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.