Of course there are gay people!
I bump into many, possibly hundreds of times a day?
Many just go about their business, whistling a happy tune, smiling at all they meet, and just improving the general atmosphere, wherever they go.
Most are law abiding people, who stay off the grass, where legitimate signs request they do so, or it has been recently mowed and watered!
And where the sign says walk don't run, they comply there, with a happy oh so happy smile as well!
Why even the very idea of breaking a council bylaw, like keeping a dog tried up for more than six hours, or allowing to bark more or less nonstop for thirty minutes, is also equally unthinkable!
And would have them running with a happy smile to comply and keep their equally gay neighbors, reasonably happy also.
And the idea of drunk driving, when a really happy person would simply drive their drink home, would have them trebling, like an uninvited pussycat, at a Rottweiler party!
Always look on the bright side of life, and you'll have a bright, gay and happy day now, y'hear.
Rhrosty.

As the principal variation on the norm of
heterosexuality, homosexuality presents a
recurring issue for both society and sociology.
The behaviour occurs all over the world and throughout
history, although its form, acceptibility, and
apparent extent varies greatly from one society to
another.

There's a good deal of cross-cultural evidence about
male homosexuality, but much less information about
female homosexuality, or lesbianism. In many societies,
as we've seen, homosexuality is taboo, and therefore
practiced in secret, while in others the behaviour is more
acceptable and thus more public.

Perhaps one day we shall be mature enough to treat each other
as human beings first and foremost, rather than stereotyping,
or labelling people. Then a person's individual human
qualities, (rather than his or her sexual orientation,
biological sex, colour, race or religion) would be the primary
measure of that person's worth and achievement.

Perhaps I will live long enough to see this happen.

One can only hope.

Is anyone interested in my opinion of the workings of a jet engine even though the closest I have been is crossing the tarmac at an airport? This article is similarly irrelevant because the author does not even seriously attempt to describe the current usage of the word gay with respect to sexuality and likewise the word, gender.

Despite this we are however told about the words evolution and a quote from a Vatican paper is used to justify opinion. This is latter is particularly offensive given the Catholic Church denial of sexuality and that that denial has resulted in both persecution of gays, often to self-harm and suicide, as well as propagation of sexual abuse, cover ups and denial of harm caused. Sorry but I cannot come up with an example or analogy for straight people that would as mean or as offensive as this.

What is missing? Gay can mean gay men or it can include lesbians too but increasingly the context of gay refers to all GLBTI, all sex, gender and sexuality minorities which make up about 10% of our population. Does the author know what GLBTI (or LGBTI) means? He is in denial about the existence of intersex (I) and transgender (T) people because he thinks for everyone "our personhood is lived out as a male or a female". I have some empathy for straights who don’t get sexuality diversity but denial of intersex is you just mean-spirited refusal to believe in photographs.

Both practise and public identity are often different to personal identity which may or may not align with the person’s brain attraction, eg two bisexual men are a gay couple; a transwomen (MTF) with a gay man are gay to some but their union is heterosexual.

The article is homophobic, biphobic and transphobic denying the natural diversity of sex, gender and sexuality and in doing so denies biology such as the mountain of data that tells us that homosexuality is 40% polygenetically inherited or that gender develops in utero at a different time and circumstance to sex determination. Cultural and religious-based cognitive dissonance.

...The first salvo from the “nouveau” gay lobby, re-tuned for the era of post-conservative government. Softly, softly is it?

...Should we mention at this point, the nasty anti-conservative rhetorical rancor of the gay lobby of old; the one mouthing off at every convenient opportunity, and backed up by the Labor/Green alliance?

Beautiful article, Bernard.

I agree, but take it a step further:

<<At the most fundamental level a human person is just that, a person, and our personhood is lived out as a male or a female.>>

At the most fundamental level, not only are we not males and females - we are not humans and not persons either: we are who we are - we are God!

<<They describe us in a most intimate way because they describe our bodies which are the sign of who we are. We are born as human persons, nothing more and nothing less.>>

While describing us as a body is somewhat deeper than describing us as a sexual-orientation, this is not deep enough, certainly not the most intimate for we are not a body either. We happen to have and use a body for a period of perhaps 100 years, but that's just a blip in the big scheme of life.

Another prude trying to make queer folk invisible again.

Stick your "nuance" where the sun don't shine.

"made in the image and likeness of God"

Yet, you acknowledge we are "male" and "female".

So, what is God then, both sexes at once?
Why always refer to God as a male, then?

Male and female, eh?
Typical monotheistic dualism.

