Homophobia
Since I have focused so much on issues of race and racism in various essays, I decided that for a change I’d give some consideration to another kind of hatred. Homophobia. Even the term is strange, really, given that it only exists when we decide to define such a thing as “sexual orientation”. It was brought to my attention – by a moral conservative Christian – that sexual orientation is a relatively new idea. He informed me that in Ancient Greece, where homosexuality was well-documented yet not stigmatized, people slept with the same sex or opposite sex based on a “love of beauty”. There were no moral quandaries surrounding choices of sexual partners. Alas, there are many things that were commonly accepted in antiquity that we wouldn’t even consider today. My point there is not to use the ancient precedent as the foundation for some new set of modern moral guidelines, but to – like my teacher did – get people to consider homosexuality in a different context.
My official position on homosexuality is: “who cares?”. People’s sexual choices – where they do not affect me – are not my concern. They are not anyone’s concern except for the people involved in any given situation. It is a great wonder to me why anyone bothers to get so worked up over what has no bearing on their lives whatsoever. The only way a homosexual man’s sexual preference can affect a heterosexual man is if that first man hits on or harasses the second. But here we find one of many common misconceptions. Many straight men assume that just because another man is gay, that he may hit on them. In actuality, homosexual men’s tastes are no less discriminating than those of heterosexuals, so that assumption is laughable.
Furthermore, I find it ironic that any heterosexual man would hate homosexual men – because if anything – gay men are removed from the competition for women. If we are to believe what the media shows us, i.e. The Individualy stereotypes, here we have a bunch of well-dressed, well-groomed, sensitive men who are up to their elbows in women (as friends), yet who aren’t in the least bit interested in those women sexually. Not to make light of what is intended as a serious essay, but really it would seem that gay men are one of the best things to ever happen to straight men! So why do some of us get so angry and disgusted?
There are many possible answers to that question, but in America and other places with a Christian foundation, the moral guidelines allegedly set forth by the Bible are at the root of everything. Many Christian conservatives, or more specifically – fundamentalist Christians – will quote the Bible as denouncing homosexuality as a sin. In reality, it only makes such a powerful claim by way of an agenda-backed interpretation. And that’s just the thing about the Bible; it has so many possible interpretations that there are many homosexuals who can also be Christian without there being any conflicts of interest. There is a folly in the message of Christian conservatives as well. On the one hand they express such contempt and hatred for homosexuals, yet in the same breath would claim to be arguing for the salvation of their eternal souls. Why should they care if these people they label “degenerates” go to hell? It really doesn’t make any sense at all.
Religious conservatives, and many others, are also known to say that homosexuality is “unnatural”. Well in actuality, it cannot be anything but natural if it was nature that produced it – has done so since the dawn of humankind – and will probably continue to do so. Following that ignorant line of thinking, people make homosexuality out to be an issue of morality. Of course a religious or social conservative would think so, because to them all sexual matters – who we can have sex with, at what age, how often, and for what reasons – are apparently of great importance to our spiritual well-being. However, all moral issues are a matter of choice, and that’s where the mistake is made. Detractors of homosexuality have this crazy idea that gay people are born straight, but at some point make the “unethical decision” to become homosexual.
If they did even a minute of research, they would find out that homosexuality is an immutable condition arising through some combination of biological and environmental factors. To clarify, though, “biological” here does not mean genetic. And it is people’s misunderstanding of genetics that adds to the misconception. While there may be a gene or some part of a gene that affects sexual preference – one that then probably exists in all of us – whether or not it is expressed phenotypically seems to be determined by external factors. Since homosexuality isn’t simply a matter of a “gay gene”, then for those black-and-white thinkers ignorant to the infinitely complex interplay between biology and the external environment, it must be something that is socialized. This leads them to the misguided conclusion that a homosexual can be “reprogrammed” to change their sexuality, or worse, that people can simply choose not to be homosexual.
There’s another contradiction in the conservative position that should be examined, one that I touched upon for a separate reason in another article. Most of us hold that human beings are superior to other animals. Indeed we seem to be more complex in our intelligences and behaviors; whether or not that makes a qualitative difference is subject to debate. However, it is certain that our sexual lives – and the very culture that surrounds them – are far more complicated than those of animals. We have sexual relationships for a plethora of reasons, from love and leisure to simple pleasure or self-validation.
Animals, with few exceptions, have sex only for the purposes of procreation. Within the context of reproduction, homosexuality does not seem to make much sense. If sex is ONLY for reproduction, then there would appear to be something “wrong” with homosexuality. However, to reduce human sexuality to merely a mechanism for procreation, is to simultaneously deny its many complexities and intricacies, and to renounce any human claim of “superiority”. If we do that, if we reduce ourselves to the simplicity of animals, then we may as well also reduce all human behavior to the primal fundamentals – abolish all social organization and physical artifice, save only those things that are of immediate usefulness to continued existence.
Where the paradoxical position of Christian conservatives is laughable due to its simple ignorance, there are other cases of homophobia that are complete travesties. Here I speak of any gay-hating member of a disenfranchised minority. Such minorities know the effects of prejudice turned on them for an immutable status (such as “race” or “sexual orientation”). For any of them to turn around and exhibit the same kind of hatred towards another group of people is terribly ironic. African-American men seem to have a particular reason for disliking gay men, surrounding a hot button issue that has gotten a lot of media coverage – the “down-low” phenomenon. For those that don’t know, being “on the down low” refers to men who are in committed relationships with women, but cheat on them with other men. With the pressures levied against homosexuals being even more intense for African-American men, many engage in status quo heterosexual relationships while hiding the fact that they’re homosexual.
But it is not merely the homosexuality element that has the so-called “black community” (a term which here means circle of gossip) in an uproar, but the fact that many of these men on the down low are transmitting dangerous diseases to their women. Due to the ignorance surrounding the transmission of STDs – particularly HIV – it has become a common misconception that being gay necessarily makes a man more susceptible to these diseases. But the real problems in cases of “down low” activity are the infidelity and unsafe sexual practices, which have nothing to do with the perpetrator’s choice of partner. A man can pass a disease to his companion from another woman just as easily.
Homophobia needs to be recognized for what it is – a fear. The first step, though, is acknowledgement. So many people claim that they “accept” gay people. They’ll even say that they have “gay friends” – something they have in common with people who don’t want to admit that they are racist, because they have “black” or Mexican or whatever other kinds of friends. Or perhaps they feel that they accept homosexuality, but are just uncomfortable when it dares to reveal itself in any overt way. The truth is that they are afraid – both of homosexuality, and of admitting that they are afraid in the first place. For some, fear manifests as discomfort or awkwardness, while others respond with anger and even violence. In almost all cases, fear is based on ignorance – as illustrated by every example I’ve mentioned. The solution to ignorance is knowledge. So it is not homosexuals that need to be “fixed”, it is the homophobes – who need to pick up a book, or go read a few articles.
As with many of the essays that I write, I understand that my position is somewhat idealistic. It is not easy for anyone to distance themselves from cultural paradigms to enough to illuminate their own follies. Negative stigmas weighing against homosexuals now have a long history – one that for many people is difficult to separate from reality. Racism also has a long history, yet now – at least in the public eye – we denounce it as an archaic and obsolete point of view. It only takes a small additional ideological leap to also recognize homophobia as equally reprehensible.