Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
July 22nd 2017 print

Bill Martin

Queering Society

Few would wish a return to those closeted days when policeman entrapped homosexuals in public lavatories and being actively gay was a crime. So why, with so much gained and attitudes transformed, do activists insist on making themselves so shrilly and insistently unpleasant?

leathermen IIOf all the various sexual orientations – many of which we didn’t know existed until recently – male homosexuality figures the most prominently in our society. The subject regularly features in studies, debates and documentaries, yet it is rarely discussed in an objective, non-partisan manner. When the subject comes up, the homosexual lobby aggressively promotes the gay lifestyle, while those of a less enthusiastic view – in the rare instances when they dare express it – are shouted down with accusations of homophobia and bigotry.

There is no denying that prior to the long, drawn-out process of legalising homosexuality in all states of Australia (1975-1997), the law and probably a majority of people were cruelly hostile towards gay men. “Poofter bashing” was commonly part of a night out for young heterosexual males and police set traps in public toilets to catch gay men seeking sexual partners. Some parents rejected their gay children. Distinguished medical professionals maintained that homosexuality was a mental illness, often advocating various methods for “curing” the anomaly. Prominent but closeted homosexual men were blackmailed, living in fear of being exposed and their careers destroyed, with many actually suffering that cruel fate. Suicide was not uncommon.

To the credit of Australian society, a great deal has changed for the better over the past 30 years. Homosexuality is now widely accepted as a valid sexual orientation, with openly gay people almost never subjected to discrimination on account of their amorous and emotional preferences. On the rare occasions when they are, the law stands ready to spring swiftly to their defence. In the light of all that, it would seem appropriate to consider some relevant aspects of the relationship between homosexuality and society as a whole.

First, it must be acknowledged that even though homosexuality is now legal and generally accepted by Australian society at large, there is a lingering unease towards it. What is behind that attitude? Is it irrational? Can it be justified?

The normalcy of homosexuality.

Homosexual activists insist their sexual orientation is as natural and normal as heterosexuality, only different. At least half of that assertion is perfectly valid in the sense that homosexuality appears to come about without any artificial stimulation, hence it is natural. The claim that it is normal is another matter.

It is patently obvious that the purpose of the heterosexual urge is to induce male-female copulation in order to beget offspring and thereby assure the continuation of the species, the pleasure and enjoyment both a bonus and motivation to repeat the act. The desire to propagate is common to all life forms, therefore anything that serves that urge is unquestionably normal. The fact that the vast majority of heterosexual sex is motivated primarily by the pleasure it provides, with conception mostly incidental, does not alter that underlying fact in the slightest. It is normal because of its constant potential to serve the inherent desire — indeed, the need — of the species to reproduce itself.

The converse of that reasoning indicates that homosexuality, although pleasurable and desirable to those of that persuasion, is not normal in the biological sense. It is understandable why the claiming of normality for homosexuality can cause resentment amongst heterosexuals, especially when it is taught as such to impressionable schoolchildren of an age when sexuality holds little, if any, relevance in their lives. The reaction of heterosexuals to the claim that homosexuality is normal is absolutely rational and does not amount to malicious homophobia.

The homosexual lobby

Once homosexuality was legalised, accompanied by much apologising and political posturing aimed at ameliorating past wrongs, it was reasonable to expect that  it would recede as a divisive social issue. That has not been the case. Following the success of legalisative reform, the homosexual lobby, having grown accustomed to considerable relevance for a long time, needed fresh reasons to justify its continued existence. Hence we see activists now vigorously promoting not only their gay lifestyle(s) – often with the thinly veiled suggestion of superiority to heterosexuality – but also the ever-expanding variety of other sexual orientations, including the newly fashionable “gender fluidity”. There is a steady stream of television programs – comedy, drama and documentary – with the unmistakable stance of popularising homosexuality. All and sundry are repeatedly reminded in various ways that some of the best people are gay and that many great artists, writers, poets, military commanders and other famously accomplished people are or were homosexuals, usually with the implication that their sexual orientation was/is an integral ingredient of their greatness. The fact is that there are, and always were, countless heterosexual people equally as prominent champions of the arts, sciences and culture in general. The aggressive hyping of gay and other alternate lifestyles by the homosexual lobby is another unfortunate and wholly unnecessary cause of resentment by heterosexuals.

