Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Homophobe: A Logical Response to an Ignorant Ideology file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Homophobe: A Logical Response to an Ignorant Ideology book. Happy reading Homophobe: A Logical Response to an Ignorant Ideology Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Homophobe: A Logical Response to an Ignorant Ideology at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Homophobe: A Logical Response to an Ignorant Ideology Pocket Guide.
You are here

When information cascades form a pattern, this pattern can begin to overpower later opinions by making it seem as if a consensus already exists. For the opposite of this fallacy see the Romantic Rebel fallacy. So long as you are faithfully following orders without question I will defend you and gladly accept all the consequences up to and including eternal damnation if I'm wrong. BUT, your crime was so unspeakable and a trial would be so problematic for national security that it justifies locking you up for life in Guantanamo without trial, conviction or possibility of appeal.

Sometimes the bolder and more outlandish the Big Lie becomes the more credible it seems to a willing, most often angry audience. Writer Miles J. The November, U. President-elect's statement that "millions" of ineligible votes were cast in that year's American. You're a hard worker but who am I going to believe, you or him? You're fired! Brainwashing also, Propaganda, "Radicalization. They're trying to brainwash you with their propaganda!

Such "brainwashing" can also be accomplished by pleasure " Love Bombing ," ; e. I know you did. Well, there's lots more where that came from when you sign on with us! Note: Only the other side brainwashes. The fallacy of "persuasion" by bribery, gifts or favors is the reverse of the Argumentum ad Baculum. As is well known, someone who is persuaded by bribery rarely "stays persuaded" in the long term unless the bribes keep on coming in and increasing with time.

See also Appeasement. Calling "Cards": A contemporary fallacy of logos, arbitrarily and falsely dismissing familiar or easily-anticipated but valid, reasoned objections to one's standpoint with a wave of the hand, as mere "cards" in some sort of "game" of rhetoric, e. Because witches threaten our very eternal salvation. See also the "Big Lie technique. A corruption of the argument from logos. Confirmation Bias: A fallacy of logos, the common tendency to notice, search out, select and share evidence that confirms one's own standpoint and beliefs, as opposed to contrary evidence.

This fallacy is how "fortune tellers" work--If I am told I will meet a "tall, dark stranger" I will be on the lookout for a tall, dark stranger, and when I meet someone even marginally meeting that description I will marvel at the correctness of the "psychic's" prediction. In contemporary times Confirmation Bias is most often seen in the tendency of various audiences to "curate their political environments, subsisting on one-sided information diets and [even] selecting into politically homogeneous neighborhoods" Michael A.

Neblo et al. Confirmation Bias also, Homophily means that people tend to seek out and follow solely those media outlets that confirm their common ideological and cultural biases, sometimes to an degree that leads a the false implicit or even explicit conclusion that "everyone" agrees with that bias and that anyone who doesn't is "crazy," "looney," evil or even "radicalized. It may be nothing but a clunker that can't make it up a steep hill, but it's mine , and to me it's better than some millionaire's limo. The opposite of this fallacy is that of Nihilism "Tear it all down!

Defensiveness also, Choice-support Bias: Myside Bias : A fallacy of ethos one's own , in which after one has taken a given decision, commitment or course of action, one automatically tends to defend that decision and to irrationally dismiss opposing options even when one's decision later on proves to be shaky or wrong. Sure, he turned out to be a crook and a liar and he got us into war, but I still say that at that time he was better than the available alternatives!

Diminished Responsibility : The common contemporary fallacy of applying a specialized judicial concept that criminal punishment should be less if one's judgment was impaired to reality in general. Whether the perpetrator was high or not does not matter at all since the material results are the same. This also includes the fallacy of Panic , a very common contemporary fallacy that one's words or actions, no matter how damaging or evil, somehow don't "count" because "I panicked!

Dog-Whistle Politics: An extreme version of reductionism and sloganeering in the public sphere, a contemporary fallacy of logos and pathos in which a brief phrase or slogan of the hour, e. Any reasoned attempt to more clearly identify, deconstruct or challenge an opponent's "dog whistle" appeal results in puzzled confusion at best and wild, irrational fury at worst. In this fallacy of logos an otherwise uninformed audience is presented with carefully selected and groomed, "shocking facts" and then prompted to immediately "draw their own conclusions.

However, Dr. William Lorimer points out that "The only rational response to the non-argument is 'So what? The Dunning-Kruger Effect: A cognitive bias that leads people of limited skills or knowledge to mistakenly believe their abilities are greater than they actually are. Thanks to Teaching Tolerance for this definition! Anthony won equal rights for women, and Martin Luther King said "I have a dream!

Why do I need to take a history course? I know everything about history! An extreme example of this fallacy is Waving the Bloody Shirt also , the "Blood of the Martyrs" Fallacy , the fallacy that a cause or argument, no matter how questionable or reprehensible, cannot be questioned without dishonoring the blood and sacrifice of those who died so nobly for that cause. What's it gonna be? Also applies to falsely contrasting one option or case to another that is not really opposed, e. Or, falsely posing a choice of either helping needy American veterans or helping needy foreign refugees, when in fact in today's United States there are ample resources available to easily do both should we care to do so.

See also, Overgeneralization. Equivocation : The fallacy of deliberately failing to define one's terms, or knowingly and deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand. The Eschatological Fallacy: The ancient fallacy of arguing, "This world is coming to an end, so There are some things that we as humans are simply not meant to know!

Also refers to the fallacy of arguing that something is a certain way "by nature," an empty claim that no amount of proof can refute. Don't you know that the French word for "fish" is 'poisson,' which looks just like the English word 'poison'? And doesn't that suggest something to you?

As Texas politician and humorist Jim Hightower famously declares in an undated quote, " The middle of the road is for yellow lines and dead armadillos. An adolescent fallacy of pathos, attempting to defend or strengthen one's argument with gratuitous, unrelated sexual, obscene, vulgar, crude or profane language when such language does nothing to make an argument stronger, other than perhaps to create a sense of identity with certain young male "urban" audiences.

This fallacy also includes adding gratuitous sex scenes or "adult" language to an otherwise unrelated novel or movie, sometimes simply to avoid the dreaded "G" rating. Historically, this dangerous fallacy was deeply implicated with the crime of lynching, in which false, racist accusations against a Black or minority victim were almost always salacious in nature and the sensation involved was successfully used to whip up public emotion to a murderous pitch.

See also, Red Herring. The False Analogy : The fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion. Sometimes those involved internalize "buy into" the "job" and make the task a part of their own ethos. But I guess it's OK because for them it's just a job like any other, the job that they get paid to do. I can say anything I want to! I think I'm going to cry! Bill Hart Davidson notes that "Ironically, the most strident calls for 'safety' come from those who want us to issue protections for discredited ideas.

Things that science doesn't support AND that have destroyed lives - things like the inherent superiority of one race over another. Those ideas wither under demands for evidence. But let's be clear: they are unwelcome because they have not survived the challenge of scrutiny. Additionally, a recent scientific study has found that, in fact, " people think harder and produce better political arguments when their views are challenged " and not artificially protected without challenge. The Fundamental Attribution Error also, Self Justification : A corrupt argument from ethos, this fallacy occurs as a result of observing and comparing behavior.

So, for example, I get up in the morning at 10 a. I say it is because my neighbors party until 2 in the morning situation but I say that the reason why you do it is that you are lazy. Interestingly, it is more common in individualistic societies where we value self volition. Collectivist societies tend to look at the environment more.

