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.