The flaunting of homosexuality

Among the most prominent features of the struggle for the legalisation of homosexuality were colourful pageants with overtly obvious homosexual themes, often hounded and broken up by the authorities. There is little doubt that the practice was a powerful contribution to the success of the endeavour to remove legal sanctions. Once homosexuality was legalised, however, the purpose for such parades ceased to exist, yet the practice not only continued but morphed into greatly celebrated, very substantial annual events in many large Western cities, such as the Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras​ in Sydney. The stated justification for this phenomenon is the celebration of alternative lifestyles, the dominant “alternative” being unmistakably homosexual.

There are no examples of similar events celebrating heterosexuality, the only possible exception is, perhaps, the annual Carnival of Rio de Janeiro which, while resplendent with heterosexually provocative costumes, is actually the pageant of the city’s samba schools. In the unlikely event that a heterosexual Mardi Gras were to take place in Sydney and with a the same degree of blatantly overt sexuality as that of the gay and lesbian version, most discerning Australians would consider it  cheap and vulgar. Cheering spectators notwithstanding, the Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras deserves and attracts the same judgement​, adding a further cause of resentment by heterosexuals.

Same-sex marriage

The family, being the partnership of one man and one woman, is the vitally important basic building block of society, as it has been since the dawn of civilisation. It would seem all but absolutely certain that this arrangement came about by instinct rather than conscious design, indicated by the fact that it is also prevalent in the animal kingdom. It is obvious that the heterosexual urge to reproduce is ideally complemented by the traditional family unit, providing as it does the protection vital for young and helpless offspring. Once again, the fact that not all family unions reproduce in no way negates the validity of the principle.

Additional to the natural and normal aspect of traditional marriage, such unions are also held in high regard by the vast majority of society, whether married or not, for powerful emotional reasons. It also seems curiously strange that while the homosexual lobby unmistakably implies the exceptionality of their sexual orientation, they are clamouring for the right to the identical definition of their union as that of the heterosexuals. One would expect them to prefer some unique terminology of their own. All in all, the proposition to threaten the uniqueness of traditional marriage by the sanctioning same-sex marriage is another cause of resentment of homosexuality by heterosexuals — a resentment implied by polling that suggests that, while a majority of respondents are reported as saying they support changing the legal definition of marriage, they also want the option of confirming as much in the privacy of the voting booth. Could it be that stated support for same-sex marriage is outweighed by private reservations?

The prevailing attitude of various societies towards homosexuality is usually determined by the level of development – the sophistication, so to speak – of those societies. The more enlightened the society, the more accepting it is of unorthodox sexual preferences, while more primitive societies and cultures tend to be harshly disapproving. There are many vivid examples of the phenomenon. Australia is most definitely at the higher end of the spectrum, hence the almost universally casual acceptance of homosexuality and other variations of sexuality. In spite of the accusation of “homophobia” so freely thrown about, Australians harbour no malice towards homosexuals or those of any other sexual persuasion.

Sadly and somewhat bewilderingly, the attitude and activities of the homosexual lobby vividly indicate the precise opposite. The noisier activists give the distinct impression that they regard it as vitally important to constantly and aggressively promote and defend the whole range of unorthodox sexual preferences, and they do as much with considerable gusto. Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that the vast majority of homosexuals– the quiet queer majority, if you will — strongly disapprove of that attitude, primarily because it generates unnecessary angst in society and does so to their disadvantage. Common sense dictates that the active promotion of any particular lifestyle as being preferable or superior to all others inevitably, and uselessly, causes societal friction to the detriment of all.

Why, then, one might ask, do sexuality activists, universally of the Left,  purposely yet unnecessarily antagonise societies that have demonstrated by legislation and attitude that active manifestations of homophobia are unacceptable? When we see, for example, “anti-bullying” programs hijacked in the name gender-fluid activism, the goal and endeavour is the unchanging socialist dream of tearing down the established social order and building upon its ruins the perfect global utopia.  Aggressive environmentalism,  identity politics, “third wave” feminism and all aspects of sexual politics, including the championing of homosexuality, constitute the fields and battlefronts of this cultural offensive.

A great many good people enthusiastically participate in such movements, often with the noblest of motives, yet without the slightest idea that they have made of themselves useful idiots. Others, though, harbour a silent resentment. Is it any wonder homosexual activists are determined to see the matter of gay marriage decided by parliamentary vote, rather than a plebiscite?

