Gay Discrimination

Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum

Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well now thats all sorted gays can stick to being gay and even have kids
if they wish to torture themselves.

Lets solve the middle east conflict, whos in?
 
Fine, I apologise for **** flinging too. I get really upset knowing there are children out there who need homes, but people don't want to give them to a perfectly loving couple because they're the same gender.

Inb4 social worker. I'm not, or going to be.

The adoption of children is a wildly separate issue that the Australian government needs to look into. It is nearly impossible for anyone in Australia to adopt a baby. I think the rates are along the lines of less than 500 babies a year are given new homes in Australia.

But that is another story.
 
Thanks for the insight and honesty.
I was beginning to think everyone had me on their ignore list, lol

But this is what needs to change! This will only change when it becomes or is considered more of the 'norm'.

I am also not surprised if he didn't accept your relationship if she was a 'nasty cow' and was jealous of your son?!?! Maybe he would feel different about the situation if he was bought up by 2 loving gay parents, who loved him equally?
Thats why I said I partially agree, he doesn't have to worry now though she put me off women for life, haha
 
Ok, I havent read EVERY post on here, but a lot of it, there's just too much, I'd be here all night, but from what I have read, many are talking about whether gay couples should or shouldn't have children. My argument is, should some hetero couples have children????? Looking at the rate of births that have escalated since Costello's 'produce more babies for your country' and awarding a huge amount of money to even kids who do it for the money, it's debatable.
Yet there are couples who yearn for children, wanting to give them loving stable homes with TWO parents, who usually are lifetime partners, and JUST as loving and caring as hetero couples, and some single parents.
Just because a person is gay doesn't wipe out the need to nurture young in many, and being brought up by gay couples doesn't mean the child will grow up gay, only open minded and more accepting than a lot of small minded people.
(Which would you rather, a child abused in a hetero relationship, or a child loved and cared for by gays??
I'm not saying here that this is the norm, most children are well loved, etc, but I speak hypothetically.)
Great debate here by the way!!
 
I don't think many people (bar one) have questioned the ability of a homosexual couple to adequately raise a child and do so lovingly, and I completely agree... I think the majority of parents now days (I'm talking about young ones) don't even deserve to raise a goldfish.

I saw a young chick at the local shopping centre who looked like her water was about to break this afternoon. She had a smoke in her gob and was going at it like they were going out of fashion. I was going to woolworths to shop, so I was away for a while. When I came back outside she was still there with her group of derelict mates with another fag in her mouth. Who knows how many smokes she sucked back in the meantime...

Some people shouldn't have children. It seems a hardline view, but I think every couple/woman expecting a child should be evaluated. If they aren't up to par, then perhaps the child placed in better hands.
 
I saw a young chick at the local shopping centre who looked like her water was about to break this afternoon. She had a smoke in her gob and was going at it like they were going out of fashion. I was going to woolworths to shop, so I was away for a while. When I came back outside she was still there with her group of derelict mates with another fag in her mouth. Who knows how many smokes she sucked back in the meantime...
lol was this at Riverlink? That place is full of them
 
lol was this at Riverlink? That place is full of them

LOL yes, it was at Riverlink. They all hang out around the front doors directly in front of JB hifi.

And how do you suggest they evaluate them

New legislation that allows a little bit of big brother-esque investigating. Once someone's knocked up they have their details registered and they are subject to random checks up until the child is of a certain age.
 
New legislation that allows a little bit of big brother-esque investigating. Once someone's knocked up they have their details registered and they are subject to random checks up until the child is of a certain age.
Is this all women regardless of socio-economic background? And let me assure you there is nothing good about big brother type policing, it is never brought about for anything other than control.
 
Is this all women regardless of socio-economic background? And let me assure you there is nothing good about big brother type policing, it is never brought about for anything other than control.

Yeah, it's for everyone, can't target a minority, as we've seen from this thread ;) Big brother is all about control. If the derro parents knew someone was watching and there would be consequences for their actions, they'd think twice.

I know a guy who is an absolute scumbag. Deals weed on a fairly large level. He's got 4 kids, two girls and two boys. They get sent to a private school to make everything look fine and dandy. He collects a disability pension from centerlink when he isn't disabled, his mrs collects one, too. They get money for the kids. We worked it out that between them they're on over $1500 a fortnight. Then there's the drug money on top...

So all this money, and private school education, yet the children drink water from the dog bowls in the back yard of their FILTHY house, they are exposed to the weed smoking, it isn't hidden from them. He KICKS his children and calls them C***s, (all of them are very young, two aren't old enough to attend school) and he manipulates a good woman I know who is on a pension legitimately for food, they usually get mac and cheese or maggi noodles.

This is prevalent in ****ty areas and I bet worse goes on.

I also know another fella who's daughter is covered in scabies, she attends school in filthy clothing and is constantly ridiculed. He abuses his son, and was giving his son weed before he was ten years old.

