Gay sex. Apparently sexier than straight sex.

Woodsy says:

04:55pm | 01/06/11

I thought the same thing David, I guess getting to 3rd base with her involves seeing an uncovered part of her lower leg?

john says:

05:13pm | 01/06/11

Perhaps when men see Wendy Francis they prefer another man instead. One has to feel sorry for any guy having to be in proximity of her, she must be a nightmare.

The Galah from Hervey Bay says:

07:02pm | 01/06/11

David , your flippancy is almost as sickening as the depiction.
My message to Simon Black on this latest abomination - The depiction of two males together is likely to promote an act which is abnormal and i certainly don’t think our kids minds are suitably mature to cope with this. There are plenty of other avenues to get the message of condom use across to homosexuals.
Meanwhile , keep this type of disgusting depiction from public view .

John the Zombie says:

07:54pm | 01/06/11

David Stasey will these adverts be placed in clubs as well. If not why as most people hook up when they are out in clubs. Also unless ppl are going to have sex at a bus stop I dont think it is the place to put them.

I would also have this same view if the picture involved the male and female.

Mark Sharma says:

10:14pm | 01/06/11

This Ad is disgusting. Pornography has no place in Public space. Those who want to see this homosexual picture should do it in their bedrooms. There is no place for this kind of garbage in civil society. I think the organisation that promoted these pictures should be banned!

Adrian says:

10:18pm | 01/06/11

@Galah
> The depiction of two males together is likely to promote an act< 
What, you think gays are on a recruitment drive?

>which is abnormal<
Feel free to show how gay sex is “abnormal”.

> i certainly don’t think our kids minds are suitably mature to cope with this.<
Wake up, dopey. Gay couples are already raising children all over the country.

> There are plenty of other avenues to get the message of condom use across to homosexuals.<
And I’m sure you would object to all of them.

>Meanwhile , keep this type of disgusting depiction from public view .<
You do realise, don’t you, that there is an established link between homophobia and repressed homosexual desires and urges. Is there something you’re not telling us?

Carson says:

10:59pm | 01/06/11

@Galah and all conservative people who find this ad offensive. I’m not certain but I suspect this ad is not only aimed at promoting condom use amongst gays, it is also aimed at educating YOU!
Don’t worry about the kids they aren’t going to care. What is their thought process going to be? “Oh I thought it was only men and women that.. oh it isn’t? well that’s something new to me” And that’s it.
It’s you who needs to wake up. Don’t you realise how backward you sound? Should we tell left-handers to keep that hidden, because they’re abnormal?? Conservative people were the last to abolish slavery, the last to give women and blacks suffrage. Imagine what a terrible place this world would still be if you didn’t have us lefties to show you what’s right and wrong. Trust us on this one, gay people deserve absolutely equal treatment. That is what’s right. Your homophobia is what is wrong.

Tash says:

12:45am | 02/06/11

The sexually demeaning depiction of women in advertising that I and the young children of my family and friends are confronted with in our community are of MUCH greater concern to me than a picture of two men hugging. Trying to have a conversation with a 13 yo girl about why women in advertising/movies/TV etc are only ever one of three pre-determined roles: slut, saint or bitch and that she can be none and more than that is MUCH more difficult than explaining to a six year old that people hug for lots of reasons - that they’re happy/in love/sad/married/friends etc.

Sally says:

01:03am | 02/06/11

@ John the Zombie - these ads are already in Brisbane pubs and clubs. They should be everywhere including bus shelters and billboards.

Danny B says:

04:31am | 02/06/11

@ Carson

Seconded!

Daemon says:

09:49am | 02/06/11

@The Moron from Hervey Bay.. thank god (my non-caps) whoever god is or whatever she thinks, you don’t live in Brisbane, where people are capable of thought. You would be utterly lost without your priest/adviser to tell you what to do next.

Luce says:

10:39am | 02/06/11

Mark Sharma, you know what pornography is, right?

Sick of it all says:

10:44am | 02/06/11

First up people - homophobia is literally fear of homosexuals. I don’t fear them, rather I pity them. No matter how much you want to believe otherwise, homosexuality is the exception rather than the rule. Some of you point out that there are gay couples raising kids all over the country, and that in itself is unnatural.
Despite public campaigns for equity and the in your face pushiness of most current TV shows trying to show it is normal to to be gay and/or raise children, without the serious misuse of medical advances and public money most of these people would not have children (except those who managed to overcome their"nature” enough to get impregmated buy/or impregnate someone of the opposite sex)
I agree homosexuality has always existed and always will. But that does not mean we should actively promote or endorse what is an aberration of nature.
These TV shows and advertisements are trying to portray homosexuality as a normal lifestyle and will possibly have the affect of making some vulnerable kids who are questioning their sexuality decide that it doesn’t matter which way they go. So to say the ad is harmless is crap and I call bullshit.
I don’t believe in any one god and so have no religious objections. I do however believe in nature and while they are a part of nature they are, as I stated earlier, the exception rather than the rule.

Luce says:

11:23am | 02/06/11

@Sick of it all, if gays are an aberration of nature, then would you kindly explain to me why they have biological urges to be with each other, in the same way that straight people do? Why the pheromones of someone of the same sex will involuntarily illicit the physiological reactions that occur when someone is aroused? For something that is so unnatural, it sure seems nature is playing a pretty damn big role.

Oh and if a young person saw this ad and decided to experiment with their sexuality as a direct result (which is already a stretch), and finds out they’re actually gay, wouldn’t you prefer them to live a happier life as an open gay, rather then being unhappy and constantly feeling uncomfortable in their own skin because living as a heterosexual goes against their nature? I’m guessing not because that would make you uncomfortable, correct? And clearly your wish not to be confronted with gays is much more important then the happiness, well being and basic rights of other people. Silly me.

Shifter says:

02:06pm | 02/06/11

Seriously? Are you people for real? Pornography?

If that is pornography (printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity), and you’re disgusted by it then your brain must melt practically every ad break during prime time tv and at least once during the news.

I am seriously amazed that people with attitudes such as ones printed above actually exist. In Australia.

Adrian says:

06:53pm | 02/06/11

< there are gay couples raising kids all over the country, and that in itself is unnatural.>
Bullshit. Given that human beings are part of nature, if they have homosexual relationships then those relationships must be natural. Furthermore, homosexual relationships are common in nature, between whales, dogs, lions, apes and more. So is same sex parenting - the young of many animals are raised by groups comprised solely of male or female animals.

< without the serious misuse of medical advances and public money most of these people would not have children>
Feel free to show how the use of reproductive technology for same sex couples constitutes “misuse”.

<These TV shows and advertisements are trying to portray homosexuality as a normal lifestyle and will possibly have the affect of making some vulnerable kids who are questioning their sexuality decide that it doesn’t matter which way they go. So to say the ad is harmless is crap and I call bullshit.>
This argument only stands if you can establish that there is something wrong with homosexuality, which you have so far failed to do. If you’re going to call bullshit, make sure you’ve got evidence to support your claim. Otherwise you end up looking like an idiot.

<I don’t believe in any one god and so have no religious objections.>
So what? Do you think your lack of religious objections excuses your bigotry? It doesn’t.

Erin says:

08:09pm | 02/06/11

to ‘sick of it all’...

Publically opposing Hitler during his reign was also the exception rather the rule…. didn’t make it the wrong thing to do.

Sick of it all says:

11:02pm | 02/06/11

@Luce
I have already stated that homosexuality has and likely always will exist. However, just because it occurs does not make it right. By your argument re pheromones and attraction you also then condone pedophiles; or are they actually right in their “natural” attraction to children? And before you go on about consenting adults, don’t forget that in some cultures it is perfectly legal to marry off a 10 or 11 year old child to someone far older. I am quite sure that, like myself, you abhor this idea. It is illegal in most western civilisations, but until recently so was homosexuality. So if we are willing to bow to one minority demand for equality at what point do we stop?
As to your second point, what of the kid who experiments because of this ad and determines that he/she is not homosexual? You believe they just carry on with no attached mental anguish? Life as a teenager full of raging hormones is difficult enough. Promoting confusing messages and imagery helps no one. If kids are confused and need to seek counsel there are now numerous helplines they can call. I see no valid reason for clouding the issue and displaying these ads everywhere for all to be subjected to, when the target audience is only a small percentage of the population.
And again, paraphrasing your own words - And clearly your wish to confront the majority with gay ads is much more important then the happiness, well being and basic rights of other people not to have these ads thrust upon them. Silly me.
@Adrian.
I never claimed homosexuals were not natural. I did state they are an aberation in nature.
Using other species for justification of gays raising children is absurd. Yes there are many documented cases of shared parenting, both in the animal kingdom and in some human societies. However please feel free to show me any example where homosexual animals, other than humans, are able to conceive their own children? So using medical advances to enable this to occur is, in every sense of the word, indeed “misuse”. And to beat you to it I don’t condone IVF for any purpose.  As I said previously I believe in nature and there are enough people about to ruin the planet with overpopulation without science assisting those who through personal choice (older women who want it all) or nature are not able to conceive.
“only works if I establish there is something wrong with homosexuality”? I apologise. I didn’t realise it was up to me to build a case against it. Care to enlighten me on the case for it first?
And finally, my all time favourite on these blogs -“idiot” and “bigot”. All too often it is easier to label someone without knowing them than trying to maintain the topic at hand. Without knowing me and because you disagree with a viewpoint I put forward you immediately assume I am an idiot. And to reinforce this you use your next paragraph to accuse me of being a bigot. To quote wiki ‘A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.” By this definition the word could easily apply to both of us. Difference being I will admit to being guilty of most of the definition, whereas I doubt you will.

acotrel says:

07:37am | 03/06/11

I think I’ll join the ACL.  I’m not gay but I’m willing to learn!

Perkin Warbeck says:

07:08pm | 03/06/11

@sick of it all - bigot? idiot? Seems you don’t like those two terms being applied to you… well, sorry your entire set of rants leads one to no other conclusion.
To follow your point that homosexuals are an aberration in nature, red headed people (such as myself) are an aberration, we are not the majority. Left handed people are also an aberration as they are not the majority. Therefore, using your theory, a left handed red haired person is an aberration in nature and should not be encouraged. You have been given ample evidence of the natural nature of someone who is homosexual and yet you refuse to concede that this could be correct and your view is not so correct - hence you fulfill your Wikepedia lifted definition of “bigot”.  As for “idiot”... I will just keep reading all your remarks about your preference for “nature” over “science” (and your rather casual ideas about spelling, grammar and comprehension.)

jnb says:

08:17pm | 03/06/11

To all those who say this isnt fore their kids to see, and its no place for these ads to be put, umm every night your children have access to television which has at least 10 shows per night (across the channels) showing guns, and killing.

So whats worse here.. education to on these sex ed topics or the abosolute nonsense of most western television putting murder on television EVERY night.

get a grip

Fergus says:

08:53pm | 03/06/11

To the Galah from Harvey Bay. So you think children arent mature enough to cope with the idea of two adults caring for one another? When I was a child I was given a bible to read. Made to read it, I was. Genesis 19 vs30-38 Lots daughters get their father drunk to have him father their children.
What about Exodus 21 vs 7 “If a man sells his daughter as a slave,she is not be set free as male saves are”
Or what about the times my father worked on the sabbath? Exodus 35 vs 2 says he should be put to death.
Our kids minds are mature enough to cope with reading the bible, filled with filth, debauchery, deceit, treachery and vengefulness. That is the abomination. Not the ad

jai says:

10:15pm | 03/06/11

Funny that we can have our kids exposed to the likes of lady gaga and rhianna singing and dancing in next to nothing but to men embracing is too much controversy, if it promotes safe sex and the reduction of stds, it cant be all that bad, or maybe it would not of been a problem if the image were of two women.

Adrian says:

11:04pm | 03/06/11

@Sick of it
<I never claimed homosexuals were not natural. I did state they are an aberation in nature.>

You said “there are gay couples raising kids all over the country, and that in itself is unnatural”.  You didn’t specify which part you consider “unnatural”, ie in violation of a natural law - the fact that there are gay couples or the fact that they are raising children. So I used the fact that homosexuality and same sex parenting are common in nature to disprove both claims. Your claim is false, and you admit this yourself when you acknowledge that ” there are many documented cases of shared parenting, both in the animal kingdom and in some human societies.” Yet you then go on defending a claim which you acknowledge is false. I find your behaviour bizarre.

< please feel free to show me any example where homosexual animals, other than humans, are able to conceive their own children?>

Please feel free to show how this is in any way relevant. Conceiving children is not a prerequisite for parenting, a fact you acknowledge yourself.

< So using medical advances to enable this to occur is, in every sense of the word, indeed “misuse”.>

Repeating the same claim over and over isn’t going to make it come true. You need to provide evidence.

< And to beat you to it I don’t condone IVF for any purpose.>

I assumed we were discussing reproductive technology as it pertains to same sex couples. If you meant to say you are opposed to IVF generally you should have said so before. You are a poor communicator.

<  As I said previously I believe in nature and there are enough people about to ruin the planet with overpopulation without science assisting those who through personal choice (older women who want it all) or nature are not able to conceive.>

Please provide evidence that the relatively tiny number of babies produced via reproductive technologies will contribute significantly to overpopulation and “ruining the planet”. Peer reviewed scientific studies only please, not more of your personal opinions and unsubstantiated claims.

<“only works if I establish there is something wrong with homosexuality”? I apologise. I didn’t realise it was up to me to build a case against it.>
That’s because you seem to be very inexperienced or very inept at constructing a rational debate. The burden of proof always lies with the claimant. That’s you, by the way. You said “so to say the ad is harmless is crap and I call bullshit”. If you can’t or won’t support your claim with evidence there is no reason why I or anyone else should take it seriously. 

<Care to enlighten me on the case for it first?>
I never said there was a “case for it.” I have no claim to prove.

<And finally, my all time favourite on these blogs -“idiot” and “bigot”. All too often it is easier to label someone without knowing them than trying to maintain the topic at hand. Without knowing me and because you disagree with a viewpoint I put forward you immediately assume I am an idiot.>

I didn’t say you are an idiot. I said that calling bullshit when you don’t have the evidence to back your claim makes you look like an idiot. It isn’t bigotry to point this out.

< I will admit to being guilty of most of the definition (of bigotry)>

At last, something we can agree on.

Another Chris says:

12:32am | 04/06/11

@ Sick of it all…while I don’t agree on all points (though the majority), that’s a decent response. Ofcourse… your argument is that well done that no one will reply.

Matt says:

09:37am | 04/06/11

I feel sorry for Brisbane trapped in their own little humid box . I visited for a few days at easter and the place looks and feels like it hasnt moved on from the eighties and obviously their attitudes havent moved on either. I am sorry to say but Brisbane represents the worst of Australians ( bogan, boring, narrow minded scared little people)

OddCreature says:

10:22am | 04/06/11

Sick Of It All - your argument makes no sense. At all.

