Well next week 17 May is anti-homophobia day down under.
What a great day to celebrate the lives and contributions of one small sector
of society. For my part I would like to acknowledge the contribution and
general niceness of Bob (Robert) Brown who is still saving the planet, my
lesbian neighbours who have taken a run down cottage and turned it into a semi
self-sufficient set up, my gay cousin, Anthony Langlois for excellence in
academia, and former High Court judge his Honour Justice Michael Kirby who put
justice before formality.
…but this isn’t celebrate gay people day, it’s anti
homophobia day. Phobias are listed in the diagnostic and statistical manual of
psychiatry (the DSM) which listed homosexuality as a condition until gay
activists got it de-listed in the 1970’s. Homophobia is not listed. Let’s be
honest. This is really anti-‘anyone who doesn’t agree with our political agenda
day’ which is roughly a billion Christians, a billion Muslims, the unheard half
of Europe, and Russia. As a result of the one child policy China has around 30
million more young men than women so I’m guessing gay marriage or war will
feature prominently in their future. Anyway, it’s anti a lot of people on 17
May.
So how did we end up with anti-homophobia day and where
will this all end? I don’t know, but following is a technical analysis of the
gay rights (now GLBTI) campaign from the 70’s to today and projected over the
next 30 years. This was written as part of a larger academic essay on mass
social movements. I hope it will give pause to those within and without the
movement.
Meanwhile, whatever your orientation or preference,
have a great day.
GLBTI Movement and Friends
The gay liberation movement dates
from the early 1970’s. At issue was the
criminalisation of sodomy and the marginalisation of people who were not fully
heterosexual. Historically convicts were
transported to Australia for sodomy and in some countries today sodomy carries
prison sentences of many years. You may
recall that the Malaysian opposition leader was conveniently accused of sodomy
and arrested. People who faced discrimination and incarceration for getting
their physical and emotional needs met determined to change things. Since the
1970’s the gay rights movement has continued to add acronyms – the most recent
one I saw was GLBTI +2. The movement is
now trying to re-model society in fundamental ways.
The gay liberation movement, now
known as the GLBTI movement, has used the Hegelian dialectic model of thesis,
anti-thesis, synthesis, with great success through five distinct but
overlapping phases. Based on the current trajectory and current trends it
appears that a sixth phase in the offing in coming decades.
In the most recent survey in
Australia approximately three per cent of the population identified as other
than heterosexual. Becoming a transformative mass social movement with three
per cent of the population has to stand as one the greatest achievements in
social campaigning in world history. It is therefore very worthy of
examination.
Phase I – Gay Rights are Civil
Rights
The thesis that the gay movement
was confronted with was the Judea Christian view that homosexuality is
aberrant, sinful, disgusting, and something to be kept out of public view. More
charitably it was tolerated socially to a certain extent but it was not seen as
something that should be endorsed, celebrated or promoted, particularly to
children. It was listed as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
(DSM) of psychiatry until the early 1970’s.
To counter this, the movement
needed a simple anti-thesis. It adopted from the outset a single clear message:
“no one chooses to by gay. No one who is gay can become straight. Sexuality is
fixed at birth.” This was repeated until it was widely believed.
This anti-thesis is of course
demonstrably untrue since many people have ceased being gay and some people
have ceased being straight. A good example of the latter is the ‘Lesbian until
Graduation’ fad in US Colleges. To what extent leaders in the movement believed
the anti-thesis is unclear since at least some gay organisations and
individuals openly recruit. However it was necessary at the time.
Adopting this anti-thesis allowed
the movement to position itself in the tradition of the civil rights movement.
After-all, if you can’t help being gay then how is that different from being
black? The anti-thesis aligned the gay movement with a powerful straight lobby
group and thus broadly won the support of the social left. Three per cent
suddenly became a slim majority. Gay rights had now become human rights.
Therefore people who opposed whatever the gay movement was advocating were ipso
facto opposed to human rights. Anyone who opposes human rights is by definition
a bad person and anyone who supports them is by definition a good person. The
world then divides neatly into good supporters and bad opposers. Gay rights has now become for the social left
the fulcrum of a person’s individual morality and political purity.
Having positioned the cause as an
extension of the civil rights struggle the movement adopted the same tactics as
civil rights campaigners had in the past. System stressors were used to demand
legal and political recognition from the establishment. In Tasmania gay rights
activists copied the ‘freedom rides’ that Afro Americans and their white
supporters once took through segregated parts of small town in the Southern US.
This was for the same purpose – to draw out the more reactionary elements and
gain sympathy for the cause. Trespass and public protest were also used.
Celebrity endorsement helped as did public displays such as ‘Dikes on Bikes’.
Underground and alternative subcultures were flaunted at the mainstream. Behind
the scenes political lobbying was intense and strategic. The most important and
significant victory was the de-listing of homosexuality as a condition in the
DSM. This removed a key plank of the thesis – that homosexuality is aberrant.
Now that homosexuality was no
longer an illness or a choice the movement could appeal to core cultural values
of non-interference with private matters, tolerance, and libertarian ideals.
“What consenting adults to in the privacy of their own bedrooms is no one
else’s business” was the catch cry of the 90’s. Against the backdrop of
imprisonment and marginalisation this had significant public appeal.
In light of this appeal sodomy
between consenting adults was legalised, there was a re-set of relations with
police, and public acknowledgement of homosexual relationships became
acceptable. The message broadly in Australia was that gay adults simply wanted
to be allowed to live out their lives as they saw fit. This approach astutely
concealed the rest of the movement’s agenda while laying the foundation for it.
Phase II – Anti Discrimination
In this phase the movement sought
to strengthen the initial anti-thesis by attacking anyone who deviated from it.
Organisations, counsellors, and practitioners that provided help to people
wishing to change their sexuality, and individuals for whom this had proven
successful, were and are subject to vitriolic abuse. Religious and traditional people who insisted
that homosexuality was a moral choice were treated to the same vitriol.
Since homosexuality was now legal
it could be positioned in the anti-discrimination legal stream. This gave the
gay movement a powerful legal weapon to protect their own interests in
preventing discrimination and further helped to normalise homosexuality the
culture. A key plank of normalising
homosexuality was the legal recognition of same sex relationships. Again the
appeal was to basic community standards of fairness. At issue were the rights
of long term couples to inheritance, property and superannuation on separation,
and crucially the right to adopt. The former issues were resolved quickly and
with few objections. So far the anti-thesis had prevailed, but adoption
remained controversial.
Phase III – Mandatory Endorsement
Once homosexuality was established
as normal in the culture and as legally valid the anti-thesis moved from an
appeal to tolerance to a demand for endorsement. The anti-thesis now demanded
that homosexuality be celebrated and endorsed. This would take a number of
forms.
School curriculum would now be
changed to teach and promote gay marriage and gay parenting. Homosexual practices
would become core curricula in sex education. Homosexuality would gain a
certain celebrity status. School counsellors working with confused teens would
no longer be expected to steer them back to a healthy heterosexuality or help
them clearly define their sexuality. Rather students presenting as other than
exclusively heterosexual would be referred to the relevant sexual minority
community for induction into that community, or as some would have it, for
grooming and recruitment.
Positive discrimination and
mandatory representation across social organisations could now be campaigned
for. Any counselling approach that discouraged experimentation could be closed
down. In its place we have “International Day against Homophobia”. It is not sufficient to have a day that
celebrates homosexual people, their accomplishments, lives and contribution to
society. There is a sharp political edge. Since homophobia is not listed in the
DSM that actually translates as “International Day against people who are
against a certain political agenda”.
