Homosexuality in Australia (7 Viewers)

[dieburndie]

The teaching of it in classes, or passing it of as "acceptable," in a class of 30 students, only 2 will be gay, seems like a minority leverage to me.

Teaching acceptance does not equate to leverage. If homosexuality is accepted, it only means that a homosexual will be seen as not having a disadvantage due to their sexuality. Why can't a minority be recognised in the same way a majority can without specific preference to the minority?

Well I've seen polls both ways, polls are useless, the best proof as they say is in the pudding (our governmental and legislative pudding that is),

Which in what way opposes homosexuality?

also you can still accept gays but oppose the gay agenda.

You say the teaching of homosexuality as acceptable in school is the gay agenda.
So these people accept gays, but oppose the teaching of accepting gays?

Ok take gay marriage for exaple, I'll assume you support it in some dynamic.

If civil unions count as some dynamic, yes.

Marriage is man-woman institution that has existed since recorded history, there have always been gays but never gay marriage. Everyone in society has a right to marriage, including gays, so long as they marry the opposite sex, when we force new laws into the system, such a civil union or gay marriage laws, we cater for a minority

Catering for a minority is bad for what reason?

and de-value the bonds of the majority

Explain how the personal bonds of married heterosexuals would be of any less value if gays had the same, or a similar bond?

thus anyone who supports gay marriage or gay anti-descrimination legislation supports the creation of "more rights."

No, because you say that under the current system homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals because they can also marry a member of the opposite sex.
If gay marriage was introduced, heterosexuals would have the same right to marry a member of the same sex as homosexuals. Their rights would be equal, or remain equal according to your logic.

Also there are other more disturbing things about homosexuality in general, such as homosexuals being six times more likely to engage in pedophilia, it dosen't make mainstream news often obviously, as we all know both the science community and media have a particular political agenda. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

Homosexuals in general should not have to bear the weight of the actions of a select few. Paedophiles should be judged as paedophiles, regardless of your dubious statistics.
Do not confuse consensual sexual activity with sexually abusing children against their will. They are completely different, and should be dealt with seperately.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

 

[kami]

What I was referring too is homosexuals making a scene everytime normal people defend their territory of existance, such as when we banned gay marriage an so on.

Bshoc, there is no unified group of homosexuals with a single pattern of behaviour - that is a derogatory assumption that almost seems to relegate homosexuals as a separate species. And how in the world is marriage 'their[your] territory'? It is a human institution with a bundle of rights that accompany it. I'd also remind you, that there is no 'we'[you] involved in banning gay marriage - a government that represents the both of us equally decided it and you had no more part of it than I, you just like it more.

The teaching of it in classes, or passing it of as "acceptable," in a class of 30 students, only 2 will be gay, seems like a minority leverage to me.

There are larger numbers of female school children in the institution at the moment, and basically every statistic shows they outperform their male peers. Teaching is also performed largely by women. Given then, that women are the majority in the class (and seem to gain more from education per hour) would you then prefer that an exclusively feminist history and literature syllabus was created to service that majority? After all, the boys are scoring lower marks anyway and its not like there are as many of them.

Though to be more realistic, teaching awareness of minority groups in class is not just for the minority groups within that specific class but for the majority who must be able to interact with them throughout life.

Marriage is man-woman institution that has existed since recorded history, there have always been gays but never gay marriage.

No. We've been through this - regardless of whether you approve or not there have been valid marriages between same-sex partners throughout various cultures. There have also been (and still are) polyandrous and polygynous marriages where one man or woman marries multiple people of the opposite sex rather than just your suggested man-woman model.

Everyone in society has a right to marriage, including gays, so long as they marry the opposite sex, when we force new laws into the system, such a civil union or gay marriage laws, we cater for a minority and de-value the bonds of the majority, thus anyone who supports gay marriage or gay anti-descrimination legislation supports the creation of "more rights."

You are aware that creating a same-sex provisio for marriage would be enlarging your rights as well - not decreasing them. So I don't see what devaluing would be going on.

Also there are other more disturbing things about homosexuality in general, such as homosexuals being six times more likely to engage in pedophilia, it dosen't make mainstream news often obviously, as we all know both the science community and media have a particular political agenda. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

That may be what the initial lines infer, but if you read it through its message is slightly different than that:

And Gary Schoener, a clinical psychologist who has been diagnosing and treating clergy abuse for 28 years, told Salon.com, "There are far more heterosexual cases than homosexual."

In terms of sheer numbers, that may be true. But in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target.

i.e There are far more hetero offenders, but that those who are homosexual offenders have more victims per person and their victims are usually male.

Your article also goes on to say that molesters who are homosexual are five times more likely to target boys than girls, as opposed to your blanket statement that homosexuals are at least six times more likely to be paedophiles. It is also noted within the article that these statistics go against what has been recorded by their own crime agencies (who being the ones who actually arrest and process these cases would have far better numbers available than one single independent researcher).

 

[MikiRei]

Ok, again, I'm lazy to read all 53 worth of posts so I'll just answer the first post:

Legalise it. Why not? I'm straight so to me, whether or not they legalise same-sex marriage makes absolutely no difference to me so why not just bloody legalise it so everyone can be happy? Oh wait, but they are people out there who takes so much interest in opposing something that makes absolutely no difference whether it is or not accepted by law but are just opposing it simply b/c they, themselves have something against it.

Legalise it, seriously, just legalise it. Some people are just born to have their hormone react to people of the same sex so what are you gonna do about it? Change their gene? Others just happen to fall in love with people of the same-sex not b/c of their gender but b/c of ther personality. So what is there to do about it? Change their sex? You can't 'cause genetically you're still who you are and to be of a different sex to love whoever you are loving already is just wrong for some people. Then we have a fair few others who are just born in the wrong body and by heart and soul they are of the opposite gender and hence can only love people who are PHYSICALLY the same gender as them b/c their soul demands it. Aie.....I'm just rambling.

But seriously, I think the only people who has the right to say in this issue are homosexual couples. The "majority", as we call it, or just people who are straight, should all just be quiet (yes, including me). We have no bloody say in this 'cause we're yet to be in the same shoes as homosexaul couples. And, I mean, in the end, to the people who oppose, why DO you oppose? It's going to make absolutely NO DIFFERNECE, whether or not they legalise same-sex marriage so why don't they just LEGALISE it for crying out loud?

Anywayz....rambled enuff....come criticise my naivety of the issue if you want, but that's just what I think......

 

[comeasyouare]

The teaching of it in classes, or passing it of as "acceptable," in a class of 30 students, only 2 will be gay, seems like a minority leverage to me.

I'm sure they devote just as much time to teaching kids what being an astronaut is about, and how it's acceptable to be one, despite the fact that zero kids will end up being one.

 

[rific]

Also there are other more disturbing things about homosexuality in general, such as homosexuals being six times more likely to engage in pedophilia, it dosen't make mainstream news often obviously, as we all know both the science community and media have a particular political agenda. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

I know this has been addressed by others, but I was having a break from study and had a read. While others have looked at that news report from the US, if I could direct you to "Child Sexual Abuse: Offender Characteristics and Modus Operandi", a formal study undertaken by the Australian Institute of Criminoloy on this subject area, I think it may help to provide a slightly more balanced picture than that article.

This research sample shows that "More than three-quarters of the offenders reported an exclusively heterosexual orientation. Extrafamilial and mixed-type offenders were more likely to report either a homosexual or bisexual orientation." And to throw around some more statistics, depending on the subtype of child abuse, heterosexual offenders counted for between 53.3% and 94.9%.

I think this statement sums things up fairly clearly, as based on this research sample:

"Fourth, perpetrators of child sexual abuse are three times more likely to abuse female than male children. In the case of intrafamilial abuse, girls are over 10 times more likely to be victims. However, more generally, males are nearly three times more likely than females to be abused. This is because the relatively few chronic offenders in the sample were more likely to target male​

victims."

As you can see, it loosely supports what was said in the worldnetdaily article, about chronic offender behaviour patterns etc, but it also clearly indicates that paedophilia is not an exclusive homosexual proclivity. Paedophilia is a disgusting criminal action and in no way does it define itself in any one sexual orientation.

 

[Maro0sh]

seriously, theres nothing wrong with being gay.. its just a bunch of eemotions towards the same sex.. ppl think its wrong.. but i sreszly dont... the way i see it is its as if ur born with it.. its just like any other '' normal'' guy who likes a girl.. that seems to be normal to them right? well its preety normal for a gay guy to like a guy.. people should be really open minded these days

 

[bshoc]

Teaching acceptance does not equate to leverage. If homosexuality is accepted, it only means that a homosexual will be seen as not having a disadvantage due to their sexuality. Why can't a minority be recognised in the same way a majority can without specific preference to the minority?

Becuase homosexuality is not the kind of behaviour that should be given equal status with normal people, children should not have to be exposed to this filth in any dynamic, especially people who are four times as likely to be pedophiles. Infact, nothing would be better than these people, these "gays" going back to the dark underground hole from which they came from and not mess about with the lives of society, incase you haven't noticed our society hasn't survived and grown from men having anal sex.

Which in what way opposes homosexuality?

Hopefully, in every.

You say the teaching of homosexuality as acceptable in school is the gay agenda.
So these people accept gays, but oppose the teaching of accepting gays?

It should not be policy to teach opinion.

If civil unions count as some dynamic, yes.

Yes you openly support a policy that detriments normal people in society as a whole, and benifits people who have nothing to do with you. Do you really think I take you seriously?

Catering for a minority is bad for what reason?Explain how the personal bonds of married heterosexuals would be of any less value if gays had the same, or a similar bond?

Becuase it would be alot like giving every indonesian voting rights in our elections. What does it say about society when two flamers can get married just as a normal person can?

If gay marriage was introduced, heterosexuals would have the same right to marry a member of the same sex as homosexuals. Their rights would be equal, or remain equal according to your logic.

Having such a right would disgust people, most people neither want or need such a "right," its offensive.

Homosexuals in general should not have to bear the weight of the actions of a select few. Paedophiles should be judged as paedophiles, regardless of your dubious statistics.

Homosexuals should bear the weight of any actions they commit, that includes highly increased rates of pedophilia.

 

[dagwoman]

It is NOT TRUE that homosexuals have a higher likelihood of pedophilia. That is an outdated, homophobic belief. 90% of pedophilic incidents are of a young female by an older male relative or family friend.

"Ann Landers (1) says the statement "Homosexuals are more inclined to molest children sexually than heterosexuals" is false. The American Psychological Association has sponsored a work that asserts: "Recognized researchers in the field on child abuse,... almost unanimously concur that homosexual people are actually less likely to approach children sexually." (2)"

And how can you say "most people neither want or need such a right"???

And how is gay marriage detrimental to society?

 

[dagwoman]

Here are some further statistics:

"*1 in 219 girls was molested by a lesbian * 1 out of 50 boys by a gay male.*About 8 in 10 girls were molested by a man who was or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the child's mother or another relative. *3 out of 4 boys were abused by males in heterosexual relationships with female relatives.



2% of the boys in the study were molested by gay males.



98% of the boys in the study were molested by heterosexuals. Of that number, 75% were molested by heterosexual males KNOWN TO THE VICTIMS in an incestuous scenario.



0.05% of the girls in the study were molested by a lesbian.



99.5% of the girls in the study were molested by heterosexuals. Of that number, 80% were molested by heterosexual males KNOWN TO THE VICTIMS in an incestuous scenario. "

 

[bshoc]

Bshoc, there is no unified group of homosexuals with a single pattern of behaviour - that is a derogatory assumption that almost seems to relegate homosexuals as a separate species. And how in the world is marriage 'their[your] territory'? It is a human institution with a bundle of rights that accompany it. I'd also remind you, that there is no 'we'[you] involved in banning gay marriage - a government that represents the both of us equally decided it and you had no more part of it than I, you just like it more.

Not all homosexuals like men? Marriage is the territory of normal people and shall remain so until the end of time.

Also when the government bans gay marriage they are representing me, not you, who oppose it

There are larger numbers of female school children in the institution at the moment, and basically every statistic shows they outperform their male peers. Teaching is also performed largely by women. Given then, that women are the majority in the class (and seem to gain more from education per hour) would you then prefer that an exclusively feminist history and literature syllabus was created to service that majority? After all, the boys are scoring lower marks anyway and its not like there are as many of them.

Firstly feminists do not represent women, feminists only represent themselves, a woman who is intelligent as you say cannot be a feminist, its simply an oxymoron.

Also I would love to see your so called "performance statistics," I know from the uni publication that more women drop out of uni and less gain degrees, also less women gain masters and PHD status.

Though to be more realistic, teaching awareness of minority groups in class is not just for the minority groups within that specific class but for the majority who must be able to interact with them throughout life.

No its stupid, if people want to go become "aware" of gays let them go do it in their spare time, rather than my tax dollars.

No. We've been through this - regardless of whether you approve or not there have been valid marriages between same-sex partners throughout various cultures. There have also been (and still are) polyandrous and polygynous marriages where one man or woman marries multiple people of the opposite sex rather than just your suggested man-woman model.

Ah yes your gay pseudohistory website, a little fabrication goes a long way I suppose, whatever these people had was nothing like the institution of marriage as we know it and understand it. If its not one man and one woman, its not marriage, not in a civilized society with values.

You are aware that creating a same-sex provisio for marriage would be enlarging your rights as well - not decreasing them. So I don't see what devaluing would be going on.

I dont want these rights, my life and those of most people would be devalued if we had such "rights," "guess what flamer you can marry a flamer and its totaly acceptable, and we've only trashed the concept of family, marriage and sexual decency to get it, isnt it great?" ...

no.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

IMO the more important statistic to see would be How many boys are molested by men compared with girls, if there is a higher % of pedophiles molesting boys (as opposed to girls) than there are homosexuals I'd say that'd be a somewhat interesting statistic...

There are SO many problems though,

- How many men/women are willing to report their rape.
- What age are you going to use, for children under the age of 6 it could be argued that it is not really gay and the sexual activity is of a completely different nature that ignores the sex of the victim...

Yaaaaaaah

 

[dagwoman]

The fact is that men are WAY more likely to be sexual predators than women, so when men (the vast majority of the time, heterosexual) abuse young boys it's brought to the attention of the media. However, men molesting girls is far more common, but in my opinion society protects boys more than it does girls. It's almost as if men molesting girls is just a fact of society, but they make a huge deal of men molesting boys, despite the fact it's heaps rarer, and thus the insane belief that homosexual= pedophile.

bshoc, your other ridiculous statements are too invalid to bother discussing, but since you have such disgust for homosexuality, what are your thoughts on the documentation of homosexuality in the animal world? Evidence of this negates the idea that it's an "unnatural" process.

 

[kami]

Becuase homosexuality is not the kind of behaviour that should be given equal status with normal people, children should not have to be exposed to this filth in any dynamic, especially people who are four times as likely to be pedophiles.

Why is it a kind of behaviour that should not be given equal status? Why is it wrong to teach children that homosexuals exist and how to function in a non-malicious way with homosexuals in society?

Your statistics point has already been debated, I would think if you want to use it as proof for another premise then you had better argue, without introducing fallacies, why it is valid in of itself and to your premise.

Infact, nothing would be better than these people, these "gays" going back to the dark underground hole from which they came from and not mess about with the lives of society, incase you haven't noticed our society hasn't survived and grown from men having anal sex.

These 'gays' did not come from underground holes, they came from the exact same place you did - a heterosexual woman's uterus, and the majority are not raised with any slant toward creating homosexuals so it can be taken as a given that they have the same upbringing as any heterosexual.

Tradition is also not an argument, what society has done previously does not neccesitate what it must do in the future especially considering this 'tradition' only harms a minority and does little to nothing to help the majority. I'd also argue that gay men have contributed more to the growth of our society than you may credit - Oscar Wilde's contributions to the arts, a range of Greek philosophers who contributed to modes of thinking many centuries after and in modern day US we have Mark Foley, a congressman who has contributed greatly in efforts to eliminate pedophilia and protect victims of it.

It should not be policy to teach opinion.

It is my belief that building awareness and the ability to communicate is not quite 'teaching opinion'.

Yes you openly support a policy that detriments normal people in society as a whole, and benifits people who have nothing to do with you. Do you really think I take you seriously?

I highly question your definition of normal people.

Becuase it would be alot like giving every indonesian voting rights in our elections. What does it say about society when two flamers can get married just as a normal person can?

That analogy is flawed - giving indonesian citizens voting rights is nonsensical because it involves a group that is removed in such a way that it owes no obligations to the australian government despite gaining the rights that go with those obligations. Civil unions, irrespective of gender, do take the same legal obligations as traditional marriage to go along with the rights so there is no supposed diminishment. I'd also like to point out that British citizens had voting rights for a long while so the government has actually supported premises similar to your indonesia analogy.

I'd also think that it says society is a tad more self aware when all normal people can get married including homosexuals.

Having such a right would disgust people, most people neither want or need such a "right," its offensive.

Doesn't matter - it doesn't disadvantage you in any way, you just find this right repellent and useless. Which is probably what most homosexuals would think of their current right to marry so long as its with the opposite sex: they neither want or need such a 'right', its offensive.

Homosexuals should bear the weight of any actions they commit, that includes highly increased rates of pedophilia.

Probably every military leader in recorded history was male. Thus the male gender should take responsibility for the war crimes its gender has perpetrated for the last few millenia. The vast majority of these military leaders were likely heterosexuals as well, so all heterosexual males must take responsibility for war crimes as they must 'bear[sic] the weight of any actions they commit'.

Except that doesn't make sense does it? Perhaps it doesn't make sense because that entire group of people would've had nothing to do with all that - just as not all homosexuals should be responsible for pedophiliac crimes. The many do not have to take responsibility for the few.

 

[ihavenothing]

I think the problem is when they are closeted and are more likely to commit dangerous acts such as pedophilia. Stop tarring us all with the same brush. Marriages are about two things, love and consent, this is why we should be able to get married and the line is drawn when people start complaining that gay marriage will ruin the institutuion of marriage by opening the door to marriages of convenience, zoophilia and pedophilia. We know where the boundaries should be drawn and there is no amount of individuals who identify as straight who commit such crimes as the gay community.

 

[ur_inner_child]

The idea of homosexuality being more prone to pedophilia is as of the idea that african american people are more prone to crime.

Far too simplistic.

 

[dieburndie]

I don't agree with that comparison, black people are generally more prone to crime, even if it is entirely due to environmental influences etc.

 

[dieburndie]

Becuase homosexuality is not the kind of behaviour that should be given equal status with normal people, children should not have to be exposed to this filth in any dynamic, especially people who are four times as likely to be pedophiles. Infact, nothing would be better than these people, these "gays" going back to the dark underground hole from which they came from and not mess about with the lives of society, incase you haven't noticed our society hasn't survived and grown from men having anal sex.
Hopefully, in every.
It should not be policy to teach opinion.
Yes you openly support a policy that detriments normal people in society as a whole, and benifits people who have nothing to do with you. Do you really think I take you seriously?
Becuase it would be alot like giving every indonesian voting rights in our elections. What does it say about society when two flamers can get married just as a normal person can?
Having such a right would disgust people, most people neither want or need such a "right," its offensive.
Homosexuals should bear the weight of any actions they commit, that includes highly increased rates of pedophilia.

Why even bother replying? Most of your conclusions rely on your opinion that homosexuality is "offensive".
It's subjective, I can't argue with that.
Hardly anything you said makes any sense at all.

 

[nicolerixon]

What are your views on homosexuality? Marriage?

All people have different views on things and its the same with sexual preference. If they chose to love another of the same sex, it is fine as long as it doesnt effect me. Marriage? well they love each other so i don't see the problem

 

[withoutaface]

Homosexuals should bear the weight of any actions they commit, that includes highly increased rates of pedophilia.

Should you have to bear the weight of highly increased rates of hate crime because you're scared the big scary gay man's gonna stick his doodle in your bott bott?

 

[townie]

why i venture into this thread, i do not know, the idiocy of some astounds me (but the level-headedness of others, i confess, impresses me)

the sad state of affairs as I see it is that there is no logically coherant argument against homosexuality. Now, if we can agree on this point, the next point is, if there is no argument against homosexuality, shouldnt it just be accepted?