When it comes to discrimination, the Reds win hands down. They hate Christianity but love perversion, and that's what why they went for SSM, which is about as anti-Christian as it gets. We are left to wonder how they will reconcile their perversions with their Muslim allies' attitude to homosexuality, as those barbarians get more say in Australian society.

The author's methodology is flawed in his reliance on (dead European) philosophical and (Christian only) religious justifications.

He should be looking at Australia's secular legal system and our changeable politics.

The last meaning the temporary reign of ScoMo may permit schools to discriminate, but when Labor wins (by 18 May [1] next year) Labor will tend to reverse the laws to ban freedom to discriminate.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Australian_federal_election

This is an outrageously stupid article. It's insulting to sense and sensibility.
Conflating facts comparing a religious belief system, to a gay rights radical political organisation, is an insult to intelligence. It's straight out of university. This bloke hasn't grown up, and has obviously never had need to. His existence is confined to a cushy world of yes men.

He exhibits the sickness of the whole political system, described by electors as a two party duopoly. Duplicitous: described by the commoners as useless and gutless. Yes men all!

Stand up to the relentless march of the radical gay rights movement, you gutless wonder!

Let me clarify my last sentence.

The temporary reign of ScoMo may permit schools to discriminate.

But when Labor wins (by 18 May [1] next year) Labor will tend to reverse the laws. Through the political-legislative process Labor will ban freedom of schools to discriminate.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Australian_federal_election

Ttbn.

*...We are left to wonder how they will reconcile their perversions with their Muslim allies' attitude to homosexuality, as those barbarians get more say in Australian society...*

Your wrong. Islam is not the problem; it's a big part of the solution! There is a whole "other side" debate to be had on this subject.

People will discriminate, based on their indoctrinated belief system regardless of any contrary overwhelming irrevocable evidence. And will choose not to change even when confronted by overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Usually when there's also limited intelligence? And this is never ever going to change. One is reminded of a story Sir Richard Bramston tells, where he invited, a highly placed flat earth society official, on one of his low orbit space flights.

When they landed, Sir Richard asked, well what do you think? To which and here I paraphrase, the official replied, the graphics were extremely realistic as were the special effects.

So apart from driving homophobia underground? What are the other options? Well, the first cab off the rank is no income-earning organisation that practises this medieval theocracy, ought to receive even as much as one centavo of government funding, or any tax relief whatsoever, for being an alleged religious organisation! End of story!
Alan B.

God clearly discriminates. People repent and receive mercy thanks to the Lord Jesus Christ and His sacrifice or spend eternity without God in torment. Nothing new about this teaching and nothing the god deniers say or do will change the truth. You would think it would be the godless schools that have failed miserably at every point despite massive increases in funding over the last 40 years that would be under scrunity. Oh no, now we want kids to do role plays to see if they are 'gay' or not and then wonder why such sickness is produced. The secular system with its massive increase in money still continues to see standards slide, suicide among kids increase, drug usage become normal, perversion increase. And not happy to live in their own poo they now want 'Christian' schools to follow the same path even know many believing and unbelieving parents sacrifice much to send their kids for something better than the zoos. Of course Islamic schools will not be on the radar for the god haters.

«In summary, religious institutions, or businesses, should not be allowed to refuse their services or products to LGBTI people. To do so is to discriminate against them in a morally unacceptable manner.»

The sun is shining, the birds are singing, the bells are calling for prayer - Carthago must be destroyed!
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est

Such is the logic of this last paragraph, after all the nice talk about ahimsa and the Dalai-Lama comes the sudden call to persecute people for their NON-ACTION. The correct comparison should be to urge the beating of a slave for refusing to perform a task s/he does not agree to do.

Deleted for abuse.

End the discrimination inherent in the Ballot Box, ban elections.