Pagan religions had gods who could change sex, have love affairs with either sex, were hermaphroditic, males who gave birth.

How come we can be labelled "male" and "female", but not "gay" or "straight"?

What does "male" tell you about someone?
Are they masculine, feminine or androgynous?
Do they have sex with men, women, both or nobody?

The beauty of language is that we can *invent* words to define anything we care to define.

So not only can you be "male", you can be "gay", a "sissy", "macho", "androcentric", "celibate", a "diva", a "libertarian", an "absurdist", a "minimalist", a "dandy", a "party animal", etc.

These additional words tell you much more than just "male".
And may mean more to that person than "male" ever will.

The closet is a charred pile of rubble.
Get used to it.

"Gay" was Victorian era street slang which applied to an outsider or sexual transgressor like the prostitute,the hustler or the mountebank, that's where the modern usage comes from.

Bernie, I am a liberal in regards to homosexuality. I don't think that homosexuality should be a criminal offence, and I don't think that homosexuals should be jailed anymore. What you do in your bedrooms is your business. But don't come crying to me for social equality.

My attitude to homosexuality is the same for consenting incest. If brothers and sisters, or a pair cousins, fathers and daughters, or sons and mothers, want to have consensual sex, go for it. What you do in your own bedroom is your business, provided that you don't have any babies. But I don't want to hear about it because I don't approve of it. And don't try to tell me it is "marriage."

Homosexual people have perverted to word "gay" to mean something it is not. They are not going to do the same thing to "marriage."

You can call a "fish" a "bird" if you want to. But it still won't fly.

So the Vatican has decided to cease labelling people on the basis of factors beyond their control and irrelevant to their ability to function as human beings? That's wonderful news! When will the first female priests be ordained?

to promote an unnatural lifestyle and call it 'gay 'is just a deceitful way try and gain wide approval.

Dear LEGO,

You may want to Google "flying fish."

Not included in my previous post but probably the most important issue here:
Neglected is the identity forged by persecution, exclusion, discrimination, and stigma.

Clearly the author and some commentators at not ready to allow LGBTI to be included beside them but are insistent the we are both identified as different and relegated invisible by denial of our frequency in the population. Ironically, we are not allowed our true biological differences but silly irrational ideas of wilful choice of behaviour and of lifestyle are used to both separate us and condemn us. We have the diversity of the straight community plus what they reject so claims of 'a lifestyle' required suspension of rational thought whilst bizarrely suggesting that anyone straight could suddenly become homoerotically attracted.

All this finger pointing at false targets whilst serving to minimise us, props up the fragile straight ego on sex, gender and sexuality that is the consequences of being caged by contrived ill-fitting religious and moral rules. It also serves to prop up the closet door for many straights who are no so heterosexual - why else would people bother to write about us when their own lifestyle choices are so much more important and respectful than ours?

@runner, @Lego
Do you seriously believe homosexuals appropriated the word gay? How is it that a small part of the population got to dictate the language use of the vastly superior straight humans whilst being persecuted by anti-sodomy laws?

Anyone with half a brain engaged would get that gay arose as a derogatory term of which GLBTI had no choice in back then or now. Homosexuals did not even have a right to accommodation at the time let alone language. It is cultural and religious cognitive dissonance.

Why carry on about linguistics that evolved more than 40 years ago? Couldn't possibly miss the opportunity to sink the boot into someone who is already down, despised and bruised?

Hi Foxy,

I think LEGO's point was precisely that, that a flying fish is not a bird.

Ducks and cormorants swim underwater, but that doesn't make them fish either :)

The relatively permanent relationship between one man and one woman, more or less exclusively with each other, has been designated a 'marriage'. Good luck with other forms of relationship, but they still won't be 'marriages', so the people involved can call them something else.

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

No. LEGO clearly stated that fish can't fly -
so I suggested he Google "flying fish,"
because some do. Just as there's that old
quote that some people use - "God made Adam and
Eve, not Adam and Steve!" To which one needs
to ask - "Then who made Steve?"

As for your definition of what "marriage" is?

Thank You for sharing your opinion.

Each society views its own patterns of marriage,
family, and kinship as self-evidently right and proper,
and usually as God given as well. Much of the current
concern about the fate of the modern family stems
from this kind of ethnocentrism.

If we assume that there is only one "right" family form,
then naturally any change will be interpreted as
heralding the doom of the whole institution.

It is important to recognise, therefore, that there is
an immense range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns;
that each of these patterns may be, at least in its own
context, perfectly viable, and above all, that the family,
like any other social institution, does change through
time, in our own society as in all others.

