The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Duty of care to students ignored in gay school essay debate > Comments

Duty of care to students ignored in gay school essay debate : Comments

By Anthony Walsh and Troy Hakala, published 26/10/2006

Discrimination and homophobia are serious matters in school communities.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
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!
Posted by Kipp, Monday, 30 October 2006 5:38:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Snout, Monday, 30 October 2006 5:58:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by w, Monday, 30 October 2006 6:04:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 30 October 2006 10:35:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 11:47:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Snout, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 12:02:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy