Lesbian prom ban: welcome to Ken and Barbie High

acotrel says:

06:27am | 11/11/10

’ I would certainly want to know my child was safe from discrimination or bullying, regardless of their sexuality or anything else that made them different from the mainstream.  ‘

You don’t have to be gay to be bullied.  All it takes is for you to be the best student in your class, and you’ll cop it!

Damn Straight says:

08:24am | 11/11/10

It was declared to be a year issue; and as it would be unworkable to check all outsiders it applied only to students of IGGS.  Apparently girlfriend from same school would have been allowed if from same Year level.  Make of it what you will but perhaps Heads could see the consequence in future formals of too many bringing friends from other year groups.

Are there stated aims to these formals for a one gender school? Is it merely a party or is it to encourage the girls to conduct social interactions (outside of Facebook!) with boys?  If this is so I can actually see a case for the school.  Unfortunate for the girl concerned and others but I doubt it was being used as an deterrent to those of her sexual orientation.  In fact some very positive statements about tolerance came from the school.  It did not need to be publicised as some great crime against humanity

Steely Dan says:

08:42am | 11/11/10

@ MrMac

There was an age difference, and the school is claiming that’s what the issue is, not the fact that a girl is trying to take another girl to the formal.  The girls have counter-claimed that Yr 10 boys have been allowed to attend (or perhaps were going to be attending until the poo hit the fan).

I’ve got no way of knowing who’s right and who’s wrong on this one.  But if the unfortunately named pairing of Hannah and Savannah are telling the truth, the school’s run by nutters.

ImaWestie says:

08:50am | 11/11/10

The school should have said “the event is open to students from year 11, and to people from other schools” if it was intended as a mixer.

Jane says:

09:54am | 11/11/10

The girls have said that their friends took boys who were younger than them, but only she was asked about her partners age.

The principal was quoted in the SMH yesterday as saying, ‘‘If we opened it up and said girls could bring another female they would all bring females; the policy is trying to create an event where boys are invited. We are a school that has an all-girls environment, and they are meant to invite guests, not partners.’‘

It clearly sounds like a case of discrimination.

Steely Dan says:

11:06am | 11/11/10

@ Jane

Yep, that is discrimination then.  Pity the school had to lie and say that this was an age issue after the media storm hit.

dobbieb says:

11:23am | 11/11/10

Correct Mr Mac. It was more a year difference

jf says:

03:14pm | 11/11/10

Steely Dan says

“But if the unfortunately named pairing of Hannah and Savannah are telling the truth, the school’s run by nutters.”

I agree 100% SD.

“Yep, that is discrimination then.  Pity the school had to lie and say that this was an age issue after the media storm hit.”

Agree and agree. What about the fact that they are a private organisation and entitled to make their own decisions, no matter how obnoxious? I disagree with what you say etc…

Scotty says:

06:00pm | 11/11/10

Yes, this was all about the AGE of the partner, not her sexuality at all.

Girls couldn’t take boyfriends from outside that year level, and guys couldn’t take younger girlfriends either.

Completely blown out of proportion, and that quote was of the girl’s father, not the principal.

A lot of outrage over nothing

Matthew says:

08:47pm | 11/11/10

jf, schools are never truely private.  The school gets large amounts of funding from the government the same as a public school (probably more).

storm-boy says:

06:07am | 12/11/10

Scotty “Girls couldn’t take boyfriends from outside that year level, and guys couldn’t take younger girlfriends either.”

It was an all-girls school….. Allegedly some girls did bring a partner outside their year level.

Seano says:

11:02am | 12/11/10

Doesn’t matter how many times you scream lie MarK you can’t get away from the facts. Enough people have pointed that you’re wrong perhaps it’s time to do the honorable thing and apologies.

Tedd says:

08:08am | 11/11/10

Davido, were all the boys from the same year?  Were all the boys and girls the same age?  Should they have been born in the same month? 

How same does it have to be?

Seano says:

08:17am | 11/11/10

Because that rule was only introduced after the fact.

R says:

08:47am | 11/11/10

I think this argument has been emphasised after they realised the negative reaction to the other, main reason - the principal has been clearly quoted saying that a student wouldn’t be allowed to bring a female guest. So even if the female guest was in the same year, they wouldn’t be able to come. Ergo the same-sex reason trumps the different year group reason.

And I want to know if all the male guests are from year 11 only? How do they verify this when they’re coming from outside the school? And if it’s gender balance to simultate a co-ed experience, what if someone chose NOT to bring a partner at all? That throws the balance out too.

R says:

09:01am | 11/11/10

I just read on another site a comment from a student from the school who says that girls were allowed to bring year 10 boys - so it’s obvioulsy about sex not age.

MarK says:

09:56am | 11/11/10

”  Seano says:

  08:17am | 11/11/10

  Because that rule was only introduced after the fact.”

I call shenanigans. Absolute and total shenanigans.

This is false - totally false.

Stop spreading lies.

Fiona says:

10:39am | 11/11/10

marK, Seano is right. When the issue was first reported it WAS about not bringing a same sex partner. The principal, seeing that backlash,  then back-pedalled the next day and brought in the age issue.

So the only shenanigans are by the principal. Particularly when boys from Yr 10 attended the event.

It is good this hypocrisy is exposed. So much good work that has been done, and as pointed out by Dr Phelps, takes a huge leap backward to 1950.

Seano says:

11:02am | 11/11/10

@MarK - call what you like champ, your “opinion” is of little worth. The school enforced no checks until after one girl invited another.

Steely Dan says:

11:12am | 11/11/10

@ MarK

‘‘If we opened it up and said girls could bring another female they would all bring females; the policy is trying to create an event where boys are invited. We are a school that has an all-girls environment, and they are meant to invite guests, not partners.’‘
Heather Schnagl, Principal of Ivanhoe Girls’ Grammar, 10 November 2010

So if the age limit (previously unenforced, apparently) wasn’t issued after the fact, the 15-yr-old girl wasn’t allowed to attend for two reasons - one legitimate, and one not.  The school is still discriminating.

MarK says:

11:22am | 11/11/10

It is a lie seano. You have no evidence of this.

Apply age checks? what are you talking about? The girls were in the same school. The school said the function is limited to year 11 people from this school.

You are fabricating a lie to make a point and it is boring.

MarK says:

11:26am | 11/11/10

Rubbish Fiona. It is not like that at all.

It is not a case of flip flopping.

It is a case of cheery picking quotes and being selective in what you believe.

Of course year 10 attended. They where not formt he scool. Why is is so hard for people to realise the school was running year 11 formal for its students. Year 11 form IGGS.

How the hell could they invite boys from an all girl school?

seano is lying that is all

Let me also tell you what Phelps is doing.

Using a non event to inflame a topic that she is passionate about.

it is a disgrace to use these girls like that.

