AJ Philips,

That 'proof' that "conservatives appear to be the biggest consumers of porn" is laughable.

I didn't bother with your other 'proof', having already wasted a few minutes of life on your first link.

A J Philips:

“Hey, not that there’s anything wrong with that. There does appear, however, to be a strong relationship between homophobia and (homo)sexual repression.”

Well if there is nothing wrong with it then why bother going to the trouble of finding links and posting them here? Perhaps you were being sarcastic in which case then you do think there is something wrong with it.

If you were being sarcastic then what exactly is wrong with it? Is it the hypocrisy? What does a person’s behaviour have to do with their arguments? Many people have strong convictions about certain behaviours but fail to live up to those convictions. What is relevant in the context of this forum is to examine their convictions or opinions and to counter them with contrary opinions. Criticising their behaviour is just a way to avoid dealing with their opinions.

If there is nothing wrong with their behaviour then we do not need to read studies about their behaviour. If their behaviour is irrelevant to their arguments then why raise it as an issue at all?

Either way your post is at least a waste of time and at worst an act of aggression aimed at belittling people who do not share your views.

“Phanto, as long as we also don't subject our kids in primary schools to other people's agendas either, such as the current public school use of religious Chaplains that could spread their own superstitious religious views to vulnerable children,”

That is a totally separate issue and irrelevant to this discussion. If you have a problem with that then perhaps you could start a new thread in the general section. Using these discussions to push an agenda about religion in schools is an abuse of these discussions. At the moment religious people have access to schools and they have gained it because they have gone through the correct channels to achieve it. If you think they should not have that access then you too are free to go through the correct channels to stop them.

Using a discussion about the content of the school curriculum to express your opinion about whether religious instruction should be allowed in schools is not a correct channel. It will not help achieve your aim – only the correct channels will do that. We can only assume you raise the issue in irrelevant discussions because you want to simply denigrate religious people rather than challenge them in ways that someone would if they genuinely believed in their views.

“Many parents don't give their teenagers the correct information, if any.”

This is not an excuse for the education system to create a program that is enforced on every child. It is not necessary. If a particular child has a particular problem then maybe some counselling could be made available but there is no need to act as if every child has inadequate parents.

Some of these programs pretend to have the well-being of children at heart but most children already are well enough. It is not about helping needy children but helping ‘needy’ adults who are trying to convince themselves that their sexual behaviour and attitudes are reasonable.

Suseonline, "I still don't believe any public school brings in a transgender person to meet grade 3 students and discuss their brand of sexuality in detail....."

As OLO's No 1 advocate for gay everything, except lesbians who never receive your attention for some strange reason, you wouldn't be worrying anyhow, now would you?

Yet on your say-so you expect parents to suck it up where the State is taking over their role and Marxist activists (any wonder you scoff, sharing their ideology as you do) are given free rein to tweak the school curriculum.

Where their children's education is concerned, parents cannot leave it all up to trust. Parents really do need to turn up wherever they can for P&C meetings and to make good use of the parent-teacher interviews. That can be hard to do where employment hours are long or awkward. A cup of tea with other parents is a good idea.

By way of example, it is not unusual for some State primary schools to have indigenous speakers visiting (pre-Australia Day for instance). No problems there, excepting where the 'black armband' view of history of activists is being represented as fact as can be the case.

onthebeach,

Don’t put words (or implications) in my mouth. I didn’t say that those links were “proof” of anything. I did, however, offer them as evidence. If I wanted to “prove” my point. I would have offered a lot more than that.

Of course, if you could provide a sound rebuttal to the link (presumably you can, because you have so decisively rejected it), then please share. Or are you just going with your gut on this one, as conservatives so often do?

phanto,

Because it’s ironic.

<<Well if there is nothing wrong with it then why bother going to the trouble of finding links and posting them here?>>

Please don’t start with the amateur psychology again. You’re just not very good at it. I note your defensiveness with keen interest, however.

Finding the links wasn’t much “trouble” either. It took less than ten seconds. Googling it was so quick and easy for me because I have long been aware of the relationship.

<<Perhaps you were being sarcastic in which case then you do think there is something wrong with it.>>

No. No, sarcasm. I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy.

You see? This is why you make such a fool of yourself when you play amateur psychologist.

<<What does a person’s behaviour have to do with their arguments?>>

Nothing necessarily. Why do you ask?

<<If there is nothing wrong with their behaviour then we do not need to read studies about their behaviour.>>

You’re confusing the wrongness of hypocrisy, with the “wrongness” of gay pornography, to suggest an hypocrisy on my behalf.

That’s dishonest.

<<Either way your post is at least a waste of time and at worst an act of aggression aimed at belittling people….>>

Not at all. I had provided sound arguments (as I have throughout this thread). You have overlooked all of those, however, and then implied that I am just belittling others, by attacking a snippet of what I have said without viewing it in the context of everything else.

That too is dishonest.

AJ Philips, "I didn’t say that those links were “proof” of anything. I did, however, offer them as evidence"

That is laughable too. As 'evidence' of what, junk science?