Great article Jim - and a nice counter to much of the homophobic bile and nonsense that's been written at OLO about this subject.

<< Jason Akermanis tells gay men to live a lie. David Campbell shows us how you're treated when you do. >>

Just about says it all, really.

I would make the point that for most of us coming out is not a one off decision for all time but rather a dilemma that we are faced with on a daily basis. I guess that the exception to this are celebrities like Matt Micham and Daniel Kowalski as once they come out the media ensures that everyone knows about it. I see it very much as a personal decision, so I was a little put off by this article as I found the tone judgmental and smug. You have chosen a way of doing this that is right for you so congratulations, but that does not mean that your way is right for me. Nor does it mean that you are somehow a better gay man, which I think was your inference. Personally, I came out to my family and my close friends at a young age that was the right choice for me. However, I consider coming out in the work place and in social situations to be entirely different. The truth is every time I start a new job or meet new people I am faced with the decision about whether or not to come out. If I do it, I tend to wait until people have had a chance to get to know me. The writer mentioned that it is ‘bad form’ to allow people to make false assumptions. What tosh! It is bad form of people to make assumptions; frankly it is none of their business. I may choose to mention it, if I think it is relevant or I feel the desire to. However, I might just as easily not mention it if I feel that imparting the knowledge will have a negative impact on my career or even how much I enjoy a cocktail party. I certainly don’t feel any obligation to do so. In my case no one ever guesses it so I find the whole thing cracks me up. Let them assume whatever they like. Frankly, I think that most people, especially those under 40, really don’t care.

Jim Woulfe

Look, I always write opposition comments to pro-gay type

contributions.

I see homosexuality as a mental illness; so I have

that sort of sympathy towards gays.

What annoys me about the gay "tribe" is their persistence and

evangelical zeal in pushing their point. (excuse the pun).

After reading your article I am no more convinced than ever before of your correctness.

Homosexuality is natures aberration and should be weeded out or at

the least kept firmly under the carpet with all the other "queer"and

immoral stuff of life (e.g. pedophilia et al).

Polemic is polemic. Ho hum. Why did you run away from the other thread, Jim? It's just getting interesting. You too, CJ.

Wolf_Canberra:"Personally, I came out to my family and my close friends at a young age that was the right choice for me. However, I consider coming out in the work place and in social situations to be entirely different"

And I agree. I reckon that Akermanis agrees as well and so did David Campbell until someone did it for him.

You're semsible enough not to make people choose sides straight off the bat when meeting you. By being discreet in new situations you're doing no more than I would in not mentioning that I smoke pot occasionally until I get to know how they might feel about that.

Jim wants people to know he's gay, which is fine, since he obviously feels it is a defining part of his identity. Others don't necessarily feel the same way, as you point out.

<<every out homosexual is walking, talking evidence that a fruitful(!!)...life lies ahead of them.>>

<<The big difference is that new acquaintances tend to make correct assumptions about straight people's sexuality, where they don’t about mine.>>
Should people in consenting adult incestuous relationships or in bestial relationships also come out, lest people make incorrect assumptions about their sexuality?

Proxy and diver dan have spectacularly illustrated why we are so discriminated against.

Well done.

The real question is why people like Proxy and Diver Dan consider it is any of their business. But of course we know the answer -- religious indoctrination ensures that you know all the answers without having to bother asking the questions.

Jim Woulfe:
>>Jason Akermanis tells gay men to live a lie. David Campbell shows us how you're treated when you do. ("Sex scandal rocks Labor", May 21). Adrian Hempel, Camperdown<<

Is David Campbell gay? My reaction was, that "hedonistic horny old bugger, rooting on the job, no wonder he and his government are failures, their minds are taken up with lifestyle, not service. The only negative to being undercover fagoty is if you are a decision maker working for the people, and obviously open to extortion.

diver dan.
>>What annoys me about the gay "tribe" is their persistence and evangelical zeal in pushing their point. (excuse the pun).<<
I'll tell you who are pesky dan, those Jehovah’s who like the bad penny, just keep turning up, and the amazing thing is that they all know the same extracts and quotes from the good book.

Owing to a puritanical upbringing I am a deft hand at bible lore. My tactic is to proclaim my religion right from the get go and start quoting salient bible lore to them, then question if they are sure they are on the right team. Firstly they can't keep up with my jumping from book to book with quotes that piously defend my position, and second they think I'm more of a zealot than they are.
Do fagots come to your door, or do you keep your eyes peeled for fagots?

Antiseptic: << By being discreet in new situations you're doing no more than I would in not mentioning that I smoke pot occasionally until I get to know how they might feel about that. >>

Big difference: smoking pot is illegal in Australia, being homosexual is not.

However, Wolf_Canberra makes a very good point about having to 'come out' over and over again. Hopefully, one day down the track it won't be an issue at all - once homosexuality is generally accepted as a normal expression of human sexuality.

sonofgloin - David Campbell wasn't caught "rooting on the job". He was outed on TV for attending a gay sex club in his own time.

<< The only negative to being undercover fagoty is if you are a decision maker working for the people, and obviously open to extortion. >>

Indeed, and it's a very good argument for not trying to stay in the closet, if you ask me. No secret, no blackmail.

CJMOrgan:"smoking pot is illegal in Australia, being homosexual is not. "

A little quiz: how many pot smokers have you ever known? How many homosexuals?

Illegality doesn't have anything to do with it, discretion is simple good manners and goos sense.

CJMorgan:"Hopefully, one day down the track it won't be an issue at all"

IT's not an issue now except when gay activists try to make it one.

Calm down folks. I am simply projecting a counter argument to an

advertising of the gay fact.

Over the years I have acquired many acquaintances and friends of the

gay set. Fine and happy people on the main.

We simply do not discuss the subject of the gay agenda.

I guess they respect my opinion (or maybe duck for cover)!

Antiseptic: << how many pot smokers have you ever known? How many homosexuals? >>

Lots of each. So many I couldn't possibly estimate. Some are even gay dope smokers. Your point?

<< IT's not an issue now except when gay activists try to make it one. >>

Homosexual acts between consenting adults were illegal too until gay activists made an issue of it. That was a huge leap forward, but they evidently have some way to go.

Extramarital sex is legal too but that hasn't stopped the denunciation of politicians and other well-know figures who have been caught out.

Campbell was a married man and the issue especially for women voters was that he was indulging in extramarital sex. That betrayed a lack of trust.

Anyhow, 'coming out' about swinging both ways and visiting sex bars would not have reduced Campbell's security risk profile one jot and the reasons why are obvious.

As minister he would have had access directly and indirectly to a lot of confidential information and he was obviously involved in decision-making as well.

Baxter sin...yes..exactly.. you are discrimited against in some ways for the same reasons people like Dennis Ferguson will tell you he was born that way.
It does not matter squat if someone was born ANY "way"..what does matter is their behavior.

If people were 'born' with a gene which makes them want to kill rather than discuss.... you seem to be suggesting they simply 'come out' "hey.. some people get angry..I just kill"

Give us a break.

You NEVER only want to 'come out' you want to teach our children about your "orientation" as if it was as normal as Fergusons, and if a certain religious group got it's way the marriage age would be reduced to 9 yrs old.. so old farts like me could marry them..and not just one, but a few !

The arguments for sympathy just don't wash. Be what you are.. don't break any laws and don't try to change any laws..and specially DON'T try to teach your 'orientation' to our children as being 'normal' because it patently is not.

