Good luck in your cause Jim, you have my full support.

You are exactly right in saying the first step in eliminating homophobia is to remove the legal discrimination. The blatant discrimination represented by our Federal Government (and supported by the Labor Party in 2004) is something that I cannot comprehend and am deeply ashamed of.

Unfortunetly you won't be successful in convincing some of the so-called Christians on this forum that you are not the spawn of Satan, and the worst thing part about that is that our Government supports them.

here here and here come the GB's come to push one of their two obssession's sex.

With no substantive argument to fall back on, the anti-gay commentators will soon descend into quoting apocryphal bible passages as evidence that one doesn't need evidence to be anti-gay.

Pre-emptive strikes are all the rage these days, so I'll try one myself:

A dispossessed, landless tribe facing extinction in the desert needs all the children it can produce. It makes perfect sense that a religion forged in such circumstances forbids non-procreative sexual behaviour, be it homosexuality or masturbation.

However, it makes no sense at all to enforce such taboos in an enlightened, over-populated world.

‘In every way but one, Andreas and I are an ordinary everyday middle-aged couple, living lives just like those of all the people around us’, claims the author.

But that ‘one’ point is a rather big one. You don’t need to have strong views one way or the other about homosexuality to know it is unnatural. It’s hard to believe that even homosexuals themselves can claim that it is natural and maintain a straight face.

People who stray far from societal norms should expect to be treated differently. It’s accepted that they don’t like it, but it’s a fact of life that the ‘system’ is set up for normal standards of behaviour. There are many other groups of people who are in some way affected because they don’t slot in under ‘average’. They manage. Homosexuals need to stop yammering about their problems and be thankful that they are not treated far more harshly by society.

It is extremely arrogant for these people to try to force government and the rest of society to bend to their will. The author complains of ‘homophobia’ in Australia, so perhaps he could move to one of the five other countries he has lived in without problems. He managed to get his partner permanent residence here, why not do it in reverse? If there are better places for homosexuals, why stay here and suffer? It’s quite trendy to be a ‘refugee’ these days.

In the meantime, let’s have a break from homosexuals with an axe to grind and hear from professionals who can educate us on a subject that most people find deviant and disgusting.

Is it a disease? Can it be cured? Or, have some of us got it wrong, and is it OK for people of the same sex to be sexually attracted to each other?

I hope the editors can find an unbiased source. I am not interested in references to weirdo websites from posters.

Leigh, such unchristian views. I am sorry for you.

Only this week my son came back from school to say that he and his mate were ridiculed for being homosexual.

My son and his friend are 10 years old. They are not even of an age when their sexual identity is formed. His friend comes from a family who happily show affection for each other by hugging. The two boys have a wonderful close friendship that is a joy to see.

It is not only gays who are discriminated against. It is any people of same sex who show normal human affection for each other.

As a male I know all about the cringe I instinctively feel when wanting to show physical affection for a male friend. I am stuck with this cringe.

This aweful instinct is a hateful put-on by un-christian folks who can't handle their own sexuality. As members of society we are variously infected with this ugly cultural discrimination.

All the gay lobby wishes to do is to enable us to mature as a society and celebrate the natural variety that is wthin the human experience.

In the final analysis it is simply a message about love rather than hate.

"People who stray far from societal norms". Now theres a profound comment, and what are societal norms one asks. Maybe the poster could enlighten us less informed members of society.
My belief is being a contributing member of the community, respecting others, irrespective of who or whom they are, not interfering in other peoples lives. A belief that has bode me well throughout my life.
Another question I would ask the poster. Why do you have such a vitriol opinion of people, that you appear to consider inferior to yourself, or should I say to your own personal dictate of societal norms.

I extend a hearty thank you to the author for another beautifully written description of how legal discrimination and society homophobia impacts upon the lives of gay and lesbian citizens. I optimistically believe that an increasing number of Australians are coming to the realization that this unfairness must end (despite what I anticipate will follow in the comments section from vehement opponents), and this belief is reflected by surveys showing that the majority of Australians are in favour of legal recognition of same sex relationships. It is now up to our government to reflect this societal change, by remedying legislation where same-sex defacto couples are treated differently to opposite-sex defacto couples.

I am Australian, my family has been here since before the gold rush, they helped build this great country, and I will stake my Australian-ness against any of those that oppose the recognition of my 12 year relationship. Because I am Australian this government has no right whatsoever to deny me the rights, benefits and responsibilities that flow to any Australian citizen. Those that seek to deny me those benefits are no more than thieves, stealing my taxes to support their families, and not allowing me to support mine in the same way.

Opponents in the forum, and we all know who you are, will no doubt repeat all the old fashioned, outdated, or religious claptrap to say why their view of sexuality is the only true one – and then use that to determine who can and who can’t play as a full citizen. Well, I’m sorry, but you’re just plain wrong. Sooner or later Australia will indeed join other western societies who have recognized the equality of their gay and lesbian citizens.

