It is natural for boys and girls just reaching puberty to react
against those that are different. They are forming their natural
atrraction to each other and anything that disturbs that disturbs them.

They should not at that point in their lives have people telling them
that homosexuality is natural and they can choose either way.

It is not natural and all the waffle in the world will not change that.

Thanks for the warning Rodney .

I shall produce many copies of your article to distribute to parents & grandparents.
The message will be this “Look at this now they’re going to try to get to your children in the schools & the labor party is helping them”.

You can try to push against nature as much as you like but sooner or later she will push back , Hard .

Bazz is spot on .
I’ll take his point a step further , If any normal heterosexual student is to be made to feel guilty of wrongdoing simply because he/she feels a perfectly natural degree of disgust at the thought of homosexual acts , That child will be the victim of child abuse at the hands of the school or forum where the challenge is made . As any such assertion against an instinctive emotion will create confusion & self doubt .

Kids go to school for their own benefit , Not for the pleasure of the gay rights lobby group , Or any other lobby group for that matter .

Rodney Croome when you come to terms with your sexuality & accept that yours is different to what is normal & natural for the maintenance of the species , You will be more at peace as you will be accepted & respected for who you are rather than just what you are . Who you are is so much more important . Trying to force people to accept that which goes against natural instinct will not give you what you want . Why won’t you see this ?

Otherwise stay away from my children .

I guess I have to accept that the distaste of people like Jamo and Bazz for homosexuals probably can’t be changed.

However when they argue against programs to protect children from harassment and bullying, they are condemning all children, including theirs, to a dangerous future.

First, they need to remember that not all victims of homophobia are homosexual. The mere perception that a young person might be homosexual is frequently sufficient for them to become victims of homophobic bullying. The attacks, in effect, are not attacks against homosexuality but attacks against difference. Every child is a potential victim of such harassment, even the children of fine upstanding citizens like Jamo and Buzz.

Second, anti-homophobia programs have the desirable side-effect of heading off criminal behaviour. Jamo and Buzz wouldn’t want their children to be victims of homophobic harassment, and neither would they want them to come before the juvenile justice system because they’ve been bullying others. Anti-homophobia programs prevent kids from becoming perpetrators, just as much as they prevent them from becoming victims.

Third, study http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ssay/pdfs/writing_themselves_in_again.pdf after study http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/cpd/ll_cpd.nsf/vwFiles/Hide2BSafeExec.pdf/$file/Hide2BSafeExec.pdf has shown that same-sex attracted teenagers are hugely more likely to be victims of violent crime than their peers. The Jamos and Buzzes of this world want to leave those kids undefended, without visible support from their teachers and their society. Regardless of how you personally feel about homosexuality, there is simply no excuse for allowing any group of kids to be harassed and beaten up.

"Stay away from my children," writes Jamo. Even if they're being attacked? Even if they're being bullied? We all have a duty of care, to all of the children in our midst. I wouldn't look away if your children were being attacked, Jamo, and neither should you when the children of others are under threat.

Why is it that every time someone criticises homosexual behaviour they are labelled 'homophobic'.

Just because I criticise something does not mean I am afraid of it. If I criticise the government it does not make me Liberal-phobic, if I criticise the media it does not make media-phobic so why can't I criticise the behaviour of homosexuals without being labelled 'phobic'.

Why don't homosexual people just respond to the arguments put forth by their critics with reason and logic? Is it because they do not have good reasons and logic? If someone says homosexual behaviour is unnatural then why not respond with clear and concise arguments as to why you think it is natural. Just putting some blanket label on people who criticise their behaviour does nothing to help the cause of homosexual people. If they want to be taken seriously then it is incumbent on homosexual people in a democratic and civilised society to argue with the same logic and reason as everyone else when their behaviour is challenged.

Calling someone 'phobic' is a sign of defensiveness. You are attacking the person and not responding to their arguments. It is like when some people criticise the behaviour of some Muslims and are immediately branded a 'racist'. Everyone's behaviour is up for criticism and if their behaviour is reasonable, logical and natural then they having nothing to fear.

