Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

homosexuality isn't a contagious disease..

were you being sarcastic there?

Yes, he was, and it would be great if everyone could just recognise this and move on.

 

[dora_18]

oh wow, we're posting things again!

 

[Generator]

Everyone - if the trolling continues I will be forced to lock this thread. Stop it. Now.

 

[withoutaface]

Everyone - if the trolling continues I will be forced to lock this thread. Stop it. Now.

Will the thread be closed because you're "a moderator", or because you're "a unique individual who happens to moderate"?

 

[dora_18]

does anyone else have any other comments to enlighten people with...
or for me to rebut against because of my increased boredom?

 

[ur_inner_child]

The way in which parents live out their lives is none of the children's concern nor should it really influence them. I think I raised this a while ago, but again, if I found out my mother was a prostitute, I would be alarmed and shocked, and would probably encourage her to change her career options, but other than that, I would still love her and probably wouldn't grow up to be a prositute.

ADDING to this, should we therefore not allow prostitutes to marry and have children under your theory? Not all of their children will become prositutes, but as you said, regarding influence, you want to minimise it entirely?

Children are autonomous as well. I, for one, am a more arts focused child compared to the rest of my family as well as a my aunties and uncles. The rest of them are more business. Who are you to try and minimise something entirely that does not always occur (assuming that it MIGHT happen)?

Anyway

Theory: Homosexual couples influence their children to become homosexual.

Reasons For

- Idea of influence: Family influence as well as commercial ads and their power to persuade.

Reasons Against

- No controlled experiment showing this theory to be correct, nor give any statistics. It is therefore a large leap to push this theory to be true.

- Evidence supporting the theory is hypothesised by the idea of influence is faulty. The evidence is incorrect, whereas in regards to sexuality: heterosexual couples surely did not influence their children to be homosexual.

BUT THEN

I aint saying that all children of homosexual parents will grow up to become homosexuals themselves, however, when an advertisment is presented on television promoting a certain car, not everyone goes out and purchases one right? No, but a hell of alot are influenced to buying one.

- No statistical evidence
- Large leap of belief
- Simplistic example that does not consider family dynamics and relationships
- And therefore does that mean that even if ONLY a percentage of homosexual parents raise homosexual kids, we should therefore eliminate all possibility?

Are you concerned with the idea that homosexuality will "increase" or are you really just not down with homosexual parents?

 

[withoutaface]

I'd point out that the whole "they'll make their kids gay" argument is a massive strawman unless you can show being gay is undesirable.

 

[Generator]

There is some really interesting points within your post ur_inner_child. However, before posting did you read it and understand what you had typed? Sounds to me like you’re attempting to introduce the concept that ‘parent’s actions don’t directly influence their child’? If this is what you’re insinuating, close the thread because it has transitioned from a very controversy topic to a moderator-deleting post-only-considering-information-they-agree-with, thread.

As I told you, secret, I only ever act whenever it is necessary - I cannot be held at fault for you being so thick as to take the bait offered by troll, can I?

Your argument is very forcefull ur_inner_child, but I couldn't be bothered responding to it in a constructive way because I notice it's evident that you only read the last paragraph of posts, then bombard people with your own interpretations and experiences which have probably never been negative in anyway.

END OF DISCUSSION.

For the final time, secret, if you are not going to participate in a constructive manner, then please don't waste our time with your meaningless and ignorant replies - despite what you have to say, most here continue to read what you post, and the least that you could do would be to return the favour and then argue the point.

Also, it would be great if you could allow other users to send PMs your way.

 

[robo-andie]

You can call me whatever you like generator, be it troll or childish.

Couldn't care if you refuse to read my posts generator, my point is directed well and I stand by what I have posted. I believe it was nessasary to slide of the rails a little regarding "constructive manner" because one other individual thinks it knows all. If I had a bucket of water, I would throw it at your heads.

I don't want to be banned for being too blunt, so please send pm -peace.

