Synopsis:
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are merely two forms of sexuality, with a wide spectrum of sexual orientations between them. Yet the social status accorded to homosexuals differs markedly from that enjoyed by heterosexuals in most societies. In my talk I intend to explain, on the basis of my own personal experience, how this state of affairs can affect the lives of homosexuals. I hope to pave the way for an open-minded discussion about the emotional and political issues surrounding homosexuality.
And yet ... why is it that people stare at us when we do things in public which are perfectly ordinary for a couple, such as holding hands? Why is it that my parents initially reacted with apprehension when I told them about our relationship rather than with joy, which is the way parents would usually react to their son's engagement to an intelligent, good-looking and healthy person? Why is it that my partner will have to be extremely careful about mentioning our relationship after qualifying as a teacher? The answer to all these questions is, of course, that my partner is male and that our relationship is a homosexual relationship.
It is clear from the reactions which I described that homosexuality is a topic worthy of discussion. It is also clear that talking about homosexuality really means discussing the ways in which people react to homosexuality. Just think how absurd it would be to have a one hour lecture on heterosexuality. Homosexuals form as diverse a group as heterosexuals and it would be similarly absurd to talk about homosexuals in a short lecture if it wasn't for one experience which almost all homosexuals share: the experience of some kind of conflict with the norms of the society in which they live.
Historically the reactions to homosexuality have ranged from conditional acceptance, e.g. in classical Greece, to persecution and extermination in Nazi Germany. There is probably also quite a range of attitudes amongst the members of the audience here, shaped by your different cultural backgrounds. Some may find a public discussion of homosexuality difficult to take part in, others may have heard before most of what I say tonight, and there will be some who are wondering about their own sexuality and for whom this talk might be directly, personally relevant.
I have organised my talk as follows. To begin with I'll explain some words, state some facts and explode some commonly believed myths about homosexuality. Then I'll present a case study of a homosexual, closely modelled on my own experience. Clearly it is difficult to draw general conclusions from such a personal account and the generalisations which I will make apply possibly only to male homosexuals in Western Europe and North America. I regret this limitation but feel that stepping beyond it would be venturing outside my area of competence. In the third part of my talk I'll attempt to identify those attitudes, mechanisms and institutions which marginalise homosexuals and often discriminate against them. I will also suggest specific ways in which these attitudes can be overcome.
I should also explain some colloquial terminology. ''Gay'' means light-hearted and carefree, but has also become the most popular synonym for homosexual. At the same linguistic level ''straight'' has come to mean heterosexual. Sometimes derogatory terms or labels for homosexuals have been appropriated by the homosexuals themselves in order to neutralise them. ''Queer'' is an example of such a word. A more extreme example is the pink triangle which was originally used by the Nazis to label homosexuals in concentration camps, but which has since then become the symbol of the political movement against the discrimination of homosexuals.
Let me tell you a few examples of what homosexuals are not. One common stereotype is that gay men are effeminate or that lesbian women are masculine. The image of the limp-wristed mincing weed is often used by comedians to suggest male homosexuality. The fact is that gay men come in all shapes and sizes. Of course there are effeminate gay men. But there are also effeminate straight men who must find it quite irritating that their behaviour should be interpreted as homosexual.
A related myth is that gay men love dressing up as women. Some do, but again so do some straight men. Transvestism is something quite distinct from homosexuality.
Related still is the belief that male homosexuals are really women trapped in men's bodies. Once again gay men are confused with something else entirely. This time it's transsexuals who are people absolutely convinced that they have been born into the wrong sex. Many of them eventually have surgical operations to have their sex changed.
The three stereotypes I have mentioned so far all stem from the assumption that one should understand homosexual relationships in terms of the roles played by men and women in heterosexual relationships. Thus many people seem to think that someone who loves a man must necessarily have ''female characteristics''. However, such a view is self-contradictory: at best it can account for the behaviour of one partner in a male gay relationship. It is also empirically wrong. The point is that a person's sex does not determine its sexuality.
