Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[ogmzergrush]

On of my high school camps we had an openly gay man called Frank there. He lives somewhere up past Forster, or maybe near Coffs or something. Anyway, he was there to give a talk on being gay and all that sort of thing.
I remember he said something about trying to sleep with women and his penis just went limp when it came to penetration. Anyway, the point is, in that case it seems to be something more than just a preference not to sleep with women.
Didn't any of your schools do anything like this? I thought it was a Board of Studies directive (the bloke worked for them).

I think you should call the police, right now, and tell them exactly what happened.

 

[kami]

With the case of the Spartans that is social influence (which I believe was a significant factor in certain Roman activities), and there was nothing natural about either of them. Just because homosexual sex has been done in 'civilised' societies for as long as their are records does not preclude the fact that it may just be social influences shaping it.
However, and I am not an expert on the topic, but it would be interesting to discover if homosexuality was part of any primitive tribe (unfortunately, even they do have a society and thus social influences), then there would be a stronger (but no where near conclusive) argument for it being natural.

The Bonobo(or Bono, can never remember which) Chimps do, and they are certainly without social influences while still having a plethora of biological similarities to us.

The Samibian also practice a form, where men are all exclusively homosexual(also paedophilliac by our social standards) from the age of 6/7/8 till marriage when they become exclusively heterosexual. At the time ethnographers discovered their way of life there was very little interaction between their culture and the Western world.

 

[Some_Guy]

On of my high school camps we had an openly gay man called Frank there. He lives somewhere up past Forster, or maybe near Coffs or something. Anyway, he was there to give a talk on being gay and all that sort of thing.
I remember he said something about trying to sleep with women and his penis just went limp when it came to penetration. Anyway, the point is, in that case it seems to be something more than just a preference not to sleep with women.
Didn't any of your schools do anything like this? I thought it was a Board of Studies directive (the bloke worked for them).
With the case of the Spartans that is social influence (which I believe was a significant factor in certain Roman activities), and there was nothing natural about either of them. Just because homosexual sex has been done in 'civilised' societies for as long as their are records does not preclude the fact that it may just be social influences shaping it.
However, and I am not an expert on the topic, but it would be interesting to discover if homosexuality was part of any primitive tribe (unfortunately, even they do have a society and thus social influences), then there would be a stronger (but no where near conclusive) argument for it being natural.

wernt the shamans in tribes gay?

 

[robo-andie]

But did i say that men cant produce sperm through sex with another man.

You implied it yes.

You can do that all you want but it still dont mean it aint a disability. Straight men who are incapable of reproducing also have a disability.
And the inability to have sex with the opposote sex does render them unable to reproduce

A straight man who can't reproduce, is a man who can't produce sperm. Check your quote, you linked the inability to reproduce, with the supposed inability to have sex with the opposite sex.

A straight man who cannot produce sperm and a gay man who isnt attracted to females does obviously not have the same disability.

And now you have realised that mistake.

Ok, what im saying is based on creation. We were made with taste buds, therefore allowing us to decide on what foods we like. We were also made to be attracted to females, not men. There is your difference.

Yes, we are born with tastebuds, but we are not born and naturally attracted to the opposite sex, that is just the most common outcome. It is obviously possible to be born and be attracted to the same sex. Both genetics and environment can play a role in determining sexual orientation/preference. It is not the result of one or the other.

Obviously you missed the sarcasm. I meant that a gay man would just not have sex with a woman. As i said before, that is bi-sexuallity.

You missed reading a large part of my post. Just because they don't want to, doesn't mean they can't.

Well actually, think about the Spartans. They were all gay cayse they were made to do everything together and knew nothing of female comfort. They were gay throught the intervention of man. And so were many others.

I may be missing something else, perhaps it is the relevance of this small tid bit?

Ok, to me, the idea of sex with a dude is the furtherst thing from my thought. Even if it meant saving my life i dont think i would do it. That is because i have absolutely no sexual attraction to a man. It is the same for a gay man, once again, if a gay man is willing to have sex with a woman, he must be attracted to her, therefore making him Bi sexual.

You use the word "I" a lot. This suggests most of this is your personal opinion. Considering that is the case, I would have to ask you to have some solid research done by a reputable institution which supports this.
A gay man can be willing to have sex with a woman, he doesn't HAVE to be attracted to her. The actual act of intercourse would require some form of attraction of course, and this doesn't necessarily make them bisexual. As others said, a man can be aroused regardless of what gender lies infront of him.