The best way to deal with 'predjudice' in schools is to arm people with good logical and reasonable arguments for any behaviour. Schools should be about promoting thinking, reason and logic and not about defensiveness based on personal attacks upon anyone who disagrees with them.

JBW2040;
It seems that you are supporting a campaign against bullying as a wooden horse for
promoting what used to be known as indecent acts.

All the buts and appeal to civil rights etc etc will not change anything;
No matter how hard they go at it not one of them will give birth to another human being.
That is where the dispute starts and where it ends.

It is simply idiotic to say that homosexuality is not “natural,” therefore it’s bad. Computers, cars and prescription medications are not “natural” but we all use them. Are they bad? I don’t’ think so. Jealousy is “natural.” So are autism and tuberculosis: are these good?

So, phanto, I guess you mean that when someone claims that homosexuality is unnatural, it’s more appropriate to call that person a cretin than a homophobe.

In any event, I haven’t been calling anyone a homophobe. I’ve been defending an anti-homophobia program in Tasmanian schools (homophobia, by the way, is “prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality” – http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn).

Here’s some reason and logic for you. Kids don’t choose to look “gay”, but some are perceived as “gay”. Other kids gang up on those perceived as “gay” (see research links above). This is bad, both for the perpetrators and the victims, and responsible education authorities take steps to prevent it from happening. This protects the victims from being whacked, and keeps potential perpetrators out of the juvenile justice system. A win for all concerned.

The wooden heads who argue that anti-homophobia programs are a “wooden horse” want to see the cycle of misery continue. For them, it’s unacceptable to talk about homosexuals to teenagers, but it is acceptable for teenagers to bash others whom they think are different.

... continued

The most telling part of Bazz’s post is his acknowledgement that times have changed: “what used to be known as indecent acts.” Damn right, Bazz. Civilised human beings don’t even think about the sexual behaviour of others. Just because you can’t look at a gay couple without wondering when they last had sex and who was on top doesn’t mean that others do. The ‘acts’ are irrelevant, and between consenting adults, they are no longer regarded as indecent.

The acceptance of difference is the main issue here, and the fact that you are intolerant of difference is no justification for passing on the same corrosive attitudes to your children. If you don’t want to talk to teenagers about homosexuality, fine. Better in fact that you don’t.

The Tasmanian Education Department has demonstrated that anti-homophobia programs are not about “indecent acts,” not about “reasonable, logical and natural” behaviour. They’re about acceptance of difference, both real and perceived. Also demonstrated is that these programs make very real differences to the levels of prejudice among teenagers. They’re successful, and their use will spread in spite of the objections of the intolerant.

Finally, the idea that “the best way to deal with 'predjudice' in schools is to arm people with good logical and reasonable arguments for any behaviour” is one of the most facile pieces of twaddle I’ve ever read. When did a logical argument ever stop a thug with a baseball bat?

Intolerance of difference is visceral human ill-will, not a logical response to some clearly judged situation. Kids who are acting violently need to see the human consequences of their actions, and understand that there are ongoing effects, both for victims and perpetrators. Anti-homophobia programs provide this, and as a result they benefit everyone.

jpw2040 said:
"It is simply idiotic to say that homosexuality is not “natural,” therefore it’s bad."

It is not 'bad' it is unnatural and natural is always better than unnatural. People that do not live in accordance with their own human nature are doing themselves harm. Homosexual people presumably live according to human nature in every other facet of their lives because that is what is best for all human beings. Why do we have a human nature at all if every behaviour is equally going to make us happy?

"homophobia, by the way, is “prejudice against (fear or dislike of)"

How can you tell someone is afraid of homosexual people just because they criticise their behaviour?

All violence is wrong and not just violence toward people who may be homosexual. Education should be aimed at denouncing all violence.

"The acceptance of difference is the main issue here."