Sorry Joe/Loudmouth and Lego but you have no choice about the use of the word marriage just as I have no choice but to be called gay and be identified as such. Why did you think you had a choice or that the law change isn't inevitable? Joe it is a bit like you making up points for Lego that they never made.

I view your messages with glee. Within a decade it is highly likely both of you will be invited to a marriage of non-heterosexuals (and that's plenty of time too for a closet door to materialise and break open). Many of us are already celebrating our significant relationships as marriage even when we can't take advantage of another country's laws. I hope it is someone close, not because you will have abused them, but because of the moral dilemma this will present to you. You might even find you are not good enough for your family. Who would've thunk it?

Hi Eric,

You miss my point, and probably LEGO's as well. I have no objection to unions of any one person and another and I wish them well, and I would defend their rights to such unions, but I suppose I assume a very narrow definition of 'marriage' in a Western society like Australia's. The word's taken, it means what it means, and you're free to find another one.

And Foxy, as an atheist, I don't believe any fanciful yarns about an Adam and an Eve, and neither about any Steve :)

Love,

Joe

Can't we just drop this never-ending nonsense ? There'll be queers, like or not, nothing anyone can do about it.

why waste so much good discussion time & space on an unwinable subject. Queers should stop being in our faces & we'll leave them alone. Simple !
There are people out there getting hungry & poorer & all some morons can think about is some perverse component of our society.
Acquire some decency & care about deserving people.

EricG –“Many of us are already celebrating our significant relationships as marriage even when we can't take advantage of another country's laws”.

Isn’t this the problem though? If you can celebrate everything that heterosexual marriages celebrate then why are you trying to get the law changed? Everyone is entitled to define marriage as they like – if you do not agree with someone else’s definition then why not simply ignore it? Why do you care so much about what others think? The government is entitled to their definition as is everyone else but you do not have to agree with it. Many heterosexual people do not define marriage as something that has to be endorsed by the government. They have a ceremony, a reception, a honeymoon and then make a life together without any government involvement whatsoever. If you give up you undeniable right to define your own relationship as a marriage then you can hardly complain if the government does not agree with you.

You already have the right to be married – you just don’t qualify for a certificate. The certificate of itself is utterly worthless and anyone who pursues it is acting irrationally. To go after something which is worthless is unbecoming of a mature human being.

Of course you may also want the rights to your partner’s assets or to be considered as their significant other. You should have these rights not because you have a certificate but because you have a relationship. There are millions of couples who have a certificate but not a relationship. A certificate should not be the proof of a relationship. If proof is needed it should be obtained by other means such as the criteria that social services use.

You should fight for your rights to these things but without compromise. Demand these rights because you have the same relationship as heterosexuals and not because you have the same piece of paper. Anything less is undignified.

Phanto,I'll tell you how it works
Gay life choices are none of our business and we're not allowed to make any observations about them but their failures and any hurdles they face in the pursuit of their choices are all 100% our fault.

Don't forget that the whole "progressive" ideology is totally geared toward the pursuit of personal "happiness", not the pursuit of excellence,enlightenment or liberty nor is it geared to the development of weltanschauung.
The opposite of "Progressivism" is something alluded to in concepts such as "Jihad" or "heimat', an examined life, a life grounded in time, space and a sense of a greater purpose.

Eric G.

People like myself who were once tolerant of homosexuals are now becoming more hostile to homosexuals because of your constant demands for social equality. If you wish to increase hostility towards homosexuals then just keep it up. Had I known that homosexuals would try to corrupt our youth into thinking that homosexual behaviour was normal and fashionable, I would never have agreed with the idea that homosexuality should not be illegal.

People do have strong feelings about sexuality, and their attitudes can be considered unfair. It is a cultural universal all over the globe that males who are very sexually active are regarded as "studs" while women who are very sexually active are regarded as "sluts." Women who are very sexually active can cry about that all they want. But that is how people everywhere think. But if women who are very sexually active demand social equality with women who are much more virtuous, then it just is not going to happen.

Even women would not agree to that. The lowest thing that a woman can call another is "a slut." Women who are monogamous or who at least are not very sexually active are respected as virtuous. Virtuous women themselves tend to look down on women who sleep around with anybody.

Homosexuals are in exactly the same position as sluts. People tolerate you but they do not approve of your behaviour. Your sexuality may be a product of your DNA and you can't help it, but women who are very sexually active probably have the same problem and they are still not getting social approval.