I would suggest if you have an issue with a moderator you contact them in the appropriate thread or if they are willing, PM them.

Your bickering with the moderators takes up space. You may think we have a choice to read your posts, but we really don't.

If we ignore your posts, we may allow you to say things which are unjustified or things which can be argued against. If we read your posts, we risk wasting time skimming through your pointless posts trying to find something relevant.

 

[ur_inner_child]

As A Thread Participant I say:

There is some really interesting points within your post ur_inner_child. However, before posting did you read it and understand what you had typed? Sounds to me like you’re attempting to introduce the concept that ‘parent’s actions don’t directly influence their child’?

Well clearly I hadn't said so, considering most of my post was constructed according to your theory about homosexuality as an influence.

If this is what you’re insinuating, close the thread because it has transitioned from a very controversy topic to a moderator-deleting post-only-considering-information-they-agree-with, thread.[/SIZE][/FONT]

No need, considering that's clearly not what I said. There is a thing called a grey area, where influence is not ALWAYS effective, in which you had agreed too, yet you did not agree with homosexual parents having children still. You want homosexual couples never to have children because of the idea of influence and that they MIGHT become homosexual themselves. I merely stated the problem with this - its not always the case, and posed a question, asking why do you feel the need to eradicate all possibility of homosexuality being influenced...

Is it just me? -or does anyone agree when I say that people on www.boredofstudies.org were born in a perfect house with perfect parents and never experienced anything negative in their fucking-to-good-for-you-quick chat life?

That's a bit rough, considering you have no idea about my life.

You flex your intellectual capacity in the wrong direction? –I don’t expect anyone to agree but I’ve been heard.

Well no. I feel dirty saying it, but to really disprove that, I don't have parents anymore, put it that way.

If this is an indication of how people are @ university –I’d rather go on unemployment.

A bit quick to judge?

Your argument is very forcefull ur_inner_child,

I apologise, but I have a bit of passion about this subject. A lot of my friends have different sexualities and I want to shed light on how good and moral a lot of such people are. Normal, if anything. I do apologise if it was forceful, but I push as much as you push, secret. When someone disagrees with you strongly, it is not meant to be taken of offense. Not once had I sworn or abused you in that above post. You, however, use a lot of swear words and abusive words which I have tried to warn you about, but you have not got your PM function on. If you call my post forceful, I apologise, but it was by no means abusive, compared to your posts.

but I couldn't be bothered responding to it in a constructive way

By forum rules, you are obliged to.

because I notice it's evident that you only read the last paragraph of posts, then bombard people with your own interpretations and experiences which have probably never been negative in anyway.

Actually no. I will re-read your posts, sure, but I will not let down the fact that you seem to take deconstructions of people's opinion far too personally. So I attacked your point of view. It is what we do on forums, to discuss matters. It's like a debate, for a good argument, I will attack your point of view for credibility, proof and logic. You can do the same with my posts. Often, a lot of members can find flaws in my argument, and I willingly withdraw and say "I never thought of it that way", or in other admirable cases, people reply by saying "I respect your point of view, it's justified, but I still stand with my view".

Again, please do not assume my life especially based on a internet forum. It is not like real life, so don't take things like deconstruction far too personally.

It is a place to exchange ideas. If you have problems, moderators are there to assist you. Moderators think objectively when they are on duty. When participating in discussions like these, of course I have my own ideas, but when I am on duty such as deleting posts etc, I respond objectively.

Now, as a Moderator:

I'm sorry this unpleasantness occured, but secret, this is not the first time you have disagreed personally with a member. Please refrain the use of swear words and abusive words in the forums.

Because you have not enabled a PM function, I cannot do the following privately with you.

This is your final warning and action will be taken if you do not comply.

Certain cases I have recorded are times when you may have the right idea about a thread, but you severely abuse the member, telling them to "fuck off and die" etc. If this behaviour continues, again, action will be taken.


