Frankly, I am concerned when someone is critical of some aspect of homosexual lifestyle, they are normally labelled “homophobic”.

Or if someone is critical of some aspect of feminism, they are normally labelled “misogynist”.

Or if someone wants children to have an actual father, they are normally labelled “fundamentalist” etc.

I think that these terms are applied so as to avoid real issues.

I know what you mean. I'm not impressed by the cliche "politically correct" which raises its stale old head on a regular basis - let alone "abnormal" (I think the guy meant to use "faggot") which I saw on one posting.

I'm not sure I quite understand either of your posts, given that this story is about the consequences of the rising influence of fundmentalism in US society. And as alarming as this "battle for America's soul" is to my small "l" liberal sensibilities, particularly having spent many of my early adult years in that country, I've actually used none of the labels you've each cited, ie homophobic, nor mysoginist, in this essay. Surely you can accept the principle arguements on the increasing need for tolerence and diversity to be defended in the US education system without seizing the opportunity to launch a withering attack at the slightest sign of so called political correctness? There's a big difference I believe. Think big boys, there's a bit more to this issue than protecting yourselves from the harmful rays of gender politics.

I am thinking big “girl” Jane.

I agree with the following “Tolerance gives the public schools an avenue to literally brainwash our kids that every lifestyle is OK.”

Why do I agree? Because if the opposite was true then children could be taught that Pol Pot did great things for the people of Cambodia, or Stalin was one of the great statesmen in modern history, or Germaine Greer’s texts are totally rational.

Not everything can be believed, and not all lifestyles are positive for people. That is fact. Complete tolerance or un-questioning acceptance can lead people up a dry creek very quickly, as there are people of all cultures, religions, politics and gender who do like to manipulate, deceive and brainwash others.

But within the article, there is no real definition of what is meant by terms such as “tolerance”, or “fundamentalism” or “evolution” etc. So it becomes a little difficult to debate much in the article.

However there are people who do begin to label others with generalised names, if those others disagree with their point of view, even when they do present considerable evidence that they are correct

Nice piece Jane.

Buster has done in the kids TV industry what is now known as 'doing a Playschool'...

: )

Dear Jane,

You observe that: "Regional commentators have used the story to point out the hypocrisies of Secretary Spellings and Reverend Dobson’s intolerant views on the acceptability of homosexuality in our communities, so that their specious bigotry can be openly countenanced."

So, you and these commentators object to Spellings and James Dobson because they have made a negative moral judgment about homosexuality. Thus, you appear to be saying that they have no right to make such a moral judgment, because that makes them intolerant and intolerance is wrong.

Jane, let me ask you:
1. How do you know intolerance is wrong?
2. How do you know tolerance is right?
3. What is the standard for assessing "right" and "wrong"?
4. If Dobson and Spellings have no right to make moral judgments about homosexuality then what makes you think you have the right to make moral judgments about Dobson and Spellings? ie. you refer to them as "hypocritical", "intolerant" and guilty of "specious bigotry" which are all moral judgments!

You're cheating Jane. You are not playing by your own rules - which means that it is actually you who, by your own words, are the hypocrite and the intolerant bigot.

And BTW, it's James Dobson - NOT "Dodson" (as you repeatedly refer to him ealier in your article), and he is from "Focus on the Family" not "Forum of the Family".

Not only do you talk a whole lot of incoherent nonsense, you can't even get basic facts right!

AK

It’s all about achieving equilibrium in a democracy… However, I cannot support the concept of unemployed cartoon characters being used to promote a lifestyle choice to impressionable young children.

Timkins seems to deplore tolerance as a cover for moral relativism. And yet he doesn't like being labelled "homophobic" or "misogynist". Timkins, those labels are value judgements (although as Jane Rankin-Reid stated, she never used them).

The article she wrote was anything but an example of moral relativism. Using the arguments around a children's cartoon character she reported the views of antedelluvian religious fundamentalists and she has made explicit value judgements - labelling the US Education Secretary "hypocritical" and James Dobson as "intolerant". I would describe Dobson and his rabble in much more graphic terms but hey, I didn't write the article.

But in regard to moral relativism, it is interesting that the enemies of the gay movement accuse the public education system of moral relativism when the system is inclusive of gay issues, for example but then turn around and say public schools are "values free". This is a contradiction - the system is either values free or it teaches respect for gay people. Respect for people whose sexual orientation is different to your own is a value. And I support those values.

On the other hand, I find James Dobson's warped ideology disgusting, perverted and fundamentally immoral (and not representative of Christians). Say what you like but I am not a moral relativist.

I'm GUILTY as charged of being intolerant of US Education Secretary Margaret Spellings and Reverend Dobson views on SpongeBob and Buster the Rabbit. Aslan, Seeker, Timkins, to me, the main difference between their institutionalized highly political paid to play style of intolerance and my impatience with such bigotry in this part of human history, is that they are in positions of enormous influence and are actively shifting the balance of liberal educational content in the US classroom, whereas I'm filing an "opinion" piece on a commentary website. The difference is that unlike US kids who are now being deprived of important educational methologies due to fundamentalist pressure on their teachers, you get to bite back as you have. But most importantly, I write from mono-cultural Tasmania, a community somewhat less experienced with gay acceptance and other contemporary issues of tolerance. I made the point about the many regional writers throughout the US, UK and Canada who've taken exactly the same opportunity of writing about something so ludicrous a banning a rabbit from afternoon TV, let alone accusing a sponge of subversion, because it is an easy gentle fairly humorous way of getting the issues out into our communities. There is still far too much life threatening despair amongst isolated youth in places like Tasmania for me to look in the other direction; its my job to say it as I see it lays.

The ridiculous goings-on over Sponge Bob is no worse than the ridiculous goings-on over Enid Blytons character Noddy (and Enid Blyton in general) some years back. My God, we've had Enid Blyton, Mother Goose, and most fairy tales given a good old going over with screams of sexist, racist etc. etc. etc. Now the liberal left know how stupid they sounded at their loudest and most shrill.

Having said that just because the left made fools of themselves for years in educational circles doesn't mean the religious kooks have a license to do the same. I just hope the pendulum swings back and stops somewhere in the middle and stupid political and religious ideology is put a distant second to the rounded and proper education of our kids.

Jane,
I spent Christmas in Tasmania, and I spent Christmas afternoon sitting on the veranda of an old style farmer’s cottage having a wonderful chat to a number of very diverse people, including a gay couple from Margate.

This is interesting, because your perspective as a local of Hobart, and my perspective as a visitor are quite different. However I understand that during winter, many people in Tasmania can wear the expressions of early convicts.

Without a clear definition of what is meant by “tolerance”, “evolution”, “fundamentalism” etc. then these things can mean many different things depending on perspective I suppose.

Eg. tolerance could mean “zero tolerance”, or it could mean “complete tolerance”.

Which of the following is correct: -
1 + 1 = 2
1 + 1 = 11
1 + 1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1
1 + 1 = ?

With “complete tolerance” in the classroom, all of the above would be correct, as nothing is right or wrong, (and this could include human behaviour as well).

With “zero tolerance” the first has to be correct, or it’s off to the isolation cells for that student. So I guess, tolerance in education should involve directing students towards what is considered right, while not being totally adamant or unforgiving.

Dear Jane,

You're not just guilty of being intolerant of Dobson and Spelling - you're guilty of talking complete and utter incoherent nonsense.

And don't pretend to be neutral, Jane - or concerned about the kids. You're not neutral - and you're not the slightest bit concerned about the kids. You resent the fact that these people have influence whereas you don't. But if you had the influence you would not think twice about influencing the course of education toward your point of view.

Basically, it boils down to you having a sook because the course of US education isn't going the way YOU want. How pathetic.

Poor Jane - US kids are being taught about the bankrupty of socialism, the foolishness of harm minimisation, the debunking of revisionist history, and they are once again hearing the voice of the dead white European males, and Jane doesn't like it. She would rather teach them incoherent nonsense and enshrine them in blissful ignorance (and, consequently, poverty).

AK

DavidJS,

You said: "On the other hand, I find James Dobson's warped ideology disgusting, perverted and fundamentally immoral (and not representative of Christians). Say what you like but I am not a moral relativist."

If you are not a moral relativist then you must have a moral standard by which you can judge whether Dobson's ideology is "disgusting, perverted and fundamentally immoral".

What is this standard that you use?

AK

Frankly, Timkins I am surprised that someone who states they are concerned about “homosexual lifestyles” is labelled ‘homophobic’ when they should be labelled as being in breach of the anti-discrimination act.

As it is not illegal to be a homosexual in this country, your concerns about ‘homosexual lifestyles’ are prejudicial. ‘Homosexual lifestyles’ are by definition, no different to heterosexual lifestyles’ other than that the participants are homosexual.

So what are you concerned about, if not by the sexual differences between yourself and others in our community? If you concerned about general promiscuity or flamboyant decorating tastes, then discuss.

If you concerned about predatory homosexual paedophiles lurking in parklands, then discuss, remembering to state that there are ten times more heterosexual predatory paedophiles lurking beside them. All of whom should be of concern to the community.

If you want to start a campaign to make homosexuality illegal – come right out and say so. But until you get the law changed, a TV producer has every right to put a law-abiding homosexual family on ‘Playschool'.

Rather than muddy the debate by feigning ignorance of commonly understood definitions of hot-topic words, you might instead ponder the laws of this country and consider abiding by them.