It happens there, too, but it is much less common. Me, or your own eyes? Think again! You're crazy! You seriously need to see a shrink. Now take a time-out and you'll feel better. A form of Ad Hominem Argument, e. She's a Republican so you can't trust anything she says," or "Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

Hero-Busting also, "The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good" : A postmodern fallacy of ethos under which, since nothing and nobody in this world is perfect there are not and have never been any heroes: Washington and Jefferson held slaves, Lincoln was by our contemporary standards a racist, Karl Marx sexually exploited his family's own young live-in domestic worker and got her pregnant, Martin Luther King Jr. An early example of this latter tactic is deftly described in Robert Penn Warren's classic novel, All the King's Men.

This is the opposite of the "Heroes All" fallacy, below. The "Hero Busting" fallacy has also been selectively employed at the service of the Identity Fallacy see below to falsely "prove" that "you cannot trust anyone" but a member of "our" identity-group since everyone else , even the so-called "heroes" or "allies" of other groups, are all racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, or hate "us. Civil War either with or without freeing the slaves if it would preserve the Union, thus "conclusively proving" that all whites are viciously racist at heart and that African Americans must do for self and never trust any of "them," not even those who claim to be allies.

Heroes All also, "Everybody's a Winner" : The contemporary fallacy that everyone is above average or extraordinary. A corrupted argument from pathos not wanting anyone to lose or to feel bad. Thus, every member of the Armed Services, past or present, who serves honorably is a national hero, every student who competes in the Science Fair wins a ribbon or trophy, and every racer is awarded a winner's yellow jersey.

Related Articles

This corruption of the argument from pathos, much ridiculed by disgraced American humorist Garrison Keeler, ignores the fact that if everybody wins nobody wins, and if everyone's a hero no one's a hero. The logical result of this fallacy is that, as children's author Alice Childress writes , " A hero ain't nothing but a sandwich. That proves you cheated! I Wish I Had a Magic Wand: The fallacy of regretfully and falsely proclaiming oneself powerless to change a bad or objectionable situation over which one has power. Or, "No, you can't quit piano lessons. I wish I had a magic wand and could teach you piano overnight, but I don't, so like it or not, you have to keep on practicing.

See also, TINA. In this fallacy, valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside or "othered" without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about solely because of the lack of proper background or ethos of the person making the argument, or because the one arguing does not self-identify as a member of the "in-group. An Identity Fallacy may lead to scorn or rejection of potentially useful allies, real or prospective, because they are not of one's own identity. The Identity Fallacy promotes an exclusivist, sometimes cultish "do for self" philosophy which in today's world virtually guarantees self-marginalization and ultimate defeat.

A recent application of the Identity Fallacy is the fallacious accusation of " Cultural Appropriation," in which those who are not of the right Identity are condemned for "appropriating" the cuisine, clothing, language or music of a marginalized group, forgetting the old axiom that "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. They even dare to play Mexican music in their dining room! That's cultural appropriation!

See also, Othering. Origins of this fallacy predate the current era in the form of "Yellow" or "Tabloid" Journalism. This deadly fallacy has caused endless social unrest, discontent and even shooting wars e. See also Dog-Whistle Politics.

Antifa’s Brutal Assault on Andy Ngo Is a Wake-Up Call—for Authorities and Journalists Alike

The opposite of the Appeal to Heaven, this is the fallacy employed by the Westboro Baptist Church members who protest fallen service members' funerals all around the United States. See also, Magical Thinking. Just Do it. Well, find a way! Make it disappear! Just do it! I don't want to know how you do it, just do it! This fallacy arbitrarily proclaims a priori that since we can never know everything or securely foresee anything , sooner or later in today's "complex world" unforeseeable adverse consequences and negative side effects so-called "unknown unknowns" will always end up blindsiding and overwhelming, defeating and vitiating any and all naive "do-gooder" efforts to improve our world.

Instead, one must always expect defeat and be ready to roll with the punches by developing "grit" or "resilience" as a primary survival skill. This nihilist fallacy is a practical negation of the the possibility of any valid argument from logos. When expressed as a percentage of the national debt, the cost of getting a college education is actually far less today than it was back in !

A corrupted argument from logos, often preying on the public's perceived or actual mathematical ignorance. This includes the Tiny Percentage Fallacy , that an amount or action that is quite significant in and of itself somehow becomes insignificant simply because it's a tiny percentage of something much larger.

Sargon's Petition: A Measured Response

Historically, sales taxes or value-added taxes VAT have successfully gained public acceptance and remain "under the radar" because of this latter fallacy, even though amounting to hundreds or thousands of dollars a year in extra tax burden. In practice this nihilist fallacy denies the existence of a rational or predictable universe and thus the possibility of any valid argument from logic.

This latter is a common practice in American jurisprudence, and is sometimes portrayed as the worst face of "Sophism. A particularly bizarre and corrupt form of this latter fallacy is Self Deception also, Whistling by the Graveyard. Measurability: A corrupt argument from logos and ethos that of science and mathematics , the modern Fallacy of Measurability proposes that if something cannot be measured, quantified and replicated it does not exist, or is "nothing but anecdotal, touchy-feely stuff" unworthy of serious consideration, i.

Often, achieving "Measurability" necessarily demands preselecting, "fiddling" or "massaging" the available data simply in order to make it statistically tractable, or in order to support a desired conclusion. Scholar Thomas Persing thus describes "The modernist fallacy of falsely and inappropriately applying norms, standardizations, and data point requirements to quantify productivity or success.

For example, the calculation of inflation in the United States doesn't include the changes in the price to gasoline, because the price of gasoline is too volatile, despite the fact gasoline is necessary for most people to live their lives in the United States. The rhetor deploys this phony "knowledge" as a fallacious warrant for or against a given standpoint.

The opposite of this fallacy is the postmodern fallacy of Mind Blindness also, the Autist's Fallacy , a complete denial of any normal human capacity for "Theory of Mind," postulating the utter incommensurability and privacy of minds and thus the impossibility of ever knowing or truly understanding another's thoughts, emotions, motivations or intents. This fallacy, much promoted by the late postmodernist guru Jacques Derrida, necessarily vitiates any form of Stasis Theory.

However, the Fallacy of Mind Blindness has been decisively refuted in several studies, including recent research published by the Association for Psychological Science , and a Derxel University study indicating how "our minds align when we communicate. The opposite of this fallacy is the excessively rare in our times ethical fallacy of Scruples, in which one obsesses to pathological excess about one's accidental, forgotten, unconfessed or unforgiven sins and because of them, the seemingly inevitable prospect of eternal damnation.

That way lies torture, heretic-burning, and the Spanish Inquisition. Those who practice this vicious fallacy reject any "moral equivalency" i. This fallacy is a specific denial of the ancient "Golden Rule," and has been the cause of endless intractable conflict, since if one is Righteous no negotiation with Evil and its minions is possible; The only imaginable road to a "just" peace is through total victory, i.

Mortification also, Live as Though You're Dying; Pleasure-hating; No Pain No Gain : An ancient fallacy of logos, trying to "beat the flesh into submission" by extreme exercise or ascetic practices, deliberate starvation or infliction of pain, denying the undeniable fact that discomfort and pain exist for the purpose of warning of lasting damage to the body.

Extreme examples of this fallacy are various forms of self-flagellation such as practiced by the New Mexico " Penitentes " during Holy Week or by Shia devotees during Muharram. More familiar contemporary manifestations of this fallacy are extreme "insanity" exercise regimes not intended for normal health, fitness or competitive purposes but just to "toughen" or "punish" the body. Certain pop-nutritional theories and diets seem based on this fallacy as well. Some contemporary experts suggest that self-mortification an English word related to the Latinate French root "mort," or "death.

