same sex rights
30 May 2008
Dial a Homo-Con
Melbourne writer John Heard
Self-styled "homo-con" John Heard has made quite a name for himself as the gay man social conservatives can point to when opposing gay rights
If it weren't for issues like same-sex parenting and gay marriage, few in the mainstream would have heard of him. But for gay rights foes both moderate and extreme, Heard has come as a God-send: a homosexual who shares all their worst fears and reservations about society recognising same sex families and letting gays enter the mainstream.Wherever they find themselves accused of bigotry or closed-mindedness they can point to John and exclaim, "See - I'm not a homophobe! A homosexual agrees with me too!" and Heard has skilfully used this value to boost himself into the mainstream and the pages of The Australian and Herald Sun newspapers in the process.
However, very few of Heard's mainstream readers would have any idea of how out of step with the rest of gay Australia he really is.
Before his notorious 2006 appearance on SBS's Insight, few in the gay community would have heard of him either.
Heard is a man who believes that transsexuals suffer serious mental disorders, who opposes divorce, abortion and condom use, and who considers sex even in the most committed of gay relationships to be sinful and "intrinsically disordered". Ask Heard simple questions about his personal views on an issue and he'll refer you to the relevant Vatican document.
With that in mind, it begs the question of why mainstream newspaper editors consider him a representative voice for the gay side of this debate - could it be that there's so little opposition within the gay community on this issue that he's the only voice they can find?
Heard's most recent salvo at the push for same-sex marriage was entitled "Gays don't want marriage" and was carried by the Herald Sun and News.com.au.
In it he made the bizarre claim that the push for gay marriage in Australia was the work of a tiny group of a few "self-appointed" activists that claimed to speak for gay and lesbian Australia when the vast majority had no interest in the right to marry at all.
Anyone with a real knowledge of the gay community in Australia would have baulked at this first simple declaration. If anything the opposite has been true, with the marriage issue opposed and stiffed from the start by ideological radicals who saw it as a push to conform with what they see as retrograde "heterosexual norms" - with marriage proponents frequently attacked as "wannabe straights".
If not for this, the issue of marriage equality would have raised its head much sooner in Australia, in line with events in Europe, South Africa and North America.
New South Wales saw the most resistance, with the State's Gay and Lesbian Lobby refusing to admit there was any real interest in the issue for over a year after groups in the rest of the country had accepted its reality - leading to a major split in the community and a series of blow ups between the Lobby and the Greens, who'd already begun to champion the issue.
It wasn't until the Lobby conducted an extensive survey that found almost universal support for the right to marry among participants - even from those who had no wish to marry themselves - that it conceded the issue.
The NSW survey echoed the results of a Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Survey the year before which found 79.8 per cent of respondents wanted marriage rights.
So from whence comes Heard's special knowledge of the minds of a supposedly silent majority of gay men (he ventures nothing of the wants and wishes of lesbians)?
Heard has been quoting the same set of statistics from La Trobe University's Private Lives: A Report on the health and wellbeing of GLBTI Australians since its release in 2006. It's something of a Bible for Heard - he quotes it on AIDS, he quotes it on parenting, he quotes it on marriage; he quotes it on TV, in print and on the airwaves.
And each time he quotes it, either wilfully or through a failure to understand its methodology, he misrepresents its findings. Most of all he mistakes it for an opinion poll when it was a public health survey and nothing more.
As a result, Heard has claimed time and time again that Private Lives shows that the majority of gay men in Australia are in no "kind of relationship at all, let alone one that would conform to basic community ideas about ... marriage", and asks us to take from this that they would never want to be.
Heard believes this to be the case because 52 per cent of male participants (average age 34) were not in a relationship at the time the survey was taken.
Their opinions on future relationships or what sort of recognition they might like should they start one were not sought and there is nothing in the data that implies these men are against marriage or monogamy or committed relationships. All it states is that they were single when asked. Nothing more.
Moving on to those in the study that were in a relationship, Heard claims: "When actually asked ... most of the gay partners surveyed indicated that they had no intention of ever 'formalising' their relationships."
The questions that Private Lives asked of participants who were in relationships dealt with their current relationship only and did not cover opinions on future kinds of relationships they might have with other partners or at a different stage in their lives.
Asked about the relationships they were in, 5.1 per cent said they'd already undergone some form of commitment ceremony, 5.5 per cent hadn't but planned to, 20.3 per cent hadn't made plans but would like to, and another 17 per cent had yet to decide whether their relationship needed that sort of formal commitment.
This means over 30 per cent of those surveyed in their current relationship, had, planned or would like to seal that commitment in a formal way, while another 17 per cent would not rule out feeling that way at a later date.
52.1 per cent (Heard's big majority) said they had no intention for a commitment ceremony in their current relationship. They were not asked whether they might consider it if they were in a different kind of relationship with another person, or what plans they had for later in life.
Many people at some point in their lives date someone they don't see as marriage material. This doesn't mean they will never date someone they see as marriage material or that they disagree with the idea of marriage.
I think if you asked many heterosexual Australians of a similar age about their current relationship you'd get quite similar answers.
Instead Heard would have us believe that this data shows that Australian gay men are commitment-phobic, poly-amorous serial shaggers.
Certainly some are, and few would deny that a significant minority of gay men and lesbians do see little worth in the push for gay marriage.
And they have their reasons - many have lived their entire lives with societal disapproval of their relationships and see no need for approval now, others may have witnessed the breakdown of their parents' marriage or the marriages of friends or relatives, and for some, the highs of unshackled male libido are simply too much to give up for the stability and affection found in enduring commitment.
But few of these would see their opposition to marriage in their own lives as a reason to stand in the way of this right being granted to others.
And Heard's own views on gay marriage couldn't be more different than those he claims to champion - to him gays and lesbians getting married is a perverse "celebration" of "the insertion of the sex organs of one individual into the digestive tract of another" that forms part of a secular "culture of death". Hardly mainstream opinions in the Australian gay community.
So have no fear. Wherever there is disquiet or unease about homosexuality and finishing the job on gay rights in this country, John Heard will be there - a speedbump on the road to equality.
And once we finally get there, Heard will have outlived his usefulness, and his mainstream interest will shrink back once again to that of a mere contrarian oddity.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
All what you say might be true, but he is good looking.
I think he owes much of his fame to the dribble people continue to wite about him.
You focus on his supposed withdrawal from mainstream gay culture and his ability to supposedly misinterpret research, yet you completely misrepresent him as a person. Which is worse?
If you speak with him personally you will find that he is not motivated by a belief that he somehow represents a silent part of the gay community, his motivation is a genuine concern for all those living the destructive lifestyle he has experienced.
It is for this reason those opposed to gay marriage love to quote him.
Also, he’s good looking
I am waiting for his appearance on one of those crazy Christian shows saying "I hate being gay" and they believe it is a disease that he can be cured from…
I think what is hinted at in the article but not really teased out is that the Gay Rights lobby in Australia fell behind the gay community in the quest for gay marriage. My own opinion after some involvement in the Victorian Lobby is that this was solely due to the fact the people in control of the various lobbies have close ties to Labor and were directly interested in keeping gay marriage off the agenda, to spare their party "embarrassment".
It was only in the face of overwhelming pressure from the community that they have begun to campaign for gay marriage. Sadly, they have lost a lot of momentum from their Labor-hack ways.
"Also, he’s good looking"
If you’re into the vampire look … ;-)
"his motivation is a genuine concern for all those living the destructive lifestyle he has experienced"
If he has lived a ‘destructive lifestyle’ then it’s a good guess that the basis for it has been his Catholic upbringing resulting in layers upon layers of guilt. I have seen too many Catholic gay friends, particularly of the older generations, severely damaged for the same reason.
Self-hating gay homophobes should not be seen nor heard (no pun intended) - perhaps the closet is the best place for them.
gabatronic, have you ever considered that the "destructive lifestyle" you describe might have less to do with people’s attraction to others of the same gender, and more to do with the historical rejection of those people by church, friends, family and state?
That we speak at all of a separate gay community or gay "lifestyle" is a direct product and symptom of that prejudice.
Experience shows that the more gay and lesbian individuals are accepted by their heterosexual friends, family and communities, and the less they are forced to reorganise their lives when they come out, the more their lives and values will reflect those of their friends, families and communities.
The more same sex couples are allowed into the mainstream and to access the same social and civil institutions as everyone else, the more they will live their lives just like everyone else.
Gabatronic, no researcher worth their salt would try and somehow divine someone’s future relationship aspirations from asking them if they are in a relationship at the time of the survey. Basic research 101. Honestly!
If I was a researcher who worked on that piece, I’d be mighty p—-ed off!
I read that Herald Sun article and was very surprised; this piece clears a lot up for me.
Personally, I would be in favour of the right for gays to marry whether a majority of gays agreed with me or not.
Heard is at it again- he’s now claiming on his website that a poll by DNA Magazine (who I write frequently for) has shown that 89% of gay men don’t want marriage.
Heard: "DNA Magazine (a leading ‘gay lifestyle’ publication, available on three continents) ran a balanced news piece [on Heard’s Herald Sun article], and launched two related reader polls (89% of respondents said that "marriage is not for me")" http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2008/05/dreadpublishing-john-heard-in-hera…
In fact the results of the DNA poll are-
"Q: If you could, would you marry your same-sex partner?
A:Yes, if I could I would marry my same-sex partner. 68%
A:No, even if I could I wouldn’t marry my same-sex partner. 32%"
"Q: If you’re not keen on same-sex marriage for yourself, do you still support the right of other gays to marry?
A:Marriage is not for me, but I believe same-sex marriages should be allowed. 88%
A:I don’t believe same-sex marriages should be allowed. 12%"
http://www.dnamagazine.com.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=5559&c=305137
In other words 68% of those who responded to the poll would marry a same sex partner, and even 89% (now 88%- the poll is still open) of those who wouldn’t, believe they should have the right to. Only 32% said "marriage is not for me".
The poll is unscientific, and less than 400 people have voted in it. Heard concedes that it’s not scientific but this but this doesn’t make up for his total misrepresentation of what the poll actually means, or his selective quoting of it.
Who cares what Heard thinks? Who appointed him the spokesperson for lesbians and gays anyway?
Is he even qualified to express the opinions he has made public?
Give it a break, gay or straight, the bloke is just a joke.
GV
Who cares if a majority or a minority within a political lobby support a particular position? That is of purely internal organisational interest.
In a democracy, it is what the consensus of the nation is that counts.
So what is this position? In 2006, in a series of 28 issues identified by the community as contentious, I conducted one of an ongoing series of surveys; two questions of which addressed the above items of interest.
The result? 48% supported adoption by gays, and 48% opposed it; a juxtaposition always indicative of information starvation. Obviously, this should be addressed, and obviously this is not consensus.
On gay marriage? 60% said no.
There is a message here. The general feedback position is that the gay lobby is misrepresenting marriage as an adult relationship and social justice issue. Mainstream Australians point out that marriage is primarily about protection and nurturing of children; that it has been an institution for that purpose for millennia, and in all cultures; and that this value is not about to change.
These are not the statistics I expected, but then, that is why I do surveys.
Nevertheless, those who oversighted the surveys were not so surprised.
What did stun them was that none of those surveyed opted to record a gay identity. The tick options were: male, female, gay male, gay female, bi-sexual, not sure, and indeterminate. Space was insufficiant for wider variation.
My surveys produce accuracy rates I will hold against any in the world; which prompts the observation; with gay lobby claims that between 10% and 18% of the population is gay, why such a low incidence rate.
The demographic sample was on the Sunshine Coast, a population highly representative of Australia, and not renowned for being threatening for gays. So why less than 1% gay. And to the conspiracy theorists, forget an endemic intimidation factor. It would have been minimal.
I regard the gay component of this survey as a mere pilot survey because I was targeting broader percentages; which effects survey design. The next will cover a much larger sample, but will of course lose accuracy because unskilled volunteers will be required.
Nevertheless, I am prepared to bet that lower than 2% will identify as gay.
This new survey will be conducted on the Sunshine Coast, so I do expect a good turnout of gays to volunteer assistance.
Coupled with some unique research results; as yet unpublished, there will be much here to interest gays with genuine social science interests; and absolutely nothing to please the less-then-honest lobby.
"In a democracy, it is what the consensus of the nation is that counts."
There are times when governments have to bite the bullet and protect the fair rights of the individual against the will of the mob.
"On gay marriage? 60% said no."
A nationwide Galaxy poll recently showed a yes vote of around 70%.
"The demographic sample was on the Sunshine Coast, a population highly representative of Australia, and not renowned for being threatening for gays."
From an Australia Institute 2005 report:
"The survey also found people in central and south-western Queensland and the regions surrounding Brisbane from the Sunshine Coast to the Gold Coast, as well as western Tasmania, were the least tolerant of homosexuals in the country."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/catholics-are-least-antigay-study/20…
Hi Tony Ryan,
I’d be interested to know- what are your qualifications and what organisation do you work for- and also who is paying for the polling you’re carrying out? This seems a strange issue to be taking up on such a regional scale.