Oh and Leigh – I’m not leaving Australia (though thanks for reminding me that you’d be happy to have me treated harshly). If you think a person should decide upon their citizenship by finding a country best suited to their ideology and then moving to that country - you can always go. Iraq will no doubt welcome you.

Jim

Good luck in your fight to be treated like a person. It's disgraceful that you are not.

Leigh,

Some answers to your questions (from a professional, not that it actually requires any professional expertise).

“Is it a disease?”

No. This is the unanimous view of every broadbased mental health professional organization in the Western world. Homosexuality does not appear in DSM or ICD, which are the standard references for the classification of mental disorders and diseases in general used throughout the world. There is a small group of dissenters to this view who go by the name of NARTH (the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality) based in the US. Despite their name they do not appear to have generated any peer reviewed research, and they appear to be a lobby group supported mainly by conservative Christians for ideological rather than scientific reasons.

“Can it be cured?”

No. See above. Of course homosexually oriented people can choose how they wish to behave as just as anyone can, and some choose to be celibate and others to fit into a heterosexual behavioural paradigm. Some people seek the support of mental health professionals or religious groups to assist them in this choice, although most professionals I know would be reluctant to be complicit in such an enterprise. However there is little evidence that intrinsic orientation can be significantly altered by “therapy” or anything else. Even the most ardent proponents of so-called “reorientation therapy“ admit that such change, if it happens at all, is very rare. However you should be careful of assuming a distinct binary between homosexual and heterosexual (some people are both and some neither), and you shouldn’t assume that sexual orientation is fixed throughout life: for some people this is not the case.

“Or, have some of us got it wrong, and is it OK for people of the same sex to be sexually attracted to each other?”

Yes, you have got it wrong, although this is just my opinion. If you think otherwise you should be prepared to justify why you think it’s not okay (for other people, not for you – you don’t have to justify your own orientation to anyone except yourself).

One well followed religous character marries a nine year old girl. The fact that he was'born' desiring nine year old girls does not make it right. What people practising the unhealthy act of sodomy want is society and ulimately God's approval. I feel sorry for people trapped in this this perversion. God will never approve of something that is so unnatural. He will and does however forgive those who turn from this sin along with all us other sinners who have been caught up in many other sins.

Government legislation does not determine whether something is right or wong. The fact that a spelling error annoys people shows that they believe in absolutes. Sodomy is and always will be a wrong choice. I feel sorry for those caught in it

Great article

Gecko, "As a male I know all about the cringe I instinctively feel when wanting to show physical affection for a male friend. I am stuck with this cringe."

Well said. Males miss out on a lot of healthy non-sexual contact because of social homophobia. I've had male friends I could give a hug to just out of friendship but they have been rare, that cringe is hard to overcome.

R0bert

Professional what, Snout? Are you qualified in the area? Not meaning to be rude, but I did mean an accredited, recognised professional who could put his name and qualifications to an article.

I not sure how you want me to justify why I think homosexuality is wrong. All I can say is that I am repulsed by it and, as a person of at least average intelligence and some knowledge of anatomy and human instinct and feelings, I find the practice unacceptable in anyone, although I do give some credence to the opinion (medical) that a few unfortunate people may have been born with ‘confused’ sexuality, for want of a better word. But, as for the burgeoning number claiming to be ‘gay’, only hard science will convince me to change my beliefs.

It’s nothing to do with religion, as some people here are always harping on. Above, I was call ‘unchristian’. That makes sense, because I am NOT a Christian. (Actually, it doesn’t make sense, because it’s also popular here to accuse people of being anti-gay because they ARE Christians). I have no religious beliefs whatever. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with my views. So, it seems that it’s non-believers as well as ‘god botherers’ that homosexuals and their allies are up against. That doesn’t leave many people to blame, does it?

I continue to be interested in finding out if there is a reason for homosexuality, but am not at all interested in the ‘you are wrong and I am right’ attitude that seems to abound every time this subject comes up. You have made a start.

I must say, however, that I am suspicious of the lack of response from homosexuals when they are asked to enlighten their critics. It seems to me that if they are sure of themselves and firm in their beliefs they should be able respond in a way that just might create understanding.

Thanks for being civil, Snout.

Social Inclusiveness is lost when anyone is forced to contribute to a system which discriminates against them.

Yes!

It is un-fair-go Australian AND it is just plain wrong!

I felt the article was well targeted where it addressed the Tax System among other things,on same sex couples.

