What I find astounding is that an individual cannot believe in homosexuality. I am sure there are people who do not condone it, but how can you not believe in something that clearly exists? It is not a conspiracy against fundamentalist religion, some people are simply attracted to people of the same sex. Is that really so hard to comprehend? Clearly this young girl has been indoctrinated by her church or parents, or both. I am sure that this will not be the last time her values are going to hinder her chances at a normal life, and the individual/s that instilled these values in her should be ashamed. Both for harming the normal development of the girl, and for possibly causing her to harm others in the community.

Perhaps we could work out a compromise. Why not re-work the module which aims to teach tolerance and acceptance and at the same time celebrates our diversity.

Ask the student to imagine she is a backyard doctor about to perform the uplifting medical procedure known as FGM. The student should place herself in the shoes of the patient and comment on what strategies she would use to deal with the experience

or:

Ask the student to imagine she is in a ‘concentration camp’ in a ‘hot desert location’ behind the ‘razor wire’. The student is asked to comment on the fact that surprisingly the host nation is accused of being a racist nation yet overt racism is practiced by the inmates of the detention centre and it is ingrained into their culture to be racist; it is in fact a rich 2000-year-old tradition. The student should identify with this minority and explain how it is possible for a nation to lose its racist tag by allowing racists into the country.

Teachers have no business setting assignments about homosexuality in the first place. Nor should they be encouraging “acceptance of diversity…” when it comes to sexual perversion. Kids seem to be leaving school with little knowledge of areas they will need to work and survive in the modern world already; they don’t needs their heads full of the behaviour of weirdos.

The 13-year-old child is to be congratulated for refusing to take part in the offensive exercise. In the case of one so mature for her age, I think that we can take it that it wasn’t that she did not “believe” in homosexuality, but that she was opposed to it. And, the Qld premier did the right thing by requiring such nonsense to be withdrawn.

Describing people disgusted by sexual perversion as “homophobes” seeks to make normal people wrong, and perverts right. We’ve had all sorts of discussion on OLO about homosexuality – generally a waste of time – but the fact remains that males and females are different for one reason – procreation of the species (and we’ve been through the crap about heterosexuals not having children, so give it a rest).

Same sex organs are simply not “designed” to work together. There is no getting around that, and that fact should end all argument. Of course, it doesn’t, and the inevitable acceptance of the disgusting habit of homosexuality, same-sex partners “rights” and other warped legislation, will add to the downfall of decency and civilization.

I’m the first to admit that the battle is lost to the perverts. Even as a non-religious person, I see the approach of a real Sodom and Gomorrah. But there is no excuse for filth to be preached to schoolchildren, or anyone else who simply doesn’t want to know.

I love the bit where these two characters talk about a “political agenda masquerading as curriculum”. They don’t want their political agenda pushed in schools – much! And, of course students are already aware of the issue. They don’t need bent teachers shoving it down their throats

I was surprised that this became an issue, and I wonder exactly how much it has been beaten up on its journey through the media.

If my thirteen year-old had been set this question, he would have found it exceptionally difficult to complete, let alone provide an answer that would have said anything meaningful about "acceptance of diversity and understanding of the consequences of exclusion, be it through sexual identity, race, culture or disability"

For reasons that I sometimes find difficult to understand myself, he is totally unaware that homosexuals are in any way disadvantaged in our society, let alone "excluded". The fact that someone is or is not homosexual appeares to be freely discussed at his school without any overtones or undertones. He is fully aware that some of his teachers are homosexual, but neither he nor his mates see this as anything more significant than the type of car they drive or the colour of their shirt.

Having said that, it is also noticeable that they continue, as did the school playground of my own distant recollection, to bandy around the terms described in the article - "'poofter', 'dyke' or 'faggot' used as insults" - without noticeable harm. I wonder if it might be that they carry no more emotional baggage for them than it did for us, where they were equivalent to 'spaz', 'moron' or 'loony'.

There is an industry somewhere that keeps a lot of people in lucrative employment, manufacturing "issues" around words such as "minority", "exclusion", "discrimination", "diversity", "tolerance" and the like. The only thing they actually achieve - except for a comfortable lifestyle for their proponents - is a continuation of the myth that kids actually concern themselves with stuff like this.

Left to themselves, kids seem to me to be a remarkably tolerant bunch. It is the introduction of intrusive do-gooders that sensitizes them to the differences. Otherwise, they simply wouldn't notice.

I have to say I’m inclined to agree with you, Leigh: these arguments do tend to go round in unhelpful circles. I’m always fascinated by who’s going to be the first to make a biblical reference and who’ll be the first to describe their distaste of homosexuality as “not wanting it shoved down their throat”. Congratulations x 2.

Now: who’s going to be the first to mention paedophilia, and who’s going to post the first link to the NARTH website? Or for that matter, mention Hitler, the Nazis or Fred Phelps?

I disagree with you, though Pericles: I think it’s a really interesting, though possibly challenging, thought exercise for year nine kids, although I reckon the teachers were pretty naive not to think it might furrow a few Neanderthal brows in these days of the so-called culture wars.

It might not take long for someone to quote a biblical reference or to talk about the sinfulness of homosexuality but their seems to be far more who are willing to promote this unhealthy lifestyle. I think this young girl has a great deal of courage in standing against this perversion that is constantly pushed on the majority from a very small minority. No wonder the State system is losing religous and non religous people at the rate of knots.

Pericles...

I think you are both right and wrong. First congratulations for raising such a child who is clearly not a bigot. I agree that the assignment question would have been difficult to answer for someone who is not in a minority group.

I think you are in error here though: "without noticeable harm" (referring to the use of insults such as 'poofter'). A quick search will disclose many instances, both surveyed and anecdotal, where such name-calling can lead to "noticeable harm" in the victim, even heterosexual ones. It's a form of bullying that, yes, has been with us for ever but that doesn't make it appropriate behaviour. Funnily though if your son was to say as much to his mates I guess he, in turn, would be bullied. It never pays to be different in the school yard.