Without the slightest question, homosexual orienation is an abnormal 'condition'.. yes..it is a condition.. sadly.. becaues it means those individuals can NEVER pass on their genes... they will die childless.. and not know the beauty and fulfilment of making a 'mini me'

We should have deep compassion on such sad people... sad for the above reasons. But when they try to restructure society in 'their' terms.. it becomes annoying..confronting and unpleasant.

There is no such things as a gay 'right'.... because outside of God there ARE "no" RIGHTS. There are only legal concessions to pressure groups in a democratic process.

Just as laws can be 'reformed' one way..they can also be 're-reformed' back the other.

"Should people in consenting adult incestuous relationships or in bestial relationships also come out, lest people make incorrect assumptions about their sexuality?" - Proxy which is it? I'd not really suspected you of either.

Cornflower I suspect that Campbell's situation was made worse by the fact that it was a gay club but that it would not have been a whole lot better if he had been at a hetro swingers club with his sick wife at home.

Whilst it can be awkward when people make incorrect assumptions that's a fairly normal part of life. Unless you are in an intact original hetrosexual marriage with 2.5 children it will probably happen at some point, what varies is the reaction. I've not walked in Wolfe's shoes (and thankfully I've not been anywhere near Proxy's) so I don't know what it's like to come out or be in the closet. Good luck whichever choice gay people make.

R0bert

ALGOREisRICH

well put

"Heterosexuality is what's natural, human, normal, and real. Same-sex activity isn't good for either person involved. On the part of gay activists and even the culture at large, there's been a "waving of the magic wand" - that is, a using of all kinds of wonderful words which blind people from seeing what is actually going on in gay sex."
ex-homosexual activist Michael Glatze.

Dear ALGOREisRICH,

You wrote: "don't try to change any laws"

Anybody in a democratic society has a right to try to change the laws. Who are you to tell anyone not to exercise a democratic right? Democratic societies are dynamic societies where laws change to deal with changing circumstances.

The equation of homosexuals with Dennis Ferguson is a false equation. Sex between consenting adults is not the same as sex of an adult with child, bestiality or murder. I think you're bright enough to know that.

I have compassion for homosexuals. I also have compassion for bigots who get their knickers in a twist if someone is different from what they think they should be.

Yes, homosexuals are trying to restructure society so they are accepted for what they are. Society is continually being restructured. Why shouldn't they have a go at it?

Lots of people don't pass on their genes for one reason or another. There's nothing wrong in that. In fact, with the population pressure humanity will benefit from fewer people passing on their genes. Some religions have a celibate clergy. Is that abnormal?

The only rights are the rights of human beings. Human rights do not depend on religious belief. Human rights are much more than concessions to pressure groups.

I am a man married to a woman. It's a good arrangement. I see no reason why two people of the same sex who feel about each other the way my wife and I feel about each other cannot get married and have all the rights of inheritance and other rights that heterosexual married couples have. It doesn't threaten either my marriage or me for two people of the same sex to have a legal commitment.

God is a human invention. Homosexuality isn't. It has been observed in many mammalian species. That makes it normal as far as I am concerned.

"Know that we were NOT born this way. This myth was fashioned by the gay establishment as a basis for changing laws in favor of gay rights."
ex-homosexual activist Charlene E. Cothran

Dear David F

I am simply informing the other party that if they try to change the law in a way which (I believe) most people would not want, they can expect to suffer some realworld consequences which may include social marginalization.

Of course they are free to be active to change the law..but dare I state the obvious.. so are others ?

Yesterday "Homosexual acts" were illegal.

Today..due to activism, "Homosexual Acts" are legal.

Tomorrow ...due to more democratic activism.. "Homosexual Acts are illegal"...

aaah democracy..isn't it wonderful.

david f
"Homosexuality isn't (a human invention).
It has been observed in many mammalian species.
That makes it normal as far as I am concerned."
Funnily enough I watched one of those very SBS documentaries on homosexuality in nature
where a Bull seal was agressively attempting to mate with a young male seal.
I guess that would make attempted pederastic rape normal by your logic.
In fact, any activity observed in mammalian species is therefore normal, as far as you are concerned.
Rutting stags where the winner takes the prize should be normal human behaviour.
The runt of the litter dying due to its inability to compete should be normal human behaviour.
Wandering males fighting to impregnate females immediately upon the onset of their fertility should be considered perfectly normal.
Random public sex with anybody on heat.
How very progressive of you. Why not?

Dear Proxy,

Both heterosexual and homosexual behaviour are normal for human beings. However, these behaviours are expressed in different ways in different species. It's really not that hard to understand. Is it? We don't express our sexual urges in the same way that rutting stags and bull seals do. We have a different code of behaviour.

Homosexuality is called unnatural. However, what is unnatural does not appear in nature. It's really not that hard to understand. Is it?

What is acceptable behaviour is determined by society. In classical Greek society homosexuality was completely acceptable. Unfortunately our society is bedeviled by religion which sees normal human behaviour as sinful. Christianity inculcates an unreasonable sense of sin. To me it is obscene to look at a sweet little baby and think that it was born in sin. That is religious garbage!

CJMorgan:"Your point?"

Before homosexuality was decriminalised, were the gay people gay or did decriminalisation cause a mass conversion to homosexuality?

If I advocate for marijuana law reform am I not in exactly the same position as those who advocated for homosexual relations to be "normalised" when they were illegal?

Therefore, what has the legality or otherwise got to do with it?

It's possible, given your involvement with Green politics and social studies departments, that you know as many gays as pot smokers, but it's unlikely. The numbers simply don't stack up that way.

Antiseptic, please don't misrepresent me.

You argued the equivalence of your need to be discreet about your illegal habit with the decision of a homosexual person to stay in the closet due to negative social effects of disclosure. You need to be discreet because you fear arrest, while a gay person decides to stay in the closet because they want to avoid being discriminated against because of their homosexuality.

Further, you choose to smoke dope, while a gay person doesn't decide to be homosexual.

Also, homosexuality hasn't been "decriminalised", it's perfectly legal. Homosexual acts between consenting adults are not legally regulated in any way that is different to heterosexual acts.

Do try and argue honestly, and to avoid the snide ad hominems for a change. They don't help your arguments.

David F says:

//We have a different code of behaviour.//

Indeed we do David..and it comes from the Law of Moses and Jesus Christ.

Other than that..we have rutting stags and predatory homosexual bull seals.

Well said Proxy!

CJMorgan:"You need to be discreet because you fear arrest, while a gay person decides to stay in the closet because they want to avoid being discriminated against because of their homosexuality."

And before homosexuality was made into a legal activity, then the homosexual person was in the same position as I am now. Was his sexuality any less valid then?

If cannabis use were decriminalised, then I'd be in the same position as he is now.

Ipso facto the reason for being discreet is not the legality or otherwise of either pursuit, since that could change any time, but good manners and good sense.

Keeping up?

CJMorgan:"Further, you choose to smoke dope, while a gay person doesn't decide to be homosexual."

Some may. The alternative sexuality community is a broad church`and encompasses all sorts of people. The latest acronym I saw used was GLBTQI, which pretty much seems to include everyone possible who isn't strictly hetero 100% of the time and possibly a few who are...

Besides, who do I harm by my use? If you don't want to do it, then don't, but trying to influence my choice will have Pericles down on you like a tonne of bricks, Sunshine.

CJMorgan:"homosexuality hasn't been "decriminalised","

Tell that to Oscar Wilde or Alan Turing...

