Donnelly notes: "Apparently, the teacher’s aim was to prompt students to imagine what it would be like to be a minority group and, hopefully, to teach them to be more sensitive and accepting of different sexual practices and lifestyles." Then goes on to point out that our Prime Minister thinks this kind of PC approach is wrong? I think the teacher apparently thinks that empathy is an important character trait that is worth developing, whereas politicians like John Howard see no advantage in a society that treats minorities with respect.

This is laughable, but also just plain nasty. Donnelly describes homosexuality as a "lifestyle" - which is ridiculous. He says that "English teachers' associations are also strong advocates of alternative sexual lifestyles", like what ?? S&M ? bygamy ? And in the strange world of Donnelly, the fact that there are homosexual people somehow "undermines heterosexuality".

The comes the usual attack on 'political correctness" eg the AEU is a "strong advocate of a politically correct approach to gender". Replace the phrase 'politically correct' with "a human rights" approach to gender and it's a bit different, isn't it ?

Political correctness in this case means critical thinking and Donnelly can't stand it. But students need good training in this especially in relation to what they see in the media. Once taught, critical thinking will be usefully applied in other areas!

Then Donnelly raves against some articles in one issue of a teachers' journal - aren't teachers allowed to express ideas to each other? Maybe teachers shouldn't think - just repeat what's always been done before.

Finally comes a plea for a "traditional sense of what it means to be male or female" - that would be Mum (5 kids) at home cooking & cleaning, and Dad at work (going to the footy on Sat) - for Donnelly the world just hasn't changed.

Oh dear, Kevin, your political spots are showing.

Donnelly claims teachers "have pushed the rights of gays, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people on the basis that there is nothing wrong with such lifestyles". There isn't. It's just that most people are heterosexual.

Come out, Kevin, say it. Homosexuals are evil, morally corrupt, hell bent on taking over the world, pantsing little kids and rogering grandmothers. You wish!

The arguments are Hansonesque, blithering oversimplification saying that all is bad bad bad. It would be nice if it was that easy. I had a look at the Queensland Education website - I have to say it's a very even handed approach to masculinity issues that seeks to address the social ills associated with testosterone-fuelled boofheadery.

The opening paragraph about the year nine teacher asking students to imagine the whole world was gay except them dipped into the sensationalism beloved of the simplistic. Most red blooded year nine boys would be seeking the nearest bonkable female. I'll bet the lesson was a bit of a disaster.

Schools can never be too politically correct.

The major determiner of students' attitudes towards masculinity, sexuality and other shock-horror charged subjects is the student's parents. Nobody else.

Oh no, people will be more sensitive to others feelings? More considerate? What horror!!

The "policy paper argues that gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender individuals have a right to teach sex education and that such learning should be 'positive in its approach.'"
Apparently the author thinks it best to shame GLBT people and keep them ignorant by censoring pertinent information.

"National and state English teachers' associations are also strong advocates of alternative sexual lifestyles."
The use of "sexual lifestyles" naturally carries the implication that one's sexual orientation can be changed easily or beneficially. I suspect the teachers associations know better and aren't actually advocating GLBT so much as tolerance and social acceptance.

"Since the late 1990s, conferences as well as official publications have sought to undermine heterosexuality by arguing there is nothing special about traditional approaches to gender."
Is the author under the misconception that GLBT are simply different gender roles? Or does he think that by doing things traditionally regarded as feminine, men can catch gay? Even though there are male homosexuals that are traditionally masculine. (Similarly for women.) Given the rest of the article, it appears to be the former.

"The South Australian Education Department also argues that gender is a social construct and not a result of biology."
Hopefully the author is not also trying to say that say that gender, ie. sexual identity in relation to society, is not also heavily influenced by our society/culture. He probably is.

"Most parents are happy for their children to develop a traditional sense of what it means to be male or female."
So what? Not everyone will fit naturally into the traditional forms and schools must cater for this. Traditional roles aren't necessarily superior, why shouldn't they be critically examined and alternatives be explored? Or must schools always promote women as homemakers and men as breadwinners?

Historically, and still, most feminine gender roles have been negative and socially enforced in an oppressive manner, (To a lesser degree this is also true for men.) with transgendered and gender-queer issues being completely ignored. Hiding this fact will only increase that harm.

Here I was ready to give Kevin a roasting, but it looks like everyone's beaten me to it :-) Lets go through some of the stuff he said:

"The reality is ... there is nothing wrong with such lifestyles."

There is nothing wrong with such "lifestyles", although as someone mentioned before calling these "GLBTisms" a "lifestyle" implies that it is a conscious choice, which any GLBTer (haven't seen that acronym before!) will tell you is not the case. Their sexuality is just what feels right and natural to them, the same as heterosexuality just feels right and natural to me.

"[GLBT] individuals have a right to teach sex education..."

I can't see how their "alternative lifestyle" would suddenly render them incapable of giving kids the facts of life.

"...sought to undermine heterosexuality by arguing there is nothing special about traditional approaches to gender."

Sought to undermine heterosexuality?! $10 says that the majority of people in English teachers' associations are, like the majority of people in general, heterosexual. Heterosexuality is vital to our continued existance, and as I've already argued isn't a choice, so what would be the point in attempting to "undermine heterosexuality" and why would they seek to undermine themselves? It's an utterly ridiculous argument. And once again, there is nothing special about traditional approaches to gender. Have our traditional approaches to gender ever even gotten us close to creating a happy, peaceful world? Isn't that what we all really want, deep down - a better world? Obviously you can't blame all the world's ills on traditional gender roles, but there is definitely room for improvement. Why not try something new?

I will make one point however - I do think biology definitely had a role to play in creating our current gender roles that shouldn't be forgotten. The student health nurse at my old high school is a bit (ha!) of a feminist. She told us how after she had her first child (a boy) she decided she was going to give him lego rather than toy guns. He ended up making guns out of the lego :-)

Ones gender role in boys is largely determined within the first few years of childhood as they build emotional bonds with mother and father, or if those bonds are disfunctional orientation disturbance may arise. In girls is is their emotional bonding with fathers and especially in their pubity year, if this is disfunctional then orientation disturbance may occur. What is natural is what is biological designed, any other behaviour as normal exhibits some psychological disturbance and unfulfilled person.

Good education is about wholeness and personal completeness, and sexuality can only be fulfilled within a biological role.

Kevin Donnelly has written a number of articles on trends in education and how bad it is getting. The critics above are perfect examples of the fruit of such a hopeless education system. Instead of teaching kids how to read and understand what they read, teachers are trying to teach them to hate the Howard government - and they failed at that task as well!

Nowhere in Kevin's article does he say that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trisexuals, transmutants, a-sexuals, pansexuals, multi-sexuals, animal-sexuals, or whatever other sexuality you want to go by, should be disrespected. He is merely pointing out that educators are indoctrinating children with irrational nonsense that their parents would not agree with and would go nuts over, if they knew about it. Should we be surprised that parents are dragging their kids from public schools in droves and putting them in Church schools?

The problem with all this PC nonsense, is that the gay lobby is not interested in respect (they don't respect Christians or anyone else that disagrees with them), they're not interested in tolerance (they don't tolerate anyone disagreeing with them), they're not interested in equality or rights etc. (they have all these things already) - they are after ACCEPTANCE. Not just personal acceptance (which Christians are more than happy to give since homosexuals too, are made in God's image and are valuable human beings), but acceptance of their RELATIONSHIPS and LIFESTYLE.

This is where people like myself object. I will tolerate homosexuality in so far as I don't want to see practitioners put in jail (provided their behaviour doesn't break the law eg. public display of their practices or preying on boys). But that's it.

