The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > rights of homosexuals in australia.

rights of homosexuals in australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
i am a student from malaysia,taylors college.I am doing a research on the unprotected rights of homosexuals in australia by the law.In your opinion,why isn't the rights of homosexuals protected in australia?
Posted by renee38, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 10:28:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
because no one has 'rights' in australia. rights come from power, and the ordinary ozzie has none. we have privileges, tho', and as long as we don't stand out from the mob, we can do what other sheep do. homosexuals stand out from the mob and can be attacked if the rulers wish.

one of the things that distinguish a democracy is a written constitution with a bill of rights: a list of freedoms that will be defended by law even if the victim is a minority person. no bill of rights? no rights at all. ozzies are terrified by democracy, most suspect they wouldn't know how to be a citizen. at the same time, they won't admit to any inferiority. this limits the intellectual bounds of political discussion, not only at the water-cooler, but also in academic circles.
Posted by DEMOS, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 2:49:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
renee

What rights are you talking about? Here in Australia a very small percentage of the population (homosexuals) receive more rights than most due to their political influence. They flaunt their unhealthy lifestyles at Mardi Gras and are totally over represented in organisations like our National Broadcasters. The taxpayer is happy to pay for their medical bills that result from their lifestyle. In Victoria they are granted exemptions to discrimmination laws where they are even allowed to exempt normal people (hetrosexuals) from a hotel. People practicing this lifestyle are judges, politicians, and even some so called clergy. I think you are sadly mistaken if you think these people are victimised by law. I am sure some individuals discrimmate against them but the law condones and in some cases encourages their behaviour.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 4:04:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DEMOS...your opening sentence was the most profound thing you've said for a while :) it happens that you are in full agreement with me on this.

Power is what determines our laws. If conservative people hold the reigns of power, laws will reflect the values they cherish. If libertrians hold power.. the laws will reflect that view.

There is no inalienable 'right' for anyone. EXCEPT of course... that set down by the Almighty. "Do for others as you would have them do for you" is rock solid.

RENEE.. bagaimana.. bisah berbual dalam bahasa ? *grin*

I think (Demos) we should start CHARGING these students who are increasingly using our massively well developed and experienced, mature brains as free educational consultants :)
*joke*

If I was intent on molesting your 9 yr old daughter, I'd expect you to THUMP me, subdue me and call the cops. As I would do to you or anyone else. Thats the negative side of course, on the positive, if we would like people to look after our lawn if we are going away for a few weeks, it stands to reason that we would be either pre-empting this with some act of good will, or following up with such.

RENEE..kiranya Tuhan memimpin setiap langkah mu kepada kebahagiaan dan persekutuan yang hangat, demi kasih dan anugerahNya.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 4:10:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
boaz, knowing i am in full agreement with you on anything is somewhat worrisome, but i will accept that you might agree with me occasionally, as a random thing.
Posted by DEMOS, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 8:29:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could you rephrase the question Renee?

Asking "WHY homosexual rights are not protected" in Australia is impossible to answer. "Why" is a question word best avoided if you want clear answers. The question is also vague and does not show context of situation, place, social, legal or day to day demonstration.

And Runner, are you suggesting that homosexuals should be discriminated against in the health system?

Talking of tax, I don't know of any homosexual men being payed baby bonuses, family tax deductions, super benefits for couples, child care subsidies and the list goes on. I know some lesbians do, and it is rare for gay couples to organise surrogate children.

If anything, homosexuals have minimal tax deductions. They therefore subsidise your benefits.

So you will respond that we need baby bonuses and benefits for the next generation of homosexuals to genenerate. This only proves my point. There should be less "us and them" and more on the general issues of the rights themselves.

With rights there are responsibilities. Should homosexuals earn their rights? We never did so I can't see any reason why they should: that would be discrimination. But the answer is, however, yes. In this country, homosexuals have shown restraint and responsibilities in sexually transmitted diseases, compared to the US and Europe. Australia is lucky to have such a well educated "gay community".

Makes little difference to me, the boring family man that writes to OLO. I still get tarred with the same brush when it comes to homophobia on this online service. The bullying towards this minority group is concerning. I get snubbed by some and snappy comments from others and I expect nothing less from these creatures.
Posted by saintfletcher, Wednesday, 13 June 2007 5:00:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Homosexuals are discriminated against,They are born that way, It is not something they decide to be. You as a hetrosexual would soon kick up a stink if the you could'nt get married.I know quite a few homosexuals and some of them have been together for 25 years or more.
So are these people discriminated against YES! as long as we have the Government governed by the church. Thats what killed the right to die
legistation in the Northern Territory, Most people for get no matter what there sexual orintation is. Every one has a right to be Happy.
You don't have homosexuals leaving school getting pregnant so they can live on a supporting parents pension and they don't stop at one they four or five children all to different Fathers,So how can you accuse homosexuals being more immoral then the young hetrosexual who has decided they are not going to work they will live off the tax payer.Most homosexual couples go out to work and pay taxes to support the hetrosexuals that decide having child after child is okay.As long as they get their pensions and baby bonuses.By the way I am a hetrosexual. Just in case you were wondering.
Posted by charlee, Wednesday, 13 June 2007 10:32:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't see how homosexuals can ever have equal rights.
An example;

If you were a public servant deciding on whether to grant adoption of
a young boy to a pair of homosexual men would you approve of it ?