You claim to believe in “nature”, and acknowledge that homosexuality is a natual occurance, yet at the same time claim it is an “aberration of nature” on the basis that homosexuals are in the minority. There’s no logic to this.

If homosexuality occurs in nature then nature created homosexuality, so by definition homosexuality is NATURAL. They fact they are in the minority is irrelevant. These people are how nature made them, an ad in a bus shelter will not make this less so. Same applies for children, if they were born gay they will figure it out eventually, and should be allowed to do so in a world where they will be accepted for it instead of being told to hide their true self away because they are “unnatural”.

As for your argument that homosexuals and infertile people shouldn’t be allowed to have children because nature didn’t intend it…. well Kiesha Abarahams was conceived by natural means. But her parents were drop-kicks who abused and ultimately killed the poor girl. The ability to conceive a child does not give you the ability or the right to raise them. Parenting is not natural, it is a learned skill. If a gay or infertile couple had been allowed to raise her instead, despite having been unable to conceive her themselves, that beautiful little girl might still be alive today. So take that and stick it right up your non-religeous back side.

Face facts - you just find the whole gay thing icky and don’t want to have to look at it. Well you know what? I find images of blood-clotted brains being sliced open rather icky too. But I’ve had to be confronted with those sorts of images on the telly every day, often during meal times, for the last twenty years because I’ve been forced to accept that they are “for the greater good”. We all have to put up with a few images we don’t like. This, like the sliced-open brain, is a campaign for public health. So like me, you’re just going to have to learn to live with the icky realities of this world.

bloke says:

02:35pm | 04/06/11

@sick of it all… mate I think you’re missing the point here, kids do experiment with homosexuality, and it is import that they get the message that safe sex is vitally important. most kids do experiment with the same sex, even if it’s only once, I did when I was a young teen, found out it wasn’t for me, do I have hang ups? no, I feel better for knowing that I made an educated and informed decision that I am not homosexual.  The fact is that teens will experiment, they will have sex down the local park.. behind a shed etc etc despite their religious or social beliefs.  I guess all I’m trying to say is that knowledge is power and having the power to make an informed decision in what you think is an irrational situation is very important. Sex is a fact of life always, has been, always will be, I grew up with the old grim reaper adds telling us to wear condoms and those adds worked, you may remember the same argument was applied to them from the far right but the facts are out mate, have been for years that those adds worked.  HIV and other std’s are spreading amongst our youth more now than back in eighties.  These adds and more like them should be in our faces, it IS NECESSARY.

Ross says:

09:41am | 05/06/11

Disgusting.  Should not be allowed in public.

Kate says:

10:01am | 05/06/11

@ Matt: you obviously haven’t been to Perth then!

Joe says:

06:18pm | 05/06/11

I’m really quite surprised at some of the responses in this blog. Firstly @Galah you are born gay or born straight and for a lucky few can enjoy both but to say that an ad of two men hugging will turn the next generation gay is ridiculous. What else would you stop your children from watching, rugby cause gee wiz when they get a try the players might hug…. I’d think not. Also the best thing about this sort of depiction in public view is the fact that it makes small minded people like yourself accept the reality of Homosexuality in society. Also judging by your name your probably from a minority group yourself and that to me would beg the question why don’t you try and give everyone a fair go. Then @sick of it, I pity you people who are gay are pretty happy with themselves, we are obviously different from the normal grain of society and we are ok with that, it doesn’t mean we live horrible repressed lives. Also the more people that accept us the easier it will get. The only thing I would say to someone like you is to be careful what you hitch your ride to as it would be a funny day when one of your children come out to you that they are gay and you are forced to accept them for who they are.

Snake says:

12:59pm | 07/06/11

@Joe: Please provide some research to support your claims that you are born gay or straight. The human genome project has still not managed to find a “gay” gene so I’m sure they could benefit from your discovery.

@Luce: Your argument is a pathetic one. Sociopaths find it “natural” to torture animals and feel nothing. There are pedofiles that “naturally” find the pheromones of children physiologically arousing. There are psychopaths that are “naturally” addicted to hurting the opposite sex through torture and eventual death.

While each of these examples of “natural” is true for the person in context, in society it is not “natural” at all. The rainbow alliance is fighting to make homosexuality a “natural” and accepted lifestyle. There is a reason these ads are targetted at gay men, their entire lifestyle is one of far greater risk. There are scores of statistics to back that claim up. Note that there is no image of a straight couple.

For ages the deluded rainbow alliance has used claims like yours to support calls for homosexuality being “natural”. First it was “but animals do it”... It was refuted simply because animals practice infanticide… then the rainbow alliance learnt that we can’t compare to animals. Now they aren’t even making animal comparisons… Rather “its natural”. I wonder what will come next?

acotrel says:

05:35pm | 11/06/11

What really surprises me is the assumption by the ACL that I should really care about their religion and their attitude towards homosexuals.  The truth is that I’M NOT INTERESTED ! I’ve got more important things to do than to peep at other people and judge them.

acotrel says:

05:39pm | 11/06/11

‘So I have to ask – is there some reason homosexuality is “sexier” than straight sex or is this homophobia?’

Anything which is construed as naughty or evil is much more attractive to the prurient. Some repression amongst the faithful?

Johnathon Patience says:

04:50pm | 01/06/11

Shane, I’m sorry (well, not really “sorry”) - but you are patently wrong. 

I am an open, gay man but I simply do not want my niece and nephew being confronted with sexually suggestive images when they are six.  Whether hetro or gay.  Being six should be about everything “G” rated.  I sometimes cringe when I see gays like us use the “homophobic” word - and I wonder why you would deny chldren the wonderful innocence of childhood.  Perhaps you are “child-phobic”?

GC says:

04:51pm | 01/06/11

“Mummy, why are two men hugging?”

“Because they love each other dear”

Rick says:

04:51pm | 01/06/11

Mummy why are those two men hugging? because they are a perverted darling. Homophobic is another word the freckle hecklers have stolen, surley it means scared of homonoids

Shane* says:

05:17pm | 01/06/11

@Johnathon

How very conservative of you. Unfortunately unless you keep your niece and nephew locked inside they’re going to be exposed to sexual images. Deodorant, jeans, fragrance commercials etc…

My point was that many parents have no issue with a man and a woman hugging on a billboard, since that inspires no questions from children. Two men hugging inspires questions. They are scared of those questions.

@GC
And yes, GC, the world would be such a happy happy place if kids didn’t have that annoying habit of viewing the world through a lens uncorrupted by the thought police. A response like you suggest would simply result in the furrowing of tiny brows… Children see the world in a certain manner and they see a man and a woman as socially and biologically compatible. An image of two gay men makes them question that. Hence: awkward questions and discomfort for parents who aren’t prepared to answer those questions.

DaisyDuke says:

05:52pm | 01/06/11

“Children see the world in a certain manner and they see a man and a woman as socially and biologically compatible”

I disagree, childrens impression of this manner is a reflection of the impression society still has. It is not founded through innocence or naivety, if it was then they wouldnt have an impression on it at all.

As such it is not the awkardness of the conversation of enlightening a naive child to the actuality of life - it is the parents awkardness with the issue itself.

Danny Brown says:

06:57pm | 01/06/11

“Mummy, why are two men hugging?”
“Because they love each other, honey. Just like mummy and daddy.”
Gee, that was hard!

Sid says:

07:53pm | 01/06/11

“Mummy, why are two men hugging?”
“Because they love each other, honey. Just like mummy and daddy.”
“The just have not figured out what their genitalia was designed for”
Now we are getting closer to the truth.

outragedathypocracy says:

10:28pm | 01/06/11

@dannybrown - exactly.  Been there had that conversation.  The sky did not fall in nor are my sons now gay.

AliceC says:

10:35am | 02/06/11

@Sid
““Mummy, why are two men hugging?”
“Because they love each other, honey. Just like mummy and daddy.”
“The just have not figured out what their genitalia was designed for”
Now we are getting closer to the truth. “

What truth? That there is only one way to have sex? Our fingers weren’t ‘designed’ to use a keyboard, so you’d better stop typing pronto!

Sad Sad Reality says:

11:00am | 02/06/11

“Mummy, why are two men hugging?”
“Because someone has to design our dresses darling.”

Kym says:

11:10am | 02/06/11

For those of you who are saying that male and female genitalia should only be used for what it was ‘biologically designed for’, are you also advising us of the immoral nature of any sex at all that doesn’t involve procreation?
So as person in a heterosexual relationship, if I choose not have children, or am possibly not able to for a medical reason (or maybe the wrath of god for my sins), does that make me less than a person to you? Am I ‘no better than’ a homosexual who cannot fulfill my biological purpose?

Chrys Stevenson says:

12:18pm | 02/06/11

I can remember reading the word ‘homosexual’ in the Courier Mail when I was about 12 years old (40 years ago!)  I asked my mother, “Mum, what’s a homosexual?” And she replied, “Well, darling most men, like your Dad, love women. But some men love other men.”  I recall saying, “Oh!” in a kind of “Oh, I see.” way and went on with my reading - quite unperturbed. I don’t recall any emotional scarring as a result of that 2 minute conversation.

Shane* says:

12:40pm | 02/06/11

@Kym

Not immoral. Unnatural. Big difference. Kids base their morals on what we teach them. They base their ideas of ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ on what they themselves percieve. Since they’ve yet to be hounded into unquestioning acceptance of homosexuality, they still ask awkward questions about something they percieve to be unnatural.

And yes, gay sex is patently unnatural.

MichaelM says:

12:59pm | 02/06/11

Sid, I am certian that gay people know exactly what their genitalia was designed for. And that they know quite well how to use it. Are you really a moron? Somehow I doubt it - you seem able to spell and punctuate. More wasted intelligence.

Kym says:

02:48pm | 02/06/11

Shane, Thank you for responding. So what is the basis for something being ‘unnatural’ then? Which children exactly perceive it as unnatural. All children? And what is this based on? It could just be the adults around them acting awkwardly towards a situation that makes them question something. They seem quite perceptive at picking up moods like that… They will one day understand HOW to make a child, but why does that make all other sexual acts unnatural? What is the basis for this claim?
Also, my question still stands. If I have heterosexual sex an purposefully stop the act of conception am I also acting unnaturally? If I cannot conceive am I unnatural?
I am having a great deal of trouble noticing the definition of ‘natural’ in the context of ‘protected’ heterosexual acts and homosexual acts, if neither can result in conception?
As you can see, your statement seems to raise more questions than answers…

Shane* says:

03:37pm | 02/06/11

@Kym,

Hopefully I can help to open your eyes to the way your thoughts have been moulded on this matter by a very vocal minority.

My “claim” that gay sex is unnatural is based on the fact that a penis and a vagina have evolved to be compatible. Since there is no evolutionary beneifit to the alternative/gay/anal sexual practise, it is impossible for this to evolve similarly. Lubrication and pelvic adjustments simply do not take place in alternative forms of intercourse.

As for your question, the answer is simply ‘yes.’ Contraception is unnatural, as it is taking a physically natural act and artifically altering the outcome. But remember, I am not aruging morals, I am arguing nature and evolution. Contraception is unnatural, as is gay sex. Does that make either of them morally wrong? No, of course not. But it explains why children see homosexuality as unusual.

Infertility is not unnatural: it is unfortunate, but it occurs naturally.

mel says:

07:31pm | 02/06/11

Shane*, I don’t understand the point of your “unnatural” argument. Taking your perspective, I suspect most if not all of us have had “unnatural” sex. I certainly have (and lots of wet slippery fun it was too)!! So what, though? Unless you say that “natural” sex is the only type we should have, there’s no reason to bring that concept up.

The evolutionary canard you use is a weird one, given you should say that we have evolved the ability to express our sexuality in “unnatural” ways to avoid unwanted pregnancies or the malthusian conflict of overpopulation and dwindling supplies. “Unnatural” sex is a perfectly acceptable evolutionary response.

Also, when I wrote canard, I thought of ducks which brings us into a whole other area of “unnatural” sex. But let’s move away from that!

Bruce says:

09:27pm | 02/06/11

Be afraid, be very, very afraid !!

Ivan says:

09:46am | 03/06/11

@Shane*: interesting reach. Gay sex is unnatural so children find it unusual.

I’d contend that children are blank canvasses and only, ultimately, form the views of their parents (fortunately this varies when they develop the ability to think rationally).

I can remember when I discovered how babies were made. Certainly seemed unusual to me. Perhaps even a little disconcerting. I mean, who would do that (I remember thinking at the time).

But, what would I know, perhaps I was already on my way to being gay at 6.

James1 says:

04:41pm | 01/06/11

Woah.  That just boggled my mind.

We’re through the looking glass here people…

Zaf says:

04:42pm | 01/06/11

Wait…you’re Erick Northman, aren’t you?

john says:

05:03pm | 01/06/11

@Erik, I thought it was well known, gone are the 1950’s sailor suits and 1970’s village people attire & 1990’s boy bands its the bad guys now that are hot!  if you watch ‘true blood’  or your a fan of the ‘vampire diaries’ series, all those hot guys are biting each other on the neck for far too long and having way too much fun!!

michael j says:

01:07am | 02/06/11

@Erick-would a vampire have any need for a condom after biting his/
soul-mate on the neck/other places with all the blood around,i don’t think
so,, my conclusion is Vampires make poor choices for advertising Safe-Sex,,

Erin says:

05:27pm | 01/06/11

I really have to question the assertion that the company didn’t realise the complaints were an orchestrated push by the ACL to have the ad pulled. Several of the complaints are nearly identical and most of the others are objecting that they promote homosexuality. Clearly some of the staff over Adshel are not too bright.
Even if these were sent in by a bunch of random strangers, the arguments are ridiculous and shouldn’t have been grounds to take the ad down. One person writes that they feel the ad is attacking their beliefs so it shouldn’t allowed to be seen. Talk about hypocrisy! These people are attacking my beliefs that homosexual relationships are perfectly natural and normal. But only their concerns should be given any weight. Utterly ridiculous indeed.

Paul Horn says:

04:31pm | 02/06/11

Erin are you like saying that having cancer is as perfectly natural and normal a state for the human body as those that are cancer free???

You are truly crazy!

mel says:

08:13pm | 02/06/11

Paul Horn (hee hee funny name in this context) Are you saying that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured?

What’s your definition of a disease?

Erin says:

04:59pm | 01/06/11

A good point there, Tim. However, as a straight woman, I just happen to think this ad is rather hot. Very happy to see it in bus shelters everywhere

Ian says:

06:47pm | 01/06/11

Why would you think that everyone agrees Tim at least 10% of the male population or either gay or bi-sexual and then of course you have women who make up over 50% of the population and like Erin most would like to see a couple of attractive guys instead of women so I suggest you stop being so naive that everyone would agree with people like you

Jack says:

07:03pm | 01/06/11

You may find it hot Erin, but they would not be interested in you as they have not yet figure out what their body was biologically designed for.

Baal says:

09:11pm | 01/06/11

@ What about us bi-sexuals Jack. I know what my body is evolved for (not designed) but I also use it for fun in a variety of ways with both males and females.
Not everyone fits into this gay versus straight world, some of us live in both and are quite happy thankyou very much.

