Gay Spin City

By any standard, it has been an extraordinary transformation.

Thirty years ago, homosexuality was the practice of a small and virtually unseen minority, a marginalised sub-culture viewed with suspicion and distaste by society at large. How quickly things have changed. Within the span of a generation, our society seems to have moved from condemnation to open acceptance and promotion. Now the suspicion and condemnation is of those who might speak ill of homosexuality.

Perhaps the most potent symbol of this transformation in Australia has been Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. From its beginnings as a small, counter-cultural protest march in 1978, the event has become a juggernaut no longer even requiring its sexual adjectives. It is now known simply as 'Mardi Gras' and is touted as the largest and most important festival on Sydney's calendar. It is broadcast as prime time on network television, with breathless commentary from popular personalities, and live crosses to cross-dressed roving reporters.

According to prime time television, what was considered deviant 30 years ago is now a perfectly normal and healthy part of the community. How has our society changed to this extent in such a relatively short space of time? What has driven this remarkable transformation? In this short article, I want to consider that question from just one angle - the angle of spin.

Public persona

In many respects, the victories of the gay lobby over the past 30 years have been PR victories.

Homosexuality is not more prominent and 'normal' today because of a massive increase in the number of homosexuals (the best most recent studies put the figure at between 1 and 2% for men, and less than 1% for women). Nor have there been any major scientific breakthroughs or discoveries that might account for the process of 'normalisation' that we have witnessed.

What has changed is the portrayal of homosexuality in public discourse - in newspapers, magazines, film, and the electronic media. The public persona of homosexuality has received a complete makeover, which has largely taken place through the hard work and campaigning of gay activists. They have succeeded in winning to their cause the opinion shapers and ideological gatekeepers of our community.

The 1970s

This PR triumph has had several landmarks. One of the first was the decision in 1973 by the American Psychiatric Association to declassify homosexuality as a treatable disorder. It is now known that this decision was taken in large measure because of the behind-the-scenes activity and funding of the National Gay Task Force. The NGTF understood well that if the APA could be persuaded to remove homosexuality from its books, it could be argued that being gay was perfectly normal and acceptable, like left-handedness.

It is worth noting, however, that in the 1970s and early 1980s, the focus of gay protests and PR was quite different from what we are used to hearing today. During the 1970s, the gay lobby was insistent that homosexuality was a choice, not a biological given. The key phrase in policy formation and anti-discrimination lobbying at this time was 'sexual preference', not 'sexual orientation'. In information kits, policy documents and public discussion, homosexuality was portrayed as an alternative lifestyle choice that could be experimented with and chosen. Leaders in the movement were alarmed at the prospect that if homosexuality were seen as having a biological or even psychological 'cause', then it could be bred out or cured. The activists of the 70s vehemently defended their right to choose their form of sexuality, and sought to persuade political parties and the media to support them in this right.

The 1980s

In the middle to late 80s all this changed, and it is not unreasonable to suggest that the AIDS crisis was a significant factor. If homosexuality was a lifestyle choice, then AIDS represented a terrible curse on this choice, with wider health ramifications for society as a whole. The radical sexual choice of promiscuous homosexuality was no longer an exciting free-love product that could easily be sold.

However, if gayness was not a choice but a biological inevitability, then AIDS could be cast as a further terrible cross for an already stigmatised minority to bear. The PR presentation of homosexuality became less the hip and radical lifestyle alternative and more the biological flipside to normal heterosexuality. The cliche of the loving gay couple in a stable long-term relationship became a staple of gay publicity and a regular ingredient in popular films (e.g. Four Weddings and a Funeral).

The gay lobby's own polling showed them that this was the way to go. Their PR research told them that if ordinary people could be convinced that homosexuality had an innate biological cause, then they would be more inclined to be tolerant of homosexuality. As Kirk and Madsen argued in After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Hatred of Gays in the 1990s, the key to changing people's attitudes was first to desensitise them to the 'oddity' of homosexuality, to portray gays as normal people, 'just like us'. The biological argument was important for this, because it placed gays in the category of a 'normal' minority.

The 1990s

The widely reported studies of the early 90s, which purported to show some kind of biological or genetic 'cause' for homosexuality, were thus a boon for the gay cause. It allowed them to run hard with the argument that being gay was simply the way some people were born, and that to deny or repress it was pointless. Moreover, if 'gayness' were simply part of the biological norm, then it could not be treated in any way as being harmful, dirty, sinful or deviant.

That these studies were stringently criticised by other scientists in their fields as being poor methodologically, and that the results failed to be repeated in subsequent experiments, never got in the way of a good media story. 'Science discovers gay gene' was the headline.

Positive reporting and media coverage such as this has been critical to the gay lobby's PR success.

Public still suspicious

The interesting question to pose, in light of the gay PR victories, is how much the attitudes of the broader public have actually changed.

The strange thing is that accurate statistics regarding the ordinary Australian's true opinions about homosexuality are very hard to come by. But the picture which emerged from studies I did find from 1992 was that a fair proportion of Australians would like to see homosexuality decriminalised (45% said yes, 37% said no and 11% didn't know). However, the proportion who were 'very accepting' of homosexual relationships remained much smaller (only 12%; 39% were only 'somewhat accepting' and 38% were 'not at all accepting' of homosexual relationships).

What this poll suggests, and what anecdotal contact with ordinary Australians would confirm, is that many more people remain suspicious and intolerant of homosexuality than the barrage of positive gay PR would suggest. In other words, a great many Australians don't want to see gays locked up for what they do in private, but they wouldn't want their son to be one either.

Stand strong

What does this mean for us as Bible-believers?

Primarily, it means that we must not lose our nerve. In the face of the media, it is tempting to believe that everyone is pro-gay and that we are the last pathetic minority to have the slightest misgivings. This is not the case. As the Bible itself would suggest, people know deep down that homosexuality is not normal or right. That perception is still abroad in our community to some significant extent.

The normalisation of homosexuality in our society has been a PR triumph, but it largely exists in the manufactured world of media stories and newspaper editorials. This does not mean that this victory is not important or significant. Public perceptions have changed to some extent, and will continue to do so. But we must not change our message, nor be afraid to proclaim it. Some Christian leaders have sadly succumbed to the spin, accepted the normalcy of homosexuality, and 'gone off message'.

Let us resolve not to follow them. We must continue to tell the truth, not only because it is the truth, but also because only the truth, in the end, will set people free.

Tony Payne

Tony Payne is the Editorial Director of Matthias Media in Sydney. This article first appeared in The Briefing and also in the Autumn 2000 edition of the Journal for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, which is available from Sharon James, 9 Epsom Road, Leamington Spa CV32 7AR.