World" suffering, just the worse hit. Humanity can not progress any further if we leave those regions behind. How can we tackle the situation and is charity and the provision of loans the answer to this problem?

Most of us when we think of the African continent, two main images usually come first into our minds: its wildlife and its poverty. Images of lions, elephants, giraffes and zebras, together with children barely alive from hunger in Africa's slums. These are the usual images that we are exposed to and coming out from this continent.

If you ask any African immigrant in Europe though, he/she will tell you that these images often offend them. They do not always portray the real life in Africa, apart from some poverty stricken regions. Most Africans do not identify with those images.

We rarely see anything about the lifestyle of the average African family, it simply doesn't "sell!" Nobody would give money to support a well established African family. Besides, these practices also help supporting the idea that Africa desperately needs more aid, when in reality all it needs is investments. With loans and "aid" is easier to control, corrupt and manipulate the African governing elites. With direct investments we offer permanent solutions, but with loans we can control an indebted country for decades to come.

So what is the role of private NGOs in the whole story? First of all, it is their advertisements that brainwashes us to associate Africa only with poverty, just as we relate Greece with tax evasion and corruption now. We have been doing the same on Africa for decades.

Little do we know how rich Africa is actually. Underneath its fertile soil lie vast natural resources that other nations, multinationals and corporations want to get access to. The same "trick" is used today in countries like Greece and we witnessed it happening in Latin America too. The global capitalist elites like to throw more debt on a country or region, then get its natural resources for nothing.

Most of Africa's countries were formed not too many decades ago. Creating a nation from scraps is not easy, especially when you have to deal with the legacy of colonization. The European colonizers made sure their very successful policy of divide and rule was applied all over the continent and in result, it created many inter-ethnic or religious wars and tensions. So when the African countries gained their freedom, the old hatred that the colonizers promoted remained and it kept working its corrosive way into African life.

Generally the problem is that it is good business for some to keep promoting these stereotypical images. "Charity" is profitable. And how can they keep this business alive? By advertizing the "need" and "urgency" to help a dying child. As disgusting as it may sound, dying children always sell.

Some of these charities have done a lot of good and have helped in building and restoring communities. But their actions do not offer a permanent solution. This is not the way to help a region in need with long term results. The only way to achieve this is with direct investments.

We should be helping these countries to learn how to exploit their natural resources and utilize all their potential. Imagine if Africa was as free to develop and reach its full potential, how the rest of the world would look like? If we did not have the developing countries to "offer" their cheap first materials like Africa, or the cheap work force of some Asian countries like India, things would be much different for all.

Of course recently Africa enjoys a growth rate that is much higher of that in Europe, but there are still huge economic disparities between the developed and the "third" world. And if Europe and America remain in recession for long, Africa alone won't be able to sustain its growth rates. The solution would be to promote the setting up of industries in Africa, engage in fair trade and Europe, America, as well as other countries should lower their protectionist policies.

The African nations should then be able to exploit their natural resources and trade them in the global markets for the benefit of their people first. The rest of the world should be investing in the continent not with aid and loans, but with factories and jobs, universities and hospitals.

Another worthy initiative is the promotion of local businesses. Not just in Africa, but in every other region of the world including Europe itself, to deal with the economic crisis. Encourage local businessmen to create new jobs and with them will come prosperity and stability, education, more industries and investments from abroad and withing the region.


To conclude, if you agree that the three decade saga of "aid" to Africa and the rest of the "third" world has gone too far, then it is time to change attitudes. Besides, Europe as the biggest donor on our planet, can not keep up with this. Most of our continent is gripped by a recession. And above all, it is not ethical to portray a whole continent as we have been so far, forcing them to seek jobs elsewhere and then blaming them for coming into our countries.

How can we tackle global inequality?

During the past few years we notice the issue of the "inclusive growth," (i.e. economic growth that is broad-based and benefits the majority of the population).

The last decade has seen the steady rise of developing countries across the world, led by the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China). However, rapid economic growth has often been accompanied by rising inequality (Debating Europe).

How can we expect to have equality in this world, when our very our civilization and nature of our economies are capitalist. Meaning that we all are constantly striving to accumulate ever increasing wealth at any cost.