MarK says:

12:47pm | 11/11/10

The age limit was always enforced. It was a year 11 formal for the kids enrolled at the school.

I repeat if you were not a year 11 student at the school you were not able to be invite people, be invited, attend whatever.

There was no “age” restriction on guests.

And since we are doing quotes

“Dr Schnagl said Ms Williams was told to bring a boy or come on her own, and says Hannah would have been given permission to bring a year 11 girl.

Keep fanning the flames to try and make this into something it is not.

Trevor says:

01:31pm | 11/11/10

@MarK, the event was “Year 11 girl plus guest”.  Unless there was a clear pre-existing and enforced rule that said ‘your guest cannot be from this school’ there is no reason why you should restrict ‘guest’ in such a way.

BeckM says:

01:32pm | 11/11/10

So MarkK you clearly have some strong feelings about this and you are allowed to post your opinion, why can’t others?

Your arguments are all made redundant by the fact that IF it was just an age thing, the principle would never need mention the ‘why don’t you bring a boy’ thing. IF the principle was not being discriminatory no reference would have been made to gender, it would have only been about age.

It is funny that for all the ‘same-ness’ (age, year, school) this is about being discriminatory about same sex relationships.

Sarah says:

01:34pm | 11/11/10

In response to all these defences of the school’s supposed “age not sex” rationale for disallowing Savannah to attend I offer up my experience; as one of the first females to attend a private all-boys school, there were girls who invited boys from the year levels below to our school formal, who were allowed to attend alongside their older student peers, no questions asked.

Gay and bisexual male students, however, were most definitely not allowed to bring a male partner - from within the school or without.

This has been standard practice in same-sex private schools for far too long!

Daniel says:

06:29am | 11/11/10

I don’t get your point.
At 16 they are old enough to have sex so yes if they do have a baby, why not? Free condoms are a great idea . It’s great that you support safe sex. Who is anyone to judge other peoples choices if they are old enough and it’s consensual?

acotrel says:

06:31am | 11/11/10

If Hannah and Savannah really love each other, it’s OK by me, as long as they observe the protocols of common decency!

Jack says:

08:20am | 11/11/10

Wake up Daniel. At sixteen they are on the whole mentally incapable of handling babies and financially even more incapable. Yes you can argue they have “rights”, but any mature person also knows that they have a responsibility to their children, which they are totally incapable of meeting at that age. If you both to look at statistics you will see that these babies are damaged for life.

Old Clive says:

08:32am | 11/11/10

If it feels good do it, when we get sick of this popular trend of being homosexual we will graduate to snuff movies if we don’t decide on a suicide pact first to get a little bit more attention. Hey we have seen all of this stuff before fads come and go but the damage they leave behind are everlasting.

R says:

09:03am | 11/11/10

I don’t get your point either. These two girls are dating - we have no way of knowing if they’re having sex yet or not. Besides, it’s irrelevant.

Kordez says:

09:10am | 11/11/10

@Old Clive, Being queer is as much of a fad as is being old. Either your trolling or you really are a tool.

Daniel says:

09:26am | 11/11/10

Well yes I am going to argue they have rights. I am also going to give them them the benefit of the doubt that they are aware of the consequences of their decisions. What are you going to do? Legislate that girls can’t have babies till they are 18 or supported by a wage earning male?

@Old Clive, homosexuality is not a fad and it will not go away. Your exaggerations didn’t go far enough to shock in your first straw man attempt and your second one just makes you just look ridiculous.

big jimmy says:

09:37am | 11/11/10

Sorry Old Clive, are you saying that homosexuality is nothing more than a modern fad that leaves damage in its wake and that its one step away from watching Snuff movies?

Kate says:

09:47am | 11/11/10

Well if you’re so worried about teen pregnancy, isn’t it a good thing that there are homosexual couples out there? They can’t get each other pregnant!

I’ve been out of school five years. I’d say of my year 12 class, about 60% of us were sexually active. 0% of us had babies.

Always Right says:

09:52am | 11/11/10

With rights come responsibilities!

Davida says:

10:07am | 11/11/10

So homosexuality is a gateway to snuff films and suicide, Old Clive?  Merely an attention-seeking device and a fad?  I’d agree with you but then we’d both be wrong.

Kate says:

10:11am | 11/11/10

To Old Clive,

Do you think being homosexual is a fad? HAHA that is hilarious, try telling that to all the kids that have commited suicide and to their parents after being bullied to death for being gay. Think before you write a comment as stupid as that. I agree there is probably a very VERY small minority of “bi” people out there who might think it is cool, but you are going to get people like that in every aspect of life, but seriously, being homosexual is not a choice and it is not something someone wakes up one morning and thinks ‘I am going to be gay today because it is cool’. I knew I was gay as far back as I can remember. I have never had feelings towards men and I never will, it is just the way that I am and the way that I was born. Nobody made me gay and I certainly didn’t grow up thinking it was cool. I also went to a strict religious school and I wouldn’t have even contemplated taking another female to my school prom, as I knew how much it was deemed to be wrong. I do however praise these two young girls for being strong enough to come out at such a young age and in such a public forum and be an example for all the other young gay people out there who might be too afraid to do it (and I don’t blame them if they are). We are just so lucky that we have people who are considered cool by young kids such as Ruby Rose and Matty Mitchum who are an inspiration for young gay kids in Australia.

Unfortunately this argument will go around in circles as it has done for decades.  Nobody should be able to tell someone who they can date or who they must pray to or what race they must marry. Tolerance is the greatest characteristic that someone can have.

Josh says:

10:52am | 11/11/10

Old Clive was taking the piss, wow people don’t get subtle humour…

Satire is wasted on the stupid.

Old Clive says:

12:50pm | 11/11/10

@Josh spot on. But it is still a matter of choice.

Dawson says:

08:03pm | 11/11/10

Yeah I wouldnt really have called that comment “satire”. It actually came across as quite offensive, and then going and calling it “a matter of choice” - seriously? Or was that, too, satire?

Shane says:

08:28am | 11/11/10

While I largely agree with your arguement S.L., and am proud that your workplace is so unphased by diversity, I seriously doubt that “Miss Williams” was looking for attention. Having been through a similar situation, I am fairly certain Hannah’s intentions were purely to ensure that bringing her partner was OK.

When I graduated from High School (about 7 years ago now) I chose to take my same sex partner to my formal without informing the school’s administration (I went to a regional public school). Given that two of my six classmates were bringing their babies to the occasion, I figured that it was a safe environment. Boy was I wrong…

In short, I was awarded Dux of the school, then publicly stripped of the title during formal proceedings, before being spat on by my the School’s Principal. The only justification I was given for these actions was that I had made “a spectacle” and was obviously “seeking to destroy the school’s reputation”. While I do not regret or resent anything that happened on that night, I still feel I should have advised the school of my intentions and spared my friends, family and partner the embarassment and pain of witnessing what they did.