 

[robo-andie]

I remember he said something about trying to sleep with women and his penis just went limp when it came to penetration. Anyway, the point is, in that case it seems to be something more than just a preference not to sleep with women.

This doesn't represent the physical abilities of all gay men and women.
So exactly, in that particular case, he was conditioned so that he could not bring himself to penetrate a woman. That is an individual thing and is not a result of him being homosexual.

(The following is not as result of enlightened ones post.)
If you want to argue that homosexuality is a disability because we don't want to have sex with the opposite sex, I should begin to argue, that heterosexuals are also disabled because they don't want to have sex with their own sex. This would mean only bisexuals are not disabled.

 

[rific]

Ok, what im saying is based on creation. We were made with taste buds, therefore allowing us to decide on what foods we like. We were also made to be attracted to females, not men. There is your difference.

Obviously you missed the sarcasm. I meant that a gay man would just not have sex with a woman. As i said before, that is bi-sexuallity.

Ok, to me, the idea of sex with a dude is the furtherst thing from my thought. Even if it meant saving my life i dont think i would do it. That is because i have absolutely no sexual attraction to a man. It is the same for a gay man, once again, if a gay man is willing to have sex with a woman, he must be attracted to her, therefore making him Bi sexual.

Oh my.

Sexuality and sex are not the same thing. Obviously sex plays a role, normally quite a fun one, but the act of sex does not define sexuality. The act of sex may be homosexual/bisexual/heterosexual etc. but that does not mean the person performing the act is. Sexuality comprises much more than physicality. If you're more interested in understanding this, discuss it with a bisexual person, and than compare that with the understanding you have of your own sexuality and self-concept.

ogmzergrush's reference to male rape is a good one. I also suggest reading the chapter "Male Victims of Rape: Responses to a Perceived Threat to Masculinity" in the book "New Visions of Crime Victims", edited by Carolyn Hoyle and Richard Young, 2002 (Hart Publishing). This is a well researched book, studying the perceptions of male victims of rape, it studies heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual responses, and, from memory, looks at a lot of what is being discussed here. There are probably problems finding this outside of an academic library, but it does cover a lot of the latest batch of issues being discussed in this thread.

 

[Gangels]

You implied it yes.

I implied it? How?

A straight man who can't reproduce, is a man who can't produce sperm. Check your quote, you linked the inability to reproduce, with the supposed inability to have sex with the opposite sex.

Well if i did say that i appologise.



[quote-robo-andie]Yes, we are born with tastebuds, but we are not born and naturally attracted to the opposite sex, that is just the most common outcome. It is obviously possible to be born and be attracted to the same sex. Both genetics and environment can play a role in determining sexual orientation/preference. It is not the result of one or the other.

Therefore you are born with a defect. We are meant to be born with tastebuds as well but there have been reports which indicate otherwise. A defect. We are born to be attracted to the opposite sex, but things happen, and there you are born with a disability.

You missed reading a large part of my post. Just because they don't want to, doesn't mean they can't.

Well yeh, it does. Without an erection you cant have intercourse, if they dont have an erection for someone, that means they arent attracted to them, obviously, and that they are not attracted to females.

You use the word "I" a lot. This suggests most of this is your personal opinion. Considering that is the case, I would have to ask you to have some solid research done by a reputable institution which supports this.
A gay man can be willing to have sex with a woman, he doesn't HAVE to be attracted to her. The actual act of intercourse would require some form of attraction of course, and this doesn't necessarily make them bisexual. As others said, a man can be aroused regardless of what gender lies infront of him.

Alot of that was based on my opinion but alot of it was also based on conversations i've had with men in the theatre, at pubs, etc.

 

[kami]

Therefore you are born with a defect. We are meant to be born with tastebuds as well but there have been reports which indicate otherwise. A defect. We are born to be attracted to the opposite sex, but things happen, and there you are born with a disability.

Since when is there a set of by laws dictating what makes a person natural? Especially when its how they are born?

I'd also like to mention that there's already been evidence given that homosexuality predates the ascendancy of homo sapiens. So it was probably already in our genetic 'blueprint'. Which means it would have had to be natural rather than a 'defect'.

And you're reasoning makes no sense..."but things happen and therefore you are born with a disability"?