If so you might need some very good insurance policy against being sued
in 20 years time when the boy realises what you did.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 13 June 2007 10:46:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like Saintfletcher, I had trouble with the "Why?"

I think that if we go back to the most basic reason why homosexual people are being discriminated against, we can see that religion is to blame.

It's all because it states in the bible (and I suppose in the Koran as well) that homosexuals should be stoned to death; correct me if I'm wrong.

With so many wowsers and religious zealots in our Australian government, it's no wonder that homosexual people haven't been granted the same privileges (or rights)as heterosexuals.

So there's your answer: homosexual people are being discriminated against because of a holy book called the bible.

We can't blame all Christians though- there are many who are more open-minded and less fundamental who do accept homosexuals, and there are homosexual Christians as well.
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 13 June 2007 11:04:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saintflether

I am not suggesting that homosexuals be discrimminated in the health system. However it obvious to anyone who is interested in facts that the homosexual lifestyle leads to all kinds of diseases. Their sexual practices are unnatural and the results of those practices are clearly seen. If you were to visit the infectous wards of the hospitals you would find many sick people as a result of their actions. These people need to and should be treated, however their lifestyle should not be promoted or condoned.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 13 June 2007 11:31:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner

Aren't you forgetting the days before penicillin when heterosexual communities were often ravaged with syphillis and gonorrohea? And from memory, weren't many babies born with syphillis, a result of its parents' "immoral" lifestyles? Heterosexual behaviour hasn't changed but medical advances have.

I doubt anyone is "promoting" the lifestyle of a homosexual but merely objecting to the discrimination which currently prevails.

After all, anyone in their right mind, would not choose to be homosexual, having to bear the prejudices of society. These are members of society who are simply being true to themselves - which I believe has resulted from an accident of birth.
Posted by dickie, Monday, 18 June 2007 1:18:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You can sum it up in one word;

UNCLEAN !
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 18 June 2007 5:55:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Put away social and religion.Don't you think homosexual couples are highly discriminated by the federal law compared to de facto heherosexual couples in terms of:

1) Marriage

2) Superannuation

3) Inheritance

4) Assisted reproductive technologies

5) Other financial matters

Australia,like the US is a democratic country.However,homosexuals are allowed to get hitched in US but not Australia.So comparatively,Dont u think that their rights are not as protected?Besides,seem like they're very much discriminated because of their sexuality.Dont u think the Commonwealth government should put an end to it?
Posted by chelle89, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 1:24:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,
what's unclean about homosexuality; there are condoms for protection and there is the shower for washing.
Anyway, what does it matter to YOU what they do in their bedroom. Are you saying that homosexuals should be discriminated against just because some people do not like what they are doing in their own bedrooms?
There may be heterosexual couples who have anal sex also; isn't that their business?

Chelle,
good points but I just want you to clarify something for me.
You said "homosexuals are allowed to get hitched in US but not Australia...."
I thought that only certain states in the US allowed same sex marriage. Am I misinformed about that?

And do homosexual couples have the same adoption rights as heterosexual couples in the US?

As far as I know, The Netherlands is the only country where homosexual couples have the exact same rights as heterosexual couples on all levels.
Not sure if Spain also has recently granted homosexuals the same adoption rights, I know they were making changes- not sure.

Belgium and Canada, although they allow same sex marriage, still have some restrictions about adoption, unless I'm not updated about changes.
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 2:01:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No matter how you spin it, UNCLEAN is the way it is.

If you were a public sevant would you approve two homosexuals adopting
a young boy ?

If you did you would want some good insurance, because in 20 years it
could come back and bight you.

Don't look to the government, they would run a mile.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 5:46:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz

If you are suggesting that homosexuals can cease being gay, then I must ask you: "Can you cease being heterosexual?"

I continue to believe that homosexuality is innate - genetic, and they can no more change than can a heterosexual.

Homosexuals should be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals - they do not prey on little children and as mentioned in an early post, there are many heterosexual males who insist on sodomising their female partners. Will you discriminate against them too?

Now to the subject of paedophiles where I confess, I do discriminate.

I don't believe paedophiles can change either and it is here, that I recommend chemical castration simply due to the heinous crimes against children and the long-term psychological effects on the victims.

Then you have the bi-sexuals. Now that's another subject. This type is a real worry since their female partners are usually unaware that they have been cheated on, which can place the female at significant risk.
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 6:27:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
chelle89, these questions have been answered in 2 other threads you've created at least.

The answer is, yes! No matter what your position is on the matter that is a fact.

Demos comment is accurate and insightful into our broken political system. If there were true individual rights, then this matter would be settled already in a final judgement.
Posted by Steel, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 10:03:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,
Even if it is unclean, what does it matter to YOU?