Katey says:

09:13pm | 01/06/11

@Jack, I’m sure that doesn’t stop you looking at pictures of women who wouldn’t be interested in you. I’m not going to suggest what kind of percentage that your posts here imply that might be, but only because I suspect you don’t understand percentages.

Tim says:

09:18am | 02/06/11

Ian,
I’d suggest you stop being naive and realise that not everyone is being serious.

Matt says:

09:41am | 02/06/11

Tim here is a list of my priorities for what I would prefer to see in advertising spaces:
free speech > naked ladies > IT products > Satanism > religion > christianity

I truly do believe that freedom of speech (in this case in advertising) is THE most important issue in our society.

The men in the picture are hugging….If you look at Wendy’s facebook page, there are comments where people say they have seen pictures of her hugging children! by her own standards she is a child molester.

Sad Sad Reality says:

10:54am | 02/06/11

Ian it’s more like 5% of the population that is gay, the other 5% is added for dramatic effect.

Erin says:

08:02pm | 02/06/11

Yes - possibly not interested in me, but I can still enjoy looking, eh!!
Anyway, If I did happen to run off with two (impossibly gorgeous) gay men, my husband would be asking me some serious questions.

And dude… biologically designed?? I’m married and able to have children and we are very seriously considering adopting instead of having our own biological children because I am concerned about population growth and the number of children out there who don’t have loving supporting families and need one.
Perhaps that makes me somehow wrong, and against nature too?

Anyway, if you’re going down THAT path… we’re biologically designed to start having children at 12, 13, 14… we don’t do that. In fact, it’s completely illegal. Illegal to fulfil our biological purpose by design. But no one has a issue with that, hey? WHY? because all this is fear-based scapegoating and nothing more.

PS: hot men rule.

James1 says:

04:46pm | 01/06/11

No one forces you to look.  If you don’t like it, look at something else.

CB says:

04:51pm | 01/06/11

Frankly AnthonyG, having sex with ANYONE can be weird, dirty and dangerous. Besides, if there was an ad put up in an area that was plagued by teen pregnancies I’m sure there would be approval because of course the results are so much more far reaching aren’t they…

Eleanor says:

04:53pm | 01/06/11

You know, Anthony, I don’t mind if you’re straight. Just don’t flaunt it in public, OK? And do you have any idea how risky heterosexual sex is? Not only can people still catch HIV, but they could also end up with an unwanted pregnancy!

Markus says:

05:08pm | 01/06/11

“I don’t mind if you’re straight. Just don’t flaunt it in public, OK?”
We don’t. It’s called public indecency, and can land you in jail

Eleanor Pye says:

05:34pm | 01/06/11

@Markus
Me and my boyfriend have hugged each other countless times in public and no police officer has ever threatened to arrest us or warned us we could land ourselves in gaol. Never even received a strange look. Your assertion is totally ridiculous.

Ian says:

06:50pm | 01/06/11

Anthony you must be looking at a different picture or have a very strange understanding of having sex these guys certainly dont look like they are doing anything other than hugging… could be you and your brother ???

v says:

07:13pm | 01/06/11

Well said AnthonyG
PS James1, thanks for the pathetically puerile contribution.
PPS Eleanor, HIV never used to be a risk until it spread from the Gay community.

Ivan says:

08:40pm | 01/06/11

It’s a hug dude.  Not sex.  Uptight much?

NicoleG says:

09:13pm | 01/06/11

Well said my arse!

If the tables were turned and it was two chicks there Mr G, would you have a problem with that?

AnthonyG says:

09:31pm | 01/06/11

you know I like threesomes lovey

NicoleG says:

10:05pm | 01/06/11

In your farken dreams Mr G.

David says:

10:05pm | 01/06/11

AnthonyG you have serious problems if you think two guys hugging is “men having sex with each other”. Have some perspective dude.

AnthonyG says:

10:17pm | 01/06/11

That would just about make me a hypocrite now wouldn’t it? Well spank me!!!

Kate says:

12:38am | 02/06/11

And here I was thinking HIV was first contracted from a monkey in Africa, not a gay person. Thanks for the education.

James1 says:

07:49am | 02/06/11

I am satisfied that I contributed more than you did v.

Sad Sad Reality says:

11:06am | 02/06/11

Every bug chaser knows a hug is where it starts.

Eleanor says:

11:17am | 02/06/11

“I don’t mind if you’re straight. Just don’t flaunt it in public, OK?”
We don’t. It’s called public indecency, and can land you in jail

Oh, I know Markus! Because everywhere I look, I see gay men and women going at it hammer and tongs! I never, ever come across heterosexual people being over the top with their PDAs.

Iain says:

09:11pm | 02/06/11

No, you just have to be a pathetic bigot that spends way too much thought energy on other peoples private lives..

AnthonyG says:

10:08pm | 02/06/11

They don’t call me felch for nothing!!

S says:

05:15pm | 05/06/11

firstly, THEY ARE HUGGING! not having sex!

secondly, I find it amusing that you are so against two MEN “having sex.. in front of us through the media” yet a few years back Britney Spears and Madonna were shown kissing in front of a LIVE audience on INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION. I’de like to see what your response was to that!

thirdly, just because having sex with a man isn’t what you do, doesn’t make it “weird, dirty and dangerous”.

Craig says:

05:02pm | 01/06/11

So Jade its perfectly alright for you to impose your moral standard that the desire to save lives should outweigh whatever the Christians imperative is? Of course it is, and why? Because you think its the right thing to do. You are no different to them in that. Few of us are.

Johnathon Patience says:

05:15pm | 01/06/11

Jade, your point shows both your insight and ignorance.  I am gay and “pleased” with it.  (“Proud” is so homo-egoic and passe).  The point is “children”.  We simply should not expose children to overtly explicit sexual content of any kind.  And PLEASE don’t sart with “But they show such .... at the footy…” or anywhere else.  They do.  And they are equally as wrong.  Stand tall, speak up, and eventually calm rationale minds will prevail ...

Adam says:

05:20pm | 01/06/11

I agree. It’s parents who set the precedent.
Children are naturally inquisitive, and that has never been a bad thing.

Tell all the major TV stations to censor a football game every time a players touches another’s arse. It’d be a short game with lots of black bars. Wake up people.

jade (the other one) says:

07:52pm | 01/06/11

@Craig - Funnily enough, Christians are perfectly happy to defend the right to life of certain groups, provided those groups are the unborn. As shown by the pro-life movement and this insidious and horrible campaign, the rights and lives of the living don’t matter to Christians. It is a deeply abhorrent and hypocritical stance, and not at all in keeping with the teachings they are supposed to live by.

Are you a cultural relativist Craig? Do you truly believe that saving lives is less important than the right of people to not have to answer awkward questions?

@Johnathon, this advertisement shows less than many of the Disney movies we raise our children on. It shows less than many images I’ve seen in Children’s Bibles promoted by this movement. I view the sexual undertones in this image because I am a grown adult who actually knows the purpose of the product that they are holding. A child would not see anything more than a couple cuddling if it were not for the imposition of values by adults.

@Adam, exactly my point. Adults tend to imagine that children see things from an adult point of view.They simply don’t. And all this panic that a child will somehow see sexual undertones in this image requires them to:
A) know what sex is
B) understand the concept of foreplay
C) know what a condom is used for.

Any parent who would feel obligated to explain those concepts to their child because of this poster has some serious issues in my opinion.

Rev D says:

03:13pm | 04/06/11

@Jake. Be fair! They don’t try to impose all of their moral rules on us, because then they too would have to follow them all. They also appear to have NO actual understanding of their own rules. Such as the actual rule being that a man should not have sex with another man; So really homosexuality is ok, so long as no sex happens. I also heard somehere that the orthodox Jews in New York discussed this matter and said that so long as no anal sex occurred there was no violation of the law of the Toraj, or Old Testament as the rule as stated had not been broken. So oral sex was deemed to be fine.

Mind you the same idiots who try to enforce this rule forget the other hundred or so in the same section that say that having tatoo’s, pierced anythings, wearing polyesater/cotton or woolblend clothes (clothes made of 2 or more materials), omlettes & quiche (do not mix meat and dairy), shellfish, touching or eating a vast array of animals and birds (including Emu and Kangaroo), women who have just given birth, various sick people, women who are having their period, trim beards, be rude to stupid people, BE HATEFUL TOWARDS OTHERS, have fields with 2 different crops in them, eat anything but well done meat (no consuming anything with blood in it), be nice to immigrants/assylum seakers, be just and so on and so forth. This are all offences under the very same “law” that goes on about homosexuals.

I don’t know any “Christian” who really upholds all of these. Why? Because, as one put it, it would be inconvenient. However, by virtue of not being homosexuals following that one apparently is quite easy.

So, for all the Christians who are on thei hign moral hobby horse, get off and follow the second rule of Jesus, you know that funny man you claim to follow. Love your neighbour as you love yourself. If you are following this and are still condeming gay people… get some couselling because hating yourself that much is SERIOUSLY unhealthy.

God Bless

Biologist says:

01:17am | 02/06/11

Is it any coincidence that in many species’ genepools there’s a tendency to genetically disrupt their population of heterosexual male/females when their population has grown to unsustainable levels? If you want to point to the animal kingdom as proof for the validity of Homosexuality, then accept the fact that it is an abnormality that specifically functions to control population overgrowth! Population overgrowth is an abnormality predominantly caused by human interference. I think I’m starting to see a bigger picture here.

While gays and conservatives squabble over so called ‘rights’, the United Nations is acting out it’s agenda to reduce global human population from 7 billion to 900 million by 2050! How can you all be so thick to miss this? Oh that’s right I forgot you’re all still caught up in your he said she said rhetoric… wake up to reality people!

Paulb says:

10:48pm | 02/06/11

So if it (homosexuality) has a specific function how do you then call it an abnormality?  Obviously we’re working to save the planet here, one butt at a time.  Perhaps if you all joined in we wouldn’t need Julia’s UN-sponsored carbon tax.

Erin says:

04:55pm | 01/06/11

Isn’t 10% of the population gay? Not sure they can ‘miss’ a demographic like that. It’s a community health issue, I think the most places it’s seen, the better.

Ivan says:

08:48pm | 01/06/11

Haha a variation of the “Bob Katter ‘there’s no gay cowboys’ concept”.

Gay people are everywhere.  We live in the suburbs, we look like regular people, we act like regular people, we have regular jobs and have regular hopes and dreams of living in a society where it’s society that doesn’t keep trying to segregate and point out our differences.

Sad Sad Reality says:

03:09pm | 02/06/11

I knew regular people wore butt plugs all day to “prepare”, smoked crystal meth and used straight iPhone aps to bang random strangers in their work toilets. I just new it.

Paulb says:

10:50pm | 02/06/11

You know lots about the subject SSR.  Next we’ll be hearing from you about your horror of glory holes and how fragile modern condoms are.

Simonious says:

05:30pm | 01/06/11

Ah Simon I think you might find your suggestion actually illegal.

DaisyDuke says:

05:57pm | 01/06/11

So was homosexuality 25 odd years ago

Fred says:

07:24pm | 01/06/11

Goes to show, wait long enough and immoral winging lefties will get any perversion legalised. Simon you may be in luck soon!

RW says:

07:56pm | 01/06/11

I shouldn’t even validate your comment with a response Fred. You are a sick individual, we all know it’s the sick “righties” that act all upstanding with their christian morals then get caught molesting a child or animal.

Simon says:

08:05pm | 01/06/11

pity the animals but it may take the spotlight off the gays !!

john says:

08:38pm | 01/06/11

@Fred, i think he was referring to lefties!

Tim says:

09:00pm | 01/06/11

The first thing legalized was heterosexual marriage so I guess it’s heterosexuals who started the path of immorality.

Lostie says:

08:50am | 02/06/11

As soon as an animal is capable of granting consent, go for it.

Of course, by that time we are going to have bigger issues about the conduct animals can or can-not consent to. For starters we’ll be unable to obtain meat (since persons can’t consent to being eaten, presumably animals will be prohibited from consenting also).

Sad Sad Reality says:

01:22pm | 02/06/11

There are gorillas that can sign consent. Something to think about. They’re probably keen to remain in the affluence to which they’ve become accustomed too though.

Paul Horn says:

04:21pm | 02/06/11

Bloody good retort Lostie. These idiot left wingers bshing us over the head with tripe such as :Animals can’t consent” must be pretty twisted trying to answer that one! I am sure that if faced with either the prospect of being butchered to death or screwed to death the animal would choose screwing any day.

In fact one could reward such a person with an animal rights award!!! Something for the animal activists to consider.

Progressives have been screwed again. And by the way many animals species resort to extreme violence against those members of their species indulging in this behaviour! 

Over to you lefties! Looks like you’ve been snookered yet again!

mel says:

09:05pm | 02/06/11

Paul Horn (hee hee funny name in this context) can you give examples of the “many animals species resort to extreme violence against those members of their species indulging in this behaviour”? Or are you making stuff up?

Lostie says:

06:06am | 03/06/11

Paul Horn,

I am one of those “lefties” about whom you complain. I just dislike the fallacy of a slippery slope argument. What a day - I get accused of being anti-leftist and a woman (different thread).

Just as I dislike fictionalised evidence - there are various species in which homosexuality is a common part of the community. I am not aware of any species (aside from humans) in which the outcome you described is the norm. Even if it is, it’s the naturalistic fallacy. We have the capacity for reason, we are not bound to so something, or authorised to do something, just because it is done in the wild.

Admittedly the origin of laws regarding animal erotica were largely based in fictional beliefs (religion and a belief that such activity could create half human hybrids).

SSR’s point about Gorilla’s being able to sign consent is an interesting one but, to be honest, I would think that your average gorilla is more than capable of making its displeasure known in other ways. Many of which would be fatal to the person attempting to enforce their will over said gorilla. Of course we may have some difficulty in determining whether the Gorilla was offended by the inters-pecies nature of the conduct, or the fact that it was being touched against it’s will.

Paul Horn says:

02:18pm | 03/06/11

Yes thank You Mel. I often introduce myself to ladies I have’nt met with the middle name “My” or “The”. Amazing how many of them of them just don’t get.

As for the next question Chimpanzees are known to violently exclude members of their troop indulging in what one may classify as homosexual behaviour.

My point was simply to reinforce the stupidity of justifying homosexuality on the pretext of homosexual behaviour in the animal world. Homosexual apologists do it all the time!   

Homosexual behaviour is no different to animal sex. Every argument used to support the homosexual act is an argument for bestiality.

Lostie privided a very good counter to the typical drivel spouted by the progressives that animals cannot give consent . if you have ever been watering the garden and your pet dog views your leg with amorous intent how the hell can that be construed as anything but! 

Leftist thinking ties itself up in knots.

mel says:

12:06am | 04/06/11

Paul, do you have a reference for your story of chimp anti gay violence, or was it made up? You’ll also need to supply a few non chimp examples of intra-species anti gay violence, as you said there were many examples of that sort of behaviour.

