Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[*Minka*]

Gay. It is not a dirty word.

Move on people. Accept people for who they are.

 

[xeuyrawp]

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

I think they would.

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.

Yes we do, Justice Michael Kirby, the folks at ACON, the peeps that run GALAH, GLAM, etc etc.

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.

ACON is run by the government.

 

[Baiku]

(I haven't read the whole thread, so don't know if this has come up...)

To support something is very different to condoning something.

I believe it is fair to say that homosexuality should be condoned, but to support it implies advocacy on the part of all of society. That doesn't make sense.

Homosexuality is socially counter-productive, it is biologically nonsensical.

To support homosexuality on a large scale would lead to the detriment of humanity as a whole.

(and please don't reply, but we can all be gay and have IVF babies...)

 

[_dhj_]

I think the conflict between homosexuals and heterosexuals in today's society is based not so much on homophobia or disapproval of homosexual behaviour by heterosexuals, but more on the evolution of the so called 'homosexual identity'. Being gay is not seen as simply a particular preference (whether by choice or otherwise) that one has, but is seeing as a way of living, a separate identity. Imo this is caused by both the stereotyping of gays by heteros and the gay response to social oppression (part of which is the stereotyping). As a result people of homosexual orientation are classified, and often classify themselves not as an ordinary member of society but as a gay person - i.e. a separate identity.

 

[robo-andie]

I think the conflict between homosexuals and heterosexuals in today's society is based not so much on homophobia or disapproval of homosexual behaviour by heterosexuals, but more on the evolution of the so called 'homosexual identity'. Being gay is not seen as simply a particular preference (whether by choice or otherwise) that one has, but is seeing as a way of living, a separate identity. Imo this is caused by both the stereotyping of gays by heteros and the gay response to social oppression (part of which is the stereotyping). As a result people of homosexual orientation are classified, and often classify themselves not as an ordinary member of society but as a gay person - i.e. a separate identity.

Agreed. I hate that some of my friends feel that because they are gay, their lifestyle should be dictated by this. It's really sad when you see people who have no sense of identity and need to abuse apart of themselves to a point where it consumes them. Being gay should not mean you must engage in promiscous sex, nor should it mean that you must be trendy or be heavily involved in the social scene (as would fit a common stereotype). I personally think, conforming to this stereotype is seen as the easy way for the gay men who are too afraid to just be their own person.

 

[Generator]

(I haven't read the whole thread, so don't know if this has come up...)

To support something is very different to condoning something.

I believe it is fair to say that homosexuality should be condoned, but to support it implies advocacy on the part of all of society. That doesn't make sense.

Homosexuality is socially counter-productive, it is biologically nonsensical.

To support homosexuality on a large scale would lead to the detriment of humanity as a whole.

(and please don't reply, but we can all be gay and have IVF babies...)

When people say that they support homosexuality, it should be quite clear that they are referring to the notion that a person should be free to express their sexuality. Consider the actual meaning as opposed to an excessively literal interpretation next-time.

 

[robo-andie]

I was watching a TV show the other night, I think it was called "Culture Wars" or something odd like that.
Amanda Vanstone (sp?) made a comment about how only recently, the spouse visa had been changed to include independent same-sex couples. So now, not only married couples and heterosexual couples are given the opportunity to use spouse visa's, same-sex couples can too.

Thought that was a rather pleasant bit of information. Society is changing.

 

[ihavenothing]

(I haven't read the whole thread, so don't know if this has come up...)

To support something is very different to condoning something.

I believe it is fair to say that homosexuality should be condoned, but to support it implies advocacy on the part of all of society. That doesn't make sense.

Homosexuality is socially counter-productive, it is biologically nonsensical.

To support homosexuality on a large scale would lead to the detriment of humanity as a whole.

(and please don't reply, but we can all be gay and have IVF babies...)

Yes, but condoning homosexuality will definately not make it more popular, people should know their is no laws in humanity that judge who they sleep with and population decline in recent years does not need to be scapegoated on people's sexual preference.

 

[sam04u]

Re: Islamic Sex Education in Australia

Homosexuality is a 'social disorder', Homosexuality is less prevalent in societies unaware of homosexualism. In my opinion, the bible is one of the largest spreaders of the disorder. (as they talk about it, making the condition aware.)
It's like 'yawning or coughing', people will yawn when no one is around, but people may genuinely yawn when watching someone else yawn.