I also supported Warren Entsch MP as he spoke on other aspects of this arguement that involves any "relationship" that is supportive... when it comes to "partnership arrangements" which is a point that is not based on "sexual partnership" ie: Mothers, Sisters, Sons etc, who sometimes move and work together in a domestic and social environment and who need recognition by a system which has trouble facing any issue which is outside the "nuclear family" ... one house two cars model.

I believe that this issue of "being forced to" is rife in Australia, and unfortunately the "forced" parts flag most of the issues that impact the "minority" sectors throughout Australia, even though together these groups are a large bulk of the diverse population.

The thing that gets me is the way the system, by not addressing the social inclusiveness required, by these groups, encourages people (in large numbers to LIE) about their circumstances. This means the recording aspects required for management and planning of a transparent system is clogged with fudged facts and figures at the highest level while the individuals being forced to LIE, at ground levels... for reasons of their own survival, risk being found out as criminals.

Hardly a healthy situation for Community Safety especially when you consider the principals for Crime Prevention, be it on the street or through the systems own budget on addressing centerlink fraud and other black marking deeds of disclosure.

What do you think?

Jim,
You chose to have a homosexual relationship knowing the legal circumstances, so why whinge about it? It's like someone building their house next to a nuclear power plant, then lobbying the government to have it pulled down. There are many aspects of our society that many of us feel discriminated against, but we accept them and get on with living. Our society right now does not consider homosexual relationships equal to heterosexual ones. Any why would it, when the biological function of our sexual organs is for male-female relationships. On that premise homosexual relationships are far from average or normal: they are plain weird, and probably represent less than one in 10,000 of all relationships. Next thing we'll have people wanting their friendships granted some sort of legal right. The legal status you seek won't make any difference to homophobia, in the same way that anti-racial laws will never stop racial discrimination.

Leigh,

I’m a medical doctor and my postgraduate qualification is in sexual health. I hesitate to stake this claim, though, because I reckon that on a forum like this you should be judged on what you say, rather than on any assumed authority: qualified people still say dumb things.

I’m not sure either how you can scientifically “prove” that homosexuality is right or wrong. There are a lot of theories, some more based in reality than others, about what “causes” homosexuality, but at the end of the day we don’t know for certain any more about this than what “causes” heterosexuality. We can reasonably say that genetics plays at least a small role in sexual orientation, but beyond that we’re speculating. It’s important to recognize is that intrinsic orientation, behavior and identity don’t always correspond exactly. And the gay identity we recognize from our own time and culture would not necessarily be comprehensible to other times and other cultures.

Some people derive their beliefs about right and wrong from authorities outside themselves such as religion, tradition, the law, or the Bible. To me this begs the question of the origins of these sources, which are always the societies that have formed these ideas. For me, the ultimate test of right and wrong hinges on whether something harms others. For me, homosexuality in itself doesn’t harm other people, although some types of homosexual behavior, just like some types of heterosexual behavior, can. However I think that arbitrarily denying people rights most of us take for granted on the basis of sexual orientation does harm people, and pressuring gays to adopt heterosexual roles seems both harmful and unnecessary.

Many people feel that homosexuality feels wrong for them personally, but have no trouble accepting it might feel right for other people. Our feelings about our sexuality are deeply felt and sometimes bewildering. It can be hard enough to come to grips with our own sexuality, let alone to stand in the shoes of someone whose desires are alien to our own. But I reckon this reflects a mature confidence in ones own sexuality.

Good post Snout - but one quick question; Why does homosexuality feel so wrong to most people?

I certainly defend people's right to engage in any form of consensual sex, but that does not mean that I don't find the whole idea just a complete turn off to me. Why would the mojority of people think this way?

A quick second question if I may; I remember watching a documentary on an online pedophile ring which got busted in Europe, and they interviewed the people who had been caught engaging in the most despicable activities. They showed the interviews, and what got me was how all the pedophiles said that their urges were natural, and just what they felt, and that this was just their sexuality.

So what makes them wrong and homosexuals right? Most people in the world see the two as pretty much equal in terms of depravity (not in the developed world mind).

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here...

I suppose Leigh it would also seem unnatural to you to sit down to take a pee being a man. I can also understand why it wouold seem unnatural to you to have sex with another man being straight. This however, does not give you the right to determine what is natural for other people. How could you know? Only each individual can know what is natural for themselves and as long as sex is fully and sincerely consensual between the people concerned, whatever their gender and does no harm at all to others, then I really cannot understand what the problem is.

It seems to me that women generally endure the vast majority of unnatural sexual acts, when men force them to have sex when they don't want to - i.e. rape. If you and the religious crowd spent half as much energy on dealing with these genuine unnatural acts ,than you do on persecuting loving couples who cause no harm at all to others, then it could be said that you were contributing positively to the sexual health of society.

I supppose, however, this would be too much to hope for?

Will and Andreas - wishing you both a very long and happy relationship, you more than deserve it.