Surely homosexuals that want children would be far greater parents, but that isn't my reasoning behind being sceptical about it.
 
Yeah, it's for everyone, can't target a minority, as we've seen from this thread ;) Big brother is all about control. If the derro parents knew someone was watching and there would be consequences for their actions, they'd think twice.

I know a guy who is an absolute scumbag. Deals weed on a fairly large level. He's got 4 kids, two girls and two boys. They get sent to a private school to make everything look fine and dandy. He collects a disability pension from centerlink when he isn't disabled, his mrs collects one, too. They get money for the kids. We worked it out that between them they're on over $1500 a fortnight. Then there's the drug money on top...

So all this money, and private school education, yet the children drink water from the dog bowls in the back yard of their FILTHY house, they are exposed to the weed smoking, it isn't hidden from them. He KICKS his children and calls them C***s, (all of them are very young, two aren't old enough to attend school) and he manipulates a good woman I know who is on a pension legitimately for food, they usually get mac and cheese or maggi noodles.

This is prevalent in ****ty areas and I bet worse goes on.
Well it is not just in those areas, my friends mother would pass any test they chose to give because she is a respected special needs teacher in Melbourne and lives in onne of the richest suburbs here but all my friends life she subjected her to physical and mental abuse to the point where my friend was a suicidal anorexic at the age of 14. No one believes she is anything but a caring mother woried sick about her daughter. She got pregnant by having an affair with a married man because she wanted someone to keep her company when she got old. The father has nothing to do with her barely because his wife resents her, he constantly goes to asia and brings back young women and is so pathetic that last time he took my friend to visit her grandmother in a home (she suffers dementia) she started abusing my friend because she thought she was one of his women who he has shamelessly taken there with him before. He is a very rich, well respected business man who would also pass any evaluation with flying colours, so you can see how these supposed evaluations target certain people and leave others alone.
 
Well at the age of 14 you'd hope the girl had the sense to seek help. ****ty situation though. My idea would target anyone with a kid up to a few years old. Granted, looks can be deceiving and people would slip through the cracks, but it would surely clean up a lot of filth.
 
Well at the age of 14 you'd hope the girl had the sense to seek help. ****ty situation though. My idea would target anyone with a kid up to a few years old. Granted, looks can be deceiving and people would slip through the cracks, but it would surely clean up a lot of filth.
No it wouldn't because the early intervention laws go on age, sexuality, race (aboriginal mainly) and wage. As for her seeking help at 14, people with eating disorders rarely acknowledge they have a problem until it is too late.
 
Last edited:
No it wouldn't because the early intervention laws go on age, sexuality, race (aboriginal mainly) and wage. As for her seeking help at 14, people with eating disorders rarely acknowledge they have a problem until it is too late.


I'm not talking about early intervention laws that are already in place. I'm talking about a pipe dream in which EVERY parent was monitored until their child was a certain age. I wasn't talking about anorexia, specifically. I meant that if the girl was being abused emotionally than she should seek help.
 
I'm not talking about early intervention laws that are already in place. I'm talking about a pipe dream in which EVERY parent was monitored until their child was a certain age. I wasn't talking about anorexia, specifically. I meant that if the girl was being abused emotionally than she should seek help.
That sounds like 1984 to be, maybe they can just microchip us all and be done with it, I hope you never run for PM.
 
Lol it's nothing like 1984. Orwell told a tale of a population completely controlled by an omnipresent oppressor. This would be a random pop in, similar to that of a rental inspection.

Is it a hardline? Hell yeah. Would it be effective in keeping the welfare of children in check? Bloody oath.

I'd make a cracker of a prime minister. Better than krud or gillard. The prOblem with politics is that the politicians are so worried about getting elected, they won't stand for anything that will ruffle any feathers.

I'd start by fixing the health care system, and banning the burqa. I'd allow same sex marriage and I'd consider same sex adoption on a case to case basis. I'd also improve our healthcare system and have a decent crack at fixing queenslands piss poor roads.

Vote #1 kawasakirider

Joking... I have no interest whatsoever in politics, but if I was pm I'd implement those things.
 
I hope people like this Australian Gay and Lesbian History article i found:
*On January 26th, 1788, Australia's First Fleet* arrives at Sydney Cove.
The 11 ships carried 717 convicts, including 180 women. Some of the
convicts had been convicted of sodomy and other homosexual acts, which
normally carried life imprisonment on the "hulks" - the prison ships
anchored in the Thames, or even the death penalty.

From the early 18th Century, the United Kingdom had developed its own
distinct underground gay subculture, with men gathering secretly in
so-called "Molly houses" - illegal bars and taverns that were the
precursors of modern gay bars. Molly culture was closely associated with
cross-dressing and drag, and rather than seeking out 'rough trade', most
Mollies seemed to have preferred other effeminate men as partners. Of
course, when civil society found out about the existence of the Molly
houses, they were outraged, and a vigorous police crackdown ensued. When
Mollies were arrested and thrown into London's floating prison hulks,
they would have encountered an entirely darker kind of male-to-male
sexuality - prison rape and sex traded for protection and favours.