The opposite of this fallacy is the ancient fallacy of Hedonism , seeking and valuing physical pleasure as a good in itself, simply for its own sake. Moving the Goalposts also, Changing the Rules; All's Fair in Love and War; The Nuclear Option; "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" : A fallacy of logos, demanding certain proof or evidence, a certain degree of support or a certain number of votes to decide an issue, and then when this is offered, demanding even more, different or better support in order to deny victory to an opponent.

For those who practice the fallacy of Moral Superiority above , Moving the Goalposts is often perceived as perfectly good and permissible if necessary to prevent the victory of Wickedness and ensure the triumph of one's own side, i. A corrupt argument from ethos one's own. You're not a cop, you're not my nanny. It's my business if I want to speed, and your business to get the hell out of my way.

Mind your own damn business! So what? Butt out! It wasn't your brat, so it's none of your damn business! Author Joseph Conrad graphically describes this sort of moral degradation in the character of Kurtz in his classic novel, Heart of Darkness. Name-Calling: A variety of the "Ad Hominem" argument. This fallacy is found even in the field of science, as noted by a recent scientific study. Lacking that, it can be made to go away by simply eliminating, censoring or ignoring "negative" media coverage and public discussion of the problem and focusing on "positive, encouraging" things instead.

That's for lawyers, liars and pansies and is nothing but a delaying tactic. A real man stands tall, says what he thinks, draws fast and shoots to kill. See also, The Pout. Often the underlying theory is that the situation is "temporary" and will soon be reversed. Perversely, in the U.

President-Elect caused a significant international flap by chatting with the President of the government on Taiwan, a de facto violation of long-standing American non-recognition of that same regime. More than half a century after the Korean War the U. An individual who practices this fallacy risks institutionalization e. I refuse to watch you bury her! The Non Sequitur : The deluded fallacy of offering evidence, reasons or conclusions that have no logical connection to the argument at hand e.

See also Red Herring. Occasionally involves the breathtaking arrogance of claiming to have special knowledge of why God, fate, karma or the Universe is doing certain things. Like I told you before, there's nothing new under the sun! Olfactory Rhetoric also, "The Nose Knows" : A vicious, zoological-level fallacy of pathos in which opponents are marginalized, dehumanized or hated primarily based on their supposed odor, lack of personal cleanliness, imagined diseases or filth. And have you ever smelled their kitchens? A study by Ruhr University Bochum suggests that olfactory rhetoric does not arise from a simple, automatic physiological reaction to an actual odor, but in fact, strongly depends on one's predetermined reaction or prejudices toward another, and one's olfactory center "is activated even before we perceive an odour.

Ignore what I said. Sorry 'bout that! Othering also Otherizing, "They're Not Like Us," Stereotyping, Xenophobia, Racism, Prejudice : A badly corrupted, discriminatory argument from ethos where facts, arguments, experiences or objections are arbitrarily disregarded, ignored or put down without serious consideration because those involved "are not like us," or "don't think like us.

  1. Now That I Am Saved.
  2. Weathermen;
  3. Homophobia - Conservapedia.

They don't think about life and death the same way we do. A variation on this fallacy is the "Speakee" Fallacy "You speakee da English? Overexplanation: A fallacy of logos stemming from the real paradox that beyond a certain point, more explanation, instructions, data, discussion, evidence or proof inevitably results in less, not more, understanding. Contemporary urban mythology holds that this fallacy is typically male " Mansplaining " , while barely half a century ago the prevailing myth was that it was men who were naturally monosyllabic, grunting or non-verbal while women would typically overexplain e.

Or, attempting to refute "Black Lives Matter" by replying, "All Lives Matter," the latter undeniably true but still a fallacious overgeneralization in that specific and urgent context. Overgeneralization may also include the the Pars pro Toto Fallacy , the stupid but common fallacy of incorrectly applying one or two true examples to all cases.

Famously, the case of one Willie Horton was successfully used in this manner in the American presidential election to smear African Americans, Liberals, and by extension, Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis. See also the fallacy of "Zero Tolerance" below. The Paralysis of Analysis also, Procrastination; the Nirvana Fallacy : A postmodern fallacy that since all data is never in, any conclusion is always provisional, no legitimate decision can ever be made and any action should always be delayed until forced by circumstances. See also the "Law of Unintended Consequences.

Scholar Jackson Katz notes : "We talk about how many women were raped last year, not about how many men raped women. We talk about how many girls in a school district were harassed last year, not about how many boys harassed girls. We talk about how many teenage girls in the state of Vermont got pregnant last year, rather than how many men and boys impregnated teenage girls.

  • homophobe a logical response to an ignorant ideology Manual!
  • Free Thought Lives!
  • Homophobe: A Logical Response to an Ignorant Ideology by J. J. Morrow - Read Online!
  • Questions for Homosexuals--and those in favor it--Follow-up |
  • So you can see how the use of the passive voice has a political effect. Even the term 'Violence against women' is problematic. It's a passive construction; there's no active agent in the sentence. It's a bad thing that happens to women, but when you look at the term 'violence against women' nobody is doing it to them, it just happens to them Men aren't even a part of it. An obverse of the Passive Voice Fallacy is the Be-verb Fallacy , a cultish linguistic theory and the bane of many a first-year composition student's life, alleging that an extraordinary degree of "clarity," "sanity," or textual "liveliness" can be reached by strictly eliminating all passive verb forms and all forms of the verb "to be" from English-language writing.

    This odd but unproven contention, dating back to Alfred Korzybski's "General Semantics" self-improvement movement of the 's and '30's via S. Hayakawa, blithely ignores the fact that although numerous major world languages lack a ubiquitous "be-verb," e. Paternalism: A serious fallacy of ethos, arbitrarily tut-tutting, dismissing or ignoring another's arguments or concerns as "childish" or "immature;" taking a condescending attitude of superiority toward opposing standpoints or toward opponents themselves. Try approaching the issue like an adult for a change," "I don't argue with children ," or "Somebody has to be the grownup in the room, and it might as well be me.

    Here's why you're wrong It had to happen! It's my usual rotten luck that the biggest blizzard of the year had to occur just on the day of our winter festival. If it wasn't for ME being involved I'm sure the blizzard wouldn't have happened! Hitler evidently believed that simply because he was Hitler every bullet would miss him and no explosive could touch him. Just tell me the Plain Truth about why this is happening. See also, The Snow Job, and Overexplanation. The opposite of this is the postmodern fallacy of Ineffability or Complexity also, Truthiness; Post-Truth , , arbitrarily declaring that today's world is so complex that there is no truth, or that Truth capital-T , if indeed such a thing exists, is unknowable except perhaps by God or the Messiah and is thus forever inaccessible and irrelevant to us mere mortals, making any cogent argument from logos impossible.

    I saw a documentary recently explaining at what time during pregnancy the differences between male and female brains are formed, and that the way it forms depends on hormone levels. These hormone levels are certainly influenced by things other than the foetus's genes for example, things the mother does and so it is certainly possible for a genetic male to have a female brain.

    It isn't common, but why should those to whom it happens be demonized? I dont get that.. I appreciate your effort, but at this point, it seems you just dont want stuff to change. Well tough - stuff changes, and your daughter would do well if you taught her to cope with that - your inability to adjust to what is inevitable change is..

    Agree wholeheartedly with you Graham C If you do not agree with Frau Merkel and her socialist agenda she is from communist Germany after all you are quickly labelled inhumane, racist, facist, Nazi or Islamaphobic. However, the EU general public are now voting against these socialist policies and you guessed it, the socialist left are now calling these voters ignorant and uneducated. These socialists never see the facts or let the truth get in the way of their idealistic agenda until it is too late.

    I found this article to be breathtaking in it's hypocrisy, not because of the content, but the fact a member of the Catholic Church, an organisation that has a very well established record for abusing and raping children and then bullying them into silence, from positions of power when the victims were kids and then legally when they are adults, to protect its brand name, comes here to complain about an anti bullying program.

    Rhino If I were a paedophile priest teacher, or paedophile non-priest teacher for that matter, who intended to indulge my proclivities, I would welcome a program which enabled me to tell young kids in my charge that firstly, it is perfectly OK for them and for anyone and everyone else to have and indulge in whatever sexual feelings and preferences they think they might have, and secondly that anything said in response to any such individual expressing their sexual preferences and feelings in some way was bullying and verboten.

    Guess we're just going to have to scrap all sex ed and never tell kids that sex is a thing ever again. Oh, wait, consent is usually discussed in these contexts? Who would have thought it. So spud, you are in the belief the program includes the promotion of unlawful behaviour against children? This is the level of opposition? Of course not James. But the fact that it is not being promoted within the material itself doesn't mean that a person with half a brain cannot turn talk in relation to tolerance and acceptance of different sexual orientations to his or her own advantage.

    To return your own question, that is your level of support; that you cannot see that possibility ever arising? I assume by your comment in condemning everyone in the Catholic church that you also believe every Muslim is a terrorist. If that is not the case your own hypocrisy is also breathtaking.

    Rhino, Let stop the blame and disrespect for those in some group which has been exposed as "serial child abusers"!!! I think we've got most of them now, and they are paying for their crimes against our community. It will not bring those whom end their lives because of it either. In 20 years time we'll have the same thing again for sure. You think it has ended? This is just the beginning. The fact still remains, a child will be more likely abused by someone within their own family networks, then outside of their family. That is proven point. So by your analysis of the situation, is that any person who has a family, has no credit, and no right to express different views to you?

    Seriously grab a coffee, and sit down Rhino. It has blinded you to what is being discussed. Are you so blind to the majority wishes? You would note that most of that heterosexual group believe people should be able to live as they want too. On a personal note, I think we should all belong to the LGBTQI, so children don't get sent to parents that see walking down my street everyday.

    You don't need a licence to have children, but maybe their should be some licence requirements, or do you see that a step to far Rhino? As to your next point I never claimed to be speaking as a "family representative" of anykind. The majority can often be right, but sometimes very wrong. As for your last sentence, the english you have used leads me to be unsure of exactly what you are trying to say. Aside from maybe something about licencing parents to have children. I have no thoughts either way on that matter. There are still serial abusers in the Vatican - men like Cardinal Bernard Law.

    The Vatican still refuses to release the records of priests who they know were guilty of child rape and who were moved from parish to parish. We have simply got the low-hanging fruit, the tree is still there providing shade to the fallen and growing newer, smarter fruit that now knows how to get away with it.

    You're right Mitor. Now what about the paedophiles that aren't hiding behind God, or don't they exist? To help you, these are those who hide behind family relationships or family friendships. Of course their "pool" of victims is smaller but neither can they be rounded up by investigating a collective. One day you'll realise that it is only humans who wage war and hatred upon one another. The invocation of some omnipotent being as a source of authority is a choice, not a destiny.

    I'm not sure what your point is. Are family members who abuse their children moved from family to family by the institution of families? That's what the Catholic Church is doing, still. No they don't. Most people who disagree which is most people actually see that the ideology is definining "best practice" in its own terms e. One that conforms to the ideology?

    What is the ideology? That kids are mature enough to handle complex and life changing sexuality and gender issues, but not mature enough to be held accountable for crimes, voting, driving, paying bills, feeding and clothing themselves, managing their own education, living with and loving whoever they want etc etc etc. They don't really understand righjt and wrong, but can defintiely tell if they are in the wrong body??????? Methinks you haven't thought this through. And that's why we don't teach kids that stealing is wrong until they are 18 and can be put in jail for it.

    Less snarkily, it's quite common to start teaching kids about things well before we consider them to have the mental development to really understand them on a deep level. The same arguments are used by the conservative neo-morons in the USA in support of abstinence-only sex education.

    I'm sure their sky-high teenage pregnancy rates are just a coincidence. It's always the religious conservatives who fight against knowledge and education for the masses - they've been doing it since before literacy, when only priests were allowed to read the bible because regular people 'wouldn't understand it'. They said the same thing about sex education for children, and now they're saying the same thing about sexuality education. Joel is symptomatic of this knee-jerk response by the religious right to any new developments in knowledge, from stem cell research to schools classes, from marriage equality to women's role in society: "just say no".

    For people who say they have a conservative attitude towards life and culture they seem almost preternaturally obsessed with the the sex lives of other people, even when it's just lessons and text books. I suspect it's simply because religious conservatives have to live with their self-imposed sexual restrictions and cannot bear to think that other people are having the sexual times of their lives.

    Children are perfectly capable of understanding the world around them - what the law says is that they should not be held fully accountable for their actions prior to the age of Does that mean children under the age of 10 cannot understand how they feel about themselves? No, it does not. Anyway, safe schools doesn't tell them how to feel, it simply reinforces the idea that however you feel is OK, and however other kids feel is OK.

    Was recruiting Dr Dowsett as an architect of the program 'best practice'? His sympathetic views on pedophelia should be a major concern. Those who don't think so have lost their minds. Nffi Seriously? Wow it must be really nice albeit utterly boring for anyone of average intellect or above to live in such a clear, black and white world. One wonders how you could ever appreciate a rainbow flag, far less its significance!

    Sex education is the realm of parents and caregivers not the schools. Views on sex and sexuality fall into the same category. By all means lets tackle bullying but why include sex, gender or sexuality! Not required bullying for any reason is unacceptable The official anti-bullying program is the Safe Schools Hub that did not focus on gender but on dealing with bullying of all kinds.

    The Trojan horse, the Safe Schools Program appropriated most of it's name. A bit like the terms Marxist, ideological and leftist also being thrown around by opponents of the programme. Actually, those are labels claimed by the people who wrote the program, not ones assigned by those criticising it.

    Being an open member and supporter of an openly Marxist organisation is claiming the label Marxist. To my knowledge, Donnelly is not a member of any organisation claiming to be homophobic, far less claiming to be himself. That is an assigned label. I'll let you elaborate if you care to do so. Otherwise the programme could equally be labelled as "Collingwood-centric", "tertiary-education-biased", or "anti-left-handedness" based on the creator being a right-handed Collingwood member with a Bachelor's degree. Micky 1. If you can read a blog, then surely you can read the relevant news story about this.

    Given your attempts to defend the program, you should have already informed yourself and done so. This is just all so obviously drawing a very long bow that it is silly. Are you seriously trying to insinuate that the opposition to the program is entirely from people associated with Islam? Those same people by now have become fed up with the ongoing rhetoric of the GLBTI groups constant demands. What on earth is the relevance of the economy in this debate? That is a breathtakingly narrow point of view to take: "what about the economy".

    Who cares about the damn economy. Allowing same sex marriage would be a massive boom to the economy. The wedding industry is a billion dollar industry in Australia already. I notice that you use "same sex marriage" rather than "marriage equality". Is that because like many, you have only self-interest at heart rather than pursuit of "marriage equality" that includes the rights of men to marry more than one woman and a woman to marry more than one man? Surely, polygamy MUST be on the table if we are to "redefine" what marriage means in this country? Or a we still going to imprison people for bigamy and discriminate against those that prefer more than one partner?