(And for the benefit of the fanatics - who are mentally still in the dark ages), I'm sure God in Heaven knows that the two of you contribute much more to society than many that would persecute you. Having the time and energy to spare being so scathing of other peoples relationships suggests these people are probably, sadly, lackng themselves in this wonderful aspect of beinghuman.

Just for laughs, can anyone point to a single piece of evidence that indicates acceptance of homosexuals is damaging to society?

Oh, and why are oblique Biblical references to sodomy so cherished, while clear instructions to beat and enslave our womenfolk are ignored by the faithful?

Some interesting posts here.

Let's not forget too, folks, that it was less than 100 years ago that left-handed children were often punished and forced to write with their 'natural' hand - to the extent that their left hand was sometimes bound.

We find that rather shocking now.

Left-handedness is a natural phenomenon, I don't care what the bible says about it. I will befriend left-handed people as equals. I refuse to discriminate and make them feel they have a terrible affliction.

"A quick second question if I may; I remember watching a documentary on an online pedophile ring which got busted in Europe, and they interviewed the people who had been caught engaging in the most despicable activities. They showed the interviews, and what got me was how all the pedophiles said that their urges were natural, and just what they felt, and that this was just their sexuality.

So what makes them wrong and homosexuals right?"

It's called consensual sex, GW. A child cannot consent, therefore it is morally and legally wrong. A homosexual couple can consent and they are hurting nobody.

Good luck Jim and Andreas. I hope that you will eventually be able to live with all the economic benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.

I read this forum quite often and there does seem to be a pattern in relation to condemnation of homosexuals. It appears that most are condemning male homosexual sex and that they have a major problem with the thought of it, so then they just condemn Homosexuals as a whole based on whatever they are imagining takes place in the bedroom.

My suggestion is don't think of it in terms of what happens between two people sexually, just as you shouldn't be thinking of what your hetersexual neighbouring couple are sexually doing at any given time in the bedroom or elsewhere.

Do not base your opinions on what you or others might interpret from the bible either. Because there are many different interpretations. God would want people to be looked upon as equal. Just because they fall in love with someone from the same sex, should not be grounds for people to discriminate.

Do not base same sex relationships as wrong because they cannot produce children like alot of hetersexual couples can. Because if you wish to treat Homosexuals as less then equal in their relationships based on that, well the law better take into account that alot of hetersexual loving couples cannot or choose not to have children and govt and society should legally make their relationship less than equal to those that can have children. Hey lets just take away their marriage rights.

Personally I try to not picture in my mind what two men might do sexually together nor do I allow myself to think of what two hetersexual people might do during sex. But even though both thoughts creep me out,(because of my sexual orientation) I am not going to treat people differently and want laws invented or changed that will not allow them equal relationship or family rights

There has been another view on homosexuality on this very site.

‘Homosexuality is not biologically determined – latest research’, by Dr. David van Gend was published on ‘OLO’ Tuesday, 8th June, 2004.

Worth a look, even from an historical point of view. Kenny was dishing out his one-line name calling in those days, too

Leigh. Why do people like yourself, have such a bitter opinion of other people in society. Maybe medical science can do some research, into why there are some in society who continually express vitriol towards others, and are not affected in anyway, by the being of the people the vitriol is directed too.

What you think mate, will you put your name forward. Me thinks not!

As to the online piece by Dr David van Gend. I would say he is not a homosexual, so how can he have any understanding of homosexuality. Because someone has a PHD. does not automatically credit them with expertise. Remember Thalidomide?

GW, I’m not sure why some heterosexual people feel so strongly against homosexuality, but here’s a few of my own takes on the subject:

Take 1:
For many men their sense of their identity – their maleness and adultness – is closely tied with a sense of their heterosexuality. To imagine a homosexual act for themselves personally would involve shedding this heterosexual “skin” as it were, and many men couldn’t do this without putting aside their very sense of male adulthood. In other words for many heterosexual men imagining themselves in a homosexual act means putting aside their adult sexual identity – and from a non-adult’s (a child's) perspective such sex is always felt as abusive.

Take 2:
Many of the young men I work with are intensely and sometimes violently “homophobic” (for want of a better word). But you don’t have to scratch too deep to meet their more basic fears and anxieties:

Am I a real man?
Am I normal?
Is that lumpy bit supposed to be there?
Does she (or he) really love me… you know… really?
Are my muscles (or other parts) big enough?
Why does loving feel so good one day and so crap the next?

Maybe I’m adding 2+2, but I reckon homophobia has a bit to do with other anxieties about ones personal sense of sexuality.

Take 3:
Some analysts believe that those who hate gays are really gay themselves “down deep inside”.

I’ve met plenty of gay guys who’ve gone through a period of hating everything about homosexuality – as if trying to rid themselves of an uncomfortable part of themselves by putting it out there in the world and striking out against it. I reckon this phenomenon is real, but it’s a mistake to attribute all negative attitudes to homosexuality to it.