It can also be said that heterosexual sex is pretty animal like, if done correctly, so if we permit heterosexual sex, does that mean bestiality is sure to follow.

Do you actually have any logical train of thought in your argument at all?

Ivan says:

01:09pm | 04/06/11

Paul, firstly, we’re not animals and it’s debasing suggest, in an advanced species we need to find reflections of homosexuality to justify our existence.

As I’ve said in another thread, while you’re not past this debate the rest of society is.  Laws protecting the equal status of all people, regardless of their sexual orientation have been enshrined.

However, after already being asked once, I’d also love a citation for that statement Paul.  Perhaps not from the annals of the Catholic Church tho.

You know, one of the other laws in our country is anti-vilification?  It’s against the law to incite hate or violence against people on the basis of their sexuality.  But you wouldn’t be suggesting that homosexuals be “violently excluded”, right?

While I’m sure you could have googled “homosexuality in nature” for facts instead of spouting drivel, but if you do there’s one I found for you on Wikipedia which gives some great examples of species accepted homosexuality.  I’m sure you’ll find it illuminating. 

Go to wikipedia.  Search for “homosexuality in nature” I guess those leftist bastards are going hard at it - for want of a better word.

You know, the internet is also remarkably useful for communicating real information instead of tired ol’ hate and loathing.  You should try it.

Stacks of studies have been done by real scientists (probably with all the time they have by not spouting mindless vitriol on blogs and running about looking for the next thing to be outraged about). 

From what is said on the Wikipedia page and the cited studies, there’s documented evidence of at least 1500 species that have homosexuality as an integral component of their make up (so far).  I saw that studies have only really commenced in earnest because of the drop in stigma relating to the taboo subject of sex.  Thank God we’ve moved on, hey?

Did you know 60% of Bonobo females sexual activity is apparently female/female?  I certainly didn’t.  I bet you find that fascinating.

But seriously, go have a squizz.  It’s really good stuff.

Markus says:

04:58pm | 01/06/11

Yep, apparently it is only Christians and white Anglo males that have no right to be offended about anything, ever.

AnthonyG says:

08:47pm | 01/06/11

A guy once said to me if you dont agree with the Muslim just say to them Allah din dinne don’t know what it means but Allah din dinne my friend.

AnthonyG says:

09:13pm | 01/06/11

Allah takes it up the ___ do da do da

AnthonyG says:

10:28pm | 01/06/11

Oh I’ve been informed that Allah means God.
Since I am a good Christian
Its been a while but i’ll give it a go.
Forgive me father for I have sinned ____________________ sorry I forgot the rest of the lines. the thought was there.

AnthonyG says:

07:06pm | 01/06/11

The heading says Gay sex apparently sexier than straight sex. I didn’t say there was an image. Maybe we should all agree with each other and not have an oppinion. It would make great reading wouldn’t it simon.

Seanr says:

08:01pm | 01/06/11

Agreed, very sad ACL
The ad is a lot less sexually suggestive than a lot of adverts u normally see in public and it’s for a good cause.

Shifter says:

04:07pm | 02/06/11

Yeah, turns out I’ve been having foreplay with my mates all this time. Who knew?

Christ in a cream cheese sauce, delete the condom and it’s a hug.

fml says:

05:23pm | 01/06/11

Because of the ordinate amount of hate filled people that fill the
“amount of exposure/ cultural oxygen/media space” with their rhetoric.
This is merely the response to their initial actions.

Adam says:

05:24pm | 01/06/11

It’s called discrimination.

DC says:

07:27pm | 01/06/11

No Adam it’s called controlling a cancer to the fabric of society.

Chris says:

07:52pm | 01/06/11

wow, get a clue.

First, no one expects a straight person to find homosexuality a turn on? Just like I walk past images a straights couples all day and cant say it does anything for me…

Secondly, I think you are exaggerating the media presence of gays, go on, add up all the articles/billboards/tv commercials and then take a percentage of how many are homosexually themed. Then please eat your words.

mel says:

03:44pm | 05/06/11

DC, I thought the cancer to the fabric of society are the intolerant, the misguided, the bigoted people who can’t accept that people lead different lives to them. How does any of this affect you and your life?

AJ says:

11:04pm | 01/06/11

At my same-sex wedding in NZ in 2005, my best woman’s son was my page boy.  He later remarked of his best friend that “I love him and, when I grow up, I’m going to civil union him”.  It was adorable!  It reminded me of saying the same things as a child of my parents!  “I love you, mum/dad and, when I grow up, I’m going to marry you”.  Seeing my parents in love didn’t make me straight [praise be!] nor did seeing 100% depiction of heterosexual couples everywhere… EVERYWHERE… confuse me or make me straight.  Actually, I lie.  I did end up thinking that my feelings for boys was something abnormal and I never figured why I could not get excited about the idea of holding hands with or kissing a girl.  Children MUST see same-sex couples of either gender in imagery to balance their opinions.  That way, the next LGBT generation will have it far easier than I did, and I detest Wendy Francis and her supporters with a passion for their hatred and misguided ways.

Kevin says:

06:40pm | 01/06/11

Toby, let’s flip your argument around then.  For a gay person, it could also be considered offensive seeing ‘similar’ images of straight couples all around them; for a gay person, such an image is unavoidable.  However, a gay person wouldn’t go around to complain, and there’re two reasons for that: 1 - gay person is in the minority; 2 - and this is the more important reason - the gay person got used to it.  So have you considered that if there’re more of these images around and it becomes ‘commonalised’, it wouldn’t be so bad after all?

Katey says:

09:20pm | 01/06/11

Yes, lets have more pictures of half-nude women. Like the current Natalie Portman half-nude Miss Dior poster where she is sporting a disturbingly child-like bow in her hair. As a heterosexual woman, I would much rather see implied gay sex than implied paedophilia, thanks very much. And so would my children.

Cat says:

10:06am | 03/06/11

er, Katey - I hate to break it to you but bows have never been exclusively the domain of children, there is nothing paedophilic implied with a bow at all and I really struggle to see how you could draw that comparison.

loulou says:

05:20pm | 01/06/11

This is my question, also.  We probably all know homosexuals who aren’t in a lather of outrage over this.

fml says:

05:28pm | 01/06/11

Because in this case Markus, it does have an effect on other peoples lives.

I would argue, admittedly rather ambiguously that most peoples phobias affect other people, and that they rarely keep it to them selves. People seem to want to tell other people about their phobias, must be an attention thing.

DT says:

05:41pm | 01/06/11

Because said phobics seem intent on vilifying and marginalising those whom they are phobic against.

Same with Misogyny/Misandry and Racism - they have far more of an impact than just their own lives, because they try to push an already struggling minority further to the outside, and do so loudly, publicly and forcefully.

Ivan says:

09:45pm | 01/06/11

Again, a comment that tries to paint the world upside down.

“If someone’s phobia, rational or otherwise, does not have any impact on anybody else’s lives but their own, why do so many members of the Thought Police give a shit?”

You’d be absolutely right.  That’s if the phobic people didn’t continually try and directly impact the way in which gay people live their lives. 

You don’t see a person scared of the dark trying to criminalise sunset. 

You don’t see a person scared of heights trying to outlaw aeroplanes.

What you do see repeatedly is people scared of homosexuality feeling empowered to attempt to restrict the way in which gay people live their lives, commit to their partners, and now gay people can’t be seen to hug in public.

...just in case we upset the people with the phobia.

...and you’re calling the “progressive and open minded people” thought police…

My opinion?  Fear me as much as you like “rational or otherwise”.  But just leave it at that and we’ll get along just peachy.

Cat says:

04:33pm | 04/06/11

I don’t care if people are homophobic but I just want to see Wendy Francis admit that homophobia was the driving force behind her campaign (the complaints to adshel using the form letter written by her and her loony bible bashers were quite specific in their objection to two gay men depicted)

fml says:

05:30pm | 01/06/11

“Why don’t we just have all middle aged married white guys enslaved to minorities.”

huh?

Baal says:

09:13pm | 01/06/11

I once enslaved a married middle aged white guy, he loved every minute if it!

Sam says:

07:28pm | 01/06/11

BS Martin in 99% of cases.

Cb says:

07:57pm | 01/06/11

Spot on Martin.

Sam, go talk to people and read some books on human sexuality. Oh wait, sorry you may need to learn to read first.

michael j says:

07:52am | 02/06/11

@ Homosexuality is not a choice-Bull-shit ,

Pete says:

10:47am | 02/06/11

Not so! by definition a phobia is an irrational fear implying a lack of choice! How you express the fear, if at all, is the question! But I get what you mean! Sexual preference is a bit of a sliding scale if you ask me so there is a choice but only at the margins!

Sad Sad Reality says:

11:02am | 02/06/11

Homophobia is not a choice, it’s a tool of mind control.

Ivan says:

04:42pm | 02/06/11

@ Michael J.

Hmmm do you consider your options and consciously choose to be heterosexual every morning?  There’s a lot of guys like you.  Just be safe and wear a condom when you slip up, okay?

  Just for the record, when I’m conscious I’m gay, when I’m asleep I’m gay.  Celibacy would be my closest option and, I’m telling you, I wouldn’t last past the first week.

Paulb says:

10:58pm | 02/06/11

If homosexuality is a choice, then any sexuality is a choice.  Could some of you more half-witted breeders tell us about when you woke up one day and picked your heterosexuality off the shelf?  And why do so many of you put it back and try a bit of the other when you think no-one’s looking?

SteveM says:

01:45pm | 03/06/11

Great work PaulB. Your response is precisely why many find nancy boys so off putting. See, not nice to call people names is it?

Servaas says:

12:21am | 05/06/11

According to certain scientists it is possible that some people have homophobic genes. We shouldn’t critisize them for the way they were born or should we?

Erick says:

08:17am | 02/06/11

“Homophobia” literally means “pathological fear of sameness”.

In its common (mis)usage, the word is a meaningless slur - since very few people actually fear honosexuality.

Pete says:

10:54am | 02/06/11

Right Eric so it should be Homosexual Phobia but that’s a bit of a mouthfull, no pun intended ;}

Chris says:

09:18pm | 01/06/11

you don’t know what gay sex is.  I am amazed that so many straights think it is anal sex, pure and simple.  It isn’t.

Ivan says:

09:52pm | 01/06/11

I’d prefer not to think about my parents having sex but I respect their right to do so and the importance of treating any related issue of them doing so with respect.

AG says:

02:12pm | 02/06/11

Chris is right its not purely about the anal on its own. Throw in a couple of jerbals and a bit of felching and you might be getting a little closer.

chris says:

04:30pm | 02/06/11

@ AG huh?  I don’t even know what those terms mean.

Ivan says:

10:04pm | 01/06/11

Another one caught up in the math.

Human rights, freedom, dignity…  depends on the numbers does it?

The more there are, the more they’re entitled to?  Conversely, the less there are the less they’re entitled to, or the less they should simply expect..? 

Pretty stuffed up theory.

mel says:

05:43pm | 02/06/11

Ivan, well said!

NicoleG says:

08:07pm | 01/06/11

What a crock of shite! My brother is gay and my children have know this since they were little. My older ones are now 22 and 18 years old. My youngest is 5 and she never questions anything about him and his partner. She just asks ‘will get to see M & P?’ They love them to death.

If anything, knowing this has taught them to accept people for who they are.

mel says:

11:21pm | 01/06/11

What the hell is this man talking about? Can someone translate this into English?

Daniel says:

09:57pm | 01/06/11

Actually, yes, they wern’t all born in 1970. Infact there was probably one just born somewhere on this planet right now. Me thinks he/she will want a 2030 contempary view of safe-sex when they come of age? Eh?

Ivan says:

09:59pm | 01/06/11

The safe sex ads in the 80s didn’t really reach the consciousness of the people born in the 90s.  Clearly they weren’t designed well for the “unborn demographic”.

Stupid waste of money, clearly you’re a smart one.  I guess, since they advertised against the health risks of smoking and sunbaking in the 80s you’ve already written to your local member to eliminate those marketing campaigns too… right?

Wouldn’t be that they’re spending money on safe sex for gay people because that would be a sign of prejudice…

Cb says:

07:59pm | 01/06/11

Lol!

I don’t know how I missed that one!

Cb says:

08:02pm | 01/06/11

This isn’t about christians, it’s about the australian christian lobby.

The ACL does not stand up for mainstream christian values of this country which are to love and respect their fellow man.

Ivan says:

09:07pm | 01/06/11

What? A conservative Christian lobby group takes a swipe at a tasteful and restrained (by mainstream marketing standards) safe sex ad campaign, ultimately and more truthfully having an issue with homosexuality even being subtly represented in public and it’s Christians that are the victims?  Seriously?

You’re right.  30 people should be able to shut down a legitimate public health campaign without being subject to scrutiny.  Because they’re Christian!

Made up reason to hate Christians?  no.  Pretty clear reason to loathe ACL?  More likely.  Absolute reason to pity Christians with a victim complex and belief their authority on society should remain unchecked? Definitely.

LC says:

02:00pm | 02/06/11

But…butbutbutbut…what if the kids don’t pay attention in the class?

And what are you planning to do with the current crop of these “Christian” bigots?

LC says:

02:01pm | 02/06/11

But…butbutbutbut…what if the kids don’t pay attention in the class?

And what are you planning to do with the current crop of these “Christian” bigots?

Seanr says:

08:05pm | 01/06/11

count me in re Kochie ff, 28 to go!

Ben81 says:

08:22pm | 01/06/11

They were probably trying to drum up good old ‘outrage’ and controversy to turn the tables on the ACL and get more publicity than they could have imagined, and good on them.

bec says:

05:49am | 02/06/11

I want to complain about every single fecking advertisement for those horrible greenfields estates I have to drive past on the way to work, where they have some simperingly bland hetero couple holding hands and fawning over a child while looking at a 50sq butterbox dwelling. REVOLTING. The rampant consumerism and thirst for bigger mcmansions is far more offensive than a simple and tasteful reminder to practice safe sex.

Paul Horn says:

02:34pm | 03/06/11

Hey Bec you priveliged inner city Princess go spend a couple of months in one of the many boracays surrounding Manila. You can enjoy the pleasures of open sewers, living under a piece of corrugated iron and picking at rubbish all day to make a living.

Then come back with your faux inner city self rghteous superiority you hypocrite! 99% of the worlds population would scratch your eyes out to be given the chance to dwell on one of these so called “butterboxes” you so contemptuously despise!

MediaRefugee says:

11:56am | 04/06/11

fairsfair - it is actually a little more complex than that.

In the media industry, one complaint is considered equal to 100. The theory is that for every person who makes the effort to call or email to make their complaint 99 others are at home seething over the same issue. A little archaic, granted, but until Facebook give us a “dislike” button it’s all we’ve really got.

The other thing to consider is the time frame. 30 complaints spaced over a year isn’t really cause for concern. But 30 complaints in one day sets off alarm bells. So it was actually prudent of Adshel to pull the campaign based on that.

