In this second part of his look back at the most often-used arguments against Homosexual Law Reform in the mid 1980s, David Parrish discovers sexuality based sexual diseases, the selective Bible, and invisible lesbians. And what happened to the Coalition of Concerned Citizens' American guru. One of the central arguments against Homosexual Law Reform, as proposed by the Coalition of Concerned Citizens, aka the CCC, was that the ‘typical homosexual lifestyle' not only encourages, but is also ‘responsible' for ‘homosexually-related diseases' including AIDS. In fact, they devoted three points of their ten-part treatise to hammering home this message. “The practices in which homosexuals typically engage are extremely unsanitary,” said the CCC. They go on to say, not so surprisingly, that around 90 per cent of gays practice ‘sodomy,' and a whopping 98 per cent practice fellatio, which they describe rather endearingly as ‘sucking or licking of the penis.' Clearly someone should have told straight people that such practices are dirty and women should best steer clear of their husbands' filthy appendage! But it wasn't just the anal and oral sex that irked the CCC. Licking of the arse is practiced by 98 per cent of us, they said - in fact, arse licking outstrips arse fucking in the popularity stakes! But wait, there's more! One in four of us practice ‘torture' in the bedroom, one in five of us pisses or defecates on our lovers, and quite a few stick wine and beer bottles up our backsides! The result of such arse-centred and scat-motivated frivolity was claimed to be a veritable host of diseases, including higher rates of syphilis, gonorrhoea, pubic lice and so forth. Furthermore, no ‘chastity value' prevents frequent and casual sex, and shockingly enough, they claimed, “there is no hindrance in, or the possibility of, one partner saying no, as can happen with the female partner in a heterosexual relationship.” Scat, promiscuity and rape seemed to be the order of the day. The Gay Task Force (GTF) may have been excused for being gob smacked by such outlandish claims, or at least, left wondering why they weren't getting their fair share of arse-licking action. But, as dispassionately as ever, they unpack these falsehoods. The CCC's references for their scattergram research either “give no support whatever to the figures they are claimed to establish; or, are wholly discredited,” wrote the GTF. They went on to cite the latest statistics available on each of the non-HIV related infections, and noted, with some restraint, that rates of gonorrhoea and other nasties were actually in decline among gay male populations, both in the US and here in New Zealand. THE SELECTIVE VIRUS And then there was AIDS. The CCC and the GTF agreed, “death from AIDS is virtually inevitable... and is a painful lingering death.” They also agreed “we cannot stand by and allow people to become involved in a lifestyle that could lead to such an end.” But the common thread ended there. For the CCC, AIDS was “spread by homosexual behaviour” which includes the “ingestion of faeces and semen through the mouth or into the blood stream [which] is known to reduce the immune system [and] promote AIDS.” Indeed, the solution for Paul Cameron, the CCC's eminent sexual guru and disgraced American ‘researcher,' was the quarantine and ultimate extermination of gays to halt the epidemic. The GTF couldn't for the life of them see how “a germ can identify and selectively infect people by their sexual orientation” - in fact, “AIDS is not actually an argument against homosexual law reform but an argument for it.” The threat of criminal sanction encouraged, it said, “people to conceal their homosexuality” and thus “fail to seek appropriate medical and sexual advice.” The gay community has done more to deal with the epidemic than anyone else, said the GTF, acting as ‘guinea pigs' for new medications and educating both gay and straight communities on safe-sex practices and demystifying the HIV virus. The ‘lifestyle' that needed to be stemmed, said the GTF, is actually unsafe sex, and the more gays are kept underground by discriminatory laws, the less effectively this message can be disseminated. And the gay community was actually doing wider society a favour, noted the GTF. The gay community has “done more than any part of this society to actually achieve the necessary lifestyle modifications” to blunt the AIDS epidemic. The CCC then resorted to an argument so thin on substance, the GTF labeled it an ‘opinion piece.' The CCC made the dubious assertion that there is a “link between the acceptance of homosexual behaviour and other negative societal changes that affect all of us.” As it turned out, this was an oblique attempt to link gays with paedophilia once again, a fixation that to this day just won't roll over for these concerned citizens. They didn't even attempt to back up their argument with research and had the audacity to link the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) with the “gay movement” and actually used a quote associated with novelist Ernest Hemingway in support of their case. “Send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.” Their point? That “no-one is an entity unto himself” and “acceptance of homosexual behaviour sets the scene for the acceptance of paedophilia.” The single piece of so-called research the GTF could find to support this linkage was once again Dr Paul Cameron, which the CCC conveniently failed to reference. But as he “is utterly discredited and an incorrigible liar on the subject,” riposted the GTF, they moved on. Research of the day pointed to nothing more than a “random connection” between gay men and paedophilia - in fact creditable research found that “homosexuality and homosexual paedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.” Besides, said the GTF, a linkage could just as easily be drawn “between homophobia and other negative societal consequences.” They conceded this would be an opinion - but one that does seem to be substantiated by current evidence. “The family break-ups caused by homophobia are facts. The suicides caused by homophobia are facts.” THE BIBLE AS ARBITER OF MORALITY Finally, in their penultimate argument, the CCC staked their true colours to the mast. The Bible “has been a guiding light for many generations of civilised society,” the CCC loftily claimed, “and it must therefore be a matter of great concern” that the Bible teaches against homosexuality. Leaving aside the fact that billions of non-Christians may take umbrage with the ‘civilising' power of Christianity, the wholesale import of ‘selective' biblical interpretation into secular government, is a cause for concern for all of us, responded the GTF. The CCC listed the eight oft-cited references to homosexuality in the Bible, concluding, unsurprisingly that homosexuality is sinful and punishable by the wrath of God. The GTF gently pointed out that many, if not all, of the biblical references can easily be reinterpreted as condemnation of temple prostitution or erstwhile straight people jumping the fence - a condemnation of bisexuality perhaps? But what is surprising, they said, “is that homosexual acts are referred to so infrequently.” Compare and contrast the eight references to homosexuality with the 20 passages condemning usury (lending money with interest), the 23 condemning witchcraft, the 44 against fornication and a whopping 80 Bible verses that speak out against adultery. The CCC foresaw the inevitable comparison with adultery, and made the preemptive strike: “Homosexuality is not just sinful; it is also unnatural and abnormal.” They left that statement just hanging, with no further discussion. Public condemnation of adulterers and mortgage brokers would clearly vindicate the CCC's biblically inspired platform, and of course, their historical counterparts tried their best with witches. But in lieu of such a non-selective Christian programme, the GTF provide an introductory theological lesson. The Bible has far more to say on issues such as “human relations in general, the role of civil law, and justice for the oppressed and marginalised.” In this sense, the Bible provides ample justification for homosexual law reform within a secular government. “Justice,” wrote the GTF, “is fundamental to the way most people treat people in society and in the law.” So unless we're going to start locking up wayward spouses and banking executives, we'd best be consistent, and allow adults to engage in consensual gay sex. KEEPING WOMEN IN THEIR PLACE Clearly running out of steam, the CCC returned to the evil influence homosexuals supposedly exert over children. They claimed that law reform would supplant traditional “Christian values with humanist values” in the school syllabus, and as “homosexuality is... a learned behaviour, then homosexuality will increase.” New Zealand history seems to have completely escaped the CCC, as “free, secular and compulsory” education was enshrined in the Education Act 1877, and has been the thrust of primary and secondary public education ever since. Parents have broad oversight of any sex education their children may receive, and such programmes, as they existed in the mid-80s did “not deal with procreation or conception, let alone sexual roles, sexual orientation or lifestyles.” Sex education essentially addressed the changes associated with puberty. But the CCC was more concerned with the nefarious influences of gay teachers who “may become more active than they already are, and may use opportunities... to promote the homosexual lifestyle.” Indeed, the “blurring of sex-roles of men and women” had already weakened defences against the ‘homosexual agenda,' such blurring being “a contributory factor in the increase of homosexuality.” The GTF poured scorn over those spurious claims. “The CCC's concerns... are unfounded in law” and expose the crux of their worldview: that men are men and women are women with our respective roles inviolable. One could be excused for thinking the CCC didn't think lesbians were even homosexual. For them, the term solely referred to gay men, in keeping with their sodomy fixation. “The CCC booklet scarcely mentions lesbian women,” noted the GTF, which is “a clear reflection of the CCC's general dismissal of women as mere appendages to men... This is a clear “indication of what their policies in respect to women are likely to be: stereotypic, and concerned with ‘traditional values' like submission and invisibility.” For the CCC lesbians are “not equipped” to engage in anal sex, and thus there is “an absence of law against lesbianism.” In fact, “the Crimes Act prohibits ‘indecency' between a girl under the age of 16 and a woman over the age of 21,” the GTF pointed out, but the absence of wider sanction is more telling. The British Parliament had tried to criminalise lesbianism, but decided against it so as not to encourage the practice! “Women were best left ignorant of sexual matters, in case they might learn to express their sexuality.” THE INVISIBLE LESBIANS Homosexual law reform was essential for gay women as well as men, given they were essentially tarred with the same brush, and suffered under the weight of prejudice and misunderstanding directed at all homosexuals, by the likes of ‘concerned citizens,' as typified by the CCC. “The decriminalisation of male homosexual activity benefits lesbians in that it removes all consensual adult sexual activity from its links with criminality,” said the GTF. “This will have the effect of decreasing institutionalised homophobia... for at the present time lesbians are often treated as if they are criminals...” regardless of their relative lack of criminal sanction. Legislation targeting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was not passed until 1993, but homosexual law reform was a necessary precursor to the amendment of the Human Rights Act, and lesbians fought alongside gay men in both campaigns, recognising that the law, as it stood pre-1986, effectively enveloped all homosexuals. It was really the anti-feminist agenda that led the CCC to ignore lesbians, observed the GTF, as any attempt to break out of the mould of demure housewife was a threat to traditional family values that included service to men. In fact, all homosexuals were regarded as a threat to the dominant position of men in society, and the opponents of reform viewed this threat through the prism of, of all things, communism. The Cold War was still raging and the fear of “reds under the beds” was transformed. Now we had ‘pinks under the bed,' threatening to bring down Western capitalist democracy, and all its trappings. The CCC pointed to the many avenues for inculcating children in devious homosexual ways, and their apparent acknowledgment of the inherent irresistibility of same-sex desire gave the impression there could be little resistance, if it weren't for the concern of conservative Christians mobilising against law reform. THE COMMUNIST PLOT Another of the CCC's imported campaigners, Jack Swan, visiting New Zealand at the time, warned of the close connections between gay and lesbian rights movements across the world. “The homosexual network is worldwide and it's extremely powerful,” he flatly stated. We had ‘communist backing' and, referring to press releases by New York gay and lesbian activists, he observed: “It sounds more like [they were] written in Moscow...” A New Zealand right-wing rag, ‘The Senate' was more colourful in describing the local homosexual law reform campaign. “The seething mass of woolly-jerseyed and tight-trousered deviants went about their covert task with great gusto... [sponsoring MP] Fran Wilde's dirty tricks brigade has been exposed for what they really are - another arm of the creeping communist revolution.” If spreading communist ideology was the hidden agenda of New Zealand's mid-80s gay and lesbian activists, then they surely failed. The Berlin Wall was torn down in 1989 and the Soviet Union collapsed just a few years later. However, homosexual law reform passed the year after the CCC's publication of its ten-point argument, and amendments to the Human Rights Act removed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation seven years after that. The CCC, which had pulled out all the stops - slandering gays and lesbians, talking incessantly of anal penetration, faeces and paedophilia - disbanded shortly after attempting to sway the 1987 election, which saw most MPs who had voted for Homosexual Law Reform returned with increased majorities. CAMERON: THE SUED AND DISCREDITED LONELY VOICE But what ever happened to Paul Cameron, the guru researcher relied upon so heavily by the CCC and their band of not-so-merry followers? He can no longer call himself a psychologist, thanks to the censure of the American Psychological Association. Not even a sociologist, after also being dropped from the American Sociological Association, for “consistently misinterpreting and misrepresenting research on sexuality, homosexuality and lesbianism” and “repeatedly campaigning for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men.” Cameron has been sued by numerous bona fide academics for distorting their research for his own ends. He now describes himself, rather innocuously, as a “researcher/clinician” and continues to produce sodomy-fixated leaflets for distribution to whomever will take him seriously. The CCC took his work as gospel, in a badly misjudged move aimed at swaying the hearts and minds of everyday New Zealanders. Thanks to our gay and lesbian rights campaigners of the mid-80s, the charade was exposed, and the country moved on. The incessant and public discussion of the sex lives of gays and lesbians could return to its rightful place - the bedroom. David Parrish - 3rd July 2006