    All those gay weddings speeding all that money should help the economy.

    Homophobia and the Modern Trans Movement

    Just one example from a non gay person. It doesn't affect you so why are you blocking this? If you and all the others it doesn't affect would allow those it does affect to carry on, it won't be affecting you any more. Bob G Your argument is one I have heard too many times. Are you aware that while politicians are debating social issues, the economy and other important things are not just forgotten about until the debate is resolved.

    If the government could only manage one issue at a time, we'd probably never stop working on the economy and women would still not be allowed to vote. Yes bob, just like the police should not get involved with policing either because it too has nothing to do with the economy. Quite frankly some of the thoughtless retorts from the GLBTI exponents are mischievously abusive and do not enhance their quest. Like I have said before, "Don't Demand" and if you want respect "Earn It" and show respect to others.

    It pretty much does make you a homophobe. This article even states that Homosexuals and Transgenders aren't "Normal" or "best serve procreation" snide way of saying they aren't good parents. Transgendered people are, by definition, not normal, Kropotkin. Normal is what represents the norm, the most common form of an object.

    It is not normal to be transgendered in the same way that it is not normal to be white because most people are not transgendered and most people are not white. You are claiming that people are homophobes based on your apparent inability to understand the definition of a common word. You and Donnelly are equivocating on 'normal'.

    Being trans is 'not normal' in the sense that most people aren't trans. Being trans is 'normal' in the sense that it's not some terrible shameful thing. They're not the same thing. Way below I made a comment that may or may not have been published illustrating that by pointing out that being named Kevin isn't 'normal' in the sense that you're using it, but nobody would bring that up in the context of whether or not it's okay to teach kids that some people are named Kevin. Similarly, some things are abnormal in both senses - murder, for example.

    Some things are normal in both senses, like eating food. Arguably things that are taboo to talk about in polite conversation can be normal in the first sense, but not the second. As a species, we desperately need to reduce our population. We can either increase the death rate or reduce the birth rate. If anyone can be make happier by not having children, society should encourage them wholeheartedly.

    Charles Darwin would say that homophobia is entirely natural. Species and societies that encourage everyone to have kids generally grow faster, and out-compete those that don't. Ants and bees are obvious exceptions; they have found another niche. However, this "natural" law-of-the-jungle is not best for a species that is within sight of depleting the resources it needs, and soiling its nest on a global scale with ozone depleting and heat trapping refuse.

    Kevin D is correct. Opposing the safety of gay children doesn't turn you into a homophobe. It means you already are one. Like Kevin D who has had years here on the ABC working hard to convince us that he is such a homophobe. Well I believe you Kevin D. You're a homophobe. You'd rather homosexual kids be bullied physically and mentally damaged and hopefully commit suicide than admit they are normal. Completely normal and healthy. This is the sort of comment that is dangerous in a democratic society.

    Legitimate concerns about the excesses of this program are summarily dismissed. Why should a radical minority in education have exclusive rights to comment on and dictate what our children are exposed to? This sort of thinking suggests any contrary opinion means by definition you have to be racist, sexist, a bigot or homophobic. There is no room for reasoned debate with this sort of limited thinking and that is precisely what the left want.

    The program is "voluntary" in as much as at the moment a school can choose to participate or not. Once a school does choose to participate it is currently compulsory for all kids to be involved. It is currently Victorian state government policy to make it compulsory in all state schools.

    Comments (814)

    With none of the changes required by the federal government to be adopted. It is now, outside Victoria but it was not voluntary before. Parents were not informed before the program was implemented and parental permission was not sought before children attended. Unlike Scripture classes, parents did not have the right to exempt their children until the Federal govt. It is intellectually lazy at best to conflate opposition of this particular program with "Opposing the safety of gay children" I am opposed to the Safe School's program for a number of reasons.

    I support the "Bullying: No Way! No, this is a war between two major ideologies, boiling down to Christian vs Secular. Safe School advocates are correct to claim their program is being attacked by Christian ideology, and likewise, Conservatives are correct to call out the LGBTI agenda guised as a holistic anti-bullying program. The facts are that kids and adults are bullied for all manner of real or perceived differences, it would be impossible to make a definitive list. Teaching kids to have understanding, respect and to show kindness towards others is the only antidote, but attempting to educate kids on the depths of each persons 'difference' is a poor approach - particularly when it is centered on only one group of individuals with a 'difference'.

    It doesn't matter what topic you look at, there are always people who are in the minority - whether by choice or by their circumstances. That said, attempting to re-engineer young minds to the idea that gender difference doesn't exist is fundamentally illogical. It is like telling them that people who ride a bicycle with one wheel mono , is the same as those who use both wheels. I appreciate the desired outcome for LGBTI community to ultimately avoid being considered as different, and therefore no-longer be subject to associated bullying.

    I strongly suspect that a LGBTI kid might avoid schoolyard bullying, particularly now that society is overwhelmingly protective of them, and bullies would prefer a far easier 'target'. Bullying is far more about the 'power trip' of the bully, rather than anything to do with their victim. How about an education program about that, teach kids that bullies are cowards, and are probably suffering hurts from being abused elsewhere. Lastly, I'd like to know how what Australia's situation is regarding sexual and other abuse within their families?

    Overall, abused kids are likely to be confused about their identity and place in the world. Evermore, they want to be accepted and 'loved'. All kids are highly vulnerable to influences many influences during the formative years. Is there a 'possibility' that kids will 'choose' to identify themselves as LGBTI - basically to get attention? What happens to them going forward, should they later regret this as only a moment of 'confusion'?

    Sorry, but the LGBTI line that "only you can know your gender" falls far short of being responsible, rational or logical. There remains scant scientific objective testing or proof to 'help' someone who is trying to 'figure out' if they are LGBTI. None of this seems to have been considered within the Safe Schools program. Safe Schools - the anti-bullying programme that fails to provide a definition of bullying. The Safe Schools Coalition website "what we do" page does not have the word bulling on it.

    Unlike your correspondence, I believe a lot of children are bullied. Not just because they are gay, but they could be short, funny looking, walk differently, and have parents from a ME background, or Asian background, or some small minority group that is being destroyed in some other country. Heck, I believe some children are even bullied because they are taller than others in the school.

    So what is with the "look at me poor "whatever" me " voice? How about some serious thoughts into making the play ground a safe and learning environment. Children don't know what that is, they have to be taught. If you believe you can leave two children to play by themselves without parent supervision, then you don't have children.

    It is like me concluding that you are gay because you support it. Just cut the name calling nonsense and debate the topic like an adult. I'll try and get in first with the most important question!. This programme has been around for years apparently, and shools aren't required to use it.

    So why, why, why has this fuss erupted now?. There is another agenda here. Is it to make Turnbull's life difficult? So again, why now, not when Abbott was PM?. It seems to me there is much more going on here than the programme itself. Only a week or two before this all erupted there was a campaign by some christian group to buy up as many tickets to a LGBTI end of school formal run by 'Minus 18'.

    Navigation menu

    Unfortunately the christian group didn't realise that what they were actually doing was sponsoring tickets rather then buying them. I'm guessing that this christian group was not very happy about it Apparently the group reportedly trying to buy up all of the tickets was the There's an article on TripleJ's 'Hack' titled 'Protest against same-sex school formal backfires' if you're interested.