Well yeh, it does. Without an erection you cant have intercourse, if they dont have an erection for someone, that means they arent attracted to them, obviously, and that they are not attracted to females.

This has been covered. Repeatedly.

If a gay man wants to copulate with a woman, he will not get an erection by looking at the woman. It would be because of other stimulation, whether mental, manual or visual. No one has ever tried to claim gay men can be turned on sufficiently by women to have sex with them. Because it wouldn't be because of the woman. I cannot explain any clearer on a public forum without being explicit.

 

[Gangels]

This has been covered. Repeatedly.

If a gay man wants to copulate with a woman, he will not get an erection by looking at the woman. It would be because of other stimulation, whether mental, manual or visual. No one has ever tried to claim gay men can be turned on sufficiently by women to have sex with them. Because it wouldn't be because of the woman. I cannot explain any clearer on a public forum without being explicit.

I cant remember if i put it in the quote or not, but i meant to put in that if the man is only looking at the woman and does not have a man in front of them as well or even a picture.

 

[Xayma]

I cant remember if i put it in the quote or not, but i meant to put in that if the man is only looking at the woman and does not have a man in front of them as well or even a picture.

Well then you get to this nice thing called imagination and memory.

 

[Gangels]

Well then you get to this nice thing called imagination and memory.

I get the feeling that i may have just completely put this conversation in a big loop

 

[purplefruitloop]

i support it 100%.
there is nothing wrong with homosexual individuals.
many people are narrow minded and cruel as to how they treat homosexuals.
some of my mates have had bottles,glass,rubbish thrown at them.
seriously. HOMOSEXUALITY is NO big deal!
society just perceives it as something immoral etc
in terms of religious view, i personally believe that if God says love/forgive the sinner.. and if homosexuals are sinners.. well GOD loves them despite what society may think..

 

[xeuyrawp]

i support it 100%.
there is nothing wrong with homosexual individuals.
many people are narrow minded and cruel as to how they treat homosexuals.
some of my mates have had bottles,glass,rubbish thrown at them.
seriously. HOMOSEXUALITY is NO big deal!
society just perceives it as something immoral etc
in terms of religious view, i personally believe that if God says love/forgive the sinner.. and if homosexuals are sinners.. well GOD loves them despite what society may think..

If the homosexual community was serious about being accepted, leaders of the community would encourage them to try to be accepted. Rather, they act like they deserve some special treatment, go out, party and do drugs, and live like nothing matters. These brainless creatures are left unchecked in the call for 'diversity', when really they should be told that they are the ones who bring the majority of sensible queer people down.

The leaders should do what the Muslim leaders have done, and encouraged proper behaviour.

Instead, representatives of the gay community, people at ACON (Adrian Lovney etc), yell and cry about how the world is so unfair to gay people and how we're victimised. He's such an idiot in telling me that I am victimised - if I'm victimised, I deal with it as if I'm called 'fat' or 'four-eyes' or something. No special treatment, thank you very much. This business of placating the queer community is exactly the path taken with Aboriginal community - the government over-protects them and they use it like a calling card whenever they need to sue an employee, give their friends the guilts, or make their parents give them more money.

Maybe your friends should learn how to throw a bottle back, rather than hoping that someone will come and save them?

 

[kami]

The leaders should do what the Muslim leaders have done, and encouraged proper behaviour.

I don't think people would listen - its not like with Muslims where religion lends some clout to what they say.

I also don't think we really have 'leaders' as such[no matter how they wish to refer to themselves], merely groups of people pushing their own agendas as loudly as possible.

Instead, representatives of the gay community, people at ACON (Adrian Lovney etc), yell and cry about how the world is so unfair to gay people and how we're victimised. He's such an idiot in telling me that I am victimised - if I'm victimised, I deal with it as if I'm called 'fat' or 'four-eyes' or something. No special treatment, thank you very much. This business of placating the queer community is exactly the path taken with Aboriginal community - the government over-protects them and they use it like a calling card whenever they need to sue an employee, give their friends the guilts, or make their parents give them more money.

Maybe your friends should learn how to throw a bottle back, rather than hoping that someone will come and save them?

I agree with the not recieving special treatment...but I don't think the government is making many moves to 'over-protect' and 'placate' gays specifically. If they have, I haven't seen it.

 

[goldendawn]

Instead, representatives of the gay community, people at ACON (Adrian Lovney etc), yell and cry about how the world is so unfair to gay people and how we're victimised. He's such an idiot in telling me that I am victimised - if I'm victimised, I deal with it as if I'm called 'fat' or 'four-eyes' or something. No special treatment, thank you very much. This business of placating the queer community is exactly the path taken with Aboriginal community - the government over-protects them and they use it like a calling card whenever they need to sue an employee, give their friends the guilts, or make their parents give them more money.

Maybe your friends should learn how to throw a bottle back, rather than hoping that someone will come and save them?

I agree with your point that the 'I'm-a-victimised-minority card' can be, and has been abused, and especially in a society that is slowly but surely increasingly supporting gay people. But it's also true that many gay people don't want to sit down and shut up, whether or not they are receiving 'special treatment'(besides someone won't be legally executed in Iran or Saudi Arabia for being a 'four eyes' - luckily that doesn't happen here). They are a voice of opposition to the status quo, and whilst I might not like 'gay culture', I have to acknowledge the reasons behind it - it's individuation in a society that has had (in a wider sense) little empathy or understanding of sexuality. Change can only happen so fast - it's only been 20 or so years since the APA removed homosexuality from the DSMV. Untill being gay ceases to be a novelty, or a mystery, or a stigma, there will be a 'gay culture' that openly flouts conventions. If someone thought that the way you truthfully expressed yourself was a depravity, would you prefer to live in quiet limbo and shame or would you want to embrace it and make it known - being 'depraved' but true and glad? This isn't necessarily the way for all gay people, and the lifestyle isn't coeval with the orientation. In the grand scheme of thing, homosexuality is what we make of it - but to me, it seems like such a minor variation (and not an unwelcome one today - where we have hundreds of thousands of orphaned children and couples waiting to adopt) that too much importance is given to the issue - by both sides.

PS: about the Aboriginal community - I SERIOUSLY wouldn't call that overprotection - I would call it prejudice, disregard and tragically bad managment. Catch the train to Redfern every so often.

 

[Xayma]

I agree with your point that the 'I'm-a-victimised-minority card' can be, and has been abused, and especially in a society that is slowly but surely increasingly supporting gay people. But it's also true that many gay people don't want to sit down and shut up, whether or not they are receiving 'special treatment'(besides someone won't be legally executed in Iran or Saudi Arabia for being a 'four eyes' - luckily that doesn't happen here). They are a voice of opposition to the status quo, and whilst I might not like 'gay culture', I have to acknowledge the reasons behind it - it's individuation in a society that has had (in a wider sense) little empathy or understanding of sexuality. Change can only happen so fast - it's only been 20 or so years since the APA removed homosexuality from the DSMV. Untill being gay ceases to be a novelty, or a mystery, or a stigma, there will be a 'gay culture' that openly flouts conventions. If someone thought that the way you truthfully expressed yourself was a depravity, would you prefer to live in quiet limbo and shame or would you want to embrace it and make it known - being 'depraved' but true and glad? This isn't necessarily the way for all gay people, and the lifestyle isn't coeval with the orientation.

Humanitarian issues in other countries aside, the "queer community" (where queer community is the relevant sexual or gender oreintated communities and people who believe they are a member of said community) often goes about this in ways that are completly fucked up, especially teenagers who identify as being queer.

While arguing for things such as adoption by same-sex couples they overtly flout their sexual orientation with things such as mardi gras which alot of themes seem to revolve around sex. If a straight couple were to enter an adoption agency and flout their sexuality in such a way the majority of people would be horrified if such a couple was allowed to adopt.

In the grand scheme of thing, homosexuality is what we make of it - but to me, it seems like such a minor variation (and not an unwelcome one today - where we have hundreds of thousands of orphaned children and couples waiting to adopt) that too much importance is given to the issue - by both sides.

While not directly relevant to the argument only 585 adoptions were registered in 04-05 (including ones by step-parents). Of which 74% where from overseas, mostly from China, South Korea, Ethiopia and the Phillipines, none of which have huge acceptance of homosexuality.

PS: about the Aboriginal community - I SERIOUSLY wouldn't call that overprotection - I would call it prejudice, disregard and tragically bad managment. Catch the train to Redfern every so often.

At what point do we give the responsibility for people to get themselves out of poverty themselves? There is help available for areas like education to help them, especially in city areas like Redfern. The argument would be better used in more outback locations. Also a minority doesn't always respond to government help even when the vast majority of minorities do, take the case of black males in the USA where they are getting further behind other minorities because of government initiatives there that they just fail to implement (even black girls have been advanced by the initiatives, as have hispanic males, so it isn't a gendered thing either).

