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.