Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[poloktim]

I never said it could be fixed, I also never said they should be slain in town streets. I just said 'ignoring' the fact that it's happening, and probably controlling it would prevent it's occurence. Homosexuality is detrimental to society in whole, (not going to make generalisations), but putting aside the fact that they can't make children, and AIDS/STD's spreads fastest through Gay Communities. Another is 'typical' families are difficult to maintain in a 'gay' family. However, I think a 'lesbian' couple could properly raise a family. (Since by nature women tend to take on passive-assertive roles in a relationship).

Where are you getting this information from? Provide evidence that it should be controlled and provide evidence that "controlling" the attention surrounding it will create less gay people.

Overall, I don't think Homosexuality is 'that' big an issue, and doesn't concern most of us. About (Homo's) getting their rights? They're people... and regardless of what social disorder they have they should have proper rights like everyone else.

What social disorder?

Re: Other people in this topic.

They already live secluded in their own 'gay' communities, and then blend when re-entering society.
Promiscuity is an issue with homosexuality... but then again all society is going down that direction.

The communities is an issue which we all have mentioned reservations against. It's my belief that these communities should provide support to people going through a hard time, and attempt to support those who have lost because of homophobia. I also believe lobbying should take place to ensure the rights of people who can be at their most vulnerable and whom society doesn't want to know about, are protected.

Promiscuity? That's a stereotype. There are plenty of monogamous homosexual relationships. There is promiscuity, but that's been an issue with "all society" for all time.

 

[katie_tully]

He's getting his information from his own head.

Nothing he says ever makes sense, and his opinion is as valid as ... well, I have no analogy, so let's just say his opinions suck.

 

[katie_tully]

No I doubt it will either R. Andie.
Parkes is still quite conservative, and whilst there is somewhat of a gay community, thus far they have integrated into the town, and for that they have become largely accepted.

This is not a local group that is forming, it's some group from Sydney that thinks it's doing homosexuals in the area a favour.

 

[turtleface]

I do feel sorry for homosexuals. Is it true that a lot of homosexual people harm themselves due to prejudice or homophobia? Or is that just bullcrap from BB06?

Which is not that different from your posts about accounting and finance really.

lol

 

[sam04u]

Yeah, That's probably true. I know I wouldn't be happy if I heard someone from my family who I loved was a Homosexual.
Feeling 'left out' or 'different' can be a cause for alot of irrational behaviour.
There's a story of a kid in Year 12, from sydney who commited suicide. (Quite well known story) they say him being a homosexual contributed to the causes of his suicide.

The shit thing about homosexuality is it's easy to stop, but at the rate were going, it'll just spread and spread.

 

[ur_inner_child]

The shit thing about homosexuality is it's easy to stop, but at the rate were going, it'll just spread and spread.

Care to clarify?

 

[Serius]

The shit thing is that i can see where he is coming from, but

1) i dont agree
2) i can see where his religion causes him to be missinformed on the topic.

maybe sam should get his views and/or religion reevaluated and see if he is still against homosexuality

not to say that religion is a cause for homophobia, because many religious people have a live and let live attitude. My problem is when impressionable youths are taught that being gay is wrong, evil, a sin.
Wow funny why suicide rates are so high in gay communities eh?

 

[White Rabbit]

Yeah, That's probably true. I know I wouldn't be happy if I heard someone from my family who I loved was a Homosexual.
Feeling 'left out' or 'different' can be a cause for alot of irrational behaviour.
There's a story of a kid in Year 12, from sydney who commited suicide. (Quite well known story) they say him being a homosexual contributed to the causes of his suicide.

Well, with people like you sprouting your views that homosexuality is "wrong" and can be "cured", is in any wonder theres a disproportionate level of depression, self harm and suicide among the gay community? There is nothing abnormal about being gay or bi, but with people such as yourself saying you would not support a gay friend or family member, and preach about how wrong it is, how do you expect teenagers deal with their sexuality? Why should be ignore it? And what do you mean "control" them? Sexuality is not something you can control, nor should you want to.