It is generally accepted that gay and lesbian individuals make up about 5% of the population with their being slightly more gay men than lesbians (but more bisexual women than bisexual men). This statistic has been found to be fairly consistent from country to country and from culture to culture.
As you would know, seeking out the opinions of groups that only make up a small fraction of the population are very difficult using normal sampling methods. On top of this many homosexual individuals may be reluctant to divulge their sexuality over the phone or in the presence of others- they may still live at home with relatives or with friends who don’t know they’re gay or may feel uncomfortable or suspicious of answering these sorts of questions for a stranger. Also, a large number of people see polstering as a nuisance and are simply uninterested in answering. Smaller groups within a larger sample usually have a larger margin of error attached as well.
SansBlog agree with everything else, but for the sake of accuracy the results of the June 2007 GetUp! Galaxy poll were 71% Agree, 23% Disagree, 5% Don’t Know to the question: "Do you agree or disagree that same sex partners should have the same legal rights as those in a heterosexual de facto relationship?". The same sex marriage question for that survey resulted in 57% Agree, 37% Disagree, 6% Don’t Know.
It’s a majority, and I’d have no trouble believing that the rate of support has gone up in the year since the poll was taken as the issue has been in the news and more people would have been exposed to the pro-side of the case (or the irrationality of the con side), but it’s important not to overstate the case.
And as younger voters are more accepting of the issue and are more likely to have gay friends, by the time we go to the polls in three years time there will be no doubts as to where the majority of Australians stand on this issue.
Andrew
My surveys were door-to-door interactive sample questionnaires through a demographic coridor, proven to be truly representative since 2001, with all participants interviewed one-on-one, beyond hearing of peers. The questions on the August 2006 survey were identified by participants of an earlier survey in the same corridor. This was to ensure results paralleled electoral sentiment, values and priorities and therefore reflected consensus.
I have been designing and conducting surveys since 1976, for both the Commonwealth and NT Governments, and including in Aboriginal languages. As I recall, ABCTV archives video-recorded some such work, with Matt Peacock’s team also on-camera. From 1988 my surveys focused on tourism, and the frontispiece of the Kennedy Report that led to the sacking of the NT Tourism Commission, refers to this. From 1997 I researched changing patterns in residential real estate market penetration; and as of 2003, have concentrated on making demographic portraits more accurate and functional.
I honestly do not care what the results of my surveys are, as long as the organisations I provide these for are able to proceed on the basis of fact; and not propaganda, presumption or belief.
The most recent research has been for the Australian Independent’s Alliance, the Australian Small Business Forum, and the Tariff Restoration Bloc.
I have never considered telephone, Internet, supermarket or other crowd sampling as anything else but incompetence or dishonesty.
On your comments about proselytised survey results and anthropological positions, I reject these for their proven innacuracy (not so proselytised). For example, I really couldn’t care less either way, but according to Aborigines in the Kimberly and East Arnhem Land, there was no male homosexuality in their cultures; nor apparently, according to other researchers, on Inuit and Kung.
If you are interested, out of curiosity, and addressing my interest in early human development, I did research the correlations and these were narrowed to all these entity’s saturation love and affection for babies; both male and female; and the absence of punitive practices or discipline for under 9 year olds. Another factor in common was the absence of secrecy regarding sexual behaviour. Sexuality was quite open, and regarded as matter of fact daily occurances. Another researcher might find more.
There was, however, apparently the same rate of congenital transsexualty to be found in all cultures. I have no idea about female homosexuality and believe a woman should do this work.
There may be other factors, but this particular study was not scheduled or planned and was the result of a spontaneous request for clarification by Aborigines at Galiwinku, in 1975. As I have no time, nor interest, in pursuing this, any research should be directed to the last known survivor of the group requesting clarification: Alan Marraytja Dhamarrandji. As this gentleman would now be 51 years of age; statistically at least, I would not gamble on his being around for a postponed interview. Having said that, I saw him on ABCTV a few weeks ago and he looked his usual permanently amused self.
I mention these details because any gays who simply want to understand more about the possible links between nurturing and homosexuality have only a short window of opportunity to discover these. I might add, that a combination of acculturation in child-raising practices, and enthusiastic sexual predation by gay whites in Aboriginal and TI communities since 1978, has resulted in a change in behaviour; albeit, it seems, alcohol-related.