Antiseptic, you're shifting the goalposts. I am talking about the situation now, not in some hypothetical future or the past.

You need to be discreet about your drug use because it is illegal. A homosexual who remains in the closet does so because of potential discrimination due to their perfectly legal homosexuality. Manners don't come into it.

Also, the topic isn't the entire "alternative sexuality community", as you put it. The topic is about homosexuals staying in the closet. What evidence do you have that homosexuals choose to be homosexual?

<< Tell that to Oscar Wilde or Alan Turing... >>

Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing were convicted under UK laws that made homosexual acts illegal. What does that have to do with "decriminalisation"? Homosexual acts between consenting adults haven't been "decriminalised" in Australia. In law, they are no different to heterosexual acts between consenting adults, i.e. perfectly legal.

Keeping up?

"Politically, laws and customs will only accommodate minorities that are visible. (Incestuous couples) are often an invisible minority."
More tragic coming out storys:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1063620/incest-charge-fear-driving-family-lovers-underground
Will homosexual activists welcome incestuous couples into the fold of excluded sexual orientations?
Or will homosexual activists deny the validity of sexual orientations different from their own, based on prejudice?
Incestuous couples are more alienated than homosexuals.
Will homosexual activists embrace the incestuous movement to help them come out of the closet of shame and bigotry?
If not, why not?
Legal arguments have no moral basis as homosexual "marriage" is illegal and homosexual activists are fighting for that right.
The illegal status of incestuous couples is irrelevant as homosexual activists fought against the laws which criminalised homosexual behaviour.
Will homosexual activists fight for the right of incestuous behaviour to be taught in the classrooms of all children young and old, as an alternative sexual orientation which is normal, natural and the equal of homosexual behaviour?
If not, why not?
Or are you all just a bunch of self-serving hypocrites?

CJMorgan:"I am talking about the situation now, not in some hypothetical future or the past."

As am I. You can't ignore the past though. It is always with us. The future is ours to change.

I would be discreet about smoking pot whether it were legal or not, just as I was when I smoked cigarettes. You;re assuming that all GLBTQI people are defined by their sexuality, which I say is rubbish. I'm discreet about my views on all sorts of things that are legal, as well. Does the fact that I don't announce my deep passion for the game of golf on first meeting someone mean I'm scared of discrimination or that I know from long experience that most people just don't want to know?

Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde show how differently GLBTQI were treated in our society in the past. Perhaps one day pot smokers will be free of stigmatisation by people like you.

ALGOREisRICH wrote:

David F says:

//We have a different code of behaviour.//

Indeed we do David..and it comes from the Law of Moses and Jesus Christ.

Dear ALGOREisRICH,

I was referring to the human race in its entirety not just those who get their prejudices and superstitions from the Bible. Jesus Christ himself may have been homosexual. The Last Supper was supposed to be a Jewish seder. You see Jesus sitting at a table with twelve other guys and no women. Where are the women?

Of course the Law of Moses and the Christian religion conflict.

Old Yahweh said: Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.

Some Christians say, "Jesus is Lord." If he is that's a violation of the Ten Commandments.

2,000 years ago most people believed in a pantheon of many gods. That is no longer fashionable. Now the Bible, the Koran, the Mahabarata and the Tripitaka are fashionable, and the old superstitions have gone out of style. Wait around a bit, and the new superstitions will go out of style, too. If you refer to the Law of Moses and and Jesus Christ at some time in the future most people will wonder what you are talking about. They will go out of fashion, too.

I just love it when you take my name in vain, Antiseptic.

>>Besides, who do I harm by my use? If you don't want to do it, then don't, but trying to influence my choice will have Pericles down on you like a tonne of bricks, Sunshine.<<

I just know that you are about to come out with some made-up nonsense with which to have a really good sneer.

You are probably top of the sneer brigade at the moment, congratulations.

"Influencing the choice of others", as you very well know, covers a spectrum of activities from an advertisement for chocolate, right the way through to standover tactics and extortion.

So, could you be an absolute dear in future, and not make such stupid generalizations?

As far as "influencing your choice" to smoke weed, that strikes me as entirely irrelevant.

If I explained to you that I had no choice but to dob you in to the bizzies, the only reason that might "influence" you, is because your activity is illegal. It wouldn't have quite the same effect if you were gay, because the rozzers would laugh at me, rather than arrest you.

Geddit?

>>Does the fact that I don't announce my deep passion for the game of golf on first meeting someone mean I'm scared of discrimination or that I know from long experience that most people just don't want to know?<<

Exactly. You are exercising restraint in confessing something shameful, which is your prerogative, and your choice.

But if you were told that declaring yourself a golfer would cause you to be ostracized by your peer group (which it bloody well should, after all), you would consider that a form of persecution, I'm sure.

Despite the act itself being legal (although it really should be banned from polite society), your choice - to confess to being a golfer - would be significantly affected.

Although unlike a gay person, you could actually choose to give it away instead.

Pericles,
If your declared interest in golf suggested the distinct possibility of you wanting to handle my club and balls and maybe later putting yours in my hole, then you would definitely have gone a fairway toward deserving to be kicked out of the locker room.

>> Great article Jim - and a nice counter to much of the homophobic bile and nonsense that's been written at OLO about this subject.

Thanks CJ.

In fact OLO's homophobes are responsible for the article. Pericles' comment http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3665#89096 made me realise that they are the ones in the closet - some even switch pseudonyms like a drag queen changes gowns.

Rather than react in the discussion threads to each of their defecations, I decided that a full article arguing the power of openness was a much better way to go.

No doubt OLO would welcome a well-argued piece countering mine, but I'm confident it won't be coming from any of this lot.

Why are we still discussing this in 21st Century Australia? Why is sexual orientation even an issue?

Oh Jim, why didn't you just say you couldn't counter the arguments put forward? Pericles had the guts to finally acknowledge he was wrong (although the kicking and screaming "no you can't make me say that" did detract from the grace of the performance.

Stamping your foot and saying "I wanna play here 'cos they're mean and their sandpit is dirty" doesn't cut it. I'm sensing a lot of hostility here Jim and I'm starting to feel a bit uncomfortable. Are you suggesting that I should just shut the f@#$ up and take what you say as gospel?

What makes you so special?

Antiseptic: << You;re assuming that all GLBTQI people are defined by their sexuality, which I say is rubbish. >>

I didn't say anything at all about "QLBTQI" people at all - you did. You seem to be developing an annoying habit of putting your words in other people's mouths.

Was it because you couldn't provide any evidence to support your contention that homosexuals choose their sexuality the same way that you choose to smoke dope? Sorry old chap, didn't work.

What is "rubbish" is your specious analogy, and the more you wriggle the worse it smells. But as we know, you'll undoubtedly keep on digging.

As for golf - what Pericles said.

woulfe,

<<No doubt OLO would welcome a well-argued piece countering mine, but I'm confident it won't be coming from any of this lot.>>
Implying yours is a well-argued piece, which it isn't.

You ignore arguments which show you up for the hypocrite you are.
Everything you say could be equally used to support incestuous people coming out.
There is no difference.
You only ignore it because it would make bad press for your cause.

As for "gays" being invisible, what a joke.
Most normal people have had a gut full of "gayness" being shoved down our throats (excuse the vomitous allusion) throughout the media, not to mention the indoctrination of our children.

<<Rather than react in the discussion threads to each of their defecations>>
And why would you react to defecations anyway?

