Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[Iron]

Yes, thank you!

When the show first came out, I thought 'Great! a) Promote queers as positive members of society, and b) a cool lifestyle show.' But of course, you're totally right, it was a complete reinforcement of what higher gay culture expects from the gay community - slim, dumb, campy, superficial, consumeristic, hetrophobic, misogynistic, etc. The Aussie version did not take off simply because they tried to get different normal hosts, which, of course noone wants to see because the whole premise to the show, as I now realise, is to have these characters (not humans) come into some abnormal person's life and act like clowns with their hollow and ridiculous advice.

I mean, the show wasn't only making a judgment of what gay culture should be, but what straight culture is. It's like every straight man out there is an insensitive slob who couldn't be bothered picking up his own trash off the floor. All he needs, of course, is for a gay guy to come in and sort out his whole life!

Queer Eye's treatment of Carsen was also terrible, if you've heard him speak normally, you'll know what I mean. He's an extraordinarily talented and intelligent person and yet on the show, they told him to essentially be a dumb blonde - eg that 'accidental slip' about him being some minister. Before he went on the show, I used to love reading his articles on fashion culture, because they were so quirky, hilarious, and not at all pretentious.

/sad.

Hahaha. I think the show also served as a billboard for the commercialism that dhj was talking about, in that it promoted the gay steryotype of a shallow life where meaning is sought from material products, self-gratification and youth worship. THe assumption of the program was that the right combination of material goods can sort out your life and give you happiness.
It's a banktupt philosophy which shows how hoplessly shallow and unfullfilling gay culture is. But that's the result of defining a movement by sex.
(/sadder)

 

[xeuyrawp]

Now if only I could get a gay person to agree...

Anyway, where do you think this comes from? Possible answers:

1. Did queer people start to become accepted too quickly, thus kind of violently exploding (lulz) into culture? Or is it some other historical reason?
2. Is this attitude and identity inherent to queer people? Or is it inherent or necessary to queer identity somehow?

 

[_dhj_]

That's a fair call, but black culture has not posed any penetrating risk to the foundations of a community. They have no lingering habits which could be construed as offensive or debilitating to society. That debate should be more about common values and intergration. It's about people wanting to join and contribute to a particular society as it's already established. Gay culture on the other hand, has bled into society in almost a totally negative way.

I think in terms of sexualisation of society, black culture has recently been more influential in perpetuating this trend. In particular, the ghetto culture and music videos on mtv, which at least represents the mainstream understanding of black culture, has contributed to the sexual objectification of women and promotion of promiscuity, violence and excess. This seems to be the trend with minorities. First there is a recognition of past wrongs against the minority, and attempt by society to accept the minority. Then the minority develops an identity. Finally, the most consumerist elements of this identity are magnified and promoted to the mainstream. In the end I don't feel that we can 'blame' the minority for the products of this process.

 

[Iron]

Now if only I could get a gay person to agree...

Anyway, where do you think this comes from? Possible answers:

1. Did queer people start to become accepted too quickly, thus kind of violently exploding (lulz) into culture? Or is it some other historical reason?
2. Is this attitude and identity inherent to queer people? Or is it inherent or necessary to queer identity somehow?

I think that you would no doubt have a more informed opinion, but for the sake of controversy I'd lean towards inherentness.
Perhaps it's a blunt recognition of the limits placed on many homosexuals after coming out - i.e. the denial of a family and other responsibilities greater than themselves. I think that when confronted by this uh freedom from inhibitions and burdens, as well as being denied a place in the major religions and facing a lingering/latent dissaproval from society, you would quickly form the view that life's meaning is to be found in a ruthless pursuit of personal pleasure.
The loud advertising of this is perhaps a kind of thumbing of the nose to all repression in society.

A better variant of this may be found in Kirby J's life on the bench - and the examination of many other courageous and brave men, who have been spurred on to be so due to their homosexuality through a need to be validated, or a stronger willingness to honestly and openly confront serious issues, or a stronger willingness to take risks through a bleak recognition that their life is less important without dependants... all these arguements have encouraged homosexuals to traditionally be bigger contributors to society as a sort of compensation perhaps (french resistance, Alexander the Great, Gore Vidal, Oscar Wilde and countless others who denied it)
But current gay culture would have them waste away in a pit of self-enclosed hedonism.

 

[Iron]

I think in terms of sexualisation of society, black culture has recently been more influential in perpetuating this trend. In particular, the ghetto culture and music videos on mtv, which at least represents the mainstream understanding of black culture, has contributed to the sexual objectification of women and promotion of promiscuity, violence and excess. This seems to be the trend with minorities. First there is a recognition of past wrongs against the minority, and attempt by society to accept the minority. Then the minority develops an identity. Finally, the most consumerist elements of this identity are magnified and promoted to the mainstream. In the end I don't feel that we can 'blame' the minority for the products of this process.