"There are good reasons - that teachers well understand - for school curricula to foster tolerance of religious, cultural and sexuality difference in Australian schools."

I first came across the term "Heterophobia" in Daphne Patai's book, later Bernard Chaphin wrote;

"In America today, a powerful case can, and will, be made that heterosexuals all too readily defer to homosexuals regarding claims of oppression or that we suffer some kind of psychological malady due to our refusal to celebrate them to the full extent they desire. Most “straights” seem to silently accept the validity of bogus concepts like “homophobia” which maintains that many of us harbor hate for those who happen to be physically attracted to members of the same sex. I hold that the concept of homophobia is fallacious, and that, in fact, the opposite of homophobia, “heterophobia” is a more pressing concern.

I tend to agree with Bernard that heterophobia is a more pressing concern.

Last year, a friend on mine was bashed on a university campus. He had to spend a night in hospital. He now fears to walk around the same campus after dark.

He was bashed because he was openly homosexual.

This is not someone who is "perverted", living and "unhealthy lifestyle". This is a young man who is devoted to his partner of 5 years. This is not someone who is trying to force his "lifestyle" on other, but someone who was, until recently, not afraid to be himself.

While I realise that this event was at the extreme end of the homophobic scale, how many other, allbeit smaller acts of discrimination, are leveled at homosexual people?

Programs such as the one in Queensland may be unpopular, and they may be token. But if they can take one small step towards ending bigotry and homophobia, I think they should be given a chance.

I still remember the day when i was put on detention for a week for standing up in class and saying that my personal opinion was that i did not like or advocate homosexuals, therefore i was not going to sit there and listen to her advocate and encourage people to be different.

I must admit i am more tolerant and a little less hard nosed now but in a society where the choice of being homosexual and the respective sensitivity overrides the equally important choice of not being homosexual, our society has become more than a little ludicrous.

And to boot, our government institutions should stop advocating it, merely accept it. At university i dont want to see a queer week, i dont want to see shocking advertising & imagery to bring attention to queer peoples sexual choices, conversely we dont have a straight week and therefore if they want to pidgeon hole themselves as a minority group with minority group disadvantages, dont follow this line.

Sexual preference should have NO BEARING, i repeat NO BEARING on the teachings of any institution, it is not thier responsibility and they are overstepping the mark by doing so

Peter JH, thanks for the congratulations, but as I hinted in my post, I'm fairly certain I had nothing directly to do with it - it seems to be endemic among kids these days, you don't have to "teach" them much except the ability to detect hypocrisy and blind dogma.

For some reason I found your statement "I agree that the assignment question would have been difficult to answer for someone who is not in a minority group" a little patronising, although I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.

One avenue I did not explore before, but is perhaps worth introducing into the discussion, is: what would have happened to the boy if having failed even to understand the question, he put in a poor performance in answering it? After all, if you can't see the "differences" you are supposed to build into the storyline, how exciting and dramatic could your essay possibly be?

Would he have been taken to one side, and told that whether he liked it or not, discrimination against minorities exists, and he had better get used to it? Would his inability to comprehend the mindset that creates this bigotry count against him in evaluating his academic performance? Under what heading would he have "failed"?

Quite often, it is the industry that creates these bogeymen that concerns me most. The vast majority of us sail through the playground insults without incident, and by accepting them as nothing more than childish byplay, manage to keep them in perspective. It is only when the thought police creep up and chastise us for something that offends nobody except the thought police, that it can get ugly.

Pericles said, “Quite often, it is the industry that creates these bogeymen that concerns me most. The vast majority of us sail through the playground insults without incident, and by accepting them as nothing more than childish byplay, manage to keep them in perspective.”

Maybe so, and I agree that it’s sensible to try to keep out briefly fashionable theories out of basic education. And you have to be careful not to make mountains out of molehills. But the truth is, kids can behave like little s**ts, especially once they get into mobs. A key task of education, in the broadest sense, should be to inculcate a sense of respect for the different and the vulnerable, and to challenge the nasty tendency of humans toward mob rule and violence.

The horrible Werribee incident, which seems to have captured the media’s attention at least in Melbourne recently, indicates that schools, and all of us, have our work cut out teaching kids to treat others with decency. Bullying might be common, but it is not a trivial matter. The Queensland school’s essay question seems to me like an attempt to get kids to start thinking about such matters. This is a good thing. It’s called developing empathy. More, please. Anti-homosexual bigots, and others who get off on attacking minorities, kindly get a life.

I find it absolutely facinating that those here who have rallied against tolerance and equity of homosexuality would also be big fans of Allan Jones. That said, I wish Allan was a big fan of his true self too.

I think when you belong to the majority, it’s very easy to overlook the difficulties faced by minorities, and to see their claims for protection as an imposition. It’s very easy to interpret homosexuals’ demands for protection as heterophobia.

This is precisely why programs are needed in schools to raise awareness of what it feels like to belong to a minority.

There aren’t gangs of homosexual thugs roaming around beating heterosexuals to a pulp http://snipurl.com/ztfz, so of course heterosexuals don’t know what it feels like to be under threat because of their sexuality. No-one sprays anti-straight graffiti on heterosexuals’ cars, so they don’t find out what it’s like to spend Sunday morning scraping Saturday night’s hate mail off the windscreen.

And one of the worst things about homophobia is the fact that is experienced disproportionately by young people. In 2003 a NSW Attorney General’s Department study found that 56% of respondents had been victims of homophobic attacks or harassment in the previous twelve months, and only 15% said that they had never been victimised (http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/cpd/ll_cpd.nsf/pages/CPD_glbt_publications). The study found that young people 16 – 19 years old were over-represented among victims of recent abuse.