Golf, incest, dope-smoking. Maybe there's a way a broken oil-drilling platform can be introduced here. Perhaps next there'll be a claim that homosexuality has caused Europe's sovereign debt crisis.

In any event, responding to the vilification doesn't work. It's all been said before, it's all been soundly refuted, yet the filthy claims keep coming back. I'd rather try to avoid repeating myself: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#140090

woulfe,
It appears that your argument @
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#140090
was thoroughly debunked @
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779&page=0#140104
by a keener mind than mine.

KMB's reference is worth reposting, lest we forget:
"While many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed considerable skepticism that sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted"
Essential Psychopathology and Its Treatment,
Jerrold S. Maxmen & Nicholas G. Ward, 2009 edn,
W.W. Norton & Company, p. 488

AIR: That is your interpretation of your belief in God or the Bible and one not shared by many Christians. Mine as a Christian is entirely different to your belief. Where ever in the Bible have you conjured up the concept that Jesus and God are opposed to gay people? Quote a verse. Cast aside your religion.

Wait until one of your children, neices or nephews pops around for dinner one evening and announces to you that she/he is gay. Will you turn the other cheek? Will you love your family just the same? Or will you commit sins with your discrimination and judgements based upon your own fears?

It is interesting to note that over the years I have discovered that within families, most of the adults opposed to gays, and fearful of gays and their paths, have been told that either their child is gay [by their own family members], or a neice or nephew.

It happened in my family and to another family I am close with [the mother was 'devastated' more for the fact that she cared what her cronies would think if word spread amongst her colleagues and friends that her son was gay]. Yet, the father dealt with it all fine. In another family I know the daughter announced to her parents she was gay. The mother coped well and supported; the father would not speak with her for the initial few months. Within a year, after siblings told him to grow up and stop being selfish narrowminded and ignorant; she is the closest daughter to her father. A fantastic learning curve for an Aussie chauvanistic male in his 50's.

Some parents are saddened and distraught, on behalf of their loved child, worrying for their gay child's future relationships given the stigma that still exists in Australia; the shocking pain they know, at some point in time will affect their child, as a result of the discrimination and judgemental behaviour of certain fearful insecure fools who generalise about gay people and their individual dispositions

proxy: <"KMB's reference is worth reposting, lest we forget:
"While many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed considerable skepticism that sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted"
Essential Psychopathology and Its Treatment,
Jerrold S. Maxmen & Nicholas G. Ward, 2009 edn,
W.W. Norton & Company, p. 488">

Dear proxy,

The key word in there is "motivated" - the person has to first feel uncomfortable/distressed in whatever sexual orientation they have (that is, they would have a diagnosable disorder) and then, in seeking relief from that, they may seek therapy.

The authors don't mention the success rate. The success rate might be 1 in a million, and "success" might mean - could have sex with a female or could refrain from same sex relationships for up to 5 years. We don't know what the author means by "success".

There is evidence that the "harm" of reorientation therapy can include all sorts of behaviour up to and including suicide. So for the 1 in a million, we might have as many commit suicide.

One question that arises is what it is that causes such distress. The real source of the dismay experienced by some people with a homosexual orientation might well be the abuse and vilification heaped on them from society, rather than the orientation itself.

If you were living in a community made up predominantly of homosexual people, would you accept the pressure to conform to the 'norm'? (imagine yourself in ancient Greece).

So, how much therapy would it take to re-orientate your sexuality from heterosexual to homosexual?

- because that's what you're expecting and pressuring others to do.

woulfe - <"Perhaps next there'll be a claim that homosexuality has caused Europe's sovereign debt crisis.">

Oh, I thought feminists caused that.

Well at least you aren't being blamed for global warming :)

(I like the article woulfe).

Homosexuality presents a recurring issue
for both society and sociology.
The behaviour occurs all over the world
and throughout history, although its
form, acceptability, and apparent
extent varies greatly from one society
to another.

Any attempt to divide the population into
two distinct categories must fail because
of the countless ambiguous cases that arise -
people whose deisres are heterosexual but
whose behaviour is homosexual;
people who have homosexual histories but
whose current behaviour is heterosexual;
people who alternate between the two
forms of behaviour; and so on.

On the basis of his research, Kinsey
recognized that sexual orientation is a
continuum. Subsequent studies of the topic
have generally indicated that approx. 10%
(today perhaps even higher) or so of the
population can be considered exclusively
or predominantly homosexual. This estimate
would include somewhere in the region of
25 million Americans, and growing.

This is a remarkable finding, given that
there are about as many substantially
homosexual people in the US as there are
blacks, or people aged 65 or over -
and they, obviously, all have to be
somebody's child, parent, cousin,
co-worker, teacher, neighbour, friend, or
fellow student.

Hopefully the day will come when a person's
individual human qualities, rather than
his or her sexual orientation, biological
sex, or race, would be the primary measure
of that person's worth and achievement.
Then the question of coming out of the closet
would not even need to arise.

Foxy,
I don't often call people a fool,
but you are testing my limits.
Numerous authoritative surveys,
conducted by census bureaus, etc,
and not by homo-apologists,
put the numbers closer to 1.5%.
You are the homosexual lobbyists "useful idiot".
You reduce their need to spread lies and propaganda
because you've actually managed to convince yourself.
Bravo.
What I have learnt from you though Foxy,
is that there is a certain number of people
who are beyond any form of reasoning.
I used to believe that everyone could eventually agree
on certain things because of the indisputable evidence
substantiating a particular viewpoint and hence
disproving its opposite.
You shatter that concept.
You are beyond hope.
For the record,
not that mere statistics could influence your viewpoint:

Homosexuals in Australia
Nationwide figure -
* 1.2% of adults consider themselves homosexual or lesbian.
* 1.6% of adult men identify as homosexual
* 0.8% of women identify as lesbian.
* 1.4% of women said they were bisexual.
* 0.9% of men said they were bisexual.
Source: The 2003 'Sex in Australia' survey of 20,000 people, with a special weighting to Sydney's homosexual centre.
Conducted by the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health & Society (ARCSHS) at La Trobe University.
Published in Australian & NZ Journal of Public Health, vol. 27, no. 2, 2003, ISSN 1326 0200.

Homosexuals in Canada (Where same-sex "marriage" is legal)
* 1.3% of men identify as homosexual.
* 0.7% of women identify as homosexual.
* 0.9% of women identify as bisexual.
* 0.6% of men identify as bisexual.
Source: Canadian Community Health Survey, June 2004.
A Canadian government survey of 83,000 people. (Statistics Canada).
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/040615/dq040615b-eng.htm

Al Gore: <"Indeed we do David..and it comes from the Law of Moses and Jesus Christ.">

Al,a little humour for you:

The philosopher, David Hume, wrote an essay on the sufficiency of the light of nature for man’s spiritual needs. A noted minister, F. W. Robertson, published a sermon upholding the opposite thesis,
pointing out that the light of nature needs to be supplemented by the light of a revelation from God.

The two were brought together by mutual friends to debate the matter. When the evening ended, Hume rose to leave. Robertson took a light to show him the way. Hume protested, “Don’t worry about me. I always find the light of nature sufficient.” But opening the door, he stumbled over something on the steps and tumbled into the street. Robertson jumped down beside him, and holding up his light over the prostrate philosopher to see that he was not hurt, softly but firmly said, “You need a little light from above.”

Proverbs 10:12 - Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.

