Gay rights toolkit
The date for the Sydney GLBTI community’s once-in-a-generation opportunity to push for marriage equality, anti-discrimination, and programs to stamp out homophobic bullying has been set.
Human Rights Commissioner Graeme Innes pointed to the lack of relationship recognition, an equality act, and ongoing gender identity discrimination as Australia’s human rights challenges. These issues are raised in a toolkit to help GLBTI community members make the most of next month’s National Human Rights Consultation meeting in Sydney.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, Innes told Sydney Star Observer. We want to see a stronger human rights culture in Australia, one that is going to challenge things like homophobia and bullying and discrimination.
The Australian Human Rights Commission is advocating for a human rights act to provide enforceable remedies for discrimination and force governments and public servants to respect the human rights of GLBTI people.
We’re the only Western democracy that doesn’t have a human rights act. If we bring to the table an idea of the rights we have as well as a respect for the rights of others then we can reach a [workable model], Innes said.
Along with the GLBTI toolkit, the Commission has produced kits on 11 other issues including refugees, homelessness, older people, and faith-based communities. Innes said the benefits would extend to everyone, not just those disadvantaged groups.
However, that message was lost on conservative Christians who submitted dozens of submissions against such an act to a separate inquiry into religious freedoms. The Australian Christian Lobby joined in this week, concerned there were efforts to drop religious exemptions to anti-discrimination and anti-vilification laws.
It seems the review is itself determined to question the rights
and freedoms of those who hold a religious belief to participate fully in a democratic society, ACL spokesman Jim Wallace said in a statement this week.
[Comments by the] Sex Discrimination Commissioner on this issue would have only added to their concerns, as they seem to point to an agenda to remove or narrow exemptions that are perceived to limit gender equality, but in fact guarantee freedom of religious expression.
The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby plans to call for same-sex marriage as gay and lesbian people have a human right to be treated equally under the law.
info: The Consultation’s committee will hold its Sydney forum on 17 March. Registration before the day is advised via www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au.
Jason, but what if there are two blood brothers who do want to get married? How will the anti-discrimination laws that you champion so loudly deal with that situation? What do you think about it? But thanks for the advice.
Reply to Brendan and Andrew and everyone else;
Brendan said,”Not all gays are sexually active, nor are all heteros. That doesn’t define their sexual orientation”
I suggest that the only “thing” that defines a person’s sexuality is the sex of the person they engage in sex.
Homosexual actors can play heterosexuals in plays and heterosexual actors can play homosexuals in plays. The roles they play do not define their sexuality.
A heterosexual will not have sex with a person of the same sex by choice.
A homosexual will not have sex with a member of the opposite sex by choice.
I have discovered, and other readers of this forum have discovered and revealed that they either know or know of people who live as homosexuals but cannot have sex with another male.
I suggest that those people are prevented from having homosexual sex because of severe psychological problems.
If a person thinks they are homosexual and live their lives as a homosexual but cannot have homosexual sex it means they have a severe psychological problem.
The community should give those people support and encourage them to seek professional help.
If you believe that you can have a sexual identity without practicing sex it means that you are deluding yourself.
You are an actor playing a role. You are not a person with a sexual identity. You are a person who has assumed an identity for the purpose of recognition.
James – In future if you dont want to be labeled a moron I would suggest you use a little common sense in the future, I mean the UK and New Zealand for instance have federal GLBT anti-discrimination acts in place and ive yet to see two blood sisters or two blood bothers getting married togther. Think next time.
Hi Shayne- found the article you took your quote from- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest
The bits you left out are quite interesting.
“Inbreeding does not directly lead to congenital birth defects PER SE; IT LEADS TO AN INCREASE IN THE FREQUENCY OF HOMOZYGOTES. AN INCREASE IN HOMOZYGOTES HAS DIVERGING EFFECTS. A HOMOZYGOTE ENCODING A CONGENITAL BIRTH DEFECT WILL PRODUCE CHILDREN WITH BIRTH DEFECTS, BUT HOMOZYGOTES THAT DO NOT ENCODE FOR CONGENITAL BIRTH DEFECTS WILL DECREASE THE NUMBER OF CARRIERS IN A POPULATION. THE OVERALL CONSEQUENCES OF THESE DIVERGING EFFECTS DEPENDS IN PART ON THE SIZE OF THE POPULATION. IN SMALL POPULATIONS, AS LONG AS CHILDREN BORN WITH HERITABLE BIRTH DEFECTS DIE BEFORE THEY REPRODUCE, the ultimate effect of inbreeding will be to decrease the frequency of defective genes in the population; over time the gene pool will be healthier.”