I must just be lucky, I guess. All the teachers at my son's (public) school are normal, intelligent folk. Most have families of their own, and all of them share a love for children, and a care for their welfare, that is palpable.

My twelve-year old happily discusses what goes on at school, and is bright enough to have his own opinions - which occasionally diverge from my own - and which he is capable of discussing. I am therefore reasonably certain that what I hear from him about what goes on at school is fairly comprehensive.

The description of schools as hotbeds of PC zealots, intent upon pursuing their agenda to corrupt our children in the name of diversity or whatever, is unknown to any of us. That this bunch of perfectly normal people would even consider indoctrinating children with irrational nonsense is a totally alien concept. I have to say this goes equally for the previous two schools he has attended, and the schools that his two elder brothers attended half a generation ago.

Am I missing out on something here? Is my experience typical, or atypical? Are we inventing targets to shoot at, or is there a real problem? This is a genuine enquiry - after twentyfive years in the Australian education system, is it blind luck that none of this has ever been an issue, let alone a problem?

AsIan,
Where does absolute morality fit here? As absolute moral purity defines the unclean sexual acts of persons as against the pure moral image of God? I cannot accept such behaviour represents the pure moral image of the Creator God of human biology; in whose moral image you state they were made. The god Juno represented such acts in the Greco-Roman period, hardly an image of the moral Creator of normal human biology.

From the many gay men among my friends their desire is for emotional bonding, and they do not find such in women, though many of them would love to have family. The absolute perfect state is - when both these needs are met and fulfilled in lifelong normal emotional and biological ways.

The conflict exists when normal is replaced with unnatural and it is taught as normal in any moral understanding of the universe.

AsIan - Quote, "The problem ...is that the gay lobby is not interested in respect ... they're not interested in tolerance ..., they're not interested in equality or rights etc. ...they are after ACCEPTANCE. Not just personal acceptance (... since homosexuals too, are made in God's image ...), but acceptance of their RELATIONSHIPS and LIFESTYLE.

This is where people like myself object. I will tolerate homosexuality in so far as I don't want to see practitioners put in jail..(unless) public display of their practices or preying on boys"

Pericles,

There is obviously going to be a great difference between different teachers and different schools. They don't all teach this stuff yet.

Note that Donnelly is not criticising individual teachers as such or specific schools. He is criticising the Education Union and state education departments for pushing the gay lobby's social agenda on to more or less unsuspecting parents and their children.

This is only a relatively recent phenomenon so your 25 years in the eductaion system is irrelevant. There are many many schools that don't teach this nonsense, and many teachers in schools that do teach it, who don't push it like the NSW teacher Donnelly refers to. This nonsense is being pushed by University faculty responsible for trainig teachers. This means that the current and future generations of teachers are brain-washed with this garb. IOW, it is going to get worse.

Philo,

Not sure you understood my point. All humans are created in God's image and are therefore inherently valuable. Thus, homosexuals should be respected as persons. However, as Christians we cannot accept their depraved (not to mention unhealthy) BEHAVIOUR.

I think Kevin is on to something in his article but it needs unpacking. Political correctness is a utopian movement that assumes that society can be managed in a way that breaks down all unequal relationships. It is basically a Christian idea (“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” Gal 3:28) that has been hijacked and secularized. As such it has lost its connection to the tempering aspects of the rest of the tradition and has become ideology.

The verse from Galatians proclaimed that all people are united under the Lordship of Christ. This affirmed the principle of the preciousness of all and the equal standing of all before God and is foundational for Western society. However, when this is secularized, it becomes an imperative for the erasure of difference. Instead of telling us that we are all, in our diversity, equally under the Lordship of Christ, it tells us that we are all equal, hence the concern for different gender characteristics and power relationships.

In order to establish a utopia of the equal, males must be discouraged from expressing themselves physically, (the physical is an expression of power), it is deemed to be just as good to be homo or heterosexual and any hint of genuine racial difference must be erased. The nonsense that gender or sexual orientation is a social construct give equalitarians hope that these disturbances in a homogenized society may be changed.

The process of secularization has produced many instances of this effect. Unity in Christ has become human rights, the dawning of the kingdom of God has become the idea of modern progress, love of the neighbor became communism, self reliance became fascism. When the key elements of Christianity lose their connection with the other elements they become isolated and demonic and distort human life.

Peter Sellick

Reference to paedophilia? Check
Reference to it being just a lifestyle? Check.
Claims that homosexuality isn't natural? Check.
Claims that people are being brainwashed? Check.
Use of entirely male examples of homosexuality? Check.

Silly me, I should have expected the "unhealthy" claim and Aslan's comparison with bestiality.

Political correctness in the literal sense is nothing more than "showing regard for others in manners, speech, behavior, etc." Ie. it is the definition of politeness. Consequently it also includes not making unsupported derogatory claims or discriminating unnecessarily against groups; which is probably why some are up in arms against it. Of course, the term is primarily perjorative - it has limited serious usage other than as a rhetorical device designed to create a mental connection with hypersensitivity.

We're talking about schools here, schools. They have teachers, who teach, it's their job. So it shouldn't be any surprise that they teach about sexual orientation and different gender roles. You can't avoid the issue of gender roles and it would be wrong to let students enter the world ignorant about other gender issues, sexual orientation; but it's also true that they shouldn't promote ideology.

So what do you do? Explain and compare. Talk about the discrimination and hardships people face. State the facts: explain that homosexuality occurs in nature, that it is ingrained in people's personalities. In other words, DO EXACTLY WHAT THE ARTICLE CONDEMNS. The author, and some here, really want teachers to promote conservative ideology. For those dissatisfied: send your kids to a fundamentalist school where they can learn all the falsehoods you like and there are prohibitions on interracial dating, rock music, dancing and post-1950s clothes.

Aslan, what exactly is the irrational nonsense that you refer to? And does your definition of "public display of their practices" simply refer to sexual intercourse or is it broader?

Sells, what genuine racial differences exist? Some medical predispositions & benefits sure, but what else?

"It is basically a Christian idea ... that has been hijacked and secularized."
Are you serious? No need to ascribe every notion to an original Christian source.

The homosexual 'rights' movement seeks to destroy freedom of conscience. We are confronted by a new kind of orthodoxy and collective social understanding.

In the new European order a person is a thousand times more likely to be attacked for his or her Catholicism, Islamic faith or Jewish religion than for being gay.

They are victims because they say so. There are few police records illustrating their persecution because the police are in cahoots with the evil heterosexualists.

In Europe, In Spain and France, gays organizations have orchestrated as much violence as some of the far-right groups. In Paris a Catholic Monsignor was kicked and trampled by gay rights activists in front of Note Dame Cathedral.

To complain of sexual abuse by a gay teacher in western Europe is to lose an education and invite retaliation. In Scotland the govt. policy is to punish any child who suggests the possibility that a gay teacher may be their abuser.

In the United Kingdom it is accepted as an article of faith that gays do not molest children and paedophilia is a heterosexual condition. A gay teacher is presumed scientifically innocent and the accuser maliciously 'homophobic'.

A classic liberal society concedes the right of people to be wrong, that has been lost in the new dispensation. Separate toilets for males and females may reflect heterosexual tyranny, the gay lobby will get back to us when they decide.

They may want to pass some legislation to enable a few Catholic bishops to be put in jail for 'hate crime' first. To have firm moral convictions is to be a bigot and a traitor to democracy.

The utopian depiction of any educational institution as ideal and benign is not a betting certainty. Every large school with male staff will have a few paedophiles working on the premises. Four percent of males recruited from the general population will probably be active paedophiles.

For example: How can two police officers or two paramedics decide to *both* rape a child? If they were one in a thousand it would be impossible. However gang rape, networked sexual abuse, is possible because the active A group meets the non-active B group.

The active paedophiles trigger the non-active candidates. The impossible to understand abuses happen because they are inevitable.

Cadiz,
Studies on male child sexual abuse indicate homosexuals are 26 times more abuse boys than hetrosexual women. An education of sexual abstinance till marriage is the best practise.

HHS Study Confirms Abstinence Education Effective

National Desk, Education Reporter - Jessica Neiman of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, 605-335-3643

WASHINGTON, June 14 / -- A new study released today by the US Department of Health and Human Services, and completed by a contract with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc, reveals that abstinence education works. According to the interim report, teens who participated in abstinence programs had an increased awareness of the potential consequences of sexual activity before marriage, thought more highly of abstinent behaviours, and less favourable opinions about sexual activity before marriage than did students who were not in abstinence programs.

"Students who are in these [abstinence education] programs are recognizing that abstinence is a positive choice," HHS Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation Michael O'Grady said. "Abstinence education programs that help our young people address issues of healthy relationships, self-esteem, decision-making, and effective communications are important to keeping them healthy and safe."

Leslee J. Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse agrees. "The evidence from this and other studies is overwhelming; abstinence education results in self-confident, healthy kids," said Leslee J. Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse. "Every child in America deserves the best. When it comes to health instruction, the best is abstinence until marriage education."

"While evidence of the effectiveness of abstinence education continues to mount," Unruh concluded, "pro-promiscuity groups continue to push for more of the same failed contraceptive sex ed of the past. It does not matter to groups like SIECUS and Advocates for Youth that their version of sex education has never been scientifically proven to prevent unmarried pregnancy or STDs. On the contrary, abstinence education has been weighed, measured, and found exceptional."

The study released today is part of a longitudinal study spanning five years. Youth participating in four abstinence education programs were tracked. An additional phase of this study examining how abstinence education affects behaviour is expected next year.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050614143509990006&cid=1291

Philo, how are "abstinence till marriage" programs relevant? Anyway:

"HHS Study Confirms Abstinence Education Effective"
Effective at what? Increasing students support for abstinence after one year. No results yet as to whether students remain abstinent or have lower rates of STDs & pregnancy - other studies have had the common sense result showing general failure & higher rates. (Including those who have taken pledges.) The study didn't even show a statistically significant increase in *expectations* of remaing abstinent.

Also, only one of the four programs didn't include extra-curricular promotion of abstinence. Not exactly the way to conduct a comparative study. http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/Press%20Releases/abstinence.asp

It should be no suprise that men are much more likely to commit sexual abuse, not that it has much relevance either, however a cite for your claim would be nice.

It seems to me that Christian zealots have been preaching that homosexuality and heterosexual sex outside marriage are sinful for a couple of thousand years now, to limited effect even among their own followers.

This is their right, of course, but I wish they'd keep it to themselves rather than demand that everybody else accepts their version of morality.

Garra,

Re Christian morality, you said: "This is their right, of course, but I wish they'd keep it to themselves rather than demand that everybody else accepts their version of morality."

Why should we keep it to ourselves? Why shouldn't we demand everyone else accept our version of morality?

To all posters

Have I lost the plot? Harking back to the first paragraph or so of the article - and despite the fact that I have read and re read all postings, I remain concerned about the scenario being presented to Year 9 students.

Is the scenario designed for the purpose of teaching young people about marginalised groups? Is it about teaching young people about sexuality? Is it about both?

A year 9 student is about 12-14 years of age. Searching for identity. Searching to understand body, emotional, behavioural changes. Searching to understand self.

I do not want my children being challenged about being a minority group of heterosexuals. They are beginning to learn about being heterosexual for goodness sake.

Their minds are young and alert. They are extremely impressionable. They need to learn about the structure and function of their own bodies before they are anywhere near ready for such sophisticated debate.

A better example of teaching about minority groups would be to pose a question about being indigenous in Australian society.

If my posting seems naive and concrete - well, I guess I am. Is there anyone who thinks like me?

Cheers
Kay

Aslan, old boy, for the simple reason that your lot no longer call the shots - in this society or anywhere else.

Hallelujah!

Garra,

So who calls the shots now? Those who think like you?

Kay,

Yes, there are many who think like you. In fact, I think you will find the vast majority think like you, as shown by a recent study by the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

You have actually identified the core issue. The gay lobbiests are deliberately targeting young people because - as you point out - they are at their most vulnerable stage of development.

This way young males, in particular, may be persuaded to think that they might be gay and are encouraged to contact some gay counselling service which is only too happy to confirm that they really are gay and that they should become involved in the gay community and gives them an invitation to their next orgie, where they get given alcohol and/or drugs and money and then are taken advantage of...

I have heard of this sort thing from numerous sources now - including from some of the perpetrators who are thankfully now in jail.

Asian

Thank you for your post. However, you have either misunderstood or misinterpreted what I am saying.

I do not have an issue with homosexual people (male or female). My concern is with the Education Department and its "so-called" balanced teaching of my children about important personal and societal issues - indeed complex issues for year 9 students - and inappropriate dialogue.

I am not an anti homosexual lobbyist.
Cheers
Kay

Kay, basic sex-ed normally takes place in primary school, (Years 4, 6-9 for myself IIRC and that's in Catholic schooling.) so structure and function should already be known. Considering that sex is not incredibly uncommon for year 9 students these days, and that social studies, biology and basic algebra & physics are normally in the curriculum, I don't think it is beyond them.

I don't see why learning what homosexuality is would detract from learning about heterosexuality, or understanding/coping with new heterosexual emotions. And what about the GLBT students? They are going to have a much harder time coming to grips with their sexuality and place in the world if neither they nor their friends properly understand it. The benefits of early education is very clear for the transgendered, since early understanding and action can prevent development of secondary sexual characteristics (ie. breasts, voice changes, hair etc.).

Garra, I can tell you that we are in this society together and share its medical costs. It is all of us who pay for AIDS and STD's research and treatment, it is us who pay for 100,000 abortions each year leaving a train of emotional and psychological trauma to clean up. The avoidance of these social indulgences could allow funds to building a better society. I can tell you that in the end it wil be those that respect and practise abstainance before marriage and hetrosexual marriage that will populate the world with healthy and emotionally secure children.

To be promoting the gay and lesbian agenda to immature children is irrisponsible, they should be educated in wholesome normal behaviour. I have had five children and eight foster children in my care, and have encouraged everyone of them in normal family male to female relationships.

You cannot be encouraged into a homosexual "lifestyle". If you asked any homosexual about this they will tell you that being homosexual is just what is natural to them, the same as being heterosexual is what is natural for you or I. You or I couldn't be "encouraged" into homosexuality any more than homosexuals could be encouraged into a heterosexual lifestyle. REALLY! I challenge anyone who disagrees with me to go talk to some GLBTers and see what they say. If I'm wrong, so be it but I really don't think I am.

With regards to abortions and STDs, I agree with you wholeheartedly that abstinence is the most effective form of contraceptive, but I think it is a little unreasonable to expect people with raging hormones to simply not have sex. God didn't give us powerful sex drives for no reason ;-) I can see that telling people not to have sex before marriage would be a good way to prevent STDs, but it's out of line with human nature and therefore not the best way, in my opinion. A better way (because I believe more people will agree to follow the advice) is high quality sex education - if you really think having sex is a good idea, make it safe.

I personally think that our Education System should pay more attention to how our teachers treat our children, as that is what has the most impact and leaves the lasting impressions.