- and here's a famous bit of humour. You've probably already seen it but it always gives me a laugh so maybe it will do the same for others here. Also, some interesting additional information is included in the link:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

Dear Proxy,

My reference was to subsequent studies of
the topic that were conducted after
Alfred C. Kinsey's , "Sexual behaviour in
the Human Male." The given 10% or so was
not something I made up but was a given
statistic referring to the US. I presumed
that most posters would be aware of the famous
Kinsey and his studies on sexuality - and the
fact that the studies were done in America.

I can't be held responsible for your lack of knowledge
on the topic.

This old adage might be worth considering
here in your case:

"It's better to let people think you're a fool,
Then to post and confirm it!"

Get the facts first old chum as I've told you
before (you can distort them later).

>> It appears that your argument [ ... ] was thoroughly debunked

No it wasn't.

(Those who want to spare themselves all the details can simply jump to the end of the next post.)

One of the discredited tactics used by those who would drive homosexuals back into the closet is to associate homosexuality with crimes. In this discussion it's been dope-smoking and incest.

Thirteen months ago my rejection of the linking of incest and homosexuality relied partly on the assertion that sexuality is not a choice. The so-called "debunking" of my argument referred to "studies" claiming that homosexuality can be cured (therefore it's not a choice). The first and most important reason that this doesn't "debunk" my argument is that even if individuals can change their sexuality, this has no bearing on the rights of same-sex-attracted people to determine how best to live their lives. Handedness is not a choice, and in some cases it's possible to turn left-handers into right-handers. However we've given up trying to "cure" left-handedness because (a) it has lost its stigma, (b) "curing" it doesn't provide benefits for the subjects and (c) the effort involved is often painful and traumatic. Should it ever be shown conclusively that it is indeed possible to "cure" homosexuality, I think the same conclusions will be reached as for left-handedness. We don't pathologise left-handedness, and attempts to pathologise homosexuality are cruel and misleading.

What I neglected to do thirteen months ago was to address in detail the quote from Essential Psychopathology and its Treatment (EPT) that has been provided above. It's an out-of-context snippet from a 685-page book, but nonetheless, because EPT has in the past been highly regarded, the quote merits a second look.

The text as quoted above omits the four supporting citations: Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Byrd et al., 2008; Shaeffer et al., 1999; Spitzer, 2003. However the anti-gay site Americans for Truth about Homosexuality does include them: http://americansfortruth.com/news/report-highlights-pedophile-connections-of-american-psychological-association.html

Continues ...

Byrd and Nicolosi are past presidents of NARTH, an organisation set up to promote conversion therapy, much loved by our resident homophobes as an anti-gay source.
Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002 is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12150399
Byrd et al., 2008 is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18481660

Note the publication, "Psychological Reports", whose impact factor puts it in the bottom range of psychology journals, http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_journals.html It requires authors to pay a fee, which also casts doubt on its authority.

Shaeffer et al., 1999 is: http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&uid=2000-13311-005

Haven't found any commentary on this article, but from the abstract it appears to share a lot of the problems with the Spitzer study (see next).

Spitzer's study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14567650 is deeply flawed (see http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_spit.htm and http://www.ralliance.org/SpitzerStudy.html ), and Spitzer himself has stated many times that it does not support the conclusions that christian groups draw from it.

All this raises the question of why a claim based on dubious studies would appear in a highly-regarded book. The originator of EPT, Jerrold S. Maxmen, died in 1992 http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/30/obituaries/jerrold-s-maxmen-psychiatrist-50.html The second edition was completed by Nicholas G. Ward, who in turn appears to have died before publication of the third edition http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/44/8/20.full The additional author for the third edition is Mark Kilgus. A survey of Kilgus' publications finds several co-authored with discredited anti-gay researcher George Rekers http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/anti-gay-preacher-george-rekers-took-rentboy-on-holiday-as-an-aide/story-e6frg6so-1225863027782 and at least one published in "Psychological Reports".

In short, since it's impossible to escape the non-scientific bias in this quote, it's prudent to rely on the American Psychological Association:

>> Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

>> No ...

>> Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
>> No ...

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

For two reasons, my argument from thirteen months ago still stands. First, it does not follow from the claims of some individuals to have changed their sexuality that homosexuality is a choice. Second, the literature claiming that sexual orientation can be changed is biased and unsound. The most reliable source on this subject, the American Psychological Association, states unequivocally that sexual orientation is not a choice.

Homosexual Subversion of the APA:
"When writing their newly released book Destructive Trends in Mental Health, Wright and Cummings invited the participation of a number of fellow psychologists who flatly turned them down--fearing loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA."
"'Homophobia as intimidation' is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda," said Cummings. "Sadly, I have seen militant gay men and lesbians-- who I am certain do not represent all homosexuals, and who themselves have been the object of derision and oppression-- once gaining freedom and power, then becoming oppressors themselves."
"Yet one other frequent contributor to legal testimony, the Lawrence brief included, is lesbian activist-researcher Charlotte Patterson, Ph.D., who in a landmark case of same-sex adoption was cited for refusing to turn over her research notes, contributing to her side's defeat. "Her conduct was a clear violation of a court order," said Satinover, "yet she is still writing briefs in current court cases."
In discussing the overall "scope and type of malfeasance," Satinover concluded the following:
"Briefs appear to be authored by a small circle of individuals who are called on repeatedly, with footnoted references that almost never properly substantiate their case."
A common tactic is to reference studies "that are trivial or out-of-date, while ignoring more important, recent, larger, better, and superceding research."
"A substantial portion of the authorities cited [through footnotes] will be themselves."
"The most common pattern is by far the simplest: the overwhelming mountain of contrary evidence is simply never mentioned."
"The malfeasance is relentless," Satinover concluded. "It is appalling beyond imagination."
http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html

Fascinating seeing Proxy citing his former "KMB" pseudonym earlier. I wonder if it gets confusing sometimes?

With all this obsession with a "cure" for homosexuality, I'm starting to wonder whether Proxy isn't an example of what happens when it is applied. That would explain alot.

FOXY vs PROXY :) you couldnt invent this stuff!

Proxy

//I used to believe that everyone could eventually agree
on certain things because of the indisputable evidence//

COMMENT.. Proxy..I used to think that tooooo..but OLO 'converted me' :)

Foxy:

//I can't be held responsible for your lack of knowledge
on the topic.//

COMMENT...I'm going to need at least 4 hours of intense therapy after this :) it doth truly *boggle* the mind.

Dear CJ... another outstanding contribution to the essense of the debate :) (about the standard of my last post here ..which was pretty weak)

Just another reminder Proxy.. you know the drill :)

Boaz: << FOXY vs PROXY :) you couldnt invent this stuff! >>

It's pretty obvious that "Proxy" created his latest sock-puppet pseudonym expressly to harass Foxy, whom he's been stalking all over the OLO forum recently. Truly pathetic, as are those who encourage his trolling.

Dear CJ,

I used to think that it was
all-out Christopher Walken-level nutty.
Now it's been amped up to Kath Bates
wackaroony levels!

Don't take him seriously, Foxy.

You're a much respected contributor to OLO. He's just a troll.

I only just noticed how he'd not only parodied your alias, but also emulated your posting style, with the shortened lines. Quite creepy, really, when you think about it.

Not to mention that he's obviously stalking you around the threads.

I just hope you don't own a virtual rabbit :D

Thanks Pynchme, and thanks also for putting some good humour back into this discussion.