The idea of the 'preference' being available makes it more prevalent.
Back on topic, being taught about homosexuality is detrimental, and should generally be 'ignored' in order for it's prevalence to decrease. (sort of like quarantining without the mean and evilness)

 

[kami]

Re: Islamic Sex Education in Australia

Homosexuality is a 'social disorder', Homosexuality is less prevalent in societies unaware of homosexualism. In my opinion, the bible is one of the largest spreaders of the disorder. (as they talk about it, making the condition aware.)
It's like 'yawning or coughing', people will yawn when no one is around, but people may genuinely yawn when watching someone else yawn.

Then explain homosexual albatross. Or sheep. Or [insert animal here]. While very few definitive conclusions can be reached about homosexuality, one of them is this - its more than a 'social disorder'.

Further, what of gay children raised by straight parents who weren't 'exposed' to homosexuality? How on Earth would they 'catch it'?

And which societies are unaware of the fact that they're equipped to have sex with someone of their own gender?

Back on topic, being taught about homosexuality is detrimental, and should generally be 'ignored' in order for it's prevalence to decrease. (sort of like quarantining without the mean and evilness)

Assuming you hold homosexuality with violence and deceit as patterned behaviour we learn from example. Then aren't you undermining your fellow muslims moralistic choice? Namely to follow the path of islam and its morals, or to be led along without choice due to ignorance. Isn't that the whole sake of jihad? An inner struggle to maintain faith? Surely by condoning ignorance you are denying them the right to this perfect faith.

 

[_dhj_]

Re: Islamic Sex Education in Australia

What makes "homosexualism" a "social disorder"? I really don't see how it damages society (if that's what you mean) in any way. To me it seems like most homosexuals are nice people (generalisation, I know). I don't see how its influence can incite violence, or how it's inherently "detrimental" - it's surely just another harmless status that differentiates people - like race, gender, religion etc...

 

[katie_tully]

Re: Islamic Sex Education in Australia

Homosexuality is a 'social disorder', Homosexuality is less prevalent in societies unaware of homosexualism. In my opinion, the bible is one of the largest spreaders of the disorder. (as they talk about it, making the condition aware.)
It's like 'yawning or coughing', people will yawn when no one is around, but people may genuinely yawn when watching someone else yawn.

The idea of the 'preference' being available makes it more prevalent.
Back on topic, being taught about homosexuality is detrimental, and should generally be 'ignored' in order for it's prevalence to decrease. (sort of like quarantining without the mean and evilness)

Lord only knows why you are still permitted to breathe, Sam04u.

If you're convinced homosexuality is a 'social disorder' then I'll add that it is not a new social disorder, especially considering the fact that homosexual relationships between men and women have been documented as far back as 3000 years.

In many cultures, especially ancient Greece, it was not uncommon for the act of homosexuality to be praised with reference to their Gods. A social disorder? I think not.

Also if you had a clue you'd realise that the Bible does not condemn homosexuals, it only condemns the act of homosexual sex, much like it condemns heterosexual sex outside of marriage. Therefore I believe that the Bible, despite being the most horrendous book of errors on Earth sees homosexuality not as a social disorder, but as something genetically imprinted that cannot be changed.

 

[turtleface]

I think most people are happy to accept homosexuals as part of our society, but many of them themselves want to try and distinguish themselves as being different.

I mean, shit, why have stuff like "Mardi Gras" and "Queer groups"? If I made my my own "heterosexual club" I'd probably have a bunch of gay activists trying to sue my arse for discrimination.

If those homosexuals really are a normal part of society, then they should act like it.

I'm sure most homosexuals are ok, and just regular members of society, but you continually get some who try and further some agenda. Of course this occurs for every minority group, not just homosexuals, so I'm probably being a bit unfair in targeting just them.

 

[katie_tully]

I agree that there would be an uproar if you decided to start a heterosexual only group. Much like there was ridiculous uproar when men's only yoga, men's only parent groups and men only cooking classes and the like were started. Apparently it's okay for there to be women only classes but not men only classes?

I also do not think the homosexual community is doing itself any favours with the public by typcasting themselves as "outcasts". In Parkes recently it was announced that there was going to be a homosexual community group called "Rebellion" opening. It was later said that the name is due to 'homosexuals breaking away from society'.

I think it's the liberal lifestyle homosexuals promote (although some now say that this is a stereotype due to shows like Queer as Folk). Nobody can dispute that one of the biggest spreaders of AIDS in the Western World atleast, is homosexul sex (and of course needle shearing, something that become synonymous with homosexuals in the 80s/90s). I think people resent the fact that this group of people wish to be accepted, yet personally I dont think that by ostracising themselves they are going to achieve that.