I did consider some of the race issues my answer denied, but I didnt want to murk the debate with them. But given your comment, I would agree that there has been a broad sexualisation of society. Im willing to assert that this occurs somewhere towards the end of the cycle of any great community. It feeds into a broader moral disintergration, collapse of discipline/respect for government and law, and usually a nasty end (in our case, most likely the end of humanity).
Of course it's unreasonable to foot something like gay culture with the bill for this, I agree. But I think that the point on cause and effect is perhaps too circular to solve

 

[KFunk]

Sexual relationships expressed through the institution of a genuine marriage (or something close to it) are the foundations of society, and the building blocks of trust/faith in fellow human beings.

Personally I think it is friendship and love rather than 'sex' per se which act as "building blacks of trust/faith" (though I will admit some neurobiological evidence in your favour --> the hormone oxytocin released during orgasm fosters trust). Many will disagree with me on this, but I feel that it is friendship which underlies a strong romantic relationship. Also, I notice that you use the potentially controversial phrase 'genuine marriage' and so I feel I should ask - what makes a marriage genuine?

I feel that I should pull you up on a previous generalization where you said "All homosexual sex necessarily slaps this idea in the face" (i.e. the idea of a meaningful relationship, which adds to society, leads to child raising etc... etc...). Homosexuals can have strong, stable, romantic relationships too. Hell, you would even find many homosexual couples raising children if we, as a society, were more willing to allow them to do so.

More importantly: why can't sex perform multiple functions?? Take conversation; there are multiple ways in which you can converse with another person. Conversation need not be reserved for business transactions or family ceremonies. It can be used to express love and grief, to coordinate society and to communicate knowledge. I know that there is areas of dysanalogy between the too but why can't sex be similar? It can be used to express strong, romantic love... or as a light-hearted social activity... or as a way to let off steam (and so on and so forth).

 

[Iron]

Personally I think it is friendship and love rather than 'sex' per se which act as "building blacks of trust/faith" (though I will admit some neurobiological evidence in your favour --> the hormone oxytocin released during orgasm fosters trust). Many will disagree with me on this, but I feel that it is friendship which underlies a strong romantic relationship. Also, I notice that you use the potentially controversial phrase 'genuine marriage' and so I feel I should ask - what makes a marriage genuine?

I feel that I should pull you up on a previous generalization where you said "All homosexual sex necessarily slaps this idea in the face" (i.e. the idea of a meaningful relationship, which adds to society, leads to child raising etc... etc...). Homosexuals can have strong, stable, romantic relationships too. Hell, you would even find many homosexual couples raising children if we, as a society, were more willing to allow them to do so.

More importantly: why can't sex perform multiple functions?? Take conversation; there are multiple ways in which you can converse with another person. Conversation need not be reserved for business transactions or family ceremonies. It can be used to express love and grief, to coordinate society and to communicate knowledge. I know that there is areas of dysanalogy between the too but why can't sex be similar? It can be used to express strong, romantic love... or as a light-hearted social activity... or as a way to let off steam (and so on and so forth).

Firstly, I like to assume that sex is the height of friendship, love and communication, not merely an equal part of it. Secondly I have a bus to catch so ill continue this in approximately one hour.

...Thirdly, I didn’t mean much to be imported into 'genuine marriage' other than a strong commitment to each other. Also, as signposted earlier, somewhere, I think, I’m not as convinced as you that a homosexual relationship can equal a hetero one in depth and satisfaction. Even though homosexuals have wrongly tried to emulate this by having one partner deny their masculinity, while the stronger retains it. I think that a same sex relationship is difficult to work because of this gender issue -the perceived need to submit or dominate.

In that regard, maybe they're just being realists in exercising promiscuity. So I would offer a compromise in our positions in that homosexual sex has less meaning and therefore is justified in not reading much into it. It cannot be the height of their relationships because their relationships cannot satisfactorily work. However I do not accept the need for sexual liberation to be loudly promoted as the movement's defining feature. Indeed, I argue that damage has been done to society because of it. Homosexual promiscuity was perfectly fine as an unspoken truth.