I reckon no-one makes the "letter to Laura" case better than Jed Bartlett: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs

Hiya woulfe!

Thanks - the movie version is beaut.

I have to say that I rather like the way the email though
is signed off as if it's a humble fan; it was just a nice
contrast.

I'm starting to wonder if some of the folk here actually
get the joke.

Keep your lovely sense of humour,

pynch :)

Woulfe

Where would we be without Leviticus?

Loved your article, enjoy reading your posts both for their sanity and humour.

Hey Pynchme and David f; I think it's a little unfair to bring the ancient Greeks into the argument.
After all, it's common knowledge the female orgasm wasn't invented until after Queen Victoria died.
I'm with Stevenlmeyer. I just dropped in to find out how such a simple and straightforward article could possibly stimulate 58 comments.

Woulfe,
It is clear that the homosexual agenda is driven by lies, denial, propaganda and political hardball.
The 10% of the population lie.
The homosexual gene lie.
The immutability lie.
The false analogy with race.
Denial of homosexual pathologies.
Distortion by data selection.
Ignoring contrary evidence.
The APA takes a purely political stance on this issue,
having been intimidated into abandoning a scientific stance long ago.

An excellent you-tube video Woulfe! Lol.

I see it brought the best out in Proxy, yet again.

Trying to change some people's blinkered/ bible-blinded minds about the legitimacy of homosexuality is like flogging a dead horse.

suzeonline,
<<homosexuality is like flogging a dead horse>>
An apt context to allude to a synthesis of necrophilia and bestiality.

Your words, not mine Proxy.
You need to get some help.

I think we should all lobby the government to encourage the medical industry to find a cure for this hetrophobic condition ( a fear of heterosexuality) so these poor bastards don’t have to take it up the ass! You know, there’s no pride to be found playing in the gutter. I’m so happy I’m not one.

Dear Peterson,

I object to your "We should all..." Please do not include me in your bigotry.

I exchanged letters with a young cousin of mine in the United States. He didn't answer my last letter, and I thought that he didn't want to continue the exchange.

Two years later I got a call from his mother telling me that Richard was dead. I didn't even know he was sick. His mother told me that my last letter meant a lot to him. "Well, why didn't he answer?" No reply.

His father got on the phone. "He suffered horribly before he died." I asked what he died from. No reply.

I gathered that he died from AIDS, and all his bigoted relatives would have nothing to do with him. Apparently he and his parents that I might also reject him, and that was why he didn't answer my letter.

His parents made packages of easy-to-prepare food which they brought to AIDS sufferers who find it an effort to go shopping. They became friendly with them, and then the sufferers died. This is in the past tense since I haven't been in touch with his parents recently.

I think I'll call them.

Davidf

Chill rains are falling in the Yarra ranges today, mere echoes of the sadness in my heart after reading your last post.

Please make contact with that young man's parents - that is one way to respect their son, to know that others care.

Thank you

Davidf and Severin,

Lovely posts.

Made me a little teary.

Your dignified sense of humanity is such a contrast to too many of the other posts here.

david f, Severin and Pynchme,
The trouble with what you say, is that you seem to ignore the demonstrable link between homosexual behaviour and AIDs.
The reason so many young MSM are contracting HIV/AIDs, syphillis, gonorrhoea, MRSA, hepatitis, etc is because their behaviour facilitates its transmission.
Promiscuous sex,
anonymous sex,
anal sex,
all increase the chances of contracting the above diseases
and also the chances of dying of AIDs.
When a homosexual man dies of AIDs
one feels sorry in the same manner as
when a smoker dies of lung cancer.
It's sad, but...

There's nothing "dignified" in pretending any different.

Dear Proxy,

Yes, AIDS can be spread by sexual activity as is syphilis and Gonorrhoea. Having fewer sexual partners per person inhibits the spread. Therefore one can support same sex marriage as a public health measure.

One can be moralistic and shocked at other people's sexual impulses when one doesn't have those impulses. Some people such as Reverend Haggard are moralistic and shocked when they do have those impulses.

I remember getting lectures on the horrible effects of sexual diseases (before AIDS) when I was in the army during WW2. One of our lecturers tried to turn us away from sex by telling us to think of her sitting on a toilet when we saw a pretty girl. Don't think it made any difference.

Smoking addiction is difficult to deal with. When it was considered fashionable to smoke I tried it. Could never get to like it.

However, my sexual drive is much more powerful than my impulse to smoke. Think it's the same for most people including homosexuals. Promiscuous sex spreads disease. Therefore make it easier for people in a sexual relationship to make a commitment and be less promiscuous.

david f,
Your "argument" carries its own rebuttal.
Reverend Haggard was married and it didn't stop him.
Furthermore, the homosexual concept of "marriage" does not
put the same emphasis on monogamy that normal marriage does.
Yours is a very superficial argument indeed.

Anybody who's in Brisbane this weekend and wants to show solidarity with their gay brothers and sisters might like to take part in this year's Pride Festival, kicks off at 10am Saturday at the Roma St Forum.

http://www.pridebrisbane.org.au/

The theme this year is "Love Our Way", which sounds a whole lot better than hate of any description.

proxy,
Your "argument" carries its own rebuttal.
Reverend Haggard was in a hetrosexual marriage and it didn't stop him.

That game can be played at infinitum.
The value of fidelity varies from individual to individual. What is clear is that trying to force people to be what they are not (trying to make gay's straight for instance) harms all involved. What most of us see of the "gay lifestyle" is what attracts the media's attention. Unless we have homosexual friends we see very little of the normal relationship stuff that does not get the media's attention.

We also see homosexuals's who have grown up in a culture which all to often has condemned people for being different, it would not be surprising if some responded with an up your's to societies conventions.

Some of the excesses of parts of gay culture will probably fade away over time, accepting differences is a good start on that. Attacking homosexuals for their orientation (and their subsequent refusal to follow your morals) is hardly a helpful path to getting them to see the value of other conventional morals.

R0bert

"Lust Our Way" will start at the Roma St Forum
and end at Brisbane's Big Boys BathHouse.
See you all there for anonymous good times.
BYOCondoms.

Ho Hum

God, I wish you "fags" out there would get yourselves a real life and leave the "normal" to those who know how to cope.

What about start your own religion or maybe a political party (woops, sorry "Greens" and Bob Brown)

Q. Will the balance of power be held by the "fag" set (greens) at the next election. God protect us.

Heavens what about all those married swinging couples....ooh Noooo and all those politicians that have affairs...OOOOOHH NOOOO. Let us cast all heterosexuals in that light as the norm and hope we don't get the hetero set in power...whoops hang on we already do.

See how silly that sounds diver dan.

Can't believe the bigotry that still exists in this modern age.

Promiscuity is a personal choice, separate to the issue of sexual preference. If there is no harm done between consenting adults why is there such a response that we have on OLO.

We have more to lose from the fear mongers than people who just go about minding their own business, who often feel scared to leave the closet, for fear of reprisal.

Nothing Christian about the vile comments that come out on this subject.

pelican

I do not consider an opinion bigoted when harbouring such horrifying

thoughts, as I do, of the possibility, let alone the likelyhood, of a

country (such as ours) held to ransom by a political party that

barely hides its "poofter" bias.

I can't "perish the thought" sorry.

Diver Dan

Please explain what a "Poofter bias" is.

And then explain how you are not bigoted in your attitude to gay people.

Why are you so threatened by what other consenting adults do in their bedrooms?