Another myth confuses homosexuality with paedophilia, a sexual attraction to children. This confusion was evident in last year's parliamentary debate about the age of consent for homosexuals, when one MP expressed the fear that `older homosexual men would be queueing up outside the schools in my constituency' if the age of consent were lowered. Such fears are perpetuated by certain newspaper articles: reports in newspapers of homosexuals assaulting young boys invariably include the word homosexual. The word heterosexual never appears, even when it is appropriate. The fact is that the vast majority of sexual assaults on children are committed by heterosexual men on young girls.
I have organised my list of stereotypes in order of increasing popularity, and here is one which is very widespread. It is the belief that homosexuality is a phase which some people go through. This belief is fostered by the fact that the most visible homosexuals tend to be between, say, 18 and 28. As they grow older some homosexuals succumb to the pressures of society and get married, but this does not, of course, mean that they cease to be gay. Alternatively, ... well, what are the alternatives for middle aged or older homosexuals? No country in the world except Denmark and Holland provide a legal framework for stable homosexual relationships. In other words, the option of a gay marriage does not exist in most countries. This is an important point which I will come back to later. At this point let me simply point out: the fact that older homosexuals are less visible than younger ones does not mean that there are fewer middle aged or old homosexuals than young ones.
The syllogism ''I don't see you therefore you don't exist'' leads to another prejudice, namely that homosexuality is predominantly a white, western phenomenon. Thus, homosexuality was declared non-existent in China after the communist revolution. More recently the Chinese government admitted to the existence of 100 homosexuals in the country (in a population of over one billion!). It is obviously very difficult to obtain reliable information about the occurrence of homosexuality in different cultures because homosexuals will generally not admit to being gay in a country where the expression of their sexuality is a social taboo or even illegal. I think that the best ''working hypothesis'' is that the proportion of homosexuals is roughly the same in all countries, but that the proportion of visible homosexuals is strongly influenced by prevalent attitudes and legislation. Since I am speaking to a multi-cultural audience here I am curious to hear your views on this ''working hypothesis''.
Finally let me say something about a question whose rational discussion is often made difficult by all sorts of preconceptions, namely the question of the cause of homosexuality. In fact this way of asking the question -- ''Why are some people homosexual?'' -- Already implicitly assumes that one should understand homosexuality as a deviation from the ''normal'' heterosexuality. Let us not make this assumption and simply ask ''What determines the sexual orientation of an individual?'' Then, before we try to answer this question, let us be clear that it is a scientific question and thus should be answered scientifically. The answer should neither be influenced by nor have any bearing on our discussion of the emotional, moral and political aspects of homosexuality. It is precisely the confusion of these categories which makes the discussion of how sexuality is determined often heated and irrational.
One belief -- as opposed to a scientific theory -- which one encounters occasionally is that everybody is really heterosexual and that homosexual behaviour is ''wilful perversion''. According to this view homosexuals are out to shock mainstream society with their different behaviour. I guess it would follow that most homosexual men secretly entertain heterosexual relationships. I can assure you that this is not the case!
Similarly unfounded is the supposition that homosexuality is like a contagious disease which adolescents catch when they come into contact with older homosexuals. However, most homosexuals know that they are gay long before their first homosexual experience.
There are also a number of serious scientific theories of sexuality, but so far no fully convincing theory has been found, despite much research. Recently, however, there have been some remarkable investigations to decide whether homosexuality is genetically determined or learned. About six years ago researchers at Boston University found that brothers of homosexual men are five times as likely to be gay as brothers of heterosexual men. That in itself proved nothing because brothers share upbringing as well as genes, but it inspired a detailed study of the difference between identical twins, who essentially share all their genes, and non-identical twins, who share only half their genes. Researchers at Northwestern University looked at 110 pairs of twins and found that if a homosexual man had an identical twin, in 52% of the cases his twin was also gay; if he had a non-identical twin, in only 22% of the cases the twin was also gay. Some scientists see such a marked difference between identical and non-identical twins as strong evidence that sexuality is determined genetically. Others point out that the experience of being an identical twin is an usual one; being so close to someone might also have sexual effects. The science of gay and straight genes is often frustrating because of the difficulties in sampling and interpreting the data. We won't pursue it further here. Its results, interesting though they may be, have little bearing on the main topic of this talk.