Look, when it comes down to it, I reckon the people most likely to be comfortable with others’ homosexuality are those who actually know and spend time with real homosexuals, and are truly comfortable with their own sexuality, whatever that might be.

The existence of the organization ‘Homosexuals Anonymous’ indicates that not all those afflicted with the problem are confident that homosexuality is normal or acceptable.

This subject will continue to pop up periodically, and people will continue to believe what they wish to believe. Fortunately, the general consensus on the percentage of sufferers in the community is a mere 10%, even though the comments on OLO from people claiming to be homosexuals and those who support them seem to be in the majority.

All discussions on the subject indicate that homosexuals are dedicated ‘victims’ who cannot accept the consequences of their behaviour and therefore blame the majority for their problems. Trying to convince people that ‘homophobia’ emanates from the ‘homophobe’s’ own sexual insecurity is one of their popular clichés. And, the need to believe that people who do not accept homosexuality must hate gays is a very convenient poor-me defence to avoid responsibility

Broadly, two main arguments have been expressed that disagree with Jim Woulfe’s premise that his relationship (and other homosexual relationships) is average, normal, but waiting to be equal.

Hurtful as these arguments evidently are to many respondents (and much as I disagree with these arguments), one must assume there is a basis behind these arguments that their proponents believe is right (in a rational and/or moral sense). The alternatives are that these dissenters are insane or trolling, and it is not fair to believe those alternatives without first exploring their arguments.

Certainly Leigh, despite copping “one-line name calling”, has returned several times to this forum, thanked Snout for reasoned debate, and generally shown a willingness to engage in discussion.

I will therefore summarise what I see as the two main arguments against equality for homosexual relationships, and will point out where I think they fail. In the spirit of reasoned debate, if I have misinterpreted the arguments of Leigh, runner or Robg, I apologise, and ask that they correct me.

Argument one is to do with homosexuality having an unequal status as a basis for a relationship, and therefore the equal treatment Woulfe asks for is not necessary.

Woulfe has argued that his relationship (and by extension, other homosexual relationships) is normal/average, because it is based on deep and ongoing commitment, shared living, shared contribution to society, and shared participation in extended family. This might be called the “criteria” for a marriage type relationship. Woulfe also argues that even though his relationship (and by extension, other homosexual relationships) meets the same criteria worthy of consideration as any other marriage type relationship, his relationship has legal differences from others with the same essential criteria, that results in unequal outcomes in regards to superannuation splitting, medicare safety net application, and means testing for nursing home care. These were three particular consequences Woulfe found, but he also believes these unequal outcomes have wider consequences by validating other views about unequal treatment of homosexuals. We might term these outcomes the “consequences” of a homosexual marriage type relationship.

(continued below)

For any who would logically refute Woulfe’s points, they must show how the “criteria” of a homosexual relationship are not the same as those for other relationships.

To justify unequal outcomes, they must then relate the “consequences” of the unequal treatment of homosexuaol relationships to the unequal “criteria”.

In order to show consistency, they should be able to describe how breaking these “criteria” of a relationship worthy of fair outcomes in other circumstances should justify unequal “consequences” in those circumstances.

I can not see how any of the arguments presented against equal treatment of homosexual relationships do this.

Joy has already addressed many of the issues with these arguments, but it is worth repeating explicitly here so that the proponents of these arguments can respond.

Reasons why a homosexual relationship “fails” the “criteria” of a relationship worthy of better outcomes are given as follows-
1)Homosexuality is unnatural
2)Sodomy is unhealthy/wrong/sinful
3)Homosexuality is repulsive
4)Homosexuality breaks some rule about biological function of sexual organs/anatomy
5)Homosexual relationships are against instinct/ not normal or average/ statistically infrequent

I would happily debate these “reasons” individually in more length, though for this post space limits mean I must address them all in a similar fashion.

None of these reasons has been expressed to show how homosexuality invalidates a relationship from being considered equal to others, via the “criteria” that Woulfe established.

It is fine to disagree with these criteria, but no attempt has been made to do that, either (excluding Robg’s throwaway line about legal rights for “friendships”, which completely fails to address criteria such as a deep and ongoing commitment, and shared living).

Worse still, none of these reasons have been linked to the “consequences”.

E.g-if I find Christians repulsive, should that justify them having to sell their homes to get adequate nursing home care?

If I use an organ for a function it is not “meant” for, say, my mouth for kissing/oral sex, does this justify discrimination against my relationship? What about heterosexual/homosexual relationships in which sexual organs are not used at all?