Teachers are humans and many of them have their own prejudices and issues that they bring with them to school and into the classroom and some children are as a result not treated as kindly or fairly as others. What avenue do our children have to have their grieviances and complaints of bias or unfair treatment from teachers addressed?

I have two children in year 9 and I dont know what they would have thought if they had of been involved in this issue.

I assume my 14 year old son would have told me to get a life and that they are not stupid and that they are not going to turn gay just because they stop for a minute and consider the scenario and my 13 year old daughter would have told me that she would have been embarrassed by the whole thing. How it affects a child, depends on the child's personality and situation.

I personally believe that we do need to be careful how we teach these sensitive subjects as I do think that you can make a vulnerable sensitive child that doesn't fit in believe that they are something that they are not if it fills a void.

If people all just treated each other with respect it wouldn't be an issue or problem.

The curious thing is the lather people get into over things like this. It is actually very hard to change behaviours(assuming in this case it possible) in any direction at school, hence the difficulty in drug education, nutrition education etc.

It is a long way from cognitive to behaviour I very sorry to say so why do people imagine that "the devil has all the good tunes"

Richard.

The problem as I see it is that schools are not changing behaviour, they are directing it and guiding it.

Schools focus too much on the wrong subjects and therefore so do the students.

They should be teaching and encouraging our children to read and write and do maths and teaching them how to go about getting information so that instead of teaching our children how to use condoms and how to have sex and how to take drugs, they should be asking them to research the amount of sexually transmitted diseases, the cost of bringing up a child, the affects of drugs on the person and on the community and asking them to voice their opinions and to make their choices based on the information that they have gathered. Informed choices.

For those who’s hormones or personalities are such that they cannot help themselves and they want more information, they should read books on the subject or see the school counsellor personally.

"The curious thing is the lather people get into over things like this. It is actually very hard to change behaviours(assuming in this case it possible) in any direction at school, hence the difficulty in drug education, nutrition education etc."

Utterly untrue, by scattering condoms on the school premises one can reasonably sit back and wait for the inevitable results. One of those results will be that boys use them on *younger* girls. So one can take two years from the recipient's age to see where it is probably going.

In the UK educational sex abuse is entirely out of control. Teachers are involved, peers do it, it is endemic. The panacea is usually more condoms, more school appointed abortions and more intimidation of pupils alleging sexual abuse.

In the UK we are drifting towards a policy which has *all* children conplaining of educator sexual abuse automatically punished. Peer abuse is part of the co-ed experience and will probably be designated 'education' in a couple of years.

"You cannot be encouraged into a homosexual "lifestyle". If you asked any homosexual about this they will tell you that being homosexual is just what is natural to them, the same as being heterosexual is what is natural for you or I."

That is *entirely* mistaken. I took the queer experience to the eastern bloc when the STASI and KGB were reasonably hostile. Queer theory had homosexuality as both LIFESTYLE and CHOICE.

These days we are told it is perhaps a state of being. I use the word 'perhaps' because while we are legislating for 'orientation' we have failed to scientifically define what it is.

The paedophile arguments in the United States illustrate the connundrum exactly, if it a city or govt. grant the gay lobbyists require than *all* homosexual activity is part of the collective caucus and every constituent a mandate.

However if it is a criminological definition of profiles for child sex abusers that is a different state of affairs. Gay lobbyists *generaly* use two diametrically opposing definitions. One has lots of gay people and the other has very few.

Encouraging young people into a homosexual lifestyle is very easy if the practice and exhibition of sexuality is the phenomena defining the orientation.

It is not just extreme educational policies. Affecting change in vulnerable groups is no more difficult than getting people to change favourite rock bands. Two gay parents will for example also promote consistent and radical issues

A third of our nation's children attend Catholic schools which are also too politcally correct (according to their interpretations). Do these schools resist teaching that the sexual practice of masturbation is natural - that it is unnatural to feed your sexual appetite with a bit of harmless wanking? Mostly yes. Do these schools activily encourage the use of condoms - thus reducing later in life the likelihood of AIDS amongst its gay and more highly strung students? Mostly no? Do these schools expose their children to celebate priests whose repressed sexuality can manifest itself in an abuse of vulnerable children? It would seem so. In the 10 years leading up to 2000 more than 450 church employees were involved in sexual assault of children. This is the largest single group in the nation. Show us 450 cases of openly gay men sexually assaulting children. I think the "christians" who think minority groups like the gays need to be excluded from a simple school exercise in empathy confirm the need for more understanding in our society.

Philo, Peter and others seems confused about 'natural', 'normal', 'biological' etc. to which one could reply with facts about homosexuality in all societies, over time, etc but Pericles sounds the right common-sense note: there's no need to pick up the views of some tiny minority and respond as if everyone is being led down some path where, without quite knowing how they got there, they're going to find themselves in bed with someone of the same sex. It's nonsense.
The larger point is 'difference'. Peter claims the PC crowd has an "imperative for the erasure of difference". No, only extremists think that. But perhaps the biggest lesson of the 20th C. is about difference: it's Nazi Germany, and picking out groups (Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled ...) and saying that they're different, so they can be treated differently, and different becomes not as good as, becomes bad ....and ends in horror and evil. The lesson is that we look for what we have in common - when the differences are obvious, and prejudices ingrained, we need reminding of our common humanity, our common human rights.
Harping on about differences as 'unnatural' is a very dangerous thing to do. Learn from the lesson.

rancid,

the Catholic Church is probably the largest provider of services and largest employer outside the government. I would suggest that 450 'gay' or otherwise people from the government sector could be found quite easily, except, perhaps, they don't have systems that identify or provide avenues of compensation for their abuse. I think you could probably identify some medical professions with similar figures of improper behaviour.

What I do think you will find is a serious amount of under reporting for gay abuse. I spoke to a young guy who was drugged and abused and when confronted with the prospect of reporting the matter, brushed it aside and said "nothing really happened." This probably is true of date rape too?! A small number offending many times?

Rancour and malice ooze from some of the statements here. The lack of even basic understanding of the underlying human issues involved is terrifying.

Australia is not, and never has been, a Christian country. It has a Constitution guaranteeing its secular nature. Perhaps same writers might reflect on how much their own attitudes differ from the teachings of Jesus... As a very dear friend of mine, a former Parish Priest in Redfern for nearly 30 years, once asked in his very thought provoking book, "Who is Worthy?" Who indeed?

And each of the Labor State Governments were just as democratically elected as was the Howard Government.

In amongst all the homophobic stuff are comments relating to the "transgendered". I have to point out that "transgender" is really no-brainer terminology because it means quite different things to different people in different parts of this country, let alone the world. Used in the sense originally given to it, it means people who, either intermittently or permanently LIVE AS a member of the opposite sex. Transsexualism (an intersex condition) refers to someone born with sex characteristics of both sexes who has taken steps to correct a congenital error and ACTUALLY BE a member of their affirmed sex.

I certainly know that being intersexed and being assigned to the wrong sex in infancy is not a matter of "choice" and correcting such an error is a matter of preserving sanity and personal survival that has nothing to do with a "lifestyle".

Transsexualism is a matter of sexual identity but I have no doubt the same imperatives apply to sexual orientation - one is born this way and choice doesn't enter into it.

Teachers are doing a good job in a difficult environment. Parents that both work to satisfy materialistic needs are the norm today and teachers have to fill the void they leave in their childrens' daytime lives.

I would sincerely hope no-one wants to return to the sort of schooldays I remember in my good fundamentalist Christian school where boys were abused, assaulted and worse with impunity.