I became aware of my sexuality at about the age at which everybody else in my class became aware of their sexuality. I realised that he had crushes on guys just as many other guys had crushes on girls when I was about 14. The difference was that I did not take those crushes very seriously. After all I had never seen two boys having a love relationship. What I had -- vaguely -- heard about it made such a relationship seem ridiculous or even downright criminal. In fact I had a girl friend from the age of 14 to 16. It was only after that relationship that I began to take my feelings for members of my own sex more seriously and that I called them homosexual. Of course that does not mean that I accepted them immediately. In the following two years -- the time I spent at AC -- I kept any homosexual feelings and any thoughts about homosexuality carefully locked up within myself.So far the case study. To what extent is this development typical? I suspect that essentially all adolescent homosexuals experience a sense of ''being different'' and an accompanying sense of isolation. Also, most homosexuals initially resist their homosexuality and later experience some kind of ''coming out ''. It may happen at school, it may happen a lot later. In our case study there was very little mention of the homosexual community and the gay rights movement, which play a much more important role in the lives of many homosexuals The broad aim of the gay rights movement is to combat discrimination against homosexuals. Specifically it aims to get homosexuality recognised as a human rights issue and to get all laws against homosexuals repealed. I agree with these goals but I also feel that the ultimate goal of the gay rights movement should be to make itself redundant. I look forward to a pluralistic society where homosexuality is considered ordinary and quite irrelevant to one's social status. I do not aim for a society where homosexuals and heterosexuals have equal rights but are distinct groups. For that reason I, like many other homosexuals, do not particularly feel part of a ''homosexual community'' even though I support most of it political goals. I do not want to be stigmatised by my homosexuality and therefore I resist the notion that I should adopt a ''gay lifestyle''. After all I am many other things apart from being gay.I still knew very little about homosexuality at this point. What happens to homosexuals when they grow up? What kind of relationship could I expect? Would I ever be able to talk openly about it? My attitude then was that this wasn't the time and place to explore these questions. Instead I, as they say, ''got on with my life''. After all there are plenty of things to occupy oneself with at AC. This suppression came remarkably easily to me, but I knew that it wasn't a permanent solution. I expected that after AC, at university, it would either ''sort itself out'' i.e. disappear, or else I would confront it then.
However, when I moved to Bonn, where I was to study physics for the next three years I still did not explore my homosexual feelings as actively as I could have done. There are gay societies at all universities in western Europe and gay clubs and bars in all major cities but I did not make use of any of theses facilities. Cowardice was one reason. But even when I overcame this initial barrier and joined gay meetings I did not feel at ease there. Too many homosexuals at these meetings seemed content to think of themselves as being apart form the rest of society, and many emphasised that distinction through their dress. However, exclusion from main stream society, voluntary or otherwise, was precisely what I did not want.
Soon after arriving in Bonn, I did, however, have my first homosexual relationship. Although it was brief, it was in many ways a very happy experience. Afterwards I felt sufficiently sure of my homosexuality to talk about it to some of my closest friends, to ''come out'' to them. My friends' reactions were, without exception, positive and encouraging, but I nevertheless continued to regard my homosexuality as a problem. I still did not have the courage to be completely open about it and found the thought of breaking the news to my family worrying. When I entertained the prospect that this division between my private thoughts and my public self should remain part of my life I got depressed. It was only after another change of place that I overcame the division.
After three years in Bonn I moved to Cambridge to study for a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. In Cambridge I wasn't restricted by the image that I had allowed my acquaintances in Bonn to construct of myself. Moreover I soon met homosexual students in Cambridge who were completely open about their homosexuality. Also, my new circle of friends, though predominantly heterosexual, discussed homosexuality in a very matter-of-fact and easy-going manner. It slowly dawned on me that the whole fuss he had been making about my homosexuality was entirely unwarranted. I had my first long-term homosexual relationship and made no attempt to hide it from anyone -- it was bliss. I also suddenly felt a great urgency to talk to my family about my sexuality. Coming out to my parents was one of the emotionally most difficult experiences of my life. Perhaps this was because I had waited so long. I had left my parents with a certain image of myself -- that I would follow their example, get married and have children -- for such a long time that it was very painful for them to abandon it when I told them that I was gay. My sister accepted my homosexuality immediately and without any difficulty, which in turn helped my parents overcome the initial shock. I now feel that my coming out has revived and deepened the bond to my family. If I had persisted in my secrecy I would have removed myself further and further from them. My only regret today is that I did not tell them earlier.