It should also be said that Adshel were very quick to reinstate the campaign when they realised they’d been had, and that has to award them some respect. This does raise concern though for the way the media industry handles complaints - the way media is used has changed, so the way it is measured needs to change too.

AliceC says:

10:54am | 02/06/11

No one is saying that the ACL is unnatural, and should not be expressed in public….

What if 30 people were offended by an ACL ad, and it was then removed? Would that also be appropriate?

john says:

08:40pm | 01/06/11

@Biteme, perhaps because it seems the trend is to just rip & roll all day.

jade (the other one) says:

08:49pm | 01/06/11

No I wouldn’t like to see such a billboard. I also don’t much like the images in this advertisement - as a straight woman they don’t do a lot for me. Do I think either should be banned because of my personal distaste? Absolutely not.

Katey says:

09:27pm | 01/06/11

“Getting passionate”? That picture?

You… you don’t get out (or is that in?) much, do you?

AJ says:

10:59pm | 01/06/11

If a 95-year-old man and a 16-year-old girl are in love, fair play to them.  I wouldn’t want to see the image.  I don’t much like seeing all the blatantly heterosexual images around everywhere, either.  Wherever I look in the city, I see images of gorgeous muscular and tanned scantily-clad men with stick-thin unattractive bleach-blonde women.  It makes my stomach turn.  These men ought to be with me!  Two hot blokes getting at it.  But, like a good homosexual, I tolerate all this repulsive heterosexual perversion, the same as I’d tolerate the May to D… January to December relationship of your scenario.  In this case, however, Wendy Francis’s assertion would be more spot on - the girl hugging that man would definitely be engaging in what, for him, would be foreplay.

Ivan says:

07:40am | 02/06/11

John, you’re invalidating our resentment to the actions of ACL because you’re “waiting for the Gay right movement to sanction” a group in the UK?

Mate, ACL is in our society, in Australia, and Wendy Francis, in her various forms, keeps attacking gay themed issues (in our society) and ignoring bigger ones (in our society) like ACTUAL child abuse and ACTUAL sexualisation in mainstream advertising or music videos.  Both are much bigger and impactful than a few posters at bus stops, but because it’s two fully clothed guys having a cuddle she’s all up in a lather about it.

While you may wish to draw battle lines between Christianity (and paint it as the victim) and “the Gay right movement” no one else seems to be.

I don’t think ‘the Gay right movement’ has a problem with Christianity.  Just people who dubiously use their Christian faith as a mechanism to enforce their intolerance.

Unless you read Jesus saying “He who is without sin, cast the first stone (unless you’re throwing it at a gay dude, use a bigger rock)”

Or, “love one another as I have loved you (unless he’s a gay dude - you should make his life hell and do your best to get in the way of his personal happiness)”

Or perhaps a lesser known element of Leviticus which says “You’ll go to hell if you eat shellfish.  You’ll go to hell if you eat pork.  You’ll go to hell if you lie with a man as a woman (but if you really want to eat shellfish and pork then that’s really cool with me and you won’t go to hell - just don’t tell the gay dudes because that means they’ll go to a hell 3 times worse”.

As soon as the good Christians at ACL starts lobbying against the pork and shellfish industries as hard as they’re focusing on anything to do with homosexuality the sooner I’ll consider them something other than most un-Christian bitter, ignorant, hatefilled, hypocritical bigots. 

Then again, it’s not for me to judge.  Because Jesus tells us it’s not our job.  But you would know that already.

Sheridan says:

01:26pm | 02/06/11

All I get out of that Leviticus thing is that it’s okay for the gay men to do it standing up but not laying down and that lesbians are okay in God’s eyes.. Anyway if they’re real CHRISTIANS surely they should be taking their lead from Jesus who loved and included everyone..

Baal says:

09:16pm | 01/06/11

As a bi-sexual guy I want to say two things.
1, It is insane people both gay and straight bareback people they have only just met.
2, They do have safe sex ads in public toliets but ewww who wants too shag in a toliet.

Ivan says:

09:32pm | 01/06/11

Gotta love unsubstantiated numbers and unfounded and gross misrepresentations.

FIrstly, the article actually quotes the organisation behind the promotion as saying 65% of HIV cases are in the gay community.  So, 35% are not.  I think the simple fact that there’s been an upswing in the infection rate (in general) warrants an advertising campaign, 2. that those numbers warrant including gay subject matter and 3. due to the substantial infection rate in heterosexuals equally warrants a general public awareness of the importance of safe sex.

michael j says:

08:22am | 02/06/11

@Baal-mate it was not long ago that public toilets were a popular meeting place for homosexual’s , the Queensland police prosecuted a few cases
using hidden cameras put in the transit centre to discourage the practice,
A singer by the name of George Michael’s seem’s to get charged a bit for
funny things in public toilets,and a bloke named Allen Jones had some probs in a public toilet for which he was charged,,i think he might be the bloke who penned the saying ‘‘Life wasn’t meant to be Easy’’ for the ex PM who loses his trousers late in the night,,
Safe Sex Adds and condom vending machines in Public Toilets are sensible and a must have these dayz ,and they should have a poster
of the olde Reaper add as well,i mean this for all who have risk sex not just gays,,

Against the natural order says:

09:35am | 02/06/11

Gay sex is shoving sperm up where it don’t belong. Depositing new life into a waste disposal unit. Against the natural order of things. This is known to cause illness and death worldwide.
Just one of the reasons why people don’t like gays.

The cause of aids by PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8455483 and also http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/brady1/

RGG says:

10:51am | 02/06/11

Oral sex is shoving sperm where it don’t belong. So’s using a condom or masturbation, for that matter.

You’d also be surprised to learn that homosexuality is very well documented across numerous other species in nature.

The more you know, bigot!

AliceC says:

10:58am | 02/06/11

@Against the natural order

So then by your definition, oral sex is also unnatural and against the natural order of things? A throat being used as a waste disposal unit…

Ladies and gents, oral sex is out!!!

against the natural order says:

11:40am | 02/06/11

Whatever turns you on Alice, but natural order? No.

against the natural order says:

11:48am | 02/06/11

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

Why are you displaying such intolerance and animosity against the natural order of things RGG? I’m merely letting you know why many people don’t like gays.

Sad Sad Reality says:

11:55am | 02/06/11

No more gobbies?!

RGG says:

12:21pm | 02/06/11

No, I’m going to stick with ‘bigot’. Seriously, you’re all like children. Your little sister says “stop touching me!” and you wave your arms around inches from her face and you say “I can’t get in trouble, I’m not toooouuching you!!!”

You make all these baseless arguments and observations but hey, it’s not like you said “all gay people should hang” so you’re not a bigot right!

mel says:

05:54pm | 02/06/11

Has anyone else noticed more anti-gay writers using the “it’s not natural” line of argument, or am I just becoming more aware of it? I agree with AliceC: if the “natural” way (as imagined by these people) is the only way we are meant to have sex, they must have some of the most boring sex lives around.

Does the argument make sense to anyone?

Ivan says:

09:46pm | 02/06/11

@against the natural order

Geez man, you’re busy today.  I saw your drivel posted on another site including those web links.  Someone with much more patience than I researched your citations.

From memory he said something about how the publications were not peer reviewed, were simply published with the view to the free flow of ideas and, from memory, he said that in the 18 years since they were written not one scientist has cited the reports (ie the propositions haven’t been supported by any contemporary research) by any peer reviewed medical studies in those 18 years.

Not exactly a glowing endorsement to your views, but kudos on the stamina and persistence that helped you find some clap trap that gave you, at least, the appearance of credibility.

Others don’t even try for that.

However, I also read the other guy as saying that PubMed, consequent to the controversy around these reports tightened up their publishing guidelines so people like you couldn’t pass drivel off as medical facts.  That’s probably why there’s been nothing more in the past 18 years.  They kinda need the science to back these things up now.

Phew.

against the natural order says:

08:15am | 03/06/11

My doctor uses Pubmed all the time Ivan, but because you don’t like it I found you something a little more comprehensive with regards to why homosexuality is bad for society in general.

The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis25

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown.

I know I know it’s by the catholic church and I’m not really into them myself either but their research is seriously impressive with citations and references galore. Very comprehensive. Let me know if you’re not happy with that one either because I’ve got stacks more pointers for those who like to push shit up hill for fun.

Whatever works for you mate but against the natural order for the majority of people, it’s really not very smart.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

Ivan says:

09:18am | 03/06/11

@against the order

Dont get me wrong. I understand PubMed IS a legitimate medical resource. By no means do I suggest your Catholic clap trap trumps a reknown medical journal.

My message was that your first citations was not peer reviewed or used to support peer reviewed research in the 18 years since it’s publication.

That doesn’t mean a Catholic Church paper attempting to rationalise hate would be better than scientifically supported research. Clearly.

The thing you’ll one day have to accept, or more likely your children will, is that homosexuality is part of the landscape.  No amount of resentment, resistance, loathing and disrespect will change the fact that straight people continually give birth to kids that will turn out gay.

Instead of burying ones head in the sand, or trying to lead an angry and misguided mob, you look at how endorsing healthy, positive, monogamous relationships would benefit society. Whatever their orientation.

There’s a thing they’ve been doing for years - it’s starting to catch on and I expect we’ll be seeing the benefits consistent with my life experience as we go further.

It’s called marriage!

Ivan says:

10:23am | 03/06/11

Oops. posted this on the wrong thread:

Ummm, your excellent report by the Catholic Church states (unreferenced):

“A study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV.”

Hehe Catholic Church doesn’t understand Lesbians very well, do they?

Any identifying Lesbians out there want to let us know how many times you’ve been unable to resist having sex with a man who was a high risk of HIV?

Who’s pushing what up hill?

(also, I’m delighted that your doctor chooses to reference the (peer reviewed, heavily referenced) science on PubMed (clearly starkly contrasting in nature to the paper your mischeviously posted initially) instead of catholiceducation.org - who knows what he could have misdiagnosed with the earth being flat and all…)

against the natural order says:

10:47am | 03/06/11

The catholic research is written and researched by a medico and not in any way rationalising hatred but cites 129 legit references About The Health Risks of Gay Sex which involves and implicates all of society.

Ivan, there is no amount of resentment, resistance, loathing or disrespect coming from me. To be honest gays aren’t really on my radar. It’s the insistence of ‘any’ group of people to go in against the natural order and then insist that everyone condones and agrees .. that I find slightly annoying.
If you all could just resist the urge to insist that everyone agrees with you, all of us be much happier.

One thing we all have in common is freedom of choice and I wish you and yours well.

Ivan says:

04:05pm | 03/06/11

@against the natural order:

You’re so funny. Yep, a single medico, in his professional (non-religiously biased) opinion, says “When sexual activity is practiced outside of marriage, the consequences can be quite serious.”

(and many of his citations don’t lead to the webpages they refer to, although one redirected to a site in Scandinavia that said how important gay marriage was, it was a great read)

I’d agree.  Go gay marriage!  I know you don’t agree.  You’re still stuck on whether homosexuality is a good thing.

And where you say “It’s the insistence of ‘any’ group of people to go in against the natural order and then insist that everyone condones and agrees” - that’s illuminating as to where you remain.

Condone, huh?  Like I need you to?

You clearly have your cemented views but the good news is, the debate isn’t whether homosexuality is a good thing.  You’re still working on a residual and false belief that to denigrate homosexuality will have some impact on the outcome.

It really won’t.  There’s enough evidence out there to say that gay people can live healthy, positive, nurturing lives.  They make positive contributions to society in a diverse number of ways. 

We’re even foster carers!  (wish I could see your face)

But keep up the good fight, I say.  Better than working on an issue you can actually have some positive impact on, right?

OddCreature says:

12:19pm | 04/06/11

atno - ALL those diseases you list are plenty common among hetero people.

In fact Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia can be contracted by drinking tap water. That was why we Sydneysiders had to boil our water a few years back.

And since you’re so nuts about the natural order of things, let me explain something to you… humans are one of only a few species that are naturally driven to have sex for pleasure, as well as procreation. Yes your “natural” definition of sex makes babies, but the other kids are way more fun, that’s why we do them.

Perkin Warbeck says:

03:14pm | 06/06/11

@againstthenaturalorder: mate, you have some really serious problems. Taking your first “rare as to almost be non existent in heterosexuals” remark - anal cancer. Someone died of that in 2009… now, who was it? Oh yes, Farrah Fawcett. Rather female and heterosexual. So, fail on that point.

Also, you seem, like all bigots, to back away when you are challenged on your bigotry. Having a point of view and being a bigot are not one and the same. You may have a point of view (for instance, I think the Liberal party’s position on climate change is rubbish however they are fine to have that position. Just don’t expect me to vote for them. I also think Carlton are a genuine finals chance this year, you may well think otherwise.) It’s all a matter of the way the opinion is expressed.

There is not one reputable, peer reviewed publication in the last thirty years that will conclusively support your argument that homosexuality is “unnatural”. You may continue to hold that belief, however you are in the minority and if you continue to spew forth nonsense, expect to be ridiculed.

Joeyjoejoejnr says:

10:21am | 07/06/11

Perkin, I can think of a book… containing 66 seperate books, penned by 40 authors over thousands of years, that is pretty clear on it being unnatural.
Thankfully it is a book, that has a core subject of forgiveness and a God reaching out to all (even homosexuals) providing reconciliation and forgiveness and a lasting relationship with our creator.
Just saying

Ivan says:

05:18pm | 11/06/11

Dammit.  It’s a case of “Geez!  I shoulda said that!?!”

Have become aware of an (actual scientific) study on PubMed (againstthenaturalorder should respect it since it has actual scientific veracity) that reports, well, you can read it for yourself (and you should get the drift from the link):

http://www.psychologytoday. com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn

(delete the space between the dot and the com for the link to work)

No wonder the most homophobic men are afraid of gay proliferation.  They’re clearly struggling with the conscious “choice” to be straight every day and, from their perspective, thinking they are representative of the rest of the male population, they think everyone will turn gay once the barrier of shame, self loathing and social stigma is removed.

Mick says:

10:43am | 02/06/11

Maybe you should see a psychologist then. That isn’t a normal reaction.

Brendan says:

10:57pm | 01/06/11

Actually Tom, it’s you who’s in the minority these days.

Eventually homophobic hoovers like yourself will be extinct. Add sexist to the list for thinking woman are depicted together for your pleasure. Lesbians like woman Tom, not you.

Good Citizen says:

11:14pm | 01/06/11

You will incur the wrath of the Outraged People Against Pointless Arguments (me) at least.  Let me explain. You are ‘allowed’ to hold nearly any opinion you like but if people are incensed by it they are going to incur their wrath….errrrr obviously.
Cigarette advertising wasn’t banned to save children from all evil.
Therefore it doesn’t follow that everything else is harmless.

Ivan says:

07:31am | 06/06/11

Haha.  How could I have missed this one?  Foreplay: hug + proximity of condom.

Just precious.

Ivan says:

05:13pm | 02/06/11

@Servaas, show me the documented policy of a single Western country that says “Job done.  No more sex education necessary.  Everyone knows everything now and STDs don’t exist anymore.”

