First things first - let's not get personal. Fuck off about the BA. 
Okay, it was a cheap shot.
Just because this very small selection of people (which is quite obviously too small to be representative) have issues which have affected them directly does not mean that a culture of homophobia is alive and well, regardless of the fact that your example happened to be reported in the media and mine did not. My example also relates to more than one person, and yours did not.
Touche. Although the fact that mine was reported in the media is indicative of a public interest in the occurrence, and by implication a prevailing social issue. Although I must admit that from memory the biggest write-ups were in the left-leaning newspapers.
Unless you and yours are homophobic, how would you know that? And if so, firstly - aren't you a little biased to be participating in this discourse? And secondly, what are you doing to prevent it? Either that, or you made it up.
Yes, I have regular contact with middle-aged people, being family members and family friends who are homophobic. My father, for example, is homophobic. This hasn't prevented him from having a close friend for the last 25 years who is openly gay, but it does result in him making degrading jokes from time-to-time as reflection of his attitude.
I would suggest that you have had contact with plenty of middle-aged (predominantly) men who allow their homophobia to seep out in a similar fashion.
As for what I have done to change it, I attempt to engage him and anyone else who makes similar jokes/comments in a discussion with a view to changing their views. It is rarely effective, as homophobia (like racism) is a reflection of dogmatic life-long feelings about the subject.
I am not homophobic, and I am not biased.
I'm arguing based on my own experience - you're generalising with fairly broad strokes there, big boy. Some evidence, if you please?
Evidence will be hard to come by in this type of discussion, but I've given you some personal experience that I am drawing on.
Well, he was the dux, so I'm not sure that anyone is comperable. If you're asking, however, was anyone else bashed by these bullies at all, the answer is 'yes'. And they weren't gay. They weren't even actors.
Where did I say that everyone who is racist is homophobic? All I said was that there are dickheads around who are willing to pick a fight about anything, and if you're the least bit different, that's what they'll go for.
Whether or not other people were bashed by these bullies is irrelevant - his sexuality made him a target.
I certainly would never advocate hatred, vitriole or violence. But what I'm referring to is annoyance and satire. I think these are acceptable responses to someone being an antagonistic prat. And trust me - there's plenty of antagonistic minority prats. Why are we not allowed to satirise or make fun of these dickheads, but making fun of footy thugs, trailer trash, the pseudo-intellectual left, hippies, the English - these are all acceptable.
The trouble is that many members of minority groups have their sensivity level set at a hair-trigger, and will scream about being discriminated against when what was said was clearly satirical or humourous.
I'm not suggesting that it's not acceptable to satirise homosexuals - but when they are being denied rights which are accorded to their heterosexual counterparts, clearly societal attitudes are having an influence greater and more damaging than satire or annoyance.
You're. You're kidding yourself. If you're going to patronise me, at least do it correctly.
Ouch. I'm out of practice.
Why is it right that a homosexual person would have difficulty being elected? 
Because of prevailing societal attitudes. A fair proportion (if not a majority) of voters would be unwilling to vote for an openly homosexual candidate, at least until they have proven themselves as an effective leader. And of course, it is difficult to do this unless you're given an opportunity to do so. The old Catch 22.
you really seem to be a class A wanker, tux.
Thank you.
your condescension towards the arts degree is not earned, since your 'forum-saving topic' seems weak at best, and thoroughly artsy - as you yourself pointed out.
My condescension is based on the fact that my "weak" forum topic would actually be an acceptable topic for an assignment in a BA. Not so in a real degree, such as Law, Commerce or Medicine.
The fact that I want to have an informal debate about an artsy topic should not affect my right to condescend on people electing to undertake a BA. I just don't think people should be subsidised to discuss "artsy" topics.
causes? ignorance and religion.
What a simplistic assessment. Ignorance breeds fear, which causes the phobia part of homophobia, so I'll pay that.
Religion: puh-lease. Christian Church attendance (and particularly the Catholic Church which hates the gays the
most) is at the lowest level per capita in Australia in the history of the country.
Further, God-fearin' church-goin' folk haven't blinked an eye at obliterating numerous decrees of religious law over the past 100 years (eg. sex before marriage, divorce, acceptance of birth control, mass on Sundays etc), however acceptance of homosexuality has never even been genuinely considered as a possibility.
Clearly, if they are willing to break some rules and not others, there is more than "religion" at work in causing homophobia.
baby boomers? conservative bunch who rebelled young then settled into liberal voting middle class existence with a picket fence, 2.5 kids and church on sundays.
That's a narrow but effective definition. I don't see how it adds to your argument.
sociological development? homosexuality is a badge, an identity and not just about who you prefer to have sex with.
This doesn't address the sociological development of society's heterosexual youth - which will be the portion of the population that continues with a culture of homophobia for the next 50 years if it occurs. I don't see what "homosexuality is a badge and an identity" has to do with this portion of the population.
i really feel as though i've uncovered some novel and previously unimagined points here.
You shouldn't feel that way, because you haven't uncovered anything except your own ability to provide a cursory response to a complicated issue with a startling level of arrogance.
who'd've thunk, after all, that the predominant religion in a country could affect the values of its populus?
or the fact that a group that makes up a large proportion of the population could have a marked effect on the prevailing nature of these values? 
See above as to "religious" people's treatment of other tenets of their own religion and how this differentiates from their treatment of homosexuality.
now please, let us continue with the woe is we who miss fellow barnacles that stroked one another's egos upon posts of wonderous intelligence.
suck it up, you lot, go and talk to some of your friends about politics if you can't bloody find anyone on a bloody website.
sanctimonious attitudes towards a couple of 14 year olds just doesn't wash as the intelligentsia you proclaim once lived upon these hallowed boards.
Wah, wah, wah. If you don't like to engage in this kind of debate, or you don't think it's worthwhile, why did you bother responding?
Piss off, and get a clue.
PS. Go the weagles. They're going to shit on the saints this weekend.