I believe that people have the right to live as they choose so long as it doesn't affect anyone else in an adverse manner.
But I DO NOT believe that one person should be forced to give up his or her liberty so that someone else can have theirs.
It should be noted that this 'discrimination' is essentially a 'denial of service', not 'discrimination' as might be inferred by 'bullying', so don't make out 'harm' to be something it isn't.
Nobody's forcing the student to go to that school, they're free to go elsewhere.
It seems to me its the student that wants to impose what they believe on the school.
Who's educating who?

The student isn't being asked to go against their beliefs, but the school board and parents are being asked to go against theirs.

If you want a basic 'generic' education send them to a public school.
If you want to pay more to send your kids to a private school then you can choose to do so and choose what school you want to send them to but you must understand that the school and the parents of the kids currently enrolled there make the rules.

These parents not only pay for their kids private schools, they probably also pay the taxes of all the other kids in public schools.
You do not have the right to impose upon them over and above what the school board and parents of the school decide.

These people pay for the right to choose what education they want.
You don't have the right to impose your beliefs upon them in their house.

I know a number of people far smarter than the head of the ACTU. They are not union members but I guarantee they have no hope of the job of they were to apply. People are to dumb to see everyone discriminates.

tbbn,
When it comes to perversion I think Christian priests are way, way ahead of everyone else in that department.

In fact they've made it into a very profitable business.

Even Mother Teresa's old order was recently sprung actually selling babies for cash as well as the 800 or so dead children and babies Irish Nuns conveniently dumped into septic tanks - so where's the moral superiority now?

When it comes to the SSM vote the results suggest that a lot of "non-Reds" must have voted for it too. However will we sort them out now?

One definition of this debate is -
Religion - "I'm not allowed to eat pork".
Religious Freedom - "I'm going to get a job at a place that serves pork and make sure that you can't eat pork either".

This recent kefuffle is all about the Wentworth electorate where it turns out the pro-SSM vote was very high and also the Principal of one of the schools in the electorate is gay.
It will all be made to go away again after the bi-election.

Hmm, we are twitchy about priests and young boys and the muslim pearls
but we are quite supportive about declared homosexuals teaching young boys !
Think about how the first case that comes to light will generate of a monumental row.

Hmm, whats that, it is Islamaphobic to refer to the pearls ?
What, you don't know about the pearl divers ?

Yeah Bazz the obvious fact deliberately ignored by the god deniers is that many men the Catholic church employed as priests were homosexuals.

I can't understand why religious schools would have
a problem with gay students. After all - God teaches
to love and accept everyone - doesn't he?

As for gay teachers? Schools should be able to get
rid of teachers who behave inappropriately - gay or
straight, towards their students (male or female).
And as long as a teacher is a good teacher (teaching
Maths - not "Gay Maths") there shouldn't be a problem.

Heterophobia is much more intense then Homophobia.

Dear Foxy,

Being "gay" is a socio-political orientation, not a sexual one.

«I can't understand why religious schools would have a problem with gay students»

I can't understand why anyone would have a problem with homosexual students, but I can definitely see how schools can have a problem with gay students which are often violent and provocative activists, which play "victim" for defiance's sake, who in all likelihood are not even sexually attracted to members of their own gender, but do it just for show and to seek attention.

Similarly, homosexual teachers should be welcome, even encouraged, but gay teachers need to be kicked out because they are immature people who make a big fuss around sexuality and talk about it too much.

«God teaches to love and accept everyone - doesn't he?»

Strive to love everyone, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you should accept their bad behaviour.

All the strife, nastiness and violence comes from homos because they have Leftist orientation and are supported - pushed, in fact - by the Left. And it is true that it's political, not sexual.

Dear Ttbn,

I think that you have taken my words a step too far:

There are homosexuals and there are gays, and these are two distinct groups. It can happen that a person happens to be both, but overall homosexuals are not gay and gays are not homosexual.

Homosexuals do not produce strife, nastiness or violence: homosexuality is a benign sexual orientation while gayness is a disruptive political orientation.

Interesting subdivision Yuyutsu.