In the words of Bill Clinton,
“intolerance will no longer be tolerated”. The genius of this is that anyone
who disagrees, however politely, with gay activists is now type cast as an
intolerant bigoted bad person opposed to equality and human rights. On the
other hand closing down businesses, sacking staff, dismissing people from
courses of study, and subjecting people to vitriolic abuse is now seen as
upholding tolerance. It is this genius that allows GLBTI organisations to designate
any NGO that opposes them as a ‘hate’ organisation with no sense of self irony.
This shift has allowed the gay
movement to open up a new front against that part of the church which
maintained the thesis. The logic of the anti-thesis makes Christianity as it
has been traditionally understood a hate crime because it endorses only one
form of sexuality and only legitimises one form of sexual expression. Specifically the church defended a key
remaining plank of the thesis, namely marriage. Marriage was still an
exclusively heterosexual institution. Moreover this arrangement enjoyed
widespread popular support and was vigorously defended by the church.
Homosexuality could not be considered fully normal or morally and socially
equal if it was excluded from this foundational institution. Therefore the best
way to cement the anti-thesis was to re-define marriage to encompass homosexual
relationships.
Phase IV – Re-defining Marriage
The gay movement was now
positioned to re-define marriage. This is significant because such a proposal
would have had no chance of success 20 years earlier. The movement was
fortunate that there was no clear thesis for keeping marriage exclusively
heterosexual. Arguments about procreation were easily dismissed since many
heterosexual marriages have nothing to do with procreation and procreation does
not depend upon marriage. Arguments
about the sacrament of marriage are relevant only to those who believe in
sacraments. The movement could truthfully point out that the real objection was
visceral and related to the original thesis about homosexuality being not very
nice. By now this was be definition bigoted, intolerant and opposed to human
rights etc.
The real objection to gay marriage
was that it would legitimise homosexual couples adopting children; this being a
problem because children need a mother and a father. That thesis had already
been substantially undermined by the feminist movement and we will return to it
later.
In response to confused arguments
about traditional marriage the movement adopted a simple anti-thesis that
marriage was about ‘love not laws’ and so any loving relationship between two
people should be considered marriage. It was a simple message appealing to
universal values – that we should love and accept one another. A raft of
concerns and objections were raised mostly by religious people who indicated
that they would not recognise gay relationship and wished some legal
protections for adhering to traditional beliefs. Instructively the gay movement
re-assured everyone that religious people and institutions would remain
unmolested. Nevertheless the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) vigorously
campaigns against legal exemptions for religions reasons.[1] Marriage has now been
re-defined in numerous jurisdictions but the traditional definition is still
the norm for the vast majority of the world’s peoples.
Where marriage has been re-defined
to include gay couples retribution has been swift. In the UK the movement moved
to force Catholic adoption agencies to adopt to homosexual couples. The church
refused and Catholic adoption agencies have been de-funded in Britain.
Businesses that provide wedding services have been sued and closed for refusing
to provide services to same sex weddings. In France attending anti-gay marriage
protest can lead to jail and officials refusing to solemnise gay weddings face
five years jail. While incidents are isolated a pattern of discrimination and
harassment of persons who oppose the GLBTI agenda in general and the
re-definition of marriage specifically is emerging. They include:
- Being
suspended from employment
- Being
suspended from study
- Being
put out of business
- Pastors
having their sermons subpoenaed for vetting by the civil authorities
- A
parent being arrested for objecting to his child being subject to
homosexual material at school
- Persons
being sued for letterboxing material critical of homosexuality
- A
pervasive atmosphere of fear and self-censorship in public life
- Verbal
abuse from the highest level of office against anyone who objects to same
sex marriage
- International
pressure against countries that do not already endorse same sex marriage –
notably Russia
Tellingly many of these incidents
have been provoked by gay activists. There is no reason to target Christian
cake shops for gay wedding cakes but they have been targeted by gay activists
who, on being refused service and referred elsewhere, have sued. A counselling
service in Hobart experience entrapment by a gay activist who led the
conversation then complained about the advice given. Collectively these
behaviours can only be understood in terms of revenge. The anti-thesis has
become the thesis and the victim has become the bully.