Acceptance of difference is not the same as saying you agree with someone's explanation of their behaviour. I can accept that homosexual people behave in a different way to heterosexual people but I do not agree with them when they say their behaviour is natural. It does not bother me what homosexual people do but if they want to claim that their behaviour is natural then I will exercise my right to disagree with them by expressing a different opinion.

"Anti-homophobia programs provide this, and as a result they benefit everyone."

Anti-violence programs would benefit everyone and not just people perceived to be "gay".

We all benefit from living in a diverse society, and teaching kids to cherish rather than attack the diversity around them is a worthy undertaking for education authorities.

“Education should be aimed at denouncing all violence.”

No argument here. I’m sure that the people who have worked to integrate tolerance-promoting material into school curricula thought that’s what they were doing, and in many respects they’ve been very successful. No longer do schoolkids get away with attacking or bullying those who’ve got salami on their sandwiches, or whose father takes them off to the mosque on Fridays. Religious and racial tolerance is already integrated into curriculum, and policed in playgrounds. Generally, this is working – kids are more tolerant today than when I was growing up.

But unfortunately they are continuing to attack and bully others on the grounds of perceived same-sex attraction. The ethnic and religious tolerance is not being transferred to sexual minorities, perceived or real. Homophobia is the last intractable form of intolerance, as the research links above show.

We can accept other religions without agreeing with their beliefs, we accept ethnic minorities even when we don’t like the way their food smells, we no longer try to make left-handers write with their right hand and we make sure that kids know that bullying or laughing at people because of their appearance is not on.

However for some reason, many continue to baulk at telling kids that attacking someone because of perceived same-sex attraction is not on. “Acceptance of difference is not the same as saying you agree with someone's explanation of their behaviour” is an utterly shameful excuse for inaction when a schoolkid is under attack because s/he just happens to look “gay”.

Anti-homophobia programs have nothing to do with the victim’s behaviour. If the kid is being bullied because of how s/he looks, then our duty of care obliges us all to do everything we can to stop it ... even if it means we have to talk about something that we personally find distasteful.

I think that all bullying and aggressive behaviour is inexcusable and that education authorities should have programs to stamp it out completely. These behaviours have exactly the same characteristics and intention no matter who the target may be. They are all designed to hurt someone else and cause them pain. If any kid indulges in that type of behaviour he should be dealt with by school authorities no matter what way that aggression is carried out. There should be zero tolerance for all aggressive behaviour.

A bully or aggressive person behaves in the way they do because they try to deal with their own insecurities by hurting someone else. It doesn't matter if you group potential victims into groups like - homosexual people, religious people, black people, short people, tall people, disabled people or whatever and then create legislation or rules to specifically protect them. The bully needs to be a bully and he will simply find another target. You haven't solved the problem you have just shifted it elsewhere. The real problem is how to deal with bullying as a behaviour regardless of the target group.

To have a 'program' for every possible grouping of people who may be victimised is totally impractical.

So-called education programs for particular groups often come with a hidden agenda and that is to promote the propaganda and rationalisations of that group and to stifle discussion about the behaviour and rationale of that group. That is why there are church run schools so those groups can stifle debate about their behaviour in the name of religion. This is not good for open, democratic society searching for the truth.

If the program to stop bullying is done properly there will be no need for special groups to call for special programs. If the program to stop bullying is not done properly then all the energy should be put into fixing it until it does work and not into special programs for any particular interest group.

“To have a 'program' for every possible grouping of people who may be victimised is totally impractical.”

Another utterly shameful excuse for turning away from the misery of a group of entirely innocent kids.

Which “grouping” hasn’t been addressed so far? We’ve got materials integrated into school curricula to address the whole spectrum of intolerance, except for intolerance towards sexual minorities. The broad-spectrum programs against intolerance and prejudice have been in place for decades, yet young people who are perceived to be same-sex attracted are still targets of bullying and aggression.