The only thing our economies and countries must work to achieve is growth. More money and power gathered into the hands of few. This greedy attitude is the root of all evil that our world experiences. Once a group of people or countries get rich or powerful enough, then all they are trying to do is accumulate more wealth, plus trying to prevent others of getting access to it. Because if too many nations have access to the same amount of wealth, that results to less of it for the already wealthy.

Under these conditions, how can we promote equality in the world? In reality such idea is only a utopia that will never be fully achieved. But at least we can try to make our societies a bit more equal and less painful for those in the lower classes. Because if we want to try to achieve absolute equality, then we have to proceed with wealth redistribution among the different levels of societies and among states and regions.Something that the rich nations would no doubt oppose.

So in a utopia vision, which most likely will never come to reality, the following should be achieved in order to achieve equality.

a) Reduce the importance of all tax haven states, if not scrapping their taxation policies and encourage them to integrate in a bigger state or international organization for their survival. The only purpose of their existence is to promote tax evasion. How on earth can we tackle such issue, when we have countries on our planet that they are fostering it and of course make profit out of it.

b) Limit the power of the banks and the markets, or at least regulate them. Create rating agencies in Europe and Asia or other regions so that we will have more competition in this industry too. Now the whole world is rated according to American interests, their way of doing business and mentality. Not necessarily the right one for all nations or cultures.

c) Scrap the Security Council in the UN, or at least reform it. The countries in it are still representing the post WW2 status quo of global power. The permanent members are the world's so called "super-powers," (USA, China, Russia, France and Britain). The non permanent members are selected for a two year membership, that can be from any region of the world. How can a small African country that is elected for just two years can make any real difference representing its region's interests, when having to deal with giants like the USA and Russia?


d) Allow all countries to be able to exploit their natural resources without the intervention of third parties, blocks, corporations or countries. The main problem is that some countries are free to exploit their natural resources freely for the benefit of their people like Norway, yet in other regions the global players and powers are corrupting the national elites of a certain country with money.

So that they will sell out their national resources for scraps, benefiting only the political elites and those corporations/groups/countries involved. How can we talk about “equality” when there are forces who promote inequality by corrupting the political elites of certain states?

e) Promote transnational organizations and formations like the EU, to promote integration and break the traditional “national” politics. In some countries like Greece and Ireland, politics are still decided under the influence and legacy of the divisive post civil war politics. All these countries suffered bloody and destructive civil wars that left a mark in the political life of the state, until today.

There are usually two main parties that represent the two rival sides of the civil war and traditionally families vote according to their family’s allegiance to each. How can we ever move on and progress with this mentality? We need a new blood of thinker politicians with a vision, not an ideology.

f) Reform the capitalist system, stop the accumulation of money and power in some corporations, states or organizations at any cost. Reverse the growth oriented GDP economy and focus in creating a fair society that works, not a society that knows only to consume. Control the influence of the markets and the rating agencies, that are pushing for growth evermore.

If “growth” means that we as a society have to go backwards, scraping all worker’s rights and quality of life of our citizens in the name of "growth" and "competitiveness," then it is immoral. Also health and education should be free for all and not be privatized, they are a human right not a commodity.

g) Stop the "commodification" of everything: from fish to land, plants, animals, natural resources and soon even the water or the air that we breath and even worse, the "commodification" of people themselves. When we are talking about work force and the so called "labor market" that must be flexible, non-permanent with as less social rights as possible, then we are turning humans into another asset.

Any country with strong social policies is avoided by the "investors" and is considered as "less competitive." It is heaven for them after all, to have workers that work a lot with as little money as possible. How can we expect young people to create families, to start up a career or a new life, when we create unfavorable conditions for them to get a job, unless they get exploited.

h) No to privatizations of all natural resources. A nation's government must have at least partial control over them. A country's government represents the democratically elected by the people decision makers, they are their voice and the care takers of these resources. Their best interest and those of the people are better served when the resources are under the control of the government.

Foreign multinationals do not care about the people, the environment or any issues that may arise. Their only care is to make profit. So why pass full control to them over your resources in exchange for a few jobs? While just as Norway has done with its oil reserves, a government must manage the resources and invest in a fund that all the country's citizens will benefit out of it.

If just a few of the above points are ever achieved, global inequality will be limited if not eradicated. The problem is, who will dare to proceed with these drastic but necessary reforms, when they will radically transform our world for the better but to the detriment of the rich nations and their elites?