To summarise- ‘over time inbreeding will lead to a healthier population by concentrating defective genes in children who’s sickness and impairment is so severe that they die before being able to reproduce and pass them onto others.’
I’ll assume that you merely didn’t understand the terminology used in the article rather than the alternative- which is that you were being willfully deceptive.
I am sure adult incest with consent is legal in a great many other countries besides those you mentioned- that does not mean those societies applaud or condone incest- they simply deal with the problem through non-judicial means.
Last time I checked it was perfectly legal for people to eat dog turds if they really want to- that doesn’t make it healthy or normal.
Primitive cultures developed taboos against incest because its consequences were easily observable and science has confirmed the correctness of those observations.
You seem to be saying that because an unfair taboo was held against us, no taboo can ever be valid- that’s clearly not the case.
AMP, the article to which you referred concerns ‘inbreeding’ in populations over MANY generations, not one. It was a common problem in some isolated communities, for examples islanders. However, under “Biological consequences of inbreeding” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Biological_consequences_of_inbreeding explains the problem with the genralisation you make. It’s taken from Thornhill, Nancy, ed. 1993 The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
You do like to get on your high horse Andy, with your ‘moron”antigay’ and ‘obscene’ and so on. Perhaps your closeted suburban zealousness is why you are so often misinformed.
But back to topic, this is an excellent parallel to the mainstream objections to gay marriage, our proponents would also say of gay unions, adoptions, fostering etc., that “To claim that as the moral equivalent to a healthy normal …relationship is obscene” as you do of this hypothetical of the brother/sister union. Your use of concepts like ‘moral’ and ‘normal’ are implicit that YOUR values are the only right ones.
At last, an interesting discussion. As I said, I like hearing other people’s opinions on sensitive matters, whether I agree with them or not. Mostly I don’t, but that doesn’t make me a moron nor does it warrant me calling you names either.
For the record I don’t hate gay people, I’m not in the closet, I do not go to church, and I do not post under pseudonyms.
Well, we’re getting off-topic here Brendan, but for the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that Hendrik Poinar, a molecular evolutionary geneticist at McMaster University, Canada, in the story you quote above, also “adds that it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the evolution of the human genome, as there may be other factors involved.” The inbreeding argument oversimplifies the consequences of inbreeding in a population. However, as with the intermarrying of the pharoahs over *many* generations, the genetic makeup of family lines may be weakened, resulting in abnormally high occurrences of rare genetic defects and diseases.
You can find a proof for anything you want to if you google long enough Brendan, and ignore everything you find to the contrary. But those societies where such family unions are forbidden and those where it is are equally related in genetic terms; the taboo is not founded in science but in religion.
Such societies include France (Napoleon abolished France’s incest laws in 1810.) Neither is it a crime in the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Portugal or Turkey. Japan, Argentina and Brazil have also legalised it in recent years.
Germany’s laws on incest were introduced by the Nazis, they are an an extension of the Third Reich’s Aryan racial hygiene laws.
I wonder if *you* can see what others here apparently can not, that the taboo regarding a brother marrying his sister is culture-based, and that is the parallel with *this* culture’s/state’s/church’s objection to gay marriage?
I believe, for example, that gay marriage will be the last battle because marriage (the ‘celebrant’ argument is irrelevant) – and education – are the last bastions of power the church has over the state.
And *that* is why I thanked James for his interesting corollary. I don’t think he’s ‘homophobic’, ‘a moron’ or any of the other abuse that those who don’t like to think too much have thrown at him.
PS- not sure which wiki page you took that quote from Shayne but this one seems to differ- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Results_of_inbreeding
Shayne, Napoleon removed consensual adult incest from the penal code, not because French society in his time approved of incest, but because it was believed that the stigma of the act was punishment enough. I agree- except perhaps in extreme cases where such individuals are deliberately trying to bring children into the relationship- then the state should intervene.
When a person attempts to seduce their father or their mother or their brother or their sister they are doing far more than merely shallowing the gene pool or increasing their offspring’s chance of developing health problems (sorry but I’m going with Brendan- New Scientist beats “Wiki”), they are betraying the sacred trust that ideally exists within a family.
To claim that as the moral equivalent to a healthy normal same sex relationship is obscene.
Chillisauce100 have you considered that the “resentment” to your comments might have less to do with denial and more to do with you labelling a whole slew of couples you’ve never even met as having “severe psychological problems”, simply because their sex lives aren’t up to your particular standard?
Chillisauce100, you are wrongly conflating sexual proclivity with sexual acts. Not all gays are sexually active, nor are all heteros. That doesn’t define their sexual orientation. Ergo, your hypothesis, that “most gays are not homosexual”, is void. This goes some way to explaining why your observations “are not believed by people who read them”.
Shayne, it doesn’t take a religious belief to arrive at the view that a sexual relationship with a sibling is way out there and not meaningfully comparable to gay couples. Except by those on the extreme fringes of the Left and Right, of course. I also wonder from which peer-reviewed scientific journal or referenced article you drew your claim that inbreeding does not convey a risk of expressing deleterious genetic traits (“that inbreeding leads to genetic defects is apparently a myth”)? I’m seeing a NewScientist article from 2005 that says otherwise (‘Hominid inbreeding left humans vulnerable to disease’, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6920 ).
Reply to Chris – in your considerable experience Chris you know of homosexuals who are celibate – so do I and I have come to the conclusion that the reason that are celibate is because they have severe psychological problems which prevent them from having a normal sex life.
I raised the issue for discussion to inform them and the gay community that other people are aware of their situation.
[I am not subject to or an advocate for a religious ideology which demands that homosexuals should remain celibate if they want to remain a member of a particular ideological community. I deny that implication. I have stated the reasons for which I raised these matters for discussion. I do suspect that a cause of the severe psychological problems which affect some homosexuals may be the result of ideological indoctrination – but I am not qualified to come to that conclusion]
I suggest to them and the gay community that we should discuss those problems to find out what causes some homosexuals such severe psychological problems that they cannot have a normal sex life for the purpose of finding solutions to those problems.
Heterosexuals also have psychological problems but medical professionals in that community encourage discussion about the various psychological problems experienced by heterosexuals.
Those topics are not discussed in the gay community – the reaction to my comments display resentment, denial and frustration.
All the people who have responded to my comments have indicated by inference or implication that they also know and know of homosexuals who have such severe psychological problems that they cannot have a normal sex life.
I suggest that the incidence of the manifestation of severe psychological problems in homosexuals which prevents them from having normal sexual relations is large enough and common enough to warrant the attention of the gay community and the medical profession.
I suggest that the widespread manifestation of severe psychological problems in the heterosexual community, which had a common effect, would invoke the attention of that community.
Andrew, so far you have decided that James is a moron, Chilli should keep his opinions to himself and I am a hypocrite and misinformed. But for the record, “Inbreeding does not directly lead to congenital birth defects…the ultimate effect of inbreeding will be to decrease the frequency of defective genes in the population; over time the gene pool will be healthier.” (Wiki) Nor is it true that “the incest taboo is pretty much universal,” France, for example, removed it from the penal code under Napoleon 200 years ago.
Anyway, I don’t normally entertain those haters who abuse everyone else without bothering to check their own facts but the point is that there is no logical reason for sibling unions to be outlawed, and that is the parallel with this culture’s objection to gay marriage. It comes down to simple, ignorant prejudice and myths.
And before we jump to any more conclusions, I am quite ambivalent about sibling marriage and gay marriage. Personally I think the latter, whether performed by a celebrant or not, is a paeon to an antiquated and mysogenistic ritual of the homophobic churches and to the heterosexist paradigm. Even my straight friends don’t want to marry. It’s acceptance by assimilation. Hell, I don’t even want a regular partner, I have lots of those. But those who have the need for such a ritual should certainly have that right, of course.
Thanks for your support Jason.
I actually like hearing different people’s points of view, even if they differ significantly from mine; if I didn’t, I wouldn’t be here. That actually makes me open-minded.
You want me ostracised for my opinions, as they differ from yours. That makes you close-minded.
I would advise forum members to ignore James. James has posted on here many a time – he seems to purposely post certain comments on here that will attract attention. It seems he purposely posts comments on here because he knows the majority on here won’t agree with him. Because some members have responded to his comment he has acheived what he wanted. Dont stoop to his level.
Reply to Andrew, Your admonishment to, “keep my opinions out of other people’s bedrooms and let couples decide for themselves what works for them and what doesn’t” is evidence of the existing situation that I am trying to bring to the community’s attention.
We don’t talk about very serious issues because those issues are very sensitive and personal. Those issues are the source of a great deal of anguish and frustration for many people.
“Let couples decide what works for them and what doesn’t” – that is an admission and confirmation of what I discovered – that is, some homosexual couples cannot engage in homosexual sex because one or both partners have severe psychological problems that prevent them from having a normal sex life.
We should not refrain from speaking about it. We should speak openly about it to give support to those people and encourage them to seek professional help to solve their severe psychological problems.
The problems will not solve themselves or go away if we refrain from talking about them.
Those two couples I have personal knowledge of lived together for years without having normal sexual relations.
What is the cause of those severe psychological problems?
Where can those people go to get help to solve those severe psychological problems?
I make no apology for raising these matters in a public forum to encourage discussion about these matters. My purpose in raising these matters is to encourage people to admit that these problems exist within our community and those problems cause people inestimable suffering.
At the moment many gays and homosexuals do not have sex because of severe psychological problems which prevent them from having normal sexual relations with a member of the same sex.
By not addressing that situation we are silently condoning the acts which cause people to suffer severe psychological problems as a result of those acts.
Chillisauce….me thinks you are a nutcase!
..where are you from ?…lol.
.are you some fundamentalist christian bigot ?( maybe from Saltshakers even)…are you a graduate from some ex gay conversion program ?
or are you James’ secret long time boyfriend , the both of you secretly planning to get married.?.
or are you some poor plain queen trapped in some sexless long term relationship ?and you just can ‘t pluck up the courage to make that leap over your beloved white picket fence to freedom so you have become all twisted?
I refer to your own comments:
‘Many homosexuals have severe psychological problems which prevent them from having a normal sex life.’
WTF!!!On what facts do you base this nonsence ? and may I ask you do many heterosexuals have similar psychological problems that prevent them from having a normal sex life ?
“My definition of a homosexual is a male person who engages in anal and oral sex with another male person. I discovered that many people consider themselves to be homosexuals but they do not engage in homosexual sex.”
I can tell you chillisauce in my conciderable life experience as a homosexual that ALL homosexuals except for
celibate ones indulge and enjoy as frequently as possible
oral and or anal sex .
According to your theory then most heterosexuals are not heterosexual ( because they don’t have vaginal and /or oral sex.eg .people in long term relationships , most of our parents, the plain ones who can’t get laid etc)
and your point is chillisauce?
Shayne, congrats on agreeing with SSO’s resident anti-gay heterosexual forum troll. I think that says a lot, however I don’t think James’ intention here was to raise an “interesting hypothesis”.
“I’ve also wondered how the state and church will cope with the very different forms that gay relationships take – open, polygamous, etc.”
Considering that most marriages in Australia are carried out by a civil celebrant, the church has very little to do with it, however when marriage equality occurs the state will accommodate open gay marriages in the same way that they already accommodate heterosexual open marriages which are completely legal.
As for polygamous relationships, in Australia and most of the world today, marriage is a contract between two people- that’s not going to change, though they may now have some legal recognition as de factos.
You may not see a victim in brother-sister or father-daughter incestuous relationships but researchers who study such arrangements frequently do- they rarely occur where some sort of physical or psychological abuse is not present and rarely occur inside healthy home environments. Geographical isolation is often a related factor as well.
That the products of such relationships have a far greater chance of being born with disabilities is not a myth- it’s established fact. Inbreeding concentrates bad genes. For the same reason, pure bread dogs are so often effected by hereditary diseases.
Cain and Abel did not “procreate to father all the tribes of humankind” in the Bible- Cain killed Abel. Adam and Eve then had another son named Seth, then “after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters.”
Aside from Ancient Egypt, the incest taboo is pretty much universal, whereas many pre-Christian and non-European societies have tolerated forms of homosexual relationships down through the centuries.
It’s your moral equation of gay marriage with incest that is based on hypocrisy and misinformation.
Chillisauce100- homosexuality is an orientation- it can be expressed in many ways in the bedroom. How about you keep your opinions out of other people’s bedrooms and let couples decide for themselves what works for them and what doesn’t? It’s not up to you to decide who’s ‘properly gay’ and who’s not.
Awesome stuff guys! I ask a legitimate question and I get called a moron (twice!), an idiot and a dickhead. I also get deliberately misquoted.
Seems like none of you have the guts to answer my question.
See, by justifying your own requirements for changes to laws (-œwhat business is it of yours, how does this effect you, this is our human right, I feel discriminated against, this will actually strengthen marriage, we are adults and are expressing our free wil-¦), you open the door to aan “anything goes” model which may include, for example, two sisters marrying each other, or other such arrangements that you yourselves may disagree with. But you have put yourself in a position whereby you can’t vocalise your true opinions on these matters without being accused of discrimination yourselves. Therefore you don’t answer my question, but choose to insult me instead.
Legends!
I think you raise some interesting points, James. I’ve also wondered how the state and church will cope with the very different forms that gay relationships take – open, polygamous, etc. Perhaps gay marriage will only apply to those same gender relationships that ape their heterosexual counterparts. I have to wonder how such assimilation represents liberation – I think it’s a step backwards – but I know I am Robinson Crusoe on this one.
The issue of a brother marrying his sister is also an interesting corollary. Late last year, the German courts had to consider the case of just such a couple, who had borne four healthy children. Personally, I don’t see a victim in such a union. The argument that inbreeding leads to genetic defects is apparently a myth, so it comes down to a social taboo. But if that morality is based on Christian precepts, with whom are Cain and Abel supposed to have procreated to father all the tribes of humankind? Just like the moral objection some have for gay marriage, intimate sibling relationships seem to be based on nothing more than hypocrisy and misinformation.
Btw., I don’t think you’re a moron, thank you for raising an interesting hypothesis.
Reply to Chris – Chris you appear to disagree with my observation that most gays are not homosexual – my description of a homosexual was a male who engages in anal and oral sex with another male.
I describe a person’s sexual definition by their actions not by their own opinion of themselves.
Children are male and female but they have no sexual definition because they do not have sex.
Celibate people may have their own opinion of their sexual preference but they have no sexual definition because they do not have sex.
As an analogy – a person may consider him/her self to be a world traveller – they may collect travel brochures from airlines, they my watch documentaries about foreign countries, they may read books about foreign countries – but if they never leave the city in which they were born, then their own opinion of themselves as a world traveller is wrong.
If you talked to that person you would believe that the person was a world traveller until you asked them the question – where have you been? – There answer would be that they have never been anywhere.
A person might believe they are homosexual but if they do not practice homosexual sex then their belief about themselves is wrong.
Appearances in the gay community can be deceptive. I knew one gay couple who had been together for more that 10 years and I found out from one of the partners that they had never had sex.
I knew another couple who had been together for more that five years and they had never had sex.
Just because you see gay couples in the community you should not draw the same conclusion about gay couples that you would draw about heterosexual couples.
Most gays are not homosexual.
Many homosexuals have severe psychological problems which prevent them from having a normal sex life.
Those matters are not discussed in the community.
My observations are not believed by people who read them.
The community seems to rely on the results of surveys given out at gay venues. Those surveys ask people to report their sexual activity.
I suggest that the results of those surveys are unreliable because those people who answered the surveys entered false information in to the surveys.