Phase V – Agenda against Gender
The movement is now resiling from
its original anti-thesis that sexuality is fixed and unchangeable and therefore
no one chooses to be gay. Ironically the movement has now largely adopted the
position for which it so vehemently condemned the church – that sexuality is
fluid not fixed and that for many people homosexuality and other forms of
sexual expression is a choice. This is a foundational shift in the anti-thesis.
Had this been admitted or advocated thirty years ago the movement would have
been rejected out of hand by the mainstream. The timing of the new anti-thesis
is thus instructive. It is also closer to the truth and reflects the new
learning in brain science and the research on brain plasticity. The American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) website states:
“LGBT
people become parents in a variety of ways, including adoption, foster
parenting, donor insemination, surrogacy, and from previous heterosexual relationships.” [Emphasis mine][2]
The logical conclusion of this
anti-thesis combined with cultural rejection of traditional values is that
homosexual recruitment is both possible and legitimate. Since it is both
possible and legitimate it should be allowed on campus. While activists still
object strongly to the term, a recruitment mindset is evident in the material
for schools that is supported and produced by the ACLU[3] and GLSEN.[4] The Safe Schools Coalition
in Australia uses similar materials and approaches. Since mass recruitment is
part of the strategy for any mass social movement the latest attempts to
re-write aspects of school curricula and to remodel aspects of the school
experience speak of an attempt to move beyond influence to control.
Cultural resistance to same sex
parenting remains perhaps the last serious hurdle to gay emancipation as
understood by the GLBTI movement. This hurdle has proven resilient for
self-evident reasons – same sex parents cannot offer a child both a
mother/child relationship and a father/child relationship. Therefore if same
sex parenting is to be accepted as equal to heterosexual parenting concepts
such as ‘mother and father’ must be made redundant. A further anti-thesis is
now required. Against the thesis that every child has a natural right to a
mother and a father is the anti-thesis that gender has no relevance to
parenting and no objective meaning or significance. That’s a big statement.
However it is essential to the movement’s agenda that it prevail.
To facilitate this, focus shifted
to transsexuals and cross dressers as a means of blurring gender
boundaries. Since the movement had won
the right to educate children on sexual matters cross dressing and questioning
of gender mores could now be introduced to schools. Returning to the civil
rights agenda, gender distinct rest rooms were now discriminatory in the way
that white only rest rooms once were. Cross dressing men should now be allowed
into women’s toilets. The purpose clearly is not to help cross dressers relieve
themselves but to break down gender norms.
In their attempt to break down
gender norms the movement has once again made common cause with another
movement – the feminist movement. Elements of the feminist movement argue that
gender has no relevance to family arrangements, parenting, or the
workforce. This again gave a fringe
dwelling minority mainstream status. Academics have taken que and are now
producing research arguing that sexuality and gender are social constructs.[5]
Language is a powerful form of
control and agenda setting so it us unsurprising that they gay movement has
inventing new language. ‘Heteronormative’ is now a word. It implies that
heterosexuality is not normal. If
heterosexuality is not normal it follows that the traditional family is no
objective legitimacy or relevance to parenting. Any combination of ‘significant
others’ will do just as well. It is vitally important to the movement that this
anti-thesis prevail because without it they are faced with the inherent
limitation, some would say contradiction, that a same sex union cannot
re-produce, and that roughly 97 per cent of the population is heterosexual.
If accepted, this anti-thesis
would mark the most profound shift in social consciousness in history. Since
this is unlikely to happen in a couple of election cycles an inter-generational
strategy is required. It makes sense for the movement to then focus on
influencing and co-opting young people who are the future decision makers, and
whose values are still forming. In that context programs like the Safe Schools
Coalition have significance and purpose beyond their stated aim of making
schools safer for, and more accepting of, sexual minorities.
Phase VI – The Flood Gates Open?