Kaz

Kaz could you clarify your post for me?

My understanding is that "transgendered" is somewhat of a catch-all phrase, including transsexuallism and other gender disorders. (Disorder meaning the lack of a regular arrangement.) But not transvestites.

And that a transsexual does not require current or past physical aspects of both sexes (so not merely intersexual people) but at least includes anyone who "is born with a brain that recognies him or herself as a member of the sex opposite to that whose physiological indicia he or she bears." Quote from In re Kevin, a case about whether transsexuals can marry.

If this is correct, then I should have used transsexuals, not the more general term when talking about early action.

Too politically correct? Infiltration of gay "lobby"? Brainwashing our children? I think not.

The whole issue of gender education is being blown out of proportion here. As someone who has recently completed public high school, I recall one lesson in a health class on sexual education. We are talking about one lesson in six years of high school! This same class also looked at the world's major religions. The most important insight that I gained from this class was the importance of understanding and tolerance. We shouldn't stereotype anyone, whether they be homosexuals, hetereosexuals, christians, anglo-saxon, aboriginal or any other "label".

In reality, traditional studies of maths and literacy remain. We do need to focus on how we deconstruct our world, as it seems vitality important that children can understand and interpret mixed messages in a media saturated world. Kevin Donnelly's article assumes too much - firstly, that all students actually take all of their classes seriously. Just because a curriculum is worded in a particular way means very little. It will be interpreted by a myriad of different ways, by different teachers. In turn, the students will also receive a different message.

Donnelly suggests that the gay lobby is driving students in droves to Church schools. However, a number of studies recently commissioned by the federal government have suggested that publicly educated students have much higher university retention rates and better life skills. Maybe it is because public schools instilling resilience in their students and providing important life lessons?

Realistically, how much impact can a few references to alternative sexualities in a school curriculum have? Even the process of learning to read is driven by parents. Let's not forget that the vast majority of teenagers learn about sex from their friends, not structured classes. The focus needs to be placed back on family members to instill the virtues of tolerance and diversity from a young age. Clearly, articles such as these highlight that our school system may be changing, unfortunately, the degree of tolerance in our society is not.

lil_e,

I appreciate the thought put into this post, but I disagree with your observation: all views of life are equally valid.

Quote,” Clearly, articles such as these highlight that our school system may be changing, unfortunately, the degree of tolerance in our society is not".

Are you affirming that our society is intolerant, and that is somehow a bad thing? A look at the conflicting posts here show different values and views: and show that one side disagrees the other sides views are not equally valid. This is the nature of human thought that develops a strong society that will not accept mediocrity.

Quote, "This .. class .. looked at the world's major religions. The most important insight that I gained from this class was the importance of understanding and tolerance. We shouldn't stereotype anyone, whether they are homosexuals, heterosexuals, Christians, Anglo-Saxon, aboriginal or any other "label".

Tolerance has become a "catch-cry", "I want my ideas to be accepted"; and harmony an agenda for the multicultural acceptance of Islam. Note who formulated the manual on "Harmony" - how many religions are explained by the Australian Multicultural Foundation - only one. These are the authors of the "Harmony" manual. They will not tolerate the expression of difference and will litigate to silence opponents. Where are the Multicultural Foundation manuals on other religions in Australia, like Buddhism etc? We should appreciate and respect all people as equal: but ask us to accept the views of all people as equally valid is absolute nonsense.

This applies to social behaviours: ask everyone to accept all human behaviour as equally valid to create a tolerant society is avoiding reality. We have advocates that believe that there is no such thing as child sex abuse if the child is not raped, or forced against their will. This appears a valid view in Pitcan Island. If they came to Australia and held such views are we to tolerate such behaviour? Behaviour has values that affect a society, and a moral society has proved to be the best society.

Thanks for the post lil_e, which - apart from anything else - supports my own view that this topic is being given an importance that is out of proportion to its real impact. Like you, I am of the view that the contributions of peers have a far greater impact on sex education than any formal teaching, followed - at a distance - by attitudes at home.

I suspect that the reason for the fuss in this thread is that it is the kind of topic that allows a number of personal drums to be beaten, at the expense any real examination of the issues. For example, rather than picking up on your assessment of the issue itself - whether children are being corrupted by wayward sex education in schools - the immediate reaction to your own post was to attack your observations on our intolerant society. Philo replied to you with:

>>Tolerance has become a "catch-cry", "I want my ideas to be accepted"; and harmony an agenda for the multicultural acceptance of Islam.<<

This is unfortunately a typical response, which shamelessly uses your post as a trampoline for an "own agenda" comment - while in the process obliquely ascribing to you views which you don't hold. Your observation on tolerance, perfectly reasonably expressed, was immediately twisted to read "all views of life are equally valid", which is actually a nonsense statement that no-one in their right mind would ascribe to, but one with which you have now been labelled.

[Apart from anything else, tolerant people are surely the least likely members of society, by definition, to say "I want my ideas to be accepted".]

I notice that this was your first post to this Forum (under this nym anyway, this is after all the internet), and I hope the experience encourages you to continue to contribute. Otherwise, the entire medium will eventually be overwhelmed by single-issue zealots, which will diminish its value as a source of fresh views and an exchange of ideas.

Absolutely, Pericles and lil_e. One of the problems with forums such as these is that they tend to be rather easily hijacked by activists who wish to push their own agendas, however obscurely they may be linked to the article under discussion.

In the case of this article, Donnelly's assertions certainly don't gel with the kinds of ideas that my Year 9 son brings home from school. I doubt that many of the more voluble of the correspondents here actually have much to do with the kids who are apparently on the receiving end of these wickedly tolerant teachers' campaigns to impart an appreciation of diversity among their charges.

A while ago, I had a little chat with my son about his use of the word "gay" as pejorative term - I gather that in Brisbane teenage male vernacular "gay" is a ubiquitous word for anything that doesn't conform to current fashions. Under such circumstances I can well imagine a teacher validly using such an example to construct a scenario such as Donnelly describes, whereby students could imagine 'otherness', in the interests of teaching about the tolerance upon which social cohesion depends in contemporary Australian society.

Indeed, I wish one of my son's teachers had done exactly that.

Reality Check, 450 cases of Catholic child abuse put through the courts - that is on record. And that is not counting the others that are swept aside and covered up. I have been physically attacked and verbally abused on a number of occassions by members of a Catholic School Community and I have first hand experience of how they operate to justify and cover these things up. You say, the Catholic Church is the largest employer outside the government, it also "educates" a large percentage of our youth who then gain access to old boy/girl networks which include government employees, police, politicians and media. So, in my own experience, you just don't get a fair go and equal treatment when dealing with issues relating to Catholic community if you come up against the networked.
One other thing, whenever the Catholic Church is criticised its supporters, like you, will nearly always harp on about the services it (and the many truly giving catholic folk in the Catholic Church) provide as if it some sort of justification for its failings. The reality in my area is that the Catholic Schools are sucking funds away from road works and other things that will assist the whole community. When you use the good works as propaganda you are slipping into corporate business practice which can confirm the idea that Catholic Schools and Churches are first and foremost a power-gaining venture - it also suggests that perhaps the Church regards its many willing helpers as nothing more than "useful idiots". I know for a fact that the polite language used in the media is a sham. I have been told by a Catholic spokesperson, on the quite, among other things, that I am a "grub" and an "idiot" and that for daring to criticise Catholic works and because the police prosecuted one of my attackers. That is reality in dealing with certain Catholic Community folk in my experience.

lil_e

Many thanks for your articulate, intelligent, and "refreshing" post. It seems to me that you are in a better position than me to make realistic comment on Donnelly's article - since you have only recently completed your high school years. Good on you. I hope that you continue to contribute to this Forum.