And, finally, why you hate homosexual people to the point where you regularly write such vitriol against them on these pages?

Severen

I am not threatened at all. Time alludes me now to enlarge on your

question: But I will not dodge it. Quickly though, consider

heterosexuality as the base line in morality. Homosexuality is an

"abhorrence" to that view.

Severin,
<<Why are you so threatened by what other consenting adults do in their bedrooms?>>
This should read:
Why are you so threatened that homosexual activists want to indoctrinate your children
into believing that homosexuality is normal and natural when it is patently not?
Nobody cares what homosexuals do in their own bedrooms.
It's the relentless demand for the rest of society to accommodate their incessant and ever-escalating demands.
Homosexuals want to control how our children think, redefine marriage, punish those who question their absurd
proposition that homosexuality is on the same footing as heterosexuality.
What we are witnessing is homosexual totalitarianism.
It is an attack on everyone else's basic freedoms.

Diver Dan

Your frequent posts indicate that you are in fact threatened by homosexual people.

I asked you to explain what you meant by "poofter bias", you have not done so.

All you have stated is that homosexuality is an "abhorrence" - this is merely your opinion. You have neither explained nor provided any evidence why you hold these beliefs.

Proxy

You claim:

That homosexuals are attempting to indoctrinate children - where is your evidence?

That >> we are witnessing is homosexual totalitarianism. <<

Again there is no evidence of your claim.

Heterosexuals are most definitely in control of politics, business, sports, media, religion and law.

In short, Diver Dan and Proxy, your posts are hysterical, unfounded and exhibit no end of bigotry towards homosexuals.

I posit that homosexuals have far more to fear from you than vice versa.

Of course the homophobes are threatened - their days of wanton vilification of homosexuals are numbered. A couple of recent cases from Queensland:

<< Jean Lawson, a Woodridge woman was ordered to pay $23,100 to her gay neighbours for nine months of harassment after losing a Supreme Court appeal against the decision of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal in March 2009 after referring to her neighbours as ‘faggots’ and making false reports to police and the RSPCA.

In 2008, the Tribunal also ordered former Gympie councillor and gun lobbyist Ron Owen to pay $12,500 and issue a public apology for inciting hatred against homosexuals, for displaying a bumper sticker that read “Gay rights? Under God’s law the only ‘rights’ gays have is the right to die. Lev.20.13”, and publishing a homophobic letter online. >>

http://www.adcq.qld.gov.au/media/Homopobia09.pdf

Our resident homophobes are apparently unaware that their online anonymity is an illusion.

<<Our resident homophobes are apparently unaware that their online anonymity is an illusion.>>
Veiled threats from CJ Morgan.
How very "untotalitarian" of you.
You prove my point.
In another time and another place CJ would be the one calling for
death to the blasphemers.
In another time and another place CJ would be the apparatchik
sending dissenters to the Gulag.
The CJ Morgans of the world are a threat to liberty and freedom.

Hmmmmm a bait and switch from Proxy.

Can't justify homophobia, therefore attacks another poster.

Well said proxy;

Any comment on the unnatural alliance and balance of

power possibility at the next federal elections?

Severin,
You are the one baiting and switching.
Homophobia is a false construct.
It is used to underpin laws which threaten the liberty of those who criticise homosexuality,
as CJ has demonstrated.
To suggest that someone should be subject to criminal sanction merely for claiming that homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal demonstrates the foothold that totalitarianism is gaining in Australia.
Anybody who supports so-called "hate" laws which punish people for "homophobia" is a danger to freedom.
Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of liberty and some would piss it away.

I think that homophobes are free to express their hatred for homosexuals in general terms, but as the Qld cases show, when it becomes vilification of individuals, incitement to violence or other illegal behaviour they can be brought to account under existing laws.

These offenders went far beyond merely "claiming that homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal", as do several homophobes here frequently. Homophobic bigots who hide their hate behind a supposed cloak of anonymity on the Internet are just as easily identified as child pornographers, if they cross the line between free speech and illegal behaviour.

diver dan
Not a 'poofter bias' but a very human 'mind our own business bias'. Being homosexual may be 'unnatural' for you but it is not unnatural for those who through no doing of their own find themselves to be homosexual.

If someone is born homosexual then that is the natural state for them. Brunettes dominate blondes genetically speaking as does brown eyes to blue, this does not mean being a blue-eyed blonde is unnatural.

Proxy
You cannot teach a child to be homosexual, they are or they aren't. What you can teach a child is to be inclusive and caring of others who are not like them without fear or favour. This applies not only to sexuality but to race and religion.

Dear Pelican,

All individuals may have tendencies to be attracted to the same or opposite sex. The proportion of each tendency varies in different individuals. Where humans are separated as to sex individuals are more likely to engage in homosexual behaviour. Where individuals have a very strong homosexual or heterosexual drive one doesn't change. Where individuals have almost equal drives in both directions they may be bisexual having relations with both sexes are be conditioned or be conditioned to go one way or the other.

As you wrote you can teach a child to be inclusive and caring of others who are not like them without fear or favour. Homophobes confuse that with promoting homosexuality.

Whether or not there is a hard and fast line we can accept those whose sexual desires are different from our own. I would like to see a society where there was complete tolerance of any sexual activity between consenting adults.

In our society much homophobia can be traced to religion. Anglican Bishop Spong recognises that and opposes it.

http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/bishopspongon_homosexuality.aspx contains his essay on homophobia.

Bishop Spong is not a fundamentalist and also recognises that some scripture is merely a reflection of attitudes of its time rather than being eternal truths.

http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/bishopspongon_theTerribleTexts.aspx
HOMOPHOBIA:

"...the men of Sodom...to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.'" (Lev. 18:22)

Spong’s commentary:

“This story that portrays all of the men of Sodom as eager to gang-rape two heavenly visitors has been used to condemn faithful and loving homosexual relationships. A story in which a father, in order to protect the Middle Eastern code of hospitality, can offer his virgin daughters to be gang-raped, and still be regarded by both God and the author of this story as righteous, has been turned by the prejudices of later interpreters into an anti-homosexual text that feeds the basest side of our humanity. How is that possible unless prejudice overwhelms rationality and moral judgment?”

Religion can understand or condemn.

david f,
<< I would like to see a society where there was complete tolerance of any sexual activity between consenting adults.>>
The slippery slope...
The thin end of the wedge...
Call it what you will.
The above quote clearly includes adult incestuous relationships.
And why not, if all other abnormal and unnatural activities are "tolerated"?
What does "complete tolerance" mean anyway?
Homosexuality between consenting adults is already tolerated.
So what's your point?
You don't really mean tolerated.
You mean endorsed by society in exactly the same way that heterosexuality is accepted as normal.
Which means, of course, teaching it to young children, homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption,
criminalisation of those who criticise homosexual behaviour, forcing churches to marry homosexuals, etc.
Why don't you say what you mean and cut the charade?

Dear Proxy,

Who churches wish to marry is their own business. I favour separation of religion and state with no government funding to non-public schools and no school chaplaincy program in the public schools. By the same token I don't believe the government should dictate to churches who they should marry. We have civil marriage.

I would not criminalise expressions of bigotry. I oppose existing antivilification legislation as opposed to free speech. Freedom of speech is risky. If we allow it then some people will follow bigots and demagogues. If enough follow bigots and demagogues we will lose our freedom and create a repressive society. If we ban free speech we have already created such a society. One price of free speech is allowing people to say things that other people find offensive and loathsome. You have a perfect right to spew your bigotry, and you have done so. I don't question that right.