Hi Tony,
Before European contact, male homosexuality was absolutely taboo in most aboriginal cultures in Australia and punished severely. Since then most aboriginal communities have been proselytised by (often fundamentalist) Christians who also abhore gay relationships.
Where it wasn’t taboo it was only allowed to express itself in pederastic relationships between unmarried men and youths (as is the case in other tribal societies), ending when those men married- usually to females of an age that would now also be illegal. No aboriginal society in Australia that I know of allowed adult relationships between men to occur- except in the case where one individual was considered "two in one" or transgendered and playing a female role (thus aping an acceptable heterosexual relationship).
For that reason it is no more surprising to me that aboriginal people living still quite traditional lives would claim there was no homosexuality in their culture, than similar pronouncements by the President of Iran. Unless you are trying to argue that aboriginal people represent some natural state of man, I don’t really get what point you are trying to make from this, other than that homosexual individuals will live secretive and closeted lives and deny their identity in societies that abhore them and punish them when they try to live freely.
Close friends of mine spent quite some time in Galiwinku as well and they inform me that even to this day aboriginal heterosexual couples of the wrong moety groups have to flee that community to live in peace- if that’s the case for straights, good luck to a gay couple!
I also notice the research you carried out was in 1975 when homosexuality was illegal in most parts of this country and where it wasn’t had been so just years before- do you think this might have had some baring on the results?
"sexual predation by gay whites"- do you mean paedophiles? because very, very few paedophiles that attack young boys think of themselves as gay, most have no interest in adult males, and many pursue adult relationships with women parallel to their abuse of minors. Do you deny similar predation by heterosexual whites? Do you think the fact that gay Aboriginal and TI people have been able to act on their feeling without fear of going to jail since 1978 might also had some effect on their behaviour?
The idea that people are gay because of bad parenting has been roundly rejected by every psychological and psychiatric body in this country and in the rest of the developed world.
DNA Magazine have now published a notice on their website alerting readers to Heard’s misuse of their poll data and confirming that his interpretation of what they meant was factually incorrect.
DNA: "We recently ran two polls on the DNA website asking two questions about gay marriage, with the results of both showing a large majority were in favour of gay marriage – for themselves and for society. The polls were run in response to a newspaper article by ‘conservative Catholic gay writer’ John Heard, claiming “ordinary, same sex-attracted Australians” are not behind the push for gay marriage."
"Our polls were then cited by Heard on his blog, with him concluding that 89 per cent of our respondents had said marriage was not for them. Whether he inadvertently or deliberately misinterpreted the results, Heard is mistaken in his analysis of these DNA polls."
"The results showed that 68 per cent of respondents would marry their same-sex partner if they could, while the remaining 32 per cent would not, even if they could.
We then asked only that minority of people who said they would not marry if they could if they supported the idea of gay marriage for others – with 88 per cent saying they supported the idea for others."
(http://www.dnamagazine.com.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=5735&c=51210)
Heard also planned to publish another rebuttal on SameSame.com.au- a gay community website that also published this article. He has now declined to do so.
update: Having been made aware of his error on the DNA poll Heard is now claiming that DNA aren’t able to understand their own data.
Dear Coconaut,
Regarding "My own opinion after some involvement in the Victorian Lobby is that this was solely due to the fact the people in control of the various lobbies have close ties to Labor and were directly interested in keeping gay marriage off the agenda, to spare their party "embarrassment". It was only in the face of overwhelming pressure from the community that they have begun to campaign for gay marriage. Sadly, they have lost a lot of momentum from their Labor-hack ways."
As a former co-convenor of the Victorian lobby group, I oversaw the implementation of a community survey back in 2000 that clearly showed that marriage wasn’t on the radar for gay men and lesbians back then. I personally believe that it was only as the overseas debate began to dominate our own media that the issue became one that LGBTI began to consider… and, quite rightly, demanded equality in…
Whilst there were members who were Labor in the belief systems, there was also Liberal and Greens voting people - the Lobby was, and remains, a non-partisan community group. When the Labor party threatened to separate out the 52 law changes from the Bill it sat on (next to the breast-feeding in public) there was a moment when those who voted Labor questioned whether or not we should challenge that government over what they were attempting to do… but, just as we challenged the then-Liberal government, we challenged the Labor government and stood up for our rights.
I believe that the Lobbies around Australia have taken up the issue of gay marriage because it has become apparent that the community sees it as an important issue - if that’s how you see ‘overwhelming pressure’, then fine. A Lobby that didn’t respond to its community would be a sad one indeed.