You know I used to disagree with my husband about the fact that I believed that Pedophiles were born Pedophiles and homosexuals were born homosexuals etc., but knowing what I know now, I have changed my beliefs and I now believe that while that holds true for some, it doesn’t hold true for all!.

The human mind is a very sensitive instrument. People can easily become very vulnerable and sensitive. Human survival depends on humans adapting to their environment. My concern is that our youth are seeing so much aggression, war, racism, discrimination, sex and drugs that they are adapting their thought patterns to survive in that type of environment and are having to make the decision that - “If you cant beat them join them”, otherwise you will be left on your own – vulnerable and unprotected.

If you put ideas into people’s heads during times that they are vulnerable or confused I believe that you can change their thought pattern, it can confuse them and make them do things they would not have otherwise have considered. As adults we really need to consider what we are exposing our children to and realise that our children are evolving and growing and what they see and learn is what they do.

Jolanda (Joli),
I am in total agreement with your post expressed here. My closest male friend was in his earlier life - homosexual, till in his late twenties he became a Christian, and found such behaviour totally discusting and unfulfilling. Though many might consider him even now because of some attitudes - gay, he is totally focused on normal hetrosexual attitudes. Homosexuality is not a gene, it is an emotional choice.

Pericles,
Quote, "[Apart from anything else, tolerant people are surely the least likely members of society, by definition, to say "I want my ideas to be accepted".]

Sorry, I had to reduce what I had said there to be 350 words. This is exactly what is in mind in the "Harmony" programme taught in schools. It is the agenda promoted within the UN by the Muslim nations to dumb down opposition to their religion in Western Nations. The "Tolerance" issue is being used by those with a specific agenda to have us believe all value systems and religions are of equal value. For the homosexual at the moment it is is that homosexual relationships are normal and equally valid. The type of tolerance being taught in schools has more to do with political/religion than with race.

Gay behaviour rather highlight there has been an emotional problen in early childhood bonding, a moral problem within society because of the high incidence of AIDS, and the sexual abuse of boys [yes even in the Churches], a population and social problem because two males cannot reproduce a child. It is not a biological possibility that the next generation will be born from the anus of men.

Jolanta, I appreciated your sly attempt to associate homosexuality with war, drugs etc ... but others have pointed out how very little sex education there is in schools, so I don't think you have to worry. You might worry, if you have a child or grandchild that is gay, that they never hear that how they are is OK, and instead feel they have to hide their feelings as if it were a shameful secret.

Poor Philo, since the DSM dropped homosexuality as a psychological disorder needing 'treatment', a new explanation had to found to blame homosexuals for their condition: now it's "an emotional choice". Except none of the evidence says so. We've had so many people, from Boy George to Justice Michael Kirby, tell us about their lives, and I think not one of them, not one, has ever said "Well I became homosexual because .....", "It was that teacher, a man in a public toilet, a film, a book, my mother ...."

To the recently graduated high school student who posted here ... don't be so despondent about intolerance: there have been huge improvements in my lifetime. When a film called "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" came out it was considered shocking because a white girl wanted to marry a black man - in some places in the U.S. that was still illegal ! and many people thought that inter-racial marriage was disgusting and 'unnatural' ( to use Philo's word). Attitudes have changed. Bigots are still out there, and when they push their prejudices they need to be answered, but don't doubt that there have been major advances in the way 'difference' is considered and treated.

Solomon. There was nothing sly in my post. I wasn't trying to connect homosexuality with war or anything else for that matter, you are reading too much into it.

Nobody said anything about making Homosexuals have to hide, I just think that homosexuality shouldn't be presented as the norm as it isn’t the norm and it can confuse people.

I believe that the problem is that we are only asked to tolerate difference, we are not required to accept difference. There is no requirement when tolerating for you to be nice or fair.

There is a lot of sex education and drugs at school. If it is not directly through the curriculum it is through the actions of the students. Promiscuity and sex is not discouraged in schools and in my experience it is actually encouraged. Many students who are not academically inclined and even some who are, are not given interesting things to engage them and to focus their energy or attention on.

School is pretty slow and boring for many of the students and when kids are bored they will get up to mischief.

rancid,

"whenever the Catholic Church is criticised its supporters, like you, will nearly always harp on about the services it (and the many truly giving catholic folk in the Catholic Church) provide as if it some sort of justification for its failings."

Sorry rancid, just stating that if you are looking for 'farming accidents' they are more likely to happen on a farm. I wasn't talking about what crops were being grown. I may or may not be a Catholic farmer, another presumption on your behalf!

"One other thing, the reality in my area is that the Catholic Schools are sucking funds away from road works and other things that will assist the whole community."

You assume that Catholic schools don't assist the community - maybe why so many non-catholics seek enrolment - and that they suck funds (of taxpaying Catholics perhaps?) away from roadworks - what, to tar their playgrounds? The reality is that without independently funded education, the State would have to find billions more for education and we would be lucky to have (according to your logic) any roads!

rancid, you obviously have got a raw deal along the way from aspects of the Church that are perfunctory, but, try & put those aside and say "what is the real world situation, and what can I do to improve it?" If you don't feel the Church has a role in the answer, fine, but, don't denegrate those who do and remain in the Church addressing its (and society's) failings.

At my daughters excellent (wallops most private and selective schools every year in the HSC) comprehensive public school are a number of young men who, if not actually gay, are unconventional enough in their manner and interests to have been bullied and persecuted unmercifully at the expensive, male, religious schools they previously attended. What their idiotic parents were doing sending such boys to such conservative establishments is beyond me. Trying to beat it out of them, perhaps?
They are, quite literally, refugees from the kind of educational establishments some of the posters on this site approve of.
I wish my daughters had attended a class like the one described by Kevin Donnelly, it sounds like the teacher is provocative, imaginative and original. He or she clearly wants to challenge his students to think and to think differently. Also, perhaps, to get them to formulate their ideas and arguments articulately and rationally. And, perhaps to challenge their own beliefs, occasionally, to see if the way they see the world actually stacks up. Sounds like some real teaching and learning might actually have been going on. The opposite of indoctrination, in fact.
It would also be worthwhile to hear the context of the lesson. Was the teacher trying to counteract some bullying of an unconventional (possibly gay) student that had gone on previously?

Jolanta, I think your last post is a good example of the damage done by, for example, Donnelly's hysterical witch hunt. You write: "I just think that homosexuality shouldn't be presented as the norm as it isn’t the norm ". So please provide one, just one, example of anyone, anytime, anywhere saying that homosexuality is the norm. I don't think you can. I suspect that you've just responded to the ridiculously exaggerated tirades of people like Donnelly. Please look for some evidence. You won't be so worried.
I'm a bit confused about what you say about tolerance. It sounds like you are only prepared to treat fairly those people who you approve of.

Reality Check,

You say: "Sorry rancid, just stating that if you are looking for 'farming accidents' they are more likely to happen on a farm. I wasn't talking about what crops were being grown. I may or may not be a Catholic farmer, another presumption on your behalf!"

I say: I don't know what you are on about re: presuminmg you were a Catholic farmer. I couldn't care less what religion you are or what your job is.

You said I said: "One other thing, the reality in my area is that the Catholic Schools are sucking funds away from road works and other things that will assist the whole community." This is because recently the local council funded a road into the teachers' car park of a local Catholic school while ignoring the dangerous roads in the area. Peoples' lives are more important than teachers' car suspension or a private company's infrastructure. When I asked the local Labour councillor why council was building new roads into schools while roads in the area are dangerous she said "where's your evidence that council funded the road". She refused to tell me if council had funded the road and I had to find out myself. A helpful Liberal politician found out for me.

You also said: "You assume that Catholic schools don't assist the community - maybe why so many non-catholics seek enrolment - and that they suck funds (of taxpaying Catholics perhaps?) away from roadworks - what, to tar their playgrounds?" So who is assuming now? Besides I don't assume it, I know from experience that in certain cases private schools can be downright harmful to folk outside their community.
You say: "rancid, you obviously have got a raw deal along the way from aspects of the Church that are perfunctory, but, try & put those aside and say "what is the real world situation, and what can I do to improve it?" I say: too right I have had a raw deal and your condescending carryon and trivialising of such matters isn't going to improve anything."

Solomon. You have spelt my name wrong twice. Could you please try to spell it correctly?

I think you have totally misunderstood what I have said. That just shows me that you may very well be damaged and that you may very well be a victim of discrimination and that your view is clouded. Of course I might be wrong and there is an angle that I haven’t considered. I don’t see how you can read what Dr Donnelly said to be a witch hunt. I read what he says so differently.

Could you please tell me why you think it’s a witch hunt and what it is that you think I am so worried about?

Your reply just shows me how easy it is for people to become confused. What I was trying to say in relation to tolerance is that we are making a mistake by just expecting tolerance of difference, especially when we so often have to try to pretend that we are the same so as to be seen as being fair and equal.

When you only have to tolerate a person you don’t have to treat them fairly or with kindness, you just have to put up with them – you are not obliged to treat them with respect. We should be expected to treat each other and everybody with respect and in a manner that is fair and just. We should also use common sense in relation to what is right and what is wrong and what examples we should set for our children.

Did you know that it is not against the law to discriminate because of malice, spite or prejudice.!

I also wonder, why do you think I am mean?

lil_e,
You are right to express an opinion that is what a democratic society is about. Those that restrict opposition to ideas prefer totalitarian control. Expressing difference does not reduce your right to be fully respected as a person. But the opinion noted does reflect some of the current educational agenda of social conformity - to accept and not to question. You will note the post by Pericles, Posted Tuesday June 21, quote, "Otherwise, the entire medium will eventually be overwhelmed by single-issue zealots, which will diminish its value as a source of fresh views and an exchange of ideas".

Pericles assumes new ideas have unquestionable value, and historically established and tried moral and biological views are promoted by zealots. There has not been one sucessful society in history, established on accepting gays as being "perfectly normal", that has survived to demonstrate it is best practise. Are such self distructing social mutations of evolution to be pitied?

Sexual identity given by teenage Peers may have some influence upon sexual disorientation. There is nothing abnormal in being a sensitive male, but ones bullying football peers may want to brand him a "sheila". That does not mean he is to deny his biological orientation and become gay, merely because bullies see him that way.

Education alone is not the answer to social problems, i.e. as unwanted pregnancies are high among young medical students. A group you would think would know how babies are conceived. Again drug education has not reduced the abuse of legal and illegal drugs among our youth, if anything it has increased inquisitive experimentation.

Philo...

"There has not been one sucessful society in history, established on accepting gays as being "perfectly normal", that has survived to demonstrate it is best practise. Are such self distructing social mutations of evolution to be pitied?"

So, can you name one successful society in the world that has survived in it's original form? I think you reach too far. Try not to name any European culture. A true study would show that they are nothing like their originals. And if we look to the oldest current cultures I think your Christian sensabilities may be a little shaken to see that they are muslim (middle eastern), hindu (Indian) and let's not turn to the age of the Asian cultures, e.g. Chineese - can't see too many Christians there!.

Now before you get your knickers in a knot, I was raised and have Christian values... I just accept that there are plenty of ways to behave in a good, compassionate, honest and hopefully spiritual way... which seems to me to be the point of religion. I can't see any all mighty judging me unworthy if I have lived peacefully and honestly as being unworthy because I didn't follow the exact dogma of a particular faith... so Ghandi can't get in because he was Hindu?!

People, live well and wait for the answer (if there is one!) on the other side.. then maybe the Krishnas can say "I told you so!")

I will leave the whole sexuality debate as it is completely irrelevant to any discussion - except the person discovering theirs...

Peace,
JustDan

Whoa there Philo, please don't fall into the habit of reading meaning into my posts that isn't there.

"Pericles assumes new ideas have unquestionable value, and historically established and tried moral and biological views are promoted by zealots."

There's some subtle shape-shifting going on here, which is either thoughtless or malicious. Whilst I accept the summary of my position as "new ideas have unquestionable value", I must also caution you that it is not necessarily the content of the idea, but the fact that the idea is expressed, that has unquestionable value.

That is to say, I (and others) may think the idea is rubbish, but that it has value in that, having been expressed, it causes people to think. They way you have expressed it, one could easily believe that you intend people to think that I value every new idea, simply because it is new.

This may have been an unintentional slight, but you then go on to contrast this with a suggestion that I consider that only zealots promote historical values. It may just have been careless phraseology on your part, but it is a generalization that I did not put forward, nor is it a position that I hold.

Taken together, they represent a distortion of my views that I totally reject. It might also be seen as subtle manipulation of my words in order to establish a classic "straw man" argument that you can debunk. Please don't do this, it does you no credit.

In fact, given the way you earlier twisted lil_e's position to read "all views of life are equally valid", a casual observer might deduce that you are already "hooked on distortion". I truly hope this is not the case.

Philo you said: “There is nothing abnormal in being a sensitive male, but ones bullying football peers may want to brand him a "sheila". That does not mean he is to deny his biological orientation and become gay, merely because bullies see him that way is just so true.

I have one of those sensitive boys. He is 7 years old. He is so kind and gentle, soft and caring. He is very intelligent and has a beautiful heart and is so against aggression and violence. He suffers so much as his feelings and emotions are intense. School is a nightmare for him and its not just the football peers that want to brand him a Sheila. He fears the teachers and the children as there is so much mean and aggressive behaviour happening that even if you are not being directly bullied, you are not safe because chances are very high that you will get caught up in the fall out or in the cross fire and worse still nobody cares. He has become paranoid about doing anything that might be seen as girly, he wont dance and he fears being humiliated. He feels that the teachers don’t like him because of his sensitivities and he complains that they ignore him and that they won’t discipline the children, they blame him and say that he needs to toughen up. Its as though everybody believes that life is tough so you have to get used to it.

I believe that children usually take their cues from the adults and that we are teaching our children not to care through lack of discipline, compassion, understanding and action.

If my son finds the world is hostile and that people are mean to him and he gets ostrasized, teased, bullied and harassed because of his sensitivities and branded a girl or gay, when he comes across a Homosexual that treats him with respect and cares about him, he may very well believe that that is where he belongs and where he will be safe and who can blame him!

Joli,
Your son sounds like a sweetheart, and I hope he preserves his sensitivity while still developing the "skin" we all have to have to survive in the world.
But I have to take issue with one of your comments, you appear to imply that if he meets a kind homosexual, he may be vulnerable to becoming one and I doubt you have anything to worry about on that score.
Plenty of people have homosexual experiences without becoming gay. Plenty of others know and like many homosexuals throughout their childhood without becoming gay. (Not, as they say, that there is anything wrong with being gay). My husband's father was gay, he raised four children ( 2 his own (yes, gays used to marry and have kids) and 2 stepsons). None of his 4 children are gay though they were well aware of their father's sexuality, it simply wasn't an issue for them. When they reached puberty, their thoughts and fantasies turned to the opposite sex, not because they chose them to, but because that was their natural orientation.
If your son eventually identifies as homosexual, it will not be because of who has met, but because of who he is. He will no more "choose" his sexuality than you "chose" yours, or my husband (or his father) chose theirs.

JustDan,
You have introduced the idea of a Christian based society as being the only society that condemns homosexuality as abnormal behaviour. Such a conclusion is not true, many societies have condemned such acts as destroying their society.

Are you claiming that the Muslim, Hindi and Chinese cultures all accept gay relationships as socially normal?

Quote, "So, ..name one successful society ...? ....... And if we look to the oldest current cultures I think your Christian sensabilities may be a little shaken to see that they are muslim (middle eastern), hindu (Indian) and let's not turn to the age of the Asian cultures, e.g. Chineese - can't see too many Christians there!."

Enag. You said that "If your son eventually identifies as homosexual, it will not be because of who has met, but because of who he is. He will no more "choose" his sexuality than you "chose" yours, or my husband (or his father) chose theirs".

You know what Enag, lets just agree to disagree on that one!

You talk about natural orientation. If a child is not in his natural orientation in society because that child is sensitive and different, then he/she will look for and attract and ultimately choose an orientation that feels less different and in which they feel protected, comfortable and safe. Sensitive or emotional boys and girls that don’t fit in can choose to be gay because it meets their emotional needs not necessarily because of their sexuality.

I believe that emotionally we are being neglected and that is causing a lot of the problems that we are seeing in our youth and in society.

I realy dont worry about whether any of my children will become gay. Que sera, sera. I just want them to be safe and feel happy and I would like them to enjoy their life and I hope that they move out of home by the time they are 25 as I have plans, we want to see the world!

With the greatest respect, Joli, who would 'choose' to be homosexual in such an overtly homophobic society as ours still apparently is?

Also, it's interesting that, after chastising another correspondent for mis-spelling your name, you do the same thing to enaj in your post above.

Malicious double standard or Freudian slip?

Jolanda (Joli),
Conclusion: According to enaj homosexuality is the result of a mutant genetic development. He accordingly has a genetic predospisition which he cannt deny or ignore. The fact is that specific gene should be eradicated from society, and it will, because they cannot breed. It can only be when they deny their predisposed sexual orientation (as identified by enaj) and be sexually disoriented by engaging in a normal hetrosexual relationship that he could reproduce according his own species. Genetic research maintains that NO SUCH GAY GENE EXISTS, so where is the authority to maintain a genetic predisposition exists. Enaj speaks nonsense not fact. The problem is emotional attachment not mutant genetic predisposition.

Posted by enaj, Thursday, June 23, 2005 1:53:01 PM Quote, "If your son eventually identifies as homosexual, it will not be because of who has met, but because of who he is. He will no more "choose" his sexuality than you "chose" yours, or my husband (or his father) chose theirs.

Philo,
No, I never stated or suggested that Christianity is the only society that condemns homosexuality, nor that the other’s were more successful as they did not (which they did – to varying degrees).

My point was in response to your statement that implied that any society that did not condemn homosexuality was the only one to be successful. Looking at all the known civilizations, no society has survived for any great length of time without change. And all have, until the ‘modern age’, condemned homosexuality. Now does this mean that as these societies condemned it and as they were failures, the condemnation was proof that the societies were wrong? I think not.

My point was that no civilization has survived without great change in all our history. I suggest, the point would be that to base a civilizations success on whether it condemned homosexuality or not is a false benchmark – much like I’d suggest that to base a civilizations success on it’s religion is also a false benchmark as the Moslem and Hindu cultures as old as, if not older than our Christian.

And just in case you choose a certain line, if you think our culture is any more successful than theirs, then I’d ask you to take a close look at certain vices as predominant in our society as theirs and in certain cases taken to extremes. E.g. drugs are imported to the largest Christian country in the world (the US) on demand – not pushed; the porn industry is primarily funded from – you guessed it, US funds. And I’m sure the UK and Australia (2 Christian-founded societies) are contributing healthily.

I don’t disagree with Christianity (I am one!) but I don’t negate the validity of another’s beliefs because they aren’t mine. I don’t have that hubris (I hope). As I stated, believe and be good… let the divine worry about whether it’s good enough – you will receive guidance if required. Which reminds me, you never considered the rest of my note...?

Peace... Tolerance... Faith...
JustDan

Just quickly, Jolanda (spelled right? lol),
I agree with you on this subject (we are working through another one, aren’t we…). It’s does not matter whether homosexuality is genetic or emotional. It is an individual’s choice. As long as those choices do not hurt another, it is between themselves and whomever they choose to let in. I do not care how your son (or mine – if I am ever so lucky) turn out as long as they are good, loving, happy people who contribute to society and support others through love and compassion rather than self interest and greed.

Enough said on this pointless argument really…

JustDan

Garra. No malice here. I just got Enaj’s name wrong, it was a typo copy slip, and I apologize to Enaj. Thanks for letting me know!

I really don’t believe that we have a overtly homophobic society. I do however believe that we have a lot of bullies in our society. Homosexuality is, in my opinion, accepted by the majority of people, they may not all agree with it but they accept it.

JustDan. I think that it does matter if homosexuality is an emotional reaction as it is then a result of the environment and many of these people suffer because of the environment that they are in. Its how you are treated that makes the difference and too many young people are suffering!.

The bullying the teasing and the discrimination, I believe, is because of malice and spite and prejudice and Homosexuality is just an excuse and if it’s not homosexuality its Racism and if its not racism it’s Religion or something else. Some people are just mean and they are bullies and they get away with it because we are expected to turn a blind eye and be considerate and understanding of the bullies difficulties and past life. To bad about the victim, wouldn’t want to upset the bully as they don’t really mean it! (cough,choke). Many even join in and also bully for fear of otherwise becoming targeted and also becoming victims. This happens because there is no law that protects the victims as they have no rights!.

Nothing will change until Legislation makes it so that it is against the law to discriminate out of malice, spite and prejudice. We should be required by law to treat each other fairly and with respect.

Jolanda, you touched on a very important issue. "The human mind is a very sensitive instrument"

Brain chemistry is an amazing field of study for the amature like me who just 'experiences' it, and the academic who does the whole footnotes and all thing. A recent study showed that when a group of people are exposed to feromones, areas of the brain became more active. Gay people's brains showed more activity when feromones of their own gender were encountered. The interesting thing was, they observed that there was a connection between this, and other factors, including conditioning of the brain to 'react' this way. So, on some of the evidence "Gays are naturally like that" and on the rest of the evidence "Gays are that way because they re-inforce and feed" that tendency.

I think most of you who are ripping into Kevin are being unfair. He is raising the issue of the more extreme elements of the educational peck order, and their activities don't alway filter down 5 minutes after they adopt a policy.

My own son never seems to be exposed to a 'managed pc curriculum' at his public school, and attitudes to gays seem more picked up from the schoolyard. But I closely monitor the reading material they are 'required' to study. Some schools take the opportunity of the available choices, to select books which DO fit the agenda Kevin is referring to, it appears that those of us here simply have not seen out kids going to such schools.

No schools are right on the money.

Parents who don't like it are free to send their offspring to private schools, which still qualify for government money.

Public schools have a duty to offer an educational environment that is inclusive of all students of any cultural, lifestyle, class, faith, non-religion or whatever backgound.

If I was 15 right now, a public school would be the only one I could attend in 'gender of identification', wear the corresponding uniform and use the corresponding amenities. The corresponding amenities would be generally necessary to ensure safety and reduce the risk of molestation or assault of a transsexual student.

All young people at school have a right to a safe and welcoming educational environment.