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.