The gay rights movement has long campaigned that Amnesty International (AI) should adopt persons who are imprisoned for the expression of their homosexuality just as it adopts persons imprisoned by reason of their political or religious beliefs. Certain sections of AI, for example the British section, support this view but so far motions to amend the statute of AI accordingly have always been defeated in meetings of the AI international council. However, at the meeting in Yokahama in 1991 it was agreed to interpret the definition of prisoner of conscience (in section 1.a of the statute) to include some of those who are imprisoned for engaging in consenting homosexual acts. Since then AI has campaigned for the decriminalisation of homosexuality on the Isle of Man (successfully) and in Tasmania (unsuccessfully so far) and it has made presentations about sexual orientation matters to the authorities in Greece, Brazil and Rumania.
I look forward to the day when AI officially declares its support for all those imprisoned solely because of their sexuality. However, at present there is also a danger that in some countries such a step would diminish AI's effectiveness in its traditional objectives. After all, AI is not the world's conscience but simply an organisation which plays a specific role in the protection of human rights. To maintain its effectiveness it needs to proceed carefully. But proceed it should!
In the UK the law against homosexuality was partly repealed in 1967 and homosexual acts were permitted between consenting adults over the age of 21 in private. By contrast the age of consent for heterosexuals is 16. Last year, the British parliament debated a motion to lower the age of consent for homosexuals. Unfortunately the outcome was only a compromise which failed to establish equal legal status for homosexuals. The age of consent was lowered, but only to 18 years.
A further recent piece of legislation which is relevant here is contained in a local government bill of 1988. Clause 28 of that bill forbids local authorities to ''promote teaching in any maintained school on the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.'' If this were a state school I would have asked for legal advice before giving this talk!
Clause 28 and the higher age of consent for homosexuals are instances of discrimination through restrictive laws, but there is also discrimination in that homosexual couples are barred from certain privileges enjoyed by straight couples. As I mentioned before, the only countries where there is a legal framework for stable homosexual relationships are Denmark and Holland. This has practical consequences -- for example my partner and I could not, like heterosexual couples, apply for married accommodation at Durham university; should I get a job in the US, say, my partner could not easily obtain a visa to accompany me. Moreover this state of affairs perpetuates the view that homosexual relationships are inherently unstable. It is a vicious circle: the absence of a legal framework and visible role models, and the social difficulties of having open gay relationships make it so much harder for homosexuals than for heterosexuals to form long-term relationships. The apparent absence of such relationships in turn reinforces the low public opinion of homosexual relationships. For this reason I consider the legal recognition of gay couples as one of the most urgent steps to end discrimination against homosexuals.
A more controversial question concerns adoption rights for homosexuals couples. Should homosexuals have the right to adopt children? This issue is more complex than the ones considered so far because it involves a third party, the child. Perhaps we can come back to this point in the discussion after my talk.
There are other, more subtle forms of discrimination, which are not enshrined in law and which are much harder to change. The term ''homophobia'' is frequently used to describe negative or hostile attitudes to homosexuality. Literally it means fear of homosexuality. I already mentioned common negative stereotypes of homosexuals in the first part of my talk and will now point out a few specific manifestations of homophobia.
It is, for example, almost impossible for a homosexual school teacher to be open about his sexuality. It is remarkable that even amongst liberal, open-minded people the notion of entrusting their children to a homosexual teacher often creates unease. Are they worried about sexual harassment? I then point out that there are many more incidents of heterosexual teachers sexually harassing their pupils. Are they worried about their children becoming homosexual merely by being taught geography by a homosexual teacher? I then point out that I am still gay despite growing up in an almost exclusively straight environment. And I like to add: even if your child were to become gay -- what would be so bad about that?