If you were a public sevant would you approve two homosexuals adopting a young boy? Yes, why not? Do you think that homosexuals are, by definition, pedophiles? Are you suggesting that child sex abuse does not happen inside heterosexual families? I’m sure the public servant checks out police records and suitability of all prospective adoptive parents.
I agree with dickie; homosexuality is innate. It’s also a natural phenomenon amongst animals.
With paedophiles, I’d say chemical or surgical castration is a must.

Dickie,
I am not sure whether the female partners of bi-sexual males are more at risk than the partners of heterosexual males; if one partner strays and does not use protection, isn’t there always a risk involved?
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 10:06:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"With paedophiles, I’d say chemical or surgical castration is a must."

Do you cut off a thieves hands? How about we castrate all criminals? There are so many ignorant implications to this statement it's ridiculous. Lets see,

1. Paedophiles are not automatically child molesters. They can lead productive lives without harming a child.
2. Child molesters are not automatically paedophiles.
3. If you believe in eugenics you may be required to remove the breeding rights of many Australians, yourself or members of your family.
4. Genes are carried by everyone and hidden. They may not express themselves.
5. The definitions of abuse, the abused. Some societies and cultures have different ages of consent. It seems to me that the opinion of the alleged victim is always ignored.
6. Various other points I can't be bothered wringing out. One of which is self-righteousness crusades and slogans. (War on Terror, War on Drugs) We have more than enough of those to sink public money into, rather than spending it on more constructive projects.
7. It may have counterproductive effects, as it could be a source of resentment that exacerbates their problems
Posted by Steel, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 11:04:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes you are correct Celivia. I guess I was concentrating more on the covert nature of the bisexual.

I get the impression that bisexuals appear to go to much greater lengths to hide their sexual orientation, where many unfaithful heterosexual males seemingly are less discreet - or do they simply underestimate their partners' intelligence?

I believe it is much less stressful now for the gay community since the majority are prepared to "come out." It's certainly a step forward for this section of our community who must now endeavour to obtain the same opportunities which the heterosexual community enjoys.

I get very cranky when I realise that paedophiles are permitted to have children when gays, who are in a long-term relationship, are denied the opportunity to adopt!
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 11:10:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel

Definition of a paedophile: An adult who is sexually attracted to children.

Chemically castration - recommended for active paedophiles i.e. those who continue to sexually assault children.

We are not suggesting castration for paedophiles who control their deviant inclinations and refrain from molesting children.

I disagree that it is we who are the ignorant ones! I prefer to protect children - not a recidivist paedophile thanks!
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 11:27:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And how does chemical castration protect children exactly?
Posted by Steel, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 11:29:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chemical castration eliminates the sexual urge.

I would allow these misfits two choices, Steel.

1. Incarcerate a recidivist paedophile indefinitely. Society will have to meet the enormous costs of the incarceration and the victims generally require long term expensive counselling where they are generally psychologically and/or physically damaged by "Mr Whippy" for the rest of their life.

2. Or chemical castration and allow the perpetrator to return to society, on a good behaviour bond. After all, there are many people in society who live quite happily without sexual urges.

If the perpetrator relapses with Choice 2 (as you are suggesting), return to Choice 1.

I am indifferent to any potential psychological damage to the perpetrator, as a result of castration.

What would your preference be, Steel?
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 11:59:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes.Homosexual marriages are only allowed in certain states in US.But not at all in Australia.And what about the adoption issue?Are they being treated fairly?Sorry Steel.I do get your point and appresiate it very much.
Posted by chelle89, Thursday, 5 July 2007 12:08:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*appreciate* amendments.
Posted by chelle89, Thursday, 5 July 2007 12:10:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel,
Dickie is correct, of course (chemical) castration only applies to paedophiles who have offended.
In my language (Dutch) there are two words to define paedophiles: there are paedophiles- the ones who can control themselves, and there are paedosexuals- they are the ones who have offended.

I know that there are paedophiles who have requested to be chemically castrated because they are so scared of their urges to have sex with children that they feel they cannot be trusted. I have uttermost respect for them.
I once helped counsel a paedophile (not a paedosexual) who was married but who never told his wife about his urges. When his wife wanted to start a family he realised he had to tell her. He knew that having a child around him all the time would be too tempting for him to resist. His wife is a warm, understanding woman, and the marriage survived. He can now come to his wife when he has hard times staying away from children; and at those times she will stay with her husband 24/7. The man loves children enough to not want to harm them. Not all paedophiles are monsters.

Other paedophiles haven’t been so lucky in finding such strong support and the ones who don’t want to harm kids resort to requesting castration.
I wish there was a better solution; one which would allow someone to have a normal sex life but to not be attracted to children. It seems quite cruel for someone to be deprived of normal sexual relationships, but until there is a better alternative, children will need to be protected.

Dickie outlines the options very well: incarceration or castration. What do you think of the option for paedosexuals who've been released from prison and banned from areas such as playgrounds and schools? I haven’t made up my mind about that yet, but have a feeling it would still put children in danger.

What do you propose as a solution, Steel?

Anyway, we strayed from the original topic- because some people find it hard to distinguish between homosexuals and paedophiles.
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 5 July 2007 10:35:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy