God-King Dean
Immortal
- Messages
- 46,614
I know a couple of gay guys.
And everytime they stand in front of the mirror, I can't see a reflection.
And everytime they stand in front of the mirror, I can't see a reflection.
Maybe you didn't mean genetic either
I know a couple of gay guys.
And everytime they stand in front of the mirror, I can't see a reflection.
no i'm quite sure I did.
Anti-Discrimination Board accepts Footy Show complaint
Written by Peter Hackney
Thursday, 28 May 2009 18:16
The NSW Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) has accepted a complaint lodged by gay activist Gary Burns against Channel Nine's The Footy Show.
The complaint concerns the May 7 episode of the rugby league program, which featured former NRL player and Footy Show presenter Matthew Johns playing a character called 'Elton Johns', an allusion to gay British music icon Elton John.
The documentary-style skit featured Matthew's brother, Andrew Johns, telling the audience he was "so ashamed" of his gay sibling, who was taken to hospital for being gay.
Hospital staff in the skit were told "it's faulty" when presented with 'Elton'.
The ADB is now seeking a copy of the offending broadcast, with Burns telling SX the matter would now go to court unless successfully conciliated beforehand.
Speaking to SX this evening, Burns said he was interested in conciliation, but that successful conciliation required a number of conditions to be met by Channel Nine, including: a full page apology to the gay community in the pages of SX, an apology in a mainstream publication such as The Sydney Morning Herald, an on-air apology to the gay community during The Footy Show, and a segment on The Footy Show "explaining the dangers and ramifications of homosexual vilification and the reasons why it is wrong".
SX is awaiting comment from Channel Nine on Burns' demands.
In the latest developments on the story, Channel Nine has apologised to Burns for any hurt caused, but says the skit was taken out of context.
"We have now had an opportunity to investigate the matters raised in your email," wrote Kiah Wood, Corporate Counsel for Channel Nine, in a letter seen by SX. "Firstly, Nine apologises if you found the broadcast to be offensive, or if it caused you any distress. Nine takes very seriously issues of discrimination on any basis, including sexuality, gender, race or religion. Nine certainly does not advocate discrimination or violence, and these values are reflected in Nine's internal policies and training programs."
Wood went on to explain that while the network apologised for any hurt caused, it did not consider that the broadcast vilified gay people.
Burns was advised to pursue the matter with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) if he was dissatisfied with the response, and was told not to contact Channel Nine again except by letter or fax.
The activist told SX that he was not satisfied with the response and would press on with legal action.
The news comes as the story garners widespread mainstream media attention following on from SX's reports on the matter. Coverage today included articles in The Daily Telegraph, ABC News Online, The Sydney Morning Herald and Brisbane's Courier-Mail.
Hundreds of people have weighed into the debate online. At time of writing, 134 comments were posted on today's news.com.au story alone, with many readers taking issue with Burns' action, citing concerns over freedom of speech.
Typical of the opinions expressed were those of 'J', who said: "Political correctness going mad, soon we will have to walk round with our own personal lawyer to go over everything we say to make sure we don't offend anyone."
However, a significant number also supported Burns.
'Thommo of Aus' wrote: "It might not be so damn funny if your kid struggles with being gay and tops himself because his parents refer to the poor kid as 'faulty'. I've been a fan of The Footy Show for years but I just couldn't find this funny."
Australian Coalition for Equality (ACE) spokesperson Rodney Croome told SX that free speech needed to be balanced with the dangers posed by vilification.
It was up to legal experts to decide where to draw the line, he said.
"It's the job of gay activists to highlight hatred any way we can," Croome told SX. "It's the job of judges to balance this with free speech. With the right of free speech comes a responsibility not to abuse that right by vilifying others."
Asked why he thought The Footy Show didn't make similar skits involving minority groups such as Jews and Asians, Croome told SX: "Homophobia remains this country's last acceptable prejudice."
Speaking to SX this evening, Burns said he was interested in conciliation, but that successful conciliation required a number of conditions to be met by Channel Nine, including: a full page apology to the gay community in the pages of SX, an apology in a mainstream publication such as The Sydney Morning Herald, an on-air apology to the gay community during The Footy Show, and a segment on The Footy Show "explaining the dangers and ramifications of homosexual vilification and the reasons why it is wrong".
"Homophobia remains this country's last acceptable prejudice."
So you believe that there is a genetic difference in gay people?
Believe me, I tried to run with it. Got a few bites but fmd if the new breed of newbies don't take themselves way too seriously nowadays. Some of them were born in 1996... think about that.i thought the burn in hell post was a joke. And a good one.
The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous roll in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.
yes....hell, even Shorty thinks there's a genetic reason.
It sounds like you're trying to imply this is a bad thing? I'm no expert on genetics, but if i remember correctly everyone has miniscule genetic mutations. The vast majority don't have any noticeable effect. Beneficial ones get passed on. Its how evolution occurs. (I think thats the gist of it anyhow)
Not bad. Maybe unreasonable.
It would be like saying that there is a gene that makes you support Easts.
Not bad. Maybe unreasonable.
It would be like saying that there is a gene that makes you support Easts.
Not bad. Maybe unreasonable.
It would be like saying that there is a gene that makes you support Easts.