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