Your premise that social respect for homosexuality is "inevitable" is an opinion I do not share. My own perception, is that hostility towards homosexuals is increasing becaue people are beginning to perceive homosexuals as chronic illegal drug users, and the corruptors of our youth through their very high concentration in the entertainment media.

The Eurovision morons just shot themselves in the foot with their latest "bearded lady star". They have probably now lost half their audience.

"that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life"

That idea was disproved long ago. Even Cardinal Pell admits that we are the product of evolution.

David

There are no 'gay' people, just people.
Sorry, there are no people, only mammals.
Um, no mammals, only animals.
Oops, no animals, only lifeforms.
Nup, no lifeforms, only matter.
Uh-oh, there is no matter, only atoms.

Forget removing "gay" from the lexicon, we should not use any word but "atom".

Bernie gidday.

I love your analysis of our language usage and you philosophical imputations.
Gender doesn't denote the underlying sex. It more commonly recently denotes much more than the mere physicality denoting actual sex.

I think gender is what makes us as persons. Similarly inwardly, despite all the obsfaction, delusions and rationalisations actual sex organs define us to ourselves. These actions then becomes a denial of self.

There is a line of thought then that follows that deviation from the overwhelming sexual norms issue in fact a denial of self and that all the over-emphasis on the deviation from the norm is not an attempt at outward persuasion of others but an attempt to overcome the original self denial.

Bernie gidday.

I love your analysis of our language usage and you philosophical imputations.
Gender doesn't denote the underlying sex. It more commonly recently denotes much more than the mere physicality denoting actual sex.

I think gender is what makes us as persons. Similarly inwardly, despite all the obsfaction, delusions and rationalisations actual sex organs define us to ourselves. These actions resilt in a denial of self.
Perhaps when a gay person looks in a mirror they see a reflection of something they are not. In the case of a male they see a woman in a mans body. But that body says to them they are a man. Confusing? Sadly it is more for the gay person than many understand. The conflicts must be huge. I have no knowledge of how this, I see as sad, confusion can be resolved.

There is a line of thought then that follows that deviation from the overwhelming sexual norms is in fact a denial of self and that all the over-emphasis on the deviation from the norm is not an attempt at outward persuasion of others but an attempt to overcome the original self denial.

Homosexuals have as much right to live their lives as they wish, as alcoholics, or bigots. After all, you can't stop homosexuals being homosexuals, or alcoholics being alcoholics, or bigots being bigots, no matter what laws are put in place to outlaw them.

People have preferences, and by definition, this means that they find some practices attractive, some acceptable and some abhorrent.

By extension, therefore, some people have the right to find homosexuality, alcoholism, or bigotry abhorrent.

And, on the subject of marriage, I suppose that alcoholics can marry each other, and so can bigots. But at the extreme, can two homosexual, alcoholic, bigots marry ?

Hmmmm ...... that's a conundrum.

Joe

My you are argumentative to day Foxy my sweet.

Flying fish don't actually fly, they glide. That is quite different.

On the main topic, roll on the Muslim takeover.

Dear Hasbeen,

Flyingfish is a type of fish that throws itself from
the water with the motion of its strong tail. In the
air, it glides by spreading its large fins, which
act like wings. In "flight" the flyingfish vibrates its
tail very rapidly. The long lower part of the tail fin
dips in and out of the water and helps the fish stay
up in the air.

There are about 50 different species of flying fish.
They live near the surface of the sea and are widespread in
the open oceans of the world, especially in the warmer
regions. Flyingfish have streamlined bodies and grow
up to 45 centimetres in length.

The blackwing flyingfish is found in warm, but not tropical
seas, including the Mediterranean. It uses four large
fins in flight. A common two-winged flying fish is
"Exocoetus volitans." It lives in tropical seas, but may also
be seen in the Mediterranean.

Flying fish are good to eat. They are sometimes caught at
night, as they fly through the air, using lights, to which
they are attracted.

Me argumentative?

Not at all. Just simply adding, enriching, stimulating
and amplifying, people's knowledge - on the issues involved.
It's an occupational habit.

Dear Foxy,

But it's still not a bird. Or a bat. Or a blowfly.

Love,

Joe

yep when you r blind to design u end up with perverted views.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

But it can fly.

Which was the original point being made. ;-)

The trouble with the heterosexual society is "we are quite happy with homosexuals" but in the next breath will will say "those poofters" this is very confusing, are they genuine of accepting, I think not, one hears the two sides as mentioned so often in society, poofter to me is derogatory to anyone who is gay.