It parallels that of the religious, between those tending their own “relationship” with “god”, and the much more offensive sort who presume to force the details of theirs on others, thus giving the whole brand a bad name.

Rusty

Yuyutsu,

Exactly my point.

Anybody who behaves badly or inappropriately -
be the person gay or straight - (male or female)
a school should
have the right to expel or sack. But why is it
the some people tend to only single out gay
students or teachers as having the ability to
behave badly or deviantly? Why is inappropriate
behaviour attached only to gays in some people's
minds?

Dear Rusty,

Thank you, this is a fair comparison.

I wouldn't use the word "subdivision" though, because in both cases we have two independent groups (even while an incidental intersection exists).

---

Dear Foxy,

«why is it the some people tend to only single out gay students or teachers as having the ability to behave badly or deviantly? Why is inappropriate behaviour attached only to gays in some people's minds?»

I don't think that there is any sane person who attaches inappropriate behaviour ONLY to gays.

That said, gays (NOT homosexuals!) are a rowdy and provocative lot, who make a lot of fuss around sexuality and believe that everyone should know and care about their sexual issues. In a religious setting where celibacy is the ideal and every effort is made to divert attention away from sexuality, such behaviour is inappropriate.

next thing we know it will be mandantory for all schools to do excursions to the Mardi Gras where every perversion thinkable and unthinklable is 'celebrated'. We already have pollies including a recent pm who sees it as some sort of cultural experience. Very sick.

Yuyutsu,

Your statement:

"...gays are a rowdy and provocative lot
who make a lot of fuss around sexuality and believe
that everyone should know and care about their
sexual issues..." is stereotyping. Your post indicates
that you believe that all gays share the same supposed
traits and that is simply not true.

Try again.

Dear Foxy,

If a person does not fuss or make a provocative big deal about their sexuality, like for example parading around the streets telling everyone, "look I am [hetero/homo/who-cares]sexual, it's great, look at my body, you should try it too...", or like making a political issue around it, then they are not gay.

One could still be sexually attracted to others of the same gender and still act on this attraction by having sexual encounters with them or even marry them, but so long as they are not gay about it, one thing they are not, is "gay".

Sexuality is an affliction, a disturbance of the mind. We may have to live with it and make allowances for it, but it's not something to be proud of or jolly about.

I was just reading about something called "Deadnaming".
Apparently it is an offense in the UK as a man has been questioned by
the police on the matter. You are guilty of this if you refer to a
transgender person by their birth name. Seriously !
Also he was warned by the police that referring to this person as "he"
makes him guilty of harassment !

It is hard to keep up with the infection of insanity across the UK.
Not these offenses in particular, but other such crazy laws are
actually resulting in people being imprisoned.
Some of the things that are written here on OLO would have the police
knocking on your door. The Greens and Labour have similar opinions
on such language.

Yuyutsu,

A couple of things for your information:

The Oxford and other dictionaries tells us that
the term "Gay" meaning homosexual became established
in the 1960s . It is now the standard accepted term
throughout the English-speaking world. The old-term
of "gay" meaning "carefree," "bright" and "showy"
has more or less been dropped out of natural use.

As for sexuality being an "affliction?" - I really don't
know why you would think or suggest that. But, then -
I don't know you. You could be right in your case.

However, gay men and women don't view their sexual
orientations as "afflictions." The only afflicting going
on is done by intrusive, judgemental, heterosexuals.

If you are gay - it's just who you are, as heterosexuals are
just who they are. There's a good body of evidence
validating that.

See you on another discussion.

Cheers.

biology disagrees with you Foxy. If you have same sex attraction and then have sex its an act of homosexuality. If you are attracted to a man or woman who is not your husband or wife and you have sex its called adultery. If you have a desire for kids it becomes paedophilia when you act on these impulses. 'Gay' is just a hijacked word.

If you are gay - it's just who you are, as heterosexuals are
just who they are. There's a good body of evidence
validating that.
Foxy,
same then goes for kleptomania & let's see how people react when they find stuff missing.

Dear Foxy,

The abuse of the nice English word "gay" was pushed for political reasons and just because it became popular in the media does not mean that ordinary people, including homosexuals, must accept that title and this stupidity. Homosexual people need not agree with your politics and like anyone else, sometimes they are happy, other times they are sad, sometimes proud of things they do, other times ashamed of them, but very rarely jolly and proud of their sexual orientation as such.

«As for sexuality being an "affliction?" - I really don't know why you would think or suggest that.»

The need to look for sex is an affliction which disturbs the mind. It produces the haunting thought that "something is missing which only sex can fill" and that creates tension. Some of this tension can be temporarily relieved during [good] sex, which allows us to relax a bit, but then it comes back and our sexual expectations increase: just imagine how happy and healthy we could be if that tension never existed, so we would never feel that anything is missing to begin with and could be relaxed and fulfilled the whole time, just like immediately after the greatest orgasm...

Most people (regardless whom they feel attracted to) fail to notice this because they take the sexual tension for granted and cannot remember when was the last time they felt so relaxed and carefree - that was before the onset of puberty, though sadly for many, only much earlier if ever, because they absorbed sexual expectations at an early age from their parents, teachers and peers (and yes, that's a grave abuse even if nobody physically touched them sexually).

«If you are gay - it's just who you are, as heterosexuals are just who they are.»

Well of course you are who you are, that's a tautology, but you are not your sexual orientation just like you are not, for example, your asthma or your tooth-ache: these are only secondary attributes of your body and/or psyche, they are not you.

A few points to consider.

1). Homosexuality and Hetrosexuality are both labels to determin one's attraction to their sex or the opposite sex. From what I've seen neither of these are an active choice to be attracted one way or another. The only sexuality that might have an actual choice is bisexual.

2). Many hetrosexuals are disgusted by signs of affection from their sex to their sex. I assume the same is true for many homosexuals. They just don't see hetrosexual acts in a relationship as something that is attractive, but instead might be repulsed by it.

(So far these points make them out to being equal both homosexual and heterosexual).

3). Both homosexual communities and hetrosexual communities have issues with drugs, violence, and dilequency over all. However there is a higher rate among homosexual communities for drug abuse and health related matters. Combining that with the smaller communities that homosexuals have options for, means they are more exposed to the drugs and negative health issues. There are less options here to join a different "safe group" among homosexuals then there are options for heterosexuals to change their groups of friends and acquaintances.

4). With the third point in mind there are two options to consider for a homosexual. A). Not associate with the homosexual community due to the environment that is included in it. Or B). Try to change that environment to a healthier one, or expand the options so that a homosexual isn't stuck in a negatively influencing elements.

These are also the same options for a heterosexual as well. If they are aware of the drug and health issues they might not want to associate with them, or have their kids associate with them. Or they might feel pity and want to reach out to a community that has needs and say, "you can join us, we won't judge you."

(Continued)

(Continued)

5). The practical approach is for more groups to be tolerant to homosexuals (and help them out of a negative environment), or homosexual communities striving to clean up their issues. Without these two solutions I might actually advise a homosexual to stay away from homosexual communities. Stay celibate for your own sake.

Yuyutsu,

I will repeat what I wrote earlier. The term - gay
- meaning homosexuality became established in the 1960s as the
term preferred by homosexuals and that it is now the
standard term throughout the English-speaking world.
The term gay - meaning "carefree", "bright" "Showy" has more
or less been dropped out of natural use.

I also wrote earlier that gay men and women don't view their
sexual orientations as afflictions. The only afflicting going
on is done by - intrusive, judgemental heterosexuals.

With all due respect - I have no further interest in
discussing this topic with you. You need to find someone
who's interested in what you have to say on the subject.

Have a nice day.

Dear Foxy,

«gay men and women don't view their sexual orientations as afflictions.»