How to Improve Your Behaviour

When you disagree with a member's post, you disprove its credibility by deconstructing it. Not only does this make an effective argument in favour of your side, but dismantles the other member in a very civil manner, so they do not lose face, and they can still be up for another friendly argument in another thread, rather feeling threatened about what they have to say.

I do, however, will not let this taint any further discussions with you secret. There are threads where you've posted that I agree on, it's just riddled with abuse. If you please minimise this, as well as try to not take disagreements personally, then I'm sure you can be a great and valuable member to the BoS community.

Regards,

~Stef

 

[Generator]

It's no good notifying moderators either because I am fairly sure most of the ones abusing around here are friends of mods -quick-chat heroes.

Please, notify the mods should something be amiss.

Plenty of space here champion, I believe there is nearly as much if not more than 90.000 threads. Don't dribble shit -you have a choice to read my posts, all you have to do is scroll past it.

You have a funny way of being polite, secret, especially when one takes the time to read robo-andie's post - a more than reasonable post that you would be best to reconsider.

I doubt it’s my personal behavior that needs to be considered in this particular situation ur_inner_child. Well, yea it probably is. However, as a moderator, I would suspect you were given guidelines regarding people's behavior? I ask that you apply them to all, not just selected individuals.

Remove your rose-tinted glasses and take a step back, secret - you aren't being targeted, you are merely being brought back into line. However, should you not agree, then I suggest that you take your complaint to a supermod or an admin.

Like I said before "the way in which I structure my wording may seem abusive" -when in fact, it's not intended to be.

If that's the case, then you would be best to do all that you can to change your manner of expression.

Generator, it would be nice if you stop deleting my post as I was trying to gain information regarding journal entries that prove "homosexuality is contagious" – I am not being childish by asking her, I was simply interested in her post.

As I said, you were baited by a couple of part-time trolls - crazyhomo and withoutaface were just out to get a response and as such I deleted the entire exchange given that it was of no relevance to the thread.

Regarding other peoples opinions generator. I do, and I will continue to analyse and respect other posts for the duration I am here.

Anyways, my posts will no longer contain inappropriate usage of text and I fully understand the warnings and deserve them.

I will hold you to the above, secret.

However, make sure you apply the same rules to all.

The rules are applied across the board, secret.

---

Edit: From this point on I hope that we can all confine such discussions to PMs, because it's time for this thread to get back on topic.

 

[magicandlove]

I strongly support Gays, and gay marriages, being bisexual myself. We should be allowed to marry or form a union as it is. After all, its a bond, a form of love the same as hetrosexual people's relationships...if not a bit stronger(my own personal thought, with past experience.) Im also a Church Of England person, and i follow the faith closly, but even though it 'condems me' for being gay, we cant help who we are, or they way we think! Who is to say that being Gay is wrong? Think if the roles were reversed if hetreosexual relationships were treated as gay relationships are treated today? Me and My group of gay friends, and many of their friends, have agreed that if this was the case, that'd we'd support the hetrosexual marriage....beause love is love, and lets leave it at that.
Peace

magicandlove

 

[withoutaface]

same as hetrosexual people's relationships...if not a bit stronger.

Provide a basis for this claim or recognise that you're actually just exhibiting reverse-homophobia.

 

[Xayma]

I can tell you know, Gay people wouldn't give a rats arse....love is love and lets just leave it at that.

Like hell they wouldn't. A large proportion of people will sieze power if they can to get themselves ahead in the world, not everybody, but the percentage isn't necessairly tied into the orientation. Your statement is similar to saying that black rights groups would treat women with respect, however, cases like the Black Panthers show this not to necessairly be true.

The only thing that could possibly be different is that sex is inherently necessary for reproduction but that does not mean that it would be seen as desirable or anything but a necessity.

 

[Oddy Nocki]

Are you concerned with the idea that homosexuality will "increase" or are you really just not down with homosexual parents?

This is a complicated subject for alsorts of reasons. But I'll through my hat in and say. I don't care if there is an "increase" in Homos. I don't have problem if you have a desire to ram other men or you want to suck muff. Whatever. That's your call. But I don't like the concept of Gays being parents. Not because of some bullshit. "I think you are less of a person, you shouldn't have children because of your lifestyle". I think stupid people shouldn't have children either but what are you going to do.

It is a selfish choice. Basically you are ignoring the child's welfare. Sure they may turn out straight or gay. I don't even care about that. But to basically undermine both proper emotional and social development from the beginning is in my eyes complete against the "child's interest" remembering of coarse that this person has no say in how it's raised and what it will experience.

In my eyes I would want to put the best foot forward for my child. Homosexual parents is WILL impact them negativly.

"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children"

 

[kami]

Basically you are ignoring the child's welfare. Sure they may turn out straight or gay. I don't even care about that. But to basically undermine both proper emotional and social development from the beginning is in my eyes complete against the "child's interest" remembering of coarse that this person has no say in how it's raised and what it will experience.

In my eyes I would want to put the best foot forward for my child. Homosexual parents is WILL impact them negativly.

What is it about being raised by a same sex couple that impedes emotional and social development? Given the flexibility of traditional gender roles in recent years, even opposite sex couples are not neccesarily going to have the traditional man and woman rearing a child. Instead positions within the family are, as often as not, negotiated between a couple - much as they would have to be in a same sex couple...

Who is to say that being Gay is wrong? Think if the roles were reversed if hetreosexual relationships were treated as gay relationships are treated today? Me and My group of gay friends, and many of their friends, have agreed that if this was the case, that'd we'd support the hetrosexual marriage....beause love is love, and lets leave it at that.

There is a rather interesting phenomena called biphobia, perpretrated by both homosexuals and heterosexuals. It is discrimination and marginalisation of someone for being bisexual and it is not that uncommon among the gay community. So I don't exactly understand where you'd get the idea that homosexuals would not apply prejudice if they were the dominant group - they're already doing so...

 

[ur_inner_child]

Okay,

What is the difference between a single mother who lives with her sister and both help out to raise the children? Is that not an "unusual family"?

By memory I knew a boy who got laughed at on Fathers Day when he said he had no dad. Kids take anything that is different from them and can use it as an attack. Should we blame the parents for not keeping the family intact (the father left the mother)? Back in racist Australia, should we criticise anglo-saxon Australians that choose to marry an Aboriginal? Or any sort of mixed marriage, just because the children will be teased because society found it unacceptable at the time? How can you claim to not have a problem with homosexuals, yet still say "you can't have children, because your children will be abused". What reasoning is that? My grandparents shouldn't have had my parents, because they were asian, and would be subject to abuse?

Is the difference here love? The fact that homosexuals love each other sexually? If its the sexual love that is a concern, why is a single mother "not" a concern when she (assumingly) displays no sexual love for anyone?

I'm just trying to indicate the "actual" and "core" problem, if people stress that it is not homosexuality that they have a problem with.

 

[ur_inner_child]

About this above post I made - I did genuinely want to know.

 

[dora_18]

What is the difference between a single mother who lives with her sister and both help out to raise the children? Is that not an "unusual family"?

Yeah, i was attempting to make a similar point in this thread once..

I completely agree, i don't think there is any way to criticise the way people raise their children because most family situations within contemporary society are not the "traditional family" . People are divorced, seperated, some kids come from violent and drug-abusive home...some get raised by different people, i dont think that the fact that gay couples want to raise children raises any different paths to discrimination that don't already exist in similar ways.

 

[goldendawn]

Homosexuality is just generally WRONG and so help me god if same sex marriages occur. People were made for the oppossite sex.

There is an exception to every conceivable rule; since when is anything in nature right or wrong? Homosexuality exists, we're not dealing with lofty moral excursions here. Homosexuality is the way many people express love and attraction, and limiting the diversity of relationships between consenting adults is not only cruel and exclusive, it also limits our thinking and the growth of our civilisation.