Of 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.
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?