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.