 

[_dhj_]

Hi Iron. I accept that the balance has swung too far in favour of homosexual 'identity'. But it is certainly a balancing exercise, and I think the 'unspoken truth' stance was probably too unfair for homosexuals. Still, I stand by the stance that the actual influence on mainstream culture is not significant. As homosexual identity and difference was gradually emphasised, the behaviour encouraged by homosexual culture gradually became more outlandish. But the two may well cancel out. That is, the recognition of difference decreased influence, because homosexual behaviour was recognised as more 'natural' for homosexuals due to their disposition. While the increased acceptance of difference decreased heterosexual suppression of homosexual behaviour, the effect of homosexual behaviour on influencing heterosexual behaviour also decreased, because homosexuals and heterosexuals had acceptable reasons to be different.

 

[stophomophobia]

I myself am a gay male and dont understand why people are opposed of it. it is the sme concept if a man loves a woman just as a man loves a man.why does it have to be so narrrow minded that only men and women (hetero sexuas) can marry. If a man loves a man or a woman loves a woman shoudn't they be able to have the same rights as our straight counterparts?

 

[Ademir]

Got nothing against homosexuality. Let them marry, adopt children, whatever.

 

[Gosford]

Got nothing against homosexuality. Let them marry, adopt children, whatever.

thats pretty harshj on children
i still agree with the people up high ('educated' people who say iun may be detrimental for children being raised by homosexual parents... 1) similar problems to families when 1 parent is absent (good to have a male and female influence)
2) people can be cruel to kids. I would never be mean to a kid (eg. ur parents r bad coz they r gay!!1), but others would. Situations could arise puttin kids in strife because of parents 'nature', making thier lives that much harder!!!

 

[Silver Persian]

I think secularisation + consumerism have been much bigger influences in the sexualisation of society than gays/blacks

 

[ogmzergrush]

thats pretty harshj on children
i still agree with the people up high ('educated' people who say iun may be detrimental for children being raised by homosexual parents... 1) similar problems to families when 1 parent is absent (good to have a male and female influence)
2) people can be cruel to kids. I would never be mean to a kid (eg. ur parents r bad coz they r gay!!1), but others would. Situations could arise puttin kids in strife because of parents 'nature', making thier lives that much harder!!!

Hey Gosford, great to see you posting here again. I was worried those assholes before had scared you off, glad you've soldiered on, as you enrich this community to no end!

I agree with 1) and 2) points that you raised, it's just plain unreasonable to assume that anyone has the capability of raising a child without warping it in damaging and irrevocable ways. Once your throw HOMOSEXUALS into the equation, it just gets worse. I mean seriously, if a normal guy and woman can't manage to do it properly, how will a pair of sodomites, just for example? Exactly, it won't work. They may as well start letting security-max inmates staff daycare centres, as that's the level of damage we're talking about inflicting on our future generations with this kind of nonsense.

This is why I'm an advocate a more literal "No Child Left Behind" act within Australia. Instead of being some pussy shit about teaching black kids to read picture books, we're going to give the state complete ownership of, and responsibility for, all children. No filth-mongering homosexuals, no lowly single parents, and last but not least, no drug addicts, drunks, or any of those scum that you find in "normal" couples. This way, the children will be made a priority, and they'll definitely benefit from it! Life will be easier than ever before, as all these potentially negative influences will have been removed.

On a side note, let me just thank you once again for posting. I love seeing people who are on the same wavelength as me here. It reaffirms just how right I am, and, to be honest, helps me sleep a little better at night - knowing that there are other people who are just as switched on as me, and just as willing to say the controversial lines, make the tough decisions, and to ultimately stand up for the good of our future generations.

 

[Gosford]

Hey Gosford, great to see you posting here again. I was worried those assholes before had scared you off, glad you've soldiered on, as you enrich this community to no end!

I agree with 1) and 2) points that you raised, it's just plain unreasonable to assume that anyone has the capability of raising a child without warping it in damaging and irrevocable ways. Once your throw HOMOSEXUALS into the equation, it just gets worse. I mean seriously, if a normal guy and woman can't manage to do it properly, how will a pair of sodomites, just for example? Exactly, it won't work. They may as well start letting security-max inmates staff daycare centres, as that's the level of damage we're talking about inflicting on our future generations with this kind of nonsense.

This is why I'm an advocate a more literal "No Child Left Behind" act within Australia. Instead of being some pussy shit about teaching black kids to read picture books, we're going to give the state complete ownership of, and responsibility for, all children. No filth-mongering homosexuals, no lowly single parents, and last but not least, no drug addicts, drunks, or any of those scum that you find in "normal" couples. This way, the children will be made a priority, and they'll definitely benefit from it! Life will be easier than ever before, as all these potentially negative influences will have been removed.

On a side note, let me just thank you once again for posting. I love seeing people who are on the same wavelength as me here. It reaffirms just how right I am, and, to be honest, helps me sleep a little better at night - knowing that there are other people who are just as switched on as me, and just as willing to say the controversial lines, make the tough decisions, and to ultimately stand up for the good of our future generations.

lol
watever man!