(second category of arguments against equality addressed next…)

Leigh,

The fact that organizations like Homosexuals Anonymous, Exodus and the so-called “reorientation therapy” movement exist does indeed demonstrate that some homosexuals are uncomfortable with their orientation. Pretty well all these organizations are informed by evangelical or conservative Christian belief structures, and in the Spitzer study David van Gent cites, most of the participants were heavily involved in such conservative religious organizations. It’s interesting that your views don’t come from a religious viewpoint. I’d be interested to know how you have come to your conclusions.

I agree that homosexual activists are on shaky ground evidence-wise in saying sexual orientation is entirely biologically determined. There’s not currently enough evidence to say one way or the other, although there’s good evidence (from twin studies for example) that genetics plays at least some part. The 10% figure I reckon is an overestimate as well, and figures like this tend to be meaningless unless you very clearly define what it is you’re measuring. But whether it’s 10%, 1% or 100% is irrelevant really to the argument about whether it should be accepted.

I don’t have a lot of patience with victimhood politics either, but you need to be careful of using such a description to avoid facing genuine injustices, too.

I take issue with your characterization of gays as “victims” or “sufferers”. Most gays I know are quite content with their lives and are no more or less happy than anyone else, and take responsibility for their own lives the same as anyone. That they seek to end perceived injustices against them makes them no different to any other group in society.

Leigh and gw, I don’t really know for certain why some heterosexuals seem to be so uncomfortable with other people’s differing take on sexuality. The observation that people who are unfussed by other people’s sexuality tend to be the ones most comfortable with their own is simply my experience. If you can think of alternative explanations I’d be interested to hear them. It’s a good question.

Well, bugger me dead! My same-sex partner and I have been together for 35 years, and have lived in the came house for 30 years, while our heterosexual neighbours and their families have split up, melded, re-melded or moved on; so much for gay instability. We are not much "into" sodomy so those that say sodomy = homosexuality as a definition are skating on thin ice. Before that advent of better contraceptive technology, anal intercourse was widely used by heterosexual couples particularly in Catholic and Orthodox cultures. Indeed, a survey I read about years ago, stated that 25% of heterosexual couples had tried it at least once. Part of this discussion is bedevilled by a failure to ditinguish between homosexual orientation and behaviour. Given the appropriate circumstances, many ostensibly "straight" men will "come across" (prisons, same-sex boarding schools, army barracks, and with enough alcohol. Not for nothing do some gays say that the difference between a straight man and a gay man is "about 6 beers"!) Homosexual/gay orientation is a life-long attraction to other men, sexually, physically, emotionally and spiritually. As you might suspect, sex is not a big issue for us after 35 years; its much more about mutual suoort and companionship.

Gays and lesbians are amazing when you come to think of it; their resilience and strength of character shines through when you consider what many are put through and have to overcome, just to simply share and enjoy their lives with that special person.

Innuendo, labelling, abuse and bashing are realities for too many, but still they continue to contribute in work, sport, parenting and a host of other creative endeavours that nurture and enhance the communities of which they are a part.

Do they think of themselves as victims; no! They live their lives like each and every other person. Accepting the negatives of life that they have to experience, as norm, because of their being.

However there is a limit to the acceptance of these negatives in the 21st century. Same sex couples will no longer accept the status of second class Australian citizens. Nothing less than their recognition in the Australian community, is acceptable.

By this recognition, maybe the negatives that gays and lesbians have to experience will deminish. Then we might live in a country of a fair go for all

Great post, Doug, but I reckon we’re not going to get away that easily with ignoring the connection in some people’s minds between homosexuality and anal sex. (Lesbian readers are probably rolling their eyes and tearing their hair out at this point.)

So here’s Anal Sex and Homosexuality 101.

People aren’t gay because they like anal sex: people are gay because they are attracted to people of the same sex. Some homosexuals like anal sex; some don’t. Some heterosexuals like anal sex; some don’t. Homosexuals who don’t like anal sex are no less homosexual for that (which will no doubt be a relief for many of our lesbian friends). Heterosexuals who do like anal sex are no less heterosexual because of that, either.

People’s sexual orientation is not determined by which specific acts they may or may not like. People are attracted their partners primarily, and only then decide on what sex acts might be appropriate, depending on how each feels about his or her own body, and the… well… the available equipment. Sensible people also consider such things as the risk of unwanted pregnancy or of sexually transmissible infections.

Now if you want to know what it feels like, why people like it, or how to deal with the …ahem… hygiene issues, then you will have to sign up for Anal Sex 102.

Jim you're neither average nor normal. I don't see why you use this header.

Joy, from a few posts ago,

Thanks for your very incisive comments.

Now that I think of it, the debate over acceptance of homosexuality has definitely shifted. The phobia that is being expressed by the religious crowd is nowadays mostly about sexual acts, not the right to have a different sexual orientation.

This is definitely a step forward in our social maturity

Interesting that the anti gay crowd, have a thing about anal sex.
Could it be they aint getting any?
Could it be they may sort out their sexual problems by talking to a sex counsellor?
Sad really, that there are people who are so more interested in other peoples lives, other than their own.
If they only tried they would have a happy life. There again, some people enjoy carrying negative baggage in their life.

(continued from previous posts)

The second argument against the equality Jim Woulfe calls for, seems to me to be the ultimate expression of the conservative fatalistic position- like it or lump it.

This may not be a separate argument from the first point that homosexual relationships are unequal, but merely instructions about how you should respond to this first point, assuming it is correct-i.e.- homosexual relationships are not the equal of others (point 1), therefore, you should accept point 1…

As a debating point, this is pretty inadequate; saying effectively “I’m right, no really, I am” as a further justification to an argument rather than expanding upon that argument, for example, by answering some of the questions posed in my previous posts.

Because of this inadequacy, I will interpret the arguments as more logically making a case against Woulfe’s article. But rather than disagreeing with the point that homosexual relationships are unequally treated, this argument is saying that this unequal treatment is either-

a)unimportant
(“Homosexuals need to … be thankful that they are not treated far more harshly by society”, “There are many aspects of our society that many of us feel discriminated against, but we accept them and get on with living”)

or

b)is a consequence of choice, so should be accepted as a consequence of choice
(“You chose to have a homosexual relationship knowing the legal circumstances, so why whinge about it?”,” People who stray far from societal norms should expect to be treated differently… The author complains of ‘homophobia’ in Australia, so perhaps he could move to one of the five other countries he has lived in without problems”)

On point a), the unequal “consequences” are unimportant because either we have more important things to worry about, or we should be more fatalistic. I’m not sure why a respondent believing either of these things would bother writing a reply, surely they’d have more important things to worry about, or could just accept that others want to “whinge”.
(continued)

(from previous)

Putting that aside, as a moral response to inequality these arguments are poor- if we only concentrated on the greatest injustices (however defined…), we would allow other injustices to flourish. And if we just “accept”ed injustice, it will not change.

If those that make these arguments are really that committed as moral nihilists, responding in this manner is a complex form of trolling, and if they really don’t think that injustice has been done, this is the “I’m right, no really, I am” response I mentioned above.

On point b), it is not at all clear how inequality as a consequence of choice is not worthy of consideration. Perhaps if this is the point being made, the proponents of this argument can tell us how they feel about other inequality caused by choices, such as being stoned to death for choosing to be Christian in some countries, or being hung for choosing to harbor Jewish families in Nazi Germany?

While it may remain true that not making those choices removes the risk of harmful consequences, how does this make the application of those harmful consequences right?

For those who really do feel that we should just accept the consequences of our choices, and not fight for fair consequences, let me ask- if our law changes overnight and heterosexual relationships suffer legal inequalities, and homosexual relationships don’t, would you be entitled to “whinge” if you choose to continue or start a heterosexual relationship?

I realize that not a lot of time has passed yet since my earlier posts, and there are many people who have posted who clearly agree with Jim Woulfe (tough crowd, as it were), but the onus really is on those who justify or tolerate an inequality to give us some rational defense of their positions.

Or if there is anyone else reading who thinks Woulfe’s relationship is not the equal of other marriage style relationships, and believes this justifies inequality, now is the time to present a logical argument supporting that view.

Snout,

Perhaps one could apply morality to the gay issue: Kohlberg comes to mind. Acceptance would be "post-conventional" and rejection, the "law and order" stagem, perhaps. Some sexologists, say that inviduals are not definitively homosexual or heterosexual. Rather, we all are on a behavioural continuum. Most people would score low on the homosexual scale for genetic and nurturing reasons.

Others,

Just the same, a penchant for contact sport and locker rooms might indicate a lean "towards" homosexuality, without overt homosexual behaviour. Stripping naked and jumping into a hot tub with others of one's on sex is not exactly heterosexual behaviour, is it?

Nothing new.
The same old dribble of how can I make a quid out of my partner.
If two gays live together so what.
It is possible to insure a partners life to get a quid.
Oh no you cannot claim all the benefits that the hard working honest
couple get.
I do say that the present legal marriage system is in a mess.
"To love honor and obey until death"' has become "to love until you get bored."
The modern interpretation of marriage has become so corrupted that almost anything can be classed as a marriage.I live with a chicken in the back garden can I have this classed as a marriage as I feed and house my chicken,so can I get a married couple pension.Her name is Wendy,so I suppose I am not a gay so where is my pension and carers benefit Mr Howard?

Thanks, Oliver: I hadn’t thought about the issue from that point of view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development. (I’m a great and recent fan of wikipedia – helps me make up for a narrow and incomplete education!)

Thanks also to wibble for your erudite unpacking of some of the philosophical issues.

Generally at this point the debate tends to devolve into circular arguments about what is “natural/unnatural” or “normal/abnormal”. Related are concerns about the “appropriate” uses of different organs, and of sexuality itself. Most such arguments tend to be applied inconsistently: for example the condemnation of anal sex on the basis that it is a misuse of a primarily alimentary organ is rarely extended to a condemnation of oral sex or kissing which ought to follow logically. Similarly the narrowing of ‘ideal’ sexual behavior to a sole purpose of achieving pregnancy might satisfy those whose central life goal might be to seek a specific type of spiritual or behavioural purity (or to have lots of kids), but for most of us sexuality is about a lot more than that.

Alternatively you could take the view, as I do, that human sexuality is pretty diverse, and intimately tied up with our most profound fears and desires, as well as our biology. The most sensible moral approach is to ask the questions: who benefits and how, and who is harmed and why?

For some people, becoming aware of consensual sexual practices in our fellow humans that are not to our taste can be a disturbing and disorienting experience.

Gekko and RObert, two of the more insightful and emotionally honest posters, write of the “cringe” factor they experience even in non sexual interactions with other males. My guess is that this is tied up with our social constructions of masculinity (and femininity) in a similar way that “homophobia” is. (Not a great word – too politically loaded and pseudoclinical!)

Diversity, and our puzzling gut reactions to the unfamiliar don’t have to be scary things: for many of us they can be a source of enrichment, wonder and even amusement in our own lives.

What is biologically normative can be ecologically determined. If a species is heavily populated in a given area, over the Malthusian limit, it would prove be beneficial to the gene pool for the conduit species to not zealously populate. Herein, behavioural diversity is a plus.

Loved the article.
Interesting debate, particularly from those who find homosexual acts "disgusting" and therefore assume they are not normal. Young people find the idea of their parents having sex "disgusting", should they therefore be able to call it abnormal? Once any of us get beyond a certain age, the mental picture others might have of us having sex would probably look if not "disgusting" then at least pretty comical, does that make it not normal? And, of course, sex with a post menopausal woman can never be about procreation, so perhaps it really isn't "normal". Stop it at once all you baby boomers!
John Ruskin, a famous writer and thinker from ultra-repressed Victorian England was so disgusted by his wife's pubic hair when he saw her naked on their wedding night, he accused her of being deformed and not normal and the marriage was annulled for non-consummation. I don't think Ruskin was necessarily gay, just hopelessly overprotected by very inhibited parents. Women who masturbated or even appeared to enjoy sex in that era were also considered "disgusting" and not normal. Indeed, some unfortunate women were given cliteredectomy's to "cure" them of the supposed abnormality. Children had their hands tied to the bed to prevent them touching themselves. Ironically, it is also claimed there were more prostitutes in Victorian England ( including child prostitutes) than at any time since.
What each of us finds disgusting or not normal probably says a great deal more about us and the times we live in than it does about anything else.

Runner said...What people practising the unhealthy act of sodomy want is society and ulimately God's approval. Dear Runner, the mlae g spot is in the anus! I wonder why God placed it there. Just as many heterosexuals enjoy this part of their anatomy in sex as homosexuals do. Nothing unhealthy about it!

Homophobic comments stem from what people believe is 'normal'.

Just to remind you all, humanity sacrificed virgins at the stake centuries ago; they discriminated against Jews during the second world war and even in Australia disallowed Aboriginals to vote.
But all these have changed.... why... because we evolve.

Many now keep claiming gay marriages or civil unions are wrong because homosexuality is wrong. Our Government and indeed the UN and an overwhelming majority of countries in the world say homosexuality is FINE and homosexuals should not be discriminated against. Race, Sex, Religious orientation or sexual orientation - basic rights.

So please stop using the argument it is wrong - because you actually are not part of the majority of this planet we live on and are believing something against what this government believes.

So seeing as though our government has accepted homosexuality as being right, why are you still discriminating? As far as I am concerned, whether you believe in homosexuality or not should not be a question - you should. Your Government says you should. I'd like to see you take it up with the government to say homosexuality is wrong.

The main issue regardless of homosexual marriage or civil union or whatever, is that of a lack of acceptance and tolerance. People need to realise we need to be tolerant of those around us. Based on sex, religious preference or sexual orientation, these are all perfectly legal aspects of a person and we need to accept that.

Having just come back from Holland, it humbled me that the leadership of a country to take a stance against homophobia has seen such an acceptance and tolerance of all people, not just of sexual orientation, but race.

Maybe those who still find it hard to just accept people for who they are should go overseas, before being blinded by leadership that doesn't take a hard enough stance against homophobic attitudes.

The great thing is, homosexuals will have their day, and I can't wait to kiss my husband right in front of them when they can't do anything about it.