I agree with the not recieving special treatment...but I don't think the government is making many moves to 'over-protect' and 'placate' gays specifically. If they have, I haven't seen it.

I think his comment was in reference to what the "queer community" "wants" (wants is what is publicly expressed the most often by members of said community). That is, they want the government to punish homophobic speech, such as has occured with racist speech (although they want much stricter rules no doubt then the current legislation has in relation to racist speech).

 

[goldendawn]

Humanitarian issues in other countries aside, the "queer community" (where queer community is the relevant sexual or gender oreintated communities and people who believe they are a member of said community) often goes about this in ways that are completly fucked up, especially teenagers who identify as being queer.

While arguing for things such as adoption by same-sex couples they overtly flout their sexual orientation with things such as mardi gras which alot of themes seem to revolve around sex. If a straight couple were to enter an adoption agency and flout their sexuality in such a way the majority of people would be horrified if such a couple was allowed to adopt.


While not directly relevant to the argument only 585 adoptions were registered in 04-05 (including ones by step-parents). Of which 74% where from overseas, mostly from China, South Korea, Ethiopia and the Phillipines, none of which have huge acceptance of homosexuality.

At what point do we give the responsibility for people to get themselves out of poverty themselves? There is help available for areas like education to help them, especially in city areas like Redfern. The argument would be better used in more outback locations. Also a minority doesn't always respond to government help even when the vast majority of minorities do, take the case of black males in the USA where they are getting further behind other minorities because of government initiatives there that they just fail to implement (even black girls have been advanced by the initiatives, as have hispanic males, so it isn't a gendered thing either).


While arguing for things such as adoption by same-sex couples they overtly flout their sexual orientation with things such as mardi gras which alot of themes seem to revolve around sex. If a straight couple were to enter an adoption agency and flout their sexuality in such a way the majority of people would be horrified if such a couple was allowed to adopt.

Yes - queer teenagers often engage in extremely fucked up high risk behavior. I already adressed that point. I never said I liked it, or that I think it's the right way to go - I simply said that I can empathise with the reasons behind it.

While arguing for things such as adoption by same-sex couples they overtly flout their sexual orientation with things such as mardi gras which alot of themes seem to revolve around sex. If a straight couple were to enter an adoption agency and flout their sexuality in such a way the majority of people would be horrified if such a couple was allowed to adopt.

The majority of gay couples who want to adopt have stable, long term relationships.

The APA says:
(http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov04/action.html)

* There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. The working group cited statistics from the 2000 census that 33 percent of female same-sex couples have at least one child under 18 in their home, as do 22 percent of male same-sex couples.

Researchers have found that sexual identity, personality and social relationships with peers and adults develop similarly in those children as they do in children of heterosexual parents, according to the group.

I believe that every case should be adressed individually. Who are they? You make a poor generalisation.

About the Aboriginal community - we are not dealing with people who are born into wealth and oppurtunity and who simply decide to abandon it along with all common sense. They are very often born into poverty, into communities where alcoholism and drug use are rife. The government adresses effects, but has utterly failed to address the cause. I agree that the individual must also be responsible for their own well-being and success. I could only hope that we could have empathy for people who are born into a cycle of poverty because their traditional way of life and kinship ties have been shattered by the urban world. It's not easy to lift oneself out of that cycle.

 

[Xayma]

I thought it was implied by the above paragraph. They being members of the "queer community", while they may be in committed relationships they are advocating for public acceptance and then do displays such as mardi gras with political messages and high sexual floats being displayed in the same parade.

 

[goldendawn]

I thought it was implied by the above paragraph. They being members of the "queer community", while they may be in committed relationships they are advocating for public acceptance and then do displays such as mardi gras with political messages and high sexual floats being displayed in the same parade.

That was not implied. Mardi Gras is a festival, and it aims to express sexuality. Why? Because for a minority it encourages visibility and engagement with the majority. I think it's unfortunate that more often than not it fuels stereotypes.

 

[Xayma]

While it may encourage visibility it does so often through stereotypical views. You have the extremly extroverted people whom happily fufill the stereotype creating large amounts of the visibility for non-straight people. Instead of creating an image that says "We are the same as you" it creates one that is quite different.