 

[ogmzergrush]

lol
watever man!

Great we agree

Ok, next contestant!

 

[MaNiElla]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22582972-421,00.html

:\

 

[AK Sevitus]

I haven't read all 100+ pages of this thread, however, my sig pretty much sums up my opinion.

Gosford - read the article linked under 'adopt' in my sig. It's by a married straight guy and probably the most unbiased thing I've read. (Yes, unbiased from BOTH sides). I'm not completely disagreeing with your opinion. It acknowledges all that, and was written when the first gay males in Western Australia adopted a child.

Iron - I don't see the difference between your dominance point of view and that of a woman letting her husband (or vice versa) be more dominant. Some couples have it and some don't. You're generalising based on a stereotype.

ogmzergrush - do you realise how many basic human rights your idea would break? And what makes you refer to same sex couples as "filth-mongering homosexuals"?

MaNiElla - you seemed to have posted an article that spends the most of it's body blaming gays only to acknowledge: "Dr Steinberg's LA-based Fertility Institute has performed the hi-tech "sex selection" procedure on about 100 gay and heterosexual couples from Australia since 2005." Please explain how this does not classify as a prejudiced piece to fuel discrimination.

And just for those of you our there who don't realise; Marriage and Civil Unions are not the same thing. Same sex couples cannot access the family court. Only one parent may actually have full parental rights (this covers things like being able to sign for the child's treatment in hospital, etc!). Howard supports this discrimination. So does Rudd.

 

[ogmzergrush]

I haven't read all 100+ pages of this thread, however, my sig pretty much sums up my opinion.

The thread is somewhat ridiculous by this point, but if you did happen to sift back through the layers upon layers of stupidity, at some point here I did actually express a serious opinion, one which I suspect may be more to your liking. Since then, all the same issues have been rehashed many times, with each brave new combatant being about twice as stupid as the last.

As such I don't really see too much merit in responding to these points over and over as they are brought up. That said, I can't quite stand just sitting by and not watching as people share their views, which I tend to find lacking, to put it gently. In dire times such as these, I turn to satire.

ogmzergrush - do you realise how many basic human rights your idea would break? And what makes you refer to same sex couples as "filth-mongering homosexuals"?

It's ok, I don't really support the oppression of all humanity.

 

[Gosford]

I haven't read all 100+ pages of this thread, however, my sig pretty much sums up my opinion.

Gosford - read the article linked under 'adopt' in my sig. It's by a married straight guy and probably the most unbiased thing I've read. (Yes, unbiased from BOTH sides). I'm not completely disagreeing with your opinion. It acknowledges all that, and was written when the first gay males in Western Australia adopted a child.

Iron - I don't see the difference between your dominance point of view and that of a woman letting her husband (or vice versa) be more dominant. Some couples have it and some don't. You're generalising based on a stereotype.

ogmzergrush - do you realise how many basic human rights your idea would break? And what makes you refer to same sex couples as "filth-mongering homosexuals"?

MaNiElla - you seemed to have posted an article that spends the most of it's body blaming gays only to acknowledge: "Dr Steinberg's LA-based Fertility Institute has performed the hi-tech "sex selection" procedure on about 100 gay and heterosexual couples from Australia since 2005." Please explain how this does not classify as a prejudiced piece to fuel discrimination.

And just for those of you our there who don't realise; Marriage and Civil Unions are not the same thing. Same sex couples cannot access the family court. Only one parent may actually have full parental rights (this covers things like being able to sign for the child's treatment in hospital, etc!). Howard supports this discrimination. So does Rudd.

cool
i knew there was currently some sort of legislation or something a rather
dw about ogmzergrush, he is trying to... make my views satirical or something a rther (i dont really care, satire isnt in any of my texts )

 

[williams180]

I myself am a gay male and dont understand why people are opposed of it. it is the sme concept if a man loves a woman just as a man loves a man.why does it have to be so narrrow minded that only men and women (hetero sexuas) can marry. If a man loves a man or a woman loves a woman shoudn't they be able to have the same rights as our straight counterparts?

your joking mate.They should have no fucking rights. Thinking they can adopt children makes me sick thinking about the trauma a child like that would have all there life. Coming home to 2 dads ppl would bag on someone like that all through childhood potentially scarring them for life. Imagine having two fathers and no mothers. Marriage in every religion/normal persons ideals is between a man and a women anything else is just lunacy. Plus if gays have kids they will prob turn out homo too its ridiculous. And to think they want benefits the same as any other family from our federal gov i mean please