    Institutions know for protecting pedophiles announces the word 'safe' and you think it's all about homosexuality? LOL Poor things at patronizing utterances central are in panic mode looking to claw back lost market share is all. Well WGT as we have seen from the ongoing inquiry into child sexual abuse that has engulfed many of our major religious bodies it appears that the greatest number of pedophiles and deviates are to be found amongst the most vocal exponents of good sound Christian sexual and family values.

    I find it ironic that two of our premier parliamentary exponents of those claimed values have come out to condemn an anti-bullying program, one aspect of which is directed at sexual toleration. Just something odd about that - can't quite put my finger on it. This has been a concern for many people for ages Reasons for more recent attention: Point 1: Turnbull is "left" of most of his party.

    The "right" are flexing their muscles. Point 2: There has been a greater push for transgender issues more recently across the Western World. If you think this program is primarily about gay kids, you are wrong. It is far more about kids who feel that there gender does not match their biological sex. Many of the resources focus on this. This puts the spotlight on programs like this.

    Point 3: The Victorian state government announced this would become compulsory for all state schools, just a few weeks after they announced that church groups could no longer have access to state schools. Considering that many people put both religion and this program into the ideology category, the hypocrisy of this has raised more people's hackles Point 4: A parent appearing on national television complaining about this program and pulling her kids out of the school focussed more people onto the programme.

    Point 5: An incident at a Melbourne school galvanised a groundswell of opposition to the program. That group pushed certain key politicians hard. Point 6: It was Mardi Gras in Sydney a few weeks ago - this is topical - op ed pieces both for and against abound at this time of year. Points 7, 8, 9, If gender is a no go topic for primary school aged children, what are the implications of that when it comes to same-sex parents or other? The main but totally unrelated arguement put forward by those opposed to same-sex marriage is focused on the welfare of children.

    The two issues have been conflated. The only way to negate that arguement is the normalisation of non-hetro relationships. This is being opposed on every front. Kevin states that parents are the primaray moral instructors to their children. Why then Religious Schools? That's my most important question. Parents bring their children up in accordance with their values and choose to send them to schools that support those values. I find nothing contradictory about this. Catholic schools are only partially religious schools: they pick and choose which of the many biblical hates to apply.

    They tend to ignore, for instance, the New Testament prohibition on female teachers 1Tim but apply hostility towards homosexuality. They have also gone a bit quiet on divorce, even though Jesus had a lot to say about the evils of this - Mat , Mark but interestingly nothing specifically to say about homosexuality only indirect references. Perhaps the trouble comes from the fact that 1 in kids are born intersex, but the bible says that this cannot happen Matthew That would mean there are more intersex people than New Zealanders, and apparently they are quite normal and we should apparently accept them.

    That's very nice Donnelly. Now would you like to provide some evidence that the criticism of the Safe Schools program isn't driven by homophobia? James the burden of proof backwards should be on the people who want to change society, and supporters of this program should argue why this radical approach is necessary rather than just abusing people which makes a mockery of the anti-bullying message and suggests other motives. The queer lobby should explain why my kids need to take part in role playing games that encourage them to question their sexual preferences and relationship with their body.

    I don't think its appropriate to effectively present being a drag queen as an option. It's never a good idea to let activists design their own programs, and the co- author is a notorious Marxist. It would be just as easy to argue that living by a set of rules set out in some religious text is less natural than otherwise. Probably easier by a long shot. I didn't think dressing in a dress would 'turn' me, any more than I might have become a cowboy after my year 2 fancy dress party.

    Still, if one item of clothing worn once will tip you into identifying as gay, then who am I to judge you? You know the strength of your sexual orientation better than me. Evidence not hearsay Is this evidence? No Graazt it isn't evidence. It's opinion and the prejudice of a person who was writing a couple of thousand years ago giving his views on society at the time.

    The people he was writing about no doubt had different opinions but their views did not make it into the book. No Graatz, it is definitely not evidence of any source of authority. It's just one person's opinion that happened to go into a book. I will grant you it is evidence that one person had an opinion two thousand years ago, but an opinion is not a fact or evidence of truth. It's called "hearsay", ignored without standing in our Judeo-Christian-based so it's claimed legal system.

    I guess phrases like "controversial sites like Minus 18 that advocate a LGBTQI sexual and gender agenda" that label a group providing mutual support to homosexual youth as "controversial" and pushing an "agenda" does sound like Donelly just doesn't like homosexuals or LGBTIQ people in geneneal. You could call it homophobia but I think "bigot" is more accurate. If it is then your argument falls flat. I say it isn't controversial. Can you think of anything controversial about that? Lance, it doesn't matter what I think is controversial.

    The question, re-phrased, is has there been any controversy around this group? If so then by definition they are controversial. Mr Donnelly, does not have to prove anything. If you think this debate is based on homophobia it is up to you to prove it. I have read all of the comments on both articles on this subject in the Drum this morning and the overwhelming concern from those against is the political and social engineering agenda behind it.

    Second to that is concerns with the appropriateness of some of the training material and exercises and the lack of oversight or control from parents. Where is the support for those that are bullied because they are overweight, too smart or not smart enough, red heads with glasses These are the predominant issues. Painting people with the tag "homophobic" is just plain bullying behaviour and counterproductive to the point you are trying to make.

    There are already antibulling programs for all of those issuer Bullying - no way and take A stand together are the general bullying programs Racism no way is the bullying program specifically about race. E pack is specifically for disability bullying. The hurting game, Kids matter, Any Body's cool are the programs for anti-bullying programs about physical appearance. People against safe schools should stop pretending that they suddenly are all concerned that these programs don't exist and aren't getting time in Australian schools. Oh dear. Now we have to justify why there is a Safe Schools program.

    I think you will find that all schools have anti-bullying and bully awareness programs. They are vigilant about it and the safety and welfare of all children is the priority. If in any doubt, call your local school and talk to one of the student welfare people. As for "LGBTI bullying is only one small part of bullying that takes place in schools", sounds like you think it isn't important but I think your own statement justifies the program.

    I suggest you talk to the school about that as well. Anyone on record associating Marxism of all things with homosexuality is a homophobe. I could advise you of a couple of a names if you like? I'd also go on record that the church overall practices far more homosexual acts than any other organisation out there. Let's not forget the little girls too. Hence the royal commission. Criticism is driven by the fact that poorly substantiated theory is presented as fact gender theory , political activism is encouraged even to the extent of disobeying parents getting the school to provide access to sites the parents won't provide at home , the architect herself said it's not about bullying, the architect herself said it is based on her interpretation of Marxist ideology, it addresses no other forms of bullying, provides no information on health consequences of homosexual liflestyles, validates querying gender a significant change in kids considered to be to young and emotionally immature to be held accountable of responsible in other less important areas.

    Hows that? You very clearly do not understand the burden of proof, James. It is up to people making a claim the claim that opposition to this program is based on homophobia to provide the evidence to back it up, not up to others to disprove it. The same groups who think you can pray someone straight. The vast majority of children bullied at school are not LGBTI, they are bullied for reasons other than their sexual leanings.

    The fact is bullying in schools has gone on since time immemorial. Just creating a program that supports the minority of children that are bullied is either stupid or politically driven. What do you think it is? Chubblo, are you saying then that we need a specific, targeted program for every type of person who may get bullied? Dear salmon, the answer is no. Of course if there is empirical evidence that a certain group of children are 10x more likely to suicide than their peers then it would be entirely appropriate to address it, because quite clearly all the other anti bullying campaigns and programs combined aren't helping this particular group.