It’s easy to talk about heterophobia when you live in a safe heterosexual world. Imagine that your fourteen-year-old son is being bullied at school because some other kids have decided that he’s a faggot. Think about how you’d feel in that situation, and then say that you think that anti-homophobia lessons shouldn’t be part of the curriculum.

w, Well put. I pity any son or daughter- be they gay or hetro or bi, whatever - of the posters you refer too. May they grow up and develop their own and not their parent's narrow minded views of the world around them

I have but one hope / prayer for Leigh, and others like him. And that is, that one of his children turns out to be homosexual. I'm sure his extreme views (because, Leigh, they are extreme - and what's more, they are extremely offensive) would change overnight if such a revelation were to happen.

It happened to Dick Cheney.

I think the exercise was presented to educate and groom a child and therefore it shouldn’t' have been about homosexuality. We want to set examples that are in our children's and societies best interest!

And yes, I accept that there are people that are gay, and yes I believe that they should be able to be identified as a couple and be able to get access to benefits. BUT I don't think that we should HAVE TO PRETEND that the couple is exactly the same as a man and a woman, or be accused of discrimination, as clearly it is not. The union of a man and a woman is the only union that can produce a child.

The essay should have just asked the kids to imagine they are disadvantaged and allow the student to pick their own disadvantage on which to write on.

They have to stop telling our children what to think and putting ideas in their heads.

The DET does really stupid things. They made my daughter, Year 9 in a Selective School, walk around for a week carrying a boiled egg that they had to pretend was a baby to give them an idea of what it was like to have a baby. My daughter said that the majority of girls actually made baskets and clothes for their egg and they talked to it as if it was alive and they loved it. If it was supposed to deter girls from wanting to have a baby it didn’t work and it was so stupid my daughter couldn’t do it. The humiliation of walking around in public with an egg, pretending it was a baby, when she was only 14, was embarrassing. She didn't do it and she wrote a report waffling on and trying her best not to say what she thought of the exercise but failing miserably.

If my daughter had of been asked to do that essay she would have done the same thing.

She wouldn't care that she got low marks, she couldn't do it.

Leigh,
Congratulations at least someone here is talking sense. The constant raising of these types of issues only polarises people, and people who reject this type of behaviour as totally unnatural will never accept such practises as normal.

I spent this last weekend with a group of 34 men and one graceous fellow was still single at 44 who in societies eyes they would consider having gay attitudes. His family consists of disabled children he has taken into his large home that he gives care to as a nurse.

The author has ignored the issue that parents were concerned about; forbidding students from allowing their parents/carers from knowing of the curriculum. Nice to see you ignore that.

Yes, Petal - if there was any justice in the world, such a thing would happen. Of course, there is and it does.

Mind you, in the case of Cheney it still hasn't prevented him continuing in his position as one of the world's greatest tools.

Back to the topic - the level of homophobia evident in some of the above comments only reinforces the justification of the inclusion of such essay topics in school curricula. Clearly some kids are getting very bigoted views at home - not just about homosexuality, but about human diversity in general.

The son of a friend of mine was beaten on the head, and ended up in hospital, because some yong thugs thought he was gay. (He isn't.) One of my students went out to collect a pizza and was beaten up severely, again by people who thought he was gay. That is what is properly called homophobia. It is still distressingly common.

I recall a group of police drowning a homosexual man in the Torrens river.

And there are other risks of leaving homophobia alone--to those who engage in it. A group of schoolboys lured a gay man to a Sydney park and kicied him to death. They were convicted of murder, and sent to jail.

It done not matter for this purpose what you think about the morality of homosexual sex (though the arguments are quite clear that there is nothing wrong with it). What matters is that violent attacks are immoral, whoever they are made on. And there are parts of our society where they are encouraged. We should protect the potential victims, and we should also act to dicourage young people from acting in ways that will lead to their conviction and imprisonment.

There is reason also to discourage those who pick on minorities, spreading hate about them. If today it is a race, or Muslims, or unionists, or lawyers, tomorrow it may be Catholics (as it has been of course) or Protestants, or Jews, or left handers, or politicians. Creating prejudices and supporting them encourages people to accept new ones, by inuring them to the faults in the bad arguments that support them.

Firstly, the subject matter was inappropriate for the student at her age and stage of psychosocial development. It is not the sort of problem that should be set for a 13 year old - the development of early and middle adolescents is all over the place.

In terms of her psychosocial development the child was almost certainly in early adolescence. So she was basically working on hormones and it is, especially for girls, a time of intense embarrassment. She would have been into romantic fantasies. Her thought processes and general lack of maturity would stand in the way of gaining any positive results from the assignment.

Secondly, the teacher insisted on secrecy and the assignment was to be concealed from the student's parents. This betrays ethical problems in the curriculum and classroom teaching. It would have confused the student and placed her in a most awkward position.

Maybe if the assignment were set for a class well into their middle adolescence, or later. It is a silly task though.

From the comments on this site, it strikes me that the homosexual community is getting the cart before the horse; schools are obliged to put the wellbeing of the students first and that is not assisted by hitting them with concepts before they can handle them.
Schools are not there to drive social change.

Finally, what about the ethics of requiring students to conceal things from their parents? That really is crooked thinking at a time when so much hinges on developing trust between parent and teen.

The authors claim that others have not complained about the assignment. There is an obvious reason for that - secrecy was one of the pre-set constraints.

But one could also ask how the suthors know there were no other complaints because from this example, there doesn't seem to be much feedback to parents anyhow.

Leigh, sexual organs were not designed at all. Even if they had been, nothing at all would follow about the morality of using them.

You might as well say, 'the fact remains that fingers were not designed for typing on computer keyboards'. It's a silly argument, and you ought to drop it.

ozbib,

Your lack of logic does not assist the homosexual political agenda, it rather makes you appear totally irrational.