Neither do Liberals, Laborites, democrats, greenies, royalists, fascists or communists - what has anyone's political views to do with their sexual orientation?

Also, I did not claim that people are afflicted by their sexual orientation, but rather that they are afflicted by their sexuality as a whole.

As I explained, men and women of whatever sexual orientation and whatever political convictions fail to view their sexuality as an affliction because they do not remember any better.

«The only afflicting going on is done by - intrusive, judgemental heterosexuals.»

There are homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender people too who condemn the gay movement and the misuse of this word.

While I do not care about sexual orientations and have no reason or interest in judging people by their sexual orientation, I reserve my right to condemn those who call themselves "gay", push that foolish misuse of the word and keep parading their sexuality noisily, whatever their sexual orientation happens to be.

Yuyutsu,

You stated to me on page 5:

"Sexuality is an affliction, a disturbance of the mind.
We may have to live with it and make allowances for it,
but it's not something to be proud of or jolly about."

I have neither the time nor the crayons to continue to
interact - or explain things to you.

Dear Foxy,

«You stated to me on page 5:

"Sexuality is an affliction, a disturbance of the mind.
We may have to live with it and make allowances for it,
but it's not something to be proud of or jolly about."»

Yes I did, because this is the truth.

You seem to confuse between sexuality and "sexual orientation", so let me pull out some crayons and explain the difference:

Sexuality is about the craving to be involved in sex or similar sexual pursuits.
Sexual orientation refers to the selection­¹ of object(s) towards which one is sexually attracted and with which/whom s/he wants to have sex.

The mental and emotional affliction that I referred to relates to sexuality rather than to sexual orientation.

The gay movement is presumably only concerned with sexual orientations, but as they fuss about it they, intentionally or otherwise, are promoting sexuality itself, along with the pains that come with it.

Religious schools strive for the ideal of celibacy and attempt to lessen the impact and the resulting pain of sexuality over their pupils. Promoting sexuality, including but not limited to, by gay activists, is unhelpful and undermines the school's aims.

---
¹ This selection could be natural/genetic/biological and/or wilful, but whichever the case is, is not important for this discussion.

LGBTI people should behave in a more normal manner if they feel discriminated against.

Discrimination against alphabet soup people in not the issue. The issue being peddled is religious freedom. Religious freedom in Australia is set out in the Constitution. It includes freedom FROM religion or primacy of any religious cult.

Foxy, your commonsense reply to Yuyutsu is very welcome.

I grew up with, discrimination and all that it stood for.
Big deal.
Today's pansy's are just that.
Instead of becoming a Nation of strong and positive, forward thinking people we have allowed the nannies and the neuters to take over.
We took our eye off the ball; or did we?
Despite the whinging and wining about EVERYTHING and ANYTHING, we are the most well off in the world, but in the wrong areas.
We have been contaminated by things like unions, to name one, which led to an increase in living costs and a little in living standards, but at a price.
The result of all this, is that the Aussie has become lazy and gained a sense of entitlement.
They have lost all perspective on life, which is a result of losing the ability to see reason and therefore a lack of common sense.
Some of the political decisions over the past do not stack up to these basic principals, and therefore were wrong.
We must remember that it only takes 50.0000000000000001% to make a majority.
This premise is one of the most stupid, ever conceived.
In any language it is half, so it means that a complete half of the population are living an acrimonious life.
Just because it made it easy to decide a winner, does not mean there is not a better way of managing the voting system for a better outcome.
Discrimination against the queers is a fairy tale contrived by the queers to gather support and sympathy for themselves, as the true sentiment of the population was one of disgust, disdain and derision, and is still so today, by those of us left with the natural ability of reason, common sense and have not been infected or swayed by emotions.
Discrimination, the word is just that, a word.
It has been adopted by the people who are social rejects.
They disagreed with public opinion, purely because of pride, so they set about to change this to one of their choosing, and design.
The fact is,we MUST BE ALLOWED TO DISCRIMINATE!