Moreover, whats wrong with gay parents? I know several lesbians who have children, and may more gay men who hope to someday.

The shit thing about homosexuality is it's easy to stop, but at the rate were going, it'll just spread and spread.

The shit thing is people like you exist. I hope the gay community spreads in the next generation doesn't go through what my mates went through, when they spent years dealing with their sexuality before they came out, and facing dickheads with small minds like yourself. If it becomes more widespread then our kids won't need to worry about which sex they end up attracted to, it;ll just become another part of puberty.

 

[shewasthenazz]

The shit thing about homosexuality is it's easy to stop, but at the rate were going, it'll just spread and spread.

I have news for you. Homosexuality is not contagious.

 

[shewasthenazz]

Generator, why would you edit that out of my message? I wasn't being derogative, my point was that if someone believes they are capable of being 'turned' then they probably are gay. The rest of us realize that sexuality isn't a choice.

 

[Generator]

As I said in another thread, I have had enough of the abuse that many consider to be appropriate. Now, though your post was in no way abusive, I was of the opinion that the latter half was of no constructive benefit and that it would have only angered one of those who is most likely to respond in an inappropriate manner. Basically, I acted to stave off a possible problem rather than to correct a comment that was out of line.

As always, if you have a problem with this or anything else, please talk to a super mod or an admin.

 

[sam04u]

I fail to believe that... 10% of 'mankind' has a genetic malfunction which makes them incapable of 'having' sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. (for logical reasons). So, looking at the 'historical' references to homosexuality and when it is most 'prevalent' is always when it is 'most acceptable', and that it isn't genetic at all.

Development of homosexuality usually begins at around 16 (which obviously is a very influential period in a persons life), and usually to people who have social problems.

Therefore, homosexuality is a social disorer and it's most prevalent when it's seen as acceptable. (you could argue people are coerced into denial when it is seen as unacceptable), but there are little recounts of such things.

Also, I don't understand your reasoning. I'm arguing that it can be 'prevented', so how does that change the fact that it can be an adopted attribute/ a character flaw a social disorder.

I'm not saying anything bad about homosexuals, there is no reason for anyone to be offended. (anyone denying what i'm saying is reading this in a different perspective than I am.)

 

[kami]

I fail to believe that... 10% of 'mankind' has a genetic malfunction which makes them incapable of 'having' sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. (for logical reasons). So, looking at the 'historical' references to homosexuality and when it is most 'prevalent' is always when it is 'most acceptable', and that it isn't genetic at all.

I refuse to believe 10% of mankind has an genetic malfunction making them incapable of having sex with the opposite sex as well. Which is why you'll find that it has been argued and established previously in this very thread that homosexuals are not incapable of heterosexual sex - it is just not something that is at all desirable. So I don't see where you got this 'genetic malfunction' idea from.

Further, your very argument approves bisexuality since there is no way anyone could accuse them of being genetically incapable of having sex with another gender. Which means you have no problem with same sex intercourse so long as they're not gay?

And, if you were a student of history you would realise that truth is flexible - homosexuality would 'cease to exist' in cultures that ignore it or do not accept it. After all who would record their homosexuality when they could be executed? By your token you could also argue that women have existed in far fewer numbers than men simply because at times they were recorded less often.

Development of homosexuality usually begins at around 16 (which obviously is a very influential period in a persons life), and usually to people who have social problems.

I disagree. There are many people who report knowing they were gay their whole lives. You're statement that homosexuality also occurs mainly in those with social problems is also unfounded.

Therefore, homosexuality is a social disorer and it's most prevalent when it's seen as acceptable. (you could argue people are coerced into denial when it is seen as unacceptable), but there are little recounts of such things.

If there are few recounts of such things, then how is it you have gathered enough data to definitively decide homosexuality (and not bisexuality which you have completely forgotten) is social disorder?

Also, I don't understand your reasoning. I'm arguing that it can be 'prevented', so how does that change the fact that it can be an adopted attribute/ a character flaw a social disorder.

Even if you could prevent homosexuality that doesnt denote it being a completely social attribute.

I'm not saying anything bad about homosexuals, there is no reason for anyone to be offended. (anyone denying what i'm saying is reading this in a different perspective than I am.)

People can be offended at whatever you choose to say, thats their right - especially as while you may not intend a meaning that does prevent you from creating it. Someone can still be offensive without intent. As to the reasoning why some people might be offended, well just look at the words you use: 'character flaw' 'genetic malfunction', these all create the impression that you view homosexuals as less than yourself - as if they are damaged and impaired. And if someone told you your way of life was impaired and malfunctioning and wrong, would you think well of them?

EDIT: I'd also like to note that there is a vast difference between gay subculture and homosexuality - while they have close associations one need not be subsumed by the other. It is also the gay sub-culture from which people derive most of their generalisations such as 'gay men are teh AIDS' or that they are promiscuios. Like everybody else, homosexuals, bisexuals and anything inbetween come from all walks of life and have different types of behaviour - to associate them all with a very generalised view of a subculture with which they may not associate is not the best way to formulate theories. It would be similar to me saying all religious people do [insert action here], when not only are there a wide range of religions but a wide range of people adhering to those religions - you could also make similar examples with race and how people may not always have the attributes and values of the country you presume they are from.

 

[poloktim]

I fail to believe that... 10% of 'mankind' has a genetic malfunction which makes them incapable of 'having' sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. (for logical reasons). So, looking at the 'historical' references to homosexuality and when it is most 'prevalent' is always when it is 'most acceptable', and that it isn't genetic at all.

Care to provide evidence, Chubbs?
Proof stating otherwise to what you have said has been included in this thread. Your arguments aren't even founded in religion, with a great deal of religions following professionals in psychology. They only condemn the act, not the person. For example, the Catholic church said this: "Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" ( http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2359 ). The disorder that the Church mentions in the same website (the Catechism of the Catholic Church), is the same disorder that exists for fornication, contraception, pornography and masturbation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...itions_on_homosexuality#Roman_Catholic_Church ).

Development of homosexuality usually begins at around 16 (which obviously is a very influential period in a persons life), and usually to people who have social problems.

Again, where's this information coming from, Chubbs? How are we supposed to follow and believe you if you don't provide evidence?
But http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/tip_sheets/12.5_10.asp mentions that the causes of the onset of a sexual orientation is unknown.

Therefore, homosexuality is a social disorer and it's most prevalent when it's seen as acceptable. (you could argue people are coerced into denial when it is seen as unacceptable), but there are little recounts of such things.

Where is the evidence of this, Chubbs?
The link I used above, the psychology one ( http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/tip_sheets/12.5_10.asp ) has this to mention:

Despite what some people claim, there is no evidence that society's greater acceptance of homosexuality results in more people having a homosexual sexual orientation. The greater numbers of people identifying as homosexual are a result of fewer people fighting their homosexual feelings while attempting to live heterosexual lives.

Also, I don't understand your reasoning. I'm arguing that it can be 'prevented', so how does that change the fact that it can be an adopted attribute/ a character flaw a social disorder.

Character flaws are highly subjective. However, try to read this (again) before mentioning that homosexuality is a problem ( http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/tip_sheets/12.5_10.asp#is2 ).

I'm not saying anything bad about homosexuals, there is no reason for anyone to be offended.

You're saying homosexuals have a problem with themselves. You're suggesting this problem is emotional. If I called you an idiot because your beliefs are different to my own, I'm sure you'd get upset.

(anyone denying what i'm saying is reading this in a different perspective than I am.)

Or haven't been convinced by the overwhelming amount of evidence you've provided.