In 2011 sex education is just as relevant because, as has already been said, teens and young adults weren’t around in the 70s and 80s for sex ed back then, the current statistics indicate our emerging generations are participating in risking sexual behaviour (gay/straight) and suffering the consequences.

Servaas says:

12:10am | 03/06/11

I’ve only seen the full ad now and saw the ring on the one guy’s finger which makes it even sillier in a way.

Is telling a generation, risking themselves sexually, to use a condom going to solve anything?

Ivan says:

10:15am | 03/06/11

@Servaas: haha really? Not really worth a response.

MediaRefugee says:

01:13pm | 04/06/11

Why do Coca Cola continue to advertise constantly? Doesn’t every person in the country already know what Coke is?

Why yes people do know what Coke is… the reason Coke continue their high level of advertising is to maintain their “top of mind” presence in the market. Their ads are a constant reminder so that Coke remains the first thing people think of when they’re thirsty.

It’s the same theory with this ad.

Sure back in the 80s the Grim Reaper went bowling and told us to practice safe sex. But it’s not something you hear once and then the problem goes away. People really do need a constant reminder, just as they need a constant reminder that Coke is cold and refreshing.

Ads like this cost millions to produce and distribute - they wouldn’t be doing it for a laugh.

Lostie says:

08:59am | 02/06/11

No, the media is full of acts of affection between heterosexual couples, family members and friends. I’m not aware of any push by any gay-rights group to ban any of those things.

I find the idea of having sex with someone who has had sex with someone else to be distasteful (no I am not religious and no I am not exaggerating, it literally makes me feel sick) but I certainly don’t think that the behaviour or the depiction of the behaviour should be prohibited just because I don’t like it.  I recognise that it my cognition that is faulty - it matters not one iota to me if other people want to have multiple partners in their life time, regardless of gender. Nor should the ‘safe sex’ campaigns that advertise the reality that most people have multiple partners in their life time.

If you don’t care about homosexuality why do you find a picture of a couple hugging to be so grossly inappropriate that it should be banned? On the cover of the news paper today there are two guys hugging - sure one had just scored a try, but look at the ecstasy in the eyes of both participants, far more emotive than the look in that poster… Yet one is OK, the other not.

Hypocrisy.

The problem isn’t that you are straight - it’s that you seek to prohibit depictions of behaviour that is not consistent with the behaviour that you want in your personal life.

Chris says:

09:27am | 02/06/11

no, I don’t go round thinking that images of hetero love are “distasteful”.  I just accept that some people are wired to like the opposite sex.

AJ says:

10:00am | 02/06/11

You are being ironic, aren’t you?  Seeing an image of two hugging men on a billboard is rubbing your faces in it?  Put your heterosexual self into our shoes and all you will see is heterosexuality rubbing our faces in it, from the man and woman holding hands and kissing nearby the bus stops with these billboards, probably pushing their children, right up to the 99.99% of the rest of the billboards on the planet that depict YOU PEOPLE and your “lifestyle”.  We exist, we pay taxes, we consume, we breathe the air, we’re not going anywhere.  “We” tolerate “you” in far more ways than you would ever think.  Grow up.

Muttley says:

03:34pm | 02/06/11

No Chris, not “some” people, most people

Dieter Moeckel says:

11:59am | 02/06/11

There is not such thing as “safe sex” by homosexuals - male homosexual coitus is sticking a penis into a bucket of excrement.

Go wash yourself you dirty bird says:

12:40pm | 02/06/11

Dieter Moeckel, you must be one of those men who dont WIPE OR WASH their arses properly, because let me tell you something most of us dont walk around with our bums filled with left over poo.

MichaelM says:

03:29pm | 02/06/11

Dieter Moeckel, there IS such thing as safe sex by homosexuals. It’s the same method as anal/oral/vaginal sex by straight people. It’s a magical contraption called a “condom”. That’s kinda the whole point of the ad. I suggest you try using one so you don’t subject yourself to STDs…or breed.

chris says:

09:43am | 02/06/11

So, you’re a gay man who thinks it’s ok to make broadbrush generalisations holding other gay men in contempt?  What does that achieve?  You are only, actually, marginalising YOURSELF further in the sight of certain people who will use your remarks as a justification to hate.  You are not exonerated from bigotry.  How about stopping the cycle. 

Great, you don’t like the club scene, you don’t like bitchiness, you don’t like unsafe sexual practices.  You are in good company—including among gay people, I can ASSURE you.  Find some other outlets.

AJ says:

10:03am | 02/06/11

I am a straight man and I can honestly tell you that you are 100% CORRECT with everything you have just said!  Well done!

Sad Sad Reality says:

11:07am | 02/06/11

chris is so into you switch. Prepare to be aggressively re-educated.

Davo says:

11:10am | 02/06/11

@Chris
Who said anything about the club scene and bitchiness?
I am gay and Switch has some very good points. I have also found the majority of gays to be not only racist (ask them what a “rice queen” means) but completely bigoted against those that dont fit their “mould”. Hence why most of my friends are straight. The fact that the gay community screams HOMOPHOBIA against anyone who didagrees with them is laughable, because internally discrimination and bigotry amongst gays is rampant. And yes, as switch also says barebacking is very common amongst gay men despite the warnings of HIV and AIDS. Just recently in South Australia a man was foudn guilty of deliberately infecting men with HIV who made the decision to have consenual bareback sex with a stranger they didnt even know. Ramming the “wear a condom” theme doesnt work with gays. They dont care.

And the Gold Logie award goes to... says:

11:32am | 02/06/11

Sad sad sad reality, how many nicks do you use on these blogs now? Must be a very sad sad reality to have no life and live on The Punch honey. Mwahs.

Unprotected Species says:

11:40am | 02/06/11

Yeah. How many nicks do you use SSR you vile thug?

Sad Sad Reality says:

01:23pm | 02/06/11

Bitches please.

AdamC says:

03:01pm | 02/06/11

What’s with this gay self-loathing, Switch and Dash? We’re no more objectionable than straight people by and large. My being a rice queen is just like my straight mate having ‘yellow fever’. I don’t think either of the terms signifies any kind of racism. And I think the soft cattiness exhibited by some gay men is really just a learned behaviour from hanging out with too many of the shallow straight women who seem to circle around the campy ones like flies around a old cow turd.

I didn’t know SSR was one of those multiple pseudonym Punchers. Surely it dilutes the attention he gets?

AdamC says:

03:02pm | 02/06/11

What’s with this gay self-loathing, Switch and Dash? We’re no more objectionable than straight people by and large. My being a rice queen is just like my straight mate having ‘yellow fever’. I don’t think either of the terms signifies any kind of racism. And I think the soft cattiness exhibited by some gay men is really just a learned behaviour from hanging out with too many of the shallow straight women who seem to circle around the campy ones like flies around a old cow turd.

I didn’t know SSR was one of those multiple pseudonym Punchers. Surely it dilutes the attention he gets?

Muttley says:

03:38pm | 02/06/11

Switch78, how dare you. Didnt you get the memo from head office? All the pink wagons are being drawn into a circle over this inhumane treatment. Do not attempt to bring logic into the discussion

Ivan says:

03:54pm | 02/06/11

@switch78: what a sad experience you’ve had.  I have a bunch of lovely friends in my life both gay and straight and it doesn’t reflect your life experience at all.  I’d say get out of Dodge, wherever that is for you.

However I’m suspicious as to whether you are actually gay tho.  I’m thinking the comment was more likely written by a straight, conservative ACL sympathiser.  I’ve never met a single gay person that is 1. THAT down on the gay community, 2. SO enthusiastic to suggest that the gay community is so entirely devoid of positive influences and 3. is willing to suggest gay people all like cooking in the nude (see: barebaking).

But seriously, I “don’t look or act a certain way” and I am loved, accepted respected and, in some circumstances, cherished.  I live a life filled with positive influences, my family loves and accepts me, my friends love and accepts me, my husband (married in Montreal) loves and accepts me, my neighbours in the suburbs loves and accepts me and my work colleagues love (in a business type way) and respects me.

Not everyone is lovely, that’s human nature and not the exclusive domain of gay people.  Those people just don’t form part of our spheres.  However, and I have to say, ‘those people’ in our life experience were limited to 5 religious straight friends that had a ‘crisis of faith’ when we sent them wedding invitations.  Since then they’ve chosen to leave our sphere.  The 170 family and friends that did come (a surprisingly perfect score to the invitations that were sent out sans the five) were filled with such joy and love I couldn’t recommend getting married highly enough.  It will rate, as it does with most heterosexuals, as a highlight of my life so far.

So, if you ARE actually a gay man (and not a concoction of a deceptive, nasty, right wing ACL sympathiser), I’d suggest you get some help, in whichever way necessary, to find yourself in a better place - because it certainly exists and I would hope you find it sooner than later.

Switch78 says:

05:41pm | 02/06/11

@ Ivan

Yes, I am gay.  No I am not straight.  And believe me after the rotten experiences I have had with gay men and the gay community, it’s enough to turn anyone straight. No wonder so many gay men kill themselves - it usually has nothing to do with homophobia and more so to do with how seriously screwed up gay people in general and the gay community is.

I cant believe anyone would support a gay “community” that is only a community to people who fall in line change themselves. Ive seen many normal guys “come out” and eventually turn into nasty, bitter queens as soon as they get involved with the so-called “gay community”. They end up rejecting their parents, family and straight friends and become obsessed with what the gay community promotes as a lifestyle. It’s all very sad as far as im concerned.

You obviously have NO IDEA what its like being an average normal guy who happens to be gay and does not conform to gay ideals. You’re simply just another stereotype and it shows with your comments.

Ivan says:

08:04pm | 02/06/11

@Switch78 Sounds like you’re in a dark place dude and I’m really sorry to hear that.  I think you should consider the possibility that lots of people strike out looking for their happy place and ‘the one’.  There’s enough stuff out there to be pretty sure that it’s a struggle for everyone, gay or straight.  I don’t think it’s so much a gay thing but a humanity thing and the simple difficulty of sorting the wheat from the chaff in friends, social groups and partners.  I know plenty of women that get jerked around by guys whom they’re dating.  I know of a fair few guys that have had their hearts ripped out by the girl they fell in love with.  It’s not isolated to you or to gays and lesbians.

On a personal front it took me a fair few tries to find the guy that compliments me as well as he does.  I made some mistakes and suffered heartbreaks.  But I can’t say that I had much experience in “the scene” - it just wasn’t me, you know?

When you said “You obviously have NO IDEA what its like being an average normal guy who happens to be gay and does not conform to gay ideals. You’re simply just another stereotype and it shows with your comments” I’m not sure what you meant.  I don’t think I match the description you gave in your initial post at all.  I know it was intended to be negative but I’m not sure how.

Explain to me a “normal guy” by your definition and I’ll see how that’s both similar and different to me.

From what I understand, the difference between the gay guys that you initially characterised is that I don’t derogate people that are different to me.  I’m not a physical ideal.  I don’t “act” any particular way. My social group is a pretty disparate bunch and what links us together is a nuturing positivity.

You don’t sound like you’re in a good place and I hope that things improve for you.  Because, I’m telling you, it gets better.  If you just want to talk it out with someone there’s always Lifeline, PFLAG is great and there may be a dedicated hotline for GLBTI peeps in your state or capital city.

Besides that, I’m happy to keep chatting here if there’s some mutual respect!  Whatever you want to talk about, whatever your experience, is probably shared with plenty of people (gay and straight).  Talking it out might help them too.

Ivan says:

11:23pm | 02/06/11

I just want to add, in reference to:

“I cant believe anyone would support a gay “community” that is only a community to people who fall in line change themselves. Ive seen many normal guys “come out” and eventually turn into nasty, bitter queens as soon as they get involved with the so-called “gay community”. They end up rejecting their parents, family and straight friends and become obsessed with what the gay community promotes as a lifestyle”

Do you want to elaborate?  You see, the “gay community” is a pretty diverse and inclusive bunch in it’s fundamental nature.  GLBTI (and Q now, I think) stands for Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transgender, Intersex (and Questioning I think - can someone help?) 

That in itself is a diverse bunch of people, but then it gets more diverse than that.  There’s Bears, Twinks, Muscle Marys Jocks, Preppies, Chubs, ummm (anyone else wanna help with a more comprehensive list?)

So there’s the broader community and communities within that again which, intentionally, should include everyone.  No one is expected to “fall in line” at all.

I’ve never felt any pressure by any individual or group to be anything other than the person that I have aspired to be my whole life.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by “rejecting parents, friends and straight friends” - are you sure you’re not confusing it with Scientology?  The only stories I’ve heard within the community is instances of people being rejected BY parents, brothers sisters and straight friends.

In a positive and nurturing family environment the coming out experience is typically very liberating for the individual and can foster closer, more honest relationships with parents, family and friends.  I felt my parents didn’t know all of me before I came out and once I did I felt I was so much closer to them.

When we got married we had a big party here before we left for Canada, as I said.  Stacks of family, friends, gay and straight, where my Nan performed a (non-binding) ceremony.  It was a joyful experience.  After that we flew out to Montreal to get married legally.  Not just the two of us but my Mum and Dad, my partner’s Dad, Brother, Aunty and Uncle.  It was a wonderful experience to celebrate so much love and acceptance. 

I’m not saying that it wasn’t a hard road to get there, what with helping our family get used to the news that we were gay, but it never changed their love for us.  Nor our love for them. 

How is that a stereotype (negative, I assume you meant)?

James says:

06:10am | 03/06/11

“There’s Bears, Twinks, Muscle Marys Jocks, Preppies, Chubs”

That says it all really Ivan. The fact the gay community need to slot people into categories. May as well tattoo a barcode on their forehead while they are at it.
Very, very sad.

Ivan says:

09:03am | 03/06/11

@James: perhaps research self categorisation theory. It’s a human tendency to form grouping to form ones own identity. There’s nothing inherently negative in it, nor is there anything negative of categorising oneself in one of those groups or choosing not to.

Seems we’re not allowed to have human characteristics either. Bravo!

Ivan says:

09:30am | 03/06/11

Ummm, your excellent report by the Catholic Church states (unreferenced):

“A study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV.”

Hehe Catholic Church doesn’t understand Lesbians very well, do they?

Any identifying Lesbians out there want to let us know how many times you’ve been unable to resist having sex with a man who was a high risk of HIV? 

Who’s pushing what up hill?

RGG says:

09:11am | 02/06/11

What about the alarming spread of chlymidia among heterosexuals? And the government funded campaigns against it? Oh wait never mind, it doesn’t fit your preconceived notions of “the gays” does it?

Joeyjoejoejnr says:

11:55am | 02/06/11

I agree with Dan… I’d be surprised if this ad saved even 1 life.

Ivan says:

04:22pm | 02/06/11

Quarantining the homosexuals, are we?  Gotta warn you, there’s a lot more of us in suburbia that you clearly comprehend.  But that’s understandable, because we don’t stand out.  Confusing when it’s not all Mardi Gras, huh?