The evidence is clear (see above), and the case is rock-solid for an intervention in support of this last group of bullying targets. To refuse to protect these kids, when the evidence shows that they are still being targeted, is an extreme dereliction of our duty of care.

“If any kid indulges in that type of behaviour he should be dealt with by school authorities no matter what way that aggression is carried out.”

Many people believe that punishment is the only way to deal with criminal behaviour. However if you wait until a crime has taken place, not only do you have to deal with the damage to victims, you also have to carry out sanctions against the perpetrator, and subsequently deal with the perpetrator’s inevitable resentment.

Teachers know that intervention is better, because when you intercept unwanted behaviours, you avoid the creation of both victims and perpetrators. Maybe I expressed myself badly above. I’ll attempt to say it again: in addition to protecting potential victims, anti-homophobia programs head off otherwise innocent schoolkids from becoming bullies or even criminals. Those who take a compassionate view towards _all_ the kids in their care don’t wait for them to do something bad before intervening. The last thing you want to be doing to kids in your care is punishing them. Giving them the tools to get on with each other is a much more compassionate way of dealing with them – all of them.

... continued.

“... not into special programs for any particular interest group.” Finally, we come to the nub of the argument. The reason for denying targeted intervention programs to these particular victims is because they have been arbitrarily associated with a “particular interest group.” How very generous!

This is the catch-22 of homophobia. Teenagers are being attacked and bullied because someone thinks that they are attracted to the same-sex. However, because they are perceived as being attracted to the same-sex, they are also perceived as being connected with gay rights groups, so they are deemed as unworthy of protection.

phanto, your arguments might sound reasonable to you, but they fail on three counts. They fly in the face of all the available research, they rely on punishment rather than intervention, and they deny natural justice to a group of victimised teenagers because the people who are defending them (prominent among them Rodney Croome) are personally distasteful to you.

Shame.

"Another utterly shameful excuse for turning away from the misery of a group of entirely innocent kids."

If you have a good argument you would not need to resort to this kind of emotionally manipulative language. It is not a 'shameful excuse' it is an expresion of an opinion. "Misery of a group of entirely innocent kids" There are kids in the world who are starving to death in places of abject poverty - now that is misery. Being bullied in the school playground is pretty lame in comparison.

"The evidence is clear (see above), and the case is rock-solid for an intervention in support of this last group of bullying targets." If it is so clear and so rock solid then why do you feel the need to continue to argue the cause on these forums - surely all that has already been done in the research? Who are you really trying to convince?

"phanto, your arguments might sound reasonable to you, but they fail on three counts. They fly in the face of all the available research, they rely on punishment rather than intervention, and they deny natural justice to a group of victimised teenagers because the people who are defending them (prominent among them Rodney Croome) are personally distasteful to you. "

Research can be wrong . It has been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future. Researchers often find what they want to find.

I never said anything about punishiment. I said they should be 'dealt' with. This means that there should be consequences for those who refuse to obey codes of conduct like there are in any other place in society. In the school that could be anything from demanding an apology to detention or to facing the courts if the offence is serious enough.

It is very presumptious of you and shows a complete lack of respect and dare I say, a predujudice against me to infer that just because I have a different opinion to someone else I therefore find them 'personally distatesful'.

Deal with the substantive point, phanto. You’ve argued against anti-homophobia programs on the grounds that we shouldn’t be putting energy “into special programs for any particular interest group.” This is an arbitrary determination on your part, to the disadvantage of these victims. Regardless of which box you decide to put them in, the teenagers affected by homophobia don’t belong to any particular interest group. They just happen to be perceived as gay.

Choosing not to protect them because you’ve unilaterally determined that they belong to a “particular interest group” is shameful. Basta.

Yes, I’ve inferred that you have a distaste for homosexuals. I’ve inferred this from your refusal to allow targeted anti-homophobia programs on the grounds that they are associated with that “particular interest group.” I’ve also inferred it from: “... but I do not agree with them when they say their behaviour is natural.”