Comments [19]

  1. Peter says:

    An interesting take Bill. Though a lot hangs on what is ‘normal’. In my younger years I argued that homosexuality was not normal, but these days I am not sure that I know exactly what the word means in this context. And I would not want to be unkind by suggesting that someone’s life-style is other than normal, if it is harming no-one else. I oppose same-sex marriage for a number of reasons, none of them to do with the validity or otherwise of people choosing to partner with someone of their own gender. And don’t want sexual matters of any kind at all pushed down the throats of children in schools. But I have known numbers of same-sex couples and have one in my own extended family. I therefore, these days, do not consider same-sex relationships as being other than normal. Perhaps they are best considered as just one small minority component of the rich human experience. True, it is a good job for human survival that it is a small component. But there is no doubt too, in my experience, that often gay people bring a valuable perspective in various walks of life that might otherwise be missing.

    • Bill Martin says:

      Peter, nuances concerning “normal” aside, we are pretty much on the same page. However, try as I might, I can’t come up with a valid example of “… gay people bring a valuable perspective in various walks of life that might otherwise be missing.” Putting it another way, it might well be better if it remained “missing”.

    • PT says:

      You were right in your younger days: homosexuality is certainly not “normal” by any realistic definition of the term.

      • Gato says:

        ‘You were right in your younger days: homosexuality is certainly not “normal” by any realistic definition of the term.’

        Absolutely correct. In irrefutable right reason, homosexuality is abnormal because it is a mental condition inconsistent with normal human biology, which is binary, male+female. Homosexuality is a delusional psychosexual disorder, a paraphilia. It is not a sexual condition. Homosexual activity is pseudo-sexual, not sexual.

  2. Jody says:

    I once emailed my gay sister this picture and said to her, “I don’t get being gay at all – especially when there are men who look like this”!!!

    https://www.digitalconcerthall.com/cms/thumbnails/960×540/images/concert/Kleiber-Detailseite.jpg

  3. Warty says:

    Seeing the picture that accompanies your article, I find myself questioning your politically correct affirmation that ‘few would wish a return to those closeted days . . . when being actively gay was a crime’. I for one wish one could turn the clocks back if only to ensure that stuff goes back behind closed doors. You see, I don’t buy all that ‘what harm can it do’ tosh, quite simply because I still have this silly notion that we are a society and the shameful things gay activists would have us tolerantly share with them at their annual Gay Mardi Gras, which the enthusiastic MSM insist on forcing into our lounge rooms, shames the lot of us.
    Actually, Roger Scruton makes an interesting observation about the word ‘tolerate’. He insists that we only ‘tolerate’ those things we can’t stand, otherwise why would we ‘tolerate’ them. We tolerate rather than embrace, but the left would so indoctrinate us that we would turn around and embrace rather than tolerate.
    In your dreams Fleischmann.
    Call me homophobic if you wish, but let me tell you I don’t ‘fear’ the gays, rather I’m more than a little concerned about a society that is allowing everything to be turned on its head: where wrong becomes right and right is just plain wrong. Some might say this started with the Civil Rights movement in the late 1960s, but I think it can be traced back to the Frankfurt school in the 1930s, but as a part of social upheaval, I’d trace it back to 1848 the same year The Communist Manifesto came out.
    What was his name? Groucho wasn’t it?

    • LBLoveday says:

      It is clear than some men have innate homosexual sexual orientation but I refuse to accept that the insertion into and thrusting of an erect penis within a person’s anus, and, or rectum, is either natural or normal.
      But it is certainly a major cause of sickness – for example, extrapolating from statistics on homosexuals in the Australian and NZ Journal of Public Health suggests that around 1.6% of Australian males practise male-male anal sex, yet according to the Kirby Institute they account for 72% of HIV cases. That is a much higher risk factor compared to those who don’t practise anal sex than lung cancer is to smokers compared to non-smokers, and the average lifetime cost of each HIV/AIDS case is estimated at $750,000 (most of which is paid by Medicare, viz taxpayers) by Positive Life NSW
      You will almost certainly be aware of the caning of two men in Aceh, Indonesia, courtesy of the Australian MSM, which invariably reported they were caned for being homosexual, rather than the fact that it was for engaging in homosexual sex (liwath).
      But how many know that at the same “event”, 4 males and 4 females were also caned for engaging in ikhtilat, which is hugging and kissing between unmarried couples; that’s right, normal and natural canoodling, not “doing it” as the homosexuals did, also got the cane, but where were the protests about that “barbarism”?

      • Warty says:

        The medical aspects are one thing, but the political ramifications particularly bother me. Until relatively recent times, one didn’t have to think about an issue that was restricted to a very small minority, as suggested by Peter below. He is ’70 something homosexual’, so he would know what I am talking about, but drip by drip, chip by chip undermining by the gay lobby group, before it was even called ‘gay’, has been softening up the general public, the outcome being acceptance and legalisation. With that in mind the Gay Mardi Gras was a publicity coup par excellence.
        Some of the best minds had been involved in the campaign, and the mere fact that chief justices (e.g. Kirby), people in advertising, film making, the creative arts, MSM, business executives, teachers, priests, policemen and the occasional Premier have all been recognised as openly gay, has all contributed and been part of the undermining influence in breaking down public prohibition.
        We now have advertisements that are open, no longer vaguely ambiguous in normalising something that is far from normal. Homosexual relationships are featured in more films that I can count on my two hands and made to seem as uneventful as traditional relationships. This has all been part of a deliberate, concerted effort at social engineering, as we collectively fall under their thrall and, well, fall asleep.
        From an individual point of view, I can bet Peter is grateful that homosexuality has been legalised, but as another symptom of the rapid decline in our Western Civilisation, the import of such legalisation of something that still remains immoral, if you do not subscribe to moral relativism, then those who paved the way towards its legalisation have a lot to answer to, regardless of the number of jolly homosexual friends Jody has.

    • Lawrie Ayres says:

      You put it so well Warty. We “tolerate” pain, we do not like it but it is and we have to put up with it. We tolerate kids with spiky green hair and ornaments stuck through their face and tattoos covering their body but we don’t have to give them job or welcome them to our house. We tolerate gays and lesbians, although some of the latter appear to be a dreadful waste, but we, at this stage at least, do not have to emulate them.
      I agree that the greatest fear of the gay lobby is a plebiscite because they fear the truth will be that most Australians may tolerate their shenanigans but they will never call it marriage. Besides if they had real gay pride they would come up with their own name for their odd unions.
      My concern is, should they get the tick of approval, what next would they demand and what next would weak Billy Shorten promise for their votes. IVF for lesbians, adoption for gays with little concern for the children who for the most part would be mere ornamentation. If they want children then there is a really natural way to go about it. My own take on homosexuality is that it is natures way of keeping them out of the gene pool.

  4. Peter says:

    As a seventy something homosexual I was very grateful when homosexuality was decriminalised. But now I am very angry at the way the whole “gay” thing has been so politicised. All that was required was that we could live our own lives privately, and just try to fit in with mainstream society. Homosexuality is neither natural or normal, but there are people born with that inclination, and so be it.
    You do not get married, but can live together with commitment to each other as we have done for more than forty years. You have dogs and cats not children. Children must be given every chance at a balanced life with a loving mother and father. You don’t march down the street half naked to proclaim your “gayness”. Vote, pay taxes, live at peace with your neighbours, work hard, and fit in.

    • Jody says:

      Peter! What a breath of fresh air and you’ve described quite a few of the homosexual friends I’ve had over the decades and with whom I’ve enjoyed excellent friendships. My own sister has alienated herself from myself and another sister because of her strident advocacy about ‘rights’ for gays like herself. We’ve given her our goodwill and support in the past and now we feel we are being slapped in the face with the call that “it’s the new normal” and “we have a right”. I worry about the children of such relationships, first and foremost. It goes without saying that heterosexual marriage dysfunction is rife but children brought up by same sex couples are starting on the back foot already and there’s no guarantee that dysfunction won’t also occur in those types of relationships – just to complicate matters further. But I also believe we need to place this squarely in the context of social demands for “rights” in general, completely without any discussion about ‘responsibility’.

    • Bill Martin says:

      Peter, you have made my day, my week, my year and the remainder of my life. I am for ever indebted to you!

      Reading your words was like blessed manna from heaven, wholly undeserved gratification for my essay. Were such words put forth by a heterosexual man, he would be instantly and viciously accused of homophobia. I ardently hope that other readers of similar persuasion will add their thoughts to the discussion, whether they agree with you or not.

  5. Homer Sapien says:

    Sodom and Gomorrah, here we come.

  6. Homer Sapien says:

    40 year-old miner Darren Lee was fined $500- for having sexualised acts with his less than 12 month old puppy dog. How long till this behavior is found “normal?”

    • Warty says:

      It already is in Canada, O Sapiens. 9th June, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 7-1 that a sex act between a human and an animal was not bestiality, if there was ‘no penetration’. The fact that the accused, known only as DLW, included his 15 year old daughter in unspeakable acts with their family dog seemed not to sway the esteemed judges, who seemed quite oblivious to the fact that they were opening a window to the very sort of future you fear.

      • LBLoveday says:

        Peter Singer was awarded an AC when Gillard was PM.
        Peter Singer prior to that award had argued that “mutually satisfying activities” of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and while sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal,”sex with animals does not always involve cruelty”. Singer did not define “harm”, nor how it should be measured.