You kinda raised another reason why these ads are important in the “family friendly” areas.  You see, the “family friendly” areas can also be a little hostile towards gay people.  And the thing is, gay kids come from “family friendly outer area” type families.

Their parents have constructed an innate fear in their children about being comfortable about who they are.  They feel isolated.  They don’t necessarily read appropriate literature, talk to family and friends about their impending sexual experiences - so posters like this help them realise that they aren’t alone and also give them a heads up. 

What hasn’t been mentioned by the health group running the campaign is that the incidence of STD infections are most prevalent in young people.  People under 25.  They think they’re bullet proof and clearly they’re not.

Posters like this help them realise that they can have a positive, wholesome, healthy life experience as a gay person.

(I know that last comment could inflame some moron in disputing the “wholesome, healthy life experience” claim, so…)

I’m 35 and gay.  I’ve never had an STD in my life.  I’ve been with the same partner since 2002 - we got married in Montreal in 2008.  We’ve renovated a house, we have a dog and a cat.  We’re approved foster carers.  We both have successful work lives and struggle (like everyone else) to keep the balance between work and life.  We have love and acceptance all around us.  That, undeniably, is a positive, wholesome, healthy life experience.

And if any of my mates are reading this (I think there’s enough detail in it for accurate identification) and we haven’t caught up in a while give me a buzz!  We’ll do brunch! 

RGG says:

11:53am | 02/06/11

So you also hate oral sex? What a boring existence.

Dieter Moeckel says:

12:03pm | 02/06/11

RGG Dead right there maaate I don’t lick arses!
Tho I might get a fur ball or two.
But it’s still JULIAR’s fault.

Go wash yourself you dirty bird says:

02:51pm | 02/06/11

rofl @ calling licking arse “oral sex”..
it’s called RIMMING dieter
i’d be surprised if you’ve EVER had ANY kind of sex given you seem to know nothing about it

Dazeddazza says:

12:40pm | 02/06/11

Dieter, well said.  As an older male I can quite truthfully state I have never had the urge to put my penis in either a male or female rectum.    There are other more than adequate places and ways to achieve sexual satisfaction.  I am not prudish, and have experienced many different sexual situations.  To each their own however, and if they want to do it and they are consenting adults, fill their boots, (or should I say rectums?)  Just asking, when they have had sex this way do they need to wash to clean off the faeces??

Benn Chopping says:

12:48pm | 02/06/11

If you don’t like homophobe as a title how about bigot?  Add ignorant too as egalitarian generally means a person who strives for equality.

Jay says:

01:56pm | 02/06/11

Just a bigot then. Your statement shows nothing but ignorance and lack of education and a lack of decency. For starters, whether you believe it or not, there is a genetic component as is the same for a lot species on this planet. Homosexuals are not increasing in number either, they are not just hiding as much as they use to. Not all homosexuals have anal sex. Actually more heterosexuals have anal sex than homosexuals. People like you have the innocent blood of young gay kids who have killed themselves because they are brought up to believe they are not quite right. Most kids know they like the same sex before they are even 10 years old. Like a lot of their straight counterparts, they don’t understand sex, but they know who they are attracted to. To them it’s natural until adults like you drill it into them how unnatural YOU think it is, not realising you’re actually talking out of your arse and not teaching them any truth on the matter, just a bigoted opinion from someone who can’t stand the fact that people are different.

Ivanq says:

03:01pm | 02/06/11

Ummm “I cannot accept that homosexuality is genetic because if it were it would by definition be dying out (ie homosexuals cannot actually breed now can they) not increasing in number and fervour.”

Smart fella.  The only way homosexuality could be genetic was if homosexuals procreated more homosexuals…

“Does that make me bad I don’t thin k so” again, ummm, yeah, it does.  Other than your concept of ‘norm’ procluding homosexuality that exists in many advanced life forms on the planet (and without any documented evidence of damaging the planet’s equilibrium)...

...and you’re convenient last minute inclusion of oral in the “natural norm”.  Bit of a convenient construction, huh? I think you’re stretching (not to mention completely abstract from nature and reality.  But good for you.  Be as repulsed as you want.  I’ll match your measure.  As long as your repulsion doesn’t attempt to fetter my life experience and my unalienable human rights I expect mine won’t attempt to fetter yours - and THAT’S the society in which we live.

Perkin Warbeck says:

06:13pm | 04/06/11

@Dieter: I’m repulsed by people who are so sanctimonious when they call themselves “normal” and anyone who does not match their “normality” is “deviant”. I’m repulsed by people who claim intelligence yet find it necessary to use childish names for sexual organs. I’m repulsed by people whose comprehension is so poor that they completely miss the connection between the terms “homophobe” and “repulsed by homosexuals/lament his homosexuality”. I’m repulsed by people whose ignorance of genetics is so profound that they still decide to make statements grounded in that ignorance which show them to be nothing more than arrogant fools. In short, Dieter, I am repulsed by you - yet, I’m happy to engage in debate with you hoping that somewhere, sometime a light will dawn showing you that nothing is “normal”, emotional attraction between two people of the same sex far outweighs the basic mechanics of the sex they have and that a personal declaration of their sexuality neither elevates them above nor reduces their status in comparison with their fellow man.

Ivan says:

05:02pm | 02/06/11

There’s probably a few possibilities.

Perhaps, since the back story of the two guys in the image wasn’t actually part of the campaign, the fact that they, in reality, are in a long term relationship has nothing to do with the campaign.

There’s always the possibility in any young relationship (homo/hetero) that they are not exclusive which means precautions should be used. 

Alternatively, and this is the one that I like, perhaps the ring on the finger was an aspirational element.  ie, keep yourself safe and healthy for long enough until you find the one that you want to spend the rest of your life with and everything will be peachy.

As far as the campaign goes, the actual lives of the boys wasn’t included.  No reference was made on the poster that they were in a 6 year long committed relationship with the intention of getting married.  It only came out as a consequence of the dialogue following ACL’s campaign against it.

If you’re hung up that they should only be allowed to present as swinging bachelors, perhaps leaving the ring on was simply an oversight.

Jade (the other one) says:

04:42pm | 02/06/11

I remember the much more in your face ad campaigns about child abuse and neglect always brought forth far more questions from me than the “if its not on, its not on” safe sex campaigns in my youth.

The safe sex campaigns of the nineties were far more risque than this advertisement. In fact, I would be very, very surprised if children even picked up on the sexual overtones of this advertisement without significant parental prompting.

Many parents see the signifiers directed at adults - the condom, the tag line, and the two men hugging. Due to their awareness of the sexual nature of these things in unison, and the blatancy to adults, they perceive that children MUST be able to see it. Fact is, for children to interpret this advertisement in anything approaching a sexual way, they themselves must be precociously sexually aware.

Michel says:

02:20pm | 02/06/11

Ted, it’s about warning everyone, the add should be replaced because it is, in it’s way, narrow minded, no other reason.

Also Mark, I’m RC but I can tell the difference between fact and metaphor, if you catch my drift.
Religion should be about spreading social teachings, love for one another and belief in humility; and the unexplainable fact that we are so small - science is the right way to go, but still I think this existence is much broader than we will ever work out.

Don’t fear telling your kids about how we humans procreate, which is how they came to be, it’s harmless and with much greater looming concerns of possible global, social, economic and environmental catastrophies - it should be the least of your worries to tell them the truth.
Birds, bees, storks, cabbage patches, it’s time to put the 1950s to rest.
We need to cement the existence of the future generations.

Ivan says:

04:52pm | 02/06/11

Again with the Darwinian Theory…

Homosexuality isn’t a distinct species.  To be clear, we don’t breed and perpetuate gay offspring - so Darwinian Theory doesn’t apply.

To extend the metaphor simply for the purposes of enlightenment, perhaps a callous, inhumane, bigoted heterosexual, such as yourself, drinks to excess, smokes heavily and drives too fast for the conditions while texting without a seat belt.  If you keep that effort up, it should do the trick in improving the gene pool just that little bit.

The principle difference in this scenario is that you would be unable to perpetuate your genes in future generations.

Hope that clarifies.

Lord of the Wang says:

03:28pm | 02/06/11

I’m hearing you mate.  I have lost track of the chicks that have asked me to take them to pleasureville via browntown.  After dozens of requests I finally changed to the narrower gauge and haven’t look back.  I love it and I can bareback as the tadpoles have nowhere to swim.

Ivan says:

04:00pm | 02/06/11

@ACL and anyone who thinks safe sex education isn’t needed these days, read Lord of the Wang’s comment.  That’s how STDs (including HIV/AIDS) is spread - by sheer stupidity.

It’s also why condom usage should be encouraged, not discouraged (like the Catholic Church policy remains as).  People have sex.  Abstinence isn’t a rational policy and clearly sexual health campaigns have a fair way to go because LofW is only an example of thousands of other straight men in Australia.

Paul Horn says:

04:27pm | 02/06/11

Yeah Ivan but if abstinence isn’t the solution then why in this over sexually educated, over pornographied society do we have hundreds of thousands of abortions every year??? If people know exactly what a condom is then why is this still occurring in far greater numbers then our vastly more sexually ignorant forebears???

Your thinking just does not make any sense.

CJ says:

05:51pm | 02/06/11

Yes Ivan

And thousands of gay men have protected sex in public toilets don’t they?

Ivan says:

07:13pm | 02/06/11

@Paul.  Ummm firstly, far greater numbers huh?  Love an ambiguous, unreferenced statistic.  You have won this argument conclusively.  QED sir. 

You don’t actually say where I don’t make sense. 

I said humans are humans.  They will have sex.  Ergo, abstinence is not a realistic solution. 

I’m also saying condom use should be promoted, right?  You’re saying there’s a lot of abortions, right? (so clearly humans ARE having sex and not abstaining)

Hey, I know, perhaps condom use should be encouraged…  Do you think that could help reduce unwanted pregnancies?

If it still doesn’t make any sense I’ll try and keep my next response monosyllabic, ok?

Ivan says:

07:40pm | 02/06/11

@CJ:  Dude, I wouldn’t know.  I’ve never had sex in a toilet.  You tell me.  How many thousand gay men have you had sex in a toilet with? 

But, for your education, your characterisation has no relation to the community I live in.

I’m married to a great guy.  It is the basis of a stable, nuturing, positive lifestyle that impacts no one negatively and benefits my entire community.  I’ve never even had an STD.

Your comment only reflects a historical stereotype intended to justify denigration.  Not really sure of your point.  Is it an attempt to denigrate?

Would you like me to tar some feathers with sweeping generalisations too?

We could refer to the incidents of child abuse by priests and imply all priests are pedophiles.  We should consequentially have less respect for all priests and subject them to an integrated societal structure to inhibit their life experience, effect their sense of self, isolate, denigrate, alienate.  Yes?  Sounds justified since there’s been a fair few pedophiles.

How about we talk about domestic violence against women.  Shall we suggest that all men are misogynistic tyrants that abuse their wives?  That’s gotta be worth some mud slinging.

Better yet.  Rapists.  Lets talk about the tens of thousands of women that are raped every year and mischievously suggest that all men are rapists.

How do you think we should regard the entire male population based on this logic?  (Remember I’m just following the long bow you drew implicitly)  We should subject them to something uber negative.  Restrict their rights?  Perhaps proclude them from a club that everyone else is entitled to join. 

I mean, you’re suggesting sex in toilets is a negative.  Pedophilia, Violence and Rape are probably worse, right?

CJ, I think it’s your God given responsibility to put all your energy into vilifying priests and men, okay?  In your spare time, perhaps advocate for same sex marriage now that I’ve given you some idea of the benefits that it has provided me, my partner and the community around us.  Let me know how you go with that.  Start….... now.

Paulb says:

11:02pm | 02/06/11

The Narrower Gauge!!  I’m takin’ that one out on the road.

Priceless!

Lord of the Cinnamon says:

01:00pm | 03/06/11

Easy pink or the tight brown…one of life’s true conundrums.  I agree with Huge on this one.  People need to loosen up, and learn to love brown town.

Aaron says:

04:26pm | 04/06/11

@Paul Horn, hmmm let’s discuss this shall we, the reason why there are more cases of STDs, abortions etc than with our forebears is this: The world population is greater, when our forebears were around there was no such thing as medical abortions and many abortions were induced without a record kept or the unwanted pregnancies went to full-term resulting in the higher population we have today.

Chances are also that there was a high prevalence of STDs during the lives of our forebears however we didn’t have the medical technology or knowledge to identify what it was or how it was transmitted. Think back to all the people who it is now coming out had undiagnosed Syphilis “back in the day”.

sorbent isnt that expensive says:

05:32pm | 02/06/11

Again with the obsession with “poo”. Do you wash your backside Dieter? Or wipe it? Try using some toilet paper, it isn’t too hard to get rid of that pooey mess you keep on going on about. Most of us sane people keep ourselves very clean down there.

Ivan says:

08:45pm | 02/06/11

w00t!

Coming out to family can really come as a surprise.  If you have a relationship of love the first thing they may go to is fear.  Fear of the unknown.  Fear of what it will mean for your life experience.

You see, you may have taken years to come to terms with who you are, develop the confidence to finally decide that you won’t compartmentalise yourself for the sake of avoiding an unknown reaction.  Some parents need time too. 

Most important measure of a parent is that they love you.  They may have issues to sort through (that you can help them with), but as long as the love is there it’ll be good.  Might just need some work.

In life you’ll meet some people who have a problem with homosexuality.  Thing to remember is that it’s their problem and not your burden.  Live your life to the best of your ability and surround yourself with people that know the awesomeness of Liam and let the others live with their issues.

w00t!2

Perkin Warbeck says:

07:15pm | 03/06/11

@Tom: Brilliant! (I wish I could see the dolphins!!! But….)

Ivan says:

12:03pm | 03/06/11

Hey grow up.

I can’t say someone’s opinion is misguided but you can say my opinion is immature.

Nice one.

I don’t insist people agree with me.  However I am entitled to characterise their view.  It’s not immature at all. 

I put forward my opinion for review and assert my right to react to others as they are entitled to react to mine.

I would suggest that “the resentment against gays” (as you put it) isn’t because of “their insistence that everyone agrees with them” because there’s no example of gay people doing that here or otherwise.

I do see gay people rightfully demanding an entitlement to exist without prejudice and to be able express themselves independent of someone else’s religious or personal beliefs. 

And consequentially I see others resentful of gay people demanding an entitlement to exist without prejudice and to be able to express themselves independently of someone else’s religious or personal believes.

That, compared to what you suggested, is distinctly different.

Perhaps someone else needs to grow up.

