h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This question occurred to me in another thread. I have no idea what the answer is.

This country (the UK) seems very tolerant of gays. It has got that way over forty years since being gay stopped being illegal.

And yet - it seemed relatively tolerant of gays even before then. Anyone over forty or so could probably easily list a dozen entertainers who were flamboyantly gay even before it was legal - they just never "came out" and said it. It seems we operated a notional, national, "don't ask don't tell" policy. Meanwhile, many of the politicians responsible for making laws espoused family values in public while being as gay as a box of frogs in private, to no great detriment to their careers. It was widely (and apparently wrongly) assumed by the public that Edward Heath was gay, and that didn't stop him becoming Prime Minister.

So... assuming for the moment that this country was broadly tolerant of homosexuals, to the point of lauding flamboyant gay entertainers, and electing a man to the highest office in the land despite persistent (wrong) rumours of homosexuality - why was it ever illegal?

Was it the work of one individual or group?

Was it purely religiously motivated? (This explanation has literally just occurred to me and I don't know why I didn't think of it before...)

When did it become illegal?

It wasn't (male) homosexuality that was illegal, it was buggery.

The urban myth, which may be true, is that the reason lesbianism wasn't made illegal in the 19th c was that Queen Victoria had such a heteronormative view (and experience) of sex that she simply didn't believe that women would ever do that. I do wonder, though, if she realised could get away with refusing to sign a bill penalising lesbians, but that she was up against a wall when it came to buggery.

B

>but that she was up against a wall when it came to buggery.

Surely that's the traditional method for avoiding buggery?

<>
Cos it's naughty...

My guess is that it's mainly religion based, but, whether it was purely religion based I'm not sure.

If Wiki is to believed we can blame Thomas Cromwell:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act_1533

(Much to the relief of 2legs, I'm sure).

*Top Ten Reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong*

*Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.*

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/6721C42B-B4C7-4134-97E1-598F3B1F58A0/

No comment... I blame John Wane... for making 'walking like John Wane' such a popular thing

It's hard to believe that the 'Queen Victoria' story is true at least as far as legislation goes. By that stage, the monarch had had more or less no formal or active political role for some time and would hardly be likely to refuse to sign a bill.

I think I'm right in saying that the reason for repeal wasn't so much liberal sentiments as concerns about blackmail and extortion.

From the original post (OP)

>>...as gay as a box of frogs...<<

Well there's your answer to the original question.

Would you want a box of frogs hopping all over the place
and sliming the whirled around ya. Woodja, huh? Woodja?

I think knot.

Oh and BTW all oral sex, homo or hetero, was (and in many
places still is) illegal. This was for health reasons. You've
probably heard someone yell, "Oi don't put that in your mouth;
y'dont know where it's been!" Well that doesn't really apply to
genitalia because generally we do know where it's been. The
question really is how long ago it went.


~jwf~

Strictly speaking, there has never been a UK law stating that homosexuality per se is illegal. As has been stated, the main offence was sodomy (or buggery), which could be between two men or a man and a woman. In 1885 the offence of 'gross indecency' was added in Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Gross indecency wasn't defined but the amendment was generally used to prosecute homosexuals (including Oscar Wilde) when sodomy couldn't be proved. The amendment specifies male acts. As the amendment was added by an MP, the omission of female acts is unlikely to have anything to do with Queen Victoria.

In 1957 the Wolfenden Report recommended decriminalizing homosexual activity provided it was done in private. Nothing was done until 1967 and even then conspiracy to commit or assist homosexual acts remained an offence. (Source: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/before-after-wolfenden-report.htm )

Why was being gay illegal?

to stop the pfs taking over the

<<to stop the pfs taking over the>>

Your all missing having fantastic interiors in your house because of this.

Finally, to find out the truth about Ted Heath. And to think all this time I'd been assuming Morning Cloud was some sort of coded euphemism...

anyone still under the misaprehension that being gay somhow equates to great taste for interior decoration, oughta see the inside of my flat/house

Ah relax, 2legs. Good taste ain't the same thing as the ability to create.

<>
Or my bedroom

My bedroom is the one tasteful bit of the house... well the HiFi and giant speakers I think of as being pretty tasteful, plus the pile of laptops in the corner
If I had my way I'd paint every wall in here and cealing white, have the floorboards and skirting restained and plain wooden doors, a bed, set of drawers, a table and chairs and then just the HiFi and computer,... kind of extreme minamilistic look...
Though... maybe some lialac in the bedroom... and pink... and maybe some lace trim and wall hangings, with a kind of Oriental type of feel... and beanbags... naa... too much clutter....

"And yet - it seemed relatively tolerant of gays even before then. Anyone over forty or so could probably easily list a dozen entertainers who were flamboyantly gay even before it was legal - they just never "came out" and said it. It seems we operated a notional, national, "don't ask don't tell" policy. Meanwhile, many of the politicians responsible for making laws espoused family values in public while being as gay as a box of frogs in private, to no great detriment to their careers. It was widely (and apparently wrongly) assumed by the public that Edward Heath was gay, and that didn't stop him becoming Prime Minister."

This is actually a really interesting aspect of gay culture in countries where it's illegal. It's true that, for centuries, homosexuality was illegal in England/Britain/the UK and yet it was rare for practitioners to be prosecuted. Even back when it was a hanging offence there were well-known "Molly Houses" where gay men would meet, have sex, socialise and even stage "marriages". The public in general disapproved and there was occasional mob violence against gay men but actual prosecutions were rare.

This remains the case in countries were homosexuality is illegal. There are often thriving gay subcultures and actual prosecution only tends to occur when couples go "public" in some way.

Despite what is usually assumed, I don't think this is about public tolerance versus state intolerance - in many of the countries with illegal gay subcultures the general public is often very homophobic - but probably more about practicalities.

For a start, homosexuality is a fact of life everywhere and always has been. For this reason, most homophobic cultures probably get used to pushing it to the back of their collective minds, only becoming openly hostile when specific incidents or moral panics flare up (see my comment about occasional mob attacks on gay men in England in centuries gone by). As for the rarety of prosecutions, I suspect that is partly down to the aforementioned "back of collective minds" aspect and the issue of evidence. It's one thing to say "this man is homosexual and everyone knows it", quite another to prove it in a court of law.