As for the furphy that ‘moral relativism’ is indoctrinated into every Kindergarten student, this ‘big lie’ is being peddled by those who wish to usurp secular humanist principles, western democratic traditions and western scientific advances and return to the primacy of the Old Testament. (Exactly how many cubits is that Tabernacle table supposed to be, and do we stone our slaves on Monday or Tuesday?) That our law, traditions and philosophy have evolved from the Judeo-Christian and Greek-Roman philosophical traditions is something the ignoramuses of the USA led right wing born-agains just can’t quite get. Like the separation of church and state. And carbon-dating. And geology and palaeontology. They do ‘get’ aeronautical engineering, and digital telecommunications unfortunately.

Family First – whose family first? My “tolerance” for born-again bigots is in short supply, and running out fast.

Aslan asks what standard I use with regard to moral values. A standard which respects innate characteristics such as race, sexuality, gender and so on. I also respect differences which are freely chosen such as religion or career choices - so long as they don't harm others.

I don't respect choices that harm others - such as unsafe sexual practices or religious bigotry. In regard to the last point, what I mean is that if a person wishes to hold religious beliefs I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when religion is converted into politics with the intention of oppressing other people - such as the actions of politicians like James Dobson.

"the sexual orientation of his host family of two lesbian mums and their respective kids, nonetheless Spellings’ spelled out her objections to Buster’s covert de-sensitising of US kids about same sex families."

EXACTLY !
social change by stealth and brain washing our kids to accept devient life styles and sexual orientations. grrr....

Josie, I want to put your comment and DAvidJS's in juxtaposition.

Yours. "Until the law is changed, don't complain about TV producers portraying law abiding Gay couples"


David's "I don't respect choices that harm others - such as unsafe sexual practices or religious bigotry."

Now David, in this rather difficult world, things will never be completely to the liking of all sides of the social spectrum. When one group can change the law to 'liberalize' the legal position about homosexual behavior, another group has JUST as much right to change it gain to outlaw such practices. Currently we have laws against sex with children. (Did any of you see the SouthPark episode about Nambla ? its was awesome). But Nambla is trying to change those, would u be happy if they succeeded ? would u work to re-change it ? of course. So, dont be too unhappy when groups who think differently from yourself about sexual issues work and struggle to change it to 'their' way :)

NAMBLA have no right to alter the law in order to allow their sexual practices free rein. In my opinion they are child abusers and therefore are interferring with children's rights.

I quite realise that various groups want to change things "their way". However, "their way" may be morally wrong. As I said, I am not a moral relativist. I don't believe "anything goes" Change has to be examined on its own merits - not an easy thing to do and obviously fraught with debate. And I don't pretend to have all the answers - just some of them :-)

Jossie,
You seem to show zero tolerance if someone uses the term “homosexual lifestyle”, but then you call a political party “born-again bigots”, which shows complete tolerance for the use of that term.

There are 88,000 references to the term “Homosexual lifestyle” in Google, and I thought it was acceptable. So what words do you feel more comfortable with, or are more tolerant of (eg. “gay”, “queer” etc). Please let me know what can be used, and what can’t, and if fashions change, please supply updates.

Also what terms can / cannot be used with regards to heterosexuals or bisexuals. And what terms can / cannot be used for each political party. And what social, political, scientific, religious or cultural issues can be discussed, and what can’t. Or what statistics or studies I can refer to, and what I can’t. And what should I eat, wear, drink, read, listen to, and what I can’t.

It does appear that terms such as “tolerance” can mean different things to different people. In terms of homosexuality, I am concerned when there are programs such as “Queer as Folk” being shown on TV, that definitely appear to promote promiscuity (and can I mention the drug taking).

I am also concerned with other programs on TV or other media forms, that promote promiscuity, drug taking, use sex and violence to sell, stereotype people etc. And I am particularly concerned with feminism, which essentially seeks to destroy marriage and the nuclear family.

Why? Because history shows that when there is too much promiscuity, drug taking, and destruction of family within a society, then that society eventually collapses. I have found no examples of societies in history that show the opposite, but if you do learn of a society that flourished in these circumstances, then please let me know also.

NB. I do not belong to any church or political party

The other day my two girls came back from Sunday School with a ruler each and the letters WWJD displayed on them. These letters apparently stand for "What would Jesus do" - it's what ever Christian should think before doing something.

If Jane has a charge of hypocrisy that she can level at the Christian Right in the US, it would be that they don't act by their own lights. So, faced with a lesbian couple with children, what would Jesus do? The evidence suggests he would probably go home to their place for dinner if they asked. Afterall he dined with prostitutes and tax collectors on a regular basis. Would he have a problem that they made a brief appearance in a children's cartoon? I doubt it.

What we know of Jesus was that he was tolerant and inquiring. I don't think you could accuse Rev Dobson or Secretary Spellings of either on the basis of this brouhaha.

The Google gang are out again I get 401,000 returns when I put in "Homosexual lifestyle" Timmy but that’s by the bi. :)
Also you mentioned that foolish assertion about the collapsed of society under the weight of all that sex and drugs. Can you mention a society in the worlds history that has survived?
GrahamY
Romans 1:26 –32 is the only clear reference to lesbians in the bible. If you read the passage you will see that the author of Romans believes they are worthy of death.

Just for the record I liked Jane Rankin-Reid’s article I’ve read recently about (techcentral) the uneasy truce between the left and right of the Rep party is coming unstruck. The Reps have a annual convention and the small “l” faction felt quite alienated at it.

Kenny, I was talking about Jesus, not Paul, the Author of Romans. And I was not suggesting that Jesus would have approved of homosexuality.

If you read the passage it should be clear that the death Paul is referring to is the death that he believes awaits all those who sin - that they will be denied eternal life. It is something that the "sinners" do to themselves, not something that Christians should do to them.

If you look at the life of Jesus it is clear that he hung out with a lot of people who would die in this sense. Why did he hang around with them? There is a maxim that one should "hate the sin and love the sinner" (you may be able to give me the source). The Buster case certainly should fall within that category for Christians. So I think Jane is right in her charge of hypocrisy.

In regard to Timkins question, why not say "homosexual orientation"? To say "homosexual lifestyle" is actually to use a nonsense term. After all, different homosexuals have different lifestyles. Plus it reduces the lived experiences of gays to something out of Home Beautiful.

In response to my question about his moral standard, DavidJS responds with: "A standard which respects innate characteristics such as race, sexuality, gender and so on. I also respect differences which are freely chosen such as religion or career choices - so long as they don't harm others."

Firstly, race is an innate characteristic but an inconsequential one since there is only one race - the human race - and we are ALL members of it. Secondly, sexuality is not an innate characteristic. It is a choice. Even homosexuals acknowledge that.

But David, you still haven't given me a universal standard. You have just told me what YOU think is right and wrong based on your perception of what causes harm. But on what basis should harming others be regarded as immoral? After all, we harm criminals by putting them in jail. Divorcing parents psychologically harm their children. Do the police not physically restrain criminals or even shoot them when they become a danger?

To prove you are not a moral relativist you must define a universal standard, and then show why EVERYONE should follow that standard. If you can't do this then you are indeed a moral relativist.

And if you are indeed a moral relativist theny ou have no right to complain about Dobson, Spellings or anyone else since you are being inconsistent ie. you want to force your relativist view on them, but if you're a true relativist then you have to acknowledge that their view is just as valid as yours.

AK

GrahamY and there's me thinking Christians believe that the bible is divinely inspired and infallible! DavidJS I agree with what your saying however Aslan is right in saying there is now universal moral code we all impose one on ourselves and there for one everyone else. What I think yourself and Graham are trying to say is that the moral code that a society makes it’s laws by should be quite loose with the main thrust being to protect members from harm from others. That’s not to say our laws should be amoral just quite open and leave it up to the individual to restrict their behavior even further if they wish to. The protect from harm is a big area of contention with some people believe sex to be harmful.

I think most religious people who want to restrict everyone else to their moral code must have little faith in their own ability not to fall into temptation, maybe that’s because deep down they don’t really believe it

The Australian ran recently ran article about how many people tolerate and are easily persuaded by complete and utter "b*llsh*t" (author's word not mine!).

Indeed, this article by Jane and the supportive responses are perfect examples of what the author was talking about.

Josie, you clearly know nothing about the law. Being concerned about the morality and healthiness of a particular lifestyle is not prohibited under any anti-discrimination Act (at least not yet anyway).

You wrote: "As it is not illegal to be a homosexual in this country, your concerns about ‘homosexual lifestyles’ are prejudicial. ‘Homosexual lifestyles’ are by definition, no different to heterosexual lifestyles’ other than that the participants are homosexual."

Firstly, homosexual relationships are not even the slightest bit similar to heterosexual relationships. Homosexual activists themselves acknowledge this. Secondly, that something is illegal or not, says nothing at all about it's moral status. Otherwise, all homosexuals (or any other minority lobby group for that matter) who lobby to change the law for their benefit are by definition immoral and law-breakers.

You're right about one thing though, we are trying to remove the religion of secular humanism (yes, secular humanism is a religion - the humanist manifesto openly acknowledges it) from the classroom and replace it with Christianity.

You said: "That our law, traditions and philosophy have evolved from the Judeo-Christian and Greek-Roman philosophical traditions is something the ignoramuses of the USA led right wing born-agains just can’t quite get. Like the separation of church and state. And carbon-dating. And geology and palaeontology."

