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