I’m Coming Out
Over the last year, an unprecedented number of individuals have come out of the celebrity closet. Whether it be Lindsay Lohan, T.R. Knight or Clay Aitken, i It seems that the environment for celebrities to come out is more welcoming than ever. Similarly, the prevalence of the representation of gays and lesbians in the media and in politics seems greater than ever. Take the recent media coverage of the nuptials of Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi.
And, according to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, there are now 83 GLBT characters on television in the US alone. At home, we’ve seen the rise of the openly gay Senator Penny Wong to the ministerial portfolio of Climate Change, and the popularity of other Australian sportspeople and celebrities like Matthew Mitcham and Anthony Callea. This increasing openness and visibility is fantastic for our community -鈥� providing role models and visibility for young gays and lesbians struggling to come to terms with their sexuality, but also educating those people who still seek to deny us equality.
Alongside celebrating this increased representation and visibility, and as we get closer to legal equality, we need to remain vigilant about those who seek to dismantle the many gains we have made, and put out the bright flames of pride that our community has fought for for so long now.
Last week, the GLRL appeared before the Federal Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to give evidence regarding the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws-鈥滸eneral Law Reform) Bill 2008. This bill seeks to amend over 70 pieces of federal law to provide equality to same-sex couples and their children, and would provide greater equality for our community than any other piece of legislation in the history of the Parliament.
Although the vast majority of submissions to that Committee were in support of de facto equality, a group called the Saltshakers argued that equal rights should only be given to groups who are equal, and that gays and lesbians are not equal. Indeed, they even compared the unequal status of our relationships to incestuous relationships and bestiality. Nice.
So as we take steps towards equality, we need to continue the push to educate those around us, and those who, through their ignorance, fear or religious beliefs, continue to discriminate and advocate for the marginalisation of our relationships. While increased representation in the media and in public office of gays and lesbians goes a long way in dispelling prejudices, we have an ongoing responsibility to contribute to this process too. And sooner rather than later, groups such as the Saltshakers may just find that society as a whole no longer tolerates the denigration and vilification of a class of people based on whom they love.
“I know a number of EX homosexuals and lesbians who actually thought they were born with a same-sex, innate, attraction and who lived that way for many years. They are now living very happy heterosexual lives. Some are married with children and one now has grand children. In most cases it was not an easy journey but they made it.”
Peter, I’m not sure if you’re uninformed about the success rate of ex-gay programs, but it is incorrect to say that “most cases” worked. You will find that most ex-gay ‘graduates’ say that they still have same sex attractions, but that they focus their thoughts elsewhere. Honestly, I wouldn’t call this heterosexual.
And the people who reach this stage can’t even be considered ‘most’ anyway. Google the study by Shidlo and Schroeder. Of the 202 people they studied going through ex-gay programs, 178 felt they had failed, 155 felt they had been done long-term harm, 100 said they had been spiritually harmed, there were 23 reported suicide attempts during therapy and 11 afterwards, and after all that only 8 people who claimed to be ‘fully heterosexual’ (of which, 7 worked in ex-gay therapy for a living).
There are other studies which reveal similar results. I am friends with quite a few people who have been through ex-gay programs, and the above statistics do not betray the reality they talk of. The number of suicide attempts (and completed attempts) would bring a tear to anyone’s eye.
What does this have to do with the morality of being gay or lesbian? For starters, it would appear that the behaviour of ex-gay therapists and programs is much more immoral than any Christian would claim homosexuality to be, if they only knew what was involved. Furthermore, while there may be a few who, for whatever reason, claim to have change their behaviours via a program (and if they’re happy, all the better for them), their experiences cannot be applied on a larger scale.
And if you can’t change being gay, then that just changes everything, doesn’t it?
If changing from gay to straight is not reasonable for most people, then where is their place in God’s heart? Are they even capable of being a Christian? I’ll make an assumption that you believe ‘gay Christian’ is an oxymoron, so you’re effectively telling them, “Jesus came to bring the gift of forgiveness to everyone who accepts it… except you, because you’re gay”. Maybe you don’t use those words, but to the person who grew up in a Christian family, and finds out s/he has a feeling that cannot be shaken off – that’s what they’re hearing.
Please consider the impact on other people’s lives from the words you are saying. I personally believe that ex-gay programs have killed more people than they have ‘saved’. Maybe you should reconsider using them to justify your point.
By the way Peter, you accuse me of rudeness! My, that’s rich. How rude is it to belittle someone’s life partnership, the core of their whole person?
Don’t throw suppositions in my face and call them facts. They are based on a non-factual premise, namely that there is a God who gives a damn about all this stuff.
I am the only fact in my case, my friend. I actually do exist. I don’t live in “history”, I live now. You are also free to think what you like, but that doesn’t make you right either. Right is not an absolute term. The feelings of homosexuals matter more than your malicious dogma. You have no case whatsoever.
I’m sorry Peter, if it feels natural to me, it is natural to me. If something else feels natural to someone else, that’s natural for them. This is what natural means: it’s your ‘nature’.
It also feels natural to mind one’s own fucking business (literally), and I can never understand why Christians don’t. Do I care what you do in bed? I can truthfully say I don’t have the slightest interest. You people are irritating beyond belief (once again, literally).
And for your information, even though it is emphatically nobody’s business but ours, I have two children whom I adore and it doesn’t change my sexual orientation one skerrick, nor does my sexual orientation affect that relationship in any substantive way.
If paradise is full of people like you, cancel my booking immediately.
It seems you do not want to post the rather long reply I also emailed to Andrew. That is bias of course, so perhaps a few short comments to slightly balance would be acceptable.
I am not really sure what point Andrew was really trying to make about Lot and his daughters. Nevertheless, it is good to know he believe in the Bible stories.
It is not wise, though, to quote something you perhaps know little about. Especially taking an isolated incident and trying to establish a point based on it, when your starting premise is incorrect.
God judged both Lot and his daughters for the sin, they did not live happily ever after, no more needs to be said.
Andrew claims homosexuality is “innate’
Innate – Dictionary meaning – 1 : existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth : native , inborn 2 : belonging to the essential nature of something : inherent 3 : originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience.
Unless someone can prove that people are genetically ‘born’ with a same sex attraction, and nobody has, it cannot be innate.
I know a number of EX homosexuals and lesbians who actually thought they were born with a same-sex, innate, attraction and who lived that way for many years. They are now living very happy heterosexual lives. Some are married with children and one now has grand children. In most cases it was not an easy journey but they made it.
You cannot claim that people who leave the lifestyle were never true homosexuals – that is an argument that simply cannot be substantiated.
Yet, in Andrews second reply he tried to do just that by suggesting they were bisexual. This simply denies the evidence that they never had any desire for women before deciding their same-sex desire was wrong. Some do not even immediately go on to have relationships with women, some stay permanently single.
No society in history has acknowledged that homosexual relationships are “equivalent” to heterosexual relationships.
Like many statements Andrew makes this one comes with no evidence/substantiation.
You can think what you like Andrew but that does not make it a fact or make it right.
Sorry this is so long but blame Andrew.
Hi Andrew, thanks for writing.
I won’t try to contend with all your statements – just pick a few points to start with – perhaps we can discuss more of them if necessary.
I am not really sure what point you are really trying to make about Lot and his daughters.Nevertheless, it is good to know you believe in the Bible stories. It is not wise, though, to quote something you perhaps know little about. Especially like this – taking an isolated incident and trying to establish a point based on it, when your starting premise is incorrect.
Without going into too lengthy a clarification – any Bible will, in the footnotes tell you a few pertinent points.
Firstly, Lot was only saved from Sodom because he was related to Abraham and Abraham had pleaded with God not to destroy the City if there were, in fact, good people there. God knew Lot had tried to do the right thing and so He gave Lot, his wife, and two daughters a second chance. Lot then earned that chance by not allowing the homosexual men of Sodom to have sex with the male angels. by the way, the Bible does not mention any female angels.
Lot’s wife disobeyed God’s command not to look back (suggesting that she did not want to leave the immorality) and she suffered the immediate consequences.
Lot then sinned by allowing himself to get drunk and, in his drunken state, committing incest at the hands of his daughters.
One can see that Sodom’s sin was not just about homosexuality but sexual promiscuity generally which inevitably leads to homosexuality and other sin such as incest as in this story.
The result was certainly not “God not batting an eyelid”. Lot did not continued to receive favour from God, he died separated from God – his daughters had children that eventually became a lost people also separated from God.
The story, part of the whole story of the Bible, illustrates the destructive nature of sexual immorality. Thankfully we have forgiveness for sin today if we are truly repentant, otherwise, like Lot and his family, there will be eternal separation from God. Certainly not a happy ending!!!
What is your justification for saying “Homosexual relationships are innately right for homosexuals.”?
Unless someone can prove that people are genetically ‘born’ with a same sex attraction, and nobody has, it cannot be innate.
I know a number of EX homosexuals and lesbians who actually thought they were born with a same-sex, innate, attraction and who lived that way for many years. They are now living very happy heterosexual lives. Some are married with children and one now has grand children. You cannot claim that people who leave the lifestyle were never true homosexuals – that is an argument that simply cannot be substantiated.
The fact that you don’t agree with Peter Tatchell, is hardly evidence for innateness or that you are right . He actually states the truth, that people do change – both ways – and that the idea that sexual attraction is innate (born) is nonsense. He also points out the number of people who are bisexual make a lie of ‘innateness’.
You say, “Many societies have also acknowledged the special and equivalent relationship between people of the same sex-” and then you provide a long quote without stating where that comes from. Not a good debating strategy.
Anyone can say anything they like, Andrew, or quote any number of instances of abnormal or bad behaviour in history, but that is not give any indication they are right. Murder has existed from the time of Adam, but that does not make it right.
Homosexuality has always been a minority behaviour and has always been seen as an unnatural behaviour. God dealt very severely with anyone or any community that sank so low that such behaviour became acceptable. Bearing in mind that even when tolerated by those who did not engaged in it, it was never accepted a normal.
I found the next sentence to this quote (not quoted by you) rather interesting and contradictory. It said, “Such are impotent and womanish beings, who dress like women and perform the office of women, but use the bow and carry big loads. Among these Indians we saw many of them; they are more robust than the other men, taller, and can bear heavy burdens.”
This would seem to make them men rejected for their impotency and possibly transgender or transsexual rather then specifically homosexual – it does not actually state they had sex, but that they worked (for lazy men perhaps!).
The contradiction seems to be that they were “womanish beings” and yet “more robust than the other men”.
What is your justification for saying “this was a common practice from Alaska all the way into Mexico” ?
What is your justification for saying, “Every peak neurological, psychological and psychiatric body in the Western World agrees that homosexuality is an innate condition.” ? Frankly, and I don’t mean to be rude, this is a load of rubbish and you should know that. Even the APA have acknowledged that people do change.
Children? “A quick read of the newspaper any day of the year will reveal cases where this is clearly not the case.” Since when has the newspaper been a peer review journal. Bad cases are not good evidence. Of course there are some unhappy marriages and some abusive parents – that is a tragedy but it does not prove my point, which is based on good research,wrong. The vast majority of children live in very happy stable married relationships.
Statistics: I trust their number more than a single small study from La Trobe. I would not if I were you because the UK, 6%, figure was clearly wrong. If you go to you will see that only 2.6% of UK adults had had a homosexual partner in the last 5 years. Even that would inflate the figure but the rest of the stats suffer the clear bias of asking “have you ever had” – that sort of question is clearly aimed to distort the facts and boost the percentages.
The La Trobe study you don’t trust was of 20,000 Australians with a ‘special’ loading of 1,000 extra people from central Sydney. It was followed a year later by a Canadian study of over 80,000 people. The result? 1% of adults identified as homosexual.
Interestingly, the bisexual figure replicated the La Trobe finding that more women then men identify as bi-sexual. This correlation would suggest to most intelligent people that both the studies were pretty accurate. The La Trobe department doing the Sex in Australia study is very pro homosexual – which would suggest they are highly unlikely to give a figure that underestimates the facts.
If you read my submission more carefully, Andrew, you will note that I did not say “0.5 for same sex couples”. What I said.was that homosexual couples amounted to less than 0.5% of ALL Australian Couples – (married, de facto and same-sex). See our web site at: “Same sex couples make up 0.46 % of all couples in Australia. (19,594 couples 2001 census)”
The more recent 2006 census figures are available on a pro homosexual web site: These show a 1% increase on 2001 to just under 0.6% of ALL couples in Australia (24,683 same-sex couples = 0.587% of all couples counted in the census – 4.2 million.)
As for the comment about the number of couples ‘living together’ on census night – we noted the homosexual press, just prior to census night, actually encouraging people who do not normally live together to make sure they did that night ‘to boost the figures’. This would suggest the figures could well be inflated rather than deflated.
Finally, because I have already dealt with more than I intended too and could go on all day about your inaccuracies and lack of substantiation, I did not say there were “schools where all the kids want to be like the sissies”. Where did you dream that up from? You must let go of the emotion, Andrew, and stick to the facts. If you have any!
Phil says “But it sure feels NATURAL to me.”
Sorry, Phil, just because it feels natural for you, that does not mean it is. Biology is a much better indication as to what is natural than anyone’s feelings.
Smoking certainly feels natural to a lot of people but clearly isn’t, and because it isn’t, it has a lot of bad consequences – as does homosexual sex.