Concluding that you have a distaste for homosexuals is a logical inference from your statements, and you were the one calling for logic, remember?

I would be delighted for you to prove me wrong, phanto, but having failed to show support for victims of homophobia, somehow I doubt you’ll be telling me that you cherish the diversity that your same-sex-attracted neighbours bring to your life, and that you support the claims of same-sex-attracted people for equal rights.

On her website Jane Elliot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott, the anti-racism campaigner, has a list of typical statements which sound innocuous but actually reveal the prejudices of the speaker http://www.janeelliott.com/statements.htm Compare number 25 with these things you have written:
“Why don't homosexual people just ...”
“If they want to be taken seriously then it is incumbent on homosexual people in a democratic and civilised society ...”

These have reinforced my inference that you find homosexuals distasteful.

Before you tell me that I’m reading things into your statements that simply aren’t there, try replacing the word homosexual with jewish, or even Irish. Try arguing that aboriginal people don’t respond with reason and logic, and then maybe you’ll understand that your distaste is there for everyone to read.

... continued.

“Research can be wrong . It has been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future.” Let me remind you, phanto, you were the one asking for a logical argument. The first step in any logical process is research, establishing the facts, and in the absence of contradictory facts, you take the steps indicated by the research. In the particular case in point, the Tasmanian Education Department has followed the direction indicated by the research, and the program has been shown to be a success. Yes, research can be wrong, but wrong research is not borne out by subsequent research and inquiries.

“Being bullied in the school playground is pretty lame in comparison.” Clearly you’ve had a fortunate life, in which you’ve never been bullied. That’s great, and I certainly wouldn’t wish it on you. However if you tried to put yourself in the position of a child who is forced to go to a school every day to be bullied, attacked and terrorised, you would be a little less glib with these comparisons.

For the victim, bullying is a paralysing, isolated and lonely experience, and the dread of it stays with them all their lives. Clearly you don’t know what it feels like, and most sincerely I hope it never touches anyone you love.

In any event, the existence of one wrong is no justification for refusing to act against another. The authorities don’t stop issuing parking fines because there are drunk drivers on the road, and the law doesn't ignore domestic violence cases because murders are also taking place.

You might personally decide that one wrong is more worthy of your attention than another, but please don’t try to stop others from addressing wrongs which you think are less important. The work in developing and delivering anti-homophobia programs is important, and effective. For the sake of the children involved, put your objections to the people promoting the programs aside, even if you can’t overcome your distaste.

" Regardless of which box you decide to put them in, the teenagers affected by homophobia don’t belong to any particular interest group."

Yes they do. They belong to a group of teenagers affected by 'homophobia' who just happen to be perceived as gay. I do not think there should be special programs for this particular group or any other particular group. There should be programs which aim to abolish all aggression and bullying and that by definition will include the group that you describe.

"Yes, I’ve inferred that you have a distaste for homosexuals."

What exactly does 'distasteful' mean? There are lots of behaviours that people indulge in that I do not think are the best behaviours for them but they have every right to indulge in them if they want to and if it does not impinge on the rights of others. I do not have any less respect for them than for anyone else. I do not think smoking is good for people but if they want to smoke then that is their right. I do not have any less respect for their rights than I would for a non-smoker.

"I also inferred it from: “... but I do not agree with them when they say their behaviour is natural.” "

So anyone who disagrees with you about anything must by this logic find you 'distasteful'.

"Before you tell me that I’m reading things into your statements that simply aren’t there, try replacing the word homosexual with jewish, or even Irish. Try arguing that aboriginal people don’t respond with reason and logic, and then maybe you’ll understand that your distaste is there for everyone to read."

But they do respond with reason and logic and I agree with their reason and logic. I just do not agree with the reason and logic put forth to explain some of the behaviour of homosexual people. I do not agree with the reason and logic of some other groups - it all depends on the argument they put forward and whether or not it seems reasonable.