If homosexuality were truly unnatural it would not exist. Calling it unnatural does not make it unnatural.

If consenting adults wish to have incestuous sex who does it hurt? How does it hurt you? I mean exactly what I say.

One of the causes of teenage suicides in our society is that those teenagers who have homosexual tendencies are harassed. Even if they are not harassed they may feel completely rejected and take their lives. Yes, I would have children taught to accept those who don’t exhibit the sexual patterns of the majority. As I said in my previous post homophobes confuse that with promoting homosexuality.

We neither teach nor endorse sexuality. It is a powerful drive which we can help people to handle. There is no evidence that children adopted by homosexuals are any more likely to be homosexual than children growing up in a family headed by a man and a woman. It is important for children to be loved. I think it is better for children to be adopted by loving homosexual couples than to live in an institution.

There is a difference between acceptance and endorsement which you apparently can’t understand.

Treating a gay relative and his partner as regular members of the family has absolutely no deleterious effects on children. The knowledge that their uncle is gay hasn't adversely affected my eight nieces or three nephews one bit. The presence of myself and my partner at family gatherings hasn't turned them into vagrants, drug addicts, neither has it turned any of them gay. The same goes for my partner's nieces and nephews. They're all tolerant, well-adjusted and responsible young people.

I wrote an article about why gay people come out, and I'm grateful that the majority of commenters have been hugely supportive. In addition to the liberating personal aspects, the power of coming out is that it neutralises bigotry, as shown by this piece of research from the US Pew Research Center: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/485/friends-who-are-gay

The closer you are to an out homosexual, the more tolerant you are likely to be.

david f,

<<Who churches wish to marry is their own business.>>
It will not be if homosexual marriage is made legal.
They will be criminalised for refusing to marry homosexuals.

<<If homosexuality were truly unnatural it would not exist.>>
Minor problem of logic:
If incest were truly unnatural it would not exist.
If paedophilia were truly unnatural it would not exist.
If necrophilia were truly unnatural it would not exist.
If bestiality were truly unnatural it would not exist.
If (fill in the blank) were truly unnatural it would not exist.

<<If consenting adults wish to have incestuous sex who does it hurt? How does it hurt you? I mean exactly what I say.>>
You would advocate incestuous marriage then?
You would advocate teaching children that incest was just another sexual orientation?

<<We neither teach nor endorse sexuality.>>
If homosexuality is projected as being just as normal and natural as heterosexuality then it is being taught and endorsed.
By your logic, incest, paedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality should also have the same status as heterosexuality.

<<There is no evidence that children adopted by homosexuals are any more likely to be homosexual than children growing up in a family headed by a man and a woman.>>

"The reason that same-sex parenting is detrimental to the well being of children is due to several factors:
1. Higher Incidence of Violence
2. Higher Incidence of Mental Health Problems
3. Reduced Life Expectancy
4. Higher Incidence of Same-sex Orientation
5. Greater Risk of Sexual Involvement with Parents
6. Greater Risk of Social or Psychological Problems
7. Higher Incidence of Child Molestation"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/040428c.html

It's been suggested by some psychologists that homophobia is often the expression of "repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies".

http://web.archive.org/web/20040202035152/www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html

It would be nice if our resident homophobes would give us all a break and just come out of the closet.

Standard CJ fare:
"Homophobes are repressed homosexuals."

Just as:
-Islamophobes are repressed Muslims,
-Misogynists are repressed men who would be women,
-Pro-lifers are repressed abortionists,
-Peace activists are repressed warriours.

Just as people who object to:
-crime are repressed criminals,
-incest are repressed incestors,
-paedophilia are repressed paedophiles,
-masturbation in public are repressed exhibitionists,
-people looking through their bedroom window are repressed voyeurs,
etc, etc, etc.

I guess that would make you a repressed hater CJ.

Proxy wrote: I guess that would make you a repressed hater CJ.

Dear Proxy,

As long as people repress their hate it doesn't bother anyone else. You certainly don't seem to repress your anger.

I get angry at some things such as a God botherer saying, "I'll pray for you." I have been very angry during my life time. At 84 all my anger seems pointless and a waste of emotion.

I am just puzzled by you. I am not oriented to homosexuality so I don't engage in it. However, I see no reason to get excited if other people engage in it. In my previous post I said that I see nothing wrong in consenting adults engaging in incest. I asked what harm would it to do you?

I ask again. Why are you angry at consenting homosexuals acting in a way that is natural to them?

How does it hurt you? How does it hurt anybody else?

Woulfe apparently is in a loving homosexual relationship. I wish anybody in any sort of a loving relationshop well.

Why does it bother you? What harm does it do to others or to you?

Like with Rome when men have exchanged what is natural for what un natural (sodomy) a nation will crumble. The promotion and lies spread by the homosexual lobby just makes it easier for the many men and woman who have had unhappy marriages to venture to this debauched lifestyle. Unfortunately large chunks of our media have been infiltrated and blinded by those posing as 'tolerant' of everything except decency.

Dear runner,

We define decency differently. I think bigotry and lack of acceptance of anyone whose lifestyle is inconsistent with yours is indecent. I think you are a very indecent human being. However, even very indecent human beings have rights so I accept your indecency even though I find it loathsome. If I want to have a free society I must accept that other people have the right to say what I find loathsome. So spew your bigotry. No doubt you will.

Well said, david f - as usual.

david f

typically tolerant of everything but the intolerable. Having CJ as an ally certainly weakens your case.

Dear runner,

Homosexuality did not cause the decline of the Roman Empire. The empire banned homosexuality when it became Christian under Theodosius. Christian oppression caused the decline and brought on the Dark Ages.

Charles Freedman’s “The Closing of the Western Mind” tells the story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/books/when-the-lights-went-out-in-europe.html

“Freeman's main thesis has two parts. First, that the Greek intellectual tradition did not simply fade away but was actively suppressed by the rise of Christianity, especially in the fourth and fifth centuries. Second, that the main reason this happened was political. The Emperor Constantine and some of his successors thought that by throwing the weight of the state behind Christianity, and institutionalizing it, they could turn it into a weapon of mass distraction: it would act as a unifying force, at a time when the empire was under threat from marauding invaders, and be an effective means of social control. It was, according to Freeman, because the bishops acquired political power, and were given a rich and powerful institution to operate, that dissent and the tradition of free inquiry were crushed.”

The barbarian conversion: from paganism to Christianity by Richard A. Fletcher tells what came next. The book spans 371 to 1386. Christianity went on a rampage for centuries converting Europe by violence. Pagan Gauls were given the choice of Christianity or beheading. Christianity made many martyrs who were steadfast in their non-Christian faith.

With the Crusades, Inquisition and Wars of the Reformation Christian violence reigned supreme until the Renaissance and the Enlightenment came to free Europe from the dark night of Christianity.

The conflicts in Northern Ireland between Catholics and Protestants and in the former Yugoslavia between Orthodox and Catholic Christians continued the tradition.

Centuries of Christian hate made fertile ground for the Nazis..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine's_Sword

The Church and the Jews - A History by James P. Carroll documents the role of the Catholic Church in the long European history of antisemitism and argues that this was the foundation for the hatred that led to the Nazi Holocaust.

Christian missionaries currently have persuaded Ugandans to condemn homosexuals to death.

Christianity has produced great evil