I am not, by nature, a law-abiding person. One of my dinner-party stories is how I committed larceny and criminal damage on two separate occasions in my misspent youth. Sorry to tease, but I'm not going to divulge any incriminating details to you, dear reader. I'd hate to put you in a compromising position.

But there have been many times in the past when I've had brushes with the law. These have been when I've been out cruising, when the weight of the law back then in the ould sod was remorseless. I've been chased by policemen in parks - hidden from them in bushes, with torchlight missing my trembling frame by inches. I've been caught with my pants down in less salubrious settings, to face intense and frightening interrogation by brutish men in uniform treating me like the scum of the earth. But that's enough about my sexual fantasies. When it's for real, it's no joke. Life imprisonment, for you youngsters who have no sense of history, was the real threat that each policeman wielded, consciously or not.

One of the best pieces of news I have heard in years was in a recent report in the Guardian. The Chinese Psychiatric Association is to cease regarding homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder next week. They are to declare that homosexuality is part of "normal" sexual behaviour, with the proviso that those who are unhappy with their sexual orientation may still be judged to be in need of psychiatric help. How helpful that "help" may be is a moot point, but let's not quibble over a mammoth step forward in the consciousness of a quarter of the world's population.

I know very little about China - but what I do know is that the government there is strong on "correct mental attitude", and that the way they treat dissidents is very similar to the way we in the West treat those with mental illness, using indoctrination and sophisticated psychiatric techniques to "encourage" acquiescence. In a fashion that only those of us who grew up in a theocracy such as Ireland can really appreciate, the manipulation of values and morality is government practice.

I can only imagine the change that is about to happen for Chinese lesbians and gay men. The change in psychiatric policy would have the impact not only of decriminalization, but also, in the still officially atheistic state, of a change in morality equivalent to the fantastical scenario of the Irish Catholic Church embracing homosexual sex; the constructs of sanctity, sanity and legality merging.

I stopped believing a long time ago that there was such a thing as coincidence. Last November, when the British government finally introduced equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals in the age of consent, it also marked the end of a long depression and the beginning of my creating an enjoyable life for myself in London, after eight years. This gives me food for thought as to how subtle and inscrutable the effects of legal inequality are.

I don't think the relief is due to establishing a right - I think that it's a nebulous matter of values. Establishing a right in law effectively imposes a duty on others to respect that right. It's satisfying, when an anti-discrimination law is enforced, and bigots are forced to change their behaviour. But those instances in which the law is actually invoked in one's defence are very rare in people's lives; perhaps once or twice in a lifetime.

Of far greater importance is this concept of society, that Thatcher denied existed. The sense of exclusion that I felt while growing up gay in Ireland instilled in me a strong disrespect for the law of the land, for I knew it was a nonsense. Society's values are enshrined in its laws, and so I, like so many others, hated Irish society and left. It's not that I'm inherently an anti-social person, despite the teenage jolly japes I mentioned earlier; it's that I don't conduct my life consciously following any rules. Like most people, I imagine. When Ireland changed its laws on homosexuality and divorce, I felt a warmth towards the old country that's still with me; as well as the unique and happy circumstance where two successive presidents have been gay rights activists prior to their election.

The corrosive effect of that bad law, the Offences Against the Person Act, was more powerful when it came to my self-esteem; for no matter how I dealt with it, I still felt greatly devalued and marginalised by such a cruel statute.

Someone I know is a priest, struggling with his boss over various mundane issues such as staffing levels. Knowing his boss is known to be homophobic has meant that he feels reluctant to take action in challenging him, for fear of repercussions.

Notwithstanding my friend's own self-esteem issues, what matters here is that the established values of the church are homophobic, and therefore do not support my friend's sense of being valued in the institution of the Church, over his seemingly non-sexual dilemma. At any stage, the trump card of his sexuality could be played, to disastrous consequences, and so he remains quiet, fighting the good fight on his own. A change in Canon Law would no doubt change my friend's sense of his place in his church, and give him the courage to do what needs to be done; but that moral law is not going to be changed while people like him remain silently suffering. Loyal readers will no doubt be unsurprised by the fact that my sympathy for his situation is tiny compared to my strong conviction that anyone with a conscience should get the hell out of established Christian churches as long as they remain so hate-filled in matters sexual.

But I can love the priest, and hate his priestly acts.