 

[kami]

I think most people are happy to accept homosexuals as part of o ur society, but many of them themselves want to try and distinguish themselves as being different.

I mean, shit, why have stuff like "Mardi Gras" and "Queer groups"? If I made my my own "heterosexual club" I'd probably have a bunch of gay activists trying to sue my arse for discrimination.

If those homosexuals really are a normal part of society, then they should act like it.

See, this is part of the problem - when you say so and so is normal and yours then what you are also doing is saying 'they aren't like us and they're not a part of our society'. Its also saying 'my way or the high way' and that is going to provoke a response - whether its womens groups protesting for equal pay or voting rights or homosexuals being 'loud and proud' in order to contest marriage legislation.

I do agree with you in a way, as I think there is an excessive amount of grandstanding about irrelevant issues. However there is nothing wrong with trying to distinguish one's self as different IMO. Which is not that different from your posts about accounting and finance really.

I'm sure most homosexuals are ok, and just regular members of society, but you continually get some who try and further some agenda. Of course this occurs for every minority group, not just homosexuals, so I'm probably being a bit unfair in targeting just them.

'Agendas' don't have much to do with minority groups either - its just people will always push for the changes they want whether they are minority or not. Howard isn't strictly speaking a member of any clear minority yet he pushes his own agenda. As does every parliamentary member. You can also say the same of religion - many of whom are not in the minority.

I also do not think the homosexual community is doing itself any favours with the public by typcasting themselves as "outcasts". In Parkes recently it was announced that there was going to be a homosexual community group called "Rebellion" opening. It was later said that the name is due to 'homosexuals breaking away from society'.

Agreed. That level of behaviour is little better than stamping feet and having a temper tantrum. We can never truly have a society separate from 'heterosexual society' anyway[and I wouldn't want one], so its futile anyway.

 

[katie_tully]

Well I found it amusing because the purpose of the committee is to promote gay awareness and acceptance in the town, yet they still want to separate themselves from society?

 

[robo-andie]

Well I found it amusing because the purpose of the committee is to promote gay awareness and acceptance in the town, yet they still want to separate themselves from society?

I hate groups like this. With a passion.

They make a large contribution to the difficulty a lot of other gay awareness groups face. There should be a national committee which oversees the running of the groups, then regional co-ordinators and then centre managers. This way, there is a chain of command that discourages radical/extreme actions which may occur within particular communities.

I don't like groups who don't have a sense of order and maturity about them. If they are run properly, they work really well. I can't imagine this group in Parkes will do aswell as it could.

 

[robo-andie]

Society shouldn't be seperated by race, gender, religion or sexual preference. It is unneccessary, and the true cause for social disorder.

 

[poloktim]

Re: Islamic Sex Education in Australia

Homosexuality is a 'social disorder', Homosexuality is less prevalent in societies unaware of homosexualism. In my opinion, the bible is one of the largest spreaders of the disorder. (as they talk about it, making the condition aware.)
It's like 'yawning or coughing', people will yawn when no one is around, but people may genuinely yawn when watching someone else yawn.

The idea of the 'preference' being available makes it more prevalent.
Back on topic, being taught about homosexuality is detrimental, and should generally be 'ignored' in order for it's prevalence to decrease. (sort of like quarantining without the mean and evilness)

http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/tip_sheets/12.5_10.asp I'm going to trust these people more than I'll trust you. Something about being "the largest professional association for psychologists in Australia" ( http://www.psychology.org.au/aps/default.asp ) seems to be more convincing than your unsourced rambling.

(I'm aware you mentioned social disorder and not mental disorder, but to mention that it is a disorder at all that can be 'fixed' is against what psychologists across the country are pushing towards).

Agreed. That level of behaviour is little better than stamping feet and having a temper tantrum. We can never truly have a society separate from 'heterosexual society' anyway[and I wouldn't want one], so its futile anyway.

Agreed. It was my belief that queer collectives were for so-inclined people to be able to function in a supportive environment at times. Last time I checked, supportive does not equal militant.

Communities should have a queer collective and not be a point where so-inclined people are scared of joining for fear of being labelled a militant (sadly there will be plenty of labels already going around if one person is found to be in a queer collective ). They should be able to join and know they're getting support regardless of who they are or what their political views are.

Edit: The protocol is http... my mistake (fixed up a URL)

 

[sam04u]

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).

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.

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.