Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 30, No. 11. 1967.

Bi-sexual student gives homosexual case — Sex series concluded

Bi-sexual student gives homosexual case
Sex series concluded

The two articles in recent issues of Salient on the problems posed by homosexuality seem to me to have a common theme; they both ask that the homosexual should be tolerated by other, more fortunate, members of society.

John Murray in his article Christianity and Homosexuals states "that where people cannot enjoy the fullness of human relationship in the normal way. the Church should help them by accepting, without prejudice or stigma, their abnormalities and by finding ways for them to enjoy the companionship and love of another person which God desires for everyone."

Dr. Taylor in his article states: "Society has a right to endorse heterosexuality, but not at the expense of making scapegoats of the substantial minority of its members who by the nature of their upbringing are unable to share the heterosexual ideal."

Both writers in their articles see the homosexual as an unfortunate individual unable to share in the normal life of society and ask that such a person should be allowed to live his life freely, inside the law, and without rejection by society.

To me it would seem that this is the desirable attitude to take towards the homo-sexual but. at a time when reform of the law is being widely advocated I feel that it should be asked whether or not law reform will ease the homosexual's lot and engender this desired attitude in society.

To examine this question I think it is necessary first to examine the homosexual's lot now. and then to ask what differences reform of the law can be expected to make.

The current issue of University Focus carries an article on homosexual law reform. The author refers to an essay in Time Magazine on homosexuality and quotes what he considers to be the essay's sensible conclusion; that homosexuality "is a pathetic little second-rate substitute for reality, a pitiable flight from life." The quotation goes on to say that homosexuality deserves fairness, etc.. but it is this initial statement that intrigues me.

It is my contention that for that substantial minority homosexuality is an absolute reality. While it is reasonable to say it is not the sexual inclination of the majority. I feel that for that minority homosexuality is not an alternative or an escape but a very real sexual and emotional preference.

I saw recently a letter in which one man expressed his love for another. I have no reason to doubt its sincerity. It was a genuine attempt by one human being to tell an-other of his love for him. I mention it as an example of the fact that men can feel as strongly for one another as can a man for a woman.

The emotion is the same, the desire is the same, society reacts differently. And because society reacts differently the homosexual has to make three adjustments not asked of the heterosexual.

Firstly he has to adjust to the fact that he can never live within society with a per-son he loves as can a hetero-sexual.

Secondly, he has to adjust to the fact that when he "falls in love" with someone and wishes to express this physically, or when he is physically attracted to someone, then any manifestation of this is illegal.

Thirdly, he has to accept himself as a homosexual—a person who is "different," "queer," "camp."

The heterosexual has to make none of these adjustments.

I believe that the homosexual's greatest problem is having to accept himself as different from his associates, his parents, his brothers. Difficulties in acceptance of one's homosexuality appear to be many; basically I think they stem from the society and from the person's upbringing. Old taboos have to be broken, family expectations may have to be disappointed—they all point to the notice "I'm different."

I think inability to accept himself is what often turns the homosexual into the caricature society has created for him—because he cannot accept himself his homosexuality is magnified out of all proportion and it becomes the centre of his life. He becomes, in effect, dominated by his sex organs and all his energy is directed towards the sexual part of his life—which I do not think of great importance.

The fact that he is so involved with his sexuality is a possible reason why many homosexuals seem to me to be unsuccessful in their careers, or to have second-rate careers from a social standpoint.

The energy which another man may put into his career is channelled away by the demands of his sexuality. The successful homosexual seems to me to be the man who can say: "Well. Ok. I'm a homosexual, there's nothing I can do about it. it's nothing to be ashamed of or proud of. it is a fact." Having said that he can proceed with the rest of his life as does a heterosexual and he only differs in bed.

During the past few issues Salient has presented various views on the question of homosexuality.

This article is printed to present the view- of a sometime homosexual.

The writer argues the practice should be accepted as an alternative to heterosexuality and not as a perversion.

I think a man needs to be involved in something larger than himself in order to truly realise his capabilities—he needs some aim (for many heterosexuals the successful rearing of a family is enough —there is no corresponding activity for the homosexual), Sex is simply not in this category—it is not important enough. In addition to this I think it is only in the realisation, or partial realisation of a person's capabilities that any measure of happiness can be found.

Presuming the homosexual makes the personal adjustment he then has to cope with society and with the law. The necessity for the legal adjustment, which I hope will shortly disappear, seems so ridiculous to me that I think it hardly bears mentioning except that it makes the homosexual's life harder than the heterosexual's.

The social adjustment is also extremely difficult. Recently a homosexual friend of mine was with a girl at a dance hall in town. He was beaten up to the extent of a broken nose and two black eyes by a person older and stronger than himself on the grounds that a "homosexual should not go out with girls."

Most of us have observed incidents which although not as violent as the one cited above, carry the same prejudice. It is easy to say that such a prejudice is irrational but not so easy to cultivate tolerance in the beholder.

To return to the specific problem of homosexual law reform, one does of course advocate it (that such reform should ever have to take place is indicative of an irrational society) but in advocation it must be realised that it will not solve many of the homosexual's problems.

The homosexual's adjustment to life, after his personal adjustment, is simplified by the removal of the fact that he is acting outside the law when he expresses his sexual-emotional desires. The knowledge that he is acting legally should make the personal adjustment easier and perhaps also make him feel that there is nothing insidious about his feelings of affection for others.

But this "perhaps" result of law reform may be hampered by society itself, for I do not think that law reform will alter greatly the feelings of the people.

While many people will say that the homosexual should be allowed to live freely, they will say it in very broad terms —and their tolerance is not the result of rationality (not to say it is a pose) but rather for them the problem exists on a hypothetical level and when the problem becomes closer their reaction may be very different. (I once heard a conversation which I think is analogous: "I'm sure there must be some nice Jews, but . . .")

The conversation of a "liberal" person with regard to homosexuality may become: "I'm sure a lot of homosexuals must be good people and I think they should be allowed to do as they like—somewhere else."

To conclude, as I see it the law with regard to the homosexual should be reformed— to enable him to lead a more enjoyable and useful life; but before this more enjoyable and useful life can be realised society will have to do more than allow the repealing of an archaic law.