    If it was the only factor then it should be the same for all victims of bullying. Also you would expect suicide rates among kids who were never bullied to be similar and I suspect LGBTQ rates would still be higher. It is the fact that all of society is geared around the assumption that everyone is straight. Perhaps we could educate the in school As an aside, I think there should also be an education campaign to tell people to be mindful of left-handers, who have a shorter life expectancy because so many safety devices assume people are right handed.

    In general I think tolerance is good. Perhaps that makes me a lefty. Oh dear, now my view will be discounted by everybody who disagrees with Marx even though I disagree with Marx. Marty, the majority of children experience bullying at school and yet a tiny proportion will grow up to be gay. Is bullying a kid because he's gay worse than bullying one because he's short, or has red hair or pimples? If yes, explain how. If no, we clearly don't need a specific program about gay bullying. I do foresee, however, that this might not always be the case. People like the author will argue on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that a child need a mother and a father.

    I disagree, and a significant number of qualified professional, and professional bodies, likewise disagree. She claimed she loved and respected both her mother and her mother's SS partner but they could not replace a biological father and being deprived of the daily influence of one gender. Another petitioner, academic Robert Oscar Lopez claimed his SS female parents socialized in a narrow sub-culture that deprived him of a male role model and this impacted negatively on him. Millie Fontana wanted a father and would not acquiesce to the argument she simply didn't need one.

    So lets put that aside and discuss the secular, non-demonising concerns. For example - what does this program add that other anti-bullying programs don't already cover? So Dove a review of a Government funded education program is never necessary? Are educators above critical review?

    Sorry to say but every educational program needs review - we would still be teaching with Cuisenaire rods if this was not the case. The sad fact is that those who do not want the program being reviewed just attack as you have done those that ask the very reasonable question - is this the best way to deliver this program?

    I don't have a particular view on the program - but I will defend the right of those that want to teach it and equally the right of those who wish to to have it reviewed - it is good educational practice. There is absolutely nothing wrong with reviewing programs - that is desirable and indeed standard educational practice. What happened here, however, was that, rather simply requesting of the education minister that the program be reviewed, a number of prominent people demanded that the program be immediately scrapped. Not only did they demand that, they proceeded to justify this with rather lurid, unsubstantiated and in some instances actually false claims about both the program and the intent of the program.

    At least one of them also stated, after the review was ordered by the PM, that a review was not enough, that the program must be stopped. Parliamentary privilege was used to make claims which could well have been subject to legal action had they been made outside. Even after getting most of what they wanted, they are still spreading false information. They have, by their own actions, well and truly opened themselves up to being attacked as bullies and homophobes. Please elaborate on your claims of the spreading of false information. I want to be as accurately informed as possible.

    I am yet to be convinced that Christensen's revelation of Dr Dowsett is false. Should it be true then the program should be scrapped - full stop. I don't believe the claims made by Christensen et al have been discredited. Perhaps others should look at the program content and Minus 18 website and make informed comment. By the same token, being gay doesn't make you a faggot. What's with all the childish name-calling from the gay entitlement lobby? Do you if you do enough of it we won't notice that you don't have an actual argument?

    Being free from bullying while reserving the right to bully others 2. Demanding changes to the definition of marriage, despite the current definition treating everybody equally 3. Needing a special anti-bullying program to elevate their own personal victimhood above that of others 4. Having parades to celebrate their difference yet screeching about human rights violations if others dare to see them as different The gay entitlement version of 'being treated like everyone else'. Complaining when you're being bullied is not in itself "bullying" 2. As usual mike, your complaints are misdirection and deliberate obfuscation of the fact.

    In your view, a child who is being bullied should not speak up - speaking up, in your view, is him bullying. It's pretty simple mike. You're an advocate of intolerance. I obeject to that. It doesn't get more inane or desperate than that, folks. Anyhow mike - the bottom line here is: Why does acceptance of homosexuals bother you? And one more: Why is it that you haven't figured out yet: if you abuse people, they abuse you back. If you leave them alone, they will leave you alone - and mike, you dont have a reason to abuse, harass, or sideline these people at all.

    So why do you? And why haven't you figured out that if you shush about your bigotry, the issue goes away? How is having an entire compulsory program dedicated to your needs, none of them to do with bullying, being "treated the same as everyone else"? The purpose of the program is to ensure that people ARE treated like everyone else - "being treated like everyone else" is the objective, because currently, they are not. And this was Machiavelli's point. Dove only muslims believe that a book is perfect. Is that a fact? I'm certainly delighted that you've finally claimed subject matter expertise in something.

    I was beginning to wonder. Even more impressive is to claim it through mind reading. I support your new vocation because after all, other people's minds would make a far more interesting read for you. Just to give you a hand here mike2 science never said the world was flat - science is a way of thinking, and a body of knowledge. At best, the primitive people living on the earth said it was flat, just as primitive people now say that homosexuality is 1. It's a sin It's not normal He's no son of mine And what's wrong with the Gender Fairy?

    It's true. I can imagine how terrified that might make a number of posters here feel. I just dont know why it terrifies them. Actually, criticising the Safe Schools program pretty much does guarantee you're a homophobe. No - it doesn't. It simply measn you don't agree with the program, like not agreeing with the ALP doesn't mean you hate democracy or Labor supporters. That's right. There might be many reasons other than homophobia that opponents might give.

    However, most opponents do rely on bigoted views as their arguments. Donelli, for example, quotes "parents are primarily responsible for their children's moral education" but this isn't moral education. It's trying to stop those parents' children from bullying others. Most of the opponents seem to be the very sort of bully this program aims to prevent but it's too late in their case. Okay as far as a political party goes, but when you look at the objectives and methodologies of the Safe Schools program and still don't agree with them, then you aren't placing much value on the welfare of some students.

    Be willing to stand up for what you are. You can always quote George Brandis saying everyone has a right to be a bigot. I'd say the opposite - if you care about the majority of students, you need to object. The needs of the few can be met through other means that are less controversial and achieve the same end. That sounds great, Joel. What less-controversial means do you suggest to stop these kids being bullied and picked-on? How do we change society's attitudes so they are not seen as "other" and, therefore, targets of hatred throughout their school years and later?

    It is usually not the majority that suffers from bullying. It is those who are a minority or different from the "norm" who tend to suffer the most. I am thinking of some people in remote areas and they can live their live without confronting a person outside of heterosexual or homosexual. I learn much. But not everyone is like me. Some are afraid of change. To them - the very idea of "others" is to embrace a world view without any conceptual notion of these "others.

    It is easy to fight the program, not because of the homosexual part - but because it will cause you to face lots of issues and beliefs which you do not want to face. Most of the nay sayers are in this fear of change category - and they might or might not be homophobic. Some are just homophobic and do not fear change - they just want to hold onto their bigotry.

    Apparently it's mandatory we follow some international regulations but when it comes to something like refugees and bombing countries who don't ask to participate in their war Ahh, so the author is hypocritical for pointing out the proponents of this program are hypocritical. Thank you for a very well argued article Kevin the hatred that si spewed at anyone who dares to question the content of this ideological program has sadly not surprised me. News flash adolescence is tough for most kids and this program puts too much emphasis on a tiny minority of children who are having trouble fitting into our society.

    Jason : "our society"? Iain, I found this a badly argued article and can only assume Dr Donnelly's editor let him down. I do hope that someone involved in the Australian National Curriculum can put together a better argumentative essay than displayed here. Consider the paragraphs: " But according to research carried out by Anthony Smith and Paul Badcock from La Trobe University, out of the 10, men and 9, women interviewed, How does research that shows In any way? I don't see a count of how many Trans people were included in the LaTrobe Uni research, which would have made that research relevant to the point.