At this point let’s consider
whether there will be a phase six. Suppose the movement succeeds fully. At this
point there are no longer sexual norms. There is no longer gender. There is no
longer family in the tradition sense. A man and a woman may live together and
have a baby but they will not be mother and father but significant care giver
#1 and significant care giver #2. Gender and sexual orientation are matters of
personal preference and completely fluid. Children are taught this in mandatory
school curricula and encouraged to experiment as youth. Alternative views are
censored and suppressed. What next?
In
public policy it is easier to open doors than to close them. If you open a door
wide and leave it open you can’t always control what walks in.
Supposing there is a ‘next’ the
only thing left to ‘liberate’ are relations with relatives, children and
animals. In that context I note social research calling for a more tolerant
view of adult/child relationships. The American Man Boy Love Association and
its equivalent associations overseas are also pushing this agenda. This
organisation has been represented by the ACLU.[6] Adult child themes are
becoming more prevalent in mainstream pornography. The sexualisation of
children through marketing is rampant. The outlines of a new anti-thesis are
emerging. This anti-thesis essentially marks a return to the cultural values
and sexual mores of pre-Christian Greco Roman/Canaanite culture. In that context I note the following:
- If,
when homosexuality was removed from the DSM in the 1970’s, you had
cautioned that concepts such as ‘father’ ‘mother’ and ‘marriage’ would be
re-defined as a consequence, you would have been considered hysterical.
This is now happening.
- Persons
who warned in the 1980’s that legalising sodomy would lead to children
being recruited by gay activists were considered hysterical. This is now
happening.
- Persons
who warned in the 90’s that allowing homosexual activists into schools
would result in attempts at recruitment and gender bending were considered
hysterical. This is now happening.
- Persons
who warned that re-defining marriage would open the door for an
authoritarian agenda were considered hysterical. This is now happening.
- I
will be considered hysterical for predicting that the next wave if
‘liberation’ will seek to legitimise relations with children, but it is
happening.
Summary and Conclusion
The gay liberation movement
adopted a Hegelian dialectic model to achieve profound societal changes by
incremental stages over time. In doing so it used existing social constructs to
forge alliances with mainstream movements that gave it influence beyond its
numbers. During this campaign the movement has adopted three distinct
anti-thesis’. They are:
- Sexuality
is fixed. No one chooses or can change their sexuality. Therefore
homosexuality has to be accepted as normal.
- Sexuality
is not fixed but is a matter of personal choice and those choices must be
endorsed.
- Sexuality
and gender are societal constructs which have no objective meaning or
significance.
- It
follows that traditional family and gender norms are regressive and should
be actively undermined or made illegal, and children should be educated
into the new norms by the State.
If taken to their logical conclusion
the second and third anti-thesis’ will move society in the direction of
pre-Christian Greco Roman/Canaanite society which celebrated all forms of
sexual expression. However, where that society was broadly accepting of
religious and social diversity the GLBTI movement is highly intolerant and
authoritarian.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/two-stains-our-nation-anti-lgbt-bills-pass-michigan-and-north-carolina
[3] https://www.aclu.org/library-lgbt-youth-schools-resources-and-links
[5] Ellis and High
argue that sexual orientation might be more appropriately taught as “an aspect
of culture and identity” (Ellis and High 2004, pg. 11).[2]
Ellis, Viv; High (April 2004). "Something More to
Tell You: Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual Young Peoples". Journal of Adolescence
30 (2): 213–225. doi:10.1080/0141192042000195281
[6] According to
Conservapedia: “In September 2000, the ACLU represented the North American Man/Boy Love
Association when the parents of Jeffrey Curley, who was raped, tortured and
murdered by two men, filed a $200 million federal lawsuit for wrongful death.
John Roberts, the executive director of the Massachusetts ACLU stated, It's
not a real popular case, but the First Amendment issues are clear” See further here: http://www.caringforourchildrenfoundation.org/remembering-jeffrey-curley-is-pedophilia-becoming-mainstreamed/