Kordez says:

09:15am | 11/11/10

@S.L, Students must register their partners names and date of birth a while before they are allowed into the formal. I’d say that the school picked up on it then.

Kit says:

09:33am | 11/11/10

S.L, I don’t know what happened at your school formal, but as an all girls private school we had to register our partner a few months in advance in order to recieve their ticket. We also had to provide their date of birth and our partner had to come pick up their ticket from the administration office and show school ID. We weren’t allowed to take boys who were out of school (a rule which was eventually ammended when they realised just about every grade 12 girl had a boyfriend who was a year older than them). We were also advised girls weren’t to bring other girls as we were a Christian college. That was the official line.

S.L says:

09:38am | 11/11/10

Mr or Ms Shane by puting my reference to Hannah Williams as Miss Williams in inverted comas I see you have a problem with me giving her a title.
If you were stripped of your title of Dux and spat on by your Principal because of your homosexuality why wasn’t this splashed all over the media and the high school sued? There are enough advocates in the Gay community to take such an accusation “on a big ride” so why haven’t I heard about this story before?

S.L says:

11:06am | 11/11/10

@ Kordez and Kit. Thankyou for your input and I stand corrected.

Mistress D says:

06:53am | 12/11/10

S.L, I was bullied mercilessly at high school, that never made headline news either. Still happened.

Sometimes people just don’t go to the media because of the assumptions people make. You seem like a reasonable enough person, yet you made an assumption that you later found to be faulty.

Shane says:

03:08pm | 12/11/10

So a headline is what legitimises a bullying/harassment case, S.L.? You’ve obviously never been the victim of aggressive, overt marginalisation…

The reason you’ve never heard about my case is because I accept the role I played in “causing” the situation (as you should have been able to gather, had you actually read my post properly), and, having planned a career in media, I did not want the attention reporting it would draw. My life has taught me exactly how difficult it is for some people to cope with what I “am” and I will never judge them for that. What would I have gained from publicly persecuting the principal? And what cost would that have come at?

And as for my “Miss Williams” reference, I was merely highlight the condescension I felt that term was dripping with. My sincerest apologies if my reading was incorrect.

MarK says:

07:25am | 11/11/10

George Pell is evil?And ignorant? Because he doesn’t share the same ideology as you?

Ok, fine, just so long as you don’t slip into hyperbole at all. Gosh that would be terrible.

TrueOz says:

09:07am | 11/11/10

@MarK

To my way of thinking (and I suspect that I might just speak for a reasonable majority here), hiding the sexual abuse of small boys by priests qualifies as evil.

I could accuse Pell of being ignorant solely on the basis of his delusional belief in sky fairies, and for preaching that a bloke who wears a purple dress and a pointy hat is the oracle of God on earth - but I don’t. I accuse him of ignorance because of his publicly declared positions on many issues - same sex relationships (in part the subject of this blog) being amongst them.

No hyperbole required - just the facts.

The Badger says:

10:14am | 11/11/10

Some people,
particularly those that suffered from abuse by priests would say that Pell manifested his evilness trying to buy the victims silence and hide the systematic abuse of children that occurred before and during his watch.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s573816.htm

MarK says:

11:20am | 11/11/10

Oh here we go again.

Sky fairies and hiding of abuse.

Yes there was a systematic problem that is so out in the open you can’t pick up a paper and not read of it.

Then we get to Badgers link. One guys says he said this. Pell says he didn’t.

So what Badger. You believe who you want to believe if it suits you.

Go for it you two. Bashing of Catholics is a national sport. No I am not Catholic either.

Just hope you hold teachers up to the same standards.

Just hope you hold Islam and Muslims up to the same standards.

You get the picture.

DCL says:

07:20am | 11/11/10

No - not trying to change the rules to our “preference”, just trying to make them equal for everyone….

Tedd says:

07:24am | 11/11/10

No, it wouldn’t have been just Adam & Steve, just as it wasn’t just Adam & Eve.  Simple stories simplify minds.

Ted says:

08:13am | 11/11/10

Wrong DCL. The classic case is where single sex couples expect the right to have access to IVF and adopting babies/kids. News flash, you sexual preference in nature is INCOMPATIBALE with having babies. Therefore you should NEVER be allowed to have them.

DCL says:

09:18am | 11/11/10

@ Ted - not that we were even discussing the issue of IVF (just whether or not a Lesbian teenager could take their partner to their school formal) but given your comment, do you then agree that straight couples who are incapable of concieving because that is what “nature” has decided should therefore never be able to have children?

Kate says:

09:42am | 11/11/10

To Les bos, Wow, you are one small minded individual aren’t you? If you read the whole story when it ran, there were males from other years there as well, so that argument from the principal is null and void. And what is with the name Les bos? Another attempt at lame bullying? Haha, I guess you need to feel in control and above anyone who is different to yourself to feel good. That is pretty sad and I don’t know whether I feel more sorrow for people like you than I do hatred.  Seriously though, we live in the 21’st century, get a grip on reality. Sexuality, race, religion, everyone is different and that is what makes the world great. I suggest you go out there and see a bit of the world, it might open your eyes and I can only pray that you don’t ever have children!  Kudo’s to the high schools out there that are actually making an effort to encourage and support LGBT kids.  Comments like this from you Les bos makes me realise we have a long way to go in ridding the world of intolerant fools like yourself.

Ted says:

11:48am | 11/11/10

Nice try to twist things DCL. IVF with straight couples, though circumventing a natural process is still honouring a relationship that would normally be capable of producing a child. A single sex couple relationship will never produce a baby in the normal process of life and should not therefore receive assistance. This is not even touching on the damage/confusion that the baby/child will be subjected to. But of course people will automatically ignore or justify to themselves there will be no damage to the child, despite the evidence to the contrary so they can have what they believe they have a right to, ignoring the reality in the natural world of their choice. Having said this if they want to honour and live within the natural constrains of their choice, good luck to them.

Russ says:

01:29pm | 11/11/10

See what Les Bos did there- Adam & Steve instead of Adam & Eve, so very clever

fatblackpoormalemother says:

02:29pm | 11/11/10

Dennis ....it is easy , to put a negative spin on any idea or opinion , but not very clever if you do not put forward a better proposal and at least go through the process of prioritising which problem needs to be addressed first . All you have done is put people down [this does nothing for you in the intelligence stakes,(who will listen to you after that)...! ] Then you suggest the driving force should be inclusivity not regulating . [not meant sarcastically or tongue in cheek ] Should this be a regulation?

Lostie says:

07:55am | 11/11/10

Where was there any talk about sex between the partners?

I find it more than a little disturbing that it is assumed that they have a sexual relationship. Effectively, you are accusing the older girl of of being a child sex offender without any evidence whatsoever.

