Freud claims that there is in every one an original bisexual tendency, which is also established anatomically.
Normal development leads from bisexuality to the primacy of the heterosexual instinct.
Thus inversion corresponds to a disturbance of development.
Whether one agrees with Freud, that homosexuality or inversion originates in every instance in early childhood, or whether one disagrees with him and takes the stand which I take, that some cases of homosexuality are congenital, that others are acquired in early childhood, while others again are the result of vice or sexual necessity, as among soldiers, sailors, or in schools; we must come to the conclusion, that laws which do not differentiate in the punishment of crimes against nature between those who are born inverts or whose inversion dates from early childhood and those whose homosexuality is due to vice or association and who amphogenously inverted or occasionally inverted use a sexual object belonging either to the same or the opposite sex, are inadequate, antiquated, not keeping step with the progress which has been made as to the subject, and should be changed.
The subject has been discussed not for tens, or hundreds, but for thousands of years.
Martial, in his epigrams, treats of homosexuality; Socrates and Alcibiades were said to have been lovers; this is the reason why pæderasty is also called Socratic love.
Homosexuality in women is called tribadism, euphemism, Lesbian or Sapphic love; this because Sappho, after having lost Faon, is said to have turned from men to homosexual love.
This should be sufficient to show that homosexuality was discussed among the Romans and Greeks, and it is well known that the Bible is not quiet about it.
Thus then one should expect that a subject which has been so much discussed should be well enough understood to have its devotees treated fairly.
Let us see what the law has to say about it?