Even more to the point perhaps is the recent case of a father and daughter who had children through a consensual incestuous relationship – they both said it felt very natural for them to have such a relationship and called for it to be legalised – is it natural too Phil because it feels natural.
The reason for my submission was to give the Senate some facts, because, like your response, they and society are being fed nothing but personal feelings from the homosexual lobby.
Lastly, rudness usually indicates that you have no facts – you prove the point.
Yes, Peter, kinds of unnatural relationships which you believe to be morally equivalent to homosexuality despite their obvious differences. I seem to remember Lot getting off with his daughters after Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed and your God not batting an eyelid- now there’s some weird priorities for you.
I’m not the person who wrote the above column but here are a few comments on your Senate submission-
“…no innate right or wrong”
Homosexual relationships are innately right for homosexuals. Entering into loveless opposite gendered relationships is innately wrong for homosexuals. Expecting homosexuals not to express their sincere affection for each other in ways that are entirely lawful for heterosexuals is innately wrong.
“Almost every society since creation has acknowledged the special relationship between people of the opposite sex…”
Many societies have also acknowledged the special and equivalent relationship between people of the same sex- for example, Pre Columbian American peoples (Alvar Cabeza De Vaca c. 1530 AD “During the time I was among [the Indians] I saw something very repulsive, namely, a man married to another man”- this was a common practice from Alaska all the way into Mexico and examples of it in indigenous communities could still be found two whole centuries into while colonisation of the continent), the Ancient Celts who populated Spain, France, Belgium, Ireland and the British Isles (Diodorus Siculus c. 50 BC “The [Celtic] men are much keener on their own sex; they lie around on animal skins and enjoy themselves… Furthermore this isn’t looked down upon, or regarded in anyway disgraceful…”), and in China from times Ancient all the way up to the Modern period (“in Fujian there was a form of male marriage, a ceremony in which the older man referred to the younger as an “adoptive younger brother”. A carp, rooster and duck were sacrificed, and the men smeared each others mouths with the blood and swore eternal loyalty. The ceremony concluded with a feast. The younger man moved into the older man’s household and was treated as a son-in-law by the family”- Homosexuality: A History), and the Ancient Greeks of your Aristotle (though Greek society placed unfair restrictions on such relationships occurring between older men).
“Children… are best served by being raised by their biological mother and father”.
A quick read of the newspaper any day of the year will reveal cases where this is clearly not the case. As a society we allow single people to raise children- two parents of the same gender will obviously provide twice the support of one and their children can easily find opposite gender role models in their grandparents, uncles and aunts, teachers and close friends of the family. Research carried out by Government agencies in countries where obstacles to same gendered couples parenting have been removed show that their children are by and large no more disadvantaged. I personally know a number of happily heterosexual adults who were raised by same sex parents.
Your Statistics
Even if the 2% figure for same sex attracted Australians were true (when investigating the implications of the introduction of civil unions in the UK in 2005 the British Department of Treasury found that as many as 6 per cent of the population would be interested in entering into a long term same-sex relationship at some point in their lives- I trust their number more than a single small study from La Trobe), there are many ethnic and religious groups that number less than 2 percent of the Australian population- these people deserve the same consideration of their rights and needs as we do, and we as those who belong to larger groups. I note that not a single Christian denomination constitutes a majority of the Australian population- how about they shut up too?
Your figure of 0.5 for same sex couples, or one quarter of that supposed 2 percent is meaningless and your own emphasis reveals why- “However, only couples who stay together under the same roof on census night will be counted”- so every same sex relationship where one partner was overseas or interstate, travelling for work or study, visiting friends or family, jailed or hospitalised, briefly living apart while reconciling a relationship difficulty, or doesn’t read a gay newspaper every week which they would have to do to even know they could record their relationship, was not counted. This figure reveals nothing about the committedness of same sex relationships.
“Homosexuality is NOT an innate condition. There is no ‘genetic’ basis for same sex attraction”.
Every peak neurological, psychological and psychiatric body in the Western World agrees that homosexuality is an innate condition. Conditions do not have to be genetic to be innate- for example, lefthandedness and ambidextrousness are both inborn but not genetic. On the other hand the genetic mutation responsible for people having blue eyes has existed for less than 10,000 years. Environments cannot cause a person’s sexual orientation to change, they can either allow a person to accept and express it or force them to limit or repress it.
“Pier [sic] pressure of effeminate boys… can also contribute to a person feeling they are homosexual”
Please tell me where these schools are where all the kids want to be like the sissies.
As for your Tatchell quote, Peter Tatchell is a very ideologically driven man with a very ideologically framed idea of what it means to be gay. The general point in his writings on this topic seems to be that even if homosexuality was chosen, for reasons of individual freedom and liberty, it should still be legal. I agree with him on that point but there is now a mountain of evidence to demonstrate that homosexuality manifests itself in the same unconscious physiological and biological ways that heterosexual attraction does- choice does not explain these mechanisms. Gender attraction in sexuality is a spectrum- heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual are simply three points along it and there are people who naturally fit on all points of that spectrum. People don’t suddenly switch in mid-life to being bisexual, they simply hadn’t met the right person to turn their head until that time. Peter Tatchell is just one man, he is not the President or Pope of Gaydonia and we don’t receive telegrams from him every morning telling us what the gay agenda is this week.
Neither are the authors of the New Joy of Gay sex. I and many other gay men and lesbians do not share their views on sex outside of relationships or bringing third parties into relationships. Some do, but the vast majority of same sex couples interested in raising children do not.
That being said the number of married heterosexual Australians who visit prostitutes, who are having affairs, or who are swingers or in open relationships of other kinds would easily outnumber the entire gay population of Australia, yet I hear no calls from you for their benefits to be stripped back or their marriages annulled. You are picking on us because we are the thinnest end of the wedge- if you were sincere you would be attacking those heterosexuals as well.
“Members of Parliament need to clearly show how undermining marriage and family will benefit society” The Salt Shakers need to clearly show how any person’s relationship and family can “undermine” that of another. I would say that a relationship or family so weak to be that easily undermined must have other problems as well.
Emailed to Peter as well.
I am not in an unnatural relationship. An uncommon one, maybe, an atypical, minority, non-reproductive, historically stigmatised one perhaps. But it sure feels NATURAL to me.
That’s where this character’s speciousl argument breaks down. To pretend to claim that he is not comparing same-sex relationships with bestiality while coupling them under the same blanket term (“unnatural”) merely hows the depth of his hypocrisy. Precisely what is his submission supposed to achieve? To scare the Senate Committee back into inaction?
Personally, with no extra verification required, I submit that the Saltshakers can stick their salt up their arse and shake THAT!
I never mind SSO quoting me or commenting on what I say as long as you do it accurately.
The above is a distortion of what I said in my submission.
I started my submission by quoting Aristotle on justice and equality: -艙Justice demands that,
Equals ought to be treated equally and unequals ought to be treated unequally. I then said -艙The question Senators must ask themselves is, -藴Are all types of -藴relationships’ really equal?’
In my conclusion I actually said “if we [society] can decide that one type of unnatural relationship is equal to a natural marriage relationship, why can’t we decide that other types of unnatural relationship are also equal? … if we can decide that one type of unnatural relationship is equal to a natural marriage relationship, why can’t we decide that other types of unnatural relationship are also equal? What of multiple partner relationships -鈥� adult/child relationships -鈥� sibling relationships -鈥� even relationships with animals?
That does not, in any way, “compare” same-sex relationships with incest or bestiality. It actually states that they are -藴other types’ of unnatural relationships.
Stating they are all unnatural does not mean they are the same. Even though lesbian relationships and male homosexual relationships are very different they are spoken of under one ‘category’. So all unnatural relationships, including heterosexual multiple partners and promiscuity, fit under one category, but that does not mean one is saying they are the same.
I find it very interesting that you criticise the one part of my submission that could be called -藴emotive’, but do not challenge any of the many facts or substantive arguments contained in the submission.
Link to submission:
Editor’s Note: Peter, we will be sure to pass your comments on to the columnists who wrote this piece on your behalf.
I suspect the above comment was left here as part of a viral marketing campaign to promote the English language release of a Czech film called Coming Soon a work of fiction that takes the form of a documentary set in the near future in which advocates of bestiality have jumped on the tailcoats of the gay rights movement to seek recognition for themselves. I don’t know enough about the film yet to say whether it’s something we should be worried about or not but as they’ve set up a website that’s designed to look like it belongs to a “zoophile” rights organisation and the film plays it completely straight throughout I suspect that anti-gay fundamentalists will mistake it for the real thing and use it to renew their attacks using the old “gay marriage will lead to people marrying their pets” line while the film will probably too obscure for it to all blow up in their faces.
I agree fully with his article!
I also think it’s time to accept zoophiles and animals as absolutely equal!
This wasn’t always my opinion, but after seeing this new film called COMING SOON (streaming for free at ) about a new organization called E.F.A. () I changed my mind.
I can’t believe I did, but the film was amazing.
God bless us ALL!