Alternatively, you are suggesting that persons under the age of 16 don’t have “Boyfriends/Girlfriends” in which case you are sorely mistaken.

The focus on sex comes from a series of chemicals produced in developing humans called hormones - significantly (with respect to sex) testosterone and estradiol. These hormones become active in women around the age 11, and men around 13 in a process known as puberty. The presence of these chemicals create a biological desire to have sex, however, the quantity (and hence the desire) varies significantly between individuals. As an aside - research has shown that women with higher levels of estradiol are far more likely to be comforable with their own physical appearance and are more likely to be seen as attractive by other people (they are also more likely, than the general population, to have affairs presumably due to their increased sex drive), Testosterone has a similar effect in males.

There you have it - that’s why teenagers are thinking about sex and relationships. The chemicals in their body are creating a sexual desire - that doesn’t mean they are choosing to have sex.

Not aimed at you Maggie:

The issue is simple - if you are allowed to invite a partner to a dance why force them to take a person of the opposite sex.

I was invited to a wedding and took a male “partner”. Is that an issue? Does it matter that he and I were only friends and not a couple? Does it matter that I happen to be married, but my wife was unable to attend (I didn’t want to go to a wedding where I knew no one other than the bride)?

R says:

08:49am | 11/11/10

Who said they’re having sex? They’re dating!

Steely Dan says:

09:37am | 11/11/10

@ maggie

They’re dating, so they must be having sex?  Wow, maggie.  It didn’t work like that in my day.

martinX says:

09:02am | 12/11/10

Casual “friends with benefits” relationships are starting in Year 9 at the Catholic school near us, according to a report on the mothers grape vine.

Our littlies are in Prep at the mo. Fun days lie ahead…

Steely Dan says:

10:46am | 12/11/10

@ martinx

“according to a report on the mothers grape vine”
I look forward to seeing the full peer-reviewed paper.  If you have evidence that the relationship in question is sexual, you’d present it to the police (not that a 16-yr-old is likely to be charged for having sex with a 15-yr-old anyway).

Zeta says:

08:28am | 11/11/10

What’s strangest is they assumed if they didn’t have to invite boys, boys just wouldn’t want to go. I’m 27 and I want to go! It’s a god damn Girl’s School Formal!

If they were struggling, they could just have said ‘Come to the Ivanhoe Girl’s School Formal - meet Zeta’, although for legal reasons I think that event would be restricted to year 12s.

For some strange reason, I don’t have my copy of Nabakov’s Lolita here in the office with me, but I’m reminded (which is kind of creepy) of that part where Humbert takes Lolita to meet the principal of her new girl’s school and she says ‘here at (insert school name here, I can’t remember it) we teach the three D’s (something), decorum, and dating - actually that scene might only have been in the 2nd film, but either way, it’s this bizarre 1950s throw back that’s kind of blackly hilarious in such an otherwise bleak story. This whole situation kind of reminds me of that.

It just seems so weird that a girl’s school principal would even want the students to ‘meet boys’ - when I was at an all boy’s school, it seemed every girl’s school in the city was determined to make sure we never met their students. Because we were miscreants and violent teenage criminals.

Sam says:

08:50am | 11/11/10

The principle has a legal, moral and spiritual commitment to the young adults placed in his care. If he says no and meets the ethics of his school then case closed. Discriminating minority groups find another school to oppress.

Amy says:

10:46am | 11/11/10

I’m just gonna say it.  I would go to the Ivanhoe Girl’s School Formal to meet Zeta.  Said it.  I’ll be over here.

Matt F says:

10:51am | 11/11/10

sam

there is no law preventing a year 11 girl taking a year 10 partner to a school formal. if there is then our politicians have way too much free time! there are however anti-discrimination laws.

what is morally wrong about a girl bringing a partner to a dance? given the relationship was already common knowledge amongst the students (many of which apparently campaigned for the girl to be allowed to attend) i don’t see how this is “protecting” them from anything they weren’t already aware of.

also i suggest you look up the definitions of discrimination and oppression, as asking for a person to be allowed to attend a formal doesn’t discriminate against anyone. preventing someone from attending on the other hand….....

zoe says:

07:29pm | 11/11/10

@Zeta
You had me when I thought you were a 50 year old overweight unemployed game playing weirdo, writing on blogs in your dungeon but now that I know you’re only 27 well damn.

good one says:

07:32am | 11/11/10

Yes Jim also Kerryn"s opening lines “Don’t they watch Modern Family? Haven’t they tuned in to Glee? “
Think i will have to start watching more tv to brush up on morals, ethics & life choices.

on ya kerryn

Fi says:

09:12am | 11/11/10

Actually, it’s not statutory rape if one is fifteen and the other is sixteen. Eighteen and fifteen yes, but if it was a guy and girl in this situation it wouldn’t be statutory rape either.

DG says:

10:00am | 11/11/10

Why do you assume that their relationship is sexual?

Do you equally assume that every person who brought a partner of the opposite sex is in a sexual relationship?

The author said nothing of their sexual liaisons, only of their sexual preference.

DG says:

11:30am | 11/11/10

Fi -

Without knowing what jurisdiction you are in I can’t say this unequivocally - but in New South Wales (for example) the offence is relevant to the age of the victim only I am not aware of any provision to the contrary, for example, it is not a defence that you are a minor also. This may be different in Victoria, I’m too lazy to check.

In which case it would be a child sex offence for a 16 year old to have sex with a 15 year old. Equally, a 15 year old couple who have sex both commit child sex offences. The gender is not relevant.

Matt F says:

04:22pm | 11/11/10

not 100% sure about this but i do remember hearing something where in some places where there is a loophole if the over age person is no more then 2 years older then the under age party i.e. 17 y/o and 15y/o is legal. if anyone can confirm or deny this feel free.

ZSRenn says:

08:14pm | 11/11/10

This case occures in Vic It is offence if someone has sex with a partner who is 16 years or younger.

It is a defence if the older partner can prove they thought the child was 16 years and she is older than 10 and there is not more than two years difference.

The older girl is fully aware that her partner is younger than 16 as they attend the same school and she is in the lower grade.

I am assuming it’s a sexual relationship by the title of this forum

Lesbian prom ban:

Otherwise it would be just two girlfriends going to the dance

My question stands!

DG says:

07:22am | 12/11/10

Essentially your point is that if they are a couple they must be having sex and that if they are not having sex then they can not be considered a couple?

As I have outlined elsewhere, would it not be practical to assume that the title is a reference to the fact that they self report to being in a same sex relationship? It makes no claim as to their sexual behaviour (if any). Lesbian refers to the fact that they consider themselves to be a ‘same-sex’ couple, rather than just friends. This is rather distinct from participating in sexual acts with a person of the same sex (that can be done outside of a relationship).

The focus of the article is, clearly, on their relationship rather than any actions that they may have carried out.

By your theory any person over 16 who turned up with a partner that was 15 should be arrested. After all they are heterosexual couples. Do this claim hold or is there a double standard?

I hope that you see the horrible flaw in your argument.

ZSRenn says:

04:55pm | 12/11/10

@ DG

Encarta Dictionary: Lesbian: a woman who is sexually attracted to other women.

How can a child that is 15 with all the hormones and changes that are flooding her system at the moment be allowed and supported to proclaim she is sexually attracted to women Australia wide.

This is a child we are talking about. It is why these laws are in place. For the rest of her life she will be known as that Lesbian who could not go to the ball. Because of a decision to declare Australia wide she was sexually attracted to women when she was a child of 15 without even acting on the sexual impulses if what you argue holds true.

Not to mention that every newspaper in Australia run by adults and the very adult Dr Kerryn Phelps outed her as a lesbian when she was only 15. This is nothing short of abuse of that child by the media and her parents if she is not sexually active.

If she is then there is a case for prosecution of the elder girl.

Whatever way its spins this Child has been abused.

DG says:

09:21am | 15/11/10

“How can a child that is 15 with all the hormones and changes that are flooding her system at the moment be allowed and supported to proclaim she is sexually attracted to women Australia wide. “

Yet, you would allow her to be ‘heterosexual’, which is the default assumption in our society.

Her decisions now will shape her future. Whether it’s a decision to steal a car, take drugs, become a bully or announce her attraction to females (which was already known socially).

“Not to mention that every newspaper in Australia run by adults and the very adult Dr Kerryn Phelps outed her as a lesbian when she was only 15.”

I think you’ll find she outed herself as a lesbian and other have run with the story to discuss the plight that she faces by persons, such as yourself, who demand that this person conform with the social ‘norm’ of participating in heterosexual relationships, if she wanted to go with a ‘boy’ in a faux heterosexual relationship, you wouldn’t be making sure that,  ‘all the hormones and changes that are flooding her system” means that she shouldn’t be permitted to “proclaim she is sexually attracted to…” men .

It’s a double standard, an intellectual void in which some persons allow a person to behave in a faux sexual way (i.e go to a dance with a boy) and define themselves as heterosexual, but not to define themselves as homosexual.

“This is nothing short of abuse of that child by the media and her parents if she is not sexually active. “

On what basis do you consider that this is abuse? A person has made a claim, people have rallied around her claim and supported her. I think its one of the few positive pieces in the media of late.

If they are sexually active, by all means it should be a police issuenot because of the gender of the participants.

I see this as a simple case of a person demanding to be allowed to love whomever they want. They should be allowed and should be supported by the whole of the community (or more accurately it should be a case of “good for you” they shouldn’t need support, but they shouldn’t be opposed either). This really isn’t too far different from the social ban on inter-racial relationships in the 50’s. Here, you seek to impose a social ban on same sex relationships by teens for no reason other than the fact that they have hormones, yet make no such ban for heterosexual relationships. How can you justify this hypocrisy? Do you even make an attempt?

I’m confident that you would object to protecting people from other behaviours that are carried out as a direct result of their raging hormones (especially violent actions, or even consensual heterosexual sex with minors). I agree that people are responsible for their behaviours and their decisions, whether or not hormone induced. It’s called self control, you learn it by facing the consequences of your actions, not from being protected from the consequences.

Maybe they should ban these dances entirely - after all it’s not appropriate that these hormone addled teens should be permitted to make social statements that may be with them for life (such as their attraction to a particular gender). People supporting ‘couples’ at such things are clearly responsible for child abuse (by your standard).

Unless of course you acknowledge that it is a hypocritical, intellectually barren “double standard”, and that it’s OK to imply heterosexual attraction without it constituting child abuse.

Trevor says:

10:21am | 11/11/10

Well, your very first sentence is clearly wrong because it was arranged for each year 11 girl to INVITE A GUEST.

And reports indicate that no other girl was grilled about who their guest was in the way that this particular girl was.

Charles Kelly says:

08:11am | 12/11/10

WAKE UP and smell the reality Trevor. The ONLY GIRLS allowed to attend the dance were year 11 students at Ivanhoe Girls’ Grammar School. NO OTHER students from Ivanhoe Girls’ Grammar School were allowed to attend. It’s perfectly clear the point I was making was that the GIRLS at the dance had to be year 11 students at Ivanhoe Girls’ Grammar School.

Of course they were allowed to invite guests - otherwise it wouldn’t be a dance. That basic premise did NOT need to be spelled out. The fact remains that the ONLY GIRLS allowed to attend the dance were year 11 students at Ivanhoe Girls’ Grammar School. Had the other girl been a year 11 student at Ivanhoe Girls’ Grammar School, there wouldn’t have been a problem.

Your petty attempts in twisting the story to suit your agenda are completely transparent - and prove that this whole “scandal” is nothing more than a beat-up.

Trevor says:

10:23am | 11/11/10

Well, your daughter’s school seems to have been consistent in its position. Part of the problem here is a number of reports that at THIS school, Year 10 boyfriends got in. Only Year 10 girlfriends were excluded.

JW says:

12:33pm | 11/11/10

Trevor
I might be a bit slow but I am pretty sure that there are no Year 10 Boys at Ivanhoe Girls Grammar

Trevor says:

01:26pm | 11/11/10

JW, you are a bit slow. ‘This school’ refers to the location of the event, not to the location of the boy’s education.

Kordez says:

01:21pm | 11/11/10

@the apologist, There should be no policy to the demerit of simple decency or the anti discrimination act.
Parents wouldn’t choose a school based on what a child’s sexual orientation is going to be in 10 years time. A good parent would make an informed decision based on the facilities and education provided.
Everything during the schooling process is a learning experience, and what kind of message are schools with this policy sending to the future of Australia?

Steely Dan says:

02:22pm | 11/11/10

@ the apologist

“Don’t like the school policy, don’t go to the school.”
Don’t like state anti-discrimination laws?  Don’t take state funding.

meinsydney says:

09:17am | 12/11/10

No apologist, it’s a travesty that people like you even have a “viewpoint” when it comes to gays and lesbians.  They are people like the rest of us….they are not going to disappear.  Get over your hang-ups and let kids live their lives free of being the targets of entrenched discrimination.

And you don’t seem to have a clue what civil libery means.

Arnuad says:

10:42am | 11/11/10

its more like 10%, and growing, scary to think…

Richard says:

04:51pm | 11/11/10

Alas, Arnaud is correct. The ultimate result of feminism is is to de-masculine-ize men. Then, when all men are ashamed of their testosterone, afraid subjugate the world to their will (like all great men of history have done), afraid to be strong and dominant, THEN these women turn around and ask: “where have all the real men gone?”

By failing to be real men, modern guys become not fathers but substitute mothers. No wonder divorces are widespread and constant! No wonder lesbianism is on the increase! (If males act feminine, then what are women to respond to?)

Dave Mac says:

06:10pm | 11/11/10

10%? your kidding right? Its lucky to be 1%. Come back to the real world.

notSue says:

02:55pm | 12/11/10

@Richard. Good lord, these evil feminists are clever, aren’t they? Imagine, trying to get men to stop “subjugating the world to their will!”
I’d love to know what some of you rabid, misogynist anti-feminists (who just as looney as radical manhating feminists) consider masculinity. Obviously , for you it’s all about being some sort of demigod, adored and feared by the cowering masses. I’ve got news for ya, we’re no longer in the Dark Ages!
Btw, It’s great to see men AND women defending equal rights for all, regardless of gender or sexuality, in this thread.

R says:

09:07am | 11/11/10

“Normal people” - LOL!

Kate says:

09:55am | 11/11/10

Nobody makes straight people go to the mardigras if they don’t want to…but there are a lot of straight people that do go because it is a celebration of diversity, not just homosexuality!

The church has been discriminating publically against homosexuals since the dawn of time. Time for a wake up call.

Kordez says:

10:18am | 11/11/10

@Sid, Gay events like Mardi Gras aim to raise awareness throughout a community and what better way to do that then with bright pastel latex costumes, 3 tonne of multi coloured glitter and feather boas? The only peep I’ve seen vilified at Mardi Gras was Fred Nile, and that dudes so busy trawling the intraweb for porn he doesn’t even turn up to put forward an opinion.
Banning kids from their school formal based on their sexual orientation is not cool, and if Fred Nile can get away with downloading lesbian porn at the tax payers expense then kids should be allowed to have a same sex partner attend a formal and possibly film lesbian porn for future perverts.

Jack says:

12:53pm | 11/11/10

Sorry to correct you Kordez, but Fred Nile is but one of a long list of people they have attacked with their floats. All you have to do is be a public figure and disagree with their demands to be attacked. The church and nuns are also routinely attacked when they hold true to the bible, unlike half of the Anglican church. The sickening thing is that any attempt for legal redress only goes to feed their cause in the left wing bias media we unfortunately have.

Kordez says:

04:16pm | 11/11/10

@Jack, I’ve only been to Mardi Gras once.. But I guess if someone said something bad about me, I’d more than likely defend myself in whatever legal manner possible too.

Even so, I can’t see how the actions of few should prevent school children from freely expressing themselves.

@Sid, You want equality? You’re more than welcome to play part in the 2011 Mardi Gras, anyone is mate. Alternatively you could run another festival celebrating your sexuality, I’d be there getting my drink on.

Dawson says:

08:08pm | 11/11/10

I understand your point, “ImaWestie”, but the simple fact is that schools are legally obliged to combat against discrimination such as this, so basically what the school has done should be illegal.

Stephen Silk says:

11:48am | 11/11/10

Not exactly true. A number of girls attended singly or in groups - only this one girl was forbidden to bring her chosen partner.

R says:

02:13pm | 11/11/10

Dicatating that your guest has to be of the opposite sex is not an equal rule. The school is sending the message that they shouldn’t be in love - that’s how it feels when your relationship isn’t valued as equally as a hetereosexual one.

Kordez says:

11:01am | 11/11/10

@Ray, I’m not sure where you’re from bro.. But here in Australia it remains illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Schools are likely the most important place these standards be practised.
Because if they aren’t, we end up with a bunch of uneducated tossers running schools and the country who fail to understand the very basic principles of the anti discrimination act.

Ted says:

02:31pm | 11/11/10

So Kordez, what your saying is the school has no religious freedom to follow their bible because a lesbian decides to snub her nose at their religious beliefs and that is not even looking at the question of what she is doing in the school to start with, given her persuasion. Your arrogance is astounding.

Kordez says:

03:37pm | 11/11/10

@Ted, religious freedom is hardly a good excuse to discriminate against a 15 and 16 year olds sexuality. I can’t think of a good reason to discriminate against anyone, well other than Affirmative Action.

These school kids will join the rest of us in secular workplaces around the nation. For them to experience and be witness to policy like this one, will teach them nothing of how to deal with different sexualities once they join the real world.

You know what shits me the most, is you seem to think children without faith aren’t welcome in a religious school. Perhaps you should investigate the uptake of religious belief after completion of private schooling. You will find that it’s pitiful.

Steely Dan says:

04:11pm | 11/11/10

@ Ted

Does the school want to keep their rules about discriminating against homosexuals, Jews, blacks whoever OR do they want state funding?

The issue isn’t that a religious school is run by bigots (shock!), the issue is that they’re doing it with state subsidies.

Rosie says:

11:03am | 11/11/10

Kerryn Phelps I would also be telling my gay daughter if she was faced with the same situation as Hannah & Savannah to be happy with what she already has and not try too hard to be accepted by taking her same sex partner to the school formal.

What we should all be fighting for is the bullying that is happening in the schools that is causing some of our students to take their lives, be it because they are gay or whatever!

Vicki PS says:

11:49am | 11/11/10

That would be patty cake, Natalie.  And I believe that the school formal phenomenon is a relatively recent one anyway, a copycat of the Merkin prom.  It’s not a sacred institution.

NEFFA says:

12:26pm | 11/11/10

yep, i have to agree. i didn’t even bother reading the article because the title bugged me so much. It’s a formal people.

Sean says:

12:41pm | 11/11/10

You’re absolutely right, a sensationalised article with a provocative headline, and the thing you have a gripe with is the use of the word prom over formal… (the writer’s termanology for the event, not the school’s from other reading)

Cate P says:

11:09am | 11/11/10

So true.  That is exactly what would happen.

Carrie says:

12:21pm | 11/11/10

Madz, really? Teens flitting between being emo, gay or a BIMBO? I don’t think you appreciate how hard it is to say you’re gay when you’re a teenager! Unless you have been there, done that as a gay teen, you really can’t immediately write them off as attention seekers. And you sure as hell can’t liken them to being bimbos.
They’re brave, end of story.
And schools don’t know more about teenagers than anyone else, they just know how to repress individuality in teenagers in order to present to the community a wholesome, unified front. Hence the uniforms, rules, regulations and compulsory core subjects.

Kordez says:

11:21am | 11/11/10

@jim morris, that’s assuming that the children are having penetrative sex. Chuck Norris wouldn’t have the gonads to make that accusation.

Tone says:

11:28am | 11/11/10

I had wondered about the significance of the girlfriends age and a sexual relationship, too.  Would age be the same issue if it was a boy-girl relationship (ie heterosexual)?

I wonder that kids are getting so savvy - intellectually - and relatively mature earlier that the age of consent could come down to, say, 14 in a decade or so, anyway (I say that with some trepidation with a mature 11 year old daughter who hates swearing, nastiness, and is a really good kid).

Trevor says:

11:51am | 11/11/10

It’s very revealing that you think homosexuality is all about sex. Would you apply the same standard to a straight couple - that if a 16 year old boy has a 15 year old girlfriend he must be having sex with her?

Sexuality is about who you are attracted to. It doesn’t automatically mean you’re having sex.  I knew I was gay well over a decade before I ever had sex with anyone.

DG says:

12:12pm | 11/11/10

Does a couple being straight indicate that they are sexually active?

If not why does the title of ‘lesbian’? I think one needs to draw a distinction between attraction and behaviour.

A homosexual male (attracted to males) may choose to have exclusively heterosexual sex partners. Does that affect their ‘sexuality’? Most would treat this person as heterosexual - even if the person felt no physical attraction to their partner.

What about a person who is attracted to the same sex, but is a virgin, what sexuality do they have? I think most would agree that they are ‘gay’ regardless of their actions.

Equally, a heterosexual, person who experiments with a homosexual relationship out of curiosity (rather than a physical attraction to persons of the same sex) - are they homosexual?

I think the above scenarios indicate that sexuality is a product of ‘self reporting’ rather than behaviour or attraction. However, if it must be one of the other, I would suggest that it is linked to their attraction rather than their behaviour.

My point - the label lesbian tells us nothing about sexual activity (if any) that they have participated in. Only that they self report as lesbian and as being in a lesbian relationship.

fairsfair says:

01:15pm | 11/11/10

this would want to be some pathetic attempt at humour. Even if so, it isn’t funny. If true - you better hide when the map the scum gene.

Harry says:

01:26pm | 11/11/10

The moment they do anything more than what a freind would do, ie passionat kiss, they are a Lesbian in a sexual relationship. Deal with it.

Daniel says:

01:36pm | 11/11/10

Do you think that gay people have sex in public at the school dance? Your discomfort is a prime example of the problem. It’s a good thing today’s teenagers don’t think this way. Do you think that gay people get offended when they see straight people kissing?

Pushing their heterosexuality in other peoples faces like that, it’s disgusting!

Carrie says:

02:12pm | 11/11/10

“I would not treat someone differently because of their sexual needs, but I don’t want to know about it or see it in my face”...

Err…that’s treating someone differently Jenny!

Don’t worry about being a parent trying to protect your children. We are not actually contagious, and I think it’s safe to say there would be very few gay people attracted to you anyway. We tend to prefer it where the lights are bright and the people brighter. You are very safe in your little sheltered cave.

Steely Dan says:

02:27pm | 11/11/10

@ Jenny the Woman

So if the sight of people who’s skin wasn’t purest white offended you, would you feel that you had the right to have them segregated?  After all, you wouldn’t want them throwing their ethnicity in your face…

If you don’t like freedom and equal rights, maybe you should leave my country.

Carrie says:

12:32pm | 11/11/10

Vicki, I kind of agree with what you’re saying, but the ‘rebranding’ you mention is I think just society coming in line with what was already there.
As a little girl, I always had friends who were boys, and everyone talked about my ‘boyfriends’. I had a male date at each school social, semi formal and formal, and I didn’t think much about it. But I didn’t actually know anything else was an option. I wish I had though. Looking back, I think it would have made my later teenage years much easier as I grappled with being gay.
If there was less attention on the gender of the date, and more attention on their being a good upstanding citizen, it would be a whole lot healthier.

Laura says:

01:13pm | 11/11/10

I totally agree with you! - This is getting blown way out of proportion - whats next? Their going to sue the school and make it go bankrupt. I’m a straight girl and if my school had an all girls’ formal, I would simply bring a girl. If its mixed, I would bring a boy. If the object of the evening is in contradiction with a particular gender orientation than either suck it up or don’t go. And this one is not even in contradiction, the school is not forcing you to pash the boy or anything of the type. Do you have to be hetero to bring a male guest to a crappy year 10 formal? I think not. I brought my brother to my last formal and I in no way condone incest!

Steely Dan says:

02:44pm | 11/11/10

@ Laura

Why do you think this school wanted guests of the girls to be male only?  So they’d learn what boys are?  Was that the “the object of the evening”?  If it was, the school would have teed up a mixed dance with a nearby boys school.  That happens all the time.  But by telling girls to bring their own partner, you know that 95% will try to bring a boyfriend/guy they’re keen on.  Formals have always been like this.  Pretending that this is just about introducing girls to the concept of a Y chromosome is so ridiculously naive.

Vicki PS says:

07:34pm | 11/11/10

@Carrie, I agree that the fad (for want of a better word) for lesbian relationships is in part simple acknowledgement of the diversity in sexual orientation that has always existed.  What troubles me is that I think there is also a substantial element of social/peer pressure involved in the phenomenon.  This is both (a) a rejection of a prevailing superfemme boy-mad hetero persona and the implicit and (increasingly) explicit pressure toward active hetero sexual relationships; and (b) the influence of glamour celebrity role models, both high-profile lesbian singles and couples and lame Katy Perry try-hards . I think it has in many respects become easier and more normative among age peers (and certainly more in-your-face) for a young woman to identify herself as lesbian, than to simply be a girl who feels more comfortable with a tomboy/rude girl self-image and isn’t ready for the whole boy/girl hassle.  It’s the pressure to put a label on one’s sexual identity prematurely that I object to.

Steely Dan says:

02:52pm | 11/11/10

@ Jolanda

“Year 11 dance is for Year 11 students, if you bring a year 10 student from the same school all it does send a ripple through the school and the next year you can rest assured that other girls in Year 10 will want to get themselves a girlfriend from the year above so as to attend the dance and be popular.”
Really?  That’s your argument?  Alright.
1) Is there actually a problem with that?  Is the objective of the formal for them to bring people from outside the school?  And aren’t formals already a popularity contest?
2) Next year’s Yr 10s don’t get to decide who next year’s Yr 11s invite to the formal, do they?  Won’t at least 99% of next year’s Yr 11 want to bring somebody other than a girl from the same school to the formal?

I don’t think you’re being honest in your objection, Jolanda.  Why not tell us what your real issue is?

Jolanda says:

03:15pm | 11/11/10

Steely Dan why don’t you tell me what my real issue is seeing that you think you know. 

I do see a problem with girls trying to get with other girls just so that they can be invited to the formal.  You might not see a problem with it but I do.  We are all entitled to our opinion but at the end of the day the Principal is the boss of the school and bratty kids who just want their own way shouldn’t be able to undermine the Principals authority.

Steely Dan says:

09:26am | 12/11/10

@ Jolanda

“why don’t you tell me what my real issue is seeing that you think you know.”
I don’t think I know.  But I’m pretty sure it’s not for the terrible reasoning you put forth before. 

“I do see a problem with girls trying to get with other girls just so that they can be invited to the formal.”
Do you see a problem with boys trying to get with girls just so that they can be invited to the formal?  And do you think this is actually happening?

“We are all entitled to our opinion but at the end of the day the Principal is the boss of the school and bratty kids who just want their own way shouldn’t be able to undermine the Principals authority.”
You oppose removing discriminatory practices because kids need to be told who’s boss?  Would you feel the same way if the Principal had declared a ‘no Asians’ rule?  After all, the Principal makes the rules, and Asian kids need to understand who calls the shots as much as the lesbians do…

Jolanda says:

05:14pm | 12/11/10

Steely Dan your comparison is ridiculous.  What has Asians got to do with this.  We are not talking race here, we are talking about a Year 11 student inviting a year 10 student from the same girls school as a ‘girlfriend’ to a school dance.  These are 15/16 year old girls.    I believe that a school has a right to say NO because they are the ones that have to deal with the aftermath and whether you understand this or not young people like attention and if bringing a girlfriend in the year below to the dance means attention then that will be something that others will consider.  It also encouranges same sex relationships and these are children and lately same sex relationships have been shoved down our throat by the media etc.  Children are a product of their environment and we need to set good examples and by that I mean that we should accept and tolerate differences but we should promote what is in the best interest financialy and emotionally for society and two girls cannot together make make babies nor can two blokes so therefore a male/female relationship is what is most cost effective.  That some choose to go the other way is fine, but lately everywhere you turn we are having homosexuality shoved down our throats.  Soon if you are straight you will be the one that is seen as weird.

Carrie says:

01:51pm | 11/11/10

Richard, it’s no wonder you were given a name that can be shortened to Dick.

Richard says:

06:47pm | 11/11/10

It’s no wonder that a contraction of my name is sometimes used as slang for the make organ? What exactly is your point? People like you perpetuate the perception that masculinity is something to be ashamed of. I will not submit to such feminist indoctrination.

Steely Dan says:

09:29am | 12/11/10

@ Dick

Calling out someone for equating gays with pedophiles is ‘feminist indoctrination’?

Richard says:

10:40am | 12/11/10

sorry steely Dan if that’s the way my comment came across, I don’t equate gays and lesbians with pedophiles, just wanted to point out that different people have different standards about sexuality, and if a catholic school wants to impose standards opposing certain aspects of sexuality, while I don’t agree with them, I think they have that right. Otherwise if they can’t do that, how can society set standards against pedophilia?

Steely Dan says:

12:55pm | 12/11/10

@ Richard

“if a catholic school wants to impose standards opposing certain aspects of sexuality, while I don’t agree with them, I think they have that right.”
They do have that right, they’re a private organisation.  Unless of course they take state funding.  They’re not going to use state funding to discriminate against anybody.

“Otherwise if they can’t do that, how can society set standards against pedophilia?”
We seem to be able to make laws against paedophilia well enough without the assistance of school principals.  What makes you think that allowing lesbians to a dance undermines criminal law?

“I don’t equate gays and lesbians with pedophiles”
Not buying it, Dick.  Re-read that first comment and explain how those words could have come out so wrong by accident.

notSue says:

03:12pm | 15/11/10

Zeta, I enjoy your posts, they’re so well written.. but this one’s a tad off kilter. Lack of rules is called anarchy, and anarchic societies don’t tend to function very well.
I do agree that in this case these girls were brave in challenging the status quo.  More power to em!

Peter says:

02:52pm | 11/11/10

Yep. I agree with you on this one Brad. Society is becoming a crowd of spoilt brats who chuck a turn when they can’t get their own way and strangely they call themselves enlighten.

lynne says:

05:12pm | 11/11/10

spot on Brad…Talk about 15 mins of fame and the media are always in the wings waiting to make a story out of nothing.  It seems there is a lot of ‘he said, she said’..(or in this case ‘she said, she said’) and how quick the media is to promote this young girls story at the expense of the actual truth..or the fact there really is no story.  As Kerryn is also doing.

Yvonne says:

01:21pm | 12/11/10

agree Brad

Louise says:

06:43pm | 12/02/11

Yep, the girls were interviewed by Dolly magazines and said they don’t even consider themselves lesbians???? Hannah’s father went super crazy and when to the equal opportuities board- they said it wasn’t even discrimination.

Kordez says:

03:05pm | 11/11/10

Can someone get John Smith back in his spot light?!

@John Smith, I recommend you pay attention to the news. Although 76.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.. I’m confident over 99% of the daily news is made up of stories about the majority of Australians who happen to have the same sexual orientation as yourself. When one pops up about someone differing to yourself, you whinge? It is you who needs to suck it up princess and realise that minorities need some support when injustice is served too.

Ted says:

03:04pm | 11/11/10

And if the school was Gay, they would be calling you a bigot and have you up on charges for what you just said. The Left wing media would also be vilifying you and playing it for all they can. Your arrogance is astounding.

Carrie says:

01:55pm | 12/11/10

You’re right Palerider. I’ve been experimenting as a lesbian for 33 years now, and believe that eventually I too will have a boyfriend.

Steely Dan says:

10:55am | 12/11/10

@ Dan

I just heard that Martin Luther King Jr was black!  I used to think he was a crusader for equal rights, but now I think he’s just self-serving, like that Phelps woman.  If they want to ride on buses they can sit where the majority want them too, right Dan?

meinsydney says:

10:19am | 12/11/10

Actually Dan, your post makes you sound like a hater.  BTW, I think it’s been proven that most homophobes (such as yourself) are sexually confused themselves.  Those of us who are not confused in relation to our sexuality, have no difficulty acknowledging that those people who are attracted to the same sex are our equals and ought to be treated as such.  By the way, didn’t you know that Ken was gay?  In the closet still perhaps, but definitely gay.

Steely Dan says:

10:58am | 12/11/10

@ Dan

Good point.  We are running out of people.  What are we down to now, just 6 billion?  Yikes.  If we let people choose relationships that don’t bear children, it’s like committing genocide!

Dan says:

11:14am | 12/11/10

People who label me as a “homophobe” are actually Religiphobes themselves, they cannot handle the rules of a religion so attack it at every chance. Who says Ken was Gay ?  (only the gays, eye roll)
By the way, I’m not Gay and but I am proud.

Carrie says:

01:57pm | 12/11/10

Ken & Barbie populated the world?!?!

Well that at least explains the Gold Coast…

Carrie says:

02:00pm | 12/11/10

Hang on Dan, how exactly did Ken & Barbie populate the world? Neither of them have genitals.

That sounds about as likely as the Virgin Mary, but if you believe that story Dan, then I bet you can get your head around two plastic dolls sans reproductive organs populating the world.

Steely Dan says:

03:04pm | 12/11/10

@ Dan

Who mentioned religion?

Well, if you can’t defend your position, just change the topic.  It’s a clever tactic you’ve got there Danno.