Continued ...

"The first step in any logical process is research "

Maybe so but that does guarantee the outcome of the research will be logical or reasonable or right.

"Clearly you’ve had a fortunate life, in which you’ve never been bullied." There you go being presumptuous again. You have no idea what I am like. I may have been subject to far more bullying than you could imagine for all you would know. Just because I do not agree with you or the programs you are arguing for you presume I know nothing about being victimised and that I have no idea what compassion means.

"You might personally decide that one wrong is more worthy of your attention than another, but please don’t try to stop others from addressing wrongs which you think are less important."

Why not? We all have to make choices. I just do not agree with yours.

This discussion isn’t about choices, least of all mine, so on that subject you’re welcome to keep your opinions to yourself.

“Why not?” Glad you asked. Since your solutions to the problem of homophobic bullying are based on opinions (as you persist in telling us), they simply aren’t as good as measures based on research. Until you can show flaws in the particular pieces of research on which the Tasmanian Education Department has based the introduction of anti-homophobia programs, your claim that research is sometimes flawed doesn’t apply here.

You’re entitled to your opinions, but please don’t use them to undermine the excellent evidenced-based work which is being done in support of vulnerable kids.

This is one of the many reasons parents are running to private schools for their children's education. It isn't homo phobia as the gays would assert. It's the simple fact that many do not agree that gay is a mainstream focus of education. In this instance we have less than 10% of the population waging the education curriculum. School yard bullying is not based on homo phobia. That is a political spin to excite emotions calling for our children's protection. We need to teach Gay 101 for our children's protection? My daughter was bullied at school and is not gay. Where was the straight 101 class for child protection?

Without dismissing your daughter's experience aqvarivs, you don't seem to have much idea of what bullying is either. Recently you dismissed someone else's claims about bullying by saying it's "Just immature kids trying to look cool in front of their friends." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5678#75790

If your daughter really was bullied, then her school has a serious problem, not least with parents who downplay the lasting effects of bullying. If I were her father, I'd be banging on the school doors insisting that they get some proper anti-bullying programs together, rather than lurking around here airing ill-formed opinions.

Sorry. I forgot. Only self righteous snits need to post here. Everyone elses opinion or experience is valueless unless it has passed the "jpw2040 filter of I know best".
That link is to my own personal experience. I was mature enough then to see what that type of behavior truly was and never carried it around or let it influence my life. As for running to teacher to fix my problems no thank you. I gave my children anti-bulling education and behavior techniques to use in response if it happened again. It didn't include sexual identity or the mating habits of the young and gay. My children's sex education came before they first went off to school and at various times as they matured. I don't know how old you are but, to folks of my generation gay is nothing special. Big whup! Your gay. Now what? Get over yourself.

Thanks aqvarivs, I had a laugh.

Particularly humorous is your apparent belief that your “own personal experience” should determine how “bulling” (as you so amusingly put it) is defined for the rest of the world.

Hilariously, at the same time as you were belittling the “jpw2040 filter”, you were also demonstrating that the aqvarivs world view is extremely dodgy. A few kids throwing stones over a schoolyard fence is not “bulling”, and the sexual practices of adults have nothing to do with protecting minors from bullying. How any of this is connected with your children’s sex education is beyond me but, hey, thanks for sharing. I’m sure they got a laugh too.

I feel confident you have a bright, if distant, future in stand-up. Keep working at it.

The thing with you jpw2040, is you want gay to be recognized as something special. Probably a good 80% of the population today grew up with gay day and gay parade day, the rest are too old to care. Gay is just so ho hum. It's pedestrian. Nobody cares. Shout it from the roof tops and nary a soul will bat an eye. It's an non issue. The tiny minority of truly gay children will hardly all be recognised as gay. It's more like some straight kid will catch the label in the school yard for not following the herd. Hardly reason enough to set up a curriculum to teach children that maybe 10% of the population are gay and deserve special recognition and treatment. I taught my children gay as a part of human sexuality. What is it you want? Teach Gay as a life choice?