The human body is rational engineering, designed to perform all activities our purpose and creativity imagines. It is clear design that males have a penis and females a vagina it is not an accident of evolution with no design or purpose. There are clearly complementary design feature in the sexual organs even in basic species deliberatly designed for attraction and procreation of one of the single units of the species.

The attractive passions of males and females exist purely for the bringing together of the complementary sexes to fulfil the survival of the species. Human emotions express desire for the complementary sex partner, designed for lifelong comfort and procreation. Only the union of complementary genes creates offspring of the same species as an individual having one single sex organ fulfilling one gender role.

That some single same sex persons have emotional attraction to each other rather reflects a disfunction in their designed sexual identity, as most males are very capable of procreation. The disfunction is emotional and not physical design.

Snout,

“I have to say I’m inclined to agree with you, Leigh: these arguments do tend to go round in unhelpful circles. I’m always fascinated by who’s going to be the first to make a biblical reference and who’ll be the first to describe their distaste of homosexuality as “not wanting it shoved down their throat”. Congratulations x 2.

Now: who’s going to be the first to mention paedophilia, and who’s going to post the first link to the NARTH website? Or for that matter, mention Hitler, the Nazis or Fred Phelps?”

Agree. Of course after the article and Westy’s comments about Christians who will be the first homosexual who will ask (with a straight face) why Christians who respond are so “obsessed” with homosexuals.

Leigh,

“Teachers have no business setting assignments about homosexuality in the first place. Nor should they be encouraging “acceptance of diversity…” when it comes to sexual perversion. Kids seem to be leaving school with little knowledge of areas they will need to work and survive in the modern world already; they don’t needs their heads full of the behaviour of weirdos. “

”Describing people disgusted by sexual perversion as “homophobes” seeks to make normal people wrong, and perverts right. We’ve had all sorts of discussion on OLO about homosexuality – generally a waste of time – but the fact remains that males and females are different for one reason – procreation of the species (and we’ve been through the crap about heterosexuals not having children, so give it a rest). “

”I’m the first to admit that the battle is lost to the perverts. Even as a non-religious person, I see the approach of a real Sodom and Gomorrah. But there is no excuse for filth to be preached to schoolchildren, or anyone else who simply doesn’t want to know.”

Don’t hold back now. Could I take it that you don’t think homosexual behaviour is normal?

bravo snout, lol, I wont do the predictable cycle if it bores you so.

@ leigh, you said that gays shove things down children’s throats in institutions? The opposite is happening in the western world. your untrue prejudice reminds me of the video diary called "Tarnation". This is an autobiography that took 20 years to make over a gay boy: Jonnathon's life, and the tragedy of his mother.

A Christian neighbourhood ruined the lives of Jonathon's mother: a beauty queen when she was a child. At about 9 years old she fell off the roof of her house. The Christians talked the parents into prescribing shock therapy as a cure for the accident. It was the obvious treatment for "freaky things". She was "wierd".

She had no mental illness at all. For the rest of her life, shoving prejudice down her neck: more than 120 shock treatments. Half way along she lost her personality, and forgot who she was.

She had a failed relationship and had a gay son. He was rejected from all his schools as he was so obviously gay. Again, the Christians said the obvious solution was shock therapy.

Both mother and son were beautiful people, but the Christians in their neighbourhood f#*ked their heads with cruel and unusual referrals to undue psychiatric abuse. When the son ended up so effeminate and gay, they insisted that shock therapy would obviously cure his gayness. So they f#*ked with his head too.

It so tragic for any parent or teacher to watch it makes you wonder why we screw with innocent minds when the mind is such a delicate thing. When you see the examples on You Tube, you'll notice the faces say it all.

I don't do these posts to bore people. I hope someone finds this somehow interesting.

the trailer: Tarnation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOJ38-Wfle8&mode=related&search=

Part 1

Introduces Renee de Blanc, the child beauty queen mother and the grandparents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVC74USslPk&mode=related&search=

author's story. Introduces trauma.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PuuyRhvPLw&mode=related&search=

Trauma reflection as adult

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPXmimlnBKw&mode=related&search=

A good case for duty of care. Would you want this to happen to your friends or relatives?

I live in Melbourne, so I’m not sure to what extent an incident which has recently saturated local media might have penetrated other parts of the country.

Basically, an episode of nasty bullying by a group of adolescents was allegedly perpetrated, filmed and the results of the filming distributed recently, and I understand that police are making enquiries to investigate whether criminal charges should be laid.

I work closely with juvenile justice, and have worked with over a thousand or so juvenile offenders. Such alleged incidents are, unfortunately, not uncommon. Most don’t get filmed. I’m actually stunned that any do, although even after Abu Ghraib, I’m still gobsmacked that there are people stupid enough to provide photographic records of their own crimes.

Cornflower, you said:

“the subject matter was inappropriate for the student at her age and stage of psychosocial development.”

The alleged assailants in the Melbourne incident were aged 16 to 17. I’d have thought that year nine was cutting it a bit fine, but better late than never. This sort of teaching should begin a bit earlier, I reckon. Maybe even in the home.

The victims of adolescent mob violence are sometimes vulnerable women, or people of minority races or ethnic groups, or religious minorities. Homosexual people, or even those who might be perceived to be gay are a classic target. My guess is that the question was framed in the way it was (imagining yourself as a minority heterosexual in an homosexual majority) because anti-gay violence is one of the commonest types of anti-minority bullying – and crime.

The question by the Queensland school involving getting kids to imagine themselves as a minority is a classic teaching exercise in developing empathy, and getting kids to think about their beliefs and actions. It’s what we expect our teachers to do. It’s really sad that some posters on this thread see that as a questionable exercise.

Snout, "The question by the Queensland school involving getting kids to imagine themselves as a minority is a classic teaching exercise in developing empathy, and getting kids to think about their beliefs and actions."

Looking around posts on OLO it's hard to convince myself that imagining yourself as a minority has had that effect on a many posters.

Their fearfull nightmares of a gay muslim majority does not seem to have built any empathy, rather the opposite. More of a "kick em" down while we can attitude.

Maybe the difference is they forget that it is a thought exercise and think it's real.

R0bert

I’m sorry, I’m a little confused. You see, I pay my taxes. The same taxes that are used to fund the schools and teachers we are talking about, the same taxes that pay the politicians who set the laws governing what we consider “acceptable” behaviour, and the same taxes that pay the police who’s job it is to protect us.

I’m confused, because despite that fact that I pay my taxes I don’t have the right to have the knowledge about who I am taught in schools to make the future a place where I have the same rights and safety as everyone else. Despite the fact that I pay my taxes the politicians do not govern to give me the right to live my life safe, and equal to the lives of everyone else (and by the way, it is the job of God to judge sinners, remember. When did it suddenly become okay for humanity to sit in judgement of others. Do you really think God considers it acceptable for his children to preempt him?) Despite the fact that I pay my taxes, I know that the Police will not always help me when I am attacked by others because of my sexuality, or that they will even try and prevent this happening. And I become even more confused when I learn that my taxes pay to subsidise the costs of churches, that the politicians I pay don’t bat an eyelid about the fact that churches have kept a presence in schools to promote their “lifestyle”, the Christian religion (through religious education and offices)

So you will have to forgive me for being confused. But I’ll make a deal with you. When the Christian’s and others who consider who I love to make me “sick”, and a “perversion”, advocate and pressure the government to allow me to stop paying taxes that fund all this stuff which doesn’t fit into my idea of how society should be, then, and only then, will I stop demanding my rights!

shauns,
I suggest you become a little less self centered about your taxes, and have some children of your own, so you can educate them in your values. Giving birth and nurture to children is what education is about. Teach them to think of their children and their children's future. Homosexuality is the death of the civilisation and the promotion of self.

Try another little exercise. In all or any of the above posts - and the original article, substitute the word "Aboriginal" for the word "homosexual". Look familiar? This is, once again, an exercise in minority bashing. It's not funny, it's not healthy and it reveals the degree of fear attached to difference. "They're different, so they must be wrong/bad/immoral/stupid/un-Australian (select your favourite pejorative)".

Who gives a rat's hat whether someone is homosexual or not. The real test is people's status as human beings and our ability to relate respectfully to others. Gender preference is irrelevant in that context.

“who will be the first homosexual who will ask (with a straight face) why Christians who respond are so “obsessed” with homosexuals.”

A post I made to another thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5025#59448 is a partial response to this.

The fact is that many christians _are_ obsessed with homosexuality. The campaign against this particular tolerance-promoting learning activity was led by the Australian Christian Lobby.

Further, christian groups use lies to spread their intolerance in the name of their religion. Gordon Moyes said in his CDP press release this week that in the United States after the granting of some rights to same-sex couples, “Religious institutions and charities were losing their freedoms.” The heading of his press release “Gay Rights or Religious Rights” makes it perfectly plain that he sees himself in a zero-sum game, where it’s not possible to grant rights without taking rights from someone else.

This is wrong, and misleading. It’s the same ‘you’re either for us or against us’ rhetoric that has been used by cheap dictators throughout human history.

This week the whole country, and much of the world, have been (rightfully) enraged by a muslim cleric’s statements about women. But when a christian leader spreads lies about homosexuals wanting to take away the rights of christians, no-one says a word.

Fortunately most christians don’t care a rats arse about who’s gay and who’s not. However many are indeed obsessed, and with the well-meaning majority looking on, they do great damage.

When you ask, mjpb, if it is possible to ask with a straight face why so many christians are obsessed with homosexuality, you give the impression that you are moving from the well-meaning majority to the ranks of the obsessed.

The core issue, in my view, is that there seems to be a strange little mechanism in the human brain (an example of unintelligent design, if you like). When it this switch trips, which it does with monotonous regularity, it results in the delusion that a fellow human being is a “non-person”, a “nobody”. The results of such a delusion can include callous indifference to the suffering of other people exemplified by bullying and exclusion, and the deliberate infliction of suffering. Homophobic bullying and violence is only one of many, many, species of this delusion, but it is important and prevalent enough to demand our attention.

Now in my experience there are a number of factors that can make the tripping of the switch more probable. One is immaturity, another is impairment of frontal lobe function. One of the most striking factors is that same switch tripping in ones peers, which creates a chain reaction (you see this in adolescents a lot, but mob violence and bullying are by no means simply restricted to the young).

Throughout history, religious belief and dogma has at times also been a facilitator of this switch. Some of the worst religious dogma consists essentially of apologetics for the delusion of the non-personhood of others. Charles Kimball, a US Baptist minister and theologian, wrote an excellent book on this phenomenon, in which he identifies five warning signs that a religion is becoming evil, including absolute truth claims, the requirement for blind obedience, and the belief that the end justifies any means. http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2002/0400/0405

Now, unlike Kimball, I’m an atheist, but like Kimball I believe that a core function of any authentic religion or other ethical system must be to make us very aware of this switch in the brain, and to train ourselves, and our kids, to avoid tripping it, or allowing it to be tripped.

Whether or not homosexuality is personally to your taste or not is actually pretty irrelevant to the issue.

Snout,

It was such an extreme incident that it was reported at least across the country.

I need you to clarify the relevance of the incident to the education system and in particular the essay on homosexuality. Your extrapolations lost me.

“...Such alleged incidents are, unfortunately, not uncommon.”

What!? If we don't define "common" extremely dissimilarly then the 'give up your rights so we can protect you from the terrorists who will definitely get you otherwise' propagandists may be honest afterall and I'm too skeptical.

W,

““who will be the first homosexual who will ask (with a straight face) why Christians who respond are so “obsessed” with homosexuals.”

A post I made to another thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5025#59448 is a partial response to this. “

And in there is my response.

”...The campaign against this particular tolerance-promoting learning activity was led by the Australian Christian Lobby.”

The attributed significance presumably derives from you assuming the victim was not Christian? Your euphemistic description of a unique learning activity that children were ordered to conceal from their parents as a “tolerance promoting activity” stands out like dogs’ gonads.

”This is wrong, and misleading. It’s the same ‘you’re either for us or against us’ rhetoric that has been used by cheap dictators throughout human history.”

Any cheap dictator in particular in mind that you think the religious right are following?

”But when a christian leader … no-one says a word.”

But for your comments, I would never have known about the thing you are shocked I didn’t take to the streets in response to.

”When you ask ... you give the impression that you are moving from the well-meaning majority to the ranks of the obsessed.”

I am certainly seeing an alarming depth of hatred but I noted the situation due to finding it tedious focusing on the thing for so long. It is obvious that those who drag Christians into discussions of homosexuality turn around (hand on heart) and accuse Christians of being obsessed. It seems to express frustration that there can’t be an unbridled vilification of Christians more than an honest belief.

@Philo, what a clanger of a reply to Shauns: "so you can educate them in your values" Shauns was sticking to the topic of only talking about safety and duty of care, not the curriculum itself.

You cannot teach homosexuality, that is a laughable notion. You cannot teach homosexual values either. You see Philo, what the phelps is a "homosexual Value"? It doesn't exist. You see, "they" are us. And "they" have a wide range of values just like any other Australian. Many are very conservative: David from the 2006 Big Brother household, who is now the President of the Queensland Young National Party.

If the subject matter was hypothetically in the curriculum, are you talking in a sexual health frame, a cultural frame, or a subjective frame? They are not the same kind of lesson plans. Sexual health frames are already being taught in Physical Education / Health: in preventing the spread of STIs and HCV / HIV. That has been common practice for some time now.

Now MJPB, this topic does not include the church. Christians dragged that into the topic first, not the gay people.

This is from Jagger's "Performance". Notice the role change. I dedicate this to Philo and MJPB. It looks wicked, note the sex abuse at the core which works the same either way. This is NOT duty of care. This is how gay kids are bullied. I hope this irritates the hell out you. You guys really sh-t me now. Just for you (lol)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbczmaIvTEc

Meanwhile, back in the real world, kids are being bashed, abused and intimidated because they look like they are gay.

I tried bashing a church once. It was made of rocks and I don't think the Church was hurt.

The church has the adenda to convert everyone but the gay kids just want to survive in Australia. Stop screwing with their heads and let them be. That is all "duty of care" asks for.

This is an American U Tube: cliche cute but relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWB7LXUnIp8&mode=related&search=

Good Luck and Good Night

I and my partner in a few weeks will be taking a British Civil Relationship ceremony. I being the UK citizen and my partner the Australian. Why are we doing this ? Because we can, and it gives us options we never had before. Our Australian family, who are elders of their church, are very happy for us, that we are making a public commitment to our love for each other.
Our families are happy we are happy, and nothing will change for anyone, other than we have a piece of paper signifying our love and commitment to each other.

Love is always right!

I find it sad to read that gay people are seen as anti christian. Nothing could be furthur from the truth.
To be told as a human being, you are an abomination, an antichrist, is not just hurtful, it is so unchristian and not in the teaching of christian belief.

I learnt in my life at secondary school, live life with an opened mind. Then life will open for you!

mjpb,

“It was such an extreme incident that it was reported at least across the country.”

You seem to be implying that there was something particularly unusual about the horrible treatment meted out to the girl in the Melbourne incident.

Unfortunately such casual and dehumanising cruelty is a commonplace. Only this time they filmed it. To me one of the bizarre and disturbing aspects of the episode was that footage of the incident was copied and extensively distributed (five bucks a copy) identifying the participants. For months. And what happened?

Nothing.

It was even posted on the net, evidently to the enjoyment and approval of many. And what happened?

Nothing.

For months.

It took that long before someone said publicly, “hang on, this isn’t right!” And who was that? A bloody tabloid current affairs show! Now I’m the first to criticize tabloid current affairs for their shameless sensationalism and self promotion, but in this case I reckon their moral compass was actually reasonably well calibrated. It took months before anyone else saw anything out of the ordinary enough to make a fuss about it!

Do you see the problem, now?

You asked me to define “common”, in the context of bullying or “bastardization” (to use the quaint term) or “assault” (to use a legal term). What about “prevalent enough to warrant some preventive action and programs”. If you want more figures than have already been posted on this thread try googling say “bullying” and “prevalence” as I did. You can then sort out the 437,000 pages on the subject.

Alternatively you could ask anyone who works in adolescent health, mental health, sexual health or even any GP who sees a lot of glbt patients about bullying, harassment and assault of minority or vulnerable people. If you find one who says it is not a major concern, you should suggest they get another job, because they sure as hell haven’t been talking to their clients.

The Queensland program was no more about “homosexuality” than it was about “colonizing the moon”.

As for the reference to antiterrorist measures, you’ve completely lost me.

Your signal is breaking up, mjpb. You’re becoming incomprehensible.

There was nothing euphemistic about my description of the learning activity. Note how The Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20554022-601,00.html described it: “a tolerance package.” Note also how Walsh and Hakala (remember them, the authors of the article we are discussing?) described it: “The aim of the assignment was to encourage acceptance of diversity and understanding of the consequences of exclusion.”

A tolerance-promoting learning activity is precisely what it was. As a result, your reference to canine gonads doesn’t make any sense. The source for your claim that students were asked to conceal the activity from their parents was this: “Sources said the students were told not to discuss the assignment with their parents and that it was to be kept in-class.” http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,20542442-952,00.html Note the lack of attribution. Sloppy journalism needs to be questioned all the time, not just when you disagree with the point being made.