Oh Josie, you are just showing your complete ignorance now. Those alleged "ignoramuses of the USA led right wing born-agains" know very well where our law and philosophy comes from - but that is NOT being taught in our classrooms! Separation of church and state? Josie, please indulge me - what exactly is your understanding of this principle? Where did it come from? (I cannot wait for your answer!)

Sorry, what does carbon dating, geology, and paleontology have to do with what we are discussing? Please enlighten me.

AK

Aslan there is no such thing as a homosexual lifestyle. It doesn’t exist. Having ‘problems with homosexuals’ as a group, is like having a ‘problem’ with women or blacks, it’s discrimination and that’s why you have been trained to talk about ‘homosexual lifestyles’ ie. to transfer meanings and mask agendas by using loaded, yet meaningless terms that ‘sound’ as though you are concerned about other issues, while denigrating people your religion doesn’t approve of.

As for your assertion that homosexual relationships are not even the ‘slightest bit similar’ to heterosexual relationships - utter balderdash. What exactly do you think gays and leso’s do when they get home from work? Polish their cloven hooves? Which well-known gay Australian activist has ever said that their relationships are not in the slightest bit similar to heterosexual relationships? Quote please.

As for moral status, if your chosen US religion has a problem with homosexuality, well that’s unfortunate for you and your fellow travellers. Most decent Australians don’t want to recriminalise their gay sons/daughters/nieces/nephews/mothers/fathers/uncles/aunts, the bloke from renovation rescue or Gazza and Wozza. And to suggest it was just gays who lobbied to change the law for ‘their benefit’ is just re-writing history. Civil society had been debating the decriminalsiation of homosexuality for decades and yes, they were law-breakers.

Born-agains like to think they can import US fear and loathing of homosexuals into Australia, but thankfully, our culture is more British and we just don’t have that ingrained fear of poofters mate! Ridicule, bashing and raping poofs was where homophobic Australia was, and where we left it, when as a society we faced the facts (yes, the facts) that homosexuality is, and has always been part of the human experience. And the vast majority of Aussies are happy that gays are out of the closet, as they make our society more interesting. Put Queer Eye up against Hillsong Ministry any night. Meanwhile good hearted, honest tax-paying gays and leso’s are getting on with their lives, being on the telly, winning gold medals and doing tours of duty in Iraq as we speak

Josie
you misunderstand Aslans position. The issue of homosexuals in society is not one of 'bash them or bless them' . The re-criminalization of such behavior does not in the slightest suggest that they must be ill treated by the general populace. We criminalize a lot of things where we want to send a message to the community about things being not acceptable.

One issue that the supporters of decriminilization of homsexual acts can never avoid is that it is based on a moral relativism which basically has 'nothing' as its foundation apart from a culturally relative perspective, or sentimentalist 'Disney' view of 'being nice'.

Homosexual acts are condemned in scripture with the same force as incest and bestiality. Its noteworthy that some posters in this forum have actually mentioned that 'some societies accept bestiality' in connection with this type of discussion. Then we have homosexual 'nambla' of which I'm sure your aware. The idea that there is some glaring great gulf between the Nambla view that love between men and boys is 'evil', and similar aged homosexuals is 'ok' is just further evidence of a moral pragmatism of convenience.

Jesus said "He who hears my words and DOES them is like a man who built his house on a rock, the wind came, the storm came, but it stood. However, whoever hears my word and does NOT do them, is like a man who built his house on the sand. The storm came and it was destroyed"

Our position on homosexual acts may not be pleasing to some, but it is where we stand, without compromise or reservation, and also, without any of the 'hate' which u so easily ascribe to us. The biblical picture is: "

Brothers, even if a man is caught in some fault, you who are spiritual must restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to yourself so that you also aren't tempted" (Galatians 6:1)
We dont decriminalize something just because we have a relative who does it. this is faulty reasoning.

So in all this discussion, I still do not understand why some people object to homosexual families. Can you who object please tell me why homosexuality is so dangerous and objectionable? Is it really 'only' based on the putative probibition in the Bible? Is there really no rationality in the condemnation.

Molly
in my case, it is based on 2 things.

1/ A sense of sexual normality which is cultural and inherited.
2/ The biblical injuctions, on which that cultural heritage is based.

The dangers of homosexual families will not be recognized by those who would prefer to head in that direction, understandably. But for those of us who have a spiritual/biblical foundation for our lives, such an idea is to put it even mildly, repulsive. The idea of homosexual families is such a turning upside down of all that is culturally and morally acceptable to those with such a foundation.
You would never see the 'thick' end of the wedge when its just the thin edge which is attempting to penetrate the cultural bark, but that thick end is what worries me.
The old story 'you give an inch and they take a mile' did not arise for no reason. Hence we have a deputy mayor of melb making his now infamous comment about Gay capital.
Society rests on family which in turn rests on a spiritual moral foundation for its norms and values. We reject any other concept of family than Man/Woman and possibly kids, with the added possibility of single dads and mums who have been either left by their partners or have surcumbed to the temptations we all face and who have become unwed mothers or dads.

David, I can't understand how as a modern christian, alive in today's world, you can have such strong objections to gay culture's visibility in our society. Whilst I'm sure you can lead us all chapter and verse through biblical passages that you feel spell out how the Lord disapproves of same sex relationships, to me your reading in the context of my article about US censorship of ecuational cartoons(!), would really be more of an act of publicly demonstrating how your faith in narrowly interpreted traditions supports your measures of so called moral standards. Melbourne is always going to be as gay as it wants to be, or not, because of its population, not because of some sort of refutation of so called christian value systems. Australia's homosexual population will always be gay no matter what those of you who'd prefer them to actively curtail their presence in our contemporary society if not disappear altogether. Debating homosexuality as a "lifestyle" choice is dangerous if not intellectually negligent, because whichever way you perceive morality, homosexuality exists. Meanwhile, censorship and the repression of individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation is never going to achieve the results your views claim are more appropriate to modern life. No, repression of homosexuals has an historical habit of creating intense unhappiness, high levels of self harm and dangerous increases in youth and adult suicide rates. My article does not question the integrity of your faith but presents some of the dangers of turning christian beliefs into moral weapons.
Why not use your time and intellectual efforts towards increasing support for child abuse victims, and towards vigorously holding our respective churches as accountable as so many of them are, for turning their arrogantly blind god fearing institutionally protected eyes away from decades of abuses of children in their care or counsel? Wouldn't this more actively demonstrate the depth and sincerity of your christian commitment?

Jane RR,

You say in your latest comment that “No, repression of homosexuals has an historical habit of creating intense unhappiness, high levels of self harm and dangerous increases in youth and adult suicide rates.”

Would it be OK to deprive children of these “cartoons” on the basis that they are repressive to fatherhood and thereby contribute to their and their children’s suicide rates?

Are you claiming children cannot be negatively influenced by cartoons, or that there should be no censorship at all, or do you object to Christians having a say – or is it simply the perceived attack on the homosexual lifestyle/orientation that you find most repugnant?

Seeker,
I'm certain that Buster the Rabbit-who is often accompanied by his own cartoon father Arthur on his tv visits to "non-traditional" contemporary US families -Muslims, orthodox Jews, Mormons, Pentacostal Christians among others - does not send an anti-fatherhood message just because in Sugartime he drops in on a pair of American mums who make maple syrup. SpongeBob in contrast is pure invention and has no mum and no dad at all. Were we to follow your logic, the ommission of any kind of parental supervision in the undersea world of Bikini Bottom where SpongeBob lives, could be just as bad for children's heads.

Perhaps it is best to avoid "the tyranny of the literal" in interpeting views which may appear contrary to one's own. I cannot and haven't make assumsions about issues effecting fatherhood, or fathers' rights and it would be disengenious to construe my article on the US Christian Right's pressure on PBS and the Education Department to remove Buster and SpongeBob from contributing to early learning educational programs, as such. My story on Buster's woes is not intended to lead you to the conclusion that I or he, a cartoon rabbit, are in any way covertly questioning fathers' rights. It is an important issue, you're right, but again, I haven't written about this topic to date...why don't you have a shot at covering it for us?

Josie,

lifestyle n : "a manner of living that reflects the person's values and attitudes."

Homosexuals live according to their values and attitudes ie. they have "sex" with other men (or boys), and they are extremely promiscuous. That is their lifestyle.

You wanted quotes from well-known gay activists about dissimilarity between homoosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships. How about Matthew Loader?:
"In that bill a person could be the ‘putative spouse’ of another if he or she was cohabiting with another: 'in a relationship that has the distinguishing characteristics of a relationship between a married couple (except for the characteristics of different sex and legally recognised marriage and other characteristics arising from either of those characteristics)'. It is a torturous definition and one which, by its very inability to escape from comparison to heterosexually defined ‘marriage’, emphasises enduring ‘subsidiary status’ for same sex couples."

Or perhaps Daniel Harris in his review of Andrew Sullivan's book on gay marriage:
"For us, gay marriage is like a lunch counter where homosexuals aren’t allowed to dine and where we therefore fully intend to stage a lengthy sit-in, to park ourselves down right beneath the noses of the exasperated waitresses until they pull their pencils from behind their ears and take our orders. And yet please don’t mistake our eagerness to sit at this counter as a sign that we like the food. Please don’t insist that we see this fast food joint as a four-star restaurant that merits our unqualified respect."

BTW, Christianity is not US religion, it's middle eastern religion. And I am not interested in recriminalising homosexuality. I simply want to stop homosexuals forcing their worldiew on others (eg. my kids) by presenting homosexuality as a normal, valid, healthy lifestyle when it is plainly not.

BTW, Australian Queer Eye recently got cancelled and Hillsong is one of the biggest and fastest growing churches in Australia.

Mollydukes,

There is plenty of rational reasons why homosexuality is wrong. post your email addr and I will send you stacks of info from peer-reviewed science journals many of whch were written by homosexuals themselves.

AK

Aslan, given the variety of sexual behaviour that heterosexuals indulge in (including anal sex) and their promiscuity (why else the spread of STD's?), I don't believe any het is in any position to judge, criticise and curtail the behaviour of gays.

And don't blast me with your statistics - we can prove anything with stats - I am using common sense and rationality - try it instead of hatred.

The banning of a cartoon because of a perceived gay bias displays the hysteria running through fundamentalist religion, but is also indicative of the mind control the far right wishes to inflict upon the general population. I have never answered my door to a couple of gays trying to force their beliefs upon me.

Jane,
sorry for the delay, I tried to post a response to yours but the dreaded 'rules' discriminated against me :)
Jane, homosexual behavior 'existed' when the original prohibitions were given, if it didn't they would not have been made most likely. So that argument doesn't carry much weight. Many types of behavior 'exist' but reason tells us that is no reason to legitimize them.

Modern ? a Christian is a Christian is a Christian, quite apart from the social trends which may prevail at any given time in history. So, pls don't expect us to 'keep up with the times' in some areas. Though this morning at Church we had a Christian Rap/R&B band, that left me speechless,(as in, 'impressed') and had someone told me that later on this morning at church I'd be 'grooving' with all the guys out front I would have had them insitutionalized :) but there I was, with all the guys, with the band members showing us a few steps, amazing and really nice.

As for using my efforts to hold Churches accountable, well, let me begin here and now. I call upon all Anglican and Catholic Bishops, to move from anything resembling a 'palace' and live more as Jesus taught, washing the feet of the disciples, rather than manifesting what the world see's as material comfort, status and extravagance. Perhaps that might be a step in return to Christs example and teaching which can only be a good thing, and also a step away from anything the passions of the flesh try to persuade is to follow.

If I detect some issue of importance, I do write to people Jane, including Christians as well as government. I'll be at VCAT soon regarding an issue of this nature.
Keep up the good work

Ringtail,

Highlighting the equally immoral behaviour of many heterosexuals in no way validates the bahaviour of homosexuals. My overriding concern is for the well being of society, and it is an indisputable historical fact that a society flourishes when it has strong families, and rapidly declines when departs from this standard. See the work of Giambatista Vico and J D Unwin. Thus, I not only object to homosexual behaviour, but also to perverse and immoral heterosexual behaviour.

And since I, as a married heterosexual, do not engage in illicit sexual behaviour outside of marriage, I see no reason why I should not be allowed to judge.

You said: "And don't blast me with your statistics - we can prove anything with stats - I am using common sense and rationality - try it instead of hatred"

This is an ad hominem argument (ie. you are using common sense and rationality, whereas I am just hateful). Actually, its not an argument at all. You have just made a wild assertion about me and my methods but have offered no substantiation. If you think I am hateful, lacking in common sense and rationality, and misuse statistics, then you bare the burden of proof in demonstrating this. If you can't then I see no reason why I or anyone else should pay any attention to you.

Regarding "mind control", actually its the far left who are trying to do this. Remeber how that English professor was complaining that English teachers had failed in their duty to teach because many of their former students voted for Howard? Consider Mike Moore's propaganda films and how he manipulates the truth with impugnity...

And homosexuals don't push their views on others by knocking on doors. They do it through the Courts, through lobbying govts, by hi-jacking public school curriculums, by influencing the media and film producers to always portray homosexuals in a positive light as normal happy people.

AK

David, So there are three reasons you object to the acceptance of homosexuals as a part of society: because the Bible says it is wrong, because your personal preference is for the nuclear family model and thirdly, because you fear or worry about what society in which homosexuality is tolerated would be like. None of these are rational.

I am puzzled by your acceptance of the Biblical proscription of homosexuality. Do you regard the eating of shellfish as an ‘abomination’? Can you tell me why one abomination is okay, but the other is not?

As I understand it, homosexuality between males was required behaviour for educated, cultivated Greek men a couple of thousand years ago. Can you tell me what rilly rilly bad things came about from that social requirement?

For me, a society peopled by the traditional Christian nuclear family of the 50’s would be an abomination. I want diversity. I want difference. I want many and varied ways of living. I do not want uniformity. I would not be very happy in your narrow, Christian world.

But I tolerate you. I do not object to seeing your sort of family on tv although reason and experience tell me that it is unnatural and the antithesis of what a decent family should be.

Aslan,
You may be alarmed to know that rather than being hijacked into including homosexual stories in their work, there are in fact many gay film directors, producers and actors for that matter, not to mention high level journalists and commentators, educational and early learning specialists and so on. And there are probably just as many if not more of us non-gays who regularly include homosexual issues in our commentaries, because these stories concern us. It sounds to me as if you've shaped your views in a vacuum of denial of how many of us do our thinking out here in the free world. I'm nobody's puppet and no one is hijacking my mind.

Aslan, I really am very sceptical of your claim that you have ‘stacks’ of peer-reviewed Science journals in which there are rational reasons for the condemnation of homosexuality.

Unfortunately, I cannot give you my email address as I do not like your grammar. It may be unkind of me to be critical of 'literary challenged' people, but some of your earlier posts are sooo scurrilous that in this instance, I could not resist.

In case you do not recognise your error, it is incorrect to write or say, “there is plenty of reasons”. You should have written “there are plenty of reasons”.

Anyway back to the issue. Doo you think you could read a couple of these articles and summarise the key points for me? Perhaps just a couple of sentences from the abstracts would give me an idea of the points that the writers are making.

If you can’t manage that then what about naming the authors or the journals and I can do a search myself on the academic databases?

Aslan
The only person we can truly know to judge is ourselves. Has a homosexual or lesbian ever caused you grievous harm as a result of their sexuality?

Thanks Jane RR and Mollydukes.

I recall some years past when "Noddy" books were banned from schools in UK and Enid Blyton almost burned in effigy because dear Noddy had an "ambiguous relationship" with Big Ears - and had "negative interaction" with a character of a darker hue called "Golliwog". I further remember a range of Marmalade which actively promoted itself by a logo which extended to a range of enamelled badges of a similar "golliwog" in various diverse circumstances - likewise banned for the beneift of the politically correct. What did banning such icons achieve? - Nothing - if people are still ranting on about "implicit relationships".

What will banning Sponge Bob do - Nothing - except establish "him" as a counter-culture icon.
It would be worth remembering, sometimes,
1 Children view the world through innocent eyes, without the biaz and prejudices of their parents.
2 Parents do have every opportunity to censor their childrens viewing habits.
3 When someone uses financial intimidation to enforce their personal view, to the exclusion of alternative views, across society, I have serious worries - that such a person is unfit for the role they hold.

As for homosexuality being abnormal or normal - it is abnormal. However, a "normal", tolerant society, of which we can be jointly proud to be a part of (generally, Australia is far more "tolerant" than the USA) will embrace the abnormal rather than shun and vilify it. Just as a tolerant society will work at fixing real issues than piddling around with what is "politically correct" and bringing out another dictionary of approved and disapproved weasel words in which to couch all public expression.

On that note, my first and final demand - Rehabilitate the Golliwog back into polite society, so we all wear our Robertsons Marmalade badges with pride.

Mollydukes,

You said: "For me, a society peopled by the traditional Christian nuclear family of the 50’s would be an abomination. I want diversity. I want difference."

Notice how you started with "For me..."

Well, for me (and I dare say the vast majority of people in Australia according to recent Aus Inst of Family Studies surveys), I am comfortable with the Christian nuclear family. So - why should I accept your view?

If you're sceptical about my claims re homosexuality see:
http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/homosexuality.doc

And I am well aware of correct English grammar. Indeed, I have formally studied it and linguistics in general. Clearly, my error was simply typographical since it was written in a hurry at 2am. If you are going to be pedantic and condescending then perhaps you should check your own writing first. Eg. The correct spelling is "so" not "sooo", and "Do" not "Doo"!

Jane,

You need to read more carefully. I never said that gays were hijacking TV programs and your mind. I said they were hijacking school curriculums such as the sex ed program. I know this for a fact ie. from actual experience. I am well aware that there are many gays and sympathisers in TV and the media. However, such people including yourself do not do your thinking in the real world - in fact you are so hopelessly out of touch with what people think, it is almost comical to read your opinions. The recent federal election (and the US election) and the events leading up to them are a perfect case in point of how the media and TV/film producers (eg, Mike Moore) can be so hopelessly wrong. Your "free world" is your own little creation and totally divorced from reality.

Ringtail,

You said: "The only person we can truly know to judge is ourselves."

If this is the case, then you have no right to judge my views or Dobsons or Spellings, or for that matter, the actions of paedophiles or wife beaters etc.

You clearly haven't thought very much about this.

AK

Aslan, Is there something wrong with stating one’s own preference?

I am a member of this society even if my views are those of a minority. Majority views are not always right. The nuclear family (as opposed to the extended family) is a relatively recent way of life and could be seen to be a risk factor for social problems– such as child abuse by parents.

The most cogent reason for you to accept my view of what constitutes a good society is that my view would allow you to live your chosen way of life. Whereas, your ‘good’ society would prohibit my way of life. Clearly, it would be more rational for you to learn tolerance.

With reference to the ‘article’ you provided, which did not appear to me to be a peer-reviewed article from a reputable scientific journal, I make the following comments.

The evidence cited did not discredit the so-called myths. It is not a myth that some homosexuals are ‘normal healthy people’, that some have stable, long term loving relationships and that some make good parents.

The evidence in the article showed that there appears to be a higher rate of problematic behaviours in homosexual people. This is not evidence that homosexuality causes these behaviours.

Consider the disproportionate numbers of indigenous people in prison. Do you believe that indigenous people are inherently criminal or can you see that the higher rate of incarceration is due to the external circumstances and not innate characteristics?

The main ‘scientific’ reason for excluding homosexuality from the DSM was that there was a lack of evidence for including it. The hysterical and bigoted opinions of the psychiatrists cited in your article are a product of the prejudices of the '70's. It would be rare to find similar attitudes today

Mollydukes,

No there is nothing wrong with stating your own preference, but that is all it is. It is not an argument for why I or anyone else should accept it.

I agree that majority views aren't always right, but you need to show why they are wrong and the minority view is right. You haven't done this.

The nuclear family is no recent creation - it has formed the basis of every society throughout history. That is a demonstrable and indisputable fact. Again, see the work of JD Unwin and Giambatista Vico. It is the non-traditional, non-nuclear family which is of relatively recent origin - at least in the modern world. In history, when non-nuclear families have dominated a society, that society has declined to the point of destruction within 3 generations.

My view does not prevent you from adopting your unconventional family type. But don't demand that the rest of us legally recognise it and give it the same status and privileges as conventional marriage and families. By demanding such things then you are not tolerant and you ARE forcing your own views on the rest of us.

I provided you with a summary of other peer-reviewed journal articles. That is what you asked for, isn't it?!?!

My summary cites extensive scientific evidence supporting my claims. The original papers (full refs provided) and my analysis demonstrates that homosexuality is indeed a significant cause of these conditions/behaviours.

Simply denying my argument without offering any evidence to the contrary, doesn't refute my argument.

Disproportionate Aboriginal offenders: there are a number of factors influencing this, not just their aboriginality. eg. low education, poverty, alcoholism, drug dependency etc. Note that these factors also operate among the white population - especially among the lower socio-economic group.

Homosexuality was removed from DSM because of homosexual lobbying and (often violent) protests. It had nothing to do with science.

Simply asserting that it wasn't won't do. You must refute my evidence and present counter evidence. You have not done this.

Jane R, (or anyone else)

A hypothetical question can be as follows:-

What would happen if there was a magazine being sold in Australia titled “TotalWhite” that had a sub-title of “No Blacks Allowed”, or a magazine titled “TotalStraight” with a sub-title of “No Gays Allowed”.

More so, these magazines were being targeted at children as the main consumer, and the company behind these magazines began programs on TV that were shown each weekday afternoon during children’s hours, and were titled “White TV” and “Straight TV”

Now I would think there would be considerable objection to this, but yet we have a magazine titled “TotalGirl” that has a sub-title of “No Boys Allowed”, and that same company has produced a children’s TV show called “Girl TV” http://www.totalgirl.com.au/transient/girl_tv/GIRLTV_terms.html

The situation is more insidious in that the editorial staff of “TotalGirl” magazine offer to come into schools, and there are pictures of the editor with girl students at http://www.totalgirl.com.au/display.cfm?ObjectID=C49FAF5B-D8C4-44FD-BA3ADBA14D89DFB5 However the editor is with girls only, and with a philosophy of “No Boys Allowed”, it can only be assumed that any boys or male teachers at the school would have to go elsewhere while the magazine staff was in the school.

I am uncertain whether Girl TV is being currently shown, but the last time I watched Girl TV it only had one male on the show who said that he liked to send girls dead flowers. I don’t know where they got him from, but that is the type of message being sent to girls regards boys.

On another program, there was a segment on girl’s fashion where clothes were being modelled, with the female announcer saying that the clothes were good because they made the girls look older, although I don’t know why girls need to look older than they are.

Now this is probably not healthy media for girls or boys, yet no objection has been shown by the media, or by any journalist to this media, (although there seems to be comment regards the cartoon character SpongeBob in the US).

So why would that be?

Molly
sorry, took a while before this RULEs thing would let me back..grrr
Ok..
Shelfish "abomination" as in 'unclean'
Homosexual behavior "abomination as in "abomination" get it ?

Do a search, and see how the hebrew words are used, (i.e. different words, translated both as abomination)
Try "shellfish are an abomination" .. will provide some links.

Well said, Aslan. If we fear for our children’s education now, let’s just wait until gay marriage is a reality. The marketing of this lifestyle/orientation, will become a high priority objective. Equal representation in state education system, no doubt, mandatory.

Accepting this new “status quo” in our society and workplace is one thing – into our homes, is quite another.

Ooops, left out “In your face” homosexuality, should be restricted to the Mardi Gra parade.

I wonder if SpongeBob has ever visited the household of a non-custodial parent. These household are much more common than gay households. Estimates are that there are approx 150,000 children living in single parent households in the US, but 24 million children (34 percent) live absent their biological father (ie 160 times greater)

The system of removing fathers from their children is now so efficient and permanent, that 40 percent of children who live apart from their natural father have not seen their father at all during the past year; 26 percent of absent fathers live in a different state than their children; and 50 percent of children living absent their father have never set foot in their father's home.

So perhaps SpongeBob need not visit the household of a non-custodial father, as there is quite likely to be no children there.

The statistics in Australia are very similar in terms of %, and I think “Play School” wouldl be highly unlikely to visit the home of a non-custodial father in Australia.

Of course the system is so real, tragic, and abhorrent that few journalists would ever write about it. Someone might object.

Goodness me the GB are at it again rolling out their discredited "evidence" once again following their same dogmatic path ways. Remember the posting rules were put in because of your behavior on this site which is generally mirrored else where. Alsan the Nuclear family is a recent creation that’s is why it has it's name.
Don't cite the bible as the mould that families should be made in because it is to ambiguous demonstrated by the number of sects there are. But I’m a few of you GB will tell us the true meaning of the words. As for the so called “evidence” you cite just like your creationists is simply does not stand up to scrutiny. This has been gone over and over on many other threads on this site and countless others on the web. The GB’s need to shed their hatred and step into the light of the age of reason like the rest of us. Only then will you see how meaningless your life has been.

Aslan

My argument as to why my more tolerant society should be accepted as the norm is based on the ‘freedom’ that we recognise as the basis of a decent society. Your system does not allow me to live my lifestyle because your approbation renders it unacceptable and alienates those who practice it.

I certainly will demand that you intolerant, irrational bigots give me the same status and privileges as you have! The struggle to overcome intolerance and discrimination has been a feature of Western society. People fought for religious tolerance while you would have supported the Inquisition. People fought for civil rights, for women’s liberation while you would have believed that ‘blacks’ were not human and women were not as evolved as men. I am confident that the demand for more freedom and tolerance will not stop now.

I apologise for overestimating your ability to understand my analogy. Let me re-state it.

It is the conditions that create the bad behaviour in Indigenous people not the fact that they are Indigenous. It is the conditions - alienation, psychological problems based on widespread discrimination – that are risk factors for bad behaviour in homosexual people not the fact that they are homosexual.

Do you really not understand the difference between the nuclear family and the extended/tribal family, which is the ‘natural’ way for humans to raise children?

Your paper did not provide any ‘scientific’ evidence. You fail to understand that science requires more than making tenuous correlational links? Correlation does not mean ‘cause”. That is among the first things one learns in introductory statistics.

Furthermore, a ‘real’ scientific paper requires a hypothesis about what underlies the correlation. The paper you provided did not do that. It implied that homosexuality was the cause of very bad behaviour but did not present any explanation for this circumstance.

The DSM itself has nothing to do with science. Do you know nothing about this document? I suspect that soon your brand of intolerance will become a diagnostic category; one of the more intractable personality disorders.

Mollyduke,

For someone who disagrees so vehemently with Aslan, it is amusing that you claim to know his position on each issue you put forward.

You say: “My argument as to why my more tolerant society should be accepted as the norm is based on the ‘freedom’ that we recognise as the basis of a decent society.”
I’m sorry to say, but that is a weak argument. Whose opinion of 'decent' was that? And please note: 72% of Australians believe that there is something wrong with homosexuality (Australian Social Monitor, at: http://www.ecom.unimelb.edu.au/iaesrwww/sm/number13.html).

You seek to put the homosexual 'cause' in the same basket as those who fought for freedom from racism/sexism. Nice try, but the legitimacy here was that they were born that way. I’m sure that the Indigenous population wouldn't be too happy to hear that you're using them to further your political cause.

Human rights come as a result of unalterable characteristics- people CHOOSE the ‘alternative’ lifestyle of homosexuality. (I invite you to try and produce credible evidence that homosexuality is genetic- you won’t get very far!!). One cannot make that choice and then say, ‘Hang on, I want all the rights that heterosexuality brings!’ Choices have consequences.

I’m not sure how closely you read the paper that Aslan referred you to- or if you saw any of the 75 references, but it's definitely clear that it deals with MANY scientific studies (ie. Bearman & Bruckner, “Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attraction” American Journal of Sociology 107 (2002) 1179-1205). Perhaps you were too bent on maintaining your opinion, at the expense of the evidence.

Finally, you may have been interested in this part of the ‘Homosexuality’ Paper, seeing as you are so concerned about the effect of ‘discrimination’ (by the way- where were your ‘scientific’ references for YOUR claimed ‘risk factors’?). “The physical threat to homosexuals from same-sex domestic violence is more than twice as great as the physical threat they experience from ‘the outside..” Or better yet- just read all of the references under footnote 67- that might keep you busy for a while

Tammi said 72% of Australians believe that there is something wrong with homosexuality
A few years a similar survey would have shown racism was okay and before that slavery.
Tami went on to dribble ….
Human rights come as a result of unalterable characteristics- people CHOOSE the ‘alternative’ lifestyle of homosexuality. (I invite you to try and produce credible evidence that homosexuality is genetic- you won’t get very far!!). One cannot make that choice and then say, ‘Hang on, I want all the rights that heterosexuality brings!’ Choices have consequences. Can you demonstrate this? Can you show me the gene that makes us all heterosexual? You just have to look at the rest of the animal kingdom to see the your folly. Ask a farmer if he has even had a homosexual Ram. The link in question was to another GB site that like putting a link up to a creationist site to prove the world is only a few thousand years old. Get real. I’ve posted links to creditable sources that show these ideas for what they are and won’t bother to do it again. GB’s you guys are up there with the flat earthers and bigfoot hunters. Step into the light.

1940s America: Little violence, virtually no drug use, alcoholism was admittedly high, general faith in God.

2000s America: High levels of violence, rampant drug use, still high alcoholism, generally no faith in God.

If the Christian fundamentalists, whoever they might be, want to prevent a few bad taste cartoons in their fight to return America to a situation where a man, woman or child can walk down most neighbourhoods at night without fear of death; or into an American school knowing that the chances of a fellow student shooting them is virtually non-existent; or home to an intact family, with mum, dad and the kids, then KUDOS to them.

The description in the above paragraph I would call normal, but so many people have taken very strange situations and called them "normal", that no one really understands the concept of a normality that brings "peace on earth" any more. We crave peace, but at the same time desperately cry, "Not at the cost of my liberties to do what the hell I please."

Sponge Bob violence is nothing like the cartoon violence of yesteryear. Wile E. Coyote never gushed blood or entrails across the screen. Tom and Jerry did not visit homosexual farms.

If one wants to teach homosexual lifestyles, or graphic violence, or sex, then the place to do it is in the home, not on TV to be absorbed by the 3s to 7s who have not developed adult concepts of discernment and reality.

Furthermore, the old cartoons were not primarily aimed at children. They were usually shown as shorts before the grown ups' movies! Only when the big $$$s and invention of TV transpired did studios see the profit in risking the warping of tiny little minds.

Hahahahah! Oh Kenny, you make me laugh. The same old words in different orders. Come on- got anything new for us?

So, let me see- you disagree with an Australian Social Monitor survey because you think that in time, everyone will come and ‘see the light’ with you. That’s a great way of presupposing issues. Obviously you will disagree with every survey/study that doesn’t line up with your views. Not a really…intelligent way of handling things.

I’m sorry, Kenny- you were trying to support your case… by suggesting I go and ask a farmer about his animals? Not sure I see the connection. I was asking for scientific evidence (which you, so far, seem incapable of producing- NB: your opinions are not fact. Sorry to disappoint.)

I would have thought that since 98% of society affirms their heterosexuality, that the 1-2% would be the ones who would have the onus to prove how they differ. Forgive me if that seems too logical.

And just because I’m a little confused- which of my links were to a ‘God Botherer’ site? The University of Melbourne one or the American Journal of Sociology? And exactly how do your ravings about ‘flat earth’ and ‘big foot’ have any relevance to this discussion? I look forward to your (always amusing) answers

Made a little mistake in a previous post. Don’t like to see any miss-information.

The statement,
“I wonder if SpongeBob has ever visited the household of a non-custodial parent. These household are much more common than gay households. Estimates are that there are approx 150,000 children living in single parent households in the US, but 24 million children (34 percent) live absent their biological father (ie 160 times greater)”

This should of course read,
“I wonder if SpongeBob has ever visited the household of a non-custodial parent. These household are much more common than gay households. Estimates are that there are approx 150,000 children living in gay parent households in the US, but 24 million children (34 percent) live absent their biological father (ie 160 times greater)”

Of course the situation is almost identical in Australia.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/a790ff34bb1f14eaca25699f0005d616!OpenDocument

But despite the wide scale harm to children, men and eventually women that this system has created, journalists seem to prefer to write about homosexuality, which is more “sexy”, and likely to sell more copies.

Would this be correct Jane?

Kenny,

You like making lots of noise but your comments have absolutely no substance. Which of my evidence is "discredited"? Simply saying it is discredited doesn't make it so.

Are you saying that activists's Kirk and Madsen's book "After the Ball" is discredited? McWhirter and Mattison's "The Male Couple"? Jay and Young's "The Gay Report"? The "Sydney Men and Sexual Health" survey? The "Sydney Gay Community Periodic Survey"? The "Melbourne Gay Community Periodic Survey"? The "Queensland Gay Community Periodic Survey"?

Where have the following been discredited?
Diane Bush, “Violent Betrayal: Partner Abuse in Lesbian Relationships.” Contemporary Sociology 22/3 (May 1993) 355-356;
Mary P. Koss, “Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence” Journal of Sex Education and Therapy 19/2 (Summer 1993) 148-150;
Patrick Letellier, “Twin Epidemics: Domestic Violence and HIV Infection among Gay and Bisexual Men” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 4/1 (1996) 69-81;
Lettie L. Lockhart and Barbara W. White, “Letting Out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9/4 (Dec 1994) 469-492

Come on Kenny - put up, or shut up...

Mollydukes,

You make me laugh. You say you want a "more tolerant society" and then display your INTOLERANCE by calling us "intolerant, irrational bigots."
Do you realise how foolish and hypocritical this makes you look?

BTW, who fought for women's rights? Who fought for the abolition of slavery? Christians! Indeed, evangelical (or "fundamentalist") Christians!

It was actually evolutionists (including Charles Darwin) who considered Blacks to be less than human. See Darwin's "The Descent of Man".

You said: "a ‘real’ scientific paper requires a hypothesis about what underlies the correlation. The paper you provided did not do that."

Do you have a reading comprehension problem Mollydukes? Didn't I say that the doc I posted was merely a summary of the scientific research complete with full refs? Refute their conclusions or shut up.

Timkins
SpongeBob is a ficticious cartoon character, he lives in Bikini Bottom and his best friend is Patrick, an unemployed starfish who adores him. Together they fight a range of awesome child scale cartoon evils, and sometimes they win. Buster the Rabbit on the other hand is far more likely to drop in on the sorts of non-traditional family groupings you worry he's ommitting from his schedule. His Dad Arthur the Rabbit takes him everywhere. So, if he hasn't already been to single dad families, maybe its time to invite him. That's if Secretary Spellings will let him broadcast his discoveries.

To those Christian commentators who insist on wheeling out research to support an especially unpleasant angle in this debate, ie that homosexuals are in some way not as nice or as sane and healthy as hetrosexuals, shame on you, and shame on your tawdry standards of selecting data to create rather than provoking awareness and debate truths. And double shame on you for attempting to divert AIDs crisis reports into some sort of fearsome inditement of why homosexuality is so bad for society; its one of the cheapest and lowest moral angles I've heard in a long time. The list of reports on same sex iniquities you've presented is so selectively biased to endorse your evident loathing of gays, its laughable, particularly as there are just as many if not more reports on hetrosexual spousal, child and self abuse, let alone health issues that are a part of existence. Your exploitation of responsible open, highly qualified and accessible research into problem areas of gay life is an insult to the various authors cited, whom I can assure you, did not spend years developing this invaluable material to have it lifted for some twisted anti-gay agenda.

Aslan as JaneRR has pointed out what is discredited is your twisted spin on other peoples research which is much in the same vain and the F of L. This link shows a responsible use of this type of research http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2001/11/d/.

You see Aslan your so use to trying/fabricating evidence to fit your world view you think everyone else does. As for your comment on evolutionists do you believe that racism didn’t exist before Darwin? Young Charles while being one of the first people to discover evidence for evolution he was wrong on many things. Evolution like all science has evolved.

Jane R

Thankyou Jane for your answer.

However I was mainly referring to how much the press will report on some issues and not others, even if the others are much more relevant to the average person. Are sales the driving force behind what the press does, or is it moral conscience and journalistic integrity?

You seem to be suggesting that there needs to be a public lobby group for this, and a public lobby group for that, but in the mean time we have the press (including a publicly funded ABC) and an enormous number of publicly funded research institutions who are supposed to be keeping the public informed of what is happening, and what is most relevant.

SpongeBob (whoever he is) is in the US, and you seem to be suggesting that there is some type of homosexual discrimination occurring in US schools and SpongeBob is a part of all that.

I have pointed out an issue of discrimination that is much more relevant to Australian children at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3044#4178

However no answers to that question in that post, and I think it being avoided.

Perhaps SpongeBob is somewhat secondary and the issues now become :-

- Is discrimination tolerated for some, but not others?
- Does the press avoid issues of discrimination, if it believes those issues will not sell publications

So could I mention it again.

“Now this is probably not healthy media for girls or boys, yet no objection has been shown by the media, or by any journalist to this media, (although there seems to be comment regards the cartoon character SpongeBob in the US).

So why would that be?”

Jane,

I don't loathe gays. I pity them. They are trapped in a self-destructive lifestyle. It is the lifestyle, the behaviour I detest.

It is not a matter of homosexuals being "not as nice or as sane and healthy as heterosexuals" - it is a matter of that universal principle known as "cause and effect".

Homosexuals behave in a certain way. That behaviour has consequences. You can vote away laws and silence dissenting voices but you can't vote away the natural consequences of your actions.

[This paragraph deleted]

If a person engages in a promiscuous lifestyle such as homosexuality then that person will inevitably feel the pain and envy of rejection and betrayal, become insecure and will often resort to violence and abuse in form of "crimes of passion" or suicide.

If a person becomes involved with a community that endorses and celebrates regular drug taking and heavy drinking, then it should be no surprise that drug abuse and alcoholism will result.

Given the above factors, we should not be surprised to find that homosexuals die 20 years younger than heterosexuals (excluding AIDS), alone and in a great deal of pain, often after experiencing a prolonged painful illness.

Our children need to know this. They have a right to know ALL the facts. We have a duty of care to tell them.

The problem for Jane and homosexual activists is that this information stands against their political and social agenda.

Good on you JaneRR,

I was a bit puzzled by Aslan referencing those particular studies. There have been hundreds of studies into people beating their kids, doesn't mean that most people beat their kids. Same with cruelty to animals, most people aren't.

Aslan, I wonder if your attitude would change if your child approached you and told you they're gay? How would you treat them and how would you want others to treat them?

I do agree with some of what you say. I think that our kids should be aware that homosexuality exists and that we should all be tolerant of gay people. I don't think it should be "promoted" as such (not that I know it is being promoted). The important thing is that if a child is gay, they are aware that they are not alone and that they are not evil, perverted, or mentally ill and that they are first and foremost a human being.

The emergence of our sexuality can be a confusing and frightening time. It's difficult to imagine what it must be like to realize you're different, especially at an age where sameness is so important. It is also not good enough to condem violence against homosexuals on one hand and promote the idea that they are immoral, unnatural, God hates them and they're going to hell on the other. There has never been a more false saying than the old "sticks & stones may break my bones...."

Aslan, I am pleased that you can laugh. I hope it is not the nasty type of laughter that comes from splenetic frustration. How sad though that later in the post your intolerance becomes apparent.

Do you not see that your response is convincing evidence that you are an intolerant bigot? I will shut up when I get bored with pointing out how irrational and ignorant you are.

Evidence for my tolerance of your intolerance is that I am not attempting to present you as part of an unacceptable group. It would be intolerant of me to seek out research evidence that demonstrates a positive correlation between Christianity and violence, and then say that being Christian causes violence.

Your dubious ‘paper’ was not ‘merely a summary’ of the available research. It drew spurious conclusions based on the dodgy data. Not only are you ignorant of the purpose and use of the DSM and the meaning of basic statistics but you appear not to understand the word ‘scientific’.

Do some research on these topics,use your capacity for rational thinking rather than indulging your emotional responses and worrying about the heinous things that homosexuals and 'deviant' heterosexuals do with their private bits.

The history of the Christian Church is an area you really should research. It is an appalling record indeed and is a warning for what could happen if we don’t keep a watch on you and point out, as Jane has done, when you transgress the bounds of decency.

You christians look to a book (which apparently is not all that dependable since parts have been mis-translated) rather than reason for your morals and ethics and this is the thin edge of the wedge that we ‘freedom loving people’ really need to worry about.

David, if God has been mis-translated, perhaps 'he' (I am sure that your God is male) has also been quoted out of context?

I have not followed this thread very closely but from what I have seen it is somewhat ironic that christians get so upset about brainwashing of children to promote a particular belief structure or lifestyle. Has anybody else noticed that there seem to be a lot of church run schools around now days? Are they really not doing anything to promote the christian world view?

Maybe our sons would be better off learning about healthy touch - last time I checked holding hands was in that category although not generally done by heterosexual males in our society (probably to our overall detriment). Some people appear to have trouble differentiating between social contact and sexual activity - kind of unhealthy and deviant.

Aslan The list of sexual practices you supplied, that apparently are indulged in by homosexuals is not convincing evidence that this behaviour is *caused* by homosexuality. Heterosexual people also indulge in all sorts of unhealthy and weird practices. What causes their deviance?

I agree that the proportion of homosexuals who indulge in problematic behaviours is greater than the proportion of heterosexuals who indulge, but it is not rational or scientific to conclude that homosexuality causes ‘deviance'.

If homosexuality caused deviance then all homosexuals would be ‘deviant’ (and I do not believe that this is the case) and no non-homosexuals would be deviant.

I did provide an explanation of why homosexuality is a risk factor for problematic behaviours. Let me repeat it.

Homosexuals are stigmatised; many are alienated by the disdain and criticism that is so louldly voiced by people such as yourself. This can lead to a lack of self-esteem and self-respect. People who feel alientated and lack self-esteem react in negative ways. Sometimes they react in ways that are caluclated to be ‘in your face’ and to offend staights such as yourself.

Furthermore, there is a role that 'homosexuals' are expected to play. Many of them follow this role because it is so clearly expected of them, by people like you as well as the militant gay lobby that quite understandably reacts to unfair vilification (by people such as yourself) with provocative statements and behaviour.

However,with the increasing level of acceptance and support for their lifestlye, there are more and more 'good' role models for young homosexuals. Therefore, in the future, we can expect to see the proportion of homosexuals following what you would call ‘decent’ lifestyles increase.

Unless of course, for you, the missionary position with a quick 7 minute wham bam thank-you mam - is the only sort of sex that is ‘decent’

Kenny,

Jane has not shown anything to be discredited. She has merely stated an assertion - one with no substance.

When are you people going to realise that asserting something to be true, doesn't make it true.

If you think I have fabricated or misrepresented the author's research then I challenge you to show me where and how! Good luck.

BTW, evolution did not originate with Chuck Darwin. Evolutionary ideas can be traced as far back as Thales of Miletus (640-546 BC), so your dismissal of racism as a consequence of evolution fails.

Bozzie,

if my son told me he was gay my attitude would not change. I would still love him, but I would tell him the truth about the self-destructive nature of homosexuality. Indeed, I tell him the truth precisely because I love him and want to see him spared from a great deal of physical and emotion pain and an early death.

Mollydukes,

bigot, n. "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

I am intolerant of homosexuality but not of homosexuals. I can tolerate you having a differing opinion. However, I will not tolerate homosexuality being presented in a positive light to children - especially at tax payers expense!

You are intolerant of Christians and call them names. You are intolerant of those who disagree with you. You demand that your view be taught to children.

So who's really the intolerant bigot?

Regarding your assertions about my understanding of science and Christianity, you are quite wrong. I have advanced degrees in both science and Christianity (including the history of science and history of Christianity) and will gladly debate you on any of these topics.

Why don't you put up an argument (for a change) instead of just making wild unsubstantiated assertions? Come on - stop being a wimp and present a real argument!

Just what do you really know about the history of the Christian church? Precious little I suspect...

Aslan firstly

You said "They (homosexuals) are trapped in a self-destructive lifestyle".

My "lifestyle" is thus: I've been with one person for 11 years (faithfully). We own a house. We get up daily and go to work. We come home and walk the dogs, have dinner and go to bed. We are planning a family. We both do postgraduate studies. We go to a pub maybe once every 6 months. We go to restaurants more frequently than that. We look after our parents.

Please, do tell me, how my "lifestyle" is self-destructive because for the life of me, I can't see it.

Now, consider this...

Somewhere in the world tonight, someone's son is sitting in his room writing a suicide note. He has heard all his life from the "Christians" that he is perverted, sick, immoral, against God. He has been bullied relentlessly at school because "Christians" teach their children that it's okay to be intolerant of homosexuals. He is terrified to tell his parents that he might be gay. The fact is, he'll never know what his life holds because tonight he's going to kill himself.

Think of him tomorrow morning over breakfast, because his blood is on your hands.

Concerned

He has been bullied relentlessly at school because "Christians" teach their children that it's okay to be intolerant of homosexuals.

This seems a bit unfair to me. Gay bashing is not a byproduct 'only' of distorted Christian teaching. In fact, I grew up as a teenager with virtually zero 'Christian' teaching, all my peers were non Christians except one (RAAF) but bashing of gays was something referred to as 'sport' by the non Christians, and I never ever heard any Christian urging others to 'bash' gays. I cannot even conceive of a Christian parent ever suggesting their kids should bully anyone else for any reason. Bullying is unChristian.

To all those who can only see one possible Christian view of homosexual people, (seems to be all non Christians here) I suggest you interact on a personal level with some Christians, and gain a cross section of attitude. Avoid allowing the 'last bigot' you spoke to, color your perception of ALL Christians.

Our struggle is that we do believe in a moral universe and a moral Creator, as opposed to an amoral universe, existing in itself. Our view is also extending back, and looking forward, encompassing history and culture. We didn't wake up one morning and suddenly get the bright idea "OH, lets hate those dirty gays"

The TOPIC here, if we may return to it for a moment, is about portrayals in cartoons and how they might effect children, and whether we should control how characters and behaviors are portrayed.

If a cartoon came out where the villain was always a mean spirited ugly and cruel 'Christian' would it suprise anyone that children may grow up with a rather negative attitude towards those of the faith ?
The corrollary being, that if positive portrayals of deviant behavior are done, are they not just as likely to regard such behavior as 'ok' and further, regard those who oppose such to be 'bad' ? I think this is a fair comment on the issue or portrayals generally. Remember the 'wicked' witch of nursery rhymes ?

Boaz

I don't hate all Christians, some of them are my best friends.

Interesting how this thread has been "off-topic" for quite some time now, but as soon as I post the reality of this "gay hatemongering", you suddenly seem to want to start talking about cartoon characters again.

The reality too much for you, is it?

Aslan you really are a fool Mr. Darwin is widely know as the father of evolution. Thales may have speculated but that is quite different form coming up with a theory most of Thales writing in this area are to do with his belief that everything comes from water. Only Christians cite the work of Thales in this manner and to say that it breaks my argument is shear stupidity which I’ve come to except from you. You say that racism is a product of evolution, that would entail every racist to be familiar with the theories of evolution this is clearly not the case. Even a half whit can see that most racist take their lead from their culture/religion. There has only been recent change of heart on by mainstream Christians but as usual they quickly spin it up.

Aslan You say that I am “intolerant of Christians and call them names”. Like what names did I call ‘Christians'. I call you names for sure, but you are not representative of Christians.

I have Christian friends you know and I have other friends who are homosexual and in fact I know one couple – been together now for 12 years – who are both Christian and homosexual! I haven't asked them if they indulge in those sexual practices you listed. None of my business really.

You say that I am intolerant of those who disagree with me. Nope! I am intolerant of stupidity and bigotry, irrationality and ignorance. You demonstrate them all

And delusions. You also say that I demand that my view be taught to children. If you mean I'd like tolerance taught to children, then certainly I do and I am proud of that.

You ask “So who's really the intolerant bigot?” and the answer is clear! You are, you silly man.

You say that you have advanced degrees in both science and Christianity (including the history of science and history of Christianity) and will gladly debate me on any of these topics. I say, hmmmm, well isn’t that what we have been doing and your debate has not been very impressive.

You ask me why I don't put up an argument instead of just making wild unsubstantiated assertions? I have put up arguments and provided substantiation’s for my position and shot you down in flames. Perhaps you are too choleric with rage to be able to read properly?

You ask “what do you really know about the history of the Christian church?” Obviously I know more than you do.

Anyway, this should make you happy. I am done with you – you are boring and I have a new computer game. Bye. Might catch up with you again on another topic some time.

Mollydukes,

Humans are not machines. There are many factors contributing to person's behaviour not just a single cause. Everyone recognises that drinkdriving causes accidents and deaths. Yet, if you follow your strict causation principle consistently you would have to conclude that drinkdriving doesn't cause accidents because not all drinkdrivers have accidents and many non drinkdrivers also have accidents. But that would be an aburd conclusion.

The point is that a homosexual's sexual behaviour is the major contributing factor to their pathologies, addictions and psychological problems.

The practices I referred to, which almost all people regard as deviant and perverse, are normal part of homosexual activity. If you don't believe me, look at the contents page of top selling gay sex guide, "The New Joy of Gay Sex"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0060924381/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-7086310-0755057#reader-page
Or this one on the web:
http://www.sexuality.org/l/lesbigay/gaysex.html

Compare this with the contents of a heterosexual sex manual, "The Joy of Sex":
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1400046149/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-7086310-0755057#reader-page

Your "explanation" is just that - an explanation. It is not an argument. You have offered no supporting evidence, merely a "just...so" story.

Concerned,

Nice story. Pity (for you) it's complete fiction. Here's a more realistic scenario. A boy hears at school that homosexuality is a valid choice and perfectly normal. A gay friend persuades him he's gay and he begins engaging in gay "sex" and shortly after contracts HIV. Several years later he dies in his prime, alone and in great pain.

Kenny,

Thales evolutionary views were similar to modern ones, as were his student's, Anaximander. Empedocles (493-435 B.C.) believed that chance “was responsible for the entire process” evolution and advocated spontaneous generation, gradual evolution by trial-and-error recombination, and natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) claimed humans are the highest point of a long, continuous “ascent with modification” of life. Add to these Charles De Secondat Montesquieu (1689-1755), Benoit de Maillet (1656-1738), Georges-Louis Leclerc, John-Bapiste Lamarck (1744-1829), Étienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire (1772-1844)and Chuck's grandfather Erasmus (1731-1802).

I did NOT say that racism is a product of evolution. I said that evolutionists believed that blacks were less than human. That is a documented fact.

Here's a true story: I went to see SpongeBob Squarepants with two little girls (8 & 9). Between us we consumed much popcorn and laughed alot. When we emerged from the cinema we all held hands as we walked to the car.

OMIGOD! I've just realised that my daughter and step-granddaughter are budding Lesbians - and I am clearly a paedophile...

What am I to do? To whom should I report myself?

Morgan

Mollydukes,

You truly are deluded if you think you have presented coherent arguments and shot me "down in flames".

Nothing else in your post deserves a response.

I will miss your posts though. They always give me another opportunity to highlight the incoherent nonsense coming out of the homosexual lobby groups and their cheer squad, and reinforce the truth and coherence of the Christian worldview.

Aslan

If it makes it easier for you to maintain your steady bigotry of homosexuals by believing my "story" is a work of fiction, then go right ahead, but in the end, you are only deluding yourself. And in the end, the young man in my "story" has already been dead for nearly 24 hours because of the bigotry you ascribe to. More than that, another gay man or lesbian will kill themselves tonight. The carnage must stop.

I also notice with interest that you didn't attempt to tell me how my "lifestyle" is self destructive. I gave you a snapshot of my life, an example of my typical day - the one you maintain is destroying me and it seems you have been unable or unwilling to outline its self destructive nature.

You continue to generalise wildly about homosexual people. It would be akin to me saying all Priests are child molesters. It's nonsense and harmful and it would be in everyone's best interests if you desisted.

Aslan, you are misinformed about so many aspects of homosexuality which is why I have persisted in responding to you. Personally, you have no impact on me because I'm comfortable with who I am and I recognise the rubbish you spew forth as just that, but I'll be damned if I'm going to stand by and allow you to continue to spread misinformation, particularly when young gays and lesbians are killing themselves over it. We all have the capacity to walk in another person's shoes and I think it's high time you gave it a try.

I'll post another "story" in the next post as I've gone over my word limit here. I wonder if you'll dismiss this one as "fiction" as well.

PART 1

"ULTIMATE PRICE PAID FOR MY IGNORANT PREJUDICE "

ADRIAN PICCOLI MP.

The Daily Telegraph 11.3.05
= = =
I have killed a man. In fact, I have killed men, not through what I have done, but through my own pathetic and stupid prejudice.

Not long ago, I went to the funeral of a young gay friend of mine who had died of a rare wasting illness.

He ultimately died of a broken heart - he died because he was sorry to be gay. He was a country bloke who didn't want to be gay, but he just was.

He didn't want the prejudice that he would inevitably face. I guess he wanted the textbook life that we generally romanticize about and call "normal", but it just wasn't him.

At the cemetery, I saw two of his friends, both male, holding hands as they lowered the casket, bawling their eyes out at the loss of their beloved friend. Through their tears my eyes were finally opened. Their love and respect was what mattered. Who cares what people do as long as they love each other?

Part 2

"ULTIMATE PRICE PAID FOR MY IGNORANT PREJUDICE "


I felt like a complete moron. In all these years of thinking that being gay was odd or unusual, in actual fact I was perpetuating prejudice that was killing young men - and which still kills young men.

I killed my friend through my failure to accept difference, and through the lack of understanding from other country blokes, just like me, who made him hate being gay. It is not overt prejudice or open vilification. It's the more dangerous, subtle, constant things we do that must have gnawed away at his soul. It was people such as me who give gay people a funny look, who make gay men ashamed in country Australia.

And I haven't just killed him. I have killed many. Killed them at the end of a rope in the back shed or at the barrel of their father's gun or next to an empty bottle of grog.

It's a tough realisation to come to. I have been brought up and remain a strong Catholic, believing in strong "family values" and that heterosexual relationships were what God was all about. But only a week after the funeral, I went to a wedding where the Priest read the Gospel where He says "of all of my commandments the most important one is to love they neighbour". Unless they cut out a bit on the end that said "unless they are gay," I reckon God didn't care much about who you love, so why do we?

Thomas, if you can hear me, forgive me for now I understand.

Homosexuals in Australia are shamed? I don't think so.

Those who indulge in the Mardi Gras don't feel any shame, nor do the many activists that are constantly lobbying governments.

In a 1978 Time Magazine article, "Sick Again", 70% of the ten thousand randomly polled American Psychological Association members said that homosexuals’ problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large.
“Sick Again? Psychiatrists Vote on Gays” Time, 20 February 1978, 102.

And that was 1977-78. Society is now even more accepting of homosexuals than it was back then.

Aslan

That's it... you've proven yourself beyond a doubt to be wilfully ignorant. I will not waste anymore of my time with you.

As the seventeen yeor old daughter of homosexual parents, I can assure all those "concerned" individuals out there that the only harm that comes to a child of homosexuals is through homophobic attitudes and discrimination.If critics of homosexual parents are worried about the welfare of the children of such relationships I suggest they try tollerance and acceptance, as this will improve the only barrier to a perfectly "normal" upbrining for children like myself. You ask why intollerance is bad- becasue it targets people such as myself and expresses ignorant, discriminatory and out dated views. I feel ashamed that we live in a society in which tollerance and acceptance, humanity and respect are regarded as negative qualities.

The absurdity of the "moral turpitude against SpongeBob" is nicely captured by Dr Warren Throckmorton, in his

"Interview with SpongeBob's Wife" at:

http://www.thecitizennews.com/main/archive-050330/op-01_wife_throckmorton.html