This is all too simple.

No focus groups or projects or task forces or reference group or blurring of the lines between what is normal and abnormal will change reality.

We should teach children that homosexuality is abnormal.

We should teach chldren to be tolerant of the abnormal.

Eh? I think you've been reading someone else's postings, aqvarivs. I've never argued that gay people are special.

"It's an non issue."

It should be, but it's not yet. While kids who are perceived as being same-sex attracted are targeted for bullying (again, see research linked above), it's clearly not a non-issue for a critical proportion of the school-age population. Teaching kids that gay is nothing special is exactly what's required. If that's what you've done, then you know that you don't have to teach kids about sexual practices in order to show them that it's OK for two people of the same sex to be attracted to each other, to make a commitment to each other, and to share each others lives.

If you've got this message across to your kids then I thank you most deeply and sincerely, because unfortunately you're still in the minority.

"We should teach children that homosexuality is abnormal." Heavens, Col! Why would you want to teach them something that's simply not true? Homosexuality is a normal human variation, like left-handedness or synesthesia. If you don't feel comfortable talking about sexual behaviour (and who does?), the American Psychological Association's page on sexuality and orientation http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html is a great place to get some ideas on how to talk to young people about homosexuality. Not a willy or a front-botty mentioned anywhere.

"it's clearly not a non-issue for a critical proportion of the school-age population." Bit heavy handed with that statement what? Even the most liberal assessment places gays at (+/-)10% of the total population. One could hardly call for critical proportion. Are there predominately gay schools in predominately gay communities suffering abuse by nasty straight kids?

The thing is that these programs you are arguing for are already in place and according to the research you cite they are working and achieving their goal. The kids you claim to care about are being helped with programs that are aimed at protecting them specifically.

So why are you on these forums at all if it is the kids' cause you are really trying to promote? Why do you or anyone else need to argue for something that already exists?

Perhaps you are on these forums to try and satisfy a more personal agenda. Maybe you want to promote the fact that an authority like the Education Department recognises homosexual bullying as a specific behaviour and therefore homosexual people as a specific group. They are giving credence to homosexuality and that is what you are really arguing for.

Why would you need authorities to give credence to homosexuality unless you were uncomfortable about its credentials as they stand. Perhaps you need authorities to say homosexuality is ok because you are not entirely convinced that it is ok.

I don't think you are on this forum because you care about kids. You are on this forum trying to convince yourself that homosexuality is ok. Your real agenda is not about school programs but is a far more personal one and these forums are not about solving personal problems. It is pointless arguing with you about school programs because that is not your real concern. The real argument for the rest of us is how our tax dollars are being spent but that is not your issue - you already have them being spent in the way that suits you.

“The real argument for the rest of us is how our tax dollars are being spent.”

Get over it, phanto. I understand that you dislike paying for something from which you don’t receive a direct benefit, but that’s not how things work in modern societies. Whether you like it or not, our taxes already pay for research into systemic-functional grammar, tunnels for wildlife to get across busy roads and advertising for “WorkChoices” ... and in some places, programs for protecting minorities.

“You are on this forum trying to convince yourself that homosexuality is ok.”

You’re just gonna hafta take my word for it, mate: improbable as this might seem to you, I rejoice in my sexuality, and also in the fact that it is valued by my family, friends and colleagues. Most of all, just like most straight people, I rejoice in expressing my sexuality with my partner.

The fact that our society de-values it http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5549 is naturally of some concern to me. However in this forum my main concern is to support the argument that young people who are perceived to be same-sex-attracted need protection.

It's pretty clear that you haven't read the research I've cited above, because the bullying is still happening. No-one's claiming that anti-gay bullying has been stamped out, just that anti-homophobia programs help. Take a look at the article in today's Melbourne Herald Sun for the latest on homophobic bullying http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21627751-2862,00.html, or here for more detail http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20072504-15287.html