During the First and Second Fleet sailings to Australia, little effort
was made to segregate the young and vulnerable from the older men, and
with prisoners sleeping six to each tiny cell, it's not hard to imagine
what must have gone on. Later fleets corrected this problem - placing
the younger men and teens in separated lodging.

The term Molly has been found in early accounts from the colony while
others commented on the unseemliness of a certain class of convict -
young men who gave themselves feminine nicknames and wore their hair in
women's styles. With only 189 women convicts amongst the 1,373 British
to land at Port Jackson, both would have found themselves in
considerable demand - and this gender imbalance would not be corrected
for many decades. Lesbianism among female convicts, kept mostly
segregated from the males, is also recorded, but was viewed simply as a
curiosity - girl-on-girl action not being viewed as real sex at the time.

These early days of the colony seem to have included a fairly lax
attitude to male homosexuality. Although it's first governor,*Arthur
Phillip*, stated the only two offences deserving death were murder and
sodomy, the first trial for such a crime did not occur until 1796 and
that penalty was not prescribed. Phillip even went so far as to say that
sodomites should be given to cannibals to be eaten, writing,
/"I would wish to confine the criminal until an opportunity offered of
delivering him to the natives of New Zealand, and let them eat him. The
dread of this will operate much stronger than the fear of death."/

Despite this, the first recorded execution for a homosexual act did not
occur until 1828, when *Alexander Brown*, chief officer on the whaling
ship Royal Sovereign, and crewmember *Richard Lister* were ordered to
hang by the neck by a Sydney court. Lister was given a last minute
reprieve and deported from the colony, but Brown did not fair so well.

Gay convicts lucky enough to be sent to Norfolk Island (an otherwise
notoriously harsh and remote penal settlement) during the rule of the
prison reformer *Alexander Maconochie*, led a much different life. On an
island known for its food shortages and harsh punishments, Maconochie
instituted a regime based on reward and tolerance rather than cruelty.
According to *Robert Stuart*, a magistrate who visited the island during
Maconochie's rule, it was common for convicts to live together as
couples - referring to each other as "husband and wife", and there may
have been well over 100 such pairs on the island at any one time. Stuart
observed, "These parties manifest as much eagerness for the society of
each other as members of the opposite sex." Under Maconochie, convicts
caught having sex still faced flogging but, compared to the rest of the
British Empire, the punishment was mild.

Around this time, the colony's first known beat [cruising spot] was
mentioned in the Sydney Gazette as being located at Mrs Macquarie's
Chair [now a famous and respectable landmark in Sydney's Royal Botanical
Gardens]. Formerly the favourite ship watching spot of Elizabeth, wife
of the colony's sixth Governor, *Lachlan Macquarie*, by the 1830s it was
reported to be unsafe because of the unsavoury acts occurring there.
Reportedly, gay men were still cruising each other at the spot over a
century later in the 1950s.

The last gay execution occurred in Tasmania in 1863, when a black South
African convict named *Hendrick Witnalder* and an unnamed 14-year-old
boy were charged with sodomy. The boy was eventually set free but
Witnalder, of tiny stature, was hanged with weights tied to his feet in
case his body was too light to break his neck.

Surprisingly, Australia's highest-ranking gay leader to date may have
predated this. In 1859, *Robert Herbert *became the first Colonial
Secretary (the equivalent of Premier) of Queensland. His Attorney
General was *John Bramston* and both had lived together since meeting at
Oxford University as students in the early 1850s. The two most powerful
men in the state shared a grand house and gardens they built together
named "Herston" - a combination of their last names. Their friendship
lasted over 50 years during which they were rarely apart. Herbert's
explanation for his lifelong bachelorhood:
/"It does not seem to me reasonable to tell a man who is happy and
content, to marry a woman who may turn out to be a great disappointment". /

Looking back, it seems odd people didn't ask questions but during this
period, and right up until World War I, presumably straight men were
allowed a closeness and affection for each other rarely seen today.
Referred to by historians as "romantic friendships", it was not uncommon
for such men to write what would today seem like love letters to each
other and to pose for portraits together holding hands or embracing -
even reclining in each other's arms on couches. Many of these
friendships were only that but they must have presented the perfect
cover for gay men of the time.

And the "special friendships" were not confined to the ruling class. In
a harsh land, where men spent much of their time away from towns and
cities and women, alone with another man or two for company, the custom
of "mateship" arose. A man's friend was referred to as "me mate" or
"his mate," and it was tacitly understood that they were more than just
friends - more like friends with benefits. "Me good mate" or "His good
mate" was an unspoken acknowledgment that it was more than just a sexual
convenience the two were together - that they were lovers in the full
sense, real "mates."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top