They lied and exaggerated about their sexual practices because they cannot accept the fact that they are so hung up about their sexuality they are just too frightened to have homosexual sex.
“So guys, where do you draw the line that somethings are just plain wrong?”
In my case, whenever I read homophobic, “slippery slope” drivel from dickheads named James.
as usual, ‘academic hypothesis’ – hate will still exist — smart gays learn the street way how to duk-n-weave!
chillisauce100…..’ most gays are not homosexuals’…durrr
what are you on???????
james ..you are totally a moron! But what else do you expect from an idiot who thinks homosexuality is ” learned behaviour “.
So that’s your answer; I’m a moron. Thanks for taking the time to put together an intelligent, well-structured response.
How old are you, James?
James, you’re a moron.
Cool. So when they bring in this Act and remove all forms of discrimination, does it mean that a brother can marry his sister, or that two sister’s can marry each other and adopt kids or gain access to IVF? If so, is this a good thing for society? If not, why not? Yo do want these rights for ALL people don’t you?
What about polygamy? What’s wrong with that? If I use the arguments that gay people use in wanting to be able to marry each other, then “what business is it of yours, how does this effect you, this is our human right, I feel discriminated against, this will actually strengthen marriage, we are adults and are expressing our free wil…”
So guys, where do you draw the line that somethings are just plain wrong?
Is there a difference between what are we being offered and what we need?
What are we being offered? We are being offered legislation called a -˜Human Rights Act’.
What is that and what will it provide?
Contrary to what people believe, laws do not stop crimes laws create crimes -“ laws create offences -“ a law makes some action or omission an offence that was not an offence before the law was made.
So if we get a -˜Human Rights Act’ and someone breaches a provision of that act then the offender may attract either a civil or criminal penalty if they are convicted of the offence.
Laws do not stop people from hating each other for whatever reason.
Laws do not stop people from discriminating against each other for whatever reason.
The -˜Human Rights Act’ may make it a civil or criminal offence to manifest hatred and discrimination by an act or omission. The -˜Human Rights Act’ will not stop people from hating other people or discriminating against other people.
The -˜Human Rights Act’ will only operate after someone has breached the provisions of the act.
The general inference about the -˜Human Rights Act’ in relation to Gays is that it is needed to deter heterosexual persecution of Gays.
I am a homosexual and I discovered during my exploration of the gay communities in Sydney that most Gays are not homosexuals.
My definition of a homosexual is a male person who engages in anal and oral sex with another male person. I discovered that many people consider themselves to be homosexuals but they do not engage in homosexual sex.
I discovered that homosexuals are a minority in the general community and they are also a minority in the Gay community.
I have also discovered that Gay people can be homophobic.
My description of homophobia is a manifestation of an inability to associate with homosexuals in varying degrees. Those degrees of inability range from manifestations of frustration and annoyance at being in the presence of homosexuals to the level where the homophobic gay person has to physically remove themselves from the presence of the homosexual by leaving the vicinity. I apprehend those manifestations to be involuntary and in the stronger degrees uncontrollable.
There is always a great deal of discussion about the inability of mainstream society in the form of governments and religious groups to accept Gays, Lesbians, Bi-sexuals and Transgender people as equals but there is a deafening silence from the GLBT community about the problems we have accepting each other.
We are being offered a -˜Human Rights Act’ to protect us from persecution by heterosexuals. I accept the proposal and look forward to the introduction of the legislation.
What we also need is the courage to discuss our own problems openly for the purpose of finding solutions to those problems.
Dear Mr Innes.You are aware of my circumstances through your enquiry.It is now five years since my partner and I were attacked in my workplace.I have survived but the human cost has been great.My former employer has just made a rare public appology for racism in his USA interests.If you can recall my submission and feel that my treatment was what homosexuals deserve, than no legislation will give me a sense of security.I am bearly litterate but I put this great embarrasment in the public forum in the hope that this ignorant crime of racism and homophobia can at last be beaten.Your possition must dictate which personal story will best further this cause.I beg you please point out to me why my story canot be spoken.I feel deserted by all I concidered decent.best wishes Tom O’Connor