Perkin Warbeck says:

07:25pm | 03/06/11

@grow up: It is always so easy for those in a position of affluence (meaning everything from money, status, power, security and being considered part of the “silent” majority) to criticize those who rightfully ask for respect and to be allowed to be considered on the same plane as those who are affluent. Whites did it to blacks, men did it to women. Now we have intolerant, self-centred Australians complaining about “handouts” to indigenous people (who are starting from the lowest of the low), assistance and compassion to those fleeing persecution, war and intolerance (“ungrateful cheating queue jumping boat people”) and as of this week, homosexual men and women asking for the right to have their relationships and lifestyle respected (“A lot of the resentment against gays is because of their insistence that everyone agrees with them and everyone who doesn’t agree gets called names.”)
So, grow up: GROW UP. Accept that sharing some of your privileged status with another does not diminish you, it makes two people stronger - you and the person you have helped to be raised up.

Joeyjoejoejnr says:

10:29pm | 03/06/11

Gee for someone with such a balanced and happy normal, married life (heck, even a foster carer) you sure have both: A) a hell of a lot of time on your hands B) an almighty desire to prove to everyone how right and just you are.
Is there a post on this subject that you haven’t commented on?

Shaun says:

09:39am | 04/06/11

Hey Ivan,

I have been reading you right through this spread and I have to say that I think you are a wonderful example of a balanced and healthy minded gay man.  Thank you!  If I knew who you were I would gladly join you and your husband for a drink!

Ivan says:

02:35pm | 04/06/11

@ Shaun: Hey Shaun, Cheers!  Appreciate the kudos as much as I appreciate beer

@Joeyjoejoejnr: So, this is what it’s come down to.  Criticising someone’s motivation to defend an issue that’s both close to his heart and enshrined in the freedoms our society has provided us, in the face of the tripe that has been written.

Better believe I’ve got time for this blog.  For every misguided, untruthful, blindly homophobic comment that’s posted here I’ve got more than time. 

Just like you, most responses to my posts aren’t dealing with the subject matter, they aren’t reinforcing a position with legitmate facts - it’s simply about denigrating good people with rubbish that flies in the face of truth time and time again.  Good people that just want to live their lives independent of another individual’s faith or ignorance, or both.

Also, I respect the opportunity we have of putting things on record.  This blog will stay up long after you lose interest in it.  Young, isolated gay kids, kids who aren’t sure, adults who have harboured a secret for too long because they’re too afraid, could come across this blog and they’re going to see the quality of what you’ve said and, contrastingly, the quality of what I’ve said and make conclusions accordingly.

You will teach them what type of people exist in the world and, hopefully, I will show them that they’re not alone, that their life has meaning, validity, purpose and the potential equal to any other Australian.

One finaly thing, yep, I’ve got balance up the wazoo.  When I have an important thing to do I have time to do it.  That’s the luxury of a balance that’s supported by a wonderful husband, supportive family and being the boss of the company.

As I said guys, be proud of who you are and, like all young Australians, strive to be the best you can be with the dreams and aspirations of a life that you feel will bring you absolute happiness and fulfillment.

Ivan says:

02:37pm | 04/06/11

(unless “a balanced life” means I don’t have time for the things that are important to me..)  Straight people seem to see things so much differently to me :D

mel says:

07:50pm | 05/06/11

Ivan, more power to you and the struggle against all the stupid crap you and everyone else has to put up with.

Good luck!

Ivan says:

04:13pm | 04/06/11

Yep, Averill, food for thought indeed.

It’s food for thought that you imply the validity of the entitlement of a human to live their lives without persecution is in direct relationship to their numbers.

It’s also food for thought that you skipped past the heading “Measurement Difficulties” which quite clearly states that determining the precise number of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in any population is inherently difficult because it relies on “self-reporting” (ie admitting on the phone to a stranger that you’re gay). 

It’s quite clearly states that factors, including prevailing attitudes like yours impacts people feeling comfortable to honestly respond.

Also, on the ‘more interesting” bit, you misunderstood/misrepresented the results.  You see the quote “half the men and two thirds of the women who had same-sex sexual experience regarded themselves as heterosexual”.  That means that those people are not included in that survey’s 1.6% of identified homosexuals (because they if they don’t identify as homosexuals they wouldn’t be classified in the group that did - get it?).  It was referring to anyone in the entire sample that had had one or more same sex sexual experiences. 

It seemed pretty clear to me, but I’m not sure about you.  See, It doesn’t follow logically that out of all the people that identify themselves as homosexual, half of the men identify as heterosexual.

Please let me know if you need more help. 

Anyways, I’m delighted that you have chosen a website with a bit of credibility (albeit, for a fundamentally flawed premise, misrepresenting the numbers, the issues relating to the research and only picking one sample study out of 12).

However (and I know you must really hate this) it doesn’t matter what the numbers.  Society has no construction that there’s a threshold for human rights and freedom from persecution. 

Noone’s saying that due to our numbers we’re entitled to be represented in a poster that is placed in the community.

In a nutshell, what is being said is simply we exist and we’re as much entitled to exist as you.  We’re allowed to hug at a bus stop and allowed to be represented by a poster hugging at a bus stop.

Chris says:

05:01pm | 04/06/11

Funny how you interpret that statistic. Perhaps it is that those individuals are too scared to identify as homosexual in a community that still treats them as second class citizens.

Ivan says:

01:44pm | 04/06/11

When writing this are you comparing a fully clothed male giving another make a hug to a fulling clothed male giving a female a hug and considering both equally distasteful? 

If that’s the case you must be bombarded with distasteful imagery every day.  You must be writing letters constantly.

Or are you comparing a fully clothed male giving another male a simple hug to a barely clothed female, depicted reclined, in a heightened sexual state, selling a paddlepop, chewing gum or a new fragrance?

If that’s the case, it merely reflects your distaste for gay people.  They’re worlds apart and it’s not consistent with where we’re at as a society .  Gay people are not required to hide in dark corners.  We can walk down the same streets as you do and express our affection for our partner in the same fashion that you’ve been entitled to.

Your distaste can’t effect our continuing employment, it’s can’t effect our ability to foster and adopt children, it can’t effect our access to social welfare or family courts or hospitals when our loved ones are in care.

Why would you think it would effect the reflection of our existence in the community?

“If you ad the dimension, for a hetrosexual person, that they find the thought of homosexual sex, inherently distasteful, it just makes it worse”.  Worse?  That doesn’t validate the response.  It doesn’t follow that it should be the burden of the homosexual that the heterosexual has a problem.

As a heterosexual you’re not entitled to be protected from images that simply depict gay people existing.  You’re not entitled to demand that your the images in your society should depict the way in which you wish to see society. 

It’s okay.  Really, it’s just an issue of process.  The more images of gay relationships you are exposed to, similar to the one on the poster, and the more you constructively say to yourself “they are every bit as valid as I am” the sooner you’ll look at it and all you’ll see is love.

Ivan says:

10:18am | 04/06/11

Nez

They’re not representative of the whole of society and I’m pretty sure before you had brekkie you knew these people were lurking on the fringes.

The good news is that we’re now living in a society where their attitudes aren’t enshrined in our laws, general public opinion and the generational change of attitudes that are represented in every survey I’ve seen.

My advice, if you’ve had a good week, have great friends and family, reflect on that and feel good about it.  Better yet, grab someone rather nice, find your nearest bus stop and have a hug

Ivan says:

01:13pm | 04/06/11

Annie, I live in a society where, as a gay man, I’m free to walk down the same streets that you do.  I’m equally free to show expressions of affection to my partner similarly to heterosexuals (that doesn’t spark such outrage). 

It’s a hug and if I knew what you looked like and saw you in the street I’d give my husband a really big bear hug to just to show you that the sky doesn’t fall in.

Really, time to move on.  Even without your help your kids most probably will.

Paul says:

03:18pm | 04/06/11

Yes Annie…lets keep the message and the education message away from the children. I mean…its the job of the parents to educate the children in such matters, so just when will you educate your children about safe sex and the fact that hetrosexual, homosexual and bisexual couples exist and that no matter their sexual proclivity, its all OK, because its just how they are, but as a parent you want them to be safe from disease, etc., etc., etc????
You are going to do that soon, aren’t you?
Or are you going to be like the hundreds of thousands of parents that will NOT ever teach their children about such things?
When is it too soon for them be educated about such matters? When they HAVE a sexually tramsitted disease?
Surely the educational message needs to be out as soon as they are able to understand such things, and not WHEN they become sexually active.
Then again, by your post, there is no doubt in my mind that your children are in danger of not being educated or having the skills to avoid a sexually trasmitted disease. You therefore need to get your head out of your posterior and understand that its YOUR job and you need to do it sooner rather than later.

Aaron says:

04:49pm | 04/06/11

Annie, sex can and in some cases is considered a sport, alcohol is considered as a “food” so hey you’re getting your wish. What’s funny is the number of people (especially in Melbourne) will drive down the freeway and see the Sexpo and Sexyland ads and not raise an eyebrow.

Chris says:

04:55pm | 04/06/11

Hugs aren’t G rated?

I suppose that means hand holding is out of the question too.

Get a clue.

Servaas says:

12:36am | 05/06/11

“Take religion out of the equation…”

You’ve just ended all reason for discussion right there…

Ivan says:

09:18am | 05/06/11

@servaas: ya religious nutter! (I say that endearingly because I don’t question you’re entitlement to exist both conceptually and in the public domain. Its a shame you don’t afford the same to gay people.

You are allowed to have your personal beliefs that are intimately connected to your God.

What Shirley is saying, and it has been said previously, in our great society we are institutionally protected from people who choose to hold religious beliefs from overreaching their freedom to live their own lives according to the elements of their faith that they choose to follow.

What Shirley is saying, is if you respect the equal right of others to choose their own religious beliefs, or elements of faith they wish to follow (which is the right of every single member of our great society, the question merely becomes “why can’t two people just love each other?”

She further says “who does it affect what two people do in their bedrooms?”

Fortunately, the general population that respects the freedom of individuals to live their lives freely and our legislators charged with upholding those freedoms are consistent with that.

It’d be an outrageous change of civil liberties and social order if we were to change to a religious dictatorship. First question would be who’s God do we pick? Second would be which subfaith becomes supreme? Thirdly, what would we do with all the Australians that have been enjoying their freedoms and liberties, celebrating their own faiths (or absence of such) so successfully for so many generations.

On a separate note, how do Christians resolve the stark contrast to the teachings of Jesus vs the words of men written and compiled in the Bible years after his death, to then choose the word of men?

How do Christians select passages in the old Testament that contradict the revolutionary teachings of Jesus and decide that the archaic teachings trump the Son of God’s?

He wasn’t that big a deal or something? I really should have paid more attention in my RE classes at school. I guess I misunderstood.

mel says:

08:02pm | 05/06/11

Just asking, Betty, but which railway station was that?

mel says:

07:58pm | 05/06/11

Very insightful. Care to tell us why?

Ivan says:

09:51am | 05/06/11

Hey, Mr Naturalist,

What’s your feelings on aeroplanes, automobiles, air conditioning, electricity coming out of a hole in the wall and social security?

They must send you to distraction!  Absolute corruption of the natural order!

So is documented (already discussed and referenced here) scientific studies that homosexuality is prevalent in a long list of species.

Welcome to planet Earth.

Ivan says:

09:43am | 05/06/11

Haha umm have your gay friends gotten used to always having a supply of brown paper bags lest your mind strays to their bedroom because one of them gives the other a hug?

But seriously, your reaction isn’t normal. The view of an alternative sexual orientation would be more “hmmm, well, that doesn’t do it for me, whatsoever”.

Do your friends call you those nasty named when you let them know how much you revile their “choices” and expressions of love?  Sounds like a healthy relationship built on the foundations of mutual respect if so.
If problems persist, see your doctor.

Ivan says:

11:16am | 05/06/11

Ooh, thought of another one.

Since you have gay friends who, I assume, have your complete respect as people, so would it follow, and to rephrase you and your ‘rights’ that you agree that straight people have no right to abuse gay people, call them unnatural and an abberration of nature and make them feel a bad person due to the fact that the thought simply disgusts them as individuals?

Otherwise it simply sounds like you live with a perception of overblown entitlement.

Perkin Warbeck says:

12:21am | 06/06/11

@Jason: here’s a thought…. stop thinking about two men having sex, so you can stop throwing up. Also, stop making yourself out to feel bad, because no-one can make you feel bad, only you can do that to yourself. Next, if you truly have no problems with being with your gay friends and support their choice of partner and want them to have access to all the same rights as you do as a heterosexual, then - guess what, you aren’t homophobic! If though at any point you don’t express your positive views of your friends or think/say “I am your friend, I don’t mind if you are gay but I can’t support your right to marry, have sex (sorry -  going to have to vomit now) or be able to raise children”, then guess what. You’ve relegated your friends to a lesser status and who wants to be friends with someone who considers them to be a lesser person and therefore you are homophobic.
The cure for your nausea is really simple Jason (like your current argument) and the outcome all lies within your grasp - because it is you that has to change and not your gay friends or the rest of the gay world.
And for GaGa’s sake, could you all get your mind’s OUT of the bedroom? I don’t think of my straight friends banging away or even my lesbian friends having whatever it is they do (slight eewww moment).... The problem, and boy it is a REAL problem, with the bigots who seem fixated on what gay people do with their body parts. Please, you are the ones with the problem… see someone about it, alright?

Barry Simpson says:

04:36pm | 05/06/11

I realize that you are a brainwashed beyond hope liberal who is incapable of independent thought.And I realize that you only do and think what your cult tells you to, so I will try to keep it simple for you.
Like the vast majority of staus quo driven liberals in this society, you probably have a bizarre fawning obsession with Islam, though many of its tenet fly in the face of what you pretend to stand for (But that’s another issue).
To Islam, to muslims in general, the west is filth. And while you brainwashed sheep liberal types do indeed have a sickening crush on Islam, they don’t think any higher of you for it. Seriously, you are just a useful idiot pushing their cause, nothing more. As for your hate, status quo PC, complete lack of morals, fake compassion, etc, I can assure you they really don’t want a part of this sort of thing, and for you to assume they would shows how blind and stunningly ignorant of their culture you really are.

Perkin Warbeck says:

12:08am | 06/06/11

@Barry Simpson - how’s that tin foil hat of yours going?

MichaelM says:

07:08pm | 06/06/11

I’m glad Barry Simpson has an advanced degree in Islamic Studies. Either that, or he might think it above him to learn at an academic level where he would actually have to read and reseacrh to account for what he says. That might not suit a guy like him, being an independant mind and all.

Ivan says:

06:13pm | 05/06/11

@Matt M.  Firstly, it was a hug - a fact that you probably weren’t interested in verifying before venting constructed outrage. 

However, I’m pleased to inform you that you don’t have the right to relegate us to our bedrooms.  I’d recommend “gastro stop”, carrying robust paper bags or a visa to a communist country that has consistent views to yours.

nicholasg says:

07:20pm | 05/06/11

I’m not sure if you’re a troll or not but you’re doing a great job of impersonating one. But, if you’re just an old homophobe then have the guts to say what you mean and don’t hide behind your “...but”  statements. Newsflash: Gay people don’t want or need your respect. Oh and Matt, can YOU keep it in the bedroom. Actually, just stay there. Thanks Mr Respect (But only if you meet my criteria and don’t offend my dated belief system )