 

[crazyhomo]

*craps on*

you are wrong in so many ways

 

[White Rabbit]

I fail to believe that... 10% of 'mankind' has a genetic malfunction which makes them incapable of 'having' sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. (for logical reasons). So, looking at the 'historical' references to homosexuality and when it is most 'prevalent' is always when it is 'most acceptable', and that it isn't genetic at all.

Development of homosexuality usually begins at around 16 (which obviously is a very influential period in a persons life), and usually to people who have social problems.

Therefore, homosexuality is a social disorer and it's most prevalent when it's seen as acceptable. (you could argue people are coerced into denial when it is seen as unacceptable), but there are little recounts of such things.

Also, I don't understand your reasoning. I'm arguing that it can be 'prevented', so how does that change the fact that it can be an adopted attribute/ a character flaw a social disorder.

I'm not saying anything bad about homosexuals, there is no reason for anyone to be offended. (anyone denying what i'm saying is reading this in a different perspective than I am.)

You're saying homosexuality is a "...social disorder" that needs to be "prevented". how can that not be an insult? Social disorders fall under mental illness such as personality disorders and impulse control disorders, not your sexuality.

Homosexuality isn't more prevelent when it's acceptable, it's just more people would be inclined to come out in an environment where homosexuality is accepted.

Being gay is not a genetic "malfunction", its just part of who you are. How is it you feel you can lable gays as a person with a social disorder, and state it is detremental to society, yet you will attack anyone who says anything negative other minorities?

You are born with a predisposition in regards to your sexuality, your environment CAN influence it, mainly in your choice to "come out", just as we are born with a personality, that CAN be influenced by out environment, yet we still have a framework so to speak.

Also, by your your definition, hetrosexuals would be incapable of having sex with those of the same sex, something that many straight people will disprove. They have experimented, and not enjoyed it. Much as the majority of my gay friends have discovered - they've straight hetro sex and did not enjoy it however did enjoy sex and relationships with those of the same sex. The argument for bisexuality has already been put forward.


You really are rather close minded and ignorant of homosexuality and bisexuality, along with the lives led by the majority of the group.

 

[Nesty]

from personal experience, i believe that the environment DOES play a part in your sexuality. i think it is a mixture of different factors that actually makes up your sexuality. your experience, your environment, how you were brought up and your personaility (gene and stuff).

but generally nope, homosexuaility doesn't 'spread around'. and i have to agree with White Rabbit, because a more accepting environment just makes it easier to come out and realise who you really are. those people who are affected by their environment aren't really gay. more like bi-curious.

 

[turtleface]

I think maybe sam04u is looking at it from a point of view like that of the medical profession pre 70s, where homosexuality was classified by mental health authorities as a psychological disorder. Though this view has now been reversed.

 

[goldendawn]

I think maybe sam04u is looking at it from a point of view like that of the medical profession pre 70s, where homosexuality was classified by mental health authorities as a psychological disorder. Though this view has now been reversed.

Even so, the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, pre 70's, was based on biased information. Evelyn Hooker showed that it was impossible to classify homosexuality as a mental or social disorder, or as an emotional problem. She imagined that if gays were so pathological, their pathology would be obvious in a clinical assessment. She found both gay and straight subjects, and matched them in socio-economic status. The clinical psychologist who conducted testing was unaware of the purpose of the assessments, and was also unaware of the sexual orientation of the subjects. The results showed absolutely no correlation between homosexuality and pathology - seventy percent (I think that's the number, but don't quote me) of both the heterosexual and homosexual subjects were deemed 'mentally healthy' and high-functioning. These results have been replicated countless times.

 

[katie_tully]

I think maybe sam04u is looking at it from a point of view like that of the medical profession pre 70s, where homosexuality was classified by mental health authorities as a psychological disorder. Though this view has now been reversed.

No, Sam04u is looking at it from a religious bigot point of view.