Post-1967

[Cardiganwearer]

East, as I have pointed out to you before, for everywhere in the world that does not enjoy the sort of Supreme Court that might suddenly discover that gay equality always was mandated by law (as in the US), legal equality simply will not be enacted without general acceptance. I agree that 100% acceptance is an unreasonable request, but general acceptance is not.

The 1967 act introduced limited freedom without general acceptance. The view of the public at the time was firmly fixed the way it had been since the 1950s. It was being led out of this dark age by a report written mainly by liberal intellectuals and supported through parliament by the same. No reference to a constitution or a supreme court was neccessary (The abolition of capital punishment could be argued to be similar, except that public opinion has still not caught up with enlightened legislation.).

The act's passage started a drift in public opinion which continues today. In 1967 there was no popular demand for a change in the law on homosexuality.

Whether a more general equality under the law will result from public opinion or enlightened legislation in the face of public opinion is moot but I'm inclined to back the liberal intellectuals over the "wisdom" of the crowd any day.

[fredv3b]

The 1967 act introduced limited freedom without general acceptance. The view of the public at the time was firmly fixed the way it had been since the 1950s.

My point was that equality will not be achieved without general acceptance, 1967 was mere decriminalisation. I also disagree, attitudes amongst the young and certain elements of the chattering classes had softened since the 1950s, this was the '60s for goodness sake. That said it is a fair point that there was not a general acceptance that the law ought be changed.

[Cardiganwearer]

There is nothing "mere" about the decriminalisation of certain homosexual acts under certain circumstances in 1967. Without that the changes we've seen since might never have happened or at best taken years longer. Look at eastern europe and compare those countries with the GDR which while still under the heel of communism had a much more liberal legislative view on homosexuality.

I have to admire your optimistic take on the views of young people before 1967. Apart from Julian and Sandy on the radio positive views of gay people were all but invisible well into the seventies.

General acceptance had not moved ahead of legislation then and I don't expect it to now. Legislation must lead the way.

[fredv3b]

There is nothing "mere" about the decriminalisation of certain homosexual acts under certain circumstances in 1967.

Fair point, poor choice of word. My point was that it was something much different to equality and that therefore I do not accept it as a counter-example to my point about general acceptance and equality.

Look at eastern europe and compare those countries with the GDR which while still under the heel of communism had a much more liberal legislative view on homosexuality.

I know nothing about homosexuality under communism so I cannot comment other than communism is dead.

I have to admire your optimistic take on the views of young people before 1967. Apart from Julian and Sandy on the radio positive views of gay people were all but invisible well into the seventies.

What was and was not broadcast tells us far more about the views of the powers that were in broadcasting at the time about what was suitable to broadcast that the views of young people.

General acceptance had not moved ahead of legislation then and I don't expect it to now. Legislation must lead the way.

I put it to you that the Labour government only issued a White Paper on Civil Partnership when there already was general acceptance of same-sex relationships. I agree that Legislation leads the way, its just that in matters of equality it won't get too far ahead of public opinion.

[Cardiganwearer]

I know nothing about homosexuality under communism so I cannot comment other than communism is dead.

Homosexuality was prohibited in Germany under a law calling itself paragraph 175 dating from the late 19th century. This was reinforced under the nazis and relaxed again after their fall. In the GDR the rule survived the post war division but was not actually enforced after 1957, making East Germany a bit of a liberal island in a sea of communist anti gay legislation.

We see the present day result of this in the rampant homphobia both state and individual in all the former soviet bloc countries, much less so in East Germany. My thesis being that legislation or its de facto application leads the way in social attitude formation and not the other way round.

What was and was not broadcast tells us far more about the views of the powers that were in broadcasting at the time about what was suitable to broadcast that the views of young people.

The point of the Jules and Sand reference was that the broadcasting powers and most of the general public didn't have a clue as to the subtext, people genuinely thought lines like "he's a master of the cottage upright" broadcast in 1967 or thereabouts were a reference to piano playing ability. Back then the country, the young and hip included, were largely silent and almost universally ignorant on the matter of homosexuality.

...I agree that Legislation leads the way, its just that in matters of equality it won't get too far ahead of public opinion.

We seem to be diagreeing only on a little finessing round the edges, it's worth rehearsing the arguments, though; I flatter myself in the belief that you and I may not be the only ones reading them.mile:

[marshlander]

... I flatter myself in the belief that you and I may not be the only ones reading them.mile:

You are correct.

I'd be quite interested to read what the OP, John Francis, might have to comment.