I’m not seeing an “alarming depth of hatred,” just people arguing, with varying degrees of heat, against the rhetoric the christian right uses against homosexuals. You seem to feel under attack, which as I’ve noted before http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4768#51317 is a bad thing.

Our mutual interests lie in understanding each other, accepting each other and treating each other as human equals. Since I’m not mistaken (cf. dogs balls), you can take my word for it – this is what teaching tolerance to teenagers actually aims to achieve.

There’s nothing to be gained in accusing others of hatred because they question what you say. There’s nothing to be gained in accusing others of being obsessed with christianity because having been wounded by their contact with christian churches, they no longer subscribe to your system of belief.

Not everything said in the name of christianity is just, or even true. Contesting the truth of someone’s utterances is not a sign of hate. It’s a sign that a mutual understanding is yet to be reached.

It is unfortunate that males practising homosexual acts have harrassed this young girl and attempted to demean her honourable beliefs. Does she have a right to uphold sexual purity? It appears not, as practicing homosexual push their beliefs upon her. If homosexuality is a genetic malfunction then because they have no children then that gene will dissapear from future society. The fact is it a choice: it is not genetic. The choice of anal sex has been happening since man was put on Earth. It is not genetic it is sexual perversion.

Giving nurture to children is what education is about. It is about the future of civilisation. Homosexuality is not about the future of humanity. Homosexuality is the death of the civilisation and the promotion of the individual self. Homosexuality as an abomination is an ACT not a person.

SF,

Homosexuals do have values on many different things. However you could easily guess what Philo would have considered relevant and irrelevant.

“... the church. Christians dragged that into the topic first, not the gay people.”

See the first post.

Snout,

Please be patient with me. Unlike some, I see differences between general bullying and a pack rape where a disabled girl is forced to have oral sex with a group of rapists. Just like I see a difference between singling out even friends of homosexuals at communion time and refusing to give communion to rainbow sashers. You might say that I discriminate more. : )

“The Queensland program was no more about “homosexuality” than it was about “colonizing the moon”.”

If homosexuality was left out would the kids be told not to tell their parents?

Kipp,

“I find it sad to read that gay people are seen as anti christian. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

You might be right. It might be just an OLO thing.

Congratulations and I hope it goes well. It is not my cup of tea (I’m a Christian) but good luck anyway.

w,

”You’re becoming incomprehensible.”
Excellent! That will make SF feel good because I sh-t him.

”There was nothing euphemistic about my description of the learning activity.”
In context I still believe it was. Agree to disagree?

” Sloppy journalism ... “

Journos consider it ethically essential to keep sources confidential if requested. In their code is:
“In all circumstances they shall respect all confidences received in the course of their calling.”

”I’m not seeing an “alarming depth of hatred,” just people arguing, with varying degrees of heat ...”

If I considered “varying degrees of heat” a euphemism when applied to Westy’s comments you would probably disagree wouldn’t you?

”There’s nothing to be gained in accusing others of hatred …Contesting the truth of someone’s utterances is not a sign of hate. It’s a sign that a mutual understanding is yet to be reached.“

Agree completely. I hope I would never do that myself.

Philo,

Your understanding of the modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution is a bit primitive. To say that a homosexual preference can’t be possibly be genetically influenced because homosexuals are less likely (these days at least) to have children of their own ignores:

(a) the principles of group selection, and

(b) the fact that a particular observed characteristic may be only one of a cluster that natural selection might favour, despite the fact that particular characteristic, observed in isolation, or through a particular cultural viewpoint, might seem at first glance less “fit” (in a Darwinian sense).

Genetic drift, a third cause of variation, probably isn’t a major factor here, although it may play a small role.

The approach scientists take when the facts don’t fit their theory is to reexamine the theory. In this case the facts are that variation in sexual preference, on current evidence, does seem to have a significant genetic component.

Religion tends take the opposite view: if the facts don’t fit their theory, then ignore the facts, or make them up.

The other problem religion seems to have is the assumption that evolution ought to provide moral or ethical “lessons”, or reveal a higher purpose or intelligence. It doesn’t. It just is. Humans have a tendency to infer design and conscious intent when there is none, particularly when phenomena are otherwise difficult to understand. On the other hand, I believe that humans also have a tendency to ignore the consciousness and dignity of their fellow beings (including animals) when it suits them. Both of these characteristics, no doubt, have sprung from our evolutionary history. But this doesn’t mean that we’re morally obliged to be ruled by them.

mjpb,

“If homosexuality… parents?”

I, too, would feel uncomfortable about this if the reported “secrecy” is accurate. However, I suspect this is a slanted take on the exercise, in which the point of the teaching was to get the kids to examine their own beliefs and not those of their parents. I suspect the instruction was more like “Don’t get your parents to help you with this.” I’m guessing, though.

I think that the reason that the schools are sneaky about not letting parents know is that they dont agree with some parents beliefs and ways so they give the student the opportunity to tell the parents if the so choose or keep it a secret.

It's just a terrible way to do things as this type of thing is what grooms children for pedophiles as it teaches children to keep secrets about things that they know their parents would find wrong.

I know that sometimes at high school they have to watch a move that is rated M15 and they give the students a note that asks the parent to sign it if they dont want their child to watch the movie. If the student does not bring back the signed note they can watch it. Students who know that their parents wouldn't agree and don't want to be singled out or miss out, just destory the note and keep the note from their parents.

I understand why they might do it in some instances but I dont agree. It doesn't teach the student to be open and honest.

The parent is the primary guardian of their children under 18 years of age. That right has not been vetoed by any law or teacher. Parents send their children to be taught a curiculum they would approve. Since we have teachers with personal agendas unknown to parents is it any wonder we have a drift into private and church based education.

Kipp, let me join mjpb in offering my best wishes for your upcoming public ceremony. I hope your life ahead together is a great one.

R0bert

To work out what you meant by heat and euphemisms, mjpb, I had to head off to another discussion to find the person you’re referring to.

Yes, there are some extreme views here. This is, after all, Online Opinion, not Online Mild Opinion, or Online For-gods-sake-don’t-offend-the-christians Opinion.

You might think you’ve been a model of diplomacy, but in recent posts you’ve claimed that discrimination against homosexuals is OK, because, after all, we discriminate against children http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=156#3561 , you’ve made irrational claims about homosexual representation in parliament http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5025#59733 and you have claimed that those who disagree with you here are “bashing” christians. Granted, you later retracted the third of these, but the point is you don’t shrink from making offensive, confrontational and unsubstantiated points.

And you are far from the worst. How can you be surprised by people arguing that christians still haven’t pulled themselves out of the middle ages (as your nemesis West seems to be doing), when there are declared christians here claiming that “homosexuality is the death of the civilisation” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5067#59600 and equating lawful homosexuality with unlawful pedophilia http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=6302&show=history ?

In answer to your question, yes, “varying degrees of heat” is definitely euphemistic with respect to many of West’s posts. I would urge you to look for the reasons why some people hold strong anti-christian views, rather than taking offense every time someone says something you find personally disagreeable.

In any event, it’s probably better that these opinions are held openly. There’s a lot of mutual understanding to be gained here, though not without some pain.

Finally, it’s nice that you’re offering Kipp your best wishes. With any luck, one day you’ll be able to share the joy in the realisation that the qualification is unnecessary.

Congratulations, Kipp. I wish you both a wonderful day, and a long and joyful future together.

W,

"To work out what you meant ... I had to head off to another discussion..."

I'm grateful you refreshed your memory and grateful you acknowledge the description is euphemistic applied to the comments.

“Yes, there are …”
Sure but I just don’t think hatred is good. I’m a Christian remember.

“You might think you’ve been a model of diplomacy…”
I see a big difference between not being diplomatic and expressing hatred.

“ you’ve claimed that discrimination against homosexuals is OK, because, after all, we discriminate against children”

I could do a whole post responding to that but you’ve provided a link for people so I’ll leave it.

“you’ve made irrational claims about homosexual representation...“

It seems unreasonable, unfair and unkind to use the term “irrational” to describe poor expression. Does that concern you at all?

“that those who disagree with you here are “bashing” christians. Granted, you later retracted the third of these,”

Noting that verbal Christian bashing has occurred isn't the same as saying those who disagree with me are bashing Christians. Was my ‘retraction’ on the 30th October? If so, I agreed with what you said as I had never thought otherwise.

“How can you be surprised by people arguing ...(as your nemesis West seems to be doing)”

I believe Westy goes beyond that and believe "nemesis" doesn’t fit perfectly. Do you think it appropriate for me to label it irrational?

“when there are declared christians here claiming …”

Am I understanding your reasoning correctly? Doing it the other way… if I read vilification of Christians by a declared homosexual would you consider it natural for me to hate homosexuals and make similar comments and you would defend that?

“I would urge you to look for the reasons why some people hold strong anti-christian views…”

There could be a million reasons. However I’m convinced that some people like to hate other groups. At different times in history the available target just changes.

“In any event, it’s probably better that these opinions are held openly...”

Probably. But there is another alternative – not hating at all.

Just suppose:

The state curriculum authorities in Bihar or Andhra Pradesh in India are developing a unit for ninth graders to teach about tolerance and respect for minorities. Secularism is written into the Indian constitution, and there has been increasing concern about communal tension and violence in this multicultural country. Victims have included Muslims, Christians and members of the scheduled castes.

They devise an essay question in which students (the vast majority of whom are Hindu) are asked to imagine themselves in a colony on the moon in which they are a tiny Hindu minority and the overwhelming number of their co-colonists are Christians.

The kids have to address ten questions, including how they felt about being in the minority and what strategies they would use to help them cope.

They were also asked to discuss where their ideas about Christianity came from.

A 13-year old from a devout Brahmin family is failed when she refuses to write on the topic because of her religious and moral beliefs. “It’s against my beliefs and I’m not going there,” she tells her teacher.

The opposition BJP education spokesman demands an immediate enquiry.

“Parents need to know the content of school curriculum. This is another example of political correctness gone mad,” he says.

This is a good case for more parent participation in partnership and cooperative learning in the school community. Many schools in Queensland have opted for this kind of model. NSW is less enthusiastic about bringing parents into the classroom.

In partnership programs, parents can actually join their kids and their kid's friends: helping them in literacy, numeracy, history, and things that can actually help the teacher. This helps with standards. It also helps open the schools with more participation by parents. By direct witness, this dispels any mythology or folklore about alleged agendas or bias that some parents suspect. You can see for yourself.

Parents have increased input in curriculum planning now, if they join their PTA or equivalent group.

Get involved in your kid's learning. Why do those who don't bother getting involved in the school community subscribe to superstitious, folklore and prejudice that is probably just gossip? Surely politics is not more important than their welfare. Take a closer look and see what is really happening.

If gay students are no longer welcome by school, then maybe schools need to consider gay schools like the Harvey Milk School in New York and San Fransisco. Kids that think that they are gay or look gay, or know that they are gay, still have the right to go to school without persecution, no matter what you think of them.

When is it ok for the media to distort the truth so much it ends up giving the school a bad name?

When the media was approched in july it took them 3 months to come up with a story that put the girl in the spotlight. Making her seem to be the perfect student.

The truth of the matter is it was an in class activity, this student in class causes trouble all the time,

This aired over the september holiday and when the holidays finished first day back the office had to call her parents informing her that she had taken a trip to the beach.

PERFECT STUDENT......... yeah right

The teachers encouraged the students to go home and discuss the topic with parents and the fact is if she didn't want to do it she didn't have to.

Anyway it was a topic used across the state not just at the one school.