The Christian churches provide another example of an environment where being gay can lead to difficulties. The official Roman Catholic position is that it tolerates homosexual members but that it does not tolerate homosexual relationships. A couple of weeks ago the British Cardinal Hume went beyond this by stating that homosexual relationships were acceptable as long as they did not involve sexual contact. I grant that this position is at least consistent with the general Catholic practice that every form of sex is sinful unless it is between husband and wife and capable of leading to conception. Where I personally disagree with the official catholic position (and I suspect many Catholics do as well) is in the belief that sex is only allowed when capable of leading to conception. Instead I think of sex as an essential expression of any love relationship. At that level, there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual sex. What I want to stress is that it is inconsistent to agree with me on this point and thento argue that heterosexual couples should be granted the privilege of marriage (and hence be allowed sex), but that homosexual couples should be barred from it.
The official position of the Anglican Church is much harder to discern. Some bishops will not ordain a priest who is openly gay, others will. Do Anglicans regard homosexual genital acts as sinful or not? Even the recent House of Bishop's statement, Issues in Human Sexuality, is not clear on this point. The sheer number of gay Christian discussion groups and meetings indicates the complexity of the relationship between Christianity and homosexuality. I also know through personal contact with gay Christians that many see a conflict between their religion and their sexuality, and that it causes them much pain. Not being a Christian myself I find it hard to comment on this conflict. However, at least I can point out that it ain't necessarily so: there are clearly Christians who see no conflict whatsoever.
I cannot leave the discussion of homosexuality and the church without at least mentioning some recent events which have attracted much press coverage. Last year, Michael Turnbull, the designated successor to David Jenkins as the Bishop of Durham was almost not appointed because he had been caught (and convicted for) having sex with another man decades ago. During the past weeks the Anglican bishops Derek Rawcliffe and David Hope have made some remarkably open statements about their sexuality. However, it has also become clear that they were pressured into making these statements (''outed'') by the gay pressure group OutRage! Unfortunately the resulting picture in the national press was not one of increasing openness in the Anglican church but one of mudslinging between the Anglican church and the gay rights movement. OutRage! Has been heavily criticised for its policy of ''outing'' public figures. While I agree that both the justification and the effectiveness of ''outing'' is questionable, I was appalled by the hypocrisy and homophobia shown by some tabloid newspapers. The Sun referred to Tatchell as ''an Australian-born Vietnam draft dodger''. Yet The Sun itself time and again runs cover stories with lurid revelations of personal details about public figures. Then they don't call it ''outing'' but ''investigative journalism''. With this kind of reporting a good opportunity for public debate has been wasted.
It would require another lecture and another speaker to explore the relationship between Christianity and homosexuality fully. Perhaps we can come back to it during the discussion and possibly benefit from the expertise that some of you might have.
To end, I highlight two more ways in which attitudes towards homosexuals could be enlightened. The first concerns homosexuals themselves. Over the last decade it has become a lot easier, at least in the western world, for homosexuals to be open about their sexuality. I feel that more should seize this chance. Nothing more effectively enlightens peoples' attitude to homosexuality than learning that somebody they have known and respected for a long time is gay. I think it is not sufficient and in the long run counter-productive to be ''out'' in the homosexual community, on gay pride marches and so on, and to be secretive about one's sexuality at work, amongst one's friends etc.. It is not easy to find a natural way of being open about one's homosexuality. As a general rule I try to mention my partner, and hence my homosexuality, whenever I imagine a heterosexual would do it. Even that can be awkward. For example, when I took up my job in Durham I was on a couple of occasions invited for dinner by senior colleagues. Such invitations are often accompanied by questions about my marital status, with the implication that if I had a wife she would be invited as well. I still find it difficult in that situation to say that I do have a partner but that he is male.
Secondly I feel that every effort should be made to open young minds about homosexuality. Contrary to the spirit of clause 28 I think that it should be made a topic that students at secondary school can discuss openly. Much unhappiness amongst adolescents who wonder about their sexuality could be avoided this way and moreover those who consider themselves to be straight would question their attitude to homosexuality at an early stage. Clearly UWC's are particularly appropriate schools for such discussions, aiming as they do at the elimination of prejudice and discrimination. So much could be gained, by everybody.
In preparing this talk, I have used the following books and journals: