The medical profession has long abandoned the notion that homosexuality is a form of mental illness or that gays exhibit anything other than societal norms of behaviour or emotions.

The principal body in the US, the American Psychiatric Association, took such a position in 1973 and now has the following declared positions 65:

"... homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgement, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities ..."

"For a mental condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it should either regularly cause emotional distress or regularly be associated with clinically significant impairment of social functioning. These experts found that homosexuality does not meet these criteria."

Besides reading the academic literature I also conducted my own statistical analysis of recent survey work undertaken in the Adelaide and Auckland gay communities 66 that agrees with modern research and indicates homosexual males are no less emotionally stable and also exhibit fewer anti-social behaviours than the male average and exhibit similar social behaviours as the female average 67. [Graphs Appendix C].

This data was interesting because of its relevance to an Australian corporation but is supported by considerable research dating back to Evelyn Hooker's ground-breaking work published in 1956 68.

"Your sex life should remain private"

Sexuality is an inseparable part of the work environment 70 and no-one would accuse a heterosexual man or woman of unprofessionally bringing their sex 'life' into work if they placed a photograph of their wife or husband on their desk or announced that they had just become a parent. Yet these are both obvious and outward signs of sexual orientation - 'flaunting' it if you will.

There are good arguments for welcoming sexuality (but not sexual acts) into the workplace rather than fight a losing battle to remove it. Refusing to recognise that corporate organisations are places where sexuality flourishes tends only to entrench the hegemonic sexual norms that passed unnoticed and unremarked; namely, heterosexual and particularly male heterosexual norms.

A personal example of such double standards relates to one of the large accounting firms in Melbourne where a gay male friend was subjected to homophobic abuse without support (because the firm did not want to get involved in a 'private issue') in an environment where a married (heterosexual) partner was interrupted in an unlocked client meeting room having adulterous sex with their (heterosexual) secretary without suffering disciplinary action, despite such behaviour being expressly prohibited 71.

Openly expressing your sexual orientation does not indicate what form of sexual behaviour you engage in, if at all. It is on this basis that corporations can require standards of sexual behaviour at the workplace without sexual orientation being at issue.

"Other employees will be uncomfortable"

However it has long been established that negative attitudes towards homosexuals are linked to lack of personal contact. People who know a gay man or woman personally are rapidly 'converted' to positive attitudes as stereotypes breakdown 74.

This highlights the need for corporations wanting to create a welcoming environment to give adequate information and training to heterosexual employees and also the role enabling homosexual employees to come out as rapidly as they feel comfortable can play - the end result for the corporation is well worth any period of discomfort.

Forward thinking corporations would also heed the much more positive attitudes displayed by younger workers and ask if the correlates of negative attitudes - older, less educated, traditional, religiously conservative, single and rural 75 - are in keeping with their strategic goals.

"The clients won't stand for it"

Underlying this concern is a false assumption of gays as unprofessionally flamboyant, sexual or politicised. Such behaviour if it was to occur could, of course, be handled in the same manner as similar behavioural issues with any other company representative.

Fears such as the departure of an important client are rarely realised; the generally negative societal attitudes are not often translated into actions.

In the US, where the Religious Right is well funded and organised and connected to the highest levels of corporate America through the Republican Party, companies have repeatedly stared down and defeated boycott calls - the last major company being Disney Co. when it extended spousal benefits to gay employees 76.

Clients deal with companies because of the quality of the products and services exchanged. A diverse workforce is better able to respond to client needs and to anticipate the changing requirements of the market 77.

From this perspective a company with a diverse workforce, including gays, will be able to cement closer and more loyal ties to clients and be able to extend into areas previously untapped. The rare loss of a client will be more than compensated for by these strengths.

A corporation still concerned about possible adverse client reactions would perhaps best consider the following question:

"Are your employees your greatest asset or your clients?"

"We can't afford special benefits for anyone"

Gay employees are clearly not requesting benefits above what is offered to heterosexual employees - they seek equal renumeration for equal work. It is not a question of giving 'special' benefits, rather one of offering the same benefits.

Extending full spousal benefits to partners of gay employees is one of the clearest ways a corporation can show that they are truly committed to non-discrimination. To the gay employee, their partner is their spouse - they fill the same emotional, companionship and welfare needs as does a heterosexual spouse and it is the recognition of these needs and their importance to the employee that is the very purpose behind spousal benefits.

Extending spousal benefits to gay employees is also not expensive.

Some 2% of American companies have now extended either part or full spousal-equivalent benefits to their gay employees and this is growing 78. Gains have most rapidly been made in high-tech industries where a premium is placed on younger, highly educated and highly skilled knowledge workers.

IBM announced on 19 September 1996 that it would give such benefits, interestingly continuing the 1991 policy of Lotus Corp. (whom it acquired in 1994) of not recognising unmarried heterosexual couples - reasoning that they could legally marry if they wanted to.

A leading company has been Apple Computers in the US which offers equal treatment to all gay employees and their partners who register their relationship with the company. In a company renowned for its accepting environment very few of their 9,000 employees have registered.

Another leading company, Levi Strauss, found less than 1% of employees took up the offer - of which two-thirds were unmarried straight couples.

The highest incidence of registration was found among employees of the City of San Francisco and is still less than 2% 79.

This indicates that a corporation is unlikely to be faced with a sudden flood of additional spousal benefit costs, rather that the figures will slowly rise as gays begin to trust their corporations and as homophobic attitudes subside.

It has been reported that today the number that would typically take up such benefits are still less than 1% of the workforce 80.

Despite the increasingly tenuous correlation many companies reflect the ignorance of general society and link being a gay male to having AIDS. This leads to fears that having gay employees will result in expensive health costs.

As an illness HIV/AIDS is less costly than either cancer or chronic heart disease 81 and only about 10% the cost of a premature baby 82. In the majority of cases HIV/AIDS does not result in debilitating illness for many years during which time the employee is fully productive.

To put in further perspective, the US figure of 50,000 new HIV infections per year is far smaller than the 4+ million new cancer and heart diagnosis 83.

Such fears also persist about gay males despite 75% of present infections and 90% of new infections being amongst heterosexuals 84 - with new infections therefore in a rough proportion to underlying sexual orientation..

Finally, it has been calculated that if gay men and women did indeed 'convert' and were to then have children in the same proportion as heterosexual couples the associated costs would be even higher than non-discrimination to gays 85.

The 'costs' to a corporation is better understood by balancing any minor up-front costs associated with extending benefits to all employees with the gains of a more productive workforce drawn from the best talent available 86.

"We cannot interfer with religious beliefs"

The Bible is often quoted as justification for anti-gay attitudes by members of such groups and a desire by an employer to tackle discrimination in the workplace without interfering with choice of religious lifestyle presents particular challenges.

The key is to emphasise that regardless of personally held beliefs there is a requirement of non-discriminatory behaviour of all employees at work. The principle is the same as would be applied for the division between sexual orientation and sexual activity in the workplace.

It is worth noting that the Bible does not clearly denounce homosexuality and many authoritative scholars interpret the few referent passages in a different manner 88. The Bible is far clearer and dedicates much more space to matters such as remarriage and adultery - issues which few employers would shy from if an employee came under personal attack.

It is further worth recognising that in times past the Bible has also been selectively used to cover the underlying bigotry that lead to segregation of people of colour, criminalising interracial marriages and keeping women to their 'natural' role of housekeeper and mother.

The argument again is not with people's choice of religious lifestyle but whether such beliefs are used as justification for and enactment of discrimination.