    I do note the paragraph much later in the article that quotes Safe Schools as stating 16 per cent of students could be LGBTI, and accept the research quoted would be a solid counter-argument to this. In my opinion the article contains loose and disjointed arguments, I'm afraid. Agreed Michael. Those people just aren't normal. Why should we do something about them?

    Which completely misses the whole point of a program aimed at ensuring students treat each other even a potentially hypothetical LGBTIQ student with respect and understanding. That they don't assume because something is mostly always a particular way, it must be that way. That they don't look at the "not normal" and equate that with "bad", "other" or, as is so often the case, "target". Its genuinely sad that someone so well credentialed, and so deeply involved in the school curriculum, can have so failed to understand the very point of the program they are seeking to criticise and have actually reinforced its whole purpose in their critique of it.

    Michael You posit: "So, what part of the second point addressed the first, and therefore warranted the "But "? One level is that people are conditioned to be hetero or homo - and yet the research is that most people are bi-sexual to one degree or another. Self identification is not reliable when you can only see two standards. Heterosexuality was thought of as "not homosexual" which is hardly scientific or accurate. The brain research on sexuality is more pointed and exact and yet we still do not know the figures. The only thing we know is that the differences between "real hetero and real homo" are far less than the differences between "the average Joe and either group.

    It was a very good example of "having the answer and trying to get facts to verify it. If they can, then so can this program. If they can't then it's irrelevant. There are certainly a small percenathe who swing both ways and there are also a percetange who have had some sort of homosexual experiences in their youth but most settle down to being heterosexual as the reach maturity.

    Iain Hall You yourself defined the answer as "I really don't know any other way to decide id one is straight or Gay" The problem is that human sexuality is not divided between straight and gay, any more than colour is divided between black and white. This was the very attitude which people who self identified speak of. As for "the born that way" idea - you must think that there is only nature and nurture. All neuroscience is based upon the way that the brain self programs by feedback. The process is replicated in artificial intelligence, and the earliest work in computers replicating self programming neural networks is fuzzy logic.

    Fuzzy logic, based upon the brain - creates a neural path and part of the process is randomness. No two fuzzy logic chips is the same. No two identical twins CAN think alike as every neural circuit in the brain is self programmed and unique. Some of the programming can fire up entire areas of the brain - or shut them down. This is why there can be a genetic influence - and yet genetics is never enough. It is a self programming issue, not ONLY genetics.

    It is not a choice, but randomness. Homosexuality is a very early programming choice and it fires up entire areas of the brain which are often "associated with the opposite sex. It is only much later when the sexual urges are sparked that the identity programmed as a baby are manifest. But children and animals are already "homosexuals" well before they reach puberty.

    Homosexuality, like many other conditions - including a lot of mental illnesses are programming "random path" things done as babies. It is a brand new science. Quite interesting. And yet every part of the science has been here for over twenty years. Mark I tale a very simple view of sexuality, namely the biological purpose of sexuality is first and foremost all about procreation first and secondly to strengthen the pair-bond that we need to raise our offspring and frankly I am rather uninterested in the reasons why a small minority decides to become homosexual. Nature or nurture or a combination of both makes no real difference to me because I also, due to my libertarian leanings, believe consenting adults are entitled to form any sort of consensual relationships that they find pleasing or mutually satisfying.

    I do however understand that there is a rather desperate desire by homosexual to prove that their inclinations are "normal" and essentially no different to heterosexuality. It really does not matter to me if its normal or abnormal because my libertarian inclination does not require it to be either for it to be socially acceptable.

    The problem with the Safe schools program is that it pushes an extreme social justice agenda that wants to brainwash kids with their rather warped views of both gender and sexuality under the guise of an anti-bullying program. You've already detailed your view of gender and how you decide it. Others dont agree, and they would argue your views on it are warped, old fashioned, intolerant and redundant.

    I'd tend to agree. Is it helping? Outline your objection in those terms please, not what you erroneously and arbitrarily declare is "warped". Indeed if anyone actually bothered to check up on Mr Donelly's references they would immediately read the paragraph that details the percentages as such: Nevertheless, 8. Indeed, half the men and two-thirds of the women who had had same-sex sexual experience regarded themselves as heterosexual rather than homosexual or bisexual, suggesting that same-sex attraction and experience are far more common in Australia than is indicated by the relatively few people reporting a homosexual or bisexual identity.

    Which is actually quite pertinent information when referring to the What do you think your response would be if you were having difficulties coming to terms with your identity? Does that question require empathy? The anti-safe schools brigade have as their primary tools, irrelevant opinion, misquoted at best and irrelevant data, and diversion away from the facts that safe schools programme addresses a high-risk population, and it works.

    I've yet to see an informed and sane objection against it. Iain, it's about welfare, not ideology. And please tell me who has said that critics of the program are responsible for future suicides. I haven't seen that in the discussions. But if you're happy to ignore this "tiny minority of children who are having trouble fitting into our society", that's your choice. But don't stand in the way of others who are trying to help. Brett Its not a case of me suggesting that anyone ignore indicators of self destructive ideation.

    Its just that its unreasonable to expect that the wider society can be made kinder to protect such troubled individuals. In the end the solution has to be to try to make those individuals strong enough to survive, because we certainly can not make a bubble big enough to protect them from themselves in perpetuity.

    The suicide thing essentially boils down to being a bit of emotional blackmail used to silence critics of this program. We are talking about children here who may be vulnerable. This is not about protecting them from themselves in perpetuity but it would be good for them if they can grow through childhood and adolescence into adults who are confident and comfortable about their sexuality.

    Please don't read this to mean the Safe Schools program will do all that on its own, but it is supporting them in their formative years. If other people don't need it, fair enough, but please don't take it away from those it is intended to help. I can only repeat I haven't heard anyone saying critics of the program are responsible for future suicides. It seems to me an exaggeration by critics of the program possibly applying their own emotional blackmail.

    I have borrowed this revelation from a fellow poster: 'Roz Ward the architect of the Safe Schools Program is an academic from La Trobe Uni who moonlights as a writer for the Red Flag, the publication of a Trotskyite, self-described Marxist organisation. She publicly conceded the Safe Schools Coalition is part of a broader Marxist strategy to change society by promoting Gender Theory that has no legal or scientific basis.

    'Republican' Is Not a Synonym for 'Racist' - The Atlantic

    I saw a video of Ward claiming at a private event the program was: "Not about stopping bullying. It is about gender and sexual diversity". The program is a Trojan horse that indoctrinates with a radical LGBT agenda and Liberation, neo-Marxist ideology, parading as an anti-bullying program. It was designed for children aged years. It promotes the view gender is not grounded in objective reality but subjective interpretation. You know that the first NASA rockets were built by nazi's right? Do you see any evidence of nazism in NASA? Let me know if you'd like to contact nasa to tell them about your objection to their implicit association with the holocaust.

    I'm sure they'll regard your comments appropriately - exactly as they are regarded here - as hysterical nonsense. That's the program's architect admitting it's true agenda. It's not a 'red herring', and you have swallowed the program 'hook, line and sinker'. Where this programme exists, there are reports of its success.

    • Criticising Safe Schools doesn't make you homophobic.
    • Master List of Logical Fallacies.
    • Top Stories?
    • My Best Friends Rich Dad (Inside of Me).
    • Chase the Sun: Everything you need to know to backpack Australia..
    • Foundations.
    • I am pleasantly surprised that our ABC bothered to present 'the other side of the argument', which is common practice with other national broadcasters such as the BBC but not with our ABC.